What Does Holographic Sound Like?

Bryoncunningham,
The question of what creates sound stage is an interesting one. In an open-air concert the sound does not come from all directions. It comes primarily from the amplification system used by the performers. In enclosed spaces like studios and concert halls reflected sound comes into play. All recordings contain the ambient cues for the venue where the performance took place. Better quality recordings contain more of this information. The better the audio system the more ambient cues can be retrieved and reassembled to create a more pleasing sound stage.

By more pleasing I mean a holographic sound stage that produces more of that sense of "being there". I believe that "realism" is the most difficult thing for a sound system to reproduce. Which is why I have spent so much time, effort and money on cables and tweaks. The right combination can yield stunning results.

q: Muddy Waters is:

a) a reknowned Chicago blues musician
b) a stream with high fine grained suspended sediment content
c) how H2O looks after most any discussion with Geoff

Thank you.....

:)

Mapman wrote,

"Surprizingly enough (at least to me at first) I've found that this even works for mono recordings, at least in some cases. It works best for me with either pair of my OHM Walsh omnis. Good mono recordings (remastered mono Muddy Waters for example) have a three dimensional ambiance to the point where sometimes I cannot tell for certain if it is a mono or stereo recording just by listening. Its an amazing thing!"

Gosh, you can be quite the provocateur.

:-)

"Only that what I am listening to sounds "real", and the 3-D imaging/holography helps enable that since sound is a 3 dimensional (actually 4) phenomenon. "

Surprizingly enough (at least to me at first) I've found that this even works for mono recordings, at least in some cases. It works best for me with either pair of my OHM Walsh omnis. Good mono recordings (remastered mono Muddy Waters for example) have a three dimensional ambiance to the point where sometimes I cannot tell for certain if it is a mono or stereo recording just by listening. Its an amazing thing! And with the OHM omnis, the 3-D image hold together coherently from most any listening position in from of the speakers. I can elect to listen from different seats in my listening room venue just like at a live performance and the only thing that changes is the perspective and sometimes, but not really in a noticeable way usually the timbre just very slighly since the OHM Walsh tweeters above 7-8 Khz or so are more directional. mbl omnis in comparison are full omni at all frequencies and very holographic as well set up well (maybe the best I have heard) but those crossover much lower and multiple times so the music is perhaps not quite as coherent or organic as the OHMs.

You gotta hear it to believe it sometimes I imagine.

Bryoncunningham,
You stated, "Unfortunately, even if you win this round, he will pivot to another topic. You have stumbled onto Geoff’s infinite staircase." Of course, you are absolutely correct. Which is why am staying in the wings at the moment. If he comes round with a new version of his same-old it will be evident and no comments will be necessary to state the obvious.

You have made some very interesting observations in your post.

You stated, "a two channel playback system presents whatever ambient cues the recording contains primarily from two directions – the direction of the two speakers. But the ambient cues in the recording space were presented from all directions." This is a very interesting point. I believe it is a bit more complex than this. We have only two ears but, with the help of the brain, we perceive 3-dimensional sound. The same with having two eyes but they enable us to see in 3 dimensions.

Stereo recordings pick up sound from all directions. Good audio systems are able to reproduce the ambient cues in stereo recordings 3-dimensionally. Presenting the sound from two directions, two speakers, is limiting to an extent, of course, especially when the equipment is not at a level that can reproduce 3-D sound in an effective way. In this sense it is not the 2 speakers that are limiting but the quality of the system itself.

You stated, "what is heard at the listening position isn’t a fully accurate representation of the recording space." That's true. It cannot be because our listening rooms are not studios or concert halls. The listening venue is a facsimile of the recording venue. The extent to which it is able to recreate that venue in a 3-D way depends on the quality of the system.

You stated, "In other words, a space in which the *apparent* size, shape, and materials of the room change from recording to recording." This is precisely what astonishes me about my own system. It can sound so different from recording to recording.

You stated, "IMO, “holographic” sound is more about the realistic presentation of INSTRUMENTS AND PERFORMERS than it is about the realistic presentation of THE RECORDING SPACE ITSELF." I agree -- almost completely. Although my system gives an excellent feeling for the ambience of a church or other special venue where a recording has been made, it is the presentation of instruments and performers in a very life-like 3-D panorama that distinguishes its sound. It is the sense of realism of instruments and performers, as you point out, that is important here.

You stated, "But when the ambient cues of the recording space are lost, what goes with it is the illusion that "You are There."" Exactly. The more refined the system, the more it is able to pick up and reproduce ambient cues and the greater the resultant sense of "being there".

"In other words, IMO, "holographic" sound is less about ACCURACY relative to the recording and more about REALISM relative to what instruments and performers actually sound like."

Bryon, that's a very good way to say it (as usual).

Its also a good reason why audiophiles who might not care otherwise should. Without it, instruments and performers sound less real.

I have at least one MErcury Perfect Presence LP that shows a diagram of where the players were located and the mikes during recording. This provides a useful reference regarding the accuracy of the players location while listening in your room. Relative positions should be and are distinguishable in at least two dimensions (width and depth), possibly even height (do not recall if the diagram indicated relative height of players as a reference).

0% of my other thousands of recordings have this information readily available as a reference. For many recordings not miked properly at a live performance, it becomes mostly irrelevant. SInce there is no practical reference, I pay no attention to that aspect. Only that what I am listening to sounds "real", and the 3-D imaging/holography helps enable that since sound is a 3 dimensional (actually 4) phenomenon. That's a big reason I think why I am fond of more omnidirectional (or even wider dispersion) speaker designs. SOund does not occur naturally in 1 dimension (width) only. ALthough more directional speakers combined with the rest might still do OK, its like fitting a square peg in a round hole.

Sabai -- Your disagreement with Geoff about Kal's views reminds me of my disagreement with him about Gravitational Lensing on the Magic thread. The point isn't really about the details of Kal's views or the details of Gravitational Lensing. It's about whether facts are being accurately represented or not. Unfortunately, even if you win this round, he will pivot to another topic. You have stumbled onto Geoff’s infinite staircase. Come to think of it, I think Machina Dynamica sells one of those.

As far as the views expressed in the quotes of Kal provided by Geoff, I am in agreement with at least one of them: Kal's observation that two channel playback results in a spatial presentation in the listening space that often differs from the spatial presentation in the recording space (assuming there was one). That is because, a two channel playback system presents whatever ambient cues the recording contains primarily from two directions – the direction of the two speakers. But the ambient cues in the recording space were presented from all directions.

The listening space itself can augment the ambient cues of the recording, and in the best cases, the ambient cues of the listening space RESEMBLE the ambient cues of the recording space. But for any particular system, there will be recordings for which the ambient cues of the listening space do not resemble those of the recording space. When that happens, what is heard at the listening position isn’t a fully accurate representation of the recording space.

Having said that, I depart from Kal's views (assuming I understand them) insofar as I believe that it is possible to construct a listening space that is, to some extent, acoustically ambiguous. In other words, a space in which the *apparent* size, shape, and materials of the room change from recording to recording. My own listening room doesn't fit that description, but I've been in professional recording and mixing spaces that do. IMO, to the extent that a listening space is acoustically ambiguous, the ambient cues of a wider range of recording spaces are more likely to be realistically represented.

As for the issue of "holographic" sound, I for one don't believe that a fully accurate representation of the recording space is necessary for the sound in the listening space to be "holographic." That is because, IMO, “holographic” sound is more about the realistic presentation of INSTRUMENTS AND PERFORMERS than it is about the realistic presentation of THE RECORDING SPACE ITSELF. And a two channel system is, IMO, quite capable of realistically presenting instruments and performers, even when it isn't a strictly accurate representation of the recording space. In other words, IMO, "holographic" sound is less about ACCURACY relative to the recording and more about REALISM relative to what instruments and performers actually sound like.

The ambient cues of the recording space may never make it to the listener, either because the recording does not contain them, the playback system misrepresents them, or the listening room alters them. Nevertheless, a playback system can still create the illusion that "They are Here." But when the ambient cues of the recording space are lost, what goes with it is the illusion that "You are There."

IMO, of course.

Bryon

Not that I care what Kal thinks, but:

Its not clear to me at all that that is what he believes. HE might mean that the listening room is the same which is true and that ambient information is there but not delivered exactly as recorded which I would also agree with.

Geoff, I care more that one being a technical person they do more diligence reading carefully and being clearer about what is their interpretation of what is read rather than asserting things that were not said.

Mapman wrote,

"Here's an interesting gadget that might actually work as best I can tell and perhaps even help holography:

Harmonizer (by SteinMusic)

Might even have some quantum principles in its design.

Dunno.

Any insights?

Opinions are fine. Scientific principles that I might understand is better.

Not cheap though."

I find the SteinMusic Harmonizer fascinating.

