Sonore's microrendu is out - the first audiophile microcomputer?

[YashN]

To come back to our subject at hand, someone here was asking about Devialet, and I've seen a CA member report about his listening impressions which were positive, so you may want to check it out.

I suppose more people will post on the Devialet forums about this in the near future so it may be worthwhile to check those out.

 

[jkeny]

I dismiss your off-topic challenges because you clearly want a fist-fight and I won't go there with you in this forum John. I offered you another path on ASR Forum. You are there already. And fighting some of those arguments there. But somehow want to have that battle with me here in addition?

You stated here that you had been involved in VLSI design which went into motherboards, not on ASR.
You posted here what Keith Johnson who consulted into you that constant activity of a PC was the way to get better sound from a PC, not on ASR

You stated here that Swenson's theory was flawed, not on ASR

I asked you to back up these statements with detail on your experience. You dodged the question

And let me ask you this question again: do you have any commercial interest in products such as Regen? Our forum rules require such disclosure.

Define what "products such as Regen" means.

 

[microstrip]

Sorry, no. We don't get to "quality" until we have determined something is audible first. What I said is that I actually accept that lower bar, which is even if we can demonstrate that the improvement is inaudible, I still like to see engineering excellence in products.


Not all. This one for example for sure failed that: http://www.audiosciencereview.com/f...puter-activity-can-impact-dac-performance.22/

My son bought this DAC. Complained that while playing his games he could hear system activity through it. I measured it and found clearly susceptibility to hard disk/system activity. In other words, there was no mystery. Noise can be measured and was. He returned the product and bought a different one.

OK, I can see you appreciate spending time and resources in differences you consider inaudible just looking for engineering issues also inaudible. No side has proved anything, consumers must listen by themselves - nothing new here.

And you avoided the key part of the question with an example of a very low quality poor design cheap DAC - something that does not interest me.
Just to make it clear - suppose you measure a DCS Vivaldi DAC versus your own ML360s DAC . Do you expect to find any difference in measurements in the "audible zone"?

 

[Steve Bruzonsky]

Amir, here’s what I don’t get!

You objectively theorized that of several USB to digital converters, that objectively, the Berkeley Audio USB to digital converter measures best, and you also subjectively listened confirming that it sounded the best, and you also objectively attributed this to its excellent galvanic isolation. You then took this a step further, theorizing that using a top notch USB to digital converter, that the computer or component feeding the USB audio is irrelevant, that the galvanically isolated top notch digital to USB converter would clean up any issues in the USB stream prior to the digital to USB converter. But you haven’t conducted any comparative listening tests to test this theory!
But I have. I purchased the Berkeley Audio USB to digital converter from you, after discussing with you and reading your review of these converters in Widescreen Review. What a fantastic improvement it was compared to the only other audio I had from my then CAPSv3 at the time, which was audio over HDMI.

Over the past few years, I have used the following computers/components for USB 2 channel audio, and as the # increases below I have subjectively found the sound quality to be better:

1. Toshiba laptop WORST
2. CAPSv3 Zuma (modded with larger case) with stand 3 prong IEC connector (using PS Audio P5) WORST OF THE BEST

3. CAPSv4 Pipeline w HDPlex LPS (also, set up and played for few days an Aurender X100, close sonically to CAPSv4, though not sure that it sounded quite as good as CAPSv4) NEXT BEST

4. Microrendu w HDPlex LPS BEST, by a good margin over CAPSv4

Both of the CAPS have SOTM USBExp PCI cards that were used for 2 channel USB audio. My system throughout has been using Berkeley Audio USB to digital converter, Theta Casablanca IV SSP, external Theta Generation VIII Series 3 DAC! I do not disagree with Amir that objective measurement data is helpful and desireable; however, subjective listening is still most important! Folks like Andrew Gillis, John Swenson, the engineers at Sonore, etc – and perhaps the best “audio component” of computer manufacturer Aurender – all seem to agree that the lower the power usage generally leads to less electrical noise and better sonics. And they have found that doing so had led to better subjective sonics. And I have verified this in my own purchase and demoing of computers/audio components. You guys should set the forum to ignore each other, and quit having to get the last word in. Darn, you’d think this thread was over at AVS Forum.

 

[jkeny]

Amir, here’s what I don’t get!

