>>> “Almost like your looking at me saying I'm wrong or haven't looked deep enough, or missed something.” <<<

Yes, Michael, I am saying you “haven’t looked deep enough” !!

You obviously have NOT missed the fact that different colours have an effect on the sound because you claim to have “heard” the effect yourself !!
You obviously have NOT missed the fact that chemicals (such as the UltraBit Platinum-Plus) can affect the sound of CDs because you claim to have investigated such !!
You obviously have NOT missed the fact that the Schumann Resonance device can affect the sound because you claim to have the answers as to why and how !!

So, Michael, YES - I say that you have not “looked deep enough” or you would not ‘gloss over such things’ so easily or so quickly or so dismissively !!!!

>>> “So here I sit listening to what these guys have told me and are showing me, and I them, and it feels very different from what I'm getting from you. You get on my case when I say I've been there or the answers are there, and these guys are doing just that, showing me and I them the answers. Not talking about mysteries that can't be understood like you are saying.” <<<

I will wager that you NEVER discussed (with those guys, with those engineers) anything “which can change the sound but cannot be explained from within conventional or acoustic theories” !! And yet you tell me that they “were showing you the answers and you them the answers” !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

>>> “They showed me what their plans are, and how they will carry them out with the next generation of listeners. I'll be honest if they pull off with programing what I am doing physically it's game over. Who will be able to resist sitting in their chair and have a completely automated musical system. That may sound like the attempts at DSP, but this is way beyond any audiophile dream. We're talking about the day when Jack can voice command his system to put him in the very studio as the recording, and add any kind of changed command to that recording.” <<<

Whatever you claim those engineers are working on, Michael, I know some things those engineers will not be able to do with their “adding any kind of changed command to recordings” !!!

Jack (as you call him) will not be able to “voice command” his system to “dial in” the effect (on the perceived sound) of the use of the colour Red as opposed to the effect (on the perceived sound) of the colour Blue !!

He will not be able to “dial in” the effect (on the perceived sound) of certain chemicals (such as the effect on CDs from the UltraBit Platinum-Plus chemical)

He will not be able to “dial in” the good effect on the sound of (say) the insulation material PTFE if ALL the cables in his system have such as a (poor sounding) polyethylene as their insulation !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

He will not be able to “dial in” the effect which different crystals, positioned in the listening environment, have on the sound !!

So, Michael, are you telling me (us all) that at some time in the future, such as Bill (wkhanna) can leave the transformer/s ‘UNTREATED’, inside his equipment, but ‘dial in’ and get the equivalent of the improvement in the sound he had previously achieved when he did the ‘treatment’ to the transformer ?

Are you telling us that after spending an enormous amount of time and energy in selecting your “magic wood” pieces, at some time in the future you won‘t need to do all that, all you will need to do is to just ‘dial in’ and get the same improvements in the sound as you had achieved previously ?

Are you telling us that after spending an enormous amount of time and energy in selecting the “special audio quality ply” for your speaker cabinets, at some time in the future you won’t need to do all that, all you will need to do is just ‘dial in’ and get the same improvements in the sound as you had achieved previously ?

Are you telling us that after spending an enormous amount of time and energy in selecting and using “magic wood blocks” for underneath your cables, at some time in the future you won’t need to do all that, all you will need to do is just ‘dial in’ and get the same improvements in the sound as you had achieved previously ?

Are you telling us that after designing speakers (or other equipment) which can be ‘tuned’ with the adjusting of such as their screws etc, at some time in the future you won’t need to go to all that trouble, all you will need to do is just ‘dial in’ and get the same improvements in the sound as you had achieved previously ?

You are now saying that the engineers, working on new developments, could overtake your variable tuning !!!!!! As in :-

>>> “I'll be honest if they pull off with programing what I am doing physically it's game over.” <<<

If you really believe that, Michael, then I am more right than I thought when I say that you have not “looked deep enough” !!!!

You are contradicting yourself Michael. In one breath you say :-

>>> “I'll be honest if they pull off with programing what I am doing physically it's game over.” <<<

And then you say that you will “fit them into your (physical) world of tuning”.

>>> “Me I'm on the tuning bandwagon big time and when the newer products come out I'll be right in line to fit them into my world of tuning.” <<<

If you CAN fit their techniques “into your world of tuning”, then what they are doing will NOT make “what you are doing physically it’s game over”. Make your mind up, Michael. Which is it ? Either what they are contemplating doing WILL be the ultimate technical achievement in your eyes or it will be just another – additional – technique to everything else.

Regards,
May Belt,
PWB Electronics.

>>> “questions that never get answered, like "do you believe in the audio code", either I missed the answer or you didn't give one.” <<<

You yourself call it the “recorded code” or the “audio code”. Qualcomm call it something different. I prefer to look at it in a more general form i.e “That there is a wealth of information, already available on the recording, which we (everyone) are not resolving correctly………until”. Now Michael, with that understanding we both have the same aim – to be able to resolve far more of the musical information which is available and has always been available, on the recording.

Now, Michael, do you believe that there is (say hypothetically) the information of an orchestra playing the musical score of Dvorak’s New World ON the recording ? As (say) Information ABC + DEF through to XYZ. But that the presence of such as a transformer, inside the equipment, is either preventing (say) Information MNO going further through the audio system or that Information MNO is being distorted by the presence of the transformer and therefore goes on through the rest of the equipment as Information NOM ? And, do you believe that, later, either with equipment further along the audio system or in the listening room you can gain that Information MNO back again or ‘straighten out’ the distorted NOM to become Information MNO by doing some of your “variable tuning” ?

And, then using your sentence :-

>>> “I'll be honest if they pull off with programing what I am doing physically it's game over.” <<<

Do you believe that when the engineers you were discussing things with “pull off with programing” at some time in the future, you won’t need to either move the transformer to the outside of it’s equipment housing – or even ‘treat’ it as Bill (wkhanna) had done in order to gain the improvements in the sound ?

The sentence you used :-

>>> “I'll be honest if they pull off with programing what I am doing physically it's game over.” <<<

Is, in my opinion, one of the most naïve sentences you could have written – because it exposes just how you “haven’t looked deep enough” !!

Regards,
May Belt,
PWB Electronics.

I'll just spell out some procedures:
1. Measure amplifier with the transformers in (say, 100,000 automated measurements).
2. Remove transformers and place them at a distance, maybe in a Faraday cage.
3. Re-measure amplifier with transformers out (same 100,000 sutomated measurements).
4. Derive difference curves by comparing first batch with second batch.
5. Calculate reverse (correction) curve and insert in FPGA.
6. Find way to modify transfer characteristics according with content of FPGA.
You're done!

Note: would probably be easyer to implement in digital amps.

OK iosiP. So, you are saying that when Michael says :-

>>> “I'll be honest if they pull off with programing what I am doing physically it's game over.” <<<

That when NOW he has his cables resting on “Magic Wood Blocks” – i.e that is he is using ‘PHYSICAL tuning techniques’ NOW, all that one needs to do is to take 100,000 automated measurements, then remove those “Magic Wood Blocks”, re-measure with the same 100,000 automated measurements, and THEN :-

>>> “Derive difference curves by comparing first batch with second batch.
5. Calculate reverse (correction) curve and insert in FPGA.
6. Find way to modify transfer characteristics according with content of FPGA.
You're done!” <<<

So, in the future, Michael will not need to use his “Magic Wood Blocks” – that exactly the same effect (on the sound) will be able to be programmed (your ‘modify transfer characteristics’ wording) into the system so that he would be able to ‘dial in’ that effect at will – without doing that PHYSICAL tuning ?????

Is that what you are saying ?????????

If a designer of audio equipment knows that housing their equipment in acrylic housing ‘sounds’ better than housing it in aluminium – i.e PHYSICAL tuning, that all they need to do is to take 100,000 automated measurements using acrylic housing, then change the housing material to aluminium, re-measure with the same 100,000 automated measurements, and THEN :-

>>> “Derive difference curves by comparing first batch with second batch.
5. Calculate reverse (correction) curve and insert in FPGA.
6. Find way to modify transfer characteristics according with content of FPGA.
You're done!” <<<

So, in the future, they will not need to use (physically) acrylic housing instead of aluminium housing – that exactly the same effect (on the sound) will be able to be programmed (your ‘modify transfer characteristics’ wording) into the system so that they would be able to ‘dial in’ the effect of the acrylic material at will – without actually using it ?????

Is that what you are saying ????????

If you are, then I suggest you also “haven’t looked deep enough” !!
It appears that you were so intent in doing a ‘quick,knee jerk reaction’ to what I had replied to Michael that you haven’t “looked deep enough” into either what I had written or what Michael was suggesting for the future.

Regards,
May Belt,
PWB Electronics.

