jf47t,
I am hardly a character here, but I will take a credit. Even a negative one. You can take fame, though.
Original post failed to recognize one simple thing. There are different ways to approach most of the things. Many have pointed it out in different ways, but essence has been the same.
It is unrelated to tuning, but is related to music reproduction and even recording, yesterday, or the day before, I ran into a youtube video. It is quite clearly a promotional stuff, but also gives an insight in how people work. The man talks a lot, but does not seem to be faking too much. His approach to the room he is recording other musicians in is more of a "well, I got used to it" and the room is, even to me, suspicious at best when it comes to acoustics. It was surprising, but he does have some credentials when it comes to music reproduction so be it.
I have a hard time believing that none of the Michael Green suggested ideas work, but I feel the way they are presented, and attitude that comes with it, is not doing them a favor. I think that asking for real scientific (formulae, graphs, etc.) explanations will not be useful in this particular case. It will just expose that Michael Green has no answer of that kind which, I think, is just fine. Forcing him to do it, and him trying to come up with something resembling explanation using "scientific" terms is neither fair nor useful. He freely admitted he has no PhD in physics and that he is not wired that way, if I can use that term. At the same time, just dismissing anyone who asks more exact questions is not valuable, either. Neither approach brings anything that can be used for conclusion in this case.
"Forums usually use words, drawings and pictures to illustrate points."I tried to find anything but words on Audiogon forum, but no success.
I am hardly a character here, but I will take a credit. Even a negative one. You can take fame, though.
Original post failed to recognize one simple thing. There are different ways to approach most of the things. Many have pointed it out in different ways, but essence has been the same.
It is unrelated to tuning, but is related to music reproduction and even recording, yesterday, or the day before, I ran into a youtube video. It is quite clearly a promotional stuff, but also gives an insight in how people work. The man talks a lot, but does not seem to be faking too much. His approach to the room he is recording other musicians in is more of a "well, I got used to it" and the room is, even to me, suspicious at best when it comes to acoustics. It was surprising, but he does have some credentials when it comes to music reproduction so be it.
I have a hard time believing that none of the Michael Green suggested ideas work, but I feel the way they are presented, and attitude that comes with it, is not doing them a favor. I think that asking for real scientific (formulae, graphs, etc.) explanations will not be useful in this particular case. It will just expose that Michael Green has no answer of that kind which, I think, is just fine. Forcing him to do it, and him trying to come up with something resembling explanation using "scientific" terms is neither fair nor useful. He freely admitted he has no PhD in physics and that he is not wired that way, if I can use that term. At the same time, just dismissing anyone who asks more exact questions is not valuable, either. Neither approach brings anything that can be used for conclusion in this case.