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
I expect you didnt write your own response as it has a style unlike anything else you may have  written here.
The other truth is the Michael Green Audio Point was designed by AMD and manufactured in Nebraska and not by you..so your on the coat tales..The fact that your device is hollowed makes for a less effective waveguide because its wall thickness will not support all frequencies. As I have now said many times you don't even know how your own products work even those you claim to be of your origin..not..Your agenda here is just a store front..Dialing for dollars..you do as you always have ..when you need some jack you show up with all your smoke. The only thing you mentioned that won't go out of tune in a matter of hours is the Audio Point..which is not of your making or understanding. Tom


You are welcome. Ypsilon would work great with your Chameleons, I guess. Impossible to be sure but something is not quite right in that front end, I think the drive that comes from the source is not quite there. I also suspect that that rack is very solid and a little  stupid.

Thanks for asking for further explanation Tom.

The MTD comes in several different configurations. The AAB1x1 is the cone I designed as the upgrade to the AudioPoint, it's a solid cone as well but when you go to the site you can see the shape difference.

As Tom pointed out and has been explained several times on the forum here, Brent (AMD) was the original designer of the cone Starsound uses and the cone I first distributed as some of you recall Michael Green's Audiopoint. Before the Audiopoint I used German Acoustic Cones. The Audiopoint I felt was a much better transfer cone for my rack designs, The ClampRak and JustaRak. These Audio Racks and the BasicRak all came with bottom cones which I designed with Brent. As I started dealing with custom products such as the cones for Klipsch and other different thread sizes and configurations I started to notice a shift in pitch that the original Audiopoint made that was becoming apparent and fatiguing in certain applications. This is when I started slowing reconfiguring the product line, moving the production to Pennsylvania for the specialty points. In fact some of the review samples of the Audiopoints were from the Pennsylvania location not AMD. In time we decided to move on from the original design and started making the MTD. Part of this decision was so I could monitor the production and refine the product. We got our own CNC and moved forward.

From that moment on the MTD took on it's own life. In time I designed the Sonic Bell and MTD round tip. I never returned to the disk used for the Audiopoint to rest in. This was a flawed design from the beginning. Different woods actually became a much better step between the point and surface. I recommend when people use brass cones that they use wood on top and bottom. It's been impressive to watch all the cones and feet develop. I've also seen a lot of creative DIY cones out there. The ones that interest me the most are the brass/wood combos.

The MTD Sonic Bell

The Sonic Bell is another cool cone that is pretty versatile. Took me forever the get the bell the way I wanted but once I heard it I knew I landed on something special.

Tom talks about me not knowing my product, but neither he nor Robert were around when the development of the Audiopoint and MTD were conceived and refined. The cones were designed 8 or so years before Robert was even on the scene. I understand all product makers need to have their feeling of pride, and in HEA their mystical story that only they understand, but these stories mean very little to me except when I am on TuneLand. You explain something here and your going to have 200 folks debating for their amateur hour award.

If Tom and Robert were sincere in their approaching me it then could be worth something but I doubt that will ever happen. So be it. In the past 15 years or so I've been moving much more toward the sound of wood and the ability of wood to respond to vibratory response.

Tom talks about wood going out of tune, actually brass goes out of pitch much faster than most woods. Brass is also more sensitive to temperature change and humidity change. Wood moves with conditions, metals change pitch. Lets say you have your component off over night or even playing at a lower volume. You come in and turn the volume up. Obviously the cone reacts to the vibration and heat change. It doesn't take much to change the pitch of that cone, whereas wood responds to nature because it is nature. Trees live their whole lives keeping with the timing of nature.

hope this explains a little more

Michael Green

Hi Inna

I looked at the video, I wouldn’t be interested in that, nor would the Tunees but thanks for sharing. That sound would drive me right up the wall lol. I hope that wasn’t insulting to you or them, it’s just that their approach is 180 degrees from tuning. I get invited to listen to over built products all the time and all of them have that closed in sound. Once you go open sound it’s really hard to go back to that box.

Michael Green