2. tech-talk
  3. 135904-110926

Talk but not walk?

Hi Guys

This isn't meant to start a fight, but it is important to on lookers. As a qualifier, I have my own audio forum where we report on audio issues as we empirically test them. It helps us short cut on theories and developing methods of listening. We have a wide range of systems and they are all over the world adding their experiences to the mix. Some are engineers, some are artist and others are audiophiles both new and old. One question I am almost always asked while I am visiting other forums, from some of my members and also members of the forum I am visiting is, why do so many HEA hobbyist talk theory without any, or very limited, empirical testing or experience?

I have been around empirical testing labs since I was a kid, and one thing that is certain is, you can always tell if someone is talking without walking. Right now on this forum there are easily 20 threads going on where folks are talking theory and there is absolutely no doubt to any of us who have actually done the testing needed, that the guy talking has never done the actual empirical testing themselves. I've seen this happen with HEA reviewers and designers and a ton of hobbyist. My question is this, why?

You would think that this hobby would be about listening and experience, so why are there so many myths created and why, in this hobby in particular, do people claim they know something without ever experimenting or being part of a team of empirical science folks. It's not that hard to setup a real empirical testing ground, so why don't we see this happen?

I'm not asking for peoples credentials, and I'm not asking to be trolled, I'm simply asking why talk and not walk? In many ways HEA is on pause while the rest of audio innovation is moving forward. I'm also not asking you guys to defend HEA, we've all heard it been there done it. What I'm asking is a very simple question in a hobby that is suppose to be based on "doing", why fake it?

thanks, be polite

Michael Green

www.michaelgreenaudio.net


128x128michaelgreenaudio
mitch2
3,969 posts
 
@geoffkait
"you should probably get your ears candled pronto."
Thanks for the concern but my ears are fine. However, I am concerned that you seem to be a bit "candled" at times;
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=candled
Get some rest, clean the heads on that Walkman, and don't go on any river boat trips with your buddy Martin.

geoffkait's avatar
geoffkait
23,365 posts
 
12 Angry Men quotes

Juror #2: It’s hard to put into words. I just think he’s guilty. I thought it was obvious from the word, ’Go’. Nobody proved otherwise.
Juror #8: Nobody has to prove otherwise. The burden of proof is on the prosecution. The defendant doesn’t even have to open his mouth. That’s in the Constitution.

Juror #8: It’s always difficult to keep personal prejudice out of a thing like this. And wherever you run into it, prejudice always obscures the truth.

Juror #3: That business before when that tall guy, what’s-his-name, was trying to bait me? That doesn’t prove anything. I’m a pretty excitable person. I mean, where does he come off calling me a public avenger, sadist and everything? Anyone in his right mind would blow his stack. He was just trying to bait me.
Juror #4: He did an excellent job.

Juror #8: I just want to talk.
Juror #7: What’s there to talk about?
markcooperstein
12 posts
 
You use the word "empirical" six times in your rant. What's with that?. 😦
glupson
7,842 posts
 

Michael Green,


I was thinking about your sitcom deal.Maybe you should ask your agent to change it in promotional materials into a "walkcom" or "talkcom". It would be more aligned with the original name and would add the cache of something new. Sitcom just does not cut it.


I would agree with you that, at times, the topic of this thread becomes more of an argument about someone’s (not only yours although you are the frontrunner) personality which, I think, it should not be. It is understandable that, at times, people confuse it when not keeping focus only on words written. Along the way, we all got some impression about other posters’ personalities, but they should not be the topic. At least I think so or at least until someone directly starts insulting us. Benign joking comment could be fine, but not full-blown attack.


As for the original post, I think it could have been phrased differently and still promote discussion, but it was not me who wrote it so it really does not matter. That is the personal style, in this case yours, and it is what it is. I think that people got offended by being called "fakers" or something like that while they are trying their best to the extent of their abilities, circumstances, and beliefs. That is quite understandable and then they said "Look who is talking". So you were on the spot.

geoffkait's avatar
geoffkait
23,365 posts
 
mitch2
@geoffkait
"you should probably get your ears candled pronto."

Thanks for the concern but my ears are fine. Get some rest, clean the heads on that Walkman, and don’t go on any river boat trips with your buddy Martin.

>>>>Huh? My buddy Martin? Are you referring to Martin Short? Martin Scorsese? Marty McFly? Or did you mean my Martian buddy? Oh, I get it. Martin Sheen. OK, that’s not too bad.

More to discover