Quote:
After CES we will be publishing measurements with and without the Acoustic ART System in a real world listening room using FFT Impulse measurements.
I hate to be a PITA by suggesting that Ted might want to keep his promise!

Well?

--Ethan

How dare you suggest such a thing, Heathen! Err.. I mean Ethan!

You might have a bit of a problem there.

When doing speaker design..I have found myself routinely hearing the given specific capacitors that are electrically and measurably (FFT) over 50db down in the mix.

Getting -ANY- FFT measurement system to illustrate this heard differential of the effect of different capacitors in this crossover application is outside of the capacity any electronics measurement system that I am aware of. The effect might be shown in the measurements but will you recognize it, under this limited level of scrutiny and analysis?

Why does it always have to be a gross number (hammer sized) of some sort in order to be real? Question the question.

Quote:

Why does it always have to be a gross number (hammer sized) of some sort in order to be real? Question the question.

Likely simply because the manufacturer claimed a measurable effect and promised he'd post the results.

I think this was the manufacturer's statement, but I may not be recollecting correctly.

Ethan is just reminding the manufacturer of his promise to provide the data.

This is like the Obama honeymoon. When is it actually over? It's after CES for sure. When does Ted have to release his charts and graphs if he's busy filling orders? A week? A month? Next year when he catches up?

If you're really that curious, give Ted a call instead of going on about this on a forum. I'm almost certainly, absolutley, indoubitably positive he would love to hear from his ol' forum buddy who he considered suing for slander.

Ted implied he would post them here. He needs to deliver. period.

Quote:
This is like the Obama honeymoon. When is it actually over? It's after CES for sure. When does Ted have to release his charts and graphs if he's busy filling orders? A week? A month? Next year when he catches up?

If you're really that curious, give Ted a call instead of going on about this on a forum. I'm almost certainly, absolutley, indoubitably positive he would love to hear from his ol' forum buddy who he considered suing for slander.

Are you saying he won't?

http://m.flickr.com/#/photos/43917596@N04/

Ted Denney III
Lead Designer Synergistic Research Inc.

ROTFLMF'ingAO!!!!! would be the appropriate response.

Two questions; 1) Who here hasn't read JA's blog entry? 2) What gives anyone the right to demand anything of other
members? Whether it be to put up or to shut up.

http://forum.stereophile.com/forum/showf...=true#Post76025

While Jan is rolling on the floor, I'll take this opportunity to perhaps state a bit more diplomatically what Ethan tried to say rather brashly:

A photograph of a chart is not considered proof of anything. We would like to see the methodology by which the results were obtained. How was the room measured? What type of a room? Where were the microphones placed, where were the bowls placed? How loud was the system playing? What was it playing (i.e. pink noise, music, etc)? Were there any other room treatments in the mix? So on and so forth. The methodology by which results were obtained is just as important as the results. Without proper methodology, the results are invalid.

Quote:
Ted, I would have ignored your obviously BS "data" if you didn't bump this thread. I'll be as direct as possible:

I call bullshit. That data is clearly fabricated. Made up. Fraudulent. Outright lies. Rigged. Photoshopped.

The only way you will convince me (and other science-minded folks) that I'm wrong is:

1. Post a photo showing the room and placement of the microphone and your magic bowls. I always document my tests with photos, and I assume you did too. After all, this is a truly groundbreaking announcement that defies all we know about physics! Surely you took a photo.

2. Send me the REW data file to examine for myself. You can email it to me through my home page www.ethanwiner.com. If your data is valid you can't possibly object to sending me the REW file. It's just measuring data, containing nothing proprietary that's not already visible in your waterfall graphs. I'd like you to send me the file right away, now, today. If you wait even one extra day I'll assume you needed time to manipulate the file.

Ted, extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof. What you claimed to have achieved using 10 golf ball-sized doo-dads in a 15,000 cubic foot room is unbelievable. We both know you fabricated that REW data, which is beyond shameful.

No input is needed from anyone else in this thread, from people of either "belief system."

Ted, the ball is in your court. Either put up, or shut up and issue a public apology and retraction.

Ethan Winer
Audio skeptic, posting on my own behalf only

Saved for evidence.

Quote:

Exactly. "Saved for evidence" is not proof of anything, except a lack of anything more substantive.

