You are here

Log in or register to post comments
rrstesiak
rrstesiak's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 5 months ago
Joined: Mar 22 2015 - 5:38am
NSF Inquiries

All:

Yes, my work is made possible through grants from the National Science Foundation, or NSF. That is in fact the very large scientific organization run by the United States Government and the Department of Defense.

I am currently published as co-author in a paper in the field of Computational Neuroscience, paper may be seen on several websites...here's our original publisher, Cornell University's site linked to my paper:

http://arxiv.org/abs/1105.2352

It is titled:

"Electroencephalographic field influence on calcium momentum waves"

My current work for the NSF is in the field of Computational Finance and titled the following:

"Improving Stock Options Forecasting Accuracy Utilizing a Governing Equation with Variable Characteristic Stochastic, Multi-Variate Non-Linear Equations "

Regrettably, my current work is confidential, and I even tried to obtain a quick public link but was unable to do so. Google searches of my name will show other works too. I guess unpublished works are just again confidential so I can't share much else about current work. I think also because it has military application. (mathematically)

So yes, it is "true", as I certainly assumed everyone follows the general honor code of ethics and certainly tells the truth about themselves!

Anyway.. I used to work in Information Technology and Real Estate, then sort of retired and did a career change into Academics about 5 years ago and more recently Graphic Design; just freelancing as time permits in graphic design, but overall very seriously dedicated full-time to post-doctorate research and have access to the fastest computers in the world; courtesy of The National Science Foundation. I feel truly blessed and thankful for the opportunities given to me.

I enjoy the diversity of people and viewpoints on this site. And I am honored by the inquiries to know more about me. Thank you.

Kind Regards,

Ron

ps. for something *really* cool, my colleagues and I are trying to form a larger team and get funding for developing a custom computer processor; and then machine, and all of the surrounding volumes of mathematics and code and theory, as well as interfaces, etc... which would model the neural network of specifically the Human neocortex...basically cutting-edge research into delevoping a sentient machine... aka Artificial Intelligence. That is our next goal; and may truly be something of great value. I am thankful I am relatively young still and have many years to contribute to the pursuit of knowledge and science. We are hoping to conclude our current projects and all come together in 2016 to begin work on the machine. The first paper I mentioned above in the field of Computational Neuroscience actually shows how we mathematically have somewhat successfully modeled a part of the Human neocortex utilizing EEG data as our proof. It's a heavy duty but pretty good read if anyone is so inclined. It is mostly grounded in Theoretical Physics & Statistical Mechanics.

No matter what anyone has seen on TV or the media...we are believe it or not VERY far away from a true sentient, thinking machine. And this FACT is what also attracts our team to this research... I can honestly postulate we have a very high probability of developing a truly self-aware machine in as little as 5-10 years if we can get the right people and the government backing necessary. It would no doubt be a vast undertaking, spanning multiple fields of science and research. I personally already have done some work with Yale's Artificial Intelligence teams...and they have state of the art laboratories and the "other side" of Neuroscience: the medical/biological side. It is necessary to each learn from the other and combine our knowledge to model this machine. VERY exciting indeed.

michael green
michael green's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 8 months ago
Joined: Jan 10 2011 - 6:11pm
pretty groovy stuff

Hi Ron

I love all the innovation going on these days. I know when I hang out with my tech buds at their places or the trade shows, it takes me a couple of weeks to get back to the "now". It's like the last five years has presented an entirely new landscape in R&D.

Do you get to Yale often?

If so, I have a favor to ask, but would need to talk to you about it in private.

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

rrstesiak
rrstesiak's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 5 months ago
Joined: Mar 22 2015 - 5:38am
contact info

I actually very very rarely get to New England at all, unfortunately. But the flip side is, video conferencing and virtual teaming has come along very far and enables international team work and collaboration. I really am dying to visit my colleague in Milan, Italy...but there are zero grants for that! :)
I mostly stay put here in Western Pennsylvania. My work with Yale was largely done via Distance Learning, remote access to their Neurology Supercomputers, and lab data. I actually do not require to physically be present at University; just Carnegie Mellon here in Pittsburgh once in awhile these days.

If anyone wants to drop me a line, they may feel free to email me at:
rrstesiak@hotmail.com

But enough about my eccentric work. Back to the purpose of the forum: music!

Kind Regards,

Ron

michael green
michael green's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 8 months ago
Joined: Jan 10 2011 - 6:11pm
some of the threads

It's been interesting to be a part of and read some of the recent threads and how they are supporting that audio is a variable technology.

I will continue to go down through the lists presented to me by May Belt and Geoff Kait, and show that the OP formula applies, as we have just cover Schumann Resonance devices and Demagnetizers. Readers can reference the comments on http://www.stereophile.com/content/being-fair and how May and Geoff both say there are tweaks outside of the variables of audio, to which I stated all of these are a part of the bigger picture known as variable tuning.

It's also nice to welcome Ron to these discussions, and I hope others will join in with good insights and opinions.

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

Anton
Anton's picture
Offline
Last seen: 19 hours 46 min ago
Joined: Apr 30 2011 - 1:31pm
Words are improtant.

MG said: "You 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?"

_____

Michael, "dampening" is not the same as "isolating."

Not fair to conflate the terms, or use one word to misrepresent the other.

If I place a brick on top of a piece of gear, I am dampening vibration. If I place that piece of gear on a stand of certain design, then I am isolating it without dampening it.

Big difference.

So, we should not confuse those terms like you did with the switch you made in your sentence!

Maybe to make peace, we can all just say that we believe in string theory and everything is vibration! Then, even a stable magnetic field with be allowed to oscillate to some degree and the idolator isolators and the heretic tuners can find common ground.

Michael - I looked at your AXPONA room and I see corner tunes in the stereotypical places and other room tunes appearing in their expected places. I bet a dollar you won't be climbing into the corners of your room and reorienting your pads between songs. You seem to have placed an obviously fixed tuning device in place. Hmmm.

Maybe there is room for discussion of what you are criticizing as "fixed tunings" or "fixed teaks."

In your AXPONA room, what are to implementing as your "variable tunings?"

michael green
michael green's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 8 months ago
Joined: Jan 10 2011 - 6:11pm
AXPONA

First off, thanks for taking a peek at the pics of the show.

This room is a shared room with a few designs being shown from "Needle Doctor". Being a show that is only 3 days long it doesn't make good listening sense to do much more than a one basic sound setup. Harold did a tune up based on the basic loading places and a couple of stray echos. http://tuneland.techno-zone.net/t304-axpona-2015

On the topic of dampening vs isolation, we personally have not heard true isolation in this hobby. If you spend time with the most advanced engineers in isolation you will find that they use the word isolation as trying to separate the Earth Effect from an object. In building designs isolation is a co-op between the motion of nature and building give. From our particular view point, we design on the bases of being able to make change. How much change someone wants to make is completely up to them obviously.

but to be more direct

No, we don't see a piece of furniture sitting in a room with the Earth spinning and shaking, and the fields waving, as being true isolation, or at least there has never been a test in audio that has measured this to be the case. The question I ask of those who take the side of isolation is "have you ever been in a true iso-room or building"? An iso-building is not based on the Tower Effect, but instead the pressure being equalized from every direction. In a true iso setting most of the pressure applied is actually very little dampening and weight, and more the transfer of energy up as well as Gravity. Because we base so much of our transfer on gravity we fail to look at the "up-pull" of energy transfer. If I may, let me point you to a pic of a CDP having upward transfer being applied http://tuneland.techno-zone.net/t169p165-hiend001-s-system . If you go to page 12 you will see the CDP in a canopy device. The system has both gravity and upward tuning applied.

You'll also notice that we have mostly moved from system stacking "Racks" to platforms. Our racks now have a transfer path built into them, or the listener goes straight to ground avoiding most of the Tower Effect.

Another thing to look at in design is, take a peek at building design. Notice that the higher they go, the less mass they use. From the pyramid days till now there are certain formulas that have worked for stability and transfer. If you look at buildings as they age there are some that keep their upright shapes and others that crumble from the top down. Back to audio. There is more loose energy at the top of components than there is at the bottom. As gravity works the highest point of a structure contains a most true full range of a building or products vibratory code. There are two things at play with audio concerning this and they both have to do with balance. If a component is not able to have a proper dissipation factor, it will lose content. If a product is not able to reproduce the full range of info at the top of chassis or rack, it will again lose content.

Anyone can test this at home with your components. Assuming your components are not over built from the start, take your component and place it on a board that is raised off of the ground by other boards. To make it easy take two 2x4's, place a piece of wood on top of them (spreading the 2x's out to the edges), and put your component on the board. Now start adding materials to the top of the component. Hear the sound change? You can make a ton of different sounds by playing around with this.

Now lets do this same thing with an audio isolation rack or platform. Put your component on it, and add materials to the top of the component. Surprise, you can again hear changes as you add different materials to the top of the component. See your a scientist. If the rack or platform were a true isolation device you would hear no change to the sound when you added materials on top of it.

