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


michaelgreenaudio
Personal attacks don’t seem to help one’s arguments very much, I find. They can serve no real porpoise. 🐬
well I must have accidentally assembled a perfectly tuned system WITHOUT EVEN KNOWING WHAT I WAS DOING!!!! Almost every song I listen to on it sounds amazingly good. (unfortunately there really are a few poorly mastered recordings and no amount of "tuning" can change that). And my system is not what most would consider "high end". Yamaha Aventage receiver, Polk Rtia5 speakers,Oppo 203 CDP, B&W powered sub,Panasonic 50 inch H.D. plasma tv. I bought the last plasma on the market. And it's no longer being made. The picture on it is awesome. I'm not naturally inclined to go down the rabbit hole of stuff like "tuning" or "low mass".Neither of these makes sense to me. I just need a system that looks good, sounds good, and then I can forget about gear and just enjoy the music.But I do plan on (someday) getting either Martin Logan ESL's or Maggies. Maybe someone here can suggest which would sound better? 

Hi Hombre

It's cool that your system sounds great! I'm sure everyone here is giving you a thumbs up, including me. However there's something I'm not getting from your post.

If your system is a "perfectly tuned system", why would you be planning on changing your speakers? I guess I'm not following you here. Why move away from "perfect" I guess people will be asking you.

Anyway, nothing like a well tuned system where almost every song sounds amazingly good.

I see this is your second post, enjoy the forum!

mg

I have heard electrostatic speakers in the past and my experience of them is that nothing else can match them in terms of detail and transparency. The design principal of them seems good  to me. Just as my new Honda Accord seems an excellent car to me,but that doesn't mean I wouldn't like to have a BMW.