Guys

I really hope you don't pass up the opportunity to talk this part of the hobby out. I think it will do a lot of good to see how these tests fit but also how they don't represent listening necessarily. They are a snap shot of a very limited viewpoint, and we should realize this and give them their do respect but not use them to validate something that isn't there.

We absolutely shouldn't be using spec testing as an ego tool to put down others who choose to pass on them, and move straight to the sound. I have far more respect for the guy who dives in to the system exploring part of the hobby than the guy who runs mic spec tests, but do see these tests as showing at least part of what is going on from the perspective of that particular mic placement setting and mechanics to be interesting but no where near definitive. It's like taking a polaroid from that one spot and moment, and as fun as it is to look at that polaroid we need to use it for what it is and not give it more glory than being there, and taking on the whole experience.

michael green
MGA/RoomTune

While writing a post on another topic I was thinking that this post belonged here.

"The door is wide open. I'm interested in seeing views from any angle anyone wants to share. For me personally I'm more interested in the showing of things, and how they affect the sound as you have seen me talk about on other threads, but that's just what I like to do. The doors open here for whatever math you or anyone wishes to present, however don't be shocked if someone maybe even me asks you to show this in action in a system.

For example the door opening tweak is a good one, would you show us how you apply the formula you showed to your experimenting with the panel door and the Chip? I'm assuming that you have used this formula as a guide in the designing and testing since your referencing it. With it being this sophisicated it would be good to see how this formula comes into play with the tweaks and products that you mentioned.

For myself, when I have been in the lab with science and math guys, the classroom didn't make sense to me until we got in the actual lab and looked at what the teachers were talking about. I'm not sure what others here think but I have always been a hands on guy and only felt comfortable if a formula was able to play a part in the actual real time testing. Even with math being my best subject I always felt there was some gray area between the numbers and the actual perseptive application. I looked at this as, are we using the numbers to get where we are going or are the numbers really only there to show us where we have been? And with audio, showing us where we have been only at that moment of the testing, and in some way does the formula give room to motion and change?

When testing formulas for the using of the formula to the end, instead of the other way around, I found that the formulas (as they apply to audio) get us close, but not right on the money. With audio test results I feel the same way. A test result has a much narrower perspective if someone is to then turn it around and use it for a formula. In other words the tests results were meant to show a particular moment in time and space (space being the environment). I don't want to necessarily jump off topic here, but would love the have some interaction about testing itself as I started a thread on here but no one came to play :( Oh well, I guess I'll have to live in a world of audiophiles asking for white sheets when they are themselves are not white paper educated, Not refering to you Geoff, but those who have asked for my white papers and then go running when I start to get into them. Kinda funny really." mg

michael green
RoomTune