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
 
"If we’re all of a sudden going to be engineers lets do this thing."
I would like to recommend skipping this approach. It gets very slippery and misunderstanding runs high, right up there with solidified passions. Basically, it becomes a circus.
glupson
7,842 posts
 
In this thread, I have noticed a number of mentions of "empirical testing lab" or something along those lines. I am wondering is there such a thing as "theoretical testing lab"? Would I be really wrong thinking that "empirical testing" (doing something to see/hear/etc. what happens) is done to prove or disprove a theory which is just thinking about something? I guess you could do something, get a result, and then try to come up with some theory why it happened, but it still seems like two different realms of action. It may not be topic of this thread, but it has been puzzling me since the early days of it.
amg56's avatar
amg56
887 posts
 

@glupson It comes back to a simple case of a person making an assertion of some kind, and providing the methodology by which this was found or measured and a kind to the point description.

There is nothing wrong with that. We do it every day we go to the shops, the HiFi store, car sales place etc. We ask a question, and we wouldn't expect an evasive answer, unless there is something doubtful about the subject being questioned.

Seems reasonable to me.

glupson
7,842 posts
 
amg56,

I understand that, to some extent, but my puzzle is this "empirical testing lab". I have a feeling there is something wrong with that name. It seems like something constructed to impress, but I may be wrong. What you describe has been the gripe of this thread from about the time I first noticed this "empirical testing" business which was as early as on day 1. I doubt there will ever be a peace treaty signed between two fiercely-opposed sides, but I continue reading. There are worthwhile and interesting things spread in between hard statements and intermittent insults.
amg56's avatar
amg56
887 posts
 

@glupson I fully understand your point. Maybe an "empirical testing lab" is the wrong term, however because half of our system refers to the appreciation of music, and the other half refers to the physical means of imparting it, both can be better explained.

The ability of the physical to influence what we hear is intrinsic. The ability to appreciate this music is not esoteric. The knowledge of one can greatly help the other. And we can all benefit.

The desire to improve the physical by means of upgrades or tweaks is something we all desire. As posters and readers, we commune here to share what we know or have found out. This way we all benefit. No?

More to discover