Geoff,

Quote:

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.

Aw shucks, just trying to have a little fun .. is that it?

That would be cool if you had not manufactured dissent to begin with a few months ago to conveniently herd up a few 'overly suspicious types.' to rail against.

You injected yourself into another manufacturers dialog to talk about your ideas knowing full well the reception you would get.
We wont even get into how unprofessional that was and is. You could have started your own threads.

You wanted the attention and knew the reaction you would get based on years on other forums and generate a lot of activity.

You overplayed your hand and some called your bluff and tested some of your ideas.

Now the non stop dismissal of results/blame game/spin/twists/attacks are playing out.

Is this whack a mole and rope a dope .. nope .. this is unprofessional behavior that not many manufacturers would ever consider.

geoffkait wrote:

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.

May clearly stated there is no "wrong" way to apply the cream, but you keep clinging on this... you moron!

michael green wrote:

If there's one good thing about a thread like this, it is that people have an opportunity to get to see others for who they are and what they do.

There are a lot of things I didn't know about Peter, May and Geoff that I do now. Why things turned the way they did is very strange, but at the end of the day the truth starts to unfold and if people are sincere we can begin to build on truth and not on the spins that seemed to have come from everywhere there for a minute.

It's OK when people disagree, or have taken different pathes in their lives, but in order for an industry to move forward the designers need to be as transparent as they can.

One thing I would like to point out for the future is, when someone joins this forum there's no need to one up. I recommend letting that person make themselves known and while that is going on do a little research and find out who they are and what experiences they have that may be in common but also may be different. No harm done if someone has done something you haven't. This is a hobby of levels. That may bother some, but that's the way it is. And those levels once acheived give certain insights that make us look back and say "that was for that level but I have moved on to this one now". There's no need to be bullish about sound and how to get from one place to the next. However when there is a difference there is one way to find out and that is with referencing of course.

After all, we are here for the music right?

michael green
MGA/RoomTune

What we have at end of the thread is more mind numbing, self-serving pompous tripe.

Tootles,

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

iosiP wrote:

geoffkait wrote:

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.

May clearly stated there is no "wrong" way to apply the cream, but you keep clinging on this... you moron!

Geez, whatever happened to good old debating skills?

Geoff "I didn't see that coming" Kait
Machina Dynamica

Torpedo wrote,

"Aw shucks, just trying to have a little fun .. is that it?"

Well, when I first showed up I said this should probably be fun. I did not say who it was going to be fun for. :-). You should have been around here several years ago before the nuclear winter. Now, that was fun!

"That would be cool if you had not manufactured dissent to begin with a few months ago to conveniently herd up a few 'overly suspicious types.' to rail against."

I manufactured dissent? I didn't have to manufacture it. I never do.

"You injected yourself into another manufacturers dialog to talk about your ideas knowing full well the reception you would get. We wont even get into how unprofessional that was and is. You could have started your own threads."

Hey, I was just trying to make conversation. It's not like I'm the only aggressive one here, ya know.

"You wanted the attention and knew the reaction you would get based on years on other forums and generate a lot of activity."

And?

"You overplayed your hand and some called your bluff and tested some of your ideas."

See, that's what is so weird. I'm not bluffing. I'm as serious as a colonoscopy without anesthesia. I overplayed my hand. Priceless.

"Now the non stop dismissal of results/blame game/spin/twists/attacks are playing out."

I like to think if it as damage assessment.

"Is this whack a mole and rope a dope .. nope .. this is unprofessional behavior that not many manufacturers would ever consider."

Let me think about for a day or two and I'll get back to you. Unprofessional behavior? You say potato, I say potah-to.

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

Geoff,
Torpedo, I like that. Thanks.

Btw, I sent out notice to everyone to be on the lookout for the yippy chihuahua that was last seen about these parts trying to run with the bigs dogs by showing off with his tricks, one upmanship style.

Let me know if you see him.

Ruff ya later.

Funny you should use a dog metaphor since you've been humping my leg non-stop ever since I showed up here.

Cheers,

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

Geoff,

Chomping down on a leg and dragging you back into your cage would be more my style ..

Yip ya later

toledo wrote:

Geoff,

Chomping down on a leg and dragging you back into your cage would be more my style ..

Yip ya later

Meanwhile, so you won't have to spend so much effort being a Nag and Defender of the Royal Tuning Society your job is to research the Stereophile archives, go fetch some books from the library and dog ear the pages. And bone up on the tweaks and ideas we've been discussing on this thread that have apparently fallen on floppy deaf ears. As I said you have me all wrong. You're barking up the wrong tree.

Cheers,

Geoff I'm in the Doghouse Again Kait
Machina Dynamica

michael green wrote:

Geoff

Shouldn't that stuff be used on forums or threads that are about fooling around? I see these threads turning into things they shouldn't be. We're suppose to be (as designers) helping listeners, not making all these spins.

Disagreements fine, but spins for the sake of spins on serious threads? Shouldn't be happening.

michael green
MGA/RoomTune

Don't be such a cube, rube, go ape. Not everyone is obsessed with doing the tighten up for every recording. It's only a hobby. And a sense of humor will serve you well.

Cheerios,

Geoff It's only make believe Kait
Machina Dynamica

You can't teach old dogs new tricks .. And never touch his bone unless you want to get bit.

Those old buried bones taste kinda funky and the new dogs are turning their noses away.

This dog has chewed on many a bone and wants a little more meat on it.

The last dude had a helluva time but it looks like he's going to pull through.

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

Hi Michael,

>>> “Hi May
Thank you. Sorry I missed some of the writings. Here's why I was curious. I didn't mean to be disrespectful in any way but it was confusing for me when I thought (maybe I was wrong) you were saying that you and Peter have done the same things I have. The confusing part is, if they did the same things than why are they doing fixed tweaks? This was one thing that was strange to me. The other thing was the impression that if we didn't do the tweaks you provide or talk about we were short selling ourselves when tuning in the signal. Now I can see that you and Peter have not done the things I do and the tweaks you have and suggest are not the starting point that someone tuning needs to do.
A long 4 pages around but we're now there.” <<<

Michael, in the examples I listed, you were saying (suggesting) that you had INVESTIGATED all those things. To which I replied – WE have done the same !!!!

Meaning, we have done the same investigations !!!

Which we have – We HAVE investigated all those things YOU listed, ALSO found that they all affected the sound- and from those observations continued on from there !

And, those observations propelled us to investigate even further – and so on and it still continues to today.

Peter and I do not DO the ‘tuning’ you do but I can also recognise that with your ‘tuning’ techniques you can change the sound every time. I have never disputed that. I know you will be able to do so because everything, in the listening environment, has an effect on the sound. The search is still on as to WHY !! HOW !!!

What I DO say is that “tuning” is not THE answer, only one answer. And I will continue to say that because it IS only one answer. But that particular answer is the road you wish to travel, so OK, but please it is not THE answer.

You also say that vibrations are everywhere, and therefore suggest that YOU (and your ‘tuning’ techniques) must be dealing with vibrations.

Yes, vibrations are everywhere, but not everything which changes the sound has to do with vibrations !!!!

You said in one earlier posting that you had read everything there was to read from our web page.

NOW you say that “you missed some of the writings” !! That could hardly be described as “you read everything there was to read from our web page”, now could it ?

That is what surprised me. That IF you had read everything on our web page, you had STILL not learned any further information from it.

I repeat again. We HAVE investigated the same things as you listed. And it is the results of those investigations which has taken us along the particular path we have been along. AND, those investigations have shown some pretty unusual things going on.

What I don’t understand is why YOU haven’t also found those same unusual things from within your own investigations.

If as you say, you have done this, and this and that and that investigation, then you will most likely have been down the same paths as we have and been through the same stages.

To give two examples of what I mean. To speed up the process, I will have to be outrageously oversimplistic.

First example :-

You, Michael, have said that the sound is better if the cover of the equipment is removed. Yes. I agree. And we both will probably know that different equipment cover materials sound different. Covers made from steel sound different to covers made from aluminium and to covers made from acrylic as well as to covers made from wood.

Now – removing covers from equipment is NOT feasible for the majority of people. They want to keep the covers on. So a solution has to be found, obviously.

So, the next stage is to investigate, with extensive listening tests, which material sounds the best of the bunch. In other words one grades the different materials from a ‘sound’ point of view..

But there is now a Question “WHY do different materials (when used as covers) sound different ?”

Let us say (hypothetically) that Wood turned out to be the best sounding material out of the bunch under trial.

But there is now a Question “Why is wood the best sounding of the materials tested ?”

Now to the next stage. If wood turns out to be the best (sounding) material of that bunch, then one tries different types of wood – and again – one grades them, through extensive listening trials, and find that Wood X is the Best sounding of the woods, Wood Y is the second best and Wood Z is the third best.

Again, you and I will probably have reached that stage.

But again, there is now the Question “WHY do different woods sound different ?”

And, “WHY is Wood X the best sounding of the bunch tested ?”

We now have many Questions, floating in the air, waiting for answers.

If we don’t have answers ready to hand, then these Questions are placed on a shelf – waiting to be answered !!

Second example.

When we started investigating the ‘sound’ of different cables, we listened to many bare metals as the conductor. Such as Copper sounded different to Silver, and Brass sounded different again as did Steel baling wire and also Lead (Pb).

So the Question was “WHY do different metals, when used as the conductor, sound different ?”

The next stage is to grade the different metals in that particular bunch through extensive listening tests and we found the best sounding metal of the bunch to be Lead (Pb).

So, the Question then was “WHY is Lead (Pb) the best sounding of that bunch ?”

A lot of Peter’s early investigations into the ‘sound’ of different cables was covered in Martin Colloms “Cable Controversy” articles in the British Hi Fi News in 1984 – 30 years ago !!!

And, later in (Stereophile July 1993) Martin comments:-

>>> “(Peter) Belt has experimented in many areas. With his “lead tubes” of over a decade ago, he was one of the first to demonstrate the different effects of different conductors on sound quality” <<<

But, as soon as we placed plastic insulation material around any of the bare metals – the sound was worse – with ALL the metals !

The Question now was “WHY did the plastic insulation material spoil the sound ?”

So, for the next stage one has to assess different plastic insulation materials and to grade them, via extensive listening tests.

When one does – eventually – get the Best of the bunch (I am not saying the best sounding insulation material ever – but the best sounding of any bunch tested), then this raises yet more questions :-

Question :- “WHY do different plastic insulation materials sound different ?” and

“WHY did the plastic insulation material chosen as the best of the bunch not spoil the sound as much as all the others being tested had ?”

One may not have a ready answer to any of those questions and they are then placed on a nearby shelf, ready to be taken down when more CLUES emerge !!! And then each question can be re-examined against any new Clues. And such CLUES may come from an entirely different area, from an entirely different discipline !!!!!!!!!

I repeat Michael. Peter and I HAVE investigated similar things to you. We have been down similar investigative paths and come to a different conclusion. Certainly the conclusion that vibrations are NOT everything !!

Now, Michael. From ALL your writings I haven’t seen one hint of a pile of Questions on YOUR shelf waiting for answers.

But Questions will constantly keep rearing their head !!

Regards,
May Belt,
PWB Electronics.

...Makes absolute sense if you've ever tuned a musical instrument (not by putting a fixed product on or near the instrument) and then played that instrument in various rooms, halls, and other venues.
It's not that hard to understand once you hear the changes.

Hi Michael.

>>> “These questions have been explored and answered. “ <<<

IF those questions HAVE been answered, then why is there STILL controversy after controversy in the world of audio ? Surely that means they HAVE’NT been answered.

>>> “To say tuning is not the answer is contradictory to music itself.” <<<

I specifically said that Tuning is not THE answer – as in “What I DO say is that “tuning” is not THE answer, only one answer. “

>>> “and people here are tuning. Their describing variable changes.” <<<

Of course they are hearing changes. I have never disputed that. Change anything either to the audio system or in the room and you will hear changes.

>>> “You can’t use a part to replace the method May. Fixed products can be a part of the whole but in no way replaces it.” <<<

I didn’t say that one can use a part to REPLACE a method. Again don’t put words into my mouth I didn’t say !!

Let me give one example from something you have been describing recently.

Speaker internal acoustic and damping material.

You have just been giving advice on the effect of different acoustic and damping materials for inside loudspeaker cabinets and recommending which you yourself have found to be very effective.

I am presuming that you had initially OBSERVED that altering the internal acoustic and damping material inside loudspeakers cabinets changed the sound.

This MUST have raised the Question “WHY ?”

I am presuming that you then went to the next stage – similar to how I outlined in my examples. That you then investigated different internal acoustic and damping materials and ‘graded’ them.

From your investigation you found what could be described as ‘the best of the bunch’. Surely this MUST have raised the Question “WHY was that the best sounding material ?”

Now, Michael, after people have tried, for themselves, the material you suggest and positioned it inside their speaker cabinet to their satisfaction, SURELY then they just leave it there, in position.

Surely this is now a “Fixed Tweak” ??? At least ‘fixed’ until they want to experiment with something else later on.

But, one can still use the variable METHOD of such as moving the actual speaker cabinets around - forwards, backwards, sideways - until one is satisfied one is getting the best sound !!!!!!!!

I have NEVER said that one can use a part to replace a method !!!!!!!!!!!!!

