You are here

Log in or register to post comments
michael green
michael green's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 6 months ago
Joined: Jan 10 2011 - 6:11pm
Q&A's

Hi May

If you would, could you answer my questions to you as well as me answering yours? Thanks! There for a minute we were on a two way street together and it made for a good conversation. I would like to stay working on that same building block if possible.

thanks

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

michael green
michael green's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 6 months ago
Joined: Jan 10 2011 - 6:11pm
one big happy family

Hi May

I write pretty much how I listen and design more than likely.

MB

"I can go along with that approach completely. But, you Michael appear to want to cover every OTHER angle as part of your explanations – sometimes all at the same time."

mg

I don't really think about it, as I have said I'm not a debate person but a doer. This I'm sure comes across in my writing and I'm sorry if it gets hard to follow. Keep in mind that most of my life is spent jumping into a system, whether it be home, hall or studio and making it happen in real time. Also most of the time I'm called into the session that has already stalled and the engineers, performers or listeners are in stuck mode and there is no time to waste. I show up, tune it in then stick around long enough to make sure they are back on track, then I leave.

So whatever stage I come into a project I have to be thinking the "whole". In the studio I will usually walk into the live room, roam around, make my mental notes, then walk into the control room and within a couple minutes have to see where they are hitting or missing. Because I have done so many it usually doesn't take long to get things tuned up or at least give some choices to the crew. It all comes down to balance and how much the client wants to do artifically or naturally.

Again, my clients are beyond better or improvement, they are hunting for something specific.

An example: the engineers may be listening to one of my seessions where I have done the guitar and vocal in the same room and I was in there controlling the pressure on the other side of the mic. So it went artist and guitar, mic, me(plus PZC) then room. I get to the next place and they want that same sound, only the singer is by themselves in the booth and the guitar is already laid down. I have to make it sound like they are in the same room together, like before.

The end listener has no idea usually, unless they have been a part of this proccess. They're listening in their home making all these judgements and in reality this may not have been the way the recording was done at all. The info (recorded code) is there and it can be tuned in to hear specifically what took place but it doesn't just happen by some reviewer somewhere saying things got better.

My job is to get, whether it be at the studio or home, to the place where the user can get inside of that recording and hear what is there from any point of view. So, yes I look at the whole as everything.

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

michael green
michael green's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 6 months ago
Joined: Jan 10 2011 - 6:11pm
transformer distortion, where is it

>>> “Many times I find that the distortion from transformers is because of two things.” <<<

MB

So, is the distortion from transformers affecting the actual audio signal (the musical information) ?

mg

First I think might help some to read http://tuneland.techno-zone.net/t268-the-audio-code

Transformers themselves are not made for generating distortion. They help to create distortion by being out of tune with their main physical function do to conditions.

MB

Is the distortion you refer to caused by the transformer adversely affecting the audio signal (the musical information) actually traveling through it ?

MG

Again I would take a look at my writings on the audio code and how transformers work. When something is out of tune both the signal and surroundings are out of balance causing the harmonic structure to collapse instead of dissipating. Look at videos with guitar tuning and you will see what happens to the oscillations.

MB

Is the purpose of the specific placing your wooden blocks to reduce that distortion therefore reducing any adverse effect on the audio signal (the musical information) travelling through the transformer ?

MG

Tuning Blocks http://tuneland.techno-zone.net/t213-mga-tuning-blocks are used to harmonise energy along with all the other tuning products. Remember that distortion happens when the energy is in a random state and is unable to be put into order. All Parts, any parts, are not distorters by nature, they are either functioning in order or out of order not able to produce a stable pattern. Even fractals have a place.

MB

OR, has the audio signal (the musical information) been handled perfectly adequately by the transformer and is it only AFTER the audio signal (the musical information) has been presented into the room (now acoustic information) that vibrations from the acoustic energy in the room reaching the transformer is NOW the cause of the distortion you refer to ?

