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
 
amg56
Not to be combative but I suspect you might have misread my statement. I said there is no audio Nirvana. By that I mean there is no Absolute Sound. This concept of No Absolute Sound is closely linked to the concept of the Audio Hierarchy I described somewhere the other day.

Made the scene
Week to week
Day to day
Hour to hour
The gate is straight
Deep and wide
Break on through to the other side
Break on through to the other side
geoffkait's avatar
geoffkait
23,365 posts
 

prof wrote,

“Does anyone else here think it unreasonable to ask a Michael Green devotee how the Tuneland forum would react to a post with the character of the one Michael made here?

I doubt it.

Is anyone here, at this point, surprised that a Michael Green devotee evaded, evaded and evaded again answering this reasonable question?

I doubt it.”

>>>>I don’t see what you’re getting all worked up about. I thought the fellow (Jay) from Tuneland did an excellent job explaining how Tuning works. Where’s the beef? 🍔 This is just another scene straight out of 12 Angry Men.

uberwaltz's avatar
uberwaltz
13,381 posts
 
Good Lord, this thread is STILL going on about the SAME stuff?
Thought it had "jumped the shark" LONG ago
But, carry on people, have at it!
geoffkait's avatar
geoffkait
23,365 posts
 
It’s a thread about everything. You can now return to your Barco Lounger. 😴
prof
3,526 posts
 

Ok, I’m outta here. Said all I’ve wanted to say (to say the least!)

I do hope Michal considers more carefully how he wants to promote his ideas here in the future, and re-considers his mode of discourse with people who ask questions that challenge his arguments and claims.
Don’t be so ready to cast honest inquiry into the role of "troll." That’s never going to be a good strategy for conversation.

And just as important at least, I hope some people reading the thread have found some merit in my concern about how we approach discussing our beliefs with others who don’t share those beliefs. That we shouldn’t automatically infer negative motivations, give a good go at giving someone the benefit of the doubt, and as much as possible at least give the effort to understand the other person, and clarify our own position when asked, and respond to arguments, not simply characterize the other person.

Once again: Not my intention to "debunk" Michael Green’s products. Even though I may withhold belief in some of the claims (because I haven’t see good evidence for them), other products seem very interesting - tunable speakers, room tuning, etc, are intriguing.

I wish success for Michael (would never wish otherwise for most people).

As for "Tuners" here, I hope you will not look down on others who have different priorities or approaches in this hobby, or who even may be skeptical of some of MG’s claims, as "not walking the walk" or "not doing the hobby" or that someone asking questions of a skeptical nature are therefore "faking it." If you are super happy with your own process, that’s wonderful. Want to tell others about it? Great! But wishing to share these ideas needn’t require evangelizing to the detriment of how other people are finding satisfaction. No need to tell other people they are not "walking the walk" or "doing the hobby of listening" or whatever. Someone may voice skepticism, while still having his/her own deep relationship with high end audio, and lots of their own experiences to draw upon.  And if you follow their other posts you will often see they are not "bad/trolls" but are actually helpful contributors to this site. 

If YOU enjoy tuning via the MG method, more power to you! Sounds like you are having fun and are really satisfied and that’s great for you. Happy Listening!

Over ’n out,

Prof

More to discover