Talk but not walk?
Hi Guys
This isn't meant to start a fight, but it is important to on lookers. As a qualifier, I have my own audio forum where we report on audio issues as we empirically test them. It helps us short cut on theories and developing methods of listening. We have a wide range of systems and they are all over the world adding their experiences to the mix. Some are engineers, some are artist and others are audiophiles both new and old. One question I am almost always asked while I am visiting other forums, from some of my members and also members of the forum I am visiting is, why do so many HEA hobbyist talk theory without any, or very limited, empirical testing or experience?
I have been around empirical testing labs since I was a kid, and one thing that is certain is, you can always tell if someone is talking without walking. Right now on this forum there are easily 20 threads going on where folks are talking theory and there is absolutely no doubt to any of us who have actually done the testing needed, that the guy talking has never done the actual empirical testing themselves. I've seen this happen with HEA reviewers and designers and a ton of hobbyist. My question is this, why?
You would think that this hobby would be about listening and experience, so why are there so many myths created and why, in this hobby in particular, do people claim they know something without ever experimenting or being part of a team of empirical science folks. It's not that hard to setup a real empirical testing ground, so why don't we see this happen?
I'm not asking for peoples credentials, and I'm not asking to be trolled, I'm simply asking why talk and not walk? In many ways HEA is on pause while the rest of audio innovation is moving forward. I'm also not asking you guys to defend HEA, we've all heard it been there done it. What I'm asking is a very simple question in a hobby that is suppose to be based on "doing", why fake it?
thanks, be polite
Michael Green
www.michaelgreenaudio.net
glupson geoffkait, You especially can’t please the folks who don’t actually use tweaks and who don’t really care. It may be, at least partially, due to the fact that those who do not use tweaks and do not care are already content which translates into pleased. No need to try hard to please them, they are just fine. I see. You mean like contented cows? 🐄 you must be here strictly for the abuse. 😬 |
glupson, One last bit. You talked about the idea that confronting dubious high end audio claims, in public, is essentially a losing proposition. I disagree. I think it's always valuable to present, and defend if necessary, an alternative view. Insofar as skepticism about a claim has good grounds, then this can be important and useful input for other people. Yes, many people may have taken a stance on something, having dug in their heels or having sunk costs in terms of a business. But there are always a lot of people watching as well who can be informed. My own views were heavily influenced early on by debates (and not only in high end audio). So I paid attention to the quality of arguments when "objectivists" used to square off with "subjectivists" over various high end audio claims. And I'm very happy I did. I feel I've saved quite a bit of money, and time, and neuroticism, by concluding (even if tentatively until better evidence comes along) that many high end tweaks aren't worth my money and time. And my own experience using blind testing has helped me here and there. So for instance, just recently I demoed a pair of speakers. The proprietor of the store, a nice, amiable gentleman, was a truly "classic audiophile" in terms of his thinking on many issues. I needed to bring CDs, not a drive or thumb drive of burned music, because, well "we just aren't there yet with ripping music to drives and streaming. It's just not doing any nice pair of speakers justice to play such sources." And he had a super expensive CD transport and DAC, expensive interconnects, speaker cables, he "de-magnatized" all my CDs so they would sound better, used special damper on the CDs...you name it, he checked the "everything makes a difference" box (including talk of ethernet cables). Now, none of this made any impression on me because...I've been there, done that, I understand the quality of evidence he is basing his beliefs upon. And, wouldn't you know it, despite ALL of that talk, all of the steps he went through - INCREDIBLY expensive steps - to ensure the best sound possible...what I heard didn't really hold a candle to what I hear back home on my system. I have basic interconnects, basic beldon speaker cable, my CDs ripped to a cheap little usb drive streamed via a cheap raspberry pi sever. And when I played back the same tracks at home, I heard every damned bit of "reverb trails" and "tonal purity" in my system (in fact, better, because it's a better speaker and better room acoustics). IF I were some susceptible newbie, a salesman like that could - completely honestly from his own point of view - persuade me to spend ungodly sums of money on the steps and tweaks he believes necessary to get good digital sound. I am very happy to be informed enough to realize I don't need to follow in his footsteps. A lot of audiophiles have often commented "I don't WANT X to make a difference, but my ears tell me it does, which is why I spend the money and effort on it." (For instance, AC cables or other tweaks). I've heard that so many times, as if wanting it not to make a difference means, if they "heard" a difference it must be real. And that's a naive understanding of how our perception works. 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. But, one's subjective experience is something most people find really hard to question. And when you combine the strength of the subjective "this makes a great difference!" with the various levels of satisfaction people get from tweaking their system, there's often not a lot of motivation to challenge their own beliefs. |
