You are here

Log in or register to post comments
geoffkait
geoffkait's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 days 1 hour ago
Joined: Apr 29 2008 - 5:10am
Not my designs? Are you high?

Hi, Ron, don't know where all of your angst is coming from but allow me to respond to your last accusation which like the rest of your accusations is untrue. Products I designed include,

The Super Intelligent Chip
The Ultra Signature Version of the Clever Little Clock
Nimbus Sub Hertz Sub Hertz Platform
Promethean Base
Baby Cryo Promethean Mini Isolators
Codename Turquoise CD tray masking kit
Codename Top Banana Blu Ray tray masking kit
Brilliant Pebbles, crystals for audio applications, the first and still the best
Dark Matter thin film technology invisible scattered light absorber
The Teleportation Tweak long distance audio and video tweak
Animal Magnetism interconnect and power cord collars
Quark! Cork Circuit Board Isolation System
VibraBlock constrained layer damper
Flying Saucers for Windows
Flying Saucers for Wall Outlets
Tru Tone Duplex Covers for Wall Outlets
CD Coloring Kit
Blu Ray Coloring Kit
CD Re-animator Stroboscopic Multicolor Light
Quantum Temple Bell room acoustics treatment
Frog Jump in Water Sound room acoustic tweak using ordinary tap water

Apparently you aren't any better at researching my products than you are at researching my technical papers. Is this your first rodeo?

Cheerios

Geoff Kait
Machinadynamica.com
We do artificial atoms right

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

What I like about "the tune" is it belongs to the listeners who choose to explore the variables. TuneLand in the long run, may be looked at like the beginning of the movement, but in all honesty TuneLand is a home for the "method of tuning" to shine and keep account of the different journeys of the ones who wish to practices Hi Fi tuning at all levels as a community, and a place to promote MGA/RoomTune goods, as well as other thoughts that fit. Earlier today I was talking to a Tunee building a $500,000.00 mini tunable concert hall, and tomorrow we might be working on a $50.00 component. The success of tuning belongs to the listeners. As I say many times "anyone can buy a piano". Tuning however is the science on both ends moving toward each other. Listeners like Ron are a natural fit, not because he has bought into michael, but because he has bought into himself as a listening explorer. Ron being a scientist will bring it's own value to the tune for all of us to explore and learn from.

It's not one man (michael green) teaching the world of audio. TuneLand got started by one man (michael green) who is dedicated to being a student of the tune, what I learn through experience, what I can learn to back up that experience, and extremely important, what I learn from and through the ears and brains of others as they open themselves up to the variables of audio and life.

I think what geoff kait doesn't get is, TuneLand doesn't suffer people like Ron (or anyone), TuneLand embraces Ron as he takes his walk and becomes part of the collective, sharing his talents and being respected for them. TuneLand, myself and others are there as guardrails sometimes on the sides of this wide hi-way, and can even come off as (like many concepts) rigid, but that's really only untill our personal walls come down together, incommon with any intellectually focused group. TuneLand is a sponge that gathers usable knowledge for the purpose of supporting the whole of variables, understanding that every recording/system/listener unit is unique. Those who might look at TuneLand as a closed minded venture have completely missed the point of TuneLand and my life as a student. TuneLand becomes great, because it is made up of people who understand the value of music, the value of themselves and the value of others.

May Belt calls me arrogant, and that's Ok cause I think all of us come off differently to different people, but it's when we take the time to dig deeper into a persons purpose, that we start to see who and what they really are and why they are here. "Music is why I am here". I don't want to feed into or try to make it anything other than what it has shown me. I believe people like Ron, because I'm seeing Ron "do". I'm seeing Ron grow, Ron learn and Ron share. Is Ron 100% on the mark? Of course he is, from Ron's point of view. Ideas aren't meant to be stuck and the only way. Ideas are meant to be a contribution to the whole of the hobby. What Ron may find could end up being something that changes my view. Same goes for May or Geoff. But for me it has to come from a place of non-fiction. I can't pretend my results. My job is to do exactly opposite what geoff and May claim "it's all a mystery". To them and others it might be and I want to respect that, but I can't claim a fiction as truth.

"there is no greater credential, than the willingness to learn", "there is no greater gift, than the truth"

"Truth is not so much what we say, as it is what we are able to do, and practice that doing."

Geoff, I think it's a big mistake that you continue to push people into the position of enemies when they clearly have opened their arms of friendship. You may have the skill of twisting words and painting pictures of fiction, but this won't and never will replace truth, or the tune.

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
May Belt an Audio Troll?

Ron said

"As for the forum, it is sad to see most of the energy has been spent on a troll. However, let's please not associate a person who is not a troll, May, with a troll. I have never had the impression May is anything but a seriously intellectual listener and still very much value her input."

mg

I have not had the same experience with May to this point, but have always thought that her tie to Geoff Kait was one that hurts her credibility. Also I have noticed that when ever someone takes an attack position, such as David did May was quickly to jump on the painting pictures and false seeds bandwagon.

My view is of course biased by my interpretations of May's content, and may not be her intent. I'm afraid speaking for myself, May would need to do some serious damage control, but do appreciate that she doesn't resort to Geoff Kait's style. She defends his style which doesn't seem wise to me, and she does use some troll tactics, but I could let that slide if the tone changed. However I'm not the troll patrol, just don't like being trolled or talking repeats.

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

rrstesiak
rrstesiak's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 5 months ago
Joined: Mar 22 2015 - 5:38am
Geoff, you exhaust me with your lies.

Final post regarding Geoff's credibility....

I do not have the time to hunt down many more than a few of the gadgets to which Geoff claims to be the inventor/designer, but here are a few where I list references that state he is in fact NOT the designer/inventor:

1. The Super Intelligent Chip

As quoted from six moons audio:

six moons wrote:

On the back is a row of 10 shiny dots and the manufacturer's name, J.S. Audio Video Laboratories, a name that leads to a large electronics company in Guangzhou, China. Now these dots on the card looked familiar. In the Intelligent Chip, a product now defunct and superseded by the IB, you could find either 1 or 3 of these little shiny metal dots.

So, the manufacturer in this case is a company called J.S. Audio Video Laboratories based in China.

2. any gadget having to do with coloring CD's or Blurays..including but not limited to:

i. CD Coloring Kit
ii. Blu Ray Coloring Kit

Any and all of Mr. Kait's proclamations of designing approaches whereby coloring or marking CD/Bluray media with markers, etc. was actually first mentioned by Peter Belt. Here is a link to just one of many many articles on the internet where the appropriate credit is given:

http://www.pwbelectronics.co.uk/the-importance-of-colours-and-sound

And continuing on....

Geoff claimed to be the designer of Clever Little Clock from Peter Belt as well.... here is a direct quote from a review of the gadget online here:

pf audio wrote:

The Clever Little Clock is based on concepts and products originally developed by PWB Electronics and Machina Dynamica produces the clock with permission from PWB"

PWB being Peter Belt's company.

If I had the energy and ambition and motivation, I'm certain I could single handely debunk almost every single one of these. Except of course for the truly inane and insane ones. The "teleportation tweak" is something straight out of Barnum and Bailey.. PT Barnum being a man Mr. Kait has quoted more than once and clearly is an idol to Geoff.

Like I said, he may be a half-decent promoter, but an inventor or innovator he is not.

As for Mr. Kait in general, I have said more than enough and am finished with the topic, No matter what the man has to say in reply. It's all baiting tactic. I'm saying it here and now: I am done.

And to keep things honest, he had already modified this list and so I'll take the liberty of quoting it again here in case he tries to delete the cases I have stated above:

geoffkait wrote:

The Super Intelligent Chip
The Ultra Signature Version of the Clever Little Clock
Nimbus Sub Hertz Sub Hertz Platform
Promethean Base
Baby Cryo Promethean Mini Isolators
Codename Turquoise CD tray masking kit
Codename Top Banana Blu Ray tray masking kit
Brilliant Pebbles, crystals for audio applications, the first and still the best
Dark Matter thin film technology invisible scattered light absorber
The Teleportation Tweak long distance audio and video tweak
Animal Magnetism interconnect and power cord collars
Quark! Cork Circuit Board Isolation System
VibraBlock constrained layer damper
Flying Saucers for Windows
Flying Saucers for Wall Outlets
Tru Tone Duplex Covers for Wall Outlets
CD Coloring Kit
Blu Ray Coloring Kit
CD Re-animator Stroboscopic Multicolor Light
Quantum Temple Bell room acoustics treatment
Frog Jump in Water Sound room acoustic tweak using ordinary tap water

May Belt
May Belt's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 years 6 months ago
Joined: May 8 2006 - 1:51am
Just to clarify, Ron..

Just to clarify some things, Ron.

Yes, some of the ideas behind applying colours to the edge of CDs etc are, yes Peter’s and mine. However, practically simultaneously, others (I think in the USA) were also discovering that one can mark the edge of CDs with the colour Green. So, there are, out there, colours to be discovered which “affect the sound”.

Regarding the Clever Clock. Geoff was already aware that our PWB clock was very effective so when we decided to discontinue producing our clock, Geoff asked our permission to produce his own version. Which was granted !!!!

So, Ron. Geoff producing his own Clever Little Clock was NOT a “Rip Off” as you put it. Permission had been given to use our idea !!! AND acknowledged by Geoff.

Regards,
May Belt,
PWB Electronics.

rrstesiak
rrstesiak's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 5 months ago
Joined: Mar 22 2015 - 5:38am
Reply to May

May:

Your reply is bizarre.

You may have a case for the coloring tweaks... but in light that the man has taken credit for many other tweaks leads me to believe he doesn't possess a creative bone in his body and it can be readily deduced he ripped off the coloring idea as well.

Now... on to the bizarre:

Are you not insulted that Mr. Kait has proclaimed to be THE INVENTOR of some of your husband's work!???

Again, your response is just bizarre.

As I am now concerned Geoff will try to again go back and edit what profound lies and claims he challenged me with, allow me to quote what he posted earlier; which includes taking ALL OF THE CREDIT OF YOUR HUSBAND'S HARD WORK MAY!

geoffkait wrote:

Hi, Ron, don't know where all of your angst is coming from but allow me to respond to your last accusation which like the rest of your accusations is untrue. Products I designed include,

The Super Intelligent Chip
The Ultra Signature Version of the Clever Little Clock
Nimbus Sub Hertz Sub Hertz Platform
Promethean Base
Baby Cryo Promethean Mini Isolators
Codename Turquoise CD tray masking kit
Codename Top Banana Blu Ray tray masking kit
Brilliant Pebbles, crystals for audio applications, the first and still the best
Dark Matter thin film technology invisible scattered light absorber
The Teleportation Tweak long distance audio and video tweak
Animal Magnetism interconnect and power cord collars
Quark! Cork Circuit Board Isolation System
VibraBlock constrained layer damper
Flying Saucers for Windows
Flying Saucers for Wall Outlets
Tru Tone Duplex Covers for Wall Outlets
CD Coloring Kit
Blu Ray Coloring Kit
CD Re-animator Stroboscopic Multicolor Light
Quantum Temple Bell room acoustics treatment
Frog Jump in Water Sound room acoustic tweak using ordinary tap water

Apparently you aren't any better at researching my products than you are at researching my technical papers. Is this your first rodeo?

