2. tech-talk
  3. 135904-110926

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

Showing 1 response by jdane

jdane
183 posts
 
I'm lucky to be on a budget--after a few thousand dollars, my hands begin to shake, I feel very unhappy, and all music sounds crappy to me.  Therefore, I cannot test whether a $10,000 amp sounds 'better' than my $500 ones.   But (at least back when stereo stores existed), I could compare various components in admittedly flawed tests (as close to 'single-blind' as I could get), either in the store or at home.  Thus I was able to reject things where I could hear no difference (cables, etc.).  Of course psychology plays a large part (as does, alas, progressive hearing loss)--but since I'm doing the listening, it doesn't matter what is objectively better.  If the tube-glow makes the sound 'more warm' to me, fine.  Also, the room environment (high wooden ceilings vs. 8' apartment stucco, speaker placement) makes far more difference than any equipment I can afford.  

That said, I am a firm believer in single/ or double blind studies, which should be used for audio whenever possible.  I don't think you can really test 'good sound' vs. 'bad sound' that way, but you can certainly test (1) whether there are objective sonic differences, and (2) whether those sonic differences are detectable by human ears. 
More to discover