>>> “The CD presumably develops a static electric charge and a magnetic field, the former due to molecules of air rubbing against the plastic. Both the static charge and magnetic field affect the sound and should be removed periodically with an ionizer and demagnetizer, respectively. Having said that, there are some BIG PROBLEMS with the explanations that are floated out there regarding electric static charge and magnetic field effects on the laser reading process. The primary problem is that laser is LIGHT - i.e., photons, albeit in the infrared portion of the light spectrum at 780 nm. Now, photons have ZERO MASS so they can't be magnetized or influenced by magnets or magnetic fields. The other problem with the demagnetization theory of CDs is the ASSUMPTION that FERROUS elements in the INK used on the label or trace ferrous elements in the ridiculously thin sputtered METAL LAYER are sufficient to produce a magnetic field of some consequence. That seems highly unlikely. Of course, light can be "bent" by GRAVITY but that is strictly a relativistic effect due the influence of mass on the fabric of space-time, as in gravitational lensing. Furthermore, photons have ZERO CHARGE so can't be influenced by electrical fields, positive or negative. In addition, after a CD is hosed down with an ionizer the static charge should build up rather rapidly once the treated CD is played.
Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica” <<<

And, Geoff, do you remember the whole controversy a few years back in this very Stereophile Forum surrounding the subject of demagnetizing LPs ? If I recall correctly, that controversy continued over some 32 pages !!

Again, as I recall, a different manufacturer of “room tuning products” was extremely vocal in dismissing the whole procedure of improving the sound by ‘demagetizing anything’ !! In the face of numerous others’ experiences of ‘hearing’ remarkable improvements in the sound from carrying out such procedures.

Either there ARE problems with CDs, LPs etc which have to be dealt with – or not !! Irrespective of what further treatments can be applied (or considered) later in the audio system.

Regards,
May Belt,
PWB Electronics

Hopefully he wasn't Michael Green :)

michael green
MGA/RoomTune

I knew it wasn't me cause this is an area where I would be on yours and May's team. Not that I'm not on your team with the other stuff, it's just that I do things that are variable instead of fixed.

Field control, or as I would say "field tuning" is a major deal. I don't want to put words in Ethan's mouth but if he is thinking he can control fields with acoustical traping that would be a little bizzare.

michael green
MGA/RoomTune

Michael said :-

>>> “this is an area where I would be on yours and May's team. Not that I'm not on your team with the other stuff, it's just that I do things that are variable instead of fixed.
Field control, or as I would say "field tuning" is a major deal. I don't want to put words in Ethan's mouth but if he is thinking he can control fields with acoustical traping that would be a little bizzare. “ <<<

Michael. It appears that Ethan DOES think he can control ‘sound’ with his ‘acoustic traps’. He has also claimed that his measurements prove such after his Real Traps are fitted.

You constantly refer to you ‘preferring to do variable things instead of fixed things’. But surely BOTH are part and parcel of gaining improvements in the sound.

Taking the subject of demagnetising such as CDs and LPs. If (say) after demagnetising an LP one experiences the sound to suddenly be “open, airy, filling the room with sound” whereas prior to doing the demagnetising one had been hearing the sound as “boxy” (i.e the sound coming out of a box). Three things are happening here.

1) Something must have been ‘wrong’ before the demagnetising process.
2) You have changed the sound from being “boxy” – WITHOUT doing anything at all with the boxes of the loudspeakers !! Which points to the “boxy” sound not ALWAYS being associated with the boxes of the loudspeakers.
3) It is not a case of one particular sound (‘open, airy sound’ being PREFERRED to the “boxy” sound it is that the “boxy” sound was wrong in the first place – however it was caused !!!! The “boxy” sound will not have been on the recording or else it could never have been altered to ‘open, airy sound’.

People are not that stupid. They KNOW when something is producing better sound than previously!!

But, with the attitudes of such as Ethan Winer and some of his colleagues (one in particular well versed and experienced in the audio industry) !!, people are not allowed this intelligence when describing their listening experiences. Their intelligence is questioned repeatedly by such people.

You Michael, me and I would expect also Geoff know that there are numerous things which can affect the sound !!
Ethan, on the other hand is specific on what he believes affects the sound :-

>>> “A Reply by Ethan under the Manufacturers section on Stereophile 04/11/09

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

Ethan replied :-

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

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

Ethan Winer
Proud owner of RealTraps, but posting on my own behalf
And always using my real name” <<<

Also, in an AES Audio Myths Workshop, quite a few years back, one of Ethan Winer’s colleagues on the guest speaker panel was also specific on what he thought can cause the changes which people claim to ‘hear’ i.e that it is the different position of a person’s head/ears when they move slightly.

>>> “ in a generalisation, that sound changes every times one listens. That one can hear something different every time one listens, even if it is to the same piece of music and even after a small gap of (say) 5 minutes.” <<<

So, in THEIR understanding, when you Michael, me and others, during listening experiments, hear the sound improve from being “boxy” (as though coming from the loudspeaker box) to being “open, airy, filling the room” – in their opinion, our experiences are dismissed as merely because our head/ears are in a slightly different position .

As you know, the whole difficulty is in getting people to understand that there are numerous things which have an effect on the sound.

Regards,
May Belt,
PWB Electronics.

Hi May

I don't know Ethan so I may not have a clear picture of what he is about. I run into a lot of folks in this industry though that make me do a double take. Most audiophile designers are glorified hobbyists/almost engineers at best types, who have found the right sheep for them to fool. It's one of those hobbies where the designer doesn't really have to know much about "sound" to get noticed and have their products sold. I've seen some God awful things hit the market. Unfortunately many audiophile "gotta have it" guys are dumb as a brick about falling into the buying trap. The male ego is a real trip to see in action. This is why I haven't joined any of these "audio alliances" (and I have been asked by many all the way up the scale), cause they are nothing more than selling clubs.

a silly hobby

I was pointed to a review on here today and so I went and read. About fractured a rib laughing at the thought that some idiot out there somewhere would consider spending $43,000 on a preamp that had horrible sounding umbilical cords, rubber feet, terrible chassis design, too thick of a circuit board, tie wraps on the capacitors and internal wiring, and 45 station click attenuators. But it gets better. The reviewer didn't have anywhere to set these preamps so he set them inbetween his speakers on wooden shipping crates. Four wooden shipping crates in the middle of his soundstage space, plus he dampens his room. How could any real listener read this and take it serious?

