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
Manufacturers and Dealers have no business owning threads on the AudioGon Forum. The floodgates will open once ‘free - no cost marketing and advertising’ is discovered. I will write a letter to management in order to have them weigh in on the topic. Currently manufacturers and dealers are permitted to participate on threads and we appreciate having that capability however in my opinion, our contributions should end there. Robert Star Sound |
glupson geoffkait, I was asking about trolls as you have put me in that category. Unfortunately, I am neither Scandinavian, nor short. >>>>Yes, it’s puzzling. Have we discovered a new species? Do you live under a bridge? Perhaps under a train trestle. 🚂 Do you live in the tube? Besides, I’m pretty sure glupson is Swedish or Danish. Have you checked Ancestry.com? Try saying glupson five time fast. |
jf47t, "n) There is no replacing physically doing. Talk does not replace walk." You just hurt the feelings of all the theoretical physicists in the world. Thankfully, it does not appear that any is on this thread. Many times, it is easier to do something than to figure it out by thinking about it. There should really be nothing wrong with learning how to swim before trying to swim the marathon. You can practice and perfect it by doing it, but first learn what to expect. Many events cannot replace something else, but they can complement it. It is synergy that brings benefits, not exclusiveness. It may not have anything to do with the intent of this thread, but that is how it goes in general. |
"If you are looking specifically for talk on "Tuning," why would you be coming to this thread? There is already an A-gon thread Michael G created specifically devoted to his method of tuning:" a) This is the OP’s thread. He can take any approach he chooses to make his points. b) The OP is "Talk but not walk?" c) Tuning is a form of walking, just as tweaking or any other form of adjusting your system (already covered several times in this thread) d) The topic is the OP reiterated at the end of the OP: 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?
e) The topic is directly about "Talk but no walk" Making adjustments to your system is walking. f) Covered earlier. The OP is "talk but not walk". g) Explain in more detail please. "How is one to know when one is, on this account, "doing the hobby" and not faking it?" h) Making adjustments to your system is doing the hobby. "And hence what do you mean exactly by empirical testing - do you mean simply trying anything?" i) The definition of empirical testing is covered in depth on the internet. "Or being more rigorous in the method of testing, since you mentioned engineering and science?" j) Please define your use of the word "rigorous" in the context of testing methods. "And is it actually illegitimate, or even not part of the hobby, to talk about theory, and whether a theory actually seems cogent, explanatory or realistic?" k) Theory covers a wide range of talking. Some are close to walking and some are more imaginative what ifs. "Why is talking about audio theory "faking it?" l) It isn’t. Faking it is faking it. "And is someone faking it simply by questioning the basis for some other audiophile’s claim?" m) Faking it is faking it. It’s when an event is made to appear like it is happening yet it is not really being done. "Why wouldn’t it make sense to FIRST want to see good reasons for why a tweak or product is likely to be efficacious, when deciding whether it’s worth one’s time or money to try it out?" n) There is no replacing physically doing. Talk does not replace walk. "Does one HAVE to have experience with X in order to ask legitimate questions about X?" o) What specifically is X? "And as to the division between questioning a claimed phenomenon via theory or personal experience: Why can’t one point to empirical evidence gathered by other people?" p) In HEA this would be called a review. Reviews don’t determine what a product would sound like when used under different conditions. "If to speak about a phenomenon, or to have a belief about it without direct experience was illegitimate, then we could never avail ourselves of all the scientific evidence and knowledge that WE ourselves didn’t gather." q) There is doing and there is theory. What conclusions you draw from that, would be your belief. r) Michael and I are doing the answering of these questions while we are driving to one of the shops and back. I’m asking and he’s answering. It’s not a matter of MG not wanting to answer as much as it is needing to take care of issues based on importance. s) This question has been beat to death. Others will need to come to their own conclusions. MG doesn’t see his choice of words with the same meaning as you do. I’ve looked it up. MG says more like this sentence "all the experts agree that you can’t fake it". He used faking but not in a negative sense but more of a factual sense. t) Your assuming something that may never change in your mind MG understands and accepts this. He also doesn’t have a problem with this. But MG only has a certain amount of time on his clock. He’s not saying this to be rude but to be factual. His view of you personally prof is MG may not have the time to get into a never ending debate. |
