Edit - Michael, we are doing it again and posting at same time.

Hi May,

I am not exactly sure what your post has to do with variable tuning, but here goes ...

I have mentioned in the past that tuning and tweaking are very complementary disciplines.

The question is what should come first.

Obviously we think tuning should be done first and here is why.

1. Opening up the system signal and tuning (variable or otherwise) allows the effects of tweaks to be heard more clearly and a decision can be made whether one chooses to use them or not.
2. If one addresses CD treatment first, what about other sources such as ripped files from a music server or radio or vinyl? Not much help there.

Think of it this way, tuners consider tweaks icing on the cake .. some like chocolate while others prefer vanilla.

CD treatment is one facet and one playback method and is a tweak of choice as are many other tweaks.

I think you are making a huge assumption for a listener that "if the CDs are left untreated, then there is information missing – FULL STOP."
Isn't this a matter for a listener to decide?

I don't think anyone has recommending or not recommended the use of any particular tweak. What has been presented so far are listener results and personal choices.

Geoff,

Did you instruct Bill on how to apply the cork? If you did, good call, if not, who is taking credit here.

Bill shrewdly applied the cork in minimal amounts as washers and small support points which is much closer to tuning than applying the cork in broad swaths as visible in your oppo player pics. He has already seen what screw tension does to the sound and is, in effect, starting to tune.

toledo wrote:

Geoff,

Did you instruct Bill on how to apply the cork? If you did, good call, if not, who is taking credit here.

Bill shrewdly applied the cork in minimal amounts as washers and small support points which is much closer to tuning than applying the cork in broad swaths as visible in your oppo player pics. He has already seen what screw tension does to the sound and is, in effect, starting to tune.

Any time someone gets good results using my suggestions I applaud him. Lol

You can call it anything you want, who cares? The whole idea is to ISOLATE the circuit boards from the transformer and any other source of vibration like the CD transport motor. And to reduce as much as possible the deleterious effects of the transformer's magnetic field.

Applying the cork in broad swaths? Are you high? And unscrewing the screws or removing them decouples the circuit boards, further isolates them, from the (vibrating) chassis. Hel-loo!

Here it is months later and things have evolved quite a bit as far as cork, mu metal and 3M AB5100S are concerned. We are light years ahead of where we were. I use the term "we" editorially, of course.

No matter how much you have in the end you would have had even more if you had started out with more.

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

Or is it a matter of cost or ease of use?

Geoff,

Maybe this would be a good time for you to walk us through the picture of your oppo player so we (collectively) can understand what you are attempting.

Maybe some more shots like Bill to get a better feel for it.

Inform us .. what are we missing?

When it comes to materials, its all in the execution, my friend.

BTW, in four months you haven't picked up on circuit board screw tension affecting the sound. Maybe your system is too locked down to hear the differences, but Bill certainly heard it as do all tuners. Anyone can try this.

toledo wrote:

Geoff,

Maybe this would be a good time for you to walk us through the picture of your oppo player so we (collectively) can understand what you are attempting.

Maybe some more shots like Bill to get a better feel for it.

Inform us .. what are we missing?

When it comes to materials, its all in the execution, my friend.

BTW, in four months you haven't picked up on circuit board screw tension affecting the sound. Maybe your system is too locked down to hear the differences, but Bill certainly heard it as do all tuners. Anyone can try this.

I have known about screws and loosening them for many years, most likely since you were knee high to a grasshopper. On the other hand you seen blissfully ignorant of isolation, mu metal, viscoelastic damping, and a host of other things, I wouldn't want to clog up the bandwidth on the Internet listing them all here.

As for photos of my modded, uh, make that very modded Oppo, while I would like to help you out there is simply too much I would prefer not to make public, sorry about that.

Again with that tuning angle? Give it a break.

You wrote, "when it comes to materials it"s all in the execution, my friend."

That's funny. It was you Tuning dudes that couldn't get the cork to work, my friend. In fact, now that you bring it up you guys are batting what about .ooo?

Cheers,

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

Catch22 wrote:

Or is it a matter of cost or ease of use?

Copper is a shield for RFI/EMI whereas mu metal is an "absorber" for magnetic field. Generally speaking, of course.

Cheers,

Geoff Kait
Machinadynamica.com

"I also didn't find the CD's to have a problem".

That statement by you AMAZES me !!