>>> “As they keep pressing forward with this they will move toward being in control of their system instead of hearing a fixed sound, which some may like and some not like.” <<<

No one (certainly not me) is suggesting that people settle for a ‘fixed’ sound – and that is that, then leave the system alone.

You have a weird interpretation of what I say.

You say, Michael :-

>>> “These questions have been explored and answered. “ <<<

I say they have been and are still being explored, but they have NOT been answered !!

Regards,
May Belt,
PWB Electronics.

Whatever a poor flummoxed audiophile who's at the end of his rope stumbles upon, some audio clique that provides him some solace from the doom and gloom of crap sound receives his undivided attention at the expense of all other possibilities. It's a competition for the hearts and minds of the lost. Thou shall put no false idols before me. Lol Whatever religious group shall capture a mans mind when he's in the gutter shall be his religion for life. Whatever company shall rescue some poor sap from the indignities of unemployment and poverty shall capture his complete loyalty.

By tuning you are actually reducing vibration's affect on the component. You know,,like pressing your thumb and forefinger on a tuning fork. I mean, come on. As for the springs, the springs are not some magical vibration transfer talisman, the springs are Isolators. Hel-loo! Wake up and smell the coffee. You can paint a donkey different colors, it's still a donkey. Surely this stuff is a terrific example of STOVE PIPING and explains why folks here have never heard of The Amazing Randi, the Intelligent Chip, Audio Magic, wire directionality, aftermarket fuses, Synergistic Research, treating transformers. Coloring CDs, Mpingo discs, Morphic messages, the right hand rule, 3M AB5100S, Herbies, WA Quantum Chips, to name a few. Why it's like audiophile land meets bizarro land.

Cheers,

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

ChrisS wrote:

...Makes absolute sense if you've ever tuned a musical instrument (not by putting a fixed product on or near the instrument) and then played that instrument in various rooms, halls, and other venues.
It's not that hard to understand once you hear the changes.

You can repeat the mantra as often as you like, it doesn't take it true. The reduction of vibration in audio components, including speakers and CD players, DACs, cables, capacitors, CDs, and so forth is something to be attained as opposed to dismissed. If you have ever tried the TeknaSonic.dampers for speaker cabinets it's obvious as the nose on your face that the reduction of vibration of the speaker cabinets increases dynamics and resolution. Same goes for Mpingo discs on speaker cabinets, on top of audio components, and ditto for crystals on top of speaker cabinets and components. Dissipation of energy is good. Dissipation of energy is good. Let that be your new mantra. Of course we are not talking about rubber, were talking about things that work. And could it be more obvious that we do not wish to have the walls vibrating along with the music? The room is NOT a musical instrument!

Cheers,

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

Geoff,

Maybe once you try tuning you can speak on the subject ... Until then more "idol" words than anything.

But I don't think you will ever do your due diligence on tuning since it is not your marketplace.

Seems silly for a proponent of better sound to let ideas sit "idol" on the table.

Maybe you could spare some time after paying homage to the Morphic Resonance gods.

That's only a small part of the audio picture. To everyone who sings or builds, tunes, or plays an instrument and has heard live music in any venue, you don't make any sense, Geoff.

Have someone tune and play an instrument in a room in your home, Geoff. Then have that person play in another room.

Listen...Did you hear that?

michael green wrote:

I still look at this thread and go "five pages of what"? May and Geoff? Can you share with us how you get from one place to the next with your system? If it said Michael's thread we could talk about how I do it, but neither of you have shown us how you make changes to the system.

michael green
MGA/RoomTune

You have a bad habit of lumping me and May and Peter in the same breath. Wassup with that? I have very specific methods that evolved over a long time for analyzing sound and getting from point A to point B in terms of improving the sound. The problem that faces most audiophiles that are hellbent to improve the sound they run out of steam in terms of what they perceive is wrong with the sound and what on Earth to do about it if they do happen to perceive a problem with the sound. It's a lot like Bib Dylan says about how he comes up with lyrics sometimes, they just come out of the air. I suspect it also helps to be experimental and to keep combing cyberspace for new ideas. After all, we don't know what we don't know, eh?

Cheers,

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

toledo wrote:

Geoff,

Maybe once you try tuning you can speak on the subject ... Until then more "idol" words than anything.

But I don't think you will ever do your due diligence on tuning since it is not your marketplace.

Seems silly for a proponent of better sound to let ideas sit "idol" on the table.

Maybe you could spare some time after paying homage to the Morphic Resonance gods.

