Quote:
He was so narrow minded that if he fell on a pin it would blind him in both eyes. -- Fred Allen

Quote:
Most of your replies are irrelevant comparisons with politics and kung fu.

HA! That's a good one, Ethan. I got my laugh for the day with that little rejoinder. Admittedly, it was a laugh at your expense - but a good laugh none the less.

Quote:
But to call me arrogant for having common sense and caring enough about the science of audio to learn how it works is even more arrogant than what you accuse me of!

Let me explain this to you again, Ethan. You are arrogant not for having common sense but for not using what common sense you have. You have misread, misquoted, misunderstood and simply ignored anything that doesn't fit your definition of how things are. That is arrogance! And grand scale stupidity.

Quote:
You say "evidence proves otherwise" but you have no evidence at all.

Evidence? The evidence is the number of times you've simply ignored the information or wording that might explain something. Even at the end of the above quote you forgot to add that I labelled you "dup vII". That is a very important bit of knowledge for someone so set in their ways. Competition for how deeply you can bury your head is heating up.

Quote:
You prefer to believe in magic, and you naively give the benefit of the doubt to every crackpot theory out there.

I'd rather spend my time educating people who are actually interested in learning.

Ethan, you have once again totally misunderstood the situation in order to make yourself look good in your own eyes. What are you going to teach anyone, Ethan? That your way is the only way because you have charts and graphs they don't understand? That's pretty much what you've resisted in this thread, Ethan. Like dup you refuse to even consider there can often be more than one way to accomplish a task and beating it into submission is not always the best answer. You can insult me with the tag "naive" and I will turn around and say it is you who have become naive with your little bit of knowledge and your "common sense" graphs and nothing more. When you stop being surprised by what might be you might as well climb in a hole and die.

I have presented evidence here, Ethan, but you've chosen to ignore it and mischaracterize it. You want one way - your way - and no other thought can enter the conversation for fear it might result in a crack in your knowledge which would be unacceptable to you unless you could plot it on a graph.

Almost everything you know, you learned from someone else.

The first time that idea smacked you in the forehead it was courtesy of someone else. The point where you forgot that idea was courtesy of your own arrogance.

This forum should be a place where ideas are exchanged and conversations develop to enlighten all of us. Instead, thanks to a small group of naysayers, this forum is rife with "it can't happen's". "Al Gore" is shouted over and over again. (Hint: that's not a political reference, Ethan.) I am not naive about any of this stuff, despite your pity for me. But I have always approached this hobby as a world of "could be's" rather than "cannot's". I have encouraged anyone who wants to know something to find it for themself and make their own decisions. To me, within the limits of safety and morality, there are no cannot's. I have encouraged everyone who cares to share a morally correct viewpoint to do so and discuss the end results. If that is embracing crackpot ideas, I am guilty of that and proud of it. I don't care to "teach" anyone - and certainly no one on this forum - but I do say to them, "Think, try, listen." In my world once you stop thinking - which means you've stopped listening to others because they are the real teachers- you've stopped learning. You, on the otherhand, Ethan, want to show them a graph and tell them what they will hear. Brilliant methodology! With your approach they can know nothing more than you already know and they will probably forget most of that when they no longer need it.

I'm always amused by those people who use a reference when it suits them and then denouce the same reference when it does not. I'm even more amused when the reference is misquoted. At the moment, Ethan, you are running neck and neck with dup in that department.

You use JA as your compatriot when you wish to discuss waterfall plots. Yet you denounce him when he states his amazement at the improvements he observed when the Mpingo discs were in place. You ignore him when he says, "But while I can think of no mechanism by which the Mpingo discs can work their magic, that doesn't mean any effect must be non-existent. I am not so arrogant as to suppose that the only things that can happen are those that I can imagine. (Those who declare that, unless they can think of a mechanism for something happening, it can't happen, are presuming knowledge of all that was known, is known, and is still to be known. That they actually possess such knowledge seems unlikely.)"

You state flatly, "When they duck the issue with 'science doesn't know how to measure what I'm sure I can hear' they have lost all hope of convincing me", and then make the most sweeping statement of all saying everyone believing something they cannot explain is simply delusional. And you don't see the contradiction in your own words, Ethan?

We who listen are exactly who Heyser was discussing when he said, ""I no longer regard as fruitcakes people who say they can hear something and I can't measure it

Quote:
... do you also believe JA was "delusional" when he heard better sound quality with the Mpingo discs in place?

Ethan, it's a simple question that requires only a yes or no answer. You believe everyone who falls into the trap of the evil snake oil purveyors of such devices must be delusional or have compromised faculties. Common sense and logic would then lead you to think what about JA's experience?

Quote:
do you also believe JA was "delusional" when he heard better sound quality with the Mpingo discs in place?

Let's just say I believe JA was mistaken. I've met John and he's not a gullible fool. I like to think he probably would have a different opinion today than when he wrote that. John, if you're reading this, I'd love to hear your take on the "ever-smaller product" scenarios I've been describing here.

Jan, I see you still refuse to answer as to the possible effectiveness of ever-smaller "acoustics" products so I had another thought.

Suppose a vendor announced an acoustic product that consists of three 1-inch long strands of cloth fiber the thickness of a human hair. Let's say it's three 1-inch pieces of sewing thread tied at one end with a tiny bead of glue, and the instructions are to tape it to the outside of one of the room's windows. Do you agree that any perceived improvement is purely placebo effect? Or do you still think this new product might actually make a real change to the sound inside the room?

--Ethan

Quote:
Let's just say I believe JA was mistaken. I've met John and he's not a gullible fool.

I see. A side step. Now anyone who claims any improvement when any of these devices are employed can be dismissed as a "gullible fool". Well, that certainly progresses the discussion beyond "silly", doesn't it?

Quote:
Or do you still think this new product might actually make a real change to the sound inside the room?

I think you've come up with another AL GORE!!!

C'mon, Ethan, cut the BS. If you want to play games with this, start another thread. We're discussing the specific treatments mentioned during the course of this thread. The constant inquiries trying to prove I am "silly" enough or more likely a "gullible fool" who can be dismissed completely are totally out of line. You make yourself look ridiculous when you try them. Is this the argument you use with your clients? Is your attempt meant to brow beat them into buying your products? They are gullible fools if they don't buy what you sell?! I've worked with salespeople who operate like that, Ethan, and they have very few return clients and usually they do not have a very good attitude about what they're selling. And Alex thinks I was a scum bag salesperson! Well, I won't wish him on you anyway since I'm fairly certain he wouldn't buy your products in the first place.

