Hi glupson
Do you want to reference the recording?
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
Showing 50 responses by jf47t
Hi glupson Now we're getting some where though. "Thanks, but no need, I am really a very low level music user. More of a plug-and-play and accept some imperfections." "As I was turning the computer on, I put earphones in (Sennheiser IE80, SONY Walkman, my original ears and fairly clean at the moment) and started Raspberry Beret. I will go with that bar instead of a garage now. I also started noticing the drum you were talking about. Yes, it is quite lively. I guess I have two CDs now, for the price of one from Goodwill. One recorded in the garage and one recorded in the bar. Both are just fine." glupson you just referenced! Your headphones, your listening room, your car and whatever else you play that recording on gives you a different playback of that one recording. Tuning would have allowed you the ability to make that recording sound the same in your different environments. So lets say you take a trip and your listening to a cd. You pull up in the drive way head into the house and put on that same cd. What tuning does is give you the ability to listen to that cd the same way you were hearing it in the car. Or go listen to that cd on your headphones again and now put that cd on your home system. Tuning would allow you to match the recorded code. Meaning what you heard on your headphones you would also hear on your stereo. Or you could tune to the best of all worlds or take the recording closer to when it was done in the studio which is likely several times better sounding than in a typical home setting. |
glupson The comment kosst made was a troll. That's what Geoff was telling you. Of course tuning hasn't caused any fires. Tuning is an action. The trolling post was removed along with other trolling posts on this thread and others. Look at the OP "I'm not asking to be trolled". What this OP is doing is exposing and confirming different audiophile personalities and the lengths they will go to to create their own worlds on forums that have nothing to do with doing the hobby of listening. People who are fake can't help themselves when it comes to disrupting the flow of audio threads. It's an addiction to them. They make a point and spend the rest of their time defending that point even when their point has been proven incorrect. It's like the ex employee mad at his former boss. He's blinded by his own anger at being let go and must cast blame. Or the inexperienced DIYer trying to prove that he has knowledge that he doesn't because of his lack of experience. Or the guy who needs measurements because he isn't able to hear results. The list goes on and on of people who come to threads for reasons other than the thread itself. This OP is here to let the thread take on the meaning of the OP. This thread could have died at page one but the addiction of people to prove their point and importance has kept this thread rolling strong. note: MG co-wrote this post with me. We're listening to some nice tunes and I pulled up the thread. I just wanted to be up front about that. |
glupson No offence but your last two posts were not useful toward making a point about this thread unless you were making the point of taking not being the same as doing. They were simply more talking. The more I move toward the walking the easier it is to see posters coming up here simply to talk. That’s not a bad thing, just pales to the actual doing of the hobby. I can see where Michael gets bored with many of these posts they are indeed boring if your someone who wants to do the listening. |
This was cool Michael just showed me a trick. He put on track 4 of Hindu Love Gods took an RT Square and folded it in half. He then put the Square on the ceiling about a foot in front of my head. The singer moved more toward me and the band fell back about 3' further than they were before trippy. He started changing the angle of that RT and the soundstage was able to be moved front to back at will. That's impressive. Each step MG takes is showing me how adjustable and flexible the soundstage is. Now that's walking the walk. It's great to make the connection between what the reviewers have said about Michael Green and the actual event live in real time. It's also been impressive that MG has not once changed the speaker positioning. Each step I'm taking with tuning is making more sense that we have control over our recordings being played. MG says the info is all there and our systems are the adjustable tool that shapes the recording into whatever we want if it's on the recording itself of course. This is why every recording sounds different on every system. MG says "BINGO". The recording is the recording and the system is the tool. The content is all there but we are only playing the interpretation our system's setting gives us. This is making sense. |
