Talk but not walk?


Hi Guys

This isn't meant to start a fight, but it is important to on lookers. As a qualifier, I have my own audio forum where we report on audio issues as we empirically test them. It helps us short cut on theories and developing methods of listening. We have a wide range of systems and they are all over the world adding their experiences to the mix. Some are engineers, some are artist and others are audiophiles both new and old. One question I am almost always asked while I am visiting other forums, from some of my members and also members of the forum I am visiting is, why do so many HEA hobbyist talk theory without any, or very limited, empirical testing or experience?

I have been around empirical testing labs since I was a kid, and one thing that is certain is, you can always tell if someone is talking without walking. Right now on this forum there are easily 20 threads going on where folks are talking theory and there is absolutely no doubt to any of us who have actually done the testing needed, that the guy talking has never done the actual empirical testing themselves. I've seen this happen with HEA reviewers and designers and a ton of hobbyist. My question is this, why?

You would think that this hobby would be about listening and experience, so why are there so many myths created and why, in this hobby in particular, do people claim they know something without ever experimenting or being part of a team of empirical science folks. It's not that hard to setup a real empirical testing ground, so why don't we see this happen?

I'm not asking for peoples credentials, and I'm not asking to be trolled, I'm simply asking why talk and not walk? In many ways HEA is on pause while the rest of audio innovation is moving forward. I'm also not asking you guys to defend HEA, we've all heard it been there done it. What I'm asking is a very simple question in a hobby that is suppose to be based on "doing", why fake it?

thanks, be polite

Michael Green

www.michaelgreenaudio.net


128x128michaelgreenaudio

gulpson said

"Ok, I get some of the thinking behind these pressures, rooms, etc. I am not sure I am fully sold on it, but have never tried anything but a plain system made up of a few not-too-fancy components. I did notice that room made a major difference. I will leave it at that, being a bit suspicious and, at the same time, leaving door open that room pressure 360 and the rest is all really true.

However, I am wondering how, for the purpose of this thread, we define poor recordings. Not "poor", but "recordings". Maybe the word "recordings" is used incorrectly."

_______________________________________________________

This is a biggie and HEA should have early on made things more clear. Introducing the term "recorded code" or equivalent should have been in play a long time ago when describing the actual recording. Here’s why. All recordings are different from each other and all playback systems are also different in the source/pre/recording interaction. There’s a couple of things that never really got passed on to the next generation (digital music) like what was tried to be done between the Eqing of tape and vinyl when the attempt was made to go from single source systems to multiple source. Adding a source selector into the mix created an un-equaling of performance that even till now has never been adequately implemented. HEA in particular moved way too fast into "discrete" componentry, not thinking about what they were doing.

If you go back to the generation before HEA discrete you will see that components had a volume control, balance, tone controls and inputs. The reason this was done is because it gave you an opportunity to find the center position of each recording, adjust the EQ differences between recordings, and so you would have separate inputs to add your effects to. In other words the pre-amp stage was so you could play several sources through one unit, kind of like an in home mixer. When HEA got rid of all those choices, they also were only able to give you a "one sound" choice at a time. No longer were you able to do the things mentioned above. That was the beginning of discrete listening. But here’s the problem, recording playback doesn’t work that way. Not only is every recorded code different, but so is the same with your playback input and output selectors. Let’s say you’ve hooked up your Tape deck, TT, CD’s, FM and Files to your one system. When you selected and dialed that system in to your preferred source, all the other sources are then not dialed in as well. If you’ve dialed in your setup to play a particular vinyl well, it will not sound the same with any other of your sources. There’s nothing in your system that automatically switches the sound of the audio chain (after changing sources), and HEA got rid of all the adjustments you use to have. That’s a big problem and unfortunately HEA was not knowledgeable enough to take you into that next chapter needed. For the last twenty to thirty years you have been sold systems that are incomplete and the answer the market has thrown at you is upgrade your system to another discrete system, instead of giving you real solutions. And even worse, they have turned you into skeptical hobbyist. Everyone has an opinion that only leads you back to the same place "audio is variable". You can spend 100years in this hobby listing our favorite components that had a particular sound when playing a particular recording on a particular source in a particular room, and that’s all good, but that’s a different hobby from playing back recordings correctly and with consistency.

the solutions are

A different type of play back system electronically, a different system for every source and recording, a method of tuning or bring back the options that were taken away. To get to the answers it brings us back to the OP "Talk but not walk?" If you guys did a simple exploration of the hobby you would find out, that you didn’t need these over built components. You would discover your hearing your room and if your speakers were more like musical instruments you could tune them to the room/system/ears/recordings. Some of you have already made the switch to electronic room correction. And some of you that are more purist you are going to have one source systems that are mechanically, electrically and acoustically tunable.

It also brings us back to the question of HEA itself and why it is on the decline. No matter my opinion or anyone else’s HEA of the past is on the decline. It’s not going to have a sustainable future without correcting some of the missteps. They’re not hard to identify missteps and any one of you can challenge the facts by doing yourself. It was asked earlier how do I know these things? Because I have done them, and so have others.

Michael Green

www.michaelgreenaudio.net

Speaking of tuning, and that of a drum in particular: To proport that a drum that has been "tuned" (the reason for the use of the quotation marks to follow) in one room, and then moved to another where it is now "out of tune", is to unwittingly reveal something about oneself. Except for "tuned percussion" (tympani, vibes, etc.), drums are not tuned, they are tensioned. The threaded rods which pass through the holes in the hoop that holds a drum head in place on a drum shell are called tension rods, not tuners (as on guitars and basses). A drum is not tuned to a note, so can not be out of tune.

A drum produces many fundamental tones, with many, many harmonics and overtones---some related to the fundamentals, some not. Those that are not are referred to as "partials"---tones in between the dominant fundamentals and their harmonics. A drummers adjusts the tension rods until the drum produces the mix of fundamentals/harmonics/partials he prefers (as well as the tightness of the head, which affects drumstick rebound). A drum does NOT produce one, single, dominant note, it produces a vast mix of related and unrelated tones. If that were not true, a snare drum would need to be tensioned so as to match the key each song is played in.

What DOES happen when a drum is moved between rooms, is the balance between all the tones the drum produces is affected by the acoustic properties of the two rooms---the decay times of the rooms at various frequencies, the tones reinforced or diminished according to the resonant characteristics of the room, a result of it’s dimensions. And by the absorptive and reflective nature of the material used to construct the room, which varies at different frequencies, of course. The rooms affect the timbre of the drum(s), not their pitch. The most extreme change occurs when a drum is played outside; their IS no room, so no room-related decay times or resonances. I hate to play outside---drums always sound thin and flat there.

Verbose technical debates...aren’t we talking about listening to music?  Measurements and theories are essential to providers in this field, true. They need such things for development and deployment ..when done for other listeners.  
But for the end user, the entire experience is by nature subjective. The questions are ‘what do you like?’  What fulfills your musical needs?  By definition, subjective evaluation is never wrong. 
Unless of course, hardware is your primary interest. 
In that case, enjoy..but recognize you probably shouldn’t press your opinions on those who relying on their ears and own interpretation of what they hear. 
Michael Green
“Quantum, discrete, isolation, dampening, compression, NASA, EE, inert, first reflection point, transparency, revealing and many more that are a part of the selling of HEA aren’t necessarily being used in the truest sense but have been turned into tools of convincing a certain part of the public of HEA to defend the market. You take a forum like this and throw in a little internet trolling and limited experience and you can see why the transition is taking so long. But the more you have folks like Tjbhuler speaking out, the easier the pill is to swallow.

>>>>Of course words are just words and they have different meanings for different people. No surprise there.

also I want to throw this in from Geoff

"There is much confusion over what quantum physics is, what audio devices employ quantum physics or operate via quantum mechanics or quantum physics. However, it might be a little bit of an overreaction to condemn all audiophile devices marketed as quantum devices as hoaxes or suggest deception or lack or integrity. For example, the CD laser itself operates quantum mechanically, or any laser; they are “two dimensional quantum wells.”

And one more thing that you guys should think about studying are the "fundamental forces". A lot of audio is easy to figure out if you have taken a course in, or even study on the internet, the interaction of the Earth’s forces.”

>>>>>Michael, The “fundamental forces” and the interaction of the Earth’s forces sound like interesting topics. Can you expound on what you mean? What are we talking about here?
MG
Yes tbh I am just about in heaven with my system for sure
I can and do sit and listen for 5, 5 or more hours at a time with no fatigue or desire to stop the music flowing.
Twas not always that way of course, I have had the same room for 11 years and when I think back to what I started with in their and where I am now.
The biggest mover was the Lyngdorf 2170 that basically did all the room tuning I need for me.
Not much more I need to achieve and changes I make now are just because I feel like it or the desire to "upgrade" like new cartridges.
So yes ring that bell!