Talk but not walk?

I'm absolutely shocked that Tuner bill333 would enthusiastically endorse
goeffkait's anti-science rant!

;-)

michaeal,

Again...the same problem.

You produced a vague original post, disparaging some unnamed group of people for talking the talk, but not walking the walk.

You disparaged people who "talk" but don’t "walk" and I was asking what exactly you are referring to, and trying to get details on what exactly constitutes "walking" or appeal to empirical experience in your view, and what type of empirical experience you find necessary or adequate.

You’d think that questions inspired by your own post would have interested you in exploring them. But...apparently not.

I must admit I got no further along in answering Prof than I did before.

Then, honestly, since my questions and suggestions were quite clearly stated, this suggest to me that maybe you haven’t thought as clearly about your ideas as you should? I mean, I’m sure you have a lot to say about them...but if my reply actually tripped you up, that’s a bit baffling. Especially if you want to emphasize words like "empirical" to you audience, you should recognize the relevance of the questions and issues brought up in my reply.

It was really too much to even give an example demonstrating your point?  I thought maybe your OP was broadly aiming at skeptics of various tweaks, cables, fuses, etc which comprise many debates here. But you continually bring the subject back to room tuning, so now I am left to infer your OP had to do with critiques of your own ideas. (?)

Picking it apart and trying to read my attitude or hidden message to be decoded, simply would have to be in the hands of the individual interpreter. I don’t want to start trying to bend the post, or any of my posts, into meaning beyond what they are.

Michael, that is frankly disingenuous, or at least evasive.

It doesn’t take any special "interpretation" or bending of your post for anyone can see that your post was disparaging of some group of people, who you label only "talking" but not "walking" and not doing empirical testing.

And then you appealed to the old "Oh, if that’s what YOU read in to it, that’s on you" move. You should know that’s not being diplomatic, it’s actually the method used by trolls who keep the stink in the air instead of merely saying what someone honest would say, like "Oh, I see you’ve misunderstood me, so I’ll try to help you. Here’s what I meant..."

I asked for clarifications, details, about what you meant; give us an example, and what to you actually counts as "empirical testing" so we can see who would actually fit your description or not, and why. You are criticizing people. Do they deserve it? Who knows, until you actually clarify what you are talking about.

As far as selling goes, I quite frankly haven’t seen anyone on this forum not selling something.

Oh good, more vague insinuations - "everyone is doing it!"

No. I’m not selling anything. As far as I know, the majority on this thread aren’t selling anything either.

I have no problem with salesmen posting in Audiogon or manufacturers. I think with the right attitude we can get really great input and information that way.

And I come to your posts with no preconception either way as to the worth of your products or ideas. For all I know they may be brilliant. 

All I’ve seen though, are lots of vague writing, aspersions tossed without backing them up followed by evasiveness, and a desire to always turn the conversation back to your room tuning ideas (a service that you happen to sell). 

Many manufacturers manage to give input on various audio forums without the somewhat "off-taste" you are inadvertently leaving here.

(I’m not the only one who has noticed this).

@michaelgreenaudio,

I have to echo what someone else wrote: your OP left me wondering what you are actually talking about, and most subsequent posts weren’t too enlightening (aside from going into some detail about the nature of recordings...).

If I may: I think your intent was good, but your OP falls into the trap of setting off some ill will, even if inadvertently.

I get if you find you have a problem with some posters on the site. But imagine this scenario:

You walk into a big party thrown by Stereophile, audiophiles left and right, and you get on the microphone and announce

"Now, I don’t want to name names or anything, but I just want everyone to know: I think some of the people here really don’t know what they are talking about on the subject of audio. That said: Enjoy your drinks!"

Well, is that being diplomatic? Or being a bit of a jerk? Because instead of actually giving examples of who, or what you are referring to, it’s just a sort of insult sprayed into the room, leaving people wondering "is he talking about me? And if so....WHAT is it that he claims I am so wrong about?"

It sounds more like someone who has an issue with some people, will sort of mildly slander them in public, but in being general it means you get the benefit of "looking like you are right" and some nebulous tainted target is "wrong" but since we don’t know who...they don’t get to defend themselves and you don’t have to back up your disparaging remarks.

Again...I’m not saying you are a jerk for making the OP or that you had any ill will. What I’m saying is that posts in the style you made, even though intending to be diplomatic, can have the opposite effect for the reasons I just outlined.

So, on to whatever I can infer from your OP:

why do so many HEA hobbyist talk theory without any, or very limited, empirical testing or experience?

What I’m asking is a very simple question in a hobby that is suppose to be based on "doing", why fake it?

Notice the disparaging "why fake it?"

I’m left wondering who is faking it? And about what. And on whose standards are they "faking it?"

Isn’t anyone here who has set up and carefully put together his own high end audio system "doing it?" If not...what do you mean? Examples, please?

The best I can infer from your OP - and again I have to infer from it’s vague character - is that you are making a "if you haven’t tried X for yourself, then you aren’t in a position to talk about, or cast doubts on X."

Would that be what you are getting at?

If so, surely you realize one can voice reasonable doubts about something one hasn’t tried? I don’t need to try astrology, or homeopathy, because there is every reason to conclude they are nonsense; cosmologists/physicists etc, the ones actually producing reliable knowledge of the universe, will point out there is no way the arrangements of distant stars or planets can affect you in the way astrology suggests. And anyone with a decent understanding of a responsible empirical method can see the methods used by people who claim astrology "works" is a fundamentally poor one - that it works on cherry picking hits, ignoring misses, and an endlessly malleable "theory."
Same goes for homeopathy.

So it’s entirely reasonable for someone who understand THOSE facts to voice reasonable doubt about those endeavors, even without "trying" them. Adherents will tell you to "try it for yourself and see" but if you understand faulty methods of inference, then it’s no surprise that if you adopt those faulty methods yourself you might get the same results.
But that’s not what you do if you care about truth; about epistemic responsibility.

So the same goes for many of the "tweaks" in high end audio. Many of them over the years have been based on very dubious technical stories for how they would work, combined with purely anecdotal "tests" which...what a surprise!...confirm their efficacy!

Just as thousands and millions of people confirm the efficacy of any number of crack-pot nostrums, supernatural entities, etc.

And this brings us to your use of the term "empirical" which traditionally means based on observation/experience vs pure theory/logic.

I’m very big on empiricism so happy to see that word used. But simple appeal to "empirical testing" doesn’t tell us whether the form of testing is a well thought out or reliable one.

Virtually every crackpot idea has "empirical testing" behind it in the form of people trying it out. But science arose as a way of discerning reliable forms of empiricism vs unreliable.

So...when you talk of empirical testing, I’m not sure what you are referring about in particular. What are people supposed to be testing and how?

For myself: I believe for instance in the benefits of blind testing in audio, and I’ve set up blind tests here and there to check out some issues in my own audio journey. And I bring some of that experience to inform my skepticism of some high end audio claims.

Another thing to remember is: someone basing skepticism on empiricism doesn’t require he himself does the testing. I have never myself sent a probe to Mars. But people with the requisite knowledge have, and so if some character wants to claim that Mars is made of cheese, then I’ll point out "No, it’s not." If they say "Well, you can’t have a say on that since you’ve never been to Mars" that would be silly. I can simply appeal to the people who HAVE done so, and how being skeptical of Mars being made of cheese IS based on careful empiricism; the data produced by people who are being the most careful in their empiricism.

So, again, I don’t know exactly what or who you would be aiming at, what practices or what specific type of skepticism that may have been voiced on the forum, and whether your targets actually deserve the disparagement you imply.

Hi Michael,

I’m sorry you feel this way.

Thanks.

You got it wrong.

I'd be very glad to understand how! I like knowing how I've got something wrong. it's how we learn.  I'm very much in the camp that empirical understanding is really important, so I'm curious if we are exactly on the same page, or how we may differ.

Everyone here is worthy.

Happy to hear it. For a moment there I had the impression you didn't think that I was worthy of a real response.

So, could you please clarify your point, given the questions I raised in my earlier response.

Much appreciated!

michaelgreenaudio,

I at least gave the respect of taking your OP seriously enough, trying to understand what you meant, and writing a detailed reply. I tried to distill what you were saying, and give my thoughts in reply, and if I got it wrong, you can simply clarify. Surely as someone who writes so much about his ideas, you would be capable of this.

I'm very honestly interested in the point you wished to make.

But apparently you have deemed me not worthy of this? Or worse, insinuated that I couldn’t understand even if you tried.

And so you have produced another post with no clarity, laced with vague, disparaging insinuations (e.g. "why should I bother with you, who can’t understand what I would say?").

It’s not actually a good model to produce a post so you can wink at some people who "got" your sage insight and insinuate others are too dense or biased to get your point...while not replying to requests for clarification.

That’s not the method of someone seeking dialogue; it’s method of someone who is fine to keep producing "us and them" divisions going.