May, I see so much bull crap in this industry that I just stay in my own world and let people come to me when they are tired of all the missleading and want to get serious about listening. If readers knew how much audiophile junk I have to pull out of rooms to finally put in a system and system setup that sounded good they would freak. I have to remove traps all the time out of rooms along with diffusors and all kinds of stuff. Usually the listener has all the wrong gear and closets full of other gear they have unsuccessfully tried, so nothing really surprises me. I watch them go through their fits, and when they settle down we start building a system that makes sense and produces incredible sound. And I make it variable so they are not stuck with a one sound setup.

all products, and materials change sound

Of course Ethan's products will change what people hear, everything does that. But will Ethan's products correct something that happens up stream? Not by dampening it won't.

ear positioning

If a person has a system that doesn't sound right (out of the box) no matter where they are in the room, they have a problem.

a "big" audio design problem

People in this industry who design will always have problems if they are not in good understanding of the entire audio chain and how it works. I find many deisgners who are not very good at listening disciplines and daily listening practices. If a designer for example does not have a clear handle on how rooms (their room) works, they are going to build a bunch of problems into their products.

Last year one of my clients took a pair of my 60's to a tube amp factory with him. The guy had a demo setup there and played it for my client, then the client asked if he could hook up the 60's. The designer in his own place was shocked at how much better the 60's sounded over his speakers, and how a 60's "not" specifically built for tubes could have more dynamic range and easier to drive than the tube specific speakers. When I got to his place he shared this story with me and asked How? My answer was simple. I know how the whole audio chain works and know that the best sound is the simplist path possible with the correct balance of mass.

This industry is it's own worse enemy, and most of the time has no idea it is killing the sound it is trying to play.

michael green
MGA/RoomTune

Geoff, I think we need to invoke one of your sayings about assuming here. Lets not speak for an industry that obviously on a whole does "not" understand vibration, or are even able to think outside of the chassis.

There's a ton of high end audio hobbyist and designers who have no clue about things outside of their world. Bill Johnson (AR) and I had some healthy talks about the industry and he saw it from a marketing side that because of the mindset being so fixed in this industry the turn to complete system synergy (something he saw me trying to do) as being something needed but a hard wheel to turn.

I even asked Bill if he thought someday he and his product would turn to tuning, and he said absolutely but not until I (mr. green) finished the leg work. His comments to me went something like this. The industry moves much too fast for it's own good. While it should be improving on what it has, and continue to learn on top of the foundations it has been building for a long time, it has a tendency to try to reinvent itself for the sake of sales and something new. When he saw and heard my SP-11 out of the box and tunable he was pretty pleased. The sad part was he was already moving away from the design end and there was no way he was going to put a different face and philosophy on something that had deep roots, and forcast sells projections.

So "what else is new?" doesn't cut it for me, because the listener out there has not been told the whole story and it needs to so it can move to the next level of performance.

michael green
MGA/RoomTune

Hi Geoff

Here's what I'm doing for starters this time around. I'm baking both the freezer treated and a stock one. The freezer treated cause I think it would be cool to find out if there might be some formula in doing both baking and freezing. I made a shade box for outside and have had them cooking at about 100-110 for 8 hours a day, in 5-20% humidity (mostly right around 9%). Then in the night I have been bringing them into my drying room at 80 degrees almost dead set on 8% humidity. I need to get a session out of the way then they will be going in the room for listening (probably tomorrow). So the slow bake has been going on for a little over a week now.

michael green
MGA/RoomTune

Hi Geoff,

As my son would say, cool beans (or should I say warm beans.)

Was the cd (not modern times) treated before baking in any other way with your other methods or was it pretty much stock?

Perhaps freezing the discs create damage to the disc that requires more error correction and that results in a differenet sonic signature? Baking them would also alter the structure of the plastic and require the dac to correct for some sort of damage?

I am thrilled you took the time to do this!

Bravo sir!! Bravo!

michael green
MGA/RoomTune

I would think that plastic would be subject to damage very easily at those temperatures.

Yep, I heat treat everything. It's been a part of my voicing for a long time. It's why I live (not the only reason) in Vegas. I've tried to get the results I wanted out of the lower temps before but I found going the other direction is the right way for me and my products.

For example the rooms and studios I design and build are 1/3 to 1/5 the weight of the rooms done with the same materials stock. If you picked up my music series speakers their light as a feature. My mini monitors play down in the 30's though. Freaks people out when they first hear these. Their just like instruments, you'd like them.

See what I do is get all the materials to go super low in pitch, then I put in the tuning bars and bolts so the listener can tune them up to the tone that fits their room or taste. You can't go in reverse (at least I haven't see or heard it done) but by going to a materials lowest state you can always tune up.

Now that you've played with this a little my tuning might make a little more sense. It's not that I don't like the higher pitch, it's just that if you start lower and work your way up you get all those harmonics with it. Nothing sounds squeezed anymore.

Maybe this year sometime I should make you up a set of speakers to play with. I think you and May would like this direction to add to your arsenals.

I'm very happy to see you doing the heat treatment and hearing the openess, it gets better as you apply this to bigger products also. Like the speaker platforms I do completely open up speakers that are squeezed sounding. Same with amps, cables pretty much everything. I even make platforms for singers to stand on while performing.

I think if you get into this it will open up a whole new chapter for you, I really do. BTW wait till you do this to a chip, but be careful go slow. And circuit boards, makes a huge difference with lower mass circuit boards. We've been thinking about making a cured circuit board available, and we already heat treat parts. Again got to be careful with caps if you try this. They need to be slow baked and set in a really dry place while settling. They sound so much more open after curing and a ton more dynamic.

I'm telling you Geoff play around with this a little and you'll see how when the industry makes a couple of changes the sound quality is going to take a huge jump. Low mass and heat curing. If you build an amp like this they smoke stock ones. Same with CD players.

