Actually May, Chris is correct about tuning.

I tune, exactly like musical instruments do, and yes, when a tunable loudspeaker is taken into a different room it would be tuned to the room and or to a particular piece of music.

michael green
MGA/RoomTune

May said

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.”

mg

Nope, that would be them matching the pressure of that speaker to that room. My tuning would be done with a loudspeaker built like a musical instrument with adjustment areas on the speakers. http://tuneland.techno-zone.net/t72-mga-speakers

May

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” !!

mg

Listeners can do whatever they want to do, I'm just showing them a way how. After that they can do things how ever much they want, but this is not what we talk about when we are talking about our speakers designed to be tunable. Above I gave a link to the product, also you can read people tuning their speakers on TuneLand.

Your reference to the organ being change is out of context, but that's ok. The organ piece of music can be tuned from many different ways and tunable choices of tools.

Once again May unless you are tuning there is practicle way you can speak to this.

May

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”.

mg

They might, that's up to them. I'm not the listening police. I know a ton of guys who will be listening to something and decide they want to make a change in the sound. This is extremely common and always has been with or without me. I think also a tunee would be answering you this way. MG provides many tunable products all along the audio chain not just a cone, but several cones, several spikes, several rods, tunable speakers, tunable cable grounds, tunable acoustical products, tunable rooms, tunable equipment racks, boards and furniture. Top tuners, cable, harmonic springs, tuning blocks and other wood accessories, screws, nuts, washers, interconnects.

Actually you may not no this but we are the only high end audio company that has designed and built the entire audio system from fuse box to ear. So, when you say moving a cone your talking about one tiny part of a whole method and it's tools.

May

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”.

mg

Could you point to a place where I pooh pooh these products every opportunity May? Please be specific if you can. Also where I am unhappy if someone gets the sound they want of them. thank you

sorry May, the rest of the post I got bored with

michael green
MGA/RoomTune

Hi May

I'm always happy to give tweaks and tips to those with fixed systems, but as they crossover into tuning more they start to go more variable in their choices. This of course is up to them and I'm happy to be a guide.

So, I help people on a tweak level with their product but also do a line of my own.

On the speakers, MGA Speakers are mostly without dampening on the inside as they have been voiced to a full range already. There are some models that do have a little but not many and not much. The adjustments are made on the outside and sometimes in the mass loading chamber of the cabinet. The speakers have tuning bars in them which change the tonal balance as the adjustments are made. The client can order the more simple tuning or get the ones with more adjustments, their choice.

The "Tambourine" is the new baby speaker (mini monitor). It's a full range mini monitor 6.5" two way with 1" silk dome tweeter. The cone is a super light weight driver that is direct coupled to the "music ply" cabinet. The internal tuning bar is voiced LTR (northern redwood).

Next "Mandolin" is a little bigger not much, same drivers, but cabinet made with a special heat treated Brazilian Pine (solid wood).

A floorstander "Viola" is fashioned after the classic and rev 60's that has been around for 25 years. It's using the new Music Ply as well. Same drivers.

The New Chameleon is planned for 2017, and the SW10 is being made now.

michael green
MGA/RoomTune

This is something I've seen in the audiophile world a lot. Someone says "better" or "improvement" without any reference of this being truth or not. There's a huge amount of variables in the sound of any instrument that goes way past audiophile talkers saying trust me, or buy from me. For one if a person is saying they know something about the sound in it's entirty they better have a lot more than one headphone setup. A headphone setup or any other kind will give part of the picture but in no way will it reveal any where near all that is on the recording. As someone who has miked many drums and built the halos around them I find these statements of absolutes a bit out of line.

Interesting how forums have given rights to loose cannons, but that's the nature of the internet.

The good part about this is it gives me a chance to talk to real listeners and share some of what I have learned and experienced by actually doing and in some cases being there when the events of recording sessions were being done. I likewise am looking forward to learning from the listeners as we compare notes. Here's questions people might want to ask folks like Geoff and May and Catch, since he has been offering his expertize to the equation.

Charlie's, Ringo's and John's recordings were all done at different places, at different times and different equipment correct? This would mean that these recordings would all be different in content correct? This would also mean that Toledo, Chris, Isop, mg, May, Geoff and catch, and whoever else reads this would be listening in different conditions and different equipment signatures correct? Chances are that all of these people as well as all of the listening community not only have different ingrained listening taste and abilities but also different hearing correct? So what Geoff is proposing even after his products have been tested with different results from many different people all over the place I would presume, is that there is no need to dial in the sound to meet all the differences listed above. No variable way to make up for these differences?

geoff said

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

mg

Ok let's reference and apply you products and prescription again.

But first, please explain how and why this is Geoff? I think we would like to know your views on size and shape of instruments both live, in the recording proccess, in the playback of both in room and headphones since we have both here, and what exactly is the right sound that you have come up with and how do you address peoples different hearding and taste. You mentioned 3 recording artists here Geoff, could you give us examples of the size of these recordings and the drums being played so we can reference them with our own systems to see the size you are getting? Afterward maybe we could order your products and see how these sizes change and become the correct sizes.

I personally would like to have it so I could hear less of the room and focus on the rims sometimes but then be able to pull back and feel the room joining the drums. Could you help me with this with these three performers please. It would be great if I could reference this with you so I can be accurate.

Thanks so much for this and I look forward to referencing these recordings and learning how to correct my "problems?" with them?

Which recording would you like to start with, then maybe we can reference one of my favorites of each of these guys and we'll walk through the soundstages together on this Stereophile forum? I'm sure this will be of interest and very imformative.

michael green
MGA/RoomTune

This is something I've seen in the audiophile world a lot. Someone says "better" or "improvement" without any reference of this being truth or not. There's a huge amount of variables in the sound of any instrument that goes way past audiophile talkers saying trust me, or buy from me. For one if a person is saying they know something about the sound in it's entirty they better have a lot more than one headphone setup. A headphone setup or any other kind will give part of the picture but in no way will it reveal any where near all that is on the recording. As someone who has miked many drums and built the halos around them I find these statements of absolutes a bit out of line.

Interesting how forums have given rights to loose cannons, but that's the nature of the internet.

The good part about this is it gives me a chance to talk to real listeners and share some of what I have learned and experienced by actually doing and in some cases being there when the events of recording sessions were being done. I likewise am looking forward to learning from the listeners as we compare notes. Here's questions people might want to ask folks like Geoff and May and Catch, since he has been offering his expertize to the equation.

Charlie's, Ringo's and John's recordings were all done at different places, at different times and different equipment correct? This would mean that these recordings would all be different in content correct? This would also mean that Toledo, Chris, Isop, mg, May, Geoff and catch, and whoever else reads this would be listening in different conditions and different equipment signatures correct? Chances are that all of these people as well as all of the listening community not only have different ingrained listening taste and abilities but also different hearing correct? So what Geoff is proposing even after his products have been tested with different results from many different people all over the place I would presume, is that there is no need to dial in the sound to meet all the differences listed above. No variable way to make up for these differences?

geoff said

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

mg

Ok let's reference and apply you products and prescription again.

But first, please explain how and why this is Geoff? I think we would like to know your views on size and shape of instruments both live, in the recording proccess, in the playback of both in room and headphones since we have both here, and what exactly is the right sound that you have come up with and how do you address peoples different hearding and taste. You mentioned 3 recording artists here Geoff, could you give us examples of the size of these recordings and the drums being played so we can reference them with our own systems to see the size you are getting? Afterward maybe we could order your products and see how these sizes change and become the correct sizes.

I personally would like to have it so I could hear less of the room and focus on the rims sometimes but then be able to pull back and feel the room joining the drums. Could you help me with this with these three performers please. It would be great if I could reference this with you so I can be accurate.

Thanks so much for this and I look forward to referencing these recordings and learning how to correct my "problems?" with them?

Which recording would you like to start with, then maybe we can reference one of my favorites of each of these guys and we'll walk through the soundstages together on this Stereophile forum? I'm sure this will be of interest and very imformative.

michael green
MGA/RoomTune

Speaker woods are an interesting subject that anyone designing them will either get or not get. My thoughts on the topic began to change when I was doing acoustical work for UMI and Steinway. UMI, owned several music instrument companies as you know, from woodwinds, horns and stringed instruments. I also got into woods used for drums as that was my main instrument, but learned tons when I explored other bodied instruments.

In this part of the topic I'm not going to share certain things (starts to get into trade secrets) but I can share that with Plys in general there is a huge difference in sound qualities. Anyone who's using my Music Ply speakers will notice "their light as a feather", sense moving the woodwork on them to the desert, they're even lighter. You'll also notice that the actual plys are different from plys that have been used in speaker building before. I'm not going to go much futher than this, but to say, take the same size speakers (with similar material) and weigh them. Also notice that my speakers are not done in typical wood lacquers.

now for answering May

OK but you also mention using what you call “music ply”. I am sure you already know, Michael, that ply is a No No for good sound. (Ply – layers of wood glued together). So, presumably you have taken the GLUE used on the various layers of wood into serious consideration !! Then, if it is not solid wood, it will presumably have an outer veneer GLUED to the ply ?

mg

Have you studied this much May? I rather like the sound of some "music plys", especially blended with the tone of the Redwood Tuning Bar inside and the trimed alderwood seams. I like a few combos. These happen to be Birch veneer with a soft pulp, both baffle and main panels. The internal tread is a zinc blend alloy with brass Tuning Bolts on the outside. On the floorstander the Base is Brazilian Pine.

