Quote:

And BTW, I see you bristling at my mention of your lack of scientific education or credentials.

Well, John, speaking as a senior researcher in the field, with all of the evidence to prove it, who does not have a PhD, I can understand his sensitivity. To some extent, it's the same kind of reaction I consider when somebody looks at someone who reports to me and asks "What do you think, Dr. so-and-so?" Yes, it happens.

In particular, while I'll reserve comment at the minute, not being very interested in getting into discussions about a particular product, one does have to consider such simple things as conservation of energy when evaluating some of the more interesting claims one sees here and there in the real world.

By the by, what did you think of the presentations Poppy and I gave at Ethan's workshop?

Quote:
If you read the thread, Ethan, you will see that I have indeed requested a set of Ted Denney's ART devices for independent assessment and that Ted has agreed to supply them.

Yes, I did see that. Now all that remains to be learned is who you chose as a "leading audio engineering consultant" to do the testing. If the person you chose really is an expert, and not some woo woo in the audio biz, I applaud you!

Quote:
in the thread in our RMAF blog, you seemed to be suggesting that an obervation without an explanation is BS.

I don't see where I said anything like that in the breakthrough_approach_to_audio_measurement blog. But you're trying to make my position black and white when it's not. What I said in that blog is "When an extraordinary claim is made - in this case that music on a non-magnetic LP can be improved by applying a demagnetizer - that demands extraordinary proof." In this case "extraordinary claim" is the key. Further, a simple blind test will immediately determine with certainty whether an audible change really occurred. Oh wait, I forgot - with my inferior scientific knowledge I don't understand why blind tests are invalid.

Quote:
Scientific Method suggests no such thing. The observation comes first, the explanation possibly years or even decades afterward. Not being able to explain an observation does not invalidate the phenomenon if that observation is repeatable.

This stuff ain't rocket surgery John.

Quote:
Something is happening with the ART devices

Yes, it's called placebo effect and expectation bias.

Ethan Winer
Proud owner of RealTraps, but posting on my own behalf

"In particular, while I'll reserve comment at the minute, not being very interested in getting into discussions about a particular product, one does have to consider such simple things as conservation of energy when evaluating some of the more interesting claims one sees here and there in the real world."

Please illuminate us - are you suggesting the law of conservation of energy has been violated by some audio product? Which one(s)? Share, share....

Quote:
It is fair to point out that, by your own admission, you have no education or training in the sciences...

Good point.

Now, in addition to people demanding the results of audiology tests on reviewers, they can start demanding to know the level of formal training a given reviewer or editor may have - is this the dawning of The Age of Bonafides?

If so, does J-J's opinion now trump JA's?

Is MF formally trained in the science of magnetism?

What a bag of worms, JA!

I vote to leave formal training bonafides out of the argument. Nobody would be truly qualified at some point in the Hi Fi chain!

Quote:

Quote:
It is fair to point out that, by your own admission, you have no education or training in the sciences...

Good point.

Now, in addition to people demanding the results of audiology tests on reviewers, they can start demanding to know the level of formal training a given reviewer or editor may have - is this the dawning of The Age of Bonafides?

I am certainly not "arguing by credential," Buddha, merely pointing out that Ethan is demanding his opinions be accorded a special status, due to his being a "man of science." Yet, literally, he is _not_ a man of science. And without a scientific education or experience, his opinions are not distinguishable in kind from any other person's beliefs and superstitions. See George Reisch's essay at http://www.stereophile.com/thinkpieces/336/, for example.

Quote:
Is MF formally trained in the science of magnetism?

No, but Michael is not claiming a special position for his opinions and observations. Ethan is.

Quote:
What a bag of worms, JA!
I vote to leave formal training bonafides out of the argument. Nobody would be truly qualified at some point in the Hi Fi chain!

I agree. You will note that we do not list our editors' and writers' academic qualifications in the magazine for this very reason.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Quote:
If so, does J-J's opinion now trump JA's?

Of course.

Quote:

Quote:
If so, does J-J's opinion now trump JA's?

Of course.

Quote:
Ethan is demanding his opinions be accorded a special status ... his opinions are not distinguishable in kind from any other person's beliefs and superstitions ... Michael is not claiming a special position for his opinions and observations. Ethan is.

That's exactly backwards. I don't deserve special status because I expect you to believe I know more about science than some here. Rather, I always explain my position in great detail and back up my statements with logic and evidence. Versus others who have only "You're wrong" or "ROFLmaO" or personal insults.

