Michael, don't mean to jump on your thread but maybe all this stuff about freezing and cryo and Morphic Resonance are actually intimately and inexorably interrelated. And I don't mean to be messianic or mysterious but the Photos in the Freezer Tweak, you know, one that sends grown audiophiles shrieking into the cellar, demonstrates that something is going on with cryo and freezing that Is not even on the radar for Cryo Labs, NASA, DARPA, MIT, AES or advanced audiophiles. Let me explain. What the Photos in the Freezer Tweak demonstrates is that it is NOT the temperature per sec that produces the effect of improving the sound. The effect of the PITF Tweak is heard immediately, even before the photos have a chance to reach -20 F. There is some evidence that the PITF Tweak will work at great distances, another hint that perhaps temperatures per se are not the answer, at least not the only answer. We already know from experience that freezing at normal home freezer temperatures changes the sound, no? Temperatures that are only as low as around -20 F. This in itself suggests that cryo temperatures - that are about 300 F LOWER than that - might NOT be required. It also suggests that perhaps it is not temperature per se that is involved in whatever is happening to the CD. Try freezing an audio cassette sometime. The sound of a cassette is also changed by freezing, yet the explanations that apply to freezing CDs don't seem to apply to cassettes, if you see what I'm driving at. I have asked this before and I ll ask again, if cryo temperatures are so important in achieving the max effect why hasn't someone thought to offer liquid Hydrogen Cryo treatment. Liquid Hydrogen would produce much lower temperatures than liquid Nitrogen? Next up, let's discuss what happens when you freeze a book, OK? I know, WTF, right?

Cheers,

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

the reason the sound changes after freezing, or changing the surface, or coloring the edge of the disc,or applying a chemical to the cables is because you imagine it did.
Its like when Christians are convinced that God is in control of their lives.

Wasn't someone supposed to write about his listening tests of untreated vs. fully-treated CDs?
I undersatnd the "much-improved" CD got back to the owner... And the conclusions are?

And I was thinking that from August 1 to August 9 there would be time to write at least "it shines" od "it sucks".

Michael, yes,I agree. and I should have begun my post with "IMO" The problem is, listening tests are so subjective as to render their conclusions highly suspect. I was an audiophile thirty years ago. At that time, a group of audiophiles were told they were listening to 20 thousand dollars worth of stereo equipment,(Mark Levinson,Linn-Sondek,etc.) after they listened, they all proceeded to bloviate at length on the sonic excellence and transparency.
It was then revealed to them that they had actually been listening to a 200 dollar Pioneer receiver and a
100 dollar belt-driven Kenwood turntable. They were furious. I believe it was Julian Hirsch who contrived this,
but I'm not sure, it was a long time ago.

Double post. Disregard.

GK
Machina Dramatica

David Harper wrote:

the reason the sound changes after freezing, or changing the surface, or coloring the edge of the disc,or applying a chemical to the cables is because you imagine it did.
Its like when Christians are convinced that God is in control of their lives.

I actually wouldn't be very surprised if a well set up Pioneer system could outperform a generic high end set up.
As far as being fooled goes it does happen. No surprise there. We observe our surroundings, our reality through our senses, that is all we have to go on, no? We guage a system's performance on what we hear and compare it to some ideal top notch sound we have in our heads somewhere, maybe a memory of a truly top notch system, who knows. Perhaps a false ideal of what we *imagine* a great system should sound like. Are we not men? We are Devo.

If Audio Nirvana did not exist Man would have to invent it. - old audiophile expression

Geoff Kait
Machina Dramatica

How many "high-end" products are just repackaged mass-market stock? How far can this scam go, if the Lexicon "OPPO in a box" fraud did almost get unnoticed? Or the (in)famous Compli player from Theta Digital (a simply repackaged OPPO - at least they removed the original case, which cannot be said about Lexicon).
Yes people buy BS based on brand but do not think that CD transports are only built by (less than a) handful of manufacturers, DAC chips by another few, and generally speaking there is a ton of standardization in the field. And this is why I only trust manufacturers that do their own research and offer proprietary solution: otherwise I would buy a $500 component and pay $2500 extra for the nice CNC-machined case and once-famous name (now owned by a joint venture from China).

my experience has been that the determining factor in how good a system sounds is the quality of the recording.
I realize you guys already knew this. A really good recording will sound great, no matter what we play it on, and
a shitty one will sound shitty even when played on 20,000 dollars worth of equipment. I just bought a Denon AVR-X1100W receiver and a Marantz UD5007 SACD/Blu-ray player. I realize they don't qualify as audiophile equipment, but I like them anyway. I bi-amped my Polk RTi4 speakers,and they never sounded this good.

