"The Stereophile forum is not to be used by manufacturers as a pulpit to promote their products......"

Quote:
"The Stereophile forum is not to be used by manufacturers as a pulpit to promote their products......"

Hi troll. Sorry, I mean "legitimate new member who is NOT an Ethan Winer sockpuppet". How interesting, that you cut off the end of that line? Now why would you do that, troll? Is it because it ends like this?: ".... or discredit the products of others."

Which is the part your master Ethan violated, en masse, isn't it? Only fair then, that Ted D. break the end part, if Ethan can break the first. Anyway, this is a fair defense of a series of rather unfair attacks; and if an industry member's products is directly attacked by another industry member's products, they should certainly have the right to defend themselves. I'm sure you don't mind, since you are obviously just a new member, not here long enough to build up any prejudices towards one member or another. (that's a wink in case you missed it).

Quote:
There are numerous on-line discussion forums where people share positive experiences. Sadly these people are treated with childish contempt and are ridiculed by a handful of people- none of whom have tried or even heard the Acoustic ART System. For everyone who claims to have heard the difference (some are people who were first skeptical but later heard the improvement) they are shouted down loudly and rudely by only a handful of people who post over and over until no meaningful conversation can take place. AudioCircle.com and Stereophile.com are prime examples.

Welcome to the world of the internet audio community. I've seen the behaviour you just described occur with absolutely every audio product that is even hints at being outside the "norm" (of convention). And the "norm" varies a bit, depending on exactly how closed-minded, blind, dumb, deaf and ignorant the audio reactionary is. Whether the products are from Peter Belt, Bybee, Shun Mook, Frank Tchang or Synergistic etc.; the pattern is always the same. Those who never tried the tweak product, shout down those who did. I don't know much about AudioCircle, but this kind of reception is not what one would expect on a forum sponsored and run by Stereophile Magazine; the premier high end audio magazine in the world, if I'm not mistaken. A wacky objectivist cult forum like Hydrogen Audio, I can understand. But Stereophile??!! Damn. I'm not even sure what Stereophile stands for anymore. Anyway, there's just wayyyyy too many anti-audiophile trolls on this forum now. How fitting to this example, that "David L.", one of our latest anti-audiophile trolls, who's been programmed to specifically attack Synergistic ART, is the first respondent to your message.

Expect more of his ilk to follow.

I am simply stating the forum rules only in part but none the less they are the forum rules. I suggest you take it up with the ones responsible for enforcing the rules instead of blah blah blahing as usual.

Looking at this from Ted D's point of view, the guy went the extra mile to try and get data (for which he deserves kudos) and it went sour.

I would imagine this would be very frustrating, especially for someone who obviously really believes in his product.

So, if we are going to have the threads where he is catching heck, I vote we cut him some slack here to put his product in perspective.

His post on this thread seems to fit with the other threads this week.

Hell, I'm feeling bad in advance for when he gets that data right and Ethan still won't stand for it!

By the way, Ethan, this is a great reason to comer to CES and do a demo! You can even do it blindfolded!

Wait, on second thought, you already know the outcome!

I've read enough about ART system to be interested, especially when JA mentioned about its effect.

There really should be a policy against a market competitor commenting on the product in the same market made by the competition. I didn't read the whole long thread but from what I read, there were some crazy accusations made, re: falsification of data, photoshop, etc., whatever. That's appalling & infantile.

Quote:
I've read enough about ART system to be interested, especially when JA mentioned about its effect.

There really should be a policy against a market competitor commenting on the product in the same market made by the competition. I didn't read the whole long thread but from what I read, there were some crazy accusations made, re: falsification of data, photoshop, etc., whatever. That's appalling & infantile.

No, that's Ethan Winer. Not just Ethan Winer, but Ethan Winer on his **good behaviour**, when he identifies himself as being the owner of RealTraps. If you want to know what he says about his competitor's products when he hides behind his anonymous screen names and foolishly thinks no one can trace any identifiable characteristics in those posts back to him, I mean if you *really* want to see how "appaling and infantile" this man gets, just take a gander at this:

http://forum.stereophile.com/forum/printthread.php?Board=rants&main=76669&type=post

Quote:
I've read enough about ART system to be interested, especially when JA mentioned about its effect.