>>> “May, as I have told you and Geoff now for several months I'm not here to pooh pooh on your goodies, at the same time I'm not here to lie about the results that we found. I did not hear any improvements only differences.” <<<

Michael. In my reply to Toledo I DELIBERATELY switched the subject away from it being personal to Geoff and me. I DELIBERATELY switched to a third party’s product and another person’s review of that product. But, you have engineered it back again to talking about ‘our goodies’ – and “only hearing differences” !!!

>>> “You’ve pulled in other designers into this mix, and I'm not crazy about giving reports if my reports might be taken as not the greatest. But I have tested George's products in the late 80's and again through some of the formula changes. If someone wants to go this route I say go for it.” <<<

Yes. I explained why I pulled in other designers of products !! IF you have “tested” George’s products before, INCLUDING some of the formula changes, then why aren’t YOU as stuck on the question “WHY does a chemical make the changes described” ? as the reviewer was ?

I would think it should be such a fundamental reaction but you just seem to have glided over what happens by simply saying “If someone wants to go this route I say go for it.”.

The product by George is giving the CLUES I am constantly referring to as is such as the Schumann Resonance device as are many other products and devices and you don’t seem to be recognising them as CLUES.

>>> “electromagnetic fields and the CD

May said

"Whichever room Michael is using his ‘tuning’ techniques in and listening to CDs – there will still be a plastic/aluminium/plastic layered disc spinning horrendously in an electromagnetic field !!!! STILL being a Problem !! You shouldn’t ignore or dismiss it saying “We can correct for any problem later”.

No, one can’t !! The Problem will remain Uncorrected !!"

mg

Do you realize May, this is the first time you have mentioned (that I recall) on here what you think the problem of CD's are?” <<<

I always presume that it is SO obvious for anyone who says they are a “Professional in audio” that it is one of those things one accepts that everyone knows !!!! It is a Problem Michael – just being there !!! Surely everyone knows that as soon as they put it in the machine and play it !!

But YOU say - "I also didn't find the CD's to have a problem".

>>> “Are there any more problems that you see?” <<<

Again, something SO obvious I feel silly mentioning it to a “Professional in audio” – it is the AC mains, also present in the room !!

Regards,
May Belt,
PWB Electronics.

Geoff,

Quote:

You wrote, "when it comes to materials it"s all in the execution, my friend."

That's funny. It was you tuning dudes that couldn't get the cork to work, my friend. In fact, now that you bring it up you guys are batting what about .ooo?"

What exactly are you babbling about, yet again.

Yup it's all in the execution as Bills example provided. He used it in small quantities in many ways like a transfer mechanism and he liked the results in his system.

Cork is a dampener and tuning is all about vibrations .. get it.
Just because used in small quantities the way Bill did does not change that fact.
It was tested and not liked, period.

Cryo was tested and was found to lose musical information.

Your treated cd, after emphatically stating you were certain that ripped cds would be better since more info would be extracted .. nope.

Any day you want to compare your system to a tuned system .. wait we tried this in the past and you chickened out.

You and your spins .. I'm getting dizzy.

toledo wrote:

Geoff,

Quote:

You wrote, "when it comes to materials it"s all in the execution, my friend."

That's funny. It was you tuning dudes that couldn't get the cork to work, my friend. In fact, now that you bring it up you guys are batting what about .ooo?"

What exactly are you babbling about, yet again.

Yup it's all in the execution as Bills example provided. He used it in small quantities in many ways like a transfer mechanism and he liked the results in his system.

Cork is a dampener and tuning is all about vibrations .. get it.
Just because used in small quantities the way Bill did does not change that fact.
It was tested and not liked, period.

Cryo was tested and was found to lose musical information.

Your treated cd, after emphatically stating you were certain that ripped cds would be better since more info would be extracted .. nope.

Any day you want to compare your system to a tuned system .. wait we tried this in the past and you chickened out.

You and your spins .. I'm getting dizzy.

All second hand info, my friend. Who cares? As for the treated CD the jury is still out. Bill as fate would have it ripped them bit perfect, which most likely and unfortunately makes the test invalid. On that point our resident PhD and I agree. The results of the listening test are not in yet. Hel-loo!

Cork is a transfer mechanism. Yeah, right. Are you high?

Cheerios,

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

Geoff,

You seem to be on this whole drug induced thing .. Have you been sucking on the Morphic Resonance fumes too much lately.

"This is your brain on Morphic Resonance"

You do know how to read don't you. I said in many ways like a transfer mechanism.

Now you are against second hand info. You may want to review your posts and the endless claims of the thousands who like cryo or other references you have made.

The entire audio food chain is supported by second hand info as are your products. I guess we can throw away all your product testimonials. Better get busy scrubbing your website.

I am sure Bill is happy that his cork results have been summarily dismissed.

You might want to check with May since you just pissed her off and her review references are now meaningless.

You're batting 1000 there champ. You just pissed off the entire audio world.

Ripped CDs -
Actually, I brought up the concept of computer ripped CDs and verification would yield identical files. You then emphatically stated ("99 44/100 sure") more info would be extracted due to the treatments. It was only after the results were presented that you changed your tune. Sound familiar .. Nice rewrite of history.

And if I recall, I was the one that suggested treated Cd comparisons on legacy playback would be more telling and so I have not forgotten that those results have not been released.

The only reason this is all relevant is it shows a pattern of changing your story, misrepresenting facts and all your other charming attributes.

What are we going to do with you Geoff ...

Hi Toledo,

>>> “You might want to check with May since you just pissed her off and her review references are now meaningless.” <<<

Where did that come from, Toledo. ? Because I wanted to switch the discussion away from centred at me and Geoff and any of our different techniques ? I did it because there was some personal antagonism creeping in – so best to open up the discussion using other examples.

By the way, my review references are NEVER meaningless. I choose them very carefully.

Regards,
May Belt,
PWB Electronics.

Hi Michael,

>>> “So to be very clear, the problems you have been talking about solving have been electromagnetic ones?” <<<

SOME of the problems are electromagnetic ones. As you well know !! SOME are RF, SOME are vibrations, SOME are acoustic – as you well know – Problems everywhere. If there were not Problems everywhere, then you would not be able to make changes in the sound ‘doing this’, doing that, and ‘doing that’ which you describe.

>>> “All the treatments for the CD's have been to deal with electromagnetic fields?” <<<

I am saying, constantly, that the Questions as to WHY all the various treatments for CDs can change the sound have NOT been answered – even though you have said in the past that you and your colleagues HAVE “Asked those Questions and got the answers”.

What I am saying is that the CD, spinning horrendously in an electromagnetic field, IN the listening room, is causing Problems – One of the Problems to do with ‘sound’ !!!! There are others, obviously. There MUST BE, obviously, or the different and varied ‘treatments’ for CDs which can ‘change the sound’ – should not be changing the sound if there were no problems in the first place.

SO obvious I don’t like saying it to intelligent people !!!!!!

Regards,
May Belt,
PWB Electronics.

toledo wrote:

Geoff,

You seem to be on this whole drug induced thing .. Have you been sucking on the Morphic Resonance fumes too much lately.

"This is your brain on Morphic Resonance"

You do know how to read don't you. I said in many ways like a transfer mechanism.

Now you are against second hand info. You may want to review your posts and the endless claims of the thousands who like cryo or other references you have made.

The entire audio food chain is supported by second hand info as are your products. I guess we can throw away all your product testimonials. Better get busy scrubbing your website.

I am sure Bill is happy that his cork results have been summarily dismissed.

You might want to check with May since you just pissed her off and her review references are now meaningless.

You're batting 1000 there champ. You just pissed off the entire audio world.

Ripped CDs -
Actually, I brought up the concept of computer ripped CDs and verification would yield identical files. You then emphatically stated ("99 44/100 sure") more info would be extracted due to the treatments. It was only after the results were presented that you changed your tune. Sound familiar .. Nice rewrite of history.

And if I recall, I was the one that suggested treated Cd comparisons on legacy playback would be more telling and so I have not forgotten that those results have not been released.

The only reason this is all relevant is it shows a pattern of changing your story, misrepresenting facts and all your other charming attributes.

What are we going to do with you Geoff ...

Bill is happy with his cork results because I encouraged him to try it. I am not dismissing Bill's experiment with cork, you're putting words in my mouth. I'm dismissing you're attempts to make the cork look like tuning, which it obviously isn't. Just some cockamamie story about cork being a transfer mechanism to steal some thunder. I appreciate that you don't know first hand about cork or any of these things and are only following the company line, the Principal Sockpuppet as it were. The difference between you and me, you follow the company line, whereas I find out these things for myself, you know, first hand. Your pronouncements are Second Hand Info. The pronouncements about cryo, about cork, you name it. And what of the mu metal part of Bill's experiment? I know what you're thinking, there's got to be some way to turn mu metal into a Tuning Foundation victory. Maybe mu metal is some sort of transfer mechanism.....Think, think! Lol

Glad we agree the test for dynamic range was invalid. Now, moving right along....

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

Geoff,

This ain't my first rodeo .. I have been doing this audio thing for longer than I care to remember.

Don't lecture me on materials. Your goals with materials are different than mine. You're into the whole vibration control and dampening thing which is where most audiophiles start out and in part is following what the high end industry touts as standard operating procedure.

You are also into shielding when there are other alternatives.

I have moved on.

If you want people to understand what you are writing, then write more clearly.

It's pretty clear what you said about second hand info even more so with your "new" explanation ... Most things in audio are second hand info ... It's a matter of trusting the source and analyzing the info.
You do know the difference between first hand and second hand info, don't you? First hand is you doing it, second hand is some else doing it. The mere mention of someone having success with your products is second hand info.

Go do some more spin outs and add some donuts for good measure.

toledo wrote:

Geoff,

This ain't my first rodeo .. I have been doing this audio thing for longer than I care to remember.

>. Yes, I know that argument well. It's one of those logical fallacy things, right?

Don't lecture me on materials. Your goals with materials are different than mine. You're into the whole vibration control and dampening thing which is where most audiophiles start out and in part is following what the high end industry touts as standard operating procedure.

No, actually it's where most advanced audiophiles wind up. I'd say you need a good lecture on materials. You know what with the cork and mu metal and all that jazz.

You are also into shielding when there are other alternatives.

>. Actually if you're referring to mu metal it's not really shielding. Technically speaking. I know, I know, don't lecture you.

I have moved on.

>Halleluja! Not sure you have anything to move on to, though. You might consider coming over to my side, the one with the methodology that's unbounded, like the universe.

If you want people to understand what you are writing, then write more clearly.

>. It's when you distort what I say that gets things screwed up, intentionally or on purpose. it's not my writing. None so blind that will not see.

It's pretty clear what you said about second hand info even more so with your "new" explanation ... Most things in audio are second hand info ... It's a matter of trusting the source and analyzing the info.
You do know the difference between first hand and second hand info, don't you? First hand is you doing it, second hand is some else doing it. The mere mention of someone having success with your products is second hand info.

Of course my point was you're just echoing Michael. And of course someone mentioning success with my products is second hand info, too. Duh!

Go do some more spin outs and add some donuts for good measure.

> Twisting, twisting, twisting the night away.

Geoff I'll recruit my Army from the Orphanages Kait
Machina Dramatica

Geoff,

Based on link below, technically speaking it is provides absorption and shielding.

http://www.mushield.com/faq.shtml

Based on above information, since the mumetal redirects some of the magnetic field away and appears to not absorb it all, what happens when a transformer is completely covered. What effect does this have on the field within the transformer when its own radiated field is turned back on itself.

Also, do your cable collars shield or absorb... are they made out of mumetal. If so, what happens with the non absorbed radiated field.

toledo wrote:

Geoff,

Based on link below, technically speaking it is provides absorption and shielding.

http://www.mushield.com/faq.shtml

Based on above information, since the mumetal redirects some of the magnetic field away and appears to not absorb it all, what happens when a transformer is completely covered. What effect does this have on the field within the transformer when its own radiated field is turned back on itself.

Also, do your cable collars shield or absorb... are they made out of mumetal. If so, what happens with the non absorbed radiated field.

Technically, it shields due to absorption. Mu metal is highly permeable with respect to magnetic fields. Think of it like Bounty Towels for magnetic fields. The reason mu metal appears to act like a shield is because it absorbs the magnetic field before it can get to wires, capacitors, etc. in proximity. The transformer should be completely covered with one or two layers of mu metal, top bottom and all around the sides or in the case of toroidal, circumference. One layer is 75% effective, two layers are 96% effective. The mag field doesn't turn back into the transformer because it is absorbed by the mu metal. If you leave the top of the transformer uncovered the mag lines of flux will reflect off the inside cover of the chassis and "infect" the surrounding electronics. Follow? The other advantage of mu metal is that the (induced) magnetic field generated by current flowing through wires is greatly reduced. The induced magmetism is what causes the problem with the transformer in the first place.

Tootles,

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynmica

>>> “Can any energy be created or is already there that doesn't have a tone, meaning a cycle or lentgh to it, that has to do with our audio systems, space or hearing?” <<<

Colours affect the sound but each colour has a specific frequency – so I presume they come within your “cycle” reference.

Chemicals affect the sound !! They are already there – in the listening environment – therefore ‘doing something to the sound’ !!! Add more chemicals and you affect the sound even more !! Because, as you well know, Michael, EVERYTHING has an effect on the sound.