When I make a point I always explain why something is wrong and, more important, what is right. Yes, I called Ted Denney a liar and a fraud, but I also explained why I'm certain he's a liar and a fraud. In this case, I do indeed know more about science than those who consider Ted's data plausible. I have extensive experience with measuring rooms, and deep knowledge of the waterfall graphs produced by the REW software. If you'd like to discuss details of why those graphs are obviously bullshit, I'm glad to elaborate. For one hint, see JJ's post about the conservation of energy.

Ethan Winer
Proud owner of RealTraps, but posting on my own behalf

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Exactly. "Saved for evidence" is not proof of anything, except a lack of anything more substantive.

Ethan Winer
Audio skeptic, posting on my own behalf only

Have you thought it may be proof towards litigation?

Look who's talking.

Gee, I did not realise you were considering litigation against me for calling you James, or for maybe pointing out you are as biased as anyone else, or is it that I said your attitude and posting at times is that of an arse

Orb

Look who's talking.

Who was it who was telling me that I didn't hold a specific expertise?

Hmm, have I forgotten?

No.

As to "James", well, it's an odd behavior for someone to call another something they dislike, all the while maintaining a dishonest position that the individual they are insulting is somehow rude or socially inept. It's so odd that one must assume that the individual doing this is either damaged or openly hostile.

On the other hand, you're the one who brought up litigation, not me. Is there some reason it comes to your thoughts so quickly?

Quote:

Quote:
If so, does J-J's opinion now trump JA's?

Of course.

Of course, my wife's opinion also trumps mine. :-)

(She thought Ted's devices made the sound _worse_, even after I explained to her that they cound't make a difference.)

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Quote:

Quote:
Ethan is demanding his opinions be accorded a special status ... his opinions are not distinguishable in kind from any other person's beliefs and superstitions ... Michael is not claiming a special position for his opinions and observations. Ethan is.

That's exactly backwards. I don't deserve special status because I expect you to believe I know more about science than some here. Rather, I always explain my position in great detail and back up my statements with logic and evidence. Versus others who have only "You're wrong" or "ROFLmaO" or personal insults.

When I make a point I always explain why something is wrong and, more important, what is right. Yes, I called Ted Denney a liar and a fraud, but I also explained why I'm certain he's a liar and a fraud. In this case, I do indeed know more about science than those who consider Ted's data plausible. I have extensive experience with measuring rooms, and deep knowledge of the waterfall graphs produced by the REW software. If you'd like to discuss details of why those graphs are obviously bullshit, I'm glad to elaborate. For one hint, see JJ's post about the conservation of energy.

Ethan Winer
Proud owner of RealTraps, but posting on my own behalf

saved for evidence

Ted Denney III
Lead Designer Synergistic Research Inc.

Isnt that just husband bias, I thought most wives disagreed with their husbands, especially on audio and anything house related

Cheers
Orb

Quote:
jj, behind you, you're being stalked.

Ok, I agree now

Cheers
Orb

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
If so, does J-J's opinion now trump JA's?

Of course.

Of course, my wife's opinion also trumps mine. :-)

(She thought Ted's devices made the sound _worse_, even after I explained to her that they cound't make a difference.)

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Hey, does your wife know my wife?

More seriously, I more or less solved the WAF, I married a fellow Bell Labs person. The only problem I actually have with audio gear is getting the use of it back from the rest of the family, as in "hey, MY turn to listen"...

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
If so, does J-J's opinion now trump JA's?

Of course.

Of course, my wife's opinion also trumps mine. :-)

(She thought Ted's devices made the sound _worse_, even after I explained to her that they cound't make a difference.)

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

So, on average, the Atkinson family thinks they have no effect.

(Just a statistics joke, which I am qualified to make by virtue of formal training.)

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
If so, does J-J's opinion now trump JA's?

Of course.

Of course, my wife's opinion also trumps mine. :-)

(She thought Ted's devices made the sound _worse_, even after I explained to her that they cound't make a difference.)

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

So, on average, the Atkinson family thinks they have no effect.

(Just a statistics joke, which I am qualified to make by virtue of formal training.)

Why, how MEAN of you to expose that kind of standard deviation, this skewed kind of normality, I'm running right out of gauss, I am.

Bother, I can't figure out how to work in kurtosis.

Quote:
I explained to her that they cound't make a difference.

Ah, so I'm not alone in that opinion. I certainly hope Ted saved your post for "evidence" too!