Quote:
Jan, I see you still refuse to answer as to the possible effectiveness of ever-smaller "acoustics" products so I had another thought.

Ethan, I am unaware you had ever asked a question that deserved an answer regarding ever smaller "acoustics" products. I have said, however, after reading the information provided by the manufacturers on their web pages, the devices under discussion here are not meant to work by way of absorption. This seems to be the crux of your argument and a point you prefer to ignore about your competitor's products- that only when large surfaces areas are present in the room can absorption take place. (Maybe if you'd tried one of them , you would have discovered that fact.) I've never disagreed with that concept and I have even applauded you for the information you have provided on your web page in an attempt to suggest (to someone who does not understand just) what a waterfall plot can reveal about the effectiveness of absorption. Of course, they are taking you at your word and buying into your belief system when they are told your treatments will make the bass "tighter". There is nothing in a waterfall plot that really suggests bass will be "tighter" or more "tuneful" or even have "pace". Your clients are buying what you are telling them will happen just as you accuse the Harmonix people. Assumed authority is a wonderful thing, eh, Ethan?

However, your web page also displays the downside of your products. They are big and can be intrusive. And the bigger they are so as to absorb low frequencies, the more nonlinear they will be in absorbing higher frequencies.

My point regarding the Mpingo discs, the Harmonix discs and the Shakti device is none of these manufacturers are concerned with large area absorption materials because they disagree with the basic use of the method within a common listening room. In fact, the application literature from Harmonix suggests removing most absorption devices when their product is used. Clearly, they are not attempting to absorb pressure waves with these devices. Nor do I think anyone using these devices is such a gullible fool to think they are dealing with absorption devices. And only someone who willing misreads a comment would think the devices are "adding" resonance.

Quote:
Fixed ideas are prefabricated conclusions about how things are. If you continue to look through the lens of a fixed idea, you may be attempting to interact with something that really isn't there.

Devices. Indeed. Each of the four packages came with 16 quarter-sized wafers about 1.2 mm (as in metric measure) thick.

These are gonna tune my room?

The literature says the design is based on an idea in complete opposition to what conventional room tuning devices are based on. "Conventional tuning devices are designed either to absorb (sic?) the reflected sound or totally damp vibrations of walls and ceilings. But, these devices take away the delicate musical nuances of the sound. Contrary to conventional room tuning devices, RFA78 lets the sound reflect freely, without distorting or masking the original information that the sound is carrying."

Hyperbole? I thought so. They are very, very small. And you'll notice, they are heavy - for their size.

The literature further describes the devices as "offering a complex system of energy storage". I asked Mr. Kiuchi to elaborate. As his English is a bit rough, I opted to move some words around where there are no quotes (mostly reordering, but a bit of paraphrasing, too) to make it easier for the reader to understand what he seemed to be trying to communicate.

"These have been on the market for more than 10 years. Harmonix is a unique technology, which makes it difficult to understand." This is one reason why we all should keep experimenting with new approaches instead of "listening to Know-how".

http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews/harmonix/harmonix.html

If we get beyond your bit of misrepresentation of exactly what these devices do, we can move forward. As long as you mistakenly hold onto the idea these are meant to do exactly what your products do, we have a problem.

Quote:
The RFA-78i Room Tuning Discs tune the sound energy floating around your room. Unlike most other products of this sort, however, they don

it's always good to remember that before we labeled them as autism and ADHD, we called it 'engineer's disease'.

Autism and ADHD?

Now there's a combination.

Engineers don't seem like the ADHD type to me, but anyway...

I like to take these contentious issues and look at them from the perspective of "what if this were correct..."

This was done in a profoundly humorous fashion by a long ago letter writer to Stereophile, who wrote that he had acquired some Harmonix discs and placed them in secret disadventageous locations in (IIRC) Carnegie Hall; and if he did not receive a ransom, he would leave this rogue discs in place, forwever to the detriment of the sound of the hall.

So, if these discs can "tune" a room with "proper" placement, they should therefore also be able to "de-tune" a room, n'est

Quote:
In a world in which Harmonix discs work, we should have a greater body of evidence of harm being done to the sound of a room, as well.

Indeed, but reports of silly tweaks making things worse are rare. You do hear them though, sometimes at the appropriately named Audio Asylum forum. That reminds me of the joke:

I changed my speaker cables from Brand A to Brand B and the sound got better. Then I changed to Brand C and it got better again. Then I changed back to Brand A and it got better again.

Quote:
If all "well engineered gear sounds the same," then does the gear from 1980 sound the same as current gear?

Of course it depends, but a lot of gear from back then was very high quality. Especially the professional grade stuff used in recording studios. I don't know if I can say the same for boutique gear, much of which is crap produced by clueless amateurs. Of course, not all small shops make crap, and sometimes the best stuff comes from small shops. Which is why I said it depends.

These days you almost have to go out of your way to make a poor design. Even someone with just a basic understanding of op-amps can design a very high quality preamp. But you still do see lame stuff. Like toob amps with intentionally minimal amounts of negative feedback. Unless you like 10 percent distortion.

Quote:
If not, then at what point are we "allowed to hear" differences between pieces of gear? What year did your rule take effect?

LOL, that's not how it works. What really matters is the frequency response and level of artifacts - mainly distortion but noise and possibly ringing too. If the response is acceptably flat (say, within 1/4 dB) from 20 Hz to 20 KHz, and all added artifacts are low enough not to be heard, then a device can be considered audibly transparent. I'm sure I've already linked to my Artifact Audibility article, but here it is again:

http://www.ethanwiner.com/audibility.html

This article pretty well sums up what is audible, what is not audible, and why.

Quote:
How do you explain a CD player made now sounding "better" than an original generation player of 20 years ago?

That would be due to audible amounts of distortion or ringing or noise. Or a less than adequate frequency response. This stuff ain't rocket science!

And it surely is not magic.

Quote:
So, I disagree with all of y'all.

As well you should m'man, as well you should!

