Michael, I hate to judge these things too harshly but it appears all this chest poundings is nothing more than a reworking of the old Ethan Winer ploy of claiming to be the victim in order to get another shot at converting the assembled masses and ushering them into the tent of TuneLand one more time. Who can get a word in edge wise with such persistent evangelism turning every thread into a bulletin board for TuneLand. And a very repetitive one at that. Step,right up folks, naked and they dance.

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

You might learn something, Geoff, and even meet some people!

It's just hat I tried a few of your tweaks (the free ones, to start with) and got absolutely no change. I also invited a friend whose hearing and musical education are beyond any doubt and he could not hear any change.
Then we reversed, i.e. I tried the tweaks in his system and we both heard... well, no change at all.

Now there are three options:
1. None of us can hear and we are only deluding ourselves that we are audiophiles.
2. Both of us suffer from a strange form of brain damage (the same, apparently) that makes us unperceptive to this kind of tweaks.
3. Both systems have other major problems, so the tweaks were as useful as an aspirin to a guy with a broken collarbone.

Now since 1. and 2. are highly unlikely the answer must be 3., and this is why knowing what your system is could give us a clue of why it responds to these tweaks while ours don't.

My guess is that May and Geoff don't see any financial benefit for their businesses by subjecting their products and their own systems to "tuning" and listening.

Hi Costin.

>>> “May, I was not suggesting you were asking for help “ <<<

I know you were not suggesting that I was asking for help. I was merely pointing out that the example you gave was not relevant . Seeing what someone’s system and listening environment looks like is not relevant unless they say they are having problems in getting good sound. THEN seeing what their system and listening environment is like IS relevant.

>>> “It's just hat I tried a few of your tweaks (the free ones, to start with) and got absolutely no change. I also invited a friend whose hearing and musical education are beyond any doubt and he could not hear any change.
Then we reversed, i.e. I tried the tweaks in his system and we both heard... well, no change at all.

Now there are three options:

1. None of us can hear and we are only deluding ourselves that we are audiophiles.
2. Both of us suffer from a strange form of brain damage (the same, apparently) that makes us unperceptive to this kind of tweaks.
3. Both systems have other major problems, so the tweaks were as useful as an aspirin to a guy with a broken collarbone.

Now since 1. and 2. are highly unlikely the answer must be 3., and this is why knowing what your system is could give us a clue of why it responds to these tweaks while ours don't.” <<<

It is NONE of those three things. You have limited your thinking with just three possibilities.

It is about how different people react differently to different listening environments.

Let me explain slightly differently. It is like Michael Green, finding that something he did in his room gave him an improvement in the sound. He then says to people. “Try putting a certain chemical in a can and sitting it on your window ledge. Then listen to some music and see if you can hear any improvement in your sound. It worked for me and other colleagues I know who have tried it.”

Michael would be using that ‘free tweak’ to try to get people to try unusual things which can change the sound and, then, if they CAN hear improvements in the sound, might then begin to realise that there could be many, many things which they can do, in their environment, to enable them to ‘hear’ (resolve) more of the musical information.

IF some people try that ‘tweak’ and don’t hear any change at all, then they don’t hear any change at all – it has nothing to do with any of those three things you have listed.

However, IF some people who try that ‘tweak’ DO find that they have obtained an improvement in their sound, then they will be some way along the path of understanding that there COULD BE numerous things, in their environment, which can be done to give them further improvements.

Which is what Michael has found out and which Peter and I have found out and which (I am presuming) Geoff has also found out.

Nor do I need to SEE your equipment. I know what audio equipment looks like. I know (for example) that practically all equipment have four feet. So, I can suggest that you slide a plain piece of white paper under ONE foot of the four feet of equipment and then listen. Get use to that sound and then remove the piece of paper and listen again and see if the sound is as good.

I don’t NEED to see what your specific equipment looks like. I don’t NEED to see what your environment looks like and I don’t need to know the exact piece of music you are listening to at a particular time.

Regards,
May Belt,
PWB Electronics.

May,

I think you are trying to extrapolate a subtle endorsement by association for tweaking techniques from Michael, when none have been offered. I understand the argument you are attempting, but, if I recollect the closest statements he has made are that all materials in a room affect the sound. He has stated he has tried some tweaking techniques (glasses of water, etc..) and says he has heard a change but not an improvement.

I do feel it is a fair question to ask what is different about your environment and perhaps your listening preferences that allow you to perceive changes as an improvement where others hear the changes not as improvements or hear nothing at all.

Obviously we are all different and weigh things differently in our listening.

As I see it, this discussion has boiled down to two things.
1. There is more in the delicate signal in the audio chain to extract or not block.
2. Change versus improvements.

Shall we continue to circle back and forth on these topics in generalities or try to see why some environments yield benefits as in your case but not others.

