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

mapman,


You are right. Kudos to geoffkait for trying. Poet at heart, wolf on the Internet.

Take a Valium, Moops. Feel better. I don’t care if you’re not a real engineer. Really. Gloops and Moops. Hey, that rhymes! I’m a poet and don’t know it.
glupson
geoffkait "...how can you guys sit there and honestly say you’re content with CDs that sound..."

Some people will and do agree with you on description of the CD sound. Maybe not all CDs and not all the words you used, but in that direction. At least part of the answer is that, despite admitting all those annoying shortcomings, they have no other option but to enjoy the way it is or stop enjoying altogether. They are content because improvement is not feasible under reasonable terms for them. The more I read about descriptions of tuning and tweaking, the more I am sure it, at this stage, cannot be something too many people would or could go for. It is time and effort expenditure that may outweigh potential benefit in the sound improvement. Many CDs really sound crappy, we all have a bunch of them, I am sure, but most people have no interest in playing with equipment on an hourly basis just to extract one more Hertz from it. It detracts from other things, including actually listening to that same CD. And that is even without opening the topic if all those tweaks. tunings really make a difference for which everyone has her/his own ideas.

Gee, you don’t say? 🙄

I’m pretty sure that’s the talkers’ position. Excellent summary!

Enjoy the music
Post removed