I've decided to do the audio code as much more of a completed work. you can visit it here

http://tuneland.techno-zone.net/t268-the-audio-code

michael green
MGA/RoomTune

Some of you might be in panic mode and others in denial, but some of you are saying "so wait a minute, that's making sense".

Take a field trip with me.

Remember when you went to the show and people were playing the same music in different rooms and systems and each system sounded different with the same music? That's EQing. Remember when you got your amp and started searching for preamps? That's EQing. Everytime you are making a component or cable or speaker change or movement, that's EQing. You call your system discrete but it's one big fixed EQ. It's no different from the guy who has a receiver and EQ vs the guy who has a pre amp and amp. They're both two component systems only one is adjustable and the other one isn't. You guys who got your components plugged into your line conditioners, what do you think your doing? EQing. Guys with more than two drivers? EQing. Any speaker with a crossover? EQing.

Let's start looking at this hobby for what it is instead of the sales pitch of what it is. The sales pitch tells us that separates are better, Ok but where are the separates? There's nothing separate about the audio pathway. Your not cutting off one component from the next, your adding tons of EQing. Someone in this industry or client of this industry tell me how adding more transformers and inductors is making the signal pathway more simple? We have become so obsessed with this component ladder climb that we have lost sight of what the listening part is even about. When I got here a year ago you guys were talking about bad recording this and that, and I asked the question "how big is your soundstage" and everyone disappeared. The loudness war battle cries came out. How in the world would you know what compression sounds like if your soundstage is 10 wide and 4 deep? When I played those compressed recordings after tuning them in I was 30+ wide as I remember. Yes I could hear the compression but it was nothing like what was discribed on here. What I heard described on here was collapsed staging and frequency clustering, not the description of compression.

The only way you guys are ever going to use terms correctly or even if you want to use those terms at all is to explore what the audio signal really is and how it works. Trying to turn the audio signal into some kind of mystical legend that is this big secret is cool if your trying to bate people to buy some of your secret potion, but let me recommend a simpler route, be real and find out what is real. On one end you have vibration, on the other the same thing. Tune the vibration on the receiving end to match the giving end and you've got great sound. If you don't want to call it vibration come up with whatever words blows your skirt up, as my dad would say, and get with it. Put any way you put it the process is very simple in concept, and once applied in method form is going to make life easy for you plus turn you on to music you never thought you would enjoy, or have been waiting to enjoy again.

michael green
MGA/RoomTune

As I said, you and others are more than welcome to call it whatever suits your fancy. I'm not in this thing for talk, but doing. If I get to the end of the day and find out that I've been tuning some other force, that's fine by me, maybe they'll give me an award I can display in a case somewhere. Until that day comes and after it, the audio signal is highly tunable and many are enjoying the benefits of being able to voice each of their recordings or tune their systems to a general liking.

If someone comes along and tells us why each recording sounds different and why each system sounds different and why we're able to tune these, matching the code of the recording to the code of a system in a meaningful way, I'm sure we're all ears. If they can tell us why the cycles themselves as individual units are able to be adjusted in value to perform differently not only with one setting systems but also in real time by the use of physics, I'm hip to that too.

This industry needs to have labs set up that can explore and explain. My labs have shown us one concept of why and it has been easy to practice this concept with consistant demos for the past 30+ years. I welcome others to do the same thing and present their ideas on what is happening based on doing. I have no desire to be pig-ish about what is going on. My desire is to get this industry and others to the next level.

So I offer you this challenge Geoff and others. Set up your own labs and let us know why these things happen beyond theory book smarts and articles.

As far as sound and mass. UMI did a powerpoint presentaion for me as I worked for Steinway and the whole UMI family of musical instrument companies. If you would like you can view their findings on the sound and mass http://www.michaelgreenaudio.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=103 . Maybe you could give these fine folks a call and tell them where they have gone astray. We also have a ton more articles where we are actually demoing the mass of sound by physically changing the way musicians felt the pressure change in the playing of their instruments simply by having the sound pressure in the room changed, so if that isn't mass than maybe you would like to take a stab at what it was.

But don't just talk Geoff, do, and then share with us your doing, just as you moved from your high end audio setup to your Sony Walkman. Now that was doing. However when you or anyone talk and are not a part of the experiment of doing it's just spins.

Go to any orchestra in the world Geoff and ask them why the playing of their instruments are physically different when they go into different rooms or halls. Get involed Geoff in the sound pressure game for your livelihood by being in the middle of the music and tell me that sound is not mass. Stand in a night club here in Vegas Geoff and have your whole body shake from the sound and tell us it's not mass. Go to your own NASA Geoff (I did) and stand in one of their sound pressure chambers and tell us this wasn't mass. I'm willing to agree with any form someone wants to throw at me as long as they can explain how NASA made my shirt and paints move away from my body without motion. My cothes in the clubs, studios and Nasa were all about "motion", so as much as it's fun having you here don't tell us that sound is not motion, and motion is not related to mass.

michael green
MGA/RoomTune

Geoff takes us to a web that says

"WHAT ARE WAVES?

