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,


That was a really detailed description of the CD. Very specific. I cannot say I heard it the same way in my, still, very limited listening, but I have to agree about "in the room" description. To me, it was like a small space, rough overall sound, but, yes, with a kick of some sorts. Something like a starting band practicing in the garage and getting it just right. Maybe a small bar, I can take that, but the feeling would be of a dive bar rather than of some more upscale establishment. It was definitely worth getting. Well, hoping that other songs are at least close to the level of the one you mentioned.

jf47t,


Thanks, but no need, I am really a very low level music user. More of a plug-and-play and accept some imperfections. That does not mean that I am not interested in learning about things, call me a "listener" I guess. Did I just invent the third category now?


As I was turning the computer on, I put earphones in (Sennheiser IE80, SONY Walkman, my original ears and fairly clean at the moment) and started Raspberry Beret. I will go with that bar instead of a garage now. I also started noticing the drum you were talking about. Yes, it is quite lively. I guess I have two CDs now, for the price of one from Goodwill. One recorded in the garage and one recorded in the bar. Both are just fine.

glupson
geoffkait: How many of those fires 🔥 were caused by audiophiles who were Tuning? Zero.

Where did you get that data?

>>>>It’s an educated guess. Prove me wrong. Betcha can’t. It’s the same silly argument pseudo skeptics use for fuses, that audiophile fuses cause fires. Give me a break.

The data for the number of fires in the US is readily available on line for those who let their fingers do the walking. 🖐 Oops, there’s that word again.

geoffkait,


I doubt anyone could prove you wrong on that one. At the same time, it is as accurate as me stating that Tuning audiophiles caused 327 fires. It is a speculation and not an educated guess. In essence, a worthless piece of quasi-info.