I am back on the subject of chemicals, Michael, seeing as you are interested in what can affect the sound. If chemicals can change the sound, then, yes, they ARE to do with our ‘hearing’.

>>> “But I have tested George's products in the late 80's and again through some of the formula changes. If someone wants to go this route I say go for it.” <<<

You say you have “tested” George’s products – through some of the formula changes – since the late 80s. Michael, it is NOW 2014. It was 2011 when Greg Weaver wrote the review on George’s liquid !!! And, still, in 2011, Greg has problems in not being able to answer the Questions I keep “going on about” !! HOW can the chemical be having an effect on the sound ?

But, all YOU can say regarding that subject is:-

>>> “If someone wants to go this route I say go for it.” <<<

Your jaw should have dropped in disbelief way back in the late 80s and should still be in that position NOW !! But your emphasis on the subject was that you have been there, done that and tested. So, what conclusion did you come to with all this testing that you did ?

The whole subject is unresolved, Michael – still in 2014 !!

I also repeat again what I keep saying again and again. It does not make any difference whether the chemical makes the sound better or worse – it SHOULD NOT affect the sound at all !! But it DOES.

Ditto Colours !!

Regards,
May Belt,
PWB Electronics.

Geoff,

Perhaps I'm reading the faq on the mushield.com website incorrectly.

"
How does magnetic shielding work?
When magnetic lines of flux encounter high permeability material, the magnetic forces are both absorbed by the material and redirected away from its target, much as a beavers dam absorbs and reroutes water from its den.

The most effective shields are constructed as enclosures such as boxes or better yet, cylinders with end caps. Because the field follows the line of the enclosure, an enclosed shape keeps stray fields from finding gaps which could cause unintended interference.
"

I am reading this as the mumetal does not absorb all the field and some is redirected.

If the field is not entirely absorbed and reflected how would multiple layers help.

If some is redirected in a sealed enclosure, there must be some interaction with the original field.

I am trying to wrap my head around what this backfeed would do. Would there be an attraction or a repellent force at play. Would there be a subtle polarity shift if the +/- is not equally absorbed. Is there a subtle feedback loop. Interesting....

toledo wrote:

Geoff,

Perhaps I'm reading the faq on the mushield.com website incorrectly.

"
How does magnetic shielding work?
When magnetic lines of flux encounter high permeability material, the magnetic forces are both absorbed by the material and redirected away from its target, much as a beavers dam absorbs and reroutes water from its den.

The most effective shields are constructed as enclosures such as boxes or better yet, cylinders with end caps. Because the field follows the line of the enclosure, an enclosed shape keeps stray fields from finding gaps which could cause unintended interference.
"

I am reading this as the mumetal does not absorb all the field and some is redirected.

If the field is not entirely absorbed and reflected how would multiple layers help.

If some is redirected in a sealed enclosure, there must be some interaction with the original field.

I am trying to wrap my head around what this backfeed would do. Would there be an attraction or a repellent force at play. Would there be a subtle polarity shift if the +/- is not equally absorbed. Is there a subtle feedback loop. Interesting....

I suspect you are simply making a mountain out of a molehill. I already answered your latest questions, by the way. Guess it's another case of your not liking the answers. Oh, well.

Cheerios,

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

Geoff,

Actually I was just about to edit my post above but will put it here.

Nothing to do with not liking your answers ... I mistook redirected to mean reflected .. honest mistake.

I like to acquire knowledge and explore and do what ifs ... just how I roll.

Geoff,

So now that I've got the reflected vs redirect down pat in my best SNL "nevermind" moment where is the field redirected to?

Is it converted to another form ... What's going on there.

Michael, it's only fair to point out your results vary considerably from those described in Lotions Eleven by Clark Johnsen in which he describes the comparative results of a bunch of CD treatments. Maybe you were using the wrong CD treatment, my friend, just as you were using the wrong cork. Who knows?

http://positive-feedback.com/Issue26/cjdiaries.htm

Cheers,

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

toledo wrote:

Geoff,

Actually I was just about to edit my post above but will put it here.

Nothing to do with not liking your answers ... I mistook redirected to mean reflected .. honest mistake.

I like to acquire knowledge and explore and do what ifs ... just how I roll.

I would take redirected to mean reflected too. Whaddya know, we agree on something! Of course redirected could mean change of direction or something else, who knows what the guy was trying to say. Maybe he's an English Major.

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

michael green wrote:

Hi Toledo, got to run but got a funny for ya. There were two listeners here today, and while taking turns they were reading through this and said "that's Stereophile" laughing of course "why do they let those idiots on there". There were other things said but we had a pretty good listen.

see ya later

michael green
MGA/Roomtune

Why would they think tuners were idiots? I don't get it.

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

michael green wrote:

Anytime you have a product that you can put a shield between the transformer and the other parts and it makes a big change more than likely that transformer and the parts shouldn't be together in the first place as far as audio systems go. This is about designing more than anything. I raised the question in another thread why metal chassis to start with? I'll raise another one why build the transformer close to other parts?

The problem with building a shield cage is the affect the cage has on the sound. Some of these shields can become the sonic problem themselves. I usually will go down this path for a while then, out comes the sodering gun and that transformer is out of there, or I will find the right mechanical drain that's harmonizes the parts.

michael green
MGA/RoomTune

Well, on the other hand this particular cage improves the sound. Quite yer bellyaching. There is a right way and a wrong way to do anything.

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamo

Michael,

Yup the last few months certainly have been interesting...

All hope is not lost that perhaps a constructive dialog can be established ... Will see.

On the other hand -

Geoff is on a roll tonight with his stand up routine ....

I say we take up a collection and send him a nice tuned setup as payment.

We can send one to May also as she seems to have lost hers .. What kind of music does she like, I don't think I have ever heard her mention it. "There must be more" music out there that she would enjoy.

toledo wrote:

Michael,

Yup the last few months certainly have been interesting...

All hope is not lost that perhaps a constructive dialog can be established ... Will see.

Geoff is on a roll tonight with his stand up routine ....

I say we take up a collection and send him a nice tuned setup as payment.

We can send one to May also as she seems to have lost hers .. What kind of music does she like, I don't think I have ever heard her mention it. "There must be more" music out there that she would enjoy.

Second prize: two weeks in TuneLand.

;-)

Education is all that's left after you forgot everything you learned in school.

Cheers,

Geoff Slow Troll Comin' Kait
Machugana Dramatica

Hello Michael,

I said :-

>>> “The whole subject is unresolved, Michael – still in 2014 !!
I also repeat again what I keep saying again and again. It does not make any difference whether the chemical makes the sound better or worse – it SHOULD NOT affect the sound at all !! But it DOES.” <<<

To which you replied – giving the answer as to how the CDs SOUNDED !! I didn’t ask how the CDs sounded, I was querying as to why you don’t have unanswered Questions – on a shelf - as to HOW chemicals can have any effect or WHY chemicals can have any effect.

Your reply :-

>>> “The liquid treatments were a form of dampening, and the colors were acting as frequency beacons.

>>> “What we found was that the original Cd's without treatment gave all the sound. With the treatments we found that the sound gathered around certain harmonic structures. The colors did the same thing. With no treatment did we hear more than what was there just different parts focused in more or less, kinda like a parametric.” <<<

I said earlier:-

>>> “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 !!” <<<

All my Questions were relating to :-

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

“WHY do different materials (when used as covers) sound different ?”

“WHY do different plastic insulation materials sound different ?”

“ HOW can the chemical be having an effect on the sound ?”

To which you, Michael, replied :-

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

I also asked you :-

>>> “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 ?”” <<<

To which you replied :-

>>> “No, I didn’t ask why…. but, this asking me "well that had to make you ask why?" stuff makes no sense to me at all.” <<<

When I ask a similar Question:-
>>> ““ HOW can the chemical be having an effect on the sound ?”” <<<

You reply with the answer of how the CD “SOUNDED” – NOT an answer as to HOW the chemical could possibly be having an effect on the sound. Your answer as to HOW it might was :-

>>> “The liquid treatments were a form of dampening” <<<

Your answer was in complete contrast with other people’s struggles after asking exactly the same Questions WHY and HOW !!

To quote Clark Johnsen :-

>>> “the mat; the edge-paint; the truing; the edge carving; the Intelligent Chip; the duplicating onto CD-R; and God knows what else because everything so far seems to work.

Why?

Who knows, none of these make particular sense given the orthodox "bits is bits" wisdom. Which is why one takes such delight in expounding upon them, to watch the stuffed shirts puff up and the apoplexy set in. Few things in this world beat listening to good music, but watching those smug stiffs bluster and browbeat you certainly numbers among them.

Why?

Always with that question.

Here we be, in the scientifically advanced world of 2006 is it? And still having to smear our CDs with some substance or do something, anything to make them sound better.

And just as with the LP, something about the CD requires devoted attention. A CD treated by a number of methods becomes far easier to enjoy: lower distortion, wider dynamic range and nuance, less lumpy bass, less edge, less artifice, larger stage, more accurate timing—in short, better sound and more music. A wonderful thing.
An untreated CD can hardly (to my ears) be tolerated, nor am I alone in thinking that.” <<<

And, to quote Greg Weaver (with a similar puzzlement, querying WHY and HOW) :-

>>> “this same UltraBit Platinum-Plus liquid can be applied to the plastic outer case of an audio tape and identical improvements in the sound be heard as have been described from ‘optical’ discs. If this is so, then any explanation CANNOT be used for THAT result !! There are no ‘optical techniques’ associated with audio tapes !!!!

Also, applying the same UltraBit Platinum-Plus liquid to optical AUDIO discs, to the glass of mirrors, to the glass of (say) the clock on the shelf would give identical improvements in the TV picture WITHOUT having ‘treated’ the video discs or the TV at all !!!!! Explain THAT from within the afore mentioned "Optical Impedance Matching" treatment or OIM for short, to describe how UltraBit Platinum-Plus™ works.” !!” <<<

But, you Michael, whilst everyone else is struggling with “Questions on the shelf awaiting answers”, give the simple answer :-

>>> “The liquid treatments were a form of dampening,” <<<

How is it that so many others are struggling with Questions on the shelf awaiting answers whilst you continue as though all those questions are answered. And, that all that needs to be done is to “tune” the “vibrations which are everywhere”.

I agree with you, Michael, that the listening environment is a mess !!

But, EVERY room, I repeat EVERY room you go into to “tune” or EVERY room which you advise remotely with ‘tuning’ techniques will have ONE or MORE of the following chemical mixtures :-

Bextrene, P.V.C., polythene., polyethylene., polystyrene., polyurethane., polypropylene., polyalkene., P.T.F.E., Teflon., acrylic., nylon., Perspex., BAF., adhesives., paints., lacquers and so on – the list is endless.

Are you still saying ?:-

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

All that does not alter the fact that you can “do” numerous ‘treatments’ in the room and continue to improve the sound but, as I keep repeating, you will be working with one hand tied behind your back !!

>>>”There were two listeners here today, and while taking turns they were reading through this and said "that's Stereophile" laughing of course "why do they let those idiots on there".” <<<

Your ‘listeners’ may have been rolling around on the floor laughing, but that’s what people do when they don’t KNOW many of the facts !!

Facts like chemicals can change the “sound”.

Regards,
May Belt,
PWB Electronics.

toledo wrote:

Geoff,

So now that I've got the reflected vs redirect down pat in my best SNL "nevermind" moment where is the field redirected to?

Is it converted to another form ... What's going on there.

The magnetic field is only partially absorbed. It's still there, but to a lesser degree. That's why two or three layers is recommended.

Geoff I recruit my Army from the orphanages Kait
Machina Dynamica

toledo wrote:

Geoff,

So now that I've got the reflected vs redirect down pat in my best SNL "nevermind" moment where is the field redirected to?

Is it converted to another form ... What's going on there.

The magnetic field is only partially absorbed. It's still there, but to a lesser degree. That's why two or three layers is recommended.

Geoff I recruit my Army from the orphanages Kait
Machina Dynamica

Anyone not see the similarity to Apocalypse Now!? Michael is Col. Kurtz, holed up in his compound. I'm Willard, of course, come to terminate his command. Toledo is the Dennis Hopper character who idolizes Kurtz. "Careful, these monkeys bite." Lol

Kurtz: Did they say why, Willard, why they want to terminate my command?
Willard: I was sent on a classified mission, sir.
Kurtz: It's no longer classified, is it? Did they tell you?
Willard: They told me that you had gone totally insane, and that your methods were unsound.
Kurtz: Are my methods unsound?
Willard: I don't see any method at all, sir.
Kurtz: I expected someone like you. What did you expect? Are you an assassin?
Willard: I'm a soldier.
Kurtz: You're neither. You're an errand boy, sent by grocery clerks, to collect a bill.

Cheers, Geoff Kait,
Machina Dynamica

Nah .. I see my role as more dog catcher for wayward hounds that keep leaving a mess on neighbors lawns and occasionally yanking your chain for giggles since this forum is comedy central for ya... Someone's got to do it .. No glory in it, though.

You jealous that no one is in your corner having to put up with characters like you.

BTW, are you a fan of Saul Alinsky? You have rules 5, 8 and 12 down pat in your debating style.

toledo wrote:

Nah .. I see my role as more dog catcher for wayward hounds that keep leaving a mess on neighbors lawns and occasionally yanking your chain for giggles since this forum is comedy central for ya... Someone's got to do it .. No glory in it, though.

