You are here

Log in or register to post comments
michael green
michael green's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 8 months ago
Joined: Jan 10 2011 - 6:11pm
New World

Hi May, now your talking :) I would love to reference New World with you.

Which recording?

I got my collection all over the place cause I bought out a few collections but let me know and I'll find it or run out and get the one you want to reference.

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

iosiP
iosiP's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 years 3 months ago
Joined: Jan 12 2014 - 4:41pm
May, a tweak should be (almost) universal

I love "earth colors", my living/listening room is painted banana-yellow except for the front wall (the one with the speakers) which is painted green. Furniture is... well, wood and upholstery is light brown with China-green accents.
A good friend has his living room (also doubling as listening room) all white with the front wall a muted magenta, all-white furniture with light blue upholstery.

Our systems are very similar (same brands but different models) and both have a "family" sound. However, when listening at his place I tend to choose different records than when listening at home and he does the same when listening at my place. The reason is clearly psychological: in his home I feel like in an artificial bubble (very cozy but still artificial) while he feels like "in the open woods" in my home (I also love open spaces and have a whole glass wall for plenty of light).

So YES, we all are affected by color, YES, I don't know exactly why and how but NO, there is no universal recipe as to what colors will make each one of us feel better or worse. So basically this is my main grip with your approach: you're recommending THE SAME specific colors for all people and trust me, it plain doesn't work!

michael green
michael green's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 8 months ago
Joined: Jan 10 2011 - 6:11pm
light

Hi Costin

I use to get picked on when I would show up at trades or recordings with my 25 watt amber bulbs and paper shades. I think I've been doing that for well over 30 some years now, oh gosh, longer than that. Getting old LOL.

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

geoffkait
geoffkait's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 days 17 hours ago
Joined: Apr 29 2008 - 5:10am
When you listen do you see colors?
iosiP wrote:

I love "earth colors", my living/listening room is painted banana-yellow except for the front wall (the one with the speakers) which is painted green. Furniture is... well, wood and upholstery is light brown with China-green accents.
A good friend has his living room (also doubling as listening room) all white with the front wall a muted magenta, all-white furniture with light blue upholstery.

Our systems are very similar (same brands but different models) and both have a "family" sound. However, when listening at his place I tend to choose different records than when listening at home and he does the same when listening at my place. The reason is clearly psychological: in his home I feel like in an artificial bubble (very cozy but still artificial) while he feels like "in the open woods" in my home (I also love open spaces and have a whole glass wall for plenty of light).

So YES, we all are affected by color, YES, I don't know exactly why and how but NO, the is no universal recipe as to what colors will make each one of us feel better or worse. So basically this is my main grip with your approach: you're recommending THE SAME specific colors for all people and trust me, it plain doesn't work!

Just curious, when you're curled up in that big overstuffed chair I picture you in and listening to oh I don't know something like Michael Jackson or Phil Collins or Huey Lewis and the News do you see in colors? You know, like brown or ochre or maybe burnt sienna?

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

iosiP
iosiP's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 years 3 months ago
Joined: Jan 12 2014 - 4:41pm
Funny you mention this, Michael
michael green wrote:

Hi Costin

I use to get picked on when I would show up at trades or recordings with my 25 watt amber bulbs and paper shades. I think I've been doing that for well over 30 some years now, oh gosh, longer than that. Getting old LOL.

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

I have a RGB LED lamp that I use while listening during the night. I keep the dimmer low and I found that the best color for listening is... you guessed it: amber.
LOL indeed!

iosiP
iosiP's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 years 3 months ago
Joined: Jan 12 2014 - 4:41pm
But this is not a fixed taste

My friend (the one I was writing about) prefers cyan... I hate it! Just makes me look for ghosts in the room :)

May Belt
May Belt's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 years 7 months ago
Joined: May 8 2006 - 1:51am
>>> “So YES, we are all

>>> “So YES, we are all affected by color, YES, I don't know exactly why and how but NO, the is no universal recipe as to what colors will make each one of us feel better or worse. So basically this is my main grip with your approach: you're recommending THE SAME specific colors for all people and trust me, it plain doesn't work!” <<<

IsoiP. Let me try to go through the points you raise.

So, we are now in agreement that we are all affected by colour !! And, that reaction can ‘change the sound’.

I would describe what you have – in your room and what your friend has – in his room - has evolved, over time, to put each of you “at ease” in your own personal environment !!!!!! I also think that if you introduced what I would call ‘an alien colour (to you)’, your sound would be perceived as worse. You might even become restless and fidget until you did something else which brought a ‘state of equilibrium’ back again.

Now comes the backbone of my argument – particularly with Michael. Michael talks about ‘tuning’ the vibrations, ‘tuning’ the signal, “tuning the recorded code” and so on BUT, isoiP, IF the colours are NOT affecting either the signal or the acoustics, then one could have ‘adverse colours’,(i.e ‘adverse conditions’) in the listening environment which Michael insists CAN BE resolved by his “variable tuning” and ONLY by his “variable tuning” !!! That his truth is THE truth, that his method is THE method and that his answer is THE answer – to QUOTE his own words !!!!!!!!!!

So, just to give one quite probable example of what I mean. The CD has colours on the label side. Multiple colours, sometimes quite psychedelic !!. Then it is a plastic (chemical mix), aluminium and plastic layered disc. Then it is spinning horrendously in an electromagnetic field, in the very listening room the human being is sitting – attempting to relax and listen to it and to resolve the complex musical information !! Could there be a possibility – a strong possibility – that some people’s dislike of the sound of CDs as opposed to other forms of recorded playback be because of how THEY are reacting to them ??????????????????? So, if they are reacting so, then that problem is there – whenever they are listening to certain CDs – and nothing to do with the actual way it was recorded !! So, taking that concept a bit further. If that could be the case, then attempting to recover the situation – somewhere in the audio system – or later in the actual listening room would be pointless. Because the original problem would STILL BE THERE !! So, I attempt to describe such a situation as ‘working with one’s hand tied behind ones back’ if one thinks one can correct this situation by doing something later in the system. One could be chasing something by going round and round in circles. This is why I challenge Michael on his “variable tuning is the ONLY solution” and when he discourages people actually experimenting by ‘treating’ CDs etc. I will quote Greg Weaver again and his review of the UltraBit Platinumin Plus chemical. Read it again isoiP and see if you could glimpse the possibility that this certain chemical MIGHT be part of the solution !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Might calm the situation down a bit ????

What I have before asked you to do is to “throw an intellectual switch” and look at a situation differently.

YOU may not have had the experience yet, but we are all similarly affected by different chemicals and different chemical mixtures, present in the listening environment. And, that reaction can also ‘change the sound’.

We don’t know definitive answers as to HOW and WHERE but we can all make an educated guess that those different colours and those different chemical mixtures CAN’T be “having an effect on the audio signal travelling through the audio equipment” and CAN’T be “having an effect on the acoustic air pressure waves in the room” – but yet they are “changing the sound” !!

So, we have things in the listening environment which we (human beings) are reacting to and those reactions “affect the sound” !!! BUT don’t affect the signal OR the acoustics !!!

So, IF one is prepared to THINK about such things and think further than the end of one’s nose, then more and more and more questions appear. Questions which you admit you don’t know the answers to but my constant problem with Michael is that he has repeatedly claimed that he has “done the questions and got the answers”

>>> “My friend (the one I was writing about) prefers cyan... I hate it! Just makes me look for ghosts in the room :)” <<<

Just imagine, isoiP, that there is someone who HAS the colour cyan, in his listening room, and DOES NOT realise that he might be reacting adversely to it. But, at the same time, is struggling to ‘tune’ (the recorded code) his sound to his liking when ‘tuning’ cannot do anything for THAT basic problem of his reaction to that colour. You cannot ‘tune out’ the effect of a colour - or ‘tune out’ the effect of a particular chemical. I am NOT saying that Michael cannot make improvements in sound by altering things in anyone’s listening environment, but ‘variable tuning, ‘tuning the recorded code’ is not THE answer or THE truth which is what he claims !!!

Until we start asking questions and attempting to get some of the answers, we won’t achieve hearing the wealth of the musical information which IS already ON the recording – which we are not resolving correctly.

And, I haven’t even touched on the subject of the different chemical mixtures and different colours of the insulation material around all cables, including AC power cords !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! All of which are in everyone’s listening environment.

Regards,
May Belt,
PWB Electronics.

iosiP
iosiP's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 years 3 months ago
Joined: Jan 12 2014 - 4:41pm
May, basically we are on the same wavelenght

Except I only believe in the effect of visible colors, not of "hidden" colors.
But still...
My CD collection is over 2,000 (actually approaching 3,000) and I have no way of remembering what color - or combination of colors - is on every record. Therefore, if I ask someone else (my wife) to put a specific CD in the player I cannot be affected by the label... most of the time, not even by the colors on the jewel box since I don't get to see them. And this is my gripe with your statements: that we can be affected by things we are not conscious about and that cannot manifest themselves in a way that is accessible to our senses.

Best regards,
Costin

michael green
michael green's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 8 months ago
Joined: Jan 10 2011 - 6:11pm
the amber club

I've met a lot of serious listeners over the years that adjust their lighting much like someone would adjust their volume.

Again I think if May could somehow back away from trying to make whatever point she is trying that others don't get, she would find that much of what she talks about is something that many practice, with the exception that it's more of a variable with unique designing for individuals. Not something you can point to as a snap shot for more than that moment. Listening is an action, not a still.

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

michael green
michael green's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 8 months ago
Joined: Jan 10 2011 - 6:11pm
your goofy in the brain May LOL

may said

"Just imagine, isoiP, that there is someone who HAS the colour cyan, in his listening room, and DOES NOT realise that he might be reacting adversely to it. But, at the same time, is struggling to ‘tune’ (the recorded code) his sound to his liking when ‘tuning’ cannot do anything for THAT basic problem of his reaction to that colour. You cannot ‘tune out’ the effect of a colour - or ‘tune out’ the effect of a particular chemical. I am NOT saying that Michael cannot make improvements in sound by altering things in anyone’s listening environment, but ‘variable tuning, ‘tuning the recorded code’ is not THE answer or THE truth which is what he claims !!!"

OMG May LOL!!!!!!

you really have no idea what we do LOL

If a client wants to get involved in their hearing color chart we most certainly do get involved in this. Many audiophiles don't get to this point (as many lean toward engineer types and not artistic types) and many aren't using that part of their brains or may fined it hard to get into the Vibe of colors, but we do paint types and listening color charts for people, but the client has to be able to spend the money to have this done cause it does take time and some effort. I did talk about our testings in the white room if anyone wants to look at it or ask questions http://tuneland.techno-zone.net/t217p90-stereophile-forum . I'm happy to share in the types of things we do, but one thing you must know about me. I'm not going to come up here and start talking colors in a way that I have people start looking at me crazy. I'd rather wait for the right times for topics and discussions. When I come up here and see that most are not understanding what the recorded code even is, I'm at that point not sure just how deep I want to go on any topic to be honest. I don't like dealing with flamers, they upset my harmony, not into that.

back to color charts

There are several different types of color charts used for people, from making them look their best and perform their best. I was maybe 15 or so before I was to my first color chart reading, but it's something I have done pretty much all my life, for the senses and all types of things. I don't always follow them as I should for health but concerning my listening I'm pretty up on it.

listening charts

It takes about a week to figure out some main charting, but again as a part of tuning it can take quite a while to get this part figured out. Most people we deal with go as far as the variable audio methods but we're into color charts, lighting and climate control as well. All of the senses fit under tuning.

Again as I mentioned earlier we are also exploring the monitoring systems so these things can be more automated, and we have already been designing (proto R&Ding) color adjustments.

Our idea of tuning as I have been saying is based more on a whole than a part or fixed, however you've got to have a market or your spending your money on something that is easier to wait on the bigger companies to do, and do the marketing on. But, as you and now the others have probably guessed we are in the process of being a part of mood rooms and systems.

You know, all you had to do in the beginning of talking to us was ask specifics and we would have told you what we are up to (within reason), instead you started off with telling us we don't go deep enough when in fact we have been working on these projects for many years now.

I wish I could find (don't know if they even aired it) the VH1 Sight & Sound show we taped. It got into the senses and also showed the Mood Room I designed for the sound lounge which was an experimental studio that had built in variables for the song writers, including sound, lighting, colors and adjustable seating. Some called it the "Chill Room" which I thought was pretty cool.

Listening to me is a full body and sensory experience. Designing mood rooms is pretty interesting and even though May says these guys aren't up on technology they are actually quite advanced. There's a wide range to take into account though with designing these systems and I would guess this is why you don't see an explosion in the marketing end, but if you look closer, or as May says "deeper" you will see certain colors being favored more and more in marketing which is a huge R&D industry.

Are you guys familar with Green Screening for example? It's been around a long time, but marketed subtly. I happened to do some tuning for the Bugs Bunny foley room, and they had some Green Screen rooms so I got a full six weeks of foley and screening effects. Basically in the audio and video realm there are constant studies on mood modes that make us react certain ways, when watching and hearing something. All movies for maybe 40 years or so now are pretty advanced in these technologies, and recently I have seen a technology that monitors your physical ratings and can run you through a series of variables that point to your specifics in color charting. This is not new technology but the health market has put some big bucks behind wearables. You can monitor your Mom's health status on your smart phones. The demo that was shown to me was so exact that it could alert you on your phone when your loved ones were about to loose their balance and fall, that's pretty darn advanced May.

There's all kinds of applications including the entertainment field. This has been studied for years in theatres, used to keep the movie watcher in their seats longer therefore giving a more positive viewpoint on the film.

My personal hangup with May is a simple one. All this stuff is very common with a little research and she is treating it as un-answerd questions almost as if she has not researched what as I say "the rest of the world is doing". Maybe because I'm in the music and sight producing end of this, to me it's common knowledge but to her maybe she has not been exposed to these things. I'm not trying to judge as much as figure out how May is not up on these studies and has to challenge me to give up names on things that have been around with companies like Warner Brothers and literaly hundreds of others all over the place. I mean go to any major film company and they use color charting, same with any big company that does TV marketing. Health companies doing research, all kinds of engineers who are up on this specific study.

I have no idea why May comes back to me saying "I'm not going deep enough" when to me, these things are extremely common and all around us, from the products we buy, to the movies we watch, to the concert halls we listen in.

May, I hope you understand that puting colored dots on items in a room is something that has and is being perfected many times over in the world. I know you keep trying to paint a picture of what I do for whatever reason but I have no Earthly idea why. If I want to learn more about color charts and audio I'll go spend time with one of my clients who do these things for a living, not someone pasting colored dots on their furmiture and applying finishes throughout the room.

