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
glupson
7,842 posts
 
"In other words you picked the wrong guy to troll."

True. I am just not sure "guy" or "guys"

The OP remains perfectly stated and relevant. It's showing the people that are "real" and those who are "fake".
Do not get mad at yourself. We all do things that eventually expose ourselves.
jf47t
116 posts
 
http://tuneland.forumotion.com/t440-talk-but-not-walk-an-audiophile-forum-case-study#8698
glupson
7,842 posts
 
jf47t,

In your post, you wrote 16 lines of your own (one more was my quote and one was link to Tuneland). You placed word "troll" (or "trolling") seven times in those sixteen lines. If nothing else, it is not a good writing style. It also is not a good one to gain any credibility. There is something called "word salad" and that post comes close.

You may be also spending too much time around Michael Green. Distinguish your jf47t from Michael Green somehow. For example, change the writing style. People do it all the time. Any ghostwriter  would tell you it is possible.
glupson
7,842 posts
 
"...you have read some of TuneLand where it has been documented that there is a difference published all the way back to at least 2004 and even further back on other forums at least to the mid 90’s. And even further documented in HEA magazine reviews back to the early 90’s."
Most recent evidence, published last week, has disputed long-standing beliefs. It was conducted by an unbiased expert with no financial disclosures/connection with audio tweaking industry. More research is needed to establish clear goals and standards for some of the terms used.

I believe that room tuning may be a better shot for advancing the business. Taking the cover off does not seem to work.

"I would encourage you once again to read the OP."
I will although I already did it enough times to actually do what original post asked us to do. I did my "walking". Regretfully, results are unfavorable for the original poster. It happens. Such moments, as hard of a landing as they may be, advance the overall knowledge of the whole community. And that is worth enough. Unless you have a certain interest in keeping status quo.
glupson
7,842 posts
 
jf47t,

"glupson your not going to be able to go back and rewrite the script here it’s now documented. Not only is it documented here there is now a thread on TuneLand that has and will continue to add to the facts."
As I said before, feel free to use any of my words to improve your website. I am not going back or rewriting that statement. Now, use your judgement what is considered "improving" and what is considered "trolling".

As audiotweak mentioned not so long ago, "glupson your not going to be able..." should be "glupson, you are (or you can put you’re, if you insist weakening the statement) not going to be able...". In this case "you are" or "you’re", not "your". "Your" is about possession in some way, something associated with me.

It seems that you should, in fact, care what others have to say. It would make you a better writer, at least. Do not dismiss us.

EDIT: I have not been to Tuneland in a couple of days, but last time I was there, my quotes were misinterpreted, cut, tweaked, and then presented as my opinions. It was wrong, by the way. Wrong in meaning and wrong in the way it was conducted. So, as far as I can see, being quoted on Tuneland may not be in line with actual statements made. Also, who was first, video game or you? I admit that I like the name.

Any news about orange electrical outlet, wires in it, covers on those Audio Research-resembling equipment, and ways to tame the ventilation in the studio?
More to discover