Talk but not walk?
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?
thanks, be polite
Michael Green
www.michaelgreenaudio.net
glupson jf47t, 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. And remember, only quote facts. 🙄 |
| Post removed |
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. |
prof, 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. |
jf47t, 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? |
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. 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? thanks, be polite" brilliant MG! |
@mitch2 In the words of Madeleine Albright:I must have been crazy; I should have answered the question by reframing it and pointing out the inherent flaws in the premise behind it. Albright's advice is exactly what I did in my very first reply in this thread, see page 3. The OP was so vague it was the only way to approach even starting a coherent dialogue. But unfortunately you can't get there if one side isn't committed to conceptual clarity. |
@stevecham
"May I ask, exactly, and respectfully, what the heck is this thread about?"Start with the original question; "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."The answer of course is plurium interrogationum, i.e., a complex question fallacy, multiple question, or trick question In the words of Madeleine Albright: I must have been crazy; I should have answered the question by reframing it and pointing out the inherent flaws in the premise behind it.Crazy is the operative word here....but entertaining for sure...carry on..... |
Hey, what’s up with all the doom and gloom, fellers? Don’t you remember the little ant? Next time you’re found With your chin on the ground There a lot to be learned So look around Just what makes that little old ant Think he’ll move that rubber tree plant Anyone knows an ant, can’t Move a rubber tree plant But he’s got high hopes He’s got high hopes He’s got high apple pie In the sky hopes Whoops there goes another rubber tree plant! 🌴🐜 |
stevecham, Once you find out, let the rest of us know. The meaning ended up being a little chat with unknown people, relevance is still mostly missing, knowledge was there if you were patient enough and if you were willing to extract it between issues that were promoted. It is not your usual thread with questions, answers, and moving on to another question. |
| Post removed |
18 pages, we weren't ever going to get a real dialogue going. It was doomed from the OP on. I don't know if it will ever sink in that MG and his followers can "walk" all they want with their tuning hobby, and that's cool, but there's no need to do it at the expense of telling others they only "talk." Which unfortunately was the direction MG took from the OP onward. It surely is time to let this thread pass on. It's ok jf47t, no need to go any further. Enjoy your Tuning, I'm sure you hear some great stuff. Take care. |
@jf47t Jay, Without being in the least bit rude, may I say to you, "Grow Up and Smell the Roses". There is a world out there, out from the shadow of Michael, no matter what he says. That world, is full of well meaning people of all Nationalities, backgrounds, ages, ethnicity, beliefs and worth who have "FUN" experimenting with their Stereo equipment to the point where they are happy and satisfied with results. There are thousands of topics on the wwweb that cover all aspects of HiFi manipulation. people, like me, prof, glupson, mapman, geoffkait, all commune on these forums to learn and to communally partake in information sharing. (We might exclude Geoff then....). ;0 What is not in keeping with the above is posts that call to task people's belief that they are walking and talking, being called fakes. is it any wonder there was a small but vocal uprising by people who DO walk and talk. Jay, there are as many ways to talk as there are languages, each have their own way of walking. I for one would never call them to task and call anyone of them fakes. I am sorry for you Jay. You need to learn to think for yourself, come out of the shadow you seem to be under. |
audiopoint, One for your collection of interesting reads... https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/jopy.12396 |
jf47t, "Please don't do that. That was extremely heartless and cruel. I think I get it now. No matter how much soul someone pours into the entertainment business your here to rip them down."Huh, now that is bordering on bizzare. Ripping down? Who is? Whom? When? Why? Cruel? Heartless? Extremely? Whose posts you are commenting on? This is really strange. I would like to correct my mistake, but I am lost in these woods. Do not be ashamed of being associated with us. We really are not associated. I have no idea who prof is and how he looks like and what he does and where he even is and I am as sure that prof is the same with me. We know nothing about you, either, except for what you write. Really, I do not want to be extreme in any way, nor would I like to be cruel or heartless. I read prof's last post again and was kind of proud of him how mellow and peaceful he was in it. Can you help me, or maybe us (prof and me) out of this twilight zone? |
jf47t, Perhaps this gig isn’t for you; might you be a bit too delicate to be MG’s spokesman here, if you are going to be freaked out so easily? No one here has to be convinced that Michael would "blow our minds" if we just were able to observe him, or that he’s a Focused Machine. None of that answers any of the questions we are discussing so, as passionate as you may be, actually *getting answers to some questions* would go much further for MG’s credibility than having someone continually come on just to tell us He’s So Great And He’ll Answer In His Own Time. When you (or he) go on and on about Michael’s experience, his genius, how much he loves music and has lots of friends...that’s just spending time finding ways to not engage the substance of our questions and ideas. Bragging that he *could* answer, and does elsewhere...but not actually doing it here...is "talking" not "walking." I don’t need to share your love for Michael to consider his ideas. They may be valid. And I don’t need to Hate him should I decide I don’t buy in to any particular thing he does. It doesn’t need to be so emotional. Most o this "angry" stuff has been projection on your part. Just try direct, clear, honest conversation - on the topic. It’s good for the soul. |
glupson, Yes, as earnest as jf47t is, as you say I think the breathless praise of The Great Important Man is sort of creepin' us out. Descriptions like jf47t's, especially his last post, immediately bring to mind Dennis Hopper's part in Apocalypse now: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/film-news/7787054/Dennis-Hopper-memorable-film-quotes.html So I think your advice for jf47t to think about reeling back a bit on trying to convince everyone that Michael Green is a Great Man would go a long way in keeping people's minds open. And I would also add support to your taking exception to the "you are either going to love him or hate him." I don't hate Michael Green at all. I've said more than once he may be a great guy outside this thread. If MG or jf47t have diagnosed that I hate Michael, they are not the keen judges of human character that it seems they think they are. All I'm looking for is sincere conversation. (*scribbles phone number on bathroom wall....*) |
jf47t, Oh my (again), it is all fine but tone it down. You are not doing Michael Green much favor with this kind of descriptions. I really have nothing against him or his business, but you make it seem freaky. I believe it is accurate and it does not hurt anyone, but it is a bit odd. "If you saw the amount of decisions he makes a day and the types of decision it would probably blow some circuits."If this sentence does not blow about twenty fuses here, we are lucky. None of us knows how many and what kinds of decisions Michael makes a day, but some may make even more and types you may be surprised, not to say scared, to imagine you or Michael have to make. This is generally an anonymous forum and most of us do not know much about what other people do every day. Save for geoffkait, he knows it all. |
"At it’s most basic, empirical means "based on experience." And most of what we infer is based on experience. And to add the word "testing" to "empirical" doesn’t help much because there is a huge gulf between "empirically testing" an idea...and "empirical testing" in the scientific sense." The answer is Yes. All the above but I want to tell you something about MG Here’s Michael’s description of the situation between the two of you. The post you wrote a second ago is something that MG would dive into answering over the next several months. When I first met MG it didn’t take long to realize he has two modes. One is based on time allowed and the other is based on what he calls, all in. Michael as of a few weeks ago has been mentoring me to potentially becoming his assistant. I’m not the only assistant he has but we’re both hoping that I will develop into his immediate needs guy. In some ways he wants me to be a clone in other words. MG calls it being, his brain. If you saw the amount of decisions he makes a day and the types of decision it would probably blow some circuits. Prof Michael is not a mean person at all he’s a machine a single minded extremely focused 24/7 machine. Your either going to love him or your going to hate him but it’s important that he exist. I’ve now had talks with several of his friends and advisors and the common theme is, good luck. Today when we were heading out on our adventures MG said hey lets go through some of prof’s questions totally out of the blue. At that moment you were as important as any audio project he has. He was totally dedicated to prof and nothing else till we got to our stop. As soon as we got to our stop if I would have said prof, he wouldn’t have a clue as to what I was talking about because he had shifted gears to going through wood. That’s MG. I know your probably expecting an exchange with someone seeing this is a forum but MG is not the guy to have that with if your wanting fast answers. He’ll hit that next need and you won’t see him for days. It works good for TuneLand cause he can set the pace and I know he would like to be available here but I see something like this thread as being he will stop by choose his point make it and be gone. He’s told me he hopes things can happen that way here but feels that may never happen. |
jf47t, Thank you for that response! e) The topic is directly about "Talk but no walk" Making adjustments to your system is walking. And yet his OP was mostly about "talking" and "faking it." His very last question summing up the OP was "why fake it?" Hence the topic is as much or more about people "faking" as it would be about those who are "doing." If you want to make a post about Golfing, you don’t make a post referring mostly to, and addressing, non-golfers. You could make a thread "let’s talk about golfing" and people will talk about golfing. If you make a thread "why don’t people golf?" you will naturally invite discussion about, and from, non-golfers. This is basic communication 101. If Michael only really wanted to talk about Tuning, then as I pointed out in my first reply, addressing his post to the subject of the "fakers" is not going to be a good trajectory to set your thread on. I’m trying to make you, and Michael, unbaffled about what went on here, so you hopefully learn from it and don’t end up confused again if you keep doing this.
Excellent. So, as I’ve said, on such a view virtually everyone here is "walking." Including myself. No, I don’t "tune" my system to every single song or album. But like everyone on this site, I have spent a lot of time putting together my system and dialing it in, tweaking it along the way to achieve what I want. So, as I wrote in my very first reply to Michael, that begs the question of "who would he be talking about?" If as you just said, "walking" is tweaking or any form of adjusting your system" then I and pretty much everyone else here are "walking." Therefore it make sense to ask "Well...since I think I’m walking, and everyone else would seem to be walking....who ISN’T actually ’walking?" Do you not see the logic of this question, why someone might ask for more detail and clarification from Michael? And yet when I raised this question to get Michael to clarify, he didn’t seem to recognize it’s pertinence and immediately, in his first reply to me, suggested he was already clear, that it wasn’t worth any more of a response to me, except to imply I was indicative of those only "talking " or "faking" that he was thinking of. Do you get why this was problematic, yet? i) The definition of empirical testing is covered in depth on the internet. Then you *should* know how wide-ranging the term "empirical" is. Which is the very problem I raised in my first post. At it’s most basic, empirical means "based on experience." And most of what we infer is based on experience. And to add the word "testing" to "empirical" doesn’t help much because there is a huge gulf between "empirically testing" an idea...and "empirical testing" in the scientific sense. Virtually EVERY fringe belief system, every alternative medicine, or every new age healer, or every psychic, or astrologer, flat earth believers etc believe they are "testing" their beliefs empirically. They ALL give the same talk of "try it FOR YOURSELF and see if it works!" And for every claim, no matter how nutty it is, you get people saying "I tried it, tested it myself, and IT WORKS!" Most people it seems don’t contemplate the true magnitude of our powers of imagination, or the more subtle influences of our bias, and how they lead us to cherry-pick "evidence" for something we are beginning to believe in and ignore evidence and theory against it. People can literally end up believing virtually anything because of this. And we always think we are the rational ones; but we can see the bias and cherry picking when others do it. So simply "testing" says nothing about how good or reliable your testing method is. That’s why there is such a huge gap between mere "empirical testing" in the sense of experience, to "empirical testing" in the scientific sense. You can engage in empirical testing in a way that does not challenge your intuitions or biases or that doesn’t account for variables - and that’s how you get virtually every dubious and contradictory belief system in the world. OR you can avail yourself of the scientific method, and the knowledge gained by that method, where you look for more objective verification that takes our error-prone cognition seriously- e.g. developing coherent hypotheses that build from existing reliably documented phenomena, measuring phenomena that can be repeated by others, being skeptical of where your own or other people’s bias could be operating, controlling for this in your experiments, etc. So, I asked, did Michael mean "empirical testing" in the first, general sense of simply "trying it for yourself?" Well, then that is clearly full of problems and isn’t very rigorous. Or did he mean it in the scientific sense. After all, he referred to scientific testing in his OP. This is why for instance it was relevant to ask what type of methods he was using to establish things like "untied caps change the sound of a system." Is he measuring as a careful empiricist (toward the scientific/engineering side) would do, so his data can be seen by others, or repeated by others measuring the same claims? If he’s using listening tests, is he controlling for bias? Which is what one who takes scientific skepticism seriously would likely want to do. Or...just "trying it and if he thinks he perceives a difference, that’s good enough to ratify his ideas about what is happening, and why, and that it is in fact happening?" Everything Michael, and Tuners like yourself have posted - including Michael endorsing a post in which one of his followers stated he’s not even interested in technical explanations or mapping theory to experience, has suggested Michael appeals to the most basic and unreliable sense of "empirical testing" and not the scientific sense. If someone is going to come on here and call other people out for being "fakers" and not being empirical, then he should expect if he actually cares about this subject to answer these questions, not just ignore them. Summing up, I have said from the beginning: IF by "empirical" and "walking" Michael only means a basic sense of people having ideas about setting up and dialing in their system, and trying them out...then EVERYONE HERE is walking and no one - certainly not me - deserves to be put in the category of "not walking/faking." And if Michael can actually point to someone here "not walking" then he should do so as an example to clarify and justify his talk of "fakers," - or stop implying there are people faking it. But IF by empirical Michael actually meant empiricism in the careful methods of testing compatible with science, then by that definition even Michael doesn’t seem to be "walking the walk." He’s not demonstrating, or even explaining his claims in any credible fashion, and unlike a scientific mindset, he pushes challenging questions off as a negative thing, instead of embracing them. Thus he is being hypocritical making a thread calling out other people for not being sufficiently empirical.
Unfortunately, nothing in those replies clarifies anything. You may have some idea of "faking it," but you are not communicating it clearly. For instance, do I fit this definition of "faking it? in this "hobby?" Certainly this is what Michael and his followers have kept indicating. If so, please clarify exactly how I am "not walking the walk" of the HEA hobby. It’s ok, I’m a big boy, you can be as clear and direct as possible. This is what I want. Thank you for giving a go at engaging my post. Cheers, |
Robert, you don’t want the old school designers here? I think Audiogon could do no better than to have some of HEA’s founding fathers hanging around here. Can I make a suggestion? Wouldn’t it be wiser of you to start a different thread on the topic. When you make that statement here it looks like your agenda is to bump MG (a former employer of yours) off of Agon somehow. I know you have issues with Michael because of some of the posts you have made here (most have been deleted) but the proper way to deal with those types of issues is not to air them out on the Audiogon forum. |