>>> “May, why would we want to go backward again only to hear a difference, again? You keep getting insulted when someone has moved forward.” <<<

Again, Michael, DO NOT put attitudes onto me which are NOT there. I do NOT keep getting insulted by things you suggest. I am NOT reacting because someone suggests moving forward. I actually wish things would move forward faster than they are !!!! I do, however, challenge you about some of the things you ‘throw out’ in your writings.

Such as your “vibrations are everywhere, so therefore the problems are vibrational problems” sentences.
Yes, vibrations are everywhere – but that DOES NOT MEAN that all problems are vibrational. And, if I challenge your “vibrations are everywhere, so therefore the problem is vibrations” sentences it does NOT mean that I am ignorant about vibrations !!

>>> “However I do want to clear one thing up. You assumed I was throwing away tuning for some very strange reason, or it was part of some kind of attempt to discredit, regardless, we have no intention of setting aside tuning.” <<<

I am not ASSUMING anything, Michael. Those (quoted again below) were YOUR own words !!!!!!!!!!!!!

>>> “I'll be honest if they pull off with programing what I am doing physically it's game over.” <<<

YOU SAID “That what you are doing PHYSICALLY now, with your tuning, if they can pull it off with programming, it would be game over. YOUR OWN WORDS, Michael. NO assumption on my part – so don’t, yet again, suggest intention on my part which was not there !!!

>>> “May, I’m only here to promote, and to help people start thinking about what their hobby will be like in the future. I'm not here to make anyone mad or defensive.” <<<

I am NOT angry or defensive !! Nor do I react in such a way !! Yes, I challenge you and that challenge is NOT as a defence on my part – it is a challenge because I am quite smart and far more knowledgeable about things audio than you are constantly presuming !!. So, I CAN challenge you when you state :-

>>> “I'll be honest if they pull off with programing what I am doing physically it's game over.” <<<

It WON’T be “game over”, Michael and if you don’t know that that was a wrong statement to make to other people involved in audio then you “haven’t looked deep enough” !!

>>> “Let me ask you though May, aren't you going to be a little embarrassed when you find out I'm a nice guy and maybe just maybe a little bit smarter than you are trying to make me out to be? Plus you and geoff putting down the people we associate with, who really are at the top of their respective fields?” <<<

No, I am not going to be embarrassed because my presumption has NEVER been that you are not a nice guy. Nor am I “putting down the people you associate with”. I challenge YOU and I challenge what YOU are suggesting that they can do. It is YOU I am challenging and what YOU are suggesting they can do !!!

Let me ask you. Did those engineers you were discussing such things with ACTUALLY say that when they have achieved their “programming objective”, you (and Jack) will be able to ‘dial in’ to get the SAME effect (on the sound) of your physical tuning technique of tightening screws, of your physical tuning technique of placing equipment on “Magic Wood Discs”, of your physical tuning technique of resting your cables on Magic Wood Blocks ???

Regards,
May Belt,
PWB Electronics.

Michael wrote,

"geoff the opportunity to have his designs tested in front of these designers, engineers, reviewers and other experts. He declined. I offer the same to you May. We should have the new testing room up (fingers crossed) this year, and you are more than welcome to bring your products to us and whoever visits during the time we test it. If your designs are something that fits into our listening criterion we will be more than happy to promote. Hopefully the tunable facilities will become a place of discovery for all who choose to use it, as did the rooms in the past."

I refused your offer to evaluate my products because I have already seen how you operate. I have seen the movie before. I saw it with Ethan Winer and his marketing style and I see it with yours. Kind of the Elmer Gantry of Pro Audio. You are what they call in Vegas, a bad pony. Look who I'm talking to, the man from Vegas hisself. But I also declined your invitation because I feel it's a conflict of interest. Know what I mean jelly bean?

Other experts? You know the definition of an expert, don't you? Some guy in a cheap suit and a briefcase 50 miles from home.
Cheers,

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica
Never Give a Sucker an Even Break

>>> “Are we with each other on this one?” <<<

>>> “When a recording is made it is a "Code", a continuous series of unique energy patterns.” <<<

Michael, I think even MY generalisation of “I prefer to look at it in a more general form i.e “That there is a wealth of information, already available on the recording, which we (everyone) are not resolving correctly………until” is too NARROW, too restricted in thinking !!

Because we are talking about the SOUND of MORE THAN the recording of the music.

As you and I know, one can do ‘treatments’ in the listening environment – practically identical ‘treatments’ to the ‘treatments’ one would do when one is listening to a RECORDING of music – and gain similar improvements in the sound when listening to LIVE musical instruments being played.

Whether one is listening LIVE to a solo violin, to a solo piano, to a group of musical instruments or one is listening to a full orchestra playing the musical score of Dvorak’s New World, one can still make identical ‘treatments’ to the listening environment and gain identical improvements in the sound as if it was a recording of those musical instruments or a recording of the full orchestra !!!!!!!!!!!!

For example. If, through extensive listening tests, you chose the “best sounding wood” for an equipment stand, then you would use that same “best sounding wood” for the live conductor’s pedestal.

If such as Sonus Faber discover what they referred to as a “friendly to audio” lacquer for their speaker cabinets (i.e playing a recording through those speakers !!), then they would use or recommend using that same “friendly to audio” lacquer for the LIVE conductor’s pedestal.

I am trying to encourage people to expand their thinking – not narrow or restrict it.

Are we with each other on that ??

Regards,
May Belt,
PWB Electronics.

>>> “A simple answer of calling the audio code what it is and moving to topics of instrument finishes are fine but the are two topics.” <<<

Michael you are wanting to separate the two things – what you refer to as the recorded code and the topic of instrument finishes.

THAT, to me, IS the problem !!!!

Because, when those things are linked (audio equipment which deal with recordings) and musical instruments such as violins which are played live when EXACTLY the same treatment is applied, with EXACTLY the same product, and with EXACTLY the same results then it is NO longer two separate topics !!!

One can have an item of audio equipment – dealing with recordings – treated with Dieter Ennomoser’s C37 lacquer AND a violin – an instrument to be played LIVE - which Dieter Ennomoser has made himself also treated with C37 lacquer – BOTH treated with his C37 lacquer and one can get similar improvements in the sound from BOTH !!!!!!!!!!!

I will quote from a review on an item of inexpensive audio equipment ‘treated’ with C37 lacquer. :-

>>> “there is also this mystic violin maker Dieter Ennenmoser, he sells a reconstituted Stradvarius violin lacquer he calls formula C37, this suppresses certain "non-entrancing harmonics" and strengthens other ones that produce a mysterious sense of beauty... so for an experiment I painted a crappy old Yamaha integrated amp with Ennenmoser's C37 and let it cure for a month.... afterwards that amp sounded freaking magical, you could not beleive it was a gutbucket consumer 15 year old product... all the raunchy "wire tone" was refined to exquisite "strad tone"... I kid you not...” <<<

It seems that you would want to discuss the effect of the C37 lacquer, applied to the item of audio equipment as “having an effect on the recorded code” but you CAN’T apply the SAME ‘explanation’ i.e ‘having an effect on the RECORDED code’ to explain the effect of the same C37 lacquer when applied to the LIVE musical instrument of a violin !!!! OR when the same C37 lacquer can be applied to the podium used by the conductor, conducting a LIVE orchestra, with a similar improvement to the sound. OR when the same C37 lacquer can be applied to the legs of all the chairs used by the musicians playing LIVE music with a similar improvement to the sound of that LIVE orchestra !!
If you would want to give the explanation regarding ‘treating’ the item of audio equipment with C37 as “having an effect on the recorded code”, then so be it. But, when that explanation cannot explain the effect of C37 on improving the sound when applied to items which are NOT, in any way, dealing with the “recorded code”, then either you choosing to ignore any other effect than one which fits your “dealing with the recorded code” or you are left with questions – on a shelf - awaiting answers. But you have answered, in the past, that you do not have questions on a shelf – that you have “done the questions and got the answers” !!

The music from the live instrument is NOT a recording so does not have a ‘recorded code’, OR a ‘recorded signal’, OR a ‘recorded language’, OR an ‘audio code’ which one can recover at some later time, later week, later month, later year !!!!

So, I am back again saying, that a person’s outlook which wants to look at discussing “an effect on a recorded code” is very narrow.

If the conductor of the orchestra is standing on a podium and you apply C37 lacquer to that podium and have the orchestra sounding better, you can no longer apply the explanation “Oh it’s “having an effect on the recorded code”.

If you apply the C37 lacquer to the legs of the chairs used by the musicians playing LIVE and have the orchestra sounding better, you can no longer apply the explanation “Oh, it’s having an effect on the recorded code”.

Let us turn it now, on it’s head. Let us look at Dieter Ennemoser’s explanation as to why the lacquer he has produced can give improvements in the sound when applied to different items in the listening environment – whether that environment is for listening to recorded music or to live music. His explanation is that he has made the C37 lacquer so that it “matches” what is best for human beings – NOT what affects or “is best” for the “recorded code”.