Ethan Winer
Proud owner of RealTraps, but posting on my own behalf

HEY! You're not supposed to be posting!

Didn't you see the notice? No one is allowed to post on this thread!!!

NO ONE!!!

Knock it off, willya, forchrissake!

What'dya think you're special or somethin'?

Quote:

saved for evidence

Ted Denney III
Lead Designer Synergistic Research Inc.

Ted, either you're gonna save the shit for whatever evidence and STFU about it or don't save the shit for evidence and STFU about it. But either way, please STFU about it.

Thank you.

Quote:

Quote:
I look forward to that report. It would make me tremendously happy if the third party could explain the principles on which these devices operate and explain how they achieve the effects they achieve (if any)

I doubt that that will happen. First comes the repeatable measurement of the effect (if any). Explanation is a whole 'nother thing. At the risk of drawing too over-reaching an analogy, Hubble discovered the expansion of the universe in the 1920s, but it wasn't for another 70 years did any kind of possible explanation emerge.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

John,

Whereas I agree that repeatable results should come first and explanation second, I don't know if too many of us have 70 years to wait for one, nor do I think we would care to even if we did.

Someone mentioned that this isn't rocket science and I agree. The acoustic effects should be understood well enough by now to at least come up with a plausible theory. Naturally, all of this assumes that the results are valid, predictable and repeatable.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
I look forward to that report. It would make me tremendously happy if the third party could explain the principles on which these devices operate and explain how they achieve the effects they achieve (if any)

I doubt that that will happen. First comes the repeatable measurement of the effect (if any). Explanation is a whole 'nother thing. At the risk of drawing too over-reaching an analogy, Hubble discovered the expansion of the universe in the 1920s, but it wasn't for another 70 years did any kind of possible explanation emerge.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

John,

Whereas I agree that repeatable results should come first and explanation second, I don't know if too many of us have 70 years to wait for one, nor do I think we would care to even if we did.

Someone mentioned that this isn't rocket science and I agree. The acoustic effects should be understood well enough by now to at least come up with a plausible theory. Naturally, all of this assumes that the results are valid, predictable and repeatable.

Maybe in 70 years it will be audible under blind listening conditions!

As to what comes first, I think you have it a little out of order...

It should be, "First comes the repeatable identification of an effect (if any)."

We aren't even that far along yet.

This is still 'pre-Hubble.'

__________________

For Ted: In lieu of saying "Saved as evidnce" you should allow us to egg Ethan on to greater and greater heights of hyperbole and therefore strengthen your legal standing in the case of Synergistic ART v Winer!

Quote:
allow us to egg Ethan on to greater and greater heights of hyperbole

Great minds think alike Buddha! While you were busy posting that, I made a video to "prove" I can jump as high as a building. Don't believe me? Watch this video (only 200 kb):

Scienceman - the movie!

But wait, there's more! I also "proved" that I can reduce room modes and ringing just by wishing really really hard. Don't believe me? Look at the two graphs below showing the exact same data using a Photoshop type program to overlay the Before Z axis graph labels onto the After graph. Notice anything familiar?

Ethan Winer
Proud owner of RealTraps, but posting on my own behalf

Quote:
I can jump as high as a building.

You can only jump 'as high' as a bulding? I can jump higher than ANY building.

I'd even bet money on it - and you can pick the building!

If you can only jump "as high" as any building, don't you always smack your nose on the top on your way down?

Quote:

Quote:
Of course, my wife's opinion also trumps mine. :-)

(She thought Ted's devices made the sound _worse_, even after I explained to her that they cound't make a difference.)

So, on average, the Atkinson family thinks they have no effect.

(Just a statistics joke, which I am qualified to make by virtue of formal training.)

I love that joke: 2 statisticians are out hunting. Both fire simultaneously at a duck; one misses because his shot goes 6' above the bird; the other misses because his shot goes 6' under the bird. "Got it"! they both cry!

Bada-boom!

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

PS: I formally apologize to Ethan Winer and Ted Denney for introducing levity into a thread that they are taking deathly seriously.

I have posted more waterfall graphs over a much wider range of frequencies with and without the Acoustic ART System in place. I will try to post pictures tomorrow of the listening room, microphone placement, ART placement and general photos of the listening room and the loft environment.

