Quote:
I'd suggest 10 minutes maximum without a rest break if you're working on extremely fine distinctions.

Some people go to 20 minutes, but I've found that dl's and every other sort of result go to (*(* in a handbasket after about 10-20 minutes for even the most practiced and trained listener. ...

JJ,
I'm sure you've done a lot more audio testing than I. I relate one of my few experiences with blind testing. In this case I had a friend try to identify the difference between two states (regarding amplifier differences). After 15 minutes of trying, in 8 trials, he was too tired to tell anything. So in a simple, semi-controlled test, I was already having a problem getting any kind of reliable results. Yes, these tests, blind or not, are not easy to do correctly for meaningful results. And yes, 15 minutes was too long a time.

Quote:
Yes, these tests, blind or not, are not easy to do correctly for meaningful results. And yes, 15 minutes was too long a time.

Bolded for emphasis, and yes, you're absolutely correct, it is work.

Quote:
*The objectivist camp is rife with people who do NOT believe people can hear differences in cables, for example- a VERY basic consideration for designing and implementing correct blind and/or objective tests.

Actually, it has been proven that under some circumstances, wires can make an audible difference. Some phono cartridges are sensitive to capacitance, so changing interconnects used as phono cables may well make an audible difference.

As well, long lengths of small and large speaker cables have been shown to be audibly different.

Otherwise, we are waiting for evidence. Criticizing tests that have been done does nothing to establish that using different cables generally makes an audible difference.

In the movie, Pleasantville is an idyllic 50s style small town where noone knows there is anything beyond the towns borders, no other towns or cities, and all of the books in Pleasantville have blank pages. There are no fires in Pleasantville, and everything is perfect and runs like clockwork as it always has. David and his sister have been teleported to Pleasantville by a mysterious TV repairman (Don Knotts) who gives them a TV remote control with a "little more oooph to it" and try to fit into the stultifying, low-key life and activities of the town. Then one day there is a fire that David knows how to extinguish. The scene below is right after the fire is extinguished when the two outsiders are confronted by a group of high school kids in the soda shop who begin to get the sense that something is very amiss.

DAVID

You wanted to ask me something?

They keep on staring. Several glances are exchanged back and forth
like they're sharing a secret. Finally....

TOMMY

How'd you know about the fire?

DAVID

What?

TOMMY

How'd you know how to put it out and all?

David hesitates, weighing his words.

DAVID

Oh. Well--where I used to live...That's just what firemen did.

This sends a MURMUR through the shop. The boy leans forward.

TOMMY

And where's that?

DAVID
(carefully)

Um...Out-side of Pleasantville.

This sends a much LOUDER MURMUR rifling through the kids. It's
like electricity. They glance excited at one another. A hush descends.

TOMMY

What's outside of Pleasantville?

DAVID

Look it doesn't matter. It's not important.

TOMMY

What's outside of Pleasantville?

David stops and looks out at the kids who are hanging on every word.

DAVID

It's really not important.

MARGARET

What's outside of Pleasantville?

DAVID
(slowly)

Um... Well...There are some places where the road doesn't go in a circle. There are some places where it keeps on going.

There's an excited giggle. They lean forward.

MARGARET

Keeps going...

DAVID

Well, yeah -- it all just keeps going. Roads...rivers...

WILL
(from the back)

Like the "Mighty Mississippi."

Quote:
krabapple, the point is you add nothing positive, interesting, or worthwhile to this forum.

Stephen, I'm sorry if you know so little about this stuff that you can't tell who's right or wrong on your own. But that's your problem, not krabbaple's. Krabby did indeed add much of value. He pointed out the very obvious fact that Synergistic does not sell room treatment, but overpriced audio jewelry that cannot possibly work no matter how badly people want to believe it might work. You really should stop using your moderator position here to bully people who don't share your viewpoint. I'll go farther and say you don't even have a viewpoint because you clearly do not understand the inner workings of audio stuff. I'm sorry if you find this offensive, but IMO it's the truth.

--Ethan

Quote:

Quote:
krabapple, the point is you add nothing positive, interesting, or worthwhile to this forum.