You jealous that no one is in your corner having to put up with characters like you.

BTW, are you a fan of Saul Alinsky? You have rules 5, 8 and 12 down pat in your debating style.

Now that you mention it, at least I have a debating style. Your posts are and always have been little more than personal attacks. Isn't there someone there more versed on the issues we're debating? As John Houston says to Jack Nicholson, the classic unreliable narrator, while having lunch in Chinatown, You may think you know what you're dealing with but you don't.

Cheers,

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

Geoff,

And what issues might those be? The technical discussion on the efficacy of ideas? I have had my fill of 'equipment' discussions over the years which frankly lead nowhere.
I would prefer, at this point, to have discussions on how things improve the sound in listening terms and actual improvements and how to enjoy my music.

It's quite amusing to read your comments on personal attacks as you question their inability to discuss the issues. Let's not forget your common approach of ridicule, insinuations of being shills, questioning the intelligence of your 'foes', questioning their years of experience in audio, questioning whether people can hear correctly, cute little photos, etc...
These all form a pattern of attempting to put doubt in readers minds that "don't bother with what the other guy has to say, listen to me." Nice debating approach there.

Like I said Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals rule 12 of personalizing and polarizing the opponent.

You might also note the cause and effect of when I go on offense..so quit your whining.

I still don't understand, as I have said many times before, why you don't accept the similarity of tweaking and tuning on various levels such as interference of transformer fields and that stock components need work. Tweakers become tuners.. That is the path all of us have followed.

The only conclusion I have reached in your reluctance and insistence that tweaking is the purest form is that you sell tweaking products.

toledo wrote:

Geoff,

And what issues might those be? The technical discussion on the efficacy of ideas? I have had my fill of 'equipment' discussions over the years which frankly lead nowhere.
I would prefer, at this point, to have discussions on how things improve the sound in listening terms and actual improvements and how to enjoy my music.

It's quite amusing to read your comments on personal attacks as you question their inability to discuss the issues. Let's not forget your common approach of ridicule, insinuations of being shills, questioning the intelligence of your 'foes', questioning their years of experience in audio, questioning whether people can hear correctly, cute little photos, etc...
These all form a pattern of attempting to put doubt in readers minds that "don't bother with what the other guy has to say, listen to me." Nice debating approach there.

Like I said Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals rule 12 of personalizing and polarizing the opponent.

You might also note the cause and effect of when I go on offense..so quit your whining.

I still don't understand, as I have said many times before, why you don't accept the similarity of tweaking and tuning on various levels such as interference of transformer fields and that stock components need work. Tweakers become tuners.. That is the path all of us have followed.

The only conclusion I have reached in your reluctance and insistence that tweaking is the purest form is that you sell tweaking products.

What issues might those be? Shirley, you jest! That is so funny! Let me fresh your memory. The issues I'm referring to are described in some detail in my recent article, What's Wrong with CDs and Why do they Sound so Horrible? You can find this article on my web site at,

Www.machinadynamica.com/machina35.htm

Cheers,

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

michael green wrote:

Seems to me that Geoff is the one always on the attack and the defense.

I believe this could be a better thread along with the other threads if Geoff had a system hooked up to compare notes with. From what I have seen Geoff is the most busy poster on this forum, I might be following a close second. Everyone here seems to be having fun doing things except for Geoff. Might I propose that this be because while spending a lot on energy talking Geoff does not have a listening room setup with stereo in it and hasn't for 7 plus years.

Maybe my math is off but if all the others have stereos and Geoff doesn't wouldn't that mean that Geoff was the one polarized? Readers who come to the stereophile forum judge for yourself. I also belong to a custom car forum, and when I had a custom car would go up and talk some, or at least show off my pictures, not much but some. When I sold the car I no longer had the desire to talk about something I didn't do. This is a little different than Geoff. Not only does he attack other listeners that have stereos in their rooms but he does this without even having one. He even talks about how his stereo was not an effective one so he dumped it for headphones.

So if a guy dumped his stereo setup for headphones, why would he be so vocal about the setups we all have? I mean isn't it all just talk if you don't even have one? And why? I ask you folks Why would Geoff Kait be here if he doesn't have a system in his room?

No Geoff I only see one guy here who doesn't have what the others do.

michael green
MGA/RoomTune

.

As is often the case you are either lying or mistaken or both. On all accounts. Don't you have something better to do than trying to round up drunks for the tuning asylum?

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica