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
glupson

Yes your points are well taken.

I did find the mini-biography MG gave us certainly did go quite a way to explaining the character of his posts and belief system.

It’s weird interacting with the Tuners here; no alternative views seem to get "in" from the outside, it’s mostly blithely ignored, we only see things coming outward. Especially from you know who ^^^^^. If you aren’t going to just take what they are out to evangelize, well skeptics aren’t much good to them because they aren’t interested in defending their claims so much as gaining converts. So skepticism is cast as negativity, and off they go looking for whoever will eat the stuff up and say "more."

I’ve had a long fascination with cults, fringe belief systems etc, and the similarities are quite remarkable to some of the behaviour I’ve seen in this thread. That of course is *not* to say Tuneland is a cult, but rather that some Tuners here seem to give off a similar vibe because there seem to be some shared characteristics.    It’s sort of like the Jehovah’s Witnesses who come to your door to proselytize. They will happily engage you for hours if you seem open to their evangelizing. But if challenged, they will quickly say: "We see your viewpoint, thank you for taking the time to speak with us" and on to the next house. They are taught to not engage other critical views at length - both because it cuts down on proselytizing time, and because it can lead to doubts. People who operate in these protective bubbles tend to come off as a bit odd when they leave the bubble and try to interact with alternative viewpoints.

BTW, I’ve said numerous times before I don’t go around "being scientific" in everything I do. Far from it. I buy things that tickle my fancy - which no doubt involves a healthy dose of my own biases - like anyone else. (I just try to be cautious in what conclusions I reach and what claims I’d make to other people).

geoffkait,

I agree with your view of Wikipedia usefulness on technical subjects. I may not use it for copy/paste as much to post in threads, but I agree a person can learn a lot there. I should check it again, I have not in months.
Post removed 
glupson
geoffkait,

I agree with your view of Wikipedia usefulness on technical subjects. I may not use it for copy/paste as much to post in threads, but I agree a person can learn a lot there. I should check it again, I have not in months.

>>>>Let’s not get too carried away, glupson. I was being a little bit sarcastic although I realize it’s hard to tell sometimes.