Michael wrote,

"Setting the stage is a beautiful thing! As these threads roll on I don't really see the need to make this an us or Geoff thing cause these are two different levels of tweaking. One being a fixed higher mass tweak and the other being a low mass tune. One having one sound and the other being variable, able to produce that same sound or any other sound.

I don't want to discount any one sound including Geoff's if that's a place someone once to go. I do personally move away from the fixed deader sound that Geoff is pointing toward but we need to give him his creative space as anyone elses. I do disagree that someone can or should produce in room acoustical products without actively being an in room listener, but again if someone wants to go that route, there's lots of these roads to travel down.

I don't object to being a speaker "snob", and would have to say thanks. As I am a friendly guy, I think I probably am a bit of a snob when it comes to sound. Not a snob about money and the high end audio climbing up the ladder sense as the reviews have pointed out, but a snob about finding all the variables available in audio both pro and home. In the last few days I have recieved wonderful comments about being willing to come here and back in the audiophile mainstream. I'm glad to be here and hope that more of the on lookers will join in and give their voice to this great hobby of ours. Hats off again to Stereophile for making this possible."

Those are really lovely examples of Strawman arguments, filled with fantasy and fallacy. Nice zingers! Lol. For anyone unfamiliar with Strawman arguments, here's a snippet from Wikipedia:

"A strawman, also known in the UK as an Aunt Sally,[1][2] is a common type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on the misrepresentation of the original topic of argument. To be successful, a straw man argument requires that the audience be ignorant or uninformed of the original argument.

The so-called typical "attacking a straw man" implies an adversarial, polemic, or combative debate, and creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition by covertly replacing it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") and then to refute or defeat that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the original proposition.

This technique has been used throughout history in polemical debate, particularly in arguments about highly charged emotional issues where a fiery, entertaining "battle" and the defeat of an "enemy" may be more valued than critical thinking or understanding both sides of the issue."

BTW I don't mind speaker snobs as long as they're friendly. Thanks a bunch for giving me my creative space. ;-)

It appears you've been honing your argument skills on Zen and the Art of Debunkery as your posts tend to have that certain je ne sais quoi. ;-). Excerpt from Zen and the Art of Debunkery:

"Ridicule, ridicule, ridicule. It is far and away the single most chillingly effective weapon in the war against discovery and innovation. Ridicule has the unique power to make people of virtually any persuasion go completely unconscious in a twinkling. It fails to sway only those few who are of sufficiently independent of mind not to buy into the kind of emotional consensus that ridicule provides."

You made a statement regarding finding all the variables that is actually quite interesting and important. Can I be so bold as to suggest you might continue looking as it's evident there's quite a few you've overlooked, even in your 30 years of experience.

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

geoffkait wrote:

1. I saw it on an episode of How Things Are Made.

2. I have a team of beta testers.

3. It came to me in a dream.

4. I must have had a speaker system at some time in the past.

5. All of the above.

Except deriding your opponents. Sorry Geoff, but this doesn't fly with me, as does your "tune by phone" scam. Methink you really found a bunch of idiots buying into your sales pitch (same as May Belt's cosmic energy mumbo-jumbo) and you just won't let it go. Now I can understand it, after all you're making a nice living selling plactic cups, why would you stop doing it?

iosiP wrote:

geoffkait wrote:

1. I saw it on an episode of How Things Are Made.

2. I have a team of beta testers.

3. It came to me in a dream.

4. I must have had a speaker system at some time in the past.

5. All of the above.

Except deriding your opponents. Sorry Geoff, but this doesn't fly with me, as does your "tune by phone" scam. Methink you really found a bunch of idiots buying into your sales pitch (same as May Belt's cosmic energy mumbo-jumbo) and you just won't let it go. Now I can understand it, after all you're making a nice living selling plactic cups, why would you stop doing it?

The old timers inquisition is hard at work today. There is no joy in Mudville.

"An ordinary man has no means of deliverance." ~ old audiophile expression

Geoff Kait
Machina Exotica

Michael wrote,

"I don't want to discount any one sound including Geoff's if that's a place someone once to go."

"I do personally move away from the fixed deader sound that Geoff is pointing toward but we need to give him his creative space as anyone elses."

"Sir, how can you make guiding statements if you are no where near an in room listening system? I'm trying to be nice about this but, it's like getting guitar lessons from an instructor that has no guitar."

"So please before making a statement like "So, how can you be FOR treating upper corners but AGAINST treating the walls?" you do your homework. I do treat both but not randomly and half A**ed, or with some audiophile BS from guys who don't even have a room setup for listening like yourself. So I ask you politely again to make observations based on your own listening experiences but don't come up and make statements that are totally not true. I've done far more tuning and tweaking than any designer in the history of this biz..."

"Cameras are rolling, here's Geoff ready to pull all this stuff out of his hat sitting at his computer waiting to jump in about setups of rooms and the question comes up "I have been meaning to ask, why did you move to headphone listening?". Geoff turns, looks at headphones, looks on screen at wikipedia, typing comb filtering. Commercial break "Dr Dre Beats" headphones with Lebron playing one on one with Geoff , Geoff looks to camera, close up, "best room I've ever heard", pull back to dunk. Fade to Lebron "that dude can play", end commercial to see Geoff typing away with big smile on face "I'll show these guys".

Thanks for reaching out.

:-)

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

Geoff,

Now you've got me back involved dealing with a dude that doesnt know when to hold and when to fold.

Do you really want to get into a show and tell of some of the $hit you post and your attitude. You then feign innocence at peoples responses. Puhleez!

Lets line up the people to go through their posts/threads that you've hijacked and entangled yourself in, myself included.

The little smiley face, just kidding don't cut it.

Enough is enough.

Do you want to talk about audio in an engaged manner or not? You might learn something!

If not, you've had your 15 minutes ... now sit down!

Or are you using the procedure you just quoted: [quote}"Ridicule, ridicule, ridicule. It is far and away the single most chillingly effective weapon in the war against discovery and innovation. Ridicule has the unique power to make people of virtually any persuasion go completely unconscious in a twinkling. It fails to sway only those few who are of sufficiently independent of mind not to buy into the kind of emotional consensus that ridicule provides."[/quote]I asked you how you can test your room-tuning devices if you have no room to listen to? Don't sell me your "oh but I had a room some years ago" mantra, it's not flying with me: some of your room tweaks were designed after you gave up listening to loudspeakers, so how do you know they work?

Now can you answer some questions, or do you have to hide behind quotes and sarcasm to avoid doing it? Yes it may look as you won but any decent people can see you're nothing more than bling with no content.

Have a nice snakeoil selling day,
Costin

iosiP wrote:

Or are you using the procedure you just quoted: [quote}"Ridicule, ridicule, ridicule. It is far and away the single most chillingly effective weapon in the war against discovery and innovation. Ridicule has the unique power to make people of virtually any persuasion go completely unconscious in a twinkling. It fails to sway only those few who are of sufficiently independent of mind not to buy into the kind of emotional consensus that ridicule provides."

I asked you how you can test your room-tuning devices if you have no room to listen to? Don't sell me your "oh but I had a room some years ago" mantra, it's not flying with me: some of your room tweaks were designed after you gave up listening to loudspeakers, so how do you know they work?

Now can you answer some questions, or do you have to hide behind quotes and sarcasm to avoid doing it? Yes it may look as you won but any decent people can see you're nothing more than bling with no content.

Have a nice snakeoil selling day,
Costin[/quote]

What on earth are you going on about? Don't I always answer your fake disingenuous snarky questions?

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

michael green wrote:

Hi Geoff

To be honest, no I don't think you do answer the questions. People want to talk to you about listening, and have you join in. I don't see them as being disingenuous at all. Your focusing on everything else you can, but listening (the topic). I've tried to engage you in listening several times and you do a spin. All you would have to do is listen with us and everything would be cool and you could build credibility as me and the others have, as listeners. I feel like I know their systems a little and the way they like sound and the way they listen and some of what they listen to.

You said to me early on here to come over to the other side. Well I think that's what people have been asking you. Come over and join the hobby of listening together. You keep coming across like everyone is coming to take you down in some way, I think your missing the point. They/we either buy into what your pushing or not, but if you join us as a fellow listener that's a different person that we get to know.

Does that make any sense to you or do you feel I'm attacking? If so I'm sorry you feel that way. I've tried a few angles to come at you, and even thought we could have some fun together but that obviously did not go over so well for you. I sure wish you could stop look and listen to what we are trying to say. These threads could be so different and helpful.

michael green
MGA/RoomTune

Michael, do you have some specific questions in mind that you feel I have not addressed? If so, fire at will.

