You are here

Log in or register to post comments
Buddha
Buddha's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 9 months ago
Joined: Sep 8 2005 - 10:24am
Re: Acoustic Art Bowls: Science or ??????

Well, now there's no telling where they are in all our crap!

He has a link at his website for the product.

If you can't find it, I'll help out.

SAS Audio
SAS Audio's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 months 1 week ago
Joined: Jun 6 2007 - 6:56am
Re: Acoustic Art Bowls: Science or ??????


Quote:
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

Maybe I should be a prophet.


Quote:
And what setup and tests should we use that you would Not criticize?

We just witnessed my prophecy.

1) I see you conveniently left out, yet again, that I perform listening tests for months or years before releasing a product.

I list and take into account scientific variables that "others" do not account for (I wonder why?) and which slew the outcome in both accuracy and sensitivity. Any variable (let alone multiple variables) that causes the subjects to guess in a 50/50, 60/40, or 70/30 manner is a matter of concern, except for David L.

2) The experiment uses a 6" wire in the ground circuit, just like the power cord ground wire.
So your criticism is groundless. Why don't you perform the test yourself. You have hours to argue with others.

But I think we all knew what your reaction would be to such scientific evidence.

As I stated earlier, I must be a prophet concerning David L's reaction.

Cheers.

geoffkait
geoffkait's picture
Online
Last seen: 6 min 24 sec ago
Joined: Apr 29 2008 - 5:10am
Re: Acoustic Art Bowls: Science or ??????

More Nobel lg Prizes

ACOUSTICS: D. Lynn Halpern (of Harvard Vanguard Medical Associates, and Brandeis University, and Northwestern University), Randolph Blake (of Vanderbilt University and Northwestern University) and James Hillenbrand (of Western Michigan University and Northwestern University) for conducting experiments to learn why people dislike the sound of fingernails scraping on a blackboard. Psychoacoustics.

NUTRITION PRIZE. Massimiliano Zampini of the University of Trento, Italy and Charles Spence of Oxford University, UK, for electronically modifying the sound of a potato chip to make the person chewing the chip believe it to be crisper and fresher than it really is.

NUTRITION: Brian Wansink of Cornell University, for exploring the seemingly boundless appetites of human beings, by feeding them with a self-refilling, bottomless bowl of soup.

PSYCHOLOGY
Daniel Simons of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and Christopher Chabris of Harvard University, for demonstrating that when people pay close attention to something, it's all too easy to overlook anything else -- even a woman in a gorilla suit.

PHYSICS
Jack Harvey, John Culvenor, Warren Payne, Steve Cowley, Michael Lawrance, David Stuart, and Robyn Williams of Australia, for their irresistible report "An Analysis of the Forces Required to Drag Sheep over Various Surfaces."

PEACE: Claire Rind and Peter Simmons of Newcastle University, in the U.K., for electrically monitoring the activity of a brain cell in a locust while that locust was watching selected highlights from the movie "Star Wars."

Buddha
Buddha's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 9 months ago
Joined: Sep 8 2005 - 10:24am
Re: Acoustic Art Bowls: Science or ??????

Man, with the bar so low, where are the Hi Fi guys?

Beat out by a chip cripser?

Those Nobels must almost be begging to be picked up!

Now it's even sadder.

Hey, did The Aamzing Randi buy one yet!

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


Quote:
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.

Please don't be that guy that goes around street corners wearing a tin foil hat, shouting about the government taking over our minds. I think that's more David's domain, and he'll just fight you over turf. You're pretty good when you get a fire in your belly, but I doubt you can out-"crazy rant" him. I can explain my own "mysterious appearance here" because I am the son of David Copperfield. Or David Blain. I'm not sure, my mother doesn't remember. Actually, there's a much less crazier explanation, but I doubt it will satisfy the tin-foil hat brigade. I own an ART system. Didn't think of that one, eh?

I saw a bit of the mess that was going on last year concerning the Arts, but did not feel to get involved in it at the time. I felt the environment was just way too hostile to hope to engage in a reasonable conversation, and I did not wish to waste my time. More recently, I came back and read what I saw as a lot of misunderstandings and misrepresentations of the ART (deliberate or otherwise). It seemed no one who was discussing the system actually tried it, and some people were wanting to hear from those who have. So I thought I could contribute something. I'm not even sure I have the time or inclination to get involved now to be honest, and I know I don't have the time to cover much else, but at least I'm trying. Sorry if I'm talking too much on the subject of audio for you though!

As for the "David L." rant where he says "17 posts and ALL you post about is the magic little bowls!!", well it's bad enough to lie about someone. It reveals more of a pathological problem in David however, when the lie is easily disproven, and the truth is a click away. A simple check on my history shows about half of those 17 posts is on other subjects. I probably have more messages not about the ART in those 17 he refers to, than this "David L" troll has in his ~150 post history of exclusively attacking the system on this forum! As for being "so interested" in this troll "to the exclusion of other audio talk up until now", I have in fact avoided responding to it, and spoken quite at length about audio. But let's not let the facts get in the way of a good rant! I'm sure I have no idea what "Geoffie terminology" is.


Quote:
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?

Because I don't share your prejudices toward certain audio manufacturers, nor your rather contradictory beliefs about how "easy it is" for them to become validated in scientific pursuits.


Quote:
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.

