Quote:

To Quote John A. :-

>>> "We all now live in a bath of 2.4GHz radiation, which, coincidentally, is the frequency microwave ovens operate on. Look at the dimensions of Ted Denney's bowls: could it be that they are diffracting/reflecting that RF bath away from the listener, thus improving his state of mind and his receptivity to the music?" <<<

Just why is it not possible for (some) people to consider that the 'devices' may not be affecting the actual physical acoustics of the room but may be reducing an adverse effect in the (modern !!) listening environment ? Then their SIZE may NOT be the 'stumbling block' to a sensible discussion !!!!!

I'd consider a "sensible" discussion to include known audible influences,not some silly guessing about how Teds bowls "might" work. 2.4Ghz radiation? My God we are all doomed to listen to our stereos with no protection at all! and don't even mention those poor poor bats that have to put up those frequencies. I suppose Teds bowls will save the day by blocking those frequencies.Was JA bored when he wrote that and trying to come up with anything for an explanation as how these tiny bowls are supposed to change the low frequencies? Is this why they are building a "special" room to perhaps also measure the response of 2.4GHz? If this is so please just don't tell me. I've had enough of silly ideas.
We can sit here all day and make guesses but that doesn't get us any closer to actual results. So you're saying Teds bowls probably don't change the audible frequency range but instead shield us from those 2.4GHz ones? Are there ANY studies that show 2.4Ghz will influence how we hear or is this just more conjecture so "some" people can keep making up silly ideas?
UPDATE: Yes I'm aware of this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microwave_auditory_effect but they are talking about rather strong fields and the "sounds" in people's heads was either clicks, pops or crackles. Claiming that Teds bowls are protecting us from the same thing is grasping for straws when no audible changes or reasons for audible changes can be supplied. I'll just wait for the traditional audio frequency response graphs thank you very much. Oh and if they want to include the 2.4GHz response then by all means please do

You missed the part where someone said they worked by directly stimulating the brain and bypassing the realm of acoustic effect altogether.

Let's see...

"Inspired by Tibetan prayer bowls...." obviously it must be the 2.5 GHz thing.

The impasse seems to be between those who think it works unless 'proven' not to vs. those who don't think it works until proven it does.

Amazing how Ted loved measuring things before Ethan pointed out that his measurements were artifact.

Crux issues...

1) Pro:

Ted offers a money back guarantee, right? Can't argue with that.

Certain people claim to have heard the difference, so there is anecdotal data to support Ted's claim. (Unlike certain similar products with obvious fake endrosement profiles, Ted's product has had actual people describe what they've heard.

2) Cons:

Faked/erroneous measurement whose falsity transitioned from "I told you they worked" to "I don't need no stinking measurements."

A manufacturer with no apparent idea how they work.

Endorsements by certain people who have never encountered any tweak that didn't do something fantastic - so, I'd call this a lack of "critical filtering."

Inability to satisfy the objectivists' questions about DBT. "In a room, or not." Seems some enterprising reviewer could attempt that.

However, Ethan would have to witness it, so there's another con for some.

Maybe Michigan could be there, too.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
Ever notice how they claim "science" but can never explain the science, but have to demand others to explain it to them.
Yet they are jolly on the spot when it comes to funneling the viewer's finances to them (or their friends).

Cheers.

An avowed manufacturer, accusing others of self-promotion in violation of the board rules.

What a surprise.

I would suggest reading the rules again JJ. The rule applies to manufacturers against manufacturers, not to those who are not manufacturers, such as individuals, shills etc, and no products were defamed. I did not target or name any manufacturers. Huge difference. This has been explained by the moderator to you and others before JJ.

Cheers.

Those who "funnel" money to them are either manufacturers or sellers, ergo you are simply begging the question.

Quote:

However, Ethan would have to witness it, so there's another con for some.

Maybe Michigan could be there, too.

Having them both in the same room?
That would violate several laws of physics and cause the destruction of the world
Besides,what would happen if Ethan was there while I was posting something on here at the same time? Might cause some serious mental injury when they realize Ethan and I are actually separate individuals

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
Ever notice how they claim "science" but can never explain the science, but have to demand others to explain it to them.
Yet they are jolly on the spot when it comes to funneling the viewer's finances to them (or their friends).

Cheers.

An avowed manufacturer, accusing others of self-promotion in violation of the board rules.

What a surprise.

I would suggest reading the rules again JJ. The rule applies to manufacturers against manufacturers, not to those who are not manufacturers, such as individuals, shills etc, and no products were defamed. I did not target or name any manufacturers. Huge difference. This has been explained by the moderator to you and others before JJ.

Cheers.

Those who "funnel" money to them are either manufacturers or sellers, ergo you are simply begging the question.

Viewers might look up Shill, Sockpuppet etc and see what JJ left out. So why would JJ the "science" guy completely omit important information in order to skew his comments. JJ emphasizes the truth of my points.

Cheers.

Quote:

Quote:

To Quote John A. :-

>>> "We all now live in a bath of 2.4GHz radiation, which, coincidentally, is the frequency microwave ovens operate on. Look at the dimensions of Ted Denney's bowls: could it be that they are diffracting/reflecting that RF bath away from the listener, thus improving his state of mind and his receptivity to the music?" <<<

Just why is it not possible for (some) people to consider that the 'devices' may not be affecting the actual physical acoustics of the room but may be reducing an adverse effect in the (modern !!) listening environment ? Then their SIZE may NOT be the 'stumbling block' to a sensible discussion !!!!!

I'd consider a "sensible" discussion to include known audible influences,not some silly guessing about how Teds bowls "might" work. 2.4Ghz radiation? My God we are all doomed to listen to our stereos with no protection at all! and don't even mention those poor poor bats that have to put up those frequencies. I suppose Teds bowls will save the day by blocking those frequencies.Was JA bored when he wrote that and trying to come up with anything for an explanation as how these tiny bowls are supposed to change the low frequencies? Is this why they are building a "special" room to perhaps also measure the response of 2.4GHz? If this is so please just don't tell me. I've had enough of silly ideas.
We can sit here all day and make guesses but that doesn't get us any closer to actual results. So you're saying Teds bowls probably don't change the audible frequency range but instead shield us from those 2.4GHz ones? Are there ANY studies that show 2.4Ghz will influence how we hear or is this just more conjecture so "some" people can keep making up silly ideas?
UPDATE: Yes I'm aware of this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microwave_auditory_effect but they are talking about rather strong fields and the "sounds" in people's heads was either clicks, pops or crackles. Claiming that Teds bowls are protecting us from the same thing is grasping for straws when no audible changes or reasons for audible changes can be supplied. I'll just wait for the traditional audio frequency response graphs thank you very much. Oh and if they want to include the 2.4GHz response then by all means please do

If a human voice can make a wine glass crack and explode when it is equal to the wine glass' natural frequency, chances are good that the natural frequency of the small bowl is not much higher than the natural frequency of the wine glass (circa 2.4 kHz), in any case certainly not anywhere near 2.4 GHz. That's what, a million times higher? With this in mind, the bowls are most likely resonating at an acoustic frequency.

For purposes of comparison Golden Sound's Acoustic Discs - about 3/4 inch diameter - were shown to reduce the cumulative spectral decay between 80 Hz and 15 kHz.