You point at me as if I think I know everything and all I can say is the learning never stops and technology is always marching forward. This is what tuning is May. Not just michael green products but an entire method. One that is big enough for all who can get their minds around the variables we live in, and are exposed to every day.

For a person who talks about opening up peoples minds, you certainly demonstrate what I see as a lot of close-mindedness.

When this is all said and done your going to point back to your question of me nore anyone having all the answers. Don't confuse this question and my answer of "being there done that" specifically concerning what you have done be twisted into another meaning. From what I have read so far, I truly have not seen yours and Geoff's advanced technologies being any more than old news. I don't say that to be mean, but to be honest. It's good that you have found these things to work for you and be apart of the big picture for the learning curve in your mind, but we must not think that the worlds collective learning stops with just our one singular brain. The whole idea of my life's work is to not stop, but to keep exploring. Keep learning and digging away at every days explorations.

Tuning is not about one way and was not created by michael. Tuning was created by nature and is a part of every thing that happens as long as this Earth keeps spinning and we keep breathing.

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

michael green
michael green's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 8 months ago
Joined: Jan 10 2011 - 6:11pm
my other answer

here's my other answer to this question or statement

"Just imagine, isoiP, that there is someone who HAS the colour cyan, in his listening room, and DOES NOT realise that he might be reacting adversely to it. But, at the same time, is struggling to ‘tune’ (the recorded code) his sound to his liking when ‘tuning’ cannot do anything for THAT basic problem of his reaction to that colour. You cannot ‘tune out’ the effect of a colour - or ‘tune out’ the effect of a particular chemical. I am NOT saying that Michael cannot make improvements in sound by altering things in anyone’s listening environment, but ‘variable tuning, ‘tuning the recorded code’ is not THE answer or THE truth which is what he claims !!!"

May, we are not in the business of just imagining, I don't no about you.

I deal with listeners listening every day. I don't treat them as random dot result research gini pigs, and I don't sell them products without a mission in mind. That mission is to help them get to their unique place in this hobby, or with a performance, or a recording, not to tell them "well it made a change". My world is far more sophisticated than some guy trying to sell his magically treated portable CD & Cassette Players, while he bashes the very format he is peddling. I have a lot more respect for my craft and myself and my clients.

Now that we have un-masked these "advanced concepts" so all of us can see more clearly the different points of view, maybe we can get more on a moving forward page and if anything, start doing some listening together. It's so much more fun doing than all these winded discussions. I'm so sick of even hearing myself talk, I'm thinking about not even eating together with me and me :)

The not so odd part for me is, about 8 months ago I could see where you guys were going to take these talks and I was trying to figure out how to get you there sooner than later.

What I do like however is the question above and think the industry needs to become more advanced in their thinking. The variables seems to be a word, along with tuning and vibrations that you bring up that seems like you would like to talk about in a way differently than I do.

When I talk about these words I do a lot of referencing so to stay within a simple understanding for both me and the people I talk to. I don't often run into someone who rejects these words. When things settle down and hopefully we all get closer to the same page, we could explore these words and you could present your words that you would (for your peers) like to use instead.

For myself "varying" "vibration" and "tuning" covers the action side of this hobby physically. You like the word "chemical" and I dig that too. And if you like chemical you probably like "reaction" as well. Those are all areas that are not so hard to blend together. There are other words no doubt that are helpful, but what I would like to do more than anything at this point is to get past the understanding of "tuning". You view tuning as not being "THE" answer as you have put it. I view tuning as absolutely the answer. So somewhere in there is a place where I can see you are thinking I'm using "tuning" as a fixed tweak, and I would like you to see "tuning" through a different set of eyes. Tuning to me is the action of getting to any place by any means and being able to make any change. It's not a statement of sound, or a statement of completion. Tuning is a method in which all variables can be into or out of order, or varying degrees of order. It's not particular to any fixed context other than all that involves the structure of effect.

In context TuneLand is about the method, the tools and the journey of tuning music. The R&D end for the record never ends nore should it. Every new recording presents a new code to tune in. Same with every ear or every mood that listens to that recording. We don't view "The Tune" as a fixed place, but more the place for any potential. We're not audio segregationist. We believe music and man have a relationship that is open to exploring any and all avenues, and we make some of the products to get there and as we find more inside of the recording that can be uncovered we go after doing so.

This has mainly been my baby only because I have pushed it, from my end and experience. But tuning in no way belongs to MG, nore should you or anyone think that I sit on my cloud judging what others should be doing, or the end result. That's something not mine to give. I can only be faithful to the craft as I have learned it. I don't make products to sell, I make products to get people where they are trying to go. The sales part is a completely different job. A job that I try to have fun with, to get the attention needed.

Tuning is without a doubt the answer to something sounding in-tune or out of tune, and that means no limits on any forms of tuning, only the time to get to all the variables. You say I haven't looked at everything, and I say show me what I have not looked at. That's all I can do. I can't make you or anyone believe in my experience or training or occupation. That's not my job. My job is to do and offer it to those who wish to try, and be there for them on their journey, if they would like for me to be. I have no idea why these threads have gone the way they have or why you and geoff feel it important to face off on someone like me who is not pushing their own sound, but instead pushing in all ways. Why you and geoff would oppose me instead of befriending me is incomprehensible, unless you are yourselves pushing something that only gives "a" sound instead of what Costin suggest "a universal tweak". I'm after being able to get as close to all recordings as possible. Why you and geoff are spending so much time and energy against this looks like very little more than an ego issue.

The question is this, way on Earth would you and geoff want to take tuning away from music? Both of you have spent an awful lot of time trying to discredit the very technology that makes music work. It's like I'm looking at the both of you, going "what the heck is your problem". You make tweaks for cryin out loud, that means you believe in tuning. I again have no idea why you both would want to cut yourselves off from tuning.

sorry makes no sense to me

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

iosiP
iosiP's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 years 3 months ago
Joined: Jan 12 2014 - 4:41pm
Michael, there are some amazing thing science does with colors

One of my listening buddies is an architect (well, more of an interior designer). He showed me the same virtual room on a big projection screen and just changed the color palette according to my preferences. That was amazing!
I'm sure the simulation could get even better with support from virtual reality: putting on your VR glasses and "seeing" like you're in the middle of the room, then simply ask for your preferred colors in order to assess the result. I'm sure one day this will be available in the real world also, at least for dedicated listening rooms where everything would just be neutral (shades of gray) under standard lighting conditions but would change colors according to the listener's preferences once the windows are covered.

N.B. Some purple shades pulsating to the rhythm of heartbeats from DSOTM would be real cool!

May Belt
May Belt's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 years 7 months ago
Joined: May 8 2006 - 1:51am
Wavelength

>>> “May, basically we are on the same wavelenght

Except I only believe in the effect of visible colors, not of "hidden" colors.” <<<

So, are you actually saying that we (human beings) are NOT sensitive to anything else which cannot be detected by the five senses, Hearing, sight, smell, touch or taste ?????????????

>>> “And this is my gripe with your statements: that we can be affected by things we are not conscious about and that cannot manifest themselves in a way that is accessible to our senses.” <<<

A colour is a colour and will have a specific frequency. And therefore the colour left (showing) will be the frequency not absorbed by the object or surface – so, surely, the frequency left will be there – in the room, whether YOU can see it visibly or not. That frequency will be in the room, or on the CD which is playing – even though you have not SEEN the colours on it’s label side.

So, yes, I do say that we (human beings) CAN be affected by things we are not conscious about !!!

Are you saying that if YOU are used to the “feel” of a particular favourite room and someone else has decorated that room with different colours since you were last there, and you walk into that room IN THE DARK, you would not ‘sense’ a change ?? To use an expression, you might not be able to ‘put your finger on’ what that change is, but I suggest that you would “feel” a change.

But, Costin, it would not be from your sense of sight, or from your sense of taste, or from your sense of hearing or from your sense of smell or from your sense of touch !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You don’t have very far to go, Costin, before you and I ARE on the same wavelength.

Now, THAT would be interesting !!!

>>> “I do admit the printed label of CDs can affect the sound (there is a simple scientific explanation to that)” <<<

And, you DID promise that you would give me this “simple scientific explanation” !!

Regards,
May Belt,
PWB Electronics.

May Belt
May Belt's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 years 7 months ago
Joined: May 8 2006 - 1:51am
colours

>>> “I've met a lot of serious listeners over the years that adjust their lighting much like someone would adjust their volume.
Again I think if May could somehow back away from trying to make whatever point she is trying that others don't get, she would find that much of what she talks about is something that many practice, with the exception that it's more of a variable with unique designing for individuals.“ <<<

Of course there are many, many people who adjust their lighting to which best suits them AND which may change the sound. I don’t dispute that fact that they DO such things.

Of course many practice it, Michael, I am not disputing that either. But, you are asking me to “back away” from asking the questions:-

WHERE is the sound being changed ?

HOW is the sound being changed ?

What I am saying is that IF it changes the sound, then one has to ask WHERE is it changing the sound and HOW is it changing the sound. We are talking audio here – meaning “sound”, meaning “complex musical information”.

One does not “back away” from asking questions relevant to audio, when one is in a discussion group discussing audio – i.e listening to music !!

>>> “including the entertainment field. This has been studied for years in theatres, used to keep the movie watcher in their seats longer therefore giving a more positive viewpoint on the film.
My personal hangup with May is a simple one. All this stuff is very common with a little research and she is treating it as un-answerd questions almost as if she has not researched what as I say "the rest of the world is doing". Maybe because I'm in the music and sight producing end of this, to me it's common knowledge but to her maybe she has not been exposed to these things. I'm not trying to judge as much as figure out how May is not up on these studies and has to challenge me to give up names on things that have been around with companies like Warner Brothers and literaly hundreds of others all over the place. I mean go to any major film company and they use color charting, same with any big company that does TV marketing. Health companies doing research, all kinds of engineers who are up on this specific study.

I have no idea why May comes back to me saying "I'm not going deep enough" when to me, these things are extremely common and all around us, from the products we buy, to the movies we watch, to the concert halls we listen in. “ <<<

You are BACK AGAIN, Michael, with your “It’s all common knowledge”. “The rest of the world is doing”.

>>> “to me, these things are extremely common and all around us, from the products we buy, to the movies we watch, to the concert halls we listen in. “ <<<

>>> “and has to challenge me to give up names on things that have been around with companies like Warner Brothers and literaly hundreds of others all over the place. I mean go to any major film company and they use color charting, same with any big company that does TV marketing. Health companies doing research, all kinds of engineers who are up on this specific study. “ <<<

Not one of those references Michael, is to anyone providing us with the answers to the questions :-

WHERE is the SOUND being changed from exposure to the different colours ?

HOW is the SOUND being changed from exposure to the different colours ?

Everything you refer to is just a list of people using colours – with your usual “literally hundreds of others all over the place”.

That is what you do, Michael, throw an extensive list, into the discussion, of people DOING this and DOING that but NOT giving the answers to the questions I keep asking you.

What on earth has the reference to major film companies using color charting to do with how colours affect the SOUND ?

We are talking SOUND, Michael.

Regards,
May Belt,
PWB Electronics.

geoffkait
geoffkait's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 days 17 hours ago
Joined: Apr 29 2008 - 5:10am
The color purple

Ok, let me just interject a couple things. One is the color purple and it's use in coloring CDs. The color purple can be used to color the outer edge of a CD for improved sound. Yet the color purple doesn't really compute as it were with what''s going on in the CD player with the scattered laser light, you know, what with the current idea that the light is RED. This is why science would have a difficult time explaining purple, perhaps even GREEN. think it's interesting when people say science can explain it as if there are folks out there somewhere that explain this stuff in nice easy to understand scientific ways. But I digress. So, the color purple is an interesting color in this discussion of coloring CDs since it's mysterious. Going further, the color purple,can be used similarly to improve the sound of LP, by coloring the outer edge of the LP. The color purple can also be used to improve cassettes by coloring the rear vertical section of the cassette. Help, where are those scientists?

The color black is not without controversy. The color black should only be used on the inner edge of the CD. In that location the color black improves the sound. But the color black will degrade the sound when used on any other area of the CD. And quite frankly the black used for CD TRAYs is actually very bad for the sound. Cyan is much better. Where is science when you need them? Maybe we can all chip in together and issue a contract to NASA or MIT or SOMEBODY, who in the hell will do it? To study the effect of colors on the sound. Are you kidding me?

The color ORANGE can also be used to improve the sound of CDs yet cannot be explained by science. Maybe one of Michael's NASA or ballistic missile buds can help us out. Lol Another anomaly is the strange case of the Mercury Living Presence classical CDs that were issued back in the 90s. The Mercury CDs are interesting because they do not respond well at all to the color green or Cyan - it makes them sound worse! But they do respond well to the color RED which, gentle readers, I'm sorry to have to say makes absolutely no sense. One clue, and it's only a clue, is that all of the Mercury Living Presence CDs have labels that are half black and half white.

Some other use of color that I use are the colors black and blue for certain areas of cassettes and of course special green magnetic dots for room ceiling and blue versions of the same thing for room walls, one per wall. I also was using ORANGE magnetic dots and RED magnetic dots for my Clever Little Clock on the front and back respectively for most of the past ten years. Has it really been that long? I now use a more universal multicolor thingie where the ORANGE and RED dots used to be. That way the clock can use the color it wants to and ignore the rest.

We have only skimmed the surface of a very deep lake, gentle readers. There are colors for glass, colors for wood, colors for steel, colors for aluminum, colors for AC, colors. Any Yutz with ears can glom on to the idea that cyan is beneficial to the sound, right, since cyan is Red's complement. But how these other colors work is a different story, no? I'm not even broaching the subject of the invisible portion of the laser spectrum, you know, after all the laser wavelength is 780 nm, solidly in the infrared invisible portion of light, and not subject to treatment by the color cyan. Yet people like Michael swallow the green pen explanation without so much as a blink of the eye.

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

May Belt
May Belt's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 years 7 months ago
Joined: May 8 2006 - 1:51am
>>> “your goofy in the brain

>>> “your goofy in the brain May LOL” <<<

My emphasis was not on the concept that one can deliberately do colour charts for people. My emphasis was on the fact that IF people are NOT aware of the effect of colours on ‘sound’, then they could have ‘adverse colours’ unknowingly in their listening room, adversely affecting the sound, and then be chasing better sound’ with one hand tied behind their back’ !!

If some people ARE aware of the effect on the sound of different colours, then that is OK for them, they are aware !!

But, Michael, then you suggest that after talking with certain engineers at the latest CES, they were telling you that at some time in the future, “Jack will be able to voice command his system”.

>>> “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.” <<<

Will Jack be able to “voice command his system” to deal with any adverse effect of certain colours on his sound ???

>>> “back to your question of me nore anyone having all the answers. Don't confuse this question and my answer of "being there done that" specifically concerning what you have done be twisted into another meaning.” <<<

I am NOT twisting anything. You are at it again, misquoting me !!