To answer a few questions:
1. The microphone is NEVER moved or touched while taking measurements or during a measurement session.
2. The Acoustic ART resonators are in standard positions (for such a large listening room) and are NOT placed near the microphone.
3. The files have not been altered.
4. None of the graphs have been manipulated in Photoshop.
5. All graphs are in keeping with (some) of the subjective benefits of an acoustic space treated with the Acoustic ART System.
6. Microphone placement was in the standard listening position equidistance from both the left and right channel speakers and tilted up approx 10 degrees.
7. A full report will be forth coming with full access to all files.
8. I can supply the raw measurement files to John Atkinson at this time if he wishes to review the validity of my graphs generated from said files.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/43917596@N04/

Yours in music,
Ted Denney III
Lead Designer Synergistic Research Inc.

Quote:
But wait, there's more! I also "proved" that I can reduce room modes and ringing just by wishing really really hard. Don't believe me? Look at the two graphs below showing the exact same data using a Photoshop type program to overlay the Before Z axis graph labels onto the After graph. Notice anything familiar

Actually no, because Ted Denney's graphs were different in many other details other than the decay time. All you're proving, Ethan, is that you are adept at cooking your own data. :-)

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

"The Acoustic ART resonators are in standard positions (for such a large listening room) and are NOT placed near the microphone."

Word to the wise: Refrain from using the word "resonator" as it antagonizes folks and makes them snippy. Refrain also from using the words, "quantum," "atomic," "molecular" or "small" as they can be very irritating.

~ Cheers

Quote:
I have posted more waterfall graphs over a much wider range of frequencies with and without the Acoustic ART System in place. I will try to post pictures tomorrow of the listening room, microphone placement, ART placement and general photos of the listening room and the loft environment.

To answer a few questions:
1. The microphone is NEVER moved or touched while taking measurements or during a measurement session.
2. The Acoustic ART resonators are in standard positions (for such a large listening room) and are NOT placed near the microphone.
3. The files have not been altered.
4. None of the graphs have been manipulated in Photoshop.
5. All graphs are in keeping with (some) of the subjective benefits of an acoustic space treated with the Acoustic ART System.
6. Microphone placement was in the standard listening position equidistance from both the left and right channel speakers and tilted up approx 10 degrees.
7. A full report will be forth coming with full access to all files.
8. I can supply raw measurement files to John Atkinson at this time if he wishes for review.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/43917596@N04/

Yours in music,
Ted Denney III
Lead Designer Synergistic Research Inc.

Thanks for providing the information Ted.

Take care.

This is a perfect audiophile topic, trying to explore this sort of thing.

Is there a way to get the treated and untreated graphs to superimpose?

Quote:

This is a perfect audiophile topic, trying to explore this sort of thing.

Is there a way to get the treated and untreated graphs to superimpose?

Hi Buddha,

I just printed out, printer set to "draft", both graphs and placed one over the other, light in the backround. Pretty easy to see the differences, and not just decay time as JA has already mentioned.

Take care.

Quote:

Quote:

This is a perfect audiophile topic, trying to explore this sort of thing.

Is there a way to get the treated and untreated graphs to superimpose?

Hi Buddha,

I just printed out, printer set to "draft", both graphs and placed one over the other, light in the backround. Pretty easy to see the differences, and not just decay time as JA has already mentioned.

Take care.

That's alot of graphs to fake!

Now, Ethan will have to switch the argument to being that those changes aren't audible.

So I come back to this thread and see that Ethan is ~STILL~ is attempting to sneak out of owning all of his previous posts by refusing to change his signature. I guess he does not want Realtraps associated with the other 1480+ posts.

What did I say about his mental position on morals and ethics? He's very good at looking like he's on the moral high ground when exactly the opposite is true. He's never fooled me for one second.

He should not be allowed to get away with it.

Quote:
I think this may have the makings of a classic thread along with the related one started by Ted. Is it possible to merge the two or perhaps close one so that further discussion stays in one place?

A few years ago there was a similar type of measured proof offered in support of some French, I think, Acoustic Resonators but my googling skills have let me down. Does anyone have a reference to it?

http://gizmodo.com/photogallery/outrageousaudio/2820866

http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews/acousticsystem/resonators.html

Quote:
Is there a way to get the treated and untreated graphs to superimpose?

Just click on each pair individually, then reduce one image while maintaining the other in fullscreen. Bring the reduced image up to fullscreen and back down to reduced. It's quite easy to see the changes.

