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
glupson
7,842 posts
 
audiopoint,

Thanks for your post. It was informative and well-structured. It opened some new ways of understanding, for me at least.
amg56's avatar
Ag insider logo xs@2x
amg56
887 posts
 

@audiopoint  Well explained and well written. Of course there will be further questions and enquiries regarding the behaviour of elements that make up HiFi systems in general, realising each system is unique, in environment, componentry, wiring and power. I realise there are a lot more factors to be discussed but for those who are of curious mind, its a good read.

@jf47t Thank you for your descriptions of what occurred to influence the change in sound/musical experience you had at MG's. It gives a better mind's eye picture of what may be available in our systems to change.

jf47t
116 posts
 
I get it now after putting on Chuck Girard "Chuck Girard" it has become clear to me that there is another level to a system. Following Michael down to his curing shop he showed me a sea of old school receivers carefully covered with plastic so they wouldn't get dust in them. He put me to work bringing them upstairs. Btw the curing shop is full of panels different lengths of redwood Brazilian pine and other pieces. There's one chair with a table and sanding paper all over the place. There's a huge jointer. MG's wood shop is at another location. This space is for curing and voicing only. Michael's pride and joy is this shelving of paper he said ranges from 80-3000 grit. I saw some finishes but those are off limits. I've been wood shopping with Michael before but the listening and materials are coming together for me now. MG will tell you he isn't a wood worker but it's easy to see he is into wood voicing. When we got back upstairs he showed me two pieces of wood. I held the one to my ear and tapped on it and it sounded resonant and you could hear the harmonics. He handed me the next piece and it sounded like tapping on a cello's body. These came from the same wood cut WOW. He pointed to the CD player and said "that's what your listening to now". Michael has many types of cones and feet made out of brass, aluminum, titanium, zinc, copper, nickel, custom mixes and a bunch of other materials in different shapes. He also has different types of springs and other odd looking things. Sometime this weekend he said he will insert small amounts of these materials into the system so I can hear the effect. It might take a week or two because things have to settle but I'll get an idea. He's also been explaining to me what's been happening with the fields, vibration, mass, pressure and gravity how they are all working together.
amg56's avatar
Ag insider logo xs@2x
amg56
887 posts
 
@jf47t This give more light into the workings of MG "The HiFi Whisperer". It must have taken many, many hours to develop an ear for various materials.
geoffkait's avatar
geoffkait
23,365 posts
 
glupson
geoffkait,

I do not think I am overthinking it. In fact, I barely give it a thought. My question is due to the repeated statements including "empirical testing" that nobody questioned. It became the basic postulate while, to my current understanding that I am eager to expand if someone gives me an explanation, it is just three words meant to make it seem legitimate and serious. Both sides accepted it while they might have not needed it. That part is relevant to the debate of this thread. My real personal intention is to learn more about the matter that involves "empirical testing lab" so I can be aware of different approaches with no sway to either of the two sides of this thread (that battle is lost for both, in my belief). Just claiming that something is "empirical" is not that hard to come up with. Of course it is. What else would it be? Now, think about using the word "lab" there. That is a pretty heavy stuff. It is a nightmare to set up a lab. And here, I saw it thrown around as if it is my living room which was not that complicated to set up. But using "lab" and "empirical" in one sentence insinuates something really strong. At the same time, it implies the existence of a "theoretical testing lab" which is my interest as I have never ran across one. I gave up on figuring out if tuning works, if people walk or talk, but am hoping to learn something here.

>>>>>>>Methinks you’re getting hung up on words, on semantics. Empirical, testing and lab mean different things to different people. Test system, test protocol, test plan, test evaluation, test results - those terms mean different things to different people. Nobody ever agrees what constitutes a “scientific” test or a proper after the testing has been finished. It all has to be agreed a priori to have any meaning or validity. You seem to be under the impression this is some sort of peer review forum.

Theoretical testing lab? Huh? What do you think this is, Los Alamos? NIST? Harvard? A theoretical testing lab can be anyone’s listening room. Or someone’s basement. Hel-loo?

All that aside, as I’ve cautioned before a single audio test has no meaning if the test results are negative, no matter how careful and thorough the test may have been.

Pop quiz: which freezes faster, cold water or warm water?


More to discover