You are here

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

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?

Editor
Editor's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 1 day ago
Joined: Sep 1 2005 - 8:56am
Re: Acoustic Art Bowls: Science or ??????


Quote:

Quote:
Good grief, that's an addictive website.

It provides us with that little sense of superiority we all crave, until one day we look and find our own name listed.

http://darwinawardsdvd.com/

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

Buddha
Buddha's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 1 month ago
Joined: Sep 8 2005 - 10:24am
Re: Acoustic Art Bowls: Science or Seance????


Quote:

Quote:
Did you really have to repost the whole damn thing?

Geeeeez!

Apparently. Anything wrong with that, or do you get a rash every time a Texan posts something?

No worries, Keld. Jan is just still reeling from Clark handing him a stinging rebuke.

j_j
j_j's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 6 months ago
Joined: Mar 13 2009 - 4:22pm
Re: Acoustic Art Bowls: Science or ??????


Quote:

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. :-)

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?

Freako
Freako's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 months 1 day ago
Joined: Jan 17 2010 - 8:29am
Re: Acoustic Art Bowls: Science or ??????


Quote:
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?

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.

Elk
Elk's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 months 1 week ago
Joined: Dec 26 2006 - 6:32am
Re: Acoustic Art Bowls: Science or ??????


Quote:
Differences in treble regions where the bowls' resonant frequencies might be most noticable?

No, the effect on the sound carries across the frequency range, it is not oriented toward the treble in any way. In fact, it can be heard on voices alone, which hovers around the midrange.


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?

geoffkait
geoffkait's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 hours 14 min ago
Joined: Apr 29 2008 - 5:10am
Re: Acoustic Art Bowls: Science or ??????


Quote:

Quote:

Have you given any consideration to a check-up from the neck up?

No, thanks to you. If I start believing your pitch, then I know it's time.

I have no problem with that, you're much more valuable as a naysayer than you could ever be as a shill.

Buddha
Buddha's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 1 month ago
Joined: Sep 8 2005 - 10:24am
Re: Acoustic Art Bowls: Science or ??????


Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Have you given any consideration to a check-up from the neck up?

No, thanks to you. If I start believing your pitch, then I know it's time.

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.

geoffkait
geoffkait's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 hours 14 min ago
Joined: Apr 29 2008 - 5:10am
Re: Acoustic Art Bowls: Science or ??????


Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Have you given any consideration to a check-up from the neck up?

No, thanks to you. If I start believing your pitch, then I know it's time.

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.

Buddha
Buddha's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 1 month ago
Joined: Sep 8 2005 - 10:24am
Re: Acoustic Art Bowls: Science or ??????

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?

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


Quote:
Happy guy who is happy to point out bullshit when he sees it.

Happy?! This is happy?!!!


Quote:
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.


Quote:
What the fuck is wrong with people???????????? Let me see if I have this right.

You

Buddha
Buddha's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 1 month ago
Joined: Sep 8 2005 - 10:24am
Re: Acoustic Art Bowls: Science or ??????

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!

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


Quote:
My post to you was based on how insipidly dense your take on my challenge to Ethan regarding cable differences had been.

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.


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

Good advice for you, Booodha!, particularly on the weekends.

Buddha
Buddha's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 1 month ago
Joined: Sep 8 2005 - 10:24am
Re: Acoustic Art Bowls: Science or ??????

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.

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


Quote:
At the same CES, Franck had a maker of traditional room treatments walk into the Acoustic System exhibit, badge - um, flipped to disguise identity and accost the exhibitors of snake oil peddling.
...
Eric, I believe you're catching on to D'Ethan.

"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.


Quote:
Eric, how about discussing what you see as differences and similarities between the Tchang system and what you own?

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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


Quote:
What the fuck is wrong with people???????????? Let me see if I have this right.

You

Buddha
Buddha's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 1 month ago
Joined: Sep 8 2005 - 10:24am
Re: Acoustic Art Bowls: Science or ??????


Quote:
BTW, did you know that cows who have names give more milk than cows that are nameless?

And how would they know this? By taking the word of someone selling cow names?

That's just the sort of thing to garner ridicule, isn't it?

Only if they claimed more milk was produced but there was no measurable increase in milk as a result, dude.

What would you expect as proof?

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?

Buddha
Buddha's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 1 month ago
Joined: Sep 8 2005 - 10:24am
Re: Acoustic Art Bowls: Science or ??????


Quote:

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?

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.


Quote:

So I've heard. I believe that's called "The James Randi Defense".

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.