We may never reach a conclusion but better to try and advance this discussion. It most likely will boil down to listener choice and preference but who knows where the discussion might lead.

Hopefully the discussion does not include why audiophiles cannot hear certain tweaks kind of things.

That when changing the sound of your system, whether it be a component or tweak or tune, you realize at some point down the road that your initial perception of "improvement" changes to an impression of "improved one aspect at the expense of another?"

This has been my experience with very few exceptions. Sometimes the trade is worth it to me, but often times it's simply a change and not an improvement.

Obviously, these sorts of things become value judgements that only the listener can determine based on their own unique hiearchy of importance in enjoying music. When that happens enough times, the listener begins to understand what they require and they become more aware of the type of sound that coincides with their perception of value.

That's a real difficult, but vital aspect of long-term satisfaction with a component system and why brief, ABX blind testing will always have a very narrow and very limited appeal to audiophiles in the subjectivist camp.

Hi Toledo.

>>> “I understand the argument you are attempting,” <<<

Good. Then we can go forward.

>>> “I do feel it is a fair question to ask what is different about your environment and perhaps your listening preferences that allow you to perceive changes as an improvement where others hear the changes not as improvements or hear nothing at all.” <<<

You refer to TWO people on this forum who have reported either hearing nothing at all or did not hear an improvement. Pray, what about the hundreds (probably even thousands by now – after 30 years) who HAVE heard improvements ?

There is nothing different about our environment or our listening preferences. A person’s listening environment is just that – their listening environment – one they are used to. As are their music preferences. We have given dozens of so called ‘free tweaks’ for people to try for themselves. What often happens is that someone will try ONE – or TWO of the many suggested and not ‘hear’ anything different in the sound. THEN they usually say “Oh. It’s not for me, I won’t bother doing any more.”

I don’t KNOW – WHICH technique will work for someone. All I ask is that they gIve it/them a try.

>>> “Obviously we are all different and weigh things differently in our listening.” <<<

Exactly, so why is there disagreement ? I cannot predict how any one person will react to any one thing, neither can you.

>>> “As I see it, this discussion has boiled down to two things.
1. There is more in the delicate signal in the audio chain to extract or not block.” <<<

There IS far more to extract !! A huge amount more !!!

Regards,
May Belt,
PWB Electronics.

Michael, please go back and Re-read when I first started posting. I said up front I had a headphone system. I don't know what sparked your spewing again on this subject, it's like only the third time at least you've brought it up. And the second time I had to remind you about your mischaracterization of what I said. Besides you initially said you liked headphones. So what's the rumpus? I can see why you might be biased against headphones since you would unable to work all that tuning magic you do so well. As the bumper sticker on one of those Brother Dave Gardner albums said, "I may be slow but I'm ahead of you." Hey, buck up, I only present the Laughing Goat award to outstanding contributors, it's an honor. ;-). Welcome to the big leagues.

Cheerios,

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

You say that some people do not react to the way your devices change the environment. Then why not put a disclaimer on your site stating exactly this? Why let (some) people delude themselves that after trying the free tweaks (and hearing nothing) they could still get improvements by buying the "more potent" tweaks?

Just state on your website "You should start by trying the free tweaks and if they work for you there are many more in our online store. But if they don't, dont spend your money here: you're lost for the cause!"

Or would it hurt the business?

iosiP wrote:

You say that some people do not react to the way your devices change the environment. Then why not put a disclaimer on your site stating exactly this? Why let (some) people delude themselves that after trying the free tweaks (and hearing nothing) they could still get improvements by buying the "more potent" tweaks?

Just state on your website "You should start by trying the free tweaks and if they work for you there are many more in our online store. But if they don't, dont spend your money here: you're lost for the cause!"

Or would it hurt the business?

The problem is when audiophiles make these accusations regarding devices and tweaks is that there are many reasons why audiophiles don't hear certain tweaks. This happens frequently. Rather than bitch and moan, why don't we write down what some of these reasons?

1. The instructions were not followed. It haelps to read the user manual. In the case of cream electret we already saw how Michael apparently glopped the cream on objects instead of using very small amounts. There is the additional issue of where to use the cream electret and the rainbow foil. For example, name brands of electronics, name brands of just about anything, make excellent subjects for both the cream and the foil. It helps to have an inkling of what the PWB stuff is all about. You know, what with the Morphic fields and everything, got to get the whole idea that these things have anything at all to do with resonance control entirely out of one's mind. Michael, are you listening?

2. Here is at least one big problem in the audio system that prevents the sound from being as resolved at it should be consequently masking or suppressing the effects of the devices under test.

