Pretty neat article.

I especially liked the comment by Empa scientist Schwarze, " (For a blind test) there is no unambiguous scientific way of measuring tone quality."

Yes, a very interesting article.

Equally as interesting, ncdrawl, is the other article "Mystery Solved: Chemicals Made Stradivarius Violins Unique, Says Professor"

Http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/11/061129151126.htm

>>> "The conclusions, published in the journal Nature, have confirmed 30 years of work into the subject by Joseph Nagyvary, professor emeritus of biochemistry at Texas A&M University, who was the first to theorize that chemicals -- not necessarily the wood -- created the unique sound of the two violins." <<<

30 years of working on the subject of "chemicals creating the unique sound and - not necessarily the wood". !!!

Now, where have I heard THAT before ???

>>> "This research proves unquestionably that the wood of the great masters was subjected to an aggressive chemical treatment and the chemicals -- most likely some sort of oxidizing agents -- had a crucial role in creating the great sound of the Stradivarius and the Guarneri," Nagyvary says. "Like many discoveries, this one could have been accidental." <<<

"Like many discoveries, this one could have been accidental." Now, where exactly have I heard THAT before ?????

>>> "This is highly gratifying for me, because it proves what I first proposed 30 years ago -- that the chemicals used to treat instruments and not the unadulterated wood itself -- were the reasons for the great sound of these instruments," Nagyvary explains. "I was criticized and ridiculed when I made these claims," <<<

>>> "I was criticized and ridiculed when I made these claims," <<< i.e That chemicals could be the reasons for the good sound !!!!!!!!!!!!

Now, where exactly have I seen THAT happen before ??????

In the article you referred to ncdrawl, (to be simplistic) they were 'treating' the wood for the violin with a fungus - a chemical !!!

But, in Nature there are different fungi - therefore different chemical formulae with each fungus.
There are mutualistic fungi (what I would simplistically call beneficial fungus, therefore - ergo - beneficial (in Nature) chemicals.
There are antagonistic fungi (which harm plants - such as the 'rice blast' fungus) with, what I would call, adverse (in Nature) chemicals.

I would suggest that the chemicals used by the old violin makers such as Stradivari and Guarneri could have initially, as suggested by Nagyvary, been discovered accidentally. That they suddenly found a chemical which 'sounded good' and therefore used it thereafter !!!

The researchers in the article you referred to, ncdrawl, have obviously found a fungus (a mixture of chemicals) which 'sounds' good when applied to the wood for a violin. I would suspect, from our own experiences, that they could also have found a fungus which 'sounded' worse when applied to the wood for a violin !!!!! I.e. A different mixture of chemicals !!

Surely you are aware, ncdrawl, how we (Peter and I) had - quite by chance - 'spoilt' the sound in our listening room by applying a particular chemical - NOT to a violin but to a coffee table in the room !!! That in investigating which other chemicals might similarly be 'adverse to sound' chemicals we discovered a chemical which was beneficial to 'sound' - i.e gave us improvement in the sound when applied NOT to a violin but to a coffee table in the room !!!!!

On this same theme, ncdrawl, I would suggest you again look at other people's experiences (in addition to what Peter and I have discovered) and what THEY have discovered.

Nordost have a chemical which they claim when applied to the label side of CDs, to the labels of LPs, to the outer insulation of cables, including AC power cables, will give an improvement in the sound.!!

Dieter Ennemoser has a lacquer (C37) which he claims when applied to all manner of things will give an improvement in the sound !!

Sonus Faber have a lacquer which they apply to their loudspeaker cabinets which they describe as "friendly to audio" !!

Just how many more people have to discover similar things happening with chemicals and 'sound' - NOT JUST to violins, before audio people would be prepared to take notice ??

For example. What such as Ethan (who manufacturers acoustic room panels) does not appear to be aware of is that he could apply a particular chemical to the frames of any of his room panels and gain an improvement in the sound, over and above any acoustic improvements he achieves !! Exactly the same applies to many other things associated with audio - not JUST to violins !!!

Regards,
May Belt,
P.W.B. Electronics.

If I remember right, Prof. Nagyvary's data included the fact that the chemicals or the fungi (living things similar to mushrooms)ate away at certain parts of the wood. This changed the modulus of elasticity ratio between going across the grain vs. with the grain. That difference in untreated wood was something like 1:3 and changed to 1:5, hence the wonderful tonal qualities. Not chemicals in the room, dissociated from the wood, but an observable chain of events.

This is good. I would love a serious discussion on the subject !!

Such as why, if Prof Nagyvary's data comes over as so sensible, why has he been ignored for so long, and why was he 'criticised and ridiculed' ?

Did Stradivarius discover what to use by accident ?
Did he use certain chemicals as 'wood preservatives' ?

Which of all the serious theories appear to be the most acceptable ? It has been 'mooted' for as long as I can remember that Stradivarius used the volcanic ash from the slopes of the local volcano and that was one of the reasons why the sound of Stradivari violins sounded so good.

And yet another theory, the theory of a geometry and design :-

>>> "The Italian Antonius Stradivarius, 1644-1737, introduced a geometry and design that became the exemplar for all violin-makers." <<<

>>> "Mats Tinnsten, who, together with Associate Professor Peter Carlsson, is researching whether it is possible to copy Stradivarius violins with the aid of modern technology and powerful computers.

What the Mid Sweden University scientists are trying to create is a violin with the same acoustic properties as a Stradivarius instrument. This work is progressing in stages, and it was decided that the first stage would involve calculations based on the top of the violin.

