michael green wrote:

Hi May & Geoff

Today I wanted to ask Geoff about his product and use of the transformer treatment he is talking about. I thought maybe it would be on his site along with instructions, and after not finding it, I tried to see if it might be on May's, and I had a hard time finding the site for May and Peter.

Would you folks mind posting the links to your sites so I can do a little research on your products testing and findings?

I might be looking in the wrong places, thank you.

michael green
MGA/RoomTune

The two web sites are:

http://pwbelectronics.co.uk

www.machinadynamica.com

Cheers, Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

michael green wrote:

Hi Geoff

Yep, found these but where is the Transformer treatment and how to use link?

also

All I found on May's site was a thing on some Dr. Richard Graham and a disclaimer.

thanks

michael green
MGA/RoomTune

I just realized I didn't have the transformer damper up on my site yet. It's there now. I have no product for the shielding, however.

Dunno why you can't get to the PWB site, the link works for me...

Cheers,

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

michael green wrote:

Hi Geoff

Are you talking about the Vibra-Block?

Yes.

Also, I have been looking at May's site but was expecting something else I guess.

I know what you mean.

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

michael green wrote:

Hi Geoff

It looks to me that you have the dampener Vibra-block material sitting under the stock component and on top, is this correct?

michael green
MGA/RoomTune

The VibraBlock is comprised of four layers, the bottom black layer is viscoelastic material, then for the constraining layers there is a glass layer, a cork layer, with another glass layer on the very top. I do actually have another VibraBlock on the top plate of the isolation stand for the amplifier. But not under the component. Under the component I use three Super DH Cones (NASA GRADE SUPER HARD CERAMICS) and three DH squares to interface the amp to the top plate of the iso stand. The iso stand is comprised of mini isolator springs and a stack of marble tiles on top of them. Photo from slightly earlier set-up. You can spot a third VibraBlock peeking out from between the top and bottom plates, also a Mpingo disc or two, springs, etc.

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

michael green wrote:

Hi Geoff

So the viscoelastic material is the first thing that touches the transformers top? Or are you using these on the transformer covers and not on the transformers themselves?

Your not treating the sides, just top and bottom? What about the energy radiating around the transformer?

michael green
MGA/RoomTune

For the time being the VibraBlock is for horizontal surfaces only as it comes in four sections but they are not permanently attached to each other. The viscoelastic layer goes down first, then glass, cork, glass. There is also another constrained layer arrangement inside the transformer housing on top of the toroidal transformer. Where feasible a viscoelastic square can be placed underneath a toroidal transformer, with the transformer acting as the constraining layer, if you see what I mean. There is also viscoelastic material fitted around the circumference of the toroidal transformer inside the housing. Better safe than sorry.

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

michael green wrote:

Thanks Geoff

This is what I thought you were doing but wanted to see it thanks.

michael green
MGA/RoomTune

Good intro to the whole Belt thing is Cream Electret and the Silver Rainbow Foil. I'm pretty sure May would send you samples to play around with. FYI both products are on Stereophile's List of Recommended Components and both have very wide applications.

Cheers,

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

Hi Geoff,

A link to our web site is included within the reviews referred to below.

Following from Art Dudley's review of our PWB Rainbow Foil and PWB Cream-Electret in the April 2012 and May 2012 issues of the Stereophile Hi Fi Magazine, our Rainbow Foil and Cream-Electret have been included in the latest 2013 Stereophile list of Recommended Components. This Recommended Components list is now available to read on line and the link to it is given below :-

Http://www.stereophile.com/content/2013-recommended-components-miscellaneous

Within the reference to the PWB Cream-Electret is provided a link to Art Dudley's April 2012 interview with me :-

(Vol.35 No.5 Read Review Online)

And within the reference to the PWB Rainbow Foil is provided a link to Art Dudley's May 2012 review of both products :-

(Vol.35 No.5 Read Review Online)

Please also be aware that our address shown at the end of the 2012 articles has changed.

Our new address is now :-
PWB Electronics,
2, Northbrook Croft,
Hill View Mount,
Leeds LS7 4QZ. England.

Regards,
May Belt.
PWB Electronics.

michael green wrote:

Since you guys don't have forums to follow of your own, it makes it a little hard to see how you are listening and what you are doing, so I thought it might be nice to start a thread where you can show stuff. Of course staying within the rules must be observed.

Personally for myself and many like me, we like to be able to look at people's setup as it makes it possible for us to hear what they are hearing. This way when comparisons or comments are made there is a point of reference. This is also why we do music referencing.

