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
glupson
I understand experience and that everything we do is experience, or we can call it empirical, in some way. That could be stretched to some philosophical level and I am fine with that for those who enjoy contemplating in that direction.

I was not arguing about the meaning of experimenting, I do think it has practical use even if, at times, it may seem to be for placebo effect only. My focus was on words used ("empirical testing lab") which seem, to say the least, redundant. I am not trying to nitpick on semantics. It is just that I am trying to figure out why those words were used. Could a "testing lab" be anything else but empirical?

I am really asking and not trying to speak from a position of superiority which will expose others as incompetent (that seems to happen a lot in this thread, by the way). It is that, over time, I learned that sometimes words get plugged into some statement which then seems to get credibility from just having that "fancy" word or description in it. That lead me to thinking about empirical, theoretical, and what would a "theoretical testing lab" look like in this case. "Empirical" would have some electronic equipment, a chair, whatever else placed on the walls, etc., but what about theoretical? Does anyone have an answer? I cannot come up with one although I have been trying for some time.

It is not about differences in two major opinions about the topic of this thread. I somehow picked two things along the way and they both included well-known words that sound somewhat "sophisticated" (not the best word to describe them but I cannot come up with the better one) which I could not properly put in the context of what is discussed. Both times, I have tried to learn and broaden my horizons.

>>>>I suspect you’re over thinking it. Empirical implies either listening tests or some sort of measurements - or both in some cases. No reason to get wrapped around the axel with all the philosophy.
I will add that you seem like a very smart man and one I could learn from.  I honestly view MGs comments and motivation as helpful, fresh and born out of a healthy dose of curiosity. 

Good morning Tunees

My listening session last night with George Michael "Faith" was something I needed to digest and I'm still not sure I have the words. The sound stage was more than full it was full and enormous. I felt like I could rise from my seat and walk through the image. What's freaky is that's what I did. The speakers no matter where I stood had vanished. The room took over the sound. I asked Michael how this was possible and his answer was "that's the way pressure works when a system is in tune with the recording". I had to sit down and stand up a few times to finally hear that the seating position out did the rest of the listening area it was that good. It was like being inside of a giant set of headphones in all the right ways. I know this recording well but I realized I didn't know it at all. Sitting in the chair I could feel all the music through my body head to toe. Still with all this vibration MG didn't have the music up loud that was another mystery to me. The bass was vibrating my chest through to my back but the volume was not overly loud a first time for me. The bass was also very tight and at the same time full of body. The sound pressure was like a great set of horns without the sound of horns. Michael left me alone to learn on my own but what I was hearing was not possible. He wants to introduce me to top tuning soon.

Back in the day early 1980's a friend of mine had a statement speaker that used Ed Longs  patented TA time aligned technology. A short time later the predecessor to the Bag End subs that operated below their resonance were devised.. The 2 10's spec'd by Ed Long and built by Eminence were integrated into this small baffle speaker system.  I used a Mcintosh mq101 a Dahlquist LP1 and an Apt Holman amp to control and power the 2 pr of 10's...I owned this speaker system and it was installed in my first home. Huge soundstage and to this day probably the best bass I ever heard in a home. All the drivers were designed to spec by Ed Long except for the tweeter. The 4 cone drivers were shallow in shape as Ed said at that time these drivers would maintain their TA over a wider frequency range versus the deep dish variety.

We also used a calibration and measurement system sold to us by Ed and probably  Ron to measure the other speaker systems my friend built. The TA/ nearly Bag End system was not a pretty site..and was not a viable product for sale..Sure sounded great and learned so much from these engineers as much of this was cutting edge back then. Tom
grannyring words do have meaning. However its possible they do not accurately reflect what the writer really meant to communicate to all. Thats OK. It’s always possible to clarify if needed.   If one does not mean something that another infers just be polite and say so.  End of story.