I would have hoped for more from someone who runs his own forum.

glupson,

Thanks.

Nowhere in this thread have I disparaged MG’s products or his room tuning ideas. I did not even take those to be the subject of the thread. Because his OP did not even refer to room tuning, but rather to a much broader complaint about some people critiquing based only on theory but not on what Michael would take to be "empirical" testing.

That could certainly be a fascinating discussion. I’ve long had an interest in the philosophy of empiricism and the philosophy of science, so I was, as I originally mentioned, happy to see someone bring this up.

But my attempt to draw out Michael on his point and ideas only met with...for some bizarre reason...evasions and vagueness. I’m still baffled as to why.

Moreover, Michael’s subsequent posts have been focused on turning the conversation to room tuning and, in fact he has just tipped his hand that his OP, though ostensibly looking for conversation about theoretical vs empirical attitudes, was actually his "door" to offer more about The Tune.  He apparently wasn't looking for dialogue so much as saying "I'm here to give wisdom about my room tuning methods, you are either ready to receive or not."

So, it frankly makes his OP look all the more like a disingenuous, self-serving marketing move - an excuse for him to tell us more about his room/recording tuning, vs a real call to dialogue about the subject he actually implied in the OP.

Aaaand....again from Michael we don’t get any more answers or clarifications, only more disparaging comments, where he and his pals laugh at anyone here who dares question Michael’s wisdom.

Maybe my friends and me are just a bunch of snobs.

Maybe?

Re: people who have things to sell:

Of course it is, I was being metaphorical. As in everyone’s selling something.

Disingenuous, again, Michael.

You should know there are actual concerns on forums like this about the participation of salesmen and industry folk who ACTUALLY have an interest in selling PRODUCTS. You ACTUALLY have something to sell, and trying to obscure your own interests by suggesting "everyone else doing it" via semantic games is disingenuous.

Against some who think salesmen have no place here, I’ve defended on this forum the right of salesmen and industry people to contribute. So long of course as they conduct themselves honestly and in good faith.

You, however, started a thread that:

1. Disparaged some group of people who, one presumes, have been skeptical of certain claims.

2. Posed as opening some general dialogue about the subject of theoretical vs empirical.

But really it turned out only to be a way of casting aspersions at skeptics, and just another way for you to talk about your Tuning methods.  When simply asked to clarify your points and engage in response, you became evasive and dismissive, and continually turned the conversation to your Tuning methods.

Then you finally admitted your OP was your "door" to your Tuning ideas that people either want to walk through or not. So it wasn’t actually about the vague, generalized request for dialog on empirical vs theoretical. It was essentially a way of getting other people to join you in mocking and dismissing critics of claims (including your own it seems).

And you apparently wonder why anyone would question or be souring on your posts? Instead of it always being the other person’s problem and misconception, don’t you think it’s worth wondering "Maybe I could have been more upfront and clear on those points...?’

And if you want to trade reading impressions, someone I know in the audio writing profession read this thread and gave me his impression of your exchanges. Trust me, you don’t want me to repeat what he said.

Finally, although I have heard of you and your tuning before, I’ve never paid that much attention. I took this opportunity to check out your participation and posts in other forums, checked out your web site and....yeesh!....no wonder you didn’t want to engage on the type of "empiricism" you are defending. Your claims range from "likely to make a sonic difference" (various room treatments) to nonsense like tuned cable risers, and getting different sounds by spacing cables at different distances, "tuning" CD players etc. I can pretty much guarantee you have not vetted such claims under the type of conditions that would weed out relevant variables (e.g...your and other people’s imagination).

I know there is a market for these things; there’s a market for anything you can get someone to believe. But, now that I see where you are coming from, and your disingenuous, sales-oriented interactions, I leave you to whoever you can influence here.

glupson,

I hear you. Though I think "evasive" or "dismissive" are still apt descriptors of MG’s replies to my posts (and some others) in this thread.

But yes, of course his relentless self-promotion across many forums no doubt draws some people to his website. He has been doing this in forums and comment sections for decades. This is pretty typical MG evangelizing/hawking his company:

https://www.stereophile.com/content/roomtuning-front-center-soundstage

It’s just wreaks of self-promotion and advertising...which of course it is.  (Although I DO think he is sincere and so I do get some of the evangelical nature of his posts - he's passionate.  But the posts really do also seem business-driven).

I had seen MG posting on various forums over the years, but never really paid much attention. Now I know it was probably best to keep not paying attention.

(BTW, I in no way conclude that all MG’s techniques are without any merit, or that he can not "tune" a room to possibly sound excellent. But I have to admit now being put off having noticed the character of his posts, and certainly a number of his claims fall well into the dubious woo-woo land of audiophile tweaks, nuzzling happily with things like demagnetizing CDs and many other tweaks that have brought our hobby in to ill-repute).

I just wanted to explain why I even bothered entering this thread.
Part of it is that I am quite concerned about the level of discourse on forums like Audiogon. I really think we should be able to disagree with one another and not be castigated for this. And also that we should be able to back up whatever view point we are bringing to the discussion.

But first, please notice this: Michael Green keeps playing the "I’m the Nice Guy Here" and others are "negative nellies."

Anyone paying attention should not be falling for this.

Notice that his OP was in fact NEGATIVE. Look at the thread title. He wasn’t here to "start a fight" but his OP went on to cast aspersions at some shadowy group of people who he claims are not being empirical, who are "faking it." And then he seems to talk directly to this group asking "why fake it?"

Now this is obviously a post casting negative aspersions at people Green is accusing of "faking it." And also an apparent challenge for the people "faking it" to step up and answer his question.

And he didn’t want a "fight?" Sure. Like calling people fakes would lead to some people answering: "Yes, that’s right Michael, I fully accept your description that I’m a fake on...whatever issue you have in mind."

As I said before, this is akin to entering a party and saying "Look, I don’t want to start a fight...but some people here are just fakes. The the people who know what I’m talking about, lets talk about why those people are fakes. To the people who are fakes: why are you faking it?"

Anyone who did this and would think they are not being negative, or provocative and wouldn’t expect any pushback is either hopelessly naive, or disingenuous. I wanted to point this out because it happens a lot. Someone thinks it’s gentle or diplomatic to implicate some group of people in a criticism, but thinks it "diplomatic" not to directly address them, or give any concrete examples. That’s not diplomatic; it’s actually a way of being negative, having your cake and eating it too: it’s a way of voicing criticism, without having to back it up to anyone who could directly respond, and just enjoy anyone simply agreeing with you.
And people need to recognize this and not be surprised that, when they post in this style, opposing views enter their thread and they get pushback.

As it happens, I had recently been defending my own skepticism of some high end tweak claims (e.g. the fuses thread). As so often happens in such discussions, my position (and the position of some other skeptics in the thread) was continually strawmanned, were people castigated me for absolutist positions and claims I never made, and re-characterized my careful arguments into strawmen silly arguments I would never defend. This isn’t a good recipe for honest and even tempered discussion and it makes voicing any opposing opinion far more fraught than it needs to be.

And one of the main themes when criticizing my (and other skeptic’s) position was "If you haven’t tried X out for yourself, then you aren’t in a position to talk about it, or critique it."

And I argued why that is a fallacy.

Michael’s OP was annoyingly vague in the aspersions it was casting, but it *seemed* to be along those same lines: that someone who holds a view in opposition to another audiophile - for instance Michael’s view on tuning - isn’t in a position to have justified that view if he hasn’t done the same testing Michael has. Michael is being "empirical," the opposing view is just "faking it" insofar as they have not done the tests Michael and his cohorts routinely perform.

As I have seen skeptic’s views so routinely strawmanned...I sniffed some likelihood of strawman, and possibly some suspect assumptions in Michael’s post. I was left wondering exactly what he was talking about, and wondering whether the targets of his criticism actually deserved the criticism. And...if I myself was representative of the type of people he was criticizing. If so...I’d be happy to engage Michael on this topic, since he directly asked for engagement.

But, of course if I wanted to engage in what Michael actually was referring to, it was tough to even start given the vagueness of his critique. Which is why I posted seeking clarification from Michael - "is this what you mean? If so, here is some response to that line of thinking. But please clarify where I would be getting you wrong."

And all I got in return was a completely evasive, dismissive reply that amounted to "What I wrote was perfectly clear, you didn’t get it" and then insinuated that my very reply was an example of the type he was criticizing.
But with no actual argument backing this up or clarifying.  Just another swipe at someone.

If anyone here can’t recognize what a jerk-move that is, I’m amazed.

Michael started a post, casting negative aspersion on some group of people "faking it," wanted others to discuss these "fakers" and challenged anyone "faking it" to explain themselves.

Then when someone actually steps up, asks "is this what you are talking about? If so, here’s how I would explain myself..." he just blows it off as if none of the arguments presented were worthy of his time.

