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?
Speakers cones generate shear and polarities of shear before they generate a pressure wave. Thats how speakers work. Polarities of shear on a cone for example travel on all surfaces of the material shape..they also travel thru that material shape. The speed and direction are much determined by that material and shape. Shear can return to the point of emination or the wave launch..this is what we call interfering energy. There are ways to eliminate this interference in vibrational objects that re corrupts the original intended signal. Some methods are easy to see and hear others must be dealt with in new and unique ways or just a new look and understanding of what had always been there. And it has always been there..The best method is the use of a select material contoured with no 90 degree angles and contains a shape angle where shear can be rejected and not allowed to re enter. Some here wish to cancel or eliminate all polarities of shear. If you do so you will reduce all amplitudes of the resulting sound wave.Selective identification of shear polarity and its return into the signal path is what is crucial. Kill all shear..no sound.
Resonators work because they capture a pressure wave and change that motion into shear. The size, shape and material's shear velocity determine the sound and perceived quality of the acoustic waves output off of that solid object.Thats why brass, gold and silver objects of the same exact shape generate a different sound out come. Also thats why most everytime you see resonators they are attached to a solid surface or very near the surface. There is an action reaction between a flat material surface :drywall: and a resonator where the pressure wave that impacts the wall and becomes partially shear and travels thru that solid :drywall: That now altered pressure wave encounters a resonator of some size shape and material alters how the molecules of that original pressure wave actually reacts and sounds to our ears brain and body. This continual rotation between compressive and the shear world is what makes sound..and what makes things sound different. Our ears are also shear generators because of material structure and shape we each interpet the compressive wave in a similar but unique way. Oh and then there is the skull and bone structure and mass. Later on..Tom
Help me out, I can’t figure out, are they mildly retarded or are they just very conservative?
It would be hard for anyone to help you out on this one as you omitted at least one more very possible answer. Maybe they thought of it, applied some theory, did some testing, and decided it was not good enough, or not good at all. In short, maybe they thought and realized something someone else did not.
"...or the myriad other tweaks and concepts audiophiles hold dear."
Just following this thread you can see that tweaks and concepts audiophiles hold dear are not that universally held dear. Some of the manufacturers that are embracing what you hold dear may be considered "snake oil salesmen" to others who would rather that manufacturers that they prefer stay away from that kind of approach. That is why there are so many manufacturers and products on the market. Pick and choose what you like.
I cannot find it now to quote it, but someone in the previous few threads mentioned something to the effect of "or flow does not move at all". If it is not moving, would you still call it a flow? "Flow with velocity of zero?"
When it comes to Michael Green’s speakers, as unusual and maybe even strange their design may seem to be, it is probably unfair to blast them as worthless without hearing them. So is the case with any other speaker on the market. Michael Green’s explanation may not be to your liking and may be completely out of what you can accept (logically, technically, even emotionally), but speakers are not Michael Green himself. Don’t deem them worthless without giving them at least some fair benefit of the doubt. probably the only way to check the validity of Michael’s, and your own, claims is to stop by and give them a listen. After that, full attack on them and Michael’s merit as a speaker designer may, or may not, be warranted. You listen to Dynaudio, you listen to Harbeth, you listen to Spendor, you listen to something else and some of them are also designs, improved over time, dragging from the time white vans were about to be invented. I am not trying to defend Michael Green at all, far from that, but I would prefer to stay fair to the speakers themselves.
Michael Green,
Just quickly and only once going over your explanation of laminar flow and its effect in the room (I usually read it a few times not to miss some details and to give my mind time to ruminate on it), I got a sense that "laminar flow" is really quite a bent term in these discussions. Kind of like "bent by 168 degrees". Your explanation does seem fairly simple, but choice of "laminar flow" may be a little incorrect. Ever since I started following this thread, I have been trying to think of a more correct term to use for what you refer to as a "laminar flow" and, even more so. "organizing" it. Your pieces placed on the ceiling, or walls where almost the only laminar flow in the room can be expected, will have a hard time avoiding not disrupting it. This is not to say they may not contribute to changing the sound for better, whatever that better may be, by affecting the propagation of the sound in some way, pressure zones, layman’s echo, reverberation, anything, but laminar flow they will disrupt and not organize (I took that "organize" as "enhance" or "make it laminar"). It is just what it is. Everything else may be up for debate.
