ASR "militia" cannot differentiate the difference between biographical summary of one’s music expertise versus self-aggrandizement I am no more important than any other audiophile; however, music experience as an amateur recording engineer in major orchestral halls of well over 250 recordings and for the Erich Zeisl (brother in law of Schoenberg) centenary collection of 11 CDs for Vienna, UCLA and USC establish some credentials that my opinion in how vocal, chamber and orchestral music can (not should) sound is evident. I do not have a "golden ear." I just have a lifetime of experience performing and recording/mastering music.
This is a common retort. That you have been either producing music for many years or an audiophile for the same and hence your impressions are correct. Fact is that none of this trains you to a) be a critical listener and b) make your listening tests reliable. This is not only position of audio research but also my personal professional experience. In my last corporate job, we performed controlled listening tests of hundreds of audiophiles and sadly, they way underperformed our trained testers in hearing compression artifacts.
Research work would be so much easier if we could just recruit people like you and render an opinion about sound fidelity with no controls. But it is not. The only way we know you speak the "truth" about fidelity is to block all other stimulus than the sound arriving at your ear. And further, repeat observations many times to rule out chance. Nothing replaces this. Every shortcut to that is prone to serious faults.
This is an uncomfortable truth for many of us. After all, we call ourselves audiophiles with the intent of saying we know what good sound is like. But it is the nature of how we behave as humans.
You can argue with this and create your own domain of audio not based on realities of decades of research. That is fine. But please don't throw rocks at me at ASR or the membership for using proper science and research as compass of what is right.