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?
@jf47t Jay, Without being in the least bit rude, may I say to you, "Grow Up and Smell the Roses". There is a world out there, out from the shadow of Michael, no matter what he says.
That world, is full of well meaning people of all Nationalities, backgrounds, ages, ethnicity, beliefs and worth who have "FUN" experimenting with their Stereo equipment to the point where they are happy and satisfied with results.
There are thousands of topics on the wwweb that cover all aspects of HiFi manipulation. people, like me, prof, glupson, mapman, geoffkait, all commune on these forums to learn and to communally partake in information sharing. (We might exclude Geoff then....). ;0
What is not in keeping with the above is posts that call to task people's belief that they are walking and talking, being called fakes. is it any wonder there was a small but vocal uprising by people who DO walk and talk. Jay, there are as many ways to talk as there are languages, each have their own way of walking. I for one would never call them to task and call anyone of them fakes.
I am sorry for you Jay. You need to learn to think for yourself, come out of the shadow you seem to be under.
@jf47t I suggest you leave it where it stands. MG's gone and you shouldn't have to shoulder the heavy lift he left behind. Let the thread die; it is better than continuing the back and forth. Regards Al
"Please don't do that. That was extremely heartless and cruel. I think I get it now. No matter how much soul someone pours into the entertainment business your here to rip them down."
Huh, now that is bordering on bizzare. Ripping down? Who is? Whom? When? Why? Cruel? Heartless? Extremely? Whose posts you are commenting on? This is really strange. I would like to correct my mistake, but I am lost in these woods.
Do not be ashamed of being associated with us. We really are not associated. I have no idea who prof is and how he looks like and what he does and where he even is and I am as sure that prof is the same with me. We know nothing about you, either, except for what you write.
Really, I do not want to be extreme in any way, nor would I like to be cruel or heartless. I read prof's last post again and was kind of proud of him how mellow and peaceful he was in it. Can you help me, or maybe us (prof and me) out of this twilight zone?
Perhaps this gig isn’t for you; might you be a bit too delicate to be MG’s spokesman here, if you are going to be freaked out so easily?
No one here has to be convinced that Michael would "blow our minds" if we just were able to observe him, or that he’s a Focused Machine. None of that answers any of the questions we are discussing so, as passionate as you may be, actually *getting answers to some questions* would go much further for MG’s credibility than having someone continually come on just to tell us He’s So Great And He’ll Answer In His Own Time. When you (or he) go on and on about Michael’s experience, his genius, how much he loves music and has lots of friends...that’s just spending time finding ways to not engage the substance of our questions and ideas. Bragging that he *could* answer, and does elsewhere...but not actually doing it here...is "talking" not "walking."
I don’t need to share your love for Michael to consider his ideas. They may be valid.
And I don’t need to Hate him should I decide I don’t buy in to any particular thing he does.
It doesn’t need to be so emotional. Most o this "angry" stuff has been projection on your part.
Just try direct, clear, honest conversation - on the topic. It’s good for the soul.
Please don't do that. That was extremely heartless and cruel. I think I get it now. No matter how much soul someone pours into the entertainment business your here to rip them down.
for the first time on this thread I am actually ashamed to associate myself with you guys
So I think your advice for jf47t to think about reeling back a bit on trying to convince everyone that Michael Green is a Great Man would go a long way in keeping people's minds open.
And I would also add support to your taking exception to the "you are either going to love him or hate him."
I don't hate Michael Green at all. I've said more than once he may be a great guy outside this thread.
If MG or jf47t have diagnosed that I hate Michael, they are not the keen judges of human character that it seems they think they are.
All I'm looking for is sincere conversation. (*scribbles phone number on bathroom wall....*)
"Your either going to love him or your going to hate him but it’s important that he exist."
You are 2/3 wrong on this one for sure. Most of the people walking, and even those who are talking, the Earth neither love, nor hate Michael Green. Even on this thread there is a bunch.
Oh my (again), it is all fine but tone it down. You are not doing Michael Green much favor with this kind of descriptions. I really have nothing against him or his business, but you make it seem freaky. I believe it is accurate and it does not hurt anyone, but it is a bit odd.
"If you saw the amount of decisions he makes a day and the types of decision it would probably blow some circuits."
If this sentence does not blow about twenty fuses here, we are lucky. None of us knows how many and what kinds of decisions Michael makes a day, but some may make even more and types you may be surprised, not to say scared, to imagine you or Michael have to make. This is generally an anonymous forum and most of us do not know much about what other people do every day. Save for geoffkait, he knows it all.
"At it’s most basic, empirical means "based on experience." And most of what we infer is based on experience. And to add the word "testing" to "empirical" doesn’t help much because there is a huge gulf between "empirically testing" an idea...and "empirical testing" in the scientific sense."
The answer is Yes. All the above but I want to tell you something about MG
Here’s Michael’s description of the situation between the two of you. The post you wrote a second ago is something that MG would dive into answering over the next several months. When I first met MG it didn’t take long to realize he has two modes. One is based on time allowed and the other is based on what he calls, all in. Michael as of a few weeks ago has been mentoring me to potentially becoming his assistant. I’m not the only assistant he has but we’re both hoping that I will develop into his immediate needs guy. In some ways he wants me to be a clone in other words. MG calls it being, his brain. If you saw the amount of decisions he makes a day and the types of decision it would probably blow some circuits.
Prof Michael is not a mean person at all he’s a machine a single minded extremely focused 24/7 machine. Your either going to love him or your going to hate him but it’s important that he exist. I’ve now had talks with several of his friends and advisors and the common theme is, good luck. Today when we were heading out on our adventures MG said hey lets go through some of prof’s questions totally out of the blue. At that moment you were as important as any audio project he has. He was totally dedicated to prof and nothing else till we got to our stop. As soon as we got to our stop if I would have said prof, he wouldn’t have a clue as to what I was talking about because he had shifted gears to going through wood. That’s MG.
I know your probably expecting an exchange with someone seeing this is a forum but MG is not the guy to have that with if your wanting fast answers. He’ll hit that next need and you won’t see him for days. It works good for TuneLand cause he can set the pace and I know he would like to be available here but I see something like this thread as being he will stop by choose his point make it and be gone. He’s told me he hopes things can happen that way here but feels that may never happen.
e) The topic is directly about "Talk but no walk" Making adjustments to your system is walking.
And yet his OP was mostly about "talking" and "faking it." His very last question summing up the OP was "why fake it?" Hence the topic is as much or more about people "faking" as it would be about those who are "doing." If you want to make a post about Golfing, you don’t make a post referring mostly to, and addressing, non-golfers. You could make a thread "let’s talk about golfing" and people will talk about golfing. If you make a thread "why don’t people golf?" you will naturally invite discussion about, and from, non-golfers.
This is basic communication 101.
If Michael only really wanted to talk about Tuning, then as I pointed out in my first reply, addressing his post to the subject of the "fakers" is not going to be a good trajectory to set your thread on. I’m trying to make you, and Michael, unbaffled about what went on here, so you hopefully learn from it and don’t end up confused again if you keep doing this.
c) Tuning is a form of walking, just as tweaking or any other form of adjusting your system (already covered several times in this thread)
Excellent.
So, as I’ve said, on such a view virtually everyone here is "walking." Including myself.
No, I don’t "tune" my system to every single song or album. But like everyone on this site, I have spent a lot of time putting together my system and dialing it in, tweaking it along the way to achieve what I want.
So, as I wrote in my very first reply to Michael, that begs the question of "who would he be talking about?" If as you just said, "walking" is tweaking or any form of adjusting your system" then I and pretty much everyone else here are "walking." Therefore it make sense to ask "Well...since I think I’m walking, and everyone else would seem to be walking....who ISN’T actually ’walking?"
Do you not see the logic of this question, why someone might ask for more detail and clarification from Michael?
And yet when I raised this question to get Michael to clarify, he didn’t seem to recognize it’s pertinence and immediately, in his first reply to me, suggested he was already clear, that it wasn’t worth any more of a response to me, except to imply I was indicative of those only "talking " or "faking" that he was thinking of.
Do you get why this was problematic, yet?
i) The definition of empirical testing is covered in depth on the internet.
Then you *should* know how wide-ranging the term "empirical" is. Which is the very problem I raised in my first post.
At it’s most basic, empirical means "based on experience." And most of what we infer is based on experience. And to add the word "testing" to "empirical" doesn’t help much because there is a huge gulf between "empirically testing" an idea...and "empirical testing" in the scientific sense.
Virtually EVERY fringe belief system, every alternative medicine, or every new age healer, or every psychic, or astrologer, flat earth believers etc believe they are "testing" their beliefs empirically. They ALL give the same talk of "try it FOR YOURSELF and see if it works!" And for every claim, no matter how nutty it is, you get people saying "I tried it, tested it myself, and IT WORKS!"
Most people it seems don’t contemplate the true magnitude of our powers of imagination, or the more subtle influences of our bias, and how they lead us to cherry-pick "evidence" for something we are beginning to believe in and ignore evidence and theory against it. People can literally end up believing virtually anything because of this. And we always think we are the rational ones; but we can see the bias and cherry picking when others do it.
So simply "testing" says nothing about how good or reliable your testing method is. That’s why there is such a huge gap between mere "empirical testing" in the sense of experience, to "empirical testing" in the scientific sense. You can engage in empirical testing in a way that does not challenge your intuitions or biases or that doesn’t account for variables - and that’s how you get virtually every dubious and contradictory belief system in the world. OR you can avail yourself of the scientific method, and the knowledge gained by that method, where you look for more objective verification that takes our error-prone cognition seriously- e.g. developing coherent hypotheses that build from existing reliably documented phenomena, measuring phenomena that can be repeated by others, being skeptical of where your own or other people’s bias could be operating, controlling for this in your experiments, etc.
So, I asked, did Michael mean "empirical testing" in the first, general sense of simply "trying it for yourself?" Well, then that is clearly full of problems and isn’t very rigorous.
Or did he mean it in the scientific sense. After all, he referred to scientific testing in his OP. This is why for instance it was relevant to ask what type of methods he was using to establish things like "untied caps change the sound of a system." Is he measuring as a careful empiricist (toward the scientific/engineering side) would do, so his data can be seen by others, or repeated by others measuring the same claims? If he’s using listening tests, is he controlling for bias? Which is what one who takes scientific skepticism seriously would likely want to do.
Or...just "trying it and if he thinks he perceives a difference, that’s good enough to ratify his ideas about what is happening, and why, and that it is in fact happening?"
Everything Michael, and Tuners like yourself have posted - including Michael endorsing a post in which one of his followers stated he’s not even interested in technical explanations or mapping theory to experience, has suggested Michael appeals to the most basic and unreliable sense of "empirical testing" and not the scientific sense.
If someone is going to come on here and call other people out for being "fakers" and not being empirical, then he should expect if he actually cares about this subject to answer these questions, not just ignore them.
Summing up, I have said from the beginning:
IF by "empirical" and "walking" Michael only means a basic sense of people having ideas about setting up and dialing in their system, and trying them out...then EVERYONE HERE is walking and no one - certainly not me - deserves to be put in the category of "not walking/faking." And if Michael can actually point to someone here "not walking" then he should do so as an example to clarify and justify his talk of "fakers," - or stop implying there are people faking it.
But IF by empirical Michael actually meant empiricism in the careful methods of testing compatible with science, then by that definition even Michael doesn’t seem to be "walking the walk." He’s not demonstrating, or even explaining his claims in any credible fashion, and unlike a scientific mindset, he pushes challenging questions off as a negative thing, instead of embracing them. Thus he is being hypocritical making a thread calling out other people for not being sufficiently empirical.
k) Theory covers a wide range of talking. Some are close to walking and some are more imaginative what ifs.
l) It isn’t. Faking it is faking it.
m) Faking it is faking it. It’s when an event is made to appear like it is happening yet it is not really being done.
Unfortunately, nothing in those replies clarifies anything. You may have some idea of "faking it," but you are not communicating it clearly. For instance, do I fit this definition of "faking it? in this "hobby?" Certainly this is what Michael and his followers have kept indicating. If so, please clarify exactly how I am "not walking the walk" of the HEA hobby. It’s ok, I’m a big boy, you can be as clear and direct as possible. This is what I want.
Robert, you don’t want the old school designers here?
I think Audiogon could do no better than to have some of HEA’s founding fathers hanging around here.
Can I make a suggestion? Wouldn’t it be wiser of you to start a different thread on the topic. When you make that statement here it looks like your agenda is to bump MG (a former employer of yours) off of Agon somehow. I know you have issues with Michael because of some of the posts you have made here (most have been deleted) but the proper way to deal with those types of issues is not to air them out on the Audiogon forum.
I don’t have to know anything about the person. His own words give him away. Now, you might not perceive yourself as a troll. But you’re a troll, nevertheless. I have this gift, this natural inborn ability to detect trolls. Call it troll-dar. You can trust me.
Manufacturers and Dealers have no business owning threads on the AudioGon Forum. The floodgates will open once ‘free - no cost marketing and advertising’ is discovered. I will write a letter to management in order to have them weigh in on the topic.
Currently manufacturers and dealers are permitted to participate on threads and we appreciate having that capability however in my opinion, our contributions should end there.
I was asking about trolls as you have put me in that category. Unfortunately, I am neither Scandinavian, nor short.
>>>>Yes, it’s puzzling. Have we discovered a new species? Do you live under a bridge? Perhaps under a train trestle. 🚂 Do you live in the tube? Besides, I’m pretty sure glupson is Swedish or Danish. Have you checked Ancestry.com? Try saying glupson five time fast.
"n) There is no replacing physically doing. Talk does not replace walk."
You just hurt the feelings of all the theoretical physicists in the world. Thankfully, it does not appear that any is on this thread. Many times, it is easier to do something than to figure it out by thinking about it. There should really be nothing wrong with learning how to swim before trying to swim the marathon. You can practice and perfect it by doing it, but first learn what to expect.
Many events cannot replace something else, but they can complement it. It is synergy that brings benefits, not exclusiveness. It may not have anything to do with the intent of this thread, but that is how it goes in general.
"If you are looking specifically for talk on "Tuning," why would you be coming to this thread? There is already an A-gon thread Michael G created specifically devoted to his method of tuning:"
a) This is the OP’s thread. He can take any approach he chooses to make his points.
You refer to "off topic" posts or comments in this thread...but what do you actually think IS the topic described in the thread title and OP?"
b) The OP is "Talk but not walk?"
"Do you see the word "Tuning" mentioned?"
c) Tuning is a form of walking, just as tweaking or any other form of adjusting your system (already covered several times in this thread)
"The topic was this:
MG: 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?
d) The topic is the OP
reiterated at the end of the OP:
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?
So, as communicated by the words MG actually used in his OP, the topic wasn’t directly about tuning, but was concerned the hobby of High End Audio - which of course is what you and I and everyone else is doing here. And then he was saying some people are faking it in high end audio, only talking (e.g. talking theory) but not in fact testing empirically what they are talking about."
e) The topic is directly about "Talk but no walk" Making adjustments to your system is walking.
"I don’t see how you could ignore that this was the subject of the OP."
f) Covered earlier. The OP is "talk but not walk".
"Now, given that was actually the subject he raised...how is it not on topic to ask questions like:
How might that critique actually apply and to whom?"
g) Explain in more detail please.
"How is one to know when one is, on this account, "doing the hobby" and not faking it?"
h) Making adjustments to your system is doing the hobby.
"And hence what do you mean exactly by empirical testing - do you mean simply trying anything?"
i) The definition of empirical testing is covered in depth on the internet.
"Or being more rigorous in the method of testing, since you mentioned engineering and science?"
j) Please define your use of the word "rigorous" in the context of testing methods.
"And is it actually illegitimate, or even not part of the hobby, to talk about theory, and whether a theory actually seems cogent, explanatory or realistic?"
k) Theory covers a wide range of talking. Some are close to walking and some are more imaginative what ifs.
"Why is talking about audio theory "faking it?"
l) It isn’t. Faking it is faking it.
