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
 

"Sorry to state j47t, but the materials used to build the Pioneer chassis and chassis mass disqualifies the capability of holding a proverbial sonic candle in comparison to this design."

proverbial sonic candles r i g h t :) good luck with that one

Where is the transformer located on the amp you mention?
 

geoffkait's avatar
geoffkait
23,365 posts
 
Funny story. Once upon a time I went over to this dude’s house to demo a product. He was a musician, first oboe in National Symphony Orchestra, DC. He was also a dealer for Cello high end audio products and his system comprised all Cello, including drop dead gorgeous 8” tall piano black finish Cello speakers, biamped with Cello amps, plus what I reckon to be $10K of room treatment. So imagine my disappointment and horror when I heard what may have been the worst sound ever to emanate from a hi fi system. So much for the theory that all musicians have golden ears.
glupson
7,842 posts
 

geoffkait’s story shows that there is no absolute in perception of music and that arguing about its quality is a silly process. For that oboe player, it must have been a good sound. Good for him.


I have stories in a similar direction as geoffkait’s except that my guys did not even have anything more than maybe a boombox. geoffkait’s host at least invested some time and money in reproduction of music.


Over years, I started thinking that hobby that involves striving for better audio reproduction (think Audiogon threads) is essentially a hobby of fakers. Not only because any kind of reproduction is basically fake, but also because that small sample of people I know and who could be considered "dedicated musicians", do not go crazy over what they listen to. There is nothing wrong with improving perceived quality by small steps (tweaking, tuning, engineering of some sorts, etc.) as it will, over time, yield higher standard for greater good. Not to mention that such a hobby is fairly benign despite of what you could conclude from reading some of the posts around here.

geoffkait's avatar
geoffkait
23,365 posts
 
Actually, the conclusions one should draw from my ill-fated visit to the first oboist go much deeper than that, in view of the fact that we tend to put musicians, especially ones who play in big orchestras, on Olympus, since they presumably know good sound. You know, live acoustic music. Hel-loo! One could also point the finger in other directions, like a dealer in high end gear cannot hear, that room treatment is not a silver bullet, and that just because something looks fabulous or is expensive, which Cello stuff definitely is, doesn’t mean anything. It also implies what I was saying before, a photo of a room, a system, a component, guts in guts out, doesn’t mean anything.

I also said there’s no Audio Nirvana. There is no absolute sound. It can always be improved, no matter what. Although, judging from comments by the cheering section on the Graphene thread, some folks appear to think they’ve achieved it. This is a different idea from the ideas that people can’t hear properly, or don’t know what they’re listening to, or that they’re all thumbs. I will refrain from extrapolating this whole idea to include recording engineers, exhibitors at Shows, reviewers and just plain folks with really big expensive systems.
teo_audio
2,197 posts
 
Likened to the guy who has the $12kus bike frame, the $7kus wheel set, the $2kus slipstream skinsuit...and can’t ride a bike to save his life.

All too common. The majority, in fact. (kinda sorta maybe, if one is being surly and tossing around pessimistic attitudes)

However, it is that guy... who very much helps keep the doors open on the given businesses, so they can sell product - to the the riders who can actually ride, and who actually understand and appreciate the great products.

And, maybe, over time, with exposure... the person might become a better rider, or eventually abandon their new cool game and toys.
More to discover