You are here

Log in or register to post comments
ethanwiner
ethanwiner's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 1 2005 - 2:26pm
Re: Synergistics Research Acoustic ART-real sonic improvements?

Hoo boy.

BTW, beat frequencies is a well-known phenomenon and it's hardly a mystery.

--Ethan

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?

Astounding proof from both of you.

Remarkable willful ignorance of any fact what so ever!

How do you do it?

Prove something.

Something that really matters to this thread. Not just I don't trust anyone cause ... well just cause and possibly maybe if it clips it will give rise ... And not just something that we've moved beyond several pages back.

We were discussing the similarity of brain wave patterns stimulated by both the Tibetan Bowls and the binaural beats and what effect they have on perception of sound. Then Buddha butted in to destroy the thread and hasn't said a damn thing worthwhile since.

Prove something!

Or disprove something. Just don't say you don't trust May and Frog on general terms only you have.

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


Quote:
Prove something.


LOL, I prove stuff all day long with logic and evidence-based empirical science. Versus those who try to shift the burden of proof to others.

I was thinking about this last night, the way you tell us to "think about how the ART products might work." I don't need to do that any more than I need to think about how astrology or homeopathy "might work." Both of those have been totally discredited and proven wrong.

--Ethan

____________________
Bring back DUP

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?

Then butt out and don't try to bring this discussion to a halt.

What you've offered isn't proof of anything but your own stubborness and, I would say, your total ignorance which I "proved" several pages back.

Prove something or say nothing.

Oh, yeah, you have been saying nothing all along.

OK Prove something.

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


Quote:
OK Prove something.


Yet again, I prove stuff all the time. This proves that jitter and low levels of distortion are a total non-issue:

Artifact Audibility Report

This proves that dither is total BS:

Dither Report

This proves that 24 bits are not needed for high fidelity reproduction:

24-Bit Comparison

And this proves I know a hell of a lot more about acoustics and room treatment than you do:

Acoustics FAQ

Now let's see you prove something!

--Ethan

Buddha
Buddha's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 1 month ago
Joined: Sep 8 2005 - 10:24am
Re: Synergistics Research Acoustic ART-real sonic improvements?


Quote:
Astounding proof from both of you.

Remarkable willful ignorance of any fact what so ever!

How do you do it?

Prove something.

Something that really matters to this thread. Not just I don't trust anyone cause ... well just cause and possibly maybe if it clips it will give rise ... And not just something that we've moved beyond several pages back.

We were discussing the similarity of brain wave patterns stimulated by both the Tibetan Bowls and the binaural beats and what effect they have on perception of sound. Then Buddha butted in to destroy the thread and hasn't said a damn thing worthwhile since.

Prove something!

Or disprove something. Just don't say you don't trust May and Frog on general terms only you have.

Jan, there is no proof for this. It's all conjecture.

If you want to make up stories and demand they be proven wrong, you need a trip over to the community college or more remedial location for some "edumacation."

You don't even understand how to make a claim and back it up. My third grader would wipe the floor with your logic, or lack thereof! (Hint: Stay off the show about fifth graders until you get this part mastered.)

So, stud, prove you are right! (A sure to be ignored idea, I'm sure. Jan's elevator don't go up to that floor.)

Here's some help to get you started:

Wikipedia.

Get to it Jan, prove something, other than that you can rant about a bad idea and try to make it other people's duty to clean up your doody.

Go, son, prove something! You like to demand it, now try it yourself!

michiganjfrog
michiganjfrog's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Jan 9 2007 - 11:36pm
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.

Really. And this you got from reading "producing a binaural beat" in the article about the Tibetan bowls? And where did you get "Renfield" from exactly, or should I just not ask?

The fact one blogger blows the definition is not confirmatory.

I agree; it neither confirms nor denies anything. But that author is by far not the only source talking about binaural beats with ancient sound instruments like the Tibetan singing bowls.

This is a non-commercial site on holistic healing, offering information only. They write:

Binaural beats are a technology that has been around since 1839 when discovered by Heinrich Wilhelm Dove. By introducing a frequency, such as 500Hz into one ear, and a different frequency, such as 505Hz into the other ear, the brain will interpret the differences of these two frequencies. Thus the mind will perceive a 5Hz pulse, and brainwaves of the person will begin to attune to this frequency.

Usually, a computer is used with specific software to produce the binaural beats. However, singing bowls and tuning forks have been used. (emphasis mine).

http://www.thegeminiwolf.com/binauralbeats.htm

According to this site, Tibetan singing bowls are used as "sound therapy", including helping cancer patients. They claim modern medicine can measure and confirm the practice of sound as a means to promote healing.

"How does it work? Ancient instruments, including Tibetan singing bowls are 'struck and sung' in specific rhythmic patterns to create vibrational sound harmonics at the frequency of "AUM" or "OM". This sound frequency known as that of Perfection impacts the sympathetic nervous system as your brain waves synchronize to the vibrations of the bowls. The harmonic vibrations engage the relaxation reflex and slow down the respiratory, brain and heart rate and disrupt the pain reflex creating a deep sense of well being."

http://www.soundenergyhealing.com/whatissoundhealing.html


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

Not quite. They said they "began their research by studying Helmholtz resonators".
And how exactly does that negate what they said about the effect of witnessing the powerful acoustic effects of Tibetan singing bowls in Buddhist temples? Their phsyical design seems to be a lot closer to Tibetan singing bowls than a helmholtz resonator, wouldn't you say?

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.

Or possibly, what I suspect is more likely to have happened here, is that after the 13th shot, you just collapsed on to the glass coffee table. Now you think you're the Queen of Hearts. I'm struggling to understand where this latest rant is coming from. I'm not even sure who it's directed to, because my name's in the header, but you seem to be addressing Jan. All I know for sure is I haven't seen this many strawmen since Kansas. Tell me what a "subjective brainwave" is exactly, and I may be able to answer your question? Where has anyone made claims they can't be measured objectively? Or that acoustic treatments (they're not officially called "Ethan style room tweaks) are placebos?

What's this hang-up with "subjectivists" and "objectivists" anyway? Are you going to be asking for our party affiliation, before we are allowed to have an opinion on something? And have you ever had a debate with Jan, where you haven't personally attacked and insulted him? I'm just wondering if you're even capable of that. I certainly don't see him treating you that way.

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

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

Uh-huh. So are you actually going to show us where I supposedly backpedalled?

Your disparagement of Ethan's work is duly noted.

Really. Remind me again: what "disparagement" is that?

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.

Again, you're not being coherent, so I don't quite know what you're ranting about this time. I never even talked about the mood of a listening room affecting its sound. You just did. There was nothing inconsistent about anything I've said, and if you think there was, then its up to you to clearly point out what. BTW, you didn't "call me" on anything (not sure if you understand what that phrase means). You just made a lot of nonsensical allusions about I don't know what.

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!

From the top once more: Again, you're not being coherent, so I don't quite know what you're ranting about this time. I never used a Wiki source. And even if I had, so what? Are you claiming everything in Wikipedia is false, because you don't know enough to know that it isn't? Next, the term was used by the author of the article I linked to. If you have a problem with that, take it up with him, not me. I never "made it mean" anything, I just reported on what I read, to try to advance this silly thread. (Which FC asked me to do!) But you seem to have a rigid understanding of brainwave frequencies, and automatically reject anything that doesn't fit what you think you know about a subject. You do that a lot, actually. But then, that's the big beef I have with pseudo-objectivists.