"And is someone faking it simply by questioning the basis for some other audiophile’s claim?"
m) Faking it is faking it. It’s when an event is made to appear like it is happening yet it is not really being done.
"Why wouldn’t it make sense to FIRST want to see good reasons for why a tweak or product is likely to be efficacious, when deciding whether it’s worth one’s time or money to try it out?"
n) There is no replacing physically doing. Talk does not replace walk.
"Does one HAVE to have experience with X in order to ask legitimate questions about X?"
o) What specifically is X?
"And as to the division between questioning a claimed phenomenon via theory or personal experience: Why can’t one point to empirical evidence gathered by other people?"
p) In HEA this would be called a review. Reviews don’t determine what a product would sound like when used under different conditions.
"If to speak about a phenomenon, or to have a belief about it without direct experience was illegitimate, then we could never avail ourselves of all the scientific evidence and knowledge that WE ourselves didn’t gather."
q) There is doing and there is theory. What conclusions you draw from that, would be your belief.
"Why aren’t any or all of those questions legitimate and applicable to ask someone who made an OP like Michael’s?"
r) Michael and I are doing the answering of these questions while we are driving to one of the shops and back. I’m asking and he’s answering. It’s not a matter of MG not wanting to answer as much as it is needing to take care of issues based on importance.
"Isn’t it fair to inquire further about whether Michael’s appeal to empiricism, science, experience and why someone might, or might not, deserve to have their own methods, or interaction with the hobby characterized with the derogatory phase "faking it."
s) This question has been beat to death. Others will need to come to their own conclusions. MG doesn’t see his choice of words with the same meaning as you do. I’ve looked it up. MG says more like this sentence "all the experts agree that you can’t fake it". He used faking but not in a negative sense but more of a factual sense.
"And those are the right-on-topic questions I was raising from the beginning, that MG decided were irrelevant."
t) Your assuming something that may never change in your mind MG understands and accepts this. He also doesn’t have a problem with this. But MG only has a certain amount of time on his clock. He’s not saying this to be rude but to be factual. His view of you personally prof is MG may not have the time to get into a never ending debate.
@geoffkait "In the unfortunate event that emoji doesn’t show up on all computers it’s a vomit emoji"
Those seeing the baby you-know-what green stuff coming out of the emoji have their devices displaying correctly. For everyone else, it’s simply the color of the typical crap Katie spews
I could never picture MG saying "the truth hurts". Why would the "truth" hurt? That sounds like a description of a difference between Michael and you. I don't know you Robert but I do know that if you think that Michael would say "the truth hurts" you have no idea who Michael is. I can picture MG saying "I love the truth" but never "the truth hurts".
Bingo! Gloopson, you hit the nail on the head. The name trollja is Norse for troll. That’s pretty much a dead give away. Moops is a little more difficult. Moops in Swedish means young child who cries a lot.
Mr. Green, glad to be of service. The truth hurts and always will - forever. Before exiting your campaign here (as things were just warming up); since you prefer to address the readership via children’s storytelling, I would like to ad the final chapter to your tale.
For all the angry cherries, there is hope. One first has to discover who and why the happiest cherry in the tree is disrupting the batch.
This is a good read by Jane E Brody of the New York Times
Right. Like moopman and gloopson and trollja aren’t trolls. Cut me some slack, Jack! All the lonely trolls and pseudo skeptics, where do they all come from? All the lonely anti audiophiles, where do they all belong? One suspects they just want to be part of something big. You were obviously glued to this thread. There is no joy in Mudville today. 😢
Those are some longer and more complicated reads than usual on this thread, but they seem interesting enough to take time to read them and maybe learn something. Thank you for that. That is, aside of Kim Jong Un, Planck, Einstein, a few Amish proverbs, and some incidental poetry what I find valuable in this confused thread. Every now and then, something shows up that brings something new, at least to me. Cows listening to accordion somewhere in the Alps? Check. At least they were not ski jumping there. Of course, not to forget cherry pies. They will enter the classic literature of Internet audio. Along with that, comes some more audio-thought-provoking material that broadens the horizon.
