| Columns Retired Columns & Blogs |
| Loudspeakers Amplification Digital Sources | |
Analog Sources Accessories Featured | |
Music Columns Retired Columns | |
Show Reports | |
Features Latest News Community | |
Resources Subscriptions |
© 2024 StereophileAVTech Media Americas Inc., USA
All rights reserved
Did John A use the words "absorption of microwave radiation" ???
I seem to remember him saying :-
Whatever thoughts John A had/has on the subject, at least it would seem that far more thinking has gone into those thoughts than such as David L's comment "they (frequencies ?) are "beaming into our brains" !! OR the comment "Is it finally really time for the old aluminum foil hat experiment" in response !!
Regards,
May Belt,
P.W.B. Electronics.
Lots! Newton merely happened to observe how a sliver of glass divided visible light into colors. This led to extensive experimentation with prisms and optics. Observation is primary.
A clear definition of terms is often critical.
Sure.
If Synergistics is going to claim a physical explanation that changes the room and soundwaves themselves I would like to see the explanation.
On the other hand, if the appeal is to changing the listener let's be honest and decalre this is the case - and let's hear this explanation.
You are correct. He wrote "diffracting/reflecting," not absorbing.
Although this does not rely on the workings of say what we saw in the film Event Horizon, although interestingly the concept does rely on a similar gravitational-magnetic ring design.
Its more intresting subject is that if the EHT is viable then we get to understand exactly how many dimensions there really are, along with further mathematical models predicting accurately dark matter, etc.
Well I guess a different thread should be opened up on such fun if anyone wanted to carry on with this on a boring Friday
BTW we have a conclusion on the bowls anyway, nothing else to say until the tests are done, of course one can still discuss I guess the merits of marketing products that are closer to hypothesis than facts, as some seem to want to.
Elk you have too much energy to waste bud
Cheers
Orb
No question.
What really gets me in trouble is that I am an information and experience omnivore. I want to do everything!
If only I could learn to not need sleep.
Please be accurate, the REPORTED high speed direction changes.
Changes that never show up on radar or in videos that don't show camera movement.
Try this, into a clear blue sky, watch a bird flying. Turn your body a few degrees. WOW that bird changed directions fast.
Sorry, perception (using the word in the psychological sense, not in the Webster sense) is faulty. Perception is what you perceived, full stop. It can, may, and often has little or nothing to do with what actually happened. Reports of PERCEIVED results require objective verification, period.
And, where's the acoustic measurements for the bowels? This I gotta see.
And the big advances happen when the expect result DOES NOT HAPPEN.
But you'll never know that if there is never any measurement and/or test.
Dudes, what about all the UFO sightings from the days before humans invented flying machines?
UFO-people have been depicted telling the Maya their secrets....
Here's an ancient astronaut with his air supply prongs so he could breath on Earth...and he's holding his extraterestrial reptile pet, to boot...
Mayans may have even been allowed to fly these alein space ships in order to go spy on the Egyptians...
These visitors must have come from Sirius...
Alien astronauts have visited other cultures, as well....
There is simply no denying that our intelligent designers came here, made us, taught us, and as soon as we invented single wides, abandoned us...
...well....except for the ones who remain to watch over us disguised as domestic pets.
Anyway, in 2012, all thse mysteries will be explained on Mayan Judgement Day.
Many people think the origin of the halo in religious art is actually indicative of the breathing apparati that those characters had to wear in order to breathe our air...
Breathing globes....
Yessir, there is a longstanding connection between human culture and alien influence.
You are evil.
All this stuff can be explained rationally.
For example, those are not air supply prongs on this Mayan. They are pipe stems for his sacred bong.
And that is not an extra-terrrestrial reptile he is holding. That is a sacred temple guardian MonkeyDog wearing his ceremonial hat made of human hair, inferior human species.
You have never seen these because they are kept from the eyes of The Profane.
However, and regardless, all indeed will be revealed in 2012. Good thing you are my friends. Otherwise, in the coming Suppression, you and your kind will be either oppressed or exterminated.
Dude, it's morphic resonance.
The idea of alien visitation would not be so ubiquitous if it hadn't actually occurred.
You're just jealous 'cause they've never anal probed you, while the subjectivists get all the action.
That's what I said, you silly goose.
Be careful, here. Have you seen all the radar displays and all the videos? I thought not.
WOW, that's an excellent strawman argument since birds are much more maneuverable than aircraft. Have you ever seen a flock of birds zig zag to escape a predator? Do you happen to know the turning radius of an F-14 off the top of your head? Are you saying that UFOs are birds?
I perceive the web you weave.
You already saw 'em! (How soon they forget.)
J_J, JA said the measurements weren't real/accurate.
I wonder if JA will now get the boot for having pointed out the implausability of those purported measurements.
I think there should be a revolt and JA should be ostracized for pointing out that those measurements can't be real. Now THAT we've already seen!
Try to dig deeper into area 51, and chew through the google results. You will eventually stumble upon some downright shocking info. Lots of things are happening that people are not supposed to know about. Even your government refuses to know it's existance.
Area 51 not all that exciting.
I know people who have done work there, it's an odd place with lots of toxics.
Workers were bussed in in windowless busses that parked outside windowless buildings, and they had to go inside their own buidlings to work - not much cross pollenation. One lady I knew was a nuclear engineer and she said she didn't like it there because it was such a bother to try to get anything done as a group.
I know a firefighter who worked there and he said it was terrifying, because they often would not be told what the burning materials were they were trying to put out.
In a lawsuit by other workers, the US Supreme Court ruled that Area 51 was not required to inform people with toxics reactions what they were exposed to.
Two honestly scary things from there:
1) Had a family friend who was a buff for that sort of place (there are others.) He went out looking about, not crossing any fences and was found dead in the nearby desert, drag marks to his body, his camera (old days) open and the film pulled out, four bullet wounds to the head...and it was officially ruled a suicide. Which may be true if you consider the likely outcomes associated with crawling around places like Area 51 with a camera.
2) Another guy I knew was a freight handler truck driver for the place. He told me about this terrible rash he had gotten all over his body...and then I never saw him again. His phone line became innactive, his cell number didn't work, and his home in Pahrump was abandoned...
End of story.
Hahahahahahahahah!!!!!! Good one
Christ
UFO stories and wishful thinking is all that's being talked about now. I guess that does go along with Ted's magic bowls though 
To paraphrase a popular online saying, "Acoustic measurements or it didn't happen"
I was thinking more in the line of "Roy", an alledged alien they are keeping there, who is supposed to help them understand the way an UFO works.
Ah, yes.
Roy.
I've met him. He favors Hawaiian shirts. Says they are the epitome of fashion within the Universe.
Bordeaux over Burgundy, Hamachi over Ahi, analog over digital...
He also says two channel stereo is more than adequate to capture the power and emotion of music. He crashed here during the mono era and was the instigator of stereophonic sound, and disdains further multichannel. He says, "Even with six ears, I only need two channels."
He's into the "Five M's" as he likes to call them: Miles, Mozart, Mick, Morphine, and Morrison (Van.)
Turns out he knew humanity's intelligent designers, too!
Now that's a tale that the liberals are supressing!
Sorry to get so OT. The Astro-Inertial Navigation System for the SR-71 was developed by the Nortronics Division of Northrop Corporation. My father was the optics technician for the guidance systems of the Skybolt and Snark missiles and then the Blackbird. He would drive his little Rambler American and later VW west to Hawthorne, Ca. for 20 plus years and none of us ever knew what he did there until the work was declassified. He knew Chuck Yeager, would tell us stories about the X-15 and bring me aerospace models to assemble. Great time to be a kid in So-Cal.
That's pretty good. I used to work for the guy who rode in the second seat on the SR-71 that set the world speed record. Don't ask how fast it went.
Just a wussy ~2,200 mph.
The X-15 made it to ~4,500 mph (I know, air launched - different category.)
1960's technology for both.
And then there are the hypersonic craft that ride their own shockwave and other toys.
Must have really pissed off the Ruskies that there wasn't anything, plane or rocket, that could intercept it. For years we photographed everything we wanted to with impunity. Probably made Christmas cards out of some Soviet military "secret" installations and sent it to their state department. Oh, the fun you could have with a Blackbird.
Man, if only KBK were here.
When I lived in L.A. in 1992-ish, there was a span of several weeks where every Thursday morning, there was a small earthquake that my girlfriend and I would wake up to. (An actual small earthquake, not the Tori Amos kind.)
It even made the paper about what the Hell could be causing these temblors in such a punctual way.
A little while on, the military admitted they were caused by the Aurora airplane zooming overhead.
The news guy said 5,500 MPH, but I think he was just repeating what the Lone Gunmen were telling him.
I did a quick Google...
"Airquakes."
The August 29, 1992 issue of The Economist had a story on it.
I believe 2,070.101 mph
Given that the Blackbird was commissioned in teh '60's I have long suspected there are much more sophisticated craft out there.
OTOH, a lot is accomplished by satellite.
No doubt the Blackbird has been obsolete for a while, given the resolution of sat based cameras, but during the height of the cold war it was a trump card the Russians couldn't top. After the Gary Powers/U2 debacle, we needed an answer and the Blackbird delivered. The cold war (remember air raid drills and bomb shelters? We were always jealous of the people who had bomb shelters. LOL) was a permanaent fixture in our lives back then. We lived with a constant awareness we might have to endure a nuclear attack. Maybe that's why we had so much fun. The Frisbee, the Hula Hoop, the Slinky- c'mon, it doesn't get much better than that!
One of the more amazing sights in aviation was seeing the SR-71 pouring jet fuel out of its airframe before takeoff (I've only seen pictures). The fuselage was not completely sealed to allow heat expansion at high frictional operating speeds, where surfaces would properly align (tighter assembly would cause buckling at flight temps). So it would take off leaking, get warmed up and be refueled in the air before mission flight. This is just crazy ingenuity of the Yankee kind.
I suspect it went just fast enough to set a record everyone was comfortable with.
I never actually left, just got bored and drifted away. Also the laff value was low, apart from the always light-hearted Geoff Kait. Information value was low too, that segment being represented here by JA and May. (Hey, that rhymes!)
As for the personalities, we still have Harumphs like buddha and David L, albeit no Ethan Winer thank God. And Instructors like jj, although when sufficiently challenged he rolls into a ball and cries, "Oooohhhh. Realllyyy. ALEEENS?... Oh, yeah, and how about them Crop Circles!???" One is also blessed with Interminables like Jan, who, although I largely agree with him, does carry on until mine eyes glaze over. Sorry man, had to say it.
So: Anyway:
I heard Frank Tchang's demo several years ago at CES. The presenter was Brent Rhiel and when I walked into the room he said, "Clark, great timing. I'm about to show something that's right up your alley." It was a With/Without/With demonstration (the devices were already in place) and I was blind to the extent that he refused to tell me what was happening. Not only that, but when he removed them he made it look like he was fiddling with wires behind the racks. I had to admit that I heard an effect and the effect was good. Then he showed me what I had just heard. Damn! NOOOO! Say it ain't so!
Later I heard of Ted Denney's ART and dismissed it as a Tchang rip-off so never bothered to check it out. Afterwards I was disabused of my prejudice and did take a listen to Ted's demo this year at CES. And you know what? It happened again. NOOOO!
Ted kindly offered me am in-home trial but as my system is currently not very well established I took a raincheck. Now it seems I have to get it together and functioning well enough for a trial.
Finally, I think the crap that's been piled on Ted here is scandalous. Granted he's a clever salesman, but the quality of the product has always been his driver.
(Or what the demanders usually characterize as "science")... Why the need for pat explanations? Perhaps it's psychological? Perhaps it's other-directedness? I can't say, but that need has often served as a distraction from discovery.
One example: When Edison first observed thermionic emission in a vacuum tube (the "Edison effect" he later called it) he couldn't think of a reason why it was happening so abandoned that line of research. This led to one of the saddest remarks in all of science and engineering. The inventor of the phonograph and the movie camera said, "To think, I might have had radio too!"
Welcome back!
Cool that you heard the demo. What did you experience?
As far as explanations, Synergistics' site and Mr. Denny claim measurable differences to actual room acoustics - no appeal to the supernatural.
Thus, a number of us would really like to see a conventional explanation.
However, if Mr. Denny now asserts an unconventional explanation I'm sure I am not the only one that would like to learn what this is.
Do you know or have a hypothesis?
Elk,
I admire your polite tenacity on this subject
BTW, are you "outstanding in your field" as well as "out standing in your field" ?
Thanks.
A friend told me that my favorite question is "how?" (Hers is "why?")
I hope Clark describes in detail what he heard.
Is the change akin to adding well-placed acoustic treatment or is it different from this? Is it comparable to other $3,000.00 improvements? (whether this be a component upgrade, room treatment, etc.).
I may be misreading this, but there appears to be a tendency to claim both 1) these devices have conventional effects which can be measured and, 2) they are unconventional and their effects are entirely different and measurements are irrelevant.
Which one is it? Is it both? If so, how?
If they simply work and no one has an explanation why not simply so state?
I really appreciate people like May. She doesn't play both sides, is clear in her position and unapologetic for her beliefs, and yet non-defensive.
Nope. Only field occupying.
Maybe ELK's standing out everywhere he goes. Some people are like that
Elk, I know exactly WHY a friend told you that your favorite question is "how?" (Smiley face) !!
Why would you want to introduce the specific word 'supernatural' (with all it's connotations) into a supposedly sensible discussion ? If something is not conventional, why couldn't it just be unconventional ? Why does it suddenly have to jump to being 'supernatural' ?
Such as acupuncture may be observed to ease some people's pain when all other traditional attempts have failed. It might not come within 'conventional' Western medicine but that does not make it 'supernatural' - it just means that it is an 'unconventional' technique !!!!!!!!!!
No one, to my knowledge, has suggested that Ted D might now be asserting an unconventional explanation !! Just because Ted D has come to one conclusion regarding how the ART devices must be working, does not prevent any of us 'thinking' - which, I assert again, John A was actually doing !!
Is it really that one after another after another 'Forum poster' are using different tactics (including ridicule and attack) just to avoid having to 'think' things out for themselves ? Just as Jan Vigne was wont to point out - yes, albeit repeatedly ? Maybe he was just repeatedly doing that because others were repeatedly using the 'ridicule and attack' avoidance method !!
As, it appears, Michigan J Frog was doing in response to Ethan's constant 'ridicule and attack' !!
Elk, I see you are asking for yet another person (i e Clark Johnson) to describe what they have heard. You already have John Atkinson's,
AND,
Jason Victor Serinus :-
>>> "The intriguing bit was the placing in and removal from the room of various Acoustic Art treatments from Synergistic Research. A small voice in one ear warned me that this way lay madness, because BOTH ears were making it quite clear that these little steel cups placed in strategic locations were indeed affecting the sound." <<<
AND,
Paul Messenger's :-
>>> "The intriguing bit was the placing in and removal from the room of various Acoustic Art treatments from Synergistic Research. A small voice in one ear warned me that this way lay madness, because BOTH ears were making it quite clear that these little steel cups placed in strategic locations were indeed affecting the sound." <<<
(to name but three in Stereophile) saying how they could hear improvements with the ART devices in the room.
AND,
You already have the reviewers on 6 moons site describing what they experienced with the Frank Tchang's devices.
AND, you already have such as Jeff Day describing his experiences with the Schumann Resonance device :-
>>> ""It's ability to make everything more natural, smoother and more musically lifelike was a big hit with everyone that heard it........ sensation of space opened up in the recording acoustic, notes decayed in a much more natural fashion, and the edge, grit and glare I heard became more tolerable and less offensive........ The sonic artifacts of the recording process (such as soundspace, soundstaging, imaging, detail recovery, and so forth) all had a dollop of naturalness applied to them so that they enhanced the musical content of recordings (like timbre, beat, meter, tempo, tonality and harmony) so that the Hi-Fi musical experience. If anything, a listening session becomes energizing and edifying, and when a long nocturnal listening session was over I felt refreshed." <<<
How many MORE of 'other people's experiences' do you actually require before you can begin to ask YOURSELF "What is going on ?" Before you can begin to ask yourself "HOW ?"
Regards,
May Belt,
P.W.B. Electronics.
Polite tenacity is to be applauded, yes, tomjtx - but for how long exactly ?????????????
Will there come a time when it becomes exasperating - also applicable is constant demands for measurement proof ?
When does the time come for 'thinking for oneself' ?
Regards,
May Belt,
P.W.B. Electronics.
I didn't mean to imply anything pejorative, but you are right, unconventional is a better term.
Jan Vigne claimed that Mr. Denny was turning to a such an explanation, but when asked refused to provide what this assertion was based on.
Agreed.
However the Synergistics site describes a development process based upon specific scientific research, such as expanding the use of Helmholz resonators.
If the devices are based upon, and an extension of, conventional known science then there is a conventional explanation. If this is the case there is no need to turn to an unconventional explanation.
However this does not preclude that possibility that additional effects are in play.
Ridicule of an individual is never appropriate, nor is insulting their intelligence.
Jan claimed he came up with a theory of operation by studying and giving the issue considerable thought. However, he refused to disclose this "theory," instead insisting that the reader "think."
It unfortunately turned out that Jan possessed no original thoughts on the subject. The exhortation to "think" was merely a way to prevent disclosing that Jan's only thought on the subject was to plagiarize Mr. Atkinson's hypothesis.
Many useless posts could easily have been avoided if Jan simply and clearly disclosed that all did was to accept Mr. Atkinson's hypothesis.
I really enjoy learning of the anecdotal experiences of others. He may be able to describe what he heard differently than others that provides us with more insight.
I'm not asking for more "proof." I fully accept that people have experienced what they describe. The questions remain however, how and why?
I started asking myself this and other questions once I learned of the Acoustic ART products. They look neat. They are offered by a reputable company. The company claims they are an alternative to conventional room treatments. A number of people state they improve reproduced sound.
What exactly is going on? Is it an extension of conventional science, a new discovery, listener bias, what?
Can the effects be measured? Can they be described empirically in any fashion?
How could one not be intrigued?
I can only speak for myself, but my request for measurement proof is based on Mr. Denny's assertion that the improvements are measurable and the offering of precisely such proof.
It turned out however that the measurements were flawed. Mr. Denny disclosed this, much to his credit.
Additionally, there has been discussion of building a dedicated "testing room" to provide a repeatable baseline against which the Acoustic ART products would be measured.
In summary, there is an assertion that the effects can be measured and a promise of such measurements. Thus many of us would love to see them!
Until the person who made the claims comes up with the testable, verifiable, confirmable measurements.
That's how long it's called for, and there is nothing of that sort even near the table as far as I can tell at the present.
This is no win, J_J.
Geoff tried to post meaurements for even smaller bowls and got shot down.
Measurements won't satisfy, either.
Classic tweak stand off....
No measurement, then you can't hear it...or you can hear it - because science has yet to advance to the level of this tweak!
Yes measurements, then too small a difference to hear or not measured right.
People who can hear them...either placebo/expectation bias self-delusion or 'enlightened' listeners.
People who can't hear 'em...insensitive louts, or 'accurate.'
Oh, well.
You could have just said "arguments about myth and religion never come to any good end".
Post deleted by Stephen Mejias
Post deleted by Stephen Mejias
Post deleted by Stephen Mejias
Post deleted by Stephen Mejias
Post deleted by Stephen Mejias
Post deleted by Stephen Mejias
This is not true.
This also is not true.
This is only half true. I came by my hypothesis (my "concept of operation") through thinking, reading, conversation and discussion which was then followed by empirical research and more thinking.
What have you done?
I have disclosed my thoughts on this topic several times on this forum.
Therefore, what you say is not true.
That you still do not understand the difference between "hypothesis" and "theory" is something you should once again take up with JA since he has already tried to explain that difference to you.
Once again, only half true - at best.
I suggested you "read" and then "think" though the order of events could be reversed and ultimately is best served when repeated. I also suggested you audition the devices for yourself to establish empirical evidence. It would seem as though all of my suggestions have been ignored and yet you demand more.
Also not true.
Plagiarize? How would that be possible? I made it known I had given this some thought and had performed some experiments long before JA entered the thread.
That's a serious accusation, Elk. One you cannot backup.
My thoughts on this topic are available for anyone who cares to read and think. It's your choice to do one, both or neither, so stop blaming me.
Many useless posts could easily have been avoided if Elk had simply and clearly read my entire posts and then proceeded to think about what I have posted on numerous occasions.
Elk, you'll never change.
Too wordy for you, Mr. Johnsen?
Don't go changing, to try and please me,
You never let me down before,
Don't imagine, you're too familiar,
And I don't see you anymore.
I need to know that you will always be
The same old someone that I knew,
What will it take till you believe in me,
The way that I believe in you?
I don't want clever, conversation,
I never want to work that hard,
I just want someone, that I can talk to,
I want you just the way you are.
Sorry, I earlier 'cut and pasted' Paul Messenger's description and attributed it to Jason Victor Serinus as well, by mistake. Here is Jason's actual description :-
Regards,
May Belt,
P.W.B. Electronics.
I have no clue as to what this is all about. Should I count myself among the lucky ones?
It would appear that Ted D claims (1).
I, personally, would suggest (2) but without YOUR addition at the end, Elk, of saying that measurements are irrelevant. I know enough about science to know that measurements CAN be significant and dependable. The questions are, when applied to different circumstances, WHAT measurements would be meaningful. WHAT exactly to measure. HOW to measure. IF any measurements could, actually, be taken !! And that whilst we are waiting, trying to figure out what measurements might be both possible and relevant, we can still be 'thinking' and experimenting !!!!!!!!!!!! Instead of dismissing !!!
Regards,
May Belt,
P.W.B. Electronics.
Pages