Mechanical waves and electromagnetic waves are two important ways that energy is transported in the world around us. Waves in water and sound waves in air are two examples of mechanical waves. Mechanical waves are caused by a disturbance or vibration in matter, whether solid, gas, liquid, or plasma. Matter that waves are traveling through is called a medium. Water waves are formed by vibrations in a liquid and sound waves are formed by vibrations in a gas (air). These mechanical waves travel through a medium by causing the molecules to bump into each other, like falling dominoes transferring energy from one to the next. Sound waves cannot travel in the vacuum of space because there is no medium to transmit these mechanical waves."

What's interesting is this is also a web I use to support my experiments and findings.

From what I'm reading sound is indeed motion. Here's some phrases pulled from just this small part of the article. "energy is transported", "Waves in water and sound waves in air are two examples of mechanical waves", "vibration in matter", "Matter that waves are traveling through is called a medium" and on it goes.

Into this article which I totally agree with BTW we find.

"Electromagnetic waves are formed by the vibrations of electric and magnetic fields. These fields are perpendicular to one another in the direction the wave is traveling. Once formed, this energy travels at the speed of light until further interaction with matter."

In this article we have air being called matter "vibration in matter, whether solid, gas, liquid, or plasma" and we have vibrations in matter.

"WAVES OR PARTICLES? YES! A look at photons

Light is made of discrete packets of energy called photons. Photons carry momentum, have no mass, and travel at the speed of light. All light has both particle-like and wave-like properties."

Again "motion is involved" and motion traveling through "matter" has vibration. Now no one is discounting light and it's relationship to photons. Light after all is a super high frequency that is able to move very quick because at the size there is very little in the way of matter to stop it. However as you start to go down the frequency chain you start to see how the cycles become bigger and begin to interact with matter which is how the vibrations become realized. By the time you get down to 20-20,000 cycles vibration is in full swing as a part of the wave formations. The lower the wave the more the force. the higher frequencies move the hairs in your ears but as you go lower the pressure starts moving bones and mass. This explains how you hear if your body.

I'm glad Geoff has pointed to this article which is the same one that I use on TuneLand. Take a look again cause this can help you with understanding the audio signal and some of the math http://missionscience.nasa.gov/ems/02_anatomy.html . All of this is actually very practical, but it's important to understand the math of it and how this math must work inside of physics.

For example light being of high numbers and little resistance and sound being right in the hart of force. Lights lack of mingling and sounds are dependent on. Both of these two interact with matter (mass being a measurement of). Actually I shouldn't say two because the numbers go from zero up to the trillions. Keep in mind with all these numbers "Cycles" come a value and an interconnect or interaction.

michael green
MGA/RoomTune

read "the audio code" complete on TuneLand

http://tuneland.techno-zone.net/t268-the-audio-code

michael green
MGA/RoomTune

Hi Geoff, could you do me a favor and take that up with the guys who wrote the article we are both refering to and not with me. Obviously we both read the same article, and while I respect your take on what you read and the interpretation of what you read, we're coming away with a different understanding in the content of the article itself.

Your beef is not with me cause I could give a crap. This article supports what I do, and with that I do give a crap. So why don't you take up your arms with them instead of yet another Geoff meets Michael thread spin. Or start a constructive thread on your own giving your thoughts about how Geoff views NASA articles. You need to get off your Geoff is right and the rest of the world is wrong thing. I'm merely talking to people about the audio code and how to tune it. If you don't like this start a thread of your experiences and findings, that's fine but don't come up to threads with your spins because your wanting to wave your knowledge flag. I'm sure there are others here who will be happy to compare notes with you on the topic of frequency ranges and photons. I'm not one of them. My understanding of Photons is in complete agreement with the article you referenced. I have no beef with their explanation at all. If you wish to school them that's up to you, but it has nothing to do with me and my posts.

Now if you have something constructive to say about the audio code please do so.

michael green
MGA/RoomTune

Our recording books back in the 70's look a little different from this, but here's a look at the basics from today.

http://www.mediacollege.com/audio/01/

http://www.mediacollege.com/audio/01/

And if you want to take a look at more from media http://www.mediacollege.com/audio/

I think that in order to understand the audio code it's a good idea to look at some of the basics that go into the making of the audio signal. If you make the signal more than equations on paper it starts to take on life and takes away from some of the fears of rights and wrongs.

In our hobby I see alot of folks throw up their distortion hands way too soon. They hear something that may not line up just right and that hand goes flying up without looking into what could possibly be causing the sound to happen. Most of the time it's not distortion at all but a misalignment of transfers from one energy medium to the next, or some small coversion glitch as the mechanical, electrical or acoustical parts are trying to intermingle.

Reading this thread you don't have to go too far before seeing why I like to go simple. Where a lot of listeners are spending their time looking at the middle part of the audio pathway, I like looking at the two bigger parts, the beginning and the end. I have found that I've been able to do more in the recording live room or sound effects and the other ends listening room than getting too tied up in the middle. On one end you have this big sound being made, then it is converted to something simple and delicate, then back into the big space again. The high end audiophile way to me is a little mixed up if I may say so. Here's what I mean. The audiophile talks about how we should be making these recordings extremely simple and direct using hardly any electronics at all, but when you get to their playback end they have these incredibly complicated massive systems, with cords and cable and components ontop of even more components. This to me seems like an oxymoron. How can a guy scream out for super simple on one end, and completely do the opposite on the other? I have always found that a fairly simple path throughout, keeping a balance on both sides of the recording to give far more musicality. You can make a very complex recording and still keep it simple, as well you can reveal that recording by a balance in the three parts to the trilogy (acoustical, mechanical and electrical). When I walk into a listening room and take a peek at the system I can tell you almost always right off the batt what we are going to be facing just by how the trilogy has been played out in the room. Most high end audiophile systems way over do it in the mechanics department making it tough on the electronic department causing failure for the acoustical department. Then that same guy gets turn onto acoustical deadening materials and by the time he is done the life is completely sucked out of the sound. He sits there pointing out a tiny part of a recording that sounds very well and the rest of the recording has had it's units values turned down so low they're barely alive. They do some tweaks and a little of the air comes back and they think they did something great when that air is really a tiny portion to all the other air and other content on the recording.