Original intention of this thread, whatever that was, might have been completely missed, but as a wastebasket you can come to and pick your recyclables from, it is great.
trelja Still, I want to stress the criticality of loudspeaker positioning, if nothing more than to provide a target, and keep in the back of the mind in case one someday has the opportunity to realize it. With that, below is what I consider one of the most important treatises I’ve encountered along my audio journey, a translation of the Dead Points of Live Sound, by A. Polakov.
>>>>>>Fortunately for the sharp eared and earnest audiophile it’s not necessary to understand the logic of The Dead Points of Live Sound in order to determine the absolute best speaker locations for a given room with given acoustic treatments. And you don’t have to repeat the ubiquitous audiophile methodology of move a little, listen a little, which is guaranteed to fail as I will demonstrate. All other methodologies will fail to obtain the absolute best speaker locations.
The only sure fire method guaranteed to determine the absolute best speaker locations is the out of phase track on the XLO Test CD or similar test CD with the out of phase track. The XLO track is self explanatory, I cannot vouch for other test CDs. The objective is to find the speaker locations where the out of pbase track is the MOST DIFFUSE - where the voice on the out of phase track “sounds like it’s coming at you from all around the room with no specific direction.” That is when the sound from the speakers will be the most coherent and have the largest soundstage when the recording is in correct phase. Of course, it should be mentioned that in rooms with minimum acoustic treatments the capability to achieve a VERY DIFFUSE sound might be constrained. As proper acoustic treatments and or devices are applied to the room the XLO Test CD will be more effective, and you will be more able to hear the completely diffuse voice.
The standard audiophile method of moving one speaker at a time and listening or both speakers at a time and listening, then moving them again and listening cannot find the absolute best locations because it’s like trying to solve x simultaneous equations in x + n unknowns.
Many folks believe speakers should be placed widely apart for better soundstage. Or that the speakers should form an equilateral triangle with the listener. Or that speaker locations must be symmetrical. They also often believe speakers must be toed in for better soundstage. Both of those beliefs are not true. The best soundstage and coherence, etc. might actually be where the speakers are relatively close to each other, well, closer than you would think. It all depends. That’s where the XLO Test CD comes in. You don’t have to guess any more. It’s a no brainer. 🧠
If room acoustics devices (e.g., panels, traps, resonators, what have you) are added later the whole process should be repeated since the room dynamics change. But the impression that the voice on the XLO track is coming at you from all around the room will get more and more definite. That corresponds to the absolute best speaker locations.
Now, having said all that, we’re not out of the woods yet. Because as fate would have it many recordings are manufactured out of phase (Polarity). This seems to be especially true for CDs. There are no standards for Polarity. So, MANY IF NOT MOST CDs you play are out of phase (Polarity) and would sound better, all things being equal, if your SYSTEM was out of phase (Polarity).
Sorry, what were you saying? I was busy just listening to some Neil Young, followed by some Prog Rock by Goblin, some Electronic dance music on Tidal, and then some Bernard Herrmann symphonic music on vinyl.
Each genre sounded wonderful on my sound system requiring no effort or desire to alter the sound for each one.
Which means I have time for other hobbies.
Whoops, sorry, I think you've copyrighted "The Hobby" so I'd best not use that word.
I mean..not having to constantly fiddle with my system leaves time for other activities...
You know what, I gave a descriptive answer about my time in Nashville and then said Nah! I deleted it. This is boring me to death so I’m going to leave you guys to your sitcom. Some of you guys are really cool, thanks for your contributions. Enjoy the heck out of your hobby, loved ones and life. Please come over and visit us on TuneLand anytime.
glupson, I think you said it a while back and forgive me for not quoting this exactly "folks wasting time". Your a good man!
grannyring, my apologies. I know how much you wanted this to be something productive, I'm sorry I didn't deliver.
Geoff, keep them on their toes
prof, get a hobby
Robert...well....Nah, you’ll have to work out your life on your own
Tunees, I love you guys! It’s my life’s honor and privilege to hang out with you and be a part of your music, see you on TuneLand.
Mods, you were very impressive, good luck with your forum and I hope to visit you soon.
@glupson @michaelgreenaudio thank you for your perspectives, I appreciate it. Yes, life trumps audio. We need to adhere to the constraints, demands, and desires of both our listening environment and other members of the household.
Still, I want to stress the criticality of loudspeaker positioning, if nothing more than to provide a target, and keep in the back of the mind in case one someday has the opportunity to realize it. With that, below is what I consider one of the most important treatises I've encountered along my audio journey, a translation of the Dead Points of Live Sound, by A. Polakov. The only thing I add to it is to make the analogy of loudspeaker positioning with focusing the lens of a camera. In proper focus, EVERY thing becomes exponentially more right and better. And outside of that incredibly small point of focus, EVERY thing else is not right ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is know that there are many ingredients responsible for “quality”
of audio inhalation. Unquestionably one of the most important is the
listening room’s reaction to the installed loudspeakers. There are
countless solutions how to work with listening rooms and the cost of
this “working” in many cases might exceed the cost of the playback
components.
Yes, the performance of loudspeakers might be very dramatically
changed by the rooms and most of those improvements would be centered to
find a correct positioning for the acoustic system in a listening room.
Everyone knows that the positioning loudspeakers have an impact on
Sound. However, with the REAL depth and imperativeness of this impact
very few are familiar. It is pointless to perform any actions targeted
to improve performance of playback, including the change of the
component of the playback chain or the room acoustic treatment, unit the
correct positioning of the loudspeakers in a given room would be found.
There are no formulas, programs of any methodology that would simplify
this process and the only “tool” that might be use is subjective
perception of the audible result. The rules, circulations, abstraction,
approximations and the entire practice of position of loudspeakers
according to minimization of stay-waves are a juts very rudimental and
primitive approach. After the optimum stay-waves location was found it
might be considered only a very beginning.
An optimum location of loudspeakers might be called an “optimum zone”
beyond which the subjective characteristics of the loudspeaker’s
performance degrade very rapidly and very aggressively. For a typical
“box” loudspeaker and within an average 400-700 sq feet room the
dimension of the “optimum zone” usually within .5-1 inch and the
deviation form the towing-in usually within 2-3 degree. Some audio
people (approximately 15% of them) were able to determine the correct
“optimum zone”. Whoever did not do it was not able to utilize a full
potential capacity of thier playback systems. However, practically no
one, even among those lucky 15%, knows anything about the “dead points
of live sound”. When an acoustic system is placed into those “dead
points” than all improvements that comes with placing the loudspeakers
into the “optimum zone” really jump over the roof. The “performance
yield”, when loudspeakers hit the “dead points”, is much higher then
when the loudspeakers are juts placed inside the “optimum zone”. To
describe what the “dead points of live sound” I would say that inside of
the “optimum zone” there is one smaller zone. The dimensions of this
smaller zone are within the scale of 1/16” –1/32” and therefore this
zone might be called - a single point in space, or the “dead point of
live sound” (or the DPoLS further on)
This effect was found purely accidental within context of one
installation. Then the DPoLS was found within others installations,
which suggests that this effect is a typical. In all occasions the gain
of sound’s quality took place very aggressively and the gain of quality
disappeared when the loudspeakers were removed out from the DPoLS. This
suggests that the DPoLS might be discovered if one is intentionally
searching for it. The probability that the DPoLS will be hit
accidentally is practically equal to nothing. There are no publications
or methodologies on the subject. Therefore, below are listed some
subjective characteristics that an acoustic system do when the
loudspeakers are placed into the DPoLS:
1) When the loudspeakers are placed into the DPoLS then all
characteristics of sound improving very strongly: imaging, space
localization, transient, dynamic range, space presentation, tonal
contrast and many other. Even the tonal imperfections of reproduction
become way less notable and less prominent. What is characteristic that
the improving takes abruptly, very expeditiously and swiftly.
2) The strongest improvement takes place in the subjective domain,
reflecting the emotion and spiritual content of recording. The DPoLS
highlights the energy of performance; boosts the ethical load of the
musical content, highlight the intonations and the timbre connections of
the musical phrases. Starting with a certain level of capacity of the
rest reproduction chain it is possible to talk about not “reproduction”
but about the reinstating and resurrection of the “original energy of
live”.
3) A conversion from a regula-audio sound to the “alive sound” takes
place very rapidly when the speakers enter the DPoLS. This conversion is
greatly catalyzed by an ability of a playback to handle LF.
4) DPoLS exist for mono and stereo installations. In case of stereo
the DPoLS is a correlation of both DPoLS for each channel. The DPoLS
spots for the individual left and right channel might not have the same
location when the system operates in stereo mode.
5) The relation between the towing-in and excursion the loudspeaker
into the room, when the loudspeaker is located in DPoLS, is very high.
In DPoLS this relation is way higher when in a satiation when the
loudspeakers are juts positioned on the “optimum zone” of a given
listening room.
6) The correction of “quietly of Sound” by moving loudspeaker within
DPoLS is imposable. Any deviation from the DPoLS is worsening sound.
Since the loudspeaker is in the DPoLS then the room/system operate in
its absolute maximum capacity.
7) When the loudspeakers are in the DPoLS then the “sweat spot”
increase very dramatically and in many cases it might spread across the
entire room. If the output from one loudspeaker would be even blocked
then it be less significantly impact sound compare to the impact if the
loudspeaker were not in the DPoLS.
8) The sensitively of loudspeakers from the minute arrangements made
in playback system become very high. The loudspeakers begin to act as a
very strong magnifying glass that highlights everything. However, this
emphasize, if it emphasizes the negative properties do not necessary
have a negative impact to the listening experience. I would say that
that if you system slightly off the mark after the “highlight” then the
subjective affect of this emphasize would be very different then if the
loudspeakers would be not in the DPoLS.
9) When the loudspeakers are installed into the DPoLS (disregarding
the cost and typology of the loudspeakers) then listener is far sooner
get “hypnotized” by sound. The playback become to sound “significant”,
“important”, demonstrating the “playback pomposity” and some
pretentious. The process of listening perceived by a listener at the
very different level and it is practically imposable to do the “casual
listening”. The carelessness and the inattentiveness of listening become
practically imposable. Sound become not juts a “Sound in the room” but
an absolute dominating and demanding force in the room
10) The sensitively of the loudspeakers installed into the DPoLS to
the effect of Absolute Phase become incredibly strong. Flipping the
Absolute Phase in the DPoLS does not just change the structure of bass
removes the fog from the lower midrange and settle down the HF but kind
of turn the entire room upside down. To discover the DPoLS is imposable
if the system is not set in the correct acoustical and electrical
Absolute Phase.
Upon the said it is possible to make following conclusion: a major
obstacle in building a high performing playback installation is
unawareness of audio people about the DPoLS. The audio and listening
benefits that might be received from placing the acoustic systems in the
DPoLS are huge, order of magnitude exceeding any changes of
loudspeakers of components. A lack of any structured methodologies and
guideness that would enable the audio people to discover the DPoLS is a
very severe impediment in order the knowledge about the “dead points of
live sound” became a common practice among the audiophiles
I forgot to mention, even if you do not have a dog in this fight, soon you may find out that you are considered as having a content cow in this fight. I am not kidding you at all. There are cows flying around here quite often.
I kind of enjoy this thread because of its occasional bizarreness. Cherry pies are, in my opinion, nothing compared to Kim Jong Un, Planck, and Einstein who somehow appeared here in the early days. I cannot remember how they visited, but that was a breakthrough moment in my interest so I continued following.
Hmm...happy people, angry people and cherry pie. This is a weird thread. This thread hasn't made me happy or angry and hasn't delivered anything close to cherry pie. My summary: OP started out shooting at unnamed "talkers" that refused to be "walkers." Walkers accused of being merely talkers have been shooting back since OP's opening salvo. MG exits for several scenes. Surrogates appear to plead MG's cause and character. MG reappears to declare victory while the shooting continues. I have no dog in this fight. But, make no mistake it is a fight no one wins. MG isn't going to answer skeptics questions to their satisfaction. I suggest MG and the skeptics all throw in the towel and let this thread die of starvation. Peace Al
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.
