You are here

Log in or register to post comments
bifcake
bifcake's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Nov 27 2005 - 2:27am
Re: Synergistics Research Acoustic ART-real sonic improvements?


Quote:

Looking for those cajones you claim to have?

I don't know if you're the right person to talk about or look for someone's cojones.

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Synergistics Research Acoustic ART-real sonic improvements?

Screw off, Alex.


Quote:
Art Dudley has no respect for us and justifiably so. We are little children who can't socialize like all the other children, so we constantly invent things to passionately disagree about. Things like whether the sky is blue or cyan or whether cables make a difference in music reproduction.

Art wrote a good article. It was a refreshing point of view: like throwing cold water on one's face. Perhaps we can use this moment for some self reflection.

You are one hypocritical piece of crap. And on Christmas eve no less.

JEESUS F'ING CHRIST! YOU ARE A PIECE OF WORK.

bifcake
bifcake's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Nov 27 2005 - 2:27am
Re: Synergistics Research Acoustic ART-real sonic improvements?

Here's Mr. Hankey for you. Merry Xmas.

Stephen Scharf
Stephen Scharf's picture
Offline
Last seen: 12 months 3 days ago
Joined: Nov 19 2008 - 9:36pm
Re: Synergistics Research Acoustic ART-real sonic improvements?

Okay, I think we should put all the off-topic based commentary in the parking lot for the time being, and get back to the subject at hand. Here is what I wrote in AudioCircle in response to the thread there about ART.


While my listening experience tells me that the ART does work, I would like to understand how it works. But, per my original comment, while the fact that the ART works has to have some basis in physics and acoustics, per Ted's point, it may be difficult to understand completely HOW it is working. YET. Measuring something just for the sake of measuring often doesn't get you very far. The basis of hypothesis-based science is that there is a hypothesis or theory of how something works or behaves that is derived. The metrology is then devloped to test whether or not the hypothesis holds.

OTOH, functionality is often developed strictly empirically, by trial-and-error or build-test-fix. Japanese samurai swords, which arguably represent the pinnacle of sword design and functionality were originally developed empirically...it wasn't until much later that the principles of alloying metal and how work-hardening actually worked at the atomic level which allowed a theoretical understanding of why samurai swords were as good as they were.

From reading about the development of the ART system, and Ted's posts here, there were three concomitant development programs occurring simultaneously in the development of the properties of the steel, shape, hardness, ductility, and surface treatment of the "bowls" that created functionality. Ted mentioned that the current pass rate of hand-tuned bowls is 50% and is determined by a measurement system, hence part of it's price structure. He also mentioned that they are putting some metrology in place that will help to demonstrate how this system works in principle. It's my guess from what I've read that the design that provides the desired functionality was arrived at empirically by experimentation, and Synergistics have yet to fully to develop a theoretical model of how it does what it does. And I'm totally okay with that. As they develop their metrology, it will help inform their hypotheses, and as they develop their hypotheses it will help inform the metrology required. Development such as this is iterative, as is 99% of design. It rarely happens all at once, SPROING, a fully developed and optimized functionality just appears.

I am pleased that Ethan published an equation describing decay of reverberation time in a room of specified volume. While I am certain the Sabine equation describes the behavior of traditional damping materials with respect to reverberation decay time (Sa is an absorption coefficient in sabins, for example; see Ethan's equation above), my guess is that ART does not provide it's functionality in this manner. Hence while Sabine equation describes one type of functionality, my guess is that there is another transfer function which provides a better model of how ART works at a fundamental level (no pun intended).

Now that Ethan has stepped up, I would hope that Ted will provide some input into possible funtionality modes, or when his metrology is refined, what the transfer functions are that describe how ART works.

Personally, I would welcome hearing what some of our esteemed editors think, who do this type of evaluation for a living. They have been surprisingly quiet in this thread. JA has quite a bit of experience measuring things, I'm curious as to what his thoughts may be about how ART works.

Editor
Editor's picture
Offline
Last seen: 11 years 1 month ago
Joined: Sep 1 2005 - 8:56am
Re: Synergistics Research Acoustic ART-real sonic improvements?


Quote:
Personally, I would welcome hearing what some of our esteemed editors think, who do this type of evaluation for a living. They have been surprisingly quiet in this thread. JA has quite a bit of experience measuring things, I'm curious as to what his thoughts may be about how ART works.

I have no idea how they are supposed to work, as they are too small and too non-resonant to have much of an acoustic effect.

However, I heard a system the other weekend that was one of the finest I have experienced and there were some of the Synergistic devices dotted around the room, including one on a tripod centered between the speakers.

Did they contribute to the superb system sound? I don't have a clue, but I do suspect that the literally 100s of hours the system's owner had invested in such matters as optimizing the speaker positions may have played a role :-)

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

ethanwiner
ethanwiner's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 1 2005 - 2:26pm
Re: Synergistics Research Acoustic ART-real sonic improvements?


Quote:
I would welcome hearing what some of our esteemed editors think, who do this type of evaluation for a living.


I'm much more interested in hearing from Ted on what physical principle they operate. The ball is clearly in Ted's court. Also, in the other discussion at AC someone said that half of the built devices are rejected after being measured. I'd love to know exactly what is measured, and how it's determined which "work" well enough and which do not.

Ted?

--Ethan

PS: Happy holidays to everyone. Even Jan and Frog. I mean that.

____________________
Bring back DUP

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Synergistics Research Acoustic ART-real sonic improvements?

I hope the new year brings peace and joy to everyone, everywhere.

No exceptions. No making certain someone understands I mean they are included in my wish.

We could all use a lot more peace and joy.

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Synergistics Research Acoustic ART-real sonic improvements?


Quote:
The ball is clearly in Ted's court.

Ethan, this is one of your favorite lines to use as you dodge yet another question or ten. The ball is clearly not in Ted's court. Ted's post reads as follows ...


Quote:
After CES we will be publishing measurements with and without the Acoustic ART System in a real world listening room using FFT Impulse measurements.