Cheerios

Geoff Kait
Machinadynamica.com
We do artificial atoms right

I would like to now please cease all of the debate on Mr. Kait's credibility.

The simple answer is, he has none.

Regards,

Ron

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

Hi Ron

The good news is, your not alone. Internet trolls try the best they can to single people out and attack, but with several here being willing to do a little shared experience policing, geoff and any other audio trolls have no place to go, and that will give us a chance to raise the bar on this forums etiquette.

Geoff will try to make things look like there is a war between you and he, or between him and any other victim he sets his sights on. This is how they work. They find a way to make some sort of riff to make themselves look relevant to the topic or industry. If they can create the illusion of two sides and keep the thread fueled, mission accomplished.

This is why I called out both geoff & may. Hopefully May can do the repair needed, but doing that whole "challenge" and "THE answer" thing was totally a trolling move. I'm glad your sticking up for her though and hope she rethinks her approach. Not that she needs to change her opinions at all, but don't make a spin when there is none is my concern. If someone has valid points they should be able to make them without trolling threads or forums.

Hi May

Hopefully we can move forward in a more realistic way, as I do not wish for you or Peter to have your work defamed. I believe people can be challenged and questioned of course, but when the answers and challenges are met, or at least returned in an answer where the conclusion is obvious (such as listening and doing) pushing the conversation into a troll doesn't accomplish resolve. If two people disagree, no biggie freeworld, but we must respect when those places are met.

In the case (I hope we can end this with this example) you made the statement of me claiming I was or that I had "THE" answer and all other answers were not valid. My answer to this was I don't have the answer for anyones own personal sound, but I make tools to respond to the variables in this hobby. Where someone (including you and Peter) goes with your sound is completely owned by you. TuneLand and myself are about the variables, not about where anyone takes those variables. We're not about "michael's sound", we're about helping people get to "their sound".

Wouldn't it be great to drop the spins regardless where or who they come from and just move onto the music? this is where I stand and hope we can agree to either agree or disagree then move on.

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

geoffkait
geoffkait's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 days 1 hour ago
Joined: Apr 29 2008 - 5:10am
Who's zoomin' who?
rrstesiak wrote:

Final post regarding Geoff's credibility....

I do not have the time to hunt down many more than a few of the gadgets to which Geoff claims to be the inventor/designer, but here are a few where I list references that state he is in fact NOT the designer/inventor:

1. The Super Intelligent Chip

As quoted from six moons audio:

six moons wrote:

On the back is a row of 10 shiny dots and the manufacturer's name, J.S. Audio Video Laboratories, a name that leads to a large electronics company in Guangzhou, China. Now these dots on the card looked familiar. In the Intelligent Chip, a product now defunct and superseded by the IB, you could find either 1 or 3 of these little shiny metal dots.

So, the manufacturer in this case is a company called J.S. Audio Video Laboratories based in China.

2. any gadget having to do with coloring CD's or Blurays..including but not limited to:

i. CD Coloring Kit
ii. Blu Ray Coloring Kit

Any and all of Mr. Kait's proclamations of designing approaches whereby coloring or marking CD/Bluray media with markers, etc. was actually first mentioned by Peter Belt. Here is a link to just one of many many articles on the internet where the appropriate credit is given:

http://www.pwbelectronics.co.uk/the-importance-of-colours-and-sound

And continuing on....

Geoff claimed to be the designer of Clever Little Clock from Peter Belt as well.... here is a direct quote from a review of the gadget online here:

pf audio wrote:

The Clever Little Clock is based on concepts and products originally developed by PWB Electronics and Machina Dynamica produces the clock with permission from PWB"

PWB being Peter Belt's company.

If I had the energy and ambition and motivation, I'm certain I could single handely debunk almost every single one of these. Except of course for the truly inane and insane ones. The "teleportation tweak" is something straight out of Barnum and Bailey.. PT Barnum being a man Mr. Kait has quoted more than once and clearly is an idol to Geoff.

Like I said, he may be a half-decent promoter, but an inventor or innovator he is not.

As for Mr. Kait in general, I have said more than enough and am finished with the topic, No matter what the man has to say in reply. It's all baiting tactic. I'm saying it here and now: I am done.

And to keep things honest, he had already modified this list and so I'll take the liberty of quoting it again here in case he tries to delete the cases I have stated above:

geoffkait wrote:

The Super Intelligent Chip
The Ultra Signature Version of the Clever Little Clock
Nimbus Sub Hertz Sub Hertz Platform
Promethean Base
Baby Cryo Promethean Mini Isolators
Codename Turquoise CD tray masking kit
Codename Top Banana Blu Ray tray masking kit
Brilliant Pebbles, crystals for audio applications, the first and still the best
Dark Matter thin film technology invisible scattered light absorber
The Teleportation Tweak long distance audio and video tweak
Animal Magnetism interconnect and power cord collars
Quark! Cork Circuit Board Isolation System
VibraBlock constrained layer damper
Flying Saucers for Windows
Flying Saucers for Wall Outlets
Tru Tone Duplex Covers for Wall Outlets
CD Coloring Kit
Blu Ray Coloring Kit
CD Re-animator Stroboscopic Multicolor Light
Quantum Temple Bell room acoustics treatment
Frog Jump in Water Sound room acoustic tweak using ordinary tap water

I can certainly understand to enter the fray and defend Mr. Green but now you just being silly. My Super Intelligent Chip is a Re-invention of the original orange intelligent Chip and is in fact my design. It is in fact a better and more powerful chip. Same goes for the clock. It is my design. The PWB clock was taken off the market 20 or 25 years ago. Mine is not the same animal as the original PWB clock. What you're claiming is just like saying the Hydrogen bomb is the same design as the Atomic bomb. You're obviously confused about the difference between the meanings of invention and original design.i never said if was the original designer. Duh! I even go out of my way to show I'm not the original designer of the Intelligent Chip, the Intelligent Box or the Clock. You saw where my letter to the reviewers of the Intelligent Box stating I was not the manufacturer was appended to the review, no? Did you fail to understand why I wrote that letter? It is apparently you who is lying. Most likely to try to pump up your credentials which I actually think are beginning to look a little suspect. You wrote, "I will make my own Schumann Frequency Geneator. I have the education to do that". Wel, as it turns out you actually don't have the education to do that. I had to point out to you the antenna would be way too long. You also proved unable to discuss the quantum mechanics involved with the Intelligent Chip coherently and simply listed a few classes. "The Intelligent Chip can't possibly work because I'm a PhD and took a few courses in quantum mechanics." That's hilarious.

Even you must see the fallacy of your argument. Capish? You apparently have no idea how the Intelligent Chip works or how the Clock works, you're just dropping names and puffing up like a blowfish as is your habit. How would you know whether or not my products are my design? You wouldn't. As far as coloring CDs goes, my method is the most comprehensive one available and is the most efficacious to boot.

I have many products that are the only one of their kind, e.g., Dark Matter, Flying Saucers, Quantum Temple Bell, the water trick, Animal Magentism cable collars, and others. I imagine you are conveniently ignoring those.

Good luck with all the angst.

Sincerely,

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

geoffkait
geoffkait's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 days 1 hour ago
Joined: Apr 29 2008 - 5:10am
A message from our sponsor
michael green wrote:

What I like about "the tune" is it belongs to the listeners who choose to explore the variables. TuneLand in the long run, may be looked at like the beginning of the movement, but in all honesty TuneLand is a home for the "method of tuning" to shine and keep account of the different journeys of the ones who wish to practices Hi Fi tuning at all levels as a community, and a place to promote MGA/RoomTune goods, as well as other thoughts that fit. Earlier today I was talking to a Tunee building a $500,000.00 mini tunable concert hall, and tomorrow we might be working on a $50.00 component. The success of tuning belongs to the listeners. As I say many times "anyone can buy a piano". Tuning however is the science on both ends moving toward each other. Listeners like Ron are a natural fit, not because he has bought into michael, but because he has bought into himself as a listening explorer. Ron being a scientist will bring it's own value to the tune for all of us to explore and learn from.

It's not one man (michael green) teaching the world of audio. TuneLand got started by one man (michael green) who is dedicated to being a student of the tune, what I learn through experience, what I can learn to back up that experience, and extremely important, what I learn from and through the ears and brains of others as they open themselves up to the variables of audio and life.

I think what geoff kait doesn't get is, TuneLand doesn't suffer people like Ron (or anyone), TuneLand embraces Ron as he takes his walk and becomes part of the collective, sharing his talents and being respected for them. TuneLand, myself and others are there as guardrails sometimes on the sides of this wide hi-way, and can even come off as (like many concepts) rigid, but that's really only untill our personal walls come down together, incommon with any intellectually focused group. TuneLand is a sponge that gathers usable knowledge for the purpose of supporting the whole of variables, understanding that every recording/system/listener unit is unique. Those who might look at TuneLand as a closed minded venture have completely missed the point of TuneLand and my life as a student. TuneLand becomes great, because it is made up of people who understand the value of music, the value of themselves and the value of others.

May Belt calls me arrogant, and that's Ok cause I think all of us come off differently to different people, but it's when we take the time to dig deeper into a persons purpose, that we start to see who and what they really are and why they are here. "Music is why I am here". I don't want to feed into or try to make it anything other than what it has shown me. I believe people like Ron, because I'm seeing Ron "do". I'm seeing Ron grow, Ron learn and Ron share. Is Ron 100% on the mark? Of course he is, from Ron's point of view. Ideas aren't meant to be stuck and the only way. Ideas are meant to be a contribution to the whole of the hobby. What Ron may find could end up being something that changes my view. Same goes for May or Geoff. But for me it has to come from a place of non-fiction. I can't pretend my results. My job is to do exactly opposite what geoff and May claim "it's all a mystery". To them and others it might be and I want to respect that, but I can't claim a fiction as truth.

"there is no greater credential, than the willingness to learn", "there is no greater gift, than the truth"

"Truth is not so much what we say, as it is what we are able to do, and practice that doing."

Geoff, I think it's a big mistake that you continue to push people into the position of enemies when they clearly have opened their arms of friendship. You may have the skill of twisting words and painting pictures of fiction, but this won't and never will replace truth, or the tune.

