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
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.

jf47t
116 posts
 

glupson

No offence but your last two posts were not useful toward making a point about this thread unless you were making the point of taking not being the same as doing. They were simply more talking. The more I move toward the walking the easier it is to see posters coming up here simply to talk. That’s not a bad thing, just pales to the actual doing of the hobby.

I can see where Michael gets bored with many of these posts they are indeed boring if your someone who wants to do the listening.

geoffkait's avatar
geoffkait
23,365 posts
 
Gloopson, I’m not trying to start a fight and no offense, but since you and prof seem to enjoy this art of chit chat and debate so much, the next logical step is to play the cancer card. It would be quite difficult to prove that Tuning does not cause cancer. And no offense to amg56 who either has cancer or may have cancer. Is amg56 a tuner? Is he a tweaker? Maybe tweaking causes cancer, too. Do Tuning and Tweaking make hair grow on your palms? Stay tuned, folks, maybe we’ll find out, if prof and gloopson are on their toes. As for your friend and humble scribe, I’m filing this latest round of pretend debate under, What about this? What about that? Oh, honorable mention to mapman who’s been scrambling to stay in the fight and almost connected on a couple jabs.
amg56's avatar
Ag insider logo xs@2x
amg56
887 posts
 

@geoffkait How dare you! You miserable excuse for a person. Do you want a copy of my diagnosis? You smart mouthed little person. Do you think cancer is funny? Do you think it does cause pain?

One person asks how I am feeling and you pull this stunt. are you showing off, because you have nothing else to contribute?

Oh, you are a shallow, callous narrow minded disgrace. You are certainly not humble and no scribe. You are a grub.

More to discover