Hey, you guys got me all wrong. I am an old Tuner from way back. I was one of Michael Green's first customers back when Christ was in diapers, I had his Echo Tunes, Corner Tunes, whatever those long floppy things that fit into wall intersections are called, I even had a bunch of his big brass cones that look like they came off a ballistic missile warhead. Let's not forget springs, I've got a bunch in my system. That's got to count for something. Oh, and tube dampers, two per tube, now if that don't qualify me for your Country Club I know know what will.

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

Cheers,

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

What do you think?

Does owning a Lotus sports car make you Mario Andretti?

ChrisS wrote:

What do you think?

Does owning a Lotus sports car make you Mario Andretti?

Anyone can come up with silly illogical statements. Did you wear a blue shirt the last time you kissed your wife? See, even I can do it. You guys have head your heads way down this whole Tuning thing too long. Time to come up for fresh air and smell the roses.

You boys shouldn't have been doin' what you've been doin'... I'm going to bring it down...I'm going to bring it all down. - Dennis Hopper as Lefty in Texas Chainsaw Massacre Part 2

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

michael green wrote:

It's not that hard of a question, and it's been asked many times. Maybe I should rephrase it.

Geoff do you know how to make a drum bigger or smaller in the stage?

We are't asking on your take of better or worse, that isn't point A to point B. What we're talking about are specific changes.

michael green
MGA/RoomTune

Well, that's an entirely different question than the one you just asked. And a very self serving, trollish question I might add. LOL. And the answer is....drum roll, please...if you had only followed my prescription for getting better sound you wouldn't have had the problem with drum size in the first place. if you really want to hear what John Bonham's drum sounds like, what Charlie Watts' drum sounds like, what Ringo Starr's drum sounds like, get hep to this timely tip: get familiar with quantum mechanics, Morphic fields and magnetic fields.

"No matter how much you have in the end you could have had even more if you had started out with more." - old audiophile expression of the Law of Maximization

Cheers,

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

As you indicated, Geoff, you are in it for the money. You sell products.

ChrisS wrote:

As you indicated, Geoff, you are in it for the money. You sell products.

Michael sells products too, and tuners buy them. If you don't have a good answer I'll understand and no need to respond. Besides, this is kind of the whole problem. You guys just don't listen.

An ordinary man has no means of deliverance.

Geoff we prefer Paypal Kait
Machina Dynamica

Michael has a methodology, a way of using his products to achieve specific results.

You don't.

ChrisS wrote:

Michael has a methodology, a way of using his products to achieve specific results.

You don't.

Sorry, Charlie, we want tuna that taste good not tuna with good taste. What on Earth don't you understand about what I've been saying nigh these past four months? Do you have some sort of learning disability? If so, I promise to go easier on you. As fate would have it I have very specific methodologies for my products. obviously you're ignorant of them. I've said it before and I'll say it again: tuners do not even know their own methodology you know considering they are isolating with springs, not tuning, and they are restricting vibrations when they tighten down the screws. Do you not see that? (Rhetorical question, no need to reply)

People would be much better off if they believed in too much rather than too little. ~ PT Barnum

about any methodology that you might have. In four months, you haven't indicated that you have any method.

A little of this, some of that... isn't a methodology.

Tuners loosen screws.

ChrisS wrote:

about any methodology that you might have. In four months, you haven't indicated that you have any method.

A little of this, some of that... isn't a methodology.

.

In the interest of giving everyone a second chance, leaving no man behind, here is the link to my recent article,
What's Wrong with CDs and why do they Sound so Horrible? Which outlines my methodology for addressing the problems I therein identify in the whole CD playback process.

http://machinadynamica.com/machina35.htm

All questions welcome.

Cheers,

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

ChrisS wrote:

Tuners loosen screws.

Tuners have many screws loose?
JK, jk, I just couldn't resist. It was a hanging curve.

Catch22 wrote:

ChrisS wrote:

Tuners loosen screws.

Tuners have many screws loose?
JK, jk, I just couldn't resist. It was a hanging curve.

Tuners Theme Song? You say screw down, I say screw up.

http://youtu.be/qacdlN7UqWs

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

An article about things to do... You do all of that? Some of it? How much is enough? How much is not? Where's the method?

And if the problem is not the CD?

ChrisS wrote:

An article about things to do... You do all of that? Some of it? How much is enough? How much is not? Where's the method?

And if the problem is not the CD?

I have products that address many of the problems I identified in the article, but not all of them. For example I do not address the out of round CDs, although my method for stiffening the CD comes pretty close. Some of my products and ideas if not actual products are for vinyl AND CD systems, but many address the CD problems I identified in the article, such as scattered laser light, polycarbonate layer imperfect transparency, the static electric charge on CDs and cables, vibration of transformer, vibration on shelves of racks, magnetic fields produced by the transformers, magnetic fields produced by current running through wires, RFI/EMI generated by semiconductor chips. I also sell a bunch of things for both analog and digital like RF blockers and a few mind matter interaction devices. Tuners are blissfully unaware of most of these things, one assumes because if it doesn't took like tuning, smell like tuning or walk like tuning it doesn't fit into their "methodology." LOL. My methodology is finding problems and Solving them. Tuners methodology seems to include ignoring problems, if I can be so bold.

Cheers,

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

Do you take people through a process of problem solving to achieve a specific goal?

It's not apparent that you do.

So far, you also seem uninformed about tuning methodology.

ChrisS wrote:

Do you take people through a process of problem solving to achieve a specific goal?

It's not apparent that you do.

So far, you also seem uninformed about tuning methodology.

I admit I'm uninformed about tuning methodology. That kind if makes us even. It's a great example of stove piping actually. Mea culpa. In my article I discuss problem solving to achieve specific goals. Isn't that obvious? So I guess my answer is yes.

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

Geoff,

Actually the tuning community is aware of the items you listed. Other than the metaphysical products, many of the others are fairly common tweaks that have been around for many a moon and all introduce a seasoning to the music. Some like it ... Some don't ... Tuners find they steal musical content.

As has been posted many times, tuning methodology addresses a system in a balanced approach in terms of electrical, mechanical and acoustic areas and there is is tons of info up on tuneland to peruse at your leisure.
The common goal among the three areas is to open up the signal as much as possible and then tune it to one's needs. The more stuff you throw at the system, the more it affects the signal. Simple is the way to go.

Tuning addresses RFI/EMI by using sparsely populated circuit boards with smaller components that reduce surface area and interaction. The transformers are smaller also.
Wouldn't you agree it is better to address this issue by minimizing it to begin with ... Instead of band aids which lead to more mass and material interaction that affects the sound.

Vibration and dampening have been argued to death and no sense discussing that again. Oh hell .. Dampening steals musical content. You're wrong ... We are right ;)

There is nothing wrong with the way you address voicing your system via tweaks that target areas you find objectionable. I would not consider this a methodology, though, but more a recipe of tweaks.
Tuning addresses the system as a whole and does not push and pull the sound using targeted approaches and band aids.

In your article,"What's Wrong with CDs and Why Do They Sound So Horrible?" you site 10 problems with CDs, offer 4 products and 2 procedures as solutions to some, but not all, of the problems, and site "best" or "better sound" as a goal. These are 1 step "fixes" so there's not much methodology involved here and "best" or "better" sound is not a very specific goal.

I've read elsewhere that your products and procedures help some recordings but not others. Hit or miss? Again, not very methodical.

If you read even only some of the articles on TuneLand, you'll see step-by-step algorithmic procedures on how to affect specific features of the audio sound, like the height/width/depth of the soundstage, the pitch or placement of a voice or instrument, the pace and rhythm of a musical score, and so on.

I see that you have products that range from wall socket covers to dots and pebbles to products that are worn by the listener. There are testimonials from people who have applied your products, but you don't say much, if anything, on how to use these items for any specific effects.

So from my reading of your website material, there's not much obvious or specific about any audio goals to achieve and there's not much methodology.

Hello Michael,

>>>”May said :

Now, Michael, after people have tried, for themselves, the material you suggest and positioned it inside their speaker cabinet to their satisfaction, SURELY then they just leave it there, in position.

Mg said :

Nope, usually they ask "what's next?" <<<

Michael, I choose my words carefully. Are you answering what I say about people leaving the acoustic/damping material (when positioned to their satisfaction) in that position inside their loudspeaker and close up the speaker cabinet and continue listening. With NOPE. ? I.e. no they don’t. ?

Yes, I agree, with THAT procedure done they can then go on to asking the question “What’s next” but SURELY they don’t keep going into their speaker cabinet moving the material around each time they are listening to a recording ?

I will spell it out again. They experiment around with positioning acoustic/damping material inside their loudspeaker cabinet until they have the satisfaction in the sound they are looking for – i.e your “Variable tuning” – THEN when that stage is reached they leave the material in place, in the loudspeaker cabinet, and go on to other things – the acoustic/damping material is now a “FIXED tweak.”