Harold and I want to make our own stuff but we also want to get other designers into it so the industry can accept the change easier. So if you get into it, and would like us to help let us know. I've done enough of this that I am 100% sure this is the direction the industry will go in, it's just a matter of people doing it and hearing for themselves.

michael green
MGA/RoomTune

I decided to join in on the baking and took my low mass kimber single strand speaker cables and kimber twisted interconnects and put them in the oven. I have been using the kimber cables to hold me over until I get some MGA cabling. I am starting out with a 135 degree bake (lowest oven goes) for 90 mins.

Geoff,

The HD 600 aren't like pancakes where you get to throw the first one out;)

Now the question is gas heat better than electric .. A man has gotta have his obsessions, right ;)

After the initial bake, I let the cables cool and then moved them to the garage and will let them run through a few days of heat up and cool down. The garage easily gets to over 120 degrees during the day and then cools down into the 80-90s at night.

Michael, I repeat again :-

You constantly refer to you ‘preferring to do variable things instead of fixed things’.

And yet you then talk about ‘treating’ EVERYTHING (including the technique of baking/heating):-

>>> “And circuit boards, makes a huge difference with lower mass circuit boards. We've been thinking about making a cured circuit board available, and we already heat treat parts.” <<<

>>> “Yep, I heat everything. It's been a part of my voicing for a long time.” <<<

>>> “Same with amps, cables pretty much everything. I even make platforms for singers to stand on while performing.” <<<

Surely, Michael, using the heating/baking technique is a FIXED treatment ??? And yet, in your writings, you have repeatedly tried to distance yourself away from what you refer to as ‘fixed’ treatments as though they have to be avoided at all lengths.

If such as applying the heating/baking treatments to materials can give improvements in the sound, then this means that there must have been something wrong with the materials PRIOR to doing the treatments. Which surely means that such “fixed” treatments HAVE TO BE DONE – or else one is chasing (attempting to correct) what is an existing problem later in the system or even later in the listening room. So, one cannot dismiss this “fixed” treatment, that “fixed” treatment, that “fixed” treatment, and that “fixed” treatment if they are correcting an inherent problem.

You said to Geoff :-

>>> “Maybe this year sometime I should make you up a set of speakers to play with. I think you and May would like this direction to add to your arsenals.” <<<

Peter and I have been involved in making loudspeakers since the time long ago when everything was MONO (before stereo and since the time when everything was valves only - before transistors) !!!! For quite a number of years, we have designed and built Moving Coil, Electrostatic and Orthodynamic loudspeakers and headphones. What I don’t think you realise Michael is that it is the other way round. I think you should be adding some of OUR techniques to your arsenals !!

The list of various so called ‘tweaks’ which I sometimes give and which Geoff sometimes gives which have an effect on the sound :-

Colouring the edge of CDs.
Directionality in wires.
Dieter Ennemoser’s C37 lacquer.
Shun Mook devices.
Harmonic Discs.
Shakti Stone.
The lacquer which Sonus Faber use on their speaker cabinets (which they claim is ‘friendly to audio’).
Nordost ECO 3 liquid. (Applying a chemical to the label side of CDs and to the labels of LPs and applying a chemical to the outer insulation of cables (including AC power cords).
Applying a demagnetiser to LPs and CDs.
(Tiny size !!) Room resonance devices.
Aiming a hair dryer containing Tourmaline balls at a CD.
The Schumann Resonance device.
Etc Etc - (Many of the ones on the list are ‘fixed’ and many are ‘variable’ – i.e can be removed).

These are giving you (and others who wish to take notice of them) CLUES !! CLUES that there is something ‘going on’, in the listening environment, which affects the sound and which has to be explained.

>>> “I’m telling you Geoff play around with this a little and you'll see how when the industry makes a couple of changes the sound quality is going to take a huge jump. Low mass and heat curing. If you build an amp like this they smoke stock ones. Same with CD players.“<<<

You may have missed a lot of past articles, Michael, as Peter’s techniques ‘treating’ inexpensive amplifiers, inexpensive CD players and beating the ‘state of the art’ equipment available at that time were referred to in various UK Hi Fi magazines during the late 1980s and early 1990s !!

Regards,
May Belt,
PWB Electronics.

Sorry May, didn't mean for you to take this as a michael vs peter thing.

I could either go down through the list you gave and state why I don't do these things after we tried them, or keep moving ahead with what we found and like and why. I'm going to stay on my path, and if anyone including you wishes to check up on it you can visit http://tuneland.techno-zone.net/ . When you get to TuneLand you will see how and why everything is variably tunable, no secrets it's all in the open and listeners are practicing their tuning everyday for you to see.

The whole idea of TuneLand is to document variable tuning and show people how to achieve any sound that is out there to be had. And to give open minded people and safe and fun place to explore. I don't make judgement calls on choice and taste, that's every listeners prerogative. I just show them how to get there, and when there is some sound that is missed I explore how to incorporate it into the whole that we have all created in the recording and playback biz.

I'm sure I haven't read everything on Peter and not to be rude but I haven't looked. When I started doing what I do it got so busy that I haven't had a lot of time to look at others unless they are put right in front of me or have been doing something I haven't yet. Because of this I don't mean to be rude to anyone but if I have been there and done that in burns time to go back and redo, and continue to redo because someone wants to have me look at something that they may have thought I missed. The problem is most of these people haven't done their research on me or they would find out that I've pretty much covered it or am in the proccess of learning about it. However the learning never stops, but I'm much less interested in something that causes an inflexible trait than one that can be used for a variable one. Like I just did the freezing tests again and in some ways it was good but it was something I already knew so in some way it was a bit of a waste of time. maybe not in the sense that it shows I'm not above trying things that others suggest, but I've done this test a few times and it has ended up in the same place it did in the past. Exactly the same place.

May, you also gave a list above as you have done in the past, but I have tried all these before and again don't want to come off as a know it all, but I can't spend all my time going backward because someone thinks I haven't done something. I/we are very progressive and up to date in our testing, and I don't want to come off disrespectful to those who have their own methods of making sound, however I don't want to open the door for something I don't like and have already covered on Tuneland.

you said

"Peter and I have been involved in making loudspeakers since the time long ago when everything was MONO (before stereo and since the time when everything was valves only - before transistors) !!!! For quite a number of years, we have designed and built Moving Coil, Electrostatic and Orthodynamic loudspeakers and headphones. What I don’t think you realise Michael is that it is the other way round. I think you should be adding some of OUR techniques to your arsenals !!"

I'm sorry if you felt I was trying to school you. I understand the pride people have in their work and research, at the same time I hope you can respect that I believe variable reseach supersedes fixed. And to be honest no matter how much one has done or how far back they go, a variable instrument does much more than one that only plays one note. I say this because in the case of the freezing it was a step backward not forward in my testing and so have been some of the other things you have mentioned, so as much as I don't want to be thumbs downer I have taken the polite way around.

I hope you understand that I appreciate research from anyone in this hobby and industry and only wish to see it used in the absolute best context. Sometimes the results in my research means that I have to pass. It doesn't mean that the product or method was not right for others out there but it does mean that I'm hunting for things that cover a wider range of response.

michael green
MGA/RoomTune

>>> “I’m sorry if you felt I was trying to school you. I understand the pride people have in their work and research, at the same time I hope you can respect that I believe variable reseach supersedes fixed. And to be honest no matter how much one has done or how far back they go, a variable instrument does much more than one that only plays one note.” <<<

You are still saying that you believe that ‘variable’ supersedes ‘fixed’. But, on the other hand, you state elsewhere that you “treat” (i e HEAT) everything !!

>>> “Yep, I heat everything. It's been a part of my voicing for a long time.” <<<

The heating/baking process is a “FIXED” procedure – i.e it cannot be reversed once done !! So, that means that you believe that that “FIXED” process IS of considerable importance !!

Again, you say :-

>>> “And circuit boards, makes a huge difference with lower mass circuit boards. We've been thinking about making a cured circuit board available, and we already heat treat parts.” <<<

>>> “Same with amps, cables pretty much everything. I even make platforms for singers to stand on while performing.” <<<

So, you obviously regard the FIXED procedure of heating/baking process to be extremely important. You may call it your “voicing” procedure but that does not alter the fact that the heating/baking procedure is a FIXED procedure !!

THAT is why I challenged you !!

>>> “And to be honest no matter how much one has done or how far back they go, a variable instrument does much more than one that only plays one note.” <<<

Sorry, Michael. That was a very dismissive comment. As though there is ANYONE, in audio, who does not KNOW that a variable instrument does more than one that only plays one note. That comment was obviously meant as a ‘put down’ – or else why say it !!!!!

I do not ‘put you down’ Michael when I challenge you. I challenge you because I know you are (and have been in many of your replies) dismissive of the products and techniques on the list I have given. Instead of realising that IF any of those things on the list can CHANGE the sound in any way, whether you liked the change or not, then it is EXTREMELY significant in the world of audio !! Because none of the things (techniques) on my list are in the conventional electronic, audio or acoustic text books !!!!!!!!!!!! And, yet, they DO change the sound !! And, the majority of people’s descriptions who have tried such products have described, in great detail, improvements in the sound.

In your world and in my world the word FIXED does not only mean ‘fixed permanently to the structure’. It can mean ‘fixed’ treatment such as heating/baking to relax materials. I am presuming that if you use the heating/baking procedure to relax the materials you use, and think it is important, then presumably you will be applying that same ‘relaxing’ (FIXED) procedure to the materials you use in your ‘room panels’ which you then use in your description of your ‘variable’ techniques !!

You say you are “thinking about making a cured circuit board available, and we already heat treat parts.”

Will you refer to them being “FIXED” or “VARIABLE ?
As I have said before. The things on my list are giving people CLUES and, in my opinion, the biggest CLUE is provided by the Schumann Resonance Device. Conventionally, the Schumann Resonance device cannot be explained by ‘it having an effect on the way the musical information is extracted from the disc/s’, cannot be explained by ‘it having an effect on the audio signal (musical information) travelling through the audio equipment’, cannot be explained by ‘it having an effect on the acoustic information (musical information) already presented into the room by the loudspeakers’. And yet it’s presence, in the listening room, allows people to resolve far more of the musical information which must have been already present in the room !!!!!

Nor is it a FIXED thing. It can be removed and reintroduced as required. Nor is it a one and only ‘treatment’. Other (what you refer to as variables) things can be added to create further improvements in the sound !! The same understanding applies to other things on my list. They are not ‘one and only’ treatments. Such as :-

Directionality in wires.
Shun Mook devices.
Harmonic Discs.
Shakti Stone.
(Tiny size !!) Room resonance devices such as the ART devices.

You, Michael, may not wish to use (or recommend) any of the things on my list but, seriously, you cannot ignore the CLUES regarding sound which they are giving !!

I do NOT challenge what you hear with your own ‘tuning’ techniques. I would agree that you can gain the improvements you describe. What I am saying is that there are ALSO other things going on, which also give improvements in the sound and they should not be so easily dismissed !! Travel your own path, yes, describe and recommend the techniques you yourself have discovered, yes, but don’t “knock” other’s discoveries in the process – the things on my list have ALL been observed by numerous people to change the sound – and to give changes in the sound which are recognisable as improvements !!

For example. Once one has got ‘open, airy sound - sound which fills the room’ after previously having “boxy” sound (sound coming out of a box) - this is an improvement in anyone’s books !! And, when this is achieved from doing something NOT connected in any way with the box of the loudspeaker, then it should rock anyone, working in audio, back on their heels !!

Ethan Winer and his colleagues were notorious (on the Stereophile forum) at ‘rubbishing’ other devices and techniques and regarding that his (real traps) were the only way to gain improvements in ‘sound’.

You ask me if I “can respect that you believe variable research supersedes fixed”. I can respect that you believe that but I disagree with you. I believe (from our own extensive results) that BOTH are important for good sound. FIXED – as in treating materials – and VARIABLE – as in trying numerous and different techniques and positions and materials and shapes and colours !!