--Ethan

Quote:
That reminds me of the joke:

I changed my speaker cables from Brand A to Brand B and the sound got better. Then I changed to Brand C and it got better again. Then I changed back to Brand A and it got better again.

OMG, Ethan- That was a real knee slapper!

While I don't always agree with the posts from Ethan or JV, I still always have read and respected their thoughts.
You two should go back and reread some of your post to each other. You guys are starting to sound like the posters here that you both used to dislike.

Quote:
This was done in a profoundly humorous fashion by a long ago letter writer to Stereophile, who wrote that he had acquired some Harmonix discs and placed them in secret disadventageous locations in (IIRC) Carnegie Hall; and if he did not receive a ransom, he would leave this rogue discs in place, forwever to the detriment of the sound of the hall.

So, if these discs can "tune" a room with "proper" placement, they should therefore also be able to "de-tune" a room, n'est

Quote:
Indeed, but reports of silly tweaks making things worse are rare. You do hear them though, sometimes at the appropriately named Audio Asylum forum. That reminds me of the joke:

I changed my speaker cables from Brand A to Brand B and the sound got better. Then I changed to Brand C and it got better again. Then I changed back to Brand A and it got better again.

Oh, my, Ethan! Now you are grabbing at life preservers and throwing AL GORE!!! into the mix again. What lessons are you not learning in the course of this thread, Ethan? What lessons could you possibly not be learning about other issues? I will call you on each use of AL GORE!!! and not let you get away with the attempt to divert the discussion to "sillyland". You do get more ridiculous and desperate with each attempt, Ethan. Let's stick to the topic, eh?

Quote:
Of course it depends ... This stuff ain't rocket science!

I have to agree with cyclebrain that you are sounding and spelling very much like another character on this forum, Ethan. But once again, you've thrown another AL GORE!!! into the mix in yet another attempt to drive this thread to sillyland. Is that your only defense, Ethan? Everyone other than you and dup are fools?! I'd say that's a territory fairly prone to seismicity and errant busses.

Quote:
And it surely is not magic.

So far, you are the only one in this thread who keeps insisting this is "magic", or delusion, or the result of gullibility or frailty of perception. You've done nothing to prove these devices cannot work other than insult those who have tried them.

Since there has been no acknowledgement from JA, I would say his comments must stand as printed and as they appear above. I can only conclude he does not feel he was delusional nor mistaken and he appears to believe his perception was not frail at the time he was exposed to the discs.

Any "proof" otherwise is up to you to present, Ethan. I have done my share.

As it sits right now, we have four well trained listeners who have tried the devices placed on record here in this thread (and, of course, I can find more quotes if necessary) claiming benefits from these various devices. We have verification by "technicians" with charts and graphs who claim benefits for the Shakti product which then brings us to five participants who have hands on experience with the products against one lone individual who hasn't even made an attempt to correctly read the literature from these manufacturers let alone try any of the products.

Five with experience claiming benefits vs. one non-listening non-believer against.

Now, really, Ethan, is your only response that all of these people must be 1) delusional, 2) mistaken, 3) preceptively "frail", 4) under the influence of a hallucinogenic, 5) "silly" or the best so far 6) gullible fools? If that is what your argument comes down to, Ethan, please explain how each of these listeners could, under vastly different conditions, all have reached the same conclusion when each conclusion they could have reached, according to you, would have been wrong. Wouldn't that conclusion be illogical? Wouldn't that conclusion defy common sense? Or, are you still clinging to the belief these devices operate by way of absorption and you've not listened to anything that does not conform to your preconceived ideas?

Quote:
You guys are starting to sound like the posters here that you both used to dislike.

"Used to dislike"?!!!

You read me wrong, cyclebrain.

I don't dislike anyone on this forum. There are times, however, when I dislike what some on this forum do.

You are, of course, invited to join the thread and send it in a different direction as long as your logic is not more AL GORE!!!

Quote:

Quote:
This was done in a profoundly humorous fashion by a long ago letter writer to Stereophile, who wrote that he had acquired some Harmonix discs and placed them in secret disadventageous locations in (IIRC) Carnegie Hall; and if he did not receive a ransom, he would leave this rogue discs in place, forwever to the detriment of the sound of the hall.

So, if these discs can "tune" a room with "proper" placement, they should therefore also be able to "de-tune" a room, n'est

If you're asking me whether I think the manufacturers of these various devices got it dead on right the first time out, then I think the answer to that would be probably not. It would take someone with extreme confidence in their charts and graphs to decide they didn't need to experiment with or listen to the results of their product since it was perfect on paper. Do you know of a company that produces products like that, Buddha? I don't believe I do.

In the case of the Shakti device they admit to many years of trial and error. The Mpingo and Harmonix discs get moved until the desired result is affected. Does that help any with your uncertainty, Buddha?

Quote:
So, we are back back the land of magic. The discs work, but only in beneficent ways.

These discs, therefore, can't "not work," because since we "don't know how they work, and people only hear them work in a positive fashion, then they can't not work."

You've lost me again with that twist of magical logic, Buddha. I will give you a NANCY PELOSSI!!! on the attempt though.

How about this one? My car gets 250 miles to the first three quarters of the tank of gasoline. The last quarter of the tank goes by in approximately fifty miles. That would logically lead me to think my car gets better gas mileage when the tank contains more fuel and therefore weighs more. Do you think I should keep a few hundred pounds of weight in the back of the car to get better mileage all the time?

Can we not all agree that what "works" for one listener in one system, might not be the answer for another listener in yet another system? That is the point I have been making for some time now. Can we not agree that such a situation could be true in one system even when the component's effects are "beneficent" in several systems? In other words, are you assuming the discs can only be non-beneficent because you don't understand how they produce the results claimed by users? It is only those things we understand from which we can then gain benefit, eh? I'll have to go explain to my tube amplifiers that I can no longer hear their benefits since I do not fully understand how they do everything they do. You seem to be turning words and ideas on their ear to make a strained point here, Buddha. This is nothing more than the "I can't explain it so it can't work" argument restated in another fashion. I've already said I reject that hypothesis just as I reject the notion cables and "toobs" have anything to do with this debate. I reject the hypothesis that if you don't care to learn about something or willfully misinterpret the information, something cannot work as intended without your personal assistance. That doesn't mean someone with insufficient knowledge can't muck things up, but often things work despite your best efforts to keep them from their job.

If you feel otherwise, I am dubious of your critical faculties in this regard.

What I do accept is there can be different solutions to the same problem. Are you ready to debate that concept?

Do you have anything to add to the debate regarding how the discs might work? Or are you also just of the opinion they are "too small" and you have therefore closed your mind to the possiblity they might be effective?

As a rule, I accept the premise that manufacturers do not release items they feel are not of value and working as promised. I still am looking for the "tweak" or product that has stayed in long term production despite being proven totally inconsequential. We've put our magic clocks in the closet and many have taken their cables off the lifts. If these devies are merely another fad, they will go away. So far, they have as a whole been in the US market for over ten years and in the Asian market for much longer with much greater acceptance and less need for charts and graphs. I don't believe we can dismiss their success in the marketplace to just a bunch of gullible fools being deluded all the time, every time. In this thread we are still at five users for and one non-believer, non-user against.

Tell me, Buddha, since Ethan feels JA was merely "mistaken" about what he heard and wrote, what's your take on John's experience with the Mpingo discs? Do you feel everyone who concludes something cannot work simply because they know nothing about how it might work can be credited with possessing all the knowledge they shall ever need?

I look at tweaks as I would any piece of gear, Jan.

Tweaks are no different.

If you lay a fabulous speaker face down on the floor, you might not get the same fabulous result as you do when placing it properly.

If a Harmonix disc must be placed in a certain place to achieve a certain result, then there should also be situations where, if it was used incorrectly, then the result would be nill, or even negative. There will be rooms in which it may work, and rooms in which it does nothing, or changes the room in such a way that things sound less good.

Same for Mpingo discs.

I don't have a current issue handy, but let's do discuss Mpingo discs and JA.

In February, JA reviewed the KEF 207/2 speakers.

Check his associated equipment list here...

JA's Associated Equipment

Where did those dang stupendous Mpingo discs get to?

It seems Myrtlewood blocks are now the tweak of the moment, and Mpingo discs, depsite their undeniably valuable contribution to good sound, have been left to days past.

Check Mike Fremer's history of magic clock use. He even went so far as to differentiate between the clocks, and declared one brand surperior and, IIRC, mentioned one certain clock taking up permanent residence in his system...

You guessed it, now no longer in his system, probably in a closet, or a nightstand in the guest bedroom.

How could it be that all these night/day reference quality tweaks seem to have such a 'fashion cycle' about them?

The answer, I guess, is up to a given person, but when a product has such a fleeting presence, I begin to suspect placebo effect.

I'm not saying that I don't "believe" that tweaks can work, I just like being a little long term about these things, and when they lack staying power, I naturally wonder.

For my part, I like to play with them, see what I can see, see if I'm fooling myself, and see what a thing can and can't do. If a tweak makes such bold claims about benefit, then there should be situations where people report hearing detriment or get a null result.

You are right about there being opposing camps. With tweaks, we all too frequently fall into can/can't work arguments. Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right, no one stuck in the middle with me, it seems.

To that, I watch for certain personality types. Ethan is monomaniacal about comb filtering and a priori will not listen to other people's ideas. He is frequently wrong but never in doubt.

Perhaps you are an "every tweak every time" person, like some of the people at Audio Asylum - incapable of running into a tweak that does not do anything or could potentially lower sound quality. Again, a world in which every tweak works every time denotes more power of suggestion than golden ears.

People are either end of the spectrum are useless to me. If every tweak works every time for you, then I do not trust your ears as being discerning, in the same way I do not trust Ethan's ears because no tweak works any of the time.

Nancy Pelosi, Dan Quayle - you ideologues at either end of the spectrum are guaranteed to be wrong.

(No personal affront intended. I would happily buy you beers, char steaks, and play tunes in your honor if we had a chance to hang together.)

Quote:
I don't have a current issue handy, but let's do discuss Mpingo discs and JA.

In February, JA reviewed the KEF 207/2 speakers.

Check his associated equipment list here...

JA's Associated Equipment

Where did those dang stupendous Mpingo discs get to?

JA's associated equipment, 1995; http://stereophile.com/solidpoweramps/404/index3.html

JA's associated equipment, 2002; http://stereophile.com/floorloudspeakers/736/index4.html

JA's associated equipment, 2004; http://stereophile.com/solidpoweramps/1004halcro/index3.html

As far as I can tell there have never been any Mpingo discs in John's system. The original "Shun Mook Affair" ran in 1994 and the quote I took was from subsequent replies to letters to the editor in response to those reviews. My understanding is John has heard the effects of the discs at a location(s) other than his own. If this is not correct, JA will have to verify the time line and his use of the Mpingo discs and he seems unwilling to get involved in this thread. But I don't believe the Mpingo discs went anywhere in JA's system because I don't believe he ever had any in his system.

What does that say about the "stupendous" Mpingo discs? All I can assume is he felt there were other methods he would employ in his specific location. He has apparently stayed with his ASC traps and RPG Abffusor panels for quite some time now.

Does that prove he doesn't believe in the Mpingo discs? In this case, I wouldn't reach that conclusion. I would only guess he might feel other devices are best for his particular situation. Does he need more than the discs and tuning devices can provide? Possibly. Does he feel he is on safer ground as a reviewer with more conventional room tuning devices? Probably. Is he so conflicted about what he hears vs. what his brain tells him is "logical" that he simply can't get experience to give in to belief? Once again, until he weighs in on this topic, we can only guess regarding why and how he made his choices.

Have I promoted the alternate methods of room tuning as the only way to achieve an end result? If you've read this thread and followed my line of reasoning, I don't think you could logically come to that conclusion. My point has been there are frequently different methods of achieving a result for any particular problem and not all problems need to be addressed with a shotgun and a sledgehammer.

Buddha, if you want to search for a reviewer of merit who used the discs or Shakti's at one time and no longer employs them, we can talk. Otherwise, implying JA's lack of use is as much proof of his lack of faith in the discs as Ethan's decision to judge him as simply "mistaken" and not a gullible fool. Only John can change this and without information from him I'll still have to believe what he has written.

Quote:
If you lay a fabulous speaker face down on the floor, you might not get the same fabulous result as you do when placing it properly.

