Who's system are we talking about? I am always on the look out for more learning opportunities as to how other members have achieved better sound.

Respectfully,

Ron

Geoff:

With my PS Audio NuWave lent to a friend, thereby leaving the DAC duties of CD to my entry-level NAD 516; which isn't bad, but ain't no PS Audio, I can assure you my system has not sounded any better. lol.

Though I am not complaining. I have also ordered a Vincent Pho-8 Phono Stage and a Creek Ruby DAC...so good things are coming..

Best Regards,

Ron

All:

Not sure if my reply is just based on "The Power of Suggestion"....but nevertheless:

I just put in the Beatles White Album in CD..... with the stock NAD 516... and my only mods are wood blocks underneath..

Not sure what the hell is going on, but I am hearing a deep, 3-D soundstage with pinpoint imaging of the vocals primarily center and recessed about 4 feet, with individual instruments and effects coming out of the left and right speakers....wider than their placements by several feet and about level with their front faces. again, very clearly separated, and deep and very WIDE soundstage.

I am guessing it's a combination of the blocks and a very well mastered CD and burn-in of a new unit.

To be truthful, the overall size of the sound stage is smaller than the PS Audio DAC, but again the imaging and separation are amazing as well as left -to- right and depth... truly a world class product for $225.

:)

Listen On!

Ron

>>> “I am always on the look out for more learning opportunities as to how other members have achieved better sound.” <<<

Hello Ron,

Michael refers to you as a “newbie”. Perhaps I can speed up the process of enlightenment.

Can I give you the benefit of my considerable insight ?

Your PhD will only be of help if you use the discipline of asking YOURSELF questions (from reading of other’s experiences – and from your own), and not being satisfied until things fit more into place. One of my ongoing challenges with Michael is that he says that “they have done the questions and got the answers”, whereas I say that there are still many questions – on a shelf – awaiting answers.

Firstly. I see on another of your replies that you rely a great deal on specifications. In the history of audio well respected and experienced listeners have realised that there can be specifications of equipment which engineers would give their right arms for – but in subsequent listening tests the “sound” of that equipment is disappointing when listened to in comparison with other equipment which have extremely poor specifications. So, the questions of WHY and HOW are raised. As well as “What on earth is going on ?”. And, I say, those questions have NOT yet been fully answered !!!

To explore further, Ron, you would have to be able to “throw an intellectual switch” and allow your brain to explore further than the usual conventional audio and acoustic theories. This, unfortunately, is where your PhD could be the inhibiting factor !! So many times, some technical knowledge can actually be the proverbial ‘blinkers on’ factor.

I will continue if this would be of help.

Regards,
May Belt,
PWB Electronics.

May:

By all means, continue on!

Geoff:

I look forward to reviewing my system with no more changes and re-listening to the Beatles White CD later today or tonight -

Kind Regards,

Ron

Supposing your "global effects project" really works but I consider the effect on MY system to be rather negative than positive, do I have the right to sue you for changing the sound of MY system without MY approval?

Or do you have an "individual reversal effects project" for such cases?

Michael is correct on a lot of things and it is because he uses so many “truisms” that there does not appear to be many people, more knowledgeable regarding what effects the ‘sound’ (musical information), on his Chat Forum, who are able to challenge him when he DOES (as he often does) use bluster and waffle.

My understanding is as follows :-

It seems that quite some time ago Michael obviously discovered what Peter and I and presumably Geoff had already discovered that Everything in the listening environment affects the sound. And, therefore, Everything one does, in the environment, changes the sound. This is the basis where you have to start, in your understanding, Ron, that the word Everything means just that – EVERYTHING !!!

So, as examples, the venetian blind in your room, the picture on the wall in your room, the sculpture in your room, the vinyl records stacked in the shelf unit, the AC power cords, every empty hole in the room and every unused socket in your equipment are ALL as important to your sound as the Creek amplifier, Epos speakers and your new NAD CD player.

AND, that certain things do not have to be removed from the room in order to obtain improvements in your sound – they just need ‘treating’ in order to be ‘acceptable’.

When Michael says that he can have a ‘treated’ NAD sound better than your untreated DAC equipment – irrespective of the specification or cost or brand name of either- he is correct. But, if the DAC is then ‘treated’, then that DAC would then sound better than the ‘treated’ NAD. And, one can chase the better sound forwards and further forwards, depending on which piece of equipment one ‘treats’ last. WE have been doing this for over 30 years !!

Still on the subject of EVERYTHING in the environment affecting the sound.

When Michael says “If you do A, you can change the sound”, he is correct – you can. If he says “If you do B, or C, or D, or E, or F, you will change the sound every time – he is correct – you can.

This is where I call the “truisms” come in. Because you CAN change the sound by doing A, B, C, D, E or F so anyone would be a fool to challenge those ‘truisms’. So, Michael then appears to be the “audio guru”, who cannot be challenged.

When Michael suggests (as one hypothetical example) is that if someone wants to specifically have the piano further forward and not in the background, then they should try doing “A” technique. If they don’t achieve success with trying “A” technique, then they should try “B” technique. This is what he refers to as “variable tuning” i.e. try this (A), or (B), or (C) until one gets the sound one is desiring.
Or, if people want more depth or greater height, then they should try (say) (G) technique or (H) technique.

So, when people DO those techniques of (A) or (B) or (C) or (D) or (E) or (F) or (G) or (H) and get the results they want, then Michael’s techniques and suggestions appear to be proved correct. They HAVE got the ’sound’ results they required !! Because, again, everything you do in the environment affects the ‘sound’ !!!

