That's actually hilarious. All the examples you gave for why the Schumann device is variable actually demonstrate how fixed it is. The height it's placed above the floor, the frequency. 1.5 meter above the floor is a fixed position not variable. Hel-loo! I don't know what reviews you're reading but the Acoustic Revive devices do not have frequency controls. Just the opposite. They are more accurate than other devices so variable control knobs are UNNECESSARY. If there was a control knob on the Acoustic Revive device don't you think you could see it? As I already pointed out, when you were probably sleep walking, the reason some devices have frequency control knobs is because they LACK THE ACCURACY OF THE MORE EXPENSIVE RR-888 device and must employ variable control knobs to dial in the 7.83 Hz frequency. So, what's next, that listeners wear different color underwear and fits into your GRAND TUNING SCHEME OF LIFE? Hahahahah At least you no longer jump up and down and claim the Schumann frequency is variable. That's a start to your rehabilitation. Lol

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

Ron, you said re Michael :-

>>> “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.” <<<

Ron. That is EXACTLY what Michael HAD said he had done.

As in Michael said :-

>>> “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” <<<

Michael has not answered the actual questions I asked him (even though he has constantly stated “Done the questions and got the answers”)

He has not answered the questions :-

WHAT is the presence of the Schumann Resonance doing to the musical information before that information reaches the ear drum ?

HOW is the presence of the Schumann Resonance affecting the musical information before that information reaches the ear drum ?

WHERE is the presence of the Schumann Resonance affecting the musical information before that information reaches the ear drum ?

Even though Michael has stated that the Schumann Resonance affects the musical information BOTH before the ear drum and after the ear drum !!!

Then, AFTER the musical information has reached the ear drum, Michael has not answered the questions :-

WHAT is the presence of the Schumann Resonance doing to the musical information after that information has reached the ear drum ?

HOW is the presence of the Schumann Resonance affecting the musical information after that information has reached the ear drum ?

WHERE is the presence of the Schumann Resonance affecting the musical information after that information has reached the ear drum ?

Michael appears to bluster somewhat when challenged after boasting that he knows the answers. I have no doubt that Michael does a considerable amount of listening but I am absolutely certain that he does NOT know the answers. I would say that no one knows yet, we are all still ‘thinking/searching’ !!!!! Even though Michael has actually claimed (see below) that “neither I or Geoff have any desire to find out the answers” when the search for answers has actually been exercising our minds for quite a few years now !!!!!!!!!! AND, not only OUR minds but other (significant in audio) people’s minds also !!!!!!!

Michael said to you:-

>>> “Not to sound rude, and you have been most kind, but do you really think May and Geoff have any desire to find out these answers to the questions they ask?” <<<

Really ???? And you know this How Michael?? You are back with your presumptions again Michael.

Michael has even just repeated AGAIN that “he has done the testing”:-

>>> “Yes we have done the testing, but in stating this before on here it wasn't good enough for May & Geoff.” <<<

But, surely all the extensive testing he says he has done must surely have produced some answers ???????????

Answers as to HOW the Schuman Resonance is affecting the musical information.

Even when one reaches that stage, yet more questions emerge !

If, when people have tried introducing the Schumann Resonance into the listening room and gained improvements in their sound as reported i.e. better height, better depth, better separation of musical instruments, better clarity, better soundstaging – therefore hearing/resolving more of the musical information, and then, when removing the Schumann Resonance from the room and all that newly gained improvement in the musical information disappears, one is left with the knowledge that SOMETHING must have been having an adverse effect PRIOR to introducing the Schumann Resonance into the room.

So. Again with the crucial questions. WHAT had been causing that adverse effect in the first place ???????????

WHERE had the adverse effect been taking place, on WHAT and HOW had it been happening.

Regards,
May Belt,
PWB Electronics.

Ron, you said re Michael :-

>>> “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.” <<<

Ron. That is EXACTLY what Michael HAD said he had done.

As in Michael said :-

>>> “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” <<<

Michael has not answered the actual questions I asked him (even though he has constantly stated “Done the questions and got the answers”)

He has not answered the questions :-

WHAT is the presence of the Schumann Resonance doing to the musical information before that information reaches the ear drum ?

HOW is the presence of the Schumann Resonance affecting the musical information before that information reaches the ear drum ?

WHERE is the presence of the Schumann Resonance affecting the musical information before that information reaches the ear drum ?

Even though Michael has stated that the Schumann Resonance affects the musical information BOTH before the ear drum and after the ear drum !!!

Then, AFTER the musical information has reached the ear drum, Michael has not answered the questions :-

WHAT is the presence of the Schumann Resonance doing to the musical information after that information has reached the ear drum ?

HOW is the presence of the Schumann Resonance affecting the musical information after that information has reached the ear drum ?

WHERE is the presence of the Schumann Resonance affecting the musical information after that information has reached the ear drum ?

Michael appears to bluster somewhat when challenged after boasting that he knows the answers. I have no doubt that Michael does a considerable amount of listening but I am absolutely certain that he does NOT know the answers. I would say that no one knows yet, we are all still ‘thinking/searching’ !!!!! Even though Michael has actually claimed (see below) that “neither I or Geoff have any desire to find out the answers” when the search for answers has actually been exercising our minds for quite a few years now !!!!!!!!!! AND, not only OUR minds but other (significant in audio) people’s minds also !!!!!!!

Michael said to you:-

>>> “Not to sound rude, and you have been most kind, but do you really think May and Geoff have any desire to find out these answers to the questions they ask?” <<<

Really ???? And you know this How Michael?? You are back with your presumptions again Michael.

Michael has even just repeated AGAIN that “he has done the testing”:-

>>> “Yes we have done the testing, but in stating this before on here it wasn't good enough for May & Geoff.” <<<

But, surely all the extensive testing he says he has done must surely have produced some answers ???????????

Answers as to HOW the Schuman Resonance is affecting the musical information.

Even when one reaches that stage, yet more questions emerge !

If, when people have tried introducing the Schumann Resonance into the listening room and gained improvements in their sound as reported i.e. better height, better depth, better separation of musical instruments, better clarity, better soundstaging – therefore hearing/resolving more of the musical information, and then, when removing the Schumann Resonance from the room and all that newly gained improvement in the musical information disappears, one is left with the knowledge that SOMETHING must have been having an adverse effect PRIOR to introducing the Schumann Resonance into the room.