You objectively theorized that of several USB to digital converters, that objectively, the Berkeley Audio USB to digital converter measures best, and you also subjectively listened confirming that it sounded the best, and you also objectively attributed this to its excellent galvanic isolation. You then took this a step further, theorizing that using a top notch USB to digital converter, that the computer or component feeding the USB audio is irrelevant, that the galvanically isolated top notch digital to USB converter would clean up any issues in the USB stream prior to the digital to USB converter. But you haven’t conducted any comparative listening tests to test this theory!
But I have. I purchased the Berkeley Audio USB to digital converter from you, after discussing with you and reading your review of these converters in Widescreen Review. What a fantastic improvement it was compared to the only other audio I had from my then CAPSv3 at the time, which was audio over HDMI.

Over the past few years, I have used the following computers/components for USB 2 channel audio, and as the # increases below I have subjectively found the sound quality to be better:

1. Toshiba laptop WORST
2. CAPSv3 Zuma (modded with larger case) with stand 3 prong IEC connector (using PS Audio P5) WORST OF THE BEST

3. CAPSv4 Pipeline w HDPlex LPS (also, set up and played for few days an Aurender X100, close sonically to CAPSv4, though not sure that it sounded quite as good as CAPSv4) NEXT BEST

4. Microrendu w HDPlex LPS BEST, by a good margin over CAPSv4

Both of the CAPS have SOTM USBExp PCI cards that were used for 2 channel USB audio. My system throughout has been using Berkeley Audio USB to digital converter, Theta Casablanca IV SSP, external Theta Generation VIII Series 3 DAC! I do not disagree with Amir that objective measurement data is helpful and desireable; however, subjective listening is still most important! Folks like Andrew Gillis, John Swenson, the engineers at Sonore, etc – and perhaps the best “audio component” of computer manufacturer Aurender – all seem to agree that the lower the power usage generally leads to less electrical noise and better sonics. And they have found that doing so had led to better subjective sonics. And I have verified this in my own purchase and demoing of computers/audio components. You guys should set the forum to ignore each other, and quit having to get the last word in. Darn, you’d think this thread was over at AVS Forum.

Yes, Steve, it's interesting that the "properly designed devices" like the Berkeley which supposedly have "galvanic isolation" should sound different with different sources, isn't it?
It's also interesting that Amir's measurements of Berkeley show no issue which could be considered audible with his laptop.

But wait a minute he also showed the measurements for both the Audiophileo & the Berkeley here & and states "Where are the distortion products I would want to eliminate using a streamer???" So now you tell us that Amir confirmed the Berkeley sounded the best "subjectively listened confirming that it sounded the best, and you also objectively attributed this to its excellent galvanic isolation."

There seems to be some mixed messages here - what he says on the forum & what he says when making a sale - the Berkeley being about 3 times the cost of the Audiophileo & yet it has no "distortion products I would want to eliminate using a streamer???"

I already addressed this "galvanic isolation" claim of the Berkeley as being false - it only applies after its USB XMOS receiver where the USB signal lines D+ & D- along with USB ground & 5V have already entered the USB receiver - it is isolating the signals after the noise has done it's damage & become embedded in the downstream SPDIF signals which the XMOS chip generates.

People with insufficient technical knowledge will sell these devices as "galvanically isolated" & claim that they will be immune to the quality of the source feeding them the USB signal.

Yes, I don't get it either, Steve.

 

[Steve Bruzonsky]

But wait a minute he also showed the measurements for both the Audiophileo & the Berkeley here & and states "Where are the distortion products I would want to eliminate using a streamer???" So now you tell us that Amir confirmed the Berkeley sounded the best "subjectively listened confirming that it sounded the best, and you also objectively attributed this to its excellent galvanic isolation."

There seems to be some mixed messages here - what he says on the forum & what he says when making a sale - the Berkeley being about 3 times the cost of the Audiophileo & yet it has no "distortion products I would want to eliminate using a streamer???"

Steve.

I was going by memory assuming that Amir also listened to the USB to digital converters when he posted his review in Widescreen Review. Would have to reread the article to see if my memory is any good.

Amir did not try to sell me the Berkeley USB to digital converter. I contacted him to see if he carried it, after I read his review in Widescreen Review and did other research on such coverters!

I am simply pointing out the importance of subjective listening on both "ends" of the chain, after the USB to digital converter, and the computer/component/server which spits out the USB audio!