"With the help of advanced mathematical optimization method, we can determine how a top should be shaped to achieve the same properties as a top from a genuine Stradivarius," says Peter Carlsson." <<<

If the Mid Sweden University are really concentrating on the actual geometry and design by using 'powerful computers', are THEY going to 'crack' the secret when yet others are suggesting that 'chemicals and fungus' are the explanation for the renowned sound.

>>> "Nagyvary obtained minute wood samples from restorers working on Stradivarius and Guarneri instruments ("no easy trick and it took a lot of begging to get them," he adds). The results of the preliminary analysis of these samples, published in "Nature" in 2006, suggested that the wood was brutally treated by some unidentified chemicals. For the present study, the researchers burned the wood slivers to ash, the only way to obtain accurate readings for the chemical elements.

They found numerous chemicals in the wood, among them borax, fluorides, chromium and iron salts.

"Borax has a long history as a preservative, going back to the ancient Egyptians, who used it in mummification and later as an insecticide," Nagyvary adds.

"The presence of these chemicals all points to collaboration between the violin makers and the local drugstore and druggist at the time. Their probable intent was to treat the wood for preservation purposes. Both Stradivari and Guarneri would have wanted to treat their violins to prevent worms from eating away the wood because worm infestations were very widespread at that time." <<<

"numerous chemicals in the wood, among them borax, fluorides, chromium and iron salts."

Fluorides ??????????? Associated with good sound ????

One of the best 'sounding' and well thought of insulation materials used in audio is PTFE.
And, low and behold, the F in PTFE is Fluoride !!

Just how many years have I been describing an experiment for people to try for themselves ?

You get one of the small dropper bottles of Fluoride. It used to be available in the UK as Fluorigard but Fluordrops can be obtained under the Brand name ENDEKAY and is relatively cheap at around 4 UK pounds.
You get two identical vases, fill them both with the same water from the same tap. You add a few drops of Fluoride to the water in one of the vases. You introduce the vase with the Fluoride water into the room and place it in a suitable position. Listen to some music. You should experience an improvement in the sound. Then take that vase out of the room and introduce the vase with the untreated water and stand it in exactly the same position. Now when you listen to the same music, the sound will be perceived as NOT 'as good as before'.

Regards,
May Belt,
P.W.B. Electronics.

Good lord, May.

Getting back to this solar system...

There is also a theory that the violin maker had left his wood to soak in sea water before further processing it into the instrument, which could make for some interesting content/characteristics, as well.

You get one of the small dropper bottles of Fluoride. It used to be available in the UK as Fluorigard but Fluordrops can be obtained under the Brand name ENDEKAY and is relatively cheap at around 4 UK pounds.
You get two identical vases, fill them both with the same water from the same tap. You add a few drops of Fluoride to the water in one of the vases. You introduce the vase with the Fluoride water into the room and place it in a suitable position. Listen to some music. You should experience an improvement in the sound. Then take that vase out of the room and introduce the vase with the untreated water and stand it in exactly the same position. Now when you listen to the same music, the sound will be perceived as NOT 'as good as before'.

I use fluoride toothpaste, my stereo ALWAYS sounds good!
Mike

Quote:
Good lord, May.

Getting back to this solar system...

There is also a theory that the violin maker had left his wood to soak in sea water before further processing it into the instrument, which could make for some interesting content/characteristics, as well.

Hardwood logs that have been downed in one of the great lakes (USA) have shown to be remarkably good instrument wood, and it's the anisotropy that does it.

"Hardwood logs have shown to be remarkably good instrument wood"

Attributions?

Quote:
"Hardwood logs have shown to be remarkably good instrument wood"

Attributions?

Please do not dishonestly quote others. Your malicious, edited quote is demonstrably dishonest, as can be seen by a quick examination of the post above yours.

Ouch! Double ouch!

A little snippy today, eh?

I noticed you avoided the question. Pretty slick.

Quote:
Ouch! Double ouch!

A little snippy today, eh?

I noticed you avoided the question. Pretty slick.

Your dishonesty is notable in that you accuse me of answering a question for which I have not made the assertion.

Stop endorsing your own fraudulent quote.

What's with all the angst? I was simply asking who said that sunken wood is good for sound. If you don't wish to answer, I'll understand.

Quote:
What's with all the angst? I was simply asking who said that sunken wood is good for sound. If you don't wish to answer, I'll understand.

That's not what you actually asked before, that's what you asked now. We all know you're trying to create a quote you can quote later in order to try to discount someone.

You know, Krait, I don't trust you even as far as I could throw a semi-trailer.

Now, now, no need to get your panties in a bunch.

I Guess the answer to my question is not in the offing..

do web searches related to the highly disputed (fought over) old sunken log source in the great lakes, with regard to their value and availability. People have even bought some of the islands adjacent to these areas (Lake Huron and Superior?) in order to steal some of these logs which are now a highly contested resource of immense value to/within the given markets. We're talking per lb $ values beyond that of cocobolo, yew, bubinga, ebony, or walnut burl.

Quote:
do web searches related to the highly disputed (fought over) old sunken log source in the great lakes, with regard to their value and availability. People have even bought some of the islands adjacent to these areas (Lake Huron and Superior?) in order to steal some of these logs which are now a highly contested resource of immense value to/within the given markets. We're talking per lb $ values beyond that of cocobolo, yew, bubinga, ebony, or walnut burl.

Unsurprisingly, someone who is actually interested finds the information in a few minutes.

Thus, we know how interested the other respondent above actually is, making his agenda transparent.

It is kinda interesting to see what happens when you dissolve almost all of the lignin and leave the cellulose intact.

The heck with web searches. I'm just trying to find out who's using the old growth wood for audio applications and thinks it has special sound qualities as brother jj was alluding to.

