Yep, that would be them! A pretty fun time. It changed stage performances dramatically. We did a mixture of shotguns, PZM, wireless and hand held wireless and centipedes. The patterns up until then would leave holes in the performance, but using the floor and walls as the actual microphone was the beginning of a whole new way of tracking and EQing. lol amg, so I'm taking it that you would like a pay stub from me of all the places I worked? Pretty weird dude! Michael Green www.michaelgreenaudio.net |
Michael, you are a chameleon. I finished 4 years of engineering in 1977. You must be well older than me. I don't see the need to exaggerate my credentials. Why do your posts of historical endeavours seem to be out of kilter with posted history? Were you really there at all? |
Well thanks amg I've always tried to explore every part of audio I could get my hands on, especially in the 70's and 80's. I think I'm a bit younger than you though. What do you mean by "really there at all"? Really where? Michael Green www.michaelgreenaudio.net |
I understand experience and that everything we do is experience, or we can call it empirical, in some way. That could be stretched to some philosophical level and I am fine with that for those who enjoy contemplating in that direction.
I was not arguing about the meaning of experimenting, I do think it has practical use even if, at times, it may seem to be for placebo effect only. My focus was on words used ("empirical testing lab") which seem, to say the least, redundant. I am not trying to nitpick on semantics. It is just that I am trying to figure out why those words were used. Could a "testing lab" be anything else but empirical?
I am really asking and not trying to speak from a position of superiority which will expose others as incompetent (that seems to happen a lot in this thread, by the way). It is that, over time, I learned that sometimes words get plugged into some statement which then seems to get credibility from just having that "fancy" word or description in it. That lead me to thinking about empirical, theoretical, and what would a "theoretical testing lab" look like in this case. "Empirical" would have some electronic equipment, a chair, whatever else placed on the walls, etc., but what about theoretical? Does anyone have an answer? I cannot come up with one although I have been trying for some time.
It is not about differences in two major opinions about the topic of this thread. I somehow picked two things along the way and they both included well-known words that sound somewhat "sophisticated" (not the best word to describe them but I cannot come up with the better one) which I could not properly put in the context of what is discussed. Both times, I have tried to learn and broaden my horizons.
|
@prof
I do not share your perspective. How we all interpret comments and actions is always based on the lens or perspective we view those comments and actions through. If you’re looking for offense you’re going to find it is certainly true in relationships and even here in threads. The lens or perspective you’re using is yours and differs from mine. I don’t see the offenses you see. Time for you to perhaps let this thread breath and have some real value for the rest of us.
Our perspectives are really choices. I have decided to view people and all manner of life situations and events through a lens that I sense is becoming rare in today’s communications and community. A lens colored with shades of intentional curiosity and peacemaking. No reason for me to look for offenses between the lines as most times they are not real or healthy to dwell on. |
glupson
I understand experience and that everything we do is experience, or we can call it empirical, in some way. That could be stretched to some philosophical level and I am fine with that for those who enjoy contemplating in that direction.
I was not arguing about the meaning of experimenting, I do think it has practical use even if, at times, it may seem to be for placebo effect only. My focus was on words used ("empirical testing lab") which seem, to say the least, redundant. I am not trying to nitpick on semantics. It is just that I am trying to figure out why those words were used. Could a "testing lab" be anything else but empirical?
I am really asking and not trying to speak from a position of superiority which will expose others as incompetent (that seems to happen a lot in this thread, by the way). It is that, over time, I learned that sometimes words get plugged into some statement which then seems to get credibility from just having that "fancy" word or description in it. That lead me to thinking about empirical, theoretical, and what would a "theoretical testing lab" look like in this case. "Empirical" would have some electronic equipment, a chair, whatever else placed on the walls, etc., but what about theoretical? Does anyone have an answer? I cannot come up with one although I have been trying for some time.
It is not about differences in two major opinions about the topic of this thread. I somehow picked two things along the way and they both included well-known words that sound somewhat "sophisticated" (not the best word to describe them but I cannot come up with the better one) which I could not properly put in the context of what is discussed. Both times, I have tried to learn and broaden my horizons.
>>>>I suspect you’re over thinking it. Empirical implies either listening tests or some sort of measurements - or both in some cases. No reason to get wrapped around the axel with all the philosophy.
|
I will add that you seem like a very smart man and one I could learn from. I honestly view MGs comments and motivation as helpful, fresh and born out of a healthy dose of curiosity. |
Good morning Tunees My listening session last night with George Michael "Faith" was something I needed to digest and I'm still not sure I have the words. The sound stage was more than full it was full and enormous. I felt like I could rise from my seat and walk through the image. What's freaky is that's what I did. The speakers no matter where I stood had vanished. The room took over the sound. I asked Michael how this was possible and his answer was "that's the way pressure works when a system is in tune with the recording". I had to sit down and stand up a few times to finally hear that the seating position out did the rest of the listening area it was that good. It was like being inside of a giant set of headphones in all the right ways. I know this recording well but I realized I didn't know it at all. Sitting in the chair I could feel all the music through my body head to toe. Still with all this vibration MG didn't have the music up loud that was another mystery to me. The bass was vibrating my chest through to my back but the volume was not overly loud a first time for me. The bass was also very tight and at the same time full of body. The sound pressure was like a great set of horns without the sound of horns. Michael left me alone to learn on my own but what I was hearing was not possible. He wants to introduce me to top tuning soon. |
Back in the day early 1980's a friend of mine had a statement speaker that used Ed Longs patented TA time aligned technology. A short time later the predecessor to the Bag End subs that operated below their resonance were devised.. The 2 10's spec'd by Ed Long and built by Eminence were integrated into this small baffle speaker system. I used a Mcintosh mq101 a Dahlquist LP1 and an Apt Holman amp to control and power the 2 pr of 10's...I owned this speaker system and it was installed in my first home. Huge soundstage and to this day probably the best bass I ever heard in a home. All the drivers were designed to spec by Ed Long except for the tweeter. The 4 cone drivers were shallow in shape as Ed said at that time these drivers would maintain their TA over a wider frequency range versus the deep dish variety.