MG

The law of dissipation http://www.eoht.info/page/Law+of+dissipation is a good place to start, but the basics are, anything within the dissipation range is a part of the other energies within that same range as long as there is enough power to be involved with a fundamental force.

MB

That the purpose of your wooden blocks is to reduce that airborne effect ?

MG

I don't limit one energies propagation unto itself but within the entire range of nature.

MB

In other words is the adverse effect of vibrations initially caused by the very transformer itself on the audio signal or is the adverse effect of vibrations caused later by the room’s acoustic energy – in turn - having an effect on the transformer – which – in turn - then has an effect on the audio signal (the musical information) being handled by the transformer ?

MG

I don't see "adverse effect of vibrations" being any more than the "out of tune" energy. Oscilltive (vibratory) is a function. It's not distortion unless out of order. Good Vibes, Bad Vibes all depends on the law of order. If something is displaced not able to form order it is distortion, if something is uniform in it's vibratory correctness it is amplification and or stable.

MB

We are STILL wanting to know, from you, WHERE you think the musical information is being affected !!

MG

My answer is the same as before. By everywhere from everything within the context of the fundamental forces (interaction).

In audio, because of it's energy range, it is included in the same range as the energies that surround it and use it as a host and like wise audio is a host, an intermingle (force) that responds in order or out of order dependent on values of the other forces interactions with it and the ability for the audio signals support systems (harmonics) to reinforce the fundamentals.

The musical scales were writen using the terms fundamentals and harmonics on purpose as it is directly related to natures fundamental forces or other words know as interactions.

Audio has 3 main structures acoustical, mechanical and electrical. This is what I call the audio trilogy. These three parts are one in all and all in one. You can't point to one part as not having an effect on another mainly because of the law of dissipation.

hope this helps May

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

geoffkait
geoffkait's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 days 22 hours ago
Joined: Apr 29 2008 - 5:10am
Have you completely lost your mind?

Michael wrote,

"My answer is the same as before. By everywhere from everything within the context of the fundamental forces (interaction).

In audio, because of it's energy range, it is included in the same range as the energies that surround it and use it as a host and like wise audio is a host, an intermingle (force) that responds in order or out of order dependent on values of the other forces interactions with it and the ability for the audio signals support systems (harmonics) to reinforce the fundamentals."

I'm afraid you're confusing physical interactions like vibrations with what are known as the 4 Fundamental Forces, the strongest of which is the force that binds the atomic nuclear together and the weakest of which is gravity. The second strongest fundamental force i- the electromagnetic force - actually more than TWO ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE smaller than the nuclear force. Would you believe the Gravity force is about 10 to the negative fortieth 10 -40 power relative to the nuclear force! Hel-looo! Can be suggest you run, don't walk, to your nearest library and bury yourself in the stacks with a good physics book? Meanwhile please do me a favor and try to refrain from pretending to be a physics guru. Besides, even you isolate the chassis from the transformer's vibrations, no? If I were you I'd consider dropping the whole let the forces free to interact as Nature intended it crap.

Geoff Kait
Machina Dramatica

michael green
michael green's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 6 months ago
Joined: Jan 10 2011 - 6:11pm
becoming clear

Hi geoff

I'll try not to pretend, don't know why I would. And also it's been good to see more of yours and May's belief systems over the last week or so. It makes it easier to see peoples differences when they are able to come to the understandings on positions. It's quite possible that I look at nature and physics differently than you and May as well. No biggie to me. I feel comfortable within my belief system and knowledge base.

As I have stated earlier my approaches are based on "doing" the applications first and not the theories first. I find doing the proof first makes more sense as it allows me to be un-biased in my conclusions. In my studies I do try to be as accurate as possible but I find that as time and experience goes on that many times science is a language that grows as experiences do. Not that I necessarily have the need to rewrite anything but maybe give a chapter as truth is applied in the doing.