Freako
Freako's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 months 1 day ago
Joined: Jan 17 2010 - 8:29am
Re: Acoustic Art Bowls: Science or ??????


Quote:

Quote:
BTW, did you know that cows who have names give more milk than cows that are nameless?

And how would they know this? By taking the word of someone selling cow names?

That's just the sort of thing to garner ridicule, isn't it?

Only if they claimed more milk was produced but there was no measurable increase in milk as a result, dude.

What would you expect as proof?

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?

Perhaps the cows with names got more attention?

michaelavorgna
michaelavorgna's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 months 4 weeks ago
Joined: Sep 26 2007 - 5:40pm
Re: Acoustic Art Bowls: Science or ??????


Quote:
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.

Freako
Freako's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 months 1 day ago
Joined: Jan 17 2010 - 8:29am
Re: Acoustic Art Bowls: Science or ??????

Not even a drop of single malt either?

geoffkait
geoffkait's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 hours 14 min ago
Joined: Apr 29 2008 - 5:10am
Re: Acoustic Art Bowls: Science or ??????


Quote:
"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.

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

RGibran
RGibran's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 2 months ago
Joined: Oct 11 2005 - 5:50pm
Re: Acoustic Art Bowls: Science or ??????


Quote:
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. - Arthur C. Clarke

Surely you're not trying to suggest aquarium rocks in a plastic bag are advanced technology OR MAGIC!

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


Quote:

Quote:
Care to post some measurements via an oscilloscope showing audio signal flow through a power cord?

I don't need to waste my time using a scope unless you believe Kirchoff's current laws are suddenly suspended, or "conjecture". Interesting you believe in science until science disproves you. Signal grounds and AC power ground are connected together in 99.9% of components, so signal current flows through the power cord, proving you are 100% incorrect. So again you are wasting everyone's time by posting false information.


Quote:
I'm betting you can't. Did you bother to read the whole article I linked to? They discussed capacitance, resistance and inductance. So you can't show a difference on an amps outputs by simply changing the power cord to a "better" one?

What about peak currents that correlate to signal level, basic electronics. As usual you embarrass yourself once again. The subject was your gross inaccuracies about science, which I have disprove many times over. DBT shortly to follow.


Quote:
No references, no measurements, nothing? At least I post links, all you do is post conjecture.


Posting links proves nothing as I already demonstrated. And unfortunately for you the links you posted prove my point. I suggest that you take a basic course in electronics/engineering and learn about Kirchoff's voltage and current laws, which are not conjecture.


Quote:

If you wish to 'try" to prove my statements wrong then start a new thread. Your lack of DBT understanding is your "excuse" for not even doing one

Checking your links only substantiates that Dr. Olive did not covered any variables that I mentioned earlier. Of course this skews the subjects responses, thus corrupting the input data used in the dbt test. Thanks for the links arguing against yourself DavidL.


Quote:
You can't even seem to operate your computer for an innocent link without you shouting TROJAN!!!
May I suggest you take some computer courses at your local college?

Sorry but your last statement betrays your true motives. Clicking on your link has nothing to do with its operation, and the fact that you had to use this tatic demonstrates your dishonest demeanor to all. By the way, last night I had a computer guru (windows certified) verify my findings and am sending information off to the Federal Investigator I have been sending info to for the past two years.

By the way it is interesting that you claim science to attack others but when caught with your pants down, you attack science.

Cheers.

Ps. Dr. Olive works for a certain audio manufacturing group.


Quote:
Presenter Bio: Dr. Sean Olive, Harman International
Sean is Director of Acoustic Research for Harman International, a major manufacturer of audio products for consumer, professional and automotive spaces.

Instead of lynch mobbing a manufacturer, let's wait for some data to come in with a proper understanding of the pros and cons of that science.

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.

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


Quote:
We know the type.

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. - Arthur C. Clarke

James Randi Foundation Charter

Yes we know your type

"There's a sucker born every minute"- David Hannum

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


Quote:
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.

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.

geoffkait
geoffkait's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 hours 14 min ago
Joined: Apr 29 2008 - 5:10am
Re: Acoustic Art Bowls: Science or ??????


Quote:

Quote:
We know the type.

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. - Arthur C. Clarke

James Randi Foundation Charter

Yes we know your type

"There's a sucker born every minute"- David Hannum

Right on que. Give my regards to Randi.

geoffkait
geoffkait's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 hours 14 min ago
Joined: Apr 29 2008 - 5:10am
Re: Acoustic Art Bowls: Science or ??????


Quote:

Quote:
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. - Arthur C. Clarke

Surely you're not trying to suggest aquarium rocks in a plastic bag are advanced technology OR MAGIC!

Bad example. The pebbles are straightforward physics. Am I correct in assuming that's a weakness of yours?

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


Quote:
Man, I spend a year or two not looking at the diarrhea you post and you nearly get run.

Awwww, Booodha!, I know you peaked, your kind always does.

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


Quote:
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.

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.


Quote:
That'd be assuming of course that the resonators are LF notch filters. They're patently not. They operate exclusively in the overtone range like a tinker bell in a Christmas tree. The operative three words remain free air exchange. Sound propagates on air molecules and air is everywhere. Something so basic suddenly has implications that don't seem quite so basic ...

According to him and how far I can follow thus far, excess LF energy gets converted to HF radiation by making his resonators work. Work means getting them to oscillate. These devices are passive. They're not perpetuum mobiles. To keep ringing, the resonators must continue to consume acoustical energy in their environment. However, they're not drains. Energy isn't killed by absorption or damping (actually, heat conversion to be technically correct). Acoustic System simply upsamples energy from lower to higher octaves. Bass energy enters the resonators. They oscillate. The resonator in turn puts out harmonics. LF goes in, HF comes out ...

More Franck speak: "Against the force, create another force. Reusing the force for its own benefit is key." Sounds like Aikido where an attack isn't blocked but redirected to where it won't do harm - except to the attacker if you're violent or in real danger. "The resonators transform air (noise) into tension. Without this process, our bodies will absorb the tension. I think you will know what I mean by now."
http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews/francktchang/resonators_2.html

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.

SAS Audio
SAS Audio's picture
Offline
Last seen: 9 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: Jun 6 2007 - 6:56am
Re: Acoustic Art Bowls: Science or ??????

DavidL's response post from my post way back on page 14, to refresh memories.


Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
Care to post some measurements via an oscilloscope showing audio signal flow through a power cord?

I don't need to waste my time using a scope unless you believe Kirchoff's current laws are suddenly suspended, or "conjecture". Interesting you believe in science until science disproves you. Signal grounds and AC power ground are connected together in 99.9% of components, so signal current flows through the power cord, proving you are 100% incorrect. So again you are wasting everyone's time by posting false information.


Quote:
I'm betting you can't. Did you bother to read the whole article I linked to? They discussed capacitance, resistance and inductance. So you can't show a difference on an amps outputs by simply changing the power cord to a "better" one?

What about peak currents that correlate to signal level, basic electronics. As usual you embarrass yourself once again. The subject was your gross inaccuracies about science, which I have disprove many times over. DBT shortly to follow.


Quote:
No references, no measurements, nothing? At least I post links, all you do is post conjecture.


Posting links proves nothing as I already demonstrated. And unfortunately for you the links you posted prove my point. I suggest that you take a basic course in electronics/engineering and learn about Kirchoff's voltage and current laws, which are not conjecture.


Quote:

If you wish to 'try" to prove my statements wrong then start a new thread. Your lack of DBT understanding is your "excuse" for not even doing one

Checking your links only substantiates that Dr. Olive did not covered any variables that I mentioned earlier. Of course this skews the subjects responses, thus corrupting the input data used in the dbt test. Thanks for the links arguing against yourself DavidL.


Quote:
You can't even seem to operate your computer for an innocent link without you shouting TROJAN!!!
May I suggest you take some computer courses at your local college?

Sorry but your last statement betrays your true motives. Clicking on your link has nothing to do with its operation, and the fact that you had to use this tatic demonstrates your dishonest demeanor to all. By the way, last night I had a computer guru (windows certified) verify my findings and am sending information off to the Federal Investigator I have been sending info to for the past two years.

By the way it is interesting that you claim science to attack others but when caught with your pants down, you attack science.

Cheers.

Ps. Dr. Olive works for a certain audio manufacturing group.


Quote:
Presenter Bio: Dr. Sean Olive, Harman International
Sean is Director of Acoustic Research for Harman International, a major manufacturer of audio products for consumer, professional and automotive spaces.

Instead of lynch mobbing a manufacturer, let's wait for some data to come in with a proper understanding of the pros and cons of that science.

--------------


Quote:
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.

I will be addressing DavidL's points but first, interesting that you claim science but

1) cannot provide any scientific evidence yourself just accusations in your posts.

2) JA and I have both commented on your lack of understanding of science, even very basic science such as reading a schematic/wiring diagram

3) You claim science, which does measurements per definition, and yet not one experiment from you through the years. Prove Kirchoff and me wrong.

4) When it came to protecting real science or defending a "scientific" friend who was caught manipulating numbers, you defend the friend. Why the back and forth positions. Belittling science by stating

"blah blah blah",
"nothing important is being discussed", and
"Sasaudio I've read what you have to say here and in other posts and I'm not impressed". (I presented the scientific evidence)

is not good. So protecting consumers from deceptive posts is not important and doesn't impress you. I am sure the public will keep that in mind.

By the way, read Network analysis, a university textbook, or google Kirchoff's voltage and current laws.


Quote:
You can't be bothered using a scope......because you know it won't show any signal through a power cord

And what setup and tests should we use that you would Not criticize?
There is a much better way do demonstrate by using a setup wired two different ways.

A) Connect all the input jack grounds (isolated from main chassis) together using one piece of 22 gauge wire, then 6" length to main ground point at the cathode/source of the active device.

B) Disconnect the jack grounds from each other and then use separate 6" pieces of wire from each jack ground to the same ground point as in "A".

Now connect a tuner, Cd player and other sources. Guess what folks.

In "A" setup with the selector switch in CD position, one can clearly hear the tuner "bleed" through.

In "B" setup using separate 6" pieces of wire from each ground jack to "A" ground, no "bleed" through, dead quiet.

Proof positive that even a 6" common piece of ground wire, let alone feet, makes a difference.


Quote:

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. We do this 20 times just for a good set amount of trials.

You left out all the variables/conditions that skew the testing when performing your so called test. Of course this will result in a variety of conclusions, thus insuring no "proof". Slick manipulation DavidL.

Sorry but who says I don't do dbt listening testing? Manufacturing another false claim yet again DavidL.
I do listening tests for years when developing a new product. I simply do the experiment accounting for the variables that others do not, such as pointed out concerning Olive's lack thereof.


Quote:
Olive's website showed that people are sight biased, that's all he was proving. Get the facts straight.


Again not true. Check out his first experiment at seanolive.blog, comparison of three Ipods.

http://seanolive.blogspot.com/2010/04/evaluating-sound-quality-of-ipod-music.html

Not one mention of any variables that I presented, such as exaggerated bass (among many others) which causes masking. It only takes one mistake to cause participants to change their responses and corrupt input data, almost always skewing the results toward no sonic difference (check my posts on page 13 as well). As one can see, a test can be skewed quite easily.


Quote:
Factors such as excessive bass, echoes, habituation to stimuli, cochlea fatigue, memory problems resulting from the time interval between initially hearing the reference until the ABs during testing were completed, manipulation etc. All slew towards no sonic difference.


Your comment concerning Olive

Quote:
Olive's website showed that people are sight biased, that's all he was proving


as seen above not possible since he does not account for other variables which would influence the results. So how can his conclusions accurate.


Quote:
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.


How would you know what is involved in "windows certification" unless you worked in the field. Hint: Hint:

As you conveniently left out, I wanted back up evidence before presenting to the Feds. A witness is always valuable.

As one can again see, DavidL cannot be trusted as demonstrated multiple times in this post, let alone in previous posts.

Cheers.

Ps. Maybe we can now continue on with a civilized discussion without the attacks.

Buddha
Buddha's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 1 month ago
Joined: Sep 8 2005 - 10:24am
Re: Acoustic Art Bowls: Science or ??????


Quote:

Quote:
Man, I spend a year or two not looking at the diarrhea you post and you nearly get run.

Awwww, Booodha!, I know you peaked, your kind always does.

Yeah, I 'peaked' in my 30's.

Buddha
Buddha's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 1 month ago
Joined: Sep 8 2005 - 10:24am
Re: Acoustic Art Bowls: Science or ??????


Quote:
DavidL's response post is from my post on page 14.


Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
Care to post some measurements via an oscilloscope showing audio signal flow through a power cord?

I don't need to waste my time using a scope unless you believe Kirchoff's current laws are suddenly suspended, or "conjecture". Interesting you believe in science until science disproves you. Signal grounds and AC power ground are connected together in 99.9% of components, so signal current flows through the power cord, proving you are 100% incorrect. So again you are wasting everyone's time by posting false information.


Quote:
I'm betting you can't. Did you bother to read the whole article I linked to? They discussed capacitance, resistance and inductance. So you can't show a difference on an amps outputs by simply changing the power cord to a "better" one?

What about peak currents that correlate to signal level, basic electronics. As usual you embarrass yourself once again. The subject was your gross inaccuracies about science, which I have disprove many times over. DBT shortly to follow.


Quote:
No references, no measurements, nothing? At least I post links, all you do is post conjecture.


Posting links proves nothing as I already demonstrated. And unfortunately for you the links you posted prove my point. I suggest that you take a basic course in electronics/engineering and learn about Kirchoff's voltage and current laws, which are not conjecture.


Quote:

If you wish to 'try" to prove my statements wrong then start a new thread. Your lack of DBT understanding is your "excuse" for not even doing one

Checking your links only substantiates that Dr. Olive did not covered any variables that I mentioned earlier. Of course this skews the subjects responses, thus corrupting the input data used in the dbt test. Thanks for the links arguing against yourself DavidL.


Quote:
You can't even seem to operate your computer for an innocent link without you shouting TROJAN!!!
May I suggest you take some computer courses at your local college?

Sorry but your last statement betrays your true motives. Clicking on your link has nothing to do with its operation, and the fact that you had to use this tatic demonstrates your dishonest demeanor to all. By the way, last night I had a computer guru (windows certified) verify my findings and am sending information off to the Federal Investigator I have been sending info to for the past two years.

By the way it is interesting that you claim science to attack others but when caught with your pants down, you attack science.

Cheers.

Ps. Dr. Olive works for a certain audio manufacturing group.


Quote:
Presenter Bio: Dr. Sean Olive, Harman International
Sean is Director of Acoustic Research for Harman International, a major manufacturer of audio products for consumer, professional and automotive spaces.

Instead of lynch mobbing a manufacturer, let's wait for some data to come in with a proper understanding of the pros and cons of that science.

--------------


Quote:
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.

I will be addressing DavidL's points but first, interesting that you claim science but

1) cannot provide any scientific evidence yourself just accusations in your posts.

2) JA and I have both commented on your lack of understanding of science, even very basic science such as not being able to read a schematic/wiring diagram

3) You claim science, which does measurements per definition, and yet not one experiment from you. You have had years to prove Kirchoff and me wrong, but have not. But you have plenty of time to attack others, including manufacturers on forums.

4) When it came to protecting real science or defending a "scientific" friend who was caught manipulating numbers, you defend the friend. (He was caught manipulating numbers to inflate the capacitance of Teo coax cable by 10 times the highest IC made, yet you defend your collegue by belittling science by stating

"blah blah blah",
"nothing important is being discussed", and
"Sasaudio I've read what you have to say here and in other posts and I'm not impressed". (I presented the scientific evidence)

So protecting consumers from deceptive posts is not important and doesn't impress you. I am sure the public will keep that in mind.

It is quite obvious that real science is just a cover and you have other main priorities.

By the way, read Network analysis, a university textbook, or google Kirchoff's voltage and current laws.


Quote:
You can't be bothered using a scope......because you know it won't show any signal through a power cord

And what setup should we use that you would not criticize? There is a much better way do demonstrate by using two different setups.

A) Connect all the input jack grounds (isolated from main chassis) together using one piece of 22 gauge wire, then 6" length to main ground point at the cathode/source of the active device.

B) Disconnect the jack grounds from each other and then use separate 6" pieces of wire from each jack ground to the same ground point.

Now connect a tuner, Cd player and other sources. Guess what folks.

In "A" setup with the selector switch in CD position, one can clearly hear the tuner "bleed" through. The 6" piece of common ground wire is all that is needed.

In "B" setup using separate 6" pieces of wire from each ground jack to "A" ground, no "bleed" through, dead quiet.

Proof positive that even a 6" common piece of ground wire, let alone feet, makes a musical difference.


Quote:

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.

Sorry but who says I don't do dbt listening testing? Manufacturing another false claim again DavidL.
I do listening tests for years when developing a new product. I simply do the experiment accounting for the variables that others do not, such as pointed out concerning Olive's lack thereof.


Quote:
Olive's website showed that people are sight biased, that's all he was proving. Get the facts straight.


Again not true. Check out his first experiment at seanolive.blog, comparison of three Ipods.

http://seanolive.blogspot.com/2010/04/evaluating-sound-quality-of-ipod-music.html

Not one mention of any variables that I presented, such as exaggerated bass (among many others) which causes masking. It only takes one mistake to cause participants to change their responses and corrupt input data, almost all skewing the results toward no sonic difference (check my posts on page 13 and 14). As one can see, a test can be skewed quite easily.


Quote:
Factors such as excessive bass, echoes, habituation to stimuli, cochlea fatigue, memory problems resulting from the time interval between initially hearing the reference until the ABs during testing were completed, manipulation etc. All slew towards no sonic difference.


Your comment concerning Olive

Quote:
Olive's website showed that people are sight biased, that's all he was proving


is of course ridiculous since he did not account for other variables which would influence the results. So how are any of his conclusions accurate.


Quote:
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.


As mentioned earlier, wanted back up evidence before presenting to the Feds. A witness is always valuable, and please describe the training necessary to become Windows Verified.

As one can again see, DavidL cannot be trusted as demonstrated multiple times in this post, let alone in previous posts.

Cheers.

Ps. Maybe we can now continue on with a civilized discussion without the attacks.

"As one can again see, David L cannot be trusted as demonstrated multiple times in this post, let alone in previous posts. "

Yet, Ted is trustworthy?

Has Ted demonstrated satisfactory levels of AC power cord knowledge? Where is his answer?

If David L is not qualified to question Ted, who is?

You imply you are. So, on behalf of David L, would you ask Ted these questions and attach david L's questions, too? David L probably won't mind using you as a mediary, especially given how thoroughly you go about vetting those who wish to ask these questions!

Bummer, David L is "not qualified" to ask about when or if measurements will be done.

Hey, wait a minute. Just to be complete...can I please see you certificate of empowerment to deny David L the ability to request data?

Don't make me 'quote' you again, SAS, the server will crash!

SAS Audio
SAS Audio's picture
Offline
Last seen: 9 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: Jun 6 2007 - 6:56am
Re: Acoustic Art Bowls: Science or ??????


Quote:
"As one can again see, David L cannot be trusted as demonstrated multiple times in this post, let alone in previous posts. "

Yet, Ted is trustworthy?

Has Ted demonstrated satisfactory levels of AC power cord knowledge? Where is his answer?

If David L is not qualified to question Ted, who is?

Bummer, David L is "not qualified" to ask about when or if measurements will be done.

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.

Buddha
Buddha's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 1 month ago
Joined: Sep 8 2005 - 10:24am
Re: Acoustic Art Bowls: Science or ??????


Quote:

You are missing the point Buddha. DavidL has posted false and misleading information himself which is what is being addressed. That is all I am addressing and nothing more.

So it is ok for DavidL but not for Ted?

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?

SAS Audio
SAS Audio's picture
Offline
Last seen: 9 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: Jun 6 2007 - 6:56am
Re: Acoustic Art Bowls: Science or ??????


Quote:

Quote:

You are missing the point Buddha. DavidL has posted false and misleading information himself which is what is being addressed. That is all I am addressing and nothing more.

So it is ok for DavidL but not for Ted?

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.

I agree Buddha.


Quote:
(Which Ethan identified first, as you well recall.)

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.


Quote:
It's not OK for David L to post false and misleading information. I'm with you, there, too!

Thanks Buddha.


Quote:
Now, where is it written that David L is posting false or misleading information when he requests the measurements he feels he was promised.


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.

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


Quote:

Quote:
Quote: BTW, did you know that cows who have names give more milk than cows that are nameless?

And how would they know this? By taking the word of someone selling cow names?

Only if they claimed more milk was produced but there was no measurable increase in milk as a result, dude. What would you expect as proof?

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?

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!

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


Quote:
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?

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.

Buddha
Buddha's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 1 month ago
Joined: Sep 8 2005 - 10:24am
Re: Acoustic Art Bowls: Science or Seance????

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?

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

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.

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

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

Editor
Editor's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 1 day ago
Joined: Sep 1 2005 - 8:56am
Re: Acoustic Art Bowls: Science or ??????


Quote:
How about testing the damn bowls already JA?

Having too much fun watching you all spin your wheels :-)

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

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

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

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


Quote:

Quote:
How about testing the damn bowls already JA?

Having too much fun watching you all spin your wheels :-)

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

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.

Editor
Editor's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 1 day ago
Joined: Sep 1 2005 - 8:56am
Re: Acoustic Art Bowls: Science or ??????


Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
How about testing the damn bowls already JA?

Having too much fun watching you all spin your wheels :-)

So you COULD test them but just don't give a damn Way to go!

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

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

I trust Tom Nousaine for reliable tests and reviews and yes for the humor I come here and argue with the inmates

Buddha
Buddha's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 1 month ago
Joined: Sep 8 2005 - 10:24am
Re: Acoustic Art Bowls: Science or ??????

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?

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


Quote:
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

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