michael green wrote:

The approach you take to tweaking will do one of two things. It will start you down a path to hearing more, or hearing less. Many times in this hobby (happens to all of us) we will hear something in our system that gets our attention. Let's use sloppy bass for example. Boomy bass is an issue most run into sometime in their hobby. This can be recording dependent, but it also can be a symptom of the system being out of balance. When you hear the bass booming you have choices. These choices run in threes, acoustical mechanical and electrical. All three of these choices will make changes to the bass. I recommend to listeners to study these three before they get too far into their tweaking, here's why.

One thing about tweaking is it's not hard to get focused on one area and try to make it compensate for another. For example, a lot of guys will try to make the amp and speakers over play the room. Instead of turning the room into the speaker, they will try to tighten up the sound of components. With most high end audio components they are already over tight and tightening them up more will start to give you a squeezed sound. Same is true with speakers. Most heavy speakers are locked into a sound and if you put them on the wrong floor or material or stand for them they will start to sound thin. At first someone might listen and say "this is tighter" but in the long run as you listen to more music, and if you reference other systems, you will hear that part of the music is missing in yours. This is because you tried to fix a room problem with the components.

It works the other way around as well. Many times someone will try to fix a component problem with the room. A good rule of thumb I have always tried to follow is

"DON'T KILL THE SOUND"

I have found that if I kill the sound in any area of my system acoustical, mechanical or electrical I will loose part of the audio signal. There's a huge difference between balancing the sound and killing it, and if you use one part of the audio trilogy to over come a problem with another part, you will loose part of the music and begin to go down a path of trading sound instead of revealing it. This is very important cause it's a trap that can burn up years of listening and sometimes, many times the hobby becomes one of trade offs instead of letting recordings opening up.

So it's very important if your going to get serious about this that you learn what each part of the audio trilogy means and what it will contribute to the overall sound. There is no way around dealing with the three parts, cause they all are equals. You can have the greatest system in the world but if it's sitting in the wrong environment a boom box in the right environment will sound better. Same goes with the electric part and mechanical.

michael green
MGA/RoomTune

The fear of over-damping has kept more audiophiles back at square one than just about any other thing. Even the Japanese audiophile company Acoustic Revive cautions against "over dumping" when using their smokey quartz crystals and has a special paper backing for the crystals to avoid over damping. Of course it's possible to kill the sound. Is that supposed to be some sort of News Flash? Nobody said it was going to be easy. The problem is that most audiophiles are unfamiliar with the wide variety of damping solutions out there and just don't know know where to start. You got your rubber type stuff, Sorbothane, gels, foams, cork, viscoelastic material, clay, Blu Tac, bubble wrap, DYNAMAT, EAR stuff, all kinds of things, both DIY and commercial. Experimentation is the order of the day, I would focus on viscoelastic material and constrain it. This method avoids the pitfalls of storing energy and is fairly easy to implement around transformers and CD transports! even on speaker cabinets and on shelves that hold audio components. For micro vibration applications such as capacitors, CD trays, electron tubes, Marigo VTS tuning dots (constrained layer dampers) are just the ticket. And so tiny! The only thing to fear of over damping is fear itself.

Cheers,

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

Michael, in all seriousness, you just haven't stumbled on the right damping material or device yet. Rubber and many other similar materials stink. Sonex, Rubber, lead, EAR blue grommets, Dynamat, certain silicon based products, even cork in some applications, I don't like a lot of things.

Geoff Kait
Machina Dramatica

I like that ... Stumble versus tune.

Did you miss the key part in the DIY project that involved being able to change the sound by adjusting the bracing. That's the key take away.

toledo wrote:

I like that ... Stumble versus tune.

Did you miss the key part in the DIY project that involved being able to change the sound by adjusting the bracing. That's the key take away.

Backfire Effect - when presented with clear logical arguments the Tuners become more convinced that they MUST be right. Nowhere is this more evident than with damping and isolation. This is why I am taking the view these days that you guys are a branch off the main stream of audiophiles. And a dogmatic one. You claim to be great listeners but in reality you just won't listen! See the irony?

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

Geoff,

We have suggested you research tuning to get more informed. There is some commonality in your approach and tuning and I cannot fathom why you would not do so.

Once you see and hear a well setup tuned system and understand the methodology, it might make more sense to you. Dampening does not fit into this methodology. How many times does this need to be reiterated.

Until then, your comments will be have to be considered more schoolyard bluster than anything else.