Cheers,

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

All good points, MG. It's kinda funny what room pressure does to staging. In my big room, my volume control is like a balloon inflator. With complex music and music that is made to sound large, it's indeed a thrill. But, with smaller, more intimate recordings, it's a little more difficult to find the right balance in creating realism. My room creates a lot of presence as the pressure is raised and expands the stage to the point of making Diana Krall larger than life within the stage. Turn down the volume and reduce the pressure and the presence and perspective begins shrinking. Considering she is pretty easy on the eyes, (and ears) having a larger than life DK tends to be the preferred level for me.

I found that once I had my speakers located where the tonal balance and frequency response was more linear, both measurably and subjectively, simply using the volume control could tune most all of my recordings.

The following is written in a style similar to Michael Green's:

I have been to systems analyzing the multifarious thing where they don't even no the correct reflex of the administration of the tuning...

The almost way to do this is going forward with tuning for the rear sounding of rooms in where you have practical knowledge as I often do.

I am an not there on the wave which is crested because it is not treating what I have done past the speaker's integral response. Which is almost passible if you know what I mean. Or even less if you DO.

IS ANYBODY ELSE HERE TIRED OF TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WTF MICHAEL GREEN IS TALKING ABOUT???

It would be simple to dismiss the guy as simply a total snake oil salesman who has glommed on to the real science of correcting the acoustical properties of your room as an important part of the system performance parameters.

But who can even READ this guy's writing without running into dozens of nonsensical sentence structures???

Hey Michael!!! A few of the basic ideas of dealing with room acoustics are NOT a license to bother the rest of us ad nauseam with a bunch of pseudo scientific blather.

You are really mind numbing in your aggressive marketing of your overpriced products here and elsewhere on the net. Sonex and fiberglass have been around for years before YOU arrived to make money off the gullible.

Please shut up once in a while. Some of us know quite a bit about the subject, no thanks to you.

Michael,

Don't listen to this old fool that is pissed at the world and hides behind internet anonymity spouting his vitriol on many websites.

Doctor Fine I found your Disqus comments regarding "our free exchange of ideas" rather enlightening .. why don't you practice what you preach.

But, I've never been on an internet forum that this thing doesn't happen every now and then. Many times, I'm on the receiving end, but I've never left because of it. The way I see it, if somebody wants to show you their ass, let 'em show it all in a big way for EVERYBODY to see.

Fine hasn't said much of any use here, he's the one who can leave.

Illegitimi non carborundum. ~ Old audiophile expression

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

I tried to follow this thread to see if it would lead to a meaningful discussion of how to properly set up the front end wall versus the room versus the rear end wall.

Nothing doing.

Anybody have any idea at all how to do this? It is NOT that difficult unless you want to pretend that MGA is the only game in town.

Surely there are practical ways to get a system to sing and play the room without making this into some sort of weird voodoo cult in the process. Wood blocks and tuning triangles indeed.

That is my basic complaint. Now deal with it. And sue me if I jumped on Michael but he goes on and on about acoustics because he is selling his products don't you know.

And THAT puts me in a bad mood. Again. deal with it.

Michael's original complaint was that he often goes to hear hobby systems where the room is so absorbent that all the impact of the notes are softened.

I would argue that this is rare as in my fifty five years of hearing "audiophile systems" the hard over reflective room is by far more prevalent. The room with hard equipment racks smack in the middle of the soundfield wrecking everything beyond recognition.

One in a thousand has actually tried to "tune" the room. And installed absorbent material in strategic locations.

And yes, IF you place them in the soundfield without paying attention to when "enough is enough" you WILL damage the "throw" of the instruments and voices. So PUT ON YOUR LISTENING EARS...

But wood blocks and voodoo absorbent thingies take the whole process out of the realm of science and place it deep in snake oil.

C'mon people. I am NOT a salesman and am not selling ANYTHING.

I am simply a Jedi Knight of the Stereo Planet---just like the rest of you. When I whip out that light sabre it is for a just cause. To give voice to the silent mitochondrions that dwell deep in the recess of all our stereo fields...

Did I lose anybody?

While I agree that the "method" has limited appeal to many of us, Michael is always pleasant and respectful in conversation and deserving of the same. There was absolutely no need to dive into his writing skills to express your view. I expressed the same to him with regard to the constant Sham Wow loop in every thread and to some extent, I too am bothered with the notion that "the stage effects everything" ergo "every thread is related to what I do" type of rational.

Never-the-less, it was bound to happen at some point. It always does.

.....may train under a different Master...

However your point is not lost on me.

