This isn't meant to start a fight, but it is important to on lookers. As a qualifier, I have my own audio forum where we report on audio issues as we empirically test them. It helps us short cut on theories and developing methods of listening. We have a wide range of systems and they are all over the world adding their experiences to the mix. Some are engineers, some are artist and others are audiophiles both new and old. One question I am almost always asked while I am visiting other forums, from some of my members and also members of the forum I am visiting is, why do so many HEA hobbyist talk theory without any, or very limited, empirical testing or experience?
I have been around empirical testing labs since I was a kid, and one thing that is certain is, you can always tell if someone is talking without walking. Right now on this forum there are easily 20 threads going on where folks are talking theory and there is absolutely no doubt to any of us who have actually done the testing needed, that the guy talking has never done the actual empirical testing themselves. I've seen this happen with HEA reviewers and designers and a ton of hobbyist. My question is this, why?
You would think that this hobby would be about listening and experience, so why are there so many myths created and why, in this hobby in particular, do people claim they know something without ever experimenting or being part of a team of empirical science folks. It's not that hard to setup a real empirical testing ground, so why don't we see this happen?
I'm not asking for peoples credentials, and I'm not asking to be trolled, I'm simply asking why talk and not walk? In many ways HEA is on pause while the rest of audio innovation is moving forward. I'm also not asking you guys to defend HEA, we've all heard it been there done it. What I'm asking is a very simple question in a hobby that is suppose to be based on "doing", why fake it?
Inside every mild mannered pseudo skeptic is an angry snarky troll dying to get out. The pretense of not finding answers to your questions is touching. But it has become your only mantra. If skeptics really wanted to know something they would have taken the trouble to find out a long time ago.
I have not mentioned my products but thanks for including them in your so-called rant. Guess you’re out of ammo again. Gee, I was expecting a tan and rested professor. Instead I get Manfred Milktoast.
Uh, demands for proof and demands for measurements are the tools of the obstreperous and irascible troll.
I love it! The enterprises of engineering and science becomes, on geoff’s account, "trolling." I’m sure it would perfectly suit geoff’s world if anyone could get up to the podium, make a claim, and not be asked for any backing data or cogent theory. "What? You don’t just accept what I’m telling you about my magic pebbles or teleportation tweaks? TROLLS!"
It’s ok geoff, we know: You weren’t really impugning the methods of engineering and science. It’s actually ok to ask skeptical questions and measure things in those disciplines.
It’s only in desperation, when you don’t have any ammunition against someone’s position, but want to call them a name anyway out of frustration, that you seek any excuse to throw words like "troll" at them. Someone asks a skeptical question, or for any data for a claim? I don't like them: TROLL! But we do understand how critical thinking and skepticism are "the enemy" to folks like yourself, and your "products."
When are you joining the Tuneland forum? They need more people who think like you there! (Or...anyone...really...)
Geoff says "obstreperous and irascible". What a coincidence, these are my two favorite words, I try to slip them into every conversation. Beat me to it this time.
Hi ml876ag, I'm just curious if you could produce something beyond an insult? Can you, for instance, show something I wrote to be unreasonable or not true? Thanks.
Uh, demands for proof and demands for measurements are the tools of the obstreperous and irascible troll. Whether trolls think of themselves as trolls is a philosophical question which is worthy of a thread all by itself. Of course, trolls portray themselves as honest law abiding skeptics, devil’s advocates or a friendly helpers just trying to provide positive criticism. Trying to rid the world of scammers, hoaxsters, charlatans, purveyors of the paranormal, Quantum shysters and evil doers. Protectors of the realms of decency, Science, and religion. Kind of the George Bushes of the audio world, if you will. On a campaign, a crusade, to exterminate anyone who looks cross-eyed at them. 🏰
Of course it doesn’t. The can of worms that keep getting opened on this thread are from the trolls making claims that their questions don’t get answered.
Ok, that’s your spin. Now try on for the moment putting it the honest way: In this thread Michael Green has made claims about how altering certain features of a piece of gear changes the sound, and some people have asked reasonable questions about those claims which Michael Green has not answered.
