Kunashirsky wrote:

Thank you for your understanding.

zako wrote:

Like my grandmother used to always tell me,,,Smell it first before eating,,It might be shit,,

Romy the Cat wrote:

Kunashirsky, I do not want to “estimate the remastered vinyl obtained by this technology”. Nether I want to “go to Page 8 of your site” or to any other page. It look like you have some kind of strong believes about some kind of things, so do I. One of my believes is that we practice audio for themselves.  I mean the ideas that we have intended for nothing more than to server benefits of Sound in our own listening rooms. Whatever grandioso ideas you have and whatever capacitor you use to adjust the trajectories of Galaxies in Milky Way – all of it serve no more propose then to help to get from your own playback better sound. If you feel that your “inventions” are too universal to be confided to audio then, please, use other avenues to observe own “specialness”. This site is very consciously dedicated to “applied advanced audio and evolved music reproduction techniques”. I do not know what kind sound you are getting in there but looking at some steps you made that I do know, looking at the ridicules crap that you are playing in your room and looking at your extremely primitive views about sound practice I feel +do not have any interest to what you do. I am sure that you are a tremendously talented man but again:  whatever you do, let it to benefit Sound of you own listening room only. So far I did not see are right signs that wood makes me to express any interest to whatever you proclaims your invention.

N-set wrote:

This is unfortunately +/- what I'd expect from torsion field followers. Akimov and Shipov are two Russian "academics" behind the very concept.

N-set wrote:

This is unfortunately +/- what I'd expect from torsion field followers. Akimov and Shipov are two Russian "academics" behind the very concept.

N-set wrote:

In science, people organize the perception of reality using various theoretical concepts. One of such concepts is e.g. the electromagnetic field, which very successfully explains some class of perceived phenomena. The main people behind this concept are Faraday and Maxwell. Apart from explaining and predicting a variety of phenomena, the concept of electromagnetic field has produced enormous variety of practical applications.   Another concept with is that of the gravity field. It again explains a variety of phenomena, different* from those explained by electromagnetuic field. the main people behind this concept are Newton and Einstein. Then a new concept in fundamental physics appeared -- that of a torsion field, which was supposed to be a completely new, previously unknown type of field. In fact this type of field had been studied by Einstein (seeking to unify electromagnetic and gravitational fields) and Cartan to name the biggest. Unfortunately, the concept of the torsion field has not been successful as it has been impossible to proveably correlate this theoretical concept with any observable phenomenon and it has been abandoned via Occam razor-type of reasoning...until quite recently when two self-proclaimed(?) Russian academics Akimov and Shipov (and a group of people around them) claimed to have theoretically generalized the concept of the torsion field and has even found experimental evidence (=correlation between the theory and observations). Unfortunately nobody has been able neither to repeat their calculations nor experiments and they've been dubbed scammers and their "science" a fraud. This however has not stopped the torsion field followers from going on and developing "applications" for their concept spanning an enormous range of phenomena (in an attempt to repeat and surpass the success of the concept of electromagnetic field): lowering copper conductivity, constructing flying saucers-type propulsions, telephaty, cancer healing, etc, etc. Again, unfortunately nobody has been able to objectively confirm the claimed effects. Since the claimed range of phenomena "explained" by the concept of torsion fields is so enormously wide, it's not surprising that some people apply it to audio.

Kunashirsky wrote:

Summary - Results of small talk: 1. You asked: Does the application of torsion waves in the audio? I will answer you: yes and showed the device for music.

The application of torsion waves in the audio is never was subject of judgment. I know that posting here N-set is violently against it. In contrary to him I have no position or opinion on the subject. I do admit that in some cases we do have in audio (only in audio) some influences of extra-sensual forces or the forces that do not have grip yet. Are they torsion waves or any other waves? I do not know. You unquestionably have a great advantage to judge trios things over all of us as you has a device, a tangible devise that take advantage of torsion waves, at least what you report.  However, I very much question your judgments in evaluation and interpreting of the results you have. Try to understand that it is not the torsion waves are at question but the interpretation of your mind the torsion waves vision and it application in audio. I personally fee very uncomfortable with very many aspects of your thinking. torsion waves is complex subject but you slip at so many very simplistic subjects that I personally do not extend you credit to assess the torsion waves applications in audio.

Kunashirsky wrote:

2. You asked: is the theoretical foundation of their work? I answered yes and explained something about my long study of sound.

Kunashirsky, I did not see your “long study of sound.” I did see some delusional comments from you about sounds but they were at very infant level. I do not particularly care about theoretical foundations. I did ask about you Russian people who I know and who ARE very serious physicists. Sorry, but they were laughing about your theoretical foundations … I do not insist that they are right but what I heard from you (in your videos) make me to concur with them.

Kunashirsky wrote:

3. You have doubted - that decided to count dummy devices. Then I showed you a video of the laboratory where the music plays.

Sorry, what you played was not music but garbage that you have to be ashamed of.

Kunashirsky wrote:

4 you said that pornographic video quality I'm busy with nonsense. Dear opponent! Believe that you are not worthy of more quality material. Since you have enough of my technical pornography on You Tube.

Nope, I did not say anything about “video quality”. If you geniuses mind is not able to “possess” what I said then twisted it into pornographic video quality then in that mind would be not only  torsion waves but also mold and mildew…

Kunashirsky wrote:

Stay on, alone with his mind Huge skeptic. I'm with you totally do not mind. In the end, I simply answer a few of your questions. Course of the case can be made and business. But in business there is one rule - the skeptics and dogmatists pants (men without risk) - is doomed to failure. I finally had a good time in your esteemed company gentlemen. Alas, no time! Greetings, I'm sorry gentlemen - I expect great things.

I generally very glad that I am very far from whatever business you run. Since my site is invested with such subordinate to your intellect people then would you be so kind to avoid my site in future?

Romy the Cat wrote:

I did ask about you Russian people who I know and who ARE very serious physicists.

zako wrote:

Is any of this field theory connected with STRING theory,,But on a larger scale???