Regards,
May Belt
PWB Electronics.

the difference between fixed and variable

Hi May, hopefuly this will help you to understand what we do better, all of this is on http://tuneland.techno-zone.net/ BTW incase you and others wish to read up or try any part of the method.

As I told Geoff earlier and a few other times on here, what we do is take materials down to their lowest state of tonality and mass (weight). In other words we condition them so that their response range is as wide as it can get. At that point we apply variable tuning by way of rods, bars, screws, bolts, nuts, knobs, grounds, blocks, adjustable feet, spikes, cones....

There are three parts basically. One is the material, conditioned for the fullest range, the second is the adjusting tool that applies the tension or distance, and third is the transfer device (the part that transfers the energy from one part to the next). A lot of times the transfer device is the same as the tool used to cause the variable adjustment. Again the whole system works just like a musical instrument. Everything is vibration based with adjustable parts.

I hope this helps.

As far as my comments about other's products, the only thing I can really say is we do what we do to give the widest range possible in the adjusting and flavoring department so the listener can tune in the sound they desire or adapt to a recording they may be having problems with. On TuneLand you can see how they do this. If you see me saying someone elses product is bad that's not my intent of course and I try to be as polite as I can to a point and yet still make my case for adjustable audio over audio that is not adjustable.

I'm sad that someone would feel like I'm here to put them down. I think sometimes writing can give impressions that aren't really there unfortunately, put I can only say sorry so many times if someone is not understanding what I'm saying. This is also why I recommend people come to TuneLand on these topics so they can interact with others who practice the art and science of tuning. On Stereophile I enjoy being a guest very much, but this compared to thousands of specific posts about the topics can look like a sales pitch instead of info. And to be honest that's what it is, a sales pitch for the place where the real work is done on tuning.

On the topic of Ethan, again I don't know him so don't want to comment much on that, the same about you guys, I don't know you except for what I am reading here and the things I have tried that you indorse.

so to be clear

We start from a place of raw for lack of better words. Then we open the material up as much as we can, making it respond in the fullest range possible, without loosing harmonic integrity. Once there, we then turn the material into an adjustable (most of the products) product that is use for a method of listening that allows the end user to make variable tuning adjustments to shape the sound within the scope of the audio signals info.

We do believe that having something variable is far better than something that can not be adjusted or is prefixed to a particular set of inflexible sonic characters. Mostly characters that have a higher pitch to start with, as we have found once moved up the scale it's very hard to get them to move down. Much easier to start low and move up. The basic designing of instruments in other words, with one twist. An instrument has a set pitch whereas in playback we need to accommodate the whole of the range.

May, you said that the heating can not be reversed. We have not found that to be necessarily correct. What we have discovered is that after heated you can return to the point of origin as well as an expanded version of the range. This is something that doesn't happen with going the other direction as easily if at all. What we have found with freezing is the collapse that takes place doesn't have the same ability to expand as the heated expansion does to be tuned to the higher pitch. As with wood instrument companies we caution people to be careful with colder conditioning as it can perminately damage the sound. Same with it being too hot. There's a range of temps that seems to be the best for the reproduction.

You mention the heating procedure. That's part of the procedure. Obviously we do much more treating than just heating something up, but heating is a big part of the voicing.

on the dismissive part

I think all of us once testing something pretty intently with the same results get to the place where we move on, and might come back to it for the sake of feeling secure with our findings but it gets to the place in the practice of doing something where we know when something is going to take us down a road where we get stuck. So for me it's not so much me wanting to put something down as it is not wanting to go backward over and over. If that's being dismissive than, I'll own that no problem. I've gone way beyond trying to justify a change and have moved on the the changes I can use in my goal. I don't really care if the explanations I give are the most popular. I'm more into results I can use and depend on. I figure there are enough people who play the word debate hobby, and don't necessarily see it as something I want to burn my time up with. Plus I've already explained things and they are documented.

you challenging me

I don't really see you as challenging me as much as inquiring, so no biggie. If you were to challenge me, my answer would be the same. Go look at the people who are doing it and ask them, or set up a time and come see for yourself.

circuit boards

The ones I have done have a few treatments and once done are put into a variable setting so the listener can make adjustments.

clues

When I hear the word clues, it makes me think of a mystery yet to be uncovered by some wizard some where. I use it when I'm having fun with someone on a path, but I want them to find the answer on their own, one that I have already found. Am I looking for clues? It's probably why I listen 10 or so hours a day I would think lol. Have I uncovered the mystery? Only the ones who think too much of themselves have uncovered all that is mysterious. I hope I am always as much of a student as I am a teacher. But I don't repeat classes that I have already passed except to refresh my memory.

rocked back on heels

One of the most fun things in life is to be rocked back on the heels. What's more fun is after being rocked taking yet another step in toward what rocked us. This is why I love tuning, there's always a deeper level to explore, and once you think you have gotten there a new chapter inside of a recording begins. Hearing something clearly is only the beginning, and only those who have tuned know the power of it, because they are doing. It's not something where you arrive and stop, but it's more standing at the edge of the doorway and knowing you can walk through the room only to find more doors to the mansion. The magic part is this. Every recording is a different mansion, and all the doors lead to rooms not yet explored. It's not and never has been one key fits all, and this is truly what being an extreme audiophile is about. It's about unlocking all the doors and taking a look. May, this is why I tune. I have found a method that is way beyond a one key answer. It's not about you being right or myself, but more a way that allows the listener to explore and keep exploring.

For example, I hear the organ play. Now I want to hear it play with more of the room, now I want to focus in on one pipe, now that one pipe but bring in the harmonics that surround that pipe...and on it goes. Tuning allows us to go past right or wrong. It allows us to pick any part of any recording and bring that part into being.

We who tune aren't against anyone us, we include what they have into our whole and we are able to go where they are and anywhere else we choose to go inside of a recording. We have systems that are built to play any recording and explore any part of that recording. Instead of sitting there with a one sound end product we have systems that can make bold moves or subtle nuance changes. I don't see why this would make you or anyone else want to challenge us. We aren't down on you, we're up on your choices and all the choices out there. The difference is we have systems that do all the choices, where I think a lot of folks are still hunting for and debating over "the choice". We don't debate over "the choice", we explore it all with one system.

michael green
MGA/RoomTune

I like all those guys. People ask me what I think about the competition, and my answer is usually, "I like em, when their done it gives me another client".

What a lot of these guys are missing out on is the "listeners quest". After all the talk settles it comes down to a listener and his room or a techy and his studio or hall, and that's where I win. I've had guys go 20, 30 years trying all the stuff and finally make their way around to RoomTune (on whatever level) and find home.

Some people feel like a dead room is what they want (distortion), some overly live rooms (distortion) or diffused (distortion), but out of this it's made people aware that the room is the most important component in the audio chain, or at least equal. So the way I look at it is I come out on top, because I'm a listeners, listener. The more people become aware of the room or variable tuning the more people are going to get inline to have their room or system tuned, and they can play with whatever they want in the meantime, the listeners end up coming around to us.

I don't know much about the AES except for the write ups they did about us when I use to do concerts, esspecial the concerts done with newer technologies like PZM microphones. There for about 6 months the designers flew me all around the place to setup plays and operas. I did a mix of spot zoning, PZM and shotgunning, that became fairly popular in the setups so I got asked a lot of questions on refining the mics. A fun time, but it was also a time that made me familar with the difference between talkers and walkers. By the time the 80's got here I saw the audio talkers and pretty much walked right on by. Someone who doesn't take you into the room, studio or hall and show you (without whispering in your ear) are talkers. In this industry I've seen 95% ear whisperers and 5% real deals. You learn to try to be polite to the whisperers until it's time to give tough love, but the tough love comes with a good demo usually, and again the industry doesn't give good demos, or at least hasn't over the past 15 to 20 years. This is because the talkers have been listened to and people after time stopped listening to the music critically. They use the right words but the show is not apart of their tell.

No matter what is said in the industry, whether it be me or anyone, somewhere along the way it will come down to listening and the listener. A lot of folks who claim to "be" listeners are more good communicators (the ear whisperers) and it's true the audiophile is many times gullible to these folks (even the ones calling the others "charlatans"). But my take is this. I'm here to provide the sound for the recording companies and the playback folks. It's not my job to tell someone what to like but to present all the options the music has to give and help them get where they are going, and to teach them a way to put in-tune the music that is out of tune.

michael green
MGA/RoomTune

Hi Geoff

I think were on the same page. My statement was basically referencing that we will hear it in the long run, only I phrased it differenly, sorry about that. "all come out in the room" instead of "all come out in the end". Just a play on words. I'm hip to the headphone being the end or the room.

My systems and tuning begin at the circuit box and works it's way all the way through to the ear http://tuneland.techno-zone.net/t13-tuning-step-by-step . Didn't mean to make it sound like the room fixes everything. All parts of the chain are equals, and share the responsibility of passing the signal.

michael green
MGA/RoomTune

>>> “My systems and tuning begin at the circuit box and works it's way all the way through to the ear Didn't mean to make it sound like the room fixes everything. All parts of the chain are equals, and share the responsibility of passing the signal.” <<<

Yes, Michael, EVERYTHING in the listening environment can affect the sound. But, what do YOU do when faced with anomalies ? When things can have an effect on the ‘sound’ but which cannot be explained by ‘something affecting the signal (musical information) travelling through the audio equipment’ or by ‘something affecting the acoustic air pressure waves and vibrations in the room’ ??

Regards,
May Belt,
PWB Electronics.

Geoff said

"I agree we're pretty close. The difference is that I'm saying the signal doesn't have a good start in life especially if a CD player is involved and things get even uglier as the signal advances through the various stages. And by the time it gets to the speakers it's kind of too late, the damage has been done, even if we limit the causes of the damage to scattered light, RFI/EMI, and magnetism. If you have springs in your system we might even be closer. How are you using springs?"

I would say were on the same page here Geoff.

Springs

I usually supply or use three types of transfer every where the vibrations are going from one material to the next. One would be a MTD (mechanical transfer device) second would be a wood "sliver or washer" and third would be a spring. Most of the guys have a host of all of these that they interchange and mix & match. http://tuneland.techno-zone.net/t74-mga-specialty-products There are a lot of places on individual threads too that show uses.

michael green
MGA/RoomTune

May said

"Yes, Michael, EVERYTHING in the listening environment can affect the sound. But, what do YOU do when faced with anomalies ? When things can have an effect on the ‘sound’ but which cannot be explained by ‘something affecting the signal (musical information) travelling through the audio equipment’ or by ‘something affecting the acoustic air pressure waves and vibrations in the room’ ??"

We don't get stumped often, so the whys get blended in with the tuning.

What I do if something is out of tune and is hard to figure out, is go back to a basic system setup until I find where the problem is happening. If I install a super low mass system with the basic tools it doesn't take long to find out where things are going wrong, and get them back on track.

Most of the time sonic problems are happening because something in the audio chain is not being set "free" (using your word) vibration wise. Once this is found and corrected the signal opens up like a door swinging into a ballroom from a closet. From that point we will tune things back in until the listener likes the way the song is sounding. It could be something as simple as a screw or bent cable or field that was shutting down the sound. Those things aren't really that hard to find for a seasoned listener. Practice makes perfect and if someone becomes good at detecting what parts going out of tune sound like it makes it easy to go to the part of the system that is messing up and get it back intune with everything else.

Tunees get use to listening to parts and the different parts of their systems and after a while can pretty much guess where the tuning needs to happen for a recording to go where they want it to. It's very much like playing in a band, you make adjustments till everything is just right.

