| Columns Retired Columns & Blogs |
October 29, 2009 - 2:29am
#1
ART system, and the bigger issue
| Loudspeakers Amplification Digital Sources | |
Analog Sources Accessories Featured | |
Music Columns Retired Columns | |
Show Reports | |
Features Latest News Community | |
Resources Subscriptions |
© 2024 StereophileAVTech Media Americas Inc., USA
All rights reserved
Alex O the Acoustic ART System was discovered empirically as clearly stated on the Synergistic Research website. http://www.synergisticresearch.com/?p=195
When I first heard Tibetan prayer bowls alter temple acoustics the reality that resonating bowls alter acoustics was proven 100% (for me) by the most sensitive and reliable test instruments in know- my ears. That was it; then and there I knew resonating bowls could have a profound effect on room acoustics. I did not think
I agree Alexo, Ted promised these plots early this year and still can't seem to get his act together.What I also find disturbing is JA's willingness to accept the "fact" that Ted's little bowls do work as claimed before he did any measurements himself.....
Quote "Something is happening with the ART devices: either they affect the listener or they affect the room's acoustics. I have suspected the former; Ted's measurements suggest the latter."
What sort of reasoning is that? They affect the listener and not the room acoustics? Wow must be a brand new type of physics going on we don't know about.
And this response to the quote below....
Quote:
I look forward to that report. It would make me tremendously happy if the third party could explain the principles on which these devices operate and explain how they achieve the effects they achieve (if any)
I doubt that that will happen. First comes the repeatable measurement of the effect (if any). Explanation is a whole 'nother thing. At the risk of drawing too over-reaching an analogy, Hubble discovered the expansion of the universe in the 1920s, but it wasn't for another 70 years did any kind of possible explanation emerge.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Explanation is a whole nother thing? Again JA seems to think that Ted's bowls can't be explained using current methods of measurement. So are we to believe that they work by some sort of magic or better yet some sort of physics not yet discovered yet Ted some how managed to build the little bowls to his liking? Seems like JA already has his mind made up that they DO work regardless. That's not being very neutral in the testing and discussion.
Ted, if you had measurements ages ago why then did you not post them when asked? It takes you almost a year to come up with a plot and when you do it's flawed and erroneous?
Ted, I don't have a problem with your Tibetan prayer bowls. I honestly hope they work. Seriously! Who wouldn't want to put a few cups and bowls on their walls to enhance the sound fidelity of their room rather than shit load of of ugly panels? Seriously!
My issue is not with the prayer bowls. My issue is with the methodology you used to develop your product. These measurements that you're trying to get right now should have been available at the product development stage NOT to prove to someone else that your product works but to tune the bowls, to make sure that they are resonating or absorbing or whatever it is they do at a proper frequency. You said that you listened to them and you tuned them. So, you're saying that you tuned them by ear? Dude, that's amateur hour! I dare you to go to an arms dealer and tell them you can produce a gun barrel by sheer eye sight. I dare you! This is exactly what you're telling us: You're saying that you produced a precision instrument by ear. Wonderful! How do you know that one sample is just as good as the other? How do you know they're consistent? What's your margin of error?
David, I'm sure that all of these things are done to sell products. That's what they're in business for. I don't mind them selling products, but I do mind "mysterious" products. I mind "magical" products. I mind inconsistent products.
I also agree with you when it comes to JA. If a product's performance can't be measured, then it can't be produced CONSISTENTLY. Period. The sample variance will be substantial because nobody knows how to measure consistency.
Maybe I am reading the thread differently to you, because the most balance poster in the other thread was JA.
Can you show where JA willingness to accept the facts the little bowls do work are?
If you set aside bias and want to follow due diligance, then what JA has said so far and done is correct; it is not possible to actually comment in a conclusive manner unless the charts were analysed in great detail and then potentially modelled.
Or, as JA was looking to do; setup an independant expert with the products and an agreement between company/expert/JA on the process.
In fact JA went as far as to say it is entirely possible it is psychoacoustics, but validation is required.
However IMO it would had been good if JA had taken a deeper look at the general point raised by Ethan regarding the chart looked skewed.
Cheers
Orb
Huh?
My apologies, but there are many things that affect the listener, not the least being the change in the state of his/her mind. This will affect perception, even if it doesn't affect the sound. This was the gist of JJ's presentation at AES, that everything experienced during listening is integrated into the act of perception. I am not stating that JJ is endorsing the ART devices, only that if they have a repeatable effect (which is still to be shown), it can just as readily be ascribed to what they do to the listener as what they do to the sound.
Still doubt me? Take a listen to your system, Pause, smoke a joint, listen again. You will perceive major differences yet the sound is not changed at all. Do the same thing tomorrow, you will perceive the same change. There is a repeatable effect but it affects the listener, not the sound.
Please don't put words in my mouth. That is not what I wrote. If I believed that to be the case, then why have a commissioned an examination of the ART devices using current measurement techniques?
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
"They should have had all the testing methodology developed and all the data readily available not to prove to others that their products work, but to use as tools to develop their products.
"It seems obvious that the ART system was developed out of thin air without any thought given to identifying parameters and problems that the system was to address, without any thought to developing a testing and measuring methodology to ensure that the product would work CONSISTENTLY in different environments and to identify modifications that would be needed (if any) in larger, smaller, unusual venues."
There is no requirement for any audio manufacturer to perform tests according to anyone's demands and no certainly no requirement for what methodology a manufacturer should employ when developing a product. Period. If you don't like it you are free to lump it.
I could not disagree more. It's a free market. no lives are at stake. If some one wants to develop a product through trial and error then so be it. If someone wants to pray to the rain gods for guidence so be it. In a free market the consumers decide what is right and what is wrong and as a consumer that is exactly how I want it to be. I don't want some dick with no respect for my aesthetic values dictating to the manufacturers how they are going to develop products for my use. If you don't like a manufacturer's methodologies and methodologies mean something to you....don't buy their product. It's that simple.
I guess IHF and DIN, etc, disappeared the other day, eh?
http://blog.stereophile.com/rmaf2009/i_hate_when_that_happens
By that reasoning then, which I do agree with, just using your ears to evaluate any piece of equipment means nothing in the long term and such tests are not a good way to design or to tell if a certain product does anything at all. By your own admission then if I listened to Ted explain in person at one of his demos how and why his product works then he has already influenced my decision by altering how I think. Just listening to music with and without his little bowls would not be a good way to tell if they work at all then.
But you already said that maybe we can't find an explanation as to why Ted's bowls work. That leaves open the door for people to just go "Oh well what we don't know isn't important"
Why isn't the third party that you commissioned not been identified yet if everything is on the up and up? Just who is this expert that's going to decide if Ted's little bowls work?
"I guess IHF and DIN, etc, disappeared the other day, eh?
So, you're saying the acoustic resonators have IHF and DIN requirements? Fascinating...
Yes, but you don't need to spend $3,500 to play something a second time and notice some detail you missed the first time. This is the issue. In the end it's a matter of consumer fraud and not receiving what one pays for.
Yes, and that give me a great idea. Instead of selling my company's Planter Traps with plastic ferns, we'll instead lay some primo bud on top. This really works! And will only add $200 for a quarter "z" of the good stuff. Cash only. No cops.
Ethan Winer
Proud owner of RealTraps, but posting on my own behalf
And always using my real name
No we are free to disagree with the method involved and to show others how flawed their methods are. It's call truth in advertising.Also maybe lives aren't at stake but truth and money are.
Ted was the one agreeing to give us waterfall plots and the resulting plots were full or errors.
What do you mean by full of errors?
There was one I thought, a very fundamental one I admit
But that was just 1 error/mistake, so have you found more?
Thanks
Orb
A 500 mS error is a mighty BIG error in my opinion so yes the whole plot was skewed and means nothing now when it comes to being accurate.
I have no problem with challenging objective claims made by manufacturers or demanding that they be held liable for objective claims. But I am completely against dictating product development methodologies when we are talking about something like audio which an aesthetic based hobby. I certainly don't believe a manufacturer has to know exactly why his or her product does what it does for it to be so. I think my Forsell TT is a prime example of product development methodologies that bypassed scientific testing, relied on trial and error and wrought reliable positive results without the designer knowing exactly why. I am sure many a speaker designer has followed the same route. I am sure any number of electronics have been designed without any corolation between measured performance and percieved performance. The idea that such methodologies should be mandatory is simply wrong. But I have no problem with anyone being taken to task when they step off and make objectively testable claims of cause and effect. I would hope that folks are smart enough to see the difference and understand how these things are very much independent. Let's say Peter Forsell drew the eroneous conclusion that his TT was "more accurate than any other TT and that it was because there was no suspension and that his unique platter was doing a better job of removing structural borne vibration and doing it better than any suspension system could ever do it." (To the best of my knowledge he never said any of that it's just a hypothetical) 1. He would be wrong and it would be easy to prove it objectively 2. His TT would still sound better to me than any other.
Thus turning his original thread title claim of "Proof Positive" into positively no proof.
So that is one error and not full of errors, just need to be aware of how bias can affect our judgement and how we post, especially after looking at your other posts as well.
I would had thought the 500ms skew should still allow for the charts to be studied in detail by those with the knowledge/expertise without it causing other spurious errors.
Was it this specific topic that made you join the forum recently (last day or so)?
I appreciate you could had been a long time lurker like myself and it was this topic that got to you (was a different topic that made me want to post)?
Cheers
Orb
Don't lie about what I said.
Yes. So? I was reporting my perception. I was not explaining how the devices might work, nor was I endorsing the product. If you choose to perceive more than that, then you are letting your own bias affect your perception.
Of course. I have not said otherwise. It is one of several possible explanations for the anecdotal observation I offered in my RMAF report. If you have read Stereophile for any length of time, you will remember when I described the positive effect of an inexpensive tweak that was only evident when the person demonstrating it, Enid Lumley, was in the room. The true test is when you get in home and can try it in your own system without a third-party present, which was the case in the case of this tweak, which I concluded did nothing.
New to the forum yet already you're making demands and throwing your weight around? I haven't identified the engineer who will doing the work because I want to keep that person as independent as possible.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
So, how would one fill in the missing information? In acoustics one can not assume system linearity, transmission medium linearity, or a lot of other things when it all comes down to that.
To some extent conclusions can be made, and were made.
Personally, when a result seems to beg the conservation of energy (look at the shape of the various peaks for more on that), one does tend, however, to wonder a bit.
One error? I think not. One needs to make several errors in methodology and judgement to get from a computer error to the eroneous data report published on this forum. Failure to propperly analyse the eroneous data, failure to check for computer error before posting the results, failure to repeat the procedure for varification...one error in this case lead to a whole series of errors that lead to the posting of grossly eroneous data that was easily recognized as grossly in error by several experts. a lot of egg to wipe off that face.
Are you suggesting that even a first semester 101 science student would tend to wonder a bit about these things?
You know as well as I do, standards are not methodology. Don't be such a baby.
Agreed and all comes back to due diligance-validation that even Ted accepts, but the point I was responding to was specific to the charts; maybe I interpreted the post wrongly and when they say full of errors they meant not just the chart but the process.
Did not seem to be posted in that way though.
Cheers
Orb
Funny stuff my bias affecting my perception. Sort of like you writing a blog in an audio magazine about certain products you listened too and then the readers assuming that you ARE endorsing said product. I mean after all the blog didn't come with a "Nothing I Say In This Article Is Meant To Be Construed That I Endorse This Product"
People who read Stereophile want reviews and what the reviewer finds out.So, yes you are saying Ted's bowls "work".
But maybe you were just having a bad day or week and your mood altered your perceptions and hearing ability since you didn't hear anything. Just what wouldn't affect how we hear no matter where we are and thinking then? Maybe you talked yourself out of hearing anything. See how round and round this could go without some hard measurements?
"As independent as possible" which means not until after the article has been published in your magazine or next week?
I have no idea why you would ask that, and almost as little about what a "Science 101" student might wonder a bit, to be honest. It's been a while.
Another technical quote from a rocket scientist?
It's even worse than that. The REW software is very easy to use. You click Start Measuring, then REW plays a sweep tone simultaneously recording what the microphone picks up. Then you add your room treatment and click Start again.
Yes, there are window settings that determine how the data is displayed. But you'd have to go out of your way to do what Ted said happened. When running REW in the normal and standard way, things are not "offset by 500 milliseconds." That could happen only with a deliberate and intentional misuse of the program.
Ethan Winer
Proud owner of RealTraps, but posting on my own behalf
And always using my real name
"But maybe you were just having a bad day or week and your mood altered your perceptions and hearing ability since you didn't hear anything. Just what wouldn't affect how we hear no matter where we are and thinking then? Maybe you talked yourself out of hearing anything. See how round and round this could go without some hard measurements?"
Unfortunately, the debate doesn't stop there, as "hard measurements" usually only provide evidence that something changed. Measurements do not ensure that everyone hears the effects, or that people that DO hear the effects all hear the same thing. Could the change indicated by measurements actually produce worse sound? Yes, of course. Are some changes to the sound not measureable? Yes, they are. So, round and round we go, as you said.
I would think that "evidence that something changed" as opposed to wishful thinking would be the preferred way to go then, otherwise people end up buying all sorts of crazy gadgets that in reality do nothing.
Please, not measurable? Well then it's only the sound inside your own head then if it comes down to that.
As the original text of yours that you forgot to include but I reinstated above demonstrates, I wasn't objecting to your opinion but to the _demand_ you were making in what was, I believe, just the third message you had posted to our forum.
When the article is published, the engineer's byline will be included as a matter of course. You'll have to take my word for it that the person is a legitimate audio engineering expert and not, as Ethan Winer says, a specialist in "woo woo." But if you don't wish to take my word for it, then I respectfully suggest you don't read Stereophile.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Exactly what I did.
The error occurred while the file was being made- while the measurement was being taken, not after the fact. After that I opened the files and generated the waterfall graphs from said measurement files. It was not until later that I noticed the beginning of the plot line for one set of measurements was 500ms behind the other set of measurements. This glitch in the files led to the faulty waterfall graphs.
Ethan you are misrepresenting what happened when you state that I tampered with the window time settings. The raw REW file places one set of measurements 500ms behind another WHEN THE FILE IS OPENED in REW and I have several such REW files that prove this.
Ted Denney III
Lead Designer, Synergistic Research Inc.
Again, what "demand"? You seem a bit peckish. I was just asking and you got all in a huff. Oh right it was my third post to your forum so we are still counting posts I see hmmm
So waiting until the article is published is wise? You can do as you wish since it's your magazine of course.
Ted, I'm not going to go over this again and again. REW is easy to use. I mastered the basics in five minutes. Nothing like you describe can go wrong if you just click the one button. That it took you a year to show any measurements is unbelievable. And that you chose a 15,000 cubic foot room is beyond unbelievable. Whatever were you thinking? What potential customers of yours have a room like that?
My Density Report and Using ETF articles describe how to test acoustic products in a typical domestic size room. I suggest you do that this weekend and post waterfalls and also post the data files here on Monday morning. It's not difficult. It doesn't take long. And as a vendor making product claims you really need to do this ASAP.
Ethan Winer
Proud owner of RealTraps, but posting on my own behalf
And always using my real name
Though this was not your intent, thank you for pointing out that the error is out of the ordinary. I did not assume such an error was possible either so I did not check the Energy-Time graph after running waterfalls. When the full report is made public, I will include said files for REW users to see the measurement files in question start 500ms behind the zero plot line- when the file is opened.
Ethan that is my home listening room- I live in a loft and even under these difficult conditions the ART System allows my system to shine. It is easy to hear and when people from the industry and my dealers come to call, they are never disappointed. Again to anyone reading this, if you live in So. Cal. LA/OC area or just visiting, you are welcome to call the factory and make an appointment to listen to my system.
In the main report we will be using 4 different listening rooms of which my loft is one. The others are more conventional and one is an already heavily treated home theater.
Thanks but I
I saw that too, but I was willing to let that one go
> But more seriously, just curious what is stopping your or Ethan in setting up
> your own test process with an independant expert/company.
You appear to be asking them to take a lot of time and expense to establish something they already know. Why would they want to do that?
What level of acoustic expertise do you think a person would need to acquire to be confident of the effect on the sound field of a few of Ted's devices in a normal room. Confident enough to make a significant bet.
Alternatively, for a non-audiophile without any acoustic knowledge but who has experienced in day-to-day life the acoustic effects of moving around a few ornaments on shelves and coffee tables. What proportion would bet for or against a significant acoustic effect of Ted's devices?
Now consider the audiophiles posting to this forum. Excluding the "objectivists" what proportion are sufficiently confident Ted's devices change the sound field audible amounts or are sufficiently confident they do not to take that bet?
So what is going on?
Now we are going round in circles.
It is about due diligance and validation, this applies to everyone who wants to make a statement of fact; meaning Ethan/JJ and of course including Ted, and explains why JA has been more circumspect in his own thoughts and posts regarding this until he has a more detailed analysis.
I accept there is the other side that this is a forum also for banter and opinions, but it is balancing what can be said as professional fact or that for general discussion on a forum.
And Andy, bear in mind both of those work in the audio industry so if JA can setup an investigation for his decision process, why can't they?
Well if JA can manage to do this, I would had thought one with a successful company and the other with patents pertaining to technology in use the cost would be pretty insignificant compared to JA.
Again all comes back to due diligance-validation to back up ones case they put forward or to complete a decision process with what is going on (as you say), and importantly exclude ones own bias that may weight the heuristics used in the process.
Thanks
Orb
Hi Andy,
I would not be too worried about their comments and opinions as the evidence is what counts. They may be right, or wrong, let's wait and see.
Yes, as mentioned above, no evidence is in. What complicates things more is that Ethan has already been caught misleading the public before, on AVS forum, by attempting to manipulate the public into sabatoging their own systems/rooms, by over inflating the bass by +7db at 20hz, nearly twice as loud (and fat) as it should be, and at higher frequencies. Of course as the bass bloats/fattens, so the need for treatments.
And of course the fake, manipulated graphs he also posted here.
So one can see why we are skeptical of Ethan's continued attacks/accusations since we know Ethan's past history. Too bad he just doesn't quiet down and let the evidence come in and speak for itself.
I hope that clears things up Andy.
> Now we are going round in circles.
No we are not. You are avoiding answering questions that would hopefully show that you had hold of the wrong end of the stick.
> It is about due diligance and validation,
No it is not. What is going on here has a lot to do with business, what people get out of posting forums, etc... Due diligence and validation, at least in the scientific sense, is mostly certainly not what the audiophile business or hobby is about. And there is no reason why it should be as far as I can see. But Ethan and JJ will no doubt disagree.
> this applies to everyone who wants to make a statement of fact; meaning Ethan/
> JJ and of course including Ted,
When it comes to matters audiophile, what is a fact to one person is not necessarily a fact to another. Facts need a shared set of beliefs with which to determine what is or is not true and that is often absent when audiophiles disagree.
> and explains why JA has been more circumspect in his own thoughts and posts
> regarding this until he has a more detailed analysis.
