Andy, Alex, Nc,
You guys speak so authoritatively about something that, if my guess is correct, you've never experienced.

Quote:
Andy, Alex, Nc,
You guys speak so authoritatively about something that, if my guess is correct, you've never experienced.

I've experienced bowls in my room. Sometimes they were filled with water, sometimes with marbles, sometimes they had flowers...

You all act like complete asses speaking with authority about something with which you have no experience and none of you can even read about with any degree of comprehension.

Yet not one of you can prove the devices do nothing beneficial while two members here have testified to their personal experience with the ART's system as positive.

And none of you can disprove the premise put forth in that one post. Or in May's comments.

You're all too chicken shit to even try.

That, as I count it, makes for one very good question from
May - where do those "fingers on the keyboard" come from, two with experience who say it works, three who have provided reasons to prove it works and one premise no one can disprove against a bunch of ignorant, insulting asses who keep their brains where they sit.

The system works, that isn't in question. It's been proven here and in sufficient numbers elsewhere that its effectiveness is not in dispute by anyone who can think.

So, other than an argument from complete and utter ignorance, what gives you guys such moral and scientific authority that you can insult other members of this forum?

How's that work?!

This is a discussion forum, right?

So where's the discussion from you guys?

Where's your proof?

Quote:

Quote:
Andy, Alex, Nc,
You guys speak so authoritatively about something that, if my guess is correct, you've never experienced.

I've experienced bowls in my room. Sometimes they were filled with water, sometimes with marbles, sometimes they had flowers...

and, once upon a time.. pot.

Quote:

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.

Hi, and welcome.

Eientsein's "theory" was actually a hypoethesis when it was first proposed.

It's credibility was well established long before he went down into his garage alone and started splitting atoms.

He won the Nobel in 1921, and the atom wasn't 'split' until Walton and Cockroft did it in 1932.

Also, what is it with tweaks and wrapping oneself in Einstein?

Any time a tweak runs into criticism, it suddenly becaomes a case of, "They mocked Einstein, too!"

Please.

Did you notice Einstein came up with objective claims that could be objectively proven?

He did not just say, "There's this thing I call relativity, and if you don't believe me, they laughed at Newton until apples started falling from trees."

I'm happy if people like your product, but save us from the usual May Belt routine of making an illogical appeal/comparison with Einstein's theory, eh?

By the way, in case this comes in handy for our full on subjectivists: Einstein's Theory works even in DBT conditions. You are not required to know they are being split in order for the result to occur.

Now...If you want to know something really scary...nobody ridiculed Lemarck when they should have, same with phrenology, the theory of human vapors, the theory of there being only four elements, the obvious truth of spontaneous generation, Aryan superiority, etc.

OK, back to the logical line of:

These bowls were 'inspired' by Tibetan Prayer Bowls.

Tibetan Prayer Bowls make sounds that affect brainwaves.

These products are bowl shaped, too!

Therefore, they must work like Tibetan Prayer Bowls by altering brainwaves.

Prove me wrong!

LOL!

Why this brain wave thing even comes up amazes me, as brain waves are rather objective. Why not just say that since reality is so driven by subjective experience, that you subjectively feel your brainwaves change...err...wait...brain waves again. Why not just say, "These bowls subjectively alter your subjective state, prove me wrong?"

If one wants to approach this from a western scientific paradigm then there is no evidence these bowls work absent a DBT. One can't rule out placebo.

1st do an RTA of the room with and then w/o the bowls, See if there is a difference that can be measured. Then do a DBT to see if there is a humanly audible diff regardless of weather or not there is a measurable diff.

If the test shows no diff. then , from a western scientific view, there is no diff. other than placebo.

If there is a diff. w DBT then look for the reasons.

Of course, if one does not buy into this particular western paradigm then all the above is irrelevant.

I don't understand why this causes so many problems.

Does it really matter why something works if you believe it does and are willing to spend the money. Why does someone who hears a diff. need to believe that it's not placebo? Who cares?

Someone can deny my "aural reality" all they want. I no longer get upset about that.
OTOH I cannot totally reject DBT as a useful tool like some subs do. I also can't fully embrace it as some obs do.