Instrument grade Plys

"Considering that most stringed instruments are made in factories by large companies, and that the instruments at the low-priced end of these companies' product lines are sold in great quantity, and that these low-priced instruments are frequently constructed of laminated wood (i.e., plywood), it is not at all unreasonable to assume that most of the instruments made are probably constructed from plywood. Further, as plywood is known to be a physically robust material, it may be reasonable to conclude that the majority of the stringed instruments extant are made of plywood. For some reason, plywood is associated only with cheap instruments, although there are some exceptions.A cursory review of the lutherie literature reveals not too much in the way of scientific experimentation that would change that association, but it does provide a number of interesting anecdotes and observations that may indicate that plywood could be a far more useful material for high-end instruments than generally thought.

The very first issue of The Guild of American Lutherie Newsletter (vol. 1, #1) contains a letter by R.E. Brune describing the construction of classical guitar ribs made of rosewood/maple laminate, a construction which the author claims to increase volume. In his review of a harp kit in American Lutherie #69, John Calkin compared the tone of two dissimilar harps, one with a solid soundboard and the other with one of plywood, and found the plywood one to sound "bolder and a bit louder." An interesting observation can be found in the bible of flattop guitar making, Cumpiano and Natelson's Guitarmaking Tradition and Technology. They opine that lateral stiffness of a guitar top will greatly influence the tonal response of the instrument, and state that superior lateral stiffness will allow the top to be worked thinner, thus reducing mass. Now, they're not talking about plywood here per se, but a top made of, say, three ply spruce with the center ply oriented at 90 degrees to the outside plys should be stiffer across the grain than a solid top of similar thickness. Kevin B. Reilly described small bodied guitars he made using birch ply for the tops and backs in American Lutherie #61, and found these instruments to have considerable volume and sustain.

Probably the single most influential research on wood for lutherie to date was performed by Daniel W. Haines and published in two parts in the Catgut Acoustical Society Newsletters #31 and #33 (also reprinted in the Journal of Guitar Acoustics). In the second part, entitled "On Musical Instrument Wood - Part II - Surface Finishes, Plywood, Light and Water Exposure" Haines summarizes his research with respect to plywood as follows:

"Provided equally careful and skillful instrument construction practice is followed, the results show that plywood may stand on nearly equal acoustical footing with solid wood."

A pretty tantalizing conclusion for those with an interest in using this material in the construction of musical instruments.

Here are a couple of instances of the use of plywood (actually molded laminated wood veneer) in respectable instruments. Jazz guitarmaker Roger Borys builds highly regarded instruments with laminated ribs and plates. The plates are cold molded out of sheets of veneer and wood glue, pressed between arched male and female molds. Low priced double basses have been made in this manner for decades, and there is a general feeling among bassists that some of these instruments sound very good, albeit a little quieter and often somewhat "bassier" than carved instruments. Jazz aficionados may need little more convincing of the value of plywood basses than the fact that the great Slam Stewart played a laminated bass for most of his career.

The spruce ply could have been manufactured with instrument soundboards in mind. In fact, according to Jerry Brown at Musicmaker's Kits, it was. They have this made up for them by two different suppliers, one to make up the veneer sheets and the other to press them into plywood. The material is composed of 3 void and knot free vertical grain spruce plys of equal thickness, with an obvious "show" face on one side. This side is composed of approx. 8.5" plain sliced strips of about A or AA grade vertical grain spruce (on the "standard" lutherie wood scale of A to AAAAA) butt joined together.

The birch ply was composed of 5 void and knot free birch plys of equal thickness, all rotary cut and thus seamless, albeit with repeating grain patterns.The veneer is hot pressed into panels using waterproof phenolic glue. The veneer used for the outer plys is from the outside of the log. Both sides were equally good but rather plain looking, flawless and even in color, but I can't really rate it as one would lutherie wood, as lutherie wood is never rotary cut. The surfaces were sanded to about 100 grit.

Note that plywood is an extremely efficient use of wood. The veneers are sliced from the log with a blade. There is no sawing and no sawdust.

These are high grade products made from high grade materials throughout. The difference between these and a sheet of fir CDX or MDF is like night and day. Note also that panels like these sanded to medium grits must be handled rather more carefully during manufacture, shipping, and construction so that they don't get scratched or dinged up.

I performed some simple stiffness testing on the spruce ply, comparing it to scraps of solid spruce in my shop. Similarly sized samples were supported at the ends and weighted in the middle. A dial gauge was used to measure deflection. Note that when grain orientation is mentioned for the plywood, I am talking about the grain of the outer plys. As expected cross grain stiffness was better in the spruce ply than in any of my solid samples. This is due to the fact that the grain of the center ply is perpendicular to the grain of the outer plys. Stiffness along the grain was about the same in the plywood as in the solid wood. This may seem counter intuitive, since the perpendicular grain of the center ply should reduce stiffness along the grain. If you consider that in a beam under load the central area is not as stressed as the upper and lower surfaces (which are under compression and tension, respectively), it does actually make sense that stiffness along the grain is not reduced too much by the grain orientation of the center ply. And the stiffness of the glue itself adds to the overall stiffness of the panel. As it is generally considered that a desirable quality of soundboard wood is a high stiffness-to-mass ratio, but this depends on how you wish to voice the instrument.

Plywood offers one obvious potential advantage to solid wood when it comes to bracing. As it is not nearly as subject to grain line cracks caused by shear stresses parallel to the grain or tension across the grain, and since a plate can be made in a single piece, it is likely that grafts can be completely eliminated for plywood plates.

The birch was easier to sand than solid wood, simply because it needed a lot less sanding. The spruce needed less sanding than would have been required for solid wood too, but dealing with the surface tearout was tedious and thus time consuming.

The finished instrument sounds just great (says its modest builder).

Let me close with a teaser for those who may be interested in experimenting with laminated wood in their own building. This style of panel construction may offer some intriguing possibilities for the construction of materials ideally suited for musical instruments. This is all pure speculation, but here are just two thoughts. The spruce and birch ply as described above offers a number of advantages over the solid wood. It's possible to design a three ply panel that used, say, balsa or cedar for the center ply, retaining all desirable characteristics and keeping mass the same or even less than that of a solid wood panel."
______________________________________________

I've used, and still do many types of woods in my voicing. Ply is one of those formulas that you have to be careful with, but I have found this really to be no different than solids or composites. It's depends on the knowing and care that goes into it. MDF is out the door for example, but the lighter version if you get it made yourself from a pressing plant can be useful. By the time I am done with MDF though it is more like a super light weight particle board. I haven't been making those for a while since the Music Ply came along.

For Music Ply I like using a soft pulp with different veneers but the Birch has caught my ear as a very nice balance. I use a 3 Ply for anything less than .5" down to .25" then I switch to one ply double veneered. All the ply's are of course doubled veneered.

May's comment about Ply I find odd, cause there are actually many instrument builders using this with great results. Do you research and try I would say May. She might be using a weird Baltic type which can be horrible for sound. Maybe she was refering to this, don't know, again I would need to reference.

The Music Ply get's it's name from the voicing I do with real instruments that I have brought in to test the tonality. Since the early 90's I have found it useful to do testing with musical instruments when voicing the products. The key here is to be able to produce an instrument (speaker) that will resonate full range and not get stuck on certain pitches. MDF's and other dense woods are very pitch sensitive and many speakers today have tonal shifts that take place. For example the knuckle tests audiophiles give to speaker cabinets is a good one but not so good in the way they use it. get close to your speakers claiming to be inert and knock. High pitch right? There really is no inert in wood speaker building only pitch and the range of pitch.

some references on (music plys) and debates

http://www.violinslover.com/plywood.php

http://www.harpkit.com/mm5/merchant.mvc?Screen=CTGY&Category_Code=lib_soundboards

http://www.davidgage.com/instrument_guide.php

http://musicalinstrument-string.com/?s=plywood

http://manufacturing.dustystrings.com/blog/2014/07/plywood-vs-solid-wood-hammered-dulcimers/

of course there's many many more

michael green
MGA/RoomTune

May asked a why & how type of question, so she got a "tip of the iceburg" reply. I can go on for a few years about how wood is processed to reproduce sound if you all would like or you can go to TuneLand any time you wish, or simply look this up on-line and experiment on your own.

On Geoff's comment, it's nice to be in my position, being one of not so many guys that uses cabinets specifically like musical instruments. A loudspeaker is indeed the playback systems musical producer. Some designers try to limit the movement to just the drivers in the cabinet but as Geoff has pointed out and many others as well, the cabinet is affected by vibrating objects touching them. This again (probably setting off Geoff into another rant or picture or comment of some sort, a silly old man) shows that there is vibration in the cabinets, and since there are vibrations in the cabinets they are then tunable. So thank you Geoff for once again proving our method.

There's a few views on transducers (the speaker) and the listener will need to make up their own mind as they explore the speaker/room/amp interface. I talk about this a lot on TuneLand, and honestly as pointed out here, the pages of Stereophile forum would fill up quickly with descriptive and detailed info on the matter which I think is best left on TuneLand with the brief answer posted on here. May & Geoff will always try to make it appear that the answers are not part of my designing but I think by the last post you get the picture.

Let me point out something that you who have been taught that speakers being inert with only the cones and tweeters moving is the way to go that you may have not connected with. What do you think panel speakers are? Panel speakers use the whole construction as part of the vibrating sound transducer. It's another one of those twisted theories that audiophiles have made into a standard but isn't a truth. That is that speakers should be made inert, who says? There have been hundreds of speaker companies that talk about the "sound" of their cabinets. I'm not saying anything new here I hope, in fact lets "Do" a test, we did. Take any set of drivers in the world out of their speaker cabinet, make an indentical cabinet out of any other material including one that is rated just as inert, better yet, make the cabinet of the exact same material only mechine it in a different part of the world, but exactly the same. Compare them, they sound different. Now go pick up speakers from almost any high end audio speaker manufacture and bring them home. Play them till broken in, they sound different from each other. Swap them left and right, they sound different.

Now lets take the picture painted by Geoff about my speakers, only show them for what they really are. Lets make two of them. Place them in a room and let them breakin. Do the same test on them as the others, sound different. Now take the tool out of the bag and make the left side match the right side in sound. Oh, now your getting a different picture, lets go further. Take the "inert speakers and set them up in the room", let them breakin and listen. Replace one of them with one of my tunable speakers of similar size. Tune my speaker to match the other, surprise! My speaker will sound the same as the inert speaker if you want it to.

I don't usually mention names so forgive me Dave, but we did this very test at a show in Germany with the Wilson's and Chameleon. Dave's speaker was setup on the left and mine on the right. I gave the adjustment tool to one of the listeners and he did the tune up while I stood off to the side answering questions. This same test has been done a few times and even in the presence of press, but as you might guess there would be no write up. Yes, A best new product, a couple best at shows, a merit award, good review against two other high end speakers, but mostly people remember a sale blowout by Audio Adviser of speakers that failed my listening test. So shoot me, I'm picky.

So this type of statement that Geoff makes " What all of this means is that no matter how well constructed speaker cabinets might be, how well braved, how good,the woods are, getting rid of the extraneous vibrations, rather than letting them flow as Tunees are wont to say, improves the sound, the voice, of the speakers." puzzles me.

Why would I want these do-dads, if my speaker could and does tune to whatever sound the listener wants, including the sound of other high end audio speakers all the way up the food chain? I guess someone could put them on their speakers if they want, hey give Geoff a call, he'll be happy to take your money, cuse me, order lol. You listeners could get May's and Geoff's product and play and play and play, swapping out tons of equipment while your at it and don't forget cables and all the other things you'll need for playing with for the rest of your lives, you can do your treatments and freeze, or.....let's see maybe a system that is built from the ground up to tune? Oh...just like a "altogether now" musical instrument. Now why didn't they think of that?

But lets keep the slams coming Geoff & the questions May, cause this could turn into a lot of fun.

michael green
MGA/RoomTune

Hi Costin

Them's good ears!

When I use to do a lot of rooms at the trade shows I would bring along a recording that would do a complete pan for me that I made in my studio. Most of the time I would have to be sneaky when I played it cause audio designers get testy (their stuff is perfect thing), but if I got a chance to get it on the player it was shocking how many speakers weren't mated. You know another thing that kinda surprised me when I would do these kinds of tests is how many amps and interconnects are not mated.

For the longest time with certain companies, who will remain nameless, their mono block amps sounded different. I bought a few sets to do work with and take around with me, and it took me a while to figure out why things were screwy, then finally I narrowed it down to the monos. Not just one or two either, there was a stack of them. Once I figured out what to listen for sense then I can almost always pick out if it's the electronics, cable, speakers or room that is doing the shift. They all have different characters.

I'm glad people are reading about you tuning up the drivers. I think it helps when there is more than just a designer talking about something they do. We all have that self promotion side that comes out, some people for sales others for the excitement of what we are doing, but it's there none the less.

michael green
MGA/RoomTune

I've been working on parts and pieces since this thread began. One of the reasons was because I was hearing designers talk about using certain types of materials and devices, which is cool but the statements made, and made so boldly contradicted some of the findings we have had.

Geoff Kait made the arguement that springs were only used for isolation. This was something that struck me odd as we have used springs as transfer devices for quite some time now. Geoff says this was impossible and that we were really isolating and not transfering. I thought about this and it didn't make sense and was certainly not my experience so off to the industrial park for me to pick up several springs of different capacities and different materials.

After getting these I then looked for plating and materials to use as my, I'll call them "tuning boards". Basically there is an upper plate or board and a bottom one. These I used to make my spring sandwiches with. According to Geoff I should not be able to hear the springs transfering sound through them, changing the performance of the components. Because this is isolation (according to Geoff), all I should be able to hear is the component itself. If I hear a difference, by changing what is underneath the springs this would mean that the springs did transfer vibrations through them and not stopping them like an isolator would.

First listening tests. Well, I should have saved myself some money lol. Every spring change I made sounded different under both the CD player and amp. Different not in a small way but completely changing the character of the presentation. My conclusion on this part is that either the units somehow changed their signatured design, or the springs signatures were somehow making their way into the signal path. This I would certainly not call isolation. Next, I started to do combos of springs and plates (boards) both on top and on the bottom of my sandwich. LOL, if this is not the making of a musical instrument I don't know what is. Every move changed the sound dramatically. Vibration is most definitely coming through those springs. If liked I could go through and describe each change and you the listener can do this at home and see if you find the same things.

I wanted to say that I also tested dampening materials with this setup and in each case I heard some of the music come up missing. Now I do want to say that with the cork/wood combos I was able to get some cool sounds, but these sounds did need to be adjusted per recording a little to get them to work with the music. Don't think I would want to use this as a perminant thing, not for me at least, but a useful flavor to have on hand.

I use springs in some of my products and enjoy their sound and versatility, so I hope no one thinks I'm down on springs persay. But in these tests and ones I have been doing with springs for the last 30 years probably (getting old) I would have to say that the spring even though Geoff may use them as an isolation type of setup can at least also be used as transfer devices, or a part of tuning products like the Tuning Pole, TT table top and High Compression Tuning Platform to name a few, and I'm sure many other products found in the hobby.

one last thing

For the fun of it I even made an instrument for my worker here so we could have a little laugh at Geoff's expense. It is a simple one where we attached a spring to a wood cup on either end and by stretching the spring in and out we could with a dowel play mary had a little lamb, not well but close enough. A fun toy for her kids (maybe).

michael green
MGA/RoomTune

PS I have more fun stuff that I've been testing because of this thread

Hi Geoff

I was hoping you would do this:) I also used the spring (springs) to top tune. Your so busted! LOL

michael green
MGA/RoomTune

Hi Chris

And that's what this thread was all about. I wanted to find out what the talk was about, beyond the talk. To see systems in practice, products applied and a step by step to show listeners how to get from one place in the music to the next.

I wanted to get past talks of improvement and better and on to specifics. When I presented this to Geoff he stated that this kind of thing was "unnatural". This to me adds more to the questions about his, and for me May's abilities. Attacking someone (anyone) everytime they ask for you to "do", in a hobby of "doing" seems a little more than strange.

As you can see they ask me about one of my products and I'm right on top of it. Here it is, here's who's using it, here's why and how it was designed, plus some references to my studies on the product. And here it is in action, going from here to there, for myself and people who own them doing it as well and the threads they talk about it on. I don't understand how any designer in this hobby can't do the same, again especially since this is the hobby of listening to music.

So lets say, they don't have a forum, fine, use this as your forum. Do the things I said above on here. You don't just throw product list and names at people thinking they get it, take the listener through a proccess they can do. I hope that Bill & Dan have some positive results with Geoff's stuff because it at least opens the door for some kind of Q&A that is meaningful, beyond a defensive posture and the constant attack modes.

Telling someone they don't know what they are doing is pretty weak next to showing them and hopefully having some knowledge exchange. Some practical, as you said, plan or method.

michael green
MGA/RoomTune

I think Linn is a great example. These are the types of companies that I look at and welcome as a, not so much a competitor, but more like method meets method. You start here and move alone a path all the way through the system (the audio chain). You can get on or off the path anytime you want. My goal has been to make a method that someone can jump on at any level of buy in and go as far as they want, with them developing their own listening skills as they explore. My job in this is to make products that give as wide of a varying range as I can to help them get there.

I don't see this hobby getting to the next level by plug & play. I think it was Catch who talked about trading this for that, and I see this as not only where the hobby is most of the time but also a dead end. Ok, review the products, but review the products in context with tuning in the sound. Fact is the products of this hobby do not sound like the review. They sound like the review plus the conditions of their surroundings and associated setup. And this is where the high end audio train has gotten off the tracks. They have created a world that is not repeatable, and then they get frustrated when others won't see things according to them. A tweak company or a component company will never "compete" against a method company cause they are two different animals. One is trying to sell their product and the other is looking at all the cars on the train track making sure they follow along as smoothly as possible, all carrying the right and well balanced load.

I think Geoff is right on the money, looking at tuning for him is unnatural, cause he sees the sound as being "one" and only "one" sound, his sound. He's saying buy this to get "my" sound which happens to be the "right" sound and then walks around with a stick smacking people who want "their" sound. A ton of the industry is like this and has never learned that the music and music selection is much more than any one system can handle in a "one" sound situation. We have a hobby now full of hundreds of thousands of systems all sounding different and only playing "well" a select few pieces of music. these listeners are all over this forum and many other forums talking about "their" sound without taking the time to do what May talks about, asking the "WHY". The industry as I have been saying needs to stop and take a look at all these systems only playing "one" sound and ask why? Why does my system not have the ability to play everything. I'm not talking good and bad either. I can take these folks through a whole bunch of audiophile recordings and we would find the same problem. They may not admit this shielded by the privacy of their own home and system, but it doesn't take much to see that this is exactly what has happened. This hobby has spent the last 20 some years selling "one" sound systems and putting a price tag of guilt to anyone who disagrees. Designers, reviewers and the audiophiles have all bought into this and it has caused this industry to aproach the end of the tracks. The end of the "one" sound system is drawing near, and no matter how it is sliced everytime someone plays a piece of music that sounds a little off that voice in the back of their head (no matter how bullheaded they are) says WHY?