Now, if people have not experimented further themselves or have not been involved either in reading of other’s experiences or results over these past 30 years, then they will not be aware that OTHER – different - techniques, discovered by OTHER people, can also give them similar results !! I suspect that as quite a newcomer to audio, that you Ron might not have been following closely all what has been reported over these past 30 or more years. It would seem that Geoff has just referred to some of those (other) things already !!!!!!!

I think that when Michael, at the start of his discoveries, had to find an explanation, i.e. an answer to the question “What on earth is going on ?”, his conclusion was the (his) answer “Vibrations are everywhere, therefore vibrations are the problem”.

As soon as anyone refers to any of these OTHER techniques and describe them as effective in improving the sound, these other techniques are either pushed, pulled, squeezed, bent, twisted to fit the explanations of ‘vibrations’., ‘resonances’., or ‘audio code’ by Michael, OR poo-poohed by Michael as nowhere near as effective as his own techniques.

Hence my constant challenging Michael when he claims that HIS answer is THE answer, HIS method is THE method and HIS truth is THE truth !!

What I have constantly said is that everything does not fit neatly into Michael’s explanations. That there are STILL many questions, on a shelf, awaiting answers !!!! That Michael has, yes, discovered some techniques which can change the sound, but that there are other techniques which affect the ‘sound’ (the musical information) which do NOT fit neatly into his explanations !!!!!

Presumably you will find out for yourself Ron, if you ever DO try the cork/MuMetal technique around transformers as carried out by Bill and his colleague and which they described as giving the improvements in their sound of :-

>>> “I can only say one thing.......

This is some Amazing Schiit!

The results are quite more than obvious.

Significant increase in soundstage width, height & depth.

Any recording signatures such room acoustics or other ambient info is so palatable it makes the OEM seem like eggs without salt.

Much better with subtle details (which was pretty effen good to start with).

The overall realistic dimensional presence has me grinning till it hurts.

It is one of those upgrades that makes you want pull out all your favorites to hear all the new information that you going to hear “ <<<

One example below of Michael ‘not taking kindly to the success which Bill had in ‘treating’ his transformer’ and what I call Michael’s poo, poohing approach!!

>>> “we have to be careful with transformers near other parts. DAC parts are super sensitive to transformers and you have a couple of choices here. One is to do the dampen/shielding of making the unit less flexible, possibly closing in the harmonics and as a result makes an upward tilt in tone or even a harsh pitchy sound, or from the other end a rubbery sound.” <<<

Either one accepts that Bill and his colleague CAN hear improvements in their sound, and KNOW that they WERE improvements in their sound or not !!!

Another technique which Michael is known to use to ‘put other people’s success down’ is the following :-

If a person describes hearing better treble, better separation of instruments, better soundstage, better resolution of the music, after carrying out some ‘variable tuning’ techniques described by Michael, they are praised to the heavens !! But, if they use EXACTLY the SAME descriptive words to describe improvements they are experiencing from carrying out ‘tweaks’ described or introduced by other people, then Michael uses the technique of challenging the use of the descriptive word “better”, saying “is what they are hearing actually better or is it just ‘different’ , and not really an improvement at all, just different” ?????

I am hoping that I have put things into a little more perspective for you.

Regards,
May Belt,
PWB Electronics.

These are good conversations and I'm glad people are taking the time to look at each others special and unique points of view. I know we've been in back and forth mode for a while now and I think with the additions of some other folks coming into the mix, we in time will all get to the point where those things that make us special (different) is not so much that we are right in our own particular view, but that we are all right from our perticular view, education, personal up bringing, experiences and practical applications.

My answers to you May are the same as they were from the beginning. My answers are based on a method that will allow us to obtain the answers. It's a method based on the "doing" of the hobby over talking about the doing of the hobby. The answers you seek will never be found in the hypothetical. Your quest for my answers being true or not will never happen with words May. You will never be convinced by my, or anyones view alone. The only way to discover if I have or haven't found these answers that I claim, is by you "doing" yourself.

Yes, I see you guys are enjoying the talks and that's all cool and all correct, but it's also based on points of view that bottom out until everyone of us actually does the doing and realizes that all these opinions are based on personal experience only and are only truth for that particular person "doing" them. It doesn't matter if 99 people hear it one way and 1 hears it different. To that one person who hears it different, the truth from their point of view no matter what anyone else thinks is the correct truth.

This hobby spends so much time on gathering recruits for their own personal beliefs, that the music experience is sometimes left on the cutting room floor. As I will always say "THE" answer is a variable one. It's not a Michael Green answer, cause that answer can only be true for me. The answer for us is an individual one and it "varies" with every single person that flicks that switch. I design so that we have as many varying points of view as I can provide, and as complete or good as I think my efforts are, I am only one artist among millions of ears who at the end of the day need to become masters of their own musical experience.

We need to stop the convincing for our own sake and spend more time exploring for our own sake and the sake of others. I don't have the best sounding system for May & Peter, May & Peter does. Same goes for Costin, Geoff, Ron, or anyone who comes along. I'll be straight up in saying all this talk of "fixed" approaches only go as far as the particular person who decides to use them. The whole idea that "you have to have this or your not getting it all" is a myth bordering lie. It's a sales pitch by people who obviously haven't tried it all and don't have the same hearing as any other person on the planet. The reviews of these products or ideas are always going to be mixed cause every single person in this hobby has their own built in method of listening. The rest is the sales pitch of trust me I know what's right for you more than you do. Why this forum is fixated on the talk over the doing is beyond my comprehension. Honestly folks, why is there all these threads on the talk when these pages should be full of all of our personal adventures?