So, the ball will not be in Ted's court until after CES and then I would say a bit of time to organize the results.

So, that ball is out of play for the moment. There are, however, several balls that are in play and they have all been directed at you. You have failed to return them or even duff them into the stands. You have simply ignored them wishing them to go away just as you wish all things unknown to you to go away.

They won't go away, Ethan. Since you are so good at demanding answers from others, why not just swallow a bit of your own medicine at this point?

How about a few answers from you while we wait for Ted to deal with CES? Now, I know you would prefer to post, "What questions", as if you just don't remember anyone addressing anything to you that you clearly cannot respond to - another of your favorite dodges. But that ball isn't in play this time.

Therefore, let's refresh your memory of the most recent, though hardly all, of the questions you have ignored in the course of this thread.


Quote:
For this I will first quote you from a different on-line forum- Audio Circle / Acoustic Circle: http://www.audiocircle.com/circles/index.php?topic=61258.0

Quote:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you mean the graph on page 9/17? There are two problems with that graph. First, the graph labels imply it is showing a reduction in ringing time, with about 30 percent less ringing between 63 and 80 Hz. This is not physically possible given the size of these devices. not even with nine of them in the room. The data simply cannot be real.

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

http://www.audiocircle.com/circles/index.php?topic=61258.180

First let me ask- did you perform a mirror set of measurements to disprove the measurements offered up in support of room correction based on acoustic resonators?

Ted clearly claims you did not. Your response would be ... ?


Quote:
Since you are so fond of measurements Mr. Weiner I took a look at your web site, and while I was at it, I choose your ground breaking WAF product:

http://www.realtraps.com/p_planter.htm

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

When appearance concerns and "spouse acceptance" prevent a full complement of room treatments, RealTraps Planter bass traps ($199.99) are a terrific alternative. These attractive bass traps work surprisingly well given their diminutive size and stealth appearance.

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

I'll not comment on "appearance concerns" as I feel this is a personal matter better left to the readers of this thread. I do however have a question about the mechanism of your bass trap, and a few observations regarding your measurements.

Question: What is the make up of your "Bass Traps"? Are they nothing more then fiberglass insulation stuffed into a woven basket?

Answer please.


Quote:
When you display a 100ms decay time what is this a measurement of? Of course it is not an actual living room, let alone a recording studio. 100ms would be possible but difficult for even an anechoic chamber. ASPM Spec for a large anechoic chambers is 100ms while 250ms would be a very well damped (overly damped) home living room. How do these decorative baskets measure in an actual home? Why don't you show us graphs from "real world" ranges, say 300ms to 1 second and over? Measurements like yours will only impress people who do not understand them.

Answer please.


Quote:
About how many forums do you suppose you contribute to counting groups, subgroups, sub-subgroups, just shooting your mouth off, etc?

Answer please.

Four questions, Winer, that you have hoped would go away.

Answers would get these balls moving up field once again.

How about playing along?

ANSWER SOMETHING!

ethanwiner
ethanwiner's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 1 2005 - 2:26pm
Re: Synergistics Research Acoustic ART-real sonic improvements?


Quote:
How about playing along?
ANSWER SOMETHING!


Jan, it's a holiday and I don't feel like arguing with you. I'll gladly answer tomorrow though.

--Ethan

____________________
Bring back DUP

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Synergistics Research Acoustic ART-real sonic improvements?

Why must it be an argument, Ethan?

Tomorrow is fine. But I'd rather have the discussion I've asked for than the argument so many prefer.

ethanwiner
ethanwiner's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 1 2005 - 2:26pm
Re: Synergistics Research Acoustic ART-real sonic improvements?


Quote:
Why must it be an argument, Ethan?


Jan, it's always an argument with you because you turn it into an argument by saying stuff like this:


Quote:
Looking for those cajones you claim to have? ... as you dodge yet another question or ten ... just as you wish all things unknown to you to go away ... another of your favorite dodges ... Four questions, Winer, that you have hoped would go away


More tomorrow, I have some serious eggnog drinking to do, lest my wife get too far ahead of me.

And please at least try to remain civil, okay? Thanks.

--Ethan

____________________
Bring back DUP

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Synergistics Research Acoustic ART-real sonic improvements?


Quote:
And please at least try to remain civil, okay? Thanks.

Would it be "uncivil" of me to remind you of this post ...


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

Also, what is it with tweaks and wrapping oneself in Einstein?

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

These guys have to claim they invented "new physics" because their products do not work under the "old" physics.

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

Prove me wrong!

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

Taking a lesson from Jan, eh? I'll be very interested to see how Jan responds, and if he has the cajones to try to prove you wrong.

--Ethan

That was posted well in advance of my reply.

How about this post ...


Quote:
I think you and Jan should go find a nice quiet corner and make out. You have so much in common.

--Ethan

Do you remember those, Ethan? You wrote them. You posted them. There was no provocation for either or for most any of the other insults you have dispensed with such flair and with total ease.

I have a premise. I have been asking for a discussion of that premise.

Unfortunately, our new member is correct, this thread is a joke. It is a joke due to the insults that have come from your side of the "discussion".

So, please, just one favor, drop the BS act you have of portraying yourself as the poor victim of everything that happens on these threads and just accept that you have conducted yourself poorly. I know I have asked this of you before and you've not changed so I don't have much hope for this attempt either.

But you are being found out on more and more forums - how many is it that you visit? Your MO is to get on a forum and disparage a competitor's products without ever accepting any responsibility for your actions or answering any questions put to you.

Then you insult anyone who disagrees with you or has a different point of view on the issue. Isn't this exactly what I predicted to Stephen back at the very beginning of this thread?

You've pulled this stunt repeatedly and with foreknowledge of impunity knowing your actions here will go unnoticed or at least unmentioned by the moderators of this forum.

You know size, anything else is attacked by Ethan. So sorry, Ethan, but thinking outside of your comfort zone is not your forte. Attacking with childish remarks is well within your skill level. Just as I predicted almost thirty pages back.

