Mr. Geoff K.,
Your speed reading skills need to be sharpened. I sign my name to the bottom of every post presented on AudioGon. You can go to our website and click on Home-About Us if you require a background check on Tom, myself or our staff.
I was forewarned not to participate on anything you have contact with on AudioGon for reasons we are about to expose and please excuse me folks… but lying tends to really piss us off.
You have taken our statements regarding seismology and stretched it well beyond what is actually printed so here we go again, I must defend and prove there are more untruthful statements provided by you on this thread.
1 Background and Analogy: Seismic vibration and 4 hz frequencies… The focus of Star Sound is to work within the frequencies related to the recording and playback sciences, musical instruments, structural environments such as listening suites and recording studios relative to the hearing range of the human ear.
Quite frankly we classify most inaudible frequencies as floor noise or a precious volume of space being cluttered by inaudible noise - again inaudible to the human ear. Locomotives passing by and earthquakes were of minor concern to us initially.
We study many things related to sound. Star Sound developed a concept that is being accepted by our peers as a theoretical science and is backed by a host of experiments resulting in products with proven success through public consumption. We are now working to establish the technology as a new science.
2 Rebuttal: Your words printed as shown; “More to the point, how could you have explored all vibration isolation devices or concepts in an knowledgeable way if you had no experience or knowledge of the subject?” (seismology)
Untruths Exposed: As for the “no experience or knowledge on the subject” statement, we Never Printed or Stated That - you did! Where did that come from? Again Geoff, you have no history on our past and in my opinion did not spend anytime researching the people you are challenging or you would easily come to the conclusion that YES, based on our group of engineers and educational backgrounds along with our Board of Technical Advisors we do have experience with “all” your seismic operandi. So what possesses you to alter our statement?
As to your using the word “All” in your toss back questions: The encompassing word ‘All’ really works in favor for a gent like yourself. It provides for tremendous defense strategies, it delivers an open ended form that easily sets the stage for endless rebuttals and arguments and can also be used as a line of attack in strategic debating. It is so easy to place this smallest of words into print and attack people who never used it in their original statements.
Where did Tom state that we or he tried “All” vibration devices? I am having trouble locating it anywhere here with exception to where you plugged it in. Are we missing something?
3 The reason for my involvement is your persistent nature of seeking out weaknesses of others both technical and personal, then attacking from a position requiring documented proof to everything or anything new or indifferent that does not match up to your philosophy in sound and lifelong beliefs. You are the most closed minded engineer we have encountered (just our opinion).
You find amusement in forcing long drawn out replies from those who you challenge (and there are many) then answer them with short paragraphs either creating greater challenges requiring greater proof and longer replies or you initiate quick one line rebuttals - textbook or otherwise holding people in a state of demand for total and absolute accountability - over and over again.
You alter the statements of others towards your own imaginary liking - as proven above.
Upon review of your website, we see no history of employment after college other than generic descriptions. We see limited testing results provided in amateuristic form. We see multiple products that have explanations of function based on your discoveries with some analogies taken from textbooks. We see absolutely no third party testing or attempts to prove your product functionality and many multiple theorems supported by your understanding.
You have ‘So Much In Common’ with the people and companies you attack yet you demand the highest form of proof from others yet lack the same when it comes to your products. Hurry up defend yourself because it appears that we are unveiling the new Establishment of Hypocrisy?
You have obtained a BS in Aerospace Engineering; congratulations. No wonder you are the man who is trying to prove he is the best of the best of the best!
I personally do not fully understand the Brilliant Pebbles thing other than establishing a secondary grounding plane hence reducing the effects from acoustic corner and wall loading. An ivy type plant (natural or synthetic) in a brass pot placed into a corner also works extremely well, provides musical results and costs about the same. Please prove to the readership why pebbles are better…have you ever made comparisons to a device such as a plant? In fact show us testing information and what the differences are between the various products you have obviously compared to over time and let us know who is also in agreement with your results, plus provide a list of the testing equipment used and don’t forget to include the gear’s previous calibration dates and lastly tell us why pebbles are better than magnets, fiberglass, foam, wool , traps, acoustic panels, brass and steel, etc. or are they just polished with bullcrap like all those other isolation products built by your competitors? There are so many more questions we have for you but we’ll save those pending the answer to these briefs.
You have taken too much time off of my calendar although this is a bit fun and very relaxing, so might as well consider “All” future appearances here another win in your favor - have a nice life, I’m Out.
Robert Maicks (Audiopoint moniker)
Star Sound Technologies, LLC
