For one, Jazzfan, I have always abided by the guidelines for manufacturers who wish to post on the Stereophile Forum.

Manufacturers are allowed to answer specific questions.

Manufacturers are allowed to take part in discussions of a general nature concerning Hi Fi.

Manufacturers are not allowed to use the forum to advertise their own products.

What they HAVE TO DO is to declare if they are a manufacturer !!

Regards,

May Belt,

Manufacturer.

jazzfan wrote:

Could the powers that be please consider instituting a policy which would limit manufacturers and their representatives to posting only in the "Manufacturers' Showcase" of this forum. I have found that several of them are using this forum as a way promote their products, which is not necessarily a bad except when what they are selling is only worthless, overpriced junk.

Thanks!

What May said.

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

May Belt wrote:

Manufacturers are allowed to take part in discussions of a general nature concerning Hi Fi.

Yeah, Jazzfan.  Why,  I can recall May's great input on all the general discussions here, and her talking about different aspects of Hi Fi gear and recordings, and....errrr....wait.

Hey, just a cotton pickin' minute - she doesn't take part in general discussions at all!

May, help us out. Could you kindly flop up some links to any three posts of yours that do not reference pseudo-tweaking? Any thread titles about all the other aspects of Hi Fi that would be included in the nature of general discussions where you've taken part?

That would help bolster your point.

You know, like Jazzfan could do. Talking about music you like, particular experiences with favorite recordings, what gear you've been listening to lately, that sort of thing!

Thanks in advance!

"Talking about music you like, particular experiences with favorite recordings, what gear you've been listening to lately, that sort of thing!"

Gosh, that really sounds keen, little buddy, but I think I'll pass.

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

geoffkait wrote:

Talking about music you like, particular experiences with favorite recordings, what gear you've been listening to lately, that sort of thing! Gosh, that really sounds keen, little buddy, but I think I'll pass. Geoff Kait Machina Dynamica

Geoff, we already knew that.....one needs a Hi Fi in order to talk about most of these things. And one would have to listen to music on it. So, that kind of leaves you out right there.

Hi Fi and music are definitely not in your job description.

Thanks for the update!

You crack me up when you talk like a real audiophile.

"Talking about music you like, particular experiences with favorite recordings, what gear you've been listening to lately, that sort of thing!"

Priceless.

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

You did get a case of hives.

LOL

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica
We do Artificial Atoms Right

And thanks for spreading the word. I'm giving serious consideration to selecting you for Associate Stalker. Keep up the good work, it could happen. LOL

Geoff Kait
machina dynamica

I know what your saying Jazzfan , and I agree , we know why there here . But some of them do make for a lively forum , even Geoff .

Quote:

“Hey, just a cotton pickin' minute - she doesn't take part in general discussions at all!”

I said that manufacturers are ALLOWED to participate in general discussions, meaning they are not restricted from doing so !!!.  

Being ‘allowed to’ does not mean that they HAVE TO.   Or, are you suggesting that taking part in general discussions is a required “rite of passage” to being a member of the Stereophile Forum ?

I seem to remember seeing such as John Curl and Ted D (manufacturers) respond to certain threads in the Forum but I am sure that if they so choose not to respond to more general areas, then it would not be held against them – but apparently, for some unknown reason, I come in for special criticism !!!!!

Regards,

May Belt.

Manufacturer.

Quote:

“Let me make one thing perfectly clear:

While you may be able to make a living ripping people off with your useless tweaks I will not stop doing my best to tell others exactly what kind of nonsense you sell. The internet is a very big and powerful place so for every person you manage to bamboozle with your mumbo jumbo perhaps a hundred others will come to realize what a sham you are and what kind of scam you're running.

Then I'll be the one laughing out loud.”

THAT was completely uncalled for, no matter who it is aimed at !!!!!

Quote:

“Now I fully understand why Geoff and May jump into each and every thread which calls into question any outrageous claim made by their fellow snake oil salesmen. It's just a matter of self defense.”

Do you really think that John Atkinson decides to print articles about unusual (out of the box) devices and techniques merely in order to create controversy and discord ?????????????

I believe he allows his fellow Stereophile members to be able to write their articles and for him to print them because they have HEARD what those devices and techniques DO – actually DO !!!!

I believe he printed the article on the cryogenic freezing technique because both he and others had HEARD the improvements in the sound from using such a proccess.

I believe he printed his experiences with colouring the edge of CDs because he and others had HEARD that technique give improvements in the sound.

I believe he printed the article on the demagnetizing of LPs technique because he and others had HEARD that technique give improvements in the sound.

I believe he printed references to such as the ART devices because he and others had HEARD them give improvements in the sound.

I believe he printed mentions of the SteinMusic device because members of Stereophile had HEARD it give improvements in the sound !!!

I responded to the latest attack (on the SteinMusic device) as I have responded on other occasions before because of the attacks on the people who genuinely produced those products and who know the effect they can have and because of the attacks on the people who were prepared to describe their experiences after using such devices.

For example.   Some time back I was appalled to see that Ethan Winer had been able to imply Fraud at Furutech, the makers of a demagnetizing device, seemingly with impunity !!   Even JIMV thinks that the device “could be doing something” but that he thinks it’s PRICE is too high.

I first became a member of the Stereophile Forum a few years ago after reading one of Buddha’s such attacks :-

Quote:

“The Peter Belts of this world are sly, like the serpent. They are driven off, but then always find ways to slither back into to hobby to suck the green life blood from the uninitiated…. We, as ethical audiophiles, have a duty to remember the past, so that others aren't doomed to repeat it.”

This was a gratuitous and personal attack by Buddha, because neither Peter nor I, at that time, had ever been responding to what was being discussed on the Forum.    Buddha’s attacks are STILL continuing, unabated.

You appear to have set yourself on a crusade.   I feel it is going to be a far more involved and a longer crusade than you expect because more and more people who are involved in audio and in listening to music are going to be talking like the following.   i.e. taking the listening environment and the human being doing the listening far more seriously into consideration :-

Quote:

“6 moons on the LessLoss Blackbody device

For example, Louis once filled his listening room with more than 100 lit blue light bulbs to track unexpected improvements on his hifi's performance. Then he ran bulbs over the gamut of the rainbow. After he'd identified a dark blue hue—near violet in fact—as the one most beneficial to sound, he just had to understand why. He wanted to exploit the same effect in a more practical and energy-efficient manner.

Now, all a working theory must do is generate useful results. It matters little if the theory has holes, makes capricious assumptions or outright errs in the face of later revisions. Enter Louis' Blackbody. Where the LessLoss DAC 2004MkII and LessLoss power cords have garnered widespread recognition and credibility for no-nonsense engineering, the published explanation for how the new Blackbody works—our probably quite LotLoss theory— diverges into uncharted terrain. Were this Lithuanian company to propose the Blackbody now without their prior rep sheet in place, most thinking audiophiles would without a second thought write them and this new passive device off as charlatans and another voodoo accessory.

 

What to make of the Blackbody then? In my book, it takes clanky brass balls to pursue untried paths, then go public not only with the device but a lengthy explanation for what the inventor believes makes it work.

If you take that explanation at face value, your eyes could glaze over. Or your BS meter might redline. I look at it as an interesting working theory. It might be factual. It could be way off. Chances are it splits the difference. Why should I care though? What matters is that the thinking involved led to the creation of an inspectable device. It proposes to address electro smog effects in a way that's never been attempted before.

 

Electro smog? I won't do your homework for you. If you don't believe in the existence of electro smog, geopathic stress zones or invisible interactions between electromagnetically radiated fields, you simply needn't worry about micro waves, Bluetooth and their effects on your health either.

 

My job is to simply insert the device into my system as instructed; report on audible effects; gauge their relative magnitude; opine whether the expense seems justified; and/or, whether any qualifications exist that might preclude its use or suggest that the same money would be better spent elsewhere first.”

To quote from Jason Victor Serinus’s CES show report on the Stein Music device. 

Quote:

>>> “So how does the Stein Harmonizer work? Best to quote directly from Stein. Since, for him, English is a second language, I’ve given him an assist in the editing department.

 

”Some years ago, my wife used some rose quartz for decoration in our showroom. When we powered up the system, we had the impression that the sound had changed somewhat. It was not a big difference; it was something like moving a curtain into a somewhat different position. But it did make some change.

