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
kosst_amojan Why's there this sideways expectation that folks aren't legit audiophiles unless they indulge in all the snake oil?There is no such expectation. |
jf47t, Posting the OP yet again! I wonder what you think you possibly gain by reposting the OP like a brainwashed bot who can only Praise The Guru and mindlessly repeat His Words? That MG is apparently looking over your shoulder on all this stuff speaks quite a lot to the type of Followers He is looking for and the level of discourse one will find in His Method. I have been around empirical testing labs since I was a kid, That was MG’s "talk." Yet when asked to "walk" and show his claims would hold up to the scrutiny one would find in "empirical testing labs" and among "science folk," ....MG suddenly evades, evades and then vanishes. It was just talk. |
@geoffkait In the case of some of the others here, I suspect they’re either disinterested, overly skeptical or don’t get good results with what little they do so they give up.Good point Geoff, I plant my flag firmly in the "disinterested" camp (although somewhat amused....and not retired) Snar-ko-lep-syDon't leave out "walkers"....Snarky Walker Alert.... https://static2.srcdn.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/walking-dead-decaying-zombies.jpgOk, in all seriousness, based on @glupson 's recommendation, I visited Tuneland including the products pages and forum, but not the "members only" section. Unfortunately I came away with more questions than answers;
|
mitch2, Your questions were exactly why I thought Tuneland may not be the best place for most of the people from this thread. It raises too many questions that are better left unasked. Did you also find the part of Tuneland you visited not overly educative in terms of tuning? There is a lot about how great it sounds, but not much about how to do it. Maybe I just did not find it. The point #7 is a little puzzling. Was I so naive to think that everyone here has already thought it was like that? |