Bill - on the Hill
Practicing Curmudgeon & Audio Snob
- just an “ON” switch, Please –

Edit: Catch22's post went up before I completed composing and posting mine.

My comment was directed to the Good Doctor's post.

wkhanna wrote:

.....may train under a different Master...

However your point is not lost on me.

Bill - on the Hill
Practicing Curmudgeon & Audio Snob
- just an “ON” switch, Please –

Edit: Catch22's post went up before I completed composing and posting mine.

My comment was directed to the Good Doctor's post.

The Doctor is a lover of poetry and dry wit. You have both in your soul padawan...

But to stick to Michael's post---the question remains:

When is too much absorption too much?

If coherence all ways follows the addition of absorption materials---what happens when you put too much of the darn stuff all over the place?

Isn't it impossible to get things too CLEAR?

Ahhh---the question is in the answer is in the question...

Because CLARITY and COHERENCE are DIFFERENT from GIRTH. And to sense the actual "size" of a thing you need the visceral weight of the sound to sound correctly SOLID.

That's where hard walls come in. You need a few. In the right place. Particularly a little slit in the middle to help locate "center". Hint. This works for me... Try it?

Anyway...where was I? Oh yes, absorption.

Absorbing, isn't it?

Quote:

When is too much absorption too much?

If coherence all ways follows the addition of absorption materials---what happens when you put too much of the darn stuff all over the place?

Isn't it impossible to get things too CLEAR?

Ahhh---the question is in the answer is in the question...

Because CLARITY and COHERENCE are DIFFERENT from GIRTH. And to sense the actual "size" of a thing you need the visceral weight of the sound to sound correctly SOLID.

Maybe my comprehension skills are off tonight, but, what did you say? Sounds like a lot of incomprehensible gibberish to me.

Quote:

But wood blocks and voodoo absorbent thingies take the whole process out of the realm of science and place it deep in snake oil.

Well I guess tens of thousands of hobbyists and reviewers have been duped by this snake oil absorbent thingie ... The key word being absorbent.

Quote:

Michael's original complaint was that he often goes to hear hobby systems where the room is so absorbent that all the impact of the notes are softened.

If you read his posts instead of rail against them you would know that Michael makes this statement about over treated rooms.

Quote:

One in a thousand has actually tried to "tune" the room. And installed absorbent material in strategic locations.

Once again you show a complete lack of research into what MGA does. He basically pioneered the whole concept of strategic placement of limited room treatment.

Your posts are basically uninformed opinions with a healthy dose of know-it-all god complex and everyone should treat them as such.

It's the same combination of snake oil and voodoo science that brought us Stradivarius violins, Steinway pianos, and the Boston Symphony Hall. What you're so desperately looking for and blindly railing against doesn't exist in Michael's products or his approach to audio.
If you still don't care for it, fine....If you just don't get it, that's fine too... If you're just an angry guy, some people might forgive you for that too.

Few people say that anymore... I enjoy your personable, open approach to this great hobby that we all have here. You invite dialogue, participation, sharing, and listening. Stereophile does that too!
Ill-mannered, stuck people are tiresome, who can't seem to enjoy much about life and don't contribute anything to the knowledge base. Hopefully they can be ignored and forgotten (if not lanced and squeezed out)!

toledo wrote:

Quote:

When is too much absorption too much?

If coherence all ways follows the addition of absorption materials---what happens when you put too much of the darn stuff all over the place?

Isn't it impossible to get things too CLEAR?

Ahhh---the question is in the answer is in the question...

Because CLARITY and COHERENCE are DIFFERENT from GIRTH. And to sense the actual "size" of a thing you need the visceral weight of the sound to sound correctly SOLID.

Maybe my comprehension skills are off tonight, but, what did you say? Sounds like a lot of incomprehensible gibberish to me.

Quote:

But wood blocks and voodoo absorbent thingies take the whole process out of the realm of science and place it deep in snake oil.

Well I guess tens of thousands of hobbyists and reviewers have been duped by this snake oil absorbent thingie ... The key word being absorbent.

Quote:

Michael's original complaint was that he often goes to hear hobby systems where the room is so absorbent that all the impact of the notes are softened.

If you read his posts instead of rail against them you would know that Michael makes this statement about over treated rooms.

Quote:

One in a thousand has actually tried to "tune" the room. And installed absorbent material in strategic locations.

Once again you show a complete lack of research into what MGA does. He basically pioneered the whole concept of strategic placement of limited room treatment.

Your posts are basically uninformed opinions with a healthy dose of know-it-all god complex and everyone should treat them as such.

You are a very bad boy. Stop being deliberately obtuse or you will get a spanking. Now go sit with Michael and drink some more snake oil.

I actually welcome any and all discussion about how to get the room on your side so that it gets out of the way of the music.

But I also believe the goal is to FINISH SETTING UP YOUR DAMN SYSTEM. Some of you guys NEVER DO.

I thought my point was not ambiguous about how the soundfield needs BOTH a correct amont of dampening to allow for coherence AND enough hard walls to provide a visceral "sense that things have SIZE and SUBSTANCE."

The meaning of the word STEREO in Greek is "Solid---being of SUBSTANCE."

I totally agree with the SUBJECT which Michael esposuses. To wit: the room is INCREDIBLY important to proper system synergy.

That does not mean that every part of the room should be constantly fiddled with.

FIX IT ONCE AND FORGET IT.

Go listen to some music once it is PERFECT.

Is that a CRIME?

You have to wear two completely different hats to do your job when setting up a room.

First listen with an ear to reduce smearing. This will most likely require some dampening treatments. And a hell of a lot of moving speakers around looking for coherent "room lock." It might take months to find out how everything fits.

Then start working to improve the SUBSTANCE and GIRTH of the instruments.

You will have to bring hard surfaces BACK into the mix and see where they can be used to good effect. You do this AFTER the room has been dampened (or over-dampened as the case may well be).

When you have improved image smearing and then improved dynamic GIRTH your work is DONE.

Over treated rooms do not hurt dynamics. They merely indicate nobody did the SECOND part of the installation job.

Nobody went hunting for ways to now ADD some power back into the system delivery WITHOUT RUINING THE DAMPENING THEY ACHIEVED EARLIER.

I simply disagree with Michael entirely because I believe THERE IS ONE PERFECT BALANCE FOR EACH SET UP.

And then you are FINISHED with the room.

Any questions?

Yo Doc,

Don't look now and I hate to burst your bubble, but some of your room treatment advice is very similar to how Michael Green approaches room treatment.

The strategic placement of dampening and reflective surfaces is the cornerstone. The difference is in the execution. Also hard walls are just nasty..walls need to vibrate.

Those absorbent thingies you like to call them are actually a combination of absorbent material on one side (burn side) and a reflective membrane on the other.

They are used in a barricade tuning approach where the burn side never faces into the room but is placed in strategic locations that need treatment while not resulting in the usual over dampened dead sound.

I won't get into tuneable wood acoustic panels that have same idea of burn side and live side and the concept of pressure zone shaping. Lets take this slow for now...baby steps.

Regarding my obtuseness, are you making the argument that it is impossible to over treat a room? I may be wrong, but your original post implied that.

We have been hearing a lot about your 50 years of reference systems. Care to share with us your current system, treatment products and room layout.

Hey Toledo you are NOT telling me anything I don't already know. Michael is working the same field that has fascinated me for the last six Presidencies...

I did NOT imply at any time that it is impossible to over dampen a room. Quite the contrary.

I simply acknowledged where Michael STARTED the thread by stating that he OFTEN finds OVERDAMPED rooms and that silly fools have such rooms whereas HE MICHAEL never has an overdamped room himself...

Big Deal. The guy really gets my goat with his superiority and condescending manner. As if SOME of us have not already treaded down this merry path ourselves. And worst of all he didn't offer concrete advice to the NEWBIES among us who may find the whole subject of room tuning to be total Greek.

Then I acknowledeged that overdamping is BAD however it is NOT to be confused with a lack of dynamics...

They are two completely different issues and require a different "fix."

Overdamping addresses "smearing." You overdamp FIRST to get a clear sense of how the system sounds without echo and cancellation and other nasties...

After you overdamp you will find you NEED a few hard reflective surfaces at strategic locations to help give BODY and SUBSTANCE to the voice and instruments.

CLARITY is all good and well but after you have removed all the echo and bloat from the soundfield and can HEAR clearly ---THEN it is time to start working on putting back the SUBSTANCE by removing panels one at a time until you see what setup gives you EVERYTHING you want out of the system.

You can do it with Michael's panels. For a gazillion dollars.

You can do it with Flemish Tapestries (I have...).

You can CHANGE the sonic picture by simply moving a table a few inches. Or moving a chair a couple inches.

Or putting some wood in the room. Or a potted plant in a corner.

EVERYTHING affects the room!!!!!!!!!

And it does not take a Michael and his "half absorbent/half reflective magic panels" to do the heavy lifting.

Although I have nothing AGAINST him or his work OR his panels.

I simply feel that a lot of folks will take his word for it that it takes "magic" panels to do anything worthwhile---when nothing is further from the truth...

The PRINCIPLE of setting up a room correctly goes something like this:

First have a TON of tools on hand to help figure out what is going on with the room in the first place. Spectrum analyzer. Rives testing CD. Specific music passages which you are intimately familiar with how they SHOULD sound in a PERFECT playback situation

I will normally move into a space and first tack everything into place and see if the audio shows promise and the ergonomics work out well. Sometimes I find the room simply does not work well when facing one direction and I then rip it all out and put it all facing in a new direction.

This is called "picking the front wall."

Then I will deliberately OVERDAMP the entire area until the first impulse from the speakers is heard clearly and without any unhappy colorations from the rest of the area. And I will stay on this first step until the speakers are set up within an inch of their lives EXACTLY where they throw a perfect SOUNDSTAGE and the timbre is as good as possible---not too far apart and correct toe in.

A quarter of an inch of speaker movement will change the tonal balance sometimes dramatically.

I once invested FIVE years in a tuning project just to see how ridiculous it would be to squeeze every little drop out of the room. And to see if it would keep getting better the harder I tuned it.

That's five years of working with fresh ears and a couple cups of coffee first thing in the morning when your ears are at their peak. And tuning real hard for a couple hours until your ears are shot. Every morning. For five years.

The answer was that tuning eventually (after five years) is DONE. There ain't nothing left to fix. Everything is PERFECT.

having heard a PERFECT room is probably the most instructive thing you can DO in this hobby.

You then KNOW what it ought to sound like in EVERY room.

So that is how the Doctor operates...

Pick where everything HAS to go. Voice the room. Overdamp it so that you hear clearly. Then put back in some dynamic SOLIDITY by removing strategic panels to see how it improves or damages the sound field.

My gear is unimportant. It is good stuff as I was a McIntosh/Krell/Bryston/Sonus Faber/Martin Logan dealer and have sold and installed probably a thousand really nice systems in my time. Plus built recording studios and sound rooms. For people you have heard about...

None of which matter as all I have to gain here is to try to share my enthusiasm for great intoxicating audio. The kind where every recording is an adventure in HiFi. And you never want to leave the house...

I wish Michael a bright future in the industry as long as he sticks to offering good advice.

And yes, he and I are more alike than we are unalike.

Hey, I get mad at MYSELF sometimes for being stupid and slow on the uptake. And going down blind corners.

Now, was any of that useful? I want newbies and those that haven't a clue about setup to start digging in to what their systems can be capable of doing. The simple act of correctly installing a music playback system opens up a magic door to the great recorded performances of the age. Music for a lifetime of satisfaction.

I DO look out for the TOTAL picture and I AM a meat and potatoes guy.

Get the meat and potatoes right and you thrive. Eat Michael's caviar (I bet those panels aren't CHEAP) and you might get from here to there OK, BUT IT AINT MAGIC IT IS ALL JUST GOOD ENGINEERING...

I got a little pissed that nothing was moving the subject FORWARD around here. Instead ---lots of psychobabble about tuning wood blocks and six inch hyperflexive dampening panels.

The basic are simply NOT that difficult to source. Unless common sense is in short supply, which could be the case here...

...what Michael is about and you're only guessing. Do some reading on Michael's site http://tuneland.techno-zone.net/

Doc,
You seem to have a problem with how MG expresses himself. That is between you and you .. keep it to yourself.

You seem to have this impression that MG is in full scale sales mode ... give some examples where he has not been prompted for info on his products. He goes out of his way to avoid the salesmanship and can only be blamed for having an agenda to improve the industry.

If your system and room is working for you, good for you.
You say you can enjoy all your music on your current system and I assume the system has never dictated to you what you can play and enjoy. I would doubt your sincerity if you stated this never happened especially on a fixed system and setup.

There are some of us though, who have been down this road far too long with systems that have over promised and undelivered and which dictate what we can listen to.

A variable tuning methodology is the answer to this and it is open source, so to speak.
It can be accomplished using inexpensive components and DIY if one desires and free advice from Michael.

You really need to research exactly what variable tuning is about and the use of wood. For someone who supposedly knows so much about this hobby, I cannot fathom how you cannot see how wood plays such an important part. When you blindly make statements without research, it is evident to all how biased and uniformed you are.

Why do you feel your system, room treatment products and layout is irrelevant? You are stating you have a perfect setup tuned perfectly...let us decide so we can gauge your comments and advice accordingly.

toledo wrote:

Doc,
You seem to have a problem with how MG expresses himself. That is between you and you .. keep it to yourself.

You seem to have this impression that MG is in full scale sales mode ... give some examples where he has not been prompted for info on his products. He goes out of his way to avoid the salesmanship and can only be blamed for having an agenda to improve the industry.

If your system and room is working for you, good for you.
You say you can enjoy all your music on your current system and I assume the system has never dictated to you what you can play and enjoy. I would doubt your sincerity if you stated this never happened.

There are some of us though, who have been down this road far too long with systems that have over promised and undelivered and which dictate what we can listen to.

A variable tuning methodology is the answer to this and it is open source, so to speak.
It can be accomplished using inexpensive components and DIY if one desires and free advice from Michael.

You really need to research exactly what variable tuning is about and the use of wood. For someone who supposedly knows so much about this hobby, I cannot fathom how you cannot see how wood plays such an important part. When you blindly make statements without research, it is evident to all how biased and uniformed you are.

Are you simply a Troll looking to start a fight?

I don't claim that Michael commits the obvious sin of touting his own merchandise on the site. However he does espouse some nonsense (as do YOU apparently) about how YOUR equipment sucks and you can't set it up properly and therefore YOU have to "tune" for every damn recording which comes down the pipe.

Not MY problem. MY SYSTEM IS PERFECT.

And where did I say I can enjoy ALL my music on my perfect system?

What I have said---repeatedly if you can READ---is that some recordings particularly late model ones done under the direction of sloppy engineers and crappy transfers---sound HORRIBLE when played back on a perfect system.

Not many. But SOME. And the TREND is that idiots who allow for this crap by "tuning" for every different recording are PART of the problem.

Perhaps you should give up, go buy a cheap MidFi set and a graphic equalizer...

Then you and Michael can "correct" all the bad recordings and listen happily ever after.

I do NOT have a system which over promises and underdelivers.

Mine correctly sounds like several hundreds of millions of dollars of record company expense went into my collection of the last 100 years of recorded Nirvana.

It is only late comers to the trade of audio engineering which are putting out awful sounding recordings and Re-Mastered junk.

On a perfect set that is exactly what it sounds like...junk.

Thank goodness I do not listen to people like you and Michael and instead have tens of thousands of properly recorded masterpieces from which to entertain and amuse myself in my old age.

Yup. You and Michael and your graphic equalizers... Now THAT paints a pretty picture... FIX EVERYTHING THEN WONT YOU???

(you WANT a fight? that's all I have. No more wasting time with people that can't or WON'T read and who put words in my mouth is a total non starter. Get lost.)

ChrisS wrote:

...what Michael is about and you're only guessing. Do some reading on Michael's site http://tuneland.techno-zone.net/

I know what Michael has said HERE on these forums.

He espouses some nonsense that you need to "retune your system to make up for bad recordings."

And I say he and YOU should simply go buy a graphic equalizer and a MidFi setup and go "fix" bad recordings to your heart's content.

NOW DID I MAKE IT CLEAR THAT I UNDERSTAND???

Fight, this ain't no fight .. Just cleaning up the mess from all the misinformed crap you have been spewing since you decided to return to the forum.

Of course you were making references to sales pitches (Micheal's caviar, six inc panels , etc.) who are you kidding.

Here a quote from a few posts back :
"You are really mind numbing in your aggressive marketing of your overpriced products here and elsewhere on the net. Sonex and fiberglass have been around for years before YOU arrived to make money off the gullible."

Lets see that perfect system and setup so we can gauge your comments and advice.

You haven't done any reading...

Go buy a graphic equalizer you sniveling sycophants.

You really want to argue that Michael does NOT constantly harp on his company's approach to continual modification of the sound field? The guy IS a salesman and you dips are playing along quite marvelously.

As for ME, here is how I view the importance of a correct FINISHED system. Something you dolts will never own apparently:

I LOVE hearing exactly how each engineer and producer made decisions about "their" recording.

I want THEIR work playing on my set---and not "MY VERSION" THEIRS.

As a buddy of mine said as we sat and listened to his work which he did on some Crosby Stills Nash and bill-a-bong sessions: "If I had WANTED it in surround sound I would have RECORDED it in surround sound."

It is great to just sit back and enjoy the ride and listen as the work speaks for itself...

You guys do NOT do that as you are "experts." who know BETTER than the original producer, artist and engineer.

Have fun, kiddies.

Not my problem.

The Sniveling Sycophants sounds like a great band name. Maybe we could get MGA to sponsor us.
What do you think Michael... Have we kissed your butt enough to warrant a gig and a few free goodies or at least a better deal when our agent negotiates with you.

We could perform on Friday and sat nights up on tuneland. Think of the traffic we could generate for you. We would be the talk of the web.

Let me work on the YouTube video and I'll get back to you on promotional ideas to get it to go viral.

Our intro band tonight will be playing some Lawrence Welk classics conducted by the Doc. It was all we could book on short notice, sorry. He assures me he will sound perrrrfect.

...was to be left alone to listen to your perfect music on your perfect stereo system, you should have said so in the first place!

When you leave be sure to close the door tightly behind you. We wouldn't want Reality to intrude on your very private, very precious moments with yourself.

michael green wrote:

........ the good Doc (as Bill calls him).......
michael green
MGA/RoomTune

To be sure my intent is understood, my reference to Dr Fine as “The Good Dr” is merely a personal colloquialism applied only for literary flavoring. It is my current opinion that the Good Dr is willing to accept my playful adulteration to his user name with the understanding there is no disrespect intended. I believe he is quite able to suffer my lame writing style with tolerance in recognition of the lighthearted gist I have (possibly V poorly) attempted to imply.

I do not have a dawg in this debate. I have not endorsed either Dr Fine or Michael. I have only listened to each. There may be some things I agree with, others I do not and still more that I can form no opinion on because of no direct experience.

Everyone is entitled to express their opinion & experiences. But this is the internet. And all participants have their own style, intent and sense of etiquette. Interpretation is up to each individual reader. My practice is to be mindful of the uniqueness of each participant. For example, sincerity & the direct approach can often appear rude or malicious. It all depends on how one decides to perceive the world. Much the same as we all have our own perception of what good sound is.

Bill - on the Hill
Practicing Curmudgeon & Audio Snob
- just an “ON” switch, Please –

"IN DISQUISITIONS of every kind, there are certain primary truths, or first principles, upon which all subsequent reasonings must depend. These contain an internal evidence which, antecedent to all reflection or combination, commands the assent of the mind. Where it produces not this effect, it must proceed either from some defect or disorder in the organs of perception, or from the influence of some strong interest, or passion, or prejudice." Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 31

Most audiophiles have no interest in trying to discuss things that have no chance of resulting in an understanding and therefore, they usually blow this stuff off or reach the point that Dr. Fine did and simply say "that's enough nonsense."

This is a battle that can never be won or that will ever cease to exist.

Once a person is capable of discerning what aspects of reproduction they require to experience a sense of realism where realism is not obtainable, then they are hearing something that won't be easily understood by most anyone and they aren't terribly concerned about what anyone else thinks they should be concerned about.
This is where the assumption that audiophiles are snobs seems to start. Most aren't, they just know that they will never be able to explain it to someone who can't appreciate it...yet.

Some things have to be experienced on a personal level to be fully appreciated. Not everyone is there yet and many will never get there. But, the door is always open and membership is not required. You just have to walk in when you appreciate what the audiophile club is all about.

Catch,

Not agreeing with something or unwilling to partake of it does not grant license to dismiss or disparage it ... Nothing good comes from that. I hope dr fine gets that message.

I will review my posting history to see if I am guilty of the same offense and if so, will remind myself in the future to not fall victim to this impulse.

Creating sound and music is not the same as playing back a recording of sound and music. While the artist and recording engineers employ a multitude of techniques to create the final product, the audiophile simply wants to hear that recording in the most faithful way possible.

It's totally cool with having all sorts of playback adjustments for the listener to use to tailor the sound to their liking or further adjust for their impressions of what the engineers perhaps failed to address to their liking. I don't see that as "wrong" by any means. There are certainly many recordings that are far more listenable by altering their inherent flaws to a more agreeable presentation.

Audiophiles tend to appreciate good recordings for what they do well, communicate the artistic performance in a way that no amount of signal manipulation could ever achieve at the playback level or that no poorly produced and engineered recording can ever hope to achieve with any amount of manipulation at the playback level.

The main thing is that audiophiles appreciate good recordings so much that they aren't very interested in making the bad ones sound "simply less bad."