Variable Tuning! I’ve spent 3 days listening to Hindu Love Gods with MG himself as my personal DJ I could easily go another week. Learning how much is on a recording is an event you must experience to believe. I didn’t know when we started that this would end up being such a profound trip. The difference between having a listen with Michael and tuning with Michael is a hobby changer. He has shown me why and how all systems play the same recording differently. To be absolutely fair when MG started this thread he didn’t used one of his tricked out components. He ordered a used vintage Pioneer receiver unpacked it in front of me and plugged it in. It’s that same Pioneer that has gone from rags to riches right before my eyes. MG took his time and converted this amp into a variable music machine that now can easily rival the very best of the best. This latest setup MG created one of his favorite soundstages and had me listen to Hindu Love Gods. It was quite different from his other sounds. This recording now sounds like it was done inside of a recording studio and mixer with the engineer wearing headphones to do the mixing. That is the headphone type of stage only bigger and being able to have that whole body vibrating feeling. The stage is now doubled in size over what it was and I can see all the specifics of the instruments and players. On track two I can see exactly where the drumstick is hitting the drum and how the drummer uses the striking differently for tone changing. You can hear and see when he is hitting the drum dead center and see and hear the position of the stick change as he goes slightly off center. In other words I’m able to see the drum stay still with me seeing the drum shell stationary and the stick move and tone change amazing. Watching the snare drum action alone is worth the price of admission. |
"It would be interesting to talk to the drummer, if he still remembers it, and hear if all of that actually took place. Can it be that, by changing whatever is being tuned/tweaked the nature of what happened during the recording gets misrepresented?" That's a frightening thought. That would mean that only one system and one set of ears is correct and all the others are misrepresenting. |
"So with different structures which vary in content by the hour and the day you will go mad wishing for what you had previous. When was that wonderful adjustment made to each block..you forgot didn’t you." Tom, again like with Robert, it’s unfortunate you have had problems tuning. On TuneLand we read about the different listeners’ learning curves and how they end up with their choices of tuning tools from very simple to tune all the way to extremely advanced tuning. Also if I may many who have read this thread have been visiting TuneLand looking at the pictures asked for here, they’re not hard to find. MG respects that the line between information and promotion is a fine one but MG also realizes how the trolling has worked on this and other threads and is not about crossing that line. On this thread you see one side asking for pictures or information and shortly after you see the trolling trap set that MG is using this thread to promote. It’s a common internet trolling tactic being used by some of the posters here. TuneLand the forum supplies the answers to any of these questions and has since 2004. You can look on the archives for some of the show & tell or visit the newer forum that goes back to 2008 but still has archived pictures on it. |
Hi Prof I believe Michael serves his purpose best by pointing readers to where the real Q & A’s are. Once this thread got past the first few pages it turned into not much more than examples proving the OP to be accurate. I’ve come up to give examples of the listening I’ve been doing meanwhile Michael has been posting on some engaging threads on TuneLand that get into much more depth which obviously attracts MG over a circle of who is a troll and who isn’t. Michael is always very busy "walking" as anyone can see who wishes to on MG’s facebook or forum or by visiting. Might I suggest this prof, if you look at TuneLand and don’t see any posts deleted because of internet trolling wouldn’t it be fair to conclude that MG has no interest in internet trolling. If Michael Green was interested in threads that do trolling why does he not have this behavior on his forum? Prof the characterizations being made here about Michael are easy to put to the test by looking at his forum to see if internet trolling is a pattern there. Obviously it is not. MG engages in deep audiophile discussions on TuneLand full of pictures and solid interacting. So Prof the mods here have been excellent at spotting the trolls and limiting their forum destructive patterns. Your painting MG as a troll or Audiopoints attempts at....whatever only has to go as far as to look at TuneLand for the reality of what Michael Green Audio does and what Michael Green the person does has done and is doing. Words pictures drawings tests reviews real time referencing plus others’ experiences all over the world past and present. You guys have been trying to go up against one of the most documented personas in the history of HEA. You can try but all your really doing is making MG’s presence known even more. I believe the Mods in other words are more hip to what is going on than you give them credit for. |
"jf47t, glupson says Please Please don’t visit TuneLand and then he asks a direct question of TuneLand LOL It’s ok glupson no one is going to torture you there LOL. Fact is many of your friends from here have already made the move and more have emailed. Some have been reading as much as they can finding themselves in a hobby inside of this basic hobby. |
