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
"...and the dudes from Star Sound can’t go stalk him there."
Would it be considered stalking when a person gets an invitation to the place where that stalking would occur?
geoffkait,

"Besides, I haven’t been wrong since 1987."

The calender has been reset to 2018. You have stated that I must be Scandinavian. I am not, as we have discussed at that time.

I hope this adjustment will, over time, help you gain some much-needed credibility.

glupson
geoffkait,

"Besides, I haven’t been wrong since 1987."

The calender has been reset to 2018. You have stated that I must be Scandinavian. I am not, as we have discussed at that time.

I hope this adjustment will, over time, help you gain some much-needed credibility.

>>>>I’m sure you misunderstood me. What I might have said was you must be from Fin Land. You know, where all the little fishies live. 🐟 🐟 🐟
glupson

geoffkait:
"...and the dudes from Star Sound can’t go stalk him there."

Would it be considered stalking when a person gets an invitation to the place where that stalking would occur?

>>>>No. Unless the dudes from Star Sound got a good old fashioned bitch slapping by the welcoming committee.
So "dudes from Star Sound" could not go to stalk him there even if they wanted to. Unless the welcoming committee at Tuneland started slapping them. Which would seem to be far from welcoming and almost impossible on an Internet forum.

The logic on this thread is getting more and more bizarre. People accuse each other of "trolling" while, with their words/actions, following the description of the "troll" they gave to the last letter. People being worried about being stalked while inviting those who they are worried would be stalking them to visit. People picking on other’s language imperfections while making mistakes in that same sentence. And that is just over the last twenty-four hours or so.

EDIT: Well, the post that I used as a reference for deciding what would be considered stalking has disappeared while I was writing this post.