I didn't see anywhere on May's site where there is a picture of her setup so maybe this could be the place for that as well. Or a link to it.

As the readers here have seen me talk their ear off about, we are not interested in fixed sound systems but are always interested in tweaks that can be incorporated in a varible sense. However I think it's great that listeners can see all the sides to the hobby.

michael green
MGA/RoomTune

Speaking for myself I am not at all adverse to showing some things in my system as I just did. Also, there are a number of detailed explanations on my web site, if anyone is interested, including one for the Clever Little Clock which was written few years back with the indispensable help of May. And a very long one on the enigmatic Intelligent Chip. The Clever Clock being a reincarnation of a PWB product of yore, reworked and rebooted by yours truly. I cannot decide if the Clever Clock is a fixed system or a variable one. Hmmmmmm....

"Metaphysics is fine but don't try paying the rent with it." Old audiophile expression

Cheers, Geoff Kait
Machinadynamica.com

michael green wrote:

That's simple

Do you adjust the clock?

michael green
MGA/RoomTune

I guess it all depends on what you mean by adjust. The (battery powered) clock is modified a number of ways and the clock is set up here so the actual time displayed at the customer's location will be different than his actual local time. But the customer does not do anything to the clock and the clock is independent of the customer's system parameters. The clock's method of operation is unrelated to the standard audiophile repertoire of electronic signal refinement or improvement, acoustic signal manipulation, vibration control, RFI/EMI absorption, power line conditioning, or even electric static charge control or magnetic field absorption. Yes, I know what you're thinking, like what the hell else is there, right?

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

Michael wrote,

"Personally for myself and many like me, we like to be able to look at people's setup as it makes it possible for us to hear what they are hearing. This way when comparisons or comments are made there is a point of reference. This is also why we do music referencing."

To tell you the truth, I have kind of a big problem with all of that since you certainly cannot tell by looking at a picture whether the system is in correct polarity, whether the CD under test in in correct polarity, whether the wall outlets have been thoroughly cleaned and treated, whether the cabling is in the correct direction, whether the fuses are in the correct direction, whether the speakers absolute correct positions have been established, whether the CD transport is absolutely level, and other reasons. So, for those reasons, as far as playing the game of guessing what a system sounds like based on a photo or two, I'm out. Now that I think about it, as far as taking someone's listening experiences as PROOF of something or another I'm out of that one, too.

Cheers,

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

Hi Geoff,

I think you can tell from a picture the general flavor of a system without knowing about the individual hidden setup issues and tweaks, etc..

Based on the picture above, i would surmise that you enjoy a hyper detailed and crisp/focused sound based on the marble/graphite/ceramic under the amp.

Where did the PROOF issue come up? Isn't this all about listening and personal preferences?

toledo wrote:

Hi Geoff,

I think you can tell from a picture the general flavor of a system without knowing about the individual hidden setup issues and tweaks, etc..

Based on the picture above, i would surmise that you enjoy a hyper detailed and crisp/focused sound based on the marble/graphite/ceramic under the amp.

Where did the PROOF issue come up? Isn't this all about listening and personal preferences?

That is quite humorous, actually. Both comments.

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

michael green wrote:

Hi Toledo

It was pretty easy to see the sound by the picture. And Geoff, no this isn't meant to be funny. For those who have been down this path a few times they pretty much know what is going to be the end result. Same as the guy who walks into the music store and grabs his guitar strings, or the guy picking out drum skins.

Geoff your applying something physical to the product and that material or group of is going to add exactly the sound of what the material is.

Listeners you can do this for yourselves with materials and report back. Go grab a material out of your garage and set your components on it or set the material on top of the component and you will hear the music change to this sound. Go do it! Hear for yourself! Tap on the material and listen, now go put it on or under the component and listen, same sound. Once you physically "couple" materials they take on the sound of each other. Absolutely no way around this.

michael green
MGA/RoomTune

I'm reminded a little bit by the rather rude but accurate comment the character in Chinatown played by John Houston makes to Jack Nicholson's character while they are having lunch, you might think you know what's going on but you don't. Don't take that too hard, but it's pretty obvious you and Toledo don't understand how the whole isolation thing works. The reason the marble doesn't act like you assume it does is because there are no vibrations of the correct frequency coming up through the springs that would tend to excite the marble or whatever material you might wish to use. Materials ring or resonate due to forces on them, they do not ring or resonate in a vacuum. Follow?

