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
Hey, what’s up with all the doom and gloom, fellers? Don’t you remember the little ant?

Next time you’re found
With your chin on the ground
There a lot to be learned
So look around
Just what makes that little old ant
Think he’ll move that rubber tree plant

Anyone knows an ant, can’t
Move a rubber tree plant
But he’s got high hopes
He’s got high hopes
He’s got high apple pie
In the sky hopes

Whoops there goes another rubber tree plant!  🌴🐜

@stevecham 
"May I ask, exactly, and respectfully, what the heck is this thread about?"
Start with the original question;
"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."
  The answer of course is plurium interrogationum, i.e., a complex question fallacy, multiple question, or  trick question
 
In the words of  Madeleine Albright:
I must have been crazy; I should have answered the question by reframing it and pointing out the inherent flaws in the premise behind it.
Crazy is the operative word here....but entertaining for sure...carry on.....

@mitch2 

In the words of Madeleine Albright:
I must have been crazy; I should have answered the question by reframing it and pointing out the inherent flaws in the premise behind it.


Albright's advice is exactly what I did in my very first reply in this thread, see page 3.

The OP was so vague it was the only way to approach even starting a coherent dialogue.   But unfortunately you can't get there if one side isn't committed to conceptual clarity.