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?
Michael Green is right, unless we all really do it we do not know how it is. How do you think it would be if everyone on this thread started "walking"? If each person participating actually did a few things from the tuning textbook. I suspect that the magic would do some moyamoya trick and all of a sudden we would all be credible after just a few moments. No more "trolls", only "walkers". If there is a wonderful difference, we report it. If there is no difference, we report it. If most of the people say there was no difference, well, it was not them who asked people to :"walk". Whoooosh, no more tuning argument. Or, if everybody hears improvement, tuning becomes "the thing".
For all the fairness, and avoidance of any conflict of interest, equipment used should not be Michael Green brand, but anything else.
It really should not be that hard. Some wood, a screwdriver, electronics with expired warranties (so not to make it void), and a couple of hours. Really, why are we not doing it?
Without knowing what is what, it is all just an empty talk. In this thread, we have not even agreed what constitutes "walk" or "talk", yet it gets fiercely argued.
That is exactly correct, and it is what I observed in the second post in this unending thread:
I don’t care for the notion expressed in the cliche of not walking the walk. Real audiophiles "walk the walk" when they make decisions about their systems. That some may not like their gait is their problem. Just because someone doesn’t do things your way does not make then a fake, as you allege.
Audiophiles also "walk the walk" when they enjoy listening to music on their systems, or share their system with others, or help another audiophile on his journey, or, or , or ...
"...if you don’t fall in line or dare annoy him with difficult questions."
In reality, none of the questions here have been that difficult. Some have been practically unanswerable, but that was also not difficult to figure out.
"...rhetorical device MG uses to maintain the self-aggrandizing status as The Supreme Walker."
It certainly does not appear this would be the case. If anything, based on majority of responses, it seems that the overall effect was quite the opposite. Silly part is that it could have been easy to make this thread a nice promotional vehicle for one’s ideas, if only treaded carefully.
Unfortunately, none of the people from the picture on Tuneland and that article that jf47t shared seems to be associated with SUNY-Oneonta anymore. That limits my original idea to stop by and walk the walk where brave once walked. I would really like to hear what it is all about although I would do it without disassembling anyone’s expensive equipment or waking up the whole fire station.
"He could actually feel the keys get lighter or heavier to
strike as I was tuning."
?????
I can only say that his fingers are much more sensitive than mine. I cannot say that I did a full Michael Green attack on my room, but I did move a few pillows, a chair, and a few more reflective items around. I guess I need new, more sensitive, fingers. Hey, I just "walked". I did not get far, though.
It’s no problem. I know exactly what I’m getting in to with the occasional interaction with geoff. This was just a little opportunity to remind folks that our neighbouhood dog that barks at everyone is toothless ;-)
You are funny, but so correct. On the other hand, some of the responses cross even the most liberal limits. I mean, calling for people to drop dead is hardly a behavior anyone should tolerate.
Although two people participated it may not be a double-blinded study, but it has as much weight as anything on this thread. I declare the possibility that piano keys change hardness with changing acoustics of the room, incorrect and likely a placebo effect. I suspect that some level of hypnosis was involved in that original finding. In 2018, it is not true. Done.
He’s back. He’s tan and rested. But he’s still a pseudo skeptic with all thumbs. And glupson is still the poster boy for a blank slate. You can paint a donkey different colors but it’s still a donkey.
"He could actually feel the keys get lighter or heavier to strike as I was tuning."
Whoa! What?! Hey, it’s the same thing with cryogenically treated musical instruments like flutes and trumpets 🎺 and saxophones 🎷 The musicians report that keys of the cryo’d instrument are much easier and smoother to press and release. Maybe cryogenics should be called a tune instead of a tweak. Hmmmmm...🙄
Pictures are really interesting for someone with no previous exposure to such things."
Your welcome Glupson. Of course it's important to keep these pictures in context to MG showing that he is indeed involved in the "walk" right down to the bare bones of the audio signal all the way through the audio chain. There are many more of these pictures and Michael will be showing systems with a lot of tuning going on and also more stock.
"I might have missed it in the article, but was that set-up and your involvement just for that particular recording or was that studio arranged by you for the longer run?"
The studio that Michael designed and built is still in use today at SUNY. A few years later Michael designed the new music wing there as well.
One more step in this famous "walking" business. NAD C-350 amplifier in a like-new condition (at least visually and, from what I can remember, acoustically). Screwdriver. A few screws. Magical "freeing of the signal" by taking the cover off. Stayed the same except for the questionable looks of otherwise also not the prettiest industrial design piece. True, I skipped cutting the plug off and sticking wires in the outlet, but I did "walk", maybe "crawled". Try it yourself. It was easy. Make sure you keep the screws. You will need them.