3. The listener's hearing is not all that he thinks it is.

4. In the case of cream electret and the rainbow foil, it is the accumulation of treatments that leads to audible results. If at first you don't succeed try try again. Glass windows, mirrors, cabling of all types incluidng non audio cables and electrical cords, ubiquitous phrases and symbols such as the COMPACT DISC logo on CDs AND on jewel boxes, Made in USA and 33 1/3 on LPs, all BAR CODES on everything in the house, furniture like book shelves, in a corner of the display screen of all mobile devices, TVs, computers, iPads, etc., on all light bulbs and ALL BATTERIES in the house. A molecule thickness the size of a dime is all that's required when applying the cream to larger objects, even less for small objects like batteries and bar codes. For cables just a small portion of the cable should be creamed around the circumference, say 1/2 inch of the cable. This stuff goes a long long way.

5. They quit too soon. They reach the conclusion they were expecting or hoping for so they can quickly report out to their overly skeptical tweak bashing homies that the things don't work, as expected, and that we are not so gullible as to be hornswaggled by all this Morphic Resonance nonsense. Lol

Cheers,

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

Michael wrote,

"I brought up the headphones, as I will continue to do, so that we may see what you are involved in and with to come to the listening conclusions you do. I enjoy all my systems including my headphone one as well as incorporating them into my studies. Obviously the in-room systems give a much bigger picture of what is happening up stream as you have pointed out as well on the headphone thread. I make this point because it is what we are asking about "seeing more of May & Geoff's listening practices". It's not a statement of good or bad, but one of reality. We can see part of your system and none of May's. My perspective is always going to be about how you and her (meaning Peter & May) get from one tuned point to the next. I think that both you and May are seeing these things as something they are not, and as a result the name calling and schooling games begin to surface. Let me explain. If I'm making a statement about the in-room system no one wants to pull back and see that I am only using headphones to make that call with. Two different worlds."

Well, actually what I said was that speaker systems can potentially provide a bigger soundstage, but what I also said was that headphone systems have advantages of their own in terms of PURITY OF SOUND that speaker system cannot equal. The reasons for that are the Class A (and tube) operation of most headphone amps, the crossover-less nature of headphones, single driver transducer, the elimination of room effects a priori!! As far as guessing what my system sounds like you're way, way off. My system definitely doesn't fall into the bog standard easily analyzable camp I'm pretty sure you're used to. As loathe as I am to judge before all the facts are in, even giving you credit for all of your torturous Tuning efforts, I'd opine you are at least two paradigms behind the power curve.

Answer: bass extension
Question: what do fish use for hair weaves?

Cheers,

Geoff I may be slow but I'm ahead of you Kait
Machina Dynamica

Nt

michael green wrote:

Hi Geoff, so far we haven't experience what you guys are claiming, so don't know what to tell you. I see the thread from two view points, those who want to talk and those who want to show.

I don't think the talkers are going to shut up, and I don't think the listeners are going to buy into the talking without some connection to their facilities and systems. My advice again though would be put the focus on what you guys can do and show the results and take your focus off of me, cause at this point I don't see you guys as being at the same level of designing or listening. Not saying your not, just saying I don't see the evidence that you are. I just see words on top of more words without substance. Plus again in reading up on you two, this type of non-ending back and forth is what you do.

I don't find word spins all that impressive, what impresses me is what goes on in that room, studio or hall.

michael green
MGA/RoomTune

Ah, so what you're saying is you're just like Costin, you can't hear what we're claiming. Not the cork, the cream, the rainbow foil, the dampers, the isolators, the freezing, the cryo, the crystals, clocks, isolation, coloring CDs, none of it. Well, beats the hell out of me. I don't know what to tell you, either. Maybe take a gander at my reply this morning to Costin, describing the reasons why folks sometimes don't hear certain audiophile tweaks. I have to admit you got me there, with all that recording studio stuff, I am definitely wanting in the pro audio department. I guess that makes us even. As for words, I suspect you are underrating words as they are all we have to describe our experiences to others, especially on these on line chat rooms. Note: Recall I'm not high on deciphering what other folks are hearing by analyzing their photos so I rely on words.

By the way, I see this thread a little different from you. I see it as a slow rolling troll kind of thing.

Cheers,

Geoff Slow Train Coming Kait
Machina Dynamica

Geoff, your formula is impeccable!

>>> “May, so let me put it bluntly

You say that some people do not react to the way your devices change the environment. Then why not put a disclaimer on your site stating exactly this? Why let (some) people delude themselves that after trying the free tweaks (and hearing nothing) they could still get improvements by buying the "more potent" tweaks?

Just state on your website "You should start by trying the free tweaks and if they work for you there are many more in our online store. But if they don't, dont spend your money here: you're lost for the cause!"

Or would it hurt the business?” <<<

Costin, I don’t know why you are applying ONE rule for me (and our devices – and SUGGESTIONS for improvements) and NOT for others – very many others !!!

Do you really say the same thing to the manufacturers of different cables – ALL different cables ? Do you really say the same thing to the manufacturerers of Mpingo dots, of Harmonix Discs, of the Shakti stone, of equipment feet, spikes, blocks, equipment stands, of speaker stands, and so on and so on.

Because some people have tried all those things AND claimed that they did not hear any changes in the sound at all.

HOW many reports have you read from people who say they have tried this cable and that cable and that cable but have not heard ANY changes to their sound ?? Therefore, those people claim that it must be a whole load of hogwash. That happens quite a lot !! And, not just for cables !!!!!

It happens, Costin. It happens. Some people cannot hear what others hear. People are people.

So, I am supposed to put something on our web page telling intelligent people (and I always presume that people are intelligent) “Don’t buy anything if our free tweaks don’t work for you”, am I ??

Are you therefore suggesting that such as the producers of the pen to mark the outer edge of CDs green should put on their web page “If this ‘tweak’ doesn’t work for you, then obviously you won’t be interested in any of our other products” ??

Is that REALLY your suggestion ??? Have you thought about it seriously, intelligently ?

I am presuming you, Costin, got YOUR Rainbow Foil and Cream-Electret samples sent to you FREE OF CHARGE ???????????????? Wherever you are in the world !!!! To try, for free, without having to actually purchase some first !!!!

>>> “You say that some people do not react to the way your devices change the environment. Then why not put a disclaimer on your site stating exactly this? Why let (some) people delude themselves that after trying the free tweaks (and hearing nothing) they could still get improvements by buying the "more potent" tweaks?” <<<

You said that you were “Putting it bluntly”. I would say that you actually have an agenda !!! I won’t say it is a hidden agenda because it isn’t hidden.

As in “Let’s see if we can find some reason to attack”.

Regards,
May Belt,
PWB Electronics.

Geoff,

Quote:

1. The instructions were not followed. It haelps to read the user manual. In the case of cream electret we already saw how Michael apparently glopped the cream on objects instead of using very small amounts. There is the additional issue of where to use the cream electret and the rainbow foil. For example, name brands of electronics, name brands of just about anything, make excellent subjects for both the cream and the foil. It helps to have an inkling of what the PWB stuff is all about. You know, what with the Morphic fields and everything, got to get the whole idea that these things have anything at all to do with resonance control entirely out of one's mind. Michael, are you listening?

The Electret Cream is May's product, isnt it?

I direct you to a recent conversation between May and Michael regarding the cream.

Michael asked May "Were they applying it incorrectly?"

And May responded with

"
I have no doubt people have applied the Cream correctly, whatever the results they have achieved. People can’t apply too much, it is just that it is not necessary to apply a lot of Cream to a surface, a small amount to a small area should be sufficient to gain good results.

Applying the Cream to different materials and to different objects and to different surfaces may, indeed, give varying results but in my opinion and experience the varying results would be a different percentage of improvement – not a difference of 'better or worse'
"

I am starting to see a pattern emerge that it always seems to be the hobbyists fault that some techniques do not work.

toledo wrote:

Geoff,

Quote:

1. The instructions were not followed. It haelps to read the user manual. In the case of cream electret we already saw how Michael apparently glopped the cream on objects instead of using very small amounts. There is the additional issue of where to use the cream electret and the rainbow foil. For example, name brands of electronics, name brands of just about anything, make excellent subjects for both the cream and the foil. It helps to have an inkling of what the PWB stuff is all about. You know, what with the Morphic fields and everything, got to get the whole idea that these things have anything at all to do with resonance control entirely out of one's mind. Michael, are you listening?

T
The Electret Cream is May's product, isnt it?

I direct you to a recent conversation between May and Michael regarding the cream.

Michael asked May "Were they applying it incorrectly?"

And May responded with

"
I have no doubt people have applied the Cream correctly, whatever the results they have achieved. People can’t apply too much, it is just that it is not necessary to apply a lot of Cream to a surface, a small amount to a small area should be sufficient to gain good results.

Applying the Cream to different materials and to different objects and to different surfaces may, indeed, give varying results but in my opinion and experience the varying results would be a different percentage of improvement – not a difference of 'better or worse'
"

I am starting to see a pattern emerge that it always seems to be the hobbyists fault that some techniques do not work.

Why on Earth would someone apply globs of the cream when only a miniscule amount will accomplish the desired results? It doesn't make sense. You know, if a frog had wings he wouldn't bump his ass so much. The pattern that's emerging is a gaggle of tweakaphobes and/or the gang that couldn't shoot straight.

Cheers,

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

Its your assertion that "globs" of cream were applied... be careful of not tripping on your hyperbole as you lay blame for tweaking results you dont agree with .. you're getting sloppy there Geoff. Time to call 911.

toledo wrote:

Its your assertion that "globs" of cream were applied... be careful of not tripping on your hyperbole as you lay blame for tweaking results you dont agree with .. you're getting sloppy there Geoff. Time to call 911.

The difference between you and me is I actually know something about these tweaks we're discussing. You, on the other hand, are here presumably for moral support for the peanut gallery. Not that there's anything wrong with that. Call 411, maybe they can give you the information you obviously lack.

Geoff I may be slow but I'm ahead of you Kait
Machina Dynamica

Geoff,

Lets see if us guys in the cheap seats can figure this out.

1. Deploy tweak
2. Listen
3. Change vs improvement vs nilch

OMG, you're right, it does take a rocket scientist to figure this out. I apologize. What am I to do with these tomatoes?

The difference between us is you are selling and some aint buying it.

The difference between you and me is "keeping it honest, Geoff", with or without tomatoes.

Michael,

Its been a while since I did an all nighter. Used to do that with a couple audio buddies when the electric grid is the best.

Yup, Geoff certainly has left his mark on many a forum.

You said that the reasons I don't hear any changes may be my poor hearing or problems with my system, May said NO, it's just that some people are less sensitive to this kind of tweaks.
You said putting the cream the wrong way (too much cream) would affect the results, May said NO, there is no wrong way to apply the cream (so putting too moch is not detrimental, just not necessary).

Furthermore, what user manual should I use in putting white or blue sheets of paper under things or folding one cormer of my courtain and fixing it with a safety pin?
N.B. I did not receive any free sample from Mary, so was not takling about the electret cream at all.

iosiP wrote:

You said that the reasons I don't hear any changes may be my poor hearing or problems with my system, May said NO, it's just that some people are less sensitive to this kind of tweaks.
You said putting the cream the wrong way (too much cream) would affect the results, May said NO, there is no wrong way to apply the cream (so putting too moch is not detrimental, just not necessary).

Furthermore, what user manual should I use in putting white or blue sheets of paper under things or folding one cormer of my courtain and fixing it with a safety pin?
N.B. I did not receive any free sample from Mary, so was not takling about the electret cream at all.

I said no such thing. Earlier you said you did receive free samples from May. Which is it? You did. You didn't. Not that I really care. Last question, are you drunk when you post?

You wrote, "It's just hat I tried a few of your tweaks (the free ones, to start with) and got absolutely no change. I also invited a friend whose hearing and musical education are beyond any doubt and he could not hear any change.
Then we reversed, i.e. I tried the tweaks in his system and we both heard... well, no change at all."

Is you friend's hearing in less doubt than your PhD?

Cheers,

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

I said exactly what you quoted, that I tried the free tweaks recommended on PWB site. Take a look here:
http://pwbelectronics.co.uk/Free_Techniques/Free_Techniques.html

As for the "I said no such thing" let me quote:

You moron wrote:

1. The instructions were not followed. It haelps to read the user manual. In the case of cream electret we already saw how Michael apparently glopped the cream on objects instead of using very small amounts. There is the additional issue of where to use the cream electret and the rainbow foil. For example, name brands of electronics, name brands of just about anything, make excellent subjects for both the cream and the foil. It helps to have an inkling of what the PWB stuff is all about. You know, what with the Morphic fields and everything, got to get the whole idea that these things have anything at all to do with resonance control entirely out of one's mind. Michael, are you listening?

2. Here is at least one big problem in the audio system that prevents the sound from being as resolved at it should be consequently masking or suppressing the effects of the devices under test.

3. The listener's hearing is not all that he thinks it is.

Do I need to quote May on the same subjects?

That was the recording that opened my ears to Jazz. It was also a recording that taught me something that I hadn't yet learned about audio upon discovering some versions of the Village recordings that have him playing the piano to the left of the stage and at least one where his piano is to the right. Because I fell in love with the piano left version, I can't enjoy the piano right version. My perception of what is "right" won't let me.

Let me state things clearly:

1. I tried all the tweaks you suggest on your "Free Techniques" page, including freezing the CD. So no, I did not receive your free sample kit.

2. I never met a cable, footer, spike etc. that didn't change the sound. Yes, these changes weren't always improvements but I could clearly hear them, so I have no reason to criticize them.

3. There are tweaks I did not try (for various reasons) but I admit they have known principles of physics that may justify why they change the sound, so I have no reason to criticize them.

Now would you please step in and explain to your minion (Geoff) that he is doing you the greatest disservice of all?

iosiP wrote:

I said exactly what you quoted, that I tried the free tweaks recommended on PWB site. Take a look here:
http://pwbelectronics.co.uk/Free_Techniques/Free_Techniques.html

As for the "I said no such thing" let me quote:

You moron wrote:

1. The instructions were not followed. It haelps to read the user manual. In the case of cream electret we already saw how Michael apparently glopped the cream on objects instead of using very small amounts. There is the additional issue of where to use the cream electret and the rainbow foil. For example, name brands of electronics, name brands of just about anything, make excellent subjects for both the cream and the foil. It helps to have an inkling of what the PWB stuff is all about. You know, what with the Morphic fields and everything, got to get the whole idea that these things have anything at all to do with resonance control entirely out of one's mind. Michael, are you listening?