We also used a calibration and measurement system sold to us by Ed and probably Ron to measure the other speaker systems my friend built. The TA/ nearly Bag End system was not a pretty site..and was not a viable product for sale..Sure sounded great and learned so much from these engineers as much of this was cutting edge back then. Tom |
grannyring words do have meaning. However its possible they do not accurately reflect what the writer really meant to communicate to all. Thats OK. It’s always possible to clarify if needed. If one does not mean something that another infers just be polite and say so. End of story. |
Hello prof, If I may jump in and reply to your initial set of questions previously addressed to the audiotweak (he is on Holiday time:) The question remains: how much vibration is *actually* occurring in any component in question, or in the case of any cap, and then; does it have *audible* consequences.
Electromechanical, mechanical and acoustic resonance caused from vibration establishes component and environmental operational inefficiency. Resonance affects performance. Audible is the primary focus when adapting or applying our technology to any device. Increasing operational efficiency on fan motors must be measured and is inaudible however when our technology is applied to air conditioner compressors the results are audible as well. it’s not JUST a hypothesis that the phenomena in question exists; it’s the hypothesis that the tweak, or product, under consideration produces AUDIBLE CHANGES in the output of a stereo system.
Anyone can do their own RTA, FFT and SPL tests in order to ‘see’ the results from any of our product offerings. This type of testing is more on the subjective side of science but is easily charted. You will ‘hear’ the evidence provided by highly AUDIBLE increases in performance from the product. Operational temperature of an amplifier pre and post using Sistrum Platforms™ is more of a scientific approach to proving function. When the thermal temperature reduces from implementing any Sistrum Platform, it becomes visually obvious that the operational efficiency of the amplifier has increased. From the more subjective standpoint so will the musical quality of sound increase from reducing heat. This is the Big Red Flag in high end audio claims. Appeal to science and engineering all the way up to the point where you ask for measured results, and then suddenly it’s handed off to marketing. Agreed. Our problem with providing measured results has always been one of financial procurement and investment. In order to provide the correct data avoid of any doubt or people who insist on doubts as to the test and results requires third party independent testing in a well respected laboratory. Most companies generate a few charts or graphs involving some type of test in hopes 'seeing is believing'. Have you ever reviewed any “in house” test that did not favor the product in question? Then ask yourself, how the test relates to audio reproduction? Example: In our case placing a rack on a shaker table or stomping up and down on a floor or whacking the product with a hammer is meaningless as those obscure situations do not exist in a listening environment. Add to that, the 'in house' test is never truly defined whereas an independent lab would provide information on all the variables including information on the structural environment, equipment list, date of last calibration of test equipment, testing methods, data before, during and after the test is completed, etc… Anyone can design and produce a chart or graphs that display positive results for their own offerings - now that’s what we call handing it over to marketing - creative marketing. The harsh reality of third party testing is financially based. Questions immediately arise such as; what is the total financial outlay going to do for the immediate growth of the company and can the company absorb the cost. The CFO has to determine how the tests will be paid for. As you are aware we are not talking pocket change as independent third party testing plus hiring the D.D.E. who will analyze and write opinions on the results costs a lot of money. In our case, that kind of cash buys the next prototype or manufactures the next product or increases existing inventory to keep up with sales demands. AND let's not forget there can be many types of tests involving a single design. Regards to measurements: We use FFT and appropriate software plus SPL measurements in order to assist us in analyzing and determining if we are on the correct approach. Example: The mechanically grounded studio environment recently constructed in Madison, WI was tested with recorded data each step of the way. Began with an empty structure then added grounding instruments on the forward wall - took measurements using four types of test recordings then adding the grounding instruments to each wall thereafter where the same data was recorded. This information was forwarded to a well written and respected seismologist who is heavily involved in the study of shear and velocity of sound. She also holds multiple patents and has a vast knowledge of musical instruments. The information is also forwarded to highly respected sound engineers for further review and opinions. In the case of an average electronic component - say a CD player sitting in my rack or whatever - how much vibration would the unit actually be undergoing? Have you measured this? I can tell you that, at least with my ipad seismometer app (obviously more crude than a professional device) it can easily measure vibration levels I can’t even feel. It registers no detectable vibration when simply sat on any of my components. Zero. And that’s a device *looking* to register vibration. I really do not like answering a question with more questions but we need more information. What were the testing parameters? Volume up or down? What was the room SPL and did you attempt to use various volume levels, etc, what material was the equipment setting on? On the social side of things: Do you believe that electricity flow generates vibration in electronics circuits (on all active electronic parts that are passing signal) and that vibration forms resonance where said resonance propagates on all smooth surfaces hence blocking or restricting all signal pathways? Have you ever researched Coulomb's law? I am not attempting to avoid, distance, distract alter conversation or argue but we do require more information prior to forming an opinion in your test case scenario. Do you have measurements showing the average ambient vibration on a component? Do you have measurements showing this ambient vibration actually alters the values or performance of a tied vs untied cap? Those are pretty obvious questions, right? The answer is no to the first question as we do not know what an average ambient vibration on a component is or how many chassis’ it would take to come up with an average. Who is in charge of paying the freight charges on those five hundred to a thousand chassis required for testing?