Having gone recently from a relatively low mass system (headphone system) to a relatively very low mass system (portable/earphone system) I suspect I might know a thing or two about "low mass" systems and their advantages. I used to have a relatively high mass system some years ago that featured a 200 lb turntable set up including the pneumatic seismic isolation system. But I will let Michael answer first since he's the big proponent of Low Mass Systems. Besides, my mother always said, Beauty before Age. ;-)

By the same token, there are quite a few reasons why car audio systems can sound quite good in their own right, IMHO, not the least of which are all the advantages of battery power and electronic skip protection, seismic isolation via pneumatic shock absorbers, crossover-less speakers, etc.

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

There was a surprisingly large amount of engineers on the main floor of the CES talking low mass and the future homes for it. I'll be wraping my part up here in a day or two, but will try to come up on the forum with some of the thoughts of the folks at the show and info they shared.

In a nut shell though as Geoff has said, low mass is on the way in and bulk (higher mass) is on the way out. The industries here at the CES were pointing toward low mass as being far more efficient in the delivering of energy sources. It's about balance and using the energy instead of stoping it short of it's full potential.

I had a chance to show my designs to a few of the tech-guys. Basically what I did was show them a 12lb speaker that you apply pressure from the inside and outside to get more drive force than a 150lb speaker high mass speaker. The issue is not, and they backed me up on this, killing vibration. The issue is useful energy vs dead mass. I haven't heard it called dead mass before, but I'm adding this to my vocabulary. Vibrations in many industries in the past have been painted as a one way street "get rid of them", but this is reversing. These same industries are now turning toward using the energy instead of stoping it. I'll get into it more when I get time, but look at energy (vibration) as a usable source much like a turbo on a car. Vibration as the one guy said is power that has not been given a purpose yet. You don't want to kill it but put it to use.

michael green
MGA/RoomTune
http://tuneland.techno-zone.net/

BRuggles wrote:

My gut reaction is that lower mass is more susceptible to resonance in the consciously audible spectrum. That said, I grew up with a Walkman, and it was my first teacher as to the sound of recorded sound. There is definitely a special place in my heart for it.

As I've stated on previous occasions I think that referring to them as Low Mass Systems, and I'm only talking about audio systems here, obscures the real reasons why they sound good. It is NOT because there is less "dead mass" which it actually isn't since all the mass actually serves some purpose,, transformers, etc. and it is not because they are physically small in size, it is actually a number of very specific things. I should also note that it is quite possible and relatively easy to apply the concepts involved in Low Mass Systems to High Mass Systems to improve the sound. Once one understands the issues involved, of course.

1. There are no transformers so no large magnetic fields to pollute everything in proximity.

2. There is no vibration of the transformer to screw up the sound. What's outrageous is that the transformers are direct coupled to the chassis with large bolts, ensuring that eveything inside the chassis will vibrate to the tune of,60 Hz. When Michael wisely removes the tansformers from the chassis and places them over in another room the transformers are still part of the system, it's not magically a lower mass system. The system is just more spread out. Out of sight out of mind. The problem remaining in Michael's case of course is that the induced magnetism still pollutes the transformer wire itself.

3. There is a minimum of internal wiring. And a minimum of cabling, at least in my case of portable cassette players and portable CD players. This means that, unlike the average system, half of the wiring and cabling is NOT installed backwards, thus eliminating the problem of wire directionality in one swell foop. Same for wire in transformers or inductors, capacitors and resistors, speaker wiring and speaker crossover.

4. There is a minimum of capacitors and resistors. I'm my case an absolute minimum.

5. Again, for my case of portables, there are no crossovers.

5. For portable systems, there are no power cords. In fact it's all battery power. No problem with polluted house power. Or with inaccurate or fluctuating voltage.

6. Not having interconnects and speaker cables and extensive wiring inside components dramatically reduces the effects of induced magnetism in wires and cable.

7. At least in my case there are no fuses, totally eliminating one source of noise and distortion.

8. By eliminating the speakers I also eliminate the speaker magnet that actually degrades the sound quite a bit.

9. These portable systems, and to a certain leasser extent other more conventional so-called Low Mass Systems, are less vulnerable to,vibration since there is simply less to vibrate. Hel-loo! Less wiring, less chassis, less

10. At least in the case of portables like Walkman players there is almost always at least the option for vibration control, such as electronic skip protection (ESP), G Protection, oil filled dampers, that sort of thing. I suspect even the most vibration loving audiophile can see (and hear) the disadvantage of vibration for these portable players, no? Never had a needle jump out of the record groove? it's a mistake to turn the other cheek when it comes to vibration.

11. In the case of my portable or any headphone or earphone system, one can eliminate all room effects in one fell swoop. And the effort and expense of dealing with the myriad of room anomalies.

So, in summary, while the phrase Low Mass System is colorful it obscures why the sound quality is so good for these smaller scale systems, and the best example to illustrate why the sound improves by scaling down the system is portable players which, as it turns out, weigh only 10 and 14 ounces for cassette and CD systems, respectively.

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

Just got home from my last diner meeting with Qualcomm and a few other tech industry guys. To say it was a brain storm would be putting it mild. We started the early evening at 4:30 my time and it's past 10 now so that tells how into it we have been during this show, both in Q&As and listening tests.

The new innovative age is far more advanced than we who use smart phones would ever guess. I don't think I've ever asked so many questions of others. There was a need for me to talk to people at the very cutting edge so I could say things with not only confidence but factually. The interesting parts to these meetings for me was another fact, all of the guys there were serious big buck extreme listening audiophiles at one time and owned (still have closets full) product that went all the way up the chain. Some clients of mine and some people who wanted to meet and talk about what the next steps are in this industry (all parts of it). It was a meeting of minds not of egos or people posturing. These guys don't need to impress anyone.

From the very beginning of the tests and talks this week there were a few things that we all agreed on. One of the biggest things was "all recordings have unique recorded codes". I did not meet one person (tech-engineer-designer-programers) this week in my listening, testing or discussions who did not understand that the industry of listening must have end user adjustments to recreate or explore different areas of the recorded info. What surprised me however was that almost all the major players are working on their own tunable programs.

The part that really got interesting for me though was when a Sony tech said something that comes right out of my handbook. The average audiophile, or anyone else as far as that goes who does not have an adjustable system is hearing a very small part of the recorded code. "if there's no way to dial it in you can't hear it". I felt like handing out cigars at that point, but as my excitement grew it was comforting to know that the path I am on is the same path that the mega tech companies have been playing with for a while now. They came over and listened to my systems several nights and I got to experience a new chapter in smart technology.

There were so many things incommon I don't know if I'll even remember them all after I come out of my well deserved resting coma.

As far as the audiophile high end goes concerning mass, no one who was in the meetings believed that the future is about big products, and many products in the chain. When separate components came up everyone rolled their eyes. They were saying that the source is going to be no bigger than a phone, wireless, small amps and the other part I won't get into as much because it's my particular open door.

michael green
MGA/RoomTune
http://tuneland.techno-zone.net/

I suspect the better sound that comes with miniaturization is an unexpected windfall for the Mega Audio companies but probably not by design. But as fate would have it miniaturization is not really what Michael is referring to when he refers to Low Mass Systems. Miniaturization has been taking place for like forever. We had mini players and mini amps eons ago. Geez! If Mega Audio Companies and The Industry really were SMART they would have figured out a number of things years ago: to whit, how to prevent scattered laser lIght from getting into the photodetector and corrupting the data; how to prevent the transformer from corrupting the audio signal and AC power with toxic magnetic fields; how to prevent the transformer from corrupting the audio signal with 60 Hz hum; the issue of wire directionality has been completely ignored or dismissed, take your pick; power cords and fuses have been ignored; EMI/RFI generated by all the Chips in the players has been ignored. Miniaturization won't change the basic issues. Let me know when The Industry comes up with miniature tranformers. Or miniature woofers and sub-woofers. The real problem for The Industry is they don't even know these things are a problem. Hel-loo!! Finally, I suspect an even deeper problem for The Industry is they can't hear. Because if they could actually hear they'd understand the INHERENT SUPERIORITY of analog tape over digital. They just don't get it. The Industry needs to go back, back to the FUTURE! They put all their eggs in one basket, it's called survival. But it's not High End Audio. There's an ever widening gap between The Industry, including Pro Audio, and Audiophiles, or so it would appear. Smart buildings stupid people era here we come.