Yeah; in wood's structure, the cellulose runs pretty much with the grain and the lignen (the resin "glue" of wood) runs both with the grain and across it. Thats called the Medullar Rays and they run from the center out radially and circularly(??) with the growth rings. When the lignen is diminished the wood behaves quite differently with respect to vibrations. As far as the Great Lakes wood, I haven't heard about insrument or "audio" uses, but fine furniture makers are all over it.

Quote:
Yeah; in wood's structure, the cellulose runs pretty much with the grain and the lignen (the resin "glue" of wood) runs both with the grain and across it. Thats called the Medullar Rays and they run from the center out radially and circularly(??) with the growth rings. When the lignen is diminished the wood behaves quite differently with respect to vibrations. As far as the Great Lakes wood, I haven't heard about insrument or "audio" uses, but fine furniture makers are all over it.

The instrument makers are all over it because this makes the wood more anisotropic by a factor of about 3 times over new wood.

In violin terms, it means that you can get different panel resonances.

"Do web searches related to the highly disputed (fought over) old sunken log source in the great lakes, with regard to their value and availability. People have even bought some of the islands adjacent to these areas (Lake Huron and Superior?) in order to steal some of these logs which are now a highly contested resource of immense value to/within the given markets. We're talking per lb $ values beyond that of cocobolo, yew, bubinga, ebony, or walnut burl."

Ah, now I understand. The manufacturers of old growth wood musical instruments are promoting their products by using scientific data and the testimony of professionals in blind tests to make their pitch.

I hadn't heard about the instrument makers; I know a couple, I'll have to ask them about that. There's an awful lot of tradition there. I do know that many still insist on their wood coming from the same forests the Strad and Guaneri wood came from. A time machine would come in handy. We could ask Tony S. about it. The violin maker I know has said Stradivari would probably like some of our technology too. "If Tony Stradivari had a router and a place to plug it in, the first edition of 1001 things you can do with a router would have been in Italian"

PS: there's also been a bit of research into the varnishes back then; I remember the violin maker saying the varnish was quite important to the tone too.

"PS: there's also been a bit of research into the varnishes back then; I remember the violin maker saying the varnish was quite important to the tone too."

This seems approriate here...

C-37 Violin Lacquer - Interview

>>> "Hardwood logs that have been downed in one of the great lakes (USA) have shown to be remarkably good instrument wood, and it's the anisotropy that does it." <<<

So, what do we all think ? From the various explanations what do we think might be the answer to why the Stradivari violins are so renowned for how good they sound ?

Is it "soaked wood":-

"Hardwood logs that have been downed in one of the great lakes (USA) have shown to be remarkably good instrument wood, and it's the anisotropy that does it." ?

Is it "geometry and design":-

What the scientists at the Swedish University believe is "that the actual geometry and design is the 'secret for the good sounding Stradivari' and that they (the scientists), "With the help of advanced mathematical optimization method, we can determine how a top should be shaped to achieve the same properties as a top from a genuine Stradivarius," and using computers,

Is it "wood being treated for 9 months with fungus":-

September 1st 2009 was a day of reckoning for Empa scientist Francis Schwarze and the Swiss violin maker Michael Rhonheimer. The violin they had created using wood treated with a specially selected fungus

Of the more than 180 attendees, an overwhelming number

Quote:
It is this 'definiteness' which puzzles me, j j. I.e. Your - "it's the anisotropy that does it."

Yeah, J_J, it's the flouride.

May, as a public service, how about telling us which ointment was applied to the coffee table that spoilt the sound?

It would have no market value since it harms sound quality and could only help unsuspecting audiophiles!

Maybe we could check out the contents and find out what the sonic kryptonite was.

>>> "Yeah, J_J, it's the flouride.

May, as a public service, how about telling us which ointment was applied to the coffee table that spoilt the sound?
It would have no market value since it harms sound quality and could only help unsuspecting audiophiles!
Maybe we could check out the contents and find out what the sonic kryptonite was." <<<

Now, Buddha, you like to resort to using mockery so much I never really know at what time you are actually being serious. So, this time I will react as though you ARE being seriously interested !!

The actual chemical we used on the coffee table IS a secret. It is a secret because of the clues it would give as to what it's opposite is. And because it's opposite is one of Nature's beneficial chemicals, THAT is the bit we wish to keep secret !!!

I will however give you indications to where to start looking (that is if you are interested enough to start 'looking' for yourself !!!!!).

When fruit are ripening, they produce the chemical ethylene. Now, fruit ripening is relatively innocuous but do other things which are decaying through damage or disease produce ethylene also ?? Is ethylene one of Nature's "warning of danger" signals ????

For example. Scientists at the Institute of Applied Physics at the University of Bonn know that when a leaf or stem of a plant is sliced, the plant signals pain (or perhaps merely dismay) by releasing the gas ethylene over it's entire surface. The Bonn University team also believes that plants do more than chatter about aches and pains. They think that plants warn each other about approaching danger !!!!

Why don't you count up just how much ethylene you have in your listening room Buddha ??? Nature's "warning of danger" signals !! That YOU (the human being) could so easily be sensitive to !! So, next time I suggest that the modern environment is a 'mess' and that we human beings are reacting adversely to that 'mess' which has been created, please don't tell me that NO, your environment does not have any adverse effects present in it, and NO, you are not reacting adversely to anything, and that that reaction could be having an adverse effect on how you resolve the sound you are listening to and NO, you don't need any 'ritual', 'potion', or 'elixir' to counter that !!!!

Now, let me have a look at the opposite and particularly at the subject of this thread. Fungi can be different and opposites.

