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
Hope everyone is having a great weekend! We’ve got the music playing, the game on, and steaks on the grill. I’ll visit with you guys in a little bit. But before I get back to the game I want to thank you guys for asking about me and my products. here's another review for you to enjoy MG http://www.soundstage.com/revequip/db05.htm |
Hi Steve No slam intended on your education of course, I’m sure there are a lot of smart cookies in the hobby. Saying this, almost all of the stuff that gets talked about here can be explored on the internet these days. The internet is a wonderful info tool that links teaching & learning together. The courses I now take are internet based and excellent, I think. I was reading an article the other day which was saying that the internet search engines provide, for free, the education equivalent from 5 years back and closing. It will be interesting to see what takes place when internet courses take over the school system, almost there. Again of course for children there is the need for supervision up to a certain age, but once past a certain education level is a matter of internet skills and empirical research. I do like the phrase "Empirical Research" being injected into the thread. In fact so much, that if I were to be able to go back and make a change to the OP that might be one. "Empirical testing" is fast forward to "empirical research" anyway so no biggie, but I still like your point. I think subtracting the trolling here there are a lot of good points that get made on this thread. It would be interesting if this thread was edited excluding the trolling and "male" ego factor. Parts of the trolling though are entertaining. GK will no doubt go down in history for being able to spin a thread at will. But I also think he exposes a lot of Audiofools pretending to be Audiophile forum experts. That’s partially what this thread is about. The topic of "walk vs talk" is a very important and real one in the hobby. The line for people like Prof and Glupson may be fuzzy, but for the readers walking, the walking is a positive and forward progression. For the walker there’s no need for blurred lines because they already understand that audio is a variable, and variables are tunable. They know this because they are actively "Doing Tuning". They’re not questioning dust or how many times one needs to Tune, because they have stepped into the next chapter of extreme audiophile listening already. What they do question is "why are some HEA audiophiles so slow". Why are some audiophile companies (especially tweak companies) not understanding or practicing the tuning of the variables? They spend so much of their time trying to one up the next guy, they end up missing their own target. Basically they’re showing the world they only know how to "talk". What are we, the 38th page by now? By the second page of any thread on TuneLand or other advanced listening neighborhoods the "Tuning the variables" of audio would have been well on it’s way. Here on this thread people would rather talk and then more talk, to the point where the readers are getting a hold of me directly asking "what’s wrong with these kooks". Some on this thread actually think they are sparring with me somehow. That’s kooky in it’s own right, lol. The reviews have already been written, the tests have already been done and what’s most important, over 100,000 audiophiles (probably way more) are already tuning and have been for many years. anyway, now I’m boring myself Michael Green PS: are you surprised how many RS RTA folks are still around these forums, calling themselves HEA? I am. Sometimes it's like living in a time warp back to the very, as I mentioned earlier, "first grade of audio". Anyway thanks for your comments Steve! |
| Post removed |
