| Columns Retired Columns & Blogs |
| Loudspeakers Amplification Digital Sources | |
Analog Sources Accessories Featured | |
Music Columns Retired Columns | |
Show Reports | |
Features Latest News Community | |
Resources Subscriptions |
© 2024 StereophileAVTech Media Americas Inc., USA
All rights reserved
Now you're making me blush.
Have a nice day.
Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica
Geoffy says, " I don't know anyone who thinks I'm stupid..."
Just to remind you, we'll just keep bringing up your fanmail whenever we can!
This is a match made in Heaven. You apparently enjoy being kicked in the nuts and as for me I enjoy accommodating you.
Is everyone over at TunnelLand as small minded and of such low character as yourself? I can certainly understand Michael's infatuation with you since you're the only one left who doesn't mind sinking so low.
Have a nice day,
Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica
No wonder people rank you so highly in certain regards in some popular opinion polls!
"...anyone who thinks I'm stupid..."
Google search "Geoff Kait, Machina Dynamica"
Geoff says
"The laws of physics are independent of our motion, spinning as you call it. Motion is relative. So, all of your examples are in fact independent of spinning. Static electricity, electromagnetic fields and the Schumann frequency are well understood and are produced by physical conditions that are INDEPENDENT of the Earth's motion, including it's spin."
mg
As geoffy says "I hate to judge before all the facts are in". Well, he makes judging a whole lot easier. The law of geoff states that motion is "independent" of physics. I hope this sticks around a while as geoff makes comments on other threads and even other audio forums.
I also have to wonder since May Belt & Geoff Kait support each others theories and promote the same audio products and tweaks, and they liken each other to the same level of intelligence, how could anyone truly take them serious when geoff is stating "motion has nothing to do with physics?
People this far out of touch, making audio products? I see very little in audio that is not about motion. Fact is, I see nothing about audio outside of motion. Going to geoff's website the first thing seen is "science fiction". No joke, science fiction comics front and center. I don't want to speak for anyone else but it's pretty clear what geoff is doing and May as far as that goes. Is it wrong for them to sell suggestive tweaks? That's totally up to the buyer.
Magical audio creams and finishes. Honestly reviewers? Morphic, telepathic, first play through. Are you guys not seeing the pattern here? BTW morphic is tied to sympathetic "vibratory" energies.
Guys & gals, do you not realize that all this is a proccess that we as humans and animals go through every day? Now, I'm not saying don't buy these products or don't do audio rituals. Fact is your going to do audio rituals whether or not you use these types of ideas and or products.
Your mind, as I have said here already, and noticed it quickly overlooked by both May & geoff is your tool of listening. If you would like to know what it can do you should study it, but let me make it clear, there is no mystery here.
here's an example
Did you know that if there are several people listening in a room with positive thoughts going on, a person outside the room could very likely hear the music sounding better? Your body is a generator just like any other power generator. It gives off energy that travels and dissipates just like all the other "vibes" around you.
how strong is it?
Put on a scary movie that terrifies you, then part way through the film go get a drink in the dark or use the restroom down the narrow hall. Nothing has change but the energy given off, and that alone is enough to make huge changes. Read about these people able to pickup cars off of trapped people. People able to feel their legs after they have been removed. Tons and tons of real life proof of the power your generator has. Several people praying for someone and they are healed. Tons and tons and tons.
When your listening, you are tapping into the same types of sensitive energies that make your body and senses respond as that movie playing. Suggestion tweaks have always been a part of this hobby and I think the reason why engineer types are so surprised when they hear them is because they're wiring is somewhat different from the artist type who thinks more with the other side.
If all these tweaks of suggestion were reversible, so that you could A B A test, you would see another side to the sound change. However suggestion tweaks aren't reversible many times simply because you have programed your mind to accept the change. It's very similar to taste and smell memory. Once you taste that flavor it remains somewhere in your logic. Your senses are not mystery nor is your bodies abilities.
Where I get off the programed boat is when people start making these tweaks into more than what they are and they attempt to mix them in with physical adjustments, and even that's not so bad until they start preaching the "must have" and the picture panting of anyone not buying from their camp. To me this is where the dishonesty comes in and the scam begins.
You as a listener have all the answers you need, just a matter of study. However so many have built their stories into such legendary proportions and have got their game so full of the necessary spins to keep them relevant (especialy since the internet) that the spins go on forever without any proof or clarity. It becomes more of the art of spins and deflection than actual knowledge of the topics. That's what we see here, and when they are called out they will simply move their cart to another town.
So as we say, it's really up to the individual to make their choices, but be sure if you see "mystery" spread and "no answers" and these very strange challenges without "doing" and you can bet the phase "where there's smoke there's fire" is right around the corner.
have fun listening
michael green
MGA/RoomTune
http://tuneland.techno-zone.net/
I did not say motion has nothing to do with physics, my foggy headed friend. What I actually said was the laws of physics are independent of the frame of reference. I also pointed out, my pointy headed friend, that the examples you provided - electric static charge, electromagnetic waves and Schumann frequency are not produced by motion, do not require motion or spinning, and are independent of both motion and accelerating frame. To prove this one need look no further than the equations for these physical parameters. The equations contain no terms of velocity, acceleration or, sadly for your argument, spin. Take a look at Maxwell's equations for magnetism and electricity and you'll see that's true. Example: The voltage accumulated around a closed circuit is proportional to the time rate of change of the magnetic flux it encloses.
This whole thing is simply another case of your putting words in my mouth and trying to keep your foot in the door. You give it a half hearted try to learn physics but all is not well in TunnelLand, obviously. You took a couple of courses. Hahahah. A friendly suggestion: Lay off the sauce. It's clouding your judgement.
Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamics
Go home.
Have a nice day, Zippy
Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica
It seems like May thinks you are brilliant, as brilliant as a pebble!
Why don't you put parts of your brain in a jar and and market them to discerning audiophiles, especially this would be a very, very very limited edition. The rest, of course, you could donate to the Smithsonian, to be kept under natural conditions (i.e. in a vacuum).
Looks like even the database rejects any mention of geoffy-boy!
Bite me, my besotted PHD (Piled Higher and Higher). If you had a brain you could put it in alcohol. Ooops, it's already in alcohol. Hahahah
Have a nice day. You can go back to sleep now.
Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica
Well rush, your prostate is shouting "danger" and I doubt your keyboard is waterproof.
He's sputtering...
