Romy the Cat wrote:

Some of you who follow my site know about the coming Macondo 7th Channel. The inventor of the concept is Russian audioalogist. Considering a great novelty and a lot of controversy in the subject I would be interested to sit in his lab for a few hours, to play with his invention and to talk with him about the fine moment of sound reproduction and sound perception, looking through the prism of his methodology. What we finish my Macondo 7th Channel it might be happen in my listening room over telephone but at this point I have no 7th Channel yet and I have just a curiosity what it will be.

Romy the Cat wrote:

The Macondo’s 7th channel will deal with much-much more sophisticated layer of listing experiences, something that is very much not dealt in audio before, at least acknowledgeably.  I intentionally do not give up the function name (like Injection, Fundamentals, Upperbass… etc) of the 7th channel (even I do have a very well-define name for it) as I feel it would not be understood.  In fact, among all audio people that I know I might found perhaps 2-3 individuals to whom I might explain what conceptually I am trying to accomplish with the 7th channel and who would be able to understand what am trying to get myself with the 7th channel . I can only say that it is VERY much different (purpose-vise) from whatever was proposed, and from whatever exists out there.

Romy the Cat wrote:

25 or so years ago I was trying to present one of my works at a meeting of a local photographic club. It was a portrait of a girl, made in very dark keys with slightly bleached (it was at the time of silver photography) eye’s sclera (the white part of eye). The portrait was OK but it did not work from my perspective at regular ambient light. So, I deseeded to present the work in the room with lights off and light the image up with a single candle, located at very sharp angle from the print…. So, now let go from that invent into the realm of fantasies… Pretend that the candle glows in room with deficient amount of oxygen and ready to extinct. You are watching at the portrait and have you have a reaction sensor attached to you perception. The sensor outputs a feed to a mechanism that generates oxygen. So, watching the image and experiencing sensations you by your reaction my consciously or subconsciously affect the saturation of oxygen in the room and consequentially the forces with which the image might be lighted.  Now, pretend that you aware about the oxygen status in the room and you might mimic your reaction (just for sake of oxygen) before the image ever is shown to you. You might send with your sensory feedback some sort of instructions to the oxygen generator, picking the best light conditions for given coming images. At this point you need to include into to the “ceremony” the fact that you need oxygen to breath and the fact that if you put too much oxygen in the room then you will end up with the fate of “Apollo 1”. Now, pretend that the image-impact-sensations-oxygenization-light-image is not straight one-dimensional pipeline but the “ritual” has 10-20 dimensions in fact n-number of dimensions that all work simultaneously and instantaneously.  Well, if you still read it then you are getting the idea what I a trying to imply…

Romy the Cat wrote:

it will be done at electro-magneto-acoustical domain

Haralanov,

It is good that you remind me this; I was planning to get in touch worth those people again. I can not give you an explanation. Partially is because I do not know the details at the level of my own satisfaction. Partially is because I do not have my own verification of the validity of claims they do. Partially is because they themselves do not have a clear grip of what they do as the subject is very nebulous.

What it is all about?

Well, I can talk about it for hours and still do not say anything as a subject a bit bottomless. In short: the hypotheses are that we do not get musical sensations only by our hearing but there are other communicative bridges besides sound waves and ears.  Very remotely it has to do with theory of Torsion Fields:

http://amasci.com/freenrg/tors/

but not only remotely, let for sake of simplicity to call it  Torsion approach. So, the guys I dealt with discovered how in the existing frame of human knowledge the Torsion approach has been factored in. For instance they claim that some of older churches in past were built by subconsciously utilizing some principles of Torsion Fields management. So, what they use is a notion that Torsion Fields transducer is modulated by audio signal. It is not really the Torsion Fields transducer but rather the Torsion Fields “rearranger” that can shape the Torsion Fields environment in accordance with musical signals. The effect is that when the Torsion Fields is “impacted” (very loaded verb) then our perception become aberrated and listening the very same sound as before we perceive it very differently.  Think as it is sort of parametric equalizer for brain only it does not work only at time-amplitude domain but in ALL aspect of human perception.

I can talk about it endlessly as I am known to be very attracted to this subject. If you read my thread about “Another type of Remote Control” and Akzentuierte Personlichkeiten then you get where I am coming from.

http://www.goodsoundclub.com/Forums/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=16196

However, I do not know if what those guys do has the right effect in right direction. I am very concern about long term consequences of use such devises and there are some other audio and musical concerns that I have and that they can’t not answer. The idea was that they send to me two of those devises and I will play with them, see the impact and share my observations. It was a couple years back and the all those events with building my new room a bit off the course with them. I shall contact then and reinstate the project with Macondo 7th channel but it will be ironically not the 7th channel but 8th  channel…. I think it would be more accurately to call it Macondo X-channel or i-channel…

N-set wrote:

HAHAHAHAHA!!!Torsion fields are worth, at least, a nobel. Are you aware of that? Please do nor make 100% IDIOTS of yourselves invoking Einstein-Cartan theory in audio!!! HAHAHAHAHA IDIOTS!!! Better spot 1st, 2nd or 4327483256rd order resonacess in your Vitavox, Goto, GIP, ALe or whatever drivers rather than looking if the metric connection is torsionfree or not..this is 100% absurd!!No, this is 10000% ABSURD! Torsion free, N-set

N-set wrote:

Unlike transmission line reflections which are a REAL effects, torsion gravity has been a nice theoretical concept, existing on paper, but not a proven  reality, mind you. This is a huge difference and I guess you are one of those rare people who should get this difference immediately. The state of mind or consciousness of not confusing  models about reality with the reality itself applies equally well in science as in audio. Connecting torsions to thelepathy or child masturbation or anything like that is below anything worth commenting. There are 7365874658 idiots per minute reading Scientific American or popular science books and thinking they've grasped the basics of physics and they can "do science" on their own, based on what they've read. Unfortunately those poor types are  very fucking wrong, and in the most extreme cases on a way to schisophrenia (I'm not kidding!), since understanding things like einstein-cartan model or quantum jumps takes +/- 5 years of a solid academic education.

N-set,

First of all do not type-cast schizophrenia as some kind of intellectual leprosy. You will be surprise to learn that quite many greatest discoveries of mankind, not to mention artistic impressions, were made by individuals who slide into schizophrenic state of mind.

Again, I do not advocate Einstein-Cartan model, I know or care very little about it. I have no idea why you need to crusade against it and I have no idea why you feel that you are in position to judge that they are “150% fucking wrong”, particularly when we are taking about virtualized subjects that have no verifiable rendition.

Still, if you read the link that I posted then it said: “Currently there are rumors that spin waves have real physical consequences, and that useful technology can be based on such things.” You need to calm from down your overconfident fury and to HEAR what I am saying: I do not insist that Torsion Fields or any other specific BS semi- schizophrenic or semi-crackpot fields are the source or the answer to anything. However, in my experience I know that in addition to measurable with oscilloscope reality there is “something else” let say in audio. This lack of your familiarity “something else” and our disability to manage that “something else” open a gage to all possible ideas and hypothesis. Remind you that the definition of hypothesis is the PROPOSED explanation for a phenomenon.

It is interesting to see the violent criticism of Torsion approach from a person who invests a lot of efforts into design and building a powerful SET that agreeably has no use. You would argue that your ULF SET allow to have a tangible demonstration how high power ULF sound produced by SET in A1. So, the guys in Russia who experimented with the X-channels do built devises that demonstrate very tangible characteristic of changing sound perception. What is the difference to you if they use Einstein-Cartan theory or any other hypothetic theory? I know that they do not know exactly what they use, they do not deny it but as long it has results that might be experience, who care how it is being called!

BTW, I do have my own view what kind processes are involved into this “something else” and into what those Russians do. To me it is not a hypothesis but a firm believe as I had all necessary to me evidences. So, from what I know I would advise to be subside skepticisms and just to take a deep breathe. No one obliges you to believe you into anything and no one sends to you the working prototypes of Macondo X-channels. So you are out of your schizophrenic danger. Rejoice!

N-set wrote:

I've missed that they have some prototype or whatever. Can you point me directly to the article where they describe it? I have no time nor interest to go through all of them on the mentioned page, as I smell it's all a "cold-fusion-in-a-glass-of-water" fraud.

Kunashirsky wrote:

...fields in audio work and I have tamed the sound quality