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


128x128michaelgreenaudio
jf47t
116 posts
 

"Look who is talking".

glupson I don't buy into the "look who is talking" bit. In MG's case it's "look who is walking". I don't know anyone in the business who has gone from start to finish like Michael has. I'm not saying they're not out there but I haven't met them. Picture having a system from start to finish without any enclosed chassis? I'm not just talking about the playback part but all the way from the microphone forward. He started with the tunable studio (live room), control room, mastering room, in studio playback room all tunable. All the equipment was without their chassis, or custom built without chassis from the microphones on. No cable barrels no plugs every stage was either hardwired or clipped. No cover even on the mixers. A system from start to finish completely stripped down or built stripped.  Another studio where you had 3 close to identical rooms. You start at the live room then the control room then the playback room all in a row. You entered by the control room and the live room was on the left and playback room on the right. For demos you could walk through all three stages of the recording to get a reference.

glupson
7,842 posts
 
jf47t,

You might have misunderstood my sentences. I was saying that original post implied some people were "fakers" which insulted them. Then they started picking and picking and found things they thought Michael Green is "faking" in a sense. You can buy it or not, but that is what happened. Read responses and it should be clear. Maybe people did not say "Look who is talking" in exactly same words, but they focused on him and his responses, track record, whatever you want, and they came up with their own conclusions. You and I can think they are or they are not right, but that is what happened. A tiny little bit more timid original post would have prevented it and nobody would ever read this exchange between Robert and Michael. Which, by the way, seems plausible from both sides, just not at the same time. As some poster recently said "I have no dog in this fight", but I am able to witness.
prof
3,479 posts
 
Exactly glupson,

MG critiqued people as fakes, and that there was absolutely no doubt that there were people here on audiogon faking it, not having done the "empirical testing" to have justified the views they were espousing.

When asked to elaborate, he instead went all obfuscatory and dismissive of anyone who didn’t just agree.

Well ok then, if he wasn’t going to engage honest questions, and was going to call out other people as not being sufficiently empirical (those accusations of people unnamed and hence with no justification actually given) then he invites examination of his own post, methods and claims.

But he can’t seem to take the heat.  




glupson
7,842 posts
 
jf47t,

Another by the way, my Hindu Love Gods CD arrived. I did not get to listen to all of it, in fact I listened only to that one song you mentioned, but it was worth it.

I did my empirical testing and tried it over iHome Arc Bluetooth speaker and over bigger equipment. In both cases it sounds like a garage band playing in some garage. Maybe with open doors, but still a garage. It is all a good thing as it matches the atmosphere of the song. I am not sure how much better your experience was after listening to it with tuning you mentioned, but I doubt it will ever take a prize for the clearest and smoothest recording of the year. Still, it is just what it is supposed to be. Thanks for recommendation.
jf47t
116 posts
 

Hi glupson

I believe I understood you correctly, thanks for explaining again. My take of this sentence however is different.

"What I’m asking is a very simple question in a hobby that is suppose to be based on "doing", why fake it?"

I don’t think MG was implying anything or he wouldn’t have put a question mark there. There’s a huge golf between "why fake it?" and "your faking it".

If you read the Tunees who have come up, it’s all positive correct? Happy successful listeners no negatives to be found. Now compare this with the ones who "challenged" Michael. Defensive, angry, accusing, assuming and creating false narratives and made up stories.

Also glupson take another read through. There isn’t a prof vs MG or a Robert vs MG, read it again. MG doesn’t engage in the fight with the exception of a couple "get real" moments. I engage with both prof and Robert more than Michael does. In the cases with both prof and Robert Michael attempts to give both of them an out. Prof Robert Kosst are getting their posts removed cause they are "abusing another member". Michael isn’t getting his posts removed cause he is being a gentleman.

glupson if you see MG fighting anyone it’s because either you or someone else has painted those pictures. MG’s not going to engage in a fight over stuff he has done that’s pretty stupid wouldn’t you think? Michael’s more likely to crack a joke. However if you look at prof Robert kosst and a couple of others you can clearly see some issues. And you don’t have to look on this thread alone. Look at their posts on other forums. Pretty much the same MO where ever these guys show up. Again look at the OP and then go check out other threads. MG’s not down on any of these guys he’s just letting them paint their own pictures of themselves.

More to discover