As I understand it from the answer MG’s approach with speakers is to use resonant cabinets like the housing of a musical instrument and then add a proprietary internal device of some sort to adjust or tune the resonance by applying pressure to the cabs from the inside. Tuning is his thing after all!
My reaction is at least that is something that should have an audible effect if intended. There are other vendors that use unusually resonant cabinets (as opposed to attempting to make them as inert as possible or the tuning adjustable by the user). Harbeth is an example I believe. Tonian is another I recall. All cabinets affect the sound that is emitted so it is probably accurate to say that each is tuned a certain way, either by design or accident.
So the concept at least makes sense and is something fairly unique and different. That passes test 1. Next from the vendor’s perspective would be the realization of the concept ie how the speaker is designed constructed and actually sounds, if one were interested enough to want an audition.
I am not quite sold in terms of the value of the concept to me personally or shelling out the dollars but that’s OK. I do not shell out any dollars for most things talked about here, whether great, mediocre, or total nonsense. Only so many dollars to shell out. Everyone chooses what matters most to them and spends accordingly.
I gave the website a quick once over and I did not find it particularly informative though the unified focus on "tuning" is unique. Needs some work IMHO.
Geoffkait how about walk the walk not just talk the talk endlessly and build some actual audio gear yourself that actually makes music the right way according to you , take over the market, and show them all how to actually do it right, big mouth? You can start now. We will wait. I’m talking source devices, amps and speakers, you know the things that actually produce music, not your comedy act tweaks.
Essentially I agree. As I mentioned early on, I find the claims from Green to span from the plausible - likely to make a sonic difference - to the implausible. The tunable speakers (and certain types of room treatment) certainly suggest they would plausibly alter the sound. And they may sound great...I might even love the sound myself. (And I have loved the sound of speakers made by a company that I believe to be making unsubstantiated and unbelievable claims in other areas, e.g. Shun Mook).
But it's pretty easy for anyone to make a speaker that sounds different from another speaker.
It’s too bad it’s mixed in with other woo-woo sounding stuff that we aren’t getting straight answers to.
prof, why would I use a part without researching it? Prof, it’s my job to not only consider but to test. Also many of the producers of these types of products are happy to exchange info, like folks doing field testing for them.
Excellent.
So this time will you answer my question?
Can you tell us exactly what measurable performance parameters change when a cap is tied down with a tie wrap? And explain why one would expect those measurable changes would be audible, especially with the character you describe?
Can you supply any such measurements for us to see, so we don’t have to just take your word on it?
How would you describe the difference in sound between the Vishay 1813 (yellow) and the ERO 1822? 3.3 of course.
I wouldn’t describe the sonic difference between those two caps, as I do not presume, without hearing more reason to think so, that they would sound different. (Not that I couldn’t be convinced they could produce sonic differences)
So wouldn’t make a claim either way about their sonic difference.
But your question clearly implies YOU think they are sonically different. And if you would claim this, then what type of evidence you have for it? As in the tie wrap above: what measurable parameters change between those caps and why would one would expect those changes to be audible? After all, one can alter signals/measurements in ways that are not audible.
And if you have "tested" for these audible changes, please explain how you controlled for the variable of your imagination. (If you understand science, as you alluded to in your OP, you would know that pointing to additional tests done with poor control of variables isn’t a way to increase confidence level).
Finally, please note the obvious fact: that the question of the audibie difference between caps in certain implementations does not resolve your claim about the effects of tie wraps. (Which is why this seems to be another red herring to avoid answering my previous question).
I look forward to hearing more about your careful empiricism on these subjects, Michael.
glupson geoffkait “Help me out, I can’t figure out, are they mildly retarded or are they just very conservative?”
It would be hard for anyone to help you out on this one as you omitted at least one more very possible answer. Maybe they thought of it, applied some theory, did some testing, and decided it was not good enough, or not good at all. In short, maybe they thought and realized something someone else did not.
>>>>>Oh, didn’t I mention, I am an audio insider? I know many top notch high end amp designers. It was strickty a rhetorical question. It’s what I call hyper circuit focused. It’s like having blinders on a racehorse. They never got the memos and if they did they threw them in the curcular file. Even judging by those amp designers who post on this forum, and those who DIY amps they either never heard of the tweaks, don’t care if they did by chance hear of them or are afraid of bringing down the heat if anyone found out they were using controversial audiophile tweaks in their amps. There are a precious few like Mietner who employs cryo, but he’s in the minority. If I’m missing someone who’s been paying attention please let me know. Then there’s the argument, “why should be use tweaks? Our amps are already perfect.” 🙄
gluoson geoffkait: "...or the myriad other tweaks and concepts audiophiles hold dear."
