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?
“Picture having a system from start to finish without any enclosed chassis? I'm not just talking about the playback part but all the way from the microphone forward. He started with the tunable studio (live room), control room, mastering room, in studio playback room all tunable. All the equipment was without their chassis, or custom built without chassis from the microphones on. No cable barrels no plugs every stage was either hardwired or clipped. No cover even on the mixers.”
First you say “imagine” then state “he started with” so which is it?
Does this recording studio exist? Does it have a physical address?
Can we book studio time in order to see and hear what it is you are attempting to tell us?
You posted:
“No cable barrels, no plugs”
I am assuming you are talking about the XLR, TRS and RCA mic and signal cables but are we also talking Alternating Current power cable plugs as in hardwired to the wall feeds? Are the steel covers then removed from the primary AC panels too?
Are you stating all the equipment covers have been removed from the total electronics package consisting of amps, compressors, all outboard digital effects, power supplies, microphones and the mixers too?
In closing,
We would really enjoy seeing pictures of this studio to determine if in fact it does exist and is not imaginary or imaginarily engineered so do you have any?
Robert
These are all questions about audio and application so I am hoping this post remains void of a couple people filing complaint reports hence leading to the removal of this post. People want to know more...
I would second your question about modifications of the Pioneer receiver. In fact, I already got curious about it in my earlier post. I do not doubt it can be done, but it would be great to know what made the difference.
Addendum: I would also think that knowing the exact model of Pioneer receiver would be interesting to those who are more adept with technical aspect of its build.
It would not mean that all the others are misrepresenting, at all. In fact, changing anything in the system (from CD to composition of the air in the listening environment) could potentially have some effect on the perception of sound for the listener. After all, that is the purpose of tweaking/tuning. Altering what was initially heard. It still stands that the drummer would be the only one to know if he really hit something in a certain way that we imagine, after a heavily-modified process, as him changing angles of sticks to the drum or whatever else. There is nothing wrong with listeners adjusting sound to their liking, why wouldn't they enjoy even more. The simplest, for the end-user, way of adjusting is probably tone controls on an amplifier but there are many many more ways, including whatever kind of wood is used somewhere in the system.
Maybe one could say that virtually every system is misrepresenting (ears do not represent, though, they are a receptive link in the chain).
Remember how the room got bigger when you did something? It sounded more interesting/pleasing to you, at least that is how it read. Well, room was only one size originally. It has not changed since 1990 when the CD was recorded. Being able to manipulate the perception of the size of the room is misrepresenting the real room. Nothing wrong with that, but it is not a true representation of how big the room was during the recording, or what was adjusted during the mixing/mastering/some other process shortly afterwards. Many pieces of electronic equipment have modes "jazz club", "church", "stadium" which are aiming exactly for the same effect of changing listener's perception of the original room size. Of course, they may change other things in the process and not be acceptable to "audiophile" crowd, but they are aiming to be a simple and convenient solution for those listeners who would like the effect, but have no knowledge or time to do what you did by placing different things in different positions of your listening room. Both achieve similar result by different means. I would speculate that one does it conveniently while the other one does it less conveniently but without affecting other parameters. At the same time, both may misrepresent the size of the real room which is the only correct size.
What sound level (dB) do you listen to Hindu Love Gods at? I feel it needs a little bit louder setting, but am curious at what level do you feel you gain the best results.
Can you please tell us how the Pioneer amp went from rags to riches? I must admit I am almost out of patience with all the vague posts with no specifics. What mods were done to it...specifically? If we cannot get any real answers, then I will also need to move on as tuning seems to be all talk with vague and invisible walk.
"It would be interesting to talk to the drummer, if he still remembers it, and hear if all of that actually took place. Can it be that, by changing whatever is being tuned/tweaked the nature of what happened during the recording gets misrepresented?"
That's a frightening thought. That would mean that only one system and one set of ears is correct and all the others are misrepresenting.
I learned from observing you. I do not expect straight answers from anyone. If they come, I will happily consider them and see what I can learn from them. If they don't, I have lived without them until now quite fine so I will not miss them at all.
I do have fun reading posts marginally related to the thread. There are things to consider. I bought that Hindu Love Gods CD based on jf47ts recommendation/description and I have not regretted it. In fact, I bought another one for a friend of mine and he likes it, too. However, I do think that some of the despicably-constructed posts should be highlighted and confronted. I cannot care less if someone, I forgot who it was, is ashamed to be associated with you and me without really ever meeting us, but some of the most recent posts crossed the line of any tolerance.
"I can see exactly where the drumstick is hitting the drum and how the drummer uses the striking differently for tone changing."
It would be interesting to talk to the drummer, if he still remembers it, and hear if all of that actually took place. Can it be that, by changing whatever is being tuned/tweaked the nature of what happened during the recording gets misrepresented? Nothing wrong with that as long as the listener likes it, but it may not be just plucking hidden information from the recording. It may be skewing recording into what it never was to be.
"...and converted this amp into a variable music machine that now can easily rival the very best of the best."
What does conversion include? How was it converted? Changed parts?
I’ve spent 3 days listening to Hindu Love Gods with MG himself as my personal DJ I could easily go another week. Learning how much is on a recording is an event you must experience to believe. I didn’t know when we started that this would end up being such a profound trip. The difference between having a listen with Michael and tuning with Michael is a hobby changer. He has shown me why and how all systems play the same recording differently. To be absolutely fair when MG started this thread he didn’t used one of his tricked out components. He ordered a used vintage Pioneer receiver unpacked it in front of me and plugged it in. It’s that same Pioneer that has gone from rags to riches right before my eyes. MG took his time and converted this amp into a variable music machine that now can easily rival the very best of the best.
This latest setup MG created one of his favorite soundstages and had me listen to Hindu Love Gods. It was quite different from his other sounds. This recording now sounds like it was done inside of a recording studio and mixer with the engineer wearing headphones to do the mixing. That is the headphone type of stage only bigger and being able to have that whole body vibrating feeling. The stage is now doubled in size over what it was and I can see all the specifics of the instruments and players. On track two I can see exactly where the drumstick is hitting the drum and how the drummer uses the striking differently for tone changing. You can hear and see when he is hitting the drum dead center and see and hear the position of the stick change as he goes slightly off center. In other words I’m able to see the drum stay still with me seeing the drum shell stationary and the stick move and tone change amazing. Watching the snare drum action alone is worth the price of admission.
jf47t "it is not rocket science". Amen! This stuff was figured out more than a hundred years ago - much more than that! Famous names in electronics: Ohm, Volta, Ampere, Faraday, Gauss, Watt... etc. etc.etc.
My silence may be golden. Keep scratching your bat cap..and test your eyes and mind..because I made 2 posts in May about the subject. Sorry you cannot comprehend.Tom
@theaudiotweak Huh? You’re the one hiding behind a moniker. My life is an open book.
By the way, has the cat got your tongue? I’m asked you many times for an explanation of the super duper Polarity of Shear thing you keep lording over everybody. You said you would but then you copped out. Are you copping out again. What are you afraid of? 🙀
“I think most folks on a site like this who are serious about getting good sound listen carefully to everything, read up on things, and their room at home is the only ‘real empirical testing ground’ available. Once the tests are successful and meet their goals then they stop. Until their goals maybe change again... ”
mapman, to that I say amen, except that I would add “that matters” to “real empirical testing ground”.
And you’ve nailed geoffkait. He must live in his parents basement, he has so much time on his hands to agitate in these parts, how else to explain?
Whatever. Maybe you didn’t hear me. I said I did not insult him. End of discussion. What are you, suddenly the forum psychologist? Did someone die and make you the moderator? Give me a break. Go bother someone else.
I will have to repeat myself. Knowing when to curb yourself or stop is necessary in any communication.
Nobody should expect you to be deeply familiar with practice of medicine, but your...
"If things were so dire, why is it taking so long to get a diagnosis? It’s been what, a month, since he mentioned it?"
make me remember that knowing when to curb yourself or stop is necessary in any communication. Also, it may be hard to grasp a mind and thoughts of a cancer patient and ways she/he copes with that problem, but there have been many pages written about it. It does not matter if you read them or not.
Stop insulting people around here. Even if you think it is funny or witty, it is not.
PS The cancer patient has the right to talk about her/his illness. You do not, unless specifically called for. As a dark reminder. Age is a significant risk factor for cancer. None of us is getting younger. You would be granted same above-mentioned right, if you found yourself in amg56’s situation, with no questions asked.
glupson geoffkait, Regarding your comments about amg56, knowing when to curb yourself or stop is necessary in any communication. You lost any residual credibility that anyone might have thought you deserved based on an occasional post or two where you did seem to compose a lucid sentence. Your views of Internet forums as a vehicle for sadistically insulting people from safe distance are deplorable.
>>>>Please don’t insult my intelligence. Actually I did not insult amg56. Besides, he’s the one who keeps mentioning his physical and mental condition, not me. He’s mentioned cancer at least three or four times. For someone who just joined Audiogon he has mentioned his cancer and his upcoming diagnosis a bunch. Besides, if things are so dire, why is it taking so long to get a diagnosis? It’s been what, a month, since he mentioned it? You guys are such drama queens. You wanna be somebody? Go on Dr. Phil.
Not mention the suicide issue in his family he brought up the other day. I mean who does that? Come on, people! And if that weren’t enough he goes out of his way to attack people on this forum constantly. Hel-loo! Issues! Trolls like yourself and amg56 shouldn’t be so hypersensitive, or pretend to be. Whatever. You guys should go on the Dr. Phil Show. It’s a talk show. You can talk through it. 🙄
Regarding your comments about prof and me, please see above.
My comments may not be that useful, but neither is that poetic divide between "talkers" and "walkers". No matter how many times I try to ask, there is no answer how to recognize either of them. Where is the line that separates talking from walking for the purpose of this thread? What does the "talker" have to do to become a "walker"? Build his own listening room with his bare hands? Find a contractor to built it to his specifications? Buy as good/expensive of equipment as he can in hopes of achieving better sound without constructing or doing anything else?
I understand that Michael Green is a "walker" because he does something. I take it that you are the same for same reason. I accept that I am a "talker" because I have not done those things that you do daily. That is clear, but maybe neither of you have done things to improve your daily enjoyment of music that others have done. If I am correct, are you just "talkers" then? I do not think it matters, really, but that was the original topic.
Having said that, somewhere in the original post was a statement that it is easy for certain people ("walkers", I believe) to figure out through few Internet posts who is a "talker". How? Unless a person declares herself/himself as such. How do you (whoever that "you" is) decide it?
Regarding your comments about amg56, knowing when to curb yourself or stop is necessary in any communication. You lost any residual credibility that anyone might have thought you deserved based on an occasional post or two where you did seem to compose a lucid sentence. Your views of Internet forums as a vehicle for sadistically insulting people from safe distance are deplorable.
Regarding your comments about prof and me, please see above.
@geoffkait How dare you! You miserable excuse for a person. Do you want a copy of my diagnosis? You smart mouthed little person. Do you think cancer is funny? Do you think it does cause pain?
One person asks how I am feeling and you pull this stunt. are you showing off, because you have nothing else to contribute?
Oh, you are a shallow, callous narrow minded disgrace. You are certainly not humble and no scribe. You are a grub.
Gloopson, I’m not trying to start a fight and no offense, but since you and prof seem to enjoy this art of chit chat and debate so much, the next logical step is to play the cancer card. It would be quite difficult to prove that Tuning does not cause cancer. And no offense to amg56 who either has cancer or may have cancer. Is amg56 a tuner? Is he a tweaker? Maybe tweaking causes cancer, too. Do Tuning and Tweaking make hair grow on your palms? Stay tuned, folks, maybe we’ll find out, if prof and gloopson are on their toes. As for your friend and humble scribe, I’m filing this latest round of pretend debate under, What about this? What about that? Oh, honorable mention to mapman who’s been scrambling to stay in the fight and almost connected on a couple jabs.
No offence but your last two posts were not useful toward making a point about this thread unless you were making the point of taking not being the same as doing. They were simply more talking. The more I move toward the walking the easier it is to see posters coming up here simply to talk. That’s not a bad thing, just pales to the actual doing of the hobby.
I can see where Michael gets bored with many of these posts they are indeed boring if your someone who wants to do the listening.
This was cool Michael just showed me a trick. He put on track 4 of Hindu Love Gods took an RT Square and folded it in half. He then put the Square on the ceiling about a foot in front of my head. The singer moved more toward me and the band fell back about 3' further than they were before trippy. He started changing the angle of that RT and the soundstage was able to be moved front to back at will. That's impressive. Each step MG takes is showing me how adjustable and flexible the soundstage is. Now that's walking the walk. It's great to make the connection between what the reviewers have said about Michael Green and the actual event live in real time. It's also been impressive that MG has not once changed the speaker positioning. Each step I'm taking with tuning is making more sense that we have control over our recordings being played. MG says the info is all there and our systems are the adjustable tool that shapes the recording into whatever we want if it's on the recording itself of course.
This is why every recording sounds different on every system. MG says "BINGO". The recording is the recording and the system is the tool. The content is all there but we are only playing the interpretation our system's setting gives us. This is making sense.
"Or the guy who needs measurements because he isn't able to hear results."
Try not to think of it as incorrect for a moment. Think of it as a two-pronged approach to the potential issue. In some, if not most, areas of science these days, it is an acceptable way. It is meant to add one more layer of certainty while attempting to exclude experimenter's bias. It is not always conclusive (who to trust, ears or measurements?), but there are patterns. As much as I would always go for the subjective approach, there is some value in cold calculated measurements, too. These two things are not mutually exclusive, but from the beginning of the thread we are led to believe that they are.
I did not firmly believe that tuning of any kind set any fire. However, once there is a statement, even with a numeric value (zero can reasonably be considered numeric value for this purpose) attached to it, there is a question of legitimacy of the whole statement. If there is some count of tuning fires, the whole thing becomes much more meaningful than someone just stating things left and right and then making fun of the one who questions it. Add a little bit of the "educated guess" claim which, as sophisticated as it may seem, was just a dust in our faces to detract from worthlessness of everything that was written in sentences preceding and following it.
One big flaw of this thread is that there are many things mentioned without ever clearly determining what it means. Participants start talking about it without knowing if they are talking about same thing. It started with OP and talking and walking. I am serious when I ask where is the border between those two. What is considered talking and what is considered walking. The only response was from geoffkait telling me that I am a bit slow, or am putting on a good act, adding that Internet description of "talker" has my picture next to it. Those pseudo-humorous comments is as far as this thread has gotten with clarifying first words in original post. 20 pages, statements being thrown around without any merit, but they seemed strong. Like zero fires. It was not licencia poetica, it was cheap bluff.
As far as that historic employment dispute goes, I do not think that anybody should pay much attention to it. It is a dispute between two people who have known each other and are talking things that are basically opposite. Robert is definitely upset, but it does not necessarily make his statements incorrect. Same goes for Michael. None of us on the thread have enough knowledge to be judges what really happened. Not even you, unless you were hanging out with both of them a couple of decades ago. At the same time, this thread, even if started by one of them, may not be the right place to argue their dispute.
I noticed some deleted posts and I noticed frequent use of word "troll". It appears that anything can be called "troll". At the same time, posts in which a person calls the other one "crazy" do not get deleted even when flagged. Apparently, this deleting process is not flawless. Not to mention that, given the track record here, "troll" may have different definition for everyone. I would not give too many negative points to posts deleted because of "trolling". I would rather see their content first.
The comment kosst made was a troll. That's what Geoff was telling you. Of course tuning hasn't caused any fires. Tuning is an action. The trolling post was removed along with other trolling posts on this thread and others. Look at the OP "I'm not asking to be trolled". What this OP is doing is exposing and confirming different audiophile personalities and the lengths they will go to to create their own worlds on forums that have nothing to do with doing the hobby of listening. People who are fake can't help themselves when it comes to disrupting the flow of audio threads. It's an addiction to them. They make a point and spend the rest of their time defending that point even when their point has been proven incorrect. It's like the ex employee mad at his former boss. He's blinded by his own anger at being let go and must cast blame. Or the inexperienced DIYer trying to prove that he has knowledge that he doesn't because of his lack of experience. Or the guy who needs measurements because he isn't able to hear results. The list goes on and on of people who come to threads for reasons other than the thread itself. This OP is here to let the thread take on the meaning of the OP. This thread could have died at page one but the addiction of people to prove their point and importance has kept this thread rolling strong.
note: MG co-wrote this post with me. We're listening to some nice tunes and I pulled up the thread. I just wanted to be up front about that.
"Thanks, but no need, I am really a very low level music user. More of a plug-and-play and accept some imperfections."
"As I was turning the computer on, I put earphones in (Sennheiser IE80, SONY Walkman, my original ears and fairly clean at the moment) and started Raspberry Beret. I will go with that bar instead of a garage now. I also started noticing the drum you were talking about. Yes, it is quite lively. I guess I have two CDs now, for the price of one from Goodwill. One recorded in the garage and one recorded in the bar. Both are just fine."
glupson you just referenced!
Your headphones, your listening room, your car and whatever else you play that recording on gives you a different playback of that one recording. Tuning would have allowed you the ability to make that recording sound the same in your different environments.
So lets say you take a trip and your listening to a cd. You pull up in the drive way head into the house and put on that same cd. What tuning does is give you the ability to listen to that cd the same way you were hearing it in the car. Or go listen to that cd on your headphones again and now put that cd on your home system. Tuning would allow you to match the recorded code. Meaning what you heard on your headphones you would also hear on your stereo. Or you could tune to the best of all worlds or take the recording closer to when it was done in the studio which is likely several times better sounding than in a typical home setting.
Sometimes I wonder if the geoffkait person even exists. For now, it seems like some computer program that randomly collects/copies words from the Internet. It is rare, if it even ever happens, that posts under geoffkait contain anything but sentences scavenged on the Internet. As a program, it is quite undeveloped as the words written rarely have anything to do with anything they should be response to.
Nothing. Then more nothing. At least you’re consistent, gloopson. Hey, I think I feel a poem coming on. Next up, the complete lyrics to the old standard, Lost in the Ozone Again.
Good mornin’ starshine, You lead us along My love and me as we sing our early mornin’ singin’ song Glibby gloop gloopy Nibby Nabby Noopy La La La Lo Lo Sabba Sibby Sabba Nooby abba Nabba Le Le Lo Lo Tooby ooby walla nooby abba nabba Early mornin’ singin’ song
Typical talker jibber jabber, argumentative til he turns blue. Were you a blue baby? Even if you could prove that some Tuners had fires, which you can’t, you would be unable to prove it was the Tuning that caused them. What’s next, Tuning causes cancer? That’s always a popular argument among talkers and pseudo skeptics. You can’t prove that it doesn’t.
Was Baudelaire a talker? I bet he was. What he was was a spitting image of Poe.
I was not aware of the movie or that it had anything to do with Baudelaire. This thread is good for these small pieces of knowledge that can be picked from time to time. Thanks for the explanation. We will not clarify anything about walking and talking or who employed whom in the previous century, but there are little pieces of puzzle that show up occasionally.
Agreed, but I am trying to exhibit some self-discipline. This is the first thread that I have really participated anywhere, except for a post or two at rare times. I learned a lot from geoffkait, believe it or not. About how not to write posts. I judge what I am about to post against his. If I feel he would not write it that way, it is probably fine to be presented to people. I am not kidding at all. I am grateful for that.
I doubt anyone could prove you wrong on that one. At the same time, it is as accurate as me stating that Tuning audiophiles caused 327 fires. It is a speculation and not an educated guess. In essence, a worthless piece of quasi-info.
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.