Most recordings are huge soundscapes with tons of lively info. Not only can you hear them but you can feel them when you walk in or even near the room. Audiophiles need to paint the picture properly if they expect to hear more. I tell my clients this. Think of the recording end as being huge, the audio storage and amp end as being simple and open, and the playback end as being huge again.

michael green
MGA/RoomTune

So you guys are reading this saying "I don't know, is this guy for real".

here's a test you can do

Take two systems, one low mass and one high. Let's start with the high mass one. Find a capacitor and change it out with another one that has the exact same value. Sound changed :) but not only did the sound change listen to how it changed. Listen to the parts of the recording that came out more and less as compared to the original Cap. Pay attention and you will hear two things. One you will hear an overall flavor change of the music, and second you will hear that the individual values on the frequencies have been rearranged. It's like someone took a parametric EQ to your sound.

Now many of you aren't familiar with a parametric. Your picturing EQ's that have slides and ranges per slide, but there's another level to EQing. One that you can be a junior at to impress those not in the know, or you can become a master at and shape more than gain. A parametric allows you to go in and take what is there and put it in and out of focus much like a hi-tech zoom and lens. The signal units are there, your just shaping them to be more or less of their context. So to compare to a camera. Lets say your looking at a cello. It's in a 25'x25' room and you got three mics on it, near, mid and far fields. You can shape between the fields to get a general picture to your liking and then go in with the parametric and shape the degrees of color, depth, size and halo of the cello. your in a way photo-shopping not only the frequencies but how they react as notes and sub or support notes. Pretty cool right? Well that new cap just did all of that to the signal. You might even run a analyzer on it and not pick it up. Look at the review on me and Bob Hodas in Widescreen review.

Not only did this Cap rearrange the furniture, but it also set a new pattern for the way the audio signal is running through the chain now. Just that one Cap did all that.

Now I can answer a question about systems for you. Audiophiles are always talking about how revealing their systems are, and how their systems are judges of the music. With this perhaps new, maybe not new, info we have just talked about, you can test and see how revealing your system is. Change that Cap in the high mass system and also do the same with a low mass, and almost always you will hear more of the change being revealed in the low mass. When your system gets to the place where you do tweaks and don't hear them. Your not making your system more revealing, your making it less. Your locking your system into only passing a selected part of the signal coming through.

Again, go back to looking at why each system sounds so different and responds differently to different pieces of music from each other? If this were not the case, we would have systems that all sounded the same to the degree that the music could be ranked from good to not so good instead of all over the map.

Once you work through the high mass low mass thing in your head and hopefully by doing, you are going to come to a different place in the hobby. Your going to start viewing frequencies, units and notes from a more complete picture.

The frequency is the center of a cycle, the unit is the value of that cycle, and a note is the combo of cycles in relationship to their structure.

When you play something on your system and it smears, or splatters or clusters don't confuse this with distorted peaks or compression. Distortion peaks and compression sounds different from signal "blockage". Most of the time when a listener hears some thing not right it's do to the signal not making it's way through the system "whole" or complete enough to paint the picture and it ends up coming out as a distortion from the unit or units being out of balance. It can be an electrical mismatch great or small or a collapse of harmonics around a or many notes. It can be the room not wanting to play what the speakers are sending, or the speakers fighting the rooms pressure. There are many types of distortions that if we decide to look at might come as a good learning tool to study and use with listening. However what I'm giving you here is more than the names of distortion types, and more how and why they form and how to correct them. Many times distortions are just check engine lights telling us to look at the pathway and see what's out of line.

michael green
MGA/RoomTune

TuneLand comes first, and maybe a book once I feel there is enough material to make it flow. It's kinda hard for me to write because I tend write while many thoughts are fighting for my attention. I'm one of those that open the door to thought and they come fast and furious, way too fast to grab much of the content. I'm like the opposite of writers block. There's too much to tell and not enough time to tell it.

michael green
MGA/RoomTune

Visit the complete article on http://tuneland.techno-zone.net/t268-the-audio-code

michael green
MGA/RoomTune

read "the audio code" complete on TuneLand

http://tuneland.techno-zone.net/t268-the-audio-code

michael green
MGA/RoomTune

read "the audio code" complete on TuneLand

http://tuneland.techno-zone.net/t268-the-audio-code

michael green
MGA/RoomTune

read "the audio code" complete on TuneLand

http://tuneland.techno-zone.net/t268-the-audio-code

michael green
MGA/RoomTune

Audio has always had a wide range of characters involved in the dicussions of. Someone starts talking and before long there are others who join in with their ideas on things. Sometimes you read stuff and it sinks in and other times you have to stop and look at it a while cause it sounds like news to you.

how do you know if something is right

For myself I try to keep things simple and only talk about things I'm actually doing so that I stay in the realm of accountability. It's not that I don't trust myself, it's just that there are so many people who seem to say things that don't make a whole lot of sense and my mind works better when I'm actually part of the cooking. I brought a few of these weird ideas (like straight lines) up on this and other threads here, but still I aways have this thing built in me that says "check it before you say it". Great thing about this hobby is that's easy enough to do. Audio theorist truly are a dime a dozen.

As far as this industry goes there has always been something I can count on even if I've had a hard time getting it through my brain, or see others having the same struggle. You've heard people say "proof is in the pudding", well in audio the one thing you can bank on is "proof is in vibration".

Do a study on anything audio and before long you are going to run into the word vibration or other words that lead you back to vibration. Some people will try to paint a bad picture of it because in their thinking vibration has to do with distortion and that's the ugliest, most despised word in sound. However vibration itself is used in sound both for positive and negative. Do your own search but you will see that vibration is a positive when used as a means to tuning or keeping something in tune, and in a negative way when something is out of tune or balance.

Vibration is not a one way street with warning signs up saying "wrong way". Fact is if you didn't have vibration there would be no sound at all. Vibration is the fundamental of motion and once set in action the results can either be one of out of balance or one of harmony. Go bump a molecule and watch what happens. Watch the rules of action and reaction take place. More important understand that vibrations are here to stay and all along the audio pathway are part of the signal. They're not fat that somehow is floating to the surface and you are suppose to skim them off, and take them out of your audio diet. That's the wrong way of looking at things and will screw you up and for sure shrink your soundstage. Instead look at vibration as being part of the signal for you to put in-tune. If you put something in-tune there is no waste. Putting vibration in tune will give you more of the whole. The fat is in the things that are preventing you from tuning the signal.

michael green
MGA/RoomTune

If you wish to read "the audio code without the Geoff spins you can go here http://tuneland.techno-zone.net/t268-the-audio-code

Hi Geoff

I appreciate your input Geoff, but when you think about it, this is why you've abandoned the above list and you are now listening to a Sony Walkman. If the list above worked so well there would have been no need to move away from it. And you have not been shy about your moving away from your in-room system and your high end headphone setup.

I want to be very fair to you and the readers.

This is what you said in April of this year, claiming it to be the reference.

"I've got an advanced modded Oppo 103 with the aftermarket Power Supply from OPPOMODS (the one with the big honking toroidal transformer) not to mention a slew of WA Quantum Chips and the Audio Magic Pulse Gen ZX installed. In addition, I've isolated the Oppo printed circuit boards from vibration, damped the toroidal transformer and damped the capacitors, all of which are critical for any real shot at high definition and soundstage. The Woo Audio WA 6 headphone amp and Oppo 103 are isolated from structural vibration by platforms employing marble tiles and cryogenically treated high carbon miniature steel springs. Viscoelastic damping is employed on the iso platforms to expunge any residual vibration from the top plate. The Sennheiser HD600s have had their foam pads and metal grills removed, another absolute necessity."

I asked about your in-room system.

"Hi Geoff, How do you like the HP stage as compared to your room stage? Are there things that crossover placement wise, or do the two types of stages sound completely different to you?"

you answered

"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."

later you moved on to the Sony Walkman as out doing all others that you have owned

http://www.stereophile.com/content/you-want-dynamics

I hope you can understand while I appreciate your participation it's a little strange that you'd be giving advice on things that have been failures for you as if others should follow suit. It sounds like your saying move away from your in-room system and get a high end audio headphone setup and dampen the heck out of it, then when your done throw those things to the side and get a Sony Walkman. What's also weird is your making this list and stating them in a way that they should be doing those things on a thread that is talking about opening up the signal and tuning it in to match the audio code of recordings.

Not to be rude but. I think about anyone on the planet in this hobby now can tell someone how to get one "fixed" sound. I'm not trying to take away from your tweaks and people can do as they please and will, but it's time we move to what is really going on after years of distorting the audio signal.

michael green
MGA/RoomTune

If you would like to read "the audio code" on TuneLand you can go here http://tuneland.techno-zone.net/t268-the-audio-code

I also would like to add that as a community of listeners it's important, while moving forward, to understand that this all comes down to learning curves and the audiophile spirit.

I had 4 clients talk to me today and all 4 were at different places in their walk. All 4 were tuning their in-room systems but they each had their own flavors that they wanted to get to or had recordings that they wanted to share with me and what they have found. One of them is now moving back to in-room after his time with headphones, 2 with tunable rooms complete with variable systems and one who is moving into a new place and making sure he has the basics to get the room off to a good start. There are 4 other systems that I am to check on tomorrow, all again tunable. So for me I hope people understand that this is not me coming up as a solo audiophile talking about what might be. My world is two fold mostly. One is actively tuning with others who have reached a certain level of flexibility and moving forward, and the other is me coming here or other places presenting that flexibility.

On this thread and others I'm hoping that listeners can see that there is more to the music and more to being able to get to that music than taking a one sound at a time approach. The one point that I want to make clear is, tuning isn't an "IF" and "IF" I start treating it as such than tuning gets thrown into a big pile of tradeoffs that aren't necessary. This doesn't mean that I'm down in any way when someone setups stakes with a particular sound, far from it. What tuning is, is the way to get to those stakes and any other place where a recording and system together may take the listener, or the listener take the recording. I don't make judgement calls I make pathways of getting to those calls.

If someone doesn't see things according to tuning that's really ok, cause this doesn't change any of the maps, or the landscapes. New people are coming to the knowledge of variable audio systems daily and that's my goal. It's a simple goal really. Allow the listener to go where they want and let them decide where it is they want to be. The key to seeing the absolute sound is also fairly easy. It's about space. If a listener recreates the space of the recording he or she will see what's in that recorded space. It's a lot easier to make choices if you can see what's there to start with. Going the other way is doable but it's usually a long path and the listener is never really sure if they have arrived or not.

As far as stepping backward, it's probably why I have had 18 systems at TuneLand Ohio, and close to at TuneLand Nasville. I don't know about what you guys have as far as space, but picture 17,000sq feet of tunable systems and labs. Even here at my small vegas TuneLand, someone says "I'm hearing this" and I can go to one of my systems and duplicate it so I can hear it too. It's not and hasn't been a case of your hearing that and I'm not for over 25 years now. So when I'm back here in one fixed sounding systems land, it's not that I think I'm better or have better ears in any way, but it is certainly moving backward for me. I can not even imagine going back to a system that only plays one way.

This year I have increased my music collection by over 1000 pieces of music. Knowing what I know about the audio code and that each recording has it's own, there is no way I'm going to set my systems one way and listen to these. So far I've only had the desire to make little changes as I have been playing, but when I think of what I would have missed in some of these greats, no freakin way! I can't see me sitting there in a world of "what if" can't do it, it's not in my nature and has never been a part of my musical path.

Once you start tuning and get use to what a recording does when out of tune, it's not that hard to head it back in the original recording direction. And there's cues that you recognize, like some that I have mentioned that help guide you.

It's not that big of a deal, and it's almost fun I must admit watching people go from non-tunees to tunees.

michael green
MGA/RoomTune

If you would like to read "the audio code" on TuneLand without the Geoff commentary you can go here http://tuneland.techno-zone.net/t268-the-audio-code

I'm sorry Geoff, I should have used your words.

Geoff said

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

So you went from the Nuances to HD600s and now onto the Sony Walkman and their stock phones as your reference, my bad.

One thing about vegas are the great goodwill stores. It's so trans here you can find anything. I need to pick up some storage books for some CD's so while I'm there I'll look for a Walkman. Hopefully I'll find a set and we can reference then. It would be unfair for me to try to use my memory as a source of comparison, since back when I did compare them my in-room systems murdered them. However I did stop by the Sony store here and listened to their lastest portables, all the way up through there top of the line headsets. My in-room murdered the stage and dynamics. MURDERED!!

I don't see what your coments had to do with the audio code or tuning it, but unlike you said, learning is the name of the game for me so let me know what I'm suppose to learn and if I haven't driven it around the block already I'll be more than happen to take something new for a spin. However if your going to hit the same repeat button you use on every thread, don't bother, got it. All I have to do is watch the buying channel on the tube. It's the same pitch.

Speaking of learning have you ever owned a Studer Tape Machine? I think since you are challenging me with a Sony Walkman I should defend myself with some of the crappy tape players I have had. So I suppose the next thing we do is go back through what you and I have own as a means of comparing ding dongs, that's how you guys do it right? I'll have to get use to the rules of the game when hanging out with audiophiles. See I thought music lovers worked together in harmony, I didn't know that I had to keep measuring myself against the superior race of super listeners.

Boy, what a hard road. From entertaining, to the hall, to the studio, to mastering, to owning stores, to being an audio designer, to teaching audio, and now I need to comepare myself to the master of Sony Walkman's, I hope I survive? I better get some good ear cleaning products.

michael green
MGA/RoomTune

for Geoff, some of the products I have owned

sorry for spelling doing this quick

B&K, Rotel, Counterpoint, CJ, MR, AR and the other AR, maplenoll, Audioquest, Superphon, Kenergetic, SUMO, Audio Note, Cary, Wilson, Avalon, B&W, Wireworld, XLO, TubeTrap, RPG, Beard, Klimo, Audio illusions, Lazereth, Paridigm, Parasound, Krell, Mark Lev, Cello, Sound lab, Misson, Spica, Decote', Garvais, Kindel, Classe, Boulder, Tara labs, 47 labs, Jadi, CAT, Michelle, Rega, VPI, Welltempered, Merrill, Marantz, McIntosh, Spectrum, Magnapan, Martin Login, Apogee, acoustat, Eminent tech, Quad, Quicksilver, music hall, Goldmond, Pass labs, Stax, Sony, Tascam, Studer-revox, Neumann, Neve, Schoeps, Shure, JBL, Mackie, Sunn, Audio T, pioneer, Sherwood, Technics, Creek, Arcam, Jolida, Fender, Sennheizer, Audio Physics, Vanderstein, Theile, Snell, WindGate, Dynaudio, Dynaco, Symphonic line, Proac, Belle, Wine audio, EV, Allen Heath, Hafler, Crown, Quest, Ampex, Yamaha, Digidesign, Meitner, Dalquist, Infinity, Kimber, Manley, Cambridge, Lynn sondek, Naim, Luxman, Crane, Blue, Soundcraft Sorry to my friends I miss, I know I missed a ton, but you get the idea.

Geoff said

"Perhaps if you yourself had broken out of the whole Tuning Thing"

I hope the list above gives you and others a starting point of some of the equipment I've owned personally. I'm already thinking of names I left out lol.

I appologize for Geoff's interuptions, If you would like to read "the audio code" on TuneLand you can go here http://tuneland.techno-zone.net/t268-the-audio-code

michael green
MGA/RoomTune

If you would like to read "the audio code" on TuneLand you can go here http://tuneland.techno-zone.net/t268-the-audio-code

Hi Geoff

you said

"One reason I like to mention how good The Sony Walkman cassette player sounds is the reaction I get from long term audiophiles. And the more I mention it the more reasons they will find why it can't be true. You don't know how I could like the sound of a Sony Walkman and I don't know how you can stand the treble on CDs. Looks like we're even."

Honestly I don't question why you like the Sony Walkman over the other products, I just mention that this is your reference according to your words. People can draw their own conclusions. The only thing I would ask is how do you compare it to the pro and consumer reel to reels and other tape machines.

as far as the impasse

I don't see this impasse as between you and I, or between the audiophile industry and I. I see the impasse as being between musical instruments and electronic equipment. What you personally do with vibrations is up to you. The only reason why this is the Geoff Michael show is because you keep it alive. If you weren't around I would be making threads guiding people in tuning, without your interuptions and spins. From what other members here have told me, that's what you do. So in that regard I don't see us as peers, the comments you make most of the time are really things I see as opportunities to talk more about what tuning is. I see people who have nothing more than spins as pot holes in the road that a driver gets use to. The first couple of times you go darn, hit it again, but after a while you start to anticipate that it's just part of the road, and in time someone will come along to cover it up or you drive around it and go about your way.

michael green
MGA/RoomTune

Geoff said this

"I don't know how you can stand the treble on CDs"

High frequency clusters do not come from CD's, but their playback systems. As you start tuning you can remove the tilt cluster by doing a few tunes. I have found that digital has an amazing high frequency response in the realm of harmonics, but it can be a challenge to get the top to open up.

There are a lot of CD players that fall apart in the upper responses, as well as amps, speakers and electrical systems. One of the things I do when designing or referencing in "the tunable room" is have the client, studio or home user give me pieces of music that have a tilt to them. You can read about this on http://tuneland.techno-zone.net/ Usually within 20 or so minutes I start to find where the cluster is coming from. It can be hiding in any part of the system including a fuse box. For some reason circuit designs for CD players react differently than tape or vinyl pre's. Is there more signal with digital? Is a question I have been asking for the last several years, and I'm leaning toward the answer being yes.

I love the sound of recording tape. It's very easy to listen to and extremely romantic. It's also a lot easier to playback than vinyl or CD's as far as tuning goes, if you are comparing stock to stock playback systems. Here's something that I have noticed with digital playbacks in general. They are extremely sensitive to circuit board layouts. And they are extremely sensitive to parts. DAC is an animal that goes far beyond numbers and I have come to respect them on a completely different level through our testing.

Again if your not tuning the Audio Code this means very little to you, however if you are practicing tuning there is a magic in CD's that once matched to the original code, goes further than any other plackback I have ever heard. I personally have only heard a handful of, maybe two handfuls of players that I feel have gotten pass the tilt of digital and have never heard any stock player do this successfully with more than a few recordings.

michael green
MGA/RoomTune

Once you get to the source moving forward as a listener there are a few things to consider concerning the audio code. The first thing you are going to notice is vinyl has one sound, tape another and CD's yet another. For those of you who are audio purist, I think you need to give yourself a break. Playing back audio is an art and within that art you have to deal with physical properties. With both vinyl and tape there are bias settings to follow as a guide of EQing. They're not bullet proof by any means but were made to give you curves that are easier to playback. With digital things are a little different and engineers are and have been trying to find the best combo of numbers to give more of the info. My hat is totally off to digital designing. Even from the very first in and out of the studio I heard the potential happening.

I need to run to meet a client but will be back to break some of this down.

michael green
MGA/RoomTune

As I was saying, and this is very important, materials have sound. When you listen to vinyl, you really are listening to vinyl (the actual material). Same with tape. This hobby for some weird reason tries to separate the recorded language from the physics of the materials that are involved. Build the exact same cap out of different types of plastic and guess what, each one of those caps will sound different from each other. Same goes for every material in the entire industry. I have more news for you. The materials used, make as big of a difference in the sound as the design function itself. When people dampen this is what happens. They're adding the sound of that material into the mix of the signal. You can't separate the sound of the materials from the audio signal.

People who say "kill vibrations" have absolutely no idea what they are talking about. Show me one test in the history of this hobby where someone has gone in and showed where the signal stops and the sound of the materials start with dampening? Here's the deal. The materials are the audio signal. Copper has a sound, and silver has a sound, gold has a sound along with every material that is within the area of the signals dissipation. There's been a boo boo inside of this industry, and that is the math engineering has not got it's mind around the physics engineering. On one side you have this guy adding numbers together to formulas, but on the other side you have the way physics works. Numbers are designed to be clear cut whereas physics is designed to be a blending of.

You take water and make it cold, and pretty soon your going to have ice, but you set that ice in a glass filled with water and you can watch it turning back into water. Physics is all about the mingling of sciences. We live in a world where everything affects everything else. If you don't get this you can not understand audio or the audio code.

review of the four forces

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

Just like I showed you the model of the soundstage earlier and how it stretches out as far as it can, understanding the forces and physics mingle, can help you with the your sound. It's not a magical pathway that separates itself from the environment. The audio signal is by nature attracted to it's environment. That's the type of energy it is. It's like a dam being opened up with some of the water flowing and at the same time interacting to and becoming a part of what it is flowing through. The audio signal intermingles with the electromagnetic fields as if they were feeding off of each other. They're a part of the same family and are attracted. If you do research on the elecetromagnetic field you will find that it isn't stopped by solids but intermingles with them. Energies that have current flow are in the category of attraction, which means they are going to have a attractive or repeling intermingle with their surroundings.

Lets go back to that cap. Not only will that cap change sound with different materials but it will also change performance inside of different housings. It will change sound as it intermingles with other parts, it's stand offs and the board underneath it.

michael green
MGA/RoomTune

I have to head to meetings and then will be back to write more about digital sound. Good to have Geoff draw lines though as I have been thinking he should have been doing this all along.

It didn't sound to me in his writing that he was having much success with his systems.

As we stand now, he has not had success with in-room systems, just denounced digital, so this leaves him with a Sony Walkman and 10 cassette tapes to listen to. I feel these are important notes as people read so they may be able to weigh his comments based in context moving forward.

If you would like to read "the audio code" on TuneLand you can go here http://tuneland.techno-zone.net/t268-the-audio-code

michael green
MGA/RoomTune

If you've been reading we've been starting to talk about the different sounds that parts have by the materials used to make them with, there is no separating the signal from the sound of the parts. Also in review the environment that the parts are in have as much affect. If you took all the parts out of your components and placed them in different chassis and locations you would notice a change in sound. How much of a change depends on the mass of the parts. During the TuneLand tests we took samples of players in all classes and compared them against each other stock, and through different stages of stripping them down and then eventually tuning them. What we found was the heaviest players (with the bigger parts put close together) played the least amount of different types of music. They were more or less stuck in a particular range. As we went down in mass and smaller transformers the music began to open up with greater dynamics. A wider range of music was also able to be played. This stayed fairly consistant all the way down to the lightest players.

At the end of the testing before the tuning started the stripped players that were still standing were lower mass players from these companies. Rotel, Parasound, Toshiba, Magnavox, Marantz, Samsung, Sony, Multispec and a couple others that skip my memory. The first interesting part to this was that these units were each of the companies entry level products. The tuning of these products went on at TuneLand but also at sights around the world, you can view them and the testing on the TuneLand archive as well as the techo-zone.

Tuning for those who aren't familar goes like this. Most products get stripped to their core so there is the least amount of chassis interference unless the chassis has a good sound to it, which is rare, and with CD players we found to be more rare with metal chassis. There seemed to be something about metal that did not mix well with the dac chips. More on Chips in a minute. So the product has the fat removed and then transfer devices are put in place to interconnect the vibration (away from the unit) to a tuning board or boards where the variable tuning is done. So to put in a way that might make sense. Instead of dampening the unit to address the vibrations we put the vibration of the parts in-tune with each other. What we found was, even if you wanted little to no vibration it was far more exacting to apply pressure at certain points so that you could control with a lot more precision. What surprised us was how tunable parts are esspecially parts with standoff on ciruit boards.

For close to some 30 years now we have gone in and found how most of the parts you use in your circuits react with not only the other parts but also everything within the part or units environment. We've made the audio system into a musical instrument. The most remarkable thing was, in doing this I found that the audio code was specific to each and every recording. Not only can you setup things up for a general sound if you wish but you can dive into each recording and if you learn the tools fairly well have the "real space" of the recording come to life. It's almost scary when comparing it to regular boxed soundstaging.

But I want to get back to the digital. The reason why digital sounds tilted in the top end is not the CD at all but how the DAC and some of the other parts close by are tuned. The physical arrangement (positioning) for CD Players electronic parts are far more sensitive than tape players, and if the relationship between the parts and the circuit board are not done correctly there is a clusting that takes place in the highs, as well as a lack of dynamics from 1000-4000hz. The DAC chip is perhaps one of the most complexed vibratory parts that has come along in audio. Put in-tune and the highs are smooth and relaxed and the signal is more dynamic than any of the home playback sources.

I would hope as time moves forward that the high end audio would shift gears away from looks only and move toward making products based on our latest technologies. Honestly I don't know, but if they do the digital world has a completely different role to play in high end as truly a serious playback source.

As I develope my own tunable products I hope others take a look at what we are doing and try some of the technology. I do want to tell you though if you try something with no results it's on you if you don't ask. I have spent many years very focused on the audio code and can tell you, if you are only able to play certain music, your doing nothing short of robbing yourself of tons of enjoyment. It's your hobby and your ego, but the answer to the next level of high end listening is here if you wish to partake. I'm willing to do as much as I can to help if you are interested, and no LOL I do not think I'm better than anyone else, that's just old man pride talking when people say that.