There really should be a policy against a market competitor commenting on the product in the same market made by the competition. I didn't read the whole long thread but from what I read, there were some crazy accusations made, re: falsification of data, photoshop, etc., whatever. That's appalling & infantile.

I agree Self and Buddha, to cut some slack.

I hope we can keep it positive for Ted.

Welcome.

Quote:
I've read enough about ART system to be interested, especially when JA mentioned about its effect.

There really should be a policy against a market competitor commenting on the product in the same market made by the competition. I didn't read the whole long thread but from what I read, there were some crazy accusations made, re: falsification of data, photoshop, etc., whatever. That's appalling & infantile.

Good for you. Now, since Ted and Ethan don't have the same clients, or even the same market, what were you on about?

It was pretty obvious that something was wrong with the measurements at the start. There are so many ways one could mess up I wasn't going to bother trying to debug it without some active cooperation that I frankly assume is never going to come from an audiophile type person.

So, somehow, the fact Ethan caught this mistake and said something is, you think, wrong?

I do think that a dose of "never attribute to malice what can be attributed to ignorance, stupidity, or plain old error" might be called for in Ethan's regard.

My dad used to say almost every consipracy theory can be better explained by a confluence of indepenedent acts of stupidity.

Ted,

While I appreciate the time and effort you made to provide us with testimonials and supporting links, I would be most grateful if you were to correct the methodology of your test and post new measurements as you originally set out to do.

Thanks

Quote:

Quote:
Ted,

While I appreciate the time and effort you made to provide us with testimonials and supporting links, I would be most grateful if you were to correct the methodology of your test and post new measurements as you originally set out to do.

Thanks

I'm neither in support of the SR ART nor against it.... but...

What if the Frequency Response & Decay measurements don't demonstrate any substantial difference? Does that automatically mean that the thing doesn't work? Or that the various people quoted in Ted's post as having heard the difference were imagining things? After all, not everything we hear can be explained by simple FR/Decay plots.

Not to provide Ted/SR an "out", but my guess is quantifying the effects of this thing could be extremely elusive, just like quantifying many other aspects of what we experience aurally.

Bingo. And this is why this issue will always provoke endless argument.

Just like cables.

Quote:

What if the Frequency Response & Decay measurements don't demonstrate any substantial difference? Does that automatically mean that the thing doesn't work? Or that the various people quoted in Ted's post as having heard the difference were imagining things?

yep

Quote:
"The Stereophile forum is not to be used by manufacturers as a pulpit to promote their products......"

I thought it fair comment in response to the large number of posts attacking the product made by others, including room-treatment manufacturer Ethan Winer. Not allowing Ted Denney the opportunity to defend his product in response to Ethan Winer would seem an arbitrary application of the rules.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Pathetic.

Manufacturer comes in, starts "Proof Positive" thread with bogus data and you expect he shouldn't take some heat?

He then comes in and starts seperate thread of advertising testomonials, not a response, and you give him props and bend the forum rules?

Bullbutter!

I think this thread should have been posted to the Manufacturers' section. I am moving it there now, but, because so many comments from forum members have already been posted to it, I will keep the thread open for additional comments.

Quote:
Pathetic.

Manufacturer comes in, starts "Proof Positive" thread with bogus data and you expect he shouldn't take some heat?

No, I did not say that. Please read what I wrote again: Ethan, as a manufacturer, was the first to break the rule; Ted Denney shoud not be prevented from responding by quoting positive coverage of the same product, I feel. Had Ethan kept his mouth shut - and I admit that there appears to be little chance of that happening - Ted's posting would not have been justified.

And now that Stephen has moved this thrread to the "Manufacturer" section, the point is moot.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Quote:

Quote:

What if the Frequency Response & Decay measurements don't demonstrate any substantial difference? Does that automatically mean that the thing doesn't work? Or that the various people quoted in Ted's post as having heard the difference were imagining things?

yep

Ditto.