Robert I could never picture MG saying "the truth hurts". Why would the "truth" hurt? That sounds like a description of a difference between Michael and you. I don't know you Robert but I do know that if you think that Michael would say "the truth hurts" you have no idea who Michael is. I can picture MG saying "I love the truth" but never "the truth hurts". |
Mr. Green, glad to be of service. The truth hurts and always will - forever. Before exiting your campaign here (as things were just warming up); since you prefer to address the readership via children’s storytelling, I would like to ad the final chapter to your tale. For all the angry cherries, there is hope. One first has to discover who and why the happiest cherry in the tree is disrupting the batch. This is a good read by Jane E Brody of the New York Times https://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/07/18/the-narcissist-next-door/ Sincerely, Robert |
| Post removed |
Right. Like moopman and gloopson and trollja aren’t trolls. Cut me some slack, Jack! All the lonely trolls and pseudo skeptics, where do they all come from? All the lonely anti audiophiles, where do they all belong? One suspects they just want to be part of something big. You were obviously glued to this thread. There is no joy in Mudville today. 😢 |
trelja, geoffkait, Those are some longer and more complicated reads than usual on this thread, but they seem interesting enough to take time to read them and maybe learn something. Thank you for that. That is, aside of Kim Jong Un, Planck, Einstein, a few Amish proverbs, and some incidental poetry what I find valuable in this confused thread. Every now and then, something shows up that brings something new, at least to me. Cows listening to accordion somewhere in the Alps? Check. At least they were not ski jumping there. Of course, not to forget cherry pies. They will enter the classic literature of Internet audio. Along with that, comes some more audio-thought-provoking material that broadens the horizon. Original intention of this thread, whatever that was, might have been completely missed, but as a wastebasket you can come to and pick your recyclables from, it is great. |
trelja Still, I want to stress the criticality of loudspeaker positioning, if nothing more than to provide a target, and keep in the back of the mind in case one someday has the opportunity to realize it. With that, below is what I consider one of the most important treatises I’ve encountered along my audio journey, a translation of the Dead Points of Live Sound, by A. Polakov. >>>>>>Fortunately for the sharp eared and earnest audiophile it’s not necessary to understand the logic of The Dead Points of Live Sound in order to determine the absolute best speaker locations for a given room with given acoustic treatments. And you don’t have to repeat the ubiquitous audiophile methodology of move a little, listen a little, which is guaranteed to fail as I will demonstrate. All other methodologies will fail to obtain the absolute best speaker locations. The only sure fire method guaranteed to determine the absolute best speaker locations is the out of phase track on the XLO Test CD or similar test CD with the out of phase track. The XLO track is self explanatory, I cannot vouch for other test CDs. The objective is to find the speaker locations where the out of pbase track is the MOST DIFFUSE - where the voice on the out of phase track “sounds like it’s coming at you from all around the room with no specific direction.” That is when the sound from the speakers will be the most coherent and have the largest soundstage when the recording is in correct phase. Of course, it should be mentioned that in rooms with minimum acoustic treatments the capability to achieve a VERY DIFFUSE sound might be constrained. As proper acoustic treatments and or devices are applied to the room the XLO Test CD will be more effective, and you will be more able to hear the completely diffuse voice. The standard audiophile method of moving one speaker at a time and listening or both speakers at a time and listening, then moving them again and listening cannot find the absolute best locations because it’s like trying to solve x simultaneous equations in x + n unknowns. Many folks believe speakers should be placed widely apart for better soundstage. Or that the speakers should form an equilateral triangle with the listener. Or that speaker locations must be symmetrical. They also often believe speakers must be toed in for better soundstage. Both of those beliefs are not true. The best soundstage and coherence, etc. might actually be where the speakers are relatively close to each other, well, closer than you would think. It all depends. That’s where the XLO Test CD comes in. You don’t have to guess any more. It’s a no brainer. 🧠 If room acoustics devices (e.g., panels, traps, resonators, what have you) are added later the whole process should be repeated since the room dynamics change. But the impression that the voice on the XLO track is coming at you from all around the room will get more and more definite. That corresponds to the absolute best speaker locations. Now, having said all that, we’re not out of the woods yet. Because as fate would have it many recordings are manufactured out of phase (Polarity). This seems to be especially true for CDs. There are no standards for Polarity. So, MANY IF NOT MOST CDs you play are out of phase (Polarity) and would sound better, all things being equal, if your SYSTEM was out of phase (Polarity). |
prof, get a hobby Sorry, what were you saying? I was busy just listening to some Neil Young, followed by some Prog Rock by Goblin, some Electronic dance music on Tidal, and then some Bernard Herrmann symphonic music on vinyl. Each genre sounded wonderful on my sound system requiring no effort or desire to alter the sound for each one. Which means I have time for other hobbies. Whoops, sorry, I think you've copyrighted "The Hobby" so I'd best not use that word. I mean..not having to constantly fiddle with my system leaves time for other activities... I hope you manage to get there, some day....:-) Cheers. |
You know what, I gave a descriptive answer about my time in Nashville and then said Nah! I deleted it. This is boring me to death so I’m going to leave you guys to your sitcom. Some of you guys are really cool, thanks for your contributions. Enjoy the heck out of your hobby, loved ones and life. Please come over and visit us on TuneLand anytime. glupson, I think you said it a while back and forgive me for not quoting this exactly "folks wasting time". Your a good man! grannyring, my apologies. I know how much you wanted this to be something productive, I'm sorry I didn't deliver. Geoff, keep them on their toes prof, get a hobby Robert...well....Nah, you’ll have to work out your life on your own Tunees, I love you guys! It’s my life’s honor and privilege to hang out with you and be a part of your music, see you on TuneLand. Mods, you were very impressive, good luck with your forum and I hope to visit you soon. Michael Green www.michaelgreenaudio.net |
@glupson @michaelgreenaudio thank you for your perspectives, I appreciate it. Yes, life trumps audio. We need to adhere to the constraints, demands, and desires of both our listening environment and other members of the household. Still, I want to stress the criticality of loudspeaker positioning, if nothing more than to provide a target, and keep in the back of the mind in case one someday has the opportunity to realize it. With that, below is what I consider one of the most important treatises I've encountered along my audio journey, a translation of the Dead Points of Live Sound, by A. Polakov. The only thing I add to it is to make the analogy of loudspeaker positioning with focusing the lens of a camera. In proper focus, EVERY thing becomes exponentially more right and better. And outside of that incredibly small point of focus, EVERY thing else is not right ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It is know that there are many ingredients responsible for “quality” of audio inhalation. Unquestionably one of the most important is the listening room’s reaction to the installed loudspeakers. There are countless solutions how to work with listening rooms and the cost of this “working” in many cases might exceed the cost of the playback components. Yes, the performance of loudspeakers might be very dramatically changed by the rooms and most of those improvements would be centered to find a correct positioning for the acoustic system in a listening room. Everyone knows that the positioning loudspeakers have an impact on Sound. However, with the REAL depth and imperativeness of this impact very few are familiar. It is pointless to perform any actions targeted to improve performance of playback, including the change of the component of the playback chain or the room acoustic treatment, unit the correct positioning of the loudspeakers in a given room would be found. There are no formulas, programs of any methodology that would simplify this process and the only “tool” that might be use is subjective perception of the audible result. The rules, circulations, abstraction, approximations and the entire practice of position of loudspeakers according to minimization of stay-waves are a juts very rudimental and primitive approach. After the optimum stay-waves location was found it might be considered only a very beginning. An optimum location of loudspeakers might be called an “optimum zone” beyond which the subjective characteristics of the loudspeaker’s performance degrade very rapidly and very aggressively. For a typical “box” loudspeaker and within an average 400-700 sq feet room the dimension of the “optimum zone” usually within .5-1 inch and the deviation form the towing-in usually within 2-3 degree. Some audio people (approximately 15% of them) were able to determine the correct “optimum zone”. Whoever did not do it was not able to utilize a full potential capacity of thier playback systems. However, practically no one, even among those lucky 15%, knows anything about the “dead points of live sound”. When an acoustic system is placed into those “dead points” than all improvements that comes with placing the loudspeakers into the “optimum zone” really jump over the roof. The “performance yield”, when loudspeakers hit the “dead points”, is much higher then when the loudspeakers are juts placed inside the “optimum zone”. To describe what the “dead points of live sound” I would say that inside of the “optimum zone” there is one smaller zone. The dimensions of this smaller zone are within the scale of 1/16” –1/32” and therefore this zone might be called - a single point in space, or the “dead point of live sound” (or the DPoLS further on) This effect was found purely accidental within context of one installation. Then the DPoLS was found within others installations, which suggests that this effect is a typical. In all occasions the gain of sound’s quality took place very aggressively and the gain of quality disappeared when the loudspeakers were removed out from the DPoLS. This suggests that the DPoLS might be discovered if one is intentionally searching for it. The probability that the DPoLS will be hit accidentally is practically equal to nothing. There are no publications or methodologies on the subject. Therefore, below are listed some subjective characteristics that an acoustic system do when the loudspeakers are placed into the DPoLS: 1) When the loudspeakers are placed into the DPoLS then all characteristics of sound improving very strongly: imaging, space localization, transient, dynamic range, space presentation, tonal contrast and many other. Even the tonal imperfections of reproduction become way less notable and less prominent. What is characteristic that the improving takes abruptly, very expeditiously and swiftly. 2) The strongest improvement takes place in the subjective domain, reflecting the emotion and spiritual content of recording. The DPoLS highlights the energy of performance; boosts the ethical load of the musical content, highlight the intonations and the timbre connections of the musical phrases. Starting with a certain level of capacity of the rest reproduction chain it is possible to talk about not “reproduction” but about the reinstating and resurrection of the “original energy of live”. 3) A conversion from a regula-audio sound to the “alive sound” takes place very rapidly when the speakers enter the DPoLS. This conversion is greatly catalyzed by an ability of a playback to handle LF. 4) DPoLS exist for mono and stereo installations. In case of stereo the DPoLS is a correlation of both DPoLS for each channel. The DPoLS spots for the individual left and right channel might not have the same location when the system operates in stereo mode. 5) The relation between the towing-in and excursion the loudspeaker into the room, when the loudspeaker is located in DPoLS, is very high. In DPoLS this relation is way higher when in a satiation when the loudspeakers are juts positioned on the “optimum zone” of a given listening room. 6) The correction of “quietly of Sound” by moving loudspeaker within DPoLS is imposable. Any deviation from the DPoLS is worsening sound. Since the loudspeaker is in the DPoLS then the room/system operate in its absolute maximum capacity. 7) When the loudspeakers are in the DPoLS then the “sweat spot” increase very dramatically and in many cases it might spread across the entire room. If the output from one loudspeaker would be even blocked then it be less significantly impact sound compare to the impact if the loudspeaker were not in the DPoLS. 8) The sensitively of loudspeakers from the minute arrangements made in playback system become very high. The loudspeakers begin to act as a very strong magnifying glass that highlights everything. However, this emphasize, if it emphasizes the negative properties do not necessary have a negative impact to the listening experience. I would say that that if you system slightly off the mark after the “highlight” then the subjective affect of this emphasize would be very different then if the loudspeakers would be not in the DPoLS. 9) When the loudspeakers are installed into the DPoLS (disregarding the cost and typology of the loudspeakers) then listener is far sooner get “hypnotized” by sound. The playback become to sound “significant”, “important”, demonstrating the “playback pomposity” and some pretentious. The process of listening perceived by a listener at the very different level and it is practically imposable to do the “casual listening”. The carelessness and the inattentiveness of listening become practically imposable. Sound become not juts a “Sound in the room” but an absolute dominating and demanding force in the room 10) The sensitively of the loudspeakers installed into the DPoLS to the effect of Absolute Phase become incredibly strong. Flipping the Absolute Phase in the DPoLS does not just change the structure of bass removes the fog from the lower midrange and settle down the HF but kind of turn the entire room upside down. To discover the DPoLS is imposable if the system is not set in the correct acoustical and electrical Absolute Phase. Upon the said it is possible to make following conclusion: a major obstacle in building a high performing playback installation is unawareness of audio people about the DPoLS. The audio and listening benefits that might be received from placing the acoustic systems in the DPoLS are huge, order of magnitude exceeding any changes of loudspeakers of components. A lack of any structured methodologies and guideness that would enable the audio people to discover the DPoLS is a very severe impediment in order the knowledge about the “dead points of live sound” became a common practice among the audiophiles |
| Post removed |
astewart8944, I kind of enjoy this thread because of its occasional bizarreness. Cherry pies are, in my opinion, nothing compared to Kim Jong Un, Planck, and Einstein who somehow appeared here in the early days. I cannot remember how they visited, but that was a breakthrough moment in my interest so I continued following. |
| Post removed |
Hmm...happy people, angry people and cherry pie. This is a weird thread. This thread hasn't made me happy or angry and hasn't delivered anything close to cherry pie. My summary: OP started out shooting at unnamed "talkers" that refused to be "walkers." Walkers accused of being merely talkers have been shooting back since OP's opening salvo. MG exits for several scenes. Surrogates appear to plead MG's cause and character. MG reappears to declare victory while the shooting continues. I have no dog in this fight. But, make no mistake it is a fight no one wins. MG isn't going to answer skeptics questions to their satisfaction. I suggest MG and the skeptics all throw in the towel and let this thread die of starvation. Peace Al |
Michael Green, It is absolutely true that with a bit of adjustment, whatever way that adjustment happens, overall sound can be bettered. What I was actually referring to is the idea of positioning speakers and making inconvenient room changes if a person does not have a dedicated listening room. In such a case, it may be difficult to apply whatever needs to be applied and that for whatever reason (not enough space, looks of it, etc.). The ideal solution would have to be a separate room for listening to music in which a person could do whatever she/he finds helpful to achieve whatever sound is desired. Now, additional rooms can cost upwards of a million dollars and that is for a very modest size. At least, in some locations, you may be talking about half a million. What I meant was that the sound could be bettered by buying more expensive equipment when you have no spare room to play with. It would be far from the ultimate environment for that equipment, but would still improve the sound for less money, making it more cost/effective option. Again, far from what anyone wants to do, but the reality is that many cannot have all their wishes fulfilled. |
Hi glupson There's a lot of DIY designs being done, I think that's a smart move for a lot of folks. And then there's a lot of custom designing going on which is maybe even better. If I was a start from scratch client, getting into the hobby right now, I wouldn't spring for a big purchase. I would buy a simple system and learn my space. The listener paradigm is changing and has changed quite a bit. Systems don't have to cost the big bucks anymore. Do you have any idea how many people are getting into the hobby? Groves and groves. They're not HEA people they are regular folks doing basic systems. I have one to do this week where I'm helping some folks out. Front speakers, rear speakers, sub, receiver and source. It will sound great, as great as any HEA system (maybe better) that hasn't been setup well. It's a very good time to be into stereos. These speaker sub combos are fantastic to work with. They're really very easy to setup and they're out of the way. Next move up for those who have a little flexibility in their rooms, tons of good speakers old and new. Michael Green www.michaelgreenaudio.net |
Walk but no talk. Just asking was this you too? What happened in Nasville? http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews/8nerve/8nerve.html |
Hi Trelja Yep, there are so many great speakers out there in that modest price range that sound great against the walls, and then you walk into a friends house and it's a heartbreak, cause you know what's going to happen when they turn the system on. That gets back to the OP. Who was the guy who told this guy it's ok to throw that speaker in a room that hasn't a prayer of gelling with the speaker. It's not the speaker designer's fault and it's not the end users fault, but somewhere in the chain of that research and purchase something went horribly wrong. Now he's got a very expensive work of art and unless he does something drastic he'll never get to enjoy their magic. Obviously there are going to be bad designs out there. But I'm sure there's that perfect setup that the designer had in mind where the speaker sings with the music the designer used to build his sound with. I get the after calls, lots of them, where the listener is stuck "what do I do now". It's not a fun time for them, unless the system is nothing more than a trophy to start with. I have built walls ontop of walls and floors ontop of floors to help as much as can be, but it makes you just sick to hear a mismatch, and you know someone in the loop was giving "talk" and not walking them through the process properly. There's a little part of all of us who walk, when we read an obvious mismatch in the making. But I think that's why we need to keep pushing to raise the bar on advice. It's not about the person who comes up wanting to be known as an authority, it's about our friends who deserve to have their dream system, dream match, dream music and the ability to make everything they want to hear a success. Good post! Michael Green www.michaelgreenaudio.net |
trelja, Sadly, that's always been how a lot of folks set up their loudspeakers.This is certainly true, but the biggest part of that is that it is inconvenient to walk around the speakers that are in the middle of the room, or something like that. Perfect position may not always be the livable-with one. There comes a trade-off. I am sure that modest systems may outperform more expensive ones when everything is aligned well, but I would expect that, if both are placed where they are allowed to be placed, expensive ones will still be better. Of course, I have no examples to provide, but simply have that feeling based on my own very limited experience. Strangely so, in my own room, speakers really did not have that much difference when moved away from the walls and the trade-off was clearly on the side of "closer to the wall". I wonder how many people who read these threads (not only this one) have an actual dedicated listening room. It must be a good number. Putting your music reproduction system in the living room may not allow for perfect positioning and tweaking/tuning, but adds the benefit of having it close to ears. That may be good enough of a proposition to some. If I am correct that more expensive system under the same circumstances will still outperform more expensive one, in some areas it may end up being cheaper investing more in equipment than in another room. A person just has to accept that the system is not playing to the full potential which, I am aware of that, may drive many people who visit Audiogon up the wall. Along the lines of speaker positioning, some speaker manufacturers, not the shabbiest ones at that, proudly display speakers on their websites right next to the wall or really close to it. There are even those placed right in front of the glass wall. Check Dynaudio and Dali websites for such examples. |
What an absolute shock that MG made yet another "angry people" post instead of one with content relevant to what people have written, or even content relevant to his own thread subject. But, I doubt any of us can get enough about what a cheery, nice guy he is...and how much music he listens to! Michael, how can I learn more about your products? Oh, there it is, right under your name again. Thanks for thinking of us! |
@michaelgreenaudio "Guys buying $10,000.00-$250,000.00 speakers and (get a load of this,
this will kill ya) and putting them in a living room, against the wall
with (I’m not joking, I swear to God I'm serious lol) with a huge
equipment rack in between them." Sadly, that's always been how a lot of folks set up their loudspeakers. That's also why every one of us have heard modest systems easily and surely outperform much more expensive ones. Unless we invest in good setup, we lose out on so much the investment we make in our equipment |
Here’s a story. Once upon a time there was a thread, the threads name was OP. It was a simple enough thread but soon after it began there came along two groups of people One Happy and the Other Angry. As the Happy people began sharing their happiness the Angry people became even angrier with the hopes to delude all the happy smiles. The Angry people became so unsettled by the Happy ones that they got together and baked a bunch of cherry pies. Sneaking up on the Happy people the Angry people started throwing the cherry pies into the faces of the Happy people. As the Happy people were getting hit in the face with pie being thrown by the Angry people, the Happy people started to taste the pie "gee that’s good cherry pie". Soon all the Happy people became even more Happy because that was their nature. The Happy people became great cherry pie makers while the Angry were never able to get their cherry trees to bloom again. If your an Angry person, sorry we can do nothing for you. Michael Green www.michaelgreenaudio.net |
I find it odd the free reign Audiogon seems to be giving *certain* manufacturers to promote their business on the forums, especially given A-gon's own stated policies. But a post which suggested a web site makes claims that seem to be less than substantiated with evidence...gets deleted. ? (I will re-iterate: I'm all for participation by dealers and manufacturers. So long as it of course is done in good faith, is actually informative and conducive to open discussion, vs being overt advertisement or deceptive versions of advertisement where the discussions are channeled to promoting mainly the manufacturer's methods and points of view) |
I am not taking the bait. I just want this thread to be something useful not an ongoing grey matter bantering competition. Prof, you may be right that this thread will never get there. I think the OP intended to get there, but it won’t happen it seems. I like reading your other posts on speakers etc...we just see this one far differently. Let’s enjoy some music and agree that music and audio is one of life’s pleasure. |
| Post removed |
@grannyring If you are looking specifically for talk on "Tuning," why would you be coming to this thread? There is already an A-gon thread Michael G created specifically devoted to his method of tuning: The Method Of Tuning: https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/the-method-of-tuning You refer to "off topic" posts or comments in this thread...but what do you actually think IS the topic described in the thread title and OP? Do you see the word "Tuning" mentioned? Nope. The topic was this: MG: 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? reiterated at the end of the OP: 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? So, as communicated by the words MG actually used in his OP, the topic wasn’t directly about tuning, but was concerned the hobby of High End Audio - which of course is what you and I and everyone else is doing here. And then he was saying some people are faking it in high end audio, only talking (e.g. talking theory) but not in fact testing empirically what they are talking about. I don’t see how you could ignore that this was the subject of the OP. Now, given that was actually the subject he raised...how is it not on topic to ask questions like: How might that critique actually apply and to whom? How is one to know when one is, on this account, "doing the hobby" and not faking it? And hence what do you mean exactly by empirical testing - do you mean simply trying anything? Or being more rigorous in the method of testing, since you mentioned engineering and science? And is it actually illegitimate, or even not part of the hobby, to talk about theory, and whether a theory actually seems cogent, explanatory or realistic? Why is talking about audio theory "faking it?" And is someone faking it simply by questioning the basis for some other audiophile’s claim? Why wouldn’t it make sense to FIRST want to see good reasons for why a tweak or product is likely to be efficacious, when deciding whether it’s worth one’s time or money to try it out? Does one HAVE to have experience with X in order to ask legitimate questions about X? And as to the division between questioning a claimed phenomenon via theory or personal experience: Why can’t one point to empirical evidence gathered by other people? If to speak about a phenomenon, or to have a belief about it without direct experience was illegitimate, then we could never avail ourselves of all the scientific evidence and knowledge that WE ourselves didn’t gather. Why aren’t any or all of those questions legitimate and applicable to ask someone who made an OP like Michael’s? Isn't it fair to inquire further about whether Michael’s appeal to empiricism, science, experience and why someone might, or might not, deserve to have their own methods, or interaction with the hobby characterized with the derogatory phase "faking it." And those are the right-on-topic questions I was raising from the beginning, that MG decided were irrelevant. They could only be irrelevant if MG’s motivation wasn’t to discuss with any depth the topic he raised, or engaged replies that at all challenged him to clarify or even support what he was claiming, but only wanted to use the thread for yet more evangelizing about his Tuning methods (and services). And that would be an obvious bait and switch to do so, especially when he already made a thread dedicated to discussing his tuning method. So which is it grannyring? Is the topic of the thread not, in fact, what Michael wrote, and which I have identified? Or is the topic actually yet another stealth move for Michael to get people asking him about his Tuning method, get people to his website/forum, etc. when he already has threads going devoted to that topic? |
@geoffkait "trollja, I’m filing your post under WHATEVER." Sorry Katie, you've put so much into that WHATEVER folder it's become too difficult for an elderly guy like you to pull things out when you need them later. Please create a new folder labeled, "GREEN With Envy Over @mapman " You can thank me later |
| Post removed |
"Why does MG seem to think that mentioning that Audiopoints worked for him, and it didn’t work out, somehow discredits Audiopoints?" Your joking right? I love what Brent came up with in his designing of the AudioPoint! Who ever would say that I would discredit the Audiopoint? I was so excited about the cone that I made it part of my regular lineup for years. I would hardly call that an attempt to discredit, would you? Nah, you got your story messed up somewhere, I think that product along with Tiptoes, MTDs and German Acoustic Cones put the cone industry on the map. Brent hit a home run with that product, I may have helped him swing the bat a little but that young man did a heck of a job! Michael Green |
