I agree with @prof's post above regarding the tone of the OP post. I also like prof's rationale. Thanks prof, I don't agree with everything in it, but I don't have to in order to appreciate it. Empirical evidence, defined as "observation/experience" is extremely important in a hobby based on one of the senses. But, if 10 people are in a room and 9 of them hear something that they independently describe in a similar way, while 1 hears no change at all, a dogmatic crowd clearly exists that discounts the 9 who report hearing the change because they insist that nothing audibly hearable actually occurred. They then roll out their resume, credentials etc to enlighten others that nothing truly happened in that room. According to them, "science says so." Frankly, I don't think the dogmatic crowd has reliable standing to weigh in on what happened in that room if they were not in that room. The scenario I just painted doesn't reach a 95% statistically significant threshold, but I want to know more about what happened in that room before I rush to judgment that the room is full of people easily deceived and imagining things. I leave open the possibility that something happened that warrants further investigation. I also leave open the possibility that the circumstances in that room aren't reproducible and are of little or no probative value.
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