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
michaelgreenaudio's avatar
michaelgreenaudio OP
1,019 posts
 

Hi Nonoise

Yep, we have a no trolling policy on our forum and to be honest people would look pretty foolish trolling TuneLand. TuneLand is 100% empirical.

There's a few examples on here that happen a lot on HEA forums that don't happen on ours and others, and sometimes I wonder why folks haven't yet got past them.

here's a biggie

I see a lot on here where people will call a recording "bad" (I'm not talking about performers) and 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. It surprises me that folks don't get that many times.

In fact I'm interested to hear folks response to that on this thread, and maybe I can even convince some of our guys to respond.

Michael Green

www.michaelgreenaudio.net

michaelgreenaudio's avatar
michaelgreenaudio OP
1,019 posts
 

"In some cases, like many expensive esoteric tweaks, there is little or no empirical information offered by anyone, including vendors. Why should people try that?"

Hi Mapman

If I was a client not the vendor, I wouldn’t trust most of HEA. HEA should be further along in their listening, and how to get there, than they are. It’s not just the tweaks, it’s big time with the components and speakers.

Once a listener finds the path of progression, making the system respond isn’t that hard. What is hard is listening to all the hype and half baked theories.

Michael Green

www.michaelgreenaudio.net

brf
1,715 posts
 
@cleeds No, I still believe that you are confusing hypothesis with theory. A hypothesis is a suggested solution for an unexplained occurrence that does not fit into current accepted scientific theory. If the data does not support the hypothesis, either more data is required or the hypothesis is deemed false.

 

As previously mentioned, a scientific theory is an in-depth explanation of the observed phenomenon supported by a large body of empirical data and is accepted by the majority of scientists within that area of study

 

I believe that @michaelgreenaudio choice of the word theory is misleading. I believe what he meant to say is a lot of people are hypothesizing or using an educated guess and attempting to pass it off as a scientific theory without providing the prerequisite empirical evidence.

 

BTW, Facts are simple, basic observations that have been shown to be true and are one of the four  major concepts in science. The other three being hypotheses, theories and laws.


Ag insider logo xs@2x
cleeds
5,642 posts
 
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."


Ag insider logo xs@2x
o_holter
950 posts
 
I try to report here on Audiogon using my ears. It would be nice if we all do this. Less speculation - yes, fine. But often it is impossible. We dont have the same recordings,.systems, etc. Informed "guessing" from Audiogon members - even if they have not heard my system - has been very helpful for me.
More to discover