I haven’t twisted your “being there, done that” into another meaning. I have actually quoted YOUR OWN WORDS. I will repeat YOUR OWN WORDS yet again,

>>> “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. “ <<<

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

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

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

Michael, I don’t doubt that you have investigated colours but investigating colours and that they can change the sound DOES NOT explain HOW and WHERE that sound, that complex musical information is being changed !!!

Again, all you have done is to list your experiments. I don’t doubt that you have experimented. I don’t doubt that others have experimented but if the ‘sound’ can be changed, with a colour or colours, then WHERE and HOW is it being changed ?

If you think a colour changes the audio signal travelling through the audio system, which then changes the sound, then please say so.

If you think a colour changes the musical information which has been presented into the room by the loudspeakers and has become acoustic information, then please say so.

If you have any other explanation, then please give it.

If you don’t know WHERE and HOW the musical information is being changed, then please say you DON’T KNOW. That you DON’T HAVE THOSE ANSWERS !!

Then we can move on from that point. Unfortunately, all you keep saying is that you have ‘done this, done that, asked the questions and got the answers’. And, even more, that “the world has moved on” – when I know perfectly well that in some respects, the world of audio HAS NOT MOVED ON.

>>> “I'm not going to come up here and start talking colors in a way that I have people start looking at me crazy. I'd rather wait for the right times for topics and discussions.” <<<

We are talking about WHAT AFFECTS SOUND, Michael. Surely WHAT AFFECTS SOUND is completely relevant in discussions regarding ‘sound’ and the complexities of music. !!

And, we haven’t even started on the effect – on the sound - of different chemicals and different chemical mixtures.

i.e 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.

>>> “I truly have not seen yours and Geoff's advanced technologies being any more than old news. I don't say that to be mean, but to be honest. It's good that you have found these things to work for you and be apart of the big picture for the learning curve in your mind, but we must not think that the worlds collective learning stops with just our one singular brain. The whole idea of my life's work is to not stop, but to keep exploring. Keep learning and digging away at every days explorations.” <<<

You are again presuming that WE are NOT STILL exploring. That you are the only one STILL exploring !! Surely trying to explore HOW and WHERE the sound, the musical information, is being changed by different colours, by different chemicals, is AS MUCH exploring as your ‘tuning’ ?

>>> “The question is this, way on Earth would you and geoff want to take tuning away from music?” <<<

Michael, you are again making the most outrageous presumptions – that we want to take tuning away from music !!

>>> “You like the word "chemical" and I dig that too. And if you like chemical you probably like "reaction" as well. Those are all areas that are not so hard to blend together.” <<<

You can’t blend them together, Michael, until you KNOW HOW they are affecting the sound and WHERE they are affecting the sound.

You can’t blend our reaction to different chemicals and to different colours with your ‘variable tuning’ if you don’t KNOW some of the basic answers. If you don’t know the answers, then all you would be doing is encouraging random efforts !!

THAT is why I CHALLENGE your constant “My truth is THE truth, MY answer is THE answer and My Method is THE method.” You can’t have THE answer, only ONE answer amongst other answers in the general scheme of things.

Regards,
May Belt,
PWB Electronics.

geoffkait
geoffkait's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 days 17 hours ago
Joined: Apr 29 2008 - 5:10am
Deja vu all over again

This is actually nothing more than a repeat of the Ethan Winer fiasco we experienced here on this very forum only a few years ago. Ethan also was endowed with a lot of the same endearing qualities as Michael such as accusing the other manufacturer(s) of lying, accusing the other manufacturer of speaking out of both sides of his mouth, accusing the other manufacturer of falsely representing his education and or work background, claiming to be familiar with the other manufacturer's products, claiming to obtain negative results with the products of other manufacturers, and accusing other manufacturers of disobeying the laws of science. We've seen this movie before. How low can he go is the only question. Time will tell.

You can take the boy out of the briar patch but you can't take the briar hopper out of the boy.

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

michael green
michael green's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 8 months ago
Joined: Jan 10 2011 - 6:11pm
research

Hi Costin

Something that I have learned since moving to vegas is the wealth of conventions and training sessions that are available. When I got here I was given a press pass because of having this forum. Since then they send me seminar events. I had no idea how many conventions big and small were here and the info that is available. When I arrived in 2004 I had a project right off the batt, designing a studio and my job was to go over the plans and review what the other designers were doing. Going to my first Vegas building convention completely changed the direction of the project. If someone has a topic that involves tech-talk Vegas is a goldmine.

I just wrapped up the NAMM show, which was pretty cool. I couldn't go this year but had my spies there, it's in Cali. I like the trade shows better here, cause I get more of an insiders look, and if I want to do something after, all I have to do is hook up with the teams of people who are working on projects.

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

michael green
michael green's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 8 months ago
Joined: Jan 10 2011 - 6:11pm
backing away

Hi May

What I'm saying is no need to throw everything all at once in one post. I'm (now that there is a base) willing to go through things in not such a rush. I truly don't want to twist words, but I also need fair exchanges and not some of the spins. Goeff does this far more than you, but because you are both on these threads and there is only so much time it's easy for things to get lumped together, and honestly everytime I have to come here to deal with geoff's antics, it takes away from productive conversations.

As I have said early no one here has to take posturing cause that only breeds more of the same and takes away from quality time. So if less and less of the antics take place more and more of the discussions can. There's no need to spend time defending the challenges. With intelligence comes understanding through sharing, and sides don't have to be made when there really are no sides, there's only learning curves and the pathes taken by the ones who wish to learn.

If there is a divide, it's over things like doing. I don't believe in real time talk without real time walk. I also don't think that one sided presentations of naming reviewers comments is very open minded without further "doing" from those who have certain opinions just as valid.

such as

http://sound.westhost.com/madashell9.htm

R&D should never stop and start with a few writers who write about new products every month. They're magazine writers not experts in all fields audio. That's why they write "about" products and don't design them. There are as many levels of reviewers out there as there are chefs on "Chopped". Some of them do probably possess "golden ears", but their main job is to bring product and do basic testing and reporting. They may be, but it's not their job to be scientist, designers or R&D specialist. It is their job, at least in part, to sell magazines by from what I have seen, mostly based on stock, with a few exceptions.

As for myself, when someone makes a statement I (if involved in some way) usually start a shopping list to do my own testing. I'm usually pretty thorough, so even on things as simple as listening to Cassette players or colored dots, or C37 and others, I do somewhat of a lab of my own and read up on others testing. I don't so much care about quick audiophile A/B testing and you can usually find others who have gone further into the process. C37 is an easy one, cause one I have it here and two have tested it along side many other products and methods. So I know for a fact, the statements made by the maker have a fair amount of bias built in to the promo of, and when May brought it up it gave me an insight to how far she has gone in her testing, but the more she shares about other finishing products the more we will know about her experience.

The color issue is an interesting one cause I have no doubt what so ever that we have done far more testing in this area based on these post, but again I'm interested in hearing about more of her testing and if need be I'll do more tests based on her method and give my results.

Now we're moving into the materials, and this is an area where I have done tons and tons of testing and so this will be interesting.

Most importantly though I want to make it clear that we are a R&D team of people who thrive on listening testing, so when I see someone not being willing to share in the listening, red flags go up for us all over the place. I know of no design or R&D team anywhere on the planet that only talks about testing and is not involved in real time testing and cross testing with others.

So yes, lets get into these other topics, but as the OP says lets be fair!

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

May Belt
May Belt's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 years 7 months ago
Joined: May 8 2006 - 1:51am
Even longer post

>>> “As I said, it works much better you guys looking like the nuts and me being able to break things down either here or TuneLand in more reasonable ways so others can understand.” <<<

WOW. That statement takes the biscuit – even from you, Michael !!!

>>> “They look at May and see no system.” <<<

Again with the presumptions Michael. Just because I don’t list what equipment we are listening to this week or what music we are listening to this week does not mean that we DON’T have a system or that we are not listening to music.OR that we are not constantly researching !

I have said repeatedly. Intelligent people don’t NEED to know what equipment you are listening to, Michael, when you describe gaining improvements in the sound by moving a transformer out of it’s equipment case !! Improvements which could prompt you to exclaim ““This is some Amazing Schiit!”

Intelligent people don’t NEED to know what equipment Bill (wkhanna) is listening to when he describes ‘treating’ the transformer, inside his equipment, and gaining an improvement in his sound which prompted him to exclaim “This is some Amazing Schiit!”

Either you can tell whether people are “hearing” (resolving more information) or not, from how they describe improvements in their sound as “This is some Amazing Schiit!”

>>> “With intelligence comes understanding through sharing, and sides don't have to be made when there really are no sides, there's only learning curves and the pathes taken by the ones who wish to learn.” <<<

Absolutely brilliant. So, let’s get the intelligence going !! Let’s get on the learning curve.

I will start.

I will first pay homage to Richard Feynman who would tell a story – at the drop of a hat – in an attempt to try to get an idea over !!! So, here goes.

Jack Smith has built up his Hi Fi system gradually, to the best of his ability, getting the best equipment he can afford. When he listens to various discs, like most people he firmly believes that he is hearing (resolving) all that is on the recording – that his equipment is ‘handling’ that information well (at least – hypothetically for this story - 90%). Meaning, to use my alphabet technique, that he believes the (musical) information ABC + DEF through to XYZ must be on the disc and Jack Smith’s equipment must be ‘handling’ that information perfectly OK.

However, Jack Smith, reads on a chat forum, that Michael G has gained significant improvements in his sound by taking the transformer out of it’s case and keeping it outside the equipment. Improvements which prompted Michael G to exclaim “This is some Amazing Schiit!”

Now, if further information is heard (resolved) AFTER the transformer is moved to outside, then that means that PRIOR to moving that transformer, that further information was NOT being heard (resolved correctly). The conventional approach of looking at these results would be that somehow or other, the transformer, when inside the equipment, must have been having an adverse effect on the audio signal travelling through that equipment !!

Then Jack Smith reads that someone else, Bill (wkhanna), has reported ‘treating’ HIS transformer whilst it was INSIDE the equipment housing and also gained an improvement in the sound which prompted him to exclaim “This is some Amazing Schiit!”

The conventional approach of looking at these results would be that somehow or other, the UNTREATED transformer, when inside the equipment, must have been having an adverse effect on the audio signal travelling through that equipment !!

Using my alphabet technique, this means that although information ABC + DEF through to XYZ could be on the disc being played, Michael G and Bill CAN’T have been hearing (resolving correctly) all of it until they did their various ‘treatments’. In other words, they had not – prior to doing the ‘treatments’ – been resolving (say) information MNO. But, after doing the ‘treatment’ they are now resolving information MNO.

Jack Smith now reads on the chat forum another ‘tweak’ which is claimed gives improvements in the sound. He reads that Michael G is recommending adjusting (unravelling) any bunched wires inside equipment to gain improvements in the sound. Jack Smith carries out the recommended techniques and, yes, gains further improvements in the sound. Meaning that PRIOR to doing those treatments, he (Jack Smith) can’t have been hearing (resolving) that further information he is now hearing !!

Using my alphabet technique to denote information, this means that Jack Smith can’t have been hearing (resolving correctly) – say – information JKL – before carrying out that treatment. And, that further information JKL - HAD BEEN ON THE DISC all the time.

The conventional approach of looking at these results would be that ‘possible vibrations’ created, inside the equipment, must have been having an adverse effect on the audio signal travelling through that equipment.

Then Jack Smith reads further reports that placing three of Michael G’s magic wood discs under an item of equipment gives an improvement in the sound. Jack Smith carries out that technique and, yes, hears further improvements in the sound. Again, the conventional explanation would be that ‘vibrations’ must have been having an adverse effect on the audio signal travelling through that equipment.

So, Jack Smith is now, after those three treatments I have described, hearing (resolving correctly) more information MNO + JKL + RST. So, the conclusion is that all that information MNO + JKL+ RST is, there, on the disc, and has been on the disc all the time but was not being heard (resolved) correctly because adverse things are happening to it as it travels through the equipment !!!!!!!

The conventional wisdom, now, would be that one would not be able to hear (RESOLVE) THAT FURTHER INFROMATION MNO + JKL + RST unless one did those ‘treatments’.

Now we have Bill Brown who is Jack’s friend and has identical equipment to Jack which Bill believes can also ‘handle’ all the musical information on the disc.

However, Bill Brown does NOT do the three ‘treatments’ which Jack Smith has done. Bill Brown leaves his equipment ‘untreated’ !! But, he takes advantage of someone doing a personal colour chart for him – selecting colours, for his listening environment, which gives him the best ‘feeling’ and the best enjoyment and improvements in the music he likes listening to.

So, now Bill Brown is hearing improvements in his sound. He is now hearing (resolving correctly) information MNO + RST + JKL. But, wait one moment, wait one moment !!!!! It had been the belief structure that there had been adverse conditions, in that equipment, which had been affecting the audio signal travelling through that equipment and which had been preventing that information MNO + JKL + RST from getting through correctly.

But, for Bill Brown to NOW hear that information MNO + RST + JKL it means that it is already IN the room, MUST HAVE ALREADY BEEN PRESENTED INTO THE ROOM by the loudspeakers, SO must have already been ‘handled’ perfectly OK by the untreated equipment to even reach those loudspeakers !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

A colour, in the room, cannot be affecting the audio signal travelling through the audio equipment, nor can it affect the acoustic information in the room. Which now challenges the conventional belief structure – because the SOUND has changed !!!!!

Which now prompts the Questions to be asked :-

WHERE is the sound being affected, to create those improvements in the sound ? When that information MNO + RST + JKL has just been shown to have been handled perfectly OK by the UNTREATED equipment ?

HOW is the sound being affected ? When that information MNO + RST + JKL has already been shown to have been handled perfectly OK by the UNTREATED equipment ?

Ditto all that - with the effect of SOME specific and different chemicals and different chemical mixtures, of different materials made from different chemical mixtures, in the room, ALSO affecting the SOUND !!!

So, the implication from people’s experiences with those things is that the wealth of further information MNO + RST + JKL is already in the room. Has already been ‘handled’ perfectly OK by the Hi Fi equipment.

So, do we now have the human being involved ? Do we now have the human being reacting to what is going on in their listening environment ? And NOT JUST the audio signal or the acoustics reacting - which is the conventional viewpoint underlying much of audio.

Do we now have the human being and HOW the human being is reacting far more SERIOUSLY INVOLVED in what Michael and I say happens – i.e that EVERYTHING in the environment affects everything and everything that one does in the environment affects the SOUND ??