Upon reflecting on your comments over the past few months, I am reminded of how science evolves theories. They start out with wildly complicated ideas and fudge factors to account for discrepancies. These eventually boil down to simpler and more unifying concepts that address the overall issue. Does this sound familiar? Which approach is closer to that, tweaking or tuning. Tuning is based on a unified concept and tweaking is more akin to fudge factors.

toledo wrote:

Geoff,

We have suggested you research tuning to get more informed. There is some commonality in your approach and tuning and I cannot fathom why you would not do so.

Once you see and hear a well setup tuned system and understand the methodology, it might make more sense to you. Dampening does not fit into this methodology. How many times does this need to be reiterated.

Until then, your comments will be have to be considered more schoolyard bluster than anything else.

Upon reflecting on your comments over the past few months, I am reminded of how science evolves theories. They start out with wildly complicated ideas and fudge factors to account for discrepancies. These eventually boil down to simpler and more unifying concepts that address the overall issue. Does this sound familiar? Which approach is closer to that, tweaking or tuning. Tuning is based on a unified concept and tweaking is more akin to fudge factors.

You wrote,

Upon reflecting on your comments over the past few months, I am reminded of how science evolves theories. They start out with wildly complicated ideas and fudge factors to account for discrepancies. These eventually boil down to simpler and more unifying concepts that address the overall issue. Does this sound familiar?

No it doesn't sound familiar because it's not true.

Now, you know I'm not one to criticize but your statement is loaded with more holes than Swiss cheese. Science does no such thing as you say Science usually starts out with an observation then comes up with a theory to explain the observation. There is nothing at all in Science that requires or even prefers complicated theories. Maybe that's what they teach English majors, who knows.

Everything should be as simple as possible but no simpler. A. Einstein

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

No text

Geoff,

Thanks for making my point ... Simple unifying concept (or should I thank Mr Einstein)
I know you are trying to infer that oversimplification creates its own problems, but in this case is pure conjecture without any observations (listening to a tuned system perhaps) on your part.

I don't see how your explanation of theory evolution, differs from mine. Thanks for reinforcing, also.

Initial theories are not designed to be complicated, this is how the initial observation is viewed and explained and sometimes in very complicated ways and, when possible, simplified as further observations are made.

I think you're refusing to see the analogy to current audio "best practices" some of which you are advocate of (dampening and vibration control.)

The simplification process is underway and you go out of your way to tell others they are doing it wrong.

Debating theories is part of the simplification process, but, generally opposing theorists understand the theory they are opposing (at least you would hope so.)

BTW, i'm a computer science major, not that it matters to your silly putdowns.

Like I said, I feel like i'm in a schoolyard.

toledo wrote:

Geoff,

Thanks for making my point ... Simple unifying concept (or should I thank Mr Einstein)
I know you are trying to infer that oversimplification creates its own problems, but in this case is pure conjecture without any observations (listening to a tuned system perhaps) on your part.

I don't see how your explanation of theory evolution, differs from mine. Thanks for reinforcing, also.

Initial theories are not designed to be complicated, this is how the initial observation is viewed and explained and sometimes in very complicated ways and, when possible, simplified as further observations are made.

I think you're refusing to see the analogy to current audio "best practices" some of which you are advocate of (dampening and vibration control.)

The simplification process is underway and you go out of your way to tell others they are doing it wrong.

Debating theories is part of the simplification process, but, generally opposing theorists understand the theory they are opposing (at least you would hope so.)

BTW, i'm a computer science major, not that it matters to your silly putdowns.

Like I said, I feel like i'm in a schoolyard.

You have a vivid imagination. I did not say anything about a simplification process or any such thing. I wish you wouldn't put words in my mouth. What I said has to do with observation and explanation of the observation.

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

Geoff,

Quote:

You have a vivid imagination. I did not say anything about a simplification process or any such thing. I wish you wouldn't put words in my mouth. What I said has to do with observation and explanation of the observation.

I am not exactly sure what you are referring to but, I suspect it was related to my comment about your Einstein quote.

In actuality there is doubt that this quote can be attributed to Einstein and it's meaning can be interpreted in various ways.

I chose the "make it as simple as possible but not too simple to cause problems" which seems to fits your arguments that tuning is over simplifying and ignoring key elements. Just for the record, nothing is ignored in tuning.

Btw, I don't think you understood my original post when I was referring to how some theories evolve and not the origin of a theory.

I do appreciate that you didn't dispute that tuning uses an evolved simple unifying methodology to design a system .... We're making progress on this whole dialog thing, huh ;)

My Einstein quote had nothing, zero, zilch, nada to do with Tuning. I was only responding to your comment about scientific theories and complexity. Actually I never said or at least never meant to say Tuning was oversimplified. What I did say is that Tuning Overlooks, ignores or dismisses some obviously very fundamental issues with sound reproduction. You guys are attempting to portray Tuning as a complete methodology. I'm here to tell you it's not.

