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
Tiniest bit of integrity? See, that’s what I am referring to. That’s a personal attack. That’s a pseudo skeptics ploy to try and save face when called a pseudo skeptic. It’s similar to one of your first posts, calling Michael a jerk in so many words. Those are fake arguments. They are not (rpt not) arguments a real skeptic uses. Do you want me to draw you a picture? 
geoff,

I may sometimes comment on someone's posting style - especially if they are being disingenuous.  But I *do not* use comments on someone’s posting style to *avoid* people’s questions or arguments. I directly address them (as I did yet again when you brought forth your pseudo skeptic defintion and tried to pin it on me).

Whereas you, taking the baton from MG, are carrying on the tradition of evasion when you can’t actually reply to the actual argument or stance someone has actually presented.

Clearly you aren’t going to acknowledge you were so obviously wrong.

Suit yourself; it’s your persona.
Whoa! Hey, more name calling. You don’t get it. Your posts are excellent examples of pretzel 🥨 logic of the kind used by pseudo skeptics. This conversation can serve no purpose any more.

geoff,

It’s one thing to look for a way out when your bluff has been called.

But to do it on the pretence that someone is calling you names?

Geoffkait...complaining about anyone name-calling?

That is a priceless ploy coming from you. I admire the chutzpah.
Though you may have a class action lawsuit from Audiogon members coming at you, for damage done to their collective Irony Meters ;-)

(And LOL at trying to find "name calling" in my last two posts.)

Anyway, buh-bye! I’ve spent more time than I should have battling your imagination.