You said :-

>>> “I hear the organ play. Now I want to hear it play with more of the room, now I want to focus in on one pipe, now that one pipe but bring in the harmonics that surround that pipe...and on it goes.” <<<

People would NOT go inside the loudspeaker cabinet and move the acoustic/damping panels around to “bring the organ playing more into the room”, THEN go in again to move the acoustic/damping panels around again to “focus on one pipe”, THEN go in again to move the acoustic/damping panels around again to “bring in the harmonics around the organ pipe”. NO. Once the acoustic/damping panels have been positioned, inside the loudspeaker cabinet, to the person’s satisfaction, then they are left in place!!!!!!!!!!!!! i.e Now A “Fixed tweak” !!

You said :-

>>> “I hear the organ play. Now I want to hear it play with more of the room, now I want to focus in on one pipe, now that one pipe but bring in the harmonics that surround that pipe...and on it goes.” <<<

People would experiment with positioning such as your Alloy cones under such as the turntable – to their satisfaction – your “Variable tuning” – but when in the optimum position for the best sound for them, then those Alloy cones would be left in position – now a “Fixed tweak” . I am obviously NOT meaning never, never to be moved again !!

When playing ONE recording, people would NOT then alter the positioning of those Alloy cones around to “bring the organ playing more into the room”, THEN move the Alloy cones around again to “focus on one pipe”, THEN move the Alloy cones around again to “bring in the harmonics around the organ pipe”. NO. Once the Alloy cones have been positioned to the person’s satisfaction, then they are left in place!!!!!!!!!!!!! i.e a “FIXED Tweak”.

Ditto positioning your Alloy cones under speaker cabinets !!

Ditto positioning your acoustic panels in corners and on walls.

So, Michael you yourself are recommending and selling products that would end up eventually being used as a “Fixed” tweak ! Surely NO different to such as the Harmonic Dots, Mpingo discs, etc, etc ?

Yes, you keep saying that if people chose to use the Harmonic Dots or the Mpingo discs, then that is their choice – that you are happy for them if that is their choice – but you then go on to pooh pooh the use of them at every opportunity. Because they aren’t what YOU call a “Tuning” device.

Methinks you contradict yourself !! Since you yourself sell products which would end up becoming a “Fixed Tweak”.

You said :-
>>> “Where you and Geoff and pushing products I am pushing a method. My tools are a part of putting that method in action.” <<<

But, you are just using a method to eventually use a product – or products !!! Because what you call ‘tools’ to achieve the method, could then produce a product which can then be used and positioned, quite a lot of the time left “Fixed” as in your Alloy cones and Corner and Wall panels !!!!! You appear to be hiding behind the CONCEPT of “pushing a method” – techniques to improve the sound, but having Products in the background for sale. And you accuse ME and Geoff of “pushing products” !!

You also say :=

>>> “if they (May and Geoff) did the same things than why are they doing fixed tweaks?” <<<

But, as I have just said – so are YOU. Your products can end up being left in place as a “Fixed Tweak”.

>>> “mg

Tuning is the answer, and if you can prove it isn't have fun." <<<

May:-

Of course they are hearing changes. I have NEVER disputed that. Change anything either to the audio system or in the room and you will hear changes.

mg

>>> "If things can be changed than they can be tuned. Pretty A,B,C to me.” <<<

So, what exactly do you mean by ‘tuning’ then. Do you mean “changing” sound ? Is that the part, the word we are stumbling on. ?

Because you can CHANGE the sound with the Nordost ECO 3 liquid !!

You can CHANGE the sound with the “UltraBit Platinum-Plus” liquid !! (To quote from a review in Positive Feedback Online.)

>>> “One of the more delicious aspects of its effectiveness is the resultant elevated bass performance. While the lowest registers are not any deeper, they are clearly more defined. Picking or fingering of strings in bass runs becomes much more apparent and discernable, allowing a greater ease in following complex bass lines. It also contributes seemingly faster rise times, with clearer decay and fall off than without its application.

And talk about enhanced spatial performance! Post treatment reveals more "space" between instruments, and greater "air" around them. We are treated to a more focused soundstage, with greater specificity to images. Staging is typically slightly wider, deeper, and taller, with heightened "illumination" of the rear left and right corners of the soundstage. The result is an overall perspective that is more honest, more faithful to reality, with better focus and more realistically sized.” <<<

A chemical Michael !!!!!!!!!!!!!! Changing the sound !!!!!!!!!!!!