Admit it and this forum will be better for it.

Make that a New Year's resolution, eh? Realize the insults you post and the questions you dodge and resolve to change. Then maybe this and the next thread like it won't become such jokes to those viewing from the outside.

If that was "uncivil", then maybe you should just realize the facts for once and not try to push the guilt off onto someone else.

I never did buy what you're selling.

ncdrawl
ncdrawl's picture
Offline
Last seen: 10 years 9 months ago
Joined: Oct 18 2008 - 9:18am
Re: Synergistics Research Acoustic ART-real sonic improvements?


Quote:
Jan

man, Jan, your posts are way too long man. you could say the same thing with a single, well worded sentence. Can you try to be more efficient? Seriously. it is a huge drag.

JSBach
JSBach's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Nov 28 2008 - 1:25am
Re: Synergistics Research Acoustic ART-real sonic improvements?


Quote:

Quote:
Jan

man, Jan, your posts are way too long man. you could say the same thing with a single, well worded sentence. Can you try to be more efficient? Seriously. it is a huge drag.


Indeed Mr Drawl, the entire thread has turned into a big ugly bore. This sadly is nothing new. If you're familiar with audio newsgroups and forums you'll know that this kind of thing is endemic. Why it's always male heterosexuals who behave like this ( and not just on audio forums etc) and carry on like bitchy teenage schoolgirls I'll never figure. I have a theory about repressed homosexual tendencies but no-one's going to own up to that kind of thing, even if they're consciously aware of the condition.
So kiddies, a goyim Happy New Year to you all.

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Synergistics Research Acoustic ART-real sonic improvements?

ncdrawl, it's too bad you are attention span challenged. If the posts are too long for you, why don't you just drop out?

Short enough for you? I tried not reducing the post to a single word.

tomjtx
tomjtx's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 years 11 months ago
Joined: Nov 12 2006 - 2:53pm
Re: Synergistics Research Acoustic ART-real sonic improvements?

The ignore function can be quite useful at times

Ted_D
Ted_D's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Jul 8 2007 - 11:55am
Re: Synergistics Research Acoustic ART-real sonic improvements?

http://www.audiocircle.com/circles/index.


Quote:

Shouldn't the subject include "does ART work " ?

Isn't expectation bias one of the possible explanations ?

I am curious, Stephen, what your view is on this.

As the only one who has heard the ART system do you think it could have been placebo in your case ?

I am aware of the problems with any aural test, habituation to stimuli , for example. But I would like to at least experiment with ruling out placebo when dealing with such an "alternative" approach to room acoustics.

This must be reminiscent of early debate regarding speaker cables, interconnects and more recently, AC power cords. When I invented the AC Master Coupler way back in 1993, there was no such Internet discussion (that I was a part of anyway) so I was not aware of the uproar over high end power cords but it must have been similar to what the ART system seems to be fueling today. Fast forward 14 years and we have a thriving high end power cord market with over 10,000 Synergistic Research AC Master Couplers sold, and untold tens of millions of dollars of high end power cords sold from scores of competing companies, and we still have no idea how to "prove" they work through measurement- it boils down to subjective listening tests. And while some may argue the entire high end power cord industry is nothing more then a "placebo effect", I believe empirical evidence weights heavily against this. Who knows, tuning room acoustics through acoustic resonators may be the next "big thing" and in time may spawn not just another high end audio product segment, but may also find a role in tuning the acoustics of concert halls and amphitheaters for their unique ability to maintain certain acoustic properties not possible through conventional methods alone. I for one am working on resonators for just this application, and I am sure others will also.

Here are a few links for your consideration. I have waded through the discussion and linked what I feel is most interesting- feel free to read the entire thread if you like. This discussion is for Frank Tsang's acoustic resonators which differ from my ART System, but there are enough similarities to shed light on this debate:
http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?forum=tweaks&n=138983&highlight=resonators
http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?forum=tweaks&n=139210&highlight=resonators
http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?forum=tweaks&n=139016&highlight=resonators
http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?forum=tweaks&n=139057&highlight=resonators
http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?forum=tweaks&n=138946&highlight=resonators

Yours in music,
Ted Denney III Lead Designer Synergistic Research Inc.

RGibran
RGibran's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 1 week ago
Joined: Oct 11 2005 - 5:50pm
Re: Synergistics Research Acoustic ART-real sonic improvements?

Are we just going to sweep the reported side effects of Frank Tsang

Ted_D
Ted_D's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Jul 8 2007 - 11:55am
Re: Synergistics Research Acoustic ART-real sonic improvements?

RG,
No similar reports but then our two products are very different. For one my resonators are more massive- think matchbox toy car to a Mac Truck. Because of this we can treat an average room with 2 or 3 resonators (one or two Gravatron Satellites and one Bass Station) with a complete treatment of 5 to 6 resonators (one Vibratron, one Bass Station, two Magnitron Satellites and one or two Gravatron Satellites). On top of this, Frank's resonators are made from precious metals so they are much smaller compared to my resonators and this not only necessitates more resonators to effectively treat a room, it also means Frank's resonators operate at much higher frequencies. Frank's resonators do not have the same multiple frequency resonance patterns of the Acoustic ART System so you end up needing multiple resonators (I believe Srajan's room has over 30 of Franks resonators), of different materials (gold, gold special, silver, platinum and copper) to get an ideal acoustic balance- this can take several weeks of trial and error (and several thousands of dollars) to achieve since there is no set way of determining which of Franks resonators will be needed to effectively balance a room. Since my resonators resonate at multiple frequencies, their is no need for additional resonators aside from treating key pressure points in a room to create a desirable acoustic balance- again this means less resonators and better performance at a fraction of the price. We also have patents pending using magnets to contour the activation and decay properties of our resonators as well as a new resonator shape- The Vibratron. This is the reason you see round magnets atop the Vibratron (two large gold and four small silver magnets)- you can actually tune the Vibratron with magnets (simply play with the number of gold and silver magnets atop the Vibratorn) and this in turn tunes the other Satellite resonators in a room without the need for multiple resonators of different materials with different resonance frequencies to acoustically balance a room.