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

Thanks for the self serving promotional ad for TunnelLand. I'm sure we all appreciate it. Now back to our regularly scheduled program. Now, let's see those open arms of friendship. You kill me sometimes. That's so funny. Does anyone else see the irony of a big fat liar talking about truth? Maybe it's just me. Lol

Nice to see you're still carrying the torch for me.

An ordinary man has no means of deliverance.

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

May Belt
May Belt's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 years 6 months ago
Joined: May 8 2006 - 1:51am
Again to give more clarity. Ron.

>>> “May:
Your reply is bizarre.
You may have a case for the coloring tweaks... but in light that the man has taken credit for many other tweaks leads me to believe he doesn't possess a creative bone in his body and it can be readily deduced he ripped off the coloring idea as well.
Now... on to the bizarre:
Are you not insulted that Mr. Kait has proclaimed to be THE INVENTOR of some of your husband's work!??? “ <<<

Again to give clarity, Ron.

There are a few things which ARE our ideas behind Geoff’s Clever Clock. Geoff was given permission to use those ideas and he then made his own designs (for the Clock) incorporating our ideas.
Geoff said :-

>>> “Products I designed include,” <<<

So, Geoff has claimed, quite correctly, that HIS specific design of his Clever Clock is HIS design whilst acknowledging that he is using our basic ideas within the final design – with our permission.

I choose my words carefully, Ron. Nothing bizarre !!!! I know the facts behind many things said to be associated with Peter and I and our ideas and discoveries.

As I have suggested before. I think Geoff regularly uses mockery against people who believe they are making sense but who are, quite often, just blustering and waffling. So, I would also suggest. Don’t underestimate Geoff’s knowledge and experience regarding audio matters.

Such as Ethan Winer (on the Stereophile Chat Forum) and UncleStu (on the Audio Asylum Forum) are two people who both Geoff and I have ‘sparred with’. Geoff using mockery and I use the method of challenging their replies.

Ethan Winer was adamant that the only improvements one could make to the sound was by using his room “Real Traps” and “Bass Traps”. That any other technique was rubbish (even suggesting downright fraud for some techniques) !! I am sure if Michael G had been ‘posting’ during that time, even HE might have been challenging (disagreeing) with Ethan Winer’s insistence that his (Ethan’s) technique was THE ONLY WAY TO GOOD SOUND !!!!!!!!!!!!!

The same with Unclestu. Unclestu wants every change (in the sound) by whatever means to be explained by RF interference (worse sound) or reducing RF interference (better sound). However much he (Unclestu) has to pull, push, squeeze, bend, stretch, his explanations to fit the results !!!!!!!

UncleStu even said he KNEW how our tiny strips of Rainbow Foil worked when applied to the label side of CDs and to the labels of LPs – that they were ‘dealing with RF’ !!!!

To people with far more experience and knowledge, there is FAR MORE going on in the listening environment – so Unclestu gets challenged by me and both challenged and mocked by Geoff.

Where the problem arises, Ron, is that some of the things which Ethan Winer recommended did give improvements in the sound !! So, to people who have experienced those improvements by using his techniques and products, Ethan appears to be correct and therefore MUST BE correct about everything !!! Therefore anyone who chooses to challenge Ethan, gets challenged themselves – and so it goes on.

Ditto Unclestu. So many of the techniques which UncleStu suggests to improve the sound DO improve the sound – so again, to the people who have experienced those improvements by using his suggestions, he appears to be correct and therefore MUST BE correct about everything !! Therefore anyone who chooses to challenge Unclestu, gets challenged themselves – and so it goes on.

So, if anyone has the gall to challenge either of them, they are referred to as ‘trolls’ !!!

Ethan Winer is NOT correct. His products and room improvement techniques are not THE answer. Nor is his colleague (a prominent member of AES) who sat next to Ethan during a public debate correct when he insisted that the ONLY explanation for people reporting improvements in the sound after trying a ‘tweak’ was that their head had been in a different position when they sat down again after getting up to make the change !!!

UncleStu is NOT correct when he claims that all changes in the sound is because of more or less RF interference.

Why shouldn’t they be challenged ?? There IS far more ‘going on’ in the modern environment which affects ‘sound’ – far more than people have ever realised. This is the particular area where I DO agree with Michael. That everything affects everything else and that everything which is changed, in the listening environment, affects the sound.

Where I disagree with him is that the “variable” technique is THE answer. I say that there are many, many other so called ‘fixed’ tweaks which are equally (or might even be more) important.

Regards,
May Belt
PWB Electronics.

May Belt
May Belt's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 years 6 months ago
Joined: May 8 2006 - 1:51am
community of credible audiophiles.

Mg :-

>>> “So now does May come up and try to salvage the yards, spin on mg or Ron or ChrisS or Costin, or does she try to build her way back into the community of credible audiophiles?” <<<

Peter and I are already in the community of credible audiophiles. I don’t need (as you so elegantly put it with your usual twist on the situation) to have to ‘try to build my way back’. !! I never went anywhere different to where I have always been !!!!!

I don’t “spin” on anyone. I challenge them, yes, (whoever) when I see that they are not giving others full enough information or are actually using their own ‘postings’ to ‘puff up’ their own products and techniques – whilst at the same time – using the same opportunity to dumb down others products and techniques !!

Mg:-

>>> “In the case (I hope we can end this with this example) you made the statement of me claiming I was or that I had "THE" answer and all other answers were not valid. My answer to this was I don't have the answer for anyones own personal sound, but I make tools to respond to the variables in this hobby. Where someone (including you and Peter) goes with your sound is completely owned by you. TuneLand and myself are about the variables, not about where anyone takes those variables. We're not about "michael's sound", we're about helping people get to "their sound".” <<<

If only you were absolutely “about helping people get to "their sound". Because you would not then allow them to ‘walk past’, ‘jump over’, ‘swerve around’ important areas which can be having an adverse effect on the sound – just to position such as YOUR blocks of wood – so that they can have the position of those wooden blocks ‘varied’ between recordings !!!

Regards,
May Belt,
PWB Electronics.

rrstesiak
rrstesiak's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 5 months ago
Joined: Mar 22 2015 - 5:38am
Reply to May

May:

I understand your *very* fine point that Geoff is merely "modifying" Peter's designs, and so we have reached agreement.

Most importantly, if you're ok with it, then I'm ok with it. I was in a way defending you and your husband to be certain you and he were given the credit for the hard work: the original design. Modifying things is an order of magnitude simpler.

At any rate, as I have previously mentioned, I truly am tired of talking about Mr. Kait and wish this community would get back to the topic of audio.

Respectfully,

Ron

geoffkait
geoffkait's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 days 1 hour ago
Joined: Apr 29 2008 - 5:10am
Who's tired of whom?

Ron, here's the intro to the paper May and I wrote a few years ago. If you had done your homework you would have known that I attribute original ideas to those responsible. In case you never heard of it it's called intellectual property.

"The Clever Little Clock is a battery-powered travel clock the size of an iPhone that has been extensively modified using many highly specialized techniques. At least 19 steps are required to produce the Clever Little Clock, somewhat more for the new Signature version. The clock can be placed anywhere in the room with excellent results for both the sound quality of audio systems AND the picture quality of video systems. The Clever Little Clock is based on concepts and techniques that were developed by PWB Electronics, Leeds, England and is designed and manufactured exclusively by Machina Dynamica. May Belt of PWB Electronics provided assistance with this theory of operation."

Read the entire explanation of how the Clever Little Clock works at:

http://machinadynamica.com/machina42.htm

It would appear whatever audiophile Dis-ease Michael Green contracted is contagious. Sorry to hear you have come down with it. Hope you feel better. Have a nice pseudo skeptic day. Everything's topsy turvy. Me topsy, you turvy.

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

May Belt
May Belt's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 years 6 months ago
Joined: May 8 2006 - 1:51am
I’m ok with it.

Ron said :-

>>> “More importantly, if you’re ok with it, then I'm ok with it. I was in a way defending you and your husband to be certain you and he were given the credit for the hard work: the original design.” <<<

I’m ok with it. Now we seem to be on an ‘even keel’(discussion wise) perhaps we can progress. And I would love to get back to the subject of audio. And I don’t actually have to be ‘sharing actual music’ with you Ron to progress further !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ron said :-

>>> “As for your perception Michael insists "his way" is the only way.. I do not get that impression from him.” <<<

Perhaps I can explain further why I challenge Michael on the concept he puts forward. I suggest you read through all his back ‘postings’ on this Stereophile Forum to get the gist of what I mean.

Michael has, yes, discovered many, many things which ‘change the sound’. And, I do not believe that he would be recommending anything which he, personally, had not found to improve the sound. So, having made that quite clear, I would now suggest that whereas Michael has not actually ‘hijacked’ the word “tuning” (because the word tuning is in the dictionary for anyone to use) but that he is using the term “tuning” to be all encompassing – to cover all of HIS techniques!!! Not only that (if you DO go back and read all his postings) he uses the (now) all encompassing term ‘tuning’ to be able to use any opportunity to pooh pooh other people’s techniques and products by insinuating that those other techniques and products are not CORRECTLY ‘tuning’ !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! So should be avoided !!!! He does not condemn them outright but he insinuates that they are ‘not right’, they are not ‘pukka’. So steering people away from doing anything other than HIS so called ‘tuning’ techniques. He says, yes, that if people want to go down other paths, then it is up to them – he does not stop them – it is their choice – but they are left in no doubt by him that it would not be the correct way to go !!

This is what Michael does, repeatedly.

Logic. If other people’s ‘tweaks’ and techniques were regarded by Michael as also “tuning”, then logically THEY would be included in his recommendations as well as his own techniques.

Michael (followed closely by ChrisS) also keeps endlessly referring to and linking to the ‘tuning of musical instruments’ so attempting to group Michael’s ‘tuning’ techniques with the well established and understood ‘tuning of musical instruments’. When one is ‘tuning’ a piano or a guitar, one does not try A technique, and then try B technique and then try C and then try D and then try E – one tunes each string to a desired note and then when that is reached – the instrument is tuned. Not forever, obviously, it will need ‘tuning’ again at some later time.

Yes, the tone of the instrument can be changed by changing the actual wood, or by changing the actual string material, or by changing such as the bridging block and so on but once the desired tone has been achieved one does not change the wood, or the strings, or the bridging block for EACH different piece of music !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! In other words, one does not vary the ‘tuning’ once the desired sound is achieved. Other than to tune again if the tuning is out or if the room atmosphere is or becomes different. Without, of course, one wants to go for a specific ‘sound’ – such as a ‘honky tonk’ piano sound !!!!!

