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
mitch2
3,973 posts
 
@glupson 
Would you consider that "fully tuned"?
glupson
7,842 posts
 
mitch2,

It certainly is fully in tune with this thread.
jf47t
116 posts
 

"It would be interesting to talk to the drummer, if he still remembers it, and hear if all of that actually took place. Can it be that, by changing whatever is being tuned/tweaked the nature of what happened during the recording gets misrepresented?"

That's a frightening thought. That would mean that only one system and one set of ears is correct and all the others are misrepresenting.

grannyring's avatar
grannyring
6,479 posts
 
Can you please tell us how the Pioneer amp went from rags to riches? I must admit I am almost out of patience with all the vague posts with no specifics.  What mods were done to it...specifically?  If we cannot get any real answers, then I will also need to move on as tuning seems to be all talk with vague and invisible walk. 
glupson
7,842 posts
 

jf47t,


It would not mean that all the others are misrepresenting, at all. In fact, changing anything in the system (from CD to composition of the air in the listening environment) could potentially have some effect on the perception of sound for the listener. After all, that is the purpose of tweaking/tuning. Altering what was initially heard. It still stands that the drummer would be the only one to know if he really hit something in a certain way that we imagine, after a heavily-modified process, as him changing angles of sticks to the drum or whatever else. There is nothing wrong with listeners adjusting sound to their liking, why wouldn't they enjoy even more. The simplest, for the end-user, way of adjusting is probably tone controls on an amplifier but there are many many more ways, including whatever kind of wood is used somewhere in the system.


Maybe one could say that virtually every system is misrepresenting (ears do not represent, though, they are a receptive link in the chain).


Remember how the room got bigger when you did something? It sounded more interesting/pleasing to you, at least that is how it read. Well, room was only one size originally. It has not changed since 1990 when the CD was recorded. Being able to manipulate the perception of the size of the room is misrepresenting the real room. Nothing wrong with that, but it is not a true representation of how big the room was during the recording, or what was adjusted during the mixing/mastering/some other process shortly afterwards. Many pieces of electronic equipment have modes "jazz club", "church", "stadium" which are aiming exactly for the same effect of changing listener's perception of the original room size. Of course, they may change other things in the process and not be acceptable to "audiophile" crowd, but they are aiming to be a simple and convenient solution for those listeners who would like the effect, but have no knowledge or time to do what you did by placing different things in different positions of your listening room. Both achieve similar result by different means. I would speculate that one does it conveniently while the other one does it less conveniently but without affecting other parameters. At the same time, both may misrepresent the size of the real room which is the only correct size.


What sound level (dB) do you listen to Hindu Love Gods at? I feel it needs a little bit louder setting, but am curious at what level do you feel you gain the best results.

More to discover