There are ways around just about everything. Old audiophile expression

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

Geoff,

Based on your "isolation" logic, there would be no need for the additional graphite and ceramic layers, would there?

I am not sure why you are having a problem with what I said about the sound of your system. There is nothing wrong with a detailed/focused presentation if this is what you like. And whether you agree or not, those materials under the amp are contributing to this flavor.

Do me a favor. Put the amp on rubber feet directly on the marble and tell us what you hear.

No text

michael green wrote:

Geoff

In what you are showing in your photo there is no isolation. We have made all of these same layers and tested them from every angle you could imagine and this is certainly a case of "coupling".

It's a bit weird when you have someone finding different results than you how you start to accuse without ever asking them about their testing and findings, and how they went about their tests. You come out and say they are wrong without ever doing your reseach on the person or tests or conditions. Fact is this looks no different from when we tested constrained layered dampening back 25 years ago, and every time we have had to do these same tests since.

Here's the other weird thing. No one came up and said that the sound you are getting is wrong or bad if that's the sound you want and like. So why get bent? It's a "fixed" choice is all a Tunee would say.

michael green
MGA/RoomTune

Nope, sorry. The amp in the photo is isolated. Without any question. It IS coupled to the top plate of the iso stand. It's a classic mass on spring isolation system. Hel-loo! The constrained layer damping is only for quieting the top plate. Didn't I already say that?

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

michael green wrote:

Sorry but this is not isolation, this is signal flavoring though dampening.

michael green
MGA/RoomTune

You are wrong. Remember I posted the photo just so you could see the dampers. You see only what you want to see.

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

toledo wrote:

Geoff,

Based on your "isolation" logic, there would be no need for the additional graphite and ceramic layers, would there?

I am not sure why you are having a problem with what I said about the sound of your system. There is nothing wrong with a detailed/focused presentation if this is what you like. And whether you agree or not, those materials under the amp are contributing to this flavor.

Do me a favor. Put the amp on rubber feet directly on the marble and tell us what you hear.

Now I remember why it's not a good idea to post photos on audio forums. Do you really think this is up for some sort of debate? Do you think this is a peer review? Lol

PS you probably didn't get the memo regarding rubber. It's one of the worst materials ever foisted on naive audiophiles.

Cheers,

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

Geoff,

You are the one that made it a debate when you stated that photos are not useful in discerning the sound of a system. Some of us do not agree. While a photo does not tell the whole story .. It does lend clues on the resulting sound and the desired tuning of an individual.

The reason I brought up rubber was fairly obvious as you were saying that the marble did all the work in the "isolation" and the layers between the marble and component have no effect. If they have no effect, then remove them or try another material and let us know what you hear.

I chose rubber since we all don't like it properties and based on your 'worst materials' comment, I think you know what we are saying is true and you would hear it if you substituted it for the ceramic and graphite.

I am still a little confused on why you are taking a stand on this issue. If Michael and I were not involved, would you be commenting in the same manner?

Instead of going to the trouble of reviewing gear, Stereophile should hire you guys to evaluate the pictures of the gear and start utilizing their time catching up with paperwork.

Catch,

Does that comment really capture the essence of what we are saying and what supporting materials under a component do to the sound.

I think we are at cross purposes here. The different points of view (regarding seeing photos of a person’s equipment and listening environment), are correct - in their respective situations.

I agree that one can SEE a photo of a person ‘s listening environment (equipment and room) and can get a good overall idea as to what might need ‘treating’. As in :-

“You haven’t got THAT in your room have you ? Don’t you know it will be having an adverse effect on your sound ?”

“You haven’t got THAT in your room have you ? Don’t you know it will be having an adverse effect on your sound ?”

On the other hand I (and presumably Geoff) don’t need to SEE (or have a list or description of) Zorch’s equipment or listening environment to know that when he describes – as he did :-

>>> “Less jitter means less smearing of fine signal detail into broadband noise. And that's what we, those with intact hearing, discern, a wonderful boost in the naturalness of the instruments and vocals. But be aware that these damag units are better appreciated when the other two CD tweaks are done first: Green permanent marker (or CD StopLight) on the outer vertical edge of the CD, and optical oil (may my old vial of Millennium 2000 last me to the end of my stay) applied to the CD surface. Without these two tweaks, the demag tweak is very subtle as it has to fight through the hash resulting from lack of the first two tweaks.” <<<

That he was actually HEARING the improvements in the sound which he described.

