In my opinion this thread is a good example of all:

• The extent to which contributors with little or no subject matter expertise advance speculative theories with no underlying rationale, at odds with and in many cases completely ignorant of facts, science and accepted wisdom and yet with no apparent interest in actually learning anything. There are plenty of books on almost all the subjects discussed here, why not read one?
• The extent to which contributors with considerable subject matter expertise seem more interested in belittling the above rather than helping them. Instead of posturing, scoffing and saying "I don't even know where to begin", why not just suggest an appropriate introductory textbook or post a link to a good grounder?
• The speed with which debates between or among the above categories become antagonistic and the discussion turns aggressive and aubsive and descends into childish name calling and ad hominem attacks.
• The amounts of time, energy and emotion some people are willing to invest in such fist fights which lamentably seem to be the only threads that ever actually gather any momentum. Many contributors seem to enjoy the blood sports far more than the audio.
• The extremes of such uncivilized behaviour, often in breach of the first rule of the forum ("Participants shall not post any material likely to cause offence") that the moderators seem willing to tolerate before intervening.

Am I the only one here that finds this offensive, monotonous and downright sad?

>>> "Am I the only one here that finds this offensive, monotonous and downright sad?" <<<

No, you are not the only one !!

Regards,
May Belt,
P.W.B. Electronics.

Thank goodness. By the way, in answer to your earlier question about quotes.

Quote Struts:
"Am I the only one here that finds this offensive, monotonous and downright sad?

"

How much moderation is needed can be a tough call sometimes, IMO.

There are good and bad things about a lightly moderated forum.

Certainly I favor light moderation in the Open Bar (gotta let all those drunks duke it out) :=)

AC is a good example of a tightly moderated forum. But, at times, it seems like people can be almost too constrained in what they say.

I actually have found this thread to be reasonably informative despite the bickering.
I find myself looking forward to JA's exploration of the subject.

Back to moderation, Stephen has a tough job here. Ideally there would be a Mod for each area. SM has to mod it all. Would anyone want that job ?

Thank you for that link, Struts. So THAT's where people can select their 'smiley faces' from !!!! As the saying goes, "You can learn something new every day".

Regards,
May Belt,
P.W.B. Electronics.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
I don't know why you smirk, as again your words betray your lack of scientific understanding. That you even thought it relevant to mention the AM and FM bands reveals that you do not understand the underlying physics of wave propagation, as in your confusion between RF and audio waves.

So my lack of scientific understanding for mentioning the FM and AM band when YOU say that the 2.4Ghz band could be effecting listeners and not the actual acoustic sound field is a good reason for saying I don't know what I'm talking about

Sadly, yes. I know it's politically correct to treat everyone's opinions as having equal validity, but when someone expresses opinions on a technical subject, as you have done, then reveals that he doesn't actually know anything about that subject, as you have done, then what other conclusion can be drawn?

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Pot calling the kettle black
Right back at ya big guy When you show how the little bowls stop all that 2.4GHz "bad stuff" from affecting a whole room full of people THEN I will have respect for your hypothesis.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
I don't know why you smirk, as again your words betray your lack of scientific understanding. That you even thought it relevant to mention the AM and FM bands reveals that you do not understand the underlying physics of wave propagation, as in your confusion between RF and audio waves.

So my lack of scientific understanding for mentioning the FM and AM band when YOU say that the 2.4Ghz band could be effecting listeners and not the actual acoustic sound field is a good reason for saying I don't know what I'm talking about

Sadly, yes. I know it's politically correct to treat everyone's opinions as having equal validity, but when someone expresses opinions on a technical subject, as you have done, then reveals that he doesn't actually know anything about that subject, as you have done, then what other conclusion can be drawn?

Pot calling the kettle black
Right back at ya big guy

Really? Could you point to anything that I have said in this thread that doesn't conform to current scientific understanding or reveals a lack of knowledge on my part? All I have been doing is observing that IF there is an effect due to the Synergistic/Tchang bowls on a listener's perception of sound, THEN the question becomes what possible mechanisms could be possible for that perception? That is true to Scientific Method: Observe, then Conjecture. The next step is to test those conjectures with Experiment.

I agree that not all hypotheses are created equal, but without actual experiment, you cannot dismiss any. As wit the example of the color of the teachers' marking ink I mentioned earlier in the thread, that something seems unlikely is not sufficient grounds in itself for it to be dismissed out of hand.

Quote:
When you show how the little bowls stop all that 2.4GHz "bad stuff" from affecting a whole room full of people THEN I will have respect for your hypothesis.

With respect, again you demonstrate your lack of understanding of Scientific Method. A hypothesis is not an explanation. Nor do you need to have an explanation before offering a hypothesis. Again, the hypothesis comes first, then comes an experiment to test that hypothesis. The results of the experiment either confirm or deny the hypothesis but without a hypothesis, you cannot even begin to design the experiment.

As I said, I am skeptical that the bowls have an acoustic effect, but that needs first to be investigated. Only then, if they do not have any measurable acoustic effect do you move on to second-order effects, like the 2.4GHz hypothesis.

Actually, what needs first to be done is to set up more rigorous listening tests to determine if the effect of the bowls is repeatable, but with respect to JJ, I am not sure how that could be done reliably.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Quote:

Quote:

...reveals that he doesn't actually know anything about that subject, as you have done, then what other conclusion can be drawn?