 

“We wondered what was causing this phenomenon. Then, while moving the quartz, we found it made a small change in the music. It was small, but detectable. So we asked ourselves how this can be.” <<<

Stein is describing yet ANOTHER instance where someone (obviously seriously involved in the audio industry) has, by chance, been taken by surprise with ‘something’ giving an improvement in the sound - where, from a conventional electronic or acoustic viewpoint, no improvement would have been expected to happen.   Stein merely joins a list of quite eminent people (i.e professionals in audio) who have reported such “chance” events over these past 30 years - surely starting back in the late 1970s with Jean Hiraga, Editor of the French Hi Fi magazine “Revue du Son” reporting how he had ‘heard’ different cables sound different !!

Quote:

from 6 moons on the “The Franck Acoustic System devices”.

 

Franck doesn't pretend to really having invented anything. He prefers to call it a discovery which well preceded his subsequent attempts at understanding what was going on”

Quote by John A on the tiny ART devices:-

Quote:

“The observation comes first, the explanation possibly years or even decades afterward. Not being able to explain an observation does not invalidate the phenomenon if that observation is repeatable. Had you been trained in the sciences, you would have understood that. Something is happening with the ART devices: either they affect the listener or they affect the room's acoustics. I have suspected the former; Ted's measurements suggest the latter.

 

Could it be that they are diffracting/reflecting that RF bath away from the listener, thus improving his state of mind and his receptivity to the music?”

You say you are being challenged because you are sceptical. 

Quote:

“And I'm really, really tired of being called a skeptic just because I question a manufacturer's completely unsubstantiated and unproven claim.”

 I don’t think that is the reason why you are challenged.   EVERYONE I know is sceptical !!!   You can be sceptical yet, at the same time, can have some realisation as to what is going on as evidenced by comments by John A.

Quote by John A at the Montreal Show 2009 :-

Quote:

“There are things that boggle my mind in High End audio.  There are things that I would like to think I understand (from a technical and engineering point of view) and then something happens which literally blows my mind and it doesn’t fit the world view. “

Quote:

“Then I'll be the one laughing out loud.”

And, whilst you are laughing, the “problem” will STILL be written on the blackboard, unanswered !!!

Regards,

May Belt,

PWB Electronics.

Oh, you mean trying to penetrate the thick impermeable membrane surrounding the brains of contented, unsuspecting audiophiles?    LOL

Introduction to Zen and the Art of Debunkery

Like all systems of truth seeking, science, properly conducted,
has a profoundly expansive, spiritual impulse at its core. This "Zen"
in the heart of science is revealed when the practitioner sets aside
arbitrary beliefs and cultural preconceptions, and approaches the
nature of things with "beginner's mind." When this is done, reality
can speak freshly and freely, and can be heard more clearly.
Appropriate testing and objective validation can--indeed, *must*--
come later.

Seeing with humility, curiosity and fresh eyes was once the
main point of science. But today it is often a different story. As the
scientific enterprise has been bent toward exploitation,
institutionalization, hyperspecialization and new orthodoxy, it has
increasingly preoccupied itself with disconnected facts in a
spiritual, psychological, social and ecological vacuum. Virtually
gone from the scene is the philosopherscientist, to whom meaning
and context were once the very fabric of a multi-level universe.
Today's mainstream science tends, instead, to deny or disregard
entire domains of reality, and satisfies itself with reducing all of
life and consciousness to a dead physics.

As we approach the end of the millennium, science seems in
many ways to be treading the weary path of the religions it
presumed to replace. Where free, dispassionate inquiry once reigned,
emotions now run high in the  defense of a fundamentalized
"scientific truth."  As anomalies mount up beneath a sea of denial,
defenders of the Faith and the Kingdom cling with increasing self-
righteousness to the hull of a sinking paradigm. 

Faced with provocative evidence of things undreamt of in their materialist
philosophy, many otherwise mature scientists revert to a kind of
skeptical infantilism characterized by blind faith in the
absoluteness of the familiar. Small wonder that, after more than
half a century, the UFO remains shrouded in superstition, ignorance,
denial, disinformation, taboo . . . and debunkery.

Geoff Kait

Machina Dynamica

Advanced Audio Conceits
 

May Belt wrote:

Quote:

“Hey, just a cotton pickin' minute - she doesn't take part in general discussions at all!”

 

I said that manufacturers are ALLOWED to participate in general discussions, meaning they are not restricted from doing so !!!.  

Being ‘allowed to’ does not mean that they HAVE TO.   Or, are you suggesting that taking part in general discussions is a required “rite of passage” to being a member of the Stereophile Forum ?

 

I seem to remember seeing such as John Curl and Ted D (manufacturers) respond to certain threads in the Forum but I am sure that if they so choose not to respond to more general areas, then it would not be held against them – but apparently, for some unknown reason, I come in for special criticism !!!!!

 

Regards,

May Belt.

Manufacturer.

May, you discuss only one thing on ALL the audio forums - your schtick.

Basically, with you and Geoff, every post is a sales post, an ad.

I do appreciate that you don't present yourself as being interested in any other aspect of Hi Fi other than wherein you butter your fiscal bread, but you communicate like the crazy aunt in a tin foil hat who gets drunk and steers the holiday table talk to UFO consipracies....every time.

This obviously disingenuous approach you take to the hobby is profoundly cynical.

All this stuff about "allowed to" talk about other aspects of Hi FI  doesn't mean you "have to" really sums up your enthusiasm for the hobby, truth be told.

"Oh, man do I have to talk about any other aspect of Hi Fi? Why would anybody ever do that?"

That's pretty disclosive, May. You are on a roll this week. Talking about any other aspect of Hi Fi must be such a chore!

LOL!

Sigmund is rolling a cigar between his fingers, right now, saying, "Ooooh, very obvious of you, May."

Interesting thing about hooking your cart to John Curl, or even Ted Denny - they actually do 'manufacture' things. Fallacy of association, May.

geoffkait wrote:

Oh, you mean trying to penetrate the thick impermeable membrane surrounding the brains of contented, unsuspecting audiophiles?    LOL

Introduction to Zen and the Art of Debunkery

Like all systems of truth seeking, science, properly conducted,
has a profoundly expansive, spiritual impulse at its core. This "Zen"
in the heart of science is revealed when the practitioner sets aside
arbitrary beliefs and cultural preconceptions, and approaches the
nature of things with "beginner's mind." When this is done, reality
can speak freshly and freely, and can be heard more clearly.
Appropriate testing and objective validation can--indeed, *must*--
come later.

Seeing with humility, curiosity and fresh eyes was once the
main point of science. But today it is often a different story. As the
scientific enterprise has been bent toward exploitation,
institutionalization, hyperspecialization and new orthodoxy, it has
increasingly preoccupied itself with disconnected facts in a
spiritual, psychological, social and ecological vacuum. Virtually
gone from the scene is the philosopherscientist, to whom meaning
and context were once the very fabric of a multi-level universe.
Today's mainstream science tends, instead, to deny or disregard
entire domains of reality, and satisfies itself with reducing all of
life and consciousness to a dead physics.

As we approach the end of the millennium, science seems in
many ways to be treading the weary path of the religions it
presumed to replace. Where free, dispassionate inquiry once reigned,
emotions now run high in the  defense of a fundamentalized
"scientific truth."  As anomalies mount up beneath a sea of denial,
defenders of the Faith and the Kingdom cling with increasing self-
righteousness to the hull of a sinking paradigm. 

Faced with provocative evidence of things undreamt of in their materialist
philosophy, many otherwise mature scientists revert to a kind of
skeptical infantilism characterized by blind faith in the
absoluteness of the familiar. Small wonder that, after more than
half a century, the UFO remains shrouded in superstition, ignorance,
denial, disinformation, taboo . . . and debunkery.

 

Geoff Kait

Machina Dynamica

Advanced Audio Conceits
 

It was only a matter of time.

Geoff, if you are able....think about it. You and may are the armchair debunkers here.

Either sitting in mom's basement, or pirating goods from the British Office Depot as "tweaks" - you two sit and 'debunk' the efforts of science the rest of us admire, then call us the skeptics.

It's likely your greatest insult to the world. Wrapping yourselves in a flag you abhore and calling yourselves patriots of science. Philosophically despicable, really.

Marketing bullshit by two people who know everything, do nothing, and 'manufacture' even less.

Too bad the irony your own cutting and pasting is lost on you.

Geoff and May, armchair debunkers of science....in order to make a few dishonest dollars.

Unseeing visionaries.

Jazzfan.  

Whatever cynical reason you believe Stereophile or other audio magazines publish articles, you are still hiding away from the fact that the people reporting the various devices I mentioned (and so many others I did not mention, and which have also been reported on over the past 30 years) HEARD improvements in the sound.

So, if they HEARD improvements in the sound and you don’t like their explanations as to why, then the “problem is still on the Blackboard”.   You can’t avoid it, even though you wish to do so.   It is there, to haunt you !!

All they are doing is describing their experiences.   All they are doing is informing others of their experiences.  

Surely exactly like Buddha did when he reported on the effect of using various crystals in his room ?:-

Quote:

“Undamped crystals leave a little smear. The oil damping leaves the benefit and removes the smear.   Interestingly, the oil leaves the crystals more free to do their work.

 

The damped crystals make for better imaging and sonic decay.

 

The oil alters the resonance frequency of the container/crystals, with the most significant impact being, like the trough of a Well Tempered Arm, a sort of "instantaneous" damping of induced vibration.

 

With the crystal/oil matrix, the original vibration would be transmitted, but any continued response to the vibration would be damped.

 

I find that by attenuating ongoing oscillation produces as better "leading edge" on the sonics - hence, my comment about "smear."

 

It may be something I listen for that others may not.

 

The same goes for quality of decay - it seems to make for a more seamless transmission of sonic decay as sounds end - less "smearing" of the end of the signal, as it were.

 

Not to sound crazy, but there also seems to be a crystal size factor, with too small or too large not getting the job done.”

He even apologises for maybe ‘sounding crazy’.

Quote:

“The damped crystals make for better imaging and sonic decay.”

Quote:

“produces as better "leading edge" on the sonics - hence, my comment about "smear."

 

It may be something I listen for that others may not.

 

The same goes for quality of decay - it seems to make for a more seamless transmission of sonic decay as sounds end - less "smearing" of the end of the signal, as it were.”

Now, I am sure I have read similar descriptions of a similar effect on the sound somewhere else – I wonder where ??????????

Quote:

“Interestingly, the oil leaves the crystals more free to do their work.”

I wonder, from WHICH science point of view that effect comes from, jazzfan ? 

Quote:

“the world is governed by several hard and fast physical laws, laws which are well understood and which cannot be changed nor circumnavigated.”

So, is the effect of various crystals on ‘sound’ governed by several hard and fast physical laws, laws which are Well understood ????   Particularly connected with sound ?   Or do you think Buddha might be speculating, presuming, or actually might be struggling to find an explanation ?    In which case he would be joining a quite distinguished queue !!!!!  

You can remove Stereophile from the equation as you suggested.   You can remove Peter and I and our concepts from the equation.   You will STILL be left with the “problem written on the Blackboard” which you don’t seem to be able to face.

Maybe I should add something else to the ‘problem written on the Blackboard’.

Maybe it should now read:-

“WHY are such devices being reported as improving the sound when no improvements would have been expected and if the devices are giving improvements in the sound HOW are they doing so ?   And with respect to such things as the effect on the sound of certain crystals how is it that there could be a crystal size factor, with too small or too large NOT getting the job done. ?”

Jazzfan.   Point to me the science which explains the changes to the sound which crystals can make.  

Surely we are constantly dealing with people’s OBSERVATIONS (how the sound can change) and looking for what the science might be behind such observations ?

Regards,

May Belt,

PWB Electronics.

And, what if I suddenly stop hearing an improvement? Can I send them back to you for repair? Do they wear out over time?

I kind of enjoy reading threads about the magic devices.  Unfortunately the devices haven't been quite as much fun to read about since I realized they weren't meant as jokes.

I admit I haven't tried any of these type products because my equipment isn't very high end, so I'm still spending all my money on music, and stuff that plays it.

What exactly was it that triggered your questions ?

Quote:

“Do you guys offer a money back guaranty?

And, what if I suddenly stop hearing an improvement?

Can I send them back to you for repair?

Do they wear out over time?”

WHAT exactly are you referring to ?   And to whom are you referring it?   Or, were those not REAL questions in the first place, merely rhetorical ones ?  

Regards,

May Belt,

Manufacturer.

&ldquo;Catch22</em>wrote:

And, what if I suddenly stop hearing an improvement? Can I send them back to you for repair? Do they wear out over time?&rdquo; [quote]

[quote

wrote:

“First rule of snake oil sales is NO MONEY BACK EVER!!!

Second rule is if the snake oil didn't work for you it is your fault so you need to drink more kool-aid.

Seriously how can you prove that the junk no longer works since there is no real proof that the junk ever worked to begin with. Also just how does a crystal or magic pebble break? It's a rock solid (pun intended) scam that they're running.”

jazzfan wrote:

So let me repeat myself, just in case someone is unclear on where I stand:

You and Mr. Kait sell unproven products and anyone who buys any of them does so at their own risk.

http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/787/index.html

John Atkinson

Editor, Stereophile

May Belt wrote:

Jazzfan.  

Whatever cynical reason you believe Stereophile or other audio magazines publish articles, you are still hiding away from the fact that the people reporting the various devices I mentioned (and so many others I did not mention, and which have also been reported on over the past 30 years) HEARD improvements in the sound.

So, if they HEARD improvements in the sound and you don’t like their explanations as to why, then the “problem is still on the Blackboard”.   You can’t avoid it, even though you wish to do so.   It is there, to haunt you !!

All they are doing is describing their experiences.   All they are doing is informing others of their experiences.  

Surely exactly like Buddha did when he reported on the effect of using various crystals in his room ?:-

Quote:

“Undamped crystals leave a little smear. The oil damping leaves the benefit and removes the smear.   Interestingly, the oil leaves the crystals more free to do their work.

 

The damped crystals make for better imaging and sonic decay.

 

The oil alters the resonance frequency of the container/crystals, with the most significant impact being, like the trough of a Well Tempered Arm, a sort of "instantaneous" damping of induced vibration.

 

With the crystal/oil matrix, the original vibration would be transmitted, but any continued response to the vibration would be damped.

 

I find that by attenuating ongoing oscillation produces as better "leading edge" on the sonics - hence, my comment about "smear."

 

It may be something I listen for that others may not.

 

The same goes for quality of decay - it seems to make for a more seamless transmission of sonic decay as sounds end - less "smearing" of the end of the signal, as it were.

 

Not to sound crazy, but there also seems to be a crystal size factor, with too small or too large not getting the job done.”

He even apologises for maybe ‘sounding crazy’.

Quote:

“The damped crystals make for better imaging and sonic decay.”

 

Quote:

“produces as better "leading edge" on the sonics - hence, my comment about "smear."

 

It may be something I listen for that others may not.

 

The same goes for quality of decay - it seems to make for a more seamless transmission of sonic decay as sounds end - less "smearing" of the end of the signal, as it were.”

 

Now, I am sure I have read similar descriptions of a similar effect on the sound somewhere else – I wonder where ??????????

 

Quote:

“Interestingly, the oil leaves the crystals more free to do their work.”

 

I wonder, from WHICH science point of view that effect comes from, jazzfan ? 

 

Quote:

“the world is governed by several hard and fast physical laws, laws which are well understood and which cannot be changed nor circumnavigated.”

 

So, is the effect of various crystals on ‘sound’ governed by several hard and fast physical laws, laws which are Well understood ????   Particularly connected with sound ?   Or do you think Buddha might be speculating, presuming, or actually might be struggling to find an explanation ?    In which case he would be joining a quite distinguished queue !!!!!  

You can remove Stereophile from the equation as you suggested.   You can remove Peter and I and our concepts from the equation.   You will STILL be left with the “problem written on the Blackboard” which you don’t seem to be able to face.

Maybe I should add something else to the ‘problem written on the Blackboard’.

Maybe it should now read:-

“WHY are such devices being reported as improving the sound when no improvements would have been expected and if the devices are giving improvements in the sound HOW are they doing so ?   And with respect to such things as the effect on the sound of certain crystals how is it that there could be a crystal size factor, with too small or too large NOT getting the job done. ?”

 

Jazzfan.   Point to me the science which explains the changes to the sound which crystals can make.  

 

Surely we are constantly dealing with people’s OBSERVATIONS (how the sound can change) and looking for what the science might be behind such observations ?

 

Regards,

May Belt,

PWB Electronics.

While I am not thrilled with the way Jazzfan dragged me into the tweak debate on the stein thread I decided to check out your website and see for myself what it was you actually manufactured.

