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
- ...
- 2164 posts total
| Post removed |
Elizabeth, unfortunately, you read my last post incorrectly. I was not apologizing to anybody or about anything. If, by any chance, my emphasis on not questioning the influence of proposed tuning mechanisms is what you felt was apologizing, you misunderstood it. I just wanted to make it clear that topic of my interest was to clarify what I found on the mentioned website as it seemed contrary to otherwise well-described behavior of laminar vs. turbulent flow. I left the possibility open that there is something I had not heard about before and that might apply in this case. In fact, does it improve the sound or not is not my interest at all. If I ever hear it, I will know. Until then, I was trying to get something useful from this thread. I have a feeling that MG is deep enough in this tuning/audio business, regardless of those who agree or disagree with him, that he would not just put some utter non-sense about laminar flow. For that reason, I wondered if he just used wrong words or he knows something I do not and would help me clarify it. I was, still, not selling anything, but you could say I was trying to buy. |
prof, I think I should point out one thing you are mistaken. "Evasive" is not the same as "have no answer to". As far as this thread goes, I think it is slowly dying down as it seems that whoever is left is mostly a believer, some polite and some seriously bizarre, and questioners have dropped off due to concerns you pointed out. Sadly, it has been clear from early on that the OP has not had much to do with deepening the conversation and conversation itself did not yield much of a constructive insight even about tuning that infiltrated it. However, you will have to agree that thread was successful in what you, and I have to admit me too, feel its purpose was. Some of us have gone to the website that we had not gone before, and got informed about it. Now, that is what I would call a successful marketing. I am yet waiting for verdict if my visit was fortunate or unfortunate. I hope to get an answer about laminar flow (asked in one of my earlier posts) as it would be something new learned and, in some way, a breakthrough in my current understanding and practice that relates to laminar and turbulent flow in daily applications. The question is as simple as it gets, the answer may not be, but I am willing to try and be thankful for clarification. |
glupson, I hear you. Though I think "evasive" or "dismissive" are still apt descriptors of MG’s replies to my posts (and some others) in this thread. But yes, of course his relentless self-promotion across many forums no doubt draws some people to his website. He has been doing this in forums and comment sections for decades. This is pretty typical MG evangelizing/hawking his company: https://www.stereophile.com/content/roomtuning-front-center-soundstage It’s just wreaks of self-promotion and advertising...which of course it is. (Although I DO think he is sincere and so I do get some of the evangelical nature of his posts - he's passionate. But the posts really do also seem business-driven). I had seen MG posting on various forums over the years, but never really paid much attention. Now I know it was probably best to keep not paying attention. (BTW, I in no way conclude that all MG’s techniques are without any merit, or that he can not "tune" a room to possibly sound excellent. But I have to admit now being put off having noticed the character of his posts, and certainly a number of his claims fall well into the dubious woo-woo land of audiophile tweaks, nuzzling happily with things like demagnetizing CDs and many other tweaks that have brought our hobby in to ill-repute). |
- 2164 posts total