You are here

Log in or register to post comments
Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Synergistics Research Acoustic ART-real sonic improvements?


Quote:
This is what makes the reference to Helmholtz resonators spurious. The magic bowls lack the fundamental structure of Helmholtz resonators.

The ART's page also mentions Tesla. Are you going to say these bowls are not Tesla?

FC, your logic completely escapes me. You make up numbers and you draw conclusions that no one should reach.

And though you remain shackled by the limitations of your existing "knowledge" you have come to the conclusdion the ART's system is bullshit.

Brilliant! Simply brilliant!

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Synergistics Research Acoustic ART-real sonic improvements?

Stephen, I believe you are on the right track here. Congratulations on thinking beyond your current knowledge base. Please explain to these yahoos how it (thinking) is done.

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Synergistics Research Acoustic ART-real sonic improvements?

OK, here's what I typed last night. I haven't editted it down yet and don't have time this morning - I have a Dr's appointment I have to get too.

This is a partial explanation of how I see the ART's system being effective, more will come when I have more time.

*

This is long so those of you who cannot deal with more than two sentences placed together to form an idea might just want to stop here and post something insulting.

A philosopher asked a Zen Master to explain Zen to him in as few words as possible.

The Zen Master started pouring some tea to a cup. The cup filled up quickly, but the Zen Master kept pouring.

"What you are doing makes no sense," objected the philosopher. "The cup is full. You cannot pour any more tea into it unless you first empty it."

"So it is with your mind," said the Zen Master. "It is filled with ideas and conceptions. I cannot teach you Zen until you empty your mind."

First, yes, I do own traditional Singing Bowls and Tibetan Bells. I am not a Buddhist and I only casually brush up against Zen. Therefore, there may be several of you here who are more advanced in your understanding of certain "things" than I am. I make no pretense of understanding the full operation of what I am about to post as the process of putting together the information leads in many different directions and most are far above my level of understanding - and I know the most childish of you will find that to be the only sentence you pull from the entire post. Quite a bit of what I will mention can be found with a quick Wikipedia search - and, yes, I understand the limitations of Wikipedia. Anyone wishing to debate Zen philosophy here is well above my pay grade. I took two general studies psychology classes in undergraduate school - the name "B.F. Skinner" for some reason sent me into uncontrollable laughter. So, I'm not a psychology student either. Fortunately, it would seem the basic concepts involved can be managed with a basic comprehension that should be possible for most all of us.

However, what I have observed here on this forum (far too many times to recall) is the arrogance of someone who knows a bit while knowing nothing. In this description I include myself. What I find unusual here is the number of people who rely only on what they already know to determine what can and cannot occur and they stop where their knowledge stops, never asking beyond what they can easily explain. IMO in the amount each of us knows, we are all ignorant. I learned long ago that the more you know, the more you realize just how much you still do not know. Along that same line those who truly believe, "Hell, I do know everything", are actually the most ignorant of the lot.

For example, the argument on each and every alternative treatment thread I've been on has always come down to "measure it" or take a DBT! The issue of DB testing has been covered in Stereophile too many times to count. If that is what you believe will tell you all there is to know, you can stop reading right now. As to "measure and if there is no difference then that will tell you what you need to hear", that is what I'll try to address here.

One member has boiled everything down to three or four measurements that will tell you all you need to know about audio. The problem here, as I see it, is what is being measured is the wrong thing.

As I understand it one of the basic tenets of Stereophile is that measurements do not tell you how a component reproduces music. Measurements will tell you how much distortion is present in a static signal or how much current an amplifier can produce into a certain impedance load and basic math will tell much of the rest of the story about how a component responds to a signal applied to its inputs when that component is met by a load. None of that has anything to do with music and its reproduction or its effect on us as we listen. What JGH tried to step beyond were the simple measurements of High Fidelity magazine that showed each piece of equipment to be nothing more than a cold, unfeeling, unthinking mechanical or electrical device. To that end, none of the traditional measurements have anything what so ever to do with music and its ability to entertain us.

So why measure those items?

Because they are simple to measure I would assume. For those who have divorced signal reproduction from music reproduction measurements have a certain allure that helps them understand how their system operates - but not how their system reproduces music that is interesting and engaging.

To understand how music affects us we cannot measure components since components have nothing to do with the end result of music. Components are a dispassionate observer on the passage of a signal through their innards. Ideally, they should have nothing to say about how a performance is played back, nothing to do other than pass the information to our ears. Now, at this point either you believe all components do the same job with equal ability or you do not.

If you believe all components are equal if they measure equal, you can stop reading now. If you feel music can be reduced to a group of distortion specs and frequency response graphs, then most of what I'm about to say won't matter to you. To make yourself comfortable you've convinced yourself you know everything.

Of course, I would tell you that you are full of shit! Measuring T.H.D will not tell you how you respond to music. Anyone who has enjoyed a good performance of a great piece of music while listening to a portable radio cannot say a handful of measurements is all there is to the matter. I can't. I cannot say that simply because I respond to the music I enjoy, I enjoy music that elicits a response in me and I want to listen to more of that same music. I can only assume that is the reason most of us got involved in this hobby in the first place - we like music.

If you like music and you respond to "good" music, then it would seem obvious that can only happen when we perceive music around us. The signal generator and the oscilloscope do not perceive music, they simply pass a signal from one input to another output. Their deleterious effect on the signal might in some gross way alter our emotional response to music but the components have no feelings about music and couldn't care less if you were playing Sinatra or a 1kHz sinewave. Only humans - as far as we know - truly respond to music as a perceived entity and we do so in a similar fashion to how we respond to any art form or anything in which we involve our senses.

If you agree with what I've posted so far, then you should also see why measuring components tells you next to nothing about how we perceive music or what occurs when we as humans hear and respond to music. For that we need to measure our own personal responses to music as we perceive it. It should be clear by now that what we should be measuring is not the component that simply passes a signal from in to out but the one component that measures our response to that signal. If we truly wish to know whether this or that tweak or improved circuit actually does change how we perceive music, we need to remove the test probes from the amplifier and attach them to ourself. Because until we perceive music, it really doesn't exist. It is only when we respond to music that music changes from a series of frequencies and beats and alterations in volume into what we know as "music". No set of amplifier or speaker measurements can actually tell us how we as humans perceive music as music. It would be like taking measurements of the camera that was used to capture our favorite film. If that is what it takes for you to enjoy "The Searchers", then you operate in a different manner than I do.

Therefore, let's ignore the traditional test equipment and look at what we can do to enhance our perception of music. That is IMO what the ART's system and many other "alternative treatments" are attempting to influence - not T.H.D. or frequency response but how we "hear" music and how we respond to music's particular effects upon our mind and emotions.

Here's where I admit to not knowing enough to be the best "explainer" for this approach to perception because the route branches in so many directions and following any one path only leads you to another fork in the road - where you realize you really don't know all you need to know to complete the journey.

However, the path would seem to begin with binaural beats. Here's where, if you intend to follow this post, you'll have to do some reading and come to your own conclusions, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binaural_beats. I would say a few of the things to notice in this entry are ...

"Interest in binaural beats can be classified into two categories. Firstly, they are of interest to neurophysiologists investigating the sense of hearing. Secondly (and more controversially), binaural beats reportedly influence the brain in more subtle ways through the entrainment of brainwaves [1] [2] and can be used to produce relaxation and other health benefits such as pain relief[3]."

"In particular, Oster saw binaural beats as a powerful tool for cognitive and neurological research, addressing questions such as how animals locate sounds in their three-dimensional environment, and also the remarkable ability of animals to pick out and focus on specific sounds in a sea of noise (what is known as the "cocktail party effect")."

"In addition, binaural beats have been credibly documented to relate to both spatial perception & stereo auditory recognition, and, according to the frequency following response, activation of various sites in the brain."

And finally ...

"In addition to lowering the brain frequency to relax the listener (or to raise it to help focusing) ... "

The effects of binaural beats has been provided sufficient credence that many companies produce programs or devices which stimulate the same areas of the brain. If you read the Wikipedia entries, you'll find links to these products and their makers. Among a few of the claims for these devices is the ability to recreate a particular emotional memory within the user with either relaxation or heightened awareness being two popular options. You could say the products and programs are meant to aid someone interested in meditation, relaxation or increasing their perceptive and cognitive abilities without the use of pharmaceuticals or other ingested stimulants/relaxants. (Let me just mention here for those who have read the "perception" thread, my use of "concert ears" as a similar device. Not the same as binaural beats but the end result is very much the same.)

The links in the Wikipedia entry will take you to various pages that will further explain how binaural beats are used and to other theories of how our brain functions when processing information and most especially information that stimulates our emotions. This is not joojoo science but the real thing that has been around for well over a century in modern psychology.

Now we get back to what we know and what we do not know. As with so many things we "know" we are quite tied down to our Western thought process and we seldom find our way beyond its limitations. In fact too many of us might say that what we have learned in the last two or three centuries in the Western world are really about all we need to know to be intelligent operatives. Surely any "rational" person in the Western world dismisses the primitive wisdom of a shaman and scoffs at the use of a talisman. If you have no experience with something, then you tend to dismiss it when it is shown to you. If you cannot empty your mind so that it may be fill again with new knbowledge, you will remain ignorant of true knowledge.

If we wish to understand how the ART's system - and others like it operate - we will first have to understand what it is we do not know.

May Belt
May Belt's picture
Offline
Last seen: 9 hours 33 min ago
Joined: May 8 2006 - 1:51am
Re: Synergistics Research Acoustic ART-real sonic improvements?

>>> "What I find unusual here is the number of people who rely only on what they already know to determine what can and cannot occur and they stop where their knowledge stops, never asking beyond what they can easily explain." <<<

AND

>>> "Gee, I wish the insults would stop and May would make an intelligent, non-belligerent post.
Can't say I blame her if she doesn't though. There's not much left of this thread." <<<

***********

Jan, I just can't contribute any BETTER words, any BETTER sentences which could move the discussion further on. When so many well respected, well regarded journalist's experiences are 'rubbished' by quite a number of contributors to this Forum, how can a meaningful discussion take place ? I am going to break one of my own rules - I am going to step outside the initial thread of discussing the Synergistics Research Acoustic ART devices for a moment and enlarge on your theme of "people who rely only on what they already know to determine what can and cannot occur and they stop where their knowledge stops, never asking beyond what they can easily explain" with copies of extracts from some well written articles emphasising exactly that !!!

OBVIOUSLY, I do not mean that anyone (everyone) has to 'blindly' accept everything that anyone else says - even from well respected and well regarded journalists - but the ways they individually describe their experiences are good and many of these individuals are separated not only by physical distance (so don't necessarily physically meet - to be influenced by a charismatic person), are separated by different knowledge, are separated by different intellects and YET DESCRIBE what they have experienced in very similar words and sentences.

