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
@michaelgreenaudio - sounds like a recruiting pitch
I’m getting in tune
Right in tune
I’m in tune
And I’m gonna tune
Right in on you
Happy Holidays
A lot has already been said about speaker location and room acoustics and why trial and error - move a little, listen a little - is not (rpt not) a particularly effective way to determine the optimum location for speakers in a room. What is needed is a comprehensive method that allows for an on-going room treatment program and the ability to change speaker locations periodically to account for new room acoustics treatment and other changes to the system. That method must work for ANY type or make of speaker in any listening room, with or without room treatment. And that method must also be able to account for improvements to room treatments, equipment changes/mods, tweaks.Trying to determine the ideal speaker locations by trial and error - move a little, listen a little - is like trying to solve a set of n simultaneous equations in n+ x unknowns. The best you can hope for is finding local maximums.

When you Control the Mail you Control Information. - Newman
You can make all the adjustments you want and reach perfection. Then you are proud and call a few of your friends to hear it. Once they enter the room, your previous adjustments become, for lack of a better word, incorrect. Now, someone could start accounting for that and making suggestions how to set the room up if you are alone, if there is three of you, if one is very skinny and one is "plump" (the word I try to use since Michael Green mentioned it here a few months ago, so well-placed in one funny exchange), and so on. It does not equal "snake oil" but may equal "chasing your tail". In theory, any change in the room will yield difference in sound. In practice, if that bothers you, it is time to take a walk. A real walk, not "walk/talk" kind of walk.
Post removed