Quote:
Why this brain wave thing even comes up amazes me, as brain waves are rather objective. Why not just say that since reality is so driven by subjective experience, that you subjectively feel your brainwaves change...err...wait...brain waves again. Why not just say, "These bowls subjectively alter your subjective state, prove me wrong?"

Very quickly, that is in esssence what I have proposed, is it not? Take the audio test equipment out of the room since it is unnecessary here. If you wish to find an answer here test the listener not the room.

And not one of you has made any attempt to disprove what I've proposed in that one post. I assume this is your agreement with what I've posted, Buddha, despite your rather twisted logic in the rest of your post. Testing brainwaves is hardly "subjective" though.

Quote:
You all act like complete asses speaking with authority about something with which you have no experience and none of you can even read about with any degree of comprehension.

Yet not one of you can prove the devices do nothing beneficial while two members here have testified to their personal experience with the ART's system as positive.

You cannot prove to me Santa Claus doesn't exist, where we have testimony of thousands upon thousands of children claiming otherwise. There are anecdotal evidence of sightings, there is circumstantial evidence of half eaten cookies and drunken milk. So, don't even begin to tell me that Santa doesn't exist unless you can prove it.

Quote:
Also, what is it with tweaks and wrapping oneself in Einstein?

These guys have to claim they invented "new physics" because their products do not work under the "old" physics.

Quote:
Prove me wrong!

Taking a lesson from Jan, eh? I'll be very interested to see how Jan responds, and if he has the cajones to try to prove you wrong.

--Ethan

____________________
Bring back DUP

[quoteTaking a lesson from Jan, eh? I'll be very interested to see how Jan responds, and if he has the cajones to try to prove you wrong.

Look above, propeller head.

Why does every post from you guys have to include an insult?

Quote:
So, don't even begin to tell me that Santa doesn't exist unless you can prove it.

Alex, I wouldn't even begin to tell you such a thing because I'm sure you're counting on Santa to come through for you. After all, he owes it to you, right, guy?

Quote:
Why does every post from you guys have to include an insult?

You are right, and I apologize. Though you set the tone by insulting us first.

--Ethan

____________________
Bring back DUP

Quote:
Though you set the tone by insulting us first.

Puhleeeease!

ROTFLMAO

Quote:
Puhleeeease!

Look at your very first post in this thread.

I rest my case.

--Ethan

____________________
Bring back DUP

Oh, puhleeease! We've been through this Winer. If anyone chose to see an insult in that post they read into it what they wanted to see. And let me remind you that post refers to your attacks on both my system and myself. Attacks that were unwarranted and over the top. Attacks that ultimately resulted in a thread being closed.

Now, before you derail this thread by dragging it off into the weeds, why not disprove my one post or prove some other premise for how the ART's system operates - which according to our two ear witnesses, it does - that doesn't involve your ever popular placebo effect or simply results in another insulting rant about my system?

Or, if you choose, answer May's question.

Stop avoiding the evidence and proofs presented here.

Oh, hey, Alex, ol' buddy, I forgot to mention something. Next time you're called for jury duty, have the lawyers explain the difference between "anecdotal evidence" and "eye witness testimony". Then ask for an explanation of "probable cause" and "reasonable doubt".

I'm guessing you'll go home early that day.

Here's a Santa resonance bowl for your musical enjoyment.

Alex, I just can't tell you how much I've appreciated your contributions to this thread. You would think I should be able to, but considering your contributions to this thread - I just can't.

PROVE SOMETHING, ALEX!

Quote:
Here's a Santa resonance bowl for your musical enjoyment.

Well, since all bowls have a resonance frequency, we can't discount the fact that that bowl may work. Any subjectivist worth his salt would have to acknowledge that.

Perhaps you've come up with the perfect product - listening chair and sound enhancing device.

Hmmm, maybe you could put a small full range driver at the far end...

Quote:
Attacks that were unwarranted and over the top.

But your unwarranted over-the-top attacks are okay?

Quote:
why not disprove my one post or prove some other premise for how the ART's system operates

How can anyone prove how ART "operates" when clearly it does not?

Trying to discuss anything with you reminds me of the Robert Heinlein quote, "Never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and it annoys the pig."

It's obvious to everyone here that you are annoyed.

--Ethan

Quote:
But your unwarranted over-the-top attacks are okay?

C'mon, Winer. You can fool your little followers but no one else. I've been quite fair in this thread as has May and Frog despite the cheap and taudry taunts from your side. I've ignored the BS you and Buddha posted and I stated the facts as I see them. That seems to have frighthened all of you.

It is you and Buddha who have made the over the top, umnwarranted attcks. You can try your usual BS to get this thread off track but this thread is here to talk about the ART's system, not your personality defects and we've moved on beyond Buddha's drunken, schizophrenic rants.

Quote:
How can anyone prove how ART "operates" when clearly it does not?

Then you are saying Jason and Stephen are wrong if not actually liars. No claims of placebo are an option if that is your only response to "It does work and we have eye witness proof". You've made no headway on this thread. You are exactly where you started thirty plus pages ago - at odds with the eye witness testimony. If it is so easy to prove it doesn't work - all you have to do is prove it doesn't work, saying so doesn't count for nuthin' when you have no experience with the system.

Just how can you be so certain it doesn't "work" when you have no experience with the ART's system while the two members who do have experience claim its effect is obvious?

Really, Winer, you stating something doesn't work just because you do not want it to work is neither an argument nor a proof.

As to me being upset, I'm not. I'm enjoying this thread immensely since not one of you can disprove one post. Not one of you will even attempt to respond to May. That is the beauty of this thread. You are shown for the simplistic thinker you truly are. That you have resorted to "it doesn't work" as your only response after thirty pages is absolutely hillarious.

Ethan Winer cannot disprove one single post.

Buddha cannot disprove one single post.

Winer cannot answer May's most basic of questions.

Buddha doesn't even try.

From where I sit, we have you over a barrell and it is gaining speed as it rolls downhill. Every post that doesn't address those two items is just another nail in the coffin of objective measurements.

Why would I be upset about that?

That wasn't even a good try, Winer. The ball's in your court, prove something other than that one post or disprove that one post. Or admit you're wrong. Not a lot of options there. Well, I suppose you could continue to say nothing but that's just as bad as saying what you've already posted.

Winer doesn't even try either.

Quote:
It's obvious to everyone here that you are annoyed.

Mr. Weiner,

First let me say that in the 16 years I have been a manufacturer in the High End Audio industry, your conduct here and on other on-line forums is, by far, the least professional I have witnessed from a fellow manufacturer. It is obvious to me, and I would assume to many others, that it is you who feels annoyed and threatened. You take every opportunity to ridicule and degrade competing manufacturers products while attempting to intimade and shame potential customers into not trying any products save your own. I am especially amused by your assertions of what constitutes "value" from a purveyor of Owens Corning Fiberglass Insulation stuffed into cheap boxes, cylinders, and baskets. To "effectively" treat a listening room (more on this later) using your products costs several thousands of dollars and has all the aesthetic appeal, and technical complexity, of high school garage band sound proofing. Hiding behind the thin veil of "measurement" you attempt to schlep your crude acoustic treatments as "high tech" when nothing could be further from the truth.

Now to address a few of your claims made here and on other forums. I hope you do not mind, but I am going to pull some of your quotes from this thread, as well as others, and address them one by one.

Quote:
How can anyone prove how ART "operates" when clearly it does not?.

Have you tried my Acoustic ART System? Have you measured a room properly treated with the Acoustic ART System? Clearly you have not. Now tell us Mr. Weiner how can you claim it does not work?

Anecdotal evidence in favor of the Acoustic ART System:

Since the launch of the Acoustic ART System at RMAF in early October we have sold over 60 systems and we are currently on back order status as we attempt to keep up with global demand. At the RMAF alone we sold out of our 15 Acoustic ART show systems- not by intimidation but through trade show demos; hardly ideal conditions and yet people put down their hard earned money for the system based on its performance. By the way all systems were sold through our three dealers in attendance as we do not sell direct but choose to support our dealers- can you say the same Mr. Weiner? In addition we picked up 10 new dealers for the Acoustic ART System based on the strength of the live demos and most have re-ordered as their customers find value in the Acoustic ART System. The vast majority of their customers are married and the Acoustic ART System is the first viable room treatment option that not only promotes harmony in their listening rooms, but in their marriages as well. In fact the only people irresponsible enough to claim "fraud" are people who have never heard the Acoustic ART System. You are walking a slippery slope Mr. Weiner- as more and more people hear the Acoustic ART System your credibility will continue to erode. There is absolutely no substance to your claims.