Michael says :-

>>> “On these threads people can read real time accounts of listeners, listening and tuning. We welcome those curious to join and begin tuning their systems, based on step by step real time tuning.” <<<

Again Michael refers to his techniques as ‘step by step real time tuning’. What is happening is that everything one does in the listening environment changes the sound. So, yes, change A (step one) and you change the sound. Change B (step two) and you change the sound. Change C (step three) and you change the sound. Change B MIGHT give you what you want ( in your case, Ron, presumably you would be desirous of an excellent soundstage). If you didn’t, then you would carry on with change D or change E or change F until you got the desired effect. This is what Michael calls “variable tuning”. Keep changing until you get the sound you are looking for, and don’t stay rigid in case you want to go back to earlier changes !! Or until you want to pursue a different sound altogether.

I don’t have any problem with that, because everything present in the listening environment IS affecting the sound. But, I say, that making changes A, B, C, D, E, F and so on is NOT the all encompassing “tuning”. It is just simply “making changes” – and varying those changes !!!!!!!!! You only have to look at what the person called ‘sonic’ is doing with his transformers – now outside the equipment case. He has them positioned precariously on the edge of three wooden blocks each transformer, and then changes the position (or the actual number) of the wooden blocks when he is not getting the sound he is looking for !! It seems to be a continual chasing for this sound or that sound or back again to an earlier sound !!! THIS isn’t “tuning” !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! As is generally understood as “tuning !!!! It is ‘trying this’ and ‘trying that’ until you get close to the sound you are wanting. But Michael appears to want to describe all that activity as “variable tuning” and then claim that because it is what he calls “tuning” it must be THE answer to getting the best sound.

I say that it is only a part of ‘getting the best sound’.

Which then leads me to the other techniques (other people’s techniques and devices) many of which Geoff has listed – which can ALSO provide improvements in the sound – as has been described by numerous other people – many of them just as experienced in listening as Michael claims to be.

They are just as much techniques for improving the sound – even though they might be regarded as “fixed”(non variable) by Michael.

To be continued.

Regards,
May Belt,
PWB Electronics.

May Belt
May Belt's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 years 6 months ago
Joined: May 8 2006 - 1:51am
Yet more

Now, Ron, you say that after removing the transformer to the outside of the equipment, if you find that it gives you an improvement in the sound, then you will leave it on the outside. But, if it DOES give you an improvement in your sound, then surely this means that whilst it was inside the equipment case, it must have been having an adverse effect. And, you believe, an adverse effect on the circuitry and components – i.e. on the audio signal.

So, logically, if you prove to yourself that a transformer can have an adverse effect when inside the equipment case, what are you going to do regarding the transformers still inside your other audio equipment ? Now that you would have this new information ??

You could have many ideas and many techniques. You could think of isolating the adverse field of the transformer whilst still inside the equipment. You could think of trying to dissipate or absorb the adverse field. You could think (I’m just PLAYING here with an outside intellectual thought – as I feel such as Richard Feynman would do) of trying to alter the em field energy into another form (into heat) and to then dissipate the resulting heat. But, presuming any of those techniques, logically once the treatment was carried out, and an improvement in the sound achieved, then that ‘treatment’ would be left “FIXED” - NO ?

Let me now take you on another path. Everything you introduce into the listening environment will have an effect on the sound. You mentioned to Michael about buying another microphone, with a better specification, in order to carry out better measurements. It does not matter what brand name of manufacturer, nor how much it cost you, nor it’s specification – if you introduce it into your listening environment it will have an effect on the sound. If you introduce measuring equipment into your listening environment, it will affect the sound. If you buy more and more audio equipment and introduce those items into your listening environment, they will have an effect on the sound. So, if you are not aware of such, you will carry on meticulously separating the transformer wires, then meticulously soldering them up again, meticulously carrying out this procedure and that procedure, completely unaware that the sound will be changing every time you bring something else into the room !! At the same time as you are going to want to assess what affect (on the sound) moving the transformer to the outside of the equipment is having.

To spell it out more. If, say you listened to your new NAD CD player before removing the transformer to the outside of the equipment case on 1st August. You carried out your meticulous work on the transformer, now outside the equipment, then when this was finished (say on the 20th August) you sat down to listen to the result and to compare the 20th August sound with the earlier 1st August sound. If, Ron, during that 20 day period, you had introduced ANYTHING new into your listening environment, the listening trial would not be a valid listening trial – because the exact listening environment would not be identical !!!! Because the transformer, inside or outside the equipment, would NOT be the ONLY difference !!

I see that when ‘sonic’ has mentioned that after doing something the sound is not now to his liking and what would Michael suggest he tries next, Michael does not ask ‘sonic’ the question “Have you introduced anything new into your listening environment whilst you were in the middle of changing something ?”.

So, Ron. Can I ask that when you are doing the listening trials comparing the sound between having the transformer inside the equipment and outside the equipment, you make sure that you have not introduced ANYTHING NEW into your listening environment. And, I do mean ANYTHING !!! I can’t repeat too often. EVERYTHING you do, everything you change, in your listening environment, affects the sound.

This also applies to the time when you might wish to evaluate any new speakers. When doing listening trials with new speakers, remember to remove your previous speakers from the listening environment first !!!

Regards,
May Belt,
PWB Electronics.

rrstesiak
rrstesiak's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 5 months ago
Joined: Mar 22 2015 - 5:38am
Short reply

May:

That was well written.

My short reply is:

I intend on making my own wiring harness that I can easily plug and unplug the 12" extension to the transformer.

I also have to redo all of the measurements when I buy the microphone and ADC.

So.. the testing environment will be controlled. But I appreciate the suggestions and I especially enjoyed the Feynman reference. As it so happens, My mentor actually was a student who had Feynman himself as his professor when he was getting his PhD in Physics from Caltech in the 60's!

I'm glad we are again talking about audio.

Cheers,

Ron

geoffkait
geoffkait's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 days 1 hour ago
Joined: Apr 29 2008 - 5:10am
My friend Alton Keel who was

My friend Alton Keel who was at the time the head of the Rogers Committee to investigate the Challenger Shuttle disaster was by no coincidence the person who clashed with Feynman and who kept Feynman's report out of the official final Report. Keel was a post doc from Berkeley who recognized Feynman as a loose cannon. Pretty funny, huh? Sadly Feynman died a few years layer. On the bright side Feynman was the one on the committee which included Sally Ride who demonstrated that the weather conditions were too cold the morning of launch for the rubber o-rings to function properly by dipping a rubber band in ice cold water.

Have a nice day

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

geoffkait
geoffkait's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 days 1 hour ago
Joined: Apr 29 2008 - 5:10am
Feynman

My friend Alton Keel who was at the time the Director of the Rogers Committee to investigate the Challenger Shuttle disaster was by no coincidence the person who clashed with Feynman, also on the committee, and who kept Feynman's section out of the official final Report. Keel was a post doc from Berkeley who recognized Feynman as a loose cannon. Pretty funny, huh? Sadly Feynman died a few years later. On the bright side Feynman was the one on the committee which included Sally Ride who demonstrated that the weather conditions were too cold the morning of launch for the rubber o-rings to function properly by dipping a rubber band in ice cold water.

Have a nice day

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

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

May, please understand that it gets exhausting talking to someone that has not studied before they speak.

If your desire is to learn more about tuning an audio system you are going to need to jump in and start doing.

may said

"Michael (followed closely by ChrisS) also keeps endlessly referring to and linking to the ‘tuning of musical instruments’ so attempting to group Michael’s ‘tuning’ techniques with the well established and understood ‘tuning of musical instruments’. When one is ‘tuning’ a piano or a guitar, one does not try A technique, and then try B technique and then try C and then try D and then try E – one tunes each string to a desired note and then when that is reached – the instrument is tuned. Not forever, obviously, it will need ‘tuning’ again at some later time."

mg

If a piano was built like an electronic component, it certainly would need to have experimental applications. A piano can be tuned because it is designed to be tuned. May, sorry but you are going to need to get up to speed on the whole tuning thing a little more if your hoping to be talking on the same level of understanding. I don't mean this to be a slam but more a suggestion. Your comments in the last posts sounded like someone with training wheels trying to talk to someone on a BMW motorcycle. Moving on more complicated is when you put several instruments in the same room. A step further is when they are all recorded on equipment that may be out-of-tune. Finally the recorded code is played back in different acoustics and through different electronic equipment and under different conditions.

May, the whole point of what we are doing is in fact to bring the audio industry to a more accurate design and listening method than random plug and play. Just like that piano was designed to be tuned, we believe audio equipment and the environments must have this same approach in order to play back the music in-tune.

It's only random until we get closer to making our audio system designed for what they are meant to be.

Keep taking your negative approach if you wish May, but it's too late, people are tuning and looking again at audio designing. You have a choice, either be a part of those who can or those who can't. I understand that you are going to take the negative side everytime, we get it, but we're trying to get you to be positive about tuning instead of trying to be a road block. Your not going to stop the future May.

may, let me explain it like this

Right now the industry is telling listeners to go through a lifetime of trading in and out components and applying fixed tweaks that may or may not work vs us saying design a system to tune and practice till you learn how to play.

May, why would someone buy a piano that wasn't designed like a piano. What's worse is why would someone buy a piano and not learn how to play it?

May, you've taken us back to the same point, "your not doing". How can you know the flexibility and how hard or easy it is without ever doing? This would be so much better if you weren't speaking out of ignorance. This again is why I call your posting trolling. Your making everyone take the long way around again instead of doing and finding out for yourself. May you said in a post today that you don't spin, you just did.

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

rrstesiak
rrstesiak's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 5 months ago
Joined: Mar 22 2015 - 5:38am
PROOF of my word to Mr. Kait

Here's proof Geoff.

With your last post resorting to some sort of sarcastic attack on a personal level, you have shown yourself to be nothing but a troll.

As luck would have it, I can actually somewhat prove the fact my mentor studied under Feynman when he taught and did research at Caltech during the '60s!

As a gift to me for all the work I did on our last research paper, my mentor in fact *gave* me his original textbooks from Dr. Feynman's class. I was floored and honored. The texts are also still very valid resources in the field of graduate level Theoretical Physics today.

Now stop putting down myself and others and start providing proof of what *you* claim. Or better yet, leave us alone if you have nothing of use to add.

Here they are:

Image hosted by servimg.com

As students buy new books each year, here is 1966 as my mentor's year he studied under Feynman listed on the inside of each textbook (it's at the bottom as the revision); as well as the location of Caltech:

Image hosted by servimg.com

With that last post which was strictly a personal attack, you have shown yourself to be lacking of character and integrity. Why did you have to take it to a personal level? That is totally unprofessional, unbefitting any kind of conduct on any forum, and just simply downright mean spirited.

I will here forwards just ignore any and all of your posts which only serve to provoke others and merely add a slight twisted level of entertainment...like PT Barnum... or in your case, the Court Jester.