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

Geoff,

Why put the quotes in if they are not part of your argument and overall thought process. Overlooking elements in the quest for simplicity is what that quote means.

I fail to see how you are able to make your determinations of ignoring or dismissing issues without full knowledge of what tuning is.

Once you understand the methodology and observe a tuned system, your opinions would have more weight.

At that point we will have done a full circle and will be left with observations aka listening and referencing being the sole determinant.

Funny how we always end up back to listening, hmmm ;)

toledo wrote:

Geoff,

Why put the quotes in if they are not part of your argument and overall thought process. Overlooking elements in the quest for simplicity is what that quote means.

I fail to see how you are able to make your determinations of ignoring or dismissing issues without full knowledge of what tuning is.

Once you understand the methodology and observe a tuned system, your opinions would have more weight.

At that point we will have done a full circle and will be left with observations aka listening and referencing being the sole determinant.

Funny how we always end up back to listening, hmmm ;)

Nobody could be more impressed than I am about low tech approaches to audio. I applaud you guys. I am also a big fan of going back in time, like to the 80s like you guys if necessary as long as it's worthwhile. Einstein also said, so it is said, everything's relative. For guys like yourself who was all frustrated with his sound and all I'm sure this tuning thing was just the ticket out of that audio hell.

Cheers,

Geoff I said it would be fun, I didn't say who for Kait
Machina Dynamica

Michael wrote,

"As a listener and tweaker and tunee, I would have to say that Toledo pretty much runs circles around you Geoff. Maybe you forgot but Toledo actually has a stereo system hooked up in his room and listens to it daily, whereas you have not a stereo hooked up in your room for over 7 years, and you decided to hang it up "and never looking back". So here you come up and call people names and put up pics showing your mentally, you suggest people do things on the fly without you ever listening to them and then you call people low tech who are obviously way beyond a guy who doesn't even have a stereo systems setup in his own listening room. That's a little scary at best."

Have you suffered memory loss? Maybe add try adding fish to your diet. I have a high end headphone system that comprises Sennheiser 600s, Woo Audio WA6 all tube SET amplifier with '52 Sylvania 6SN7s and '42 Tung Sol 5U4G coke bottle rectifier. Source is fully modded Oppo 103 from Ric Schultz at Electronic Visionary Systems. Cabling by Analysis Plus and Nordost. I have developed at least ten products in the last three or four years, and some were even developed before I assembled my current system. Lol.

Remember, eat more fish.

Where I come from the streets don't all stop at the edge of town.

I suspect you probably meant to say, "That's a little scary at least."

Cheers,

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

Dunno what your problem is, jealousy one supposes. Maybe you're just being intentionally dense. I am used to people misinterpreting what I say on the Internet. What else is new?

As Quint says to the other dude in reference to the shark in the movie Jaws, "He's either really smart or really dumb."

Cheers, Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

"I am used to people misinterpreting what I say on the Internet. What else is new?"

Your failure then is clear communication.

Or put another way, you succeed in willful obfuscation.

Ain't my fault, buddy boy. I have a sneaking suspicion it's the education system.

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

Even the rocket scientists can't figure you out.

It's been pointed out again and again that you don't have much to say, and what you say doesn't make much sense.

!. I have products.

2. Buy them.

Now you two nitwits knock it off before I clunk your heads together.

Cheers,

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

This is what you do best, Geoff!

ChrisS wrote:

This is what you do best, Geoff!

For being such a good sport you can have this to use for your avatar. No strings attached.

Cheers,

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

It's called "Reaction of a common-sense guy when his horse tells him about Geoff's tweaks".

Finding those "strings" of how you think amongst all your words makes reading your posts most intriguing.

I took me half a page and about five (or was that six) posts to finally make him admit he misconstrued May Belt's affirmations on using her own tweaks. And when he did it he was not apologetic but rather had the reaction of a kid caught steeling ice cream from the freezer. I know old age bring people back to childhood but at least kids have limited Internet access.

Not so much what Geoff says, because if you read closely, there's not much there. It's how he thinks that's most interesting. Just follow his pattern.

But still he's a living example of "fuzzy logic" :)

michael green wrote:

Geoff Kait

The man without a home audio listening room setup speaks again. Do you readers understand that the guy in the center of all this stiring that goes on, doesn't even have a listening room stereo to compare with, to design with or even to debate with? You guys do realize this is going on right? He's talking about things you are listening to and causing stirs and hasn't even had a listening room audio setup for 7 years. I totally appreciate that he turned some guys on to an old tweak that has been around for 30 years, but he turns right around and dumps on the same guys because they found his tweaks to do something different than his claims.

I don't mind if someone wants to talk to me about stereo but please at least have one.

michael green
MGA/RoomTune

Since when did a headphone system stop being a stereo? Any who the hell are you to look down your nose on anyone who has chosen it as their method of enjoying music and evaluating changes to their system?

You need to get your narcissistic head out of your own ass.

You'll wkow that Geoff has plenty of tricks that are supposed to change the room response. So that makes it legit to ask how one can talk about room response without having a proper system for in-room listening.

That's on his opening page. If his stuff doesn't work for somebody, they risk nothing. Well, maybe postage and a little time trying them.

I know nothing of his experience developing his products or what sort of systems he has utilized over his years of enjoying audio, but where he has ended up certainly wasn't where he started and if it works for someone, more power to them.

It's not that uncommon for people to gravitate more toward the "elegantly simple" as JA calls it, as they get older and more experienced.

Catch,

Thats fine if Geoff gravitates to headphone listening for his personal listening and has products that he developed when he had a full system, although you would hope he would stay up to date on trends. Who's knows, actually, when he came out with those acoustic products.. I would have to look at the web archives to see what his web pages looked like 7-10 years ago ( if he had a web presence then.)

Just checked and frog in water, white poppy resonator introed to web in 2010, temple bell resonator and meanie wall dots in 2011 and I stopped at that point. Nothing accoustic before then as far as I can tell unless you consider his clock accoustic .. I only checked the price lists, so maybe they are somewhere else..who knows. It doesn't really matter to my main point below.

The conflict arises when he claims other techniques are low tech or cultish or any other dismissive statements.

He positions himself as an expert in all things audio but has neither the inclination nor the means to investigate these other methods.

How can one take the opinions of someone like that serious .. and he has been called out on it.

This is especially relevant to tuning since the basis of the method is the balancing of three key areas..electrical, mechanical and accoustic.

michael green wrote:

I'd like to put this in context.

Geoff said

"There is no doubt that speakers, when I had them, are much more capable soundstage-wise than headphones; that's certainly one of the big challenges with headphones - to get as big and open and transparent and "realistic" a soundstage as possible. But I wouldn't say I was trying to get the soundstage my speakers, which were Fultons, had."

he continues

"I went from Fulton Nuances to Sennheiser HD600s six years ago and never looked back."

My question is, does this sound like someone who is qualified to give room acoustic advice, or be referencing his in-room sound with others who do have an in-room system?

michael green
MGA/RoomTune

Geez, you act like room acoustics is some big mystery. It's not. Get over it! Every Yutz with ears who hasn't been asleep the last twenty five years knows all about comb filter effect, Helmholtz resonators, tiny little bowl acoustic resonators, diffusers, absorbers, Mpingo discs, SteinMusic Harmonizers, Ultra Tweeters, Schumann Frequency generators, Shakti Hallographs, Acoustic Revive Smakey Quartz crystals, Brilliant Pebbles crystals, clever little clocks, bowls of water. Unless you've been living in a cave the past 25 or 30 years. Wake up and smell the coffee!!

You and your industry types. Don't you even know It's not who you know, it's what you know. Hel-loo!

Geoff gee, did I really take theoretical physics in school? Kait
Machina Dynamica

How can I get a money-back guarantee on his (in)famous "teleportation tweak" over the phone?
Should I just call him and say it didn't work so he better refund my $60? Or should I replay the noises back over the phone, as in "returning the goods"? Or, well, should I request another phone call with "cancelling tones" to get my refund?

Actually, you're asking the wrong question. The real question is what can you do about it as a disgruntled customer if you find out it hurts the sound. I'm not saying this has actually happened, just hypothetically. The 30 day money back guarantee applies to all of my products including the Teleportation Tweak. On a related subject I have a policy of not selling to forum members. You know, what with the conflict of interest and everything.

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

And the answer is? Do you offer a "reversal sequence" or does the customer bear all the risk?

The customer bears all the risk.

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

geoffkait wrote:

The customer bears all the risk.

I wouldn't trust a surgeon to cut me if he used no knives at the table, so why should I trust you to "fix" my system since you don't seem to have one?

No text

Considering the Hooterville crowd already believe in being able to hear what a system sounds like based on photos traveling over the internet? If sound can be teleported through pictures then surely it can be teleported by phone?

And you could read the answer: if it works (but in a bad way) you can claim your $60 back but you're left with a bad-sounding $,$$$ (or even $$,$$$) system. Methink Geoff should buy mandatory malpractice insurance.