Quote:
read the whole long thread but from what I read, there were some crazy accusations made, re: falsification of data, photoshop, etc., whatever. That's appalling & infantile.

The thing is.... SRART products are NOT in any way, shape, or form,viable competition with realtraps (or other treatment devices that function as a result of research into traditional/accepted scientific principles) .. I do see them as being competitors of companies such as mpingo, shun mook, machina dadaica PWB electronics, furutech, shakti.. et al
I bet you 20 bucks that if you were to survey a cross section of the realtraps demographic, youd get a sum total of 0 if you were to also inquire as to how many of those customers were also interested in Denneys products..

it isn't the same orbit, same galaxy, same universe.

the way I see it, Ethan's comments, while "rude", were not in violation of any forum AUP.

Quote:
arbitrary application of the rules.

the key words being "application of the rules"

Was Ted in violation? yes. No matter why. when you apply the rules evenly, leaving no leeway for things like "well, that is sorta ok because he was offended" , things go much smoother. Black and white. No mercy. none to Ethan either..

Quote:
I bet you 20 bucks that if you were to survey a cross section of the realtraps demographic, youd get a sum total of 0 if you were to also inquire as to how many of those customers were also interested in Denneys products.

Same for the guys who tell me I'm committing corporate suicide with my public position. None of those guys will ever buy my company's products. Nor will people who agree with that general view of audio. So what do I care?

Related, RealTraps has been in business for more than 7 years, and we're doing better than ever. The sort of people who buy from us are savvy enough to understand the importance of room treatment, and (usually) savvy enough to avoid obvious BS tweaks stuff.

Ethan Winer
Proud owner of RealTraps, but posting on my own behalf
And always using my real name

Quote:
I bet you 20 bucks that if you were to survey a cross section of the realtraps demographic, youd get a sum total of 0 if you were to also inquire as to how many of those customers were also interested in Denneys products.

Yet you should note that Furutech, a company that also makes a product Ethan has publicly attacked, does market a line of room acoustic products that compete directly with Ethan's RealTraps. The Furutech RDP panels even look similar to RealTraps.

As I have said, commercially it is ultimately a losing strategy for manufacturer to attack his competitors.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Quote:
Furutech, a company that also makes a product Ethan has publicly attacked, does market a line of room acoustic products that compete directly with Ethan's RealTraps.

Yes! I don't recall ever seeing specs, but other than that they seemed legitimate. Though I just checked their web site and it appears they no longer sell them. Note that I never criticized their acoustic panels. Not once, ever.

Ethan Winer
Proud owner of RealTraps, but posting on my own behalf
And always using my real name

Quote:
Are you suggesting that everything you hear can be explained by FR & Decay plots exclusively?

Yes, everything that affects audio can be expressed using the following four parameters:

* Frequency response
* Noise
* Distortion
* Time-based errors

Ethan Winer
Proud owner of RealTraps, but posting on my own behalf
And always using my real name

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

What if the Frequency Response & Decay measurements don't demonstrate any substantial difference? Does that automatically mean that the thing doesn't work? Or that the various people quoted in Ted's post as having heard the difference were imagining things?

yep

I assume that Grin means a tongue-in-cheek response? Since you skipped quoting my last line in that paragraph...

Quote:
After all, not everything we hear can be explained by simple FR/Decay plots.

... let me ask this then.

Are you suggesting that everything you hear can be explained by FR & Decay plots exclusively?

Oh my heavens NO! There is this special class of people that continue to hear all sorts of audio "special affects" like "air" and "speed" and "rythm" and "pace" which just CANNOT EVER be measured by existing day science. They like to be known as either "audiophiles" or "The golden eared" but most of the time they like the term "I Know What I heard!"........I call such special people "fools" or "The gullible"
Thank you for inquiring

Quote:

Quote:

Are you suggesting that everything you hear can be explained by FR & Decay plots exclusively?

Oh my heavens NO! There is this special class of people that continue to hear all sorts of audio "special affects" like "air" and "speed" and "rythm" and "pace" which just CANNOT EVER be measured by existing day science.

