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.
Looks like unfortunately I am in the burden camp of sensitivity to upsampling, not sure if my room, my ears or both. In many cases I prefer 192 or 176.4 (or other fraction of DXD).
I also often listen to music in playlists w a mix of rates and started out w Mosaic open and constantly dialing in preferences for each song which I know is ludicrous and should be a function of the software to persist and recall settings (DXD is a blunt edged tool for this and it works so I know it should be possible).
I would raise my hand and ask if possible in a future software update we might have the ability to persist these settings. The upsampler is a phenomenal piece of gear, and this seems a relatively low LOE to appeal to users who are sensitive. Frankly I was a bit shocked this capability was not baked in to a product at this level.
I have stopped upsampling as prefer no upsampling to across the board DXD. For those sensitive I would recommend this over DXD upsampling, or at least experimenting with it as an alternative.
If you set an output frequency in Upsampler, this output is remembered even if you switch it off. Incidentally before writing I confirmed this.
There are situations where an upsamplng frequency is not remembered. One is if Clone Mode is selected as the source’s frequency takes precedence. I am a little unsure about this but memory in Vivaldi series is volatile. So if the backup battery is exhausted this will cause the second type of failure. Perhaps someone will confirm?
If the memory backup battery is exhausted then the unit will not be able to retain settings over a power down … it’s easy to check to see if your settings ae not being retained, pop into the front panel Menu → Information → Unit Status menu and see if the “Serial Number” entry still has an electronic serial number listed, if it doesn’t then the unit isn’t retaining it’s settings / memory.
For me it does recall the last selected output. What I am asking for is that it recalls the last selected output for each input frequency, ie 44.1 input to be upsampled to 88.2, 48 input to 96, etc. Right now if I select an output of 96 it is applied to all input frequency equal to or less than 96.
So choices are now DXD, which does change depending on 44.1k or 48k base, but the higher upsample rate is not great in my room, a tad bright maybe, fatiguing whatever the change is. DSD for everything which sounds a tad soft and muddy in my room. Or no upsampling at all which in my room sounds best of the 3 but inferior to me swapping to my favorite output depending on the input.
For me the battery is fine I get the unit serial in the menu.
I will just remark that without Clone Mode you will still find that that your Vivaldi will pad 16 bit sources to 24 bit. If you wish to hear e.g. 16/44.1 as 16/44.1 you need Clone Mode.
If you want no upsampling permanently, set Clone Mode to Lock.
) views about their system and how and why it sounds the way it does (there are no Vulcan, pure logic, beings here 