So. Again with the crucial questions. WHAT had been causing that adverse effect in the first place ???????????

WHERE had the adverse effect been taking place, on WHAT and HOW had it been happening.

Regards,
May Belt,
PWB Electronics.

>>> “On the other threads talking about the Schumann Resonances and really anywhere we talk about the fundamentals we also find a support system that has to do with natures balancing act called harmonic structures. With the Schumann Resonances we find that there is an exchange going on all over the planet to compensate for the difference in particular area flux.” <<<

Michael, you are STILL continuing with the generalisations. The reports in the Audio world are of the Schuman Resonance changing the SOUND – i.e changing the musical information. This now moves the subject away from a mere generalisation !!!

Yes. If it is us (human beings) who are doing the reacting, then YES each different person, in their different listening environment, listening through their different equipment and listening to different music will react differently to any effect the Schumann Resonance is having. BUT, Michael, your reply to me was that the Schumann Resonance is BOTH affecting the musical information before the ear drum AND after the ear drum !! Which then raises all the questions I have asked !!

>>> “Your more apart of your listening than you think, and when you get to the point where you see your system as energy instead of a fixed component, or fixed setting you will have far more control over your sound.” <<<
You are correct on this point – that we ARE more a part of our listening than we think !! But that generalisation still leaves all the questions I have posed unanswered. HOW is the Schumann Resonance affecting the musical information ? HOW is it affecting the musical information of such as an orchestra playing the musical score of Dvorak’s New World for people (many people) to describe improvements of ‘better separation of musical instruments’., ‘better height’., ‘better depth’., ‘better clarity’., and ‘better soundstage’ ??

>>> “Did you know that every time you breathe the sound around you changes.”<<<

What has the generalisation of how we breathe got to do with HOW and WHERE the Schumann Resonance is affecting the musical information ?

You say you have given answers. I have seen long explanations from you of WHAT the Schumann Resonance IS but not HOW the Schumann Resonance changes the musical information !!!!!!!!! Surely HOW the Schumann Resonance actually changes the musical information is extremely important to the Audio World ??

>>> “It’s not very practical for me to go back and re-give my answers, but I think it's also very impractical when I ask you if you have read my responses, and you give no reply.
Others on these topics are satisfied with the answers and are now exploring "tuning".” <<<

So, if you say that “others are satisfied with your answers”, then why are many others, extremely intelligent and experienced people in the world of audio, still thinking/searching for the answers ???????????????????

There seems to be some inconsistency with what you are claiming (that other are satisfied with the answers you say you have given) and other ‘professionals in audio’ who are still thinking/searching !!!

>>> “We now have 3 Schumann Resonance devices (well 1 now, had 3) to use in our "real time" testing.” <<<

So, Michael, has that “real time testing” produced the answers to my questions ????

>>> “then I will be back with some, hopefully, interesting results that could be put in the book of conclusions,” <<<

Hopefully then with the answers to my questions !!!

>>> “In this schematic the oscillation frequency can vary with the value of the power supply and temperature." france
"Perhaps for us the point may be that we do not have to get exactly 7.83hz to get desired effects." ethiopia
"As the ionosphere varies in height, a precise frequency seems unnecessary although making it user adjustable is probably important." bulgaria
"The ideal position might to synchronize with local Schumann resonance and made an amplification."
"You would also want the two resonances to be in phase." Canada” <<<

All you have done, Michael, is YET AGAIN repeat what the Schumann Resonance IS. NOT what it does to the musical information, or where it does it or how it changes the musical information !!!!!

You making sweeping generalisations regarding the effect of the Schumann Resonance gets no one any further !!

Just like your generalisation regarding such as George Louis’s UltraBit Platinum-Plus liquid when you stated that the improving effect on the sound by applying the chemical to CDs etc was because of “dampening” !!!!!!

You were not prepared to explain HOW George Louis’s chemical could affect the musical information to give the improvements in the sound which Greg Weaver described by merely stating that it has to do with “dampening” !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And I don’t see you being prepared to explain HOW the Schumann Resonance affects the musical information.

And, Michael, not only explaining HOW the Schumann Resonance affects the musical information but also explaining what was (must have been) having an adverse effect to the musical information PRIOR to introducing the Schumann Resonance into a listening room.

Regards,
May Belt,
PWB Electronics.

>>> “On the other threads talking about the Schumann Resonances and really anywhere we talk about the fundamentals we also find a support system that has to do with natures balancing act called harmonic structures. With the Schumann Resonances we find that there is an exchange going on all over the planet to compensate for the difference in particular area flux.” <<<

Michael, you are STILL continuing with the generalisations. The reports in the Audio world are of the Schuman Resonance changing the SOUND – i.e changing the musical information. This now moves the subject away from a mere generalisation !!!

Yes. If it is us (human beings) who are doing the reacting, then YES each different person, in their different listening environment, listening through their different equipment and listening to different music will react differently to any effect the Schumann Resonance is having. BUT, Michael, your reply to me was that the Schumann Resonance is BOTH affecting the musical information before the ear drum AND after the ear drum !! Which then raises all the questions I have asked !!

>>> “Your more apart of your listening than you think, and when you get to the point where you see your system as energy instead of a fixed component, or fixed setting you will have far more control over your sound.” <<<
You are correct on this point – that we ARE more a part of our listening than we think !! But that generalisation still leaves all the questions I have posed unanswered. HOW is the Schumann Resonance affecting the musical information ? HOW is it affecting the musical information of such as an orchestra playing the musical score of Dvorak’s New World for people (many people) to describe improvements of ‘better separation of musical instruments’., ‘better height’., ‘better depth’., ‘better clarity’., and ‘better soundstage’ ??

>>> “Did you know that every time you breathe the sound around you changes.”<<<

What has the generalisation of how we breathe got to do with HOW and WHERE the Schumann Resonance is affecting the musical information ?

You say you have given answers. I have seen long explanations from you of WHAT the Schumann Resonance IS but not HOW the Schumann Resonance changes the musical information !!!!!!!!! Surely HOW the Schumann Resonance actually changes the musical information is extremely important to the Audio World ??

>>> “It’s not very practical for me to go back and re-give my answers, but I think it's also very impractical when I ask you if you have read my responses, and you give no reply.
Others on these topics are satisfied with the answers and are now exploring "tuning".” <<<

So, if you say that “others are satisfied with your answers”, then why are many others, extremely intelligent and experienced people in the world of audio, still thinking/searching for the answers ???????????????????

There seems to be some inconsistency with what you are claiming (that other are satisfied with the answers you say you have given) and other ‘professionals in audio’ who are still thinking/searching !!!

>>> “We now have 3 Schumann Resonance devices (well 1 now, had 3) to use in our "real time" testing.” <<<

So, Michael, has that “real time testing” produced the answers to my questions ????

>>> “then I will be back with some, hopefully, interesting results that could be put in the book of conclusions,” <<<

Hopefully then with the answers to my questions !!!

>>> “In this schematic the oscillation frequency can vary with the value of the power supply and temperature." france
"Perhaps for us the point may be that we do not have to get exactly 7.83hz to get desired effects." ethiopia
"As the ionosphere varies in height, a precise frequency seems unnecessary although making it user adjustable is probably important." bulgaria
"The ideal position might to synchronize with local Schumann resonance and made an amplification."
"You would also want the two resonances to be in phase." Canada” <<<

All you have done, Michael, is YET AGAIN repeat what the Schumann Resonance IS. NOT what it does to the musical information, or where it does it or how it changes the musical information !!!!!

You making sweeping generalisations regarding the effect of the Schumann Resonance gets no one any further !!

Just like your generalisation regarding such as George Louis’s UltraBit Platinum-Plus liquid when you stated that the improving effect on the sound by applying the chemical to CDs etc was because of “dampening” !!!!!!

You were not prepared to explain HOW George Louis’s chemical could affect the musical information to give the improvements in the sound which Greg Weaver described by merely stating that it has to do with “dampening” !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And I don’t see you being prepared to explain HOW the Schumann Resonance affects the musical information.

And, Michael, not only explaining HOW the Schumann Resonance affects the musical information but also explaining what was (must have been) having an adverse effect to the musical information PRIOR to introducing the Schumann Resonance into a listening room.

Regards,
May Belt,
PWB Electronics.

Anyone (like Michael) who thinks that CD treatments such as sprays, I.e. Liquids, work by damping and actually publishes such complete rubbish on his website is doing his readers a big disserve. What boggles the mind is none of his gentle readers has called him out on it. What's up with that? Sheep being led to the slaughter most likely. Don't follow leaders, watch the parking meter. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that CD fluids operate a number of different ways! depending on which manufacturer you wish to talk about. But one thing is sure - NONE OF THEM OPERATE BY DAMPENING. The fluids actually operate by removing mood release compound, or removing dirt, or removing the static electric charge or by improving the transparency of the clear polycarbonate layer (recall the CD polycarbonate layer is not 100% transparent, only about 90% transparent) or improving the refractive index of the clear polycarbonate layer, thus improving the geometry of how the laser reads the physical data. Anyone offering up the idea that fluids are damping the CD must not realize the fluids are REMOVED from the CD by buffing after they are applied. Duh! To make matters actually quite a but worse for Mr. Green's position is that damping the CD and or damping the CD transport mechanism is actually A GOOD IDEA, not a bad idea. Somewhere along the line Mr. green became lost, and renounced damping and isolation. He is now a lost boy. The reason damping is a good idea, like shaving the outer edge of the CD with that certain beveling machine is that the CD wobbles slightly during high speed play and vibrates which throws off the laser reading just enough to be audible. So dampening to use Mr. Green's word, is actually a good thing. It's what happens when someone is isolated from reality and Stove Pipes in his own little world for thirty years. Damping is a good thing, not a bad thing. Everybody and his brother knows that except for the Tuning Foundation out in the middle of the desert. Some people collect old outdated ideas or just plain crazy ideas like dung beetles collect dung.

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

Hi Michael.

>>> “Hi May, Looks like your having a problem with double posting. If you hit your edit option you can delete or edit the double post.” <<<

Yes, and I apologise to everyone for that. My skills on the keyboard are legendary but NOT my skills with a computer !!

>>> “It may seem like the long way around to you but when talking about the fundamental forces and how they are a part of the audio chain it's necessary to paint the picture of how all these fit together. It sounds general because perhaps it is, but I also get specific, as in when I wrote about "fundamentals and harmonics".” <<<

But, Michael, AFTER you have tried to fit “all these together as part of the audio chain” – you (anyone) has to then attempt to explain HOW and WHERE the musical information is changed !!

Because that musical information IS changed !! So, Where and HOW ?? You can’t just leave it ‘in the air’ – as ‘somewhere it is being changed’ and ‘somehow it is being changed’ !! If the musical information is changed, then it must have been changed ‘somewhere’ and ‘somehow’.

>>> “BTW, I’ve already been contacted by two reviewers who told me I have explained things in deeper detail than what has been given to them in the past, so I think some are getting it at least.” <<<

You may have explained what the Schumann Resonance IS in deeper detail than others have gone into – but, again I say, describing what it IS is not describing WHERE it is affecting the musical information or HOW !!

Explain to me just what these two reviewers are “getting” which so many other intelligent (audio) people seem to be missing !!

Regards,
May Belt,
PWB Electronics.

>>> “You said something like "was the energy already there", sorry I'm not looking back but think that's how you put it.” <<<

What I will have said, Michael, is that there is a wealth of musical information, already there, already on the recording, which people are not fully resolving until they do this, and that and that and that, both in the room and with the equipment.

And I would add, that everything, in the modern listening environment, has an effect on the sound (musical information). These are the points where you and I both AGREE on !!!

That awareness (of there being a wealth of musical information available but not being fully resolved) has been growing since the late 1970s after Jean Hiraga made people aware that different cables sound different and after Ed Meitner made people aware how cryogenically treating numerous things in audio can give improvements in the sound !!

Now, Michael, in reply to your latest remark :-

>>> “You see all the products you talk about are great, if the patterns end up working for the listeners "space body and mind". Where we come in is not so much to say bad, as it is to say potential or lack of potential.” <<<

“All the products I talk about are great” !!!!!!!! Of course they are !!! However I have just spent the past couple of years challenging you every time YOU have attempted to “knock them” !! The ‘patterns’ (as you put it – working for the listeners space, body and mind’) DO work for the majority of people and open up the potential for them !! And, to challenge you again on what you have just said - you DO come in and infer ‘something is bad’ !!!

As in your comment re the Schumann Resonance devices:-

>>> “The “Schumann Frequency Generators" we used in a more revealing setting such as a tunable room hurt the sound and didn't help it. It introduced an imbalance in the harmonics structures. In our testing the sound stages that were 30+ feet big side to side and front to back collapsed, putting focus on a few instruments but making the stage fall apart around them.

This same thing happened when using commercial units in the listening or around the listen room. Now if someone wants to use them to collapse the stage from huge to focus on a smaller part we have no beef with that, it's a choice just like anything else, but for our use it does the oposite from our objectives.” <<<

If we don’t know WHAT the Schumann Resonance is affecting to change the musical information, WHERE it is affecting it, HOW it is affecting it, and if it is alleviating an already existing adverse effect, then we won’t know what was causing the adverse effect in the first place. And KNOWING what was causing any adverse effect in the first place is just as important (regarding listening to complex musical information) as knowing how to alleviate it !!!

You have said that the Schumann Resonance, for you, caused the sound to be worse – in complete contrast to others (such as John Atkinson and Jason Victor Serinus) !!

To quote Jason Victor Serinus (from the WRMAF 2014 show):-

>>> “I too definitely heard greater soundstage proportions and three-dimensionality with Atmosphere and its module engaged. The demo was 100% convincing. The thing works.”
When all is said and done, I consider Ted Denney one of the most gifted and boundary-breaking mavericks in our industry.” <<<

And you also give conflicting comments regarding ‘treating’ CDs with the various and different treatments of colouring the edge of CDs, applying chemicals to the CDs, applying a demagnetiser to CDs, cryogenically freezing CDs !!

Your comments :-

>>> “All the treatments for the CD's have been to deal with electromagnetic fields?” <<<
And then in another explanation regarding treatments for CDs :-
>>> “The liquid treatments were a form of dampening, and the colors were acting as frequency beacons.” <<<

Even isoiP entered into the debate with yet another (simple scientific) explanation:-

isoiP said :-

>>> “I do admit the printed label of CDs can affect the sound (there is a simple scientific explanation to that)” <<<

Later giving the usual explanation put forward of ‘the printing/colour is affecting the deflection or defraction of the laser beam’.

You have ‘knocked’ anything which you have regarded as a “fixed” tweak (because it does not fit in with your ‘variable tuning’ concept), whereas I have always maintained that BOTH ‘fixed’ and ‘variable’ techniques should be used to their best advantage.

And, all the people experiencing having gained improvements in their sound (resolving far more of the musical information) from cryogenically freezing things cannot all be wrong !!

To give yet another example.

If someone changes a standard fuse with an audio grade, cryogenically frozen fuse and finds it gives them an improvement in the sound of better height, better depth, better separation of musical instruments, better soundstage etc, then they would wish to keep that new fuse in their system – especially if, when they changed the fuse back again to the standard fuse, they LOST all those improvements.

I agree with you that the change of fuse HAS TO GIVE an improvement in the sound to warrant changing but – when such an improvement has been experienced, then one would never wish to go back to the earlier (non improvement, standard fuse) sound.

AND, once the new audio grade fuse had been heard to produce the better sound, then the new audio grade fuse would be LEFT IN SITU – i.e. now a “fixed” tweak !!!!

However, I have seen you discourage people from using such “fixed” tweaks, advising people to leave the standard fuse in situ, not do any such ‘tweak’ of replacing it, because you have claimed that you can retrieve those improvements elsewhere in the system, with your variable tuning techniques.

What I say, however, is that if, after carrying out the experiments I have described, with the results I have described, then this shows that there was an inherent problem with the standard fuse (not allowing the better sound – i.e. more of the musical information to be heard) and that if the fuse is not changed, then the inherent problem will still be there !! NOT dealt with !!

Doing things elsewhere in the system could, yes, produce improvements in the sound (say hypothetically placing some of your wooden blocks under interconnect cabling) but in my opinion could NOT recover any actual inherent problem created by the standard fuse.

I have always challenged you on your “only variable tuning methods are the true answer” by saying that BOTH “fixed” and “variable” methods should be used to gain the very best advantages in sound.

I challenge your claim that your ‘variable tuning’ techniques can recover (overcome) various inherent problems existing throughout the audio system and with the actual recording. It is as nonsensical to me as claiming that one can overcome RF interference on the pick up wire by placing wooden blocks underneath the turntable or by placing acoustic pads on the ceiling corners. Those are additional techniques to deal with other problems.

What I have just said does not negate, in any way, the fact that various improvements in the sound can also be achieved by doing ‘variable tuning’. Variable tuning techniques are in addition to and complimentary to other ‘fixed’ tweaks.

To keep on with my RF interference theme.

If an audio engineer built a Faraday cage around a turntable and got an improvement in the sound of better height, better depth, better separation of musical instruments, better soundstage etc, and I asked him what he thought might have been causing the adverse problem in the first place, he would have replied that, in his opinion, there must have been some RF interference on the unscreened pick up wire – for the Faraday Cage to have had such an effect !!

He would NOT have given me the generalised reply of :-

>>> “The audio signal, the space you live in, your body and your mind are all part of a "Vibratory" system. This system runs from 1 cycle all the way up to the highest form there is. These cycles have fundamentals and harmonic structures. We feel, we hear, we see and we respond to this "scale" in several different ways, from our senses to our moods, to our health. Your body, mind and space are all a part of your sound perception: the ability to see, hear, or become aware of something through the senses.” <<<

Which is what I refer to as YOUR generalisation type of answer !!! After I asked you the questions WHERE is the Schumann Resonance having it’s effect on the musical information, WHAT is it having an effect on and HOW is it affecting the musical information – before the ear drum and after the ear drum !!!!

And, as I keep telling you. I only ask YOU the questions because of your repeated responses of:-

>>> “Done the questions and got the answers”. <<<

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

>>> “I’m glad I’m on this side of the questions and not back on the asking side anymore.”<<<

>>> “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.” <<<

Regards,
May Belt,
PWB Electronics.

So, let me see if I can summarize. Michael has bad results with Schumann frequency generators, even in light of the fact that the Schumann frequency, the natural one, is always present. Hmmmmm....Michael has bad luck also with Cryogenics. He has BAD LUCK with freezing. Michael also has said he's had BAD LUCK with Kait's products and the Belt's products, though when questioned about this he can't remember if he actually tried them. Hmmmmm...He gets BAD RESULTS with coloring CDs. He claims to have no issue with CDs and doesn't use CD treatments, presumably because he thinks the fluids act as dampers or because he believes CDs are just fine as they are. All of these things and he gets BAD RESULTS. WHEREAS just about everyone else in the world gets GOOD RESULTS. That has got to give a guy a complex.

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica
Home of the Super Intelligent Chip

Michael wrote,

"6moons review, quote from geoff kait

"The Intelligent Box and Intelligent Card are not manufactured by Machina Dynamica. Machina Dynamica is a strong advocate of the technology of the I-Box and I-Card and also a dealer for these products. Golden Sound is the distributor for the I-Box and I-Card. Regarding the 10 silver dots on the surface of the Card, those are not functional (as far as I can determine). In the orginal Intelligent Chip, the metal dots were actually "shells" that contained the quantum material between the metal sandwich."

According to this it gives the impression that you are not the designer behind your intelligent tweaks, but a supportive dealer of.

In regards to this what are the "intelligent products" you personally have designed and produced?

The quote you correctly attribute to me was published at the end of the 6 Moons review of the Intelligent Box, which the two PhDs reviewed following a review of the original Intelligent Chip. Both products were from China and imported in the US by Golden Sound. It was a common mistake back then 2005 onward to believe I was the inventor of the original Intelligent Chip or the Intelligent Box since I was the Senior Shill for those products at CES and on line. Follow? So I was being honest when I corrected 6 Moons, who apparently assumed it was my product. Now, the next Generation Intelligent Chip circa 2008 and the Super Intelligent Chip circa 2012 are MY inventions and are the evolution of the original Intelligent Chip. For which, by the way I wrote the definitive explanation how it works back in '05. My other "intelligent" products include the Clever Little Clock, Quantum Temple Bell, the Teleportation Tweak, Blue Meanies, Blu Matter and Dark Matter. By INTELLIGENT I mean quantum mechanical in operation or affecting Information Fields or simply nanotechnology, just to be clear about it. I am hooked up with one of the most prominent nanotechnology companies in the US for the active ingredient for my Super Intelligent Chips. The active ingredient being, drum roll please, artificial atoms. Artificial atoms which I design. To summarize, I am not the designer of other manufacturers' intelligent products but I AM the designer of MY intelligent products. Follow? Of the 30 or so products in my line up currently most are straight physics products, only the few I mentioned are what I'd call "intelligent products." Of course even my first product the single airspring sub Hertz platform was intelligent in the usual sense of the word since it was almost impossible to construct unless you knew the tricks involved in its construction. It's a good thing I took Indeterminate Structures in school. Lol

The original 6 Moons review of the Intelligent Chip, not my chip but the one from China, appears in the article Photon Cannons, link below:

http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews/photoncannons/photoncannons.html

A photo of my Super Intelligent Chips is provided here,

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica
Home of the Quantum Temple Bell

geoff:

I have a strong background in Theoretical Physics... could you kindly tell me precisely how you are leveraging the properties of quantum mechanics in this product? Any equations would also be helpful or whatever information you can provide; seeing as how you are in fact the designer. I also am not seeking to violate your copyright and produce these on my own. So I'm not asking for any proprietary intellectual property..just exactly HOW you are leveraging quantum mechanics?!??

I look forward to your reply -

Respectfully,

Ronald R. Stesiak, PhD (h.c.)
National Science Foundation
Computational Neuroscience
Computational Finance

rrstesiak wrote:

geoff:

I have a strong background in Theoretical Physics... could you kindly tell me precisely how you are leveraging the properties of quantum mechanics in this product? Any equations would also be helpful or whatever information you can provide; seeing as how you are in fact the designer. I also am not seeking to violate your copyright and produce these on my own. So I'm not asking for any proprietary intellectual property..just exactly HOW you are leveraging quantum mechanics?!??

I look forward to your reply -

Respectfully,

Ronald R. Stesiak, PhD (h.c.)
National Science Foundation
Computational Neuroscience
Computational Finance

I have a strong background ...you know ...education and experience wise in theoretical physics too. For the purposes of this forum and not to get too bogged down in the minutiae of quantum mechanics for the benefit of those not so well schooled as yourself can I direct you to my paper, The Definitive Explanation of How the Intelligent Chip Works? See link,

Www.machinadynamica.com/machina64.htm

Oh, I totally spaced out! While you were away resting up I published How the Teleportation Tweak Works and actually started a thread on it here on the Tweaks forum.

Cheers,

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica
We do Artificial Atoms Right

Geoff:

I fear your link is not to an academic paper of any nature; but rather a blog of sorts; as it does not adhere to any known academic standard for scientific publishing, and contains some humorous graphical elements that I fear would be rather frowned upon in any serious academic or scientific community. Perhaps you are playing an intellectual joke on me because I did laugh when first seeing the website.

At any rate, I would be truly interested in seeing the actual scientific original works, and if you study my paper, you will see I am genuine in my request. Nevertheless, I found your website to be helpful and proved a nice light and entertaining read and did a fairly good job at making some pretty deep physics accessible to the layperson. However, no measurements or reports of error or any scientific method were discussed.

On to the topic at hand, it looks like you were concerned with long-lived quantum entanglement. It just happens my team and I touched upon this in an academic paper we wrote last year; and has since been subsequently published by Cornell, Harvard, and The Journal of Theoretical Biology. If you are in fact the original and true author of this research you share the same concern for "long lived" quantum entanglement; as the device in question depends on its existence to be theoretically viable, you may gain some enjoyment from my paper and we should be able to have a very intelligent and useful dialogue. And therein lies the beauty of physics and other exact sciences: one can take the same or similar ideas, and even reference them in papers from vastly different fields, but come together on fundamental questions as long lived quantum entanglement. To re-phrase, though my paper is in Computational Neuroscience, we abstract and borrow from physics the idea of quantum entanglement and so the mathematics is identical and therefore you should be able to gain directly from studying it within our framework.

It is on page 7 of the paper where we introduce our rigorous approach to "long lived" quantum entanglement. If you open the PDF and just search for entanglement, you'll find our other citations.

Starting on page 4, we derive our quantum mechanical equations... it's a pretty deep read, but judging by your proclaimed level of proficiency in Theoretical Physics, you will no doubt be comfortable with the quantum mechanics, classical mechanics, statistical mechanics, and the Lagrangian formality. There's also a little bit of my favorite: Fourier thrown in. You should rather enjoy it. Also, you may even be able to add something useful to our observations with your proclaimed level of knowledge of theoretical physics and NASA background.

I look forward to your reply, and I truly value mentorship when I can receive it.

Respectfully,

Ron

paper can be downloaded free of charge from Cornell here:

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1105.2352v12.pdf

So, basically you didn't have any problem with the whole concept that I was trying to put across, am I correct? You do realize this not really supposed to ready for submission to Science magazine or AES or any such thing, one can probably best think of it as a kind of white paper since that's more or less how I intended it. How do the links you provided or the terminology you mentioned relate one way or the other with my explanation of the physics involved with the chip? I took a lot of physics and math myself. Thanks in advance.

Regards,

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

Geoff:

If you are in fact the designer of this commercially sold and produced product, you have many many many documents. Design documents, schematics, computer code, and software workflow programs, etc.

I'm just requesting a link to your document(s) containing the actual real science without it being translated for a layperson. I am merely asking for the original scientific works; and out of good faith have provided a cost-free link to my own published works which are the building blocks of what one day our team hopes to accomplish: A truly sentient and aware machine. True Artificial Intelligence. This particular paper we wrote is original works that accurately describe human short term memory processes utilizing a mathematical and computational approach; along with our comparisons to EEG data to test the validity of our hypotheses. As any other researcher or research team, we follow the scientific method. As again, your product is in production, you must have a ton of documents and code and you must have also successfully followed the scientific method. I'm just requesting a link to the main paper that contains the more rigorous explanation of your design. It is only after I see this real scientific work that I may then have a productive conversation. As for now, I am uncertain if I "have any problems" as there is not enough detail to truly understand your design and approach. But I would re-phrase "having any problems" to "opening a debate" or just shooting the intellectual breeze with a colleague in theoretical physics.

As for how does my terminology and references relate to your work, that is simple. I took one of your main concerns from a physics standpoint: is quantum entanglement long-lived? And my team happens to have also explored this very intellectually stimulating and niche topic that I am quite honestly amazed at having run into someone else outside of my academic world who possesses similar knowledge. So I have invited you to study how we have explored describing quantum entanglement with my original paper; not a deeply edited blog. As intellectual scientific works are public domain, it should be of very little effort to provide a link to either your publicly visible patent or paper. Those are basically the two main mechanisms of communicating scientific knowledge.

Unless, of course, you are not the actual author or designer and perhaps have mispoken. In which case, I am still asking for a reference to the actual paper or patent to study as my team truly is also examining long-lived quantum entanglement and it is a very hot topic currently in the theoretical physics community as I am sure you are already aware.

Long story short, just eager to share our work and compare notes; as I truly enjoy my work and sharing it with others.

Kind Regards,

Ron

I'm getting a bad feeling.

Geoff Kait
Machina Dramamine

Are you crazy? Ron just insinuated I don't write the chip explanation and am not the inventor of my own products. He drops a lot of names but can't follow through on his promise to build the Schumann generator, just to get back to the reality and the original thread before your heads explode. And you, the high priest of tuning Nervosa, keep posting inflammatory links to dirt you scrapped off your boot heels. You call that a polite and articulate spirit? I know passive aggressive behavior when I see it. Let the inquisition begin! Lol

Geoff Kait
Machina Dramatica

Geoff:

I did not mean to be passive aggressive or rude at all. In fact, I was trying to be delicate and respectful by sort of being long-winded.

Perhaps my long-winded request to original scientific documentation came off wrong. For that I offer my serious apology.

You will hopefully notice by my short though visible track record here in Stereophile I am pretty kind in general and do not label any individual as "wrong" or "unworthy". In fact, I like to think of myself as very open and receptive to new ideas.

And that is all I'm asking for: is new ideas from you in this case. Just asking for deeper documentation.

I did not mean to insult you in the least. Perhaps that was just my again long-windedness and maybe slight frustration and eagerness to see exactly how the heck your intriguing gadget works!

Sincerely,

Ron

ps. as for the Schumann Generator, I must say things have changed professionally for me while on holiday. I have been promoted to Team Lead on our new research project for the National Science Foundation and simply and sadly fear I just don't have the time to indulge in many of my interests outside of research. I really do wish I had the time. Perhaps in the fall; as I may enroll in a graduate EE course in VLSI hybrid analogue/digital chip design and could certainly whip out a quickie prototype Schumann generator at that point. (I would have access to a real lab and real tools. I miss all of that and do not have a decent EE lab at home. Not even an oscilloscope or wave-form generator).

I'm certainly not asking Geoff to write papers... I know I myself dread that part of my research!

But I am inferring that since his product is being manufactured and sold, he MUST have more detailed documentation that already exists to which he successfully found a niche and is selling it commercially.

I'm just asking for these more detailed docs. If, like some of my research, the only documentation is lab notes, then perhaps Geoff, just share the mathematics or other non-proprietary algorithms or specific scientific theory on a private email. Just let me know.

Kind Regards,

Ron

I'm not sure Ron and Michael are actually in the real world with the demand for documentation and mathematical formulas. Get real, guys. I am pretty sure that is THE funniest thing I've heard in a while. This is a hobby not some hot shot big science project. Would it make you feel better if I cut and paste the Schroedinger wave equations of state? What's next, demands for proof? Hahahaha

BTW I don't see any real heartburn from either of you on my paper explaining the quantum mechanics of the Intelligent Chip. I'm therefore assuming my words and funny pictures are sufficient to explain it to an expert as well as a layman. Lol

Geoff Kait
Machina Dramatica

Geoff:

Be careful what you ask for....you may just get it. In this case, a first pass at my technical analysis based on the data you have provided and standby after repeated requests for more substantial data or lab test results.

So here is my analysis:

The way I see it, you are proposing such a gadget works by either improving the laser beam imparted to the receiver, or somehow alters the physical properties of a compact disc. I'll address the first possibility now; though much of what I state applies to either scenario:

Every piece of scientific literature you have provided; as well as what I have read on my own research, indicates experiments regarding quantum mechanics and all sub-sets of said branch of science including quantum dots, are done in pretty serious CONTROLLED environments in pretty serious LABORATORIES; usually at large universities; sometimes from large corporations or the government.

Any way...my point being: your fundamental notion that your gadget works purely by a "leaky laser" or similar such wording is flawed.

Any and all experiments dealing with quantum dots; as well as quantum mechanics at large, typically involve very precise laboratory equipment. Not "leaky lasers". They also involve very precise prisms, partial mirrors, and the like. These lasers are also precisely aimed at said precise prisms and optics, to be *very* precisely collected and tabulated by *computer* to produce their results. Again, not "leaky".

So, as I have not seen any valid explanation of how this leaky laser light really makes it inside a metallic sandwich of what is reported to basically just be a small grid of thin silicon p-n junctions, aka sometimes Schottky Diodes, or transistors in general, then I fail to see how ANY light enters; let alone is excited, magnified or otherwise enhanced, and precisely escapes back to the recording mechanism inside the CD player that reads what is a BEAM; not a "leaky laser", even more ridiculously further and somehow altering the binary flow of zeros and ones into a more musical state? This is absurd at best.

In case, due to the sparsity of material to study I have misunderstood and that is NOT your intent, here is the second argument repeated for posterity: You are proposing your gadget alters the physical properties of the CD being played.

Schroedinger wave equations of state don't really apply here; as they can mathematically describe a STATE change, which typically needs a power source to apply; like a DIRECT and PRECISE and CONTROLLED laser in a LAB, which requires ENERGY. You are daring to suggest that not only "leaky laser" passive illumination somehow makes it past the metallic sandwich, but you then go on to presume this left over "leaky light" presumedly inside this gadget produces enough ENERGY to TRANSFORM the entire CD material to more optically transparent properties, with the only energy supplied by "left over" light from a "leaky laser"?

In fact, rather than the Schroedinger Equation, what really should be discussed here is basic thermodynamics and that it takes a hell of a lot of ENERGY to cause changes in properties of materials; in case that is the angle you are trying to take. Or even Einstein's basic equation: E=mc^2. You need a lot more E to change the state of the M of an optical disc.

So yes, I have a great deal of "heart burn". I was just giving you ample opportunity to gather sufficient backing documentation before I gave my first critique of what I believe to be a completely ineffective gadget at worst; an ill - conceived and poorly setup thought experiment relying on passive radiation of very low power laser light at best.

I await your reply,

Ron

You might be surprised but I don't entertain requests for additional data, or demands for proof or even more details of explanations that I have written. There are perfectly good reasons why this is so. I have seen a lot of skeptics and pseudo skeptics while I have been in the tweak business as it were and have had the wildest encounters you can imagine. I was joking when I mentioned Schroedinger. You need to learn to loosen up a little with me, if you don't mind my saying so too much. I AM in the entertainment business, after all. It will make the ride less bumpy.

For starters immorettybsure I explained all of your questions in the article, anyway. How the CD laser light gets out into the room how it gets into the or orange case how it gets into the inside of the silver discs. All of that stuff.

As for my paper, I said what I intended, no less, no more. I don't blame anyone for taking exception with it on any level. I don't even care if someone suspects it works by mass hypnosis or it's the placebo effect.

Cheers,

Geoff Kait
Machina Dramatica

geoffkait wrote:

I'm not sure Ron and Michael are actually in the real world with the demand for documentation and mathematical formulas. Get real, guys. I am pretty sure that is THE funniest thing I've heard in a while. This is a hobby not some hot shot big science project. Would it make you feel better if I cut and paste the Schroedinger wave equations of state? What's next, demands for proof? Hahahaha

BTW I don't see any real heartburn from either of you on my paper explaining the quantum mechanics of the Intelligent Chip. I'm therefore assuming my words and funny pictures are sufficient to explain it to an expert as well as a layman. Lol

Geoff Kait
Machina Dramatica

Geoff:

With that quote above, you threw down the proverbial gauntlet to evoke an intellectual response out of myself or Michael with regards to your gadget. Why you dragged Michael in I'm not sure. But that's besides the point.

I find it illuminating (pun intended) that when you are encountered with a fairly informal though rigorous critique of your gadget to which you ASKED (again, see your quote above), you retract back to an escape. You also challenged me for a response from one of your earlier posts in this topic with this brief quote:

" I took a lot of physics and math myself. Thanks in advance."

I'll just cut to the chase and conclude, from a scientific perspective, I would politely state my findings are inconclusive to reveal any effectiveness of said gadget.

Regards,

Ron

For what its worth:

This is merely by Michael's request. I personally consider the entire debate over and resolved.

To temporarily give the matter further consideration of a scientific and pragmatic nature, I offer the following brief beginnings of my personal thoughts. No other thought or work other than my own for a few hours and Geoff's blog have been performed; and so I must qualify this is all hypothetical and basically an intellectual exercise. The main design problem with the current gadget is lack of sufficient energy. I will address this and other details.

Geoff I think has the beginnings of a good idea. It just needs seen to successful and measurable completion. I feel there could possibly be practical application of quantum physics to consumer cd players if some calculations were explored and revealed initial positive results.

What I would immediately suggest (again at a high-level intellectual exercise only) is the following:

His "gadget", which I will continue to refer to it for ease of reading as well as reference, could be optimized in the following possible configurations to actually provide a change to the audio signal. There are I see two possible and different applications; the first being to strengthen the original laser from the consumer device. The second being increasing the positive optical properties of the cd media. I will address them in order:

1. Remove the constrictive packaging around the actual quantum array.
i. using the same or similar doping techniques as employed in semiconductor technology, take the optics of a cd player and dope them with the quantum array. If the orientation is wrong, merely re-package it and align it optically with the laser.
ii. this could potentially strengthen the laser of the consumer cd player. though no other merit could be realized in my opinion.
iii. to further explain in layman's terms, doping is kind of like applying a thin layer of shellac (which would be the atomic level quantum array)...in this case it would sort of act as a magnifying glass...but not magnifying resolution....magnifying *ENERGY*. To me, this seems like a valid approach. It also obeys thermodynamics and basic laws of physics.

2. Take the quantum array, and keep it in a separate package, but again introduce it directly into the line of sight as the cd player's laser. Of course modify the package and add optics if needed. This will serve as a valid source of laser light or energy. IF necessary, a very inexpensive beam splitter could be integrated into the quantum array's packaging to avoid hampering the original cd player's laser.
i. now we have our valid, properly energized source of quantum laser light (for lack of a better definition)...
ii. because we have kept the original beam as our source, it is no doubt still in concentrated beam form; and probably and possibly even stronger.. take THIS beam, and shine it onto the CD Medium either multiplexed with the OEM laser, or if it does not harm the OEM signal, blast it at the same time, at the CD.... this could *possibly* have the effect of temporarily improving the optical qualities of the CD -ROM material as Geoff proposed. But in a radically different way... instead of trying to change the properties of the entire disc, which even quick Fermi calculations reveal would require far more energy than is available in a consumer cd player, we only attempt to alter the OPTICAL properties of the very small region of CD that is at any moment under the laser.... that is orders of magnitude smaller and therefore requires orders of magnitude less energy; and again, using Fermi calculations, may even be possible in a consumer cd player.

After spending a little more time thinking on this, a viable, consumer-installable or useable version of this thing could be made by merely changing the dimensions of the packaging to encase the quantum array (if possible) between micro thin layers of transparent semi-metallic media and applying this directly to the surface of each CD. Economies of scale could bring costs down and consumers would just peel it from "my" packaging and place the now optically transparent film over each CD they wanted to treat. Again, totally just initial brainstorming of this phase. But somewhat a fun intellectual exercise.

So that's it.

Beyond Geoff's own writings, I have absolutely no scientific evidence that a quantum array would be of benefit to a cd player, but if I was going to try it, and assuming prior theoretical calculations indeed showed it would be an improvement, I would *START* and continue the research and carry it further with my proposed methods mentioned above.

That's all I really have to say on this topic. But if the underlying calculations to PROVE any efficacy whatsoever is possible were never carried out, it is by and large a waste of time and science fiction.

It is for these valid scientific thoughts I had that originally piqued my interest on Geoff's gadget. However again, if the groundwork of the true theoretical physics was never done, then the entire topic is moot.

Respectfully,

Ron

I suspect you two dudes can at least appreciate why the Intelligent Chip was the big star at CES in 2005 and dominated the forums for nine months 24/7 over on Audio Asylum that same year. Does it really work? Naw, it's just the placebo effect. Expectation bias. Hypnosis. Mass hysteria ... that I created

Can it pass a controlled blind test? That is the question! Ha ha ha. However if the stupid thing does work you got some explaining to do.

I include Michael because it's pretty clear he's in love with the whole science and technology thing and If you're actually right he wants his share of the credit. Lol I can see the wheels turning now, "there is no way this goddamn stupid thing is NOT variable tuning."

Geoff Kait
Mariachi Dramatica

Michael, I didn't say there was a chip explosion. You did. I said it was the most discussed an debated product in 2005 and actually ever. I can't help it if you were asleep at the wheel. Of,course, like everything else in audio, there are two sides to the story. And not only that there are reasons why some folks don't hear the chip, just like there are perfectly good reasons why some folks don't hear certain other tweaks or devices. Now that you mention it, aren't you the poster boy for being unable to hear any tweak unless it's your own? Lol

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynmica

michael green wrote:

Hi listeners

If you would like to read the results of a listener on TuneLand concerning the Schumann Resonance Device (rr77) in real time here is a thread to look at. http://tuneland.techno-zone.net/t288p150-greetings-from-malaysia

I'm sure there will be more listening and tests, but wanted to bump this so you could read a real time session on the topic.

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

That's nice, but this is Stereophioe Forum. How about providing a Synopsis of the Schumann RR-77 test HERE, on Stereophile? Not that I care too much about any particular test. It is what it is. But give us your conclusions anyway. Besides all I see is a bunch of dots on the site you linked to.

Cheerios,

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

michael green wrote:

Hi Geoff

Sorry your having a problem with the link. Seems to be working find.

here it is again

http://tuneland.techno-zone.net/t288p150-greetings-from-malaysia

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

It would appear you're having difficulty with the concept that we're having the discussion on Schumann Frequency generators here, on Stereophile Forum. Doh! Why would we wish to have two forums. Yes, I know, that way we can learn all about Tuning. What a concept! Another one borrowed from the used car dealers association, no doubt.

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

If you look hard enough you can usually find someone who will provide detailed negative reports on just about anything. Fortunately, one assumes, for Acoustic Revive, most of the reviews of their various versions of the Schumann frequency generator have been of the rave variety, including the recent review of the RR-888 device. Oh, well, that's how the cookie crumbles. Lol

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

michael green wrote:

I didn't re-post this as a good or bad review, but as an objective (recent) study from a great listener, upon your request.

You should send yours and May's products to him for review.

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

Great listener or not so great listener, his test is just a data point on the curve of experience and means only as much as you wish to read into it. I suspect his review can probably be thrown out as being just another outlier, given all the very positive reviews that have appeared over the years with respect to the Acousitc Revive Schumann frequency generators. Besides, it's a little strange he would choose the first Acoustic Revive device to review and not a later one, you know, an improved model, like the RR-888. The RR-77 is thirteen freaking years old.

Here are some awards:

French Magazine "Diapason" D`OR Award Gold Medal
U.S Audiophile Magazine "The Stereo Times" Most Wanted Components Award 2008
U.S Audiophile Magazine "6moon" Blue Moon Award
Audio Excellence Award Prize 2002 for accessories category

There are many reasons why some audiophile somewhere gets negative or NULL results for audiophile devices. Shall we review the reasons now? Let me know.....

Why on Earth would I send any of my products to someone who gets weird or unpredictable results for a product that has been fairly universally praised? Are you high? You know, jus because you refer to someone as a Great Listener or even if he thinks of himself as a Great Listener it doesn't necessarily follow that his conclusions of listening tests are true. That's what we call a logical fallacy. See, you just learned another one.

Here's a list of audiophile devices that have garnered negative reviews or at least negative campaigns by, one assumes, anti Tweakers, tweakaphobes or anti audiophiles.

The Tice Clock
The VPI brick
Shun Mook Mpingo disc
SteinMusic Harmonizer
Brilliant Pebbles crystals
Shakti Stone
Shakti Hallographs
The Intelligent Chip
The Clever Clock
Aftermarket Fuses, Isoclean, HiFi Tuning, Audio Magic, etc.
Ultra Tweeters
Silver Rainbow Foil
Teleportation Tweak
The Green Pen
SONEX acoustic foam squares

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

If anyone wants to ship me a gadget, I would LOVE to run the scientific method against it and draft a publishable review!

I may be able to build one with a breadboard and parts from Mouser...but a pre-built one would be nice.

;-)