| Columns Retired Columns & Blogs |
| Loudspeakers Amplification Digital Sources | |
Analog Sources Accessories Featured | |
Music Columns Retired Columns | |
Show Reports | |
Features Latest News Community | |
Resources Subscriptions |
© 2024 StereophileAVTech Media Americas Inc., USA
All rights reserved
Bronze bells from Asia have been discovered dating back as early as the 8th-10th century BCE.
Maybe someone can come up with a CD that one could put in that Ferrari-branded boom box that plays resonant frequencies while you try to listen to your main rig.
Or, like those old light organs, an iPhone app that reacts to the sound in the room and instead of creating a light show, it can respond with resonant frequencies.
I bet one could set a record for most expensive app!
Can you picture an ART Bowl System app for the iPhone at only 1500 dollars?
Nice try, but isn't it the tiny size of the Tchang resonators as well as the SR bowls that has everyone's bowels in an uproar? You know, like 1/100th the size of a singing bowl. Hel-looo!
Oh, so, they are too small to resonate.
Better tell Ted that you've once again bypassed physics!
And those Tchangs...
Don't forget, the Tchangs are so powerful, even at rest, that they drove Sarajan from his home!
Can't slip anything by you.
Is it any wonder I have what's his name on permanent "ignore"?
If you stopped when you read Tibetan bowls, you are missing a large part of what Ted and others have had to say about the devices.
Wow! Do tell.
Yes, Ted, do give away all of your secrets to building a successful business.
I swear, do you guys do anything for yourself?
http://search.yahoo.com/search?ei=utf-8&...dings&type=
Well, the feces thrower has arrived.
What can I say other than ...
ROTFLMAO at you, D'boy.
Jan, you are such a crotchety, sensitive, hateful old bastard.
Shouldn't you be playing bingo somewhere?
Screw off, ncdrawl, you're one of the worst offenders on this forum. If there isn't trouble somewhere on this forum, you're not happy and you'll stir something up just to please yourself. I never have liked you, ncdrawl, never have and never will because you're a f'ing PITA.
Contribute something positive to the thread or go find another location to whine(r) about loosing your hero to his own bad habits. Go find a bunch of sock puppets like D'boy who enjoy using fake names and talking tough over a forum.
At least my feces comes out the correct end
Ain't it cool when a medical professional uses the word "physics" in a sentence? With an exclamation point, no less.
I bypassed physics *again*? Huh? When did I perform the alleged bypass before?
Sweet! They found another use for the Tesla Coil. Good to see it's not just sitting around gathering dust.
"Finally, the bowls are quantum-tunneled with 2,000,000 volts from a Tesla coil. Quantum tunneling is a large, purpose-built solid-state Tesla coil that throws a 5-foot arc into a tray of resonators, hits one, bounces between them in an arc, and passes through all of them. For some reason, this has an affect on their acoustic properties. We came across this empirically."
"We came across this empirically." Hmmmm, this seems to be cropping up a lot these days.
Awwww, D'Ethan, it's plain to see you don't know which end is up.
geoff, are you dismissing empirical research? Knocking a competitor's product?
Do you really think Ted was just playing around with 2,000,000 volts one day and got a shockingly good idea? Stood too close to the coil?
What's your point?
Stephen, this seems such a strange turn around from the days when you allowed another forum member to knock any and all of his comptetition without mercy and without end. For years the MO of this forum has been to destroy all who disagree with you and most especially so if that is a business competitor.
What's changed now? You've decided to single out Ted for what reason? Must we all get an OK from you to post on this forum? That would appear to be what you are saying to Ted.
He's a forum member and he has something of value to say to the forum. Some might not like seeing what a classy guy their hero is but others might find it to be very informative. It's not like Ted's talking out of class, the smear campaign going on and instigated by one particular individual who has never been shy about threats and dispicable actions is not a secret. Do you really think banning someone like that is going to stop his onslaught against a comptetitor?
A "WAR" has been declared against Ted and his company, that is clear. It has been declared by a competitor and someone not known for rational actions or observing the wishes of others. What makes you think the person who began this war would stop at your terms of banishment? You've seen how he operates and how much he respects rules of civility, what do you think his response to being banned would be? To just shut up and be a good boy?
Have you done due diligence to ensure the true identity of D'Ethan? Would you know who D'Ethan really is should he be using an open anonymous proxy or VPN privatizing service? Do you think someone so committed to destroying people wouldn't do such a thing?
He does seem to have the same enemies and he does seem to fit the bill of the multiple sockpuppets described in that webpage. Don't tell me you don't believe sockpuppets exist? His tactics are very much like those of somemone no longer allowed to post on this forum under his real name. Have you checked around the other forums to find "David L" posting under that name anywhere else? I haven't since it's not my job but he does seem to have an extensive knowledge of where Ted goes and what has been said about the ART products, don't you think? How would he have gained that knowledge on this forum alone?
For example, how many of his posts have exclusively been knocks on Ted? 40? 50? More? What purpose does "David L" seem to serve on this forum other than to knock Ted's products - and insult those who disagree with him? Sound like anyone you know?
The way I see this is D'Ethan gets to say what he wants about Ted's products and about Ted's integrity yet Ted has no recourse. You've already threatened Ted with banishment should he open his mouth. This is certainly a shift in policy for the Stereophile forums.
Care to explain?
"We came across this empirically." Hmmmm, this seems to be cropping up a lot these days."
Ouch!
Very ouch!!
I don't know. What do you think?
I don't know. What's yours?
You don't know? Awwwww, geoff, don't turn into one of those guys who posts pointless messages, there's plenty of that on this forum already; D'Ethan, ncdrawl, Boood-ha!, etc.
Empirical/good? Empirical/bad?
My friend, MW, has just purchased a few items from you on my recommendation. Did you come across your own "bowl" devices without empirical evidence?
I assume you meant to say I bypassed *your* physics with my product list. That's kind of a given.
Not so much my physics.
Physics in the sense of actual existence, I guess. Well, existence beyond that of 'marketing bastardization of physics' words.
Not even metaphysics.
More like Barnumphysics.
Phantasyphysics, perhaps.
Physics by association.
Your Machina Dynamica thing seems to be flaring up again.
Chances look good it's a simple case of lack of understanding of physics, coupled with the inability to understand a plain English explanation. Everything's topsy turvy. Me topsy, you turvy.
No offense to you personally.
No offense taken.
You, as the skeptic regarding physics, are naturally prone to your debunking behavior.
The tarot reader who's trying to market himself would say exactly the sort of things you do. Uncanny, that.
I can understand: its your business, and thus you are limited in your ability to have an honest discussion.
No offense at all, Geoff, we see your type at carnivals all the time. Seen it before...never try to have an honest discussion about a carny regarding his work.
Have you ever seen "They Shoot Horses, Don't They?"
I knew Booood-ha! was familiar with carnival life. What part do you suppose he played? The Bearded Woman? The really, really Dumb Guy?
Let's compromise. The Bearded Crustacean.
Feel free to call me the bearded crustacean....although it is a bit close to home, as I do dine on bearded clam.
Speaking of civility how about trying some of that rarely used stuff yourself? Pot calling the kettle black.I sure wish YOU would shut up and be a good boy but then that would imply that you are a good boy.
Please do examine my IP address Stephen since Jan Vagina is so paranoid about who might be whom on here
seriously Jan Vag how about you and Ted stop watching Fox News and get some real perspective on life for a change? I'm really impressed by all the "discussion" you and Geoff contribute to these forums, yeah I mean it's so informative and useful 
I must admit though that I was pleasantly shocked reading this from Geoff
I suppose he can come up with some real science once in a while when he gets bored with his sci-fi products.
Or is he dissing a competitor?
Maybe Geoff is David L trying to bring Ted down.
And you think that bit of sopho-moronic humor is "informative and useful"? D'Ethan, when you post a solitary contribution that isn't directly attacking someone or their integrity is the day I change my opinion of you. I have absolute confidence that will never occur.
Point me in the direction of a post or two you have placed on this forum that is of benefit to someone - anyone -asking an audio based question. Here's what I mean, this is a thread I responded to just yesterday; http://forum.stereophile.com/forum/showf...=true#Post89007
Admittedly, that's a pretty basic question and a not all encompassing response since there was not much information provided which would allow me to go into detail about how and why such problems might have occurred. But go into the forum's files and you'll find I am always available to help anyone who doesn't come here with an obvious agenda. You'll have to look through a few thousand posts because I've been at this helping stuff for years but you will easily find the times when I've offered something positive to this forum despite the fact I've had to pull against the deadweight of members such as yourself.
Now, just for shits and grins, let's take a look at your profile and see what you've "contributed" to this forum; http://forum.stereophile.com/forum/dosearch.php?Cat=0&Searchpage=1&topic=
Oh, my! That's a pile of BS equalled on this forum by only a very few of the most sociopathic, psychopathic members. You're knocking the ART system, you're bitching about the lack of a place to bitch about the ART system, you're knocking geoff's products, knocking cables, defending someone who was banned and complaining about the ban ... well, obviously, I could go on but, why? It doesn't take much to see where your interests on this forum take you and where they do not. "Positive contribution" just isn't what you're about, is it?
You are the ultimate anti-audiophile bitcher. Didn't JA once ask you why (the f***) you are on this forum if you have no respect for audiophiles? I don't believe you have given anything other than a weaselly response to anything you've ever been asked on this forum, have you?
Now, I ask you and SM, who does that remind you of? You contribute nothing, bitch about everything that Stereophile is about and insist everyone be under your thumb once you demand something while having no respect for anyone other than yourself.
Truly, who else have we seen do the exact same thing? He was banned but that certainly doesn't mean he's gone, does it? A little anonymous proxy here or a touch of VPN there and you're in again! "In" to cause nothing but trouble on this forum just as if you'd never been banned for life. Sockpuppet anyone? How about a little something from another forum where the same tactics were used ...
When you make yourself obvious on the internet forums it finally becomes very difficult to hide yourself on the internet forums. You only have to rely on the unwillingness of any administrator to do their job and follow the breadcrumbs until they finally come back to your location. Such is what we have here, a forum where the destruction of one member is allowed by another but any defense attempted by the attacked member is met with a threat of banishment. Just another ol'trick employed by "you know who". How many enemies on this forum have been threatened with banishment simply because they defended themself against the nonstop attacks?
Just go through your list of attack posts and you'll see a preponderance of attacks on Ted, his company, his integrity and his livelyhood. Should you post one single positive contribution to this forum it would be far outweighed by your tens of singular attacks on Ted and on anyone else with whom you find fault (read "disagree") - which curiously is pretty much the same list as another now banned member.
That's all for now, D'Ethan, there's more that indicts you as a sockpuppet or at the very least as someone with nothing positive to contribute and much more which proves you are, as are so many other non-contributing members of this forum, a scumbag of the first degree. The good news is, on this forum that probably means you get to stay. However, a few posts back I mentioned what I was willing to do should you abuse that priviledge.
You have abused that priviledge in each of your 96 posts to this forum. You have contributed nothing but scum! So take your sopho-moronic insults and shove them firmly where you keep your head. I've turned out more positive contributions to this forum - which have only served to piss off each of those who do not want to see this "audio" forum become anything other than their private bitching ground - than you could manage in a dozen sockpuppet lifetimes. Whatever idiotic insult you can throw at me, the simple act of naming you "D'Ethan" is the most damning of all in response.
Now, if only the administrator of this forum would wake up to who you really are and what your agenda is. Or, have you threatened to sue him too?
SM, I suggest you apply the same conditions to D'Ethan that you did to Ted. He needs to come to you with any future posts before they are allowed on this forum to attack anyone personally or anyone's integrity or livelyhood or just their name with his disgusting insults. This is only fair when you are dealing with the likes of those who have conclusively proven they have nothing positive to contribute to this forum.
Cockroach investation can be extremely difficult to control. Witness how difficult it was to exterminate Nathan. Shaming them doesn't seem to work so more stringent methods are likely needed.
geoff, I do think you misspoke awhile back. I'm hoping you're willing to clear things up.
Most likely my comments were misinterpreted. I'm Hoping that clears things up.
You say, Elk, in your reply to Jan :-
>>> " The forum concept is to share ideas and thoughts. You say you have ideas as to how it works. Please share. I, and others, are interested." <<<
And yet, Elk, you have already shown (with your own words) that your mind is already 'made up' - that you already KNOW that the products under discussion are "nonsensical" !! I can only go on what people actually say to determine whether they ARE actually interested in exploring or whether they are just merely 'mouthing the words'.
Your comment :-
>>> "You are supposed to accept that the sound improves as a tenant of faith.
Of course, others may choose to accept on faith alone that these pretty, but nonsensical, products significantly alter sound.
The ART products have no apparent relation to acoustic science" <<<
I would compare your 'outlook' (so obviously shared with many others) with a different one such as Jason Victor Serinus's 'outlook' :-
>>> "The bottom line is that people, even skeptics such as John Atkinson, hear differences with and without ART. Whether those differences can either be measured or explained using our current level of scientific understanding is certainly something to explore." <<<
One 'outlook' shows a 'closed' attitude ( a mind already made up - i.e the things are nonsensical), the other shows a willingness and desire to 'explore' - even to look outside of 'our current level of scientific understanding'.
As Jan says, one has to "think", "think" and "think" further. If, as numerous people have discovered, such as the ART devices, the Tchang Acoustic Resonators, The Schumann Resonance device, the Harmonix Devices - when placed in the listening environment - can give improvements in the sound, then, obviously, SOMETHING is happening - which has to be explained !!
Concentrating a discussion on the COST of any of these devices is a red herring - a diversionary technique - a shield to hide behind. If these devices were free, their effect STILL has to be explained !!
Regards,
May Belt,
P.W.B. Electronics.
Tell me Jan Vag what products of Ted's you have bought and use? Do you own the little magic bowls? How about an in depth report from your own experiences? We are waiting.
Oh and sorry to break it to you but I'm not Ethan Winer. If you insist on me being him then I suggest you get in touch with the former frog boy and have a "Everyone is Ethan Winer" party.
Elk, you're next on the COD menu, I fear.
(COD....Google Jonathan Swift....
...)
Yes they still do need to be explained
Sad to say though that the manufacturer refuses to submit any proof . He would rather pout on here with a couple of posts about Mr. Winer then go sailing for a few weeks. That's a pretty good diversion 
THAT is what we have been trying to get ANYONE to do on here. MAKE MEASUREMENTS! So far, no luck. They would rather point fingers and blah blah blah.
When we started this forum in 2005, we didn't anticipate manufacturers would use it to harm the reputations of their competitors. When we saw that happening, we created a rule to stop it.
I'm sorry you see it that way, Jan. That is not the MO of this forum, as I see it.
When Ted Denney of Synergistic Research argued that Ethan Winer of RealTraps was posting here as "David L" and made strong claims against Ethan Winer's business, he broke our rule which states: The Stereophile forum is not to be used by manufacturers as a pulpit to promote their products or discredit the products of others.
Furthermore, I'm well aware of the ongoing debates between Ted Denney and Ethan Winer which have been taking place elsewhere on stereophile.com and on other audio sites; I think it's foolish, childish, and disrespectful, and, as I've stated, I feel they should not use our website as a venue for their tiff.
No. Where did you get that idea?
In this case, Ted Denney broke a clearly stated forum rule, so I must disagree with your comment regarding "value."
I have communicated directly with Ted Denney and he understands that he is expected to behave here according to our rules.
I've taken a close look at the profiles and habits of all of the parties involved, using evidence I have here and on other websites, and I do not believe that Ethan Winer is posting to our forum as David L.
Hi, May!
I understand your point. You are correct, it is always worth considering opposing ideas.
My use of the word "nonsensical" was meant to convey that, to me, these products do not make sense. I am thus asking for an explanation.
For example, the website mentions Tibetan prayer bowls. I share the fascination as to the degree these can energize a room. Yet, the frequency response and their amount of sound they make is directly proportional to their sound (bigger bowls, lower fundamental and more sound). The ART products are tiny - how do they have any impact on low frequencies?
Further, they are claimed to replace acoustic treatments. That is, they are said to have a significant impact on the frequency response of physical sound.
How does this work?
If there us a physical change in frequency response, why can't this be measured?
Jan claims he has a working theory as to how they work, thus I wrote, "You say you have ideas as to how it works. Please share. I, and others, are interested."
So far, to my knowledge, he has yet to respond. Perhaps some time he will.
True and I never said anything to the contrary. My only comment has been that I am unwilling to front $3,000.00 simply to try them out.
Frankly, it would also be unfair of me to order a set simply to play with them on the manufacturer's dime. I have no intent of buying them unless they truly compete with $3,000.00 of well-designed room treatment or adding $3,000.00 to a component.
$3,000.00 for a tweak is flying in rarefied air. The improvement must be spectacular to justify this price.
Most things I could purchase for $3,000.00 clearly disclose what they are, how they work, and why they are worth the money.
For example, one ~$3,000.00 tweak for my Ducati is a Termignoni full exhaust system:
"Factory exhaust system developed by Ducati Corse for the Superbike World Championship. The kit includes carbon fiber mufflers, removable dB killer, stainless steel 2-1-2 manifolds (70 mm), engine management computer with dedicated maps (Fuel & spark advance correction, correction tables for air temp / water temp / horizontal and vertical cylinder / air pressure, etc.) and high-performance air filter. The enhanced fluid dynamics of the exhaust gas allows this system to increase power by 8 percent."
A Termignoni exhaust is silly expensive, pretty, but I know what it does, of what it is made, why it works, how well it works and what I am getting for $3,000.00. No appeals to "trust me." Thus, I have one.
Isn't it fair to ask audio tweak manufacturers to provide the same?
So far I have been spared. <whew>
May's comments are always fine. She questions ideas and attitudes but doesn't attack people. A great approach.
And perhaps do something that ensures that confirmation bias isn't the actual issue at hand, eh?
> A Termignoni exhaust is silly expensive, pretty, but I know what it does, of what it is made, why it works, how well it
> works and what I am getting for $3,000.00. No appeals to "trust me." Thus, I have one.
>
> Isn't it fair to ask audio tweak manufacturers to provide the same?
No. Tweak manufacturers can market their products in whatever way they see fit subject to the laws of the land. It is the reponsibility of the consumer to assess that marketing. This puts stupid people at a disadvantage compared to normal people and encourages parts of the industry to produce high profit margin products for stupid people. Nonetheless this is a simple and fair system.
To protect stupid people from their stupidity requires resources and a more complicated system. These resources would have to be paid for by normal people as well as stupid people. For the basics like health, safety,... people tend to think that is OK but when it comes to luxury goods like audio tweaks it is going to be hard to sell particularly when the audio tweaks industry provide benefits in terms of employment, taxes and generally keeping the economy going. The people carrying the cost are the stupid people but, quite often, they seem happy enough with their goods. So where is the problem?
Yeah ideally duplicates are made say from moulded plastic, this way the listener has no way of knowing if the product is real or not and is less unnatural to trying this as a blindfold test, and removes the requirement of measurements as well.
It is the perfect analogy to placebo, while also resolving various biases.
Although, I do feel it does not cancel one that is related to seeing an unusual object or positioning of an object, but then the result will be same for both the duplicate and actual product (if they are in same positions) in this case.
So who has the enthusiasm to do this, that is the question.
Cheers
Orb
Just like the lottery is a voluntary tax on those that flunked math.
On the other hand, the lottery occasionally pays out . . .
The lottery is the cheapest entertainment around .
A dollar can buy days of fantasy , a ten dollar movie gets you 90 minutes.
If a person like Jan paid $3000 for the bowls wouldn't that be a plus? Admittedly a person like Ted getting the $3000 might be a bit of a minus but the potential for an overall pay out would seem to exist?
Good reasoning, Orb.
Something along those lines has already been done - but not to my knowledge specifically with the ART devices or with things which are expensive !!. I don't mean duplicates made of other materials but pairs of identical objects with one 'treated' and one kept untreated as the 'control'.
Take the 'freezing/slow defrost' technique. Two identical CDs - one untreated as the control and the other one having been through the freezing/slow defrost procedure. BOTH look identical as the freezing technique cannot be seen !!
The same with cables !!
Easy enough for people to do for themselves - particularly when, quite a few years ago, some Hi Fi magazines in the UK had free CDs attached to their front cover. So, one could obtain identical CDs at very low cost !!! Fun and games was had by all, back on those days !!
And, as I have described many times before (the story is well known to the people who are interested), Blind trials were carried out by the ENT Consultant and his Senior audiology technician - at a leading UK teaching hospital - on pairs of identical hearing aid batteries. One hearing aid battery of a pair left untreated as a control and the other one having been through the 'freezing/slow defrost' process.
As I have said to Elk. If there is a difference 'heard', then it has to be explained.
Somehow, by someone at sometime !! Which requires thought put into it !!
Regards,
May Belt,
P.W.B. Electronics.
Sounds awesome, do you have a link to that article?
I bet that changed how the audiologists went about their business!
Pages