Talk but not walk?

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.

"...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.

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?

glupson
Ric Shultz’s results, whoever he is, have nothing to do with mine. Mine are correct.


I may be a lone wolf on this topic here, but so are Michael Green and Ric Shulz (again, not to offend a person, but I do not think we ever met) in the grand scheme of things. Their results are, based on my observation, questionable at best. I say so and it is the fact.


Anybody who disputes my results, do what original post suggested. Take the cover off and you will have your own results. Then believe them, not some authority of religious importance.

>>>>>Fair enough. Let me point out, though, that the problem is when you insinuate your results are the results everyone should get, as if your results somehow mean anything. As I’ve oft opined, positive results have more meaning than negative results for the simple reason they were obtained IN SPITE OF ALL THE THINGS THAT COULD POSSIBLY GO WRONG. There’s also the preponderance of the evidence, which is clearly in favor of covers off, unfortunately for your protestations.

Now, would it be fair to say your “honest and sincere” results of experimenting with removing the cover were the result of (pick one or more)?

1. Operator error
2. Having all thumbs
3. Having a system incapable of revealing differences
4. Having errors in the system
5. Having some undiagnosed hearing difficulties
6. Psychological bias
7. You picked a day to experiment when the weather was bad
8. You picked a day when the power grid was overloaded
9. You picked a day when there was unusually high solar flare activity

All of those could be true under many circumstances. That is why I have stated from the beginning it is not wise to ask people to ":walk" while entirely dismissing their interest in theoretical part.


At the same time, all of the above points may be true for any reviewer. Michael Green, audio magazines, me, anyone. Nobody should have the right to say she/he is better than the other one. My approach in such an even situation is that I will trust my ears more than someone’s who has significant investment in the problem. I may be wrong, but so may others.

My case, point by point.

1. Actual disassembling of the amplifier was so simple that it left no room for error. Cover off and out of the room (I actually did that on purpose).

2. I used the fist around the screwdriver. Otherwise, I am not the best for the finest fine motor work, but this required nothing of that kind.

3. The whole point is that even the lousiest system can reveal differences. That is why tweaking is done, I think, and old Sherwood receivers and similar items used. Mine is nothing spectacular, but it works in general. It shows differences when a piece is changed.

4. Everything seemed to be working as expected. No hum, buzz, nothing unusual.

5. I doubt that, although it is of course possible. I hear all the frequencies with a small dip in acuity at 14000 or 15000 Hz (I forgot which one it was about two months ago) and have no hair over the ears.

6. That one is hard to measure, but I, in fact, wanted to hear the difference. If anything, I was more biased towards confirming than rejecting the hypothesis. Aside of that, there was another pair of ears (much younger and completely unbiased, practically not even being aware of this thread) that also could not hear any difference. I have left that fact out until now to be one to one level comparison.

7. The day was beautiful.

Points 8 and 9 are impossible to evaluate for an ordinary person. Tuneland experts and me included. We have to assume that those were equal at the time of testing. Next stop Bora Bora. Everything sounds better when the floor is of volcanic origin. Much better than maple.