Golden Sound's Acoustic Discs

Quote:

Quote:

To Quote John A. :-

"We all now live in a bath of 2.4GHz radiation, which, coincidentally, is the frequency microwave ovens operate on. Look at the dimensions of Ted Denney's bowls: could it be that they are diffracting/reflecting that RF bath away from the listener, thus improving his state of mind and his receptivity to the music?"

<snip>

If a human voice can make a wine glass crack and explode when it is equal to the wine glass' natural frequency, chances are good that the natural frequency of the small bowl is not much higher than the natural frequency of the wine glass (circa 2.4 kHz), in any case certainly not anywhere near 2.4 GHz. That's what, a million times higher? With this in mind, the bowls are most likely resonating at an acoustic frequency.

With respect, Geoff, you are forgetting that the propagation speed of the 2.4GHz waves is so much higher than the speed of sound that the wavelength will be similar. Also, the "breaking glass" phenomenon is due to the mechanical vibration of the glass, not the cavity.

I know, "picky, picky, picky."

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

To Quote John A. :-

"We all now live in a bath of 2.4GHz radiation, which, coincidentally, is the frequency microwave ovens operate on. Look at the dimensions of Ted Denney's bowls: could it be that they are diffracting/reflecting that RF bath away from the listener, thus improving his state of mind and his receptivity to the music?"

<snip>

If a human voice can make a wine glass crack and explode when it is equal to the wine glass' natural frequency, chances are good that the natural frequency of the small bowl is not much higher than the natural frequency of the wine glass (circa 2.4 kHz), in any case certainly not anywhere near 2.4 GHz. That's what, a million times higher? With this in mind, the bowls are most likely resonating at an acoustic frequency.

With respect, Geoff, you are forgetting that the propagation speed of the 2.4GHz waves is so much higher than the speed of sound that the wavelength will be similar. Also, the "breaking glass" phenomenon is due to the mechanical vibration of the glass, not the cavity.

I know, "picky, picky, picky."

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Most likely easier to make a wine glass burst than a pane of glass of same type and thickness due to cavity resonance of the wine glass. But I'm guessing a little bit as I haven't seen a demo of a pane of glass shattering. Will a pane of glass "sing" like a wine glass when the edge is rubbed? I wonder.....

In any case, here's a page of singing bowls of various diameters, showing the pitch for a 5.5" diameter singing bowl to be 356 Hz. Note MP3s included on page.

Singing Bowls Various Diameters

Quote:

For purposes of comparison Golden Sound's Acoustic Discs - about 3/4 inch diameter - were shown to reduce the cumulative spectral decay between 80 Hz and 15 kHz.

Golden Sound's Acoustic Discs

From the link above......

"Scientific measurement shows that Acoustic Discs reduce cumulative spectral decay from 30 to 50 percent between 80 to 15000 Hz. More importantly, Golden Sound Acoustic Discs reduce only the corner early reflection after 1 millisecond. This will retain the dynamics and ambience of the original recording."

No graphs, no citations, no measurements. I guess we just take their word for it

Quote:

Quote:

For purposes of comparison Golden Sound's Acoustic Discs - about 3/4 inch diameter - were shown to reduce the cumulative spectral decay between 80 Hz and 15 kHz.

Golden Sound's Acoustic Discs

From the link above......

"Scientific measurement shows that Acoustic Discs reduce cumulative spectral decay from 30 to 50 percent between 80 to 15000 Hz. More importantly, Golden Sound Acoustic Discs reduce only the corner early reflection after 1 millisecond. This will retain the dynamics and ambience of the original recording."

No graphs, no citations, no measurements. I guess we just take their word for it

Those ARE the measurements, silly. As it happens, I was present when the measurements were made. Coincidenza? LOL!

Quote:

With respect, Geoff, you are forgetting that the propagation speed of the 2.4GHz waves is so much higher than the speed of sound that the wavelength will be similar. Also, the "breaking glass" phenomenon is due to the mechanical vibration of the glass, not the cavity.

I know, "picky, picky, picky."

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

I'm confused. How can the wavelength of a 2.4GHz wave be similar to a 2.4KHz wave and how could the little bowls by acting upon the 2.4Ghz wave (which I highly doubt they are doing so) affect the audio band?

Quote:

Those ARE the measurements, silly. As it happens, I was present when the measurements were made. Coincidenza? LOL!

Wow I guess your word is good as gold then Case closed, we should accept Ted's word also that his lttle bowls work. Thanks for clearing it all up

Quote:

Quote:

Those ARE the measurements, silly. As it happens, I was present when the measurements were made. Coincidenza? LOL!

Wow I guess your word is good as gold then Case closed, we should accept Ted's word also that his lttle bowls work. Thanks for clearing it all up

No worries. See Preliminary Test Report (pdf file) hyperlink provided at the very bottom of page 2 of the 6 Moons review of Franck Tchang's Acoustic Resonators.

Page 2 Acoustic Resonators - 6 Moons Review

Quote:

Quote:

With respect, Geoff, you are forgetting that the propagation speed of the 2.4GHz waves is so much higher than the speed of sound that the wavelength will be similar.

I'm confused. How can the wavelength of a 2.4GHz wave be similar to a 2.4KHz wave?

The 2.4GHz wave is electromagnetic in nature so has a speed of propagation of c, the speed of light. The wavelength will thus be c divided by 2.4GHz, which is going to be a matter of inches. By contrast, the 2.4kHz wave mentioned by Geoff Kait is acoustic and propagates at the speed of sound, which is around 1100ft/s. Its wavelength is thus 1100/2400 = 5.3".

Quote:
and how could the little bowls by acting upon the 2.4Ghz wave (which I highly doubt they are doing so) affect the audio band?

I didn't say they do affect the audioband. In my original posting, I wrote "We all now live in a bath of 2.4GHz radiation, which, coincidentally, is the frequency microwave ovens operate on. Look at the dimensions of Ted Denney's bowls: could it be that they are diffracting/reflecting that RF bath away from the listener, thus improving his state of mind and his receptivity to the music?"

Purely a hypothesis that to get around the fact the bowls are way too small to have any acoustic effect on bass frequency soundwaves where the wavelength is >10'.

Incidentally, I looked at the Tchang measurements linked in the 6Moons review (Resonator_Pro_Link_Test_Report.pdf). Certainly, they show an effect. However, measuring the decay time at low frequencies in a room, which these measurements purport to show, is difficult and prone to experimental error, due to the presence of room modes.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Those ARE the measurements, silly. As it happens, I was present when the measurements were made. Coincidenza? LOL!

Wow I guess your word is good as gold then Case closed, we should accept Ted's word also that his lttle bowls work. Thanks for clearing it all up

No worries. See Preliminary Test Report (pdf file) hyperlink provided at the very bottom of page 2 of the 6 Moons review of Franck Tchang's Acoustic Resonators.

Page 2 Acoustic Resonators - 6 Moons Review

Apparently sarcasm is lost on you

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

With respect, Geoff, you are forgetting that the propagation speed of the 2.4GHz waves is so much higher than the speed of sound that the wavelength will be similar.

I'm confused. How can the wavelength of a 2.4GHz wave be similar to a 2.4KHz wave?

The 2.4GHz wave is electromagnetic in nature so has a speed of propagation of c, the speed of light. The wavelength will thus be c divided by 2.4GHz, which is going to be a matter of inches. By contrast, the 2.4kHz wave mentioned by Geoff Kait is acoustic and propagates at the speed of sound, which is around 1100ft/s. Its wavelength is thus 1100/2400 = 5.3".

Quote:
and how could the little bowls by acting upon the 2.4Ghz wave (which I highly doubt they are doing so) affect the audio band?

I didn't say they do affect the audioband. In my original posting, I wrote "We all now live in a bath of 2.4GHz radiation, which, coincidentally, is the frequency microwave ovens operate on. Look at the dimensions of Ted Denney's bowls: could it be that they are diffracting/reflecting that RF bath away from the listener, thus improving his state of mind and his receptivity to the music?"

Purely a hypothesis that to get around the fact the bowls are way too small to have any acoustic effect on bass frequency soundwaves where the wavelength is >10'.

Incidentally, I looked at the Tchang measurements linked in the 6Moons review (Resonator_Pro_Link_Test_Report.pdf). Certainly, they show an effect. However, measuring the decay time at low frequencies in a room, which these measurements purport to show, is difficult and prone to experimental error, due to the presence of room modes.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Guessing games are fine but measurements would be better So why a special room just to measure these do dads? Wouldn't a normal room suffice like the one you use to measure speakers in? I mean these things are supposed to be so obvious how well they change the sound.but if it is all in your head and doesn't effect the audio band then perhaps you should let May Belt take over and run Stereophile
Plus I don't think the pdf file showed much of anything other than a company's willingness to fudge or screw up measurements for the benifit of _________ (insert reasons here)

Quote:
Guessing games are fine but measurements would be better

Of course, but until you have a experimental handle on what, if anything, is happening, "guessing games" as you like to call them or "hypotheses," which is what they called by the scientific community, are all you have to go on

Quote:
So why a special room just to measure these do dads? Wouldn't a normal room suffice like the one you use to measure speakers in?

Because the engineer I consulted wanted to use a completely bare room that could be totally characterized before attempting to measure the effect (if any) of Ted's bowls. That way the variables would be restricted to just what we were trying to measure. Experimental design when the something being measured is very small is not as trivially easy as you appear to believe.

I admit that I have dropped the ball on this project. I will see where we are at with respect to publishing something.

Quote:
if it is all in your head and doesn't effect the audio band then perhaps you should let May Belt take over and run Stereophile

With respect, everything we perceive is always "all in our heads." Something like the bowls either affect the soundfield in the room or the listener's perception of that soundfield. If the latter, then if they do so repeatedly and predictably, then their effect is as real as anything else.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Quote:
Incidentally, I looked at the Tchang measurements linked in the 6Moons review (Resonator_Pro_Link_Test_Report.pdf). Certainly, they show an effect. However, measuring the decay time at low frequencies in a room, which these measurements purport to show, is difficult and prone to experimental error, due to the presence of room modes.

I don't doubt what you say is true regarding the potential for experimental error; however, I feel it's worth pointing out that the measurements may, in fact, be correct. After all, the company in question doesn't appear to be all thumbs exactly....

One wonders if there was a follow-up to the Preliminary Test Results presented in the pdf file...hmmmmm

Regards,

>>> "and how could the little bowls by acting upon the 2.4Ghz wave (which I highly doubt they are doing so) affect the audio band?"
"I'd consider a "sensible" discussion to include known audible influences,not some silly guessing about how Teds bowls "might" work."
"I suppose Teds bowls will save the day by blocking those frequencies.Was JA bored when he wrote that and trying to come up with anything for an explanation as how these tiny bowls are supposed to change the low frequencies?
I've had enough of silly ideas."
"We can sit here all day and make guesses but that doesn't get us any closer to actual results. So you're saying Teds bowls probably don't change the audible frequency range but instead shield us from those 2.4GHz ones?" <<<

As John A says, "I didn't say they do affect the audioband."
Again as John A says, his contribution was "Purely a hypothesis."

NOT, as you so eloquently chose to put it "some silly guessing about how Teds bowls "might" work. Was JA bored when he wrote that ?"

What exactly do YOU think constitutes a "discussion" ????????????????

So much progress in science has had to be through considering an "educated guess" (hypothesis) at the beginning !! If not, then the scientists would have found themselves continuously stuck - unable to move forwards, backwards, sideways, up, down or inside out !!!

I used John A's input on that particular subject as an example of someone struggling to think HOW, WHY !!

The way I see it, John A was pondering "Maybe the RF bath shouldn't be there, in the listening environment. Maybe we (human beings) - a product of millions of years of evolution - are attempting to deal with something which should not be there - but that attempt to 'deal with it' is at a cost !!! The cost of not being able to resolve the music correctly. Maybe Ted's devices are having some degree of a counter effect on something adverse - and the result of that counter effect is "improved sound" - i.e. Better resolution of ALL the musical information - not just the treble information, not just the middle information and not just the bass information but ALL the musical information. Hence one, more or all of the following reported experiences :-

"open, with greater height, greater width, greater depth, with more air around the individual instruments, better separation of instruments, the sound now filling the room".

>>> "Guessing games are fine but measurements would be better So why a special room just to measure these do dads? Wouldn't a normal room suffice like the one you use to measure speakers in? I mean these things are supposed to be so obvious how well they change the sound.but if it is all in your head and doesn't effect the audio band then perhaps you should let May Belt take over and run Stereophile" <<<

Of course measurements would be good. Whoever has claimed otherwise ? BUT, what happens when there ARE NO meaningful measurements. What do YOU do then, David L ? Put your head in your hands and weep or do you decide to start THINKING ???????? Do you sit and wait, twiddling your thumbs, forever waiting for someone !!! to produce some measurements which you are prepared to accept or do you decide to start THINKING ??

There is another way of looking at it than SOLELY something "affecting the audio band". Than SOLELY something happening "in the head". Howabout "something adversely affecting the environment in which we are listening, which in turn affects how we (human beings) adversely react to what is going on in that environment, which in turn affects the way we resolve the audio (musical) information reaching the working memory?"
Reduce what is adversely affecting the listening environment, you reduce the adverse reaction by the human being, which in turn allows the human being to better resolve the musical information which reaches the working memory, resulting in the descriptions :-

"open, with greater height, greater width, greater depth, with more air around the individual instruments, better separation of instruments, the sound now filling the room".

It is "audio information Dvorak's New World" all the way from first being extracted from the disc, through the audio equipment, through being presented into the room by the speakers, to reaching the ear drum, travelling through the hearing mechanism, then along the auditory nerve, to finally reaching the working memory - to be then resolved by the working memory so that a 'sound picture' can be presented to the brain. At any time along that whole journey, the "audio information Dvorak's New World" can be affected !!!!!!!!!!!!!! Not JUST affected as it travels through the audio equipment and not JUST affected by the acoustic nulls and peaks in the room - but STILL capable of being affected when continuing it's journey through the hearing mechanism !! It is STILL a signal, still carrying the information of Dvorak's New World, albeit conveyed differently, but a signal nevertheless - all the way along the auditory nerve until it reaches the working memory !! It does not stop being 'a signal' because you can't understand it.