⌣ Every chassis is constructed of different materials, thicknesses, sizing and weights which is what we would have to document before establishing test parameters. No to the second question, never had a reason to pursue the issue and not sure about the term ‘obvious questions’ relative to the capacitor conversation. Then do you have measurements from any output of an audio device that uses capacitors that indicates the audio signal would have changed? How did you measure, how did you test? Placing our technology into an existing amplifier design we mechanically grounded all critical parts to the chassis (transformer, cap bank, output and principle circuit card) then placing the amplifier on a Sistrum Platform completing the high speed grounding pathway from parts to chassis to the greater sink (mass), the floor. Were the results audible - yes very. Did the operating temperature of the amplifier reduce - yes significantly. The only measurement taken besides temperature was the RMS output. There were many changes made so we cannot state that the capacitors were the only part responsible to improving the sonic of the amplifier. This initial test led Star Sound to build forty mono amplifiers that were sold to the public which paid for the project. Steve Keiser (B & K) provided the circuit design and was responsible for sonic signature of the amplifier. We mounted all the critical parts in a Star Sound fashion using Sistrum geometry. The project was considered a success and advanced our understanding of a developing new technology. The amps were built in 2003 where there was one issue related to failure since that time so we believe the operational efficiency of the product has established a track record for longevity. In 2004 we did the same type of project manufacturing forty pair of monitor speakers (included caps) and titled the speaker Caravelle. If only via listening tests, did you account for listener bias? Every product we manufacture is based on listener’s recommendations, opinions and objections. In 2000 we chose to sell factory direct and have yet to open web based purchasing. We prefer to communicate with every client in order to learn more about audio or solve problems and earn your business. For nineteen years we worked with people in this manner which has provided us a greater capacity to innovate, further advance our technology and grow the company from hands on listener experience. Robert Star Sound
|
Today Michael had me pick out another CD he said choose any you want. I chose "Aqualung". As soon as MG saw the title you could see him looking at the system plotting a course. The recording when he hit play sounded ok but it didn't have anywhere near the impact I was listening to last night. We let the recording play one pass through while we did something else. Coming back to the recording it sounded much different but unorganized. Michael made 3 adjustments to the tuning blocks he had underneath the sub crossover the amp and the cd player. He told me he usually doesn't go this fast but he could fine tune later. When he got the blocks rearranged we took another 15 minute break. I could hear it as soon as we walked back into the room. MG did his shaking of his head thinking of his next move probably and I sat down. Amazing the dots to the recording were connecting this was night and day. MG had me put the player on pause as he gently lifted each component and set them back down. When I hit play it was yet another level reaching closer to the experience I had with George. Michael made a couple of adjustments on the sub amp and stood in the hallway while I listened. One song played MG had me put it on pause he walked to the power strip did something and had me hit play again while he went into his writing room. Blew my mind. Like with Faith never have I heard Aqualung any thing like this. Michael has traded places with me while I write this and it will be interesting if he does any other tuning. |
Robert,
I have less time thus far to post today, but I just want to drop in to say:
Now THAT is a good response! You clearly took the questions seriously and took care to understand the relevance and reply to the points I was raising.
Thank you, much appreciated.
I'll try to get back with a more worthwhile reply.
|
geoffkait,
I do not think I am overthinking it. In fact, I barely give it a thought. My question is due to the repeated statements including "empirical testing" that nobody questioned. It became the basic postulate while, to my current understanding that I am eager to expand if someone gives me an explanation, it is just three words meant to make it seem legitimate and serious. Both sides accepted it while they might have not needed it. That part is relevant to the debate of this thread. My real personal intention is to learn more about the matter that involves "empirical testing lab" so I can be aware of different approaches with no sway to either of the two sides of this thread (that battle is lost for both, in my belief). Just claiming that something is "empirical" is not that hard to come up with. Of course it is. What else would it be? Now, think about using the word "lab" there. That is a pretty heavy stuff. It is a nightmare to set up a lab. And here, I saw it thrown around as if it is my living room which was not that complicated to set up. But using "lab" and "empirical" in one sentence insinuates something really strong. At the same time, it implies the existence of a "theoretical testing lab" which is my interest as I have never ran across one. I gave up on figuring out if tuning works, if people walk or talk, but am hoping to learn something here.
|
audiopoint,
Thanks for your post. It was informative and well-structured. It opened some new ways of understanding, for me at least.
|
@audiopoint Well explained and well written. Of course there will be further questions and enquiries regarding the behaviour of elements that make up HiFi systems in general, realising each system is unique, in environment, componentry, wiring and power. I realise there are a lot more factors to be discussed but for those who are of curious mind, its a good read. @jf47t Thank you for your descriptions of what occurred to influence the change in sound/musical experience you had at MG's. It gives a better mind's eye picture of what may be available in our systems to change. |
I get it now after putting on Chuck Girard "Chuck Girard" it has become clear to me that there is another level to a system. Following Michael down to his curing shop he showed me a sea of old school receivers carefully covered with plastic so they wouldn't get dust in them. He put me to work bringing them upstairs. Btw the curing shop is full of panels different lengths of redwood Brazilian pine and other pieces. There's one chair with a table and sanding paper all over the place. There's a huge jointer. MG's wood shop is at another location. This space is for curing and voicing only. Michael's pride and joy is this shelving of paper he said ranges from 80-3000 grit. I saw some finishes but those are off limits. I've been wood shopping with Michael before but the listening and materials are coming together for me now. MG will tell you he isn't a wood worker but it's easy to see he is into wood voicing. When we got back upstairs he showed me two pieces of wood. I held the one to my ear and tapped on it and it sounded resonant and you could hear the harmonics. He handed me the next piece and it sounded like tapping on a cello's body. These came from the same wood cut WOW. He pointed to the CD player and said "that's what your listening to now". Michael has many types of cones and feet made out of brass, aluminum, titanium, zinc, copper, nickel, custom mixes and a bunch of other materials in different shapes. He also has different types of springs and other odd looking things. Sometime this weekend he said he will insert small amounts of these materials into the system so I can hear the effect. It might take a week or two because things have to settle but I'll get an idea. He's also been explaining to me what's been happening with the fields, vibration, mass, pressure and gravity how they are all working together. |
@jf47t This give more light into the workings of MG "The HiFi Whisperer". It must have taken many, many hours to develop an ear for various materials. |
glupson
geoffkait,
I do not think I am overthinking it. In fact, I barely give it a thought. My question is due to the repeated statements including "empirical testing" that nobody questioned. It became the basic postulate while, to my current understanding that I am eager to expand if someone gives me an explanation, it is just three words meant to make it seem legitimate and serious. Both sides accepted it while they might have not needed it. That part is relevant to the debate of this thread. My real personal intention is to learn more about the matter that involves "empirical testing lab" so I can be aware of different approaches with no sway to either of the two sides of this thread (that battle is lost for both, in my belief). Just claiming that something is "empirical" is not that hard to come up with. Of course it is. What else would it be? Now, think about using the word "lab" there. That is a pretty heavy stuff. It is a nightmare to set up a lab. And here, I saw it thrown around as if it is my living room which was not that complicated to set up. But using "lab" and "empirical" in one sentence insinuates something really strong. At the same time, it implies the existence of a "theoretical testing lab" which is my interest as I have never ran across one. I gave up on figuring out if tuning works, if people walk or talk, but am hoping to learn something here.
>>>>>>>Methinks you’re getting hung up on words, on semantics. Empirical, testing and lab mean different things to different people. Test system, test protocol, test plan, test evaluation, test results - those terms mean different things to different people. Nobody ever agrees what constitutes a “scientific” test or a proper after the testing has been finished. It all has to be agreed a priori to have any meaning or validity. You seem to be under the impression this is some sort of peer review forum.
Theoretical testing lab? Huh? What do you think this is, Los Alamos? NIST? Harvard? A theoretical testing lab can be anyone’s listening room. Or someone’s basement. Hel-loo?
All that aside, as I’ve cautioned before a single audio test has no meaning if the test results are negative, no matter how careful and thorough the test may have been.
Pop quiz: which freezes faster, cold water or warm water?
|
amg56
@jf47t This give more light into the workings of MG "The HiFi Whisperer". It must have taken many, many hours to develop an ear for various materials.
>>>>>Gosh, ya think?
|
geoffkait, Theoretical testing lab? Huh? What do you think this is, Los Alamos? NIST? Harvard? A theoretical testing lab can be anyone’s listening room. Or someone’s basement. Hel-loo? I think this is just a forum for people wasting some time on, if you really want to know what I think. At the same time, if we start talking about things and calling them something, I believe we should know what we are talking about. Otherwise, it just becomes blah-blah-am-I-smart-blah-blah and continues an argument that maybe never should have been. I am not hung up on semantics at all, just on calling things their names instead of writing "scientific" poetry. For now, I do not find your description of a "theoretical testing lab" fully finished. I was under impression that someone's listening room would be more of an "empirical testing lab", if the person wanted to glorify it. There are many big words thrown around this thread and some of them are of questionable origin, to say the least. I have no intention in disputing someone's tuning/tweaking results and what she/he hears or does not hear, but others are arguing about it. The whole thread started with "empirical testing" as an important event and I just wondered what is a "non-empirical testing". Maybe two camps that are arguing around here are not talking about same things, at all. |
It seems that for every thing that gets mentioned as a tweak/tuning there are two sides. One claims it is non-sense and cannot be true noticeable difference and the other side claims that the difference is noticeable. However, I got an impression that the difference is always for better. I am not talking about echo in the room and positioning the speakers, but more about those things that get argued about a lot (let’s say, demagnetizing CDs, lifting cables from the ground on a certain wood blocks, etc.). Is there a way that lifting cables on birch instead of oak blocks would make sound worse, whatever that "worse" may mean? It somehow does not come across as a possibility. |
glupson
geoffkait,
Theoretical testing lab? Huh? What do you think this is, Los Alamos? NIST? Harvard? A theoretical testing lab can be anyone’s listening room. Or someone’s basement. Hel-loo?
I think this is just a forum for people wasting some time on, if you really want to know what I think. At the same time, if we start talking about things and calling them something, I believe we should know what we are talking about. Otherwise, it just becomes blah-blah-am-I-smart-blah-blah and continues an argument that maybe never should have been.
I am not hung up on semantics at all, just on calling things their names instead of writing "scientific" poetry. For now, I do not find your description of a "theoretical testing lab" fully finished. I was under impression that someone’s listening room would be more of an "empirical testing lab", if the person wanted to glorify it.
There are many big words thrown around this thread and some of them are of questionable origin, to say the least. I have no intention in disputing someone’s tuning/tweaking results and what she/he hears or does not hear, but others are arguing about it. The whole thread started with "empirical testing" as an important event and I just wondered what is a "non-empirical testing". Maybe two camps that are arguing around here are not talking about same things, at all.
>>>>Have it your way. You want something to be something other than what is. Haven’t you ever heard of fluffing? You don’t have to have a real lab with people in white smocks running around with white socks and calculators. Are you so removed that you never heard of Herbies Audio Lab? Or Jena Labs? Or Marigo Audio Labs. Those examples as fate would have it are essentially one man operations. I could call my company Machina Dynamica Labs. Capish? A lab, even an “empirical lab” or theoretical physics lab” is whatever you want it to be, whatever works for you. I suspect this discussion, if I can be so bold, is kind of a mind game for you. Which is kind of what MG was getting at in his OP. You know, with the fakes and everything.
|
glupson, It seems that for every thing that gets mentioned as a tweak/tuning there are two sides. One claims it is non-sense and cannot be true noticeable difference and the other side claims that the difference is noticeable. That’s actually the false dichotomy that I’ve been at pains to reject. As I keep arguing here, one doesn’t have to take a single side "it makes an audible difference/it doesn’t make an audible difference" position. One can simply take the position "I don’t know if there is an audible difference, so let’s discuss the reasons and evidence for why there might be an audible difference, or not." Being a long time audio-nut myself, and always liking the idea of further enhancing the sound of my system, I'm very attracted to the idea of "tweaking" my system. So it's not something I reject on some weird a priori grounds - in my more tweaky moments I WANT things to make a difference. But I also realize this is also when I'm most likely to fool myself that there is a difference. |
Quick interrupt! There has never been a single audiophile tweak that was ever proved to be a fake or a hoax. Of course it all depends. Some pills make you bigger, some pills make you small, the ones that mother gives you don’t do anything at all. Much of the confusion over tweaks and backlash and oddball results actually stem from operator error. I’m not hot doggin ya! 🌭 |
@geoffkait These are as many no proven to have effect as well. Empirical testing caters for both "judgement" testing and "conditional" testing. It is just what is agreed, UP FRONT, to test and how to test, the thing to be tested, or judged etc. We all have agricultural shows where the jam testing is agreed upon by majority of tasters. They do have criteria by which they are looking for a flavour. "Tweak" testing is if carried out by an individual, and found favourable, could rightly be shared to benefit all of us. HOWEVER, if "Tweaks" are of a commercial nature and some stands to gain financially from is, then it is quite reasonable for people to ask for greater criteria and repeatable results with explanation of how it works in principle, given that there may be IP or patents pending. I am not sure that I understand you pill popping statement. Are these the result of empirical tests, your own experiences, and what your mother did to you? |
All. I have no idea what happened to my first sentence. This (Microsoft surface keyboard) teleports the cursor all over the space. My apologies, but I didn't read what I had written in full until I hit POST. I think I was responding to Geoff by saying (no spelling correction now), "there are as many tweaks not to have been PROVEN to have any effect as well". It is only breakfast time here so the pills won't have started to work fully yet. ;0) |
@geoffkait Hey Geoff, will your quantum teleportation thingy fix my keyboard? |
amg56, you do realize you can edit your post? You have up to 30 minutes to edit. The next best thing is you can delete your errant post and start all over. |
@geoffkait Thanks for the info. I hadn't realised that. Actually the best thing to do is re-read your post BEORE pressing post. Regardless of mood... |
geoffkait,
Anyone can call her/his company whatever they want and it means only that it is that company’s name. However, this empirical testing in this thread was not a name for the company but something that opponents were accused of not doing and therefore their opinion being less worthy. Fakers, talkers, whatever they ended up being. Your explanation consists of correct words applied to an entirely unrelated thing.
As far as labs go, it is clear that they can have different locations, set-ups, and dress codes, and nobody should ever question that part. What I was curious about was that unfortunate syntagma. I hoped to get an explanation that will teach me about something I have never heard about. Well, I still have not learned, but blame it on me and not on the word you so masterfully reminded me about. Fluffiness. I should have thought of it first.
This is far from a mind game for me. Who would go to some "audiophile" forum to play mind games with people he has never met and probably never will? It seems like the battle, time, and, easily, mind lost in advance. I approach it as something to kill time and maybe learn a thing or two. So far, in this thread, I really got interested in two details that did not seem right so I wondered if I can learn something about them. Both were focused on something written somewhere, meaning they were sort of tangible and should be explainable. I really cannot care less about differences in sound that somebody believes and the other one does not believe in. I do not even care about the sound I listen to that much. I know, I am on the wrong forum. I am far from walker, barely a talker, but am a careful listener and, it seems so, reader.
It seems that neither am I good enough at explaining my question about empirical testing (lab is a cheerful bonus), nor are you good at understanding that same question. It is like deaf and mute having a discussion. So I will leave that topic. No need to perseverate on what has proven to be futile. Wait, aren’t we on Talk but not walk thread?
|
Today I learned the difference between tweaking and tuning. I'm not sure if Michael would agree with this as he gives latitude for tweaks mods and component swapping but what I've been hearing is a different hobby. MG has asked me not to mention the brands of the high end system we have setup as our competing 2nd system but he says that it's important for me to see how far high end can go with tweaking vs what a tunable system can do. That's a classy approach to not pick on specific brands. He doesn't want to hurt anyone's business while he is convince the hobby is taking a big turn. Tonight we've been doing some interesting comparisons. Both systems have been setup fairly by Michael. I'll call one the tunable system and the other the HEA system. |
jf47t
“Today I learned the difference between tweaking and tuning. I’m not sure if Michael would agree with this as he gives latitude for tweaks mods and component swapping but what I’ve been hearing is a different hobby. MG has asked me not to mention the brands of the high end system we have setup as our competing 2nd system but he says that it’s important for me to see how far high end can go with tweaking vs what a tunable system can do. That’s a classy approach to not pick on specific brands. He doesn’t want to hurt anyone’s business while he is convince the hobby is taking a big turn. Tonight we’ve been doing some interesting comparisons. Both systems have been setup fairly by Michael. I’ll call one the tunable system and the other the HEA system.”
>>>>>>>That sounds like a Strawman waiting to happen. 😬 What it appears you really need is a Tweaking Guru tweaking the HEA system with the Tuning Guru tuning the other system. I’m not sure the two systems should even be in the same house.
There is what we call the Hierarchy of Sound, not to sound too high fallutin’. The Hierarchy of sound embraces the concept that a modestly priced tweaked (or tuned) system can sound considerably better than a more expensive system that hasn’t been tweaked or tuned. Make sense?
Furthermore people seem to be under the impression tweaking involves a limited set of commonly used thingamabobs, rubber dampers or cones, for example. With that notion firmly planted in one’s head the “tweaked system” is bound to fail. Obviously there’s a right way and a wrong way to do things. And there are way too many variables to try to put Tweaking, the art of tweaking, in a nice convenient little box. That’s a self fulfilling prophecy. But Tweaking is not that easily defined - or accomplished. It’s not just a simole case of coupling vs decoupling. Tweaking is just a word. You guys might be under the impression that Tweaking is a planet. But Tweaking is not a planet, it’s not even solar system or a galaxy. It’s a Universe.
So, gentle readers, I hate to prejudge things but it appears the Great Tuning vs Tweaking Shoot-out is just a contrivance, a marketing ploy, preordained to “prove” the superiority of Tuning.
Besides, surely Tuning and Tweaking aren’t mutually exclusive, or are they? Is it US vs THEM? 😳 |
glupson
geoffkait,
Anyone can call her/his company whatever they want and it means only that it is that company’s name. However, this empirical testing in this thread was not a name for the company but something that opponents were accused of not doing and therefore their opinion being less worthy. Fakers, talkers, whatever they ended up being. Your explanation consists of correct words applied to an entirely unrelated thing.
>>>>Huh? What are you talking about? The opponents were accused of not doing because they don’t do. They talk, but don’t do. That’s as plain as the nose on your face. In fact, you appear to be the poster boy for talk, not do. Your continuing semantic arguments are do do. This conversation can serve no purpose any more.
|
I think MG would say there is no us vs them but for me I'm trying to justify why the lower mass less expensive systems are blowing away the heavier more expensive ones. I can now see why they are and that the low mass systems are far more flexible. However it does seem like there is a difference. The more mass systems go to a certain level of flexibility and stall whereas the low mass systems tune up to meet every recording we have played. Not sure what you mean by a strawman, what is that? |
prof
glupson: “It seems that for every thing that gets mentioned as a tweak/tuning there are two sides. One claims it is non-sense and cannot be true noticeable difference and the other side claims that the difference is noticeable.”
That’s actually the false dichotomy that I’ve been at pains to reject.
As I keep arguing here, one doesn’t have to take a single side "it makes an audible difference/it doesn’t make an audible difference" position.
One can simply take the position "I don’t know if there is an audible difference, so let’s discuss the reasons and evidence for why there might be an audible difference, or not."
Being a long time audio-nut myself, and always liking the idea of further enhancing the sound of my system, I’m very attracted to the idea of "tweaking" my system. So it’s not something I reject on some weird a priori grounds - in my more tweaky moments I WANT things to make a difference. But I also realize this is also when I’m most likely to fool myself that there is a difference.
>>>I suggest things are not so simple. Audiophiles oft exhibit what is commonly referred to as knee jerk reactions to both Tweaks and Tuning. So before anyone gets his bowels in an uproar wouldn’t it be great if we defined what the heck all the rumpus is about? You know, before going on the offensive? What is a tweak? What is Tuning? I pretty sure many audiophiles have a lot of pre-conceived ideas. Do they overlap? Are they competitors? What’s the difference? Is it mostly coupling vs decoupling? Or vibration control? Does Tuning address RFI? Magnetism? Directionality of wire! Other physics, you know, like quantum physics? Are the universes of Tweaks and Tuning bounded or unbounded? Are they different universes?
I submit, gentle readers, the wonderful world of tweaks is not really what most audiophiles think it is. For one thing it’s bigger than what most people think it is. Much bigger.
|
geoffkait, "So before anyone gets his bowels in an uproar wouldn’t it be great if we defined what the heck all the rumpus is about? You know, before going on the offensive?" It is as reasonable of an approach as it gets and the one that to me seems to have been missing in this thread a lot. I mentioned it a few of my posts ago, I think. Why not start with the beginning of the original post. Like, the second sentence, and then we can expand. |
Ok I got it. MG is covered in saw dust so I'm his interpreter on this one (thank God for smart phones). Michael said in electronics there is tweaking tuning and trimming. They're all tied together but are given different names depending on how they are used. There are also fixed tweaks and variable tweaks. A fixed tweak is something you usually set on something else and leave it alone and a variable tweak is something you tune in by either moving around or adjusting. He said look up tweaking and tuning and I'll understand. A tweak is an adjusting tool screwdriver or something like that that you use to fine tune. He says it's all the same thing just a matter of how your and what your applying it to. Michael likes using tuning because it deals more with fundamentals and harmonics. |
Look it up? Oh, my gosh! See, that’s the problem. There is no real definition of Tweaking. Even advanced audiophiles disagree what Tweaking entails. That’s what I was trying to say. People think they kind of know what it means. But you won’t find the real definition in Wikipedia. Not for audiophiles. What you will find on the internet and Wikipedia is a lot of anti audiophile and tweakaphobe diatribes warning people about fringe tweaks, woo and snake oil. Like the guy the tells the private detective in Chinatown, “You may think you know what’s going on but, believe me, you don’t.” That’s what I meant by Strawman. You’re trying to compare Tuning to something you’re obviously not particularly adept at or even knowledgeable about. Strawman is a logical fallacy.
|
This is causing you to troll tuning and myself. No, Michael, if anyone has trolled, you have trolled this forum. And that is why it truly is worth trying to make sure this kind of stuff is called out. And unlike you who just throws that word out in a knee-jerk fashion at anyone who asks you clarifying or skeptical questions, one can actually point to your actual posts and behaviour on this thread to show how troll-like it has actually been. You started a thread that was about castigating some members as fakers. When challenged on your claim, all you’ve done is reply without actual interaction with the challenges, instead using passive-agressive "Oh, what lil’ ol me? I’d never be negative; that’s on you...YOU must be a negative person or a troll." That is the behaviour of a troll. Make a post you KNOW will rankle feathers, never own up to it or directly address arguments against your claim, and instead pretend the onus for negativity is on whoever challenges your claim. Keep characterizing the person asking you to back up your claims with versions of "you must be one of the people I’m talking about." That’s trolling 101 behaviour, and it’s worth calling out when a manufacturer comes here and engages the forum this way. And then this is accompanied by an utterly transparent motive of self-promotion, to get the subject to your tuning, and your forum. (Which you as much as explicitly admitted at one point, saying this thread was a door to Tuning). As I said, there could be nothing LESS helpful to open, honest, civil dialogue than to simply cast people who bring challenging questions as "trolls" which is the card you play constantly to evade, evade, evade giving direct substantive responses. Again...I’m far from the only one who has noticed this modus operandi. Perfect example, after my continued questions to you ON TOPIC - "what do you mean by testing? What do you mean by empirical? What methods are you using? Can you clarify exactly what you mean and what would fit your claim of "faking it?" and can you give some more explanation or evidence for the other claims you’ve now made (e.g. tied caps).... .....you again avoid answering any substance of my argument or questions to you, and instead reply only with baiting insults like this: In other words your smelling of something fishy is probably because you have been wiping your nose with your freshly fish covered hands. You see, this is the behaviour that keeps the negative thread you started going along the wrong rail. You didn’t have to act this way. As an example, look at the recent reply to my skeptical questions from "audiopoint." He acted like someone engaged in honest dialogue: saw the questions were reasonable, and did his best to directly answer them. Even if someone doesn’t accept everything in his answers, that’s no biggie, we can disagree but at least show each other the respect of ENGAGING one another’s ideas, instead of evading anything that doesn’t support one’s own marketing goals and trying to cast challenges in a negative light. We’ll end with this: Prof, your not going to win here because listeners are tuning as we speak in real time which is the proof of and for the hobby of listening. This is just more vaguely self-aggrandizing gobbledygook. Again, you are carelessly (or...carefully!) mixing up terms to serve your own agenda. What the heck does it mean to say people Tuning (the name for your method and claims) are "proof of and for the HOBBY OF LISTENING"???? That’s absurd. I’m engaged in the "hobby" of listening and so is EVERYONE on this forum, even though most of us are not one of your disciples "tuning" by taking apart our gear, putting it on wood blocks etc. You seem so blinkered and driven by your own marketing concerns - sorry..."spreading the world about tuning"...that you conflate the most basic universal terms like "Hobby" and "listening" with "Tuning" (which just happens to be your self-marketed term for your methods and services). It’s a disingenuous move because, hey, who could put down "listening" right? And if you are tuning you are doing the hobby of listening! No. We have to be able to be conceptually clear and separate these things. You make certain technical and perceptual claims that people who are in the hobby of high end audio, and who LISTEN, can disagree about. And if you want to say "Oh, gee, whoever would take my claim to be that other people not tuning aren’t listening? I didn’t mean THAT" then don’t bother with that bait and switch. If you DID NOT MEAN to conflate our Hobby or "Listening" with your tuning methods, then DON’T WRITE IN A WAY THAT CONFLATES THOSE THINGS. Don’t shove off your own responsibility for your careless, or self-serving, confusion of terms and twist it into the negative motives of other people. And note: every further reply you may want to make that avoids my questions and arguments, to say I’m just being a meanie, only re-enforces that you will take the easy, trolling route of "calling names" over "replying to the arguments." Over ’n out. (Whether Michael reads this response or not, I still think it’s worthwhile to point out modes of interaction that are pernicious to honest discussion, and Michael seems intent on supplying a never ending stream of examples). |
Crazy threads like this surely must scare some curious newcomers away. Too bad. |
No Thanks You guys get too hostile for me. I'll let you posters fight amongst yourselves. MG is the father of audio tuning from what I have read in many articles now and I'm very satisfied with this. He's taken the time to show me while he explains and that goes a long way with me. Plus Tuneland the forum is a great place. Count me out on the anger and trolling like MG I want no part. There's too much music to enjoy and you guys are defeating your own purpose when you can't get along. |
mapman
Crazy threads like this surely must scare some curious newcomers away. Too bad.
>>>>The Peanut Gallery checks in. The Euro-nator is back.
|
Hi Mapman I do want to respond to you. Michael has been receiving emails and even calls (I've been there) during this thread and the members here are happy to see MG's presence and if anything have been asking for more of it. Their feeling is that he is refreshing honest and doesn't put up with BS. He told me a couple of days ago "the thread is not going anywhere and the OP is being played out in real time". The way to judge integrity is not by the ones speaking the loudest but instead by the ones who have peace within themselves. |
Prof As others have said, you really don't belong on this thread. Your anger and rage are apparent. I believe someone pointed out that your interpretation of MG is only because of your view of life. You don't seem like you are someone who has much joy to share. At least your not able to do so on here. |
I suspect folks might be mistaking persistence and Gila monster like perseverance for anger and rage. One thing I admire about Michael having interfaced with him more than the average bear, hand to hand combat, MG, May and Peter and me, every day for two years, is he will not walk away from an argument. He’s like an animal! 😬 If anyone else can’t stand the heat of serious debate or is a little bit timid they should probably stay out of the kitchen. Let’s get cookin’! 👨🏻🍳
|
MG is indeed a breath of fresh air and is onto something we could all learn from. The confrontational posts continue to derail any hopes of this and others threads ever amounting to anything of real value. Not every subject matter and thread is about debate and arguing. Can we hear about what tuning measures, devices, stands, platforms, modifications, gear etc.., was used to bring about such engaging music?
|
jf471, MG is obviously free to make any other thread, or contribute in any other thread, as he in fact has already. Nobody is following him around this forum, and I have not directly interacted with him on any other thread. I have only stuck around in this thread insofar as Michael started a thread to claim some people are fakes, and has refused to answer honest questions trying to understand and/or challenge that claim. My very first reply explicitly gave Michael the benefit of the doubt, pointing out I was not impugning his intentions, only pointing out that I would like to to see clarification, and some actual defence, of what he meant and the basis for putting some people in the "faker" category. And of course to explore the role his constant appeal to empiricism played in all this. Not only that, I have consistently given Michael’s claims more benefit of the doubt than he has ever given me. I’ve consistently said that I’m totally open to the idea that Michael’s methods can produce great results, and that I’d even be excited to hear them. I’ve explicitly said I am not claiming to disprove even his methods I find less compelling, but that I’m simply asking reasonable questions about the basis for their effectiveness and the methods of confirming them as such. In contrast to my side, continually voicing openness to Michael Green’s legitimacy, he has done virtually nothing but disparage my character as negative and trolling. It’s rather amazing that this imbalance in intellectual honesty goes completely unnoticed by you. The FIRST thing Michael did was to brush off these honest, relevant questions and instead put ME in the category of people he was disparaging! (Suggesting he didn’t have to explain anything to me, as I had just exemplified the negative category he’d made up). And he did this to others as well. And just continued to do it all through the thread; every time I’ve tried to keep on the topic of what Michael actually wrote - he evaded, and just cast aspersions on motivations instead of answering questions or counter arguments. If you wish to follow Michael’s lead and leave calling people trolls instead of engaging reasonable questions, so be it, but that type of response shouldn’t be missed with many tears. Why not just engage in honest conversation instead? I just have to infer that you have swallowed Michael’s anti-scientific attitude that challenging questions equate to "bad vibes" "being negative" "trolling" and must arise out of some personality defect in the questioner. As I’ve said, that’s actually more in line with cult-thinking, not open mindedness. The way to judge integrity is not by the ones speaking the loudest but instead by the ones who have peace within themselves. Yup, that sounds more like what a cult leader would say to his disciples. "Ignore the arguments against what I say; if I can make you feel good, you can ignore those skeptics, and castigate their motives for challenging me!" Perhaps you should consider that problem. It’s one thing to be happy with what you and Michael are doing. As I already said, cheers to you and have fun! It’s entirely another to disparage as trolls anyone who gives voice to reasons why we haven’t followed your hallowed path. (And, I'm sure I need to point this out: saying your and Michael's response shares characteristics with a cult is NOT the claim it "is" the same as a cult; it's pointing out that it shares the same dubious reasoning used by cults, or any number of different dubious belief systems, which should alert you to a defect in the mode of your replies). |
I just read these posts and my system still sounds the same? Learned nothing. Perhaps my system sounds worse as my emotional state is not at peace. I guess I’m also out of this thread and one of the weaklings who can’t take the heat. I leave pointing out the fact that the forums here on Audiogon are losing more and more good Agoners who are weary of what this site has become. A lot of good ones are now gone or have decided to stay mostly quiet.
|
grannyring, The confrontational posts continue to derail any hopes of this and others threads ever amounting to anything of real value. It’s already been pointed out to you: the topic, started by Michael, concerned people he claimed were faking it. Discussing the basis for those claims - about people faking it, about empirical methods etc - IS keeping the topic on the rail. Michael’s thread explicitly (well, as explicitly as he is capable of writing) challenges skeptics, so it’s ridiculous to complain when any skeptics answer the call to defend their view against Michael’s critique. Not every subject matter and thread is about debate and arguing. Then why would Michael make an inherently argumentative thread?? Why doesn’t THAT bother you at all? Can’t you see the blindspot you seem to have for MG’s behaviour here? You don’t walk in to a room and say "Some people here are faking it! Why are you faking it?" and expect nobody to question this or object...right? Is it intellectually honest to make an inherently disparaging claim about other people, and when challenged on it simply respond: "Look, I’m not going to argue about it." Hey grannyring, you are insincere. Don’t bother replying with any defence of yourself; i don’t want to hear it, I’m here to make that claim, and I’ll hear from anyone who just agrees with my assessment of your character, but I’m not going to argue about it so save your breath! You can immediately see that is a jerk move should anyone make it. And yet you seem oblivious when people seem to accept that very move as being "nice" and "diplomatic" - when MG uses this tactic. I’m asking you to think more fairly on this. Is that so bad?
Can we hear about what tuning measures, devices, stands, platforms, modifications, gear etc.., was used to bring about such engaging music?
If you want THAT to be the topic of a thread, why not ask Michael to make a thread on THAT topic. E.g. "Let’s discuss tuning our systems." But please, it doesn’t do anyone any good to keep implying that anyone actually keeping on topic is "derailing" the topic. And to continually disparage the motivations and character of people for keeping the thread on the topic. (As others have joined MG in doing). |