Lastly I think if Marja, Henk, and Srajan are sensitive to Frank's resonators, they may also be sensitive to Wi Fi and many other forms of high frequency emissions but again, my resonators do not operate at such high frequencies in the first place.

Yours in music,
Ted Denney III Lead Designer Synergistic Research Inc.

http://www.6moons.com/industryfeatures/fringes/fringes.html
http://dagogo.com/SynergisticART.html
http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews/acousticsystem/resonators.html

bifcake
bifcake's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Nov 27 2005 - 2:27am
Re: Synergistics Research Acoustic ART-real sonic improvements?

Gravatron

and Vibratron

for your musical pleasure.

Stephen Scharf
Stephen Scharf's picture
Offline
Last seen: 12 months 3 days ago
Joined: Nov 19 2008 - 9:36pm
Re: Synergistics Research Acoustic ART-real sonic improvements?


Quote:

I have no idea how they are supposed to work, as they are too small and too non-resonant to have much of an acoustic effect.

However, I heard a system the other weekend that was one of the finest I have experienced and there were some of the Synergistic devices dotted around the room, including one on a tripod centered between the speakers.

Did they contribute to the superb system sound? I don't have a clue, but I do suspect that the literally 100s of hours the system's owner had invested in such matters as optimizing the speaker positions may have played a role :-)

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

John,
The ART bowls are actually quite resonant, and ring pretty much like a bell, if I recall correctly. My thought is that is has something to do with acting as resonant nodes at key sound pressure points in the room, and has an effect which creates an improvement in sonic depth, imaging, etc. An article on Wikipedia says that reverberation effects are often added in studio to create depth. It's quite possible that ART works in this way. And I think this is why, as Ted has pointed out, why the pass rate on the bowls is currently only 50%. The steel has to have exactly the right quality of ringing, the metallurgy is complex, and if there is variation in the steel at the alloy structural level, it will not have exactly the right resonant, bell-like properties. My guess is the bells operate in some way like an audible laser, or a fluor, in that they require a specific frequency or frequencies to activate them, and they have to respond with a very specific ringing component (which can be measured, BTW). Subtle variations in the steel change the ringing component so that it is ideal, or not ideal, in which case, the bell that is not ideal does not pass the functional test. Also, I am not sure we can say that, until we understand the functional model of how ART works, that size has a positive (or negative) correlation with functionality.

Regardless, the bells that pass and are used in ART create a set of reverberation effects which provide the improvements in soundstaging, imaging, depth, image placement and vertical imaging. These benefits are the result of synergies between the "normal" reverberations in the room that create what we know as "stereo" and those created by the ART system. Apropos for a company called Synergistics Research. I would also go out on a limb and make an informed guess that the ART system would not work very well in an anechoic chamber, or a room that is very heavily treated with acoustic damping materials, as the normal room reverberations that create the "activation energy" of ART (that results in the "response energy") would be markedly attenutated.

ethanwiner
ethanwiner's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 1 2005 - 2:26pm
Re: Synergistics Research Acoustic ART-real sonic improvements?


Quote:
I never did buy what you're selling.


I actually wrote a full reply to post, but if that's your attitude why should I even bother?

Hey Jan, I have some questions for you, which I sincerely hope you will not dodge:

* How old are you?

* Do you have a job? If so, what is it?

* How much do you weigh?

* Please describe your hi-fi system in detail.

PLEASE ANSWER SOMETHING

--Ethan

ethanwiner
ethanwiner's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 1 2005 - 2:26pm
Re: Synergistics Research Acoustic ART-real sonic improvements?


Quote:
The ART bowls are actually quite resonant, and ring pretty much like a bell


If this is true, why would you want that in a hi-fi listening room where the goal is always neutral sound? The usual goal of a good room is to eliminate as much as possible any mechanical rattles and buzzes and resonances. How could adding intentional ringing possibly yield more realistic reproduction?

--Ethan

____________________
Bring back DUP

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Synergistics Research Acoustic ART-real sonic improvements?

Ted, thanks for sticking with this thread. Could you possibly answer a few questions for me? I've experimented with my collection of Tibetan Singing Bowls including various sizes and base frequencies - including two very nice examples I just purchased - and they do have an effect on the sound within my listening room. That effect is variable depending on the placement of the Bowls in the room. Placing the Bowls in high pressure/low pressure areas within the room makes the Bowls respond differently as would be expected.

From what I read, however, I suspect my "untuned" Bowls have a different physical effect on the listening experience when compared to the tuned varities being used as specific room treatments.

Since you say the inspiration for your devices came from your personal experience with the Tibetan Bowls, can you tell any more about that experience and how it afected your thought porcess? Did you have any experience with the Bowls before this one trip?

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Synergistics Research Acoustic ART-real sonic improvements?


Quote:
It would seem that even in the hands of the inventor these resonating bowels can be easily misused.

"Misused"? In what way? These are not instruments of torture. They are room tuning devices.

If you read the articles closely, you'll see the creator, in this case Franck Tchang, knew how to manipulate the effects of his devices. Do you suppose there is a "perfect" set up that cannot be overdone for one listener while being correct for another? Would you complain if a room treated with "traditional" absorbers and diffusors resulted in a listener coming away with a headache until the proper set up was arrived at through trail and error or to make the point of how the effect of the devices can be manipulated? Whenever I've treated a room with absorbers and diffusors I relied on the client to tell me what they heard and when they thought the set up was right and not always relying strictly on what I heard.

You seem to be reaching for a way to disparage the devices.

On the other hand, you also seem to be admitting their effectiveness.

So how then would you suppose the gold bowl specifically to be detrimental to her well being? Why not the silver bowl?

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Synergistics Research Acoustic ART-real sonic improvements?


