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
prof,

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

My sentiments are in hearty agreement with yours! There’s a limit to how much energy I’d want to put into just being able to listen to music, and dialing endless audiophile tweaks sounds like drudgery. Especially the keep tuning, tuming, tuning per program material of the MG school! Let alone tearing apart much of my gear. The Tuneland photos are to my eyes aesthetic nightmares and it seems pretty obvious why, even if effective at all, it’s going to have a very limited audience.
You can’t show rooms like that to anyone and claim “I’m just all about the MUSIC, maaan!”

No. You really aren’t. Normal people, especially musicians, can happily enjoy music without tearing their equipment apart in the worry that every errant vibration may be diluting the sound quality.
This is the sign someone really is in to THE GEAR and tweaking. And there is nothing wrong with that, either!

I have my own lines to draw about where I want to spend my time and mental energy, and I would NEVER try to draw them for other people. (And call people “talkers” because their efforts don’t align with mine).

I am already well into “kooky” territory in my efforts relative to the non-audiophile (and I continue to experiment with things like room acoustics etc).

That’s why I’ve continually supported in this thread any Tuner’s hobby. If they get a kick out of opening up their gear and trying Michael’s ideas, more power to them. I hope Michael’s techniques really work out for them.


@prof (intellectual provocateur) - just to close the loop:

whatever.
glupson
prof,

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

>>>>>>pseudo intellectual support group captain, at ease! AKA “the clean slate.” AKA “what about this, what about that?”