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?
It’s one thing to look for a way out when your bluff has been called.
But to do it on the pretence that someone is calling you names?
Geoffkait...complaining about anyone name-calling?
That is a priceless ploy coming from you. I admire the chutzpah. Though you may have a class action lawsuit from Audiogon members coming at you, for damage done to their collective Irony Meters ;-)
(And LOL at trying to find "name calling" in my last two posts.)
Anyway, buh-bye! I’ve spent more time than I should have battling your imagination.
Whoa! Hey, more name calling. You don’t get it. Your posts are excellent examples of pretzel 🥨 logic of the kind used by pseudo skeptics. This conversation can serve no purpose any more.
I may sometimes comment on someone's posting style - especially if they are being disingenuous. But I *do not* use comments on someone’s posting style to *avoid* people’s questions or arguments. I directly address them (as I did yet again when you brought forth your pseudo skeptic defintion and tried to pin it on me).
Whereas you, taking the baton from MG, are carrying on the tradition of evasion when you can’t actually reply to the actual argument or stance someone has actually presented.
Clearly you aren’t going to acknowledge you were so obviously wrong.
Tiniest bit of integrity? See, that’s what I am referring to. That’s a personal attack. That’s a pseudo skeptics ploy to try and save face when called a pseudo skeptic. It’s similar to one of your first posts, calling Michael a jerk in so many words. Those are fake arguments. They are not (rpt not) arguments a real skeptic uses. Do you want me to draw you a picture?
prof So geoff’s hand was finally forced to show his"pseudo skeptic" card that he kept threatening me and others with - throwing around that label as if it suited, or showed any problem with, my arguments.
>>> What? Are you crazy? I wasn’t threatening anyone. I am adept at recognizing earnest and dedicated followers of pseudo skepticism. Call it radar. If you don’t like the label that’s what is known as tough gazongie. Of course pseudo skeptics don’t like being labeled. I’m just keeping the playing field level. Besides, this was the second time I posted the long winded definition of pseudo skeptic. Try to keep up with the discussion, guys. Let the Inquisition proceed! Off with their heads!
As you can see Geoff’s attempt to critique that portion of my post (mentioning "credentials") is the usual attempt to avoid the actual substance of the point made. He just ignores the point that an engineer wouldn’t typically evade answering pertinent engineering questions about his own claims. In fact, I can not remember - ever, in an online discussion or elsewhere - an engineer or someone with expert credentials in some audio field so deliberately evading pertinent questions. Usually they are only too happy to explain more and make their case.
Whether I’m an engineer or not - and I’m not - has nothing to do with my observation about MG avoiding questions, so of course I wasn’t making it some "let’s compare credentials" statement. MG may have the best credentials I’ve ever seen and that would be irrelevant to the fact he was evading questions. So Geoff is as usual snapping at air - there was zero of pertinence to the substance of my post.
Michael Green used very move in the book to avoid answering my posts. When he asked me to tell him about the different sound between two capacitors - it was an obvious attempt to distract from answering my questions about the evidence for his claims concerning capacitors and tie wraps. Anyone paying attention could easily infer what his motivation was: "I’m going to bring up two very specific capacitors, and it will show that prof hasn’t experience with those capacitors, therefore it will leave the impression that prof hasn’t the experience I, Michael Green, have, which will leave the impression prof has no leg on which to stand in being a skeptic on these issues. It will show prof is ’talking but not walking."
The post utterly wreaked of that obvious motivation.
But I didn’t give him an answer that would warrant that conclusion at all.
I haven’t played with those capacitors so I wouldn’t be making a claim either way - whether or how they sound different and in what applications. So I have no burden of proof. But if Michael claims they sound different, I would like to see on what evidence he is making the claim.
As there is NOTHING Michael could actually impugn about my stance in that reply, he could not - as with every other post of mine - honestly interact with it to find fault.
So instead he simply thanked me for answering. Did he ever explain the reason for the question? (I asked...but he wouldn’t say...spelling it out would spell out too vividly the fallacy and evasive tactic he was using).