Truth be told the audiophile world has takin a term out of context and made their own little theory world to sell products based on an easy, although inaccurate, concept. Nothing really wrong with out of context, until you start using it as an absolute science defying physics. Now we have no problem at all with people who want to say isolation, but lets not twist the words around so we can use it as an absolute argument, or it just makes audiophiles look dumb to scientist.

I'm not calling anyone here dumb, just suggesting you take the time to "do" before you spend too much time spreading a non-truth.

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

Anton
Anton's picture
Offline
Last seen: 19 hours 46 min ago
Joined: Apr 30 2011 - 1:31pm
No time for tuning?

"Being a show that is only 3 days long it doesn't make good listening sense to do much more than a one basic sound setup."

I would think a chance to demo some tuning would be the whole purpose!

Ah, well, the installation of all those fixed acoustic dampening devices is fine, too!

Getting back to "isolation," it is not an 'all or none' word. We have al heard forms of isolation - from a wall mount record rack to a suspended turntable to almost innumerable equipment support products. It's not a matter of "the whole earth vibrates, blah, blah blah." The point is the we can do things that are not dampening a component, they are partially isolating it from unwanted influences. Not controversial at all, both dampening and isolation are perfectly fine things to play with.

If you read Stereophile, check out the review of the new Ortofon cartridge that Mike Fremer reviews....loaded with damping information....all to the good!

michael green
michael green's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 8 months ago
Joined: Jan 10 2011 - 6:11pm
Audio-Labs

Hi Anton

You mention a couple of good points. One of high end audio's drawbacks is the lack of "audio-labs". Shows are fantastic and have saved the day for this end of the hobby, and reviews are cool, even though somewhat limited. Some stores have remained faithful to this hobby through a new face of supply (thank God for our stores). We now have forums to share, which is also great, but we're still behind in one department which is a must for the hobby, "Audio-labs". I have suggested this a few times, but with no response. If you read Stereophile I think it was back in 04 or 05 you will see Richard of THE Show offered this to the industry with virtually no takers. Go look, it was called "tweak alley". Basically it was designed to be a part of the show that focused on tweaks and the demo of. We in 05 did TuneLand Vegas http://www.michaelgreenaudio.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=472 and of course there was the Nashville MGA Studios and TuneVilla. I'm sure others have their own version of testing labs as I have tuned a few, but my belief is, High End Audio because of it's nature needs more than reviews, stores, shows and a few factories welcoming listeners.

I believe we need "Audio-Labs" that allow who-ever, reviewer, hobbyist, designer anyone who has to do with this industry the ability to come in and spend time exploring the audio chain from start to finish. The problem is, there are many products in this industry but not a whole lot of methods. There are a lot of opinions without long term testing and results. As far as I know TuneLand is the only lab that actually takes apart components and studies them from the basics to the full blown ready to ship product. I could be wrong but I believe we are also the only ones that test from full dampened all the way to free resonance tuning.

Anton, as much as I appreciate your views on dampening and isolation the question I have is, have you done the tests from full dampening, isolation through to free resonance tuning? Again as far as I know we are the only high end audio designers who have actually built from the ground up iso-rooms. As well from what I know, the only ones to build free-resonance from the ground up tests labs. The one thing MGA/RoomTune is, is a fair design company. We started this from the very beginning to explore all the avenues and this led us to tuning. We didn't say tuning and then set out to prove it. We look at all the degrees of audio as a set variable and have no problem with any particular setting. At the same time our results are indeed faithful results.

bottom line for us is

We find that many people who oppose our methods and testing have not really gone to the extent we have and do, to come up with our statements and designs. For example you mention the RT Pillow products, but fail to mention Sound Shutters, RTD2, RT deluxe, PZC's and of course the Tunable Room. We're thrilled to have the most effective affordable acoustical products on the market, but lets not forget we also go all the way up the food chain http://tuneland.techno-zone.net/t70-rt-pzc-acoustical-treatment http://tuneland.techno-zone.net/t282-mga-studio-design and http://tuneland.techno-zone.net/t249-a-look-at-tunable-systems . See what I'm saying? If someone has built these labs, systems, rooms and product, and have explore and continue to explore the different flavors of audio, then yes we can talk about what it takes to really show a product or explore dampening vs isolation, but we first have to get past the introductions of who we are and what we have done to come to these conclusions.

I have read many reviews of things that are dampened, but my question is how many listeners rooms and systems have these reviewers been in? I have the highest regard for Mike Fremer, as he has done a ton of good for this industry and being a big part of getting it on the map, but my friend it doesn't stop at the reviews end. The review is only the beginning of this or any product model. For 60 some years now, there has been this best of the best turn over, and as a result you and I can use these products and determine if they are right for our ears, or if they work with our systems, but try to keep in mind, as these years roll on so does the pendulum of the hobby. When you say "all to the good" a red flag flies high in the air for me. If you were given 10 cents for everytime that was said, how rich would you be by now? Second question, I guess this means Ortofon is done making cartridges?

Anton, you are a part of a hobby that gets published monthly, and has been for 50 years. A hobby that drops products from it's recommended lists not based on performance but age. Hey, I don't fault this, but we need to be real. Without on going test audio labs that allow the old and the new to mingle, you are going to continue to go to these shows seeing nothing but the latest, and what these companies decide to put fourth as there 2015 and so on models. There trade shows! The tip of what's new, sometimes the rememberance of what's old. They are 3 day jumps in the water and then you return to real life.

I appreciate your imput, I really do, but if it is based on a part of your learning, or a monthly review magazine and not based on a wide stage of experience, than does it really rise above what you have seen and explored on your own? Same goes for myself when I make statements. If I make them without the experience of them this makes my statement extremely limited. Maybe it's the truth from how much we have explored, but that's the thing about never stopping with our learning curve.

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

Anton
Anton's picture
Offline
Last seen: 19 hours 46 min ago
Joined: Apr 30 2011 - 1:31pm
Spin zone!

Michael, the "you are part of a hobby that gets published monthly" is pap. I mentioned the review because...hmmm...we are on Stereophile's site and it provides a common reference point. It simply pointed out that there is ample room for damping at the highest level of the hobby.

You've really got to stop with the narcissistic "only the great and fabulous Michael Green can have valid opinions stuff." It is unbecoming, and not part of what the hobby is about.

Keeping up with the hobbiests will keep you busy, if you pay attention - we had a long enjoyable discussion here half a decade ago about the newer, low mass CD players. Do a search, the lowest of low end Sony and Phillips of their time were well regarded.

Stan Warren beat everyone to the party over 30 years ago with his electronics housed in wood and acrylic "space cases."

There are many ways to skin this fine cat of a hobby.

Even listening "styles" come into play, which also perplexes me about your AXPONA room: on your MGA site, your apartment is obviously set up with speakers far out into the room and you listen near field, with extremely wide axis. That certainly has its charm, but it's a gimmick in the same way any configuration can be manipulated. Soundstage changes with extreme off axis listening – people can set it up and then move forward and back and choose their flavor. If you prefer one style, fine. Others may not – it is not a zero sum game. I find that style fatiguing, others may not.

I often prefer open baffle crossover-less designs (single driver dynamic, electrostat) or planar two way ribbons; you go more for crossovers, boxes, and multiple drivers in the speakers you modify and promote/sell. Different strokes. All are good and fine and float people’s boats. You may like speakers further out into the room, and like listening inside the axis. Others may prefer speakers not as far out into the room and enjoy a more classic imaging experience, like sitting out from the proscenium at a concert. Some like forward imaging, some like laid back. Some people want to be on the stage with Belafonte, some want to be out in the audience. Some rooms respond to damping, others may respond to what you call tuning. I have very mild wall treatments off to the sides of my speakers, but chose a room without right angles in the listening area. Others may do things differently.

Anyway, getting back to “shows:” There is a true disconnect between how your Axpona room looked and how you picture your demo room at home, which is too bad. People can’t get your vibe if your show set up is the opposite of what your sales schtick is! Shows aren’t just a 3 days splash, amigo! They are a chance to show your chops and stand out from average. I’m sorry the shows seem that way to you. I invite you to our room in Newport, if you can get your schedule free. We will ply you with some wine and limoncello and talk tuning , life, Hi Fi, and show you that sometimes, the mass of a piece of gear is a pretty harmless part of its way of doing things! I can tell just by looking that your demo room was going to have some problems with congestion – a skill you yourself have claimed to have! We could even walk room to room and predict the sound before we walk in!

Cheers!

michael green
michael green's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 8 months ago
Joined: Jan 10 2011 - 6:11pm
Stan Warren & the show

I love Stan Warren's designing. As I have posted here the CD Maxx was one of the products that made a ton of sense. Straight to the point and excellent sounding. It also was super easy to tune.

this was a weird statement from you Anton

"Anyway, getting back to “shows:” There is a true disconnect between how your Axpona room looked and how you picture your demo room at home"

mg

The whole idea of tuning is to allow a person more flexibility in their setup. Why would I tell a person where they need to place their speakers? Maybe in time you will read TuneLand more and feel more comfortable in exchanges with me or other Tunees, but for now it seems your on the flame train and not really looking at who we are or what we do.

BTW if your in the stereo biz, on this forum your suppose to sign who you are, at the end of each post. If you look at the other designers here you will see us sign with our names and companies. That might not be the case for you but just wanted to let you know that because of reading that you have a room in Newport.

If I can let me say something about the room, and then move on. This room was the "Needle Doctor" room not a MGA/RoomTune room persay. We were showing our products along with the other fine products the Needle Doctor carries. We were thilled to have a place in the room and felt the guys from the Neddle Doctor did a great job with their setup. Again this is a trade show, and the guys in charge setup the room so it would host as many people as it could knowing that the room would get as many as 15 or so people in there at one time.

As far as our "Vibe", we had a great time as always and have had quite a few people get ahold of us to take a look at their room and system as a result of that room and the personalities there. Many folks commented that it was one of the better sounding rooms there. I wasn't there but was happy to hear all the good reports.

Harold won't be making it to Newport, as he has important business.

As far as showing chops at a show, I would have to leave that opinion up to the listeners going to the shows. I personally look at shows as a preview, not really a showing of the chops. Even though we have won "best sound" in quite a few countries, and had as many as 85 RoomTune rooms at one show (more than any other audio company in high end audio's history) I would say that at the height of shows, at best they were maybe about a tenth as powerful as a Tunable Room demo. That's being kind to be honest.

Saying this, I think shows are great and great fun and am glad people get a chance to visit them. I'm also glad you have a room at Newport and hope it's the best of times for you!

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

Anton
Anton's picture
Offline
Last seen: 19 hours 46 min ago
Joined: Apr 30 2011 - 1:31pm
OK, I'll be a "manufacturer."

Our demo rooms are non-commercial, NFS Audio - "Nothing For Sale." We were there the year your brought all those tunes! You likely won't recall, but I've driven you around town after some after parties. ;D

I wasn't flaming, simply pointing out the disconnect between how things are sometimes portrayed vs. reality.

This site's forum format is so kludgey, it is going to drive me away. You deserve a reward simply for perseverance! Essentially, worse than a portable cassette player masquerading as hi fi! ;D

Explorer + this forum format = give me an AM radio for my Hi Fi.

michael green
michael green's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 8 months ago
Joined: Jan 10 2011 - 6:11pm
Hi NFS

I custom painted those Tunes for you guys, I remember. So what gives Anton, why the anger dude?

The way your coming off here is the opposite from what your rooms are all about.

After parties? That would be an interesting story :) I don't recall any after parties. Well I guess not recalling would be the norm for a good after party lol. I hope I wasn't date raped :)

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

geoffkait
geoffkait's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 days 1 hour ago
Joined: Apr 29 2008 - 5:10am
What's this, Old Home Week for AA?

Anton, glad to see you back from rehab, again. I see you've even changed your Moniker. Going incognito, eh? Good for you! Hmmm, what was your previous moniker? ...t's on the tip of my tongue. Was it Bubba? As always, my condolences to your liver. I mean that most sincerely.

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

Anton
Anton's picture
Offline
Last seen: 19 hours 46 min ago
Joined: Apr 30 2011 - 1:31pm
Yawn.

By the way, Michael. Geoff is purely an audio griever. You could have come here promoting portable cassette players and it would have driven Geoff to promote high mass chassis CD players.

I haven't seen poor little geoffie in a few years and he's still obviously butt hurt about something. Maybe he can rub some of his special sauce on it.

michael green
michael green's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 8 months ago
Joined: Jan 10 2011 - 6:11pm
OP bump

Wanted to bump this thread as people are tuning with wood under their components.

http://tuneland.techno-zone.net/t213-mga-tuning-blocks

http://tuneland.techno-zone.net/f3-home-audio-systems

Hearing is believing! Believing is understanding the fundamental forces of physics and watching them play out.

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

geoffkait
geoffkait's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 days 1 hour ago
Joined: Apr 29 2008 - 5:10am
How did I miss this?
Anton wrote:

By the way, Michael. Geoff is purely an audio griever. You could have come here promoting portable cassette players and it would have driven Geoff to promote high mass chassis CD players.

I haven't seen poor little geoffie in a few years and he's still obviously butt hurt about something. Maybe he can rub some of his special sauce on it.

Anton finally checks in. With a load of shit as his his habit. Old and in the way, and fresh outta rehab! Lol. All these years and that hard just on won't go down. You little dickens....

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

rrstesiak
rrstesiak's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 5 months ago
Joined: Mar 22 2015 - 5:38am
Wood Under Components

All:

I remain skeptical of what are mostly called "tweaks"....but once in awhile, I believe scientifically sound and valid "tweaks" come along...and my most recent personally was simply placing blocks of wood under my components. I believe I got the idea from another poster, CaptainVinyl, who opened the topic, but Michael I am aware also majorly supports this methodology.

I am just chiming in and agreeing that it in fact makes an audible difference in my music. An audible difference for the *better*.

Anyone else out there agree or disagree with placing wooden blocks under components?

Best Regards,

Ron

geoffkait
geoffkait's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 days 1 hour ago
Joined: Apr 29 2008 - 5:10am
Scientifically valid tweaks

That's an interesting way to look at it, that tweaks ought to be scientifically valid in order for audiophiles to try them. Just out of curiosity what exactly do you think is going on with the wood blocks and how they affect the sound? I'd be very interested to hear your views, especially in view of the fact you are a PhD. And perhaps by scientifically valid you mean just a gut reaction kind of thing. Who knows? In addition, I actually don't think that many audiophiles would disagree that wood blocks or even wood platforms like maple, bamboo, myrtle, ebony, whatever affect the sound. That's not really news. What is news is what the use of wood blocks under components implies about the nature of what's going on and HOW FAR YOU CAN ACTUALLY TAKE THIS STUFF? Thus, I'm saying that wood blocks are definitely a GOOD BEGINNING and may well be much better than whatever you might have had previously which I'm assuming was the original little rubber type feet. Again, I'm really anxious to hear the scientific explanation for the wood blocks, and please try to refrain from using the word TUNING too much in your explanation as I consider that to be a well non scientific word, frankly. I seem to recall your PhD program skipped all the mechanics and materials egineering courses that most engineering schools require but it's possible I misunderstood you. Please straighten me out if I'm incorrect about that. :-)

Big things have small beginnings. - Old audiophile expression

Cheers,

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

May Belt
May Belt's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 years 6 months ago
Joined: May 8 2006 - 1:51am
Could get interesting.

>>> “I actually don't think that many audiophiles would disagree that wood blocks or even wood platforms like maple, bamboo, myrtle, ebony, whatever affect the sound. That's not really news. What is news is what the use of wood blocks under components implies about the nature of what's going on and HOW FAR YOU CAN ACTUALLY TAKE THIS STUFF. Thus, I'm saying that wood blocks are definitely a good beginning and may well be much better than whatever you might have had previously, which I'm assuming was the original little rubber type feet. Again I'm really anxious to hear the scientific explanation for the wood blocks, and please try to refrain from using the word TUNING in your explanation as I consider that to be a well non scientific word. “ <<<

This COULD get interesting now, Geoff !!!!

Regards,
May Belt,
PWB Electronics.

michael green
michael green's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 8 months ago
Joined: Jan 10 2011 - 6:11pm
an invite "TuneLand"

I would like to make an invite to those who would like to explore this topic in a more involved, more explored light, on http://tuneland.techno-zone.net/ and the archived www.tuneland.info

There you will find info, going from wood blocks all the way to completed tunable wood rooms (The Tunable Room). We cover using wood in the proccessing of thousands of products, as well take you on field-trips of exotic audio systems that have become more like musical instruments than Hi-Fi gear.

here's a super quick pictorial tour to wet the appetite

http://tuneland.techno-zone.net/t249-a-look-at-tunable-systems

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

geoffkait
geoffkait's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 days 1 hour ago
Joined: Apr 29 2008 - 5:10am
Thanks for the word from our sponsor ;-)

Michael, thanks for your input, now let's discuss the pro and cons of wood blocks as feet under a component here on this forum. We already know what to expect over on TunnelLand. Anyone? Anyone go beyond simple wood blocks? Share, share?

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica
Advanced Audio Concepts

rrstesiak
rrstesiak's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 5 months ago
Joined: Mar 22 2015 - 5:38am
reply to geoff

Geoff:

I could examine this from an experimental/applied stance and a theoretical one.

APPLIED:
Run Fourier analysis on the same song with two sessions: one run without the blocks, and one with. Then the Fourier analysis would magnify any differences. All of that requires work and probably at the very least some serious software for my little macbook Air.. but something I really hope to do someday. I was using the rubber feet as supplied by the manufacturer but instead am now resting the chassis directly on the wooden blocks. In fact, I intend on removing the feet for aesthetic reasons if possible. Yes, it is possible to go Geek Chic. lol.

THEORETICAL:
My hypothesis is they act in a few different ways:

1. they isolate the amp from an EMF perspective from other components as well as perhaps insulate the amp from the shelf itself better than the rubber feet.
2. they ALLOW some positive harmonics or other vibrations (to use a dangerous word) to resonate more pleasingly by mating the wooden shelf with wooden blocks directly to the chassis.

Not to be ignored, wood has some amazing properties: it can be an insulator AND a conductor...

That's about all I have after thinking on it for a few minutes. There are many different forces at play here, and so to really put it in a theoretical abstraction:
************
The blocks are acting as both an isolator of unwanted forces, and a conductor of sorts or resonator of desirable forces.
************
A force can be anything from an EMF wave, to a harmonic, to vibration, etc.

So I like my theoretical statement best.

Respectfully,

Dr. Ronald R. Stesiak
National Science Foundation

ps. I also adhere to May's allusion of using blocks in 3's... and many fields of mathematics also support this. As many know, there is the Golden Ratio, and the Golden Spiral, etc... and my favorite: the Fibonacci sequence. So I would like to state I would imply three blocks ideally. If one looks at a Rega turntable, they rest on three legs. :)

geoffkait
geoffkait's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 days 1 hour ago
Joined: Apr 29 2008 - 5:10am
Hiccup, skip to next post

Nt

geoffkait
geoffkait's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 days 1 hour ago
Joined: Apr 29 2008 - 5:10am
Wooden blocks and beyond

It would appear at first glance you threw everything but the kitchen sink at me. Lol

Here are some theoretical questions for you:

1. Assuming you're correct and three blocks are better than four sonically, would two be better than three? Would one block be best, speaking of Finonacci? And if you don't think that less is more maybe more is more. Perhaps five would be even better than three or four. What think?

2. If you're right about the sonic characteristics of wood, wouldn't stacking blocks of different types of wood produce even better results but extending the bandwidth of operation?

3. Might ebony which is highly resonant produce even better results than say whatever wood you are currently usi?

4. If the wood blocks work as resonators as you theorize wouldn't just placing them on top of the components work? Maybe put them under and on top. Ever try that?

5. If wood blocks work, would different shapes perhaps work even better. Say, for example a ballistic shape, or a disc shape a la Mpingo?

6. Ever heard of Sugar Cubes? From the maker of the tiny little bowl resonators. Tiny little wooden cubes about 3/4" on a side with a teeny tiny little hole drilled in the center of one side that are placed on walls at strategic points.

7. Most wood is directional, especially ebony, so you might find that how the wood is cut with the grain or cross grain is audible as is how the wood is placed under or on top of the component, I.e., rotate block until best sound is found. This is very audible with the Mpingo discs as they are symmetrical, not sure about blocks.

8. A very good use for wood blocks is clapping them together in the room all around to determine where echoes exist, then treating the walls with Echo Tunes. Recall I wuz one of Michael's first customers in a time far far away.

Cheers,

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

michael green
michael green's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 8 months ago
Joined: Jan 10 2011 - 6:11pm
TuneLand

I think I'm going to hang back a while, and just point to Tuneland http://tuneland.techno-zone.net/ where serious listeners interested in the topic can go and see many doing in real time.

This topic here has made it to the second page, good keep going! On TuneLand this topic is on well over 400 pages, and is far more detailed, as experienced listeners are and have been exploring mechanical transfer, and the vibratory code being tuned back to the being of the TuneLand forum 2004, in real time and on hundreds of different components. Likewise, the ClampRak, JustaRak, AmpClamp gained their long running fame (still used today) since 1989 as a produced product and back to 1979 as a custom build used in recordings from the BeeGees to The Atlanta Symphony Orchestra. Later the MGA Racks and blocks were used as a mainstay at EMI Studios and used on the recordings in the main control & mastering rooms. So as geoff is saying, this is indeed nothing new, and has been used to voice recordings for as long as I have been involved in recording and playback at least.

Going from recording use to audiophile, as far as my experience was around 1981 at MGAudio (my first highend store).

I believe, it's wise for newbies in any part of their exploring that they go back to find the history of use, which is maybe something I can provide, at least from my own experience. And now that I think about maybe I will hang out here for a little. Some of my view will be coming from the use in recording studios and then as I transitioned into my pro/audiophile era.

I'm sure that many others have their own experiences to share, and can add to the fun.

I do want to add this though if I may. I didn't growup in the studios as a spec tech. I did it when required, but my interest has always been, and continues to be the music itself. I know and have seen on the stereophile forum that many want to make debates on hypotheticals. I do get it even though it looks like I'm being a bit snobby or even undermining. Please understand this is not my intent, and actually I hate getting pulled into these types of spins on the topic of music. When you've grown up as I have (in the heart of music reproduction), and hear people talking without the experience to add to it, after a while it gets under your skin. It's like this, why do I want to listen to people so boldly talking as this was about the "IF's" when all they have to do is jump in and "do". I grew up in this industry "doing" and for folks like myself where music is and was based on practice it's a little less credible hearing people acting like they know something when they've never even done it.

I hope in time some of you can learn to respect some of us who are trying to be-friend you, but don't want to start from the place of newbie in order to talk to you, or consider your opinion as fact, especially when you haven't had the experience. Music isn't about "one ups" but sadly the audiophile sometimes forgets the reason and history of what brought you what you enjoy in your room.

This isn't, or shouldn't be a hobby based on hypothetics, when the actual doing is available. At least that's the way I grew up.

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

May Belt
May Belt's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 years 6 months ago
Joined: May 8 2006 - 1:51am
Wooden Blocks and Beyond - definitely beyond

>>> “Assuming you’re correct and three blocks are better than four sonically, would two be better than three? Would one block be best, speaking of Finonacci? And if you don't think that less is more maybe more is more. Perhaps five would be even better than three or four. What think?”<<<

MY answer is that three blocks are better sonically than four. And No, two would not be better nor would four. But five would be better than four. In this particular area, human beings prefer odd numbers !!! and it is nothing to do with vibrations, resonances, or the audio code !!!!

>>> “Most wood is directional” <<<

Stay with the concept of directional, Geoff. And with polarity !!! And many unusual things regarding sound will begin to click into place !!!!

Regards,
May Belt,
PWB Electronics.

rrstesiak
rrstesiak's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 5 months ago
Joined: Mar 22 2015 - 5:38am
My Attempt at Answering All of Geoff's Questions and More! :)

All:

While it is in everyone's understanding I am new to the audiophile world, I will nevertheless attempt to answer every question as best as I can for it seems even though I know comparatively very little about the subject, it seems my theories are valued and I am honored to even be asked my opinion!

While Michael brings up the valid point basically stating in general, experience trumps theory, I agree. However, there are many many many times where one just doesn't have experience or access to recording studios, labs, etc, and so one must rely on theory. Also, in general, we all can't be masters of everything, and so are left to ponder that which we cannot directly experience. A significant number of problems in theoretical physics are in fact pure theory; that work out mathemitcally but often times cannot be proven via experiment. An excellent example of which was the recent PROOF of the Higg's Boson in 2012 via CERN; which previously was only pure theory from Mr. Higgs himself way back in the '60s.

To further refine, I believe in a modified approach: combine theory with application. First, use theory to narrow down the problem in question to a few rules or governing dynamics of the problem. Then, experiment with this now simplified set to arrive at the "best" solution. This approach can be used to solve *any* problem. In this case, the application of wooden blocks to modify the sound of audio equipment in a pleasing way.

I would further argue that a well-learned theorist can be quite effective and useful at reducing a large problem into accurate and simpler subset of possible solutions; rather than trying to brute-force a solution by immediately diving in with experimental or applied approaches; thus saving a lot of time and money.

Back to Geoff's Questions:

geoffkait wrote:

1. Assuming you're correct and three blocks are better than four sonically, would two be better than three? Would one block be best, speaking of Finonacci? And if you don't think that less is more maybe more is more. Perhaps five would be even better than three or four. What think?

Answer:
The Fibonacci sequence does not favor 1...it rather establishes a sequence of numbers which, when plotted, reveals the golden spiral and golden ratio...here is a brief subset of the infinite sequence, based on F(t)=Summation[n + (n-1)] = 1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21.....

Essentially, I was drawing upon the golden ratio and golden spiral properties of this sequence...specifally the golden ratio and in art the rule of thirds...if one uses combinatorics, it is rapidly derived that all of these methods have one number in common: 3.

So, very long story short, 3 is the ideal number for human beings to be aesthetically and in general, "pleased". I could write pages on this...but please let's just arrive at this conclusion that not only do we all inherently "like" 3, many many natural principles and behaviors reveal this number. So, my answer is to use 3 blocks. A second reason to use three, is that three is simply a minimum required to support the object firmly; again referring to Rega turntables. Two just isn't enough, and four is not necessary. (one could adjust the dimensions of the tuning blocks,and allow for any configuration, but let's leave that out for simplicity sake). I believe that an optimal combination of isolation and conduction is achieved by utilizing three supports vs. 4 or any number above. I am sure there are many more reasons, but these should suffice. Also, in general, it is the simplest solution to solve any problem that is oft the most elegant..and in this case, three is the minimum required (given smaller dimensions) to support any equipment with adding any more unnecessarily expense or redundancy. Not only is 3 the minimum required to support an object firmly, it is *the minimum*. As we are going partly for *isolation*, we want minimal contact, thus providing my fourth and final reason to use 3.

geoffkait wrote:

2. If you're right about the sonic characteristics of wood, wouldn't stacking blocks of different types of wood produce even better results but extending the bandwidth of operation?

I am not certain about this; however, I believe stacking different kinds of wood could in fact improve the characteristics, but that would probably require significant research into the resonate properties of different species of tree (wood), then trying to establish a base set to which we can "tune" (sorry) the platform of wooden blocks to the sound we desire. In short, I agree; however, there will be a law of diminishing returns were adding additional blocks would cause a decrease in pleasing sound.

geoffkait wrote:

3. Might ebony which is highly resonant produce even better results than say whatever wood you are currently use?

It is fact Spruce is more resonant than ebony; as ebony is extremely dense. Also, spruce is widely chosen for the soundboard of acoustic guiatars due to its exact best properties of resonance. Next to spruce, strictly referring to guitar sound board construction, cedar is used, followed by mahogany and maple. I think Michael would be much better qualified to answer pretty much all of these questions, but a theorist can try, and try I shall! :) Now, to contradict, if one finds themselves in a situation where they seem to be getting too much resonation, perhaps ebony may be the better choice, but I fear only experiment would reveal the best answer; as well as we all have different sonic preferences. However, I stand by the theory that whatever wood is best for the sound board of instruments certainly would be my first choice.

geoffkait wrote:

4. If the wood blocks work as resonators as you theorize wouldn't just placing them on top of the components work? Maybe put them under and on top. Ever try that?

I belive placing wood on top of components could certainly have positive effect; though I would be careful to simply not block ventilation holes typically found on the tops of consumer equipment, and the effect would be much less; as there is no contact to the resonant shelving found underneath the component. In short, I would not rule this out as a test, but the results would not be as strong. Moving on...

geoffkait wrote:

5. If wood blocks work, would different shapes perhaps work even better. Say, for example a ballistic shape, or a disc shape a la Mpingo?

Utilizing different shapes would require some serious calculations on my part, so I will instead fallback on what I have read at length in audiophile literature and state that indeed, I am aware of cones and spikes being used in an attempt at further isolation of each component; and also combinations of blocks and cones/spikes. I have also seen discs employed, but pretty much no other geometric form.

geoffkait wrote:

6. Ever heard of Sugar Cubes? From the maker of the tiny little bowl resonators. Tiny little wooden cubes about 3/4" on a side with a teeny tiny little hole drilled in the center of one side that are placed on walls at strategic points.

I had not until you asked, but I researched them and support them; as professionals reported on visiting the manufacture in France and had the following conclusion:
"Next to our own experience, we also heard some pretty amazing before/after results at ASI's Paris headquarters."
(ASI being the manufacturer of the product).
As I have said before, if the benefits of ANY tweak have either been documented via A/B comparison testing by audio professionals or experimental evidence, I of course support it.

geoffkait wrote:

7. Most wood is directional, especially ebony, so you might find that how the wood is cut with the grain or cross grain is audible as is how the wood is placed under or on top of the component, I.e., rotate block until best sound is found. This is very audible with the Mpingo discs as they are symmetrical, not sure about blocks.

Again referring to the same article as the sugarcube product, they observed the following:
"The body is hollowed out and a small hole connects the cavity to the outside. It is like a miniature Helmholtz resonator. Adjusting the alignment of the wood's grain left or right from straight up -- hence the dot -- focuses the image."
So I agree, orientation matters. Now some may think I am avoiding the topic without providing my analysis; however, I don't believe in "reinventing the wheel", so if audio professionals have found measurable and documented improvement, I will be satisfied with that, thereby saving myself time.

geoffkait wrote:

8. A very good use for wood blocks is clapping them together in the room all around to determine where echoes exist, then treating the walls with Echo Tunes. Recall I wuz one of Michael's first customers in a time far far away.

I cannot comment on the use of a proprietary product I have not tried myself nor seen written evidence. I will leave the question to Michael. However, I am open minded and certainly can believe that to be a valid approach.

All:

I hope my replies stimulate further positive discussion, and I also enjoy this side of the hobby...looking into experimental and theoretical venues of further refining/improving the MUSIC coming from our systems. I also hope my replies were of some use and added to the conversation.

Kind Regards,

Dr. Ronald R. Stesiak
Computational Finance

geoffkait
geoffkait's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 days 1 hour ago
Joined: Apr 29 2008 - 5:10am
Quick shout out for Gabon ebony

Gabon ebony is examined in some detail here. Gabon ebony is one of the woods used in Mpingo discs, the other being Mpingo which as I recall is actually an african blackwood, the audiophile disc I often tout. Nothing wrong with other woods, I'm sure they all have certain advantages. But ebony in terms of audiophile applications is unparalleled in my experience if one is trying to get bang for buck or bang per unit mass. I offer the proposition that density might not actually be the determining property of wood for audiophile applications.

"Gabon Ebony, also known as “Gaboon” or “Black” Ebony sets the undisputed standard for true black wood around the globe and has done so throughout history. Highly prized throughout many civilizations as the purest of all black wood, it has been found in the most coveted places within Egyptian tombs. Other documented fondness by royalty shows it to have been the choice material for scepters and drinking cups by the ancient kings of India.

Today’s artisan craftsmen continue to hold Gabon Ebony in the highest esteem due to the associated lore, as well as the workable traits of the material itself. Due to the extreme tight grain density, it is capable of polishing to a glass like finish, and can provide a genuine black color with almost no visible grain whatsoever. Most often is straight grained but infrequently might have some interlocked grain.

From a musical instrument perspective, it has proven itself time and again to be of the finest material to work with, and is known for superior tonality due to the higher density over the other types of ebony. It has a long history as being used for piano keys, as well as bodies for clarinets and other woodwind instruments. Also, with luthiers it is prized for fingerboards, bridges and headplates in quality guitar building. Size limitations of available stock prevent it from being widely used for the guitar body itself, but there are some out there.

Few species can imitate the depth of blackness true gabon ebony affords. While there are a number of other species in the Diospyros genus, the vast majority of them don’t yield a true black color tone. And when they do, it is variegated with other tones. Even the best quality of gabon is subject to having sporadic caramel streaks in it, but this is not to be considered a defect rather, it is the character of the wood. The only competitor from a visual perspective would be African Blackwood, but unfortunately it is not true ebony. One of the few species that is an accepted substitute (from a grain density and tonal perspective) is Katalox (aka Mexican Royal Ebony), but it provides a purplish color tone in lieu of the solid black."

And while we're at it, a brief intro to Mpingo (African blackwood), note Mpingo is 3 times as dense as spruce and twice as dense as most woods we consider "dense" woods such as maple and mahogany, coming in at a whopping 75 lb/ft3.

"Blackwood clarinets are known for their warm and beguiling musical tone. Most professional musicians feel there is no substitute for an instrument made of blackwood. Acker Bilk, well-known clarinetist for such pieces as "Stranger on the Shore", had this to say about mpingo clarinets in the PBS video, "The Tree of Music": "It's got that warmth about it, that live sort of feel about it–wood–you can't beat it!"

Mpingo also figures prominently in the making of bagpipes. A bagpipe is a wind instrument which produces sound through reeds. Except in a few special cases it is made of at least two sounding pipes tied into an airtight bag with a further pipe to allow it to be filled with air. Pressure is applied to the bag using the arm, and this causes the reeds to vibrate and sound. Mpingo is an excellent material for the sounding pipes of this instrument."

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

rrstesiak
rrstesiak's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 5 months ago
Joined: Mar 22 2015 - 5:38am
reply

Geoff:

Dig the info - and I hope I was't implying on eliminating ebony as a selection in my previous post. I enjoy readings like your reply for the off-beat knowledge and a fresh perspective.

Kind Regards,

Ron

michael green
michael green's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 8 months ago
Joined: Jan 10 2011 - 6:11pm
3,4,5...10 blocks?

I'm happy these threads are going like they are, I don't have to get too involved that way LOL. (I'd rather be listening)

My answer to most of the recent posts above is, the reason there are so many queations here is because of a choice. Live in the hypothetical or live in the practical application part of the hobby. Nothing wrong with the hypothetical until you claim it to be a truth, then it actually becomes a lie or assumption, because it was never completely proven by doing. Want the answers to how many and where and what and why, go to where they are actually practicing science and not just talking about it. As with almost all the questions that come up here "THE" answers are on TuneLand in black & white. Look in the "listener's forum" and stop guessing would be my recommendation to May & geoff. The Answer is neither 3 nor 4 nor 5, the answer is, depends on the performance you choose, and the recorded code.

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

May Belt
May Belt's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 years 6 months ago
Joined: May 8 2006 - 1:51am
Reply to Ron

>>> “First, use theory to narrow down the problem in question to a few rules or governing dynamics of the problem. Then, experiment with this now severely simplified set to arrive at the "best" solution. This approach can be used to solve *any* problem.” <<<

This argument falls down, Ron, when there is nothing in ‘conventional electronic and acoustic theory’ to explain many of the things which people are (and have been) discovering can change the sound !! So, no, this approach cannot be used to solve ANY problem !! IF the approach you refer to CAN BE USED to solve any problem, then surely there would be NO controversies?? But there is endless controversy – so the answers are NOT in the conventional theory text books !!

>>> “So, very long story short, 3 is the ideal number for human beings to be aesthetically and in general, "pleased". I could write pages on this...but please let's just arrive at this conclusion that not only do we all inherently "like" 3, many many natural principles and behaviors reveal this number. So, my answer is to use 3 blocks.” <<<

Your presumption, Ron, when you use the descriptive words ‘aesthetically pleased’ is obviously to do with a visual point of view. How do you then explain that one doesn’t even have to be ‘seeing’/knowing that there are 3 blocks instead of 4 blocks to ‘hear’ an improvement in the sound ? There is nothing in conventional electronic or acoustic THEORY BOOKS to explain how the changes in the sound could be heard when the listener is NOT ‘seeing’ whether 3 or 4 or 5 blocks have been used !!!!!!

So, conventional electronic or acoustic theory can give you no clues whatsoever. The clues come from elsewhere and from what other people have done, experienced and described !! This is a point where I agree somewhat with Michael. There are many people who want a scientific explanation before they will try some unusual listening experiments. No problem there, other than they are missing out on furthering their knowledge – but it is when they won’t even take other people’s experiences into consideration (and here I am referring to ‘significant in audio’ people’s experiences) – as that – considerable experience and knowledge !!!

You have admitted that even if you yourself have not experienced certain things, you are prepared to accept when others (whose experience you have respect for) describe their own experiences. What do YOU do therefore, Ron, when even many of those people admit they don’t have an explanation for what they have just experienced ?

You make it sound SOOOOO easy. i.e. That if THEY don’t know and you don’t know, then surely someone, somewhere does !! But we aren’t fully there yet, Ron. We are still sifting through results – listening results – not reading from theory text books. You exhibit the confidence of someone who has not been faced with the ‘sound’ changing unexpectedly when it should not have changed and where there is no conventional explanation for what happened !!!!

As I have just pointed out to Geoff. Directionality in the wood (polarity) – used different way round – gives you different sound – FROM EXACTLY THE SAME PIECE OF WOOD – under exactly the same item of equipment !! What price vibration theory now, what price resonance theory now, what price ‘dealing with the audio code’ now when it is the same wood with the same vibrations and resonances ? AND, just WHERE is any directionality (polarity) having an effect on the musical information – to make the changes in the sound (i.e changes in the musical information) ?

Let me spell that out more fully. If one wishes to have the explanation of the block of wood (or blocks of wood) affecting the musical information travelling through the item of equipment it/they are underneath, then one has to explain HOW that SAME piece of wood (or woods), in exactly the same position, can give a different sound when positioned round into a different direction !!

Regarding the Sugar Cubes. You say Ron :-

>>> “So I agree, orientation matters” <<<

Orientation matters with the Sugar Cubes ? So, what is that orientation affecting ? The audio signal (the musical information) travelling through the audio system or the musical information involved in the room acoustics ?

So, regarding the orientation of the wood block/s under equipment. What is the orientation affecting here ?
This is the constant challenge I have with Michael. I say there are still many questions, on a shelf, awaiting answers. Michael, instead, says that he has :-

>>> “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.”<<<

So many things, in audio, are stumbled on, occur quite inadvertently, don’t fit conventional electronic or acoustic theories. And answers have to be worked out, thread by thread, or like a jigsaw puzzle, piece by piece from experience, clues, or sheer intuitive leaps !!

To give you one such example. This is a quote (provided by Stereophile’s Jason Victor Serinus) from the producer of the Stein Harmonizer.

>>> “So how does the Stein Harmonizer work? Best to quote directly from Stein. Since, for him, English is a second language, I’ve given him an assist in the editing department.

”Some years ago, my wife used some rose quartz for decoration in our showroom. When we powered up the system, we had the impression that the sound had changed somewhat. It was not a big difference; it was something like moving a curtain into a somewhat different position. But it did make some change.

“We wondered what was causing this phenomenon. Then, while moving the quartz, we found it made a small change in the music. It was small, but detectable. So we asked ourselves how this can be.” <<<

So, the quartz crystal changes the sound when in a device is in the room !! Where is that information in the electronic and acoustic theory text books ?

Regards,
May Belt,
PWB Electronics.

michael green
michael green's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 8 months ago
Joined: Jan 10 2011 - 6:11pm
Q & A's & where to look

My job's getting easier :)

"So, regarding the orientation of the wood block/s under equipment"

The MGA/RoomTune solution.

Listeners can find wood types, shapes, sizes, uses and prices on http://tuneland.techno-zone.net/

You can also talk to listeners tuning with them in real time.

If any listener wants a system or component voiced or made variable, we're more than happy to serve you. Best way is to click below, register and begin your own system thread. Once there we can get as specific as you would like about your system or a particular piece of music. We'll walk you through using the Tuning Blocks on your own system, and show you how to find the best orientation for your particular components and desired sound.

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

geoffkait
geoffkait's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 days 1 hour ago
Joined: Apr 29 2008 - 5:10am
Off-beat knowledge
rrstesiak wrote:

Geoff:

Dig the info - and I hope I was't implying on eliminating ebony as a selection in my previous post. I enjoy readings like your reply for the off-beat knowledge and a fresh perspective.

Kind Regards,

Ron

I appreciate the support and would just like to make one comment on your comment. You refer often to my unique perspective or off-beat knowledge or fresh perspective. I'm not sure that is a compliment, but I'm glad I can bring information to the table that you did not know previously. So, I would probably prefer to call it new knowledge. You know, pseudo skeptics are fond of using terms like off-beat knowledge and unique perspective to try to paint a theory or an idea into a corner. I encourage anyone who has good results with wood blocks to consider very hard materials such as the NASA grade ceramics used in Super DH Cones. Diamond Hardness. This solution is a more general solution as it were and bypasses the angst and audio nervosa associated with trying to figure out the best wood and the best combination of blocks. Wood blocks are like building blocks to the future and the future is vibration isolation.

Cheers,

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica
Advanced Audio Concepts

geoffkait
geoffkait's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 days 1 hour ago
Joined: Apr 29 2008 - 5:10am
Audio Nervosa flare up
michael green wrote:

I'm happy these threads are going like they are, I don't have to get too involved that way LOL. (I'd rather be listening)

My answer to most of the recent posts above is, the reason there are so many queations here is because of a choice. Live in the hypothetical or live in the practical application part of the hobby. Nothing wrong with the hypothetical until you claim it to be a truth, then it actually becomes a lie or assumption, because it was never completely proven by doing. Want the answers to how many and where and what and why, go to where they are actually practicing science and not just talking about it. As with almost all the questions that come up here "THE" answers are on TuneLand in black & white. Look in the "listener's forum" and stop guessing would be my recommendation to May & geoff. The Answer is neither 3 nor 4 nor 5, the answer is, depends on the performance you choose, and the recorded code.

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

The problem you're having obviously is simply one of having too many variables, that's why you can never find the solution. It's what is known as the local maximum - you search and search and finally find a solution that pleases you. Unfortunately this Trial and Error technique guarantee that you will never find the absolute best solution. The answer to this conundrum for you of course is to come up with some excuse like it's variable or there's some sort of CODE. It's analogous to the speaker placement problem - by trying to find the two locations simultaneously for the speakers that provide the best sound you can only find a local maximum because without a real methodology it's like looking for a needle in a haystack. Besides vibration isolation trumps wood blocks. Ever consider why LIGO doesn't use wood blocks in the experiment to find gravity waves? There is no course at MIT or Princeton on wood blocks.

Some people are condemned to looking for the solution 24 hours a day.

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

rrstesiak
rrstesiak's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 5 months ago
Joined: Mar 22 2015 - 5:38am
Reply to May

May:

I am not sure where we really disagree; actually, so I will write back with more detail in the hopes we come to a mutual understanding…I will try to address areas of my reply you seemed concerned with enough to warrant your own reply:

May Belt wrote:

“First, use theory to narrow down the problem in question to a few rules or governing dynamics of the problem. Then, experiment with this now severely simplified set to arrive at the "best" solution. This approach can be used to solve *any* problem.” <<<

This argument falls down, Ron, when there is nothing in ‘conventional electronic and acoustic theory’ to explain many of the things which people are (and have been) discovering can change the sound !! So, no, this approach cannot be used to solve ANY problem !! IF the approach you refer to CAN BE USED to solve any problem, then surely there would be NO controversies?? But there is endless controversy – so the answers are NOT in the conventional theory text books !!

You bring up a very valid point. I should have, and will now qualify that statement with: Most problems. I agree the use of “any” problem was too broad. However, in general, and to cover “all problems”, I have already accounted for the outliers that do not fit scientific definition when stated I do not rely on scientific or intellectual theory alone, but rather more clearly to restate: if I myself cannot find any scientific or other valid documentation, an audio professional’s (or anyone who’s experience trumps my own) previous recommendation, or any difference in sound to my own ears after implementing a tweak; or in some cases after exhaustive research on a tweak, then I won’t implement it. I believe at some point one has to disregard some suggestions; for if they didn’t, wouldn’t all of our listening rooms be crowded with “tweaks”? As I previously have communicated, I use a combination of “fixed” and “variable” tuning methods and pick and choose what works best for me. That means many suggestions do not end up implemented. I hope this clarifies your first part of your response.

As for me choosing three blocks, you are leaving out many things I said. I only was using the visual “rule of thirds” concept to illustrate the idea that humans have a documented, built-in preference to “three”. I go on to say the more direct reasoning as follows, and I will now number my reasons you seem to have skipped before your own reply, loosely quoting what I have previously written:

rrstesiak wrote:


REASON #1
The Fibonacci sequence...establishes a sequence of numbers which, when plotted, reveals the golden spiral and golden ratio...here is a brief subset of the infinite sequence, based on F(t)=Summation[n + (n-1)] = 1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21.....

Essentially, I was drawing upon the golden ratio and golden spiral properties of this sequence...specifically the golden ratio and in art the rule of thirds...if one uses combinatorics, it is rapidly derived that all of these methods have one number in common: 3.

….but please let's just arrive at this conclusion that not only do we all inherently "like" 3, many many natural principles and behaviors reveal this number. ..So, my answer is to use 3 blocks.

REASON #2
Three is simply a minimum required to support the object firmly; again referring to the design of Rega turntables as proof. Two just isn't enough, and four is not necessary. (one could adjust the dimensions of the tuning blocks,and allow for any configuration, but let's leave that out for simplicity sake).

REASON #3
In general, it is the simplest solution to solve any problem that is oft the most elegant..and in this case, three is the minimum required (given smaller dimensions) to support any equipment without adding any more unnecessarily expense or redundancy. Not only is 3 the minimum required to support an object firmly, it is *the minimum*. As we are going partly for *isolation*, we want minimal contact, thus providing my fourth and final reason to use 3.

Regarding the orientation and polarity of wood, as well as my admittedly blind acceptance of the sugarcube product, you also seem displeased with my response. I will try to state it clearer…it in fact mirrors what I have just written in the beginning of this specific reply:

Many times, one cannot rely on their direct experience, and must therefore rely on the documented experience of other qualified individuals. It IS that simple! So, in the cases of wood orientation and polarity, I simply rely on the published articles of the subject. In fact, that is the foundation of Research Science: to leverage previous ideas and to liberally quote them, and to build upon them and demonstrate one’s own hypothesis or actual valid discovery. We often quote others. In fact, isn’t the entire notion of Education simply “Learning from others”? I digress. and think I’ve made my point clear by now. Moving on…

And finally, I wholeheartedly agree some of the best things have been established sheerly by accident, and some cannot be explained. As I said, if others more qualified than myself have already discovered and documented something as “good”, then I may very well look into it. I again never stated every thing must be backed by textbooks.

So I hope this detailed reply helps bridge our gap of misunderstanding.

Respectfully,

Ron

rrstesiak
rrstesiak's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 5 months ago
Joined: Mar 22 2015 - 5:38am
Reply to Geoff

Geoff:

My choice of wording was truthfully meant solely in a complementary fashion. In academics and probably most endeavors, it is the unique and different viewpoints that are usually the most intriguing.

Respectfully,

Ron

May Belt
May Belt's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 years 6 months ago
Joined: May 8 2006 - 1:51am
Further reply to Ron

>>> “You bring up a very valid point. I should have, and will now qualify that statement with: Most problems. I agree the use of “any” problem was too broad. “ <<<

No problems, Ron, if you didn’t mean “any” !!

>>> “But please let’s just arrive at this conclusion that not only do we all inherently "like" 3, many many natural principles and behaviors reveal this number. ..So, my answer is to use 3 blocks.” <<<

Wow. I like where this is going !! Concepts such as “we all inherently like 3”. “Many natural principles and behaviours”.

We are now (I hope) beginning to challenge the conventional acceptance of “it does not matter whether it is 3 or 4 or 5 or 6 or 10 – so long as it is dealing with vibrations – which in turn is then presumed to be dealing with the audio signal (musical information)”.

If it IS, Ron, to do with what “we all inherently like” or to do with “many natural principles and behaviours”, then it IS what WE like and not what the audio signal likes !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Supposing it IS what WE like which is determining so much of the changes which people hear in their sound. I.e. the sound of different colours, the sound of different chemicals, the sound of different shapes, and so on – and nothing to do with what the audio signal likes !!!

Ron. 3 sounds better than 4 but 5 also sounds better than 4. Because there is also something in Nature which sometimes favours even numbers or even layers and at other times odd numbers and odd layers are favoured. Again, when the sound is found to be better (or worse), it may be nothing whatsoever to do with what is affecting the audio signal (affecting the musical information travelling through the audio system) and all to do with what is affecting US (human beings) and what WE are reacting to and what WE like or don’t like !!!!

However, Ron, your Reasons 2 and 3 are still centering on the “support” concept – whilst at the SAME time putting forward the concept that it is what “we all inherently like” !!!!!

But if you are going with the “support” concept, then you have to explain how the sound (the musical information) is affected by the different numbers 3 or 4 or 5. And if you are going with the concept of it is what “we all inherently like” or to do with “many natural principles and behaviours”, then you have to explain how the sound (the musical information) is affected by the different numbers 3 or 4 or 5.

I am afraid you are wanting to ‘have it both ways’. And this is what many other people are finding and then realising that they can’t have it both ways. Either it is the audio signal (the musical information travelling through the audio equipment or the acoustic musical information in the room) being affected or it is US (human beings) reacting.

Again to give you examples. Re the Schumann Resonance (Atmosphere) device.

Ted Denney said :-

>>> "RF pollution affects how we perceive sound," Ted said," explaining that that is why our systems unpredictably sound good or bad. The Atmosphere, he said, creates a binaural RF field that swamps external RF pollution, allowing our perception to operate correctly. It affects the listener, not the system.” <<<

John Atkinson said :-

>>> “I don't believe there was any change in the "soundwaves reaching my ears." What changed, I am convinced, was my perception of those soundwaves.
In that light, what would I test? “ <<<

In a Review of the Synergistic “Atmosphere” (Schumann Resonance device) Steven Plaskin said :-

>>> “Atmosphere appears to effect how the listener perceives music........ I enjoy reviewing products like this because it challenges conventional thinking.” <<<

To repeat what you said again, Ron :-

>>> “But please let’s just arrive at this conclusion that not only do we all inherently "like" 3, many many natural principles and behaviors reveal this number. ..So, my answer is to use 3 blocks.” <<<

I don’t know whether you are realising it or not, Ron, but you are seriously venturing into Rupert Sheldrake’s world of Morphic Resonance !!

>>> “And finally, I wholeheartedly agree some of the best things have been established sheerly by accident, and some cannot be explained. As I said, if others more qualified than myself have already discovered and documented something as “good”, then I may very well look into it. I again never stated every thing must be backed by textbooks.
So I hope this detailed reply helps bridge our gap of misunderstanding.” <<<

Yes, your last statement helps bridges some gaps of misunderstanding. And, Ron, I don’t get displeased. But I DO challenge !!!

As I commented to Geoff. This IS getting interesting !!.

Regards,
May Belt,
PWB Electronics.

michael green
michael green's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 8 months ago
Joined: Jan 10 2011 - 6:11pm
Come tune!

Geoff says

"The problem you're having obviously is simply one of having too variables"

mg

LOL Problem LOL. geoff I get to read about more successful listening sessions in a month on TuneLand than this entire forum shares in a year. I wouldn't call that a problem when the objective is to actually listen to music.

quote from a listener tuning (today)

"All these small adjustments here and there really make the difference in creating my ultimate floating soundstage.
I would say better than live concert with super detail, crystal clear sound, the open spacious ambience, the wide dynamic, the imaging of the instrument location and one of the most important key factor is that it really can go very low in register especially the double bass."

Why don't you come explore tuning for yourself instead of talking about how it can't work. What I see on Tuneland is a bunch of listeners having fun and going further in the hobby than they ever have before, and we see that as a positive.

times they are a changen, my friend, and as they do hopefully you will jump in on the positives of the changes as we welcome you to come tune.

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

geoffkait
geoffkait's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 days 1 hour ago
Joined: Apr 29 2008 - 5:10am
Quick question

Your customer wrote,

"quote from a listener tuning (today)

"All these small adjustments here and there really make the difference in creating my ultimate floating soundstage. I would say better than live concert with super detail, crystal clear sound, the open spacious ambience, the wide dynamic, the imaging of the instrument location and one of the most important key factor is that it really can go very low in register especially the double bass."

Is English his second language? Did you write that yourself?

Just joking.

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

michael green
michael green's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 8 months ago
Joined: Jan 10 2011 - 6:11pm
Again done in poor taste!

To my knowledge this highly respected audiophile is fluent in several languages. You can visit his thread and see his contributions to the hobby and fellow listeners. Odd that you continue to make fun of those in this hobby and industry who run circles around you. As we can see on many forums as well as Rip Off Reports published about you, your the last person who should be making fun of anyone. And you know it's ok that you have created your own reputation, but showing a lack of any type of class toward our fellow listeners around the world is once again you showing very poor taste.

Why Stereophile allows people like you to make a joke out of them, is still baffling to me. My apologise to my fellow music lovers and the readers of the Stereophile forum. Some here have no taste, respect or appreciation for your hobby. If it were up to me they would get the boot, as they have been given the boot from other forums. But all I can do is invite serious fun loving listeners to a far more civil place when they need a break from the childred.

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

geoffkait
geoffkait's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 days 1 hour ago
Joined: Apr 29 2008 - 5:10am
Let the mudslinging begin

Dear Mr. Green, you have no idea what you're talking about. By spreading false stories like the Rip Off Report you're only spreading lies. Of course lying is your forte, so completely understandable why you resort to such mudslinging tactics. As for your boy, he needs to go back to school and take a remedial English course. As do you. That is the most poorly written testimonial I've seen in ages. And so trite, too.

I said it would be fun but I didn't say for who.

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

ChrisS
ChrisS's picture
Offline
Last seen: 11 hours 13 min ago
Joined: Mar 6 2006 - 8:42pm
Go home, Geoffy...

...you're howling again.

michael green
michael green's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 8 months ago
Joined: Jan 10 2011 - 6:11pm
upset again? lol

Hey I didn't bring up the rip off reports geoff you did, as well as pointing to all the forums you have been on trolling. I had no idea who you even were till you jumped in on some of my threads. If you want to sling mud, I see it as you pretty much slinging it at yourself.

We're just trying to have topics about music and inviting you to come listen with us.

BTW having some great conversations on http://tuneland.techno-zone.net/ with the same topics only a little more advanced and pleasant. So if you readers ever see the topics here flame and burn to the ground, you can pick up the same (or start the same) topics on TuneLand.

About this particular topic listeners will find a ton of real time doing and discussion all over TuneLand and we enjoy you visiting.

have a great time listening folks

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

geoffkait
geoffkait's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 days 1 hour ago
Joined: Apr 29 2008 - 5:10am
Oh, brother!
michael green wrote:

Hey I didn't bring up the rip off reports geoff you did, as well as pointing to all the forums you have been on trolling. I had no idea who you even were till you jumped in on some of my threads. If you want to sling mud, I see it as you pretty much slinging it at yourself.

We're just trying to have topics about music and inviting you to come listen with us.

BTW having some great conversations on http://tuneland.techno-zone.net/ with the same topics only a little more advanced and pleasant. So if you readers ever see the topics here flame and burn to the ground, you can pick up the same (or start the same) topics on TuneLand.

About this particular topic listeners will find a ton of real time doing and discussion all over TuneLand and we enjoy you visiting.

have a great time listening folks

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

Now, you're talking crazy. Why would I bring up Rip Off Report? You brought it up, my weak-memory friend. And you've brought it up repeatedly since then. Shall I point your long pointy nose to your original statement? Now, I did bring up The Amazing Randi, maybe you're confused. If you have nothing more to contribute to this thread on vibration, and I suspect you probably don't since you've been reduced to personal attacks and billboards to TunnelLand again, then by all means head back to TunnelLand, where the streets all end at the edge of town. Besides, anyone who thinks Rip Off Report is not itself a SCAM is just plain dumb.

A challenge: if you can find where I was the first to bring up Rip Off Report I'll eat a bug.

Let me give you what you wrote back in January 2015 for starters. An excellent example of picking up some random garbage off the Internet and using it to sling mud. Just like you did with the Rip Off Report article. Does this refresh your memory? Doh! I think we can safely conclude you have the morals of a starving hyiena.

is what you said, and it just looks to me like Mr. Winer and perhaps a few others have based their opinions of you in a way that seems they have your number so to say. Now I have no idea what Mr. Winer is about apart from him believing a certain way about acoustics. That said when you try to match him up with me it opens you up to what others have to say about you. For example

"NOT A HOAXER?

Reader Paul Erickson opines:

I do not believe Geoff Kait of Machina Dynamica is perpetuating a hoax with his products (i.e., Teleportation Tweak). He is really scamming unsuspecting customers for the following reasons:

At the request of one of my friends, Todd Green, who is an audio expert, I emailed Geoff Kait and inquired about his outlet covers (randi.org//27/#i7). He replied that the wall covers were “old news” and his newest item, Teleportation Tweak, was the new, hot item. I, then, asked him two questions: a) scientific proof and b) will he take the Randi Challenge. His response was a) his customers’ hearing (actually, he said his customers “ears” was all the proof he needed) and b) why should he take the Randi Challenge since he is making more money selling his products. When I advised him that anecdotal evidence is not scientific evidence, he threatened to “kick my ass” (along with several other obscenities). I welcomed the opportunity to “meet” with him but he has not responded (which is very wise on his part; if he saw me in person or knew of my martial arts background, he never would have threatened me, but I digress).

Up to the time he sent me a threatening email, he was espousing how great his products work. He was definitely correct about one thing – he would be a fool to take the challenge. He would be proven to be a fraud and would lose the revenue he receives from selling his fake products. Why would he risk it? He has nothing to gain and everything to lose.

Please do not stop exposing this clown as a con-artist. The only joke here is that there are so many stupid people that believe his garbage.

If you get this stooge to respond, maybe you can get him to agree to a physical match with me. During the TAM 5.5 or the Amazing Adventure Galapagos would be fantastic (I prefer the latter since he would not be able to escape once he was on the boat). It should prove great entertainment for the attendees.

Well, Paul, I just can’t believe (a) that anyone could expect to be believed on such a ridiculous premise, and (b) that anyone would believe the claim. Now, I’ve seen some arrogant scientists – well-educated and experienced – who have fallen for “psychic” claims, and even for perpetual-motion schemes, but the audiophile crowd has to be brighter than to fall for Kait’s juvenile assertions. If I’m wrong, we’re in deep trouble, folks…"

Geoff, It just seems to me that you spend much of your time not so much in the act of listening nor designing but more in the art of trolling. After seeing you try every spin in the book on me possible, I would have to say that both Mr. Winer and Randi plus it seems a whole list more, have experienced the same type of spins from you, and for a long time now. If I hadn't experienced the same behavior from you, I would be inclined to give someone the benefit of the doubt, but seeing the same practice from you up close leaves little doubt that you are indeed what you are excused to be."

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

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

michael green
michael green's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 8 months ago
Joined: Jan 10 2011 - 6:11pm
Peter Malick "New York City" with Norah Jones

Sorry geoff, you've built your own heaven or hell, so I can't tell you what to do with it. Only thing I can suggest is turn on the music and come join us in the hobby of listening. Started playing "New York City" last night while I was working on systems. Norah Jamms on this recording.

The threads here, on AA and the Rip Off Reports pretty much speak for themselves. They're what you've created. Like I've said, I didn't know you, Randi or know where you've posted until you brought them to mine and others attention. Your also the only one who can re-write your pages. You can choose to be on the positive or negative side of life, no one can do it for you.

Now go get a cassette, pop in those earphones, adjust your recliner and have a great day enjoying the best hobby on the planet. Hate is no way to spend your days.

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

geoffkait
geoffkait's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 days 1 hour ago
Joined: Apr 29 2008 - 5:10am
Is TunnelLand a Scam?

The rip off report is a scam, you knucklehead. Try to refrain from lying just once. Is TunnelLand a scam too? Hmmmmm.....We shall see.

Cheerios,

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

Pages

  • X