1. Home
  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


michaelgreenaudio
mapman's avatar
mapman
15,679 posts
 
As I understand it from the answer MG’s approach with speakers is to use resonant cabinets like the housing of a musical instrument and then add a proprietary internal device of some sort to adjust or tune the resonance by applying pressure to the cabs from the inside. Tuning is his thing after all!

My reaction is at least that is something that should have an audible effect if intended. There are other vendors that use unusually resonant cabinets (as opposed to attempting to make them as inert as possible or the tuning adjustable by the user). Harbeth is an example I believe. Tonian is another I recall. All cabinets affect the sound that is emitted so it is probably accurate to say that each is tuned a certain way, either by design or accident.

So the concept at least makes sense and is something fairly unique and different. That passes test 1. Next from the vendor’s perspective would be the realization of the concept ie how the speaker is designed constructed and actually sounds, if one were interested enough to want an audition.

I am not quite sold in terms of the value of the concept to me personally or shelling out the dollars but that’s OK. I do not shell out any dollars for most things talked about here, whether great, mediocre, or total nonsense. Only so many dollars to shell out. Everyone chooses what matters most to them and spends accordingly.

I gave the website a quick once over and I did not find it particularly informative though the unified focus on "tuning" is unique. Needs some work IMHO.

.
mapman's avatar
mapman
15,679 posts
 
Geoffkait how about walk the walk not just talk the talk endlessly and build some actual audio gear yourself that actually makes music the right way according to you , take over the market, and show them all how to actually do it right, big mouth? You can start now. We will wait. I’m talking source devices, amps and speakers, you know the things that actually produce music, not your comedy act tweaks.
prof
1,741 posts
 
mapman,

Essentially I agree. As I mentioned early on, I find the claims from Green to span from the plausible - likely to make a sonic difference - to the implausible. The tunable speakers (and certain types of room treatment) certainly suggest they would plausibly alter the sound. And they may sound great...I might even love the sound myself. (And I have loved the sound of speakers made by a company that I believe to be making unsubstantiated and unbelievable claims in other areas, e.g. Shun Mook).

But it's pretty easy for anyone to make a speaker that sounds different from another speaker.

It’s too bad it’s mixed in with other woo-woo sounding stuff that we aren’t getting straight answers to.

mapman's avatar
mapman
15,679 posts
 
Yes a very mixed bag most likely. Not my cup of tea in any way personally.   I will continue to tweak in other ways when needed.
prof
1,741 posts
 
prof, why would I use a part without researching it? Prof, it’s my job to not only consider but to test. Also many of the producers of these types of products are happy to exchange info, like folks doing field testing for them.


Excellent.

So this time will you answer my question?

Can you tell us exactly what measurable performance parameters change when a cap is tied down with a tie wrap? And explain why one would expect those measurable changes would be audible, especially with the character you describe?

Can you supply any such measurements for us to see, so we don’t have to just take your word on it?


How would you describe the difference in sound between the Vishay 1813 (yellow) and the ERO 1822? 3.3 of course.

I wouldn’t describe the sonic difference between those two caps, as I do not presume, without hearing more reason to think so, that they would sound different. (Not that I couldn’t be convinced they could produce sonic differences)

So wouldn’t make a claim either way about their sonic difference.

But your question clearly implies YOU think they are sonically different.
And if you would claim this, then what type of evidence you have for it? As in the tie wrap above: what measurable parameters change between those caps and why would one would expect those changes to be audible? After all, one can alter signals/measurements in ways that are not audible. 

And if you have "tested" for these audible changes, please explain how you controlled for the variable of your imagination. (If you understand science, as you alluded to in your OP, you would know that pointing to additional tests done with poor control of variables isn’t a way to increase confidence level).

Finally, please note the obvious fact: that the question of the audibie difference between caps in certain implementations does not resolve your claim about the effects of tie wraps. (Which is why this seems to be another red herring to avoid answering my previous question).

I look forward to hearing more about your careful empiricism on these subjects, Michael.

Cheers.


More to discover