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

trelja,

I was not aware of the movie or that it had anything to do with Baudelaire. This thread is good for these small pieces of knowledge that can be picked from time to time. Thanks for the explanation. We will not clarify anything about walking and talking or who employed whom in the previous century, but there are little pieces of puzzle that show up occasionally.

Typical talker jibber jabber, argumentative til he turns blue. Were you a blue baby? Even if you could prove that some Tuners had fires, which you can’t, you would be unable to prove it was the Tuning that caused them. What’s next, Tuning causes cancer? That’s always a popular argument among talkers and pseudo skeptics. You can’t prove that it doesn’t.

Was Baudelaire a talker? I bet he was. What he was was a spitting image of Poe.
geoffkait,

"Typical talker jibber jabber, argumentative til he turns blue."

Nobody could come up with better description of geoffkait.

Otherwise, your posts should be in a textbook of non-creative writing. Why don’t you try to improve?
Nothing. Then more nothing. At least you’re consistent, gloopson. Hey, I think I feel a poem coming on. Next up, the complete lyrics to the old standard, Lost in the Ozone Again.

Good mornin’ starshine, You lead us along
My love and me as we sing
our early mornin’ singin’ song
Glibby gloop gloopy Nibby Nabby Noopy La La La Lo Lo
Sabba Sibby Sabba Nooby abba Nabba Le Le Lo Lo
Tooby ooby walla nooby abba nabba
Early mornin’ singin’ song



geoffkait,

Sometimes I wonder if the geoffkait person even exists. For now, it seems like some computer program that randomly collects/copies words from the Internet. It is rare, if it even ever happens, that posts under geoffkait contain anything but sentences scavenged on the Internet. As a program, it is quite undeveloped as the words written rarely have anything to do with anything they should be response to.