prof, 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. |
geoffkait, You especially can’t please the folks who don’t actually use tweaks and who don’t really care.It may be, at least partially, due to the fact that those who do not use tweaks and do not care are already content which translates into pleased. No need to try hard to please them, they are just fine. |
prof, Thanks for explanation. I have no advance thoughts where to place it, but simply to try to see if anything changes. Frankly, I will not go into thinking why it changes (all those theoretical things that got chewed up on this thread), but just trial and error until I get something more interesting to do. Inefficient to the maximum. I hope that will also give me credibility as a Walker. I try a tune/tweak and I am in. If it does nothing to the sound, damage is relatively low. I did try another tweak today, though. I lifted speaker cables. Sound did not seem to change so I put them back down soon, after I finished vacuuming the floor. In case you try it, too, please report your findings to this fierce community. |
glupson, Reply Pt 2: I have to admit I looked up your other posts and got an idea or two. It seems that you genuinely have something against those presenting things without full usual scientific research methods. I applaud you for your relentlessness and think you are wasting time and energy on a losing battle. I can understand how you could get that impression given much of what I’ve written in this thread, and perhaps in the "fuses" thread. Yes I would argue that science is the Gold Standard of empirical inquiry, the most "epistemologically responsible" method we have, for getting reliable knowledge about experience. It takes the widest view, all our foibles, as seriously as possible in it’s method. However, there to be noticed is the fact I added caveats numerous times (especially in the fuses thread). Nobody can "do science" on everything they experience, or on everything we buy. That’s just not practical...and often even desirable. At the same time, it makes no sense to take results from a LESS reliable method of inquiry (e.g. purely subjective impressions) to overturn knowledge derived by our most reliable method. This is why, for instance, it’s not reasonable to replace scientifically-evidenced medical treatments with, say, New Age magical treatment, no matter how grandiose the claims are for their effectiveness. Because new age nostrums tend to be claims based on a really unreliable inference structure and method. For the same reason when some high end audio tweak is suggested based on a dubious explanation, and it’s effectiveness vetted by the standard subjective method (which can "substantiate" virtually anything people can imagine), then it’s consistent to be skeptical and wait for better evidence. So what I try to do is scale my confidence - in what I believe and what I would claim to others - with the quality of the evidence I have available. So if someone is talking about a standard acoustic treatment - a diffuser, bass trap - or talking about the effects of re-positioning a speaker etc - I have no prima facie reason to be skeptical. That these can have audible effects is a well documented and understood phenomenon. But if someone starts claiming that a tie wrap on a cap alters the sound in some obvious way, I’m going to want to see an explanation that actually makes sense, that for instance people who design caps would endorse, as a starter. And even better if the audible effects were shown under controlled conditions (e.g. controlling for listener bias, etc). As for my own claims, again, I do my best to scale them with known phenomena and with the quality of the evidence for those phenomena. I’ll happily talk about the different sounds between speakers...because there is no controversy that speakers sound different. I’ll talk about, say, what I like about my older Conrad Johnson or Eico tube amps. Because it does not seem controversial, even among "objectivist" nit-picking EEs, that tube amps can in many conditions alter the sound. (Although they can also, I understand, be deliberately engineered to sound identical to an SS amp). Have I blind tested between my CJ amps and the SS amps I’ve owned? No. And so I would make any claim about them somewhat modest. I would not simply rule out that it is some level of listener bias I have towards thinking my CJ amps sound the way they do. But, again, there are some technical reasons that suggest it’s plausible I hear what I do. (And the Eico HF-81, for instance as measured by stereophile, suggests it would be much like a type of tone control in it’s interaction with certain speakers - and I’ve found I really enjoy this effect as I’ve used it with speakers of various types). I’ve had tweaks before in my system that I didn’t blind test but *seemed* to make a difference. I kept them in for a while, but would have made no claims on their behalf. Just last night I was about to put up an old "tweak box" for sale and I put it in my system to check that it was working (the SCE Harmonic Recovery Device). It sure as hell sounded like I heard the sound change, and could describe it. So what would my attitude be to this? 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." But what I WOULDN’T do based on my experience is make any strong CLAIM as to this unit’s effects - translating my subjective impression in to some objective claim it was actually altering the signal audibly (it actually does add a bit of gain, technically, but I’m talking if level matched). I wouldn’t claim that MY EARS are so golden and my perception so incorrigible, that this is all I need to declare the claims of the SCE box to be true, and that even if blind tests showed otherwise...MY EARS ARE STILL RIGHT! And worse, I personally feel I could never, in good conscience, SELL lots of the items in high end without being able to produce objectively verifiable results of the effects, and hopefully vet via listening tests that have good controls. For instance, given the amazing claims for how super expensive AC cables alter the sound of a system, I’d really want to be able to back up that claim. It wouldn’t be enough to even just show that, say, the cable cleaned up a bit of the AC signal going through it. If the claim is that this goes on to ALTER the sound that comes out of a system, then I’d want to verify this - for instance by measuring any changes to a signal coming out of a DAC, CD player or whatever, with the stock cable vs my super-duper cable. And I’d also, perhaps, want to measure the output at the speaker (if I’m claiming my cable does the things many companies and audiophiles claim for high end AC cables - better frequency response, dynamics, tighter/deeper bass, etc - much of that should be measurable). If you read my long thread documenting my efforts to re-build my flimsy equipment rack and create a shelf for my new turntable that would control vibrations, you will see how I tried to get *some* level of objective confirmation for the effects of various materials, and scaled my claims to the evidence I had. As I said, though I went to great lengths to build my "resonance-controlled" stand, I wouldn't make any claims for it's ultimate effect on the sound without having a better method of vetting those claims. This is btw, one reason why, when I was reviewing for a while, I would not review high end audio cables (though I’ve been sent a number to listen to, and have had access to many through the years, to check out). I could not in good conscience recommend a cable based solely on my subjective impressions. I may be just fooling myself (and it turned out I WAS fooling myself when I blind tested some) and I wouldn’t want to be responsible for someone possibly wasting their money on a product that doesn’t do what it claims to do, based on what I would write. And I didn’t want to bother blind testing every cable - I wouldn’t be sent any if that was going to be my gig. (I wonder why....and why Stereophile doesn’t even bother measuring AC cables etc....) So that’s an outline of my general thinking and approach. I often feel like an intruder in high end audio. I have always loved the many creative products. But my rational side often struggles with the excesses and magical thinking part of the hobby. |
glupson. I'm back and my answer will be separated in to two posts. About the diffusor. As I probably linked to in the post you saw, I bought this one: https://www.acousticgeometry.com/products/curve-diffusor-crosstown-birch/ I ordered it in a coffee bean fabric color that actually looks quite nice. It does not noticeably attract dust and if it does, it doesn't "show" dust at all. It looks like a sturdy fabric that will last a long time, and look new for a long time. Besides, vertical surfaces tend not to accumulate dust anything like horizontal surfaces anyway. So, dust is the very last concern I have with this thing. I haven't had occasion to clean it and can't imagine it's going to be necessary in any acute way in the future. But if anything gets on it, a little dust ball or whatever, it easily brushes off with the hand. I did not want to introduce any new permanently affixed room treatment if I could help it. The size of this diffusor makes it perfect for my purposes. I don't mount it on anything, I simply lean it against the area of sidewall near the speaker that I wish. It's very easy to lift in and out of the room - I store it in my office/source component room and it hides out of the way nicely. I wasn't totally happy with the diffusor in the classic "first reflection" position - though that is probably due to the fact it had to be closer than ideal to the speaker. But I ended up finding a happy spot just beside to the rear of my speaker that seems to add a bit of snap and focus especially to central images. I'd give these things a thumbs up as something easy to play with in terms of acoustic treatments. |
I've owned a pair of MGA tunable speakers, Rev6 Signatures, for about 6 months now. They are bookshelf size and I have them on stands. I've had a MGA Subwoofer in my system for over 10 years. Both are the free resonant design that facilitates their tunability. I have the Rev6s tuned to their most open sound, though if I had them in a smaller room I might possibly change that to a slightly more focused tuning. After a couple months of breaking in, I was and still am amazed at how natural and complete instruments are on these speakers. Pianos sound just like pianos with all their harmonic content and reverberation. But not at all sterile or analytical, just complete. Same with human voices, both male and female. Same for guitars and drums and brass. No artificial warmth that I can detect but every note has the most natural attack and decay. |
On that Geoff you are absolutely correct! How does it go.... You can please some of the people all of the time, you can please all of the people some of the time but you CANNOT please all of the people all of the time. Or some tosh similar to that. Dunno, what is the next mysterious evil tweak that needs dissection? |
