| The Synergistic Research ACOUSTIC ART Real-Time Analogue Room Treatment |
| Written by Jason Victor Serinus |
| Thursday, 18 June 2009 00:00 |
|
Vibratron, Gravitron, Magnetron, and Bass Station: the sci-fi names alone are enough to raise eyebrows. But when you add in the fantastic appearance of the resonating bowls, and the claims that they can tune your listening room and ameliorate most commonly encountered speaker-room interactions, it’s hard not to think that someone is either toying with you or daring you to entertain a new paradigm of acoustic science. A Description: Specially tuned and treated carbon steel bowls that, carefully placed in the listening room on proprietary platforms, tune music reproduction, tighten bass, adjust tonal balance, and focus sound. Complete System (Vibratron, Bass Station, Gravitron, and two Magnetrons): $3130 At the center of the Synergistic Research ACOUSTIC ART Real-Time Analogue Room Treatment – now there’s a mouthful – perches the Vibratron, a fantastically shaped blue orb that looks like a cross between the planet Saturn and a gyroscope. Complete with a set of little removable silver and gold magnets that form a spire at its apex, the Vibratron is designed to sit atop a special wooden perch that hangs from the front wall midway between and above your speakers. Then there’s the Gravitron, a blue and purple tinted forged metal bowl that balances atop a little wooden perch. The Gravitron and its perch are designed to affix to the rear wall, close to the ceiling, directly opposite the Vibratron. On the floor below the Vibratron and (in larger rooms) the Gravitron sit one or two Bass Stations, slightly larger iron bowls that have their own spiked wooden stands that include a special “dispersion baffle.” Two other bowls called Magnetrons magnetically affix to wooden perches placed on the side walls at first reflection points. Besides looking good enough to be on display at a Museum of Modern Art, Synergistic Research’s website claims that the ACOUSTIC ART system (heretofore referred to as “ART”) can “tune music with a system of resonators working together in harmony at key acoustic pressure points.” The magnets in the system purportedly “contour activation and decay properties of the Vibratron and Magnetron Satellite resonators.” The Vibratron is claimed to radiate “in a 360 degree pattern over a scientifically-arrived-at frequency range.” The Base Station’s dispersion baffle – a plain wooden shield that arises between it and the rest of the room – “precisely” controls how the Bass Station affects a room’s low frequency acoustics. The spikes on the Bass Station, fashionably called Stilettos, are said to mechanically couple the Bass Station to the room and further enhance control of low frequencies. Throw in the Gravitron, and you’ve got a system that operates at “mathematically-arrived-at frequencies with target decay patterns” to tune music reproduction from your audiophile or everyday sound system. Really? That’s the question I asked at CES 2009 in Las Vegas in January when I made the Synergistic Research room at the High Performance Audio exhibits at the Venetian Hotel my first stop. There I encountered chief designer Ted Denney, the creator of ART. The equipment in the room had not yet warmed up, the cables were not settled in, and the positioning of the ART system was hardly fine-tuned. Yet, as Ted proceeded to play music with the ART system in place, then without it, then again with ART, it was easy to hear that the system sounded considerably more focused and under control with ART. Over the next few days of CES, John Atkinson, long-time editor of Stereophile, joined the ranks of reviewers and journalists who visited the Synergistic Research room. While John’s background as a recording engineer led him to approach the ART system with skepticism, he is also a musician with a fine ear for changes in sound. After experiencing Ted Denney’s demo, he too was convinced that the treatment made a difference. Does it really make a difference? As anyone familiar with my other reviews for Secrets already knows, I have no problem accepting that electrical, mechanical, or acoustic phenomena that cannot be fully explained by existing scientific methodologies may nonetheless have a profound effect on our appreciation of music. After all, music’s affects on the human psyche and spirit are not fully understood, and remain essentially mystical in nature. I don’t need to prove that something exists before I can feel and acknowledge its effects. If I’m sure I hear a difference, that’s good enough for me. This, of course, flies in the face of so-called “objectivists” who insist that anything audible can be measured scientifically. What the “objectivists” refuse to acknowledge, however, is that so called objectivism is in fact an a priori belief system that defies the principles of science. Unless the absolute and incontrovertible answer to the question, “If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it fall, did it make a sound?” is a vehement and absolute “No!”, we must acknowledge that auditory phenomena exist independently of our ability to measure them. Why apply a different standard to all things audio, or claim that unless something can be proven conclusively by blind testing, which is at best a faulty methodology, it cannot possibly exist? When all is said and done (as if that were ever the case), those who want to maintain the false subjectivist/objectivist dichotomy, proclaim the absolutism of blind testing, and/or dismiss ART outright are free to do so. Those who wish to explore the Synergistic Research Acoustic ART system are invited to read on, and then find a dealer who can demo the system for them. Bringing it All Back Home The time I spent in the Synergistic Research room was so mind-blowing that I asked Ted Denney if he would do a presentation for the Bay Area Audiophile Society (BAAS) on March 14, 2009. He agreed, as did BAAS coordinator Bob Walters.
The next morning, Denney presented two back-to-back demos for BAAS members. This review will report on those demos, and offer observations on the continued effects of ART on my enjoyment of music. At one of the demos, Ted explained why he created ART: "For the vast majority of real world systems, this is the only viable way to treat room acoustics. I wouldn’t want to have a bunch of monolithic absorbing tubes in my room, and a bunch of ugly panels all over the place. I like to listen to music in an aesthetically pleasing space. I don’t like my room to look like a test facility." Setup Time and again you will read that a high-end system – any audio system, really – sounds best when situated in a symmetrical space that is free of bass consuming, resonant alcoves. While some audiophiles are fortunate enough to have such rooms, most of us do not. That includes yours truly. The living / listening room at Casa Bellecci-Serinus is 24.5’ deep and 21.4’ wide. Ceilings are 9’ high with heavy wooden crossbeams, each 17” in height. The room is big enough to accommodate 16 members of the Bay Area Audiophile Society, seated in three or four rows facing the system, plus others on the periphery. Due to room layout and the multiple uses of the living room, the system is not in the center of the room. At the far end of the room, not far from the right speaker, is a large, 8.33’ wide wooden-framed archway that leads into a large, approx. 16’x12’ dining room. The distance from the front door to the end of the dining room is 37’. This large cavity sucks up bass and plays havoc with the acoustic presentation.
There is also a lot of space to the left of the left speaker. First-order reflections aim toward a small alcove that ends at the front door. While a heavy curtain covers the windows directly behind the system, the rest of the wall behind the speakers is not flat due to record shelves and support beams.
Ted also brought two Bass Stations, placing one beneath the Vibratron (its traditional position) and another beneath the Gravitron. While most rooms do not need two Bass Stations, the extra bass resonance of my fireplace, and the size of the space, mandated the second one. (Ted explains this below).
Whenever I review equipment, I strive to keep the rest of my reference system constant; this enables me to best ascertain how the equipment under review is affecting the sound of the system. Ted, as noted above, wanted to demonstrate his Synergistic Research Tesla PowerCell and cabling in addition to the ART system. Hence, my Nordost Thor and most if not all of my reference Nordost Odin cabling, save for the speaker cables, was replaced. Since most of the Synergistic cabling has active shielding which requires it to be plugged in, Ted brought one of his long power strips especially for that purpose. The change of so much at once skewed my reference. Hence, I spent some time getting used to the sonic changes before Ted did his final set-up and conducted the demo. To these ears, unless it is fundamentally incompatible with Nordost, the Synergistic cabling is noticeably darker than Nordost Odin. Ted told me that, had I allowed his cabling two months to settle in, his cables would have fully opened up and displayed a lot more top end. That, however, was not possible in a reference system that needs consistency of sound for music and equipment review purposes. Hence, I shall not attempt a review of either the Synergistic Cabling or the Tesla PowerCell (which has a special connector that only accommodates a specially-terminated Synergistic Research power cable). Nonetheless, as you’ll read below, the barely settled in Synergistic cabling did an astounding job controlling bass and creating a three-dimensional soundstage. Shakti Hallographs At the time Ted arrived to set up my room, I was already using five of Frank Cheng’s Acoustic Resonators, four Shakti Hallographs, and a number of padded room tuning accoutrements (Room Tunes, Echo Busters, etc.) to help control errant reflections and focus sound. For the demo, the Acoustic Resonators were of course removed, so that we could focus on the effects of Ted’s competing system. The Shakti Hallographs, which Ted likes, remained along with the other room treatment. Ted and I experimented with the placement and setting of the mid-room Hallographs, as well as the two behind the speakers. Once Ted and his cables departed, and I returned to using Nordost cabling, I made further modifications to Hallograph position and settings. Ted likes the hallographs and is quite familiar with them. “They work really well with my products and Frank’s,” he says. “The do the same thing, but at a much lower frequency. And they’re directional, while my bowls are omni-directional.” History of ART During the BAAS demos, Ted offered two complete and complementary explanations of the ART system. The following material, quoted verbatim from his talks, combines information shared in those demos. "In 2003, when I had no inspiration for audio or anything else anymore, and got completely burned out, I sold my house, an appreciating asset, to buy a sailboat, a depreciating asset. I then spent three years sailing single-handedly around the Pacific. I sailed from Alameda to Hawaii, then worked my way to Tahiti and beyond. I was going to go around the world, but ran out of time. One of the things I did as I went along was visit Buddhist temples. Some of them had Tibetan prayer bowls in them. Whenever they would activate the bowls while I was sitting in the temples, I noticed a distinct shift in room acoustics. That led me to think, ‘If this is the case, I’ll bet you could engineer some bowls in a system, setting them up around the room at key pressure points to effectively treat room acoustics.’ Then I didn’t think too much more about it. When I returned from sailing and developed my current line of Tesla series cables, I learned that there was a gentleman named Frank Cheng in France who was making a series of resonator. Frank was using precious metals to forge small little bowls. Thinking, ‘Okay, somebody’ already doing that,’ I bought into the system, and invested $20,000 retail in his products. There were things I liked about his system, and things I didn’t like. I felt that using precious metals created a significant increase in the cost, and an added layer of complexity. I thought I could come up something better that was a lot more powerful, and that cost a lot less money because it wasn’t made out of precious metals. Technical Explanation I developed a resonator system based on specially tuned and treated carbon steel. The bowls are forged, not cast, from carbon steel plates. This process, which bends the crystal structure into the shape of the resonator bowl, creates a lot of heat. We experimented with three different ways to shape them, including casting and shaping them with a Swish screw machine. Forging was the best, because it lends the steel sonic qualities we can’t get through the other two processes. But it also has an extremely high waste. After that, we put the bowl on a little stand, and tap it with a steel hammer so that they ring. We mike it, record the sound, and use a spectrum analyzer to take a look at its decay and spectral properties. The amount of labor it takes to produce one bowl is far more than you realize because of this process. 90% of all bowls are destroyed because they don’t have the right acoustic properties. After a bowl passes the test, I heat treat each one with a flame to polish them. That’s what creates their unique color – they’re actually silver to start with. While they’re being heat-treated, someone again taps them with a hammer so we can look at its decay properties as the sound and resonant properties change with case hardening. When the bowl has the right sonic characteristics, it heads into an oil bath to stop the case hardening process. One of out of three at that point doesn’t reach proper characteristics, and are then recycled. Next, the good bowls are sent to a climate-controlled, dust-free clean room where they’re sprayed with a German violin lacquer. This keeps them from rusting and also affects their acoustic properties and their ability to control the sound in your listening room. I experimented extensively to find a lacquer that has no detrimental effect on resonance. Finally, the bowls are quantum-tunneled with 2,000,000 volts from a Tesla coil. Quantum tunneling is a large, purpose-built solid-state Tesla coil that throws a 5-foot arc into a tray of resonators, hits one, bounces between them in an arc, and passes through all of them. For some reason, this has an affect on their acoustic properties. We came across this empirically. We also quantum tunnel instruments for musicians in Hollywood. They bring us their French horns and trumpets, and we quantum tunnel them to open them up significantly and get rid of congested sound. I’m even going to treat some concert pianos by bringing the coil on location and taking a day or two to treat the metal strings and internal metal with 2,000,000 volts. There was a lot of subtle detail involved in creating the ART system. We listened to dozens of different types of wood to determine which sounds best. The supports that separate the two resonating bowls in the Vibratron (gong) are a type of marine brass. The gold and silver magnets atop it – everything plays a part in the final product. The bowls are like a fine musical instrument that has been tuned to perfection. Everything is based on the principals of harmonics. The Bass Station The satellite at the back of the room near the top of the wall is held in place by gravity, so I call it a Gravitron. The Bass Station resonator is on a special stand that is spiked. I found that when you spike the stand, it had the exact same effect as when you spike a pair of speakers, namely, a tighter bottom end, and a more layered and delineated sound field behind the speakers. When you don’t spike the bass station, the sound is a bit woollier, and the soundfield is pushed forward.
