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
jetter
3,052 posts
 
Prof, in my world, being able to condense complex ideas into simple language is a sign of knowledge and experience.  I'm guessing it is not in yours.  I first enjoyed your posts, not so much now.

But, that also goes for a number of other posters who think that by writing a short novel anyone thinks they are something special.  Quite the opposite.
prof
3,480 posts
 

Prof, in my world, being able to condense complex ideas into simple language is a sign of knowledge and experience.


More than that; it’s the sign of someone with the talent to do so. Plenty of knowledgeable people don’t condense complex ideas into simple language as well as others. I agree, that’s a very valuable and welcome talent, and I admire those who have it.

Sometimes I can pull that off. In fact, I’ve been told routinely over the years that I’m able to do this so I don’t feel too wounded by your insult. (Actually, right now people have said so about my reports of speakers I’ve auditioned - that I have admirably condensed in writing the character of the speakers I’ve auditioned).

Other times I go all blowhard and write too much. I gratefully accept criticism on that count, and I think it applies to a bunch of my posts in this thread.

And no, I don’t think the lengths of my posts makes me special. (You aren’t a fan of strawmen, are you? I hope not). But they are often long because I always, as much as possible, wish to avoid simply making an assertion without supporting argument. If they were much shorter and more concise, that would be more special IMO.

But, again, if someone is making reasonable points or asking reasonable questions even IF you think they could be shorter, addressing even one of those points is better than only characterizing someone’s posts, especially negatively, don’t you agree?

Have you anything to say about any points I’ve made - agree or disagree?

Thanks for the insult...though ;-)


glupson
7,842 posts
 
"MG is the father of audio tuning..."
How old is he? I do not know much about history of audio tuning, but would suspect that it all started by picking different rocks to make different sounds when banging them together. Or was it tweaking?



I have been wondering what it is about Michael Green that is so fire-igniting around here. The man has his business, not the world-history-changing at that, tries to sell his ideas (for money or not, does not really matter), may or may not be correct about what he says, but just his existence seems to be like an earthquake here. For whatever he says or implies, responses are often monumental and by more than just one poster. And he barely even shows up here. It is getting interesting. We are talking here about, at best, a little (or lot) different sound perception when electronically reproducing music someone played somewhere some time ago. In any scheme of things, it is such a minuscule niche topic that may deserve discussion, but how does Michael Green makes his presence so flammable? It is not just by answering or not answering questions, I think. It is not only one side that gets revved-up, it is both.
amg56's avatar
Ag insider logo xs@2x
amg56
887 posts
 

All, Whether or not Michael Green posts on this thread or not doesn't bother me. However if he does, it is my desire, and I expect it is the same for other readers of the many posts in AudioGon, that he participates in the manner that others expect and have posted.

Whether a post is a page or more long as prof's posts can be, I find him engaging and informal, while being easy to read. Other posts can be short and succinct but less informal, and that's ok too.

It's posts which are vague, uniforming, nor here nor there, without substance, while appealing to readers that the information contained within the post should be accepted without question.

And God help us if we do question the poster. We are called anti, naysayers, trolls etc., when all we are actually asking for is more information on which we can base our own understanding on how a SOMETHING works.

I fail to understand why this is so wrong? I agree 100% with Prof, who at least is informative, questioning (with the right questions), and appears to be reasonably well informed on most matters. Like myself, and other posters, we question for more information. I would expect that this would be a normal occurrence anywhere.

 @jf47t If you find the questions we ask so objectionable, or hard to answer, then just say so and leave it. You are not contributing this forum other than throwing out what can be described as misinformation as there IS no information you write that we can use or go away and try.

I could describe the mess my cables are in and rearrange them and post on it. That is useless information which is not what I would expect to be an informational post or experience.

If anyone is Trolling, it would appear to me that you are targeting Prof in particular, and others in general.

I do not apologise for the length of this post if it tells you, and other, something that annoys me. You and this whole MG thing annoy me. Go away.

amg56's avatar
Ag insider logo xs@2x
amg56
887 posts
 

And one thing further, as per the OP's headline for this thread TALK BUT NOT WALK?, I find it particularly offensive to be targeted in a general accusational headline that I or others are Talking but not Walking? Most of us on these forum threads are walking.

If MG did do quite successfully, it has been to demean and offend us by insinuating that we are not active in our quest to improve our systems. It would seem that MG finds it demeaning to him that we do not follow his doctrine.

More to discover