But by just thanking me for my answer, he would leave in the air the impression - for anyone impressionable enough - that he’d just made a point.
As I said; a textbook intellectually dishonest interaction.
But it does seem that a number of people noticed, and didn’t fall for it.
Like I said: MG may have some truly helpful, interesting and efficacious techniques to share. It’s just a shame to cloud it with this type of behaviour and I hope future interactions are more positive.
Whereas with Geoff...well...he’s the forum equivalent of the neighbourhood dog who barks at everyone who passes by. You get used to the noise...”
Maybe tis best to file that whole jibber jabber under Whatever. A whole lotta nuthin’. A nothing burger as it were. 🍔
uberwaltz, Sounds great! But please remember: I will not take your opinion on this movie as reliable unless you your assessment was made in the context of proper methodological controls, including a control group. Otherwise, have fun! :-)
Prof Seriously I believe MG failed in every aspect of managing this thread. Maybe he did not take into account that his target audience here are not the same as those who flock to his site. After all they chose to go there and were more captive and easily seduced. Once he found the hard sell here was not going to fly without some evidence and supporting facts he became lost. Just handled very badly imho
As you can see Geoff’s attempt to critique that portion of my post (mentioning "credentials") is the usual attempt to avoid the actual substance of the point made. He just ignores the point that an engineer wouldn’t typically evade answering pertinent engineering questions about his own claims. In fact, I can not remember - ever, in an online discussion or elsewhere - an engineer or someone with expert credentials in some audio field so deliberately evading pertinent questions. Usually they are only too happy to explain more and make their case.
Whether I’m an engineer or not - and I’m not - has nothing to do with my observation about MG avoiding questions, so of course I wasn’t making it some "let’s compare credentials" statement. MG may have the best credentials I’ve ever seen and that would be irrelevant to the fact he was evading questions. So Geoff is as usual snapping at air - there was zero of pertinence to the substance of my post.
Michael Green used very move in the book to avoid answering my posts. When he asked me to tell him about the different sound between two capacitors - it was an obvious attempt to distract from answering my questions about the evidence for his claims concerning capacitors and tie wraps. Anyone paying attention could easily infer what his motivation was: "I’m going to bring up two very specific capacitors, and it will show that prof hasn’t experience with those capacitors, therefore it will leave the impression that prof hasn’t the experience I, Michael Green, have, which will leave the impression prof has no leg on which to stand in being a skeptic on these issues. It will show prof is ’talking but not walking."
The post utterly wreaked of that obvious motivation.
But I didn’t give him an answer that would warrant that conclusion at all.
I haven’t played with those capacitors so I wouldn’t be making a claim either way - whether or how they sound different and in what applications. So I have no burden of proof. But if Michael claims they sound different, I would like to see on what evidence he is making the claim.
As there is NOTHING Michael could actually impugn about my stance in that reply, he could not - as with every other post of mine - honestly interact with it to find fault.
So instead he simply thanked me for answering. Did he ever explain the reason for the question? (I asked...but he wouldn’t say...spelling it out would spell out too vividly the fallacy and evasive tactic he was using).
But by just thanking me for my answer, he would leave in the air the impression - for anyone impressionable enough - that he’d just made a point.
As I said; a textbook intellectually dishonest interaction.
But it does seem that a number of people noticed, and didn’t fall for it.
Like I said: MG may have some truly helpful, interesting and efficacious techniques to share. It’s just a shame to cloud it with this type of behaviour and I hope future interactions are more positive.
Whereas with Geoff...well...he’s the forum equivalent of the neighbourhood dog who barks at everyone who passes by. You get used to the noise...
So geoff’s hand was finally forced to show his"pseudo skeptic" card that he kept threatening me and others with - throwing around that label as if it suited, or showed any problem with, my arguments.
Of course, if anyone reads the "definition" of pseudo skeptic he can see that my arguments actually fit right in with the definition of a "True" skeptic:
In science, the burden of proof falls upon the claimant; and the more extraordinary a claim, the heavier is the burden of proof demanded. The true skeptic takes an agnostic position, one that says the claim is not proved rather than disproved. He asserts that the claimant has not borne the burden of proof and that science must continue to build its cognitive map of reality without incorporating the extraordinary claim as a new "fact." Since the true skeptic does not assert a claim, he has no burden to prove anything. He just goes on using the established theories of "conventional science" as usual.
