[Glenn Kuras]

That's fine if it just get us closer to the thruth. 

That is kind of the problem with 1/3 resolution. It can make it "look" as though your room is fine, but it is missing a lot of the nulls and peaks that need to be dealt with. If I was a "unethical" acoustic guy I would show you graphs of a room at 1/3 (treated) and you would be thinking how great of a job I did because it "looks" great, but the truth is I am BS'ing you big time. Understand what I mean? 

[jostber]

That is kind of the problem with 1/3 resolution. It can make it "look" as though your room is fine, but it is missing a lot of the nulls and peaks that need to be dealt with. If I was a "unethical" acoustic guy I would show you graphs of a room at 1/3 (treated) and you would be thinking how great of a job I did because it "looks" great, but the truth is I am BS'ing you big time. Understand what I mean?

Not really?!?

[Trismos]

So? Has this gone anywhere?

I read Srajan's 6-Moon review of the ASI resonators and my BS meter ticked away also. But I respect Srajan as a reviewer. He uses these in his own system and so do a few other 6-Moon reviewers.

Glenn said he was going to do some blind testing to prove these things were snake oil. Has this been done?

Regards
Dave

 

[Trismos]

Glenn, I'm really interested here. So are others.

[Trismos]

I remember some time back there was a company that sold these empty boxes that made all kinds of claims. They had a few people running around saying kind of what you said about how much they cleaned up the room. Well Ethan Winer could see right though it and actually tested them in a room with and without treatment and to no surprise there was no difference. He actually (just to prove the point) put 2 trash cans in the corner filled full of junk and those actually (not much) showed a difference in a test. The bottom line is if you can not do a true blind a/b test (or shoot the room) then the mind will play games on you.
With all of that said it would be fun to see them do a video like the following (start the video around 3:30) that they could post online.  BTW you can take this one blind if you want.
http://www.gikacoustics.com/treated_video.html

So?

[bpape]

Guess the point is that anybody, any time can put SOMETHING in the room and say it does whatever.  If you look at the science and physics behind what's happening, you'll see what is and isn't possible. 

Bryan

[Trismos]

Guess the point is that anybody, any time can put SOMETHING in the room and say it does whatever.  If you look at the science and physics behind what's happening, you'll see what is and isn't possible. 

Bryan

And sometimes we don't understand exactly what is happening.

There are intelligent people here and elsewhere saying something IS happening though. I'm not even playing the devils advocate. Glenn said he would do a blind test or offer to set one up and I was interested in whether this had been done. Quite frankly I'm in your camp. On the face of it the concept is sheer lunacy. But this doesn't sit well with me because I think highly of some people that say these things make a huge difference.

So who better (GIK) to put it to the test?

Regards
Dave

[JLM]

Snake oil.

If you really want something that small to help your system sound better (that doesn't plug into it) go to the liquor store.

[bpape]

And sometimes we don't understand exactly what is happening.

There are intelligent people here and elsewhere saying something IS happening though. I'm not even playing the devils advocate. Glenn said he would do a blind test or offer to set one up and I was interested in whether this had been done. Quite frankly I'm in your camp. On the face of it the concept is sheer lunacy. But this doesn't sit well with me because I think highly of some people that say these things make a huge difference.

So who better (GIK) to put it to the test?

Regards
Dave

You're not saying anything I didn't already say earlier in this thread.  Sure, there are things we don't understand.  Sure, it may make a difference in how things sound - but if so, it's adding something, not fixing something.  If you like the addition, that's great. 

As for the test, how 'unbaised' do you really think we would seem to others since we're an acoustic treatment company? 

Bryan

[Ethan Winer]

As for the test, how 'unbaised' do you really think we would seem to others since we're an acoustic treatment company?

If you do the test properly, and document every step including showing photos of the setup, nobody can object. I've tested "competing" products many times, and never had any credible criticism refuting the results. I tested Foam By Mail corner foam at IBM's acoustics lab, side by side with Auralex foam and my company's products. Photos of those tests with data are on my company's web site. I also tested the Cathedral Panels in my company's lab room, and posted setup photos and Before / After waterfalls in various forum threads. More recently I tested the Audyssey system, and that's also on the RealTraps web site. One could argue that Audyssey isn't really a competitor to acoustic treatment, and I agree, but many see it as a substitute for treatment.

If someone would like to send me a set of resonators to test, I'll be glad to do that, and fully document the test method as well as provide conclusive data.

--Ethan

[bpape]

I would agree completely with you Ethan if this was a purely objective test with visible results.  Measuring absorption and/or EQ results will give hard evidence.  These items IMO will not show any differences in the frequency or time domains.  That then puts it purely in the range of subjective listening tests which can absolutely be challenged.

Bryan

[Trismos]

How about a independent blind test? Actually if someone has a couple of them I would be more then happy to test a room with and without them. Also I could record music with and without them in the room and post them for people to guess which is which.
 

That's all I'd like to see. And I wouldn't expect Glenn to have to supply them either.

[Ethan Winer]

Measuring absorption and/or EQ results will give hard evidence.  These items IMO will not show any differences in the frequency or time domains.  That then puts it purely in the range of subjective listening tests which can absolutely be challenged.

If adding a "tweak" doesn't change the frequency response, or change anything that's time-based like ringing, or change the amount of distortion, then it's safe to say the tweak does nothing. This is not to say that people won't think they hear a difference! But in the physical world - the world of reality - everything that changes the sound can be known, observed, and measured. There is no magic.

--Ethan

[Ethan Winer]

I had a few further thoughts. This is from the Resonators web page:

* Use of high-density precious metals rather than big masses of foam or fiber glass panels to preserve space.
* No absortion [sic] of sound but conversion of the room's low frequencies into high frequencies to cancel unwanted resonances.

The first item implies acoustic improvement similar to "big masses" of foam and fiberglass, and the second states clearly that low frequencies are "converted" to high frequencies and that resonance are canceled. Clearly all three of these claimed changes would show up in a standard room sweep.

Also, I like Glenn's suggestion to record music with and without the resonators in place. If he uses a decent quality sound card, it's probably possible to null the Before and After recordings. Different recordings will drift slightly over time, but with a reasonably stable clock it should be possible to null (or not) for at least long enough to tell if a physical change really did occur in the room. Better, if the files do not null completely, the residual that remains can be analyzed to see exactly what changed.

--Ethan

[jostber]

In this short overview on the Resonators it can seem that their most important function is to add overtones to the music which will rise the quality of the sound. If that is so, it sounds pretty believable.

http://www.15audio.co.uk/page5/home-1/page164/acsys.html

[Zero]

Wow.. Really, guys?

First - To those of you who immediately dismiss these products as 'snake oil'..  I gotta question: Have you heard them?  Now before you fire off an answer... let me clarify...  Have you actually owned a full set of these products before? Have you ever actually taken the time to set them up properly in your very own listening room, or in a familiar setting and on familiar music?  If the answer is NO...  then why the hell are you even talking?

Second - To the manufacturers participating in this thread; Have you had first-hand experience (as per the examples I gave above) with the ASI Resonators? If the answer is YES, do you have any hard proof to support your claim ? If the answer is NO, then why are you here? 

I suppose I just find it highly irritating when audiophiles (let alone competing manufacturers) snub something that they have had little actual experience with. If you all really want to have an opinion, why don't you dig into the trenches and arrange for a friendly public demonstration at RMAF? Seriously. Let the ASI dude bring in his tiny wooden/metal thingies... you guys can bring your panels...  you can each have your turn at tuning the room with your products... and then you can let guests decide for themselves if there is any merit to the Resonators. At the end of the day..  this is a simple thing. Either 'put up' or 'shut up'. 

Now before I draw this post to a close, it's worth mentioning that I respect Real Traps and GIK products. So much so that I once owned two (albeit used) Real Trap panels and currently run three GIK 242 panels in my listening space. I like the gear. I also like the Resonators. I also like opinions, even when they don't match up with my own.  What I don't like however, is when people run their mouth about something they've had little to no thorough experience with. This holds especially true when it comes to sundry products like hi-fi exotica.  It just hits me the wrong way. 

[JohnR]

Have you ever actually taken the time to set them up properly in your very own listening room, or in a familiar setting and on familiar music?

But you haven't done those things either.

[Zero]

I have.

[JohnR]

I have.

Oh. Earlier you said:

I’ve heard em’ (granted, that was long ago and in a foreign room).

Were you talking about two different things in the two posts?

Regardless, the premise behind "If the answer is NO...  then why the hell are you even talking?" is a bit of a slippery slope, don't you think? At what point does one inject common sense into the proceedings?

[Zero]

Hey John, (5 AM over here, looks like I am on your time)

Ya caught me.  As noted.. It *was* a couple years ago. And my experience with the Resonators did not take place in *my* listening room.  That said, I spent nearly four hours (en total) playing in a room that was 'tuned' with the little resonators. While four hour's may not be a whole lot of time in the grand scheme of things, I'd like to think that I was afforded enough time to become somewhat acclimated to the sound of the room/system. I also think that I had enough time to at least walk away with a solid impression of the Resonators. Anyways, bottom line, at least I've had *some* kind of experience with the products in question. Now does that make me the authority on the topic? Hell no. But at least it's something...

So my question to you is:  Do you think it's right when people (particularly competitive manufacturers) openly and publicly denounce a product that they haven't even heard/spent meaningful time with?