You are confusing cause, which can be measured, and effect, which can only described by the listener. All the descriptions you ridicule have physical causes that can be measured. Yes, sometimes it is with a weak correlation but often it is with a strong correlation.

For example, when audiophiles describe a speaker's bass as being "slow" or "fast," they are primarily referring to the subjective effect of the bass alignment Q. (I say "primarily," BTW, because there are second-order effects that can modify the perception.)

Quote:
They like to be known as either "audiophiles" or "The golden eared" but most of the time they like the term "I Know What I heard!"........I call such special people "fools" or "The gullible"

So, if you are so dismissive of audiophiles, why do you hang out on a forum for audiophiles? You are like a Lutheran hanging out on a forum for Catholics and cackling at such things as transubstantiation. What's the point?

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

"Oh my heavens NO! There is this special class of people that continue to hear all sorts of audio "special affects" like "air" and "speed" and "rythm" and "pace" which just CANNOT EVER be measured by existing day science. They like to be known as either "audiophiles" or "The golden eared" but most of the time they like the term "I Know What I heard!"........I call such special people "fools" or "The gullible.""

Thanks for the excellent example of a strawman argument. It's a common argument among "skeptics" to dismiss certain characteristics of audio reproduction as "special effects" or trivial. As if Frequency Response is the only term they know. LOL.

Let me help you out with some other characteristics dismissed by the AES and Hydrogen Audio crowd: grain, wetness, height of soundstage, transparency, glare, sparkle and emotion.

The "special people" I'm referring to have been unsuccessful getting above of the noise floor and have no idea what all the fuss is about. Let's call them Tin Ears. It probably explains why these "special people" have the audio vocabulary of Koko the Monkey.

"An ordinary man has no means of deliverance."

Quote:

Quote:
I bet you 20 bucks that if you were to survey a cross section of the realtraps demographic, youd get a sum total of 0 if you were to also inquire as to how many of those customers were also interested in Denneys products.

Same for the guys who tell me I'm committing corporate suicide with my public position. None of those guys will ever buy my company's products. Nor will people who agree with that general view of audio. So what do I care?

Related, RealTraps has been in business for more than 7 years, and we're doing better than ever. The sort of people who buy from us are savvy enough to understand the importance of room treatment, and (usually) savvy enough to avoid obvious BS tweaks stuff.

Ethan Winer
Proud owner of RealTraps, but posting on my own behalf
And always using my real name

I suppose if you really want to alienate subjectivists that is your perogative. But the idea that subjectivists aren't interested in effective room treatment is pretty ridiculous. Do you want to educate people or ridicule them?

Quote:

Quote:
Are you suggesting that everything you hear can be explained by FR & Decay plots exclusively?

Yes, everything that affects audio can be expressed using the following four parameters:

* Frequency response
* Noise
* Distortion
* Time-based errors

Ethan Winer
Proud owner of RealTraps, but posting on my own behalf
And always using my real name

I thought noise was a distortion. of course since sound really is just amplitude and frequency we can break everything we hear down to two chanels of time and amplitude data. heck we can break everything we see down to red green and blue. So what?

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

What if the Frequency Response & Decay measurements don't demonstrate any substantial difference? Does that automatically mean that the thing doesn't work? Or that the various people quoted in Ted's post as having heard the difference were imagining things?

yep

I assume that Grin means a tongue-in-cheek response? Since you skipped quoting my last line in that paragraph...

Quote:
After all, not everything we hear can be explained by simple FR/Decay plots.

... let me ask this then.

Are you suggesting that everything you hear can be explained by FR & Decay plots exclusively?

Oh my heavens NO! There is this special class of people that continue to hear all sorts of audio "special affects" like "air" and "speed" and "rythm" and "pace" which just CANNOT EVER be measured by existing day science. They like to be known as either "audiophiles" or "The golden eared" but most of the time they like the term "I Know What I heard!"........I call such special people "fools" or "The gullible"
Thank you for inquiring

You can't hear pace and rythm? You must be a hoot on the dance floor. You can't hear air? As in room sound? Kinda sad

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Are you suggesting that everything you hear can be explained by FR & Decay plots exclusively?

Oh my heavens NO! There is this special class of people that continue to hear all sorts of audio "special affects" like "air" and "speed" and "rythm" and "pace" which just CANNOT EVER be measured by existing day science.

You are confusing cause, which can be measured, and effect, which can only described by the listener. All the descriptions you ridicule have physical causes that can be measured. Yes, sometimes it is with a weak correlation but often it is with a strong correlation.

For example, when audiophiles describe a speaker's bass as being "slow" or "fast," they are primarily referring to the subjective effect of the bass alignment Q. (I say "primarily," BTW, because there are second-order effects that can modify the perception.)

Quote:
They like to be known as either "audiophiles" or "The golden eared" but most of the time they like the term "I Know What I heard!"........I call such special people "fools" or "The gullible"

So, if you are so dismissive of audiophiles, why do you hang out on a forum for audiophiles? You are like a Lutheran hanging out on a forum for Catholics and cackling at such things as transubstantiation. What's the point?

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Funny how we never see those measurements in your magazine now isn't it?

The point is seeing how the gullible defend their "I know what I heard!" rant then dismissing DBT and ABX tests as an excuse for not measuring anything. It's worse than lala land, it's being moronic and living in the dark ages. I still contend that after the third party tests are published that you and Ted will find some way to sweep it all under the rug by proclaiming "well there are some things that affect the listener but we just can't measure it". Oh yes it would look very bad if the tests show no difference in the before and after plots since you and others have already stated that Ted's little bowls work "but we just don't know how!"

Quote:

Thanks for the excellent example of a strawman argument. It's a common argument among "skeptics" to dismiss certain characteristics of audio reproduction as "special effects" or trivial. As if Frequency Response is the only term they know. LOL.

Let me help you out with some other characteristics dismissed by the AES and Hydrogen Audio crowd: grain, wetness, height of soundstage, transparency, glare, sparkle and emotion.

The "special people" I'm referring to have been unsuccessful getting above of the noise floor and have no idea what all the fuss is about. Let's call them Tin Ears. It probably explains why these "special people" have the audio vocabulary of Koko the Monkey.

"An ordinary man has no means of deliverance."

Your response is typical of the ignorant and delusional and also the manufacturer of known snake oil products so no surprise there. Keep up the good work of selling your "brilliant pebbles' Please........nothing you have had to say in these forums amounts to anything worth reading Bug Boy

Quote:

You can't hear pace and rythm? You must be a hoot on the dance floor. You can't hear air? As in room sound? Kinda sad

No what's sad is people "testing" a product and saying the "pace and rythm" changed just by inserting said product into the chain. I thought "pace and rythm" were set by the music score and recording. Wow these wonderful audio products can make the sound change it's tempo. How.....terrible. Who wants the music changed from the original intent?
I some how doubt that the use of "air" in a review meant what you said.

Thanks for the excellent example of a strawman argument. It's a common argument among "skeptics" to dismiss certain characteristics of audio reproduction as "special effects" or trivial. As if Frequency Response is the only term they know. LOL.

Let me help you out with some other characteristics dismissed by the AES and Hydrogen Audio crowd: grain, wetness, height of soundstage, transparency, glare, sparkle and emotion.

The "special people" I'm referring to have been unsuccessful getting above of the noise floor and have no idea what all the fuss is about. Let's call them Tin Ears. It probably explains why these "special people" have the audio vocabulary of Koko the Monkey.

"An ordinary man has no means of deliverance."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Your response is typical of the ignorant and delusional and also the manufacturer of known snake oil products so no surprise there. Keep up the good work of selling your "brilliant pebbles' Please........nothing you have had to say in these forums amounts to anything worth reading Bug Boy"

Gosh, I hardly know what to say. On the off chance English is your first language, see if this makes any sense to you: step off and head back to Hydrogen Audio, Audio Circle, Randi Foundation or whatever rock you crawled out from under.

Portrait of a Skeptic

Quote:
Thanks for the excellent example of a strawman argument. It's a common argument among "skeptics" to dismiss certain characteristics of audio reproduction as "special effects" or trivial. As if Frequency Response is the only term they know. LOL.

Let me help you out with some other characteristics dismissed by the AES and Hydrogen Audio crowd: grain, wetness, height of soundstage, transparency, glare, sparkle and emotion.

The "special people" I'm referring to have been unsuccessful getting above of the noise floor and have no idea what all the fuss is about. Let's call them Tin Ears. It probably explains why these "special people" have the audio vocabulary of Koko the Monkey.

"An ordinary man has no means of deliverance."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Your response is typical of the ignorant and delusional and also the manufacturer of known snake oil products so no surprise there. Keep up the good work of selling your "brilliant pebbles' Please........nothing you have had to say in these forums amounts to anything worth reading Bug Boy"

Gosh, I hardly know what to say. On the off chance English is your first language, see if this makes any sense to you: step off and head back to Hydrogen Audio, Audio Circle, Randi Foundation or whatever rock you crawled out from under.

Portrait of a Skeptic

You and JA have the same cry baby response it seems....."we don't like being pointed out and made to look foolish" well it's a bit late to worry about THAT
Like I said you never have anything worth replying too but then again seeing what loony thing you come up with is always entertaining to the educated.

Quote:
Interestingly phrased response Ethan, almost seems you might know where I'm going with this.

I'll wait to see where you're going with this.

Also, to be clear, those four parameters are the parent properties. There are many subsets such as clicks and pops and hum under noise, and wow and flutter and jitter under time-based errors. You'll find a more complete list and explanation here:

Audiophoolery

Quote:
If you and I are able to plainly hear something, but that cannot be measured via any if your four parameters above, though could be easily explained (with science and common knowledge), would it violate your statement above and thus be an impossible scenario?

I guess so, but you're not being very clear about what you consider "science and common knowledge." But Yes, as far as I know those four parameters define everything that affects audio reproduction.

--Ethan

Quote:
I suppose if you really want to alienate subjectivists that is your perogative. But the idea that subjectivists aren't interested in effective room treatment is pretty ridiculous. Do you want to educate people or ridicule them?

This is a great point. I never want to alienate anyone, not even people who would never ever be a customer. I'm not here to piss off anyone. And if you read my posts you'll see the only time I get angry is when others attack me first. Look at the posts from Frog-boy and a few others, then compare the tone they use against me, and constant accusations, to the tone I use when explaining my view of audio science. Do you see me get angry or be insulting to anyone other than those few trouble-makers who insult me first?

--Ethan

"Like I said you never have anything worth replying too"

It didn't seem tooo stop you from replying. Again.

"but then again seeing what loony thing you come up with is always entertaining to the educated."

I suspect you *are* educated. To, what, the 10th grade? Am I close?

Quote:
I suppose if you really want to alienate subjectivists that is your perogative. But the idea that subjectivists aren't interested in effective room treatment is pretty ridiculous. Do you want to educate people or ridicule them?

Well, Scott, I understand his frustration. I've been in a situation, more than once, listening to somebody's high-end system, where there is an obvious, nasty room problem that would be simple to fix.

I've mostly stopped even pointing them out, because most of the people want to know how to change their EQUIPMENT in order to fix the room.

Some are even contemptuous of the idea that the room might need fixed.

One person with a glass wall on one side, and a stucco back wall was quite offended when I pointed out a breathtaking flutter echo, and more bass modes, extending way into midrange form one speaker, due to the combination of the hard walls, one of them spectacularly specular.

So it goes. About 100 dollars of fabric and sound absorber, no more, would have made a world of difference in that case. (there was a very obvious "corner" issue)

Quote:
"Like I said you never have anything worth replying too"

It didn't seem tooo stop you from replying. Again.

"but then again seeing what loony thing you come up with is always entertaining to the educated."

I suspect you *are* educated. To, what, the 10th grade? Am I close?

Quote:

Quote:

You can't hear pace and rythm? You must be a hoot on the dance floor. You can't hear air? As in room sound? Kinda sad

No what's sad is people "testing" a product and saying the "pace and rythm" changed just by inserting said product into the chain. I thought "pace and rythm" were set by the music score and recording. Wow these wonderful audio products can make the sound change it's tempo. How.....terrible. Who wants the music changed from the original intent?
I some how doubt that the use of "air" in a review meant what you said.

Do you believe that the subjective impression of tempo is inalterable by audio equipment?

If you think I am wrong about air what do you think is meant?

Quote:

Quote:
I suppose if you really want to alienate subjectivists that is your perogative. But the idea that subjectivists aren't interested in effective room treatment is pretty ridiculous. Do you want to educate people or ridicule them?

This is a great point. I never want to alienate anyone, not even people who would never ever be a customer. I'm not here to piss off anyone. And if you read my posts you'll see the only time I get angry is when others attack me first. Look at the posts from Frog-boy and a few others, then compare the tone they use against me, and constant accusations, to the tone I use when explaining my view of audio science. Do you see me get angry or be insulting to anyone other than those few trouble-makers who insult me first?

--Ethan

No Ethan it isn't the anger towards assholes that I am refering to. I get that. It is an attitude you project in regards to subjectivists in general. You may not be aware of it because of your supreme confidence in your beliefs about audio. I get the confidence. I think you know your shit when it comes to room acoustics. It's very clear that you think you know your shit about room acoustics too. But I think you would do yourself a bit of a favor to pull it back at times when addressing beliefs with which you disagree.

Quote:

Quote:
I suppose if you really want to alienate subjectivists that is your perogative. But the idea that subjectivists aren't interested in effective room treatment is pretty ridiculous. Do you want to educate people or ridicule them?

Well, Scott, I understand his frustration. I've been in a situation, more than once, listening to somebody's high-end system, where there is an obvious, nasty room problem that would be simple to fix.

I've mostly stopped even pointing them out, because most of the people want to know how to change their EQUIPMENT in order to fix the room.

Some are even contemptuous of the idea that the room might need fixed.

One person with a glass wall on one side, and a stucco back wall was quite offended when I pointed out a breathtaking flutter echo, and more bass modes, extending way into midrange form one speaker, due to the combination of the hard walls, one of them spectacularly specular.

So it goes. About 100 dollars of fabric and sound absorber, no more, would have made a world of difference in that case. (there was a very obvious "corner" issue)

I can certainly see how that would be frustrating. but not all of us subjectivists are lost causes. I think if presented the right way most of us subjectivists would be very interested in room treatment. I just think even good ideas need to be presened in a palletable fashion that avoids confrontation.

I thought "pace and rythm" were set by the music score and recording. Wow these wonderful audio products can make the sound change it's tempo. How.....terrible. Who wants the music changed from the original intent?

Wow. So you've just shown you don't even understand the difference between the recording and reproduction aspects of music. And you're here arguing against professional audio engineers with over 40 years experience in the business, who are trying to educate you about audio terms, when it's clear you don't even understand the fundamental basis for audio?? Wow. Just wow.

I some how doubt that the use of "air" in a review meant what you said.

So now you're not even familiar with basic audio nomenclature in common usage form; and you came here to this forum to argue about the definition of such with someone who proves he does understand that common descriptor. Wow. Well Socks, I don't know what pond Ethan fished you out of? But I think it's high time he threw you back in.

Oh my heavens NO! There is this special class of people that continue to hear all sorts of audio "special affects" like "air" and "speed" and "rythm" and "pace" which just CANNOT EVER be measured by existing day science. They like to be known as either "audiophiles" or "The golden eared" but most of the time they like the term "I Know What I heard!"........I call such special people "fools" or "The gullible" Thank you for inquiring

There's a simple reason for why those people you call "fools" and "the gullible" hear those aspects of reproduced music. If you upgraded your Bose Wave radio to something more amenable to hearing that, or hadn't chopped both your ears off thinking it would stop you from hearing voices on tv goading you to make a fool of yourself, you might better understand these terms. But thank you anyway for revealing exactly what you're about and where you're coming from.

Now, back to the question you have evaded. As JA himself has asked you, why are you here? If your intent is an inherently hostile one, with the aim of causing disruption to our community, or pursue an agenda against a particular industry member, or all members, then your time here will be short.