Ethan Winer
Audio skeptic, posting on my own behalf only

Have you thought it may be proof towards litigation?
I guess not.

You know, its ok to want to question in further detail something that is not fully explainable as I also am wondering about this.
However your posting just goes to show what happens when one allows bias to become involved in their decision/thought process.

That aside, is there anyone (person-company) in the industry you know who create relevant modelling/calculations software that can look at those results?
Would make more sense than accusing someone of being a liar and falsifying measurements
Of course you could just ask for the data politely, and I appreciate there are more questions such as methodology and process that some would like clarified.

Cheers
Orb

Since it's obvious not everyone has or is willing to read JA's blog entry here's an excerpt;

Quote:
"But the disturbing thing was when Synergistic's Ted Denney (photo) removed the tiny ART room-tuning devices that were fastened to the walls. I know these cute little metal bowls are too small to affect sound with a frequency below 10kHz or so. But without them, the system sounded more confused and lumpier in the bass. Replacing the ART devices brought the soundstage back into focus and the tonal balance back into coherency. I hate when that happens! http://blog.stereophile.com/rmaf2009/i_hate_when_that_happens/

If any of you would take a minute to read the thread Ted began yesterday, you might not have your panties in such a knot and you'd stop huffing and puffing like a crazed Big Bad Wolf on crack cocaine.

I'm guessing Ted will provide the information as evidence when the court convenes and not a minute sooner.

Oh, almost forgot - right back atcha!

Litigation for what?? Slander? Libel?

I think that both of those depend on the published or spoken statements being false and malicious in intent?

I don't think Mr. Winer wishes Denney any harm.

I don't know what to think about the ART products.. this is why I would like to hear more about the methodology, pictures, explanations for why the peaks (in the graphs) never change, only the decay slopes..

that is fair, is it not?

Ethan as your heavily involved in this business with regards to room acoustics, could you see if any of those who do mathematical modelling could take a look at the figures?

With both sets of figures I would hope (appreciate it would not be fully precise though) that those companies who specialise in the calculations/modelling could show any comparable results, and potentially validate your views or that of the product and maybe provide some insights.

I appreciate nothing is for free in this world, but as your in audio you must earn a fortune (as I see many critical posters complaining how much audio companies earn)
Sorry for the humour, appealed to me though.

Thanks
Orb

ncdrawl, you're asking me if I think you are fair and thoughtful?

You really don't want an answer to that.

I have no idea what Ted thinks about this, but I know this is not his first venture into Sterophile's forum nor his first encounter with a few of its inhabitants. I suspect he came ready for whatever might be printed against him.

I would certainly consider the printed accusation of fraudulent behavior to be beyond polite conversation. And "demanding" the files be sent to someone who has just accused you of fraud?!

ROTFLMF'ingAO! is all that comes to mind. Particularly when the "legitimate" reason would certainly be; 1) Ted isn't required to divulge anything to anyone and 2) the person making the demand is someone who has proven with other files that he is not to be trusted with so much as the fortune from a Bazooka bubble gum wrapper. I'm not sure what powers were bestowed while I wasn't looking but the entire post is one that says do not trust this person.

I suppose you have nothing to say about the professional ethics of such a post, eh, ncdrawl?

Quote:
libel and slander, in law, types of defamation. In common law, written defamation was libel and spoken defamation was slander. Today, however, there are no such clear definitions. Permanent forms of defamation, such as the written or pictorial, are usually called libel, while the spoken or gestured forms are called slander.
The term libel is also often used if a wide audience for the defamation is possible. Courts have split over which category radio and television are in; today's statutes generally categorize defamation occurring in those media as slander. The offenses are alike in several respects. The defamation-essentially exposure to hatred, contempt, ridicule, or pecuniary loss-must directly affect the reputation of a living person. It must be published, i.e., revealed to someone besides the subject of the attack. It is no defense that the defendant merely repeated but did not originate the defamation.

The plaintiff is required to prove the colloquium (circumstances of utterance showing that the statement was directed against him or her specifically) and, when necessary, the innuendo (the factors making an apparently innocent statement defamatory). Generally, truth is an absolute defense in a suit for defamation. A false defamatory statement may be privileged if the actor was a legislator, executive officer, or speaking in a court proceeding. The requirement of colloquium makes unactionable defamation of a large group, e.g., a racial or professional group.

Whether the charge is libel or slander is important. Most libels are deemed injurious and give immediate ground for suit. However, only certain types of statements are slanderous per se and do not require proof of pecuniary damages; these include imputation of crime, of loathsome disease, or of professional or occupational incapacity. In other cases, there may not be any recovery unless the pecuniary loss caused by the injury is proved. The award to the successful plaintiff in a suit for defamation will usually include punitive, as well as compensatory, damages if the defendant willfully lied or published the defamation repeatedly.
http://www.answers.com/topic/slander-and-libel

ncdrawl, I would expect you not to think anyone is meaning any harm, you are a suck up to that someone who alledged fraud.

In the thread he began yesterday Ted says more is to come. Why is everyone so impatient? JA's statement should be sufficient to quiet even the most rabid sceptic for now - but no! the most rabid sceptic will not even take the time to read that thread or JA's comments. I would think it won't look good in court when there's evidence you should have kept your mouth shut and yet your ego just wouldn't let that happen.

Dont mind me Jan and I appreciate this is early days for Ted's measurements, just was trying to nudge Ethan into being constructive rather than jumping straight out with what seems like a biased approach (without even investigating the reported measurements or providing a more balanced counter argument).

However I hope you appreciate that there will be other readers like myself who want to understand why this is happening; hence eventually the measurements would have to go through some kind of modelling to help validation and provide insights.
But this does not excuse some of the posting we are seeing.

Cheers
Orb

Had a business associate who recently attended an audio show. This story was related to me:

In the room (after hours, bar) was a multitude of industry people.

Started speaking on a certain difficult and problematic individual, who doesn't really know SQUAT about acoustics.

Some started laughing, as they had quickly and easily figured out exactly ~WHO~ was beings spoken of.

Turned out that nearly every single person in the room had a story about this particular problematic and difficult person -who wasn't really an expert in acoustics-at all.

Care to guess who they were speaking of?

As for the rules of this forum, they are displayed prominently.

Your signature, Ethan, your signature.

Put your business associations and connections here --- ~PROMINENTLY.~

Or--FUCK OFF.

You will not be allowed to put up opinions and proclamations without them following you back to your lair like dirty toilet paper stuck to your shoe. Your stench will follow you and be recognized in it's connection to you....for you are so fond of crapping indiscriminately anywhere and everywhere when it so benefits your sorry blind ass. For it is quite obvious to anyone that has spent any time here that you left the forum the very moment it was against the rules to post here without your industry associations clearly noted in each post.