Even in a small room with monitors that don’t produce deep bass, you need the Bass Station because you’re generating standing waves at your low frequencies that are having a negative effect on your midrange and highs. I’ve treated rooms that were 10 x 10. When I set up the complete ART system, I created an expansive soundfield as if it was a bigger room, with layering way outside the boundaries of the listening room, wrapping around, creating a sense of hall that was significantly larger than the little 10 x 10 cubicle. If you have a difficult room such as Jason’s, with this huge bass cavity of a fireplace that is a bozo no-no for low frequencies, you can add a second base station at the back wall. The only time other than this that I’ve needed two bass stations was in that 10 x 10 room. It sounded like the guy had a subwoofer going into sub-harmonics. The second bass station elongated the room acoustically, tightened things up, and enabled you to hear what was actually going on. How do you position the units? The Vibratron [the blue orb that looks a bit like Saturn and its moons] is placed equidistant from your speakers on the wall behind your speakers, four to five feet above the ground. Changing the height affects the timbre. In this room, we decided to place it a little bit higher than usual. We’ve just started to sell the stand that it’s on. Below the Vibratron goes the primary Bass station. Because we also have this huge bass cavity in Jason’s fireplace behind the listening position, we’ve placed a second Bass Station. On the back wall, opposite the Vibratron, we’ve got a Gravitron satellite. It is not magnetically coupled because that works best. (It and the Bass Station are held in place by gravity; the Magnetron side satellites are held in place by magnets). At your primary seating position, you have someone move a mirror across the sidewall and look for the reflection of the tweeter in the mirror. You can also use a laser pointer. When the laser reflects in the mirror and hits your tweeter, that’s your first reflection point. You put a Magnetron satellite at the left and right points. If you want to make the sound smoother and more diffuse, you move them a few inches toward the listening position. You also experiment with the height; normally you want them higher than ear level. They don’t normally come with stands, but Jason’s is a very challenging room to treat, and I’m happy it’s working as well as it is. In this room, we’ve placed the side satellites at first reflection points to create a false wall, and stop sound from resonating in the front door alcove and dining room. If you want to make the sound smoother and more diffuse, move them a few inches toward the listening position. Magnets and Magnetism I use magnets to contour and control the activation and decay properties on the side resonators at first reflection points. I also use stackable magnets on the Vibratron to tune its characteristics and get the type of midrange you want in the room. Magnetism is not desirable on the aft resonator up high or the bass resonator. If you use a magnet on the bass station, it will destroy its effects. The more removable magnets you put on the Vibratron, the sweeter the midrange and richer and sweeter top end. Removing magnets shifts the timbre more into the treble. The gold magnets are stronger, and affect the midrange; the smaller silver ones increase the sweetness of the highs. Essentially they increase the dampening of the Vibratron. The activation of the Vibratron in turn affects the function of the other satellites in the room. Options and Prices If you want to save some money, you can use a Gravitron satellite in place of the Vibratron. A minimal Acoustic ART setup, which costs under $1100, consists of the Gravitron satellite ($295) and a single BAAS Station ($750). By itself, it should make a dramatic improvement over an untreated room. An additional Vibratron, which not only reacts in real time to the music, but also affects all the other satellites, costs $1495. Two additional Magnetron side satellites cost $295 each. Even with the full monty which is a little over $3000 – typically, two bass stations don’t sound as good as one –that’s extremely affordable for treating a room. You easily could put another zero behind that figure with Rives Audio and not necessarily get better results." The Sound When Ted and I looked for good non-classical tracks to use in the demo, we settled upon Patricia Barber’s “Silent Partner” from the Mobile Fidelity SACD/DSD reissue of Modern Cool. Something about the sparse musical arrangement and array of percussion made for revelations on my reference system. First Ted played the music with the entire ART system in place. Then he simply removed the two Magnetron satellites. Virtually everyone in the room noticed the loss of focus and clarity. We experienced an even greater difference when Ted first removed the entire ART system, then put it back in place. (Note: If you turn a resonator bowl over, so that the opening faces downward on a hard surface, it no longer affects the sound in the room). Additional changes in sound were noted when the small magnets that perch atop the Vibratron were removed, and then slowly replaced, one-by-one. After experiencing the full transition, one attendee noted, “When you were taking the magnets on and off the Vibratron, it affected the midrange so dramatically. Yet I found that with the magnets off, for me it was a little less veiled in the midrange.” Ted replied, “It’s not a question of veiling; it’s a question of tonal balance. You’ll actually find through long-term listening that you’re not losing any information with more magnets; it’s about balance. The experience is kind of like when you change the setting on your plasma TV, and you can’t decide which is more real.” Ted next removed some of the magnets from the Vibratron and played the first five or six minutes of the Royal Concertgebouw Orchestra’s spectacular SACD of Richard Strauss’ Alpine Symphony. Strauss calls for a huge orchestra, wind machine, cowbells, you name it. The opening is an extreme test for woofers. After listening, another attendee commented, “Here’s a very crude analogy. If you have a boom box with a lot of listening options, you can add ambience, which takes it out of phase. Some people like the change, but I think it cheapens the sound. Here, you get more ambience, but there’s no cheapening effect. Adding more magnets makes the music come alive. This was most apparent in this recording of Strauss. There may have been more intimacy before, but the added magnets really made it come alive.” Ted then further clarified the issue. “Sometimes, when information is removed, music seems sharper in focus because there’s less information to process. Eventually one learns to process all the additional information that you can hear clearly as a result of ART.” Ted even claimed that, on highly resolving systems, you can actually hear miking patterns on recordings with ART in place. Throughout both demos, which included a few tracks that attendees had brought along, I kept noticing how much more bass control, midrange clarity, and acuteness of focus I was experiencing with ART. After Ted left and I restored my entire reference system, I became firmly convinced of the huge difference that ART makes. All I had to do was remove the two first reflection point Magnetrons to discover how much newfound clarity of image, tonal definition, and three-dimensionality I lost without them. My only criticism of the sound of the ART system is that, with my Nordost cabling back in the system, and