You are here

Log in or register to post comments
May Belt
May Belt's picture
Offline
Last seen: 27 min 51 sec ago
Joined: May 8 2006 - 1:51am
Re: Acoustic Art Bowls: Science or ??????

I do wish you HAD decided to enter the discussion way back then, Eric. There WAS so much hostility to the ART devices and to discussing the issue sensibly and it would have been nice if more people who had 'heard' the devices for themselves had decided to participate.
The "hostility" people got away with (to use an expression) 'murder', for far too long !!!

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

Buddha
Buddha's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 10 months ago
Joined: Sep 8 2005 - 10:24am
Re: Acoustic Art Bowls: Science or ??????

May, after 40 years or more as a "manufacturer," I'd think you, of all people, would be able to hear the effects of your own tweaks under blind listening conditions.

For some, Double Blind Deafness must be profound, if you think about it.

That's pretty amazing!

On the other hand, perhaps you do not require aural remediation, and, thus, cannot demonstrate any effect on your own listening experience?

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Acoustic Art Bowls: Science or ??????

For some, not realizing they are a gigantic asshole must be a profound experience.

Put the bottle down, Booodha! You drink and then you insult whoever is in your path. You wake up and you insult whoever is in your path.

And, most especially, your insults to May are disgusting. May tries and succeeds at staying above the fray and you make every attempt to drag her down to your level.

You're not funny, you're not insightful and you're not moving the discussion forward. You're just enjoying being an asshole because SM allows it. You get away with being a snarky asshole because no one here steps up to say you need to stop.

Don't any of you understand that saying nothing is simply giving permission for this to continue?

Stop being an asshole, Booodha! Somebody stop him. I don't care if you've had his free booze at CES, somebody stop him!

Or, is that too "interminable" for you, Mr. Johnsen?

geoff?

geoffkait
geoffkait's picture
Online
Last seen: 2 min 7 sec ago
Joined: Apr 29 2008 - 5:10am
Re: Acoustic Art Bowls: Science or ??????


Quote:

Quote:
Nice! It would also be interesting to compare the Franck Tchang bowels which are 17 mm diamter with the ART bowls that are 3" diameter. Maybe some kind soul would volunteer to work out the areas and volumes and resonant frequencis., both acoustic and microwave.

Mebbe but, as I read this thread, I cannot stop thinking of Richard Libertini's character (the Tibetan monk, Prahka Lasa) in the Carl Reiner / Steve Martin / Lili Tomlin movie, "All of me:" Bowl? Bowl? Bowl?

Kal

Kal, being serious for a moment IIRC your were the head tweak reviewer for Stereophile for quite sometime, is this correct? I also seem to recall you mentioned somewhere that your background is neuro-science. Is that correct? Just curious, but I would think you'd have a lot to say on the subject of the bowls, not to mention many of the other "controversial tweaks" discussed on this site. Are you retired retired?

Have a nice weekend.

ericarjes
ericarjes's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Jun 3 2010 - 9:32pm
Re: Acoustic Art Bowls: Science or ??????

I read the discussions on the acoustic art in the past and that's just it. I chose not to enter them because of all the hostility. Since so many seemed hell bent on attacking the acoustic art, in every way imaginable, and with determined prejudice, it did not seem to me that a sensible discussion was possible. This is a landmark acoustic treatment system, and I did not feel I would be able to do it justice if I entered that fray. Not without a briefcase full of measurement graphs performed in a room with 100 eye witnesses from the AES, and peer reviewed in a leading scientific publication. Even then, judging by the beliefs of some posters here that I have read, I do not believe they would ever be willing to admit they were wrong about the acoustic art having no effect. No matter what they say to the contrary, or what evidence they are presented with, or even if they were given a personal demonstration by the inventor.

I know some people are like that. They carve out beliefs and cling to them for dear life. But I'm not sure why that mentality is so prevalent here. I thought Stereophile was a high end audio publication? I would think that if anyone, high end audiophiles would be eager to hear about new ideas in their hobby, or simply have new toys to play with at their disposal. But I've been out of the hobby for many years. Isn't it all about the sound anymore? It sounds weird to say, but maybe sound quality doesn't matter to audiophiles anymore. Or maybe what I'm seeing is just the internet that gives people the opportunity they want to behave in such an uncivil manner to each other, because they don't feel any sense of social responsibility. I don't know. So far, this thread seems a lot calmer than the last one that had to be closed. Maybe there's hope.

Have a good weekend.

ericarjes
ericarjes's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Jun 3 2010 - 9:32pm
Re: Acoustic Art Bowls: Science or ??????

I think on its face, it is a ridiculous notion for audiophiles to want to turn themselves into laboratory test subjects. To prove what point to whom, exactly? Indeed, 99% of audiophiles agree with me, since only about 1% of audiophiles (or less), buy their gear this way, and would have the means or the knowledge to conduct a proper DBT. Since there are many types of audio DBT's one can do, what sort of DBT's have you done (ie. what have you done to ensure proper controls were put in place?), and do you really buy all your equipment via DBT?

Freako
Freako's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 months 1 week ago
Joined: Jan 17 2010 - 8:29am
Re: Acoustic Art Bowls: Science or ??????

Not that your post is directed at me, but I'd like to contribute: I have never ever participated in a double blind test, but I do read a lot about stereo, and listen carefully before purchasing, also comparing equipment in the price range I can afford. I don't have any friends who are audio freaks, so I only have myself to trust.

Buddha
Buddha's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 10 months ago
Joined: Sep 8 2005 - 10:24am
Re: Acoustic Art Bowls: Science or ??????


Quote:
I think on its face, it is a ridiculous notion for audiophiles to want to turn themselves into laboratory test subjects. To prove what point to whom, exactly? Indeed, 99% of audiophiles agree with me, since only about 1% of audiophiles (or less), buy their gear this way, and would have the means or the knowledge to conduct a proper DBT. Since there are many types of audio DBT's one can do, what sort of DBT's have you done (ie. what have you done to ensure proper controls were put in place?), and do you really buy all your equipment via DBT?

