Good answer. I don’t blame you one bit for dodging the question.
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
2,164 responses Add your response
@michaelgreenaudio
Since starting this thread we have seen at least 50 threads that give testament to the OP.MG - The thread cited as an example in your most recent post is a BS effort to create a caste system where an elite group owns "expensive and ultra expensive gear" and are persecuted by those who do not own expensive gear and therefore cannot possibly understand. There are no examples of this given by the OP and I have called him out to provide specifics. Respectively, your thread here is not the same as the example thread since your premise has almost nothing to do with money and expensive gear. I suggest you not align your thread with that one. However, there is the similarity that both threads promote a premise of an "us and them" division among audiophiles. |
Hi Mitch This thread is about talking without really walking, and the question, why fake it if you haven't really done it. I find the thread I pointed to as doing exactly that. I don't fault the OP or the participants. I simply ask, why do people in this hobby do the talking about things that they haven't truly explored, and then act as though they have experience? All of life is an us and them, until we actually "do". There is no good or bad in it, just talking vs walking. mg |
| Post removed |
| Post removed |
Here’s another thread http://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/pieces-of-music-that-digital-can-t-get-right In this one it talks about things that digital can’t do. Ok, so I have several copies of "Ventura Highway" on digital, and I can make any adjustment I wish to the signal. here’s a quote "On the opening of America’s "Ventura Highway" the opening dueling guitars are ambient and bounce off each channel very pleasantly in the analog domain. In the digital domain the channels are totally separate and too clean and sterile lifeless sounding. They are not talking to each other It was like this with ny Marantz 8005 but the SA-10 gets halfway there." ___________________________________________________________ Not so (or not so for him). On my digital I can make the dueling ping pong sound any way I wish through variably tuning it. This is the action of the playback system, not the recording. mg |
| Post removed |
Air molecules DO NOT move away from the source! There is NO net movement. The wave propagates through the air and displaced molecules return (they are bouncing around like mad) to their previous net positions once the wave has passed. Where you guys come up with this crap is beyond me. Please stop the pseudo science and learn some physics once in awhile. And Michael: Please define what you mean by "empirical testing" because, frankly, my BS detector is off the charts with that term. There is no such thing as "empirical testing," that's an OXYMORON; there is empirical evidence that is derived from direct and indirect observation and experience. Is that what you're asking here? |
Steve, sorry but your post makes me giggle, and once again we have two good examples of why the OP was made. Steve followed up by uber of course. No Biggie though, this thread has amazed me and many others a few times. Steve, I'm quite sure your BS detector went off cause that's the type of person you are. My BS detector goes off often here as well, but I'm a big enough boy not to get in a huff about it. Life is too short, music is too fun. If you are confused about empirical research, testing and evidence I'm sure you can return to your wiki pages and study a little more. Of course uber hasn't seen any answers because that's not his agenda. Pretty simple stuff here folks! MG |
It is nice to see this thread light up from time to time. It feels like coming home. It is familiar, you know what you will find, and they annoy you. Some of the questions intermittently asked ("empirical testing", "where is the line between talking and walking", etc.) have been discussed, or refused to be discussed, in the early days of this thread. There was no conclusion, by the way. It may be time to retire them as they will not, all of a sudden, be clarified. |
Actually Glupson (as has been pointed out on at least half of the pages) the questions have been answered. Some people have come up and said "I get it" and others stay on spin cycle upset that the answers given were not to their liking. check this out Steve has a problem with the term "empirical testing", yet he or any first grader can type the term into a search engine and see where it takes them. Almost all the topics or Q&As on this forum can be dealt with the same way. Learning how to use a computer is about the easiest thing on the planet, but some of these audiophiles need to be heard or need to hear themselves. They need to have that battle of the talkers. This thread challenges us to be more than talkers. MG |
Michael Green, Some did say "I get it" although I do not remember reading that. Answers, at least to those two questions I mentioned above, have not appeared in this thread. It does not really matter, but if you have them, stevecham and uberwaltz may appreciate to find them out. A few sentences and they will never question again. Pretty simple stuff to do. |
| Post removed |
| Post removed |
@kosst_amojan For giggles I decided to Google MG yet again...Ok, I was curious and did so also. I found a bunch of other folks named Michael Green and had to add "audio" to my search. Dismissing MG's own website, facebook, etc., I did find that PS Audio's Paul McGowan gave MG props in 2015 for room tuning a CES room Paul was in with Arnie Nudell. There were also some positive follow-up comments.... https://www.psaudio.com/pauls-posts/ear-openers/ Following his meeting with MG, Paul of course was then inspired to create Red, Black, and Blue fuses. |
Mike If you ever clean your home or office how do you vacuum your carpets with all those puzzle pieces exposed to the elements..dust bunnies and cats and dogs..Maybe you use a low pressure blow gun. Do you navagate over the game board on a hover craft or use a pogo stick to jump between bits and pieces of the wooden board players?Tom |
Tom That actually was one of my biggest problems with the whole equipment tuning thing of having parts scattered around the floor connected by wires, all live and exposed. I jokingly stated in another thread entirely that if I did anything similar then I am sure one of my wayward cats would decide one or more items was either ; a/ a good place to pee! b/ a nice bit of plaything wire to chew on! Obviously both could have dire consequences for both cats and equipment! In other words not really a joke at all. So not so much dissing the whole process of whether it could actually work, but the practicality aspect in the vast majority of "normal" households is just never going to fly. Now differing wood blocks under cased up equipment, sure I can see that having some sonic effect AND being practical to try. |
