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
| Post removed |
| Post removed |
Hi Glupson "When it comes to Michael Green’s speakers" Thanks for your comments. Having the website and TuneLand has been a wonderful way to get to know listeners and the sounds they may be wanting to go after. I'm not sure ads, shows and reviews have quite the same impact as they once did, ads and reviews for sure. Word of mouth from owners have been a big part of my speaker biz. The reviews were nice and a welcome starting point, but since those days, recommendations from owners has been the biggest seller for me. Michael Green www.michaelgreenaudio.net |
"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." Hi mapman, when you went to the site did you also visit the forum? I don’t want the site to get too crowded but I also don’t want to have it too vague. 2 years ago we started to redo sections and are thinking about doing some unique stuff. I’m glad the theme came through for you which is the main thing. I want people to be able to see that tuning happens start to finish. It was also important to build up the forums (started in 2004), that’s the proof in the pudding. Seeing short write ups and pics is cool but actually seeing the listeners doing the tune is the key, and that’s what the forum does. thanks for taking the time to look and to give your opinion This last year couple of years we have had a renaissance in tuning and making something relatable is very important to me. It takes a lot of effort to get something like audio tuning documented, and the Tunees have done a fantastic job of sharing their systems with us. It's been an intense and thorough labor of love, but every day I see more work that needs to be done. Michael Green www.michaelgreenaudio.net |
Hi Glupson I spend a lot of time thinking about the words I want to use at times and other times they just kind of fall out like they were meant to be, like RoomTune. SAM and Laminar Flow were two that came with a little more effort. What helped me with Laminar flow was a visit to the space shuttle lab. The particular things they were asking me about was demoed by a display of Laminar flow over a huge surface. The connection was enough for me to use the term comfortably. Because I have been the starter of some of these things in HEA I try to come up with names that one stick, and two have a tie to the actual event. Michael Green www.michaelgreenaudio.net |
Hi Prof "How would you describe the difference in sound between the Vishay 1813 (yellow) and the ERO 1822? 3.3 of course."
Thank you for your answer. Michael Green www.michaelgreenaudio.net |
Hi Bill333, this is a very good post! "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)?"
"(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)."
_____________________________________________________ This is very true and very powerful. It's how I felt about Prof saying he needed to be convinced that things sound different. Prof that's not on anyone but you. I found out this stuff about caps in particular when I was in my early teens. I found out because I did it and watched others do the same thing. Maybe there's a mental need for some to go through the exercises they do, but "walking" is about the actual doing and applying the doing. Some of you guys who are spinning here are never going to enter the hobby that some of us are talking and doing. That's the point of this OP. If you choose not to hear the difference or can only understand it by looking at a chart or screen that's one hobby (and very legit) but that's a different hobby. When you guys start shouting (and most of the time with anger) VooDoo that really only tells the listening world that you haven't reached the level of empirical testing. BTW the Tunees who have been up here so far are EEs, Doctors, Musicians, Reviewers and heavy duty listening explorers. I don't think any of us would put down another's path to successful listening. I can say this because we believe in the variables of the hobby. Again it's like the OP is saying, there are those that walk and others that talk. The ones that walk are more than happy to help those through the first few steps into the bigger world of tuning the variables, but when someone can't hear the difference between caps, and questions that there is a difference it kind of spoils the desire to jump in to the mental state with them. Michael Green www.michaelgreenaudio.net |
So that's it is it...yet again...Michael? (Btw, I'm quite sure I can infer your motive for the question about caps. But my answer didn't actually give you what you want - I didn't proclaim any conclusion either way and simply said I'd look at the evidence - that's why you can't actually interact with the substance of my reply). Remember, you've been making claims: I've been simply asking for evidence for the claims, and how you go about testing the claims with a mind to the concerns I have raised - completely reasonable questions which you've studiously avoided answering. I've even acknowledged you may be on to something and produce some great results...but I have questions about some of your claims and methods. So I address what you write, and when you ask me questions I answer them...but you won't never answer mine? Or even ever explain the pertinence of your question? This is the "open minded" "sponge for information" "ready to be challenged" "science/empiricism-loving" Michael Green? And yet, when people who actually know something about the nature of empirical science ask relevant questions you freeze into silence and imply they are trolls? Remember: people are watching. |
"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. _______________________________________ BINGO and hundreds of other designers! thank you Nonoise |
| Post removed |
Oh shoot Kosst, too late :) http://www.michaelgreenaudio.com/thetunebroadband/index-4.html I think that was of 2004, but I can call them if you would like. Now that I look at it maybe older. The picture looks like around 1989. I think that was a thing MTV did for closing credits on a show I did with them. Wow was I young. Then I think we copied it for an old site. Those were fun times. That was when I was going from pro to HEA. I think I was standing in one of my stereo stores. pretty cool ha Kosst Why are you so uptight about me anyway? Michael Green www.michaelgreenaudio.net |
No, Michael. No. People who call out your voodoo do so on a firmer understanding of empiricism than you seem to have. You only use words like "empiricism" and "science" to pay lip-service, to give some reputable gloss on your claims, but without actually "walking the walk" of truly responsible empiricism. The whole point of science has been to come up with a more reliable, empirically responsible method of inquiry. "Experience + Testing" does NOT automatically yield science, or reliable results. We can misinterpret experience in all manner of ways, and we can have unreliable methods of "testing" that yield incorrect results. So just invoking THOSE aspects do little to justify your "method." Because mere experiencing/testing is used to "confirm" virtually every crackpot theory in existence. It’s what the Flat Earthers are claiming as well. They "experience" that the world is flat - hey, just use your eyes! You can see it’s flat so that’s the right conclusion! - and they "test" their idea in all manner of ways. But it is of course the faulty nature of their tests, and bad assumptions, and ignoring of any data inconvenient to their beliefs, that continue to...what a surprise!...support their belief system! And yet actually reliable empirical methods show their conclusions are ludicrously off-base. A good hypothesis will usually build on already robust and reliable bodies of knowledge. If for instance you proposed that shifting the angle of X speaker in Y room will alter the sound in X manner, then there would be mountains of firmly established theory and evidence - based on carefully scientifically controlled variables! - suggesting the plausibility of this hypothesis. I’m unaware of any such evidence, mountain or otherwise, for your claim that tie wraps cause capacitors to alter the sound in the ways you claim. Which is why I keep asking for that evidence. But of course...never get it. And when one is being a truly responsible empiricist, you try to acknowledge the reality of variables - e.g. data on listener/experimenter bias - and incorporate that into your method of testing. I’ve been asking about your method; to what degree you control for variables and how (including listener/experimenter bias). But of course from you...silence. Someone who understands science scales his beliefs to the evidence, and doesn’t simply IGNORE counter evidence, and doesn’t ignore skeptical challenges from others. In fact, it IS skeptical challenges from others that makes science WORK. Skepticism is GOOD for you, Michael, if you actually care about the truth (or warranted confidence level) of your beliefs. People who understand this have no problem when someone asks them hard or skeptical questions about their claims. Casting skeptical questions as "negativity" is what you get from PSEUDO-SCIENTISTS. What you get in pseudo-science is lip service to terms like empiricism and science and method and testing....but no actual principled adherence to the virtues of science. People doing pseudo-science embrace any support for their belief, embrace only "positive" feedback, but reject skeptical feedback. Hence they can keep whatever beliefs they have going, unsullied by skeptics or a truly honest empirical method that seeks to prove themselves "wrong" as much as "correct" (that’s what you are seeking, if you are seeking truth). Michael, your every bit of behavior here, especially to my queries, have fit the very model of pseudo-science. It’s really no mystery why you won’t and can’t answer the substance of my questions. So go ahead of course, and keep on Tuning. More power to you. But please don’t try to keep claiming some empirical high ground with lip service to science. You’ll be called on it, unlike back in your forum where people apparently don’t know better. And please don’t pretend you are taking the high ground here, given the ways your pseudo-scientific evasions lower the level of discourse. It’s easy to play The Nice Guy when people just lap up your wisdom and thank you for it. But this is a public forum so you have to also Play Nice, that is show good faith replies and intellectual honesty, to the people who DON’T automatically greet you with open arms, and who exercise their right to critical thinking, asking your harder, more skeptical questions. Evading those questions, while casting those people as negative people or trolls...is pernicious to healthy, open discourse. And you will be called on this here, as well. |
| Post removed |
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. Michael Green www.michaelgreenaudio.net |
kosst, I checked out that link. 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. |
| Post removed |
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. |
Michael, you are still doing 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. |
Hi Guys, the OP again 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 _____________________________________________________________ take care Audiogon, thanks again for letting me visit, it was fun seeing the Tunees |
| Post removed |
prof, 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. |
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. |
| Post removed |
Greetings everyone 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. Sonic |
glupson wrote, “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.” - your friend and humble scribe |
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. Bingo! |
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. 🚀 |
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? |
My final message to Michael: 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. I hope your future experiences here go better. Peace. Prof. |
prof, 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. |
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 your friend and humble scribe, geoff kait machinations dramatica |
| Post removed |
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? |
