Columns Retired Columns & Blogs |
Loudspeakers Amplification | Digital Sources Analog Sources Featured | Accessories Music |
Columns Retired Columns & Blogs |
Loudspeakers Amplification Digital Sources | Analog Sources Accessories Featured | Music Columns Retired Columns | Show Reports | Features Latest News Community | Resources Subscriptions |
What "effect"? The effect of better image placement or the sound of fingers on the keyboard? Why would you care to "compensate" for those benefits? What would you do to compensate for those benefits?
Honestly, you're not sure about this?
The "ringy thingies" are adding beneficial elements such as better image placement and openess and when it is there in the room they allow you to hear details such as the sound of fingers on the keyboard. So far that is what they claim to do and that is what has been reported to be their effect. The devices are patent pending. How much explanation do you require to understand their benefits? Do you inquire about the damping factor of an amplifier before you conclude whether its sound qualities appeal to you?
Jan take a look at the image for placing the Acoustic ART System in a listening room. This should give you some idea of how to experiment with the placement of your Tibetan prayer bowls.
That is correct. Your singing bowls were never designed to treat room acoustics and though they will have an effect, they will not be uniform in how they deal with the audible spectrum. The devil was in the details when I developed the Acoustic ART System so I cannot give too much away in this area. If you would like, we have several SR dealers who will be happy to let you audition the system. Send me a PM and I will forward you a dealer who can facilitate an in-home audition.
I took a few years to single hand my sailboat through the Pacific. Prior to hearing this phenomenon I was not aware of the existence of singing bowls. My first thought was to simply acquire a few when I returned home and try them in my listening room. As you can imagine sailing a boat alone on the open ocean affords a lot of time for thought and introspection. Among other things I imagined a system of singing bowls to treat different areas of the audible spectrum, and I speculated they should be placed in known acoustic pressure points in a typical square or rectangular listening room. This proved to be correct.
Snap- I do not see a way to post images to this post. If anyone can share how this is done I will post the ART placement image.
JSBach,
The Acoustic ART System does not resonate in an audible way except to correct for room reflections that smear phase and frequency information. In other words you cannot hear the Acoustic ART Systems resonators
Hi Jan,
Since Ted has already commented on his components I will only provide some general information such as even if his components were resonant (similar to helmotz resonators) or ringing Tibet bowls, the energy output is always less than the energy input. The amount of energy absorbed and bandwidth of absorption are determined by Q, size, materials used, thickness etc. This concept is already used in other areas of electronics. I cannot comment upon the effectiveness of Ted's products since I have not tested them myself, but CES test results should provide some useful information.
You are quite correct, that his components are in competition with other acoustical products. No wonder the consistent attacks on Ted's products.
Hope this helps.
Heh, such as?
That's a joke, yes?
If you think I'm wrong about something, it's not enough to say I'm wrong. If you hope for any credibility then you are the one who must explain why I'm wrong and what is right. I know you can't do that, but I'm glad to watch you try. Ted, please be very specific!
--Ethan
Well Ethan a lot of people will hear the demo- of this I am certain. What I am not sure of is how you will try and convince people to ignore their senses and instead place their trust in you. Regardless it will be fun to read your spin after the show.
Yours in music,
Ted Denney Lead Designer Synergistic Research Inc.
Thank you for explaining so clearly exactly where I'm wrong.
--Ethan
Ethan,
What exactly did you do way back when that has everyone here so pissed off at you? Aside from producing a tasteless video and hawking your room correction stuff, I don't get it, at least from your posts that I have read. You seem to be the forum lightning rod. I wonder if Michael Green has this problem
LOL, good question! I guess people dominated by irrational beliefs don't like when I challenge those beliefs with hard logic and science-based evidence. At least they haven't bashed me here for producing that audio porn video.
--Ethan
ROTFLMAO!!!!!
Ethan is not liked because he pisses on the magic show. It is quite fun to buy this stuff, think that it works, spend hours trying different tweaks(even knowing inside that, logically, some of them are deeply flawed and/or bogus), it is part of the hobby that a lot of people enjoy... I dont agree with everything he says(power conditioners, for example, but dont really find any flaws with the common sense/logic/science approach.
it is fun to believe in magic, though..
