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?
amg56 @geoffkait Hey Geoff, will your quantum teleportation thingy fix my keyboard?
>>>>I heard through the grapevine the Teleportation Tweak will improve the reception of smartphones. And I’m not hot doggin ya. 🌭 The way I figure it that should be worth a Nobel all by itself, forget about audio.
You've hit my funny bone again. Your up on this thread screaming at people and MG isn't even here. Calm down dude your getting worked up all over. Michael's off enjoying Mingus and the last thing on his mind is entertaining your spinning.
Taking a page out of MG's book - instead of answering my posts or admitting I may have any point at all, you come in to toss another version of "you mad bruh?"
MG teaches his disciples well, it seems.
Who cares if Michael is off enjoying Mingus? I was just listening to Bernard Herrmann. And some Kiss records. What in the world does that have to do with anything?
Why try to imply MG is some enlightened figure, above causing any acrimony "because he's off listening to music."
He left another post here dangling in public, avoiding any point I have made, and simply characterizing me as trolling.
But on your view, that's ok - hey, as long as Michael does that and goes off to listen to sweet music - "why so mad bruh"?
Insofar as you keep this up, you are literally helping MG troll in this thread.
(And btw, neither you nor Michael can actually support your characterizations as if I'm just some troll. For instance, I have a thread going in the speaker forum with thousands of views as I report my experience auditioning various speakers, with quite a bit of appreciation voiced for my efforts. And you can see in this very thread that I express thanks to a manufacturer who ACTUALLY takes the effort to acknowledge the type of questions I've asked MG, and answer them. Every time you feel yourself wanting to once again, simply think of me - or other people voicing skepticism in this thread - as just meanies and trolls WITHOUT coming up with an actual response to our points...this should ring a tiny bell that this isn't really the best way forward to converse with someone who may not believe what you believe).
Prof, in my world, being able to condense complex ideas into simple language is a sign of knowledge and experience. I'm guessing it is not in yours. I first enjoyed your posts, not so much now.
But, that also goes for a number of other posters who think that by writing a short novel anyone thinks they are something special. Quite the opposite.
Prof, in my world, being able to condense complex ideas into simple language is a sign of knowledge and experience.
More than that; it’s the sign of someone with the talent to do so. Plenty of knowledgeable people don’t condense complex ideas into simple language as well as others. I agree, that’s a very valuable and welcome talent, and I admire those who have it.
Sometimes I can pull that off. In fact, I’ve been told routinely over the years that I’m able to do this so I don’t feel too wounded by your insult. (Actually, right now people have said so about my reports of speakers I’ve auditioned - that I have admirably condensed in writing the character of the speakers I’ve auditioned).
Other times I go all blowhard and write too much. I gratefully accept criticism on that count, and I think it applies to a bunch of my posts in this thread.
And no, I don’t think the lengths of my posts makes me special. (You aren’t a fan of strawmen, are you? I hope not). But they are often long because I always, as much as possible, wish to avoid simply making an assertion without supporting argument. If they were much shorter and more concise, that would be more special IMO.
But, again, if someone is making reasonable points or asking reasonable questions even IF you think they could be shorter, addressing even one of those points is better than only characterizing someone’s posts, especially negatively, don’t you agree?
Have you anything to say about any points I’ve made - agree or disagree?
How old is he? I do not know much about history of audio tuning, but would suspect that it all started by picking different rocks to make different sounds when banging them together. Or was it tweaking?
I have been wondering what it is about Michael Green that is so fire-igniting around here. The man has his business, not the world-history-changing at that, tries to sell his ideas (for money or not, does not really matter), may or may not be correct about what he says, but just his existence seems to be like an earthquake here. For whatever he says or implies, responses are often monumental and by more than just one poster. And he barely even shows up here. It is getting interesting. We are talking here about, at best, a little (or lot) different sound perception when electronically reproducing music someone played somewhere some time ago. In any scheme of things, it is such a minuscule niche topic that may deserve discussion, but how does Michael Green makes his presence so flammable? It is not just by answering or not answering questions, I think. It is not only one side that gets revved-up, it is both.
All, Whether or not Michael Green posts on this thread or not doesn't bother me. However if he does, it is my desire, and I expect it is the same for other readers of the many posts in AudioGon, that he participates in the manner that others expect and have posted.
Whether a post is a page or more long as prof's posts can be, I find him engaging and informal, while being easy to read. Other posts can be short and succinct but less informal, and that's ok too.
It's posts which are vague, uniforming, nor here nor there, without substance, while appealing to readers that the information contained within the post should be accepted without question.
And God help us if we do question the poster. We are called anti, naysayers, trolls etc., when all we are actually asking for is more information on which we can base our own understanding on how a SOMETHING works.
I fail to understand why this is so wrong? I agree 100% with Prof, who at least is informative, questioning (with the right questions), and appears to be reasonably well informed on most matters. Like myself, and other posters, we question for more information. I would expect that this would be a normal occurrence anywhere.
@jf47t If you find the questions we ask so objectionable, or hard to answer, then just say so and leave it. You are not contributing this forum other than throwing out what can be described as misinformation as there IS no information you write that we can use or go away and try.
I could describe the mess my cables are in and rearrange them and post on it. That is useless information which is not what I would expect to be an informational post or experience.
If anyone is Trolling, it would appear to me that you are targeting Prof in particular, and others in general.
I do not apologise for the length of this post if it tells you, and other, something that annoys me. You and this whole MG thing annoy me. Go away.
And one thing further, as per the OP's headline for this thread TALK BUT NOT WALK?, I find it particularly offensive to be targeted in a general accusational headline that I or others are Talking but not Walking? Most of us on these forum threads are walking.
If MG did do quite successfully, it has been to demean and offend us by insinuating that we are not active in our quest to improve our systems. It would seem that MG finds it demeaning to him that we do not follow his doctrine.
To the question "Why keep engaging MG and his followers on this thread?" my response is: because I think it’s an important subject. And while many think "why bother, you won’t change anyone’s mind" that is often not the case. We may not change the mind of the person we are engaging (though that can happen - and my mind can be changed), but many others read public forums and they can weigh both sides, and minds can be changed.
Why change anyone’s mind?
Because, as I’ve argued, the nature of Michael Green’s - and many of his follower’s - posts exhibit features that are inherently dysfunctional for honest discourse between people who may have different views. And they actually exemplify a very common problem in public forums, and certainly in high end audio.
The issue is that anyone can act with good will in conversation with people who agree; but we need to act with good will, a major component being Intellectual Honesty, with people who don’t agree with us, or who bring a different perspective.
But it’s really hard to get this to happen because people are not good at getting underneath their own bias.
So let me use a dramatic example, just to make a point: consider being a minority among a racist majority community. To the majority, everything is just swell, because there is enough people agreeing with them and supporting their view that the boat isn’t being rocked. But the minority person notices how differently he is treated, how attitudes change, the hospitable and welcoming, open nature of the majority suddenly seems to drain away. The minority is rejected not on what he has to say, but on other factors that make the majority uncomfortable: different look, skin color, even different perspective.
Now, to pull that back from the drama of racism and how it relates to my point: I have often found myself among a "minority" in the high end audio hobby. High End Audio is rife with the supposition that subjectivity rules the day, and is the indisputable bedrock for evaluating audio. Some of us feel much more cautious about this, and recognize that this is far shakier ground than many audiophiles believe. But this is generally unwelcome by the majority.
So what happens is that, when the talk turns to the tweakier side in any way - cables, "tuning," etc - if you go along with the prevailing sentiment that "everything makes a difference" your comments will tend to be greeted warmly as welcome input. But if you offer a different view "Well, here’s why I don’t go along with that, and I’d like to see better evidence in the way of X or Y..." then suddenly the Good Will tends to dry up.
What happens, a lot, is that the actual substance and argument present is not addressed - or if so barely substantially - and instead the replies turn to attacking the skeptic’s character. The person who isn’t just accepting the claim or status quo is depicted as "negative" or "argumentative" or "angry" or "trolling" etc. And these comments on the CHARACTER of the skeptic’s post - usually based on strawmen ideas about the person’s motivations and arguments - are used to dismiss and not bother interacting with the arguments.
This is such a prevalent fallacy and phenomenon that it has a name:
Tone Trolling.
And much of what Michael and his followers have posted here are in exactly this mode of discourse. From the very first reply, Michael dismissed the content of my argument, to make negative implications about my character as an excuse not to answer my questions and concerns. This has continued this whole thread. (Whereas I have done my best to understand, ask for clarification, and address what I can infer to be the content of Michael’s claims and arguments).
And as I said, as this is emblematic of a wider problem in such discourse.
One of the things cults are known for (and other fringe belief systems) is isolating their beliefs - creating a "safe space" where the beliefs will only find support, and discouraging dissenting opinions by appeals to the sinful motivations of those who would dissent.
But that of course isn’t going to work when you have to present your case to the wider world. In fact, it is an inherently dysfunctional mode of thinking, a bad bias to have, when you export it to public discussion where you will absolutely be dealing with some people who disagree, or who bring different perspectives and arguments. Then...all you have is either your actual arguments and evidence....or you retreat back to Tone Trolling "you’re a meanie so I’m not going to answer your arguments" strategies. And then...even going back to the safe space. (Hello Tuneland!)
So, again, in a nutshell, it’s my aim to highlight this pernicious, inherently dysfunctional mode of discourse where people are "open" to ideas and friendly discourse - but only insofar as it supports their own beliefs. Whereas they will react to challenges to what they have said by turning to character assessments and trolling "why you so angry?" "why are you so dogmatic?" etc replies. And then wondering why they are engendering acrimony.
It would be so much better if we can just address each other’s points, and ask for clarification if needed, provide clarification, really try understanding and addressing arguments. Even if someone has presented a case, and you have taken their emotional state to be "angry," it’s still a sign of intellectual honesty to not avoid a question or point if it’s pertinent. Or even clarify one’s position "no, this is what I meant." I don’t give a darn for instance when Geoff K makes another angry sounding rant about my arguments. Whatever. But if he ever makes an interesting point, or yet again misrepresents my view, I’ve responded to make my position as clear as possible.
BTW, the difference from mere tone trolling/evasion of the type I’ve talked about and, say, my first post in the thread is this: I did indeed point to the problematic nature of Michael’s post - it’s negativity. But I did this in order to INCREASE the possibility of honest discussion - explaining why the content of his post was likely to cause more heat then light, and I went on to ask him to explain his position more clearly, and I gave my own thoughts on the subject. So far from dismissing Michael’s post, I did my very best to engage it! Further, I have remained supportive that the idea some of his techniques and products may be excellent, and open to other claims pending actual good answers to my questions.
Got to listen to some nice Charlie Mingus this afternoon. Going back over in a little bit. As I said earlier MG's showing me the tuning experience and with each step I'm learning more. We're even starting to tune my system now. A couple things that have hit me strongly is how much info is on each recording and the idea of a bad recording has no meaning to me like it did before. And there's something else I am learning quickly that each recording has it own "recorded code". When I use to hear Michael say this I didn't understand what he meant. Now I realize that each recording can and should be tuned in as an individual set of values. With every recording we play it is slightly out of tune as compared to the last tuning. With some simple adjustments the soundstage becomes full and the tone balanced. For example the bass line on each recording is completely different from the next. The highs are too but the bass more so. Once we get that bottom end tuned it seems like the rest of the range falls into place or is at least easier to fine tune.
amg I understand that you have questions as many do when talking about tuning but again I believe patience is a virtue and you guys who get so upset should let the answers come in Michael's way and in Michael's timing. If these are indeed interesting questions for Michael he's not shy about answering, he answers all of mine and I hear him answering questions on the phone. But answering questions about the intent of his OP is silly and has been rehashed 10 million ways. Michael's answer to prof was and I'm sure still is "your reading something that isn't there". That's MG's answer no need to ask that question over and over you either accept his answer or you go off on a rant but as people have said here many times Prof simply is turning it into something it isn't. I don't see where that can possibly be misunderstood. It's a big issue about nothing.
Those of you reading this pay attention to what Michael says and what the internet trolls are saying.
As one of many examples. If you read back through this thread you will not see anywhere where Michael calls tuning his method nor will Michael say listen his way. Go look for yourselves. You'll read people saying Michael said this and other things to paint a picture but you won't see MG saying this himself or inferring it. He's not inferring it because he doesn't practice it.
Michael Green Audio has always been about the listener being able to listen to their music their way. Michael for 30 years has been designing "Tunable" products. He makes these products so you as an unique listener have some tools if you decide to use them to help you. Michael doesn't care if you use other tools or follow any method of listening you want including doing nothing but plug it in. Michael's whole concept of listening is about being able to play any recording you have and showing you how variable an audio system is.
Tuning is the oldest and most established music technology. Tuning is simply a method of adjusting the variables. Nothing to get mad over. If you buy a guitar your probably going to want to tune it, or not, your choice. Same with a stereo, your choice, or not. Michael has no intention on telling you what to tune something to, that's meant for your ears only. If you read on this thread the Tunees comments you will find that they have found a way to get closer to their music collection.
Prof amg or whoever your getting angry at a guy who is doing nothing more than tuning a guitar. Michael might as well be tuning a piano, guitar or any other instrument or a stereo. He's not asking how good your hearing is or if you are ever going to tune. He's simply saying if you do this it will mean more than talking about the possibility, you'll actually be "tuning". No hidden message just something if you never do you will only be talking and not trying. Like right now I am talking to you based on what I have being doing this week, nothing more and nothing negative. I tuned I heard, I walked and I talked about the walk. There's nothing more. It's simple I don't have to fake what I am saying cause I did it. Anything more is making something out of nothing.