the Magnetrons exactly positioned at first reflection points, the system sometimes sounded too bright and piercing. Moving the Magnetrons a few inches from their optimal positions totally rectified the situation. System Comparison It was not possible for me to directly compare the Synergistic Research ART system with Frank Cheng’s Acoustic Resonators. While ART comes in just a few configurations, mine being the maximum, Cheng sells a host of resonators at widely different price points. At home, I only have five of the lower priced Acoustic Resonators; they do not give a complete picture of what a system tuned with more resonators, including the far more expensive silver, gold and platinum varieties, can sound like. What I can say with certainty is that a full ART system, even with a second Bass Station, costs far, far less than a complete Acoustic Resonator set-up that uses the higher priced resonators. ART resonators are far easier to position correctly and maintain in place than the Acoustic Resonators. Cheng’s little pointed bowls are hard to get just right. Sometimes just when you’re trying to tap the resonator slightly to get it at the angle you want, it falls off its perch, and you need to start all over again. In addition, in my house, at least one of my resonators has been known to fall off its perch when the front door is slammed shut. Conclusions I cannot imagine living without my Synergistic Research ACOUSTIC ART Real-Time Analogue Room Treatment. From tightening and controlling previously errant bass and allowing far more information to come through to increasing image depth and focusing individual elements within a larger, more expansive soundstage, ART makes a major impact on the enjoyment of music. There is simply more there there with ART in place. I expect you could obtain at least some of ART’s benefits by adding a sophisticated DSP device to your component chain, but that would call for another shelf on the rack, another set of interconnects, and another power cable. It might also add another level of electronic haze to the proceedings. ART tunes your system and room without in any way veiling sound or obscuring detail. Comments (30)
![]()
You call that ART?
written by JM , June 18, 2009 Bowl-derdash! I suppose it will sound better if the bowls go through a 100 hour break-in period, too.
no measurements
written by objectivist , June 18, 2009 You might not be able to measure everything about sound, but you can measure a lot. In fact the manufacturer says they "tap it with a steel hammer so that they ring. We mike it, record the sound, and use a spectrum analyzer to take a look at its decay and spectral properties." I am no scientist, but I believe when you mike something and then analyze the sound you recorded, there is a distinct possibility you may have accidentally measured it. Too bad you took out all objectivity from the article by pretending measurements do not count at all.
Are you serious?
written by NRC , June 20, 2009 Seriously. This is joke, right? Do you really believe a bowl on a wood holder improves the sound coming from your audio system? You need professional help and only make audiophiles appear more ridiculous than they already do, if that's even possible. Audiophiles are simple minded, obsessive compulsive's who will believe anything without fact or merit. I've got a flux capacitor that improves sound staging to sell you. I once refused to believe there are consumers that dumb out there...but here it is.
This guy is a deluded quack
written by Video User , June 20, 2009 I'm amazed that this site, which I've known in the past for its rigor in testing products, would allow this kind of nonsense to be published. This is a huge black eye for Secrets of Home Theater and High Fidelity.
If I had no ethics...
written by ds , June 21, 2009 I would manufacture and sell something like this. Alas, I have a conscience, and don't feel strongly compelled to rip people off. Holy shit, thousands, THOUSANDS of dollars, for little metal bowls and magnets? Give me a effin break! "Finally, the bowls are quantum-tunneled with 2,000,000 volts from a Tesla coil...We also quantum tunnel instruments for musicians in Hollywood. They bring us their French horns and trumpets, and we quantum tunnel them to open them up significantly and get rid of congested sound." YHGTBFSM! Perhaps those musicians should use their spit valves to get rid of that congested sound. Some folks really do have too much money, and not enough sense.
Issue with your statement about science and objectivity.
written by C , June 21, 2009 I have a lot of issues with some statements made in this review about science and objectivity: “If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it fall, did it make a sound?” is a vehement and absolute “No!”, If there were no measurement instruments (human ear in this case) present during the phenomenon to collect data, then the phenomenon was merely not measured and studied. Science does not make a conclusion at all with phenomenons not studied. If we actually do not know if a falling tree makes a sound and no one is there to hear it, scientific method would ensure that there are human ears or at least air pressure measuring devices present to collect data and come to a conclusion. With no attempts to measure, science will not come to vehement and absolute "No." to anything. The above statement not only lacks logic but does not reflect scientific method, AT ALL. "We must acknowledge that auditory phenomena exist independently of our ability to measure them." Agree. However, for our interest, we are only concerned with auditory phenomenons that can be perceived by our instruments: human ears and the peripheral neuro pathway all the way to our upper neuron center. There are many studies on auditory and sound pressure waves that is not of interest to human hearing because these phenomenons do not elicit neuron firings in the human sensory neural chain. You have to have the neurons fire to get a signal to the brain in order to have any type of perception, conscious or subconscious. "Why apply a different standard to all things audio, or claim that unless something can be proven conclusively by blind testing, which is at best a faulty methodology, it cannot possibly exist?" First of all, double blind human subject testing is the ONLY method to test if the auditory phenomenon in question will be perceived in human subjects (not elephants or dogs or bats). Each sample of human subject obviously have greater variances in the instrument tested as compared to machined instruments because we all hear differently to some degree due to variances of our hearing instruments (frequency response threshold due to aging,etc), but this is where you take a large random sample of subjects or at least divide them into groups according to parameters that can affect outcome such as age of subjects to ensure reliability of the study. Double blind just measures the final outcome and it is not attempting to offer an explanation for or pin point all co-founding variables involved such as acoustic memory, psychoacoustics, hearing instruments, etc (that is a host of other studies). If objective measurements by machines do not show much of difference and subjective outcome of the human subjects in double blind tests cannot even discern the very little difference the machine instruments picked up, so what is the value in arguing about auditory phenomenons that i not measurable? Double blind just ensures the listening subject is not biased, that is all. And how is that faulty? Please provide logical and meaningful evidence...