The same applies to the many thousands of people who have experienced similar improvements in their sound from doing the same things. We don’t need to know what music they listen to regularly, what equipment they are using, what their listening environment looks like or which country they are living in !!

We didn’t need to know what music, what equipment Michael Fremer listens to (although he did list them), or what Michael Fremer’s listening room looks like when he described the improvements he heard after applying a demagnetiser to his LPs. Many thousands of other people have heard similar improvements but whilst listening to DIFFERENT music, whilst using DIFFERENT equipment, whilst listening in DIFFERENT environments and whilst living in DIFFERENT countries. Photos (of equipment or listening environment) won’t tell you anything with regard to Michael’s (or any others people’s) experiences.

Added to Zorch’s described ‘treatments’ are also ‘applying a chemical to the LABEL side of CDs and to the LABELS of LPs”.

If all these ‘treatments’ can give the improvements (not only described by Zorch but by thousands of others) of :-

>>> ““Less jitter means less smearing of fine signal detail into broadband noise. And that's what we, those with intact hearing, discern, a wonderful boost in the naturalness of the instruments and vocals <<<

then this means that all that information was ALREADY on the CD – but not heard (resolved) before the ‘treatments’ described were applied to the discs.

However, later (AFTER ‘treating the CDs and LPs) FURTHER improvements in the sound can be obtained by ‘treating’ numerous things in the listening environment – as you, Michael, have discovered with your various ‘tuning’ techniques, but surely you are chasing your own tail if problems associated with accessing the wealth of information on the actual CDs and LPs are not dealt with first ??

Regards,
May Belt,
PWB Electronics.

toledo wrote:

Geoff,

You are the one that made it a debate when you stated that photos are not useful in discerning the sound of a system. Some of us do not agree. While a photo does not tell the whole story .. It does lend clues on the resulting sound and the desired tuning of an individual.

The reason I brought up rubber was fairly obvious as you were saying that the marble did all the work in the "isolation" and the layers between the marble and component have no effect. If they have no effect, then remove them or try another material and let us know what you hear.

I chose rubber since we all don't like it properties and based on your 'worst materials' comment, I think you know what we are saying is true and you would hear it if you substituted it for the ceramic and graphite.

I am still a little confused on why you are taking a stand on this issue. If Michael and I were not involved, would you be commenting in the same manner?

Toledo, are you using springs in your system? If you are then you are isolating. So is Michael. This is why your continued arguments are so amusing. I said no such thing as you are claiming I did with respect to the marble providing all the isolation. Now that I think about it also did not say that materials between the marble and the component have no effect. I have said all along the isolation is produced by the combination of mass and springs. How you interface the component to the isolation system is important, too, as is how you interface the system to the floor or table. And the best way is using things like DIAMONDS or ceramics that are close to the hardness of diamonds that transfer energy out of the system rapidly. Can I suggest you keep a log so you can remember what I actually said?

Cheers,

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

Geoff,

I am glad to see that you agree that the materials supporting the component affect the sound. I was getting a little worried there ... Simple tuning 101 stuff.

However, I would suggest you re-read your comments on your Chinatown post reply to MG and see where the marble isolation argument was introduced. Both Michael and I were talking about the materials under the component and their affect, yet you decided to school us, in your inimitable fashion, on the marble "isolation." Pay attention, young man.

toledo wrote:

Geoff,

I am glad to see that you agree that the materials supporting the component affect the sound. I was getting a little worried there ... Simple tuning 101 stuff.

However, I would suggest you re-read your comments on your Chinatown post reply to MG and see where the marble isolation argument was introduced. Both Michael and I were talking about the materials under the component and their affect, yet you decided to school us, in your inimitable fashion, on the marble "isolation." Pay attention, young man.

Are you being intentionally obtuse? If you and Michael have springs in your system you are isolating. You can call it anything you wish, call it tuning. Who cares? Furthermore, marble, as I have already made clear, will not ring if it is being isolated. I suspect you are just being argumentative. Have you considered spending a nice afternoon in a library?

Cheers,

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

Geoff,
You are the one that keeps bringing up isolation .. Let's get with it here, will ya. We were discussing materials that are coupled to components.

Discussing things with you is like banging your head on a wall ... Nothing good seems to come of it.

BTW, describe the sound you are getting from your system. Does it lean towards detailed and focused?

toledo wrote:

Geoff,
You are the one that keeps bringing up isolation .. Let's get with it here, will ya. We were discussing materials that are coupled to components.

Discussing things with you is like banging your head on a wall ... Nothing good seems to come of it.

