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
geoffkait's avatar
geoffkait
23,365 posts
 

glupson
geoffkait,

Anyone can call her/his company whatever they want and it means only that it is that company’s name. However, this empirical testing in this thread was not a name for the company but something that opponents were accused of not doing and therefore their opinion being less worthy. Fakers, talkers, whatever they ended up being. Your explanation consists of correct words applied to an entirely unrelated thing.

>>>>Huh? What are you talking about? The opponents were accused of not doing because they don’t do. They talk, but don’t do. That’s as plain as the nose on your face. In fact, you appear to be the poster boy for talk, not do. Your continuing semantic arguments are do do. This conversation can serve no purpose any more.

jf47t
116 posts
 

I think MG would say there is no us vs them but for me I'm trying to justify why the lower mass less expensive systems are blowing away the heavier more expensive ones. I can now see why they are and that the low mass systems are far more flexible. However it does seem like there is a difference. The more mass systems go to a certain level of flexibility and stall whereas the low mass systems tune up to meet every recording we have played.

Not sure what you mean by a strawman, what is that?

geoffkait's avatar
geoffkait
23,365 posts
 

prof
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.

>>>I suggest things are not so simple. Audiophiles oft exhibit what is commonly referred to as knee jerk reactions to both Tweaks and Tuning. So before anyone gets his bowels in an uproar wouldn’t it be great if we defined what the heck all the rumpus is about? You know, before going on the offensive? What is a tweak? What is Tuning? I pretty sure many audiophiles have a lot of pre-conceived ideas. Do they overlap? Are they competitors? What’s the difference? Is it mostly coupling vs decoupling? Or vibration control? Does Tuning address RFI? Magnetism? Directionality of wire! Other physics, you know, like quantum physics? Are the universes of Tweaks and Tuning bounded or unbounded? Are they different universes? 

I submit, gentle readers, the wonderful world of tweaks is not really what most audiophiles think it is. For one thing it’s bigger than what most people think it is. Much bigger.

glupson
7,842 posts
 
geoffkait,

"So before anyone gets his bowels in an uproar wouldn’t it be great if we defined what the heck all the rumpus is about? You know, before going on the offensive?"
It is as reasonable of an approach as it gets and the one that to me seems to have been missing in this thread a lot. I mentioned it a few of my posts ago, I think. Why not start with the beginning of the original post. Like, the second sentence, and then we can expand.
jf47t
116 posts
 
Ok I got it. MG is covered in saw dust so I'm his interpreter on this one (thank God for smart phones). Michael said in electronics there is tweaking tuning and trimming. They're all tied together but are given different names depending on how they are used. There are also fixed tweaks and variable tweaks. A fixed tweak is something you usually set on something else and leave it alone and a variable tweak is something you tune in by either moving around or adjusting. He said look up tweaking and tuning and I'll understand. A tweak is an adjusting tool screwdriver or something like that that you use to fine tune. He says it's all the same thing just a matter of how your and what your applying it to. Michael likes using tuning because it deals more with fundamentals and harmonics.
More to discover