One more comment on meaning of scientific outcome
written by C , June 21, 2009 I would like to add one more comment on the meaning of scientific outcome. This is where most people who do not have an understandging of science make this following simplistic assumption: That when a scientific study concludes that there is NO evidence to prove that a certain phenomenon exists, this automatically and logically means that this same conclusion is saying that there IS evidence to prove that a certain phenomenon does NOT exist. All science is saying in this case is that there is evidence to prove this certain phenomenon exits OR not exist, that the conclusion is open ended and not final. A final and closed conclusion is when a scientific study concludes that there ARE evidences to prove that a certain phenomenon does NOT exist. If it does not exist, then it does not exist, unless the study is completely proven wrong with evidences to prove otherwise. That also means, in a double blind listening test, when the co-founding variables (noise in research terms) of psychological suggestion and emotional influence are taken away, if one cannot hear a difference, one cannot hear a difference even if there is actually a difference in the physical world.
previously errant bass
written by Jim Bigones , June 22, 2009 "From tightening and controlling previously errant bass" Of course, the last review you did mentioned how great the bass was in the room. I guess you'll go back and edit your previous findings now? Man, after all these improvements your room must have sounded like a tin can with only the amps, speakers and source component! I bet the manufacturers of your amps, speakers and pre-amps would be amazed to find that without the fancy cables, power cords, shakti stones and magical bowls their products actually sound like total crap.
Never in my life...
written by Jack Johnsen , June 23, 2009 ... Have i read so much unbelievable bull-sh*t! I cant't believe that the same website that discovered the CUE and ICP, (that shook up the entire industry) is posting useless, stupidifying "Quantum-tunnelig" cr*p such as this complete waste of photons!!! Magic CD/DVD enhancers, cable lifters, hifi-USB cables, passive bamboo AC purifiers and other snake-oil stuff I have ignored in the past, but now I simply can't take it anymore... - My brain is hurting! I'm boycotting this ridiculous homepage and advising every one elese with the abillity to drool, to do the same... This website is apparently better suited for people who have been abducted by aliens, can talk to the dead, have psychic abillities, use homeopathic "medicine" and believe in magic. I'm surprised that I don't see any advertisments from Scientology. It can now only be a matter of time... This is so sad... Goodbuy!
...
written by JEJ , June 24, 2009 To Jack Johnsen - Your rant is childish. There is no publication in the world all of whose articles everyone appreciates. I don't necessarily believe in this particular room treatment either, but I respect Jason's right to report on the product in the manner he wishes. Every physical object in a room has an effect on the sound, by reflection, absorption, or diffusion. The questions are: Is it a large enough effect that can be heard? Is the effect deleterious (e.g., increase smearing) or beneficial (e.g., decrease smearing)? If it can be heard, do you like the effect? The way you write suggests that you are a high school student with lower than average grades and who over-estimates the value of his opinion.
Trust in yourself
written by Howard Rourk , June 24, 2009 I just want to chime in. I heard the BAAS (Bay Area Audio Society) demo and later auditioned the SR ART system in my home system. I was not able to get the same results in my home system as I heard in Jason's home. I called my local dealer (Music Lovers Berkeley) who gave me the ART system for audition and Hugh came to my home a few days later, repositioned the system and presto- the exact same benefits as I heard at the BAAS demo as outlined in the review. The same self rigorous person(s) who posted above have posted in other threads regarding the ART system with the same tone and writing style. I am not sure why they feel so compelled to denigrate everyone who enjoys Acoustic ART but their persistence is telling.
Wow
written by Mark , June 24, 2009 What a bunch of crap! Unbelievable. You know reading reviews like this puts me off the website. At best this review is an example of the placebo effect, the power of suggestion and how easily out brains can be fooled.
Let your ears decide....
written by Jim , June 25, 2009 Ultimately, we all have to use our ears to decide what sounds "right" to us. Having not heard this system personally, I remain skeptical, but if Jason reported that HE heard a difference...well...who are we to say he did not? We listen, we decide. That's using (dare I say it)"sound judgement"! Kudos to Secrets for reviewing a product 99.8% of us would never had even heard of existing. ;)
He heard a difference or thought he heard a difference?
written by C , June 26, 2009 A comment on the above response: "Let your ears decide." Actually, the ears, as the peripheral end of the sensory chain, do not decide. It is the brain that decides. Having said that, the brain can decide independently to what is picked up by the ears. The brain can heavily be influenced by many other variables that has nothing to do with sound. That is why this type of review really just feeds on myths and perpetuates ignorance if it is not performed under objective double blind testing conditions. If someone reports that he heard a difference, but this is not done with double blind testing, it maybe just that he expected or wanted to hear a difference, even if this "difference" did not exist in reality and was never picked up by his ears. So let your ears decide? Your brain would say, "Not a chance! I believe what I want!" So since this was not done under a double blind testing manner, it is actually not "sound" judgement at all, but influenced and VERY unsound judgement...
the installer effect....
written by Mats W , June 26, 2009 I'm totally sure that Jason heard what he was told to hear. Howar Rourks comment above show exactly how much a good seller can fool people to hear things that just aint there..
WOW!
written by aluminu , June 30, 2009 I heard about this nonsense on the AVRant podcast. What a load of pure trash. I'm happy to see most of the comments here are from rational people that dont' buy this voodoo. If you seriously do believe this insanity, please let me know because I can sell you ALL kinds of things to improve your sound quality! Seriously, there is a lot of subjectivism involved in determining sound quality, but this is pure placebo effect craziness with absolutely NO roots in any kind of science...
I've heard it...
written by Can think for myself , July 05, 2009 I just heard a demo of the ART system at my dealers- it was just like the reviewers findings. My wife was most impressed and the dealer will be setting up the system in our home. I do find all this snarky indignation from those who have never heard the system interesting. I had thought human beings had progressed beyond the closed mindedness of the Middle Ages.
Ultimate Copout!
written by NRC , July 07, 2009 Let your ears decide is the ultimate cop out! A double blind listening test does exactly that by removing effects of bias and placebo. It's hilarious how terrified audiofools become when anyone mutters those scary little letters D .B .T. Oooooooo! And I totally understand, because if I spent that kind of money and couldn't hear a difference, I'd have trouble accepting it too. More money than brains is an apt expression. Audiophiles are retarded, must be Wall Street executives or in government.
Wow.
written by not opposed to DBTs , August 13, 2009 I will try not to add to an argument that never seems to die - not sure why people can't have whatever opinion they wish. I do wonder though, if any of the DBT'ers posting here have heard these or their ilk. I have the feeling a large part of the objection to them is how they look and how much they cost. That bias makes it difficult to hear what's going on without the brain getting in the way. I have heard a set of Chang's tiny bowls, and outright (almost offended) skepticism was my initial feeling upon seeing them. How could they POSSIBLY affect the room acoustics? But then I heard the room with and without, then with again - and they did affect the sound. Whether or not you hear it as an improvement, and if it's worth the money - is up to you. I didn't want to believe the evidence of my senses, but have worked in studio environments all my life and have witnessed the differences changes in room acoustics make. If you truly only heard them without seeing or knowing what was causing the (alleged) effect, and you didn't know what they cost, would you object so strenuously? You are rejecting them out of hand based on what, exactly? They ARE an expensive tweak (I can't afford them). But when you get your system to a place where you like all of your components, certain tweaks - particularly improvements in the room - can be a cost effective means of achieving better sound without making a major equipment change.
Skeptics
written by Hardgainer , August 21, 2009 I own one basic Acoustic Art and it works to the extent I cannot listen to my setup without it. For those who calls these bullshit, why don't you get some very cheap bowl cups from the Chines templates and place them in your rooms and see if you can hear a difference? I'd love to hear your comments thereafter.
Looks like a bunch of shills posting here
written by Video User , August 26, 2009 Does anybody believe that some poster's system is unlistenable without the magic bowls? I mean, really! The home theater community is not like the wacko audiophile community. The percentage of HT folks who believe in this crazy stuff is very small - much smaller than the percentage of shill posts to this comment area.
Shills? You?
written by John Gault , August 30, 2009 Looks like a bunch of SHILLS all right but NOT those who have heard the ART System FIRST hand. People like John Atkinson of Stereophile, Jason who wrote this review, hundreds of RMAF show goers (myself included), Jhonathan Vallen at The Absolute Sound, numerious EU Hi-Fi published reviews, and countless online discussion posters many of whom were first skeptical but who reserved final judgement untill AFTER listening and then we have the likes of YOU who have NEVER heard the ART System but KNOW it CANNOT work and will NOT listen. This begs the question- WHO do you work for and WHAT are you afraid of? That people might listen for themselves? BTW I actually own a set and it's contribution to MY enjoyment is AMAZING. Get a life.