Quote:
I actually wrote a full reply to post, but if that's your attitude why should I even bother?

Winer, I am quite certain you did write a reply to that post. I can only imagine what it did and did not include. However, if this is your way of attempting yet another dodge of the questions you've been asked repeatedly, I can only say, you have reached a new low in weaseldom.

This even trumps your weaselling out of the DBT with Frog due to your own inability to find his name in a phone book.

This from the great Ethan Winer, the man who wants us to believe he has all the answers and yet will not supply even one when when called to do so. This from the professional Ethan Winer who has no hestitancy insulting others and their products when he sees fit.

What a crock you are!

That's not an insult, Winer, just an honest observation.

Hey, ncdrawl, this is the guy you respect so much, eh?

Look, Winer, you posted this yesterday ...


Quote:
I'll gladly answer tomorrow though.

--Ethan

Well then, "gladly" answer the questions you have been asked.

They are pertinent to this thread while your further insults are not.

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Synergistics Research Acoustic ART-real sonic improvements?


Quote:
If this is true, why would you want that in a hi-fi listening room where the goal is always neutral sound? The usual goal of a good room is to eliminate as much as possible any mechanical rattles and buzzes and resonances. How could adding intentional ringing possibly yield more realistic reproduction?

--Ethan

Why don't you actually read a few of the links Ted has supplied since they will answer your questions? No one here is going to spoon feed you, Ethan. It's up to you to pull your head out of the sand, stop thinking the way you've always thought and move ahead with some new thinking which might achieve new results.

Actually, from somone who claims to be so well versed in professional audio, I find your questions to be unbelievably naive.

ethanwiner
ethanwiner's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 1 2005 - 2:26pm
Re: Synergistics Research Acoustic ART-real sonic improvements?


Quote:
Well then, "gladly" answer the questions you have been asked.


Oh all right.

--Ethan

===================

Okay Jan, in the spirit of the holidays I'll gladly answer. I don't feel it's my responsibility to educate Ted about acoustics, but I imagine the information will be useful to others here. If Ted learns something too, so be it.


Quote:
did you perform a mirror set of measurements to disprove the measurements offered up in support of room correction based on acoustic resonators?


No, but I don't have to because I know that data is bogus just as you know the moon is not made of green cheese. Some things are so obvious to everyone who understands "how stuff works" that it doesn't even need debunking. Someone in one of these two parallel discussions suggested the measuring microphone was probably moved between the Before and After tests, and that's my guess too. As we all now know, moving a microphone even one inch in any direction can change the measured response drastically.


Quote:
What is the make up of your "Bass Traps"?


This is proprietary. You'll just have to buy one and take it apart to find out. Hint: yes, of course it uses fiberglass.


Quote:
When you display a 100ms decay time what is this a measurement of?


It's a measurement of the frequency response and ringing in a 16 by 11.5 by 8 foot room that's empty except for the speakers, computer, microphone, and planter bass traps. This is clearly stated on the Planter Bass Traps page of our site.


Quote:
100ms would be possible but difficult for even an anechoic chamber.


100 ms for what? To decay 60 dB? Not at all difficult. That's why they're called anechoic chambers!


Quote:
ASPM Spec for a large anechoic chambers is 100ms


I think Ted means ASTM. But the above seems wrong anyway, at least over the range of frequencies the chamber is certified. Chamber specs I see claim 99.9 percent absorption, so even the first reflections are 60 dB down.


Quote:
About how many forums do you suppose you contribute to counting groups, subgroups, sub-subgroups, just shooting your mouth off, etc?


As posed, that question is insulting, irrelevant, and basically none of your or Ted's business. What, is Google broken again?

You didn't repeat Ted's na

ethanwiner
ethanwiner's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 1 2005 - 2:26pm
Re: Synergistics Research Acoustic ART-real sonic improvements?

Well? We're still waiting Jan!


Quote:
Hey Jan, I have some questions for you, which I sincerely hope you will not dodge:

* How old are you?

* Do you have a job? If so, what is it?

* How much do you weigh?

* Please describe your hi-fi system in detail.

PLEASE ANSWER SOMETHING

--Ethan

____________________
Bring back DUP

RGibran
RGibran's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 1 week ago
Joined: Oct 11 2005 - 5:50pm
Re: Synergistics Research Acoustic ART-real sonic improvements?

Post deleted by Stephen Mejias

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Synergistics Research Acoustic ART-real sonic improvements?


Quote:
As posed, that question is insulting, irrelevant, and basically none of your or Ted's business.

Insulting? Why didn't you bring that up when Buddha "insulted" May by inferring she was only here for financial gain? What's good for the gander isn't good for the goose?

The questions are quite relevant, Ethan, because, as I said, sitting on dozens of forums each day slamming competitors and competitor's potential clients is the best free advertising you can afford.

That you have never once been called on your unprofessional approach to your business is in keeping with Stereophile's laise faire attitude. But that would seem to be changing and people on the various forums are catching on to your antics, Winer. I would think you would want to clear the air on this issue. But I - and others - fully understand why you refuse to do so.

Winer, your silence says far more than you ever could. Your business practices have been directly called into question by several members here and through inference by Buddha who doesn't like the idea of manufacturers discussing their own or their competitor's products on this forum. Me? I say it's OK if you're fair about it. Unfortunately, "fair" doesn't cover what you do on all of the forums you visit.

How many forums did you say you visit each day?

But, look, if your little basket is proprietary information (I guess you won't say how much you pay for that fake foilage you charge $20 for as an option), then I can see where telling us how many forums you sit on all day slamming competitor's products isn't going to be disclosed either.

In your case, Winer, everything you do is transparent - low down and despicable but utterly transparent.

Now, why not discuss the ART's system? That's what we are here for, right? Nobody gives a crap about you, Winer, and this thread isn't going to get derailed by you no matter how much of a joke you've turned it into thus far.


Quote:
And since you're so keen on having this thread discuss how the bowls could work, why don't you pepper Ted with PLEASE ANSWER requests?

I'm perfectly satisfied with the responses Ted has provided. If you weren't so intent on bad mouthing a competitor, you would be too. That's really bad form, Winer.

Maybe you should drop out of this thread - at least until Ted posts his information after CES.

You are not going to drive this thread into the ditch, Winer.

ncdrawl
ncdrawl's picture
Offline
Last seen: 10 years 9 months ago
Joined: Oct 18 2008 - 9:18am
Re: Synergistics Research Acoustic ART-real sonic improvements?


Quote:

I'm perfectly satisfied with the responses Ted has provided. If you weren't so intent on bad mouthing a competitor, you would be too. That's really bad form, Winer.

Syngergistic is in no way shape or form, any competition to legitimate acoustic treatment products. the guys that know about acoustics/treatment, etc have no interest in ART , mpingo, and the ilk.... again... SYNERGISTIC is no threat to the makers of legitimate acoustic treatment products...

ethanwiner
ethanwiner's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 1 2005 - 2:26pm
Re: Synergistics Research Acoustic ART-real sonic improvements?


Quote:
Why didn't you bring that up when Buddha "insulted" May by inferring she was only here for financial gain?


Not my job, not my thread.


Quote:
sitting on dozens of forums each day slamming competitors


If you really believe that, I urge you to Google for threads where you find me bashing a competitor. Please post as many links as you can find here for all to enjoy and critique.


Quote:
Winer, everything you do is transparent - low down and despicable but utterly transparent.


LOL, don't hold back Jan, tell us how you really feel.

While you're at it, there are a number of outstanding questions that you have yet to answer. Well? Answer something!


Quote:
I'm perfectly satisfied with the responses Ted has provided.


Of course you are. He never said one thing about how his devices work, which is the topic at hand you are so determined to understand. Yet you gladly give him a pass but pester me to answer stuff not even remotely relevant? This says a lot more about your character than mine!

FYI Jan, I barely read what you write, and I almost never read what the Frog and others like him write. A few times I tried to read May, but my eyes rolled up in their sockets after a few sentences so I always gave up.

I'm sure you'll be glad to know that effective 1/1/09 I intend to put all of you on permanent ignore, so I can focus on what really matters - helping people understand the science of audio. Jan, I urge you to put me on ignore too. The world will be a far better place!

--Ethan

ethanwiner
ethanwiner's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 1 2005 - 2:26pm
Re: Synergistics Research Acoustic ART-real sonic improvements?


Quote:
Syngergistic is in no way shape or form, any competition to legitimate acoustic treatment products.


No shit.

Jan reminds me of the old computer joke about WOM - Write Only Memory. Jan talk and talks and talks, and shouts, and insults, and complains, and demands answers from everyone he disagrees with. But he never reads or comprehends what others write. And he will never ever describe his hi-fi system because, well, we all know why.

--Ethan

tomjtx
tomjtx's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 years 11 months ago
Joined: Nov 12 2006 - 2:53pm
Re: Synergistics Research Acoustic ART-real sonic improvements?


Quote:

Quote:
Why didn't you bring that up when Buddha "insulted" May by inferring she was only here for financial gain?


Not my job, not my thread.


Quote:
sitting on dozens of forums each day slamming competitors


If you really believe that, I urge you to Google for threads where you find me bashing a competitor. Please post as many links as you can find here for all to enjoy and critique.


Quote:
Winer, everything you do is transparent - low down and despicable but utterly transparent.


LOL, don't hold back Jan, tell us how you really feel.

While you're at it, there are a number of outstanding questions that you have yet to answer. Well? Answer something!


Quote:
I'm perfectly satisfied with the responses Ted has provided.


Of course you are. He never said one thing about how his devices work, which is the topic at hand you are so determined to understand. Yet you gladly give him a pass but pester me to answer stuff not even remotely relevant? This says a lot more about your character than mine!

FYI Jan, I barely read what you write, and I almost never read what the Frog and others like him write. A few times I tried to read May, but my eyes rolled up in their sockets after a few sentences so I always gave up.

I'm sure you'll be glad to know that effective 1/1/09 I intend to put all of you on permanent ignore, so I can focus on what really matters - helping people understand the science of audio. Jan, I urge you to put me on ignore too. The world will be a far better place!

--Ethan

Good call, Ethan

Putting JV and Frog on ignore has done wonders for lowering the BS level on this forum.

ncdrawl
ncdrawl's picture
Offline
Last seen: 10 years 9 months ago
Joined: Oct 18 2008 - 9:18am
Re: Synergistics Research Acoustic ART-real sonic improvements?

I believe that Jan is a good guy, genuinely, he is just very passionate(Italian heritage!) and emotional. I am the same way really, which is probably why I but heads with him so much...hell, we all are.

Frog..different ballgame. Perma ignore.

ethanwiner
ethanwiner's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 1 2005 - 2:26pm
Re: Synergistics Research Acoustic ART-real sonic improvements?


Quote:
I believe that Jan is a good guy, genuinely, he is just very passionate(Italian heritage!) and emotional.


I agree. I almost even like Jan because he's so passionate about the same stuff I am. But his constant insults, and twisting of other people's statements, and demanding that others answer his questions while ignoring questions asked of him, and his generally sour attitude, makes him awfully hard to take most of the time.

--Ethan

____________________
Bring back DUP

Stephen Scharf
Stephen Scharf's picture
Offline
Last seen: 12 months 3 days ago
Joined: Nov 19 2008 - 9:36pm
Re: Synergistics Research Acoustic ART-real sonic improvements?

Okay, it's all very interesting the various colorful personalities around here...my suggestion if people want to throw beer bottles at each other, that they start an official "Throwing beer bottles at each other thread"...could we get back to the subject at hand, please? Thank you.

I'm curious as to what Ted will say regarding the hypothesis I've posted a few posts back about how ART may work.

JasonVSerinus
JasonVSerinus's picture
Offline
Last seen: 8 years 7 months ago
Joined: Apr 10 2006 - 11:22am
Re: Synergistics Research Acoustic ART-real sonic improvements?

Reality check. This thread has now gone on for 290 some odd posts. We have speculated about everything including the repressed homosexual urges of the most adamant posters. Am I correct that the only two posters who have actually heard the Acoustic ART resonators are Stephen and Ted? If that is indeed the case, is this thread actually about the resonators?

For my part, I have not only heard a demonstration of the "competition" at a show, but also invited Darren Censullo of Avatar Acoustics to stage one in my living room for the Bay Area Audio Society. We had two full houses for a most convincing demo.

I ended up with five resonators. My husband uses them as a form of subtle torture, knocking them over and twisting them when things get rough between us to see if I can hear a difference.

I've always been too busy blogging to sit through an entire demo of Synergistics' resonators. I hope I can find the time at CES. I'm more than curious.

Time to wash the floors.

jason victor serinus

P.S. There is at least one transgender designer active in the high-end. No, I'm not saying more.

JasonVSerinus
JasonVSerinus's picture
Offline
Last seen: 8 years 7 months ago
Joined: Apr 10 2006 - 11:22am
Re: Synergistics Research Acoustic ART-real sonic improvements?

I feel it essential that no one on this forum be judged by the size of their bank account or the quality of their personal sound system. Neither is any reflection of a person's inherent goodness, let alone their passion for audio and right to post on this forum. I personally find baiting people along these lines reprehensible, and wish it would stop.

jason victor serinus

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Synergistics Research Acoustic ART-real sonic improvements?


Quote:
I'm sure you'll be glad to know that effective 1/1/09 I intend to put all of you on permanent ignore, so I can focus on what really matters - helping people understand the science of audio. Jan, I urge you to put me on ignore too. The world will be a far better place!
--Ethan

Winer, it is truly regrettable that you must tear down someone else in order to make yourself feel better. I fully understand why you are choosing to place me on ignore, it's much easier to ignore questions when you never see them. Obviously, this thread has provided the final evidence I require to place a few more members on ignore. But, you, Winer, I think I need you where I can see you.

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Synergistics Research Acoustic ART-real sonic improvements?


Quote:
Regardless, the bells that pass and are used in ART create a set of reverberation effects which provide the improvements in soundstaging, imaging, depth, image placement and vertical imaging. These benefits are the result of synergies between the "normal" reverberations in the room that create what we know as "stereo" and those created by the ART system. Apropos for a company called Synergistics Research.

I don't understand your idea of "reverberation effects", Stephen. Just how do you suppose the bowls add "reverberation"? Or am I misunderstanding what you mean by "reverberation"? When I think of the term I hear sound that bounces around a room. I'm not inclined to think this is what the ART's bowls add since I'm unclear how sounds that bounce from surface to surface would add "the sounds of fingers on the keyboard" or even affect the localization of image placement in a positive fashion. Can you be more specific in how you see this working?


Quote:
I would also go out on a limb and make an informed guess that the ART system would not work very well in an anechoic chamber, or a room that is very heavily treated with acoustic damping materials, as the normal room reverberations that create the "activation energy" of ART (that results in the "response energy") would be markedly attenutated.

While I tend to agree with the idea the bowls are tuned to very specific frequencies for their fundamental tone, like all Singing Bowls I would still believe the ART's bowls produce the same complex poly-harmonic structure and therefore add quite a bit of information to the preceptible signal. Just from moving my Singing Bowls around my listening room I would say your anechoic chamber idea is not truly correct. Remember, the basic instructions we have for the bowl placement is to locate them at high pressure points and points of first reflection. So Ted would appear to be using the direct energy from the speakers and not relying on the "reverberant" field of the room.

Stephen, your idea as I understand it focuses on the bowls adding relatively high frequency information to the room sound. Once again from my experience a bowl the size of a CD cannot produce a 30-45Hz tone with any volume. How do you suppose higher frequency information controls deeper bass response?

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Synergistics Research Acoustic ART-real sonic improvements?


Quote:
If that is indeed the case, is this thread actually about the resonators?

No, it's not, Jason. As I said at the beginning of this thread, any discussion of any item that could be described as an "alternative" will be shut down and the discussion will not be about the item in question. 90% of the posts will be personal in nature and most will be insults. There are several members who are adamantly opposed to such items and they will spare no insult when it comes to driving any "discussion" of anything even remotely like the ART's system, Mpingo discs, Shakti devices, etc. directly into the crapper. And, as I said, there are some members who have nothing of consequence to say, they just like to hang around to pour gasoline on a fire.

This thread is simply one more example of how the Stereophile forums deal with things they don't want to think about. Actually, for the Stereophile forums, this thread has stayed remarkably on course. Remarkable! After nearly 300 posts into this thread a few of us still remember what the original topic is and a few of us still want to discuss that topic.

Wait till you see what responses this post brings.

Stephen Scharf
Stephen Scharf's picture
Offline
Last seen: 12 months 3 days ago
Joined: Nov 19 2008 - 9:36pm
Re: Synergistics Research Acoustic ART-real sonic improvements?


Quote:

Quote:
Regardless, the bells that pass and are used in ART create a set of reverberation effects which provide the improvements in soundstaging, imaging, depth, image placement and vertical imaging. These benefits are the result of synergies between the "normal" reverberations in the room that create what we know as "stereo" and those created by the ART system. Apropos for a company called Synergistics Research.

I don't understand your idea of "reverberation effects", Stephen. Just how do you suppose the bowls add "reverberation"? Or am I misunderstanding what you mean by "reverberation"? When I think of the term I hear sound that bounces around a room. I'm not inclined to think this is what the ART's bowls add since I'm unclear how sounds that bounce from surface to surface would add "the sounds of fingers on the keyboard" or even affect the localization of image placement. Can you be more specific in how you see this working?


Quote:
I would also go out on a limb and make an informed guess that the ART system would not work very well in an anechoic chamber, or a room that is very heavily treated with acoustic damping materials, as the normal room reverberations that create the "activation energy" of ART (that results in the "response energy") would be markedly attenutated.

While I tend to agree with the idea the bowls are tuned to very specific frequencies for their fundamental tone, like all Singing Bowls I would still believe the ART's bowls produce the same complex poly-harmonic structure and therefore add quite a bit of information to the preceptible signal. Just from moving my Singing Bowls around my listening room I would say your anechoic chamber idea is not truly correct. Remember, the basic instructions we have for the bowl placement is to locate them at high pressure points and points of first reflection. So Ted would appear to be using the direct energy for the speakers and not relying on the "reverberant" field of the room.

Stephen, your idea as I understand it focuses on the bowls adding relatively high frequency information to the room sound. Once again from my experience a bowl the size of a CD cannot produce a 30-45Hz tone with any volume. How do you suppose higher frequency information controls deeper bass response?

Good questions, Jan. I'm not sure exactly what I mean by reverberation, other than I think the more eloquent way you describe it with respect to polyharmonic structure adding more information to the perceptible signal. I think the fact that the bowls ring like a bell, act as specific pressure points as you have pointed out is key. And I think you're right that the bowl may be activated by direct energy from the speakers, but create "reverb" for the lack of a better word, that interacts in some way with the "native" reverb of the room. I'm still working this out in my head a bit, but my points above were that ART does not work in any way like traditional damping materials. My comments about the damping of the room is based on a hypothesis that the room has to be "live" to some degree to get maximum effect. But that's just a theory....you bring up some really good thoughts about it though, that I will have to add to what I already have to mull over. Thanks for the input!

-Stephen.

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Synergistics Research Acoustic ART-real sonic improvements?

OK, that's fair but add this point I made to Frog. The bowls are somewhat limited in total output. As I work with my Singing Bowls in my listening room they can get quite loud but that is with a direct stimulus activating them. I have no doubt the ART's bowls resonate, the web site says just that as do the reviews of the various competitor's bowls. The thing is I know how much pressure it requires to produce a reasonably "loud" output from the bowls and just what the practical limits are to this volume. On the other hand I also know the body of a violin can fill an entire auditorium with sound - Helmholtz resonators at work!

None the less I don't understand how the bowls as sources of "reverberant energy" in a room could "add to" the output of a high SPL audio system. I also don't see, considering the amount of pressure I must apply to my Singing Bowls to get a response, how the ART's system could operate at whisper levels from the audio system. So logically - to me at least and based only on my experience with Tibtean Singing Bowls - their output would seem to be rather constricted to a limited volume range of effectiveness in the scenario you portray. However, this doesn't appear to be a problem with the various bowls used as room treatment devices.

Now, as I've said, I've played around with positioning my Tibetan Bowls in various locations within my room and there are benefits to be had by some specific placement. But in this case that placement is within arm's reach of my listening position to achieve the maximum effect. Also as I said my Singing Bowls were not designed as acoustic room treatments as the ART's system has been and so I would expect different results from each set of Bowls.

ethanwiner
ethanwiner's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 1 2005 - 2:26pm
Re: Synergistics Research Acoustic ART-real sonic improvements?


Quote:
no one on this forum be judged by the size of their bank account or the quality of their personal sound system. Neither is any reflection of a person's inherent goodness


Of course it's not about someone's goodness. But the quality of someone's system goes a long way toward establishing their credibility! If my main system was a Bose table radio, and I expressed strong opinions about "high fidelity" here, I'd be laughed off the forum. And for good reason.

--Ethan

____________________
Bring back DUP

JSBach
JSBach's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Nov 28 2008 - 1:25am
Re: Synergistics Research Acoustic ART-real sonic improvements?

Well, after reading some explanations here about what these doo-hickies are supposed to be doing I hope mastering suites don't start using them when mixing the final recordings we buy. If they do the effect could be compensated for and we'd all then have to use twice as many doo-kickies to get back where we started from. I have an additional concern about these kinds of approaches to hi-fidelity. Are these devices supposed to be compensating for the defects of the recordings themselves or for the defects of over, or under-damped/defused, domestic listening rooms?
If I could find a distributor in Australia I'd borrow a half dozen ringy thingies and explore the empirical swamp of my own perceptions to them but as it is I'm left skeptical until someone can explain cogently what on earth is going on with these things.
Am I making any sense of all this ?

es347
es347's picture
Offline
Last seen: 11 months 1 week ago
Joined: Feb 9 2006 - 10:58am
Re: Synergistics Research Acoustic ART-real sonic improvements?


Quote:

Quote:
If my main system was a Bose table radio, and I expressed strong opinions about "high fidelity" here, I'd be laughed off the forum. And for good reason.

--Ethan

____________________
Bring back DUP

Ethan,

Here's a suggestion. If you want to improve your room acoustics, use one of Michael Green's cool little triangular pillows and duct tape it to the front of your wave radio...or you may want to use 2 of those cool little magic pillows to assure total coverage of the speaker(s).

ethanwiner
ethanwiner's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 1 2005 - 2:26pm
Re: Synergistics Research Acoustic ART-real sonic improvements?

Excellent ideas, thanks!

I'm sure that even with the 44 bass traps and four diffusors I already have in my living room, adding even two of those little MG "bikini corners" will make a huge improvement.

--Ethan

____________________
Bring back DUP

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Synergistics Research Acoustic ART-real sonic improvements?


Quote:
If my main system was a Bose table radio, and I expressed strong opinions about "high fidelity" here, I'd be laughed off the forum. And for good reason.

That's what you would do, Ethan, since you want to be the "authority" here. It's not what all of us would do. This is a discussion forum, we're supposedly here to discuss audio. What anyone one of us owns as a material system or if we own nothing is irrelevant to a discussion. If we bring our experience and our intelligence to the discussion, that's all that matters here. The idea is to share and not to lord it over anyone who owns something you don't approve of.

Grow up a little here, Ethan.

Pages

  • X