 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
74.87.55.18
In Reply to: RE: Stop it, you're killing me posted by geoffkait on January 27, 2013 at 15:19:09
Ever consider the mpingo wood is heavier than rosewood. Mpingo does NOT float in water. To attribute mystical explanations for something which is clearly evident is a bit silly, in my opinion, and looks like the back fire effect sure fits into your explanation.
You ever try the Shun Mook Ruby Hexsonic? Or was that already discontinued when you bought your discs?
Please do not make extravagant claims (i.e. buying yours before mine, unless you provide details), This isn't a pissing match, you know. I show a photo of a Mpingo disc cut in half, Have you cut one in half? If so please provide proof.
Also please provide details of your reverse engineering on the discs: ie the differences in the beveling and such that you claim to exist.
Stu
Follow Ups:
I took my Mpingos to CES in 1997 when I was invited by Pierre Sprey of Mapleshade to participate in his room. See photo of my Nimbus Sub-Hertz Platform isolating Nakamichi Dragon CD System. See if you can guess what the little round thing on the floor is. Hint: The first two guesses don't count.Nice to see you are still in denial. The Backfire Effect is much stronger than I thought. LOL!!
"An ordinary man has no means of deliverance." - old audiophile axiom
Edits: 01/28/13
So if the m'pingo disc is affecting the Nakamichi Dragon, perhaps your isolation base is not working very well, is it? The disc is situated directly in front of your base and probably is a hell of a lot cheaper and aesthetically more pleasing.
The Mpingo disc has nothing to do with my platform. I was placed on the floor where Pierre liked the sound. Just coincidence that it is in the photo. Obviously, you have not played around with the Mpingo as much as I have.
without any proof.....
again.............
If you had done your homework correctly you wouldn't ask so many questions. It's just bizarre that you missed the boat entirely on this thing. And after two decides.
Sorry, I believe it you are denial as you you speak of things for which you have no idea of what really is. Shun Mook started in the early 1990's. My Chinese friend gave a sample for me to try in 1991, and I purchased sets, becoming a dealer in 1992. That's clearly at least 5 years before your reference date.
In speaking to the principles, I suggested the set up which eventualy became their spatial resonance package, although I disagee with them on their recommendations ( they like a more diffuse soundstage, which I dislike, preferring a more precise placement). I actually sat in their room speaking to them for well over an hour, after the official closing time of CES, demonstrating the effect and comparing their thoughts with actual placement options.
Again you fail to address the specific questions I put forth. That has been rather consistent with your replies. No one questions your ability to discover a tweak. That being said, your explanations are a major embarassment for any one associated, however remotely, with the intellectual community. At least you are finally beginning to state that you "don't know". There is nothing wrong in stating that fact. But the fact remains that you exhibit an almost desperate paranoia in an attempting to retain an image of authority. You simply state things which may be true in your limited experience, but may not be true in a more generalized application. You use this false sense of authority to avoid answering pointed and specific questions.
While you claim credentials for your statements, your very own words condemn the explanations you put forth, as no accredited physicist could agree with your writings. In addition your flights of "reasoning" do not follow standard rules of logic. Many conclusions are drawn for which no intermediate associations have been established
While in your mind these rationales may be "true", objectively and using the known laws of physics coupled with the actual close examination of certain items, like an actual dissection of the m'pingo discs, reveals data for which you appear totally unaware of. That you can not accept it shows your unwillingness to accept new facts.
To tell the truth, if I had not actually dissected the product in question, I would not have jumped in. But then I did destroy a $50 disc in order to examine the innards which I had previously x-rayed (at a dental office) first in order to have some idea of what was contained within.
In the context of tone woods, the m'pingo discs perform in one manner. In the context of the crystal contained within, the piezo effect takes precedence and the discs perform in another manner. For me, the concept is not hard to grasp. Others may have difficulty in grasping the concept however.
stu
So you have no theory to contradict the Shun Mook theory of sympathetic resonance, eh? You don't actually think the Mpingo disc is an RFI/EMI device, do you? It certainly sounds like you do but are a little timid about coming right out and saying it. Lol. I hate to judge before all the facts are in but it seems pretty clear, your stubbornness notwithstanding, that the presence of the crystal inside the Mpingo disc supports my contention that crystals act as acoustic and mechanical resonators in the majority of cases.You wrote a day or two ago,
"This is but a small sampling of the mpingo that I have, having been experimenting with the wood for well over a decade."
Perhaps you misspoke. Maybe you should have said, "well over two decades" In any case, can I offer the observation that time spent experimenting does not necessarily guarantee success? Lol
Edits: 01/28/13 01/28/13 01/28/13
stu
Nt
after all I gave a synopsis of what I was told, You elected not to believe me, I didn't tape their replies, you know.... I consiedr that question answered. So where's my answers?
Stu
You actually scrupulously avoided telling me your theory or what they told you. Nice try.
that your theory was that the shape of the disc made all the difference, citing different bevels and such. I detect absolutely no change from disc to disc in the physical shape and wrote so. You claim to have reverse engineered the disc. I see no product of your engineering.
So essentially i see no support for your theory, if indeed you even had one. Why should I be any different from you?
No I didn't state that. I said that the way the disc was cut, including beveling and the physical dimensions of the disc, as well as how the disc was oriented top to bottom and azimuth was what was important. Not to mention where the disc was placed. Maybe you should keep a running logbook so you don't have to rely on your memory. I also said I agree with the Shun Mook explanation of sympathetic resonance. I assume you have some other theory, one you seem reticent to divulge, can't say I blame you.
All too often, these threads quickly turn into a Geoff and Stu pissing match. In an attempt to showcase your superiority over one another, you both encroach beyond the point of science meets fantasy, and you embarrass yourselves in the process.
But this is the essence of high-end audio isn't it? It's entertainment after all. So keep it up; I find it highly amusing.
Post a Followup:
| FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