For the recorded and for myself, I don't care if you buy my product or hear the same way I do, or if we share the same taste in life. What I do care about, is this hobby and industry and want to suggest we learn to understand and appreciate each other as unique individuals and stop trying to make clones. And another thing stop being so afraid of a guy (not speaking about you May but general) who is after everyone being able to get a little closer to their sound by making Variable products. I'm one approach of thousands within a huge range of variables, but lets not throw out the idea of the variables, cause that's how all of us find "our" sound. Don't take a stand against what everyone of us does, just to make a sales pitch for yourself. Again I'm saying this as an in general. We need to move this hobby as a team toward the variables. We need to embrace that everyone is different instead of telling everyone we are right and they are wrong. People who come here to dump on variable, are completely missing the point. No one hears and same! Stop attacking the answer and embrace it. Find your particular part of it and make this hobby so we can embrace each other instead this whole stupid right and wrong thing. Our egos should be focused on our own love and pride in how far we have come and the sharing of that, not egos of I'm right and everyone else is wrong. That's the wrong message to send the world and is what is crippling this hobby and industry. Some people are making too much noise about everyone else being wrong and it's blinding us to the fact that everyone is right from their unique journey.

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

I do find that the days I am having more allergy symptoms does affect my listening enjoyment. But, over all, since I am doing a great amount of headphone listening my overall enjoyment is up. My "cans" consist of AKG models K701 and K271 mk 2s and my headphone amps are a PreSonus HP4 and a ART Headphone4 for most of the listening. My players are not esoteric models of a Yamaha S-1800 SACD combo player (also DVD-A) and one of my 3 Sony DVP-NS 755 SACD combo players. I listen to much 2496 discs I've created off downloads using my Cirlinca DVD music burning software. I can make DVD-As or DVD-Vs for the Sony's.

I am finding my enjoyment really is dependent on the material, the resolution, and how well something was recorded. My FAVs right now are BlueCoast Records, Linn records, and eClassical highrez downloads. I have found that with my headphone listening that many of my CD recordings I find less than favorable these days. Good cans get you pretty close to the music and the recording engineering...not much hiding I find.

If I owned a real audiophile headphone amp it would probably expose too much, possibly. The 2496, SACD, and 24/192 files are pretty special to listen to. A huge improvment for me was the addition of the cheap $150 Steinberg UR-22 usb audio interface that handles up to 24/192 files and sounds so much better than my stock computer sound card. It has an excellent headphone amp that drives my Grado 80s just fine and also has a separate line out with vol control to one of my audio systems.

Hi May

I was typing the same time you were. If I give off to you or others that we are not excited for what other listeners do or companies do, it's sad and I wish I could express myself in a way that didn't do this and still make a point for you, many others have expressed to me (as of even a few minutes ago) I've been clear up here and they are enjoying the tune.

So I don't know, maybe it's you and geoff. If someone thinks I'm not clear or puting down someone else I'm sure they know how to ask. But to save them that. I love when people make changes, mine, yours, geoff's or the man on the moon's. Exploring audio is great fun, and as you can read on TuneLand we have a blast.

The fact is I view every adjustment as a point of view, and not a matter of right or wrong. I don't have any desire to be the ears for someone else, unless they ask me to. At the same time I've watch you and geoff try to put tuning in a box, and I'm sorry but that shoe won't fit and never will. Not because of me, but because of the nature of tuning itself. Why would I be unhappy that someone choose to voice their system in with Mu-metal and cork. I use both of these items along with hundreds of others? My job is to explore the varied potential scale of tuning and methods and materials and report as well as design around them and give guidence. Not to your satisfaction it appears.

I also didn't know that you and Peter gave birth to me, hi mom! Again I see your need to say you and Peter have done everything first a matter of ego and pride which you as well as any human are entitled to I guess. That's why many do patents, trademarks and copyrights and get their names in the history books. I didn't know who you guys were until a couple of years ago, but maybe you gave me up at birth.

If you haven't noticed lately May, people are tuning and having fun listening. You can spend your time painting pictures of others or you can join the listening club and be a part of the pleasures of personal taste and the ways to get there. Your days of painting me only serves to excite others interest.

My purpose here has not and will not change. I promote tuning and have always invited people to explore the hobby.

So what's for dinner Mom?

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

But, everything doesn't effect everything equally. Equipment capabilities, room treatments, tweaks, tunings, power stability and on and on and on. Just because everything effects everything, that doesn't translate to all things are equal in their importance and impact on sound quality.

If we were to rate a sound system between 1 and 100, and a sound system that is functioning properly as at least a 50 on the scale, and then assign a number to the multitude of tweaks, tunes and modifications to achieve better sound, there are a lot of things that would barely register a fraction of a number while others would warrant perhaps a double digit number in importance. It's like adding a grain of sugar to a glass of tea. We can agree that sugar is sweet, but a single grain of it in a glass of tea is meaningless to how it tastes. A grain of salt or a grain of sand would have equally meaningless impact on the taste, though they all have very different properties and have all changed the glass of tea.

Between the hyperbole of advertising and the non-disclosure of just how much of a change we are really talking about, addressing the known issues that have a direct impact on the quality of reproduction should always take precedent over what "might" or "may" make a difference.

To comment on what Catch is saying and maybe more as usual for me, this is why I enjoy so much the feedback and experience of listeners as they are doing the hobby. The threads on their person experiences on TuneLand for me is a treasure, but not just there. Some setups are very much like catch is saying and other systems you can open the room door a half inch and change everything.

For myself I like super sensitive setups like this one http://tuneland.techno-zone.net/t169p195-hiend001-s-system where he can move a wire and make a fairly direct change on the sound and as he has become use to the system can do miracles with his recordings. BTW this is a CD system, but you wouldn't be able to guess what kind of source was being used. The "digital" sound is completely gone from the stage. Likewise with our setups if you weren't looking at the source itself it would be hard for a listener to tell if we were using our tape, TT or CD setup.

Some of our demo rooms the equipment is not in the listening room itself, and I have had audiophiles come out of the room and ask why I have switched the source. They honestly couldn't believe we were playing their CD. As I have been saying here, it's hard to believe these CD's sound as good as they do on most stock CDP's. If I were to go stock and the basic metal chassis with bigger transformers I would dump CD's for tape or vinyl in a heartbeat.

Now I say this keeping in mind the comments catch has made in the past on recording quality, and I have no problem with these statements. There is a huge range of quality differences with all sources. I've seen this in CD's but I have also seen the same quality comments (not talking about compression here) in vinyl and tape and don't see that general statements can be made, unless the system itself is not able to play the source (whatever source) properly.

While I'm talking about sources, I'd like to share something with all of us.

For some weird reason we on some of these forums tend to think we are the world's voice for topics in this hobby, but what we fell to realize many times is that there are discussion groups out there that are far more specific than this one that are every bit as much a part of this hobby as any of us. In many cases they are so specific they make stereophile's and TAS's view of specifics look like amateurs. Let me show a small reference.

http://www.tapeheads.net/showthread.php?p=487688

There are specific audiophile threads and forums like these on any topic and type of listener and listening all over the place. I personally know tons of these particularly specialized sites people and their hobby. I bring this up because this is a bigger hobby then CD's, Tape, Files and Vinyl. This hobby is as specific as people make it, down to the CD, tape or vinyl producer. I know guys that can take you into a record shop and look at the vinyl in the light and put it back in the sleeve cause he can tell what type of pressing machine that was used.

The Stereophile-ish TAS-ish audiophile my friends is only the tip of the iceberg and when we get caught up in the month to month basic journals to the place where we loose sight of the deeper parts of this hobby all that is left is opinion stacked on opinion instead of a group of people digging into specifics and specialized areas. This forum my friends is the beginning not the end of this hobby of listening and it's very easy to put the blinders on and think it is all there is.

just the beginning

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

>>> “As I will always say "THE" answer is a variable one. It's not a Michael Green answer, cause that answer can only be true for me. The answer for us is an individual one and it "varies" with every single person that flicks that switch. I design so that we have as many varying points of view as I can provide, and as complete or good as I think my efforts are, I am only one artist among millions of ears who at the end of the day need to become masters of their own musical experience.” <<<

That is exactly what I was saying, Michael. It is a “truism” that the sound, in anyone’s room, will be that sound for that person. And that anything they do, in that environment, will change the sound for THEM. FACT. Truism !! But, again the other point I was making, is that there are OTHER methods, OTHER techniques which can ALSO change the sound to an individual’s liking – which don’t include ANYTHING from MGA !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

As I have said before. BOTH ‘fixed’ and ‘variable’ techniques should be considered.

>>> “Why this forum is fixated on the talk over the doing is beyond my comprehension.” <<<

It is BECAUSE of personally “DOING” that I know that BOTH should be considered !!!!!!!!!!!

>>> “And another thing stop being so afraid of a guy (not speaking about you May but general) who is after everyone being able to get a little closer to their sound by making Variable products.” <<<

I am not afraid of a guy who promotes ‘variable’ products and techniques. I despair, however, when they actively discourage people using some OTHER effective products and techniques by finding some way of poo-poohing them !!!!!

>>> “I'm one approach of thousands within a huge range of variables, but lets not throw out the idea of the variables, cause that's how all of us find "our" sound. Don't take a stand against what everyone of us does, just to make a sales pitch for yourself.” <<<

I DON’T ‘throw out the idea of variables’. I encourage the idea of BOTH fixed and variable. NOR do I take a stand against “what everyone of you do” – so don’t – yet again Michael - misrepresent what I say. !!

Now, regarding ‘making a sales pitch of my own’.

You, Michael, have been instigating new threads regularly since (to my knowledge) January 2011 and constantly promoting your products and techniques.

I, however, have always tried to stay within the Guidelines (Rules for Manufacturers) as are set out by Audio Asylum. They are :-

(1) Manufacturers are NOT allowed to use Audio Asylum Forums to advertise their products.
(2) But they are allowed to answer specific questions put to them regarding their products.
(3) They are, however, allowed to fully participate in discussions of a General nature.

As one does not see other Manufacturers of audio products and techniques, regularly promoting THEIR products on the Stereophile Forum, one can only presume that they are also adhering to very similar guidelines !!!!!!!!!!!

>>> “If you haven’t noticed lately, May, people are tuning and having fun listening.” <<<

Of course they are. No one is suggesting otherwise !!!!!!!!!!!!!

Regards,
May Belt,
PWB Electronics.

>>> “But, everything doesn’t affect everything equally. Equipment capabilities, room treatments, tweaks, tunings, power stability and on and on and on. Just because everything effects everything, that doesn't translate to all things are equal in their importance and impact on sound quality.” <<<

And, Catch 22, that is why I challenge Michael when he claims :-

HIS method is THE method, HIS truth is THE truth and HIS answer is THE answer !!!!!

Regards,
May Belt,
PWB Electronics.

