michael green wrote:

Hi Ron

The "tune" is certainly a cool Vibe! I wish I had 48 hours in a day.

I see your getting use to some of the personalities here.

michael green
MGA/RoomTune
http://tuneland.techno-zone.net/

"I see your getting use to some of the personalities here."

So sayeth the man with the learning disability

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

All:

I merely defended a man whom I felt needed defense. While I stated "his" methods are valid and make a lot of sense, in my opinion, merely supporting the gentleman with a single post doesn't mean I am shutting out all other methods of tuning.

In fact, the more opinions the better; provided again we don't stray too far from the original topic. I find as a student of anything it is best to listen more than speak.. and I really do enjoy the varying opinions and suggestions and find all of this overall to be intellectually stimulating.

Now to gently oppose a viewpoint, I think it is valid to list one's audio equipment in the right context and is even fun. Kind of like saying at the office "hey, what kind of car do you drive?"

As human beings, we are programmed to compare. And we must have some sort of baseline of understanding to compare *against*. And if listing one's equipment helps to explain an idea or demonstrate what kind of music style that person likes, then so be it. Whether it be a portable system with headphones or a rack of McIntosh...or usually something in between, it does help *in the right context*.

I know most people on these forums probably have systems far more capable than my first serious step into this hobby, but I honestly have not found even a HINT of snobbery or other negative criticism to my humble system other than a 1 star review of my gallery, by a single listener. But a fellow poster offered a kind reply to my concern and I feel comfortable here sharing opinion. That's enough ranting...now back to Schumann resonances!

Listen On!

Ron

As everyone knows by now I've been listening to Alpha and Schumann waves the past couple of days and other than developing a strange tic in my left eye everything is going well. I can't vouch for the accuracy, veracity or even relevance of this article, but it does appear to contain a lot of information. Without further ado,

http://www.pulsedmagnetictherapy.net/schumann-waves-pulsed-electromagnetic-brainwave-entrainment/

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

Stereo Times reviews Acoustic Revive's latest Schumann frequency generator the RR-888. I can hardly wait to read it. You may have to copy and paste the link below.

http://www.stereotimes.com/post/acoustic-revive’s-rr888-schumann-resonance-generator/

Positive Feedback article on the evolution of the Acoustic Revive RR-77. Spoiler: the first words out of the reviewers mouth after the sub headline RR-888 are,

"The Acoustic Revive RR series of Schumann resonance generators, the RR-77 (now discontinued), the RR-777 (being phased out), and new RR-888, are my number one favorite audio accessories of all time."

http://positive-feedback.com/Issue76/acoustic_revive.htm

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

michael green wrote:

Hi Geoff

Didn't understand this title.

geoff said

"OK, let's cut the crap, here's two reviews of the RR-888"

mg

Looks like perfectly good reviews to me. Not sure what crap there is to cut here.

michael green
MGA/RoomTune
http://tuneland.techno-zone.net/

Why do I always have to explain things to you? Seems pretty obvious that what I mean was let's get down to listening tests and stop all the philosophizing and Google oneupmanship. Seems pretty clear to me. One assumes you do not get similar results. Lol

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica.

Geoff:

Excellent articles! Here is one quote (I very rarely see reviewers THIS enthusiastic):

"The improvement an RR brings to the listening experience is not subtle, and I absolutely love demonstrating these little RRs to friends & visitors to my listening room, and watching the bewildered looks when they experience the RR effect for the first time. It's not unusual for them to wonder if I'm playing some sort of trick on them. I'm not. If you can only buy one audio accessory for your Hi-Fi rig, I recommend you make it an RR, you won't be sorry."

(The RR is the Schumann Resonator gadget for under $700)

A very compelling read and a compelling upgrade. I wish I had more disposable income. Or....hmmm...I have an undergrad EE degree.. maybe I can build one?

:)

Kind Regards,

Ron

So here is perhaps my first real contribution; rather than listening....

I would argue Schumann Resonators would benefit vinyl the most of any musical media.

Reason being: with vinyl, there is a lot of resonation going on! A turntable is just a means of capturing the resonations of a stylus being dragged through grooves...and this is the most direct form and closest method of listening to audio that mostly falls into the physical quantity of RESONANCE.

I in fact wouldn't be surprised to be able to use some sort of lab equipment; probably leveraging Fourier analysis, to capture and analyze the signals generated by a record player's stylus in an A/B comparison with the Schumann Resonator OFF, and then ON.

I should think the results would be significant and MEASURABLE, perhaps leading to a published paper.

Just a thought. I no longer have access to Electrical Engineering labs... just SuperComputers via remote terminal... but maybe someone with access to a real lab and the necessary equipment could at the very least check this out; and at best even publish a paper for those academically inclined to do so. I would seriously be willing to contribute from the mathematical side.

Best Regards,

Ron

rrstesiak wrote:

Geoff:

Excellent articles! Here is one quote (I very rarely see reviewers THIS enthusiastic):

"The improvement an RR brings to the listening experience is not subtle, and I absolutely love demonstrating these little RRs to friends & visitors to my listening room, and watching the bewildered looks when they experience the RR effect for the first time. It's not unusual for them to wonder if I'm playing some sort of trick on them. I'm not. If you can only buy one audio accessory for your Hi-Fi rig, I recommend you make it an RR, you won't be sorry."

(The RR is the Schumann Resonator gadget for under $700)

A very compelling read and a compelling upgrade. I wish I had more disposable income. Or....hmmm...I have an undergrad EE degree.. maybe I can build one?

:)

Kind Regards,

Ron

Well, I'm with you, 6 something is too much. Even when it was three in its first incarnation the RR-77. Guess what? That's why I've been listening to the Schumann frequency on my smart phone (they don't call 'em smart for nothing) the past few days for nothing. Nada. Zilch. Goose egg.

Fun discussing things with so much apparent upside potential, eh?

While the Acoustic Revive Schumann device in all of its incarnations is the most widely reviewed and discussed such device there are actually many others that also get audiophiles' attention. There are even warnings from Acoustic Revive not to purchase the knock offs on ebay or other Internet sites. Not to mention the plethora of Schumann Wave CDs and FREE (yes, I said free) apps for iPhone and android. So, there are many ways to skin a cat. The real question here is what cat are we skinning? Is it a resonator? Or something more akin to Schrödinger's cat? Or, something entirely unique? The article I posted what yesterday? Seemed to indicate there was something much more mysterious going on, maybe you didn't have the time to go through the article very carefully. If the Schumann wave was simply a physical vibrator as it were what so damn important about the number 7.83? Why wouldn't any low frequency tone work just as well? The other problem I have with your resonator theory is that well, physical things just don't typically have resonant frequencies that low. Now, cartridges and tonearms, that sort of thing have resonant frequencies around 10 or 12 Hz, so they wouldn't respond to 7.83 Hz, well maybe just a tiny bit. Ditto the vinyl itself and the platter.

One inexpensive approach is that you could simply invest in a cheap portable CD player with cheap small speakers and play the Schumann Wave CD thru that portable system whilst listening to music on your real system, no? ;-)

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica
All the world's a stage and we are merely actors in it

Ron wrote,

"I would argue Schumann Resonators would benefit vinyl the most of any musical media."

My own research indicates the Schumann device will work equally well on all media, including drum roll radio and headphones and computer files. Why do I say that? Because the Schumann wave isn't actually physical in the sense that it can resonate with a physical object. Any more than radio waves can make an object move (vibrate) or stop it from moving/vibrating, even microscopically. Naturally, I will listen to reasonable arguments that contradict that statement.

Cheers,

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

Geoff:

The Schumann wave is most definitely a physical object; it is an Electro-Magnetic wave bearing measurable properties. In fact, it can be recorded and played. Like you yourself said. For if it was not "actually physical in the sense it can resonate", there would be no evidence of a recording onto the media. ALL WAVES have the ability of interacting with OTHER WAVES and physical objects bearing mass. Otherwise Fourier himself would be labeled as obsolete or completely irrelevant. I had hoped we could have a dialogue on this, but if you disagree with such fundamental properties of the Schumann wave, then dare I say I am wasting my time here. I am sorry if I seem strong in my response, but your mere mentioning of Schrödinger's cat implies you have a very good background in theoretical physics. But if we disagree on very fundamental concepts then a debate cannot continue; at least not with your input.

On the other hand, if perhaps you mis-spoke, and/or for the readers out there who do have some physics background and agree with these basic premises, I would therefore contend that by the shear nature we are generating this wave with a gadget....it is an artificially introduced EMF into the environment, and can most certainly be captured, recorded, and compared with audio waves; aka Music, to measure its effect.

Regards,

Ron

All:

I'm a little confused:

I think the best; or dare I say correct, application of the Schumann wave is to purchase or construct a gadget that generates some sort of EMF with at the very least Schumann properties or so inspired by Schumann theory.

Once said gadget is acquired or built, turn it on in the same room one is listening to music; preferably loud speakers.

I think it is NOT intended to listen to the actual isolated frequency; though that may have some meditational/spiritual/medicinal benefit, I fear we are veering off topic.

I think here in Sterophile, and in the good articles referenced by Geoff, that the "correct" application of Schumann is to again have the gadget "playing" at the same time as one's stereo and there is a benefit to be gained according to reviews.

What I am proposing is to acquire one of these gadgets; perhaps we can seek one for evaluation purposes.. and then measure it with and without music playing to see if one can actually quantify its effects on music in particular.

As discussion is FREE, we should talk much more on this before proceeding to acquire one of these things.

So am I correct? And I would definitely like to continue this debate.

Kind Regards,

Ron

The Schumann wave that one HEARS on CDs and apps like the one I downloaded and have been LISTENING to is actually an AUDIO signal not an electromagnetic wave. Now, by my definition the audio wave is a physical wave since it has mass due to mass of the air molecules that impinge on the ear. Whereas an electromagnetic wave consists of photons thus has no mass. And by my definition is not physical. Of course an electromagnetic wave has properties that can be measured. it's just that mass is not one of them. Are we on the same wavelength now?

Hypothetical question: what happens if you build or obtain a Schumann frequency generator and you hear the change in the sound but you can't measure any difference in any audio parameters? What will you conclude?

This is cut and pasted from the Acoustic Revive web site, the page for the new RR-888 Schumann frequency generator:

"What is the Schumann Resonance?

The "Schumann Resonance" is a resonance frequency that exists in the Earth's "electromagnetic" cavity; i.e. between terrestrial surface and ionosphere. German physicist W.O.Schumann first detected the resonant properties of this terrestrial cavity in 1954. It is said that the Schumann Resonance is a breathing phenomenon of the Earth that is lasting from old time of the Earth creation and is giving a positive effect to the human brain. Humans, animals and plants have become accustomed to this frequency of 7.83Hz over a very long period of evolution.

But recently, many unnatural radio waves and electromagnetic waves disturb this frequency of 7.83Hz, it has changed the influence that it has on us.

Our research was started from the point of view that [If Schumann Resonance Waves have a positive effect on the human brain, how does it react to human hearing?], it became clear that there was a surprising effect to both of hearing and sight.

Then, we developed and manufactured a device to generate the 7.83Hz electric wave artificially, the Ultra-low Frequency generator RR-888 (Patent Pending)"

Cheers,

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

michael green wrote:

geoff said

"Seems pretty obvious that what I mean was let's get down to listening tests"

mg

Ok lets, we will redo our listening tests with the product and you can do your tests at your place.

We gave our results from our last testing already but we can certainly do it again. Plus we have a few other models to throw into the mix, including adjustable ones. We don't (as fellow designers) want to get into mentioning specific name brands, because of our varying results, but are totally up for the general listening testing.

My question for geoff is, "are you going to only quote reviews or do you intent to do your own testing as well?"

So far in reading both you and May, we have not seen your own testing results and if your suggesting listening, but can only repost reviews this is not truly testing anything, So let us know when it's time for us to do our testing and we will be apart of this.

michael green
MGA/RoomTune
http://tuneland.techno-zone.net/

You know, it's funny you should ask. I've only said that I've been listening to Schumann frequency and alpha frequencies here about ten times in the past several days. I even posted my initial reactions. So, let me ask you a question. How can there be any rational debate if you keep asking the same questions over and over again? If you are taking prescription medication of some sort please let me know and I'll try not to be quite so harsh but as things stand right now I'm pretty much sticking with my learning disability comment mainly because this sort of thing crops up all the time.

I posted the reviews to get a reaction. Looks like my scheme worked. ;-)

What, no test plan? Do you even know what you're testing for? I thought you were a stickler for testing stuff. Looks like you're going to wing it. Ron says he's going to try measurements. Are you planning to measure anything. Mind sharing if so. If you're going to talk the talk you need to walk the walk.

My own opinion is we should mention the brand of the device if only for the reason that results vary from unit to unit. For example the latest from Acoustic Revive the RR-888 is superior to the first one the RR-77, you know, in terms of noise, accuracy, power. This is not my opinion, that's what the company and the reviewers say. There's EarthCalm, the wall wart from the German guy, I forget the name, there's a bunch. My point being that if someone DID NOT GET GOOD RESULTS with Brand A it might be because Brand A is too weak, not competently built, who knows.

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

Geoff:

To quote wiki directly on what a Schumann wave is: "The Schumann resonances (SR) are a set of spectrum peaks in the extremely low frequency (ELF) portion of the Earth's electromagnetic field spectrum."

It is an electro-magnetic wave; not an acoustic one. And I would hazard to guess these generators are also utilizing the electro-magnetic properties.

That's why I went on to my later post asking for clarification on the "correct" way to test this.

At this point, I would think Michael is more in line with how to correctly test and measure this and it sounds like if I am reading his posts correctly he has access to some pretty serious labs and may have even already done some tests. If that's the case, then Bravo!

I would submit you are way off base though in your application of the Schumann wave as no longer an EMF entity but an acoustic wave...

And I would hazard to guess though I've never had the privilege of auditioning a Schumann generator I would hazard to take an intellectual leap of faith as ASSUME they too do NOT produce an acoustic wave; and in fact most likely produce an EMF one.

So I think we are comparing Apples to Oranges. And I submit in fact your articles, but Michael's methods, are on track. While listening to it as an acoustic wave is off-track.

Maybe I'm wrong. I've been wrong before. Just still confused but I would say at this point the articles and Michael's labs are more on line with testing this whole Schumann spiel.

Kind Regards,

Ron

That's fine by me. You guys go off and do what you want to do. Nobody's stopping you. I already explained the difference between entrainment with the audio CD or app and the electromagnetic wave. You two guys appear to be on the same wavelength, anyway.

Besides you yourself said the electromagnetic wave is physical so why wouldn't the acoustic wave work equally well, you know, if the effect is PHYSICAL?

Good luck,

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

Michael wrote,

"My involvement in this thread is to show that the Schumann Resonances are a "part" of a bigger scene, as well as being variable. The flames I'll leave to geoff lol. Poor little old man gets all upset when someone else brings up points he hasn't discovered. So while geoff is experiencing the 7.83 on his earphones, plugged into a sony walkman, we'll continue on with the results with in-room systems. Please keep in mind for this discussion that geoff has not had an in-room system for over 8 years now."

The wavelength of the Schumann wave is constant since it's determined by the geometry of the Earth's circumference. The frequency was 7.83 Hz in 1954 and it's still 7.83 Hz in 2015. Doh! Frequency = c/l where c is the speed of light and lambda is the wavelength. We know the speed of light is constant and so is the wavelength as I just showed, you know, the Earth circumference thing. You are still confused by those PARTIALS. Those are not the Schumann fundamental frequency, you know, the one we've been talking about. Furthermore, since the index of refraction of air is 1.0003 so anyone with half a noodle can plainly see that there cannot be much variation between the speed of light at sea level and the speed of light at the altitude where the ionosphere begins, about 40 miles up, even though the density of air obviously diminishes greatly according to altitude. Therefore the Schumann frequency is a constant 7.83 Hz.

If the frequency was variable the Acoustic Revive device would surely have a variable knob, no? Which it doesn't. The reason some units have a variable knob is because they are cheap and not as accurate as the Acoustic Revive and they are NOISIER. I suspect you will most likely buy one of those $20 Schumann devices on eBay for your test. You have obviously made you mind up already. Kinda like Ron. Your test will "prove" you were right all along. I suppose you could say that's the difference between the high end and pro audio wannabes.

Don't you even know you're supposed to do the test FIRST? You know, before you draw conclusions.

You continue to display the same behavior you did when I first read one of your arrogant windbag posts here. You can take the boy out of Dayton but you can't take Dayton out of the boy. A couple of classes and you're all puffed up like a blowfish. ;-) didn't your mommy ever tell you you lose when you get angry?

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

Ron, here's a photo of the internals of the Acoustic Revive RR-77, the first iteration. Maybe this can assist you in building your own device. If it were me, I would probably skip the building part and buy a second hand RR-77 or RR-777 on Audiogon. You could then most likely beef up the power supply, add an aftermarket power cord, isolate the device, etc.

Cheers,

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

Geoff and All:

Yes... I also studied some photos of these gadgets. They do not really look all that complex. Certainly not as complex as fabricating a custom VLSI CMOS transistor chip emulating neuronets in the human neo-cortex.

If I have the time and a little bit of money, I may try to build one. I'm certain a google search could turn up a few schematics.

I also believe in not re-inventing the wheel if I can find one used for pretty cheap.

Thanks,

Ron

rrstesiak wrote:

Geoff and All:

Yes... I also studied some photos of these gadgets. They do not really look all that complex. Certainly not as complex as fabricating a custom VLSI CMOS transistor chip emulating neuronets in the human neo-cortex.

If I have the time and a little bit of money, I may try to build one. I'm certain a google search could turn up a few schematics.

I also believe in not re-inventing the wheel if I can find one used for pretty cheap.

Thanks,

Ron

I never meant to suggest it would be very complex. I'm quite confident you can build easily and skillfully. Can I ask a question? How long do you plan on making the antenna? Thanks in advance.

Geoff Kait
Machina Diabolikal

My answer to the antenna question of how big to build it is simple:

Whatever the design spec of the original designer recommends; if even an antenna is involved at all. Or, as recommended, whatever fits inside that little box if I can get one cheap used. Though me thinks the question is loaded. Nevertheless, Like I said, my goal is not to re-invent the wheel so I am either building to existing spec or buying on the cheap. My educated guess would be a theoretical "antenna" would be the size of the Earth or at least some major harmonic derivative. Clearly that is not necessary though as the commercial Schumann Resonators I have seen occupy about the space of a shoe box or less and have no visible antenna externally.

Cheers,

Ron

rrstesiak wrote:

My answer to the antenna question of how big to build it is simple:

Whatever the design spec of the original designer recommends; if even an antenna is involved at all. Or, as recommended, whatever fits inside that little box if I can get one cheap used. Though me thinks the question is loaded. Nevertheless, Like I said, my goal is not to re-invent the wheel so I am either building to existing spec or buying on the cheap. My educated guess would be a theoretical "antenna" would be the size of the Earth or at least some major harmonic derivative. Clearly that is not necessary though as the commercial Schumann Resonators I have seen occupy about the space of a shoe box or less and have no visible antenna externally.

Cheers,

Ron

Do I seem like,the sort of person who would ask a loaded question. I'm hurt. ;-) Well, anyway, one reason I posted a photo of the original Acoustic Revive RR-77 was to show you the internals, including ...drum roll, please...the antenna. Seems a little short to me, though, but maybe I'm missing something.

Cheers,

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

Geoff:

Here are facts taken from a wiki about Schumann Waves; and hence my cautious reply. :)

"In the normal mode descriptions of Schumann resonances, the fundamental mode is a standing wave in the Earth–ionosphere cavity with a wavelength equal to the circumference of the Earth. This lowest-frequency (and highest-intensity) mode of the Schumann resonance occurs at a frequency of approximately 7.83 Hz"

I am also taking a leap of faith and assuming you know a fundamental rule of Antenna design is the length of the antenna must be some fraction or measure there of; of the wave trying to be transmitted or received. Here is another fact snipped from a quick Google search backing this up:

"Because WIFI is the highest frequency on the mobile device, the WIFI antenna will be the smallest antenna. A half-wavelength at 2.4 GHz is 6.25 cm (2.5"), and a half-wavelength at 5 GHz is 3 cm or just over an inch. Hence, using quarter-wavelength antennas leveraging the devices groundplane can make for very small wifi antennas."

So with my two premises in place, I may draw my conclusion: to make an appropriately sized antenna when dealing with Schumann waves would seem daunting at best; with sizes on the order of magnitude of the Earth's circumference!

Kind Regards,

Ron

rrstesiak wrote:

Geoff:

Here are facts taken from a wiki about Schumann Waves; and hence my cautious reply. :)

"In the normal mode descriptions of Schumann resonances, the fundamental mode is a standing wave in the Earth–ionosphere cavity with a wavelength equal to the circumference of the Earth. This lowest-frequency (and highest-intensity) mode of the Schumann resonance occurs at a frequency of approximately 7.83 Hz"

I am also taking a leap of faith and assuming you know a fundamental rule of Antenna design is the length of the antenna must be some fraction or measure there of; of the wave trying to be transmitted or received. Here is another fact snipped from a quick Google search backing this up:

"Because WIFI is the highest frequency on the mobile device, the WIFI antenna will be the smallest antenna. A half-wavelength at 2.4 GHz is 6.25 cm (2.5"), and a half-wavelength at 5 GHz is 3 cm or just over an inch. Hence, using quarter-wavelength antennas leveraging the devices groundplane can make for very small wifi antennas."

So with my two premises in place, I may draw my conclusion: to make an appropriately sized antenna when dealing with Schumann waves would seem daunting at best; with sizes on the order of magnitude of the Earth's circumference!

Kind Regards,

Ron

Yes, I agree with you, the length of the antenna should be very long. So the antenna in the Photo I posted doesn't make sense, right? That's the reason for the leading question. What in the wide world of sports is going on?

One possibility is that Acoustic Revive has done what the Schumann frequency CDs do in order to be able to play the 7.83 Hz audio signal in the room through conventional speakers, even bookshelf speakers. And that is to use 2 higher frequency electromagnetic waves that are separated in frequency by 7.83 Hz. But that seems actually to be very difficult because looking at the length of the antenna in the photo the frequencies would actually have to be on the order of 150 MHz or so. Of course I might have made a math error, I'm still double checking...hahahah

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

wrt "short antennae", I think they are just using a very high order harmonic. Without further research that's all I have for now. Will update if I find anything.

Good discussion -

Ron

The max variation in Schumann frequency (and wavelength) would show up in the second decimal place of the Schumann frequency and even then only by about one or two hundredths. That's the worst case. Big deal. The diameter of the Earth at the equator is 7,926.41 miles (12,756.32 kilometers). But, if you measure the Earth through the poles the diameter is a bit shorter - 7,901 miles (12,715.43 km). A difference of only .003. Hel-loo!

Furthermore, you can throw out any variations in the ionosphere since the waveguide is the space between the Earth's surface and the start of the ionosphere.

More to the point even if there were some small difference in frequency possible in the worst case scenario, for a stationary person anywhere on the Earth the frequency would be stable. Nobody said there is absolutely zero variation, it's just that it's negligible. Wake up and smell the coffee.

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

Michael wrote,

"The rest of all this stuff is just people doing spins without the actual "doing" of applied physics. I think Anton was wise in saying "if I took one stand, you would no doubt take the opposite". I'm pretty sure he as well as Mr. Winer and perhaps Mr. Randi felt the same way as you brought their names into the picture while you make your cases."

Let's see, uh, Michael Green, Anton, The Amazing Randi, Erhan Winer. Gee, I bet you guys could start up your own Las Vegas Chaoter of AA. Applied physics? You wouldn't know applied physics If it was peeing on your leg. I think it's time for you to give serious consideration to a long cold shower. You're on tilt.

Back to Cartoon Land with you.

Careful, I'll have The Amazing Randi put a spell on you.

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

Michael, you said :-

>>> “Since I have made my point about the Schumann Resonances being part of variable physics, I don't have much more to say on the topic unless I am ask. My point in this topic was to show both you and May Belt that not only have I explored this topic, but I have also explored it with a fair degree of depth as to how it relates to audio.

Schumann Resonances check
Demagnetizing check
Isolation check
Coloring CD's check
Freezing check
Cryo check
Finishes check
Crystals check
Photons check” <<<

This is exactly why I challenge you. All you have done is to change your earlier word DONE (as in “Done the questions and got the answers”) for the word CHECK (presumably meaning DONE ?)!!

Regarding the Schumann Resonance, you have still not explained HOW the Schumann Resonance is affecting the audio signal (musical information), or WHERE it is affecting it.

You write as though you know HOW and WHERE (i.e your “Done the questions and got the answers) – whereas the people I know are still puzzling the whole subject, still looking for answers.

As in the recent comment by John Atkinson on Ted Denney’s Schumann Resonance device:-

>>> “I think you are assuming that what we perceive as "sound" is identical to the properties of the soundwaves.The latter can be measured, the former cannot, as it is an internal construct by the brain. See my discussion of perception in my 2011 Richard Heyser Memorial Lecture: www.stereophile.com/content/2011-richard-c-heyser-memorial-lecture-where-did-negative-frequencies-go-nothing-real and my example of the 1kHz tone.

Measuring a system's in-room frequency response is too coarse a tool to detect any changes that might be due to this device, in my experience.

I don't believe there was any change in the "soundwaves reaching my ears." What changed, I am convinced, was my perception of those soundwaves.

In that light, what would I test - John A. “ <<<

On the subject of testing, Ron said :-

>>> “At this point I would think Michael is more in line with how to correctly test and measure this and it sounds like if I am reading his posts correctly he has access to some pretty serious labs and may have even already done some tests. If that's the case, then Bravo!” <<<

Interesting that Ron thinks that you, Michael, is ‘more in line with how to correctly test and measure this (Schumann Resonance device)’ – in the face of others who will have just as equal an accessibility as you to ‘some pretty serious labs’ but who, in contrast, say “What would I test ?” !!

Regarding the subject of demagnetising.

You say you have ‘done’ that subject also – as in :-

>>> “but I have also explored it with a fair degree of depth as to how it relates to audio.” <<<

If the subject of the effect on the sound of applying a demagnetiser to such as LPs and CDs is so easily ‘Done’, then why is there still such controversy ?

On the one extreme we have such as Ethan Winer implying ‘fraud’ on Furutech (a manufacturer of a demagnetiser) and on the other hand we have such as Michael Fremer, John Atkinson and Stephen Mejias (to name but three) who have reported on it’s ‘improving sound’ effect – but are still left with the questions as to HOW and WHERE it is affecting the musical information.

Prompting John Atkinson - during the open Stereophile debate at the Montreal 2009 Hi Fi Show to say :-

>>> “There are things that boggle my mind in High End audio. There are things that I would like to think I understand (from a technical and engineering point of view) and then something happens which literally blows my mind and it doesn’t fit the world view. Such as during the trip which Stephen and I did to Michael’s house !!” <<<

Stephen Mejias later commented :-

>>> “I simply believe, based on my experience, that the deMag influenced the sound. That is what I reported. I am not concerned with what the deMag does exactly, or how. I do not think that a similar difference in sound would have resulted had we, say, blown on the record or thought nice thoughts or whatever.” <<<

I challenged Stephen on his particular comment of “I am not concerned with what the deMag does exactly, or how”. I challenged him because I believe that anyone PROFESSIONALLY involved in the audio industry SHOULD be concerned with ‘what’ and ‘how’ something influences the sound !!!

So, Michael. When you say you have Done (Checked) those things do you mean
1) ‘Checked that they do change the sound’ or do you mean
2) ‘Checked WHAT they are affecting and HOW they are affecting the sound (musical information) ?

You constantly deflect you answering my questions by using the technique of “If only I knew what equipment May was listening to – I would be better able to answer her questions” !!

You don’t NEED to know what equipment I am using today, or this week, or was using last week or last month nor do you need to know what equipment anyone else is using to be able to answer my questions.

I wouldn’t ask you questions if you did not constantly claim to KNOW the answers !!!!!!!

Yet again, to avoid any misinterpretations from you. I DO NOT challenge that you have discovered numerous things which affect the sound. I DO NOT challenge that you do a considerable amount of listening. I DO NOT challenge that you do a considerable amount of investigations of different techniques. But I DO challenge that you have THE ANSWERS.

As in your – CHECK, DONE !!

Regards,
May Belt,
PWB Electronics.

All:

I would like to gently say I really do agree with the essence of what May is communicating; but I would also like to put it in my own wording as we all have differing views, but I do agree with what she wrote and it was very well articulated.

To echo what May is saying, Micheal, I think she speaks for the majority at this point in this conversation that you are capable of providing facts, measurements, and detaied analysis. To use my own words.

However, I do realize you have been occupied with the Audio Show... but once you have settled back into your daily routine, I again probably speak for the community at large in saying I look forward to hearing facts and measurements and analysis of Schumann phenomena as you yourself have alluded you have performed and measured utilizing sophisticated laboratories and equipment.

I am not saying this with any notion of negativity; I am merely pushing you to get to the meat of this topic as it is now multiple pages long and I think you really do have some serious value to add to the conversation from a measurable, scientific view.

Respectfully,

Ron

Michael:

Sorry for coming on a little strong... I was just claiming maybe you had already done Schumann resonance tests already judging by your knowledge on the topic and I was just curious to hear your results.

If you haven't done formal testing, I certianly would be out of line in asking you to do so! So I think there may have been a minor misunderstanding.

Thank you for all you do contribute here on these forums and your own; and rest assured, you certianly add a wealth of experience and value.

Kind Regards,

Ron

Just for the record I never called Michael a liar for saying he tested a Schumann device, although frankly I still have my doubts mostly due to all the dancing around the while thing he just did. Give us a break! I called Michael a liar for saying he tested my product(s) and May' s product(s). As I recall he yadda yadded his way out of that one, too, something about he couldn't remember after all. At this point with respect to Schumann testing and all the other products he claims to have tested, including the ones he can't reveal, I really don't care one way or 'tother as they say in the Midwest. His whole testing lab thing kind fell on its own sword as they say in the Cavalry. There was at least another similar episode when Michael had some phony baloney story that May and I has conducted some test or another together recently. Which turned out to be another uh untruth. Note to self: why would it be so dis picante if May and I HAD worked on a test together? I don't get it. For some reason - who really knows why - Michael is just full to the brim of these misstatements, misinformation, disinformation and dare I say it - lies. In conclusion, if Michael wishes to accuse me of calling him a liar, well, hey, I have no problem with that. Mea culpa.

Geoff Kait
Machina Dramatica

michael green wrote:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=56879

sorry, a little busy at the moment, but maybe these guys are up for another round of geoffy boy

michael green
MGA/RoomTune
http://tuneland.techno-zone.net/

That's so funny! Those guys are even bigger liars than you are. Can you possibly be that gullible?

Question: How can you tell when Michael Green is lying?
Answer: When he opens his mouth.

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

michael green wrote:

Sometimes it's easier to point to Geoff's past dealings with other forums so new readers here can see his trolling thing is just part of his MO.

http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/shady/messages/2901.html

sad really, but hey I might be lying about his fame to flames

michael green
MGA/RoomTune
http://tuneland.techno-zone.net/

Still trying to dig up some dirt? You're even dumber than he is. He accused me of copying a picture he took of MY clock. A picture HE posted on the Internet. Hel-loo!! And he accused me of ripping him off? Now, I ask you, seriously, have you ever head anything so dumb in your life? I can certainly understand why you're running around like a monkey on crack trying to dig up some dirt since I've caught you lying so much. Not much fun getting your crank caught in a stump grinder, eh? Lol

If you're present on audio forums frequently you're bound to piss off a few pinheads every once in a while. - old audiophile axiom

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

michael green wrote:

Geoff, as you say "for the record", these are your wars, that you have created and have nothing to do with the rest of us, until you start your spins here and all someone has to do is see this is indeed your MO. Accusing ohters as liars, posting stupid pics and trying to discredit or disrupt them. All of which, all someone has to do is type in any search engine your name and there on the first page is you associated with this type of behavior on every audio forum you can find until they give you the boot. There are tons and tons of these threads, and as you keep adding to them, I think you should be called out on it as this being your MO, and the rest of us who would to actual discuss the topics can move on.

michael green
MGA/RoomTune
http://tuneland.techno-zone.net/

I talk the talk and walk the walk. You would not survive a single day on another forum because you would be exposed as a fraud and a liar. I survived fifteen years on Tweakers over at AA before the ax came down. And even then, there were extenuating circumstances that made it impossible for me to remain there. It's a long story. But anyway I have access to the other forums of AA. Hell, I even have my own Forum there. So, trust me I will not be silenced. Lol. I was responsible for some of the longest threads in AA history including the ones addressing the Intelligent Chip back in 2005 which went on non-stop for 9 months. There are many others besides your humble scribe who see through you like you were made of glass. All these defamatory links you post, all of them, are false allegation made by some knuckleheads out for some sort of revenge. Like you. Lol. of course as much as I'm out there and interacting with people eventually some feathers are going to get ruffled. You know what I'm talking about. Hahahah

Live by the sword, die by the sword. - Old audiophile expression

Ask for no quarter. Give no quarter. - Old audiophile expression

;-)

Ok, now back to the regular programming. Michael will tell us in 5,000 words or less how really really cool Kind of Blue is. Something I'm pretty sure any Yutz with ears already knows.

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica