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 I stated I studied Civil Engineering which branched off into road design and traffic engineering. i studies materials, structures (stress/shear/cantilever/moments/compression), geology, fluids, economics, business, etc, etc. i also stated I held a commercial pilots licence, through which aerodynamics is taught.

Please do not show your ignorance of engineering, and of Traffic Engineering. If you look at sonics and acoustic engineering, traffic flow is much the same, and fluid dynamics. Flow, compression, density and dispersion.

Not as simple as people may think. Then add to this driver behaviour which involves psychology and other factors. Then factor in a vehicle break down which complexes the flow dynamics further.

So, in essence my studies and work in Engineering is another form of what the OP is doing and what @audiopoint has written as explanation to my questions. I have a good idea of what is the theory, but the practical is a question I have been seeking answers for.

Thank you @audiopoint and @theaudiotweak for your candid explanations, the subject and answers of which I am finding on various forums and websites.

Oh, brother! Spare me the lecture on “traffic engineering.” The traffic flow is heaviest during rush hour so you program the traffic lights stay green longer in the direction of the main flow. Or build new roads and or wider roads. Big deal. Problem solved! It’s not rocket science. 🚀
@geoffkait Ignorance is bliss is it? it is quite obvious you know nothing about the subject. I did Mathematics too. I was also Dux of my Engineering Faculty as well. Don't preach to me smarty pants...
It is not as simple as just adjusting traffic lights and building new roads. For example, The Beltway in the Washington DC metro area. No traffic lights to adjust. Road made wider in some places, and still thousands curse it every day. And the narrow part has been narrow for years (at around 270) and the reason is not some lowly traffic engineer. It is not that simple to build a new road. A lot goes into that, too.