You are here

Log in or register to post comments
geoffkait
geoffkait's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 9 hours ago
Joined: Apr 29 2008 - 5:10am
Is there an echo in here?

You need to work on your material.

 photo photo_7_zpsylxdgzmi.jpg

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

ChrisS
ChrisS's picture
Offline
Last seen: 37 min 37 sec ago
Joined: Mar 6 2006 - 8:42pm
That's because you can't see the mistake you've made, Geoffy.

All work and no play makes Geoffy a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Geoffy a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Geoffy a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Geoffy a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Geoffy a dull boy...

iosiP
iosiP's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 years 1 month ago
Joined: Jan 12 2014 - 4:41pm
Mary had a little lamb

Geoffy had a little dot,
Its color blue as sky,
And everywhere that Geoffy went,
The dot was sure to fly.

It followed him to work one day,
Which was against the rule,
It made the NASA laugh and play
To see that Geoff's a fool.

And so the manager took stand,
But still it lingered near,
And waited to influence sound,
Till Geoffy did appear.

"Why does the dot love Geoffy so?"
The eager NASA cry.
"Why, Geoffy loves the dot, you know."
So he will make you buy.

geoffkait
geoffkait's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 9 hours ago
Joined: Apr 29 2008 - 5:10am
Don't quit your day job
ChrisS wrote:

All work and no play makes Geoffy a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Geoffy a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Geoffy a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Geoffy a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Geoffy a dull boy...

An excellent example of Constipation of the brain and diarrhea of the mouth.

 photo photo_8_zps6tq1cknw.jpg

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

geoffkait
geoffkait's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 9 hours ago
Joined: Apr 29 2008 - 5:10am
What Is Romania known for?
iosiP wrote:

Geoffy had a little dot,
Its color blue as sky,
And everywhere that Geoffy went,
The dot was sure to fly.

It followed him to work one day,
Which was against the rule,
It made the NASA laugh and play
To see that Geoff's a fool.

And so the manager took stand,
But still it lingered near,
And waited to influence sound,
Till Geoffy did appear.

"Why does the dot love Geoffy so?"
The eager NASA cry.
"Why, Geoffy loves the dot, you know."
So he will make you buy.

Chechescu, Nadia Comaneci and cheap liquor. Did I miss anything?

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

iosiP
iosiP's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 years 1 month ago
Joined: Jan 12 2014 - 4:41pm
Yes you did, you pathetic moron!
geoffkait wrote:

Chechescu, Nadia Comaneci and cheap liquor. Did I miss anything

Constantin Brancusi, Mircea Eliade, Eugen Ionescu, Henry Coanda, Petrache Poenaru, Valentin Paulescu etc.

And BTW, what has Romania to do with the fact you're a moron?

geoffkait
geoffkait's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 9 hours ago
Joined: Apr 29 2008 - 5:10am
Ouch! Very ouch!

Good comeback. You're on fire now. Cough, cough...

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

michael green
michael green's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 6 months ago
Joined: Jan 10 2011 - 6:11pm
so far

So far geoff hasn't delivered much in the way of his Advanced Concepts, but he did deliver this.

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

First the sound is "different", better has no value to it. Second, the tape itself makes a difference in sound.

What is interesting is someone claiming to come from NASA and having such a knowledge of stick on products (his advanced concepts), doesn't know the sound of "electrical tape".

Geoff, why do you have people do testing with something that is a huge audio no no? This again is why we question your, not only concepts but knowledge. Most of us in the audio industry who know sound understand that you have to be careful with the sound of electrical tape. It can dull out the sound very easily.

You pick on Pro-guys yet you make huge mistakes in audio that any listener pro or home wouldn't make.

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

iosiP
iosiP's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 years 1 month ago
Joined: Jan 12 2014 - 4:41pm
Michael, Geoff is still confusing causes with collaterals

Did you know grasshoppers hear with their legs?
Proof: put a grasshopper on the table and tell it to jump... well it will jump!
Now remove the legs of the grasshopper, put it on the table and tell it to jump... no, it won't jump!
So obviously grasshoppers hear with their legs and white band-aids change sound because of their color.
And Geoff is a NASA scientist, i.e. one that spent his time staring at radar screens and writing down results - lucky now there are automated technologies to do that, so Geoffy has to survive selling intelligent toilet paper. You know, the kind that figures out what asses it already wiped and would not wipe them again - limited to 16 shits (err, sheets)!

iosiP
iosiP's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 years 1 month ago
Joined: Jan 12 2014 - 4:41pm
Let us clarify this

Geoff was paid to stare at monitors showing the way of NASA's satellites (and maybe other nation's, not always friendly) and to complete reports on what he saw on the screen. Yep, I suppose you have to be a real rocket scientist to do that (a trained monkey would be just fit). But then, Geoffy "worked" at NASA, the same way at the current tracking devices do.
Blue dots, blue dots,
Geoffy has blue dots.

geoffkait
geoffkait's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 9 hours ago
Joined: Apr 29 2008 - 5:10am
That actually makes no sense.
michael green wrote:

So far geoff hasn't delivered much in the way of his Advanced Concepts, but he did deliver this.

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

First the sound is "different", better has no value to it. Second, the tape itself makes a difference in sound.

What is interesting is someone claiming to come from NASA and having such a knowledge of stick on products (his advanced concepts), doesn't know the sound of "electrical tape".

Geoff, why do you have people do testing with something that is a huge audio no no? This again is why we question your, not only concepts but knowledge. Most of us in the audio industry who know sound understand that you have to be careful with the sound of electrical tape. It can dull out the sound very easily.

You pick on Pro-guys yet you make huge mistakes in audio that any listener pro or home wouldn't make.

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

This was probably bound to happen when a NASA engineer gets into a technical discussion with a pro audio dude from Dayton. Surely there is someone, anyone, over at Tune Land who has any idea about something I have brought up, no? Let's see, scattered laser light absorption, magnetic fields produced by transformers and how to stop them in their tracks, I even brought up the subject of information fields. Intelligent chips and artificial atoms anyone? All I get from you is a shrug and, "yeah, I've done those things" response. Are you so transparent?

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

geoffkait
geoffkait's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 9 hours ago
Joined: Apr 29 2008 - 5:10am
Intelligent toilet paper
iosiP wrote:

Did you know grasshoppers hear with their legs?
Proof: put a grasshopper on the table and tell it to jump... well it will jump!
Now remove the legs of the grasshopper, put it on the table and tell it to jump... no, it won't jump!
So obviously grasshoppers hear with their legs and white band-aids change sound because of their color.
And Geoff is a NASA scientist, i.e. one that spent his time staring at radar screens and writing down results - lucky now there are automated technologies to do that, so Geoffy has to survive selling intelligent toilet paper. You know, the kind that figures out what asses it already wiped and would not wipe them again - limited to 16 shits (err, sheets)!

If I sold intelligent toilet paper I could sell some to you to wipe your mouth with. If I want any more shit from you I'll squeeze your head. I realize you get upset pretty easily so if you're on some kind of anti psychotic medication which I assume you probably are just judging by the level of your anger and angst just let me know and I'll take it easy on you. I know how sensitive your liver can be. Tee hee

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

michael green
michael green's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 6 months ago
Joined: Jan 10 2011 - 6:11pm
NASA engineer?

Oh, so now geoffy is a NASA engineer, LOL.

Keep in mind folks according to geoffy boy he hasn't been back to NASA since the 70's, if at all. Geoff said on this thread "I was not in R&D at NASA". Geoff also said he wrote testing procedures for the military, yet his testing here is to get out electrical tape and wrap up your cables in it to change the color of your cable, and change the sound. So then geoffy was reminded that the tape itself will change the sound. Oops, but it's ok he's in his 70's and...well....ain't what it use to be, know what I mean.

When he was put on the spot about the electrical tape all he had was him spouting credentials, but what does geoffy boy say about the use of credentials?