If a Harmonix disc must be placed in a certain place to achieve a certain result, then there should also be situations where, if it was used incorrectly, then the result would be nill, or even negative. There will be rooms in which it may work, and rooms in which it does nothing, or changes the room in such a way that things sound less good.

Sorry, I have to give another AL GORE!!! here, Buddha. Yes, if you totally ignore directions for speakers, if you connect your amplifier out of phase or if you shove all the Harmonix discs in the kit into one corner of the room, you might have problems. How likely is that to happen when you've spent the amount of money we're talking here? If you took all of Ethan's products and shoved them into the next room, you probably wouldn't care for the results of that "tweak" either. I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that most of these products have dealer support just to keep such things from happening.

If not, consider this, the way I see the Harmonix discs operating is somewhat like the Dynaflex panels used in car stereo. A damping material is used on a car's body or interior panel to minimize resonance, noise and bass boom due to the materials of the space the system works into. There are no specific guidelines for placing the bits and pieces of Dynaflex but some experience with various models of cars will teach you where the placement is probably the most beneficial. Can you place it where it does nothing? It's pretty difficult to mess it up that much. Most anywhere you damp the panel, there's a benefit. Do you have to cover the entire panel? Not usually, a small amount well placed works best. The idea that you must shove large quantities of damping material into the violin's interior space to increase its performance just isn't logical to me.

Quote:
Perhaps you are an "every tweak every time" person, like some of the people at Audio Asylum - incapable of running into a tweak that does not do anything or could potentially lower sound quality. Again, a world in which every tweak works every time denotes more power of suggestion than golden ears.

Actually my system is relatively tweak free. I have some isolation products and mild room treatments - no discs. Most of what I use is DIY - I still find squash balls to be "magic" devices for isolation but I've got a box of things I have tried out of curiousity over the years. A few Vibrapods but no more Sorbothane. No, not all things "work" for me but most do something. I don't believe my room layout lends itself to discs or Shakti's and, besides, they are beyond what I would spend for a tweak. My cables are rather inexpensive by audiophile standards and all but one of them are DIY. I don't argue tweaks because I use them all or because I find every tweak to be for me. Most of the listeners I know who do have that experience have little idea what music sounds like and they are chasing a hifi sound more than the music itself.

I argue against the "cannot's" for the sake of anyone who is curious, who wants to try something and who has the ability to learn from the experience. Even if something doesn't work for one person, it might for another. If one thing works, that doesn't mean something else won't work also. I've been helping a friend tweak his system for a while now. My constant with him is to know what he's looking for, where he's going and to pay attention when heads in the right direction. If he misses, then file that in the 3 X 5 card index for another time. He's slowly made progress and is quite happy with his results. He's finally understanding that a difference is not necessarily an improvement if it takes the system sound in a direction he doesn't care for. And he and I listen quite differently from one another, he's very much into detail and I'm very much into coherence and getting the midrange nailed right off the bat. So, while I will never out of hand say to him something "cannot" work, I will always say to him, "Think about it. Try it. Listen to the music. Think some more. Put everything in context of what you've heard already and use the music - not the hifi - as your guide." As far as I'm concerned anyone who tells someone something cannot happen has just told them to stop thinking for themself. You can teach them everything you know but they will never know any more than you do if that's your approach. Every now and then I'm surprised by what my friend has come up with on his own.

Quote:
Nancy Pelosi, Dan Quayle - you ideologues at either end of the spectrum are guaranteed to be wrong.

I disagree, they are just elected ideologues doing their job. At some level ideology is a worthwhile pursuit. When I was selling I knew I couldn't start lower than where I expected to end. I could always negotiate down but never back up. I started each sale with that basic ideology, my product was worth every penny I was asking for it. Now, you tell me what you think it's worth. Negotiation was what needed to happen. It's when ideology claims to have the only correct answers that I go to my corner. Give a little in any one direction and I'm fairly easy to get along with. Beat me over the head with your sledgehammer and I can only take so much.

Quote:
(No personal affront intended. I would happily buy you beers, char steaks, and play tunes in your honor if we had a chance to hang together.)

Sounds like a plan. (Do we have to invite Ethan?)

Quote:
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

After seeing DUPs latest tirade against teh Mapleshade product line, is there any tweak you will agree cannot possibly make any difference? If someone says in earnest that they tried some tweak or other and they're sure they heard a difference, is there any point at which you'll consider them mistaken?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anyone else? This is a serious question that I think can quickly get to the bottom of whether we should trust all anecdotal reports and consider them all equally valid.

Ethan, I'm still waiting for this to be explained as well as the day to day deviations in your system's sound quality.

Quote:
Ethan is monomaniacal about comb filtering

Actually, my main point with that is to give believers a legitimate reason to conclude a BS tweak actually made a difference. In truth, I think the main reasons people think they hear a change are, in order, short-term auditory memory, placebo effect, and of course delusion. But comb filtering is very real - and proven! - and is a solid explanation for how the sound really can change even when a tweak is benign.

Quote:
He is frequently wrong but never in doubt.

If you think I'm wrong about this stuff, and have compelling evidence that doesn't involve citing the names of politicians by all means share! But please stay on topic and stick to facts. The first person to say "pace" or "rhythm" or "musical" is disqualified!

BTW, the current issue of Mix magazine (for pro recording engineers) has an article about this stuff, and mentions my comb filtering article favorably.

--Ethan

Hi, Ethan!

It's not that I don't "believe" in comb filtering, it's just that you seem to have raised it to the level of be-all, end-all.

I think it may be part of things, but not the only thing.

I land somewhere south of you and north of Jan.

I admire your products and contributions, and do not mean this discussion as disparaging.

Any chance we could ever get you to go listen to Wes Phillips' or Jeff Wong's systems and hear what different gear and tweaks can really do?

Cheers.

Quote:
Actually, my main point with that is to give believers a legitimate reason to conclude a BS tweak actually made a difference.

What does that mean? You want to give them a reason to believe a tweak that did nothing is actually doing something?! That's very magnanimous of you Ethan but not in keeping with your usual position on these matters.

Quote:
In truth, I think the main reasons people think they hear a change are, in order, short-term auditory memory, placebo effect, and of course delusion.

Woswers! Mr. Wizard! I would have thought knowing what they were hearing based on a solid reference would have come in at least second! So this is the reason I would hear a change when I placed big panels of absorbant materials in my room. That's really interesting. It's not that anything has changed other than my IQ.

Quote:
But comb filtering is very real - and proven! - and is a solid explanation for how the sound really can change even when a tweak is benign.

So, once again, if something does nothing, you can prove something has changed with your pieces of paper and your "magic" machine? Didn't you used to sell these machines to give the buyer excellent physical health through electrical stimulation way back in the 1930's? Seems like I've seen your picture in a magazine somewhere ...

Ethan, you've said it yourself, a change is simply a change. Your pieces of paper don't tell anyone what they will hear after your installations. You tell them what they will hear when they look at the squiggly lines on your charts and they believe you. You say "tighter bass" and they hear "tighter bass". You say "cleaner highs" and they hear "cleaner highs" because they've paid you to install these treatments. They take your word and, according to you, have no more long term memory for comparison than the Shakti user. How can you prove you are not selling any more or less of a belief system than you claim the users of Harmonix are buying into? Is it because your customers are too smart to use stuff that's "too small" to be absorptive?

Quote:
If you think I'm wrong about this stuff, and have compelling evidence that doesn't involve citing the names of politicians by all means share! But please stay on topic and stick to facts.

Awwww, Mr. Wizard, I thought citing UFO's, alien abductions and crazy audiophile cables proved you were right about all of this stuff? Did you know ALL GORE!!! uses cables to change his system to attract UFO's? What a whacko, huh?

Geez, Ethan, you get to throw Hail Mary passes but no one else can? What page is that on in the Stereophile forum's guidelines? Let's see ... "gullible fools"? Nope, not there. "Knows all" ... Hmmm, that's not your picture there, Ethan.

Quote:
The first person to say "pace" or "rhythm" or "musical" is disqualified!

Why? 'Cause you don't think they exist?

Pace.

Rhythm.

Musical.

AL GORE!!!

"It was an AL GORE!!! musical. The rhythm was good but the pace was a bit slow."

Do I have to leave now?

Quote:
BTW, the current issue of Mix magazine (for pro recording engineers) has an article about this stuff, and mentions my comb filtering article favorably.

BTW, I've quoted about seven or eight favorable comments on the various "too small to work" devices. That doesn't count for anything? Why is it good when you get mentioned but it's bad when they get mentioned?

Quote:
It's not that I don't "believe" in comb filtering, it's just that you seem to have raised it to the level of be-all, end-all.

Again, I just put it out there as a solid explanation for what otherwise seems unexplainable. Such as "acoustic tweaks" that are obviously too small to do anything given the laws of physics.

Quote:
Any chance we could ever get you to go listen to Wes Phillips' or Jeff Wong's systems and hear what different gear and tweaks can really do?

Sure! Both of them have already been to my place. All they have to do is invite me to theirs.

--Ethan

Quote:
Such as "acoustic tweaks" that are obviously too small to do anything given the laws of physics.

Please explain this also. You keep repeating this like you believe it's true and, if you repeat it a sufficient number of times, we'll start to believe it too. Why are the Harmonix discs "too small"? Why is the Shakti device "too small"? "Too small" to do what?

Too small to be effective?

Not to be too confessional and all, but I've run into microdots that have had a huge impact on me!

Anyway, I've been down with small things in audio mattering ever since I learned about point sources in audio.

Do you know how small a point is?

It's an infinitesmally small that it is ZERO DIMENSIONAL!

If we accept point sources in audio that Euclid described as "that which has no part," then think about what an harmonix disc or two could do...or not.

Quote:
If we accept point sources in audio that Euclid described as "that which has no part," then think about what an harmonix disc or two could...or not.

They would be, like, the size of your head! Somebody's head. Bigger even! Just think what your head can do. Or not.

Quote:
I've run into microdots that have had a huge impact on me!

They may have had an impact on you, but it was just placebo effect. No other explanation makes sense. I have $100 that says you couldn't pass a blind test. Any time you'd like to stop by my house for a visit, bring your tiny dots and we'll have a listen together.

--Ethan

Quote:

Quote:
I've run into microdots that have had a huge impact on me!

They may have had an impact on you, but it was just placebo effect. No other explanation makes sense. I have $100 that says you couldn't pass a blind test. Any time you'd like to stop by my house for a visit, bring your tiny dots and we'll have a listen together.

--Ethan

If those microdots are what I think Buddha is referring to, I'm sure you will find completly new colors and contours to the music of your system. Happy listening!

Quote:
I've run into microdots that have had a huge impact on me!

---------

They may have had an impact on you, but it was just placebo effect. No other explanation makes sense. I have $100 that says you couldn't pass a blind test. Any time you'd like to stop by my house for a visit, bring your tiny dots and we'll have a listen together.

This seems to be Ethan's new choice for dismissing ideas, make a cash bet on a DBT with someone across the country. What is this, "Betting With the Stars"? Why don't you get crazy with this silliness, Ethan? Make the bet $1,000,000.

For $1,000,000 it might be worth an afternoon. After the cost of the microdot how much would you have left?

*

Quote:
Such as "acoustic tweaks" that are obviously too small to do anything given the laws of physics.

Please explain this, Ethan. You keep repeating this like you believe it's true and, if you repeat it a sufficient number of times, we'll start to believe it too. Why are the Harmonix discs "too small"? Why is the Shakti device "too small"? "Too small" to do what?

Quote:

Quote:
I've run into microdots that have had a huge impact on me!

They may have had an impact on you, but it was just placebo effect. No other explanation makes sense. I have $100 that says you couldn't pass a blind test. Any time you'd like to stop by my house for a visit, bring your tiny dots and we'll have a listen together.

--Ethan

Buddha, If you would please take Ethan up on his invite and supply him with the sublime microdot therapy it might open up huge new vistas in his somewhat constricted perception.

In my formative years, microdots, the Beatles, Van Morrison, Bob Marley and QUAD ESL's made a lasting and cosmic impression!

Quote:
In my formative years, microdots, the Beatles, Van Morrison, Bob Marley and QUAD ESL's made a lasting and cosmic impression!

--------------------
"Guess what?! I got a fever, and the only prescription... is more cowbell!"

Not surprisingly, those two thoughts go togther now.

Quote:

Quote:
I've run into microdots that have had a huge impact on me!

They may have had an impact on you, but it was just placebo effect. No other explanation makes sense. I have $100 that says you couldn't pass a blind test. Any time you'd like to stop by my house for a visit, bring your tiny dots and we'll have a listen together.

--Ethan

Well!

That's free money.

I'm so confident that the effect would be discernable from placebo that I'll have you try it and I will trust you to tell me which is the "real" microdot and which is the placebo.

We'll film it for posterity, too.

You remember that cool cello video you made? These microdots can do all that, and more.

Quote:

You remember that cool cello video you made? These microdots can do all that, and more.

An atheist friend of mine saw God because of the microdots. He was never the same. Might rock Ethan's world, tho' undoubtedly he'd have some empirical explanantion for his moment of transcendence.

Ya know, Jan is heading in the right direction, so maybe we can help Ethan meet him in the middle.

Ethan acknowledges that his room treatments are allowed to be considered sufficient to "change" how one's system and room sound.

Ethan says that Harmonix discs do not, as they are too small.

Therefore, there must be a minimum size that Ethan will "allow" to affect the sound of a room.

Ethan, what size delineates the difference between having some sonic effect and not?

What Ethan and Jan seem to really be fighting over is not that room treatments can affect sound, but just where the size limit is.

Jan acknowledges belief in Harmonix sized discs being of adequate size, so the question for Jan is, at what point does a device finally become so small that it doesn't noticeably affect the sound?

Once we get the details from Jan and Ethan, we can maybe start finding common ground.

I look forward to the answers.

Quote:
Jan acknowledges belief in Harmonix sized discs being of adequate size, so the question for Jan is, at what point does a device finally become so small that it doesn't noticeably affect the sound?

Uh, did I miss the vote where Buddha got elected quiz-meister?

I guess you know you didn't ask a very good question. Given sufficient distance, air will "absorb" sound pressure by way of scruffing it off in the form of friction/heat. It is the same "absorptive" method Ethan's large panels employ. Different wave lengths "absorb" at different at different rates and different materials will have their own coefficient of "absorbtion". Which is why large absorptive materials are non-linear at various frequencies. From long to short pressure waves, the chosen material will absorb more or less depending on frequency. Ethan probably has some charts and graphs which explain this.

If you don't wish to absorb the pressure wave, you can affect it by diffusion or reflection with a surface just slightly larger than the wave length you're trying to affect. Helmholtz resonators can affect the sound and can start with pipes as small as 2" in diameter. There are lots of ways you can "affect" the "sound".

This is one of the reasons given for the design of products such as the Harmonix discs and the Shakti device. They do not rely on absorption, or reflection; in fact they do not use absorption or refelction at all, and their linearity is therefore not affected by their size in a conventional manner. They leave more of the original signal in the room rather than reducing some frequencies more than others. Once we get beyond the idea these products work similarly to Ethan's, we can move this thread along.

Quote:
What Ethan and Jan seem to really be fighting over is not that room treatments can affect sound, but just where the size limit is.

I was unaware we were "fighting". I thought for the most part Ethan was ignoring my "proofs".

I was trying to get Ethan to acknowledge the idea that the discs and tuning devices discussed in this thread do not operate on the same principles as his products and therefore are not bound by those laws of physics he keeps referring to without explanation. As such, I was not arguing one bit about the size of the Harmonix or Shakti products as related to effect since these products, unlike Ethan's, do not rely on large amounts of surface area to be effective.

I have argued against the idea of tuning a violin or guitar by stuffing it full of absorptive materials and that the same logic might apply to rooms. And I have presented evidence that a relatively few small bits of Dynaflex damping material can have a profound effect on a car's interior panels, thus affecting the sound quality of the stereo system used in the vehicle. Ethan has chosen to ignore all of this but that doesn't really qualify as a "fight" so much as it does a just a good "snit".

So, Jan won't answer the question.

Come on, amigo, it shouldn't be that hard.

At some point, there's gotta be a lower limit.

There is some size, that no matter how big the mark-up, that 'can't' work. Everyone has their point of incredulity, what's yours?

Harmonix Discs are about an inch across.

What if they were 1/16th of an inch?

1/32nd?

I mean, at some point, not even Horton will hear them.

Quote:
What if they were 1/16th of an inch?
1/32nd?
I mean, at some point, not even Horton will hear them.

You're finally catching on, my friend!

Quote:
make a cash bet on a DBT with someone across the country.

This bet applies to everyone here. Somebody here that "believes" must live near me, no? How about I make it $500?

Quote:
I'm so confident that the effect would be discernable from placebo that I'll have you try it and I will trust you to tell me which is the "real" microdot and which is the placebo.

Okay! Send me a set and I'll tell you what happened.

Quote:
Ethan, what size delineates the difference between having some sonic effect and not?

This is very simple, and it has nothing to do with Ethan "allowing" anything. There are two relevant size factors:

All rooms have some number of square feet of surface area. Let's take as an example a room that's 25 by 16 by 9 feet high. When empty this room has 1538 square feet of reflecting surface. Factor in carpet etc and maybe it's down to 1000 square feet. If you then apply something absorptive on only some parts of the surface, you can directly calculate the change in reverb time and frequency response etc based on the ratio of bare and covered surfaces. If the device diffuses instead of absorbs, you can still get a good idea for what will happen based on the percentage of surface covered.

The other factor is the device's thickness, and that relates to the acoustic wavelengths of various frequencies. For example, thin devices can't affect low frequencies because those waves go right through or around the device.

Quote:
products such as the Harmonix discs and the Shakti device. They do not rely on absorption, or reflection

Exactly. They rely on the well-known but often-dismissed placebo effect!

However, if you have an alternate explanation that doesn't involve politicians or alien abduction, I'm all ears. But it can't be a link to some audiophile reviewer praising the devices. It has to be a real explanation. Please be very specific!

--Ethan

Quote:
I'm so confident that the effect would be discernable from placebo that I'll have you try it and I will trust you to tell me which is the "real" microdot and which is the placebo.

Okay! Send me a set and I'll tell you what happened.

--Ethan

A "set" of microdot would forever alter your perception of auditory and sensory input. You would disavow your atheism and pray to God for mercy and a safe landing. You would be overcome with emotion, gratitude, relief and humility. You might throw away your Fluke Multi-Meter and start reading the Torah. You would let lesser musicians take center stage while modestly playing cowbell in the background.

Is it possible that devices such as these don't absorb or remove anything? Maybe they add something to the soundfield of the room. I could imagine a device that would resonate when excited by the vibrations of the sound, perhaps even adding harmonics of the original signal, while not being audible as the source of this euphonic distortion.

Wow, neither Jan nor Ethan will actually answer the question.

That's audio for ya.

Quote:
So, Jan won't answer the question.

Come on, amigo, it shouldn't be that hard.

Well, yeah, it can when the question makes no sense.

Quote:
All rooms have some number of square feet of surface area. Let's take as an example a room that's 25 by 16 by 9 feet high. When empty this room has 1538 square feet of reflecting surface. Factor in carpet etc and maybe it's down to 1000 square feet.

Carpet and "etc." account for 538 square feet?! That some "etc."! However, if we're talking "non-reflecting"
material, I was under the impression it is not the "square" footage that is important but rather the apparent "cubic" feet that will actually do the work.

Quote:
Quote:

products such as the Harmonix discs and the Shakti device. They do not rely on absorption, or reflection

-------

Exactly. They rely on the well-known but often-dismissed placebo effect!

How can placebo effect be often dismissed when you rely on it for everything? According to your rationalization even your own product's effects are accounted for by placebo and short term memory.

Quote:
However, if you have an alternate explanation that doesn't involve politicians or alien abduction, I'm all ears. But it can't be a link to some audiophile reviewer praising the devices. It has to be a real explanation. Please be very specific!

Really, Ethan, if you are not going to take part in this discussion, then there's no point for you to be here. If your only rebuttable is alien abductions, then why bother?

Why don't you try answering a few of the questions that have been asked of you during this discussion? You have ignored everything I've asked and just keep blathering about politicians.

Answer a few questions, Ethan. They have to be real explanations and, please, be very specific.

If you can't do this then you have no case to make and the thread is over with you loosing. "Placebo" for everything ain't cuttin' it. "Gullible fools" is not something you can prove unless you want your products purchased by those same fools. And JA hasn't indicated he was "mistaken" so your only case so far is, "Nah, nah, 'cause I said so."

Put up or shut up, Ethan.

Quote:
Is it possible that devices such as these don't absorb or remove anything? Maybe they add something to the soundfield of the room. I could imagine a device that would resonate when excited by the vibrations of the sound, perhaps even adding harmonics of the original signal, while not being audible as the source of this euphonic distortion.

If you can make that case by finding information to support your idea, then maybe that's something to consider. However, it would appear the Harmonix discs are too small to add such resonances and the Shakti device gives no indication it works by adding anything.

Quote:
Wow, neither Jan nor Ethan will actually answer the question.

What question, Buddha?

Quote:
Answer a few questions, Ethan. They have to be real explanations and, please, be very specific.

Same for you, Jan - what questions?

So far I'm about the only person here actually discussing the science of audio, explaining what matters and why!

--Ethan

Quote:
So far I'm about the only person here actually discussing the science of audio, explaining what matters and why!

Well, la di dah! "Silly" is now a science.

You really haven't been paying attention, have you, Ethan?

Quote:

Quote:
Wow, neither Jan nor Ethan will actually answer the question.

What question, Buddha?

Quote:
Answer a few questions, Ethan. They have to be real explanations and, please, be very specific.

Same for you, Jan - what questions?

So far I'm about the only person here actually discussing the science of audio, explaining what matters and why!

--Ethan

Ethan, how small can a room treatment be before you will not consider it to be able to have an affect?

You say Harmonix discs are too small, but you do not offer up your lower size limit.

Is it two inches across and two inches deep?

Just where does your limit lie?

It's Ok if you won't answer, neither will Jan.

Nobody seems to be willing to describe just where the size limits of room treaments cross from being effective into being ineffective.

It is not my intent to speak for anyone, just to point out that on page 4 of this thread, post #37683 dated 3/30/08, Ethan states:

"My company's MiniTraps are 8 square feet and 3 inches thick, and most rooms need at least four of them to make a meaningful improvement."

I believe this gives us a general idea of Ethan's size limits. A long way from some dime or quarter size dots, including a dozen or so of same.

RG

Quote:
It's Ok if you won't answer, neither will Jan.

Buddha, you don't seem to understand that I can't answer a question that hasn't been asked. Unless you tell me how the "sound is affected" and what sound is being affected I can't give you any information other than very broad answers. If you wish to reflect a pressure wave, the small edge of a side table can achieve that effect when the PTP wave front doesn't exceed the dimension of the table's edge. The edge of a speaker cabinet manages to diffract a good bit of information and it is how small? If you wish to diffuse the sound, a small bit of area can do so to a large amount of signal. If you would prefer to make the wave front cause a resonant frequency, you need to work out the 1/4 wave frequency to make a transmission line operate. If you wish to absorb a wave front, the size of the PTP wave still determines how small or large the absorption material must be. My LS3/5a's have a small 3/8" x 1/2" band of wool felt placed around the tweeter which serves to absorb a fair amount energy coming from the driver before it strikes the edge of the front baffle. This small bit of absorptive material serves to minimize diffraction of the frequencies handled by the tweeter. No such material is placed around the woofer since it produces longer wave lengths. If you wish to minimize a 40 foot PTP pressure wave in your room, you'll need lots of surface area measured by square feet and depth of the material, so you're talking cubic feet of material and you'll still only be partially effective due to the length of the wave front. However, the way you asked the question offers no such qualifiers and therefore has no simple, direct answer.

http://search.yahoo.com/bin/search?fr=ybr_sbc&p=frequency%20to%20wave%20length

Quote:
I believe this gives us a general idea of Ethan's size limits. A long way from some dime or quarter size dots, including a dozen or so of same.

But the devices under question in this thread do not operate by way of absorption while Ethan's products operate (for the purposes of this discussion) exclusively by way of absorption. If we can get beyond the point where we foolishly continue to think all room tuning devices operate in a similar and singular manner, we might be able to move this thread forward.