Ah yes indeed. I experienced the identical demo. I had the same experience as you. Max did have some theories, but although he was able to predict the effect, he was at a loss, other than in general terms, to explain the mechanics of it. Or perhaps I didn't undertstand his explanation. Quite possible actually. Anyway, Max was in fact one of the designers who I asked about the piano, and he had {at that time} no idea why pianos did not have spikes.As a small deviation from this thread I started, during the same day where he demonstrated the spanner effect, he demonstrated something else which had such an impact on me that I decided there and then that after I wrote up the account of that visit for Hi-Fi News, that was going to be my final review.I did write the review of the full Townshend system, but the then Editor (the one between Mr Miller and Mr Harris, can't remember his name) spiked it. No pun intended.First and only time it ever happened. I never found out the entire reason why, however some months later an ex-employee of the publisher told me that the impact on some very influential advertisers would have been such that to print the review would have been commercial folly. "Bit too positive old chap!"
Moreover, and this was the bit I found a bit worrying was the flaw that Max had identified, and demonstrated to me re the majority of audiophile product review shortcomings would have had a negative effect on the public's perception of the reliability of reviewing. How much lower could it go I wondered?
My comment to them about holding back the invention of X-rays to protect the interests of witch doctors was, they felt, unhelpful. Ho hum.
I have a feeling that the current Editor has a better grip on things than the guy before him. Even so, I'm not returning to freelance reviewing. NUJ rates were £115 per 1,000 published words. Hardly worth the back ache let alone the head ache. Mind you, I gave those paltry fees to a number of low-profile and very deserving charities.
