Talk but not walk?

Robert, is the story now that you didn’t work for RoomTune? I’m confused. So Michael introduced you to Brent’s audiopoint in your store, you moved to Ohio and worked at the RoomTune factory. And now your saying you weren’t there? Second why are you obsessing over a brief period of employment in the 90’s? Who cares how much stock Michael owned in RoomTune? Michael is RoomTune. It reads like your trying to make a story line that changes as facts come out or even that you are trying to change the facts themselves. Robert no offence but why would I or anyone else wish to call you about your again brief stay at RoomTune for 9 months back in the 90’s?

I’m sure MG has had lots of employees during the original RoomTune years when there were many mom and pop stereo stores who carried the product. It’s my understanding that MG was either developing or traveling tuning up people during the 90’s. That’s what the magazines were indicating. I’m not trying to be disrespectful Robert but hasn’t it already been shared that you were an employee of MG’s or RoomTune or whatever the company was for 9 months? My question is who cares?

"Who cares how much stock Michael owned in RoomTune?"

Oh brother, let’s not stretch this that far LOL. This is nothing more than a guy who worked for someone for 9 months. That’s it, that’s as far as the story goes. If Robert wants to build it into more than that, that’s up to him. As long as he doesn’t attempt to be "abusive toward another member" his story is as good as anyone’s.

Glupson, everyone sees life through their own lenses. I happen to see it as a pretty cool experience. The guy next to me may see it completely different. The OP is about talking without walking as a question. I, you, Robert, prof, jf47t or anyone else sees life through our own set of values. Prof for example sees through his lenses that I’m here to instigate a fight, even though I say I’m not here to start any fights. Prof thinks because I said things a certain way that it means something based on his perception. It wasn’t what I said, but it was his perception on what I said.

If you look at the OP you will see words. Those words only take on meaning as we apply our own set of values to them. I crafted the OP this way on purpose. Does the OP have meaning to me? Only to the extent that I wished to trigger others reactions to the way they (and I) view words. Some viewed the OP as just what it said, others thought it was provoking, others it gave them a chance to vent, others to bring up feelings about the person behind the OP (that was a little scary to be honest), and as we can read, a whole bunch of sidetracks and additives that had nothing to do with the OP at all.

I wanted to show in real time the motives and intent that we create in our own minds when we see words, topics or discussions. For example one thing that stuck out to me is that so many viewed discussions as "arguments". Those same people viewed the OP as something to start or plant that arguing mindset in to the thread. If you go back and read through the thread again you will see all sorts of motives in the posts written. I’m also interested in the posts that follow this one. With the intent of the OP layout out, will posters be able to curve their own belief system and accept the OP for what it is and was or will they not be able to put the brakes on because of their own agendas that they created?

Which brings us back to the OP and how it relates to the way we view audio. Do we create our own spins on audio to fit our beliefs? Are we able to stretch our views on what audio is and how far are we willing to take it? Do we as listeners see playback as a means to an end or a means to an active beginning?

In this OP I was surprised on how I was personalized instead of the OP as words. I’ll be honest that got a little creepy to me. I was surprised to see others use this thread as an attack platform against me personally, the 20 year old employee thing got really weird. I knew when that started that I was going to give this thread a couple of more days and then reveal the thought behind this OP. As for myself, the motive and meaning behind the OP was crystal clear, but that again shows how I was viewing the OP as a tool. I tried to give hints to the OP but I was again surprised at how dug in folks thinking was and how forcefully they were sticking to their (our) own beliefs systems. I remember prof saying "a dog at the end of a bone" (sorry that’s probably not an exact quote.

So anyway I’m very interested to see the next few posts and the agendas of the posters now that I have given the why of the OP.

Michael Green

www.michaelgreenaudio.net

"And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables? 11He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given. 12For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath. 13Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.."

"you should probably get your ears candled pronto."

Michael Green,

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

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

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

"Look who is talking".

glupson I don't buy into the "look who is talking" bit. In MG's case it's "look who is walking". I don't know anyone in the business who has gone from start to finish like Michael has. I'm not saying they're not out there but I haven't met them. Picture having a system from start to finish without any enclosed chassis? I'm not just talking about the playback part but all the way from the microphone forward. He started with the tunable studio (live room), control room, mastering room, in studio playback room all tunable. All the equipment was without their chassis, or custom built without chassis from the microphones on. No cable barrels no plugs every stage was either hardwired or clipped. No cover even on the mixers. A system from start to finish completely stripped down or built stripped.  Another studio where you had 3 close to identical rooms. You start at the live room then the control room then the playback room all in a row. You entered by the control room and the live room was on the left and playback room on the right. For demos you could walk through all three stages of the recording to get a reference.

Hi glupson

I believe I understood you correctly, thanks for explaining again. My take of this sentence however is different.

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

I don’t think MG was implying anything or he wouldn’t have put a question mark there. There’s a huge golf between "why fake it?" and "your faking it".

If you read the Tunees who have come up, it’s all positive correct? Happy successful listeners no negatives to be found. Now compare this with the ones who "challenged" Michael. Defensive, angry, accusing, assuming and creating false narratives and made up stories.

Also glupson take another read through. There isn’t a prof vs MG or a Robert vs MG, read it again. MG doesn’t engage in the fight with the exception of a couple "get real" moments. I engage with both prof and Robert more than Michael does. In the cases with both prof and Robert Michael attempts to give both of them an out. Prof Robert Kosst are getting their posts removed cause they are "abusing another member". Michael isn’t getting his posts removed cause he is being a gentleman.

glupson if you see MG fighting anyone it’s because either you or someone else has painted those pictures. MG’s not going to engage in a fight over stuff he has done that’s pretty stupid wouldn’t you think? Michael’s more likely to crack a joke. However if you look at prof Robert kosst and a couple of others you can clearly see some issues. And you don’t have to look on this thread alone. Look at their posts on other forums. Pretty much the same MO where ever these guys show up. Again look at the OP and then go check out other threads. MG’s not down on any of these guys he’s just letting them paint their own pictures of themselves.

Devil in a Blue Dress

There’s a huge golf between "why fake it?" and "your faking it".

"MG’s not going to engage in a fight over stuff he has done..."

"If you read the Tunees who have come up, it’s all positive correct? Happy successful listeners no negatives to be found."

"It is true, but it does not count at all. It is a willing, but captive, audience. It is the same team and they were, from what it seemed, "walkers" in this story. They are not going to complain, they have no reason. The ones that count are those who disagree. They may be grumpy, but they me be correct, too. Those two things are not mutually exclusive."

I disagree with this completely all day long. You see you didn’t mean to but you just did what you accuse the OP of doing. You were just prejudice toward the Tunees. You have no idea who the individual Tunees are, how long they have been Tunees or what made them go from the typical HEA over to tuning. You did however make a fair statement about the some of the gang who disagreed "they may be grumpy". Trust me they are grumpy!

Now back to the OP. The Tunees didn’t become Tunees because they were seduced by MG quite the opposite. The Tunees became Tunees because they "Walked". They tried tuning and it led them to a deeper meaning and understanding of the hobby of listening to music. You see glupson even you have a built in prejudice why? Because you assume instead of try. You see "talk and not walk"? You assume it’s a captive audience without ever doing what they do. You presume you know who Michael is based on the talk your reading instead of finding out by doing.

It’s all very simple and won’t ever change no matter who is doing the "talking" you me or anyone else. glupson your going to keep on being bias because you have no foundation past words. You will continue to recycle your words along with the rest who are talking. No matter how you try to understand there is only one way to get to understanding. You either talk or you walk. The only way you will ever know if you are walking is if you walk.

Hindu Love Gods

A part of rock history. HLG is one of those recordings that was done during the making of another recording "Sentimental Hygiene" (Warren Zevon). Hindu recorded these covers and never intended to release the songs but the session was so good it had to be. I had to look this up because this cd is killer and MG told me it was done with REM members. The soundstage sounds to be about 20’ x 20’ x 10’(H). The front to back goes about 3’ behind my head and there’s great side to side presence. The drums are bold and full of midrange with the cymbals splashing across the whole stage when they hit. The top end is very warm sounding and there are no holes in the stage anywhere from the beginning of this recording all the way till the end. Kick drum is perfect and together with the snare it gives off a punchy rib cage kick and also warmth. Nothing is coming from the speakers (an MG trait) and there’s that MG headphone feel to the sound. Michael loves his nearfield. I did want to mention something about the kick drum. Michael has it tuned in to almost sounding like a big floor tom. I need to go back and listen more because there’s some creative drum stuff going on later in the session where the bottom drops way down and shakes the whole room. Nice and beautiful and very deep. All the instruments are clear and in their own spaces and any pans are very obvious. An easy to follow soundstage. Garage sounding? I don’t know. It does have that in the room with you sound if that’s what you mean but I would say more of a small bar type of sound. It’s a recording one can rock to.

geoffkait,

Could you elaborate on when talking stops and walking starts, in relation to this thread? I have asked that a time or two ago, but have not yielded any answer. Does "walking" mean you build your own things or "walking" is also buying already finished products from someone else and then hearing whatever you are listening for?

In fact, there are a few questions that I had asked for which you replied that you were still thinking about the response. Are you pretending to be a little slow or what? It does not bother me, we both seem to be slow then, but I have not forgotten.

"Talker" or not, I make my own sentences. Can you beat that?

geoffkait,

 How many of those fires 🔥 were caused by audiophiles who were Tuning? Zero.

Where did you get that data?

jf47t,

That was a really detailed description of the CD. Very specific. I cannot say I heard it the same way in my, still, very limited listening, but I have to agree about "in the room" description. To me, it was like a small space, rough overall sound, but, yes, with a kick of some sorts. Something like a starting band practicing in the garage and getting it just right. Maybe a small bar, I can take that, but the feeling would be of a dive bar rather than of some more upscale establishment. It was definitely worth getting. Well, hoping that other songs are at least close to the level of the one you mentioned.

Hi glupson

Do you want to reference the recording?

jf47t,

Thanks, but no need, I am really a very low level music user. More of a plug-and-play and accept some imperfections. That does not mean that I am not interested in learning about things, call me a "listener" I guess. Did I just invent the third category now?

As I was turning the computer on, I put earphones in (Sennheiser IE80, SONY Walkman, my original ears and fairly clean at the moment) and started Raspberry Beret. I will go with that bar instead of a garage now. I also started noticing the drum you were talking about. Yes, it is quite lively. I guess I have two CDs now, for the price of one from Goodwill. One recorded in the garage and one recorded in the bar. Both are just fine.

geoffkait,

I doubt anyone could prove you wrong on that one. At the same time, it is as accurate as me stating that Tuning audiophiles caused 327 fires. It is a speculation and not an educated guess. In essence, a worthless piece of quasi-info.

mapman,

Agreed, but I am trying to exhibit some self-discipline. This is the first thread that I have really participated anywhere, except for a post or two at rare times. I learned a lot from geoffkait, believe it or not. About how not to write posts. I judge what I am about to post against his. If I feel he would not write it that way, it is probably fine to be presented to people. I am not kidding at all. I am grateful for that.

trelja,

I was not aware of the movie or that it had anything to do with Baudelaire. This thread is good for these small pieces of knowledge that can be picked from time to time. Thanks for the explanation. We will not clarify anything about walking and talking or who employed whom in the previous century, but there are little pieces of puzzle that show up occasionally.

"Typical talker jibber jabber, argumentative til he turns blue."

Hi glupson

Now we're getting some where though.

"Thanks, but no need, I am really a very low level music user. More of a plug-and-play and accept some imperfections."

"As I was turning the computer on, I put earphones in (Sennheiser IE80, SONY Walkman, my original ears and fairly clean at the moment) and started Raspberry Beret. I will go with that bar instead of a garage now. I also started noticing the drum you were talking about. Yes, it is quite lively. I guess I have two CDs now, for the price of one from Goodwill. One recorded in the garage and one recorded in the bar. Both are just fine."

glupson you just referenced!

Your headphones, your listening room, your car and whatever else you play that recording on gives you a different playback of that one recording. Tuning would have allowed you the ability to make that recording sound the same in your different environments.

So lets say you take a trip and your listening to a cd. You pull up in the drive way head into the house and put on that same cd. What tuning does is give you the ability to listen to that cd the same way you were hearing it in the car. Or go listen to that cd on your headphones again and now put that cd on your home system. Tuning would allow you to match the recorded code. Meaning what you heard on your headphones you would also hear on your stereo. Or you could tune to the best of all worlds or take the recording closer to when it was done in the studio which is likely several times better sounding than in a typical home setting.

glupson

The comment kosst made was a troll. That's what Geoff was telling you. Of course tuning hasn't caused any fires. Tuning is an action. The trolling post was removed along with other trolling posts on this thread and others. Look at the OP "I'm not asking to be trolled". What this OP is doing is exposing and confirming different audiophile personalities and the lengths they will go to to create their own worlds on forums that have nothing to do with doing the hobby of listening. People who are fake can't help themselves when it comes to disrupting the flow of audio threads. It's an addiction to them. They make a point and spend the rest of their time defending that point even when their point has been proven incorrect. It's like the ex employee mad at his former boss. He's blinded by his own anger at being let go and must cast blame. Or the inexperienced DIYer trying to prove that he has knowledge that he doesn't because of his lack of experience. Or the guy who needs measurements because he isn't able to hear results. The list goes on and on of people who come to threads for reasons other than the thread itself. This OP is here to let the thread take on the meaning of the OP. This thread could have died at page one but the addiction of people to prove their point and importance has kept this thread rolling strong.

note: MG co-wrote this post with me. We're listening to some nice tunes and I pulled up the thread. I just wanted to be up front about that.

"Or the guy who needs measurements because he isn't able to hear results."

This was cool Michael just showed me a trick. He put on track 4 of Hindu Love Gods took an RT Square and folded it in half. He then put the Square on the ceiling about a foot in front of my head. The singer moved more toward me and the band fell back about 3' further than they were before trippy. He started changing the angle of that RT and the soundstage was able to be moved front to back at will. That's impressive. Each step MG takes is showing me how adjustable and flexible the soundstage is. Now that's walking the walk. It's great to make the connection between what the reviewers have said about Michael Green and the actual event live in real time. It's also been impressive that MG has not once changed the speaker positioning. Each step I'm taking with tuning is making more sense that we have control over our recordings being played. MG says the info is all there and our systems are the adjustable tool that shapes the recording into whatever we want if it's on the recording itself of course.

This is why every recording sounds different on every system. MG says "BINGO". The recording is the recording and the system is the tool. The content is all there but we are only playing the interpretation our system's setting gives us. This is making sense.