Just following this thread you can see that tweaks and concepts audiophiles hold dear are not that universally held dear. Some of the manufacturers that are embracing what you hold dear may be considered "snake oil salesmen" to others who would rather that manufacturers that they prefer stay away from that kind of approach. That is why there are so many manufacturers and products on the market. Pick and choose what you like.
>>>>Maybe you haven’t been paying very close attention. The ones who don’t hold audiophile tweaks and concepts dear are by and large the ones who never try them, who are just having a hoot going after audiophiles who do hold them dear. You, know, audio forum whack a mole. As I said, lots of folks are a little uh, sensitive about being linked to the dark arts. ☠️ As far as any manufacturers embracing these audiophile products there aren’t any. If I’m wrong, please, no angry emails.😁
glupson I cannot find it now to quote it, but someone in the previous few threads mentioned something to the effect of "or flow does not move at all". If it is not moving, would you still call it a flow? "Flow with velocity of zero?"
>>>>I am pretty sure I already answered that question a number of different ways since last night. I have been known to sing like a canary under water boarding, perhaps if you ask enough times I’ll change my tune. 😬
Shear waves are just transverse vibrational waves. In solids you get both P (longitudinal) and S (transverse) waves. In liquids and air you get only P waves. At interfaces you can get rolling or orbital progressive waves travelling along the interface.
Generally the goal is to try and damp shear waves in speaker cabinets, baffles and speaker drivers. The term most people use is critically damped. This means the system will return to zero (stop vibrating) once input excitation stops without any further positive and negative oscillations? This is what your car shock absorbers do....it prevents your springy car suspension from boinging around after a bump.
Tuning speaker cabinets in order to have them resonate at specific frequencies is adding coloration at any other frequencies than specifically to match the woofer and porting to get an optimal response from the system. Best response is flat in the bass (no resonance peaks) and critically damped - generally this produces a smooth 12db per octave roll off below corner frequency.
Hey, listen, people sometimes explain things the best they can. Not everything is Albert Einstein or Charlie Rose. You don’t like the explanation? Tough toenails. You don’t see any explanation? Too bad. You don’t see something that fits nicely into your little playbook? Personally, these days I advise anyone in the business of tweaks not to offer ANY explanations, even ones they’re pretty sure of. There’s no real payoff. You wind up having to deal with a whole lotta nonsense. Of course, drama does have its advantages. A little drama never hurt anyone. 😬 Everybody’s a genius. It’s pretty obvious this thread has become a magnet for all the die hard pseudo skeptics and pretend engineers on the forum. Are they importing them from Hydrogen Audio? From Randi’s Education Foundation? Is prof a ringer from Skeptics Society? Well, whaddya expect? “Build it and they will come.” All you get is the, “Well what about this? What about that?” routine, repeated ad nauseum. Shut the cave door and back to Pygmy Country!
I'm not posting as a response to anyone, just adding my own 2 cents. First of all, remember that we have all been born with the world's best and most sensitive listening devices ever conceived - our own ears! Trust them - they are the one truth in music! I have experienced the tunable room in person, at Bill333's place, and know that it works. I was left alone with the tuning wrench and allowed to experiment and make adjustments to my liking. It became obvious very quickly that the adjustments were very intuitive and easy to learn. I was able to turn a small and constricted sound stage into a large open and expansive one that extended in all directions around me! Then I was able to bring it back to points in between and eventually back to where I started simply by adjusting the tension on the panels. Less tension allowed the panels to vibrate more, extending the sound stage. More tension = less vibration = smaller sound stage. Pretty intuitive right? How do I know this works? My ears told me so! Tuning works my droogies! And while not all tuning is as intuitive as this, the idea of loosening things to allow them to vibrate more and increase the size of the sound stage always does work! How do I know this? My ears tell me so! Those who have not heard it have no basis to criticize it. Those who have not should try it. Those who have will know it works if they listen to the music with their own sensitive listening devices - their ears!
"bill333 can you give us a non-mystical, technical explanation for how removing the chassis top of a component would cause those audible differences (or releasing of the capacitor)?"
I have no technical explanations for this, and no interest in finding any. There may be people out there who enjoy observing scientifically unexplained phenomena and constructing theories to fit them, but that's not the hobby I'm engaged in. I'm trying to create great music listening experiences. Simply put, I don't see how having a well explained system is going to give me better sound. OTOH, if you have practical ideas on how to get better sound from my system, I'd be glad to hear them...
"(BTW, I’ve had the top off some of my equipment before - pre-amps etc - for different reasons and...no...it did not change the sound)."
There could be any number of factors involved in your not hearing a change in sound. Without being there to hear for myself, and subsequent experimenting with your system and room, I really can't say what happened. The most likely explanation is that some component or components in your system are closed down to the point that upstream changes can't easily be heard.
But let's get to the point of your post. You're not here to help people get better sound. Having read through your posts on this thread, I can't find a single instance of you doing or saying anything that would help another person improve their system. You're here to cast aspersions on anyone whose methods who don't fit into your mental model of how things work. Let me be clear in saying that my experiences are my own, and are posted here in the hope that others can benefit from them. These are things that have worked for me. If you, or anyone reading this, tries these methods and benefits from them, I am genuinely happy about that. If you choose not to try, that's ok too. But I have no interest in trying to fit my experiences into your dogmatic belief system.
For those who don't think that metal cases can't be detrimental to the sound, there's a very old audio site called Mother of Tone that believes one should build amps and DACs on blocks of wood. This is nothing new.
The metal chassis is just a holdover from the 70s when all the amp manufacturers believed it would prevent RF from entering their precious circuits. Monkey see, monkey do. 🐒 Not...too ...swift. Of course, you can’t tell them anything.
First of all, remember that we have all been born with the world’s best and most sensitive listening devices ever conceived - our own ears!
That’s clearly wrong, and it should be obvious why it’s so wrong. We are building instruments all the time for detection because of the LIMITATIONS of our perception and senses.
For instance: You know there is sound in a frequency range called "Ultrasonic," right? Do you know why it’s even called "Ultrasonic?" Because you can’t hear it.
Your ears, if you have fantastic hearing, would top off at approximately 20K. But depending on your age and exposure to noise, it likely caps well below that point.
But you can buy, or even build an SPL meter that is FAR more sensitive and can detect frequencies up to 100K, e.g:
And when scientists detected the "sound" of black holes emerging far away in the universe...do you think it’s because someone woke up hearing it? Of course not. Instruments vastly more sensitive were used to detect these, and countless other phenomena that our limited hearing permits.
So right off the bat, you are starting with a false premise.
Trust them - they are the one truth in music!
(Putting aside the inscrutable second phrase...)
Your ears are part of a perceptual system; that system can and often enough does get things wrong. Just like your eyes. This is well known and demonstrable.
At this very moment there is a viral meme going around the internet showing how people’s audible perception varies. Google "yanny vs laurel." Also look here:
And then there are all the well documented cases of perceptual bias that will cause you to "hear" things that aren’t there, or perceive changes in sound when there is no external cause.
So you are off with TWO fallacious assumptions.
Pretty intuitive right? How do I know this works? My ears told me so!
Whoops. Intuitions are often unreliable. In fact much of the fallacious explanations for natural phenomena through history was based on erroneous extrapolations from "intuition." (In fact, right now the Flat Earth Society is based on just that: it’s intuitively obvious the world is flat...forget any contradictory scientific evidence against this! Intuition is the most reliable thing we have!)
Those who have not heard it have no basis to criticize it.
Drat. Another fallacy.
One can have sufficient reasons to doubt a claim without having direct experience. If I tell you the moon is made of cheese, do you have to have traveled to the moon in order to marshal reasonable doubts about my claim?
Similarly, if someone is presenting a claim that is laced with naive understandings of human perception, that already raises doubt about the claim (even if it’s not conclusive against the claim).
You are not actually making a good case for your claims.
That said, although you have laced your post with some faulty ideas, I did not get enough detail from your post as to what you were actually adjusting. It could still be the case you were adjusting something that could plausibly alter the sound, in a way you found desirable. And that could be really cool.
But we shouldn’t have to buoy our claims with fallacious ideas about the reliability of our perception.
