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

Prof, you need to think about slowing down buddy, the thread isn’t going anywhere. You are still very much being that Dog on the end of the Bone. This is causing you to troll tuning and myself. Your so set on that "aha caught you" moment that your getting angry and rambling all over the pages again.

Prof, your not going to win here because listeners are tuning as we speak in real time which is the proof of and for the hobby of listening. In other words your smelling of something fishy is probably because you have been wiping your nose with your freshly fish covered hands.

BTW I did have some delicious fish tonight from my favorite Cajun style chief here in Vegas, who also happens to have one of my systems. He made a dish for both me and Jay.

Oh and another btw, Prof I'm back to that only skimming over your posts, they're pretty much just repeating themselves and have no new content of interest. You smell something fishy bla bla bla, prof is insulted bla bla bla, he's the defender of audio forums bla bla bla, prof has no experience when it comes to tuning bla bla bla, prof only knows how to ask questions but can't produce answers bla bla bla, folks are tuning and enjoying it bla bla bla. Why are you even here Prof bla bla bla. I am actually officially bored to death with you, I can't even see your trolling as anything more than what it is. Dog an Bone though, that one has value.

Michael Green

www.michaelgreenaudio.net

Elizabeth, I stole your phrase "bla bla bla". That was another profound moment for me on this thread.

Also for those of you who are now tuning, I'm very happy for you. It's a real mind and door opener.

Sound engineers Ed Long and Ron Wickersham developed the concept of the PZM. "Pressure Zone Microphone"

To my delight, Carter was well aware of the technology, writing back:
“I was part of the class at Syn-Aud-Con that helped in the development of the PZM back in 1978. The technique was first shown to us by Ed Long and Ron Wickersham. We were all aware of the problems of reflected sound combining with direct sound to cause combing interference to the frequency response. Not only did PZMs eliminate that, it also gave any microphone 3dB more output. We were given tiny Knowles microphones and instructed to take them home and experiment with different configurations. Knowles made tiny omni, cardioid, and even bi-directional microphones.”
Michael, I do not see any reference to you or Turner Broadcasting in my research. It would appear the PZM was developed in 1978 at Syn-Aud-Con.

Any fib will eventually be caught out.

Yep, that would be them! A pretty fun time. It changed stage performances dramatically. We did a mixture of shotguns, PZM, wireless and hand held wireless and centipedes. The patterns up until then would leave holes in the performance, but using the floor and walls as the actual microphone was the beginning of a whole new way of tracking and EQing.

lol amg, so I'm taking it that you would like a pay stub from me of all the places I worked? Pretty weird dude!

Michael Green

www.michaelgreenaudio.net

Michael, you are a chameleon.

I finished 4 years of engineering in 1977. You must be well older than me.

I don't see the need to exaggerate my credentials. Why do your posts of historical endeavours seem to be out of kilter with posted history? Were you really there at all?