If you want to see me or others tuning in real time it's on the forum happening daily. http://tuneland.techno-zone.net/

Keep in mind that because we are extremely hands on with many systems around the world at the same time we tend to spend our time actually doing and the "why it happened" doesn't matter as much as tuning and moving on, but in each case we do talk about what happened and explore the technical and explanations to the degree the listener likes us to. However I do find this alot, people who are listening talk more about the music itself and less about how something happened within the context of audiophile debates. I know some pretty technical people who could care less about what the audiophiles are doing with their talk. And I do think that once someone is tuning a while they learn how the signal works along the pathway and it becomes part of them, as they are doing. They don't stop and have a debate together on what just happened , their more into the event of making it happen.

michael green
MGA/RoomTune

Hi Geoff

Why do you use the word "isolation" in audio?

michael green
MGA/RoomTune

Hi Geoff

One of the things this industry has made into technical terms that makes no sense to me is saying de-coupling and isolation when neither one is actually taking place or can take place on this planet according to physics. Vibration is everywhere and in everything and saying we are de-coupling something from it is really not happening. Transfer and tuning the vibrations and I'm good to go, but this "audiophile tech" thing of making explainations out of/and into things that don't exist has always hit me strange.

I'm not saying you are at fault here at all, just saying why do you think people use this talk when they know it is not reality? I see all these products that say "isolation" or "de-coupling", no their not. They may change the pitch of the part or transfer the coupled vibration at different rates with dissipation and absorptive capacities, but their not "de-coupling" or "isolating" anything.

When I do tests on materials that physically touch other materials I have never experienced a de-coupling effect, have you? When two materials touch there is an exchange (sharing) that takes place, not a separation. I've talked this one over with a lot of science folks and they don't understand why these terms are used either.

Have you ever wondered about this?

michael green
MGA/RoomTune

Michael, I can understand when you refer to listeners versus talkers.

To describe my understanding in a hypothetical story. You listen to amplifier XYZ which has three transformers in line and three large capacitors in line, in the circuitry. You remove one of the transformers and one of the large capacitors and you HEAR the sound is better. i.e Less is better. You describe your observations to people but the designer and manufacturer of the XYZ amplifier state that they have fitted three transformers in line and three large capacitors in line for TECHNICAL reasons – to allow the audio signal to progress much more smoothly. YOU say to them “But, Why don’t you listen, because it SOUNDS better with less transformers and less capacitors ?” THEY say “WE don’t need to listen, we know what we are doing, technically.”
So, you see yourself as the Listener and see them as the Talkers. This is how I understand where you are coming from.

But, in the history of audio there have been many, many people who have OBSERVED (i,e listened) and then gone on to design and produce audio products, based on LISTENING. !!!!!!!!!!!!!

One particular Observer who had tremendous influence on the way audio has progressed was Jean Hiraga (the Editor of the French Hi Fi Magazine “Revue du Son” ) who, (I think it was in the late 1970s) reported how he had heard different cables ‘sound’ different.

>>> “once someone is tuning a while they learn how the signal works along the pathway and it becomes part of them, as they are doing. They don't stop and have a debate together on what just happened ,” <<<

You are still talking of “an effect on the audio signal” or “an effect on the acoustic air pressure waves and vibrations in the room”. If sometimes “what has just happened” cannot have affected the audio signal, or cannot have affected the room acoustic air pressures and vibrations, how can one be sure that what they are doing is correct ?

Anomalies, by their very nature, challenge conventional thinking.

To give one example.

You gave a recommendation (suggestion) for people to unravel any bunched wires within audio equipment, and ‘hear’ just how the music is ‘freed up’. I am assuming that your explanation is that the ‘bunching’ of the wires was ‘hindering’ or affecting adversely the progress of the audio signal through that equipment. I am NOT disputing that there would be an improvement in the sound. I don’t dispute what you hear.

Now we come to the anomaly. Someone, quite by chance, unravels the bunched up cord of the window blind, in the listening room, and a similar improvement in the sound is experienced – similar to the improvement heard when the bunched up wires in the audio equipment were unravelled. But there IS NO audio signal travelling through the cord of the window blind and yet one can get a similar improvement in the sound !!!!!!!!!!! And, exactly the same happens with bunched cables scattered PASSIVELY around the floor in the listening room ! Unravel THEM and you gain an improvement in the sound.

Now what are you going to do/say Michael ? Because it happens !!

Do you say :-

>>> “When people are into ‘tuning, they don't stop and have a debate together on what just happened ,” <<<

Do you say :-

>>> “and the "why it happened" doesn't matter as much as tuning and moving on.” <<<

And do you say :-

>>> “We don’t get stumped often, so the whys get blended in with the tuning.

What I do if something is out of tune and is hard to figure out, is go back to a basic system setup until I find where the problem is happening. If I install a super low mass system with the basic tools it doesn't take long to find out where things are going wrong, and get them back on track.

Most of the time sonic problems are happening because something in the audio chain is not being set "free" (using your word) vibration wise. Once this is found and corrected the signal opens up like a door swinging into a ballroom from a closet.” <<<

Hard to figure out ? You might find out WHERE the problem is happening (as in the bunched cord of the window blind or the passive bunched cables scattered round the floor) but do you ‘figure out’ WHY ? Or do you continue to say :-

>>> “the "why it happened" doesn't matter” <<<
I share your horror at the story of a reviewer using wooden crates in the listening room. Similar disregard for any adverse effect on the sound happens with bunched and scattered PASSIVE cables in reviewers listening rooms, in Hi Fi Retailers showrooms, in manufacturers demonstration rooms at Hi Fi Shows and EVEN in manufacturers own factory demonstration rooms !!

Regards,
May Belt,
PWB Electronics.

The Tunee tunes both the blinds and the cables. Why would I tune one and not the other? If something is out of tune, it's out of tune. What we do is "tune things".

May said

You are still talking of “an effect on the audio signal” or “an effect on the acoustic air pressure waves and vibrations in the room”. If sometimes “what has just happened” cannot have affected the audio signal, or cannot have affected the room acoustic air pressures and vibrations, how can one be sure that what they are doing is correct ?

mg

You should ask the guys on TuneLand who are doing it and get their response. This is how I can tell if someone is a serious listener or not. If you haven't heard a recording in tune you would ask that. For those who have heard this it's pretty clear. I give a list of things to listen for that the listener is able to do to see if his system is in-tune.

May

Hard to figure out ? You might find out WHERE the problem is happening (as in the bunched cord of the window blind or the passive bunched cables scattered round the floor) but do you ‘figure out’ WHY ? Or do you continue to say :-

mg

We already know why on TuneLand.

May, have you even peeked at Tuneland. Your asking questions we cover on there every day. It's kinda weird when you keep making these points, but aren't taking the time to actually read where all this has been reseached and documented.

I don't mean to be rude (I really don't) but this is getting strange. You keep bringing up stuff that we cover in detail and are willing to get as technical as someone wants. But you say things without context and that makes these posts you make sound like they are floating out in space somewhere.

Please take a peek at TuneLand some time and you will see listeners taking a specific piece of music and do the very things you are talking about and describing the effect.

May, if you wanted to go in your listening room and put on a piece of music and do these things and describe it in close to real time, like we do, we could talk about the "why" as it was happening. What do you think we do on TuneLand? WE DO!!!

This is why I make some of the statements I do. We are actually doing, we're not living in the world of "bunched cords" (we put them in tune).

May

Now what are you going to do/say Michael ? Because it happens !!

mg

May, the listener is in the room to listen to music not reading a journal. He or she is actually tuning in the piece of music, the last thing they want to do is put it on pause and come talk to you about the whys. This hobby is about the music May. You and others may have made it into a text book of "ifs" and "maybes" and who knows more, but I'm dealing with the listeners and the music and when listening they are not thinking about why. Their too busy floating away in MusicLand. If you looked on Tuneland you would see that we address blinds specifically just like we do with every part of the audio chain. We do cover the whys, but we cover them as the listening is taking place. A listener will have a listening session and report on it. Sometimes it gets into how and why and other times how great the music is once tuned in. All right there for anyone to read.

I'm not understanding why your trying to make this more complicated than it is. On TuneLand we may have threads like these but most of the guys are more about tuning their systems and listening. We cover all the stuff your talking about and bringing up and we get into great detail, but try to understand that on here the topics go 2, 3 pages sometimes a little more. On TuneLand we have guys who go 25 to 50 pages just on the tuning of one system. They cover every inch of everything from the outside of the house to the electric box all the way through to how they clean their ears to get ready for listening. It is so much more involved than anything up here. Not saying these threads are bad, but they only scratch the surface of what we dig deeply into.

You and the others have not brought up one thing that TuneLand has not covered. You guys keep making it sound like you have this audio secret but this only tells me you haven't looked or care to look at the place all this stuff is covered.

May, you talk about Randi and Peter and Jean, why don't you drop the wall and see that we are right in the mix as well as anyone. No need to one up me, I'm well schooled Baby! It's not going to hurt you to do a little homework. If your going to "challenge" you really should take a look at what we do, and not just throw assumptive words all over the threads. I'm sure you and Peter and whoever are good people but I think you don't know when you have a friend. I tune, nothing against you guys, it's what we do. It feels like your always trying to disprove something. Relax a little and take a look at who your talking to if your interested in getting my point of view. If you start a thread on here and I have something to say to you, I'm going to do my reseach before I open my mouth or I won't say anything.

You know what I'm saying? Sometimes you guys need to quit acting so threatened. What I do is all there for anyone to read and comment on.

michael green
MGA/RoomTune

Geoff wrote

I'm sure I don't have to tell you that writing 50 pages on how one sets up a system or having 30 years in the audio hobby or being X years old doesn't add up to a hill of beans any more than claiming a system costs X dollars or has this or that audiophile characteristics or that repeating things over and over again somehow makes them truer.

mg

I would disagree here Geoff. Building a community of solid listeners and listening practices is exactly what the industry needs. When there were a great host of dealers who were involved in listening was when this hobby was at it's best. The audio clubs were healthy and the shows sounded better then at any other time. I can't speak for others in the industry but for myself having more than my set of ears on the job has been very rewarding. The games of ego that take place in the audiopile world disappear when that CD or TT get fired up and shared with each other. At that point it's about the picture you are hearing and for the serious listener is something easy to talk about. It's what the hobby is.

When I read on here the audiophile spins that take place it makes me and others (those members here who have contact me) wonder if the people talking are even spending time listening. Everytime people are listening a community grows, but unlike TuneLand where's the community here? You would think this being Stereophile the pages would be flooded with "buddies" listening together. In that listening is where the truth is found.

When you said, I heated and heard
Costin, I found the same thing as michael
Audiophile 2000, lets share our systems
TM, I'm warming up Melody Gardot
and others

This Geoff is where the proof is found, and no amount of audiophile engineer want-a-be talk can equal that actual event of listening. Walking through the songs of Keb Mo (who I'm listening to as I write this) and sharing what the stage is doing in my room along with the other cues is what the true audiophile lives for. As TM says "after the club is gone that's when I do my serious listen". TM doesn't use any of my product, and yet I respect that statement. When any of you talk about the actual listening that is when the listener pays attention. When you do the tech talk that appeals to a completely other side of the brain. Some may like it but it's not listening. And when you or anyone says this is not proof, for the "listener" who is actively engage you loose credibility.

I don't like fighting, but when I was a kid my dad told me to tell the tough guys who were picking on me or others in front of other kids in the school to look big, to meet me after school and we will settle it then. That's when we found out if they could back it up or not. In a hobby and industry about music, it comes down to the same thing. Instead of playground after school, it's the live, control, mastering, playback or concert playgrounds where our truth comes out. Where our proof is proven. It comes down to what we hear and how we made that happen. The rest of what you or anyone does is "talk", and the listener has heard this all before as you say.

When I see talkers, in the end the best I can do is invite them after school to come to TuneLand and try it. Try shoving us listeners around and see what happens. The soundstage is our playground and we have become masters of our systems and our music collections. The rest of this stuff is just bullying by people too afraid to put their money where their mouth is.

michael green
MGA/RoomTune

"These were the good old days, about a year after the Intelligent Chip Million Dollar Challenge ended in a Mexican Standoff.

http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/135-swift-november-30-200...
"

Now why in the world would I want to keep up on this stuff?

michael green
MGA/RoomTune