May, your on spin cycle. lol

If you wish to limit the variables of audio, I wish, you luck with that. If you wish to present audio as if it was on a still planet instead of a moving one, good luck with that one too. If you wish to be showing me that you have done more than me, you should, your 30 some years older than me.

However if you were really serious about challenge me, you would hang up your pen and come join me in a listening session.

There was a time on here when you were defending no need for you to be in listening mode to proove your points, proove it! Don't spin and don't say I twist what you say. Get in your listening chair and proove it. It appears the more I say the method is not mine to claim, the more you paint the picture of my method. The more I explain how the answers are points of views you try to point to me saying there is only one excluding all others. I mean you can keep doing this in an attempt to buid supporters (we all do in some sense) but this changes the truth for no one, and variable audio only grows stronger with each spin others present and each time someone "does" audio. Your looking for a win May, but the method your using is a win win for me everytime and I'm not even trying for a win. Your showing up to the tennis court May without your racket & shoes claiming victory over someone who doesn't care what the score is.

Your trying to tell me my truth is not the truth and honestly if you have read any of my posts, that's just stupid. Your truth to you is no different to anyones truth for them.

You completely miss the point of variable, and insist there is something more than every point of view! Show us May! Stop looking at michael as your audio tennis opponent and proove to us that there is something more than every point of view?

you can't run May if you refuse to walk

further more your not going to convince anyone that you are moving if your standing still

The best you will do is catch someone on a day they're not reading the full context of what I post. Your trying to get them to focus on your spin of what I posts instead of giving them the credit for their own reading abilities plus the ability to ask me for themselves.

You want so bad for me to say fixed, that when I say it you can't even hear it. I say it in the context of the world spinning and your out there trying to stop the world so you can claim some sort of victory. Variable means motion May, and the science of how and what is moving. You getting out a stick and trying to put it in the gears to stop them is not legitimate. Your trying to proove the "what if's" as the world spins past your point of reference. Click your fingers May that's movement, variable and one point of view among the endless others. Your trying to say that one snap is a must in a world of various snapping fingers from endless points of reference, and I'm saying embrace all of them for what they are.

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

Well geoffy buddy-boy, it's like this. Your pal May brought me into the thread just like you brought me into your other threads. So if it bugs you so bad, maybe you should try to not bring me up. If you do bring me up, I might show up and I may not. BTW had some beautiful PZC's, RoomTune and LTR Blooks get delivered in Malaysia today to tune up a cool system if your interested in looking at it. I'm also playing Tom Waits "Mule" if your interested in doing any listening with me today.

isn't this fun!

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

>>> “How did this thread turn into another one of those ubiquitous long winded screeds for The Tuning Foundation? “ <<<

Probably, Geoff, because I attempted to respond to Ron’s sentence:-

>>> “I am always on the look out for more learning opportunities as to how other members have achieved better sound.” <<<

By giving him a snapshot background to previous ‘spats’ in an attempt to shine a light on the difficulties he was having – with some other correspondents – and on another forum – whilst he was trying to get to grips with the various opinions re audio !!!!

Regards,
May Belt,
PWB Electronics.

>>> “If you wish to limit the variables of audio, I wish, you luck with that. If you wish to present audio as if it was on a still planet instead of a moving one, good luck with that one too.” <<<

I ask you again. Will you STOP misrepresenting what I say, Michael.

I don’t wish to limit ANYTHING. I wish to EXTEND the pleasure of listening to music for everyone !!

Regards,
May Belt,
PWB Electronics.

Geoff:

I did get a chance to not only listen to the Beatles White album last night, but I also compared the Vinyl with CD versions of Led Zeppelin I.

My CD player is still sounding very good; with its own DAC. I can just say I am pleasantly surprised at the amount and quality of musical information I am getting out of this $225 unit.

It compares favourably with my Rega vinyl rig too; though the CD does have a slight tilt up, I find now even during busy rock passages the initial graininess/distortion are now absent and I can hear individual electric guitars as one should.

I can't say it sounded *better* than the previous night; but the same, good sound. I attribute the improvements through the addition of wood blocks underneath as well as just breaking it in. I played Zepellin and Beatles repeatedly for days. The sound definitely has noticeably improved.

All:

I have come to be mostly a Theoretical Physicist; where almost all of my academic work is based on equations and theory; a lot of which are referenced to other scientists, with some being of my own original works. Some of it is provable via experiment, a lot not.

However; I feel that perhaps taking a theoretical slant in audio is often frowned upon or even ignorantly dismissed. I would like to think; however, the reason I was awarded my PhD is because I am very good at what I do: applying theory to SOLVE problems.

So while a lot of people choose to dismiss theoretical approaches, I know I can contribute useful observations intermingled with personal and/or applying scientific method to evaluate a component I am reviewing or own. You want to know the real irony?:

In academia, being a theoretician is greatly valued over being an experimentalist. It is commonly believed that knowing the theory, one has a better and truer and timeless grasp on the subject. Further, our work when published is often handed down to the applied sciences and engineers to implement!

I will keep these statements short as my point has been conveyed and I don't need to be misquoted or my own words turned around for the sake of inciting useless argument.

So, to repeat, as I am published in a lofty scientific journal (The Journal of Theoretical Biology) as well as Ivy League schools (Harvard, Cornell, and Caltech) for my largely theoretical work, logic dictates I can apply my same uncanny abilities to solve real problems leveraging mostly theory with some applied logic and experiment in the world of audio.

It bothers me I have to resort to name dropping to establish credibility and explain myself, if it gets more people to listen to what I have to say, then that's all I am trying to do here; rather than be constantly ridiculed or put down or even banned from forums. Enough is enough!
Cheers,

Ronald R. Stesiak, PhD

All:

Now that I've established some credibility and some may read this... here are my THEORETICAL observations:

I intend; and have been, implementing both Tunable as well as Fixed Tweaks to my system; both with good results.

As for the myriads of other tweaks and tunes possible, I have to agree with Catch in that no single person can have all of the time/money/knowledge to perfectly and completely tune a room. Therefore, one must apply a weighting system. This is done very often in Scientific Research and Statistics.

For example, I feel "freeing the wires" from the metallic edges of my Creek is a FIXED TWEAK; and placing tuning blocks under it is a VARIABLE TWEAK; both proposed by Michael; with the blocks first mentioned by Geoff. These methods combined to improve my sound significantly.

On the other hand, using cable spacers to raise the cables from the floor, making a reef knot in my blinds, and removing my television I am not so sure are worth the cost and inconvenience, Now if I had a dedicated room and more money, I would certainly employ those methods and listen if they made a difference. Further, I want to specifically say I regard these methods as logically valid and credible; and am considering the source as reputable and highly knowledgable. But alas, in the real world and a mixed-use listening/viewing room, I must make sacrifices and assign weights to tweaks/tuning.

I, personally, take in opinions, articles, recommendations, and suggestions from pretty much everyone, and go through an internal process of theoretically and practically filtering out the bizarre and totally disagreeable with the logically sound...all of this based on a combination of higher education/learning as well as doing and experience. For if I did not do this, I would never ever be able to choose an audio component or tuning method to try! I would be forever stuck in a logic loop. Or worse, I would have to buy every single thing or go on a lot of costly trips to audition every single piece of equipment or invest in another wood-working shop so I can DO everything.

Ergo, there is a COMPROMISE between DOING and THEORY.

Not sure much of an argument can be had from what I said, but I have confidence on here someone will find fault with it.

Best Regards,

Ron

All:

In addition to my Theoretical Physics and scientific backgrounds, I also have an Electrical Engineering degree. Combined with physics, and my knowledge of both optics and analogue and digital systems design and signal theory, I can make the following theoretical observation:

Applying any treatment to a CD or substituting any expensive DIGITAL cabling I would contend has absolutely zero effect on the sound.

Here is why:

Music is stored on a CD in pits and grooves...representing zeros and ones. THIS IS BINARY/DIGITAL...not WAVEFORMS and ANALOGUE.

So, either a zero or a one arrives at the CD laser's receiver, which is then passed to the DAC as this digital chain of zeros and ones, where the DAC then converts this digital signal into an analogue one, and sends it on its merry way to the preamp or amp, where it is then sent to the speakers. That's it.

If one is using an external DAC, buying an expensive DIGITAL cable is absolutely pointless..as all we are passing is a binary signal.

Further, applying any treatments to CD's results in absolutely no difference; again, as the information is just encoded zeros and ones.

I'm sorry... and I am sure I will get a lot of FLAC for this (pun intended) but it is purely based on theory and not practice; as I have had sufficient schooling and education to know that anything done to try to alter zeros and ones would result in signal corruption or no difference at all.

My point in saying all of this is, I can save my time, effort and money on digital cables and cd treatments, and spend the money on ANALOGUE cabling; where as now the signal is in a waveform, I firmly believe cabling can make a significant difference here. In fact, I was guided to buying AudioQuest Speaker Cables and Interconnects, all ANALOGUE domain, and in fact I did notice a significant improvement in sound.

Again, I expect a Holy War, but I am just making a case where education can trump experience sometimes and be a money and time saver.

I WILL cite this disclaimer so I am not totally burnt at the stake: I have absolutely no issues with other people trying these methods...I just personally choose not to purse them and instead try to focus most of my tuning in the ANALOGUE domain, and rely on manufacturers DACS to get me through the DIGITAL domain. I also believe isolating ANALOGUE portions of DACS and CD PLAYERS to be beneficial, and applying vibration tuning/isolation to the entire system also beneficial; as that seems to be mostly what Michael's forum is about. I have always said I agree with his methods.

Respectfully,

Ron

No justification or credentials are necessary to express opinions and thoughts other than those that you deem useful in futhering the discussion and are willing to share. I enjoy your discussions and respect your point of view and can do nothing about (nor would I if I could) how others may choose to express their thoughts.

You have the enviable position, based on your technical background, of understanding what questions to ask. Most of us without that understanding, simply have to speculate and depend on others whose experience and background we do respect to provide the possible explanations and then sort it all out with our own limitations of technical knowledge.

Hi Ron

just be yourself

It's your system, your sound and your hobby. Look at it from your point of view and go for it. If people see another view try not to take it personal. It's their view from where they're sitting. You don't have to convince them, me or anyone that you are right or wrong or they are. Everyone plays their role from what they specialize in and continue to grow toward. Some of us who have done this a long time might give you some advice and recommendations but it's your world.

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

Any tuning/ tweaks with regards to the Analogue domain i agree with (for example minimizing motor vibrations); as mentioned in my diatribes; for lack of a better description.

I also can see your point regarding improving the transparency of the material covering the actual media of the CD.

So we actually agree more than you think! :)

Regards,

Ron

All:

I am truly thankful everyone's reply was basically that I am a valued member here (like anyone else).

I thought for awhile I was rather ganged up upon but I no longer feel that way and I just want to thank each of you for acknowledging that my input is valued.