IOW, here's the image representing the room response with treatment and the signal from 14.3 to 19.4kHz; http://www.flickr.com/photos/43917596@N04/4048336928/

Here's the image representing without treatment and the same frequencies; http://www.flickr.com/photos/43917596@N04/4048336786/

Simply toggle between the two images.

Quote:
http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews/acousticsystem/resonators.html

Now you've done it! The children here have a heyday making fun of the people who reviewed the system and insulting people's names and appearance.

No shit! We've been down this road before. Some people have no shame.

Quote:
"The Acoustic ART resonators are in standard positions (for such a large listening room) and are NOT placed near the microphone."

Word to the wise: Refrain from using the word "resonator" as it antagonizes folks and makes them snippy. Refrain also from using the words, "quantum," "atomic," "molecular" or "small" as they can be very irritating.

~ Cheers

"Very small rocks?" -Monty Python's 'The Holy Grail'.

Quote:

Quote:
"The Acoustic ART resonators are in standard positions (for such a large listening room) and are NOT placed near the microphone."

Word to the wise: Refrain from using the word "resonator" as it antagonizes folks and makes them snippy. Refrain also from using the words, "quantum," "atomic," "molecular" or "small" as they can be very irritating.

~ Cheers

"Very small rocks?" -Monty Python's 'The Holy Grail'.

You bring up an interesting point...what would a similarly sized rock do for those measurements?

Coffee cups?

Precious Moment figurines?

Hummels?

Many thanks ncdrawl. Although that was not the link I was after it did give me enough information to find this:

http://www.virtualdynamics.ca/uploads/files/Resonator_Pro_Link_Test_Report.pdf

Quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think this may have the makings of a classic thread along with the related one started by Ted. Is it possible to merge the two or perhaps close one so that further discussion stays in one place?

A few years ago there was a similar type of measured proof offered in support of some French, I think, Acoustic Resonators but my googling skills have let me down. Does anyone have a reference to it?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://gizmodo.com/photogallery/outrageousaudio/2820866
______________________________

The link you provided above is broken, having been dismantled in 2008. The only remnant of the photo gallery of outrageous audio equipment is located at:
Outrageous Audio Equipment Gallery

Pop Quiz: How many items in the gallery can you identify?

Quote:
Ted Denney's graphs were different in many other details other than the decay time.

Wow John, I'm surprised how little you know about room acoustics and using the REW software!

Regardless, please describe in detail the differences you see.

Ted's original two graphs show the exact same data, but expressed with different decay times. Any mechanism that changes the decay times must by definition change the peak heights and peak bandwidths. But clearly that's not the case in Ted's After graph. This also shows how little Ted Denney and his apologists know about room acoustics, because it's so obvious for this reason that the data was faked.

John, you said you have committed to printing a true and unbiased assessment of Ted's magic bowls. I hope you're prepared to blow the whistle loudly when your independent expert concludes that Ted is perpetrating intentional malicious fraud. As for Ted Denney, this entire thread and the Flickr images are "saved for evidence" to send to the FTC. I'm pretty sure there are federal laws against willfully manipulating product test data to defraud consumers.

Ethan Winer
Proud owner of RealTraps, but posting on my own behalf

Quote:
Ethan, the rules of this forum are that you _must_ include your company affiliation. Please do so or we will delete the offending posts.

I see that Geoff Kait is not using the correct name of his company. I trust you'll enforce this rule equally with all vendors.

Ethan Winer
Proud owner of RealTraps, but posting on my own behalf

Interesting read, andy. I wonder if everyone will take the time to read rather than shout.

Quote:

Quote:
Ted Denney's graphs were different in many other details other than the decay time.

Wow John, I'm surprised how little you know about room acoustics and using the REW software!

You need to remember, Ethan, that the words we all choose to use reveal who we are. Now you are resorting to insults, I guess your true nature is uncovered.

Quote:
please describe in detail the differences you see.
Ted's original two graphs show the exact same data, but expressed with different decay times.

I am sorry, Ethan, but that just isn't true. I loaded both images up in Apple's Preview program. Switching rapidly between the images reveals not just differences in decay time but also differences in the amplitude of modes either side of the highest-level modes (which are not changed in amplitude).

Quote:
John, you said you have committed to printing a true and unbiased assessment of Ted's magic bowls. I hope you're prepared to blow the whistle loudly when your independent expert concludes that Ted is perpetrating intentional malicious fraud.