I don’t see how we can put Michael Green into the same category as Roger Paul. As a result of the aforementioned thread where Roger went back and forth with several folks here, claiming to have created an amplifier exponentially better and different from anything else available, and ready to ascend to unquestionable supremacy I offered to pay him a visit to assess his claim. This past November, I spent a half day with Roger, allowing him to demo his amplifier for me. Without going into detail in this post, I predict the next 10 years for Roger will look like the past 10 to 20.
Likewise, I would neither lump Michael Green in with a self-proclaimed industry insider / expert and sage without peer on every technology directly or indirectly related to audio offering nothing beyond 24 / 7 Audiogon insulting postings and re-marketed household items infused with whatever required shamanism that renders them crucial in a HEA system without explanation.
No, Michael Green has developed, manufactured, and marketed actual products, and sold hundreds of thousands or more of them that even the most dyed in the wool objectivist would consider logical and effective. You can find his products in all manner of settings outside the lunatic fringe HEA circles. Not that he has a corner on the market or anything like it, as every recording studio, auditorium, movie theater, etc. uses acoustic room treatment.
As for myself, after remodeling my second system’s room including removing the fabric wallpaper about 15 years ago, I noticed the now exposed hard walls became a dominant factor in the sound, and precluded hearing the effects of many of the component upgrades and changes I made. This is why when folks tell me they tried component X in their system, and heard no difference, I believe them, as I found myself in that very place.
Over time, I noticed many friends and local dealers using Michael Green RoomTunes, and it occurred to me I might find benefit in them. Now in all honesty, I didn’t find the $200 - $400 price particularly friendly at that juncture of my life. I also felt I could implement a better version due not feeling the covering would adequately absorb (maybe the intent is reflection as opposed to absorption) and their overall (1/2"?) thinness. From my experience with Fried Transmission Line loading, long hair carded wool was considered to have the best acoustic properties of the most commonly used (foam, fiberglass, polyester batting) materials, and seeing that natural (not a synthetic fiber) burlap held a night and day advantage in terms of fabric open area seemed to offer the best container I could think of at the time for the stuffing. With about $30 in material and a couple of hours of my oldest daughter’s sewing , I had my own 3" - 4" versions in the room’s corners and also above them where they met the ceiling. Upon installing them in the room, and listening, the acoustic treatment provided me with an extremely low-cost, attractive, and effective solution. And with that, my thanks and respect to Michael Green
audionuttoo I’m not posting as a response to anyone, just adding my own 2 cents. First of all, remember that we have all been born with the world’s best and most sensitive listening devices ever conceived - our own ears! Trust them - they are the one truth in music! I have experienced the tunable room in person, at Bill333’s place, and know that it works. I was left alone with the tuning wrench and allowed to experiment and make adjustments to my liking. It became obvious very quickly that the adjustments were very intuitive and easy to learn. I was able to turn a small and constricted sound stage into a large open and expansive one that extended in all directions around me! Then I was able to bring it back to points in between and eventually back to where I started simply by adjusting the tension on the panels. Less tension allowed the panels to vibrate more, extending the sound stage. More tension = less vibration = smaller sound stage. Pretty intuitive right? How do I know this works? My ears told me so! Tuning works my droogies! And while not all tuning is as intuitive as this, the idea of loosening things to allow them to vibrate more and increase the size of the sound stage always does work! How do I know this? My ears tell me so! Those who have not heard it have no basis to criticize it. Those who have not should try it. Those who have will know it works if they listen to the music with their own sensitive listening devices - their ears!
>>>>>>Not sure I go along with your detective work. The conclusion that “vibration is good” might very well be incorrect and lead to “over generalizations” that are false. The loosely of screws may actually be explained by reducing the physical stress produced when the screws are tight. The same idea applies to transformers that are generally bolted down tightly and capacitors that are constrained with tight cable ties. Reducing stress improves the sound. Voila! But the general conclusion that vibration is good is probably overreaching. One over generalization that is false is vibration is good. And that leads to another over generalization that is also false - isolation is bad. 😬
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...
kosst amajan I said, IN THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA! And it was NOT only measurements but double blind testing along with subjective listening that Dr.Hirsch championed to weed out poor/snake oil products & why the scientific methodology of reviewing audio equipment was swept under the carpet after he passed.. Contrary to what is perpetuated Dr,Hirsch never stated that all modern amplifiers sounded exactly alike..What he said what that all modern amplifiers with quality components & construction "should"sound the same & that the differences "heard"between amps was nothing more than the result of distortions inherent in the individual components chosen for construction..
I have no technical explanations for this, and no interest in finding any. There may be people out there who enjoy observing scientifically unexplained phenomena and constructing theories to fit them, but that’s not the hobby I’m engaged in.
Ok.
But would you agree that, just because you don’t find such inquiry interesting, there’s no reason to disparage others who do? Yet if someone starts asking for explanations...and even dares point out an explanation didn’t seem to be a good one....you and people like Michael seem to get very negative on them pretty quickly.
Personally, I don’t disparage anyone for buying whatever they wish, or for playing around in any way with his system, rendering improvements as he sees them. I do it. We all do it. If someone wants to pay lots of money for something I think is likely nonsense...that is of course entirely up to them. I buy things that no doubt others think are nonsense.
But when someone starts to make CLAIMS of some objective nature - e.g. that altering X produces objective differences that we can perceive - then I reserve the right to think critically about those claims and give a reasoned argument for my skepticism. That’s especially the case when someone would want to SELL me something based on those claims.
Do you actually see anything wrong with this? Or should I and anyone else here be simply gullably open to any claim anyone wants to make in high end audio?
Simply put, I don’t see how having a well explained system is going to give me better sound.
Really? You don’t see the relevance of knowing what you are doing?
The more you understand, the better placed you are to prioritize your time and money and the more likely you are to achieve your goals.
In my case there’s still a lot I don’t understand. But when relevant, I try to learn something about what I’m doing so I’m not just thrashing around in the dark - e.g. understanding room acoustics and other issues in integrating my new subwoofers. (I also renovated my room consulting with an acoustician).
OTOH, if you have practical ideas on how to get better sound from my system, I’d be glad to hear them...
I’m not posing as an audio guru dispensing such advice (let alone asking people to pay me for my services). I’m a consumer like you are, and I’m just assessing the claims being made as I see fit.
But if you want any advice: You are much more likely to realize sonic benefits from proper speaker placement and paying attention to room acoustics, than from spending time untying capacitors or raising wires on wood blocks, etc. There’s a TON of research supporting the effects of the former; virtually none that I’m aware of for the latter.
But let’s get to the point of your post.
I’d love if you or Michael actually did that!
My original reply to Michael, and the theme of my follow up replies, has been:
1. To point out that it is both poor form and deleterious to honest discourse to appear on a forum, create a thread declaring that some proportion of the members are "faking it" - without giving any examples to support that aspersion - and then ignore pertinent questions and challenges to his statements, brushing people off as being part of the problem or "trolls" without lifting a finger to justify all those additional insults. All the while pretending to be the Nice Guy who doesn’t want to ruffle feathers. Not to mention, creating a thread with false pretenses that it was a discussion about empirical testing, while in fact (acknowledged later) it was another way to self-promote his tuneland stuff.
Do you really not see a problem with that?
2. As a consumer, and someone interested in high end audio, I’ve been exercising my right to critical thinking, asking completely reasonable questions about Michael’s claims, which he has done nothing but evade.
Please, explain to me, what is actually wrong with any of that.
You’re here to cast aspersions on anyone whose methods who don’t fit into your mental model of how things work.
Not at all. I’ve only cast aspersions on someone who has interacted dishonestly in a thread like this, as Michael has here. I think someone who ignores substantive questions and arguments challenging his position and replies only with denigrating dismissals with no substance, deserves to be called on this. Don’t you?
And talk about casting aspersions on people who don’t fit a mental model of how things work! Are you not aware of how often, and vociferously, Michael Green has done this himself? He’s continually evangelizing through his Tuning mental model, and castigating other popular high end audio methods, and people who dare say a recording can be revealed as bad, as liars and scammers!
Why don’t you apply your criticism evenhandedly to him, I wonder?
Let me be clear in saying that my experiences are my own, and are posted here in the hope that others can benefit from them.
And you will find tons of such posts from me too. For instance, many seemed to appreciate my reports on various speakers I’ve heard here:
Do I have to put everything I ever wrote into this one thread, to show I contribute what I can as well? Do you think maybe you are jumping to some harsher conclusions than you ought to?
But I have no interest in trying to fit my experiences into your dogmatic belief system.
You are falling into the very model set by Michael Green: castigate someone’s view, instead of properly represent and respond to it.
My "belief system" is anything but dogmatic. It is entirely against dogma - in the sense of simply accepting as true what an authority would tell me, or accepting principles as simply true and unchallenged"
Dogma is one of the worst blights there is, in human thought.
Rather, I believe in taking in to account everyone’s fallibility including my own. So any assumptions I may have ought to be challengeable, re-visited, scrutinized, and ready for revision. And even THAT principle...I’m open to revising if someone could argue otherwise.
And I apply this lack of accepting dogma to claims in high end audio. I’m not going to believe something just because someone claims to be authoritative on the subject - certainly not someone trying to sell me something. I’m going to look at whether that person’s claims make sense in light of all the other information I’m aware of. Have you not noticed that, when I interact with claims made by someone here, I don’t simply dismiss them - I supply an argument, supporting REASONS for my view over the claim . That’s interacting with intellectual honesty. That’s the opposite of trolling.
Now that my position is, I hope, more clear to you: do you find this unreasonable?
And if not...it’s essentially the basis on which I’ve been posting in this entire thread....and yet Michael Green has not interacted with ANY of it, and only dismisses my concerns as being that of a troll.
Do you really think Green’s interaction, especially with me, has been that intellectually honest?
What it all boils down to in the final analysis is whether or not Tuning causes cancer. Agreed? By the way, I can’t help noticing there doesn't seem to be very much interest in my latest pop quizzaroo. You know, the one about the acoustic resonators. Or any of them, frankly. What’s up with that? I thought we had some brainy people here. Come on, what’s the matter? Not challenging enough? Too mundane? Too stupid? Not interested at All? Hey, there’s a multiple choice pop quiz right there! I personally suspect the self-anointed Uber skeptics are just posing as engineers, intellectuals or whatever. OK let’s see those pose downs, fellas. Work it, baby!
“Help me out, I can’t figure out, are they mildly retarded or are they just very conservative?”
is just that. A very simple request to help you decide between two choices you thought you had. It is not a rhetorical question, by any means. I understand you might have not thought of any other option so, just as with your question about ice-cold cups, I reminded you of deficiencies in your question that deemed it unanswerable. I offered one more option for answer and someone else might have thought of a few more I am not aware of.
It is very possible that you are an audio insider and nobody should dispute that. Most of the people here are. Of course, definition of an audio insider could be as broad as we decide to make it.
Most of us know many people, some top notch people, too. Welcome to the club. It does not matter, but it is unclear if those acquaintances of yours are designers of top notch high end amps or they are top notch designers of high end amps.
Maybe you haven’t been paying very close attention. The ones who don’t hold audiophile tweaks and concepts dear are by and large the ones who never try them, who are just having a hoot going after audiophiles who do hold them dear.
Just because some audiophiles, whatever that word even means, do not want to try what they feel would be a waste of time and resources for them does not substantiate the claim that "audiophiles hold those tweaks dear". Surely, some of the audiophiles do hold them dear, but some, for their own reasons, do not. It is easy to imagine that some not-so-shabby manufacturer decides to cater to the group that you do not seem to belong to. It does not necessarily make them incompetent nor does it make your picks superior with any certainty.
More importantly, the way some of your posts are written (choice of words, mainly) is at least odd. They do not come across as anything any of us should be subjected to. I am not talking about your messages to me, but to some other members here. This forum does not have a moderator to take unacceptable posts down so we should, at least, attempt to keep it constructive rather than destructive and personally insulting.
I have been tangentially reading these posts about metal casings of amplifiers. Not to go into details of influence on the sound of current designs that seem to be unacceptable to you, is there any particular material that you would suggest be used instead? I can only guess that it would need to be heat-resistant and have no knowledge what else would be needed.
More importantly, the way some of your posts are written (choice of
words, mainly) is at least odd. They do not come across as anything any
of us should be subjected to. I am not talking about your messages to
me, but to some other members here. This forum does not have a moderator
to take unacceptable posts down so we should, at least, attempt to keep
it constructive rather than destructive and personally insulting.
?? There are a number of mods on this site and at times they can be VERY active at removing unjust posts....ask GK......
I apologize for my misinformation. I did, wrongfully so, assume that there is no moderator as I cannot understand how some of these posts remain. My bad and thanks for clarifying it.
@Glupson. No worries my friend. In all honesty the mods do not run around this site all day long just checking on who has been a naughty boy lately although they are fully aware of notorious "problem" threads. It usually takes a member or two to actually report a post before one of them will cast an eye over it and decide if it merits removal.
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.
