Talk but not walk?

michaelgreenaudio

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.

You actually don't know anything about my system, or how I've set it up. You are also still confused about the meaning of the word "empirical." Perhaps you should look up its meaning for yourself, unless your goal here is to obfuscate.

Your notion that once you "do it" somehow "it becomes science" is absurd. In any event, anyone can listen to their audio system all day long, and will accumulate "empirical" evidence along the way. Listening is empirical, because listening is observation, and "empirical" means observation, by definition.

Please look it up.

Michael;
Many years ago I called you on the phone and we spoke. I found you incredibly intelligent, articulate, and generous with your time. But I also thought you were way out on the fringe-and I say this with no malice-I like people on the fringe and believe this world needs people who look at things far differently than the so called "lemmings", a group that most of us belong to to one degree or another. You told me that if I were to take my B&W 805 Matrix loudspeakers that I used at that time and mount them from ceiling to floor in some special clamp you had designed that would rigidly fix them in space, my mind would be blown with the most life-like sound I had ever heard. I conjured up images of my wife packing her bags while you proceeded to explain arcane sound science theory to me. 
But let me ask you this; do you know of a single empirical test that explains Van Gough's Starry Night or Da Vinci's Mona Lisa? You will respond no doubt, "well, what do you mean by "explain?". And I will counter that no Spock-like super-intelligent alien from outer space could observe either painting for hour after hour and react to them the way many humans do. And no such theoretical life-form could explain why some people react the way they do and others do not. Now you will no doubt try to retort that my challenge actually supports and does not negate what you are trying to say and we will be back to counting angels on the point of a pin.
Btw, do you happen to understand the remarks of Geoff Kait? I am wondering if the two of you "out there on the fringe" share a common language. I can understand you most of the time but for the life of me, despite having graduated with honors with an English Degree from a well respected institution of higher learning and having a law degree from an even higher regarded law school and being a semi-well-respected lawyer, I just can't-to save my life-figure out what he is talking about or trying to say 99.99% of the time. Perhaps if nothing else you can assist in serving as his interpreter from time to time should you feel so inclined. The easy joke to make is that perhaps you are the same person but again, I can tell that you have a good command of basic English and you are articulate and communicative and Mr. Kait may as well be speaking Klingon. 

michaelgreenaudio

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? ... Someone somewhere is listening to "that" recording and it sounds fantastic. So the question is "why doesn't it sound great on every system"

There many explanations, the most obvious being a matter of personal taste, but the variables are countless. Some people have poor systems, or improperly setup systems, or malfunctioning systems, or an unidentified failed component in the system. They may have extremely bad electric service, or an acoustically bad room, or they may be half-deaf. They may have a prejudice against the artist, or the artist's genre, or the record cover.

Maybe they were listening to a different pressing, or a defective pressing, or, or, or ....

@michaelgreenaudio thank you for initiating this thread.

You raise the very same issue I often wonder when reading so many the threads these days. People with no actual experience with something, and even blatantly say they will not try, spend inordinate amounts of time writing posts about how something works or sounds. Or, more usually, how something CANNOT work or sound.

One of my earliest and best lessons I learned in audio was that drinking by the label absolutely presents a losing recipe.

In all honesty, I have never understood the rancor some have towards folks who found something they enjoy. Some here evidently have a god / hero / policeman complex where they try to save the world, and spend more time writing parking tickets than something that would actually benefit the rest of the community, or even their own existences. But they obviously feel gallant in their own minds as they labor to save the world from spending money on something they don’t like, disagree with, or doesn’t make any logical sense to them. The irony lies in that the more these folks rail against these things, the more the other side wins the air time to tout what the antagonists despise so deeply.

Though I’ll also put out that if the protagonists simply refrained from answering their foes, they’d also be a lot happier as it’s patently obvious so many who carry on these arguments do it for the attention it brings them. Ignore them, and they’ll go away from your discussion threads. By that I mean, if you want to talk about the happiness X brought to you, instead of going tit for tat day after day, week after week, month after month with these other people, just overlook their posts, and focus on your conversations. They’ll stamp their feet a bit, and go a bit more extreme in trying to get a reaction, but watch how they die off, and find some other bowl of corn flakes to try to urinate in.

As for me, I’m in this hobby for my own personal enjoyment. And I’ve made some great friends along the way. If I don’t like or want a [piece of music / component / person / wire / tweak / fuse / whatever], going on a crusade tilting against windmilss seems like a colossal waste of my time and my life. Live and let live