So, it becomes obvious that it was noted by you that you do possess attributes that are clearly, uhm, not as correct as they should be..and then you attempted to leave before being forced to own said emissed turds.

~~~~~~~
I must apologize to Ted for my post, here, but it needed to be said.

I disagree with Ethan on any number of things when it comes to audio but c'mon, the dude knows a thing or two about room acoustics.

That might be true, but integrity is not high on his list of attributes, IMO.

To put it bluntly, I could read a textbook on acoustics and do what he is doing- and beyond. So much for his expertise.

Quote:
That might be true, but integrity is not high on his list of attributes, IMO.

To put it bluntly, I could read a textbook on acoustics and do what he is doing- and beyond. So much for his expertise.

Sure, so could I. But Ethan can write that book. I really don't think you can find a better source of information on room treatments than Ethan. If audiophiles are laughing at him when it comes to his knowledge on room acoustics then the joke is on them. You don't have to agree with everything the man says on audio (I know I don't). But let's give credit where it is due. When I move to my new house, my new listening room will be put together based largely on information taken straight from Ethan's various articles on room acoustics.

Orb, I'm afraid your relative youth on this forum has left you naive to the ways of a few of it participants. While I wouldn't have stated it exactly as KBK has, he is not missing the mark at all on most items and probably not by more than a hair on the rest.

Personally, I find the accusations of fraud to be especially galling when made by someone so well known for posting fraudulent information - known by him to be a fraud (if not actually created by him) and condemned as fake, distasteful and beyond justification by ncdrawl and Buddha at the time it was posted.

Nudging someone like this to behave constructively is on par with nudging killer bees to not chase you to your death.

I would think most everyone involved in this would want to see more from Ted and I trust it wil be forthcoming as time permits. I strongly suspect Ted wouldn't need to post anything since this forum alone has had numerous unsolicited positive comments on his ART devices; http://forum.stereophile.com/forum/showf...art=1&vc=1. I only fear that any proof offered will never be sufficient for the cynics, as MF can attest to with his epic demagnetization episodes.

Unfortunately, the posting we've seen here is far too normal for the uber-cynics in the crowd.

Basically the rule came down with respects to signatures and thus not one more post from Ethan. Now that he posts, then every single on of his past posts should now have his industry associations tied to them. All posts.

So no, I think that if he wants his comments to remain and the comments should, IMO....as they have had an affect and altered the course of the thread, then his signature should be changed to reflect his associations.

No, Scott, I don't think that Ethan could write anything more than a basic text on acoustics - But so could a thousand other people. That book has been written before, so why write it again?

The man is either afraid, unwilling (or both) of owning his own posts and behavior. What does that say about his psychology? Or how he operates? Or how he thinks?

He's not god's gift to acoustics. He is one of many in a field that has yet to be fully defined or fleshed out.

I would not mind Ethan if he was willing to consider that he does not know everything, and that the world is not fully defined -that anomalous things exist and we find them, the evidence of them - all the time.

When people do explorative work that is outside his seemingly severely myopic and possibly egocentric and thus self serving view of the world - he attacks them. And he benefits from it as he is in the business, as he attracts certain types of customers and some of those revel in such behaviors themselves...and he also ends up in that moment conning others who might be more open, conning them into following his ideas and actions. Hell, he even has a fanboy forum that ~somehow~ ended up being 'all things Ethan' at audiocircle. I nearly threw up when I saw that one.

Next thing you know he'll be tattooing an image of The Amazing Randi on his ass.

I think that ultimately that this thread should be rolled back to remove Ethan's post and all related to his posts..at the same time I think he fully deserves this shitkicking I'm giving him right now.

If Ethan wants to post a reply, then he can do so, only after his signature here is ~PERMANENTLY~ (so it cannot be altered back to be less revealing by him-after he posts his smears and attacks) changed to reflect his business associations.

I do note that even now he refuses to add in a proper signature by calling himself a 'concerned citizen' and these comments by him 'do not reflect his business associations'. (my words not his) How laughably sick and contorted can you get??? How could anyone describe the actions, tactics, and behavior of such a person as anything other than self-serving and underhanded- at best?

Quote:
Ethan Winer
Audio skeptic, posting on my own behalf only

Ethan, the rules of this forum are that you _must_ include your company affiliation. Please do so or we will delete the offending posts.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Quote:
Without proper methodology, the results are invalid.

Not really, they are anecdotal. I have commissioned a comprehensive examination of the possible effects of the ART devices for publication in Stereophile from a leading audio engineering consultant. To his credit, Ted Denney is willing to provide a set of the devices for rigorous third-party measurement.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Quote:

No, Scott, I don't think that Ethan could write anything more than a basic text on acoustics - But so could a thousand other people.

I disagree with your opinion and I will add that your opinion is clearly highly charged with your negative opinions about Ethan.

