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?
“I think most folks on a site like this who are serious about getting good sound listen carefully to everything, read up on things, and their room at home is the only ‘real empirical testing ground’ available. Once the tests are successful and meet their goals then they stop. Until their goals maybe change again... ”
mapman, to that I say amen, except that I would add “that matters” to “real empirical testing ground”.
And you’ve nailed geoffkait. He must live in his parents basement, he has so much time on his hands to agitate in these parts, how else to explain?
Whatever. Maybe you didn’t hear me. I said I did not insult him. End of discussion. What are you, suddenly the forum psychologist? Did someone die and make you the moderator? Give me a break. Go bother someone else.
I will have to repeat myself. Knowing when to curb yourself or stop is necessary in any communication.
Nobody should expect you to be deeply familiar with practice of medicine, but your...
"If things were so dire, why is it taking so long to get a diagnosis? It’s been what, a month, since he mentioned it?"
make me remember that knowing when to curb yourself or stop is necessary in any communication. Also, it may be hard to grasp a mind and thoughts of a cancer patient and ways she/he copes with that problem, but there have been many pages written about it. It does not matter if you read them or not.
Stop insulting people around here. Even if you think it is funny or witty, it is not.
PS The cancer patient has the right to talk about her/his illness. You do not, unless specifically called for. As a dark reminder. Age is a significant risk factor for cancer. None of us is getting younger. You would be granted same above-mentioned right, if you found yourself in amg56’s situation, with no questions asked.
glupson geoffkait, Regarding your comments about amg56, knowing when to curb yourself or stop is necessary in any communication. You lost any residual credibility that anyone might have thought you deserved based on an occasional post or two where you did seem to compose a lucid sentence. Your views of Internet forums as a vehicle for sadistically insulting people from safe distance are deplorable.
>>>>Please don’t insult my intelligence. Actually I did not insult amg56. Besides, he’s the one who keeps mentioning his physical and mental condition, not me. He’s mentioned cancer at least three or four times. For someone who just joined Audiogon he has mentioned his cancer and his upcoming diagnosis a bunch. Besides, if things are so dire, why is it taking so long to get a diagnosis? It’s been what, a month, since he mentioned it? You guys are such drama queens. You wanna be somebody? Go on Dr. Phil.
Not mention the suicide issue in his family he brought up the other day. I mean who does that? Come on, people! And if that weren’t enough he goes out of his way to attack people on this forum constantly. Hel-loo! Issues! Trolls like yourself and amg56 shouldn’t be so hypersensitive, or pretend to be. Whatever. You guys should go on the Dr. Phil Show. It’s a talk show. You can talk through it. 🙄
Regarding your comments about prof and me, please see above.
My comments may not be that useful, but neither is that poetic divide between "talkers" and "walkers". No matter how many times I try to ask, there is no answer how to recognize either of them. Where is the line that separates talking from walking for the purpose of this thread? What does the "talker" have to do to become a "walker"? Build his own listening room with his bare hands? Find a contractor to built it to his specifications? Buy as good/expensive of equipment as he can in hopes of achieving better sound without constructing or doing anything else?
I understand that Michael Green is a "walker" because he does something. I take it that you are the same for same reason. I accept that I am a "talker" because I have not done those things that you do daily. That is clear, but maybe neither of you have done things to improve your daily enjoyment of music that others have done. If I am correct, are you just "talkers" then? I do not think it matters, really, but that was the original topic.
Having said that, somewhere in the original post was a statement that it is easy for certain people ("walkers", I believe) to figure out through few Internet posts who is a "talker". How? Unless a person declares herself/himself as such. How do you (whoever that "you" is) decide it?
Regarding your comments about amg56, knowing when to curb yourself or stop is necessary in any communication. You lost any residual credibility that anyone might have thought you deserved based on an occasional post or two where you did seem to compose a lucid sentence. Your views of Internet forums as a vehicle for sadistically insulting people from safe distance are deplorable.
Regarding your comments about prof and me, please see above.
@geoffkait How dare you! You miserable excuse for a person. Do you want a copy of my diagnosis? You smart mouthed little person. Do you think cancer is funny? Do you think it does cause pain?
One person asks how I am feeling and you pull this stunt. are you showing off, because you have nothing else to contribute?
Oh, you are a shallow, callous narrow minded disgrace. You are certainly not humble and no scribe. You are a grub.
Gloopson, I’m not trying to start a fight and no offense, but since you and prof seem to enjoy this art of chit chat and debate so much, the next logical step is to play the cancer card. It would be quite difficult to prove that Tuning does not cause cancer. And no offense to amg56 who either has cancer or may have cancer. Is amg56 a tuner? Is he a tweaker? Maybe tweaking causes cancer, too. Do Tuning and Tweaking make hair grow on your palms? Stay tuned, folks, maybe we’ll find out, if prof and gloopson are on their toes. As for your friend and humble scribe, I’m filing this latest round of pretend debate under, What about this? What about that? Oh, honorable mention to mapman who’s been scrambling to stay in the fight and almost connected on a couple jabs.
No offence but your last two posts were not useful toward making a point about this thread unless you were making the point of taking not being the same as doing. They were simply more talking. The more I move toward the walking the easier it is to see posters coming up here simply to talk. That’s not a bad thing, just pales to the actual doing of the hobby.
I can see where Michael gets bored with many of these posts they are indeed boring if your someone who wants to do the listening.
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.
"Or the guy who needs measurements because he isn't able to hear results."
Try not to think of it as incorrect for a moment. Think of it as a two-pronged approach to the potential issue. In some, if not most, areas of science these days, it is an acceptable way. It is meant to add one more layer of certainty while attempting to exclude experimenter's bias. It is not always conclusive (who to trust, ears or measurements?), but there are patterns. As much as I would always go for the subjective approach, there is some value in cold calculated measurements, too. These two things are not mutually exclusive, but from the beginning of the thread we are led to believe that they are.
I did not firmly believe that tuning of any kind set any fire. However, once there is a statement, even with a numeric value (zero can reasonably be considered numeric value for this purpose) attached to it, there is a question of legitimacy of the whole statement. If there is some count of tuning fires, the whole thing becomes much more meaningful than someone just stating things left and right and then making fun of the one who questions it. Add a little bit of the "educated guess" claim which, as sophisticated as it may seem, was just a dust in our faces to detract from worthlessness of everything that was written in sentences preceding and following it.
One big flaw of this thread is that there are many things mentioned without ever clearly determining what it means. Participants start talking about it without knowing if they are talking about same thing. It started with OP and talking and walking. I am serious when I ask where is the border between those two. What is considered talking and what is considered walking. The only response was from geoffkait telling me that I am a bit slow, or am putting on a good act, adding that Internet description of "talker" has my picture next to it. Those pseudo-humorous comments is as far as this thread has gotten with clarifying first words in original post. 20 pages, statements being thrown around without any merit, but they seemed strong. Like zero fires. It was not licencia poetica, it was cheap bluff.
As far as that historic employment dispute goes, I do not think that anybody should pay much attention to it. It is a dispute between two people who have known each other and are talking things that are basically opposite. Robert is definitely upset, but it does not necessarily make his statements incorrect. Same goes for Michael. None of us on the thread have enough knowledge to be judges what really happened. Not even you, unless you were hanging out with both of them a couple of decades ago. At the same time, this thread, even if started by one of them, may not be the right place to argue their dispute.
I noticed some deleted posts and I noticed frequent use of word "troll". It appears that anything can be called "troll". At the same time, posts in which a person calls the other one "crazy" do not get deleted even when flagged. Apparently, this deleting process is not flawless. Not to mention that, given the track record here, "troll" may have different definition for everyone. I would not give too many negative points to posts deleted because of "trolling". I would rather see their content first.
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.
"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.
Sometimes I wonder if the geoffkait person even exists. For now, it seems like some computer program that randomly collects/copies words from the Internet. It is rare, if it even ever happens, that posts under geoffkait contain anything but sentences scavenged on the Internet. As a program, it is quite undeveloped as the words written rarely have anything to do with anything they should be response to.
Nothing. Then more nothing. At least you’re consistent, gloopson. Hey, I think I feel a poem coming on. Next up, the complete lyrics to the old standard, Lost in the Ozone Again.
Good mornin’ starshine, You lead us along My love and me as we sing our early mornin’ singin’ song Glibby gloop gloopy Nibby Nabby Noopy La La La Lo Lo Sabba Sibby Sabba Nooby abba Nabba Le Le Lo Lo Tooby ooby walla nooby abba nabba Early mornin’ singin’ song
Typical talker jibber jabber, argumentative til he turns blue. Were you a blue baby? Even if you could prove that some Tuners had fires, which you can’t, you would be unable to prove it was the Tuning that caused them. What’s next, Tuning causes cancer? That’s always a popular argument among talkers and pseudo skeptics. You can’t prove that it doesn’t.
Was Baudelaire a talker? I bet he was. What he was was a spitting image of Poe.
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.
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.
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.
glupson geoffkait: How many of those fires 🔥 were caused by audiophiles who were Tuning? Zero.
Where did you get that data?
>>>>It’s an educated guess. Prove me wrong. Betcha can’t. It’s the same silly argument pseudo skeptics use for fuses, that audiophile fuses cause fires. Give me a break.
The data for the number of fires in the US is readily available on line for those who let their fingers do the walking. 🖐 Oops, there’s that word again.
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.
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.
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?
glupson To be honest, I am still trying to figure out where "talking" ends and "walking" starts. Not to mention what is wrong with "talking".
Oh, brother! Now, you’ve really got me thinking, is this guy pretending to be a little slow or what? It’s a good act. I can’t tell. I just did a Google search of Talker and would you believe it, there was a picture of glupson?
kosst_amojan All this crazy stuff Mike’s done, and absolutely no evidence at all it does anything except make for excellent fire and shock hazards. The hazards part is the thing I’m surprised everybody ignores.
Well, let’s see, how many fires 🔥 were there in the US last year? A bunch, right? I’m going out on a limb and say one million house fires. How many of those fires 🔥 were caused by audiophiles who were Tuning? Zero. So, the risk of fires 🔥 associated with Tuning actually appears to be ridiculously low. No wonder everyone ignores Chicken Little. 🐥
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.
"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.
There’s a huge golf between "why fake it?" and "your faking it".
That is the difference between "implying" and "stating".
"MG’s not going to engage in a fight over stuff he has done..."
That is the problem that others had. If you read again, you will notice that their major displeasure was his non-responsiveness to direct questions. I cannot say my experience mirrors that one, but others complained. A few straight answers, even if incorrect in reader's view, would have been way better than nothing. Like this, it comes across as "you are not worthy of me answering to you" to people and then they start looking for details. It is easy to insult people over the Internet without ever intending or noticing. It is an art how to get out of it with dignity. In others' views, I am almost certain, Michael failed that "get out of it" part. I doubt he intentionally wanted to insult anyone, but that is what they saw. At the same time, it is also an art to curb yourself in such situations and not get overly emotional to overreact when feeling insulted.
"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 am not sure that word "fighting" in this context is the best one. Probably, "discussing" would be better. Ok, Robert and Michael are fighting, no matter what we call it, but that is their little gig and rest of us are just watching from outside of the stadium.
To be honest, I am still trying to figure out where "talking" ends and "walking" starts. Not to mention what is wrong with "talking".
glupson yes I would love to reference Hindu Love Gods using MG's system or mine. I got us some subways earlier and MG had it playing so I sat down some. I'm about to head over there again and will give a report once I get there. Feel free to pick out any song or part and ask me about.
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.
Another by the way, my Hindu Love Gods CD arrived. I did not get to listen to all of it, in fact I listened only to that one song you mentioned, but it was worth it.
I did my empirical testing and tried it over iHome Arc Bluetooth speaker and over bigger equipment. In both cases it sounds like a garage band playing in some garage. Maybe with open doors, but still a garage. It is all a good thing as it matches the atmosphere of the song. I am not sure how much better your experience was after listening to it with tuning you mentioned, but I doubt it will ever take a prize for the clearest and smoothest recording of the year. Still, it is just what it is supposed to be. Thanks for recommendation.
MG critiqued people as fakes, and that there was absolutely no doubt that there were people here on audiogon faking it, not having done the "empirical testing" to have justified the views they were espousing.
When asked to elaborate, he instead went all obfuscatory and dismissive of anyone who didn’t just agree.
Well ok then, if he wasn’t going to engage honest questions, and was going to call out other people as not being sufficiently empirical (those accusations of people unnamed and hence with no justification actually given) then he invites examination of his own post, methods and claims.
You might have misunderstood my sentences. I was saying that original post implied some people were "fakers" which insulted them. Then they started picking and picking and found things they thought Michael Green is "faking" in a sense. You can buy it or not, but that is what happened. Read responses and it should be clear. Maybe people did not say "Look who is talking" in exactly same words, but they focused on him and his responses, track record, whatever you want, and they came up with their own conclusions. You and I can think they are or they are not right, but that is what happened. A tiny little bit more timid original post would have prevented it and nobody would ever read this exchange between Robert and Michael. Which, by the way, seems plausible from both sides, just not at the same time. As some poster recently said "I have no dog in this fight", but I am able to witness.
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.
Gosh, you ask good questions. I don’t have an opinion one way or the other. It’s a quote from the movie. I know there used to be a song, Devil in a Blue Dress. Could that be a clue? Hmmmmm.....
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.
