You are here

Log in or register to post comments
ericarjes
ericarjes's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Jun 3 2010 - 9:32pm
REVIEW: Synergistic Research - Acoustic Art Room Treatment System

WHAT IS THE ACOUSTIC ART?

The "Acoustic ART" system from Synergistic Research is an alternative approach to acoustic room treatment. It dispenses with the use of older traditional methods of absorption/diffusion, consisting of fiberglass stuffing or foam, which are known to have the side effect of damping fine harmonics in their heavy-handed approach to acoustics. The ART system adopts a more "synergistic" approach, based on principles of harmonics, and uses small, finely tuned metal resonators to treat acoustics at pressure points a room. The system I am reviewing includes the full compliment of 5 resonating devices. Although each of the devices in the Acoustic ART system can be purchased separately, for those who might not have the budget right away for the full 5-piece. (I hear there's also a much cheaper 4-piece entry-level version of the Acoustic ART system called the "Basik", but the resonators are not made to the same standards as the full system).

I read some of the enormous controversy surrounding the Acoustic ART last year on the Stereophile forum. It is that very controversy that convinced me that I needed to listen to a demonstration of this system myself, to see "who wins". That is, to see if the efforts of all the detractors of the A.R.T., who were attacking everything about it relentlessly, had any validity behind it. Or if those who were defending it, were right to do so all along. It was imperative that I find out for myself, because no one amidst all of that controversy seemed to have actually heard the system themselves! That, and the fact that I knew I needed some kind of room treatment.

THE SET-UP

The full ART system consists of two satellites (Magnetron), placed around the first order reflection points. A third one (Gravatron) placed on the rear wall. The fourth (Bass Station) is a little larger than the other three, and normally situated a few inches from the wall behind the speakers, and below the fifth resonator module, (the Vibatron). Which I call "big daddy". Vibatron consists of two very large bowl-shaped resonators, with a dispersion disc separating them, and the affair is connected by a rod of marine brass, permanently placed on a wood support. It is designed to radiate in a 360 degree pattern. The Vibratron also comes with a unique system of ball-shaped magnets, large and small, gold and silver. This can be placed atop the brass rod, and is designed to aid in contouring the effect of the resonator module.


THE SYSTEM

I was not able to do this test in my own system, as I am awaiting a part from France for my amp (I think they are still manufacturing it for me...). I set it up at my older brother's place, but I know his system very well. ( I was the system consultant. Not only the one who chose all of the components and assembled it for him, but I spent many hours in that room, tweaking, listening and tweaking some more).

Hardware:

Digital: Shanling CD-S100
Analogue: Rega Planar 3
Amplification: Naim NAIT
Speakers: KEF 104/2
Speaker wire: NAIM
IC's: Audioquest
Cassette: Nakamichi LX3, Nakamichi BX100


THE SOUND

This was not the first time I had heard the Acoustic ART, but it was the first time my brother had. He had no idea how these little "bowls" were supposed to work, nor did he even seem like he wanted to. Which is a good thing, because it avoided me having to try to explain it. I only installed the wooden supports at first, to set up the A/B trials to follow. So, without the ART resonators in the room, we started with the first track on A.J. Croce's s/t CD, "He's Got A Way With Women". Which was pleasant enough, and quite a nice recording. Good tune, good soundstage, plenty of piano. I installed the resonators in their respective perches next, and we had another listen. My brother sat there, saying nothing, but looking rather shocked, as he was taking all the information in. I was just kind of grinning.

The biggest changes were that the sound now extended well beyond the boundaries of the speakers in all planes. The dimensions of the instruments and voices the soundstage were much larger, more realistic, and could clearly be located the soundfield. Even more significantly, the tonal definition and timbre of those sounds were improved dramatically, such that the music took on new meaning. Details came out that I hadn't heard before, and they were musical details. Bass notes, for example, were much more controlled, and reached deeper than was possible without the acoustic resonator treatment. And unlike the traditional room traps I was used to, we did not have to turn the volume up in order to try to hear fine details, that are normally swamped by large surface absorptive-type damping.

With the ART resonators in place, you could now hear the full weight of AJ's piano, and the full impact of the wonderful sharp crashing sound it made as he struck down on the keys. In contrast to this upgrade, the previous version had a rinky tink piano sound, a smaller soundstage (along with a confused image), and you could not get into the music as well. Afterward, my brother told me it barely seemed like the same recording. I understood. When I first evaluated the ARTs, I would occasionally find myself checking to be sure I had repeated the same track.

