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
OMG...definitely not the professor from Gilligan's Island...can you imagine?  They probably would have eaten this one.
Post removed 
Hi ml876ag,
I'm just curious if you could produce something beyond an insult?
Can you, for instance, show something I wrote to be unreasonable or not true? Thanks.
Geoff says "obstreperous and irascible".  What a coincidence, these are my two favorite words, I try to slip them into every conversation. Beat me to it this time.
geoff

Uh, demands for proof and demands for measurements are the tools of the obstreperous and irascible troll.



I love it!
The enterprises of engineering and science becomes, on geoff’s account, "trolling." I’m sure it would perfectly suit geoff’s world if anyone could get up to the podium, make a claim, and not be asked for any backing data or cogent theory. "What? You don’t just accept what I’m telling you about my magic pebbles or teleportation tweaks? TROLLS!"

It’s ok geoff, we know: You weren’t really impugning the methods of engineering and science. It’s actually ok to ask skeptical questions and measure things in those disciplines.

It’s only in desperation, when you don’t have any ammunition against someone’s position, but want to call them a name anyway out of frustration, that you seek any excuse to throw words like "troll" at them.  Someone asks a skeptical question, or for any data for a claim?  I don't like them:  TROLL!
But we do understand how critical thinking and skepticism are "the enemy" to folks like yourself, and your "products."

When are you joining the Tuneland forum? They need more people who think like you there! (Or...anyone...really...)