That the effect, if any, of the bowls must be via 2.4 GHz effects?

No. I was referring to the fact that the language we use reveals who we are. David L. is taking the Scientific High Ground in this discussion, yet what he said in his postings - not knowing the difference between electromagnetic waves and acoustic waves; not knowing that different radio waves have different wavelengths; not knowing the relationship between wavelength and the physical size of an object in the path of the wave - taken together suggest that he was not educated in the sciences. Hence his pronouncements on scientific matters should be not given as much weight in this discussion as he would like.

And if that seems like elitism on my part, yes, the language I use reveals who I am also. Put it down to my once having been a science teacher and having an ongoing dissatisfaction with society's feeling that everyone's opinions have equal weight, regardless how ill-informed those opinions might be. :-(.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

I think what JA says probably sums up quite a few of the arguments seen on the forum.
To me it seems most fall on one side or another of a fence, however a hypothesis and actual engineering/scientific investigations in reality is on the middle of the fence because the surmise is the facts/cause are not proven (as in this case) and requires a theory model-investigation and testing with measurement- behavior/cognotive investigation.
Indeed another hypothesis I put forward is that it is the unusual object/possible object location that may be affecting ones perception.
This is not fact but a plausible possibility, and such is a hypothesis requiring testing for the scenario; music is perceptibly better or favoured with the devices in the room and positioned in their "ideal spot" (to emphasize that manufacturer guidelines on placement should be adhered to and not compromised for testing if at all possible).

Anyway as JA says I think the focus is:

Quote:
A hypothesis is not an explanation. Nor do you need to have an explanation before offering a hypothesis. Again, the hypothesis comes first, then comes an experiment to test that hypothesis. The results of the experiment either confirm or deny the hypothesis but without a hypothesis, you cannot even begin to design the experiment

As an example, for a long time there was a hypothesis that mobile phones caused cancer, this is a plausible effect but not scientific fact.
And there has been research that pushes the hypothesis towards in some cases it may or even towards no correlation between mobile phones and cancer.
The same was being done with WLAN, with intent interest from manufacturers.

JA, TBH I think the only repeatable user test is the way of making duplicates and painting them all the same, and then swap them around while noting the listeners preference/behaviour to say a number applied to each (as an identifier).

Cheers
Orb

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

...reveals that he doesn't actually know anything about that subject, as you have done, then what other conclusion can be drawn?

That the effect, if any, of the bowls must be via 2.4 GHz effects?

No. I was referring to the fact that the language we use reveals who we are. David L. is taking the Scientific High Ground in this discussion, yet what he said in his postings - not knowing the difference between electromagnetic waves and acoustic waves; not knowing that different radio waves have different wavelengths; not knowing the relationship between wavelength and the physical size of an object in the path of the wave - taken together suggest that he was not educated in the sciences. Hence his pronouncements on scientific matters should be not given as much weight in this discussion as he would like.

And if that seems like elitism on my part, yes, the language I use reveals who I am also. Put it down to my once having been a science teacher and having an ongoing dissatisfaction with society's feeling that everyone's opinions have equal weight, regardless how ill-informed that opinion might be. :-(.

Excellent post and a great example of not pulling punches and educating while still being civil.

Quote:
In my opinion this thread is a good example of all:

The extent to which contributors with little or no subject matter expertise advance speculative theories with no underlying rationale, at odds with and in many cases completely ignorant of facts, science and accepted wisdom and yet with no apparent interest in actually learning anything. There are plenty of books on almost all the subjects discussed here, why not read one?

The extent to which contributors with considerable subject matter expertise seem more interested in belittling the above rather than helping them. Instead of posturing, scoffing and saying "I don't even know where to begin", why not just suggest an appropriate introductory textbook or post a link to a good grounder?

You have the ability and the permission to post those titles yourself. However, before you protest too much, keep in mind this is at least the fifth thread to deal with the bowls. Most of this material has been covered in those previous threads and links have been provided. If the readers of those threads, many of whom are here if they have not already been banned and possibly despite being banned, have not bothered to read the materials provided - no more than Elk actually looked for John's blog comments - then what expectation should we have they will avail themself of the same opportunites offerd a third or fourth time? There should be no doubt, a closed mind cannot be opened by another, there must be the will to open your own mind to what has been provided.

Quote:
The speed with which debates between or among the above categories become antagonistic and the discussion turns aggressive and aubsive and descends into childish name calling and ad hominem attacks.

The amounts of time, energy and emotion some people are willing to invest in such fist fights which lamentably seem to be the only threads that ever actually gather any momentum. Many contributors seem to enjoy the blood sports far more than the audio.

The extremes of such uncivilized behaviour, often in breach of the first rule of the forum ("Participants shall not post any material likely to cause offence") that the moderators seem willing to tolerate before intervening.

Am I the only one here that finds this offensive, monotonous and downright sad?

I'm guessing you didn't bother to read any of my comments to SM.

The speed with which "debates" turn aggressive is remarkable, I agree. This thread lingered with little attention paid other than to say "we" support someone shouting banalities constantly and without reason. Not that "they" offered any real support as they are incapable of doing such a thing and others "they" have supported are now "officially" banned from the forum.