Kal wrote,

"The sound reflections accomplished with stereo speakers may be somewhat satisfying but they are not a reproduction of the original performance space and, notably, they are the same for every recording you play."

Clearly he doesn't believe the ambient information of the venue is embedded in the recording. He believes the reflected sound in the room is *solely* responsible for the spatial information, I.e. holographic sound. By this logic if one treats the room acoustically, to minimize reflections, there would be practically no holographic image left at all.

Chad,

I find different IC will effect how soundstage/imaging occurs in different ways but I do not know if one is inherently better than another in any particular case. Like most tweaks, I think it depends.

I know what you are saying about the MIT cables. Even the older less expensive ones I use (Terminator series) work well in this regard. So do the DNM Reson ICs I use in my main rig currently. I could go either way depending on mood. Tonality/timbre is the biggest difference I hear between these two. MIT does bass very well and is smooth and controlled everythere else. DNM Reson adds a little definition and clarity to the midrange, which I tend to like with my OHMs in particular. I tend to be able to follow what singers are saying easier with DNM. Both are very good. I think it depends....

I would also say that MIT cables seem to have a dimensional quality too.

I have only just tuned into MIT and so far they seem to be one of the better cables at depth that I have tried, while keep focus and detail.

Anyone tried other brands that do the same? Some of the higher Virtual Dynamics were not bad at this.

Mapman.
You stated, "Who gives a rat's arse what Kal says? He is entitled to his opinions as well but why would I care what he says or not specifically." I agree.

You also stated, "Sabai, Geof, I suggest we call a truce. Surely there is something more relevant we can discuss regarding holography?" I agree. Making personal comments, misquoting people you say you do not even agree with and other convoluted comments are digressions. They misdirect the discussion. This topic is about holography -- not about inappropriate digressions. If we stick to the subject in a clear and concise way no one can have any objections.

Just read an on-line review of a product that's a tweak for a tweak. It's something you stick on the end of your upgraded fuses. The reviewer swears it enhances the holographic effect. And yes, it uses the word "quantum" in its name. I'm not making this shit up!

Amen Mapman

" getting everything right end "

Typo. SHould have read "end to end".

That includes the environment/room recording and the listener, not just the gear.

"To me there is little more satisfying than a reach out and touch type presentation in your room. "

I am in that camp as well.

Tubes are fine and may have some advantages in some ways for this, but in teh end its a matter of getting everything right end including crossing the Ts and dotting the I's. There are many recipes for great soup! But there are even more for other kinds.

To me there is little more satisfying than a reach out and touch type presentation in your room.

I have some recordings (old sony classical recordings from the 1960s) that are just like being there. They are breath taking. This is what holographic sound is to me.

Every little step upgrading parts, cables, clean power, speaker placement, point to point wiring, fuses and so on enabled that presentation.

I hope not to start another argument, but I also feel tube power with all its faults is most capable of producing that kind of 3D soundstage.

Who gives a rat's arse what Kal says? He is entitled to his opinions as well but why would I care what he says or not specifically.

Sabai, Geof, I suggest we call a truce. Surely there is something more relevant we can discuss regarding holography?

I need a show of hands here. Who would agree that this post of mine that has been disallowed by the moderator is "inappropriate" or "inflammatory"? Is it any more "inappropriate" or "inflammatory" than many posts of Geoffkait that have not been disallowed?

Geeoffkait, But if you read his many reviews he [Kal Rubinson] has no such misgivings when commenting on the sound stage of the 2-channel equipment he is reviewing. Talking about the sound stage being artificial is like saying chicken noodle soup is not a chicken. I mean, whoever would claim that the sound stage of an audio system represents the actual sound stage? That is physically impossible. An audio sound stage is a facsimile, of course. This is too elementary. Adding this third element gives you an escape hatch. Tootles-style. Typical.

Geoffkait,
Of course, the issue is not what Kal Rubinson of Stereophile thinks of 2-channel or 5-channel systems -- and your statement that you do not agree with what he says when you do not even report accurately what he does in fact say. In which case, why even bother pretending that what he says is important when you misquote him and then contradict him in the end? This is just another of your many diversions and convoluted ramblings.

And the issue is not that sound systems are not concert halls. The issue is holographic sound, how we perceive it and what brings us closer to it.

Mapman,
When you stated, "I think that there are many who have never heard "holographic sound" and may not know what they are missing ... ITs kind of the final frontier of home audio in my mind." This is what I have been alluding to in my posts.

When this thread comes up now all it does is remind me of Brer Rabbit and the Tar Baby. Forgive me for LMAO, I know some don't think this is funny. Dull day I guess. :-)

Sabai wrote,

"Geoffkait,
After your failed attempt to convince us that Kal Rubinson of Stereophile does not believe in holographic sound, may I reiterate:

Could you please give us the details regarding who "in the industry" minimizes the importance of holographic sound and their reasons for doing so -- and where they have actually stated this? And could you please give us the details regarding who "in the industry" actually denies the existence of holographic sound and where they have actually stated this?"

You left out the part where I said "...or believe that soundstage is artificial."

Here are a few of Kal's many statements/opinions regarding stereo imaging and soundstage. Enjoy.

"You can think and prefer what ever you like, of course. And, yes, it is fairly demanding. However, the accurate reproduction of a performance in a real space simply requires more than 2 channels/speakers. (See Floyd Toole's new book for lots of discussion.)

It is unfortunate that you, and many others, have not had the opportunity to hear what is possible with a proper multichannel music system. I believe that some of the problem is that most high-end vendors are equally in denial."

Kal

"The sound reflections accomplished with stereo speakers may be somewhat satisfying but they are not a reproduction of the original performance space and, notably, they are the same for every recording you play."

Kal

"With 2 channel stereo playing music the entire room is filled with ambiance in front of the orchestral shell extending to the directly in front of my sitting position. In other words my entire room is alive with sound, the performers up on the stage and the ambiance everywhere else. With multi-channel the center channel and the rears speakers suck out the ambiance on the sides of my room. Since I don't like sound coming from the rear anyway I tried putting the rear speakers on the sides of the room but that didn't work either. I short no where could I put 5 speakers that would even come close to the sonic realism of what 2 floor standing full range speakers can do."

That may be your perception and your preference but it is not realism. In any real-world live performance the ambiance comes from all directions. Folding it all to the front and relying on the spurious and inflexible reflections of your rooms ambient contributions is artificial. As for splitting a discrete center to the L/R speakers, that, too, creates shifts and cancellations that result in a center fill that is insubstantial compared to three across.

Of course, as ever, for what it is, de gustibus non est disputandem."

Kal

Also, hey I believe in holographic sound. THat's all that rally matters to me.

I think that there are many who have never heard "holographic sound" and may not know what they are missing. THen, once they do, it is still possible that they will not care. ITs kind of the final frontier of home audio in my mind. Many may choose to never venture there. That does not make them bad people. Their stuff might still be considered "high end" for all the other reasons.

I'm not sure speakers can be designed specifically for holographic sound.

If speakers do the other things identified in that thread well, and additional things are in place with the system and recordings as I mentioned in my recipe early on, then holography or a 3-d soundstage, assuming these are synonymous, can happen, if one cares about it.

I suspect there are many that do not in practice though. My guess is that could be partially because so many other things must be done right first before one has a good chance at decent holography/3-d sound.

That's weird. According to the poll over on the Soundstage/Imaging thread currently underway on A-gon, most respondees minimize or dismiss Holographic Sound, putting soundstage/imaging last or close to last on the list of priorities. Just as I suspected.

Here's an interesting gadget that might actually work as best I can tell and perhaps even help holography:

Harmonizer

Might even have some quantum principles in its design.

Dunno.

Any insights?

Opinions are fine. Scientific principles that I might understand is better.

Not cheap though.

Disclaimer: The fact that I think this expensive tweak might actually do something constructive does not mean that I think all tweaks are good. Yes, Machina Dynamica also sells esoteric tweaks for relatively cheap in comparison, but that is a completely different story. $60 is a big markup for something that appears worthless and based on malarky.

"There are many smart people on Agon."

In fact, that is a big reason why I spend as much time as I do here. THat and the fact that I love music and have a keen interest in good audio.

"Am I really that obvious? All this time I thought I was being subtle. I must be losing my touch. "

There are many smart people on Agon.

Enough said.

Sabai wrote,

"You have put this very well when you state, "Not change the subject, obfuscate, or go on the attack of the questioner." Of course, you must be talking about Geoffkait who is the most obvious changer of subjects and the most obvious obsfuscater and the most obvious attacker in this discussion."

Am I really that obvious? All this time I thought I was being subtle. I must be losing my touch.

" ...go on the attack of the questioner." That's priceless!

"Nothing is written unless I say it is written". ~ Lawrence of Arabia

FWIW, having never tried Bybee stuff, I do think there is a good chance they actually do something. I fact I would be willing to bet on it. I am not to that point yet with the life on Mars thing. There is scientific evidence now that that might be possible, but certainly it is still far from conclusive. A discovery of fossils in those sedimentary rock beds on Mars similar to what occurs on Earth would probably do it.

Mapman wrote,

"Is sixty dollars cheap for something tbat may not do anything?"

There are no guarantees in life. Well, actually that's not really true. I guarantee all my products, even the Teleportation Tweak. Happy, now? Rhetorical Question. Of course you're not happy. Lol

"Mapman, I'm giving serious consideration to promoting you to Associate Stalker."

Thank you Geoff. I am anxious to learn from the master!!!

When is your next two for one sale? At $30 a pop I might be more inclined to try one of your inventions and maybe eat some crow.

BTW, how do you manage such inexpensive prices for such seemingly advanced technology? Does someone else pay for your R&D or are you just that damn brilliant? That is an enigma to me as well.

Sabai wrote,

"This is also my view. I have been upset in this thread because of the attempt to hijack this thread by Geoffkait. Geoffkait is like the cuckoo bird that takes over the nest of other birds to lay their eggs. I will not allow this cuckoo bird to get away with it'"

Uh, kinda too late for that. You job now is damage control. Good luck with that.

You do have a penchant for laying eggs, I will say that.

~ Tootles

Sabai and Mapman, suggested reading:

"Nothing succeeds like success."

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."

"An ordinary man has no means of deliverance."

"A sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from Magic."

Sabai, you're making me blush. I didn't realize I have so many positive feedbacks. Is that a record? Lol. Do you think it would be fair to say all of bellyaching and whining and by infuriated mossback neophobes is actually good for sales? Perhaps nobody reads your screeds....That's a shame. Lol

Mapman, I'm giving serious consideration to promoting you to Associate Stalker. Keep up the good work. And welcome aboard.

Geoffkait,
After your failed attempt to convince us that Kal Rubinson of Stereophile does not believe in holographic sound, may I reiterate:

Could you please give us the details regarding who "in the industry" minimizes the importance of holographic sound and their reasons for doing so -- and where they have actually stated this? And could you please give us the details regarding who "in the industry" actually denies the existence of holographic sound and where they have actually stated this?

Geoffkait,
I stated, "I have not heard of a single "person in the industry" or a single "senior reviewer" who minimizes the importance or denies the existence of "holographic sound". Of course, there is a world of difference between minimizing the existence of "holographic sound" and denying its existence. "

In typically cryptic fashion you replied, "Clarke Johnsen and Kal Rubinson, senior reviewers/writers at large for Stereophile magazine and Positive Feedback, respectively, to name two industry insiders, have expressed the opinion that obtaining a real, 3D soundstage is either (1) not of great importance overall or (2) not obtainable at all since any 3D soundstage is "artificial" or imaginary (in the mind of the listener). These opinions were expressed over on AA. Lord knows where their statements are archived, but somewhere, no doubt."

You seem to have an excellent memory for the content of the AA posts you site without being able to give us any specific references at all regarding exactly where we can find any specific articles or posts to verify exactly what they in fact said.

In fact, if you do an AA search on Clarke Johnsen here is the only result:

http://www.audioasylum.com/cgi/t.mpl?f=general&m=382142

And, in fact, Kal Rubinson did a review of the Adcom GFA-7805 five-channel power amplifier for Stereophile. In that review he stated, "The soundstage was as wide and deep as I have ever experienced with this system, but the central images lacked some of the etched specificity I've come to expect from the Revels." It is hard to imagine a reviewer giving a positive review about a 5-channel system while talking about the depth and width of sound stage who, according to your allegedly excellent memory, "have expressed the opinion that obtaining a real, 3D soundstage is either (1) not of great importance overall or (2) not obtainable at all since any 3D soundstage is "artificial" or imaginary (in the mind of the listener)."

Hmmm.

Geoffkait,
You stated, referring to Jack Bybee, "I can certainly understand why he would not wish to enter into discussions here, if you get my drift." I don't get your drift at all.

But you may get my drift with this analogy. During the 1988 U.S. vice-presidential debate, Democratic vice-presidential candidate Senator Lloyd Bentsen said to Republican vice-presidential candidate Senator Dan Quayle, "Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy".

Bryoncunningham,
Regarding Geoffkait, you stated, "I for one do not believe that Geoff is particularly interested in making meaningful contributions to discussions. You can certainly find posts in which he appears to contribute, but they are few by comparison to posts in which he is provocative, evasive, or antagonistic. This is my own view of Geoff."

This is also my view. I have been upset in this thread because of the attempt to hijack this thread by Geoffkait. Geoffkait is like the cuckoo bird that takes over the nest of other birds to lay their eggs. I will not allow this cuckoo bird to get away with it. This thread is for one and all. I was hoping to encourage interesting and meaningful discussion here -- not to encourage the kind of nonsensical discussion that results in so many threads falling apart.

Mapman,
You got it absolutely correct when you observed:

"Geoff, yes the bybees are expensivd but my guess is they are at least more likely to do something."

Mapman,
You have put it so succinctly that I cannot not improve on your statement:

"My impression of Geoff is that everything he says or does is for the purpose of remaining an enigma in every way shape or form. I suppose that has appeal to some. But being an enigma in general does not build confidence or trust, two key ingredients in most any relationship."

If you check his Audiogon membership record you will see that he has 1155 feedbacks. That means he has made 385 sales by using these forums as his platform to attract attention to himself. Can there be any question whatsoever about his real agenda -- the reason why he trawls these discussion forums in the manner that he does?

Sorry geof, but i do think there is more chance there was once life on mars than i do that your products do anything to make better sound. You can easily prove me wrong on that one i would hope.

Mapman wrote,

"Geoff, yes the bybees are expensivd but my guess is they are at least more likely to do something."

Is that a hunch, like your hunch that we might have migrated here from Mars?

Geoff, yes the bybees are expensivd but my guess is they are at least more likely to do something.

I will not be buying either soon. Anc no, i am not poor but not the richest guy out there either.

Check the systems on this site that use machina dynamica tweaks. I doubt many are poor. One must have some disposable income to invest in esoteric tweaks i would guess.

Geof,

Is sixty dollars cheap for something tbat may not do anything?

Mapman wrote,

"ALso, I believe that this services the brand identity of his business entity, Machina Dyamica. Assuming this, then I should probably not hold out any hope that anything will change, as long as the company is successful and reaching its target market (rich guys who do not know what else to do with their money to get better sound perhaps)."

Actually, the target market is not what you assume at all, i.e., rich audiophiles who don't know what else to do with their money. Almost all of my products sell for 60 dollars or less. You must be coming down with the same affliction as Sabai and Bryon : shoot first and ask questions later. If you wish to attack rich audiophiles you might consider going after the guy with 20 Bybees instead of stalking me. Lol

Sabai wrote,

"Geoffkait,
I have put you on the spot and you now choose to sidestep the issue of Bybee products by redirecting the discussion about this specific issue that I brought up in my post to a discussion of frustration and anger. How clever. If you were a "humble scribe" you would not be asking ANYONE to "bow out" of any discussion. You have declared that you have the right to say anything you want. But this apparently only applies to you because others who may be angry or frustrated do not have the right to express their anger and frustration. They must "bow out". In effect, you are now the self-declared moderator of this discussion and you are making the rules about who can stay and who cannot. OF course, you get to stay. Your declaration of humility is obviously a false declaration."

No, it is actually you and Bryon who are attempting to act as moderators. Your last 20 posts, at least, are testimate to that. Bryon has not contributed one iota to this thread, other than his usual long winded personal attacks.

"My frustration may have got the better of you but it has certainly not got the better of me. It is very direct and to the point. And who are you, in all your false humility, to ask anyone to bow out of this discussion, let alone the person whom initiated this thread? If anyone should bow out it is clearly you. And you can do so graciously or not for all I care."

More anger and frustration.

"May I reiterate something that Bryoncunningham has said very eloquently on more than one occasion. You refuse to answer my questions directly and interpose another topic to redirect the discussion. To wit, who is more qualified to comment on Bybee products? The guy who has 20 of them in his system or the vendor who refuses to divulge how many Bybee products he has in his own system while pontificating about them with authority? How many Bybee products do you have in your system? Will you answer the question directly or will you invite me to bow out of this discussion?

Huh?! If you don't realize that Bybee products are controversial I can't help you. Let me give you a hint, though: quantum physics. I have conversed with Jack Bybee at some length on the subject of Quantum Physics. Have you?

I have no Bybee products. I believe that brings us up to date on the question and answer thing.

"My impression of Geoff is that everything he says or does is for the purpose of remaining an enigma in every way shape or form. "

ALso, I believe that this services the brand identity of his business entity, Machina Dyamica. Assuming this, then I should probably not hold out any hope that anything will change, as long as the company is successful and reaching its target market (rich guys who do not know what else to do with their money to get better sound perhaps).