At the same time you say "physical interactions like vibrations with what are known as the 4 Fundamental Forces" as if physics is in some way separated from itself, could you explain this, please? How can physics not be a part of physics? Why, in your case, would the fundamental forces be different from the fundamental interactions? Are not the interactions = to forces in your beliefs? I look at this extremely practical, maybe you don't. I see two important words used to support, both "interaction" and "forces" action words are used with the fundamentals. When reading maybe you see something different, but I read Fundamental, which seems pretty clear and interaction and forces, or should I say interaction of forces as pretty clear.

I'm sure we can find out the differences between us without calling names, shall we give it a go? I mean I can call you stupid as easily as you I, but does this get you anywhere when talking to others, only interested in your point of view?

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

rrstesiak
rrstesiak's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 3 months ago
Joined: Mar 22 2015 - 5:38am
Reduction in Variables

All:

There is really only one force we should be concerned with in audio: electro-magnetic.

As a scientist, I really see no practical application of gravity; beyond fairly basic and tried-and-true and non-debated calibration of turntables. As for the strong and weak nuclear forces in consumer or professional audio; zero application.

Let's not over-complicate things. Just an educated suggestion.

Ron

michael green
michael green's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 6 months ago
Joined: Jan 10 2011 - 6:11pm
gravity?

Hi Ron

Hope the studies are going well, BTW. Why would you discount gravity?

That seemed pretty strange to hear you say this. Maybe you might want to reconsider that one. I mean every system on the planet sits on something. If it were'nt for gravity I doubt we would even have the words sit, settle, pull, weight, mass. I think maybe you went a little too wild there on the chopping of variables.

I don't wish to complicate things, but I also don't want to run around trying to grab my floating stereo parts and listening chair. I think we should leave the fundamental forces right where they are and try not to add or marginalize their relevance. If someone doesn't understand them, it's cool. If someone does that's cool too. If someone makes up their own meanings, even that's cool (it's up to them). But I don't want to be the judge over how deep someone wants to go into the hobby or even physics.

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

geoffkait
geoffkait's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 days 22 hours ago
Joined: Apr 29 2008 - 5:10am
Actually, intend to agree. You don't see that everyday.
michael green wrote:

Hi Ron

Hope the studies are going well, BTW. Why would you discount gravity?

That seemed pretty strange to hear you say this. Maybe you might want to reconsider that one. I mean every system on the planet sits on something. If it were'nt for gravity I doubt we would even have the words sit, settle, pull, weight, mass. I think maybe you went a little too wild there on the chopping of variables.

I don't wish to complicate things, but I also don't want to run around trying to grab my floating stereo parts and listening chair. I think we should leave the fundamental forces right where they are and try not to add or marginalize their relevance. If someone doesn't understand them, it's cool. If someone does that's cool too. If someone makes up their own meanings, even that's cool (it's up to them). But I don't want to be the judge over how deep someone wants to go into the hobby or even physics.

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

My first real product, not counting Ortho Ears, that replicated Mr. Spock's oversize Ears, an audiophile prosthetic, which were very cool looking by the way, the Nimbus Sub Hertz Platform, employed a gravity servo system (pendulum) to help damp the mass on a spring action of the top plate, as minute as that might be, and also served to improve the lateral support which as you might expect suffered considerably since there was only ONE AIR SPRING. Trying to apply actual damping techniques to iso devices, as it turns out, affects the sound negatively. Even gently laying a silk scarf over the top plate was audible. It's all part of the art of isolation.

I suspect Ron is probably saying that gravity exists but it's force is miniscule, as I said the gravity force is 10 > -40 times smaller than the nuclear force. Nobody is saying gravity per se in not important or doesn't keep us from flying out into space. In space no one can hear you scream.

Geoff Kait
Machina Dramatica

michael green
michael green's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 6 months ago
Joined: Jan 10 2011 - 6:11pm
in other words...

let's not get so concerned about what is 40 times less than what-else and expect to not have to pickup anything anymore :)

They haven't made that remote yet and untill they do, gravity brings a ton to the audio table. I find it to be one of the biggest factors and ceratinly the most looked at. I'm not 100% sure but I would think what something is sitting on is probably the most needed part in all of audio.