"I may be a troll, or I may not, as that term seems to be applied very liberally. I do not understand why we would be denied pictures of something described in details on this thread, but so be it. However, given that Pioneer receiver was mentioned, too and at least three people showed interest in learning about it, it should not take much to mention what was done to it and what model it is." Geoff you need to wake glupson up lol glupson lol can I pick on you a second? Have you even gone up to visit TuneLand? The Pioneer SX4300 is on full display there along with MG’s walk through the system he just did for me. Quite frankly I wouldn’t be surprised to find that a hundred or so people have scored on MG’s recommended tuning components. That’s probably being very conservative. On the other question you pose about TuneLand again wake up. Internet forums interact and interchange info non-stop. TuneLand sends readers here and Audiogon sends readers there. Glupson that is how the internet works. It wasn’t designed to be a bunch of independent islands but more millions of boats and ships traveling to and from those islands. Each one of those islands have a different theme style and info exchange. For example the Audiogon forum is not big on words and pictures together on threads whereas TuneLand is all about pics & words. Audiogon has a marketplace system TuneLand doesn’t. Everyone of these audio forums is like visiting for vacation as well one or two becomes home base. glupson TuneLand doesn’t have to fend off internet trolls because TuneLand would never have internet trolls it’s not that kind of forum. An internet troll would look pretty stupid and out of place on TuneLand. PS just saw your post above |
"@jf47t LOL, now that was good lol "jf47t, LOL |
"Sorry to state j47t, but the materials used to build the Pioneer chassis and chassis mass disqualifies the capability of holding a proverbial sonic candle in comparison to this design." proverbial sonic candles r i g h t :) good luck with that one Where is the transformer located on the amp you mention? |
"Besides, doesn’t MG use springs?" Yes. Michael is an equal opportunity tuner. With the rising number of listeners moving from higher to lower mass systems the original audiopoint that MG introduced in the early 90's worked well with some of the amps of that time, but by the time the mid 90's were here the brass "zing" was becoming obvious as products changed their component materials. This is when MG changed the configuration of the cone and the way the outer surface was done. Along with this MG designed and or used other MTD's (mechanical transfer devices) to work better with the newer age of components. If you look at TuneLand you can see the evolution of components and the need for several different types of mechanical grounding methods and tools. As the changes in materials being used for listening continued to evolve so did the need for different transfer devices. This meant other materials needed to be used along with brass and of course so did the shapes used. Yesterday MG showed me what happens to the sound as he introduced an Audiopoint MTD Harmonic Spring AAB-R and LTR Block into the system. Pretty remarkable differences. MG is about the variables and took me through 3 recordings and showed me how different they are as well. After we took a break Michael then showed me what happens as a transformer is tuned in relationship to the capacitors in a CDP and Amp. That was a revelation. He explained that only CD Players that use very small and low mass transformers should be used any where near the chips and bigger transformers in CDPs corrupt the signal. MG is giving the system time to settle and after is going to show me what happens when brass is put close to the chips and transformers. |
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? |
All this talking and yet as the walking is being done listeners are indeed leaving their high mass systems for lower mass. Mods, please disregard my post alert. thank you For those asking, if you go to www.michaelgreenaudio.net and click on forum it will take you to TuneLand. As the trolls on this thread become more desperate as well as former short term employees of Michael's (guys who didn't cut the grade) they are talking without actually walking. As the OP points out these people are obviously "fakes". On TuneLand you can read start to finish system tuning. |
"thecarpathian This was funny! For Geoff this must be a lot of fun. For example how far off the mark audiopoint is is shocking. It appears Robert has stepped on his own landmine and has indeed backed his own company into a corner. MG has barely said a word but Robert again is one of these guys who can't help himself. I did ask MG earlier today what he thought of this thread and he shared with me what he has been doing on the referencing thread on TuneLand. Funny stuff. |