You want a "sensible discussion" to "include known audible influences". Wouldn't we all !!!!! If there WERE "known" influences, then there would be no controversy !!! ALL would be KNOWN !!
Might I suggest you join some of us in the actual SEARCH !!

Regards,
May Belt,
P.W.B. Electronics.

Quote:
So much progress in science has had to be through considering an "educated guess" (hypothesis) at the beginning !! If not, then the scientists would have found themselves continuously stuck - unable to move forwards, backwards, sideways, up, down or inside out !!!

Indeed. It is the basis of Scientific Method: observe an effect; propose a hypothesis to explain the effect; perform experiments to confirm or deny that hypothesis; if confirmed, move on; if denied, come up with more hypotheses, and so on.

With all due respect to David L, he doesn't seem to grasp that, perhaps because he is not educated in science, vide his confusion between electromagnetic waves and acoustic waves.

With the Synergistic and Tchang bowls, we are at the first step, and the first test is to see if the soundfield in the room is affected. I was thinking recently about testing the acoustic impedance presented to the loudspeaker with and without the bowls. That would sidestep the problems with room modes affecting decay times at low frequencies. If there is no measurable effect on the room's behavior, then yes, it will be time to look at second-order effects, like the RF hypothesis.

If second-order effects can't be found by experiment, then perhaps yes, any effect might be ultimately due to suggestion. But it is interesting that independent observers come up with similar descriptions made by the bowls. And no-one would have predicted observations of improved _bass_ performance, surely?

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Quote:

Quote:
So much progress in science has had to be through considering an "educated guess" (hypothesis) at the beginning !! If not, then the scientists would have found themselves continuously stuck - unable to move forwards, backwards, sideways, up, down or inside out !!!

Indeed. It is the basis of Scientific Method: observe an effect; propose a hypothesis to explain the effect; perform experiments to confirm or deny that hypothesis; if confirmed, move on; if denied, come up with more hypotheses, and so on.

With all due respect to David L, he doesn't seem to grasp that, perhaps because he is not educated in science, vide his confusion between electromagnetic waves and acoustic waves.

With the Synergistic and Tchang bowls, we are at the first step, and the first test is to see if the soundfield in the room is affected. I was thinking recently about testing the acoustic impedance presented to the loudspeaker with and without the bowls. That would sidestep the problems with room modes affecting decay times at low frequencies. If there is no measurable effect on the room's behavior, then yes, it will be time to look at second-order effects, like the RF hypothesis.

If second-order effects can't be found by experiment, then perhaps yes, any effect might be ultimately due to suggestion. But it is interesting that independent observers come up with similar descriptions made by the bowls. And no-one would have predicted observations of improved _bass_ performance, surely?

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Can I bring up a couple points? The first is the recommended locations for the Tchang bowls as per the Preliminary Test Results pdf file. It appears from the diagram therein that the locations for the bowls are exactly where one would expect high acoustic energy in the room to occur - i.e., in the corners, along the interface of the walls and on the rear wall behind and between the speakers. As I'm sure you know, it's easy to determine that sound pressure levels in room corners can be many multiples of the average sound pressure in the room. And those locations are (perhaps not coincidentally) precidely where my acoustic resonators (crystals) are placed, not to mention Golden Sound's discs and the ubiquitous Room Tune Corner Tunes. I'd also like to reiterate that the test results for Golden Sound's 3/4 inch diam. Acoustic Discs (they also placed in room corners) indicate that spectral decay was attenuated from 15 kHz down to 80 Hz! Coincidenza?

Finally, not to press too hard on this, one of the more intriguing sonic characteristics of my pebbles - even the very tiny ones - is a remarkable increase in the quality and quantity of bass frequencies.

Cheers,

John,
It would appear that you are continuing through a good progression in order to ascertain certain things.

Can I take you up on one point ?

You say :-
>>> "If second-order effects can't be found by experiment, then perhaps yes, any effect might be ultimately due to suggestion." <<<

Can I take you away from the general usage of "suggestion". This usually implies a psychological effect ONLY, nothing actually physically happening to the actual audio information. Whereas I would suggest that there IS a physical effect involved, actually affecting the audio information Dvorak's New World !!!

That a reaction (tension ??) in the human being, caused by adverse conditions in the listening environment, CAN actually physically change the audio information Dvorak's New World, within the hearing mechanism, so that it cannot be correctly resolved when it reaches the working memory. Lessen the adverse conditions within the listening environment, the adverse reaction (tension???) within the human being is lessened, therefore the audio information Dvorak's New World can be BETTER resolved by the working memory !! Therefore the WHOLE range of the audio information of Dvorak's New World can be resolved better - exactly as described by people !!!!

Add people's descriptions on trying the Schumann Resonance device to people's descriptions on trying the Synergistic and Tchang bowls and they show a parallel experience !! Surely pointing more and more to 'something' in the environment being adverse BEFORE using these devices and less adverse AFTER using these devices !!

Regards,
May Belt,
P.W.B. Electronics.

Quote:
I'd consider a "sensible" discussion to include known audible influences,not some silly guessing about how Teds bowls "might" work.

Quote:
The ones who complain that there's no explanation are same ones who complain about the explanation when there is one.

How do you explain nuclear fission to the person who doesn't understand the internal combustion engine at the atomic level of reaction? Or to the man in the steam driven buggy?

It would appear someone who is looking at unconventional devices insists on a conventional explanation and will settle for nothing less.

Quote:
So much progress in science has had to be through considering an "educated guess" (hypothesis) at the beginning !! If not, then the scientists would have found themselves continuously stuck - unable to move forwards, backwards, sideways, up, down or inside out !!!

Should the explanation for the ART device's success be a result of changes to the listener, which measurements would you have JA take to prove such a thing?

Quote:
>>>"In the meantime, Jan, you are the only one here that indicates that you have an idea of how these products work. It would be great if you shared your thoughts with us." <<<

We can use this as a springboard." <<<

Elk, I can point to someone else who has been "thinking more on this particular subject" !! To John Atkinson !! We can use John A's thoughts as a springboard also.

To Quote John A. :-

>>> "We all now live in a bath of 2.4GHz radiation, which, coincidentally, is the frequency microwave ovens operate on. Look at the dimensions of Ted Denney's bowls: could it be that they are diffracting/reflecting that RF bath away from the listener, thus improving his state of mind and his receptivity to the music?" <<<

Just why is it not possible for (some) people to consider that the 'devices' may not be affecting the actual physical acoustics of the room but may be reducing an adverse effect in the (modern !!) listening environment ? Then their SIZE may NOT be the 'stumbling block' to a sensible discussion !!!!!

This way of looking at 'an effect' would then bring into consideration such things the Tchang Acoustic Resonators, The Schumann Resonance device, the Harmonix Devices etc. Etc. - and so many other experiences (of the sound being affected) described by people.

Whilstever so many people are prepared to 'block their minds' by dismissing so many other people's experiences as "bias"., "auto-suggestion"., "the placebo effect"., "imagination"., "audio faith healing"., "effective marketing"., - calling "bullshit" - implying "Fraud" - "demanding measurement proof" at every step and turn, how can a sensible and intelligent discussion progress ???

Elk, you harrassed me for days in multiple threads about my "thoughts" on the ART system's operation. I instructed you to do some research on your own, that you had the exact same materials and opportunities available to you as were available to me when I began thinking about the system. Thinking was the key to beginning to understand the unconventional devices, not having material fed to you.

Had you found JA's writings on the topic and just ignored them when you continually harrassed me for my thoughts? We already had the "springboard" you were seeking on the pages of the Stereophile blogs, why didn't you begin a discussion based upon the thoughts of someone who has actually auditioned the product? Was your research so superficial to have missed JA's comments? Or, did you dismiss them as unreasonable because they are unfamilar concepts in your view?

Quote:
http://www.synergisticresearch.com/acoustic-art/acoustic-art-system/

Quote:
>>> "We all now live in a bath of 2.4GHz radiation, which, coincidentally, is the frequency microwave ovens operate on. Look at the dimensions of Ted Denney's bowls: could it be that they are diffracting/reflecting that RF bath away from the listener, thus improving his state of mind and his receptivity to the music?" <<<

Just why is it not possible for (some) people to consider that the 'devices' may not be affecting the actual physical acoustics of the room but may be reducing an adverse effect in the (modern !!) listening environment ? Then their SIZE may NOT be the 'stumbling block' to a sensible discussion !!!!!

John, thanks for becoming a part of this discussion, IMO your absence/silence only made matters worse in the early stages of this thread.

My thoughts on the system's operation are somewhat similar to your own with one exception. Ted's comments on his conceptulization of the devices leads one to assume his personal experiences with Tibetan prayer bowls and his thoughts on the function of Helmholtz resonators were instrumental in his final design. Helmholtz resonators are, if I remember correctly, placed in areas of high pressurization. Therefore, placing the ART devices and geoff's devices in those same areas would make sense, no? Maximum reaction from maxiumum excitation is the expected result.

If I'm understanding your writings correctly, where you and I differ here is your specific, unified resonant frequency of the ART system. When taken as a whole, the resonators are of various sizes and various materials. Would this not indicate they are likely to resonate at various frequencies based upon their size and composition?

If that's the case, don't we also recognize that our brainwave activity can be set by external auditory influence? Two devices resonating at dissimilar frequencies should produce the difference frequency in our brain activity. Taking the Schumann Resonance as a starting point, wouldn't two resonators beating at that roughly 7.8Hz difference frequency coax our brains to relax into a range which borders the Theta and Alpha states - those two sets of frequencies bringing both a relaxed receptivity and attentive perception? This range of brainwave activity is then in the same "results range" as the Schumman resonator devices from companies such as Acoustic Revice which have also been given reviews similar to the ART devices as far as auditory results are concerned. Would this not heighten the "masking effect" you guess at, making it even more apparent to a more receptive listener?

While I think you might have a good guess at the operation of the ART devices I also think you might not have gone far enough in your thinking. IMO Ted has incorporated multiple concepts to create an unconventional product with little to no relationship to "conventional" absorption devices which yield easy - if monotone - answers.

http://www.answers.com/topic/schumann-resonance

http://www.lunarsight.com/glossary.htm

http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews/acousticrevive/rr77.html

Quote:
With all due respect to David L, he doesn't seem to grasp that, perhaps because he is not educated in science, vide his confusion between electromagnetic waves and acoustic waves.

With all due respect JA, I think that's comparing apples to oranges and "trying" to come up with "ideas" as to how Ted's bowls might possibly work by effecting the electromagnetic fields is pretty far fetched. A few tiny bowls placed in a large room with no other shielding of the room and they block RF? They are indeed magic.Why waste time talking when a simple measurement and DBT would prove finally if they work or not? This has been going on for close to two years (if you include Ted's promise of measurements way back when). Ted makes them and can't even tell us why they "work". He's smart enough to come up with so many products that just happen to improve our systems yet he seems clueless explaining. Going sailing has been his excuse for two times now for not contributing any info.Will the new measurement room also be used for testing power cords, cables and other components not normally tested at all other than subjective reviews? I'd think that after all the bother then putting the room to such use would only help explain why these products do what they do. Also I'm curious as who will be in on the listening tests other than the 3rd Party tech you've hired to do the test. Surely he's already got a set list of procedures lined up as to what tests he will do. Will any of us be allowed to suggest specific tests so that all involved will be happy? Yes lots of questions

Do you ever actually try to understand what JA says or the subject matter

Sorry but it seems all you want to do is argue without actually bothering to take time to understand what JA is saying, or going away to read up on the subject matter (basing this on what you have posted so far in this thread).

And this is finally summed up by your lack of a thank you for the patient posting JA did on your behalf.
I swear I can hear his despondent sigh across the atlantic....

A DBT would bring in potential anomolies due to the unnatural blindfolded type listening, hence you would require to create a placebo scenario where duplicates are made say from a moulding or some other way.

Please appreciate that there is a thought/methodical process to go through, at least I can appreciate the approach by JA, which for whatever reason your throwing pebbles into the lake at.
And as JA mentions, there are potential for various factors, including as I mentioned before the visual perception of unusual object/or even positioning of such or certain objects (which JA has hinted at also in the past) and again would be nice to be proved positive/negative.

Please be part of discussion instead of being part of the argument.
Thanks
Orb

Quote:
With all due respect JA, I think that's comparing apples to oranges and "trying" to come up with "ideas" as to how Ted's bowls might possibly work by effecting the electromagnetic fields is pretty far fetched. A few tiny bowls placed in a large room with no other shielding of the room and they block RF?

How would you know? Seriously, how would you know? How do you propose to understand what is required to affect the human response to 2.4 GHertz radiation? You are certain it must be done through a physical change to the environment and not a physical change to the listener. On what basis do you make such claims?

Quote:
Ted makes them and can't even tell us why they "work". He's smart enough to come up with so many products that just happen to improve our systems yet he seems clueless explaining.

If you had ever taken the opportunity to actually audition the ART system, you'd still claim it doesn't matter since you still cannot understand how the system operates. JA has experienced the improvements made by the introduction of the devices into a listening room and rather than complain he chose to think about the "why" and the "how" of the system's operation. As he has said, he hates it when the unexplained occurs. Therefore, he seeks a means of understanding, he doesn't sit in the bleachers tossing peanuts.

You've done none of that for what you claim is now going on two years since the system was first discussed here. (Actually, it hasn't been two years but that sounds a lot better when you're complaining, doesn't it?) You have wasted enormous amounts of time sitting in your Bark-o-lounger demanding you be obeyed rather than being productive and actually considering something you clearly do not understand. Why should anyone try to help someone who is so completely unwilling to help themself?

If you were told exactly "how" the devices operate, you'd still argue it doesn't matter. If you don't understand it, it doesn't matter - end of discussion in your opinion.

I'm willing to bet there are quite a few things you do not understand which do actually exist and do actually operate.

Make a giant leap here and accept that your lack of effort applied to understanding how the devices operate doesn't matter. You have not even so much as a guess beyond the trite "placebo" fall back. You've made no attempt to think this through, so how do you expect to ever actually understand how the ART system works if you refuse to move forward? Even when you are provided an explanation you complain.

That it does work has been proven by numerous listeners time and again. Many of those listeners have reported their experience with the ART system here on the pages of Stereophile. It appears it is just as simple to not look for evidence of the system actually working as it is to complain about someone not laying out in detail how their invention does operate. It is simpler still to complain about someone who has worked at getting a business up and running and being successful than it is to do such a thing. Possibly, if you had done some creative, inspired, out of the box thinking rather than complaining about those who do, you too would be sailing like Ted is now.

Ted is under no obligation to explain to you how he created his device or how it operates.

Got that?

The system operates as advertised, that has been proven by said numerous listeners. How could someone "come up" with such a system if they had no clue what they were trying to acomplish? Do you seriously believe Ted just found a few exotic small bowls laying around and they suddenly, without explantion or planning, began altering the listening experience for hundreds of intelligent people?

Seriously?! You think that's how this works? Maybe that's why Ted is sailing and you're sitting in that lounger complaining.

I do believe Orb is correct here, be part of the solution or get out of the way of progress. Think rather than endlessly complain. Thinking is difficult, complaining is not. Thinking is productive, complaining, unfortunately for you, is not.

You might begin by thinking about where you are right now and what could be improved in that situation in regards to your music. I'm guessing that's how Ted, May, geoff and John all began their thought process.

And, yes, after all your months of demanding a response, you should say, "Thank you", to JA for his remarks.

Quote:
Will any of us be allowed to suggest specific tests so that all involved will be happy?

It's never ending with you, isn't it?

Quote:

A DBT would bring in potential anomolies due to the unnatural blindfolded type listening,

Stuff and nonsense, in so many ways that I hardly know where to start.

There is a simple question about any kind of power absorbtion device, and it's this, HOW MUCH OF THE ENERGY IN QUESTION DOES IT INTERSECT WITH? A device can not absorb power that never actually intersects with it.

And therein lies a fatal problem with some of these theories.

Quote:

Quote:

A DBT would bring in potential anomolies due to the unnatural blindfolded type listening,

Stuff and nonsense, in so many ways that I hardly know where to start.

There is a simple question about any kind of power absorbtion device, and it's this, HOW MUCH OF THE ENERGY IN QUESTION DOES IT INTERSECT WITH? A device can not absorb power that never actually intersects with it.

And therein lies a fatal problem with some of these theories.

Your point then is with JAs comments and not mine, so please direct it at him although IMO you are wrong for the reasons outlined and given by JA.
And you seem to ignore yet again the points about psychoacoustic still requiring testing, with a placebo and not with screens or blindfold.

JJ you really seem to get your back up when any mention of DBT or case against it is made, if you read more carefully you would see you are jumping to the wrong conclusion, including though on the "potential" of factors that need to be thought through and tested with some methodology.

So please direct your comments to JA that his scientific approach is flawed, according to you of course

Thanks
Orb

I love how I get accused of not partaking in the discussion no matter what I say. Sorry but I don't feel like I owe a "Thank you" to JA just because he's bringing up ludicrous theories without even testing out the possibilities first. :You can sit here and blah blah blah all day and do mental masturbation all you want but the fact of the matter is, no acoustic tests of any sort have been done yet. Like I said earlier, if these bowls affect RF then just by placing them at the first acoustic reflection points in no way will stop the RF from reaching your ears. How could they? The speakers themselves would have to be the source of the RF and the RF would have to behave as an acoustic signal! This is just stuff and non sense in my opinion. and here we go again with DBT being discarded right out of the box because of "potential anomolies due to the unnatural blindfolded type listening," I mean what the hell? Either put up or shut up about DBT. If you can't tell the difference with audio components blind folded then you seriously have a sight bias going on. Face up to it and grow a pair.

Again you are misunderstanding the subject matter/methodology and my point in trying to get you to partake in the discussion (which means you can be a skeptic but please apply some scientific/engineering methodology), however you are being argumentive and not applying anything to your posts outside of what you already know (and sorry to say you have proved in this case JA has a better approach/knowledge).
Hence why you should thank JA and either join in the discussion or accept you are not actually interested in the discussion but want to shout the loudest, correct?
My last post on this, and I appreciate I deserve you to pee on my parade because I did the same to you, so slap it to me baby
But I still feel you should look back and consider thanking JA.

Thanks
Orb

Thank him for what? If you feel so inclined then do so but stop making it a manditory thing just because you like what he said Jeeeeeez get over yourself

Okay so it looks like the little magic bowls will have to be tested for how well they block or alter 2.4GHz frequencies or the controversy will just continue well after the acoustic measurements are all over with.( in other words after no measurable acoustic changes are found and they want an excuse) But why stop there? What about other RF like AM, FM, all throughout the spectrum. Why just concentrate on 2.4GHz? oh yes because someone just happened to pull that particular frequency out of a hat What if it's my local FM station beaming into my brain causing all the Low Fidelity in my system?

Quote:
There is a simple question about any kind of power absorbtion device, and it's this, HOW MUCH OF THE ENERGY IN QUESTION DOES IT INTERSECT WITH? A device can not absorb power that never actually intersects with it.

And therein lies a fatal problem with some of these theories

A simple question you refuse to address. You simply imply there is a problem and leave it to the rest of us to believe - or not believe - you have found a "fatal problem".

I choose not to believe much of what you say, jj.

And stop stalking me this instant!

Show proof or your assertions, otherwise, they are deemed invalid and preposterous. The bowls are placed in high pressure zones, how could energy not intersect them?

Quote:
What about other RF like AM, FM, all throughout the spectrum.

Because the wavelengths of these radio waves are so long that with an object the size of the bowls, they simply do not exist - see JJ's recent posting where he said "A device can not absorb power that never actually intersects with it." Even RF in the FM band has a wavelength around 90 meters. This is the same reason people are skeptical of the bowls having an effect on audio at bass frequencies. A soundwave at 100Hz has a wavelength of 11 feet, so will diffract around the bowl without being affected by it.

Quote:
Why just concentrate on 2.4GHz? oh yes because someone just happened to pull that particular frequency out of a hat

I don't know why you smirk, as again your words betray your lack of scientific understanding. That you even thought it relevant to mention the AM and FM bands reveals that you do not understand the underlying physics of wave propagation, as in your confusion between RF and audio waves.

I didn't pull the hypothesis out of a hat. My thought was triggered by first, we do all now live in a bath of low-level 2.4GHz radiation - in my basement listening room in a detached house I can pick up 7 WiFi networks as well as our own. Second, a back-of-the-envelope calculation suggested that the dimensions of the bowls were similar in magnitude to the wavelength of RF waves at 2.4GHz. The bowls, therefore, will not be invisible to such RF waves.

More importantly, my original post was intended to raise the point that the effect might be on the listener rather than the soundfield in the room. When it comes to perception, everything might matter. For example, I listened to a radio story yesterday about there being a statistically significant correlation between children's grades and the color pen teachers use to mark homework. Children whose work is graded with red ink do worse. Take the same children and grade their work with blue ink, and they do better. It is good to keep minds open when it comes to thinking about what matters and what doesn't.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Quote:
I love how I get accused of not partaking in the discussion no matter what I say.

That's nice since we're not so hot on how we get accused of having no discussion points no matter what we say.

See how that works?

Of course you do not, there are no measurement graphs for you to stare at.

Quote:
Sorry but I don't feel like I owe a "Thank you" to JA just because he's bringing up ludicrous theories without even testing out the possibilities first.

I asked you to prove how they are "ludicrous" and you ignored the questions - as usual. The devices are uncoventional, that does not make them "ludicrous". In fact, they have been proven by empirical testing to operate as they are advertised. If you can prove your claims, then we can have a discussion. But, as with jj, simply having the two of you proclaim you cannot see how these devices can operate when neither of you have given the subject any thought or research is no proof of a failing on Ted's part.

Quote:
Like I said earlier, if these bowls affect RF then just by placing them at the first acoustic reflection points in no way will stop the RF from reaching your ears. How could they?

Inded! how could they? You might want to consult NASA on this. You might want to do some research rather than closing your mind. You might want to start by going back and reading my question to you ...

Quote:
How would you know? Seriously, how would you know? How do you propose to understand what is required to affect the human response to 2.4 GHertz radiation? You are certain it must be done through a phyiscal change to the environment and not a phyiscal change to the listener. On what basis do you make such claims?

You might want to answer that question and then we could have a discussion of something other than your baseless complaints.

You might want to then actually read May's posts.

I would say you might want to consult Elk but his research and thinking on this subject seems woefully slack.

You might want to do all of this instead of just shouting you know they can't work when in reality you know nothing at all about how these devices might be operating.

Quote:
Okay so it looks like the little magic bowls will have to be tested for how well they block or alter 2.4GHz frequencies or the controversy will just continue well after the acoustic measurements are all over with.( in other words after no measurable acoustic changes are found and they want an excuse)

It's wonderful to see you are opening your mind to the possibilities here.

If we assume for the moment the effect is on the listener and not on the acoustics of the room, what tests would you suggest we perform?

I did ask this same question earlier and, as is typical with those who have more demands than they have answers, it was ignored. This is now a second request for you to indicate you have something to show for all your ballyhoo. Empirical testing indicates the bowls do perform as they are advertised. The issue is then how to test the individual for changes made to their perception.

How do we do it? Please, do not ignore this question again.

Difficult to judge the size of the small ART bowls from the photos, but the smaller of the two ART sizes appears to be 1 inch in diameter - or less. The diameter of Franck Tchang's doo-dads is actually only 17 mm! Hel-looo!! Are we bathing in a sea of X-Band radar here or some kind of advanced satcom? Them Rooskies up to something?

Quote:

Quote:
What about other RF like AM, FM, all throughout the spectrum.

Because the wavelengths of these radio waves are so long that with an object the size of the bowls, they simply do not exist - see JJ's recent posting where he said "A device can not absorb power that never actually intersects with it." Even RF in the FM band has a wavelength around 90 meters. This is the same reason people are skeptical of the bowls having an effect on audio at bass frequencies. A soundwave at 100Hz has a wavelength of 11 feet, so will diffract around the bowl without being affected by it.

Quote:
Why just concentrate on 2.4GHz? oh yes because someone just happened to pull that particular frequency out of a hat

I don't know why you smirk, as again your words betray your lack of scientific understanding. That you even thought it relevant to mention the AM and FM bands reveals that you do not understand the underlying physics of wave propagation, as in your confusion between RF and audio waves.

I didn't pull the hypothesis out of a hat. My thought was triggered by first, we do all now live in a bath of low-level 2.4GHz radiation - in my basement listening room in a detached house I can pick up 7 WiFi networks as well as our own. Second, a back-of-the-envelope calculation suggested that the dimensions of the bowls were similar in magnitude to the wavelength of RF waves at 2.4GHz. The bowls, therefore, will not be invisible to such RF waves.

More importantly, my original post was intended to raise the point that the effect might be on the listener rather than the soundfield in the room. When it comes to perception, everything might matter. For example, I listened to a radio story yesterday about there being a statistically significant correlation between children's grades and the color pen teachers use to mark homework. Children whose work is graded with red ink do worse. Take the same children and grade their work with blue ink, and they do better. It is good to keep minds open when it comes to thinking about what matters and what doesn't.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Do the bowls satisfy "Atkinson's Law of Effective Tweaking?"

Recall: "Enid Lumley demonstrated...the plastic tripod out of a pizza box. Enid (who was a very persuasive person) placed the tripod atop a CD player and convinced her audience

Quote:
Do the bowls satisfy "Atkinson's Law of Effective Tweaking?"

No, because they are expensive. The more unlikely a tweak appears to be then the cheaper it must be to make it worth investing time and money in trying. Optimizing the speaker positions in your room lies at one end of the scale because it costs nothing and can give large improvements in sound quality. The bowls and some of the Peter Belt treatments are closer to the other end of that scale.

Quote:
It's all well and good to plop "2.4 GHz radiation!" out one's larynx, but then to start in with the old, "Prove it isn't" bullshit really lowers the bar of discussion.

I haven't claimed that the 2.4GHz hypothesis is correct nor have I asked people to prove that it isn't correct. I offered it as a possible out-of-left-field hypothesis some weeks ago purely because I am skeptical that the effect I have perceived at Shows is due to the acoustic effect of the bowls at low frequencies, where they are too small to interact with the soundwaves.

I do wonder if the acoustic effect they _might_ have at sound frequencies where they can have an effect, ie, >5kHz, could be perceived as a subjective improvement in the bass.

Every measurable acoustic phenomenon can be perceived in different ways depending on the music being being played, the listener's preferences, and what frequency region his ear/brain latches on to at its reference. Consider, for example, a speaker with a measured lack of energy between 2 and 6kHz: I could perceive the speaker as sounding neutral in the midrange but laidback in the treble; you could perceive the speaker as having a forward upper-midrange compared to what you think of as a correct treble balance. Although our descriptions are contrary, they are both triggered by the same measured balance.

But until I have published proper testing of the bowls, all I have to offer is conjecture.

Quote:
don't forget that Geoff has cited several measurement results for the Tchang Bowls that show that devices even smaller than the ART bowls can have a 'measurable' effect. Yes, an actually acoustic effect - which seems to be on the outs lately as a means of these bowls doing anything.

As I said in an earlier posting, I am skeptical that the measurements of the Tchang bowls cited in the 6Moons review prove anything, purely because the methodology used is too sensitive to interfering variables in the low-frequency region being examined.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Quote:
To Quote John A. :-

>>> "We all now live in a bath of 2.4GHz radiation, which, coincidentally, is the frequency microwave ovens operate on. Look at the dimensions of Ted Denney's bowls: could it be that they are diffracting/reflecting that RF bath away from the listener, thus improving his state of mind and his receptivity to the music?" <<<

Just why is it not possible for (some) people to consider that the 'devices' may not be affecting the actual physical acoustics of the room but may be reducing an adverse effect in the (modern !!) listening environment ? Then their SIZE may NOT be the 'stumbling block' to a sensible discussion !!!!!

John, could you clarify what you're suggesting here? Are you saying the ART system might be blocking radiation from entering the room? Or, are you saying the system might be affecting the perception of the listener?

Have you ever auditioned any of the Schumann Resonance devices, John?

Quote:
No, because they are expensive. The more unlikely a tweak appears to be then the cheaper it must be to make it worth investing time and money in trying. Optimizing the speaker positions in your room lies at one end of the scale because it costs nothing and can give large improvements in sound quality. The bowls and some of the Peter Belt treatments are closer to the other end of that scale.

If I can be so bold, of the 70 or so items on Peter Belt's Product List, 50% of them are less than $100 and 90% are less than $200. A great many are less than $50. And some are free. Thus, it's a bit of stretch to characterize Belt products as expensive or "closer to the other end of that scale." Same can be said for the "large improvements in sound quality" thing.

There is one Belt product that's around $725, but we probably shouldn't talk about that one. heh heh

Jan. Before errors get any further 'down the line' you seem to have coupled one of John A's replies with one of my replies as though they were both John's.

MY reply within that section you have just copied was the one below :-
"Just why is it not possible for (some) people to consider that the 'devices' may not be affecting the actual physical acoustics of the room but may be reducing an adverse effect in the (modern !!) listening environment ? Then their SIZE may NOT be the 'stumbling block' to a sensible discussion !!!!!"

I can see how they are not easily distinguishable. However, I always put other people's quotes within three chevrons (both at the beginning and at the end). I apologise for doing this but I have not yet been able to do what others seem to be able to do and that is put other's quotes within some sort of a square. That might be explained in Computer Lesson No 321 !!!!!!!!!!!

Regards,
May Belt,
P.W.B. Electronics.

Quote:
I don't know why you smirk, as again your words betray your lack of scientific understanding. That you even thought it relevant to mention the AM and FM bands reveals that you do not understand the underlying physics of wave propagation, as in your confusion between RF and audio waves.

I haven't claimed that the 2.4GHz hypothesis is correct nor have I asked people to prove that it isn't correct. I offered it as a possible out-of-left-field hypothesis some weeks ago purely because I am skeptical that the effect I have perceived at Shows is due to the acoustic effect of the bowls at low frequencies, where they are too small to interact with the soundwaves.

But until I have published proper testing of the bowls, all I have to offer is conjecture.

So my lack of scientific understanding for mentioning the FM and AM band when YOU say that the 2.4Ghz band could be effecting listeners and not the actual acoustic sound field is a good reason for saying I don't know what I'm talking about Yes this is why I smirk because you then say your hypothesis is out of left field and conjecture. Hooray for honesty! Ya know I have a hypothesis that the little bowls are just a high priced "you gotta have these" item that does nothing at all. But then that's also just conjecture but not out of left field.

Oh and Jan the reason I don't reply to your drivel is because it is just that drivel. Also I was advised by Stephen not to reply to you when you started posting silly things which lately has been hitting the 99% point. Just FYI

Quote:
Oh and Jan the reason I don't reply to your drivel is because it is just that drivel. Also I was advised by Stephen not to reply to you when you started posting silly things which lately has been hitting the 99% point. Just FYI

If you don't know anything, then you don't know anything and it's clear you don't know anything.

You're not tyring to incite something with that comment, are you? You shouldn't do that, SM doesn't like it when you incite others. If you think about it - a tall order to be sure - that's what he was telling you. I realize you're not good at this "if A, then B" association stuff but, trust me, he was telling you not to be your usual "stir the shit pot" self.

You've had your answers from Uncle Ted and Uncle John. That's what you wanted, now it's done. You should go brush your teeth, put on your jammies and go lay down on your bed of nails. I hope you have nasty, scary nightmares.

Quote:

Quote:
I don't know why you smirk, as again your words betray your lack of scientific understanding. That you even thought it relevant to mention the AM and FM bands reveals that you do not understand the underlying physics of wave propagation, as in your confusion between RF and audio waves.

So my lack of scientific understanding for mentioning the FM and AM band when YOU say that the 2.4Ghz band could be effecting listeners and not the actual acoustic sound field is a good reason for saying I don't know what I'm talking about

Sadly, yes. I know it's politically correct to treat everyone's opinions as having equal validity, but when someone expresses opinions on a technical subject, as you have done, then reveals that he doesn't actually know anything about that subject, as you have done, then what other conclusion can be drawn?

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Quote:
[And you seem to ignore yet again the points about psychoacoustic still requiring testing, with a placebo and not with screens or blindfold.

WhatEVER are you on about with "blindfold"? Screen? Do you even know, then, what a DBT is or how it would be done? Do you know what a control condition is in auditory blind testing?

Perhaps when folks stop making silly objections to well-proven processes I'll stop being annoyed at pseudoscientific, pretentious twaddle.

Quote:

...reveals that he doesn't actually know anything about that subject, as you have done, then what other conclusion can be drawn?

That the effect, if any, of the bowls must be via 2.4 GHz effects?

Or, was that a rhetorical question?

Quote:

Quote:
[And you seem to ignore yet again the points about psychoacoustic still requiring testing, with a placebo and not with screens or blindfold.

WhatEVER are you on about with "blindfold"? Screen? Do you even know, then, what a DBT is or how it would be done? Do you know what a control condition is in auditory blind testing?

Perhaps when folks stop making silly objections to well-proven processes I'll stop being annoyed at pseudoscientific, pretentious twaddle.

JJ give it a rest, your doing the shout the loudest routine yourself.
First you commented about the concept JA put forward as being nonsense, then when I point you to take it up with him you refocus now on my DBT comment.
Funny enough yes I do understand what DBT, however I am not sure you do as it was myself who mentioned creating a duplicate, which is a PLACEBO scenario.
That is how medical DBT are constructed when monitoring effects of drugs.
So please do not try to take the high ground that if you shout loudest you must be correct

However I am sure your going to respond with a semantic argument;
I am going for that I am misrepesenting what you said in previous post combined with something to do with blindfolding or using a screen has no effect on a person (remember we are talking about an actual product that cannot be connected to a randomise computer controlled data collecting ABX box (I am sure your aware of research highlighting potential of A/B order bias that may need to be taken into consideration and accounted for), so again your original point does not seem to match up to the argument your now trying to push)

Although pushing the second argument (because in reality all your doing is arguing) it ignores behaviour changes or differences; which makes your posting even more strange, It is not natural for the average sighted person to conduct tests that remove one sensory perception that can also be involved in sound when the SPECIFIC PURPOSE of the test and product involve auditory performance of ROOM ENHANCEMENT and PERCEPTION.

And on top of all this, yet again let me re-iterate that only with a duplicate can you consider the effect of perception related, including as I said sight of unusual objects or object/positioning.

The purpose of my posts was to consider the least invasive and natural test for a listener that also allowed for testing the perception affect of the product, hence results would be ideal with the lest potential of an ambiguous result that could be done by most (logistics of course for moulding/paint matching the products), aside from controlling/understanding other factors such as specified built room.

I will not respond again because unfortunately I think you have decided to pick an argument that will only result in pages being posted.
However please and I mean this sincerely put forward your own proposal and ideas.
This would remove the who shouts loudest argument that does not benefit anyone.

It is early morning and busy here being distracted but hopefully this covers all the ground and answered the argument.
Cheers
Orb

However as a reminder of how this is an argument that looks to be "who shouts loudest wins" here is your initial response that I answered (not included below) by saying you should take it up with JA but IMO your thought process was wrong and somehow you responded with the quote top of this post now on DBT:

Quote:

Quote:
Orb:
A DBT would bring in potential anomolies due to the unnatural blindfolded type listening,

JJ:

Stuff and nonsense, in so many ways that I hardly know where to start.

There is a simple question about any kind of power absorbtion device, and it's this, HOW MUCH OF THE ENERGY IN QUESTION DOES IT INTERSECT WITH? A device can not absorb power that never actually intersects with it.

And therein lies a fatal problem with some of these theories.