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

Quote:

Let me know when The Industry comes up with miniature tranformers.

These are already there - you find them in any SMPS, and any leakage they do cause in the ultrasonic frequency.

Quote:

Or miniature woofers and sub-woofers.

Ever heard about the laws of physics and the dimensional relations between the size of a transducer and the frequencies that it can reproduce?

iosiP wrote:

Quote:

Let me know when The Industry comes up with miniature tranformers.

These are already there - you find them in any SMPS, and any leakage they do cause in the ultrasonic frequency.

Quote:

Or miniature woofers and sub-woofers.

Ever heard about the laws of physics and the dimensional relations between the size of a transducer and the frequencies that it can reproduce?

That's was kind of my whole point, you silly goose. Some things cannot be miniaturized. Hel-loo!

I hate to judge before all the facts are in but I doubt you will see miniature transformers for power amps any time real soon. Again, my point.

Let me guess, you think leakage in the ultrasonic frequencies is not audible, right? Do you think EMI/RFI in the ultrasonic frequencies is inaudible?

Geoff Kait
MaChina DynamiKa

Well for myself, I feel very comfortable in what we together experienced this show and the explanations given in real time as the listening and tests were given. And, when I saw the numbers.

One thing that is important to tell, is what I see being said a lot on here and other forums which isn't the truth at all. Many times on here you will see people refer to the new generation of Hi-tech as being shallow and missing the same quality of the past. In my meetings (which were scheduled over a year ago) I finally was able to understand the makings of the parts especially chips and intelligent programming in a way that makes sense. I have been saying for a long time now that digital is nothing more than the new language of analog. When I asked the question for example of the sound of digital vs analog, the answer I got back was what I'll be honest was hoping to hear and have believed since the beginning of my working with digital. "all signal is analog" and "the programing is easier to tailor when put in the domain of structured numbers (digits)". Fact is the signal has always been run from digits (numbers), there just wasn't a way before of matching Code to Code.

If you read my writings on here and TuneLand you will see me talk about high end audio systems that claim to be "revealing" enough to choose good and bad recordings. I talk about this on distortion vs compression and other places, and get some heckling for it LOL (such is life with the audiophile), but in all these forums you will see me ask the question "how do you match the recorded code to the plackback system" and not one person yet, has responded to this. It's like if they have a system that can resolve that's all they need, completely missing the point of what recording and playback is, and how they must work together to deliver. Here's why I bring this up again. The Hi-tech of the modern world gets this very well and has been working on matching the beginning to end codes, which is probably partially why I am in the loop on their technologies.

let me tie this together

While High End Audio has been making discete systems with one sound, the Hi-tech world has been developing discrete systems that are variable. That might been hard to hang on to until you experience it and that's where I come in as well as the designers who are looking at this from their end of things.

It comes down to this simple question that only the most open of minds in this part of the industry will get or as my friends said "care to get". "if you were able to walk into a listening room or any other type of intelligent room and tell it what to do, would you choose this and put away your collecting of components?"

The reason why High End Audio is dying is because they have made it to a certain level and stopped. We all this week called this the high end box. It's a soundstage that is only part of the content that is placed in front of the listeners instead of an environment to walk into that puts you at the event, and you can view that event from whatever angle you wish, something I have been working on my whole life from the physical end, but I was just turned onto it from the programing side, and it blew me away.

I can tell you this as long as I don't say from who or mention individual names. The next version of the audiophile listening experience will be one that is so advanced it will not only be able to take you to the sonic place you wish to go, but it will also be able to monitor your level of enjoyment and alert you to when there is something wrong based on your physical condition and make suggestions for you to adapt and adopt to. Reason why the interest in me, tuning. According to them I'm the only guy on the physical end of this thing that has made the completely variable audio system. What they are doing is making the other end and either building systems or making the intelligent parts that the mainstream will put into production as the "young" marketplace demands. Reason they stress young is because of the studies they are doing with the modern brain vs the brain of the 30 40 50 and up ages.

I asked about performance and was pretty much laughed at. They shared with me that the reason both studios and homes were producing certain levels was because they jumped the gun and got all eyes bigger than the stomach about new products. It was remarkable to sit in these meetings and hear them talk about what I thought I was hearing back in the 80's and 90's. I was sure I heard the industry shift, and they confirmed this for me, this time with more than one and two, but by a much larger group of experts.

Not only did they talk about performance but they talked about performance in relationship to size. "can something the size of a phone control amps not a whole lot bigger, that will control super simple "tunable speakers" ??? Smiles all around as we got into the why's and how's.

my next meeting is about to begin so I'll be back once they get started listening

michael green
MGA/RoomTune
http://tuneland.techno-zone.net/

Sounds like a good de-programmer could perhaps be of some value. Glad to hear you had a good time at the show, nevertheless.

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

my last post said "my next meeting is about to begin so I'll be back once they get started listening"

The first listener walked in, listened for about 10 minutes, came out of the room and sat in a chair infront of me "how can that happen?" was what he asked. This led to a conversation that everyone who takes this hobby to the extreme will ask sometime in their listening life. The question is "how did we get in this box" and "why hasn't the audiophile gotten out before now"?

I asked back "have you ever been in a small to medium size room with instruments", "you not only heard the notes but you felt them right"? "the room became the instrument and the instrument became the room". Why should it be any different in playback? Do the math, your in a room with an instrument and you can see exactly where it is and what it is doing, and you can hear the energy all around you and in plus through you. Why wouldn't playback be the same way? Everywhere you walk in that live room you hear the exact same info differently, why wouldn't you be able to play that back in a way that explored all those angles and points of view?

I ask the question, where do you separate the signal from mass? Fact is in our analog world of physics the signal is the mass. There is no line that is drawn between the two, and if that mass is within the energy dissipation range it has a role in the sound, period. No audio system made has ever separated the two. You can distort the signal, put it out of tune and cause it to shut down, but you can't separate it.

Everytime you play a recording (in-room) everything within hearing distance plays a part and becomes the signal. There is no in-room removing it. You remove part of the signal anywhere in the signal path and that part of the music is gone. All things being equal, the chance that a multi component system can compete against a simple low mass one in tune is next to impossible. You might be able to hear a tenth of the music extremely well but your not hearing the full recorded code.

Low mass and tuned energy is the only way high end audio can go. I'm not saying the industry will stop building boat anchors but the people involved will keep decreasing with every year or turn toward a more efficient hobby, using the room for what it is, and designing equipment that plays the room instead of fighting it. Right at this very moment most of the high end designers are trying to find out how to fit in the hobby. How can they reach more than 25-175 clients a year. How he has survived? "I have raised my prices to cover the lack of clients". This was a quote at this very show from one of the companies in High End. The same quality of sound product according to them went from $5,000.00 to over $100,000.00. This was not the only company that said this off record. Another one said "the gap between the sound of high end and affordable audio has lessoned, but the prices between the two have widen greatly".

The other side of this coin are companies putting out the most advanced intelligent chips ever, at a price that is based on production runs in the millions per run. In talking with these guys I asked "how far can you go in sound reproduction"? The answer was interesting, "who has the playback systems to play it"? We have the chips but there aren't any systems intelligent enough to play them on. After this they attacked high ends going discrete mistake. "what is the use of going discrete if your running the signal through so many components"? They told me it was stupid for the audiophile world to build a string of componentry. They said "look at it", "line conditioning, two or three sources, a pre, monos, over built crossovers and drivers, and then do nothing with the room or kill it". This approach made no sense to them "it was a phase that needed to happen in history, but was never made to play the recorded code" (I used my word there "recorded code") they called it something different. Intelligent play response or something like that.

I hope by next year I get to hear this, but one of the Qualcomm buddies of mine described what he heard through some space age custom headphones made for Qualcomm to test one of these new intelligent chips that was opened up to play more of the recorded signal. I know he's not pulling my leg because he has been tuning for years and I've seen him go to town on my systems and him in one of my tunable rooms. This guy has some serious listening chops. They are taking the science of audio down to the bare essence. The most advanced form of variable audio to date. Yes, you heard me "variable audio". No, they are not distorting the signal. They are designing for the 360 output to match the microphone 360 patterns. I'm not talking pickup patterns but full scale patterns. Hard to talk about these patterns till you hear them. Like some of the guys who visited me here from the show said. "there's no way I can describe a tuned system until they heard it".

The future of low mass and tuning will come as it comes. I'm not sure it will come in the form of high end audio though until audiophiles start really using their rooms and get to that Bare Signal. I will say though based on my last two weeks, it's good to be me. I'm glad I have stuck to my beliefs and continuous learning.

michael green
MGA/RoomTune
http://tuneland.techno-zone.net/

My Super Intelligent Chip will kick your Qualcomm buddy's intelligent chip's ass. Yes, I know what Qualcomm does, all the spread spectrum stuff and did it myself for years, all the coding stuff, playing games with the signal and noise. The inventor of all that secret coding stuff I bet you probably didn't know was actress Hedy Lamarr back during the Big One. That particular technology is not really new at all. My Super Intelligent Chip technology, on the other hand, is not even a gleam in Qualcomm's eye. You just don't know where I'm coming from. Lol Let me spill a little secret, speaking of secrets, and it's another one that's not a gleam in Qualcomm's eye. It's the human being - the final frontier for audio. Ask your buddy at Qualcomm if he's aware of the influence of information fields on the electronic signal. Watch for the expression on his face....

Geez, I never heard such rubbish in all,my life, what condescending poo when you describe audiophiles are doing things such and such a way! Uh, with line conditions, etc. Every Yutz with ears knows the importance of the room. Hel-loo!! My favorite line of yours recently is digital is the new analog. That's killer, Michael! What are you guys smoking? You wrote,

"...I'm not sure it will come in the form of high end audio though until audiophiles start really using their rooms and get to that Bare Signal. I will say though based on my last two weeks, it's good to be me. I'm glad I have stuck to my beliefs and continuous learning."

We call that the Backfire Effect, you know, when someone clings to his beliefs in the face of overwhelming evidence against them. Continuous learning? Good one! That's gold, Michael, gold!

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

You'll have to take that up with them geoff, I'm sure you can find their phone number. It's the huge tech lab next to the stadium. Let us know how the meetings go:)

michael green
MGA/RoomTune
http://tuneland.techno-zone.net/

michael green wrote:

You'll have to take that up with them geoff, I'm sure you can find their phone number. It's the huge tech lab next to the stadium. Let us know how the meetings go:)

michael green
MGA/RoomTune
http://tuneland.techno-zone.net/

I had meetings with them thirty years ago. I was representing the former head of the Navy satellite system. You're really impressed by technology, aren't you?

Cheers,

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

I'm impressed with people who know what their doing (smarts or natural talent). Doesn't have to be any particular area.

michael green
MGA/RoomTune
http://tuneland.techno-zone.net/

What I suspect we have here is more slicing and dicing by technology, especially in digital technologies. Let me review the bidding for you. We started out thirty five years ago with Redbook CD, 16 bit and 44 kHz sample rate. When people complained that CDs sounded like crap, thin, wiry, hard, fatiguing, unnatural, metallic, when the movers and shakers in audio digital technology got around to it they gave us 1 bit DACs, 20 bit processing, 24 bit processing, 96 kHz sample rates, they gave us DSP, up sampling, down sampling, they gave us digital ready speakers, they did everything they could think of yet, and yet, tape and vinyl still sounded more real, more natural, less fatiguing, even more dynamic, which is supposedly digital's calling card. Where did technology go wrong?

Now, enter Qualcomm. Do you expect me to believe they will finally get digital to sound right? I think you've been hoodwinked.

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica
We do Artificial Atoms Right

geoffkait wrote:

What I suspect we have here is more slicing and dicing by technology, especially in digital technologies. Let me review the bidding for you. We started out thirty five years ago with Redbook CD, 16 bit and 44 kHz sample rate. When people complained that CDs sounded like crap, thin, wiry, hard, fatiguing, unnatural, metallic, when the movers and shakers in audio digital technology got around to it they gave us 1 bit DACs, 20 bit processing, 24 bit processing, 96 kHz sample rates, they gave us DSP, up sampling, down sampling, they gave us digital ready speakers, they did everything they could think of yet, and yet, tape and vinyl still sounded more real, more natural, less fatiguing, even more dynamic, which is supposedly digital's calling card. Where did technology go wrong?

Now, enter Qualcomm. Do you expect me to believe they will finally get digital to sound right? I think you've been hoodwinked.

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica
We do Artificial Atoms Right

With each step digital got a little better. Have you ever heard an Arcam Alpha 9 or Diva CD 92 with the RingDac? Or a CD 72 with dual 24bit dacs? How about the Creative Labs Audigy stuff that flew under the Radar 10 or 12 years ago because Hi-Fi and computers didn't "go toegether" yet? Have you heard a 340.00 Cambridge Audio DacMagic? Is it TOO cheap to be so good or do you not need a 20lb slab of aluminum for good sound (and an extra 5k out of your childrens future)? Well, that one little device embodies everything you claim about low mass, simple external power supplies, low cost, etc. Would you dismiss it because it's not a Walkman? Or because it's digital?

Sometimes I have to wonder what planet you live on.

No, I don't dismiss other things. My reason for posting on the portables is really just to illustrate the damage produced by ordinary or high end systems due to transformers, wire and fuses and cables installed backwards, gobs of capacitors, crossovers, failure to address scattered laser light, etc. In other words most all systems are SHOOTING THEMSELVES IN THE FOOT. So, I guess you're right, in a sense I'm dismissing any system that doesn't address my points. Besides everything is relative, I'm sure you can hot rod any of the players you refer to. As I did to my Oppo 103. There is no end to improving the sound. Period. If you actually believe you can purchase a player, any player, that eliminates the need to tweak most likely you're dreaming. The point I am trying to make with portable players, for the umpteenth time, is that they INHERENTLY eliminate almost all of the issues i keep mentioning. And the point I am trying to make with cassette players, as briefly as I can, is they are INHERENTLY sweeter and more musical than digital. Have I heard all digital players? Of course not. But I've heard a lot. And perhaps you're a happy camper with one of the players you mentioned and more power to you.

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

What year did you work with Qualcomm? I have been meeting with them since 1997. You met with them 35 years ago. That would have been the year they founded. Let me know what department and I can see what projects you worked on.

thanks

michael green
MGA/RoomTune
http://tuneland.techno-zone.net/

You realize they, together with Nokia and few other companies are the reason you can stream uncompressed audio and video over a MOBILE connection for very high fidelity digital performance for as long (and as large as your data bucket allows) as your heart desires. Surely if nothing else that content delivery counts for something.

I did two rooms for them in one of their executives homes last year in San Diego, and several of the guys came over to hang out. What I heard was pretty darn good. After hearing them talk more I'm pretty sure the future looks bright for audio.

Change is always going to be something for the old school to deal with, shoot I'm part of the old school, but when we see past some of these products made for the masses, there's a much deeper technology and quality that is developed for the more high end of any market. It's all about advancing levels of performance and over the last 70 years the music industry has experimented with many different avenues, that's how growth happens. There's periods of time where things seem to be sitting still and other times when it moves so fast there's no way to keep up. The technology think tanks of today though are more advanced than the bench EE days, and they should be. They put billions into R&D and it's not so they can build junk. The technical world is extremely competitive and they know a misstep will cost them the lead in the cutting edge.

I've come to trust them and have spent enough time with my one particular friend on my own systems that can tune like a mother (cuse my french), so I know first hand this is not a bunch of college kids on the loose. And the fact that they listen with me and I'm sure countless others from all levels of skills shows that they are ahead of the curve.

I'm not hanging up my manually tunable system by any means, but for the guy would doesn't want to do extreme tweaking this is a no brainer.

One story just popped into my head that I was told last week. They gave an example of a test they have actually done with some companies in co-op. They took world class race drivers and put them up against these computer cars, and the computer race cars blew the doors off of the humans. We all know that High End Audio will not stay where it is at, and except for a very few collectors it will not be going backward. Someday the audiophile will move past a piece of plastic spinning on a table with a needle riding it. There won't be a tape rolling, and it pains me but there won't be a disc playing. I have loved all three, but the day is coming. And when it comes it's not going to be a bunch of guys thinking about how to make the sound terrible. Why would they? If they do that they'll only get knocked off the mountain just like Japan did with cars a few years ago. technology itself only moves forward when the quality is improved upon. But, as with the source the playback systems need to take the next technical step and one sound discrete was not it. For those who believe it is they will be trading forever while the rest of the world will have moved on to something more organic and real.

michael green
MGA/RoomTune
http://tuneland.techno-zone.net/

michael green wrote:

What year did you work with Qualcomm? I have been meeting with them since 1997. You met with them 35 years ago. That would have been the year they founded. Let me know what department and I can see what projects you worked on.

thanks

michael green
MGA/RoomTune
http://tuneland.techno-zone.net/

Feel free to reference my actual statements before you reply. What I said was I met with them thirty years ago, not thirty five. I also told you I was representing the former head of the Navy Satellite program. As I said I did all that coding stuff for years, back when you were still wearing bell bottoms. Now let's see if you can put 2 and 2 together. Good luck on your Witch Hunt. Is this fun or what?

The automobile analogy is an apt one, methinks, inasmuch as the automobile industry, like the audio industry, must continually reinvent itself and come up with new twists on the same basic technology to lure new customers into a false sense of technological achievements. You can paint a donkey different colors but it's still a donkey.

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

jgossman wrote:

You realize they, together with Nokia and few other companies are the reason you can stream uncompressed audio and video over a MOBILE connection for very high fidelity digital performance for as long (and as large as your data bucket allows) as your heart desires. Surely if nothing else that content delivery counts for something.

That's nice but not sure what it all has to do with sound quality and high end audio. You don't really buy into all this Hi Rez rigamarole do you? I totally get that you young bucks are way more interested in convenience than sound quality.

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

I even gave you a chance on this one lol. Sorry I set you up. Qualcomm was founded in 1985. If you would have gone there you wouldn't have been a part of anything you are disputing here.

Dude NASA doesn't agree with you and you never were a part of Qualcomm's intelligent programs. For a guy claiming to have writen testing procedures for the military, you sure do flunk a lot of them.

Hows that Sony Walkman portable cassette player doing?

michael green
MGA/RoomTune
http://tuneland.techno-zone.net/

Michael, if you're pretending to be stupid you're doing an excellent job. All of your statements and assumptions are incorrect. You're on a Wild Goose Chase. TuneLand is becoming kind of the poster boy for the gang that couldn't shoot straight. I suspect your hair is probably getting in the way of your eyes as well as your ears.

You can take the boy out of Dayton but you can't take Dayton out of the boy.

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica.