Okay, okay. We all have to admit that Geoff is an evil genius and that his entire routine (and business) is a prolonged, Monty Pythonish spoof of the industry. Well done. We are all fools indeed and deserve such treatment.
Do equipment stands have an impact on electronics?
Mechanical grounding or isolation from vibration has been a hot topic as of late. Many know from experience that footers, stands and other vibration technologies impact things that vibrate a lot like speakers, subs or even listening rooms (my recent experience with an "Energy room"). The question is does it have merit when it comes to electronics and if so why? Are there plausible explanations for their effect on electronics or suggested measurement paradigms to document such an effect?
1,146 responses Add your response
What is the difference between a hypothesis and a theory? | CARM https://carm.org/difference-hypothesis-theoryA hypothesis is an attempt to explain phenomena. ... A theory is the result of testing a hypothesisand developing an explanation that is assumed to be true about something. A theory replaces thehypothesis after testing confirms the hypothesis, or the hypothesis is modified and tested ...
No they are not the same thing. A readily accepted and thoroughly tested hypothesis becomes a theory. Of course you had to try to deflect to something else to avoid the point of the post. Pretty typical. Google sure is a great thing. Pretty much every reply to the query said the same thing, but you knew that, didn't you? When will any of your products ever get to the point of being a theory instead of a guess? |
Robert wrote, "Geoff, your springs are acting as a direct coupling mechanism." Robert, when I read that sentence milk squirted out of my nose. Seriously. I will post a more complete response in due course. (Are you sure you’re not Michael Green’s evil twin?) cheers, geoff kait machina dramatica give me a stiff enough spring and I’ll isolate the world |
Mr. Kait states: - The only way you can possibly deal wih seismic waves is to decouple the component from them, and I'm referring to rotational (bending) forces in additional to the usual vertical forces and forces in the horizontal plane.
Your springs are actually functioning as a “direct coupling mechanism”. Depending on the actual materials and dimensions of springs used, the speed of the resonance transfer will vary as will the bandwidth of frequencies across the audible and inaudible spectrum, yielding different sonic results in comparison. Frequency and Speed with springs is complexly related to the mass and mass distribution of the component. We too have used springs in our studies and development processes and have found that there are too many variables in each possible usage scenario; there is no “one-size fits all” with spring coupling. Ultimately, you are ‘NOT Decoupling’ with the use of metallic springs - try another material.
You have yet to respond, answer or clarify or prove to us; how inaudible seismic waves affect the performance of a stereo system in either a standard or more efficient listening environment, nor have you provided any indication as to how such waves have such a dramatic effect on the "audible performance" and/or musical quality of playback equipment when mechanically grounded. Do inaudible seismic waves affect the performance of musical instruments in some “audible” way that the world is not aware of?
Then why not leave the “majority” of audio veterans alone and exploit your visions elsewhere? Like Coulomb Friction, you clog up all signal pathways and “therefore”, in my opinion you should mechanically transfer out! Robert Star Sound |
csmgolf 297 posts 10-24-2016 6:51pm Agear, they are not even theories, they are hypotheses. In other words, a guess. The reason you never see any supporting evidence or documentation for his products is because there is none. No scientist has bought any of them and said "Wow, this is going to change the world!" or "This thing really works." I am not talking six moons or any end users. I mean real scientists that can peer review something like this. That would be how real scientific discoveries are validated. Geoff would never allow that to happen because the fraud would be exposed. Whoa! What? That’s got to be the dumbest thing I heard all day. Somebody was sleeping the day they taught that an hypothesis IS a theory. Duh! I propose the Laughing Goat award go to camgolf. |
agear OP 1,182 posts 10-24-2016 6:26pm Geoff, your theories, while entertaining, are not helping the thread at this point. Try starting another thread along those lines if you wish. If you recall you were the one who demanded I discuss Morphic resonance. In fact you insinuated I was dodging your questions. You can’t have it both ways, silly. OK, you can proceed with your troll thread. |
Agear, they are not even theories, they are hypotheses. In other words, a guess. The reason you never see any supporting evidence or documentation for his products is because there is none. No scientist has bought any of them and said "Wow, this is going to change the world!" or "This thing really works." I am not talking six moons or any end users. I mean real scientists that can peer review something like this. That would be how real scientific discoveries are validated. Geoff would never allow that to happen because the fraud would be exposed. |
agear OP 1,181 posts 10-24-2016 4:03pm Randy: "agear - It is not even theory, in the scientific definition of theory. It is just woo-woo, and utterly worthless." To which agear replied, "It IS fun to watch him try to duck and jive now though. Agreed. The jokes and ad hominem are less impactful when your underwear is around your ankles....." Look at it this way. At least someone in your family got an education. You’re left with a high school sense of humor. Your daddy must be very proud. |
randy-11 107 posts 10-24-2016 4:40pm "why, YES, you did check in I hate to tell you but I have a pretty sound technical education, and provide the same for others up to the PhD level and beyond. I have also installed a few car stereos for myself only, so you may have some sort of edge there. You have a penchant for embarrassing yourself in public. While sad, feel free to keep it up." I see no evidence of any education, little fella. You don’t even have an argument. I’m sure you’re lying. I’d guess you have a GED, tops, based on the level of intelligence YOU exhibit in YOUR posts. |
why, YES, you did check in I hate to tell you but I have a pretty sound technical education, and provide the same for others up to the PhD level and beyond. I have also installed a few car stereos for myself only, so you may have some sort of edge there. You have a penchant for embarrassing yourself in public. While sad, feel free to keep it up. |
| Post removed |
agear OP 1,180 posts 10-24-2016 1:15pm Would you believe I copied the paragraphs from Sheldrake’s website. I never said the words were mine. In fact I said they were not mine. Hel-loo! And you ascribe to this woo woo without data? Hel-loo!???? Its just theory, but should not be presented so brusquely as fact. That is your primary weakness in the context of these debates. Hmmmm. It’s the concept, silly. Data is for sissies. Your weakness in this particular debate is that you are not prepared to defend *either* position. Yet you want to argue and be snippy. In short, a troll. Anyone can see your OP was nothing more than a lame troll. A troll by a wannabe. Have you considered going back to school? Maybe follow in your Daddy’s footsteps. |
Would you believe I copied the paragraphs from Sheldrake’s website. I never said the words were mine. In fact I said they were not mine. Hel-loo!And you ascribe to this woo woo without data? Hel-loo!???? Its just theory, but should not be presented so brusquely as fact. That is your primary weakness in the context of these debates. |
randy-11 103 posts 10-23-2016 8:16pm oleschool - Spock wasn’t trained in abnormal psychology gkaitt is trying to insert a notion invented by the notorious fakir, Rupert Sheldrake https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_Sheldrake it was pseudo-scientific gibberish then, and has not improved with age. :::::::::::: Randy is kinda like Eggo waffles. Thick and flakey. Geez, just try to elevate the level of discussion. |
Agear wrote, "My Pop was a Biochemistry professor with a PhD from Oxford. I am sure he is familiar with Sheldrake and his woo woo babblings. He has generated no data, no NIH grants or body of research to support this. He is an apologist for pantheistic woo woo plain and simple. " I hate to judge before all the facts are in but I’d say you inherited your Pop's close-minded brain. Guess Morphic resonance does work! LOL Agear also wrote, "Geoff, did these things come to you in an epiphany or did you do the subconscious copy and paste from chaps like Sheldrake?" Would you believe I copied the paragraphs from Sheldrake’s website. I never said the words were mine. In fact I said they were not mine. Hel-loo! |
oleschool - Spock wasn't trained in abnormal psychologyouch. A+ randy Sheldrake's morphic resonance hypothesis posits that "memory is inherent in nature"[3][7] and that "natural systems, such as termite colonies, or pigeons, or orchid plants, or insulin molecules, inherit a collective memory from all previous things of their kind".[7] Sheldrake proposes that it is also responsible for "telepathy-type interconnections between organisms".[8] His advocacy of the idea encompasses paranormal subjects such as precognition, telepathy and the psychic staring effect[9][10] as well as unconventional explanations of standard subjects in biology such as development, inheritance, and memory.[11] That's pretty amusing stuff. If Deepak signs off on it, we are good to go. My Pop was a Biochemistry professor with a PhD from Oxford. I am sure he is familiar with Sheldrake and his woo woo babblings. He has generated no data, no NIH grants or body of research to support this. He is an apologist for pantheistic woo woo plain and simple. Geoff, did these things come to you in an epiphany or did you do the subconscious copy and paste from chaps like Sheldrake? |
oleschool - Spock wasn't trained in abnormal psychology gkaitt is trying to insert a notion invented by the notorious fakir, Rupert Sheldrake https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_Sheldrake it was pseudo-scientific gibberish then, and has not improved with age |
Fascinating stuff . What's it doing in a audio forum ?Fishing for explanations as to why electronics are effected by stands. I know they are, but the why is intriguing. I know things have meandered but its still information. Audio like science meanders and yet evolves. The amusing thing is most philes seem to think mechanical grounding grounding is bs. A lot of reviewers seem to as well. Look at any older vintage review and you would often see a 30k amp sitting on a dinning room chair. Makes you wince.... |
Agear wrote, "Okay, but one obvious source of argument is whether they are the manifestation of fixed "laws" at work (or design if you will) versus a habitual, evolutionary process. That aside, how about dialing morphic resonance into audio? Management of vibrational energy in an audio system. One of my current areas of research interest lies in nanotechnology. Small scale design (imperceptible to the naked eye) influences function. By corollary, material science (the subtext of this thread) plays a role in terms of the influence of vibration and performance, etc." I’m not sure we’re on the same page yet. The argument is as you say, whether these habits of nature are evolutionary or embedded in genes or are they something else, something outside of the genes and evolution? Of course as things evolve so does the Morphic field, so it’s more complex. I supposedly we are taught that certain behaviors are passed genetically or evolve but I kind of doubt that there is much more than a passing handwaving involved with any actual education involved. Yet most of us grow up kind of believing that. ASSUMING that. ASSUMING fir example that information is stored in cells somewhere in the brain. Things of that nature. Then there’s the little problem that inanimate objects also obey the rules, for lack of a better word, of Morphic resonance. It’s not just animals and plants. But I digress. Now, getting from how the whole Morphic resonance thing works in nature to how it applies to audio is going to take some time. LOL I also am interested in nanotechnology; would you believe I have at least one product that is Nanotechology based, probably more if I stopped to think about it. The Super Intelligent Chip for sure. Probably Dark Matter. But I digress. The reason I introduced y’all to Morphic resonance is to show that there is a connection to audio. That connection has been around a very long time, longer than most of you ladies have been in the hobby I’d opine. Things have been evolving in audio, too. I personally have at least five products based on Morphic resonance and many of those products have been around quite some time, but who’s counting. Hey, am I having deja vu? Didn’t I already say that? Duh! geoff kait machina dynamica |
Morphic resonance should be detectable in the realms of physics, chemistry, biology, animal behaviour, psychology and the social sciences. Long-established systems, such as zinc atoms, quartz crystals, insulin molecules and muscle cells are governed by strong Morphic fields, with deep grooves of habit established over millions of years, and consequently little change can be observed over a few weeks, or even years, of research. They behave as if they are governed by fixed laws.Okay, but one obvious source of argument is whether they are the manifestation of fixed "laws" at work (or design if you will) versus a habitual, evolutionary process. That aside, how about dialing morphic resonance into audio? Management of vibrational energy in an audio system. One of my current areas of research interest lies in nanotechnology. Small scale design (imperceptible to the naked eye) influences function. By corollary, material science (the subtext of this thread) plays a role in terms of the influence of vibration and performance, etc. |
Agear wrote, "Sounds like a description of living matter. Can you provide a specific example from nature?" Here’s a brief intro introduction to the concept of Morphic resonance, with a few examples. These are not MY words but they are words I happen to agree with. Morphic fields are located within and around the systems they organise. Like quantum fields, they work probabilistically. They restrict, or impose order upon, the inherent indeterminism of the systems under their influence. For example, of the many direction in which a fish could swim or a bird fly, the social fields of the school or flock restrict the behavior of the individuals within them so they move in coordination with each other rather than at random. The most controversial feature of this hypothesis is that the structure of morphic fields depends on what has happened before. Morphic fields contain a kind of memory. Through repetition, the patterns they organise become increasingly probable, increasingly habitual. The force these fields exert is the force of habit. Whatever the explanation of its origin, once a new morphic field, a new pattern of organisation, has come into being, the field becomes stronger through repetition. The more often patterns are repeated, the more probable they become. The fields contain a kind of cumulative memory and become increasingly habitual. All nature is essentially habitual. Even what we view as the fixed “laws of nature” may be more like habits, ingrained over long periods of time. The means by which information or an activity-pattern is transferred from a previous to a subsequent system of the same kind is called morphic resonance. Any given morphic system, say a squirrel, “tunes in” to previous similar systems, in this case previous squirrels of its species. Morphic resonance thus involves the influence of like upon like, the influence of patterns of activity on subsequent similar patterns of activity, an influence that passes through or across space and time from past to present. These influences do not to fall off with distance in space or time. The greater the degree of similarity of the systems involved, the greater the influence of morphic resonance. [editors note: an excellent example of Morphic resonance is how spiders build their webs. And Morphic resonance explains why webs of all spiders regardless of species have striking similarities.] Morphic resonance gives an inherent memory in fields at all levels of complexity. In the case of squirrels, each individual squirrel draws upon, and in turn contributes to, a collective or pooled memory of its kind. In the human realm, this kind of collective memory corresponds to what the psychologist C.G. Jung called the collective unconscious. Morphic resonance should be detectable in the realms of physics, chemistry, biology, animal behaviour, psychology and the social sciences. Long-established systems, such as zinc atoms, quartz crystals, insulin molecules and muscle cells are governed by strong Morphic fields, with deep grooves of habit established over millions of years, and consequently little change can be observed over a few weeks, or even years, of research. They behave as if they are governed by fixed laws. Cheers, geoff kait machina dynamica |
no, he cannot provide any examples, and is merely a troll with no knowledge of bioacoustics, physics or engineering long words are being fabricated in a desperate plea for attention and to get people with no knowledge to buy his crap -- now watch how he responds... I guarantee it will not be with an article in JAES but the brass guy cannot support this odd notions either |
i use information field and Morphic field interchangeably. Here is a summary from somewhere in cyberspace that I think represents a fairly good and consider overview. I have also discussed Morphic fields at some length in my explanations for the Clever Little Clock and the Teleportation Tweak. Sounds like a description of living matter. Can you provide a specific example from nature? |
Agear asked, "For the uninitiated what’s an information field?" i use information field and Morphic field interchangeably. Here is a summary from somewhere in cyberspace that I think represents a fairly good and consider overview. I have also discussed Morphic fields at some length in my explanations for the Clever Little Clock and the Teleportation Tweak. Morphic Fields: A Summary The hypothesized properties of morphic fields at all levels of complexity can be summarized as follows: 1. They are self-organizing wholes. 2. They have both a spatial and a temporal aspect, and organize spatio-temporal patterns of vibratory or rhythmic activity. 3. They attract the systems under their influence towards characteristic forms and patterns of activity, whose coming-into-being they organize and whose integrity they maintain. The ends or goals towards which morphic fields attract the systems under their influence are called attractors. The pathways by which systems usually reach these attractors are called chreodes. 4. They interrelate and co-ordinate the morphic units or holons that lie within them, which in turn are wholes organized by morphic fields. Morphic fields contain other morphic fields within them in a nested hierarchy or holarchy. 5. They are structures of probability, and their organizing activity is probabilistic. 6. They contain a built-in memory given by self-resonance with a morphic unit’s own past and by morphic resonance with all previous similar systems. This memory is cumulative. The more often particular patterns of activity are repeated, the more habitual they tend to become. geoff kait machina dynamica no goats no glory |
agear OP 1,174 posts 10-22-2016 10:49pm Geoffkait:I'm pretty sure we've heard from all the trolls, now. Have I missed anyone? Don't forget yourself cupcake. You have had that label tossed at you on many a thread. So, for the uninitiated, what is an "information field"? I suggest we stay on topic and not get too far afield. Get it? Afield? Cheers |
oleschool wrote, "No trolling here , as much as i try to wrap my mind around some of the principles, like dark matter treatments etc i find myself bewildered." Dunno no why you’re so bewildered as the explanation of my Dark Matter treatment is relatively straightforward and easy to grasp. oleschool also wrote, "Guess i needed more physics in college . I must admit my lego experience was with the blocks 😬 Dam music theory took most of my time along with being a musician for 35 yrs ." The explanation for Dark Matter is so simple even someone in elementary school should be able to follow it. I thought musicians were mathematical geniuses. oleschool also wrote, "Riddle me this oz when i have seen pics of some of your early platforms there was some serious gear on them . have you decided that you have superceeded that type of gear and your early platform with a walkman and markers ? That is truly a serious question, because thats alot cheaper . I just feel unworthy 😔" Why would you assume my customers have Walkmans (Walkmen?). When you ASSUME something you make an ass out of me and Uma Thurman. In any case I'm as serious as a heart attack. Finally, oleschool wrote, "Also in my limited 30yrs in the audiophile world my personal experience has shown good and bad when it comes to racks , i have found a proper designed platform or rack does improve sound . My two cent on the actual thread 🙏" Sorry, but once I see, "I have 30 years in audio or I have been doing this for 40 years, therefore..." I don’t read whatever comes next. Force of habit. Lol Have a nice day |
No trolling here , as much as i try to wrap my mind around some of the principles, like dark matter treatments etc i find myself bewildered . Guess i needed more physics in college . I must admit my lego experience was with the blocks 😬 Dam music theory took most of my time along with being a musician for 35 yrs . Riddle me this oz when i have seen pics of some of your early platforms there was some serious gear on them . have you decided that you have superceeded that type of gear and your early platform with a walkman and markers ? That is truly a serious question, because thats alot cheaper . I just feel unworthy 😔 Also in my limited 30yrs in the audiophile world my personal experience has shown good and bad when it comes to racks , i have found a proper designed platform or rack does improve sound . My two cent on the actual thread 🙏 |
Actually it’s not schizoid. It’s just that the whole freewheeling information field/Morphic Resonance subject has been largely overlooked by audiophiles, or dismissed as hokum. It just hasn’t been discussed much. So whenever any reference to information fields pops up audiophiles tend to react as you just did, with dismay. ;-) Everything is not cut and dry in audio land. Please note quite a few of my products are based on information fields and Morphic fields. Some of these products have been around like forever. The clever clock, Teleportation Tweak, Morphic Message Labels, the Quantum Temple Bell, and Pretzel Logic Reef Knot ( a PWB product). So when I say the immediate environment affects the sound I’m not referring to room acoustics, at least not in the traditional sense. What you don’t see can hurt you. ;-)Geoff, I will readily admit that the reality behind audio is much richer and denser than we will ever realize. I am a fan of "tweaks" and woo woo because its where most of the interesting things go on in audio and is in a sense cutting edge. That being said, it is also ripe ground for sociopathic manipulators to have a field day. So, for the sake of discussion and an earnest quest for knowledge, how do you define an "information field" or "morphic resonance"? |