Measurement evidence in favor of acoustic resonators for treating room acoustics:

For this I will first quote you from a different on-line forum- Audio Circle / Acoustic Circle: http://www.audiocircle.com/circles/index.php?topic=61258.0

Quote:
Do you mean the graph on page 9/17? There are two problems with that graph. First, the graph labels imply it is showing a reduction in ringing time, with about 30 percent less ringing between 63 and 80 Hz. This is not physically possible given the size of these devices. not even with nine of them in the room. The data simply cannot be real.

http://www.audiocircle.com/circles/index.php?topic=61258.180

First let me ask- did you perform a mirror set of measurements to disprove the measurements offered up in support of room correction based on acoustic resonators?

The short answer- No you did not. Your claim-

Quote:
the graph labels imply it is showing a reduction in ringing time, with about 30 percent less ringing between 63 and 80 Hz. This is not physically possible given the size of these devices. not even with nine of them in the room.

This Mr. Weiner is only your opinion but you then go on to say-

Quote:
The data simply cannot be real.

I cannot speak to the validity of these test measurements as they were for a different acoustic resonator product, nor was my company responsible for said measurements. That said, I would never be so brazen as to make such a claim. I will tell you however that when we publish our own measurements after CES should you make unfounded claims you will quickly discover the business end of this business man. Go ahead Mr. Weiner, make my day.

After CES we will be publishing measurements with and without the Acoustic ART System in a real world listening room using FFT Impulse measurements. As you know (or perhaps not) acoustic measurements can only take the acoustician so far- they cannot prove conclousively why one room should sound exceptional, and another only so so. Psychoacoustic phenomenon such as sound staging, envelopment, decay (air), layering, palpability and so on are not measurable in any conclusive way. And it is in these areas where my Acoustic ART System significantly outperforms your RealTraps and by a wide margin, with far less visual impact, and at a more affordable price. And while Manfred Schroeder's ground breaking work has gone a long way to help clarify many of these issues, there is still more work to be done before we can discern an exceptional sounding room from a merely good sounding room through measurement alone. I assume you know this Mr. Weiner, but why rock the boat as long as you can continue to sell your fiberglass insulation to a naive customer base. Hiding behind questionable measurements is no substitute for actual acoustic performance.

Background on Manfred R. Shroeder:

http://asa.aip.org/encomia/gold/schroeder.html

http://www.physik3.gwdg.de/~mrs/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manfred_R._Schroeder

Since you are so fond of measurements Mr. Weiner I took a look at your web site, and while I was at it, I choose your ground breaking WAF product:

http://www.realtraps.com/p_planter.htm

Quote:
When appearance concerns and "spouse acceptance" prevent a full complement of room treatments, RealTraps Planter bass traps ($199.99) are a terrific alternative. These attractive bass traps work surprisingly well given their diminutive size and stealth appearance.

I'll not comment on "appearance concerns" as I feel this is a personal matter better left to the readers of this thread. I do however have a question about the mechanism of your bass trap, and a few observations regarding your measurements.

Question: What is the make up of your "Bass Traps"? Are they nothing more then fiberglass insulation stuffed into a woven basket?

Observation: If I read your first graph correctly this appears to be a gated measurement- why did you choose a gated measurement when gated measurements are not appropriate for measuring low frequencies since the gate windows out low frequencies? But lets not split hairs.

When you display a 100ms decay time what is this a measurement of? Of course it is not an actual living room, let alone a recording studio. 100ms would be possible but difficult for even an anechoic chamber. ASPM Spec for a large anechoic chambers is 100ms while 250ms would be a very well damped (overly damped) home living room. How do these decorative baskets measure in an actual home? Why don't you show us graphs from "real world" ranges, say 300ms to 1 second and over? Measurements like yours will only impress people who do not understand them.

It seems to me you are the "man behind the curtain" (or is that 703) and if you continue to bully and berate your competition, no one will continue to believe you are the all knowing and all powerful Wizard of OZ.

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

Quote:
These guys have to claim they invented "new physics" because their products do not work under the "old" physics.

Of course it's the new physics. It's called Optimal Wallet Extraction Theory

Quote:
Psychoacoustic phenomenon such as sound staging, envelopment, decay (air), layering, palpability and so on are not measurable in any conclusive way. And it is in these areas where my Acoustic ART System significantly outperforms your RealTraps and by a wide margin, with far less visual impact, and at a more affordable price.

The technique of making unverifiable claims, such as the above, is typical of frauds and charlatans such as yourself.

I really don't see how what you're doing here can be beneficial to you at all. First of all, the audiophile community consists to a great extent of people who couldn't pass Critical Thinking 101 if the test were multiple choice and someone handed them a sheet of paper with all the answers. This is, of course, a perfect audience for people such as yourself to make fraudulent claims. You should be happy about this. In such an environment, you should be able to maximize sales by taking a more low-key approach. This is the kind of environment where money can fly out of the wallets of others and into yours. By making an acoustics argument, as lame as yours is, you expose yourself to ridicule from people who actually know the subject.

In particular, your repeated references to Schroeder would likely make the guy fucking puke if he were to actually read what you wrote. So why don't you just crawl back into your hole and simply collect the big bucks, as you claim to have been doing already?

http://www.audiocircle.com/circles/index.php?topic=61258.180

Quote:
Ted_D

Posts: 13

Re: Would you pay 3k for this?

Quote:
In particular, your repeated references to Schroeder would likely make the guy fucking puke if he were to actually read what you wrote. So why don't you just crawl back into your hole and simply collect the big bucks, as you claim to have been doing already?

OH, GOODIE!!!

MORE PROOF!!!!!

AND SO TASTEFULLY DONE TOO!!!!!

Oooooh, you get a special place in heaven, andy.

Hey, ange, have you heard the ART's system? Or are you one of those who doesn't have to? I'm guessing the latter.

Quote:
When appearance concerns and "spouse acceptance" prevent a full complement of room treatments, RealTraps Planter bass traps ($199.99) are a terrific alternative. These attractive bass traps work surprisingly well given their diminutive size and stealth appearance ...

... RealTraps Planter bass traps optionally include a base layer of Spanish moss plus your choice of artificial foliage on top ($20 additional).

$20 bucks for fake foilage?!!!

Geeeeeez, Winer!!!!!!

Here, please reread my changes after I completely read this joke of a thread. Thanks for the laughs.

Quote:
author=satfrat link=topic=61258.msg568428#msg568428 date=1230090910]
Sounds like the same song that's being sung here to me. Just from what I've seen through out the years here on AudioCircle, I'm not surprised in the least that it's happening elsewhere. :roll:

I hope everyone who believe George's stance on Ethan Winer's "professionalism" will go to Ted's link and read all 23 pages! Please focus on all the Winer cheap shots and one liners,,,,,, there's a lot of them through out that thread, then read Ted's reply on page 23. I couldn't have said it better, hell I wouldn't even try. Hea, George and I see things differently but from this 1 thread, I'm feeling mighty confident in mine. This isn't a stance on the credibilty of the Acostic ART System but it is a stance on forum integrity or the lack threreof. You be the judge. I made my mind up a long time ago.

Cheers,
Robin

Quote:
[

Mr. Weiner,<<<<

and technical complexity, of high school garage band sound proofing. Hiding behind the thin veil of

now that was professional, wasnt it? Please...
im sure youll still keep your fringe customers, but you will NEVER, I mean EVER get any sales from those knowledgeable about room acoustics. Treatment is a necessary evil, and id rather pay thousands for treatment that does work, than pay THOUSANDS for treatment that do not.(and actually my entire room has been treated, EFFECTIVELY for less than half the price of your set of christmas ornaments. "looks" are secondary to function. Tibetan singing bowls? are we losing our minds here??

and let me tell you this, those people that buy real treatment products are in no way, shape or form in competition with the "fringe" folks...so your comment about ethan and his "competitors" is ridiculous. the folks that buy the sensible products with sound scientific principles backing said products will have nothing to do with ART, Machina Dynamica, furutech, mpingo or whoever the hell.

Quote:
Here, please reread my changes after I completely read this joke of a thread. Thanks for the laughs.

Quote:
author=satfrat link=topic=61258.msg568428#msg568428 date=1230090910]
Sounds like the same song that's being sung here to me. Just from what I've seen through out the years here on AudioCircle, I'm not surprised in the least that it's happening elsewhere. :roll:

I hope everyone who believe George's stance on Ethan Winer's "professionalism" will go to Ted's link and read all 23 pages! Please focus on all the Winer cheap shots and one liners,,,,,, there's a lot of them through out that thread, then read Ted's reply on page 23. I couldn't have said it better, hell I wouldn't even try. Hea, George and I see things differently but from this 1 thread, I'm feeling mighty confident in mine. This isn't a stance on the credibilty of the Acostic ART System but it is a stance on forum integrity or the lack threreof. You be the judge. I made my mind up a long time ago.

Cheers,
Robin

Quote:

Quote:
Here's a Santa resonance bowl for your musical enjoyment.

Well, since all bowls have a resonance frequency, we can't discount the fact that that bowl may work. Any subjectivist worth his salt would have to acknowledge that.

Perhaps you've come up with the perfect product - listening chair and sound enhancing device.

Hmmm, maybe you could put a small full range driver at the far end...

I believe this particular bowl will enable Jan's arguments to resonate louder and far beyond the confines of these forums.

Quote:
are we losing our minds here??

No, we are trying to understand how both of the contribtuing members to this forum who have actually experienced the ART's system report positive results. I would think that should be plain to see for anyone willing to look.

Indeed that issue has been obscured by the constant garbage posted by those who can only disparage something they do not understand and have not experienced, but those first hand reports are the issue here.

Now, ncdrawl, you've stated the exact same thing over and over and over without any experience with the ART's system to back up anything you've said. You haven't been able to supply any technical information that might persuade or dissuade us either way. Since you want us to believe you understand room treatments so well why have you been unable to prove anything? Why haven't you been able to provide one bit of proof for what you say if you are such an expert? If you know so much, why haven't you let us in on your extensive knowledge of the subject, eh? Why hasn't anyone on your side the the "discussion" been able to say something of value? Why all the insults from your side when there have been none to speak of from this side?

You have merely repeated that lacking any experience with the ART's system you choose to be an ass.

That leads me to repeat what I have said to you numerous times.

PROVE SOMETHING!

Just for once say something that is worth reading. Say something that isn't just your certainty the ART's system cannot work as described surrounded by insults to someone who is only asking you to prove what you say is true.

And please explain how both Jason and Stephen experienced a system that does work and please do so without insulting anyone's intelligence.

Otherwise, ncdrawl, you, Alex and the others are doing what is always done on this forum. You are adding nothing but insults while running up the page count which keeps anyone interested in discussing the topic away from anything of value in the thread. That's rude and that's quite unprofessional of you if as you say you are involved in the music industry.

Say something of value, ncdrawl. Otherwise, please, say nothing at all.

How many times must I repeat myself on this matter?

Quote:
Here, please reread my changes after I completely read this joke of a thread. Thanks for the laughs.

Quote:
author=satfrat link=topic=61258.msg568428#msg568428 date=1230090910]
Sounds like the same song that's being sung here to me. Just from what I've seen through out the years here on AudioCircle, I'm not surprised in the least that it's happening elsewhere. :roll:

I hope everyone who believe George's stance on Ethan Winer's "professionalism" will go to Ted's link and read all 23 pages! Please focus on all the Winer cheap shots and one liners,,,,,, there's a lot of them through out that thread, then read Ted's reply on page 23. I couldn't have said it better, hell I wouldn't even try. Hea, George and I see things differently but from this 1 thread, I'm feeling mighty confident in mine. This isn't a stance on the credibilty of the Acostic ART System but it is a stance on forum integrity or the lack threreof. You be the judge. I made my mind up a long time ago.

Cheers,
Robin

I think any objective person can see that you have some kind of bone to pick with Ethan.
There are many people on Ethan's side on that AC thread , including Zybar (george) who is one of the most respected members at AC.

Reading that thread, IMO, doesn't make Ethan look bad.
Again, IMO, it doesn't reflect well on you.

Yikes! They will publish measurements! Excellent.

However, that will kill poor Jan. He won't believe you unless you can prove it's Tibetan Bowl induced brainwave changes. He don't acknowledge being wrong. In fact, I'll take the points and go with: He still will insist that no matter what you measured, it still doesn't prove his Tibetan Brainwave Theory is not in play.

Hey, Jan, why aren't you yelling at Ted D about his statement that the effect of the bowls is a measurable acoustic phenomenon?

Inconceivable!

______

So, who was it first ran over to another audio forum to tattle on Ethan? Some second grader?

"Ooh! Ooh! Teacher! Ethan blah blah blah!"

That was good stuff.

Quote:
The technique of making unverifiable claims, such as the above, is typical of frauds and charlatans such as yourself.

No kidding. Here are some howlers from Ted's post:

Quote:
gated measurements are not appropriate for measuring low frequencies since the gate windows out low frequencies?

100ms would be possible but difficult for even an anechoic chamber.

ASPM Spec for a large anechoic chambers is 100ms while 250ms would be a very well damped (overly damped) home living room.

you continue to bully and berate your competition

Then Ted writes a dozen paragraphs bullying me and berating my company's products.

As ncdrawl said, these silly little bowls are no competition to my company. Our competition is other legitimate products such as ASC tube traps, RPG diffusors and, for the price-conscious, some of the lower-end stuff like GIK and ATS. All of those companies sell products that make a real and verifiable difference.

I can't wait for Tom to measure a room with and without his bowls. I imagine it will be a real eye-opener - for him!

Quote:
By making an acoustics argument, as lame as yours is, you expose yourself to ridicule from people who actually know the subject. In particular, your repeated references to Schroeder would likely make the guy fucking puke if he were to actually read what you wrote.

Perfectly stated.

--Ethan

Quote:
So, who was it first ran over to another audio forum to tattle on Ethan? Some second grader?

Most second graders know how to use a search engine, Buddha, get one to show you how it works. You will benefit from the education.

Quote:
However, that will kill poor Jan.

HAH! That's a good one! And just what I would expect from you. Never one to look too hard at facts, you'll go for the easy insult.

I would appreciate any discussion of how the ART's system operates. In case you hadn't noticed, which all of your posts indicate you have not, that is precisely what I have been trying to get to for the last 25 pages of this thread. It really is unbelieveable you could be so dense and so arrogant to think I haven't been trying to get a discussion started about how the system does its task. But then you never were that good at reading for information particularly when you had a few ... well, let's just say when you have other pursuits on your mind.

My question here would be, if Ted provides measurements of the room that indicate a change when the bowls are in place, are you ready to accept that explanation?

Finally, why do you remain so tied down to only what you already know or have been told to know?

Why are you so convinced that measuring the room doesn't mean that brainwaves are also not affected? After all, we are talking perception of information that has been in the room before the devices were installed. That information will have been re-organized and our brain would recognize that as a new perception. A room scan doesn't gives us definitive proof of what we percieve no matter what Winer wants you and ncdrawl to believe. If Ted provides room measurements, will you then insist on brain scans before you'll accept his proof? Or will you insist your brain is dead to perceptual changes?

You've displayed clear evidence of the latter so I'm not crossing my fingers just yet.

Winer, you forgot to tell us just how many forums you post to.

Hmm, another question gone unanswered by Ethan. Well, that's what we've come to expect from him.

How many, Winer?

That would be, as you say, an eye opener.

Quote:
I would appreciate any discussion of how the ART's system operates.

LOL, here's Ted's perfect chance to show his stuff. I'll sit back now and wait with great anticipation for Ted's explanation.

--Ethan

So you won't answer the question?

More unanswered questions from the man with all the answers. I figured you didn't have the cajones.

HoHum.

Well, just stay quite then, Winer, and we'll expect to hear from you next after Ted has posted his results.

Quote:
http://www.realtraps.com/p_planter.htm

I'll not comment on "appearance concerns" as I feel this is a personal matter better left to the readers of this thread. I do however have a question about the mechanism of your bass trap, and a few observations regarding your measurements.

Question: What is the make up of your "Bass Traps"? Are they nothing more then fiberglass insulation stuffed into a woven basket?

Observation: If I read your first graph correctly this appears to be a gated measurement- why did you choose a gated measurement when gated measurements are not appropriate for measuring low frequencies since the gate windows out low frequencies? But lets not split hairs.

When you display a 100ms decay time what is this a measurement of? Of course it is not an actual living room, let alone a recording studio. 100ms would be possible but difficult for even an anechoic chamber. ASPM Spec for a large anechoic chambers is 100ms while 250ms would be a very well damped (overly damped) home living room. How do these decorative baskets measure in an actual home? Why don't you show us graphs from "real world" ranges, say 300ms to 1 second and over? Measurements like yours will only impress people who do not understand them.

--Ted Denney III Lead Designer Synergistic Research Inc.

Well? (Ethan)

Quote:

My question here would be, if Ted provides measurements of the room that indicate a change when the bowls are in place, are you ready to accept that explanation?

Jan, that was my theory to begin with, an acoustic phenomenon. I even mentioned the heretical notion of measuring it.

Quote:
Why are you so convinced that measuring the room doesn't mean that brainwaves are also not affected? After all, we are talking perception of information that has been in the room before the devices were installed. That information will have been re-organized and our brain would recognize that as a new perception. A room scan doesn't gives us definitive proof of what we percieve no matter what Winer wants you and ncdrawl to believe. If Ted provides room measurements, will you then insist on brain scans before you'll accept his proof? Or will you insist your brain is dead to perceptual changes?

So, since the act of listening involves brain waves, you are merely mewling out platitudes...as you would say: Jan worked 25 pages to say nothing.

I'm good with that. Your insight on brainwaves is astounding.

"Percetion" requires brain waves.

Good work, Jan.

Now, go fight with Ted, He is about to (gasp!) publish crazy things like acoustic measurements! Quick, tell May! Heresy! Next, run over to Audio Circle to kvetch about it!

Quote:
we'll expect to hear from you next after Ted has posted his results.

I'm still waiting for Ted's explanation of how his magic bowls work. Which I believe is what you said you wanted too, no?

BTW, I visit a number of forums daily. How many depends on whether you consider each sub-section or not. But why would you care how many forums Ethan visits? What possible relevance could that have to anything being discussed here?

--Ethan

____________________
Bring back DUP

Quote:
What possible relevance could that have to anything being discussed here?

LOL!! You guys is funny! Like anything you've posted on this thread has anything to do with this thread! ROTFLMAO

Look, since it was too long for you to read the first two times I posted it, here it is for the third time.

Quote:

http://www.audiocircle.com/circles/index.php?topic=61258.180

Quote:
Ted_D

Posts: 13

Re: Would you pay 3k for this?

Lord, Buddha, you're into the holiday "cheer" rather early, aren't you?

I will no doubt regret having jumped in on this one but I am attending the CES next month in LV and will stop by the room where this system is being demonstrated. If anyone would care to hear what I heard, or at least think I heard, I will gladly stir things up even further by posting my thoughts--whether unimpressed or bowled over.

Please do and tell Ted I said hello.

Will do Jan.

I look forward to it, as you are someone who seems to be very reasonable and un-crazy.

Quote:
I will no doubt regret having jumped in on this one but I am attending the CES next month in LV and will stop by the room where this system is being demonstrated. If anyone would care to hear what I heard, or at least think I heard, I will gladly stir things up even further by posting my thoughts--whether unimpressed or bowled over.

Right now I'm just looking forward to Winer's reply to the few questions asked of him of late.

Eeeeeeethhhhaaaaaaannnnn? Oh, Eeeeeeeeethhhhaaaaaannn?

I see you're insisting Ted answer your questions over on the other AC thread but you won't answer the questions you've been asked here. I even see you're linking to Wikipedia. Don't you know Buddha said Wikipedia isn't worth the link 'cause he says so? Well, there goes your "credibility"!

How come, Ethan?

Looking for those cajones you claim to have?