Respectfully,

Ron

You introduce yourself as a Theoretical Physicist, however you present your audio findings mostly based on observations.
I would expect you to come with a theory on why some tweaks work and why some others simply cannot work, and only then test it (with the contribution of other "testers", of course).
I do not need to tell you that the results of quantum experiments depend on observation. However, it seems I need to tell you that the results of audio experiments depend on the (in)famous placebo effect. So would you be so kind to develop a theory on why some "strange" (and I'm being polite) tweaks should work?
I can guarantee you have my full support for the experimental part of the story.

Best regards,
Costin Fodor, PhD

Costin:

And we have a paradox. For one of the main reasons I indulge in audio is to get AWAY from my studies! Further, isn't the beginning of all scientific method observation? However, I do intend on performing detailed, more scientific reviews of the Creek Ruby Dac and the LTR sound blocks; neither of which I have received yet. One of my main methods will be Fourier analysis. But I'll share the reviews when I feel they are ready. Have to get he equipment and break it in first!

While we are on the topic of higher education, what are your undergrad and PhD fields?

Respectfully,

Ron

I myself am also a newcomer to this hobby. I have a question relating to the use of wood blocks under equipment. I have an NAD T748 already sitting on an unfinished plywood shelf. Would this not constitute a "wood block"? If not, is there a specific wood species I should use? As some here may already know I am a carpenter/furniture maker and have pieces of over 50 different species lying around my woodshop. Not to say I'm interested in testing pieces of each (some are rare and expensive) just that I have more than the average bear.

Ron, you did say :-

>>> “I am always on the look out for more learning opportunities as to how other members have achieved better sound.” <<<

This is going to be a remarkable journey of discovery for you (and a roller coaster ride trying to balance your new discoveries with your existing knowledge and training).

Adding to your reply to Costin :-

>>> “Further, isn't the beginning of all scientific method observation?” <<<

The answer is YES. And much, much earlier in another Stereophile discussion, someone made a succinct comment :-

>>> “Observe!

Become curious.

Investigate.

Try to quantify.

Lather, Rinse, Repeat, until the explanation and the measurements correlate with the observations.” <<<

There is an interim section however, which is the one I keep going on about with Michael. When one has to explain observed anomalies after previous seemingly confident EXPLANATIONS can ‘no longer hold water’ because of later observations !! Which then raise more Questions – awaiting answers !!

Regarding your intention of using cork. Make sure it is pure Natural cork, not ‘treated cork’ (i.e. some cork is lacquered to stop it crumbling).

Now. To repeat. Everything means Everything !!! One can’t and one shouldn’t exclude things from Everything !! Geoff is correct when he continues to recommend ‘treating’ CDs etc.

And, still on the subject of everything. As you progress (and if you are observant) you will realise that the more you ‘treat’ your audio equipment (and the listening environment) the better will be the TV picture !! Yes, the TV picture, Ron !! AND, the more you treat areas of your TV (don’t forget it has, at least, an aerial – which breaks your boundary – and an AC power cord – and a remote control) the better will be the SOUND of your audio !!

I would suggest that however much Michael attempts to downplay Geoff’s considerable experience in ‘audio and sound’, that YOU could gain considerable benefit from taking notice of Geoff’s recommendations !!!

The more you do, the steeper the learning curve. And, one thing from that will be the surprising realisation that prior to doing those things you had NOT been hearing all that your audio system was/is capable of !!

Unfortunately so many people firmly believe that they are ALREADY hearing all that their equipment is capable of producing and don’t need to do anything else ! This, as such as Michael himself has described many times, is the first obstacle one encounters when trying to encourage people to take their first steps to obtain even better sound.

Regards,
May Belt,
PWB Electronics.

Undergrad - Electronics
PhD - Information Theory

Hi chuckles304

Here's a link to TuneLand http://tuneland.techno-zone.net/ If you want you could start a thread there asking your questions and those would are working with the blocks (including myself) will look at your particular case and give you tips.

have fun

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

Is your username any relation to Cisco's IOS switch operating system?

Also, with a strong background in electronics and science, have you made any observations of note with regard to Audio in the same way you asked me?

As I've only really started on these forums a couple of months ago, and after undergrad my work switched to theoretical, I've engaged in some lengthy discussions but nothing of real merit to be truthful.

Respectfully,

Ron

Ps. Which schools did you attend? I went to Pitt and CMU.

So most of my studies were on this side of the pond.
However, the PhD is from the Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal and I also earned a MBA from Mc.Gill University (not easy to switch from French to English on a daily basis, especially when none of those is your first language).
I also dedicated myself to the study of psycho-acoustics (as an extracurricular hobby). I now have my own IT company and moonlight (out of passion as I do most work for free) as a consultant for the High-End dealers in my area.

Best regards,
Costin

May said

"I would suggest that however much Michael attempts to downplay Geoff’s considerable experience in ‘audio and sound’, that YOU could gain considerable benefit from taking notice of Geoff’s recommendations !!!"

mg

On the contrary, please by all means take May's & geoff's advice to heart if you wish and see if it works for you. I don't like being trolled, and I don't like people saying they have when they haven't, and there's a few other things that I disagree with, but never say that I don't say try. There are many different points of view within the world of tuning and people should explore whatever they wish regardless of the slants me or anyone else puts on the issues.

May & geoff can as May says "attempt" to build sides and do their posturing but this has nothing to do with the "tune" or "TuneLand" or "michael green's" thoughts and methods.

If Ron or anyone else wishes to follow geoff's advice and considers him to be an authority of some sort, please as I said by all means do so. I'm not here in any way to take away anyones thunder or lack of thunder, or delete from the reputations they have built for themselves (good or bad). I'm merely here to promote variable tuning as the most advanced means of getting the greatest sound in this industry. Where someone stops along the path is completely up to them.

people should explore for themselves and see how far they wish to go

http://tuneland.techno-zone.net/t169p210-hiend001-s-system

Everyday on TuneLand you will find someone taking a step, and if May or geoff have this to point to of their own, it builds their credibility beyond talking. If they can't point to their own personal listening as something that applies, that credibility goes down on it's own and has nothing to do with me, other than pointing this out.

let's take the worse case

For example: someone gets tuning advice from us or product and it doesn't work out the way the client expected, we at that point introduce them to a field of tunees for them to see how to use the product and others personal experiences till they learn how to. The flip side of this, is when someone experiences the same from geoff, he tells them they are wrong and starts in with the name calling and down playing them, as seen here on this forum and many others.

I go off of the info I see and hear and experience. If May & geoff wish to put another spin on this that's up to them and the mods of this forum, has nothing to do with me or the tune.

I look at it this way readers, if someone is relevant they should be able to point to people that are "doing" what they say. If they made some great discovery 40 years ago the test of that is who can they point to every day as to the relevance of what they "are doing" as proof of what they "did do". When bringing up things like Mu-metal shielding gives credit to the folks who came up with this in commercial use for example and is a recommendation from those who have used it at some level or another, with all the variables of use. However if your not pointing to someone every day and how your advice applies both plus and minus, what have you done? You've said do, but have no continual use and results advice. In this particular case, I see someone pointing to do, and two guys who did a year ago and that's it. No one is talking about the variables of what they did or still may be doing. I see thousands of transformers out there with hundreds of uses and configurations. I also see there are interactions with many other "variations" concerning PCB's, other parts, chassis, grounds which are on going features to how one would use the materials. Where's the guidance, from those wanting to proclaim themselves as experienced? If people, me or anyone, claim on having vast experience let's see it. May says I down play poor geoffy, well may May geoffy has done his own down playing and it has nothing to do with me. From what I see I having been more than fair with both you and geoff, giving you thread after thread of showing us what you got. We're still waiting.

This goes the same for any tuning tweak on the planet whether people say fixed or variable or apple-juice-up-side-down-cake. The people who point to something without doing are the ones who can bring you to one point of view and no more. Those who point you to an on going exploration are those who are going to keep taking you places based on your desire to go further.

Personally I hope everyone has excellent results with every tweak, but if they don't we have to have a support system of why, or a support system of going even further. You can't just have a couple of old farts (I'm getting there lol) pounding their chest of relevance. We get it that everyone coming up including myself wishes to state their position of authority, but folks talk is just that, and you can't just talk without the background and continuing of doing.

this hobby is not so much about the talk of what you have done as much as it is the experience of what you are doing, and who is doing, and why, and the skills in this hobby to get from a specific A to B.

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

I tried to find a diffuser for one of my walls but all industrial designs look plain ugly.
I finally settled upon a piece of wooden (perforated) Indian art panel that I intend to fix to the wall, compressing some Basotect panels. Of course - but you already knew this - the screws would be tunable so I can fix the pressure on the Basotect foam.
Any better ideas?

Hi Costin, great to see you.

Do you want to fire me over a pic? Do you have the contour foam or flat? If you want, you can send me an email and I can whip up a design for you.

But, here's my basic idea if you can do it. If I'm reading you correct, your puting the foam on the wall, the art on top of it and puting screws in the wall to use as the tuners? Let me know If I'm getting it?

One design suggestion would be, to not put the foam directly on the wall but put small springs against the wall, then a piece of that instrument wood you got (if big enough), then the foam, then the art. This will give you good tone control.

so if we're on the same page

wall, springs, board, foam, art

If I didn't follow let me know and if you want a quicky drawing just ask. BTW if you didn't get the foam yet get the contour. If you have the flat, consider cutting "equal" patterns in it so the burn has a chance to respond to different ranges of the energy.

Hope this helps my friend, I was wondering what you've been up to over there. Let me know if I can do anthing to help.

We have a similar product coming out next year called "Room Compressors". good job!!

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

iosiP wrote:

So most of my studies were on this side of the pond.
However, the PhD is from the Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal and I also earned a MBA from Mc.Gill University (not easy to switch from French to English on a daily basis, especially when none of those is your first language).
I also dedicated myself to the study of psycho-acoustics (as an extracurricular hobby). I now have my own IT company and moonlight (out of passion as I do most work for free) as a consultant for the High-End dealers in my area.

Best regards,
Costin

Costin:

Thank you for sharing your background as well. So was I correct in that your Sterophile alias is a reference to Cisco IOS; or is that just a coincidence?

Prior to my grad school and new career in science, I was in Information Technology for 15 years! Before Management, I worked many years in many different roles; including a Network Engineer, c/c++ programmer in UNIX, UNIX Admin, Database Admin (Oracle, SQL, Sybase primarily), then encryption/decryption. and Enterprise Systems Architecture and Planning.

Interestingly enough, my last position was Manager of International Marketing and Product Development for Verizon Corporate; where I was encouraged to at least attempt to read and write French and German. Luckily, I had taken German all through High School and a few French courses in College.

:)

Best Regards,

Ron

In Romanian, "Pisoi" means a male kitten (see my avatar) and writing it backwards just got me to "iosiP".
Also, Iosip (Joseph) is a biblical persona so...

Best regards,
Costin

P.S. I love cats!