## You are here

michael green
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 1 month ago
Joined: Jan 10 2011 - 6:11pm
Schumann Resonances

This I'm sure has been a thread in the past, but because of this topic being brought up so many times on my threads and others I thought I would give Schumann Resonances and some of the SRD's their own space.

For those wiki's out there, of which I am one, here's a link to kick things off.

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

I'm extremely interested in electromagnetic influences as they are a big part of tuning the audio signal. Hopefully this thread will clarify some of the how's and why's of the hobby of listening.

http://www.pemf.com/en/schumann-waves.html

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

michael green
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 1 month ago
Joined: Jan 10 2011 - 6:11pm
vibratory

Those of you who read my threads see that I refer to the word vibratory a lot (drives some of the folks here crazy). The reason I do is because the entire audio chain as well as physics in general is based on a vibratory system of codes. These codes may be describe as particular units of energy but they all exist within a variable super-structure. in other words you can't run away from vibrations and the fact is, vibrations are both good and bad Vibes. Bad vibes means something is out of tune, and good of course means in-tune. If you get a grip on this reality the audio chain and arriving at great sound becomes a lot easier.

Here. let me show you.

Notice that the name of this energy is called Schumann Resonance. "Resonance: In physics, resonance is a phenomenon that consists of a given system being driven by another vibrating system or by external forces to oscillate with greater amplitude at some preferential frequencies. Frequencies at which the response amplitude is a relative maximum are known as the system's resonant frequencies, or resonance frequencies. At resonant frequencies, small periodic driving forces have the ability to produce large amplitude oscillations. This is because the system stores vibrational energy."

WOW, just can't get away from vibratory amplification can we lol. And why do we want to? We don't, cause if we did you would never hear anything.

Also

Go read that link again. Notice something? The Schumann Resonance Frequencies are plural.

"This global electromagnetic resonance phenomenon is named after physicist Winfried Otto Schumann who predicted it mathematically in 1952. Schumann resonances occur because the space between the surface of the Earth and the conductive ionosphere acts as a closed waveguide. The limited dimensions of the Earth cause this waveguide to act as a resonant cavity for electromagnetic waves in the ELF band. The cavity is naturally excited by electric currents in lightning. Schumann resonances are the principal background in the electromagnetic spectrum beginning at 3 Hz and extend to 60 Hz, and appear as distinct peaks at extremely low frequencies (ELF) around 7.83 (fundamental), 14.3, 20.8, 27.3 and 33.8 Hz."

Vary, as in variable. The Earth works within the structure of variable tuning, and the energy forms used within audio fit in these structures.

This might be painful for the ego-lites on stereophile forum, but I have good news for you, these aren't my rules. I don't push my products as the only way, but more design and conform my designs to the "only" way. The rules of physics is a marvel to experience in motion, and that's just what it is, motion. Vibratory, resonance, currents, waveguides, oscillations all energies in action. We could probably come up with several names, and honestly the name to me as a designer is secondary to the form and function of "variable". Audio comes as a variety.

me picking on SRD (Schumann Resonance Devices)

Fact is I don't pick on SRD's at all. I pick on "fixed" SRD's, which I don't view as honest Schumann designs.

On April 7th of this year I attended a seminar about modern holographic testing tools. At this, we saw the holograghic of Schumann resonances, and I bet you can't guess what we saw? Actually you can. It was not a pic of 7.83hz, but a range of frequencies in motion as if to look at a mountain increasing and decreasing. The Schumann resonances we were looking at were in real time and was definitely not "fixed" or stuck on 7.83.

So if I as a listener looking at a device saying in it's ads that it is tuned specifically and exactly to 7.83hz, I'm not going to take this as a true Schumann Resonances generator, because Schumann resonances are varying endlessly. Does this mean that I am down on Schumann Resonances? Of course not. What this means is we believe in the 4 forces (fundementals) and physics because of the truth of physics, and the truth of audio. We didn't make the rules of tuning as I said earlier, we just do our best to be as accurate as possible, not throwing around "fixed" answers on a "moving" planet. The method of plug & play and fixed tweaks, from what we have seen, studied and experienced fail to render music in motion. We're all for great listening sessions, but we also have to be about getting things even more in-tune, whether it be in-tune to accurate or in-tune to our liking. The debates of right and wrong are a totally different debate from ours on TuneLand. Our search on TuneLand is to gain the abilities to work with Schumann Resonances as well is all the variable parts and pieces of audio.

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

geoffkait
Offline
Last seen: 3 days 12 min ago
Joined: Apr 29 2008 - 5:10am
Schumann frequency. Turn on, tune in but to the right frequency

Actually the Schumann frequency fundamental is what we refer to as the 7.83 Hz frequency, the rest of the frequencies in the set are called partials. We are only interested in the 7.83 Hz frequency for the purposes of audio. And that's why Schumann Frequency Generators are set to a frequency of 7.83 Hz not a set of frequencies. You can throw the rest of the frequencies in the trashcan. even if you insisted that the partial frequencies MUST be considered as a whole, the set of frequencies is FIXED not VARIABLE. The article you linked to actually explained why the partial frequencies are there, it's because of the Earth's geometry. its safe to assume, methinks, that those paartial frequencies DO NOT APPEAR IN THE ROOM whree a Schumann frequency generator is located. And why is the Schumann Frequency precisely 7.83 Hz and not some other number? It's because the waveguide that produces the Schumann frequency is the trough around the Earths circumference that is created by the ionosphere, so if you calculate the frequency of the wave in the trough that extends the entire circumference if the Earth at the altitude of the ionosphere the wavelength turns out to be our friend 7.83 Hz. Conversely if you calculate the wavelength of an electromagnetic wave having a frequency of 7.83 Hz you will find the wavelength is exactly the circumference of the Earth, including the ionosphere of course, about 26,000 miles. Thus, unfortunately for your attempt to show that the Schumann Frequncy in some sort of weird way is "variable" and fits into the Grand Tuning Scheme from Outer Space, it is s single fixed frequency. Sorry to burst your bubble. I just happened to work on Navy communication program up in Wisconsin, Extremely Low Frequency (ELF) that produced an electromagnetic wave using 1 Million Watt Class A amplifier with capacitors as big as Volkwagons. The wavelength required for the antenna, guess what? - 14 miles. And it produced a single, fixed frequency which was in the vicinity of 60 Hz.

Pop quiz: if the wavelength of the Schumann frequency (7.83 Hz) is 26,000 miles how does the Schumann electromagnetic wave fit in the room when the Schumann frequency generator is turned ON?

Pop quiz extra credit: can a Schumann frequency be generated by a CD? If so, how can you play the CD on a set of bookshelf speakers and produce a frequency of 7.83 Hz in the room?

Order your very own Schumann Frequency CD now!

http://www.amazon.com/Schumann-Resonance-Your-Mind-Can/dp/B00NYBKJ8A

Cheers,

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

geoffkait
Offline
Last seen: 3 days 12 min ago
Joined: Apr 29 2008 - 5:10am
Alpha waves and relaxed state

Here's a quandary - most manufacturers of Schumann Frequency devices including the first for audio applications, Acoustic Revive's R-77, point to the Schumann frequency as acting on the listener to put him in a more relaxed state. Well, guess what? It's actually the Alpha Wave not the Schumann wave that has a long history of placing humans in a relaxed mental state. Exhibit 1 are these paragraphs from the wiki page for Alpha waves,

"Alpha waves are neural oscillations in the frequency range of 7.5–12.5 Hz[1] arising from synchronous and coherent (in phase or constructive) electrical activity of thalamic pacemaker cells in humans. They are also called Berger's wave in memory of the founder of EEG.

Because of alpha waves' connection with relaxed mental states, increase in alpha wave activity is a desirable outcome for some types of biofeedback training. EEG can be used to provide the subject with feedback when alpha waves increase, enabling some individuals to consciously increase alpha wave activity.

There are several different prospects of this training that are currently being explored. Arguably, the most popular one is the use of this training in meditation. Zen-trained meditation masters produce noticeably more alpha waves during meditation. This fact has led to a popular trend of biofeedback training programs for everyday stress relief. Citation: http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread711504/pg"

So, it appears we have a dilemma, either the Schumann (fundamental) frequency of 7.83 Hz is the WRONG FREQUENCY for audio applications or it's a COINCIDENCE that the Schumann frequency is in the range of Alpha wave frequencies, as you can plainly see. So, the next step is obviously for some enterprising individual to build hisself an Alpha Wave generator. Oh, wait! They already make them. So, the next step now is to see if an Alpha wave generator works for audio applications. And since the Alpha wave Is VARIABLE, I.e., between 7.5 and 12.5 Hz, unlike the Schumann wave, one need obtain an Alpha wave generator with a variable Frequncy adjustment knob. And I'm going out on a limb and predicting yes, it will work. That is, assuming that the Acoustic Revive explanation for their Schumann frequency generator is correct, which I'm actually not sure it is. I'm not saying their device doesn't work, however.

Extra credit - there is a rumor that's been floating around for quite a while that NASA had at least one Schumann Frequency Generator built for the Space Shuttle and that it/they were on board some missions because NASA says the Schumann Frequncy relaxed the astronauts while in space. While this rumor might possibly sell more Schumann wave generators it's probably not true, at least I have found no evidence of it, and I've looked. If anyone can provide good evidence of NASA putting a Schumann generator on the shuttle or any other type of craft please post here. Remember Google is your friend.

Cheers,

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

May Belt
Offline
Last seen: 6 years 3 days ago
Joined: May 8 2006 - 1:51am
Schumann Resonance

Michael, I can’t make my mind up whether you are just simply missing the whole point or deliberately missing the whole point intentionally.

You have just done two miniature essays on Schumann Resonance devices and not touched ONCE on WHY or HOW the Schumann Resonance could be altering the ‘sound’ !!! Which is what many people (significant in audio people) are reporting!!

You refer, yes, to the Schumann Resonance to be a frequency or frequencies. You then couple it to the subject of vibrations.

There is no point giving such as a reference to what wikipedia says about the Schumann Resonance when wikipedia does not mention – at all – WHY or HOW the Schumann Resonance could be affecting the sound i.e. could be affecting the musical information – which is what many people report hearing.

If you want to refer to certain Schumann Resonance frequencies and couple those with vibrations, then the questions occur as to WHERE is the audio signal (musical information) being affected and HOW is the Schuman Resonance doing so ? And I don’t see you even attempting to answer those questions – which I might add are the very questions which are taxing quite a number of audio people !!

WHERE is the Schumann Resonance affecting the audio signal (if you are claiming that it is the audio signal being affected).

Is it affecting the musical information as that information is retrieved from the LP or CD ?

Is it affecting the musical information handled by the circuitry inside the CD player ?

Is it affecting the musical information as it travels along the audio interconnect to the pre-amplifier ?

Is it affecting the musical information handled by the circuitry inside the pre-amplifier ?

Is it affecting the musical information as it travels along the audio interconnect from pre-amplifier to amplifier ?

Is it affecting the musical information handled by the circuitry inside the amplifier ?

Is it affecting the musical information as it travels along the speaker cable to the loudspeakers ?

Is it affecting the musical information inside the loudspeaker and also handled by the circuitry of the loudspeaker crossover network ?

Is it affecting the musical information now converted to acoustic air pressure waves and vibrations in the room by the loudspeaker drive units ?

Or, are you thinking that the Schumann Resonance, when present in the listening room, is creating overtones which human beings like ? In other words, adding something to the musical information over and above what was on the recording and what had been introduced into the room by the loudspeakers ?