Quote:
That book has been written before, so why write it again?

It has? Could you give me a title and an author? Yes there are many books on acoustics. Not sure there is one that directly addresses playback rooms as well as Ethan's many articles. those articles together might make a pretty defintive book on acoustics for playback rooms. If you know of a book that is the equal or better of those articles I am quite geniunely interested in getting it.

Quote:
The man is either afraid, unwilling (or both) of owning his own posts and behavior. What does that say about his psychology? Or how he operates? Or how he thinks?

I have no idea what you are talking about. It is clear and inarguable what posts can be attributed to him and only him.

Quote:

He's not god's gift to acoustics. He is one of may in a field that has yet to be fully defined or fleshed out.

Who else should we be paying attention to? what has yet to be fleshed out? The physics of room acoustics are pretty well established. What has yet to be fleshed out?

Quote:

I would not mind Ethan if he was willing to consider that he does not know everything, and that the world is not fully defined -that anomalous things exist and we find them, the evidence of them - all the time.

One need not know "everything" to know enough to call obvious bullshit for what it is when it is in fact obvious bullshit. I'm not taking sides here but I think that Ethan is taking the position that he knows *enough* to make the assertions he is making.

Quote:

when people do explorative work that is outside his seemingly severely myopic and possibly egocentric and thus self serving view of the world-he attacks them. And he benefits from it as he is in the business,and he attracts certain types of customers who revel in such behaviors themselves..and he also ends up in that moment conning others who might be more open, conning them into following his ideas and actions. Hell, he even has a fanboy forum that ~somehow~ ended up being 'all things ethan' at audiocircle. I nearly threw up when I saw that one.

that is just your highly emotionally charged take on things. Perhaps you should take your own advice and consider that you also do not knowing everything and in this case Ethan does have enough expertise that he may actually possibly be right. Just because you don't like him doesn't mean he is wrong. When it comes to room treatments I would say that he is quite the expert and he may simply be attracting customers who are genuinely interested in improving their lsitening rooms. What con is he shilling? Are yo suggesting that anything he has to say on basstraps, mid and highe frequency absorbtion and diffusion are in any way factually eroneous? He benefits from his expertise which allows him to make proucts that satisfy his customers. He also gives away tons of knowledge! How many makers of any audio product tell you how to make the smae thing yourself for less? I think his utter and complete openess with his knowledge of room acoustics and room treatment speaks volumes of his integrity on that subject. Does he take candy from children? Does he kick the neighbor's cat when no one is looking? I don't know. But what he has to say about room acoustics is there in the open for anyone to test. pretty hard to pull that off without knowing your shit.

Please see the following link for further information on how the initial measurements were taken for the published waterfall graphs.

http://forum.stereophile.com/forum/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=75982&an=0&page=0#Post75982

As you can plainly read in my original post I will not, nor do I have the time to enter into an endless debate regarding said measurements until after the final report is published. Aside from performing the measurements in four very different listening environments I have a company to run, CES to prepare for, and ongoing product development to oversee- again please wait for the open report which will include not only graphs, but also the raw measurement files.

Lastly I notice that some of you live in the Southern California area. If you would like you can visit the SR Design Studio for a live demonstration of the Acoustic ART System and form your own opinion. We will also be performing live demonstrations at next years CES in Las Vegas where I'll make you a bet; in this case what happens in Vegas will not stay in Vegas!

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

Quote:

Quote:
Without proper methodology, the results are invalid.

Not really, they are anecdotal. I have commissioned a comprehensive examination of the possible effects of the ART devices for publication in Stereophile from a leading audio engineering consultant. To his credit, Ted Denney is willing to provide a set of the devices for rigorous third-party measurement.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

This is great news.

Scott, to be honest whether Ethan or anyone else has knowledge, trying to propose facts as Ethan is without further investigation/modelling in this case is frankly jumping the gun.
Of course this can apply to others as well including myself where I accept I am partially biased against this product but only because I just cannot grasp the conceptual and actual mechanics involved, hence why the initiative taken by JA and Ted is great news.

However unlike some posting here, I am willing to give Ted and this product a chance.

I still hope that some form of modelling calculation can also be incorporated; from the 3rd party investigation and also Ted's measurements as this I feel is where we may get the insights of what is happening.

Cheers
Orb

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
Without proper methodology, the results are invalid.

Not really, they are anecdotal. I have commissioned a comprehensive examination of the possible effects of the ART devices for publication in Stereophile from a leading audio engineering consultant. To his credit, Ted Denney is willing to provide a set of the devices for rigorous third-party measurement.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

This is great news.

Scott, to be honest whether Ethan or anyone else has knowledge, trying to propose facts as Ethan is without further investigation/modelling in this case is frankly jumping the gun.
Of course this can apply to others as well including myself where I accept I am partially biased against this product but only because I just cannot grasp the conceptual and actual mechanics involved, hence why the initiative taken by JA and Ted is great news.

However unlike some posting here, I am willing to give Ted and this product a chance.

I still hope that some form of modelling calculation can also be incorporated; from the 3rd party investigation and also Ted's measurements as this I feel is where we may get the insights of what is happening.

Cheers
Orb

I am quite willing to give the products a chance. But I can understand how someone like Ethan may express tremendous skepticism based on a personal meaningful body of knowledge. Ethan may be flat out wrong but given his body of knowledge one has to consider the possibility that he is right. Like I said, I'm not taking sides but I think Ethan does deserve a little respect for his knowledge on room acoustics. what an expert says isn't right just because the expert says so but... experts tend to be right about their area of expertise more often than the average joe. Ethan's claims shouldn't be seen as a defintive answer but a cuase for further investigation. Looks like JA is doing so. Should be interesting.

"But I can understand how someone like Ethan may express tremendous skepticism based on a personal meaningful body of knowledge. Ethan may be flat out wrong but given his body of knowledge one has to consider the possibility that he is right."

"What an expert says isn't right just because the expert says so but... experts tend to be right about their area of expertise more often than the average joe."

Two of the goofiest statements I've seen in quite some time. If I were Nathan I'd ask you to please stop defending me.

Quote:
One need not know "everything" to know enough to call obvious bullshit for what it is when it is in fact obvious bullshit. I'm not taking sides here but I think that Ethan is taking the position that he knows *enough* to make the assertions he is making.

Quote:
Call me a conceited know-it-all. Hell, I am a know-it-all!

http://forum.stereophile.com/forum/showf...art=18&vc=1

Re: Perception [Re: Elk] #40347 - 05/05/08 04:11 PM, page 18

Quote:
Does he take candy from children? Does he kick the neighbor's cat when no one is looking? I don't know.

I'm guessing you haven't seen the video.

No, really, there's a video. Maybe someone here has a link to it. I'm still trying to get it out of my mind so I don't have one any longer. I think it was ncdrawl that posted it here awhile back.

There are lots of things you clearly don't know, scotty. You might be careful just who you defend.

Quote:

Quote:

Exactly. "Saved for evidence" is not proof of anything, except a lack of anything more substantive.

Ethan Winer
Audio skeptic, posting on my own behalf only

Have you thought it may be proof towards litigation?

Look who's talking.

jj, behind you, you're being stalked.

Quote:
I'm still trying to get it out of my mind so I don't have one any longer. I think it was ncdrawl that posted it here awhile back.

http://exposed.ethanwiner.com/

yes, I found it offensive. disgusting. sexist. creepy.

but..

hell..william s burroughs was a fucking pedophile and I love his work! same with Ginsberg, Polanski, Jerry Lee Lewis, Bukowski.....

Quote:
hell..william s burroughs was a fucking pedophile and I love his work! same with Ginsberg, Polanski, Jerry Lee Lewis, Bukowski.....

Yep, they all had talent.

Quote:

Quote:
Without proper methodology, the results are invalid.

Not really, they are anecdotal. I have commissioned a comprehensive examination of the possible effects of the ART devices for publication in Stereophile from a leading audio engineering consultant. To his credit, Ted Denney is willing to provide a set of the devices for rigorous third-party measurement.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

I look forward to that report. It would make me tremendously happy if the third party could explain the principles on which these devices operate and explain how they achieve the effects they achieve (if any)

Thanks John.

I think this may have the makings of a classic thread along with the related one started by Ted. Is it possible to merge the two or perhaps close one so that further discussion stays in one place?

A few years ago there was a similar type of measured proof offered in support of some French, I think, Acoustic Resonators but my googling skills have let me down. Does anyone have a reference to it?

Quote:
I look forward to that report. It would make me tremendously happy if the third party could explain the principles on which these devices operate and explain how they achieve the effects they achieve (if any)

I doubt that that will happen. First comes the repeatable measurement of the effect (if any). Explanation is a whole 'nother thing. At the risk of drawing too over-reaching an analogy, Hubble discovered the expansion of the universe in the 1920s, but it wasn't for another 70 years did any kind of possible explanation emerge.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Exactly. "Saved for evidence" is not proof of anything, except a lack of anything more substantive.

Ethan Winer
Audio skeptic, posting on my own behalf only

Have you thought it may be proof towards litigation?

Look who's talking.

Gee, I did not realise you were considering litigation against me for calling you James, or for maybe pointing out you are as biased as anyone else, or is it that I said your attitude and posting at times is that of an arse

Orb

Quote:

Quote:
I look forward to that report. It would make me tremendously happy if the third party could explain the principles on which these devices operate and explain how they achieve the effects they achieve (if any)

I doubt that that will happen. First comes the repeatable measurement of the effect (if any). Explanation is a whole 'nother thing. At the risk of drawing too over-reaching an analogy, Hubble discovered the expansion of the universe in the 1920s, but it wasn't for another 70 years did any kind of possible explanation emerge.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

I must say this is my concern with whatever comes out of this; people will use this as an absolute conclusion without consideration of further investigation/testing such as the modelling calculations I mentioned (as an example), setting an expectation if possible would be pretty handy.

Coming at this from another angle (appreciate this probably is pie in the sky).
Could two different room correction companies be approached so that their products are used A;-without the product B:-with the product, and the data collected for all the calculations and also result parameters be examined by them to see if differences occurred and importantly if any reasoning can be reached as to why and how in terms of room-acoustic mechanics.
Maybe such as Audyssey and Lyngdorf.
However I appreciate that this may not even give viable results.

Maybe naive here but I would had thought that they may be ideal as they look at both room measuring and also modelling to reach their room correction parameters.

Thanks
Orb

Quote:

Quote:
Ethan, the rules of this forum are that you _must_ include your company affiliation. Please do so or we will delete the offending posts.

Everyone here knows that I own RealTraps, a prominent manufacturer of high performance acoustic treatment products.

It doesn't matter what _you_ think others might know, Ethan, or whether or not you feel you have the right to post as a "civilian." Our rules are non-ambiguous: that manufacturers _must_ identify themselves by including their affiliation in postings to this forum.

Quote:
But I'm not here as a representative of RealTraps. I am here as Scienceman, defender of truth in a world full of BS audio products that work on wishful thinking alone...

Even so, Ethan, you still have to include your affiliation in your postings. I don't understand why you can't comprehend that fact. (And "Science Man"? It is fair to point out that, by your own admission, you have no education or training in the sciences, which is presumably why you don't comprehend the benefits of correctly performed dither, as demonstrated in your AES presentation 2 weeks ago.) The reality is, regardless of the supposed merits, or lack thereof, of any of the products being discussed, that you represent a manufacturer in competition with Synergistic Research, and thus cannot be considered a disinterested observer.

Quote:
Proud owner of RealTraps, but posting on my own behalf

It doesn't matter why you are posting; you still need to include your affiliation in your postings.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Quote:

Quote:
Could two different room correction companies be approached so that their products are used A;-without the product B:-with the product, and the data collected for all the calculations and also result parameters be examined by them to see if differences occurred and importantly if any reasoning can be reached as to why and how in terms of room-acoustic mechanics.

Of course, that's Acoustics 101. I've done this many times to compare the effective of various acoustic products. I even wrote THIS article describing my methods for Sound & Vibration, a magazine for professional acousticians.

Ethan Winer
Proud owner of RealTraps, but posting on my own behalf

Ethan thanks for the clarification and also the link.
My point here is to get the two companies to also go over the data compiled from both the initial analyses and the modelling results (involving the PC side of their products).
This will mean information we do not usually see, so not sure how it can be done without their complete involvement in terms of data analysis.
Also this then provides an additional external source of validation/investigation, who do not necessarily need to know the full extent (i.e. the actual product) of what is being looked at.

Oh and just to add, the least biased person posting here is JA in my opinion.
So Ethan not sure how you reach the conclusion he is biased when he is taking the time to investigate the potential of what is occurring before commenting in detail.

Edit:
To clarify the 2 companies I was suggesting here to go compile the data are Audyssey and Lyngdorf who have different approaches to room correction/modelling it seems with their software, making them pretty ideal.

Cheers
Orb

KBK, not that I didn't believe you to begin with but your story seems more and more plausible with each passing post.

Quote:
But you John? You're supposed to be unbiased. If you challenge me for proof, you need to challenge Ted too.

If you read the thread, Ethan, you will see that I have indeed requested a set of Ted Denney's ART devices for independent assessment and that Ted has agreed to supply them.

And BTW, I see you bristling at my mention of your lack of scientific education or credentials. I am not putting you down, merely pointing out that you need to be more careful as labeling yourself as a man of science. For example, in the thread in our RMAF blog, you seemed to be suggesting that an obervation without an explanation is BS. Yet Scientific Method suggests no such thing. The observation comes first, the explanation possibly years or even decades afterward. Not being able to explain an observation does not invalidate the phenomenon if that observation is repeatable. Had you been trained in the sciences, you would have understood that. Something is happening with the ART devices: either they affect the listener or they affect the room's acoustics. I have suspected the former; Ted's measurements suggest the latter.

And regarding your demand that Ted send you the raw data for his measurements, I am not surprised that he has not yet done so. With respect, as a competitor in the field, you are hardly a disinterested observer in this matter.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile