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

Hi Prof

To be honest you read so much more into the OP than what was there I don't think I could successfully explain myself to you. From the responses I saw, some people got it, others didn't, and some are sharing their "talking vs walking". Personally I think the posts spell out the OP perfectly, including yours, thanks.

Ill will? Nah. I don't think folks need to go down that path.

Michael Green

www.michaelgreenaudio.net

michaelgreenaudio,

I at least gave the respect of taking your OP seriously enough, trying to understand what you meant, and writing a detailed reply. I tried to distill what you were saying, and give my thoughts in reply, and if I got it wrong, you can simply clarify. Surely as someone who writes so much about his ideas, you would be capable of this.

I'm very honestly interested in the point you wished to make.

But apparently you have deemed me not worthy of this? Or worse, insinuated that I couldn’t understand even if you tried.

And so you have produced another post with no clarity, laced with vague, disparaging insinuations (e.g. "why should I bother with you, who can’t understand what I would say?").

It’s not actually a good model to produce a post so you can wink at some people who "got" your sage insight and insinuate others are too dense or biased to get your point...while not replying to requests for clarification.

That’s not the method of someone seeking dialogue; it’s method of someone who is fine to keep producing "us and them" divisions going.

I would have hoped for more from someone who runs his own forum.


Hi Michael,

I’m sorry you feel this way.


Thanks.

You got it wrong.


I'd be very glad to understand how! I like knowing how I've got something wrong. it's how we learn.  I'm very much in the camp that empirical understanding is really important, so I'm curious if we are exactly on the same page, or how we may differ.

Everyone here is worthy.


Happy to hear it. For a moment there I had the impression you didn't think that I was worthy of a real response.

So, could you please clarify your point, given the questions I raised in my earlier response.

Much appreciated!