prof,
Thanks for explanation. I have no advance thoughts where to place it, but simply to try to see if anything changes. Frankly, I will not go into thinking why it changes (all those theoretical things that got chewed up on this thread), but just trial and error until I get something more interesting to do. Inefficient to the maximum. I hope that will also give me credibility as a Walker. I try a tune/tweak and I am in. If it does nothing to the sound, damage is relatively low. I did try another tweak today, though. I lifted speaker cables. Sound did not seem to change so I put them back down soon, after I finished vacuuming the floor. In case you try it, too, please report your findings to this fierce community.
|
prof, I may want to do a blind test for fun and to get more confidence in the result. But I may also not bother and think "Well, seems I heard enough difference, liked it, I’ll keep it in the system."
This is called level-headed mature approach. At least, I would like to think that it is as it is exactly the way I do things. |
geoffkait, You especially can’t please the folks who don’t actually use tweaks and who don’t really care. It may be, at least partially, due to the fact that those who do not use tweaks and do not care are already content which translates into pleased. No need to try hard to please them, they are just fine. |
mapman,
Your recommendations are not only bold, but running at the speed of photons. What is wrong with Koss Porta Pro?
|
mapman,
Walkman! Now you are really talking.
|
geoffkait,
I will admit that I was deciding if to post that last thing or not and then I decided to do it just to see what you will come up with as a response. Yawn. I did not expect it would lead to any kind of discussion. I was hoping for something more innovative. Could you do us all a favor, when being predictable at least keep it interesting and do not forget some manners. Your last post was missing either.
|
prof,
I agree with your views on most of these things, although I would still have a softer approach to whole problem, but what I meant by stating you are wasting time and energy is discussing it around here. I saw a few who tried to present some arguments, but it is, for one reason or another, mostly not a discussion. To me, at least, it looks like two circles which are close but never touch, bringing frustration to both. On the other hand, you are right that casual observers who have not firmly committed to either side can learn about different views and make their own opinion. For those, your time and energy expenditure is actually valuable. However, I doubt you will ever win the argument with those who you are, in fact, arguing with.
|
geoffkait, "Walkman is for those who walk the walk, not those who only talk the talk..." As you just declared me a person who walks the walk, could you please take it into consideration if you ever think of implying the opposite. And I wouldn’t be at all surprised if both of you actually did them. I am not sure if you would be surprised that, for a very simple reason, I have never done a blind test of anything. At least in relation to audio. |
jf47t,
Welcome. Your first post happens to be in a thread that has really been a bit weird. Most of them are not this way.
I cannot comment about MGA speakers, but believe that they may have values that some would appreciate. If I ever hear them, I will know.
It is hard to know how many people here have been aware of Michael Green's prior work and credentials, but it really should not matter as he, in his original post, said he was not asking any for credentials. So, credentials meant nothing. Only straight answers did. Unfortunately, more than one poster was dissatisfied with what they considered as Michael's lack of straightforwardness in this thread. I personally cannot say he did not try to answer/explain my questions, but some other posters were less lucky. In fact, despite my disagreement with his statements (maybe not the best word, but close to what I mean), we had reasonably cordial and productive interaction after a while.
I think that uberwaltz, in his post on 05-17-2018 10:14pm, nicely summarized the whole thread issues.