And you say >>> “If things can be changed than they can be tuned. Pretty A,B,C to me.” <<<

HOW is it pretty A.B.C ? As I keep saying. You are not asking enough questions !! NO one has GOT the answers to it all yet, only more questions !! But you keep telling me it is OBVIOUS, May, it’s OBVIOUS – that it’s tuning and vibrations !!

Tuning and vibrations are just SOME things to do and deal with !!

Do you really think you can ‘do’ ALL the things described in the review of the effect of the ‘chemical’ with your TUNING only ?? OR, do you think that your tuning techniques AND what others have discovered might be nearer the truth ? Before you misread me again – I did say AND – meaning both yours And other people’s techniques.

Fine. You can describe the things you have found which can improve the sound to the end of time. But please, don’t keep emphasising i.e. demanding that TUNING and VIBRATIONS are the ONLY answers !! You have discovered many things and techniques which improve the sound, yes, but so have others over these past 30 years !!

You said :-

>>> “Those questions have been explored and answered. “ <<<

I don’t think so Michael. You have to answer why such as a chemical can change the sound – as described in the review. !!
What you keep emphasising, Michael, is that people are not hearing all the musical information which is available. I completely agree. But what the chemical is ALSO showing people is that they are and have not been hearing all the musical information available to them!! Which is what you are attempting to do also – make more musical information available.

>>> “Someone says "better" or "improvement" without any reference of this being truth or not. “ <<<

So, when others say “better sound” or “improved sound”, it might not be truthful, eh ?? Are you therefore claiming truth is on your side ? Reading the review I have just referenced it appears to be the true version of what the reviewer heard – and I give the reviewer the credit for having some intelligence to know and describe what he actually heard !!!!!!!!!

So, if he is being truthful (hearing the beneficial effect on the sound from using the chemical mentioned) and YOU are being truthful with what you describe hearing, then that gives us (other people) a dilemma. It shows that there was a PROBLEM with the CD – BEFORE applying the treatment and yet you are constantly saying “Leave the CD alone, don’t give it any treatment, because you can get that (missing) information later with my “Tuning” method.

Yes, I am in no doubt that you can change the sound as you choose with your “Tuning” methods but there IS a problem with the CD (and I might add vinyl records, audio tapes, video tapes etc).

I don’t see you having addressed that problem, other than to say to people “I can get any (missing) information back for you with my “Tuning” methods”.

>>> “As someone who has miked many drums and built the halos around them I find these statements of absolutes a bit out of line.” <<<

That is really an irrelevant boast if you still don’t know why that reviewer had NOT been hearing, from his discs, all that information he then heard AFTER applying that particular chemical.

Regards,
May Belt,
PWB Electronics.

Hello Chris,

>>> “Makes absolute sense if you've ever tuned a musical instrument (not by putting a fixed product on or near the instrument) and then played that instrument in various rooms, halls, and other venues.
It's not that hard to understand once you hear the changes.
Have someone tune and play an instrument in a room in your home, Geoff. Then have that person play in another room.
Listen...Did you hear that?” <<<

Chris, I think you have taken the word “Tuning” and run with it, not stopping to think about it more thoroughly. You have decided to ask intelligent people if they know what happens when people play a musical instrument.

With the example you give you are describing someone playing a musical instrument in one room and then taking that instrument into another room and ‘tuning’ it to sound it’s best in that new room.

But, Chris, that person would not look around the room and say “With that in the room, the sound will not be good – nor with that, nor with that, nor with that and I would recommend moving those things out.” The person, because they are a musician and may be going to play with other instrumentalists, will concentrate on their OWN instrument. They have to be able to play in all rooms so they “tune” their own instrument to the environment.

Michael’s “Tuning” is somewhat different. And that is why your example is not an apt example.

Michael actually looks around the room (OR even looks at a PHOTO of the room) and says ““With that in the room, the sound will not be good – nor with that, nor with that, nor with that and I would recommend moving those things out.”

Michael does not take a pair of loudspeakers which has been playing in one room into another room and then starts opening up the speaker cabinet, moving the acoustic/damping panels around inside the loudspeaker cabinet to “Tune” those speakers to this new room. AND then do something similar when he moves to yet another next room. He will attempt to “Tune” the room !!!!!!

Your example was of “tuning” a musical instrument to the room it is being played in – NOT “tuning” the room to ‘deal with’ the musical instrument, especially if it is a room not under that person’s control.

“Tuning” has many meanings. And you have picked one meaning and with it berated people who you have PRESUMED don’t know anything about musical instruments !!!!

Regards,
May Belt,
PWB Electronics.