Has anyone heard the new North American products preamp and amp?

tbg OP5,165 posts02-29-2016 2:19pmgdhal, why would you say this? It is true that there are many who haven't heard it but many other than me have. None have had anything bad to say about it. Does that bother you as it does someone else on this thread?

If you want an honest answer, I was merely trying to inject a little humor in this otherwise beaten-to-death topic. My sincere apology if there was any offense taken. Realistically there shouldn’t be.

The overwhelming majority of this discussion is over-my-head from a technical perspective, as I stated much earlier in the thread. Admittedly, I cannot say for sure whether or not this is all a bunch of BS or the next best discovery since sliced bread, but I can say for certain that I really do not care. I know my audio system sounds great and have listened to many other high end systems, some into the six-figures. I can’t imagine how the product being discussed here would make any noticeable difference that a human ear can perceive, however, perhaps there could be theoretical advantages that can be measured scientifically. To this extent I remain curious.

Suffice it to say I am wise enough to know that if it were truly the case that there is in fact a revelation here, there would be no need to attempt to prove it by virtue of this forum.

I've gone further to state this is something for shark tank. Think about it, I'm not far off the concept. This product needs investors and at least one patent. Have you tried licensing? I'm sure companies that do audio equipment manufacturing have an engineering staff that would buy into whatever new ideas can reap a sonic benefit and, jest I forget, a profit.

In all likelihood, whatever audience that may have been interested in this product(s) and/or technology, science, break-through, etc. has probably been turned-off (no further pun intended) by now.

ddraudt
443 posts
02-29-2016 12:55pm
Welcome to the Geoff Kiat unwanted opinions blog


Nobody's holding a gun to your head, ddrought.

g.k.
m.d.

To Roger and All,

I find isolation in all its applied methods to be poorly functional if not totally impossible. I choose to apply conductive materials (only 2) and use geometric shapes and other methods to attract resonate energy so it will migrate and travel in a high speed and orderly direction to mechanical ground. These functional methods have been applied to all my chassis components inside and out including speakers and most recently to string instruments, cello and bass. Also there are a few bass clarinets that now use these same method types. All these devices for sound reproduction now  project with greater depth and dynamic scale..The acoustic instruments are much more efficient and have less resistance in either hand or breath. Nothing constrained nor damped. The instruments are more highly reactive to touch and nuance which translates into a more emotive performance for both the musician and then onto their audience. .

Roger with his new product introduction and all others here are trying to maintain or totally recreate the actual live event as if the air from that event was in their chosen room. I do it my way and someone else may choose Geoff's way.

The science Geoff  describes presents a much more restrictive strategy for dissipating and/or transferring airborne energy which forms and propagates throughout any type of chassis. This restrictive method by designs inhibits speed and depends on the conversion of resonate energy to heat. This conversion of energy is not very efficient. The majority of resonant energy will remain in the equipment and create additional negative effects on component operational efficiency. However, Geoff's approach to the science is accepted and known to be functional. In my findings this methodology greatly impedes the rapid exit of all types of resonant energy within any component so I’m guessing this is where the use of multiple materials comes into play where one either slowly filters out the bad or quickly filters in the good.

These filters come in multiple sizes, shapes and contain all kinds of materials based on the designer’s preference. So we now recognize the need for multiple sized parts or layers or spring mass required to match up with component weight distribution requirements in order to serve all the types of equipment available. That formula leaves a tremendous amount of variables to consider hence the primary reason that a lot of tweaks are being made out of a ton of various different materials and sold in this industry. This wide variance in material types and construction limit energy transfer speed from material and shape and will  likely change and alter phase.

The approach myself and now many others use is more specific in function, applying critical geometries with only two materials involved in the design. We have a single platform that ‘plays multiple stages’ meaning they are NOT designed for a specific purpose or strangled by a specific component chassis weight requirement. A single shelf design accepts all equipment weight profiles and functions with everything from amps to speakers to components to power supplies, etc without having to re-filter for each individual product and delivers a livelier dynamic sound result.

In my opinion combinations of low speed high impedance materials such as sawdust and glue (MDF), rubber nor any size of string or spring will process the quantity of resonance now within a chassis quickly into heat. In fact, very little of of these heavier amplitudes of Coulomb friction can easily be converted to heat. Conversion is a slow process whereas resonant energy transfer is designed to function at high speed establishing greater component operational efficiency. This process works similar to how musical instruments function. Energy in, energy out in very fast and timely order.
 
A lot of racking and tweak products in this industry delivers more of the same results as does those of Geoff's based on historic understanding through application and knowledge. There are many forms of constrained layered sandwiches using many different arrangements of multiple materials for different applications. Each of these very similar applications of method  create a slightly different color and dynamic speed shift when compared to another of the same school..None in this school (refrain) from either slowing or restricting the passing of resonant energy to the higher mass of ground. 

Geoff, your restrictive applications and others of the same vein provide a reanimation of noise, like a continual fire hose feeding pollution back into the signal stream. One way in and only a constricted way out.  I will not be practicing your chosen scientific approach for managing resonant energy at slow speed. I will take the high speed approach. Tom

Tom, I read your post as one long Strawman argument and I’ll tell you why: You mischaracterized what I said or put words in my mouth. I said I use very rapid techniques for evacuating vibration from the top plate, the vibration produced by airborne, residual seismic vibration that gets up through the iso system or vibration of motor, transformer, etc. Furthermore, extremely rapid evacuation of vibration from the iso system is assured by employing extremely hard materials, as I stated, materials as hard as diamond on the Moh scale, both under the component and under the iso device. Mpingo discs - another extremely fast energy dissipator. They have many uses around the system and around the room. In fact, my techniques are much faster than yours. See the irony? That’s why the sound using my techniques will be more open, more dynamic, more detailed, and have more bass slam than competing methods. 

I do not use constrained layer damping as a means of isolation. Rather, I use constrained layer damping as a means of reducing vibration in applications such as transformer and capacitors. Direct coupling will NOT accomplish this! One assumes you do nothing to restrain these known producers of vibration. It sounds like you’re perhaps from the Michael Green school of letting the vibrations RUN FREE, not attempting to attenuate them, isolate them, damp them or otherwise interfere with the natural flow of vibration in the room and in the audio system. I also use the fast energy dissipators like the Tekna Sonics, remember?

I am quite confident your statement implying that you have tried all vibration isolation devices is most likely just puffery. All that talk is fine but it strikes me that you actually don’t address very low frequency structureborne vibration or seismic vibration. Which is really the whole point of isolation, no? Certainly direct coupling isn’t the answer. One assumes you’re simply ignoring it and hoping it just goes away.

The only good vibration is a dead vibration.

geoff kait
machina dramatica

Wow this is all so hard!

I think we really all need someone to save us.