He just wanted to complain, have people agree with him, but not take any responsibility for his critique or defend it. Oh...and make sure to turn the subject to promoting his room tuning ideas at any opportunity. Oh, and then admit his OP was in fact his "door" to his room tuning ideas (and not to mention: business).

And, naturally, he tries to leave the impression he’s the Good Guy and folks like me who wished to engage in honest discussion are the "negative nellies" and "bad vibers."

Michael continually alluded to his own "empiricism" and asked questions such as:

"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. "

And that is certainly a question I think is an interesting one. I’m very big on empiricism and science as methods of inquiry. And we could have gone more in depth, so see for instance if Michael is indeed "walking the walk" when it comes to employing an empirical method - just how carefully empirical is he, for instance?

But these obvious questions that would follow from his own post will of course be avoided, because in the end he wasn’t really here for open dialogue in which others can explain a view that differs from his. No, if you don’t just fall in line with his claim some people are "fakers" empirically and congratulate him on calling those people out, and if you dare even defend yourself against his critique, well you don’t get any substantive reply; you are dismissed for "bad vibes" and he’s the good guy in this scenario.

Not impressive. To say the least. And it does not in fact contribute to elevating the level of discussion in this forum.

Over ’n out.

Thanks very much uberwaltz.  We don't need people to just simply agree with one another so much as to at least listen to the case made by someone holding a different view (and hopefully understand and interact with it, even if to show it is unsound, instead of putting someone in a category that you just blow off).

BTW, I will certainly cop to being a wind-bag in some of my posts!

glupson,

Thanks for your comment.  I take your critique and suggestions seriously.
I admit the somewhat trollish nature of the OP - even if inadvertent as I explained - does represent a trend that pisses me off, and certainly that came through.  But I'm always ready to present my view as cogently as I can, and listen to the other side.

Cheers.

uberwaltz,

I disagree that this thread ever really had a chance to be somehow worthwhile.  There are some issues touched upon in the OP that I think are extremely worthwhile and COULD have made for some really great conversation - e.g. the role of empiricism and theory in our hobby.

But if you actually look at the character of the OP, it essentially doomed this thread.  This is because it wasn't simply presented as something like 'Let's discuss the role of actual experience, empirical testing and theory in our hobby - what is essential to grounding out conclusions?" etc.

Instead it was actually presented from the outset as a gripe, as an opportunity to diss so Green could implicate some unnamed transgressors as "fakes."  This negative characterization is in the thread title, all through his post, even up to his last question "...why fake it?"

In a thread claiming some people (who????) are "fakes" in terms of their views on some high end audio subject...I wonder how exactly this thread could have ended well?

We could of course simply ignore the subject and tenor of the OP and talk about some other subject, and that could have gone well.  But I don't see how following the lead set by Green in his OP could have ended up anything but a gripe and diss session: his aim wasn't talk of empiricism per se, but at implicating people as "fakes." 


 

uberwaltz,

I’d say geoffkait is *very* familiar with MG’s modus operandi. Have you ever seen their exchanges on the Stereophile forum? I only just stumbled upon them and...lemme tell ya...watching these evangelical purveyors of flaky audio products troll each other for pages on end is one of the internet’s strangest and most ironic sights. ;-)
(Though it gets old very fast...)

Off course Michael just ignores that my evaluation of his OP, the points I’ve raised, and my repeated requests for clarifications were acknowledge by several others here as valid and on point. (And I’ve also received various private correspondence saying so as well). And that a number of people here acknowledged the self-promotional intent of this thread.

Unfortunately people didn’t automatically genuflect and pat him on the back for his every pearl of wisdom and diss of anyone who doesn’t agree...as he experiences on his own forum.  Essentially: "Why can't I just come on here and talk bad about other people without being challenged on it?  I just want to state these 'facts' without backing them up.  Only a troll would want to challenge my claims!"

So...back he goes to where he won’t be challenged.

Having looked at the exchanges between Geoff and Michael Green in their rancorous stereophile threads, Geoff certainly got one thing right: pointing out that instead of substantive engagement with critiques, Green tends to label anyone who doesn’t agree with him or who challenge his pearls of wisdom as "trolls" or bad vibers.

And we see how this thread ended as well.

Nothing has changed.

Michael Green may well have some good ideas to pass along. He certainly has some fans.

But when he starts a thread to diss other people, and then bridles that anyone dare challenge him on this, then takes his ball and goes home without ever substantiating his claims....he only has himself to blame.

But I doubt he will cease putting the blame entirely on others, as his final post indicates.

So Michael, you have taken your vague and insinuating OP and simply augmented it with equally vague and insinuating paragraphs.

Is it possible we will ever get anything specific from you?

I mean you once again disparage some mystery person or persons in which "folks" in "20 different threads" are speaking of things about which they haven’t the necessary empirical experience. Then you declare to us:

"That’s just a fact."

Um, no. We don’t actually have to take whatever you just declare as "fact." What you have just given, yet again, is simply an assertion. You don’t mention who all those "folks" are, no specific examples or members, so we can’t evaluate your claim to these "facts." Maybe these people are giving a perfectly good account of their own viewpoint. Why in the world should we just take your word on this?

You’ve already shown a cagey and dismissive style - implications and assertions without actual arguments to back them up - with "folks" like me on this thread, so it hardly gives confidence you are giving a fair account of other people’s arguments.

With a hobby that is based on doing and the fact that all of us have a system right in front of us, why would anyone want to put talk above actually doing. Makes no sense to the guy reading these threads. Or as I put it Why talk without walking?

You are doing it again, Michael. Throwing off disparaging comments in vague directions.

WHO or at least WHAT are you actually talking about? Give some sort of specific examples of a case of "not actually doing."

Because for the most part I see people in this forum DOING stuff and reporting on it all the time. We check out new speakers. We report on that experience. We do something more with our system - e.g. move our speakers, change a component, introduce a tweak - and people report on THEIR EXPERIENCE all the time. The vast majority of posts here are people doing things and reporting on it. Or relying on past experiences to inform whatever view they have.

If you are going to come on here and keep telling us that some significant proportion of people deserve your critique, at least have the wisdom and fairness to make it clear what you are talking about.

Nobody can defend a position against your criticisms - to see if your criticisms are even legitimate or fair - unless they know what you are talking about.

If I came on to your forum and said "There's a bunch of people here who just don't know what they are talking about; they simply don't have the experience to warrant their viewpoints."  How graciously would that be received?  And if I just kept making that assertion over and over, without ever giving examples or bothering to engage in anyone's defense against my criticisms...just how welcome would that behavior be in your forum?

But you apparently think that is "good guy" behavior who just wants peace harmony and to spread the gospel when you do it here?  Can you not see how this would be a problem?

So: again: Please just give us a specific example of what you would consider "not doing" or "not walking the walk."

Otherwise you are just polluting the forum with self-aggrandizing mumbo jumbo that simply implicates yourself as enlightened, risen above some unwashed masses you continue to allude to without ever backing your criticisms up . (And of course, this is accompanied by not so subtle hints to come to your web site...)

Hi glupson,

Certainly not taken personally!

I honestly think a thread like this can be, and to some degree has been, turned into something somewhat valuable. I think it’s a good thing to identify the types of posts that are "bad faith" style posts, including the follow up replies.

I think if someone has a problem with a specific person, argument or claim, he should be specific about it. At least supplying examples. Otherwise it’s just an excuse to lodge gripes without being challenged on them, and therefore not showing openness to the idea you are wrong, and letting someone make the case you are mistaken.

And that’s not to mention the undercurrent of self-advertising that puts a stink into the noses of many people reading such threads.

I certainly defend the right of high end audio salesmen and manufacturers to post here, as they can contribute valuable information. (Geoff even contributed to one of my threads asking about turntable isolation, and I appreciated that!)

But I don’t think it should be at the price of those people always going unchallenged, if they are making critiques, gripes or bad-faith posts, and disguising advertising for their own web sites or products as dialogues about something else.

(And I’ve had people telling me I’ve given voice to their own feelings about this thread, so I'm comfortable that it wasn't "just myself" that I was arguing for).

shadorne,

As you can see: anyone can make up, or infer, any hypothesis they want.
And if the method of "testing" the hypothesis is merely subjective, then the results can be confirmed by the imagination of the subject.  Hence...you have endless tweaks based on wild hypotheses being "confirmed" because "I heard the difference!"

hifiman5,

WOW! This thread is a perfect example of how science does not and will never account for what our ears hear. "Fake Science"!

(Edit): Is that the kind of empirical understanding promoted at the Michael Green site?

BTW, I agree with your assessment of Green’s behavior in this thread , obviously. Labeling anyone who challenges your claims "trolls" instead of simply responding to the arguments is never a good look.

bill333,

I have no technical explanations for this, and no interest in finding any. There may be people out there who enjoy observing scientifically unexplained phenomena and constructing theories to fit them, but that’s not the hobby I’m engaged in.

Ok.

But would you agree that, just because you don’t find such inquiry interesting, there’s no reason to disparage others who do? Yet if someone starts asking for explanations...and even dares point out an explanation didn’t seem to be a good one....you and people like Michael seem to get very negative on them pretty quickly.

Personally, I don’t disparage anyone for buying whatever they wish, or for playing around in any way with his system, rendering improvements as he sees them. I do it. We all do it. If someone wants to pay lots of money for something I think is likely nonsense...that is of course entirely up to them. I buy things that no doubt others think are nonsense.

But when someone starts to make CLAIMS of some objective nature - e.g. that altering X produces objective differences that we can perceive - then I reserve the right to think critically about those claims and give a reasoned argument for my skepticism. That’s especially the case when someone would want to SELL me something based on those claims.

Do you actually see anything wrong with this? Or should I and anyone else here be simply gullably open to any claim anyone wants to make in high end audio?

Simply put, I don’t see how having a well explained system is going to give me better sound.

Really? You don’t see the relevance of knowing what you are doing?

The more you understand, the better placed you are to prioritize your time and money and the more likely you are to achieve your goals.

In my case there’s still a lot I don’t understand. But when relevant, I try to learn something about what I’m doing so I’m not just thrashing around in the dark - e.g. understanding room acoustics and other issues in integrating my new subwoofers. (I also renovated my room consulting with an acoustician).

OTOH, if you have practical ideas on how to get better sound from my system, I’d be glad to hear them...

I’m not posing as an audio guru dispensing such advice (let alone asking people to pay me for my services). I’m a consumer like you are, and I’m just assessing the claims being made as I see fit.

But if you want any advice: You are much more likely to realize sonic benefits from proper speaker placement and paying attention to room acoustics, than from spending time untying capacitors or raising wires on wood blocks, etc. There’s a TON of research supporting the effects of the former; virtually none that I’m aware of for the latter.

But let’s get to the point of your post.

I’d love if you or Michael actually did that!

My original reply to Michael, and the theme of my follow up replies, has been:

1. To point out that it is both poor form and deleterious to honest discourse to appear on a forum, create a thread declaring that some proportion of the members are "faking it" - without giving any examples to support that aspersion - and then ignore pertinent questions and challenges to his statements, brushing people off as being part of the problem or "trolls" without lifting a finger to justify all those additional insults. All the while pretending to be the Nice Guy who doesn’t want to ruffle feathers. Not to mention, creating a thread with false pretenses that it was a discussion about empirical testing, while in fact (acknowledged later) it was another way to self-promote his tuneland stuff.

Do you really not see a problem with that?

2. As a consumer, and someone interested in high end audio, I’ve been exercising my right to critical thinking, asking completely reasonable questions about Michael’s claims, which he has done nothing but evade.

Please, explain to me, what is actually wrong with any of that.

You’re here to cast aspersions on anyone whose methods who don’t fit into your mental model of how things work.

Not at all. I’ve only cast aspersions on someone who has interacted dishonestly in a thread like this, as Michael has here. I think someone who ignores substantive questions and arguments challenging his position and replies only with denigrating dismissals with no substance, deserves to be called on this. Don’t you?

And talk about casting aspersions on people who don’t fit a mental model of how things work! Are you not aware of how often, and vociferously, Michael Green has done this himself? He’s continually evangelizing through his Tuning mental model, and castigating other popular high end audio methods, and people who dare say a recording can be revealed as bad, as liars and scammers!

Why don’t you apply your criticism evenhandedly to him, I wonder?

Let me be clear in saying that my experiences are my own, and are posted here in the hope that others can benefit from them.

And you will find tons of such posts from me too. For instance, many seemed to appreciate my reports on various speakers I’ve heard here:

https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/contemplating-devore-speakers-and-others-long-audition-report...

Do I have to put everything I ever wrote into this one thread, to show I contribute what I can as well? Do you think maybe you are jumping to some harsher conclusions than you ought to?

But I have no interest in trying to fit my experiences into your dogmatic belief system.

You are falling into the very model set by Michael Green: castigate someone’s view, instead of properly represent and respond to it.

My "belief system" is anything but dogmatic. It is entirely against dogma - in the sense of simply accepting as true what an authority would tell me, or accepting principles as simply true and unchallenged"

Dogma is one of the worst blights there is, in human thought.

Rather, I believe in taking in to account everyone’s fallibility including my own. So any assumptions I may have ought to be challengeable, re-visited, scrutinized, and ready for revision. And even THAT principle...I’m open to revising if someone could argue otherwise.

And I apply this lack of accepting dogma to claims in high end audio.
I’m not going to believe something just because someone claims to be authoritative on the subject - certainly not someone trying to sell me something. I’m going to look at whether that person’s claims make sense in light of all the other information I’m aware of. Have you not noticed that, when I interact with claims made by someone here, I don’t simply dismiss them - I supply an argument, supporting REASONS for my view over the claim . That’s interacting with intellectual honesty. That’s the opposite of trolling.

Now that my position is, I hope, more clear to you: do you find this unreasonable?

And if not...it’s essentially the basis on which I’ve been posting in this entire thread....and yet Michael Green has not interacted with ANY of it, and only dismisses my concerns as being that of a troll.

Do you really think Green’s interaction, especially with me, has been that intellectually honest?

bill333

How do you listen to a component with its chassis top on when you know that removing it will give you a sound that is so much more dynamic and open? How long can you look at a capacitor strapped down with a plastic zip tie, when you know that freeing it will give you a three dimensional, holographic soundstage? If it’s me, the answer is - not long at all. :)

So taking off the top of a component will "free" it dynamically etc, and releasing a capacitor releases the soundstage to bloom into 3D?

This sounds like something along the lines of folk homeopathic ideas such as "like cures like." That is, concepts that draw some mildly appealing relationship in the mind of the user, but without any actual scientific grounding in reality.

Unless of course I’m missing something.

bill333 can you give us a non-mystical, technical explanation for how removing the chassis top of a component would cause those audible differences (or releasing of the capacitor)?

(BTW, I’ve had the top off some of my equipment before - pre-amps etc - for different reasons and...no...it did not change the sound).

glupson,

Nice to see people like yourself bringing critical thinking to MG’s claims.

They apparently don’t allow too much critical thinking on Michael’s forum. Skeptical challenges to their ideas - simple things like asking for measured results for some of the more controversial claims, listening tests constructed to control for the variables of people’s imagination etc - are frowned upon as "bad vibes" and a sign one is not being sufficiently open minded. (You’ll find exactly this attitude on any number of fringe medicine, New Age, psychic medium, astrology, etc groups...funny enough).

There isn’t the luxury of of fan-worship and lack of skepticism when he brings his claims here. (Though I’d like to be wrong insofar as he could actually substantiate some of his claims). So I’m sure it’s not as comfortable for those claims to be brought here.

But then: A wise university professor pointed out: Discomfort is a sign that something that you think is right, is being challenged. And that should be exactly what you want, because that’s exactly when you are most likely to be on the cusp you are learning either that you are wrong - or by taking on the challenge you gain more confidence you are right. One can either take that opportunity to be challenged and learn from it, or use the discomfort to declare those who challenge your claims as "trolls" as a way of running from the challenges.

As for how the crowding of the electronic parts producing crowding of the soundstage, you’ll find quite a bit of these folksy-level "explanations" in MGs stuff. For instance he’s written how running wires close together would produce a "tighter" sound, a bit more apart will yield a bit more open sound, moving further apart yielding even more open sound.

As I said, it’s something of a piece of the folk-wisdom behind homeopathy - the same conceptual appeal of "like cures like" (even though there is no actual basis for the claims made on this hypothesizing).

glupson,

I'm sure it didn't escape your notice that MG didn't answer your question.  It's the usual two-step: avoid admitting there is no technical explanation, and turn it in to an opportunity to claim again that it works anyway.

Anyone want to take bets on whether he'll answer my questions? ;-)

michaelgreen,

The walk here is the fact that caps and the other parts (including cables) weren’t designed and spec-ed out with tie wraps around them.

Have you ever considered that this is because tie wraps are irrelevant to the performance of caps?

Computer circuit boards/drives etc are spec’d for a certain performance, and yet they can be put in any number of different casings, and affixed any number of ways, and the performance will be the same. (You could of course mount them in a way so poorly that connections break or over-heating occurs to failure, but there is a wide spectrum of installation possibilities none of which alter the performance of these items).

If you claim that tie wraps actually change the performance of a cap, what is your actual technical explanation and what is your evidence?

Can you show us measurements before and after a tie wrap has been removed?

And given you have thrown around the word "empirical" and "scientific" in your op, can you tell us the steps you have taken to control variables in your evaluations of these effects - obvious variables such as human bias and error? You recognize these concerns to be an important part of being a good, careful empiricist, I hope?

Audio parts are very specifically designed to meet spec and when you add materials (such as a tie or glue) you are of course changing the performance.

That’s an assertion without evidence, and it doesn’t follow at all.
In industry, ties, glues and all sorts of other parts of a device are used that do not change the performance - if they did, they wouldn’t be used, or the device would be designed with interaction of all the parts taken in to account. (That is, in good design - one can always find examples of bad design - but not everything is badly designed, of course).

I’ve used ties, glue and solder to, for instance, fix or adjust wires in various devices I own (both AV and audio equipment) and it has never changed the performance in any noticeable way (nor is there any reason to have expected any change, so long as I wasn't doing something stupid like running fine signal lines in close parallel with power lines, etc).

In fact, I completely re-arranged all my cabling, with all sorts of different ties, plastic, metal, etc. Did this change the audio performance of my system? No. Not one bit.

That’s when you have too many parts too close together. This actually causes blockage of the audio signal and makes the soundstage start to collapse or get congested sounding.

Again - I see no actual technical explanation you’ve given in support of that claim. Instead it seems, as I mentioned to bill333, a type of folksy association - "congested electronic parts yield congested sound."

If you are really the empiricist you claim, surely you understand how your explanations are wanting.

Michael, you were the one who made a big deal of testing, empiricism, and science. I’m just wondering if you are actually "walking the walk" in terms of being a careful empiricist.

So name calling is all you have, Michael? And you think this is a good look for you?

Your refusal to answer challenging questions is ever more conspicuous.

You can toss all the "troll" accusations you want - as is your modus operandi - but what you can’t do is justify them. You can’t point to anything in my first reply to you that isn’t reasonable or pertinent, all the way to the questions and points in my recent reply. That’s why you aren’t answering them - and anyone here can see the pertinence of my questions and comments on your claims.  I even took up an idea in your OP, about the nature of empirically based evaluations, and explored the roll of empirical claims, in a way you just ignored.

In contrast your replies to me have been evasive and bereft of argument or substantiation of anything you wrote, often comprising passive-aggressive disses, and finally in this last post...you fall to pure trolling. (See, I can justify that description because your post actually fits: The method of a troll is to ignore the arguments made against his position and respond instead with baiting insults - precisely what you just did).

So your hypocrisy could not be more vividly on display. And all the more so because your bluff has been called; when you are asked if you are in fact walking the walk of employing good empirical methods, you evade, evade.

BTW, no date for you. I don’t date anyone Geoffkait has dated, and your torrid affairs on other forums are legion. ;-)

mapman,

Essentially I agree. As I mentioned early on, I find the claims from Green to span from the plausible - likely to make a sonic difference - to the implausible. The tunable speakers (and certain types of room treatment) certainly suggest they would plausibly alter the sound. And they may sound great...I might even love the sound myself. (And I have loved the sound of speakers made by a company that I believe to be making unsubstantiated and unbelievable claims in other areas, e.g. Shun Mook).

But it's pretty easy for anyone to make a speaker that sounds different from another speaker.

It’s too bad it’s mixed in with other woo-woo sounding stuff that we aren’t getting straight answers to.

prof, why would I use a part without researching it? Prof, it’s my job to not only consider but to test. Also many of the producers of these types of products are happy to exchange info, like folks doing field testing for them.

Excellent.

So this time will you answer my question?

Can you tell us exactly what measurable performance parameters change when a cap is tied down with a tie wrap? And explain why one would expect those measurable changes would be audible, especially with the character you describe?

Can you supply any such measurements for us to see, so we don’t have to just take your word on it?

How would you describe the difference in sound between the Vishay 1813 (yellow) and the ERO 1822? 3.3 of course.

I wouldn’t describe the sonic difference between those two caps, as I do not presume, without hearing more reason to think so, that they would sound different. (Not that I couldn’t be convinced they could produce sonic differences)

So wouldn’t make a claim either way about their sonic difference.

But your question clearly implies YOU think they are sonically different.
And if you would claim this, then what type of evidence you have for it? As in the tie wrap above: what measurable parameters change between those caps and why would one would expect those changes to be audible? After all, one can alter signals/measurements in ways that are not audible. 

And if you have "tested" for these audible changes, please explain how you controlled for the variable of your imagination. (If you understand science, as you alluded to in your OP, you would know that pointing to additional tests done with poor control of variables isn’t a way to increase confidence level).

Finally, please note the obvious fact: that the question of the audibie difference between caps in certain implementations does not resolve your claim about the effects of tie wraps. (Which is why this seems to be another red herring to avoid answering my previous question).

I look forward to hearing more about your careful empiricism on these subjects, Michael.

Cheers.

What it all boils down to in the final analysis is whether or not Tuning causes cancer. Agreed?

Disagree. Much more important: does Tuning taste like bacon?

audionuttoo,

First of all, remember that we have all been born with the world’s best and most sensitive listening devices ever conceived - our own ears!

That’s clearly wrong, and it should be obvious why it’s so wrong.
We are building instruments all the time for detection because of the LIMITATIONS of our perception and senses.

For instance: You know there is sound in a frequency range called "Ultrasonic," right? Do you know why it’s even called "Ultrasonic?"
Because you can’t hear it.

Your ears, if you have fantastic hearing, would top off at approximately 20K. But depending on your age and exposure to noise, it likely caps well below that point.

But you can buy, or even build an SPL meter that is FAR more sensitive and can detect frequencies up to 100K, e.g:

http://logosfoundation.org/elektron/US_SPL_Meter/US_SPL_Meter.html

And when scientists detected the "sound" of black holes emerging far away in the universe...do you think it’s because someone woke up hearing it? Of course not. Instruments vastly more sensitive were used to detect these, and countless other phenomena that our limited hearing permits.

So right off the bat, you are starting with a false premise.

Trust them - they are the one truth in music!

(Putting aside the inscrutable second phrase...)

Your ears are part of a perceptual system; that system can and often enough does get things wrong. Just like your eyes. This is well known and demonstrable.

At this very moment there is a viral meme going around the internet showing how people’s audible perception varies. Google "yanny vs laurel." Also look here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kbzL9PxtFf0

And then there are all the well documented cases of perceptual bias that will cause you to "hear" things that aren’t there, or perceive changes in sound when there is no external cause.

So you are off with TWO fallacious assumptions.

Pretty intuitive right? How do I know this works? My ears told me so!

Whoops. Intuitions are often unreliable. In fact much of the fallacious explanations for natural phenomena through history was based on erroneous extrapolations from "intuition." (In fact, right now the Flat Earth Society is based on just that: it’s intuitively obvious the world is flat...forget any contradictory scientific evidence against this! Intuition is the most reliable thing we have!)

• Those who have not heard it have no basis to criticize it.

Drat. Another fallacy.

One can have sufficient reasons to doubt a claim without having direct experience. If I tell you the moon is made of cheese, do you have to have traveled to the moon in order to marshal reasonable doubts about my claim?

Similarly, if someone is presenting a claim that is laced with naive understandings of human perception, that already raises doubt about the claim (even if it’s not conclusive against the claim).

You are not actually making a good case for your claims.

That said, although you have laced your post with some faulty ideas, I did not get enough detail from your post as to what you were actually adjusting. It could still be the case you were adjusting something that could plausibly alter the sound, in a way you found desirable.
And that could be really cool.

But we shouldn’t have to buoy our claims with fallacious ideas about the reliability of our perception.

When you guys start shouting (and most of the time with anger) VooDoo that really only tells the listening world that you haven’t reached the level of empirical testing.

No, Michael.  No.

People who call out your voodoo do so on a firmer understanding of empiricism than you seem to have.

You only use words like "empiricism" and "science" to pay lip-service, to give some reputable gloss on your claims, but without actually "walking the walk" of truly responsible empiricism.

The whole point of science has been to come up with a more reliable, empirically responsible method of inquiry.

"Experience + Testing" does NOT automatically yield science, or reliable results. We can misinterpret experience in all manner of ways, and we can have unreliable methods of "testing" that yield incorrect results.
So just invoking THOSE aspects do little to justify your "method."
Because mere experiencing/testing is used to "confirm" virtually every crackpot theory in existence. It’s what the Flat Earthers are claiming as well. They "experience" that the world is flat - hey, just use your eyes! You can see it’s flat so that’s the right conclusion! - and they "test" their idea in all manner of ways. But it is of course the faulty nature of their tests, and bad assumptions, and ignoring of any data inconvenient to their beliefs, that continue to...what a surprise!...support their belief system! And yet actually reliable empirical methods show their conclusions are ludicrously off-base.

A good hypothesis will usually build on already robust and reliable bodies of knowledge. If for instance you proposed that shifting the angle of X speaker in Y room will alter the sound in X manner, then there would be mountains of firmly established theory and evidence - based on carefully scientifically controlled variables! - suggesting the plausibility of this hypothesis. I’m unaware of any such evidence, mountain or otherwise, for your claim that tie wraps cause capacitors to alter the sound in the ways you claim. Which is why I keep asking for that evidence. But of course...never get it.

And when one is being a truly responsible empiricist, you try to acknowledge the reality of variables - e.g. data on listener/experimenter bias - and incorporate that into your method of testing.

I’ve been asking about your method; to what degree you control for variables and how (including listener/experimenter bias). But of course from you...silence.

Someone who understands science scales his beliefs to the evidence, and doesn’t simply IGNORE counter evidence, and doesn’t ignore skeptical challenges from others. In fact, it IS skeptical challenges from others that makes science WORK. Skepticism is GOOD for you, Michael, if you actually care about the truth (or warranted confidence level) of your beliefs.

People who understand this have no problem when someone asks them hard or skeptical questions about their claims.

Casting skeptical questions as "negativity" is what you get from PSEUDO-SCIENTISTS.

What you get in pseudo-science is lip service to terms like empiricism and science and method and testing....but no actual principled adherence to the virtues of science. People doing pseudo-science embrace any support for their belief, embrace only "positive" feedback, but reject skeptical feedback.

Hence they can keep whatever beliefs they have going, unsullied by skeptics or a truly honest empirical method that seeks to prove themselves "wrong" as much as "correct" (that’s what you are seeking, if you are seeking truth).

Michael, your every bit of behavior here, especially to my queries, have fit the very model of pseudo-science. It’s really no mystery why you won’t and can’t answer the substance of my questions.

So go ahead of course, and keep on Tuning. More power to you.

But please don’t try to keep claiming some empirical high ground with lip service to science. You’ll be called on it, unlike back in your forum where people apparently don’t know better.

And please don’t pretend you are taking the high ground here, given the ways your pseudo-scientific evasions lower the level of discourse. It’s easy to play The Nice Guy when people just lap up your wisdom and thank you for it. But this is a public forum so you have to also Play Nice, that is show good faith replies and intellectual honesty, to the people who DON’T automatically greet you with open arms, and who exercise their right to critical thinking, asking your harder, more skeptical questions.

Evading those questions, while casting those people as negative people or trolls...is pernicious to healthy, open discourse. And you will be called on this here, as well.

So that's it is it...yet again...Michael?

(Btw, I'm quite sure I can infer your motive for the question about caps.   But my answer didn't actually give you what you want - I didn't proclaim any conclusion either way and simply said I'd look at the evidence - that's why you can't actually interact with the substance of my reply).

Remember, you've been making claims: I've been simply asking for evidence for the claims, and how you go about testing the claims with a mind to the concerns I have raised - completely reasonable questions which you've studiously avoided answering. 

I've even acknowledged you may be on to something and produce some great results...but I have questions about some of your claims and methods.

So I address what you write, and when you ask me questions I answer them...but you won't never answer mine?   Or even ever explain the pertinence of your question? 

This is the "open minded" "sponge for information" "ready to be challenged" "science/empiricism-loving" Michael Green?   And yet, when people who actually know something about the nature of empirical science ask relevant questions you freeze into silence and imply they are trolls?

Remember:  people are watching. 

kosst,

I checked out that link.

What you missed was an extremely fishy bit of flash animation.
So under the web site heading "credits" you have vague (can you believe that?) allusions to being involved with Michael Green Design is "associated" with these fine musicians, that for "20 years" his tuning philosophy has helped bring us some of today's greatest music, his room tunes have been used by "countless" musicians including legendary artists...

And then flash animation shows a long list of artists that include:

The Beatles, Miles Davis, Moody Blues, Lois Armstrong, Queen, Moody Blues, Rolling Stones, Roy Orbison...

Now, I'm left to wonder how someone's 20 year old tuning philosophy has anything to do with The Beatles, Miles Davis Louis Armstrong and those others.

And what services did Michael Green actually render to all the bands mentioned?

One is left with the exceedingly fishy smell that someone's credentials and involvement have been inflated, and that the page relies on vague enough implications of association that people will put his work together with those artists.

But I'm certainly open to finding out I'm incorrect, if Michael would supply detail as to how his work played a part with the above mentioned artists.

Michael, you are still doing it.

You come here claiming some members are fakes, continue to evade any backing up of your claims or substantive interaction with skeptical questions, and when someone complains that this is the case your response is "Gee, you sure seem upset, why you so upset?"

This right out of the Troll playbook. Your post may as well have come with the troll face "you mad bro?" image plastered to the bottom.

What good do you think it does your brand, to behave like a troll, I wonder? Or are you truly that un-self-aware as to the impression you are giving off here?

Not mad, Michael. Perplexed. Wondering why some people do this to themselves. Especially someone who wants to project a Brand.

You too Michael. Thanks for dropping in.  It's been really great.  Take care!

My final message to Michael:

My intent in entering this thread was not to disparage your products,  nor is that my aim now.

I didn't know much about them, except some notion about your tuned speakers and room tuning products.

As I've indicated more than once: I'm entirely open to the idea that you have been able to produce some impressive sound using some of your methods.  I'd love to hear a Michael Green tuned speaker in a tuned room.  I wouldn't be surprised to find it impressive, and even to be blown away.  I also would be intrigued to hear the system "tune" for different recordings.  On some level, that certainly sounds cool and I don't necessarily doubt I'd be impressed.

Do I have doubts about some of your other tuning claims?  Obviously.

But someone having honest doubts, thinking critically, and voicing reasons for skepticism is no reason to treat them as being "negative" people or "trolls."  We are all trying to figure out this high end audio thing, and I think we need to be open to ways of discussing our different opinions without automatically dismissing the other side as negative, fakers or trolls.  Wouldn't you agree?

My first reply was a completely sincere attempt to get you to re-consider the wisdom of how you started this thread, which came off as being about calling people out as "fakes."   Being careful not to impugn your motives, I pointed out why that could backfire if you mean to set up civil and friendly discourse.  And I voiced honest questions about what exactly you meant, your meaning of "empirical" etc.

Despite that the validity of my points to you were acknowledged by several other people in the thread, your first reply dismissed my concerns, didn't address anything I wrote, and instead suggested that I exemplified the "fakers" you were calling out in your OP.

It shouldn't be hard to see why that wouldn't be a good way forward either.

I tried to re-group and point out I was asking honest, pertinent questions....but was only greeted with dismissals.

Things only spiraled downward from there.

So, again, as I said, like others I welcome the input of anyone, industry professionals especially.  The more the merrier.  But I would hope that when you participate again here, that you at least consider the possibility that some of my points had validity, and that calling people fakes and/or presuming someone with skeptical questions to be only interested in negativity or trolling, is a mind-set that should be re-considered.

I hope your future experiences here go better.

Peace.

Prof.

Very kind of you, glupson.  Thanks!

Who has all the "removed posts" on this page?

Viva La Revolution geoff! 

You go girl! 

How is work going on your new scientific paradigm?

I'm rooting for you, but in the race to overthrow staid and dogmatic science, there are so many others bidding to tell us science is wrong for not validating their theories. 

Looks like the Flat-Earthers are are getting their message out a lot more effectively, and they seem pretty good at making videos, so maybe time to up your game?

On the inimitable Mr. Kait:

I tend not to interact with GK too much, given the spam-level goofiness
that results seems like a waste of time to debate.

For a little while I thought I had him figured out, because the first bunch of posts I read seemed fairly well grounded and actually defending some rational points of view. Given his notorious web site I thought "Oh, so that’s it. This guy is perhaps actually rational and is just having a go at audiophiles with his "products." Cynical, certainly, but a put-on."

But the irrational, poor arguments I’ve seen from him since, and the amount of time he spends putting down "skeptics" had me alter my inference. Looks like I was wrong.

He’s cynical and a joker, of course, so I can still see his products as springing from that mind-set, and often he seems to reference them almost with a wink, without seriousness.

But he’s also given so many bad arguments against skepticism and science that I could also see him as a costumer for his own products!

He’s fun sometimes...loves to take people down a notch....though not nearly as sharp at debate and on top of things as he thinks, so it can get a little embarrassing.

On the other hand, it seems he has experience with lots of equipment and I think he has a technical knowledge in areas I don’t have, so there are still things it would be possible to learn from him. The problem is he dilutes it with so much other mumbo jumbo and irrational ravings, he becomes much less of a trusted valuable resource than he could be.

So to the extent I interact with GK, I would prefer to pick and choose - interacting more with the "on his meds" version vs the "off his meds" version.

That’s about as much time as I would want to spend discussing Mr. Kait :-)

I like hi-fi both as a throwback term, and also as a pejorative description of sound (it's been used to denote an artificially exciting but ultimately unnatural presentation for a long time).

I'm thick enough that I didn't even know what HEA meant when I kept seeing that term used recently.   Not yet ready to switch :)

glupson,
I typed a detailed reply to you, but my computer froze and lost it.Taking with it a bit of my soul.
I will have to regroup....and get back to you.;)

glupson.

I'm back and my answer will be separated in to two posts.

About the diffusor.  As I probably linked to in the post you saw, I bought this one:

https://www.acousticgeometry.com/products/curve-diffusor-crosstown-birch/

I ordered it in a coffee bean fabric color that actually looks quite nice.

It does not noticeably attract dust and if it does, it doesn't "show" dust at all.  It looks like a sturdy fabric that will last a long time, and look new for a long time.  Besides, vertical surfaces tend not to accumulate dust anything like horizontal surfaces anyway.  So, dust is the very last concern I have with this thing.

I haven't had occasion to clean it and can't imagine it's going to be necessary in any acute way in the future.  But if anything gets on it, a little dust ball or whatever, it easily brushes off with the hand.

I did not want to introduce any new permanently affixed room treatment if I could help it.  The size of this diffusor makes it perfect for my purposes.  I don't mount it on anything, I simply lean it against the area of sidewall near the speaker that I wish.  It's very easy to lift in and out of the room - I store it in my office/source component room and it hides out of the way nicely.  

I wasn't totally happy with the diffusor in the classic "first reflection" position - though that is probably due to the fact it had to be closer than ideal to the speaker.  But I ended up finding a happy spot just beside to the rear of my speaker that seems to add a bit of snap and focus especially to central images. 

I'd give these things a thumbs up as something easy to play with in terms of acoustic treatments. 

glupson,

One last bit.

You talked about the idea that confronting dubious high end audio claims, in public, is essentially a losing proposition.

I disagree.

I think it's always valuable to present, and defend if necessary, an alternative view.  Insofar as skepticism about a claim has good grounds, then this can be important and useful input for other people.  Yes, many people may have taken a stance on something, having dug in their heels or having sunk costs in terms of a business.

But there are always a lot of people watching as well who can be informed.

My own views were heavily influenced early on by debates (and not only in high end audio).  So I paid attention to the quality of arguments when "objectivists" used to square off with "subjectivists" over various high end audio claims.   And I'm very happy I did.  I feel I've saved quite a bit of money, and time, and neuroticism, by concluding (even if tentatively until better evidence comes along) that many high end tweaks aren't worth my money and time.  And my own experience using blind testing has helped me here and there.

So for instance, just recently I demoed a pair of speakers.  The proprietor of the store, a nice, amiable gentleman, was a truly "classic audiophile" in terms of his thinking on many issues.  I needed to bring CDs, not a drive or thumb drive of burned music, because, well "we just aren't there yet with ripping music to drives and streaming.  It's just not doing any nice pair of speakers justice to play such sources."
And he had a super expensive CD transport and DAC, expensive interconnects, speaker cables, he "de-magnatized" all my CDs so they would sound better, used special damper on the CDs...you name it, he checked the "everything makes a difference" box (including talk of ethernet cables).

Now, none of this made any impression on me because...I've been there, done that, I understand the quality of evidence he is basing his beliefs upon.

And, wouldn't you know it, despite ALL of that talk, all of the steps he went through - INCREDIBLY expensive steps - to ensure the best sound possible...what I heard didn't really hold a candle to what I hear back home on my system. I have basic interconnects, basic beldon speaker cable, my CDs ripped to a cheap little usb drive streamed via a cheap raspberry pi sever.  And when I played back the same tracks at home, I heard every damned bit of "reverb trails" and "tonal purity" in my system (in fact, better, because it's a better speaker and better room acoustics).

IF I were some susceptible newbie, a salesman like that could - completely honestly from his own point of view - persuade me to spend ungodly sums of money on the steps and tweaks he believes necessary to get good digital sound.    I am very happy to be informed enough to realize I don't need to follow in his footsteps.

A lot of audiophiles have often commented "I don't WANT X to make a difference, but my ears tell me it does, which is why I spend the money and effort on it."  (For instance, AC cables or other tweaks).  I've heard that so many times, as if wanting it not to make a difference means, if they "heard" a difference it must be real.  And that's a naive understanding of how our perception works.  

But for anyone who thinks like this, if they are spending, or about to spend lots of time and money on a tweak,  I'd expect they would actually want to know if that tweak actually alters the sound of the system, in reality.   If someone really would rather not spend money on a false claim, then seeing the case for being skeptical can be quite enlightening or useful.

If you for instance take a look at the length many of the Michael Green "Tuners" go to, it's really quite something to behold.  Components taken apart, strewn between speakers, everything carefully arrange on special wood blocks etc.  Now, If that's what someone gets a kick out of doing...I would never want to say "don't do it."  Hey, everyone likes to have a hobby.

BUT...for anyone who really cares about not wasting their time and money on something that is only in their imagination - and I tend to doubt that many would choose to have the rather unsightly splaying of components and wires in their room if they didn't think it was improving their sound -  for those people seeing a skeptical case presented that they may be doing just that, can actually be beneficial.

But, one's subjective experience is something most people find really hard to question.  And when you combine the strength of the subjective "this makes a great difference!" with the various levels of satisfaction people get from tweaking their system, there's often not a lot of motivation to challenge their own beliefs.

glupson,

Reply Pt 2:

I have to admit I looked up your other posts and got an idea or two. It seems that you genuinely have something against those presenting things without full usual scientific research methods. I applaud you for your relentlessness and think you are wasting time and energy on a losing battle.

I can understand how you could get that impression given much of what I’ve written in this thread, and perhaps in the "fuses" thread.

Yes I would argue that science is the Gold Standard of empirical inquiry, the most "epistemologically responsible" method we have, for getting reliable knowledge about experience. It takes the widest view, all our foibles, as seriously as possible in it’s method.

However, there to be noticed is the fact I added caveats numerous times (especially in the fuses thread). Nobody can "do science" on everything they experience, or on everything we buy. That’s just not practical...and often even desirable.

At the same time, it makes no sense to take results from a LESS reliable method of inquiry (e.g. purely subjective impressions) to overturn knowledge derived by our most reliable method. This is why, for instance, it’s not reasonable to replace scientifically-evidenced medical treatments with, say, New Age magical treatment, no matter how grandiose the claims are for their effectiveness. Because new age nostrums tend to be claims based on a really unreliable inference structure and method.

For the same reason when some high end audio tweak is suggested based on a dubious explanation, and it’s effectiveness vetted by the standard subjective method (which can "substantiate" virtually anything people can imagine), then it’s consistent to be skeptical and wait for better evidence.

So what I try to do is scale my confidence - in what I believe and what I would claim to others - with the quality of the evidence I have available.

So if someone is talking about a standard acoustic treatment - a diffuser, bass trap - or talking about the effects of re-positioning a speaker etc - I have no prima facie reason to be skeptical. That these can have audible effects is a well documented and understood phenomenon.

But if someone starts claiming that a tie wrap on a cap alters the sound in some obvious way, I’m going to want to see an explanation that actually makes sense, that for instance people who design caps would endorse, as a starter. And even better if the audible effects were shown under controlled conditions (e.g. controlling for listener bias, etc).

As for my own claims, again, I do my best to scale them with known phenomena and with the quality of the evidence for those phenomena.

I’ll happily talk about the different sounds between speakers...because there is no controversy that speakers sound different.

I’ll talk about, say, what I like about my older Conrad Johnson or Eico tube amps. Because it does not seem controversial, even among "objectivist" nit-picking EEs, that tube amps can in many conditions alter the sound. (Although they can also, I understand, be deliberately engineered to sound identical to an SS amp).

Have I blind tested between my CJ amps and the SS amps I’ve owned?
No. And so I would make any claim about them somewhat modest. I would not simply rule out that it is some level of listener bias I have towards thinking my CJ amps sound the way they do. But, again, there are some technical reasons that suggest it’s plausible I hear what I do.
(And the Eico HF-81, for instance as measured by stereophile, suggests it would be much like a type of tone control in it’s interaction with certain speakers - and I’ve found I really enjoy this effect as I’ve used it with speakers of various types).

I’ve had tweaks before in my system that I didn’t blind test but *seemed* to make a difference. I kept them in for a while, but would have made no claims on their behalf.

Just last night I was about to put up an old "tweak box" for sale and I put it in my system to check that it was working (the SCE Harmonic Recovery Device). It sure as hell sounded like I heard the sound change, and could describe it. So what would my attitude be to this?

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."

But what I WOULDN’T do based on my experience is make any strong CLAIM as to this unit’s effects - translating my subjective impression in to some objective claim it was actually altering the signal audibly (it actually does add a bit of gain, technically, but I’m talking if level matched). I wouldn’t claim that MY EARS are so golden and my perception so incorrigible, that this is all I need to declare the claims of the SCE box to be true, and that even if blind tests showed otherwise...MY EARS ARE STILL RIGHT!

And worse, I personally feel I could never, in good conscience, SELL lots of the items in high end without being able to produce objectively verifiable results of the effects, and hopefully vet via listening tests that have good controls.

For instance, given the amazing claims for how super expensive AC cables alter the sound of a system, I’d really want to be able to back up that claim. It wouldn’t be enough to even just show that, say, the cable cleaned up a bit of the AC signal going through it. If the claim is that this goes on to ALTER the sound that comes out of a system, then I’d want to verify this - for instance by measuring any changes to a signal coming out of a DAC, CD player or whatever, with the stock cable vs my super-duper cable. And I’d also, perhaps, want to measure the output at the speaker (if I’m claiming my cable does the things many companies and audiophiles claim for high end AC cables - better frequency response, dynamics, tighter/deeper bass, etc - much of that should be measurable).

If you read my long thread documenting my efforts to re-build my flimsy equipment rack and create a shelf for my new turntable that would control vibrations, you will see how I tried to get *some* level of objective confirmation for the effects of various materials, and scaled my claims to the evidence I had.  As I said, though I went to great lengths to build my "resonance-controlled" stand, I wouldn't make any claims for it's ultimate effect on the sound without having a better method of vetting those claims.

This is btw, one reason why, when I was reviewing for a while, I would not review high end audio cables (though I’ve been sent a number to listen to, and have had access to many through the years, to check out). I could not in good conscience recommend a cable based solely on my subjective impressions. I may be just fooling myself (and it turned out I WAS fooling myself when I blind tested some) and I wouldn’t want to be responsible for someone possibly wasting their money on a product that doesn’t do what it claims to do, based on what I would write. And I didn’t want to bother blind testing every cable - I wouldn’t be sent any if that was going to be my gig. (I wonder why....and why Stereophile doesn’t even bother measuring AC cables etc....)

So that’s an outline of my general thinking and approach. I often feel like an intruder in high end audio. I have always loved the many creative products. But my rational side often struggles with the excesses and magical thinking part of the hobby.

geoff,

I suggest that you’ll have a much better chance to engage someone in actual dialogue if you sloooow down and read more carefully. If necessary, I suggest running your forefinger slowly beneath each line of text so that you don’t miss anything.

When you understand someone’s point before replying, you are less likely to waste your and anyone else’s time creating the phalanxes of frothing strawmen that you rage against. And, who knows, we could maybe actually have a discussion!

Does anyone know what "pseudo skeptic" means?

Only geoff knows for sure, but you can bet you can feed it to horses. ;[)

Hello jf47t,

It’s nice to hear you are really happy with MG speakers. I’d love to hear a pair as they sound really interesting.

My take on this thread is that there was a real engineer on this forum and some of you did everything in your power to chase him away.

No, simply to get some straight answers to questions that shouldn’t have been that hard.

Michael was encouraging members here to do their homework before speaking about topics that effect other listeners decisions.

1. Some of us have done our own homework, and bring some of that experience to Michael’s claims.

2. Is it not part of doing homework, and simply thinking critically, to ask Michael about the basis for some of his claims? That’s what some of us, like myself, were doing. When the claim arose that untying capacitors "freed" the sound, I was simply asking for the explanations for this, and how it was tested. Isn’t that reasonable? If I tell you that planting pennies in your garden will make your flowers grow faster, do you run out and to this first thing - especially when the concept doesn’t even make sense to you?

Or would you first want to ask "what’s the basis for that claim? How do pennies cause flowers to grow faster and how did you test that idea?"

Before we spend time on an activity, doesn’t it make sense to first determine whether it seems worth one’s time?

Some of you appeared to get upset because Michael is a straight shooter and doesn’t waste time or allow his time to be wasted.

I presume you didn’t read a lot of the thread then?

The main problem is that Michael did NOT appear to be a straight shooter in this thread. He was very evasive - and for seemingly no good reason. That’s what numerous people have commented on.

I don’t know Michael’s engineering credentials, but I personally haven’t seen an engineer refuse to answer some of the basic and obvious engineering questions I was asking (e.g. what measured parameters change between a tied cap and an untied cap?)

I always thought that was a virtue, but not here.

Agree 100 percent. That’s why it was so odd to see MG brush off so many questions and calls for clarification.

I do hope that his future threads are more engaging even with those people who may have some questions about his claims and methods.
Of course, if he wants to stay strictly preaching to the choir, he has his own forum.

Cheers.

thecarpathian,

As you can see Geoff’s attempt to critique that portion of my post (mentioning "credentials") is the usual attempt to avoid the actual substance of the point made. He just ignores the point that an engineer wouldn’t typically evade answering pertinent engineering questions about his own claims. In fact, I can not remember - ever, in an online discussion or elsewhere - an engineer or someone with expert credentials in some audio field so deliberately evading pertinent questions. Usually they are only too happy to explain more and make their case.

Whether I’m an engineer or not - and I’m not - has nothing to do with my observation about MG avoiding questions, so of course I wasn’t making it some "let’s compare credentials" statement. MG may have the best credentials I’ve ever seen and that would be irrelevant to the fact he was evading questions. So Geoff is as usual snapping at air - there was zero of pertinence to the substance of my post.

Michael Green used very move in the book to avoid answering my posts.
When he asked me to tell him about the different sound between two capacitors - it was an obvious attempt to distract from answering my questions about the evidence for his claims concerning capacitors and tie wraps. Anyone paying attention could easily infer what his motivation was: "I’m going to bring up two very specific capacitors, and it will show that prof hasn’t experience with those capacitors, therefore it will leave the impression that prof hasn’t the experience I, Michael Green, have, which will leave the impression prof has no leg on which to stand in being a skeptic on these issues. It will show prof is ’talking but not walking."

The post utterly wreaked of that obvious motivation.

But I didn’t give him an answer that would warrant that conclusion at all.

I haven’t played with those capacitors so I wouldn’t be making a claim either way - whether or how they sound different and in what applications. So I have no burden of proof. But if Michael claims they sound different, I would like to see on what evidence he is making the claim.

As there is NOTHING Michael could actually impugn about my stance in that reply, he could not - as with every other post of mine - honestly interact with it to find fault.

So instead he simply thanked me for answering. Did he ever explain the reason for the question? (I asked...but he wouldn’t say...spelling it out would spell out too vividly the fallacy and evasive tactic he was using).

But by just thanking me for my answer, he would leave in the air the impression - for anyone impressionable enough - that he’d just made a point.

As I said; a textbook intellectually dishonest interaction.

But it does seem that a number of people noticed, and didn’t fall for it.

Like I said: MG may have some truly helpful, interesting and efficacious techniques to share. It’s just a shame to cloud it with this type of behaviour and I hope future interactions are more positive.

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...

uberwaltz,
Sounds great!
But please remember: I will not take your opinion on this movie as reliable unless you your assessment was made in the context of proper methodological controls, including a control group.
Otherwise, have fun! :-)

So geoff’s hand was finally forced to show his"pseudo skeptic" card that he kept threatening me and others with - throwing around that label as if it suited, or showed any problem with, my arguments.

Of course, if anyone reads the "definition" of pseudo skeptic he can see that my arguments actually fit right in with the definition of a "True" skeptic:

In science, the burden of proof falls upon the claimant; and the more extraordinary a claim, the heavier is the burden of proof demanded. The true skeptic takes an agnostic position, one that says the claim is not proved rather than disproved. He asserts that the claimant has not borne the burden of proof and that science must continue to build its cognitive map of reality without incorporating the extraordinary claim as a new "fact." Since the true skeptic does not assert a claim, he has no burden to prove anything. He just goes on using the established theories of "conventional science" as usual.

And that’s what I’ve done: refrained from making any absolute claims that a tweak doesn’t work, but instead have asked for the evidence.

My reply to glupson summarizing my position, on this very page, falls right in line with the above concept of "True skepticism." You can see the caution and tentative nature of what I myself would claim, and how I apply that same caution and "provisional" conclusions to other people’s claims - scaling my confidence with the nature of the claim and the quality of the evidence.

And everything I’ve written has been careful to stay within those bounds.Never have I said "X tweak CAN NOT make a difference." Instead, I have simply asked for the evidence. And where appropriate, explained why I have some grounds for skepticism.

People who think in a blinkered biased fashion often only see an argument for skepticism as "A dogmatic denial of the claim" when in fact, of course, it is not at all. It is simply giving a reason why you are asking for better evidence than has been provided (e.g. if you make a claim that either does not seem to make technical sense, or that goes against some of my and other people’s own experience, these are reasons to withhold belief and ask for better evidence than someone’s "say so."). To express skepticism isn’t to say "Your claim is false" but to point out "you have not provided sufficient evidence for me to accept that claim, for these reasons..."

But you can’t really argue this to someone absolutely set on one way of thinking, or whose claims are threatened by "True Skepticism."

And I wouldn’t expect geoff to "get it" if after all this time it hasn’t sunk in. But geoff’s never ending stream of gaffs can sometimes be handy to point out various fallacies and bad arguments, so we have him to thank for that ;-)

So geoff, you are avoiding the point...again.

The point being: I do not fit the definition of "pseudo-skeptic" that you posted.

It's obvious to anyone who would read it. 

Can you dredge up the teeniest bit of integrity to acknowledge this?