Like I said you never have anything worth replying too but then again seeing what loony thing you come up with is always entertaining to the educated.

I'm sorry to see you're still hearing those voices. Try the arms now. That's the thing, they sometimes get to you through your arms.

Here's a little something that shouldn't threaten your intelligence too much.

Quote:
Do you believe that the subjective impression of tempo is inalterable by audio equipment?

Yes!

Other than "equipment" that adds reverb or echo, as used by mixing engineers. Even then, the basic tempo never changes.

--Ethan

Quote:
It is an attitude you project in regards to subjectivists in general.

I still don't get it. I'm an audiophile too! I listen to music - and also record professionally and play several instruments - so I go by my ears all the time. If anything, the arrogance comes mostly from the other side. As in "I don't need no stinkin' science to tell me what I know I hear." In fact, those people do need science. If you change an AC power cord and hear an improvement, science can explain why. And it's not because the AC power cord changed the sound.

Quote:
I think you would do yourself a bit of a favor to pull it back at times when addressing beliefs with which you disagree.

Well let's discuss this some more. There's a difference between belief and knowledge. To me, a belief is an unfounded opinion that may or may not be true. Versus knowledge, which can be explained satisfactorily using logic and evidence. When it comes to AC power cords and Ted's magic bowls, I can explain in excruciating detail why neither can change the sound arriving at your ears. But what do the believers have? All I've ever seen is "I'm sure I heard the change, you have to believe me," followed by angry insults when I reply with logic and evidence.

If I'm wrong Scott, please show me how and why I'm wrong.

--Ethan

Quote:
Here's a little something that shouldn't threaten your intelligence too much.

Pretty funny stuff coming from a guy who sells products that don't do anything other than take up space.
Here's one for you that explains your situation

Quote:
I thought "pace and rythm" were set by the music score and recording. Wow these wonderful audio products can make the sound change it's tempo. How.....terrible. Who wants the music changed from the original intent?

Wow. So you've just shown you don't even understand the difference between the recording and reproduction aspects of music. And you're here arguing against professional audio engineers with over 40 years experience in the business, who are trying to educate you about audio terms, when it's clear you don't even understand the fundamental basis for audio?? Wow. Just wow.

I some how doubt that the use of "air" in a review meant what you said.

So now you're not even familiar with basic audio nomenclature in common usage form; and you came here to this forum to argue about the definition of such with someone who proves he does understand that common descriptor. Wow. Well Socks, I don't know what pond Ethan fished you out of? But I think it's high time he threw you back in.

Oh my heavens NO! There is this special class of people that continue to hear all sorts of audio "special affects" like "air" and "speed" and "rythm" and "pace" which just CANNOT EVER be measured by existing day science. They like to be known as either "audiophiles" or "The golden eared" but most of the time they like the term "I Know What I heard!"........I call such special people "fools" or "The gullible" Thank you for inquiring

There's a simple reason for why those people you call "fools" and "the gullible" hear those aspects of reproduced music. If you upgraded your Bose Wave radio to something more amenable to hearing that, or hadn't chopped both your ears off thinking it would stop you from hearing voices on tv goading you to make a fool of yourself, you might better understand these terms. But thank you anyway for revealing exactly what you're about and where you're coming from.

Now, back to the question you have evaded. As JA himself has asked you, why are you here? If your intent is an inherently hostile one, with the aim of causing disruption to our community, or pursue an agenda against a particular industry member, or all members, then your time here will be short.

Like I said you never have anything worth replying too but then again seeing what loony thing you come up with is always entertaining to the educated.

I'm sorry to see you're still hearing those voices. Try the arms now. That's the thing, they sometimes get to you through your arms.

Blah blah blah blah, I noticed that you didn't even bother explaining how pace and rythm could change nor what air is yourself.
Just who are these " professional audio engineers with over 40 years experience in the business, who are trying to educate me about audio terms"? Surly not YOU since frogs don't anything other than sit around, croak and shit.
"basic audio nomenclature"? You mean made up terms for the subjective audiophile when they can't resort to real terms.
The rest of your post was just more whining and not worth replying to.