We really did choose a different recording for the next test; "The Anyway Song", from the Lullabye Baxter Trio. It's your typical carnival jazz married with nursery rhyme music, but done to perfection. Again, the Acoustic ART's influence on the music was superb. Every nuance came out of the light, as Baxter's vocals took on life-size proportions. The mood created by the static and bird sounds in the background being more palpable, while there were now bags of reverb emanating from the strike of the bass drum. The whole song became more dreamy, as you got swept up by the melody coming off the cello. I felt transfixed to my experience of listening to the song, whereas in the session without the ART resonators installed, I was easily distracted during play.

Chris Whitley's "Blue Chicago Moon" turned out to be an excellent test track for the Acoustic ART. It was here where the differences were most amplified, thus far in the listening session. With the ART installed, you could now see the sound field extend way beyond the speakers themselves. You could hear a much greater range of contrast in the dynamics of Whitley's vocal performance, which better communicated the emotional purpose behind it. You felt the drum kit, more than just hearing it, as without the ART installed. It was there, on one side of the room. We were also able to hear deeper into the music, as things got that much more transparent, and bass melodies that were difficult to follow before, came out of hiding.

On the Stereophile forum, Buddha had asked if there were ever differences observed from one recording to the next. I said I would listen for that, and I did try to. I would say that I don't think the ARTs are having more of an effect on some recordings than others. But that some recordings can be perceived as having a greater change than others, due to quality of the recordings themselves. For example, the differences were more linear than dramatic, on Opal's "Happy Nightmare, Baby". The recording is ho-hum, compressed, and very much your typical pop recording with a lot of electronic effects. Once you got into a better recording, like some of the stuff from Songs:Ohia or the A.J. Croce, there was a much starker contrast between ART-in and ART-out.

My brother is by far, not the first person I've demonstrated the ART system to. And so far, nobody attending a demonstration had any difficulties hearing its effect. Which tells me that for most people, the effect of the full Acoustic ART system is not a subtle one.

CONCLUSIONS

There is no way I am going back to using traditional bass traps, room traps, triangular pillows and sculptured foam, that ended up destroying too much of the music. The cost of my Acoustic ART system was half of what outfitting my room with conventional traps cost me, and yet the ART system produces a degree of quality that I was never able to obtain from the traps I used to have. There is also no way I plan to continue listening in an untreated room. I consider good room treatment an essential component in a serious music system. The Acoustic ART was one of the best purchases I've made in audio.

THE LOCATION AND REMOVAL TESTS

A few people were curious about the effect at different locations; ie. near-field, far-field, etc. So I did some listening specific to this. Including both sitting nearfield/farfield, and walking around the room to get a sense of the change in acoustic effect. My overall sense is that the resonator system treats the whole room, and there is no particular localization effect, or pockets where the effect is not heard as well. Apart from the obvious effects of changing your ears relative to the speaker drivers, as you change your position in the room. I think the reason for this assessment is explained by my single resonator test, detailed below. Where, I discovered, that "the Acoustic ART effect" is still there, even with a single resonator in the room. It just isn't there in the "power and the glory" of the full 5-piece system. Yet small changes in the placement of the resonators can affect various characteristics of the sound, depending on what you change or how. I also did very brief (incomplete) testing on each of the modules, to better relate their individual effect. Briefly, they are:

Magnetron: There are two in the set, and I found that removing one of these, made a great difference to the sound. I did not observe the stereo image shifting with the removal of a single Magnetron on either side. But the sound became more congested, and less well defined with its loss. From its removal, the midrange was harsher, and vocals there were less clear and distinct.

Gravatron: From a picture, the Gravatron could easily be mistaken for one of the Magnetrons. However, it is subtly different physically, and so is the perch it sits on (no magnet). Removing this resonator produced harsher midrange, a reduction in mid bass, weaker definition in the bass overall, and the imaging was less distinct as well.

Vibatron: This is the big daddy, the one that looks like a sculpture of a planet. It probably caused the greatest change from its removal. Upon which, all sounds lost their original quality of definition. Details were hidden behind each other. Bass went not nearly as deep as before, and the notes now bled into one another. Background vocals did not have their own space in the soundstage, as they once did, and were now blended with the instrumentation. Dynamics suffered as well. We played around just a bit with the magnet assembly that is fitted on top of the Vibatron. Normally, it points straight up so I steered it toward the wall. The sound was perceived as a bit darker, after that. So tone can be varied with it, and I have a feeling there is a lot that can be done with this option.