|
Does anyone know what "pseudo skeptic" means? |
jf47t, (written to prof)
"He asked if you knew the sonic difference between two capacitors. Your answer set the stage for where you wanted to go with this thread." Not to go into validity and meaning of such questions and this whole thread, but I think that this thread had already developed by the time Michael Green asked prof this question. I am not taking sides, but it would not be fair to claim that whatever prof's answer to this question was (I do not remember it) was a major turn in this thread that brought it from meaningful discussion towards frustrated arguing. |
geoffkait, "I’ll show you mine if you show me yours." Could you please refrain from showing us yours? Most of us are not interested in it. |
prof, Whereas with Geoff...well...he’s the forum equivalent of the neighbourhood dog who barks at everyone who passes by. You get used to the noise... Brilliant. |
geoffkait, I have to thank you. Even you can make me learn about new things and I honestly appreciate it. Not making it up at all. I looked up Wikipedia page for Marcello Truzzi who you quoted at some length about his views on skepticism or, what you seem to have a perservating interest in, pseudoskepticism. The part about that skepticism topic was nicely written in an attempt to impress but otherwise boring and, in my view, sufficiently meaningless so I will not recommend it to others nor will I quote it in the future. The part I would like to thank you for is that I learned the following: "Truzzi was Keynote Speaker at the 1st annual National Roller Coaster Conference, "CoasterMania", held at Cedar Point Amusement Park, Sandusky, Ohio - 1978. On the subject of riding in the front vs riding in the back of a roller coaster, he said:..." The very existence of a National Roller Coaster Conference "CoasterMania" is what I find interesting. I will surely mention it and quote above sentence in the future. Thank you, I could not have made that without you. Do you happen to know how they found him? It was a pre-Google time. How could you find a guy to speak at your roller coaster conference? However, as I mentioned to you before, your references are often revealing. |
geoffkait,
I think you used that one before. Yawn.
Of course, I am not sure what it really means and how it would pertain to me.
|
geoffkait,
I wonder what a dog-in-a-bone is, too. Where did you find it?
If you misread it and you are referring to prof’s "I have indeed been a dog-on-a-bone in this thread, I certainly admit that.", he may be willing to explain when he finds time. I can only speak for myself, but it seemed like a very clear metaphor with more than a bit of self-inflicting humor attached to it.
|
geoffkait,
In and On are different words with different meaning.
Just as Michael Green made me think about what he wrote, albeit his topics were worth considering if not completely agreeable upon, you made me think, too, and I think I am slowly realizing where you are coming from.
Glancing over the references you post, words you repeat, forum you decided to express your opinion on (or in, if you prefer that option), mysterious quizzes full of unanswerable questions, and passion you have for a few of these, there is only one place you may be coming from.
This last Zen copy you provided us has many features of a check-out counter literature. Words chosen to leave the reader breathless, some romantic hints, wisdom for everyday life, fight for the truth against "the cruel world that does not understand us" and, above it all, passion. Such literature deserves Fabio on the cover and that is what gave it away. It all came together.
The answer to your well-crafted and unannounced quiz is.....
Target (store).
You did good this time. You gave us all those subtle hints and we did not even notice. We thought you were not making sense, but you outdid yourself this time.
Congratulations. Say hello to Fabio from the rest of the Audiogon bunch. Is he really as friendly as his interviews make him appear to be?
|
geoffkait,
No, you are not
|
mapman, prof Facts can be very boring. That’s a fact.
That's a pseudo fact. You guys really have not learned much in this thread. |
In this thread, I have noticed a number of mentions of "empirical testing lab" or something along those lines. I am wondering is there such a thing as "theoretical testing lab"? Would I be really wrong thinking that "empirical testing" (doing something to see/hear/etc. what happens) is done to prove or disprove a theory which is just thinking about something? I guess you could do something, get a result, and then try to come up with some theory why it happened, but it still seems like two different realms of action. It may not be topic of this thread, but it has been puzzling me since the early days of it. |
"If we’re all of a sudden going to be engineers lets do this thing." I would like to recommend skipping this approach. It gets very slippery and misunderstanding runs high, right up there with solidified passions. Basically, it becomes a circus. |
amg56,
I understand that, to some extent, but my puzzle is this "empirical testing lab". I have a feeling there is something wrong with that name. It seems like something constructed to impress, but I may be wrong. What you describe has been the gripe of this thread from about the time I first noticed this "empirical testing" business which was as early as on day 1. I doubt there will ever be a peace treaty signed between two fiercely-opposed sides, but I continue reading. There are worthwhile and interesting things spread in between hard statements and intermittent insults.
|
I understand experience and that everything we do is experience, or we can call it empirical, in some way. That could be stretched to some philosophical level and I am fine with that for those who enjoy contemplating in that direction.
I was not arguing about the meaning of experimenting, I do think it has practical use even if, at times, it may seem to be for placebo effect only. My focus was on words used ("empirical testing lab") which seem, to say the least, redundant. I am not trying to nitpick on semantics. It is just that I am trying to figure out why those words were used. Could a "testing lab" be anything else but empirical?
I am really asking and not trying to speak from a position of superiority which will expose others as incompetent (that seems to happen a lot in this thread, by the way). It is that, over time, I learned that sometimes words get plugged into some statement which then seems to get credibility from just having that "fancy" word or description in it. That lead me to thinking about empirical, theoretical, and what would a "theoretical testing lab" look like in this case. "Empirical" would have some electronic equipment, a chair, whatever else placed on the walls, etc., but what about theoretical? Does anyone have an answer? I cannot come up with one although I have been trying for some time.
It is not about differences in two major opinions about the topic of this thread. I somehow picked two things along the way and they both included well-known words that sound somewhat "sophisticated" (not the best word to describe them but I cannot come up with the better one) which I could not properly put in the context of what is discussed. Both times, I have tried to learn and broaden my horizons.
|
audiopoint,
Thanks for your post. It was informative and well-structured. It opened some new ways of understanding, for me at least.
|
geoffkait,
I do not think I am overthinking it. In fact, I barely give it a thought. My question is due to the repeated statements including "empirical testing" that nobody questioned. It became the basic postulate while, to my current understanding that I am eager to expand if someone gives me an explanation, it is just three words meant to make it seem legitimate and serious. Both sides accepted it while they might have not needed it. That part is relevant to the debate of this thread. My real personal intention is to learn more about the matter that involves "empirical testing lab" so I can be aware of different approaches with no sway to either of the two sides of this thread (that battle is lost for both, in my belief). Just claiming that something is "empirical" is not that hard to come up with. Of course it is. What else would it be? Now, think about using the word "lab" there. That is a pretty heavy stuff. It is a nightmare to set up a lab. And here, I saw it thrown around as if it is my living room which was not that complicated to set up. But using "lab" and "empirical" in one sentence insinuates something really strong. At the same time, it implies the existence of a "theoretical testing lab" which is my interest as I have never ran across one. I gave up on figuring out if tuning works, if people walk or talk, but am hoping to learn something here.
|
geoffkait, Theoretical testing lab? Huh? What do you think this is, Los Alamos? NIST? Harvard? A theoretical testing lab can be anyone’s listening room. Or someone’s basement. Hel-loo? I think this is just a forum for people wasting some time on, if you really want to know what I think. At the same time, if we start talking about things and calling them something, I believe we should know what we are talking about. Otherwise, it just becomes blah-blah-am-I-smart-blah-blah and continues an argument that maybe never should have been. I am not hung up on semantics at all, just on calling things their names instead of writing "scientific" poetry. For now, I do not find your description of a "theoretical testing lab" fully finished. I was under impression that someone's listening room would be more of an "empirical testing lab", if the person wanted to glorify it. There are many big words thrown around this thread and some of them are of questionable origin, to say the least. I have no intention in disputing someone's tuning/tweaking results and what she/he hears or does not hear, but others are arguing about it. The whole thread started with "empirical testing" as an important event and I just wondered what is a "non-empirical testing". Maybe two camps that are arguing around here are not talking about same things, at all. |
It seems that for every thing that gets mentioned as a tweak/tuning there are two sides. One claims it is non-sense and cannot be true noticeable difference and the other side claims that the difference is noticeable. However, I got an impression that the difference is always for better. I am not talking about echo in the room and positioning the speakers, but more about those things that get argued about a lot (let’s say, demagnetizing CDs, lifting cables from the ground on a certain wood blocks, etc.). Is there a way that lifting cables on birch instead of oak blocks would make sound worse, whatever that "worse" may mean? It somehow does not come across as a possibility. |
geoffkait, "So before anyone gets his bowels in an uproar wouldn’t it be great if we defined what the heck all the rumpus is about? You know, before going on the offensive?" It is as reasonable of an approach as it gets and the one that to me seems to have been missing in this thread a lot. I mentioned it a few of my posts ago, I think. Why not start with the beginning of the original post. Like, the second sentence, and then we can expand. |
geoffkait,
Anyone can call her/his company whatever they want and it means only that it is that company’s name. However, this empirical testing in this thread was not a name for the company but something that opponents were accused of not doing and therefore their opinion being less worthy. Fakers, talkers, whatever they ended up being. Your explanation consists of correct words applied to an entirely unrelated thing.
As far as labs go, it is clear that they can have different locations, set-ups, and dress codes, and nobody should ever question that part. What I was curious about was that unfortunate syntagma. I hoped to get an explanation that will teach me about something I have never heard about. Well, I still have not learned, but blame it on me and not on the word you so masterfully reminded me about. Fluffiness. I should have thought of it first.
This is far from a mind game for me. Who would go to some "audiophile" forum to play mind games with people he has never met and probably never will? It seems like the battle, time, and, easily, mind lost in advance. I approach it as something to kill time and maybe learn a thing or two. So far, in this thread, I really got interested in two details that did not seem right so I wondered if I can learn something about them. Both were focused on something written somewhere, meaning they were sort of tangible and should be explainable. I really cannot care less about differences in sound that somebody believes and the other one does not believe in. I do not even care about the sound I listen to that much. I know, I am on the wrong forum. I am far from walker, barely a talker, but am a careful listener and, it seems so, reader.
It seems that neither am I good enough at explaining my question about empirical testing (lab is a cheerful bonus), nor are you good at understanding that same question. It is like deaf and mute having a discussion. So I will leave that topic. No need to perseverate on what has proven to be futile. Wait, aren’t we on Talk but not walk thread?
|
"MG is the father of audio tuning..." How old is he? I do not know much about history of audio tuning, but would suspect that it all started by picking different rocks to make different sounds when banging them together. Or was it tweaking? I have been wondering what it is about Michael Green that is so fire-igniting around here. The man has his business, not the world-history-changing at that, tries to sell his ideas (for money or not, does not really matter), may or may not be correct about what he says, but just his existence seems to be like an earthquake here. For whatever he says or implies, responses are often monumental and by more than just one poster. And he barely even shows up here. It is getting interesting. We are talking here about, at best, a little (or lot) different sound perception when electronically reproducing music someone played somewhere some time ago. In any scheme of things, it is such a minuscule niche topic that may deserve discussion, but how does Michael Green makes his presence so flammable? It is not just by answering or not answering questions, I think. It is not only one side that gets revved-up, it is both. |
jf47t, Oh my, slow down. Your posts eventually come across as anti-Michael Green. It is sure that you are having fun there and all is well, but to undecided your idolizing posts become off-putting. Do Michael Green some favor, slow down. "Now I realize that each recording can and should be tuned in as an individual set of values." That is really unfortunate as it becomes a playground only for those who either sell adjustments for living or have absolutely nothing else to do in their lives. I will accept your statement, but for most of the people whose day has only 24 hours, adjusting a system for each song becomes irrelevant possibility. Who on Earth would, if the premise is true, ever want to go down the road of tuning? It seems like a completely useless opportunity. I do not doubt that Michael Green is the master of it, but now I have thoughts about futility of such a thing. |
jf47t,
I am far from being a rabid audiophile and understand that people have different passions and desires to dedicate effort and time to something. However, I find it hard to believe there is any significant number of people who change amplifiers for different CDs. Maybe once, twice, while playing with it on some Saturday afternoon, but on a daily basis it cannot be true. I would expect that most of the people have their amplifier and play music through it after pressing on/off button without doing much else. I may be wrong about it, that is definitely true. It may be possible to change sound by whatever means tuning works, but to do it even for each CD seems like a lots of work and time.
Out of curiosity, what is the price you quoted as "1/5 the price"? Many people have very expensive equipment and some do not. That Bell Curve is so huge that I really do not have an idea about a ballpark figure.
"Not for me" is not that important although you guessed it right. Still, I would like to once hear what it is all about. Maybe I get impressed. More important is that I still think that having to make continuous adjustments is at least time-prohibitive for many who would otherwise be interested. Maybe, if someone would invent auto-tuning room that changes automatically based on the recording properties, the world of tuning would take off.
If there are really no bad recordings, why do they sound bad through the headphones? There should be no room issues involved. It is pretty inconvenient to tune/tweak ear canals.
|
prof,
I do not think it is unreasonable to ask anything, but it may be overly optimistic to expect for someone to know some answer.
The only way to figure it out is posting on Tuneland forum and seeing the response. Responses in this thread surprised me many times so I would not underestimate people on Tuneland forum either. It may be, it almost certainly is, a fan club of sorts, but you never know who you may find there. Some of us on this thread are a far cry from having a logical right of being on an "audiophile" forum and here we are.
|
prof,
As much I avoid quoting other people’s poetry, I think you just do not understand the message from your opponents here because...
I heard there was a secret code
That David played and it pleased the Lord,
But you don’t really care about music,
Do you
I think it just about sums up the long arguments of the previous page or two coming your way.
|
I would add to geoffkait's list...
7. Someone may read your website. Have a good understanding of it.
8. Things are trivial indeed. It is all just about electronic reproduction of music.
9. Always remember that it is good to have someone ahead of you, no matter how slow he may be. He will clear the road for you and you can learn from his mistakes so you do not go the same way.
geoffkait,
What road was that 18-wheeler on?
|
geoffkait, I am confused. There is no road, there is no path? @amg56
As the bumper sticker on the back of the 18 wheeler 🚛 lumbering up the narrow winding mountain road read, I may be slow but I’m ahead of you. From your explanation, it is a bliss not to be a true audiophile, whatever that "true audiophile" means. What I meant that it is trivial indeed was that passions get inflamed out of proportion. This thread read as a life-or-death topic and not as some hobby. |
geoffkait, You are really getting confusing. These two are your statements. Both of them. “...lumbering up the narrow winding mountain road read..."
"Eggs ackly! No path. No road. No Nirvana. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news." Which one should I consider correct statement? The one in which the road exists or the one claiming that the road does not exist? They are contradictory. I am sure that true audiophiles know what "true audiophile" means. The problem is that nobody else knows it. A secret club for those who think very highly. |
jf47t, "All the instruments were now feeding off of each other with equal presence." I am totally inexperienced in this jargon. Is there a way you could explain to someone not adept at that lingo what this sentence really means? Also, did I understand it correctly that on your second listen the flute was not heard anymore? Seems like a karaoke machine of some sort. |
geoffkait,
Making contradictory statements renders either of those statements potentially incorrect and therefore not worth considering in any discussion. What life is contradictory to means nothing in this case, if that statement itself is even true.
It would be helpful to know how true audiophiles define themselves.
I am not sure what grasshoppers you are referring to.
|
prof,
If you are still around here, I would like to report to you on first impressions from my own little tuning/tweaking experiment. Partially intrigued by this thread, I bought new XLR cables. It was at least 20-fold price difference between old ones and new ones ($15ish to allegedly $350). My new cables appeared new, but were used. There were a couple of noticeable differences between them. New ones are much more inconvenient. They are hard to bend and I had to move the rack further away from the wall for them to fit behind. They are harder to hide there, too, as they follow their own form which likes to stick to the side somehow. Another difference was that new ones look like a much more substantial product. They walk the walk when it comes to appearance. As far as sound goes, there was an impressive lack of difference. Not for better, not for worse.
I think they were worth the price for me. I had my opportunity to try for myself and, much more importantly, I bought them mostly for the looks which they do deliver better than the cheap ones. On the other hand, I bought them for the looks but find them inconvenient because they are now more visible than the old ones. I will have to discuss that one with myself or some professionally-trained expert on split-personality disorders. At least I know that, if I decide to go back to the old cheaper cables, I will not be missing anything in the sound department. Probably, others would have a different ownership experience, but this is mine.
|
geoffkait, "Stalker alert! Obviously a disengenuous stalker of the cheap innocent loaded question variety. And just as cheap innuendo." Not every question is meant to be as malignant as you seem to perceive them. Some are just simple questions. My question to jf47t was one of them. Asking about something I could not understand at all. I am not sure how it came to you considering me a stalker for just asking a question, but I will file it "under strange but whatever" as you suggested. |
geoffkait,
Since I posted my last response to you, I noticed that you changed your previous post to include MG's OP. You are right, I took them seriously and I abide by them. He started with "This isn't meant to start the fight" and I have been successfully avoiding any fight here. He also ended his original post with "be polite" which I am also following to all eight letters. I do not call people crazy, cows, clowns, grasshoppers, stalkers, or anything else that freely flows in this thread. I try to stay within the topic discussed, even if it is not always related to the original post.
|
jf47t,
I was not kidding at all. Your description of what you heard was quite impressive. I mean, it seemed that differences were impressive to the point of disbelief when reading about them. As you described it in a way I simply did not have enough imagination to translate it to myself (instruments feeding off of each other, or something like that), I thought I could ask. I really have no clue what that meant although it seems clear that it was something good. The part about karaoke machine was what first came to my mind when I read that just one of the instruments disappeared. I have never heard anything similar so I am curious. I could understand, better to say that I can accept, that some instrument disappeared as I could imagine how it sounds then, but that feeding part I just could not grasp. Presence, I got.
|
geoffkait,
I am not special at all when it comes to not calling people on the thread cows, crazy, grasshoppers, etc. Most of the posters refrain from that. Even Michael Green and prof, at the height of their argument, abstained from such descriptions despite obvious disagreement and annoyance by each other. They were much more inventive and entertaining even at that lowest point. Or, should I say, highest point of their argument.
As far as talking the talk goes, I have not taken Michael Green's original post personally at all on that level. At least in part due to the fact that I do not consider myself an audiophile and would not argue other person's dedication to something she/he likes to do while I am not that passionate about it. As Michael Green requested, I am not here to start the fight. However, I do read the thread carefully and try to learn from it. It places me in a position of being able to ask questions for which I do not have preconceived answers.
All of that brings me to more questions that I thought of while driving for a couple of hundred of miles earlier today and that are related to this thread. What does it really mean "talk" and what does it really mean "walk" for the purpose of this thread? Thread got broadened and we all got away from that "talk or walk", some being accused of only "talking". Even I did admit a few times quite openly that I am probably a "talker" despite having a SONY Walkman that I use quite often (NW 35 A, or something like that, lime color). However, what is it all about? I understand that those who construct their own amplifiers are probably walkers. That is easy. What about those who buy finished products from someone who worked to invent/make them? Are those just "talkers" or they are also "walkers"? Most of the people do not have time to sandpaper their speaker enclosures or stretch wires to make cables. Not even to cut cubes out of whatever the preferred wood might be. Are they just talkers? They do nothing but give a credit card out. They obviously "walk" in some other field to be able to do it, but they do not do much in some audiophile world. I am honestly asking that. Of course, who and how gets to decide who is the walker and who is the talker? My friends would tell you that I am an audio walker while my whole system is not worth a pair of cables many people discuss on Audiogon and most of the time I listen to an old iPod Touch via $50 iHome Bluetooth speaker. So, what is "talking" and what is "walking"? Could you provide examples? I am curious.
|
geoffkait,
Thank you for considering. Take your time.
|
This thread leans away from any semi-tangible topic and becomes a playground for challenging opponent’s personality. Somehow, it started being about formal education credentials. How? Why? What does it have to do with anything? It would be better to stick to the matter discussed than to look for the ways to discredit the opponent as a person. Once one’s argument, about why someone else’s argument is weaker than his own, becomes formal education level and not what was said about the topic itself, that one’s argument may seem as being weak and needing help for the way out of defeat. |
It is not as simple as just adjusting traffic lights and building new roads. For example, The Beltway in the Washington DC metro area. No traffic lights to adjust. Road made wider in some places, and still thousands curse it every day. And the narrow part has been narrow for years (at around 270) and the reason is not some lowly traffic engineer. It is not that simple to build a new road. A lot goes into that, too. |
geoffkait, "...I would hang chicken bones all around if it made the sound better. Is that wrong?" I would guess that chicken would say yes. |
jf47t, "Michael is also an excellent marketer!" It is hard to believe that anyone reading this thread has not concluded the same already. In fact, he seems to be the best "talker" here. Some may not like what he says, or does not say, but talker he is for sure. It does take guts to market the things he does with such a conviction. That "walking" part is still open for discussion. |
geoffkait,
It is entirely irrelevant to this thread and I am guilty of mentioning it, but "SO much better than before" did not equal "good enough" yesterday around 1:30 pm. So, I guess you could say it is not as simple as adjusting traffic lights and building new roads after all.
Having a formal degree at something may give a headstart to a person at discussing that particular topic, but does not inevitably exclude the other person from being more correct about that same topic regardless of education.
|