Fact is we were almost there then decided to get off course. I don't think it was by design but more by the search of purity without covering all the bases. As simple as "what do we do to replace the tone control now that we have gone discrete". Ouch, the industry took a set forward but taking this step limited them to only the recordings that happened to play well on their system. It was right at this point that the industry should have kept the purity but taken the step toward variable tuning. I was right in the middle of this and watched the industry try to push their way through, but the "tighter" they made their sound the less music they were able to play. That's when the words (I was there) transparancy and revealing came to be. A new audiophile doctrine started being preached, that said "if your system can't play it, it must be the recording". That's really all the audiophile needed, just one little religion change to keep the wheels on. If my system is well reviewed and plays some music excellent that's all I need. As a result you saw the audiophile listening less and the shows and stores start to have their lines shrink.

so there's a WHY May, now to a how

The how to turn this hobby around is the same how that got it started? Listening, referencing and helping each other learn about making our system play more or replacing them with ones that do. Systems that can bring the same level of purity, and adapted to the differences in the different recordings. it starts with history and understanding how recordings are different and why, and what it takes to play them. Then also history into when the high end part of the industry change and why, and ended up playing less and less music. Finally embracing a method of listening that will do both Purity + Flexibility.

michael green
MGA/RoomTune

Ok, show us.

michael green
MGA/RoomTune

Geoff I'd like to ask a few questions, get your response if I could then a few more questions. I think (I am at least) we're begining to know you better, thanks.

You said "I admit I'm uninformed about tuning methodology", and you also refered to tuning as "unnatural". How would you come to this conclusion without knowing what the tuning methodology is?

You also refered to a prescription that I didn't follow. Is this prescription your "method"?

What specifically is this method (plan, prescription)?

Can you take us through it step by step, and describe the changes with a specific piece of music?

thanks

michael green
MGA/RoomTune

Geoff you said, "The reason you won't find a single unifying thread is that my products address different and unconnected problems"

You said you had a plan and a method, we've been wanting to see this, and hear this in action. Hopefully today you will be able to spell that plan; a detailed proposal for doing or achieving something and method; a particular form of procedure for accomplishing or approaching something, especially a systematic or established one, for us.

I would be interested in taking a look at this plan and compare it to the method of tuning.

tuning; a process of adjusting the pitch of one or many tones from musical instruments to establish typical intervals between these tones.

Oh, and yes I knew you were going to ask, so here it is.

musical instrument; an instrument created or adapted to make musical sounds. In principle, any object that produces sound can be a musical instrument.

michael green
MGA/RoomTune

Geoff

It looks like to me that you are saying you sell 27 products. How is this a plan, prescription or method? It also looks like you have no intention to answer questions you are asked. I have no idea why a designer would make claims and statements without backing them up with a plan. I would think that sharing the plan would be right at the top of the list.

With you saying you have a "method" and you unwilling to share it, how does a person not conclude that in fact there "is no plan, no method and no prescription"?

You said you are willing to do a product by product comparison. Well how can this be done outside of a method comparison? For example, I don't like the sound of dampening therefore would have no dampening product to compare with you except for using yours and giving the results. However if you did a start to finish system with your method, then we could make comparisons as we go step by step through the system. If you do indeed have a method of listening this is typically what we do (people like Linn and myself). We take the listener through the setup start to finish and spell out a systematic approach to their sound.

Since I have come here and we started talking, you have made comments about us and our approaches to system tuning. All we have ever wanted to do since you have basically said the things you have and you have a better way is to find out what your way is so we and the public can compare.

At this point we've been through freezing according to your prescription and gave the results, the springs and gave the results, the dampening and shielding of transformers and gave the results, the green pen (about to wrap up my testing on this). I have the clock at a clients house right now, same client has the crystals and bowls. We've try the other products you and May have talked about and are open to trying more.

There are a few things we can't do side by side I realize cause you don't have an in-room system. Which does puzzle us that you would say "1. Room acoustics anomalies" making the room number one on your list but your not even using a room. This as you have seen really "spins" me personally cause I know how involved a serious listening room is, and by reading even the little you have supplied about your speaker and room experience it's a little more than shocking that you are promoting any kind of acoustical products or advice at all.

Again this thread is about finding out more about you and May as we can't see these products as being more than materials and talk about these great words and theories but this means very little if you are not doing and showing. When we have asked you start to call names and put downs. You've used about every approach to slam me personally, but your missing what I am trying to do. I'm/we're only trying to get at what is your plan, what is your method, what is your prescription, all of which you talk about having but refuse to show.

How is it possible my friend to compare one product or method against the next without the actual referencing of these products in a systematic approach?

I feel like we've gone through now 6 pages of spins, and your seeing others are too. Is this how you promote and sell your products? Promote and sell your method? Promote and sell yourself?

Thedoor is open Geoff, show us your method, but please show us more than you method of attacking others.

michael green
MGA/RoomTune

Geoff's method, according to Geoff titled "Zee Plan"

1) I first look for inherent problems in the system.

This can be accomplished by listening, physical examination, or just meditating on the subject or researching the subject. I usually employ all of those methods.

2)When I find a problem I then determine a solution, if there is one.

3)Then I test the solution.

Geoff says the advantages of this plan, method, prescription is

Being able to continually improve the sound without the necessity of constantly getting up and tuning or adjusting all those widgets and springs and gee-gahs.

Geoff Kait says there's also another obvious advantage that goes without saying, then he says, this method "provides better sound for ALL RECORDINGS".

He also states "my plan is UNIVERSAL so it applies to ALL SYSTEMS" (refer back to steps 1,2 and 3 of the above plan)

Geoff's closing statement on the topic of his plan "Fortunately there are so MANY problems inherent in the audio system I never run out of ideas for new products. Knock on wood."

michael green
MGA/RoomTune

Geoff this has never been about ammo for me. This has always been about finding who May and Geoff are and seeing what they do. I don't even see this as a debate, but if only to get you to show yourself.

You'll be happy to see that Bill has tried your suggestions on his thread and likes what he is hearing with his components. This type of thing for me is a starting place. On his thread I get a better sense for his reference and the way he listens, and some of his taste. Will his taste be the same as the next guy? I don't think so, or else the next guy would have the exact same system and room, but what it does show is Bill has made a change, now by his description and referencing with others we can hear what direction he is heading in.

This to me is getting somewhere. This is not talk, this is doing. I have had this same setup as him, to a point, but how would I know if I didn't see him doing this? He could say "no you haven't" but by his pictures so far I can see that I have. And with his description I can almost hear his sound.

michael green
MGA/RoomTune

Hi May

Ivor has a clear and to the point method. It's not the same as my method, but because it is indeed a path of getting from one place to the next, for him and his listeners he most certainly gets my respect.

May, I've owned some of Ivor's systems and was able to make a listening "reference" with them. As a result when Ivor or one of his clients speak I know and appreciate where they are coming from. Because I have worked with his goods I also have ideas when his clients come to me the areas they might or might not want to try or go in. For example, some of his clients a while back were having a problem with their walls and floors. The Linn speakers were not geling with the environment. I found out what the rooms had in common with each other and made variable floors and walls for them, problem solved. The client kept their linn sound and Ivor kept his loyal clients.

If someone came to me and said "I'm a May or Geoff client" I'm not sure I would have much of an idea what their sound is. Well she said, she and Peter did this and Geoff said he did that, but without that reference there is little to go on, for me anyway.

Another example, Bill on here tried a few of Geoff's suggestions. Based on looking at Geoff's picture on this thread I never in a million years would have guessed that Bill would have done what he did. Looking at Bill's pictures I was able to not only see what he did but was able to make the connection in my brain when I did the same thing and was able to compare my referencing to Bill's. Next (don't know if Bill is interested) I would love to refernce some music together with him to see where my listening is compared to where his is. In the mix of this it would give me a sense of where Bill is at on his journey. Now, if I would have seen Bill's pictures before Geoff's I would have had a completely different view of Geoff's suggestion. Bill's looks a lot closer to what we do at this point than what Geoff does, with the exception of the Transformer which is a tough call because of how it is mounted. But, again what I would now do is go to Geoff and ask can I see how your transformer treatment is different from what Bill just did. See, it's a doing thing, not one size fits all type of process.

May, if I saw your system in action who knows I might say "right on girlfriend". When I saw Geoff's I went oh no, but seeing Bill's I thought, yeah I see where your going. I have no doubt Toledo did too. Standoffs with wood and I think is a zinc screw (would have to ask) and Toledo and I are all over the move. Bill saying the word "tention" and we're double time there. Tention in the music world means "tuning".

So May, as you are probably seeing we are not sticks in the mudd wanting our own way, we are stick in the mudd loving it when someone makes their system a little more variable. We really love it when they go all the way, but to us each step closer means, a little more to enjoy.

michael green
MGA/RoomTune