Bass Station: It seemed that many of the core elements remained with its removal. Yet... (as my notes say! ), I could not imagine living without it. Realizing upon its removal, that it brought "more" to everything. More "air" around the notes, better transients, tone, depth, body, weight, etc. It allowed me to hear individual melodies, that were no longer as apparent, in its absence. It provided character to bass notes, in keep with what its name seems to imply, but affected the rest of the range as well.

Single Resonator test (Magnetron Pt. 2): This is where I removed all other modules from the room, and just kept a single Magnetron. Switching it left and right occasionally, and removing it from the room, in order to compare it to the untreated room. As mentioned, the "Acoustic ART effect" was there with the one Magnetron, just nothing like the full system. I would still qualify the one Magnetron resonator as a night/day effect, for me, versus untreated. Though it does not seem to be specifically designed to affect bass frequencies, I noted that it appears to have no distinction about frequencies, having at least some perceptible effect across the range. Small as it may be, it took the edge off the harsher qualities of the sound, provided a richer bass experience, superior resolution in timbre, and I found myself more lost in the music with it in place. More headbanging, if you will. All of which made me realize, this would be very convenient to bring along while traveling. To improve my sound in nearly any location.


THE BLIND TEST

Even after hearing the effect with his own ears, my brother still seemed to have some doubts about whether something this small was really having an effect, or whether he was being influenced by the idea that it could. Then I remembered the challenge that Buddha, on the Stereophile forum, made to me about doing an SBT (single blind test). (He suggested I wasn't "curious" enough, if I hadn't done any. And I explained I didn't need to, because the effect of the resonators in the room is not something I felt I was in doubt of). So I suggested doing an SBT, with me as the test subject. A natural choice, since I was very much more familiar with the sound of the ARTs.

Obviously, this would mean I would have to do the test blindfolded. So the entire time, I had a t-shirt wrapped around my head to use as a blindfold. The idea was that my brother would exit and come into the room, and either leave with the resonators and bring nothing in, or simply leave, and then come back, leaving them in place. Although I already couldn't see, to ensure that I couldn't hear any cues, we had loud music playing from tracks on the test CD, in between playing the test track. I got 9 correct out of 10, over the twenty trials. The one I got wrong was the last one, and I think my ears were just tuckered at that point.


THE HOME THEATER TEST

Before leaving, my brother was curious to know what effect the ARTs would have on his home theater system upstairs. Which was truly bare-bones, bottom-of-the-line stuff. It's one of those "home theater in a box" systems ("Daytek" brand). I was game, because I was curious myself what effect would be heard on this, if any. Since it certainly had no pretensions to high end sound. We sat down and popped a CD into the 5.1 system, so I could hear what I was dealing with. The sound was annoyingly dreadful. Tinny and canned, lacking in spatiality, musicality, dimensionality, and whatever else ends in "ity". I guess there's only so much you can ask of five small plastic speakers, and a particle board boombox sub, that probably sold for $150 or less. With a free DVD player and amp thrown in. On the plus side, it had nowhere to go but up.

Once we set up the ARTs in the room and had a listen to the CD again, we both agreed that it sounded like it was no longer the same system. As though a major upgrade had been made. The tinniness was gone, replaced by rich, warm sound with body, depth and character. Only occasional traces of the canned quality remained overall. The sound was more open, involving, detailed, true-to-life and immense. The differences seemed greater still than with the hifi system. That's ironic, because it's not the sort of system you would marry with the full Acoustic ART! It made more sense to test it on movies though, because that's what this set up was exclusively being used for.

I am a 2-channel guy solid, but in comparing movies with and without the resonators in the room, I quickly realized that having an Acoustic ART system in a home theater situation made a whole heck of a lot of sense. Even though this was just a test situation, where a few minutes were viewed at a time, I found the ART effect changed the whole relationship I was having with the movie. With it, I was more involved and immersed in every movie we put on, and realized right there, how much cinema sound is part of the story playing out on the screen. There was almost a hyper-real quality to detail, with the ART resonators installed. Sounds heard in the film were not localized, as they were in the untreated room. On "Paris, Je T'Aime", just the ding of a truck startled you when struck, and the note hung in the air, decaying slowly. Whereas before, I never even noticed it!

On "X-Men: Wolverines", my brother commented about the ART effect overall. Saying that it was as much fun listening to that movie on the Home Theater system with the acoustic ART, as it was listening to music earlier on the audio system. On "Extract", I noticed the bass in the country tune playing at the beginning was very much tighter and better defined than in the session without the ART. Even the FOX Searchlight theme music opening "The Wrestler" showed grandiose differences. This was especially apparent in the bass area. Without the ART system, the soundstage collapsed, the bass drum lacked the fidelity it had before, and it was not even heard as a separate element from the rest of the orchestra. Following the intro, there is a montage shown (to convey the wrestler's history), where a lot of different voices are talking at once. With the ART system removed, this became a dull, homogenized mishmash of chatter. Which you didn't pay much attention to. In contrast, when we placed the ART system back in the room, not only was it clearer what was being said, but it stayed in the conscience.

On "Henry Poole Was Here", the ART effect created a soundstage that was voluptuous, in comparison to the untreated sound. As a result, sonic elements that soundstage clearly stood apart from each other. Voices were sharply defined and clear as crystal. I could effortlessly hear the changes in the echo characteristic of the room that the real estate agent was in (near the start of the movie), as she moved around the room. I was more attuned to the nuances in the actors vocal performances as their vocal characteristics came out more, and without really thinking about it, more responsive emotionally to what they were saying. So the experience taught me there is a lot involved in home theater sound, that goes way beyond getting the channel levels or positioning right. And that having an ART system installed as part of the home theater experience can be addictive! Although I will still prefer to listen to music on 2 channel, where movies are concerned, I think I've become a fan of the home theater experience! For sure I'll have to bring one of the resonators to the theater with me, next time, and see what comes of that. Maybe go with 4 other people, instructing them to sit in the prescribed locations! ("Okay... Gravatron... you go to the back of the theater...")

Buddha
Buddha's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 8 months ago
Joined: Sep 8 2005 - 10:24am
Re: REVIEW: Synergistic Research - Acoustic Art Room Treatment S

That was a fun read.

I relly appreciate the pictures.

I'll give your review a 10/10 to make up for the one listening trial you "missed!"

Well done.

David_L
David_L's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Oct 28 2009 - 8:23am
Re: REVIEW: Synergistic Research - Acoustic Art Room Treatment S


Quote:

I was not able to do this test in my own system, as I am awaiting a part from France for my amp (I think they are still manufacturing it for me...). I set it up at my older brother's place, but I know his system very well. ( I was the system consultant. Not only the one who chose all of the components and assembled it for him, but I spent many hours in that room, tweaking, listening and tweaking some more).

My brother is by far, not the first person I've demonstrated the ART system to. And so far, nobody attending a demonstration had any difficulties hearing its effect. Which tells me that for most people, the effect of the full Acoustic ART system is not a subtle one.

CONCLUSIONS

There is no way I am going back to using traditional bass traps, room traps, triangular pillows and sculptured foam, that ended up destroying too much of the music. The cost of my Acoustic ART system was half of what outfitting my room with conventional traps cost me, and yet the ART system produces a degree of quality that I was never able to obtain from the traps I used to have. There is also no way I plan to continue listening in an untreated room. I consider good room treatment an essential component in a serious music system. The Acoustic ART was one of the best purchases I've made in audio.

THE BLIND TEST

Even after hearing the effect with his own ears, my brother still seemed to have some doubts about whether something this small was really having an effect, or whether he was being influenced by the idea that it could. Then I remembered the challenge that Buddha, on the Stereophile forum, made to me about doing an SBT (single blind test). (He suggested I wasn't "curious" enough, if I hadn't done any. And I explained I didn't need to, because the effect of the resonators in the room is not something I felt I was in doubt of). So I suggested doing an SBT, with me as the test subject. A natural choice, since I was very much more familiar with the sound of the ARTs.

Obviously, this would mean I would have to do the test blindfolded. So the entire time, I had a t-shirt wrapped around my head to use as a blindfold. The idea was that my brother would exit and come into the room, and either leave with the resonators and bring nothing in, or simply leave, and then come back, leaving them in place. Although I already couldn't see, to ensure that I couldn't hear any cues, we had loud music playing from tracks on the test CD, in between playing the test track. I got 9 correct out of 10, over the twenty trials. The one I got wrong was the last one, and I think my ears were just tuckered at that point.

Again I call bull shit from Ted's advertising agency "Eric". So which is it "Eric, you first tested them at your brother's or you tested them somewhere else first? Make up your mind.I really love how you infer how all those traditional room treatments just absolutely destroyed too much of the music I guess those recording studios have just got it allllll wrong.Gosh you saved so much money spending $3000 on Ted's magic bowls You couldn't build your own bass traps yet you spend so much time doing tweaks. You must be all thumbs.
That SBT is just you and your "brother" and more subjective say so.
Nice try at writing an advert for Ted I give your advert 10/10 for effort but 0/10 as proof of anything.........awaits the resultant rant from "Eric"

Orb
Orb's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: May 28 2009 - 12:51am
Re: REVIEW: Synergistic Research - Acoustic Art Room Treatment S

Sorry but I just had to post in response.
DavidL it is rather poor of you to piss on someone's personal review like this.
You rightly argue it is wrong and stupid for you to be called out and named Ethan, and yet your doing similar posting that is just as bad in return; Calling Eric Ted's advertising agency/insulting his lack of building/going on about SBT when this is an anecdotal and personal review by a forum member.
Keep the SBT/DBT where it belongs in the other thread or threads relating more to validation.

Attacking someone for bothering to post a personal review is rather petty.
IMO anyway

Thanks
Orb

David_L
David_L's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Oct 28 2009 - 8:23am
Re: REVIEW: Synergistic Research - Acoustic Art Room Treatment S


Quote:
Sorry but I just had to post in response.
DavidL it is rather poor of you to piss on someone's personal review like this.
You rightly argue it is wrong and stupid for you to be called out and named Ethan, and yet your doing similar posting that is just as bad in return; Calling Eric Ted's advertising agency/insulting his lack of building/going on about SBT when this is an anecdotal and personal review by a forum member.
Keep the SBT/DBT where it belongs in the other thread or threads relating more to validation.

Attacking someone for bothering to post a personal review is rather petty.
IMO anyway

Thanks
Orb

Just giving my "hypothesis" as to why Ted's magic bowls "work"
Hey Eric's agenda on here is pretty obvious from the start and he hasn't let up one bit "hip hip hooraying" Ted's bowls. Anyone who can't see he's just on here to advertise Ted's products needs a reality check......just my opinon of course

ericarjes
ericarjes's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Jun 3 2010 - 9:32pm
Re: REVIEW: Synergistic Research - Acoustic Art Room Treatment S

"David"... In this rant of yours:


Quote:
Again I call bull shit from Ted's advertising agency "Eric". So which is it "Eric, you first tested them at your brother's or you tested them somewhere else first? Make up your mind.I really love how you infer how all those traditional room treatments just absolutely destroyed too much of the music I guess those recording studios have just got it allllll wrong.Gosh you saved so much money spending $3000 on Ted's magic bowls You couldn't build your own bass traps yet you spend so much time doing tweaks. You must be all thumbs. That SBT is just you and your "brother" and more subjective say so.
Nice try at writing an advert for Ted I give your advert 10/10 for effort but 0/10 as proof of anything.........awaits the resultant rant from "Eric"

...when you say to me "Again I call bull shit from Ted's advertising agency "Eric" ", by "again", are you referring to having written this about the acoustic art on Stereophile last year, under the name "Ethan Winer"?:


Quote:
Ted, I would have ignored your obviously BS "data" if you didn't bump this thread. I'll be as direct as possible: I call bullshit. That data is clearly fabricated. Made up. Fraudulent. Outright lies. Rigged. Photoshopped.

http://forum.stereophile.com/forum/printthread.php?Board=rants&main=76055&type=post

I guess that would explain why you wasted no time in jumping upon my review thread, with a series of very nasty, dirty personal attacks against me, in order to deliver up this hostile rant against what is obviously a competitor of yours.


Quote:
Anyone who can't see he's just on here to advertise Ted's products needs a reality check......just my opinon of course.

Okay. Here's your "reality check":


Quote:
Reality Check
written by Joe Bonello , May 24, 2010

This video explains why sound quality sometimes seems to change even when it didn't: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYTlN6wjcvQ

This probably explains why people believe the sound changed with these small devices.


http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/accessori....html?showall=1

Written by a "Joe Bonello", on a thread reviewing the acoustic art, from Stereophile's Jason Victor Serenus. That is, another thread that appears to be trolled by one person assuming many different names. Someone who sounds exactly like you by the way, trolling against the acoustic art for a full year. Just like you did on Audiojunkies, but not quite as long. Tip: If you're going to troll against Synergistic for a year Ethan, don't post unidentified links to your own video.

You've been trolling this forum for 7 months with the same act you appear to have been trolling other sites. On Stereophile alone, you have 185 posts, nearly all of which attack anyone saying anything positive about the acoustic art. Or any product from Synergistic. Every single one of your posts I have read is an excercise in negativity, and appears to be intended to kill any productive discussion on these devices. I think that anyone who thinks you are not a competitor of Synergistic Research and don't have a clear agenda against them, after some pretty strong evidence that you've been shilling against the company from this site to many others, is the one who needs a "reality check".

Elk
Elk's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: Dec 26 2006 - 6:32am
Re: REVIEW: Synergistic Research - Acoustic Art Room Treatment S

Hey, Eric! Great review!

Wonderfully done, and as Buddha mentioned, it's great to have pictures.

I also appreciate your efforts to describe both the devices themselves and their individual affects.

Nice job.

Freako
Freako's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: Jan 17 2010 - 8:29am
Re: REVIEW: Synergistic Research - Acoustic Art Room Treatment S

I agree, very nice job

ericarjes
ericarjes's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Jun 3 2010 - 9:32pm
Re: REVIEW: Synergistic Research - Acoustic Art Room Treatment S

Thanks Elk, Buddha and Freako. There was a lot of ground to cover, it took a lot of time to put together, and I almost wasn't going to see it through. So I really appreciate that you appreciate the effort. If I all I got was attacks from David L. in this thread for my effort, that would really have been a bummer. I wouldn't mind seeing other people post reviews of whatever they want to cover. I think that'd be a great way for me to find out what's around, and what people think of their gear. (Doesn't have to be as long or detailed as I went into here! )

Elk
Elk's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: Dec 26 2006 - 6:32am
Re: REVIEW: Synergistic Research - Acoustic Art Room Treatment S

In this case however the detail was great. You are describing trying out gear that most of us have no exposure to. Thus your descriptions and information were exceedingly helpful.

I appreciate the effort you put into this.

smejias
smejias's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 7 months ago
Joined: Aug 25 2005 - 10:29am
Re: REVIEW: Synergistic Research - Acoustic Art Room Treatment S


Quote:
"David"... In this rant of yours:


Quote:
Again I call bull shit from Ted's advertising agency "Eric". So which is it "Eric, you first tested them at your brother's or you tested them somewhere else first? Make up your mind.I really love how you infer how all those traditional room treatments just absolutely destroyed too much of the music I guess those recording studios have just got it allllll wrong.Gosh you saved so much money spending $3000 on Ted's magic bowls You couldn't build your own bass traps yet you spend so much time doing tweaks. You must be all thumbs. That SBT is just you and your "brother" and more subjective say so.
Nice try at writing an advert for Ted I give your advert 10/10 for effort but 0/10 as proof of anything.........awaits the resultant rant from "Eric"

...when you say to me "Again I call bull shit from Ted's advertising agency "Eric" ", by "again", are you referring to having written this about the acoustic art on Stereophile last year, under the name "Ethan Winer"?:


Quote:
Ted, I would have ignored your obviously BS "data" if you didn't bump this thread. I'll be as direct as possible: I call bullshit. That data is clearly fabricated. Made up. Fraudulent. Outright lies. Rigged. Photoshopped.

http://forum.stereophile.com/forum/printthread.php?Board=rants&main=76055&type=post

I guess that would explain why you wasted no time in jumping upon my review thread, with a series of very nasty, dirty personal attacks against me, in order to deliver up this hostile rant against what is obviously a competitor of yours.


Quote:
Anyone who can't see he's just on here to advertise Ted's products needs a reality check......just my opinon of course.

Okay. Here's your "reality check":


Quote:
Reality Check
written by Joe Bonello , May 24, 2010

This video explains why sound quality sometimes seems to change even when it didn't: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYTlN6wjcvQ

This probably explains why people believe the sound changed with these small devices.


http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/accessori....html?showall=1

Written by a "Joe Bonello", on a thread reviewing the acoustic art, from Stereophile's Jason Victor Serenus. That is, another thread that appears to be trolled by one person assuming many different names. Someone who sounds exactly like you by the way, trolling against the acoustic art for a full year. Just like you did on Audiojunkies, but not quite as long. Tip: If you're going to troll against Synergistic for a year Ethan, don't post unidentified links to your own video.

You've been trolling this forum for 7 months with the same act you appear to have been trolling other sites. On Stereophile alone, you have 185 posts, nearly all of which attack anyone saying anything positive about the acoustic art. Or any product from Synergistic. Every single one of your posts I have read is an excercise in negativity, and appears to be intended to kill any productive discussion on these devices. I think that anyone who thinks you are not a competitor of Synergistic Research and don't have a clear agenda against them, after some pretty strong evidence that you've been shilling against the company from this site to many others, is the one who needs a "reality check".

EricArjes and DavidL: You two are now giving me reason to believe you don't belong here. Any future posts like this will be deleted without explanation. End it now, please.

David_L
David_L's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Oct 28 2009 - 8:23am
Re: REVIEW: Synergistic Research - Acoustic Art Room Treatment S


Quote:

EricArjes and DavidL: You two are now giving me reason to believe you don't belong here. Any future posts like this will be deleted without explanation. End it now, please.

No problem Stephen, just glad at least you can see what some people are doing on here No further posts to this thread from me

ericarjes
ericarjes's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Jun 3 2010 - 9:32pm
Re: REVIEW: Synergistic Research - Acoustic Art Room Treatment S

No problem here either, Stephen. Except 3 minutes after responding to your "end it now" directive, he's already started the personal insults toward me again in another thread I started here, then 8 minutes after that, posted another dig at me here. This time, he even took the liberty of using my personal photograph of my Arts for use in his incessant attacks of mockery and ridicule. Without my permission, and with no respect for my property. I think this makes it clear he has no intention to stop trolling me.

Which is something he's been doing from the beginning. Since I could see there was no way to have an honest or civil debate with him, I have asked him to ignore my posts, and have mostly ignored his. Avoiding a relentless series of personal attacks by this person in the Acoustic Art or Science? thread. He entered my Sugarcube thread, in which I was merely trying to share a free tweak, only to crap on it by directing an insult at me. Not to discuss the tweak or anything. Then after I worked hard to try to contribute an informative review, he immediately came to my thread here to crap on it. Hurling yet two more rounds of outrageous personal attacks and defamatory accusations, all of which were totally unwarranted and unprovoked. I kept wondering why, no matter how destructive this person's behavior was, he seems to get away with acting in such a disruptive and anti-social manner for so long. I don't see how allowing this is conducive to having productive or civil discussions on audio. But I had had enough by then of David L.'s cyberbullying, and fought back a couple of times.

I'm trying to contribute positively to the forum, and he's trying to contribute negatively, and anger his enemies enough to get them banned. So I hardly think our behavior is comparable here, but that's not my call. I would just like to know what the rules are (so far I can not find anything on this except an unrelated TOS), and that they will be enforced on David L. As much and as fairly as anyone else, including myself. Thank you.

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: REVIEW: Synergistic Research - Acoustic Art Room Treatment S

SM, I know you don't want my opinion on this subject but I do have the right to express it, no? I have to agree with eric, you have reposted quotes from myself and eric and you never seem to have much if anything to say to DavidL or the other shouters on this forum. Honest to god, Stephen, didn't you see DL come into this thread with nothing but negative input? Loud, nasty negative input? DL puts his rant against eric in bold no less!!! And you say nothing to him?

Try reading it again ...


Quote:
Again I call bull shit from Ted's advertising agency "Eric".

Why? What's that going to do to promote the discussion? DL doesn't care that eric finds favorable benefits form anything other than the fiberglass panels DL understands? That's "bullshit"? "Again"? How long has "DL" been "calling bullshit" on Ted's products? Certainly ever since he appeared as "DL" on this forum.


Quote:
So which is it "Eric, you first tested them at your brother's or you tested them somewhere else first? Make up your mind.

So which is it, eric, you have mayo on your burger or mustard? How can we believe someone who is so inconsistent?

SM, how can we believe someone who has nothing to post but slams against Ted and his products? Aren't you getting a little tired of this? Aren't you getting a little suspicious? Have the Stereophile forums ever before had anyone with such a clear cut agenda?


Quote:
I really love how you infer how all those traditional room treatments just absolutely destroyed too much of the music

I really love the way DL out and out calls eric a liar. Geeez, this is a subjectivist audio magazine's forum! If someone hears a benefit or a detriment from a product, why do they need to be subjected to ... this ... how did DL put it? ... "bullshit"?


Quote:
I guess those recording studios have just got it allllll wrong.

eric never made such a claim. But, if you're shilling for a "traditional" acoustics company, you might use that argument, eh? I have to say, SM, you posting as a response to eric here sounds like you - as a representative of this forum and of Stereophile magazine - have got less than an open mind to what eric has to say. I came here to discuss audio, SM, and this is as close as it has come in many years. But you are telling eric to shut up without directing a word to the person trying to shut him up and discredit him. Why? Eric took hours to perform and correlate his tests and DL has nothing but streaming hatred for him and for Ted's product. And you are telling eric he has no place on this forum to post about his experiences wth audio components? What exactly do you want to see on this forum, Stephen? I am very confused about what Stereophile stands for.


Quote:
Gosh you saved so much money spending $3000 on Ted's magic bowls You couldn't build your own bass traps yet you spend so much time doing tweaks. You must be all thumbs.

What's the point of that? eric indicates he's tried absorption techniques and found them less preferrable than the ART devcices. That DL cannot move beyond what he "knows" and allow for someone to have an opinion other than what DL dictates is astounding when you consider this forum should be about sharing our experiences and not "calling bullshit" when a member does his best to describe what he/she hears. I'm really not getting just what you want to see on this forum, SM.


Quote:
That SBT is just you and your "brother" and more subjective say so.

Good grief! Now DL even accuses eric of not having a sibling! You don't find any of this strange, Stephen? DL obviously wouldn't be happy if they hung him with a new rope and he's not even content that eric made an honest attempt at his tests and his reporting. And who do you quote when you say neither belongs on this forum? Can you tell me why eric shouldn't be allowed to express his opinion without threat of DL's attacks?


Quote:
Nice try at writing an advert for Ted I give your advert 10/10 for effort but 0/10 as proof of anything.........awaits the resultant rant from "Eric"

What's with the quotation marks? You told me to "cool it" but, geez, Stephen, doesn't this sound like someone you know? Why the hell is DL so intent on attacking anything that has to do with Ted and Synergistics? This has gone beyond the typical naysayer BS to someone with an obvious agenda. And you tell eric he shouldn't be here? Eric has posted more positive comment to this forum in his short time here than DL has come up with in his many months of ranting and railing against Synergistics. I mean, when does "troll" finally enter your mind, Stephen?

Do me one favor, SM, and next time you want both parties to "cool it", at least quote the guy who started the fight - and maybe actually say something to him. OK?

'Cause I really don't care whether DL plays the cello or not. The guy has an agenda and part of it is to stop any real discussion of audio on this forum!

Call me disgusted!

Freako
Freako's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: Jan 17 2010 - 8:29am
Re: REVIEW: Synergistic Research - Acoustic Art Room Treatment S

Sorry Stephen, but I fully agree with Jan on this one. EricArjes has done nothing whatsoever to deserve a reprimande or a ban.

Orb
Orb's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: May 28 2009 - 12:51am
Re: REVIEW: Synergistic Research - Acoustic Art Room Treatment S

Agreed,
it does seem DavidL taunt is rather strong and personal.
It looks to be designed to cause hostility and emotion, which would result in a regretful response post or one that is poor to say the least from most forum members.

Cheers
Orb

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: REVIEW: Synergistic Research - Acoustic Art Room Treatment S


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

--------------------
Stephen Mejias
Stereophile

RGibran
RGibran's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 9 months ago
Joined: Oct 11 2005 - 5:50pm
Re: REVIEW: Synergistic Research - Acoustic Art Room Treatment S

What a lovely couple

SAS Audio
SAS Audio's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 months 4 weeks ago
Joined: Jun 6 2007 - 6:56am
Re: REVIEW: Synergistic Research - Acoustic Art Room Treatment S

Hi Stephen,

I agree with Jan, Orb, and Rubber Duck that Eric has done little if anything wrong.

In this particular instance he took the time to write a review, which has not been done in a long time, even doing a subjective audio SBT.

I would suggest keeping Eric as he has been contributing in a positive way.

Cheers.

smejias
smejias's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 7 months ago
Joined: Aug 25 2005 - 10:29am
Re: REVIEW: Synergistic Research - Acoustic Art Room Treatment S

I'm not thinking about banning anyone right now. All I said is that if it comes to light that members are posting under multiple aliases, we're going to have to take some action, which may include suspending accounts. That sounds fair to me.

I suggest members find a way to get along, or use the Ignore feature.

SAS Audio
SAS Audio's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 months 4 weeks ago
Joined: Jun 6 2007 - 6:56am
Re: REVIEW: Synergistic Research - Acoustic Art Room Treatment S


Quote:
I'm not thinking about banning anyone right now. All I said is that if it comes to light that members are posting under multiple aliases, we're going to have to take some action, which may include suspending accounts. That sounds fair to me.

I suggest members find a way to get along, or use the Ignore feature.

That is what I was referring to. If it comes time for action, it seems to me, and apparently others by their posts, that Eric has been conducting himself in a positive manner.

Cheers.

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