Michael doesn't care if the subject is tuning or any other subject. What he is saying is there's a difference between reading and talking about something vs actually doing it yourself. He encourages people to do more than the talking, go ahead and give something a try if your so incline. There's nothing more to the message than that. Your not a bad person if you don't do but I bet if you try something it will give you more experience and knowledge. And more to talk about.
Those of you reading this pay attention to what Michael says and what the internet trolls are saying.
You just can’t help yourself, can you? This reflexive need to call someone a "troll" instead of take a counter-argument to your beliefs seriously has been imbued very strongly into your mode of thinking, it seems.
Ok, jf47t, I believe I’ve made the reasons I’ve gone this long on the thread as clear as I can.
So in this case I figure this will be my last interaction. I’d like to see if it’s possible, at all, for you to examine your own assumptions and notice the bias you are bringing to calling people trolls and seeing MG as a sweet guru.
Here’s my question:
Why are you faking it?
To expand:
Imagine that I - or anyone else! - started a thread in Michael’s Tuneland forum. The thread is titled "Talk but not walk?"
And the thread follows exactly this tenor: "Where I come from we test don’t just talk, we test our ideas. I’ve been around labs and testing since I was a kid.
But right now there are about 20 threads going on in this forum (Tuneland) where there’s no doubt people are talking about things about which they have no experience.
My question is why? Why are they claiming to know something without testing it? Isn’t this hobby supposed to be about doing? Isn’t it supposed to be empirically based? Why are so many people not being empirical and propounding myths here? Why not walk the walk instead of just talking the talk?
So my question is: why fake it?
Now, jf47t, as honestly as you can think about this:
1. How could this be received? Would that likely be warmly welcomed? or would the accusations contained in such a thread be likely to engender some suspicion and skepticism toward someone who would use such an opening thread, calling out people as fakes? And might someone - even a mod - point out this is not necessarily the best way to start a good natured, civil discussion in the forum?
Think about it. Be honest with yourself.
Then answer:
2. What would some REASONABLE responses be, in the tuneland forum, to the accusations in such a post? If you folks wanted to give it the benefit of the doubt, engage this critique, vs just dismiss it as trolling, wouldn’t questions arise along the lines of:
"Well, hold on, from our perspective you don’t seem to actually be describing people here. We DO test our ideas empirically. So we are confused about what you are actually criticizing. Can you support your criticism with any actual examples of members being un-empirical or faking it? What kind of tests count to you as being "empirical" and what counts to you as "walking the walk?" We need to understand what you mean before we go agreeing that anyone here at all, fits the description you’ve given and deserves the critique you’ve made. Because we think we have reasons to give you as to why people here don't fit the role you are depicting in your post.
Again...please contemplate whether those would be reasonable questions people could ask of anyone creating such a thread.
Now, if you find yourself agreeing that...yeah...that thread *might* just have the character of rankling feathers and really *would* naturally bring forth probing questions about the assumptions of the thread starter....then imagine the thread starter immediately dismissing these concerns and questions saying "Well, sorry, what I just wrote was perfectly clear. My friends get it; if you don’t, then you don’t and I don’t have to explain myself further to you. And btw, the people asking all those questions, you exemplify my post."
Now, ask yourself: what would be your, or the Tuneland’s, appraisal of this type of response. Would it be "Well, gee, you are right. Thanks SO MUCH for dropping your wisdom on us!" Or would it perhaps be more along the lines of "this person is not here to engage in real conversation or respond to any counter idea that he is wrong."
@jf47t "Michael might as well be tuning a piano, guitar or any other instrument or a stereo. He's not asking how good your hearing is or if you are ever going to tune. He's simply saying if you do this it will mean more than talking about the possibility, you'll actually be "tuning".
And what we are asking Michael is "How do YOU tune a Guitar?". An unassuming question that he has been reluctant to answer. It may be that MY way may be lacking or at worst incorrect. We have only asked for Michael to offer his knowledge on the subject, as he brought the subject up on this forum. If he is reluctant to do so for commercial or IP reasons then he just needs to say so.
Oh lets see what are all these magazines laying around Michael's place. What do I see some over 200 reviews and articles. Oh my what a cult lol.
Bound for sound
Stereophile
TAS
In Terms of Music
Positive Feedback
Rolling Stone
Better Homes & Garden
CCM
Video Magazine
Audio Magazine
Sounds Like newsletter
Audio Adventure
Hi Fi News and Record review
Soundstage
MMR
Widescreen Review
…...would you like me to keep going LOL It seems like there are quite a few who belong to this cult. Yep that Harry Pearson was a little demon because he tuned with MG and again.....should I go on LOL
Hm Prof how many reviews and articles have been written about you exactly? Oh and I do have another question why is it you and amg don't use your real names for your username. LOL are you guys perhaps in your "safe space"? Yep, you guys are absolutely being internet trolls. Hiding behind your keyboards LOL. Congratulating each others trolling as if your convincing folks that Michael is not a good guy. Michael is in hiding because he's been to busy dealing with clients all weekend. Aren't you boys all that LOL. Oh no I used caps with my LOL, that means I'm laughing at you out loud. If you can't lighten up than the rest of the audio world can have a good laugh "watch out it's the tune your instrument cult". I was talking to MG just now and he said "Hi". Got some tunes to go listen to.
That thing at the top of your page. You type in "how to tune a guitar" now click on videos and it will take you to about a hundred or so videos on tuning a guitar. Now if you choose to pick another instrument simply type in that instrument and it will tell you how to tune it. Let us know what you learn.
So, are you able to answer my question about how tuneland would react to such a thread as I described?
Can you find it in yourself, just for a moment, to honestly answer questions?
(And...out of curiosity....do you live with Michael or something? Because your posts are getting kind of weird in the access you continually seem to have to whatever Michael is doing and what is going on at his house. )
Oh my, slow down. Your posts eventually come across as anti-Michael Green. It is sure that you are having fun there and all is well, but to undecided your idolizing posts become off-putting. Do Michael Green some favor, slow down.
"Now I realize that each recording can and should be tuned in as an individual set of values."
That is really unfortunate as it becomes a playground only for those who either sell adjustments for living or have absolutely nothing else to do in their lives. I will accept your statement, but for most of the people whose day has only 24 hours, adjusting a system for each song becomes irrelevant possibility. Who on Earth would, if the premise is true, ever want to go down the road of tuning? It seems like a completely useless opportunity. I do not doubt that Michael Green is the master of it, but now I have thoughts about futility of such a thing.
We live in a cool place just off the strip on the edge of the Arts District in Vegas. There are 4 audiophiles and a few other musicians that all live within a few feet of each other. This whole area is basically an entertainment hub and Vegas is pouring a lot of money into making from Sahara to downtown one giant arts center. Lots of music playing all the time and when MG moved in we all got systems and it's been one big listening party ever since. Many times MG doesn't even lock his door folks come in and jamm out, it's a cool hang. It's gated of course with good security. It's been nicknamed TuneLand on the Strip. I think MG's going to put in a tunable room here which will probably be open to anyone.
Hi Glupson per whole cd as the engineers usually make each full playback source a package. Some best hits you will find the song have different settings but for the most part if you tune to the LP your good to go. It’s very much like adjusting a turntable slightly per vinyl. Or you can set the tune to one particular sound and leave it till you want to make a change.
You say not for you? OK next time you change out an amplifier think about it. Or as far as that goes anything in your system. Tuning is much more practical and easier than HEA plug and play and you end up with better sound and sound the way you want it on your whole music collection.
Beats the heck out of never quite being content with a piece of music or a piece of gear. One system and your done. Pretty appealing to me. Oh and for about 1/5 the price. Not for you? That’s cool no harm done.
I am far from being a rabid audiophile and understand that people have different passions and desires to dedicate effort and time to something. However, I find it hard to believe there is any significant number of people who change amplifiers for different CDs. Maybe once, twice, while playing with it on some Saturday afternoon, but on a daily basis it cannot be true. I would expect that most of the people have their amplifier and play music through it after pressing on/off button without doing much else. I may be wrong about it, that is definitely true. It may be possible to change sound by whatever means tuning works, but to do it even for each CD seems like a lots of work and time.
Out of curiosity, what is the price you quoted as "1/5 the price"? Many people have very expensive equipment and some do not. That Bell Curve is so huge that I really do not have an idea about a ballpark figure.
"Not for me" is not that important although you guessed it right. Still, I would like to once hear what it is all about. Maybe I get impressed. More important is that I still think that having to make continuous adjustments is at least time-prohibitive for many who would otherwise be interested. Maybe, if someone would invent auto-tuning room that changes automatically based on the recording properties, the world of tuning would take off.
If there are really no bad recordings, why do they sound bad through the headphones? There should be no room issues involved. It is pretty inconvenient to tune/tweak ear canals.
Does anyone else here think it unreasonable to ask a Michael Green devotee how the Tuneland forum would react to a post with the character of the one Michael made here?
I doubt it.
Is anyone here, at this point, surprised that a Michael Green devotee evaded, evaded and evaded again answering this reasonable question?
I do not think it is unreasonable to ask anything, but it may be overly optimistic to expect for someone to know some answer.
The only way to figure it out is posting on Tuneland forum and seeing the response. Responses in this thread surprised me many times so I would not underestimate people on Tuneland forum either. It may be, it almost certainly is, a fan club of sorts, but you never know who you may find there. Some of us on this thread are a far cry from having a logical right of being on an "audiophile" forum and here we are.
The idea of "tuning" my system continually per song, or even per album, is a complete turn off to me. I don’t want listening to music to become that much work! To me, that isn’t to enhance the listening experience; it’s to detract from letting the music take over.
Earlier, I finished listening to Goblin’s Tenebrae soundtrack (followed by some Fever Ray) on vinyl and it was bloody GLORIOUS. Not only did it sound incredible - full, gutsy, organic, spacious, palpable, toe-tapping - but the music gave me a plastered on grin for the full album. It was heaven for a soundtrack fanatic like myself. (The Fever Ray LP also: incredible!)
I didn’t feel the need for a moment to tweak anything and I’m glad I didn’t! Everything sounded wonderful. Could I have made some of it sound different? Sure. But I wanted to listen to music, not continually think about how I can "tune" my system to make things sound different.
But...well...gee...since I wasn’t "tuning" I guess I don’t get to say, like MG does, that I was engaged "in the hobby of listening!"
Drat. Not in that rarified club.
Oh wait...maybe I am, because MG actually told everyone earlier that EVERYTHING we do with our system is performing a tweak, even choosing a component or turning it on.
Well then. I guess I AM in the club of listeners. I’m "walking the walk."
But then, wait, if EVERYONE is engaged in tweaking....who is it again who actually ISN’T engaged in "the hobby." If we take MG seriously that we are all tweaking when listening to our system....how can any of us not be "doing it" vs just "talking about it?" If we are all tweaking, then everyone on this forum is "walking the walk" of empirical experience. So...who are the fakes again?
Puzzling questions to be sure. But you have to wait until the Guru is in the right mood before being graced with the answers. And be sure not to be too uppity and question the answers. That gets The Guru mad - no more answers for you! ;-)
BTW, this idea of recordings have a "code" to unlock and tune for - aside from being what seems to be just semantic flourishes on the unremarkable idea that you can do things to make many recordings sound better (hell, mastering itself is predicated on this), it may be desirable to some audiophiles, but it’s also anethema to many aspects of music and sound production (I work in post production sound - and have my work mixed in many varied, millions-of-dollars mixing theaters).
In this case you really do have to have some concept of "accuracy" where you aren’t "tuning" your system to the defects of any track, or particular sound etc. You really NEED to control variables - that is have a consistent and unvarying sound in your playback system (hence most are professionally constructed for accuracy, rooms pinked by acousticians etc) because you NEED to hear the differences, and deficiencies that actually ARE characteristic of a recording. If dialogue for instance is thin - on the recording! - you WANT to know it, and have it sound thin on your reference system, so you can correct that problem. You won’t want to re-tune your system to make it sound better - leaving the recording itself unchanged - as if changing your system has "revealed" the code in the recording. That is a recipe for disaster! And the FACT it’s a recipe for disaster actually calls in to question the very claim of there being this "code" to unlock, as if every recording is potentially a good one, in the first place.
The other thing is that the Tuners continually depict themselves as "listeners" and just off listening to music all the time...you know..unlike those "audiophiles" who spend all their time thinking about their equipment.
Except...whoa...have you seen the systems of some of these tuners? Components all taken apart, strewn around sitting on wood blocks between the speakers etc? And we think some of OUR systems are a wife’s nightmare! ;-) . And of course...they are tuning, tuning, tuning.
Not that there’s anything wrong with that ;)
Anyway, if people want to continuously "tune" their system via MG’s methods and find it gratifying I say MORE POWER TO YOU. I’m not about calling any other audiophile’s pleasure "not walking the walk" or "not doing the hobby" or whatever. No, that would be arrogant on my part. And I don’t go in for the common audiophile tit for tat "you aren’t really into the music, I’M just in it for the music!" Because you know what? Most of us have to admit we don’t just love music, but have an interest in sound quality and high fidelity equipment and getting the best sound we can manage. If some people tilt more towards tweaking and being really in to playing with the equipment side of things there’s nothing wrong with that! Whatever floats our boats. But it’s disingenuous for some people to try to pretend they are more "into the music listening" - as if it’s some audiophile version of being more pious - than other people, all the while clearly spending much time and thought on the hardware and set-up side of their hobby.
@jf47t or Michael or who ever you are pretending to be. Your answers are becoming more like a personality change. Quite erratic.
I didn't contribute to this post to be told the OP didn't want to talk, and we were not walking as he expected us to viz the title "Talk but not walk?"
If you/he can't deal with a push back, asking questions of your/his "technique" then perhaps the provocative opening to this thread, telling readers that they are "Faking" ""IT"", should not have been made. Is it any wonder why quite intelligent people here are asking for an expansion of ways we can "UN-FAKE IT"?
It was you who said
"Prof amg or whoever your getting angry at a guy who is doing nothing more than tuning a guitar. Michael might as well be tuning a piano, guitar or any other instrument or a stereo."
I simply asked in the same analogy, show us. To which you flippantly told me to find out my self. Are you running out of ways you can answer an honest question with out being evasive?
Enjoy your tune life. I'll enjoy mine hugely. At least I will be able to commune with people who wish to partake with intelligent responses.
Sounds to me like some of the combatants, especially the more vociferous ones, are pretty satisfied with the status quo, in a self congratulatory kind of way. 🙄 One can’t help wondering why they’re here still demanding answers. If you’ll pardon me for saying so they don’t seem to fit into the definition of audiophiles desperate or at least striving for better sound. For some folks like your friend and humble scribe there is no stopping place. There is no audio Nirvana. You need look no further than the fuse threads and the new Graphene contact enhancer thread to get a glimpse of the future. Well, maybe not your future, but the future for more uh, active audiophiles. 😬
amg56 Not to be combative but I suspect you might have misread my statement. I said there is no audio Nirvana. By that I mean there is no Absolute Sound. This concept of No Absolute Sound is closely linked to the concept of the Audio Hierarchy I described somewhere the other day.
Made the scene Week to week Day to day Hour to hour The gate is straight Deep and wide Break on through to the other side Break on through to the other side
“Does anyone else here think it unreasonable to ask a Michael Green devotee how the Tuneland forum would react to a post with the character of the one Michael made here?
I doubt it.
Is anyone here, at this point, surprised that a Michael Green devotee evaded, evaded and evaded again answering this reasonable question?
I doubt it.”
>>>>I don’t see what you’re getting all worked up about. I thought the fellow (Jay) from Tuneland did an excellent job explaining how Tuning works. Where’s the beef? 🍔 This is just another scene straight out of 12 Angry Men.
Ok, I’m outta here. Said all I’ve wanted to say (to say the least!)
I do hope Michal considers more carefully how he wants to promote his ideas here in the future, and re-considers his mode of discourse with people who ask questions that challenge his arguments and claims. Don’t be so ready to cast honest inquiry into the role of "troll." That’s never going to be a good strategy for conversation.
And just as important at least, I hope some people reading the thread have found some merit in my concern about how we approach discussing our beliefs with others who don’t share those beliefs. That we shouldn’t automatically infer negative motivations, give a good go at giving someone the benefit of the doubt, and as much as possible at least give the effort to understand the other person, and clarify our own position when asked, and respond to arguments, not simply characterize the other person.
Once again: Not my intention to "debunk" Michael Green’s products. Even though I may withhold belief in some of the claims (because I haven’t see good evidence for them), other products seem very interesting - tunable speakers, room tuning, etc, are intriguing.
I wish success for Michael (would never wish otherwise for most people).
As for "Tuners" here, I hope you will not look down on others who have different priorities or approaches in this hobby, or who even may be skeptical of some of MG’s claims, as "not walking the walk" or "not doing the hobby" or that someone asking questions of a skeptical nature are therefore "faking it." If you are super happy with your own process, that’s wonderful. Want to tell others about it? Great! But wishing to share these ideas needn’t require evangelizing to the detriment of how other people are finding satisfaction. No need to tell other people they are not "walking the walk" or "doing the hobby of listening" or whatever. Someone may voice skepticism, while still having his/her own deep relationship with high end audio, and lots of their own experiences to draw upon. And if you follow their other posts you will often see they are not "bad/trolls" but are actually helpful contributors to this site.
If YOU enjoy tuning via the MG method, more power to you! Sounds like you are having fun and are really satisfied and that’s great for you. Happy Listening!
So, gentle readers, what’s the take away from this thread so far?
1. Don’t use audio forums to promote your products unless you’re willing to put up with all the drama.
2. Be sure to answer all demands for explanations of claims even if you haven’t made any claims. Otherwise you will pay dearly.
3. Be prepared to stick around 24/7 to answer questions. They can get very impatient.
4. Disregard the disengenuous and loaded questions.
5. Always be prepared for snide comments from the Peanut Gallery. They will trivialize every topic and ask incessantly, why can’t we just enjoy the music? They will Dog you like a pack of snarling poodles. 🐩 🐩 🐩
6. Be prepared to answer a variety of questions on almost any topic from quantum physics to black holes to why we can’t all be happy and content and stop worrying so much.
I may be in front of your 18 wheeler. Don't presume that there are people on this thread that are not way ahead, but on their own path.
The mistake on this thread was exactly your presumption made by MG the OP. There are plenty of Audiophiles well ahead on the "road". MG's opinion of what path may lead he and followers to his Audio Nirvana may not suit other Audiophile's for whatever reason and that is just fine.
The most important thing is to ENJOY your path....
7. Someone may read your website. Have a good understanding of it.
8. Things are trivial indeed. It is all just about electronic reproduction of music.
9. Always remember that it is good to have someone ahead of you, no matter how slow he may be. He will clear the road for you and you can learn from his mistakes so you do not go the same way.
I may be in front of your 18 wheeler. Don’t presume that there are people on this thread that are not way ahead, but on their own path.
The mistake on this thread was exactly your presumption made by MG the OP. There are plenty of Audiophiles well ahead on the "road". MG’s opinion of what path may lead he and followers to his Audio Nirvana may not suit other Audiophile’s for whatever reason and that is just fine.
The most important thing is to ENJOY your path....
>>>>An audiophile is judged by his words. Obviously I cannot be there to hear your system. As much as I dislike judging where people It’s been my experience that a great many people, even those of high age and long experience, are quite oblivious to ANY path and uncertain where they ARE or where they are GOING.
I’m going to go out on a limb and I hate to judge before all the facts are in but I’m guessing you probably fall into that category. You know, just judging by what you write. Your words. I suspect you’ve probably been following the wrong.....you know.
🐑 🐑 🐑
You said, “The most important thing is to ENJOY your path.” I say ignorance is BLISS.
7. Someone may read your website. Have a good understanding of it.
8. Things are trivial indeed. It is all just about electronic reproduction of music.
9. Always remember that it is good to have someone ahead of you, no matter how slow he may be. He will clear the road for you and you can learn from his mistakes so you do not go the same way.
geoffkait,
What road was that 18-wheeler on?
>>>>There is no road. There is no path. There is no Audio Nirvana. Didn’t you get my memo? In order to evaluate WHERE you ARE in the overall context of things one must know HOW he got there and HOW to get WHERE he wants to go. Therein lies the Big Secret. The unspeakable. Things are only trivial if you aren’t a real audiophile. Obviously things are trivial to the guy under the bridge. Don’t ask, don’t tell.
I am confused. There is no road, there is no path?
@amg56
As the bumper sticker on the back of the 18 wheeler 🚛 lumbering up the narrow winding mountain road read, I may be slow but I’m ahead of you.
From your explanation, it is a bliss not to be a true audiophile, whatever that "true audiophile" means. What I meant that it is trivial indeed was that passions get inflamed out of proportion. This thread read as a life-or-death topic and not as some hobby.
Michael was playing classical chamber music most of the day and of course said I could come by anytime. When I did the music that was playing was featuring the flute. I believe it was flute, violin, viola and cello with a sprinkling of harpsicord but the flute was taking the lead for sure. MG said "what would you like to hear differently" and I replied that it would be nice if the other instruments moved more forward and present or is that the way the recording was done? "the playback can be almost anyway you want it to be, the content is all there" he said. Michael looked through a drawer of blocks and picked out 4. He placed them underneath the crossover and immediately the flute moved 2 feet back into the mix and mellowed and the strings became fuller featuring the mid and bottom tone of the instruments more. He said give it about an hour to fill in but I was already happy with the change. I went about my day and called to see if MG had moved on from that recording he said no he wanted to see where the settling ended up. I popped in upstairs to give a quick listen. I stayed for the whole recording hunting for the flute solo it wasn't there. All the instruments were now feeding off of each other with equal presence. I have to admit I asked MG if he had switched recordings "nope just let it settle in after the mechanical change". That was another WOW moment for me.
I am confused. There is no road, there is no path?
>>>>Eggs ackly! No path. No road. No Nirvana. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.
Geoffkait: “As the bumper sticker on the back of the 18 wheeler 🚛 lumbering up the narrow winding mountain road read, I may be slow but I’m ahead of you.”
From your explanation, it is a bliss not to be a true audiophile, whatever that "true audiophile" means. What I meant that it is trivial indeed was that passions get inflamed out of proportion. This thread read as a life-or-death topic and not as some hobby.
>>>>Now I think you’re getting it. Being a “true audiophile” is not all peaches 🍑 and cream 🐄. As the sign in offices of days gone by used to say, “If you’re not going crazy you don’t understand the situation.” Contentment is for cows. 🐄 Happiness is for clowns. 🤡 True audiophiles know what “true audiophile” means. Follow?
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