Oh, well, I guess the take away from all of this is you can’t please everybody. OK, what’s next? We got the Black Fuse, the Blue Fuse, the Graphene super conductor, and the Tuning. What’s next? Please don’t start a thread on some mysterious hum you can’t get rid of or what’s up with high prices for cables. |
I do not believe I said that was ALL there was to MG tuning methods? That particular snippet of my post just happened to reference that as an example and why some just cannot/will not entertain that portion even for starters. The thread did have the makings of being interesting for the right reasons, however I stand by statement that he went about it the wrong way and that ended up driving its downfall, sad to say. |
uberwaltz Of course we don’t know what we don’t know and we never know what we are missing until we hear it. I do not think many here dispute the fact that room acoustics play a huge part in our journey. I do know that a fair number are also in the situation where due to location of the music system that alterations to said room just is not going to happen unless they like sleeping outside afterwards! >>>>>I feel it’s only fair to point out that Michael Green’s methodology of Tuning, and I say this after discussing it with him at some length, you know, like every day for two years, which might actually be some kind of record, involves more than room acoustics. Much more. For example, some of his ideas I use myself, either by coincidence or because I thought it was a very good idea, include isolating the transformer from the chassis, MG goes so far as to remove the transformer and place it somewhere else, removing the cover of my former Oppo 103, suggested also by Ric Schultz of EVS, and using the low mass concept for the system. My particular system, not counting isolation stand that comes in at around 60 pounds, a hot rod Walkman CD Player, weighs all of 10 ounces, not counting headphones and cable that add another pound, mostly due to carbon fiber sleeves on headphone cable. In fact I don’t even address room acoustics, a big advantage of going to headphones. Plus There’s a huge sonic benefit to going off the grid as one might imagine. Noah Cross to Gittes: “You may think you know what you’re dealing with, but, believe me, you don’t.” Made the scene day to day week to week hour to hour the river is deep and wide break on through to the other side break on through to the other side |
prof, Thanks in advance and no hurry. If and whenever you feel like rewriting, I will appreciate. I asked just because I saw it in one of your posts. I have lived without anything even similar to as much as a curtain for a few decades so I may make it without something new for a few more, I hope. As you may notice, I am not that big on tuning, tweaking, or even walking the walk. But I can talk with the best of them. If forced, I can even do poetry for stereo equipment chatroom, but do not like to be the second best so I will skip that. I was serious about the looks of your equipment. It does look serious. In one of your threads you asked about importance of equipment looks. As much as sound. I have had 4 (four) amplifiers in my life and I belong to the group that knows what Hi-Fi means. My first one, during the teenage years was Rotel RA-414. My current one is....it is impossible not to guess. I bought it because of looks. |
Of course we don’t know what we don’t know and we never know what we are missing until we hear it. I do not think many here dispute the fact that room acoustics play a huge part in our journey. I do know that a fair number are also in the situation where due to location of the music system that alterations to said room just is not going to happen unless they like sleeping outside afterwards! However I think the biggest problem was with how MG came across to various members, his attitude was very condescending to say the least, downright arrogant at times if truth be told. There were some very good questions that were the most part ( unless they fit into his viewpoint) ignored or derided. Not a particularly great way to "win" your audience over. It may be on his own forum he is a little more open and free but I do not think many members who read this thread will bother to find out. |
Often we don't know what we don't know. Yes it's a cliche but that's because there's much truth in that statement. In my 30+ years as a self-defined audiophile and committed recorded music listener, my listening awareness has grown by listening to and hearing things that I didn't know existed or were possible. I've had many systems and listened critically to many different components and tweaks, controlling for other changes in those listening sessions. As I gained more listening experience, my preferences often changed as well. I enjoy knowing the theory behind a design, but I rely on my ears to tell me if it works for me. About 30 years ago I purchased a set of Michael Green Audio RoomTunes corner tunes. They are the only piece of audio gear that I have held on to until the present and still use. From that purchase I experienced first hand the importance of room acoustics to the sound of my system, and learned that I had the ability to tune the sound of my room if I desired (which I did). I have engaged in the MGA forum and learned and tried recommended cost-free tweaks that had substantial valuable effects in my systems. I've used other RoomTune products as well with great success. Michael's overall approach is to have each part of the audio reproduction process from the source to the room be tunable if possible, just like the musical instruments that produce music. This certainly makes sense to me logically and intuitively, and has been shown effective many times over in my systems throughout my experience as an audiophile. Also, folks on that forum actually discuss and show what they did and how it works for them in their individual systems and if you want to you can get input on your system there too from Michael and other members. |