Right, and when they have nothing to refute me with they resort to insults and ridicule such as ROTFLMAO above. You'll never see Jan or the other blow-hards here actually contradict anything I say. They pretend to offer evidence, but it's just the nonsense from How to Win a Debate with a Skeptic in the "Shake it off" thread:
http://forum.stereophile.com/forum/showflat.php?Cat=0&Board=rants&Number=55349
--Ethan
This thread is not about you.
Still ROTFLMAO though.
Ethan, Stephen Scharf started us off with an observation.
Are you claiming to have refuted his experience?
Ted D nicely came along and has mentioned that his product works in the world of acoustics and states that he will be posting measurements. Do you know how few tweak 'manufacturers' are willing/able to do this?
We have left behind the magical world of brainwaves..."The Acoustic ART System does not resonate in an audible way except to correct for room reflections that smear phase and frequency information. In other words you cannot hear the Acoustic ART Systems resonators
If by refute you mean prove he was mistaken, I doubt that's even possible. But I am most certain he is mistaken. You know, comb filtering, expectation bias, placebo effect - all the usual suspects that are easily disproven in a proper blind test. Now, if Stephen were here with a batch of magic bowls and let me test him, then I'm absolutely certain I could prove he was mistaken.
Well, consider that we already saw alleged measurements, and I showed how they were BS because the text and graph labels directly contradicted each other. So I can see only two possible outcomes from Ted measuring his devices again:
1) More nonsense make-believe data that proves nothing to anyone who actually understand how to read acoustic data.
2) Real data done properly which will prove the magic bowls do nothing. Of course, in that case Ted will not show up here to present his data.
I can't wait to see proof, but I ain't holding my breath!
Why? He hasn't done anything except show bad data, and then promise to have more data soon.
Nah, I'm too jaded to be interested in seeing yet more "stuff" at a trade show.
--Ethan
Yeah, you are audiophile-transcendent.
Too bad the fire is dead for ya, though. Lots of audiophile enjoyment to be had at the shows
I'm surprised people post that you are not liked. I like you, bud! (If DUP hadn't had such terrible diarrhea of the keyboard, I'd be fine with him, too.)
To steal from Jonathan Swift, you may not be a genius, but you sure have a confederacy of dunces nipping at your feet!
Not dead, just bored. And I do go to shows! I've been to the last few HES shows when they were in New York City, and I go to (and exhibit at) the AES show every year when it's here. There's nothing new under the sun, or at least nothing I care about. I already have everything I need for my hi-fi and home studio.
Back atcha dood!
Yes, they are indeed dunces. And I wear that as a badge of honor - getting all the dunces PO'd at me. You do a pretty good job of that yourself, mostly, for example in your sparring with Geoff Kait. But really, you shouldn't be giving a pass to Ted because he hasn't done anything except duck all the pointed and direct questions.
--Ethan
ROTFL .. Awwww, stop it, you're killin' me .. MAO!!!
I think giving Ted D a "pass" is AOK, he's addressed the concept he is working with and said he will post data.
I'm good for now!
As to Geoff Kait, I like him, too.
He is the Spinal Tap of tweaking!
Look at his work in that light and you will see a funhouse mirror reflecting back at Hi Fi.
Ethan, you should also spend more time looking positively at Michigan's posts, too. He is consistent and seems to have put in a great deal of time systematically developing his schema. I've seen Michigan run from forums, too, and it's too bad.
As for a couple others, as Borat would say, not so much.
Ted D's idea is nascent, time will tell if he's for real or not.
Too bad you aren't into the hobby enough to seek these things out at shows. Maybe we will try to talk him into letting us use a set over at the fringe show!
Two old, deaf farts sitting around tearing other people down. Life is good at the home even if the oatmeal sucks.
Talking about your home life?
Don't you have some bowls to listen to? Maybe you can combine for efficiency and use them for oatmeal!
Can we see some pics of your bowls?
OK, that just gets a ROTFL.
Care to try again?
Yeah, post a pic of the Tibetan bowls in your room, it would be interesting!
"As to Geoff Kait, I like him, too."
Back at ya, Slick.
"He is the Spinal Tap of tweaking!"
Blush
"Look at his work in that light and you will see a funhouse mirror reflecting back at Hi Fi."
Let's not get too carried away...
Fair enough, but let's please revisit this again 1) after Ted posts his data (or doesn't), and 2) when es347 comes back from CES with his report.
BTW, how long do we give Ted to post data? A week after the show ends? A month after? At what point do we call fraud?
As soon as someone shows that all he has is insults, I lose interest and stop reading.
Yes, consistently insulting and consistently incapable of discussing the facts at hand.
I am totally into everything related to audio and music. Everything except spending time with 1,000 me-too products. There is little new under the sun, and I can learn about the few new things I do care about a month later in Stereophile.
--Ethan
At what point do I call my attorney?
We invite everyone to visit us at the Venetian Tower 29-227 to hear the Acoustic ART System.
Really?
According to you Ethan when did human knowledge of the known universe become static? Or put a different way, when did our attempt for a better understanding of the universe cease to discover anything new?
I would guess Ethan would say when Sony/Phillips came out with perfect sound forever!
How about it, Ethan, when did audio reach stasis?
Speaking of tweaks, I read somewhere about a magic liquid, which costs more than heroin, that you place strategically in your listening room and causes huge sonic improvements. I have googled a bunch and cannot find it. Is anyone familiar with it?
Yes, although I strategically place it in my wine glass in my listening room and ingest it.
Works great!
Nitroglycerin?
If one could keep the controlled substance under control I'd say stick with that. More smack for your jack!
RG
Here is the magic fluid you are looking for:
http://www.belt.demon.co.uk/product/odl/One_Drop_Liquid.html
It would appear that May is associated with the purveyor of this blue tinted snake oil. Don't just confine yourself to this magic product however, have a browse around. Read about the "Quantum Clip", be awed by the Swiss watch engineering of the device. Inspirational!
I for one am delighted that Ted is going to present us with some data that will show a comparison between a room treated with his product and the same room without it. Simple comparison of the recorded data will show if there is any difference. If there is it would have to be audible to be valid. That means the difference would be in the order of 1.5 to 3dB. This comparison could be performed with any decent recorder and a reasonable omni directional microphone. The results could even be posted here on the forum as uncompressed wav files so that we could all hear the difference. I have a lovely pair of headphones and would be delighted to compare the two sound files.
How about it Ted?? Win over a skeptic!
Ethan, why don't you attend the show and make some recordings? I know you're burned out on this stuff but a huge amount of energy and time has gone into this thread and I'd really be obliged if there was some comparison recordings made by someone other than the vendor.
I'm still firmly convinced that if these bowls and magnets attached to blocks of wood are a valid room treatment then it stands to reason that a good quality room analyser, used in professional acoustic engineering, would be able to show the differences in a 3D sweep.
It's a shame Jan can't attend the show to provide us with his assessment of the system in a live listening environment but maybe he can take up Teds generous offer of a home demonstration?
I keenly await the outcome of the tests and objective/subjective opinions of those who take the listening test.
>>> "It would appear that May is associated with the purveyor of this blue tinted snake oil." <<<
It is not a question of May "appearing to be associated with" - My involvement with Peter Belt and P.W.B and all our devices and techniques has NEVER been hidden - it has always been known !!!!!!!!!!
As I have stated before, I only entered the Stereophile Discussion Forum a few years back after reading Buddha's 'posting':-
>>> "The Peter Belts of this world are sly, like the serpent. They are driven off, but then always find ways to slither back into to hobby to suck the green life blood from the uninitiated.. We, as ethical audiophiles, have a duty to remember the past, so that others aren't doomed to repeat it." <<<
The inference being (obviously) that HE (Buddha) and fellow audiophiles were the (one and only) ethical ones.
I came to the decision then that "enough was enough" so decided to finally respond - but MY involvement with specific devices and techniques has NEVER been hidden !!!
The history of Peter's and my 55 years of involvement in the Hi Fi industry is well known - that is, well known to people who are seriously interested.
I respond to specific 'threads' when I recognise the experiences (from a sound point of view) which some people have.
For example. We do not make "de-magnetisers" but I recognised immediately what Michael Fremer (and others) had experienced (improvements in the sound) after applying a demagnetiser to a vinyl disc (and to CDs).
Your quote :-
>>> "I for one am delighted that Ted is going to present us with some data that will show a comparison between a room treated with his product and the same room without it. Simple comparison of the recorded data will show if there is any difference. If there is it would have to be audible to be valid." <<<
You are back with the same old argument - that 'sound' can only be changed in two ways - either with an effect on the audio signal travelling through the audio equipment or with an effect on the acoustic air pressure waves in the room. AND, you are back with the other same old argument - that MEASUREMENTS will show everything !!
Your quote :-
>>> "I keenly await the outcome of the tests and objective/subjective opinions of those who take the listening test. "<<<
It will be interesting to see, Fresh Clip - if people's subjective opinions are that they HEARD improvements in the sound, but any objective measurements were inconclusive - what your reaction would be then. You see, people's subjective opinions are ALREADY available, but you seem to have already disregarded them !! You can hardly, therefore, be "keenly awaiting" more subjective opinions !!
Regards,
May Belt.
Ted and I have discussed an in home audition.
FC, why do you dismiss the idea there might be more going on with the ART's system than could possibly be shown with traditional room sweeps and conventional thinking? Those are the techniques of the refrigerator door purveyors. Clearly Ted's system's reported effects are uniquely unlike a room full of fiberglass, one kills the sound while the other liberates the sound. However, you remain tied down to old school thinking and old school ways.
Going back to my experience with the Tibetan Singing Bowls I have no doubt they contribute something to the room sound - they resonate - however, that contibution alone cannot fully explain the additional information perceived when the Art's system is in place.
It's a shame none of you even have any experience with the Tibetan Bowls to provide you a better idea of the inspiration of the ART's system. You wouldn't even have to travel to Las Vegas to find such experience. And then you would have at least a slightly better idea what you were talking about.
For everything except loudspeakers (and rooms), at least 20 years ago.
--Ethan
Yes, but it is crucial that nothing change from one run to another. If the microphone is moved even 1/4 inch in any direction all bets are off. Each measurement should also be done at least three times, to show if ambient sounds are influencing the results. If people are talking in the next room for one test and not another, that will clearly show as more energy in the "speech" frequency range. Likewise for a plane flying overhead or a truck rumbling past outside. Measuring three times in a row with and without the magic bowls present will provide a control for that.
I'll be glad to monitor the testing if someone sends me $1,000 for the plane fare and hotel.
--Ethan
I wish no one would call them "singing" bowls as that gives them a bad connotation imo. Any resonant object whether bowls or Helmholtz resonators always absorb more energy than they put out and the efficiency can be adjusted in both. This is basic physics. The Q can be changed in both resonators since each is based on sound science, in fact both have been used in audio for years. The only question is the effectiveness.
To some out there, let's stop with the name calling and competition bashing.
Ps. The only reason the tibet bowls ring, or a glass for that matter, is that the Q is very high, which means high efficiency and the amount of energy introduced. Blowing into a bottle is an example of a crude helmholtz resonator.
I take it you do not believe cables and power cords make a significant contribution to the sound of a system?
significant
My input then I'd best run for cover....speaker cables, ICs YES....PCs NO.
an emphatic hell no.
That's a reasonable question, though the original question asked when we achieved perfection.
There will always be lame products, but that doesn't mean other products are not as good as is needed. So just because some boutique vendor sells a BS speaker cable with such high capacitance it makes some amplifiers oscillate, doesn't mean that normal 12 gauge electrical wire from Home Depot can be improved upon. I'm sure the BS wire really does sound different! But not in any way reasonable people could call "good."
I am quite certain that a 6-foot $5 RCA wire from Radio Shack is as good as is needed, and any wire that sounds different is only making things worse.
And I'm totally certain that all replacement AC power wires are bullshit. When people believe they hear a difference they are wrong. Either that, or the replacement power wire is defective and really does affect the sound. Though I can't see any mechanism for that other than maybe using 30 gauge wire or some such incompetence.
But you already knew that was my position, yes?
--Ethan
Thanks for the link. This stuff like a lot of other "tweaks" is more of a "Demosthenes effect" in that it changes the listener rather than the sound. The bit about plants responding to adding salt and sugar above/below...whatever, could be accomplished by perhaps adding a dog turd to the soil. Plants like nitrogen too so why not? You could market this stuff and charge more for AKC registered doo doo. Then to further improve things you could attach a couple of tice clocks and mpingo discs to the dog feces via the quantum clip. The resulting sonics could be overwhelming.
Did I miss something there Ted?
Here's an interesting perspective offered by JGH back in the late 80's re: the Peter Belt elixirs. It couldn't be stated more clearly.
http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/110/
Leave sleeping dogs lie.
"Here's an interesting perspective offered by JGH back in the late 80's re: the Peter Belt elixirs. It couldn't be stated more clearly."
So what? Anyone can cherry pick reviews. There are plenty of positive reviews of Belt products, so the occassional "I didn't hear anything" doesn't mean all that much.
Pages