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?
Yes he does seem compelled to bring up something worthwhile on occasion. Then he proceeds to quickly ruin it. Just like Godzilla ruins everything! He needs to work on that! It lowers his batting average
for spouting the nonsense he values most.
I tend not to interact with GK too much, given the spam-level goofiness that results seems like a waste of time to debate.
For a little while I thought I had him figured out, because the first bunch of posts I read seemed fairly well grounded and actually defending some rational points of view. Given his notorious web site I thought "Oh, so that’s it. This guy is perhaps actually rational and is just having a go at audiophiles with his "products." Cynical, certainly, but a put-on."
But the irrational, poor arguments I’ve seen from him since, and the amount of time he spends putting down "skeptics" had me alter my inference. Looks like I was wrong.
He’s cynical and a joker, of course, so I can still see his products as springing from that mind-set, and often he seems to reference them almost with a wink, without seriousness.
But he’s also given so many bad arguments against skepticism and science that I could also see him as a costumer for his own products!
He’s fun sometimes...loves to take people down a notch....though not nearly as sharp at debate and on top of things as he thinks, so it can get a little embarrassing.
On the other hand, it seems he has experience with lots of equipment and I think he has a technical knowledge in areas I don’t have, so there are still things it would be possible to learn from him. The problem is he dilutes it with so much other mumbo jumbo and irrational ravings, he becomes much less of a trusted valuable resource than he could be.
So to the extent I interact with GK, I would prefer to pick and choose - interacting more with the "on his meds" version vs the "off his meds" version.
That’s about as much time as I would want to spend discussing Mr. Kait :-)
I tend to think of him more as the Godzilla of Audiogon. But even Godzilla has his endearing moments. Whoops I’m sure his head is even bigger now being likened to a mighty Kaiju.
"Carefully" in my experience over the last few days did not translate into "correctly". What can we do? It is like a fun brother you did not ask for, but is around to steal your lollipop every now and then.
Well he’s no dummy so I would hope he chooses his words more carefully. But I have never met him. Maybe somebody else has and can answer that one. Maybe this is just his alter-ego? He likes that we are talking about him though. That I can assure you.
I had a few posts here and there before this thread, but it had been a relatively tamed experience. I mean, people would argue, but stayed within some logical and behavioral confines. I could follow their thoughts regardless of my different view. Is the new turntable better deal than upgraded old one and such. This thread was a bit different. Now, when the bulk is over, I can loosen up my words. I am curious how your fan GK interacts when not at the safe distance of the Internet chat forum. Is his tone the same, or he adjusts to the actual possibility of stepping on someone's toes a bit too hard while being at the arms length? I have nothing against him, I am thankful for this entertainment he provides for free, but am wondering if the personality he exhibits in the forum goes that well in real encounters.
“As the millennium turns, science seems in many ways to be treading the weary path of the religions it presumed to replace. Where free, dispassionate inquiry once reigned, emotions now run high in the defense of a fundamentalized "scientific truth." As anomalies mount up beneath a sea of denial, defenders of the Faith and the Kingdom cling with increasing self-righteousness to the hull of a sinking paradigm. Faced with provocative evidence of things undreamt of in their philosophy, many otherwise mature scientists revert to a kind of skeptical infantilism characterized by blind faith in the absoluteness of the familiar. Small wonder, then, that so many promising fields of inquiry remain shrouded in superstition, ignorance, denial, disinformation, taboo . . . and debunkery.
Why do you bother? The guy may actually be photonically-superior to the rest of us. He does come across as being out of this world and a few more things. What the heck, he has been worth having here if only for this last poem. Could you pull that off? I thought so. Neither could prof, Michael Green, cd318, uberwaltz, or I. So give guy the credit. Except that he would be better appreciated in some other entertainment venue. This is a very narrow-minded crowd.
Nothing sadder or funnier than a gaggle of self congratulatory pseudo skeptics lingering around patting each other on the hiney.
How about a do-nothing but talk, self congratulatory, egotistical, demeaning, charlatan tweak promoter, with a never-ending supply of nonsense, who used to work for NASA, but now lazily buys other peoples junk, rather than make something himself, and sells those and other common everyday things people take for granted, like phone calls, as bad jokes described as tweaks to gullible "audiophiles" with extra money to burn and is proud of it?
Nothing sadder or funnier than a gaggle of self congratulatory pseudo skeptics lingering around patting each other on the hiney. What you you going to do now? No more whack a mole. Bring out the crying towels. There’s no joy in Mudville today. 😢 MG sure was right about fakes after all. 😀
Glupson is right. Not worth getting too worked up over nonsense. Nonsense has no limit whereas common sense and reason does. FWIW I give you most coherent poster award for this thread. You and Glupson both did a great job. I admire your patience!
For me the highlight was Planck, Einstein, and Kim Jong Un. You could not make that up, even if intentions were honest. This geoffkait's last poem is a cherry on top. Not much can be added after that. I am glad I witnessed this thread, they don't make them like that anymore.
Wish I had been able to contribute something of substance to this thread but that was its largest problem, there really was NO substance. A lot of promise remaining unfulfilled. Some good questions mostly ignored, derided or chastised. A lot of self congratulatory back slapping. And well that is about it. Did I miss anything?
Oh, brother! Just when you thought it couldn’t get any sillier.
Let me put it another way. If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, looks like a duck...it’s a duck! 🦆
“Ask not for whom the troll bellows. He bellows for you.” - audiophile saying
“Idle hands are the Devil’s workshop.” - audiophile axiom
“Sound quality ultimately has very little to do with technical specifications.” - audiophile axiom
Gonna raise me an army, some tough sons of bitches I’ll recruit my army from the orphanages I been to St. Herman’s church, said my religious vows I’ve sucked the milk out of a thousand cows
You nailed it again. Not everyone is able to put thoughts into well-written sentences with clear argument around here, but you remain the standard. Despite occasional disagreements with your approach to it, it has been pleasure to read it. Even at the lowest point, when you and Michael Green started exchanging what I would call insults, it remained somewhat humorous and Michael gets half a credit for it. I hope to come across your posts and points of view in the future and I certainly hope that Michael Green remains on the block, too. Like him, or not, he does bring a different whiff and forces you to think. Regardless of final outcome and agreement or disagreement you may have. He certainly provided fodder for my thoughts over the last couple of days.
Keep on a good job, both of you. Michael to make his customers happy, and prof to keep reins on it all.
My intent in entering this thread was not to disparage your products, nor is that my aim now.
I didn't know much about them, except some notion about your tuned speakers and room tuning products.
As I've indicated more than once: I'm entirely open to the idea that you have been able to produce some impressive sound using some of your methods. I'd love to hear a Michael Green tuned speaker in a tuned room. I wouldn't be surprised to find it impressive, and even to be blown away. I also would be intrigued to hear the system "tune" for different recordings. On some level, that certainly sounds cool and I don't necessarily doubt I'd be impressed.
Do I have doubts about some of your other tuning claims? Obviously.
But someone having honest doubts, thinking critically, and voicing reasons for skepticism is no reason to treat them as being "negative" people or "trolls." We are all trying to figure out this high end audio thing, and I think we need to be open to ways of discussing our different opinions without automatically dismissing the other side as negative, fakers or trolls. Wouldn't you agree?
My first reply was a completely sincere attempt to get you to re-consider the wisdom of how you started this thread, which came off as being about calling people out as "fakes." Being careful not to impugn your motives, I pointed out why that could backfire if you mean to set up civil and friendly discourse. And I voiced honest questions about what exactly you meant, your meaning of "empirical" etc.
Despite that the validity of my points to you were acknowledged by several other people in the thread, your first reply dismissed my concerns, didn't address anything I wrote, and instead suggested that I exemplified the "fakers" you were calling out in your OP.
It shouldn't be hard to see why that wouldn't be a good way forward either.
I tried to re-group and point out I was asking honest, pertinent questions....but was only greeted with dismissals.
Things only spiraled downward from there.
So, again, as I said, like others I welcome the input of anyone, industry professionals especially. The more the merrier. But I would hope that when you participate again here, that you at least consider the possibility that some of my points had validity, and that calling people fakes and/or presuming someone with skeptical questions to be only interested in negativity or trolling, is a mind-set that should be re-considered.
freediver Somewhere in the archives of my history here at A’gon I said basically the reason there is ZERO scientific testing regarding audio reproduction products is a conspiracy between HEA manufacturers & the established media to perpetuate the myth of performance = $$$! That is why empirical testing of audio products in the mainstream died with Julian Hirsch...
>>>>Two things. If there’s a conspiracy how come John Atkinson routinely measures the performance of audio products on Stereophile? Even Stereo Times, as I just got through saying, measured the performance of the Franck Tchang tiny little bowls. Didn’t you see the Pop Quiz? And, as we’ve been discussing, the word empirical includes measurements AND subjective listening evaluations, the latter being the ubiquitous empirical method employed by reviewers and forum members. If the hobby was photography wouldn’t empirical evidence include how the photograph looks?
I am not sure what your sentence means when it comes to me. The part in which you ask about yourself, I do not have much knowledge about you to speculate what you are altogether. However, from what you show in your posts, in this forum you are a nuisance.
cd318 There should be no good reason to remove an amplifier case cover. The cover protects you from a possibly fatal shock and the components from possibly fatal damage (and dust).
>>>>If removing the metal cover off disturbs you a wood board or plexiglass cover will suffice. You can even remove the wood or plexiglass cover for critical listening. 😀 obviously taking the cover off is not suggested for those with small pets. If you have a dust problem in the room can I suggest an air purifier?
cd318 Case resonance issues in amplifier design are best left to the designers, but if you are concerned you can always experiment with means of physical isolation via platforms, air bladders, etc
>>>>As I’ve pointed out many things like power cords, fuses, transformers bolted to the chassis, are most likely not best left to the designers. Besides everyone knows dedicated audiophiles don’t follow rules.
cd318 Some manufacturers such as Naim Audio have been physically isolating/decoupling their circuit boards for decades.
>>>>>Now that is a great idea! I’ve been advocating the same thing for years. Anyone can do it. It’s not rocket science. 🚀
kosst_amojan I've used gear covers on and off. It's made no difference at all except for my F5. I'm running 1.42 amp of bias on 32 volt rails. Putting the lid on it puts another 5C+ into the heatsinks and 10C into the JFETs. That changes the sound. So in the interest of keeping things cool, I go cover off.
“Where you may not be doing too well in all of this is putting too many emotions into something eventually completely unimportant. Some guy somewhere claiming things you see as bogus and selling it to other people who also have nothing better to do than to pay to play with bricks (wooden, or whatever) and that irritates you. So what? Let them play with their toys in whatever way they want, but do not pay with your new duodenal ulcer. It is not worth the trouble and you simply cannot win.”
>>>>Whoa! Hey, I did not see that coming! Those comments are very typical of professional naysayers and pseudo skeptics, a perfect example really of someone who presents himself as an intellectually honest, curious skeptic, innocently seeking answers to “real questions” when in fact he’s aiming to attack the other side as uncooperative and misinformed, even stupid, without even getting to the bottom of what it’s all about. Just wait for the name calling. It’s so obvious. A self fulfilling prophecy. It’s not a debate, it’s a foregone conclusion. A page straight out of Zen and the Art of Debunkery. Let the Inquisition continue! Like prof, glupson is one of these pseudo skeptics who keeps insisting, “they’re the ones calling names, not me, I’m just an innocent seeker of truth, seeking out hoaxes and frauds wherever I find them.” Give us a break, glupson.
Zen and the Art of Debunkery “As the millennium turns, science seems in many ways to be treading the weary path of the religions it presumed to replace. Where free, dispassionate inquiry once reigned, emotions now run high in the defense of a fundamentalized "scientific truth." As anomalies mount up beneath a sea of denial, defenders of the Faith and the Kingdom cling with increasing self-righteousness to the hull of a sinking paradigm. Faced with provocative evidence of things undreamt of in their philosophy, many otherwise mature scientists revert to a kind of skeptical infantilism characterized by blind faith in the absoluteness of the familiar. Small wonder, then, that so many promising fields of inquiry remain shrouded in superstition, ignorance, denial, disinformation, taboo . . . and debunkery.
• Put on the right face. Cultivate a condescending air certifying that your personal opinions are backed by the full faith and credit of God. Adopting a disdainful, upper-class manner is optional but highly recommended.
• Employ vague, subjective, dismissive terms such as "ridiculous," "trivial," "crackpot," or "bunk," in a manner that purports to carry the full force of scientific authority.
• Keep your arguments as abstract and theoretical as possible. This will send the message that accepted theory overrides any actual evidence that might challenge it -- and that therefore no such evidence is worth examining.”
Michael's products have helped me tame a wayward listening room with hard concrete walls and ceiling where other methodologies have failed.
Before this, I have gone through all the usual products and approaches such as acoustic foam, felt, traps, absorptive panels as well as drapes. None were satisfactory. All took away more from the music than any benefit from dealing with the various honks and echoes of this room.
The whole Tune process -- more in acoustic treatment and to a limited extent on the equipment -- has created a sound in my living space that is very enjoyable with both digital and vinyl.
So while some audiophiles may find the whole Tune thing controversial or counter-intuitive, in my case it solved room problems and saved me from either finding another pastime or avoiding the room completely by using headphones.
There should be no good reason to remove an amplifier case cover. The cover protects you from a possibly fatal shock and the components from possibly fatal damage (and dust).
Case resonance issues in amplifier design are best left to the designers, but if you are concerned you can always experiment with means of physical isolation via platforms, air bladders, etc
Some manufacturers such as Naim Audio have been physically isolating/decoupling their circuit boards for decades.
I agree with many of your statements about how things and claims should be presented, confirmed, and supported. No doubt about your approach to it. Even your, now probably long-forgotten, dissection of original post is, to me at least, right to the point.
Where you may not be doing too well in all of this is putting too many emotions into something eventually completely unimportant. Some guy somewhere claiming things you see as bogus and selling it to other people who also have nothing better to do than to pay to play with bricks (wooden, or whatever) and that irritates you. So what? Let them play with their toys in whatever way they want, but do not pay with your new duodenal ulcer. It is not worth the trouble and you simply cannot win.
Michael Green did not avoid all of my questions or concerns. He explained, to the best of his beliefs, knowledge, and understanding how some of his ideas work. It took some time, but he did. Do I think his room treatments (save me from some cable elevators and such things, I would not believe it even if I heard it myself) work to change the sound? Absolutely. Do I think his explanation is correct? Not really. So what? He is trying to come up with something and present it the best he can. It would not be that hard to write down nice detailed explanation why he is incorrect on at least a thing or two in a few pages over the next fifteen minutes, but what would be the point? To show one's superiority over him on that? Not the best place to feed one's ego. To scare customers from him? It would not, they would just say some grumpy guy did not receive a memo about holistic approach to sound tuning. To put things in the world straight? Not worth it, some still believe that Earth is flat and no major harm happens because of that. To humiliate the person who has posted a fairly unfair assessment of others in his original post? Why? It is not going to change him no matter how hard you try. To force him to reveal that he has no proof for his claims that would be adhering to current scientific methods? You already know that. Why would you do it to yourself, it will only hurt you. After all, more people than just Michael Green are claiming things here left and right that are at times grotesque. Some get called, the others just slide under the radar. And the world rotates.
On a different note, who came up with the idea to disassemble a perfectly well-put together amplifier she/he paid dearly for and why? What was the initial idea about taking the cover off? Do people take doors off an expensive car to see if it corners better? Seems strange to me.
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?
You come here claiming some members are fakes, continue to evade any backing up of your claims or substantive interaction with skeptical questions, and when someone complains that this is the case your response is "Gee, you sure seem upset, why you so upset?"
This right out of the Troll playbook. Your post may as well have come with the troll face "you mad bro?" image plastered to the bottom.
What good do you think it does your brand, to behave like a troll, I wonder? Or are you truly that un-self-aware as to the impression you are giving off here?
Not mad, Michael. Perplexed. Wondering why some people do this to themselves. Especially someone who wants to project a Brand.
With a little luck and/or lots of persistence guesswork may also yield great results. Now, why would anyone do it that way is a totally different topic. For some things, a lifetime of guesswork would not be enough.
Michael Green,
Unrelated to any real topic so far, but I would second mapman's opinion about the website. It needs some reworking. As a, more or less, not-overly-excited-very-suspicious-observer, I would say that it would rub only already signed-up true believers right way. Of course, those who are firmly against would not be swayed no matter what, but I find that even for those who would approach it with open mind, but still full of suspicion, it does not provide enough of anything substantial to maintain interest. It is easy to dismiss then, even before giving it any chance. That is just my observation and suggestion. It is understandable, though. Many major international companies struggle with their websites, too.
Well, I will not mention laminar flow ever again and now I can see where the problem stemmed from. However, as soon as you can come up with some other name for what you believe the reason is for what you are trying to achieve, change it. It is a sore sight right now and it does not make everything else look good at all. In fact, I have been fairly tolerant all along, but it has been plain silly since I first saw it. There may be more to incorporate to those theories and practice in order to find correct explanation. Laminar flow just would not cut it. That's it, I will leave it to someone else to remind you. Oh, and that "organizing" has to go.
What you missed was an extremely fishy bit of flash animation. So under the web site heading "credits" you have vague (can you believe that?) allusions to being involved with Michael Green Design is "associated" with these fine musicians, that for "20 years" his tuning philosophy has helped bring us some of today's greatest music, his room tunes have been used by "countless" musicians including legendary artists...
And then flash animation shows a long list of artists that include:
The Beatles, Miles Davis, Moody Blues, Lois Armstrong, Queen, Moody Blues, Rolling Stones, Roy Orbison...
Now, I'm left to wonder how someone's 20 year old tuning philosophy has anything to do with The Beatles, Miles Davis Louis Armstrong and those others.
And what services did Michael Green actually render to all the bands mentioned?
One is left with the exceedingly fishy smell that someone's credentials and involvement have been inflated, and that the page relies on vague enough implications of association that people will put his work together with those artists.
But I'm certainly open to finding out I'm incorrect, if Michael would supply detail as to how his work played a part with the above mentioned artists.
Hi Prof, sorry I didn’t read your post. But I did want to say that in the last two days I have received emails from 3 of the members here who took the tops of their components and said they heard a difference. Opps!
I look forward to having fun with them as they get involved with walking the tune.
Also, I hope that folks can see I have a lot of fun in this business as I have my whole life in music. It was quite the upbringing. And to you prof, I hope you can calm down in time and take in some of the fun we as Tunees have to share. Man my friend I have been in and out of so many studios, listening rooms and test labs that it’s time to relax and enjoy all the experiences. If you do come to Vegas sometime let me know and maybe we can do diner. No need for you guys to get all worked up on here with me. I’ve been doing music so long I’ve seen every type of personality you can imagine.
It’s like lighten up and relax a little. You don’t have to be the hobby’s prosecutor, it’s a used audio forum, not anything so pressing. I tune, so what? Guys are trying (walking) and seeing for themselves. It’s about fun man. Trying to paint me as a bad guy doesn’t move the needle buddy, I’m already known.
You and Kosst and a couple of others have missed the MG execution by some 40 plus years, if there was one. I mean come on man, chill. Let others enjoying tuning if they want.
You were right about one thing Prof "people are watching" so take it easy. This is nothing for you to be so mad about.
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.
