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
Of course the fact is there is but one damage control officer for wire directionality in these parts based on pure number of posts rambling on about it over and over.

Guess who?   

Al,

I may agree a 1% increase of any single material factor for use in audio may not be audible in the signal chain...When you add upon that 1% with 5 or 10 more 1% increases they all add into one greater benefit. I am always looking for that 1%.
Tom 
"Left field tweaks utilizing unproven nonsense supported by gibberish like inserting the term "Quantum" here and there, and selling useless stuff on to the public at a huge profit ($2 fuses for 150 bucks that do nothing but stimulate the imaginations of suckers...magic and unexplained $500 magnetic placemats, etc.), are all part of the greedy snake oil creep cabal that will continue the fraud until the money goes away. Luckily this issue is sort of self-correcting as time in the markets shows the useless nature of this crap, and sends this stuff to the back room of irrelevant junk. This helps the tweaks that actually work to get some traction, and helps remove the stain of hucksterism from the world of ethical engineers and designers."

Good post wolf!
Post removed 
mapman
Of course the fact is there is but one damage control officer for wire directionality in these parts based on pure number of posts rambling on about it over and over.

Guess who?

>>>>This isn’t meant to start a fight but my repeating it over and over again doesn’t seem to help make it penetrate the thick membrane that protects your brain 🧠 from new and confusing information. You don’t even know what wire directionality is, do you, sweet pea? 😳