Not sure about the circumspect, it looks quite ambitious to me although it does depend on which way they decide to jump in the end.
> but it is balancing what can be said as professional fact or that for general
> discussion on a forum.
Why? You may not have any confidence in acoustical matters but that does not mean that others do not either via experience or scientific understanding. What was the basis of Ethan's confidence?
(The above is in response to an earlier version of the post and below is a response to a later one if things do not quite line up)
> And Andy, bear in mind both of those work in the audio industry so if JA can
> setup an investigation for his decision process, why can't they?
Because JA judges it to be a profitable investment in providing rewarding content for Stereophile. The same would not seem to apply to either Ethan or JJ. Remember that there is no question about the efficacy of Ted's devices in either Ethan or JJs minds and so such a test would need to be performed for other reasons.
"Facts need a shared set of beliefs with which to determine what is or is not true and that is often absent when audiophiles disagree."
Gold Star for the funniest post of the week. Congratulations!
> I would not be too worried about their comments and opinions as the
> evidence is what counts. They may be right, or wrong, let's wait and see.
Chortle. I have seen Peter Aczel insert editorial comment like this in the Audio Critic when a knowledgeable author made a statement based on long established information that he did not possess. It was not only "black hat" audiophiles he used to annoy.
Andy, when you use the word "belief", that is known to tie into bias.
Sorry but did you really have to break my post up into 1 sentence responses, all it does is then lose the context of what I am saying (ok could just be me being slightly grumpy due to a migraine).
Coming back to bias you missed my last sentence;
This is why.
You may feel different, fair enough.
However if I had taken a lesser approach as being discussed when doing presentations on certain technology/science to various world leading investment banks and their clients and technology based analysts (which I do often) and they ask about my thoughts/conclusions, I would be in a world of deep shit and hurt by now
Thanks
Orb
Not sure how this can be seen to be profitable for JA and Stereophile as audio magazines are a semi-niche sector, and on top of that the product being discussed is not mainstream as say CD and amp players (just consider how mainstream any kind of room acoustic product is with regards to music listeners who read audio magazines or even Stereophile readers).
But for a bit of fun...
You could be right if JA managed to get the following headline:
"Barrack Obama intervenes in Audio Dispute"
I guess that would help sales
Cheers
Orb
Please show us that thread on AVS forum. If you can't, then STFU and apologize to me right now. And stop accusing me of "Ethan has been caught deceiving people" as you do regularly here.
Have you no shame at all?
--Ethan
I'd be glad to test Ted's magic bowels if he'll send me a set. I did that for the Cathedral Panels people a few years ago, because they had no idea how to test their own products either. After the test I put the waterfall results and setup photos on my personal (not RealTraps) web site, and linked to it in several forums when people asked about the effectiveness of those panels.
As it turned out, those panels made almost no change in the room response. Just for grins, I also tested three half-filled garbage cans we had laying around our factory. Those changed the response much more than the Cathedral Panels, and the change was for the better (around 100 Hz and above). I've posted that here before, but it's been a while. So it's repeated below.
If Ted would like me to perform a similar test, totally "fair and balanced" with real data everyone can trust, all he has to do is send me some bowels to test and I'll gladly comply. I'll even do it now, before JA's expert, confident that my results will be similar to the expert's results. That way everyone will know that my test is in fact correct and not biased.
Normally a lab charges about $1,000 to do such a test. I did it for free for Cathedral Panels and I'll do it for free for Ted too. Assuming his magic bowels do what he claims, he has nothing to lose and everything to gain. But what are the chances Ted will agree?
Ethan Winer
Proud owner of RealTraps, but posting on my own behalf
And always using my real name
Not quite as ugly as Ethan's garbage cans, years back we recommended stuffing various sizes of cardboard boxes with varying amounts of newspapers or magazines to use as makeshift LF absorbers: see http://www.stereophile.com/finetunes/537/ .
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Pages