Both you and I agree on the concept that the wealth of information is THERE, and just has to be coaxed free. YOU say (a high percentage wise) that it is on the recording and one has to match the equipment and the environment to the recording. I say (a high percentage wise) that it is already on the recording and has already been presented into the room by the equipment – and that the very listening environment has to be ‘matched’ to what the human being requires. Which might, yes, require the very equipment to be ‘treated’ – to stop it being adverse just by being there, present, in the listening environment.

The information is already there and then heard (resolved better) by the application of certain colours, or by certain chemicals, or by certain crystals, or by such as the Schumann Resonance device – and extending to such techniques as demagnetising things ??????????????? The whole world is beginning to open up !!

The past 30 years of reports of the most unusual ‘tweaks’ and how they affect the sound should have alerted you, Michael, that something unusual, out of the conventional approach, is ‘going on’.

I am SOOOOOOOOOOOOO pleased you brought up your involvement in the effect of colours in audio !!!!!!!!!!

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

I am not talking here about some people JUST ‘feeling better’ and therefore enjoying their music better. I am talking about them hearing (better resolving) more of the musical information of an orchestra playing the musical score of Dvorak’s New World !!

>>> “The color issue is an interesting one cause I have no doubt what so ever that we have done far more testing in this area based on these post, but again I'm interested in hearing about more of her testing and if need be I'll do more tests based on her method and give my results.” <<<

If you have ‘done far more testing in this area, on the colour issue’, Michael, then surely you have some answers to the questions I keep asking you ???????????????????

And, Michael, you don’t need to hear about MORE testing, you just need to extend your thinking around the testing you claim to have ALREADY done !!!

To be continued.

Regards,
May Belt,
PWB Electronics.

iosiP
iosiP's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 years 3 months ago
Joined: Jan 12 2014 - 4:41pm
May, I know the questions were for Michael

But let me add my $0.02. So here it goes:
1. If Jack could resolve more information by using electronic/vibration/etc. tweaks but NO color chart it means the info was not present before applying those tweaks.
2. If Bill could resolve more information by using a color chart but NO electronic/vibration/etc. tweaks it means the info was present before applying those tweaks.

So WAS the information available to the listener (i.e. in the room) before any tweak was applied, including the color chart?
- if YES, how comes Jack needed conventional tweaks to "resolve" it?
- if NO, how comes Bill could resolve it by using a color chart?

And finally, what extra information could be resolved if iosiP (with the same system) would use both "conventional" tweaks AND the color chart?

P.S. I have the answers, but would like ro read yours first.

May Belt
May Belt's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 years 7 months ago
Joined: May 8 2006 - 1:51am
Hello Costin,

Hello Costin,

This is good. Questions without attack. A start of looking at things logically !!!

My answer is Very likely Yes. That the information WAS available to the listener, in the room, before any of the tweaks including the color chart.

I will qualify that reply slightly. I KNOW that there are such things as electromagnetism, RF, AND, yes such as vibrations (especially with vinyl record players) which COULD have an effect on the very audio signal AND that a very shiny, reflective room (many reflective surfaces), or a very dampened down room (heavy fabriced surfaces) CAN affect the acoustic information.

To me, it is what information can reach the ear drum. Sections of the audio industry have practically all efforts (90% ?) concentrating on the signal (and on the measurements). Others have (say) 50% concentrating on the signal and 25% on the acoustics of the room but will allow 25% of their efforts to be looking at how something SOUNDS !!

>>> “P.S. I have the answers, but would like ro read yours first.”

I don’t know if ANYONE has the answers, yet, Costin. We just have discussions aiming to get to some answers !!!!!

Let me give some background to my answer “Yes” and how I have reached that answer.

Our story IS well known and has been told many times. Briefly OUR start on a particular path was because, one day, our sound, in the listening room, was ruined by applying a particular chemical to the surface of a coffee table – in an attempt to ‘deal with a stain’ on that table.

Now when one has been involved in the world of audio for some 30 years PRIOR to that day, in audio equipment retailing and manufacturing, working completely within conventional electronic and acoustic theories, one KNOWS that one cannot ruin the sound by applying a chemical to a stain on a coffee table.

So, we didn’t start by improving the sound !!!!!!

Jump to today. Based on our own experiments and ours and others experiences.

You refer to other “tweaks” and their effect.

>>> “1. If Jack could resolve more information by using electronic/vibration/etc. tweaks but NO color chart it means the info was not present before applying those tweaks.” <<<

Let me challenge that for the sake of this discussion. You are making the presumption that ALL the techniques and tweaks ARE affecting the signal or the acoustics. If they were, then the answer would have been “that the info was not present” in the room before applying those tweaks.

But, if you have more and more information and more and more experience you can get to today and then look BACK at all those ‘tweaks’ and many of them can point to them having a similar effect as the color chart IN THE ROOM.

Let me go through one tweak as an example. Applying a chemical to the label side of CDs and to the label of LPs etc.

If Bill Brown’s experience shows that with a particular colour in the room allows him to hear (resolve better) the information MNO + RST + JKL which means that that information must have been in the room all the time. If there is such a thing as a “beneficial” chemical, applied in the room, which can do something similar. Then that chemical could provide the same results i.e. the information MNO + RST + JKL could be heard (better resolved). Showing that that information had been in the room all the time.

Now let us have a look at the Nordost ECO 3 chemical. Nordost recommend that people apply the ECO 3 chemical to the label side of CDs, to the labels of LPs, to the outer insulation of all cables INCLUDING AC power cords.

The presumption made (and would probably be made by you) is that that chemical was somehow or other having an effect on the information encoded on the disc, or having an effect on the audio signal travelling through the audio system when the chemical was applied to the insulation of the cables. In fact, the Nordost explanation is that their chemical is ‘dealing with static’.

But, Costin, if one also applies the same chemical to the outer insulation of a PASSIVE AC power cord, just dangling passively from a table lamp, on a table some 20 feet away from any audio equipment, one gets a similar improvement in the sound.

Now. If a human being is reacting to what is going on in their environment and can react to different chemicals, in the room, and gain an improvement in the sound i.e hearing (resolving better) information MNO + RST + JKL) then COULD the very presence of the Nordost ECO 3 chemical, in the listening environment, be having the same effect (i.e the human being reacting) and hearing (resolving better) the information already there ? and that chemical NOT be doing anything at all to the actual signal ???????????

These are the questions which I have been repeatedly saying that Michael (and obviously others) should already have on their shelf – awaiting answers !!

I have also said that if I think that people ARE ONTO something, then I give them credit for that. I give Michael credit (and always have done) for being aware that everything in the environment affects everything else and that everything we do, in the listening environment, has an effect on the sound. I challenge him that he doesn’t have THE answer which is what he claims !!!!

The questions continue. Just HOW MANY of the tweaks described over these past 30 to 40 years and reported as ‘improving the sound’ ARE actually affecting the signal or the acoustics, or could they be providing the equivalent of the BEST COLOUR, in the room, allowing the information MNO + RST + JKL to be better resolved by the human being ? The information MNO + RST + JKL which is ALREADY there !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Which brings me back to the effect of the presence of the Schumann Resonance device !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Surely you, at least, have the question “What is that device doing?” on YOUR shelf ???

Now you have my answer, I would be interested in seeing your answer.

One final bit to the original story. After the episode with the chemical which ruined our sound. It was some months later, after reading an article on PLANTS, that we discovered that one of the ingredients in the chemical we had used on the stain was being described as one of Nature’s DANGER signals – used by plants – to warn other plants !!!!!!!!!

So, we had, quite inadvertently, introduced into our listening environment, one of Nature’s methods of denoting ‘danger’ !!

I will give again the list of some of the chemicals people have in our listening environment.

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.

You Costin, say that if you can’t see things, then they can’t be having an effect !!

Really ???

>>> “And finally, what extra information could be resolved if iosiP (with the same system) would use both "conventional" tweaks AND the color chart?” <<<

I think you will glimpse, from what I have written, that if, as I am suggesting, many of the tweaks AND the color chart are doing the same thing – i.e. affecting how the human being is reacting to things in their listening environment, then my answer would be that there is a strong possibility that you would hear (resolve better) more information. But the questions haven’t been answered yet, Costin, as to exactly WHAT the so called “conventional” tweaks are actually ‘dealing with’.

The audio signal ? The acoustics ? Or what we react to ?

Regards,
May Belt,
PWB Electronics.

iosiP
iosiP's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 years 3 months ago
Joined: Jan 12 2014 - 4:41pm
The audio signal ? The acoustics ? Or what we react to ?

Yes May, conventional audio tweaks change the signal and/or the acoustics while unconventional tweaks change the way we react to (resolve) information that is already present.
To simplify, the results of conventional tweaks could be measured by a microphone while unconventional tweaks require a conscious listener (a human being) to be felt.

Let me suggest another paradigm: the total information of the recording is T, composed of A (available, i.e. what he hear), NA (not available, i.e. what is lost in the playback process) and NR (not resolved, i.e. what is available but not felt - resolved - due to human causes).
So here you have it: T = A + NA + NR, or A = T - NA - NR. Now, a conventional tweak would decrease NA, the end result being limited by NR (it's useless to have more information if you can't resolve it) while unconventional tweaks will decrease NR, the end result being limited by NA (you cannot resolve information that is not present).

And my conclusion is: try to get as much "physical" information by using conventional tweaks and then try to resolve the most of what you got by using unconventional tweaks. The reason being, well, simple: it's useless to extract more information if you can't resolve it, but it's as useless to try to resolve information that is not available.

P.S. You owe me $0.04

michael green
michael green's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 8 months ago
Joined: Jan 10 2011 - 6:11pm
enjoying!

We have been swamped, so it's been hard to come up as much, but I'm loving the exchange between May & Costin. In some ways I like this exchange better than May and myself, cause Costin is willing to talk the same language with May, whereas I have to reset my brain from actually listening in real time to "talk mode" and a lot of times my brain doesn't want to do that.

My time is mostly spent getting inside the ears of other listeners while they are playing the music and puting the pieces of their particular and unique puzzle together. Plus the R&D that we do, and of course production, which is again quite unique. I guess it's hard for me to spend time in hypotheticals and compare this to the levels my clients ask me to do. My clients are not asking for whys to be honest, but more things like opening up specifics. Yesterday was a studio asking about layering a particular way, and today is an audiophile needing to find a placement for him in relationship to where the stage starts and being able to focus on the 2nd strings which is where his wife plays in concert. I have to be able to respond to this level of design and a doable method in real time, which is what I specialize in, but it means beable to get anywhere in a soundstage quickly and the listeners head both, pick a path and start tuning in those extremely specific variables.

On these threads, I understand the tone and Q&A's but they seem so far removed from the day in and out of actually "doing" music which is what me job is. Not only is my job specific, but so is my research, both of them playing off of each other in real time doing. For myself to try to go someplace without the real time experiencing seems almost like a circle that never ends, and questions that only serve to create more questions.

What I'm saying is, to be in music you have to do. If not it's like a different topic. Nothing wrong with that topic, but the clients are needing something in the "doing" realm and not the hypothetical. When I'm asked to do something I go into my natural mode of tuning in. When I read these threads, at first there somewhat interesting, but the challenges come in almost as if I haven't done something and at the same time I'm answering people in real time "doing", it makes my head hurt. LOL On one hand I'm doing the very things being talked about, and on the other being told I'm not going deep enough. That's fairly weird to hear, especially when I'm actually tuning in several systems every day.

Anyway, it's been a lot more fun watching you guys talk. Maybe I'm more of a do it guy than a talk it guy. That said, from my seat it looks like Costin does both. Whereas I read me and I see a lot of me rolling my eyes, I see Costin engage more in what May is looking for. So I guess I'm not giving what is being asked of me, from May's particular angle. On the other hand, I'm doing what I'm being asked by both the recording end and playback. The Why's and How's to me seem automatic, but I understand the difference between someone needing to hear the string a certain way and someone needing to know how the mind and body responds.

I don't see me ever satisfying May's hypotheticals. At the same time I don't see her walking into extreme listeners environment creating specifics. I could be wrong who knows, maybe I should take May on tour with me, what do you think May? Either way I'm enjoying the exchange between you guys.

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

May Belt
May Belt's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 years 7 months ago
Joined: May 8 2006 - 1:51am
The audio signal ? The acoustics ? Or what we react to ?

>>> “Yes May, conventional audio tweaks change the signal and/or the acoustics while unconventional tweaks change the way we react to (resolve) information that is already present.
To simplify, the results of conventional tweaks could be measured by a microphone while unconventional tweaks require a conscious listener (a human being) to be felt.” <<<

The crux, Costin, is WHAT is understood as a ‘conventional tweak’.

There have been considerable presumptions, over these past 30 years, that many tweaks introduced ARE ‘conventional’ tweaks (because that is how they have been described) and therefore MUST BE changing the signal (or the acoustics).

Also, Costin, you have used the ‘measurement’ argument – that the result of a ‘conventional’ tweak could be measured !!!

I KNOW that if one is getting breakthrough, of such as a radio broadcast signal, by it being picked up by an unshielded cable or a pick up arm or cartridge, then using the technique of shielding that wire and stopping the breakthrough, THAT would be regarded as a ‘conventional’ tweak.

But, Costin, where would YOU place the ‘tweak’ of such as applying a demagnetiser to LPs and CDs and gaining an improvement in the sound ?

It is presumed to be a ‘conventional tweak’ and therefore must be affecting the signal. But is it a ‘conventional tweak’ ? If no measurement differences could be picked up by a microphone then where would YOU place that ‘tweak’ ? Would you say it is still a ‘conventional tweak’ because it is described as ‘dealing with magnetism’ – even though no one can ‘measure’ any differences - only HEAR differences ?

So, I don’t think you can simplistically split ‘tweaks’ into absolute DEFINITE areas of either ‘conventional tweaks’ or ‘unconventional tweaks’ without much more knowledge !!!!!!!

You can only use your formula of NA (it shows you have been thinking, at least) when one KNOWS what might have been lost during the playback process (without a ‘tweak’) and then recovered (with a ‘conventional tweak’).

Just to extend further my reference to applying a demagnetiser to LPs and CDs. There were the extremes of discussion carried out on an earlier Stereophile Forum a few years back.

On the one hand we had Michael Fremer (of Stereophile) who, after trying that technique, responded on the chat forum with :-

>>> “But more importantly, why don't you trust your ears???????

I trusted mine when I heard what the Furutech did, despite my utter cynicism about it (which is why it sat on the floor for 3 months before I tried it).

What I heard was so obvious, so repeatable, so clear, it was like "is that the Empire State Building?" Not "I'd better do an A/B/X to prove it really is the Empire State Building" (I know that analogy is not valid). The point is, not one skeptic---and I'm talking recording engineers, mastering engineers whose names you know, and the editor of the magazine have all heard the difference....the only reason. The only reason you wrote what's above is because you haven't experienced it. Because had you, even if you don't trust your own ears (or your own eyes I guess), this is an easily heard, easily repeatable phenomenon. It's a HUGH difference.” <<<

Then, on the other extreme we had Ethan Winer (who produces Room treatments) who rubbished everything which was not HIS Real Traps or Bass Traps :-

>>> “Lecteur Lumière] asked :- “Are you suggesting that everything you hear can be explained by FR & Decay plots exclusively?

Ethan replied :-

“Yes, everything that affects audio can be expressed using the following four parameters:

* Frequency response
* Noise
* Distortion
* Time-based errors “ <<<

And who implied Fraud by Furutech as in :-

From Ethan Winer :-

>>> “I sent this letter in November 2006 to the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA):

Quote:
Hi,

I'm working on an article for a major audio magazine about fraud in marketing for audio products. I noticed you gave an award to the Furutech CD "demagnetizer" and I'm wondering on what basis you determined this is an award-winning product. As best I can tell this device is pure snake oil with no basis in science. So please forgive such a direct and possibly rude sounding question, but did they pay you for this award? If not, is there a way you could put me in touch with one of the judges or the person in charge who decided this product is worthy of an award?” <<<

AND :-

>>> “Likewise for demagnetizing CDs and LP records, the subject of this thread. Unless the heads of Furutech are idiots, which I doubt, all that's left is dishonesty.” <<<

What I keep saying, Costin, is that there are many ‘tweaks’ – presumed to be ‘conventional tweaks’ and described as ‘recovering the signal’ - just because they give improvements in the sound !!

You are making the presumption that one KNOWS which are the ‘tweaks’ which are affecting the signal or affecting the acoustics. Many tweaks appear to be conventional – because the explanation given for them have words which are conventional – like magnetism, electromagnetism, vibrations, RF interference, static, and so on. It is when using such ‘tweaks’ and then finding that when they are applied to other things in the listening environment – things which could not be carrying the signal, or have any magnetism near them, or might have static but don’t have a signal anywhere near them for that static to affect the signal – which then challenges the ‘conventional’ explanation.
Which can’t then be neatly fitted into your formula.

Such as the example I gave with the Nordost ECO 3 chemical.

The more anomalies one finds, the more many of the so called ‘conventional tweaks’ are not in your NA part of the formula – they begin to creep into your NR part.

You see the problem, Costin. If one does not know exactly where to put the ‘tweak’ in your formula or, when you have had it in the NA part of your formula for some time but then, later, with more information, you find it should be going now into the NR part of your formula.

I repeat, Costin, the ANSWERS to the questions are NOT yet known !!!!!

All I can do, to describe to people, is to use the alphabet as “the information available”. We don’t know the final formula.

A tentative formula is good – to get people focused on the fact there are many aspects to what creates the final sound – where the difficulty is is in getting a sensible and constructive discussion going on what DOES affect the sound !!

You said you had ‘a simple scientific answer’ to the problem of colours and CDs.

>>> “And finally, what extra information could be resolved if iosiP (with the same system) would use both "conventional" tweaks AND the color chart?

P.S. I have the answers, but would like ro read yours first.” <<<

And you said you had an answer to the above, after you had read mine first !!!

I haven’t seen yours yet, Costin.

Taking it further, now Costin.

A ‘conventional tweak’ like a Faraday shield is easy to understand as a ‘conventional tweak’.

But let us look at what you refer to as an ‘unconventional tweak’. What you call:-

>>> “NR (not resolved, i.e. what is available but not felt - resolved - due to human causes).” <<<

i.e Information which is available and which some ‘unconventional tweaks’ can allow to be ‘resolved’ !!

If that information (MNO + RST + JKL) is already there, in the room, available but without the ‘unconventional tweak’ is not heard (resolved) why do you think that is, Costin ? Do you think a flap comes down over the ear drum and prevents the information MNO + RST + JKL going any further ? But, when one does such as an ‘unconventional tweak’, is that flap released, allowing information MNO + RST + JKL to go further ? If so, HOW does that happen ? WHY does that happen. If it is not that, then WHAT ?

What do you think happens to the information MNO + RST + JKL ? That is not heard (resolved) before the ‘unconventional tweak’ but is heard (resolved better) after the ‘unconventional tweak’.

Or, was your formula just game playing for the sake of intellectual game playing or do you actually think there are ‘unconventional tweaks’ which can allow better resolution of the musical information.

It would be extremely interesting to know exactly where you are on that subject !! Seeing as you keep saying that you (like Michael says) “have the answers”.

Regards,
May Belt,
PWB Electronics.

iosiP
iosiP's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 years 3 months ago
Joined: Jan 12 2014 - 4:41pm
May, let's take thing one at the time

1. You write You can only use your formula of NA (it shows you have been thinking, at least) when one KNOWS what might have been lost during the playback process (without a ‘tweak’) and then recovered (with a ‘conventional tweak’).
Well, this one is easy: apply all the conventional tweaks that you know of (at least those that have an effect on the sound, in your room and with your system) and then remove them. What you will lose is the difference between the "before-tweak" NA and the "after-tweak" NA. Does this prove that using these tweaks reduces NA to zero? Well of course not! However, there are scientific ways to compare whatever is on the LP with whatever reaches your ears.
And let me ask you the reverse question: how do you know what information is in the room but is not resolved by the listener? Or to rephrase: You can only use your assertion of XYZ present in the room when one KNOWS what might have been lost during the "resolution" process (without a ‘tweak’) and then recovered (with an ‘unconventional tweak’).

2. Did anyone make differential measurements between the sound obtained before and after demagnetizing? If not, how do you know there was no extra available information in the room, i.e. the tweak did not reduce NA? Is there a reason to believe the demagnetizing process somewhat affected the listener rather than the information extracted from the CD/LP? BTW, what is the closest thing to the surface of an LP, other than the stylus? Wouldn't that be some tiny magnets?

3. You suppose all the information contained in the recording is available in the room and all we have to do is to use unconventional tweaks in order to properly "resolve" it. So are you implying that a room (or an entire house) fully tweaked with your products would not benefit from - say - a Faraday cage over the transformer? Well that would be great since I could buy any poorly designed system and enjoy the whole and unadulterated musical content just by applying foils, special goo and writing messages on the mirrors.

Finally, I mentioned the unresolved part of the information already present (remember my NR) so I don't dismiss it! As such, my comment was not just an "intellectual game playing" but the way I see those things.

geoffkait
geoffkait's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 days 17 hours ago
Joined: Apr 29 2008 - 5:10am
Yer skimming the surface of the pond
iosiP wrote:

1. You write You can only use your formula of NA (it shows you have been thinking, at least) when one KNOWS what might have been lost during the playback process (without a ‘tweak’) and then recovered (with a ‘conventional tweak’).
Well, this one is easy: apply all the conventional tweaks that you know of (at least those that have an effect on the sound, in your room and with your system) and then remove them. What you will lose is the difference between the "before-tweak" NA and the "after-tweak" NA. Does this prove that using these tweaks reduces NA to zero? Well of course not! However, there are scientific ways to compare whatever is on the LP with whatever reaches your ears.
And let me ask you the reverse question: how do you know what information is in the room but is not resolved by the listener? Or to rephrase: You can only use your assertion of XYZ present in the room when one KNOWS what might have been lost during the "resolution" process (without a ‘tweak’) and then recovered (with an ‘unconventional tweak’).

2. Did anyone make differential measurements between the sound obtained before and after demagnetizing? If not, how do you know there was no extra available information in the room, i.e. the tweak did not reduce NA? Is there a reason to believe the demagnetizing process somewhat affected the listener rather than the information extracted from the CD/LP? BTW, what is the closest thing to the surface of an LP, other than the stylus? Wouldn't that be some tiny magnets?

>>>>>Really? You think they can measure the difference what's on the LP and what reaches the ear? Fascinating. Have you done that? Do you know anyone who's done that? If so, link please. Same with demagnetization. Just claiming that no one has performed a measurement doesn't necessarily mean that it's not true. How come you skeptics never do any measurements yourselves yet you expect someone else to do it? That's not very inquisitive. Where's the follow up? Where's the scientific method?

3. You suppose all the information contained in the recording is available in the room and all we have to do is to use unconventional tweaks in order to properly "resolve" it. So are you implying that a room (or an entire house) fully tweaked with your products would not benefit from - say - a Faraday cage over the transformer? Well that would be great since I could buy any poorly designed system and enjoy the whole and unadulterated musical content just by applying foils, special goo and writing messages on the mirrors.

>>>>>>>let's run with that for a moment. There are perhaps, what, at least 100 unconventional tweaks, many of which are the type that you could go on for days treating objects in the house. You have no idea. There are not enough hours in the day to find out what the ultimate sound is, not enough time in your life. Besides no one is saying you couldn't use a Faraday cage. You are free to use whatever you want. But no matter what you do you won't find the answer if you believe the answer is the final ultimate sound. You realize a full Loom of Siltech doesn't circumvent all these issues, don't you? By the way, and I'm going to break it to you easy, a Faraday cage reduces EMI/RFI but does NOT reduce the magnetic field around a transformer or anything else. They do use Faraday cages around SCIFs, though. You could construct one around your house. I for one would like to see that. But for transformers you need the special high permeability alloy that the two dudes from Pittsburgh reported on. Does that refresh your memory.? Does this feel like deja vu all over again?

Finally, I mentioned the unresolved part of the information already present (remember my NR) so I don't dismiss it! As such, my comment was not just an "intellectual game playing" but the way I see those things.

>>>>>>OK, the interruption is over. You can go back to your non-intellectual game playing.

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

May Belt
May Belt's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 years 7 months ago
Joined: May 8 2006 - 1:51am
>> “And let me ask you the

>> “And let me ask you the reversed question: how do you know what information is in the room but is not resolved by the listener? Or to rephrase: You can only use your assertion of XYZ present in the room when one KNOWS what might have been lost during the "resolution" process (without a ‘tweak’) and then recovered (with an ‘unconventional tweak’).” <<<

One only knows AFTER the event !! From realising how we (and so many others) have heard much more information AFTER doing a ‘tweak’ – which shows that we can’t have been hearing that information prior to doing the ‘tweak’. Then, when you read other people’s accounts of how THEY describe improvements they have heard after doing some ‘tweaks’, then you realise that they have also experienced the same thing – they have HEARD (resolved better) more information. Then, when they remove the ‘tweak’, they are no longer happy with the sound they had been listening to previously !!

To give just 3 examples – (I have already, earlier, given Greg Weaver’s description of the beneficial effect he heard after using the UltraBit Platinum Plus liquid.)

>>> “Quotes from the Positive Feedback review of the Stein Music device. July/August 2012 issue

>>> “Dynamics, clarity, palpable presence, excitement, definition, air, decay, extension, articulation, less distortion, louder, quieter, 3D soundstage, natural, rich, texture, warm, fast, transmission, timbre, immersion, space, tactile, engagement, propulsion, ease, etc… everything is there in abundance… everything is here. And in a very good way.

Which leads to… has Science explained everything? And is everything explainable by Science? I would say no, perhaps not… or at very least not yet. Science is an evolving discipline of knowledge… new discoveries… new ways of looking at or defining what we know and experience around us.

For me, either something works—that is, it makes a difference that is definable or tangible—or it doesn't. If Science can explain why it does what it does, then great, if not, then, oh well… maybe someday it will, but for now, I am on my own.” <<<

And :-

>>> “From a review by Jeremy R Kipnis Lessloss Blackbody Devices in Positive Feedback Online May/June 2013 issue
3) The harmonic structure of instruments and the acoustic space itself (as heard in the various recordings I am auditioning) ALL show a NEW (inter)related connection amongst themselves along with a wholeness of sonic presentation WITHIN the hall which was simply NOT AUDIBLE before.

C) In spite of hearing this performance many hundreds of times since it came out in 1985 (it's one of my 20 best sounding recordings), I now find myself hearing YET NEW things I have never heard, before. Inner harmonies are now clear during both the most massive and the most silent moments. And the degree to which the soundstage hangs free from the speakers is now PALPABLE and VISCERAL, very much the way the BEST Analog discs and tapes sound!” <<<

And :-

>>> “Description by John Atkinson about the Synergistic devices at the Rocky Mountain Hi Fi Show 22th October 2010.

When I reported in our report from the 2009 RMAF that I perceived a degradation when Ted Denney of cable manufacturer Synergistic Research removed his tiny ART devices from the room, it triggered a debate that raged not just in the comments following that report but also in our website forum right up to today. The fact is that these small metal bowls are too small to have a significant effect on the acoustics of a room at frequencies below 10kHz or so, yet they seem to improve the accuracy and stability of stereo imaging and even tighten up the sounds of bass instruments. It is a mystery, therefore, how these devices can work. I have conjectured that perhaps they have an effect on the listener’s state of mind rather than the acoustics, but if so, then I don’t comprehend how that effect can be both repeatable and demonstrable.” <<<

You ask :-

>>> “Did anyone make the differential measurements between the sound obtained before and after demagnetizing? If not, how do you know there was no extra available information in the room, i.e. the tweak did not reduce NA? Is there a reason to believe the demagnetizing process somewhat affected the listener rather than the information extracted from the CD/LP? BTW, what is the closest thing to the surface of an LP, other than the stylus? Wouldn't that be some tiny magnets?” <<<

Yes, the tiny magnets could be involved with LPs and the vinyl material. But, Costin, similar improvements can be obtained with applying a demagetiser to CDs !!! AND demagnetising other things also.

>>> “You suppose that all the information contained in the recording is available in the room” <<<

No, I do not suppose that ALL the information contained in the recording is available in the room. You are also distorting what I say (just like Michael does). What I suggest is that AFTER people have experienced hearing (resolving better) more of the musical information after carrying out certain ‘unconventional tweaks’, then that the further information (I say FURTHER information) they are now resolving must have been already in the room. Because some ‘unconventional tweaks’ cannot possibly have been altering the actual signal or the actual acoustics.

>>> “So are you implying that a room (or an entire house) fully tweaked with your products would not benefit from - say - a Faraday cage over the transformer?” <<<

No I am not saying that. Again, please do NOT distort my words. Of course, ‘treating’ anything which is “affecting the actual signal” or “affecting the actual room acoustics” will give their own improvement in the sound. What I am saying (and I say this repeatedly to Michael as well) that one can do BOTH - ‘treating’ things which could be having an adverse effect on the signal or having an effect on the room acoustic AND carry out some ‘treatments’ which could allow the human being to resolve more of the information which is already in the room. And, we don’t know WHAT information is in the room – until…………..

It is difficult discussing things with people who have not experienced what we and others have experienced. You seem to be discussing from an intellectual point of view and not from a personal experience point of view. In other words, nothing seems to have happened to you (soundwise) which has challenged your conventional point of view. If it HAD, then your sentences and questions would be different.

One can tell, from the way people write and the sentences they use, what experiences they have had. I KNOW that Michael G has experienced “everything in the environment has an effect on everything else and also that everything one does in the environment affects the sound”. Because he is in no doubt, from his experiences !! And, without those experiences, HE nor anyone else would write like that.

It is WHAT is affecting WHAT and HOW is it affecting the ‘sound’ which are the questions requiring answers.

You as well as Michael keep saying that you have the answers.

If you do, then could you tell us all ?

Regards,
May Belt,
PWB Electronics.

iosiP
iosiP's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 years 3 months ago
Joined: Jan 12 2014 - 4:41pm
May, I'm used to talk to engineers

Sorry I can't accept anecdotal evidence and make do with lack of clear answers.
My questions were clear and I expected clear answers: looks like you don't have them (or they are not convenient to support your stance). So let's agree to disagree: I'll use tweaks that make sense in retrieving as much info from the recording while you and Geoff can go on with painting things and talking about "information waves", "mind-matter interaction" and the primary amoeba (what?) orienting itself in deep, deep oceans.

Say what: MY TWEAKS > O.K. and YOUR TWEAKS > NO.

michael green
michael green's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 8 months ago
Joined: Jan 10 2011 - 6:11pm
here's how it works

Hi Costin

It's not about any answers for these two, but more the way they play the game, whatever game that is. When you or I give them the answer they twist it in a way to ask old questions that seem to look like the answer has never been given instead of pointing to the actual answer itself. Basically my friend they're just trolling.

The truth of it is they have brought up nothing new trying to make what they say current and relevant, when in fact they talk about very old discovers that have not only been made a long time ago but have been well studied and practiced. Instead of them doing their own research into the who's and why's they point and twist. May says things like "could you tell us all" as if "all" is asking. Truth of it is Costin, people have move past both geoff and May a long time ago, but both haven't been able to see this, or have any desire to see what others have done outside of their little circle of mentions.

You can answer them all day long and they will make it look like there was no answer or skip over it alltogether until another time and say you've never answered. It's just a game. For example I started giving my answers on TuneLand and they quickly dismissed or failed to mentioned these answers even though the both of them have gone up and read.

"

Subject: Re: Stereophile forum Fri 23 Jan 2015 - 1:07

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'd like to respond to some of the posts on the Stereophile forum, but I want to be able to do this without all the spins that happen there. It's to the point for me that I don't even read all of the post but skim through cause it's like hitting repeat and gets extremely old.

If you wish to look at the particular thread I'm referring to you might start here, but it spreads throughout the forum. Basic same talk different place type of thing.

http://www.stereophile.com/content/being-fair

let me give a little background

As you read through these threads your going to notice a common theme, Questions without answers from the people posing the questions. At first I thought Geoff Kait and May Belt were going somewhere with their comments but as time went on I could see that this was not the case, so for those of you who read through this it might seem like it's children on the playground but because I wish to push the tune on Stereophile it is the cross I bear.

It starts out with me giving May & Geoff their own space for the second time to explain what they called "Advanced Concepts".

"here ya go may & geoffy, knock yourselves out

"ADVANCED CONCEPTS like using colors to improve the sound, advanced concepts like Schumann Frequency Generators, tiny little bowl acoustic resonators, constrained layer damping, six degree of freedom isolation, mumetal tents for big transformers, holographic foils, quantum dots for audio applications, battery powered alarm clocks for improving sound and picture quality, you know, things of that nature."

I then respond

"I personally don't see anyone here treating you guys with anything but fairness, but as I did before giving you your own thread to explain, here you are again. A wide open page to share with us your advanced technologies."
______________________________________

I know, I can hear the laughter from here , but I'm going to go through each of these and cover them, again.

1) using colors to improve the sound

The tie of colors and audio has been something that has been around a long time. A lot longer than the audiophile has been around.

Some of you may have some experience with things like "chakras" for example. You can do your own research on this but if you look up the meaning you get the idea. I'm not here to turn TuneLand into a meditation camp, but if you look at the archives you will see that I opened up the camp over there for discussion. It did not go over well as it opened up different spiritual belief systems and after a few burns I backed away.

At the same time, the things we do to set our state of mind before, during and after listening is not only interesting but something I practice and know others that do as well. One of the interesting parts of this for me is that we all have unigue codes built into us as individuals and based on our own awareness of them we will either follow mind programs that are more set, or be more free floating within our discoveries. In other words if you have more of a paint by numbers mindset you will tend to follow programs more than the fella who is by nature more intuitive. Paint by numbers people do not understand free thinkers and feel like that's what they are and others are wrong. Free thinkers follow things more on a contiuum thought process, one thing flowing into and becoming a part of. Both have their own values, but often times conflict because the paint by numbers guy sees the free thinker as unorganized and undisciplined, where the free thinker is focused on a sense of wholeness and shades vs fixed settings. The free thinker understands we are on a moving planet while the fixed thinker sees things more as standing still.

Why do I point this out when talking audio and colors?

In tests that have been givin for many years on how colors affect the way we hear the results are not conclusive, but are more on a sliding scale.

A test I took a long time ago while doing some work in Atlanta, was to wear a set of headphones doing a standard listening tone test. We setup the completely empty white room so nothing was distracting. The room had no windows and could be set at completely dark, and the light used was a variable intensity and covered the spectrum. The light was able to stop at any shade as it slid through the colors, or could be set at any particular setting of brightness. There were 8 of us doing this and so this took 4 days to get through. Fortunately my office was downtown so this worked perfect for me. The results were interesting and varied with the exact same test. All of us except one showed a different set of results. The one who didn't had tinnitus fairly bad, focusing on the ringing more than the test it turns out.

The long and short of it (I can get into the long of it if you would be interested) is that all of us had a different response code built in us. We did testing with headphones and without, as well as test tones and music.

Following this we did a series of color mood testing and found again that many varying conditions affected our listening, but there was never one set of patterns that were consistent. Everyone responded according to their own makeup.

I've done similar testing since this enough to tie color conditions to an audio change, but unless there is a way to measure the bodies responses to these types of testing the results are at best random. I look forawrd to doing this same type of testing hooked up to wearables, which have and are being refined.

coloring CD's

In doing our tests on coloring CD's we found the same thing as changing colors in the listening room. The results were random and in most cases adding the colors cause a collapse in some part of the soundstage, and dulls or peeks. We found the same results with adding enhancement solutions to CD's. In almost all the testing we did there were changes but with close listening the results were not consistent. Plus, I need to add this note, the changes were not big as compared to any physical changes that were made in these systems, like adding cones for example of different types under components, and the more involved tuning made changes that were huge and predictable as compared to the treating types of tweaks.

I breezed through this as to give a general idea of our experiments but we also did a variety of tests including color dot testing, but found that our white room testing to be the most profound and noticable.

this is one of my responses

"2) Schumann Frequency Generators

This topic for me covers such a huge range, that I'm sorry but I have to laugh at May & Geoff when they bring this up in such generic ways. Let me break this down a little for those reading.

The Earth naturally creates it's own settling/energizing set of frequencies. It's like a big musical note sitting out in space and supported by it's orbital patterns of harmonics which keeps the movement patterns smooth as it travels. At the same time if you look at Earth from space you will see tons of movement once you get inside the atmosphere. This is because the Earth is involved in what is called the "fair exchanging of energy", something we talk about often here on TuneLand.

I have been involved in Schumann testing as it is require at certain stages of large building construction. I also attend classes at the different convention concerning the latest in these technologies. I find them interesting because of my involvement in designing grounding and tunable products. As a result of these classes and visiting labs, there are certain conclusions that hit you right off the batt. First, from a technical level there is no such thing as inert on Earth. For those who wish to go further you can do your own studies on "inert" and also "inertia". What you will find to cut to the chase is, it's impossible to be on a moving planet and have anything sit still. When I see audio designers talking inert out of one side of their mouth and the Earth's resonant characters I shake my head and laugh to be honest. The Earth in every sense of the word "variable" is a highly tuned motor. You will not find any place on Earth that is not involved in what we call a "contiuum" of energy (fair exchange).

On Stereophile May & Geoff are pushing audiophile devices as SFG correction systems, but let me again show you something. Take any SFG set to 7.83hz and place it in any building in the world and the sum result does not add up to 7.83. An advanced SFG first has to be able to sensor the existing resonance of any particular place and then recrete enough to set the sum to a true 7.83. What we have found in our testing is these generic tools actully put the area out of tune with it's natural settings, some folks even get sick to their stomach or dizzy. If you (we did and still do) go to areas on the Earth that have a well balanced energy level that mates with your particular bodies setting you will notice a heighten value in all of your senses (one of the reason I live where I do). At the same time your body is built to adapt and adopt and if you send your body through different vibratory zones you will fatigue. Take traveling for example. Jet lag is your body realigning to a different set of conditions vibratory and pressure wise.

Our bodies are designed with it's own sensors and adapting systems. There are a wide range of frequencies that your particular code is built to respond to in positive ways and negative. They're not a set 7.83hz, but being in a place that is well balanced such as nature in certain parts of the world where you respond well to or having those frequencies close to you can do wonders. Some respond better in one set of conditions and that same person sick to death out in nature at another.

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

You notice that neither one of them pointed to this answer or were able to ask questions based on "our" research, which we gave a very tiny piece of it in this answer. But no response from them, why? Because they're not here to respond nor are they able to do so on the same level of deepness you possess Costin.

I have more answers here http://tuneland.techno-zone.net/t217p90-stereophile-forum and all throughout Tuneland, but their job is not to be a part of the answers, but stir the mystery part. Notice their constant list of products? Notice their quotes from audio reviewers? Most of all notice they are not able to answer sigular questions? They load up answers with more questions instead of answers they themselves do in real time demos. If you or I or anyone questions them, they return in war attire.

My conclusion is both geoff and May are not really interested in others explorations. Neither of them know how to get from here to there, but have only made it to "making a difference". Their able to get the boat moving, but are not able to direct it to the other side of the sea.

From what I have read, they don't understand what the "recorded code" is, or the "audio signal". They don't see the importance of referencing music, or have the ability to do so. They say they've been there but haven't shown us how, more than spreading around colored dots, or throwing C37 on furniture and components, and other audio jedi mind tricks which will only work on a few weak minded. Sorry, I like Star Wars, so had to throw that in.

Costin if either May or geoffy-buy were able to have straight up conversations the threads they join in on would end much differently than they do. I appreciate that you give May more credit than geoff, she deserves it, but in the end if she is not able to follow through on particular (one topic at a time) issues then by default, or on purpose, these talks go into spins. Sadly this is her style and perhaps goal, I haven't been able to figure out which yet, or maybe I'm too polite. Honestly everytime it looks like she is wanting to engage in straight talk, the spins are close to follow, as she just did with you.

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

michael green
michael green's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 8 months ago
Joined: Jan 10 2011 - 6:11pm
Mr. Winer & Mr. Randi

Geoff, I don't know Mr. Winer, but

"This is actually nothing more than a repeat of the Ethan Winer fiasco we experienced here on this very forum only a few years ago. Ethan also was endowed with a lot of the same endearing qualities as Michael such as accusing the other manufacturer(s) of lying, accusing the other manufacturer of speaking out of both sides of his mouth, accusing the other manufacturer of falsely representing his education and or work background, claiming to be familiar with the other manufacturer's products, claiming to obtain negative results with the products of other manufacturers, and accusing other manufacturers of disobeying the laws of science. We've seen this movie before. How low can he go is the only question. Time will tell."

is what you said, and it just looks to me like Mr. Winer and perhaps a few others have based their opinions of you in a way that seems they have your number so to say. Now I have no idea what Mr. Winer is about apart from him believing a certain way about acoustics. That said when you try to match him up with me it opens you up to what others have to say about you. For example

"NOT A HOAXER?

Reader Paul Erickson opines:

I do not believe Geoff Kait of Machina Dynamica is perpetuating a hoax with his products (i.e., Teleportation Tweak). He is really scamming unsuspecting customers for the following reasons:

At the request of one of my friends, Todd Green, who is an audio expert, I emailed Geoff Kait and inquired about his outlet covers (randi.org//27/#i7). He replied that the wall covers were “old news” and his newest item, Teleportation Tweak, was the new, hot item. I, then, asked him two questions: a) scientific proof and b) will he take the Randi Challenge. His response was a) his customers’ hearing (actually, he said his customers “ears” was all the proof he needed) and b) why should he take the Randi Challenge since he is making more money selling his products. When I advised him that anecdotal evidence is not scientific evidence, he threatened to “kick my ass” (along with several other obscenities). I welcomed the opportunity to “meet” with him but he has not responded (which is very wise on his part; if he saw me in person or knew of my martial arts background, he never would have threatened me, but I digress).

Up to the time he sent me a threatening email, he was espousing how great his products work. He was definitely correct about one thing – he would be a fool to take the challenge. He would be proven to be a fraud and would lose the revenue he receives from selling his fake products. Why would he risk it? He has nothing to gain and everything to lose.

Please do not stop exposing this clown as a con-artist. The only joke here is that there are so many stupid people that believe his garbage.

If you get this stooge to respond, maybe you can get him to agree to a physical match with me. During the TAM 5.5 or the Amazing Adventure Galapagos would be fantastic (I prefer the latter since he would not be able to escape once he was on the boat). It should prove great entertainment for the attendees.

Well, Paul, I just can’t believe (a) that anyone could expect to be believed on such a ridiculous premise, and (b) that anyone would believe the claim. Now, I’ve seen some arrogant scientists – well-educated and experienced – who have fallen for “psychic” claims, and even for perpetual-motion schemes, but the audiophile crowd has to be brighter than to fall for Kait’s juvenile assertions. If I’m wrong, we’re in deep trouble, folks…"

Geoff, It just seems to me that you spend much of your time not so much in the act of listening nor designing but more in the art of trolling. After seeing you try every spin in the book on me possible, I would have to say that both Mr. Winer and Randi plus it seems a whole list more, have experienced the same type of spins from you, and for a long time now. If I hadn't experienced the same behavior from you, I would be inclined to give someone the benefit of the doubt, but seeing the same practice from you up close leaves little doubt that you are indeed what you are excused to be.

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

geoffkait
geoffkait's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 days 17 hours ago
Joined: Apr 29 2008 - 5:10am
Funniest post of the week award!