Or, NOT adding something extra (i.e in addition to the actual musical score recorded) but providing the resonance needed (within the complexities of a modern environment) which then allows the human being (the listener) to resolve more of the existing musical information already present in the room but which was not being resolved correctly prior to introducing the Schumann Resonance.

If you are going for that last answer, that the addition of the Schumann Resonance into the room allows the human being to better resolve the musical information of (say) Dvorak’s New World, then that (more resolved) musical information must have been present, in the room, all the time. Which then activates the next question “If the musical information had been in the room all the time but not correctly resolved, then why were we (human beings) not able to hear it correctly ?”

If you DO know the answers as to HOW and WHERE the Schumann Resonance can be affecting the musical information, then please would you tell the rest of the audio industry.

If you don’t know the answer, then surely that would contradict your earlier response to one of my questions !!! My earlier question to you was “Surely you (like many other people involved in audio) must have many questions, on a shelf, awaiting answers ?” To which you replied “Done the questions and got the answers”

>>> “The method of plug & play and fixed tweaks, from what we have seen, studied and experienced fail to render music in motion.” <<<

Here you are saying that “plug & play and fixed tweaks” FAIL to render music in motion.

And yet, in another posting you said:-

>>> “My intent is to give a heads up for people doing "fixed & permanent" tweaks.” <<<

Which is it ? No wonder I keep challenging you !!

Regards,
May Belt,
PWB Electronics.

michael green
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 1 month ago
Joined: Jan 10 2011 - 6:11pm
I'll start here and we'll see

Hi Geoff & May & Readers

First off, I'll be basing my comments on listening test we have done, and the info we have taken in. It may differ from yours and if so, my comments will be added to the comment list for others to read and come up with their own conclusions.

thanks

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

michael green
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 1 month ago
Joined: Jan 10 2011 - 6:11pm
7.83

Geoff said

"Actually the Schumann frequency fundamental is what we refer to as the 7.83 Hz frequency, the rest of the frequencies in the set are called partials. We are only interested in the 7.83 Hz frequency for the purposes of audio. And that's why Schumann Frequency Generators are set to a frequency of 7.83 Hz not a set of frequencies."

mg

This is the first parting of the ways, between Geoff and the science and advanced audio community. If one looks at Schumann resonances they are looking at what Schumann himself called an "approximation" as far as the foundamentals. If this was not something that varied we would have no need of this talk at all. There is no such thing as a singular fundamental Earth tone, but 7.83 is a sum average according to science and physics. These "resonances" also have associated harmonics.

If you look up Schumann Resonators you will see that there is a variable adjustment made for most of them. Maybe not the ones geoff or may choose to use, but as far as the general scientific world goes, they are tunable.

Once again we are not interested in a frequencies debate, but the facts as they apply to variable and tuning.

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

michael green
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 1 month ago
Joined: Jan 10 2011 - 6:11pm
lot-a-questions

Hi May

Could you break it down to one question at a time, then I will address them in that order. Some have complained that the reason these threads get so out of whack is because you are asking too many questions in one post and it adds to confusion instead of clarity. I don't mean to be asking you to change your posting style, but no one is in such a big hurry that we can't take these one at a time.

Also instead of "just" challenging me on what I believe would you point to your own personal lab studies and results with your questions asked of me? I believe hearing of your own R&D on topics is something that we miss many times. You reference reviewers but don't share with us what you have found personality. More to the point, I'm not talking to that specific person about a topic, but you. If you are the one asking than I need to be able to have this a shared conversation.

thanks, hoping for a good conversation :)

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

michael green
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 1 month ago
Joined: Jan 10 2011 - 6:11pm
same page or not?

This is for geoff and May specifically. Others can jump in too though of course.

A simple question really, but it will help me in my responses.

Geoff, you stated that you believe there is only one set Schumann resonance. May, do you also believe there is only one set 7.83 HZ as well?

yes or no is plenty good enough thanks

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

michael green
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 1 month ago
Joined: Jan 10 2011 - 6:11pm
question for May

May said

"There is no point giving such as a reference to what wikipedia says about the Schumann Resonance when wikipedia does not mention – at all – WHY or HOW the Schumann Resonance could be affecting the sound i.e. could be affecting the musical information – which is what many people report hearing.

If you want to refer to certain Schumann Resonance frequencies and couple those with vibrations, then the questions occur as to WHERE is the audio signal (musical information) being affected and HOW is the Schuman Resonance doing so ? And I don’t see you even attempting to answer those questions – which I might add are the very questions which are taxing quite a number of audio people !!"

mg

Anyone being taxed to answer this question needs to go (as you say) deeper. If your saying we discuss a topic in depth yet "you" leave out the fundamentals of the topic or marginalize them, maybe it is not they who lacks understanding but yourself.

I myself find it hard to talk over topics that you and geoff bring up when the both of you are not covering the topic in depth or make up your own versions of the truth. For example if you say that the Schumann frequencies are really one and set exactly to 7.83 as geoff says, then this throws a monkey wrench into the science communities findings.

Here's why May, and this isn't meant to insult anyones knowledge, but merely make the same point that science is making. If the Schumann Resonances had no variations, there would be no reason for there to be a desire for the resonance to be re-established cause as geoff is saying there is only one frequency. If there is only 7.83, why would there be a need to reset 7.83 or amplify it in any way? There is only a need to re-store if something has varied. And if something is variably restored or brought back or amplified, this is called variable tuning.

Do you readers see what I'm saying? If the 7.83 hasn't varied why would there be a need for any of these resonators? So the relevance of the topic and how this all works is very much front and center, and the beginning of the why's and how's.

May says I don't explain, but she is asking this without the understanding of tuning, if she is saying tuning is not the answer itself. Why do people hear changes when there is a change in the signal formula, is no mystery. As the physics of any environment changes it makes the variables of the space change on many fronts. Air pressure, distrubance: interuptance of a settled condition, exchanges & mingles of masses. There are many things that happen to the audio code as it interacts with physics. It's not so hard hopefully to picture the flow of current/signal changes as music signal is a variable constant, along with all the physics of an environment being the same (a variable landscape).

Frequencies are the measurement units used to describe the variables, and as these units are adjusted in value the sonic: : having a frequency within the audibility range of the human ear—used of waves and vibrations, landscape changes.

I think, and I could be wrong, that May has been asking all this time is what are the elements involved in audio change? She words it in her own way, and ask others to explain but to me, it's seems like she's asking how do the fundamentals of sonic change happen?

To be more to the point, why do these reviewers and others hear a difference when a Schumann Resonator is turned on, or why does the sound change when a cream is put on an object? Well if these are the questions the answer is very easy. As you adjust frequency values it changes the performance of the signal.

Going back to fundamentals (sound cycles), they all have values that are determined by their support systems. In the case of a frequency the support system is called harmonics. If you start changing the values of the harmonics it changes the performance of the fundamental itself. In music we call this volume and timbre. The most basic part of this to understand in playback is timbre and stage. To make something sound more focused for example, there are two ways of getting there. One is to bring the recorded code up to full size, filling in the blanks. The other is to drop off the harmonics on either side of the fundamental which brings out more focus on it.

So to make this shorter than longer, when May ask me to explain the why's and how's of the change that people hear as a result of a tweak, it kinda takes me off guard because I assume everyone at least knows the basics of how notes are made and re-played and how soundstages develope, but maybe I'm assuming too much. Maybe people don't know how harmonic structures work, along with soundstages. But when I read a review or hear someone talk about their sound my mind at least goes to the fundamentals of how the signal works. And with this, and a brief description it's not so hard to figure out what and how the changes were made.

To you May, if the question is how does the sound work, you should ask me this, because this is not so hard.

So May you said

"You have just done two miniature essays on Schumann Resonance devices and not touched ONCE on WHY or HOW the Schumann Resonance could be altering the ‘sound’ !!! Which is what many people (significant in audio people) are reporting!!"

How specific would you like me to get, and did the above start to head in the direction of the question for you? If I understand what you are asking I can get as specific as you would like, but need to understand the questions. Would you like me to give you a detail of our tests and exactly what changes were made and how they happened?

anyway I rambled but hope it is of some help

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

geoffkait
Offline
Last seen: 3 days 12 min ago
Joined: Apr 29 2008 - 5:10am
Schumann frequency
michael green wrote:

This is for geoff and May specifically. Others can jump in too though of course.

A simple question really, but it will help me in my responses.

Geoff, you stated that you believe there is only one set Schumann resonance. May, do you also believe there is only one set 7.83 HZ as well?

yes or no is plenty good enough thanks

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

It is misleading to refer to the Schumann frequency as a resonance which connotes it's a vibration. Yes, I realize you're still tryng to bring the set of Schumann frequencies into the Michael Green VARIABLE TUNING AND VIBRATORY ESTABLISHMENT. We've been through all this before several times. I pointed out that electromagnetic waves (such as the Schumann Wave, I.e., the REAL Schumann wave and the wave produced by the wave generators such as the Acoustic Revive RR-77) are comprised of PHOTONS, which are massless, I.e., zero mass. So they cannot vibrate (except in your mind). The Schumann wave does have a frequency however, which is 7.83 Hz, you know the Frequncy discovered by Mr. Schumann. It's incorrect to view the set of Frequncies listed in wiki as interchangeable somehow as the Schumann fequency. Re-read the wiki article and I'm sure you'll agree there is only one (1) Schumann frequency, Referred to as the fundamental in the wiki article; the others in the frequency set are called PARTIALS. And the one Schumann frequency is drum roll 7.83 Hz.

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

michael green
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 1 month ago
Joined: Jan 10 2011 - 6:11pm
Schumann

Geoff I don't see anyone forcing you to believe a resonance is a resonance. Nore do I think you are able to listen to the professionals in the field. But to help others the following, but there is much much more pointing to the Schumann resonances as a series and range of frequencies.

"In physics, resonance is a phenomenon that consists of a given system being driven by another vibrating system or by external forces to oscillate with greater amplitude at some preferential frequencies. Frequencies at which the response amplitude is a relative maximum are known as the system's resonant frequencies, or resonance frequencies. At resonant frequencies, small periodic driving forces have the ability to produce large amplitude oscillations. This is because the system stores vibrational energy."

Winfried Otto Schumann (May 20, 1888 – September 22, 1974) was a German physicist who predicted the Schumann resonances, a series of low-frequency resonances caused by lightning discharges in the atmosphere.

"In 1893, George Francis FitzGerald noted that the upper layers of the atmosphere must be fairly good conductors. Assuming that the height of these layers is about 100 km above ground, he estimated that oscillations (in this case the lowest mode of the Schumann resonances) would have a period of 0.1 second."

"Today Schumann resonances are recorded at many separate research stations around the world. The sensors used to measure Schumann resonances typically consist of two horizontal magnetic inductive coils for measuring the north-south and east-west components of the magnetic field, and a vertical electric dipole antenna for measuring the vertical component of the electric field. A typical passband of the instruments is 3–100 Hz. The Schumann resonance electric field amplitude (~300 microvolts per meter) is much smaller than the static fair-weather electric field (~150 V/m) in the atmosphere. Similarly, the amplitude of the Schumann resonance magnetic field (~1 picotesla) is many orders of magnitude smaller than the Earth's magnetic field (~30–50 microteslas). Specialized receivers and antennas are needed to detect and record Schumann resonances. The electric component is commonly measured with a ball antenna, suggested by Ogawa et al., in 1966, connected to a high-impedance amplifier. The magnetic induction coils typically consist of tens- to hundreds-of-thousands of turns of wire wound around a core of very high magnetic permeability."