For well over a decade geoff kait has been making questionable statements, and for well over a decade geoff has been throwing fits as people quote his direct remarks word per word. For a long time geoffy-boy-kramer has relished in gaining attention on audio forums regardless that 99% of them being people calling geoff out for his somewhat questionable practices.
Trying to use every deflective trolling trick in the book geoff is busted on every single thread he trolls. Geoff ending his formal education and claimed work with NASA in the 70's, and after having unsuccessful in-room and a high end headphone system now uses portable walkman cassette players with earphones as his referencing systems according to him.
The question on this thread titled "judging sound" geoff has not been able to put together any judgement calls on music or playback systems, so why is he here? If a person who is coming to a thread like this hasn't had an in-room system for over eight years now, one has to question his role in the thread's topic or maybe even hobby in general. It's a free country and anyone can post, but we can also call an internet troll out just as freely.
Hopefully geoff will give us a stage breakdown from the view point of his portable cassette player and then move a little out of the way so us who are more into high end audio can proceed with the program.
Geoff don't you think getting to audio talk would be more useful on audio forums?
michael green
MGA/RoomTune
http://tuneland.techno-zone.net/
A drunkard from Dayton who apparently flunked out of high school questions my practices? Well, knock me over with a feather. I love it when pro audio guys pretend to be part of high end audio. Trying to diversify, Mr. Greed? Take it from an audio insider you are NOT in the high end. You are in the pretend high end. Hey, I'm a poet and don't know it!
Have a nice day.
Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica
Audio Insider
Let me guess, you're into rehab counting the coins from AA and your "supervisor" told you it would be good to let some steam chastising those who can drink socially (something you can no longer do)? Small wonder you see blue dots all over the place and hear bass from Sony Walkman earphones.
Tell me, do you talk to the Sony? Fear not, this is no problem: the problem starts when little Sony will answer!
I'm sorry I couldn't help myself. As one member said reading geoff is like watching Kramer. Now everytime I watch I can't stop thinking if you add about 40 years to Kramer it's almost dead on.
check this out https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6Z041Z9Ypw
Oh geoffy-boy your somethin else :)
michael green
MGA/RoomTune
http://tuneland.techno-zone.net/
I have deliberately brought this over from the Tweaks section because it NEEDS TO BE SAID and it needs to be pointed out that you, Michael, keep misrepresenting what I say !!!!!!!!!!
>>> “and May saying a system isn't necessary to talk about stereos.” <<<
Michael. You are at it YET AGAIN. Will you PLEASE stop misrepresenting what I say.
I DO NOT say that “a system is not necessary to talk about stereos”.
What I have said, and said regularly, is that one does not need to HAVE A LIST OF what audio equipment I am listening to this week or last week or last month for me to be able to (or be allowed to) take part in discussions of what affects ‘sound’ !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If I have ever referred to anyone else who might not have a full system at the moment, I have said that they would most likely have had excellent knowledge and experience when they DID have a full system that they can readily add their knowledge to ‘the pot of knowledge’ for others to make use of.
Regards,
May Belt,
PWB Electronics.
May said
"What I have said, and said regularly, is that one does not need to HAVE A LIST OF what audio equipment I am listening to this week or last week or last month for me to be able to (or be allowed to) take part in discussions of what affects ‘sound’ !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
mg
This week, last week or last month is quite a bit different from you never refering to a system at all, May. Fact is you haven't done any referencing at all since we've been talking. Sorry but the name of this forum isn't lets pretend we have a stereo-phile. It's actually called Stereophile, as in "stereos". You can and will play your cards however you wish. You don't want to talk about your stereos, fine. However would you go talk to someone else, because I have made it very clear I am here to talk about stereos.
You can misrepresent me or I you all we want on purpose or not and the answers always comes out the same. You saying there is no need and me saying listening is a variable moment to moment adventure.
michael green
MGA/RoomTune
http://tuneland.techno-zone.net/
1. Do you agree that Geoff is using offensive language and spins in order to avoid answering to clear questions?
2. Do you agree that Geoff never gave a decent answer on how and why his "tweaks" work?
3. Do you agree that Geoff intrudes himself in any topic, whether it is related to whatever he does (or pretends to do) or not?
I would expect a honest answer, i.e. one without spins. Furthermore, if you concede that at least one of the above is true, what do you recommend as a legitimate reaction?
Why is it you and Michael Greed expect honest answers, you know, since you are dishonest yourselves?
Tootles,
Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica
Geoff the need for this is simple in my eyes. May's credibility depends on May being able to speak on her own merits & feet. This isn't and shouldn't be about sides and shouldn't be turned into a he said she said battle of good & evil. While it is very hard to take geoff as a serious contributor I too feel at times that May deserves a chance to express herself with more substance. I don't see May as very effective when it comes to the whole individual challenging thing which has ran it's course and than some, but I do believe if May got focused on the mind over matter aspect and drew a line between the physical and mental and was able to stay on track, some of these talks could be more productive.
However if the spins and associations continue, May limits her points to only raising to the level of geoff's practices I'm sorry to say. geoff saying "since you are dishonest yourselves" is and has been nothing more than a devil-child speaking and needs to be put to bed.
Something I have come to appreciate on this forum is the ability to, after time and maybe a couple of go rounds, get together as listeners or bond in topics of common interest. We're all different and have our own specialties and if we can get past spins and on to meaningful discussions, this forum can do much good.
As said before I don't have a problem with geoff's or May's concepts. Everyone should own what they think. But what I want to know, is this all one big spin or are we able to get to some meat on the bones? It doesn't have to be agreed by all or even anyone, but at least topics that can exist without crashing into spin or troll land. Geoff knows darn well if he straightens up this forum would flow without the crashing. What I don't know is where does May stand on this and I look forward to some straight up answers from her.
michael green
MGA/RoomTune
http://tuneland.techno-zone.net/
IosiP wrote,
"2. Do you agree that Geoff never gave a decent answer on how and why his "tweaks" work?"
Seek and ye shall find. Our technical papers:
http://machinadynamica.com/machina6.htm
I see said the blind carpenter as he picked up his hammer and saw.
Geoff Kait
Machina Dramatica
You start with unproven hypothesis:
So, let's start with the hypothesis that information itself produces detrimental information fields and that those things, the electronic devices, that bring that information into the house, that are essentially the LINKS to the OUTSIDE WORLD OF INFORMATION, are also detrimental to the sound.
And then you go on further:
Going forward with the hypothesis the phone is a conduit for information, that it acts as a link to the outside world - To other cell phones and the entire World Wide Web (internet) and that all cell phones, even when not in use, are linked to a "cell phone information field" the intensity or strength of which is a function of the number of cell phones in the world.
Not quite familiar with the way a cellular network works, geoffy?
And next:
After all, it is logical to think that if it's quantum mechanical in nature, especially if it's quantum entanglement in nature, it might work long distance.
Is it quantum mechanical in nature? Well prove it! BTW, I worked on cellular networks for a while (for Bell-Northern Research) but noone told me these were quantum devices - but of course, you should know better.
And least but not last (because I won't bother to comment on the final BS):
The Clicking Through is obviously the operative mechanism in the whole teleportation thing and involves very exotic objects that have been programmed to affect Information Fields by changing the matter of the phone in a subtle but important way, making it exotic.
So you are changing the matter of the phone by clicking at it? Wow, old time alchemists would be envious... BTW, do you have any idea about how many different chemical elements go into that phone? But then you change them all just by clicking.
Click your ass!
Bite me, big boy. Go back to school. But not the school that ripped you off for your PhD. You asked for an explanation and I gave you one. Oh I get it, you think you are some kind of peer reviewer. But as I recall you don't know the difference between a magnetic field and an electromagnetic wave. So I really don't think you can be of much help in quantum mechanics. Besides, there's no requirement for me to prove anything. Don't you know that? Relax and enjoy the ride.
Have a nice day,
Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica
It's all about your lack of logic in developing proof.
And of course you don't have to prove anything to me, just to all those folks who think you're a fraud.
geoff said
"Oh I get it, you think you are some kind of peer reviewer. But as I recall you don't know the difference between a magnetic field and an electromagnetic wave."
mg
Geoff these are the types of statements that ruin your reputation, or should I say supports the reputation you have created in this industry. If you had any credibility there would be no need to lie about others.
I'm interested to see May's responses to Costin's questions. As far as geoff goes, I believe sadly he has dug his hole too deep, and it would take some major therapy to reverse his approach. I'm not kidding when I say this and I wish it wasn't so, but I'm pretty certain there's some dark stuff going on there. It's unhealthy for geoff and unhealthy for this forum to have this much repeated negativity.
If I was a mod, I would look at the health of geoff and the well being of the forum and consider taking some action, seriously it's not healthy. Having every thread crash by trolling is a disaster for Stereophile in my book.
michael green
MGA/RoomTune
http://tuneland.techno-zone.net/
The paper is a take it or leave it type thing. If you don't like it you can always lump it. I couldn't care less.
Have a nice day,
Geoff Kait
Machina Dramatica
I don't know why you would wish to get involved any further in this thread. I have pointed out IosiP s technical shortcomings as it were already. My outré the type of person or so it would seem who worships the ground PhDs walk on. I on the other hand am not. IosiP is obviously here to disrupt the thread as I believe you are, too. It's no skin off my nose. Neither of you are too swift, if you know what I mean. Little yapping dogs, all bark and no bite. Capish?
Have a nice day,
Geoff Kait
Machina Dramatica
Sorry that your so upset again geoff, but face it, the writing is pretty darn weak and doesn't even have a foundation.
"information itself produces detrimental information fields"
Information is a language and can't produce anything. When that language is put into an analog state there is movement, and movement is variable. Fields are not detrimental to anything. They are simply either in tune or out of tune.
The problem many have with your solutions is you propose everything as broken "IF's". Second you can't use hypothesis to any higher level than incomplete. "a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation"
Everything you do is incomplete and instead of you "doing" your theories as practical science you revert to attacking others when you should be working on showing proof and giving explainations that are applicable. Your writing is spin based and not a method or sound practice.
You can't spin your way to truth geoff, and only fools buy limited science as fact. Your acting as if you are an authority and people are asking you to step up to practical application and you have been unable to do this. As a result you try to be the loudest kid on the block, but all one has to do is read and see that you are not very studied or experienced in music or audio.
I hope the readers keep in mind that while geoff is making his attacks his personal place of listening reference is a portable sony cassette player that he only took up a year ago. All things audio are apposite or pertinent when it comes to judging not only the sound but the levels of listening and experience.
In other words geoff has made a lifetime of audio assumptions at best and tries to past them off as fact. Read his participation on this or any other forum and you will see almost zero science application. All talk no walk. From what geoff has shared he has had maybe 3 stereos and virtually no lab testing experience. Nothing wrong with geoff speaking from his own experience, but it's an insult to the hobby and industry to pass himself off as in the know.
Sorry but a portable cassette player with bass boost (no head alignment) and a couple dozen used tapes, laying waste to geoff's efforts and setups in the past, doesn't exactly qualify geoff as high end audio's expert of the year.
michael green
MGA/RoomTune
http://tuneland.techno-zone.net/
>>> “May, I wish you would answer clearly to some questions
1. Do you agree that Geoff is using offensive language and spins in order to avoid answering to clear questions?
2. Do you agree that Geoff never gave a decent answer on how and why his "tweaks" work?
3. Do you agree that Geoff intrudes himself in any topic, whether it is related to whatever he does (or pretends to do) or not?
I would expect a honest answer, i.e. one without spins. Furthermore, if you concede that at least one of the above is true, what do you recommend as a legitimate reaction?” <<<
Firstly, iosiP, I would like to know why you would specifically say “you would expect an HONEST answer from me”. That in itself is an aggressive approach – to start with !!!!!!!!!!!!!
I have always tried to choose my words carefully and ALWAYS been prepared to be as honest as possible – so I don’t quite understand the attitude !!!!!!!!!!!!!
I will outline my view of the situations which arise rather that answer the specific questions and then try to answer you as I go along.
I have been in the world of audio for over 60 years and have worked alongside Peter (a skilled radio, electronic and audio engineer) – from the time he built his first Mullard 510 valve amplifier, through to having a Hi Fi Retail shop (from the early days when there were only valves – no transistors – and mono only (no stereo) through to manufacturing our own electrostatic, orthodynamic and moving coil headphones and loudspeakers. Ending with an actively driven orthodynamic tower loudspeaker system with our own design of amplifier.
Then, similar to Michael, we began to realise that there were many, many more things which changed the sound. Far more than anyone had ever reaslised.
So, over these 60 years I have been involved with numerous engineers – many of whom have shown every personality trait in the book !! And, at the same time, being sometimes faced with the discriminatory reaction “Oh, what can SHE know about………..?” So, I DO have a considerable ability and experience and understanding to make good judgements regarding people’s behaviour and attitude.
I have also enough knowledge and experience of electronic and audio conventional theories to KNOW when something SHOULD NOT change the sound – but DOES !!!!
When this is experienced, questions are raised.
HOW did it change the musical information.?
WHY did it change the musical information ? and
WHERE was that musical information changed ?
I have challenged Michael that if he has asked those questions then he hasn’t yet got the answers because his answer “ vibrations are everywhere therefore vibrations are the problem” does not cover all the changes in the sound which actually happen.
I am however in complete agreement with Michael that everything affects everything else and that anything you change, in the listening environment, changes the sound.
Now we come to Geoff. I do not know Geoff personally, never having met him. From e-mail conversations with him I regard him as extremely knowledgeable and experienced in audio matters. And, I am sure, he is also in complete agreement with me that everything affects everything else and that everything one changes in the listening environment changes the sound.
From conversations with him I find that many of his discoveries have been coincidental with mine and Peter’s. As, I might add, have other people’s also !!!! People who are complete strangers but when describing their experiences have described exactly what we have found.
I think that Geoff’s reaction to certain people is sometimes because he becomes quite exasperated when confronted by people claiming that THEY have THE answers and he counters (responds) using mockery !!! Or if certain people claim to know everything when it is blatantly obvious that they do not, he will react with exasperation !!
To be continued.
Regards,
May Belt
PWB Electronics.
However, I never claimed I have any answers, I only asked Geoff to provide me logical explanations but instead I only got replies questioning my education and my drinking habits.
Now do you really think this the way is to carry a dialogue?
How long am I supposed to stand insults before retaliating? Or do you think that being "knowledgeable and experienced in audio matters" gives him a blank check to offend his dialogue partners?
Typical comments from the die hard pseudo skeptic. You can never pin pseudo skeptics down. When politely asked to present a reasonable question they flinch and say their questions weren't answered. But there were no questions. Not serious questions, anyway, only fake, disingenuous questions. This pseudo debating technique is common among tenth graders and audio pseudo skeptics who didn't do their homework and try to bluff their way through the debate. Iosip is a master debater in the old pseudo skeptic vein. He has already proven that at evey step. If it's not demands for proof it's a flurry of expletives. He's apparently caught the Michael Green disease, intellectual dishonesty. This was bound to happen when you deal with someone who paid $5,000 for his PhD. Treat iosiP as if he were completely ingenuous. That's the best tactic. IosiP must think I fell off the turnip truck yesterday. I'm putting iosiP on ignore, myself, starting immediately.
Geoff Kait
Machina Dynmica
Folks face it, geoff has no desire to reason with anyone.
iosiP makes an appeal for decency and geoff is right on top of it with flames. I'm sorry May but this is not being adults, or professional in any way.
If geoff was puting anyone on ignore he would not be announcing it now would he.
May, I do appreciate you being a little more personal on here, and it's good to share the background. I do hope though that you will start to see that our backgrounds are quite a bit different from each others and because of this allows us to see differences in approaches to the hobby. It's not good or bad but extremely different.
This is one area where this takes place.
"I have also enough knowledge and experience of electronic and audio conventional theories to KNOW when something SHOULD NOT change the sound – but DOES !!!!"
Where we agree is the experience in the change, where we differ is this does not register to me as a "should not" but rather "absolutely should". My experience in everything affecting everything else is natural (meaning makes sense to me), and in my thinking and experience I don't see the mystery. This doesn't mean I disrespect your view, I just don't see it that way. In my experience it's more "wow that was cool and of course that makes sense".
When ChrisS comes up for example or any tunee what we do makes perfect sense, kinda like "why wouldn't it work that way". So honestly when you ask me these questions I'm thinking "what is she trying to say" there's no controversy among Tunees or musicians who are free thinkers.
It's not that anyone is trying to blind side you, it's just that we have a different motive. Our motive is to get to particular places in the sound and have the flexibility of doing so. Yours is more improvement and better. For example you might be listening for something, and we might be listening to put the violins in tune with the violas more. Which is a very common thing among my clients who play in orchestras as a reference. What we do goes much deeper than what we read audiophile reviewers doing. That doesn't mean we think we're better just a lot more specific in what we are after. I've tuned systems for a lot of these reviewers and with the exception of a few most of them probably do most of their reviewing with fairly stock equipment in less than perfect acoustical, mechanical and electrical conditions. The flip side to this is right now for another example we have 5 plus mini tunable concert rooms being put together for audiophiles. I'm not talking about converting living rooms but actual mini concert rooms. There's not a reviewer on the planet that I know of that has a Tunable Room, and even the ones that have the PZC's can do things people in living rooms could not even imagine. But here's the important part, I'm not talking theory or hypothetically. These are real spaces creating real proof, there's no if or maybes, just the skill level of the listener to go where they want.
And so anyone who wishes to talk hypotheticals instead of the actual proof, we don't see as having the "experience". to us they go on and on and really end up nowhere while we're experiencing it in real time in a real space with real specifics that are extremely flexible in nature.
And this is our mission.
michael green
MGA/Roomtune
http://tuneland.techno-zone.net/
Mg :-
>>> “I trust that isoiP means what he is saying. He's not saying it to troll or offend, but stating his view based on his belief system.” <<<
So, Michael, when iosiP ends his reply to me with :-
>>> “PS. Now that I finished writing this I wiped the back of my neck with my left hand, bending my head down. This a sign that (a) I'm tired and (b) I wonder if I could get my message through. Now if I would have wiped it with my right hand while leaning my head backwards it would have meant I just finished a task an I'm intending to relax.” <<<
So, you reckon he is not doing it to offend ???????????? So, you reckon he is not showing disrespect for someone else ?????????? I say it was a deliberate snide remark – to try to ‘put me down’ to where he thinks I should remain !!!
He is not as innocent a bystander as you are trying to convey, Michael.
I have told him that I have no problems with anyone having healthy scepticism or having an opinion and yet he still cannot resist coming back with a snide remark – which shows some contempt for me !!! I didn’t see a ‘smiley face’ at the end of that remark. I personally don’t know how to do a smiley face on the computer so I usually actually write the words ‘just joking’ if something I say is meant to be humourous. I didn’t see any of that from iosiP.
Mg :-
>>> “I say this because I’m not so down on some of this stuff. The mind is the greatest tool we have and our senses do things all day long that if we stopped to think about it, some of the reality would amaze us.
As I said and anyone can look it up, experience and believe what they wish. There are 3 distinctive parts to nature. There's "natural" "unnatural" and "supernatural". I didn't make the rules, I just enjoy them. And I enjoy learning about them. Does this mean I'm into snake oil? Not at all, but I am into experiencing. “ <<<
>>> “and our senses do things all day long that if we stopped to think about it, some of the reality would amaze us.” <<<
But, the whole point I keep making, Michael, is that we HAVE TO stop and think about it IF it affects the sound !!! That is if we are ‘professionals in audio’ !! If people aren’t professionals, then it does not matter so much to them.
Mg :-
>>> “I do hope though that you will start to see that our backgrounds are quite a bit different from each others and because of this allows us to see differences in approaches to the hobby. It's not good or bad but extremely different. “ <<<
MB:-
"I have also enough knowledge and experience of electronic and audio conventional theories to KNOW when something SHOULD NOT change the sound – but DOES !!!!"
Mg:-
>>> “Where we agree is the experience in the change, where we differ is this does not register to me as a "should not" but rather "absolutely should". “ <<<
Come on, Michael. You and I know that there ARE some things which SHOULD NOT change the sound. So, your comment “absolutely should” is wrong.
For example. Marking ONE EDGE of ONE of your wooden blocks which ‘sonic’ as on his concrete window sill with one specific colour SHOULD NOT make the sound worse !! But it DOES !! Marking one edge of one of your wooden blocks which ‘sonic’ has on his concrete window sill with different colour SHOULD NOT make the sound better !! But it DOES. On the same wooden block in exactly the same position !!!!!!!!!!!!!
Mg:-
>>> “My experience in everything affecting everything else is natural (meaning makes sense to me), and in my thinking and experience I don't see the mystery. This doesn't mean I disrespect your view, I just don't see it that way. In my experience it's more "wow that was cool and of course that makes sense".” <<<
What I have described should not make sense to you. You SHOULD see a mystery You should say “wow”, yes, but it should NOT make sense !!!
These are the areas where I keep challenging you. You SHOULD still be asking the questions WHERE, HOW and WHY does the sound change !!!
This is where I say you bluster and waffle.
Regards,
May Belt,
PWB Electronics.
I also get equally exasperated with such as Ethan Winer (who advocated – vociferously – over and over again on the Stereophile Forum - his room treatments of Real Traps, Bass traps) – as THE one and only answer to getting better sound. And, that everyone else’s concepts or products were rubbish – didn’t work – or bordered on Fraud (he actually referred to a particular manufacturer of a demagnetiser)!! He claimed there were only four parameters that affects audio:-
>>> “Everything that affects audio can be expressed using the following four parameters:
* Frequency response
* Noise
* Distortion
* Time-based errors” <<<
Then there is Unclestu (who posts on AA) who I also get constantly exasperated with – who although knowing of numerous things which can change the sound claims that “there is RF everywhere, therefore the problem is RF”.
Therefore everything he does which changes the sound is ‘dealing with RF’.
Geoff and I and many others know that there is far more ‘going on’ with changes in the sound than solely, ‘vibrations’., or ‘RF., or ‘electromagnetic interference’., or ‘room acoustics’.
Re your question :-
>>> “Do you agree that Geoff intrudes himself in any topic, whether it is related to whatever he does (or pretends to do) or not?” <<<
I think you will find that when someone posts with a genuine interest and desire to learn, that Geoff will respond by being extremely helpful and courteous.
You, iosiP, obviously do NOT recognise when Michael G happens to be boasting and exaggerating or when unable to provide a suitable answer, will bluster and waffle.
When put on the spot he can bluster and waffle, then to puff himself up a bit will claim that he has been Everywhere, met Everyone and tried Everything. Then, to end, there will be yet another lecture on the fact (truism) that musical instruments need tuning !! SO – why can’t people (me in particular) all understand the meaning of his concept “tuning”????
Then, to top even that, we then have ChrisS ALSO jumping in with the same TRUISM !! i.e Don’t we all understand that musical instruments have to be ‘tuned’ ???
It is like you being told by Michael G and ChrisS, repeatedly, that “musical instruments need tuning” because you had challenged that the variable method is not the ONLY method.
I have enough experience and knowledge to be able to recognise when Michael G is blustering and waffling. As does Geoff !! I even don’t really mind if some people bluster and waffle UNLESS, UNLESS that is they have claimed, previously, to have “Done the questions and got the answers”.
You asked for a solution, iosiP.
I would suggest that people stop saying the ‘obvious’ as though we are all dumb !!
That people stop boasting and stop exaggerating. That everyone is prepared to accept that we don’t know everything. That there is much still to learn.
Humility is a virtue, as is admitting that all is not known, that others CAN discover other things and that NO single person has THE answer.
I would like to repeat something which John Atkinson said during a public forum talk at a Montreal Hi Fi Show.
>>> “There are things that boggle my mind in High End audio. There are things that I would like to think I understand (from a technical and engineering point of view) and then something happens which literally blows my mind and it doesn’t fit the world view.” <<<
I greatly admire John – particularly in a Hi FI world where so many claim to HAVE THE ANSWERS – in voicing that sentence.
Now, in a general answer to your questions. I am not a member of the behaviour police. I look after MY behaviour and leave others to look after theirs.
Geoff has chosen his way of challenging. I have chosen my way.
I will now pose some questions to you.
What would you do when faced with such as Ethan Winer’s claims that there are only those four parameters controlling ‘sound’ ? Would you accept his version as the truth or, knowing that his claims are limiting and are actually dissuading people from exploring other techniques which also give improvements in the sound, would you be prepared to challenge him, knowing that there are other things than the four parameters which affect the sound?
Ditto one of Ethan Winer’s associates who claims, repeatedly, that what changes in the sound which people describe are purely after they have stood up to make a change, then sit down again, that their head is in a slightly different position.
Ditto Unclestu who claims that every change he makes by positioning crystals here, there and everywhere, is ‘dealing with RF’ – when you know different ? Would you accept his version as the truth or would you challenge him, knowing that there are so many other things (not associated with RF) which one can do to improve the sound ?
Now, isoiP. If you don’t like the way that Geoff challenges Michael, then can I ask if you would suggest YOUR technique of how challenging should be done and show us your way.
Surely that would be the best way. Surely that is the answer to your original question to me.
>>> “what do you recommend as a legitimate reaction?” <<<
To illustrate to Geoff, and others if necessary, with your own version, how you would like any challenges to be done ??
Or, is it your opinion that there is nothing in Michael’s writings to challenge ? i.e. That he really does have THE answer - that ‘the variable tuning’ is THE method and THE truth !!
Which, incidentally, is the main area where I challenge Michael.
