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
jf47t
116 posts
 
I ended my work day early with the hopes that I could experience what I did last night. Sure enough when I approached the door I could hear "Faith" playing on the inside. One thing was different when I walked inside from last night. There are three boxes at the entrance to MG's place. "what are those" Michael explained that every year or two he does a series of listening reviews on different groups of products. He gave me a list of last years components and this year he has switched from products like Accuphase and Bricasti to old school receivers and his Magnavox special CDP. I need to get back to listening.
jf47t
116 posts
 
This is a different hobby! How to describe the sound stage I've just heard is going to take some thinking through. One thing absolutely positively for sure I can tell you is I'm not going back.
glupson
1,794 posts
 
mapman,
prof

Facts can be very boring. That’s a fact.
That's a pseudo fact. You guys really have not learned much in this thread.
glupson
1,794 posts
 
"If we’re all of a sudden going to be engineers lets do this thing."
I would like to recommend skipping this approach. It gets very slippery and misunderstanding runs high, right up there with solidified passions. Basically, it becomes a circus.
glupson
1,794 posts
 
In this thread, I have noticed a number of mentions of "empirical testing lab" or something along those lines. I am wondering is there such a thing as "theoretical testing lab"? Would I be really wrong thinking that "empirical testing" (doing something to see/hear/etc. what happens) is done to prove or disprove a theory which is just thinking about something? I guess you could do something, get a result, and then try to come up with some theory why it happened, but it still seems like two different realms of action. It may not be topic of this thread, but it has been puzzling me since the early days of it.
More to discover