Not laboratory test subjects. People who are minimally curious. And, certainly, not necessarily DBT.

Have you ever had a friend change a set of interconnect cables without you knowing which cable and then tried to see if you could tell the difference? Or, maybe you've helped someone else and done the switch for them?

If someone claims that a bowl they sell being in the room has a sonic impact, it would not occur to you to compare without knowing if the bowl was present, or not?

Would you try puting a teacup in the same spot and seeing if there was a difference?

Perhaps we are just disagreeing on what degree of curiosity you would bring to the table?

Since we are in a "bowls" thread. If you were interested in buying some, how would you want to demo them?

David_L
David_L's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Oct 28 2009 - 8:23am
Re: Acoustic Art Bowls: Science or ??????


Quote:
For some, not realizing they are a gigantic asshole must be a profound experience.

Yeah it must be.


Quote:
You're not funny, you're not insightful and you're not moving the discussion forward. You're just enjoying being an asshole because SM allows it. You get away with being a snarky asshole because no one here steps up to say you need to stop.

Don't any of you understand that saying nothing is simply giving permission for this to continue?

So STOP already Jan, seriously STOP

clarkjohnsen
clarkjohnsen's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 1 month ago
Joined: Sep 8 2005 - 8:02am
Re: Acoustic Art Bowls: Science or ??????


Quote:
I'm not at all certain if those who seem to be adamant in their opinions against it, have any experience with this or other acoustic resonator type systems.

Oh I think we can safely conclude that for those chaps no experience was necessary.


Quote:
I'm inclined to believe that much of the heat and hostility, or rigid skepticism I've seen, comes from having a pre-determined idea of what something is or isn't.

Rigidity is good for chasses but not so much for minds.


Quote:
Which is exactly why I try to avoid those limitations, and give things a fair chance. It's an approach that has worked for me tremendously, in the long run.

"Try it, you might like it." My parents were always saying that to me at the dinner table. Still I turned up my nose. Later, at a new venue (college) I started trying -- and liking it! First Chinese, then the world. I'm sure the rigids can be brought around too, but it's up to them to give life a shot.

David_L
David_L's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Oct 28 2009 - 8:23am
Re: Acoustic Art Bowls: Science or ??????


Quote:
I do wish you HAD decided to enter the discussion way back then, Eric. There WAS so much hostility to the ART devices and to discussing the issue sensibly and it would have been nice if more people who had 'heard' the devices for themselves had decided to participate.
The "hostility" people got away with (to use an expression) 'murder', for far too long !!!

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

Not many people have heard or even bought these magic bowls and those that have didn't bother doing any objective tests so it's just more subjective "I heard a difference" which proves nothing other than they think they heard a difference.If they actually believed the devices made a difference then YES they should have spoken up long ago. Now all we have are silly "hyptohesis" such as 2.4Ghz blockage!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

clarkjohnsen
clarkjohnsen's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 1 month ago
Joined: Sep 8 2005 - 8:02am
Re: Acoustic Art Bowls: Science or ??????


Quote:
Or, is that to "interminable" for you, Mr. Johnsen?

No, it was admirably to the point. Funny, too. I see my remark rankled, so I apologize and beg to withdraw it from consideration.

Buddha
Buddha's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 10 months ago
Joined: Sep 8 2005 - 10:24am
Re: Acoustic Art Bowls: Science or ??????

Clark, EVERYONE has experience with acoustic resonators in their systems.

clarkjohnsen
clarkjohnsen's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 1 month ago
Joined: Sep 8 2005 - 8:02am
Re: Acoustic Art Bowls: Science or ??????


Quote:
Clark, EVERYONE has experience with acoustic resonators in their systems.

Close one's mouth and there's one less variable in that regard.

Buddha
Buddha's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 10 months ago
Joined: Sep 8 2005 - 10:24am
Re: Acoustic Art Bowls: Science or ??????


Quote:

Quote:
Clark, EVERYONE has experience with acoustic resonators in their systems.

Close one's mouth and there's one less variable in that regard.

So, are you admitting that you read out loud, or type out loud?

Clark, you're here. How nice. What system are you using for your reference as you prepare to listen to the ART Bowls?

Or, do you just listen to the bowls themselves?

Any "reviewer" worth his salt would not feel threatened by requests for a list of the reference system used to generate one's foregone conclusion that that of all the tweaks you have ever tried, these work as advertised.

Hell, you could just write up a quick review based on the press release and just add, "Only more so."

ericarjes
ericarjes's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Jun 3 2010 - 9:32pm
Re: Acoustic Art Bowls: Science or ??????

I find that an interesting analogy. I do see that the approach of some audio enthusiasts is "meatloaf and mashed potatoes". Whereas with others, it's more like "Hmm... I haven't tried Pad Thai. Give me one of those". I'm more in the latter camp. In fact, with the right fish sauce, i can now make a pretty mean Pad Thai!

ericarjes
ericarjes's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Jun 3 2010 - 9:32pm
Re: Acoustic Art Bowls: Science or ??????

Well, you seemed to be insisting on DBT's with the previous poster, so I responded to that. By their very nature, DBTs turn listening sessions into scientific studies, and audiophiles into laboratory test subjects. Yes, I have tested cables in SBT's with a friend, and we both were able to both identify and describe the differences each cable brought to bear. I've settled the issue of whether cables matter, decades ago. I would assume, by the nature of the magazine, the same could be said of most of Stereophile's readers. So what's important to me in this regard, is what influence that interconnects, power cables or speaker wires have on the sound. Not whether they have an influence.

I would want to demo them in my home, ideally. Which I eventually did, by the way.

