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?
Some of you get it (I think), but the majority of posters still haven't a clue. The on lookers who have emailed Michael "get it". MG said this is exactly what would happen (watch) on this thread. Here's the OP
"Hi Guys
This isn't meant to start a fight, but it is important to on lookers. As a qualifier, I have my own audio forum where we report on audio issues as we empirically test them. It helps us short cut on theories and developing methods of listening. We have a wide range of systems and they are all over the world adding their experiences to the mix. Some are engineers, some are artist and others are audiophiles both new and old. One question I am almost always asked while I am visiting other forums, from some of my members and also members of the forum I am visiting is, why do so many HEA hobbyist talk theory without any, or very limited, empirical testing or experience?
I have been around empirical testing labs since I was a kid, and one thing that is certain is, you can always tell if someone is talking without walking. Right now on this forum there are easily 20 threads going on where folks are talking theory and there is absolutely no doubt to any of us who have actually done the testing needed, that the guy talking has never done the actual empirical testing themselves. I've seen this happen with HEA reviewers and designers and a ton of hobbyist. My question is this, why?
You would think that this hobby would be about listening and experience, so why are there so many myths created and why, in this hobby in particular, do people claim they know something without ever experimenting or being part of a team of empirical science folks. It's not that hard to setup a real empirical testing ground, so why don't we see this happen?
I'm not asking for peoples credentials, and I'm not asking to be trolled, I'm simply asking why talk and not walk? In many ways HEA is on pause while the rest of audio innovation is moving forward. I'm also not asking you guys to defend HEA, we've all heard it been there done it. What I'm asking is a very simple question in a hobby that is suppose to be based on "doing", why fake it?
Whatever it has been, I am much more puzzled by sudden appearance of jf47t. That seems like a hit job. It was like a character assassination. Gradually trying to portray Michael Green as a weirdo incapable of almost anything but listening to music. To me, Michael Green leaves an impression of a person who can engage in polite conversation, probably pleasant to hang out with in real life, and trying to promote and support his opinions, regardless of if you agree with them or not and regardless if he answers directly or not. jf47t just made him seem like some really strange human which, I think, is not fair.
Some of you get it (I think), but the majority of posters still haven’t a clue
.
Y’know....
If I had tried to communicate an idea and the majority of people reading it didn’t have a clue about what I was saying, if I was honest with myself the first thing I’d ask is: Hmm...maybe some of the problem lies with me. It looks like I probably didn’t communicate my idea clearly enough.
That seems like a more intellectually honest way to evaluate the problem, rather than to always presume the problem lies in most other people, and to find ways to cast aspersions at those who didn’t understand (as negative, trolls, etc), instead of go back to the drawing board and try to clarify the meaning for those who are asking.
I wonder why MG and the rest of the tuners seem unable to take any responsibility for the pages of confusion that have resulted from their method of discourse.
MG said this is exactly what would happen (watch) on this thread. Here’s the OP
Wait...Michael Green created an obviously contentious thread, knowing it would be contentious???!!!
That’s it, you’ve convinced all of us! Michael is BRILLIANT!!!!!!
Thanks so much for repeating the OP. It worked so well the first time (and the second and third), I can see why you want to keep reposting it.
BTW jf47t, if I implied you were lying about something, wouldn’t it be incumbent upon me to explain exactly what you are lying about...rather than just throw out the accusation? Isn’t that bit of decency what integrity demands?
On that note: Is there any reason you can’t bring yourself to answer the question I asked: If I am"faking it"(as Michael and other tuners have continually implied) in this audio hobby...what am I faking?
What, for instance, have I claimed to do or know, that you know to be false or a deception?
Did @jf47t just repeat the entire OP dissertation? Brilliant. Repetition...repetition...repetition...repetition... Sort of a longer version Maha Mantra for the tuning sect of HEA
Nice YouTube @geoffkait - I hope you are not suggesting it is time to paint our faces and send a boat up the river
If it is of any consolation to you, most of the people here do understand your points. We may not all agree with some of your approaches all the time, but that is some healthy diversity, I hope. However, I still think you are wasting your energy on trying to prove your points. Whoever has been following this thread has already joined one of the three camps (yours, Michael Green's, or the middle one). Answers you are asking for will never come. Two of you are simply on two parallel lines, each one right and straight on his own, but never to meet. To me, Michael Green is like some picture of a renaissance man who does many things and does them out of passion or for whatever purpose he has for it. Electronics, carpentry, playing music live, studio work, debating (not your way, though), above average cars with some flair, traveling, having a diverse life along the way, and what not. You, however, bring the structured standards of 21st century and expect him to abide by them. That will not work. His approach clashes with what you are expecting big time. You, or anybody else, do not know if he is intentionally avoiding your questions or has no idea what you are even talking about and simply cannot answer. He openly admitted that he was not pursuing credentials so he may not be that familiar with approach you have. It does not matter if his claims about tuning are correct or not.
I am not trying to defend Michael Green at all. I am just observing as disparity between two camps has become so wide that it may be something else than stubbornness or arrogance at play. I mostly deal with people for whom your scientific approach is like drinking water, but I do have a number of friends who are highly educated and very intelligent who would be unfamiliar with methods you are requesting. They are just not in the field that uses such a methodology. Now, imagine someone not that young (forgive me if I am wrong, Michael, I do not know your age but have a feeling you are not underage) so has his ways already carved, with strong personality, beliefs based on his experience, and no formal education that forced him to go through the methods you are asking about in tuning. You cannot expect the person to jump up and down and give you p value of capacitor differences. Of course, the idea behind the OP is vague to me, too, and both of you can argue about it as much as you please.
Listening to "Hindu Love Gods" on my system, Absolutely Jamming! The difference between audiophile racks vs Platforms is nuts. I've now gone through the rack phase to the maple phase to tuning. The dynamic changes while going through these steps is shocking. Michael's suggestion of "Hindu" is a good one because I have heard this on other systems where it sounded congested. Before I would have rated this recording as ok to good now I would do my rating at excellent. There's dynamic range plus.
Then I hope he does not get offended by my "not so young" comment. Formal education shapes a person, over time, into a different mold. Not
>>>>Knowledge can be defined as what’s left after you subtract out what you forgot from school plus whatever you can glean from Wikipedia in order to appear halfway Intelligent in technical debates.
There is also a benefit. For example, you made me go to look up "High Hierophant". Without this thread, I would not learn so many things. It is actually useful in some way. Of course, provided I can find a moment to use "High Hierophant" again.
I did find the mini-biography MG gave us certainly did go quite a way to explaining the character of his posts and belief system.
It’s weird interacting with the Tuners here; no alternative views seem to get "in" from the outside, it’s mostly blithely ignored, we only see things coming outward. Especially from you know who ^^^^^. If you aren’t going to just take what they are out to evangelize, well skeptics aren’t much good to them because they aren’t interested in defending their claims so much as gaining converts. So skepticism is cast as negativity, and off they go looking for whoever will eat the stuff up and say "more."
I’ve had a long fascination with cults, fringe belief systems etc, and the similarities are quite remarkable to some of the behaviour I’ve seen in this thread. That of course is *not* to say Tuneland is a cult, but rather that some Tuners here seem to give off a similar vibe because there seem to be some shared characteristics. It’s sort of like the Jehovah’s Witnesses who come to your door to proselytize. They will happily engage you for hours if you seem open to their evangelizing. But if challenged, they will quickly say: "We see your viewpoint, thank you for taking the time to speak with us" and on to the next house. They are taught to not engage other critical views at length - both because it cuts down on proselytizing time, and because it can lead to doubts. People who operate in these protective bubbles tend to come off as a bit odd when they leave the bubble and try to interact with alternative viewpoints.
BTW, I’ve said numerous times before I don’t go around "being scientific" in everything I do. Far from it. I buy things that tickle my fancy - which no doubt involves a healthy dose of my own biases - like anyone else. (I just try to be cautious in what conclusions I reach and what claims I’d make to other people).
I agree with your view of Wikipedia usefulness on technical subjects. I may not use it for copy/paste as much to post in threads, but I agree a person can learn a lot there. I should check it again, I have not in months.
I agree with your view of Wikipedia usefulness on technical subjects. I may not use it for copy/paste as much to post in threads, but I agree a person can learn a lot there. I should check it again, I have not in months.
>>>>Let’s not get too carried away, glupson. I was being a little bit sarcastic although I realize it’s hard to tell sometimes.
Sarcastic or not, you are right about Wikipedia. I learn from you, but have not started copying and posting from Internet to support my claims. I will work on it, once I cannot make my own sentences about something..
My gosh guys. We need to keep track of all this LOL. I see cows, dogs, cats, cherry pie (that was mine), ex employees showing up, Geoff has had some entertaining stuff, your usual mad men, folks who can’t read an OP and understand it or insist that it has a secret meaning, trolls post getting deleted right and left (some of them the ex employee). A weird inquiry about my stay in Nashville (that might be good). The MG cult of happy listeners, people in a hobby that does plug & play or tweaking or tuning (not knowing it’s all the same hobby), listeners saying their systems can play everything wonderfully without tweaking (that’s a good trick). Oh a clip we all love from "A-now", a guess into each ones education (knowing the average todays 6 year old knows more than all of us), my age (no I wasn’t offended glupson, I love my nice long gray beard) oh (so do the ladies). jf47t becomes famous off of one thread, other posters trying to get famous after thousands of posts, some needing to check in with the counter for their nitey nite meds, some I think might be selling meds. The OP totally playing itself out in real time, other forums now picking up on the thread and talking about it, someone some where sold a used amplifier, an audio show just happened somewhere. Friends of MG’s reading this thread rolling on the ground laughing (did I mention madmen here).
And me, well I’m now talking to my agent to see what kind of % I can get for the sitcom. And most of all it’s just a bunch of guys wasting time, oh average age 72. I wish I could have been here more now...well....maybe not but it’s still good!
Michael (thinking about changing my identity) Green lol
PS I think after all this I might just be a genius after all, who do I call to find out? peace my Brothers be happy
If average age is 72, someone must be 112. Man, you really made it. Congrats.
I will agree with Michael Green, this is an interesting bunch of something. Who is the first one to figure out what that something is, has ice-cream on me. I mean, I will buy her/him an ice-cream.
There does seem to be a pretty big disconnect between the Happy Campers and the Tweakers and Tuners. But one has to ask, how can you guys sit there and honestly say you’re content with CDs that sound thin, wiry, bloated, generic, two dimensional, metallic, like Muzak, synthetic, ugly, screechy, congealed, wooden, electronic, digital, boring, anemic, compressed, airless, discombobulated, sour, amusical, pedestrian and like papier-mâché?
Yes I think Geoffkait is officially disqualified at this point from offering any valid insights about good sound until he gets his uber Walkman fixed. Get busy! You are obviously tweaking the wrong tweaks pseudo-NASA guy. Of course not that much of what he says ever seems valid in the first place. Always good for a laugh though just like his website and the junk he offers for sale here.
"...how can you guys sit there and honestly say you’re content with CDs that sound..."
Some people will and do agree with you on description of the CD sound. Maybe not all CDs and not all the words you used, but in that direction. At least part of the answer is that, despite admitting all those annoying shortcomings, they have no other option but to enjoy the way it is or stop enjoying altogether. They are content because improvement is not feasible under reasonable terms for them. The more I read about descriptions of tuning and tweaking, the more I am sure it, at this stage, cannot be something too many people would or could go for. It is time and effort expenditure that may outweigh potential benefit in the sound improvement. Many CDs really sound crappy, we all have a bunch of them, I am sure, but most people have no interest in playing with equipment on an hourly basis just to extract one more Hertz from it. It detracts from other things, including actually listening to that same CD. And that is even without opening the topic if all those tweaks. tunings really make a difference for which everyone has her/his own ideas.
At least he tries hard to be entertaining while obfuscating though technically that just helps make the obfuscating tolerable to some. A brilliant plan! I see a lucrative career as a Bond villain for GK. Maybe even President? Forget the nutty tweak business.
Why nobody talks about one of the most influential and simplest tweaks out there? Music volume. Is it because it is too simple to do or is there some other reason?
Take a Valium, Moops. Feel better. I don’t care if you’re not a real engineer. Really. Gloops and Moops. Hey, that rhymes! I’m a poet and don’t know it.
glupson geoffkait "...how can you guys sit there and honestly say you’re content with CDs that sound..."
Some people will and do agree with you on description of the CD sound. Maybe not all CDs and not all the words you used, but in that direction. At least part of the answer is that, despite admitting all those annoying shortcomings, they have no other option but to enjoy the way it is or stop enjoying altogether. They are content because improvement is not feasible under reasonable terms for them. The more I read about descriptions of tuning and tweaking, the more I am sure it, at this stage, cannot be something too many people would or could go for. It is time and effort expenditure that may outweigh potential benefit in the sound improvement. Many CDs really sound crappy, we all have a bunch of them, I am sure, but most people have no interest in playing with equipment on an hourly basis just to extract one more Hertz from it. It detracts from other things, including actually listening to that same CD. And that is even without opening the topic if all those tweaks. tunings really make a difference for which everyone has her/his own ideas.
Gee, you don’t say? 🙄
I’m pretty sure that’s the talkers’ position. Excellent summary!
I am not sure if that is the "talkers'" position as I am still not sure what qualifies one for a "talker", but it is, at least to some extent, how it is out there. There are probably many more variables.
- Tells us he’s satisfied the thread turned out just as he planned.
That is probably true. Thread has developed in so many directions that anything that was planned could be found here. You could say it would have geography in it and you would be right. Philosophy, poetry, mathematics, even some history of audio that I just learned, it is all here.
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.