I think that one should not prejudge the outcome of any test, Ethan. I will publish the expert's findings regardless of the outcome. However, it looks as if you have already determined what you believe that outcome will be and are defaming Mr. Denney regarding his motives and behavior, based on your own beliefs and expectations. Hardly "scientific," eh.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Quote:

Quote:
Ethan, the rules of this forum are that you _must_ include your company affiliation. Please do so or we will delete the offending posts.

I see that Geoff Kait is not using the correct name of his company. I trust you'll enforce this rule equally with all vendors.

It looks as if Mr. Kait is mocking you, Ethan, but you are correct. Geoff Kait must also use his correct company affiliation in his postings and I am putting him on notice that he shall do so.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Quote:
Many thanks ncdrawl. Although that was not the link I was after it did give me enough information to find this:

http://www.virtualdynamics.ca/uploads/files/Resonator_Pro_Link_Test_Report.pdf

Now that is going to make for interesting reading, for me and for Ethan!

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Quote:
http://www.virtualdynamics.ca/uploads/files/Resonator_Pro_Link_Test_Report.pdf

I've seen that before, and it's just as fraudulent as the BS graphs Ted posted on Flickr. This PDF details what the company recommends as a test procedure, and apparently is not a report of independent test results. The one graph that "proves" the bowls "work" at audio frequencies was apparently provided by the magic bowl company itself. The PDF says on Page 9 "The first test made in the office of Acoustic System..." with no mention of the size or shape of the room, or who did the test. This "report" is intentionally vague on every issue that matters. Regardless, nine tiny magic bowls cannot possibly reduce reverb decay time by 1/3 at 63 Hz no matter how big or small the room is.

Ethan Winer
Proud owner of RealTraps, but posting on my own behalf

Quote:
Now you are resorting to insults

Well, you started it by insulting me. But in this case, if you can't see that the underlying data is identical in the Before and After graphs, then you really do not understand room measuring software. This is not an insult, but a fact.

Quote:
Switching rapidly between the images reveals not just differences in decay time but also differences in the amplitude of modes either side of the highest-level modes (which are not changed in amplitude).

I could spend more time trying to find some of my own REW data that looks similar to Ted's, then play with changing the window display settings to duplicate the changes Ted showed. Instead I'll just wait for Ted to post his REW files publicly in a few days as he promised. Then I'll have hard proof of his falsification that nobody can deny.

As I stated earlier, all Ted has to do is send me the files now so I can see that he has not falsified the data. Then I'll immediately apologize and retract everything I said. Ted has no legitimate reason not to send me the files, other than stalling as he desperately tries to figure how to alter the the REW file to fool me and others.

Ethan Winer
Proud owner of RealTraps, but posting on my own behalf

Not that he is required, but it would be fascinating to see how the data would look with other objects placed similarly.

Seems a several part project. I trust that the graphs are not mere inventions, but now, to my mind, part of this 'proof' would also include similar measurements for other objects in the same locations - how would crystal glasses or ceramic cups perform? Stones? Super Balls? Tennis balls?

It would be neat to compare and contrast the effects of different objects.

Fascinating stuff.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
Ted Denney's graphs were different in many other details other than the decay time.

Wow John, I'm surprised how little you know about room acoustics and using the REW software!

You need to remember, Ethan, that the words we all choose to use reveal who we are. Now you are resorting to insults, I guess your true nature is uncovered.

Quote:
please describe in detail the differences you see.
Ted's original two graphs show the exact same data, but expressed with different decay times.

I am sorry, Ethan, but that just isn't true. I loaded both images up in Apple's Preview program. Switching rapidly between the images reveals not just differences in decay time but also differences in the amplitude of modes either side of the highest-level modes (which are not changed in amplitude).

Quote:
John, you said you have committed to printing a true and unbiased assessment of Ted's magic bowls. I hope you're prepared to blow the whistle loudly when your independent expert concludes that Ted is perpetrating intentional malicious fraud.

I think that one should not prejudge the outcome of any test, Ethan. I will publish the expert's findings regardless of the outcome. However, it looks as if you have already determined what you believe that outcome will be and are defaming Mr. Denney regarding his motives and behavior, based on your own beliefs and expectations. Hardly "scientific," eh.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

I hope the viewers print out both graphs Ted posted, print as lightly as possible, and overlay one page to the other. Of course place a light behind the overlayed graphs. One can clearly see JA is completely right in his assessment he posted above. There is no confusion nor questionable "interpretation" as to whether JA is correct. They are simple graphs that are simple to read and compare.

Cheers.