It's not that it would not occur to me to compare without knowing if the system is in place, it's that your approach doesn't make any sense to me. I do not listen to my audio system with blinders on, nor is listening to music on my hifi meant to be a "scientific challenge". So if I imposed these special conditions upon my listening, it would be unscientific to transfer any conclusions made from them to the casual, sighted subjective way I normally listen to music. In short, it would be a waste of my time. If i was so much in doubt that I was hearing any effect at all from a natural evaluation, I'm not sure I would then want to spend upwards of $3k on a product in which I need to be blindfolded before I can be sure it's doing anything. Especially if I had to retrieve the blindfold every time I listened to my system, to ensure the conditions were the same. Fortunately, as I heard my sound entirely transformed by the presence of the 5 resonators, within minutes of setting it up, that was not an issue.


Quote:
Would you try puting a teacup in the same spot and seeing if there was a difference? Perhaps we are just disagreeing on what degree of curiosity you would bring to the table?

Have you? Surely you have some teacups on hand, you could answer the question yourself. My guess is you will not find them doing anything special to improve your sound. I would gather that if acoustic treatment were that simple, audio shops would look like Harrod's on a busy day. My curiosity is what led me to try the resonators in the first place. What degree of curiosity have you brought to the table? It seems you have been arguing against the Arts for a long time. Have you attempted to contact your nearest dealer to attend a demo? Have you at least taken the tea cups out of the cabinet?

Buddha
Buddha's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 10 months ago
Joined: Sep 8 2005 - 10:24am
Re: Acoustic Art Bowls: Science or ??????


Quote:
Well, you seemed to be insisting on DBT's with the previous poster, so I responded to that. By their very nature, DBTs turn listening sessions into scientific studies, and audiophiles into laboratory test subjects. Yes, I have tested cables in SBT's with a friend, and we both were able to both identify and describe the differences each cable brought to bear. I've settled the issue of whether cables matter, decades ago. I would assume, by the nature of the magazine, the same could be said of most of Stereophile's readers. So what's important to me in this regard, is what influence that interconnects, power cables or speaker wires have on the sound. Not whether they have an influence.

Agreed.

I would want to demo them in my home, ideally. Which I eventually did, by the way.

It's not that it would not occur to me to compare without knowing if the system is in place, it's that your approach doesn't make any sense to me. I do not listen to my audio system with blinders on, nor is listening to music on my hifi meant to be a "scientific challenge". So if I imposed these special conditions upon my listening, it would be unscientific to transfer any conclusions made from them to the casual, sighted subjective way I normally listen to music. In short, it would be a waste of my time. If i was so much in doubt that I was hearing any effect at all from a natural evaluation, I'm not sure I would then want to spend upwards of $3k on a product in which I need to be blindfolded before I can be sure it's doing anything.

Seems like that would be the perfect time!

Especially if I had to retrieve the blindfold every time I listened to my system, to ensure the conditions were the same.

Not every time, just as part of your natural curiosity. It's a novel idea for some.

Fortunately, as I heard my sound entirely transformed by the presence of the 5 resonators, within minutes of setting it up, that was not an issue.

So, you've done SBT with cables, but would NOT consider doing such a thing in the case of resonators?

Even if they entired transformed your sound? Seems like then it would quite a fun thing to try!

Why would you blindly compare cables but not another new tweak concept?


Quote:
Would you try puting a teacup in the same spot and seeing if there was a difference? Perhaps we are just disagreeing on what degree of curiosity you would bring to the table?

Have you?

We've discussed resonating devices on other forums, and I've tried the glass with water, the glass without water, even different types of 'glass' or 'crystal' any different locations...so I have nothing against trying many things.

Surely you have some teacups on hand, you could answer the question yourself. My guess is you will not find them doing anything special to improve your sound.

Why not? If they cost three grand would you then deign to try them?

I would gather that if acoustic treatment were that simple, audio shops would look like Harrod's on a busy day. My curiosity is what led me to try the resonators in the first place. What degree of curiosity have you brought to the table?

I've 'heard these cups. I've even tried to take part in discussing how they might work. If you recall, I have been a proponent of the resonating theory since before the magic pixies decided it must be GHz radiation change or direct injection into the brainwaves.

It seems you have been arguing against the Arts for a long time.

It seems you should read more.

Have you attempted to contact your nearest dealer to attend a demo?

I've already demo'd them.

Have you at least taken the tea cups out of the cabinet?

Closer than you, it seems!

Been there for Clever Clocks, Belt Tweaks, the list goes yawn and yawn...

returnstackerror
returnstackerror's picture
Offline
Last seen: 9 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: May 17 2007 - 8:32pm
Re: Acoustic Art Bowls: Science or ??????


Quote:
Based on my experience, my answer is "science". But I am neither a scientist, nor the inventor of these devices, so I don't have all the answers to this or everything else in the world. And even if I did, I'm not sure I would want to share that here! I read the threads on the acoustic art, and saw so much hostility against it, that I did not find this a good environment for a fair and friendly discussion. I wonder if there are other owners of the acoustic art who 've read the thread and felt the same? In "the real world", I did not experience such hostility and controversy. Not at audio shows where I saw a demonstration of the system, and not among acquaintances to whom I demonstrated my acoustic art system to. And certainly no one I have ever spoken with who's heard the Arts has been indifferent to them, or said they heard no difference. I'm not at all certain if those who seem to be adamant in their opinions against it, have any experience with this or other acoustic resonator type systems. I'm inclined to believe that much of the heat and hostility, or rigid skepticism I've seen, comes from having a pre-determined idea of what something is or isn't. Which is exactly why I try to avoid those limitations, and give things a fair chance . It's an approach that has worked for me tremendously, in the long run.

Is it a limitation that a consumer, faced with spending 100's or 1000's of dollars on a product wants to know how it works or whether a manufactures claim of a products performance is valid.

Should we all suspend our critical assessment of a product just because it

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Acoustic Art Bowls: Science or ??????


Quote:
No, it was admirably to the point. Funny, too. I see my remark rankled, so I apologize and beg to withdraw it from consideration.

Done.

Buddha
Buddha's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 10 months ago
Joined: Sep 8 2005 - 10:24am
Re: Acoustic Art Bowls: Science or ??????


Quote:
I find that an interesting analogy. I do see that the approach of some audio enthusiasts is "meatloaf and mashed potatoes". Whereas with others, it's more like "Hmm... I haven't tried Pad Thai. Give me one of those". I'm more in the latter camp. In fact, with the right fish sauce, i can now make a pretty mean Pad Thai!

Right you are....and many are sold meatloaf and told it's Pad Thai.

I guess if they can't tell them apart, it's not the sellers fault!

Caveat cenator!

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Acoustic Art Bowls: Science or ??????


Quote:
Been there for Clever Clocks, Belt Tweaks, the list goes yawn and yawn...

To be clear, just last year Boooodha! was surprised CES attendees could discern improvements when better quality interconnects were substituted for freebie give aways. He was even more astounded they could do so without seeing which cable was being used. Made no sense to him.

Just last year.

Buddha
Buddha's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 10 months ago
Joined: Sep 8 2005 - 10:24am
Re: Acoustic Art Bowls: Science or ??????


Quote:

Quote:
Been there for Clever Clocks, Belt Tweaks, the list goes yawn and yawn...

To be clear, just last year Boooodha! was surprised CES attendees could discern improvements when better quality interconnects were substituted for freebie give aways. He was even more astounded they could do so without seeing which cable was being used. Made no sense to him.

Just last year.

God damn, you are a stupid little worm....just to be clear.

We've been doing that for years, you dope!

We've done Purist Audio, Straightwire, and TEO, and even home brewed, you ignorant slut.

The "WTF" was for Ethan, if you are smart enough to back track, you cretin.

Hope that helps. Think you can do that?

Did you also notice that we keep posting results and are willing to actually share and show what we are using? Or, is disclosure something foreign to you, as a polysyllabic word?

Clark nailed you, Jan. Glad you licked up the apology he dribbled off.

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Acoustic Art Bowls: Science or ??????


Quote:
If a laptop maker made a claim that his laptop
Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Acoustic Art Bowls: Science or ??????


Quote:
We've been doing that for years, you dope!

Then I would think sooner or later you would no longer be surprised by the results - or you would move on to something more imaginative.

Booodha!, you told me you had me on permanent "ignore". Now I find you, just like the rest of your crowd, have been peaking at my posts all this time. Good, then you must have seen my remarks about your continued rudeness to May.

Stop being an asshole.

Buddha
Buddha's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 10 months ago
Joined: Sep 8 2005 - 10:24am
Re: Acoustic Art Bowls: Science or ??????

No, Jan.

I changed the setting to check the booshit you were tossing about after Clark summed you up.

He actually got something right, and only then do you disagree with him?

I kept seeing quotes and couldn't believe you'd actually be that stupid and pouty.

You've never heard this tweak, so do as Ivor Tiefenbrun would suggest...

Money back guarantee Ms. Jan, so why haven't you tried them?

Free audition, Missy!

geoffkait
geoffkait's picture
Online
Last seen: 2 min 7 sec ago
Joined: Apr 29 2008 - 5:10am
Re: Acoustic Art Bowls: Science or ??????


Quote:
Booodha!, you told me you had me on permanent "ignore". Now I find you, just like the rest of your crowd, have been peaking at my posts all this time. Good, then you must have seen my remarks about your continued rudeness to May.

"Just like the rest of your crowd??!!" What, you mean there's more? Now, you're really freaking me out.

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Acoustic Art Bowls: Science or ??????


Quote:
It shouldn't be hard. Be mature, respectful, thoughtful. You know: Don't be an asshole.

Booodha!, I don't believe a word that you post and neither will anyone else who has bothered to actually read the thread. I'm not interested in taking this thread into the ditch simply because you cannot "Be mature, respectful, thoughtful" and you choose to ignore SM's, "You know: Don't be an asshole."

You know you can get by with this crap, you've done it for years on this forum.

May began this thread with a plea to civility. You're doing your very best to destroy this thread the same way you and Ethan and dup have destroyed dozens like it over the years. You cannot participate in a rational discussion of what you do not understand so, like a domestic abuser, you will allow no one to participate. You'll insult and mock hoping to stir up the same reaction from all you view as your opponent - simply because they disagree with you about audio.

I suppose in your hazy, fuzzy, on and off ignore function you don't remember my comments regarding my own personal audition with the ART system. Fine, I remember every time you've insulted everyone who crosses your path - simply because they disagree with you about audio. I remember your drunken rants and your adolescent sneers. It's what you do and it's all you can do.

Your behavior toward May is a disgrace and has been for years. When she rises above your shitpile of mockery you dig in deeper and sling harder and faster. Now you've reached your point where every single post is filled with insults to anyone you can spot. You lash out in all directions not caring what damage you do, inflicting damage to a discussion between those who disagree with you about audio is all that concerns you. How many times over the years have we all seen you and Ethan and dup do this over and over again?

You disrespect even the most ardent appeal to a logical, thoughtful discussion by doing what you can only do - being an asshole.

So I ask once again, where are the others to condemn Buddha for his words?

Freako?

Eric?

Returnstackerror?

Kal?

Stephen?

Mr. Atkinson?

Are these the words you want to see in a civil discussion? Is it your preference for yet another foodfight? If this is what you want, this is all you will ever get.


Quote:
It shouldn't be hard. Be mature, respectful, thoughtful. You know: Don't be an asshole.

Boooodha!, stop being an immature, disrespectful, stupid asshole and get out of our way during a reasonable discussion. You aren't wanted here.

Editor
Editor's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 9 months ago
Joined: Sep 1 2005 - 8:56am
Re: Acoustic Art Bowls: Science or ??????


Quote:
So I ask once again, where are the others to condemn Buddha for his words? ... Mr. Atkinson?

Look, Stephen Mejias succinctly summed up this forum's primary rule a few days ago: "Don't be an asshole." That applies to all of us.

As far as I am concerned, the discussion of the Tchang/Synergistic bowls reached the pinnacle of pointlessness a few days back. I suggest we all let ti drop until the emotional temperature has cooled off a tad.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Freako
Freako's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 months 1 week ago
Joined: Jan 17 2010 - 8:29am
Re: Acoustic Art Bowls: Science or ??????


Quote:

Quote:
It shouldn't be hard. Be mature, respectful, thoughtful. You know: Don't be an asshole.

Booodha!, I don't believe a word that you post and neither will anyone else who has bothered to actually read the thread. I'm not interested in taking this thread into the ditch simply because you cannot "Be mature, respectful, thoughtful" and you choose to ignore SM's, "You know: Don't be an asshole."

You know you can get by with this crap, you've done it for years on this forum.

May began this thread with a plea to civility. You're doing your very best to destroy this thread the same way you and Ethan and dup have destroyed dozens like it over the years. You cannot participate in a rational discussion of what you do not understand so, like a domestic abuser, you will allow no one to participate. You'll insult and mock hoping to stir up the same reaction from all you view as your opponent - simply because they disagree with you about audio.

I suppose in your haze you don't remember my comments regarding my own personal audition with the ART system. Fine, I remember every time you've insulted everyone who crosses your path - simply because they disagree with you about audio. I remember your drunken rants and your adolescent sneers. It's what you do and it's all you can do.

Your behavior toward May is a disgrace and has been for years. When she rises above your shitpile of mockery you dig in deeper and sling harder and faster. Now you've reached your point where every single post is filled with insults to anyone you can spot. You lash out in all directions not caring what damage you do, inflicting damage to a discussion between those who disagree with you about audio is all that concerns you. How many times over the years have we all seen you and Ethan and dup do this over and over again?

You disrespect even the most ardent appeal to a logical, thoughtful discussion by doing what you can only do - being an asshole.

So I ask once again, where are the others to condemn Buddha for his words?

Freako?

Eric?

Returnstackerror?

Kal?

Stephen?

Mr. Atkinson?

Are these the words you want to see in a civil discussion? Is it your preference for yet another foodfight? If this is what you want, this is all you will ever get.


Quote:
It shouldn't be hard. Be mature, respectful, thoughtful. You know: Don't be an asshole.

Boooodha!, stop being an immature, disrespectful, stupid asshole and get out of our way during a reasonable discussion. You aren't wanted here.

Please don't drag me into this. When people have a bad day, they should be allowed to have such a day. When it exeeds that, people will mostly get what they ask for. SM is the moderator here, and I'm no doing any of his chores. Besides, Buddha hasn't bothered me, and May is seemingly quite capable of fending for herself. If she was about to leave for being slandered, that's another thing.

David_L
David_L's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Oct 28 2009 - 8:23am
Re: Acoustic Art Bowls: Science or ??????


Quote:

So I ask once again, where are the others to condemn Buddha for his words?

Freako?

Eric?

Returnstackerror?

Kal?

Stephen?

Mr. Atkinson?

http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/c/c5/Spongebob_u_mad.jpg

Edit: Picture was too large for forum frames. Click link to see picture.

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Acoustic Art Bowls: Science or ??????

You would have liked dup, you could have looked up to his intellect.

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Acoustic Art Bowls: Science or ??????

Freako, you're either in or you're out, no one is dragging you anywhere. If you think saying nothing is the way to go until they come for you, then that's your decision.

ericarjes
ericarjes's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Jun 3 2010 - 9:32pm
Re: Acoustic Art Bowls: Science or ??????

Why does it seem not possible to talk about the acoustic art on this forum without it erupting into a flame war all the time? I'm sincerely interested to know if there's anyone on the forum who wishes to try to discuss this in a civil manner? Without childishness, or unprovoked hostility of any kind, whether against members or the product itself? I'll go ahead and respond to the arguments I've been given, and anyone is free to reply in a mature, civil manner. Let's keep this above ground, and keep the attitude out, thanks.

ericarjes
ericarjes's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Jun 3 2010 - 9:32pm
Re: Acoustic Art Bowls: Science or ??????


Quote:
Not every time, just as part of your natural curiosity. It's a novel idea for some.

Fortunately, as I heard my sound entirely transformed by the presence of the 5 resonators, within minutes of setting it up, that was not an issue.


Quote:
So, you've done SBT with cables, but would NOT consider doing such a thing in the case of resonators? Even if they entired transformed your sound? Seems like then it would quite a fun thing to try! Why would you blindly compare cables but not another new tweak concept?

Because as I was suggesting, it only makes sense if you are in doubt of the effect. Why would you test something you are not in doubt of? If you just heard your alarm clock go off, would you go to all the trouble to set up a blind test and then trigger the alarm, in order to be sure that it was really the alarm clock chime that you heard go off? I've never known any audiophiles who went and did blind tests to try to determine what was and wasn't good. So I agree that for audio consumers, it is indeed a "novel idea". Maybe for some, it's a cliquey sort of thing that they are just "into". I also think it might serve as a kind of "training wheels" for those unsure of their listening abilities. And if it helps one to become more sure of what they're hearing, I'm all for that. The SBT in question was suggested by my friend's wife at the time. And the time was about 25 years ago. At that time, my listening abilities are not what they are now. So it made more sense to try to confirm what I was hearing. But when you're really familiar with the sound of your system, familiar enough that you know when it has changed, that becomes unnecessary.

In the same way that it is unnecessary for even the staunchest advocate of DBT's, to DBT loudspeakers.


Quote:
Why not? If they cost three grand would you then deign to try them?

Are you suggesting that I won't try an audio tweak if it costs less than $3k? Hmmm. Call it an "educated guess". I've had teacups and saucers in the room, and if they had the same effect as the arts, I would have heard the change. Yes, even if I wasn't listening for the change. Because the effect is not subtle, and I'm familiar with my sound. While blind testing is certainly helpful in other sciences, I dont' find it to be particularly valuable in audio.

ericarjes
ericarjes's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Jun 3 2010 - 9:32pm
Re: Acoustic Art Bowls: Science or ??????


Quote:
Is it a limitation that a consumer, faced with spending 100's or 1000's of dollars on a product wants to know how it works or whether a manufactures claim of a products performance is valid.

Why? If you don't know every little possible bit of how digital audio and the circuitry in your CD player works... does that mean it stops working for you? By all means, you should not suspend your criticial assessment of a product. That's why audio dealers have dem rooms. Thankfully, because manufacturers can and do lie you know. Take the case of your laptop example. I have laptops, phones and mp3 players that did not last anywhere near the ratings given by the manufacturer. A "description of the science behind it" is really not going to help me when I need an ambulance, but I can't call one because my cell phone battery did not last as long as it said it would on the scientific data sheet.

It's hard to even blame the manufacturers sometimes, because even when they're honest, their information can be inaccurate.
In audio, there has always been a chasm between laboratory conditions and "real world" conditions. They can't predict how their product will perform under x conditions. No manufacturer of acoustics room treatment can predict what their product will sound like in your room, with your ears. Only you can. All conventional fiberglass or foam acoustic treatment products from different manufacturers will have different influences on your sound, some worse some better, just as all acoustic resonator room treatment products will as well. No manufacturer's data will tell you what the effect will be on your sound.


Quote:
If a laptop maker made a claim that his laptop
David_L
David_L's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Oct 28 2009 - 8:23am
Re: Acoustic Art Bowls: Science or ??????


Quote:

Because as I was suggesting, it only makes sense if you are in doubt of the effect. Why would you test something you are not in doubt of? If you just heard your alarm clock go off, would you go to all the trouble to set up a blind test and then trigger the alarm, in order to be sure that it was really the alarm clock chime that you heard go off? I've never known any audiophiles who went and did blind tests to try to determine what was and wasn't good. So I agree that for audio consumers, it is indeed a "novel idea". Maybe for some, it's a cliquey sort of thing that they are just "into". I also think it might serve as a kind of "training wheels" for those unsure of their listening abilities. And if it helps one to become more sure of what they're hearing, I'm all for that. The SBT in question was suggested by my friend's wife at the time. And the time was about 25 years ago. At that time, my listening abilities are not what they are now. So it made more sense to try to confirm what I was hearing. But when you're really familiar with the sound of your system, familiar enough that you know when it has changed, that becomes unnecessary.

In the same way that it is unnecessary for even the staunchest advocate of DBT's, to DBT loudspeakers.

Maybe because doing a DBT gives your claims of "knowing" what you heard validity to the rest of the world? Saying you know what you heard only for yourself is fine and dandy. Posting online for others to accept might be more of a challenge. At least doing a DBT would show us that what you claim to have heard is true and not imagined. Otherwise it's just more "He said/she said" arguments.

I'm sorry but who said that about staunch DBT advocates not doing DBT on loudpspeakers?

David_L
David_L's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Oct 28 2009 - 8:23am
Re: Acoustic Art Bowls: Science or ??????


Quote:
There is plenty of good buzz and information out there on the resonators if you are willing to look. And if you're not willing to "stump up the $$$ over a reasonable time" to find out if they work, then that suggests you're not prepared to buy them anyway, even if they do.

The "good buzz" is just more subjective reviews. nothing at all with measurements or objectivity of any sort. Hey if you want to claim these things work then show us some proof instead of just pointing us toward the same old tired reviews that have been online for the past year. Yeah, yeah I know you think you hear a difference, big whoop. We are awaiting the third party tests JA is supposed to be gathering together so until then, it's just more conjecture.

SAS Audio
SAS Audio's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: Jun 6 2007 - 6:56am
Re: Acoustic Art Bowls: Science or ??????


Quote:

Quote:

Because as I was suggesting, it only makes sense if you are in doubt of the effect. Why would you test something you are not in doubt of? If you just heard your alarm clock go off, would you go to all the trouble to set up a blind test and then trigger the alarm, in order to be sure that it was really the alarm clock chime that you heard go off? I've never known any audiophiles who went and did blind tests to try to determine what was and wasn't good. So I agree that for audio consumers, it is indeed a "novel idea". Maybe for some, it's a cliquey sort of thing that they are just "into". I also think it might serve as a kind of "training wheels" for those unsure of their listening abilities. And if it helps one to become more sure of what they're hearing, I'm all for that. The SBT in question was suggested by my friend's wife at the time. And the time was about 25 years ago. At that time, my listening abilities are not what they are now. So it made more sense to try to confirm what I was hearing. But when you're really familiar with the sound of your system, familiar enough that you know when it has changed, that becomes unnecessary.

In the same way that it is unnecessary for even the staunchest advocate of DBT's, to DBT loudspeakers.

Maybe because doing a DBT gives your claims of "knowing" what you heard validity to the rest of the world? Saying you know what you heard only for yourself is fine and dandy. Posting online for others to accept might be more of a challenge. At least doing a DBT would show us that what you claim to have heard is true and not imagined. Otherwise it's just more "He said/she said" arguments.

Any number of variables will lead to DBTs with false conclusions, either by accident or intentionally.

For instance, your friends attacked and condemned Dr. Kunchur's research/dbt, here and on other forums, even though he presented to three national mainstream organizations plus other groups (one mainstream national organization includes "research".


Quote:
After that the results and conclusions were presented at conferences of the

Acoustical Society of America (ASA),
Association of Research in Otolaryngology (ARO), and
American Physical Society (APS).

Seminars were also made at numerous universities and research/industrial institutions (please see the list on my web site).

After each presentation, the audience is free to tear apart the conclusions and ask all possible questions. Eminent people such as presidents of the above mentioned societies and corporations (ASA, ARO, Bose corporation, etc.) have been present during my presentations.

After passing through this grueling oral presentation process, written manuscripts were then submitted to journals. There, anonymous referees are free to attack the submission in any way they want.

More than a dozen referees and editors have been involved in this journal refereeing process. Only after everyone is satisfied with the accuracy of the results and all statements made in the manuscript, are the papers published in the journals. The entire process took around 5 years from initial concept to refereed publications.

Research in Otolaryngology (ARO) covers research, actual research.

I believe I would rather believe in these three mainstream science organizations than....

Dbts done by 3rd party would help but even then I would want to see the whole test in order to determine if mistakes were made.

I don't know if the Art bowls work or not, but your case for dbt testing and accuracy is unconvincing.

Cheers.

ps. Your picture above does not help your case.

ericarjes
ericarjes's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Jun 3 2010 - 9:32pm
Re: Acoustic Art Bowls: Science or ??????


Quote:
The "good buzz" is just more subjective reviews. nothing at all with measurements or objectivity of any sort. Hey if you want to claim these things work then show us some proof instead of just pointing us toward the same old tired reviews that have been online for the past year. Yeah, yeah I know you think you hear a difference, big whoop. We are awaiting the third party tests JA is supposed to be gathering together so until then, it's just more conjecture.

What's with the attitude, dude? I posted my replies to tomj and Buddha, and I asked that people keep the discussion civil if they're going to contribute to this thread. And here you come along to debate my replies to them, and you're already making sardonic demands on me, and acting like I owe you something? It seems that every post I have read of yours here is about the acoustic art, and in every one of those, you have this same shitty attitude. What's the deal with you and this product? If you were really that dying to know whether they work or not that you have been "awaiting third party tests" for so long that you're bitter, angry and resentful about it, then I would think you'd have gotten your butt down to a Synergistic dealer by now and had a listen for yourself?

Mr. Atkinson, repeating what Mr. Mejias stated, just asked that people not behave like assholes. Your response to them was to splash a large Spongebob picture across everyone's screen, in a childish insult to one member, and then swoop down on my response to others, like as if you think I have a debt to repay you, and I'm supposed to care what you believe. If you can't understand what 'asshole' or 'civil' means, and your intention is to troll every acoustic art thread in order to have it shut down by reason of flame war, please do that elsewhere and do not respond to my posts. I do not debate trolls. Thank you.

Freako
Freako's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 months 1 week ago
Joined: Jan 17 2010 - 8:29am
Re: Acoustic Art Bowls: Science or ??????


Quote:
Freako, you're either in or you're out, no one is dragging you anywhere. If you think saying nothing is the way to go until they come for you, then that's your decision.

If and when they come for me, I certainly won't expect any help from outsiders. The world on the internet is a strange place; humor is often misunderstood and some people have no trouble displaying their dark sides. Besides I will have no part in banning anyone. Remember Ethan and Dup? I never said a word about their rantings.

I am not either in or out - I try to be friendly towards everybody here, but when people start acting like the before mentioned characters, I stand aside...

geoffkait
geoffkait's picture
Online
Last seen: 2 min 7 sec ago
Joined: Apr 29 2008 - 5:10am
Re: Acoustic Art Bowls: Science or ??????


Quote:

Quote:
The "good buzz" is just more subjective reviews. nothing at all with measurements or objectivity of any sort. Hey if you want to claim these things work then show us some proof instead of just pointing us toward the same old tired reviews that have been online for the past year. Yeah, yeah I know you think you hear a difference, big whoop. We are awaiting the third party tests JA is supposed to be gathering together so until then, it's just more conjecture.

What's with the attitude, dude? I posted my replies to tomj and Buddha, and I asked that people keep the discussion civil if they're going to contribute to this thread. And here you come along to debate my replies to them, and you're already making sardonic demands on me, and acting like I owe you something? It seems that every post I have read of yours here is about the acoustic art, and in every one of those, you have this same shitty attitude. What's the deal with you and this product? If you were really that dying to know whether they work or not that you have been "awaiting third party tests" for so long that you're bitter, angry and resentful about it, then I would think you'd have gotten your butt down to a Synergistic dealer by now and had a listen for yourself?

Mr. Atkinson, repeating what Mr. Mejias stated, just asked that people not behave like assholes. Your response to them was to splash a large Spongebob picture across everyone's screen, in a childish insult to one member, and then swoop down on my response to others, like as if you think I have a debt to repay you, and I'm supposed to care what you believe. If you can't understand what 'asshole' or 'civil' means, and your intention is to troll every acoustic art thread in order to have it shut down by reason of flame war, please do that elsewhere and do not respond to my posts. I do not debate trolls. Thank you.

Don't worry too about David_L, he's our go-to Naysayer/DBTer. I suspect he's just trying to earn his bones and he seems pleasant enough.

David_L
David_L's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Oct 28 2009 - 8:23am
Re: Acoustic Art Bowls: Science or ??????

Eric wants to cry because I questioned his unwillingness to do a simple DBT. Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.

SAS questions DBT because he can't close his eyes and trust his ears.Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.

Geoff posts his usual "funny" picture and contributes nothing but he still manages to go Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.

Put up or shut up. Either you can pass a DBT using Ted's magic bowls or you can't it's as simple as THAT.

David_L
David_L's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Oct 28 2009 - 8:23am
Re: Acoustic Art Bowls: Science or ??????

geoffkait
geoffkait's picture
Online
Last seen: 2 min 7 sec ago
Joined: Apr 29 2008 - 5:10am
Re: Acoustic Art Bowls: Science or ??????


Quote:
Eric wants to cry because I questioned his unwillingness to do a simple DBT. Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.

SAS questions DBT because he can't close his eyes and trust his ears.Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.

Geoff posts his usual "funny" picture and contributes nothing but he still manages to go Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.

Put up or shut up. Either you can pass a DBT using Ted's magic bowls or you can't it's as simple as THAT.

"In thee I am well pleased." - Randi

David_L
David_L's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Oct 28 2009 - 8:23am
Re: Acoustic Art Bowls: Science or ??????


Quote:
I don't know if the Art bowls work or not, but your case for dbt testing and accuracy is unconvincing.

Cheers.

ps. Your picture above does not help your case.

Yes I suppose accuracy would be a bad thing

Ooooooooooo my picture doesn't help my case. Ted's bogus REW graph didn't seem to help his case much now did it?

David_L
David_L's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Oct 28 2009 - 8:23am
Re: Acoustic Art Bowls: Science or ??????


Quote:
Jesus Christ just MEASURE the fucking bowls already and get it over with........define science.........wtf?

Traditional acoustic measurements like with any speaker, with and without the bowls present and a DBT. Anything else isn't needed. If you can't tell a difference with your eyes closed but still argue that the test isn't valid then you have other issues regarding your own integrity and intelligence.

MEASURE THE DAMN BOWLS!!!!!!!!!!

I stand by my original post regarding DBT

geoffkait
geoffkait's picture
Online
Last seen: 2 min 7 sec ago
Joined: Apr 29 2008 - 5:10am
Re: Acoustic Art Bowls: Science or Seance????

Breaking News!! Discussion of How the Franck Tchang Acoustic Resonators (Bowls) Work, including the Resonator in the fridge, with Franck and the two PhDs from Netherlands over at 6 Moons. Quiz at 11.

Discussion of How the Franck Tchang Bowls Work

SAS Audio
SAS Audio's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: Jun 6 2007 - 6:56am
Re: Acoustic Art Bowls: Science or ??????


Quote:

Quote:
I don't know if the Art bowls work or not, but your case for dbt testing and accuracy is unconvincing.

Cheers.

ps. Your picture above does not help your case.

Yes I suppose accuracy would be a bad thing

We all see you sidestepped the rest of my post. Not even a good try, especially since you have been caught at least twice attempting to claim science, screw the public with scientific claims/knowledge, that proved false by first semester standards.

So, by your reasoning, how are you personally different than Ted and why should you not receive the same punishment as you wish on Ted?

It has already been demonstrated that you can not even read a schematic/wiring diagram, first semester science. So how could he possibly know how accurate dbt tests are, on your own? Maybe you can provide some complete subjective dbt tests, or at least links, so that we can all read completely through (not abstracts).

Cheers.

ericarjes
ericarjes's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Jun 3 2010 - 9:32pm
Re: Acoustic Art Bowls: Science or Seance????


Quote:
Don't worry too about David_L, he's our go-to Naysayer/DBTer. I suspect he's just trying to earn his bones and he seems pleasant enough.

Whereas I suspect a lot more than that. Perhaps not terrorism terrorism, but... is there such a thing as discussion forum terrorism?

David_L responds:


Quote:
Eric wants to cry because I questioned his unwillingness to do a simple DBT. Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.

SAS questions DBT because he can't close his eyes and trust his ears.Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.

Geoff posts his usual "funny" picture and contributes nothing but he still manages to go Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.

Put up or shut up. Either you can pass a DBT using Ted's magic bowls or you can't it's as simple as THAT.

Yes I suppose accuracy would be a bad thing. Ooooooooooo my picture doesn't help my case. Ted's bogus REW graph didn't seem to help his case much now did it?

Jesus Christ just MEASURE the fucking bowls already and get it over with........define science.........wtf?

Traditional acoustic measurements like with any speaker, with and without the bowls present and a DBT. Anything else isn't needed. If you can't tell a difference with your eyes closed but still argue that the test isn't valid then you have other issues regarding your own integrity and intelligence.

MEASURE THE DAMN BOWLS!!!!!!!!!!

Plus, David posts a mocking picture, which is nothing but an inflammatory contribution. Right after doing this, he mocks and complains about you posting a "funny" picture. If all the above isn't "being an asshole", then what is, prey tell? I mean it's clear to me that David L., with his hostility and personal attacks, is creating an atmosphere of "flameage" in these acoustic art threads, that makes it impossible to get a reasonable, let alone a "fun" discussion about the devices going. It's certainly knocked all the "fun" out of it for me.

"Put up or shut up", as he makes rude demands that I pass a "DBT" for his entertainment?? And he's questioning people's integrity and intelligence if they don't cater to his demands?? Making crying sounds as a response in a serious audio discussion?? What kind of an attitude is that? His behavior isn't that of someone merely being skeptical of a product. It is classic trolling, intended to create controversy and disturbance. I just went through his posting history, and it appears that he currently has 140 posts on this forum, and all of them are about the acoustic art system! But not just. From the very first posts to the very last ones, they are all interminably hostile attacks against the acoustic art. I've never seen anyone on a forum who is merely "doubtful" of a product, post 140 messages over a 7 month period, attacking it vehemently and exclusively. The only forums where this sort of obvious trolling is even permissible, is on unmoderated newsgroup forums.

This behavior speaks more of an agenda against the product or the company, than it does of a doubting Thomas. Evidence of that is the fact that everyone else in this thread doubtful of the Art system, does have something to contribute to this forum other than "Put up or shut up!", "Ted's magic bowls" or "Ted's bogus REW graph". Sadly, it looks like yet another thread on the acoustic art will be closed due to his behavior and the ill will it generates. There's even a thread about why the last thread had to be shut down, and why a civil conversation on the acoustic art is so difficult to have. I suppose there will be another thread about why this thread had to be shut down? (sigh)

I don't know any other forum that would tolerate this sort of obvious trolling. From what I see, "David L" would have been banned a long time ago on other forums. I don't understand why this behavior is being tolerated here? Shutting down threads is not a solution to the problem of an individual trolling, as it only penalizes those who do wish to have a mature discussion.

Thanks for the info on the Tchang resonators, btw. Great contribution, which I will read with some interest. I know about the air, but I don't know how it passes through a fridge door. I've not done experiments in that area though, so I'll have to read more about that. While there are considerable differences between the two systems, I believe the basic principles they are founded on still apply.

Pages

  • X
    Enter your Stereophile.com username.
    Enter the password that accompanies your username.
    Loading