@jf47t "Michael might as well be tuning a piano, guitar or any other instrument or a stereo. He's not asking how good your hearing is or if you are ever going to tune. He's simply saying if you do this it will mean more than talking about the possibility, you'll actually be "tuning". And what we are asking Michael is "How do YOU tune a Guitar?". An unassuming question that he has been reluctant to answer. It may be that MY way may be lacking or at worst incorrect. We have only asked for Michael to offer his knowledge on the subject, as he brought the subject up on this forum. If he is reluctant to do so for commercial or IP reasons then he just needs to say so. |
jf47t, Those of you reading this pay attention to what Michael says and what the internet trolls are saying. You just can’t help yourself, can you? This reflexive need to call someone a "troll" instead of take a counter-argument to your beliefs seriously has been imbued very strongly into your mode of thinking, it seems. Ok, jf47t, I believe I’ve made the reasons I’ve gone this long on the thread as clear as I can. So in this case I figure this will be my last interaction. I’d like to see if it’s possible, at all, for you to examine your own assumptions and notice the bias you are bringing to calling people trolls and seeing MG as a sweet guru. Here’s my question: Why are you faking it? To expand: Imagine that I - or anyone else! - started a thread in Michael’s Tuneland forum. The thread is titled "Talk but not walk?" And the thread follows exactly this tenor: "Where I come from we test don’t just talk, we test our ideas. I’ve been around labs and testing since I was a kid. But right now there are about 20 threads going on in this forum (Tuneland) where there’s no doubt people are talking about things about which they have no experience. My question is why? Why are they claiming to know something without testing it? Isn’t this hobby supposed to be about doing? Isn’t it supposed to be empirically based? Why are so many people not being empirical and propounding myths here? Why not walk the walk instead of just talking the talk? So my question is: why fake it? Now, jf47t, as honestly as you can think about this: 1. How could this be received? Would that likely be warmly welcomed? or would the accusations contained in such a thread be likely to engender some suspicion and skepticism toward someone who would use such an opening thread, calling out people as fakes? And might someone - even a mod - point out this is not necessarily the best way to start a good natured, civil discussion in the forum? Think about it. Be honest with yourself. Then answer: 2. What would some REASONABLE responses be, in the tuneland forum, to the accusations in such a post? If you folks wanted to give it the benefit of the doubt, engage this critique, vs just dismiss it as trolling, wouldn’t questions arise along the lines of: "Well, hold on, from our perspective you don’t seem to actually be describing people here. We DO test our ideas empirically. So we are confused about what you are actually criticizing. Can you support your criticism with any actual examples of members being un-empirical or faking it? What kind of tests count to you as being "empirical" and what counts to you as "walking the walk?" We need to understand what you mean before we go agreeing that anyone here at all, fits the description you’ve given and deserves the critique you’ve made. Because we think we have reasons to give you as to why people here don't fit the role you are depicting in your post. Again...please contemplate whether those would be reasonable questions people could ask of anyone creating such a thread. Now, if you find yourself agreeing that...yeah...that thread *might* just have the character of rankling feathers and really *would* naturally bring forth probing questions about the assumptions of the thread starter....then imagine the thread starter immediately dismissing these concerns and questions saying "Well, sorry, what I just wrote was perfectly clear. My friends get it; if you don’t, then you don’t and I don’t have to explain myself further to you. And btw, the people asking all those questions, you exemplify my post." Now, ask yourself: what would be your, or the Tuneland’s, appraisal of this type of response. Would it be "Well, gee, you are right. Thanks SO MUCH for dropping your wisdom on us!" Or would it perhaps be more along the lines of "this person is not here to engage in real conversation or respond to any counter idea that he is wrong." |
@prof Well put. An intelligent discourse. |
Those of you reading this pay attention to what Michael says and what the internet trolls are saying. As one of many examples. If you read back through this thread you will not see anywhere where Michael calls tuning his method nor will Michael say listen his way. Go look for yourselves. You'll read people saying Michael said this and other things to paint a picture but you won't see MG saying this himself or inferring it. He's not inferring it because he doesn't practice it. Michael Green Audio has always been about the listener being able to listen to their music their way. Michael for 30 years has been designing "Tunable" products. He makes these products so you as an unique listener have some tools if you decide to use them to help you. Michael doesn't care if you use other tools or follow any method of listening you want including doing nothing but plug it in. Michael's whole concept of listening is about being able to play any recording you have and showing you how variable an audio system is. Tuning is the oldest and most established music technology. Tuning is simply a method of adjusting the variables. Nothing to get mad over. If you buy a guitar your probably going to want to tune it, or not, your choice. Same with a stereo, your choice, or not. Michael has no intention on telling you what to tune something to, that's meant for your ears only. If you read on this thread the Tunees comments you will find that they have found a way to get closer to their music collection. Prof amg or whoever your getting angry at a guy who is doing nothing more than tuning a guitar. Michael might as well be tuning a piano, guitar or any other instrument or a stereo. He's not asking how good your hearing is or if you are ever going to tune. He's simply saying if you do this it will mean more than talking about the possibility, you'll actually be "tuning". No hidden message just something if you never do you will only be talking and not trying. Like right now I am talking to you based on what I have being doing this week, nothing more and nothing negative. I tuned I heard, I walked and I talked about the walk. There's nothing more. It's simple I don't have to fake what I am saying cause I did it. Anything more is making something out of nothing. Michael doesn't care if the subject is tuning or any other subject. What he is saying is there's a difference between reading and talking about something vs actually doing it yourself. He encourages people to do more than the talking, go ahead and give something a try if your so incline. There's nothing more to the message than that. Your not a bad person if you don't do but I bet if you try something it will give you more experience and knowledge. And more to talk about. |
Got to listen to some nice Charlie Mingus this afternoon. Going back over in a little bit. As I said earlier MG's showing me the tuning experience and with each step I'm learning more. We're even starting to tune my system now. A couple things that have hit me strongly is how much info is on each recording and the idea of a bad recording has no meaning to me like it did before. And there's something else I am learning quickly that each recording has it own "recorded code". When I use to hear Michael say this I didn't understand what he meant. Now I realize that each recording can and should be tuned in as an individual set of values. With every recording we play it is slightly out of tune as compared to the last tuning. With some simple adjustments the soundstage becomes full and the tone balanced. For example the bass line on each recording is completely different from the next. The highs are too but the bass more so. Once we get that bottom end tuned it seems like the rest of the range falls into place or is at least easier to fine tune. amg I understand that you have questions as many do when talking about tuning but again I believe patience is a virtue and you guys who get so upset should let the answers come in Michael's way and in Michael's timing. If these are indeed interesting questions for Michael he's not shy about answering, he answers all of mine and I hear him answering questions on the phone. But answering questions about the intent of his OP is silly and has been rehashed 10 million ways. Michael's answer to prof was and I'm sure still is "your reading something that isn't there". That's MG's answer no need to ask that question over and over you either accept his answer or you go off on a rant but as people have said here many times Prof simply is turning it into something it isn't. I don't see where that can possibly be misunderstood. It's a big issue about nothing. |
amg56, glupson and others.
To the question "Why keep engaging MG and his followers on this thread?" my response is: because I think it’s an important subject.
And while many think "why bother, you won’t change anyone’s mind" that is often not the case. We may not change the mind of the person we are engaging (though that can happen - and my mind can be changed), but many others read public forums and they can weigh both sides, and minds can be changed.
Why change anyone’s mind?
Because, as I’ve argued, the nature of Michael Green’s - and many of his follower’s - posts exhibit features that are inherently dysfunctional for honest discourse between people who may have different views. And they actually exemplify a very common problem in public forums, and certainly in high end audio.
The issue is that anyone can act with good will in conversation with people who agree; but we need to act with good will, a major component being Intellectual Honesty, with people who don’t agree with us, or who bring a different perspective.
But it’s really hard to get this to happen because people are not good at getting underneath their own bias.
So let me use a dramatic example, just to make a point: consider being a minority among a racist majority community. To the majority, everything is just swell, because there is enough people agreeing with them and supporting their view that the boat isn’t being rocked.
But the minority person notices how differently he is treated, how attitudes change, the hospitable and welcoming, open nature of the majority suddenly seems to drain away. The minority is rejected not on what he has to say, but on other factors that make the majority uncomfortable: different look, skin color, even different perspective.
Now, to pull that back from the drama of racism and how it relates to my point: I have often found myself among a "minority" in the high end audio hobby. High End Audio is rife with the supposition that subjectivity rules the day, and is the indisputable bedrock for evaluating audio.
Some of us feel much more cautious about this, and recognize that this is far shakier ground than many audiophiles believe. But this is generally unwelcome by the majority.
So what happens is that, when the talk turns to the tweakier side in any way - cables, "tuning," etc - if you go along with the prevailing sentiment that "everything makes a difference" your comments will tend to be greeted warmly as welcome input. But if you offer a different view "Well, here’s why I don’t go along with that, and I’d like to see better evidence in the way of X or Y..." then suddenly the Good Will tends to dry up.
What happens, a lot, is that the actual substance and argument present is not addressed - or if so barely substantially - and instead the replies turn to attacking the skeptic’s character. The person who isn’t just accepting the claim or status quo is depicted as "negative" or "argumentative" or "angry" or "trolling" etc. And these comments on the CHARACTER of the skeptic’s post - usually based on strawmen ideas about the person’s motivations and arguments - are used to dismiss and not bother interacting with the arguments.
This is such a prevalent fallacy and phenomenon that it has a name:
Tone Trolling.
And much of what Michael and his followers have posted here are in exactly this mode of discourse. From the very first reply, Michael dismissed the content of my argument, to make negative implications about my character as an excuse not to answer my questions and concerns. This has continued this whole thread. (Whereas I have done my best to understand, ask for clarification, and address what I can infer to be the content of Michael’s claims and arguments).
And as I said, as this is emblematic of a wider problem in such discourse.
One of the things cults are known for (and other fringe belief systems) is isolating their beliefs - creating a "safe space" where the beliefs will only find support, and discouraging dissenting opinions by appeals to the sinful motivations of those who would dissent.
But that of course isn’t going to work when you have to present your case to the wider world. In fact, it is an inherently dysfunctional mode of thinking, a bad bias to have, when you export it to public discussion where you will absolutely be dealing with some people who disagree, or who bring different perspectives and arguments. Then...all you have is either your actual arguments and evidence....or you retreat back to Tone Trolling "you’re a meanie so I’m not going to answer your arguments" strategies. And then...even going back to the safe space. (Hello Tuneland!)
So, again, in a nutshell, it’s my aim to highlight this pernicious, inherently dysfunctional mode of discourse where people are "open" to ideas and friendly discourse - but only insofar as it supports their own beliefs.
Whereas they will react to challenges to what they have said by turning to character assessments and trolling "why you so angry?" "why are you so dogmatic?" etc replies. And then wondering why they are engendering acrimony.
It would be so much better if we can just address each other’s points, and ask for clarification if needed, provide clarification, really try understanding and addressing arguments. Even if someone has presented a case, and you have taken their emotional state to be "angry," it’s still a sign of intellectual honesty to not avoid a question or point if it’s pertinent. Or even clarify one’s position "no, this is what I meant." I don’t give a darn for instance when Geoff K makes another angry sounding rant about my arguments. Whatever. But if he ever makes an interesting point, or yet again misrepresents my view, I’ve responded to make my position as clear as possible.
BTW, the difference from mere tone trolling/evasion of the type I’ve talked about and, say, my first post in the thread is this: I did indeed point to the problematic nature of Michael’s post - it’s negativity. But I did this in order to INCREASE the possibility of honest discussion - explaining why the content of his post was likely to cause more heat then light, and I went on to ask him to explain his position more clearly, and I gave my own thoughts on the subject. So far from dismissing Michael’s post, I did my very best to engage it! Further, I have remained supportive that the idea some of his techniques and products may be excellent, and open to other claims pending actual good answers to my questions.
Cheers,
|
And one thing further, as per the OP's headline for this thread TALK BUT NOT WALK?, I find it particularly offensive to be targeted in a general accusational headline that I or others are Talking but not Walking? Most of us on these forum threads are walking. If MG did do quite successfully, it has been to demean and offend us by insinuating that we are not active in our quest to improve our systems. It would seem that MG finds it demeaning to him that we do not follow his doctrine. |
All, Whether or not Michael Green posts on this thread or not doesn't bother me. However if he does, it is my desire, and I expect it is the same for other readers of the many posts in AudioGon, that he participates in the manner that others expect and have posted. Whether a post is a page or more long as prof's posts can be, I find him engaging and informal, while being easy to read. Other posts can be short and succinct but less informal, and that's ok too. It's posts which are vague, uniforming, nor here nor there, without substance, while appealing to readers that the information contained within the post should be accepted without question. And God help us if we do question the poster. We are called anti, naysayers, trolls etc., when all we are actually asking for is more information on which we can base our own understanding on how a SOMETHING works. I fail to understand why this is so wrong? I agree 100% with Prof, who at least is informative, questioning (with the right questions), and appears to be reasonably well informed on most matters. Like myself, and other posters, we question for more information. I would expect that this would be a normal occurrence anywhere. @jf47t If you find the questions we ask so objectionable, or hard to answer, then just say so and leave it. You are not contributing this forum other than throwing out what can be described as misinformation as there IS no information you write that we can use or go away and try. I could describe the mess my cables are in and rearrange them and post on it. That is useless information which is not what I would expect to be an informational post or experience. If anyone is Trolling, it would appear to me that you are targeting Prof in particular, and others in general. I do not apologise for the length of this post if it tells you, and other, something that annoys me. You and this whole MG thing annoy me. Go away. |
"MG is the father of audio tuning..." How old is he? I do not know much about history of audio tuning, but would suspect that it all started by picking different rocks to make different sounds when banging them together. Or was it tweaking? I have been wondering what it is about Michael Green that is so fire-igniting around here. The man has his business, not the world-history-changing at that, tries to sell his ideas (for money or not, does not really matter), may or may not be correct about what he says, but just his existence seems to be like an earthquake here. For whatever he says or implies, responses are often monumental and by more than just one poster. And he barely even shows up here. It is getting interesting. We are talking here about, at best, a little (or lot) different sound perception when electronically reproducing music someone played somewhere some time ago. In any scheme of things, it is such a minuscule niche topic that may deserve discussion, but how does Michael Green makes his presence so flammable? It is not just by answering or not answering questions, I think. It is not only one side that gets revved-up, it is both. |
Prof, in my world, being able to condense complex ideas into simple language is a sign of knowledge and experience.
More than that; it’s the sign of someone with the talent to do so. Plenty of knowledgeable people don’t condense complex ideas into simple language as well as others. I agree, that’s a very valuable and welcome talent, and I admire those who have it. Sometimes I can pull that off. In fact, I’ve been told routinely over the years that I’m able to do this so I don’t feel too wounded by your insult. (Actually, right now people have said so about my reports of speakers I’ve auditioned - that I have admirably condensed in writing the character of the speakers I’ve auditioned). Other times I go all blowhard and write too much. I gratefully accept criticism on that count, and I think it applies to a bunch of my posts in this thread. And no, I don’t think the lengths of my posts makes me special. (You aren’t a fan of strawmen, are you? I hope not). But they are often long because I always, as much as possible, wish to avoid simply making an assertion without supporting argument. If they were much shorter and more concise, that would be more special IMO. But, again, if someone is making reasonable points or asking reasonable questions even IF you think they could be shorter, addressing even one of those points is better than only characterizing someone’s posts, especially negatively, don’t you agree? Have you anything to say about any points I’ve made - agree or disagree? Thanks for the insult...though ;-) |
Prof, in my world, being able to condense complex ideas into simple language is a sign of knowledge and experience. I'm guessing it is not in yours. I first enjoyed your posts, not so much now.
But, that also goes for a number of other posters who think that by writing a short novel anyone thinks they are something special. Quite the opposite.
|
There you go again jf47t,
Taking a page out of MG's book - instead of answering my posts or admitting I may have any point at all, you come in to toss another version of "you mad bruh?"
MG teaches his disciples well, it seems.
Who cares if Michael is off enjoying Mingus? I was just listening to Bernard Herrmann. And some Kiss records. What in the world does that have to do with anything?
Why try to imply MG is some enlightened figure, above causing any acrimony "because he's off listening to music."
He left another post here dangling in public, avoiding any point I have made, and simply characterizing me as trolling.
But on your view, that's ok - hey, as long as Michael does that and goes off to listen to sweet music - "why so mad bruh"?
Insofar as you keep this up, you are literally helping MG troll in this thread.
(And btw, neither you nor Michael can actually support your characterizations as if I'm just some troll. For instance, I have a thread going in the speaker forum with thousands of views as I report my experience auditioning various speakers, with quite a bit of appreciation voiced for my efforts. And you can see in this very thread that I express thanks to a manufacturer who ACTUALLY takes the effort to acknowledge the type of questions I've asked MG, and answer them.
Every time you feel yourself wanting to once again, simply think of me - or other people voicing skepticism in this thread - as just meanies and trolls WITHOUT coming up with an actual response to our points...this should ring a tiny bell that this isn't really the best way forward to converse with someone who may not believe what you believe).
|
Prof You've hit my funny bone again. Your up on this thread screaming at people and MG isn't even here. Calm down dude your getting worked up all over. Michael's off enjoying Mingus and the last thing on his mind is entertaining your spinning. |
amg56
@geoffkait Hey Geoff, will your quantum teleportation thingy fix my keyboard?
>>>>I heard through the grapevine the Teleportation Tweak will improve the reception of smartphones. And I’m not hot doggin ya. 🌭 The way I figure it that should be worth a Nobel all by itself, forget about audio.
|
grannyring, The confrontational posts continue to derail any hopes of this and others threads ever amounting to anything of real value. It’s already been pointed out to you: the topic, started by Michael, concerned people he claimed were faking it. Discussing the basis for those claims - about people faking it, about empirical methods etc - IS keeping the topic on the rail. Michael’s thread explicitly (well, as explicitly as he is capable of writing) challenges skeptics, so it’s ridiculous to complain when any skeptics answer the call to defend their view against Michael’s critique. Not every subject matter and thread is about debate and arguing. Then why would Michael make an inherently argumentative thread?? Why doesn’t THAT bother you at all? Can’t you see the blindspot you seem to have for MG’s behaviour here? You don’t walk in to a room and say "Some people here are faking it! Why are you faking it?" and expect nobody to question this or object...right? Is it intellectually honest to make an inherently disparaging claim about other people, and when challenged on it simply respond: "Look, I’m not going to argue about it." Hey grannyring, you are insincere. Don’t bother replying with any defence of yourself; i don’t want to hear it, I’m here to make that claim, and I’ll hear from anyone who just agrees with my assessment of your character, but I’m not going to argue about it so save your breath! You can immediately see that is a jerk move should anyone make it. And yet you seem oblivious when people seem to accept that very move as being "nice" and "diplomatic" - when MG uses this tactic. I’m asking you to think more fairly on this. Is that so bad?
Can we hear about what tuning measures, devices, stands, platforms, modifications, gear etc.., was used to bring about such engaging music?
If you want THAT to be the topic of a thread, why not ask Michael to make a thread on THAT topic. E.g. "Let’s discuss tuning our systems." But please, it doesn’t do anyone any good to keep implying that anyone actually keeping on topic is "derailing" the topic. And to continually disparage the motivations and character of people for keeping the thread on the topic. (As others have joined MG in doing). |
I just read these posts and my system still sounds the same? Learned nothing. Perhaps my system sounds worse as my emotional state is not at peace. I guess I’m also out of this thread and one of the weaklings who can’t take the heat. I leave pointing out the fact that the forums here on Audiogon are losing more and more good Agoners who are weary of what this site has become. A lot of good ones are now gone or have decided to stay mostly quiet.
|
jf471, MG is obviously free to make any other thread, or contribute in any other thread, as he in fact has already. Nobody is following him around this forum, and I have not directly interacted with him on any other thread. I have only stuck around in this thread insofar as Michael started a thread to claim some people are fakes, and has refused to answer honest questions trying to understand and/or challenge that claim. My very first reply explicitly gave Michael the benefit of the doubt, pointing out I was not impugning his intentions, only pointing out that I would like to to see clarification, and some actual defence, of what he meant and the basis for putting some people in the "faker" category. And of course to explore the role his constant appeal to empiricism played in all this. Not only that, I have consistently given Michael’s claims more benefit of the doubt than he has ever given me. I’ve consistently said that I’m totally open to the idea that Michael’s methods can produce great results, and that I’d even be excited to hear them. I’ve explicitly said I am not claiming to disprove even his methods I find less compelling, but that I’m simply asking reasonable questions about the basis for their effectiveness and the methods of confirming them as such. In contrast to my side, continually voicing openness to Michael Green’s legitimacy, he has done virtually nothing but disparage my character as negative and trolling. It’s rather amazing that this imbalance in intellectual honesty goes completely unnoticed by you. The FIRST thing Michael did was to brush off these honest, relevant questions and instead put ME in the category of people he was disparaging! (Suggesting he didn’t have to explain anything to me, as I had just exemplified the negative category he’d made up). And he did this to others as well. And just continued to do it all through the thread; every time I’ve tried to keep on the topic of what Michael actually wrote - he evaded, and just cast aspersions on motivations instead of answering questions or counter arguments. If you wish to follow Michael’s lead and leave calling people trolls instead of engaging reasonable questions, so be it, but that type of response shouldn’t be missed with many tears. Why not just engage in honest conversation instead? I just have to infer that you have swallowed Michael’s anti-scientific attitude that challenging questions equate to "bad vibes" "being negative" "trolling" and must arise out of some personality defect in the questioner. As I’ve said, that’s actually more in line with cult-thinking, not open mindedness. The way to judge integrity is not by the ones speaking the loudest but instead by the ones who have peace within themselves. Yup, that sounds more like what a cult leader would say to his disciples. "Ignore the arguments against what I say; if I can make you feel good, you can ignore those skeptics, and castigate their motives for challenging me!" Perhaps you should consider that problem. It’s one thing to be happy with what you and Michael are doing. As I already said, cheers to you and have fun! It’s entirely another to disparage as trolls anyone who gives voice to reasons why we haven’t followed your hallowed path. (And, I'm sure I need to point this out: saying your and Michael's response shares characteristics with a cult is NOT the claim it "is" the same as a cult; it's pointing out that it shares the same dubious reasoning used by cults, or any number of different dubious belief systems, which should alert you to a defect in the mode of your replies). |
MG is indeed a breath of fresh air and is onto something we could all learn from. The confrontational posts continue to derail any hopes of this and others threads ever amounting to anything of real value. Not every subject matter and thread is about debate and arguing. Can we hear about what tuning measures, devices, stands, platforms, modifications, gear etc.., was used to bring about such engaging music?
|
I suspect folks might be mistaking persistence and Gila monster like perseverance for anger and rage. One thing I admire about Michael having interfaced with him more than the average bear, hand to hand combat, MG, May and Peter and me, every day for two years, is he will not walk away from an argument. He’s like an animal! 😬 If anyone else can’t stand the heat of serious debate or is a little bit timid they should probably stay out of the kitchen. Let’s get cookin’! 👨🏻🍳
|
Prof As others have said, you really don't belong on this thread. Your anger and rage are apparent. I believe someone pointed out that your interpretation of MG is only because of your view of life. You don't seem like you are someone who has much joy to share. At least your not able to do so on here. |
Hi Mapman I do want to respond to you. Michael has been receiving emails and even calls (I've been there) during this thread and the members here are happy to see MG's presence and if anything have been asking for more of it. Their feeling is that he is refreshing honest and doesn't put up with BS. He told me a couple of days ago "the thread is not going anywhere and the OP is being played out in real time". The way to judge integrity is not by the ones speaking the loudest but instead by the ones who have peace within themselves. |
mapman
Crazy threads like this surely must scare some curious newcomers away. Too bad.
>>>>The Peanut Gallery checks in. The Euro-nator is back.
|
No Thanks You guys get too hostile for me. I'll let you posters fight amongst yourselves. MG is the father of audio tuning from what I have read in many articles now and I'm very satisfied with this. He's taken the time to show me while he explains and that goes a long way with me. Plus Tuneland the forum is a great place. Count me out on the anger and trolling like MG I want no part. There's too much music to enjoy and you guys are defeating your own purpose when you can't get along. |
Crazy threads like this surely must scare some curious newcomers away. Too bad. |
This is causing you to troll tuning and myself. No, Michael, if anyone has trolled, you have trolled this forum. And that is why it truly is worth trying to make sure this kind of stuff is called out. And unlike you who just throws that word out in a knee-jerk fashion at anyone who asks you clarifying or skeptical questions, one can actually point to your actual posts and behaviour on this thread to show how troll-like it has actually been. You started a thread that was about castigating some members as fakers. When challenged on your claim, all you’ve done is reply without actual interaction with the challenges, instead using passive-agressive "Oh, what lil’ ol me? I’d never be negative; that’s on you...YOU must be a negative person or a troll." That is the behaviour of a troll. Make a post you KNOW will rankle feathers, never own up to it or directly address arguments against your claim, and instead pretend the onus for negativity is on whoever challenges your claim. Keep characterizing the person asking you to back up your claims with versions of "you must be one of the people I’m talking about." That’s trolling 101 behaviour, and it’s worth calling out when a manufacturer comes here and engages the forum this way. And then this is accompanied by an utterly transparent motive of self-promotion, to get the subject to your tuning, and your forum. (Which you as much as explicitly admitted at one point, saying this thread was a door to Tuning). As I said, there could be nothing LESS helpful to open, honest, civil dialogue than to simply cast people who bring challenging questions as "trolls" which is the card you play constantly to evade, evade, evade giving direct substantive responses. Again...I’m far from the only one who has noticed this modus operandi. Perfect example, after my continued questions to you ON TOPIC - "what do you mean by testing? What do you mean by empirical? What methods are you using? Can you clarify exactly what you mean and what would fit your claim of "faking it?" and can you give some more explanation or evidence for the other claims you’ve now made (e.g. tied caps).... .....you again avoid answering any substance of my argument or questions to you, and instead reply only with baiting insults like this: In other words your smelling of something fishy is probably because you have been wiping your nose with your freshly fish covered hands. You see, this is the behaviour that keeps the negative thread you started going along the wrong rail. You didn’t have to act this way. As an example, look at the recent reply to my skeptical questions from "audiopoint." He acted like someone engaged in honest dialogue: saw the questions were reasonable, and did his best to directly answer them. Even if someone doesn’t accept everything in his answers, that’s no biggie, we can disagree but at least show each other the respect of ENGAGING one another’s ideas, instead of evading anything that doesn’t support one’s own marketing goals and trying to cast challenges in a negative light. We’ll end with this: Prof, your not going to win here because listeners are tuning as we speak in real time which is the proof of and for the hobby of listening. This is just more vaguely self-aggrandizing gobbledygook. Again, you are carelessly (or...carefully!) mixing up terms to serve your own agenda. What the heck does it mean to say people Tuning (the name for your method and claims) are "proof of and for the HOBBY OF LISTENING"???? That’s absurd. I’m engaged in the "hobby" of listening and so is EVERYONE on this forum, even though most of us are not one of your disciples "tuning" by taking apart our gear, putting it on wood blocks etc. You seem so blinkered and driven by your own marketing concerns - sorry..."spreading the world about tuning"...that you conflate the most basic universal terms like "Hobby" and "listening" with "Tuning" (which just happens to be your self-marketed term for your methods and services). It’s a disingenuous move because, hey, who could put down "listening" right? And if you are tuning you are doing the hobby of listening! No. We have to be able to be conceptually clear and separate these things. You make certain technical and perceptual claims that people who are in the hobby of high end audio, and who LISTEN, can disagree about. And if you want to say "Oh, gee, whoever would take my claim to be that other people not tuning aren’t listening? I didn’t mean THAT" then don’t bother with that bait and switch. If you DID NOT MEAN to conflate our Hobby or "Listening" with your tuning methods, then DON’T WRITE IN A WAY THAT CONFLATES THOSE THINGS. Don’t shove off your own responsibility for your careless, or self-serving, confusion of terms and twist it into the negative motives of other people. And note: every further reply you may want to make that avoids my questions and arguments, to say I’m just being a meanie, only re-enforces that you will take the easy, trolling route of "calling names" over "replying to the arguments." Over ’n out. (Whether Michael reads this response or not, I still think it’s worthwhile to point out modes of interaction that are pernicious to honest discussion, and Michael seems intent on supplying a never ending stream of examples). |
Look it up? Oh, my gosh! See, that’s the problem. There is no real definition of Tweaking. Even advanced audiophiles disagree what Tweaking entails. That’s what I was trying to say. People think they kind of know what it means. But you won’t find the real definition in Wikipedia. Not for audiophiles. What you will find on the internet and Wikipedia is a lot of anti audiophile and tweakaphobe diatribes warning people about fringe tweaks, woo and snake oil. Like the guy the tells the private detective in Chinatown, “You may think you know what’s going on but, believe me, you don’t.” That’s what I meant by Strawman. You’re trying to compare Tuning to something you’re obviously not particularly adept at or even knowledgeable about. Strawman is a logical fallacy.
|
Ok I got it. MG is covered in saw dust so I'm his interpreter on this one (thank God for smart phones). Michael said in electronics there is tweaking tuning and trimming. They're all tied together but are given different names depending on how they are used. There are also fixed tweaks and variable tweaks. A fixed tweak is something you usually set on something else and leave it alone and a variable tweak is something you tune in by either moving around or adjusting. He said look up tweaking and tuning and I'll understand. A tweak is an adjusting tool screwdriver or something like that that you use to fine tune. He says it's all the same thing just a matter of how your and what your applying it to. Michael likes using tuning because it deals more with fundamentals and harmonics. |
geoffkait, "So before anyone gets his bowels in an uproar wouldn’t it be great if we defined what the heck all the rumpus is about? You know, before going on the offensive?" It is as reasonable of an approach as it gets and the one that to me seems to have been missing in this thread a lot. I mentioned it a few of my posts ago, I think. Why not start with the beginning of the original post. Like, the second sentence, and then we can expand. |
prof
glupson: “It seems that for every thing that gets mentioned as a tweak/tuning there are two sides. One claims it is non-sense and cannot be true noticeable difference and the other side claims that the difference is noticeable.”
That’s actually the false dichotomy that I’ve been at pains to reject.
As I keep arguing here, one doesn’t have to take a single side "it makes an audible difference/it doesn’t make an audible difference" position.
One can simply take the position "I don’t know if there is an audible difference, so let’s discuss the reasons and evidence for why there might be an audible difference, or not."
Being a long time audio-nut myself, and always liking the idea of further enhancing the sound of my system, I’m very attracted to the idea of "tweaking" my system. So it’s not something I reject on some weird a priori grounds - in my more tweaky moments I WANT things to make a difference. But I also realize this is also when I’m most likely to fool myself that there is a difference.
>>>I suggest things are not so simple. Audiophiles oft exhibit what is commonly referred to as knee jerk reactions to both Tweaks and Tuning. So before anyone gets his bowels in an uproar wouldn’t it be great if we defined what the heck all the rumpus is about? You know, before going on the offensive? What is a tweak? What is Tuning? I pretty sure many audiophiles have a lot of pre-conceived ideas. Do they overlap? Are they competitors? What’s the difference? Is it mostly coupling vs decoupling? Or vibration control? Does Tuning address RFI? Magnetism? Directionality of wire! Other physics, you know, like quantum physics? Are the universes of Tweaks and Tuning bounded or unbounded? Are they different universes?
I submit, gentle readers, the wonderful world of tweaks is not really what most audiophiles think it is. For one thing it’s bigger than what most people think it is. Much bigger.
|
I think MG would say there is no us vs them but for me I'm trying to justify why the lower mass less expensive systems are blowing away the heavier more expensive ones. I can now see why they are and that the low mass systems are far more flexible. However it does seem like there is a difference. The more mass systems go to a certain level of flexibility and stall whereas the low mass systems tune up to meet every recording we have played. Not sure what you mean by a strawman, what is that? |
glupson
geoffkait,
Anyone can call her/his company whatever they want and it means only that it is that company’s name. However, this empirical testing in this thread was not a name for the company but something that opponents were accused of not doing and therefore their opinion being less worthy. Fakers, talkers, whatever they ended up being. Your explanation consists of correct words applied to an entirely unrelated thing.
>>>>Huh? What are you talking about? The opponents were accused of not doing because they don’t do. They talk, but don’t do. That’s as plain as the nose on your face. In fact, you appear to be the poster boy for talk, not do. Your continuing semantic arguments are do do. This conversation can serve no purpose any more.
|
jf47t
“Today I learned the difference between tweaking and tuning. I’m not sure if Michael would agree with this as he gives latitude for tweaks mods and component swapping but what I’ve been hearing is a different hobby. MG has asked me not to mention the brands of the high end system we have setup as our competing 2nd system but he says that it’s important for me to see how far high end can go with tweaking vs what a tunable system can do. That’s a classy approach to not pick on specific brands. He doesn’t want to hurt anyone’s business while he is convince the hobby is taking a big turn. Tonight we’ve been doing some interesting comparisons. Both systems have been setup fairly by Michael. I’ll call one the tunable system and the other the HEA system.”
>>>>>>>That sounds like a Strawman waiting to happen. 😬 What it appears you really need is a Tweaking Guru tweaking the HEA system with the Tuning Guru tuning the other system. I’m not sure the two systems should even be in the same house.
There is what we call the Hierarchy of Sound, not to sound too high fallutin’. The Hierarchy of sound embraces the concept that a modestly priced tweaked (or tuned) system can sound considerably better than a more expensive system that hasn’t been tweaked or tuned. Make sense?
Furthermore people seem to be under the impression tweaking involves a limited set of commonly used thingamabobs, rubber dampers or cones, for example. With that notion firmly planted in one’s head the “tweaked system” is bound to fail. Obviously there’s a right way and a wrong way to do things. And there are way too many variables to try to put Tweaking, the art of tweaking, in a nice convenient little box. That’s a self fulfilling prophecy. But Tweaking is not that easily defined - or accomplished. It’s not just a simole case of coupling vs decoupling. Tweaking is just a word. You guys might be under the impression that Tweaking is a planet. But Tweaking is not a planet, it’s not even solar system or a galaxy. It’s a Universe.
So, gentle readers, I hate to prejudge things but it appears the Great Tuning vs Tweaking Shoot-out is just a contrivance, a marketing ploy, preordained to “prove” the superiority of Tuning.
Besides, surely Tuning and Tweaking aren’t mutually exclusive, or are they? Is it US vs THEM? 😳 |
Today I learned the difference between tweaking and tuning. I'm not sure if Michael would agree with this as he gives latitude for tweaks mods and component swapping but what I've been hearing is a different hobby. MG has asked me not to mention the brands of the high end system we have setup as our competing 2nd system but he says that it's important for me to see how far high end can go with tweaking vs what a tunable system can do. That's a classy approach to not pick on specific brands. He doesn't want to hurt anyone's business while he is convince the hobby is taking a big turn. Tonight we've been doing some interesting comparisons. Both systems have been setup fairly by Michael. I'll call one the tunable system and the other the HEA system. |
geoffkait,
Anyone can call her/his company whatever they want and it means only that it is that company’s name. However, this empirical testing in this thread was not a name for the company but something that opponents were accused of not doing and therefore their opinion being less worthy. Fakers, talkers, whatever they ended up being. Your explanation consists of correct words applied to an entirely unrelated thing.
As far as labs go, it is clear that they can have different locations, set-ups, and dress codes, and nobody should ever question that part. What I was curious about was that unfortunate syntagma. I hoped to get an explanation that will teach me about something I have never heard about. Well, I still have not learned, but blame it on me and not on the word you so masterfully reminded me about. Fluffiness. I should have thought of it first.
This is far from a mind game for me. Who would go to some "audiophile" forum to play mind games with people he has never met and probably never will? It seems like the battle, time, and, easily, mind lost in advance. I approach it as something to kill time and maybe learn a thing or two. So far, in this thread, I really got interested in two details that did not seem right so I wondered if I can learn something about them. Both were focused on something written somewhere, meaning they were sort of tangible and should be explainable. I really cannot care less about differences in sound that somebody believes and the other one does not believe in. I do not even care about the sound I listen to that much. I know, I am on the wrong forum. I am far from walker, barely a talker, but am a careful listener and, it seems so, reader.
It seems that neither am I good enough at explaining my question about empirical testing (lab is a cheerful bonus), nor are you good at understanding that same question. It is like deaf and mute having a discussion. So I will leave that topic. No need to perseverate on what has proven to be futile. Wait, aren’t we on Talk but not walk thread?
|
@geoffkait Thanks for the info. I hadn't realised that. Actually the best thing to do is re-read your post BEORE pressing post. Regardless of mood... |
amg56, you do realize you can edit your post? You have up to 30 minutes to edit. The next best thing is you can delete your errant post and start all over. |
@geoffkait Hey Geoff, will your quantum teleportation thingy fix my keyboard? |
All. I have no idea what happened to my first sentence. This (Microsoft surface keyboard) teleports the cursor all over the space. My apologies, but I didn't read what I had written in full until I hit POST. I think I was responding to Geoff by saying (no spelling correction now), "there are as many tweaks not to have been PROVEN to have any effect as well". It is only breakfast time here so the pills won't have started to work fully yet. ;0) |
@geoffkait These are as many no proven to have effect as well. Empirical testing caters for both "judgement" testing and "conditional" testing. It is just what is agreed, UP FRONT, to test and how to test, the thing to be tested, or judged etc. We all have agricultural shows where the jam testing is agreed upon by majority of tasters. They do have criteria by which they are looking for a flavour. "Tweak" testing is if carried out by an individual, and found favourable, could rightly be shared to benefit all of us. HOWEVER, if "Tweaks" are of a commercial nature and some stands to gain financially from is, then it is quite reasonable for people to ask for greater criteria and repeatable results with explanation of how it works in principle, given that there may be IP or patents pending. I am not sure that I understand you pill popping statement. Are these the result of empirical tests, your own experiences, and what your mother did to you? |
Quick interrupt! There has never been a single audiophile tweak that was ever proved to be a fake or a hoax. Of course it all depends. Some pills make you bigger, some pills make you small, the ones that mother gives you don’t do anything at all. Much of the confusion over tweaks and backlash and oddball results actually stem from operator error. I’m not hot doggin ya! 🌭 |
glupson, It seems that for every thing that gets mentioned as a tweak/tuning there are two sides. One claims it is non-sense and cannot be true noticeable difference and the other side claims that the difference is noticeable. That’s actually the false dichotomy that I’ve been at pains to reject. As I keep arguing here, one doesn’t have to take a single side "it makes an audible difference/it doesn’t make an audible difference" position. One can simply take the position "I don’t know if there is an audible difference, so let’s discuss the reasons and evidence for why there might be an audible difference, or not." Being a long time audio-nut myself, and always liking the idea of further enhancing the sound of my system, I'm very attracted to the idea of "tweaking" my system. So it's not something I reject on some weird a priori grounds - in my more tweaky moments I WANT things to make a difference. But I also realize this is also when I'm most likely to fool myself that there is a difference. |
glupson
geoffkait,
Theoretical testing lab? Huh? What do you think this is, Los Alamos? NIST? Harvard? A theoretical testing lab can be anyone’s listening room. Or someone’s basement. Hel-loo?
I think this is just a forum for people wasting some time on, if you really want to know what I think. At the same time, if we start talking about things and calling them something, I believe we should know what we are talking about. Otherwise, it just becomes blah-blah-am-I-smart-blah-blah and continues an argument that maybe never should have been.
I am not hung up on semantics at all, just on calling things their names instead of writing "scientific" poetry. For now, I do not find your description of a "theoretical testing lab" fully finished. I was under impression that someone’s listening room would be more of an "empirical testing lab", if the person wanted to glorify it.
There are many big words thrown around this thread and some of them are of questionable origin, to say the least. I have no intention in disputing someone’s tuning/tweaking results and what she/he hears or does not hear, but others are arguing about it. The whole thread started with "empirical testing" as an important event and I just wondered what is a "non-empirical testing". Maybe two camps that are arguing around here are not talking about same things, at all.
>>>>Have it your way. You want something to be something other than what is. Haven’t you ever heard of fluffing? You don’t have to have a real lab with people in white smocks running around with white socks and calculators. Are you so removed that you never heard of Herbies Audio Lab? Or Jena Labs? Or Marigo Audio Labs. Those examples as fate would have it are essentially one man operations. I could call my company Machina Dynamica Labs. Capish? A lab, even an “empirical lab” or theoretical physics lab” is whatever you want it to be, whatever works for you. I suspect this discussion, if I can be so bold, is kind of a mind game for you. Which is kind of what MG was getting at in his OP. You know, with the fakes and everything.
|
It seems that for every thing that gets mentioned as a tweak/tuning there are two sides. One claims it is non-sense and cannot be true noticeable difference and the other side claims that the difference is noticeable. However, I got an impression that the difference is always for better. I am not talking about echo in the room and positioning the speakers, but more about those things that get argued about a lot (let’s say, demagnetizing CDs, lifting cables from the ground on a certain wood blocks, etc.). Is there a way that lifting cables on birch instead of oak blocks would make sound worse, whatever that "worse" may mean? It somehow does not come across as a possibility. |
geoffkait, Theoretical testing lab? Huh? What do you think this is, Los Alamos? NIST? Harvard? A theoretical testing lab can be anyone’s listening room. Or someone’s basement. Hel-loo? I think this is just a forum for people wasting some time on, if you really want to know what I think. At the same time, if we start talking about things and calling them something, I believe we should know what we are talking about. Otherwise, it just becomes blah-blah-am-I-smart-blah-blah and continues an argument that maybe never should have been. I am not hung up on semantics at all, just on calling things their names instead of writing "scientific" poetry. For now, I do not find your description of a "theoretical testing lab" fully finished. I was under impression that someone's listening room would be more of an "empirical testing lab", if the person wanted to glorify it. There are many big words thrown around this thread and some of them are of questionable origin, to say the least. I have no intention in disputing someone's tuning/tweaking results and what she/he hears or does not hear, but others are arguing about it. The whole thread started with "empirical testing" as an important event and I just wondered what is a "non-empirical testing". Maybe two camps that are arguing around here are not talking about same things, at all. |
amg56
@jf47t This give more light into the workings of MG "The HiFi Whisperer". It must have taken many, many hours to develop an ear for various materials.
>>>>>Gosh, ya think?
|
glupson
geoffkait,
I do not think I am overthinking it. In fact, I barely give it a thought. My question is due to the repeated statements including "empirical testing" that nobody questioned. It became the basic postulate while, to my current understanding that I am eager to expand if someone gives me an explanation, it is just three words meant to make it seem legitimate and serious. Both sides accepted it while they might have not needed it. That part is relevant to the debate of this thread. My real personal intention is to learn more about the matter that involves "empirical testing lab" so I can be aware of different approaches with no sway to either of the two sides of this thread (that battle is lost for both, in my belief). Just claiming that something is "empirical" is not that hard to come up with. Of course it is. What else would it be? Now, think about using the word "lab" there. That is a pretty heavy stuff. It is a nightmare to set up a lab. And here, I saw it thrown around as if it is my living room which was not that complicated to set up. But using "lab" and "empirical" in one sentence insinuates something really strong. At the same time, it implies the existence of a "theoretical testing lab" which is my interest as I have never ran across one. I gave up on figuring out if tuning works, if people walk or talk, but am hoping to learn something here.
>>>>>>>Methinks you’re getting hung up on words, on semantics. Empirical, testing and lab mean different things to different people. Test system, test protocol, test plan, test evaluation, test results - those terms mean different things to different people. Nobody ever agrees what constitutes a “scientific” test or a proper after the testing has been finished. It all has to be agreed a priori to have any meaning or validity. You seem to be under the impression this is some sort of peer review forum.
Theoretical testing lab? Huh? What do you think this is, Los Alamos? NIST? Harvard? A theoretical testing lab can be anyone’s listening room. Or someone’s basement. Hel-loo?
All that aside, as I’ve cautioned before a single audio test has no meaning if the test results are negative, no matter how careful and thorough the test may have been.
Pop quiz: which freezes faster, cold water or warm water?
|
@jf47t This give more light into the workings of MG "The HiFi Whisperer". It must have taken many, many hours to develop an ear for various materials. |
I get it now after putting on Chuck Girard "Chuck Girard" it has become clear to me that there is another level to a system. Following Michael down to his curing shop he showed me a sea of old school receivers carefully covered with plastic so they wouldn't get dust in them. He put me to work bringing them upstairs. Btw the curing shop is full of panels different lengths of redwood Brazilian pine and other pieces. There's one chair with a table and sanding paper all over the place. There's a huge jointer. MG's wood shop is at another location. This space is for curing and voicing only. Michael's pride and joy is this shelving of paper he said ranges from 80-3000 grit. I saw some finishes but those are off limits. I've been wood shopping with Michael before but the listening and materials are coming together for me now. MG will tell you he isn't a wood worker but it's easy to see he is into wood voicing. When we got back upstairs he showed me two pieces of wood. I held the one to my ear and tapped on it and it sounded resonant and you could hear the harmonics. He handed me the next piece and it sounded like tapping on a cello's body. These came from the same wood cut WOW. He pointed to the CD player and said "that's what your listening to now". Michael has many types of cones and feet made out of brass, aluminum, titanium, zinc, copper, nickel, custom mixes and a bunch of other materials in different shapes. He also has different types of springs and other odd looking things. Sometime this weekend he said he will insert small amounts of these materials into the system so I can hear the effect. It might take a week or two because things have to settle but I'll get an idea. He's also been explaining to me what's been happening with the fields, vibration, mass, pressure and gravity how they are all working together. |
@audiopoint Well explained and well written. Of course there will be further questions and enquiries regarding the behaviour of elements that make up HiFi systems in general, realising each system is unique, in environment, componentry, wiring and power. I realise there are a lot more factors to be discussed but for those who are of curious mind, its a good read. @jf47t Thank you for your descriptions of what occurred to influence the change in sound/musical experience you had at MG's. It gives a better mind's eye picture of what may be available in our systems to change. |
audiopoint,
Thanks for your post. It was informative and well-structured. It opened some new ways of understanding, for me at least.
|
