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
prof
3,480 posts
 
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...)

geoffkait's avatar
geoffkait
23,365 posts
 
Inside every mild mannered pseudo skeptic is an angry snarky troll dying to get out. The pretense of not finding answers to your questions is touching. But it has become your only mantra. If skeptics really wanted to know something they would have taken the trouble to find out a long time ago.

I have not mentioned my products but thanks for including them in your so-called rant. Guess you’re out of ammo again. Gee, I was expecting a tan and rested professor. Instead I get Manfred Milktoast.
jetter
3,052 posts
 
Geoff, I followed you and the prof for a long time, read your copious dissertations, followed your logical arguments, but then I met Ginger and Mary Ann.  Move on off the island sailors.  Your both the epitome of obstreperous and irascible.
geoffkait's avatar
geoffkait
23,365 posts
 
Gosh, jitter, you’re so copiously smart. I am bathing in your copious logic.
jf47t
116 posts
 

For the on-lookers

"An Internet troll is someone who joins an online discussion and posts comments designed to upset or disrupt the conversation. Often, it is quickly evident that their sole purpose is to upset everyone. They will lie, exaggerate, defame and vituperate just to create a response and derail a thread.

Some researchers from Canada sought to find out what type of person would do this and why. Their study, published in the September 2014 issue of Personality and Individual Differences, found that cybertrolling was an Internet manifestation of everyday sadism.

Researchers conducted two online studies of 1,200 people. They gave personality tests to each one and surveyed their Internet commenting behavior. They were looking for evidence of what is termed the “Dark Tetrad” of personality traits: narcissism, Machiavellianism, psychopathy and sadism. What they found was that Dark Tetrad scores were highest among people who said their favorite activity was trolling.

The study authors wrote that the Dark Tetrad scores were off the charts for Internet trolls and “… the associations between sadism and GAIT (Global Assessment of Internet Trolling) scores were so strong that it might be said that online trolls are prototypical everyday sadists.” But it’s just as likely the annoying troll on your favorite site is simply mentally ill. When you respond, you’re just feeding his psychopathy.

The best advice is, if you see one, don’t feed him."

Prof & Glupson

I truly do feel bad for you but the OP does call you out. Your responses to this has been well documented on this thread.

More to discover