And that’s what I’ve done: refrained from making any absolute claims that a tweak doesn’t work, but instead have asked for the evidence.
My reply to glupson summarizing my position, on this very page, falls right in line with the above concept of "True skepticism." You can see the caution and tentative nature of what I myself would claim, and how I apply that same caution and "provisional" conclusions to other people’s claims - scaling my confidence with the nature of the claim and the quality of the evidence.
And everything I’ve written has been careful to stay within those bounds.Never have I said "X tweak CAN NOT make a difference." Instead, I have simply asked for the evidence. And where appropriate, explained why I have some grounds for skepticism.
People who think in a blinkered biased fashion often only see an argument for skepticism as "A dogmatic denial of the claim" when in fact, of course, it is not at all. It is simply giving a reason why you are asking for better evidence than has been provided (e.g. if you make a claim that either does not seem to make technical sense, or that goes against some of my and other people’s own experience, these are reasons to withhold belief and ask for better evidence than someone’s "say so."). To express skepticism isn’t to say "Your claim is false" but to point out "you have not provided sufficient evidence for me to accept that claim, for these reasons..."
But you can’t really argue this to someone absolutely set on one way of thinking, or whose claims are threatened by "True Skepticism."
And I wouldn’t expect geoff to "get it" if after all this time it hasn’t sunk in. But geoff’s never ending stream of gaffs can sometimes be handy to point out various fallacies and bad arguments, so we have him to thank for that ;-)
thecarpathian @ geoff- Oh, I read it just fine. But, just in case you feel my reading comprehension isn’t up to snuff, be so kind as to direct me to where in the above post did the prof offer up his credentials if MG did the same. You must have read it in there, because that’s the entire premise of your response to it.
>>>>No, actually that wasn’t my premise. My presume was that credentials don’t matter. My comment I’ll show you mine if you show me yours was a joke. Obviously I already realize prof doesn’t have the (engineering) credentials he insuinuating Michael doesn’t have. Follow?
thecarpathian But, then you explain that the point of your remark is that credentials are irrelevant. The ability and experience that make someone suitable for a particular job is irrelevant??! Wow. Care to explain, or mock, or insult, that one away?
>>>>>Credentials are irrelevant because someone with credentials doesn’t automatically win the argument. Also, someone with better credentials than someone else doesn’t automatically win the argument. Even a PhD in blah blah blah cannot claim he wins all the arguments even when the subject is his specialty, blah blah blah. Capish?
Experience does NOT equal credentials, at least how prof was using the term credentials. In terms of experience obviously Michael has a boatload. That’s why one often sees engineering job listings with the caveat, “x years of experience can be substituted for y degree” Experience -or the lack thereof - is kind of what actually what Michael was deriding when he used the word fake. Follow?
CD318. Just one very recent example of a "tweak" as you call it in my system.
Used Wireworld eclipse 6 xlr interconnects from my phono stage to my integrated and it sounded awful, just thin, grating and lifeless compared to the single ended RCA interconnect of Nordost Red Dawn I had been using, and Nordost have a rep for being thin sounding so go figure. It was that bad I was convinced the cables were faulty or the xlr inputs/outputs were. Nope it was just the timbre of that cable did not match my system. Swapped the Wireworld for a cheap pair of Audioquest and the sq was worlds apart even though the RCA Nordost still sound a little better to my ears. But according to some this should never have happened? Interconnects are inconsequential tweaks? I KNOW that is not the case!
@ geoff- Oh, I read it just fine. But, just in case you feel my reading comprehension isn’t up to snuff, be so kind as to direct me to where in the above post did the prof offer up his credentials if MG did the same. You must have read it in there, because that’s the entire premise of your response to it. But, then you explain that the point of your remark is that credentials are irrelevant. The ability and experience that make someone suitable for a particular job is irrelevant??! Wow. Care to explain, or mock, or insult, that one away?
A good question to ask before we get embroiled in the highly contentious business of home experimentation might be, 'What, if anything other than a monumental waste of money and time has the entire history of tweaking achieved?' Walk the walk indeed.
Apart from taking care in buying and careful setting up, is there anything more we the consumers need to concern ourselves with? Interconnects (?), loudspeaker cables (??), contact enhancers (??), mains conditioners, magic pens (???), fuses (?????), cable supports (??????) etc.
Serious, highly qualified and experienced engineers, never mind the proverbial man on the street would laugh at some of the lunacy perpetuated in the pursuit of good sound.
Surely it's the job of the designer to research and develop the product in preparation to delivering it to the market. It's a gross conceit to believe that we can do a better job than the designer and then get angry when people disagree with us!
Instead we might be best advised to first learn exactly what we are looking for and only then to seek it out by listening. Know thyself my friend.
No, actually he doubted Michael’s engineering credentials, as if credentials mean something. Can’t you read? Here is the original post, try again. You’re the one twisting his comments to be something innocent. But the point is that credentials are irrelevant. I’ll show you mine if you show me yours.
prof I don’t know Michael’s engineering credentials, but I personally haven’t seen an engineer refuse to answer some of the basic and obvious engineering questions I was asking (e.g. what measured parameters change between a tied cap and an untied cap?
@geoffkait , Prof states- "I don’t know Michael’s engineering credentials..." and you twist that into some kind of desperate ploy of someone whom is grasping at straws (or is it strawmen?) The dying last gasp of a pseudo skeptic. As to your rebuttal of his quote, he did nothing of the sort. He simply stated he did not know what MG's engineering credentials are. I don’t recall anywhere on this thread where prof demanded to see MG’s engineering credentials, nor did the prof offer up any engineering credentials of his own. Although I did not go back and reread all rebuttals, I am fully prepared to admit I am incorrect if presented with evidence to the contrary.
Michaelgreenaudio: Yes there are recordings where the highs and lows have been rolled off, thus some would say it’s a bad recording by being poorly produced, engineered etc. I don’t care how your system or room is tuned,you can’t get back something that was never there to begin with. Classical, some rock, a lot of Country and most Jazz recordings are very well produced. I think “bad recordings” are due to a variety of reasons. The record companies just want to get the product out there to make the money and with a lot of todays younger listeners, they think they’re listening to their iPods, etc, so why put out a very well produced recording, if most listeners of that genre don’t have the equipment to hear the difference. This goes back for decades-not just recently. Some artists demand or do the productions themselves, to insure the sound is quality. Kudos to them.
Nothing! I've yet to hear any headphone that sounds more vivid, more alive in the mids. If ever a product deserved it's classic status it's the Portal Pro's.
The discontinued Jays v-Jays were also brilliant in a similar way.
prof I don’t know Michael’s engineering credentials, but I personally haven’t seen an engineer refuse to answer some of the basic and obvious engineering questions I was asking (e.g. what measured parameters change between a tied cap and an untied cap?
>>>>>>Engineering credentials? Whoa! Oh, no! It’s come down to the old I’ll show you mine if you show me yours argument. Another favorite pseudo skeptic ploy. That usually pops up when the combatant has completely run out of ammo. Attack the arguer not the argument. Smooth!
glupson Does anyone know what "pseudo skeptic" means?
>>>>>Yes, someone does. 🙄
“Pseudo-skepticism (or pseudoscepticism) is a philosophical or scientific position which appears to be that of skepticism or scientific skepticism but which in reality fails to be so.
In 1987, Marcello Truzzi revived the term specifically for arguments which use scientific-sounding language to disparage or refute given beliefs, theories, or claims, but which in fact fail to follow the precepts of conventional scientific skepticism. He argued that scientific skepticism is agnostic to new ideas, making no claims about them but waiting for them to satisfy a burden of proof before granting them validity. Pseudoskepticism, by contrast, involves "negative hypotheses"—theoretical assertions that some belief, theory, or claim is factually wrong—without satisfying the burden of proof that such negative theoretical assertions would require.[5][6][7][8]
In 1987, while working as a professor of sociology at Eastern Michigan University, Truzzi gave the following description of pseudoskeptics in the journal Zetetic Scholar (which he founded): In science, the burden of proof falls upon the claimant; and the more extraordinary a claim, the heavier is the burden of proof demanded. The true skeptic takes an agnostic position, one that says the claim is not proved rather than disproved. He asserts that the claimant has not borne the burden of proof and that science must continue to build its cognitive map of reality without incorporating the extraordinary claim as a new "fact." Since the true skeptic does not assert a claim, he has no burden to prove anything. He just goes on using the established theories of "conventional science" as usual. But if a critic asserts that there is evidence for disproof, that he has a negative hypothesis—saying, for instance, that a seeming psi result was actually due to an artifact—he is making a claim and therefore also has to bear a burden of proof...
Both critics and proponents need to learn to think of adjudication in science as more like that found in the law courts, imperfect and with varying degrees of proof and evidence. Absolute truth, like absolute justice, is seldom obtainable. We can only do our best to approximate them. — Marcello Truzzi, "On Pseudo-Skepticism", Zetetic Scholar, 12/13, pp3-4, 1987[5]”
It’s nice to hear you are really happy with MG speakers. I’d love to hear a pair as they sound really interesting.
My take on this thread is that there was a real engineer on this forum and some of you did everything in your power to chase him away.
No, simply to get some straight answers to questions that shouldn’t have been that hard.
Michael was encouraging members here to do their homework before speaking about topics that effect other listeners decisions.
1. Some of us have done our own homework, and bring some of that experience to Michael’s claims.
2. Is it not part of doing homework, and simply thinking critically, to ask Michael about the basis for some of his claims? That’s what some of us, like myself, were doing. When the claim arose that untying capacitors "freed" the sound, I was simply asking for the explanations for this, and how it was tested. Isn’t that reasonable? If I tell you that planting pennies in your garden will make your flowers grow faster, do you run out and to this first thing - especially when the concept doesn’t even make sense to you?
Or would you first want to ask "what’s the basis for that claim? How do pennies cause flowers to grow faster and how did you test that idea?"
Before we spend time on an activity, doesn’t it make sense to first determine whether it seems worth one’s time?
Some of you appeared to get upset because Michael is a straight shooter and doesn’t waste time or allow his time to be wasted.
I presume you didn’t read a lot of the thread then?
The main problem is that Michael did NOT appear to be a straight shooter in this thread. He was very evasive - and for seemingly no good reason. That’s what numerous people have commented on.
I don’t know Michael’s engineering credentials, but I personally haven’t seen an engineer refuse to answer some of the basic and obvious engineering questions I was asking (e.g. what measured parameters change between a tied cap and an untied cap?)
I always thought that was a virtue, but not here.
Agree 100 percent. That’s why it was so odd to see MG brush off so many questions and calls for clarification.
I do hope that his future threads are more engaging even with those people who may have some questions about his claims and methods. Of course, if he wants to stay strictly preaching to the choir, he has his own forum.
Welcome. Your first post happens to be in a thread that has really been a bit weird. Most of them are not this way.
I cannot comment about MGA speakers, but believe that they may have values that some would appreciate. If I ever hear them, I will know.
It is hard to know how many people here have been aware of Michael Green's prior work and credentials, but it really should not matter as he, in his original post, said he was not asking any for credentials. So, credentials meant nothing. Only straight answers did. Unfortunately, more than one poster was dissatisfied with what they considered as Michael's lack of straightforwardness in this thread. I personally cannot say he did not try to answer/explain my questions, but some other posters were less lucky. In fact, despite my disagreement with his statements (maybe not the best word, but close to what I mean), we had reasonably cordial and productive interaction after a while.
I think that uberwaltz, in his post on 05-17-2018 10:14pm, nicely summarized the whole thread issues.
Reading this thread I have noticed a few other MGA clients and wanted to add my name to the list of proud MGA speaker owners. I am working on my full tunable system and each step is another revelation. There are a few characterizations about MG on this thread that border on insane and makes one wonder why these false statements would ever be made. kosst saying there is a beaming at 6KHz with the Rev speakers which is absolutely made up trash talking about something he has no idea about. My speakers happen to give the smoothest reproduction I have ever heard. Also the absurdity that Michael is not technical. I wonder who kosst thinks Mr. Green is. Kosst, are you aware of MG's work before he came to home audio or that continues to the present? It doesn't sound like you know much about Michael's work as an engineer.
My take on this thread is that there was a real engineer on this forum and some of you did everything in your power to chase him away. Michael was encouraging members here to do their homework before speaking about topics that effect other listeners decisions. Some of you appeared to get upset because Michael is a straight shooter and doesn't waste time or allow his time to be wasted. I always thought that was a virtue, but not here.
@GK I like the way you and Mr. Green interact here vs the Stereophile debates
cd318 The entire history of tweaking has achieved nothing but lead all and sundry who followed down blind alleys where they were effectively blinded by pseudo science and often mugged of not inconsiderable amounts of money.
>>>Whoa! What! OMG! Sounds like someone’s system wasn’t resolving enough.
If people believed in too much instead of too little they would generally be much better off. - PT Barnum
@prof Your experience at the dealers is one that is shared by more than a few of us.
You take time off work, and may travel a considerable distance (100k in my case, don't laugh but UK is not the US) to get to listen to pair of speakers that you know must be great. They were designed by a legend in the industry, they've been reviewed well in the press and the dealer is a very nice guy. You really want to like them and they should sound great but they don't because you can hear slight but definite coarseness where the tweeter crosses over to the bass. So disappointment follows.
As you said, if you were a newbie you might not hear it if you've abandoned a critical mindset. Then you've either got to do the return journey or put up with the issue. You could even try tweaking and waste more time and money. Whichever path you pursue more disappointment will surely follow you.
I imagine that for most people audio is but one way to pursue relaxation (sometimes stimulation). Stress free as far as possible. As much fun as possible. And for me as much tonal density as possible!
At some point we want to stop chasing magic and get off the roundabout to smell the flowers. Hi-Fi can be like a marriage, enjoy what you have but it doesn't mean you aren't allowed to look occasionally!
I suggest that you’ll have a much better chance to engage someone in actual dialogue if you sloooow down and read more carefully.
>>>>I’m a speed reader. I also have excellent comprehension.
If necessary, I suggest running your forefinger slowly beneath each line of text so that you don’t miss anything.
>>>>Oh, a wise guy!
When you understand someone’s point before replying, you are less likely to waste your and anyone else’s time creating the phalanxes of frothing strawmen that you rage against. And, who knows, we could maybe actually have a discussion!
>>>>>I acknowledge you’re the master of frothing Strawmen, professor. I thought we were having a discussion. What have we been having?
I suggest that you’ll have a much better chance to engage someone in actual dialogue if you sloooow down and read more carefully. If necessary, I suggest running your forefinger slowly beneath each line of text so that you don’t miss anything.
When you understand someone’s point before replying, you are less likely to waste your and anyone else’s time creating the phalanxes of frothing strawmen that you rage against. And, who knows, we could maybe actually have a discussion!
What? Whoa! Spikes don’t work? Where did you ever hear that? Spikes might just be the most reliable of all the major food groups. The reason they don’t exacerbate vibrations is straightforward, too, so nobody will be offended or get their knickers in a bunch. There’s much less surface area at the tip of the spike for vibrations to go up, and the spike acts as a mechanical diode, allowing vibrations to escape downwards. Case solved. The only variables left to consider are geometry and material.
So if certain members share their experiences that say certain tweaks do work for them in their system to their ears you would discount them as having been "mugged" by some get rich quick bandits?
The entire history of tweaking has achieved nothing but lead all and sundry who followed down blind alleys where they were effectively blinded by pseudo science and often mugged of not inconsiderable amounts of money.
Spiking has been perhaps the most idiotic of all tweaks. Instead of reducing resonance issues it often exacerbates them.
Real progress involves technological or more likely engineering advances. Unfortunately these are few and far between because market forces rule with an iron hand.
Exactly how far you can tweak a mediocre product and keep it cost effective is a question for the manufacturer to consider. Instead it's often seen as an opportunity for snakelike charlatans to climb on board of the get-rich-quick bandwagon at the expense of mislead enthusiasts.
Thankfully this forum still has members who are freely willing to share their often not inconsiderable knowledge and experience.
>>>>I not only talk the talk and walk the walk. I also walk the Walkman. Walkman is for those who walk the walk, not those who only talk the talk - actually not really talk so much, more like jibber jabber. 🤡
I may want to do a blind test for fun and to get more confidence in the result. But I may also not bother and think "Well, seems I heard enough difference, liked it, I’ll keep it in the system."
This is called level-headed mature approach. At least, I would like to think that it is as it is exactly the way I do things.
>>>>It goes without saying any dedicated pseudo skeptic should keep a Blind Test in his arsenal of tweakaphobic rhetoric. Nice move! And I wouldn’t be at all surprised if both of you actually did them. Lots of laughs! It’s always heart warming to see pseudo skeptics nurture each other. 👨❤️👨
Moops, I don’t need SR-80s where I’m going. I’m going back! Back to the Future! As the bumper sticker on the back of the extra wide load 18 wheeler going up the long mountain road said, I may be slow but I’m ahead of you. I reckon you’re at least two paradigm shifts behind the power curve. Fake! Fake! Fake!
”But for anyone who thinks like this, if they are spending, or about to spend lots of time and money on a tweak, I’d expect they would actually want to know if that tweak actually alters the sound of the system, in reality. If someone really would rather not spend money on a false claim, then seeing the case for being skeptical can be quite enlightening or useful.
If you for instance take a look at the length many of the Michael Green "Tuners" go to, it’s really quite something to behold. Components taken apart, strewn between speakers, everything carefully arrange on special wood blocks etc. Now, If that’s what someone gets a kick out of doing...I would never want to say "don’t do it." Hey, everyone likes to have a hobby.
BUT...for anyone who really cares about not wasting their time and money on something that is only in their imagination - and I tend to doubt that many would choose to have the rather unsightly splaying of components and wires in their room if they didn’t think it was improving their sound - for those people seeing a skeptical case presented that they may be doing just that, can actually be beneficial.”
>>>Surely you must realize your latest volley of dismissive anti tweak jibber jabber has no relationship to honest debate or even supports your initial whinings that the claims of sound improvement are unprovable or deceptive or whatever. Now it appears you have chosen some sort of weird attack on the nature of Tuning, e. g., wasting their time, components taken apart, carefully arrange everything on special wooden blocks, unsightly splaying of components and wires, etc. I understand you don’t wish to walk the walk. You are obviously a rank beginner with a grudge. Could do do us a favor and refrain from trying to talk the talk? You never want to say “don’t do it?” Huh? Are you crazy. That’s exactly what you’re saying. Hel-loo! Fake! Fake! Fake!
I agree with your views on most of these things, although I would still have a softer approach to whole problem, but what I meant by stating you are wasting time and energy is discussing it around here. I saw a few who tried to present some arguments, but it is, for one reason or another, mostly not a discussion. To me, at least, it looks like two circles which are close but never touch, bringing frustration to both. On the other hand, you are right that casual observers who have not firmly committed to either side can learn about different views and make their own opinion. For those, your time and energy expenditure is actually valuable. However, I doubt you will ever win the argument with those who you are, in fact, arguing with.
Gk if I may be so bold, you should consider upgrading to the Grado sr8Oe from your sr60e to go with the super tweaked Walkman. The extra $20 probably won't kill you. Don't be a cheapskate! I have a pair of sr80e. They are a great audio bargain for sure.
I will admit that I was deciding if to post that last thing or not and then I decided to do it just to see what you will come up with as a response. Yawn. I did not expect it would lead to any kind of discussion. I was hoping for something more innovative. Could you do us all a favor, when being predictable at least keep it interesting and do not forget some manners. Your last post was missing either.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