2. Here is at least one big problem in the audio system that prevents the sound from being as resolved at it should be consequently masking or suppressing the effects of the devices under test.

3. The listener's hearing is not all that he thinks it is.

Do I need to quote May on the same subjects?

Here's what you wrote,

"You said that the reasons I don't hear any changes may be my poor hearing or problems with my system, May said NO, it's just that some people are less sensitive to this kind of tweaks.
You said putting the cream the wrong way (too much cream) would affect the results, May said NO, there is no wrong way to apply the cream (so putting too moch is not detrimental, just not necessary)."

I actually never said putting too much cream on, glopping it on, would affect results. I was simply making the point why would anyone glop on large amounts when it's not necessary, you know, considering the high cost of the cream and the small amount in the free sample. The instructions for the cream indicate using very small amounts of the stuff. If someone claims to be a careful tester one would expect him to follow instructions, no? There, that wasn't so difficult was it? So I get it now, you have no experience whatsoever with the PWB cream but you have very strong feeling about it, anyway. Does that pretty much capture your position accurately? Lol

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

toledo wrote:

Geoff,

Lets see if us guys in the cheap seats can figure this out.

1. Deploy tweak
2. Listen
3. Change vs improvement vs nilch

OMG, you're right, it does take a rocket scientist to figure this out. I apologize. What am I to do with these tomatoes?

The difference between us is you are selling and some aint buying it.

The difference between you and me is "keeping it honest, Geoff", with or without tomatoes.

I see you as simply a pimp and cheerleader in this game, with no actual knowledge of the issues. You're keeping it honest. Yeah, right.

Cheers,

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

toledo wrote:

Michael,

Its been a while since I did an all nighter. Used to do that with a couple audio buddies when the electric grid is the best.

Yup, Geoff certainly has left his mark on many a forum.

Do you have a turd in your pocket? The trouble is you don't know anything about the subject under discussion, but you do know something about innuendo and snarkiness. I'm sure it's just a sign you're out of ammo as I'm pretty sure you don't have any idea what happened on other forums. You're just barely keeping up on this one.

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

>>> “Let me state things clearly:

1. I tried all the tweaks you suggest on your "Free Techniques" page, including freezing the CD. So no, I did not receive your free sample kit.” <<<

Let ME state things clearly !! Did you or did you not say, in July, that “you had just received last week the PWB “flashy foils” ??????????

On the Stereophile Forum on July 25th you said.

>>> “Both on the frozen CD and on the PWB "flashy foils" that I just received last week. And no, I won't have to go to the "local metallurgist" since I have access to the full facilities of the ICN (The Institute for Nuclear Research), including optical and electron microscopes. And BTW, I could have done this already but I'm trying to devise a protocol that won't let you cry out loud about fraud... and sorry, I just cannot walk around the facility with my video camera on to "document" everything.
Honestly I'm quite curious if I'll find any message written on that funny foil.” <<<

>>> “2. I never met a cable, footer, spike etc. that didn't change the sound. Yes, these changes weren't always improvements but I could clearly hear them, so I have no reason to criticize them.” <<<

The point I was trying to make is that there are many people who have NOT heard those things change the sound after trying them. Who have NOT heard different cables change the sound. Who have NOT heard the effect of colouring the edge of CDs with the Green pen. Who have NOT heard the effect of the cryogenic treatment. I will say again. People are people. People are different and will react differently. And THEY DO criticise such things – many times very vehemently !!!!

>>> “Now would you please step in and explain to your minion (Geoff) that he is doing you the greatest disservice of all?” <<<

I can state that Geoff is NOT my minion – nor anyone else’s I would imagine !! Geoff is a person in his own right – just as you are – with his own experiences – just as you have – with his own listening abilities – just as you have – and his own knowledge. !!

Regards,
May Belt,
PWB Electronics.

Hello Michael,

>>> “Also if this is sensitive I understand, but where is Peter?” <<<

Peter just happens to be sitting alongside me, working, as I am on the computer. However, MY typing skills are “legendary” !!

But, even if he wasn’t alongside me his answers would be exactly the same as mine. I have worked alongside him and been as involved in audio as he has for 60 years.

I am taking your question as you asking HOW and Where is Peter ? – even though you only asked “Where is Peter”. !!

Regards,
May Belt,
PWB Electronics.

Michael wrote,

"I totally agree with this. For myself and a few who have messaged me Geoff is not doing May & Peter any favors. I started this thread because I saw them somewhat on the same team, but maybe this was wrong, and I'm not sure if Peter would be too crazy about some of the twists."

When you ASS-U-ME something you make an ass out of me and Uma Thurman. - old audiophile expression. OK, can we get on with the Tuners vs Tweakers show?

