Columns Retired Columns & Blogs |
Loudspeakers Amplification | Digital Sources Analog Sources Featured | Accessories Music |
Columns Retired Columns & Blogs |
Loudspeakers Amplification Digital Sources | Analog Sources Accessories Featured | Music Columns Retired Columns | Show Reports | Features Latest News Community | Resources Subscriptions |
OK, Freako, I'm not tyring to be rude but, if you're not interested in reading about anything that you don't already know, why are you here in this thread? What are you expecting to find or have happen here?
My friends all know that if they hear me say something along the lines of "Hold my beer and watch this!", they need to restrain me immediately. :-)
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
No worries, Keld. Jan is just still reeling from Clark handing him a stinging rebuke.
Hey, the only time I saw you do that you pulled a CD out of your case and played some good music. What's the problem with that?
It's not about what I expect or don't expect. As far as I know, there's no rule that I have to be active in all threads, like there's no rule that I cannot participate if I don't read all posted material. I don't read articles from the Belts, I don't read articles from Geoff, exactly like I never read articles from Ethan when he was present. I stear clear of certain things - that's my chosen right.
This is particularly interesting.
I hope you find the time and energy to put together a review.
Does your room have traditional acoustic treatments of any kind or have you tried them?
Were there specific room issues you hoped to address, or were you just hoping for an improvement in the overall sound?
I have no problem with that, you're much more valuable as a naysayer than you could ever be as a shill.
Not a naysayer, Geoff.
Pointing to bullshit and thus identifying it does not make one a naysayer. It makes one "accurate."
If it helps, I could also assist with your "Shinola Confusion."
Of course, you'd call someone opposed to rubbing shit on his shoes a naysayer, as well.
Yeah, we get it. You're one pissed off dude with a giant hard on for tweaks.
Wrong on both counts, Geoffio. Happy guy who is happy to point out bullshit when he sees it.
I think you are projecting, expecting that your own feelings are similar to those of others via morphic resonance.
Did that Shinola diagram help out or are you still confused?
Happy?! This is happy?!!!
Jan, baby. My post to you was based on how insipidly dense your take on my challenge to Ethan regarding cable differences had been. I was merely reflecting back your own lovely visage. (As was Clark, it seems....ouch. I saw how bad that hurt. Condolences, man.)
I will not vouch for David L's anger level. I suspect you are so inconsequential to pretty much everybody, it must really get to you....hence, your search for anger and, hence you almost being run from the forums.
You and Geoff must be on the same Sheldrake Network Channel!
I know what your post - and all of your weekend posts - are based on. I'm not interested in your insults, Boooodha! any more than you're interested in discussing audio.
Good advice for you, Booodha!, particularly on the weekends.
Careful, Jan, the site has warned you, and even Clark has had enough of you. Man, your own Planet X buddies are even sick of your inanity.
Ouch ouch ouch.
Man, I spend a year or two not looking at the diarrhea you post and you nearly get run. I wonder how that happened?
LOL, Jan, baby.
"Competition had just heated up"! Hilarious! If I was in the business of traditional room treatments, I'd be afraid of acoustic resonator type systems as well. (Not to the point where I would attack my competitor's clients and scream "snake oil!" in the middle of a competitor's exhibit room, mind you!). I've not read the article yet. But I'll definitely have to read it now, just to see if they mention who "the accoster" disguising his identity at the Acoustic System exhibit was! He is truly the elephant in this room, isn't he? I think you understand why with 145+ attacks on synergistic, his posting history here looks more like a personal vendetta to me, than that of a disinterested observer who happens to have doubts about the veracity of a certain audio product. I might have my own doubts about Shakti stones. But I'm not going to troll an audio forum screaming "Jesus Christ MEASURE the damn fucking stones!" for 7 months straight. Acting as if my very livelihood depended on those measurements being wrong. IMO, anyone who rudely decries audiophile power cables or speaker wire, even audiophiles themselves, while yelling out demands to do dbt's... Well I don't believe for a minute that they're going to be sincerely intested in spending $3,000 on an esoteric high end audio product that's even less mainstream than that.
I haven't tried the Tchangs, so I can't report on the differences in perceived sound. I can only relate what I know, in my opinion, of the two systems. While the Tchang system preceded it, I suppose the Acoustic Art may be regarded as a more affordable version of it, since it is. That doesn't mean inferior, but the fact that Synergistic went with a proprietary form of carbon steel rather than precious metals (ie. silver, gold, platinum) allowed that. Thankfully, because I fear that equivalent treatment from the Tchang system would have been scads more expensive than my Arts.
The Tchang resonators are somewhat smaller, and use a system of built-in spikes to couple the resonators to their wooden foundation (or spikes on the support, IIRC). The Arts are truly bowl-shaped, and utilize small but strong magnets to keep the resonators on the supports. Except in the case of two of the resonator modules, which sit on supports that use exceptionally sharp spikes. The primary difference I believe, is the Tchang's resonate at a given frequency, whereas the Acoustic Art's are developed to resonate at multiple frequencies. This means that fewer Art resonators are required to treat a room (the full system consists of 5 such modules), than would be required for Tchang's system. Again, this obviously lowers the cost required to treat a room's acoustics. Also, Synergistic went much further in the design of the Tchang-style bowl-shaped resonator, to develop a very different type of resonator in the Vibatron module. Unique enough that they are patenting it. In simplified terms, it is essentially two very large bowl shaped resonators end to end, with a disc between them to disperse energy, and a queer system of silver and gold magnets, that help further enhance the performance of this module.
I know that much consideration went into the design of the supports on the Arts, but I don't know what the Tchang supports are about. A few more things that set them apart, is that for the full kit (the one at $2,995), Synergistic used a very significant treatment process on the resonators, that they call "quantum tunneling", which was developed for their cable line. It's why the resonators are black, and not silver like those of the Basik line. On top of that, the ones in the full kit are treated with a special violin lacquer.
The similarities are that they both use modified Helmholtz principles for their operation, but as you can see, each manufacturer has their own approach to that. There may also be different recommendations for where they are to be placed in a room.
Not to ruin a future review, but I was more curious as to whether certain types of recordings exhibited differential benefit, if that makes sense.
Sorry, it doesn't make sense to me. It's an acoustic device. Whatever effect it has will be on the room, not the recordings. It's the same with anything, say a cable. If a cable has a peak at 10khz, that might be more noticeable on some recordings with a lot of energy around there, but then on the recordings where it isn't noticeable, the peak is still there. The characteristic of the cable doesn't change (other than naturally, ie. burn-in, etc). You get used to the characteristic of any device, once you've lived with it long enough. So the greatest effect to me, is in actually removing it. It almost seems more of a loss than a gain, if that makes any sense.
As to Tchang's measurements, I have only pointed out that I appreciate they were done and have not commented on any perceived deficiencies. I leave that sort of thing to the 'experts,' like JA, or Ethan.
So you base your judgement of the merit of these products based on how others interpret measurements for you? How do you know their interpretations are even correct or unbiased?
What surprised me most about JA's decision not to measure is that I would think any room could be 'measured' before and after placement of the ART Bowls, as was done for Tchang bowls.
There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding about this, and a lot of rotten implications being made about it. I put the quote up in this thread recently. It shows that it wasn't JA's decision, but the insistance of the engineer conducting this test. Why would anyone second guess that, and still try to maintain any pretense to objectivity here? He even explained why the decision was made, and added "Experimental design when the something being measured is very small is not as trivially easy as you appear to believe." The decision to be extra careful about getting accurate measurements is not at all surprising to me, given the amount of hostility people here aimed at the preliminary tests. And I would think anyone sincerely interested in these measurements would be perfectly happy to wait, if it means ensuring they are accurate and properly done.
The audiophile market is a drop in the bucket compared to what could be done for theaters, clubs, concert halls, etc.
I agree. I think the Arts are a spectacular product, who's applications haven't even begun to be realized. You just came up with three I hadn't thought of. Actually two, since Synergistic did tests in a large concert hall. There was some stuff on their site about it. If it really changes perspective in a home theatre system, I would imagine it would be awesome in a movie theatre. But I disagree with this notion that you can not proceed to use resonator systems, until you have a certain type of measurements for them. Nor do I agree that when Stereophile completes the testing phase, these other venues will gobble up acoustic art resonator systems left and right. Again, the real world isn't that simple. You're talking about places, many of which don't care about acoustics or high end anything. They won't invest a dime in that, unless they have real good reason to. Even if they do, what the story of acoustic resonator room treatment systems has taught me is, most people are rigid in their beliefs and slow to accept change. The ignorant "golf ball" comments I once read here are a perfect example of that.
Measuring would seem a natural consequence!
That statement is mighty easy for someone to say, if they've never had the burden of trying to objectively and professionally measure what his ears can hear, in a device that resists easy measurements. Conventional fiberglass and foam treatments are easy enough to measure. Resonators work on quite different principles, and I believe their use in music reproduction is relatively new. Many high end products, whether resonators, cables, wires, footers (under electronics) etc, suffer the same problem of "how to measure what the ear hears"?
I don't believe it's that the manufacturers don't want to measure. Although they might not know what to measure, how to measure, or have the means to measure, or have the funds to buy the highly specialized measuring equipment. But how do you measure harmonics, timbre, low level detail, depth, width, height, imaging, pacing, rhythm, transients, timing, room cues, "blackness", airiness, "musicality" (the ability to convey the emotional message in music), etc.? These are things people describe hearing, but not all are components of FR, and not all these factors can be analyzed from a simple graph. Human ears are far more sensitive with far less distortion than a microphone (which can have its own flaws). I don't believe that audio science has caught up with that, nor is there any indication it ever will. For this reason, battles continue to rage among the measurers and the listeners, with each side thinking the other are fools.
Which points up to another weird thing about audio - we are afloat in a sea of people who operate at subatomic and near magical levels of claims (not referencing ART here,) yet they utterly fail to transition their Nobel or mulitple-Nobel worthy claims outside the realm of sales to audiophiles. What a coincidence!
So I've heard. I believe that's called "The James Randi Defense". Would that life were that simple.
BTW, did you know that cows who have names give more milk than cows that are nameless? That's just the sort of thing to garner ridicule, isn't it? But that theory won the Nobel prize in 2009. Then again, so did the account of an Irish police officer who gave a Polish man (who's name in Polish meant "driving license") 50 speeding tickets, win the Nobel prize. So maybe the Nobel is not cracked up to be what you think it is. Some say it all went downhill right after Obama won it, shortly after taking office. So much for the Nobel prize being the ultimate in validation!
It is a wild hobby.
And that's why I like it.
I like it, too.
Now, can you think of any other reason that a cow with a name might produce more milk, or do you take the 'naming/production' causation as the de facto answer?
If someone claimed they could give your a cow a name and it would produce more milk, how would you verify that?
All I said was that I appreciated the fact that the Tchang people went to the trouble to try to measure things. I offered no interpretation of the results, and said I'd leave that to others. Didn't base any decision on the merits of the product otherthan to offer an appreciation of the effort.
OK, Geoff, is that you?
If not, Eric, then how do we explain your own mysterious appearance here and all you post about is ART Bowls and use Geoffie terminology?
If you are so interested in David L, to the exclusion of other audio talk up until now, perhaps you are a minion.
Just fucking with ya.
The Amazing Randi is an oxymoron. My pointing out that these fabulous physicists exist only in "Hi Fi Land" should be a paradox that interests you, as well.
Why doesn't it?
______
So, back to the topic....
There are many pieces of kit wherein someone notices certain things something does more so in the context of different recordings. Hennce, my question regarding whether or not you felt any certain types of recording revealed preferential gain.
It wasn't meant as a challenge.
For instance, an amp I was recently auditioning was very 'dry' or 'clinical' sounding, but did a really nice job on Los Lobos "The Town and the City." Parts of the recording were from cassette masters. So, I tried Nebraska on the system with that amp and I thought it benefitted preferentially vs. other recordings, as well.
The amp, for whatever reason, seemed to seperate the music from the background on those recordings.
So, with that piece of gear, I thought I found a difference vs. other pieces of gear on a certain type of recording.
I was curious as to whether the ART Bowls had offered you any examples where you were particularly impressed, or not (!), with what they were doing with any certain pieces or types of music.
I've compared cables and found (I think) differences in how one brand really allowed me more voice/voice layering with multiple vocals vs. another brand...but that was not made as evident with solo piano recordings.
Again, that experience made me curious as to your experience.
It wasn't meant to be confrontational.
When you say a 'loss of gain,' is it dynamics? Like the music seems more compressed without the bowls?
Any specific examples that really laid the effect bare?
I agree with you, it's a great hobby.
Perhaps the cows with names got more attention?
I heard a report about this on the radio recently and the reporter speculated that farmers who name their cows may treat them better in general. And a happy cow produces more milk. So yes, I think you're on the same track.
Here's a quote from Dr. Catherine Douglas co-author of the original paper:
"If cows are slightly fearful of humans, they could produce [the hormone] cortisol, which suppresses milk production," Douglas says. Farmers who have named their cows, she adds, "probably have a better relationship with them. They're less fearful, more relaxed and less stressed, so that could have an effect on milk yield." from an article on the Scientific America News blog
Of course not everyone agrees with this proposition. From the same article:
"But Marcia Endres, an associate professor of dairy science at the University of Minnesota, wasn't impressed. 'Individual care is important and could make a difference in health and productivity,' Endres says. 'But I would not necessarily say that just giving cows a name would be a foolproof indicator of better care.'"
Interesting. Sticks and stones...
I've since taken to naming all of the various pieces of my hi-fi including internal components but so far not a drop of milk.
Not even a drop of single malt either?
Interesting point. Makes one wonder why Randi chose to go after audiophiles since his charter, according to his JREF website, is clearly to go after paranormal practitioners, you know, spoonbenders, ghost whisperers, dowsers, folks who claim their palms bleed, that sort of thing. I guess things got pretty slow in Randiland as JREF started going after intelligent chips, smart clocks, teleportation tweak, even expensive cables. Anything for some action. Anything to get all sanctimonious and snarky about. We know the type.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. - Arthur C. Clarke
James Randi Foundation Charter
Surely you're not trying to suggest aquarium rocks in a plastic bag are advanced technology OR MAGIC!
You have proven NOTHING since you refuse to post any proof. Other than your own claims, your post falls on it's face. Hey, if you CAN'T show your "work" but instead just give "answers" like in elementary school then the teacher deserves to give you a failing grade.
You can't be bothered using a scope......because you know it won't show any signal through a power cord
You have proven NOTHING about what I do or do not know. How about this.....I DO know you're full of crap
You ask for links, then when I ask the return favor, you hedge and whine.
Let's face it, you REFUSE to even TRY a DBT. Okay how about a simple test since it seems to strain your lil mind. You keep your eyes closed and TRY to listen to a difference when they either remove or leave the magic bowls in place. You have to cover your ears also when they are either removing or not removing the magic bowls. Then all you have to do WITHOUT LOOKING is to tell us when the bowls are present. We do this 20 times just for a good set amount of trials. Surely if they work as claimed then it would be EASY to get it correct 100% of the time, I mean all the "reviews" claimed an immediate difference. We won't even make you go through all the math if it hurts your brain.Still no go? What I thought. You DON"T TRUST YOUR EARS.
Olive's website showed that people are sight biased, that's all he was proving. Get the facts straight.
So you had to turn to your computer "guru" to verify your erroneous link TROJAN? Yah he sounds like a real "expert" "Windows Verified" means little in this day and age. Any high school kid can pass that and sill know very little about the real world of the internet and computers.
Been waiting for two years for data to come in from said "manufacturer", instead he would rather go sailing.
Yes we know your type
"There's a sucker born every minute"- David Hannum
No but you can come in here and post nothing else except how you don't want me in here. Shilling for Ted and his magic bowls much? You take SUCH offense when someone questions Ted's integrity.
Pffffftt yeah those "silly" DBTs, why let real testing get in the way of us praising Ted.
Right on que. Give my regards to Randi.
Bad example. The pebbles are straightforward physics. Am I correct in assuming that's a weakness of yours?
Awwww, Booodha!, I know you peaked, your kind always does.
You see the Tchang system as modified Helmholtz resonators? From reading the articles geoff linked to I wouldn't describe his thinking as having much to do with Helmholtz principles. Mr. Tchang would appear to be more interested in manipulating the "force" as he would call it.
While Ted mentions Tibetan bowls as one of his inspirations, I don't get the idea they are both coming at the issue from the same starting point.
DavidL's response post from my post way back on page 14, to refresh memories.
Yeah, I 'peaked' in my 30's.
You are missing the point Buddha. DavidL has and is posting false and misleading information himself which is all I am addressing, nothing more.
So it is ok for DavidL but not for Ted?
Cheers.
OK, good....it's not OK for for Ted to have posted posted false and misleading information. I'm with you there. Although, I would add that I give Ted credit for having tried to measure and then posting it, even though it was false and misleading. (Which Ethan identified first, as you well recall.)
It's not OK for David L to post false and misleading information. I'm with you, there, too!
Now, where is it written that David L is posting false or misleading information when he requests the measurements he feels he was promised.
David L has every right to ask for that. However, I think Ted answered it...Again, in Teds's favor, he says he has continued to try, but cannot demonstrate with measurements what he says he hears.
David L seems to have overlooked that part.
Hell, even JA can't figure out a way to try to take their measure, either, so Ted is in good company!
SAS, how about your take on how one could go about satisfying David L's thirst for measurement?
I agree Buddha.
As I remember it, Ted was the one who actually stated he had a 500ms problem. But let's not make a big deal. The measurments were wrong for sure.
Thanks Buddha.
As mentioned in my previous post I am not addressing whether it is false or misleading to request data. No problem Buddha.
I am only addressing DavidL's own continual false and misleading comments in his posts, such as his continual claim subjective audio dbt tests (among other issues) are accurate and sensitive even though variables which skew the results are not accounted for. This means any testing using David's accepted and insistent protocol will result in skewed, less sensitive, inaccurate, conclusions, almost always toward "no sonic difference" (maybe there is, maybe not). Of course this is not real science, and as you and I agree we are both seeking accurate results.
Cheers.
So let me see... on the one hand, you argue that if what some audio manufacturers produced was valid, they would have it validated by the prestigious Nobel committee. And gain fame, fortune and glory at the same time as advancing our understanding of science in the world. On the other hand, when I show you what your Nobel committe actually did give out a prize for last year (that cows what have names give good milk), you do your skeptic thing and suggest to me that the Nobel committee is handing out prizes to wackos. Based only on "the oral evidence of wackos who sell cow names". So this might be "booshit" too, say you. You imply that the Nobel committee, in a way quite similar to your insinuations against audio tweak manufacturers, are so corrupt in their principles, they are now taking payola from cow namers. Or that perhaps no one on the committee ever thought to actually check the evidence provided to see if the claim was true, before giving the prize out. And even if they did, they don't know how to verify claims. (Perhaps next year, when they get a little more experience with this whole "scientific claims" process, they will?)
Could this really be the same prestigious Nobel committee you said needs to validate audio tweaks, in order to validate them for you? Or do you believe there is a different Nobel committee; ie. one "just for cows"? Or one just for "Polish speed demons"? One that might just "look the other way" evidence-wise, if you slip them a fiver? At this point, I'm too confused to figure out what you believe. So when you figure that out, let me know what you settle on!
That's a key question for me. And if you can bear with the length of it!, I'll collect my thoughts and take you through the process in detail. That way, you can fully understand how I came to where I am now with the room treatment stuff...
My room doesn't have any traditional acoustic treatments now, but it started out that way. About $5k worth of traps and other conventional treatments. It was what was recommended to me by a pro in the field, so I went with the idea. No one ever told me there was any downside to it though, because conventional opinion said they can only help, as long as you don't go overboard on at least some of the types of treatment and overdamp the room. Indeed, they did seem to help balance things out and produce tighter bass, etc. I had them up for a few years, but always had this nagging kind of feeling that there was some "musical" quality that was better before the traps were installed. I don't know if you know what I mean by musical, but after the addition of the traditional room treatment, the sound seemed more what they call "analytical". Yes you could hear detail and everything in its place, but it seemed like music "gelled" more, in my listening sessions prior to the treatment. This "nagging feeling" wasn't something I was 100% sure of, and not enough to make me dismantle a very painful and careful professional installation that had been set up, in order to do an A/B test. If you have such an installation, you'll know it's not so easy to do a repeated A/B test with a room full of traps on walls, ceiling corners etc., as it is with the Arts!
In preparation for moving, I had taken down the room treatment. Then I heard what I had been missing for years! I was actually right about the "musicality". Even though things were rougher around the edges, music sounded more real and more fun to listen to in the room without the traps. Which kind of sucked for me, because it meant I had gone without something I could have had for many years. It's like i was saying to buddha, you get used to a certain "sound" eventually. The situation reminded me of when CD first came out. People were getting headaches left and right from this harsh "headrill" sound, and when complaining about it, told by "authorities" that this was all normal and the way things were supposed to sound. They were just not "used to real fidelity", because of the "euphonic" quality of turntables.
All this was confirmed once I got the room treatments set up again. Analytical sound returned, micro-level details were gone, timbre, harmonics... call it what you want, but those qualities just melted with the traps in place. I later realized it wasn't overdamping that was the problem, it was damping period. It was absorptive treatment.. period. As I played around by removing piece by piece, I could see that all that was happening was this negative effect was being reduced with the omission of each piece... but the "deadening" quality was still there. In the end, I was so disturbed by this, that I decided I would rather "go bare" on my walls, than destroy special qualities of sound that made music worth listening to. For me the positive effects of the traditional room traps did not outweigh their negative impact on my sound. It "might" work in some studio situations where you just want to analyze parts of a mix. But not in a home environment, where you listen quite differently. Here you're not "monitoring" a cut, you're trying to recreate the feel and the sound of musicians playing in your living room.
Out of that experience, I became more of a minimalist in my approach to audio. Because I realized that the more you add, the more you might risk taking something good away. So yes, I had bare walls for two solid years until... attending the RMAF, I had heard what the "buzz" was about at the show. I was impressed by the dem of the Acoustic Art but still didn't know how they would fare in my room. Once I did try them in the room, it seemed like what my walls were waiting for. It didn't even try to emulate the sound of the traps, and that for me was a good thing. It created a refinement in the sound, whereas the traps were more likely to kill refinement. It did not ever have an inclination to over-do anything, which was all too easy with the room treatment. In short, it was like a more subtle but more refined approach to acoustics treatment. In which tone, timbre, fine harmonics and textures are not destroyed by the brute force effect of large fiberglass panels. Those ingredients weave together musical elements and help differentiate it from noise.
You said the system is "exceedingly expensive", but I don't see it that way at all. A full complement of good quality traps and related treatment can easily run you over the cost of the Arts; especially if you have to factor in shipping costs and installation costs. I know it did in my case. And a full complement of the Tchang system? Fuggehdaboutit! I would not trade my acoustic art for twice the cost of my previous set up in traditional fiberglass traps, because I know that would make the situation worse. It's all relative. If the system is outside of your price range, consider that they now make a much simpler basic system of resonators called, appropriately, the "Basik" system! At $500 retail, its a fraction of the price of the orginal system, cheaper than outfitting your room with traditional treatments, and it at least gets you into the realm of resonator-driven acoustics. Which will not destroy fine elements of the musical sound, just to produce a nicer looking room response graph.
Oh, brother, Eric.
I was pointing out that in the example you yourself chose, you couldn't help but mention a "result" that requires quantitization of a result.
You are the one who started mooing, amigo!
In your example, how would go about deciding if the cow-name claim was true?
Simple as that.
Since the example must be one you are fond of, take it one step beyond and let us know your answer for the claim!
With regard to manufacturer claims...you may take them at face value and stop your curiosity wherever along the way you like. Some people can only go so far, which is OK.
Would you be so bold as to offer a list of any tweaks you think do not have merit in your view?
AGAIN SAS you prove NOTHING. You just want to make me look "bad" You keep saying DBT is bad and not worth the time, you keep ignoring that power cords WON'T make a difference on the amp's output side, you give some wacky example of doing a "test" involving cd and tuner connected to an amp BUT you don't bother to post any links to the results, just what you decide to say "happens". You should really apply as a subjective audio reviewer, you would fit in with a lot of the loonies
My grade for your efforts = F
Your answers are bogus and you showed no work tsk tsk.
So the discussion has been reduced to Eric shilling for Ted and SAS trying to discredit me because he doesn't like me *sniff sniff* I just might cry
How about testing the damn bowls already JA? Hell I could have built a house in the time it's taking to build one testing room
Having too much fun watching you all spin your wheels :-)
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
So by taking down all those "awful" room treatments the sound was "more fun to listen to" Did you try putting your speakers in the shower also? I hear the reverb in there is just amazing
The only thing "transparent" is how good you shill for Ted
So you COULD test them but just don't give a damn Way to go! Scared they might test out as NOTHING different? I suppose coming up with a "reason" why they "work" is on the main burner instead of doing tests? No DBT too is my guess also. Seems you aren't every interested in doing much at all.
I could have sworn I put a smiley at the end of my response? Yes, there it is. Don't you see that I was pulling your chain, David L. or do you agree with Sound & Vision's Tom Nousaine that audio is not an appropriate subject for humor? :-)
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
I trust Tom Nousaine for reliable tests and reviews and yes for the humor I come here and argue with the inmates
Hey, David L, did you comment on the measurements of the Tchang Resonators?
I can't recall.
Your opinion of those, as long as we are talking about bowls?
What did you make of the measurements?
No I didn't comment, I did briefly look at the "tests" but didn't read through it all. Now I can't seem to recall where the link was posted?
Pages