You are constantly wanting to know what equipment I am listening through NOW, today, what music recording I am listening to NOW, today, as though that has any relevance to me knowing, through extensive investigations, that one can apply such as the C37 lacquer to the corners of windows, to window frames, doors, shelves, chairs, to the edge of mirror frames, photo frames, picture frames and so on – ad infinitum – and gain improvements in the sound of LIVE musical instruments.

Your “recorded code” issue has no relevance when looking at what affects the sound in environments for listening to LIVE music. So, the emphasis on the “recorded code” limits ones thinking !! It cannot explain the beneficial effect on the sound of the application of C37 lacquer in a LIVE music listening environment. So, Michael, do you have at least TWO different explanations for the same C37 lacquer effect ?

>>> “So as back to the audio code, this is the actual recorded code that every recording has at any place along the audio chain.” <<<

So, Michael, with regards to such as the C37 lacquer. At (say) 9.00 am when it is applied to an item of audio equipment you are wanting to explain it’s effect of improving the sound as “dealing with the actual recorded code” and then at (say) 12.15 pm when the same C37 lacquer is applied to items in a different LIVE music environment you are wanting to explain it’s effect of improving the sound as ??????????????? what ??? And you tell ME I am

>>> “putting restrictions and limits on audio yourself” <<<

I am wanting to expand the discussion away from the restrictions of “an effect on the recorded code” and discuss what such as the C37 lacquer might be doing, what it might be having ‘an effect on’.

Could it actually be ‘having an effect on how the HUMAN BEING reacts to their environment’ in ALL cases ? Could the modern environment be as Dieter Ennomoser suggests – that there is so much in the modern environment which does not “match” with what human beings require and that human beings therefore are ‘under tension’ because of such ? That one CAN superimpose something which “matches better with human beings” and which then allows them to relax more, be under less tension, and therefore resolve more of the musical information which is already there, available, in the room ?

And, you tell ME, Michael, that I haven’t got to the advanced stage which you have reached !! I have not seen you bring the human being into any discussion, so far !!!!! So far it has been ‘the recorded code’ you are dealing with or ‘vibrations’ you are dealing with.

>>> “But honestly you have no clue until you get to a higher level of transparency with me, what I have done and am continuing to do, as well as the others who I happen to think are extremely open minded in their respective fields.” <<<

Yes, Michael, others can be open minded in THEIR respective fields and if their respective fields are to do with electronic circuitry, then they will talk electronic circuitry till the cows come home. But, my considerable experience of engineers is that they DON’T want to discuss ‘things which change the sound but which do not fit into conventional electronic or acoustic theories’, which do not fit into ‘conventional electronics or acoustic explanations’. They don’t like ‘not knowing’, they are trained engineers, they are supposed to know, so they avoid such discussions so as not to reveal that they don’t know. So, there is a vacuum created which can then be filled with so called ‘engineers’ blaming “autosuggestion”, “the placebo effect”, “imagination”, “audio faith healing” etc, or as one highly significant AES engineer put it “the changes which people claim they can hear is just them having their head in a different position after they have sat down again after carrying out some ‘tweak’ or other!!

Of course people can be ‘open minded in their respective fields’. It is the term ‘respective fields’ which is the relevant word. An engineer, skilled in trial techniques, will be open minded in discussing trial techniques but move the discussion away from trial techniques and try to discuss the things various equally intelligent people are reporting as ‘hearing’ which don’t seem to make sense and the mind ceases to be ‘open’ !!

>>> “There are hundreds of instrument laquers out there that are all "audio friendly.” <<<

Yes, I know !! But what is your explanation as to why they might be “audio friendly” ?

>>> “Let me ask you, do you know the difference between the different types of lacquers used and what for? Have you made speakers, instruments or rooms using these different types, you personally?” <<<

YES, I do !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And YES, ME personally !!!!!!!!!!!!!! And both Peter and I have been working with lacquers and their effect on ‘sound’ for the past 50 years !! And – still -today.

And, yes, we have also ‘treated’ demonstration rooms at Hi Fi Shows. To quote the editor of one Hi Fi magazine after two Hi Fi Shows in 1987.

>>> “P is for Peter Belt whose extraordinary ideas were described in last month’s issue….I have twice witnessed him setting up the HiFi Answers room at a hi-fi show (Penta and Bolton)……
Peter Belt did his Penta set-up in front of a (mostly) invited audience, the majority of whom remained riveted for the two and a half hours he was in the room. A few of us had heard these effects before, the rest had not. One of the audience who was cynical was our publisher…….Not to put too fine a point on it, he was getting cold feet.
Well, they say there’s no zealot like the convert….He went home and immediately began giving his home the PWB treatment. Every subsequent morning, it seemed, the conversation would begin : “You should hear the difference that….”
Dateline; 2nd October, Bolton. Next door to us were New Hi Fi Sound, who were planning CD versus DAT demonstrations. They came armed with numerous amps and speakers, and had begun the depressing task of trying to find a combination that would work acceptably. By the time they came into our room to witness Peter Belt at work, they were almost suicidal. When they’d witnessed what he had achieved for us, though, they asked politely if he would do the same next door. He agreed, and two hours later they were all smiles.
I can fairly say, I think, that together we made some of the best sounds at the show “ <<<

You have referred elsewhere to the Quad speakers but mainly regarding dealing with vibrations (i.e. platforms).
How do YOU explain the following effect, Michael ?
During the heady days in the 1980s, in the UK, when retailers were recommended to have single speaker dem rooms, other speakers not needed for a demonstration were usually housed outside the dem rooms, often in corridors.

One free ‘tweak’ one can do is so tie a reef knot (ONE reef knot only) in a cable, including in an AC power cord or with two adjacent cables or AC power cords tie them together with one reef knot and one will get an improvement in the sound. If these cables or AC power cords are attached to working equipment, in the actual listening room, then the usual explanation is that ‘the effect must be on the audio signal’.

However, we successfully demonstrated the following to numerous Hi end retailers. Usually the pair of ‘not wanted for demonstration’ Quads were housed in the corridor, just outside a demonstration room so as they were not too far to carry back into the dem room when needed. With the Quad’s AC power cords just dangling passively, NOT connected to the AC power supply, if you tie those passive AC power cords together with a Reef knot, you will get an improvement in the sound which is taking place IN THE ACTUAL DEM ROOM !! In other words, the Quads were not in the dem room, the Quad’s AC power cords were not connected to the AC supply but one could still influence the sound taking place in the adjacent dem room by ‘treating’ the passive Quads !!!

Dealing with the “recorded code”, Michael ??

Regards,
May Belt,
PWB Electronics.

I know what you mean with regard to the Capitals I sometimes use. Perhaps I can explain further. The document system (or whatever it is called on computers) which I used for many years and which carries much of my archive material was not done in Microsoft Word. So, whenever I wrote a reply to someone – on the various internet chat forums – using the system I was using, whenever I tried to put certain emphasis on certain words by using such as italics, when this was submitted to the chat forum, it never appeared as emphasised in italics !! So, I got into the habit of emphasising certain words by using Capital letters – and THEY got through the system OK !!!! But I know what you mean in that those words look as though I am shouting at people. I am not.

I can type brilliantly but that is an old skill. Coming to terms with the intricacies of computers and the internet is a new skill, being learned slowly.

Regards,
May Belt,
PWB Electronics.

One thing I can think of that illustrates that your thinking might possibly be a little bit too constrained and perhaps too narrow regarding musical instruments. That is when you bring a PHOTO of a musical instrument into the room the sound quality will be degraded. But the reason cannot be because of the usual explanation of resonance or even tuning. Something else is happening with the photo of the musical instrument. Something unknown. AND it's the same thing that's happening with real instruments in the room. Even flutes and piccolos that actually don't resonate very much have this consequence. Let's take the odd case of a harp in the room. Now the standard explanation why the harp would degrade the sound is that acoustic waves in the room make the strings of the harp resonate, right? But if you disconnects all of the strings of the harp so they can't resonate the sound will still be degraded. Only by removing the harp entirely will the sound be restored. Even SPEAKERS and Headphones because they are also musical instruments, have this unfortunate consequence. It's akin to why a power cord or a cable just lying on the floor UNCONNECTED will degrade the sound. And taking the unconnected cable out of the room will improve the sound. Or why a picture of a hawk or a tiger or jet aircraft in the room degrades the sound.

The musical instruments in the room argument is reminiscent of the old wives tale about having telephones or cell phones in the room during audio demos, that the tiny speakers in such devices resonate with acoustic waves in the room and degrade the sound. Unfortunately for that theory simply removing the offending tiny speakers and taking them outside the house doesn't solve the problem - the sound is still degraded! Follow!

Next up, The Photos in the Freezer Tweak. Lol

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

>>> “you can't remove the lacquer: once applied it will stay there forever...so, if you don't like the effect...you can't go back.” <<<

And, Michael, it was this very fact that some of the things which one applies – it is there – once applied one cannot then remove it – which led us on a remarkable path of discovery.

After exhibiting at a Hi Fi Show in the late 1970s with our speakers and headphones, one of the exhibitors gave free samples of an antistatic liquid to each exhibitor. We never got to use it at the actual show but used it later when back at home.
When assessing different materials for use as a turntable mat one has to keep removing the vinyl record each time – to change the mat !! And we got the fizzzzzzzzzz of static each time. So, we decided to try this sample of antistatic liquid. Yes, it did what it was supposed to do, it supplied the deficiency, it dealt with the static problem but Unfortunately it completely ruined our sound !!!!! As you say, once certain liquids (or substances) are applied, they cannot be removed so one is not then able to do before, after and back to before experiments.
So, when later experimenting with any chemicals or lacquers or adhesives or paint or any substance which once applied cannot be removed we decided to try to use something like a sticky back plastic material, apply the substance to the surface of the sticky back plastic material, cut off a piece of the ‘treated’ material and apply THAT to the object we wished to ‘treat’ or to the surface we wished to ‘treat’. To be safe, to try things ‘once removed’ as it were to see if it gave any definite clues as to how effective it might be !!

But, we then found that the (listening) results were not consistent. No reliable pattern emerged. When the piece of material treated with the same substance was applied to the central heating radiator, it could have a remarkable result soundwise but when the same ‘treated’ material was applied to the speaker cabinet, the result was not near as impressive – in fact just a relatively slight improvement in the sound ! But, yet, a week or so later, when the same substance on another piece of ‘treated’ sticky back plastic material was applied to a second central heating radiator in the room, we just got a slight improvement in the sound – nowhere near the remarkable result we had had by using it on the first central heating radiator !! This random pattern happened – no matter how many different objects we applied the material to – nothing definite we could rely upon. We knew we had to continue experimenting until a definite pattern emerged which we COULD rely on. And, then, a couple of weeks later, when attempting another go, we realised that although we had been using squares of the same sticky back plastic material, the squares were all of different colours !!!

When we realised that the different colours of the same sticky back plastic material COULD be important, we scrapped everything, removed everything we had done the previous weeks and started all over again but this time taking specific notice of which colour worked best on which object and on what material that object was made from !! THEN – a definite pattern emerged !! From that moment we knew that colours ARE important. And the later experiments confirmed some of the previous results.

To be outrageously simplistic but just to give you an idea. Anything steel and iron ‘likes’ the colour Blue (soundwise). Anything aluminium and wood ‘likes’ the colour Red. Anything glass or transparent ‘likes’ the colour Green. But, it is not the object which is doing the ‘liking’. It is us (human beings) doing the reacting – not the object – not the music – not the recording – not the audio signal - not the room acoustics. And this is why I challenge you, Michael. You seem to only see the recording changing, or the audio signal changing, or the acoustics changing.

The results from the later experiments made us aware that during the earlier experiments we had placed a ‘treated’ piece of sticky back plastic coloured Blue on the steel central heating radiator and gained a significant improvement in the sound but putting the same ‘treated’ Blue coloured material on the wooden speaker cabinet did not give us as good an improvement in the sound. And during the earlier experiment the piece of ‘treated’ sticky back plastic material placed on the second steel central heating radiator had been RED and this was where we had had disappointing results soundwise!! Only later, with later knowledge did we realise that the early experiments HAD been showing a pattern but we had not recognised that pattern until we had far more understanding of the effect of the colours involved.

You can downgrade and be dismissive of Dieter Ennomoser and his C37 lacquer all you want, Michael, but he reached the point where he was/is appreciating that one has to “match” things to what and how the human being reacts to things in the modern environment !!
Your quote from a certain reviewer that “one has to be careful when applying things which cannot then be removed” is obvious !!!!!!!!!!!!!! Yes, of course one has to. The reviewer is only saying the obvious !!!!! And, his recommendation again is the obvious !! You can headline it, as you have done, as a “Complaint” as a ‘warning’, but exactly the same applies with antistatic liquids – but when reviewing antistatic liquids, one would not, usually, qualify the review with a following “Complaint” !!

I will follow next with discussing listening rooms.

Regards,
May Belt,
PWB Electronics.

Michael wrote,

"May, I'm really not trying to downplay the posts you make or the work that you and Peter did, really I'm not..."

>>>>>>No, of course not. You wouldn't do that.

Michael also wrote,

"It's just that there are R&D facilities that study this stuff all the time and have for years now. Environmental testing has been around a long time that involve light reflections (colors) and mechanics (vibration) and fields (waves). There are hundreds if not thousands of these labs."

>>>>>>And what do these R&D labs, thousands of them, actually do with respect to R&D of the effect on sound of colors? HINT: Nothing.

Just a side note, I suspect from reading your responses here for about six months or so, give or take, you have not really scrambled to get on board the whole idea of the Belt Products, to grasp even one shred of it. All we get from you is this kind of smug denial and misinterpretation of facts to suit your own self-purposed suppositions.

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

Michael, you say :-

>>> “Wed of this week I shipped yet another listening room. We can talk about that specific room if you would like, and how I did it,” <<<

Michael, there is no point in discussing that specific room you did or how you did it. I have always said that I accept that if you heard something ‘sound’ better, then I accept that you heard something sound better, and that you would not have “shipped” anything out which did not sound good. I don’t need to know HOW you did it, I would like to emphasise what happens (or can happen) NEXT, after you did what you did.

>>> “Where I am on board with you is "everything affects everything else" which has been my motto through my musical life.” <<<

So, regarding setting up a listening room and knowing that "everything affects everything else" !!

You (say) set up a listening room (or demonstration room) at a Hi Fi Show to your standard. You have ‘tuned it’ to your liking.
However, if the people running that demonstration room are not FULLY aware, and I mean FULLY aware of what can affect the sound, then the following can happen (and does happen).

Because their demonstration room is (say) on the third floor and the area for refreshments (drinks and food) is on the ground floor – too far away to go for regular drinks and too far away to spend time away from doing the demonstrations in queueing for food – what happens is that someone will bring, into the room, a kettle, a teapot, milk, beakers, plates, tins of biscuits, containers of food etc and then wonder why the sound is now worse – and then blame the “room acoustics” !!!! And, what is going on in the adjacent room/s can also affect the ‘sound’ of their demonstration room ! If (say) the people running the demonstration room and the people in the room trying to listen to the music being played you have ‘treated’ become angry at the ‘noise’ being produced from other rooms in the same corridor, then that will have an adverse effect on the sound !!

Then on top of all that are the PR people then deciding that there are not enough publicity posters on the walls and then the design engineers deciding that THEY want to take this golden opportunity to show a prototype of a new design, so they introduce a passive object into a room when the room had been ‘treated’ (tuned !!) earlier. Then, on top of THAT enters one of the firm’s directors with a camera, a mobile phone, a note pad (or something similarly electrical) and maybe a small shoulder haversack containing his portable computer !! Not one of them knowing just what can affect the ‘sound’.

>>> “Plus you and geoff putting down the people we associate with, who really are at the top of their respective fields?” <<<

You accuse me of being disrespectful to engineers who are ‘at the top of their respective fields’. I don’t ‘put them down’ I describe reality.

Going back to my earlier paragraph. The design engineer I refer to will, obviously, be at the top of his respective field i.e designing audio equipment. But, if he does what I have seen such people do is to NOT be aware that when he introduces his prototype (a passive piece of equipment) into the demonstration room he will spoil the sound of the very equipment being demonstrated !!!!! They may be brilliant at designing audio equipment but if they are not aware of what, actually, can affect the sound, then yes I will challenge them and I will also challenge you if you keep insisting that I hang onto their every word – just because they are brilliant at their designing job, and because they want to discuss ‘programming the ‘recorded code’ via circuitry’ – which seems to be what sways the direction of your enthusiasm !!

Quite a number of years ago I remember observing KEF engineers set up their demonstration room to publicise their new flagship KEF 105 speaker system to their satisfaction. They then left to go back to the factory. In come the PR people and start to install a massive TV in the middle of the two speakers. Not only that but their publicity concept had them playing, continuously throughout the three days of the show, a video film showing the manufacturing process of the new speakers from the very beginning of selecting the materials Needless to say, the sound in that room was awful !!

>>> “What I’m reading from you is you and others are walking around putting a finish on tons of different things and claiming that it somehow puts them in tune. May nothing is going to put them in-tune except for "Tuning" them. Will C37 make a change? Certainly along with thousands of other finishes, but you don't put something on something else and expect it to tune itself. Same goes for colors, or any change, they are all fixed uses that will make some change great or small, but these don't mean that an object has all of a sudden been put into tune, and you, I or any other reviewer who buys into that is not as you say "looking deep enough".” <<<

No, I am not saying that all we have to do is to walk around putting a finish on something and claiming that it puts things in tune. But, what I am saying is that if the sound has gone worse, and one knows which colour to now introduce into the room in place of a particular and different coloured object already there, then one can do a partial rescue of the sound !!!!!!!!!!!! Get the human being reacting less harshly to what is going on in the listening environment and one can have better sound !

Also I am not saying that ‘putting a finish on tons of different things and claiming that it puts them in tune”.

If applying such as a demagnetiser to vinyl discs and one can get such improvements in the sound from doing so as Michael Fremer described, then this means that prior to doing that treatment, that particular information had not been heard. What I see you saying is “leave the vinyl disc alone, do not gain the improvement in the sound by applying a demagnetiser – because it is a fixed ‘tweak’, but wait until you can rescue that further information later by my ‘variable tuning’”. No, you can’t. You might be able to get some other improvement in the sound by doing some of your ‘variable tuning’ but not the information which Michael got with the demagnetising method. If that further information had not been heard before applying the demagnetiser, then that information STILL will not be heard, because the original problem is still there, still with the un-demagnetised vinyl record !! Whatever any further ‘variable tuning’ might be carried out and whatever any further improvements in the sound might be heard !!!

Ditto with such as applying the UltraBit Platinum-Plus to both CDs and LPs.

Ditto with applying certain colours to CDs or applying a demagnetiser to CDs. Or aiming a tourmaline hair dryer at a CD.

Nothing to do with “putting them in tune”.

But, then Michael, you say you already have the answers with your ‘tuning methods’ of the ‘recorded code’ and once you have done that, then all is well with the world !! All is not well with the world or with the sound – hence the numerous and varied ‘tweaks’ which have been heard to affect the ‘sound’ – and more often than not have been reported to improve the sound.

Regards,
May Belt,
PWB Electronics.

>>> “May, just a question, not trying to insult. Do you and Peter visit test sites for the things you bring up? Here's why I ask again. So far you have not brought up anything new that research facilities are not already exploring and building products for.
May, I'm really not trying to downplay the posts you make or the work that you and Peter did, really I'm not, it's just that there are R&D facilities that study this stuff all the time and have for years now. Environmental testing has been around a long time that involve light reflections (colors) and mechanics (vibration) and fields (waves). There are hundreds if not thousands of these labs.
When I'm reading you, I get the feeling that you haven't been to these labs, and done experiments with the engineers who run them. I'm not saying you have or haven't, I'm only saying that all the stuff you have mentioned so far are things that are common knowledge to people in these fields, and have been for well over 25 years. “ <<<
Now Michael, just a question !! A question I have been asking since the beginning.
IF, IF, everyone knows everything, (your hundreds if not thousands of labs).
IF, IF:- things are “common knowledge” i.e :-
>>> “ all the stuff you have mentioned so far are things that are common knowledge to people in these fields, and have been for well over 25 years. “ <<<

Why on earth are there continuing controversies, year after year, many of them extremely heated, many of them between ‘professionals in audio’ if ALL is already known ?

>>> “it's just that there are R&D facilities that study this stuff all the time and have for years now. Environmental testing has been around a long time that involve light reflections (colors) and mechanics (vibration) and fields (waves). There are hundreds if not thousands of these labs.” <<<

If that is the case, Michael, then WHY has this not been brought up at EVERY Audio Engineering Society meeting. Why don’t AES members know of these labs, of all this research ?

>>> “We did color mood testing at our "92" and "93" shows.” <<<

Then WHY are exhibitors STILL making a complete mess – of the sound – in their demonstration rooms in the 21st century ? IF all is known – by these ‘hundreds if not thousands of labs’ ?
You talk to me as though I don’t know what is going on NOW. You seem to be presuming that my knowledge stopped some 30 years ago, at the time when we started making certain specific discoveries.

Are you telling me and therefore others that “it is NOW known which is the best colour for the insulation material for interconnect cables and for AC power cords” – for the health and wellbeing of human beings. That it is NOW known which is the best chemical mixture for that insulation material for interconnect cables etc – for the health and wellbeing of human beings. That it is NOW known which is the best conductor material for the audio signal inside those interconnect cables etc – for the health and wellbeing of human beings. You just have to look at the photos published on Stereophile from this latest Show of the different and varied cables to see that “what you claim is ALREADY known” has NOT got through yet !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

In one breath you want to concentrate on discussing the “recorded code” or the “audio code” and in another breath you claim:-

>>> “We have been working fairly close with innovators in both health and audio response fields since 90,” <<<

Since 90 !!!!! So, this working closely with innovators in both health and audio response fields, during the past 25 years, have resulted in ????? In wanting to discuss the “audio code”, in wanting to discuss the recording ??

>>> “Like I said there are many methods and finishes out there, and they all are tied to variable tuning for best results.” <<<

No, Michael, they are NOT all tied to variable tuning for best results. Presumably you mean ‘tuning’ what you call the “audio code” or the “recorded code” – meaning the recorded music. How then do you explain the anomalies. One anomaly is using a particular “finish” YOU have found gives you the best sound regarding your ‘tuning’ of the “audio code” (the recorded music) and then apply the same finish to the water drain pipe outside the building - and gain a further improvement in the sound !!
Variable tuning of the audio code ? Are you now going to list the hundreds and maybe thousands of labs who, you say, have been working on these anomalies for years ? Who have been working on ‘what affects the sound’ for years ?

You say “All is known, May, we have been working on such things for years and years”. I say “All is NOT known, Michael. All is NOT known.

>>> “So far you have not brought up anything new that research facilities are not already exploring and building products for. “
<<<

So, Michael, why don’t you ‘bring up the research facilities who ARE exploring and building products for’ such as the use of different colours regarding good sound, for the use of different chemicals regarding good sound, for the use of different materials regarding good sound. We are all interested to know exactly WHAT is going on in the world of research, seeing as you claim such knowledge and experience. With your comment :-

>>> “We have been working fairly close with innovators in both health and audio response fields since 90,” <<<

So, Michael. From all this research you claim has and is being carried out, at all the “hundreds and maybe thousands of labs”. When you want someone to demonstrate the sound of your new loudspeakers you know what to specify regarding which interconnects should be used in the audio system ? You know which metal the conductor should be, which chemical mixture should be used for the insulation material of the interconnects, which colour that insulation material should be for the best sound ? Ditto the loudspeaker cables !! Ditto this. Ditto that. and Ditto that.

The answers should be available now, surely, since 90 !!!

The difference between your claims and my claims is that I say “There are still numerous questions, on the shelf, awaiting answers”. Whereas you say “Done the questions and got the answers”.
I don’t think the “hundreds and maybe thousands of labs” have the answers and I don’t think you have either. Maybe you exaggerate somewhat !!

The reason why I suggest you are exaggerating somewhat is that you seem to be telling us all (not just me) that these “hundreds and maybe thousands of labs” have the answer as to why and how different colours, in the listening environment, and why and how different chemicals, in the listening environment can have an effect on the recording of an orchestra playing the musical score of Dvorak’s New World.

Regards,
May Belt,
PWB Electronics.

Yes, there are rare cases when people switch to audio: like John Franks from Chord Electronics, who was previously involved with PSU's for aircraft avionics. But then, most of those people do not care about audio. I visited an underground bunker built during the cold war: it seems that colors used in the dormitories, computer rooms and meeting rooms were devised by scientists, and lighting was also scientifically placed to induce whatever feeling was thought to be necessary for best results. So yes, these things are widely researched but not for the benefit of the audiophile world - believe me, most people deeply involved in some of this research don't even know (and much less care) there is an "audiophile world" outside!

>>> “So yes, these things are widely researched but not for the benefit of the audiophile world - believe me, most people deeply involved in some of this research don't even know (and much less care) there is an "audiophile world" outside!” <<<

Hello IosiP.

THAT is exactly the point I was trying to make !! That is exactly why I centred my reply ON Michael’s reference to these research firms. Michael had introduced the fact that there are “hundreds and maybe thousands of labs” who are doing the researching – in an attempt to back up his argument that ”there is a lot already known”, when it should be as obvious to him as it is to you and me that there ARE NO definite answers yet and that these research firms are not pulling out all the stops to solve audio controversies !!!!

I know and you know but Michael obviously does not know – or else he would not introduce such wild, exaggerated sentences and claims !!

Regards,
May Belt,
PWB Electronics.

Michael wrote,

"Now, on to why the high end hasn't gone there. In talking to dealers at this CES, their asking the same question and caught between two worlds. High End Audio through the early 90's was considered the cutting edge of audio, but as the computer and compact technologies advanced High End Audio didn't follow suit at the rate of speed that the hi-tech engineering did. High End Audio is ran by small movements as compared to the masses that can throw tons into high end R&D. This shouldn't be news to any of us who have seen the High End Audio part shrinking."

Of course it's the companies that are invested in computer audio and other high tech enterprises that are promoting these technologies. That's actually quite different from claiming that computer audio and or other high tech is sweeping the industry due to some sonic superiority. Yes, we know it's convenient! I suspect you are making that claim since you feel you can ride the coat tails of whatever technology might be coming down the pike as long as you play your cards right and can incorporate these things into TuneLand somehow. It's clear you have no interest in getting involved with something like colors or colored dots since you think that will be perceived as non scientific or non high tech. The problem with this I'm a scientific person posturing is that good sound is only partially linked to technology, or weakly linked. Just like the sound of the Guernari or Stradivarius cannot be surpassed by current technologies, in woods, lacquers, construction techniques, etc. At the end of the day I'll take a Guernari or Strad over ANY high tech instrument, even though the older instruments might have been constructed with secret "tricks" strictly on musicality. Going even further, this whole high tech argument, "it's right around the corner, trust me," has been used ever since Compact Discs were a gleam in the eye of Sony and Philips. Perfect Sound Forever!

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

I know about the Guarneri family of luthiers from Cremona, but of no Guernari ever making violins.
Or maybe you're talking about your sicilian landmower, also moonlighting as a bodyguard for the local mob boss?

michael green wrote:

Geoff your response is nothing more than being an internet troll!

"An Internet troll is someone who comes into a discussion and posts comments designed to upset or disrupt the conversation. Often, in fact, it seems like there is no real purpose behind their comments except to upset everyone else involved. Trolls will lie, exaggerate, and offend to get a response."

I wish it wasn't but that's all it is.

michael green
MGA/RoomTune
http://tuneland.techno-zone.net/

It appears your responses have been degraded to the point of simply name calling. That's a shame. Oh, well.

You can take the boy out of Dayton but you can't take Dayton out of the boy.

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

iosiP wrote:

I know about the Guarneri family of luthiers from Cremona, but of no Guernari ever making violins.
Or maybe you're talking about your sicilian landmower, also moonlighting as a bodyguard for the local mob boss?

You know about luthiers? That's nice. Unfortunately you do not know the difference between an electromagnetic wave and a magnetic field.

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

You music lover have no clue about whoever built violins... but then, it comes in line for a "listener" of Sony walkmans.
And BTW, I already showed to you that you are a moron:

"Electric and magnetic fields: different aspects of the same phenomenon
According to the special theory of relativity, the partition of the electromagnetic force into separate electric and magnetic components is not fundamental, but varies with the observational frame of reference: An electric force perceived by one observer may be perceived by another (in a different frame of reference) as a magnetic force, or a mixture of electric and magnetic forces.

Formally, special relativity combines the electric and magnetic fields into a rank-2 tensor, called the electromagnetic tensor. Changing reference frames mixes these components. This is analogous to the way that special relativity mixes space and time into spacetime, and mass, momentum and energy into four-momentum.[29]"

Quoted from here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_field
Also try, if you can (under)stand it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_electromagnetism"

Go take a leak!

iosiP wrote:

You music lover have no clue about whoever built violins... but then, it comes in line for a "listener" of Sony walkmans.
And BTW, I already showed to you that you are a moron:

"Electric and magnetic fields: different aspects of the same phenomenon
According to the special theory of relativity, the partition of the electromagnetic force into separate electric and magnetic components is not fundamental, but varies with the observational frame of reference: An electric force perceived by one observer may be perceived by another (in a different frame of reference) as a magnetic force, or a mixture of electric and magnetic forces.

Formally, special relativity combines the electric and magnetic fields into a rank-2 tensor, called the electromagnetic tensor. Changing reference frames mixes these components. This is analogous to the way that special relativity mixes space and time into spacetime, and mass, momentum and energy into four-momentum.[29]"

Quoted from here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_field
Also try, if you can (under)stand it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_electromagnetism"

Go take a leak!

While that's quite hilarious, I'm pretty sure you just demonstrated that you don't know the difference between a force and a field and a wave. Now I'm really convinced you need to ask for a refund from that school you found on the back of a matchbook cover. Hint: a magnetic field such as produced by magnets and transformers has no electrical component; that is why the units of magnetic field are Gauss (B) not some electrical units or mix of Gauss-Volts or whatever. It is purely magnetism, not electromagnetism. That is precisely why high permeability alloys are able to reduce the strength of the magnetic field. You were probably sleeping one off when the two dudes from Pittsburgh were talking about doing just that.

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

>>> “These think tanks and companies are doing R&D and supplying for millions. They're not going to stop and feed a few thousand of aging audiophiles.” <<<

I know this, everyone and his uncle knows this, so why bring into the discussion on specific audio matters, that reference to “hundreds and maybe thousands of labs” as though it somehow strengthens your constant argument that “everything is already known” ? I repeat, yet again, Michael. Everything is NOT already known.

You accuse me of constantly trying to “school” you. What I do do, constantly, is challenge you after one or another of your exaggerations.

You have done it again with your “The rest of the world has indeed moved on.”

The rest of the world has NOT moved on. Anyone SERIOUSLY interested in their particular field, when something happens which cannot be explained, then it bugs them and it bugs them that they don’t have an explanation to hand. So, they put the questions up on a shelf, to be taken down from time to time, to look at maybe when new information is available or after new experiences. Yes, they may ‘move on’ with other technical aspects of what they are working on, but the original “Questions on the shelf” are STILL there – awaiting answers. They haven’t moved on – they have merely swerved around having to face difficult questions !!!

If both (technical aspects AND inexplicable things happening to the sound) are to do with ‘sound’ then people CAN progress in one direction from a purely technically point of view but would still be left with no answers as to why such as different colours or different chemicals can change the sound. So (say) Joe Bloggs could have – TODAY – a brilliantly engineered piece of equipment which a potential customer goes into a retailer to hear. That retailer could have NO knowledge whatsoever of how different colours or different chemicals, in their dem rooms, can affect the sound. The potential customer may not be impressed with the sound of the new Joe Bloggs equipment so walks out not being impressed enough to buy.

However, that same potential customer, when visiting a different city, may pay a visit to another retailer in that city. This new retailer does not have, in stock, Joe Bloggs new product but demonstrates a Bill Brown item of equipment. But, THIS retailer IS aware, from his own personal experience, which colours NOT to have in their room, which chemical mixtures NOT to have in their room – the potential customer hears the Bill Brown equipment ‘sound’ extremely good and buys it !!!!!!!!!!!! The Joe Bloggs equipment MAY BE much better engineered and technically superior to the Bill Brown equipment but in the original hostile listening environment it did not SOUND better !!!

Substitute the different colours, the different chemical mixtures with ‘applying such as a demagnetiser to LPs and CDs’ or having a Schumann Resonance device in the room, or having some of the tiny ART devices in the room and similar results can happen as I have described.

Nothing whatsoever to do with ‘tuning’ the ‘recorded code’, Michael. THAT is why I choose not to discuss what you call the “audio code” with you. It is too narrow – it does not take into consideration all the other things which affect the sound.
>>> “You talk about the mysteries of these advanced technologies, but they have and continue to be explored by many and all you have to do is read a few articles and visit a few conventions or classes and you would be brought up to date.” <<<

WOW !!!! Is that ALL I have to do to get the answers ??????????? WOW !! And I will be brought up to date and have all the answers ? WOW !! I didn’t know it was a simple as that !! And YES, I am being sarcastic – this time !!!

You are at it again with both trying to imply that I have limited knowledge on things audio – which is rather out of date and needs brushing up AND, then, exaggerating yet again that “a few articles and visit a few conventions or classes and I would be brought up to date.” !!

In that case I wonder why John Atkinson (to name but one highly respected person in the world of audio) is STILL thinking, STILL pondering and who said – just a matter of 6 years ago.

>>> “There are things that boggle my mind in High End audio. There are things that I would like to think I understand (from a technical and engineering point of view) and then something happens which literally blows my mind and it doesn’t fit the world view. “ <<<

So, Michael, all John A has to do is read a few articles and visit a few conventions or classes and he would be brought up to date. ?????? Is that correct ?

Or, that him making a visit to CES 2016 might just do the trick ? That is going to provide all the answers, is it ? WOW !!

>>> “You talk about the mysteries of these advanced technologies, but they have and continue to be explored by many” <<<

You are at it AGAIN, you are misrepresenting what I say. I do not talk about the MYSTERIES of advanced technologies. The advanced technologies are explained – they are NOT a mystery. What are the mysteries are the things which have an effect on the sound which CANNOT be explained from within conventional electronic or acoustic theories. THOSE are the mysteries and those are the things awaiting answers. The advanced technologies are explained from within conventional theories.

I keep having to do this. I keep having to correct your misrepresentations of what I say !!!!

>>> “I think your trying to school a generation that has moved way past sticking colored dots to different materials.” <<<

When one is SERIOUSLY involved in audio and in what produces good sound, one CANNOT move way past the effect of colours on sound – if YOU think one can, then you could not be more wrong !!!

When one is SERIOUSLY involved in audio and in what produces good sound, one CANNOT move way past the effect of different chemicals on sound – if YOU think one can, then you could not be more wrong !!

You might subscribe to the belief that “The rest of the world has indeed moved on.” In fact YOUR world might have moved on by ignoring what you don’t like to think about – but believe me, Michael, others still keep ‘taking the questions down, off the shelf, and searching for answers’.

You have discovered some things which can improve the sound. Yes. That I do not doubt. They are there – to be discovered. You have heard many things change the sound. That I do not doubt. But, I seriously doubt your claim that “you have done the questions and got the answers”.

When you go to CES next year and, in your dem room you have a poster, on the wall, which says the words – in Red – “Michael Green Products”. If you change that poster to an identical poster with identical words, but this time in the colour Blue – you will change the sound.

Now, Michael. With all your claimed answers to hand. What would the colour Red be affecting ? Would it be affecting the Information of the Orchestra playing the musical score of Dvorak’s New World as that information travelled through the audio equipment ? Or would it be affecting the Information of the Orchestra playing the musical score of Dvorak’s New World AFTER this information had been presented into the room by the loudspeakers ? OR ? What ?

Then, when the colour of the wording on the poster is changed to Blue, what will that colour Blue be affecting ?

How would the Information of the Orchestra playing the musical score of Dvorak’s New World be affected by those different colours ?

Ditto, different chemicals.

Has your claimed involvement with :-

>>> “We have been working fairly close with innovators in both health and audio response fields since 90,” <<<

Provided answers to my questions ? Because it happens as I have described , Michael. It happens.

>>> “Again not sure why you wouldn't take your comments to the source instead of me. I am simply doing my part in a very big picture.” <<<

Michael, it was YOU who brought the reference to the “hundreds and maybe thousands of labs” into our discussion !!! And, then when challenged that they might NOT have the answers to many of the things which have been reported to ‘change the sound’ you then qualified your emphasis on those labs with “Oh, they’re not going to stop and feed a few thousand of aging audiophiles.”.

>>> “I don’t think any of those designers involved in the R&D feel they are making any exaggerated claims.” <<<

You are at it AGAIN, Michael. And yes, I AM shouting this time !!!!!!!!!!! Again you are misrepresenting what I say !!!!

I DID NOT say that the designers involved in R & D are making exaggerated claims. I said that YOU were exaggerating if you were even SUGGESTING that they now have the answers to why so many of the things being reported as ‘having an effect on the sound’ CAN affect the sound !!

>>> “Cheer up a little, and stop assuming people know less than you.” <<<

It is the other way round, Michael. It is YOU who is assuming that I know less than you.

>>> “”I'm confident you would look at my remarks quite differently once you experienced what is going on in todays technologies. I believe you would be pleased at the research you and Peter have done in the past has been taken to higher levels of awareness.” <<<

I have never concentrated solely on the earliest discoveries which Peter and I made. I have constantly and repeatedly, during all our discussions, referred to things which people have discovered recently and are STILL discovering !!

>>>”From what I'm reading you are pushing your efforts of many years ago as if the rest of the world has still not caught on.” <<<

How on earth can you say that when I am often referring you to reviews of RECENT things which are reported to ‘have an effect on the sound’.

Like the Ultra Bit Platimum Plus.

Like The Stein Music Harmonizer device.

Like The Less Loss Blackbody device.

Like The tiny Synergistic ART devices and Ted Denney’s latest “Schumann Resonance device”.

They ALL, in their way, with their effect on the sound, challenge conventional electronic and acoustic theories !!!

>>> “I think your too use to arguing and trying to back up your own discoveries, but those days no longer need to be May.” <<<

I back up other people’s discoveries when I know they are “onto something”. Onto something which has an effect on the sound !!!!!!!!!!!!! And happening TODAY, Michael. TODAY !!

>>> “I'm in no way wanting or needing to trump you May, I'm simply more interested in moving forward than going back to where I have been all over again.” <<<

If you HAVE ‘done it all before’, then I just don’t understand why you don’t have “questions on a shelf, awaiting answers”.

I agree that you will be able to make changes in the sound when doing the things you describe and recommend – because we both know that everything happening in the environment has an effect on ‘the sound’. So, yes, you will be able to change the sound.
YOU keep saying you “have been there, done that, got the answers”. What I am saying, Michael is that there are many important questions STILL on the shelf – awaiting answers. Whereas what you are saying is “I have already done the questions and have the answers. I therefore recommend that people don’t do any of the other things BUT my ‘variable tuning’ of the ‘recorded code’ “!!!

What I am saying is that one has to take everything into account – everything which has an effect on the ‘sound’. And, if yet another thing is discovered tomorrow which has an effect on the sound, and THAT effect can’t be explained from within conventional electronic and acoustic theories, then we will have yet ANOTHER question, on the shelf, awaiting an answer !!

Regards,
May Belt,
PWB Electronics.

>>> “From what I'm reading you are pushing your efforts of many years ago as if the rest of the world has still not caught on. This to someone like me is where an exaggeration comes in, May.” <<<

Nothing to do with “the rest of the world has not caught on”, Michael.

My efforts (as you put it) are triggered by seeing you repeatedly stating that “you have heard this, heard that, and that, and that” – practically everything I mention - sometimes you heard some improvement in the sound and sometimes you thought the sound had got worse !!

It seems always that you are not registering that IF the sound can change – whether better or worse – when it SHOULD NOT have changed at all from a conventional electronic or acoustic point of view, then how can you swerve around such experiences and continue insisting that ‘vibrations are everywhere therefore the problem must be vibrational’ ? THAT is not what I call “moving on”. Surely your answer should at least be “Some things affecting the sound may be caused by vibrations but I don’t understand what the other things are doing. I don’t have an answer to those”.

Instead what you actually write is:-

>>> “Also are you asking if I have done studies on the subjects you mentioned? If so, yes I have. Was it difficult for me to find answers, nope. “ <<<

>>> “When we say "tuning" we really do mean it. It is "THE" answer” <<<

You have stated, on a number of occasions, that :-

>>> “yours is THE truth, that your answer is THE answer and that your method is THE method” <<< !!

Regards,
May Belt,
PWB Electronics.

>>> “Than you are not reading what I'm saying May but instead "reading into" what I am saying.” <<<

I respond to what you are actually SAYING, Michael, not what I think you are saying !!!

And, I respond so often because you exaggerate so often !!

Regards,
May Belt,
PWB Electronics.

Gentle readers, it's not that Michael is poo pooing little colored dots so much as he is poo pooing all of the things they represent, the things that affect our perception of reality, how we are vulnerable to the conscious and subconscious minds interaction with the local and distant environment - even on the other side of the world - that (dramatically), the things that shaped our brains and memory since the Dawn of Man, the EVOLUTION of sensory perception, but not only the overly simplistic way audiophiles usually look at it as simply the acoustic waves entering the ear, the way we HEAR, the UNIVERSE of things that are not the standard audio vocabulary (such as Michael's). The color dots are only the tip of a huge iceberg. This huge schism between advanced audiophiles and ...what...standard audiophiles, audio buffs, pro audio enthusiasts, whatever, must be crossed to get to where the REAL high end lies. Unless you cross this canyon, walk through the doors of perception, get over this chasm, you are only kidding yourself that you are in the high end. This is the Big Audio Secret! Break on through to the other side!!

Made the scene, week to week
Day to day, hour to hour
The gate is straight
Deep and wide

Break on through to the other side
Break on through to the other side
Break on through, break on through
Break on through, break on through
Hey hey hey hey
Hey hey hey hey hey

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

...a simple scientific experiment. He couldn't make a comparison between two items where all variables were controlled except for one.

Geoffy wrote: "Take a cable with a black jacket and listen to it so younger [sic] an idea what it sounds like. Then wrap the outside of the black jacket say 1/4 the length with WHITE electrical tape. Listen to the cable again. You should be able to hear the sound is better with the white tape around the jacket."

Geoffy doesn't know what all grade schoolers need to know about scientific methodology.

Go back to http://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/project_scientific_method.shtml and read where you went wrong here.

Are you smarter than a 5th Grader, Geoffy?

Nope.

>>> “In the case of May and geoff, both can not deal with the fact that someones results may be different than theirs or that these things are being looked into in a far more advanced and meaningful way.” <<<

Who is it who is “looking into these things in a far more advanced and meaningful way” ?

Please tell us, Michael.