"As I already stated in some detail credentials aren't all they're cracked up to be when it comes down to arguing about SOUND."

Here's the best part though. While the NASA guy is spinning all this stuff he's giving a test for people to try, yet he doesn't even use a system with cables. It got replaced by his reference portable SONY Walkman cassette player.

yep your doing a great job on your "advanced concepts" thread there geoffy boy

I'll check with the CES and see if they have any white electrical tape.

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

geoffkait
geoffkait's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 9 hours ago
Joined: Apr 29 2008 - 5:10am
I'm used to be kidded by high school grads.

I have been taunted by high school grads before and I certainly understand your frustration and irritation. But it doesn't really bother me as much as you probably think it does. Its quite natural, actually, especially for someone who believes he can deduce sound quality from looking at photos. Lol. This is the same old Spin and Marty routine - you call it a SPIN if it disagrees with anything in Michael's Book of Clever Tuning Phrases. If Newton had been alive he probably would have called Einstein's Theory of Relativity spin. Lol. Everything is topsy turvy, me topsy you turvy.

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

May Belt
May Belt's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 years 5 months ago
Joined: May 8 2006 - 1:51am
Back to Sound

Michael, you say you want to get back to a discussion more about SOUND.

OK. Forward we go then. Now, you said regarding the colour of insulation material :-

>>> “First the sound is “different”, better has no value to it. Second, the tape itself makes a difference in sound.” <<<

You could not BE more wrong when you say “better has no value” !!!!!!!!!!!!!! BETTER sound Is relevant regarding different insulation materials AND has value !!

Yes, tape (insulation tape in particular) DOES make a difference in sound. This is an area I have been particular involved in for quite a number of years !!

You said :-

>>> “Most of us in the audio industry who know sound understand that you have to be careful with the sound of electrical tape. It can dull out the sound very easily.” <<<

And yes, one HAS to be careful with the sound of electrical tape but are you really aware of ALL the implications of insulation material on sound ? I don’t see much ‘in depth’ discussion on your site regarding the effect on the sound of different insulation materials even though you say “most of us in the audio industry who know sound understand you have to be careful”.

I DO see you have your wires resting on “magic wooden blocks” so I presume you are concentrating on your recurring theme “that vibrations are everywhere, therefore vibrations are a problem”.

Many, many years ago, under the subject of the ongoing ‘cable controversy’, I wrote about the SOUND of insulation materials. So, Michael, what insulation material for your wires have YOU selected as the Best Sounding ??

As I say, many, many years ago I wrote:-

The more experiments you are prepared to do, the more you will realise that we (human beings) react differently to different materials, to different colours, to different component layouts, to different shapes, to different angles, and especially to different chemicals and chemical mixes - such as Bextrene., P.V.C., polythene., polyethylene., polystyrene., polyurethane., polypropylene., polyalkene., P.T.F.E., Teflon., acrylic, nylon, perspex., BAF., adhesives., paints., lacquers and so on - the list is endless.

And, yet YOU say dismissively :-

>>> “First the sound is “different”, better has no value to it.” <<<

And, you simplistically (and mockingly) say:-

>>> “I’ll check with the CES and see if they have any white electrical tape.” <<<

I would suggest that you check what insulation material all the people you are ‘going to check with at CES’ are using and also check what insulation material YOU are using around YOUR own cables.

I am not ‘knocking’ or ‘mocking’ your “magic wooden blocks”. I would agree that they will alter the sound. What I am emphasising is that numerous things have ALSO to be taken into account re “better sound” – the chemical mixture of the insulation materials, the colour of those insulation materials, the positioning of the cables (people do have the habit of bunching cables out of the way !!) and so on.

To be continued further.

Regards,
May Belt,
PWB Electronics.

May Belt
May Belt's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 years 5 months ago
Joined: May 8 2006 - 1:51am
“Re-booting”

>>> “at the same time let me point you to http://tuneland.techno-zone.net/ where we cover everything being talked about, but to be more fair I'm willing to point to or start a thread on every individual concept on the list. I might be to lazy to go find some of the writtings so I have no problem re-booting them.” <<<

OK Michael, then let us look again at two of the things on the “Advanced Concepts” list. You say you have “covered everything being talked about”. And you also say :-

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

Starting with the effect of different colours on ‘sound’.

You make a generalisation, Michael, that-
>>> “There is no mystery May. Maybe some conventional audiophiles are out there and stuck in their thinking, but for the rest of us we understand that everything affects everything else, and it's a great point of view. Where some of the comments you and geoff make lacks (for me) is for someone like me it's old news and you & geoff keep trying to introduce it to me over and over as new news, as if I haven't been there. It's seriously a broken record May.” <<<

Yes, I agree with you, Michael, on the issue that everything in the listening environment affects everything else. And, understanding that everything affects everything else – from a sound point of view – is, yes, understood by only a relatively small number of people within the whole world of audio. But it is the questions as to WHY and HOW everything affects the “sound” which are still under consideration and, I repeat, yet again Michael, the ANSWERS as to WHY and HOW they affect the sound are NOT known yet !!!!!!!!!!!!!! So, it is NOT “old news” as you put it, it is still current news !!

It has nothing to do with “being a broken record” as you have put it earlier, it is because nothing has been resolved yet – it is all still outstanding. THAT is why it is ongoing.

These Questions constantly keep rearing their head !!”

My Questions to you have been relating to such as:-

“WHY do different colours change the sound ?”
“WHY do different metals, when used as the conductor, sound different ?”
“WHY do different materials (when used as covers) sound different ?”
“WHY do different plastic insulation materials sound different ?”
“HOW can specific chemicals be having an effect on the sound ?”

To which you, Michael, replied :-

>>> “all been answered. These questions have been explored and answered “ <<<

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

>>> “I’m glad I’m on this side of the questions and not back on the asking side anymore.” <<<

KNOWING that all those things mentioned affect the sound is one thing – and that is your common theme – that you know they AFFECT the sound – but I still have not seen evidence of your claims that you know WHY and HOW they are affecting the sound !!

Although you claim that :-

>>> “all been answered. These questions have been explored and answered “ <<<

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

>>> “I’m glad I’m on this side of the questions and not back on the asking side anymore.” <<<

I have seen some explanations from you such as the emphasis that “vibrations are everywhere, therefore the problems must be vibrations, so let’s deal with things from a ‘vibrations’ point of view”

You say that me asking the questions WHY and HOW is “old news” as in :-

>>> “for someone like me it's old news and you & geoff keep trying to introduce it to me over and over as new news, as if I haven't been there. It's seriously a broken record May.” <<<

I repeat, Michael, it is all STILL current. It is STILL being investigated, talked about, mulled over, argued over, investigated. I repeat, STILL happening.

Not done and dusted as you try to make out !!! And that YOU have the answers !!

So, Michael, back to the two things I have highlighted on the list.

1) WHY and HOW do the different colours affect the sound ?

2) WHY and HOW does introducing the Schumann Resonance into the listening environment affect the sound ?

Looking at some background to the Schumann Resonance devices. These devices were originally introduced as “an aid to a person’s wellbeing’. Then, at some time later, someone realised that whilstever the Schumann Resonance device was in their room, their sound was much better !! So, the Schumann Resonance device then began to be discussed as a “sound improving device” within the audio fraternity.

You keep repeating that you KNOW that such things AFFECT the sound as though just knowing is the answer and should be accepted as the answer. It is not the answer, we haven’t got the answer yet !!

WE (many of us) also KNOW these things affect the sound. And many of us are still investigating as to WHAT the answers might be !!!!!!!!!!

Back to your variable tuning as opposed to fixed tuning.

For example. If one investigates and then come to the conclusion that white coloured insulation for AC power cords is the best colour ‘for sound’, then having come to that conclusion the white coloured insulation will be left on the cable and not changed – i.e it will be a ‘Fixed’ technique. One would not vary the colour of the insulation for different recordings. If white is the best sounding colour, then it would be left in place for all recordings, for all equipment and for all rooms.

What one should not do is to advise people to leave “worse sounding” coloured insulation on cables and concentrate instead on using variable techniques elsewhere in the audio system or listening environment to attempt to ‘somehow’ recover what was adding to the “worse sound” in the first place.

BOTH techniques, variable and fixed, have to be investigated (and used) in unison.

Similarly, if one finds the Best Sounding insulation material, then one uses that Best Sounding insulation material and leaves it in place for all recordings, for all equipment and for all rooms !!!

As I have said before, many times. I do NOT challenge your discoveries that many, many things in the listening environment affect the sound. I DO challenge your repeated assertions that your truth is THE truth, that your answer is THE answer and that your method is THE method !!!

To quote you yet again :-
>>> “When we say "tuning" we really do mean it. It is "THE" answer

So, I will repeat again so that YOU and everyone else are in no doubt.

I do NOT challenge your discoveries that many, many things in the listening environment affect the sound. I DO challenge your repeated assertions that your truth is THE truth, that your answer is THE answer and that your method is THE method !!!

So, Michael, can we work from that point and from that basic understanding ?

Regards,
May Belt,
PWB Electronics.

May Belt
May Belt's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 years 5 months ago
Joined: May 8 2006 - 1:51am
Transformers.

Continuing, Michael.

Let me now look at the subject you raise quite often – the subject of transformers.

I have no doubts whatsoever that when you took the transformer out of the equipment housing and left it in position outside the housing, you got an improvement in your sound.

Let us go through that experience and your recommendations logically.

Your recommendations are for designers of audio equipment to look more carefully at the problem of such as transformers in their designs and for people with existing equipment to look at the problem created by transformers inside their equipment and to consider taking the transformer/s out of the equipment and housing it/them outside the equipment permanently.

Let us say (hypothetically) there are 500,000 people, around the world, with audio equipment who would like to improve the sound. Logically, just how many of that 500,000 would be prepared to take the transformer/s out of their equipment housing and have the transformer/s permanently positioned outside ? 6, or more than 6 ? That would then leave the remaining 499,994 asking “What do WE do with the transformer/s which are still inside the equipment housing?”

What advice are you going to give them, Michael ? Because, as I understand your writings, you do not encourage what you call “Fixed” tweaks !!!

Let us now look at the work which Bill (wkhanna) did (and described last September) on the transformer INSIDE his piece of equipment.

He described the resultant improvement in the sound extremely well :-

After applying cork and Mu Metal to and around his transformer, Bill said :-

>>> “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 “ <<<

Michael. Bill’s description is EXACTLY the type of response and description I expect to see when people discover “improvements” in their sound. But, you Michael repeatedly say that you don’t like people describing the improvements they hear as MERELY “better” and “improved”.

As in :-

>>> “This is something I've seen in the audiophile world a lot. Someone says "better" or "improvement" without any reference of this being truth or not. “ <<<

I find that people KNOW when they have achieved “better” sound !!!!!!!!!!! They don’t need to specify what particular music they are listening to when it happens nor do they need to show you or describe to you the Brand names of their equipment !!!!!
Either you are prepared to accept Bill’s description of the improvements he heard – and I might add – many hundreds of other people’s descriptions of what THEY hear– from just those few sentences or you are not !!

I will come back to the point I have been making over and over again. Yes, Bill has gone into his equipment and modified with certain materials and gained an improvement in his sound. But, having done all that he will have put the covers back on the equipment and those ‘treatments’ will now be left in place – now a “Fixed Tweak” !! Not necessarily for ever and ever and ever but certainly “fixed” in general terms. “Fixed” during many, many, many listening sessions !! But, he will not be going back, into his equipment, and adjusting those pads of cork or mu metal with each recording he plays, or DURING each recording he is listening to !!. And did you SEE his reference to having a “Hi FI Tuning Fuse “ ???? Again, a “Fixed Tweak”. And, if that Fuse is directional, then Bill will have that fuse ‘ fixed’ in the best sounding position !! But you keep constantly pooh poohing what YOU call “Fixed Tweaks”. Presumably because your Method is “variable tuning” and therefore other, “Fixed methods” can’t possibly be right - ever.

Let’s do BOTH shall we ?

That does not mean that Bill cannot go on to do other “improvements” with his other equipment and listening environment but he has already got considerable improvements – that is if you believe his descriptions even though he might NOT have listed the actual recordings he was listening to.

Bill uses the description of “Significant increase in soundstage width, height & depth.” No more details than that about the actual MUSIC but that description is sufficient. Bill uses the descriptions “Much better with subtle details” and “The overall realistic dimensional presence has me grinning till it hurts”, and those descriptions are sufficient (or should be sufficient) to believe him that he heard what he describes !!!!!!

Bill could just as easily given EXACTLY the same description of the improvement in his sound after ‘treating’ his CDs – and the PHOTOS of his equipment would have been of no help to you. Nor would you have been able to “hear what direction he is heading in”, nor, from his description, would you “almost hear his sound.”
You keep doing this, Michael. Claiming that if only you can SEE other’s equipment and listening environment and know what discs they are listening to you will know “what direction they are heading in” and you can “almost hear their sound”.

You can’t SEE everyone’s equipment and you can’t SEE everyone’s listening environment so WORDS and conversation and discussions are a MAJOR factor in learning anything.

We don’t NEED to know what discs Bill was listening to nor do we NEED to see what his listening environment looks like to believe him when he describes the improvements in the sound he achieved with ‘treating’ his transformer !!

If Bill heard the improvements he described after ‘treating’ his transformer, then that means that PRIOR to doing that ‘treatment’ he had NOT BEEN resolving the information which had been there all the time, available on the recording, waiting to be better resolved !! I am sure if Bill was asked if he would prefer to go back to what he had been hearing BEFORE ‘treating’ the transformer, he would answer “No Way” !!!

But, Michael, what Bill had done was what you would refer to as a “Fixed” Tweak. Something which you do not recommend. Instead, you seem to be constantly recommending that people do not do “Fixed tweaks” – to instead leave things as they were and try to get the same results (improvements in the sound) by doing, other, “Variable tweaks”. In other words, for Bill to be back with an ‘untreated’ transformer, still with it’s basic problem of not allowing Bill to resolve the available musical information better, still in it’s equipment housing, (because, like a lot of people, he might not be prepared to have the transformer permanently kept outside the equipment). And, then, for Bill to “try” getting those same improvements by “variable” tuning of other things in his environment.

Why can’t he (and everyone else) be encouraged to do BOTH ‘fixed’ AND ‘variable’ ?

If an untreated transformer is a problem, regarding attaining good sound, inside equipment, then it is a problem and won’t stop being a problem even when trying your “variable tuning” !!!

Regards,
May Belt,
PWB Electronics.

May Belt
May Belt's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 years 5 months ago
Joined: May 8 2006 - 1:51am
Another subject

Now let me bring in another subject which relates to ‘sound’ and to gaining good sound.

Peter and I discovered, some time back, that holes and empty sockets were a problem regarding getting good sound. Others in the audio industry, completely independently, also began to report the same thing. They had found that they could improve the sound by either taping over the holes and empty sockets or inserting dummy (i.e. passive) plugs into the empty sockets of audio equipment.

One explanation put forward was that electromagnetism was escaping from the empty (unused) sockets and interfering with ………………..what ?

Another explanation put forward was that RF was entering the equipment, via these empty sockets, and causing mayhem to the audio signal.

But placing sticking plaster over empty sockets and holes cannot keep out RF. RF can go through brick walls !! And yet the sound WAS improved by doing such seemingly ridiculous things !!

Neither of those explanations can, however, explain that doing exactly the same technique on ALL holes in the listening room and with ALL empty sockets – even empty (unused) sockets in passive electronic items in the room, gives similar improvements in the sound !!!

So, just what is going on ???? You see, Michael, yet MORE questions requiring answers.

