Quote:
Ethan Winer wrote:

(JA): "Something is happening with the ART devices"

Yes, it's called placebo effect and expectation bias.

Yes, I called Ted Denney a liar and a fraud,

Ted is perpetrating intentional malicious fraud.

because it's so obvious for this reason that the data was faked.

this entire thread and the Flickr images are "saved for evidence" to send to the FTC. I'm pretty sure there are federal laws against willfully manipulating product test data to defraud consumers.

Jesus Son of Mary, are you ever begging for a defamation suit to be slapped against you. Why do you always insist on playing the court jester like this, Ethan? I thought you took a long siesta from our forum because you were just tired of putting your foot in your mouth and being embarassed over being called out on your risibly false claims and hypocritical statements. But not even. As KBK just made me realize, you left just as soon as the new reg about dealer names came into effect. Because like someone else here I could name, you didn't want to have to take legal responsibility for your words, and risk having your business sued over your public foot-in-mouth follies.

You knew of this regulation that compels you to name your affiliation in your sig (because many here pointed out that you weren't doing so the last time), when you came back just to post a thread with the intention of defaming Ted Denney of Synergistic ART. Who, what a coinkidenk!!, is a competitor of yours. And this must also be a "weird coinkidenk!!", that as it has been noted in the past here, you have a long and controversial track record of talking smack against your competition on all kinds of audio forums, in order to drum up more business for your own company. (Surely you must take your marketing inspiration from Apple's popular "I'm a PC" ads. Which don't really talk about their own products, so much as they attempt to blast the image of their competitor's product in the minds of the consumer). But even after executing your plans to defame Mr. Denney, you defied the rules and avoided naming your audio industry affiliation. Using the same "I'm special, I don't need to name anything, because everyone here already knows" excuse. Same one that another highly controversial, extremely slippery and equally pseudoscientifically-minded industry-affiliated member here has always used to avoid the same legal responsibility for his words, that you've been trying so hard to avoid. No, you refused to fully open your words to legal challenges by signing your company affiliation to them, until you finally had to be forced to do what you see every other manufacturer doing, by the chief of administration.

Even then, after your hand was forced, you had to do -something- to try to lessen the legal impact. So you took the time to think up the wishy washy weasel line "but posting on my own behalf" (like who here *doesn't* post on their own behalf??). As a way of saying, "Ok well, I guess I have no choice now but to admit that these public messages I put up are made of my own words, if I want to continue this campaign of attack against my competitor. As much as I wish that I could launch them like grenades at people that I despise, then run the hell away and hope nobody saw who lobbed the grenade. But even though I am the owner of my own audio company, what I say in public forum posts on audio should in no way be associated with what I believe as a representative of my own audio company. Unless of course I say my opinions on audio as a forum member and as an audio company representative are one and the same, as I have always done in the past. I just like to have it both ways, got a problem with that?".

This "my own behalf" disclaimer, you cleverly surmise, is somehow going to get you out of a legal jam when you have your ass handed over to you on a plate; in a court of law. So what are you trying to tell us here, Ethan? You're the proud owner" of "RealTraps", but -not- the "proud owner" of your own words? And you -really- think the judge is going to say "Oh, you were defaming Mr. Denney on your 'own behalf'. Then of course we will all have to ignore the fact that you are a direct competitor against Mr. Denney's company, and outright accusing him of fraud. And of course, the fact that you are subject to defamation laws even if you aren't in the biz". Hint: If Stereophile is not ignoring that fact, neither will King Arthur's court. Whatever you were doing when you were not playing your role of pseudoscientific court jester here, it looks to me like you were doing it with your buddy, Arnold Krueger. No stranger to shoving his size 11 in his huge cakehole as far as it can go, calling "fraud!" on all of his many enemies, and being subjected to defamation lawsuits from numerous industry members.

Mr. Denney: If there is any chance of litigation against Mr. Winer in the works, and there is any way that I can be of help in suing him, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Quote:
Geoff Kait must also use his correct company affiliation in his postings and I am putting him on notice that he shall do so.

Indeed! And just so he doesn't try to skirt around the rules again, let us let him know that he must put:

"Geoff Kait,
Proud owner of Machina Dynamica,
but posting on Ethan's behalf."

One thing that's interesting about all this is that the claim is now one of reducing the decay time in the room. And yet, actually doing this requires damping - conversion of acoustical energy to heat - just like a resistor provides damping in an electrical circuit, or a shock absorber in a mechanical system.

However, the original claim was that the devices are resonators. An ideal resonator is completely lossless, and when excited by energy with frequency content at its resonant frequency, will ring indefinitely at that frequency. Of course there are no ideal resonators in the real world, but a real resonator that's somewhat lossy will ring with a long decay time. This can be seen in JA's waterfall plots of loudspeakers having undesired resonances. The decay time is found to be undesirably long at the frequency or frequencies of the loudspeaker's cabinet resonance.

So on the one hand, we have devices that are claimed to be resonators, and on the other, these are claimed to reduce decay time - exactly the opposite of what resonators actually do. So I see at least three possibilities here:

1) The claim that the devices are resonators is false.
2) The claim that they reduce decay time in the room is false.
3) Both claims are false.

I vote for #3.

I hope no-one bothers to answer Andy (Sorry Andy but this is how all the 50 page threads start to go messy) as this is just going off the garden path of what had a clear discussion; the graphs as presented by Ted, the potential of psychoacoustics, independant investigation initiated by both JA and Ted, and just now another report with/without measurements from a different companies product that may be similar.

All the post by Andy does is cause this now to go a different direction, with I am sure more arguments and we lose what this thread was initially about.

Cheers
Orb

So far Ethan, in response to you calling your competitor Ted Denney of Synergistic ART a "fraud", who "faked his data"; two industry professionals with technical background in audio have gone on record to say you were wrong about Ted's waterfall graph. That it contains more than decay time data, when juxtaposed. And they have explained just how easy it is for anyone with the appropriate background and a jet printer to confirm this for themselves.

You should start looking around for a good lawyer, Ethan. And when he sees that "Mr. Science" , the self-professed acoustics expert who doesn't know how to properly read a waterfall graph, has stepped in it once again, and his professional advice to you is to to tell you to immediately shut your yap and stop incriminating yourself further in this thread, you should become outraged (as you do so well), and then fire his ass and get yourself a lawyer who will allow you to don your red underwear, and play your funny "Mr. Science" character on the public forums. That's the thing that would work out best for you (and all of us, really) in the end.

Quote:
I hope no-one bothers to answer Andy

Why?

It's quite a relevant question.

Quote:
One thing that's interesting about all this is that the claim is now one of reducing the decay time in the room. And yet, actually doing this requires damping - conversion of acoustical energy to heat - just like a resistor provides damping in an electrical circuit, or a shock absorber in a mechanical system.

However, the original claim was that the devices are resonators. An ideal resonator is completely lossless, and when excited by energy with frequency content at its resonant frequency, will ring indefinitely at that frequency. Of course there are no ideal resonators in the real world, but a real resonator that's somewhat lossy will ring with a long decay time. This can be seen in JA's waterfall plots of loudspeakers having undesired resonances. The decay time is found to be undesirably long at the frequency or frequencies of the loudspeaker's cabinet resonance.

So on the one hand, we have devices that are claimed to be resonators, and on the other, these are claimed to reduce decay time - exactly the opposite of what resonators actually do. So I see at least three possibilities here:

1) The claim that the devices are resonators is false.
2) The claim that they reduce decay time in the room is false.
3) Both claims are false.

I vote for #3.

I vote against such stupid ass arguments that pit semantics against varifiable test results. As if calling it a resonator in any way affects what it does or does not do.

Quote:

Quote:
I hope no-one bothers to answer Andy

Why?

It's quite a relevant question.

I must be missing something. I don't care if he calls them fartenators. The claim is that they affect the sound of the room and there is test data that 1. either supports the claims that it affects the sound of the room or 2. were plainly falsified. I don't see a whole lot of wiggle room here. To worry about whether or not they are "resonators" seems like a distant secondary concern. It's almost like UFOlogists and skeptics arguing over the color of an Alien. Not the most pressing issue.

Quote:
John Atkinson: The frog is subject to the same rules of identification as all others in the business. Please enforce your rules evenly.

The rule applies to audio manufacturers, Ethan, not to private individuals.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Quote:

Quote:
http://www.virtualdynamics.ca/uploads/files/Resonator_Pro_Link_Test_Report.pdf

I've seen that before, and it's just as fraudulent as the BS graphs Ted posted on Flickr. This PDF details what the company recommends as a test procedure, and apparently is not a report of independent test results. The one graph that "proves" the bowls "work" at audio frequencies was apparently provided by the magic bowl company itself. The PDF says on Page 9 "The first test made in the office of Acoustic System..." with no mention of the size or shape of the room, or who did the test. This "report" is intentionally vague on every issue that matters. Regardless, nine tiny magic bowls cannot possibly reduce reverb decay time by 1/3 at 63 Hz no matter how big or small the room is.

Ethan Winer
Proud owner of RealTraps, but posting on my own behalf

Hi Ethan,
Mind saying where exactly it shows they did not do the measurements, I appreciate they do mention the first limitation is that the environment is not controlled (meaning done at SA offices) but I am not sure this means it deserves the full wrath of Ethan

Agree though the paper does seem to be done in a rather painful way with a lot of pointless sections and missing useful information, but from how I read it the engineering company did do the measurements, they do say:

Quote:
After a rough measurement action described in this document, we could see that this accessories have an actual role that can be measured mainly in the acoustic spectrum range, but also some interaction effects where seen in the electro magnetic spectrum.

I think some of the grammar is quirky due to possible translation from French.
They then give a short paragraph their understanding of the product in the sound spectrum (can only assume its in regard to the initial measurements).

On the conclusion page 13 this is split into two primary focuses;
1. Formal procedure to do room measurements and modelling so placement and selecting right products beyond relying upon experience combined with good ear.
2. Further investigation in a lab with a formal procedure investigation electromagnetic influence.

Due to the paper though I could be missing what you see, or that it is a pain to read and we are taking it in different ways.

To be honest even though they do mention initial trial and rough measurements suggesting there should be follow-up investigations (probably to understand the mechanics/modelling/interaction), I do not feel it is entirely relevant to the discussion we are having here.

Or, at least should not be used as an absolute as proof postive/negative for arguing in this thread, not specifically pointing at you Ethan just as mentioned by JA earlier when a poster wanted a conclusion and understanding just from the 1st pass by the independant measurements to be conducted on Ted's product.

Cheers
Orb

Possibly it's no longer on the ART web pages but my memory says Ted one source drew inspiration from was a Helmholtz "Resonator". We normally associate a HR with larger sizes but that is the issue at hand, how effective are such small devices - not what they are genericaly called. Helmholtz Resonators are useful in damping decay times, are they not?

Nope, it's still there; http://www.synergisticresearch.com/?p=195

Anyone else bothered to check out the Synergistic Research pages?

Quote:
You sure don't know much about business!

John Atkinson: The frog is subject to the same rules of identification as all others in the business

Ah yes, another example of the particularly awesome logic that you, Ethan "Mr. Science!" Winer, are so well known for on the "interweb's" audio forums. Where in one breath you say "You sure don't know much about business!", and yet in the very next breath, you accuse me of being in business!

Quote:

Quote:
The rule applies to audio manufacturers, Ethan, not to private individuals.

Please show me some evidence that Frog is not in the business.

Ethan Winer
Proud owner of RealTraps, but posting on my own behalf

Oh boy, check the other shoe, you stepped in it again, Ethan! You know who you remind me of, E.? Sideshow Bob. The infamous clown in the Simpsons, notable for hitting himself in the face with a rake. You'd think after the 20th rake, he'd learn not to step on rakes. It appears you haven't either.

Well, I don't think it's Mr. Atkinson's job to carry out your fantasies. You're the one making the claim (and it isn't even the first time you've made it) that I work for an audio company. Now it's up to you to provide proof. Not conjecture, not speculation, not your personal prejudices. Tangible PROOF, with your accusations here supported by hard evidence. (Can't wait to see you get beaned by another rake!)

Otherwise... you will withdraw your accusation and apologize to me for making it.

The point is though Ethan,
you just cannot come out with the accusation you did and then say "ah but it does not say they did!!!".

If your going to make such an accusation/fact claim you really do need to have information proving your point from the said paper (initially I thought I missed something from the paper but does not look like it now).
Otherwise this just looks like your letting bias get in the way.
That being said ways forward; you could contact Pro Links if you want to make that statement, or do a search on the internet to see if anything more concrete is posted (which I am just doing now myself)

Personally it does not seem to me the paper is misleading just written for non-technical readers while also caught between being a presentation and a paper, and I guess to provide an outlay of the background of their knowledge (waffle it seems in this case but maybe meant to be part of a scope), but I guess we are taking what it says differently.

Edit:
Well looking back at the paper/presentation the most concrete for/against is the following statement they put in it:

Quote:
Pro Links was asked to define and execute a simple test procedure to measure and verify the influence of these Resonators.

So this says define, execute, measure, verify.
Also just to re-emphasise, I appreciate we opened the discussion up to this other product but I hope none of us are taking this other paper and product as a way to compare to Ted's and to use as conclusions for the initial points of this topic.

Cheers
Orb

Quote:

Quote:
John Atkinson: The frog is subject to the same rules of identification as all others in the business. Please enforce your rules evenly.

The rule applies to audio manufacturers, Ethan, not to private individuals.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

You know, John, we might just see a much more civil attitude here if everyone had to post using something clearly tied to their real name.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
John Atkinson: The frog is subject to the same rules of identification as all others in the business. Please enforce your rules evenly.

The rule applies to audio manufacturers, Ethan, not to private individuals.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

You know, John, we might just see a much more civil attitude here if everyone had to post using something clearly tied to their real name.

Ah got to love irony when its done for fun; you posting this statement as JJ or James
Cheers
Orb (honest this is my real name!! ok not)

"If you read my first post about that PDF file, you'll see my unequivocal statement that nine magic golf balls cannot possibly reduce reverb decay time at 63 Hz by 1/3 in any room. That is the main point, and that is proof that the PDF is full of it."

While you're recovering from that shock, how about these apples?

Consider the case of Golden Sound's Acoustic Discs, which are only 3/4 inch in diameter - much less than the diameter of a golf ball. The Acoustic Discs measurement data below is reported on the Golden Sound wesite.

"The most important component of your audio system is your surroundings. The same stereo system will sound quite different in different rooms. Golden Sound Acoustic Discs are a simple and effective way to minimize various unwanted reflections that distort the true sound from your speakers.

Scientific measurement shows that Acoustic Discs reduce cumulative spectral decay from 30 to 50 percent between 80 to 15000 Hz. More importantly, Golden Sound Acoustic Discs reduce only the corner early reflection after 1 millisecond. This will retain the dynamics and ambience of the original recording."

Cheers

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
John Atkinson: The frog is subject to the same rules of identification as all others in the business. Please enforce your rules evenly.

The rule applies to audio manufacturers, Ethan, not to private individuals.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

You know, John, we might just see a much more civil attitude here if everyone had to post using something clearly tied to their real name.

Ah got to love irony when its done for fun; you posting this statement as JJ or James
Cheers
Orb (honest this is my real name!! ok not)

Yes, and you would think J_J would know the difference between a golf ball and Ted's metallic products. Labeling 9 golf balls in a room and the sonic reaction as proof concerning Ted's products effectiveness, and nothing stated by J_J. What an interesting reaction, or non reaction, from someone claiming to be "scientific".

Quote:
If you read my first post about that PDF file, you'll see my unequivocal statement that nine magic golf balls cannot possibly reduce reverb decay time at 63 Hz by 1/3 in any room. That is the main point, and that is proof that the PDF is full of it.

Cheers.

Ethan Winer wrote:

It is impossible for me to prove you are not in the business .... You know full well that nobody can prove a negative having nothing to go on but a green forum avatar.

Oh, so instead of providing the forum's administration with valid, verifiable, tangible proof of the name of my company and address you claim I work for, you are now admitting that you just pulled this lying accusation out of your rear end, and can't prove a damn thing of what you're claiming, if your life dependend on it? Well then stop being a "hostile ignoramus" you idiot, and _cease and desist immediately_ from making false accusations against me for which you are not willing or able to provide evidence for. You had better confirm that you understand that Winer, for the future. This is the last time I want to hear you accuse me of being an industry member. If others are not allowed to make lying defamatory accusations against you, which they are not willing or able to provide valid evidence for, then you are certainly not free to do so yourself.

Either abide by the forum rules and state your true identity, or prove that you are not in the biz and do not have a vested interest in discrediting me.

! Uh, last I checked Einstein, there was nothing in the rules that said: "All members MUST humour Ethan Winer's paranoid crackpot conspiracy theories, and confirm or deny whoever he thinks they are". In case you haven't noticed, most people on the forums you troll for new customers, both private and industry members alike, have a vested interest in discrediting you. And the simple reason for that is; you're a habitual liar. A dangerously irresponsible and unrepentive liar at that. And I'm not just talking about your dangerously misleading pseudoscientific BS about audio. For when you are asked to provide hard evidence for the ever-continuing lying personal accusations you make against forum members, you do what you are busy doing now: the cowardly two-step, where you sidestep the demand that you support your lying accusations with evidence. Again, PROVE your unsupported accusations about my so-called "true identity" , or retract them and apologize for them immediately.

You want to talk about "abiding by the forum rules"? Ok, let's. Here's -my- "backatcha". Read carefully:

Note To Manufacturers: "Furthermore, manufacturers should refrain from commenting on the effectiveness or validity of the products of any other manufacturer. "

Did you "refrain" from doing that, Ethan? Or is this another example of where you will flaunt the rules you have very well read, until you are forced to abide by them, as you did with the signature rule, all the while demanding that they be applied to others? Before you answer, let me refresh your short memory:

JA said: "Something is happening with the ART devices"
Whiner, The Flaunter of Rules replied: "Yes, it's called placebo effect and expectation bias."

Is that what you call "refraining" Ethan? Or do you have a special Ethanistic excuse for that as well? Since you recently demanded that the forum rules apply "equally, to all manufacturers", then I'm sure you will have no problem bowing out of this thread, as your entire premise is to "comment" on (more like "attack") the validity of your competitor's products.

Therefore, since you purposely hide your identity, the only proof possible is from you. So back atcha toadstool.

I'd be careful if I were you, attacking members here over their identity. You're already skating on thin ice by attacking industry members here with charges of commercial fraud, and accusing others of misrepresenting themselves. And that's only in a couple of days since your return to our fair forum! But since you are making this accusation yet again, I'm gonna ask you again to prove it. Prove your claim with hard evidence, -not your personal conjecture-. Or retract it and apologize to me for that as well. Backatcha" yourself, Whiner.

BTW, I consider "in the biz" as including people who buy and sell gear on eBay and Audiogon etc, even if that accounts for only part of their income.

Yeah well, you can also consider anyone who has ever peered into the window of an audio shop to be "in the biz". But really, who cares what you "consider"? You're a certifiable lunatic. A well known pathological liar with a paranoia complex, who is greatly in need of psychological counselling. Explain to a therapist your theories about how anyone who sells anything related to audio on eBay or Audiogon is an official member of the audio industry, who is probably hiding under an "anonymous screen name" just to discredit you and steal your customers away. I'm sure he'll have some drugs to prescribe that will help you with that problem, and hopefully we won't have to hear about your paranoid delusions again.

Ethan Winer
Proud owner of RealTraps, but posting on my own behalf
And always using my real name because I'm not ashamed of what I have to say

But not your company name, unless you are finally forced to, because you're ashamed of what you say about audio being associated with your audio business! Who can blame you?

Quote:
I vote against such stupid ass arguments that pit semantics against varifiable test results. As if calling it a resonator in any way affects what it does or does not do.

Just to let you know, I actually agree, and cast my vote with yours. Whatever you call it is a red herring. What can be verified is what matters. And on this issue, it certainly won't end here.

Quote:
I must be missing something. I don't care if he calls them fartenators. The claim is that they affect the sound of the room and there is test data that 1. either supports the claims that it affects the sound of the room or 2. were plainly falsified. I don't see a whole lot of wiggle room here. To worry about whether or not they are "resonators" seems like a distant secondary concern. It's almost like UFOlogists and skeptics arguing over the color of an Alien. Not the most pressing issue.

It comes down to the issue of whether the claims being made for the product are true or false. Calling something a "resonator" is a claim of fact, whether you're aware of that or not, and whether you're interested in that or not.

In fact, the last thing in the world you'd want as a room treatment is a resonator. A "resonator" is something that either vibrates sympathetically with the sound, like something that starts buzzing when a subwoofer produces loud, deep bass, or something that causes the sound impinging on it at the resonant frequency to excite an acoustic resonance, like a jug used in jug band music. The mere fact that someone advertises a supposed room treatment as a "resonator" shows their total ignorance of physics, making it unlikely that they'd ever produce anything of real value as a room treatment by anything but a lucky coincidence.

In fact, the nature of the device is quite relevant to the issue of whether or not the data have been falsified. To reduce the decay time with all else being equal requires that the treatment turn the unwanted reflected acoustic energy into heat. That's an absorber. Rigid, reflective objects like the magic bowls don't do that. They reflect the energy. So the chances that the devices actually reduce the decay time as claimed in the graphs are slim to none.

Quote:

Quote:
I must be missing something. I don't care if he calls them fartenators. The claim is that they affect the sound of the room and there is test data that 1. either supports the claims that it affects the sound of the room or 2. were plainly falsified. I don't see a whole lot of wiggle room here. To worry about whether or not they are "resonators" seems like a distant secondary concern. It's almost like UFOlogists and skeptics arguing over the color of an Alien. Not the most pressing issue.

It comes down to the issue of whether the claims being made for the product are true or false. Calling something a "resonator" is a claim of fact, whether you're aware of that or not, and whether you're interested in that or not.

In fact, the last thing in the world you'd want as a room treatment is a resonator. A "resonator" is something that either vibrates sympathetically with the sound, like something that starts buzzing when a subwoofer produces loud, deep bass, or something that causes the sound impinging on it at the resonant frequency to excite an acoustic resonance, like a jug used in jug band music. The mere fact that someone advertises a supposed room treatment as a "resonator" shows their total ignorance of physics, making it unlikely that they'd ever produce anything of real value as a room treatment by anything but a lucky coincidence.

In fact, the nature of the device is quite relevant to the issue of whether or not the data have been falsified. To reduce the decay time with all else being equal requires that the treatment turn the unwanted reflected acoustic energy into heat. That's an absorber. Rigid, reflective objects like the magic bowls don't do that. They reflect the energy. So the chances that the devices actually reduce the decay time as claimed in the graphs are slim to none.

So what about helmholtz resonators for room treatments? Unscientific?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helmholtz_resonance

http://physics.kenyon.edu/EarlyApparatus..._Resonator.html

http://www.audioholics.com/education/acoustics-principles/helmholtz-resonant-absorber

Quote:
This means that a more dimensionally modest, and hence complex means of low frequency absorption is required. The three common means of providing such are the tube trap, the resonant panel (or membrane), and the Helmholtz resonator. The first two provide a comparatively wide operational bandwidth; at varying levels of absorption, and are particularly useful for generalised treatment. The Helmholtz resonator is very much function (frequency) specific. The narrow bandwidth of operation makes it ideal for treating single frequency anomalies.

Quote:

Quote:
I vote against such stupid ass arguments that pit semantics against varifiable test results. As if calling it a resonator in any way affects what it does or does not do.

Just to let you know, I actually agree, and cast my vote with yours. Whatever you call it is a red herring. What can be verified is what matters. And on this issue, it certainly won't end here.

Well, calling it a resonator when it does the opposite does show a lack of insight into the product, at any rate.

I guess the difference would be claimed effect vs. seredipitous unintended effect?

So, when do we try the 9 golf ball tweak and measure that?

Nobody is poo pooing that, are they?

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
I vote against such stupid ass arguments that pit semantics against varifiable test results. As if calling it a resonator in any way affects what it does or does not do.

Just to let you know, I actually agree, and cast my vote with yours. Whatever you call it is a red herring. What can be verified is what matters. And on this issue, it certainly won't end here.

Well, calling it a resonator when it does the opposite does show a lack of insight into the product, at any rate.

I guess the difference would be claimed effect vs. seredipitous unintended effect?

(Buddha)

Not at all Buddha. A resonator works where specific frequencies are involved as it is not as broadband as other treatments. Check my links from my previous post and one will obtain an overview and how they work in a room.

Quote:
... you just cannot come out with the accusation you did and then say "ah but it does not say they did!!!".

As has been noted, you cannot prove a negative unless you just simply say, "You can't make me prove a negative but I can prove a negative just because I say it is a negative."

Quote:
Also just to re-emphasise, I appreciate we opened the discussion up to this other product but I hope none of us are taking this other paper and product as a way to compare to Ted's and to use as conclusions for the initial points of this topic.

OK, if you say all things I disagree with are BS, does that mean you think one measurement is as BS as the next measurement?

I would think it does.

Quote:
Well, calling it a resonator when it does the opposite does show a lack of insight into the product, at any rate.

Oh, I have plenty of lack of insight into these products. I barely remember what I did know the last time we battle-botted this singing bowl thing out. But let's just say I am "more than doubtful' about all the sudden experts popping up here, claiming to know more about acoustic devices and the products of the manufacturer, than the manufacturer themself knows. If I was truly that interested in learning about these devices (and not just interested in bashing them before knowing anything concrete about them), I would rather reserve my opinions and wait on the information that Ted and JA have spoken about, which will no doubt help clarify some of these issues; before getting on the "assumption bus" and going off in all directions. Or worse, do as Ethan does and shout out your ignorant misconceived assumptions at the top of a mountain for all your worth, so the whole valley can know what a tool you are.

Quote:
So, when do we try the 9 golf ball tweak and measure that?
Nobody is poo pooing that, are they?

What? You mean there's a tweak I haven't heard of? I'll let you know after I get some golf balls...

Quote:
Ah got to love irony when its done for fun; you posting this statement as JJ or James

ROTFLMF'ingAO!!!!!!!!!

Quote:

It comes down to the issue of whether the claims being made for the product are true or false. Calling something a "resonator" is a claim of fact, whether you're aware of that or not, and whether you're interested in that or not.

Hmmm, does calling something a "Hummer" mean you'll actually get one? I seeeee laaaawsuuuuuit commmminnnnnng .....

Look at the ART page, the devices are sold as "bowls".

Which they are.

Quote:
To reduce the decay time with all else being equal requires that the treatment turn the unwanted reflected acoustic energy into heat.

That is, as far as you know that is what is required.

Right?

One member here claims to know everything. Do you?

Quote:
Well, calling it a resonator ...

It's not called a resonator in the sales literature. "Bass Station", "Vibratron" and "Satellites" are the names given to the devices. What silliness can you come up with for those names? Ted doesn't understand sci-fi?!

Geeezobeezo!

Quote:
I guess the difference would be claimed effect vs. seredipitous unintended effect?

I have no problem with serendipitous effects. To me the issue is the objective test results that show an effect. That they are either legitimate and show an improvement in the room or that they have been falsified is a far more pressing issue than whether or not the products have been correctly identified as resonators. Since JA is going to provide us with indepenedent varification I think I'll just sit back and wait for the results. It would seem that someone is going to be eating crow until they vomit. this should be fun.

Who's doing the tests? Why not save money by having Ted chip in to help pay for them? How about having Earl Geddes do the tests? He knows more about acoustics than practically anyone on the planet.

Does anyone expect unbiased test results from someone being paid by a publication that is, in effect, a puppet of the industry?

Hi Ethan, I have also successfully used 12 sets of USD $1000 toilet paper roll in my 2000ft sq music room to reduce the bass mode decay time of my room into half without affecting the frequency response, look....

Before

After 12 set of China "Mei hua" brand ultra sonic toilet paper roll place in room corner.

No! it's not fake by photoshop because JA can proof its true by "loaded both images up in Apple's Preview program. Switching rapidly between the images reveals not just differences in decay time but also differences in the amplitude of modes either side of the highest-level modes (which are not changed in amplitude)." later...

Is this real ultrasonic hifi toilet paper or a Chinese knockoff??

Even if it's the real thing, are we debating an improvement or a difference ?

No tweaker on this forum appears to know he difference.......

Quote:

Quote:
I guess the difference would be claimed effect vs. seredipitous unintended effect?

I have no problem with serendipitous effects. To me the issue is the objective test results that show an effect. That they are either legitimate and show an improvement in the room or that they have been falsified is a far more pressing issue than whether or not the products have been correctly identified as resonators. Since JA is going to provide us with indepenedent varification I think I'll just sit back and wait for the results. It would seem that someone is going to be eating crow until they vomit. this should be fun.

Got to agree with you.
The more people put forward their case or argument in regards to the original intention of this thread, the greater their commitment becomes that usually ends up with emotional ties and even more bias, this includes the use of semantics or pushing the discussion into other none related areas with more arguments.

Cheers
Orb

Quote:
No! it's not fake by photoshop because JA can proof its true by "loaded both images up in Apple's Preview program. Switching rapidly between the images reveals not just differences in decay time but also differences in the amplitude of modes either side of the highest-level modes (which are not changed in amplitude)." later...

Don't be silly. You created the difference by truncating the time segment on one then pasting the time scale from the other, just as Ethan did. But if you look at the two graphs Ted Denney provided, you can't turn one into the other with a party trick like this.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Quote:
Does anyone expect unbiased test results from someone being paid by a publication that is, in effect, a puppet of the industry?

I find it interesting that you and Ethan are already trying to disqualify the results of any testing performed on the ART devices by someone working for Stereophile. Don't you have the courage of your convictions? It is possible that the testing will show that the devices do _not_ produce the advertised effect.

And if you insist that the fact that the testing has been commissioned by Stereophile is sufficient to disqualify the result, then why do you even read the magazine or hang out on this forum?

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
the last thing in the world you'd want as a room treatment is a resonator. A "resonator" is something that either vibrates sympathetically with the sound, like something that starts buzzing when a subwoofer produces loud, deep bass ... a supposed room treatment as a "resonator" shows their total ignorance of physics
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"No kidding, with "ignorance" as the key word. Yet when I made that same point a few times here in the past, several forum members said I was wrong (LOL), and how dare I suggest what others should prefer. Well, okay, if you prefer the sound of a buzzing window excited by certain bass notes, I won't object."

Strawman Alert! Name calling and strawman arguments are for sissies.

Let's see, how many "resonators" are there in audioland? Here's a start: Room Lens, Mpingo disc, Brilliant Pebbles, Golden Sound's Acoustic Discs, Frank Tchang's Acoustic System Resonators, Sugar Cubes (also from Frank Tchang), Bass Traps, Shakti Holographs, Tru Tone Duplex Covers for wall outlets and Acoustic Revive Quartz Crystal.

And the humble empty coke bottle (a bowl with a long narrow neck).

Quote:
Is this real ultrasonic hifi toilet paper or a Chinese knockoff??

Even if it's the real thing, are we debating an improvement or a difference ?

No tweaker on this forum appears to know he difference.......

Seriously....you believe 12 toilet rolls can make such a different?

No wonder some friend tell me it is easy to earn Audiophile money if you know how to confuse~~~opps typo,to convince them with "proof" that they don't understand.....KeKe

Quote:

Quote:
I find it interesting that you and Ethan are already trying to disqualify the results of any testing performed on the ART devices by someone working for Stereophile.

Not me! I already said publicly that I applaud you for doing this, as long as the expert you chose is legitimate and not some woo woo.

Exactly my point, Ethan. Why would anyone consider an engineer "woo woo," unless you are already preparing the case that that person should be disqualified if their results do not align with your beliefs?

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Quote:
LOL, I can't let this one go:

Quote:
Turned out that nearly every single person in the room had a story about this particular problematic and difficult person -who wasn't really an expert in acoustics-at all.

I am honored that your industry pals know me and hate me. I must be doing my job very well.

Quote:
Put your business associations and connections here --- ~PROMINENTLY.~
Or--FUCK OFF.

This from someone who took anonymous potshots at me for two years, refusing to reveal his name or company name until Stereophile forced him to come out of the closet. Yeah Ken, you're the perfect person to lecture others about ethics. Not!

What amazes me most about this thread is the way some industry people who I'm certain know that Ted's magic goof balls are a crock choose to stand by him anyway. Apparently that's less painful than agreeing with Ethan in public. What a band of thieves.

Ethan Winer
Proud owner of RealTraps, but posting on my own behalf
And always using my real name

Maybe the quote your responding to has made you bite and not questioning that part of your post.
But, to say people are sticking up for Ted and then stating what a band of thieves is going over the top.
In fact this is an example of what I said about emotional ties/commitment occuring if one continually argues the case around their knowledge/experience/opinion without following up with a non-biased process.
The non-biased approach is to get seperate validation; you could possibly fund asking those who do the mathematical modelling (and we are talking about a limited number of people/companies here who could) of rooms and error correction to look at those charts for their views without mentioning what the product was; after all in this instance you are just interested if modelling experts can validate the before and after results.

I guess the point is, there are many who do not understand without being hostile why/if Ted's products work posting here (including myself), the difference is understanding that due diligance and a more open analysis without going with 1st thoughts/instinct is critical if NOT to be biased.
Otherwise it becomes much tougher to consider our opinions and knowledge/etc may be wrong.

Cheers
Orb