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
jf47t
116 posts
 

Those of you reading this pay attention to what Michael says and what the internet trolls are saying.

As one of many examples. If you read back through this thread you will not see anywhere where Michael calls tuning his method nor will Michael say listen his way. Go look for yourselves. You'll read people saying Michael said this and other things to paint a picture but you won't see MG saying this himself or inferring it. He's not inferring it because he doesn't practice it.

Michael Green Audio has always been about the listener being able to listen to their music their way. Michael for 30 years has been designing "Tunable" products. He makes these products so you as an unique listener have some tools if you decide to use them to help you. Michael doesn't care if you use other tools or follow any method of listening you want including doing nothing but plug it in. Michael's whole concept of listening is about being able to play any recording you have and showing you how variable an audio system is.

Tuning is the oldest and most established music technology. Tuning is simply a method of adjusting the variables. Nothing to get mad over. If you buy a guitar your probably going to want to tune it, or not, your choice. Same with a stereo, your choice, or not. Michael has no intention on telling you what to tune something to, that's meant for your ears only. If you read on this thread the Tunees comments you will find that they have found a way to get closer to their music collection.

Prof amg or whoever your getting angry at a guy who is doing nothing more than tuning a guitar. Michael might as well be tuning a piano, guitar or any other instrument or a stereo. He's not asking how good your hearing is or if you are ever going to tune. He's simply saying if you do this it will mean more than talking about the possibility, you'll actually be "tuning". No hidden message just something if you never do you will only be talking and not trying. Like right now I am talking to you based on what I have being doing this week, nothing more and nothing negative. I tuned I heard, I walked and I talked about the walk. There's nothing more. It's simple I don't have to fake what I am saying cause I did it. Anything more is making something out of nothing.

Michael doesn't care if the subject is tuning or any other subject. What he is saying is there's a difference between reading and talking about something vs actually doing it yourself. He encourages people to do more than the talking, go ahead and give something a try if your so incline. There's nothing more to the message than that. Your not a bad person if you don't do but I bet if you try something it will give you more experience and knowledge. And more to talk about.

amg56's avatar
Ag insider logo xs@2x
amg56
887 posts
 
@prof Well put. An intelligent discourse.
prof
3,479 posts
 

jf47t,

Those of you reading this pay attention to what Michael says and what the internet trolls are saying.


You just can’t help yourself, can you? This reflexive need to call someone a "troll" instead of take a counter-argument to your beliefs seriously has been imbued very strongly into your mode of thinking, it seems.

Ok, jf47t, I believe I’ve made the reasons I’ve gone this long on the thread as clear as I can.

So in this case I figure this will be my last interaction. I’d like to see if it’s possible, at all, for you to examine your own assumptions and notice the bias you are bringing to calling people trolls and seeing MG as a sweet guru.

Here’s my question:

Why are you faking it?

To expand:

Imagine that I - or anyone else! - started a thread in Michael’s Tuneland forum. The thread is titled "Talk but not walk?"

And the thread follows exactly this tenor: "Where I come from we test don’t just talk, we test our ideas. I’ve been around labs and testing since I was a kid.

But right now there are about 20 threads going on in this forum (Tuneland) where there’s no doubt people are talking about things about which they have no experience.

My question is why? Why are they claiming to know something without testing it? Isn’t this hobby supposed to be about doing? Isn’t it supposed to be empirically based? Why are so many people not being empirical and propounding myths here? Why not walk the walk instead of just talking the talk?

So my question is: why fake it?



Now, jf47t, as honestly as you can think about this:

1. How could this be received? Would that likely be warmly welcomed? or would the accusations contained in such a thread be likely to engender some suspicion and skepticism toward someone who would use such an opening thread, calling out people as fakes? And might someone - even a mod - point out this is not necessarily the best way to start a good natured, civil discussion in the forum?

Think about it. Be honest with yourself.

Then answer:

2. What would some REASONABLE responses be, in the tuneland forum, to the accusations in such a post? If you folks wanted to give it the benefit of the doubt, engage this critique, vs just dismiss it as trolling, wouldn’t questions arise along the lines of:

"Well, hold on, from our perspective you don’t seem to actually be describing people here. We DO test our ideas empirically. So we are confused about what you are actually criticizing. Can you support your criticism with any actual examples of members being un-empirical or faking it? What kind of tests count to you as being "empirical" and what counts to you as "walking the walk?" We need to understand what you mean before we go agreeing that anyone here at all, fits the description you’ve given and deserves the critique you’ve made.  Because we think we have reasons to give you as to why people here don't fit the role you are depicting in your post.

Again...please contemplate whether those would be reasonable questions people could ask of anyone creating such a thread.

Now, if you find yourself agreeing that...yeah...that thread *might* just have the character of rankling feathers and really *would* naturally bring forth probing questions about the assumptions of the thread starter....then imagine the thread starter immediately dismissing these concerns and questions saying "Well, sorry, what I just wrote was perfectly clear. My friends get it; if you don’t, then you don’t and I don’t have to explain myself further to you. And btw, the people asking all those questions, you exemplify my post."

Now, ask yourself: what would be your, or the Tuneland’s, appraisal of this type of response. Would it be "Well, gee, you are right. Thanks SO MUCH for dropping your wisdom on us!" Or would it perhaps be more along the lines of "this person is not here to engage in real conversation or respond to any counter idea that he is wrong."


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

@jf47t "Michael might as well be tuning a piano, guitar or any other instrument or a stereo. He's not asking how good your hearing is or if you are ever going to tune. He's simply saying if you do this it will mean more than talking about the possibility, you'll actually be "tuning".

And what we are asking Michael is "How do YOU tune a Guitar?". An unassuming question that he has been reluctant to answer. It may be that MY way may be lacking or at worst incorrect. We have only asked for Michael to offer his knowledge on the subject, as he brought the subject up on this forum. If he is reluctant to do so for commercial or IP reasons then he just needs to say so.

jf47t
116 posts
 

"safe space" "cults"? LOL talk about reality

Oh lets see what are all these magazines laying around Michael's place. What do I see some over 200 reviews and articles. Oh my what a cult lol.

Bound for sound

Stereophile

TAS

In Terms of Music

Positive Feedback

Rolling Stone

Better Homes & Garden

CCM

Video Magazine

Audio Magazine

Sounds Like newsletter

Audio Adventure

Hi Fi News and Record review

Soundstage

MMR

Widescreen Review

…...would you like me to keep going LOL It seems like there are quite a few who belong to this cult. Yep that Harry Pearson was a little demon because he tuned with MG and again.....should I go on LOL

Hm Prof how many reviews and articles have been written about you exactly? Oh and I do have another question why is it you and amg don't use your real names for your username. LOL are you guys perhaps in your "safe space"? Yep, you guys are absolutely being internet trolls. Hiding behind your keyboards LOL. Congratulating each others trolling as if your convincing folks that Michael is not a good guy. Michael is in hiding because he's been to busy dealing with clients all weekend. Aren't you boys all that LOL. Oh no I used caps with my LOL, that means I'm laughing at you out loud. If you can't lighten up than the rest of the audio world can have a good laugh "watch out it's the tune your instrument cult". I was talking to MG just now and he said "Hi". Got some tunes to go listen to.

More to discover