Talk but not walk?

michaeal,

Again...the same problem.

You produced a vague original post, disparaging some unnamed group of people for talking the talk, but not walking the walk.

You disparaged people who "talk" but don’t "walk" and I was asking what exactly you are referring to, and trying to get details on what exactly constitutes "walking" or appeal to empirical experience in your view, and what type of empirical experience you find necessary or adequate.

You’d think that questions inspired by your own post would have interested you in exploring them. But...apparently not.

I must admit I got no further along in answering Prof than I did before.

Then, honestly, since my questions and suggestions were quite clearly stated, this suggest to me that maybe you haven’t thought as clearly about your ideas as you should? I mean, I’m sure you have a lot to say about them...but if my reply actually tripped you up, that’s a bit baffling. Especially if you want to emphasize words like "empirical" to you audience, you should recognize the relevance of the questions and issues brought up in my reply.

It was really too much to even give an example demonstrating your point?  I thought maybe your OP was broadly aiming at skeptics of various tweaks, cables, fuses, etc which comprise many debates here. But you continually bring the subject back to room tuning, so now I am left to infer your OP had to do with critiques of your own ideas. (?)

Picking it apart and trying to read my attitude or hidden message to be decoded, simply would have to be in the hands of the individual interpreter. I don’t want to start trying to bend the post, or any of my posts, into meaning beyond what they are.

Michael, that is frankly disingenuous, or at least evasive.

It doesn’t take any special "interpretation" or bending of your post for anyone can see that your post was disparaging of some group of people, who you label only "talking" but not "walking" and not doing empirical testing.

And then you appealed to the old "Oh, if that’s what YOU read in to it, that’s on you" move. You should know that’s not being diplomatic, it’s actually the method used by trolls who keep the stink in the air instead of merely saying what someone honest would say, like "Oh, I see you’ve misunderstood me, so I’ll try to help you. Here’s what I meant..."

I asked for clarifications, details, about what you meant; give us an example, and what to you actually counts as "empirical testing" so we can see who would actually fit your description or not, and why. You are criticizing people. Do they deserve it? Who knows, until you actually clarify what you are talking about.

As far as selling goes, I quite frankly haven’t seen anyone on this forum not selling something.

Oh good, more vague insinuations - "everyone is doing it!"

No. I’m not selling anything. As far as I know, the majority on this thread aren’t selling anything either.

I have no problem with salesmen posting in Audiogon or manufacturers. I think with the right attitude we can get really great input and information that way.

And I come to your posts with no preconception either way as to the worth of your products or ideas. For all I know they may be brilliant. 

All I’ve seen though, are lots of vague writing, aspersions tossed without backing them up followed by evasiveness, and a desire to always turn the conversation back to your room tuning ideas (a service that you happen to sell). 

Many manufacturers manage to give input on various audio forums without the somewhat "off-taste" you are inadvertently leaving here.

(I’m not the only one who has noticed this).

bdp24 and whoever is interested in tuning drums,

I have no knowledge or skill about tuning, tensioning, or playing drums and I am not sure if I completely grasped every detail in bdp24's post, but I just stumbled upon a video on youtube where a drummer with probably more experience than most of the people on the forum talks about tuning his drums. I guess they can be tuned. Again, I am posting this just for anyone who may be interested how someone who apparently knows what he is doing is doing it and not for arguments about semantics.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nd9fcmBLbDQ

prof and aailenk,

Although I am keeping my mind open that some of these tunings may make a difference as I did get fooled into thinking things could not matter just to find out that they did, I think your posts eloquently address a problem with this particular thread. Much earlier, I also asked for examples of things insinuated in OP and I did get the answer. However, I decided not to pursue the discussion and gave that answer benefit of the doubt that it was me who could not understand rather than that the answer was a bit too vague and complicated. That does not mean that tuning techniques mentioned do not work, but simply that they seem way too vague to me to give them a shot. If they do, indeed, work, I am honestly glad that someone is benefiting from them. Aurally or financially.

glupson,

Thanks.

Nowhere in this thread have I disparaged MG’s products or his room tuning ideas. I did not even take those to be the subject of the thread. Because his OP did not even refer to room tuning, but rather to a much broader complaint about some people critiquing based only on theory but not on what Michael would take to be "empirical" testing.

That could certainly be a fascinating discussion. I’ve long had an interest in the philosophy of empiricism and the philosophy of science, so I was, as I originally mentioned, happy to see someone bring this up.

But my attempt to draw out Michael on his point and ideas only met with...for some bizarre reason...evasions and vagueness. I’m still baffled as to why.

Moreover, Michael’s subsequent posts have been focused on turning the conversation to room tuning and, in fact he has just tipped his hand that his OP, though ostensibly looking for conversation about theoretical vs empirical attitudes, was actually his "door" to offer more about The Tune.  He apparently wasn't looking for dialogue so much as saying "I'm here to give wisdom about my room tuning methods, you are either ready to receive or not."

So, it frankly makes his OP look all the more like a disingenuous, self-serving marketing move - an excuse for him to tell us more about his room/recording tuning, vs a real call to dialogue about the subject he actually implied in the OP.

Prof and Michael Green,

it is really silly to claim that everyone on this forum is selling something. That statement alone waters down any seriousness in that whole post and casts some doubt about remainder of the posts.


I am not here to sell anything. I have a completely different career. I doubt I will be selling anything any time soon, either. I hand my things down.

How many people on this forum are actually selling something? In this particular thread, I found one.

When it comes to no bad recordings (or bad sound carriers of whatever sort), but just about them not being in synch with the room, why do some of my CDs sound worse? It is easily replicated through headphones, too, which I would assume takes away the room factor?

prof,

I did notice that turn towards tuning and came to similar conclusion as you did, but was curious about the things implied in OP so I asked. I have no interest and time to accumulate all the experience in the world when it comes to listening to music so I could become someone considered "walking, not only talking". If a friend tells me "that is great, you should hear it for yourself, I was surprised", I would do it. However, abstaining from any discussion just because I have not done something myself seems fairly unreasonable.