Regards,

Ron

geoffkait
geoffkait's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 days 1 hour ago
Joined: Apr 29 2008 - 5:10am
High comedy at Stereophile forum

Personal attack? Attack on whom? An attack on Feynman? An attack on you? Geez, a little thin skinned, aren't we? As I said previously this is not my first rodeo, cowpoke. So far it is actually you who have engaged in personal attacks, not I. In fact, I would go so far as to say I've seen nothing that I would even call scientific from you. Just a whole lot of idle innuendo and name dropping.I bet you actually think you're the smartest person in the room no matter which room you walk into. That's a personal attack in case you missed it. I anxiously await your next whine.

Sincerely,

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

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

Geoff says

"Personal attack? Attack on whom? An attack on Feynman? An attack on you? Geez, a little thin skinned, aren't we? As I said previously this is not my first rodeo, cowpoke."

mg

Geoff is correct when he makes this statement. "As I said previously this is not my first rodeo, cowpoke."

http://www.bing.com/search?q=Geoff+KAIT+Fraud&FORM=R5FD

But, I hope you (Ron) can hang in there while we get rid of this guy, or at least maginalize his attacks. For the record it has "not" been Ron doing the attacking. Geoff Kait has a reputation of audio trolling that goes back to the day he started audio officially 1998. All of us have welcomed Ron (and I include May) with good intent only to be flamed. The stereophile forum has suffered greatly because of the trolling and spins this particular couple have teamed up to do. None of us should be fooled, this is their MO and has been for many years. As we have said many times they bait and spin. Their game is to get people to answer and then they start their spin. At first I was wondering if they were being sincere probably like every other guy, but as time goes on you see the spins flip and find that the whole process of internet trolling is for the troll to keep finding ways to flip the script.

It's been interesting to have a chance to deal with these two, a new experience for me and in someway an interesting look into the minds of the characters of people desperate to be relevant. Now that time has rolled on though, I'm going to call it what it is and not bother as much with trying to nice it up. I've extented enough of the friendly hand to both. My disappointment is with May mainly, because what she is doing is distroying any good work that Peter has done. Notice Peter is no where to be found. He oviously doesn't want anything to do with the energy it takes to put into his wife's trolling.

proof of May trolling

As Ron has presented proof on geoff I will provide it for May.

may said

"Michael does not ask ‘sonic’ the question “Have you introduced anything new into your listening environment whilst you were in the middle of changing something ?”."

mg

This is a good example of May trolling. Michael is extremely thorough with his tuning and involvement of the tuning of others and one of the key questions I ask on TuneLand is what are you changing at the same time as any tweak, and I am constantly suggesting different ways to view each move. This is typical of May's trolling. She creates lies in order to add a spin to the conversation, that requires my response. I could point to hundreds of times I ask the question she just implied I didn't, and anyone who reads TuneLand can see this. But you see it isn't May's goal to get at any truth, but to look relevant.

Readers, go back and read May's posts again. Spin after spin through the entire post, or even through entire threads. If you go back and read through her other posts same thing. May herself says she "doesn't know the answers". Her game is to sow seeds of mystery, which has been her selling point for many years. Sell this mysterious audio and buy her absolute must haves. I could care less if people buy her stuff or not, that's not why I am here. Look however at how her fangs come out toward things like me promoting and her excuses as to not actually show that she has an audio system. It's all a spin. A practiced troll that has become routine for May.

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
trolling methods

May admits to her's and geoff's trolling methods, and that they get involved as a team when doing so.

may says

"As I have suggested before. I think Geoff regularly uses mockery against people who believe they are making sense but who are, quite often, just blustering and waffling. So, I would also suggest. Don’t underestimate Geoff’s knowledge and experience regarding audio matters.

Such as Ethan Winer (on the Stereophile Chat Forum) and UncleStu (on the Audio Asylum Forum) are two people who both Geoff and I have ‘sparred with’. Geoff using mockery and I use the method of challenging their replies."

mg

Personally and for the record, I have not seen evidence that Geoff nore May have the credentials to "sparred with" anyone. Geoff claims that "It's all a mystery" and May "I don't know the answers". geoff has a Sony Portable cassette player, and May is unwilling to show a stereo.

Both of them have been trolling so long they believe their own troll and trolling methods as to be the answer and truth of their discussions. The rest of you can do what you want with these facts. Most don't post on these threads because of the bad Vibe. I could give quotes from those who have left here specificially from geoff and may's trolling. However let me move onto this.

may

"Michael (followed closely by ChrisS) also keeps endlessly referring to and linking to the ‘tuning of musical instruments’ so attempting to group Michael’s ‘tuning’ techniques with the well established and understood ‘tuning of musical instruments’. When one is ‘tuning’ a piano or a guitar, one does not try A technique, and then try B technique and then try C and then try D and then try E – one tunes each string to a desired note and then when that is reached – the instrument is tuned. Not forever, obviously, it will need ‘tuning’ again at some later time.

Yes, the tone of the instrument can be changed by changing the actual wood, or by changing the actual string material, or by changing such as the bridging block and so on but once the desired tone has been achieved one does not change the wood, or the strings, or the bridging block for EACH different piece of music !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! In other words, one does not vary the ‘tuning’ once the desired sound is achieved. Other than to tune again if the tuning is out or if the room atmosphere is or becomes different. Without, of course, one wants to go for a specific ‘sound’ – such as a ‘honky tonk’ piano sound !!!!!"

mg

May just proved that tuning is the answer, so what's her problem? How easy or hard it is to tune is completely up to the instrument and the skill of the user.

Notice that she doesn't mention the "act" of tuning. Raise your hands, how many here know how to tune a piano? How many here have ever tuned a piano? How many here have ever tuned a piano with the action screwed on 3 or so keys?

May tries to make it look like this is an easy and automatic process as compared to what I do. But sorry May this once again shows that you have not "done" the hobby like you claim you and Peter and geoff have.

Notice something else, May never mentions "playing the piano". She spits out some easy to picture painting but never gets into the gutts.

If May and geoff, peter or anyone came to this conversation informed these questions would not be getting asked cause the people discussing would be of understanding, not someone grabbing at wiki or their own limited knowledge to get by.

May, if your going to challenge others at least do it with the same or perhaps more of a knowledge base. The spins your making with such vigor as if you are an authority on these topics reaches only so high on the intellect scale. Reading your posts are like going back to grade school for me when it comes to your knowledge of these topics. When you and geoff come to these threads you might be reaching some who are limited in their studies in these areas and that's cool, but when you are talking to someone like me who has spent their life in practical application concerning these topics, both of you come off like novice at best.

I've told you this before May, stop trying to school people, cause it's making you and Peter look like your not all that up on the hobby or industry.

If others want to feel sorry for you, or give you the benefit of the doubt, I've got to leave that up to them, and as I have suggested maybe you should talk to them and not me. Honestly through what I read, you give credit to those you put down like Mr. Winer and Stu, and I don't even know them. In my circles however the three of you (may, peter, geoff) are not making good cases for yourselves as you speak. If geoff is going to mock and you are going to challenge without giving substance don't call people names or arrogant (as you have called me) because we operate at a higher level of understanding of these topics.

Reminds me of an engineer named Jim, who was for some strange reason pushing for my job on a TV show. He kept talking and talking till the producers finally gave in and gave him one of my spots. I was laying there in bed on that sunday morning when the phone rang LOL. "you got to get your butt in here now". Turns out jimmy was all talk and no walk. They had to cancel the taping of the first show, and we pulled together the second barely in time.

May and geoff remind me of folks like that. They dig up just enough and are loud enough to paint themselves relevant, but when it comes time for the show are as lost as that poor jimmy who had all of one half unsuccessful show to add to his resume. He probably went around the rest of his life bragging on how he ran a TV show LOL.

Well here we are on stereophile being trolled by a 90 year old and a guy who doesn't even have a birth date. How funny is that folks?

John, Jason and you other guys, hope your getting your kicks at least. BTW, hi Jason. Come visit Tuneland sometime, hope your doing well! And John, would like to get you in one of these Tunable Rooms sometime, think you would enjoy it.

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

geoffkait
geoffkait's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 days 1 hour ago
Joined: Apr 29 2008 - 5:10am
For pseudo skeptics only - Exhibit A

A picture is worth a thousand words. See if anyone can guess what this is a picture of.

 photo photo_16_zpstrzrr5wd.jpg

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica
We Bring Good Things to You

geoffkait
geoffkait's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 days 1 hour ago
Joined: Apr 29 2008 - 5:10am
For pseudo skeptics only - Exhibit B

Exhibit B

 photo photo_18_zpsn1u9z7vz.jpg

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

geoffkait
geoffkait's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 days 1 hour ago
Joined: Apr 29 2008 - 5:10am
Exhibit C

From the Rogers Commission Report wiki page:

:William P. Rogers, chairman and former United States Secretary of State (under Richard Nixon) and United States Attorney General (under Dwight Eisenhower)
Neil A. Armstrong (Vice Chairman), retired astronaut and first human to walk on the Moon (Apollo 11)
David C. Acheson, diplomat and son of former Secretary of State Dean Acheson
Eugene E. Covert, aeronautics expert and former Chief Scientist of the U.S. Air Force
Richard P. Feynman, theoretical physicist and winner of the 1965 Nobel Prize in Physics
Robert B. Hotz, Editor, Aviation Week And Space Technology
Donald J. Kutyna, Air Force general with experience in ICBMs
Sally K. Ride, astronaut and first American woman in space, flew on Challenger as part of mission STS-7
Robert W. Rummel, Trans World Airlines executive and aviation consultant to NASA
Joseph F. Sutter, engineer for Boeing and part of team that developed Boeing 747 aircraft
Arthur B. C. Walker, Jr, solar physicist and Stanford University professor
Albert D. Wheelon, physicist and developer of Central Intelligence Agency's aerial surveillance program
Charles E. Yeager, retired Air Force general and the first person to break the sound barrier in level flight
Alton G. Keel, Jr., executive director of the commission

Feynman's role

Role of Richard Feynman Edit
“ I took this stuff that I got out of your seal and I put it in ice water, and I discovered that when you put some pressure on it for a while and then undo it, it does not stretch back. It stays the same dimension. In other words, for a few seconds at least and more seconds than that, there is no resilience in this particular material when it is at a temperature of 32 degrees. ”
—Richard Feynman, [4]

One of the commission's best-known members was theoretical physicist Richard Feynman. His style of investigating with his own direct methods rather than following the commission schedule put him at odds with Rogers, who once commented, "Feynman is becoming a real pain." During a televised hearing, Feynman famously demonstrated how the O-rings became less resilient and subject to seal failures at ice-cold temperatures by immersing a sample of the material in a glass of ice water.[4] Feynman's own investigation reveals a disconnect between NASA's engineers and executives that was far more striking than he expected. His interviews of NASA's high-ranking managers revealed startling misunderstandings of elementary concepts. One such concept was the determination of a safety factor.[5]

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica
We bring good things to life

rrstesiak
rrstesiak's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 5 months ago
Joined: Mar 22 2015 - 5:38am
Relevance

Geoff:

I never questioned Feynman's role in the Space Shuttle post-mortem analysis and the infamous failed rubber gasket.

