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
prof
3,501 posts
 
kosst,

I checked out that link.

What you missed was an extremely fishy bit of flash animation.
So under the web site heading "credits" you have vague (can you believe that?) allusions to being involved with Michael Green Design is "associated" with these fine musicians, that for "20 years" his tuning philosophy has helped bring us some of today's greatest music, his room tunes have been used by "countless" musicians including legendary artists...

And then flash animation shows a long list of artists that include:

The Beatles, Miles Davis, Moody Blues, Lois Armstrong, Queen, Moody Blues, Rolling Stones, Roy Orbison...

Now, I'm left to wonder how someone's 20 year old tuning philosophy has anything to do with The Beatles, Miles Davis Louis Armstrong and those others.

And what services did Michael Green actually render to all the bands mentioned?

One is left with the exceedingly fishy smell that someone's credentials and involvement have been inflated, and that the page relies on vague enough implications of association that people will put his work together with those artists.

But I'm certainly open to finding out I'm incorrect, if Michael would supply detail as to how his work played a part with the above mentioned artists.

Post removed 
glupson
7,842 posts
 
With a little luck and/or lots of persistence guesswork may also yield great results. Now, why would anyone do it that way is a totally different topic. For some things, a lifetime of guesswork would not be enough.

Michael Green,

Unrelated to any real topic so far, but I would second mapman's opinion about the website. It needs some reworking. As a, more or less, not-overly-excited-very-suspicious-observer, I would say that it would rub only already signed-up true believers right way. Of course, those who are firmly against would not be swayed no matter what, but I find that even for those who would approach it with open mind, but still full of suspicion, it does not provide enough of anything substantial to maintain interest. It is easy to dismiss then, even before giving it any chance. That is just my observation and suggestion. It is understandable, though. Many major international companies struggle with their websites, too.

Well, I will not mention laminar flow ever again and now I can see where the problem stemmed from. However, as soon as you can come up with some other name for what you believe the reason is for what you are trying to achieve, change it. It is a sore sight right now and it does not make everything else look good at all. In fact, I have been fairly tolerant all along, but it has been plain silly since I first saw it. There may be more to incorporate to those theories and practice in order to find correct explanation. Laminar flow just would not cut it. That's it, I will leave it to someone else to remind you. Oh, and that "organizing" has to go.
prof
3,501 posts
 
Michael, you are still doing it.

You come here claiming some members are fakes, continue to evade any backing up of your claims or substantive interaction with skeptical questions, and when someone complains that this is the case your response is "Gee, you sure seem upset, why you so upset?"

This right out of the Troll playbook. Your post may as well have come with the troll face "you mad bro?" image plastered to the bottom.

What good do you think it does your brand, to behave like a troll, I wonder? Or are you truly that un-self-aware as to the impression you are giving off here?

Not mad, Michael. Perplexed. Wondering why some people do this to themselves. Especially someone who wants to project a Brand.

michaelgreenaudio's avatar
michaelgreenaudio OP
1,019 posts
 

Hi Guys, the OP again

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


_____________________________________________________________

take care Audiogon, thanks again for letting me visit, it was fun seeing the Tunees

More to discover