Talk but not walk?

geoffkait,

Anyone can call her/his company whatever they want and it means only that it is that company’s name. However, this empirical testing in this thread was not a name for the company but something that opponents were accused of not doing and therefore their opinion being less worthy. Fakers, talkers, whatever they ended up being. Your explanation consists of correct words applied to an entirely unrelated thing.

As far as labs go, it is clear that they can have different locations, set-ups, and dress codes, and nobody should ever question that part. What I was curious about was that unfortunate syntagma. I hoped to get an explanation that will teach me about something I have never heard about. Well, I still have not learned, but blame it on me and not on the word you so masterfully reminded me about. Fluffiness. I should have thought of it first.

This is far from a mind game for me. Who would go to some "audiophile" forum to play mind games with people he has never met and probably never will? It seems like the battle, time, and, easily, mind lost in advance. I approach it as something to kill time and maybe learn a thing or two. So far, in this thread, I really got interested in two details that did not seem right so I wondered if I can learn something about them. Both were focused on something written somewhere, meaning they were sort of tangible and should be explainable. I really cannot care less about differences in sound that somebody believes and the other one does not believe in. I do not even care about the sound I listen to that much. I know, I am on the wrong forum. I am far from walker, barely a talker, but am a careful listener and, it seems so, reader.

It seems that neither am I good enough at explaining my question about empirical testing (lab is a cheerful bonus), nor are you good at understanding that same question. It is like deaf and mute having a discussion. So I will leave that topic. No need to perseverate on what has proven to be futile. Wait, aren’t we on Talk but not walk thread?

Today I learned the difference between tweaking and tuning. I'm not sure if Michael would agree with this as he gives latitude for tweaks mods and component swapping but what I've been hearing is a different hobby. MG has asked me not to mention the brands of the high end system we have setup as our competing 2nd system but he says that it's important for me to see how far high end can go with tweaking vs what a tunable system can do. That's a classy approach to not pick on specific brands. He doesn't want to hurt anyone's business while he is convince the hobby is taking a big turn. Tonight we've been doing some interesting comparisons. Both systems have been setup fairly by Michael. I'll call one the tunable system and the other the HEA system.

jf47t
“Today I learned the difference between tweaking and tuning. I’m not sure if Michael would agree with this as he gives latitude for tweaks mods and component swapping but what I’ve been hearing is a different hobby. MG has asked me not to mention the brands of the high end system we have setup as our competing 2nd system but he says that it’s important for me to see how far high end can go with tweaking vs what a tunable system can do. That’s a classy approach to not pick on specific brands. He doesn’t want to hurt anyone’s business while he is convince the hobby is taking a big turn. Tonight we’ve been doing some interesting comparisons. Both systems have been setup fairly by Michael. I’ll call one the tunable system and the other the HEA system.”

>>>>>>>That sounds like a Strawman waiting to happen. 😬 What it appears you really need is a Tweaking Guru tweaking the HEA system with the Tuning Guru tuning the other system. I’m not sure the two systems should even be in the same house.

There is what we call the Hierarchy of Sound, not to sound too high fallutin’. The Hierarchy of sound embraces the concept that a modestly priced tweaked (or tuned) system can sound considerably better than a more expensive system that hasn’t been tweaked or tuned. Make sense?

Furthermore people seem to be under the impression tweaking involves a limited set of commonly used thingamabobs, rubber dampers or cones, for example. With that notion firmly planted in one’s head the “tweaked system” is bound to fail. Obviously there’s a right way and a wrong way to do things. And there are way too many variables to try to put Tweaking, the art of tweaking, in a nice convenient little box. That’s a self fulfilling prophecy. But Tweaking is not that easily defined - or accomplished. It’s not just a simole case of coupling vs decoupling. Tweaking is just a word. You guys might be under the impression that Tweaking is a planet. But Tweaking is not a planet, it’s not even solar system or a galaxy. It’s a Universe.

So, gentle readers, I hate to prejudge things but it appears the Great Tuning vs Tweaking Shoot-out is just a contrivance, a marketing ploy, preordained to “prove” the superiority of Tuning.

Besides, surely Tuning and Tweaking aren’t mutually exclusive, or are they? Is it US vs THEM? 😳

glupson
geoffkait,

Anyone can call her/his company whatever they want and it means only that it is that company’s name. However, this empirical testing in this thread was not a name for the company but something that opponents were accused of not doing and therefore their opinion being less worthy. Fakers, talkers, whatever they ended up being. Your explanation consists of correct words applied to an entirely unrelated thing.

>>>>Huh? What are you talking about? The opponents were accused of not doing because they don’t do. They talk, but don’t do. That’s as plain as the nose on your face. In fact, you appear to be the poster boy for talk, not do. Your continuing semantic arguments are do do. This conversation can serve no purpose any more.