So the summary of what you are saying is (presented in a non-judgmental manner):

1- traditional/mainstream acoustical treatments are acting directly on the musical waves being transmitted by the speakers and therefore providing benefit in such areas as reducing standing waves, unwanted reflections etc

2- non-traditional acoustical treatments (such as some you mention and potentially Ted's devices) are acting on such things as environmental noise that are not effectively treated by traditional/mainstream acoustical treatment

If this is the case, I think the issue some people have is where the non-traditional acoustical treatments are presented as working in a similar nature to traditional/mainstream acoustical treatments.

For example, you can go back any number of decades (or in fact millennia), to find theory and working examples of different kinds of bass absorption. In all cases, the structures used to provide this bass absorption are large in size.

So the disconnect occurs when claims are made of physically small

Can I mention Ultra Tweeters for a second? Ultra Tweeters are add-on electronic audio devices with a slots in the front that look like mini-horns. They look for all the world like super tweeters. The Ultras are attached to the existing speaker terminals and usually placed on top of the existing speakers; if that's not convenient they can be placed anywhere in the room. Unlike Super Tweeters, the Ultras do not have to be time aligned with existing speaker drivers; the reason is the Ultras do not produce any frequencies in the audio range.

In fact, the operating frequency if the Ultras is in the microwave region, low GHz. Thus, the Ultra Tweeters are not speakers at all, they are something else. But what could that something else be? Is it merely coincidence that the Ultra Tweeters operate in the microwave region - like Franck Tchang's bowls and Synergistic's bowls? And if not a coincidence, is the mode of operation possibly the same for the bowls and the Ultra Tweeters? According to the manufacturer, the microwave frequency used for the Ultras is the resonant frequency of the atoms in air - exciting the air atoms with microwave polarizes the atoms, producing a more homogeneous medium through which acoustic waves (from the main speakers) can propagate. I.e., as with a good traffic cop, the traffic in the city travels with less congestion and less "stop and go." Looking at it another way, a powerboat gets much better performance in smooth water than it does in choppy water.

It seems fairly obvious that listening has two easily discernible components: the listener, and everything else.
A objectivist, (like myself), focuses on the 'everything else' category. Perhaps there is an unintended narrowness there, in neglecting the listener. On the other hand, the subjectivist may well place undue emphasis on the (impossible to quantify) listener.

The arguments start when the subjective/objective person attempts to mix the categories.

I think music sounds better in a warm, well lit, and comfortable room, after a delicious meal and a glass of wine. I really don't care to say that it is because I use 0000 gauge room temperature superconductor cables to hook my speakers up, as compared to 12 gauge plain old copper.

Brass bowls, wooden volume knobs, quart crystals hanging in the proper feng shui arrangement- if you think it sounds better, it sounds better to you, by definition.

I'm not going to buy any snake oil to rub on my disks or speakers, because, also by definition, it *will not* make it sound better to me.

I don't feel like wasting a bunch of time, I just wanted to observe that there is a gulf here that will never be crossed by arguing, as neither side is talking about the same things, even though they use the same words.

Quote:
Is it merely coincidence that the Ultra Tweeters operate in the microwave region - like Franck Tchang's bowls and Synergistic's bowls?

When I asked Ted if his bowls produced headaches in humans as Franck Tchang's do, he replied his bowls do not work at the same high freq. rates as Frank's.

Better stuff - 2 beers!

Quote:
Can I mention Ultra Tweeters for a second? Ultra Tweeters are add-on electronic audio devices with a slots in the front that look like mini-horns. They look for all the world like super tweeters. The Ultras are attached to the existing speaker terminals and usually placed on top of the existing speakers; if that's not convenient they can be placed anywhere in the room. Unlike Super Tweeters, the Ultras do not have to be time aligned with existing speaker drivers; the reason is the Ultras do not produce any frequencies in the audio range.

In fact, the operating frequency if the Ultras is in the microwave region, low GHz. Thus, the Ultra Tweeters are not speakers at all, they are something else. But what could that something else be? Is it merely coincidence that the Ultra Tweeters operate in the microwave region - like Franck Tchang's bowls and Synergistic's bowls? And if not a coincidence, is the mode of operation possibly the same for the bowls and the Ultra Tweeters? According to the manufacturer, the microwave frequency used for the Ultras is the resonant frequency of the atoms in air - exciting the air atoms with microwave polarizes the atoms, producing a more homogeneous medium through which acoustic waves (from the main speakers) can propagate. I.e., as with a good traffic cop, the traffic in the city travels with less congestion and less "stop and go." Looking at it another way, a powerboat gets much better performance in smooth water than it does in choppy water.

From the website: "Ultra Tweeters are remarkable new audio accessories from the makers of the Intelligent Chip and Magic Ring."

I thought manufacturers weren't supposed to be marketing products on the discussion forums.

That was purely an ad.

For the fun part, though, your claim about their operating frequncies should be substantiatable!

Geoff, you should remember that when you "discuss" a product you sell, the connection should be made clear.

"From the website: "Ultra Tweeters are remarkable new audio accessories from the makers of the Intelligent Chip and Magic Ring."
I thought manufacturers weren't supposed to be marketing products on the discussion forums. That was purely an ad."

Uh, the original Intelligent Chip was not my product. Nor were the Ultra Tweeters or Magic Ring. They were made by JMSR and marketed in US by Golden Sound. I used to sell those products up until around 2007.

The New Intelligent Chip is, however, my invention and sold exclusively by Machina Dynamica since 2007. Clear, now?

"For the fun part, though, your claim about their operating frequncies should be substantiatable!"

Why on Earth would you think that?

Quote:
From the website: "Ultra Tweeters are remarkable new audio accessories from the makers of the Intelligent Chip and Magic Ring."
I thought manufacturers weren't supposed to be marketing products on the discussion forums. That was purely an ad."

Uh, the original Intelligent Chip was not my product. Nor were the Ultra Tweeters, or Magic Ring. They were made by JSMR and marketed in US by Golden Sound. I used to sell those products up until around 2007. The New Intelligent Chip is, however, my invention and sold exclusively by Machina Dynamica since 2007.

"For the fun part, though, your claim about their operating frequencies should be substantiatable!"

Why on Earth would you think that?

I didn't, I was kidding around. As if they would actually have a measurable effect!

"I didn't, I was kidding around. As if they would actually have a measurable effect!"

Oh, right, I forgot. You're a skeptic.

Quote:
"I didn't, I was kidding around. As if they would actually have a measurable effect!"

Oh, right, I forgot. You're a skeptic.

No skepticism at all - I just know that if YOU provide a claim such as an object's operating frequency, it will not have anything other than your claim behind it.

Skepticism has nothing to do with it!

"No skepticism at all - I just know that if YOU provide a claim such as an object's operating frequency, it will not have anything other than your claim behind it. Skepticism has nothing to do with it!"

Now, you're just being dopey.

Quote:
"No skepticism at all - I just know that if YOU provide a claim such as an object's operating frequency, it will not have anything other than your claim behind it. Skepticism has nothing to do with it!"

Now, you're just being dopey.

What? Did he just purchase something from you?

Quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"No skepticism at all - I just know that if YOU provide a claim such as an object's operating frequency, it will not have anything other than your claim behind it. Skepticism has nothing to do with it!"

Now, you're just being dopey.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

"What? Did he just purchase something from you?"

Good one Scott. Glad to see you're coming out of your shell.

Quote:
Quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"No skepticism at all - I just know that if YOU provide a claim such as an object's operating frequency, it will not have anything other than your claim behind it. Skepticism has nothing to do with it!"

Now, you're just being dopey.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

"What? Did he just purchase something from you?"

Good one Scott. Glad to see you're coming out of your shell.

I would think your customers would deserve some privacy. Why are you posting their pictures? That's just wrong.

You sick little monkey, now cut that out!

Quote:
Quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"No skepticism at all - I just know that if YOU provide a claim such as an object's operating frequency, it will not have anything other than your claim behind it. Skepticism has nothing to do with it!"

Now, you're just being dopey.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

"What? Did he just purchase something from you?"

Good one Scott. Glad to see you're coming out of your shell.

Wow, Scott!

You have Geoff all wrong. Posting pics is his method of surrender.

Also, you don't recognize the Mogul of Machina Dynamica?

Geoff is offering to blow you!

That red thing on his nose will make the sound of the Hi Fi in the room sound better, too.

Uh, oh, here come the drunk jokes. Good one, Bubbha.

Quote:
It seems fairly obvious that listening has two easily discernible components: the listener, and everything else.
A objectivist, (like myself), focuses on the 'everything else' category. Perhaps there is an unintended narrowness there, in neglecting the listener. On the other hand, the subjectivist may well place undue emphasis on the (impossible to quantify) listener.

The arguments start when the subjective/objective person attempts to mix the categories.

The categories are always mixed. You can not have the everything else without the listener.

Quote:

Your expression "act the way they do, at the frequencies they do" is actually putting on the 'blinkers' by limiting the thought process purely to 'frequencies'.

While I dont not have the energy to find Ted's exact quote(s) in the previous thread, he on several occasions made reference to his various devices acting at specific frequencies. And he in fact calls one of the devices a "bass station", implying that it works at the bass frequencies.

So I am not being blinkered.

In terms of your responses, can I conclude that when an observation (say the passive speakers in the room or edge colouring working on many types of media) shows that the obvious reasons for the affect are discredited and that leads to no explanation... then we just accept it as a new Phenomena that cannot be explained (or potentially measured)?

In my opinion, you dont need to be a die-hard objectivist to want an explanation. Its just human nature to want to understand how and why.

So we end up with these outcomes:

(1) an explanation is provided why said device works but its affects cant be measured

(2) an explanation is not provided why said device works but its affects can be measured

(3) an explanation is not provided why said device works and its affects cant be measured

For most people, based on human nature, can live with (2) but not (1) or (3).

We have at our disposal all types of measuring equipment from many different scientific disciplines. We can measure all types of changes (thermal, electromagnetic, radioactivity, sound pressure etc) at very small degrees of resolution so it must be possible for (1) and (3) to use these different measuring techniques to arrive at a reason

Quote:
there should be money available to measure how they affect our perception of sound reproduction.

I have commsioned an investigation of the Synergistic ART devices from an independent engineer, to be published in Stereophile next spring.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

"Below is a reply given by you, Geoff, in a separate 'thread' but which I think is just as appropriate for this 'thread' about "An even Bigger Issue" - the issue of searching for explanations !!

>>> "It's quite humorous that "skeptics" constantly whine for explanations for audio devices, or dismiss them out of hand, yet are never able to figure them out for themselves. Looks like the whining will continue. Oh, sweet mystery of life" <<<

Could it be, Geoff, that they (the sceptics) do not WANT to figure things out for themselves rather than are unable to ?? Anyone WANTING to can surely figure things out much further ? I have tried to open up the subject for a more extensive (far reaching) discussion on this particular thread."

May, excellent point, and one I overlooked. If I were to make a list of reasons why "skeptics" continually make demands for proof and explanations, dismiss or trivialize controversial audio devices ("it is too small," "it disobeys the laws of science" or "it is the placebo effect in full bloom"), dismiss actual experience, shrug off new or unfamiliar concepts, dismiss listening tests while promoting DBTs as the only path to the truth, ridicule audiophiles while pretending to be audiophiles themselves and ferociously embrace the status quo, then I'd certainly include, "they don't want to figure things out for themselves."

Quote:
Below is a reply given by you, Geoff, in a separate 'thread' but which I think is just as appropriate for this 'thread' about "An even Bigger Issue" - the issue of searching for explanations !!

>>> "It's quite humorous that "skeptics" constantly whine for explanations for audio devices, or dismiss them out of hand, yet are never able to figure them out for themselves. Looks like the whining will continue. Oh, sweet mystery of life" <<<

Could it be, Geoff, that they (the sceptics) do not WANT to figure things out for themselves rather than are unable to ?? Anyone WANTING to can surely figure things out much further ?

It's a good point, and in all of my experiences in dealing with skeptics, there is only one conclusion that I can make. They do not WANT to figure anything out for themselves. Every time a product or idea in audio does not appear to be right in the core of whatever is accepted among them, a new example of this is created. The latest example was the S-Art devices. Who among the skeptics said he was willing to try it? After some teeth pulling, I only heard Scott finally agreeing to it (but we never heard the result of that?). Every skeptic dismissed out of hand the positive reviews on the products, while waiting to dismiss the objective evidence. But while no one was prevented from listening to the products themselves, no skeptic took it upon themselves to do so. Same pattern repeated with the Furutech controversy. No skeptic accepted the empirical evidence. Which would be understandable, were it not for the fact that no skeptic took it upon themselves to actually test the product they had generated so much controversy over. I did at the Montreal show, but that didn't count, because I didn't take the position of a hard line skeptic!

The odd thing about all of this, is that skeptics maintain the reason they dismiss such products or concepts out of hand, is because they respect rules of science. Which is false, because dismissing such things without observation is decidedly -not- scientific, and respectful of the scientific method. It is in fact impossible to advance science and technology with the position adopted by so called "objectivist" internet audio skeptics. The very idea that a new product submitted for consideration by audiophiles has to come with its own peer-reviewed citations in an audio or science journal, and seal of approval from the desk of James Randi, does no service to our hobby. I believe that if the chat forum skeptics had a sincere interest in the science of audio, they would be doing a lot more listening, and a -lot- less chattering.

Quote:
"Below is a reply given by you, Geoff, in a separate 'thread' but which I think is just as appropriate for this 'thread' about "An even Bigger Issue" - the issue of searching for explanations !!

>>> "It's quite humorous that "skeptics" constantly whine for explanations for audio devices, or dismiss them out of hand, yet are never able to figure them out for themselves. Looks like the whining will continue. Oh, sweet mystery of life" <<<

Could it be, Geoff, that they (the sceptics) do not WANT to figure things out for themselves rather than are unable to ?? Anyone WANTING to can surely figure things out much further ? I have tried to open up the subject for a more extensive (far reaching) discussion on this particular thread."
May, excellent point, and one I overlooked. If I were to make a list of reasons why "skeptics" continually make demands for proof and explanations, dismiss or trivialize controversial audio devices ("it is too small," "it disobeys the laws of science" or "it is the placebo effect in full bloom"), dismiss actual experience, shrug off new or unfamiliar concepts, dismiss listening tests while promoting DBTs as the only path to the truth, ridicule audiophiles while pretending to be audiophiles themselves and ferociously embrace the status quo, then I'd certainly include, "they don't want to figure things out for themselves."

I do not think it appropriate to accuse skeptics as not interested in figuring things out. One has to look at where the bases of these objections come from. For example, the reasons of this device's small size and does not obey scientific principles may be valid criticisms.

I have not seen or tried these devices. But from the discussions, I'd guess the size as in the ballpark of between 1 to 12 inches. If so, 12 inches is the wavelength of 1000 Hz frequency sound wave, and 1 inch is 12000 Hz. For it to affect bass, according to scientific principles, is a *very* small contribution than its effect on mids to treble frequencies. It is possible that the overtones of a bass signal may be affected and maybe that is what is audible. But the statement of these devices affecting bass frequencies is not entirely correct.

As for May: The above may illustrate a difference in thought. If the skeptics are asking for explanation of how the small devices affect bass frequencies, you can see the they're 'right' in asking. If the effect is on high overtones of the bass signal, and that is what people heard, then the listeners are also 'right', attributing to the effect on bass when the bass frequency may not be affected at all!

As for the reference to DBT as the final end-all, it's not, because it is one of many tools for evaluation. If a manufaturer makes extraordinary claims, one has to eliminate possible explanations, one of which is listener bias, which DBT is one way to do so. Just because one uses this valid test does not invalidate its use or speak to the motive of its proponents. It has its place, like many other techniques.

Because of the animosity in the threads related to this topic, real information is being lost. I don't recall who suggested this, but I agree with them - Let Ted have his 'day in court' and show what his devices do or do not do with evidence he has promised from a third party. I'm willing to look at that and then form some opinions, or more questions.

If it weren't for skeptics, we'd all still be worshipping Anu and thinking thunder happened because the gods were angry.

Substitute "Tiamat" for any of the myriad subjectivists' worlds of belief and their 'theories' would remain the same. They fear and loathe skepticism for a reason, it will expose them.

what does U2 have to do with this

"I do not think it appropriate to accuse skeptics as not interested in figuring things out."

Oh, please! Don't you know the difference between real skeptics (the ones you never see) and the "skeptics" I am referring to? You know, ones you actually run into on these threads, the ones who don't have the experience to back up their arguments, the ones don't have any interest in actually getting to the bottom of things but who do have an interest in constructing elaborate "arguments" in order to defend "scientific principles" or the conventional wisdom."

"One has to look at where the bases of these objections come from. For example, the reasons of this device's small size and does not obey scientific principles may be valid criticisms."

So, they're just too small - that's your objection?! Geez, here we go again. Very small audio devices never fail to upset the delicate sensibilities of "skeptics."

"I have not seen or tried these devices."

Hint: That admission doesn't exactly bolster your case. You might try Zen and the Art of Debunkery for some excellent ideas how to present your arguments more effectively.

"But from the discussions, I'd guess the size as in the ballpark of between 1 to 12 inches."

If you had seen them, you'd know that 12 inches is an extremely lousy guess.

Crop circles are cool. Does U2 really make crop circles?

Quote:
Crop circles are cool. Does U2 really make crop circles?

To not believe U2 makes crop circles would require skepticism.

May likes to quote Ivor: If you have not inspected a given crop circle personally, then you have no opinion on it.

"To not believe U2 makes crop circles would require skepticism.
May likes to quote Ivor: If you have not inspected a given crop circle personally, then you have no opinion on it."

While most crop circles are real, obviously, many skeptics are up in arms, proclaiming this one's a fake.

Quote:
"To not believe U2 makes crop circles would require skepticism.
May likes to quote Ivor: If you have not inspected a given crop circle personally, then you have no opinion on it."

While most crop circles are real, obviously, many skeptics are up in arms, proclaiming this one's a fake.

Of course most of them are real. CGI is expensive. Boards and rope are cheap. IMO they are highly under rated as the conceptual works of art they truly are. maybe they became to aesthetic in th end.

Quote:
>>>This is what I am meaning by my phrasing "interested in trying to figure things out further".
Your reply is staying solely in the area of acoustic effect (the SIZE of the devices under discussion) and various frequencies.
Supposing the 'listeners' are attributing the effect to be on the acoustics of the room when the acoustics of the room may not be affected at all ?? Supposing the 'listeners' are attributing the effect to be to do with specific frequencies when the frequencies may not be affected at all ?? Then what ?? Would you then conclude that, therefore, the devices are not working at all - in the face of so many people reporting 'hearing' them give improvements in the sound ?? Or, would you continue exploring, searching for other explanations ? THIS is what I mean by "many people are perfectly ABLE (intellectually) to figure things out further if they want to" and "some people are able to but don't WANT to" !!!

Lets take the case of Ted's products. If one were to really want to know why people are percieving a difference it would be simple. We have three distinct possibilities here. 1. They are having an audible affect on the room acoustics. 2. They are having an affect on listener bias.
3. something completely out of the ordinary.
since we know how to check for 1 and 2 and they are the two leading candidates it would make sense to eliminate those before moving on to mysterious cause and effect. JA has commissioned some tests that will tell us something about number 1. It would be pretty simple to do a test for bias to eliminate number 2. So if I were going to investigate that would be my approach.

Quote:
Let me choose two people as examples of what I mean. Not to 'pick on them' but because they have been quite vocal in their views and because they represent an attitude shared by so many people.

I don't mind you "picking on me" May but I do get a bit annoyed when you misrepresent my views despite having explained them to you numerous times. Given that you are grouping me with Ethan you are already off on the wrong foot. Ethan and I disagree on many things in audio.

Quote:

I think one of the basic problems is evidenced by both Scott's responses over many weeks of the different discussions taking place and by Ethan's responses.
When both are faced with hundreds (probably thousands worldwide - over these past 30 years) of reports of 'observations' of the effects - 'on the sound' - of various so called 'tweaks'- in Scott's case if he cannot understand what and why people are describing what they have experienced he resorts to arguing that, therefore, it MUST be because of 'bias' or he wants proof, proof and yet more proof for what they are describing.

May please don't tell lies to support your position. everything you just said about me is plainly not true and since that has been explained to you numerous times I can't just say oops you made a mistake. Please don't tell any more lies about me or my beliefs on audio.

Quote:
Why can't Scott just think, think and think some more to try to understand what other people are experiencing ?

Why can't May just tell the truth when trying to make a point? why must she resort to telling lies?