BTW, describe the sound you are getting from your system. Does it lean towards detailed and focused?

It was actually you that interrupted the discussion with your snarky question regarding the photo I posted. I have already pointed out how you and Michael both jumped to the wrong conclusions based on the photo. I guess it's true what they say, that eyewitness testimony is completely unreliable. Here is how you entered the thread. See if this refreshes your memory:

"Hi Geoff,

I think you can tell from a picture the general flavor of a system without knowing about the individual hidden setup issues and tweaks, etc..

Based on the picture above, i would surmise that you enjoy a hyper detailed and crisp/focused sound based on the marble/graphite/ceramic under the amp.

Where did the PROOF issue come up? Isn't this all about listening and personal preferences?"

Cheers,

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

michael green wrote:

Hi Geoff

You posted an industrial picture but without explaination. Could you elaborate please on how this fits in?

thanks

michael green
MGA/RoomTune

So, it's not true that a picture is worth a thousand words?

The photo I posted previously shows the stack of heavy masses and springs that form the first stage of vertical isolation for the experiment to observe gravity waves, LIGO. The isolation requirements for LIGO are most difficult to meet of any scientific experiment in history! Extremely effective isolation is required for the ultra sensitive optics used in the experiment. The mathematics for why heavy mass on springs produces highly effective vibration isolation is surprisingly simple, as it turns out. The beauty of heavy masses and springs is that extremely low resonant frequencies can be achieved by sheer cleverness, approaching ZERO HERTZ in the case of LIGO. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that the sensitive optics in the LIGO experiment are rather like the laser optics in digital audio, the CD laser assembly also sensitive to seismic vibration. Not to mention the tonearm, cartridge and platter of analog systems. Follow? The photo below shows the heavy masses and springs from the first photo after they have been integrated into the larger isolation contraption.

Cheers,
Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

Geoff,

I fail to see the snark in my comment.

You stated

"To tell you the truth, I have kind of a big problem with all of that since you certainly cannot tell by looking at a picture whether the system is in correct polarity, whether the CD under test in in correct polarity, whether the wall outlets have been thoroughly cleaned and treated, whether the cabling is in the correct direction, whether the fuses are in the correct direction, whether the speakers absolute correct positions have been established, whether the CD transport is absolutely level, and other reasons. So, for those reasons, as far as playing the game of guessing what a system sounds like based on a photo or two, I'm out. Now that I think about it, as far as taking someone's listening experiences as PROOF of something or another I'm out of that one, too."

I responded that a picture may not show hidden setup and tweaks, but you can get a general flavor of the system based on materials that are coupled to the components.
That is a valid comment. You may not agree that this is possible, but for those of use that have worked with materials under components, it is possible. The materials show where a individual has decided to tune their system and the sound they prefer.

I also asked where the listening proof issue came up based on the comments I had seen in this thread related to using listening as a point of comparison and reference ... No mention was made of listening being proof positive or negative.

I don't know why you are being overly sensitive about this. These were all valid comments.

To get back to my main point, does your system lean towards a detailed and focused sound.

toledo wrote:

Geoff,

I fail to see the snark in my comment.

You stated

"To tell you the truth, I have kind of a big problem with all of that since you certainly cannot tell by looking at a picture whether the system is in correct polarity, whether the CD under test in in correct polarity, whether the wall outlets have been thoroughly cleaned and treated, whether the cabling is in the correct direction, whether the fuses are in the correct direction, whether the speakers absolute correct positions have been established, whether the CD transport is absolutely level, and other reasons. So, for those reasons, as far as playing the game of guessing what a system sounds like based on a photo or two, I'm out. Now that I think about it, as far as taking someone's listening experiences as PROOF of something or another I'm out of that one, too."

I responded that a picture may not show hidden setup and tweaks, but you can get a general flavor of the system based on materials that are coupled to the components.
That is a valid comment. You may not agree that this is possible, but for those of use that have worked with materials under components, it is possible. The materials show where a individual has decided to tune their system and the sound they prefer.

I also asked where the listening proof issue came up based on the comments I had seen in this thread related to using listening as a point of comparison and reference ... No mention was made of listening being proof positive or negative.

I don't know why you are being overly sensitive about this. These were all valid comments.

To get back to my main point, does your system lean towards a detailed and focused sound.

I'm not being overly sensitive to it. But just because you make the same comments over and over again doesn't exactly help your case. The plain fact of the matter is both you and Michael totally misinterpreted the photo I posted. You can whine about it all you want. It's no skin off my nose. If you have a back-up of some sort waiting in the wings, you know, someone who is at least somewhat versed in vibration isolation and vibration control by all means send him in. Now, how about we get back on track in thread and talk about the OP, which is the whole problem with transformers and what on Earth can a poor audiophile do about it. Oh, and the constrained layer damper thing.

When you ASS-U-ME something you make a gold of of me and Uma Thurman. Old audiophile axiom

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

>>> “On one of my trips I reviewed them for him. Keep in mind though that he did not share with me who the products came from and I want to make this clear cause I don't want to give the wrong impression or have you think you were single out, plus I don't know what was all yours or someone elses. I tested the bowls and resonators and foil and treatments, I think there was more but the way that he had me demo things was like usual. I was not told much about the products or the designers. Like I said I might get ahold of him again to be sure about things, as I don't want to speak out of turn.” <<<

On the contrary, far from not wanting to ‘speak out of turn’ Michael, I think you meant to use that paragraph to “imply” certain things whilst using wishy washy, mishmatch of descriptive words as in “I don’t know what was all yours or someone else’s” – “I was not told much about the products”. You even bring “bowls” and “resonators” into that same paragraph, even though we don’t make “bowls” or “resonators”.

>>> “I'm also happy that these two guys got good results, and that many others, as you say, have as well.” <<<

I too am happy for them and I am also happy that you get improvements with your ‘tuning’ techniques but don’t downgrade others experiences nor believe that THEY can’t recognise an improvement in their sound when they hear it !! You are constantly implying that others are mistaken in believing that what they are hearing and describing IS an ACTUAL improvement, that they ARE actually hearing/resolving more musical information. There is an element of pity for them in your writings. Glad that they are happy but implying that they are mistaken. I am happy for THEM gaining the improvements they hear and I am happy for YOU gaining the improvements you hear. Your writing is often ‘double edged’ - you say you are happy that they are happy but imply that they are all misguided in being happy and that what they are hearing can’t really be right if they are not ‘tuning’ using your methods. At least have the respect for other people that they know when their sound is better – that it’s not only you who know. Describe what you are doing to gain improvements in the sound by all means but don’t ‘rubbish’ other people’s experiences whilst doing so.

In MY book, anyone who describes their sound as “having pace & rhythm, better air and space around instruments, sparkle, transparency, openness, better imaging, better soundstaging, naturalness and musicality etc,” after applying certain treatments to their CDs and LPs, KNOWS they are getting better sound !!!!!!!!!

I am curious, Michael. Is there ANY treatment for CDs and LPs which you have found to give YOU better sound than just leaving it untreated ?

>>> “What I will do though is go through each one and let the merits or lack of speak for themselves.” <<<

In which case I look forward to reading of your experiences in applying such as a demagnetiser to LPs and CDs. To such as using the Nordost ECO 3 chemical on the label side of CDs, to the labels of LPs, to the outer plastic insulation of cables (including AC power cords) etc.

So, are you saying that EVERYTHING you have ever tried which other people have created or produced does not work for YOU – only the things YOU have discovered ?

I would predict, Michael, that if I ask you if you have tried such as various crystals as a treatment, or such as Dieter Ennemoser’s C 37 lacquer, or such as directional fuses, or such as aiming a hair dryer containing Tourmaline balls at a CD, you will reply that “Yes, you have, but that they didn’t improve the sound for YOU.” ?

>>> “Another thing we have tested in depth is when using treatments there is not a one size fits all as the CD labels are different from each other. So much so that it requires (if someone is going to do this) that each CD would need it's own treatment specific to it's label, both color and treatment.” <<<

Of course the CD (and LP) labels are all different. So, Michael, are you saying that such as Nordost’s ECO 3 chemical, won’t give improvements in the sound when applied to these (different) CD and LP labels – that one would have to have different treatments be applied to every separate and different CD (and LP) label ??????????

Regards,
May Belt,
PWB Electronics.

michael green wrote:

Hi Geoff

Could you explain how "you" used this device in the last picture with audio?

thanks

michael green
MGA/RoomTune

I knew you would say that. Of course I don't use that exact thing for audio, you silly goose. But it's the concept I'm trying, apparently unsuccessfully, to get across. My isolation platforms use a similar mass on a spring system for filtering seismic vibration. Surely you're just playing with me, right? Shall I provide some mathematics for you? If you have springs in your system you are isolating and didn't even know it. Pretty neat, right?

Cheers,

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica