Talk but not walk?

Just to be up front about the whole thing, for those that may not already know (I know you’re out there) I’m selling, but not so as you would necessarily know. I’m here strictly for the action. 😁 For the back and forth as it were. I do not (rpt not) mention my products unless cross examined; very occasionally I will use a product or two of mine as examples of something or another, you know, usually in the context of controversial tweaks, especially ones that seem to exasperate and anger skeptics and Physics majors the most. Not to mention, like everyone else, I wish to “sell” - at least to some extent - how smart I am and that I’m not gullible. 🙄

For those that don’t already know, Michael Green and I go way back, not did we engage in a whole lot of hand-to-hand combat a few years ago on Stereophile Forum (much fun was had by all, including May and Peter Belt (RIP) and a host of others, particularly in view of the extremely low key moderation, if you know what I mean) but I was also one of the first customers of Michael’s Room Tunes stuff way back, including Echo Tunes and those very cool big old ballistic brass cones he used to sell.

geoff kait
machina dynamica
we do artificial atoms right!

Aaaand....again from Michael we don’t get any more answers or clarifications, only more disparaging comments, where he and his pals laugh at anyone here who dares question Michael’s wisdom.

Maybe my friends and me are just a bunch of snobs.

Maybe?

Re: people who have things to sell:

Of course it is, I was being metaphorical. As in everyone’s selling something.

Disingenuous, again, Michael.

You should know there are actual concerns on forums like this about the participation of salesmen and industry folk who ACTUALLY have an interest in selling PRODUCTS. You ACTUALLY have something to sell, and trying to obscure your own interests by suggesting "everyone else doing it" via semantic games is disingenuous.

Against some who think salesmen have no place here, I’ve defended on this forum the right of salesmen and industry people to contribute. So long of course as they conduct themselves honestly and in good faith.

You, however, started a thread that:

1. Disparaged some group of people who, one presumes, have been skeptical of certain claims.

2. Posed as opening some general dialogue about the subject of theoretical vs empirical.

But really it turned out only to be a way of casting aspersions at skeptics, and just another way for you to talk about your Tuning methods.  When simply asked to clarify your points and engage in response, you became evasive and dismissive, and continually turned the conversation to your Tuning methods.

Then you finally admitted your OP was your "door" to your Tuning ideas that people either want to walk through or not. So it wasn’t actually about the vague, generalized request for dialog on empirical vs theoretical. It was essentially a way of getting other people to join you in mocking and dismissing critics of claims (including your own it seems).

And you apparently wonder why anyone would question or be souring on your posts? Instead of it always being the other person’s problem and misconception, don’t you think it’s worth wondering "Maybe I could have been more upfront and clear on those points...?’

And if you want to trade reading impressions, someone I know in the audio writing profession read this thread and gave me his impression of your exchanges. Trust me, you don’t want me to repeat what he said.

Finally, although I have heard of you and your tuning before, I’ve never paid that much attention. I took this opportunity to check out your participation and posts in other forums, checked out your web site and....yeesh!....no wonder you didn’t want to engage on the type of "empiricism" you are defending. Your claims range from "likely to make a sonic difference" (various room treatments) to nonsense like tuned cable risers, and getting different sounds by spacing cables at different distances, "tuning" CD players etc. I can pretty much guarantee you have not vetted such claims under the type of conditions that would weed out relevant variables (e.g...your and other people’s imagination).

I know there is a market for these things; there’s a market for anything you can get someone to believe. But, now that I see where you are coming from, and your disingenuous, sales-oriented interactions, I leave you to whoever you can influence here.

By the way there are a couple of very obvious reasons why some records (or CDs for that matter) sound better than others and there’s not too much you can do about it. Those two things are (1) Absolute Polarity and (2) overly aggressive dynamic range compression. For the former you can switch Polarity for each record and pick the one that sounds best. Or employ a Polarity switch. Otherwise, you get what you get. News flash! At least 50% of audiophile records are actually in inverted Polarity. Alas, even in Audioland there are no standards for Polarity. Who dropped the ball on that one?

For overly aggressive dynamic range compression, the only recourse one has really is to search out earlier issues of the recording that weren’t compressed as much. Otherwise you’re what they refer to as shirt out of luck. Of course, there are many other reasons why some records inherently sound better than others, e.g., they were made back when vacuum tubes were used in the tape recorders and mastering process, the engineers were superior, the recording venues were superior, etc.

No matter how much you wind up with in the END you would have had EVEN MORE if you had started out with MORE. - old audiophile axiom, the Law of Maximization 😢