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
 

glupson

The comment kosst made was a troll. That's what Geoff was telling you. Of course tuning hasn't caused any fires. Tuning is an action. The trolling post was removed along with other trolling posts on this thread and others. Look at the OP "I'm not asking to be trolled". What this OP is doing is exposing and confirming different audiophile personalities and the lengths they will go to to create their own worlds on forums that have nothing to do with doing the hobby of listening. People who are fake can't help themselves when it comes to disrupting the flow of audio threads. It's an addiction to them. They make a point and spend the rest of their time defending that point even when their point has been proven incorrect. It's like the ex employee mad at his former boss. He's blinded by his own anger at being let go and must cast blame. Or the inexperienced DIYer trying to prove that he has knowledge that he doesn't because of his lack of experience. Or the guy who needs measurements because he isn't able to hear results. The list goes on and on of people who come to threads for reasons other than the thread itself. This OP is here to let the thread take on the meaning of the OP. This thread could have died at page one but the addiction of people to prove their point and importance has kept this thread rolling strong.

note: MG co-wrote this post with me. We're listening to some nice tunes and I pulled up the thread. I just wanted to be up front about that.

Post removed 
glupson
7,842 posts
 
jf47t,

I did not firmly believe that tuning of any kind set any fire. However, once there is a statement, even with a numeric value (zero can reasonably be considered numeric value for this purpose) attached to it, there is a question of legitimacy of the whole statement. If there is some count of tuning fires, the whole thing becomes much more meaningful than someone just stating things left and right and then making fun of the one who questions it. Add a little bit of the "educated guess" claim which, as sophisticated as it may seem, was just a dust in our faces to detract from worthlessness of everything that was written in sentences preceding and following it.

One big flaw of this thread is that there are many things mentioned without ever clearly determining what it means. Participants start talking about it without knowing if they are talking about same thing. It started with OP and talking and walking. I am serious when I ask where is the border between those two. What is considered talking and what is considered walking. The only response was from geoffkait telling me that I am a bit slow, or am putting on a good act, adding that Internet description of "talker" has my picture next to it. Those pseudo-humorous comments is as far as this thread has gotten with clarifying first words in original post. 20 pages, statements being thrown around without any merit, but they seemed strong. Like zero fires. It was not licencia poetica, it was cheap bluff.

As far as that historic employment dispute goes, I do not think that anybody should pay much attention to it. It is a dispute between two people who have known each other and are talking things that are basically opposite. Robert is definitely upset, but it does not necessarily make his statements incorrect. Same goes for Michael. None of us on the thread have enough knowledge to be judges what really happened. Not even you, unless you were hanging out with both of them a couple of decades ago. At the same time, this thread, even if started by one of them, may not be the right place to argue their dispute.

I noticed some deleted posts and I noticed frequent use of word "troll". It appears that anything can be called "troll". At the same time, posts in which a person calls the other one "crazy" do not get deleted even when flagged. Apparently, this deleting process is not flawless. Not to mention that, given the track record here, "troll" may have different definition for everyone. I would not give too many negative points to posts deleted because of "trolling". I would rather see their content first.
glupson
7,842 posts
 
jf47t,

"Or the guy who needs measurements because he isn't able to hear results."
Try not to think of it as incorrect for a moment. Think of it as a two-pronged approach to the potential issue. In some, if not most, areas of science these days, it is an acceptable way. It is meant to add one more layer of certainty while attempting to exclude experimenter's bias. It is not always conclusive (who to trust, ears or measurements?), but there are patterns. As much as I would always go for the subjective approach, there is some value in cold calculated measurements, too. These two things are not mutually exclusive, but from the beginning of the thread we are led to believe that they are.
jf47t
116 posts
 

This was cool Michael just showed me a trick. He put on track 4 of Hindu Love Gods took an RT Square and folded it in half. He then put the Square on the ceiling about a foot in front of my head. The singer moved more toward me and the band fell back about 3' further than they were before trippy. He started changing the angle of that RT and the soundstage was able to be moved front to back at will. That's impressive. Each step MG takes is showing me how adjustable and flexible the soundstage is. Now that's walking the walk. It's great to make the connection between what the reviewers have said about Michael Green and the actual event live in real time. It's also been impressive that MG has not once changed the speaker positioning. Each step I'm taking with tuning is making more sense that we have control over our recordings being played. MG says the info is all there and our systems are the adjustable tool that shapes the recording into whatever we want if it's on the recording itself of course.

This is why every recording sounds different on every system. MG says "BINGO". The recording is the recording and the system is the tool. The content is all there but we are only playing the interpretation our system's setting gives us. This is making sense.

More to discover