Talk but not walk?

Robert

I could never picture MG saying "the truth hurts". Why would the "truth" hurt? That sounds like a description of a difference between Michael and you. I don't know you Robert but I do know that if you think that Michael would say "the truth hurts" you have no idea who Michael is. I can picture MG saying "I love the truth" but never "the truth hurts".

geoffkait,

I was asking about trolls as you have put me in that category. Unfortunately, I am neither Scandinavian, nor short.

"If you are looking specifically for talk on "Tuning," why would you be coming to this thread? There is already an A-gon thread Michael G created specifically devoted to his method of tuning:"

a) This is the OP’s thread. He can take any approach he chooses to make his points.

"The Method Of Tuning:

https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/the-method-of-tuning

You refer to "off topic" posts or comments in this thread...but what do you actually think IS the topic described in the thread title and OP?"

b) The OP is "Talk but not walk?"

"Do you see the word "Tuning" mentioned?"

c) Tuning is a form of walking, just as tweaking or any other form of adjusting your system (already covered several times in this thread)

"The topic was this:

MG: 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’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?

So, as communicated by the words MG actually used in his OP, the topic wasn’t directly about tuning, but was concerned the hobby of High End Audio - which of course is what you and I and everyone else is doing here. And then he was saying some people are faking it in high end audio, only talking (e.g. talking theory) but not in fact testing empirically what they are talking about."

e) The topic is directly about "Talk but no walk" Making adjustments to your system is walking.

"I don’t see how you could ignore that this was the subject of the OP."

f) Covered earlier. The OP is "talk but not walk".

"Now, given that was actually the subject he raised...how is it not on topic to ask questions like:

How might that critique actually apply and to whom?"

g) Explain in more detail please.

"How is one to know when one is, on this account, "doing the hobby" and not faking it?"

h) Making adjustments to your system is doing the hobby.

"And hence what do you mean exactly by empirical testing - do you mean simply trying anything?"

i) The definition of empirical testing is covered in depth on the internet.

"Or being more rigorous in the method of testing, since you mentioned engineering and science?"

j) Please define your use of the word "rigorous" in the context of testing methods.

"And is it actually illegitimate, or even not part of the hobby, to talk about theory, and whether a theory actually seems cogent, explanatory or realistic?"

k) Theory covers a wide range of talking. Some are close to walking and some are more imaginative what ifs.

"Why is talking about audio theory "faking it?"

l) It isn’t. Faking it is faking it.

"And is someone faking it simply by questioning the basis for some other audiophile’s claim?"

m) Faking it is faking it. It’s when an event is made to appear like it is happening yet it is not really being done.

"Why wouldn’t it make sense to FIRST want to see good reasons for why a tweak or product is likely to be efficacious, when deciding whether it’s worth one’s time or money to try it out?"

n) There is no replacing physically doing. Talk does not replace walk.

"Does one HAVE to have experience with X in order to ask legitimate questions about X?"

o) What specifically is X?

"And as to the division between questioning a claimed phenomenon via theory or personal experience: Why can’t one point to empirical evidence gathered by other people?"

p) In HEA this would be called a review. Reviews don’t determine what a product would sound like when used under different conditions.

"If to speak about a phenomenon, or to have a belief about it without direct experience was illegitimate, then we could never avail ourselves of all the scientific evidence and knowledge that WE ourselves didn’t gather."

q) There is doing and there is theory. What conclusions you draw from that, would be your belief.

"Why aren’t any or all of those questions legitimate and applicable to ask someone who made an OP like Michael’s?"

r) Michael and I are doing the answering of these questions while we are driving to one of the shops and back. I’m asking and he’s answering. It’s not a matter of MG not wanting to answer as much as it is needing to take care of issues based on importance.

"Isn’t it fair to inquire further about whether Michael’s appeal to empiricism, science, experience and why someone might, or might not, deserve to have their own methods, or interaction with the hobby characterized with the derogatory phase "faking it."

s) This question has been beat to death. Others will need to come to their own conclusions. MG doesn’t see his choice of words with the same meaning as you do. I’ve looked it up. MG says more like this sentence "all the experts agree that you can’t fake it". He used faking but not in a negative sense but more of a factual sense.

"And those are the right-on-topic questions I was raising from the beginning, that MG decided were irrelevant."

t) Your assuming something that may never change in your mind MG understands and accepts this. He also doesn’t have a problem with this. But MG only has a certain amount of time on his clock. He’s not saying this to be rude but to be factual. His view of you personally prof is MG may not have the time to get into a never ending debate.

Have to run we are here.