| Post removed |
prof Viva La Revolution geoff! You go girl! >>>>>Start the revolution without me. How is work going on your new scientific paradigm? >>>>I’m already at least two paradigms ahead of you so what’s the difference? A sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from voodoo. I’m rooting for you, but in the race to overthrow staid and dogmatic science, there are so many others bidding to tell us science is wrong for not validating their theories. >>>>>I realize you haven’t been paying very close attention but I actually use real science to validate my theories. Can I help it if English majors shrug their shoulders? I am the King of Science and the King of Pseudo Science. The only real question is, why can’t there be more like me? >>>>Looks like the Flat-Earthers are are getting their message out a lot more effectively, and they seem pretty good at making videos, so maybe time to up your game? >>>>I don’t need no stinking videos. All the tired horses in the sun, how’m I gonna get any riding done? 🐎 |
prof, I have to admit I looked up your other posts and got an idea or two. It seems that you genuinely have something against those presenting things without full usual scientific research methods. I applaud you for your relentlessness and think you are wasting time and energy on a losing battle. Otherwise, your new turntable looks quite impressive as do your speakers (Thiel 3.something). I have never heard any of those, but just based on the looks it is good enough. I would suggest you demagnetize the turntable belt, though. It is imperative. You have never heard your turntable until you heard it that way. You will get much smoother flow. Of whiskey while listening to it, that is, a reliable friend of mine uses that trick and it works. Use Johnny Walker for that experiment so nobody can tell you that you are not the one. I also heard that 17 seconds of speaker grilles placed perpendicularly to the microwave, running at max, yields much warmer mids. I saw something (diffusor) that you said you recently bought. Do not laugh at my question, please, but how is it with dust? Is it easy to clean? Washable? How do you make the thing stand? Do you need to bolt it to the wall or it is stable enough just leaning to the wall? I am a very hi-fi and none of high-end and have no interest in major adjustments, but that thing looked simple enough and affordable enough to get to try, play, and dispose of if useless in my case. |
cd318 Attention seeking, narcissistic, compulsive, repetitive, random, useless argumentative verbiage can admittedly be mildly entertaining on occasion. Eventually though the lack of meaningful interaction or discourse just smacks of desperation and control freak issues. You get the feeling of enormous anger issues and barely concealed hostility behind an incoherent attempt to shine and dazzle. Luckily we don’t know anyone like that here. >>>>>Uh, I give up. Are you looking in the mirror? Note to self - Apparently all I have to do is utter the magic words “English major” and one shows up. With a psychology minor. |
mapman Yes, the 1960’s back in the glory days of tubes and vinyl, when hifi ruled. Nobody cares about any of that anymore..... Hey wait!!!!! >>>>Return with us now to those thrilling days of yesteryear. The Lone Ranger rides again. Or The Lone Moopman. "From out of the west with the speed of light and a hearty, ‘Hi-yo, Silver!'" ... The Lone Moopman rides again! The speed of light?! You are fast! |
Attention seeking, narcissistic, compulsive, repetitive, random, useless argumentative verbiage can admittedly be mildly entertaining on occasion. Eventually though the lack of meaningful interaction or discourse just smacks of desperation and control freak issues. You get the feeling of enormous anger issues and barely concealed hostility behind an incoherent attempt to shine and dazzle. Luckily we don't know anyone like that here. |
Viva La Revolution geoff! You go girl! How is work going on your new scientific paradigm? I'm rooting for you, but in the race to overthrow staid and dogmatic science, there are so many others bidding to tell us science is wrong for not validating their theories. Looks like the Flat-Earthers are are getting their message out a lot more effectively, and they seem pretty good at making videos, so maybe time to up your game? |
prof I’m absolutely shocked that Tuner bill333 would enthusiastically endorse geoffkait s anti-science rant! >>>>Obviously, it wasn’t anti-science. It was Anti what science has become in minds of pseudo skeptics. It has become pseudo science for pseudo skeptics and English majors. Pseu, pseu, pseudo! MG was correct about the fakes. Even their arguments are fake. You are right to avoid interacting with me as I see through you like you were made of glass. “You can’t prove it!” - Juror #3 12 Angry Men |
I like hi-fi both as a throwback term, and also as a pejorative description of sound (it's been used to denote an artificially exciting but ultimately unnatural presentation for a long time). I'm thick enough that I didn't even know what HEA meant when I kept seeing that term used recently. Not yet ready to switch :) |