You can have mutualistic fungi (what I would simplistically call beneficial fungus, therefore - ergo - beneficial (in Nature) chemicals.
You can have antagonistic fungi (which harm plants - such as the 'rice blast' fungus) with, what I would call, adverse (in Nature) chemicals.

Could some of the fungi be produced as a result of an attempt by Nature to repair damage - i.e beneficial fungi ?? I.e - fungus as a byproduct of a beneficial chemical reaction ? Is this fungus sensed as 'reassuring signals' ??? Could the production of THIS (beneficial) chemical be the explanation why the violin using a particular fungi was voted the best sounding ??? Could Stradivarus have 'stumbled' on such a chemical by chance - a chemical which gave him good sound when he used it ?? So, he continued to use it ?? Could Dieter Ennemoser, in HIS search, have stumbled on a particular chemical mixture which 'sounds' good ?? Could Sonus Faber have stumbled on a particular chemical mix with the lacquer they use on their speaker cabinets which gave them good sound ?? Could the engineers at Nordost have stumbled on a particular chemical which when applied to the plastic outer insulation of cables, including POWER CABLES, gives an improvement in the sound ?? CABLES made from a plastic chemical mixture containing ETHYLENE ????????????????? Superimpose on that ethylene plastic material a 'beneficial' chemical - and what do we have - wow, an improvement in the sound !!!

27 years after others, Buddha, have you suddenly become interested or was your query merely mockery again ??? Presumably, still mocking the fluoride means that you haven't tried it ??

Regards,
May Belt.
P.W.B. Electronics.

Quote:
It is this 'definiteness' which puzzles me, j j. I.e. Your - "it's the anisotropy that does it.".

So definite, no doubts !!

Yep, testable, verifiable, and verified via laser inferometery on the various wood panels of a violin.

Something people can measure, model, and test. You know, science...

P.S. Your question was appallingly rude and insulting.

It is this 'definiteness' which puzzles me, j j. I.e. Your - "it's the anisotropy that does it.".
So definite, no doubts !!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Yep, testable, verifiable, and verified via laser inferometery on the various wood panels of a violin.

Something people can measure, model, and test. You know, science..."

Yet, mpingo discs, that are quite un-anisotropic, are very good for the sound. Ironic, huh?

Quote:
27 years after others, Buddha, have you suddenly become interested or was your query merely mockery again ??? Presumably, still mocking the fluoride means that you haven't tried it ??

We have flouride in our water - which is in all the pipes in the house at any given moment.

Seems our local government has decided that good sound via flouride should be our birthright and it was made a legal requirement.

Funny how you clain your tweak works regardless of the environment in which it is placed.

May, no worries on refusing to mention the evil ointment ingredients. If I had made it up and gotten surprised by a request to know what it was, I'd say exactly what you did! Exactly. Precisely.

I've gone one step farther than you in regard to the coffe table tweak, I guess. No coffee tables at all in our entire house.

Quote:
Funny how you clain your tweak works regardless of the environment in which it is placed.

May, no worries on refusing to mention the evil ointment ingredients. If I had made it up and gotten surprised by a request to know what it was, I'd say exactly what you did! Exactly. Precisely.

Oh boy..... You're chasing the wrong rabbit down the wrong hole agin'. There is no "one evil ointment with the one bad ingredient that's bad for sound", in my experience. I'd say about any household product you can pour, spray or smear on a table, will affect your perceived sound in various ways. I'm not just saying on a theoretical basis, by the way. I have tried and tested many such products, everywhere from the cleaning cabinet to the bathroom cabinet, to see what effect they had. It doesn't matter whether they were filled with chemicals or natural ingredients. The vast majority of them degraded my sound, or just did things to it I did not like in the end. Whether you can hear the effects of that, I don't know. I have not tested this on others. But I do know that you will have a hard time hearing their effects if you never actually -try- testing this. I'm -guessing- that most of the changes involved are probably not things most will pick up on in a casual test. Especially not if they are not listening intently for changes to their sound. Most people don't, hence never think about it, hence never know about it. (Then they wonder why some times their system just seems to sound better than at other times....)

Most people ask how to improve their sound, but you're asking how to screw up your sound. Well that's a lot easier. It's so easy, it happens naturally without you having to do anything. But sure, you can speed up the process with the indiscriminate use of household products if you like. Just know that some products will have more of an effect on sound perceived than other products. As always, you have to experiment if you are to find out what it might mean to you. I would start with the liberal spraying of furniture polish or Windex or anything by "L.A. Awesome!" in my listening room, if I were you. The speakers, the components or the tv are a great place to use the products on, but a table in the room will do (no, it doesn't have to be a coffee table). You're better to listen for changes on headphones, because they're more microscopic.

BTW, if you do find a product that has degraded your sound, don't waste your time trying to analyze the ingredients in the product. You're just going to drive yourself batty doing that, B. Let's say you find that using a can of Clean N' Dust in the room has lowered your sound quality a bit, and figure it's ingredient "X". Well then you might find rubbing alcohol also messes with your sound, except it has no ingredient "x". Then so does Windex, but it has none of the ingredients of the first two. See the problem? But before even talking about analyzing the ingredients of a specific product to determine what ingredient(s) might be causing a drop in sound, it seems you haven't yet established whether any product causes a drop in sound. The cart needs to go in the back of the horse, before proceeding... Good luck! Let us know if you discover anything.

>>> "Yep, testable, verifiable, and verified via laser inferometery on the various wood panels of a violin.

Something people can measure, model, and test. You know, science..." <<<

I did NOT say that 'anisotropy' is not testable, verifiable etc, which people can MEASURE. I challenged whether THAT was the "definite" explanation for a 'good sounding' violin !! It was the "definiteness" you were claiming with your "it's the anisotropy that does it." that I was challenging. Nothing to do with being "appallingly rude and insulting" !!!!! I made it perfectly clear that I was challenging the 'definiteness' of your statement, NOT the actual anisotropy !!

And, it is the similar 'definiteness' of statements within the field of audio which can cause so much aggro !!!

Statements from such as AlexO like:- "If it can be heard, then it can be measured"

Statements from such as Ethan like :-
>>> "Yes, everything that affects audio can be expressed using the following four parameters, as far as I know those four parameters define everything that affects audio reproduction."

* Frequency response
* Noise
* Distortion
* Time-based errors " <<<

And, yes, I DO know science. If it (anisotropy) IS so definite as to what is the explanation for the excellent sound of certain violins, then would you please tell the 'scientists' !!!!! - so that they can stop doing scientific things, stop searching using science and go home, relax and put their feet up !!

Regards,
May Belt,
P.W.B. Electronics.

>>> "We have flouride in our water - which is in all the pipes in the house at any given moment. Funny how you clain your tweak works regardless of the environment in which it is placed." <<<

Having fluoride in the water piped into your house does not mean, per se, that therefore you do not have anything else to do. It WOULD mean that if you used fluoridated water from the tap in vases of flowers or to water the plants in your listening room it would 'aid' you having better sound than someone who does not have fluoride in their water supply !!!

>>> "Funny how you clain your tweak works regardless of the environment in which it is placed." <<<

It has always been one of the suggested techniques for people to try for themselves. IF they DO hear distinct improvements in their sound, from doing such things in their listening environment, then they can understand more fully exactly what we are talking about and describing. And, if people use TWO identical vases, one with Fluoride and one without, they can do before, after and back to before listening experiments which you cannot do if your basic water supply is already Fluoridated !!

>>> "May, no worries on refusing to mention the evil ointment ingredients. If I had made it up and gotten surprised by a request to know what it was, I'd say exactly what you did! Exactly. Precisely." <<<

That is completely uncalled for in what is supposed to be a reasoned discussion !!!!!!!!!!!!
Why on earth would I wish to expose myself to ridicule and mockery over these past 27 years by making something like that up ?????????? I would not dream of accusing you or anyone else of "making things up"

Let me give you another example to try to explain keeping things secret (as if you don't know such things already !!).

Say, long before anyone knew anything about static being caused by some form of deficiency, people observed that one object could be attracted to another and sometimes stick to each other (by no known force - at that time) !!! Say, someone suddenly discovers that the explanation is that one object has a deficiency of electrons and is trying to make up that deficiency from another adjacent object and that that person then goes on to discover the antidote, which then provides a solution. If, however, that person discloses that it is because the first object has a deficiency of POSITIVE electrons, then if another person is interested enough and can eventually reason it out that, therefore, what one should be looking for, to solve the problem, is another object (or substance) which has an ABUNDANCE of positive electrons !!!!!!!!!!!

Secret out - by disclosing the first problem and providing a sufficient enough clue to enable any competitors to get in much quicker and easier !!!

If one person discovers, before others, that dust settles on some objects far more than on other objects and the explanation is to do with a deficiency of (say) negative ions, and they go on to create an antidote in the form of (say) a hair dryer containing Tourmaline balls which can produce an abundance of negative ions, so solving the original problem, then informing others of the original discovery (a deficiency of negative ions) gives other people clues as to which direction to explore, where to look for a suitable antidote and, eventually, from that, to create a suitable product.

They MIGHT even find the chemical Fluoride - which is one of Nature's electro negative chemicals, along with human tears !!

>>> "I've gone one step farther than you in regard to the coffe table tweak, I guess. No coffee tables at all in our entire house." <<<

You still have not mentioned what (or how much) ethylene you have in your environment !!!

I am aware of the techniques you use Buddha. You like to acquire titbits of information, juggle them in the air like juggling balls and then occasionally pick one at random as a tool to jump in and ridicule and mock. I am making the presumption that you have not tried such as Dieter Ennemoser's C37 lacquer, nor Nordost's chemical, nor the Schumann resonance device, nor a hair dryer containing Tourmaline balls, nor Ted D's room devices ! I wonder why !!!
Also you appear to prefer using the tactic of 'let's wriggle out of mentioning ethylene in the listening environment', let's just discuss only coffee tables !!!

If you want fun spoiling your sound, then let me give you fun !!!
One usually fires such as a Zerostat gun in the normal way - AT the surface of the disc (LP). Try the very opposite. Place the REAR of the Zerostat gun against the surface of the LP and fire the gun in the normal way, with the gun in that particular position. Now play the LP and you will find that the sound is now worse !! Spend the next 27 years, Buddha, working out what to do next, how to get the good sound back !!!!!!!!!!!! Working out whether you might have polarised the LP across (over) it's surface or through it's thickness !!!!!! Is it a permanent or is it a temporary polarisation ? How to reverse what you have just done ??

Could a temporary polarity have been induced on the surface of an LP during successive playing and could therefore applying a demagnetiser to an LP alter, reduce or eliminate that temporary polarity ?? Could doing anything with a magnet on an LP be doing something along those lines, changing an induced polarity ? A magnet is a polarised object !!!! Fire a Zerostat gun in the room and you have a temporary polarised object in your hands. The world of audio is far more complicated and is just NOT what you think (or more importantly what you want to believe) it is, Buddha !!!!

Enjoy your path of discovery !! Or no discovery if you choose not to go down that path !!

I have been saying the modern environment is a mess regarding sound for very many years, MJ Frog has been telling you the same thing for goodness knows how long, others (for example the people having experienced the effect of using the Schumann resonance device) are beginning to suggest the same thing. What I find so surprising, Buddha, is that you have NOT yet found that out for yourself after how many years of being in audio ?

Regards,
May Belt,
P.W.B. Electronics.

Quote:
What such as Ethan (who manufacturers acoustic room panels) does not appear to be aware of is that he could apply a particular chemical to the frames of any of his room panels and gain an improvement in the sound, over and above any acoustic improvements he achieves !!

Of course I'm aware of that, and this is exactly what we do. Why do you think we don't?

Ethan Winer
RealTraps

Quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
What such as Ethan (who manufacturers acoustic room panels) does not appear to be aware of is that he could apply a particular chemical to the frames of any of his room panels and gain an improvement in the sound, over and above any acoustic improvements he achieves !!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course I'm aware of that, and this is exactly what we do. Why do you think we don't?

Uh, is it Russian Leather? Am I close?

>>> "Of course I'm aware of that, and this is exactly what we do. Why do you think we don't?" <<<

Ethan, if you ARE aware of the effect that different chemicals can have on the sound, then why have you been saying :-

>>> "Yes, everything that affects audio can be expressed using the following four parameters, as far as I know those four parameters define everything that affects audio reproduction."

* Frequency response
* Noise
* Distortion
* Time-based errors " <<<

Where does the effect of different chemicals on the sound come in those four ?

Regards,
May Belt,
P.W.B. Electronics.

May, why do you think the effect of chemicals cannot include those four parameters? What else do you think there is? Please be very specific!

Ethan Winer
RealTraps

Quote:
May, why do you think the effect of chemicals cannot include those four parameters? What else do you think there is? Please be very specific!

Ethan Winer
RealTraps

Ah... the old "switcheroo on you response". Haven't seen that one used in a long time. Looks like the sheriff of Dodge City is back in the saddle again. But seriously Ethan, I know I'm not the only one trying to figure out your justification for saying that "chemicals" applied to the frames of your room traps improves the sound via one of your famous "the only 4 parameters of audio that matter"? Which of those 4 parameters can be affected by nothing more than chemicals, and what is the mechanism by how they are being affected? Please be very specific and clear!

You have many times attacked products on the basis that they used unproven technology, and defended yours on the basis that unlike the so-called "tweako products", your products use "proven" technology. So can you provide data to back up your statement that chemicals applied to the frames of your traps affect either: * Frequency response, * Noise, * Distortion or * Time-based errors? (and in case I need to say this, please don't ask me why I think your unsupported extraordinary claim can't be true. You know what I'm going to tell you in return!)

Quote:
We have flouride in our water - which is in all the pipes in the house at any given moment. Seems our local government has decided that good sound via flouride should be our birthright and it was made a legal requirement. Funny how you clain your tweak works regardless of the environment in which it is placed.

Buddha, you can be swimming in fluoridated water, and your sound won't get better. In fact, it will no doubt be worse. It's knowing how to use the fluoridated water that will make a difference to your sound, if any difference is to be heard. Not knowing, you make false assumptions about how this all works, as you do. If done correctly, this technique works regardless of the environment, regardless of the listener. Peter made a fantastic discovery here, and he gave it to the audiophile community gratis, and it's worth thousands of dollars, in terms of what it would cost to acheive the benefits that could be acheived, with this one simple idea. And the typical audiophile's response to that is the lazy sound of apathetic crickets chirping, or monkey howls of derisive laughter. For as long as I live, I'll never quite come to grips with that, I don't think.

I have done numerous experiments with plants and their effect on our sound in the past, and they remain a fascinating subject. But I've never tried anything in the water, so I took up this challenge myself (in your name!). Except I had no fluoridated water, so I went with a liquid PWB product I did have, called "One Drop". I know it is usually used on transparent objects, but I have no idea whether this is prescribed for plant water, as I haven't referred to the instructions in a long time. Still... I decided it's called "one drop", so that's all I will use! And I had a large watering can that holds about 4 litres of water, so we're talking homeopathic quantities of the solution here! I settled on a track by Adam Chaki ("Silly Old Cow") for the test, listened to that, then went about watering my plants. I have about a dozen, incuding a large palm and bamboo (which uses no soil), all located at the opposite end of the house to where the system was! When I went back to listen to the song again on my system, the change was about what I would expect from upgrading a component. Or at least swapping for a really good set of cables. The sound was liquid, coherent and involving, in a way not heard at all before the watering. The sort of change that would have been obvious to anyone, IMO. As such, it was one of the most successful single applications of this kind that I have ever heard, bar none. Oh, and my local government also mandates fluoride in the water. Yet I've never had my sound improve by watering the plants with only tap water. Funny, that!

I had attempted another "impossible" experiment at the time. Which was to try to transfer the effect of the plant watering over to a file I downloaded off the net, in order to try to convey at least a trace of my experience in more tangible terms. I describe the outcome of that in the Tweaks forum; here.

The lesson learned is simple: make your plants happy, and they'll make you happy in return.

"But seriously Ethan, I know I'm not the only one trying to figure out your justification for saying that "chemicals" applied to the frames of your room traps improves the sound via one of your famous "the only 4 parameters of audio that matter"? Which of those 4 parameters can be affected by nothing more than chemicals, and what is the mechanism by how they are being affected? Please be very specific and clear!"

He is most likely referring to the wood finish on the frames, so his claim is "true" that he uses a chemical and the traps improve the sound according to conventional acoustic principles. Score one for Nathan.

Quote:
"But seriously Ethan, I know I'm not the only one trying to figure out your justification for saying that "chemicals" applied to the frames of your room traps improves the sound via one of your famous "the only 4 parameters of audio that matter"? Which of those 4 parameters can be affected by nothing more than chemicals, and what is the mechanism by how they are being affected? Please be very specific and clear!"

He is most likely referring to the wood finish on the frames, so his claim is "true" that he uses a chemical and the traps improve the sound according to conventional acoustic principles. Score one for Nathan.

Well that's only "score one strawman argument" then. I figured he would say that. That's what I specified "nothing more than chemicals" . Even so, Ethan still hasn't said which of the parameters this would apply to, and proved it to have audible effects because of the chemicals in the finish. For if this is the case, then Ethan should have no problem backing the sale and use of C37! I don't know, but I'm sure his Hydrogen brothers are not going to be happy to hear that.

>>> "May, why do you think the effect of chemicals cannot include those four parameters? What else do you think there is?" <<<

My challenge was to YOUR statement:-
>>> "Yes, everything that affects audio can be expressed using the following four parameters, as far as I know those four parameters define everything that affects audio reproduction."

* Frequency response
* Noise
* Distortion
* Time-based errors " <<<

You then challenged MY challenge with :-
>>> "this is exactly what we do. Why do you think we don't?" <<<

So, let us stay with your reply !! That THAT (applying a chemical) is exactly what you do !!!

You say you DO apply chemicals (or maybe only one chemical) to your acoustic panels:- i.e
>>> "this is exactly what we do." <<<

So,
How exactly is that chemical, applied to your acoustic panels, influencing the "Frequency response" ? I am talking here about the CHEMICAL, not the actual physical panels.

How exactly is that chemical, applied to your acoustic panels, influencing the "Noise" ? I am talking here about the CHEMICAL, not the actual physical panels.

How exactly is that chemical, applied to your acoustic panels, influencing the "Distortion" ? I am talking here about the CHEMICAL, not the actual physical panels.
How exactly is that chemical, applied to your acoustic panels, influencing the "Time-based errors" ? I am talking here about the CHEMICAL, not the actual physical panels.

And, what happens if you do NOT apply the chemical (or chemicals) ?????

It is YOU who has claimed :-
>>> "Yes, everything that affects audio can be expressed using the following four parameters, as far as I know those four parameters define everything that affects audio reproduction."

* Frequency response
* Noise
* Distortion
* Time-based errors " <<<

So, you must have a reason, based on that belief, for what any chemical, applied to your acoustic panel, is doing regarding the 'sound' !!!!

YOU say you are applying a chemical, so you must have a reason for doing so.

You tell ME why the effect of chemicals CAN include those four parameters you list. It is YOU who is listing only those four parameters, not me !!!!!!!!!!!! Which is why I referred to them in the first place ! If that is what you believe, then you must have applied the chemical (or chemicals) to be effective within those four you have listed.

This whole thread started with ncdrawl giving a link to an interesting aspect regarding research into the sound of the original Stradivari violins i.e some scientists recently adding fungus to the wood for a violin, over a 9 month period, and achieving an excellent sounding violin !! I then pointed to another interesting aspect introduced by another scientist, working on the (violin) subject for some 30 years, coming to the conclusion (also) that it might, seriously, have been certain chemicals which Stradivarius had added to the wood he used, maybe primarily as a wood preservative, but subsequently realised that they also gave him good 'sound' so continued to use them.

I tried to point out the following. (To now give some examples of what I meant).

In the early days of science, people believed that the sun travelled around the earth - and why not, it was exactly what they observed ? Then, as some people began to realise and become more aware and began to gain further understanding, that original understanding changed to being the opposite - i.e that "it was the earth which moved around the sun" !! So, once those people were more aware, had a greater understanding, then they could no longer go back to using the old sentence of "it is the sun which travels around the earth". I repeat, those people could no longer use those 'old' sentences !! So, if ever anyone was heard to say those 'old' sentences then it was OBVIOUS that those particular people were not yet aware, did not have this further understanding !!!!!

Not that long ago it was believed that the earth must have been created some time during the 4,000 BC era, because that is what some clergyman had calculated from the accounts in the bible. Anyone who had observed fossils of sea creatures, in rocks, at the top of mountains began to realise that for them to get there in the first place, and then be fossilised, the earth MUST have been created much, much earlier than some time 4,000 BC. They had no idea just HOW old the earth must be, only that it MUST, logically, be older than 6,000 years !!! Once those people had that awareness, had that glimmer of understanding, then they could no longer say the old sentences - 'that the earth was only some 6,000 years old' !! I repeat, they may not KNOW just how old the earth was at the time of discovering the sea creature fossils on the top of mountains, they just knew they could not use the 'old' sentences any more !!

So, I tried to point out that when the scientists, working trying to find an explanation for the excellent sound of Stradivari violins, if they discovered that applying fungus to the wood over a 9 month period, or if they found that applying certain chemicals to the wood created an excellent sounding violin, then they could no longer use the 'old' sentences of "that it must be the geometric shape, or that it must be the anisotropy that does it."

So, the point I was trying to make was that if j j could say the sentence "it's the anisotropy that does it.", then he cannot have reached the same stage of awareness or the same stage of understanding that some of the other scientists had so obviously reached !! Because he is still using the 'old' sentence - which some other people can no longer use, once they have 'moved further on' in awareness and understanding !!

I then went on to say that the different approaches (and the different reactions) regarding the investigations into the sound of violins 'mirrored' what was going on in the audio industry.

That once people have achieved a further level of awareness and a further level of understanding, and a further level of experience, then they can no longer go back and use the 'old' sentences. And I gave the examples of AlexO with his sentences (and outlook) of "If it can be heard, it can be measured" and Ethan's statement (and outlook):-

>>> "Yes, everything that affects audio can be expressed using the following four parameters, as far as I know those four parameters define everything that affects audio reproduction."

* Frequency response
* Noise
* Distortion
* Time-based errors " <<<

You can see where people are in their level of awareness and their understanding by the sentences they use !!
Some people with more awareness, more understanding, more experiences could not NOW say the sentence "If it can be heard, it can be measured" - even if it had been something they had firmly believed for many years !!! They would have to now say something like "SOME of what we hear can be measured but not ALL."

Some people with more awareness, more understanding, more experiences could not NOW say the statement :-
>>> "Yes, everything that affects audio can be expressed using the following four parameters, as far as I know those four parameters define everything that affects audio reproduction."

* Frequency response
* Noise
* Distortion
* Time-based errors " <<<

They would have to say "There is more 'going on' concerning audio, music and listening, than that limiting (four parameters) statement." - even if they might, at some time in the past, have believed it.

The particular scientists who had applied fungus to wood over a 9 month period and produced an excellent sounding violin would, in no way, wish to mock and ridicule other scientists who had been working on applying different chemicals to the wood of violins. BOTH sections would know that there are other things 'at play' to do with the sound of violins. Only the people who have no idea, no awareness, no experiences of what other things are 'at play' would use mockery and ridicule !!

Similarly with audio.

Let me make myself clear before people start reacting yet again. I am NOT saying that 'geometry (shape) or anisotropy or even specially selected woods do NOT have ANY part to play in producing a good sounding violin, I am suggesting that, in the light of further and recent findings, they might not have the huge percentage of importance previously attributed to them. That it might not, any longer, be wholly "it's the anisotropy that does it" !!!

Similarly with audio.
That it might not, any longer, be as simple as "If it can be heard, it can be measured"
That it might not, any longer, be as simple as "DB trials will answer all the controversy"
That it might not, any longer, be as simple as :-
>>> "Yes, everything that affects audio can be expressed using the following four parameters, as far as I know those four parameters define everything that affects audio reproduction."

* Frequency response
* Noise
* Distortion
* Time-based errors " <<<

Regards.
May Belt,
P.W.B. Electronics.

Quote:
The actual chemical we used on the coffee table IS a secret. It is a secret because of the clues it would give as to what it's opposite is. And because it's opposite is one of Nature's beneficial chemicals, THAT is the bit we wish to keep secret !!!

Maybe Ethan's use of chemicals is proprietary and if he told you, it would give away information crucial to maintaining his niche in the marketplace.

You'd HAVE to leave him at his word, right?

May, why on Earth would you ride Ethan for not giving up such information?

You, of all people!

"Maybe Ethan's use of chemicals is proprietary and if he told you, it would give away information crucial to maintaining his niche in the marketplace."

Yeah, right. Nathan has admitted, or rather bragged, that he hasn't found anything of interest in audio in the last 20 years. So, its rather unlikely he's doing any such thing as secretly using proprietary chemicals. Duh!

Quote:
"Maybe Ethan's use of chemicals is proprietary and if he told you, it would give away information crucial to maintaining his niche in the marketplace."

Yeah, right. Nathan has admitted, or rather bragged, that he hasn't found anything of interest in audio in the last 20 years. So, its rather unlikely he's doing any such thing as secretly using proprietary chemicals. Duh!

If you read May's posts, you'll find she's discovered nothing new in the last 25 years, either.

>>> "Maybe Ethan's use of chemicals is proprietary and if he told you, it would give away information crucial to maintaining his niche in the marketplace.

You'd HAVE to leave him at his word, right?

May, why on Earth would you ride Ethan for not giving up such information?

You, of all people!" <<<

Now wait a minute, Buddha. Seems to me that there is a bit of a double standard going on here on your part.

When I stated that I was keeping a particular chemical we had used secret, you accused ME, quite forcibly, of making the whole story up !!!!!!!

As in :-
>>> "May, no worries on refusing to mention the evil ointment ingredients. If I had made it up and gotten surprised by a request to know what it was, I'd say exactly what you did! Exactly. Precisely." <<<

I have NOT requested Ethan to NAME any chemical he is using. I have asked him to explain how (whatever chemical it is, named or not named) is "having an effect regarding the sound".

As in :-
>>> "So, you must have a reason, based on that belief, for what any chemical, applied to your acoustic panel, is doing regarding the 'sound' !!!!

YOU say you are applying a chemical, so you must have a reason for doing so.

You tell ME why the effect of chemicals CAN include those four parameters you list. It is YOU who is listing only those four parameters, not me !!!!!!!!!!!! Which is why I referred to them in the first place ! If that is what you believe, then you must have applied the chemical (or chemicals) to be effective within those four you have listed." <<<

Regarding this double standard approach of yours.
If Ethan is making the choice of not to name the chemical he uses, why have you not, therefore, accused him ALSO of making it up !!!! OR, don't accuse ANYONE of "making it up" in the first place !!

Regards,
May Belt,
P.W.B. Electronics.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/04/science/04strad.html?_r=1&hpw

Or maybe it wasn't the chemicals.

Fun mystery.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/04/science/04strad.html?_r=1&hpw

Or maybe it wasn't the chemicals.

Fun mystery.

Quote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/04/science/04strad.html?_r=1&hpw

Or maybe it wasn't the chemicals.

Fun mystery.

Maybe it's just some silicone caulking used to seal his traps. Yes that would measurably affect the sound both in the time domain and frequency response. Just a thought

I see another potentially informative thread has been turned into a Kait-derailed thread.