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
geoffkait's avatar
geoffkait
23,365 posts
 

grannyring
No, one cannot know exactly how a system sounds from a picture. Well, they can actually get a fair idea sometimes. If I see a big TV screen in between the speakers on the same plane , then I know what that does for sound. Same for many speaker placement errors. I used wood platforms and assorted wood diffusion and footers over the years and have a sense for what they do for sound also. So based on my many rigs, set ups and experience I can certainly speculate on many SQ attributes from pictures.

That being said, the Tuneland rooms are extreme and while interesting to me, they will always remain a curiosity as there is no way our living room could ever look like that!

>>>Like the old geezer in Chinatown told Geddes, you may think you know what’s going on but you don’t. While your detective work is not completely all wet you still would be unable to know what the sound is in the room with or without a TV. Yes, I realize audiophiles are very high on the idea that a TV between the speakers is a bad idea. But I say that idea is not entirely true. For example, a TV in the center would have little effect for dipoles. Even if there was no TV between the speakers or no TV in the room you STILL wouldn’t be able to say what the sound would be from looking at a picture. Even with lots of expensive room treatments you wouldn’t be able to say what the system would sound like. It might sound like you know what.

A picture is not worth a thousand words. It’s not worth anything. 

geoffkait's avatar
geoffkait
23,365 posts
 
Robert, thanks for the many laughs. I hereby nominate you for Principal Bloviator slash 🍑🎩
trelja
3,223 posts
 
@geoffkait "You can not (rpt not) tell anything about the sound from a picture."

The statement is false.

Forget about taking it literally and the use of the word "any" which opens up a hole big enough to send an aircraft carrier through, a picture is worth a million words.  Not to repeat @grannyring but within a second or three, the room, how the system and everything else is sited in it, and the components (provided one has previously experienced them) themselves should let the viewer understand the sound with a pretty high degree of accuracy. Provide a few more specifics such as cabling, cartridge, isolation devices, and tweaks one may not make out from the photo, and the focus becomes all the more clear
grannyring's avatar
grannyring
6,436 posts
 
Yes I am aware of dipoles and how they interact. Been there, done that. @trelja is spot on.   I just feel typing every sonic attribute I am aware of with various pieces of gear and how they interact with rooms would have been far too long a post. Yes, a picture can tell part, not all, of the story in SOME cases. 
glupson
7,842 posts
 
I hope Michael Green is still following this thread, at least this page 31. The part about the looks of his equipment and ability for users to accommodate it in their homes is easily more important than the improvement of sound such equipment may yield. Extreme looks and practicality will trump (negatively) any sound difference. And the crowd here is, in fact, more willing to go to some inconveniences just to get "better" sound than most of the people out there.

If Michael Green could work on appearance of the equipment and its effect, visual and practical, on the space it is in, more people would pay attention to it. This current way, it repels more than it attracts.

Coming up with some replacement non-flammable cover to "free" the sound from the dreaded original cover would be the starting point.

At some earlier point, I suggested all of this above. No good advice gets appreciated until it is too late.
More to discover