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

LOL! Don't worry, I'll consider that a freebie. Though not really relevant to the convo, you did post a picture of it. So I don't know why you're screeching if people make a passing, light observation of one small detail observed in Mr. Ludwig's studio. You seem to be confusing Bob Ludwig with God. Maybe he is God to you, I don't know. But if no one is allowed to make any sort of remark about the pictures you put up because you're too sensitive for that, perhaps you ought to consider not posting pictures?

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

Again with the labels! How very un-Buddha-like. Since you wish to label everybody, what are you, ob or sub? An "objectivist", I presume, since you have such a knot in your craw about so-called "subjectivists"? Does that mean you picked the components in your system by measurements alone? Really??! I find that hard to believe!

To address your comment though, if you think about it when you sober up, perhaps you'll start to realize how inane it really is. If an observant recording engineer spots an elephant in the middle of the recording booth in Bob's studio from a photograph, he doesn't have to actually be on the spot with a realtime analyzer to determine the presence of the elephant in the small recording booth is probably going to have an effect on the sound. He simply has to understand the very basics of physics, which seems to have eluded you. Perhaps because you're only an "objectivist expert"? LOL!

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?

I had to really work hard to dig this one up from the home page of the manufacturer's site:

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.

However, it wasn

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

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, we're back to insults, eh, Buddha?

How nice.

I hate to be the one who breaks the news to you, fella, but this is a discussion forum, not a doctoral thesis. Your demand for "formal proof" is as out of place as your personal attacks.

And I have no use for incoherent, alcoholic, insulting schizophrenics such as you.

But let's take this sentence from your Wikipedia page on "formal proof" ...


Quote:
The concept of deduction is a generalization of the concept of proof.

Then I'm going to direct you to this page ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive_reasoning

And quote the opening of that page ...


Quote:
Deductive reasoning, sometimes called deductive logic, is reasoning which uses deductive arguments to move from given statements (premises) to conclusions, which must be true if the premises are true.[1] An example of deductive reasoning, given by Aristotle, is

All men are mortal. (major premise)
Socrates is a man. (minor premise)
Socrates is mortal. (conclusion)

That would make my proof complete in two separate deductive proofs ... (and make your statements just more insulting bullshit)

The ART's system employs devices similar to Tibetan Bowls. (major premise)

Synergistic states their thinking was stirred by Tibetan Singing Bowls. (supporting proof)

Tibetan Singing Bowls have been shown to produce specific brainwave activity in the listener. (minor premise)

Such specific brainwave activity can bring about positive changes in perception, most especially in those portions of the brain responsible for auditory processing functions. (minor premise)

Generally similar auditory perception skills were displayed and reported when in the presence of the ART's system and negative skills were reported when the system was not in use. (supporting proof)

Therefore, it is possible the ART's system has an effect very much like Tibetan Bowls. (minor premise)

That effect would be a stimulus of specific brainwave activity. (conclusion)

Then ...

The prevailing change occurs in the listener and not within the room. (major premise)

Knowing what is happening by measuring the room response might not provide any information which could be considered useful. (minor premise)

Measuring static numbers produced within an amplifier will be totally useless when we are discussing our perception of music, something that takes place only on a perceptual/cognitive level within our brain. (minor premise)

If the music can be perceived positively while specific brainwaves are stimulated by the presence of such "alternative devices" (stimulants) and perceived negatively when the same stimulus is removed, the perceived music must already be in the room and "perception" must occur via the listener's brain and auditory senses. (minor premise)

Therefore we should remove the test equipment from the audio equipment and the room and find our answer by measuring brain activity in the presence of music performed with the ART's system (the stimulant) and without the ART's system. (conclusion)

Disprove it without insults - or - coherently prove something other than this to be the result of deductive reasoning. Provide supporting evidence for your premises.

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

Jesus Christ, Jan! Why don't you just buy a set of ART bowls, try them, report here what you heard, and send them back for a refund. Then we'll all know.

--Ethan

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?

Jesus Christ, Winer, stop whining and PROVE SOMETHING!

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?

Let me make one more attempt at a deductive proof.

The ART's system works as promised. (major premise)

The ART's system is an alternative treatment not in line with "conventional" devices. (minor premise)

The ART's system's effectiveness and a possible "proof" made for it's scientific operation makes possible other alternatives as equally real and valuable. (minor premise)

Therefore, all discussion of the ART's system must be short circuited by any means including lies, insults, willful ignorance of facts, misquoting those supporting the ART's system as having a reality based effect, misquoting sources provided to support a provable premise, disparaging any sources used simply because, totally ignoring any reference material or source provided to support the scientific operation of such devices, diverting the discussion toward other topics, getting drunk, staying drunk, sobering up and regretting sobering up, being schizophrenic, being an ass, being a prick, being a bigotted ass who admits to not trusting someone merely because they only appear on this forum at certain times, admitting to being a bigotted ass who chooses not to trust someone simply because they disagree with his beliefs on audio, being a bigotted ass who dislikes and distrusts someone merely because they sell a product, being a bigotted ass who dislikes and distrusts someone merely because they sell a product while agreeing with another person who sells a somewhat similar product, displaying an absolute ignorance of all things simply because, "Hell I do know everything!" (supporting evidence)

The inability of anyone to coherently argue against the ART's system's operation and its proven effect displays just how poorly those naysayers conduct themself in public. (major premise)

The naysayers are ineffective in their arguments against the ART's system and they are equally ineffective in their argument about other alterntives. (minor premise and supporting proof)

Those same naysayers are wrong about many things other than the ART's system. (conclusion)

bifcake
bifcake's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Nov 27 2005 - 2:27am
Re: Synergistics Research Acoustic ART-real sonic improvements?


Quote:
Jesus Christ, Jan! Why don't you just buy a set of ART bowls, try them, report here what you heard, and send them back for a refund. Then we'll all know.

--Ethan

Damn it, Winer! Haven't you learned anything during your time on these forums? Don't you know that buying the bowls and then returning them is immoral and vile? That's like teasing the sales people into thinking they actually made a sale and then pulling the rug from under them!

Why don't you just stick to talking about stuff you know about, Winer. Things like proving stuff! Now, be a good boy and go prove something.

May Belt
May Belt's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 hours 31 min ago
Joined: May 8 2006 - 1:51am
Re: Synergistics Research Acoustic ART-real sonic improvements?

>>> "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." <<<

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

Only Stephen Scharf can say whether the improvements in the sound he heard with the ART resonators in the room were by 'hearing' additional information which was contained in the actual musical content on the disc (therefore allowing him to describe 'hearing' "Big, wide and open. Great imaging and soundstage. Very airy, spacious"), or whether it was, as you suggest, something ADDED from the very ART devices themselves !!!

When people can describe suddenly being able to 'hear' such as the "body of the guitar" which they had not heard prior to doing what they had done, or being able to suddenly 'hear' the "sustain of the guitar strings", or being able to suddenly 'hear' more "majesty and power from a human voice" which they had not been aware of from previously listening to a particular disc, I don't think that all that additional information was FROM such as the ART devices themselves adding something additional !!! I think that the additional information I have described (which people describe 'hearing') WAS on the original recording, HAD BEEN 'handled' perfectly adequately by the audio system, HAD BEEN 'presented' into the room by the loudspeaker system, and WAS already in the room, available to be heard.

Read the descriptions by reviewers of their experiences with other Resonator devices.

>>> "the sound of a single triangle in space continues to haunt me hours later. I have heard many systems reproduce the triangle's sound, but never has any approached the experience of sitting in a prime orchestra seat in San Francisco's Davies Symphony Hall and hearing it resound and decay in space........ Equally astounding were the purity of Elly Ameling's voice on Brahms, and the total immersion in Mahler's music I experienced when listening to Ivan Fischer's "Record to Die For" recording of Mahler's Symphony 2........ Overall I felt which I felt created breathtakingly three-dimensional, all-involving images that transcend the categories of "analog" and "digital." <<<

AND from another review :-

>>> "We played music for many hours encountering new nuances in many recordings. Tiny details like fingers clicking on keyboards, strokes on strings or voices in the background became audible and were no longer buried in the room's noise floor. Listening since has become a far more relaxed occupation now that we no longer have to subconsciously filter out a certain noise level......... Music in an Acoustic System resonator treated room sounds truly musical and natural. No hint of HiFi with its analytical coolness. Don't forget this holds true for analogue as well as digital media. Though the usual hyenas on the forums will cackle with ridicule, serious music lovers would miss out a great deal if they mistook the small size and unconventional behavior of these unusual acoustic treatments for a joke. They're anything but a joke." <<<

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

Are you saying, Buddha, that the information of the "fingers clicking on keyboards, strokes on strings" and the information which allowed Stephen Scharf to describe hearing "Big, wide and open. Great imaging and soundstage. Very airy, spacious", was NOT on the disc ? That that information was created by the actual resonance devices from themselves ?

You have a list of choices (compiled from different people's different comments over many 'postings')

1) That the additional information such as "fingers clicking on keyboards, strokes on strings" and other information as described by the various reviewers and Stephen Scharf's "Big, wide and open. Great imaging and soundstage. Very airy, spacious", is NOT on the disc.

2) That the additional information such as "fingers clicking on keyboards, strokes on strings" and other information as described by the various reviewers and Stephen Scharf's "Big, wide and open. Great imaging and soundstage. Very airy, spacious", is created by the actual devices themselves.

3) That the additional information such as "fingers clicking on keyboards, strokes on strings" and other information as described by the various reviewers and Stephen Scharf's "Big, wide and open. Great imaging and soundstage. Very airy, spacious", comes not from the actual disc or from the actual devices but from 'auto-suggestion'., 'the placebo effect'., 'imagination'., 'snake oil'., 'audio faith healing'., or 'effective marketing'.

4) That IF the additional information such as "fingers clicking on keyboards, strokes on strings" and other information as described by the various reviewers and Stephen Scharf's "Big, wide and open. Great imaging and soundstage. Very airy, spacious", IS on the disc, IS handled perfectly adequately by the audio system, IS presented into the room by the loudspeaker system, IS already in the room, then the reviewers and Stephen Scharf must NEED such devices as 'props', 'talismen', 'rituals', 'certain potions and elixirs' in order to enable them to relax and get into the music better.

5) That IF the answer is No. 4, that you (Buddha) do not NEED such 'props', 'talismen', 'rituals', 'certain potions and elixirs', that you can already 'hear' the information of the "fingers clicking on keyboards, strokes on strings" and other information as described by the various reviewers and Stephen Scharf's "Big, wide and open. Great imaging and soundstage. Very airy, spacious".

If your answer would be within No. 5, then perhaps Buddha, you can share your experiences with the 'crystals' !!!

To quote you :-

>>> "Undamped crystals leave a little smear. The oil damping leaves the benefit and removes the smear. Interestingly, the oil leaves the crystals more free to do their work.

The damped crystals make for better imaging and sonic decay.

The oil alters the resonance frequency of the container/crystals, with the most significant impact being, like the trough of a Well Tempered Arm, a sort of "instantaneous" damping of induced vibration.

With the crystal/oil matrix, the original vibration would be transmitted, but any continued response to the vibration would be damped.

I find that by attenuating ongoing oscillation produces as better "leading edge" on the sonics - hence, my comment about "smear."

It may be something I listen for that others may not.

The same goes for quality of decay - it seems to make for a more seamless transmission of sonic decay as sounds end - less "smearing" of the end of the signal, as it were.

Not to sound crazy, but there also seems to be a crystal size factor, with too small or too large not getting the job done." <<<

****************
Regards,
May Belt.

May Belt
May Belt's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 hours 31 min ago
Joined: May 8 2006 - 1:51am
Re: Synergistics Research Acoustic ART-real sonic improvements?

>>> "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!" <<<

Sorry, Buddha. The total information which makes up the particular musical content MUST BE on the disc. If Ethan's room treatments cannot, in any way, have any effect on that information encoded on the disc, then that information must proceed through the audio equipment. If Ethan's room treatment cannot, in any way, have any effect on the audio signal travelling through the audio equipment, then that information must proceed through the audio equipment. If Ethan's room treatment cannot, in any way, have any effect on how the loudspeakers present the information into the room, then the information MUST BE presented into the room !!!!

Once that information has been presented into the room, by the loudspeakers, as ACOUSTIC information then, yes, there will be nulls and peaks created by various things and various situations present in the room but the information HAS TO BE THERE in the first place to have the nulls and peaks created !!! Then, yes, the 'sound' in the room can be described as being 'changed' but the whole thing can only take place with information already there !!!!!!!

If information ABC + DEF + GHI + JKL is encoded on the disc and that information is about Dvorjak's New World Symphony and Ethan's room treatments cannot affect that information either on the disc or as it travels through the audio system, or as it is presented into the room by the loudspeakers, then information ABC + DEF + GHI + JKL must end up in the room !!! Once it has become ACOUSTIC information, then yes, it can be affected and may or may not be heard fully as ABC + DEF + GHI + JKL. But it still started out, directly from the loudspeakers, as information ABC + DEF + GHI + JKL.

Regards,
May Belt.

Benonymous
Benonymous's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Dec 12 2006 - 7:22pm
Re: Synergistics Research Acoustic ART-real sonic improvements?

Any talk of resonance or harmonics in this thread must be kept in perspective. Tibetan prayer bowls are basically percussion instruments. As the youtube video shows, they are struck with a soft mallet or the stick of same. This causes the bowl to vibrate audibly

At Jans urging I have read all of the information on the ART site regarding the bowl devices and the other "products" such as 'Quantum Tunnelling'.

Nowhere did I find any additional information to make me think that these devices would do anything other than reflect airborne sound waves, as any hard surface would. I cannot see how they would cause any kind of "binaural beat" phenomenon because the effect would have to be audible. However there would be a simple way to confirm this.

First, have an 'expert' set up the devices then play some music at a normal listening level. Persist as long as necessary with the demonstration then cut the music. The room would be plunged into silence and the Audiophile ear could then be used to see if it can detect any ringing from the bowl devices. If none is heard, then the SPL of the music is not sufficient to cause vibration in the devices. Try it louder and repeat and so forth until you either hear ringing from the devices or you find that the volume is unbearable. No spectrum analysers or tests of any kind that would upset a true Audiophile, you have as your only test, the 'golden' ears.

Sadly, this approach actually involves getting your wrinkly ass out of your computer chair and setting up a demo at an appropriate venue. Something that only one person posting on this thread has done. Funnily enough, Stephen Scharf has stated that he wouldn't bother with the devices, especially considering the price. In the course of doing my additional reading I have estimated that the materials, carbon steel and wood, plus labour couldn't be beyond a couple of hundred dollars. A moot point when discussing HiFi tweaks but one I thought I'd mention.

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:
Tibetan prayer bowls are basically percussion instruments. As the youtube video shows, they are struck with a soft mallet or the stick of same. This causes the bowl to vibrate audibly

You misunderstand how a Singing Bowl is played. Yes, in most cases the Bowl is struck in some manner to "warm up" or introduce the Song. However, that strike typically does not produce the Song itself, it merely establishes a base tone. After the Bowl is vibrating the player takes the hard end of the mallet (usually) and runs it along the outer edge of the Bowl's rim. This sets up a complex set of polyharmonics which constantly change in pitch, amplitude and complexity all the while the player continues to edge the bowl's rim. As the Bowl and mallet age from use, microgrooves are established in the mallet's handle which then make for even more complex structures in the Bowl's Song. Talented and exprienced players can keep a bowl Singing for extended periods of time well beyond where the decay of the intial strike would have run out. This is the Bowl's real Song.

Watch this video; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bpw53tN6h8E&feature=related

http://search.yahoo.com/search?ei=utf-8&...bowls&type=

There are multiple ways to make the bowls create sound and there are various devices used both to induce the Bowl's Song and to support the Bowls while it is in use. Some players use their mouth as a focussing tool to bring yet more complex tones to the Song. To think a Bowl is merely an instrument that is struck and that's all it does has absolutely missed both the function and the magic of the Bowls.


Quote:
At Jans urging I have read all of the information on the ART site regarding the bowl devices and the other "products" such as 'Quantum Tunnelling'.
Nowhere did I find any additional information to make me think that these devices would do anything other than reflect airborne sound waves, as any hard surface would.

Then, FC, not only have you not read for comprehension once again but you have simply ignored the basics of room acoustics. Now you've not only not made anything up to suit your knowledge base, you've actually forgotten your knowledge base. Granted the ART's bowls and supports will reflect and diffuse a pressure wave but their size would certainly suggest their contribtion to either reflected or diffused sound energy within the room would be minimal. Probably less than, say, an upright CD case. Hardly a contributing factor in most people's book to any real effect in the room's acoustic.

Unfortunately, here's what you missed on the ART's home page ...


Quote:
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.

However, it wasn

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?

Now, just who was it that said I never answer questions?

michiganjfrog
michiganjfrog's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Jan 9 2007 - 11:36pm
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?

Funny, I remember the exact opposite. But then, I don't have the advantage of pouring 4 bottles of wine down my gullet. So there's that to consider. I did however ask you to come up with a quote that supports your unique view on reality. Are you still working on that? Do you need help? Did your dog chew up the printouts?

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

What am I posting on now? Are the ART devices my subfetish, according to you? What are CD demagnetizers then? My sub-sub-fetish? And why are you disparaging me and May again, in a post to Jan? If you're not disparaging Jan in posts to me, you're disparaging me in posts to Jan! Are you simply not able to disagree with someone on audio, without insulting them?


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.

Congratulations. You found a way to take Ethan's unprovoked attack of disparaging people's hifi systems to a new level. By disparaging me for not having a system! And it doesn't even stop there, you determined this by reading my mind, apparently!

So there we have it folks. Buddha divides everyone on these forums into one of either two categories: subjectivists, or the brigade he's fighting for, "pseudo-objectivists". And the pseudo-objectivists do have a distinct advantage over the subs: they can read minds. Not sure if they can read their own, however, because they can't seem to figure out what they're saying from one minute to the next.

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

LOL! I sure hope this is the booze talking, 'cos I'd hate to think you're that stupid. Since you don't mind using the word "logic" to disparage Jan, how about you explain the logic you're using here? Start by telling me how you would know what subjects I, or anyone you've never met and don't know from Adam, are "able to converse about"? According to your "logic", anything you haven't seen me "converse about", means I'm not able to converse about it. Then by your brilliant logic, I could also assume you're not even able to tie your shoelaces in the morning, before you go to school, and you have to have your mother help you. After all, I haven't seen you do that, have I? LOL!

Hey, Buddha, good news! Did another "Wiki search" for ya! Do us all a favour. Try reading and understanding what it says, this time.

Fallacies of Distraction: Argument From Ignorance:

" target="_blank">http://www.onegoodmove.org/fallacy/ig.htm

to the point of Frog slipping about his disdain for larger room treatments - imagine, a world with only one format of tweaks.

What are you nattering on about, exactly? "Slipping"? The only thing I see "slipping" here is your sobriety. All I did was make a comment on how ugly room traps are, in a residential setting. I'm hardly the first. And from this, you extrapolate to mean "I only want a world with one format of tweaks, and I live to banish all others"? Maybe you should just lay off the hard stuff, because you're even more delusional here than you normally are. As one of his minions, I realize Ethan owns a big slice of you, and you must protect your boss and his business from any and all critics saying -anything- negative against -any- sort of room traps (or his erroneous technical claims), but hey... could you try to be a little more subtle about it, please? For all of your rage and anger toward anyone here saying the slightest thing against conventional room treatments, you might as well be parading up and down the Lost Vegas strip with a RealTraps

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

Jan wrote:

being a bigotted ass who admits to not trusting someone merely because they only appear on this forum at certain times, admitting to being a bigotted ass who chooses not to trust someone simply because they disagree with his beliefs on audio, being a bigotted ass who dislikes and distrusts someone merely because they sell a product, being a bigotted ass who dislikes and distrusts someone merely because they sell a product while agreeing with another person who sells a somewhat similar product, displaying an absolute ignorance of all things simply because, "Hell I do know everything!" (supporting evidence)

Wow. Impressive. You certainly hit the nail on the head; especially in regards to those crazy quasi-drunken conspiracy rants he went off on. So sorry Buddha. But it looks like Jan pwns you.

May Belt
May Belt's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 hours 31 min ago
Joined: May 8 2006 - 1:51am
Re: Synergistics Research Acoustic ART-real sonic improvements?

Your quote :-
>>> "This causes the bowl to vibrate audibly...... Nowhere did I find any additional information to make me think that these devices would do anything other than reflect airborne sound waves, as any hard surface would." <<<

Firstly I was (and always am) very careful regarding what I reply to. The 'thread' which was started was about the ART resonators and I was responding to Buddha's claim that the additional information which various people were able to hear with the ART (and other) resonators in position was NOT already in the room.

It was Jan who introduced a concept of "binaural beat" and THAT concept is still being debated by others.

I KNOW that striking such as a 'bowl' will vibrate audibly. My argument, carefully constructed to Buddha, is that yes, a resonator may add something, an audible addition BUT that 'something added' would be a 'GENERAL something' - could have a 'general effect' (maybe creating a feeling of more bass, or creating a feeling of more treble), but a 'struck bowl' or a resonator will NOT create a SPECIFIC sound such as "fingers clicking on keyboards, strokes on strings".

In your rush to respond, Fresh Clip, you are actually suggesting that a 'struck bowl' or the ART resonators must (in the case of the reviewers descriptions) be ADDING the SPECIFIC sound of "fingers clicking on keyboards, strokes on strings". That (from your argument) with such as the ART resonators in the room - EVEN listening to a recording of religious chants (with no musical instruments involved on the recording) or listening to a recording of Barbers Shop singers (with no musical instruments involved on the recording) the information, the SPECIFIC sound of "fingers clicking on keyboards, strokes on strings" will STILL be heard !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Which is obviously the crux of your argument if you want to argue that the information of "fingers clicking on keyboards, strokes on strings" is NOT on the original recording and has NOT already been presented into the room.

IF that could be the case, that resonators can produce SPECIFIC sounds such as "fingers clicking on keyboards, strokes on strings", "breathtakingly three-dimensional, all-involving images that transcend the categories of "analog" and "digital.", then the resonators could even be marketed as :-
"Resonators adding the sound of "fingers clicking on keyboards, strokes on strings" for your musical enjoyment."
"Resonators adding the sound of "breathtakingly three-dimensional, all-involving images that transcend the categories of "analog" and "digital." for your musical enjoyment.

Your quote "to make me think that these devices would do anything other than reflect airborne sound waves, as any hard surface would." is unbelievably simplistic from someone who is presumed to be involved in audio. Reflections of airborne sound waves or any hard surface CANNOT generate SPECIFIC 'sounds' such as "fingers clicking on keyboards, strokes on strings", "breathtakingly three-dimensional, all-involving images that transcend the categories of "analog" and "digital." - which are the descriptions given by people who have actually listened to such devices !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If people can now describe 'hearing' "fingers clicking on keyboards, strokes on strings", "breathtakingly three-dimensional, all-involving images that transcend the categories of "analog" and "digital." after certain resonators have been positioned in the room, then, logically, THAT SPECIFIC information must have been in the room all the time !!

For manufacturers of Hi Fi equipment, who are completely at the mercy of how Hi Fi Retailers and Overseas agents demonstrate their products, when reports surface of how certain things as applying a demagnetiser to CDs etc or positioning resonator devices in a listening room produces improvements in the sound like "fingers clicking on keyboards, strokes on strings", "breathtakingly three-dimensional, all-involving images that transcend the categories of "analog" and "digital." then, believe me, such reports have to be seriously investigated !!!

WE started such investigations 27 years ago, by investigating such reports as different wires when used as conductors 'changing the sound' and such as Ivor Tiefenbrum's claim that passive speakers in the listening room, and a telephone in the listening room, and an electronic watch in the listening - ALL had an adverse effect on the 'sound' being produced by the active loudspeaker system being demonstrated.

The rest, as they say, is History !!

So, Fresh Clip, the simplistic "This causes the bowl to vibrate audibly...... Nowhere did I find any additional information to make me think that these devices would do anything other than reflect airborne sound waves, as any hard surface would." just won't do. It does NOT explain where the additional information "fingers clicking on keyboards, strokes on strings", "breathtakingly three-dimensional, all-involving images that transcend the categories of "analog" and "digital." has come from !!

The price argument is an old argument, a red herring argument. The price of something only comes into prominence at a later stage, only becomes an issue AFTER any discussion as to how effective and desirable something is. This DISCUSSION would be (should be) exactly the same even if the device or technique was FREE !!!!!!!!!!!!

Regards,
May Belt.

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?

May and Frog - You might have quadrupuled the rent once again.

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


Quote:
Don't you know that buying the bowls and then returning them is immoral and vile?


Actually, I would normally agree with that. But in this case the vendors were immoral and vile first just for offering this crap for sale and lying about what improvements one could expect. I imagine they must get a lot of returns anyway, especially at those prices!

This reminds me of the late-night TV ads for nonsense medical products, where they offer a 100 percent money-back guarantee. Less shipping, of course. And that's the catch. The BS pills cost them 50 cents including packaging. The pills sell for $19.95, and the non-refundable shipping adds $6.99. So even if 100 percent of all sales were returned, they still make plenty. I imagine this is the main intent anyway. If a few suckers don't send it back, that's an extra bonus.

--Ethan

____________________
Bring back DUP

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?

PROVE SOMETHING!

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

Actually, I would normally agree with that. But in this case the vendors were immoral and vile first just for offering this crap for sale and lying about what improvements one could expect.

Speaking of "immoral and vile first just for offering crap for sale and lying about what improvements one could expect", that reminds me of those room traps of yours. Is that what you were takling about? So I'm curious... what happens if after I staple these fridge boxes of yours to my wall, and then feel like I got suckered by you, after listening to it destroying the musicality of my once-good sound? (including PRAT and all that good stuff that's so important to audiophiles). Is it gonna cost me anything, other than the time I wasted fooling with them? Or are you going to insist they're not destroying my good sound, and that I waste more of my time experimenting with them, instead of giving me the full refund, shipping included, that I'm asking for?

I imagine they must get a lot of returns anyway, especially at those prices!

And your proof of that is where....? Same place where we can find your proof the ART devices don't do anything, I take it?

This reminds me of the late-night TV ads for nonsense medical products, where they offer a 100 percent money-back guarantee. Less shipping, of course. And that's the catch. The BS pills cost them 50 cents including packaging. The pills sell for $19.95, and the non-refundable shipping adds $6.99. So even if 100 percent of all sales were returned, they still make plenty. I imagine this is the main intent anyway.

So let me get this straight. According to you, Synergistic Research is making all their money on the non-refundable shipping charges from all the returns they're getting on the do-nothing ART bowls, is that right? And this means they've found a carrier that charges them nothing to ship the products, in order to make any money on the shipping in the first place. So Ethan, should we assume they're using trained pigeons, or St. Bernard dogs for their shipments? Which brings up another question: have you been out drinking recently with Buddha? Because if you haven't, then I'd say you have a bigger problem.....

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


Quote:
PROVE SOMETHING!


I already did, in post #55871 above. Now it's up to you to prove that I didn't prove something.

Jan, stick with the comedy writing. You're surprisingly good at it.

--Ethan

____________________
Bring back DUP

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?

Fine, Etahn, if that's all you have to prove, you're done here.

No more need for sarcastic remarks and no more need for your brand of easy cynicism and certainly no more need for your special flavor of insults.

Bye-bye, Winer.

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


Quote:
PROVE SOMETHING!

I'm afraid you're going to have to be more specific than that, with our friend Ethan. You have to remind him that he's in a thread about the Synergistic ART devices, and to show some proof of his claims against them. Otherwise, he'll just default to that little niche in audio that he's learned a few things about. This is what we've already seen him do in this thread in the post #55871 he keeps wanting you to refer to. He only posts proof that 24 bit audio is not superior to 16 bit, "dither is total BS", cables don't matter, 9/11 was an inside job, the moon is made of green cheese, and a host of other useless links to subjects that have absolutely nothing to do with the subject of this thread!. As he did with the last thread on CD Demagnetizers, almost all of Winer's posts here have been ad hominem attacks, that have contributed nothing to advance the discussion.

As I am often made to point out, Ethan doesn't wander beyond his little "comfort zone" in audio. He insists in post #55871 that YOU remain in HIS comfort zone, even though it has buck all to do with the subject under discussion! We often see him struggling to try to transfer his little knowledge in one area of audio to another, and failing miserably. It's like a podiatrist thinking he can take over the job of an obstetrician, without any further education, simply because they're both in the field of medicine. You would say that's a pretty slow-witted podiatrist, wouldn't you? The problems arise when Ethan, who doesn't know anything about advanced tweaks (except how to stop all semblance of intelligent or rational thinking and simply dismiss them all with a sweep of his hand), and worse, doesn't want to know anything about them, nevertheless wants to be where all the folks are talking. His massive ego can't permit otherwise, apparently. It needs constant attention. He wants to be able to stand on a mount and yell at people far more open-minded and knowledgable about these things than he, "Hey, it's a ripoff! Why, because I said so, that's why! I'm an audio expert! Look at my self-published FAQ on acoustics, on my own website, if'n ya don't believe me!". And then, if you can try to follow Ethan's logic without feeling like you're arguing with a 3 yr old child, you get the privilege of being disparaged by Ethan, by him declaring that he's more of an expert on the ART devices than you are, because you didn't write a FAQ on something that has nothing to do with that product, on your own website.

You want Ethan to provide proof of an audio subject outside his comfort zone? Sorry, "proof" is only something he demands of others. As we constantly see in thread after thread, Ethan doesn't provide the "proof" that he demands of others, if its on subjects outside of his little audio niche. But he'll conveniently ignore that little bit of hypocrisy. Not having proof of his claims, does not stop Ethan from having the gall to condemn products from producers of audio tweaks other than himself. Including acoustic treatment solutions far superior to his. Products he nevertheless knows nothing about and has never tested, that he arrogantly calls "fraud" and "snake oil", and their manufacturers "charlatans".

Some people have more sense than that. So let me join your call: Mr. Ethan Whiner: if you have only insults and ad hominem attacks for the participants in this thread, and nothing to say to advance the debate on the ART devices, you're done here. Buddha says he's already waiting for you in the next thread, so you don't have to be afraid of not having the support you need.

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

Nowhere did I find any additional information to make me think that these devices would do anything other than reflect airborne sound waves, as any hard surface would. I cannot see how they would cause any kind of "binaural beat" phenomenon because the effect would have to be audible. However there would be a simple way to confirm this.

If you mean consciously audible, no, it doesn't. I have many brainwave entrainment CD's that use binaural beats, underneath a foreground of various sounds, like nature sounds or music. All you hear is the foreground sounds, but the beat frequencies work all the same, in tuning your brainwave frequencies. As Jan pointed out to you, and as evidence shows, they're more resonators than they would be diffusers/reflectors.


Sadly, this approach actually involves getting your wrinkly ass out of your computer chair and setting up a demo at an appropriate venue. Something that only one person posting on this thread has done.

No you haven't been paying attention, there's been two. What makes you think everyone else here has easy acces to an ART dealer, who's willing to set that up? How about you get YOUR wrinkly ass out of your computer chair and do the experiment you propose the rest of us do, if its so easy to access the acoustic ART system?


Funnily enough, Stephen Scharf has stated that he wouldn't bother with the devices, especially considering the price.

So? Why "funnily enough"? Is Stephen Scharf the first and last word on the ART devices for you?


In the course of doing my additional reading I have estimated that the materials, carbon steel and wood, plus labour couldn't be beyond a couple of hundred dollars. A moot point when discussing HiFi tweaks but one I thought I'd mention.

Hardly worth the mention, as it's a facile, and very uninformed analysis. A japanese samurai sword is made of carbon steel and wood. They can go for over 10 grand. Similarly as with the samurai sword, the ART resonators are precisely tuned during the hardening process, with a spectrum analyzer measuring the acoustic properties of each. So no, you don't determine the value of something by melting it, and weighing the remains. You determine the value by looking at what went into it. You don't know all that's behind the acoustic ART system, including the R&D, so you can't even accurately value it if you wanted to. To pretend otherwise is just more pointless argument from ignorance, of which we've seen enough here from Buddha & Ethan. Some listeners of the system have reported that it's $3K pricetag is actually cheap for what it does.

ncdrawl
ncdrawl's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 7 months ago
Joined: Oct 18 2008 - 9:18am
Re: Synergistics Research Acoustic ART-real sonic improvements?


Quote:
Including acoustic treatment solutions far superior to his.

so now those effing ugly ass balls are more effective than a well researched product with thousands of customers, including pretty much all of the pro audio industry, audiophiles with sense, and acoustic designers??

man, the bullshit is thick here.. all we have left is for machina dynamica to drop by and begin espousing the wonders of the teleportation tweak

.

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

For those who may not have seen these articles, the following two linked reviews go into some fairly good detail regarding the Avatar Acoustics resonators. The inventor/manufacturer is forthcoming as to how he believes the devices work. If you think the Synergistic devices are too small wait till you get a look at these babies. I will also point out these devices cost 250 to 2500 dollars each and approx. 9 of them are recommended, which makes the Synergistics system look competitive if not a bargain.

If you can get by the miniscule size, the fact that they supposedly work in the refridgerator, outside the window, damn near down the street, it is a very interesting read. Either this dude is on to something or he has put the royal mind fuck on quite a few people. You decide for yourself.

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

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

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?

ncdrawl, you must not understand the point of a "discussion forum". Granted this is not a "discussion forum' very often. However, quite a bit of effort has been put forth on this thread to actually find out whether this forum could ever be a "discussion forum". That would be, to my understanding, a place where like minded souls come to discuss similar and sometimes conflicting viewpoints. That would be the "forum" part.

The "discussion" part would be where people actually communicate ideas that can be exchanged and "discussed" - rationally and without obvious bias ...

... or extreme stupidity.

OK, I'm going to allow you to decide what part of "discussion" - "forum" you failed at with that last post.

Tell you what, ncdrawl, I'll make it easy for you. Go back to here in this thread; #55878 - 12/18/08 03:46 PM. Unlike Winer's "proof" I did prove in that post the main reasoning of this thread at this point in time. I ended the post with this, "Disprove it without insults - or - coherently prove something other than this to be the result of deductive reasoning. Provide supporting evidence for your premises."

That's it in a nutshell for you, ncdrawl. There's the premise, there's the proof and the supporting evidence and there's the conclusion. So far not one person has done anything that even begins to disprove that post other than to call Frog and I a number of unseemly names and insinuate we are the ones who don't have a clue even though we're the ones who came up with the conclusion you guys can't disprove.

That's beautiful, isn't it?

We prove it.

You can't disprove it.

So you call us names.

How's that work, ncdrawl?

If none of you can even begin to disprove what has been put forth here, how is it you and your cronies are not the idiots and the fools? It would certainly seem that way to me when none of you will answer anything more than the simplest question, none of you can read for comprehension, none of you can prove anything else to be true other than what is in that one post.

The one you guys can't disprove, remember that one? That's the one we're "discussing" here on this "forum".

Even without the blatant insults you guys have resorted to, it's really quite revolting that none of you will even attempt to refure that one post - or anything Frog or May have subsequently posted - which clearly and logically deduces how the ART's system might operate and how we could find out. Instead every one of you have either gone off on some far fetched tangent that comes back down to "it costs too much" - ignoring as May has said we are not here to discuss the price, we know the price - or you have done nothing more than your childish dig at something you cannot disprove and in so doing made a bit more of an ass of yourself - as if that were truly possible, ncdrawl.

C'mon,ncdrawl, step up to the plate. Be "D'Man"!!!

Disprove that post. Or prove something else is true and supply your evidence and some links so we're not just hung out with made up shit like we've seen from you guys so far - you know give us some links or some quotes, not just more made up crap about "when we clip, it rises" - and really get to work here.

Do something that could actually be considered a "discussion" on this "forum".

I really don't have to show you pictures of some RealTraps instalations, do I, to dissaude you about the esthetics of a few dozen "refrigerator doors" hanging around your room vs. a few discrete "effing ...balls"? Really, ncdrawl, do you want your sound killed by a refrigerator? Even Winer's not sticking up for his own products here. That should tell you something.

Oh, sorry, I forgot who I was talking to here. Sorry.

Right! You go get yerself some o'them doors for your studio, ncdrawl. They'll be just ssssswwwwwwellllll! Don't you mind what people been saying about them being killers , that's just not true!

So, there it is, guy. Do something no one else has done - disprove that one post. It's one post, that shouldn't be that difficult to work with. Not for a smart guy like you!

But, ya'know, if it is, look, I'm not pushing you into something where you're gonna be over your head or nothing, try this one from May; #55944 - 12/19/08 09:23 AM. I thought it was a particularly interesting proposition. Where do you suppose the sound of fingers on the keyboard come from if not from those "effing bowls"? And, if they do come from those "effing bowls", why isn't the sound of fingers on the keyboard always present even when there's isn't keyboard in the music?

Once again, that should be a snap for someone like you who has so much experience with this stuff that when you get up some cash you're going to give it to Winer so he can go ahead and kill your sound - awwww, now I didn't mean to say that, it just slipped out - and then show you his graphs (that say he didn't - sorry, it just came out, sorry ).

(Did I ever tell you about the one thread Winer and the rest of us were on where he kept insisting that what his customers heard after his installtion was not due to their "perception" because he had graphs to prove they had no perception of their own? Only what he told them to hear, could they hear. If they thought they heard something else, he had those graphs! "Shucks, a lot of people think it sounds kind of "overdamped" when I'm done putting these refrigerators, uh, "treatments" everywhere - watch you head there when you sit down - that's cause they dont know what the graphs are telling them to hear. You do though, don't you? "

Brilliant! Just brilliant!

Someone like you who once thought things sounded different until you came up with some sort of measurement that didn't work out convinced you ... of what? ... that you measured the wrong thing? ... NO! - that you couldn't actually hear! You should eat this stuff up, ugly as mortal sin or not. But Winer's not the subject of this thread. Right now, that one post is. Think about it, ncdrawl. One post. Disprove one post and they'll elect you homecoming king! Man, that would be soooo cooool!

And all you have to do is disprove that one post.

So, there you go, ncdrawl. Pick either one of the above or any of Frog's questions. They're all good. And they've all stimied you guys.

Be the hero, guy!

DISPROVE SOMETHING!!!

Or, shut the hell up 'cause you know you lost.

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:
Either this dude is on to something or he has put the royal mind fuck on quite a few people.

More disproof!

Oh, goodie!!!

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 guys must be eatin' up George's farewell tour. Doesn't matter what the facts are. Doesn't matter what proof has been presented to disprove you guys. Your comprehension remains a little bit ssssssllllllow.

Nothing matters but what you think you know and what you want to think you know. It must be a wonderful life to be so afraid of any new idea.


Quote:
Those are tiny metal bowls riding atop a trident cradle whose shaft is embedded in a grain-oriented, well seasoned soft or hard Maple wood sliver, with the bowls made from copper, silver, gold or Platinum alloys like Japanese or Tibetan singing bowls ...


Quote:
With this information on direct and reflected sounds and how they influence our perception, let's bring Franck Tchang into the picture
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?

Hey, ncdrawl! Look at the pictures in that second article. Man, those are some "effing bowls", eh? Really clutter up that room, don't they?

Geez, who'd want that in their listening room when they could have a couple dozen refrigerator doors everywhere?

Just look at that, ncdrawl!

How's that "disproof" coming, guy? The homecoming is getting close.

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

Oh, that's what it was! My bad. (At the beginning, I had said that I was vaguely aware of the ART resonators, having read a review on them last year. Well no, you just made me realize I had never heard of the ART system, til this thread. It was the Franck Tchang resonators I was impressed by. The ones I mentioned earlier could be placed outside a window).


Quote:
For those who may not have seen these articles, the following two linked reviews go into some fairly good detail regarding the Avatar Acoustics resonators. The inventor/manufacturer is forthcoming as to how he believes the devices work. If you think the Synergistic devices are too small wait till you get a look at these babies. I will also point out these devices cost 250 to 2500 dollars each and approx. 9 of them are recommended, which makes the Synergistics system look competitive if not a bargain.

If you can get by the miniscule size, the fact that they supposedly work in the refridgerator, outside the window, damn near down the street, it is a very interesting read. Either this dude is on to something or he has put the royal mind fuck on quite a few people. You decide for yourself.

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

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

RG

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


Quote:
so now those effing ugly ass balls are more effective than a well researched product with thousands of customers, including pretty much all of the pro audio industry, audiophiles with sense, and acoustic designers??

Yes.

But really, sorry to burst your partisan bubble; it's not an either/or fact. The very fact that you would call the A.R.T. system "ugly ass effin balls", when most sane, sensible, rational people with at least some sense of aesthetic value consider the acoustic ART singing bowls far more attractive and beautiful in a room, than the air conditioner grills that Ethan sells, proves that it comes down to an individual's notion of value - whether aesthetic or practical. I would guess that the people who think Ethan's ghastly air conditioner grills and fridge boxes with legs are attractive, and the cute little Zen A.R.T. singing bowls to be "ugly ass effin balls", are the same sort of people who consider dogs playing poker on velvet to be fine art, who consider Applebee's to be haute cuisine, and who wear their t-shirts backwards to "make a statement". I'm not here to judge. Everyone's entitled to their values - be it artistic or musical. However ass-backwards they may be. (snicker)

By the way, your logical fallacy, argumentum ad numerum, has been duly noted. Twice.

man, the bullshit is thick here..

Is that what the little man trapped in your head said? You should let him out sometimes. It's probably pretty stuffy in there.


all we have left is for machina dynamica to drop by and begin espousing the wonders of the teleportation tweak

I agree, I hope they would. It's not a party, unless Geoff brings the chips. It's a wonderous tweak. Have you tried it?

ncdrawl
ncdrawl's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 7 months ago
Joined: Oct 18 2008 - 9:18am
Re: Synergistics Research Acoustic ART-real sonic improvements?


Quote:
[
Yes.

ive pointed some of my recording friends(all working professionals in audio/acoustics/sound reproduction/(one of which is, like me, a professional singer) to this thread, boy are they going to get a kick out of this...

so the singing bowls work better than real acoustic treatment..

through the looking glass. You , Jan and May..

Jan, given that you were a theatre major, Ive decided to be more understanding of your posts. Given the fact that your degree is about as worthless as mine(vocal performance), I am sure you have your own issues, so rant on, Drama King/Queen. God knows it is tough to get acting jobs, so gotta hone them chops when you can.

What would Stanislavsky think?

Read some audio reference materials(i referenced many in my posts about "DSD" here), wrap your brain around it..let it soak in. When youve done that, beat yourself about the head for advocating this nonsense.

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


Quote:
so the singing bowls work better than real acoustic treatment..

Really? You think your little magic "singing bowls" work better than real acoustic treatments?
Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!
Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!
Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!
Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!
Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!
Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!
Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!
Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!
Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!
Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!
Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!
Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!
Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!

Prove it.

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:
What would Stanislavsky think?

Well, actually the "concert ears" that I mentioned earlier in the thread is based more on Meyerhold's bio-mechanics techniques than on Stanislvsky's emotional recall exercises. Meyerhold and Stanislavsky approached things rather from different angles, Stanislavsky was always concerned about the process (the test) and considered the result the natural extension of the process he preached. Meyerhold looked at the result and said there must be an explanation for how we got here. (Biomechanics became a science in the middle of the last century with people doing Doctoral thesis on the correct way to move your arm to maintain the highest levels of performance. It is tied to our now clear understanding of repetitive stress injuries. Of course, nowdays we understand such injuries are often the result of someone doing what they're told to do over and over and over and over and ... without ever thinking why the results are bad for them. Unfortunately, the last years have returned us to a regime that doesn't want us to think about result or the damage - just the process of getting there. And look at where they got us!)

Stanislavsky had the larger theatre that was more in line with the policy of social realism under Lenin - i.e. the party line must be maintained.

Meyerhold got a bit too big and too obvious (popular) for those who wished to keep the power they had grabbed when he began making noises about how full of it they were, how outdated their ideas were and how thinking everything is okey-dokey just because someone with an imposed authority tells you it is didn't match the reality of what people at the ground level knew to be true.

Stanislavsky kept his mouth shut and kept on producing naturalist versions of Chekov without the humor and without the sting. Literally, having real sausages on stage in a kitchen scene was more important to Stanislavsky than allowing the audience to pass through the fourth wall of the performance. Stanislavsky was, in many ways, more concerned about the actor and the process (the test) than the audience.

Meyerhold was trodding the same path as Brecht and Piscator in Germany and said, "Screw naturalism as a process if all it gives as a result is the party line, give the people something they can hold on to, something that stirs their passions."

With that Meyerhold simply disappeared into the Russian night, those who weilded their imposed authority used it to silence any dissent. Sound familiar?

A few years later Brecht and Piscator fled to America before the Nazi's "convinced" them to mend their foolish ways.

Stanislavsky kept on producing the same Chekov plays over and over and over because they always got the same result - he stayed alive and never did invent "The Method" - that was a wholy American thing that is largely discreditted by those who studied under Stanislavsky.

So I suspect Stanislavsky wouldn't say a thing about Singing Bowls.

I'm glad to see you have friends, ncdrawl, a lot of voice majors never get around to that, they are so focussed on the perfect "Ahhhhhhhh" sound the rest of the world and what is happening out here just doesn't matter to them. And performance majors are even worse. My degrees are in technical theatre. We sat around with dirt on our clothes from doing the heavy lifting making you guys look good and laughed at you guys and your snooty damn attitudes back then too.

So, ncdrawl, your friends are delusional too. The question to ask would be, are they delusions?

I'm done.

PROVE SOMETHING!

May Belt
May Belt's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 hours 31 min ago
Joined: May 8 2006 - 1:51am
Re: Synergistics Research Acoustic ART-real sonic improvements?

20 pages on and the conclusion seems to have arrived at "the resonator devices are TOO small to be doing anything of consequence to the sound" THEREFORE there is nothing to investigate - in the face of numerous people describing the IMPROVEMENTS in the sound THEY have experienced with such devices !!!!!!!!!!!!

Surely we have already been there before ? In the "Acoustic effects and size matters" thread - all 38 pages of it !!!

Is there STILL nothing going on which has to be investigated ?????????????

What would be the number of people describing improvements in their sound with such resonator devices, OR describing improvements in their sound by using such as the Shun Mook, Harmonic Discs, OR describing improvements in their sound from applying a demagnetiser to CDs, OR describing improvements in their sound by.................. Before their experiences can be considered with any seriousness ????????? If the people who question or dismiss so many other people's experiences and observations so vehemently would state the number they would accept, to at LEAST investigate, ( I DIDN'T say BELIEVE !!!!) then many, many pages and many many breaths of air would be saved !!

Ncdrawl said :-
>>> "ive pointed some of my recording friends(all working professionals in audio/acoustics/sound reproduction/(one of which is, like me, a professional singer) to this thread, boy are they going to get a kick out of this... " <<<

For the many people who quote scientists, engineers, etc in these various threads - for a TRUE scientist, for a TRUE engineer, for a TRUE working professional - ONE, ONE, ONE, and I repeat ONE anomaly is often SUFFICIENT to warrant an investigation !!!!

Regards,
May Belt.

Ted_D
Ted_D's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Jul 8 2007 - 11:55am
Re: Synergistics Research Acoustic ART-real sonic improvements?

To all who may be interested, Synergistic Research will be demonstrating the Acoustic ART System at the upcoming CES in Vegas in the Venetian Tower 29-227, and 29-229. One suite is for live demos, the other is for Club SR.

Show up after hours (no more then 30 minutes after : ) and I'll pour you a glass of wine, beer, or a Martini extra dry in Club SR- simply pick your poison (some of you seem to be rather fond of water so we will have that on hand too).

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

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?

Thanks for the info and the invite, Ted.

Any comments on this thread?

Ted_D
Ted_D's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Jul 8 2007 - 11:55am
Re: Synergistics Research Acoustic ART-real sonic improvements?


Quote:
Any comments on this thread?

Yes, however I cannot "say" everything I would like. I will however paraphrase a story I read on a different thread.

One dark evening a man passes another man who is crawling around on all fours under a street lamp and stops to engage him in conversation. Says the prone man to the man on all fours, "What are you doing?" The man on the ground responds "I am looking for my car keys". Curious he then asks, "Where did you loose your keys?" The surprising answer- "Way over there". Incredulous the passerby asks "Then why are you looking here?" Answer "Because the light is better."

This pretty much sums up what can, and cannot, be measured- or more to the point, what we "know" to measure for, and what we do not. The pages of history are filled with discoveries made far from the light of (then) understood measurement. E=MC2 was a widely ridiculed "theory" when first proposed- until we actually split the atom. The fact is, most of human "reality" is based in the subjective, not the objective. High resolution audio is simply a metaphor for this fact- while we plainly hear differences between electronics, cables, AC, etc, we do not have sufficient measurement to objectively quantify all that can be heard, when we keep an open mind, and ear.

The thing I still find surprising is that those who rail loudest against differences in cables, amplifiers, power cords, and so on, tend not to even allow themselves to listen, and instead take a pious (pompous) and abusive stance (toward those of us do). In some cases it is nothing more then base fear of change (or market competition), in others, real fear for their reality construct.

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

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?

Gee, Ted, for months now I've been wishing a few of these guys would "go towards the light, just go towards the light." I'm afraid they're not going to get either reference now.

Thanks though for the insight.

Personally, I love the names of the Vibratron, Magnatron, et al. Who wouldn't want to say they dumped the "mini traps" and "mondo traps" for a "Gravitron"?

andy_c
andy_c's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: Dec 25 2007 - 12:48pm
Re: Synergistics Research Acoustic ART-real sonic improvements?


Quote:
In some cases it is nothing more then base fear of change (or market competition), in others, real fear for their reality construct.

It's nothing that complex. People have had contempt for charlatans for as long as charlatans have existed.

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?

Good contribution to the discussion, guy. That should disprove that one post in a jiffy.

Oh, wait!

Silly me, it doesn't.

And now, since you have said nothing of value, we have nowhere to go with your post except to ignore it because ... well, ... because you're not a "disprover". How's that?! I could be as rude as you prefer to be but, why? This is a discussion forum after all, not a brawl. We'll just leave it at that, you've only proven one thing with that last post.

bifcake
bifcake's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Nov 27 2005 - 2:27am
Re: Synergistics Research Acoustic ART-real sonic improvements?


Quote:

Quote:
In some cases it is nothing more then base fear of change (or market competition), in others, real fear for their reality construct.

It's nothing that complex. People have had contempt for charlatans for as long as charlatans have existed.

Well said. Short and to the point.

ncdrawl
ncdrawl's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 7 months ago
Joined: Oct 18 2008 - 9:18am
Re: Synergistics Research Acoustic ART-real sonic improvements?


Quote:
Who wouldn't want to say they dumped the "mini traps" and "mondo traps" for a "Gravitron"?

Those with half a brain and or clue would never do such a thing. those things a replacement for acoustic panels/traps? Step into reality, guy. and who gives a damn about the names, anyway? I personally dont care what my room looks like. I listen with my ears, not my eyes.

as for Andy's post.. hell , it was spot on, to the point, and nothing further needs mentioning..

Pages

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