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


128x128michaelgreenaudio
geoffkait's avatar
geoffkait
23,365 posts
 
prof
I don’t know Michael’s engineering credentials, but I personally haven’t seen an engineer refuse to answer some of the basic and obvious engineering questions I was asking (e.g. what measured parameters change between a tied cap and an untied cap?

>>>>>>Engineering credentials? Whoa! Oh, no! It’s come down to the old I’ll show you mine if you show me yours argument. Another favorite pseudo skeptic ploy. That usually pops up when the combatant has completely run out of ammo. Attack the arguer not the argument. Smooth!
cd318
2,636 posts
 
@glupson What is wrong with the Koss Porta Pro?

Nothing! I've yet to hear any headphone that sounds more vivid, more alive in the mids. If ever a product deserved it's classic status it's the Portal Pro's.

The discontinued Jays v-Jays were also brilliant in a similar way.

handymann
383 posts
 
Michaelgreenaudio: Yes there are recordings where the highs and lows have been rolled off, thus some would say it’s a bad recording by being poorly produced, engineered etc.  I don’t care how your system or room is tuned,you can’t get back something that was never there to begin with.  Classical, some rock, a lot of Country and most Jazz recordings are very well produced.  I think “bad recordings” are due to a variety of reasons. The record companies just want to get the product out there to make the money and with a lot of todays younger listeners, they think they’re listening to their iPods, etc, so why put out a very well produced recording, if most listeners of that genre don’t have the equipment to hear the difference.  This goes back for decades-not just recently.  Some artists demand or do the productions themselves, to insure the sound is quality. Kudos to them.
thecarpathian's avatar
thecarpathian
4,591 posts
 
@geoffkait , Prof states- "I don’t know Michael’s engineering credentials..." and you twist that into some kind of desperate ploy of someone whom is grasping at straws (or is it strawmen?) The dying last gasp of a pseudo skeptic. As to your rebuttal of his quote, he did nothing of the sort. He simply stated he did not know what MG's engineering credentials are. I don’t recall anywhere on this thread where prof demanded to see MG’s engineering credentials, nor did the prof offer up any engineering credentials of his own. Although I did not go back and reread all rebuttals, I am fully prepared to admit I am incorrect if presented with evidence to the contrary.
geoffkait's avatar
geoffkait
23,365 posts
 
No, actually he doubted Michael’s engineering credentials, as if credentials mean something. Can’t you read? Here is the original post, try again. You’re the one twisting his comments to be something innocent. But the point is that credentials are irrelevant. I’ll show you mine if you show me yours.

prof
I don’t know Michael’s engineering credentials, but I personally haven’t seen an engineer refuse to answer some of the basic and obvious engineering questions I was asking (e.g. what measured parameters change between a tied cap and an untied cap?
More to discover