2. tech-talk
  3. 135904-110926

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


michaelgreenaudio
glupson
7,842 posts
 
"...why do so many HEA hobbyist talk theory without any, or very limited, empirical testing or experience?"
Michael Green,

I think I may have an answer for you on this one.

For most of the hobbyists, this is hobby. It is not work. Most do not have websites dedicated to it or businesses to run associated with it. That means, they have no time, and/or probably means, to do testing of everything that might be out there or that they may even come up with themselves. They prefer to conduct reasonable thinking before undertaking. It does not mean they are faking anything, but that they are economical with their time and resources. In a simpler way, that is the way most of the science is practiced these days. That is the way that helped most of us survive to this day. Think antibiotics, food, transportation, you name it. People who invented or designed those things were hardly fakers. You may be looking at this hobby from a different perspective. Some might say that you are calling for a wasteful way of getting to some goal. The approach you seem to advocate may not be wrong, but may not be completely right either. It depends on the circumstances.

Phil Collins' studio builder's response about this thread is about right and this thread, as useless as it actually is, has become amusing like some kind of electronic zoo.

However, on a much more serious note than anything that has been written here, it may not be a bad idea to remind ourselves that this hobby may not be completely benign. Having a studio does not seem to help, either.

https://www.healthyhearing.com/report/47742-Musician-hearing-loss-phil-collins

michaelgreenaudio's avatar
michaelgreenaudio OP
1,019 posts
 

Very sorry guys, these internet trolls are not worth my time! Not you glupson, I wanted to add this. I would be happy to talk to you about the questions you have, but not among internet trolling going on.

Michael Green

www.michaelgreenaudio.net

glupson
7,842 posts
 
Which trolls?
prof
3,491 posts
 
Off course Michael just ignores that my evaluation of his OP, the points I’ve raised, and my repeated requests for clarifications were acknowledge by several others here as valid and on point. (And I’ve also received various private correspondence saying so as well). And that a number of people here acknowledged the self-promotional intent of this thread.

Unfortunately people didn’t automatically genuflect and pat him on the back for his every pearl of wisdom and diss of anyone who doesn’t agree...as he experiences on his own forum.  Essentially: "Why can't I just come on here and talk bad about other people without being challenged on it?  I just want to state these 'facts' without backing them up.  Only a troll would want to challenge my claims!"

So...back he goes to where he won’t be challenged.

Having looked at the exchanges between Geoff and Michael Green in their rancorous stereophile threads, Geoff certainly got one thing right: pointing out that instead of substantive engagement with critiques, Green tends to label anyone who doesn’t agree with him or who challenge his pearls of wisdom as "trolls" or bad vibers.

And we see how this thread ended as well.

Nothing has changed.

Michael Green may well have some good ideas to pass along. He certainly has some fans.

But when he starts a thread to diss other people, and then bridles that anyone dare challenge him on this, then takes his ball and goes home without ever substantiating his claims....he only has himself to blame.

But I doubt he will cease putting the blame entirely on others, as his final post indicates.


glupson
7,842 posts
 
prof,

do not take it too personally. You could not win. It seems that I became a troll, too, despite fully in good faith trying to explain why people cannot afford trial and error approach on everything. In fact, many would agree that it would be foolish. I am only sorry that I never got my answer about laminar flow as advertised on the website. It is baffling me.
More to discover