Geoff, please stop the "troll," "strawman," and "skeptic" bullshit until you own a Hi Fi and can honestly participate.

When you resort to your lowest common denominator terms, we all know you are in your defensive bullshit zone.

It's stale.

Hope that helps.

Oh, for more help....check out the Entry Level Forum here and get started on the actual hobby.

Poseur time is over. Get to it.

Quote:
Geoff, please stop the "troll," "strawman," and "skeptic" bullshit until you own a Hi Fi and can honestly participate.

When you resort to your lowest common denominator terms, we all know you are in your defensive bullshit zone.

It's stale.

Hope that helps.

Oh, for more help....check out the Entry Level Forum here and get started on the actual hobby.

Poseur time is over. Get to it.

Good grief, pretending to be a serious audiophile again, eh, Mr. Disingenuous? You don't even know what a strawman is, do you? An excellent example for the troops of one handwringing anti-tweak griefer defending another.

My condolences to your liver, as always.

As I said, go get a Hi Fi....your homework probably isn't due until Monday.

I'm not anti-tweak....I'm "anti-geoffie's bullshit," there is a huge difference!

You have about four tricks in your bag and that's it.

Same as it ever was.

B-O-R-I-N-G.

geoffie, you are a non-Hi Fi owning huckster....people recognizing that aren't necessarily more serious as audiophiles than you (well, they are, by definition, since you aren't one, but...) they just see through your barcode-coloring-bullshit that's either a psych problem or cult belief.

Which are you, a shameless fraud, or an formerly honest pie eyed crazy cultist?

Have a good weekend, geoffie, I hope your mom doesn't limit your computer time.

Wow, I didn't know Geoff was still living with his old folks

Quote:
As I said, go get a Hi Fi....your homework probably isn't due until Monday.

I'm not anti-tweak....I'm "anti-geoffie's bullshit," there is a huge difference!

You have about four tricks in your bag and that's it.

Same as it ever was.

B-O-R-I-N-G.

geoffie, you are a non-Hi Fi owning huckster....people recognizing that aren't necessarily more serious as audiophiles than you (well, they are, by definition, since you aren't one, but...) they just see through your barcode-coloring-bullshit that's either a psych problem or cult belief.

Which are you, a shameless fraud, or an formerly honest pie eyed crazy cultist?

Have a good weekend, geoffie, I hope your mom doesn't limit your computer time.

I cannot help but be impressed by the depth of your hand-wringing and general spirit of malaise. You remain one of my favorite dufus windbags, nevertheless. Physician, heal thyself!

Quote:
Wow, I didn't know Geoff was still living with his old folks

Hopefully, he is saving up for a Hi Fi!

Maybe at least a "Clever Clock Radio."

Quote:
You've crafted a well-constructed strawman argument, nothing more than a foregone conclusion based on your assumptions that (1) The effect is small, (2) Our hearing is limited and (3) Most people have difficulties with acoustic measurements. You've apparently psyched yourself out. "It's all too difficult!" Sob...

"Never up, never in." ~ old audiophile expression

Perhaps you should neither make claims you do not understand, nor lie about the statements I've made.

Quote:

Quote:
You've crafted a well-constructed strawman argument, nothing more than a foregone conclusion based on your assumptions that (1) The effect is small, (2) Our hearing is limited and (3) Most people have difficulties with acoustic measurements. You've apparently psyched yourself out. "It's all too difficult!" Sob...

"Never up, never in." ~ old audiophile expression

Perhaps you should neither make claims you do not understand, nor lie about the statements I've made.

I'm shocked you would say such a thing. Really, really shocked.

Quote:

Quote:
You've crafted a well-constructed strawman argument, nothing more than a foregone conclusion based on your assumptions that (1) The effect is small, (2) Our hearing is limited and (3) Most people have difficulties with acoustic measurements. You've apparently psyched yourself out. "It's all too difficult!" Sob...

"Never up, never in." ~ old audiophile expression

Perhaps you should neither make claims you do not understand, nor lie about the statements I've made.

J_J,

Geoffie has been found out. He doesn't even have a Hi Fi...he's pure griefer.

I used to think he has some undergrad psych project going, but his "bar code" cult beliefs and total paucity of content outside his autistic range of affect have ruled that out.

Interesting that he is tolerated by any boards that are about a hobby he doesn't actually participate in.

He's also quite grandiose in his thoughts about his significance to others. He reminds me of the joke about the mouse trying to rape and elephant: as he thinks he's fucking the elephant, the elephant steps on a thorn and says, "Ouch!" Geoffie the mouse hears this and says, "Take it, bitch."

Geoffie is a gnat, J_J.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
You've crafted a well-constructed strawman argument, nothing more than a foregone conclusion based on your assumptions that (1) The effect is small, (2) Our hearing is limited and (3) Most people have difficulties with acoustic measurements. You've apparently psyched yourself out. "It's all too difficult!" Sob...

"Never up, never in." ~ old audiophile expression

Perhaps you should neither make claims you do not understand, nor lie about the statements I've made.

J_J,

Geoffie has been found out. He doesn't even have a Hi Fi...he's pure griefer.

I used to think he has some undergrad psych project going, but his "bar code" cult beliefs and total paucity of content outside his autistic range of affect have ruled that out.

Interesting that he is tolerated by any boards that are about a hobby he doesn't actually participate in.

He's also quite grandiose in his thoughts about his significance to others. He reminds me of the joke about the mouse trying to rape and elephant: as he thinks he's fucking the elephant, the elephant steps on a thorn and says, "Ouch!" Geoffie the mouse hears this and says, "Take it, bitch."

Geoffie is a gnat, J_J.

Got Dulcolax? I reckon you need a whole boxfull.

LOL!

I forgot the "picture retreat" you do as one of your "tools."

I didn't give you enough credit!

Tell mom that for Christmas, you'd like a Hi Fi.....without bar codes on it.

You guys are a blast

Quote:
You guys are a blast

Thanks, we'll be here all week.

Try the veal.

Quote:

Yes, there are other posters, including Ted Denney himself, and EricArjes, who are convinced the bowls have an acoustic effect, but they are not me and I am not them.

UPDATE!!!!! Ted Denney says at the following link.....

http://blog.stereophile.com/ces2009/the_art_of_tuning/

Posted Fri Sep24, 2010, 7:42 PM

Just registering my disappointment that Stereophile is not going ahead with the test/review.

Quote:
Just registering my disappointment that Stereophile is not going ahead with the test/review.

Well Andy it seems JA thought it would be WAY too complicated to make measurements and besides he just wasn't "interested" he said
Hmmm here's what someone else posted about them on another website.....

http://theartofsound.net/forum/showthread.php?p=155089

"An genuine enquiring mind would set about this with a full RTA sweep of the room before application of these devices, followed by a full sweep after they have been 'placed' and a comparsion made of the resulting plots.

I did get involved in with a client who had imported these units from the US, small basement room, low ceiling height, lots of stray upper frequency dispursial modes (verity audio speakers), the chap insisted on using these tuning cups and wooden blocks, upshot 5 hours of faffing around did provide some improvement.

However, 45 mins spent correctly positioning the speakers give more satisifing results, cost your time.

Final issues were resovoled with a couple of deffuser panels on the side wall, and a absorbtion panel behind the listening position, cost was less that the tuning cups, which he resold on audiogon."

Well it seems measurements are possible after all. what do you know
Oh well, at least the owner sold them and used a proven method for acoustic treatment

Quote:

Quote:
Just registering my disappointment that Stereophile is not going ahead with the test/review.

Well Andy it seems JA thought it would be WAY too complicated to make measurements and besides he just wasn't "interested" he said
Hmmm here's what someone else posted about them on another website.....

http://theartofsound.net/forum/showthread.php?p=155089

"An genuine enquiring mind would set about this with a full RTA sweep of the room before application of these devices, followed by a full sweep after they have been 'placed' and a comparsion made of the resulting plots.

I did get involved in with a client who had imported these units from the US, small basement room, low ceiling height, lots of stray upper frequency dispursial modes (verity audio speakers), the chap insisted on using these tuning cups and wooden blocks, upshot 5 hours of faffing around did provide some improvement.

However, 45 mins spent correctly positioning the speakers give more satisifing results, cost your time.

Final issues were resovoled with a couple of deffuser panels on the side wall, and a absorbtion panel behind the listening position, cost was less that the tuning cups, which he resold on audiogon."

Well it seems measurements are possible after all. what do you know
Oh well, at least the owner sold them and used a proven method for acoustic treatment

Not so fast. The test approach suggested by the poster was only that, a suggestion. It's not as if any test was actually perfomed. As far as we know, a "full RTA sweep of the room" might not reveal anything. Noone is exactly sure just how the things actually work. As JA pointed out, the bowls operate at microwave frequencies (in addition to acoustic frequencies).

Regarding the poster's client's unexceptional experience with the bowls, there's an old audio axion:

For any audio device, you don't have to look too far to find someone who doesn't get very good results. And if you look a little farther you're bound to find someone who reports it made the sound worse.

Quote:

As JA pointed out, the bowls operate at microwave frequencies (in addition to acoustic frequencies).

Boy, let's see if JA really said that....methinks geoffie remains FOS.

> Well Andy it seems JA thought it would be WAY too complicated to make measurements and
> besides he just wasn't "interested" he said

Not sure that is quite what he said but it is now clear that the proposed measurements are not going to happen.

If the market/interest for devices like this continues to grow then he will have to decide at some point how Stereophile is going to view/handle/approach them. Perhaps like cables. Perhaps like teleportation tweaks. It would have been interesting to find out. The replies in the various threads here indicate that a number of audiophiles are prepared to accept they work but a number that believe in established audiophile products like cables are clearly doubtful. The topic is clearly of interest to audiophiles but how best to handle it? Take a lead or keep a distance?

Quote:

Quote:

As JA pointed out, the bowls operate at microwave frequencies (in addition to acoustic frequencies).

Boy, let's see if JA really said that....methinks geoffie remains FOS.

It's OK to say you don't know or don't remember what JA said. We'd understand. But I totally get your Pavlovian need to stalk me.

Quote:
> Well Andy it seems JA thought it would be WAY too complicated to make measurements and
> besides he just wasn't "interested" he said

Not sure that is quite what he said but it is now clear that the proposed measurements are not going to happen.

If the market/interest for devices like this continues to grow then he will have to decide at some point how Stereophile is going to view/handle/approach them. Perhaps like cables. Perhaps like teleportation tweaks. It would have been interesting to find out. The replies in the various threads here indicate that a number of audiophiles are prepared to accept they work but a number that believe in established audiophile products like cables are clearly doubtful. The topic is clearly of interest to audiophiles but how best to handle it? Take a lead or keep a distance?

It should be pointed out the first "tiny bowls" devices, Tchang's Acoustic Resonators, were introduced about 10 years ago, so the resonating bowl idea is hardly new. In gereral terms, any paradigm shift away from the ubiquitously held concepts that the primary, or only, consideration in home audio reproduction is the "knowledgeable, informed" selection of electronics and speakers and that advances in audio reproduction are strictly a function of "well-established scientific principles" has not gotten a lot of traction in the audio mainstream. In fact, there seems to be a considerable backlash. Nevertheless, there has been a proliferation of new audio tweaks and devices in the last 10 or 15 years, many of which have been reviewed by Stereophile and other magazines. Now, whether the magazines always viewed those devices as "fringe tweaks" is difficult to say, but the number of reviews of controversial tweaks does seem to be slacking off. My guess is there's a certain amount of, um, fear of reprisals. Perhaps that's an indication that the prevailing preference is that fringe devices just quietly go away.

Several years ago Dr. Bill Gaw expressed it this way. Oddly, the gunshy Dr. Gaw was obviously unaware that the chip was not my product, but I reckon that's a story for another time...

"Several months ago, in AA Chapter 67, Machina Dynamica's GSIC chip was reviewed, which gave this writer more abusive letters than any other product. While there is absolutely no known scientific reason for its ability to improve the sound coming from CD's, everyone who has heard the effect on my system and then theirs, have become believers."

> Nevertheless, there has been a proliferation of new audio tweaks and devices in the last 10 or 15
> years, many of which have been reviewed by Stereophile and other magazines.

Being in the trade, you would know better than me but I think it depends what is meant by new audiophile tweaks. Also, Stereophile is at the "establishment" end of the spectrum of audiophile magazines and so can be expected to take a somewhat conservative approach to the subject unlike startup web publications.

> Now, whether the magazines always viewed those devices as "fringe tweaks" is difficult to say, but the
> number of reviews of controversial tweaks does seem to be slacking off. My guess is there's a certain
> amount of, um, fear of reprisals. Perhaps that's an indication that the prevailing preference is that
> fringe devices just quietly go away.

Not sure quite what you mean by reprisals. I suspect a bit of controversy is likely to be healthy but what is likely to be unhealthy is taking a step too far in promoting the latest audiophile tweak before the bulk of the Stereophile readership is prepared to follow. Another factor may be a wish to attract the expensive end of computer audio folk the majority of whom are going to be put off by promotion of the more extreme audiophile tweaks.

Quote:

Not so fast. The test approach suggested by the poster was only that, a suggestion. It's not as if any test was actually perfomed. As far as we know, a "full RTA sweep of the room" might not reveal anything. Noone is exactly sure just how the things actually work. As JA pointed out, the bowls operate at microwave frequencies (in addition to acoustic frequencies).

Regarding the poster's client's unexceptional experience with the bowls, there's an old audio axion:

For any audio device, you don't have to look too far to find someone who doesn't get very good results. And if you look a little farther you're bound to find someone who reports it made the sound worse.

Yeah right , if the full RTA sweep reveals nothing then it HAS to be "something else" going on Looks like you're back to the "we can hear what can't be measured" BS camp. Oh I know how they "work"......it's magic JA postulated that MAYBE the bowls affect microwave frequencies which was a bogus ridiculous thing since how could that make an acoustic difference? Anyways he went on and on in several posts so I presumed he was interested in getting the silly things tested only to bail out on us citing the mystery engineer being a wuss.
The poster I quoted spent 5 HOURS trying to get the things to perform and gave up resorting to proven acoustic treatments and careful positioning of the speakers themselves. I'm sure he saved a LOT of money doing so and sold the silly bowls to get his money back.
I'm just wondering if Stereophile avoids the Synergistic Research room this go around at RMAF because if they don't and post some gushing "review" about those bowls you can bet myself and others will be asking (JA doesn't like the word "demand" )that they do actual tests or to just stop talking about the damn things.

Quote:
> Nevertheless, there has been a proliferation of new audio tweaks and devices in the last 10 or 15
> years, many of which have been reviewed by Stereophile and other magazines.

Being in the trade, you would know better than me but I think it depends what is meant by new audiophile tweaks. Also, Stereophile is at the "establishment" end of the spectrum of audiophile magazines and so can be expected to take a somewhat conservative approach to the subject unlike startup web publications.

Well, you're correct, I think, it does depend on what is meant by "new audiophile tweaks" or "controversial tweaks" or "fringe tweaks." It would certainly make sense for more conservative folks and magazines to take a wait and see approach to anything new on the horizon. One certainly wouldn;t want to be too foolhardy and jump right in. Ha ha.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>I have a good idea what's meant by controversial or fringe, but there could be a variety of opinions. The Intelligent Chip IMO falls in the controversial/fringe tweak camp, judging from peoples reaction. Vibration isolation used to be a little controversial, once upon a time. Schumann Frequency generators, ionizers and demagetizers are also examples of controversial tweaks, you know, judging by the controversy. You know, things that go bump in the night.

> Now, whether the magazines always viewed those devices as "fringe tweaks" is difficult to say, but the
> number of reviews of controversial tweaks does seem to be slacking off. My guess is there's a certain
> amount of, um, fear of reprisals. Perhaps that's an indication that the prevailing preference is that
> fringe devices just quietly go away.

Not sure quite what you mean by reprisals. I suspect a bit of controversy is likely to be healthy but what is likely to be unhealthy is taking a step too far in promoting the latest audiophile tweak before the bulk of the Stereophile readership is prepared to follow. Another factor may be a wish to attract the expensive end of computer audio folk the majority of whom are going to be put off by promotion of the more extreme audiophile tweaks.

>>>>>>>>You've been over on AA, you've seen some of the debates. You tell me, why do these controversial tweaks dredge up so much emotion and angst? A gave the example of the chip reviewer who rec'd a lot of angry email, that's what I meant by reprisal. And there's the invitation to the Million Dollar Challenge, that seems to get peoples' attention.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

As JA pointed out, the bowls operate at microwave frequencies (in addition to acoustic frequencies).

Boy, let's see if JA really said that....methinks geoffie remains FOS.

It's OK to say you don't know or don't remember what JA said. We'd understand. But I totally get your Pavlovian need to stalk me.

Good one!

Now pointing out you lying about JA's comments is "stalking."

I'd say you haunting a Hi FI site when you have no Hi Fi ranks you below "little sister" to the hobby.

Maybe you can be geoffie wannabe.

Quote:

You've been over on AA, you've seen some of the debates. You tell me, why do these controversial tweaks dredge up so much emotion and angst? A gave the example of the chip reviewer who rec'd a lot of angry email, that's what I meant by reprisal. And there's the invitation to the Million Dollar Challenge, that seems to get peoples' attention.

Angry email is part of the "no publicity is bad publicity" part of journalism. No biggie.

Regarding AA discussion...

I know several people who have now obtained the laser light tweak and have reported back the joy they derive from it.

I have received only encouraging email regarding the Supersymmetric Superstring Tweak (SST), as well. Strickingly, one from someone who has been banned there for so vehemently being anti-tweak!

I guess tweaks that actually do something have a leg up on yours, so I don't mean to directly compare our experiences or recommended devices.

If you care to come by our demo at T.H.E. you would be welcome to demo a tweak, and we will try inviting Ted, as well.

Contrary to what David_L says, I think a live demo is a pretty good technique - I don't know why David_L would criticize Ted for doing that! As geoffie may recall, we did that with two Clever Clocks that nobody, even the owner, could identify any effect from - wouldn't that satisfy David_L? A live demo is risky, yes, but for products that do something, less of a risk than for those that don't.

When we did the interconnect comparisons, the differences remained easily audible when we'd switch to using 30 year old Technics, Sansui, and Yamaha receivers!

That made for great discussion and data collection. No acrimony, either.

For the negativity we'd have to depend on geoffie to keep that sort of vibe alive.

The problem I have with Ted's live demo is that he's the one controlling every component in the room. It's his amp, preamp, signal source or any other component you care to name seen or unseen. It's like hiring the fox to guard the hen house. The chance to "accidently" switch things each time the bowls are present or absent is VERY easy. Not that I would accuse Ted of doing that of course.I'm just explaining how demos done by the product manufacturer are not a great idea but then again certain reviewers refuse to make any tests so Ted is free to demo all he wants using whatever technique he wishes.

Andy, don't let Buddha scare you off. He's been following me around from forum to forum for quite some time. He's actually quite harmless, although his bombastic, snarky, smirking attitude can fool you into thinking he knows something. An accomplished liar and griefer, he's an excellent example, unfortunately, of the sort of thing one can expect on audio forums these days if one were to come out in favor of some controversial idea or another. Think of him as our own Mr. Bluster.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
Just registering my disappointment that Stereophile is not going ahead with the test/review.

it seems JA thought it would be WAY too complicated to make measurements . . .

As usual, David L. is incorrectly paraphrasing what I wrote. What I actually said was "Measuring the effect, if any, of the bowls is never going to be straightforward. You are looking for a very small change that to a microphone that is not hooked up to a brain, might well be be obscured by the usual measurement artefacts. That is why both the engineer and I felt that the starting point should be a bare room that could be completely characterized, acoustically. Otherwise, we could well up chasing ghosts."

Quote:

Quote:
and besides he just wasn't "interested" he said

Again that is not what I wrote on August 22. Discussing why the engineer backed out of the project, concerned that the reaction to the project, regardless of the outcome, would be damaging to their professional reputation, I actually wrote "To put it simply, David: first you poison the well; then you complain when others decide not to drink the water. You have given every sign of refusing to adjust your position when faced with contrary evidence. So why should anyone go to what would be a great deal of effort to try to convince you? . . . So am I going to do all that work, and cease reviewing regular components for while, just to satisfy your curiosity? Not really."

Quote:

Quote:
here's what someone else posted about them on another website.....

http://theartofsound.net/forum/showthread.php?p=155089

"An genuine enquiring mind would set about this with a full RTA sweep of the room before application of these devices, followed by a full sweep after they have been 'placed' and a comparsion made of the resulting plots.

This illustrates what I also said to David L. a while back: that to the inexperienced, things always appear simple. A "full RTA sweep"? How do you do that so that the inconsistency in the blunt-force measurement technique doesn't obscure the effect, if any, of the bowls?

Quote:

Quote:
"the chap insisted on using these tuning cups and wooden blocks, upshot 5 hours of faffing around did provide some improvement." . . . Well it seems measurements are possible after all.

This doesn't look like the poster measured the effect of the bowls and blocks, only commented on how all the "faffing around" with them did produce an improved sound.

Quote:
Not so fast. The test approach suggested by the poster was only that, a suggestion. It's not as if any test was actually perfomed.

Exactly.

Quote:
As JA pointed out, the bowls operate at microwave frequencies (in addition to acoustic frequencies).

That isn't what I wrote. I hypothesized that since the diameter of the bowls was similar to the wavelength of microwave radiation, perhaps they were having an effect on the "bath" of microwave radiation in which we are now all immersed. But as far as I know, there is no experimental evidence of them having such an effect. That's why I used the word "hypothesis."

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

> You've been over on AA, you've seen some of the debates. You tell me, why do these controversial
> tweaks dredge up so much emotion and angst? A gave the example of the chip reviewer who rec'd a lot of
> angry email, that's what I meant by reprisal. And there's the invitation to the Million Dollar
> Challenge, that seems to get peoples' attention.

Some emote because you will not be persuaded by their arguments to admit that you are separating silly rich people from some of their money for cheap doodads. Others emote because they feel part of an audiophile community and don't want people that separate silly rich people from some of their money for cheap doodads to be part of it. Etc... Like JA with David L, you have a PR job to do in defending your interests from the opposition like Buddha. I can only suggest trying to enjoy it.

JA why are you even in this discussion? You made it clear that you wouldn't be testing these bowls citing both no time to do so and an unwillingness to even try, yet you always find time to talk about them? You criticize anyone else attempts at saying how to make tests yet you fail to do any. I think your record of FAIL speaks for itself. The so called engineer that FAILED to do the tests sounds like he really is just looking for an out. You cite having to have a bare room yet others that claim the bowls do wonders in their own non empty rooms have NO problem hearing the miraculous changes in acoustics

Stop making excuses and TRY to make measurements or just don't enter these discussions please, it just makes you look sillier

See? JA thinks it's all my fault why the test engineer backed out LMAO. Wow I best watch what I say from now on or the future of science and technology will come to a stand still

Quote:
JA why are you even in this discussion?

Because I object to people attributing things to me that I didn't actually say. You seem fascinated by the Synergistic bowls - turn up at the RMAF next week and listen to their effect for yourself.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Quote:
> You've been over on AA, you've seen some of the debates. You tell me, why do these controversial
> tweaks dredge up so much emotion and angst? A gave the example of the chip reviewer who rec'd a lot of
> angry email, that's what I meant by reprisal. And there's the invitation to the Million Dollar
> Challenge, that seems to get peoples' attention.

Some emote because you will not be persuaded by their arguments to admit that you are separating silly rich people from some of their money for cheap doodads. Others emote because they feel part of an audiophile community and don't want people that separate silly rich people from some of their money for cheap doodads to be part of it. Etc... Like JA with David L, you have a PR job to do in defending your interests from the opposition like Buddha. I can only suggest trying to enjoy it.

How on Earth could I not enjoy such a scenario as you paint? It's hilarious.

Let me guess, you're still having problems with the whole power cord/cable thing.

Quote:

Quote:
JA why are you even in this discussion?

Because I object to people attributing things to me that I didn't actually say. You seem fascinated by the Synergistic bowls - turn up at the RMAF next week and listen to their effect for yourself.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Gosh you sure are picky about your "image" when it comes to words but not so much when it comes to not carrying out tests
I'm more fascinated by your continued contribution of FAIL. Will YOU be going to the demo and if so WHY? Maybe to see how Ted possibly pulls the wool over the audience's eyes once more? I wouldn't trust Ted to give an honest demo if my life depended on it. It seems you have been willing to think everything is on the up and up since day one That speaks for itself regarding your unwillingness to do any tests.

Quote:
I did get involved in with a client who had imported these units from the US, small basement room, low ceiling height, lots of stray upper frequency dispursial modes (verity audio speakers), the chap insisted on using these tuning cups and wooden blocks, upshot 5 hours of faffing around did provide some improvement.

However, 45 mins spent correctly positioning the speakers give more satisifing results, cost your time.

It might be worth mentioning how all thumbs these two folks were in their efforts to locate the optimum placements for the resonators, not to mention their efforts to locate the speakers. Anyone with experience with this type of resonator ought to know that the resonators should be placed at points of maximum acoustic energy - for example, near room corners, on the wall behind the speakers or at first reflection points on side walls.

"Lots of stray upper frequency dispursial modes" -- Dispursial modes? Hilarious!

However, instead of using the slow, relatively ineffective trial and error procedure everyone tends to use, there's a much quicker and more effective procedure - that is using a test tone and SPL meter. It's really very simple. With a test tone of 315 Hz (or thereabouts), the max acoustic pressure zones in the room can be identified, for example behind the speakers on the wall, on side walls at the first reflection points, etc. The resonators are placed where the max pressure zones are found; these locations vary from room to room and system to system, naturally. NB - Results of Trial and Error can be misleading since the true max pressure points may never be found, only false, local maximums.

As for speaker location, the only truly accurate method is using the speaker placement track available on XLO Test CD or similar "out of phase" track. While a little tricky, and takes some getting used to, this method is far superior to the "moving the speakers around" technique in terms of results. It's another case of not knowing when you've actually found optimum locations and not simply local maximums. It's a little like trying to solve two simultaneous equations with two unknowns. Of course, for best results for speaker placement, acoustic resonators or some other way to deal with standing waves and reflected acoustic waves in the room should already be in place.

Cheers

The "all thumbs" just might be contributed to the fact that the little bowls do squat

Gosh Geoff with all of your "knowledge" of how to set these things up you should go into business ......I meant a legit business not what you are selling now

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110630220009.htm

Best regards

Giuseppe Scardamaglia

Interesting for what it is. A resonating bowl with water in it and the results BUT it isn't what Mr Denney sells or the claims he makes for it being an effective acoustic treatment. Lets not rehash this tired old thread because his "proof" turned out to be an "error" or just pure BS. He backed away from his earlier claims of proof and never submitted the bowls for testing. I think we went through all of this enough times to show that he has no basis for his claims in this thread and other ones. Until he comes forth or JA decides to test the silly bowls, then it's a dead issue.

JohnnyR wrote:

Interesting for what it is. A resonating bowl with water in it and the results BUT it isn't what Mr Denney sells or the claims he makes for it being an effective acoustic treatment. Lets not rehash this tired old thread because his "proof" turned out to be an "error" or just pure BS. He backed away from his earlier claims of proof and never submitted the bowls for testing. I think we went through all of this enough times to show that he has no basis for his claims in this thread and other ones. Until he comes forth or JA decides to test the silly bowls, then it's a dead issue.

But bowls filled with water is what *I* sell. To understand why water filled bowls work or why tiny metal or ceramic bowls work one should have some inkling of the physics involved. All we hear from skeptics is the usual whines and harrumphs, but no technical argument. Does that mean they're ignorant of physics? You be the judge. LOL Pretty sure Stereophile decided not to enter into the tiny bowl resonator fray mainly because it's just a bit too controversial, you know, what with all the snarky backlash. LOL

Geoff Kait
Machina Dramatica

Oh looky here comes the FRAUD guy again. why yes of course you sell a water filled bowl why doesn't that surprise me one bit? Yesh right like you know how they "work." *eyeroll*  Please submit one of your water bowls to JA for testing so we all can see, that is if you have the nerve to do so. I won't be holding my breath because we all know you won't. You are all BS and no action so please just stop with your lame "logic" unless you are willing to submit your own"product" to JA. You and Denney have an oportunity to show us what you are made of and simply submit them for testing. Ha!  You WON'T.  Snarky backlash was the cause of the bowls never being tested? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA oh my that's rich. Here' some LOLs just for you Mr Fraud. LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL

What was once "all the rage" on here, Ted's magic bowls are now scorned and left to blow away on the prarie winds, no longer wanted or needed. I guess all thsoe golden ears got ear wax in them now? Curious as to why such a "major" product isn't talked about anymore. Could it be that.....oh no that would be silly to presume that......okay , well maybe it's because people started thinking and reading for themselves and found out that the magic bowls are just a sales gimmick. I bet he has a warehouse full of those things now gathering dust. Perhaps they would make good tea cups "As seen on TV" for $19.95 the whole set.