Michael - boy, are you gullible. You've been a busy little beaver digging up the dirt. Geez, you really don't know how the internet works, do you? You just got your balls caught in a tangle, that's all. Take two placebos and call me in the morning. What's next? Are you going to call me a Snake in the Grass? Lol

 photo photo_18_zpsjusnt6sf.jpg

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

michael green
michael green's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 8 months ago
Joined: Jan 10 2011 - 6:11pm
like I said

geoff, I don't know you from Adam

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

geoffkait
geoffkait's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 days 17 hours ago
Joined: Apr 29 2008 - 5:10am
Huh?
michael green wrote:

geoff, I don't know you from Adam

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

But I know you. On this thread YOU started on Fairness you have proven to be nothing more than a liar and almost completely ignorant of audiophiles. You and the Amazing Randi are like two peas in a pod. He had a low opinion of audiophiles, too, but also knew how to capitalize on them. You're just like him! Lol

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

geoffkait
geoffkait's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 days 17 hours ago
Joined: Apr 29 2008 - 5:10am
Chakras and beyond

Michael, you refer to chakras as if they mean something specific to audio. Please elicudate on this as I think chakras are interesting, too. But only in the yoga sense. I suspect you're just name dropping and weasel wording but just in case I'm wrong...

And if it's true, as you say, that colors in relation to sound have been around a long time, before audiophiles before time began lol if not too much trouble show some some examples of what exactly you're referring to. You know, in case you're not just posing, which I suspect you actually probably are. Since I use colors in quite a few of my products, I can think of EIGHT (count 'em!) off the top of my head, it would be interestng to see if maybe I'm missing something. Let's see what ya got.

As far as your experiments with color that you mentioned go, anyone can do an experiment incorrectly. So I'm actually not particularly surprised by any of your negative results, assuming you actually did these experiments as you say. So far, if I can be so bold, you guys are coming across very much like the Gang That Couldn't Shoot Straight.

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

ChrisS
ChrisS's picture
Offline
Last seen: 11 hours 51 min ago
Joined: Mar 6 2006 - 8:42pm
Geoffy, himself can't do...

...a simple scientific experiment. He couldn't make a simple comparison between two items where all variables except one are controlled. Geoffy wrote "Take a cable with a black jacket and listen to it so younger [sic] an idea what it sounds like. Then wrap the outside of the black jacket say 1/4 the length with WHITE electrical tape. Listen to the cable again. You should be able to hear the sound is better with the white tape around the jacket."

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

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

Are you smarter than a 5th Grader, Geoffy?

Nope.

geoffkait
geoffkait's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 days 17 hours ago
Joined: Apr 29 2008 - 5:10am
Hi, my name is Chris

Hi, my name is Chris. I came this close to breaking my nose the other day when Michael took a quick left turn.

 photo photo_9_zpsrgxxizm6.jpg

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

iosiP
iosiP's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 years 3 months ago
Joined: Jan 12 2014 - 4:41pm
Geoff, are you ready to talk science?

I notice that May isn't - she is re-hatching the same anecdotal evidence without even a hint of an answer.
Now are you better at defending your stance? Can you step forward and explain how your tweaks work or are they, as usual, "patent pending" (meaning you have an excuse to not explain)?
Looks like I gave both of you a chance to make fools of yourselves and you blindly jumped into the pool. Eat some amoebas for breakfast, they'll help!

ChrisS
ChrisS's picture
Offline
Last seen: 11 hours 51 min ago
Joined: Mar 6 2006 - 8:42pm
Hey, Geoffy!

What's your other hand doing?

michael green
michael green's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 8 months ago
Joined: Jan 10 2011 - 6:11pm
I'm loving this!

Hi Guys

Another busy day, but was looking forward to seeing geoffy-boy displacing his brain again.

The funny part to me is, we haven't even arrived at the variable part of all this yet.

Also, I do again want to thank the readers for their comments, calls and emails. It's great that you are able to see the message of the "tune" through all the twists and turns. It makes my day hearing from you!!!

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

geoffkait
geoffkait's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 days 17 hours ago
Joined: Apr 29 2008 - 5:10am
OK, now we're getting somewhere
iosiP wrote:

I notice that May isn't - she is re-hatching the same anecdotal evidence without even a hint of an answer.
Now are you better at defending your stance? Can you step forward and explain how your tweaks work or are they, as usual, "patent pending" (meaning you have an excuse to not explain)?
Looks like I gave both of you a chance to make fools of yourselves and you blindly jumped into the pool. Eat some amoebas for breakfast, they'll help!

Why so angst ridden, bad night? Or is it just me? Lol. Of course I will entertain questions about my products. Why wouldn't I? Fire at will. If I can't answer I'll tell you. I.e., if the operational mechanism is proprietary or if I just plain don't know the mechanism. If this is some kind of set up, or one of your stupid non intellectual games I will be outta here before you can say where's my beer?

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

iosiP
iosiP's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 years 3 months ago
Joined: Jan 12 2014 - 4:41pm
No angst at all, Geoffy-boy

Actually I'm having lots of fun making you two look like fools.
Now just sit on the toilet and get rid of the dark matter: I'm sure your mind will follow.

geoffkait
geoffkait's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 days 17 hours ago
Joined: Apr 29 2008 - 5:10am
Ouch!
iosiP wrote:

Actually I'm having lots of fun making you to look like fools.
Now just sit on the toilet and get rid of the dark matter: I'm sure your mind will follow.

Ouch. The drunkard strikes again. If I want any more shit from you I'll squeeze your head.

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

michael green
michael green's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 8 months ago
Joined: Jan 10 2011 - 6:11pm
to be fair

Actually, geoff has declined any sort of testing that has been offered him. Both he and May have refused doing referencing. Geoff has refused having his goods tested by us, or anyone on TuneLand.

As far as MGA is concerned, if May and geoff can't demo with us they really have nothing to stand on while talking to us. The question that needs to be asked is, why would these two want to talk to others if there is no possible end game in sight? The hobbies end game is of course the actual listening. Geoff and May are not able to engage in this with us, so basically even though there is much talk, they say very little. Geoff recyles his willingness to talk only after days go by with many posts of him backing away from listening, a troll trait. Both geoffy-boy and May have their cycles of trolling down, but all the reader needs to do is read through the cycle a few times to see the pattern.

to be fair

Everytime you see someone getting close to the actual doing, with the exception of one test that was done on here of a tweak some 30-40 years old, you see both geoffy and May back away or flood the pages with either stupid pics, or posts that are flooded with twist questions to get the attention off of them. Both of these fall under the definition of "trolling".

Recently I saw Costin offer a fair exchange with May, and franky May, you headed for the hills. I would think that Costin would still be interested in this fair exchange, and as he has shown to me, he has his own mind about topics so this can't be turned into an MG vs geoff or May thing.

I would be most interested in geoff and May having a straight up discussion with Costin.

I personally have experienced too many spins, and want to spend my time promoting tuning, and even step it up a little so that I can get into the event itself, which is what we do on TuneLand. I do find find some of the topics ones I would like to engage in, but it needs to be with people who have gone deeper than what I have seen from both geoff and May.

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

geoffkait
geoffkait's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 days 17 hours ago
Joined: Apr 29 2008 - 5:10am
Let's talk Trolls
michael green wrote:

Actually, geoff has declined any sort of testing that has been offered him. Both he and May have refused doing referencing. Geoff has refused having his goods tested by us, or anyone on TuneLand.

>>>>I especially refused to have my products tested by you as you have proven to be a completely unreliable source of information, for some reason having no luck with ANY AUDIO PRODUCTS other than your own. in addition, you claimed you already had Belt and Machina Dynamica products in your system, which actually turned out to be a lie. Who in his right mind would provide you with something for evaluation? Not I.

As far as MGA is concerned, if May and geoff can't demo with us they really have nothing to stand on while talking to us. The question that needs to be asked is, why would these two want to talk to others if there is no possible end game in sight? The hobbies end game is of course the actual listening. Geoff and May are not able to engage in this with us, so basically even though there is much talk, they say very little. Geoff recyles his willingness to talk only after days go by with many posts of him backing away from listening, a troll trait. Both geoffy-boy and May have their cycles of trolling down, but all the reader needs to do is read through the cycle a few times to see the pattern.

>>>>It is actually you (and Costin) who won't engage with us. All we ever get from you and Costin are rude and childish intellectual games. Such as the one you're currentlly playing. By his fruit shall ye know him. You already told us repeatedly that you have considered all of these things already and that audiophiles have known about them since before time began. Actually, it is YOU who's the TROLL here, turning every thread into your own personal billboard for the TuneLand Education Foundation. And refusing to engage in anything other than the same tired Tuning spiel. You are following in the footsteps of outstanding TROLLS like The Amazing Randi and Ethan Winer, who also came across like Scienologists looking to pull drunken sinners out of the gutter.

to be fair

Everytime you see someone getting close to the actual doing, with the exception of one test that was done on here of a tweak some 30-40 years old, you see both geoffy and May back away or flood the pages with either stupid pics, or posts that are flooded with twist questions to get the attention off of them. Both of these fall under the definition of "trolling".

>>>>>>>Again, you are claiming these things are older than Methuselah. To be fair they things we are talking about are relatively recent. Even the ones that are twenty five years ago you seem unfamiliar with, the Mpingo disc, the Green Pen, vibration isolation, constrained layer damping, etc. You have a consistent INABILITY to discuss them beyond saying theybdon't work for you or we've already examined them (and dismissed them). It is actually YOU who's the TROLL, and your hunchbacked cretin Sockpuppet Costin.

Recently I saw Costin offer a fair exchange with May, and franky May, you headed for the hills. I would think that Costin would still be interested in this fair exchange, and as he has shown to me, he has his own mind about topics so this can't be turned into an MG vs geoff or May thing.

>>>>>Constin is game playing. He just admitted he is game playing. If you are acting dumb you're doing an excellent job.

I would be most interested in geoff and May having a straight up discussion with Costin.

>>>>>>>Well, if you weren't blind you'd see that Costin refuses to have a serious discussion. He seems to prefer the role of crown prince of kaka. Hel-looo!

I personally have experienced too many spins, and want to spend my time promoting tuning, and even step it up a little so that I can get into the event itself, which is what we do on TuneLand. I do find find some of the topics ones I would like to engage in, but it needs to be with people who have gone deeper than what I have seen from both geoff and May.

>>>>>>>Oh, somehow you're the honest one here. Give me a break. You don't engage because you're unable to engage. You are able to POSTURE. That's about it. You personally have experienced too many spins? That's rich, coming from a seasoned SpinMeister. What happens when you Stove Pipe for thirty years? You develop your own language and your own independent reality. Unfortunately the reality you developed is orthogonal to the actual real reality most people are living in. Hel-looo!

OK, now you can carry on with promoting TuneLand. Uh, what else is new?

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

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

michael green
michael green's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 8 months ago
Joined: Jan 10 2011 - 6:11pm
being fair

Hi Readers

I'm not sure I can get any more fair than this. Here are our 3 websites.

http://pwbelectronics.co.uk

www.machinadynamica.com

http://tuneland.techno-zone.net/

:)

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

May Belt
May Belt's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 years 7 months ago
Joined: May 8 2006 - 1:51am
>>> “Recently I saw Costin

>>> “Recently I saw Costin offer a fair exchange with May, and franky May, you headed for the hills.” <<<

No, I didn’t “head for the hills” – whatever gave you that impression ?

Regarding my response to Costin. You said :-

>>> “I notice that May isn’t - she is re-hatching the same anecdotal evidence without even a hint of an answer.” <<<

I know you say that you skip over much of the exchanges because you are bored with them but I suggest you read one of my exchanges with Costin again !!

Costin said to me :-

>>> “I do admit the printed label of CDs can affect the sound (there is a simple scientific explanation to that)” <<<

Even though I have asked him again, he still has not given me “this simple scientific explanation” which he promised me !! Even though he tells me that he “talks to engineers” !!!

As in, >>> “May, I'm used to talk to engineers “ <<<

So, what “simple scientific explanation” are those engineers giving him ?

My original answer to him was that there are many Questions still on the shelf awaiting answers. That the existing answers are NOT adequate enough to explain what people have been and still are observing regarding what affects the ‘sound’ (the musical information) !!

>>> “So, just to give one quite probable example of what I mean. The CD has colours on the label side. Multiple colours, sometimes quite psychedelic !!. Then it is a plastic (chemical mix), aluminium and plastic layered disc. Then it is spinning horrendously in an electromagnetic field, in the very listening room the human being is sitting – attempting to relax and listen to it and to resolve the complex musical information !! Could there be a possibility – a strong possibility – that some people’s dislike of the sound of CDs as opposed to other forms of recorded playback be because of how THEY are reacting to them ??????????????????? So, if they are reacting so, then that problem is there – whenever they are listening to certain CDs – and nothing to do with the actual way it was recorded !! So, taking that concept a bit further. If that could be the case, then attempting to recover the situation – somewhere in the audio system – or later in the actual listening room would be pointless. Because the original problem would STILL BE THERE !! So, I attempt to describe such a situation as ‘working with one’s hand tied behind ones back’ if one thinks one can correct this situation by doing something later in the system. One could be chasing something by going round and round in circles.

This is why I challenge Michael on his “variable tuning is the ONLY solution” and when he discourages people actually experimenting by ‘treating’ CDs etc. I will quote Greg Weaver again and his review of the UltraBit Platinumin Plus chemical. Read it again isoiP and see if you could glimpse the possibility that this certain chemical MIGHT be part of the solution !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Might calm the situation down a bit ????

What I have before asked you to do is to “throw an intellectual switch” and look at a situation differently.” <<<

Costin replied :-

>>> “Sorry I can’t accept anecdotal evidence and make do with lack of clear answers.

My questions were clear and I expected clear answers: looks like you don't have them (or they are not convenient to support your stance). So let's agree to disagree: I'll use tweaks that make sense in retrieving as much info from the recording” <<<

So, Costin “can’t accept anecdotal evidence”. That then becomes the end of the discussion between him and me. The anecdotal evidence being presented NOW in the 21st century (not just from past 1980s – Michael !!) is from people’s observations. Those observations are what I call “Clues” – clues to things going on – regarding sound (musical information) – which cannot be explained from within conventional electronic and acoustic theories !!

I don’t just accept anecdotal evidence – willy nilly – from anyone - but I do take notice of people’s descriptions (anecdotal evidence) of what they have observed if I have considerable respect for those people and they appear to be confirming what I, myself, have experienced.

Costin’s generalisation >>> “May, I'm used to talk to engineers “ <<< actually fills me with dread at what appears to be a fairly closed mind !!

Engineers (especially engineers in the world of audio) range from one specific engineer (a prominent member of AES) who believes (and has stated on many occasions) that the differences in sound which people report are MERELY the different positions of their head after they have got up to make a change and then sat down again !!! Through to engineers who are prepared to put the latest (findings – anecdotal maybe) to ‘listening tests’ and to match those results both with their existing technical knowledge and further extended thinking !!

Imagine what that specific engineer I have referred to would be telling Costin about your “variable tuning”, Michael, - where people are encouraged to ‘get up and “variable tune” throughout their listening periods !!