 

[jkeny]

I was going by memory assuming that Amir also listened to the USB to digital converters when he posted his review in Widescreen Review. Would have to reread the article to see if my memory is any good.

Amir did not try to sell me the Berkeley USB to digital converter. I contacted him to see if he carried it, after I read his review in Widescreen Review and did other research on such coverters!

I am simply pointing out the importance of subjective listening on both "ends" of the chain, after the USB to digital converter, and the computer/component/server which spits out the USB audio!

OK, thanks for the clarification, Steve
Yes, he did do a subjective evaluation here on WBF. How he describe sthe Berkeley compared to the Audiophileo " I hate to use this word but I can’t think of any other to way that the overall experience was more “analog like” in the sense of it sounding more pleasant. "

 

[amirm]

Amir, here’s what I don’t get!

You objectively theorized that of several USB to digital converters, that objectively, the Berkeley Audio USB to digital converter measures best, and you also subjectively listened confirming that it sounded the best, and you also objectively attributed this to its excellent galvanic isolation. You then took this a step further, theorizing that using a top notch USB to digital converter, that the computer or component feeding the USB audio is irrelevant, that the galvanically isolated top notch digital to USB converter would clean up any issues in the USB stream prior to the digital to USB converter. But you haven’t conducted any comparative listening tests to test this theory!
But I have. I purchased the Berkeley Audio USB to digital converter from you, after discussing with you and reading your review of these converters in Widescreen Review. What a fantastic improvement it was compared to the only other audio I had from my then CAPSv3 at the time, which was audio over HDMI.

Over the past few years, I have used the following computers/components for USB 2 channel audio, and as the # increases below I have subjectively found the sound quality to be better:

1. Toshiba laptop WORST
2. CAPSv3 Zuma (modded with larger case) with stand 3 prong IEC connector (using PS Audio P5) WORST OF THE BEST

3. CAPSv4 Pipeline w HDPlex LPS (also, set up and played for few days an Aurender X100, close sonically to CAPSv4, though not sure that it sounded quite as good as CAPSv4) NEXT BEST

4. Microrendu w HDPlex LPS BEST, by a good margin over CAPSv4

Both of the CAPS have SOTM USBExp PCI cards that were used for 2 channel USB audio. My system throughout has been using Berkeley Audio USB to digital converter, Theta Casablanca IV SSP, external Theta Generation VIII Series 3 DAC! I do not disagree with Amir that objective measurement data is helpful and desireable; however, subjective listening is still most important! Folks like Andrew Gillis, John Swenson, the engineers at Sonore, etc – and perhaps the best “audio component” of computer manufacturer Aurender – all seem to agree that the lower the power usage generally leads to less electrical noise and better sonics. And they have found that doing so had led to better subjective sonics. And I have verified this in my own purchase and demoing of computers/audio components. You guys should set the forum to ignore each other, and quit having to get the last word in. Darn, you’d think this thread was over at AVS Forum.

Hi Steve. First, it is always good to hear from you. We had lots of fun together at AVS and the other forum after that.

On the last bit, John wants to keep fighting me so does Micro. The topic at hand is secondary .

As to your point, yes, all else being equal, lower power products generate less noise on their power supply rails. And to the extend a device uses the USB power, it could also get affected there. But your Berkeley DAC, or any other high-end DAC with USB never uses USB power. Even if they did, from my testing of Regen by JohnS, he actually managed to make things worse on USB, not better. There is a big difference between the real designers behind Berkeley products, and this device. From those people, you could almost rely on face value that they are doing the right things to achieve excellence. With folks here, at least speaking for myself, I can't grant them that benefit of doubt because they don't have the qualification or history of delivering.

Now, does it sound better? I don't know. Does that mean we should not question them to show some measurements that are trivial to demonstrate what you state? I think we must ask questions. Fidelity of the power rail is trivial to measure with a scope. Even a $500 scope can show us the difference. But we are not even afforded that. What that is the case, then I am not going to jump in the boat.

 

[amirm]

You stated here that you had been involved in VLSI design which went into motherboards, not on ASR.

I have said it on both. See: http://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/introductions-anyone.65/#post-384

You stated here that Swenson's theory was flawed, not on ASR

No, I have said there that this hero worshipping him is totally uncalled for.

I asked you to back up these statements with detail on your experience. You dodged the question

Nope. I said I will engage you on ASR Forum and go to town! I would enjoy doing it too since I know you have no knowledge of the topic you are asking me about. I just don't want to do it in this forum, and this thread. I will post a link to the ASR thread and everyone can watch just as well.

Define what "products such as Regen" means.

Are you working on any products commercially that are in the same space as the product in this thread, or Regen (i.e. USB to USB)?

 

[jkeny]

Hi Steve. First, it is always good to hear from you. We had lots of fun together at AVS and the other forum after that.

On the last bit, John wants to keep fighting me so does Micro. The topic at hand is secondary .

That's just an appeal to martyrdom, Amir - the reason Micro & I are asking questions of you is that you are wrong.

As to your point, yes, all else being equal, lower power products generate less noise on their power supply rails. And to the extend a device uses the USB power, it could also get affected there. But your Berkeley DAC, or any other high-end DAC with USB never uses USB power.

He doesn't have a Berkeley DAC - it's a Berkeley Alpha USB to SPDIF converter, AFAIK - you should know this, you sold it to him

Again, Amir, you demonstrate your lack of technical knowledge even about products that you sell - the Berkeley Alpha uses the USB 5V for signalling purposes so the Vbus wire has a connection to the XMOS chip & whatever noise is on that wire is transmitted to the chip. And where did you get the notion that "any other high-end DAC with USB never uses USB power"?

Even if they did, from my testing of Regen by JohnS, he actually managed to make things worse on USB, not better.

What are you talking about, Amir - a complete red herring & nothing to do with what Steve is saying.

There is a big difference between the real designers behind Berkeley products, and this device. From those people, you could almost rely on face value that they are doing the right things to achieve excellence. With folks here, at least speaking for myself, I can't grant them that benefit of doubt because they don't have the qualification or history of delivering.

Well anyone who falsely calls their device "galvanically isolated" when it isn't, as Berkeley does, is either telling porkies for marketing purposes or doesn't know what they are talking about - which is correct, Amir?

Now, does it sound better? I don't know. Does that mean we should not question them to show some measurements that are trivial to demonstrate what you state? I think we must ask questions. Fidelity of the power rail is trivial to measure with a scope. Even a $500 scope can show us the difference. But we are not even afforded that. What that is the case, then I am not going to jump in the boat.

You don;t believe Steve when he says it sounds better?

 

[YashN]

No, I have said there that this hero worshipping him is totally uncalled for.

Someone clearly is delusional here - I see things like 'the king of audio'.

At least Swenson already has at least 4 products associated with the audiophile marketplace with three different companies.

As for what's its name again, Windows Media Player, is that what you worked on? I never heard anyone use that in an audiophile setup, not last century, not this century either.

I don't see it in any high-end or audiophile demos ever, I do see HQ Player (which you don't know how to use properly), BugHead, Audirvana, XXHighEnd (by Peter Stordiau) and even Foobar2000.

Fun stuff...

I was thinking that John Swenson should defend himself here, but with hindsight, I don't think he needs to

 

[Whatmore]

.......


Are you working on any products commercially that are in the same space as the product in this thread, or Regen (i.e. USB to USB)?

I'm waiting (with, to be honest, some anticipation) to see how you avoid answering this question.

 

[amirm]

I checked it out: AJ of HA fame, the continuously banned Blizzard, who managed to burn yet another bridge with a manufacturer he supposedly wanted to distribute and who has a verifiable habit of touting things he was just taught as his own ideas (including things I repetitively told him to try over at CA), some of the additional trolling no-gooders/know-it-alls we've seen posting but not bringing anything really clever to the table.

Someone clearly is delusional here - I see things like 'the king of audio'.

Well, you keep getting personal, off-topic, and insulting against the forum rules, and I will ban you too. That way, someone will have the same story to tell about you! I only say that half-jokingly. Think about your next post. It better be on topic.

 

[opus112]

The answer would depend on what 'working on' means. If it extends to doing market research on forums for example, or if it just means doing electronics development. Does 'thinking about' count as 'working on' do you think?

 

[amirm]

At least Swenson already has at least 4 products associated with the audiophile marketplace with three different companies.

More worthless hero worshipping. As I explained, John is an audio hobbyists (but professional ASIC designer). There are a lot of such hobbyists. Every tom dick and harry is producing DACs, tweaks, speakers, etc. Unless their products can prove their worth, it has no value. Right now, John's last product has generated worse output from my DAC than without. This was demonstrated by others using completely different measurement setup. If he knows his stuff, he should not produce products that have such regressions.

As for what's its name again, Windows Media Player, is that what you worked on? I never heard anyone use that in an audiophile setup, not last century, not this century either.

I did not work on windows media player. I was a Vice President at Microsoft and managed a division of 1,000 people. WMP was a 50 person group there that I managed until about 2005 or 11 years ago. WMP achieved 6 downloads/second during the time I managed it. That's about 190 million downloads/year if my math is right.

Today, every time you buy a Blu-ray player, it has mandatory technology from my group. Almost every Android phone, car stereo, portable music player, you name it, has audio technology from my teams at Microsoft. The total number of computers and devices with such technology is probably close to 2 to 3 billions. Yes, I said billions. My group was responsible for the entire audio stack in Windows. I was the one that created the initiative to take out the horrible audio stack in Windows XP and replaced with a much better pipeline. You see references to WASAPI? That came out of my team. Every time you watch Netflix you are watching technology from my team. The list goes on. I had a great team and they produced wonderful technology for the duration we were at it.

Unfortunately once I left, Windows management changed, they put the guys that used to run Office in charge of Windows, and everything went downhill. They abandoned all activities in digital media and produced such wonderful products as Windows 8. My last hurrah at Microsoft was to try to convince my management that Apple was going to come out with a phone. They laughed and said Apple could never do that because a phone is too complicated to build compared to iPod. Well, sadly they were wrong, dead wrong.

I am sure I could have been smarter, done more, and created world peace while I was at it. But I was not.

Prior to that, I managed engineering at a number of high-end video companies and products there have won three EMMY awards. Here is my stupid mug shot at the last one:

I am the sorry a*ss guy in the middle. You can read the rest of that story here: http://www.audiosciencereview.com/f...-video-streaming-and-digital-distribution.73/

I was thinking that John Swenson should defend himself here, but with hindsight, I don't think he needs to

He is fine. As I said, I had a great conversation with him. He was very open with what he knew and what he didn't. It is you all that are the problem having raised him to status of deity, beyond any questioning that makes criticism easy.

 

[BobShermanEsq]

Well, you keep getting personal, off-topic, and insulting against the forum rules, and I will ban you too. That way, someone will have the same story to tell about you! I only say that half-jokingly. Think about your next post. It better be on topic.

Since this in not the measurement forum, are your posts on topic Amir?

 

[BobShermanEsq]

More worthless hero worshipping. As I explained, John is an audio hobbyists (but professional ASIC designer). There are a lot of such hobbyists. Every tom dick and harry is producing DACs, tweaks, speakers, etc. Unless their products can prove their worth, it has no value. Right now, John's last product has generated worse output from my DAC than without. This was demonstrated by others using completely different measurement setup. If he knows his stuff, he should not produce products that have such regressions.


I did not work on windows media player. I was a Vice President at Microsoft and managed a division of 1,000 people. WMP was a 50 person group there that I managed until about 2005 or 11 years ago. WMP achieved 6 downloads/second during the time I managed it. That's about 190 million downloads/year if my math is right.

Today, every time you buy a Blu-ray player, it has mandatory technology from my group. Almost every Android phone, car stereo, portable music player, you name it, has audio technology from my teams at Microsoft. The total number of computers and devices with such technology is probably close to 2 to 3 billions. Yes, I said billions. My group was responsible for the entire audio stack in Windows. I was the one that created the initiative to take out the horrible audio stack in Windows XP and replaced with a much better pipeline. You see references to WASAPI? That came out of my team. Every time you watch Netflix you are watching technology from my team. The list goes on. I had a great team and they produced wonderful technology for the duration we were at it.

Unfortunately once I left, Windows management changed, they put the guys that used to run Office in charge of Windows, and everything went downhill. They abandoned all activities in digital media and produced such wonderful products as Windows 8. My last hurrah at Microsoft was to try to convince my management that Apple was going to come out with a phone. They laughed and said Apple could never do that because a phone is too complicated to build compared to iPod. Well, sadly they were wrong, dead wrong.

I am sure I could have been smarter, done more, and created world peace while I was at it. But I was not.