Geoff Kait
Machina Dramatica

Geoff,

So now I am a pimp. Your choice of attack words are always interesting, to say the least.
Who might the pimp be here ... I ain't doing the selling.

I am trying to keep you honest .. Your antics and spin and twisted logic demand it.

I can see why you you were permanently banned from AudioAsylum.
Anyone can search google for Geoff kait and the pattern is plain to see.
You don't think I read that info ... It's like a train wreck, you can't help but look.

Do you really want to open this up to a multi page, Geoffs greatest hits theme. I'm game.

You know Geoff, if you participated on forums like normal people do and cut the crap and "crazy uncle" schtick you might get a better reception.
But, I don't think you will ... You subscribe to "bad press is better than no press"

toledo wrote:

Geoff,

So now I am a pimp. Your choice of attack words are always interesting, to say the least.
Who might the pimp be here ... I ain't doing the selling.

I am trying to keep you honest .. Your antics and spin and twisted logic demand it.

I can see why you you were permanently banned from AudioAsylum.
Anyone can search google for Geoff kait and the pattern is plain to see.
You don't think I read that info ... It's like a train wreck, you can't help but look.

Do you really want to open this up to a multi page, Geoffs greatest hits theme. I'm game.

You know Geoff, if you participated on forums like normal people do and cut the crap and "crazy uncle" schtick you might get a better reception.
But, I don't think you will ... You subscribe to "bad press is better than no press"

So, it sounds like what you're saying is manufacturers who post here on Stereophile are stigmatized? That's an interesting approach for the forum. As far as AA is concerned looking on the bright side I was there fourteen years. You can't save the world. As you can probably imagine I have a wealth of experience with overly suspicious types. Do I always handle it in the absolute best way? Probably not. Do I enjoy playing rope a dope and whack a mole? You be the judge.

Cheers,

Geoff We're only in it for the money Kait
Machina Dynamica

NO I did not receive the free sample (nor did I ask for it).
YES I did receive a small bit of foil from a friend who got the free sample but found out he (also) could not hear any difference.

Hopes this clarifies things?!

geoffkait wrote:

The problem is when audiophiles make these accusations regarding devices and tweaks is that there are many reasons why audiophiles don't hear certain tweaks. This happens frequently. Rather than bitch and moan, why don't we write down what some of these reasons?

1. The instructions were not followed. It haelps to read the user manual. In the case of cream electret we already saw how Michael apparently glopped the cream on objects instead of using very small amounts.

So the first reason you think Michael did not get results is the fact that he "glopped the cream on objects", while May said that doing this would not affect the results. Now don't come not and tell me you just ment to say putting too much cream isn't necessary, your comment clearly states this the first reason why audiophiles "don't hear certain tweaks".

Suppose I'm Bill Gates and can afford to buy the whole production of May and Peter's lab, so I put globs of cream on everything in my mansion. Is this a waste? Yes it is, but then it's my money and none of your business. Now you say this would prevent me from hearing the effect of the cream, May say it won't. Guess who's the moron here?

Hello Michael,

You said :-

>>> “I didn't know you guys were in your 80's” <<<

I don’t understand why you didn’t know. You said:-

>>> “I’ve been to May's site several times and believe I have read through every newsletter now as well as the Blogs, pics, and everything else I can find including doing searches on the internet to look up articles and reviews.” <<<

And, yet, our ages were given in the Stereophile review – which I also gave a link to at the beginning of this very thread !!

Everyone else has known !!! Methinks your saying that you had read through – everything (including “ doing searches on the internet to look up articles and reviews” )– was somewhat of an exaggeration.

>>> “You said you worked on, or designed speakers. Were they on the market at one time? Are there pics of them?” <<<

Yes, they were ‘on the market’. Unfortunately that was before the internet and therefore before reports on them in the Hi Fi magazines which cannot now be accessed via the internet.
We began manufacturing our own speakers during the 1960s whilst we had a Hi Fi retail shop, just after the introduction of stereo. Just before then there was only mono, so people began to need a pair of speakers immediately and a second speaker if they already had one speaker.

Later we used the Janszen electrostatic panels as an array, on top of our own separate bass cabinet.

Then, during the 1970s, at the same time as manufacturing orthodynamic headphones, we began to become interested in and develop the orthodynamic speaker panel. Strathearn (a UK manufacturer of audio equipment based in Northern Ireland) was interested in working, with our help, to introduce their own range of headphones.

The Strathearn orthodynamic speaker panel was also used, at that time, by Infinity in the USA.

However Strathearn hand made their panel, glueing the aluminium strip onto the thin polyester film by hand !! This meant that because they were not etching, they could only do a quarter ohm strip and had to use a step up transformer to bring the panel up to 8 ohms. However, we were already etching the thin polyester film/aluminium coil material for our own headphones so I, (I repeat, I ) worked out and drew out an 8ohm coil to fit the magnetic structure of the Strathearn panel – which could then be etched and a step up transformer would no longer be necessary.