David Harper wrote:

my experience has been that the determining factor in how good a system sounds is the quality of the recording.
I realize you guys already knew this. A really good recording will sound great, no matter what we play it on, and
a shitty one will sound shitty even when played on 20,000 dollars worth of equipment.

Most of us already know this. But, not all of us.

iosiP wrote:

Technically speaking a CD is a sandwich of poly-carbonate - aluminium (or silver, or gold) - poly-carbonate- lacquer (paint). When frozen, all these different materials contract differently and due to the extreme thinness of the reflective layer I expect it to develop micro-fissures that cannot do any good in the reading process.

Of course Geoff tried to turn this into a funny thing and to avoid discussing the real problems (but doesn't he always use this method when left without an answer?).
So now you have it: what may be good for a homogeneous material (a wire or a gun barrel) is not necessarily good for a composite structure.
And what about tubes, you may ask? Well, tubes are designed to sustain temperature differentials, CDs are not!

Costin

iosiP wrote:

iosiP wrote:

Technically speaking a CD is a sandwich of poly-carbonate - aluminium (or silver, or gold) - poly-carbonate- lacquer (paint). When frozen, all these different materials contract differently and due to the extreme thinness of the reflective layer I expect it to develop micro-fissures that cannot do any good in the reading process.

Of course Geoff tried to turn this into a funny thing and to avoid discussing the real problems (but doesn't he always use this method when left without an answer?).
So now you have it: what may be good for a homogeneous material (a wire or a gun barrel) is not necessarily good for a composite structure.
And what about tubes, you may ask? Well, tubes are designed to sustain temperature differentials, CDs are not!

Costin

What ever happened to evidence and proof? Say, weren't you the one who volunteered to provide electron microscope evidence of micro fissures? I'm guessing your wife must have found a lot of things for you to do around the house. Tee hee Speaking of non homogeneous things that are routinely cryo'd, how about capacitors, speaker drivers, electron tubes? The CD metal layer is a sputtered-on ultra thin, sometimes transparent layer of aluminum, gold, etc. If there were problems with expansion and contraction wouldn't the metal layer just peel off the poly layer? Lol. Are we to assume your micro fissures explanation applies to the home freezer treating of CDs, too? A big problem for the micro fissures skeptics of course is the rather simple observation that the data embedded on the metal layer is nanoscale, you know, on the order of 10-9 meters, so any "micro fissures" in either the metal layer or the polycarbonate layer would most likely produce so many errors as to shut the whole thing down before it had a chance to make any sound.

For those keeping score it's cryo naysayers 11, cryo believers 12,980.

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

michael green wrote:

Hi Costin

I would say after my testing that this is without a doubt a case by case type of thing. I could also see where composites might have a much tougher time.

Geoff, I know your making for fun, but I wouldn't say 11 vs 12,980 as a blanket statement. In looking at other types of sites that talk about cryo, I'm seeing more not liking it to those who do. This may be do to a negative nature on the web in general (I don't know), but when I see someone being more serious I see that the split is closer to even or leaning toward non-cryo than it is pro-cryo.

Cryo is not a, must have / everything have, type of thing from my reading and own testing. I would even go as far to say "I'm not sure I like it on audio cables and parts period". I'm sure a lot of people might like the effect but there's something there from a listening point of view that is not sitting well with me, even on the other parts and pieces other than CD's. The more I'm listening to the other stuff I've treated I'm picking up on something that can best be described as "sterile" going on with the treatment. If I can describe this with words I would say the difference is sterile vs flowing. The non-freeze parts and pieces have more of a freedom than do the frozen goods.

I have a fresh production run of speakers coming to me soon so this will give me a chance to hear this on drivers as well. But obviously because I test this on one driver this means nothing when there are thousands of drivers out there to listen to. Blanket statements though may not work on this topic though from what I am hearing.

michael green
MGA/RoomTune

Gosh, just when I thought there wouldn't be another high and audio controvery along comes cryo. You'll have to forgive me but I don't put too much stock in ANYTHING I hear people say about audio, one way or t'other. As my old boss at NASA was fond of saying, never get behind anyone 100%.

Cheers,

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

Vs. 12,980 that are just saying?

How comes Bill does not post his findings? Is it because he found the ultra-treated CD fared worst than the regular one, and he doesn't want to rain on your parade? Still waiting for the test results, but something tells me you'll dismiss them as being just a one man's test. Obviously, there is no way to make you stand to reason: you won't accept the truth even if i hit you with a hammer. Now may I ask you to provide some "scientific" facts from those who tested the cryo-ed CDs and liked them?

iosiP wrote:

Vs. 12,980 that are just saying?

How comes Bill does not post his findings? Is it because he found the ultra-treated CD fared worst than the regular one, and he doesn't want to rain on your parade? Still waiting for the test results, but something tells me you'll dismiss them as being just a one man's test. Obviously, there is no way to make you stand to reason: you won't accept the truth even if i hit you with a hammer. Now may I ask you to provide some "scientific" facts from those who tested the cryo-ed CDs and liked them?

Bill doesn't want to rain on my parade? That's a weird theory coming from the person who is supposed to provide electron microscope evidence of micro fissures. All talk, no walk. I hate to judge too hastily but it certainly appears Bill is a lot like you, he'd rather pontificate from the comfort of his easy chair than actually get his hands dirty. As for micro fissures I just showed you that they are much too big to be the explanation for CDs. In fact, they are a MILLION TIMES TOO BIG! HEL-LOOO!

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

The decoder/interpolator in a CD player can cope with gaps as large as 1 - 2mm (see the Pierre Verany test CD). Yes there is strong error correction, redundancy and the like, but at some point the interpolator will kick in and replace missing data with "guesstimates", which - guess what? - results in exactly the feeling that Michel, me and others had. Sure, there are people who would mistake this for "clarity" and "resolution", but then that's their business.

michael green wrote:

What makes this hobby great is the listening. This is also where the proof comes in.

michael green
MGA/RoomTune

It's a bit of a sticky wicket to make the general statement that listening is proof. The reason I say that is because that is exactly what The Amazing Randi says about high end audio controversies, that listening is proof. Controversies like the Intelligent Chip and expensive high end cables like the PEAR cables. The Amazing Randi offered $1 Million dollars if anyone could pass a controlled double blind listening test for these audiophile things. The presumption of course being that audiophiles get hornswaggled by charlatans who prey on naive young hobbyists, or that all cables sound the same, or fill in the blank. So when some poor schmuck doesn't pass the Million Dollar Challenge the presumption is that, well, the listener failed to hear it so it doesn't work or the expensive cables are not any better than Monster Cables. See the problem with listening being the proof? I WOULD be comfortable with saying listening is EVIDENCE but not PROOF. Like your experience with cryo and freezing. It's another data point, like anyone's, nothing's less and nothing more. It is evidence, but not proof. Everyone can't be right, otherwise we would all hear and report the same thing. Things are far more complicated. There are differences in hearing, differences in systems, people sometimes just don't follow directions. And sometimes there are hidden or not so hidden agendas. Like The Amazing Randi, who sees a spoon bender behind every tree.

Cheers,

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

iosiP wrote:

The decoder/interpolator in a CD player can cope with gaps as large as 1 - 2mm (see the Pierre Verany test CD). Yes there is strong error correction, redundancy and the like, but at some point the interpolator will kick in and replace missing data with "guesstimates", which - guess what? - results in exactly the feeling that Michel, me and others had. Sure, there are people who would mistake this for "clarity" and "resolution", but then that's their business.

Next you're going to tell me that the home freezer causes micro fissures, and that you and Michael are positive because you both hear it. Lots of laughs!

Still no electron microscope images, eh? We're waiting....zzzzzzzzzzzz

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

>>> “Don't know who The Amazing Randi is” <<<

Where on earth have you been, Michael ? In a different section you refer to Stereophile ‘saying this’, ‘saying that’, but you seem to have missed the whole saga around Michael Fremer’s bout with James Randi. You say you are involved in ‘treating’ cables but you seem to have missed the very ‘cable’ controversy between Michael and James Randi. Surely knowing what is ‘going on’ in the long running ‘cables sound different’ controversy is quite essential ?

And, Michael Fremer’s brush with James Randi is only one of many audio related matters involving James Randi !! So, for you not to know who James Randi is, is remarkable given that you say you have been involved in the audio industry for very many years.

>>> “but I do know what an expert listener is, what they listen for, how they listen to, and very important who they listen with. An expert at listening will spot things that the average guy will never pick up on or know what to look for, for example space. An expert can see and hear when something is being squeezed, omitted or shifted in pitch. They know the difference between assumed detail and layering info, between hollow and halo.” <<<

NOW, this IS getting interesting !! Your description fits Peter and me extremely well.

>>> “I can tell if someone is an expert or not by the way they talk about music. There are certain things that we pick up along the way that can only be experienced, and when experienced comes the knowledge and wisdom. Someone who is creating chatter may have the power to persuade, but that doesn't make him or her a refined listener.” <<<

Ditto !!

Experts in ‘listening’, in my book, are also people who when they ‘spot’ anomalies, i.e things which happen with ‘sound’ and which need investigating because their very presence challenge conventional electronic and acoustic theories, they HAVE to investigate. They actually can’t “move on” because ‘anomalies’ show that ‘there is something going on’ which affects ‘sound’ !! AND, if one is seriously and professionally involved in audio, then ANYTHING which affects sound requires investigating. When I questioned you about ‘anomalies’, and how you investigate such happenings, your general answer was :-

>>> “and the "why it happened" doesn't matter as much as tuning and moving on, but in each case we do talk about what happened and explore the technical and explanations to the degree the listener likes us to.” <<<

OF COURSE the “why it happened” DOES matter. If you don’t explore and try to find explanations as to why anomalies appear, how on earth can one progress with knowing what one is doing ?
What governs “talking about” and “exploring explanations” should NOT be confined to “the degree the listener likes us to” but should be irrespective of what the listener likes and should be an intense desire to ‘get to the bottom of what is going on ”.

A GOOD listener and designer of audio equipment would NEVER say that they do something “to a degree the listener likes us to “ !!!!!!

>>> “To me they're not an expert unless they have gotten to the place where they realize all recordings are different and they have learned how to get the most out of each. This takes experience and knowing, and the guy who sits there saying his system can tell a good or bad recording is not one I would use as someone to produce proof.” <<<

I agree. And I agree with your general outlook that the majority of people are not getting (hearing) just what their Hi Fi system is capable of producing – whoever designed and made it and however much it cost.

Regards,
May Belt,
PWB Electronics.

Author still TBD!

Michael wrote,

"Do you and Peter have some knowledge that I have been missing, well tell me. Start a thread and tell me, I'm into learning. So far I haven't seen you guys do anything that tuning can't do, but we're all ears, and as you have seen I did some of yours and Geoff's suggestions and reported on them."

Of course no one has knowledge you don't have. Now you're just being silly.

Logical Fallacy No. 27: Me and my homeboys never heard of it so it doesn't exist.

Cheers,

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

PS: Stovepiping, Stovepiping, Stovepiping, Stovepiping, yeah! Love that song.....

That's weird, I suppose all the the twenty of so CD treatments must be employing the placebo effect. Instead of guessing, for good reading on CD fluids and sprays, check out Clark Johnsen's article Lotions Eleven that was published some years ago in Positive Feedback Online. I guess this has all the makings of another he said she said debate and demands for proof. In defense of CD treatments they should be evaluated one at a time and not lumped all together. Some things make you bigger some things make you small, the things that Mother gives you don't do anything at all. By the way, the cream you refer to, is that the Belt's cream? Cause of it is, that particular CD treatment is independent of the signal anywhere in the system, including in the CD player. Alas, your anti tweak stance is looking more and more like just another Strawman Argument.

Cheers,

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

>>> “This would explain the results with the equipment creams and finishes as well. Different treatments will flavor the existing signal, mostly through dampening the resonant characters of the materials.” <<<

I have implied before that you don’t have a good workable understanding as to what ‘is going on’. I am going to imply that even more strongly now. You say that you are only talking about CDs – that you’re not including vinyl. THAT is a major problem because you seem to be ignoring anomalies – and what those anomalies are telling you – correction – should be telling you.

You say that different ‘treatments’ are ‘flavouring’ the existing signal – through dampening the resonant characteristics of the materials”. The SAME chemical applied to the label side of a CD and the SAME chemical applied to the labels of LPs give a similar improvement in the sound. How on earth can a chemical, on the labels, “flavour” the existing signal on an LP. The anomaly of this SAME effect on the sound from an LP gives you clues. CLUES which you don’t seem to want to address. To add yet another anomaly. If you have a video cassette in a PASSIVE video player, passively sitting on a shelf in your listening room – not connected to the audio system, not even connected to the AC supply, just sitting there, passively. If you apply the same chemical to the plastic video cassette case and place it back in the passive video machine, sitting passively on a shelf – you will get an identical and further improvement in the sound as you had with the ‘treated’ CD. Explain THAT with your “‘flavouring’ the existing signal – through dampening the resonant characteristics of the materials” explanation. There IS NO signal travelling through the video cassette – it is PASSIVE.

You can apply a colour (the best colour in our opinion is purple/violet) to the outer edge of a CD and gain an improvement in the sound but you can ALSO apply the SAME colour to the edge of an LP and get an identical improvement in the sound !! A colour, added to LPs as well as CDs, cannot possibly be ‘flavouring’ the existing signal – through dampening the resonant characteristics of the materials’ !! Similarly, as I have described above. You can apply the same colour to the edges of the passive plastic video cassette, in the passive video player, sitting passively on the shelf in your listening room and gain an identical improvement in the sound !!!

There IS NO signal going through the passive video cassette or through the passive video player so your explanation of ‘flavouring the existing signal – through dampening the resonant characteristics of the materials’ – no longer holds water.
Then, with the demagnetising process. This process is NOT adding something – NOT ‘flavouring’ the existing signal – through dampening the resonant characteristics of the materials’. The demagnetising process is correcting something which is already adverse.

>>> “There is talk here that something needs to be done with the CD's and LP's to bring out more of the signal down stream. The source already has all that it will carry, and (at least in the case of the CD) adding more reduces the amount of content, not the other way around.” <<<

Again, Michael, applying a chemical to the label side of CDs and to the labels of LPs is NOT reducing the amount of content on the CDs or LPs !!!!!!

>>> “The CD's stock have as much music on them as they can have. If you add anything to the physical disc itself you are not going to add more music. I had to think about this as I listened.” <<<

Of course one cannot add additional musical score of Dvorak’s New World to what is already on the disc. One cannot add more violin players, or more trumpeters over and above what is already encoded on the disc. But what CAN happen is because of adverse things happening whilst spinning the discs (both LPs and CDs) we (human beings) are not able to RESOLVE correctly the ALL information that IS available on the disc !!!!!!!!!!!!! And, more of that already encoded information CAN BE resolved better with many of the treatments people have used and described over some 30 years !!

Are you actually saying to such as John Atkinson and Michael Fremer when describing the improvements they heard after demagnetising that what was happening was that ‘something’ was ‘flavouring’ the existing signal – through dampening the resonant characteristics of the materials’ ?

Is that the explanation you are giving to all the many thousands of people who ‘demagnetise’ CDs, LPs, cables, etc ??

To quote Clark Johnsen from the discussion in Stereophile Forum :-

>>> “You might say I'm jumping late into this thread. On the other hand you might say I discovered "CD demagnetizing" so I have been a silent early arrival. Back in the late-Eighties the crew and I were all rah-rah over tape demagnetizers from Rat Shack and Benjamin. I even had Joe (Mr. B) over for a demo! There was no question among any of us that the damn things reduced the enharmonic trash that so disfigures CD sound. “ <<<

One of the many who you are trying to say that what they are all hearing is :-

The ‘flavouring’ of the existing signal – through dampening the resonant characteristics of the materials’

What I think is happening Michael is that you have dug yourself into a hole by previously STRONGLY stating that you prefer to use ‘untreated’ discs and correct any problems later by various types of ‘tuning’. You will not now be able ever to describe any ‘treatment’ YOU have found, which when applied to actual CDs, improves the sound – because that would show all who say that CDs have a problem (or problems) which need correcting to be right and to have been right all along !!

However, where we ALL agree is that people are NOT hearing (resolving) all the information available to them – either from the actual discs or from their audio equipment or from their listening environment.

Regards,
May Belt,
PWB Electronics.

Michael. Your heading was a good one i.e “Workable understanding”.

>>> “If something is making a difference in the sound it is not passive, but part of the signal. I'm a little shocked by your statement of the video player being passive May. There are a lot of listeners reading this you do know? If they read you are saying something contributes to the sound and turn around and say it is passive,” <<<

ALL engineers call a component which is not carrying a signal a PASSIVE component. It is there, in the system, but is not carrying a signal until it is needed to. As in a component in a pre-amplifier which WOULD/COULD handle the signal from the tuner when needed to! If there is no tuner connected, then it does nothing until required to. In engineering terms – it is a PASSIVE component. The word PASSIVE differentiates from actively carrying a signal. Martin Colloms in the UK did an excellent article on PASSIVE components in audio equipment and their effect on the sound and he, like anyone else has to, had to use the word PASSIVE in order to make sure that people did not confuse components which carry the signal with components which are PASSIVE i e NO signal !!! So, the PASSIVE video player which is not carrying an audio signal is a PASSIVE item in engineering terms. However, it IS there, in the room, and therefore contributing to the problem of the ‘sound’ of the audio.

However, Michael , you are stating that the passive video player, in the room is “PART OF THE SIGNAL”. It is this word SIGNAL which you keep using which I keep reacting to. Do you mean that the passive video player is having an effect on ‘the audio SIGNAL’ travelling through the audio system ? If the passive video player is having an effect on the sound, then it is having an effect on the SOUND – not on the audio signal. Or are you saying that it IS affecting the actual audio signal travelling through the audio system ? Or are you referring to the passive video player affecting the actual audio signal because of any vibrations it could be causing by being in the room ? Or, are you referring to the ACOUSTICS of the sound in the room as THE SIGNAL ? That the passive video player is affecting the acoustics – carrying the musical information – and therefore affecting the SIGNAL (the acoustics) ?

My definition of the word PASSIVE – in the world of audio – is something not carrying an audio signal. Now, I have ALSO said repeatedly that EVERYTHING in the listening environment is a problem with regards to getting excellent sound. So, Yes, the passive video player, by just being present in the room, IS contributing to the SOUND OF THE MUSIC. I repeat – to the SOUND – i.e to the musical information !! As is the PASSIVE central heating radiator. As are the PASSIVE electric lights. As are the PASSIVE light switches. As are all the PASSIVE CD discs lined up on the storage shelves. As are the many PASSIVE remote controls belonging to various items of equipment, even though that equipment may not be in use. Quite NORMAL in the general domestic listening room !!

>>> “For example my extreme listeners wouldn't even have a "passive" video player in their rooms. They would only have things in their rooms that were being used as part of the setup. Also if the player were going to be in the room there are tons, literally tons, of ways to make it change the sound of the system. This is basic working understanding to a Tunee May.” <<<

Yes, I agree that there are tons of ways to ‘treat’ the video player to make it change the sound of the system. BUT, Michael, you have now changed your terminology to “changing the SOUND” of the system by ‘treating the video player’ – not changing the SIGNAL of the system. Will you please make your mind up. Instead of giving me a lecture on what might or might not “affect the signal”, please enlighten us on what you actually mean by the use of the word SIGNAL !! As in your “the video player is part of the signal “. Is it “part of the signal” nor isn’t it ?

>>> “school or tell us about these clues are things we have figured out and dealt with long ago” <<<

Michael, you say you have already ‘figured out’ the clues I keep referring to. So, tell us your conclusions as to how or why the Schumann Resonance device can ‘change’ the sound. How applying a certain chemical can ‘change’ the sound. How numerous and different crystals, in the listening room, can change the sound.

You also say that YOU “demag” in one sentence and, in another sentence you say “about these clues are things we have figured out and dealt with long ago”.

Did you miss the lengthy (well over 30 pages) discussion on the Stereophile Forum on the subject of demagnetising ? The whole range of discussion (with many audio professionals participating) ranged from Ethan Winer (a manufacturer of room acoustic products) who implied fraud on the manufacturer of a demagnetiser to John Atkinson and Michael Fremer who had reported HEARING the beneficial effect. No-one had a definitive answer as to WHY this treatment could change the sound. So, Michael, as you say that you have ‘figured it out and dealt with the subject long ago” perhaps you could put the whole matter to rest by telling us all YOUR “figuring out” !!

>>> “Vinyl is a different physical animal than a CD and I wouldn't want to mix the two.” <<<

Yes, they are different PHYSICAL animals but the effect of applying a chemical to BOTH is an IDENTICAL effect. So, if the effect is identical, then they ARE mixed !!!!!!!!!

The effect of applying a demagnetiser to BOTH gives a similar effect on the sound – so if the effect is identical, then they ARE mixed !!! Or, Michael, are you saying that there could be TWO different explanations for the same application and for the same result ?

So, can we get to a “Workable understanding” and we might be able to progress further.

You said earlier :-

>>> “Geoff and May. I’m really not your enemy, I'm really not.” <<<

I don’t regard you as an enemy, Michael. I also know that the things you have tried and heard improvements in the sound with, you have done from experimentation. And NOT from just reading the conventional electronic and acoustic text books either – but from observing what happens to the sound. I fully understand because Peter and I have been down exactly the same paths of discovery.

>>> “as a collective of all the things I've been able to do and be a part of I have found that there is yet another chapter to this hobby. It's the tuning part.” <<<

Yes, I understand. But what is the tuning doing ? Yes, it is altering the ‘sound’ and you would not be doing it if it did not give you the improvements in the sound you are looking for. But you are all over the place. One minute you say you are ‘tuning’ by altering the SIGNAL. The next minute you say you are ‘tuning’ by dealing with VIBRATIONS and yet more VIBRATIONS (as you keep pointing out forcibly) VIBRATIONS are everywhere. You seem to want everything to be explained by the concept of ‘dealing with vibrations’. Then you are dealing with acoustics – with your own acoustic products. That is THREE explanations for starters. On the Audio Asylum site there is someone who has probably done as many (if not even more) listening experiments as you have and HE has ‘dealing with RF’ as the explanation for most of the changes in the sound he can make. That is now FOUR different explanations for ‘changes’ to the sound. But, not one of those can explain the effect on the sound by such as the Schumann Resonance device. One of the anomalies I keep talking about, Michael. One of the clues !!!!

Which of your ‘dealing with the signal’, ‘dealing with vibrations’, dealing with ‘acoustics’ and the other person’s ‘dealing with RF’ explanations cover the fact that the Schumann Resonance device affects the SOUND ?

>>> “or tell us about these clues are things we have figured out and dealt with long ago” <<<

You say “they are things you have figured out and dealt with long ago”. Pray tell us the result of your ‘figuring out’.

>>> “May, you keep coming at us as if you have something new or we have not done or understand but every time you do we keep seeing that you and Peter are offering us nothing we haven't already explored. I wish you would show us something new, but it's not happening and you trying to school or tell us about these clues are things we have figured out and dealt with long ago.” <<<

You understand the Schumann Resonance device do you, Michael ?

You say you do !! And that I can’t tell you anything you have not already explored.

Regards,
May Belt
PWB Electronics.

To mean a component that doesn't introduce a gain stage into the signal path. I've never thought of it in terms that preclude it from being IN the signal path. That would seem to suggest a tweak as opposed to a passive component.

>>> “I've always thought of "passive"

To mean a component that doesn't introduce a gain stage into the signal path. I've never thought of it in terms that preclude it from being IN the signal path. That would seem to suggest a tweak as opposed to a passive component.” <<<

So, Catch 22. What would you call components which are wired into the circuit of a pre-amplifier – waiting, in position, for a tuner to be connected, waiting, in position, for a CD player to be connected (when only a vinyl record player is being used) so that they are available to ‘handle’ the signal from the tuner when a tuner is connected, so that they are available to ‘handle’ the signal from a CD player when a CD player is connected ? An Active component (carrying an actual audio signal when there IS NO input to that particular component) or a Passive component – waiting patiently for something being connected so that they can do the job they have been inserted for ?

A tweak or a passive component ? A TWEAK ???????????? Surely not ?

Regards,
May Belt,
PWB Electronics.

I'm thinking in terms of things like passive preamps that do enter the signal path, though certainly not every part of it at all times.

>>> “On the passive thing. I don't look at anything as being passive that has an affect on the system. I'm not talking about a passive component as such.” <<<

Now you have changed your terminology again !!

Just TWO days ago you were saying that something passive is “part of the SIGNAL”.

>>> “If something is making a difference in the sound it is not passive, but part of the signal.” <<<

THAT is why I challenged you. I was not challenging the changes you can make with your ‘tuning’ techniques – I was challenging your generalisation of something like a passive video player “being part of the SIGNAL”.

NOW you have changed it to “having an effect on the SYSTEM”.

I agree. THAT is the point I was trying to make. It has an effect on the SOUND – not on what is generally known as the signal !!

>>> “Don't mean to be dismissive but I already covered the Schumann Resonance device, and the other products that have been mentioned here.” <<<

I don’t see anything on your internet site about your ‘covering the Schumann Resonance device’.

>>> “But May if your going to ask questions then you need to be polite enough to look at the answers givin so the person your talking to doesn't have to keep repeating themself.” <<<

I would love to if I could find them on your site.

>>> “But please understand that if I say "we have covered this" I'm not saying it to hear myself talk. I'm saying it because we have.” <<<

Honestly, I have tried to find them !! Although I do admit that my SEARCHING skills via computer are not my best skills. Perhaps you could help by giving me the link. I AM specially interested in YOUR take of the effect on the sound of the Schumann Resonance device !!!

>>> “You don't need to keep telling us to jump on yours, we get it, but you need to accept if we are saying we have been able to do what you do through tuning there comes a point where you either need to try tuning and find out for yourself or deal with the fact that we truly have.” <<<

Really ??? You can do exactly what we do through ‘tuning’, can you ?? THAT is some mighty claim. Never mind being able to do ‘what we do through tuning’. Please explain how you are doing the same thing as the Schumann Resonance device – by ‘tuning’. If you don’t want to explain it via this forum, then could you give me the link on your home page ?

Regards,
May Belt
PWB Electronics.

If the component is 100% passive, i.e. not even plugged into the wall outlet, what difference does it make if it is a VCR or a box of electronic parts (or even a jewelry box, for that matter)?

>>> “If the component is 100% passive, i.e. not even plugged into the wall outlet, what difference does it make if it is a VCR or a box of electronic parts (or even a jewelry box, for that matter)?” <<<

If it is 100% passive, it doesn’t make any difference whether the item is a VCR or a mirror, or a central heating radiator or a light fitting or even a jewelry box.

Michael had challenged my use of the word PASSIVE in relation to something just sitting on a shelf and he followed that challenge with the words:-

>>> “If something is making a difference in the sound it is not passive, but part of the signal.” <<<

To which I challenged him on his use of the terminology “part of the signal” describing a passive object.

Now YOU have had to use the word PASSIVE (i.e 100% passive) to distinguish something not being active. You see the problem ?

Michael actually answered that ‘it is not passive, it is part of the signal’ !!

Michael has NOW answered that when he uses the word “signal”, he means “to include all the energy from all the three parts of audio acoustical, mechanical and electrical”

>>> “to those who are not holding to some of the same values as the audiophile community does. We look at signal as "signal", this would include all the energy from all three parts of audio acoustical, mechanical and electrical.” <<<

So, to come back to YOUR query. A 100% passive mirror, or a 100% central heating radiator, in the listening room, is passive in your’s and my book, but in Michael’s meaning it is passive, yes, but >>>”He looks at signal as "signal", this would include all the energy from all three parts of audio acoustical, mechanical and electrical.” <<<

I completely agree that everything, in the listening environment, is involved in the listening experience but, it is still debatable whether you or I would say the descriptive words “it is part of the signal”. Would you in relation to such as the jewelry box ?

What then happens if people want to actually talk about ‘something affecting the actual audio signal traveling through the audio equipment’ ? Is that the ‘signal’ ?

Regards,
May Belt,
PWB Electronics.