IF THOSE people, and their experiences, can so readily be dismissed, then I don't see how discussions, however innocently started (maybe purely as a matter of interest) can go further.

The journalists various observations suggest that "there is something happening which needs investigating". Other people , many who have NO OBSERVATIONS regarding that specific subject, say that "there CANNOT BE anything happening, therefore there is nothing which needs investigating".

Or an alternative belief is that IF there was anything happening which COULD make these people's experiences valid, then the "scientists" would know about it already !! Put simply, "Everything is known about everything - it is already in the text books."

One person who responded in this discussion illustrated another attitude with "As soon as the doctors and surgeons understood that there were 'germs in the air', then they began to wash their hands and their surgical instruments" !!

Sorry - they didn't - not for a long time - read the history books !!!

Dr Joseph Lister (who tried to introduce the 'germs in the air' concept to his fellow doctors and surgeons) was ridiculed, attacked and pilloried in the British medical journals for quite a few years. In fact, even 10 years after Lister's first successes were published in the British medical journals, the MAJORITY of the doctors and surgeons in the USA were ANTI Lister !!!

The FACTS were that 100 years ago, so many of the doctors and surgeons had to be dragged shouting, kicking and screaming into the world of antiseptics !! So much for "as soon as they understand, new ideas are accepted".

If you read the various reviews and articles of journalist's experiences with applying a demagnetiser to CDs and to vinyl records, positioning various 'resonators', attaching Shun Mook devices and Harmonix dots around their listening environment, you will see them ALL being taken by surprise at the effects. Of them ALL not wanting to believe what they had just experienced.

I think I can draw on this best with a quote from John Atkinson :-

>>> "It was the Harmonix discs that I attached to my B&Ws, not the Shun Mooks. But this doesn't affect my conjecture.

I have still have them glued to the centers of the panels of my B&W Silver Signature speakers, where they made an audible improvement.

The problem I have with Ethan's point of view is that it assumes that all is known and all is understood. In which there is no point in exposing oneself to new experiences. In which case, what is the point in doing anything at all?

I continue to be surprised by things I think should matter having little effect on what I perceive and by things my preconceptions would lead me to dismiss apparently having a significant effect (positive or negative) on perceived sound quality. So when presented with something that appears to defy logic or my understanding of how the world works, I try not to dismiss it, instead filing it away under "things to return to if there's time."

I do accept that some things affect the listener, not the soundwaves. But if they do so consistently for more than listener, surely that means the effect is "real"?" <<< (John Atkinson)

***********

To illustrate further the opposite attitude to "there CANNOT BE anything happening, therefore there is nothing which needs investigating" I will quote from some articles written in a UK magazine, way back in 1983 !! This was about directionality in wires but nevertheless included the comments "a less-than-open-mind is nothing to be proud of, even when confronted with statements which appear to contradict everything one has learnt or been told." And "The dogmatic approach adopted by some engineers and scientists that a phenomenon can't be held to exist until it can be satisfactorily explained, is obviously unsound."

Out of interest on the subject of directionality, I have copied below extracts from a magazine article, dated 1983, on Directionality in cables. 24 years ago, the author of this article commented that "a less-than-open-mind is nothing to be proud of, even when confronted with statements which appear to contradict everything one has learnt or been told." And
"The dogmatic approach adopted by some engineers and scientists that a phenomenon can't be held to exist until it can be satisfactorily explained, is obviously unsound."

So, with that in mind, the extracts of the article which follows should make interesting reading !!!! May Belt.

***************

Copied from the 1983 article :- (I have deliberately not named the journalist - May Belt).

>>> "I had an interesting conversation with a contributor to (???) some months back. "Isn't it about time" I was asked, "that we organised a test to show that this business about cables being directional is a load of rubbish, dreamed up by unscrupulous con men ?"

To fill in some background for those of you who may not read the down-market hi-fi magazines, a number of hi-fi opinion leaders are claiming that any cable - signal or speaker level, it doesn't matter - will cause the sound to be different connected one way round to the other.
How could a phenomenon like directionality in conductors, therefore, have been missed by researchers all this time ? Surely it is too much to believe that it hid if an engineer bearing measuring equipment approached, but it was only too willing to be heard if carrying a music signal ?
My initial reaction, therefore, to this 'new' fact, was to dismiss it as moonshine. However, a less-than-open-mind is nothing to be proud of, even when confronted with statements which appear to contradict everything one has learnt or been told.

The dogmatic approach adopted by some engineers and scientists that a phenomenon can't be held to exist until it can be satisfactorily explained, is obviously unsound.
I certainly thought it worth looking further into the matter but not with the object of 'proving' it to be rubbish (to carry out an experiment with the object of confirming established dogma is akin to intellectual fascism, I believe).

The actual experiments took place inadvertently on my part. I had been visiting ????? in order to listen to the use of a new low-noise transistor. You can imagine my distress at the end of the session, when ????? showed us that the only difference between A and B was the direction of the 1 m length of interconnect between pre-and power amps !!!

If that audible difference really does exist, what on earth can be the reason for it ? To the best of my knowledge, as long as the copper used is of high purity, without lattice defects or impurities, then the blame cannot be laid at the door of the conductor.

But, what about the insulation ? Before you tell me that the current doesn't flow in the insulation, remember that AC signal flow is NOT synonymous with the movement of electrons; rather, it is analogous to a 'shock wave' travelling via the medium of the moving electrons. Heaviside showed at the end of the last century that, dependent on frequency and due to the conductor's self inductance, this 'shock wave' flows to some extent OUTSIDE the conductor.
Maybe Enid Lumley was right after all ! In the meantime, to paraphrase Bob Dylan, something is going on, and we don't know what it is, do we ? " <<< (end of article) !!

*********************

The paragraphs (from a magazine article in 1983) I quoted from were to show both that the controversy regarding directionality is still going on (in fact it resurfaced again late last year in Hi Fi News and was then taken up by New Scientist in January 2007) AND as an example of how people who have not experienced certain things (for example - directionality and cryogenic/freezing effects) then they are unable to understand what other people are talking about but people who HAVE experienced certain things recognise immediately what others are describing.

The words of the magazine article I quoted from are not mine, however I salute the courage of the person writing them - and, they are still relevant today - 24 years later.

To quote now from Stephen Scharf's description of his experiences with the Synergistics Research Acoustic ART devices.
>>> "So, gotta say, Melody sounded pretty darn good, very airy, spacious, natural-sounding. Great imaging and soundstage, big, wide, and open." <<<

Big, wide and open. Great imaging and soundstage. Very airy, spacious.!!!!

>>> "Anyway, with all the bowls taken down, the same music did sound different...... the soundstage seemed to be smaller vertically, and the overall sound quality was darker and more compressed-sounding; it sounded like the sound was scrunched-down a bit, if that makes sense. It also was not as musical w/o the prayer bowls." <<<

Now, if Stephen was able to hear "Big, wide and open. Great imaging and soundstage. Very airy, spacious sound", and NOT hear it like that when the ART devices were removed, then this means that with the ART devices in position, Stephen had been hearing additional information - additional information which allowed him to resolve more of the musical information which gave him "Big, wide and open. Great imaging and soundstage. Very airy, spacious sound". !!!!

Now, logically, if Stephen was able to hear that additional information, then this means that that additional information MUST HAVE BEEN on the CD ALL THE TIME. It does not suddenly appear 'out of thin air' the very minute the ART devices are installed !!! It MUST HAVE BEEN there, available in the room, ALL THE TIME - but as Stephen subsequently discovered, he was unable to resolve that additional information correctly after the ART devices were taken out of the room !!

Read the various reviews on these various devices. All the journalists descriptions are similar. ALL, in various sentences one after another, describe the effect just as Stephen described.

THIS 'being able to resolve additional information', additional information which MUST HAVE BEEN available in the room all the time, is what I attempted to get over in my articles earlier this year in Positive Feedback Online. I.e. If the additional information was heard on the Monday - AFTER positioning, attaching, using, various devices in the listening room, then it MUST HAVE BEEN on the CD ALL THE TIME, which, logically, means that it MUST HAVE BEEN there, available, in the room the previous Sunday, the previous week, the previous month - for however long the person has been listening to exactly the same CD, through exactly the same equipment, in exactly the same room !!!

As I have said so many times. You HAVE to start at the end - at the observations and work backwards, trying to find out "what on earth must be happening." And not dismiss people's experiences with "It cannot happen, therefore it DID NOT happen."

Regards,
May Belt.

Buddha
Buddha's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 11 months ago
Joined: Sep 8 2005 - 10:24am
Re: Synergistics Research Acoustic ART-real sonic improvements?

Good post, May, with the exception of the appeal to Dr. Joseph Lister.

Again, an example of a previous good idea having to fight to gain acceptance being used as an analogy to support a current idea that meets resistence is not appropriate.

The notion of Aryan superiority was also resisted by many in the scientific/medical community, for good reason.

There are likely more examples of bad ideas meeting resistence because they are bad ideas than there are of good ideas overcoming resistence.

The fact that an idea meets resistence is more likely to be proven appropriate than not.

I, like you, disagree with Ethan about his concept not being complete.

However, I'd disagree a bit about the "sound already being in the room" before the tweak in question was done.

If the bells/bowls add something, then this would obviously not be a case of the information already being present on the CD or in the room.

The bells/balls/bowls may be adding something we may find pleasing, but the notion that they are umasking something that is already present is not likely an accurate description. Even Jan, with his initial theory of beat frequencies sets up the notion that something not present previously is being added to the experience.

As for Ethan's room treatments, the sounds were not already in the room in that fashion until after the room was treated. Ethan's treaments measurably change the sound in the room. The info on the CD was unchanged, but how that information ends up 'in the room' was altered in such a way to be significantly different than 'what was already in the room before.' In Ethan's case, there is likely both more and less of certain things in the room!

Cheers.

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Synergistics Research Acoustic ART-real sonic improvements?


Quote:
I can ask questions too. ... Why does the largest unit have an ornate brass protuberance on it? Is this part of the acoustic design or is it purely ornamental?

FC, this question proves you did not actually read the ART's pages for comprehension since the function of the "ornaments" is decribed on those pages and how the "ornaments" are adjusted for optimum sound within your own listening space is detailed there.

I would say you read the ART's pages with your customary negligence and an eye towards anything you could latch onto (Helmholtz Resonators) to "disprove" something you know nothing about and about which you had/have no desire to find more information or reason beyond the printed page.

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Synergistics Research Acoustic ART-real sonic improvements?


Quote:
If the bells/bowls add something, then this would obviously not be a case of the information already being present on the CD or in the room.

The bells/balls/bowls may be adding something we may find pleasing, but the notion that they are umasking something that is already present is not likely an accurate description. Even Jan, with his initial theory of beat frequencies sets up the notion that something not present previously is being added to the experience.

"Adding to" would be a very imcomplete premise for what the bowls are doing. The efffect of binaural beats is best served when the information is so low in level and/or frequency that the adition remains audibly imperceptible* . It is the information our mind "creates" between the beats that does the work, not the information from the source itself. In this sense, no information is added to the listening room. The only information that is of value could easily be said to exist only within our own auditory system and how that information affects our perception of events - specifically our perception of how we heard and what we hear.

I have to absolutely agree with May that this is a case of the music "being in the room" at all times and only being perceptible after we have been exposed to the binaural beats.

Nothing has changed on the CD. Nothing has audibly changed in the room. What has changed could only be "measured" by measuring the stimulus centers of our brain activity when the ART's are in and out of the system.

* Sorry, after a review of the post this edit is important to the meaning of the sentence.

ethanwiner
ethanwiner's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 1 2005 - 2:26pm
Re: Synergistics Research Acoustic ART-real sonic improvements?


Quote:
I, like you, disagree with Ethan about his concept not being complete.


Then please complete the concept. It's not enough to say "You're wrong" - you need to explain how and why I'm wrong and, better, what is right. If you can't do that, then you need to examine your own convictions!

Likewise, I explained very clearly a few days ago why it is not a problem for an amplifier to drive a loudspeaker load whose impedance changes with frequency. If you disagree with my explanation, then here too you need to say what's wrong with it. Not just pipe up again in a few weeks and say the same "I disagree" stuff.

If we can't follow a single discussion through to a logical completion, what's the point of even having a discussion forum?

--Ethan

michiganjfrog
michiganjfrog's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Jan 9 2007 - 11:36pm
Re: Synergistics Research Acoustic ART-real sonic improvements?

Fresh Clip wrote: Frog, you seem a little peeved that the Furutech thread was closed. I'm quite glad it was because it put an end to the ridiculous squabbling that was going on there. However, I notice you have brought that conversation into this one for the purpose of having "the last say".

Good for you, that's the spirit.

Thanks. I'm just trying to fit in with youse guys. I hope I'm not trying too hard! Regardless of what I "seem", I'm not peeved the Furutech thread was closed since it was obviously not ever going to get anywhere; (not because of you, you'd made excellent, if slightly misguided, contributions to it). My beef with Ethan is that yet another thread that Ethan sabotaged was closed, largely because of him contributing nothing but personal attacks to it. He was asked to stay out of it if he had nothing but ad hominem attacks to contribute, and he refused to. He was asked to post on the topic of the thread, and he refused to. Then in this thread and the last, he turns around and tells people he doesn't make personal attacks, its others doing that. Even as he attacks their audio systems, without provocation. And no, I didn't bring that conversation into this thread to have the last say. You've conveniently ignored the fact that this is precisely what Ethan did in this thread, right here:

http://forum.stereophile.com/forum/printthread.php?Board=rants&main=55651&type=post

In the Furutech thread, I ignored a number of his attacks against me, and in this thread, I wasn't even involved in it or reading it, when he attacked me here without provocation! That's a bit much, AFAIC. My response was an answer to his attacks against me in this thread, and the sheer gall of him doing that while simultaneously complaining about others making personal attacks. And I thought my response was pretty funny actually, but I guess we'll just have to disagree on that one.

This thread has almost managed to stay on topic for the last few pages. We have all resisted the temptation to call each other names and have been exchanging information and ideas on the efficacy of the ART devices.

You mean like this personal attack on Jan on page 8?:

rgibran:

When? After another 20 pages of crying about us not answering your questions and proclaiming your the only one advancing the thread?

Not flaming, but by all means puleeze tell us how YOU think these devices work. Or are YOU waiting for Frog and May to tell you when to jump?

Is that okay because no name calling was involved? Because I find it a pretty insulting and disrespectful ad hominem attack. I speak for myself, and I presume whoever posts here speaks for themselves as well. Just because we might share certain views or beliefs, doesn't mean we all go to work together in the morning.

It's certainly not the only attack I've read in this thread, and all the attacks I've seen have been on Jan. e.g. How about this personal attack on Jan on page 9, two pages ago, which it seems despite the cursing, was acceptable to the mods. It was an attack on Jan for trying to get this thing back on track. For simply pointing out there are too many attacks, too little discussion going forward, and too few people willing to respond to questions and debate the issues. No edits, this is the entire post!:

ncdrawl ranted:

"well if you know how it will be met, resign yourself to it, and quit bitching about it, for fucks sake. about half your posts are you bitching about people not answering the questions. Christ..... "

This was in response to Jan simply saying:

"And, of course, I know how this will be met. "

"NCDRAWL" must have been peeved about something, no? But you haven't asked him the same question. I'm guessing it's because he was peeved at the "right person" (Jan), and not the wrong person (Ethan). Even you, who've said you've never sunk to personal insults at other members in all of your contributions here, are not exempt from ad hominems, in your debate. I consider the following a personal insult, and part of the "Pile on Jan!" that's been going on in this thread:

FreshClip wrote:

"Jan NEVER answers questions. He only asks them. This way he can maintain his lofty position as the 'defender of all HiFi tweaks'!"

....Because I've seen Jan answer questions. I'd say far more than many. Of course, even if it were true, it could still be considered an ad hominem, that doesn't advance the discussion.

Speaking of which, seems you guys were having a "very illuminating" discussion about moderation in this thread. It appears the consensus was personal attacks is okay, as long as they weren't directed at those saying that. They were called "entertainment". I would have been perfectly happy with a policy of zero tolerance for personal attacks, applied with a heavy hand to all, because I expect more of these forums than the usenet newsgroups. But no, the majority hath spoken. Like you said, "that's their spirit". Ethan and his followers in the Pro Audio Hifi TrVth Squad, ncdrawl, tomjtx, (and whoever else complains every time someone shows Ethan's tech claims to be false), want the right to inject personal ad hominem attacks in the discussion. Or scribble off-topic nonsense that they feel more comfortable arguing about, despite doing nothing to advance the thread topic.

I am skeptical of the claims made for these devices and I have advanced some opinions and theories on why they might make a 'difference' to the room acoustics. Notice I didn't say 'improvement' That is my stance and until proven otherwise by some reasonably easy to gather data (a simple room sweep with an analyzer) I will remain skeptical.

While I'm not of the mind that a simple room sweep with an analyzer tells you everything that's going on (wishful thinking, yes), I understand your remaining skeptical on the ART bell bowls. I guess some things have to be heard to be believed.

Do you have something to contribute here that will
forward the conversation? I ask Jan the same question.

Probably not! Like I said, I entered the thread, in part to respond to Ethan's outrageous remarks, and mainly to respond to a question Buddha had raised to me in this thread, and correct the record a bit about what he said of an experiment of mine. Although I find the ART bowls an interesting product, they're a product I've never tried and know little about, so I'm not sure if I want to devote the time to "discussing" it, or what I could say to advance the discussion. I'll see.

Maybe I could comment on what you mentioned about whether the mahogany or brass protrusions are decorative or not, or whether some of it could be modified without changing the effect of the ART system. From what I recall reading, every single aspect of these seemingly simple devices has a lot of thinking and production behind it. I'm suggesting it's far more advanced than you, or your realtime analyzers would suppose. Moreover, every material has different resonant frequencies and properties that affect sound; so my guess is no, you can not expect to change the wood or the protrusions without affecting what the ART does, or how it does it. (I use a bamboo board under one of my components, and I know very well the sound would change if I changed the wood). I would also guess the bowls are very particular as to how they are placed, and that small changes in location could significantly affect their performance.

If you can't handle a bit of robust debate on the subject of audio devices of various kinds, maybe you should take up lace-making or something.

Well if I can handle battling jack-booted neo-nazis at Stormfront and 419ers, ummm.... I guess I can probably handle a few armchair audio geeks. Just don't be too hard on me, I'm very sensitive. Especially about that mole over my left eye. (Stop looking at it! )

michiganjfrog
michiganjfrog's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Jan 9 2007 - 11:36pm
Re: Synergistics Research Acoustic ART-real sonic improvements?

I don't know what "beat frequencies" have to do with the subject of this thread, the ART singing bowls. IIRC, they work on acoustic principles, according to the manufacturer. Perhaps their acoustic influence in the room may be too subtle to measured by the equipment we have to do this sort of thing (even if the acoustic effect isn't), but that doesn't mean they don't work by acoustic principles, and might be similar to what beat frequencies do. I can't see any evidence to suggest that.

Binaural beats alter brain frequencies, so yes, they are one way to explain how sound can have an effect on you, without any possibility of measurement. So of course, according to the Ethanists, rulers of rationalism in the Western world, that means they are doing nothing, and the effect is all "placeboic". Nevertheless, I finally got to sleep last night because of beat frequencies. Well, isochronic if you want to get technical about it (been having a hard time falling asleep these last few nights, and its the only thing that helped!). In my audio experiments, beat frequencies had an effect on my perception of music; it made it more musical. But oddly, nothing I couldn't do with a Belt product, and do better. Plus the noise was kind of distracting. I can't say what the difference is with a stand alone Schumann generator.

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Synergistics Research Acoustic ART-real sonic improvements?


Quote:
If we can't follow a single discussion through to a logical completion, what's the point of even having a discussion forum?

For once I agree with Winer. It would be unfortunate if we could not agree this thread needs to stay on track and any attempts to drive it into the ditch are unappreciated by many.

If this is what you care to discuss, Buddha and Winer, take it somewhere else.

Buddha
Buddha's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 11 months ago
Joined: Sep 8 2005 - 10:24am
Re: Synergistics Research Acoustic ART-real sonic improvements?

Fuckin Hell, Hi Fi is becoming a zero sum endeavor.

I was agreeing with May in that Ethan's concepts do not seem fully fleshed out to me.

I was not revisiting his Big Four. Maybe a little more reading and slightly less typing, Monsieur Frog?

As for the topic, I would agree with what someone posted about these bowls not quite fitting the "binaural beat" model, but it's better than someone just saying, "They work, or not, because I say so" stuff we often run into. Certainly not flame worthy!

Interestingly, binaural beats are a measurable phenomenon, and have typical criteria ascribed to their existence, so this is definitely a move toward some objective/subjective detente. There are even set objective relationships between the frequencies that are necessary to cause the binaural beat phenomenon!

Anyway, if the bowls were to add to such a phenomenon, then they would obviously be bringing something into the room that was not there before.

Bringing a resonating devive into the room would not fit the idea of that "sound" existing within the CD or the room before the device was introduced, eh?

As to their effect, many of us are perfectly fine with the notion of sonically pleasing distortion products (tubes, etc) so why not sonically pleasing resonance devices?

At the oppsite end of the topic, I'd call Ethan's products something that aims to remove displeasing resonances, so what the Hell, we are meeting some place in the middle!

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Synergistics Research Acoustic ART-real sonic improvements?


Quote:
Maybe I could comment on what you mentioned about whether the mahogany or brass protrusions are decorative or not, or whether some of it could be modified without changing the effect of the ART system. From what I recall reading, every single aspect of these seemingly simple devices has a lot of thinking and production behind it. I'm suggesting it's far more advanced than you, or your realtime analyzers would suppose. Moreover, every material has different resonant frequencies and properties that affect sound; so my guess is no, you can not expect to change the wood or the protrusions without affecting what the ART does, or how it does it. (I use a bamboo board under one of my components, and I know very well the sound would change if I changed the wood). I would also guess the bowls are very particular as to how they are placed, and that small changes in location could significantly affect their performance.

Speaking without first hand knowledge of the ART's system, I would say nothing can be "changed" without also changing the performance of the system. Dare I ask how many of you believe you could change a single component in your audio system without also changing the overall tone of that system? Ask yourself if a Les Paul or a 335 had the same sustain as that of a Stratocaster, wouldn't God still be playing a Gibson as he did in those Cream days of old? It all works together. That's not to say the ART's system couldn't be produced with other woods but I suspect the system would change in some way that you might or might not find beneficial.

Your question is really one for ART's, not us. If you thought asking it of us because we couldn't provide a definitive answer would prove we know nothing at all about the ART's system's operation, then I think you figured wrong. Like Frog, I have a pretty good idea what different materials inside my listening room do to affect the sound.

Regarding placement of the bowls, I would say this is where the study of HR's as mentioned on the ART's web page enters the picture. Place a HR system at the incorrect position within the listening space and the effect is anywhere from slightly less to nothing when compared to the correct placement possibly just a few inches this way or that to maximize the pressure within the system. Placing bass traps in the center of the room will give results unlike placing them in the high pressure areas of room junctions. Therefore, if you want a passive system that works by way of resonance, the best place to locate such a system would be in the high pressure zones within the listening space where they can be excited to their fullest extent. However, as with HR's and BT's, if you want to vary the effectiveness of each system then you have the ability to move the system outside of the high pressure area. Any change here will also alter the perception of the audio system just as you would expect a change if you went from a 24" trap to a 6" trap.

Make sense?

michiganjfrog
michiganjfrog's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Jan 9 2007 - 11:36pm
Re: Synergistics Research Acoustic ART-real sonic improvements?

Fuckin Hell, Hi Fi is becoming a zero sum endeavor.

Meaning?


I was not revisiting his Big Four. Maybe a little more reading and slightly less typing, Monsieur Frog?

What are you talking about? Are you calling Jan "Monsieur Frog" now, because that's who you're responding to, according to your header? And I don't see where I talked about you revisiting EW's "Big Four" in my post to you here. The one you didn't respond to. Perhaps you should take your advice, and do a little more reading.

As for the topic, I would agree with what someone posted about these bowls not quite fitting the "binaural beat" model, but it's better than someone just saying, "They work, or not, because I say so" stuff we often run into. Certainly not flame worthy!

That "someone" that posted about them not fitting the binaural beat model, would be me. It's not that they "don't quite fit the model", they simply have nothing to do with how binaural beats work, in brainwave entrainment.

Bringing a resonating devive into the room would not fit the idea of that "sound" existing within the CD or the room before the device was introduced, eh?

Yes, and no; it's not always black or white, Buddha. All devices you bring into a listening room, where everything has its resonant freq's, may characterize the sound in some way, however infinitesimal, by their acoustical influence. They may also operate on another level, one that allows you to hear more of what was already on the recording. I'm not suggesting that's the case here with the ART devices. I would tend to think not, since they weren't made to work in that way (if anything, the magnets they have would likely be detrimental), and their material properties don't seem particularly unique.


As to their effect, many of us are perfectly fine with the notion of sonically pleasing distortion products (tubes, etc) so why not sonically pleasing resonance devices?

At the oppsite end of the topic, I'd call Ethan's products something that aims to remove displeasing resonances, so what the Hell, we are meeting some place in the middle!

You seem to be suggesting here that the ART devices are only, if anything, perpetrating euphonic distortions, while room traps are completely neutral and do nothing untoward to the sound. I would suggest it's the reverse. You talked about comparing my water experiments to the ART devices, and I said that wasn't an interesting experiment. This however is. Ethan's ugly, monolithic, air conditioner grills, that are guaranteed to turn the mood and decorum of any listening room into one befitting a Winnebago or a Port-A-Potty, vs. the teeny weeny tiny whiny and very pretty ART prayer bowls. Probably more comparable in price than a glass of water, and let's hope, more influential.

RGibran
RGibran's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 1 day ago
Joined: Oct 11 2005 - 5:50pm
Re: Synergistics Research Acoustic ART-real sonic improvements?

I'll just reply to myself in an effort to not insult anyone...sheesh! I had some observations and many questions.

A few have commented about placement regarding these devices, as if it was important. Perhaps I misinterpret the manufacturer

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Synergistics Research Acoustic ART-real sonic improvements?


Quote:
I don't know what "beat frequencies" have to do with the subject of this thread, the ART singing bowls. IIRC, they work on acoustic principles, according to the manufacturer.

The binaural beats are my intrepretation of how the ART's bowls might operate. It is based on two things I hope I understand. The first is the sound I know of a Tibetan Singing Bowl, though unfortunately not a prized antique which includes higher degrees of more varied materials afforded to their construction. (They, like the ART's system, are prohibitively priced for us regular folk thanks to those who can afford 800 year old Bowls and original, signed Stickley sideboards.)

However, all well made Bowls- and certainly the hand hammered Bowls I own - should be considered to be "multiphonic" instruments which produce complex harmonic structures beating against one another and joining to create unique harmonic structures that only that specific Bowl can generate. While the historical use of Singing Bowls is not well documented the most common use is as an aid in meditation whether that meditation be one that relaxs only or one that heightens perception. One assumption is that the Singing Bowls work either by or in a similar fashion to the binaural beat generators. This assumption is made largely from the reported personal experiences of those using the Bowls - and particularly of those also using beat generators - though I have seen a similar suggestion on at least one of the web pages discussing the Bowls.

Someone here suggested the on line recording of Bowls singing was distressful. Nothing could be further from reality. Like you I suffer from insomnia and have often used the Bowls and Bells on a looped tape to guide me to sleep.

The ART's page mentions the acoustic of the room shifting with each addition or subtraction of individual Bowls to the song. I can attest to the phenomenon of multiple Bowls creating a perception of "space" that is quite unlike any other I've ever encountered.

The other assumpotion I am making is that the size of the ART's bowls is physically too small to be an "acoustic" device other than in a loose, old time even translation of that term. If we consider the original Edison "Talking Machine" to be an "acoustic" device where the pressure of the signal resonated a stylus, then we can consider the later "phonograph" to be an electrical device once microphones replaced the speaking horn. In the same way the ART's system apparently relies on the acoustic pressure of the signal within the room (again the reason for studying HR's) to excite the resonance of the bowl's structure. I can only deduce, given the size of the ART's bowls, that they would be quite inefficient as sound diffusors in the average sized room and their "song" can only be a small addition to the overall signal within the room - ideal for the imperceptibly low level binaural beat system but not much else. In fact, their output would be somewhat limited by their size and structure and as the SPL's within the room rose the overall level of the music would eventually overwhelm the contribution of the ART's bowls. From all I've read this doesn't seem to be the case since the bowls would appear to have an equal effect whether the music was at realistic, full blown symphonic levels or at the quiestest of Peggy Lee whispers.

Now, admittedly, I'm still working within my own knowledge base when I make those assumptions. But I have to begin somewhere.

Stephen Scharf
Stephen Scharf's picture
Offline
Last seen: 11 months 1 day ago
Joined: Nov 19 2008 - 9:36pm
Re: Synergistics Research Acoustic ART-real sonic improvements?


Quote:

Steven claimed the effect was subtle and not worth the money. Show goers at RMAF claimed they were system transforming and a bargain for what they offered. Doesn

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Synergistics Research Acoustic ART-real sonic improvements?


Quote:
At the oppsite end of the topic, I'd call Ethan's products something that aims to remove displeasing resonances, so what the Hell, we are meeting some place in the middle!

Not at all! IMO nothing could be further from reality. I mentioned in another thread - and was met with stupification and then insults from someone unwilling to believe or explore a simple statement - as have other's with personal experience using alternative treatments that they have a positive effect on the music. Their attempt is not to remove anything from the music other than the distractions of the environment. (Remember the environment from May's posts on the "size" and "perception" threads?)

Since most of these alternative treatments do not remove any reflections or damp any signal - how could they if they are truly dealing with the music that is already inside the room? - their contribution to the sound is not subtractive as is the use of "conventional" room treatments. With a typical bass trap/first reflection absorption system you are literally removing portions of the overall signal in order to tame the room sound. A bass trap attentuates at all frequencies within its operating range without discrimination to what is valuable and what is not. The same for first reflection wall treatments. The ragged shape of the room response is still essentially there, it has only been taken down in roughly equal measure peak to peak at all frequencies.

This is the difference between "killing the sound" and not. While Stephen heard the ART's system in a "treated" room, most of the alternative treatments I've come across suggest you begin with a "live room" and allow the music to remain "alive". As with all things audio, I would think a bit of a compromise is often the best course to pursue.

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Synergistics Research Acoustic ART-real sonic improvements?


Quote:
... and their material properties don't seem particularly unique.

Once again I have to disagree based on my knowledge of Singing Bowls. The antique Bowls are quite elaborate in their contruction with workmanship rivaling fine Oriental blades and procelain.

From Wikipedia on Singing Bowls ...

Quote:
Traditionally, antique singing bowls were made of Panchaloha (literally meaning "five metals" in Sanskrit): a bronze alloy of copper, tin, zinc and iron and other metals. Antiques often include silver, gold and nickel.

New Bowls can't match that degree of complexity if they are to be sold on a commercial market. However, new Bowls don't sound like old Bowls. I would suspect, though I don't know, a good portion of the cost of the ART's system is their use of more exotic materials than would be found in a consumer oriented Bowl that can be had new for under $100.

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Synergistics Research Acoustic ART-real sonic improvements?


Quote:
I would suggest the sighted knowledge of their presence and the expectation of change from the ritual of placing and removing the devices has a far more profound effect than actual positioning of the units.

I would suggest you have fallen prey to the god of "easy cynicism", a multi-butted creature of foul breath and even more foul thought. Be careful, such sprits inhabit dark places and demand terrible payments just to keep themself alive and coming up with new excuses why something you don't understand cannot possibly work as described by Stephen and Jason.


Quote:
Steven claimed the effect was subtle and not worth the money. Show goers at RMAF claimed they were system transforming and a bargain for what they offered. Doesn
RGibran
RGibran's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 1 day ago
Joined: Oct 11 2005 - 5:50pm
Re: Synergistics Research Acoustic ART-real sonic improvements?


Quote:
Someone here suggested the on line recording of Bowls singing was distressful. Nothing could be further from reality.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hncJzoAiAw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bpw53tN6h8E&feature=related

My ears are still ringing!

RG

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Synergistics Research Acoustic ART-real sonic improvements?

You haven't chosen the best introduction to Singing Bowls, the audio quality is meager to say the most. There are various Buddhist temples in Dallas. Call and ask if they use the Bowls and Bells for any public services and listen in person.

The videos do show the range of sounds available from the Bowls even when one Bowl is struck by just the two ends of the same mallet.

michiganjfrog
michiganjfrog's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Jan 9 2007 - 11:36pm
Re: Synergistics Research Acoustic ART-real sonic improvements?

Well I see what you're talking about now, with the binaural beats theory. And now that you mention it, I have a very vague recollection from when I was researching the Schumann effect, of reading about the effects of binaural beats being produced in natural ways by centuries old cultures; like Shaman drum beating and the like, if I recall correctly. I still think it's a bit of a stretch to suggest the ART devices are working in like ways. Binaural beats produce specific frequencies at specific times, while the ART devices must contend with all the various room reflections and shapes they will encounter.

If the ART products are made in ways similar to genuine Tibetan singing bowls (which would expain their high price), I would guess that the key to their effeciveness is in what you said about the complex frequencies generated by the Tibetan bowls. That along with the novel, audio specific designs they applied to that ancient, but refined, technology.

Harmonix tuning dots
Brilliant Pebbles
Shun Mook disks
Synergistics ART

What do all these have in common? Well, adherents, for one. Some, well known and respected audio reviewers, and many intelligent customers. What this should be telling us is that perhaps you don't have to have a sound panel the size of a fridge door to significantly affect the acoustic space of a room, or otherwise affect the listening experience acoustically. Some just can't, or won't, see the larger picture. (Particularly if their business relies on panels the size of a fridge door. But I digress). So for them, they won't advance in their knowledge of what is, because, as you suggest, they refuse to put aside what they already know to be true.

Someone here suggested the on line recording of Bowls singing was distressful. Nothing could be further from reality. Like you I suffer from insomnia and have often used the Bowls and Bells on a looped tape to guide me to sleep.

I use an isochronic Kunlun meditation practice for that purpose. If I wake up by alarm, I also have a looped recording on CD of zen bell chimes (from an online recording), rung in a golden median pattern, that I wake up to. But look if people find any of this "distressful", that's not "far from reality". That is their reality.

Now, admittedly, I'm still working within my own knowledge base when I make those assumptions. But I have to begin somewhere.

Yes, we all do work within our own knowledge base when making these assumptions. Good of you to recognize that, because most contributors here don't or won't. Their cups are too full. I would tend to agree, the ARTs too small to act as diffusers. So we have to operate on the premise that acoustical pressure waves are exciting the resonant frequencies of these little devices; supported by the fact that you can tune some of them to produce different frequencies. So they are not comparable to conventional acoustic treatments, and may even work alongside them.

Once again I have to disagree based on my knowledge of Singing Bowls. The antique Bowls are quite elaborate in their contruction with workmanship rivaling fine Oriental blades and procelain.

When I said their materials don't seem particularly unique to me, I was referring to metal and wood; not their design. I would agree the workmanship is quite unique.

I found some amount of evidence supporting your theory on the Tibetan singing bowls. This page on Ayurvedic psychology, offers a recording of the singing bowls, and claims:

"This recording clearly captures the natural tones of the Tibetan Singing Bowls in a musical soundscape designed to invoke deep relaxation. By listening with stereo headphones you can capture the subtle pulses and harmonies the bowls naturally create in a way very similar to the binaural beats popular in hemi-sync recordings."

http://ananga.net/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=75

I found this link to a binaural beat relaxation mp3, that uses Tibetan singing bowls "attuned to the 2nd Chakra":

http://get-rich-mp3-download.com/gift.html

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Synergistics Research Acoustic ART-real sonic improvements?

This is from the Bowls page to which you just linked ...

Quote:
Are Tibetan Bowls a Natural Way to Enter a Relaxed and Lucid Brain State?
There's something about the tones of Tibetan Bowls that the brain seems to love. In recent experiments, people experiencing high levels of stress were able to enter states of deep relaxation after 20 minutes of listening to singing bowls. Many of the listeners registered theta brain waves; theta is the hypnotic and relaxed brain state that hovers between wakefulness and sleep, perfect for recovering from stress and daydreaming.

This is from the Wikipedia page on binaural beats ...

Quote:
When the perceived beat frequency corresponds to the delta, theta, alpha, beta, or gamma range of brainwave frequencies, the brainwaves entrain to or move towards the beat frequency.[16] For example, if a 315 Hz sine wave is played into the right ear and a 325 Hz one into the left ear, the brain is entrained towards the beat frequency (10 Hz, in the alpha range). Since alpha range is associated with relaxation, this has a relaxing effect or if in the beta range, more alertness. An experiment with binaural sound stimulation using beat frequencies in the Beta range on some participants and Delta/Theta range in other participants, found better vigilance performance and mood in those on the awake alert state of Beta range stimulation.[17][18]

So, I don't want to say without any proof that the ART system operates identically to the Bowls in mediation services but there would seem to be a link. That link is better than "they cannot work" or "in room acoustics, size is all that matters".

From the Synergistic Research page ...

Quote:
Acoustic ART
The inspiration for the Acoustic ART system came to our lead designer Ted Denney four years ago while sailing the South Pacific. During his sabbatical, Ted visited Buddhist Temples and observed how Tibetan Prayer bowls altered temple acoustics. These singing bowls affected a sudden shift in acoustics whenever they were activated, and when additional bowls of varying tone were also activated, the acoustics continued to change. Ted reasoned that a system of resonating bowls could be developed to discreetly treat room acoustics without the need for large unsightly tuning devices.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=theta+brain+waves&go=Go

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Synergistics Research Acoustic ART-real sonic improvements?

What's your opinion of measuring the brain waves of someone in room with and without the ART's system? Gotta beat four amplifier measurements!

May, any input on this?

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Synergistics Research Acoustic ART-real sonic improvements?


Quote:
Binaural beats produce specific frequencies at specific times, while the ART devices must contend with all the various room reflections and shapes they will encounter.

Right, so I don't know that binaural beats is the complete answer here. I would say Synergistic Research is working on some cutting edge stuff with this system, and this would be something that would justify the cost of the system if that's the case. How much did William Hurt pay for his isolation tank in "Altered States"?


Quote:
... while the ART devices must contend with all the various room reflections and shapes they will encounter.

However, if you are positioning the ART's system first at the high pressure zones and secondly at first reflection points, wouldn't the system become more predictable? It would seem a fairly simple task for a metalurgist to fashion a bowl that resonates at the specific frequencies required to simulate the binaural beats theory.

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Synergistics Research Acoustic ART-real sonic improvements?

Here in Dallas the realtors have an expression that implies they are getting rid of the riffraff in a certain area of town. It's, "We're quadrupuling the rent."

I always resent it because generally I am the riffrafff.

But it would seem we have quadrupuled the rent on this thread, Frog.

Stephen Scharf
Stephen Scharf's picture
Offline
Last seen: 11 months 1 day ago
Joined: Nov 19 2008 - 9:36pm
Re: Synergistics Research Acoustic ART-real sonic improvements?


Quote:

Quote:
I would suggest the sighted knowledge of their presence and the expectation of change from the ritual of placing and removing the devices has a far more profound effect than actual positioning of the units.

Possibly Stephen would change his mind if he spent more than ten minutes with the ART's system and had $3k burning a hole in his wallet.

Ya'think?!

Possible, with more time with them, but probably not likely.

If I had $3000 burning a hole in my pocket, I'd probably use it for a vacation in Italy!

Buddha
Buddha's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 11 months ago
Joined: Sep 8 2005 - 10:24am
Re: Synergistics Research Acoustic ART-real sonic improvements?


Quote:
Here in Dallas the realtors have an expression that implies they are getting rid of the riffraff in a certain area of town. It's, "We're quadrupuling the rent."

I always resent it because generally I am the riffrafff.

But it would seem we have quadrupuled the rent on this thread, Frog.

Oh, brother.

4 consecutive posts in a 15 minute span is not establishing that others are not still on board.

Anyway, one thing to consider with the binaural beats hypothesis is that they are generally described in situations where each ear is presented the tones in question without the other ear being exposed. This is usually done in a headphone environement, so if we include these in a live room discussion, we have to figure out how that might be occurring.

Since Wikipedia seems to be the authority of the day...

"The brain produces a phenomenon resulting in low-frequency pulsations in the loudness of a perceived sound when two tones at slightly different frequencies are presented separately, one to each of a subject's ears, using stereo headphones."

Plus, if we want to invoke this phenomenon for the bowls, it should be relatively easy to esatblish by looking at their harmonics when stimulated. JA could do that, if he were so inclined!

Much of the Tibetan Bowl temple phenomenon is more intermodulatory than binaural, so I'm still dubious, for myself, about the 'binaural beat' phenomenon in this Hi Fi case.

Lastly, binaural beats require a limited frequency range, below 1,500 HZ, which should be readily identifiable!

Once again, a case where the objective and the subjective may finally meet!

Perhaps Bob Ludwig can pull all those unsightly room treatments out of his recording stuiod and get on board with real room tuning.

It appears he has some significantly larger Tibetan Bowls in his room, With integral light sources! Maybe they could qualify as the Lowe's Discount Tibetan Bowl Tweak!

ncdrawl
ncdrawl's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 5 months ago
Joined: Oct 18 2008 - 9:18am
Re: Synergistics Research Acoustic ART-real sonic improvements?

i hate that mackie big knob... egh.

Ausperger speakers?

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Synergistics Research Acoustic ART-real sonic improvements?


Quote:
Much of the Tibetan Bowl temple phenomenon is more intermodulatory than binaural, so I'm still dubious, for myself, about the 'binaural beat' phenomenon in this Hi Fi case.

Fine, but what I've presented is further along than, "In room treatments, size is all." And the "usual suspects" for this sort of thread do seem to be missing. Usually there would be a good bit of "jovial" insults thrown at what someone defending the ART's system has to say. A good deal of insulting going on. A concerted effort to derail the thread.

Not that I miss it but there is a noted lack of interest by those who had quite a bit to say, particularly about me personally, just a few pages back.

Must be the season.

Though I haven't said the ART's system is specifically operating via binaural beats, you seem to think I have. And so your entire argument here is based on an assumption that would prove to be wrong.

Right?

Why don't you address the similarities of how the Tibetan Bowls and the ART's system apparently stimulate similar areas and functions of the brain?

That link is something I have posted that I feel makes for a more compelling case to tie together the ART's system and Tibetan Singing Bowls.

Buddha
Buddha's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 11 months ago
Joined: Sep 8 2005 - 10:24am
Re: Synergistics Research Acoustic ART-real sonic improvements?

I posted about my own notion of the bowls, and have been discussing a topic, 'binaural beats,' that you brought up. If discussing your idea in more detail is distressing, say so, but giving it enough consideration to discuss it shouldn't be too upsetting. I was saying why I didn't think binaural beats applied here.

I don't see the need to start fabricating about the neurologic effect of Tibetan Bowls and their similarities to the ART, simply because there seems to be a reasonable sonic way to discuss the ART objects without inventing some new undisprovable Hi Fi gobble.

tomjtx
tomjtx's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: Nov 12 2006 - 2:53pm
Re: Synergistics Research Acoustic ART-real sonic improvements?

Well I just moved one of my ASC traps to a different place and snapped the vocals into place. Diana Krall's voice was always centered but now it is more distinct even more in focus than before.

Inspired by this I decided to try my own Buddhist version of "bowl tuning"

I filled numerous bowls with different single malts of 18 years of aging (a middle of the road audiophile approach) .
I put straws in each bowl to "adjust" the fluid level in each bowl, meticulously
recording the changing amounts of fluid (in my mnd, I have an alcoholigenic memory)

The results were astounding !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Things I had never heard before were now obvious. the clarity of voices, the separation of line and everything had the aura of circular breathing and dual tone singing.

However, by the time I got to the 6th bowl with my " straw adjustments" my senses seemed curiously dulled. I, therefore, came to the conclusion that , just as with conventional room treatment, too much can deaden the sound and the brain.

BTW , by the end of the evening all testing was done blind.................drunk.

Buddha
Buddha's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 11 months ago
Joined: Sep 8 2005 - 10:24am
Re: Synergistics Research Acoustic ART-real sonic improvements?

Excellent.

This thread has been interesting from the standpoint that the subjectivists will now probably tell you that you can't hear the benefit of your large room treatments because they remind them of Ethan.

The bowls we are discussing work, but not any of that large, unattractive stuff!

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Synergistics Research Acoustic ART-real sonic improvements?

Buddha, who taught you to tap dance, Stephen Hawking?


Quote:
I posted about my own notion of the bowls, and have been discussing a topic, 'binaural beats,' that you brought up. If discussing your idea in more detail is distressing, say so, but giving it enough consideration to discuss it shouldn't be too upsetting. I was saying why I didn't think binaural beats applied here.

And I said a page or more ago I tended to agree that binaural beats cannot provide the full explanation to how the ART system operates.

Glad we ... uh, .... "agree"?

I am "distressed" you didn't catch that post. And I'm upset that you didn't see where I did link the brain wave activity which seems a most promising direction in which to head. You were presented with a "scientific" method of viewing the ART system and you would rather dismiss it in favor of some wild theory of "ringing"?

With nothing to substantiate your guess, just that it is a guess on your part because that is the limit of your knowledge?

What you already know?!!!

And you want JA to get the ART system and measure it?

To prove your guess?

Isn't that a bit like when you accused me of running to JA for cover everytime I simply mentioned his name in the "perception" thread?

Oh, no, I suppose to you it is not.

Because it came from you and not me.

"!"

If I read your "premise post" correctly, you would still just relegate the operation of the ART system to ...

Quote:
If the bowls have a high enough reactive resonant frequency, they actually may be able to possibly aid with creating the illusion of the music providing missing high frequency information and aiding and abetting a listener's sensation of space or location.

" ... they actually may be able to possibly ... "?

Well done, sir! What further proof should we require?

So your idea of how the devices operate is really no more sophisticated than the proposal made by Alex?!

Just to be certain, this is your approach to presenting a "reasonable sonic way to discuss the ART objects"? Just how so, Buddha? That they "ring"? That ...

Quote:
I say this because, especially with digital, we end up kind of 'clipping' off the top frequencies that may give rise to lower frequency harmonics that give us spatial clues.
Of all the things out ears can tell us, they are poorest at actual location at certain higher frequencies, as compared to gauging loudness, frequency, etc. (Before jan bitches this out, he should look his shit up.)

Just what "shit" was I supposed to look up, Buddha?! That we "kind of" clip high frequencies in digital playback? Particularly those "top frequencies that may give rise to lower frequency harmonics that give us spatial clues"? I was supposed to check that shit?

I have no Earthly idea what that means and I doubt anyone else here does! Clipping the top frequnecies gives rise to the lower frequency harmonics? And those harmonics are responsible for "spatial clues"?! And by "ringing" the devices we "actually may be able to possibly aid with creating the illusion of the music providing missing high frequency information and aiding and abetting a listener's sensation of space or location."

Well, let me apologize for not researching that bit of information for you! I can see why you were so insulting and dismissive of me in that entire post. I didn't explain your boneheaded explanation! I will rush right over to Wikipedia to see what I can find.

Uh, ... any idea where I begin?

For christsake, Buddha! You accuse me of "new undisprovable Hi Fi gobble" (whatever the hell that means) while you engage freely in the very activity which you decry?!

Now you're simply back to the point of bantering in a thread simply because you have nothing real to say. You do this in every alternative thread. You come up with BS that has no meaning and I am supposed to respond with something intelligent or else you've proven I am wrong. That's your theory, isnt it, Buddha? The more preposterous you make it, the more you prove I don't know what I'm talking about?

As I've said so may times here on this forum, just how's that work?!


Quote:
I don't see the need to start fabricating about the neurologic effect of Tibetan Bowls and their similarities to the ART ...

Fabricating?!

Fabricating?!!!!!

Did you just simply miss this post?

Quote:

This is from the Bowls page to which you just linked ...
Quote: Are Tibetan Bowls a Natural Way to Enter a Relaxed and Lucid Brain State?
There's something about the tones of Tibetan Bowls that the brain seems to love. In recent experiments, people experiencing high levels of stress were able to enter states of deep relaxation after 20 minutes of listening to singing bowls. Many of the listeners registered theta brain waves; theta is the hypnotic and relaxed brain state that hovers between wakefulness and sleep, perfect for recovering from stress and daydreaming.

This is from the Wikipedia page on binaural beats ...
Quote: When the perceived beat frequency corresponds to the delta, theta, alpha, beta, or gamma range of brainwave frequencies, the brainwaves entrain to or move towards the beat frequency.[16] For example, if a 315 Hz sine wave is played into the right ear and a 325 Hz one into the left ear, the brain is entrained towards the beat frequency (10 Hz, in the alpha range). Since alpha range is associated with relaxation, this has a relaxing effect or if in the beta range, more alertness. An experiment with binaural sound stimulation using beat frequencies in the Beta range on some participants and Delta/Theta range in other participants, found better vigilance performance and mood in those on the awake alert state of Beta range stimulation.

So, I don't want to say without any proof that the ART system operates identically to the Bowls in mediation services but there would seem to be a link. That link is better than "they cannot work" or "in room acoustics, size is all that matters".

From the Synergistic Research page ...
Quote: Acoustic ART
The inspiration for the Acoustic ART system came to our lead designer Ted Denney four years ago while sailing the South Pacific. During his sabbatical, Ted visited Buddhist Temples and observed how Tibetan Prayer bowls altered temple acoustics. These singing bowls affected a sudden shift in acoustics whenever they were activated, and when additional bowls of varying tone were also activated, the acoustics continued to change. Ted reasoned that a system of resonating bowls could be developed to discreetly treat room acoustics without the need for large unsightly tuning devices.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=theta+brain+waves&go=Go

How many of those words did I "fabricate", Budhha? How many? The ones that linked the words of others is what I "fabricated"! You cannot even accept the viewpoint of someone else as long as I am the one presenting those words.

And you cannot resist your own "new undisprovable Hi Fi gobble".

Whatever the hell that means!

I essentially disproved anything that I would understand as your concept of "ringing" in a reply to Frog.

I rest my case!

If you have something else that might actually make some sense - and you can make sense of it - please, let us see it now, Buddha. This is a thread where all thoughts are welcome - as long as they make some degree of sense.

So far none of yours have reached that plateau.

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Synergistics Research Acoustic ART-real sonic improvements?

That the two of you cannot see your way clear to even read with comprehension the words from May, Frog and myself is beyond the limits of civility.

That you distort the words that have been fair toward both sides is beyond belief!

What is the worst is that once again, you offer only insults - no proof! You cannot dispute what has been said so you simply insult the poster who said them.

Big men you two! Very big.

Too bad reality doesn't live up to your image of yourselves. If it did, you'd be able to refute whatever you disagree with.

Frog can.

May can.

I can.

And we all do.

You guys?

All you guys got is insults.

Big men you two!

And then you have the temerity* to simply lie about what has been posted in this thread.

Show me exactly where anyone said half so much as ...

Quote:
The bowls we are discussing work, but not any of that large, unattractive stuff!

Do that for once, Buddha! Just once! Show me where in this thread you found the BS you've made up to make your small little bit of intelligence in this matter sound like you know anything! Do me that favor just this once.

Prove what you say.

Disprove what you disagree with.

Or else shut the hell up!

*Main Entry: te

Buddha
Buddha's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 11 months ago
Joined: Sep 8 2005 - 10:24am
Re: Synergistics Research Acoustic ART-real sonic improvements?

Wow, how many words was that that add up to Jan saying he has no idea what he's talking about.

Jan, head over to Wikipedia and look up "harmonics," it will help you out.

Still fondly hoping for that meeting in the road!

Maybe get out and get to an audio show where you can actually hear all the stuff we are talking about. Otherwise, why should we pay attention to the Jan behind the curtain?

We who have heard some of these things are conjecturing about how they work, you are conjecturing about, what?

Buddha
Buddha's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 11 months ago
Joined: Sep 8 2005 - 10:24am
Re: Synergistics Research Acoustic ART-real sonic improvements?


Quote:
Michigan J Frog:

Ethan's ugly, monolithic, air conditioner grills, that are guaranteed to turn the mood and decorum of any listening room into one befitting a Winnebago or a Port-A-Potty, vs. the teeny weeny tiny whiny and very pretty ART prayer bowls. Probably more comparable in price than a glass of water, and let's hope, more influential.

Frog!

Are you, the open minded subjectivist, stating that all those people who say they hear the benefits of these room treatments are wrong?

How the worm turns.

On the plus side, you have Jan at your beck and call. He'd be busy falling on his sword over binaural beats if daddy frog hadn't slapped his little hand. So, thanks for that.

The power! Jan, dancing at your command. You say, "Frog," he says, "How high?"

OK, kidding aside, you are right that there is a mix of live and absorbing that is likely the real answer...well established in good audio, and these bowls could have been something that offers common ground in the discussion of tweaking between subjectivists and objectivists. The trouble with a one CD demo is that Stephen wasn't able to give a longer term report as to the sound across different recordings. I'd like to see what he'd hear if he had more reference material to see if the effect homogenizes imaging and space. I wonder if that's why some tweaks rush in and then fade out.

Oh, well, next thread.

Buddha
Buddha's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 11 months ago
Joined: Sep 8 2005 - 10:24am
Re: Synergistics Research Acoustic ART-real sonic improvements?


Quote:
That the two of you cannot see your way clear to even read with comprehension the words from May, Frog and myself is beyond the limits of civility.

That you distort the words that have been fair toward both sides is beyond belief!

What is the worst is that once again, you offer only insults - no proof! You cannot dispute what has been said so you simply insult the poster who said them.

Big men you two! Very big.

Too bad reality doesn't live up to your image of yourselves. If it did, you'd be able to refute whatever you disagree with.

Frog can.

May can.

I can.

And we all do.

You guys?

All you guys got is insults.

Big men you two!

And then you have the temerity* to simply lie about what has been posted in this thread.

Show me exactly where anyone said half so much as ...

Quote:
The bowls we are discussing work, but not any of that large, unattractive stuff!

Do that for once, Buddha! Just once! Show me where in this thread you found the BS you've made up to make your small little bit of intelligence in this matter sound like you know anything! Do me that favor just this once.

Prove what you say.

Disprove what you disagree with.

Or else shut the hell up!

*Main Entry: te

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Synergistics Research Acoustic ART-real sonic improvements?


Quote:
OK, kidding aside,

I don't care for your idea of "kidding", Buddha. You're back to your usual "nothing but insults" with little smiley faces like you think you're really being funny and you're trying to drive this thread into the ditch. You have nothing to say because you can't defend your statements and you have nothing else to add because you've reached the end of your knowledge wagon train. So the hell with this thread as far as you're concerned. You don't want to get too close to an explanation of how an alternative treatment might actually work. This way you get to keep on thinkin' you're actually thinkin'. It doesn't matter what someone else might want from this thread, you're done so in the ditch it goes! And all the while you know full well Stephen won't say a thing about a half dozen of your posts that are nothing but insults. Because he never does. And so a thread like this go in the toilet. Every time. Every damn time! Because of shit like this from people like you.


Quote:
Oh, well, next thread.

That's the idea isn't it? Have this thread closed too. Way to go.

Brilliant! Simply brilliant!

And nobody on "your side" is going to say a word about it I suppose.

Why don't you go finish that bottle, guy? And I'm not kidding.

Buddha
Buddha's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 11 months ago
Joined: Sep 8 2005 - 10:24am
Re: Synergistics Research Acoustic ART-real sonic improvements?

Jan, you are interrupting talking about the topic.

Other than your personality disorder, the thread has good stuff on it.

Maybe the ol' Jan brain cells have taken too great a binaural beating.

This has been a fine thread, we have subjectivists denying what people who use Ethan-style room tratments hear, and we have you jumping after brain waves and Wikipedia cut and paste as explanations for things, while denying other possibilities.

It's a party, and you are sulking in the corner.

Oh, well. At least you are getting less over wordy. (I said it that way to save you a trip to Thesaurus Dot Com.)

tomjtx
tomjtx's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: Nov 12 2006 - 2:53pm
Re: Synergistics Research Acoustic ART-real sonic improvements?

finally finnnnisshed thee bowwl tuuuuning

great reshults .....................headaache cummin on,,,,,water..sleep zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

michiganjfrog
michiganjfrog's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Jan 9 2007 - 11:36pm
Re: Synergistics Research Acoustic ART-real sonic improvements?

Buddha wrote:

I posted about my own notion of the bowls, and have been discussing a topic, 'binaural beats,' that you brought up. If discussing your idea in more detail is distressing, say so, but giving it enough consideration to discuss it shouldn't be too upsetting. I was saying why I didn't think binaural beats applied here.

I don't see the need to start fabricating about the neurologic effect of Tibetan Bowls and their similarities to the ART, simply because there seems to be a reasonable sonic way to discuss the ART objects without inventing some new undisprovable Hi Fi gobble.

Binaural beats are not "undisprovable".

Crawling along a bit further, I dug this article up; that goes a bit deeper into the workings of singing bowls. The author writes an interesting tale about your long lost singing bowl. And says of these bowls in general:

"Singing bowls have three sets of double tones, very rich in harmonics and micro-tones. A dominant base or male tone, a dominant treble or female tone, and interval dominant consisting of the blending of the base and treble. Producing a binaural beat." http://iamblogging.net/archives/2006/07/the_buddha_bowl.html

It appears that Jan may have come closest to anyone in this thread, in understanding how the ART devices operate.

I don't see how you can call the similarities of the ART bowls to Tibetan bowls are a "fabrication", when as JV pointed out, the manufacturer wrote:

The inspiration for the Acoustic ART system came to our lead designer Ted Denney four years ago while sailing the South Pacific. During his sabbatical, Ted visited Buddhist Temples and observed how Tibetan Prayer bowls altered temple acoustics. These singing bowls affected a sudden shift in acoustics whenever they were activated, and when additional bowls of varying tone were also activated, the acoustics continued to change. Ted reasoned that a system of resonating bowls could be developed to discreetly treat room acoustics without the need for large unsightly tuning devices.

BTW, the experiments I mentioned earlier here with binaural beats recreating the Schumann resonance during music play, were not done with headphones, but speakers. They are noted to be more effective with headphones, yes, but Wikipedia is being a bit literal to only mention headphones.

It appears he has some significantly larger Tibetan Bowls in his room, With integral light sources! Maybe they could qualify as the Lowe's Discount Tibetan Bowl Tweak!

Tell that to IKEA, who makes those lamps. Maybe their marketing dept. could add that angle. BTW, does Bob Ludwig know that telephones, especially if connected to a line, degrade recorded sound, even if in another room? Oh, I guess I answered my own question!

michiganjfrog
michiganjfrog's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Jan 9 2007 - 11:36pm
Re: Synergistics Research Acoustic ART-real sonic improvements?


Quote:
Jan Vigne wrote: What's your opinion of measuring the brain waves of someone in room with and without the ART's system? Gotta beat four amplifier measurements!


Well yeah, I'd say it's at least more relevant than measuring 4 amplifier measurements. But I guess if all you know in audio is how to take those 4 amplifier measurements, well than that's going to be your answer to everything, isn't it?

Do CD demagnetizers work? There's only one way for the "Pro Audio TrVth Squad" to find out. Take them amplifier measurements. Yep. All 4 of 'em (previously 3, but hey, who's counting?).

How about Shakti Hallygraphs? Better take those Big 4 amplifier measurements. They'll tell you all you need to know about them Shaktee Snake Oil Sticks, eeeeyup. If they cain't register no nothin' on no ossilly-o-scope, then they ain't worth a sackful o' possum turds.

I've always wondered... do ghosts exist? Don't know, can't say. Better get out the amplifier and do some Big 4 measurements. Yup. Sure is nice to be a "perfessionul". That means that with the help of Radio Shack, you can know the answer to all the fantastic mysteries of science, in oh, about 4 minutes. And as we keep learning from these oh-so-terribly educational and mind-expanding debates, bein' a "perfessionul" means never having to say you're wrong.

Buddha
Buddha's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 11 months ago
Joined: Sep 8 2005 - 10:24am
Re: Synergistics Research Acoustic ART-real sonic improvements?

Michigan, as you know, your example does not describe 'binaural beats,' but your support of your Renfield is appreciated.

The fact one blogger blows the definition is not confirmatory.

What the blogger is describing is intermodulation of tones in a live environment.

So, you must understand the ART boewls in order to render such an opinion. Jan will, of course, insist you prove it.

Don't forget, ART also says they used helmholtz resonators as inspiration.

Poor, deaf, Bob Ludwig.

He even uses large room treatments that would spoil the mood in any audio parlor!

michiganjfrog
michiganjfrog's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Jan 9 2007 - 11:36pm
Re: Synergistics Research Acoustic ART-real sonic improvements?

Buddha wrote:

This thread has been interesting from the standpoint that the subjectivists will now probably tell you that you can't hear the benefit of your large room treatments because they remind them of Ethan.

The bowls we are discussing work, but not any of that large, unattractive stuff.

That's nonsense. Nobody's been saying that.

Michigan J Frog wrote:

Ethan's ugly, monolithic, air conditioner grills, that are guaranteed to turn the mood and decorum of any listening room into one befitting a Winnebago or a Port-A-Potty, vs. the teeny weeny tiny whiny and very pretty ART prayer bowls. Probably more comparable in price than a glass of water, and let's hope, more influential.

Buddha wrote:

Are you, the open minded subjectivist, stating that all those people who say they hear the benefits of these room treatments are wrong?

How the worm turns.

Er, um... I'm getting the distinct impression from this latest response, that this is not your first drink of the evening. Read what I wrote again tomorrow morning. Or afternoon, however that works out. The word I used, "decorum", is key here. Hopefully by that time, you'll see that I'm only talking about the aesthetic impact of each type of acoustic treatment, in the paragraph you quoted, not sound. In fact, I stated that I had hoped, given the price and all, that both types of treatment were more effective than my water tweak.


Quote:
On the plus side, you have Jan at your beck and call. He'd be busy falling on his sword over binaural beats if daddy frog hadn't slapped his little hand. So, thanks for that. The power! Jan, dancing at your command. You say, "Frog," he says, "How high?"


Yeah, I'd estimate you must be on your 12th shot at this point. I don't think it's that you're trying to be obnoxious, or anything. Rather, the problem is it seems more like you're not trying to not be obnoxious. And thus for some reason which only Buddha and his bartender are privvy to, regurgitating one of the most obnoxious and insulting things written in this thread, originally written by someone else. Remarks of which I had already responded to. So I hope that when you sober up, you will go back and read them.

Now assuming I understand your barely coherent rant about the binaural beats, you're wrong about that as well. I haven't done anything to change Jan's mind about that, he's changed my mind about it. Based on his supposition, I did a bit of research to see if there was anything to the idea of affecting brainwave frequencies using natural devices, not requiring headphones, and it appears there is. In fact, this may be something that has been occurring for hundreds, if not thousands of years. So stop mixing your politics with science, Buddhy. I mean, "Buddha". Tell me in few words why that can't be, and how you think these devices work (or don't work). And maybe you will change my mind, on the issue of the ART bowls.

It will have to be more persuasive than what the manufacturer wrote about how they work, because I find that quite credible. I've yet to hear from you specifically on why it isn't. But if you can't express that without being obnoxious and insulting at every turn, then you should do what you say you are going to do, and go on to the next thread.

Buddha
Buddha's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 11 months ago
Joined: Sep 8 2005 - 10:24am
Re: Synergistics Research Acoustic ART-real sonic improvements?

Who needs Bo Jackson, Jan knows brain waves!

Lordy! What does a subjective brainwave look like? How do you measure those without involving a fuckin' objectivist? How do you make claims about them without those dreaded objectivists?

Subjectivists describing brain wave phenomenon, subjectivists telling audiophiles that the benefits of Ethan-style room tweaks they hear are incorrect....we are through the looking glass, people.

Buddha
Buddha's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 11 months ago
Joined: Sep 8 2005 - 10:24am
Re: Synergistics Research Acoustic ART-real sonic improvements?


Quote:
Buddha wrote:

This thread has been interesting from the standpoint that the subjectivists will now probably tell you that you can't hear the benefit of your large room treatments because they remind them of Ethan.

The bowls we are discussing work, but not any of that large, unattractive stuff.

That's nonsense. Nobody's been saying that.

Michigan J Frog wrote:

Ethan's ugly, monolithic, air conditioner grills, that are guaranteed to turn the mood and decorum of any listening room into one befitting a Winnebago or a Port-A-Potty, vs. the teeny weeny tiny whiny and very pretty ART prayer bowls. Probably more comparable in price than a glass of water, and let's hope, more influential.

Buddha wrote:

Are you, the open minded subjectivist, stating that all those people who say they hear the benefits of these room treatments are wrong?

How the worm turns.

Er, um... I'm getting the distinct impression from this latest response, that this is not your first drink of the evening. Read what I wrote again tomorrow morning. Or afternoon, however that works out. The word I used, "decorum", is key here. Hopefully by that time, you'll see that I'm only talking about the aesthetic impact of each type of acoustic treatment, in the paragraph you quoted, not sound. In fact, I stated that I had hoped, given the price and all, that both types of treatment were more effective than my water tweak.


Quote:
On the plus side, you have Jan at your beck and call. He'd be busy falling on his sword over binaural beats if daddy frog hadn't slapped his little hand. So, thanks for that. The power! Jan, dancing at your command. You say, "Frog," he says, "How high?"


Yeah, I'd estimate you must be on your 12th shot at this point. I don't think it's that you're trying to be obnoxious, or anything. Rather, the problem is it seems more like you're not trying to not be obnoxious. And thus for some reason which only Buddha and his bartender are privvy to, regurgitating one of the most obnoxious and insulting things written in this thread, originally written by someone else. Remarks of which I had already responded to. So I hope that when you sober up, you will go back and read them.

Now assuming I understand your barely coherent rant about the binaural beats, you're wrong about that as well. I haven't done anything to change Jan's mind about that, he's changed my mind about it. Based on his supposition, I did a bit of research to see if there was anything to the idea of affecting brainwave frequencies using natural devices, not requiring headphones, and it appears there is. In fact, this may be something that has been occurring for hundreds, if not thousands of years. So stop mixing your politics with science, Buddhy. I mean, "Buddha". Tell me in few words why that can't be, and how you think these devices work (or don't work). And maybe you will change my mind, on the issue of the ART bowls.

It will have to be more persuasive than what the manufacturer wrote about how they work, because I find that quite credible. I've yet to hear from you specifically on why it isn't. But if you can't express that without being obnoxious and insulting at every turn, then you should do what you say you are going to do, and go on to the next thread.

Wow! Frogs can jump backward! Or, at least back pedal.

Your disparagement of Ethan's work is duly noted.

So, the "mood" of a listening room has nothing to do with the sound. Bullshit artist! You were busting on Ethan and got called on it. Simple, subjectivist, inconsistent.

Next, you use Jan's Wiki-thority and check out what he claimed about binaural beats and arrive at the answer for how these babies must be working. Yes, no way to argue against the mususe of a term like binaural beats. You can just decide to make it mean whatever you like, it's a subjective term, now. No matter the source, your back-hopping is notable and amusing!

And, we get the added bonus of your evaluation of Mr. Ludiwg's room, by looking at it!

Yes, no need for an expert subjectivist to listen when he can judge by looking.
Subjectivists have now transcended listening.

Frog, baby, the manufacturer said nothing about how the bowls work. He only talks about "inspiration." Show me where he describes how the product works, eh?

OK, to sum for the day:

Products like Ethan's ruin the "mood" of a listening room, and this is fact from a subjectivist, in the face of those who claim otherwise.

Binaural beats is now how the ART devices work, by your proclamation after a Wikipedia search.

Alluding to 'brain waves and Tibetan bowls' is factual, from a subjective point of view, although those pesky brain waves are rather objective and have never been shown to have a relation to the product in question. They just need to remind you of such things.

The ART manufacturer also claims Helmholtz Resonators as an inspiration, but that's not as as exciting as Tibetan Brainwave Technology. The manufacturer makes no such brain wave claim, but you don't care, you have a new Neptunian approach to earth bound phenomenon which fits your contrarian philosophy. Listening is now out, judging rooms by their 'mood,' decorum, and 'look of the phone' are now the rule of the day.

Woo Hoo!

You ask others to refute your own invention of facts, but do nothing to support your own. (Very Beltian of you.)

Just another day in the life.

Hasta, Michigan.

Maybe tomorrow you can Wiki search what a brain wave is and email some to Jan.

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Synergistics Research Acoustic ART-real sonic improvements?

So once again we're back to, "They can't work because I don't understand them and because I don't want them to work. And I really don't want them to work by something I don't understand."

Brilliant! Simply brilliant!

You've offered nothing. Nothing but insults. I can tell when you are out of juice because the insults start flowing like cheap wine.

I know you've been beaten at your own game when all you have left are insults. I have seen this before on too many threads. The more you are proven wrong, the more insulting you get. Same old same old.

It's so ... Buddha! It's pitiful and it's disgusting but, hey! It's Buddha!

I'm not at all clear whether you become more delusional when you're drinking or when you're not, Buddha. Either way you are a rude S.O.B. And you are determined that nothing is going to be discussed that just might upset your wine cart.

Here are the facts, guy, like them or not. Instead of being an ass, why not refute them if you feel they are incorrect? Just saying they are wrong because you don't want to accept them is no different than saying, "possibly maybe if its this then it might be that because as we all know we kind of, uh, clip it and then that provokes the lower stuff to rise and then ... ". So far all you've provided here is your customary stick your head some place dark BS and your more than too customary insults. And isn't it kind of remarkable that of all the poeple on this thread who don't want the ART's system to work not one of them has come up with any explanations of how they might work? Even your little ridiculous concept of "ringing" has just been out there dropping like a rock ever since you posted it. Even your own side doesn't buy that BS!

We all know Synergistic Research did not say how the bowls operate. That's why we're here.

Making wild assed guesses about how they work based strictly on what you know has occurred previously isn't going to supply an answer unless you have proof of your guess. You haven't supplied one ounce of proof about anything you've claimed. Instead you want people to think I'm the ignorant one here because you want me to check facts you create out of thin air. You and FC really should get together, you two could write some amazing fiction based on the crap that you both just make up on the spur of the moment. "Go to 'Harmonics". Yeah, right, that explains it all to someone who simply has to rely on something they learned twenty years ago. It don't 'splain nothing to me when you can't even get the words out in some coherent manner.

Prove it or stop saying it's worth considering. You don't like Wikipedia, like I said, it has its limitations, provide something better. So far you haven't even made an attempt at that. You just keep saying, "Wikipedia, Wikipedia, Wikipedia", like that's some sort of invocation to your "gods of superior BS" to keep Wikipedia from existing. Until you come up with something better, this is what we work with. This and the links that support what is posted on Wikipedia, 'cause they just keep comin'.

Prove it!

So far there has been one plausible explanation provided on this thread for how the ART's system might work.

There has been some evidence presented to link the ART bowls to Tibetan Singing Bowls. And the evidence is becoming stronger that both items activate similar areas and functions of the brain. Either prove the links false or stop saying they are false without any proof. We're talking brain waves here, just so you know. Binaural beats was a stepping off point and we're beyond that now. Refute the brainwave activity if you can.

Otherwise admit that premise is headed in the right direction. I know you'll weasel out of this too but those are the only two honest options present at this time that an honest man would pursue. Are you going to be honest for once, Buddha?

I doubt it. That would get you too close to something you don't want to believe. So you'll weasel.

Or you could devise some other explanation that provides some proof - telling me to check your shit doesn't count. I don't want to get within a mile of your shit!

The rest of your BS is just that and only the biggest of fools - which I admit, there are many on this forum who prefer to stop these discussions - can take any of it seriously. There's no need to even get into the weeds with you about any of it because it is bullshit. This thread needs to stay on target and allowing you to drive it into the ditch isn't going to happen.

Even if not one person from the naysayers will speak up about how you've acted, this thread needs to stay on track. It's this BS of yours that keeps people from getting involved in these threads and it isn't going to happen here.

You can rant and you can call names and
you can say none of what we've posted is true. It doesn't matter. Until you come up with something that's worth discussing, you don't get any more of my discussion.

If you cannot disprove the links between the ART bowls and the Tibetan Bowls and the brainwave activity they both stimulate, then you've lost and you can slink back to your bar for consolation. Nothing else matters at this point because what has been presented here has the strongest evidence to prove brainwave activity is a workable premise for how the ART system and many other alternative treatment systems actually operate.

So pull out your little subjectivist electroencephalograph and get to work. You've got a lot of work to do at this point. It's gonna take more than two sentences tied together to form an idea that disproves what has been offered. A lot more sentences.

Prove we're not on the right track or shut up and move on to the next thread. I'll be there too.

Buddha
Buddha's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 11 months ago
Joined: Sep 8 2005 - 10:24am
Re: Synergistics Research Acoustic ART-real sonic improvements?

Jan, I did refute your binaural beat hypothesis, and you got bent because I bothered to talk about the subject. You even said that you agreed that wasn't it, after Frog told you so.

Remember?

Then, you come up with Tibetan bowls and a brainfart theory that you now insist is true unless 'proven' wrong.

Jan, proof is affirmative, as well. You Wiki-searched and came up with this new spiel and demand proof it isn't true? And then you claim you've made the 'one' plausible' explanation?

We were even talking about how they could work, and even that is not good enough for you. Now, we have to go with your hare brained scheme or be called 'deniers.'

Your level of logic includes the bowls working by subatomic pixies partying in the bowls...unless you can prove it to be untrue!

____

Now, on the up side, as idiotic as your demands may be, at least you are more than a one ribbit pony.

I see you on the other forums, and we may fight here, but we have reasonably good fun in the other topics.

Have you ever seen Frog or May post on anything other than their subfetish?

I think they don't even own gear at this point, they just sit in the blue glow of a CRT and listen to paste in the room.

You, Jan, are able to converse about more than one subject, they are not.

It's a Hi Fi forum, and they show up at the drop of a piece of foil, but are otherwise incapable of talking about music, music formats, how different gear sounds to them, nada zip zilch. Just 'subjective' tweaks, to the point of Frog slipping about his disdain for larger room treatments - imagine, a world with only one format of tweaks.

I can kind of understand May's monomania, she has a product to flog.

But, come on, even a two dimensional Frog avatar is one dimension too generous for someone here. It

Pages

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