But, just at that time the British government withdrew all funding for the whole Streathearn project and the factory was closed down. We, ourselves did not lose anything, only our time and energy but had ended up with our own 8 ohm orthodynamic speaker panel.

So, we made our own orthodamic panel and separate bass unit speaker system – called the Dyna-X 100 and demonstrated it in 1979 at a London Hi Fi Show.

This was reported in the British Hi FI magazine “Popular Hi Fi” in October 1979.

With the Title “Orthodynamic drivers from PWB may mean the end of the old moving coil principle.”

Then in 1981 we exhibited our large orthodynamic tower (with separate bass unit) at a London Hi Fi Show – with the subsequent reports of:-

From the Gramophone magazine :-

>>> “We found ourselves wondering if Decca themselves (the ‘From the House of the Dead’ was one of the discs we played) had ever heard it so well reproduced.” <<<

From Hi Fi News & Record Review magazine :-

>>> “It was certainly supplying some of the best detail and stereo imaging to be heard at the show.” <<<

From Practical Hi Fi :-

>>> “The sounds were exceptionally stable if glittering and ethereal on choral material. One to watch” <<<

I don’t know if I can access photos to put on the internet. My son, my computer guru, is just about to go on holiday.

Then when we got back from the1981 Hi Fi show, Peter began to investigate the new reports being reported in the French Hi Fi magazine, that people were beginning to claim that they could hear different cables could sound different.

The whole LONG, LONG saga of what happened next has been well told, over and over again, which has taken us along the path we have been along these past 30 years.

>>> “Also you said you have done what I have.” <<<

I made that comment after your listing of what YOU said YOU had done - As in :-

>>> “But part of this was using Rainbow Foil, bowls, crystals, creams, bladders, spray treatments, other liquids, rubbery materials, plug in resonators, clock devices (more than one), fuses, cones, springs, demaggers, tube socks and a bunch of other stuff.” <<<

>>> “We also tested other creams and solutions and came to the same conclusions. Almost anything applied to the surfaces of materials changed the sound. I might add that when comparing the sound change on components, there was a far bigger change by removing the lid of the component than there was treating the component with the cream or other treatments.

moving on to crystals

When we did our testing of crystals we noticed that the frequencies would gather (cluster) and as we moved them this attraction would move and change with the movement. We decided to use other materials the same way and see if the effects were the same, they were. Every material we moved around the room in the same places as the crystals had their own flavor that was added to the music. We then took several different types of cups and cans and began filling them with water. If you changed the amount of water the sound changed. Tested different liquids in the cans and the same thing.
At this point we went back to the crystals and compared them against different voiced wood, and the wood did far more than the crystals. We did a combo of crystals and wood and crystals mounted in the wood, everything we tried the sound changed.” <<<

>>> “foil

We worked extensively with foils, many different kinds, all of which made a change in the sound. You can read about this on TuneLand in the archives. We found one thing about all of these foils, copper, aluminum, rainbow, different colors, neted, corrugated, brass, zinc, frozen heated and others. If you add a glue or double sided tape, polish the materials turn into dampeners and part of the signal will cluster or be omitted.
Do these types of things make a difference? Sure they do, but so do all materials. The important thing here for the listeners is to learn how materials work and how to use them in a system to make the desired changes.” <<<

We HAVE DONE ALL THAT Michael, and more, much more besides !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I have never said that we have DESIGNED tunable rooms. But we HAVE ‘treated’ many Hi Fi Show demonstration rooms !!!

Regards,
May Belt,
PWB Electronics.

iosiP wrote:

geoffkait wrote:

The problem is when audiophiles make these accusations regarding devices and tweaks is that there are many reasons why audiophiles don't hear certain tweaks. This happens frequently. Rather than bitch and moan, why don't we write down what some of these reasons?

1. The instructions were not followed. It haelps to read the user manual. In the case of cream electret we already saw how Michael apparently glopped the cream on objects instead of using very small amounts.

So the first reason you think Michael did not get results is the fact that he "glopped the cream on objects", while May said that doing this would not affect the results. Now don't come not and tell me you just ment to say putting too much cream isn't necessary, your comment clearly states this the first reason why audiophiles "don't hear certain tweaks".

Suppose I'm Bill Gates and can afford to buy the whole production of May and Peter's lab, so I put globs of cream on everything in my mansion. Is this a waste? Yes it is, but then it's my money and none of your business. Now you say this would prevent me from hearing the effect of the cream, May say it won't. Guess who's the moron here?

Michael did not follow instructions for the Cream Electret any more than you did when you tried your friend's little piece of foil. You probably didn't know there ARE instructions. Ergo, I'm guessing you're the moron. You know, the one who doesn't even know the difference between an electromagnetic field and a magnetic field. Don't worry, I'll let you win one of these days. I don't want to end all the entertainment.

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica