2. tech-talk
  3. 135904-110926

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
3,224 posts
 
@mapman "Take it from one with much experience. Don’t bother responding to Geoffkait if you want to actually get anywhere. Everything is a joke to him. He is like the pied piper of Audiogon. You will get nowhere with him. He might humor you from time to time if he feels cornered but that’s about it. He is clever like a fox though. He will gladly take your money should you decide to try one of his comical useless products. The ultimate troll! He should write a book. All talk, no walk."

This guy has punked you for years now. You’re both pretty local to each other...any reason you don’t show up at CAF, stick your finger in his face, and reset the relationship?
lilmsmaggie
273 posts
 
"No, the fact is there is a sameness that a stock car audio system impacts on all recordings so they all sound decent. "

Hmm, could it be because when listening to music in our automobiles, we are "near field" listening.    Sound is being directed directly at the left and right sides of our heads, not so much reflected.  In your car, you're physically sitting between the speakers, which is gonna make up for poor acoustics. 

At home in our listening rooms, we don't sit between the speakers the same way we sit between our car's speaker but between and in front of the speakers within the room and the sound is being reflected.
mapman's avatar
mapman
22,520 posts
 
Trelja,

It was very touching  how gk pined for me when I was not posting for awhile.   He can't be all bad.  
glupson
7,842 posts
 
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.

Michael Green

I just read this whole thread, but have failed to figure out what it was all about, except for moderately angry arguments at times aimed at another person coming from a few sides. Michael Green, could you give a few examples what those guys talking are talking without doing actual empirical testing themselves? There may be one mention of such a situation in the beginning of the thread, but even there I could not find out how you ("any of us") can have absolutely no doubt about what someone, who you only know through few words on the Internet, has or has not done without a person explicitly saying it. Could you describe what they talk and how you figure them out?


As far as crappy recordings go, they do exist. Some may be more bearable on some equipment and some may not, but crappiness exists in this world. I know that many people who prefer to consider themselves "audiophiles" enjoy endless tweaks to get the right sound from each and every recording with whatever scientific or empirical excuse/explanation there is. It may be great for them, giving them more enjoyment. However, if most of the things sound decent on some equipment, and a few sound crappy, I would be suspicious. If the recording cannot be played reasonably well on a decent equipment, I would consider recording at least imperfect.

grannyring and tjbhuler,

I thought the same for the longest time and then I was subjected to "premium" Fender sound system in 2016 Volkswagen. Now I know that it is possible to have a system in the car that can make any recording sound not good. As I like to describe it, it makes your favorite orchestra sound like a garage band. I tried what I could with tone and fader controls, but even the Michael Green's magic adjustments would not help. I am not making fun of them, that is simply how they seem to me and I am in awe. Regarding that awe, I am just talking and not walking. I have never heard Michael Green's stuff.
michaelgreenaudio's avatar
michaelgreenaudio OP
1,019 posts
 

Hi glupson and Guys

Thanks for the post. Btw the folks that are wanting to argue on this thread or any other have a different agenda than the OP. With that, we can skip over those posts and move on, try to come to an understanding, jump in and ask them to stop or wait till they give us space to discuss the OP. Anyone’s guess is as good as anyone else’s to know how to deal with trolling. Every time I get trolled on here, I thank my lucky stars I have TuneLand.

There’s a huge importance to exploring and not just taking guesses about music, audio, recording and playback. I can bring up literally tons of topics to use as a discussion tool, and with those based on the answers or comments made you can tell whether a person has done something or not. Keep in mind that everyone on the planet has their own taste, so there is no right or wrong way to listen, but that doesn’t mean that there isn’t more to be heard. It only means we have chosen to go to a certain level of listening. How do you know?

Recordings have a real space and real size to them. For example, lets say we setup a microphone in the isle of the concert hall while recording so we can add the hall sound to the close up and direct mics. In my case I usually did the direct miking, an over head miking, a mid hall miking and a couple of mics way in the back. Sometimes I would do 3 halos and other times 4, very common no brains miking. During the mix I can then choose how much depth and girth I wanted to give to the piece. If you’ve "done" this a few hundred times you instinctively learn how the halos were shaped by other engineers. Now the recording console, pre effect, doesn’t know anything but a 360 view of what is going on. That’s why when you are listening to headphones the sound is all around you when wearing non-directional cans. Now your going to notice something with these cans (unless they’ve been tweaked a certain way). There are no blacks holes in the soundstage. The sound covers the entire stage 360, that’s what a recording is. When we start using stereo in a room with the speakers in front of us instead of directly at the ear on either side we create that frontal image. It is the recording, but it is the recording reacting to the room and speakers. In other words, you are actually hearing the pressure in the room being stimulated by the speakers and not the speakers themselves (their just the origin). When you hear folks say "there is a black space between the instruments" that’s not what the recording is doing, that’s what the system is doing to the recording. The system is not connecting the dots, it’s not giving you the whole recording, it’s giving you parts and pieces. If the speakers and system is working with the room there is an easy way to tell. Any recording you put on will do this if you are hearing the recording itself. Put on a recording, hit play, and you will instantly hear and feel pressure behind you as if you were outside walking into a room and feeling the rooms pressure all around you. If you only see the stage in front of you and don’t sense the recording pressure around you (it has a sound too), your not playing the whole recording, or even close.

Any of you guys, put on a recording you like where you can feel the sound all around you as if the speakers weren’t even there. Now play what you think is a sub par recording. First thing you will notice is the "so so" recording is not giving you that presence. It’s not the recording. All recordings have that 360 element to them. There’s no way to remove it. Even a very compressed recording will still give you that 360 effect. As has been mentioned earlier some folks can play that music in the car and it sounds acceptable, and put it on their home system and not as good. Folks, it’s not the recording. Recordings don’t dumb themselves down to play in a car or headphones and not in your home. It’s also not that your system is more "revealing". The fact is if your car can play it and your headphones can play it, your home stereo should be able to play it. If your in room system is more revealing than your car and your headphones you will hear more not less.

That’s going to make some of you mad and for some even go into denial, but that’s reality.

Michael Green

www.michaelgreenaudio.net

PS: don’t shoot me I’m only telling you guys the reality, ok

More to discover