Fact is when we saw high end turning away from physics and doing it without a clear vision of what the audio signal is I decided to not engage in a war that would take care of itself in time. For me seeing high end audio take a dump is something that I said would happen in "97" if they didn't start implimenting tuning. I said this to your reviewers and demo-ed it, but they had other plans with their economy I can only guess. I will say this though since Audio Magazine is no more. When I presented this to them, their feedback was "we can't review this cause you have designed products that you can make sound like any other product and our ads would get pulled". Doesn't sound like that worked out to well for them.

It's up to the industry to move forward, my job has been to get it to this place. Nay sayers, not really that big of deal as you can see. Spins and old technologies moving no where, trading this sound for that, and finally moving on.

But guys, it's here. You can setup a system that will play anything and put you right in the studio or hall. Soon products will come out that will have variable tuning as a builtin feature. My hope is that the designers will get shookup enough that they will design with the mechanics in mind this time around, instead of these audio prisons. If not I'm sure the listeners will turn quickly enough to lower priced products that have more on the physical ball at this particular point in listening history.

michael green
MGA/RoomTune

Hi Listeners

For those who wish to read "the audio code" without the Geoff spins you can read it here. http://tuneland.techno-zone.net/t268-the-audio-code

michael green
MGA/RoomTune

BTW, thanks for reading this thread. In my book it's the most important topic in moving high end audio to the next level. I hope that all of you and the industry start or already are discovering variable tuning in this hobby.

The most successful component in all of high end has been the TurnTable. It's the component the reviewers, users and designers have figured out the best. The turntable is a work of art and if you take the time to notice turntables are variably tunable. There are tables that lean toward fixed but the ones that play the largest selection of recordings are the ones that are made with more adjustment points. The most tables I have had at one time playing was in the twenties. I know, I go a little over board as you can tell, but there is so much to learn.

What makes tables great?

Is it really the plastic that makes tables sound great. I mean, you put a piece of plastic on a spining plate and drop a needle in the groove. It almost makes me cringe saying that. No, what makes a table great is the 100 years of history and constant mechanical developements. The turntable has been evolving, as well as respected for all the moving parts involved. No other audio product has been given the free reins as the turntable. There are hundreds of ideas about the mechanic/electric design that goes on, and the consideration of vibration is at the top of the list.

I'm not going to spend more time than is needed to make this point, but ask you to look at the fact that if the same attention of variable adjustments were given to the other parts that make up the audio chain it would be much easier to play the audio code correctly.

michael green
MGA/RoomTune

I wanted to put this out there in the hopes of moving forward without spins.

Some of you have been reading Geoff as he comes up on my threads and attempts to paint a different picture of how things work than what I have done. Recently Geoff has been talking about his newly found reference in the Sony Walkman calling it more dynamic than the other sources out there on the market. I thought this odd so several times I engaged him asking if this was true, the answer came back yes the Sony Cassette Walkman is the most dynamic. I have gone back and forth with him on this so that we could all be fair and it didn't look like I was trying to beatup on him.

here's why

The Sony Walkman has an auto limiter built into it too compress the softest and loudest parts of the recording. Basically Geoff has been listening to compression calling it more dynamic. Now I don't mind listening to compression that is already mixed, but playback limiters are a no no for my ears. I put in a call to Sony and maybe they will get back with the curve, but I do know that this is more common than one would think with portables thus wasn't one hundred percent on board with Geoff's claims, and certainly not what I personally have experienced before.

michael green
MGA/RoomTune

Hi Geoff

I currently don't have a cassette collection so I have been doing some cassette listening at a local audiophile/musician's home (cassette madman par excell-lant). Pays to have music friends :). I've only had one visit since your bringing up the cassettes, but can go back when needed. We looked up the model you showed in the picture WM222. And listened to it, as well as a few other portables. He also has a Sony Pro hooked up to main speakers by way of a tube dynaco. Based on this I hope to be able to better answer questions about the units, which some sounded pretty cool, however compared to even his in-room system do not really hold a candle, and his setup is far field against the wall.

Here's what I have noticed so far in comparison to one of my setups here. The portable soundstage is in your head mostly and doesn't give much of a frontal stage. My headphone setup as well as his give more of a 3D spread out sound. The 222 (your pictured player) sounds more like a toy compared to the Pro. Honestly I'm thinking this has more to do with the construction and the headphones.

In comparison to his Nakamichi cassette deck and Teac Reel to Reel, both of these slaughter the portables in staging. Also want to point out that he has begun to tune so these results may change.

I don't want to discourage people from these, just saying that they should be fairly picky as well as not think that these players are going to comepare to a well setup in-room system. At the same time if you don't have an in-room that is displaying a good stage, then the portables/with better headphones might just be the ticket.

As for Geoff saying these are a reference compared to a low mass setup in a good room, well honestly not even close, regardless of the noise he tries to make.

michael green
MGA/RoomTune

You know I almost did it again. The Geoff & May Show. May if you ever organize a method then would be a time of comparing ideas, but as all of us read http://www.stereophile.com/content/may-geoffs-web-pages that's not you or Geoff's game plan.

I value my time more than continual spins. If I saw you or geoff really take an interest in audio past what I have seen I'd be happy to engage in talks, but it seems like everytime either of you come up it is for something other than audio.

michael green
MGA/RoomTune