It is, I'm learning things about audio all the time. My interest in audio is really maintained, if not driven, by things like the ART. And for me, these are not things that come along very often. With this curious device alone, there are so many things I want to try, that I just haven't gotten around to yet. (But I will eventually). I did not see your question about differences in recordings as confronational at all. In fact, I think I agree that some products bring out some aspects of some recordings, when I laid out the example of the cable with a 10k peak. I did not actually say "loss of gain" but "more loss than gain". What I meant by that is simply that after living with them for a while, I was more able to notice the "loss" of their presence, as the sound collapsed in upon itself with the removal of the ART system. More than I was aware of their presence, once I got used to the sound of my system with the ART in place. I'll try to look at examples for you of "laying the effect bare" when I sit down and make an effort to try to assess them "analytically", and write down my observations. If there's anything else you think I should focus on during the review session, by all means, let me know, and I will try to include it.

Buddha
Buddha's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 9 months ago
Joined: Sep 8 2005 - 10:24am
Re: Acoustic Art Bowls: Science or ??????

Cool.

I happen to 'believe' that noticing a difference when a product is removed is a more powerful observation that claiming to have noticed a difference when it was put it. Even it is hard to put in words, so thank you for the observation.

David L has you 150 to 17, eh?

Hell, you're only one-ninth the troll he is!

I guess to be fair, we'd have to divide number of posts by days of membership, but it's late. I pronounce you a more interesting troll than David L - - You'll talk about product and what you hear!

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


Quote:
You see the Tchang system as modified Helmholtz resonators? From reading the articles geoff linked to I wouldn't describe his thinking as having much to do with Helmholtz principles. Mr. Tchang would appear to be more interested in manipulating the "force" as he would call it. While Ted mentions Tibetan bowls as one of his inspirations, I don't get the idea they are both coming at the issue from the same starting point.

Sorry, I have not gotten around to reading the articles Geoff linked yet. I agree, in that I think that they both started at very different points, and both developed their systems independently. But to me, they look like the same sort of product, and look to work in a similar manner. Much like different turntable designers take different approaches, but the basic concept is the same. It appears Franck doesn't say his resonators are a modification of Helmholtz principles, but then, he doesn't seem to say anything concrete on the principles they are based on. Instead, he uses somewhat philosophical terms, like "the force" (by which I would presume he is referring to acoustic energy carried by air), and these descriptions:

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

I think the decision to get into the realm of audio, which James Randi knows zip all about, probably had a lot to do with the yo-boys on his JREF forums. Particularly one boy named "Kramer". Not the "hipster dufus" on Seinfeld, but more of a dufus dufus. So Randi gets himself involved in something he knows nothing about, and turns to his audio flunkies to tell him what's what. Like when he wants to know what an "interconnect" is. Examples abound about what a scam the JREF turns out to be in the end, in case histories of both audio claims and parapsychology claims. Their bad faith negotiations, their intellectual dishonest, their dishonesty dishonesty, their deceptive manipulations, their unfounded defamations, and the biggest sleaziest scammer of all, that is James Randi. Who is a self-professed expert at deceiving people because he's well practiced at it. You know, if people even bothered to ask what "JREF" stands for, they'd stay the heck away. (It stands for "James Randi's Everlasting Fraud").

Orb
Orb's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: May 28 2009 - 12:51am
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

It is quite amazing I agree and I would say many others do as well, quite possibly some of those posting if they look back.

I think this has turned into the biggest wreck I have ever seen on Stereohphile forums, and that is saying something

My word of the week for what I have seen in this thread recently:
Intransigent

Cheers
Orb

Edited for spelling.

tomjtx
tomjtx's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: Nov 12 2006 - 2:53pm
Re: Acoustic Art Bowls: Science or ??????

Orb,
Did you mean to write: intransigent? as in "unwilling to budge from a position taken ?

How dare you!

You think that the Stereophile denizens ,I mean members are unwilling to consider a viewpoint other than their own ?

I am hurt you have so little faith.
Now where did I put that popcorn?

Orb
Orb's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: May 28 2009 - 12:51am
Re: Acoustic Art Bowls: Science or ??????

Hehe oops and thanks for noticing; early morning missing out a character or two
Yes, the latter part of this thread has inspired me with that word

Apologies to all those offended
Cheers
Orbs

geoffkait
geoffkait's picture
Online
Last seen: 6 min 24 sec ago
Joined: Apr 29 2008 - 5:10am
Re: Acoustic Art Bowls: Science or ??????


Quote:
I think the decision to get into the realm of audio, which James Randi knows zip all about, probably had a lot to do with the yo-boys on his JREF forums. Particularly one boy named "Kramer". Not the "hipster dufus" on Seinfeld, but more of a dufus dufus. So Randi gets himself involved in something he knows nothing about, and turns to his audio flunkies to tell him what's what. Like when he wants to know what an "interconnect" is. Examples abound about what a scam the JREF turns out to be in the end, in case histories of both audio claims and parapsychology claims. Their bad faith negotiations, their intellectual dishonest, their dishonesty dishonesty, their deceptive manipulations, their unfounded defamations, and the biggest sleaziest scammer of all, that is James Randi. Who is a self-professed expert at deceiving people because he's well practiced at it. You know, if people even bothered to ask what "JREF" stands for, they'd stay the heck away. (It stands for "James Randi's Everlasting Fraud").

Kramer? Oh, you mean the former Butthole Surfer? I know which dufus you mean.

I blush to think I was the subject of five (count 'em) Randi Swift Reports.

Audio flunkies? I don't think he has any audio flunkies on board, only rabid, overreaching "skeptics."

Elk
Elk's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 months 1 week ago
Joined: Dec 26 2006 - 6:32am
Re: Acoustic Art Bowls: Science or ??????


Quote:
The pebbles are straightforward physics.


Geoff, you may have already replied as I am going through five or so new pages of the thread - but can you explain the physics of your pebbles?

I don't recall seeing such an explanation before.

geoffkait
geoffkait's picture
Online
Last seen: 6 min 24 sec ago
Joined: Apr 29 2008 - 5:10am
Re: Acoustic Art Bowls: Science or ??????


Quote:

Quote:
The pebbles are straightforward physics.


Geoff, you may have already replied as I am going through five or so new pages of the thread - but can you explain the physics of your pebbles?

I don't recall seeing such an explanation before.

That's OK, you might have missed it on my web site. It has only been there 7 years.

[ Power to the Pebble

Elk
Elk's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 months 1 week ago
Joined: Dec 26 2006 - 6:32am
Re: Acoustic Art Bowls: Science or ??????

Great response, Eric!

Thanks for putting in the work. Very interesting and exactly what I was hoping to learn.


Quote:
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!


Very true!


Quote:
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. ... 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.

Intriguing.

Do you find that carpeting, stuffed furniture and other room objects also causes this deadening?

I am not being facetious. The only room that I have seriously treated with absorbing panels is my studio. It is drywall, four windows and a cherry wood floor. Without treatment it is an absolutely mess - almost no imaging, lumpy bass, etc. Even throwing a Karastan wool rug on the floor made a huge improvement.

I'm still moving things around and working to dial in the sound, but I haven't sensed any downside to the acoustic treatment - but perhaps this is an extreme example.


Quote:
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.


Very helpful! The system replaces absorption, but only in the sense that it is an alternative. Nicely explained.


Quote:
Those ingredients weave together musical elements and help differentiate it from noise.

I think you have probably done the best you can already, but I still have to ask : Can you describe this? Can you explain more what you mean by "refinement?"


Quote:
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.

This is fair.

Any sense as to the limit of the size of the room that will response to the Acoustic ART products?

Elk
Elk's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 months 1 week ago
Joined: Dec 26 2006 - 6:32am
Re: Acoustic Art Bowls: Science or ??????


Quote:
That's OK, you might have missed it on my web site. It has only been there 7 years.

[ Power to the Pebble


Sorry, haven't been digging around on your site.

Here's a fixed link: clicky

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


Quote:

Quote:
So Randi gets himself involved in something he knows nothing about, and turns to his audio flunkies to tell him what's what. Like when he wants to know what an "interconnect" is. Examples abound about what a scam the JREF turns out to be in the end, in case histories of both audio claims and parapsychology claims. Their bad faith negotiations, their intellectual dishonest, their dishonesty dishonesty, their deceptive manipulations, their unfounded defamations, and the biggest sleaziest scammer of all, that is James Randi. Who is a self-professed expert at deceiving people because he's well practiced at it.

I blush to think I was the subject of five (count 'em) Randi Swift Reports.

Always worth reading Art Dudley's thoughts on the subject of Mr. Amazing: http://www.stereophile.com/artdudleylistening/1104listening/index1.html - scroll down the page to get to the section subheaded "The Amazing Artie."

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

geoffkait
geoffkait's picture
Online
Last seen: 6 min 24 sec ago
Joined: Apr 29 2008 - 5:10am
Re: Acoustic Art Bowls: Science or ??????


Quote:

Quote:
That's OK, you might have missed it on my web site. It has only been there 7 years.

[ Power to the Pebble


Sorry, haven't been digging around on your site.

Here's a fixed link: clicky

Good catch with the link. And I can certainly understand why you would not have any interest digging around on my site.

geoffkait
geoffkait's picture
Online
Last seen: 6 min 24 sec ago
Joined: Apr 29 2008 - 5:10am
Re: Acoustic Art Bowls: Science or ??????


Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
So Randi gets himself involved in something he knows nothing about, and turns to his audio flunkies to tell him what's what. Like when he wants to know what an "interconnect" is. Examples abound about what a scam the JREF turns out to be in the end, in case histories of both audio claims and parapsychology claims. Their bad faith negotiations, their intellectual dishonest, their dishonesty dishonesty, their deceptive manipulations, their unfounded defamations, and the biggest sleaziest scammer of all, that is James Randi. Who is a self-professed expert at deceiving people because he's well practiced at it.

I blush to think I was the subject of five (count 'em) Randi Swift Reports.

Always worth reading Art Dudley's thoughts on the subject of Mr. Amazing: http://www.stereophile.com/artdudleylistening/1104listening/index1.html - scroll down the page to get to the section subheaded "The Amazing Artie."

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

One wonders if he ever considered changing his name from Zwinge to Twinge, as in Twinge of the Death Nerve.

Thanks for the link. (I won't mention the link at the bottom of the page to your article on the Tice Clock and Belt items, heh heh).

Elk
Elk's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 months 1 week ago
Joined: Dec 26 2006 - 6:32am
Re: Acoustic Art Bowls: Science or ??????


Quote:
And I can certainly understand why you would not have any interest digging around on my site.


Why?

You told me I would find information there that answered my question. I was happy to take a look, and obviously did; otherwise I wouldn't be able to fix the link.

I similarly have read what Synergistics has posted regarding is Acoustic ART products.

I'm a curious critter.

returnstackerror
returnstackerror's picture
Offline
Last seen: 8 months 4 days ago
Joined: May 17 2007 - 8:32pm
Re: Acoustic Art Bowls: Science or ??????


Quote:
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. ... 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.

Over the last year I have been outfitting my dedicated room (was designed as part of a new house build).

So instead of dismantling my room (as in the case of Eric) I have been building up slowly and listening for the point where it all turns to custard (via temporary installing of absorbent material and then testing)

My room is recently completed and some might consider it overdamped but to my ears that

Buddha
Buddha's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 9 months ago
Joined: Sep 8 2005 - 10:24am
Re: Acoustic Art Bowls: Science or ??????


Quote:


Quote:
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. ... 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.

Over the last year I have been outfitting my dedicated room (was designed as part of a new house build).

So instead of dismantling my room (as in the case of Eric) I have been building up slowly and listening for the point where it all turns to custard (via temporary installing of absorbent material and then testing)

My room is recently completed and some might consider it overdamped but to my ears that

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

So you've done SO many DBT have you? Care to show any links or published reports on said DBT you have done? I won't hold my breath

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


Quote:
As for the "David L." rant where he says "17 posts and ALL you post about is the magic little bowls!!", well it's bad enough to lie about someone. It reveals more of a pathological problem in David however, when the lie is easily disproven, and the truth is a click away. A simple check on my history shows about half of those 17 posts is on other subjects. I probably have more messages not about the ART in those 17 he refers to, than this "David L" troll has in his ~150 post history of exclusively attacking the system on this forum!

Gosh you know what? If you had cared to check my posts you would have seen that mine aren't all about the ART bowls either Me thinks you protest way too much NOT to be a shill of Ted's

SAS Audio
SAS Audio's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 months 1 week ago
Joined: Jun 6 2007 - 6:56am
Re: Acoustic Art Bowls: Science or ??????


Quote:
So you've done SO many DBT have you? Care to show any links or published reports on said DBT you have done? I won't hold my breath

1) I see you, for how many times, conveniently left out what I stated.


Quote:
that I perform listening tests for months or years before releasing a product.


For my products, not others. Another deception does not enhance your credibility David L.

2) And we already know you, Olive and who knows who else has not accounted for the assorted variables, known for years , I brought up in previous posts. Of course this means subjective audio dbt test's accuracy are suspect at best. I would have to lean towards JA's methodology.

3) In past posts, we also caught you changing positions per different strings, first claiming science then denying science to defend a friend. The point is you changed positions first for and then against science, so your claim of wanting science/proof is bogus.

4) We all have seen you caught, by me and JA, not understanding even basic electronics/science. This includes reading/understanding even a basic schematic, or portion thereof.

5) I predicted no matter what evidence was presented, you would deny it, and sure enough the accusations started flying. You even attempted to discredit Kirchoff's voltage and current laws as existing. So again your demand for proof/science is bogus.

There is an abundance of evidence demonstrating your lack of any expertise, honesty and trustworthiness. It is becoming increasingly evident to me that you not here seeking any truth but simply an agenda.

I do not see the need to continue. However, if you wish to embarrass yourself further, that is your decision.

Cheers.

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:
So you've done SO many DBT have you? Care to show any links or published reports on said DBT you have done? I won't hold my breath

1) I see you, for how many times, conveniently left out what I stated.


Quote:
that I perform listening tests for months or years before releasing a product.


For my products, not others. Another deception does not enhance your credibility David L.

2) And we already know you, Olive and who knows who else has not accounted for the assorted variables, known for years , I brought up in previous posts. Of course this means subjective audio dbt test's accuracy are suspect at best. I would have to lean towards JA's methodology.

3) In past posts, we also caught you changing positions per different strings, first claiming science then denying science to defend a friend. The point is you changed positions first for and then against science, so your claim of wanting science/proof is bogus.

4) We all have seen you caught, by me and JA, not understanding even basic electronics/science. This includes reading/understanding even a basic schematic, or portion thereof.

5) I predicted no matter what evidence was presented, you would deny it, and sure enough the accusations started flying. You even attempted to discredit Kirchoff's voltage and current laws as existing. So again your demand for proof/science is bogus.

There is an abundance of evidence demonstrating your lack of any expertise, honesty and trustworthiness. It is becoming increasingly evident to me that you not here seeking any truth but simply an agenda.

I do not see the need to continue. However, if you wish to embarrass yourself further, that is your decision.

Cheers.

I ASKED about the DBTs you supposedly have done .....
"Sorry but who says I don't do dbt listening testing? Manufacturing another false claim yet again DavidL."

So you said you do DBTs but can't supply any results
but then again most of what you have posted are lies or half truths with ZERO work shown. Come on guy fess up that your only agenda here is to "try" to make me look foolish when in fact it's you that can't even prove your own claims to power cords. if you think this is upsetting me becuse you think you are showing me up then just keep hitting on that joint and feeling the good vibes crazy dude The only one thinking you are being so intelligent is your own lil mind

MY agenda is showing just how much BS Ted and his shills spew on here trying to support a wacko product ( his magic bowls). Hey if you want to continue being the complete asshole you have been showing the world lately then be my guest. I guess you like feeling "superior" by thinking I don't know anything about electronics. From what I've seen on here, you don't know squat and frankly I don't give a damn what you think about me

Your lack of posting anything credible and taking the thread away from Ted's bowls shows just how desperate you are for attention Please try to get out more and have a real life, it might clear up your neurosis.

SAS Audio
SAS Audio's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 months 1 week ago
Joined: Jun 6 2007 - 6:56am
Re: Acoustic Art Bowls: Science or ??????


Quote:
Come on guy fess up that your only agenda here is to "try" to make me look foolish when in fact it's you that can't even prove your own claims to power cords.

All one has to do is check out my previous posts providing science and links.

