Capacitors? What the ding dong? Perhaps you meant Space Cadets. 👨🚀
Thanks for being such a good sport.
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
glupson wrote, 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. >>>>Did you disconnect any cables or power cord before removing the cover? 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. >>>>>>I’ll be the judge of that. Your opinion is kinda irrelevant. Works in general is not what we call ready for Prime Time. We are throwing your results out. 4. Everything seemed to be working as expected. No hum, buzz, nothing unusual. >>>>>>Well, working as YOU expected. See the problem? 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. >>>>>Of course hearing as a skill has very little to do with frequency response. Especially a self appointed anti audiophile. This is obviously your first rodeo. It’s not mine. 🤠 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. >>>>>Whatver. 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. >>>>>Keep a log. Solar flare and sunspot activity is undated daily on: https://www.spaceweatherlive.com/en/solar-activity Obviously folks would rather sweep this issue under the carpet. quick summary: pretend all the variables don’t exist. Then demand your negative results count as much as positive results. |
@jf47t Of course it doesn’t. The can of worms that keep getting opened on this thread are from the trolls making claims that their questions don’t get answered. Ok, that’s your spin. Now try on for the moment putting it the honest way: In this thread Michael Green has made claims about how altering certain features of a piece of gear changes the sound, and some people have asked reasonable questions about those claims which Michael Green has not answered. Really, just try even saying that out loud. Being able to speak the truth is good for the soul. Instead, you continue to imply that those of us noting Michael’s evasions are "trolls," where in fact, we are simply reporting the fact Michael hasn’t answered the questions. A fact you can't show to be wrong, so you continually resort to name calling. What is it that you have against basic decency and honesty? Why can’t you just admit the questions I asked of Michael - e.g. on what technical basis do capacitors change the sound signal when untied and are there measurements to verify this? - have not been answered by Michael? They are simple, obvious, basic questions any "engineer" making a technical claim, or anyone familiar with empirical science, would expect to be asked and would have an answer for. Imagine an engineer in a professional engineering society makes the claim that untying capacitors alter the sound signal. He can absolutely expect, as sure as day follows night, to be asked questions like "what is the technical basis for that claim, what technical parameters change, and what measurements support this claim?" The fact that Michael Green refuses to answer these simple, logical, normal empirical questions - not "demands" as you need to characterize them - speaks volumes about his insecurity in the face of such questions. The fact Michael may have ever measured anything before - e.g. resonant qualities of X material, or taking room measurements after placing room treatments - does NOT justify every claim he makes. So pointing to some other incident of Michael measuring something does not answer the specific questions about, say, the capacitor tweak he claimed in this thread. On your...sorry...Michael’s...thin-skinned account that my asking such questions is what a troll would do, then engineering and scientific community would be comprised of "trolls" because they...gasp...."demand" answers to these types of questions. Let’s try an empirical prediction: If this post is answered by jf47t, we can expect something along the lines of "Michael, The Great Empiricist, answers those questions ALL THE TIME!" Yet we can predict he will not, in fact, answer the questions I’ve asked. Nothing evil is going on here from the other side. Just simple, normal questions like "can you give more information in support of that claim?"But jj47t/Michael Green have painted "themselves" into a corner from the start by first calling out people asking such questions as "fakers" and "talkers" and trolls, Trolls, TROLLS! (I’ve never seen such liberal use of that epithet!). So now they can’t answer these questions in an honest way such as "I don’t have such measurements, but here is why I think the claim has a basis in reality..." because that would be to answer to trolls...Trolls...TROLLS!!!!!!! This really is the strangest performance I’ve ever seen from a manufacturer. |