No big rush glupson take your time. TuneLand has tons of empirical walking posted all over it's pages. As you guys settled down and start reading some of the different listeners threads you'll be able to see how folks went from finding out about tuning to implementing tuning themselves. You'll see how many different tools Michael Green has designed and his background that got him into the designing. Michael has been asked to make a series of videos so I would think at that time the site will be updated some. Websites never stop being updated that's the magic of the internet. |
Hi Glupson I’ll be sure to share your latest posting with MG. I’m sure he’ll be wanting to include it on the TuneLand thread. Hey your becoming famous glupson. The content your asking about has been moved a couple of times since UMI originally made the Power Point for Michael Green Audio. http://www.michaelgreenaudio.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=103 UMI (United Musical Instruments) since bought out by http://www.conn-selmer.com/en-us As you know Michael has worked with and beside a long list of musical instrument companies, would you like their names? |
"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" http://tuneland.forumotion.com/t440-talk-but-not-walk-an-audiophile-forum-case-study |
Glupson Your assuming MG has no PhD in physics. Just because someone chooses a more organic approach to life doesn’t mean they haven’t the formal training as well. My friend you are way off when it comes to Michael. You have no idea what kinds of testing MG does or has been a part of. MG does not dismiss anything. He does however discern when someone is being real with him or faking it. Your wanting to call that no answer I’m sure is fine by him. If you say you haven't visited where MG is supplying the answers, with pictures, words and proof there would be a question of hypocrisy cast on you. There's a big difference between not giving answers and someone refusing to look at them. Glupson at least for me you have painted your character in this thread quite well. As we all have. http://tuneland.forumotion.com/t440-talk-but-not-walk-an-audiophile-forum-case-study |
Robert and Tom Might I make a suggestion. Instead of posting posts that cross the line of attacking MG you construct posts that engage the topics or if you choose to talk about your designs do so in a way that invites good karma and civil discussions. We all have two ears you know and some will have less experience and some more depending on the testing we choose to do. In my case I look forward to talking about audio as a variable. When "doing" the variables there are no rights and wrongs as Geoff has tried to tell you (am I correct Geoff, I don’t want to speak for you). Robert and Tom saying your company has an absolute is the same as marginalizing your contributions to a variable subject. Or do you not think audio "is" a variable science? |
"MG has no clue how these devices work." Good luck with that one LOL. Hey did you happen to see MG's thread http://tuneland.forumotion.com/t440-talk-but-not-walk-an-audiophile-forum-case-study#8674 I see you guys are trying to prove your case by "Talking" on someone else's forum but see MG and Geoff learn by actually doing and then discussing what they have done. MG and Geoff disagree on some of the absolutes but have found a way to allow isolation and mechanical transfer to live under the same roof. As you can see on Michael's thread he and others have done empirical testing to all 3 Springs, Cones and Tuning Blocks. And not just one size fits all but perhaps a wider range of testing ever done before in HEA. Like with MG and Geoff we on this thread haven't seen StarSound take components down to the basic signal passing bones. Robert saying he likes big transformers obviously tells us on this thread you have not tested the placement of transformers in relationship to other parts hosting the audio signal. If this is indeed the case there are literally thousands of empirical listeners who have gone further than you. The proof is something you do gentlemen, not something you talk about as if you have done. Walking guys, we're talking about walking. |
"The variable is the weather and how it changes by the hour and the day. Wood is affected by the weather, and like the weather wood of any type changes in composition and content." Tom, you don't listen in a controlled environment? Again I'm a bit surprised. Most listeners I know, and I know Michael deals with, the first thing they do is control the listening environment. It's very strange to me that you think letting the room run wild without controlling it's condition is acceptable. You say you and Robert both have worked in recording? Room conditioning is priority one so the instruments and equipment work consistently. Sorry but again it raises questions for me about your methods. Michael is meticulous about room conditioning, I'm surprised your not. Is there a reason why you choose not to condition your rooms? |
Glupson "Forums are, by their nature, talking. They are inevitably a written form of communication which is also "talking"." This is actually incorrect. Forums usually use words, drawings and pictures to illustrate points. Since you and others asked to be shown answers from Michael he was courteous enough to start a thread dedicated to this topic. You can see Michael is happy to communicate in the manor you and the others requested. Michael uses TuneLand, Skype, Periscope live streaming and YouTube (more videos coming this fall supposedly) as well the Get Tuned Gain visits audio shows to meet and greet with folks in person. Glupson this is the topic of audio. Using only words as you can see and have participated in is limiting at best. The very OP has been twisted and turned by words, but now this topic has an opportunity to become more useful. As Michael has pointed out from the very beginning this thread will prove the OP to be on target. And it certainly has. You yourself being one of the main characters. This thread serves as a good example for others as they converse with you in the future just as it will with all of us. |
It's good that slowly people are talking about their personal walking more and either showing proof or avoiding it with the cover up of even more "talk". If we look at the thread on TuneLand "Talk but not walk?" Michael Green Audio & RoomTune supply the actual proof of "doing" the empirical testing. http://tuneland.forumotion.com/t440-talk-but-not-walk-an-audiophile-forum-case-study No matter who feels they are right the only way to actually know is to "walk" (do). When and if you do you will find that audio is variable. Those who do not come to this conclusion are not doing the walking they claim to be. It doesn't matter what posters on this thread say about each other as people the industry and hobby of playing and listening to music comes down to one truth "a recording is captured and that recording is played back". "every recording is different and the requirements on the playback end are to be able to tune in that recording". In the HEA hobby where do you find the proof of this? Where people are actually doing. "Talk but not walk?" |
Glupson MG is in the curing shop but I know he has an interest in building the thread on TuneLand with both words and pictures. I don't know how much time he is going to dedicate to the thread but I do know it will answer any questions of relevance asked here including ones like you've just asked. I will help him sort through the thread here. To answer the question about who is in the pictures. |
"Thanks, Your welcome Glupson. Of course it's important to keep these pictures in context to MG showing that he is indeed involved in the "walk" right down to the bare bones of the audio signal all the way through the audio chain. There are many more of these pictures and Michael will be showing systems with a lot of tuning going on and also more stock. http://tuneland.forumotion.com/t440-talk-but-not-walk-an-audiophile-forum-case-study#8682 |
"I might have missed it in the article, but was that set-up and your involvement just for that particular recording or was that studio arranged by you for the longer run?" The studio that Michael designed and built is still in use today at SUNY. A few years later Michael designed the new music wing there as well. |
Sorry Glupson but your last few posts haven't made much practical or common sense. It appears that you are trying to pass the buck, when no one is interested in "a major inexplicably silly "walk" that was more like a run". Listeners who are interested in tweaking (tuning) do so because they have graduated to the level of a discerning Tuner or Tweaker and they do their hobby successfully and consistently. You saying it didn't happen to you is a reflection on you not anyone else. As for you trying say I'm not a walker, who cares. I don't enjoy my hobby based on someone who can't hear a tweak. Instead I base my hobby on the many tunes I have the pleasure of enjoying. |
Here are some guidelines of "freeing the signal" with the NAD C350 on the TuneLand thread. http://tuneland.forumotion.com/t440-talk-but-not-walk-an-audiophile-forum-case-study#8684 |
I stopped by MG's yesterday he was playing Willie Nelson's "Milk Cow Blues". It sounded great but I asked if he could tighten up the bass line a tad and bring the volume of the bass up a hair. 45 seconds later it was great for my taste and got better as the recording played on. Michael told me "come back in a couple of hours and you'll really like it I think". I did and sounded perfect to me. The sound stage had grown and the bass line was super tight with more body to the percussion. The bottom end leaned toward plump which was in balance for that blues feeling. I asked what he had change and MG showed me two screws on the Sub Platform he adjusted and a slight adjustment on the Sub Amp. The interesting part is the way MG knows his system. What he does when tuning is chooses a direction of the adjustment, listens and then goes further in that same direction or goes the opposite way exactly like what you would do tuning an acoustical instrument. |
prof and or glupson What is a claimed result? It reads like you are saying that any time someone plays something and describes what they heard it is a claimed result. That being the case the hobby's reviewing paradigm is not acceptable to you? An interesting outlook about the hobby of listening to music. |