Now, Michael. If one places sticking plaster over empty (unused) sockets and over holes and gains an improvement in the sound, then surely this sticking plaster (or dummy plugs) would then be left in place ? I.e a FIXED ‘tweak’.

The sticking plaster or dummy plugs would not be left in place for a particular recording so as to have expansive treble but removed for another recording to try to get more detail from the drum section. I.e a Variable ‘tweak’.

If the technique of blocking empty sockets and holes gives an improvement in the sound, then that is what it does !!! And one therefore uses that technique first and get that problem dealt with BEFORE going on to try to gain further improvements using other techniques.

So simple an experiment for people to try for themselves !!!

So, as I say, BOTH ‘fixed’ and ‘variable’ techniques should be used in tandem.

Next maybe we will look at such a device as the Shakti Stone and where that comes in the scheme of things audio and good sound !!!!

Regards,
May Belt,
PWB Electronics.

michael green
michael green's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 6 months ago
Joined: Jan 10 2011 - 6:11pm
sorry didn't read it all

Hi May, sorry didn't read it all, but did want to point out something important from a musical view.

I don't sit with clients whether it be studio, home or live and say the blanket types of descriptive words that you and geoff give without a musical context. Frankly my clients would tell me to go home and not show up again if I did that.

You and geoff say "better" and "improvement" where I and my clients would say different.

Last night in our first CES preview with listeners (we use our private suite), playing Phil Collins' "face value". 2nd track "it must be love" we setup a 20 some foot wide stage that went fairly well front to back again about 20', set at a basic relaxed setting for starters. Everyone was pretty surprised at what they heard but one guy said on his puppy's, the layers were more compact. At that point some of the others spoke up about the layering saying this was the first time they heard that particular song's opening having 4 distinct layers front to back. Putting me to the test (was willing to on the first day), I squeezed the stage for them bring the layers closer together till the puppy owner said "that's it, that's what I have". He said "so you can make any size stage I want"? Yep. He went through a couple other space changes so he could feel comfortable with the way he listens, then asked me to open everything up again, which I did. We then played with the tonal structures a little within the layers. What I did was open up the very back of the keyboards to be very wide, then built halos around the different layers moving forward till the 4 guys said stop, after deciding on their favorite setting. We took a 30 minute break to let the system settle then they all took turns (and placed orders). I liked the "placed orders part".

This is just a basic example, but hopefully you can get a sense for what these extreme high end listeners go for. Saying "better" wouldn't cut it. Better just isn't variable enough for these guys looking for specifics.

I can completely understand why a reviewer not having this kind of flexibility would say better or improvement, but our clients go quite a bit deeper than this. Many of these listeners are hunting for something very specific, and many times do their tuning per record labels or even a certain song (that parts up to them).

So you see while your reviewers might be saying "better" (John A, Clark J or any of the others) or you might, my guys are saying "lets have the fingers on that bass guitar sound like "this" and the layer of the congas in front of that so I can hear the air coming out the bottom. I'm sure the reviewers have great ears and hear the changes they describe, but there's another level to choice and choosing.

To us, having this flexibility and purity is advanced technology. The things I'm seeing you guys bring up are basically one sound choices out of millions. For some it might be "better" for others "worse" but for my listeners they're on a completely different level of listening. They go after specifics.

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

michael green
michael green's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 6 months ago
Joined: Jan 10 2011 - 6:11pm
answering some of May's questions

Hi May

I may not get to everything but thank you for your questions.

May asked

"Your recommendations are for designers of audio equipment to look more carefully at the problem of such as transformers in their designs and for people with existing equipment to look at the problem created by transformers inside their equipment and to consider taking the transformer/s out of the equipment and housing it/them outside the equipment permanently.

Let us say (hypothetically) there are 500,000 people, around the world, with audio equipment who would like to improve the sound. Logically, just how many of that 500,000 would be prepared to take the transformer/s out of their equipment housing and have the transformer/s permanently positioned outside ? 6, or more than 6 ? That would then leave the remaining 499,994 asking “What do WE do with the transformer/s which are still inside the equipment housing?”

mg

I wouldn't say my job is to get people to remove their transformers as much as be a part of designing the future, whether it be me or someone who follows me. I look at my life's work as being a chapter in the book of audio and other technologies. How far I personally get in numbers remains to be seen. But the goal for me is helping make the change forward more than fixing what has already been done. At the same time most of the people I deal with are doing mods. But I have over 100,000 clients who have bought one or more of my products, so who knows how much they read or play.

May

"What advice are you going to give them, Michael ? Because, as I understand your writings, you do not encourage what you call “Fixed” tweaks !!!"

mg

My advice is pretty simple. There's a future to the hobby that is more about matching the audio code, than the "fixed" system approach.

Audiophiles have and are spending fortunes on systems that are out of beat with the way recordings are made and at one time were played and the only way I see them getting back to being able to listen to large selections of music is to make their systems more flexible, so they can adapt to the recorded codes.

May

"Michael. Bill’s description is EXACTLY the type of response and description I expect to see when people discover “improvements” in their sound. But, you Michael repeatedly say that you don’t like people describing the improvements they hear as MERELY “better” and “improved”."

mg

I always get a smile when someone is getting into their music, as I was with Bill & Dan. However I deal with the guys who after they do the tweak Bill did, are ready for the next level, which is making things variable.

It's kinda like this May. Ever have to use a volume control with jumps that are big clicks? Or a volume control without a balance? It's like you adjust to one volume and the next thing you put on you have to not only adjust but try to get the volume to be in-between the clicks? Audiophiles use to be creatures of variable adjustments, then they fell off the variable truck and now are in a world on constant tweaks, instead of organized variable listening practices.

I'm about getting the purity, and making the listening hobby easier for the extreme listeners.

Your less or more than 6 was kinda funny, and I'm sure you didn't mean it, at least I hope not lol. I have some individual clients that have removed more than 6 transformers. I'm not sure I could make a count of how many have done that specific tweak, but I've probably personally done over a hundred for clients, and know maybe twice that many who have done it on their own. So I would guess, I don't know maybe 500 or so have removed their transformers outside of their chassis, and that would not include all the DIYers on other forums who do stuff like this all the time. There's a huge sub-culture to the hobby that the mainstream audiophiles never see unless you start searching all those forums.

May

"I find that people KNOW when they have achieved “better” sound !!!!!!!!!!! They don’t need to specify what particular music they are listening to when it happens nor do they need to show you or describe to you the Brand names of their equipment !!!!!
Either you are prepared to accept Bill’s description of the improvements he heard – and I might add – many hundreds of other people’s descriptions of what THEY hear– from just those few sentences or you are not !!"

mg

One thing that has always been a factor in this hobby of audiophile listening is the fact that there are different levels of performance. My particular clients are the ones who when they hear something they want to change, they need the ability to do so. You might notice if you read more closely that the problem isn't michael not liking someones personal choices. Michael just offers more personal choices and ways to purify the music content.

"Fixed" folks like geoff for example and Catch22 are the ones making their proclamations on recordings and formats, I'm the opposite. I'm about making things that can go anywhere not shoving a place you have to stop at.

If I can add quickly. I'm not sure many audiophiles understand this http://tuneland.techno-zone.net/t268-the-audio-code . I see a lot of audiophiles that think if they make their system sound a certain way, it will play the recorded content. This has never been the case in all of stereos history. Recordings have different codes that need to be tuned somehow, or every recording will be played by one system setting instead of the recordings particular and specific set of recorded cues. Systems (any system) don't have recording auto adjust buttons, like cameras do.

Thanks for the questions May. I'll look at some more in a bit, but want to tell you, I very much appreciate this tone of Q&A's.

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

michael green
michael green's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 6 months ago
Joined: Jan 10 2011 - 6:11pm
A question for you May

Hi May

I hope through this somehow a place of understanding can take place, so thanks for the posting.

Here's a question I have been asking here since I have come up a year or so ago but no one has taken me up on it, and I have no idea why, unless they don't believe in recorded codes.

Why is this part of the hobby focused on one sound, instead of matching to the actual recorded code? Do you think the audiophile hobby believes they can set their systems up to play "one sound" and somehow play the different recorded codes that recordings make?

So my question is do you believe in a specific recorded code per recording?

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

ChrisS
ChrisS's picture
Offline
Last seen: 37 min 37 sec ago
Joined: Mar 6 2006 - 8:42pm
Fundamentally, Geoffy you don't...

...know how to make meaningful comparisons.

Forget your day job, Geoffy, go to school.

geoffkait
geoffkait's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 9 hours ago
Joined: Apr 29 2008 - 5:10am
Good one!
ChrisS wrote:

...know how to make meaningful comparisons.

Forget your day job, Geoffy, go to school.

You are a truly pathetic little character.

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

michael green
michael green's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 6 months ago
Joined: Jan 10 2011 - 6:11pm
well geoff?

Well, geoff if you haven't had an in-room system in 7+ years, and haven't been to NASA since the 70's (claiming to write test procedures for them), and use a portable Sony Walkman as your music reference how can we take you serious?

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

ChrisS
ChrisS's picture
Offline
Last seen: 37 min 37 sec ago
Joined: Mar 6 2006 - 8:42pm
That may be your opinion, however, you have provided...

...convincing evidence of your own lack of knowledge of comparative testing.

The pathos is very much yours.

michael green
michael green's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 6 months ago
Joined: Jan 10 2011 - 6:11pm
the outlets

Hi May

Outlets are a great example of tuning! We came out with our first audio grade outlets, plates and tweaks in "91", but they were not flexible enough so we redesigned them, but got into UL problems and moved away from producing something that could come back to bite us.

Electricity, RF and electromagnetic fields are some of our major tuning areas, but there is a fine line between being legal and liability. I learned a whole new language when it comes to talking about electrical products.

Got a demo, but want to come back to this, but in short, yes all electronic components are highly tunable.

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

geoffkait
geoffkait's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 9 hours ago
Joined: Apr 29 2008 - 5:10am
Monkey
ChrisS wrote:

...convincing evidence of your own lack of knowledge of comparative testing.

The pathos is very much yours.

You're one sick little monkey. The test I suggested obviously went over your pointed little head.

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

ChrisS
ChrisS's picture
Offline
Last seen: 37 min 37 sec ago
Joined: Mar 6 2006 - 8:42pm
You don't have a clue, do you?

You have clearly demonstrated your ignorance of testing.

Go to http://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/project_scientific_method.shtml

This is taught in grade schools.

May Belt
May Belt's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 years 5 months ago
Joined: May 8 2006 - 1:51am
Fine line

>>> “Electricity, RF and electromagnetic fields are some of our major tuning areas, but there is a fine line between being legal and liability. I learned a whole new language when it comes to talking about electrical products.” <<<

Let me spell it out better and not have it so general as ‘Electricity, RF and electromagnetic fields’.

One can insert passive (dummy) plugs into empty (unused) sockets in (say hypothetically) Jack Smith’s pre-amplifier or one can cover each hole (empty socket) individually with it’s own sticking plaster piece and gain an improvement in the sound. I will emphasise again, Michael, that the majority of people ARE intelligent enough to know when they have an actual IMPROVEMENT in their sound !! So, when they describe an improvement, one can be sure that what they are hearing IS an improvement in the sound.

When people get such an improvement in the sound from carrying out the technique I have described, then any explanation will usually be along the conventional and technical terminology lines of “Oh, electromagnetism must have been escaping from the circuitry – but much less after doing that “tweak”, or “Oh, RF must have been getting into the circuitry and adversely affecting the audio signal going through the pre-amplifier – but much less after doing that “tweak”. And that is why an improvement in the sound was heard” !!!

But, these explanations become seriously challenged when you do the following !!

If there is an identical Jack Smith pre-amplifier sitting passively on a shelf. By passively I mean just sitting there, not connected to the audio system, not connected to the AC power supply, just sitting passively on a display shelf and one carries out exactly the same “tweak” of inserting dummy plugs into the empty sockets or placing sticking plaster over each individual hole, one gets an identical improvement in the sound as had been achieved when doing the same ‘tweak’ with the identical but WORKING pre-amplifier !!!

But there is NO audio signal travelling through the passive pre-amplifier, so any explanation re “the audio signal being affected by either electromagnetism or RF” is no longer valid.

So, now one has an observation without an explanation !!!!!

Which raises the questions WHY and HOW has the sound improved !!!!!!!!!!!

>>> “But want to come back to this, but in short, yes all electronic components are highly tunable.” <<<

There are different ways of looking at the subject of ‘tuning electronic components’. How would YOU, Michael, explain the effect with the passive pre-amplifier I have described ? You have used a generalisation with your “yes all electronic components are highly tunable.” As though you have all the answers to all the things which are reported to affect “sound”.

This is my constant challenge to you !! Following your constant claims of :-

>>> “all been answered. These questions have been explored and answered “ <<<

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

>>> “I’m glad I’m on this side of the questions and not back on the asking side anymore.” <<<

>>> “they can set their systems up to play "one sound" <<<

I am not talking about people just setting their systems up to play “one sound” by doing one ‘tweak’. I TOO am talking about people doing various things with their discs, their equipment, their listening environment because, as I have also agreed with you repeatedly, I also know that people are not resolving correctly all the musical information which is available to them from the recordings.

What I am talking about are the anomalies – anomalies which challenge the conventional electronic and acoustic theories – and which show that ALL IS NOT YET KNOWN – with respect, Michael !!!

I noted your snide remark over on your own site.:-

>>> “Took 7 forum pages to get out of May that she says she is dealing with electromagnetics. That has got to be a record. No wonder this industry is so screwed with people like these running around. Holy smokes I was dealing with electromagnetics back in high school” <<<

You talk as though I have no understanding whatsoever of conventional electronic and acoustic theories. I can assure you that I have sufficient knowledge of conventional electronic and acoustic theories to know when something SHOULD NOT change the sound – and yet it DOES !!!

What I have done, Michael, all the time, is to challenge you that you DO NOT have all the answers as to why some things can change the sound. That there are STILL many questions, sitting on a shelf, waiting to be answered. But, which you reply to my challenge with:-

>>> “all been answered. These questions have been explored and answered “ <<<

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

>>> “I’m glad I’m on this side of the questions and not back on the asking side anymore.” <<<

Regards,
May Belt,
PWB Electronics.

geoffkait
geoffkait's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 9 hours ago
Joined: Apr 29 2008 - 5:10am
I suspect grade school was as far as you got
ChrisS wrote:

You have clearly demonstrated your ignorance of testing.

Go to http://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/project_scientific_method.shtml

This is taught in grade schools.

What's funny is you have no idea WTF I'm even talking about. This is what happens when a grade school grad comes up against a rocket scientist. Now, run along, your mommy wants to use the computer.

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

geoffkait
geoffkait's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 9 hours ago
Joined: Apr 29 2008 - 5:10am
I'm serious as a colonoscopy
michael green wrote:

Well, geoff if you haven't had an in-room system in 7+ years, and haven't been to NASA since the 70's (claiming to write test procedures for them), and use a portable Sony Walkman as your music reference how can we take you serious?

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

Oh, I'm serious. You keep saying that I went from a real speaker system to a much smaller portable earphone system as though that was taking steps backwards. But you have to admit this is actually the Michael Green Way. Hel-loo!! I went from a Huge Monster that took up my whole living room, 150 lb turntable set up, 500 feet of air tubing, tube electronics with regulated power supplies for EVERYTHING to a relatively small lightweight Class A SET all tube headphone system AND from there to a 10 ounce portable cassette player and earphone system. An all time record for a LOW MASS High End System. And yet you keep acting like I did the wrong thing. And I'm telling you you haven't gone far enough. Not nearly far enough. Seriously.

By the way I never claimed to have written test procedures for NASA. That's your memory failing again. If you're having trouble keeping up with the conversation I suggest you eat more fish.

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

ChrisS
ChrisS's picture
Offline
Last seen: 37 min 37 sec ago
Joined: Mar 6 2006 - 8:42pm
Whatever you say, do, or think, doesn't change the fact...

...that you have clearly demonstrated to everyone here that you don't know how to compare an apple to another apple.

ChrisS
ChrisS's picture
Offline
Last seen: 37 min 37 sec ago
Joined: Mar 6 2006 - 8:42pm
You don't have a clue, do you, Geoffy?

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

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

Are you smarter than a 5th Grader, Geoffy?

Nope.

ChrisS
ChrisS's picture
Offline
Last seen: 37 min 37 sec ago
Joined: Mar 6 2006 - 8:42pm
Not only do you fail...

...in scientific methodology, you also violate your own favorite tenet of "expectation bias" that you so often use against others' arguments.

You call this an experiment?

Fail.

ChrisS
ChrisS's picture
Offline
Last seen: 37 min 37 sec ago
Joined: Mar 6 2006 - 8:42pm
You're looking foolish, Geoffy.

Get on the wagon.

Stop bothering people.

Go to school.

geoffkait
geoffkait's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 9 hours ago
Joined: Apr 29 2008 - 5:10am
ChrisS wrote:
ChrisS wrote:

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

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

Are you smarter than a 5th Grader, Geoffy?

Nope.

You might give some consideration to keeping your mouth shut; perhaps people will think you're an idiot as opposed to opening you yap so frequently and removing all doubt.

Tootles,

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

ChrisS
ChrisS's picture
Offline
Last seen: 37 min 37 sec ago
Joined: Mar 6 2006 - 8:42pm
I'll keep re-posting this too!

It's all about you, Geoffy!

This post shows "Geoffy, The Rocket Scientist" at your best!

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

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

Are you smarter than a 5th Grader, Geoffy?

Nope.

You might give some consideration to keeping your mouth shut; perhaps people will think you're an idiot as opposed to opening you yap so frequently and removing all doubt.

Tootles,

Geoffy Kait
Machina Dynamica

michael green
michael green's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 6 months ago
Joined: Jan 10 2011 - 6:11pm
thanks for the comments May

Hi May, sorry this week is getting jammed packed with the show, demo-ing and inquiries. Did you have a chance to answer this.

"So my question is do you believe in a specific recorded code per recording?"

I probably passed over it when I did my quick read through. I think this is where we need to get on the same page then we can start to cover all the specifics hopefully one buy one.

thanks, back to show mode, here's our show page http://tuneland.techno-zone.net/t278-ces-2015-las-vegas

If I could add this briefly. I'm sorry you feel that I think I have all the answers so let me say again "I'm a student of the art" as much today as I was (maybe more) 30 years ago when you and Peter were in the middle of your studies, experiments and conclusions. But times have indeed changed revealing far more answers than yester-year or even the past two years. For example we're about to purchase a testing tool that measures not only the humidity but also the air pressure itself in a room, along with a host of other tests that do show what is going on with the actual waves, fields and hosts pressures that carry audio and the other factors involved.

As time goes on, it's no longer people creating mysteries of the un-known which is a lot of what High End Audio has built their story around. Apply this and WOW a change, followed by the "I don't know how it works but it made an improvement". We are and have been moving into the Why's and How's at light speed. This isn't "the michael channel" and I have no idea why you are so concerned only painting a picture of me that just isn't the case.

I'm into learning today May, right now, at this very show, and that doesn't change for me ever. I really wish as I have said before you would stop trying to be peoples school teacher and let them/us bring in the future with logic and answers that can and need to be demo-ed rather than just talked about.

Quite frankly May, if your not involved in the demo, and that means the demo now, you're as anyone would be out of the current loop. Thos aren't my rules or something that I'm trying to hold over you. These are the facts concerning you me or anyone.

I simply wanted to see your system and testing setup to see if you are current May. I'm not trying to offend you and Geoff, I'm really not. I'm just seeing things that are telling me that perhaps you guys are hanging onto stuff that maybe were mysteries, but aren't any more. At least not by the people who go further than high end audio studies.

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

geoffkait
geoffkait's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 9 hours ago
Joined: Apr 29 2008 - 5:10am
Gosh
ChrisS wrote:

It's all about you, Geoffy!

This post shows "Geoffy, The Rocket Scientist" at your best!

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

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

Are you smarter than a 5th Grader, Geoffy?

Nope.

You might give some consideration to keeping your mouth shut; perhaps people will think you're an idiot as opposed to opening you yap so frequently and removing all doubt.

Tootles,

Geoffy Kait
Machina Dynamica

Gosh, that's really interesting.

 photo photo_11_zpsxrmoq6cx.jpg

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

ChrisS
ChrisS's picture
Offline
Last seen: 37 min 37 sec ago
Joined: Mar 6 2006 - 8:42pm
Geoffy likes!
geoffkait wrote:
ChrisS wrote:

It's all about you, Geoffy!

This post shows "Geoffy, The Rocket Scientist" at your best!

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

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

Are you smarter than a 5th Grader, Geoffy?

Nope.

You might give some consideration to keeping your mouth shut; perhaps people will think you're an idiot as opposed to opening you yap so frequently and removing all doubt.

Tootles,

Geoffy Kait
Machina Dynamica

Gosh, that's really interesting.

 photo photo_11_zpsxrmoq6cx.jpg

Geoffy Kait
Machina Dynamica

iosiP
iosiP's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 years 1 month ago
Joined: Jan 12 2014 - 4:41pm
May, do I see a circular reasoning here?

If I understood correctly, you say:
1. Try tweak A and you'll hear improvements.
2. This cannot be explained by traditional theories, so there must be something else at work.
3. Therefore, tweak A is good even if we cannot explain how it works.
4. By extension, our other tweaks (B, C, D etc.) will also work, even if there is no traditional explanation for the reason they work.
Fine, I got it, but what if I apply tweak A and it doesn't work? Sure, there may be (at least) four reasons (a) I'm deaf, (b) my system has a serious problem, (c) I am psychologically immune to the specific stimuli. Or else, well... (d) the tweak plain just doesn't work.
Now you must concede that I'd rather accept that the reason is some hearing or system problem, i.e (a) or (b), for tweaks that have a traditional scientific explanation (since those are proven to do something and I am supposed to hear that "something") but to lean towards (c) or (d) when no explanation is provided.

P.S. I tried the free tweaks from your "free tweaks" page (nu, not the free kit but the ones about freezing CDs, freezing photos, placing white/blue sheets of paper in various places, clipping the drapes etc.) and I could hear any change. I got a couple of friends to listen and they didn't hear any change. I told one of them to try the same tweaks in his home/system and none of us heard any change. Now unless you think that the three of us are deaf or two completely different systems (and I mean very different: mine is SS with a digital source, my friend's is all tubed with a turntable) have the same problems... well call me (us) unconvinced!

May Belt
May Belt's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 years 5 months ago
Joined: May 8 2006 - 1:51am
It is not ME feeling that you have all the answers, Michael

>>> “If I could add this briefly. I’m sorry you feel that I think I have all the answers so let me say again "I'm a student of the art" as much today as I was (maybe more) 30 years ago when you and Peter were in the middle of your studies, experiments and conclusions. But times have indeed changed revealing far more answers than yester-year or even the past two years. For example we're about to purchase a testing tool that measures not only the humidity but also the air pressure itself in a room, along with a host of other tests that do show what is going on with the actual waves, fields and hosts pressures that carry audio and the other factors involved.” <<<

It is not ME feeling that you have all the answers, Michael, I quote from YOUR own claims !!!

It looks as though you are presuming that I am going on what Peter and I might have discovered some 30 years ago and that it is YOU who is still discovering. This is some remarkable presumption on your part when Peter and I are STILL discovering today, yesterday and all the time since some of our first major discoveries over 30 years ago. AND, those discoveries were on top of a previous 30 years of working completely within conventional electronic and acoustic theories !!!

So, don’t lecture me that times might have changed since yester-year !!

I see you are still working on the subject of ‘measuring’ i.e measuring the ‘humidity and air pressure’ of rooms !! Of course they will give you some measurements. But, will those measurements TELL you WHY different chemicals can change the sound, WHY different colours can change the sound, WHY applying a demagnetiser to LPs and CDs will change the sound ?? If those measurements will tell you WHY, then I say Yipee !!!

>>> “I simply wanted to see your system and testing setup to see if you are current May. I'm not trying to offend you and Geoff, I'm really not. I'm just seeing things that are telling me that perhaps you guys are hanging onto stuff that maybe were mysteries, but aren't any more. At least not by the people who go further than high end audio studies.” <<<

Again with the presumptions !!! Why on earth, just because I don’t list what we are listening to today, or were listening to last week, or what is expected to arrive NEW today do you PRESUME that we are “hanging onto stuff that maybe were mysteries but aren’t any more” ?

You are extremely presumptive, Michael. You have just stated that “there aren’t any more mysteries”. Really ??????????

Regards,
May Belt,
PWB Electronics.

May Belt
May Belt's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 years 5 months ago
Joined: May 8 2006 - 1:51am
Reasoning

>>> “If I understand you correctly, you say :

1. Try tweak A and you'll hear improvements.
2. This cannot be explained by traditional theories, so there must be something else at work.
3. Therefore, tweak A is good even if we cannot explain how it works.
4. By extension, our other tweaks (B, C, D etc.) will also work, even if there is no traditional explanation for the reason they work.” <<<

If we are looking at ‘reasoning things out’, then can I go through your list.

1) Way back when we began to gradually discover (exactly as Michael has gradually discovered) that we (and everyone else) were not hearing (resolving) everything (all the complex information of the music) which was ALREADY on the recording, we tried to devise techniques (tweaks) which people could try, for themselves, at no cost. The aim was/is that IF people could hear improvements, could ‘hear’ more information, then THEY might also begin to realise that there is far more information, already on the recording, which they had not been resolving previously !!!

We described techniques which we had found changed the sound – hence our list of ‘free’ tweaks. It is not a case that EVERY ‘tweak’ will work for EVERYONE – it is that IF any ONE of those ‘tweaks’ gave someone further information (better sound), then they would be starting on the path of realising that prior to doing the ‘tweak’ they had NOT been resolving all the information which was already there, available to them.

So, the initial aim was, exactly as Michael’s aim is, to get people to realise that there is a wealth of information, already on the recording, which people are not resolving correctly – WHATEVER the recording, WHATEVER the equipment and WHATEVER the listening environment.

So, iosiP. Tweak A might not work for you, but might work for someone else !! It might not be until you get to Tweak E that, suddenly, you might hear further information !!
Another thing you have to be aware of is how the human being functions. Human beings are programmed to compare differences – to be checking constantly against what WAS the information (standard ?) against what IS the information (standard) now, at this very moment. In other words. Applying a ‘tweak’ and seeing (hearing) if there might be an improvement in the sound is one level. Sometimes an improvement might be heard, sometimes not. But, if one has the ‘tweak’ in position for a short time and gets used to that sound, then removes that ‘tweak’ and listens again, there is often a better chance of hearing a change i.e a worsening of the sound !! Again, in other words, the working memory, in that short time, has got used to hearing more information i.e. a better standard without you actually being aware of that happening, and now, without the ‘tweak’, does not like being taking below the standard it has just become accustomed to !! It cringes. The ‘cringe’ is the working memory shouting, kicking and screaming at being taken below the standard it had just become accustomed to. It happens in all other aspects in life, so why not with our hearing. We ‘cringe’ from a taste point of view if given something below the standard already in our working memory and we ‘cringe’ from a smell point of view if presented with something below the standard already in our working memory. But, different people will have different reactions depending on what standard (information) is in THEIR working memory

Which brings me to your:-

2) IF the sound in the listening room is better when a pot plant or a vase of flowers is resting on a piece of Blue coloured piece instead of a piece of Red coloured paper, then there IS NO conventional explanation !!!!

3) What we say is TRY the tweak of placing a piece of plain Blue coloured paper under a vase of flowers or under a pot plant. If it DOES improve the sound for you, then there IS NO conventional explanation. We say it improved the sound for us (and for many others) so we suggest people try it for themselves. If you DO hear it improve the sound, then that experience takes you along the path of realising that colours can affect ‘sound’.

4) Our other ‘tweaks’ may work for you or may not – but may work for others. But that does not mean any of your a, b, c, d, applies. Because other ‘tweaks’ i.e G, H, I, J, K, MIGHT work for you and not for others.

>>> “Now you must concede that I'd rather accept that the reason is some hearing or system problem, i.e (a) or (b), for tweaks that have a traditional scientific explanation (since those are proven to do something and I am supposed to hear that "something") but to lean towards (c) or (d) when no explanation is provided.” <<<

OF COURSE you would rather accept a traditional scientific explanation. You have stated that there IS a “simple scientific explanation” for why different colours on CDs can affect the sound (but you have not given that explanation as you promised to). I say there is NO simple scientific explanation – other than the usual one put forward that it involves the laser beam and the reading of the information. But, WE had made the discovery of the effect of colours on ‘sound’ long BEFORE we ever owned any CDs or a CD player !!!

Let me now expand your :-

>>> “(c) I am psychologically immune to the specific stimuli.” <<<

I will take it out of audio for the moment. I want you to “throw an intellectual switch” and look at it differently.

Let us say (hypothetically) you work in an open plan office. If YOU had been brought up in a family where one parent had a violent temper, you would be far more sensitive to the early signs of a colleague (or superior) starting to be angry – more sensitive than (say) the person sitting next to you who had not been brought up in a similar home background as you. But, if THEY had been brought up in a family where one parent suffered from severe depression, they would be far more sensitive to the early signs of a colleague (or superior) beginning to become depressed – more sensitive than you would be who had not been brought up in a similar home background to them.

We all have BOTH different sensitivities AND some of the same sensitivities but at different levels.

Now bringing my example back to the subject of ‘sound’. If you were in a room, listening to music, and you sensed a colleague (or superior) showing the signs of early anger, the ‘sound’ would be perceived as worse (probably harsher, more aggressive) for you much sooner than the person sitting next to you. YOU would have gone under tension much earlier than they. The colleague (superior) might have to have actually exploded in anger before the person sitting next to you would detect the ‘sound’ to be worse.

One naughty experiment which some people (people in the know) used to do during early Hi Fi Shows in the UK. If someone in the room tells a lie, then the sound will go worse for everyone in the room – not JUST go worse for the person telling the lie !! Then that person would either have to tell the truth whilst in the room, or leave the room, for the sound to go back to how it was before !!!!!!!!

Such knowledge makes people smile when Michael is seen to be insisting on my answering his question:-

>>> "So my question is do you believe in a specific recorded code per recording?" <<<

How on earth can ‘believing in a specific recorded code per recording’ explain how someone telling a lie in the room whilst listening to music can ‘spoil’ the sound for others in the same room ?

I repeat. You might not be sensitive to the effect of ‘tweak’ A, or even ‘tweak’ B, or even ‘tweak’ C but you MIGHT BE sensitive to the effect of ‘tweaks’ G, H, I, J and K where others might not be. What you seem to want to do is to dismiss all ‘tweaks’ which you cannot hear as therefore not working for others – OR WHICH YOU CANNOT UNDERSTAND from a conventional point of view – when numerous other people can HEAR the improvements of using certain colours, of using certain chemicals even when there IS no conventional explanation.