The A, B 6" piece of wire experiment has the wire in the ground path just like the ground wire in the power cord. By David L's logic although the 6" wire allows for sound changes as the experiment demonstrated, magically the 6 foot ground wire in the AC cord cannot. And Kirchoff's voltage and current laws (a first semester engineering topic) supports me as well, which you doesn't believe in either. So while you claim science, you push magic.

And we see that I explained, in my previous post, that I test only my products, but David L conveniently leaves that out. I explain and even quote from David L himself. And of course he sidestepped the other remaining points I listed.

See what I mean by not trusting David L.

Goodbye David L.

Cheers.

Buddha
Buddha's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 9 months ago
Joined: Sep 8 2005 - 10:24am
Re: Acoustic Art Bowls: Science or ??????

SAS, so what's your theory on the science of the bowls?

You may have said, and I lost it in the thread.

I'm in the resonator camp.

SAS Audio
SAS Audio's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 months 1 week ago
Joined: Jun 6 2007 - 6:56am
Re: Acoustic Art Bowls: Science or ??????


Quote:
SAS, so what's your theory on the science of the bowls?

You may have said, and I lost it in the thread.

I'm in the resonator camp.

Who knows for sure? I want to see JA's findings.

(Not to you Buddha.) I have had to wait up to 2 years to get a review in a magazine. It can be frustrating to say the least; but let's cut JA some slack since he has to work with a schedule of reviews and duties.

Cheers.

Freako
Freako's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: Jan 17 2010 - 8:29am
Re: Acoustic Art Bowls: Science or ??????


Quote:


Quote:
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. ... 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.

Over the last year I have been outfitting my dedicated room (was designed as part of a new house build).

So instead of dismantling my room (as in the case of Eric) I have been building up slowly and listening for the point where it all turns to custard (via temporary installing of absorbent material and then testing)

My room is recently completed and some might consider it overdamped but to my ears that

geoffkait
geoffkait's picture
Online
Last seen: 6 min 24 sec ago
Joined: Apr 29 2008 - 5:10am
Re: Acoustic Art Bowls: Science or ??????


Quote:

Quote:
And I can certainly understand why you would not have any interest digging around on my site.


Why?

You told me I would find information there that answered my question. I was happy to take a look, and obviously did; otherwise I wouldn't be able to fix the link.

I similarly have read what Synergistics has posted regarding is Acoustic ART products.

I'm a curious critter.

Odd, most folks react to the explanation for the pebbles a little bit, anyway. I guess everything must be copacetic in Elk-ville.

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:
Come on guy fess up that your only agenda here is to "try" to make me look foolish when in fact it's you that can't even prove your own claims to power cords.

All one has to do is check out my previous posts providing science and links.

The A, B 6" piece of wire experiment has the wire in the ground path just like the ground wire in the power cord. By David L's logic although the 6" wire allows for sound changes as the experiment demonstrated, magically the 6 foot ground wire in the AC cord cannot. And Kirchoff's voltage and current laws (a first semester engineering topic) supports me as well, which you doesn't believe in either. So while you claim science, you push magic.

And we see that I explained, in my previous post, that I test only my products, but David L conveniently leaves that out. I explain and even quote from David L himself. And of course he sidestepped the other remaining points I listed.

See what I mean by not trusting David L.

Goodbye David L.

Cheers.

You're a champion at doing double-speak SAS. What links are you talking about? You provided NONE. Your silly little "scientific" example with the 6 inch wire is pure conjecture like all of your posts. There I uses a smirk like you do so I'll feel superior You keep bringing up Kirchoff's voltage and current laws and talking down to me like I don't know what they are. For your info, I graduated from college taking my main course in electronics with a 4.0 grade average. I have worked in the electronic repair business since then in the car audio, computer monitor, computers and home audio repair. I have designed and built my own home speakers including acoustic measurements using the Laud Audio Suite, Calsod and numerous other software. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news to you since you are so sure that I'm a dolt

So you test for your own products only big deal. You said you did DBTs yet you refuse to show any proof that you have. Ahhhhh I see that you also sell power cords, no wonder you don't like people saying they can't effect the amps measurements on the outputs You refuse to show any proof period yet you claim I'm the one bouncing back and forth between science and magic. I think you're looking in the mirror and have mistaken your own image as the source of your problems see another smirk, wow don't I look smart now just like you?

See what I mean now by not trusting SAS

Goodbye SAS

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


Quote:
I have a feeling it's easier to get good results with absorption, when listening near field. The absorption can be placed further away from the speakers, and thus improve the near field listening.

To each their own but you're certainly missing eric's point regarding absorption's effects.

SAS Audio
SAS Audio's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 months 1 week ago
Joined: Jun 6 2007 - 6:56am
Re: Acoustic Art Bowls: Science or ??????


Quote:

You're a champion at doing double-speak SAS. What links are you talking about? You provided NONE.

Check past posts again. With your false charges against me, I suggest you take some engineering courses. I suggest you google Kirchoff's laws, Thevenin equivalent circuit analysis, Network Analysis university text book, RCA Radiotron Designers Handbook (written by 26 RCA engineers) etc etc etc, sources to learn from.


Quote:
Your silly little "scientific" example with the 6 inch wire is pure conjecture like all of your posts.


Experiment actually performed and "bleeding" clearly heard from farthest position in room. That is not conjecture but proof positive. Jneutron (worked magnetics at Fermi and worked at Brookhaven National Laboratories) discussed signal current through the power cord ground wire on AVS forum. By the way, years ago I saw some older components where the selector control switched both input jack wires, hot and ground wires from the input jacks. (By the way if we presented measurements, David L would still call us cheaters.)

Why don't you do the experiment yourself; that is right you don't have too (and can't). Now everyone finds out you simply screw people by manipulating your "science".


Quote:
For your info, I graduated from college taking my main course in electronics with a 4.0 grade average.

Hmmmmm. Kirchoff's current law is basic first semester, before one ever designs a basic circuit. I = E/R is even simpler. Current (I) equals voltage (E) divided by resistance (R).

We have three return ground legs for signal current, right and left interconnect cable (IC) shields and the power cord ground wires/wall wiring.

Here is a test. Leave your 3 pronged power cord components plugged in but turned off. Disconnect the ICs between them. Now measure the ohmage across the two component jacks with your ohmmeter, the extremely low resistance. That is because the grounds are connected together and signal current will flow between them. Or one could easily have read and understood a basic schematic David L.

David L has a problem though as he stated on page 13.

Quote:
As I see it, the audio ground signal paths between components is very short compared to the path from chassis ground, through the power cord, to earth ground sooooooo, since current travels through the path of least resistance, the audio signal does NOT travel through a power cord ground at all.

I see you are learning how to reactively respond. If the signal travels through the ICs from component "A" to component "B", the return path (closed loop) is directly back to component "A", which includes power cord (PC) ground wire. Component grounds are connected together via IC shields and power cord ground wire. This is basic first weeks electronics David L.

With NO signal current through the power cord ground wires, the power cord ground wires would have to have infinite resistance. So by your lack of basic understanding the ground wires also won't protect in case of a short.

Since the ground wires and IC shields are connected together, your comment manages to magically defeat the most basic laws of science.

The signal current ratios through the three ground returns, left/right shields and power cord ground are inversely proportional to their resistances and inductances. Since power cords and wall wiring use large wires, a few feet has very little resistance.

David L claims science but is just like the other "Scientific" types who have attempted to manipulate consumer sentiment. Just look at the Niteshade and Teo Cables threads to see this "steering" by manipulation of the numbers.


Quote:
So you test for your own products only big deal. You said you did DBTs yet you refuse to show any proof that you have.


I can't do dbts on my own products, preamplifier vs no preamplifier in the audio system?

It is quite obvious that I presented science in my posts.

Yet David L cannot understand a schematic, nor Kirchoff's laws, nor Thevenin equivalent circuits, doesn't understand basic I=E/R, doesn't understand a Basic Loop Circuit, and JA has already stated your lack of science understanding.
Yet David L now suddenly claims to have a 4.0 average in college electronics.

As one can see, David L is hardly to be trusted by his lack of understanding and changing positions.

It will be good to see JA, or his 3rd party selection, present his finding on the Art bowls, someone we can trust.

Cheers and goodbye.

smejias
smejias's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 8 months ago
Joined: Aug 25 2005 - 10:29am
Re: Acoustic Art Bowls: Science or ??????

SAS, DavidL: I thought you guys were done with each other.

SAS Audio
SAS Audio's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 months 1 week ago
Joined: Jun 6 2007 - 6:56am
Re: Acoustic Art Bowls: Science or ??????


Quote:
SAS, DavidL: I thought you guys were done with each other.

I had signed off this string after providing evidence, but if you notice my last post, I had to correct David's obvious lack of understanding in even basic science, despite his now education claims. Please tell him to stop as I was quite willing to.

This is my last post Stephen.

Cheers.

Elk
Elk's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 months 1 week ago
Joined: Dec 26 2006 - 6:32am
Re: Acoustic Art Bowls: Science or ??????


Quote:
My speakers are installed along the "long" wall and I listen near field.... so to a very high degree between long wall/near field and lots of absorption, I have eliminated the room.

I would suspect that Eric listens "far field" and enjoys that perspective... so I wonder how effective the bowls are in a near field situation?


Great post, Peter.

As Buddha notes, this adds a great additional question.

I would also be interested in any trials involving combining absorption and the bowls.

Elk
Elk's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 months 1 week ago
Joined: Dec 26 2006 - 6:32am
Re: Acoustic Art Bowls: Science or ??????


Quote:
I have a feeling it's easier to get good results with absorption, when listening near field. The absorption can be placed further away from the speakers, and thus improve the near field listening. I have no scientific proof though, just an idea.


Interesting thought.

Are you thinking that there would be less interaction between the sound and the absorption under these circumstances, while at the same time the room itself is receiving the benefits of treatment?

Elk
Elk's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 months 1 week ago
Joined: Dec 26 2006 - 6:32am
Re: Acoustic Art Bowls: Science or ??????


Quote:
Odd, most folks react to the explanation for the pebbles a little bit, anyway. I guess everything must be copacetic in Elk-ville.


Hi, Geoff

I have a reaction indeed, but its not productive to share it.

I honestly enjoy your creativity however. I mean this sincerely, not mockingly. I like that you, May and others are out there, plugging away, and that you are willing to share your thoughts and ideas.

Freako
Freako's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: Jan 17 2010 - 8:29am
Re: Acoustic Art Bowls: Science or ??????


Quote:

Quote:
I have a feeling it's easier to get good results with absorption, when listening near field. The absorption can be placed further away from the speakers, and thus improve the near field listening. I have no scientific proof though, just an idea.


Interesting thought.

Are you thinking that there would be less interaction between the sound and the absorption under these circumstances, while at the same time the room itself is receiving the benefits of treatment?

Exactly what I thought, yes! Brilliantly formulated

geoffkait
geoffkait's picture
Online
Last seen: 6 min 24 sec ago
Joined: Apr 29 2008 - 5:10am
Re: Acoustic Art Bowls: Science or ??????


Quote:

Quote:
Odd, most folks react to the explanation for the pebbles a little bit, anyway. I guess everything must be copacetic in Elk-ville.


Hi, Geoff

I have a reaction indeed, but its not productive to share it.

I honestly enjoy your creativity however. I mean this sincerely, not mockingly. I like that you, May and others are out there, plugging away, and that you are willing to share your thoughts and ideas.

How thoughtful of you. And I like that you are so open minded in these matters. Also that you are out there plugging away.

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


Quote:
Do you find that carpeting, stuffed furniture and other room objects also causes this deadening?

Yes, I think think some absorption, in the form of rugs, stuffed furniture can help, in a room with no absorptive objects.
(There's a nice basic tutorial on room acoustics here from Snell: http://www.enjoythemusic.com/magazine/manufacture/0502/ )

Even if it didn't help, I would never get rid of basic essential items in a home listening room, like a rug and furniture. Living takes precedence over audio. But beyond that, the objects you use are going to have their own influence on the sound. Even among different manufacturers of acoustic treatments, you can hear differences in different absorptive panels or diffusers, when you seriously compare their influence on your sound. Regardless of the measurements they show you. I find that there's often a trade-off of some sort to be made, whether with electronic components or acoustics. But I think in being swept by the improvements, we might tend to not notice the detriments that came along with that. But the more objects introduced into the room which carry these detriments, the greater the detriment. That was my problem, and one I hadn't noticed, because the (acoustic) objects were brought in over time, and I had not thought to look deeply at all aspects of how my sound changed.

A good test for me to focus on this sort of thing, is the old audiophile stand-by, Proprius' "Jazz At The Pawnshop" record/cd. (I have both). When you wish to go beyond the foundations of imaging and bass, it can serve as an excellent test for timing and timbre. The timbre on the clarinet (?) solo in that piece can change a thousand different ways, depending on what you bring into the room, and where you put it. The timing (set by the guitars and bass) can also change greatly, from how the acoustics are set up. Basically, I have never gotten as good a sound with fiberglass panel treatments on this recording, as I am easily able to obtain with the acoustic ARTs treatment.

The ARTs enhance harmonic overtones. I describe the result as "refinement". So when I speak of a "refinement" in the sound, I am speaking of that clarinet sounding more like what it really is. The character of that instrument coming through in stronger tones. It's richness, it's voice. Hearing it do a better job of communicating the story it is communicating, in the notes it is producing. Even having clanging glasses and chatter not just sound like a reproduction of clanging glasses and chatter. But almost part of the music and part of the atmosphere. When a reproduction has greater refinement, you hear more of what the music is intended to convey. But basically, the term refers to a higher level of quality in the reproduction. This can translate to a violin on the left channel having more of its own space around it, playing with a more palpable fidelity (ie. sweeter strings), a deeper wider soundstage, greater delineation between notes, etc.

I can't say I have noticed any difference in near or far field listening as coming from the system, apart from the expected variations of changing your listening position. But I agree it is a good question, and when I sit down to review the ARt, I will go around the room and try to assess any differences I might perceive from the resonators themselves.

ericarjes
ericarjes's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Jun 3 2010 - 9:32pm
Re: Acoustic Art Bowls: How big a room can they treat?


Quote:
Any sense as to the limit of the size of the room that will response to the Acoustic ART products?

Well, that's the $64,000 question. At the moment, I'm not sure how to respond to it... Ok, I haven't tried the system in huge rooms yet. I have heard of people using it in 10k or 15k sq. ft. rooms, though I think that may be with the addition of a couple more resonators. I think that the original 5 resonator system is good enough for normal sized rooms. I am beginning to suspect it can cover a lot more space than it would seem. The reason I say that is.... no, never mind. I didn't say anything. I don't know any more than I have told you.

Well....

No. That's all you're getting out of me, I've told you more than I should have already.

But.... to be perfectly honest..... umm..... can you keep a secret, Elk? Because I really probably shouldn't be talking about this.... I'm not sure it's "productive" to do so, as you stated for yourself recently about discussing other tweaks. It's certainly not the sort of thing that lends credibility to the ART system, or would help sell the idea of a product that people already have so much trouble believing does anything because of its diminutive size. Nevertheless (sigh).... to answer that question as honestly as possible, and at the risk of inviting another truckload of mockery and ridicule over this thing... just between you and me, right? It uh.... umm.... well, it "appears" to work outside the room it's in. And when I say "appears", by that I mean "I'm damn well certain of it".

Before anyone goes nuts over that, let me explain what I mean by "damn well certain". I never actually tested for this, simply because it never occurred to me to do so. I've read very little about the product from other sources, so I never heard of any claims being made that the resonators can have an effect outside the room they are placed in. In fact, at the time (this disccovery occurred only a few days ago), I was testing the ART system for an entirely different application. So I had it set up in my bedroom (where previously, it was in storage for a while). After taking it out of the boxes and installing it in the bedroom, the next day I turned on the computer and listened to mp3's on the hard drive, as I usually do. I noticed the sound was way better than it normally was. The first thing that came to my attention was that the bass was more musical, tuneful, and better defined. Overall, the sound was more liquid, smoother, more natural, larger soundstage, and I was hearing details I had not heard before. Needless to say, I was very happy with this change.

It wasn't all that unusual for me to notice a degradation sometimes in my sound, and very rarely, an improvement, without any intervention on my part. But I can't ever remember the sound improving this much, without such intervention. So I tried to think about what I may have done that could have created such an improvement. But there was absolutely nothing I did since the day before, that would tweak up the sound of my computer speakers. The only thing I did yesterday was.... take the ART out of the box and install it in the bedroom. Except the bedroom was two doors down the hall (just past the kitchen), with the door half closed! And I had only taken 3 of the small resonators out, the other two big mommas (the ones that are supposed to deal with bass frequencies) remaining in storage.

So as there was only one way to eliminiate this variable, I went into the bedroom and simply placed the resonators back in their box, went back to listen to my computer. That was it! The sound was literally half what it was before. Thin, colder, lack of body, half the resolution, much more narrow, etc. A facsimile of what it was before, and so, really night and day for me. Of course when I took the trio of resonators back out, the good computer sound returned. I did another test where I left them out but closed the door of the bedroom. Interestingly, the sound was much degraded from that. So. I don't know how to translate that in terms of what size the system can work up to. But that does seem to indicate to me, that they are much more powerful than their size would ever suggest.

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:
SAS, DavidL: I thought you guys were done with each other.

I had signed off this string after providing evidence, but if you notice my last post, I had to correct David's obvious lack of understanding in even basic science, despite his now education claims. Please tell him to stop as I was quite willing to.

This is my last post Stephen.

Cheers.

LMAO what an arrogant pompous ass you are. You started this but now you want the last word and "Please tell him to stop as I was quite willing to"? Since when were you wanting to stop? Again with the "double speak". Yeah this will be my last post about it also. Mr Sammet thinks he's the only one here who is qualified to discuss electronic theory. WOW! Then he can't even show any proof, links, work or ANYTHING supporting his 'claims". Instead he resorts to personal attacks upon me and doing his smirk face Personally I find it amusing and sad at the same time that he has to resort to being an AHole.Sales must be a little slow for all the time he spent attacking me.
Sorry Stephen but I had to "correct" Mr Sammet's obvious lack of understanding in showing your work when trying to prove your arguments, despite his........well despite his obvious lack of intelligence

This is my last post to and about SAS Stephen

David_L
David_L's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Oct 28 2009 - 8:23am
Re: Acoustic Art Bowls: How big a room can they treat?


Quote:
... just between you and me, right? It uh.... umm.... well, it "appears" to work outside the room it's in. And when I say "appears", by that I mean "I'm damn well certain of it".

But that does seem to indicate to me, that they are much more powerful than their size would ever suggest.

Don't worry I won't be telling ANYBODY about THAT
I'm really loving this by the way. It will make the actual acoustic test and review so much better when it finally gets done

RGibran
RGibran's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 10 months ago
Joined: Oct 11 2005 - 5:50pm
Re: Acoustic Art Bowls: How big a room can they treat?


Quote:
... just between you and me, right? It uh.... umm.... well, it "appears" to work outside the room it's in. And when I say "appears", by that I mean "I'm damn well certain of it".

But that does seem to indicate to me, that they are much more powerful than their size would ever suggest.

EricArjes AKA Michigan J. Frog.

Pathetic!

Buddha
Buddha's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 9 months ago
Joined: Sep 8 2005 - 10:24am
Re: Acoustic Art Bowls: How big a room can they treat?


Quote:

Quote:
... just between you and me, right? It uh.... umm.... well, it "appears" to work outside the room it's in. And when I say "appears", by that I mean "I'm damn well certain of it".

But that does seem to indicate to me, that they are much more powerful than their size would ever suggest.

EricArjes AKA Michigan J. Frog.

Pathetic!

Yikes, I had not made the connection.

Michigan, if that's you, I hope you are well.

Anyway, if they work outside the room, how come they don't work inside the box?

Freako
Freako's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: Jan 17 2010 - 8:29am
Re: Acoustic Art Bowls: How big a room can they treat?

I think Michigan has lost some weight (and age)...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hODlVEBL3B0

David_L
David_L's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Oct 28 2009 - 8:23am
Re: Acoustic Art Bowls: How big a room can they treat?


Quote:

Quote:
... just between you and me, right? It uh.... umm.... well, it "appears" to work outside the room it's in. And when I say "appears", by that I mean "I'm damn well certain of it".

But that does seem to indicate to me, that they are much more powerful than their size would ever suggest.

EricArjes AKA Michigan J. Frog.

Pathetic!

Exactly........you know what's also pathetic? I promised not to post anymore in the "Tweaks N Tips" under the "Controversial Discussion" thread so "Eric" decides to take advantage of that and posts a tirade about me, still accusing me of being Ethan probably from the tone and words Let me ask why the average new poster on here that claims to be using Ted's ART system is so angry about me asking questions? Can't he be happy "knowing" his lil bowls do what he wants them to do? I smell something fishy about "Eric" if you know what I mean. here's the link to the page where he goes on and on and on about me. http://forum.stereophile.com/forum/showf...art=24&vc=1

I think "Eric" showing up on here is a wee bit coincidental.If you go back and read his posts, he sounds like a salesman making his pitch for Ted's bowls He doesn't like me asking for tests or the type of tests yet he vows up and down that these things are so good that you can obviously hear the difference. I guess he's just not curious enough to want to know anything else about them? He seems very determined to turn others here against me, sort of like how SAS did, by trying to point out my "flawed" education. Me thinks "Eric" has an agenda all his own from the very beginning and he's probably associated with a certain manufacturer. Hey, he accused me of being "Ethan" not in a direct way but you would have to be dense as a fence post to not know what he meant. A desperate person using unprofessional methods so he looks "Good"

Freako
Freako's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: Jan 17 2010 - 8:29am
Re: Acoustic Art Bowls: How big a room can they treat?

OMG, is there no end to Ethan and the Frog? They have been banned for months, but their ghosts still haunt this forum at a daily basis...

Pages

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