| Columns Retired Columns & Blogs |
April 2, 2015 - 1:37am
#1
Vibration=Audio=Energy=Tuning
| Loudspeakers Amplification Digital Sources | |
Analog Sources Accessories Featured | |
Music Columns Retired Columns | |
Show Reports | |
Features Latest News Community | |
Resources Subscriptions |
© 2024 StereophileAVTech Media Americas Inc., USA
All rights reserved
I already addressed the audio signal in wires, cables and components. It's not vibration, it's not vibrational and it's not vibrational energy. In order to vibrate the signal must have mass, which it doesn't since the wave is comprised of photons. Write, "the audio signal in wires and cables is comprised of photons" on the blackboard a hundred times.
The reason you go down the road smoothly in your car is because the shock absorbers are acting as vibration Isolators. The shock absorbers are just like springs, they either are springs or gas springs, they have spring rates and resonant frequencies. So if it's that smooth ride your looking for I suggest you invest heavily in vibration isolation stands, you know, so as not to jiggle that sensitive audio signal.
Cheers,
Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica
Your NASA friends disagree with you, Geoff.
Fact is, if the audio signal was not vibratory related there would be no affect at all when applying any physical treatment.
michael green
MGA/RoomTune
http://tuneland.techno-zone.net/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_signal
"An audio signal is a representation of sound, typically as an electrical voltage. Audio signals have frequencies in the audio frequency range of roughly 20 to 20,000 Hz (the limits of human hearing). Audio signals may be synthesized directly, or may originate at a transducer such as a microphone, musical instrument pickup, phonograph cartridge, or tape head. Loudspeakers or headphones convert an electrical audio signal into sound. Digital representations of audio signals exist in a variety of formats."
The audiophile can not have things both ways. We all know that audio parts sound different from each other which means they respond to physical reactions. We can look up thousands of topics to show this such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaction_(physics) .
Let's do an experiment to show how the physical is a vibratory part of the audio signal.
Take two different wire types. One can be silver for example and the other copper.
Run an audio signal through both of these and listen or measure how the sound has changed. The physical signal conduit has become part of the original signal itself. Physics is all about vibratory interaction. Vibratory broken down means "back and forth" or "spherically oscillative". It's the foundation of movement, time, travel and space. In music terms it relates to pitch and timbre, and the fundamentals of a note structure. A cycle is the measurement of a vibratory (oscillative) unit in motion.
Audio as we know it has two parts. One the language of the info, and two, the movement of the info. As soon as the info is in motion it is called analog: of or relating to a mechanism that represents data by measurement of a continuous physical variable, as voltage or pressure. Tuning is the method used to adjust the physical variable.
The key word here is "variable". Mechanical conduits that host the audio signal are all analog, and all become a part of the signals reaction to signal flow. Signal flow=mass+mechanics+language. Mass: the physical conduit, mechanism: the connected parts in motion, language: the recorded code. The audio signal does not travel in a vacuum: space that is devoid of matter. Your audio system is made of physical conduits, from the air pressure produced by the instrument or effect produced synthetically, all the way through the audio chain. It's all physical (analog), and each part of the signal flow takes on the mechanism signature of the entire dissipative environment. Doesn't matter what "materials" or "physics force" is within the range of dissipation, they all are part of the audio signal, to a lesser or greater amount. This is called "the audio environment". The audio environment is completely vibratory based, and the audio signal within that environment is made up of a moving flow influenced and a part of that all the physical conditions. In other words, there is no way to separate the moving signal from the moving mass. Because of the interactions and intermingling of energy the audio signal is a variable audio chain.
michael green
MGA/RoomTune
http://tuneland.techno-zone.net/
Let's go back to lab mode to show us more about the physics of audio.
The proof of physics never fails.
Take a component, can be an amp, player or any other part of the audio chain. Play this component in a system and listen to it's signature. Now take the housing away from this component along with anything that is holding it together still leaving the audio chain connected. If the audio signal were not vibrating you would not hear any change, and yet you do.
Start making physical changes to this audio chain and you will notice that with almost any "environment change" the sound changes. The audio signal as I said above is a part of the mechanism "sound character". The two (in motion language and vibration) are one and can't be separated from each other. This interaction is called "mechanical transfer" and it takes place anytime you pass any type of signal through a "Mechanical Conduit".
Let's prove the interaction.
Disconnect any part of this physical mechanical flow (audio chain) and the sound (audio signal) will stop. Touch the parts again and the sound is now moving "through" the chain. Seems pretty simple right? The audio system and the audio signal become one and the same and dependent on each other to make sound. If there is a disconnect any where in the audio chain, whether it be air born or motor born you will not be able to hear the signal. The audio signal needs vibratory conduits to flow through and be a part of.
michael green
MGA/RoomTune
http://tuneland.techno-zone.net/
You can take a recording around with you to any other system in the world, and every one of the those audio chains will sound different. All of them have a unique set of environments for the audio signal to pass through. Plus every one of those audio chains reacts differently to each mechanical (physical) condition it is placed in. Even the most scientifically advanced testing component needs to be put into focus, calibrated and tuned.
You'll hear people come up on these threads talking about "isolation" somehow "correcting" a broken signal, saving it from Bad Vibes, but if this were truly the case and accurate, after the dampening was done why do these components need "calibrating"? The microscope is brought up as an example of stability once dampened, but you'll notice that the writers never bring up the adjustments available and neccessary to view a subject. The key word "variables" is left out of these talks. They would have you believe that you put a component on some type of isolation table or pad and somehow magically the audio signal is corrected. Fact is an audio signal isn't broken, it's just like a subject on a microscope, or a camera focusing in on an object. The audio signal to sound accurate needs to be tuned in, just like visual objects do.
This hobby and sense is not automatic. In fact sound is still in the range of feeling and is extremely variable. Your ears are one of the most sophisticated tools created and involved in constant variable tuning. The hobby of extreme music listening is not one based on fixed sounds of components only able to give one viewpoint and being judge. Quite the opposite. Having an audio chain is only the beginning to the hobby of listening. With every recording being of different codes and values, the art and science of variable focus is the next level to the hobby. The reason why the high end audio has been derailed is not because it is so revealing, but because it is not adjustable. It's like having the worlds best microscope with no focusing adjustments or calibrating. You might put on a few things that happen to be in focus, but most of the objects are blured when looked at through the same setting.
michael green
MGA/RoomTune
http://tuneland.techno-zone.net/
Just because the audio signal has a frequency doesn't mean it is a vibration, as I already pointed out. You are confusing frequency with vibration. A big hand of a clock is on the number 12 once every hour, that is the frequency. But that is not a vibration. You don't believe clocks are vibration, do you, well, maybe you do? I go to sleep once per day, that is a frequency. But it's not a vibration. You just won't take no for an answer. As Dr. Shaw said in the movie Prometheus, "it's what I choose to believe." You need to reach out and touch some better educated NASA friends. Get them over here and let's debate the subject, I won't mind. Are you supposed to be their translator or something? Did you suddenly know what they know by osmosis? Lol
I'd be wary of using NASAS the end all and do all of science, you know, considering what happened with the Challenge Shuttle, the loss of lives on the other Shuttle that burned up during reentry when the thermal tiles came loose, the loss of spacecraft due to overlooking converting meters to feet, and the whole Hubble Spacecraft lens debacle.
Cheers,
Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica
>>>>>>>Well actually, your particular experiment does fail to prove your point. There are many reasons why removing the housing and some parts of the component improves the sound. The failure is to identify the correct reason why the sound improves. This is an excellent example of why one shouldn't jump to conclusions when performing any experiments. The signal in wires is susceptible to vibration, but that doesn't mean the signal in wires is vibration. The mechanical vibration coming up from the floor and the acoustic (mechanical) vibration in the air are causing the housing to vibrate which is affecting the signal in wires. Just as shaking a magnet will disturb and excite the magnetic field lines. Yet the magnetic field lines are NOT vibration. Follow? If the housing is steel the other possibility is that the toxic magnetic field is reduced by removing the housing, just like removing the transformer. Your experiment actually IS evidence that one should use damping and or isolation on the component to reduce the vibration of the housing and all the internal parts. See what I mean, jelly bean?
Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica
As I have tried to point out previously, apparently unsuccessfully, damping (dampening) is not the same thing as isolation. So, it's best not to use the terms interchangeably. The article Bad Vibes by Shannon Dickson addressed primarily isolation, which is almost always the mass-on-spring concept use in almost All vibration isolation devices, including my own Nimbus sub Hertz platform, Vibraplane, all those air bladder or air spring devices, tennis ball devices, etc. Damping a housing stops the housing from vibrating or at least reduces the vibration, which can be produced by the transformer, CD transport mechanism, structural vibration, etc. The lower the frequency of vibration the more difficult it is to stop it entirely with either damping or isolation. Isolating the component prevents or substantially reduces structural vibration from coming up from the floor and exciting the housing or anything inside to vibrate. An example of why isolation is a good idea, the ONLY effective idea, is the turntable tonearm and the stereo cartridge, both of which have resonant frequencies of about 10-12 Hz, too low to be treated effectively using damping techniques. Therefore the tonearm and the cartridge will vibrate when forced by vibration with frequencies in the 10-12 Hz range, no? And since the audio signal is distorted by the vibration of the tonearm and cartridge audio performance will be improved if we can prevent the structural vibration from reaching the tonearm and cartridge, no? It is the VERY LOW frequencies we are trying to eliminate or reduce by ISOLATION whereas damping tends to focus on higher mechanical vibration frequencies, generally speaking. Since the 10-12 Hz frequencies are critical, we can actually eliminate the acoustic waves in the room as culprits since almost no speakers produce acoustic signals that low in frequency.
Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica
As I mention elsewhere, the magnetic flux lines of a magnet are subject to being shaken or moved by external forces. Yet, magnetic lines of flux are not vibration. Thus it is with audio signals in wires, they are not vibration, yet they are SUBJECT to vibration, you know, being electromagnetic in nature. Whew! That was a close one! Lol. You could also say a house is subject to vibration, yet we would all probably agree that a house is not vibration, it's not vibrational, it's not vibrational energy, none of those things. Unless you wish to make the argument philosophical, but I don't think that's what you have in mind.
Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica
What I read is Geoff saying the audio signal is indeed variable, and even though he chooses to stick to his guns and not go in for the common forces of physics, as his former employer does, that's about as close as Geoff will probably get to saying the signal is vibration, and that's OK with us.
Thanks for your point of view Geoff and Happy Easter!
michael green
MGA/RoomTune
http://tuneland.techno-zone.net/
You are misinformed or lying. Take your pick. My former employer ironically made a lot of mistakes and they were finally held accountable although they tried to squirm out of it. It was my classmate in fact who finally held them accountable for the Challenger disaster. I suggest you get someone, anyone, to argue your case for you since you are obviously a complete novice on the subject of physics. You do take a very pretty picture, though.
Cheers,
Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica
You'll have to take up your arguements with nasa and the science community I'm afraid.
I'm a little busy at the moment tuning in "UP" for the TuneLand readers http://tuneland.techno-zone.net/t169p150-hiend001-s-system . While your here saying this can't be the case we are tuning the audio signal on-line around the world as we speak. A lot more fun doing, than reading you say "it can't be done" lol.
michael green
MGA/RoomTune
http://tuneland.techno-zone.net/
I don't think you quite understand. NASA has no credibility after all their mistakes. My friend brought NASA to its knees. And if you think you speak for the scientific community you've been smoking too much dope. You should stick to posing for pretty photos and marketing.
Bring it down. Bring it all down.
Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica
Interestingly enough I actually do take in a fair amount of science sems and courses. Have one on the 7th as a matter of fact. Science "Labs" are my favorite. The courses are OK, but I'm more of a hands on guy. Still many of the speakers of the last few years have brought a lot of new energy to the teaching and of course the advent of webinars is wonderful. 3D-resolved simulations have come a long way. Now you can look at the interactions of the vibratory codes on most material mingle, where only 10 years ago and back this field was only experimental guessing. 3D models go way deeper than the scopes did. Big difference looking at a 3D model vs a flat wave screen. It's looking inside of something in cubed (spherical) form as opposed to viewing something as a flat square. 10 years ago we were looking at science as a flat screen, now we see it as a hologram. Holograms are not new of course but the conversion from screen to hologram is one of the biggest technologies that will soon be a part of every day life.
You see Geoff, times are and have been moving forward even though someone & someones like you decided to stick with the old school, and in your case flame the new, as if it didn't exist when in fact "new" science is moving at lightening speed past the stuck. Of course signal is vibratory, it's not 1 or 2D, and it sounds kinda silly when you try to put it in a context that "science" my friend has by-passed in every day life a while ago. Geoff you may fool a few with a flame or two, and even fool people into thinking that you and I have some sort of intellectual fight going on, to which I say people can look at your website vs mine. They can view your static site pushing 1980's Sony Walkman Cassette Players, or they can be a part of the now and future. From your view you have said "the soundstage is not important" and "Digital is dead". And it's true that there are some who have not been successful like yourself in using these tools, but the rest of the world are getting themselves ready for the 3D world just around the corner. They can listen to "one" view of a piece of music which is what you promote (claiming it is right and all else is wrong), or they can see a 3D image of the entire space and tune in that stage. Many audiophiles don't even know what distortion is, even though they are listening to a 2D distorted stage, but that's OK Geoff, the wheels of technology never fall off. There will always be successful audiophiles and those who are not so.
So, as you do what ever it is you do inside of your "no soundstage" world I wish you and yours the very best, but this is not where the future is going, sorry. On one hand though, you got it down. There are and will be a lot of portable stereos out there. I've been listening to a lot of them and the new formats. On the other side of things in-room systems are going to have a much different look and performance than what we are use to now. We are moving in a far more 3D lifestyle and our hologram visual is to be matched by our hologram audio, which happens to be very much about stage. BTW, we are also apart of the visual end, as we are designing the variable auto-adjust networks. But I guess that's too much on the science/promotion side for you? LOL your a funny old man. I'm sure you'll keep the dinosaurs entertained till the Titanic is well under water :)
This has been a Tuning Promotion. The views expressed may not be the views of the old and stuck in their ways.
michael green
MGA/RoomTune
http://tuneland.techno-zone.net/
Geoff says
"Thus it is with audio signals in wires, they are not vibration, yet they are SUBJECT to vibration, you know, being electromagnetic in nature." and "Just because the audio signal has a frequency doesn't mean it is a vibration, as I already pointed out. You are confusing frequency with vibration."
But again the learned community disagrees with geoff.
Oxford says frequencies are:
"the rate at which a vibration occurs that constitutes a wave, either in a material (as in sound waves), or in an electromagnetic field"
wiki says
"Frequency is an important parameter used in science and engineering to specify the rate of oscillatory and vibratory phenomena, such as mechanical vibrations, audio signals, radio waves, and light."
Northwestern/nasa research says
"frequenies are vibratory units of signal", "both mechanical and radio waves"
Indiana University
" we may sense the vibrations with our body or extrapolate the fundamental pitch from the higher audible frequencies"
Science & math
"Frequency is the number of vibrations made per second"
Britannica
"frequency, in physics, number of waves that pass a fixed point in unit time; also the number of cycles or vibrations undergone during one unit of time by a body in periodic motion. A body in periodic motion is said to have undergone one cycle or one vibration after passing through a series of events or positions and returning to its original state. See also simple harmonic motion.
the period, or time interval, required to complete one cycle or vibration"
St. George University
"frequency of a wave refers to how often the particles of the medium vibrate when a wave or signal passes through the medium"
Yale
"From the point of view of physics, the audio signal is considered to be the waves of vibratory motion themselves"
mg
I can list hundreds of referencies that say frequencies are indeed vibrations geoff. The audio signal and the electromagnetic fields are vibratory based. And as anyone can look up 'variable". Which brings us back to the OP Vibration=Audio=Energy=Tuning
michael green
MGA/RoomTune
http://tuneland.techno-zone.net/
Michael, your last post is an excellent example why it is bad practice for someone like me with a background and education in physics to debate Physics with someone who apparently never went to school, much less studied physics. We've already been through all of this already. You are Obviously confused by the basic terminology of physics. For example, you cited someone as saying,
"Frequency is the number of vibrations per second."
That is true, and something we can agree on. But frequency does not EQUAL vibration. Hel-loo! Don't you feel like strangling your Dayton high school science teacher now?
We have already found out that frequency doesn't equal vibration and we both actually agree when acoustic waves travel through the air they produce vibration due to the MASS of the air molecules. So that's hardly news. Don't you realize cutting and pasting stuff you find on the internet is not only inadmissible evidence but buttresses my contention that you probably went no farther than high school in Dayton?
To try to get you back on track in this discussion what we are actually discussing is why you don't believe in damping or vibration for electronic components, that you believe it's best to "let the audio signal flow" without external interference. And my position is that you are completely incorrect in your belief and that in fact the audio signal in components - in the wires, capacitors, transformers, etc. are DISTORTED by vibration from various sources - external sources like the Earth's crust motion, traffic, subways, wind, and internal sources like the transformer, the CD transport drive, capacitors as well as a acoustic waves (remember, we both AGREE acoustic waves in the air ARE vibration). And it's because the audio signal in the components are subject to external and internal vibration that vibration damping and vibration isolation applied to the components, done correctly of course, are effective in reducing distortion in the ultimate sound of the system. But I digress. This is not exactly news. The real question here is WHERE HAVE YOU BEEN FOR THE LAST TWENTY YEARS?!
If you really want to score some points find a reference in any NASA publication, any reference, where NASA has experimented with anything for audio applications. Whether it be vibration isolation, vibration damping, cryogenics, anything. The whole argument you're trying to make using NASA as some sort of final arbiter of this discussion is quite irrelevant. Same goes for MIT, Yale, or the Science Community.
Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica
Interesting debate geoff, but I'm afraid your having it with yourself.
I don't know of any science institution that is going to bite on the audio signal not being vibratory. As well any audio parts companies. What do you see when you look at any parts spec? Also another question for you. Why do two different companies building the exact same valued parts, sound different? Lets go a step deeper. I have this last 9 months been testing Capacitors of the exact same values, and they all sound different. Same with resistors, wires and other goodies with the same results. So to make it simple if I have 12 different 2.2 caps all according to the manufacture being exactly the same set of values, why do they all sound different?
The answer from the parts designers themselves is the vibratory differences in the materials being used. Talking with one of the designers/engineers in Vishay's lab, it is his description that the part actually is the analog signal. The other parts labs follow suit. As any mechanical formula interactions take place so does the vibratory code. This in fact is how they determine values to begin with.
Also notice that each symbol used in any part or piece of the analog audio chain has a Vibratory code attached to it. Cycle=Frequency=Vibratory
So as you might want to be spinning this into some other topic, I am the OP-ster, and the OP is a challenge to the myth makers in audiophile circles, saying inaccurate statements within the hobby concerning the values of dampening. Dampening is nothing more than the minus side of signal tuning. It's a tool like any other that has a mechanical interaction with the other materials hosting the signal resulting in the changed performance of the signal itself.
michael green
MGA/RoomTune
http://tuneland.techno-zone.net/
Unfortunately for your argument there are many reasons why capacitors sound different even though they measure the same. Just like there are many reasons why fuses and cables can sound different but measure the same. Some of the reasons are (1) the wire is installed in the wrong direction, (2) the color of the capacitor jacket is the "wrong" color and (3) the internal and external materials using in the construction including the metal used for the wire vary and also affect the sound. And none of these reasons has to do with vibration. But I can certainly understand why someone even a manufacturer or designer or you would jump to the conclusion that it has something to do with vibration. It's because they and you have failed to employ the scientific method, which involves INVESTIGATION of a phenomenon, you know, rather than jump to conclusions when you OBSERVE a phenomenon. Well, in a way you are actually close, capacitors DO vibrate. Everyone knows that! Geez! That's precisely why Marigo VTS dots were introduced what 25 years ago! Hel-Looo! Capacitors vibrate during their operation, it's the way they work. and some can vibrate more than others, that would not be very surprising. And some would vibrate in the presence of large transformers, etc. BUT that vibration is not good for the audio signal, which is SEPARATE from the capacitor itself, which travels through it, which should NOT vibrate. I mean, unless you enjoy listening to a distorted signal. You probably forgot the two dudes from Pittsburg on this forum last year who experimented with cork on capacitors, and reported that the sound was much better. Pop Quiz: See if you can guess why cork might improve the sound of capacitors. Extra credit: is this a case of the Backfire Effect? You know, when you ignore evidence that contradicts your avowed position? Lol
Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica
Gentlemen:
This has gone on for quite awhile... I think I can settle it; leaving names out and abstracting to viewpoints; in this case quite opposing ones.
Nobody is "wrong"!
From what I can gather, one person is saying that suppressing vibrations in audiophile equipment aids in reproducing the original sound the artist intended by eliminating latent vibrations. That makes sense. Hence anechoic chambers as the ideal proving ground of speakers.
On the other hand, another gentleman proposes each system has "character" or perhaps to more generally paraphrase: adding artificial damping mechanisms to audiophile grade equipment somewhat diminishes the signal; or takes the "character" or perhaps sparkle and other organic adjectives that can be used to describe the MUSIC one ultimately hears.
Guess what? You are BOTH right. It's all up to individual pereferences. We are not all cyborgs or clones. we are all individuals with differing tastes of what is "good".
Simple VARY similar debate: Tubes vs Solid State. Which is better? I dunno. I love both in different ways. Maybe hybrid? Who knows?
Please I hope this clears the air.
And if my summation itself missed the mark or intent of either viewpoint, then I fear you both have diluted and contorted the topic so much the original idea or debate is now lost. I welcome intellectual debate, but please let's not take it or make it personal. Even if I have missed your original points, I think you both are passionate about your viewpoints and after reading over this even more than a few times, you BOTH have good points. It's a "truce".
Rant and Rave WITH each other...not AT each other.
Finally, I also don't mean to take on the rule of "Judge" and "Peace Keeper", but to see this debate in my opinion it went personal and too far and I felt compelled to try to clear the air and settle it amicably.
Kind Regards,
Ronald R. Stesiak
Research Scientist
National Science Foundation
Hi RR
Thanks for the comments. This is just geoff doing what he does. I don't pay much attention to him anymore except to see the numbers of readers. Most of the people who really care to talk about these topics for real come to http://tuneland.techno-zone.net/ . Took me a while to figure out that geoff was here to internet troll and not really be a part of a topic, so I now just come up, give my info, wait for geoff or one of the other trolls to come up, then when I feel enough people have viewed I go about my way. If not it just turns into an un-moderated spin.
Old news! Different day.
Bottom line is, every thing geoff is saying anyway points to a Vibratory signal, and whether someone gets it or not, doesn't really have much to do with the fact that a higher breed of listener is spending their time moving to a more complete form of this hobby. Variable tuning is taking off much like it did back in the early 90's and that's what I'm here to promote. The geoff troll issue is just a side note to drive around.
Saying that, again thanks for your imput and love for the hobby.
michael green
MGA/RoomTune
http://tuneland.techno-zone.net/
michael green:
Thank you for your kind reply and reinforcing yet clarifying your main viewpoint in a clear way. As for the other gent, I hope he too sees the truce and I would like to gently add we shouldn't shun anyone unless they truly are getting on our personal nerves; that is probably a very healthy coping mechanism. But I also carefully want to caution against suppressing what may be very different or even oppositional viewpoints; as I really do enjoy all of the varied and largely intelligent and intellectual responses from this community at large. You can see I am very new here..and no doubt will accidentally ruffle a few feathers if given enough time! But I hope to do so with careful, kind moderation and consideration to opposing viewpoints; as earlier stated.
Again, I feel like I am sounding like a "Judge" and I don't mean to. I'll also be quiet now on the topic and again thank you for your kind reply.
Listen On!
Respectfully,
Ron
Welcome to Stereophile!
It took me a while to figure it out, cause on my forum everyone is so excited about sound, so after a few go rounds and being pulled into the spins, I reacted the wrong way and had to readjust my thinking.
With "tuning" we believe all ways are part of the whole, and that's our goal. Not to point to one way but incorporate methods of listening that allow us to get to any place at anytime. So what we have noticed on this forum is some of the people are cool and others can't grab the thought that we (tunees) are not here to say you have to do it this or that way, but that all ways fit under the umbrella of variable. Every recording is sacred in it's own right, and we spend our time not judging it from only one view but do our best to let it shine.
And yep, on here with so many wanting their view to be "the" view, some can't deal with someone who says "ok that's one view but lets also look at it from this angle".
Looking forward to reading and getting to know you!
michael green
MGA/RoomTune
http://tuneland.techno-zone.net/
Sidestepping the name calling for a moment let me draw your attention to the following article on the dodgy subject of propagation of the electromagnetic wave, both through a vacuum and through a medium.
http://www.physicsclassroom.com/mmedia/waves/em.cfm
Comments welcome.
Cheers,
Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica
Geoff:
I am very glad you replied as well, representing your unique view.
I studied the subject material within physics as an undergrad; but I fear I am losing your connection of that material as it applies to audiophiles.
Could you maybe summarize your general premise and conclusion and viewpoint? I am genuinely interested to hear your perspective in addition to any other forum members, of course. Forgive me if perhaps you have already done so in this thread; however, a shorter summary explaining it as it correlates to audiophiles again would be beneficial. All are welcome to debate and intellectualize and discuss!
Respectfully,
Ron
Ron, I'm afraid it's not my unique view as you put it. If you wish to understand where I'm coming from with respect to both physics and audio I suggest you scan the posts I've made here over the past half year or so. There are simply too many threads to try to summarize them in a nice tidy package for you. If you have some particular heartburn over some technical issue then by all means share, share. I saw a Linkedin page for someone with your name, with expertise in computational finance. Am I wrong to assume that person is you?
Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica
Michael, you said :-
>>> “I have this last 9 months been testing Capacitors of the exact same values, and they all sound different. Same with resistors, wires and other goodies with the same results.” <<<
Last 9 months !!!!!!!!!!!!! We were investigating the differences in the sound from components of exactly the same values in the late 1970s !!!!!!!!!!!!! Some 36 plus years ago !!! Where have you been, Michael ???
Even more interesting Michael, 24 years ago in Stereophile,
Martin Colloms did an extremely interesting and thought provoking article on the effect on the sound of PASSIVE components – PASSIVE components, Michael, which are NOT carrying an audio signal !!
Under the heading :- “The sound quality of passive electronic components: capacitors, resistors, inductors, cables.” Martin wrote :-
On passive resistors.
>>> “For example, listening tests have revealed audible differences between groups of metal-film and other types of resistor used in audio equipment. In these tests, the listeners had no interest or foreknowledge of the resistor types, and would not have known how to identify them even had they felt like trying.........
On passive capacitors.
All of the capacitors tested were used well within their ratings. Their internal design, foils and electrolyte chemistry were different, however...... The engineers involved were astonished to find that the capacitor differences were highly significant, determining between 20% and 30% of the overall performance of the amplifier...... No measurable differences were observed for the complete amplifier using any of these capacitors.” <<<
Martin further describes the differences in sound when using different materials for the printed circuit boards.
He says :-
>>> “Conventional electronic wisdom indicates that while pcb quality may be relevant above 50MHz, it is of no importance to audio amplification”. <<<
And, yet, Martin’s actual tests showed the different materials used for printed circuit boards to be significant with regards to the resulting sound !!!
So, let us look at these findings more closely. What do we have ? We have passive resistors made from different materials (and different chemical mixtures and different colours) but showing no changes in their measurements and yet giving different sound. We have passive capacitors made from different materials (and different chemical mixtures and different colours) but showing no changes in their measurements and yet giving different sound. We have printed circuit boards made from different materials (and different chemical mixtures - phenolic paper., bonded paper., glass., epoxy) but showing no changes in their measurements and yet giving different sound.
Why ? Because it is not the audio signal which is being affected !!!!!!
Martin’s results merely echoed what Peter and I had discovered in the early 1980s when designing and manufacturing our actively driven low mass diaphragm orthodynamic speaker system and which I have described much more fully in my various talks.
I repeat, Michael. Martin Collom’s article concentrated on describing the effect of PASSIVE components on the sound. Are you still insisting that vibrations equals audio regarding PASSIVE components when there is NO audio signal travelling through them ? And yet they can have an effect on the sound !!
Regards
May Belt,
PWB Electronics.
Geoff:
Thank you for welcoming me to Sterophile as well! In my opinion, folks here are highly educated, articulate, and fun to interact with and learn. I will take your advice and scan through some of your posts as well as references to see your viewpoint on this hobby. To me, at a very high level, it is like an art form combined with science! As for your specific reply, just like we do in science, we write "Abstracts" of our papers... could you reply with an abstract of sorts of your viewpoint in this specific thread to start? I sincerely am curious as to your views.
As for my education, yes, that's me. I studied Computational Finance at Carnegie Mellon, but am now published as co-author and writing another paper in the field of Computational Neuroscience sponsored by The National Science Foundation. Believe it or not, the two can be mathematically very similar. I am also finishing my own paper back in my primary area of Computational Finance. My name is unique, so a general web query on it will reveal a lot about my works.
Are you also in a scientific or financial field?
Kind Regards,
Ronald R. Stesiak
Research Scientist
National Science Foundation
Michael, you said :-
>>> “It's all physical (analog), and each part of the signal flow takes on the mechanism signature of the entire dissipative environment. Doesn't matter what "materials" or "physics force" is within the range of dissipation, they all are part of the audio signal, to a lesser or greater amount. This is called "the audio environment". The audio environment is completely vibratory based,
Interestingly enough, I actually do take in a fair amount of science sems and courses. Have one on the 7th as a matter of fact. Science "Labs" are my favorite.” <<<
So, Michael, from the “science sems and courses” you have attended, have the scientists presenting those sems and courses explained to you just how some things which we know have an effect on the sound ARE actually having that effect because of vibrations ?? Is that what you are claiming ?
Many of us are aware that different colours affect the sound.
Now it is known that different colours ARE different frequencies but have the scientists presenting the sems and courses you refer to and which you say you have attended explained how the different colours can be affecting the sound (which you claim is vibratory) so as to change the sound of the musical information of such as Dvorak’s New World ?? Because this is what we are talking about. Changing musical information.
Many of us are aware that different chemicals affect the sound. Have the scientists presenting the sems and courses you refer to and which you say you have attended explained how the different chemicals can be affecting the sound (which you claim is vibratory) so as to change the sound of the musical information of such as Dvorak’s New World ?? ?? Because this is what we are talking about. Changing musical information.
Many of us are aware that empty (unused) sockets (including empty AC power sockets) have an adverse effect on the sound. Have the scientists presenting the sems and courses you refer to and which you say you have attended explained how inserting something into the empty socket can be affecting the sound (which you claim is vibratory) sufficiently to give an improvement in the sound of the musical information of such as Dvorak’s New World ?? ??
Because this is what we are talking about. Changing musical information.
Have the scientists presenting the sems and courses you refer to and which you say you have attended explained how introducing such as the Schuman Resonance device into a listening environment can be affecting the sound (which you claim is vibratory) sufficiently to give an improvement in the sound of the musical information of such as Dvorak’s New World ?? ?? Because this is what we are talking about. Changing musical information.
Methinks Geoff is correct. That you are choosing to ignore all anomalies which might challenge the concept you are putting forward i.e the concept of Vibration = Audio = Energy = Tuning.
OR. Are you claiming that the scientists presenting the ‘sems and courses’ you have attended are stating that it is ‘vibrations’ from colours, from chemicals, from empty sockets, from passive components and passive cables etc which are having an effect on the audio signal (the musical information) travelling through the audio system and therefore THAT is the explanation as to why and how the ‘sound’ (the musical information) is being changed ?
One of your latest sentences is correct – it is open looking :-
>>> “With “tuning” we believe all ways are part of the whole, and that's our goal. Not to point to one way but incorporate methods of listening that allow us to get to any place at anytime.” <<<
You then go on to say :-
>>> “We are not here to say you have to do it this or that way, but that all ways fit under the umbrella of variable.” <<<
But, Michael, the majority of your writings (and aims), since you started posting on Stereophile Forum some four years ago, is to (at best) ignore all the “fixed” methods of improving the sound of people’s audio equipment and music and (at worst) to deliberately discourage people from trying and using “fixed” methods and to only use variable methods..
Thereby contradicting your earlier claim “not to point to one way but incorporate methods of listening”. !! With your constant mantra of My method is THE method, My truth is THE truth and My answer is THE answer.
That is what I challenge about your approach and always have done.
One minute you keep insisting that yours is a “hands on” approach and that you prefer it that way – i.e. not to be trying to constantly explain everything from a scientific point of view but, with your latest posting (this one) you now seem to be trying to insist that the scientific community CAN explain everything which people have experienced can change the ‘sound’. And that that explanation is “Vibrations are everything” !!!!
>>> “And yep, on here with so many wanting their view to be "the" view, some can't deal with someone who says "ok that's one view but lets also look at it from this angle".” <<<
If only, Michael. Unfortunately, these past 4 years, it is YOU who has been wanting your “view” to be THE view, for your “method” to be THE method, for your “answer” to be THE answer, and for your “truth” to be THE truth.
Now, before you react I know that there is such a thing as ‘vibrations’ but if you want to explain such effects on the sound from different colours in the room as ‘vibrational’, or the effect on the sound from different chemicals in the room as ‘vibrational’, then you have to explain how those ‘vibrations’ from colours and chemicals can affect the audio signal travelling through the audio system !!
You made a definite statement :-
>>> “The audio environment is completely vibratory based,” <<<
Is it really SO definite ?????????????
In another section (Tweaks) you said :-
>>> “In our testing we have found that "everything affects everything else". In 1989 we started RoomTune and put this into practice.” <<<
Yes, I have always agreed with you that “everything in the listening environment affects everything else”.
You then went on to say :-
>>> “Within a year we went from the acoustical end only to what is now called MGA/RoomTune incorporating all the parts of the audio system and everything within the scope of the system.” <<<
Surely incorporating everything within the scope of the whole system means using BOTH ‘fixed’ and ‘variable’ techniques.
Which SURELY means using the differences which colours can have on the sound, the differences which chemicals can have on the sound, the difference which blocking empty (unused) sockets can have on the sound etc. etc.???
You said :-
>>> “they all are part of the audio signal, to a lesser or greater amount. This is called "the audio environment". The audio environment is completely vibratory based,” <<<
So, are YOU saying that the different colours, the different chemicals etc which affect the sound are all ‘part of the audio signal’ and that the different colours and the different chemicals are ‘completely vibratory based’ ???
Are you claiming that the scientists presenting the ‘sems and courses’ you have attended say that the different colours and the different chemicals which affect the sound are ‘all part of the audio signal’ and are ‘completely vibratory based’ ?
Regards,
May Belt,
PWB Electronics.
Hi, Ron, again, welcome to the forum. I am a theoretical physics major, Aerospace Engineering with math major along with theoretical fluid dynamics and propulsion. Your connection to Africa telecommunications is interesting because I have a background in telecommunications, in particular satellites. I also had a friend who was a professor at American U. Who had the same interest, one assumes, I.e., distance learning. I designed the FAA first telecomm satellite system and was in the Spread Spectrum Group at Computer Sciences Corp. back in the good old days with Milstar and the Navy satellite system. HF systems a plus, I'm talking really big log periodics as well as portable antennas. I was in the group that supported the FAA and NTSB for air crashes on the communications side. In audio I am the inventor of the Super Intelligent Chip, the Ultra Signature Version of the Clever Little Clock, Audio's first sub Hertz vibration isolation platform, the Quantum Temple Bell, Brilliant Pebbles (the first comprehensive audio application of mineral crystals), Dark Matter infrared (invisible) light absorber for CD players, comprehensive set of coloring pens for CDs and Blu Ray discs, and other things too numerous to mention.
Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica
First, my apologies to the OP, Michael Green, for hi-jacking the thread! It has turned into a meet-and-greet! But at least it was hi-jacked for a good cause! :)
After my additional background which overlaps somewhat with Geoff's, I will release the thread back to you! Thank you for your patience.
Before I go into the rest of my background; however, I would still be interested in a synopsis of sorts on Geoff's opinion of the topic of this thread. I think I can see where Michael is coming from, but I would like to compare his impressions with others as well. Without further delay, this is a quick blurb of the rest of my background:
Before I changed careers to pure science, I actually have about 18 years invested in Information technology. All of which for Verizon in one form or another and one venture of my own.
My specific duties before management were monitoring 24x7 of our NOC; Network Operations Center, for southeast United states. Some of my duties were High Availability, aka "5 nines"... Or 99.999% uptime equating to only minutes of down time annually. As well as geographic fault tolerance. Further roles included systems architecture, database architecture and design and programming, and c programming of our encryption algorithms and other server side software used in telecommunications with Business to Business communications. My career there culminated in Manager of International Marketing and Product Develepment within Verizon Business in Colorado Springs, CO. I truly enjoyed my IT career and about 5 years ago transitioned to Scientific Reaearch. Oddly enough, I also have always had an artistic background and education and am also a part time Graphic Designer in both print and electronic forms.
That's me.
:)
Ps. I did develop a business plan as well as high level and detailed architecture for a Telecommunications Company in Africa with a Satellite backbone to Internet. I unfortunately was not able to procure the final round of Venture Capital but the experience was good.
I believe the audio signal in wires and in electronics devices such as capacitors is subject to distortion from a number of sources. I do not believe that it is bad for the sound to employ damping techniques where feasible and to employ vibration isoaltion wherever feasible and cost effective. I definitely am not on board the whole "Let the vibrations Flow" concept threat seems to be the heart of Michael's Tuning enterprise. I also happen to believe that vibration is an unwanted commodity for turntables, the tonearm wires, the platter and the tonearm and cartridge. I also believe that vibration should be reduced inside CD players and amps by isolating all circuit boards and damping the transformers and CD transport mechanism. I believe that the Earth's crust motion (microseismic activity) is bad for the sound, and can only be defeated by heroic efforts in the design of the isolating device due to it's (Earth crust's motion) extremely low frequency. I also happen to believe the influence of acoustic waves in the room (on equipment) is rather less important sonically than the very low frequency vibrations I'm referring to. And that feedback from speakers playing should be dealt with using isolation techniques.
Cheers,
Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica
Each of you presented your points clearly, and my original observation stands: I personally feel you both have very good and informed opinions based on knowledge and experience greater than my own.
I also wanted to bring the conversation away from being personal and back to being intellectual.
All I wanted to say is it's totally OK to have differing opinions on what is "right".... just like my earlier metaphor of Solid State vs. Tubes....
Thank you both for presenting your unique viewpoints. If you're curious as to my opinion, I am in fact new to all of this audiophile stuff and may need a bit of time to form anything useful for the community.
On a light note, I'm still trying to track where in the heck the frogs are in my soundstage in Abbey Road Track 10! :)
Kindest Regards,
Ron
Hi Ron, glad to have you here.
This is basically why I don't bother anymore with some of the spins.
may said
Last 9 months !!!!!!!!!!!!! We were investigating the differences in the sound from components of exactly the same values in the late 1970s !!!!!!!!!!!!! Some 36 plus years ago !!! Where have you been, Michael ???
back to me
Obviously if someone reads TuneLand, or checks up on my designing I've been testing capacitors, and have had and still have engineers on staff who did and do testing as well since the early 80's, but the trolls come out when ever they read something that they feel they can jump on. Why? Who knows, but that's the way it is here.
Hopefully you are able to tolerate, or even be-friend them so you don't have to suffer the repetition.
michael green
MGA/RoomTune
http://tuneland.techno-zone.net/
Hi Ron
Not a hi-jack at all :)
I enjoy learning the background of others and their relevance in the topics they get involved in. It helps to separate loose cannons from, as you've already heard me say, the "spins". In my world, if people have a different view of things, we get together and explore while doing an actual lab. In this case, if I brought up "the vibratory code" (for example) as the go to defining word, and one of my colleagues wants to debate the issue of terms used, they would fly in, take a demo and talk about how the terms audio code, vibratory code and recorded code all blend together. We're not married to words as much as we are a usable vocab that makes it easier to get to the results. May & Geoff aren't too crazy about my choices, but I haven't had anyone from my circle who has a problem, and that's a fairly involved engineering, science and technical circle. We do understand that with especially geoff, the word vibration triggers an audiophile connotation of distortion which sadly doesn't reflect on the good uses for the word's meaning, and how it relates to audio. That said, for us the word vibration is more of a word we use to describe such things as part of, motion, current, signal, variable, mechanics, transfer and all the other terms associated with an industry based on oscillative activity. More to the point, how do you tune something and use an easy to understand concept "word" to describe it? In our research we found the most commonly used word to be "vibratory". And who hasn't heard the term "Good Vibrations" vs "Bad Vibrations" in the music world?
For us, it's a little silly seeing two people, one in their late 80's and one in ther late 70's caring to take the time to debate some of these issues. That's just a little weird to be honest. If they want to call vibratory something else I don't think anyone will be all that upset. But to jump on us for sharing in simple form a method that helps thousands get better sound is goofy at best. Yet they follow me around like lost pups to prove who knows what, as you can certainly read for yourself.
My agenda is a simple one. Take what we have been "doing" over the past many years and share it with others in the form of a method. Our method of listening is based on tuning the audio chain, and making a variable audio family of products along with an audio guide for achieving someones desired sound. Basically we've been teaching pro and home audio people alike that the audio chain is highly tunable and here's how to get to any specific part of the recording you wish to get to. Why this makes some here throw fits, we have know idea. We're just having fun turning people onto a more advance way to explore their hobby.
In other words, MGA/RoomTune is not about "our sound" but about designing a path for all to get "their" sound. The music industry as a whole is much more than the crapshoot of plug & play. And while it may upset marketers who base their living on having the next miracle cure, the audio chain is actually very similar to the original technologies involved with the musical instrument. The audio signal is highly "tunable" and with this able to delete many distortions while organizing the recorded signal (code). Results as you can read on TuneLand, a much larger, real space, size and accurate soundstage.
Here's one more weird thing to me. Obviously people share their backgrounds here. That's a good thing. Take a look at mine, and ask why would geoff go to so much pain, saying that a person who has spent their whole life in almost every avenue of music, is a bad thing when talking about....music? It makes one pause and think, why are these people even here, when they spend so much time worrying about others, when they themselves, don't show their own personal stereo system, or in the case of geoff doesn't even have an in-room audio system.
It's like this Ron. Look at every audio thread they get involved in. Within the first page they both jump all over these self created spins, yet never want to "DO" audio. Talking audio is SO SO to be honest. I do it because it's part of the gig, but compared to the listening side it Pales. So I come up here with my background and have my threads interupted by a guy who uses a Portable Sony Walkman Cassette player and some gal who we're not sure even has a stereo. You (Ron) and other "listeners" come here and right out of the gate are into the "listening" side of audio, as well as the other parts of interest. Big difference, from May who says "talking about my stereo isn't needed". Isn't needed? Isn't that why we are here?
More than a little odd to me, and has been for a year and a half now. I help people tune, and they (may & geoff)say it can't be, even though the both of them tweak (or say they do), which is tuning to some degree or another.
anyway
You Hi-jacking Ron, please do. So nice when people come up here holding more than their stereophile membership card in hand!
michael green
MGA/RoomTune
http://tuneland.techno-zone.net/
Sorry but I just have to say that again Michael you've misquoted, mischaracterized and flat out lied about anyone who takes exception to anything you say. And, gee whiz It's not like May and I are the only ones. In fact, it doth appear your main supporters here, Toledo, Costin, et al pretty much packed up and headed for the hills. If there is going to be a meeting by the river you're going to have to make some effort to stick to stating your points and refrain from personal attacks. Even your comment that tweaking is some form of Tuning is a complete misrepresentation, I won't say lie, at least it disagrees with what you've been saying all along, something about fixed vs variable, some jibber jabber like that. Have you had a change of heart?
In any case, does this mean we're now honorary members of the Shake & Bake enterprise? :-)
Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica
We're still here.
Are you a goofball in real life, too? I'm sure Michael is thrilled you've got his back.
Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica
I won't comment on the attack thing more than people can read threads on their own.
We don't, and never have had a problem with tweaks. What we have a problem with is when people push absolutes when they are not.
Again for those reading us for the first time, we design variable products that are a part of matching the recorded code to the playback system. Every recorded code being unique, may or may not sound good on any fixed system (fixed system or tweak meaning doing something that can not be undone or changed). When a recording does sound good for the listener, great! Everyone is happy. When it doesn't sound so great we offer the ability to variably tune the system to match the recording allowing it to shine as well.
Pretty simple stuff really.
As far as change of heart? My heart changes a little every time I find the deeper meaning of any performance. As we stated back when I first started posting we're thrilled when a recording sounds great no matter how someone gets there. We're not in the unhappy crowd business. We love recordings and finding as much of the hidden treasures as we can. We're totally tickled when you or anyone has a good listening session, nothin like it. We're also happy that you, May and others share the paths you feel are the best paths to take. Why would I promote your sites and give you your own threads to share? I believe one of the greatest things about this hobby is the diversity. In my book diversity and variable go hand and hand.
As far as the shake & bake enterprise, we have offered and would love to have you guys over for some listening. You and May can bring over any tweak you would like and we will give you the keys to the room for you to have fun or demo your goods till your hearts content. We have always in the past and still do offer this to you. Now if that is attacking you or May, not sure we can do any better than that.
michael green
MGA/RoomTune
http://tuneland.techno-zone.net/
You don't hide much...
I would say more "running to the tune".
Since we started posting here, we have taken on 5 new countries as distributors, several new stores, Welcome guys! and many listeners coming out from the past saying "where have you been". The last not so much being us, but more all the high end audio stores that went out of business during to economy slash and crashes in the US, from what I am told, plus me spending my time in the studios and designing music wings for universities.
Since Catch made his statement about the members we have had 2,000 more people join www.tuneland.info and 60 some the http://tuneland.techno-zone.net/ , put out a video (which I found out has a messed up counter) and according to youtube actually has over 1000 views.
So from what I can see, if TuneLand is sitting on a hill somewhere than I guess your right, people are running for the hills. If you take the time to count there have been less than 20 stereophile members posting on this site over the last month, so I don't think we are doing so bad.
thanks for asking
michael green
MGA/RoomTune
http://tuneland.techno-zone.net/
PS: Visit with Harold Cooper GM of MGA/RoomTune @ AXPONA 2015 April 24-26
Harold Cooper GM of MGA/RoomTune? Interesting. He must be a little shy about posting on audio forums. Have you ever given any consideration to posting on other audio forums. I don't see much discussion with respect to MGA/RoomTune elsewhere, you know, the usual suspects. Wassup with that?
Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica
I said it would be fun but I didn't say for who
This is a place to air differing opinions. But we need to do that without getting personal in a negative way.
I should hope it's obvious that in this field/hobby that is both an art I would say as much as a science, that's a fertile ground for differing opinions and debate, and I personally love a good argument!
But we all need to remember a valid and good debate should never get personal. In the few times it may, then catch yourself and apologize.
Hope this observation of mine helps.
Above all:
Listen On!
Ron
... with Geoffy. You're right, of course, Ron that these venues should only be for friendly, civil discourse, however Geoffy and I (and others) have already gone well beyond that boundary many times. You might just read some of the early posts (as Michael as pointed out) to see what has already transpired between us. Then again you might just ignore us while we spar.
You are a welcome reminder of what healthy discourse is all about!
Geoff said
"Harold Cooper GM of MGA/RoomTune? Interesting. He must be a little shy about posting on audio forums. Have you ever given any consideration to posting on other audio forums. I don't see much discussion with respect to MGA/RoomTune elsewhere, you know, the usual suspects. Wassup with that?"
mg
Harold Cooper became GM in 2013. Has been a RoomTune dealer for 20 some years. The posting comment is a little weird. A GM posting...not sure I get that. How would he find the time. Once in a while he will do a post to say hi, or if he is visiting here, but outside of that he's on tours, shows, video and keeping the production in line. I don't see Harold as a forum type of guy. He's super nice and the clients love him, but mixing it up with posters? Nah, doesn't fit him. Plus there are a few sides to what we do (all music related or tunable designing), high end audio being one of them, but the others keep us fairly busy as well. Right now Harold is picking up Vinyl in Chicago for our collection and meeting with Delmark Records. Tomorrow Frankie Valli in concert, and then getting ready for AXPONA.
other forums?
Who's got the time LOL? I'm barely getting any sleep the way it is. The size and speed of Stereophile and TuneLand is just about right for now. I've got these two sites to look at, plus listening rooms up and running. That's a handfull when you add in the PM's and emails.
Speaking of, a nap sounds pretty good about now :) Oh if only I could....just a short one
michael green
MGA/RoomTune
http://tuneland.techno-zone.net/
Michael:
I'm jealous! How much vinyl in Chicago are you looking at getting!?!!
Chris:
Well worded and thank you for the thoughtful reply.
Cheers,
Ron
I believe Harold picked up about 25 the first day and has about 30 more to go. Here's Harold at Jazz http://tuneland.techno-zone.net/t211p45-harold-cooper-of-sound-consultants
We have been talking about setting up a stop by location here in Vegas so audiophiles can come and hang out and listen to their own music or go through our collections of CD, Vinyl and Reel 2 Reel. Might be in the works for a while but it's good to have goals and dreams. This would have been doable a few years ago, but while I was on tour in Hong Kong, my storage in northeast Ohio got wiped out by a flood. 18,000 vinyl gone in one afternoon, 2/3 of my whole plastic collection.
Since then, we've been buying up collections. So now between the two of us, not bad but a long way to go. My Jazz and Blues is doing pretty good but my Classical took a beating. I guess that's ok though, still have more music than I'll ever get a chance to listen to.
michael green
MGA/RoomTune
http://tuneland.techno-zone.net/
Michael:
I am so sorry to hear about the tragic flood...18,000 records.... uggggghhhhh...
At least it sounds like you are dusting off your boots, so to say, and trying again though, and I applaud you for that! I wish you the best of luck in acquiring a new collection to share with the public.
I also want to say I totally am enthralled you're offering Reel to Reel... I, unfortunately, have never personally been privy to this kind pf analog, but I have heard nothing but good about it. Keep it up!
I also like that you do have CD to compare the analog and bring in more clients who may learn more about the other musical formats or re-doscpver a lost one.
Again, best of luck and sorry about your losses.
I myself am semi-retired, mostly writing post-doc papers for the National Science Foundation and the occasional freelance graphic design assignment. I would love to one day open a true high-fi audio boutique and/or a record store here in the Pittsburgh area. We really just don't have but just a couple of stores beyond the Best Buys.
Kind Regards,
Ron
Hi Ron
Thanks, it was a long time ago. I've enjoyed building the collection back up, and honestly I think the flood did me a favor. It allowed me to get out of the box to explore more music.
I have a few family members in Pittsburgh. My first factory was in New Philadelphia OH, so I came to Pittsburgh a lot to catch US Air flights. I think it was US Air that had a hub there.
NSF, that's pretty darn cool. Isn't that the government's science team?
michael green
MGA/RoomTune
http://tuneland.techno-zone.net/
http://tuneland.techno-zone.net/t169p165-hiend001-s-system
A wild time in Singapore :)
michael green
MGA/RoomTune
http://tuneland.techno-zone.net/
Michael wrote,
"NSF, that's pretty darn cool. Isn't that the government's science team?"
Gosh, that would be really swell. If it were true.
Cheers,
Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica
Pages