Really, just try even saying that out loud. Being able to speak the truth is good for the soul. Instead, you continue to imply that those of us noting Michael’s evasions are "trolls," where in fact, we are simply reporting the fact Michael hasn’t answered the questions. A fact you can't show to be wrong, so you continually resort to name calling.
What is it that you have against basic decency and honesty? Why can’t you just admit the questions I asked of Michael - e.g. on what technical basis do capacitors change the sound signal when untied and are there measurements to verify this? - have not been answered by Michael? They are simple, obvious, basic questions any "engineer" making a technical claim, or anyone familiar with empirical science, would expect to be asked and would have an answer for. Imagine an engineer in a professional engineering society makes the claim that untying capacitors alter the sound signal. He can absolutely expect, as sure as day follows night, to be asked questions like "what is the technical basis for that claim, what technical parameters change, and what measurements support this claim?" The fact that Michael Green refuses to answer these simple, logical, normal empirical questions - not "demands" as you need to characterize them - speaks volumes about his insecurity in the face of such questions. The fact Michael may have ever measured anything before - e.g. resonant qualities of X material, or taking room measurements after placing room treatments - does NOT justify every claim he makes. So pointing to some other incident of Michael measuring something does not answer the specific questions about, say, the capacitor tweak he claimed in this thread.
On your...sorry...Michael’s...thin-skinned account that my asking such questions is what a troll would do, then engineering and scientific community would be comprised of "trolls" because they...gasp...."demand" answers to these types of questions.
Let’s try an empirical prediction: If this post is answered by jf47t, we can expect something along the lines of "Michael, The Great Empiricist, answers those questions ALL THE TIME!" Yet we can predict he will not, in fact, answer the questions I’ve asked.
Nothing evil is going on here from the other side. Just simple, normal questions like "can you give more information in support of that claim?"But jj47t/Michael Green have painted "themselves" into a corner from the start by first calling out people asking such questions as "fakers" and "talkers" and trolls, Trolls, TROLLS! (I’ve never seen such liberal use of that epithet!). So now they can’t answer these questions in an honest way such as "I don’t have such measurements, but here is why I think the claim has a basis in reality..." because that would be to answer to trolls...Trolls...TROLLS!!!!!!! This really is the strangest performance I’ve ever seen from a manufacturer.
1. Actual disassembling of the amplifier was so simple that it left no room for error. Cover off and out of the room (I actually did that on purpose).
2. I used the fist around the screwdriver. Otherwise, I am not the best for the finest fine motor work, but this required nothing of that kind.
>>>>Did you disconnect any cables or power cord before removing the cover?
3. The whole point is that even the lousiest system can reveal differences. That is why tweaking is done, I think, and old Sherwood receivers and similar items used. Mine is nothing spectacular, but it works in general. It shows differences when a piece is changed.
>>>>>>I’ll be the judge of that. Your opinion is kinda irrelevant. Works in general is not what we call ready for Prime Time. We are throwing your results out.
4. Everything seemed to be working as expected. No hum, buzz, nothing unusual.
>>>>>>Well, working as YOU expected. See the problem?
5. I doubt that, although it is of course possible. I hear all the frequencies with a small dip in acuity at 14000 or 15000 Hz (I forgot which one it was about two months ago) and have no hair over the ears.
>>>>>Of course hearing as a skill has very little to do with frequency response. Especially a self appointed anti audiophile. This is obviously your first rodeo. It’s not mine. 🤠
6. That one is hard to measure, but I, in fact, wanted to hear the difference. If anything, I was more biased towards confirming than rejecting the hypothesis. Aside of that, there was another pair of ears (much younger and completely unbiased, practically not even being aware of this thread) that also could not hear any difference. I have left that fact out until now to be one to one level comparison.
>>>>>Whatver.
7. The day was beautiful.
Points 8 and 9 are impossible to evaluate for an ordinary person. Tuneland experts and me included. We have to assume that those were equal at the time of testing. Next stop Bora Bora. Everything sounds better when the floor is of volcanic origin. Much better than maple.
>>>>>Keep a log. Solar flare and sunspot activity is undated daily on:
glupson, are you high? We’re going to need a squeegee to get you down from the ceiling. The reason I mentioned fuses is because it’s the same idea. You throw out the outliers. Like you. Earth to glupson! Hel-loo! 👨🚀
Capacitors or fuses, same irrelevance for the topic actually discussed. I did write the wrong one, though. There is still about 7 000 000 000 people on Earth who do not think of fuses when discussing something entirely different.
2. You can almost always ID a troll by observing that he responds to any post that mentions him, even when the post he responds to demands no answer or when nothing can be gained by responding.
Who is trying to be funny here? There is actually about 7 000 000 000 people on Earth who never think of capacitors while discussing an entirely different topic.
I came to this thread knowing nothing about the Internet lingo of "trolls". Along the way, I learned that the surest way to be the "troll" is to use word "troll" often.
glupson Those 70,000 satisfied customers don’t care if there are a few obstreperous and argumentative dudes out there who did not get good results.
Other few (7 000 000 000) are laughing.
>>>>Which brings us to definitions no. 2 and no. 3 for Troll:
2. You can almost always ID a troll by observing that he responds to any post that mentions him, even when the post he responds to demands no answer or when nothing can be gained by responding. Just as surely as he will respond to this one. Ho, hum....
3. Another defining characteristic of the hot to trot Troll is his almost complete lack of humor, as demonstrated in glupson’s last posts. Well, really nearly all of them. I mean, come on, people. If you’re going to make wisecracks at least try to make them funny. 😩
I am surely no peer for this topic of capacitors. I also have no idea when the topic got switched. I do know that most of the equipment comes covered and that it is designed by people who actually think about it, and not just participate in Internet forums. Sort of, walkers made it.
Michael Green's findings are as believable as any out there, mine included. They are his perception at that moment, easily added by a bias or two. Mine are my perception at that moment, minus hair over the ears and a bias or two. In short, mine are more valid. That is how it goes.
Welcome back. Stop from time to time, you need a constant in your life, too. It is actually fun here. Like a James Bond movie. You know it makes no sense, you know how it will end and what will happen along the way, but there is some comfort in that. And the characters are as shady as anywhere else.
Those 70,000 satisfied customers don’t care if there are a few obstreperous and argumentative dudes out there who did not get good results.
Other few (7 000 000 000) are laughing.
If it is about preponderance of results, I am yet to meet a person, except myself, who took a cover off an amplifier to hear if it sounds different. In fact, I am a minority along with Michael Green and other few thousand out there. Reasonable people do not let the dust influence their sound so they keep the covers on.
I am truly shocked this debacle is still ongoing Sorry but just HAD to pop in and see if anything new and the answer is ; not in the slightest...oh well. cheers boys
Sorry, no offense, glupson, but you still don’t get it. If you are pretending to be dense you’re doing an excellent job. I never said all positive results are valid. There are possible reasons why not. Unfortunately for your argument those reasons cannot be applied to all positive results. Thus your negative results are not on the same level as MGs positive results. Remember, if you have a memory left, it’s the preponderance of the evidence that is important, not a single data point. You are not a peer, although it appears you desperately wish to be considered one. It’s the same with aftermarket fuses. Those 70,000 satisfied customers don’t care if there are a few obstreperous and argumentative dudes out there who did not get good results. That’s kind of the way the cookie crumbles. 🍪
OK, now we have definition no. 1 of Troll. An argumentative poster who argues until he’s blue in the face. Were you a blue baby? 😨
Are you familiar with the story of Br’er Rabbit 🐇 and the Tar Baby?
Positive results can be as deceptive as negative ones. That is why test evaluations almost always include false-positive "discussion", better to say calculation. Here, we are talking about matters of small differences and not clear black and white or on/off. Reviewer that hears the results may also be biased or his methods may be significantly flawed. That does not even take into account hallucinations that may be more common in certain people. All of those may be obstacles. That is why we are discussing it on an more-or-less anonymous and free-access Internet forum. Neither of our experiments and claims would have passed the first step (acceptance to be considered for review and possible publishing) at any publication worth anything. That is where writers have their theses used for mopping the floor. It has been very nice and polite approach here.
Both of our claims, Michael Green's and mine, are as valid as they get. The problem is that his are supposed to somehow be considered more valid with no real difference in our methods and mine are supposed to be "trolling". I asked a couple of times about Michael Green's pictures that someone had said are twenty-five years old. On those pictures, he has fairly long hair. If it ever goes over the ears, impact on the sound is probably much bigger than of the sun activity on that day. Just that difference between our hairstyles may make my findings more reliable.
Speaking of the activity, I am not sure how to interpret this, but someone may find out if this is the cause for that server failure...
glupson At the same time, all of the above points may be true for any reviewer. Michael Green, audio magazines, me, anyone. Nobody should have the right to say she/he is better than the other one. My approach in such an even situation is that I will trust my ears more than someone’s who has significant investment in the problem. I may be wrong, but so may others.
>>>>Huh? Of course they’re true for everyone, including reviewers. I’m not singling you out. Geez. Are you pretending to be thick again? The long list of reasons why tests can possibly go wrong means you can not (rpt not) believe negative results from anyone, including reviewers. That’s kind of the whole point. And as I said before positive results are more believable because they were positive despite the obstacles. Follow?
I am just watching this parallel world and trying to learn something from it. I give it all a benefit of the doubt and try to follow original post’s end. Thanks, be polite.
Now, once I figure out what "troll" means for real, I will decide if "troll" is an impolite way of addressing someone.
What with all the folks with all thumbs and psychological obstacles to overcome here it’s actually more like the Seinfeld episode in which the primary characters all have look-a-likes in the Bizzaro world, you know, who can’t seem to do anything right. It’s also a lot like the movie Prometheus in which David the Super Intelligent but tactful Android has to endure the barbs of the overly suspicious and not too swift crew. “It’s not minding that it hurts.” A quote David appropriated from Lawrence of Arabia, similar circumstances.
Your interaction with the Tuners reminds me of an episode of Oh No Ross and Carrie. It’s a really entertaining podcast where Ross and Carrie “join” or interact with various fringe movements and report on the experience:
All of those could be true under many circumstances. That is why I have stated from the beginning it is not wise to ask people to ":walk" while entirely dismissing their interest in theoretical part.
At the same time, all of the above points may be true for any reviewer. Michael Green, audio magazines, me, anyone. Nobody should have the right to say she/he is better than the other one. My approach in such an even situation is that I will trust my ears more than someone’s who has significant investment in the problem. I may be wrong, but so may others.
My case, point by point.
1. Actual disassembling of the amplifier was so simple that it left no room for error. Cover off and out of the room (I actually did that on purpose).
2. I used the fist around the screwdriver. Otherwise, I am not the best for the finest fine motor work, but this required nothing of that kind.
3. The whole point is that even the lousiest system can reveal differences. That is why tweaking is done, I think, and old Sherwood receivers and similar items used. Mine is nothing spectacular, but it works in general. It shows differences when a piece is changed.
4. Everything seemed to be working as expected. No hum, buzz, nothing unusual.
5. I doubt that, although it is of course possible. I hear all the frequencies with a small dip in acuity at 14000 or 15000 Hz (I forgot which one it was about two months ago) and have no hair over the ears.
6. That one is hard to measure, but I, in fact, wanted to hear the difference. If anything, I was more biased towards confirming than rejecting the hypothesis. Aside of that, there was another pair of ears (much younger and completely unbiased, practically not even being aware of this thread) that also could not hear any difference. I have left that fact out until now to be one to one level comparison.
7. The day was beautiful.
Points 8 and 9 are impossible to evaluate for an ordinary person. Tuneland experts and me included. We have to assume that those were equal at the time of testing. Next stop Bora Bora. Everything sounds better when the floor is of volcanic origin. Much better than maple.
glupson Ric Shultz’s results, whoever he is, have nothing to do with mine. Mine are correct.
I may be a lone wolf on this topic here, but so are Michael Green and Ric Shulz (again, not to offend a person, but I do not think we ever met) in the grand scheme of things. Their results are, based on my observation, questionable at best. I say so and it is the fact.
Anybody who disputes my results, do what original post suggested. Take the cover off and you will have your own results. Then believe them, not some authority of religious importance.
>>>>>Fair enough. Let me point out, though, that the problem is when you insinuate your results are the results everyone should get, as if your results somehow mean anything. As I’ve oft opined, positive results have more meaning than negative results for the simple reason they were obtained IN SPITE OF ALL THE THINGS THAT COULD POSSIBLY GO WRONG. There’s also the preponderance of the evidence, which is clearly in favor of covers off, unfortunately for your protestations.
Now, would it be fair to say your “honest and sincere” results of experimenting with removing the cover were the result of (pick one or more)?
1. Operator error 2. Having all thumbs 3. Having a system incapable of revealing differences 4. Having errors in the system 5. Having some undiagnosed hearing difficulties 6. Psychological bias 7. You picked a day to experiment when the weather was bad 8. You picked a day when the power grid was overloaded 9. You picked a day when there was unusually high solar flare activity
"glupson your not going to be able to go back and rewrite the script here it’s now documented. Not only is it documented here there is now a thread on TuneLand that has and will continue to add to the facts."
As I said before, feel free to use any of my words to improve your website. I am not going back or rewriting that statement. Now, use your judgement what is considered "improving" and what is considered "trolling".
As audiotweak mentioned not so long ago, "glupson your not going to be able..." should be "glupson, you are (or you can put you’re, if you insist weakening the statement) not going to be able...". In this case "you are" or "you’re", not "your". "Your" is about possession in some way, something associated with me.
It seems that you should, in fact, care what others have to say. It would make you a better writer, at least. Do not dismiss us.
EDIT: I have not been to Tuneland in a couple of days, but last time I was there, my quotes were misinterpreted, cut, tweaked, and then presented as my opinions. It was wrong, by the way. Wrong in meaning and wrong in the way it was conducted. So, as far as I can see, being quoted on Tuneland may not be in line with actual statements made. Also, who was first, video game or you? I admit that I like the name.
Any news about orange electrical outlet, wires in it, covers on those Audio Research-resembling equipment, and ways to tame the ventilation in the studio?
"...you have read some of TuneLand where it has been documented that there is a difference published all the way back to at least 2004 and even further back on other forums at least to the mid 90’s. And even further documented in HEA magazine reviews back to the early 90’s."
Most recent evidence, published last week, has disputed long-standing beliefs. It was conducted by an unbiased expert with no financial disclosures/connection with audio tweaking industry. More research is needed to establish clear goals and standards for some of the terms used.
I believe that room tuning may be a better shot for advancing the business. Taking the cover off does not seem to work.
"I would encourage you once again to read the OP."
I will although I already did it enough times to actually do what original post asked us to do. I did my "walking". Regretfully, results are unfavorable for the original poster. It happens. Such moments, as hard of a landing as they may be, advance the overall knowledge of the whole community. And that is worth enough. Unless you have a certain interest in keeping status quo.
In your post, you wrote 16 lines of your own (one more was my quote and one was link to Tuneland). You placed word "troll" (or "trolling") seven times in those sixteen lines. If nothing else, it is not a good writing style. It also is not a good one to gain any credibility. There is something called "word salad" and that post comes close.
You may be also spending too much time around Michael Green. Distinguish your jf47t from Michael Green somehow. For example, change the writing style. People do it all the time. Any ghostwriter would tell you it is possible.
Empirically speaking most scientists would call your results incomplete on if it made a difference. However complete on the results that you specifically can’t hear the difference.
glupson said
"I may be a lone wolf on this topic here, but so are Michael Green"
This unfortunately for you is also another "fake" statement as you yourself have said you have read some of TuneLand where it has been documented that there is a difference published all the way back to at least 2004 and even further back on other forums at least to the mid 90’s. And even further documented in HEA magazine reviews back to the early 90’s.
Ric Shultz’s results, whoever he is, have nothing to do with mine. Mine are correct.
I may be a lone wolf on this topic here, but so are Michael Green and Ric Shulz (again, not to offend a person, but I do not think we ever met) in the grand scheme of things. Their results are, based on my observation, questionable at best. I say so and it is the fact.
Anybody who disputes my results, do what original post suggested. Take the cover off and you will have your own results. Then believe them, not some authority of religious importance.
glupson I did claim that I heard no difference. It was a claim and it is as firm as they get. No softer than Michael Green’s claims that taking covers off does make a difference. Therefore, it is the truth and that is it. Because I say so.
>>>>Who cares? As I intimated previously your results do not comport with the many others, most if all with more, what’s the word...oh, yeah, experience, who got good results from removing the cover off the chassis, including your humble scribe and Ric Schultz of EVS and MG and one assumes a great many others. Your negative result is the one that proves the rule. 😛
In cases like yours where we have a lone wolf it’s customary to dismiss him as an outlier. No offense. You certainly have a motive to lie about it, which is another reason to ignore your results. Not to mention the other perfectly valid reasons why some folks just can’t get good results that I already specified. Sorry, Charlie, we want tuna that tastes good, not tuna with good taste. 🐬
"I do not want to participate in this two-century-spanning saga about who hired whom, but you are surely right about the above. Who would not be chilled to the bone? If someone worked for me for only nine months some twenty years ago and then came back with such energy and force....."
This is scary indeed!
Regardless of what you, MG, me or anyone else would do this type of behavior is nothing shy of creepy.
"Asking for measurements opens another can of worms."
Of course it doesn't. The can of worms that keep getting opened on this thread are from the trolls making claims that their questions don't get answered. One of the tactics from internet trolls is the speed in which they pile on the Q&A sessions so to look like the one being trolled is not able to give an answer. But with someone like Michael Green the answers are available to anyone wishing to make the effort to do a proper study. In other words you picked the wrong guy to troll. The more the trolls here try to imply Michael hasn't done the more apparent it becomes that those people (the internet trolls) are fakes. The OP remains perfectly stated and relevant. It's showing the people that are "real" and those who are "fake". One telling factor to this is the anger. The ones on here who clearly became angry are trolls. The ones on here who kept demanding answers are trolls.
glupson your not going to be able to go back and rewrite the script here it's now documented. Not only is it documented here there is now a thread on TuneLand that has and will continue to add to the facts.
"Anyone who worked for someone else for only nine months and was let go then 20 years later appears on their old bosses thread on an audio forum making the statements you have chills me to the bone."
I do not want to participate in this two-century-spanning saga about who hired whom, but you are surely right about the above. Who would not be chilled to the bone? If someone worked for me for only nine months some twenty years ago and then came back with such energy and force, I would apologize for stepping on their toes too hard the first time we met.
"let’s set up a lab and test these claims together in real time for everyone to witness".
Oh, my, bold rarely equals wise. Heroes are those who were lucky not to be harmed in their rush.
I stand by my statement that Tuneland and this thread should stay separated.
We are back to empirical testing lab from some weeks ago? Let me try again, what other testing would it be in this case? And how do we design the lab? Who is "everyone to witness"? Let's not forget that results should be reproducible by others.
Back to my NAD amplifier, whoever wants to believe it, thank you. Those who do not want to believe I did it, our lives will continue regardless. I "walked" anyway. It was really not worth much. Not exactly a walk across the Waterloo field, more like a stroll to the corner grocery store.
I did claim that I heard no difference. It was a claim and it is as firm as they get. No softer than Michael Green's claims that taking covers off does make a difference. Therefore, it is the truth and that is it. Because I say so.
prof,
Asking for measurements opens another can of worms. Some people believe that everything can be expressed in numbers (measurements of some sort) while the others think it is not necessary. Remainder has no opinion, cannot care less, and are on the sidelines. I still think that Michael Green's biggest mistake was to try to come up with explanations of things instead of simply claiming that whatever he does seems to improve the sound and stopping at that. I took a little break from here, the weather got nicer and I dedicated myself to observing real masters of their art doing their art (soccer championship) instead of arguing about the meaning of word "claim". Thanks for participating in that instead of me. I would have never guessed that such a simple word could become a stumbling block.
In the meantime, I sent an e-mail to NAD hoping to reach some engineer. I know it will probably not be anyone who had anything to do with NAD C-350 amplifier, but maybe they have some opinion on removing the cover. I am curious what is their view of the sonic benefits of it. I will report back once they answer.
"GK is an excellent example of continuous bashing and demeaning the public yet all his posts appear to remain intact."
Yes and no. Yes to unacceptable behavior. No to all his posts being intact. Ok, they may appear to be, but I know at least one that was removed as I reported it.
""Like with some others on this thread we haven't seen StarSound take components down to the basic signal passing bones. Robert saying he likes big transformers obviously tells us on this thread you have not tested the placement of transformers in relationship to other parts hosting the audio signal. If this is indeed the case there are literally thousands of empirical listeners who have gone further than you. The proof is something you do gentlemen, not something you talk about as if you have done. Walking guys, we're talking about walking.""
Really jf47t or Harold or whoever you are? I would hope that many thousands have gone further than us as that guarantees HEA evolution where previously, located on another thread MG prefers to say HEA is dead. In our meager defense to this statement containing a ton of bull manure, Star Sound has experimented and sold to the public under the Harmonic Precision™ brand name forty chassis of a mono block amplifier. The circuit was designed by Steve Keiser (B&K fame) where every part was mechanically grounded to the chassis via Live-Vibe Technology™. Likewise the Caravelle Loudspeaker project was sold for public consumption as well with all parts mounted via Live-Vibe protocols (Google it). These were two case studies involving the longevity of parts as the developing technology and goal was to establish higher levels of product operational efficiency noting the reduction of heat as one of the positive takeaways. We are a research and development company - not an amplifier or speaker manufacturer. How many of those infinite chassis styled amps as seen in all those images did you guys sell? The primary difference between your company jf47t or Howard or whoever you are is Star Sound prefers to rely on geometry, physics and material science and engineering to advance Live-Vibe Technology. The products are based on technology and not just experiments and more experiments and even more empirical experiments. You guys cannot define how your product functions in technical terminology. Too bad for you as empirical can only go so far. Example: This product took us twenty years to bring to market where sales are expanding rapidly across the globe. This product is affixed to a musical instrument expands the sonic, increases stage presence and volume without affecting the character or signature of the instrument. Those accomplishments probably mean nothing to you guys but that’s OK. I would not expect you to comprehend our accomplishments as you primarily reside in the empirical world of experimentation.™ Please refer to the end pin and coupling disc located on the cello as our product description. These products are protected under US Patents. http://toneacoustics.com/Video.php Are we walking yet? Again, jf47t, you do NOT define “basic signal” in your rants so we have no concept about passing bones, passing gas or any other jargon you continue to post in attempting to sully our company and reputation. There is one difference HERE that I am sure the readership has witnessed by now and that is…. There were no complaints filed forcing the removal of your derogatory posts unlike those of thinner skinned individuals like you who continuously report posts when presented challenges by having them removed from the conversation. ""Robert and Tom saying your company has an absolute is the same as marginalizing your contributions to a variable subject. Or do you not think audio "is" a variable science?"" Show me where I ever stated “ABSOLUTE” - hint ↑↑↑↑. You are again falsifying, assuming or unjustifiably attempting to sully our company without effect. I cannot waste anymore time defending our company from slingers of mass such as yourself. Audio reproduction is a science and art form. Hire a real engineer and not one of those fictitious versions blessed with a silver tongue as a real engineer will help explain your products function and stop relying on the bearded wonder and photoshopped images pawning you into positions where you become the target of obvious stupidity. Just our opinions of course and means nothing really… just talking. Robert--Tom
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
