John A:- >>> "We all now live in a bath of 2.4GHz radiation, which, coincidentally, is the frequency microwave ovens operate on. Look at the dimensions of Ted Denney's bowls: could it be that they are diffracting/reflecting that RF bath away from the listener, thus improving his state of mind and his receptivity to the music?" <<<
Ted D:- >>> "Actually John they do exhibit some rather interesting characteristics at very high frequencies." <<<
Can we stay on that theme for a bit ? Without resorting to demands for measurements, without resorting to demands for 'proof' - just a discussion around a concept ?
We have been along the OTHER, more usual routes before, at great length.
As in :-
The whole thread of "Re: Synergistics Research Acoustic ART-real sonic improvements or more snake oil?" extended over 39 pages. !!!
From that thread I would like to copy one reply :-
By Stephen Scharf in reply to one of Ethan's postings :-
>>> "There's more than one way to skin a cat; in this case, out of the box thinking might apply." <<<
The whole thread of "Acoustic Effects and size matters" in the Tweaks section extended over 38 pages !!
From that thread I would like to copy a few quotes to set the scene for a further discussion :-
Quote from Jan Vigne March 2008:-
>>> "The laws of physical science don't change at the whim of anyone. However, there are more than a few incidences which are not explained by those laws. Relying upon laws which do not adequately describe what actually occurs in these instances to dogmatically state a specific action could not occur seems short sighted at best. On one hand science is viewed as inadequate while another view suggests it is all knowing. Somewhere there must be a porridge that proves to be "just right". Heyser seems to be looking for that bowl.
These aren't panels that take long periods of time to install. You move them in and you move them out. It's a reasonably easy comparison. To tell someone they simply cannot be hearing what they know they are is somewhat arrogant. You are certainly free to not try them but it would seem foolish to suggest anyone who tries these tweaks is simply delusional. And, actually, what if they are as long as they are content with what they hear? We are using our collection of boxes to create an illusion in the first place." <<<
And by KBK :-
>>> "OBSERVATION.. drives science." <<<
And by Elk :-
Try to quantify.
Some observations are even contradictory - photons are both waves and particulate. While hard to wrap one's mind around, this is just the way it is.
Additionally, we are still doing it and still learning! We do not know everything. We are not done in any field, including electrical circuits.
I am with you, KBK, in not understanding why this basic point is so difficult for many to comprehend." <<<
John A has brought the environment in which we listen and the human being into the discussion. Can we consider a concept that there could be something PHYSICAL (as in John A's reference to "We all now live in a bath of 2.4GHz radiation, which, coincidentally, is the frequency microwave ovens operate on. Look at the dimensions of Ted Denney's bowls: could it be that they are diffracting/reflecting that RF bath away from the listener, thus improving his state of mind and his receptivity to the music?" happening in the listening environment PLUS something else PHYSICAL (as in Ted's devices, as in the Franck Tchang's Bowls, as in such as the Harmonix Discs, as in such as the Schumann Resonance device) in the listening environment which are NOT affecting the actual acoustic air pressure waves of that environment (and therefore would not produce changes in acoustic measurements) but which the human being is reacting to and that that reaction could change the 'sound' ? Please, can we stay away from the usual response of "If the human being is reacting, then it can only be because of bias, audo-suggestion, the placebo effect, imagination, audio faith healing, effective marketing, and so on" ?
It is not IMPOSSIBLE for 'something' to affect the 'sound' nor does it involve disregarding known physics or abandoning the laws of electronics and acoustics. It DOES require, though, removing the blinkers and looking around oneself - to use the common phrase "to think out of the box" !!
Taking the discussion away from the actual room acoustics, what can be regarded as the REAL sound ?
1) The information carried by the audio signal travelling through the audio system ?
2) The information presented into the room as acoustic air pressure waves by the loudspeakers ?
3) The acoustic information reaching the ear drum ?
4) The final information reaching the working memory, to be identified and resolved by the working memory in order for it to do it's job of presenting a comprehensive 'sound picture' to the brain ?
On this last point, it should be blindingly OBVIOUS that if any part of the information presented into the room by the loudspeakers does NOT (for whatever reason) reach the ear drum/hearing mechanism, then it will not reach the working memory to be dealt with, so, for the sake of starting this discussion, it is taken as 'read', between intelligent people, that certain room acoustics could have an effect on the information being carried by the acoustic air pressure waves which will arrive at the ear drum !!!!! So, yes, what reaches the ear drum, in the form of acoustic air pressure waves, IS relevant !!!
But surely, No. 4 can only be the REAL 'sound' - the final resolution of the information ???
Let me begin by putting what I will call 'some flesh on the bones of the concept'. I will resort to my usual technique of using the letters of the Alphabet to denote information. It is perfectly acceptable to use letters to denote information, exactly as we do in algebra, providing we all know what those letters mean. So, hypothetically, let us say the letters ABC + DEF + GHI + JKL refer to the information of Dvorak's New World Symphony. Having been processed by the audio system, this information is presented into the room by the loudspeakers and, let us say, reaches the ear drum intact i.e as ABC + DEF + GHI + JKL.
Now, let us move away from the information reaching the ear drum and look at the involvement of the human being in all this process.
The human being (via millions of years of evolution) is programmed to read/sense it's environment every millisecond of every second of every minute of every hour of every day of it's life and to compare each new 'reading' with the 'reading' taken immediately before and the ones before that. All this in order for the human being to be able to sign off their environment as 'safe' !!
Back to the listening environment and looking at the example John A gave "We all now live in a bath of 2.4GHz radiation."
It is not so much a question of the "2.4GHz radiation" 'going through us' therefore affecting us in that way (by directly affecting the activity going on in our brain), it is just it being there, in the environment, pulsating, changing, fluctuating.
And then we have such as Ted D's devices (and such as the others I referred to). Not so much 'adding something' (in a passive situation) but reducing an already adverse effect !!! And, by reducing an already adverse effect, so allowing more of the information already available to be better identified and resolved - in other words - an "improvement in the sound"!!!!
But, a PHYSICAL effect on something which has a PHYSICAL effect on something else which has a PHYSICAL effect on something else.