Regards,
May Belt,
PWB Electronics.
Hi May
I think that the last day or so have been the best discussions in a while, and I want to thank you for being a part and one of the main voices. To me this is more like it.
MB
"So, you reckon he is not doing it to offend ???????????? So, you reckon he is not showing disrespect for someone else ?????????? I say it was a deliberate snide remark – to try to ‘put me down’ to where he thinks I should remain !!!"
mg
Only Costin knows Costin, but I didn't read it the same way you did, no.
MB
"He is not as innocent a bystander as you are trying to convey, Michael."
mg
I have been on (I feel) the good end and the bad end of Costin's remarks and don't get the feeling that he has tried to put himself above others more than any of us do when starting to get to know each other on an intellectual and personal level. All of us, every single one, know what we have done and I think when you throw all of us into the mix together it's kinda like grade school was where we didn't know each other very well at the first of the year and all of our differences are the first thing we noticed and responded to till we rub shoulders a little.
MB
"But, the whole point I keep making, Michael, is that we HAVE TO stop and think about it IF it affects the sound !!! That is if we are ‘professionals in audio’ !! If people aren’t professionals, then it does not matter so much to them."
mg
I've not had the time to stop being the profeesional, and have only viewed things from my side, so I may not be able to answer that. To me my hobby, passion and profession has always been a unit and I'm not sure I would be a good judge of understanding how they (the hobbyist) sees things, other than the marketing and maybe being a boss (business wise) may be different. I think maybe I tend to learn as much from the hobbyist side as I do the professional. Keep in mind I started music as a lifestyle when I was very young so my view might be completely different from the kid who got his schooling from sitting in the classroom. Most of my schooling past the 9th grade was done by tutors and or specialist. Even my extented schooling was taken while traveling.
MB
"I have also enough knowledge and experience of electronic and audio conventional theories to KNOW when something SHOULD NOT change the sound – but DOES !!!!"
mg
"audio conventional theories" If you have read my writing, and I don't mind repeating this time, I don't operate off of the theories but the practical application side of science. I don't say this to be arguementive but to explain.
MB
"Come on, Michael. You and I know that there ARE some things which SHOULD NOT change the sound. So, your comment “absolutely should” is wrong."
mg
We disagree on this one. I'm not trying to oppose you, May. We truly do disagree here, I'm sure because of our differences in experience and perhaps approach do finding answers.
MB
"For example. Marking ONE EDGE of ONE of your wooden blocks which ‘sonic’ as on his concrete window sill with one specific colour SHOULD NOT make the sound worse !! But it DOES !! Marking one edge of one of your wooden blocks which ‘sonic’ has on his concrete window sill with different colour SHOULD NOT make the sound better !! But it DOES. On the same wooden block in exactly the same position !!!!!!!!!!!!!"
mg
My thinking doesn't work this way, May. My view of all things energy is not random but orderly, literally everything affects everything else. I say this with meaning for body, mind and physics. To me, colors are as much a frequency as the lower registers are. My comment to "sonic" would be, the only concern I have for you is not being able to remove it necessarily successfully if you ever decide to go back to the original. As far as the change itself goes, no biggy, it doesn't register in my mind as a mystery.
Ever do the color wall test? The color wall test, is a simple way to explore this. You can also do this with a TV screen. A TV screen is actually better because of the paint material itself, but we have done it both ways.
Take a flatscreen and setup your room (stereo system) so you are very use to it. You can do this quickly but I like long slow settling results. I don't know who makes them anymore for consummer, but you use to be able to get color charts. I use to use the ones I worked with for tv shows when we would do calibrating. note: another reason this stuff probably doesn't seem weird to me. Anyway do a listening session with one color. Do the same thing with a different color and the sound is almost always different.
My question is why would this be a mystery, unless someone has not studied up in this area? Color charts have always been used in audio, maybe not in a directly tied in way for the audiophile crowd but interior decorators have classes on this stuff regularly.
For myself again let me state, it's not that I think anything will not make a difference cause it does. My thing is making things variable so the listener can make choices as they wish.
MB
"What I have described should not make sense to you. You SHOULD see a mystery You should say “wow”, yes, but it should NOT make sense !!!
These are the areas where I keep challenging you. You SHOULD still be asking the questions WHERE, HOW and WHY does the sound change !!!
This is where I say you bluster and waffle."
mg
May, here's another area where we are different and I have brought this up as many times as you make the challenge, and I have given you the straight answer everytime.
If you have not done some of these things to the level of understanding they probably are a mystery, however if you are exposed to these events, science and practice they are not that big of a deal.
It doesn't appear that you read my post on "point of dissipation". I have no idea where I posted it here, but it's the basics on action and reaction and the range that this has in cause and effect.
can I add this
When you say things like "This is where I say you bluster and waffle." try to understand that I have more than likely been in situations or even taken classes and labs on possibly the same topic only with more detail and explaination (this isn't a put down) than someone else may have.
michael green
MGA/RoomTune
http://tuneland.techno-zone.net/
Hi May
I have another simple question. Have you ever worked with "green screen"?
michael green
MGA/RoomTune
http://tuneland.techno-zone.net/
Hi May,
One can say with a very high degree of certainty that everyone can hear the effects of an instrument being tuned. Even the profoundly deaf can feel the changes in pitch and volume.
So what Michael does, everyone can hear.
Not everyone can hear the effects of your products.
It's very simple.
Hi May
Getting to more comments and questions. Hope my answers are starting to give some clarity about my thinking.
MB quoting JA
>>> “There are things that boggle my mind in High End audio. There are things that I would like to think I understand (from a technical and engineering point of view) and then something happens which literally blows my mind and it doesn’t fit the world view.” <<<
mg
I think JA does a great job with his skills and talents. I have never seen John as one of those who thinks he is a know it all, yet he can be profoundly direct with his opinions and thoughts. I think he in the above statement is simply being honest about having his mind boggled by high end audio. I don't read anything more or less into it.
MB
"When put on the spot he can bluster and waffle, then to puff himself up a bit will claim that he has been Everywhere, met Everyone and tried Everything. Then, to end, there will be yet another lecture on the fact (truism) that musical instruments need tuning !! SO – why can’t people (me in particular) all understand the meaning of his concept “tuning”????"
mg
Your remark here just seems like an insecure troll I'm afriad (hopefully we can change that). Most folks when spending time with me, and this is reported in industry journals, say if any thing I'm underspoken, but with a healthy ego about tuning. What is true is, I have worked with a ton in the industry and honestly would have to say the reason I am in mostly good favor with them is because in doing things I didn't often seek after credit. I did my job (pretty darn well) and enjoyed watching others get the glory. To be even more honest, I have stage fright. You might see me as being bold, but I think that's because of part of my background. In reality I've always had to have a private guest room or space in my factories, so when I visit I can hide from the public when feeling too many people are around. I remember people at high end audio shows use to call me a snob sometimes, but this was me being more shy than anything else. Since I started TuneLand I have come out of my shell quite a bit, but what you folks saw at the shows and tv and reviews was more done up by the press than I ever tried to do myself.
Now you may see this completely different for whatever reason, but this again is you having no idea who I am, and maybe perhaps a little bit of trying to one up me in some way. Audio has always been extremely easy for me without questions un-answered because I always "did" until I learned. Geoff tries to make fun of me about my 24/7 obsession lol, and he's right on the money. I will go days without sleeping over an audio thought, ask my manager or former managers and tutors. I have always been an obsessive personality. I'm not obsessive-compulsive, meaning I don't have to recheck all the time, but I am extremely thorough as a listener. Thorough as in: complete with regard to every detail; not superficial or partial. If you paint me with any other brush you haven't been with me while doing a listening session. I can name 10 million things I am poor or even below average at, but when it comes to being thorough about listening I think you would find among my peers I'm ranked pretty highly.
I guess by me being here on an open public forum that opens me up to a swipe or 5, but it also allows those who appreciate someone like me coming here a chance to see someone who has been about all sides of this industry. Hopefully if anything it will encourage others who have traveled this path to be willing to help paint the bigger picture as well.
May, if I were you I wouldn't add or take away from what it is.
May's dittos
May, I'm not sure I'm a ditto type of person. Maybe I remind you of Mr. Winer or Unclestu for some reason or maybe your trying to make a point, but unless I have worked directly on a project with them or done the same things they have to learn their point of view (which is often the case) we probably don't have much more in common than that. If you take a look at my product pages http://tuneland.techno-zone.net/f7-mga-roomtune-products, clients some clients http://tuneland.techno-zone.net/t249-a-look-at-tunable-systems and what I do you can compare notes but it sounds like what I do might be a little more diverse and variable from what many others do.
Again I think you have been trying to hard to paint michael green other than getting to know him.
michael green
MGA/RoomTune
http://tuneland.techno-zone.net/
There are quite a few reasons why people sometimes cannot hear certain tweaks. It sounds like the Tuning Brigade falls into one or more of these categories.
1. The system used for testing has at least one fault.
2. The tester's ears are not all that he claims they are.
3. The test procedure is poor and failed.
4. The system used for the test doesn't have high enough resolution to resolve the item under test.
5. The reverse expectation bias is in effect. The listener is already convinced the device under test is bogus and can't possibly work so his results are negative. It's a foregone conclusion.
Cheers,
Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica
(By the way, nice to have a discussion with you without having to point out to our viewing audience your very serious shortcomings!!)
"There are quite a few reasons why people sometimes cannot hear certain tweaks"...
Like tuning a guitar, tuning a sound system and/or a listening environment should be heard by everyone.
When tuning a room and/or a sound system, like tuning a guitar, those issues that you bring up in regards to tweaks have no relevance.
Everyone hears a tuned guitar. Everyone will hear a tuned room and sound system.
mg quoting JA :-
>>> “There are things that boggle my mind in High End audio. There are things that I would like to think I understand (from a technical and engineering point of view) and then something happens which literally blows my mind and it doesn’t fit the world view.” <<<
mg
>>> “I think JA does a great job with his skills and talents. I have never seen John as one of those who thinks he is a know it all, yet he can be profoundly direct with his opinions and thoughts. I think he in the above statement is simply being honest about having his mind boggled by high end audio. I don't read anything more or less into it. “ <<<
No Michael. It wasn’t JA ‘simply’ being honest about having his mind boggled by high end audio. I hadn’t given the complete quote from John A.
JA’s quote was during the open Stereophile debate at the Montreal 2009 Hi Fi Show.
>>> “There are things that boggle my mind in High End audio. There are things that I would like to think I understand (from a technical and engineering point of view) and then something happens which literally blows my mind and it doesn’t fit the world view. Such as during the trip which Stephen and I did to Michael’s house !!” <<<
This comment followed the description of what JA and Stephen Mejias had heard whilst visiting Michael Fremer’s house – after Michael had applied a demagnetiser to some LPs. Nothing to do with JA having his mind ‘boggled by high end audio’ – his mind had been boggled by the simple technique of improving the sound by applying a demagnetiser to some LPs!!!!!!
Just making it completely clear.
Regards,
May Belt,
PWB Electronics.
Does Michael still have his system downstairs, or has he moved? I don't keep track of folks. I haven't been there in forever. Quite the music collection I remember. I think when I was there, had to be 20 years now, he had Bruce Thigpen's speakers in there. That's how long ago it was. I always thought Michael to be a great TV personality for the industry.
time flies :)
michael green
MGA/RoomTune
http://tuneland.techno-zone.net/
Exactly! I'm happy to see you guys finally acknowledge that tuning is not everything or all encompassing or an umbrella for everything. I knew we'd see eye to eye eventually.
Have a nice day,
Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica
Mg :-
>>> “Our minds and bodies act and react differently every time we breathe. The air, blood and sencory intake intermingle and exchange is more advanced than all the computers of the world combined. Interestingly enough they can also be as limited to the smallest idea or notion. This is nothing new and may even seem a little first-grade-ish but it's surprising how this is so easy to forget, or put to the side.
We are living generators hooked up to, feed off of, and give to our surroundings. We are a part of, in other words.” <<<
I can go along with that approach completely. But, you Michael appear to want to cover every OTHER angle as part of your explanations – sometimes all at the same time.
Examples :-
Mg :-
>>> “Many times I find that the distortion from transformers is because of two things.” <<<
So, is the distortion from transformers affecting the actual audio signal (the musical information) ?
Is the distortion you refer to caused by the transformer adversely affecting the audio signal (the musical information) actually traveling through it ? Is the purpose of the specific placing your wooden blocks to reduce that distortion therefore reducing any adverse effect on the audio signal (the musical information) travelling through the transformer ?
OR, has the audio signal (the musical information) been handled perfectly adequately by the transformer and is it only AFTER the audio signal (the musical information) has been presented into the room (now acoustic information) that vibrations from the acoustic energy in the room reaching the transformer is NOW the cause of the distortion you refer to ? That the purpose of your wooden blocks is to reduce that airborne effect ? In other words is the adverse effect of vibrations initially caused by the very transformer itself on the audio signal or is the adverse effect of vibrations caused later by the room’s acoustic energy – in turn - having an effect on the transformer – which – in turn - then has an effect on the audio signal (the musical information) being handled by the transformer ?
We are STILL wanting to know, from you, WHERE you think the musical information is being affected !!
Mg :-
>>> “and part of the signal will cluster or be omitted.” <<<
Example of you wanting to have the “signal” involved and being somehow affected !!
Now an example of you wanting BOTH the audio signal AND “other forces” to be involved simultaneously!!!
On your Home Pages, in reply to ‘sonic’ asking why you recommended plugging all equipment into just one AC power outlet instead of separating into two outlets.
You replied :-
>>> “In physics we learn that there are more forces at play than what we picture in our minds as "the audio signal". Before you had two separate electrical sources fighting for the same space domain. Breaking it down, you have the Earth's magnetic field wanting to be in-tune with the other (mini) sources of electromagnetic field. You see it's not really a bunch of "fields" but "A" field with many parts feeding into the overall. The "field" the electronic parts are creating are done within the same core function of the Earth's and solar interactions. Their not so much creating their own but more responding to the generated field of the Earth/Solar relationship. We don't create magnetic anything, but borrow the energy that is already there. Basically giving birth to baby fields all part of the same field. This is why I don't use the word "isolation" in regards to "the" electromagnetic field. There's one parenting field and all the activations that we harness using that field.
Your system wants to be in "harmony" with the Earth's (parenting) fundamental forces. In audio we think of discrete as being the answer, but in reality discrete doesn't really exist. Another myth about our hobby unfortunately. When going from two strips to one, you removed a layer of fighting. A fight that is much bigger than 2 or 3 feet, but actually a fight that plays out in the overall Earth's field structure.” <<<
Now, Michael, instead of replying, simply, to ‘sonic’ with “Well, sonic, during my listening experiments I have found that using a single AC power outlet gave me better sound that using two AC power outlets”, you bluster and waffle with the above reply to ‘sonic’!!!!!
In your reply to him you bring in physics, you bring in science, you bring in ‘electromagnetic fields’, solar interactions, the Earth’s magnetic field, ‘layers of fighting’ - but no explanation as to WHERE the musical information is being affected. HOW the musical information is being affected or WHY the musical information is being affected.
If by using two AC power outlets you “introduce a layer of fighting” (deduced by you having stated that by using one AC power outlet one loses a ‘layer of fighting’) and the sound (the musical information) is not as good as just having one AC power outlet, WHERE has the musical information been affected ??????? When the audio signal (the musical information) is progressing through the audio equipment, or after the musical information had been presented into the room by the loudspeakers i.e. after it had become acoustic information ?
Or has the adverse defect of a second AC power outlet not been on the actual audio signal (the musical information) at all but it is us (human beings) who have reacted to it’s presence in the room ???????????? That your “introduced layer of fighting” is something WE (human beings) don’t like – and not the actual audio signal ‘not liking it’ ?
Let me now introduce something else into the story.
If you apply a specific colour to one edge of the single AC power outlet the sound will be perceived as worse. If you apply a different colour to one edge of the AC power outlet the sound will be perceived as better.
OR. Instead of applying a colour, if you apply a particular chemical to one edge of the AC power outlet, the sound will be perceived as worse. If you apply a different chemical to one edge of the AC power outlet, the sound will be perceived as better.
What would be your explanation now ? Regarding the subject of the AC power outlet. The SAME AC power outlet in the SAME position !!
Mg :-
>>>> “This is why I don't use the word "isolation" in regards to "the" electromagnetic field. There's one parenting field and all the activations that we harness using that field. “ <<<
Would your explanation be :-
The “electromagnetic field” explanation (above).
OR would it be the “We are living generators hooked up to, feed off of, and give to our surroundings. We are a part of, in other words” explanation ?
Mg :-
>>> “in audio or any physical activity comes down to one simple answer.” <<<
You have never given just one simple answer, Michael !!!!!
That is why you keep being challenged by me !!
I have NEVER doubted that everything one does in the environment has an effect on the sound. I have never challenged you on that aspect. Nor do I challenge that the things you recommend will give a change in the sound for people who try them.
But you are all over the place, Michael. You can’t make your mind up whether you are ‘dealing with’ the music on the recording. Dealing with the audio signal (still the musical information) as it travels through the audio equipment. Dealing with the acoustic information (still the musical information) after it has been presented into the room by the loudspeakers or ‘dealing with us’ (human beings) and how WE react to everything in our environment !!!!!!!!!!
>>> “It’s as simple as this. Why sit there being irritated by a recording if you can make an adjustment to put it "more in-tune"? Or even if you want to explore another view point of that recording.” <<<
I have NEVER had a problem with that. But you are not telling people whether, when they carry out specific procedures, they are ‘adjusting’ the actual audio signal (the musical information travelling through the audio system) OR whether they are ‘adjusting’ the acoustic information (still the musical information) in the room OR whether they are ‘adjusting’ themselves.
You don’t tell them what they (using an example such as ‘sonic) are ‘adjusting’ when they place the wooden blocks in specific positions under the transformer. When they place a wooden block on top of the transformer. When they prop up their cables on wooden blocks. When they re-arrange a set of wooden blocks on a concrete window sill. You tell them to try ‘variable positions’, yes, and they get changes in the sound, yes. I do not challenge that they will get changes in the sound. I Never have !!!!!
I stated that you ‘bluster and waffle’ at times. You responded with two paragraphs including the comment below as though I was criticising you as a listener.
>>> “but I am extremely thorough as a listener. Thorough as in: complete with regard to every detail; not superficial or partial. If you paint me with any other brush you haven't been with me while doing a listening session.” <<<
I have never, EVER, criticised your ability or experience in listening. I challenge the fact that you DON’T give explanations as to what is ‘going on’ re the sound – re the musical information. You give clear instructions, yes, to keep things as variable as possible. I don’t even have problems with that either – providing within that insistence you don’t encourage people to ignore completely problem X, swerve round problem Y, jump completely over a (possible major) problem Z in order to make what might be a slight (I inch ????) variation !!!! JUST because another particular solution might be a ‘fixed’ solution !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Regards,
May Belt,
PWB Electronics.
Reading comprehension?
You're following the wrong sheep, Scooter.
Pictures say what you can't say in words, right?
Geoffy, the Toon!
Pages