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
amg56's avatar
Ag insider logo xs@2x
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?

prof
3,473 posts
 
glupson,

I think you are right to smell a fish with the use of "empirical testing" in this thread, especially as it seems to be used by MG and his followers.

As I have pointed out several times: broadly speaking virtually any inferences we derive from from our experience is "empirical."

The problem is, because words like "empirical" and "testing" are so often associated with science, you see those words being adduced by any number of pseudo sciences, or fringe idea claims, in a way that elides and obscures between good methodology and simply "trying it out for yourself."

There is a world of difference between any number of empirical inferences and good methodology that yields reliable results; that’s why the scientific method arose.

Flat earthers are being "empirical" in their inferences from experience: "You can use your sense of sight to easily see the world is flat!" And they are performing all sorts of "tests" and "experiments" to confirm their flat earth theory. But the problem is their assumptions are poor, and do not build on the back of gained knowledge through reliable methods, and their tests are poorly designed, and they draw bad inferences that ignore all sorts of other interpretations and contra-indicative evidence to their belief.

We always get the common refrain around here: "Just try it for yourself and if it works it works - and if you haven’t done your own test, you have no grounds on which to speak about it."

What this misses is that the very same response is given by virtually every single fringe claim in existence - whether it’s a religion, cult, a new age healing method, psychics, astrology, flat earth, faith healers, you name it. EVERYONE thinks they are being empirical and they think you can test their claims personally. That is, after all, how all those people come to their beliefs in the first place.

The fact that "trying it for yourself" can lead to virtually ANY belief, no matter how outlandish, ought to be a clue about it’s inherent unreliability - that there is something fundamentally not addressed in such an idea.
That is, of course, human imagination.

People rarely accept the power of human imagination when it comes to their own beliefs. Sure, all those other wacky beliefs - those are delusions, bias etc. But not MINE! You see...I have Personal Experience so I can’t be wrong!

The scientific method was a long, extremely hard-won struggle because we are all so easy to fool, and as Feynman said: The first principle is that you must not fool yourself — and you are the easiest person to fool.

The tiniest slip up in experimental rigour and...you’ve "discovered" cold fusion or faster than light particles (see the "Opera experiment" debacle).

Does this mean it’s my view that we all have to be scientists in everything we are doing and claiming? Of course not; it’s not practical to demand that of everything we do. But I believe we should at least scale our beliefs and claims to the quality of the evidence we have.

And one doesn’t need direct experience with a tweak to point out when someone is making claims that don’t scale with the quality of the evidence, and theory, they are espousing. Lots and lots of people saying the same thing, if based on recognizably unreliable methods of inference, don’t add up to a good argument.


prof
3,473 posts
 
amg56,

I certainly agree you are asking the right questions.

And those questions are being evaded.  Which is fishy.
michaelgreenaudio's avatar
michaelgreenaudio OP
1,019 posts
 

Don't worry about it or you'll get stuck in that spin as well.

glupson, here's an example

Back when I was a consulting engineer for Turner Broadcasting there was a group of engineers that I belonged to that made up a team to work on new product and theories. Everything we did had a meaning to it (an end goal). One of the interesting projects was the development of the PZM. The PZM is a boundary effect microphone (pressure zone microphone). Brent, Martin, myself and the other guys had different ideas as to what to call this technology with regards to the performance and use. It was somewhat a new territory but had a huge need and the applications would end up changing live stage production forever. At the end of the day we pretty much all understood that the name PZM worked as long as you attached it to some of the uses. I did not come up with PZM, but because of my using it and modifying the performance to suit different applications I ended up being able to incorporate my own names and uses. One of these being PZC (Pressure Zone Controlling). Both the PZM and the PZC are devices that deal with the boundary effect (laminar effect) and the Pressure Zones of the room. Could there have been other words? Yep. But these are the ones that stuck and got us to the next level. Finding words and theories plus the doing with some predictable consistency is how science is born.

But the main thing brings us back to needing the walk to explain the talk. If not the words can become a spin, as we have seen on this thread.

Michael Green

www.michaelgreenaudio.net

michaelgreenaudio's avatar
michaelgreenaudio OP
1,019 posts
 

Prof, you need to think about slowing down buddy, the thread isn’t going anywhere. You are still very much being that Dog on the end of the Bone. This is causing you to troll tuning and myself. Your so set on that "aha caught you" moment that your getting angry and rambling all over the pages again.

Prof, your not going to win here because listeners are tuning as we speak in real time which is the proof of and for the hobby of listening. In other words your smelling of something fishy is probably because you have been wiping your nose with your freshly fish covered hands.

BTW I did have some delicious fish tonight from my favorite Cajun style chief here in Vegas, who also happens to have one of my systems. He made a dish for both me and Jay.

Oh and another btw, Prof I'm back to that only skimming over your posts, they're pretty much just repeating themselves and have no new content of interest. You smell something fishy bla bla bla, prof is insulted bla bla bla, he's the defender of audio forums bla bla bla, prof has no experience when it comes to tuning bla bla bla, prof only knows how to ask questions but can't produce answers bla bla bla, folks are tuning and enjoying it bla bla bla. Why are you even here Prof bla bla bla. I am actually officially bored to death with you, I can't even see your trolling as anything more than what it is. Dog an Bone though, that one has value.

Michael Green

www.michaelgreenaudio.net

More to discover