Hi Grannyring MG wants to pick up one of these sometime to play with. He said I could borrow it. I've removed the tops off of several components myself now and every time it's done what you've described. I've also removed the feet and put those components up on the tuning blocks and it's surprising how tunable they become. |
I count 9 different studios in the picture Robert refers to. But people can scroll down and look for themselves. (MG confirms 9 different studios, 19 different home and test systems in that picture). Thanks for asking. MG says he's happy to show more it's a great promo opportunity. http://tuneland.forumotion.com/t440-talk-but-not-walk-an-audiophile-forum-case-study#8689 No disrespect intended Robert but your not the kind of guy I would feel comfortable getting involved with. Anyone who worked for someone else for only nine months and was let go then 20 years later appears on their old bosses thread on an audio forum making the statements you have chills me to the bone. |
prof said "Why then does Michael immediately become allergic to evidence when asked for something like measured changes in a signal before and after such tweaks to capacitors? Or in this case, between an amplifiers with a case on or off?" above is what is called a fake statement, as anyone can read on this thread What Michael said was "let’s set up a lab and test these claims together in real time for everyone to witness". |
"Asking for measurements opens another can of worms." Of course it doesn't. The can of worms that keep getting opened on this thread are from the trolls making claims that their questions don't get answered. One of the tactics from internet trolls is the speed in which they pile on the Q&A sessions so to look like the one being trolled is not able to give an answer. But with someone like Michael Green the answers are available to anyone wishing to make the effort to do a proper study. In other words you picked the wrong guy to troll. The more the trolls here try to imply Michael hasn't done the more apparent it becomes that those people (the internet trolls) are fakes. The OP remains perfectly stated and relevant. It's showing the people that are "real" and those who are "fake". One telling factor to this is the anger. The ones on here who clearly became angry are trolls. The ones on here who kept demanding answers are trolls. glupson your not going to be able to go back and rewrite the script here it's now documented. Not only is it documented here there is now a thread on TuneLand that has and will continue to add to the facts.
At this point the best you can hope for is that people don't go to TuneLand and read the truth as well as compare the two threads. |
glupson Empirically speaking most scientists would call your results incomplete on if it made a difference. However complete on the results that you specifically can’t hear the difference. glupson said "I may be a lone wolf on this topic here, but so are Michael Green" This unfortunately for you is also another "fake" statement as you yourself have said you have read some of TuneLand where it has been documented that there is a difference published all the way back to at least 2004 and even further back on other forums at least to the mid 90’s. And even further documented in HEA magazine reviews back to the early 90’s. I would encourage you once again to read the OP. |
"I do not want to participate in this two-century-spanning saga about who hired whom, but you are surely right about the above. Who would not be chilled to the bone? If someone worked for me for only nine months some twenty years ago and then came back with such energy and force....." This is scary indeed! Regardless of what you, MG, me or anyone else would do this type of behavior is nothing shy of creepy. |
For the on-lookers "An Internet troll is someone who joins an online discussion and posts comments designed to upset or disrupt the conversation. Often, it is quickly evident that their sole purpose is to upset everyone. They will lie, exaggerate, defame and vituperate just to create a response and derail a thread. Some researchers from Canada sought to find out what type of person would do this and why. Their study, published in the September 2014 issue of Personality and Individual Differences, found that cybertrolling was an Internet manifestation of everyday sadism. Researchers conducted two online studies of 1,200 people. They gave personality tests to each one and surveyed their Internet commenting behavior. They were looking for evidence of what is termed the “Dark Tetrad” of personality traits: narcissism, Machiavellianism, psychopathy and sadism. What they found was that Dark Tetrad scores were highest among people who said their favorite activity was trolling. The study authors wrote that the Dark Tetrad scores were off the charts for Internet trolls and “… the associations between sadism and GAIT (Global Assessment of Internet Trolling) scores were so strong that it might be said that online trolls are prototypical everyday sadists.” But it’s just as likely the annoying troll on your favorite site is simply mentally ill. When you respond, you’re just feeding his psychopathy. The best advice is, if you see one, don’t feed him." Prof & Glupson I truly do feel bad for you but the OP does call you out. Your responses to this has been well documented on this thread. |