Yes, Michael's comments are sometimes "long and winding roads" but at least there is information to be gathered from them. OTOH, most of your comments are short but devoid of any useable information.
While I admit I'm not always in the mood to read the entire post that Michael wrote, I do select what is of most interest and leave the rest for further reading. Yes, maybe the information density could be improved and the redundancy cut by a margin, but I prefer them to your rants & raves.

You know what? Three good ideas in a 200 word post are still better than no idea in a 20 word post... and even in a one word post, since 0/any positive number still equals zero. Now of course you could try writing zero length posts, which would at least leave a reasonable doubt about the value of your ideas... as in 0/0.

Considering they are coming from someone who doesn't know the difference between an electromagnetic field and a magnetic field I take your objections as a compliment.

Have a nice day. You can go back and lie down now. I know you're probably feeling stressed out.

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

Still confusing electrical signals in conductive environments with waves in a vacuum?
Still confusing phase velocity with group velocity in carrier-based media?
Still thinking your gizmos placed on top of the CD player somewhat emit/absorb light generated within the chassis?
Still didn't take your daily Prozac?

Still unable to just keep still and let interested people discuss their hobby?

Geoff,

Actually it is not all about photons and you are trying to simplify things down to the building blocks and picking one of them.
Yes, photons are involved, but so are the electrons in the conductive material. Electrons have mass.

I will consider your arguments technical obfuscation.

So where does this lead us .. Everyone can technically debate all day long on this, and fuel our egos, but it gets us no closer to actually discussing what people hear and their experiences.

iosiP wrote:

Still confusing electrical signals in conductive environments with waves in a vacuum?
Still confusing phase velocity with group velocity in carrier-based media?
Still thinking your gizmos placed on top of the CD player somewhat emit/absorb light generated within the chassis?
Still didn't take your daily Prozac?

Still unable to just keep still and let interested people discuss their hobby?

Wow, someone woke up on the wrong side of the bed. And loaded for bear with lots of Strawman arguments. Glad to see you following Michael's lead on Strawman arguments. Good fellow. I do not confuse any of the things you accuse me of. Those are, dare I say it, Strawman arguments. Check with Michael if you are unsure of the definition.

I can't help noticing you're still confused about the audio signal and it's velocity in copper. Not that I'm surprised by your continued confusion. Have you given any consideration to going back for a subject matter refresh?

An ordinary man has no means of deliverance.

Cheers, Geoff Kait
Machina Dynmics

toledo wrote:

Geoff,

Actually it is not all about photons and you are trying to simplify things down to the building blocks and picking one of them.
Yes, photons are involved, but so are the electrons in the conductive material. Electrons have mass.

I will consider your arguments technical obfuscation.

So where does this lead us .. Everyone can technically debate all day long on this, and fuel our egos, but it gets us no closer to actually discussing what people hear and their experiences.

The electrons as fate would have it are not the audio signal. You fell right into my trap! Good fellow! You have not made a technical argument, you only think you have.

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

Geoff,

You can't have it both ways. First it's about photons and they have no mass and now it's all about the signal. Would you just lay out a concise argument of what you are trying to say, in the entire signal path of a system, since you seem to have it all figured out in a "the science is settled" approach.

toledo wrote:

Geoff,

You can't have it both ways. First it's about photons and they have no mass and now it's all about the signal. Would you just lay out a concise argument of what you are trying to say, in the entire signal path of a system, since you seem to have it all figured out in a "the science is settled" approach.

Sorry, I have already laid out the concise argument. Several times. None so blind that will not see. They didn't teach much hard science in Software college apparently.

Cheers, Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

michael green wrote:

"Analog" indicates something that is mathematically represented by a set of continuous values; for example, the analog clock uses constantly moving hands on a physical clock face, where moving the hands directly alters the information that clock is providing. Thus, an analog signal is one represented by a continuous stream of data, in this case along an electrical circuit in the form of voltage, current or charge changes. Analog signal processing (ASP) then involves physically altering the continuous signal by changing the voltage or current or charge via various electrical means.

A few more for Geoff to explain.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microphone

Oh and Geoff since you want to teach us there are so many more when these are done.

Don't forget to explain how the pressure at the microphone converts to energy, what is this energy and how does it get from the mic to the speaker through each stage.

It's really great of you to do this for us, I'm sure the listeners out there would like to know how this all travels without ever being involved with pressure, current or motion of any type.

Could you also give us the breakdown of copper and explain how the signal enters and exits? Well according to you it doesn't right?

oh boy Mr. Kait can't wait to start

michael green
MGA/RoomTune

See, this is the trouble with you English Major types, you can't see the forest for the trees. It's fun to watch you guys scramble to get some inkling of an idea. Thanks for a nice Sunday's entertainment. I said it would be fun, right, I just didn't say for who.

:-)

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

To let information sink into one ear and freely exit your skull through the other. Only as photons, of course, since it's just vacuum in between.

michael green wrote:

"I can't help noticing you're still confused about the audio signal and it's velocity in copper. Not that I'm surprised by your continued confusion. Have you given any consideration to going back for a subject matter refresh?"

Speaking as a man where the audio signal doesn't have motion, how do you propose Geoff the audio signal starts at one end and appears at the other? Maybe we need to look at this technically advance science of yours.

michael green
MGA/RoomTune

Hey, can you believe it? Another freaking Strawman Argument! Who said the audio signal has no motion? Who's the knucklehead who comes up with your material?

Geoff Kait,

Machina Dynamica

And in the naked light I saw
Ten thousand people, maybe more
People talking without speaking
People hearing without listening
People writing songs that voices never share and no one dared
Disturb the sound of silence

Thanks and reverences to Simon and Garfunkel

No text

iosiP wrote:

And in the naked light I saw
Ten thousand people, maybe more
People talking without speaking
People hearing without listening
People writing songs that voices never share and no one dared
Disturb the sound of silence

Thanks and reverences to Simon and Garfunkel

Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dee
They're throwin' knives into the tree
Two big bags of dead man's bones
Got their noses to the grind stone

Livin' in the Land of Nod
Trustin' their fate to the hands of God
They pass by so silently
Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dee

Well, they're goin' to the country, they're goin' to retire
They're takin' a streetcar named Desire
Lookin' at a window with a pecan pie
Lot of things they'd like they would never buy

Neither of them .want. to turn and run
They're makin' a noise to the Sun
"His Master's Voice is calling me"
Said Tweedle Dum to Tweedle Dee

Thanks to Bob Dylan

;-)

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

Hope you enjoyed your tune using the "mindless matter" tweak!

What's the matter, forget to take the bridge over troubled waters? There is no joy in Mudville today. A tear.....

Cheer up, the view is much better at 40,000 feet

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

michael green wrote:

...I'm glad I'm on this side of the questions and not back on the asking side anymore.

michael green
MGA/RoomTune

wkhanna wrote:

Michael,

Are we to infer from this statement your belief is you have the answers to all the audio questions you have so far pursued?

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

michael green wrote:

Wouldn't that be nice :)

.... we have learned what the record code is about, and have been able to apply a method that works based on using the fundamental forces in balance and harmony. When we say "tuning" we really do mean it. It is "THE" answer and what allows all energy to work together in a "fair exchange".

michael green
MGA/RoomTune

....so Michael....
....does this mean that those of use who are not able to read & utilize this embedded 'code' will not be successful at getting best from our systems?

michael green wrote:

Let me give a simple example & question. Let's say the room the recording was done in is 30' x 30' big with 15' ceilings. Listener "A" might be listening to that recording at the typical 12 X 6 X 8 stage with parts that go bigger or smaller depending. Listener "B" tunes his syatem in to a 30 X 30 X 15 stage, being able to hear and see all the info. Which one would you call the distorted system?

michael green
MGA/RoomTune

You often focus on 'soundstage' as it relates to the presentation of the recording.
From my perspective, soundstage size is only one aspect of many, many characteristics required to produce accurate reproduction of music.
All of them are required to recreate the sense of instruments &/or voices in the room.

Timbre (or tone), pitch (frequency range), dynamic range, space and time are just some of the basic elements.
Simply getting one right, space (soundstage) will not necessarily provide a realistic & satisfying result for many audiophiles.

If I were to chose between a system with a soundstage as big or bigger than the actual recording had, but lacked excellent tonality, pace, clarity, range & dynamics…..
I would take a system with the latter characteristics every time.

Some music is BIG, some music is small……
But first, it must sound like music.

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

michael green wrote:

Bill, I really do get where your coming from and appreciate how you are a gentleman (both you and Dan) with your comments.

michael green
MGA/RoomTune

Hi Michael,

I am glad you take my 'badgering' in the manner it is intended.

Respectfully & speaking only for myself, it is just that your often hyperbolic & lengthy posts are difficult for me to comprehend.

It is as you often say .........us (as in ‘me’) 'engineering' types require a certain amount of rational supportive evidence before we are able to grasp what I will describe as your ‘wholistic’ approach to audio.

At some point in the hopefully not too distant future, Dan & I will purchase one of these ‘low-mass’ CD players & using some of your methods, attempt to duplicate your results.

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

Between soundstage and imaging. You either have one or the other, or you settle for a percentage of both (not to mention the tonal changes). I use to have two marked spots on the floor for my speakers: one for small jazz recordings and another for large scale symphonic works. No fun moving speakers around, but enjoying music takes what it takes. Now you can see why I'm more than willing to use other methods to balance the sound (without changing the tonal character of the system), and if "tuning" offers me this I'm all in!
No I don't want Patricia Barber to sound as if she has a head the size of a pumpkin but I don't like the Boston Philharmonic to play like being forced in an overcrowded Tokyo subway. How do I get "distance" between instruments without blowing each of them out of proportion? Maybe tuning is the answer... or maybe not! Anyway, there is no way to tell before I try, so I prefer to shut up and try than talk and not do. Well yes, there is an investment (as in no free lunch) but then this is FUN, and even if I don't get the results I'm looking for I'll still be able so say "been there, done that", which is more than any tweaker applying strips&creams will be able to claim. It's about participation, my friend, and about taking control over your life and hobby, and this is thrill - this is all about cooking your own hamburger instead of heading to McDo - at least if you don't like it you can always add (or refrain from adding) spices!
Good luck with tuning, I'm a convert and pledging to the unbelievers, so give it a try: I promise it won't hurt and after all it's reversible!

Costin

Costin,

Well said .. It's all about having fun and not locking yourself in.

Hi, I find that my Naim(UK) gear with separate power supply units for each component, which match the component box, have a much more open sound. It costs though, the components cost roughly $8000 each and the power supply in chassis cost about the same. Naim are fanatical about separating and reducing all forms of interference from the sound, and it pays off.

I find this place to be a battle of egos. Michael you talk up your product as being more than the basic system it is, and Geoff you do the same. Absorption, Diffraction and Diffusion delivered via different products still do the same thing - to a certain extent with varying success. However it's sold and delivered, the physics behind it NEVER change. Oh crickey the way you snake oil salesmen talk up your own product! It's fun to watch though...... PS. I am an Acoustical Physicist by profession.

Hi Steven,

What a grand entrance to stereophile. Don't forget to leave your acoustical physicist ego at the door on your way in.

Michael, I ask you here, to show us all your qualifications and experience in this field. I looked up RoomTune and cannot find information on YOU, just promotion of your product and the theories behind it. SECOND - Do you have published verifiable scientific results for your gear? Do you offer your customers any technical data, considering the depth to which you espouse your knowledge do you have your gear tested in accordance with the US accredited testing facility and if so which one? My point to all this, I have seen too many decent audio hobbyists get sucked into your so called expert opinion and waste their money. They can go online and learn how to acoustically treat their rooms themselves and save a fortune doing it. Having a business in the game is one thing, using the Forum as a way of avoiding advertising costs or formal peer review in another!

Steven,

Are you the same aussiesteve that posts on Collings guitar forum? If so, and based on your comments on tone wood and other comments, I would fathom you would be in a position to agree to the concepts of tuning. I would suggest you look into tuning and discuss things instead of interogating and turning this into a personal crusade.

You might also realize that tuning concepts can be done in a DIY fashion as many do. Since you DIY Owens Corning semi rigid fiberglass panels, I see you appreciate taking a personal modding approach to audio.

You appear to be into the music scene as well and you will find no better ally than michael. You seem to be pleasant on other forums so let's keep it that way here on Stereophile.

iosiP wrote:

Bill, it's been my experience that it's a tradeoff.. Between soundstage and imaging. You either have one or the other, or you settle for a percentage of both (not to mention the tonal changes).

Something I continually find quite interesting about this hobby is how so many of us can have such contrasting experiences.

Over the years I have found that accurate reproduction of soundstage & imaging most often go hand-in-hand, with both being quite dependent on the method & quality of the recording & the specific mastering of each release.

Equipment-wise, I have found the pre-amp & speakers to be highly influential in creating imaging & soundstage which is faithful to the original recording.

Should this discussion go any further, for the sake of clarity & to insure when we speak of such abstract perceptions such as ‘Soundstage’ & ‘Imaging’ we are in agreement ahead of time as to the precise meaning of these & other terms, I have taken the liberty to ‘cut & paste’ some definitions from “An Audio Glossary” found on Stereophile’s website here:
http://www.stereophile.com/reference/50/

Soundstaging, Soundstage Presentation:
The accuracy with which a reproducing system conveys audible information about the size, shape, and acoustical characteristics of the original recording space and the placement of the performers within it.

Imaging:
The measure of a system's ability to float stable and specific phantom images, reproducing the original sizes and locations of the instruments across the soundstage.

Stereo Imaging:
The production of stable, specific phantom images of correct localization and width.

Stereo Stage:
The area between and behind the loudspeakers, from which most phantom images are heard.

Stereo Spread:
The apparent width of the soundstage and the placement of phantom images within it. Generally, a group of instruments or voices should uniformly occupy the space between the loudspeakers. Compare "beyond-the-speakers imaging," "bunching," "hole-in-the-middle."

Beyond-the-Speakers Imaging:
The placement of phantom images or spatial (stage boundary) information beyond the positional limits of the loudspeakers.

Bunching:
In stereo reproduction, excessive center fill with inadequate spread. Compare with stereo spread.

iosiP wrote:

I use to have two marked spots on the floor for my speakers: one for small jazz recordings and another for large scale symphonic works. No fun moving speakers around….

In this case, I would agree that the typical effect of making incremental adjustments to the toe (angling of a speakers such that the front face (or baffle) of the two L & R stereo speakers are not parallel to each other) will make changes to the soundstage & imaging simultaneously & with opposite consequence for each (within practical limits).

While only moving the speakers closer or further apart from each other will generally have more effect on the stereo spread (within the limits of room boundaries & other obvious factors).

Once a distance between the speakers is established, there typically is an optimal toe setting that will bring into focus both soundstage & imaging.
As the speakers are rotated away from the optimal position (the toe angel is reduced), the soundsatage will be expanded at the expense of imaging.
Keep in mind these descriptions are generalizations.
All systems & components are different.
As I so often do, I will again reference a quote commonly attributed to Mark Twain;
"All generalizations are false, including this one."

iosiP wrote:

but enjoying music takes what it takes. Now you can see why I'm more than willing to use other methods to balance the sound (without changing the tonal character of the system), and if "tuning" offers me this I'm all in!

Regarding Michael’s “tuning” methods, I have only limited experience thus far with applying just a few of his suggestions.
Dan & I have yet to derive any audible benefits from testing ‘open’ chassis or floating &/or varying clamping force on circuit boards.
We have also tried removing the outer shells on my WBT RCA interconnects with no detectable effect.

This is not to say Michael’s or anybody else’s methods are ineffective, only that the few Dan & I have tried on a limited number of devices/components have not yielded sonic changes we were able to audibly detect.

iosiP wrote:

No I don't want Patricia Barber to sound as if she has a head the size of a pumpkin but I don't like the Boston Philharmonic to play like being forced in an overcrowded Tokyo subway. How do I get "distance" between instruments without blowing each of them out of proportion? Maybe tuning is the answer... or maybe not! Anyway, there is no way to tell before I try, so I prefer to shut up and try than talk and not do. Well yes, there is an investment (as in no free lunch) but then this is FUN, and even if I don't get the results I'm looking for I'll still be able so say "been there, done that", which is more than any tweaker applying strips&creams will be able to claim. It's about participation, my friend, and about taking control over your life and hobby, and this is thrill - this is all about cooking your own hamburger instead of heading to McDo - at least if you don't like it you can always add (or refrain from adding) spices!

An interesting analogy.

I guess if I were to look at what Dan & I are doing within a similar relationship, I would say that we are first & foremost concerned with the quality of the beef.
Once we have established that the ‘meat’ is of the best quality possible, only then would we entertain the option of ‘seasoning’.

It has been my experience that when you start with the highest quality ingredients in the first place, you find there is no need to adulterate the final product with ‘spices’ which are often used to hide, cover or make tolerable less pleasing flavors resulting from utilizing less than the highest-grade (& not necessarily the highest $) of main ingredient.

Taking this analogy one step further; even the best & freshest of free-range chicken produced eggs can often stand a little hint of salt, but please, hold the catsup.

iosiP wrote:

Good luck with tuning, I'm a convert and pledging to the unbelievers, so give it a try: I promise it won't hurt and after all it's reversible!

Costin

I plan to keep trying some of the ‘Tuning’ methods to see if I can get any correlation with Michael’s results.
Until then, I plan on leaving the proselytizing, conversions, anointing & disciple-making to others who have far more direct experience with such approaches.

Who knows, maybe after a little more time playing around with this stuff, Dan & I too may share in this cathartic experience?

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

AussieSteve wrote:

Hi, I find that my Naim(UK) gear with separate power supply units for each component, which match the component box, have a much more open sound. It costs though, the components cost roughly $8000 each and the power supply in chassis cost about the same. Naim are fanatical about separating and reducing all forms of interference from the sound, and it pays off.

Recent tests Dan & I have been working on use annealed Mu-Metal to shield transformers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mu-metal

We have tried it in everything from pre-amps, CD Players & AV receivers to PC-based music servers, Digital-to-Analog-Converters (DAC’s) & multiple power amps.

In each & every case the results have been transformative.
No minor – “yeah, maybe I think I may hear an improvement” – but major changes.
All of them positive & affectively releasing more realism & music from any recording whether it be V high quality from the likes of Mapleshade, Linn, Sheffield & 96/24 Hi-Rez HD Tracks to MP3 & poorly made CD’s.

As I have mentioned previously, it is not uncommon for higher-end components to utilize the practice of putting the power supply in a separate chassis, thus isolating it from the rest of the electronics.
All the ones I have heard were all V nice sounding.
Some were under $2k, others over the price of my car.

I know Michael has also mentioned that he likes what happens when he moves the transformer away from electronics.

Based on Dan's & my experiences, anything that helps isolate the fields generated by power supplies is likely to be beneficial.

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

Hi Michael.

I agree it nice to be able to discuss our different experiences.

You speak of an audio signal’s ‘Flexibility’ & of a system’s ‘Distortion’.

You stated, “As you continue to go through these changes with your system you gain (probably already have) a new appreciation for the audio signal's immenseness and flexibility. Before you started you would not have called your system one of distortion, however once you started making changes you crossed over a bridge. That bridge being which change or sound was correct and which was distortion (incorrect). Which was less and which was more.”

These are not my experiences.

First off, let us define distortion.
From the link at Stereophile for the glossary of audio terms……

http://www.stereophile.com/content/sounds-audio-glossary-glossary-d-e

…comes this definition for Distortion:

Distortion
1) Any unintentional or undesirable change in an audio signal.

2) An overlay of spurious roughness, fuzziness, harshness, or stridency in reproduced sound.

As I understand these definitions, distortion has nothing to do with the essence of the signal.
It has everything to do with how the signal can be changed.
In fact, by this definition, an intentional or desired ‘Change’ to the signal is NOT distortion.

The signal can be -- & in most every case is -- changed to some varying degree by the equipment & the environment in which it is reproduced.

If one chooses to change or intentionally manipulate the signal to one’s preference, then by definition this is not distortion.
Yet the end product -- the sound produced by these changes -- does not represent the original signal.

Is such a case, without having experienced the original, one never knows exactly how the signal was intended to sound.
& one will never know what may be missing from that signal.

Therefore, how can one say one has made an improvement?
There is no benchmark to reference from.
One can only say, “I have ‘shaped’ a portion of the original signal to one that pleases me.”

Regarding “Signal Flexibity”……
This is exactly what Dan & I are attempting to eliminate.
We do not want the signal to be changed in any way, shape or form.
We want only to first hear the actual signal as it exists.
Without change, without distortion & not flexed or varied from its original form or intent.
Only then can one reference it to a real sound & decide if any change is desired or required.

We wish to first play the music……not play with it first.

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

A legitimate tweak should tweak the system and its ability to represent any and all recordings in a way that most accurately reflects what is on the disc.

I think what Bill is saying is that he's not trying to correct for the shortcomings of the recording engineer or to introduce his own interpretation of how it should have been recorded and engineered...witin the limits that are inherent to his playback system's capabilities.

Hi Bill

Listening to a SET amp does not give any impression of "spurious roughness, fuzziness, harshness, or stridency in reproduced sound". However, most SET amps have large values of THD - which stands, as you know, for "total harmonic distortion". Now if the definitions in Stereophile are right this should not be considered distortion at all (since it's intended by the designer). However, if the measurements in (the same) Stereophile are right this is called... well, THD.

For me, any difference between the output signal and the input signal (except, of course, for the difference in level) is distortion. And there are many kinds of distortion, some of them even pleasant, but I do not go for them: I'd rather hear what's on the record first, then I can play if I want to.

In fact, some distortion can be very pleasing. That's how breast implants started!

Catch22 wrote:

In fact, some distortion can be very pleasing. That's how breast implants started!

You are correct, sir. We learned back was it is the 80s maybe the 70s, my how time flies, that THD is relatively meaningless and irrelevant when it was determined that the flood of Japanese and perhaps other solid state amplifiers and receivers with vanishingly low measured THD sounded subjectively much Worse than receivers and amplifiers with measured THD much higher, for example 0.0007% THD for the Japanese solid state amps compared to 0.05% THD for the tube amps. The tube amp sounds more open, more neutral, more musical and less fatiguing than the Japanese amp. There are very precise meanings of distortion, noise and slew rate and other audio signal terms, so there should be no doubt about what we are talking about, objectively. Amplifiers are designed to balance these parameters as much as possible and to minimize noise and distortion. But obviously the designers are no perfect, not by a long shot. The best laid plans of mice and men, etc. The distortion in what we hear is often only discernible by it's ABSENCE when you finally do something that reduces it. If you're lucky you might eliminate one form of distortion. As much as I do so dislike being mysterious and messianic there is quite a bit of distortion of all various types in what you are hearing right now, even though you might think it sounds undistorted. For those that even think about such things, we tend to suppress or "hear through" the various distortions that are PRESENT in the sound. Audiophiles are optimists, we think, Um, that sounds good, not, um, that sounds bad.

Cheers,

Geoff Kait
Machina Dramatica