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
 

"MG has no clue how these devices work."

Good luck with that one LOL. Hey did you happen to see MG's thread

http://tuneland.forumotion.com/t440-talk-but-not-walk-an-audiophile-forum-case-study#8674

I see you guys are trying to prove your case by "Talking" on someone else's forum but see MG and Geoff learn by actually doing and then discussing what they have done. MG and Geoff disagree on some of the absolutes but have found a way to allow isolation and mechanical transfer to live under the same roof. As you can see on Michael's thread he and others have done empirical testing to all 3 Springs, Cones and Tuning Blocks. And not just one size fits all but perhaps a wider range of testing ever done before in HEA.

Like with MG and Geoff we on this thread haven't seen StarSound take components down to the basic signal passing bones. Robert saying he likes big transformers obviously tells us on this thread you have not tested the placement of transformers in relationship to other parts hosting the audio signal. If this is indeed the case there are literally thousands of empirical listeners who have gone further than you. The proof is something you do gentlemen, not something you talk about as if you have done. Walking guys, we're talking about walking.

jf47t
116 posts
 

Robert and Tom

Might I make a suggestion. Instead of posting posts that cross the line of attacking MG you construct posts that engage the topics or if you choose to talk about your designs do so in a way that invites good karma and civil discussions. We all have two ears you know and some will have less experience and some more depending on the testing we choose to do. In my case I look forward to talking about audio as a variable. When "doing" the variables there are no rights and wrongs as Geoff has tried to tell you (am I correct Geoff, I don’t want to speak for you). Robert and Tom saying your company has an absolute is the same as marginalizing your contributions to a variable subject. Or do you not think audio "is" a variable science?

geoffkait's avatar
geoffkait
23,365 posts
 
jf47t
When "doing" the variables there are no rights and wrongs as Geoff has tried to tell you (am I correct Geoff, I don’t want to speak for you).

>>>>Actually, now that I think about it, no, I would not say that at all. There’s a right way and a wrong way to do everything. Otherwise we’re just shooting blanks in the dark. But obviously none of this matters since all the naysayers are either not audiophiles, anti audiophiles, pseudo intellectuals, or pseudo skeptics who made their minds up a long time ago. I will write a book sometime, The Trouble with Trolls.

Dealing with sound requires a large measure of ESP. You have to know what the problem is, how to solve it, and where to go next, where the next problems are. Most people including audiophiles don’t really know what they are hearing, what’s wrong with it or how to fix it. And they generally don’t think about it too much, from what I can tell.

Shut the cave door and back to pigmy country! - Mo Gambo
theaudiotweak
2,801 posts
 
The variable is the weather and how it changes by the hour and the day. Wood is affected by the weather, and like the weather wood of any type changes in composition and content.

Springs are not linear in their reaction to compressive waves nor shear waves that only travel in solids. They provide no clear direct path for shear energy to exit. Othèr than those 2 things I suppose their okay. Tom
geoffkait's avatar
geoffkait
23,365 posts
 
More fake news and nothing burgers from Tommy and Bobby.
More to discover