It wasn't until a subjectivist attitude entered the thread with, "Or you could audition them yourself", that this thread began to heat up. And it did heat up quite quickly once the shouters were confronted with an idea they did not like. You can decide who "incited" whom but the point is this thread got nasty immediately following that simply suggestion to learn something for yourself instead of demanding it be done by others who you know you will condemn afterwards. Is the exchange between John and D'Ethan not sufficient proof of that?

From page 7 of this thread ...

Quote:
The ones who complain that there's no explanation are same ones who complain about the explanation when there is one.

This after geoff had been abused several times in this thread.

We are now on page 27 of this thread and, what has changed about that attiude in the ensuing 20 pages?

Do take a look at the number of forum members who do not make positive contributions to this forum but instead snipe and complain endlessly. A short line here and another there, they pass under the radar while adding nothing but venom to the forum. Take a look, click on a name and see who out there has all those one or two line posts that you ignore because they are just the quick jab or a not so sly cut to another individual. Decide for yourself who the real trolls of the forum are, who contributes and who does not. Decide who came here to discuss audio and who did not. Which of these members are here not for the audio content or to learn anything new but only because this forum has allowed them the freedom to snipe and insult without reproach.

Few people pay them any heed any more than they pay any attention to the loony, offensive uncle sitting in the corner at dinner parties. And so they go about their business of being destructive to the spirit of the forum, offering their "support" to those who are escalating the battles against those they dislike.

Obviously, if you're on one side of the fence, you can't see that those on the other side are doing anything productive. And the "debates" escalate - with the "support" of the shouters - into threads that always end poorly, threads which get shut down despite the efforts of a few to be productive. It should be clear at this point that attempts to discuss subjective opinions and conjectures - the sort of opinions upon which I had assumed Stereophile had been built - will get shut down by shouting matches and gamesmanship. A closed mind remains a closed mind. If they haven't taken the opportunity to advance their knowledge up to this point, why should we think they will do so now? If they shout at threads concerning cable selection, why should we think they will do anything else in any other thread?

That, IMO, is why this forum needs moderation that is no longer one sided and favoring certain individuals with whom the powers that be have supped. That is why we need moderation that does not allow a manufacturer to be called a fraud and a charlatan and then threatens to ban that manufacturer when they defend themself against a competitor's onslaught.

Quote. The extent to which contributors with little or no subject matter expertise advance speculative theories with no underlying rationale, at odds with and in many cases completely ignorant of facts, science and accepted wisdom and yet with no apparent interest in actually learning anything. There are plenty of books on almost all the subjects discussed here, why not read one? Quote

The problem with some of what you say is that the text books do NOT explain everything that people are experiencing. If the text books could explain it, then there would be no controversy surrounding so many so called 'tweaks' !!

The fact that there are controversies is because all is NOT known !! That is why we have to keep 'thinking'. If ONLY it was as easy as 'reading up on the subject' !!!!!!

Regards,
May Belt,
P.W.B. Electronics.

Quote:
Quote. The extent to which contributors with little or no subject matter expertise advance speculative theories with no underlying rationale, at odds with and in many cases completely ignorant of facts, science and accepted wisdom and yet with no apparent interest in actually learning anything. There are plenty of books on almost all the subjects discussed here, why not read one? Quote

The problem with some of what you say is that the text books do NOT explain everything that people are experiencing. If the text books could explain it, then there would be no controversy surrounding so many so called 'tweaks' !!

The fact that there are controversies is because all is NOT known !! That is why we have to keep 'thinking'. If ONLY it was as easy as 'reading up on the subject' !!!!!!

Regards,
May Belt,
P.W.B. Electronics.

I disagree to a certain point. Not all is known all right, but ears, setups, rooms and everything else is different from case to case, and thus not two people can have the exact same experience with a given tweak. Just my penny/nickel/25 cent whatever...

Quote:
When you show how the little bowls stop all that 2.4GHz "bad stuff" from affecting a whole room full of people THEN I will have respect for your hypothesis.

When you stop demanding others do your thinking for you, you might come across the very answer you insist must be provided to you by John.

You have taken no opportunity to read and look at the information made available on the threads and blogs and internet sites which you could easily follow. I dare say, you've put forth even less effort than has Elk to educate yourself in these issues.

Why is everything with you a demand for someone else to do the heavy lifting while you sit in that lounger of your's? You don't understand John's hypothesis but have you done one thing on your own to try to understand it? Have you made any attempt just to understand how hypothesis precedes tests? Would you accept any evidence provided by John in the first place? Or, have you just continued with your never ending supply of negativism?

Where are your positive contributions to this forum? You never bothered to show me a single one when I asked several times and several pages back. Is that because they simply do not exist? Is that because everything you post is negative and destructive?

Quote:
You have the ability and the permission to post those titles yourself.

I think you know, Jan, that I usually do. However this was a discussion I chose not to participate in because it really doesn't interest me. My comments picked on this discussion as an example of behaviour that is rife across the board, although generally most prevalent in the top section ("General Discussion"). I posted them here, aware they were off-topic, simply so people might actually notice them.

Quote:
I'm guessing you didn't bother to read any of my comments to SM.

If you mean earlier in this thread then yes I did (if not, then I might have missed them, your output is quite prolific). Point being?

Quote:
Is the exchange between John and D'Ethan not sufficient proof of that?

I think you mean "evidence of that" but assume the question was rhetorical.

As best I can tell, Jan, the rest of your questions were also rhetorical.

Quote:

Quote:
The extent to which contributors with little or no subject matter expertise advance speculative theories with no underlying rationale, at odds with and in many cases completely ignorant of facts, science and accepted wisdom and yet with no apparent interest in actually learning anything. There are plenty of books on almost all the subjects discussed here, why not read one?

The problem with some of what you say is that the text books do NOT explain everything that people are experiencing. If the text books could explain it, then there would be no controversy surrounding so many so called 'tweaks' !!

The fact that there are controversies is because all is NOT known !! That is why we have to keep 'thinking'. If ONLY it was as easy as 'reading up on the subject' !!!!!!

I agree May, although this comment didn't refer to the bowls or even tweaks in general, but the vast majority of other subjects discussed on this forum (e.g. math, electronics, mechanics, acoustics, music etc.) which are well understood and have large bodies of theory which can be read up on. I realize that posting comments about the forum in general in a thread on this specific topic was therefore a bit confusing, my apologies. As stated above, I had my reasons.

I do feel there are examples of all my points in this thread, although of course that does not mean to imply that every comment in this thread is such an example. In the context of this thread my comment about textbooks refered to the mud-slinging over the definition/nature of double-blind testing.

Quote:
smirk, as again your words betray your lack of scientific understanding. That you even thought it relevant to mention the AM and FM bands reveals that you do not understand the underlying physics of wave propagation, as in your confusion between RF and audio waves.

DavidL has caused problems elsewhere, claiming science but then denying or misleading the consumer. JA's contention that DavidL has very little if any science backround is true.

DavidL has already demonstrated at least one false science claim, and bypassing/trashing science when it came to defending JJ.

1) DavidL catagorically states on this string

http://forum.stereophile.com/forum/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=88375&page=0&vc=1#Post88375

Quote:
in my opinion based upon science and common sense, power cords do nothing other than carry ac current to your power transformer.

However, simple first semester electronics or reading a schematic/wiring diagram proves DavidL is 100% wrong, so DavidL has little if any science backround.

2) Here is a link to a multitude of coax cables (for interconnect cables), check the
"Capacitance (pf/foot)" column. The first coax is RG-4 and 30.8 in the Capacitance pf/foot column (30.8pf/foot).

http://www.rfcafe.com/references/electrical/coax-chart.htm

Notice 50.0pf/foot and 44.0pf/foot while the others vary from approximately 10.0pf/foot to 30pf/foot.

http://forum.stereophile.com/forum/showf...part=4&vc=1

JJ posts an absurd/extreme 1.1/1 ratio for a whopping 480.0pf/foot IC coax cable, 1570.0pf/meter (.0015uf capacitor) which embarrasses/steers people away from Teo cables, and Buddha.

So how does DavidL react? Remember he argues and claims "science" a whole lot.

http://forum.stereophile.com/forum/showf...part=8&vc=1

Quote:
Here's a link for you all to watch that sums up most of what has been posted here....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9U4Ha9HQvMo

DavidL's next post after I explain the embarrassment to Teo cables.

Quote:
Blah blah blah blah blah the same old shit from you. All I did was point out in two posts how you ALL just have pissing contests and discuss NOTHING worthwhile...

So manipulating figures/science which embarrasses and funnel customers away from Teo cables is "blah blah.." and "nothing worthwhile..." etc.

So DavidL claims and argues science, wants measurements etc, yet trashes/bypasses science when it comes to defending JJ.

Apparently science is not that important to either.

JA is quite correct in his assessment of DavidL's knowledge of science.

Cheers.

SAS, DavidL doesn't buy into the new 2.4 GHz theory of bowl efficacy.

Where do you stand on that?

Quote:
> This would be incredibly cool. Having access to such a room would be great for evaluating many tweaks, both generally
> accepted and controversial.

Why? If they are going to make an audible change to the sound field in a normal living room then that will be straightforward to measure in a normal living room (subject of course to knowing how to take reliable measurements in a normal living room).

Completely true. A normal listening room should be more than adequate to demonstrate any claimed improvement.

However, a dedicated room with absolute repeatability would be a neat tool, especially for comparisons of products.

Quote:
Just why is it not possible for (some) people to consider that the 'devices' may not be affecting the actual physical acoustics of the room but may be reducing an adverse effect in the (modern !!) listening environment ? Then their SIZE may NOT be the 'stumbling block' to a sensible discussion !!!!!

Actually, I expected such an explanation before I went to the Synergistic website.

However, the website makes clear that the ART products physically treat room acoustics.

Additionally Mr. Denney has indicated the improvements are measurable using conventional means.

I wouldn't otherwise be seeking a physical explanation.

From an engineering perspective and also scientific you would want as much control over the various factors as possible.
This means an ideal room built to modelled specification.
A normal room provides way too many additional considerations.
That said, it may be arguable that said devices only work on a poor less than ideal room such as a normal living room, or at least a footnote consideration but IMO this still does not outweigh the benefit of a purpose built modelled specified room.

Just to say, I am on the fence regarding these devices (can see pros and cons for the various hypothesis) so would be interested in the most ideal/best testing and investigation.

That said, it does not stop anyone doing a behaviour test as I mentioned, downside is painting one of the devices to match a moulding duplicate (requiring professional help to create I would say).
It comes down to how much you really want to prove the product outside waiting for an independant test and investigation.

Cheers
Orb

Quote:
Elk, you harrassed me for days in multiple threads about my "thoughts" on the ART system's operation.

Nope, not many threads. Just this one.

Quote:
Had you found JA's writings on the topic. . .?

Yup. Along with a number of others, including some who heard differences, some who did not.

Quote:
We already had the "springboard" you were seeking on the pages of the Stereophile blogs, why didn't you begin a discussion based upon the thoughts of someone who has actually auditioned the product? Was your research so superficial to have missed JA's comments? Or, did you dismiss them as unreasonable because they are unfamilar concepts in your view?

Got it. You had no independent thoughts and relied solely on JA's hypothesis but didn't want to reveal this.

Sheesh.

All you had to do was to indicate that you were referencing his thoughts. Maybe even supply a link so that everyone had the same starting point and could read to what you referred.

Easy, stress-free, productive.

My continuing hope is that you will volunteer some productive theories and information, rather than spending so much energy seeking ways to be chronically aggrieved.

. . . .

So far we only have the working hypothesis of 2.4GHz interference. Interesting idea. Fun.

Does any one know:

Is there any evidence that the presence of weak 2.4GHz energy interferes with human perception?

Is there any evidence that the ART products interfere with a significant amount of weak 2.4GHz energy, if present?

Has Ted Denny adopted a "changes the listener" hypothesis rather than the "changes the physical sound" presented on the Synergistic website?

Don't both GIK and RealTraps have their traps measured by an independent lab. I know GIK does.

Why doesn't Ted send his bowls to one of those labs for testing ?

Of course if the bowls fail a test Ted just might claim they were suffering from" irritable bowl syndrome" brought on by the stress of the test

I know my bowls are getting pretty stressed just reading this thread.

Quote:

Don't both GIK and RealTraps have their traps measured by an independent lab.

Yes, and the results are posted on their sites.

It is interesting to compare the results and to consider the goals of the respective designers. The products do the same type of job but are not interchangeable.

I have long wondered to what degree we would hear a difference between the two lines when installed in a real world room.

Quote:
Nope, not many threads. Just this one.

1) I said "multiple" not "many". Crimeny! Elk, it's right there in the quote you pulled from my response! I honestly do not know what to make of the number of people on this forum who cannot be trusted to enter and exit the same sentence. I don't know what to make of the number of people on this forum who contribute so little to its purpose they cannot remember how many times they've used the same sad insult.

2)

Quote:
Elk

Reged: 12/26/06
Posts: 3779
Loc: Out Standing in his Field Re: Can a listening room be overdamped? [Re: Jan Vigne]
#89155 - 05/27/10 01:05 PM

... If you do not, this is perfectly fine and not an admission of failure. It means simply that you do not know. Nothing wrong with this.

Similarly I hope you will share your thoughts as to how the Acoustic ART products work. You claim to have an idea but, so far, have refused to disclose what they are. Please share them so we can consider them.

Perhaps you can positively contribute to both of these threads!

Quote:
If you do not, this is perfectly fine and not an admission of failure. It means simply that you do not know. Nothing wrong with this.

Quote:
I am inviting to share the knowledge you claim you have.

If you don't have such knowledge, there is no disgrace in admitting that you do not.

ETC., ETC., ETC.

I'm not going to track down all of your similar insults, Elk, they are too numerous. They are also childishly repetitive, harrassing and not to be believed coming from someone who should be acting as an adult here making mature, positive contributions to a forum about audio.

As for the rest of your post ...

Quote:
Got it. You had no independent thoughts and relied solely on JA's hypothesis but didn't want to reveal this.

Sheesh ...

Sheesh, indeed! Once again you've proven you 1) do not read posts and 2) you do not remember what you have read, 3) you make illegal "U" turns midway through a thought.

Why are you wasting eveyone's time, Elk? Surely, you must have something better to do than continually harrass another member of this forum?

No need to reply to that, Elk, I know your answer.

Quote:
The products do the same type of job but are not interchangeable.

I'm not even going to guess at how you reached the decision the two products "do the same type of job". However, from your "overdamed" thread, I can see you do not understand how either system actually operates.

Quote:
Has Ted Denny adopted a "changes the listener" hypothesis rather than the "changes the physical sound" presented on the Synergistic website?

Not "rather" but, yes, as I read his statements he has referenced changes to the listeners' perception But you'll have to find it yourself - an impossible task for you to be sure.

Quote:

Quote:

Don't both GIK and RealTraps have their traps measured by an independent lab.

Yes, and the results are posted on their sites.

It is interesting to compare the results and to consider the goals of the respective designers. The products do the same type of job but are not interchangeable.

I have long wondered to what degree we would hear a difference between the two lines when installed in a real world room.

Yeah you are right about not being interchangeable IMO, hence why the same labs and the way they test acoustic absorption would not work on these devices, totally different concept.
Not directed at you Elk, look back at what JA mentioned about differences relating to acoustic waves/RF/AM-FM/etc in this thread as it outlines the big differences in lab testing-investigation required compared to traditional lab absorption techniques that would be applicable to GIK,etc.

Cheers
Orb

Quote:
SAS, DavidL doesn't buy into the new 2.4 GHz theory of bowl efficacy.

