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

Glupson

Your assuming MG has no PhD in physics. Just because someone chooses a more organic approach to life doesn’t mean they haven’t the formal training as well. My friend you are way off when it comes to Michael. You have no idea what kinds of testing MG does or has been a part of. MG does not dismiss anything. He does however discern when someone is being real with him or faking it. Your wanting to call that no answer I’m sure is fine by him. If you say you haven't visited where MG is supplying the answers, with pictures, words and proof there would be a question of hypocrisy cast on you. There's a big difference between not giving answers and someone refusing to look at them. Glupson at least for me you have painted your character in this thread quite well. As we all have.

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

I never said I worked in recording. I have been in a studio and concert hall when cellos have been recorded with the benefit of my endpins and acoustic coupling discs. Tom

Hi Tom

Yes the weather statements didn't make much sense, no matter what materials are being used. To use equipment of any sort outside of it's recommended climate is a no no, brass included. It's also interesting that you work with cellos yet don't have a healthy respect for wood as a musical tool.

jf47t,

I am not assuming Michael Green does not have a PhD in physics. I concluded that from his mini-biographies that I did find interesting indeed. If I am mistaken, I will take the blame although partial fault may be on him for presenting himself incorrectly. However, you are in Las Vegas after all, I would gamble that his thesis was not on the dynamics of fluids, air included.

I am not sure what "more organic approach to life" really means. It surely appears like a sweet choice of meaningless words.

Asking people to fish for explanations, that seem fishy to many in the first place, may not be the best approach to explaining.

My personality is whatever it is and, if you are correct about him, Michael Green and I share one same trait. Give me a point in your wide-open admiring eyes for that. We both are not disturbed by some unknown person behind the computer screen throwing insults at us. It seems that both of us are confident in ourselves and what we do. Also remember, you have no idea what other people on this thread have done in their lives. Do not make Michael Green seem ridiculous by repeating that he makes so many decisions every day that others would not believe it (not exact words, but in that sense). As much as you may see it that way, refrain from presenting him as an incapable man in need of a legal guardian. He has not made it to 58 with not having any idea what he was talking about a minute ago. In fact, do not write about Michael Green at all. Better for both of you, if it is really two. Bring us Michael Green from before you appeared back. That one was annoying to many, but reasonable in his own way. Admitting that one is afraid to climb the ladder brings much more honest face to someone you describe as a faking semi-god.


Having said that, is it really true that those pictures are from 25 years ago? Hard to believe.
I’m not trying to start a fight but I have always maintained isolation and coupling can live under the same roof. In fact that’s not just talk, I actually walk the walk as I’ve always used coupling with my isolation stands ever since the beginning more than twenty years ago when I debuted with Pierre Sprey of Mapleshade at CES. I have also always supported the concept of damping for the top plate of the iso stand. I have always recommended extremely hard, ballistic cones under the component on the top plate AND underneath the iso stand itself.

So, yes, isolation and coupling live under one roof. The roof of Machina Dynamica. I suppose if someone seriously believes isolation is impossible or doesn’t understand the first thing about it it’s not surprising he would say isolation and coupling cannot live under one roof.

Machina Dynamica. We do artificial atoms right. Electrons zooming around a hole where the nucleus is supposed to be.