>>> “I read geoff's comment about the dots, and it's a bold face lie. He nore May have any idea how far others have gone in these areas,” <<<

You are doing it again, Michael. Again, Michael, you are throwing out comments as though they are confetti !! Please explain this “bold face lie” which Geoff is supposed to have told about the dots ?

Please explain how far others have gone in these areas !!!!!

You are at it again, Michael. Either you know or you don’t. If you have information, then a few sentences “should be enough to shoot me down in flames”. Come on then.

>>> “This shows he clearly has no idea what materials do to the sound.” <<<

Really ????????????

Regards,
May Belt,
PWB Electronics.

Give me a break. That's all you've been doing the past six months is repeating yourself.

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

Unless you are into dots and playing Whack-A-Mole, there is no point engaging with Geoffy.

Good try, though, Michael.

All the extensive tests you did and describe, Michael, just confirm what I have been saying all along – that different colours create different reactions in people and that those reactions ‘change’ the sound. The people taking part in those trials you referred to KNEW they had reacted because the sound had changed !!

>>> “I've done similar testing since this enough to tie color conditions to an audio change, but unless there is a way to measure the bodies responses to these types of testing the results are at best random.” <<<

You have confirmed, exactly what I have been saying all along - with your :-

>>> “the results of those tests “tie color conditions to an audio change” <<< !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

But, Michael, the experiments you did are STILL leaving questions as to HOW the different colours could change the sound, WHY the sound changed and WHERE the changes in the ‘sound information’ took place. You can’t ‘measure’ the body’s responses to those types of testing but the changes in the sound tell people that the human being IS reacting and has been reacting all along – but never really aware of those reactions before until they heard the sound change !!

The very questions I describe are STILL on the shelf STILL awaiting answers, but which you say YOU have ‘done the questions and got the answers’. When I challenge you for those very answers, you just, simply, confirm that yes, your experiments show that colours can make an audio change.

Every single person reading the discussions on this audio forum is fully aware that the conventional theories have the musical information ABC + DEF all the way through to XYZ travelling through the audio equipment. Is fully aware that when that musical information ABC + DEF through to XYZ is presented into the room by the loudspeakers it then becomes acoustic information travelling to the ear drum.

Presumably we all agree that the different colours cannot change the musical information travelling through the audio equipment. Presumably we all agree that the different colours cannot change the acoustic information presented into the room by the loudspeakers – so HOW are the different colours changing the musical information ABC + DEF through to XYZ. WHY is the musical information ABC + DEF through to XYZ changed by the different colours and WHERE is the musical information ABC + DEF through to XYZ changed by the different colours ?

THESE are the questions I say are STILL on a shelf, STILL awaiting answers. Michael, on the other hand, YOU say :-

>>> “Also are you asking if I have done studies on the subjects you mentioned? If so, yes I have. Was it difficult for me to find answers, nope. “ <<<

And :-

>>> “These things are being looked into in a far more advanced and meaningful way.” <<<

So, Michael, I am still asking. Please show me the results you claim are “being looked into in a far more advanced and meaningful way” – which will explain HOW, WHEN, and WHERE !!

You say :-

>>> “coloring CD's

In doing our tests on coloring CD's we found the same thing as changing colors in the listening room. The results were random and in most cases adding the colors cause a collapse in some part of the soundstage, and dulls or peeks. We found the same results with adding enhancement solutions to CD's. In almost all the testing we did there were changes but with close listening the results were not consistent.” <<<

Again, Michael, you are saying “That the same thing happens with colouring CDs as happened with changing colours in the listening room”.

When I say you are not thinking things through enough it is that with colouring CDs those are similar OBSERVATIONS (i.e that different colours change the sound) but with (usually) only ONE explanation – the one put forward to do with reflection or refraction of the laser beam with colouring CDs. But there IS NO laser beam being refracted or reflected with colours IN THE ROOM and yet they produce similar observations !!!!! So, that means that there is a further observation but with NO explanation – which leaves the questions I keep referring to unanswered !!.

>>> “Our bodies are designed with it's own sensors and adapting systems. There are a wide range of frequencies that your particular code is built to respond to in positive ways and negative…………….. Some respond better in one set of conditions and that same person sick to death out in nature at another.” <<<

Again, Michael, all you are saying is that people can react in both positive and negative ways. But these reactions can change the “sound” !!!!! And, as I keep saying, it does not matter whether those reactions make the sound better or worse, if they SHOULD NOT affect the sound AT ALL !! So, therefore, IF they DO affect the ‘sound’, then we are back again with the same questions :-

HOW do those reactions change the musical information of ABC + DEF through to XYZ ?

WHERE do those reactions change the musical information of ABC + DEF through to XYZ ?

Those reactions cannot change the musical information travelling through the audio system. Those reactions cannot change the acoustic musical information in the room travelling TO the ear drum. So, HOW and WHERE does the change to the musical information happen ?

These questions are STILL not being answered !!

Now, let me explain my reaction to you, Michael, when you state that “The world has ‘moved on’ past discoveries made many years ago”.

Say, 30 years ago, in January 1985, Michael discovered that he could improve the sound by moving a transformer out of it’s equipment housing and keeping it permanently outside, meaning that when the transformer had been inside the equipment housing, it must have been having an adverse effect !!

Even Bill (wkhanna), following some fairly simple instructions, was able to gain improvements in his sound by ‘treating’ the transformer whilst it was still INSIDE his equipment housing. Improvements in his sound which prompted him to exclaim “This is some Amazing Schiit!”

Now, if others tried the same technique as Michael and they reported the same results. Now, if at CES 2015 audio equipment manufacturers and designers were STILL – 30 years on - demonstrating equipment with the transformers inside the equipment housing and Untreated transformers at that, then the audio world HAS NOT MOVED ON in that respect. What Michael might have discovered, 30 years ago, would still be as relevant today, January 2015, as it was back then. And, if next year at CES 2016, or in 10 years time, or in 20 years time, the manufacturers and designers are still doing the same thing, then the world will NOT have “moved on” in that respect.
Michael stating that one only had to visit the ground floor of CES 2015 to see the vast advancements in technology is a completely irrelevant statement. Technical advancements in one area does not mean that the entire world has ‘moved on’ in all areas !!!!!!!!!

All you are doing on your site, Michael, is listing the experiments you have done. No one is denying that you have done experiments. But, you are NOT giving the answers as to WHERE, and HOW, the ‘sound information’ is changed !!

As well as people react to different colours and that reaction changes the sound, they also react to different chemicals and to different chemical mixtures which are in their listening environment with similar changes in the sound !!!!

But, whatever are the experiments you have carried out, you say that the changes heard, in the sound, were not as big as were other physical changes that were made in these systems and that the changes made by ‘tuning’ were ‘huge’ !!!!

>>>”Plus, I need to add this note, the changes were not big as compared to any physical changes that were made in these systems, like adding cones for example of different types under components, and the more involved tuning made changes that were huge and predictable as compared to the treating types of tweaks.” <<<

This is a common theme of yours, Michael, that all other ‘tweaks’ are nowhere near as effective as your ‘tuning’. That is not what comes over in other people’s reports of other ‘tweaks’ and certainly not what comes over from such as Greg Weaver’s report on the considerable improvement in the sound he obtained from using the UltraBit Platinumin Plus chemical !!!

So, let us take this discussion a bit further. Knowing that everything in the listening environment has an effect on the sound, when the sound changes what is it that is changing and where is it doing the changes ?

Is it the musical information travelling through the audio system which is being affected ?

Is it the musical information which has been presented into the room by the loudspeakers which is being changed ?

Or, could it be, in many instances, the human being who is doing the reacting to what is going on in that very environment in which they are attempting to resolve the complexities of music ?

To be continued.

Regards,
May Belt,
PWB Electronics.

Michael’s reply on his home page :-

>>> “Now saying this I highly recommend doing a study on your particular vibratory setting and put them to use. You may not find that generic products do the trick but as vibratory health clinics become more popular there will be better products made to tailor to your body.” <<<

This is another one of your ‘thrown into the discussion’ sentences, Michael. Suggesting that there might be, at some time in the future, better products made to tailor to one’s body.

To do what, Michael. ? To affect the sound Michael. ?

With “better products made to tailor to one’s body”, WHERE will the ‘sound information’ be affected, Michael ? WHERE will the musical information of an orchestra playing the musical score of Dvorak’s New World be affected ? HOW will it be affected ? Will it be affected when it travels through the audio system ? Will it be affected after it has been presented into the room by the loudspeakers ? If it is affected, later, after it has got past the ear drum, then Where and HOW will that information be affected ?

>>> “Also are you asking if I have done studies on the subjects you mentioned? If so, yes I have. Was it difficult for me to find answers, nope. “ <<<

You are constantly stating that you have the answers, Michael !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Prey tell us !!!

Regards,
May Belt,
PWB Electronics.