Sigh. I know you're smarter than this, Buddha. As I keep saying, my reference to 2.4GHz RF waves is in the form of a hypothesis, a conjecture. It is not a theory (for which there is experimental proof) or an explanation. It is just one of many possible hypotheses. It could be right; it could just as readily be wrong. Without further experiment, that's all that can be said.

And if it sounds ridiculous, I am reminded of scientist J.B.S. Haldane, who wrote in 1928: "My own suspicion is that the universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we _can_ suppose," (from his essay "On Being the Right Size").

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Quote:

So far we only have the working hypothesis of 2.4GHz interference. Interesting idea. Fun.

Well, we also have the usual 'placebo' offerings, the potential 'bowls vibrating in response to stimulation,' and Geoff pointed out the claims of the Tchang Bowls showing an effect on the acoustics of the room.

As mentioned previously in the first thread on the subject, one intrepid audiophile has ventured that the bowls directly stimulate brain wave behavior.

So, we have a plethora of hypothesiseses!

Quote:

Quote:

So far we only have the working hypothesis of 2.4GHz interference. Interesting idea. Fun.

Well, we also have the usual 'placebo' offerings, the potential 'bowls vibrating in response to stimulation,' and Geoff pointed out the claims of the Tchang Bowls showing an effect on the acoustics of the room.

As mentioned previously in the first thread on the subject, one intrepid audiophile has ventured that the bowls directly stimulate brain wave behavior.

So, we have a plethora of hypothesiseses!

Perhaps the hypothesis is that the hypotenuse of the hippopotamus is hyper-stimulated by the........screw it , I ran out of H's

Quote:

Quote:

So far we only have the working hypothesis of 2.4GHz interference. Interesting idea. Fun.

Well, we also have the usual 'placebo' offerings, the potential 'bowls vibrating in response to stimulation,' and Geoff pointed out the claims of the Tchang Bowls showing an effect on the acoustics of the room.

As mentioned previously in the first thread on the subject, one intrepid audiophile has ventured that the bowls directly stimulate brain wave behavior.

So, we have a plethora of hypothesiseses!

To clarify, the "placebo" offerings is not the placebo effect that you see used most times on this forum by some, but the actual use of a placebo so the patient (in this case the listener and can include the person placing the devices) do not know or care which of the 2 products is the real one.
The term of placebo effect is not an ideal explanation especially with audio as research has tied expectation bias and chemical release that skews some drug testing/results.
Yes there are valid research papers relating to this but happy to chat via PM so not to mess this thread up anymore.

The only purpose of the placebo test I am proposing is to provide a simple approach for testing a different psychological/cognotive behaviour; specifically perception of unusual object/object locations skewing ones audio perception, while maintaining as natural an environment for the listener.
Also it allows a simple way for the real device/s to be replaced and to monitor if the listener behaviour (such as enjoyment/preferance) changes or not.

Hope this helps
Cheers
Orb

I appreciate how my "not knowing" had diverged the topic from actual measurements to conjecture. Lets sit around and come up with more hypothesis before the actual measurements are done. Maybe we can come up with an "excuse" to "explain" how they work even if the acoustic tests show they don't I mean JA keeps saying he doubts they effect the acoustic realm so many times that it sounds like he's already done a few measurements on his own perhaps? I do seem to recall that Ethan said as much long ago about them being way to small to do anything.So JA what do you KNOW about what tests will be done? Just acoustic or RF also and will there be any DBT? How about a resonant test by striking each device with a wooden mallet? Why does Ted say they DO effect the acoustic response then? I would ask him but he's off sailing and can't be bothered Sorry if my questions come across as being pesky but then how does anyone learn by not asking questions?

The interesting thing for me is the material the bowls are made of: metal

Everything I know about room acoustics/treatments says that you either absorb sound via a damped material (where the sound wave motion is converted into say heat via friction) or via a mechanical interface such as the various types of Helmholtz resonators (via slats, holes or tuned cavities).

You can also obviously modify in room responses via diffusion, such as with 2D and 3D quadratic panels.

But in ALL cases, the materials used in these devices is not metal. Sure the materials used for the above treatments will all resonate at some frequency, but the acoustic signature of these materials is one of rapid decay (i.e. wood, mineral wool, plasterboard, deadsheet etc)

To me, metal bowls don

Quote:
The interesting thing for me is the material the bowls are made of: metal

Everything I know about room acoustics/treatments says that you either absorb sound via a damped material (where the sound wave motion is converted into say heat via friction) or via a mechanical interface such as the various types of Helmholtz resonators (via slats, holes or tuned cavities).

You can also obviously modify in room responses via diffusion, such as with 2D and 3D quadratic panels.

But in ALL cases, the materials used in these devices is not metal. Sure the materials used for the above treatments will all resonate at some frequency, but the acoustic signature of these materials is one of rapid decay (i.e. wood, mineral wool, plasterboard, deadsheet etc)

To me, metal bowls don

Quote:
I do seem to recall that Ethan said as much long ago about them being way to small to do anything.

He believed aything smaller and less obtrusive than (a few dozen of) his refrigerator doors would be incapable of doing anything. Stereophile's staff was in disagreement with that sentiment back in 2009; http://stereophile.com/roomtreatments/nucore_cathedral_sound_room_treatments/

As have been many others; http://www.ultrasystem.com/usfeaturedPanelsMoreInfo.html

I do recall the Cathedral Panels were also attacked by "a competitor" on these very forum pages. Then that same competitor turned his attention to Ted's devices and declared "WAR!!!".

Not right on Cathedral Panels. Really not right on the ART devices. A track record of 0 for 2. Yep! that's who I want to believe.

Quote:
... how does anyone learn by not asking questions?

Oh, good question! Ok, now we'll all pretend we don't have a ready answer for that question and we'll all close our eyes real tight and we'll all act like we're thinking real, real, real hard about this for a moment to help D'Ethan learn how to learn ...

OK, very simple really, you could try ...

Research. That's always good for a start. You would have to try this on your own, though, not wait for it to be handed to you. Maybe you and Elk together could both try researching the topic and between the two of you you might come up with something kind of half a ... Well, maybe you two could try working together on this.

Next, what's next? Oh, yes, one of my favorites.

Experience. Very important in audio, you can do a lot with experience and research and some thinking along the way.

Of course, you would have to get up out of your Bark-O-Lounger to do that.

And, very important one here ...

Keeping your mouth shut when you don't know what you're talking about. Well, that kind of speaks for itself, doesn't it? You might want to push that one up to #1 in your case.

Those are a few ways those of us who have enjoyed the experience of learning have gone about it.

You know, I mean those are just off the top of my head and all, didn't have think hard about it at all, you know.

Or, ... maybe you don't.

I'm guessing none of those ever crossed your mind.

Quote:
So now we have a treatment that uses a material that by all logic is the worst suited for its application?

Going by the reviews you're logic would seem to be faulty.

Quote:
Everything I know about room acoustics/treatments says ...

Maybe that's why you didn't invent these devices, they are unconventional after all. You know, not the size of a dozen refrigerator doors and more likely to win spouse approval while doing good things those refrigerator doors cannot. If you've read Ted's webpage and done some thinking, you'd see these would be very different (or, I suppose you could say just like all the rest of the refrigerator door company's products and, do we really need that?) had they been built using fiberglass.

Have you read the "overdamped" thread? Elk aborted it so he could play some childish ego game he finds endlessly amusing but there's still some information over there you might want to consider.

Actually, he didn't

?

(Quote) Not all is known all right, but ears, setups, rooms and everything else is different from case to case, and thus not two people can have the exact same experience with a given tweak.(/Quote).

I don't know of anyone, anywhere who would disagree with that.
Regards,
May Belt,
P.W.B. Electronics.

Elk, I suggested that people "consider that the 'devices' may not be affecting the actual physical acoustics of the room".

I.e Physical ACOUSTICS !!!!

You then bring in the comment "I wouldn't otherwise be seeking a physical explanation."

So what alternative to a PHYSICAL explanation would you be seeking ??????

You and I seem to be stumbling over the word 'Physical' !!!

Are you meaning that you would therefore be seeking a psychological (auto-suggestion, the placebo effect, imagination, effective marketing) explanation ??

I am still suggesting that the effect of the devices under discussion, and the other devices previously referred to (such as the Schumann Resonance device and the Tchang bowls), can still be doing something in the room which is Physical whilst not physically altering the room acoustics !! There is an area in between. In between the physical ACOUSTICS of the room and psychological (auto-suggestion etc).

To quote John A. :-

>>> "All I have been doing is observing that IF there is an effect due to the Synergistic/Tchang bowls on a listener's perception of sound, THEN the question becomes what possible mechanisms could be possible for that perception?" <<<

Again, I think another stumbling block is with the word 'Perception'.

MY interpretation of the word Perception comes from the dictionary - "Intuitive recognition"

Unfortunately, so many people see the audio information as Physical acoustics, in the room, stopping at the ear drum, and then changing to psychological (perception) and carrying on from there (as perception) to the working memory.
Whereas I see the audio information continuing it's journey from the ear drum to the working memory as no different to the audio signal travelling through the audio equipment (i.e. Physical) and perception (intuitive recognition) only comes into consideration when the working memory has to resolve the information it has just been presented with !!

Surely no one would describe the audio information of Dvorak's New World, travelling through the audio equipment, as "perception" ?
Surely no one would describe the acoustic audio information of Dvorak's New World travelling from the speaker drive units and across the room to the ear drum as "perception" ?

So, why do so many want to describe the audio information of Dvorak's New World, still continuing it's journey through the hearing mechanism, along the auditory nerve to the working memory as "perception" ?
Surely it is only when it actually reaches the working memory, to then be identified as Dvorak's New World, does it become "perception" - i.e Intuitive recognition" ?

Surely, up to that point, the information of Dvorak's New World is still Physical in nature ?
Surely, from the ear drum to the working memory, the information's journey is like the ear drum being the microphone diaphragm and the hearing mechanism being the equipment and the auditory nerve being the wire still carrying that information forward to the working memory ?

At what point, Elk, does YOUR meaning of "a non physical explanation" (perception) start ?

What do YOU call a "a non physical explanation" ?

Regards,
May Belt,
P.W.B. Electronics.

Your getting closer!

The word quote or /quote must be contained in brackets, example = [word] with no capitol letters.

Thanks for the encouragement.

You should see the 'trash bin' with all my failed attempts !!!

Regards,
May Belt,
P.W.B.Electronics.

Good morning, May.

This is all headed in my favorite direction....listener directed tweaks!

The forum we are on now is "Room Tuning and Acoustics," which isn't optimal for this, but I agree that there are many things that can be done that will affect the listener.

In the past, Big Mike and I have made "System Enhancing Solution" that is designed for an audiophile to administer internally to improve his/her experience, so I endorse this sort of thing. I guess it's semantics whether or not this type of tweak should be considered 'system based.'

I wonder if Ted will read this thread and change his marketing now that others are starting to grapple with what, if any, effect his bowls have on a system, room, or person.

Quote:
Not "rather" but, yes, as I read his statements he has referenced changes to the listeners' perception But you'll have to find it yourself - an impossible task for you to be sure.

Jan, rather than again play hide the ball why not explicitly cite the reference? This is what the rest of us do. It's easy! It's productive!

Your previous exhortations to "think" similarly didn't invite the rest of us do engage in thought.

Rather, you were merely hiding your apparent acceptance of Mr. Atkinson's creative hypothesis set out in his blog entry. This isn't "thought," it's lack of citation.

Think how many words you could save - and conflict you could avoid - by simply sharing information and your ideas.

Direct, positive posts, on topic. This is all we ask of you.

Please start by citing Mr. Denny's comments and provide us with your analysis, if any. This will move the conversation forward.

Quote:
Elk, I suggested that people "consider that the 'devices' may not be affecting the actual physical acoustics of the room".

You did, indeed. This also appears to be where this thread is heading.

Quote:
I am still suggesting that the effect of the devices under discussion, and the other devices previously referred to (such as the Schumann Resonance device and the Tchang bowls), can still be doing something in the room which is Physical whilst not physically altering the room acoustics !! There is an area in between. In between the physical ACOUSTICS of the room and psychological (auto-suggestion etc).

This is a great summary of your position; clear and easy to understand. Mr. Atkinson's hypothesis regarding microwave radiation is along these lines.

Quote:
At what point, Elk, does YOUR meaning of "a non physical explanation" (perception) start ?

Great question given the above. When I referenced a physical explanation I was thinking of changes to the actual sound itself. This would be measurable.

Mr. Atkinson's hypothesis describes a potential cause which is physical but which does not affect the actual sound. Such an explanation is possible.

What initially interested me is that the Synergistic website does not appeal to such a hybrid-physical explanation, but rather speaks of actual physical changes to the sound. Mr. Denny, at least in the past, also asserted that the changes were measurable.

I would love to know what his current thoughts are.

Quote:
Again, I think another stumbling block is with the word 'Perception'.

MY interpretation of the word Perception comes from the dictionary - "Intuitive recognition"

Shared nomenclature is always important.

I've not seen this as a definition of perception. Where is this from? "Intuition" is a surprising word in the context of a dictionary definition of perception.

I think of perception as awareness of the world through physical sensation. However this doesn't fully cover it as there are optical and aural illusions, etc. where our perception is not necessarily simple awareness.

Quote:
Your previous exhortations to "think" similarly didn't invite the rest of us do engage in thought.

That's not my fault. If you choose to remain ignorant, if you choose to misinterpret what has been provided you and, if you refuse to engage your brain in anything other than this crap you keep posting, there's nothing I can do about that.

If you choose to be stupid, stupid you will remain. You've proven that point on numerous and repetitive occasions, Elk.

If you choose to constantly harrass me, I'm asking SM to take note of just who is inciting whom and for what purpose.

And all the rest of that twaddle ...

How clearly and how often do you require it to be laid out in front of you and by how many people? Really, Elk, you're not coming off as the brightest bulb in the marquee with all this. As a matter of fact, you look to be completely dim.

Quote:
You did, indeed. This also appears to be where this thread is heading.

I find this peculiar, given that the original controversy was over ACOUSTIC MODIFICATIONS to the room, and the claims attached to the device address ACCOUSTIC MODIFICATIONS.

So show us, already. Geeze... It's not that hard to measure. Octave and an ADC and DAC will do it.

Quote:

The original Helmholtz resonators were actually brass.

Please be a bit more helpful here.... what you show are fully enclosed spheres (ie. they are not inclined to ring) and they are of a much heavier gauge... which is also not inclined to ring.

Their construction is completely different from the devices we are talking about

And historically the ORIGINAL Helmholtz resonators were made of clay and date from the greek/roman times

Quote:

Quote:

The original Helmholtz resonators were actually brass.

Please be a bit more helpful here.... what you show are fully enclosed spheres (ie. they are not inclined to ring) and they are of a much heavier gauge... which is also not inclined to ring.

Their construction is completely different from the devices we are talking about

And historically the ORIGINAL Helmholtz resonators were made of clay and date from the greek/roman times

And, of course, begging the idea that Helmholtz resonators use AIR as the resonant medium, not the metal enclosure, too.

But generally we can always count on someone on this board to attempt a diversion via insinuation or downright dissembling, can't we?

Quote:
Really, Elk, you're not coming off as the brightest bulb in the marquee with all this. As a matter of fact, you look to be completely dim.

Content related to the topic?

Substance?

Citation to Mr. Denny's alleged change in explanation to changes in the listener's perception?

Anything other than attacks?

Come on, Jan. You are fully capable of contributing to the thread in an affirmative, positive fashion.

Share and contribute your ideas. You claim to have many - let's see them!