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
Lizzie, you might not have OCD, the jury is still out, but you do have something else. It’s called having more money than brains.

A rich audiophile has about as much chance of getting into audio nirvana as a 🐫 has of passing through the 👁 of a needle.
Re geoff’s comments on my isolation project,

The project he refers to is one I’d made a thread detailing .

The building of the isolation base was occasioned by trying to add re-enforcement and isolation to a flimsy older Lovan rack, to accommodate my new and very heavy full aluminum transrotor turntable.

This is was not a rack I trusted with my turntable in the first place so I had to redo it before even setting up my turntable.

I ordered and checked out a large number of isolation materials and products, eventually making sure I used the ones that I could measure as having significant isolation. Hence I ended up with a thick maple wood block base, atop a sort of “layman’s” version of constrained layer damping, held up my Townsend isolation pods (springs).

The result was at the very least a very obvious reduction of gross external vibrations - both by hand feel and measuring with a seismometer app.

Place a hand or iPad with seismometer app on one of the lower “untreated” shelves and one can very easily feel foot fall near the rack, and the seismometer registers huge, ringing spikes of vibration.
But place a hand atop the isolation base and you feel no vibration transmitted even stomping the nearby ground. The seismometer app also registers almost nothing. (Even these results are welcome as my youngest son stomps through our house like Godzilla).

I finished my thread by pointing out that this situation of having to rebuild my rack before listening to the turntable meant I had no before and after reference and could not rightly tell anyone the sonic dividends the base may, or may not, have rendered. I also pointed out that not being an expert in these issues, and not having been able to carefully draw a line via more rigorous testing from anything I employed to a sonic result, the honest position for me was to admit this and not make any such claims that I couldn’t back up.

But that nonetheless it was fun and interesting playing with all of this stuff, learning what I could to the extent I did, and that it was a DIY project that Was satisfying in its own right.

Now...THIS^^^^^ is what geoff would like to spin into a project “gone awry.” And in geoff’s world of making grand unsubstantiated claims, being honest enough to refrain from making overreaching claims counts as abject failure.

Something to contemplate when reading his never ending attempts at barbs and insults.

And of course Michael Green would still never acknowledge any of those effforts as “waking” instead of “talking” because: 1. I didn’t use little tuned wood blocks or tear apart my equipment and 2. Acknowledging my efforts as “doing/walking” wouldn’t fit the narrative he has going that I’m just a Faker/Talker.
@geoffkait
"A rich audiophile has about as much chance of getting into audio nirvana as a 🐫 has of passing through the 👁 of a needle."
Is audio nirvana a club? Is there a doorman? Do you have to bribe him with an mpingo disc or a shiny pebble or crystal? If Lizzie can’t get in then who can? Are you, MG, and jf47t members....are you on the board....who is chairman of the board? Is Robert a member or is he MG’s guest? Maybe audio nirvana a state of mind....or mindlessness....or mind numbing insensibility. There are so many rules to follow it is a wonder anyone has a stereo system anymore.
prof,

Do not get into it. It seems that the option for you not hearing the difference being no difference somehow got missing/