I fail to see your point though.

My point is, I have a tenuous connection to the man himself; through his own textbook issued in 1966; given to me as a gift from my mentor who took classes from Mr. Feynman himself. I originally just brought it up within the context of a post to May I think, and certainly didn't intend for it to be picked apart...but it was, so that's why we are having this discussion at all.

So, that was my entire point.

What is your point to flaming me about Mr. Feynman anyway?

Regards,

Ron

ps. You have re-established your credibility by acquiring the student journal. Why didn't you just do that from the beginning? That would have saved you alot of doubt and grief on these forums from myself and other members.

pps. You totally mis-quoted me and my education. I certainly have a strong grasp of quantum mechanics and many other sub-specialites in physics.. so much so that I wrote an extensive rebuttle to your so-called quantum dots and other gadgets pointing out ultimately they do not have any actual affect on music to my analysis...and I was not challenged after that. That should clear up that attempt to debunk me too. Here is only part of the rebuttal for reference:

rrstesiak wrote:

Geoff:

Be careful what you ask for....you may just get it. In this case, a first pass at my technical analysis based on the data you have provided and standby after repeated requests for more substantial data or lab test results.

So here is my analysis:

The way I see it, you are proposing such a gadget works by either improving the laser beam imparted to the receiver, or somehow alters the physical properties of a compact disc. I'll address the first possibility now; though much of what I state applies to either scenario:

Every piece of scientific literature you have provided; as well as what I have read on my own research, indicates experiments regarding quantum mechanics and all sub-sets of said branch of science including quantum dots, are done in pretty serious CONTROLLED environments in pretty serious LABORATORIES; usually at large universities; sometimes from large corporations or the government.

Any way...my point being: your fundamental notion that your gadget works purely by a "leaky laser" or similar such wording is flawed.

Any and all experiments dealing with quantum dots; as well as quantum mechanics at large, typically involve very precise laboratory equipment. Not "leaky lasers". They also involve very precise prisms, partial mirrors, and the like. These lasers are also precisely aimed at said precise prisms and optics, to be *very* precisely collected and tabulated by *computer* to produce their results. Again, not "leaky".

So, as I have not seen any valid explanation of how this leaky laser light really makes it inside a metallic sandwich of what is reported to basically just be a small grid of thin silicon p-n junctions, aka sometimes Schottky Diodes, or transistors in general, then I fail to see how ANY light enters; let alone is excited, magnified or otherwise enhanced, and precisely escapes back to the recording mechanism inside the CD player that reads what is a BEAM; not a "leaky laser", even more ridiculously further and somehow altering the binary flow of zeros and ones into a more musical state? This is absurd at best.

In case, due to the sparsity of material to study I have misunderstood and that is NOT your intent, here is the second argument repeated for posterity: You are proposing your gadget alters the physical properties of the CD being played.

Schroedinger wave equations of state don't really apply here; as they can mathematically describe a STATE change, which typically needs a power source to apply; like a DIRECT and PRECISE and CONTROLLED laser in a LAB, which requires ENERGY. You are daring to suggest that not only "leaky laser" passive illumination somehow makes it past the metallic sandwich, but you then go on to presume this left over "leaky light" presumedly inside this gadget produces enough ENERGY to TRANSFORM the entire CD material to more optically transparent properties, with the only energy supplied by "left over" light from a "leaky laser"?

In fact, rather than the Schroedinger Equation, what really should be discussed here is basic thermodynamics and that it takes a hell of a lot of ENERGY to cause changes in properties of materials; in case that is the angle you are trying to take. Or even Einstein's basic equation: E=mc^2. You need a lot more E to change the state of the M of an optical disc.

So yes, I have a great deal of "heart burn". I was just giving you ample opportunity to gather sufficient backing documentation before I gave my first critique of what I believe to be a completely ineffective gadget at worst; an ill - conceived and poorly setup thought experiment relying on passive radiation of very low power laser light at best.

I await your reply,

Ron

ppps. wrt Schuman antenna...we actually had a positive exchange and I correctly came to the following conclusion:

rrstesiak wrote:

wrt "short antennae", I think they are just using a very high order harmonic. Without further research that's all I have for now. Will update if I find anything.

Good discussion -

Ron

So, got you on that one too. Just stop trolling me. I will beat you every time with fact. But I no longer have the energy or desire to partake in this sort of debate. I find it totally non-productive and a waste of time.

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

Here's what May said about their (may & geoff's) trolling.

"Geoff using mockery and I use the method of challenging their replies"

You see Ron, it never ends cause it's just internet trolling. It's not about you out fact-ing them, to them. It's about how they can pull you into a war or continuing spin.

Remember when you came here and said it's a michael vs geoff war, now look at it, a Ron vs geoff war. May & geoff are here to pull you into spins and nothing more. When it all boils down you will be truthful and they will make you look (or try to) like you are the troll. My advice would be to not spend the time in debate mode with these two and just state that they are trolling. Everyone here can read that you are legit my friend. Geoff is just digging at any part that will lead to the troll. Truth is something that geoff could care less about. Their reward is the trolling, not the truth.

Ron, you have been fair and that's what matters. Converting an internet troll at their ages is probably a lost cause.

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

May Belt
May Belt's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 years 6 months ago
Joined: May 8 2006 - 1:51am
What I DO say.

Mg :-

>>> “May herself says she "doesn't know the answers". Her game is to sow seeds of mystery, which has been her selling point for many years. Sell this mysterious audio and buy her absolute must haves. I could care less if people buy her stuff or not, that's not why I am here. Look however at how her fangs come out toward things like me promoting and her excuses as to not actually show that she has an audio system. It's all a spin. A practiced troll that has become routine for May.” <<<

What I DO say, Michael, is that ALL the answers are not yet known !!! You, however, have answered previously that you have “Done the questions and got the answers”. AND, you have also said :-

Mg :-

>>> “in audio or any physical activity comes down to one simple answer.” <<<

So, Michael, perhaps you can tell us all some of the answers ?

If, as you say, that liquids have a “dampening effect”:-

Mg :-

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

Why does George Louis’s Ultra Bit Platimum Plus liquid ‘sound’ better than water out of the tap ?
Why does the Nordost ECO 3 liquid ‘sound’ better than water out of the tap ?

And on the subject of lacquers,

Why does Dieter Ennomoser’s C 37 lacquer ‘sound’ better than normal lacquer from the supermarket shelf ?
Why does Holger Stein’s Maestro lacquer ‘sound’ better than the normal lacquer from the supermarket shelf ?

If you are going to suggest that the effect of liquids and lacquers is to do with ‘dampening’, then, surely, logically, normal water and normal lacquers would have the same “dampening” effect !!!! So, if their liquids and lacquers DO ‘sound better’ (which they DO !!!) than the normal product straight from the supermarket shelves, then that raises the questions WHY and HOW !! Which is what I keep saying !!

We are STILL on the subject of numerous unanswered questions milling around (or on the shelf awaiting answers which is what I say) versus your answer of “Done the questions and got the answers” !!!!!

>>> “My disappointment is with May mainly, because what she is doing is distroying any good work that Peter has done. Notice Peter is no where to be found. He oviously doesn't want anything to do with the energy it takes to put into his wife's trolling.” <<<

That is an outrageous presumption on your part, Michael !!! First of all my words are from MY experience. From working alongside Peter, in the audio industry, for these past 60 years. And as I have explained before, I am the one of our partnership who is brilliant at typing on the keyboard !!!!!!!!!! So, what is your problem, Michael ??

>>> “May, you’ve taken us back to the same point, "your not doing". How can you know the flexibility and how hard or easy it is without ever doing? This would be so much better if you weren't speaking out of ignorance. This again is why I call your posting trolling. Your making everyone take the long way around again instead of doing and finding out for yourself. May you said in a post today that you don't spin, you just did.” <<<

It is BECAUSE I have been doing that I know how hard it can be or how easy it is sometimes to get excellent sound !!!!! I am not speaking out of ignorance !!!!

Regards,
May Belt,
PWB Electronics.

geoffkait
geoffkait's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 days 1 hour ago
Joined: Apr 29 2008 - 5:10am
The facts don't add up

Ron, I can't help notice you forgot to mention my paper on the Sputtering Engine design you repeatedly accused me of lying about. And which you claimed was in the NASA data base but for some reason were unable to locate. I mentioned the anecdote about Feynman for two reasons - one to show he was not perfect, as you probably would like to believe. I also mentioned he was the one to demonstrate that the rubber o rings failed in part because of cold weather the morning of launch. That is a compliment and why I posted the photo of Feynman. hell-looo! It shouldn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out. You choose what you like to believe. Like whether he is God, whether I designed my own products or not and whether I'm a liar or not. Fair enough? So don't play this I'm superior technically and ethically game. It doesn't add up. Besides, by my count you're actually on the losing end of these debates we've been enjoying. ;-)

I am not trying to embarrass you. But an apology would be nice.

Now I totally get why Keel clashed with Feynman. Thanks for clearing that up.

"Because it's what I choose to believe." - Dr. Shaw in Prometheus

Have a nice day.

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

geoffkait
geoffkait's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 days 1 hour ago
Joined: Apr 29 2008 - 5:10am
I like your new role
michael green wrote:

Here's what May said about their (may & geoff's) trolling.

"Geoff using mockery and I use the method of challenging their replies"

You see Ron, it never ends cause it's just internet trolling. It's not about you out fact-ing them, to them. It's about how they can pull you into a war or continuing spin.

Remember when you came here and said it's a michael vs geoff war, now look at it, a Ron vs geoff war. May & geoff are here to pull you into spins and nothing more. When it all boils down you will be truthful and they will make you look (or try to) like you are the troll. My advice would be to not spend the time in debate mode with these two and just state that they are trolling. Everyone here can read that you are legit my friend. Geoff is just digging at any part that will lead to the troll. Truth is something that geoff could care less about. Their reward is the trolling, not the truth.

Ron, you have been fair and that's what matters. Converting an internet troll at their ages is probably a lost cause.

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

I really like your new role as Sockpuppet for Ron. It fits you well, given that you have no technical arguments or scruples and you've apparently run out of anything meaningful to say here.

Have a nice TunnelLand day.

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

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

may says

"Geoff using mockery and I use the method of challenging their replies"

mg

Don't know how it can be any more clear than this. Out of your own mouth, and then followed with examples in your very next posts.

may said

"I am not speaking out of ignorance !!!!"

mg

You just did.

It's sad that you two have teamed up to troll audio forums, but it is what it is.

May BTW, you said

"First of all my words are from MY experience. From working alongside Peter, in the audio industry, for these past 60 years. And as I have explained before, I am the one of our partnership who is brilliant at typing on the keyboard !!!!!!!!!!"

mg

You call this brilliant? Have you even looked up how to talk on the internet? May, you look like an old lady screaming at people by the way you write on here. You've been told this before but paid no mind.

Further more, I don't know who peter is or what he has done in his life past what you have mentioned, but I will say if peter has done anything of use, both you and geoff have pretty much trashed his rep. If peter can't come up to help repair things than maybe your son should, or someone who can gain credibility beyond say so.

just my take but I don't see anything more than two old trolls, probably retired and ready to "spar", and no more content than that.

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

rrstesiak
rrstesiak's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 5 months ago
Joined: Mar 22 2015 - 5:38am
Boycott the trolls

Michael et al:

We seem to be wasting all of our time now battling trolls vs. doing productive things such as hosting referencing sessions, talking about gear and tuning methods and tweaks, and other positive posts.

I intend on no longer replying to endless blames, flames, and spins. As you are right: I too got caught up in this mess and am done.

Perhaps ignoring the trolls will just end it. They thrive on arguments. If we are silent to their attacks, they will cease.

However, I welcome *everyone's* inout on aforementioned topics relevant to these forums.

Best Regards,

Ron

geoffkait
geoffkait's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 days 1 hour ago
Joined: Apr 29 2008 - 5:10am
What''s this, a liars confab?
rrstesiak wrote:

Michael et al:

We seem to be wasting all of our time now battling trolls vs. doing productive things such as hosting referencing sessions, talking about gear and tuning methods and tweaks, and other positive posts.

I intend on no longer replying to endless blames, flames, and spins. As you are right: I too got caught up in this mess and am done.

Perhaps ignoring the trolls will just end it. They thrive on arguments. If we are silent to their attacks, they will cease.

However, I welcome *everyone's* inout on aforementioned topics relevant to these forums.

Best Regards,

Ron

I really didn't expect Ron to respond in any meaningful way to my request for an apology. He must be trying to ignore me. More jibber jabber from the jibber jabber twins.

 photo photo_27_zpssxjtrsgp.jpg

See ya,

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

rrstesiak
rrstesiak's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 5 months ago
Joined: Mar 22 2015 - 5:38am
Apology?

Geoff:

For some reason you seem more hurt by something ironically I said.

With the only thing I can possibly thing being questioning the NASA student journal paper, I will gladly offer my apology for doubting you. As it was a very specific reference, I should've given more benefit to the doubt. However, you have fallen short on soo many other debates it is almost a "boy who cried wolf" syndrome. Hence, I didn't trust you.

However, you did ultimately produce some sort of journal with your name on the cover so my apologies for doubting what is obviously a work you value highly.

Sincerely,

Ron

geoffkait
geoffkait's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 days 1 hour ago
Joined: Apr 29 2008 - 5:10am
Stalking on audio forums is frowned upon

Don't you have something better to do than appear as a fool on an audio forum? Now, I don't know whether you're an alcoholic or not, and frankly I don't really care. But as far as I can tell you are good at running scams with National Science Foundation, that's about it. I imagine you're out of work currently because they won't give you any more money for nothing. I have actually seen no evidence that you actually know anything about audio, physics or quantum mechanics, or plain old mechanics for that matter. Please stop stalking me. I have enough knuckleheads from TunnelLand stalking me as it is. For the record I actually don't put too much emphasis on my paper which after all is 50 years ago. I simply wanted to set the record straight that you were lying.

Have a nice day,

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

rrstesiak
rrstesiak's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 5 months ago
Joined: Mar 22 2015 - 5:38am
I'm not the fool here... And goodbye

Geoff:

I am far from a fool; and certainly not the fool here. Your miserable reaction to a requested and given apology only enforce that you are the fool ... As well as your final admission of being a troll:

geoffkait wrote:

I never said I wasn't a troll, pretty boy. Don't act so surprised. Deal with it. And stop stalking me.

Have a nice hair day,

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

I look forward to no longer participating in these ridiculous debates, but like I said before, you do add a certain entertainment value.
Image hosted by servimg.com

geoffkait
geoffkait's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 days 1 hour ago
Joined: Apr 29 2008 - 5:10am
Whiner alert!

Too late for an apology, you lost your temper. And now you're just whining. Grow up. Don't worry, I promise I'll let you win one of these times. :-)

 photo photo_29_zpsnndx28go.jpg

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamics

ChrisS
ChrisS's picture
Offline
Last seen: 11 hours 41 min ago
Joined: Mar 6 2006 - 8:42pm
Geoffy's World

At this rate, there will be no one left in the world who doesn't hate you!

(Edit: "Hate" too strong? How about "despise"...)

Then what will you do?

Retire?

geoffkait
geoffkait's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 days 1 hour ago
Joined: Apr 29 2008 - 5:10am
Be a lover, not a hater
ChrisS wrote:

At this rate, there will be no one left in the world who doesn't hate you!

(Edit: "Hate" too strong? How about "despise"...)

Then what will you do?

Retire?

I'm used to pinheads and liars. Like yourself. I suspect people just react badly to being bitch slapped, who knows. Be a lover, not a hater, pinhead. Feel better.

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

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

Wanted to give an update on the "concepts". As threads are made on these I figured we can make references for others to read. Are they advanced, how do they fit into the hobby and of course a little history on them and the people who promote them is turning out to be interesting.

using colors to improve the sound

Schumann Frequency Generators http://www.stereophile.com/content/schumann-resonances

tiny little bowl acoustic resonators

constrained layer damping

six degree of freedom isolation

mumetal tents for big transformers http://www.stereophile.com/content/mu-metal-cork

holographic foils

quantum dots for audio applications

battery powered alarm clocks

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

geoffkait
geoffkait's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 days 1 hour ago
Joined: Apr 29 2008 - 5:10am
If it looks like a troll and smells like a troll guess what?

It's a troll. Meaning you. You don't have to be Albert Einstein to see where this thread is heading. Michael Green has already proven to be an unreliable source for just about everything. I think I can safely say without fear of contradiction, who cares? Hell, he doesn't even know what mu metal is and suddenly he's an expert. Not that it matters but it would appear that he was lying when he posted that he had experience with mu metal months ago on this very forum. Besides no matter how many folks have good results with something there will always be some poor bastard who either can't hear, has mixed feelings or doesn't like it. That's an old audiophile axiom. We already got the whioe story from the two dudes in Pittsburgh. Hel-looo! Thanks but no thanks.

Have a nice ToonLand day.

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

ChrisS
ChrisS's picture
Offline
Last seen: 11 hours 41 min ago
Joined: Mar 6 2006 - 8:42pm
Spin, Then Spin It Again

Geoffy, you're at it again!

michael green
michael green's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 8 months ago
Joined: Jan 10 2011 - 6:11pm
If it looks like a troll and smells like a troll guess what?

How fitting for geoff to use this post on his & may's thread. I've asked may, if she thinks it's such a good idea for geoff to be so closely tied to her & peter? I see them as totally trashing what is left of their reputations. I mean in all honesty they are bringing us clients hand over fist, well maybe a few a week, but who's counting. That's one thing, but.....

So weird that geoff bets his whole experience on a couple of posts made by two guys on here. What's more weird is I didn't see anyone having a problem with what Bill & Dan did. No one said they were wrong, or didn't know what they were doing. What I saw was everyone thought it was a cool choice. I personally was able to see more into their taste at the time, as well as another endorsement for tuning "everything affects everything else".

But here's where the geoff weirdness starts to me. I have seen designers and hobbyist do tons of different types of shielding and EMF tuning with a whole range of methods and results, just look at those who impliment shielding into their designs. Some using cages, some using foil wraps, some using constrained layering or foil foam foil designing and some building double shielding (parts & case). I mean go through the industry and you will find tons of different designing tying gravity, mass, EMF and spacing into their work, and on the flip side here is geoff (doesn't have a stereo) telling them they know nothing and their designs are wrong. Doesn't anyone else see this as extremely trollish? I know you do, stating the obvious.

Let's play the geoff & may game and say I know nothing about the topic, or didn't even exist. What is geoff going to do with all the other designers out there using a bunch of different EMF control methods? Why are they not all using the same control approaches, same types of transformers, and why are their circuit boards all laid out differently?

geoff is correct "If it looks like a troll and smells like a troll guess what?". I might suggest people look at what geoff says about himself as well "I never said I wasn't an audio troll". Not only is geoff kait an audio troll, he is also the head of TunnelLand. meaning he is trying to take on the whole industry doing audio when he himself doesn't even have a stereo.

Sorry May, but if I were you I would bail and try to restore or reset. No one is asking may or geoff to troll here but we are asking if they want to be a part of they need to raise their own personal bars of knowledge.

A question for May. May, you say geoff is knowledgable on these topics yet you never answer when someone ask you if you agree with geoff's specifics, do you agree with geoff kait on the topic of Mu-metal?

Do you also agree I don't know anything about it or what mu-metal is?

One last question of the 3 for May. May have you & Peter used different types of Mu-metal, shielding and EMF control methods?

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

geoffkait
geoffkait's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 days 1 hour ago
Joined: Apr 29 2008 - 5:10am
Deleted by Arthur

No text

May Belt
May Belt's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 years 6 months ago
Joined: May 8 2006 - 1:51am
Challenges

Mg:-

>>> “Sorry May, but if I were you I would bail and try to restore or reset. No one is asking may or geoff to troll here but we are asking if they want to be a part of they need to raise their own personal bars of knowledge.

A question for May. May, you say geoff is knowledgable on these topics yet you never answer when someone ask you if you agree with geoff's specifics, do you agree with geoff kait on the topic of Mu-metal?

Do you also agree I don't know anything about it or what mu-metal is?

One last question of the 3 for May. May have you & Peter used different types of Mu-metal, shielding and EMF control methods?” <<<

Michael. You have asked me some questions but I am fed up with having my words twisted and misrepresented by you, so I am extremely reluctant now to give YOU answers !!. I have responded to such as Ron with specific and respectful answers, only to have even my answers to HIM misrepresented by you !!!!

Examples of your misrepresentations.

I was asked (by iosiP) what my opinion was regarding Geoff Kait’s responses and I answered him :-

May :-
>>> “Now we come to Geoff. I do not know Geoff personally, never having met him. From e-mail conversations with him I regard him as extremely knowledgeable and experienced in audio matters. And, I am sure, he is also in complete agreement with me that everything affects everything else and that everything one changes in the listening environment changes the sound.

From conversations with him I find that many of his discoveries have been coincidental with mine and Peter’s.

As, I might add, have other people’s also !!!! People who are complete strangers but when describing their experiences have described exactly what we have found.

I think that Geoff’s reaction to certain people is sometimes because he becomes quite exasperated when confronted by people claiming that THEY have THE answers and he counters (responds) using mockery !!! Or if certain people claim to know everything when it is blatantly obvious that they do not, he will react with exasperation !!” <<<

I said what I think – just as I was asked to !!!

But, It is NOW misrepresented – BY YOU – as :-

Mg:-

>>> “May admits to her's and geoff's trolling methods, and that they get involved as a team when doing so.” <<<

Will you STOP twisting and misrepresenting what I SAY, Michael.

I have (as you well know) told you that I challenge you on a specific area – the area where you state that “variable tuning” is THE answer and THE method !! And, again as you well know, I have been challenging you on this aspect since around October 2014 !!

All of a sudden, you are claiming that – at last – I am admitting that I challenge you - as though it has come as a complete surprise !!!

And, today’s date (23/08/15) Michael :-

>>> “I haven’t been upset since I realized that you and May have only been trolling all this time.” <<<

You know I have been challenging you, Michael, all this time. Don’t suddenly feign surprise because you now want to suggest it is ‘trolling’ !!

Not only that, but your latest “twist” is that Geoff and I are “involved as a team in ‘trolling’” !!!

Mg:-
>>> “May admits to her's and geoff's trolling methods, and that they get involved as a team when doing so.” <<<

And somehow giving the following comment as your proof - that we are “trolling”!!

>>> “Here's what May said about their (may & geoff's) trolling.
"Geoff using mockery and I use the method of challenging their replies"” <<<

Mg:-
>>> “May admits to her's and geoff's trolling methods, and that they get involved as a team when doing so.” <<<

Will you STOP misrepresenting what I SAY, Michael. Me (or anyone else) challenging someone in a specific area is NOT “trolling” – it is what it is – challenging !!

Another example of your misrepresentation of what I say :-

Mg :-
>>> “May herself says she "doesn't know the answers". “ <<<

What I DO say, Michael, is that ALL the answers are not yet known !!! You, however, have answered previously that you have “Done the questions and got the answers”.

THAT is why I challenge you !! ALL the answers are not in yet – either by you, me or anyone else !!

It is NOT that “I don’t know the answers”, it is that all the answers are not in yet !!!! As I keep
saying, there are still many questions ‘on the shelf’ awaiting answers.

Mg :-

>>> “and take a look at the "challenges to replies" from May, which have no substance. To them it has nothing to do with the content and everything to do with their practice of internet spinning.” <<<

You keep repeating the fact that I have said that I challenge you as though you have only just learnt that fact. And, you state that my challenges have “no substance” and have “nothing to do with the content”.

Michael. I have been telling you that I am challenging you since October 2014 !! Nearly a year ago, so it is not some NEW information or some NEW disclosure by me !! And I have told you precisely the area where I challenge you.

Below is what I ACTUALLY said back then :-

May :-
>>> “However, where I challenge you and have always challenged you is your insistence that everything centres around and can be explained by vibrations, vibrations, vibrations and vibrations !!!

No wriggle room, no doubts in your writings !! “ <<<

I went on to further explain exactly what I challenge you on :-- Given again below.

Mg:-
>>> “When we say "tuning" we really do mean it. It is "THE" answer” <<<

I also went on further to explain to you :-

May :-
>>> “I don’t challenge you that you have certain ‘sound improving techniques’,
I don’t doubt that you can change the sound with everything you do in the listening environment.
I do, however, challenge you when you say that your technique is THE answer,
I do, however, challenge you when you say that your method is THE method !!” <<<

I challenged you then (back in October 2014) and I still challenge you.

Your ‘variable tuning’ technique is not THE answer – it is ONE answer.
Your ‘variable tuning’ technique is not THE method – it is ONE method.

There are other techniques (methods) which also provide improvements in the sound, some of them, yes, would be regarded as “fixed”.

There are other techniques which would be regarded as both “fixed” AND “moveable”.

One of those latter techniques could be the Shakti Stone device. If the Shakti Stone device is tried (on such as an amplifier) and found to give improvements in the sound, then it is showing that there must have been a problem – prior to trying the Shakti Stone. So, having realised that without the Shakti Stone in position the problem would still be there, then one would leave the Shakti Stone device in position. A somewhat “fixed” technique i.e left in position. But, it is not “fixed” rigidly – only placed on top of the amplifier – so moveable. Although, having gained an improvement in the sound, one would not want to remove it and have the original problem return !!

It would not be regarded as a “variable” technique or method because one would never have the Shakti Stone device in position, on the amplifier, whilst listening to one recording (with the original problem dealt with) but then remove the Shakti Stone device for another recording (so introducing the inherent problem back again) !!

Mg :-

>>> “and take a look at the "challenges to replies" from May, which have no substance. To them it has nothing to do with the content and everything to do with their practice of internet spinning.” <<<

My “challenges to replies” (as you put it) HAVE substance, and I explained the ‘substance’ to Ron in one of my replies to him !! And I explained WHY I have challenged certain people (on Internet forums) – nothing to do with ‘internet spinning’.

Now, in reply to your latest questions. I am not going to make any further comment regarding Geoff’s expertise in audio BECAUSE of the ‘twists’ you put on anything I say !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And, yes, I HAVE just exaggerated with the exclamation marks !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Except to repeat what I said to iosiP. :-

>>> “I do not know Geoff personally, never having met him. From e-mail conversations with him I regard him as extremely knowledgeable and experienced in audio matters.
From conversations with him I find that many of his discoveries have been coincidental with mine and Peter’s.” <<<

Now, to comment on our (mine and Peter’s) personal experiences with different types of Mu-metal, shielding and EMF control methods?

The same answer I am going to give applies to Mu-metal, other forms of shielding and EMF control methods. It is a generalisation – because of what I am going to say.

We have found that irrespective of what is being used and whatever any changes in the sound occurs by using such methods, we have found that applying a specific lacquer to (it) can give an improvement in the sound. That applying a specific chemical (liquid) to (it) can give an improvement in the sound. That applying a specific crystal to (it) can give an improvement in the sound. That applying a specific colour to (it) can give an improvement in the sound. Showing that whatever the method or actual material was doing to ‘shielding’ or EMF control – something else was going on !!!!!!!!!!!!! That was nothing to do with ‘shielding’ or EMF control !!

THIS is why I keep saying. All the answers are not ‘in yet’ !! There is something else ‘going on’ - regarding sound (musical information) and how WE (human beings) are trying to resolve that complex information !!

Your simplistic response of :-

>>> “The liquid treatments were a form of dampening, and the colors were acting as frequency beacons.” <<<

Is not an adequate answer. Which means that there ARE questions, still remaining on a shelf, awaiting answers !!

And, that is why I keep challenging you. “Variable tuning” is not THE answer. It is just ONE of many answers.

You have asked me :-

Mg:-
>>> “Do you also agree I don't know anything about it or what mu-metal is?” <<<

My answer is. I can’t quite make out exactly what you know or don’t know about mu-metal. All I am aware of is that if you DID know everything about mu-metal you would not be able to make the following statement :-

Mg:-

>>> “The liquid treatments were a form of dampening, and the colors were acting as frequency beacons.” <<<

As you yourself have said. One can always tell just where someone is in their knowledge and experience by the sentences they use.

Regards,
May Belt,
PWB Electronics.

michael green
michael green's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 8 months ago
Joined: Jan 10 2011 - 6:11pm
just another long trolling spin my dear

may said

"Geoff using mockery and I use the method of challenging their replies"

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

geoffkait
geoffkait's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 days 1 hour ago
Joined: Apr 29 2008 - 5:10am
Cat got your tongue?
michael green wrote:

may said

"Geoff using mockery and I use the method of challenging their replies"

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

Way not to respond to her post, a well thought out and responsive post, too. For what it's worth I agree with May, that you apparently don't have a clue about liquids or colors or mu metal. That's the difference between someone who studied it in school and someone who took a couple of courses.

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

michael green
michael green's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 8 months ago
Joined: Jan 10 2011 - 6:11pm
cat got my tongue? are you kidding lol

Thank you geoff, I thought giving the quotes that have been ringing in the air were very fitting for the threads you & may have been visiting. Your responses have been exactly May's quote.

"Geoff using mockery and I use the method of challenging their replies"

The OP is for may & geoff to share their advanced concepts with the audiophile community, and to have those concepts challenged by the audiophile community or explained by the inventors. May & geoff's posts speak for themselves, many times yelling. Their advanced concept, if we take the time to read, is the art of internet trolling.

geoff says

"for what it's worth" "I never said I wasn't a troll. Don't act so surprised. Deal with it."

The question obviously is, with geoff being an internet troll, what are his comment's indeed worth? He says he's not serious about his system. His system happens to be a portable cassette player from the 80's, and if we look at the products he recommends some of them he has never even tried "thought it was a good idea, but never tried one" (geoff kait talking about the SRG). We can pretty much bet there are others on that list he has never actually used. How can these people say something is or isn't advanced if never trying?

With geoff here to mock, according to may, and she herself here to "sparr" according to her, I don't see and haven't seen either of them being able to rise above what they claim to be, troll's and sparring partners.

With may, she was just told by another member that michael never said the things she said he did, and here she is again lying that michael did.

These two are literally screaming at others in their posts, and saying others are mis this and mis that yet the truth of it is their simply two old internet trolls trying to ride on others fame for any kind of relevance they can get, even if it means lying, posting stupid trolling pictures or whatever else it takes.

The more they troll the more upset they get that others are listening to music and enjoying talking about their systems. Fact is the rest of us seem pretty darn happy to be in the hobby, where these two are boiling. Geoff talks about everyone taking drugs who challenge him, and May runs for the hills when she is challenged herself.

Neither of them realize that the OP is for them to prove they are not just trolls and actually do have something to give, but they spend their days trashing their on reputations.

It's a simple question we keep asking, do they have advanced concepts, and can they meet the challenges the audiophile world deserves of them?

The other question is, are we suppose to just believe two people who make these quotes about themselves?

One here admiting to be a troll and the other here to sparr with others. I don't see music being more to them than what they are saying and showing about themselves, neither do many others they troll and sparr with.

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

May Belt
May Belt's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 years 6 months ago
Joined: May 8 2006 - 1:51am
Running for the hills, not likely.

Mg:-

>>> “and May runs for the hills when she is challenged herself.” <<<
Here you go again, Michael. Completely misrepresenting my actions.

I have explained previously. I get fed up with YOU twisting my words and sentences and misrepresenting what I say.

No one else does it !!!! No one else twists what I say and misrepresents what I am meaning. AND, I am careful in my wording and the way I present my thoughts.

So, you are obviously choosing to twist and misrepresent what I say deliberately and for your own purposes.

Regards,
May Belt,
PWB Electronics.

Pages

  • X