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

rrstesiak
rrstesiak's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 3 months ago
Joined: Mar 22 2015 - 5:38am
Reply RE: Gravity

All:

Astrophysics aside, and dealing solely with EARTH:

I in fact believe gravity, being a CONSTANT only dependent on feet above sea level; even then very minuscule, is irrelevant; as again it is a CONSTANT.

In addition, the effect of gravity is literally measured to be 10^−36 times the strength of the electromagnetic force, or, more illustratively,
.000000000000000000000000000000000001% the strength and effect of EMF.

To strengthen this point, EMF, on the other hand, is severely volatile as a force by comparison.

I don't mean to rule out mass effects on systems, but for the sake of simplification and in comparison to the much much stronger EMF Force; and for the sake of scientific debate, I am ruling gravity out as constant and miniscule; to use a very good word suggested by another member describing any effects of gravity.

To further come to an understanding with what Michael is stating, I think his valid and proven tweaks much more impact EMF than *gravity*.

In closing, key idea here is Gravity = Constant and 10^-36 the effect of EMF, EMF = highly variable.

To oppose this debate, could one imagine being in their listening room and having the universal constant force of gravity be VARIABLE!???? Now that is science fiction.

Respectfully,

Ron

geoffkait
geoffkait's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 days 22 hours ago
Joined: Apr 29 2008 - 5:10am
Houston, we have a problem
michael green wrote:

let's not get so concerned about what is 40 times less than what-else and expect to not have to pickup anything anymore :)

They haven't made that remote yet and untill they do, gravity brings a ton to the audio table. I find it to be one of the biggest factors and ceratinly the most looked at. I'm not 100% sure but I would think what something is sitting on is probably the most needed part in all of audio.

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

Unfortunately for your argument the expression 10> -40 represents a value far less than 1/40, my fluffy haired friend. 10> -9 represents one billionth the value of the number 1. Thus, 10> -40 is like really really small. Even a billionth of a billionth is only 10> - 18. Follow?

Gravitation is by far the weakest of the four interactions. The weakness of gravity can easily be demonstrated by suspending a pin using a simple magnet (such as a refrigerator magnet). The magnet is able to hold the pin against the gravitational pull of the entire Earth. Hel-looo!

Geoff Kait
Machina Diabolical

geoffkait
geoffkait's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 days 22 hours ago
Joined: Apr 29 2008 - 5:10am
Deleted by author

No text

michael green
michael green's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 6 months ago
Joined: Jan 10 2011 - 6:11pm
Okie Dokie

Hi Guys

Thanks for your opinions, but I'm going to pass on a fundamental forces debate with you guys. I don't want to limit our listening tests by puting any energy in a theory box. I don't feel very comfortable giving gravity or any energy as far as that goes the short end of the stick. It appears I see energy as more of an intermingle than the two of you do.

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

geoffkait
geoffkait's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 days 22 hours ago
Joined: Apr 29 2008 - 5:10am
Smart move

"It's what I choose to believe" seems to be appropriate in this case. I suspect you tried to use Fundmental Forces in your Tuning Foundation mission statement without actually understanding just what exactly the Fundamental Forces are. It's simply a case of name dropping in a silly attempt to appear to have the Laws of Physics firmly behind TunnelLand.. Unfortunately you can't argue your way out of a paper bag. Smart move to take a pass on this discussion, grasshopper. Case closed.

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

michael green
michael green's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 6 months ago
Joined: Jan 10 2011 - 6:11pm
Oh OK then

Since you want to have a wiki fight.

"Gravity or gravitation is a natural phenomenon by which all things attract one another including stars, planets, galaxies and even light and sub-atomic particles. Gravity is responsible for the formation of the universe (e.g. creating spheres of hydrogen, igniting them under pressure to form stars and grouping them in to galaxies). Gravity is a cause of time dilation (time lapses more slowly in strong gravitation). Without gravity, the universe would be without thermal energy and composed only of equally spaced particles. On Earth, gravity gives weight to physical objects and causes the tides. Gravity has an infinite range, and it cannot be absorbed, transformed, or shielded against.

Gravity is most accurately described by the general theory of relativity (proposed by Albert Einstein in 1915) which describes gravity, not as a force, but as a consequence of the curvature of spacetime caused by the uneven distribution of mass/energy. For most applications, gravity is well approximated by Newton's law of universal gravitation, which postulates that the gravitational force of two bodies of mass is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them."

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

geoffkait
geoffkait's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 days 22 hours ago
Joined: Apr 29 2008 - 5:10am
The gravitational force is not the local gravitational field.

Just to point out the wiki stuff doesn't actually explain your proposition that these fundamental forces interact with each other. Specifically how the gravitational force, not to be confused with local gravity on Earth, interacts with ANY of the other fundamental forces. I mean how can it? It's BY FAR the weakest force, so whimpy in fact that relative to the strongest fundamental force it can be ignored entirely. Consequently, You would probably be more successful arguing that the Earth's Magnetic Field interacts with the audio signal somewhere along the line, even that argument is doubtful. We do know the Earth's crust microseismic motion interacts and interferes with the audio system. You need look no further than the LIGO project or my own single pivot sub Hertz platform to see that. So, as for me I am putting the gravitational force on ignore starting right now. A much more "forceful" and relevant interaction to consider in the context of audio is the interaction of mechanical and acoustic vibrations with the physical elements and components of the audio system, including the cables, interconnects,,power cords and circuit boards and consequently with the AUDIO SIGNAL THAT those elements components and wires are carrying. You know, the very interactions you are ignoring or at the very least minimizing. See the irony?

Speaking of LIGO, you can see why LIGO employs such heroic techniques for vibration isolation seeing as how the apparatus set up to detect gravity waves left over from the Big Bang would be completely overwhelmed by micro seismic vibrational forces otherwise. Even by motion of atoms in the suspension threads. I.e., the signal would be buried in the noise. Are we looking at a gravity wave or are we looking at a seismic vibration?

 photo photo_70_zpsvwwmqm8v.jpg

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

rrstesiak
rrstesiak's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 3 months ago
Joined: Mar 22 2015 - 5:38am
Please refer to my original disclaimer...

All:

We are veering into Astrophysics; which has NOTHING TO DO WITH LOCAL, SPECIFIC GRAVITY ON EARTH!

Here is my original disclaimer repeated for brevity:

rrstesiak wrote:

All:

Astrophysics aside, and dealing solely with EARTH:

Q.E.D.
(quod erat demonstrandum: this problem is solved)

Regards,

Ronald R. Stesiak, PhD

michael green
michael green's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 6 months ago
Joined: Jan 10 2011 - 6:11pm
I'll let, LOL

I'll let you guys do...what it is you do. As for myself I'm working on Topping TP-21 in one room and an ARC Ref 150 in another. LOL

I think I'll stick to tuning according to what is. I'm not going to make these sound great by talking theory now am I? But I'm sure the spirited debates will be in good hands with you guys.

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

May Belt
May Belt's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 years 5 months ago
Joined: May 8 2006 - 1:51am
Surely you keep stating your theory ??

Mg:-

>>> “Transformers themselves are not made for generating distortion. They help to create distortion by being out of tune with their main physical function do to conditions.” <<<

Create distortion on WHAT ???

You must be moving the transformer out of the actual equipment box for some reason !!! Other than the reason “Oh, I know, from trial and error, that it improves the sound by doing so”.

Mg:-

>> “Again I would take a look at my writings on the audio code and how transformers work. When something is out of tune both the signal and surroundings are out of balance causing the harmonic structure to collapse instead of dissipating.” <<<

I know how transformers work.
Again, you are bringing the SIGNAL into the conversation as ‘being out of balance’. I suggest you read that paragraph again and let’s see if we can get it explained better, because again you are blustering and waffling. Is the actual audio signal (the musical information), going through the equipment, involved or no, changed or not ???????

Mg :-
>>> “As I have stated earlier my approaches are based on "doing" the applications first and not the theories first. I find doing the proof first makes more sense as it allows me to be un-biased in my conclusions.” <<<

>>> “I don’t really think about it, as I have said I'm not a debate person but a doer. This I'm sure comes across in my writing and I'm sorry if it gets hard to follow. Keep in mind that most of my life is spent jumping into a system, whether it be home, hall or studio and making it happen in real time. Also most of the time I'm called into the session that has already stalled and the engineers, performers or listeners are in stuck mode and there is no time to waste. I show up, tune it in then stick around long enough to make sure they are back on track, then I leave.” <<<

I understand your approach of “doing” the applications first. I visualise you entering a room and people saying “Oh, Michael. Can you come and sort this out for us please ? The sound isn’t right”

So, you do This, and That and That and That and That and eventually you get the sound to a state where you and they are happier. I can also understand the enthusiasm of some of your customers if they can change this, change that, move that, twist that, balance that and get some of the changes in the sound they have been looking for. I understand because I know that everything we do in the listening environment changes the sound

I can also understand that your approach allows you to be experimental and allows you to try different things and approaches without pre-bias !! But at SOME TIME one has to ask the questions WHAT has affected WHAT if it changed the musical information, and WHY ?

>>> “I think I’ll stick to tuning according to what is. I'm not going to make these sound great by talking theory now am I?” <<<

Surely the reply you gave (copied below) to ‘sonic’ IS your theory !!!!!!!!!

Mg:-
>>> “In physics we learn that there are more forces at play than what we picture in our minds as "the audio signal". Before you had two separate electrical sources fighting for the same space domain. Breaking it down, you have the Earth's magnetic field wanting to be in-tune with the other (mini) sources of electromagnetic field. You see it's not really a bunch of "fields" but "A" field with many parts feeding into the overall. The "field" the electronic parts are creating are done within the same core function of the Earth's and solar interactions. Their not so much creating their own but more responding to the generated field of the Earth/Solar relationship. We don't create magnetic anything, but borrow the energy that is already there. Basically giving birth to baby fields all part of the same field. This is why I don't use the word "isolation" in regards to "the" electromagnetic field. There's one parenting field and all the activations that we harness using that field.

Your system wants to be in "harmony" with the Earth's (parenting) fundamental forces. In audio we think of discrete as being the answer, but in reality discrete doesn't really exist. Another myth about our hobby unfortunately. When going from two strips to one, you removed a layer of fighting. A fight that is much bigger than 2 or 3 feet, but actually a fight that plays out in the overall Earth's field structure.” <<<

Mg:-

>>> “I don’t see “adverse effect of vibrations" being any more than the "out of tune" energy. Oscilltive (vibratory) is a function. It's not distortion unless out of order. Good Vibes, Bad Vibes all depends on the law of order. If something is displaced not able to form order it is distortion, if something is uniform in it's vibratory correctness it is amplification and or stable.” <<<

So, when you recommend the use of your wooden blocks to support cables off the ground, you are not recommending them to ‘deal with’ the ‘adverse effect of vibrations’ ??

Enid Lumley, some 30 years ago, was recommending supporting cables off the ground but she suspended them off the ground with cotton. I can’t remember now whether she thought she was ‘dealing with’ vibrations or static !!!!!!!!!!!

Regards,
May Belt,
PWB Electronics.

geoffkait
geoffkait's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 days 22 hours ago
Joined: Apr 29 2008 - 5:10am
Cable tunnels

May wrote,

"Enid Lumley, some 30 years ago, was recommending supporting cables off the ground but she suspended them off the ground with cotton. I can’t remember now whether she thought she was ‘dealing with’ vibrations or static !!!!!!!!!!!"

I built Enid Lumley's cable tunnels for my '57 Quads about twenty five years ago, tunnels for both the speaker cables and the Quad power cords. A very clever design that employed thread attached to eye hooks located inside the tunnel on the underside of the top part of the tunnel. Thus the cable was isolated from vibration quite effectively. The wood parts of the tunnel, sides and top, were treated with vegetable oil, the idea there was an anti static treatment, according to Enid.

Geoff Kait
Machina Dramatica

rrstesiak
rrstesiak's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 3 months ago
Joined: Mar 22 2015 - 5:38am
Reply to Michael

Michael:

As everyone on this forum knows, I have always supported your approach to audio.

Having said that, I am merely correcting statements of yours I believe to be inaccurate when you're veering into my domain of physics. Nothing more.

Having said that, I also disagree with your statement:

michael green wrote:

...
They haven't made that remote yet and untill they do, gravity brings a ton to the audio table. I find it to be one of the biggest factors and ceratinly the most looked at. ...

I fear again you are overlooking what anyone with a rudimentary education in physics would state:

EMF is by FAR the most impacting of the forces in audio.

Do you seriously think Gravity impacts audio more? If so, I am intrigued and welcome a detailed reply.

Respectfully,

Ron

michael green
michael green's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 6 months ago
Joined: Jan 10 2011 - 6:11pm
Answering Ron

Ron said

"Do you seriously think Gravity impacts audio more? If so, I am intrigued and welcome a detailed reply."

mg

That's an interesting question, thanks Ron

Here's my take. BTW for the sake of those who need schooling references, I studied this particular topic from courses by Columbia University. It pains me so to have to say I am schooled by the system to gain credits, but it seems people here won't let up till you show them that paper. For the record I think showing that piece of paper makes us more dumb than not, but that's another debate I guess.

on the topic at hand

"Do you seriously think Gravity impacts audio more?" My answer purely based on book smarts says "of course not", but away from schooling and in my listening room discounting any energy source or effect is not on my radar. I don't know how you guys look at all the fundamentals of what makes this Earth tick, but I see all of them as part of a whole, and don't put the boxes of isolation around them. Where forces fit on the scale from big to small is a good way to be able to talk about them in a descriptive sense, but when we as humans start to put things into practice we begin to see the book pages start to intermingle. In other words, I have this entire planet and universe to pull from and the smarts of every mind that has come before me, why do I want to pee any of this away when I can learn how to use knowledge.

Honestly debates like these for me don't prove smarts, but prove ignorance. Now Ron I don't mean that as a judgement one way or another. I'm simply saying I choose to be more open minded than guys writing books soley based on their point of view. I choose to look at all energy as more of a fundamental interaction than separate fundamental randomness.

To quote one of my good friends from SUNY, "why get stuck on right and wrong when you can explore different".

So I'm sorry if I back out of some of these debates in the minds of some, but I hope you and the others will see that I'm truly dedicated to the science and art of the whole, and the very word nature means I need to do my best to look at not bigger and smaller, but more how does it fit within the whole.

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

rrstesiak
rrstesiak's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 3 months ago
Joined: Mar 22 2015 - 5:38am
Reply to Michael

Michael:

You bring up your very solid and valid approach of simply and metaphorically and literally putting down the books and DOING. I can meet you and observe it is often when application veers from theory.

I'll rest the debate on that.

Cheers,

Ron

michael green
michael green's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 6 months ago
Joined: Jan 10 2011 - 6:11pm
Thanks Ron

I find, as you as well experience with your research, that much of our time it's a matter of choosing what we are going to dedicate our brain to that day, week or month. Sometimes for myself going down the road of theory can take my thinking to a place so deep and wide that it takes days to turn around and head back to doing.

This makes it tough for a guy that may spend a day or week on one note.

for example

I wouldn't mind spending time talking to May more, but it takes up so much time for me to get into that particular groove that I find by the time I get started my book is full of things I haven't got to. The same is true with everyone I talk to. It takes time for me to try to get on their page because I'm in deep thought about other issues. Puting my mind in someone elses listening room with their system is exhausting, but puting my mind into someone elses thoughts in the hope to answer them on their own terms is a huge undertaking.

Debates for me, are something that burns brain cells, cause I'm wanting to take the time to understand their point so I can get to mine and then hopefully a shared thought. Some people are very good at this, but my brain I guess is so attached to activities, that I hate to burn up time, getting to the end of the day going "where am I and where did I want to go today".

On here my goal is to pull people to TuneLand and share a little of TuneLand with the good folks here, but I often loose sight of that and find myself in the middle of things that are not based on any particular resolution but more the exchange of intellect. For me if it doesn't end in doing it's a waste, and so much of the talk here is not like what you are doing with your system in real time. Some of these folks never leave the talk and start the walk. Their resolution is the talk itself, and I just don't have the time.

anyway, good to see you up here and hope you had a great weekend

pretty cool looking at your stripped down NAD btw!

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

geoffkait
geoffkait's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 days 22 hours ago
Joined: Apr 29 2008 - 5:10am
I read that paragraph twice

Michael wrote,

""Do you seriously think Gravity impacts audio more?" My answer purely based on book smarts says "of course not", but away from schooling and in my listening room discounting any energy source or effect is not on my radar. I don't know how you guys look at all the fundamentals of what makes this Earth tick, but I see all of them as part of a whole, and don't put the boxes of isolation around them. Where forces fit on the scale from big to small is a good way to be able to talk about them in a descriptive sense, but when we as humans start to put things into practice we begin to see the book pages start to intermingle. In other words, I have this entire planet and universe to pull from and the smarts of every mind that has come before me, why do I want to pee any of this away when I can learn how to use knowledge."

I read that paragraph twice but still didn't see anything about gravity. Did I miss something? What did your Columbia courses teach you about gravity - that would be a start, you know, as opposed to name dropping. For example you could talk about how gravity is what gives components weight and what makes mass on spring isolation systems work. ;-)

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

michael green
michael green's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 6 months ago
Joined: Jan 10 2011 - 6:11pm
sure, thanks geoff

Hi geoff

Sure no problem. If you go to http://tuneland.techno-zone.net/ and www.tuneland.info you will find tons on gravity and the other forces.

You'll also find a lot of springs in action for tuning however they are not isolating but used as mechanical transfer devices.

see you there, but leave your flames at home as we don't permit trolling on TuneLand

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

geoffkait
geoffkait's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 days 22 hours ago
Joined: Apr 29 2008 - 5:10am
Over, under, sideways, down

What a silly goose! Springs are always Isolators even when they are sideways. They are low pass mechanical filters when used with any mass, whether that mass be over, under, sideways, down. Thus, you are effectively attenuating the energy transfer between objects, not allowing energy to flow freely. Vibration and Isolation can occur in six directions, not just the vertical direction. Follow? See, you learn something every day. Here you've been isolating all these years and didn't even know it! Welcome aboard, grasshopper! Lol

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

michael green
michael green's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 6 months ago
Joined: Jan 10 2011 - 6:11pm
thanks for the tip

Oh, I didn't know the springs aren't attached to anything, thanks for the tip. So your new product is magic springs.

"these incredible springs are thrown into the air never to touch any objects or mass related substances", "developed by geoff kait on his 1930's fictional comic book space ship"

Commonly known as Geoff Kramer, geoff's amazing theories are based on his new novel "Kramer me baby" an autobiography of geoff's remarkable adventures as physicist/scientist/founder of NASA/earphone specialist.

Reviewed by James Randi as the most important read of the century "you won't want to miss it" Amazing Randi

Buy your "Magic Springs" now, "don't listen to michael green folks" get the real flex seal and impress the little woman. Sure to put a smile on her face, and a spring to your step.

limited offer FREE SHIPPING but wait.....if you order now.....

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

geoffkait
geoffkait's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 days 22 hours ago
Joined: Apr 29 2008 - 5:10am
Bad hair day?

 photo photo_73_zps0ysrvgc3.jpg

What are you going on about Now?
Geoff kait
Machina dynamica

Pages

  • X