First thing I see is a foil tweak. Well Pierre from mapleshade came to mind. keep in mind Pierre credentials are impeccable. engineering and physics degrees...member of McNamara Wiz kids for the DOD and help design and build the F-16 fighter jet. Not to mention his recordings have been some of the best ever made. Pierre uses foil for his cables and swears he uses them with all his recordings. So at face value I kept reading...hmmm rainbow foil??? and an inscription foil???  that foil may have an effect on cables because of the measurable effects of inductance, skin effect, RFI, etc...how does colors of the rainbow have any effect on these measurable qualities of foil??? Light spectrum??? well then you would need to control the light frequencies at constant level to ensure the interaction always produced the desired effect...and listening in the dark would render the rainbow foil totally ineffective...even so IF the light spectrum could change the properties of the foil( which as a wave it cant do..as a particle it may be possible but then it would be measurable by even todays equipment..no leap of faith needed)...the inscription tho just had me rolling my eyes...

then I moved on to the CD type tweak. Again Pierre comes to mind...as does auric Illuminator...now both Pierre who worked for the DOD and the Auric Illuminator which was developed for the DOD have some solid and measurable claims so I kept reading since I have also had experience with these products and have no issue saying that they can( but not always..it depends on the quality of the cd to begin with and the quality of the transport) have an effect....so as I kept reading..OK now I am laughing hysterically!!! really photosynthesis using a bag of sugar???? Any 7th grader who sorta paid attention in science class knows you cant use refined, human processed sugar and make photosynthesis... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthesis  but lets say you could...you cant..but lets say you could...and lets say it used the water in your tweak...why would I want to create plant energy on my cd??? I don't think growing roses on my cd will make it sound better...but if it did..please tell me how???  In fact why would I want to create anything that could get in the lasers way of reading the pits???? isn't the purpose of the goo to smooth out the surface covering so that light isn't refracted away from reading those same pits that you want to create photosynthetic( lets not forget there isn't any chlorophyll which is also needed..not mention actually being a live plant...or is there????) energy in the lasers path???...course the really funny part is the sugar is in a plastic bag so it cant really create a chemical reaction with the goo...light through sugar does NOTHING!!...and salts..really...

This isn't a skeptic talking..this is simply someone saying your science isn't a science that we have yet to understand...quite the contrary it is a science we actually do understand...extremely well...and your website claims are just plain wrong....

Know does that mean I wouldn't listen?? No I sure would( well most likely not with the obvious flaws of scientific logic but I would given this forum) listen to a tweak and hear for myself because some tweaks can and do/have worked without us knowing at the time why.  I for one would have had more respect if you had stuck to the proven and verifiable claims for foil and cd treatments than what your website claims....wow...it is really bad...maybe the worst I have ever read from a tweaker( my word for "manufacturers" who are peddling snake oil)...yes it is a slang term for a certain type of drug user...and yes your claims remind me of just that.

Sorry but as I read JA's link which is also my take on tweaks I also think of those that question why certain manufacturers are allowed to post like they do...in reference to you...well I postulate that its because the Mods/sterophile doesn't really consider you to be a legitimate manufacturer..just my thoughts on the matter

My response to Mark Bryston :-

Sir.   That was a response.   A measured response from you but it was not an attack !!!!   Which is appreciated.

I sometimes post on Stereophile in response to some attacks on some devices or techniques when they are called  “a joke”, “Voodoo”, “a fraud”, when, from my own experiences in audio I know that the device or technique is identifying “something going on with sound”.

The rules of Stereophile state that IF someone is a manufacturer, then they must state that they are a manufacturer – so I cannot post MY experiences solely under my name !!!

John A’s article was written in 1991 – 20 years ago !!    And, the point I have been making throughout these postings is the same point I will make later with John A’s article.

IF the devices or techniques under discussion at any one time i.e. applying a demagnetizing LPs and CDs, the tiny ART devices, and the latest Stein Music device are described as giving improvements in the sound and certain (even many) people find the explanations given by the producers of those devices not acceptable, not believable, then that still leaves the observation but without an acceptable explanation !!!

OR, if people think the price of the device is too expensive, that outlook does not alter, in any way, the description that the device had given an improvement in the sound. Which again leaves the observation (that the device gave improvements in the sound).

So, as I keep saying, imagine Richard Feynman had written, on the blackboard, the problem :-

“WHY are such devices being reported as improving the sound when no improvements would have been expected and if the devices are giving improvements in the sound HOW are they doing so ?”

The problem, sir, is still there, on the blackboard and is not altered, in any way, whether I sign in my own name only, or I sign as a manufacturer.

I do not post details of our own website because I am responding in discussions with my own experiences.   I am NOT responding in order to publicise our own products and devices.  It was jazzfan who mentioned that he had been and had a look at our website and didn’t like what he saw and began to attack further, which I responded to further !!

If you look down the list of seemingly inexplicable ‘techniques’ given in John A’s article, that list was printed in 1991.   I am sure, 20 years on, John A would now be able to double that list of reports of seemingly inexplicable techniques.

I can say that way back then, (before 1991) Peter and I investigated the majority of those claims on that list !!!

One of them sticks out !!  

Quote:

“If a tweak sounds unlikely but still costs very little—CD Stoplight, spiking speaker stands, and cryogenic treatments, for example—then try it. Why not? The price of admission is low enough that even if the effect is small, the sonic return on the financial investment is high. You can enjoy the improvement while reserving judgment on the reasons why.”

i.e The cryogenic treatment !!  

20 years on !!   The PROBLEM is STILL on the blackboard, still not explained as to why that technique can give such improvements in the sound !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!   And, is STILL dismissed by so many !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I am sorry you have been dragged into what has fast become an acrimonious debate.

My responses are really no different from your responses regarding the subject of “I know what I can hear”.

Quote:

“As for this whole tweaking thing I come down very simply as this...I have been selling high end audio on and off( more on than off) since 1977. My customers trust my ears as do many audiophiles and manufactorers...and I dont have a single "voodoo" tweak in my system. Why? I trust my hearing...if I hear a difference in a product and I like the difference then I buy/recommend it.  Probably the biggest tweak( if that applies) would be cables in my system with Nordost and Audioquest my prefered choice.

However I never dismiss anything until I hear it...and I never tell someone that they do not hear a difference...how the hell do I know what they are hearing??? How the hell do you???? Just because i dont hear it doesnt mean it doesnt exist. And at the end of the day it is what I hear and only what I hear that makes a difference for me.”

Quote:

“Know does that mean I wouldn't listen?? No I sure would( well most likely not with the obvious flaws of scientific logic but I would given this forum) listen to a tweak and hear for myself because some tweaks can and do/have worked without us knowing at the time why.”

And, it is BECAUSE some tweaks (way back in the early 1980s) were described as giving improvements in the sound which no one could fully understand why, that Peter and I began seriously investigating.

You particularly mention cables.   It is quite well known and acknowledged that Peter was one of the first people (back in 1981) to investigate the sound of various metals when used as conductors !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!   If one is a manufacturer of ‘state of the art’ audio equipment then one HAS TO (or should) investigate anything which can change “sound”  !!!!!   Which is exactly what Peter and I have been doing for decades !!

It would be too lengthy a reply for me to answer other things you highlighted after visiting our website.   Unfortunately you do not know the beginnings of our discoveries and what took us on a particular path and it might take me as long to explain them as it did to discover them.

The Foil (as you put it) is not used as a Foil i.e. as a barrier, and it was never intended as such and, if you had been in at the beginning of the story you would already have known that it is prismatic foil and is used

1)      because it supplies all the colours of the rainbow and

2)      because it will ‘take’ our extensive treatments well.

We have always said that we wish our ‘treatments’ could be successfully applied to materials which are gold plated and diamond studded as they would LOOK expensive and valuable.   However, if common or garden plastics will respond best to our ‘treatments’, then we have to use common or garden plastics – hence John A referring to the simple Black Plastic Ring Ties !!!   Just because we have discovered a ‘treatment’ to apply to them, does not stop them looking like simple Black Plastic Ring Ties.

Quote:

“that foil may have an effect on cables because of the measurable effects of inductance, skin effect, RFI, etc...how does colors of the rainbow have any effect on these measurable qualities of foil???”

It has nothing to do with the ‘measurable’ qualities of the Foil – because it is designed for how the human being responds to it, not how the audio signal responds to it !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

THESE are our discoveries.   It is WHAT the human being is reacting to in their listening environment.   It is HOW the human being is reacting.   It is WHY the human being is reacting.

Ditto the CD ‘treatments’.

• I would suggest you read my full letter (which is accessed via our website)  to Greg Weaver (which he printed the majority of in his article) :-
• Greg Weaver's April 1999 Rainbow Foil review
• http://www.soundstage.com/synergize/synergize041999.htm

My letter describes how one of our discoveries took us on a particular path.

As for being a manufacturer.

We have been ‘professionals’ in the Hi Fi industry for over 55 years – since the time of valves only (before transistors) and mono only (before stereo).

We have been Hi Fi retailers and then manufacturers of moving coil and orthodynamic loudspeakers and moving coil, electrostastic and orthodynamic headphones.

I recently read a review of a new orthodynamic (low mass diaphragm magnetic planar) loudspeaker – where the reviewer commented that it is not really a new concept because Leak and Wharfedale had been doing such in the early 1980s.

So, just to establish some of our credentials as a manufacturer :-

I have copied below extracts from a Hi Fi magazine and other ‘mentions’ from 32 years ago !!!!!!!

********

Extract from the BBC radio broadcast 03/05/79.

Quote:

“SWEET SOUNDS FROM SOFT PLASTICS”.

Dick Oliver of our science and industry unit reports on modern attempts being made to get away from the compromises made in the design and manufacture of the traditional moving coil speaker.

Recently the Rank Organisation, which sells sound equipment under the Leak and Wharfedale brand-names, revived the principle of the low mass diaphragm by using a light plastics diaphragm with instead of a copper strip fixed to it, a very light coating of aluminium metal, etched away to form a conducting pattern.   This with modern magnet materials, resulted in the production of a very successful high-note loudspeaker and very good high-quality headphones, both called “Isodynamic”.   The diaphragms are about the size of an extra-large coin.

Now PWB Electronics has gone rather further and has made a loudspeaker that operates on this principle down to about the middle notes on the piano, not just the highest.   The development models are about 60 cm high by 15 cm wide, use a very light plastic film indeed.”

******************

Article by Vivian Capel in the October 1979 issue of Popular Hi Fi.

The article is entitled “The orthodynamic challenge”    Orthodynamic drivers from PWB may mean the end of the old moving coil principle.

Quote:

“The closest approach so far to a full-range orthodynamic speaker is the recently released Dyna-X 100 from P.W.B.    This follows a similar pattern to their headphones.   It uses a polyester film 0.00025-inches thick to which is bonded 0.0003-inch aluminium foil.   The total area is 100 sq.ins, giving a panel size of 20 x 5 inches.    This reproduces all frequencies above 450 Hz, below which a moving-coil bass driver in a transmission-line enclosure takes over.

Here then is a serious challenger to the supremacy of the moving –coil drive unit, at least in the field of Hi Fi.   Performance is certainly far superior to anything a moving-coil speaker can produce.   We await further developments in this field with great interest.”

 ******************

Extracts from an Article in the 28th August 1980 edition of the New Scientist.

Quote:

“Hi Fi firm makes a strong case for flimsy film.”

 “A small British Hi Fi company has succeeded in producing a loudspeaker which includes a thin polyester diaphragm.   The advantage of this very light material in audio equipment is that it will accurately reproduce high-frequency sounds played quietly but will play loud bass effects without shaking itself to pieces.

The successful company, PWB Electronics of Leeds, over took Strathearn, a company based in Northern Ireland, in the race to produce the first such unit.

Peter Belt, the speaker’s inventor, based his design on his orthodynamic headphones.”

Quote:

“.why would I want to create plant energy on my cd??? I don't think growing roses on my cd will make it sound better.”

You see how one can get the wrong end of the stick when one quotes (or tries to quote) from what someone else has written ?

Let me give you one example.   Polarised objects.   A Battery is a polarized object.   A magnet is a polarized object.   We, human beings, do not like certain polarities in our environment.  So, reports of some changes in the sound could, quite possibly, be how the human being is reacting to certain magnets and certain batteries in their listening environment, and not how the audio signal is reacting or how the acoustics of the room is being altered !!   The same applies to such as ‘treating’ CDs and one CAN use some of Nature’s techniques to reduce adverse conditions.

Quote:

“This isn't a skeptic talking..this is simply someone saying your science isn't a science that we have yet to understand”

You are trying to understand changes occurring in sound solely through the science of conventional electronic and acoustic theories.   The more you ‘step away’ and observe, the more some of those earlier ‘things’ in John A’s list (and later ones not yet added to his list and maybe ones from your own list) begin to make some sense when you can consider the concept of the human being reacting to what is going on in their listening environment !!

And HOW the human being is reacting and WHY and to WHAT !!

With YOUR own listening experiences I would expect that you will have experienced some (many?) things change the sound which could not adequately explained and which neither could be ‘measured’.

Clues are there.   Such as the reported effects of the LessLoss Blackbody device, the Schumann resonance device, the Stein Music device, other chemical treatments introduced by other people – and so on.

I will quote again from Russell Lichter’s review of the LessLoss device  in the July 2010 issue of StereoTimes :-

Quote:

“Our living rooms are no exception. If we could actually see these wavelengths, we'd be claustrophobic.”

And from John Atkinson on the tiny ART devices.

Quote:

“The observation comes first, the explanation possibly years or even decades afterward. Not being able to explain an observation does not invalidate the phenomenon if that observation is repeatable. Had you been trained in the sciences, you would have understood that. Something is happening with the ART devices: either they affect the listener or they affect the room's acoustics. I have suspected the former; Ted's measurements suggest the latter.

 

Could it be that they are diffracting/reflecting that RF bath away from the listener, thus improving his state of mind and his receptivity to the music?”

Yes, the PRICE of these devices (any devices) then comes into the equation as to whether people would choose to purchase them or not but that aspect does NOT NEGATE the effect or any explanation !!

There might be, put forward, either no explanation or an inadequate explanation, or what seems a nonsensical explanation but there still remains the OBSERVATION !!

THAT is what I keep trying to say !!

That, sir, is the quickest answer I can do.

Regards,

May Belt,

PWB Electronics.

Quote from As we See It:

"I reread Peter Belt's literature (footnote 1) promoting the virtues of his "Black Electret Rings" (what appear to this lay eye—and to J. Gordon Holt's—to be black nylon cable ties) to learn that "The interaction of gravitational energy with every object within our modern home environment produces adverse energy patterns that confuse the brain's cognitive processes...Objects that are present within a room which are placed in a position giving conflicting energy information require treatment to reduce their own individual gravitational energy pattern...internal wooden bracing bars between the faces of the loudspeaker cabinet also have the potential to create high adverse gravitational energy patterns," that semantic curtain goes into action."

I suppose the operative phrase in that "observation" is "what appear to my lay eye" since the observation is based solely on mere speculation, not on first hand experience or even the second-hand experience of someone else. I also suppose this reaction to that which is unknown, unseen and untested is the most common reaction to the controversial products we have been discussing, not that there's anything wrong with such reactions, per se; it only achieves the level of absurdity when such "fraidy cat" responses are used by those who claim science is their benchmark; obviously science has little or nothing to do with such an off the cuff opinion or "observation."

Like the other JA's piece on the Intelligent Chip, it's probably not a real good idea for industry higher ups to get too worked up over some new, unconventional or preposterous-sounding idea or product before some in-depth analysis and investigation has been performed, which should probably include in-depth listening tests, be they double blind or whatever.

Perhaps the Stereophile editorial should be renamed, "As We Don't See it and Don't Hear It." LOL

It's always fun to see reactions to the terms gravity, quantum mechanics, energy patterns, energy information, and such. Of course, we know that radio waves are energy waves/patterns and contain information, and one could also say gravity is a wave or pattern, so I really don't think that over-reaction to such terms serves much purpose. Now if a lay person doesn't have much experience with quantum mechanics, radio communications, energy patterns or gravity waves, such over-reactions are certainly understandable.

As this hobby progressed from the 80s and 90s we've discovered new problems, previously unknown, and new solutions for them - such as demagnetizers, CD treatments, laser light absorbers, acoustic resonators, ionizers, extremely low frequency generators, quantum dots and quantum teleportation. As new, currently unknown problems are discovered in the future perhaps solutions will also be found for them. And, most likely, naysayers will find these new problems and solutions equally disturbing or preposterous.

Geoff Kait
Machina Dramatica
We Do Artificial Atoms Right

30 Day Money Back Guarantee on All Products

May Belt wrote:

Jazzfan.  

Whatever cynical reason you believe Stereophile or other audio magazines publish articles, you are still hiding away from the fact that the people reporting the various devices I mentioned (and so many others I did not mention, and which have also been reported on over the past 30 years) HEARD improvements in the sound.

So, if they HEARD improvements in the sound and you don’t like their explanations as to why, then the “problem is still on the Blackboard”.   You can’t avoid it, even though you wish to do so.   It is there, to haunt you !!

All they are doing is describing their experiences.   All they are doing is informing others of their experiences.  

Surely exactly like Buddha did when he reported on the effect of using various crystals in his room ?:-

Quote:

“Undamped crystals leave a little smear. The oil damping leaves the benefit and removes the smear.   Interestingly, the oil leaves the crystals more free to do their work.

 

The damped crystals make for better imaging and sonic decay.

 

The oil alters the resonance frequency of the container/crystals, with the most significant impact being, like the trough of a Well Tempered Arm, a sort of "instantaneous" damping of induced vibration.

 

With the crystal/oil matrix, the original vibration would be transmitted, but any continued response to the vibration would be damped.

 

I find that by attenuating ongoing oscillation produces as better "leading edge" on the sonics - hence, my comment about "smear."

 

It may be something I listen for that others may not.

 

The same goes for quality of decay - it seems to make for a more seamless transmission of sonic decay as sounds end - less "smearing" of the end of the signal, as it were.

 

Not to sound crazy, but there also seems to be a crystal size factor, with too small or too large not getting the job done.”

He even apologises for maybe ‘sounding crazy’.

Hmmmm. Sounds alot like when someone like Clark says, "I went in with a skeptic mind...."

Quote:

“The damped crystals make for better imaging and sonic decay.”

 

Quote:

“produces as better "leading edge" on the sonics - hence, my comment about "smear."

 

It may be something I listen for that others may not.

 

The same goes for quality of decay - it seems to make for a more seamless transmission of sonic decay as sounds end - less "smearing" of the end of the signal, as it were.”

 

Now, I am sure I have read similar descriptions of a similar effect on the sound somewhere else – I wonder where ??????????

I wonder. Catching on, yet?

 

Quote:

“Interestingly, the oil leaves the crystals more free to do their work.”

 

I wonder, from WHICH science point of view that effect comes from, jazzfan ? 

 

Quote:

“the world is governed by several hard and fast physical laws, laws which are well understood and which cannot be changed nor circumnavigated.”

 

So, is the effect of various crystals on ‘sound’ governed by several hard and fast physical laws, laws which are Well understood ????   Particularly connected with sound ?   Or do you think Buddha might be speculating, presuming, or actually might be struggling to find an explanation ?    In which case he would be joining a quite distinguished queue !!!!!  

You can remove Stereophile from the equation as you suggested.   You can remove Peter and I and our concepts from the equation.   You will STILL be left with the “problem written on the Blackboard” which you don’t seem to be able to face.

Maybe I should add something else to the ‘problem written on the Blackboard’.

Maybe it should now read:-

“WHY are such devices being reported as improving the sound when no improvements would have been expected and if the devices are giving improvements in the sound HOW are they doing so ?   And with respect to such things as the effect on the sound of certain crystals how is it that there could be a crystal size factor, with too small or too large NOT getting the job done. ?”

 

Jazzfan.   Point to me the science which explains the changes to the sound which crystals can make.  

 

Surely we are constantly dealing with people’s OBSERVATIONS (how the sound can change) and looking for what the science might be behind such observations ?

Let's use Beltian science - if the girls sinks and drowns, she is innocent, but dead. If she floats, she is a witch and we shall kill her. Either way, dead girl. This is May's style of observational science.

Regards,

May Belt,

PWB Electronics.

I'm flattered May, you save my posts!

I would return the favor....but your are always the same post.

Have you ever tried that tweak I mentioned, May?

Be honest.

(Why didn't you?)

What were your results?

Could that post have been made using a random tweak-word-generator?

What ancillary gear did you use? (I know, you BS tweakmeister manual typically forbids talking about specific gear, but humor us.)

 May, the post fit your bias, so you clasp it to your heart.

 The point of the original post was...

With all this so-called 'open mindedness' and 'willingness to explore,' yada yada yada by the pie eyed "I am Lister crowd;" people of the Belt/Kait inclination  simply want some psychological remediation to feel better about themselves. They get their hands on a talisman and immediately stop questioning or exploring. They are the opposite of what they claim to be.

Without a marketing campaign and the changing hands of cash, there would be no tweak effect.

INSERTED SIDED NOTE: As part of this point, look at the thread here about "The largest 'hinderance' to getting people interested in audio is..."

What you will see includes some people thinking the lack of 'plug and play' set up is a barrier to entry into the hobby.

People would like plug and play. (Is that a reasonable expectation?)

The Belts and Kaits know this, and offer what is simply another form of plug and play. Universally applicable balms to assuage an audiophile's desire for a simple plug and play tweak that makes him/her feel better about himself/herself but doesn't require any more effort than pissing money onto a random brand clock or toxic-inked cash register receipt.

Wrap that up in gibberish and faux guru-isms, and you have a plug and play ploy straight out of marketing psychology 101.

(The guru ploy you and Geoff play at is pretty hilarious. All either of you need is a saffron mumu, fake Indian accent, and a case of the giggles whenever you pretend to answer a question and the false play is complete.)

So, buy the pseudo-tweak, then get stroked by the auto-suggestion club for being a 'special' or 'discerning' listener, with none of that messy ‘work’ involved. More importantly, no further thought or investigation required. (Besides, it is all top secret beyond-science science that only the gurus know.) The thought train stops there for both ‘manufacturer’ and ‘listener.’

I am sure you and Geoff have autographed copies of the fake guru handbook. All that's left is to start offering camps that audiophiles can attend to be dipped in your special sauce.

So, May before you run off and marry that quote of mine, think about what it was really asking.

"I'll state this very clearly so that even you can understand: quantum mechanics has absolutely nothing to do with anything you are trying to sell."

-- Thanks for stating it so clearly. Even I can understand you have no idea what you're talking about.  LOL

"The more the throw out those oh so scary words the more the well educated among us know that you are just trying to garbage wrapped in big words."

 -- I hate to judge before all the facts are in, but would it be fair to assume you're using the expression, "the well-educateed among us," to indicate that you, in particular,  have a high school equivalent education? Please correct me if I'm wrong.  LOL

"And another thing a stupid blue dot, with no power source, can not have any effect on a sound wave."

-- Well, we'll just see about that, Mr. Smarty Pants.

Geoff Kait

Machismo Dramatica

Geoff old buddy.  Please post a picture of yourself.  I'm hoping and praying that it will show tongue pressed firmly in cheek...if not then a John Holmes length nose should be evident.

"Alice laughed: "There's no use trying," she said; "one can't believe impossible things."
"I daresay you haven't had much practice," said the Queen. "When I was younger, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."  She continued "such as brilliant pebbles, the super intelligent chip dip, the clever little clock sucker, and so forth"...."but now that I'm older, and wiser, I realize that the only real tweak is the "Brilliant Dog Turd"...."now stay with me on this Alice....dogs have incredibly sensitive hearing correct?"..."well a strategically-placed two day old turd from an AKC registered Terrier will improve resolution of detail, increase bloom and reduce vibratory resonance in amplifiers and cd players."..."and Alice, if you really want to blow your audiophillic socks off, place that Brilliant Dog Turd on a 10 cm x 4.535 cm PWB Rainbow Foil!"..."but be forwarned my dear...I will not be responsible if after this tweak, you experience arrhythmia, swooning and seizures."...

"First thing I see is a foil tweak. Well Pierre from mapleshade came to mind. keep in mind Pierre credentials are impeccable. engineering and physics degrees...member of McNamara Wiz kids for the DOD and help design and build the F-16 fighter jet." -- Well, actually Pierre is an accountant, not an engineer or physicist. He was a bean counter when he was one of the Whiz Kids, not a designer or builder. But he has terrific ears so I won't begrudge him counting beans. And it was Pierre who invited be to my first CES, where I isolated the CD transport and DAC in his room with Gallo using my Nimbus Sub-Hertz Platform - an advanced technology device. (Ron Bauman is the very clever technical fellow who was Pierre's associate who created the Mapleshade cables, many of which employ batteries.) "Not to mention his recordings have been some of the best ever made. Pierre uses foil for his cables and swears he uses them with all his recordings. So at face value I kept reading...hmmm rainbow foil??? and an inscription foil???  that foil may have an effect on cables because of the measurable effects of inductance, skin effect, RFI, etc...how does colors of the rainbow have any effect on these measurable qualities of foil??? Light spectrum???" -- It should probably be pointed out that, regardless of your admiration for Pierre's recordings, your speculations regarding the rainbow foil are very far off the mark, which have no relationship to the foil we find in Mapleshade's cables or anywhere else for that matter. "Well then you would need to control the light frequencies at constant level to ensure the interaction always produced the desired effect...and listening in the dark would render the rainbow foil totally ineffective...even so IF the light spectrum could change the properties of the foil( which as a wave it cant do..as a particle it may be possible but then it would be measurable by even todays equipment..no leap of faith needed)...the inscription tho just had me rolling my eyes..." -- See, this is just the sort of conclusion, you might say gossip, that results from idle speculation. Very unscientific. Then I moved on to the CD type tweak. Again Pierre comes to mind...as does auric Illuminator...now both Pierre who worked for the DOD and the Auric Illuminator which was developed for the DOD have some solid and measurable claims so I kept reading since I have also had experience with these products and have no issue saying that they can( but not always..it depends on the quality of the cd to begin with and the quality of the transport) have an effect.... -- Again, idle speculation. If I'm incorrect, please provide the link to any test that measured Auric Illuminator or any other CD treatment, including Mapleshade's. And probably not a good idea to keep using Pierre to support your arguments since he was, after all, an accountant. "So as I kept reading..OK now I am laughing hysterically!!! really photosynthesis using a bag of sugar???? Any 7th grader who sorta paid attention in science class knows you cant use refined, human processed sugar and make photosynthesis... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthesis  but lets say you could...you cant..but lets say you could...and lets say it used the water in your tweak...why would I want to create plant energy on my cd??? I don't think growing roses on my cd will make it sound better...but if it did..please tell me how???  In fact why would I want to create anything that could get in the lasers way of reading the pits???? isn't the purpose of the goo to smooth out the surface covering so that light isn't refracted away from reading those same pits that you want to create photosynthetic( lets not forget there isn't any chlorophyll which is also needed..not mention actually being a live plant...or is there????) energy in the lasers path???...course the really funny part is the sugar is in a plastic bag so it cant really create a chemical reaction with the goo...light through sugar does NOTHING!!...and salts..really..." -- Again, all this rambling speculation misses the point, since the PWB product has nothing remotely to do with the usual CD treatments that improve optics or decrease static charge on the disc. "This isn't a skeptic talking..this is simply someone saying your science isn't a science that we have yet to understand...quite the contrary it is a science we actually do understand...extremely well...and your website claims are just plain wrong.... -- Yeah, we get it, you know all there is to know about science. Sounds like a skeptic to me. LOL "Know does that mean I wouldn't listen?? No I sure would (well most likely not with the obvious flaws of scientific logic but I would given this forum) listen to a tweak and hear for myself because some tweaks can and do/have worked without us knowing at the time why."  -- Then why speculate instead of listening, or at least investigating a little further? You're right, we don't have to know how something works to hear it. If you actually do believe that, why all the angst and pyrotechnics? "I for one would have had more respect if you had stuck to the proven and verifiable claims for foil and cd treatments than what your website claims....wow...it is really bad...maybe the worst I have ever read from a tweaker(my word for "manufacturers" who are peddling snake oil)...yes it is a slang term for a certain type of drug user...and yes your claims remind me of just that." -- No reason to be so snippy. Unless one is master of all fields of science, which I have a sneaking suspicion you're not, it's probably best not to pretend you have big guns, although I can certainly understand your angst. "Sorry but as I read JA's link which is also my take on tweaks I also think of those that question why certain manufacturers are allowed to post like they do...in reference to you...well I postulate that its because the Mods/sterophile doesn't really consider you to be a legitimate manufacturer..just my thoughts on the matter." -- Certain manufacturers post like we do because we're trying to help you. If the Mods/Stereophile didn't think May was a legitimate manufacturer, I kinda doubt they would allow her to post as one. Ditto for me. Geoff Kait Machina Dynamica Advanced Audio Conceits

In which JA feels he hears a difference... http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/110 Cheers, geoff kait machina dynamica we do artificial atoms right

jazzfan wrote:

If you have been following the exchanges between Kait and Mark I hope that you now understand why I've now resorted to calling Mr. Kait everything I can think of short of an outright thief. Anytime someone questions any of Mr. Kait's scientific mumbo jumbo he responds by calling them ignorant and a skeptic. Why is someone whose understanding of basic science leads them to believe that most, if not all, of Mr. Kait's claims are pure nonsense a skeptic? Everything Mr. Kait has written, both here and his web site, smacks of hucksterism. To have to resort to name calling at even the slightest expression of doubt does not serve Mr. Kait's case very well.

I am now at the point were I am beginning to question the wisdom of not calling Mr. Kait a thief.

I am impressed you guys have the energy to keep engaging with May and Geoff.

I am so glad it's you all and not me :-)

"And if you have been following Stephen Hawkings latest writings on quantum teleportation he has started a parademic shift away from teleportation to spontaneous creation...in other words the atoms are not just teleporting from one spot to another but in fact are out created,,,so a winking out effect is taking place for the atom that has disappeared( perhaps in another universe as he himself suggests as possible). Now lets say you have created something that can control all these functions which currently we need to do with 20 mile long multi billion dollar particle accelerators..in a chip using just a tad bit of heavy metal..then wow...you would for sure win the Nobel prize!!  seriously however if you were to create the environment for quantum teleportation and control the quantum mechanics with repetative effect you would have to create a quantum singularity which would destroy the very thing you created...and of course all of this takes place at in a time frame measured in the billionths of a second...not humanly perceptable...and if you claim you changed the molecular structure of the CD or player whatever...it would thow these into a chaotic state that could never be the same and Heisenberg says you cant predict it anyway...How do you get around these quantum issues???? This is why it all sounds like mumbo jumbo for the masses who have no idea what you are saying...sounds good to an untrained listener/reader...but really??? Two very basic Quantum principles sort of smash your whole theory....let alone an intelligent chip that can make predictable quantum changes and recognize them after...sorry...LMAO!"

I trust milk squirted out of your nose. LOL Now, I'm not one to brag, but I have achieved quantum teleportation for distances over 10,000 miles.

Physicists Achieve Quantum Teleportation Across a Distance of 10 Miles

"How far can you beam information instantaneously? Try 10 miles, according to a study in Nature Photonics that pushes the limits of quantum teleportation to its greatest distance yet. At that distance, the scientists say, one can begin to consider the possibility of someday using quantum teleportation to communicate between the ground and a satellite in orbit.

As stories about quantum teleportation usually note, this isn’t the Starship Enterprise’s transporter: The weird quantum phenomenon makes it possible to send information, not matter, across a distance.

It works by entangling two objects, like photons or ions. The first teleportation experiments involved beams of light. Once the objects are entangled, they’re connected by an invisible wave, like a thread or umbilical cord. That means when something is done to one object, it immediately happens to the other object, too. Einstein called this “spooky action at a distance.” [Popular Science]
Previous experiments achieved this phenomenon in photons separated by a distance of hundreds of yards, connected by fiber channels. But the physicists in China blew that distance away, and with 89 percent integrity for the information.

In this particular experiment, researchers maximally entangled two photons using both spatial and polarization modes and sent the one with higher energy through a ten-mile-long free space channel. They found that the distant photon was still able to respond to changes in state of the photon they held onto even at this unprecedented distance. [Ars Technica]"

Tootles,

Geoff Kait
machina dynamica

my point was regarding matter since your intelligent chip or super chip claims to effect a quantum change in the CD as a physical entity....The CD itself is not communication...it is only a physical object whose quantum signature has been altered by the chip/super chip( according to you).

My point also pertained to( reading the whole in context) was that to claim a quantum teleportation taking place at the physical level you would need Einstein unification theory to be correct so your chip would know exactly what the "new" quantum signature was so that it "knew" it already treated the CD( and along with all the other re-arranging of quantum particles your chip is supposed to do)..in that I only pointed out that hawking has now postulated that it is not necessarily Quantum teleportaion taking place( at the physical level) but rather quantum spontaneous creation...and of course that leads right back to Heisenberg and chaos..these cant be predicted and are random so your chip could never read that it has already effected a change because it would "see" something different each time....

Now taking this on a communication level in terms of transmitting data( through "sub space communications" of course Lt. Uhura) how does this pertain to your chip? Your site itself says the laser reaches the chip through leaks( another reason why I think you should stay with the super chip BTW) which is also pretty much flawed since light travels according to space..in other words light travels in a straight line( like a ray) unless it encounters curved space...thus the known axiom the shortest distance between to points is the path light travels...so even with leaks like your site mentions the drawer..RCA's etc the only way the light could possible reach your chip is from reflection since you already scoff at the idea that your chip can create a quantum singularity...which of course it cant do so without being bombarded by laser in the first place( assuming the laser was strong enough in the first place BTW).... meaning that you cant claim to have generated a quantum singularity capable of bending light...right???  so the laser scatter would have to reflect off something( which you cant control and have no idea what each users end system reflective patterns are) which then would have to somehow be at miraculously  the proper angle to hit a small disc chip!!!!!

Your Chip by all explanations we have currently is a physical transformation( you do say its permanent) so what does communication quantum teleportation have to do with the physical quantum changes you say your chip does???

BTW I thought we were done.....or was that just the other simple thread???

Some things to consider

1. There is no Einstein Unification Theory (sic). He was never able to develop it (Unified Field Theory). So probably best not to use it in an attempt to disprove something. LOL

2. It's not that Heisenberg can't be predicted, you silly goose, it's that two properties (momentum and position) of a particle can't be measured accurately at the same time. Geez, don't you even read what you cut and paste? LOL

3. The chip has nothing to do with quantum teleportation. The Teleportation Tweak does, which I have a queasy feeling we'll be onto shortly. The chip has to do with quantum entanglement and quantum superposition, both of which I expect you'll be cutting and pasting from Wikipedia shortly to demonstrate that, yes, you are quite familiar with those terms. LOL

4. There is no "quantum re-arranging of particles" when the chip is used to treat a CD. (Though I confess I do like your phrase "quantum re-arranging of particles" quite a bit.) LOL

5. "How do we get around these quantum issues?" Easy, since they aren't really issues at all, only figments of your imagination. LOL

6. Not only do I say the effects of the chip are permanent - they are permanent. See the distinction? LOL

7. Quantum singularity? Are you high? Where do you come up with this stuff? LOL

Footnote: I guess we're not done. I enjoy picking your posts to shreds too much to stop. LOL

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica
Advanced Audio Concepts

geoffkait wrote:

Some things to consider 1. There is no Einstein Unification Theory (sic). He was never able to develop it. So probably best not to use it as an example to disprove something. LOL

 

--I swear you cant read...I have said that already...he was proven wrong..problem is you would need him to be right for your chip to work...so just for you simple logic...Einstein unification theory fails thus your chip fails...DUHHHH!!!

 

2. It's not that Heisenberg can't be predicted, you silly goose, it's that two properties of a particle can't be measured accurately at the same time. Geez, don't you even read what you cut and paste? LOL

---yep so assuming your intelligent chip or super intelligent chip can "know" something it would have to have precise measurements of exactly where it made quantum changes...it would have to do this by measurements since I am assuming you HAVEN'T created artificial intelligence...if you have just call your damn chip the skynet chip..ok..DUHHHHHH...and since Heisenberg says you cant measure the the particles at the same time that your wonder chip has created them how can the all know god chip know it has already treated the CD???? DUHHHHH

 

3. The chip has nothing to do with quantum teleportation. The Teleportation Tweak does. The chip has to do with quantum entanglement and quantum superposition, both of which I expect you will be cutting and pasting from Wikipedia shortly to demonstrate that, yes, you are quite familiar with those terms. LOL

--oh my bad the sub space communication tweak does??? at least we agree on ONE thing your god chip cant talk to star fleet( yes that was an ad hominem btw)...so your chip doesn't do teleportation...moving on

 

4. There is no quantum re-arranging of particles when the chip is used to treat a CD. I confess I do like your phrase "quantum re-arranging" quite a bit. LOL

well you like the term...great...but if you dont change something at the quantum level then what the hell are you doing with quantum theory??? if nothing at all changes then epistomogically you have not done anything different than what was..so nothing changes..not even the sound...why bother with all the quantum BS??? oh cause your site actually say it does...i wont cut and paste this..I already did...contradiction at the most obvious level???? Not you!!!

 

5. All space is curved; so much for your theory about light traveling in a straight line.

ummm no..I said again for you light travel according to space...it is ray like in nature...if space wasn't curved it would travel in a straight line like a ray...as I point out..if you bother to read.. space is curved..thus the axiom the shortest distance( is not a straight line) but the path that light travels...are you so anxious to try to catch me in a mistake so you can pounce that you fail to actually read???

 

 

LOL Pop Quiz: why is all space curved?

 momentum energy/mass/gravity...dark matter...dark energy..and string theory...only momentum energy/mass/ gravity has been absolutely proven to be true at this point but( oh would you like me to cut and paste for you) there is plenty of scientific theory that the others exist ...but please feel free to say its your chip...perhaps its the multiverse distorting the adjacent universe....but I am betting on voodoo!! Am I right..is it Voodoo????

 

6. "How do we get around these quantum issues?" Easy, since they aren't really issues at all, only figments of your imagination. LOL

still no real answer..hmmm..and funny through ALL your posts you NEVER address Chaos theory...ever!!!! you insult me at every point...have finally at least sorta addressed uncertainty but not CHAOS???? hmmm....ouch for you!

 

7. Not only do I say the effects of the chip are permanent - they are permanent. See the distinction?

you are not saying you are a liar...you just are!! see I can insult to

LOL 8. Quantum singularity? Are you high? LOL

ummm no...again you dont read... I said you would need such BS for your chip to work in guaranteeing light could reach it for certain...I also pointed out that this same BS would destroy the very "permanent" changes your god chip would make...so a contraction for the skynet chip to overcome...of course your silly chip and weak cheap cd laser cant make one...hell the particle accelerators that some scientists claimed would create one couldn't...so the god chip cant either...or can it..it is the god skynet right???

 

Footnote: I guess we're not done. I enjoy picking your posts to sheds too much to stop.

but you haven't...why does someone who claims your scientific background continue to get embarrassed so easily????

oh and again on this thread i will give you the last word...enjoy it.

 

LOL Geoff Kait Machina Dynamica Advanced Audio Concepts

"--I swear you cant read...I have said that already...he was proven wrong..problem is you would need him to be right for your chip to work...so just for you simple logic...Einstein unification theory fails thus your chip fails...DUHHHH!!!"

Uh, he wasn't proven wrong, for the umpteenth time, there was never a Unified Theory to begin with! NOW do you see the distinction? Geez, Louise!

"---yep so assuming your intelligent chip or super intelligent chip can "know" something it would have to have precise measurements of exactly where it made quantum changes...it would have to do this by measurements since I am assuming you HAVEN'T created artificial intelligence...if you have just call your damn chip the skynet chip..ok..DUHHHHHH...and since Heisenberg says you cant measure the the particles at the same time that your wonder chip has created them how can the all know god chip know it has already treated the CD???? DUHHHHH"

Artificial intelligence? You name dropper, you! I gotta ask - Are you using a random scientific term generator when you post this stuff? The chip doesn't create particles, so I guess there's no need for me to respond to that rant.

"6. "How do we get around these quantum issues?" Easy, since they aren't really issues at all, only figments of your imagination. LOL

still no real answer..hmmm..and funny through ALL your posts you NEVER address Chaos theory...ever!!!! you insult me at every point...have finally at least sorta addressed uncertainty but not CHAOS???? hmmm....ouch for you!

I don't address Chaos Theory, ever, because it's irrelevant to the discussion. As I pointed out previously, it's only a strawman argument. I sense you are enamoured with big words. Ouch for you.

"still no real answer..hmmm" Still no real question.

"7. Not only do I say the effects of the chip are permanent - they are permanent. See the distinction?

you are not saying you are a liar...you just are!! see I can insult to"

And you do it so well. LOL

"Footnote: I guess we're not done. I enjoy picking your posts to sheds too much to stop.

but you haven't...why does someone who claims your scientific background continue to get embarrassed so easily????"

Yes, I'm embarrassed to have to debate with a lawyer (if I believe you) who's pretending to be a scientist. LOL

"oh and again on this thread i will give you the last word...enjoy it."

Thanks.....I did. LOL

An ordinary man has no means of deliverance. - old audiophile axiom

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

"An ordinary man has no means of deliverance. - old audiophile axiom"

We won't give up on you, Geoff.

Anton wrote:

"An ordinary man has no means of deliverance. - old audiophile axiom"

We won't give up on you, Geoff.

I appreciate a stalker with perseverence as much as the next guy.   If interested in becoming a full time troll or stalker please let me know.  We're hiring.

Geoff Kait

Machina Dynamica

about Mr Kait's and Ms Belt's posts on here is as follows,

Mr Kait: "LOL LOL LOL LOL" followed by some lame insult and pseudoscience to excess

Ms Belt: "!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" or "?????????????" followed by a whole page of errors and pseudoscience to even more excess

Wow, what a surprisinging tame insult. I can't decide whether to feel offended or to feel embarrassed for you. Let me give you some friendly advice - If you wish to improve your little boy wannbe status here you'll have to try a bit harder.

geoff kait
machina dynamica

proving my point Mr Kait. Very mature response as usual. When you have no defense for the truth, just keep the insults coming.