"At present there is a rather confused set of ideas being circulated on the changing of the so-called Schumann Resonance, and its relation to the long awaited Earth changes. I would like to present some simple images that will hopefully help to clear this issue up, and lead to a more balanced consideration of this phenomenon.

The statement has been made that "the Schumann Resonance (SR) is rising, and is approaching 13 Hz, from its "normal" frequency of just shy of 8 Hz." Let's take this statement apart a bit. Just what is the Schumann Resonance?

It is known that all electromagnetic radiations which we measure in our local space travel very close to c, the speed of light, or 3*10^8 m/sec. Also, electromagnetic waves will bounce and reflect off of conductive surfaces, and this is how long distances are traversed by radio waves. Surrounding the Earth, there is a multi-layered complex of charged particles called the ionosphere, which acts as a reflector for low frequency radio signals. The conductivity of the ionosphere is constantly changing in response to the effects of the sun and its various outputs of flares, sunspots, and waves of many frequencies.

At very low frequencies, there is a greater conductivity of the Earth itself, and so a tendency for some radio signals, called ground waves, to follow the Earth, or even go through the Earth, which is useful for submarine communication. This creates a situation where there are two concentric spherical conductive surfaces, the earth and the ionosphere, forming a closed volume or cavity.

A more familiar cavity might be a bottle, which can be made to give a tone by blowing air across its opening. This is a simple acoustic resonance, and is formed by the creation of a standing wave inside the bottle. The Earth-ionosphere cavity has a similar sort of resonance, which can be thought of as being formed by a standing electromagnetic wave that encircles the whole globe, supported between the two conductive layers. Imagine a single wave of electromagnetism that has a length that encircles the planet. As it takes just under 1/8 of a second to transit the circumference of the globe at the speed of light, then we can understand that the base resonant frequency of the planet will be on the order of ~8 cycles per second, or 8 Hz.

Another aspect of the Earth-ionosphere cavity is that it has a very large electrical charge, like a capacitor. This charge is dissipated by lightning strikes, which are occurring in large numbers at all times around the Earth. This charge is constantly being replenished by input from the sun, and by other means. The continual crackle of this static discharge, created by the presence of thunderstorms across the planet, is akin to the blowing of air across the bottle mouth. It keeps the cavity excited and in oscillation.

There are many stations which actually measure this low frequency oscillation, such as the one at Stanford, which gives daily measurements

What is unlike the bottle example above, can be explained by an engineering concept called "Q", or quality factor. The bottle, or its more refined cousin the organ pipe, has a well-defined pitch, and so is deemed to have a high Q. The Earth's cavity, as it turns out, does not have a high Q. Further, it has a number of different frequencies at which it likes to resonate, like the overtones which can be made by over blowing a flute. Some of these frequencies are (rounded): 8, 14, 20, 26, 32, 37, and 42 Hz. It is these various standing waves that are referred to by the term Schumann Resonance. When measuring the SR, it is normal for one or the other of these modes to suddenly stand out for a brief moment, to be replaced by another, or by noise.

The actual measured waves at any site will not show any of these frequencies, except only very intermittently, due to the low Q of any of these modes. That is to say, the Earth does not make for a very good "filter" of the crackling lightning discharges. So in order to create the data which is given by any of the various measuring stations around the world, this noisy signal must be heavily processed and analyzed, so as to make the various resonant conditions stand out more clearly. This requires that the filtering algorithms are to a certain degree tuned to what the researchers are expecting to find.

There are other sources of ELF radiation that can enter this picture as well. Consider the possible cyclotron radiation of atmospheric particles hypothesized by Dr. H. A. Aspden. Yet another factor is a source of electromagnetic waves called Alfven resonator bands that occur in the same region as the SR. Without getting too involved, it can be said that the required knowledge and experience to adequately interpret Earth energy field data is very high. It is not something which allows for any speedy conclusions. An excellent summary of the many naturally occurring frequencies which are measurable on the Earth is given by E. E. Richard. It is often stated that the SR is "7.83 Hz". As Bill Ramsay points out, this would tend to indicate a high precision of measurement. It is actually due to a high degree of averaging, like saying the average family has 2.3 children. (Pity those families with the .3!) At any given location, the measured SR will be different, and it will change with a variety of conditions in time. Some locations may be seeing one mode or frequency more than others, due to the complex nature of the way spherical cavities can accommodate standing wave patterns. This is somewhat similar to what happens on a Chladni plate, which is made from the standing wave pattern created on a steel plate by sound waves vibrating loose sand particles. This shows the intricate ways in which standing waves mutually coexist to create patterns of great beauty. The case for three dimensions in a spherical cavity is yet more complex. It is, however, a useful image to keep in mind when considering the electromagnetic pulsations of the Earth, which are complex, and always shifting. One location may be different from the next, due to being on a node or loop of a standing wave. What is stressed is the theoretical nature of the mathematically derived figures for the SR, based on various aspects of linear system theory, and long term averaging. It is not an easily observed, tone-like signal.

Dr. Phil Calahan has taken measurements from a number of locations on the planet, both of the overall magnetic strength, and the ambient electromagnetic waveforms in the air, and has found that each place has somewhat different values. He has related this to the level of paramagnetic (para means essentially "weak") soils and rocks in any given location. His books on this subject are well worth reading (see "Para magnetism", available from Acres USA)."

Geoff I don't want to discount the info you give, but if you are to talk about these topics with those of us who have actually taken classes and done labs on these topics, you will find there are plenty of voices involved on any given physics topic. It certainly does not come down to you trying to make TuneLand appear like it is on some distant planet separated from the knowledge tree lol. Infact we have a large following of physicist as well we are followers of some of the brains around the globe with state of the art labs for us to play in, and if you follow us you see we take advantage of this knowledge often.

Bottom line is we have found the Schumann Resonances to be relating to a sum of events, readings and conditions. If your learning takes you some where else, we certainly respect that, but would disagree that 7.83 is an end all be all magical fixed number, as Schumann himself refered to the sum of varying results.

As far as the products you named, I'm not going to remark much except to say, if it is one frequency, why so many models that all change the sound differently than each other?

Plus a question for you, have you tried the variable units?

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

Catch22
Offline
Last seen: 8 months 4 weeks ago
Joined: Nov 21 2010 - 1:58pm
While interesting reading, how does this apply to audio?

As May has eluded to, if 8hz is beyond our ability to hear, yet people claim or suggest that these devices have beneficial effects, you have to consider that the frequency may have some physiological impact that isn't readily apparent and that this may result in altering our ability to resolve stimuli that already exists, we just aren't internally processing it as well as we are capable of processing it with the aid of the device.

By way of example in order to clarify my point, listening to music in the dark should have no effect on the sound produced by an audio system, but it very likely has a physiological impact on the listener that results in what they may describe as a better sound or more involving relationship with their music.

I have no experience with these devices, I'm simply thinking in terms of what might be plausible. Some people claim these things help them sleep better.

michael green
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 1 month ago
Joined: Jan 10 2011 - 6:11pm

The cool thing about the Schumann Resonances is that there is a ton of info about the topic. In "76" I wrote a paper call "The Earth's Note". Got a lot of weird looks from friends lol, but it's basic content was that we are all tied together by a common note structure while we are on planet Earth. Everything is in motion but moving to be tuned to this note. Later I started to work on the paper in more detail as "The Harmonics of Life". If you look at the Earth from space you can see it is a musical note (frequency+harmonics) as well the entire solar system is all musically driven. Back away and look at our solar system and it is a huge space clock with tons of variation tied to a rhythmic network. How can the two be one? Motion is all about a variable fair exchange between energies. A balance that measures differently from any one point but is always moving toward a constant core pulse.

a work of art

Look at the Earth again from space. Looks perfectly round doesn't it? But get inside the outer skin and you will see miles of variations on the surface, as if the planet was in a constant match of tug-a-war. Not only physically but as well the energy exchange. A constant electromagnetic storm, always in a variable system of exchange. On one hand you can look at the proposed pulse, but on the other hand you have to look at physics forces that stay in change to keep all in motion and at the same time acting as a self correcting controller to stay within that smoothly moving note structure in space. It is a pulse, but it also is an interaction, intermingling of Earth's energies which is what we call cycles and waves. As the frequencies become higher the forms seem to become more like piercing beams of energy, but if you slow down exchanges like lightning you can see that it lights up the whole sky. Heading back down the scale where we find audio, the frequencies react with the materials of the Earth itself. Turn up your stereo and put your hand on the wall, or wait till your neighbor starts his Harley. All of these lower vibrations give shapes and conditions to the Earth's surface. As well they shape us and the animal and plant life around us. These big vibrations cause everything to be in constant settle mode, and at no place on Earth does something sit still. Even a standing wave doesn't sit entirely still because it needs a force on either side playing give and take.

In the mid 20th century, scientist wanted to find the pulse of the Earth. If you take all these variations and sum them out what frequency does the Earth as a whole come out to? Some came up with 13HZ, others 10HZ, and finally they came up with 7.83HZ, mother Earth's resonant tone. Keep in mind this is still under debate but close enough for science and physic buffs to stake their claim. At the same time this discovery was going on there was also a health movement that focused on nature and being in touch with mother Earth. 7.83HZ became universal as the pulse of Earth. In 1986 a series of discoveries were made by the US navy that suggest that the Schumann Resonance had changed. Since that time the 7.83HZ even though being used as a popular pulse, is by many scientist not as much in stone as it once was. Also as test equipment becomes more advanced we are finding that 7.83 is more of a sum than an exact pulse taken from the surface.

As far as audio goes the effects of the schumann resonance at 14,000' is completely different than sea level. And an entire range inbetween.

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

michael green
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 1 month ago
Joined: Jan 10 2011 - 6:11pm
:)

Catch said

"By way of example in order to clarify my point, listening to music in the dark should have no effect on the sound produced by an audio system, but it very likely has a physiological impact on the listener that results in what they may describe as a better sound or more involving relationship with their music."

The senses play a huge role in what we hear, and if you ever get a chance to do a study on it, I highly recommend it.

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

geoffkait
Offline
Last seen: 3 days 12 min ago
Joined: Apr 29 2008 - 5:10am
This was bound to happen sooner or later

Take a non technical person and let him go wild on Google. He can cherry pick certain paragraphs and make it look like his claim is the correct one. He doesn't even have to know what all the terms mean. He can come up with a patchwork theory to support the wild cockamamie claim he started out with in the first place. You are what we call an obvious poser.

You still have not addressed May's question, after all this jibber jabber. What was her question, you ask? Why would a wave that is NOT AUDIBLE (as Catch 22 astutely points out) AND NOT ACOUSTIC affect the sound? Now, see if your Google search can come up with something. OK, ready, Go! Start Googling!

This is starting to look like a really good episode of Girls Gone Wild. ;-)
Cheers,

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

michael green
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 1 month ago
Joined: Jan 10 2011 - 6:11pm
schooling on the topic

Took courses from Dartmouth, Stanford, GSAPP, IRIS among others. Field worked with one of the biggest ICF firms (same people who built Caesars Palace in Vegas). Did architectual designing for Yale and SUNY, and more but you don't like when I drop names. So I might know maybe a little about the topic of Earth's resonances.

If I have your approval I'd like to continue my thread please. BTW folks, yes we design and build tunable listening rooms, studios and halls from the ground up. You can look on TuneLand for pictures and or contact us for your designs.

you and may sure are hoots geoff, I got to give that to you guys

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

geoffkait
Offline
Last seen: 3 days 12 min ago
Joined: Apr 29 2008 - 5:10am
Whos on first?

uh, so you took a few classes. Well, bully for you. I graduated with the most semester hours in my theoretical physics major ever recorded there. So, there's no need to pretend with me. By the way, what exactly IS your point of going on this Schumann Frequency rampage? The problem is after all that Goobledeegook from Mr. Bluster he still hasn't answered May's question. What's up with that? He's just spinning this threrad into another boring billboard for the Tuning Plan 9 Fronm Outer Space.

cheerio,

geoff Kait
machina Dramatica

michael green
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 1 month ago
Joined: Jan 10 2011 - 6:11pm
fun for me

this thread is fun for me cause it's down my learning lane :)

I want to get to any questions, but I also want to show you guys a practical side to things.

Most of you are listening in buildings right? Well did you know your building is an energy antenna and has it's own unique resonant frequency? Not only does the buiding have it's own resonance, but so does every room in that building. Field trip, walk through your house and talk, and you will find that every room has it's own sound. Each room has a resonant frequency and every building has a core frequency. Field trip 2, have your neighbor start up that harley again. Hear the frequency? Now go walk in the other rooms and notice how the fundamental is the same but the sound is different. This is called "timbre" or pitch. Same frequency but the support frequencies (harmonics) make that sound unique to that room. Likewise that sound is different in everyone of your neighbors houses.

Fundamental + harmonics = timbre.

When a fundamental strikes it gives off both upper and lower harmonics. Lower harmonics go down into the sub-sonic range and are called "subharmonic". This means that you stop hearing it with your ears and start feeling it with your body. Remember we talked above about the core resonance of your house? Well your body also has a core resonance. It works just like the rooms and the house did. Your organs have their own resonant frequency and altogether your body has it's own unique core resonance, or as I call it Vibe. Some people call this their aura. An aura is the energy around every body and every object. This aura is a structure of harmonics that make the timbre unique, just like an instrument being played. Two instruments play the same fundamental but because of the aura (harmonics) give off a unique timbre (pitch or tone). Your bodies the same way along with every object.

Now I have been asked to explain why something that shouldn't affect the sound affects it? The answer is simple. It should affect the sound because it is part of the fundamental and harmonic structure system that make up the core resonance of that room or house.

I was also asked why does 7.83hz affect the sound when it is not in the audio range? Again the answer is simple. Your ears may respond to 20-20,000 but this doesn't mean you can't pickup 7.83hz with your body. In fact those who believe that 7.83hz as the exact resonance of the Earth also believe that 7.83 is the bodies resonance. With that being the case or whatever the actual frequency is conditionally this means that 7.83 indeed has an effect and can be intermingled with the subharmonics of the lower audio scale. Audio is just a range determined by testing the ear, it's not the whole range of frequency interactions.

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

michael green
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 1 month ago
Joined: Jan 10 2011 - 6:11pm
fixed and variable

Now I want to take you back to this again, and BTW will keep taking us back to this till those cows do come home :)

When we did our testing of the schumann resonances for the first time, we didn't know to be honest that the frequency was said to be exactly 7.83hz. Well back then we did hear some say this frequency, but for those of you who studied it back then a few numbers were floating around. We learned about the Earth's core resonance said to be somewhere between 7 and 13hz, but at the same time we (hung out with some nerds back then lol) were studying the Earth's vibratory conditions including "surface" resonance, which is not a fixed frequency as you go around and measure it. Using a seismometer also adds to the equation, and a bunch of hi-tech tools used to measure the constant changing of the surface movements. Some buildings are sitting on 3hz and it runs up to the double digits (don't quote me cause I have no idea how big the range really is). For example an area with sand responds differently than an area of clay ground. Your going to build two different foundations to respond to two different Fundamentals and Harmonics. Building near a volcano is different than building in Iowa. We have no beef with the decided upon Schumann Frequency whether it is 7.83 or somewhere down the road some wise guy discovers something else. It's not my job to measure something as big as the Earth's sum, and I'm not going to play in pretend land thinking we are not on shaky ground. It is what it is and I'm happy with that. I don't even have a problem with the discovery of a core frequency and the harmonics being different. I'm not going to split hairs over what discoveries happen. What I am certain of these vibes change from place to place.

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

michael green
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 1 month ago
Joined: Jan 10 2011 - 6:11pm
the question

"If you DO know the answers as to HOW and WHERE the Schumann Resonance can be affecting the musical information, then please would you tell the rest of the audio industry."

Above a gave an outline of how all the energy in the house (building environment) affects the sound. I talked about aura and harmonics and about timbre. Now lets cover frequencies as they turn into notes and space. I invite folks to read http://tuneland.techno-zone.net/t268-the-audio-code .

So I'm Mr. Reviewer and I put on Dvorak’s New World. As I'm listening to it someone wants to do a tweak, any tweak. The sound changes. Why did it change? Because the pressure zones in the room are giving different info to the ears and body.

Because the audio signal responds to any change made in the signal pathway.

the other questions?

Everytime a change is made anywhere along the audio pathway, the person's perception changes as well as the energy of the signal path does. Listening and tweaking are action words and if you believe everything affects everything else this is a pretty easy concept that doesn't need a whole lot of sweat to figure out.

You and geoff keep painting me as someone who has different belief's than you do May, and it's keeping you from seeing that we are on the same page with many of these things, probably. The difference is the variable part.

Let's go back to the reviewer's responses that you and geoff point to. Read carefully how I respond to these. I'm not doubting that this is what the reviewers heard and that to them it was exactly the "improvements", the "bettering" that they said. But let me point out something to the both of you. Did any of these reviewers do these changes on a stripped down low mass variable system? None. They basically took stock systems and made some changes. They basically (in my eyes now, maybe not yours) took a system that I would claim was full of blockage and tightened up the harmonic structures enough to clean some things up. You may have a different view all together, but more than likey what they were calling better, I would call (maybe I wasn't there) a tightening up of the 2nd and 3rd harmonics, or depending on how forceful the tweak was the first harmonic, but it definitly was a timbre shift. Timbre shifts aren't bad, their a change like all other changes. If I was there, with the stock system, I would have heard the same thing, but I'm so use to opening up the harmonics as much as I can, then tuning them back in that I personally would have felt like the stage was still a little small and squeezed, even though to them it did what they said.

now to take it one step futher

If I were there I probably would have put in an adjustable Schumann Resonator, and as I paid attention to the stage would have focused on the content between the notes. By what was said, and based on my experience with some of this stuff, and with using the type of systems I like, the resonators do not sound natural to me. But also keep in mind I use a lot of resonant tools and go after that full range of dynamics, before I focus in, cause many times if you go after the stage the focus will automatically come in after a little settling. I'm obviously talking stages that are a lot bigger than what they were listening to, I would guess by the listening I have done with a ton of reviewers.

here's one more thing to put in the mix

I bet they listened to one piece of music right after another, or maybe used tables. I don't do critical listening till the recording at least makes 3 or 4 passes or sometimes days of repeat before I go in and take it serious. I have to have the resonances settle and drop into position before I like it. If you have a low mass, open, well matched system and let it settle the lower harmonics will drop into the buildings resonance. This is why I can use small bookshelves and get in the low 30's.

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

geoffkait
Offline
Last seen: 3 days 12 min ago
Joined: Apr 29 2008 - 5:10am
"To be honest we didn't know..."

I'd like to use your own quote to start this one off. You still don't know if you are clinging to the idea that the Schumann Frequency is variable, not fixed. Maybe you are changing your mind, it's so hard to tell with all the drama and spinning. The Earth's resonance is not related to the Schumann frequency, let's make that clear before we proceed, OK? The Earth's resonance is produced by tidal motion, Earth's crust motion and things of that nature. You know, things that in love MASS. Whereas the Schumann frequency is produced by lightning and other similar energetic phenomenon so that the Schumann wave is created in the trough or waveguide of the ionosphere that encircles the Earth in all three dimensions.

The other important difference between the Earth's resonance as you put it and the Schumann Wave is that the first is a mechanical, I.e., physical resonance while the latter is an electromagnetic wave. Follow? So we actually have two different issues - one is the very low mechanical frequencies of the Earth's motion and the Schumann wave. One you don't want the other you need more of, as fate would have it.

Cheers,

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

May Belt
Offline
Last seen: 6 years 3 days ago
Joined: May 8 2006 - 1:51am
Schumann

>>> “I think, and I could be wrong, that May has been asking all this time is what are the elements involved in audio change? She words it in her own way, and ask others to explain but to me, it's seems like she's asking how do the fundamentals of sonic change happen?

To be more to the point, why do these reviewers and others hear a difference when a Schumann Resonator is turned on, or why does the sound change when a cream is put on an object? Well if these are the questions the answer is very easy. As you adjust frequency values it changes the performance of the signal. “ <<<

And this is my continuing problem with you, Michael. From your very comment of – “Well if these are the questions the answer is very easy”.

If the answer “IS VERY easy” as to why the sound changes when a cream is put on an object, or when a difference in the sound is heard when a Schumann Resonance is turned on, then WHY, WHY are there such controversies STILL raging within the audio community.

If you are correct i.e. that the answer is very easy then, surely, there would be NO controversies !!!

You said :-

>>> “As you adjust frequency values it changes the performance of the signal. “ <<<

So, is that statement meaning that you believe that ‘creaming’ something like the outer insulation of a passive AC power cord, just dangling passively from a table lamp on a table in the listening environment and changing the sound is “adjusting the frequency values”, therefore “changing the performance of the signal” ?

Is that statement meaning that you believe that applying such as the Nordost ECO 3 liquid to the outer insulation of AC power cords is “adjusting the frequency values”, therefore “changing the performance of the signal” ?

If the answers are as simple as you claim, then surely everyone in audio would understand and there would be NO controversies ?

>>> “So to make this shorter than longer, when May ask me to explain the why's and how's of the change that people hear as a result of a tweak, it kinda takes me off guard because I assume everyone at least knows the basics of how notes are made and re-played and how soundstages develope, but maybe I'm assuming too much. Maybe people don't know how harmonic structures work, along with soundstages. But when I read a review or hear someone talk about their sound my mind at least goes to the fundamentals of how the signal works. And with this, and a brief description it's not so hard to figure out what and how the changes were made.” <<<

That last sentence of yours, Michael - “And with this, and a brief description it's not so hard to figure out what and how the changes (i.e - the change that people hear as a result of a tweak) were made.” is one of the most simplistic sentences I have ever read within the world of audio !!

So, “when you read a review – your mind at least goes to the fundamentals of how the signal works”. Really !!!!! Then why has there been (and still is) such a controversy raging over such as people hearing the sound improve after applying a demagnetiser to LPs and CDs ? If (as you claim) it is “not so hard to figure out what and how the changes were made” ?

Were the world of audio that simple !!!!!

Regards,
May Belt,
PWB Electronics.

May Belt
Offline
Last seen: 6 years 3 days ago
Joined: May 8 2006 - 1:51am
Response by Catch22.

>>> “The senses play a huge role in what we hear, and if you ever get a chance to do a study on it, I highly recommend it.” <<<

Now, this is getting interesting, Michael. Very interesting indeed !!

I completely agree with your statement of recommending reading on the subject of our senses. However, bringing the senses into how we hear (and resolve) musical information brings us into a completely different world. Because if what goes on in the brain can affect how we hear (resolve) more of the information of an orchestra playing the musical score of Dvorak’s New World, then resolving more of that information means that that information must have already reached the ear drum, which means that that information must have been available in the room, all the time !! I have said repeatedly to you (and for as long as I can remember in my whole discussions with you) that the wealth of musical information which reaches the ear drum still has a further tortuous journey to make before the music can be identified by the working memory and a sound picture presented to the brain !!

