[Bob in St. Louis]

We all know about "love" and "hate" right?
But neither are measurable, predictable, or explainable other than a chemical reaction in our brains.

Just thought I'd throw that out there. 

Bob

[Stephen Scharf]

Really? Can you tell me how one mass acts upon another mass then? Even when it is not touching it. If you can explain your 'understanding' of it, thats all I ask.

How one mass acts on another mass is defined by that equation I posted above: F = G*(m1*m2)/r^2. This equation describes the gravitational force between two objects of a given mass or masses. They do not have to be touching; this is the point of Newton's universal law of gravitation.

[Browntrout]

What I mean is how can on mass cause motion in another mass if it is not touching? (there must be an impulse or time of contact, no?)
  The current hypothesis is that there are particles called Gauge Bosons and specifically in the case of gravity 'Gravitons'. My very limited grasp of this is that we have no idea how two things that are not touching can exert a force on each other (with regards masses being the driving force) so it was hypothesised that there are particles that exist in another dimension and it is 'through' these particles ( acting as a medium) that one mass acts upon another through space or that there is some sort of potential difference occuring in some constituent part of space.
  This however is really just showing the limits of our logical thought, in that we observe something that is completely unexplainable (gravity) and hypothesize that what causes the unexplainable is really something that is explainable occuring at a very small level or in this case in another dimension. There is another case of this sort of logical escapism to be found with a phenomena seen with light.
  Miles of topic but........
Gravitons
The fourth fundamental interaction, gravity, may also be carried by a boson, called the graviton. In the absence of experimental evidence and a mathematically coherent theory of quantum gravity, it is unknown whether this would be a gauge boson or not. The role of gauge invariance in general relativity is played by a similar symmetry: diffeomorphism invariance.

  I mean this does not explain gravity, and from this hypothesis it is not possible to understand gravity. It's the same as Aristotle really, we might as well say Heavenly Angels push them towards each other. It's funny to my mind that we disect nature in an attempt to find the 'workings' of things only to find they are even less comprehensible at what we thought would be a simpler level. After all how can something so small be complicated???
  Truthfully I've come to the conclusion that there is no such thing as a unit or particle, where we got the idea from that any one thing is and behaves identically to anything else I don't know, have you ever seen one thing that is identical to another? I haven't.
Appologies for the lengthy and rather abstract post. I shall say no more.
   

[Stephen Scharf]

An interesting discussion, but I think we're way off-topic.

The subject at hand is how ART could work....

[tomjtx]

An interesting discussion, but I think we're way off-topic.

The subject at hand is how ART could work....

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.

[Ted_D]

An interesting discussion, but I think we're way off-topic.

The subject at hand is how ART could work....

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 Lead Designer Synergistic Research Inc.

[tomjtx]

Thanks for those links, Ted.

[Browntrout]

Yes thanks. So if they work as described in the links above and it is agreed that people do hear a difference is the effect they produce true to the recording or is it artificial 'sweetening'.
   Ted how can they tune a room if they are not made for each specific room? 

[Stephen Scharf]

An interesting discussion, but I think we're way off-topic.

The subject at hand is how ART could work....

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 ?

No, I don't think the placebo effect could be responsible. I don't believe in it anyway with respect to audio system enhancements. I do believe what I hear, though.

FWIW, my audition with ART was brief. I listened to them for two tracks of  a CD with it set up, and then I took it down and listened again. The system did not sound as the same w/o ART, the imaging changed (to what I think was incorrect spatial and vocal placement), the soundstaging and the vertical imaging was compressed and scrunched together. The overall sound was not as airy and spacious, and there seemed to less imaging depth. I am not sure what the purported improvements ART is supposed to bring; I am reporting my own experience.

Perhaps Ted can fill us in on the purported improvements.

[Stephen Scharf]

The ART bowls are actually quite resonant, and ring pretty much like a bell, if I recall correctly. My thought is that they way they work has something to do with acting as resonant nodes at key sound pressure points in the room, they create an effect which creates an improvement in sonic depth, imaging, on the basis of creating a specific type of reverberation. An article on Wikipedia says that reverberation effects are often added in studio to create depth. It's my guess that ART works 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 to achieve this property of the steel 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. 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 would be markedly attenutated.

[ctviggen]

So basically these bowls just ring, like tuned resonators?  What you should be able to do then is energize a room with a certain frequency and measure the response, and continue to do this for a number of frequencies.  Then put the bowl into the room and perform the same test.  For the gathered data, you should have certain frequencies that are higher in output when the bowl is in the room,if the bowl is really resonating.  It should be ntoed that one should be careful in these types of measurements to ensure that the result is due to resonation and not simply measurement error. 

But this seems to be relatively easy to test. 

[satfrat]

So basically these bowls just ring, like tuned resonators?  What you should be able to do then is energize a room with a certain frequency and measure the response, and continue to do this for a number of frequencies.  Then put the bowl into the room and perform the same test.  For the gathered data, you should have certain frequencies that are higher in output when the bowl is in the room,if the bowl is really resonating.  It should be noted that one should be careful in these types of measurements to ensure that the result is due to resonation and not simply measurement error. 

But this seems to be relatively easy to test. 

But wouldn't ringing bowls just add more distortion to the original soundwave that's already being distorted from the wall/ceiling angles? Being that they're mounting position has more to do with it's relation to the tweeter instead of the main distortion section of the wall/ceiling or wall/wall locations, they are not only ignoring these critical sound wave distortion spots but instead adding their own brand of distortion with the ringing. At least with traditional methods of acoustic room treatments, it's  easy to understand it's relationship with soundwaves. With ring bells tho, it's all a mystery as to it's function. This just makes me that much more curious to try them out for myself.

Cheers,
Robin

[geezer]

Woodsyi where are you? In a post on November 14 you noted that you expected to receive samples of the ART devices for test about a month ago. Do you have them? If not, why not? If you do, when can we see your critique?

[*Scotty*]

Every single aspect of the ART system is easily measurable as far as their physical attributes are concerned.What frequency they ring at when struck can measured with a spectrum analyser or a chromatic tuner. If their audible output is quite low a solid state accelerometer could be used to measure their vibrational behavior. This same technique could be used to assess when or if any vibrations are excited in the devices when music is played back in their vicinity. I think there are only superficial similarities between the ART system and Tibetan singing bowls.
       Tibetan singing bowls are typically tuned to the seven notes associated with the different chakra points on the human body. The notes being B,A,G,F,E,D,C. Each Bowl will produce series of overtones,the machine made bowls will produce two tones the fundamental it is tuned to and one overtone and are quite bell like in their sound. The best antique handmade bowls will produce as many as five audible tones the fundamental plus four overtones. They are not exclusively tuned to low frequencies as was previously posted,in fact they are all over the place,and no two handmade bowls sound the same, each one is unique. They also vary greatly in how resonant they are,some will resonate quite strongly with but the lightest touch while others are less easily made to sing. The complex overtone structure is directly related to the variation in wall thickness and the misshapen nature of the bowl which is a direct result of being handmade. The knowledge of unique metallurgy used in the construction of the antique Tibetan bowls has been lost and attempts to duplicate the sound of the antiques and rediscover the metallurgy used has not been successful even when the bowls are handmade with a variety of alloys. More information can be found about the singing bowls on the web for those who are interested.
Scotty

[Ethan Winer]

wouldn't ringing bowls just add more distortion to the original soundwave that's already being distorted from the wall/ceiling angles?

Well, distortion is probably not the right word because to me distortion implies non-linearity. The principle by which a device rings when played in the vicinity of another sound source is called sympathetic vibration. This is what makes the drone strings on an Indian sitar sound, even though those strings are not plucked directly. You can see the same thing on a piano if you press the sustain pedal to lift the dampers and play a note. If you play, for example, A below middle C, other A notes at higher frequencies will also sound. You can even see the other strings move.

Being that they're mounting position has more to do with it's relation to the tweeter instead of the main distortion section of the wall/ceiling or wall/wall locations

Likewise, room corners do not distort sound. Corners focus (aim) the reflections, but they don't add new harmonic components in the way an amplifier does when it distorts.

--Ethan

[opnly bafld]

wouldn't ringing bowls just add more distortion to the original soundwave that's already being distorted from the wall/ceiling angles?

Well, distortion is probably not the right word because to me distortion implies non-linearity. The principle by which a device rings when played in the vicinity of another sound source is called sympathetic vibration. This is what makes the drone strings on an Indian sitar sound, even though those strings are not plucked directly. You can see the same thing on a piano if you press the sustain pedal to lift the dampers and play a note. If you play, for example, A below middle C, other A notes at higher frequencies will also sound. You can even see the other strings move.

Being that they're mounting position has more to do with it's relation to the tweeter instead of the main distortion section of the wall/ceiling or wall/wall locations

Likewise, room corners do not distort sound. Corners focus (aim) the reflections, but they don't add new harmonic components in the way an amplifier does when it distorts.

--Ethan

Your narrow view even includes definitions.   

[Browntrout]

I don't see anything wrong with what Ethan has written.
     It helps people, like me, understand what the previous poster was trying to say and get a grasp of the correct terms/ideas. I see no reason why a member would take offence at having what they wrote put into the correct terminology, as far as I can tell the original point is still valid and Ethan was not detracting from it in any way.
     If I try to put my thoughts down about this sort of thing I struggle and sometimes shy away because I am unsure of the correct terms and do not always have the time to read up on which word to use for each instance. It certainly is difficult to get ones ideas across sometimes and I for one glady welcome any clarification I can get.
   
     

[*Scotty*]

If you are going to use words to communicate ideas you have to have the words mean the same thing to everyone who reads them. Precise definitions of what those words mean guarantee that misunderstandings as to what is being discussed or implied are minimized. I have no trouble with Ethans statements,he is dead on the money.
Scotty

[Browntrout]

It's Ethans mentioning of sympathetic vibration that brings further doubt into my mind about this method of room treatment. My earlier question asked how can these things work properly without being made bespoke for a room and the particular stereo in question and the reason I asked this was because of the reactive nature of these things.
  If the ouput from the speakers is what energises these things and, from what I've read so far, they emit a set frequency are they not ignorant of the tonal nature of the stereo itself?
  One stereo could produce one characteristic sound and the ART system would be energised to emit it's set tuned frequency and a completely different stereo could produce a very different quality of sound and still the ART system would emit the same frequencies. I cannot get my head around the idea that what is 'correctional' for one stereo is 'correctional' for a different stereo.

[opnly bafld]

I don't see anything wrong with what Ethan has written.
     It helps people, like me, understand what the previous poster was trying to say and get a grasp of the correct terms/ideas. I see no reason why a member would take offence at having what they wrote put into the correct terminology, as far as I can tell the original point is still valid and Etahn was not detracting from it in any way.
     If I try to put my thoughts down about this sort of thing I struggle and sometimes shy away because I am unsure of the correct terms and do not always have the time to read up on which word to use for each instance. It certainly is difficult to get ones ideas across sometimes and I for one glady welcome any clarification I can get.
     

He is narrowing the definition of distortion to fit his point of reference.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distortion

Would the speakers sound different outside away from walls and ceilings?

Lin