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
So name calling is all you have, Michael? And you think this is a good look for you?

Your refusal to answer challenging questions is ever more conspicuous.

You can toss all the "troll" accusations you want - as is your modus operandi - but what you can’t do is justify them. You can’t point to anything in my first reply to you that isn’t reasonable or pertinent, all the way to the questions and points in my recent reply. That’s why you aren’t answering them - and anyone here can see the pertinence of my questions and comments on your claims.  I even took up an idea in your OP, about the nature of empirically based evaluations, and explored the roll of empirical claims, in a way you just ignored.

In contrast your replies to me have been evasive and bereft of argument or substantiation of anything you wrote, often comprising passive-aggressive disses, and finally in this last post...you fall to pure trolling. (See, I can justify that description because your post actually fits: The method of a troll is to ignore the arguments made against his position and respond instead with baiting insults - precisely what you just did).

So your hypocrisy could not be more vividly on display. And all the more so because your bluff has been called; when you are asked if you are in fact walking the walk of employing good empirical methods, you evade, evade.

BTW, no date for you. I don’t date anyone Geoffkait has dated, and your torrid affairs on other forums are legion. ;-)

prof,

As much as I feel that many of the "improvements" floated around in audio community are not worth much, if at all, I am aware that no technical explanation for something does not necessarily mean that said something does not exist. That has happened throughout the history and is, I think, the culprit for development of what we these days call science. As science progresses, more answers become available and what used to be magic then becomes a well-understood knowledge now. Who knows, maybe we will all be feeding capacitors with organic gluten-free electricity one day to make them happier after someone discovers a CHF-inhibitor (capacitor happiness factor-inhibitor) in electricity produced close to wheat fields.

I cannot agree more that just claiming something and trying to get points for it without more structured challenge to own's observation is pretty useless and reeks of lack of credibility (Like my Cardas jumpers, although we tried a few times on different days to exclude too fast of a conclusion. The study was aborted because there was a much more interesting party in progress nearby and we never regretted it.).


I know that Michael Green did not elaborate on this crowded capacitors and musicians thought, but I put him in a very similar category as that friend with Cardas jumpers and myself. Probably noticed something, believed in it, and possibly not really thought too long and too deep about why that is. For one reason, or another, I did not expect overly elaborate answer. With all due respect to Michael Green, just a glance on his website made me think he is not a seasoned electronical engineer, but is pursuing different avenues in this hobby/business. I may be wrong on that one and I apologize if it is an unacceptable assumption, but that is how I saw it. If I wanted to get deep to the core of this crowding business, I would go straight to Accuphase engineers (or pick any other heavy-duty manufacturer) and ask about it. However, as Michael Green mentioned it, I thought it was worth dropping a word here, too. I never know what someone may know. The statement about listeners getting biased towards manufacturer seems simplified, but quite plausible, though.

As I write this, I started thinking that problem with these tuning/tweaking supporters and those against them may be in tuning/tweaking crowd trying too hard to gain credibility and then using words and statements based somewhere in current science, but not having it all baked well-enough together. That way, anyone with a minor knowledge of physics or whatever matter is discussed, can reasonably start running laps around them. Now, as Michael Green is some sort of a host in this thread, or at least the lightning rod, I could use him as an example. I have no doubt that his room-manipulations change how the room sounds (sound in the room) and that it is often, if not always, for better. Anyone who has ever entered a cave and a family living room would have to agree that they sound different. In theory, placing a toothpick in a room will change a sound in there, refraction, absorption, change in volume, whatever. He, from what pictures show, places very big toothpicks, so to say. Of course it will change the sound. Now, if you take a bunch of big toothpicks and have enough time for trial and error set-up process, you may get great results. Eventually, you will place them where they work the best for you and that room. If you go all the way, you can experiment with toothpicks made of different wood, too. That is all easy, provided enough time and resources. However, then you want to convince the world how great it is and you start talking after walking. You start using serious words to give legitimacy to your findings and even construct a theory or two why it is so good. That is like throwing a whole bunch of banana peels in front of you. You believe in what you say, and to many it seems quite right, but then there is a guy you did not see coming. He is on the other side of your screen, you have no idea where he really sits and how he looks like, but he reads your posts carefully. And he has PhD about laminar flow and has been dealing with intricacies of the flow for decades. Of course, he could annihilate you on that topic, he'd better be able, but he may not be interested. And then, there is an engineer fully dedicated to capacitors and he is a jerk. And the obnoxious professor who sits on IRB of a major teaching institution demanding structured answers. And on and on and on. In the end, it would have been better if you toned it down from the start than exposing your weaknesses.

Who knows, maybe those demagnetizers work. I personally doubt it.

Nah, you’ll be ok Prof.

Do you have a stereo Prof?


BTW I should mention the ribs were great!

Post removed 

Hi glupson

OK, Laminar flow, effect or line.

You & Geoff were on target for the name even though my use of the words had to be bent some as I looked at what to call the energy there. If you look on TuneLand you can see the drawings and more description but for the short version here laminar effect works like this. When a source produces the oscillatory motion in a room it stimulates the already established patterns of pressure. Meaning the info contained in the new motion may be different but the pattern has been in play since the enclosure (room, house, dissipative mingle) was built. Part of these mechanics is the room's walls, ceiling and floor. Your room is electronically charged by the Earth's fields. It's actually a continuum capacitor, not only because it is enclosed but also because most homes have electrical wiring surrounding the internal structure.

Geoff talks about "time of day" listening. This is a very real event that never stops. Not only does the cycle have certain shifts but also seasonal shifts change the Earth's fundamental interactions inside of every room. Your not hearing things, or should I say you are hearing things. Your hearing things and your feeling things all the time and even though you might think your standing or sitting still watch what happens when you have an inner ear infection, you loose your balance. That's all part of the power your system has. To listen to your particular laminar effect in your room is simple. Pick a wall with not much on it. If you start talking aloud in the center of the room and move toward that wall, when you get about 8" or so from the wall you will hear a sort of splashing sound that travels along the wall heading toward the intersections (seams) of the room. Back away and move forward a few times and you can pin point where the on coming sound pressure engages with the pressure coming back off the wall. This is called the laminar line. From the laminar line to the wall itself is called the laminar flow. Every suface in your room that is able to produce a reflection has a laminar effect. As I said earlier it's a continuum. You don't turn it on or off it's always there.

Walk inside of your house and listen to the different sounds of each of your rooms. They all sound different. That's because the materials and their structure (LxWxH) are all different. There's more but I usually break things down to 4 variables, size, material, gravity and charge. How much does the laminar effect play in this? Get 2 friends of yours and try this free experiment. Cut 2 pieces of cardboard out 5"x24". Place your ear about 5" from that wall we were listening to. Have your friends from either side approach you with the cardboards edge touching the wall (the cardboard will be out from the wall about 5"). If you look on TuneLand you will see this. As they approach you from either side you will hear the Laminar zone shrink and as they get right up to you it will sound like the rest of the room has somewhat disappeared. Have them move in the other direction and you will hear the zone open up again. Once you start playing with this you can make your own Sound Shutters out of cardboard or hobby wood and you will be shocked by the control you will gain over your walls.

Michael Green

www.michaelgreenaudio.net