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
prof
1,741 posts
 
@jf47t

Any thoughts in reply to my previous post?  Thanks.
amg56's avatar
amg56
666 posts
 

@jf47t I am firmly the master of my own music, but spiritual? Lordy, lordy, what were you listening to? Or smoked during?

There is a thread on Cerebral or Visceral. You might do well to read it.

jf47t
116 posts
 

Hi Prof came home a couple of minutes ago, Wow! That was one amazing journey. Even though I am working on my own MGA system I'm not sure I can do what he did tonight. He says "you'll get it" but he has this intuitive spirit about him that must only be able to achieve with practice. I am no where near that level but excited to be living so close to him.

"But I wonder if the sentiment is the same "from your side of the fence" because posts like you just made does continue to imply others are not "doing" this hobby, and if not by implication "doing it wrong."

I don't think Michael believes in right or wrong, only growth vs settling for. MG believes there is always more to get out of a recording and tonight was a major lesson to that end. Where he started and where he ended up at was more than any amp or speaker change I've ever witnessed. It was also far beyond any trade show display I've ever heard by a long shot.

"And certainly, MG himself spends a lot of time posting on forums, writing evangelically about his method."

I don't think I've ever heard Michael say tuning was his method. I've only heard him talk about being a part of tuning, following in the footsteps of instrument and music tuning. He views a stereo system as an extension of the recording process. He can explain this better than me but the way he says it is the recording starts with tuning and playback ends with retuning. The recording is a code and playback is tuning in that code. With what he showed me today that makes perfect sense.

Post removed 
prof
1,741 posts
 
jf47t,

Ha, you are up having fun. I’m up working! (Just peeking into the forum for a mental break here and there).

Sounds great. I’d loved to have heard what you heard.

Though I’m still left in the dark about the question I asked. I know Michael’s thoughts about getting the best out of different recordings.

But what I was asking about is Michael saying people aren’t "doing the hobby" ...or "faking it" as he has put it earlier.

I don’t think Michael believes in right or wrong, only growth vs settling for.


But that still leaves me unenlightened as to who would be not "doing the hobby" or "faking it."  Since those are the terms in which Michael has been putting things - and they obviously sound negative - I'm trying to figure out what that actually means in practice.

Again, I wouldn’t want to disparage anyone else in terms of what they enjoy doing - or not doing - in the hobby, so I’m unsure why Michael is describing people’s involvement in such negative terms. Is the person who is actually happy with his system...."not doing the hobby" or....faking it? (Because...he has settled for something he finds pleasing and doesn’t feel the need to keep tweaking? Whereas Michael thinks this is stopping "growth"? What exactly is the purpose of "growing" if not to reach the point most people want to reach, which is when they are satisfied in mostly listening to the music?)

I mean, I get if one wants to point out that some people settle sooner along the way in setting up a high end system, whereas others will keep looking for every possible way to keep improving and tweaking. But what I don’t get is disparaging either one, putting one in a camp of "not doing/faking."

Given what I described in my previous post about how I approach my system, would you describe me as "not doing" the hobby? Or "faking it?"


More to discover