We are talking about more than mere opinion. Listeners can be observed, asked, surveyed, classified - they can be and are subjects of empirical research. Theories can be formed and validated or rejected. All objective things… When we read various dCS posts, they take the differences among their existing and potential listeners into account. So should we.
I skimmed the two articles, thank you. I’m not so interested in technical details of hifi anymore. Only if it helps me put together a better sounding system. My assumption is that competition over time takes care of technical excellence. It is the entry fee for participating in a technology marketplace. The mindset of the crucial people in a firm is quite important for example. Plus, we are consumers not developers and hence have the most suited measurement instrument attached to the two sides of our skulls.
For our reading pleasure I recommend the book ‘Introduction to the Sociology of Music’ by Theodor Adorno. While touching music listening only at the fringes, it is a good example of how one can start out with a view and then corroborate or disprove it by doing appropriate research. Or through valid reasoning for that matter. And that in a highly complex field very different from the hard sciences or technology engineering.
This book might be interesting too. Again not 100% on topic, but apparently worthwhile. It’s written by the architect behind Pandora radio’s engine and the Music Genome Project: ‘Why You Like It: The Science and Culture of Musical Taste’ by Dr. Nolan Gasser. There’s an interview with him here:
When it comes to the intricacies of the human mind, western science is still in its infancy. As soon as one permits the mind as an instrument to research mind, the Buddhist science of mind is very advanced and has not yet been falsified by contemporary research in neuroscience or psychology. That science of mind has a long scholarly tradition with many extensive treatises and can be understood separate from the religion. It has a head start over the West of about two millennia. Here are Wikipedia articles as an introduction to the framework.
Your factual suggestion as such has merit. As to your (repeated) way of delivery I now feel compelled to comment that arrogance and narrow mindedness are fraternal twins.
By ‘esoteric’ you probably mean alien to you or others like you. There are esoteric teachings of the Buddha, but the science of mind is not. The convergence of spirituality and science is a vivid, bleeding edge, and highly exciting field.
As to the separate thread - I will mull it over as it needs more thinking to start one. It only makes sense to spend more valuable time, if an inquiry into the mind of the listener is seen as worthwhile in our community. Maybe the ones interested send me a private message?
Marco, if you notice, in my first post in this thread, I used the word “personally” to suggest a personal subjective opinion that I wasn’t expecting to debate. But since you felt compelled to argue the point, I tried to steer the conversation back to a more tangible objective angle.
Everybody has both objective and subjective, or even spirit-ual ( ) views about their system and how and why it sounds the way it does (there are no Vulcan, pure logic, beings here ).
I think it’s perfectly fine to discuss/debate subjective views online, but it’s just not for me. Simple as that, no malice or arrogance intended
I don’t subscribe to the subjective / objective framing. Mostly because it implicitly tilts the scale toward materialism / positivism. Those two strands of thought are very powerful in developed nations. That does not make them universally right. Above, I pointed beyond the single individual in vein. Matters of the mind are validly knowable and debatable.
That makes no sense. A spiritual tradition can inform the view of the mind and with it the experience of listening. Plus it gives an appreciation for the commonalities and differences between individuals’ minds. That’s it. No system involved.
Stating one’s personal preference based on your state of mind is perfectly normal, most posts here on dcs.community are such anyway!
However, IMHO, any rational debate about the efficacy of one setting versus another or one platform versus another, has to also substantially include an accepted objective frame of reference.
That’s at the smug end of possibilities for a reply. An interested version would ask what I propose instead. Generative and perceptive I would accept. Both sides have their valid and very different modes of inquiry.
Yes. That seems to rhyme with what I already stated above - it is not enough to talk about the technical / generative side. Therefore I provided three “frames of reference” to help make objective the perceptive side. You keep disrespecting that by diminishing it to “personal preference”.
I’m quite sure you are able to understand the value of empiricism, systems theory or a science of mind for the purpose of making perception objective and debatable. I love intellectual challenges, if both parties act in an intellectually honest fashion. I’m out.
) views about their system and how and why it sounds the way it does (there are no Vulcan, pure logic, beings here 