If you think I have been asking questions (too many ?) before, I haven’t even started !!!

Catch22 is correct when he described :-

>>> “By way of example in order to clarify my point, listening to music in the dark should have no effect on the sound produced by an audio system, but it very likely has a physiological impact on the listener that results in what they may describe as a better sound or more involving relationship with their music.” <<<

But even the fact that many people DO report that listening to music in the dark can ‘sound’ better triggers yet more questions – specifically if nothing had been done with the audio system or with the room.

Some people suggest that the sound is better because the drain on the AC power is less when, late at night, industry is not using so much energy or when many people have already gone to bed and therefore less mains energy is being used.

Some people suggest that the sound is better because the sense of sight is not using as much energy (not needing to be constantly checking for unexpected movement) and therefore more energy is available for the sense of hearing !!

Even if people are only claiming that they feel much more relaxed, listening in the dark or much more relaxed just having the Schumann Resonance in the room, one is STILL left with the question “What was causing the person to be under tension in the first place – prior to being in the dark, prior to listening to the music and prior to introducing the Schumann Resonance into the room !!!”

So, Michael, when you say :-

>>> “The senses play a huge role in what we hear, and if you ever get a chance to do a study on it, I highly recommend it.” <<<

You appear to suggest that if only one studies the subject, one would have the answers. Again, vaguely hinting that you already have the answers !!! You do this regularly – claim (strongly suggest?) to already have the answers !!

Just how many times are you going to claim that the answers are KNOWN already !!!

>>> “yes we design and build tunable listening rooms, studios and halls from the ground up.” <<<

No one, least of all me, has ever doubted that you design and build listening environments. THAT has never been in question. What is being questioned is that YOU (or anyone else) has all the answers yet !!

Whereas I have always said that there are numerous questions (audio related), on a shelf, awaiting answers.

Regards,
May Belt,
PWB Electronics.

michael green
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 1 month ago
Joined: Jan 10 2011 - 6:11pm
Stanford

What is Schumann Resonance? (from Stanford University website)

In first order approximation, the Earth-atmosphere system can be seen from an electromagnetic point of view as a radial shell of three layers of conductivity. The Earth and the ionosphere in about 100-150 km height appear as a perfect conductor with the air of negligible conductivity in between. They form a spherical shell of conductivity, denoted Earth-ionosphere cavity, in which electromagnetic radiation is trapped. Lightning strikes within the troposphere radiate energy into this system and the waves are traveling around the Earth. In the case of constructive interference, Earth-ionosphere cavity resonances are excited in the frequency range of 6-60 Hz.

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

geoffkait
Offline
Last seen: 3 days 12 min ago
Joined: Apr 29 2008 - 5:10am
michael green wrote:
michael green wrote:

What is Schumann Resonance? (from Stanford University website)

In first order approximation, the Earth-atmosphere system can be seen from an electromagnetic point of view as a radial shell of three layers of conductivity. The Earth and the ionosphere in about 100-150 km height appear as a perfect conductor with the air of negligible conductivity in between. They form a spherical shell of conductivity, denoted Earth-ionosphere cavity, in which electromagnetic radiation is trapped. Lightning strikes within the troposphere radiate energy into this system and the waves are traveling around the Earth. In the case of constructive interference, Earth-ionosphere cavity resonances are excited in the frequency range of 6-60 Hz.

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

Well, doh! That's what I've been sayng all along. At least you're getting good at Google even if nothing else sinks in. That paragraph - in case you don't realize it - is not talking about Earth resonances. It's talking about the waveguide, the ionosphere. I just got through saying the same thing about two hours ago. Those other frequencies in the waveguide the ones above 7.83 Hz are uh not Schumann frequencies. Geez! How did you ever get through Dayton High School? Are you channeling Forest Gump or something?

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

geoffkait
Offline
Last seen: 3 days 12 min ago
Joined: Apr 29 2008 - 5:10am
Right church, wrong pew

Michael wrote,

"I was also asked why does 7.83hz affect the sound when it is not in the audio range? Again the answer is simple. Your ears may respond to 20-20,000 but this doesn't mean you can't pickup 7.83hz with your body. In fact those who believe that 7.83hz as the exact resonance of the Earth also believe that 7.83 is the bodies resonance. With that being the case or whatever the actual frequency is conditionally this means that 7.83 indeed has an effect and can be intermingled with the subharmonics of the lower audio scale. Audio is just a range determined by testing the ear, it's not the whole range of frequency interactions."

You disappoint me. I thought you knew that 7.83 Hz is not on the same spectrum as the 20-20,000 Hz. Hz is cycles per second, I.e. Frequency. But the Schumann frequency is part of the *electromagnetic* spectrum, you know, the one where you can find radio waves and x-rays and Gamma rays and colors. Whereas the frequencies 20-20,000 Hz are in the audio spectrum. That's why the wavelength of the Schumann frequency is 26,000 miles but over in the audio spectrum the wavelength of 7.83 Hz is only what, a hundred and fifty feet. The reason for this big difference in wavelength is due to...drum roll...the difference between the speed of sound and the speed of light. See, that's not so hard. The reason you hear audio frequencies is because they are physical waves, whereas the reason you don't hear electromagnetic waves is because they aren't physical waves, thus they don't impinge on the ear like a physical acoustic wave. But I know what you were thinking, that subsonic (audio) frequencies are felt but not heard. You were close. Very close.

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

michael green
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 1 month ago
Joined: Jan 10 2011 - 6:11pm

May said

"If the answer “IS VERY easy” as to why the sound changes when a cream is put on an object, or when a difference in the sound is heard when a Schumann Resonance is turned on, then WHY, WHY are there such controversies STILL raging within the audio community."

mg

May these are not controversies in the audio community from what I see. These are controversies among High End Audio engineer/hobbyist, and if you really count up the numbers it's not that many. This part of the hobby has tons and tons of ego, and not a whole lot of teaching on a lot of topics they jump in on.

I absolutely believe if you I and Geoff would have started off listening together we wouldn't be having these threads going the way they are. We may still not see things eye to eye on a lot of points but as I have said before there's a lot more incommon here than not.

I'm trying, really am, to bridge that gap and actually feel bad that things went the way they did. I realize that you and geoff have your schooling and I have mine. We also all did our own style of lab work I'm sure. Finding varying results though is part of the whole meaning to recording and playback. I can't take back something learned when it's happening right in front of me. Proof to me comes in that lab.

Do you know how many times I have been invited to a reviewers home to find that they were writing from the point of view of a very small soundstage which they believed was big and complete? Many, almost everytime till we worked on their stage together. I mean some of these guys have been writing for 10-15 years sometimes more before we made their soundstages bigger. Not we as in RoomTune, but we as listeners together. You know what Harry told me one time. He said he wrote for years about a deep soundstage before he actually experienced a real stage. We shared a common amp, a little Beard which he gave a great review of, talking about the depth. When we finally listened to that model together he got on my case, ragged me a little and then I opened up the stage to more like what I had at home, and I thought he was going to knock me down. I liked Harry. We probably made that stage twice as big vs when he wrote about it.

Point is, I don't think anyone is doing it on purpose, but it really is just talk till you spend time together exploring.

May said

"if you are correct i.e. that the answer is very easy then, surely, there would be NO controversies !!!"

mg

May being correct is not what turns me on. I honestly hate these back and forths, but I also owe it to my industry to share. If it's one person fine, but when it's 80 some thousand that is something I feel very responsible for. Sometimes I'll go 5 or 6 days without closing my eyes, cause there's another system to get right. Not right for me but right for them. And as I have said before, I am always in learn mode, and when you and geoff would say things I was on the phone right away to see if I could find someone who had experience if I didn't so I could get them to send me stuff. That's how I roll and that's how people know me. You'd be shocked if you knew how much equipment we have.

May said

"So, is that statement meaning that you believe that ‘creaming’ something like the outer insulation of a passive AC power cord, just dangling passively from a table lamp on a table in the listening environment and changing the sound is “adjusting the frequency values”, therefore “changing the performance of the signal” ?"

mg

Yes. I'm a strong believer in the intermingling of energy. I know Geoff isn't crazy about me saying that, but I believe that all energy works together inside of this planet's environment. I see energy forces as separate only by description, but at the same time if there is energy at for example 7.83hz I see it no different than some other form at 7.83hz. That's the tie I was trying to make between the Earth and the outer spheres. I'm not saying that one 7.83 sounds the same as another 7.83hz because of the harmonics values, but they are the same in cycles and as instruments do, play off of each other, whether it be to invert or amplify.

May said

"Is that statement meaning that you believe that applying such as the Nordost ECO 3 liquid to the outer insulation of AC power cords is “adjusting the frequency values”, therefore “changing the performance of the signal” ?"

mg

Yes, here let me do this. Ok, I'm back. I just put a quick finish on a plastic CD case, put it back in the same place, and the cymbals sound a little whooshy. Now is this better, is a matter of taste, but I could see someone hearing the change and first reaction being wow I like that. But I live in a world where I do this 24/7 so I'm not in that change mode in my mind as much as the next guy who listens twice a week. Did you know depending on a persons aura, will many times decide change as being better or worse? If your in a place with your aura in a positive charge, the first reaction is usually thumbs up. You may come back to that same sound the next day and hate it. The body's resonance is just as much a part of the tweak as the tweak a lot of times at first response. Now, if you A/B ed the same thing several times chances are your energy will get out of balance and you won't be able to discern clearly. You know this stuff I'm sure but while I'm rambling.

May said

"If the answers are as simple as you claim, then surely everyone in audio would understand and there would be NO controversies ?"

mg

Again I see this a ton with the engineer types. Many times they create the controveries about all kinds of things in audio and outside of audio. They proccess through conflict.

May said

"So, “when you read a review – your mind at least goes to the fundamentals of how the signal works”. Really !!!!! Then why has there been (and still is) such a controversy raging over such as people hearing the sound improve after applying a demagnetiser to LPs and CDs ? If (as you claim) it is “not so hard to figure out what and how the changes were made” ?"

mg

I really do believe in aura energy, and the mingle of all forms. I don't think controversy has much to do with the actual issues as much as it does peoples intent. Controversy in audio is more about levels of listening and ego, than it is the topic. Many times good or bad in this hobby comes down to the fear of being found out. Do you know how many people are afraid of being judged in this hobby? There's more testosterone floating around this industry than all the strip clubs in vegas. Sorry for being crude, but there are more people scared away from this part of the hobby than anything I have ever seen. The guilt trips in high end audio are something the average person wants nothing to do with.

I learned what is good and bad sound by being thrown infront of a crowd of music lovers and I better perform or it would be disaster. Growing up in music you have two choices, and both of them, in the studio or live, is get it right or your gone. So I'm not kidding when I say I studied my butt off. You know why I started building studio monitors. It wasn't because I wanted a speaker line. It was because I was getting my butt kicked by the studios. I was walking into a different studio every other week and along with the monitors would be an engineer who thought he was God. talk about pressure! They would jump my case because they were throwing me again in front of different speakers every time and telling me to make the recorded code perfectly matched. No frinkin way lol. So after about 6 months of audio hell, I designed my own tunable monitor. When the head engineer was around I tuned it to his liking, and when he left I tuned it to the music. Smart cookie right?

finally you said

"Were the world of audio that simple !!!!!"

me

I've never understood why something so simple and obvious was made so hard by so many.

thank you for your post, I enjoyed it

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

michael green
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 1 month ago
Joined: Jan 10 2011 - 6:11pm
another to May

May said

"So, Michael, when you say :-

>>> “The senses play a huge role in what we hear, and if you ever get a chance to do a study on it, I highly recommend it.” <<<

You appear to suggest that if only one studies the subject, one would have the answers. Again, vaguely hinting that you already have the answers !!! You do this regularly – claim (strongly suggest?) to already have the answers !!

Just how many times are you going to claim that the answers are KNOWN already !!!"

mg

This is a part of my believe system. "seek and you will find, ask and you will recieve"

Not to get spiritual on anyone, but I believe all the answers are set before us and when we seek the answers to those questions they are already there waiting for us. Understanding doesn't have to belong to us, but it does have to be sought after with truth in mine to recieve wisdom. I have learned through being willing to "do" trusting that if I follow through outside of my own wanted answers, I can be a faithful student. It's when I put limits on my learning that I run short.

The cool thing about being alive is, we don't have to talk with words only. Learning can't really turn into wisdom without doing. I can say all day I know something, but without doing I'm limited in my truth.

anyway, works for me

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

geoffkait
Offline
Last seen: 3 days 12 min ago
Joined: Apr 29 2008 - 5:10am
Deleted by author

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

geoffkait
Offline
Last seen: 3 days 12 min ago
Joined: Apr 29 2008 - 5:10am
Rocket Express to the Stars

Michael wrote the following exchange with May:

"finally you said

"Were the world of audio that simple !!!!!"

me

I've never understood why something so simple and obvious was made so hard by so many."

Well, I can think of several perfectly good reasons why you continue to believe audio is a relatively simple and obvious enterprise. And you certainly would not be the only person to have such beliefs, not by a long shot. It's just that you and the others of similar bent are actually at least one paradigm or two behind the power curve in terms of what affects the sound. In other words, things are very UN-obvious and very UN-simple! In your tuning world and in many other peoples' worlds, including those audiophiles who've labored for forty years to achieve whatever they did in terms of sound quality. And there is no reason why they shouldn't be proud of what they've achieved, either. But, alas, in this big wide wonderful world of audio it's a little like the Old West, I'm afraid. No matter big a gun you might consider yourself, there is a faster gun around the next corner. There used to be a poster for the workplace years ago that sort of sums up your attitude that things are really pretty simple and obvious. That poster was,

Anyone Who Doesn't Feel Stressed Out
Doesn't Understand the Situation

While you put up a good front sometimes, it's pretty clear you're just not on board the faster train that others obviously are. You need to ditch that slow rolling steam engine and get on board the Rocket Express. That will be your salvation. As the science PhD Dr. Shaw said in Prometheus, "It's what I choose to believe." But that doesn't mean it's correct.

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

michael green
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 1 month ago
Joined: Jan 10 2011 - 6:11pm
oops, guess I'm not alone

While geoff is saying "can't be so" I'm on my way to get supplies for one of our shops here, who needed to open on Saturday to try to get caught up.

Thanks for yet another Tuning Ad Geoff-ster. Have a great weekend!

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

May Belt
Offline
Last seen: 6 years 3 days ago
Joined: May 8 2006 - 1:51am
Schumann Resonance

Michael. I asked you “Just how many times are you going to claim that the answers are KNOWN already !!!"

To which you replied :-

>>> “Not to get spiritual on anyone, but I believe all the answers are set before us and when we seek the answers to those questions they are already there waiting for us. Understanding doesn't have to belong to us, but it does have to be sought after with truth in mine to recieve wisdom.” <<<

That is not an answer to my questions of what is KNOWN of how or where is the ‘sound’ (the musical information) being affected by the Schumann Resonance. Your reply is just stating what any intelligent person’s sentiment would be – i.e to continue to search constantly for the answers !!

SEARCHING (your word ‘seeking’) is merely that – searching/seeking. Which is surely what most intelligent people are doing, constantly !!!

I don’t doubt anyone’s aim to find answers but I challenge YOUR earlier statement of:-

>>> “Done the questions and got the answers” <<<

You seem to be suggesting that “of course it is known why the Schumann Resonance can affect the musical information – that is if one is prepared to read the literature and attend the courses”. I would say that the concept of “of course it is known” is not there yet.

When I asked you if you believed that ‘creaming’ something like the outer insulation of cables and changing the sound is “adjusting the frequency values”, therefore “changing the performance of the signal” ?" And you replied “Yes” !!

You therefore seem to be suggesting that “of course it is known”, Whereas I would say that the concept of “of course it is known” is not there yet.

When I asked you if you believed that applying such as the Nordost ECO 3 liquid to the outer insulation of AC power cords is “adjusting the frequency values”, therefore “changing the performance of the signal” ?" And you replied “Yes” !!
You therefore seem to be suggesting that “of course it is known”, Whereas I would say that the concept of “of course it is known” is not there yet.

By comparison, regarding the effect of the UltraBit Platinum-Plus™ liquid, you didn’t give the explanation as “adjusting the frequency values”, therefore “changing the performance of the signal”, but yet another explanation:-

>>> “The liquid treatments were a form of dampening” <<<

So, I continue to keep challenging your statement :-

>>> “Done the questions and got the answers” <<<

I repeat. I don’t doubt that you have discovered things and techniques to improve the sound. What I challenge, constantly, is that you haven’t got ALL the answers as to WHY and HOW the musical information is changed – by all the numerous devices and techniques which have been described, by many people, over many decades, as ‘improving the sound’.

Yes, you started the specific thread on the Schumann Resonance and continued to publish details of WHAT the Schumann Resonance IS, but not yet on HOW and WHERE the Schumann Resonance is changing the musical information.

So, I will ask the question in a simpler form.

Is the Schumann Resonance affecting the musical information of Dvorak’s New World before the ear drum or after the ear drum ?

Regards,
May Belt,
PWB Electronics.

geoffkait
Offline
Last seen: 3 days 12 min ago
Joined: Apr 29 2008 - 5:10am
Brain training with Alpha Waves

Stop the presses! This just in.

From a log I am keeping. Not a blog, a log. ;-)

Turns out there are apps for Alpha frequencies ...Binaural Beat Builder for androids And is FREE. Am listening to Alpha Wave 10 Hz as I type. Will be doing 20 minute sessions on several different Alpha Waves. Alpha waves vary between 7.5 Hz and 12 Hz. You can select the frequency on the app screen. Headphones only.

Will let you know what transpires, hopefully I can assess the app anyway in half an hour. Unless I go on an out of body expedition...ha ha ha

I just listened to 10 Hz on earphones for about half and hour. I am now listening to the same cassette as before the 10 Hz signal and it seems more forceful and dramatic - Fistoulari conducting Hungarian Rhapsodies for Orchestra - and I can hear the tape hiss better, as least I think so. It will take a while to get to the bottom of this.

Am listening to a CD now, Dave Brubeck. Greatest Hits Columbia Legacy. Sounds very good. Very analog. Of course, I had not listened to this CD before, so I can't use this as evidence. But it's very open and sweet on top. And shockingly dynamic. Explosions going off on Take Five drums. OMG! Very focused yet open.

The Dave Brubeck sounds really really good after 20 minutes at 8 Hz. The problem is I can't go back to the initial state and I don't know how long this alpha wave treatment lasts. Guess I'll just enjoy it while it lasts. Assuming it's working. Heheheh

Next up, today the 20th after listening to an 8 Hz tone for 20 minutes I'm heading outside to the PO with a big order of Supers with my trusty Sony cassette Walkman loaded with the rather hard to find RCA Living Stereo cassette tape of Dvorak and Walton Cello Concertos with Piatigirsky and Munch/BSO. Recorded 1957 and 1960.

OK I'm baaack. The RCA Living Stereo cassette has great and dynamics. It's a real shame the RCA catalog on CD is so dam bland. Anyway, the cassette has it all - tremendous tone of the cello, sweet treble and lower frequencies, massed brasses and strings really well defined and blatty. Just a super performance and SQ that kills. Is the Sony Walkman in the absolute best adjustment? Who the hell knows...it just plain sounds terrific.

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

michael green
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 1 month ago
Joined: Jan 10 2011 - 6:11pm
Q & A with May

"Is the Schumann Resonance affecting the musical information of Dvorak’s New World before the ear drum or after the ear drum ?"

mg

Both

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

geoffkait
Offline
Last seen: 3 days 12 min ago
Joined: Apr 29 2008 - 5:10am
Both
michael green wrote:

"Is the Schumann Resonance affecting the musical information of Dvorak’s New World before the ear drum or after the ear drum ?"

mg

Both

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

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

michael green
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 1 month ago
Joined: Jan 10 2011 - 6:11pm
yes both

"Nature Science" (physics) is the fitting together of all the pieces. It's based on the science and discovery of being able to do. Theory is cool, but it is based more on the thoughts before they become proved action.

In the case of Schumann Resonances, you can see, feel and hear the physical proof. Anything that is able to be done, is within itself proof of it belonging to the rules of nature, and these rules are built on a scale from not only very big to very small, but also the fair exchange of harmonic structures.

As engineers many times try to put things in separate boxes that they can put on the collection shelf, physics is more of the whole of anything we "do" inside of Earth's shell and beyond. For those who get this they can judge the fundamental forces as easily as waking up and falling asleep. For those who don't, the spin never ends, as they are trying to find that one thing or several that fall outside of the whole, not quite able to make the connection that everything affects everything else. You can read this in their writing, as they can't quite land on an understanding, or make it appear that physics is a mystery of some sort.

If one understands all things working together, they can see a pattern throughout energy. They are able to see things as moving objects instead of snap shots of things standing still. In physics there is always an awareness that we are on a spining planet traveling through space, and the forces of "give & take" are always at work. A 3D pendulum of existence and exchange. Moving actions and reations create the "sums" of physics.

it works like this

Take a rubber playground ball that we all use on our schools lunch breaks and Phys-ed. You look at this ball as perfectly round, but what happens when you put this ball into motion? If you bounced the ball and looked at it in slow motion, you would see the ball oval out when it hits the surface and work toward re-store when back in the air. that's the physical view

Let's look at this from another view. What did this ball also do when it hit that surface? It gave off a vibratory signal (sound). Take that same ball and bounce (play) it on several surfaces. It sounds different each time it reacts to a different physical exchange. Take the ball in the gym, throw it up in the air and listen to it bounce, and you will notice that the ball sounds different everytime it hits the floor.

What causes this change in timbre, is the answer to the changes we make in a system. Put C37 on this ball, or any other finish, creme or substance and listen to the ball change sounds. Is it better, is completely subjective. Add humidity to the room, the ball sounds different. Add height to the room same thing, or even open and close the gym doors, same thing. The Ball (fundamental) sounds different everytime there is a condition change.

Now let's put friction to this ball and touch it, your hair stands up. This ball not only sounds different but it also becomes part of the electron exchange. Do this same friction when there are charged clouds over head and you will see a difference in energy flow.

This ball not only experiences a shape change, but it also reacts to being charged, and is able to charge other objects. In all these cases the sound of the ball changes. Now, let's dump 20,000 balls in this gym, all different sizes and all traveling at different speeds. What you will find is the resonant response with all of these balls have changed and continue to change as the balls move around.

do objects stay the same in a continuum

Let these balls sit in the gym for a year without anyone disturbing them. Take all the other balls out of the room at the end of the year except for the original one and do the exact same tests of bouncing that ball and it will sound different. Not only will it sound different, but it will be shaped different.

Do this same test, anywhere in the world with the exact size room with the ball (balls) and the results will be the same every time. The ball will sound different in every room and every condition.

What does this have to do with audio?

People are trying to push these fixed answers in a world that is in constant change. Physics is not a fixed answer or product, but a bunch of variables that are in motion and change as a continuum.

The whole idea behind the Schumann Resonances is that the Earth is constantly working to keep itself in-tune. Notice the seemly random patterns to lightning? It's not like the Earth has this one tone or one exchange, but more the Earth is involved in constant "exchanges" variables all heading toward and designed to get to the alignment of the Earth's "note" but in "cycles" of electron interactions, as well as physical vibratory action and reaction. This is why physics is made up of "fundamental forces", meaning interactions.

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

geoffkait
Offline
Last seen: 3 days 12 min ago
Joined: Apr 29 2008 - 5:10am
But that's illogical, Captain

Michael, as much as it pains me to contradict your long "scientific explanation" I figure, hell, it's probably a slow day in ToonLand so why not? Actually science, and I'm referring to real science not the jibber jabber that you think passes for science, is pretty much settled in its ways and Fixed, not Variable. Let me give you a few examples. The speed of sound is fixed for a given altitude and temperature. This means if you measure the speed of sound in precisely the same environment it will be the same speed. The speed of light is constant everywhere in the universe in a given medium. It is fixed. Not variable. An electron is always the same wherever you go in the Universe. It looks the same has the same weight and same dimensions and the same SPIN, 1/2. Electrons are fixed, not variable. The speed of an electromagnetic wave is constant in a given medium. It is fixed. Not variable. Getting more to the point the Schumann wave is fixed. It is not variable. Yes, I know, you still wish to think of the partial frequencies as Schumann frequencies. If it makes you feel good, why not? Just remember you heard it from me, they aren't Schumann frequencies. The Schumann Frequency is 7.83 Hz as we speak. It was in fact the same number 7.83 Hz ten years ago when the RR-77 was released and most likely was 7.83 Hz when Schumann discovered the thing back in the fifties. Duh! So, I don't really care if some crackpot you dug up somewhere predicts that the Schumann wave is going to change at some point in the future. Who cares? I'll cross that bridge when I come to it. And as I pointed out the other day even of the Schumann frequency were to change and become say 10 Hz over time, what over a Millennium, technically it's no longer a Schumann wave. It's a freaking Alpha wave! Hel-looo! Now, could there be variations of the Schumann Frequency around the world. Well, maybe, it's possible one might measure it to be 7.828 Hz in Borneo and 7.836 Hz in Alaska, who knows. That's what the number 7.83 means - it's an approximation. If they wanted to be more precise they would write the number out to more decimal places, e.g., 7.834658 or whatever. So whatever precision you wish to specify for the Schumann frequency, for a person in any one location on the Earth the Schumann wave frequency is CONSTANT. I.e., FIXED. INVARIABLE. So science is fixed, not variable, and because it's fixed we can program computers to send rockets go to the moon, to return Space Shuttles to a tiny runway somewhere and rendezvous a satellite with a comet. The numbers are fixed. That's why, when you receive a RR-888 Schumann frequency generator from Acoustic Revive, it's SET to 7.83 Hz. Just like their original unit the RR-77 ten years ago! Hel-looo!

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

I said it would be fun I just didn't say for who.

michael green
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 1 month ago
Joined: Jan 10 2011 - 6:11pm
yep lol

lol you poor silly boy, living on a spining planet screaming "stay still".

fixed lol

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

geoffkait
Offline
Last seen: 3 days 12 min ago
Joined: Apr 29 2008 - 5:10am
michael green wrote:

lol you poor silly boy, living on a spining planet screaming "stay still".

fixed lol

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

You're being argumentative and reactionary. I never said things can't or don't move. That's an illogical argument, a rather silly, actually, if it's supposed to support your theory that the Schumann frequency is variable. You need to brush up not only on your science but your logic. We are spinning around, that's true, but the fact that things are in motion doesn't lead to the conclusion that the Universe is Variable. Anymore than claiming when you're walking to the store somehow that means the Universe is fixed. Our solar system is also moving around the Galaxy at some very great speed and the Galaxy it'self is moving outward from the point of the Big Band at an even greater velocity. But that has nothing to do with whether the Universe is FIXED or VARIABLE. Follow? Right now, my head is spinning from all the ToonTown spinning. All roads lead to ToonTown? I think not.

Besides, as I've already pointed out, the Schumann frequency is two frequencies in one * click, click * - it's a Schumann frequency, it's an Alpha frequency! Double your pleasure, double your fun!

Geoff Kait
Machina Dramatica

michael green
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 1 month ago
Joined: Jan 10 2011 - 6:11pm
You're being argumentative and reactionary.

oh my friend geoffy

You guys get so caught up in your desire to argue, you don't even see when I'm setting you up lol. Honestly, don't you see that every one of these discussions is a setup to get you to prove my point?

See the word "frequency", that's a unit of value in motion. "Speed" is the same thing, motion. "We are spinning", got you again. "moving outward" dunk! "an even greater velocity" another.

Dude, you are so bent on your arguing that your blind to the fact that, because of this you play right into my hands like clay. All I need to do is push the ball and you make it keep rolling for me.

You say not "variable" and yet in all of your arguements if you look back your talking about things related to "variable". Stop a second and look back at all your action words. Get rid of you trying to attack me and what you have left is a bunch of talk about movement. Dude movement: an act of changing physical location or position or of having this changed. Your trying to paint this picture of non-movables, and in the proccess pointing everyone to the very concept of variables. The more you spin it the more it points to "tuning".

For some weird reason you think you have others on the run, and in reality your very easy to spin. Sorry but true. All I need to do is start a thread and you make the opposing side happen. From that point all I have to do is setup the goal. I know how every one of these threads are going to end, so my spin is to get you going and before long I'm able to make my point regardless of how you try to make it look. Your so 1 dimensional, and what surprises me is, I even tell you I'm setting you up and you can't help yourself in promoting my agenda.

Geoff, your trying to tell the world that things can't be tuned when everyone who attempts it knows they can, unless they are over massed out of their mind. If you think that is me being argumentive and reactionary, my dear friend this is nothing more than me promoting. I tell you all the time I am here to get people started tuning, and you think I'm here to have some kind of brain shower with you. Do you really think I'm here to have a debate with an old dude who puts up stupid pictures when he gets stuck? Really geoff? Do you honestly think I'm here to debate with a gal who doesn't even show her system and a guy who listens to a portable sony cassette player? Geoff, your's and May's debates have absolutely no value to me, if you can not provide "doing" labs. That may sound mean but I'm being honest with you.

If you think that MG is sitting here in a debate with May & Geoff, you don't know MG very well. You guys say I sweep things under the carpet, and that's all I need is a list, and then I can bring up each of these one at a time, not to debate with you silly, but to point people to tuning. You think I'm trying to win an argument. Sorry just had to remind you why I am here.

Now sit down, put your earphones in and take it easy, checks in the mail :)

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

geoffkait
Offline
Last seen: 3 days 12 min ago
Joined: Apr 29 2008 - 5:10am
Yes, you're setting me up

Yes, I know you're just trying to set me up. That's why I made the tongue in cheek statement all roads lead to ToonTown. I realize that you are either unable or unwilling to discuss anything having to do with audio or physics without this Ant Lion approach to the debate. Eventually it all comes out, the anger, the ignorance, the single mindedness of Tuning. As I opined several times on these forums it's just another play out of Ethan Winer's play book, disparage the opposition, belittle them, try to come across as an expert in physics and audio and above all keep the ToonTown billboards piling up. If you can't wow them with facts pile on the bullshit. My advice to you Tuners would be calm down and stop behaving like a bunch of prairie dogs on crack with all this tuning everything afer every record. Chill out. Listen to some Alpha waves.

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

May Belt
Offline
Last seen: 6 years 3 days ago
Joined: May 8 2006 - 1:51am
Q & A with Michael

Michael, in reply to my question :-

>>> “Is the Schumann Resonance affecting the musical information of Dvorak’s New World before the ear drum or after the ear drum ?” <<<

You said :-

>>> “Both.” <<<

This thread is becoming extremely interesting.

Ready to shake the audio industry ???? – i.e. the concept that something, in the listening environment, can change the sound of the musical information after it has reached the ear drum.

I can’t help feeling that you dug yourself a huge hole when you boasted that you have :-

>>> “ Done the questions and got the answers” <<<

You have now replied that the Schumann Resonance is having an effect on BOTH the musical information before the ear drum and also after the ear drum.

This triggers yet more questions.

Is the Schumann Resonance, when present in the room, ADDING something to the musical information ?

IF it IS adding something, then WHERE is it adding it ?

Is it adding it to the musical information traveling through the audio equipment or is it adding it to the musical information as it is being carried by the acoustic air pressure waves in the room ?

If the Schumann Resonance, when present in the room, is NOT actually adding something but alleviating an existing problem, then WHERE is it doing the alleviating ? Is it doing it to the musical information as it travels through the audio equipment or to the musical information carried by the acoustic air pressure waves in the room ?

If the Schumann Resonance IS alleviating an existing problem WHAT is the cause of the existing problem in the first place ?

And, HOW is that existing problem affecting the musical information and WHERE is it affecting it ?

THEN, repeat those questions as they refer to the journey which the musical information has to make AFTER it has been received by the ear drum !!!!

Just why do you think that so many people are nonplussed by the effect (on the sound) of such as the Schumann Resonance if, as YOU claim, the answers are already known ?

To quote from 2 reports :-

From a review of the Synergistic “Atmosphere” (Schumann Resonance device) by Steven Plaskin.

>>> “Atmosphere appears to effect how the listener perceives music........ I enjoy reviewing products like this because it challenges conventional thinking.” <<<

Comment by John Atkinson :-

>>> “Ted played music on the Mola Mola/Eclipse/Luxman system with the Atmosphere turned on, to get listeners used to the sound, which was indeed excellent. He then turned off the Atmosphere and to my shock, given my skepticism about Ted's claims, the sound did indeed get worse, the soundstage shrinking and a hard edge appearing to midrange sounds. WTF!?!?! My world tilted a little. Still in a state of shock—I knew what I had heard” <<<

The whole issue goes further.

IF there is (are) existing problems and one does not use such as a Schumann Resonance to alleviate it (them), then the problem/s will still be there – undealt with !!!

If one does not know WHAT the problem is or WHERE it is affecting the musical information, then HOW does one work out how and where to use other methods to deal with it ? However much you claim that your ‘variable tuning’ can solve every problem.

If the people who HEAR the presence of the Schumann Resonance give improvements in the sound, then they probably had never realised before that experience that there could be a problem there in the first place – for the Schumann Resonance to be able to alleviate it !!

I am still of the opinion, Michael, that you do NOT have THE answers !! Even though you have regularly claimed that you have !!

>>> “When we say "tuning" we really do mean it. It is "THE" answer and what allows all energy to work together in a "fair exchange".” <<<

So, let us now look at the issue of the Schumann Resonance having ‘an effect’ on the musical information after the ear drum.

The Schumann Resonance device was introduced long before anyone had any experience with it affecting the sound (of the musical information). The Schumann Resonance device was originally introduced to ‘aid a person’s wellbeing’. So, when people described ‘feeling much better’ with such a device in the room, WHAT was it doing ? WHERE was it having it’s effect ? If it was alleviating something, WHAT was causing the problem in the first place for it to be alleviating ?

So, Michael, with NO musical information) in the room, NO ‘variable tuning’ to do, WHAT was/is the presence of the Schumann Resonance doing – to have it’s reported beneficial effect on the person ?

Regards,
May Belt,
PWB Electronics.

rrstesiak
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 11 months ago
Joined: Mar 22 2015 - 5:38am
good karma

All:

In spite of the debates and arguing getting personal, I personally checked out Mr. Green's website and he seems pretty serious, knowledgeable, and has quite a repertoire of products that seem very elegant; form following function. He also seems to have quite an extensive and impressive track record with some serious clients. Finally, he has also dedicated his CAREER to audio/music.

Not sure why he or his credentials seem to be always challenged... but the man is obviously not a fraud and must know what he is doing to have his successful track record.

I myself may have some credentials and even written a paper or two and get grants from the National Science Foundation... but in the world of Audio/Music... I am just learning and beginning my journey. I look forward to topics ranging from what is the best amp to Schumann Resonances and how the heck they could possibly alter the average user's listening experience..but some very credible folks here in Stereophile apparently have heard the benefits.

Now to the topic at hand, these Schumann Resonances.. from a sheer philosophical view, science often times cannot be perfectly explained..and often times success is attained by multitudes of trial and error.... and even by accident! I think a lot of what "variable tuning" embraces is exactly that... the notion of trial and error until your room sounds better. Sounds legitimate to me.

Regards,

Ron

May Belt
Offline
Last seen: 6 years 3 days ago
Joined: May 8 2006 - 1:51am
Debates.

Michael said :-

>>> “Do you honestly think I'm here to debate with a gal who doesn't even show her system and a guy who listens to a portable sony cassette player? Geoff, your's and May's debates have absolutely no value to me, if you can not provide "doing" labs. That may sound mean but I'm being honest with you.” <<<

Yes, you are being honest !!! It does not sound mean – it sounds arrogant !!!! That is where your honesty is coming through !!!

Michael, people CAN have experience and also an opinion with many aspects of audio and listening to music - as with such as the demagnetising technique (which you have broached in another section) – WITHOUT having a “lab” or “doing labs” !!!!!!!!

Nor does one NEED TO list the audio equipment one is listening to at any one time to be allowed to participate in discussions on audio forums !!!!

To be outrageously flippant – but to make a point.

I don’t NEED to give the make or model number of the gas cooker I am using at the moment – to be able to (be allowed to) give my experiences (for many years) of cooking on such as a solid fuel (AGA) range cooker. Cooking and baking on solid fuel cookers, on electric cookers and on gas cookers have all ADDED to the wealth of my experience and knowledge (of cooking and baking AND TASTING) – and which is STILL being used AND added to today !!!!!!!!!!!!

I repeat, yet again. I don’t challenge that you can improve the sound by doing numerous things in the listening environment. I challenge that you don’t have THE answers and THE truth and THE method.

Regards,
May Belt,
PWB Electronics.

May Belt
Offline
Last seen: 6 years 3 days ago
Joined: May 8 2006 - 1:51am
Hello Ron,

Hello Ron,

I personally am not suggesting (nor ever have) that Michael is a fraud. Nor do I challenge the fact that he can gain improvements in the sound by doing numerous things in the listening environment – because I know, as Michael knows, that EVERYTHING one does in the modern environment has an effect on the sound.

I DO, however, challenge his claims that his ‘variable tuning’ technique is THE method, THE truth and THE answer – which, if you read through all his past postings, this is exactly what he has claimed, repeatedly !!!

If you, as you say, have any scientific background, then you surely will be aware that ALL is not yet known !!

>>> “I myself may have some credentials and even written a paper or two and get grants from the National Science Foundation... but in the world of Audio/Music... I am just learning and beginning my journey. I look forward to topics ranging from what is the best amp to Schumann Resonances and how the heck they could possibly alter the average user's listening experience.but some very credible folks here in Stereophile apparently have heard the benefits.” <<<

>>> “Now to the topic in hand, these Schumann Resonances.. from a sheer philosophical view, science often times cannot be perfectly explained.and often times success is attained by multitudes of trial and error.... and even by accident!” <<<

So, Ron, you already know that science cannot always explain and yes, success often happens by pure chance. So, no one can yet have THE answer, THE method or THE truth which is why I challenge Michael’s claims !!

>>> “I think a lot of what "variable tuning" embraces is exactly that... the notion of trial and error until your room sounds better.” <<<

Of course. That is a truism. Varying techniques is exactly that – trial and error until you achieve success. But, Ron, success ALSO includes “fixed and permanent” techniques and treatments !!!!!!!!!! So, even though the concept of “variable tuning” appears sensible and intelligent and you can’t understand how anyone could possibly challenge it, there is a world of ‘fixed and permanent’ techniques which can give incredible improvements in the sound of ANY equipment, of ANY price – and no matter who manufactured it. And, many of the fixed and permanent techniques are at the budget level !!!

Now, you say to Michael that you want to try different (improving sound) techniques but they need to be at “budget” level !!
Michael has now introduced (elsewhere) a new topic – demagnetising. But, Ron, Michael presumably will not recommend you apply a demagnetiser (a budget technique) to your vinyl discs (to gain a possible improvement in the sound from them) because it is a “fixed” technique !! Even though many (including Michael Fremer and John Atkinson to name but two) have heard improvements in the sound from doing so.

Demagnetising is a fixed technique from the point of view that once done you cannot immediately go back to how it was before.

So you can’t do before, after and back to before listening experiments. To know how it sounded before demagnetising you would have to wait until more magnetism had built up again. So even though Michael is now trying to claim that demagnetising is a variable it is not immediately variable.

>>> “The only way to turn theory into proof, is by doing, and doing with repetition. To this end, is why science is made of sums and averages.

Is there a defined zero in demagnetizing? Science says not really, but more of one of my favorite terms a "variable" degree of fair exchange.” <<<

From above, you will find that Michael is now claiming the technique to come within his “variable term” but it is not immediately variable i.e. being able to do before, after and back to before listening experiments. One would have to wait a period of time for the magnetism to build up again.

You will find that Michael does not recommend another budget technique of applying a chemical to the label side of CDs and to the labels of vinyl discs or to the outer insulation of cables including AC power cords !! Because that is a ‘fixed’ technique !! Once it is applied, it has done what it is supposed to do !!
Concentrating on the demagnetising technique. If you tried applying a demagnetiser to one of your vinyl discs and gained an improvement in the sound, then that means that there must have been a problem in the first place, but you had not been aware of such. Now, if you follow Michael’s recommendation, he would advise that you do not do that demagnetising technique because once done, it is ‘fixed’. Instead he would recommend leaving the vinyl disc alone – untreated, with no ‘fixed’ treatment.

But, logically, that means leaving the vinyl disc with it’s inherent problem. From what I understand, Michael instead suggests that you use some of his ‘variable tuning’ techniques to ‘deal with’ (recover elsewhere) whatever problem the vinyl disc might have.

I can’t help seeing it logically. i.e If the vinyl disc – being affected by having been magnetised (however that might have happened) is not allowing you to hear, correctly, the drums as they should sound, or the violins as they should sound. How can leaving the vinyl disc untreated, with it’s inherent problem, and attempting to get the drums sounding better or the violins sounding better by rearranging the wood blocks holding up the cables, or tightening the screws of the loudspeakers SOLVE an inherent problem created by the vinyl disc ? Rearranging the wood blocks and tightening the screws of the loudspeakers could yes, quite easily, give further improvements in the sound – but my logic tells me that an inherent problem with the vinyl disc would be exactly that – STILL an inherent problem if the vinyl disc is left untreated !!!!

Regards,
May Belt,
PWB Electronics.

geoffkait
Offline
Last seen: 3 days 12 min ago
Joined: Apr 29 2008 - 5:10am
Entrainment

This is where it gets interesting. I downloaded the app for Androids (I have an LG G2 smart phone) by the name of Binaural Beat Builder which is FREE. This app plays Alpha frequencies (7-12 Hz) AND the Schumann frequency (our old friend 7.83 Hz) through headphones only. As I mentioned previously the very low frequencies involved here are created by beating two high frequencies that are separated in frequency by the frequency of interest. This way you can be "listening" to the Schumann frequency or Alpha frequencies through earphones or headphones. Pretty slick, right. I'm plugged into the Schumann frequency as I type, actually. Please note this set up using the app produces audio frequencies, so you'll have to I suppose accept at face value that audio Frequncies will work equally well as electromagnetic wave frequencies. Anyway, I digress. The objective of listening to Alpha waves and the Schumann wave is a little different perhaps from the way the RR-77, Earth Calm, and the host of other Schumann frequency generators work. The app works by brain entrainment. I quote,

Schumann Resonance

A 15 minute entrainment from normal dominant frequencies to 7.83 Hz, the fundamental frequency of Schumann resonance, a naturally occurring low frequency oscillation of the Earth's electromagnetic field. The Schumann state is then held until the session is stopped. So, the question is now, does playing the Schumann wave once a day entrain the brain somehow as playing Alpha waves daily for a period of time, gradually achieving a more relaxed state naturally without having to play the frequencies? Another question which I will be exploring is whether listening to the Schumann frequency for say 20 minutes will make a CD or cassette I listen to sound better than before the Schumann session.

Gonna raise me an army, some tough sons of bitches
I'll recruit my army from the orphanages
I been to St. Herman's church, said my religious vows
I've sucked the milk out of a thousand cows

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

michael green
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 1 month ago
Joined: Jan 10 2011 - 6:11pm
Good Karma

Hi Ron

The "tune" is certainly a cool Vibe! I wish I had 48 hours in a day.

I see your getting use to some of the personalities here.

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

geoffkait
Offline
Last seen: 3 days 12 min ago
Joined: Apr 29 2008 - 5:10am
Victim of the Vortex

Another victim falls prey. ;-)

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

geoffkait
Offline
Last seen: 3 days 12 min ago
Joined: Apr 29 2008 - 5:10am
Close but no cigar
michael green wrote:

Hi Ron

The "tune" is certainly a cool Vibe! I wish I had 48 hours in a day.

I see your getting use to some of the personalities here.

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

That was almost a complete sentence. I trust he also learn level of education here. ;-)

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica
Machina Dynamica

geoffkait
Offline
Last seen: 3 days 12 min ago
Joined: Apr 29 2008 - 5:10am
Trolling on Stereophile
May Belt wrote:

Michael said :-

>>> “Do you honestly think I'm here to debate with a gal who doesn't even show her system and a guy who listens to a portable sony cassette player? Geoff, your's and May's debates have absolutely no value to me, if you can not provide "doing" labs. That may sound mean but I'm being honest with you.” <<<

Yes, you are being honest !!! It does not sound mean – it sounds arrogant !!!! That is where your honesty is coming through !!!

Michael, people CAN have experience and also an opinion with many aspects of audio and listening to music - as with such as the demagnetising technique (which you have broached in another section) – WITHOUT having a “lab” or “doing labs” !!!!!!!!

Nor does one NEED TO list the audio equipment one is listening to at any one time to be allowed to participate in discussions on audio forums !!!!

To be outrageously flippant – but to make a point.

I don’t NEED to give the make or model number of the gas cooker I am using at the moment – to be able to (be allowed to) give my experiences (for many years) of cooking on such as a solid fuel (AGA) range cooker. Cooking and baking on solid fuel cookers, on electric cookers and on gas cookers have all ADDED to the wealth of my experience and knowledge (of cooking and baking AND TASTING) – and which is STILL being used AND added to today !!!!!!!!!!!!

I repeat, yet again. I don’t challenge that you can improve the sound by doing numerous things in the listening environment. I challenge that you don’t have THE answers and THE truth and THE method.

Regards,
May Belt,
PWB Electronics.

Apparently Michael believes Stereophile is his own private Trolling hole. Step right this way. Naked and they dance.

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

• X