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
I totally understand it is likely my listening space that needs work rather than bad recordings per se.
However to some their listening space is not an area that can be subjected to various treatments, ynow wife dictates etc, so some of the changes required are just not practical for any number of reasons.
I accept they are working for those who step into that area.There may be some areas I can work on that would not violate her who must be obeyed rules of the house and will gladly investigate further.
But as I have said for that 0.1% of recordings in my collection that I find to give poor reproduction on my system I will just have to live with it.

falconquest wrote,

“Since this discussion is about the integrity of information, we have to recognize that there are many aspects to this hobby that are sorely lacking in integrity. Further, since we are discussing scientific concepts, I will point out what I perceive to be the use of a scientific concept that has become a buzzword which is the use of the term "quantum". I would certainly like to know how any company that uses the term quantum in the description of their product actually applies the science. Perhaps it just sounds cool. Here is an explanation as to the root of the term.

Quantum is the Latin word for amount and, in modern understanding, means the smallest possible discrete unit of any physical property, such as energy or matter. Quantum came into the latter usage in 1900, when the physicist Max Planck used it in a presentation to the German Physical Society. Planck had sought to discover the reason that radiation from a glowing body changes in color from red, to orange, and, finally, to blue as its temperature rises. He found that by making the assumption that radiation existed in discrete units in the same way that matter does, rather than just as a constant electromagnetic wave, as had been formerly assumed, and was therefore quantifiable, he could find the answer to his question.

Planck wrote a mathematical equation involving a figure to represent individual units of energy. He called the units quanta . Planck assumed there was a theory yet to emerge from the discovery of quanta, but in fact, their very existence defined a completely new and fundamental law of nature. Einstein’s theory of relativity and quantum theory together explain the nature and behavior of all matter and energy on earth and form the basis for modern physics. However, conflicts remain between the two. For much of his life, Einstein sought what he called a unified field theory -- one would reconcile the theories’ incompatibilities. Subsequently, Superstring Theory and M-theory have been proposed as candidates to fill that role.

A more succinct definition is here...

A discrete quantity of energy proportional in magnitude to the frequency of the radiation it represents.”

————————————

>>>>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.”

More specifically, for audiophile devices, I design and market at least four products that operate quantum mechanically. Most of these quantum type products are explained in detail on my web site. The Intelligent Chip, for example, is a quantum device. It employs quantum dots as the active ingredient as it were. The Definitive Explanation of How the Intelligent Chip Works. And How the Teleportation Tweak Works. I do not necessarily vouch for other audiophile devices that employ the word quantum in their explanations. Having said that, I feel confident that there are other audiophile devices that probably do operate quantum mechanically, e.g., WA Quantum Chips.

Cheers,
geoff kait
machina dynamica
advanced audio concepts


@mapman "It was very touching  how gk pined for me when I was not posting for awhile.   He can't be all bad."

Well then, why not still meet him at CAF, and break bread?
Hey if a US President can meet with Kim Jong Un anything might be possible.

As long as we don’t have to talk about fuse directions or other useless topics. Time there is valuable!  Plus I've already heard all about that 15 gzillion times already here and it always has the same ending.
At least you seem to acknowledge you’re a lot like Kim Jong Un. Acknowledging you have a problem is the first step to a full recovery. Remember, baby steps, Moops.