Talk but not walk?

michaelgreenaudio

Your making an issue when there isn't one buddy. I'm totally hip with observation

Great - we're on the same page. If only every forum issue could be so easily resolved!

And I've often asked the same thing as you in your first post: 

why do so many HEA hobbyist talk theory without any, or very limited, empirical testing or experience?

That's a mystery for the ages.

michaelgreenaudio

It’s not that hard to setup a real empirical testing ground, so why don’t we see this happen?

It’s actually very tricky to set up and conduct a truly scientific listening test. Perhaps it’s become a trivial undertaking for you, but conducting a valid test is not as easy as it might appear to the casual observer. That makes it easy for such a person to dismiss an audiophile’s experience with a wave of the hand and the instruction to "prove it in a blind test."

There are also those who believe they are exempt from proving their claims because science is already on their side. That may sound absurd, but it’s a common claim, as evidenced by the post from @brf just above this post.

Then there are those who believe that no listening test can possibly be scientific. While I don’t agree with them, I do think that most audiophiles have little use for scientific, blind testing. It tends to be a tedious, cumbersome and time-consuming endeavor and - when the test is complete - often fails to prove much.

I don’t care for the notion expressed in the cliche of not walking the walk. Real audiophiles "walk the walk" when they make decisions about their systems. That some may not like their gait is their problem. Just because someone doesn’t do things your way does not make then a fake, as you allege.

As for the myths: The world is filled with myths, and audio is not unique in the regard.

michaelgreenaudio

I see a lot on here where people will call a recording "bad" ... they say their system is revealing instead of saying their system can’t play that recording. It’s like they can’t take responsibility for their sound. Empirically speaking, if a recording doesn’t sound good that’s an indication that the recording and system are out of tune with each other, and there’s a need to put them in tune.

Oh no, that’s completely mistaken. "Empirical" means based on observation - as opposed to based on theory. What you’re talking about here is theory. If a recording sounds bad on my system, that’s empirical, based on my listening (observation).

There are many bad - even very bad - recordings. That alone is hardly an indication that these audio systems need "tuning."

brf

scientific theory is an in-depth explanation of the observed phenomenon supported by a large body of empirical data. If we have an observed phenomenon in which is supported by large body of empirical data, why do you feel the need for more validation? Perhaps you are confusing hypothesis with theory?

No, I'm not confused at all.  When data and scientific theory conflict, sometimes more data is needed. Science is not infallible. "Scientific theory" is just that: a theory. Perhaps you are confusing theory with fact?

Sorry, Michael Green, but "empirical" means based on observation rather than based on theory. I don't have to do anything - other than listen - to have empirical evidence. And that's what your post sought, based on your own words:

" ... 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."

michaelgreenaudio

Hi cleeds

It's only theory until you do it, and then my friend it becomes science. But like the OP (me) is saying is, your choosing not to make your system play it.

You actually don't know anything about my system, or how I've set it up. You are also still confused about the meaning of the word "empirical." Perhaps you should look up its meaning for yourself, unless your goal here is to obfuscate.

Your notion that once you "do it" somehow "it becomes science" is absurd. In any event, anyone can listen to their audio system all day long, and will accumulate "empirical" evidence along the way. Listening is empirical, because listening is observation, and "empirical" means observation, by definition.

Please look it up.

michaelgreenaudio

Ever read someone talk about a recording on here calling it terrible, and you've played that same recording on your setup and it sounds great? ... Someone somewhere is listening to "that" recording and it sounds fantastic. So the question is "why doesn't it sound great on every system"

There many explanations, the most obvious being a matter of personal taste, but the variables are countless. Some people have poor systems, or improperly setup systems, or malfunctioning systems, or an unidentified failed component in the system. They may have extremely bad electric service, or an acoustically bad room, or they may be half-deaf. They may have a prejudice against the artist, or the artist's genre, or the record cover.

Maybe they were listening to a different pressing, or a defective pressing, or, or, or ....

amg56

Explain how or why this works. Why is it so hard to get a straight answer?

Nobody here owes you an explanation for anything. Everyone is free to post their own experiences. You are free to evaluate those experiences any way you like.

jf47t

I have my own audio forum where we report on audio issues as we empirically test them.

Perhaps you mentioned it earlier and I missed it. Would you please tell us what forum that is?

kosst_amojan

Why's there this sideways expectation that folks aren't legit audiophiles unless they indulge in all the snake oil?

There is no such expectation.

glupson

Without knowing what is what, it is all just an empty talk. In this thread, we have not even agreed what constitutes "walk" or "talk", yet it gets fiercely argued.

That is exactly correct, and it is what I observed in the second post in this unending thread:

I don’t care for the notion expressed in the cliche of not walking the walk. Real audiophiles "walk the walk" when they make decisions about their systems. That some may not like their gait is their problem. Just because someone doesn’t do things your way does not make then a fake, as you allege.

Audiophiles also "walk the walk" when they enjoy listening to music on their systems, or share their system with others, or help another audiophile on his journey, or, or , or ...

analogluvr

... it angers me that people are profiting off of this nonsense fraudulent stuff ...

It's interesting how frequently some here bleat about what they allege is fraud in high-end audio, with some even claiming that it is widespread. But such allegations have never been proven. Why is that?

michaelgreenaudio

Analogluvr you said

" I questioned the veracity of Elizabeth’s claim that she can hear the difference between different electrical receptacles."

Actually Elizabeth is correct. Even back in the late 70’s we would wire studios a certain way with certain outlets to benefit the sound ... When you guys call "snake oil" you do understand that you are calling almost every serious recording venture from the 50’s through the 90’s a hoax?

It took me a while to understand that when users here bleat "snake oil," they are usually saying, "I don’t understand how this works." When they cry "fraud," they typically mean, "I’m too inexperienced or lazy to figure it out."