Prior to that, I managed engineering at a number of high-end video companies and products there have won three EMMY awards. Here is my stupid mug shot at the last one:

I am the sorry a*ss guy in the middle. You can read the rest of that story here: http://www.audiosciencereview.com/f...-video-streaming-and-digital-distribution.73/

Very impressive Amir.

 

[jkeny]

I have said it on both. See: http://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/introductions-anyone.65/#post-384

You specifically stated here & not on ASR "I have managed the development of full computer system including design of VLSIs that go in them."
So back up your claims here & show you have the engineering chops to state that John S theory is flawed or not

No, I have said there that this hero worshipping him is totally uncalled for.

Again, trying to deny what you said here " A flawed theory" So tell us how the theory is flawed, not it's implementation - you know, educate us about ground bounce & ground noise.

Nope. I said I will engage you on ASR Forum and go to town! I would enjoy doing it too since I know you have no knowledge of the topic you are asking me about. I just don't want to do it in this forum, and this thread. I will post a link to the ASR thread and everyone can watch just as well.

Dodging it again

Are you working on any products commercially that are in the same space as the product in this thread, or Regen (i.e. USB to USB)?

First you state this "do you have any commercial interest in products such as Regen? Our forum rules require such disclosure"
This is a thread about MicroRendu - what has Regen got to do with it?
Show me the WBF forum rules which require this?
You stated on ASR that you were "confident of my sources that say you are working on bringing out a product of your own in this category" so you tell me what products I'm working on, Amir

 

[jkeny]

Amir, you have been shown to be wrong so many times now that I can understand why you are looking for anything to hit back with but the thread topic is about the microRendu & the theory behind it, not your ego - so stick to that discussion.

You seem to know very little about ground noise infiltration into USB audio devices, not even in products that you sell - the Berkeley converter. When you state that the Berkeley doesn't use USB power you show your lack of understanding of the product design & USB audio design, in general. Firstly, thinking that noise only infiltrates a connected USB device via the VBUS line is totally incorrect - noise can be on the USB ground &/or on the USB signal lines. The XMOS chip in the Berkeley which is the USB receiver is connected to all 4 of these USB lines & all can act as a conduit for noise.

Berkeley's statement that their Alpha converter is galvanically isolated is an attempt to mislead the public & the less technical resellers of their product, like yourself because any engineer worth his degree would immediately know that this is a half-truth - the device isn't galvanically isolated from the USB connection - it is isolated after the XMOS chip. And guess what the XMOS chip generates the SPDIF output signal which then goes through an ADUM? isolator - any noise has already influenced the generation of this SPDIF signal. So what we have is a chip directly connected to all 4 USB lines & influenced by any noise that is on these lines & the same chip generates the SPDIF output signal. So what do you think galvanically isolating the SDPIF signal does? Yes, correct - it will make good marketing copy & our resellers will spout this porkie to the public & tell them that the connection to the computer doesn't matter

Yea, the "the real designers behind Berkeley products" knew what they were doing alright & so did the marketing department. As you stated "From those people, you could almost rely on face value that they are doing the right things to achieve excellence." Hilarious!!

What is very damning, Amir is you castigate a product, MicroRendu which genuinely attempts to address audio issues based on a cogent theory & you promote a product, Berkeley Alpha whose "galvanic isolation" is designed to fool the public & the technically inept.

Shame on you, I say!

 

[microstrip]

(...) On the last bit, John wants to keep fighting me so does Micro. The topic at hand is secondary . (...)

I am not interested at all in fights, just debating aspects of high-end audio that I find of interest to me and our readers. I regret to see that every time the debate is not comfortable to you, you try (and many times succeed) changing the subject and turning it in a personnel fight with useless long quotations and pictures of the past. I am still waiting for too many answers, that I had hoped would really interest most of our "objective" and "subjective" readers.

My remarks are not endorsed at you, but at the relevance that you put in your measurements. IMHO you are trying to bring the method of analysis you use in loudspeaker analysis, based on hard statistic and scientific work of knowledgeable people, including psychoacoustics, to the electronics world. It seems me that you are assuming that the "small differences" are inaudible or not relevant - two very different thinks. Unfortunately, IMHO this last field has not been researched enough in stereo reproduction to give you any anchor to firm your positions, and your quicksands are as good as those of the "subjective" field. And just exhibiting the CV and personnel life of authors and designers is not relevant at all, we should at most debate their work in audio.