Any material or shape in, under,on or around another material surface will alter the shear wave response and the result will be a change in the compressive wave response within the components which the acoustic space is the largest. Mike cannot describe how any of his products work because he does not understand the origins of sound. Tom |
mitch: Congratulations on a wonderful system. Paul McGowan of PS Audio has stated that audiograde fuses used in his company's products do positively affect the sound. The RED, Black, and most lately Blue fuses were developed by Ted Denney of Synergistic Research and not Paul. I f you have not tried a Synergistic Research Blue wall outlet, I think your very well thought out system would demonstrate what this Outlet can do. They are sold with a 30 day return policy and sound good within 24 hours of installation. There is no painful 500 hour break in period to endure. David Pritchard |
Hi Michael, OK, I accept that. Then why bother with a walk vs. talk thread to begin with, if for a reason other that to stir the pot (again and again it seems to becoming Audiogon Forums' raison d’être)? For entertainment purposes? OK, I can accept that. To be enlightened? OK with that too. For fun, heck yeah! Wiki, huh? I have a doctorate in biochemistry and molecular biology and experience working at both the research bench as a senior scientist and in clinical chemistry as a medical technologist. I’ve published. In the biotech business world I’ve help design control experiments and help set quantitative standards with NIST for customers in cliincal diagnostics, pharma discovery and biotechnology labs globally. I know what the empirical method is. What concerns me about your OP is that you didn’t try to define or design what empirical methods an average audio enthusiast, walkers and talkers, likely lacking in advanced measuring equipment other than a VTF gauge and maybe an SPL meter from Radio Shack, should use other than her/his own ears. If you could help us understand that, then this perhaps this so-called empirical approach you use to delineate, and divide, walkers vs. talkers, might make some sense, at least as to how we all might apply such practices to find results and conclusions that we can all agree too. That’s why it’s art, thank goodness; a walk is as valid as a talk in art. Thanks, I am polite; I’m asking questions. |
Hope everyone is having a great weekend! We’ve got the music playing, the game on, and steaks on the grill. I’ll visit with you guys in a little bit. But before I get back to the game I want to thank you guys for asking about me and my products. here's another review for you to enjoy MG http://www.soundstage.com/revequip/db05.htm |
Hi Steve No slam intended on your education of course, I’m sure there are a lot of smart cookies in the hobby. Saying this, almost all of the stuff that gets talked about here can be explored on the internet these days. The internet is a wonderful info tool that links teaching & learning together. The courses I now take are internet based and excellent, I think. I was reading an article the other day which was saying that the internet search engines provide, for free, the education equivalent from 5 years back and closing. It will be interesting to see what takes place when internet courses take over the school system, almost there. Again of course for children there is the need for supervision up to a certain age, but once past a certain education level is a matter of internet skills and empirical research. I do like the phrase "Empirical Research" being injected into the thread. In fact so much, that if I were to be able to go back and make a change to the OP that might be one. "Empirical testing" is fast forward to "empirical research" anyway so no biggie, but I still like your point. I think subtracting the trolling here there are a lot of good points that get made on this thread. It would be interesting if this thread was edited excluding the trolling and "male" ego factor. Parts of the trolling though are entertaining. GK will no doubt go down in history for being able to spin a thread at will. But I also think he exposes a lot of Audiofools pretending to be Audiophile forum experts. That’s partially what this thread is about. The topic of "walk vs talk" is a very important and real one in the hobby. The line for people like Prof and Glupson may be fuzzy, but for the readers walking, the walking is a positive and forward progression. For the walker there’s no need for blurred lines because they already understand that audio is a variable, and variables are tunable. They know this because they are actively "Doing Tuning". They’re not questioning dust or how many times one needs to Tune, because they have stepped into the next chapter of extreme audiophile listening already. What they do question is "why are some HEA audiophiles so slow". Why are some audiophile companies (especially tweak companies) not understanding or practicing the tuning of the variables? They spend so much of their time trying to one up the next guy, they end up missing their own target. Basically they’re showing the world they only know how to "talk". What are we, the 38th page by now? By the second page of any thread on TuneLand or other advanced listening neighborhoods the "Tuning the variables" of audio would have been well on it’s way. Here on this thread people would rather talk and then more talk, to the point where the readers are getting a hold of me directly asking "what’s wrong with these kooks". Some on this thread actually think they are sparring with me somehow. That’s kooky in it’s own right, lol. The reviews have already been written, the tests have already been done and what’s most important, over 100,000 audiophiles (probably way more) are already tuning and have been for many years. anyway, now I’m boring myself Michael Green PS: are you surprised how many RS RTA folks are still around these forums, calling themselves HEA? I am. Sometimes it's like living in a time warp back to the very, as I mentioned earlier, "first grade of audio". Anyway thanks for your comments Steve! |
| Post removed |
"lost cause" that's funny! Uberwaltz, you might be hanging out on this forum too much my friend. I'll be working on a tunable room's wood for Chicago and a reviewer is coming for a visit and some other folks, but let's see how our schedules work out. Here's my email michael@michaelgreenaudio.com Michael |