>>> “I recently saw Costin offer a fair exchange with May, and franky May, you headed for the hills. I would think that Costin would still be interested in this fair exchange, and as he has shown to me, he has his own mind about topics so this can't be turned into an MG vs geoff or May thing.
I would be most interested in geoff and May having a straight up discussion with Costin.” <<<

One can’t have a straight up discussion with Costin if all he wants to do is “talk with his engineers” and “not take notice of anecdotal evidence”. It appears to me that his mind is already closed !!

The anecdotal evidence is out there – that people (even limited to some people) can gain exactly the same experience from the colours on the label side of CDs and from colours just being present in the listening room. The anecdotal evidence is out there – that people can react similarly to different chemicals and different chemical mixtures whether those chemicals are applied to CDs, to LPs, in the plastic insulation material surrounding audio cables, or just applied to other (non audio) things in the listening room !!

Those identical experiences are changes in the sound – changes in the MUSICAL INFORMATION !!!

You said, Michael :-

>>> “I do find find some of the topics ones I would like to engage in, but it needs to be with people who have gone deeper than what I have seen from both geoff and May.” <<<

So, I “headed for the hills” in my exchange with Costin, did I, Michael ?

I stayed where I was, I didn’t run anywhere, but am unable to move any further forward with him. His mind appears to be closed until he can get positive “scientific” proof and have that ‘proof’ confirmed by “his engineers”. I don’t think I can even suggest that he actually tries Nordost’s ECO 3 chemical on numerous things in his listening environment because any evidence of it’s effect is anecdotal !!!!!!!!!!!!!! As is the UltraBit Platinum Plus chemical. As is the Stein Music device. As are the tiny ART devices !!

>>> “I notice that May isn’t - she is re-hatching the same anecdotal evidence without even a hint of an answer.” <<<

Anecdotal evidence WILL BE re-hatched until we can make further progress with better understanding. But closed minds will not enable that better understanding !! If there ARE closed minds, then where is progress going to come from ? Surely from anecdotal evidence being investigated further ??????????????

So, Michael, show me the people who HAVE gone deeper. I don’t ‘knock’ your ‘tuning’ concept. I don’t even ‘knock’ your ‘variable tuning’. I challenge your claim that it is THE answer, or THE method, or THE truth. I challenge you when you encourage people NOT to ‘treat’ the actual CD or LP but to leave it alone (with all the problems which the anecdotal evidence points to being there) and to wait until any problem associated might, possibly, be ‘recovered’ later by ‘variable tuning’. I challenge you when you encourage people NOT to ‘treat’ the chemical mixture in the insulation material surrounding audio cables etc, in the listening room, but to leave it alone (with all the problems which the anecdotal evidence points to being there) and to wait until any problem associated might, possibly, be ‘recovered’ later by ‘variable tuning’ !!

Regards,
May Belt
PWB Electronics.

May Belt
May Belt's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 years 7 months ago
Joined: May 8 2006 - 1:51am
Here's how it works.

>>> “The truth of it is they have brought up nothing new trying to make what they say current and relevant, when in fact they talk about very old discovers that have not only been made a long time ago but have been well studied and practiced.” <<<

The various products I have referred to are NOT ‘very old discoveries’ - nor have they “been around a long time” – nor have they been ‘well studied’. IF they HAD BEEN ‘well studied’, then there would be no controversies surrounding them !!!

>>> “When you or I give them the answer they twist it in a way to ask old questions that seem to look like the answer has never been given instead of pointing to the actual answer itself.” <<<

So, Michael, is your sentence :-

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

what you call your ANSWER ????? I still have not seen your explanation as to HOW a colour, in the listening room, CAN affect the musical information of an orchestra playing the musical score of Dvorak’s New World.

Is your sentence :-

>>> “The liquid treatments were a form of dampening” <<<
What you call your ANSWER ??? I still have not seen your explanation as to HOW a chemical, in the listening room, CAN affect the musical information of an orchestra playing the musical score of Dvorak’s New World.

>>> “For example I started giving my answers on TuneLand and they quickly dismissed or failed to mentioned these answers even though the both of them have gone up and read.” <<<

You haven’t given your answers on Tuneland. You have done exactly what you do on this forum – given a list of the things you have investigated, a list of the places you have been, a list of the people you have talked to, the conferences you have been to, the products you have shipped, the research centres you have visited, – but STILL no answers !!!!!

Unless, that is, you want people to believe that the effect of colours on the sound or the effect of chemicals on the sound is ALL connected with what you call the “audio code” !!!!! In which case, if your “audio code” is what I refer to as the information ABC + DEF through to XYZ on the recording, then again, you have to be able to explain WHERE that “code” is being changed and HOW that “code” is being changed by different colours and by different chemicals.

>>> “When you or I give them the answer they twist it in a way to ask old questions that seem to look like the answer has never been given instead of pointing to the actual answer itself.” <<<

I don’t SEE ANY ACTUAL answers from you, Michael, as to HOW the musical information is changed by a particular colour in the room and by a particular chemical in the room or WHERE the changes to the musical information take place !!!

You manoeuvre yourself around the questions I post by deflection tactics and by attacking me but the QUESTIONS are still there and would STILL be there even if May Belt had never existed.

The QUESTIONS are still there, Michael, awaiting answers.

Irrespective of YOUR :-

“Done the questions and got the answers”.

You use bluster a lot to hide when you don’t know. I am NOT saying you haven’t done considerable experiments – I am saying you haven’t given any answers after doing those experiments.

On the question of different colours, in the listening room, having an effect on the sound.

You referred to the “hundreds if not thousands” of labs (research centres) who are researching the effect of colours. When I challenged you saying that IF those “hundreds if not thousands” of research labs have been working on the effect of colours, then surely, by now, they would have the answers as to why and how different colours, in the listening environment, can have an effect on the sound.

You backed away then by saying “Oh, well, those labs are not really going to concentrate their efforts on just satisfying a few audio enthusiasts, they have more important things to do”.
Surely what affects SOUND is what we are discussing, Michael, SOUND and what affects SOUND !!!!!!!!!!!!

In the world of AUDIO, Michael, if one can ‘have an effect on the sound (i.e. on the musical information), with colours or chemicals, in the listening environment, then that observation is “mindblowing”.

AND, we should be searching for the answers as to WHY and HOW and WHERE that effect (on the musical information) is taking place.

We have Brilliant engineers, doing brilliant things with circuitry but then that circuitry has to be handed over to the “sound” engineers who then have to decide ‘soundwise’ what circuitry to use and what components to use in that circuitry.

IF, when those ‘sound engineers’ are doing their listening tests, then they (and everyone else) have to be aware that different colours (and as another subject – different chemicals) in the listening room can be affecting the sound – and that if they are NOT aware, then some of the colours and some of the chemicals could be having an adverse effect on the sound – causing the equivalent of “tying one’s hand behind the one’s back” whilst attempting to do listening trials. And, this is what I challenge you on when you encourage people NOT to do anything about such things which could be affecting the ‘sound’, but to rely instead on ‘variable tuning’ elsewhere in the audio system !!!

You just saying :-

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

Is NOT an answer !!!!!!!!!!!! Nowhere near an answer !!!!!!!!!!!!

>>> “For example I started giving my answers on TuneLand and they quickly dismissed or failed to mentioned these answers even though the both of them have gone up and read.” <<<

You have NOT given your answers on Tuneland. You have not explained HOW, WHERE and WHY different colours, in the listening environment, can affect the sound (affect the musical information) of Dvorak’s New World.

You just claim that you “have done the tests and got the answers”.

OR you claim that you have been to those hundreds if not thousands of research labs and seen what those people are working on and ‘talked with them’ – but you still don’t appear to have not come away with the answers !!!!!

To be continued :-

Regards,
May Belt,
PWB Electronics.

May Belt
May Belt's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 years 7 months ago
Joined: May 8 2006 - 1:51am
Continued

Now, Michael I am going to challenge you again on what I refer to as your exaggerations.

You said :-

>>> “The truth of it is they have brought up nothing new trying to make what they say current and relevant, when in fact they talk about very old discovers that have not only been made a long time ago but have been well studied and practiced.” <<<

Old discoveries that have not only been “made a long time ago” but have been “well studied and practiced” Really ??????

So, Michael, I am accused of making things out to be current and relevant whereas YOU say they are “very old discovers” . Really ????

So, how is it that it was as late as the year 2006 when Michael Fremer did his review of the demagnetiser – which caused pages and pages of controversy in the Stereophile Forum, with no explanation coming out of it as to how and why it changed the sound, when YOU state – that subject “had been well studied” ??????? If the subject of demagnetising HAD been “well studied and practiced”, then why was (and is) a controversy still raging ?

Incidentally, you mentioned Geoff Kait in relation to James Randi as though refusing to have anything to do with James Randi is something wrong !!! So you can’t have also seen the publicity surrounding Michael Fremer’s ‘run in’ with James Randi on the subject of Michael being challenged by James Randi because he (Michael F) had claimed to “hear” a different cable sound different from another – and sounding better ???????????
Back to my challenge. How is it Greg Weaver’s review of the UltraBit Platimun Plus liquid was reviewed in 2011 – with still NO definite explanation as to why or how it changes the sound – even though, according to you, the subject “had been well studied” ?????

How is it that the review on the Stein Music device was as late as the year 2012 – so not, as you try to make out, as a “very old discovery” - with still no definite explanation as to how the crystals (forming the major part of the device) can affect the sound - though, according to you, the subject “had been well studied” ????? Within that controversy surrounding the effect on the sound of the Stein Music device, after Jason Victor Serinus reported on the Stein Music device from the 2011 show someone was prompted to comment :-

>>> “Interesting?
Nah. It's just another dalliance brought forth by the mentally ill for the mentally ill and which does nothing more than saddle this industry with yet further embarrassment.” <<<

But, you Michael, say :- such things are “very old discoveries” and “had been well studied”.

How it is that there could be such controversy (pages and pages in the Stereophile Forum) surrounding the tiny ART devices, after Jason Victor Serinus had reported on them at the 2008 show - if, according to you, they are a “very old discovery” and “had been well studied”.

And this was followed by a report by John Atkinson after the 2009 RMAF in which John A commented on the tiny ART devices :-
>>> “It is a mystery, therefore, how these devices can work” <<<

You say, Michael, that the ANSWERS are available !!!!!

Re the effect of colours, you said :-

>>> “We did a series of color mood testing and found again that many varying conditions affected our listening, but there was never one set of patterns that were consistent. Everyone responded according to their own makeup.
I've done similar testing since this enough to tie color conditions to an audio change, but unless there is a way to measure the bodies responses to these types of testing the results are at best random.” <<<

You refer to the “varying conditions affected our listening” and that the tests were “color mood testing”. So, Michael, was THAT your answer ? That it is our MOOD which changes, which then changes the sound ? But, that is NOT the answer to the questions HOW is it changing the musical information of Dvorak’s New World and WHERE is it changing the musical information of Dvorak’s New World.

Because the sound IS the musical information of an orchestra playing the musical score of Dvorak’s New World !!!

So, with different colours changing the sound just suggesting that it is our MOOD which changes, therefore the sound is changed is not enough of an answer. Even if one suggests that a certain colour could be interpreted by many people as a danger colour and therefore some people go under tension and it is that tension which changes the ‘sound’, then the questions WHERE is the musical information of Dvorak’s New World being changed by that tension and HOW is the musical information of Dvorak’s New World being changed by this ‘tension’ are STILL there – awaiting answers.

Merely saying that you have “carried out color mood testing and found again that many varying conditions affect our listening” is not an answer to WHERE is the ‘sound information’ being changed and HOW is the ‘sound information’ being changed !!!

Yes, different colours DO affect our listening. As do different chemicals and different mixtures of chemicals.

If a particular chemical, when present on something NOT connected to the audio system, but which changes the sound – i.e. changes the musical information – but cannot be described as ‘affecting the audio signal or affecting the room acoustics’ but changes the musical information, then the questions arise WHERE is the musical information being changed and HOW is the musical information being changed. If one wishes to give the answer “It changes our MOOD” and therefore changes the musical information, the QUESTIONS are STILL there !!!

IF that SAME chemical is part of the chemical mixture of the insulation material surrounding the AUDIO interconnects or surrounding the AC power cords, then is the answer to the question “Oh it is having an effect on the audio signal travelling through the interconnect” OR could the answer be the same answer as before “Oh, it changes our MOOD?” ? If it could be the same answer “Oh, it changes our MOOD”, then the original QUESTIONS are STILL there – WHERE is the musical information being changed and HOW is the musical information being changed ?
Using “changing our MOOD” is not a sufficient enough answer. Because it does not answer WHERE and HOW the change in the musical information takes place.

And it IS the changes in the musical information which is the important thing. We are not talking about JUST “changing someone’s MOOD”, and the ‘sound’ merely being described as “it sounds a bit better”. And the reviewers of the ‘unusual’ (and challenging from a conventional point of view) tweaks I have referred to are describing what they have heard in far greater detail than merely “it sounds a bit better”.

Your reply to Costin was :-

>>> “When you or I give them the answer” <<<

But neither you OR Costin give any answers to the questions I ask !!! Costin says he is “going to” – you say “Done the questions and got the answers”.

Let me spell out my argument again. You, Michael, seem to want to bring everything back to OUR products when I am wanting to broaden the subject out when I refer to those other products and devices.

The people who produce those devices have heard those things ‘change the sound’, many reviewers have heard those things ‘change the sound, ’I have heard those things ‘change the sound’, you say YOU have heard those things change the sound – but the whole crux of my argument is that, from a conventional electronic and acoustic viewpoint THEY SHOULD NOT AFFECT THE SOUND !!! THAT is why they are controversial !!!!! So, if they DO affect the ‘sound’, then their effect has to be investigated further – with a far more open frame of mind !!

All you have done, in your many posts, is state that you have heard them affect the sound. Sometimes hearing improvements but on some occasions you found that they did not improve the sound for you. And, I keep pointing out to you – it does not matter whether they made the sound better or worse – if they SHOULD NOT BE CHANGING THE SOUND AT ALL, then the whole thing warrants much more investigating, much more thinking about, than brushing the whole thing aside by recommending that people ignore their effect and just do ‘variable tuning’ instead !!!

You do not have THE answer to good sound, you do not have THE method for good sound and you do not have THE truth with regards to good sound !!!!!! Which is what you have constantly claimed and which I have constantly challenged.

Regards,
May Belt,
PWB Electronics.

tmsorosk
tmsorosk's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 years 3 months ago
Joined: Dec 5 2010 - 12:34pm
Wow, I think you've out done

Wow, I think you've out done yourself May. Three long winded posts in 24 minutes, I don't know how anyone can type that fast let alone put any thought into it.

Pages

  • X