Regarding your post on Tuneland that jf47t mentioned above.
First, the pictures you are referring to and that I was supposed to follow appear to be posted hours after I had posted my findings. Of course, I did not expect you would have guessed what amplifier I had available and then prepare me in advance. Nice try, but not quite aligned with clock and logic.
Second, if taking the cover off is important, as it seems to be in almost all of your pictures and has been discussed even on this thread ad nauseam, the effect on the sound should exist. Smaller than if everything you recommended was done, but it should be there. It is not there. Loud and clear, it does not exist.
Now if Glupson (the poster) was doing this for real he would post pictures of his whole system so we could "see" him doing instead of just giving this brief "I tried it troll".
It may come as a surprise to you and jf47t, who ridiculed my statement that Internet forums are words and therefore "talking", but I am not aware of any pictures posted on this or any other thread on Audiogon. From what I know, you and I have posted same number of pictures here. Besides, anyone can post a picture of anything and be done with it. It really does not prove much. Assuming that pictures of that NAD C-350 you posted are taken by you, you certainly know that taking the cover off is not a complicated achievement, That is why I did it. In reality, it could have taken me more time to register for any forum than what it took to "disassemble" the amplifier. It was really easy and pictures still would have not shown you what I heard.
Except for having an excuse to call me a "troll", I am not sure why you would doubt I tried to do it. Most of the people here have done a number of things in their lives and lying to an unknown person in a faraway location about taking a few screws off of some old amplifier does not seem like something they would be desperate to do. Remember, for most of us here this is not a promotional vehicle. We have different careers and no biased investment in tuning/tweaking/music reproduction. I would go as far as to claim that almost all of us would wake up with no fear about our future if tuning/tweaking somehow got banned overnight. I hope it will not, but you surely understand the point.
As you mentioned in one of your recent posts on Tuneland, in fact you whined, you found yourself wondering why people were questioning if you did something in your past. They ended up being "trolls" or whatever word(s) you chose at that moment for questioning that. Well, you just questioned if I had done even simpler and much more believable and achievable thing. I will not call you a "troll" but just so you know.
You asked people to walk the walk, whatever that vague statement means, and I did the best anyone with leftover common sense and a few spare minutes could. Given your approach to demeaning people and defending your, so far, irreproducible results, I am afraid that after I did everything like in the pictures you showed, you could say that I am a "troll" because I did not go to Bora Bora as it works the best there.
"More like a very tiny baby step and obviously the hints of trolling to the sarcastic side, but that’s ok."
More like "walking", small step or not, with plain and simple report of the result.
If anyone is still reading this thread, you may notice that I have adopted Michael Green’s way of thinking to some important extent. That is why I recommend that anyone does some of the cheap things from the tuning repertoire. Most of you may have some equivalent of my NAD C-350 laying around. Take the cover off, do not cut the plug (it is ridiculous idea, no matter how well it would sound), and let us know what you heard. Only then you could say you "walked" for the purpose of this thread. And "troll"? Not you anymore. Someone else.
Nice post, glupson, and eerily reminiscent of prof’s posts when he attempts to dismiss claims based on his results which so often are negative. This is kind of the same old story; it’s the same predicament we often find ourselves in with very earnest and determined naysayers and skeptics (similar to brothers Wolf and mapman and Ozzie to some extent who I put in category of determined naysayer who proudly announce getting negative results. And continue to repeat those claims ad infinitum.
Of course, the problem is - as I’ve been saying all along, he’ll-loo! - is there are many reasons why folks sometimes don’t get the results they were hoping for or were expecting. That’s why I have said a test, in and of itself, means little, especially if the results are negative. Even for carefully conceived and executed tests. It’s because there are too many things that can go wrong with any test, many of which are behind the control of the intrepid tester. I say that as having more testing experience than the average bear, including billion dollar electronic systems. Please, no angry emails about Appeal to Authority.
Psychologically, being a self anointed Doubting Thomas probably doesn’t help. Perhaps you could say it’s a self fulfilling prophecy. “How will I be able to face my fellow pseudo skeptics?” It’s like a lot of tunes and tweaks - it’s helpful to evaluate this thing or that thing in a system that has evolved to a point where there is more of a chance of being able to hear it. Many systems are simply too, uh, what’s the word? Oh, yeah, rudimentary.