Stephen, I'm sorry if you know so little about this stuff that you can't tell who's right or wrong on your own. But that's your problem, not krabbaple's. Krabby did indeed add much of value. He pointed out the very obvious fact that Synergistic does not sell room treatment, but overpriced audio jewelry that cannot possibly work no matter how badly people want to believe it might work. You really should stop using your moderator position here to bully people who don't share your viewpoint. I'll go farther and say you don't even have a viewpoint because you clearly do not understand the inner workings of audio stuff. I'm sorry if you find this offensive, but IMO it's the truth.

--Ethan

"...overpriced audio jewelry that cannot possibly work..."

Ethan, have you ever heard something small rattle and negatively affect your enjoyment of the sound? Maybe a coin in a tea cup, or something? Small things obviously can affect what we hear.

I'll leave it to others as to any benefit derived from the product in question. I recall the days of these products being considered by some to directly affect brainwaves, so the manfuacturer's review of the resonance effects of the product is something we should take as forward progress!

As to 'overpriced jewelry,' would you have less of a problem with your competitor if he only charged half as much? One tenth?

What point does his pricing have in your disdain for his product?

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
krabapple, the point is you add nothing positive, interesting, or worthwhile to this forum.

Stephen, I'm sorry if you know so little about this stuff that you can't tell who's right or wrong on your own. But that's your problem, not krabbaple's. Krabby did indeed add much of value. He pointed out the very obvious fact that Synergistic does not sell room treatment, but overpriced audio jewelry that cannot possibly work no matter how badly people want to believe it might work. You really should stop using your moderator position here to bully people who don't share your viewpoint. I'll go farther and say you don't even have a viewpoint because you clearly do not understand the inner workings of audio stuff. I'm sorry if you find this offensive, but IMO it's the truth.

--Ethan

"...overpriced audio jewelry that cannot possibly work..."

Ethan, have you ever heard something small rattle and negatively affect your enjoyment of the sound? Maybe a coin in a tea cup, or something? Small things obviously can affect what we hear.

I'll leave it to others as to any benefit derived from the product in question. I recall the days of these products being considered by some to directly affect brainwaves, so the manfuacturer's review of the resonance effects of the product is something we should take as forward progress!

As to 'overpriced jewelry,' would you have less of a problem with your competitor if he only charged half as much? One tenth?

What point does his pricing have in your disdain for his product?

Well, I certainly can't speak for Ethan, and wouldn't try, but I must say that some of the "resonance" claims I've seen, while being non-specific in terms of any one product, would require alternative physics that permitted radiation of negative energy, for instance, or for creation of energy from a passive device.

Quote:
...alternative physics that permitted radiation of negative energy, for instance, or for creation of energy from a passive device.

Just part of the baseline flow of promises made for many products and devices, in all spheres.

"Physics? We don't need no stinkin' physics. You're just the physics-man trying to keep us down..."

You know the drill.

Same as it ever was.

On the other hand, the 'regular' experts have been proven wrong so many times on so many subjects that it opens the door to the "They all laughed at Lister at first, too..." crowd.

All part of the hobby.

Buddha, I'll answer nothing further from you until you address my Post #70827 - 06/26/09 03:55 PM.

--Ethan

Quote:
Buddha, I'll answer nothing further from you until you address my Post #70827 - 06/26/09 03:55 PM.

--Ethan

Wow, is that a promise?

Am I now supposed to search by post number for your pearls?

Quote:

Quote:
Look in the London show coverage. Front half of the issue.

I already gave that issue to my partner, who lives an hour away. But let's analyze this logically:

We all understand and accept that resonances in a playback system are a detriment. When JA tests loudspeakers he places an accelerometer on the cabinet specifically to identify resonances. Likewise, room resonances in the form of modal ringing and flutter echo are understood as damaging by every professional acoustician in the world. So it's a given that adding resonance intentionally can only damage reproduction. If you do not agree with this, please just stop reading and don't reply either because there's no basis for further discussion.

Still here? Great! So we have a device called a "resonator" that claims to improve room acoustics by adding resonances on purpose. It may be possible that even small devices like Ted's magic bowls could add some audible effect, especially if the music contains the same frequency as the resonance, and has a section that plays that frequency and suddenly stops. That is, the exciting frequency will stop but the resonance lingers and is no longer masked. So I can see how it's remotely possible that the effect of Ted's bowls are potentially audible, albeit at a very low level in just the right circumstances.

You could get a similar effect by laying a 1/4 size POS made-in-China plywood violin on a table nearby.

All in all, I'd say it's a good thing for Ted that his bowls are that small. Otherwise, the damage done by their being in a room would be more noticeable.

In the grand scheme of things I have to conclude they work 99% on placebo effect, and 1% on their resonances being very slightly audible. And even then only maybe. But they are still not acoustic treatment!

Acoustic treatment aims to improve the sound, not make it worse by adding new artifacts.

--Ethan

Ethan, you would like this 'addressed' in what way...in order for your continued beneficence?

Either tell me that you understand what I wrote and agree with it, or explain what specifically you disagree with.

--Ethan

Quote:
Either tell me that you understand what I wrote and agree with it, or explain what specifically you disagree with.

--Ethan

Quote:
Either tell me that you understand what I wrote and agree with it, or explain what specifically you disagree with.

--Ethan

I understand and agree that you didn't read the July issue and gave your copy to your partner (after you travelled an hour for the hand off, or one half hour each, or one guy 40 minuetes and the other guy 20 minutes...) who is too cheap, even at about a buck an issue, to subscribe to the number one Hi Fi magazine in the market.

As to your other comments...

I think the recording chain can suck out much of what we enjoy about music. It is, after all, an imperfect medium. So, if someone uses a device that 'adds back' something to the recreation of music that he finds appealing, then, even though you consider it a detractor, for that person, it may do something pleasing.

This hobby is about trying to recapture the frisson of live music, and if some resonating device helps someone do that, more power to him.

Perhaps these bowls add some high frequency resonance that stimulates some listeners' ears in may that remind them of the sound pressure sensations they feel with live music - but is missing in his playback chain.

I do not mean to be apologizing for what may, in fact, be a BS product; I'm just saying that if someone uses a two dollar imitation violin in his room to contribute a (to him) euphonic resonance, or million dollar platinum worship bowls, then fine.

Just so long as they save me the universal application of same, or claim some supra-normal hearing acuity in order to validate their own experiences. Same goes for many of the, what I call,

Quote:

Quote:
Either tell me that you understand what I wrote and agree with it, or explain what specifically you disagree with.

--Ethan

Quote:
Either tell me that you understand what I wrote and agree with it, or explain what specifically you disagree with.

--Ethan

I understand and agree that you didn't read the July issue and gave your copy to your partner (after you travelled an hour for the hand off, or one half hour each, or one guy 40 minuetes and the other guy 20 minutes...) who is too cheap, even at about a buck an issue, to subscribe to the number one Hi Fi magazine in the market.

As to your other comments...

I think the recording chain can suck out much of what we enjoy about music. It is, after all, an imperfect medium. So, if someone uses a device that 'adds back' something to the recreation of music that he finds appealing, then, even though you consider it a detractor, for that person, it may do something pleasing.

This hobby is about trying to recapture the frisson of live music, and if some resonating device helps someone do that, more power to him.

Perhaps these bowls add some high frequency resonance that stimulates some listeners' ears in may that remind them of the sound pressure sensations they feel with live music - but is missing in his playback chain.

I do not mean to be apologizing for what may, in fact, be a BS product; I'm just saying that if someone uses a two dollar imitation violin in his room to contribute a (to him) euphonic resonance, or million dollar platinum worship bowls, then fine.

Just so long as they save me the universal application of same, or claim some supra-normal hearing acuity in order to validate their own experiences. Same goes for many of the, what I call,

Quote:
Hi Buddha,

Just a quick comment. I don't know the dimensions of the bowls, never tested them either, but the bowls don't have to be "vibrating" or ringing if the Q is low enough. It would just be another lossey element in the room tuned to a particular frequency, is all. Of course some diffusion/reflection as well.

Hope this helps Buddha.

Thanks, man!

If you could, is there a way to speculate as to the degrees of effect one could expect from objects of this type related to their size?

Ethan seems to think of them as too insubstantial to accomplish anything. (Which may be true, or not, especially with bass frequencies.)

Quote:

Quote:
Hi Buddha,

Just a quick comment. I don't know the dimensions of the bowls, never tested them either, but the bowls don't have to be "vibrating" or ringing if the Q is low enough. It would just be another lossey element in the room tuned to a particular frequency, is all. Of course some diffusion/reflection as well.

Hope this helps Buddha.

Thanks, man!

If you could, is there a way to speculate as to the degrees of effect one could expect from objects of this type related to their size?

Ethan seems to think of them as too insubstantial to accomplish anything. (Which may be true, or not, especially with bass frequencies.)

Hard to say Buddha. The thickness, shape/curvature of the metal, dimensions, and 'impurities' introduced all make a difference pertaining to Q and losses. A clear coating could also be added. I would suspect the bowls are much more damped than cymbals or top hats (high Q) that would sympathetically vibrate when drums are struck (as one selection I heard at the store sometime back).

Just have to wait for Ted(?), I believe his name is, for any data.

I'm posting very reluctantly, since I'm a newcomer (and infrequent contributor to) these forums.

But I gotta tell you, as someone who has just put a toe in the water of good audio, this thread is enough to make me want to avoid dealing with audiophiles at all costs. It's painful to read, and discouraging.

Scott Atkinson
Watertown NY

Quote:
I'm posting very reluctantly, since I'm a newcomer (and infrequent contributor to) these forums.

But I gotta tell you, as someone who has just put a toe in the water of good audio, this thread is enough to make me want to avoid dealing with audiophiles at all costs. It's painful to read, and discouraging.

Scott Atkinson
Watertown NY

I understand where you are coming from. There are some here with an agenda and push it they will no matter what. Sorry you had to experience it Scott.

Stephen, I'm sorry if you know so little about this stuff that you can't tell who's right or wrong on your own. But that's your problem, not krabbaple's. Krabby did indeed add much of value. He pointed out the very obvious fact that Synergistic does not sell room treatment, but overpriced audio jewelry that cannot possibly work no matter how badly people want to believe it might work. You really should stop using your moderator position here to bully people who don't share your viewpoint. I'll go farther and say you don't even have a viewpoint because you clearly do not understand the inner workings of audio stuff. I'm sorry if you find this offensive, but IMO it's the truth.

Good lord. Is there some kind of competition among you and your buddies from the Hydrogen Audio Cult of Pseudoscience to see who could say the most stupid things in the shortest amount of time? If so, please be assured you've got my vote, Ethan. You and Krapapple are among the worst bullies on here toward those who don't share your ignorant views on things. Just the fact that you would defend the "Krabapple" troll, your credibity is shot right there. You have proven you don't understand the first thing about the ART devices, the LP deMag, or other audio products you have denounced recently and in the past. Let alone the "inner workings" of these devices. You can't even begin to know what can or can't "possibly work", since ignorant blowhards don't make good scientists. You made it clear how much you understand the science of petrochemical engineering and the "inner workings of audio stuff" when you called vinyl LP's "plastic" and said "you cannot possibly demagnetize them", because they do not contain magnetic particles. So you certainly "don't have a viewpoint" on most of what you blather on about. But tell me, when did that ever stop you in all your dogmatic glory to declare them and everything you don't have a clue about; "snake oil"? I'll go further and say that as a result of your unsupported ignorance, much of your opinions on these forums are nothing but a recurring joke, and I think this "comb filtering" fetish of yours must be the punchline.

As I have stated elsewhere, you are directly attacking the professional reputation of a fellow competitor in your field, and manufacturer who is a registered Stereophile member, and in addition, still offering not a shred of evidence to support your defamatory attacks. You should not even be allowed to do that, and most forums would boot you out so fast, no one would remember your name. Need I say "particularly if you go and insult the moderator afterward"? But regardless of whether you are allowed to get away with this, it is unethical for you to do so. As I and others have previously pointed out. So STOP IT. If you are low and sleazy enough to defame a fellow competitor and member like this, then have the integrity to do so when he is here to defend himself. What you are doing here is not only unethical, reflecting poorly on your integrity as an acoustics audio dealer (who sells overpriced stuffed boxes that a high school student can make in his spare time), but as we've seen before from you, cowardly. Oh, and i'm sorry if you find any of this offensive, but I don't care if you do, because "it's The TrVth!" (reg. tm.).

Quote:
I'm posting very reluctantly, since I'm a newcomer (and infrequent contributor to) these forums.

But I gotta tell you, as someone who has just put a toe in the water of good audio, this thread is enough to make me want to avoid dealing with audiophiles at all costs. It's painful to read, and discouraging.

Scott Atkinson
Watertown NY

Hey Scott. I understand where you're coming from, but please don't be discouraged. There are lots of great people who enjoy this hobby, who spend most of their time simply searching for new musical thrills, who love to share their enthusiasm for high-quality sound and experiences. I came to all of this about nine years ago, having no idea that high end hi-fi even existed, and now I feel that my life is much more interesting and full because of my relationship to hi-fi and music. I've made great friends, and have discovered so much amazing music. When I think of all I've enjoyed, I am overwhelmed!

And that's what Michael Lavorgna's piece is about. He's giving his opinion on what our priorities as audiophiles and music lovers should be. One can agree or disagree with Michael, or find some place in between.

Still here? Great! So we have a device called a "resonator" that claims to improve room acoustics by adding resonances on purpose.

Great strawman argument. Who says resonators add resonances? Fact is they subtract unwanted resonances, like first reflections and standing waves.

That wasn't so difficult, was it?

Quote:
Still here? Great! So we have a device called a "resonator" that claims to improve room acoustics by adding resonances on purpose.

Great strawman argument. Who says resonators add resonances? Fact is they subtract unwanted resonances, like first reflections and standing waves.

That wasn't so difficult, was it?

Just having a conversation with SAS.

Hey, you forgot your marketing link. You've lost a step.

I can send a tone to your fax machine to help with that, but it'll cost ya.

Quote:
Great strawman argument. Who says resonators add resonances? Fact is they subtract unwanted resonances, like first reflections and standing waves.

Well, your statement was simple, at least.

So, since a standing wave IS a resonator . . .

Could you address this rather large contradiction in your generality?

Quote:

Quote:
Great strawman argument. Who says resonators add resonances? Fact is they subtract unwanted resonances, like first reflections and standing waves.

Well, your statement was simple, at least.

So, since a standing wave IS a resonator . . .

Could you address this rather large contradiction in your generality?

Isn't a bass trap a resonator? Don't these take energy out of the room? Don't they help to reduce the effects of standing waves at lower frequencies?

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
Great strawman argument. Who says resonators add resonances? Fact is they subtract unwanted resonances, like first reflections and standing waves.

Well, your statement was simple, at least.

So, since a standing wave IS a resonator . . .

Could you address this rather large contradiction in your generality?

Isn't a bass trap a resonator? Don't these take energy out of the room? Don't they help to reduce the effects of standing waves at lower frequencies?

Works either way for resonances, i.e. filters, but no, a typical bass trap is an absorber that is long enough to ensure that part of it is thoroughly in the volume velocity region of the resonance. It's a bit much to call something with a Q of .0001 (yes, I exagerate) a resonator

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
Great strawman argument. Who says resonators add resonances? Fact is they subtract unwanted resonances, like first reflections and standing waves.

Well, your statement was simple, at least.

So, since a standing wave IS a resonator . . .

Could you address this rather large contradiction in your generality?

Isn't a bass trap a resonator? Don't these take energy out of the room? Don't they help to reduce the effects of standing waves at lower frequencies?

Works either way for resonances, i.e. filters, but no, a typical bass trap is an absorber that is long enough to ensure that part of it is thoroughly in the volume velocity region of the resonance. It's a bit much to call something with a Q of .0001 (yes, I exagerate) a resonator

I was under the impression that the following from Wiki was true.

"There are generally two types of bass traps: resonating absorbers and porous absorbers. By their nature resonating absorbers tend toward narrow band action [absorb only a narrow range of sound frequencies] and porous absorbers tend toward broadband action [absorbing sound all the way across the audible band - low, mid, and high frequencies], though both types can be altered to be either more narrow, or more broad in their absorptive action. Both types are effective though the porous absorber has certain practical advantages in application as porous absorber type bass traps need not be specifically tuned to match the job at hand, and they tend to be smaller in size and easier to build than resonation type devices. For this reason most commercially manufactured bass traps are of the porous absorber type.

Examples of resonating type bass traps include Helmholtz resonators, and devices based on diaphragmic elements or membranes which are free to vibrate in sympathy with the room's air when sound occurs. Resonating type bass traps achieve absorption of sound by sympathetic vibration of some free element of the device with the air volume of the room. Such free elements in a resonating device can come in many forms such as the air volume captured inside a Helmholtz resonator - or a thin wooden panel held only by its edges [frequently called: "panel absorbers", a style of diaphragmic absorber]. Resonating absorbers can be made from just about any material that can either form a stiff walled vessel [a glass bottle for example] or any membrane stiff enough to be susceptible to being induced to vibrations by impinging sound."

Bass traps that consist of Helmholtz resonators with damping behind them can work at a boundary (unlike standard absorbative materials) by turning the pressure into velocity inside the absorber, and then absorbing that power inside the resonator. They can also change effective wall position, etc, via changing the phase of the reflection, etc.

I think the wiki article is a bit of an oversimplification, but it's not wrong, just rather incomplete.

My usual comment on wikipedia: Knowlege by argumentum ad populum.

ETA: Oh, and I've yet to meet a room that didn't benefit by more absorbtion, that is, outside of the Bell Labs anechoic chamber, which is rather, err, absorbative

"Bass traps that consist of Helmholtz resonators with damping behind them can work at a boundary (unlike standard absorbative materials) by turning the pressure into velocity inside the absorber, and then absorbing that power inside the resonator. They can also change effective wall position, etc, via changing the phase of the reflection, etc."

Not quite. Actually, Base Traps have a reflective panel in the rear, not damping material. Like the Room Lens triple pipes, the Base Trap is a pure Helmholtz resonator. The absorption of the offending acoustic pressure is due to the classic tuned Helmholz resonator.

Quote:
"Bass traps that consist of Helmholtz resonators with damping behind them can work at a boundary (unlike standard absorbative materials) by turning the pressure into velocity inside the absorber, and then absorbing that power inside the resonator. They can also change effective wall position, etc, via changing the phase of the reflection, etc."

Not quite. Actually, Base Traps have a reflective panel in the rear, not damping material. Like the Room Lens triple pipes, the Base Trap is a pure Helmholtz resonator. The absorption of the offending acoustic pressure is due to the classic tuned Helmholz resonator.

That depends on which "bass trap" you refer to. And a resonator itself does not absorb energy. It may detune the room, etc, but a resonator (without damping) does not absorb energy.

The damping (be it viscous flow in ports, mineral wool, etc) is where the energy turns into heat.

"That depends on which "bass trap" you refer to."

I'm referring to, uh, the Bass Trap. The orginal from Acoustic Sciences Corp. Are you referring to some other bass trap?

"And a resonator itself does not absorb energy."

And Helmoltz would disagree.

"It may detune the room, etc, but a resonator (without damping) does not absorb energy."

One more time, with feeling. Damping is unnecessary in Helmholtz resonators. The (primary) frequency of absorption is easily calculated knowing the volume and throat diameter and length.

"The damping (be it viscous flow in ports, mineral wool, etc) is where the energy turns into heat."

The Helmholz resonator requires no damping. You haven't any experience with empty coke bottles, eh?

Quote:

And that's what Michael Lavorgna's piece is about. He's giving his opinion on what our priorities as audiophiles and music lovers should be. One can agree or disagree with Michael, or find some place in between.

Got it, and thanks for your thoughtful note.

I should have qualified my comments - I'm a big boy at 53, and I run a tv newsroom for a living, so I know more than a little bit about egos and conflict. And I participate in a number of forums. A lot of it is 'duck's back' stuff - you just let it go.

What struck me about this thread in particular was the lack of pleasure in it, for want of better words. When I get to to hang out with a bunch of really smart people and argue about something passionately, I'm insanely delighted, even when I'm on the wrong end of the argument. This thread is, ummm, ossified.

That said, I have learned from it, for which I am thankful.

best,

s.

Quote:

"And a resonator itself does not absorb energy."

And Helmoltz would disagree.

Actually, if you bother to look at the Helmholtz equation, you can see the damping factor sorted out. Just, of course, as you can see it in any other 2nd order system.

g'nite, gracie. You aren't that dumb.

Oh, and you might look up energy loss to the environment (in the form of signal, as opposed to heat) as opposed to damping, while you're at it, but that's probably expecting too much.

So, you admit that a Helmholtz resonator - without damping material - will absorb energy? That wasn't so difficult, was it?

Quote:
So, you admit that a Helmholtz resonator - without damping material - will absorb energy? That wasn't so difficult, was it?

It's classic of you to distort what others have said.

Have you read Helmholtz' work, in translation, at least?

Answer yes or no, please.

Quote:

Quote:
What struck me about this thread in particular was the lack of pleasure in it, for want of better words.... This thread is, ummm, ossified.

Well, you know, I think some of these people never actually LISTEN to music.

Post deleted by Stephen Mejias

Quote:
ETA: Oh, and I've yet to meet a room that didn't benefit by more absorbtion, that is, outside of the Bell Labs anechoic chamber, which is rather, err, absorbative

You are the only person I know of that says this...besides myself. Every time I add absorbtion to my room it makes it better. I have yet to find the threshold where it makes things worse. I hear many stories about the sound of playback in an anechoic chamber but they all to often turn out to be gossip rather than first hand accounts.

"Hoo boy. Sorry. Wrong. A resonating type bass trap that is not damped makes things worse because it continues to ring after the original sound stops."

At least you admit it's a resonator. You get a gold star and are hereby elected to break the news to jj. Be gentle.

As JJ said, it's classic of you to distort what others have said. I'm quite certain that JJ knows the difference between velocity and pressure absorbers, even if you clearly do not.

AlexO and I were discussing this just the other day, how it's one thing to not know something, but quite another to not even know you don't know.

--Ethan

Please add a signature to your posts, stating that you are a manufacturer.

Done.

Hey, wait a second there partner. Why do you single me out but not Geoff? He claims to be a manufacturer too.

Quote:
Post deleted by Stephen Mejias

Um, what did I miss here?

Ethan, you can use PM if that's a requirement.

Quote:
Done.

Please don't act dumb, Ethan. You must add your affiliation in your sig line, as Stephen requested in his posting. Not "I am a manufacturer."

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Quote:

Quote:
Done.

Please don't act dumb, Ethan. You must add your affiliation in your sig line, as Stephen requested in his posting. Not "I am a manufacturer."

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

I just want to be clear here. I do NOT make high-end audio equipment, in fact I "manufacture" nothing. I make no secret of the fact I'm DTS's chief scientist, but then again, we don't make hardware, there, either.

I generally don't add my affiliation as a way of not being highfallutin' and snotty about it all.

Do I need to add it to my signature?

We just need to be able to tell the bears from the rabbits when we're all out here taking a dump..as we are wont to do. (reference to the bear/rabbit and sticky fur question/joke)

It will calm MY posts down..I dunno about you guys but it will do the desired thing in my case. I mean, I make no secret about any of my affiliations, ever and I originally had a signature that had my 'party' affiliations listed, but I removed it lest I be seen as attempting to advertise myself.

As for being snotty, if I say that DTS sucks, will that take some of the sting out of it?

Quote:
Do I need to add it to my signature?

As you do not manufacturer high end audio equipment, tweaks, or accessories, you do not have to identify your business affiliation in your signature. Thanks for asking.

Quote:

Quote:
Do I need to add it to my signature?

As you do not manufacturer high end audio equipment, tweaks, or accessories, you do not have to identify your business affiliation in your signature. Thanks for asking.

But he does work in the fields that high end audio may be and are involved with. JJ has his pedantic screechy repetitive bits and parts just like the rest of us....and being forced to mark his affiliations may slow him down just enough....

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
Do I need to add it to my signature?

As you do not manufacturer high end audio equipment, tweaks, or accessories, you do not have to identify your business affiliation in your signature. Thanks for asking.

But he does work in the fields that high end audio may be and are involved with. JJ has his pedantic screechy repetitive bits and parts just like the rest of us....and being forced to mark his affiliations may slow him down just enough....

So, an industry affilitaion identifier?

"Affiliation with an audio industry company" disclaimer?