2. tech-talk
  3. 135904-110926

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


128x128michaelgreenaudio
michaelgreenaudio's avatar
michaelgreenaudio OP
643 posts
 

Hi cleeds

Here's a good example

"Oh no, that’s completely mistaken. "Empirical" means based on observation - as opposed to based on theory. What you’re talking about here is theory. If a recording sounds bad on my system, that’s empirical, based on my listening (observation).

There are many bad - even very bad - recordings. That alone is hardly an indication that these audio systems need "tuning."

cleeds

This is what I'm talking about. Your saying "Oh no" but your not basing that on "doing" anything about the bad sound. What if we were able to take that "bad recording" and make your system so it sounded good or even excellent?

Michael Green

www.michaelgreenaudio.net

Ag insider logo xs@2x
cleeds
2,065 posts
 
Sorry, Michael Green, but "empirical" means based on observation rather than based on theory. I don't have to do anything - other than listen - to have empirical evidence. And that's what your post sought, based on your own words:
" ... 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."

mapman's avatar
Ag insider logo xs@2x
mapman
15,679 posts
 
Mchael Green,

You are right. Not limited to tweaks by any stretch. Esoteric or otherwise.

People can buy whatever they want for whatever reason they want, real or imagined. The only thing that really matters is what matters to each in the end.   Many could care less about objective factors.
michaelgreenaudio's avatar
michaelgreenaudio OP
643 posts
 

Hi cleeds

It's only theory until you do it, and then my friend it becomes science. But like the OP (me) is saying is, your choosing not to make your system play it.

As a reference I conducted this empirical testing for Stereophile, TAS and maybe 50 other magazines. We took a recording they claimed to be "bad" and after tuning their system to the recording they reversed their findings of the recording. Look up Tom Miiller of TAS when we did this with "Selling England by the pound" and "the Final cut". I've also done (as in "walk") this with Harry Pearson and several thousands of clients. In fact we do this on a regular bases and every day.

Michael Green

www.michaelgreenaudio.net

michaelgreenaudio's avatar
michaelgreenaudio OP
643 posts
 

Hi Mapman

It’s a journey and all of have that built in desire for the sound we want.

Ever read someone talk about a recording on here calling it terrible, and you’ve played that same recording on your setup and it sounds great? That’s one of the places HEA got itself stuck. In some ways and with some people it’s an angry hobby, but the thing is it doesn’t have to be.

If we took the collective sound of everyone on this forum and put us all together we would find that there are very few "bad" recordings. Someone somewhere is listening to "that" recording and it sounds fantastic. So the question is "why doesn’t it sound great on every system". The answer to this has been out there for many years, but when you have a hobby that is not flexible enough everyone is hearing that recording differently and disagreeing on it’s performance. HEA has become too discrete. The systems are so stuck in their sound they only play a certain range of recordings. But here’s the thing, we will either turn every thread into and argument or we will learn to tune our systems.

Thanks for your posts I'm excited about reading more.

Michael Green

www.michaelgreenaudio.net

More to discover