I return you now to your regularly scheduled program, As the Troll Turns.
I just noticed that you expressed interest in my whole system that was used for "walking" with NAD C-350 amplifier. I cannot provide pictures, mostly for practical Internet reasons and not for any secrecy. It consisted of...
SONY HAP-Z1ES, playing different kinds of music, including Hindu Love Gods. From Mahler to Kraftwerk and whatever else. Mostly at 16/44/1 AIFF and some DSD 2.8.
Interconnects, probably stock with some old equipment, but possibly also Radio Shack. Definitely nothing expensive.
NAD C-350 amplifier, bought maybe in 2001 or 2002, played a lot before, but not touched in 4 years.
Monster Cable speaker cable, about two meter each. Bought in 1994 for about $30 for a spool that supplied enough for a few people's systems and I still have a lot more. In short, cheap stuff. Finished with some cheap banana plugs, not soldered, from the Internet.
Revel Performa F208 speakers, brown, a few months old.
Screwdriver from the local hardware store, bought for ABS module change.
Salamander 5-shelf audio rack picked from the curbside garbage (furniture equivalent of a vintage Sherwood receiver). Tuned/tweaked with "Banner red" spray paint, different and inconsistent number of layers, some thinning now. Screws as tight as they could be by hand.
Red leather sofa as a sitting position.
Floor is bamboo and has a rug covering a large, maybe 80 percent, surface in between the rack and the sofa.
White piano to the side (keys moving as they always have). It says Steinway on it (mentioning as it seems to be one of the key words with your tuning). It does need tuning, the regular way.
Walls mostly uncovered, parallel, with many corners and openings, including the ceiling.
No ventilation opening of the Oneonta studio kind forcing air in the room.
Windows closed, at the time of "walking" covered with the soft (cloth) side of the blinds.
Picture would have been quicker, but would not tell the story.
"It’s because there are too many things that can go wrong with any test, many of which are behind the control of the intrepid tester."
Absolutely. 100 %. Beyond doubt.
That is why it is not wise to ask people to "walk". When they start "walking", who is to tell whose results are valid and whose invalid? As far as I am concerned, mine are. And I "walked". And was "trolled" for doing it.
"Nice post, glupson, and eerily reminiscent of prof’s posts when he attempts to dismiss claims based on his results which so often are negative."
My post, in fact, was not overly focused on dismissing claims based on my results. At least it was not my intent. A sentence, or two, with my conclusion. I leave it open for anyone to do their part and come up with their conclusions.
My post was focused on dismissing the "trolling:" way my "walking" was described. Basically, if you say that everyone out there is a "troll", do not act like a "troll".
Maybe, some day someone will explain what it is about the orange electrical outlet.
I did a major inexplicably silly "walk" that was more like a run. It may not seem to you, but you are hardly "walking" in my view, too. It is all just talk, and it is fine. I do not mind being "trolled" although the only definition of it I know is from people’s reactions on this thread. I learned than anything can be "trolling" to a sensitive soul.
EDIT: Line of "walking" seems to be a moving target. Bora Bora is the next frontier?
Sorry Glupson but your last few posts haven't made much practical or common sense. It appears that you are trying to pass the buck, when no one is interested in "a major inexplicably silly "walk" that was more like a run". Listeners who are interested in tweaking (tuning) do so because they have graduated to the level of a discerning Tuner or Tweaker and they do their hobby successfully and consistently. You saying it didn't happen to you is a reflection on you not anyone else.
As for you trying say I'm not a walker, who cares. I don't enjoy my hobby based on someone who can't hear a tweak. Instead I base my hobby on the many tunes I have the pleasure of enjoying.
Major inexplicably silly walk was a reference to something most of the people would find a waste of time, silly, and "walk" in what I thought may be the terms of original post. Not passing anything to anyone. Not even saying I invented something I did not.
You really should not care what I, or anyone else, thinks about your hobby. You should continue enjoying it. However, you should also continue doing so without belittling other people who may have a question or two or a thought and observation or two about it. Considering what others have to say may open new avenues to your enjoyment. Freeing them. Kind of like cutting plastic ties. All of a sudden, the world becomes a bigger stage. For now, you are enjoying like a little constrained NAD C-350. Great little amplifier that could...
