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
prof
If you don’t get the claimed results, it can only be you who is to blame. You are doing it wrong!

Bingo! That’s what I’ve been saying! 

🤡

I stopped by MG's yesterday he was playing Willie Nelson's "Milk Cow Blues". It sounded great but I asked if he could tighten up the bass line a tad and bring the volume of the bass up a hair. 45 seconds later it was great for my taste and got better as the recording played on. Michael told me "come back in a couple of hours and you'll really like it I think". I did and sounded perfect to me. The sound stage had grown and the bass line was super tight with more body to the percussion. The bottom end leaned toward plump which was in balance for that blues feeling.

I asked what he had change and MG showed me two screws on the Sub Platform he adjusted and a slight adjustment on the Sub Amp. The interesting part is the way MG knows his system. What he does when tuning is chooses a direction of the adjustment, listens and then goes further in that same direction or goes the opposite way exactly like what you would do tuning an acoustical instrument.

prof and or glupson

What is a claimed result? It reads like you are saying that any time someone plays something and describes what they heard it is a claimed result. That being the case the hobby's reviewing paradigm is not acceptable to you?

An interesting outlook about the hobby of listening to music.

My Lyngdorf 2170 sounds better with the top off.  I also noticed this years ago when removing the top off of my TRL Dude tube preamp. The builder suggested I try it. He was right as it simply sounded better. More open and relaxed.  Sure, I know it sound nuts. 

Hi Grannyring

MG wants to pick up one of these sometime to play with. He said I could borrow it. I've removed the tops off of several components myself now and every time it's done what you've described. I've also removed the feet and put those components up on the tuning blocks and it's surprising how tunable they become.