Regards,
May Belt,
PWB Electronics.

iosiP
iosiP's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 years 1 month ago
Joined: Jan 12 2014 - 4:41pm
May, thank you for your answer

I'll come back to you soon, no time now.
Only one thing: I ALWAYS test everything audio (tweaks, cables etc.) using the method "put it in then take it out", to see if "taking it out" hurts. So this I already knew!

geoffkait
geoffkait's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 9 hours ago
Joined: Apr 29 2008 - 5:10am
Oopsy, daisy, post deleted

No text

May Belt
May Belt's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 years 5 months ago
Joined: May 8 2006 - 1:51am
Your answer

>>> "Only one thing. I ALWAYS test everything audio (tweaks, cables etc.) using the method "put it in then take it out", to see if "taking it out" hurts. So this I already knew!" <<<

That is good. But you would be surprised how many people do not test audio tweaks like that !!

Regards,
May Belt,
PWB Electronics.

michael green
michael green's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 6 months ago
Joined: Jan 10 2011 - 6:11pm
some thoughts

Hi May

This was a very busy, very fun week for me. It was the CES and anyone who has read me talking about it, the most advanced show I have ever been to here in Vegas. I had many friends here and got a chance to do a ton of referencing and listening to their thoughts on many topics. After going to the show I almost don't know what to say to you cause I always feel like there is something not connecting between us that should be much easier. Almost like your looking at me saying I'm wrong or haven't looked deep enough, or missed something. I've mentioned that it almost felt like you were wanting to school me and treating me like I wasn't paying attention in class even if I had, and got an A+ on every test. Somehow you at all cost was going to let me know who the teacher was. I've read your writings, looked at your site, read what people said when they tried your ideas and look at your Q&As here. I'm sure I haven't covered it all but feel I get the general idea where your coming from, maybe not who knows. But where I'm stuck is when I talk about referencing and questions that never get answered, like "do you believe in the audio code", either I missed the answer or you didn't give one.

I say this because in my meetings this week the engineers, designers and programmers beat their way to my listening chair, and we spent almost all of our time, mostly me listening to their excitement about the audio code and how close we are to making this variable world into a real product. A product that will be done in two ways, manually & by automation. According to them I'm the father of the variable tuned system and the designing pioneer of the tunable audio chain. Kinda made me feel good after all these years :)

They showed me what their plans are, and how they will carry them out with the next generation of listeners. I'll be honest if they pull off with programing what I am doing physically it's game over. Who will be able to resist sitting in their chair and have a completely automated musical system. That may sound like the attempts at DSP, but this is way beyond any audiophile dream. We're talking about the day when Jack can voice command his system to put him in the very studio as the recording, and add any kind of changed command to that recording. Either way, me and people like me doing it manually or people doing it by programs there's little room for the "fixed" world on any level except what will become the audiophile collector.

So here I sit listening to what these guys have told me and are showing me, and I them, and it feels very different from what I'm getting from you. You get on my case when I say I've been there or the answers are there, and these guys are doing just that, showing me and I them the answers. Not talking about mysteries that can't be understood like you are saying. Is it that we are all so full of ourselves and the millions of products companies like Qualcomm are putting out to feed the variable world are missing something that you have and we don't? I read geoff listening to a portable tape cassette player and you not showing any system at all and on the flip side a group of many who can't wait to share their systems and we are building them together and referencing and I can't help but say something is missing here. Can you understand why I feel this way reading your posts?

If you believe in the recorded code and the need for the playback to match to that code than my case is pretty much made and all of us can go about tuning in recordings. If you don't believe than it is not me against the world at all, but the non-believers against the biggest Hi-tech companies in the world, cause they believe in what I'm doing, even to the point of some folks (not these companies) taking claim for my designing which will go around and come around. Neither here nore there really as long as we all end up in the same place.

So what I'm saying is what are you trying to teach us that we haven't already done? If your going to give that list of products again let me say we have gone so much further than this in the test labs it's not funny, and what I may have not done well enough you can bet when I go to these companies test labs they are nuts about making protos and or programing the most advanced and accurate languages ever written. These aren't audiophile designers ordering out of catalogs or having 30 year old designs built a certain way so they can call it proprietary. These are people building things with the most extreme tolerances ever in history. I read on my thread about build vs sound and have to stop. Do any of these guys own a smart phone? Do they not see what the world is building around them? If they can do all these things with smart technologies for millions of products a day, do we think for one second they can not design and build a mini amp that will blow away the very best? In my question to them this week about why not for the high end, their answer was, why would we do this for maybe 250,000 people max? Nope their goals in audio are far more outreaching and when I had my last meeting with them yesterday they pretty much blew my mind. I could only sit there and smile.

If High End Audio wants to keep pushing the price up there is going to be a quick answer for the hobby of listening when some of these products hit for the masses. And if the old school wants to say they have reference systems well, God bless them enjoy their hobby of collecting equipment.

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

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

geoffkait
geoffkait's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 9 hours ago
Joined: Apr 29 2008 - 5:10am
Deja vu all over again?

Michael wrote,

"They showed me what their plans are, and how they will carry them out with the next generation of listeners. I'll be honest if they pull off with programing what I am doing physically it's game over. Who will be able to resist sitting in their chair and have a completely automated musical system. That may sound like the attempts at DSP, but this is way beyond any audiophile dream. We're talking about the day when Jack can voice command his system to put him in the very studio as the recording, and add any kind of changed command to that recording. Either way, me and people like me doing it manually or people doing it by programs there's little room for the "fixed" world on any level except what will become the audiophile collector."

Just to briefly interject, yes, it does sound like DSP. What's the diff? Way beyond the audiophile dream is what DSP promised, too. I see a pattern.

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

michael green
michael green's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 6 months ago
Joined: Jan 10 2011 - 6:11pm
you'll have to ask them

You'll have to ask them geoffy boy.

But here's a hint. The playback systems are completely different than when the old DSP was out. Back then they were doing things on systems built for other purposes. This time around the systems are all variable smart systems. Before it was phase games (simulations based on sums). Now it's true phase. Major difference. It's not pretend staging but actual staging.

I've been telling you guys it's about the stage, but because some of you don't have one or it's in that small box in your room, your puting your detail and tonal and transparency spins on. And that's cool, but I don't think anyone moving forward is going to want to listen to a stage in a box infront of them. I know Harry Pearson would jump all over what's about to happen cause he and I talked about this years ago. Harry was after the stage, and that meant a 3D stage (all around). This means systems that can get intouch with the original signal, indentify it, and replay it. 30 years ago my friend isn't anything like what is being designed today for the future. The sensory systems are just now being made efficient.

Back in your designing days (going off of your own dates) they had mood rings, now they have...don't be lasy look at the show reports for yourself, you can read I would guess lol. http://tuneland.techno-zone.net/t278-ces-2015-las-vegas

The end of A/B guessing.

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

geoffkait
geoffkait's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 9 hours ago
Joined: Apr 29 2008 - 5:10am
Name calling is so juvenile
michael green wrote:

You'll have to ask them geoffy boy.

But here's a hint. The playback systems are completely different than when the old DSP was out. Back then they were doing things on systems built for other purposes. This time around the systems are all variable smart systems. Before it was phase games (simulations based on sums). Now it's true phase. Major difference. It's not pretend staging but actual staging.

I've been telling you guys it's about the stage, but because some of you don't have one or it's in that small box in your room, your puting your detail and tonal and transparency spins on. And that's cool, but I don't think anyone moving forward is going to want to listen to a stage in a box infront of them. I know Harry Pearson would jump all over what's about to happen cause he and I talked about this years ago. Harry was after the stage, and that meant a 3D stage (all around). This means systems that can get intouch with the original signal, indentify it, and replay it. 30 years ago my friend isn't anything like what is being designed today for the future. The sensory systems are just now being made efficient.

Back in your designing days (going off of your own dates) they had mood rings, now they have...don't be lasy look at the show reports for yourself, you can read I would guess lol. http://tuneland.techno-zone.net/t278-ces-2015-las-vegas

The end of A/B guessing.

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

I can do without the geoffy boy. I don't call pretty boy, do I? Or Fabio.

Let me guess. You drink a lot of coffee, right?

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

Pages

  • X