One of the very few modders of high end CD and Blu Ray players, Ric Schultz at Electronic Visionary Systems (EVS), also recommends removing the cover of Oppo or any other player for SQ reasons.I had the World’s Most Modded Oppo 103 up until three years ago, most of the modifications of which were done by Ric. It was ripped, flipped, zipped and bipped. Everything was isolated, unbolted, unscrewed, unbound, unwrapped, and protected from vibration, RFI/EMI and magnetic fields. It had the Audio Magic thingamabob hooked up to the circuit, WA Quantum Chips up the wazoo, PWB foils and other dumaflochies galore, linear power supply with upgraded capacitors, my own constrained layer damper VibraBlock for the transport mechanism, bipassed fuse (oh, no!), superclock, my own Codename Turquoise tray masking, and other odds and ends. The whole thing was up on a heavy mass on spring iso stand using stacked ceramic tiles for the mass.
Pierre Spray of Mapleshade Recording Studio also played the system in his “lab” downtown DC with covers off.
A gathering of trolls....once Moops makes an appearance you know someone must have called for a convening of the trolls. I can almost hear the telltale flapping of bat wings. 🦇 🦇 🦇 Moops and Gloops.
Gliddy glup gloopy nibby nabby nooby la la la lo lo Sabba sibby sabba nooby abba nabba le le lo lo Tooby ooby walla nooby abba nabba
I don’t know if you read my post before certain persons-who-dish-it-out-on-their-own-website-but-flag-critical-posts-here got their way and had it removed but...
You are experiencing just what I wrote about. “Walking” is simply a term the OP applies as he wishes, arbitrarily. If you are at all critically minded you will never have that term used for whatever you try.
You are dealing with a religious type of behaviour. It’s like prayer: negative results will never be counted. If you don’t get the claimed results, it can only be you who is to blame. You are doing it wrong! Yay for unfalsifiable beliefs!
I stopped by MG's yesterday he was playing Willie Nelson's "Milk Cow Blues". It sounded great but I asked if he could tighten up the bass line a tad and bring the volume of the bass up a hair. 45 seconds later it was great for my taste and got better as the recording played on. Michael told me "come back in a couple of hours and you'll really like it I think". I did and sounded perfect to me. The sound stage had grown and the bass line was super tight with more body to the percussion. The bottom end leaned toward plump which was in balance for that blues feeling.
I asked what he had change and MG showed me two screws on the Sub Platform he adjusted and a slight adjustment on the Sub Amp. The interesting part is the way MG knows his system. What he does when tuning is chooses a direction of the adjustment, listens and then goes further in that same direction or goes the opposite way exactly like what you would do tuning an acoustical instrument.
What is a claimed result? It reads like you are saying that any time someone plays something and describes what they heard it is a claimed result. That being the case the hobby's reviewing paradigm is not acceptable to you?
An interesting outlook about the hobby of listening to music.
My Lyngdorf 2170 sounds better with the top off. I also noticed this years ago when removing the top off of my TRL Dude tube preamp. The builder suggested I try it. He was right as it simply sounded better. More open and relaxed. Sure, I know it sound nuts.
MG wants to pick up one of these sometime to play with. He said I could borrow it. I've removed the tops off of several components myself now and every time it's done what you've described. I've also removed the feet and put those components up on the tuning blocks and it's surprising how tunable they become.
What is a claimed result? It reads like you are saying that any time someone plays something and describes what they heard it is a claimed result.
Yes, that’s right. That’s what the word “claim” generally means. Are you unfamiliar with that word?
I’m on a long train ride in Europe (hence browsing on my phone for a bit).
Thats a claim. The claim itself doesnt establish it as fact. It may be true or false. And it can be discussed as to whether it’s a believable claim on various grounds.
glupson made a claim that he tried one of the MG tweaks. You have expressed skepticism about that claim. Interesting how easily skepticism comes to you for other people’s claims, and it’s reasonable to express that skepticism. But if anyone directs their own skepticism at your claims you start calling them “trolls.”
How about a level playing field where people can be honestly sceptical about your claims aren’t simply dismissed?
Notice Michael immedialy wanted more evidence for a claim - e.g. photos of glupson’s tweaking?
Why then does Michael immediately become allergic to evidence when asked for something like measured changes in a signal before and after such tweaks to capacitors? Or in this case, between an amplifiers with a case on or off?
Btw, what is being discussed here regarding the amplifier case isn’t “ the hobby of listening to music.” My son is currently listening to music on his iPhone, which doesn’t require taking apart the iPhone. What we are discussing are technical claims made on behalf of the type of tweaks MG suggests, in this case that removing cases produce audible signal changes.
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.
