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
geoffkait's avatar
geoffkait
23,365 posts
 
glupson
geoffkait,

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?
I think this is just a forum for people wasting some time on, if you really want to know what I think. At the same time, if we start talking about things and calling them something, I believe we should know what we are talking about. Otherwise, it just becomes blah-blah-am-I-smart-blah-blah and continues an argument that maybe never should have been.

I am not hung up on semantics at all, just on calling things their names instead of writing "scientific" poetry. For now, I do not find your description of a "theoretical testing lab" fully finished. I was under impression that someone’s listening room would be more of an "empirical testing lab", if the person wanted to glorify it.

There are many big words thrown around this thread and some of them are of questionable origin, to say the least. I have no intention in disputing someone’s tuning/tweaking results and what she/he hears or does not hear, but others are arguing about it. The whole thread started with "empirical testing" as an important event and I just wondered what is a "non-empirical testing". Maybe two camps that are arguing around here are not talking about same things, at all.

>>>>Have it your way. You want something to be something other than what is. Haven’t you ever heard of fluffing? You don’t have to have a real lab with people in white smocks running around with white socks and calculators. Are you so removed that you never heard of Herbies Audio Lab? Or Jena Labs? Or Marigo Audio Labs. Those examples as fate would have it are essentially one man operations. I could call my company Machina Dynamica Labs. Capish? A lab, even an “empirical lab” or theoretical physics lab” is whatever you want it to be, whatever works for you. I suspect this discussion, if I can be so bold, is kind of a mind game for you. Which is kind of what MG was getting at in his OP. You know, with the fakes and everything.
prof
3,534 posts
 
glupson,

It seems that for every thing that gets mentioned as a tweak/tuning there are two sides. One claims it is non-sense and cannot be true noticeable difference and the other side claims that the difference is noticeable.


That’s actually the false dichotomy that I’ve been at pains to reject.

As I keep arguing here, one doesn’t have to take a single side "it makes an audible difference/it doesn’t make an audible difference" position.

One can simply take the position "I don’t know if there is an audible difference, so let’s discuss the reasons and evidence for why there might be an audible difference, or not."

Being a long time audio-nut myself, and always liking the idea of further enhancing the sound of my system, I'm very attracted to the idea of "tweaking" my system.   So it's not something I reject on some weird a priori grounds - in my more tweaky moments I WANT things to make a difference.  But I also realize this is also when I'm most likely to fool myself that there is a difference.


geoffkait's avatar
geoffkait
23,365 posts
 
Quick interrupt! There has never been a single audiophile tweak that was ever proved to be a fake or a hoax. Of course it all depends. Some pills make you bigger, some pills make you small, the ones that mother gives you don’t do anything at all. Much of the confusion over tweaks and backlash and oddball results actually stem from operator error. I’m not hot doggin ya! 🌭
amg56's avatar
amg56
887 posts
 

@geoffkait These are as many no proven to have effect as well. Empirical testing caters for both "judgement" testing and "conditional" testing. It is just what is agreed, UP FRONT, to test and how to test, the thing to be tested, or judged etc.

We all have agricultural shows where the jam testing is agreed upon by majority of tasters. They do have criteria by which they are looking for a flavour.

"Tweak" testing is if carried out by an individual, and found favourable, could rightly be shared to benefit all of us. HOWEVER, if "Tweaks" are of a commercial nature and some stands to gain financially from is, then it is quite reasonable for people to ask for greater criteria and repeatable results with explanation of how it works in principle, given that there may be IP or patents pending.

I am not sure that I understand you pill popping statement. Are these the result of empirical tests, your own experiences, and what your mother did to you?

amg56's avatar
amg56
887 posts
 

All. I have no idea what happened to my first sentence. This (Microsoft surface keyboard) teleports the cursor all over the space. My apologies, but I didn't read what I had written in full until I hit POST.

I think I was responding to Geoff by saying (no spelling correction now), "there are as many tweaks not to have been PROVEN to have any effect as well".

It is only breakfast time here so the pills won't have started to work fully yet. ;0)

More to discover