You apparently don't know what a "shill" is
written by Video User , September 09, 2009 A "shill" is defined as follows: "–noun 1. a person who poses as a customer in order to decoy others into participating, as at a gambling house, auction, confidence game, etc. 2. a person who publicizes or praises something or someone for reasons of self-interest, personal profit, or friendship or loyalty." Your post and those of others hawking the product in these comments read like advertisements. Normal people don't write in that way at all, so it's reasonable to assume you are not a customer as you claim to be. That is, you are likely a stakeholder posing as a satisfied customer - a shill. Of course, there's also the possibility that you're just an enthusiast who posts what amounts to ad copy. I haven't actually met anyone like that, but there's always a first time I suppose. As far as the people you speak of from the high-end audio trade rags, they are toadies of the high-end audio industry. This is true of both Jason Serinus and John Atkinson. Valin (not "Vallen" as you call him) was caught red-handed trying to sell cables he received as a loan from Nordost, and almost fired. Quoting these people as authorities on audio is much like quoting P.T. Barnum. Someone will likely fall for it, but not anyone who knows what they are doing. The universe obeys certain physical laws, and no amount of ranting from ignorant audiophiles can change that. Objects do not fall up, and no experiments are necessary to prove that they do not. The product is basically a fraud, and having it reviewed in a legitimate online publication like Secrets tarnishes the reputation of the publication. The product does not deserve to be acknowledged at all, but if it did, it should be singled out for ridicule, not praise.
...
written by John Gault , September 11, 2009 Oh I know what a shill is, and you are. Allow me to explain. While your definition as far as stated is “correct” you are leaving out one important variation- to SHILL for a product by detracting from a competing product. This is exactly what you are doing in my opinion. To the point I believe you manufacturer a competing room correction product and are attempting through false logic and ridicule to dissuade consumers from trying this product; if they don’t try it they wont buy it, right? By belittling both the product and people who have shared their experiences as fraud and shills for the company you hope to marginalize the ART System. I know of at least two other moderated boards (AudioCircle.com / Stereophile.com) where two manufacturers of traditional room correction products openly posted (they did not hide behind anonymous names) using the exact language and tone as your and other posts on this thread attempting to discredit the ART System. Initially they were successful in steering the discussion away from evaluating the product through insults and calls of “fraud” but as more and more long standing denizens, who were first skeptical but later tried the ART System and shared their positive impressions, they lost face and credibility. It seems you are desperate to not have people try this product for fear it could overtake your market share in the treatment of homes that would otherwise not put up with your large and unsightly room treatments. I am such a customer. As to your assertion that I am a Shill or that my writing style could not possible come from an actual customer I can only say, not all consumers are “Hapless Sheeple” but I am sure you wish we were. In fact I own a chain of successful restaurants and I both understand how to communicate, and how to think for myself. I find it offensive that anyone would attack a product and its users without first hand knowledge of either the person or the product. Such tactics are the last resort of the thug and your intentions are as transparent as glass to me. Finally as you point your finger “normal people don’t write in that way at all” you have three fingers pointing back at you. Normal people don’t write as you posted unless they have something to loose or gain.
Hilarious!
written by Video User , September 13, 2009 Your post is pretty darned funny. It really comes down to this: why would an owner of a piece of gear be so concerned about whether someone trashing the product is a competitor of the product's manufacturer? It's really no skin off their nose. If you write posts that sound like advertisements, quoting the testimonials of supposed authorities, that raises suspicion. It's as simple as that. My concern is with the spillover of audiophool snake oil into the HT hobby, which has been thankfully pretty free of it for many years. It has happened in this case because the writer is from Stereophile, and apparently unaware of, or willfully ignoring, the difference between the audiophool and HT worlds. If you read the popular HT forums such as AVS forum, you rarely see posts about audiophool tweaks, thank goodness. It's just not part of the HT culture. As far as competitors, the only competitor of this vendor that I know of is Elemental Voice.
Just sayin...
written by Just saying , September 17, 2009 What is more likely? A. An audio / videophile tries the Acoustic ART system, likes what he or she hears and shares their findings with other enthusiasts. B. Someone who has never heard the Acoustic ART system feels compelled to take their time to repeatedly disparage the product and those who give favorable reports with ad hominem attacks? It is my opinion that anyone who repeatedly disparages a product without any experience for said product has an agenda beyond being a self appointed AV cop. No one is forcing anyone to spend their money on anything here- if someone does not like the ART system then they don’t have to buy the ART system, and if they do like it, they should not have to suffer personal insults.
open mind
written by Piero , September 19, 2009 Firstly, Secrets is not exclusively an HT community as you’ll notice we review 2-channel as much as home theater. I too am amazed how much opinion is out there for any gear, or tweak that has not been heard, how can you possibly know? Is it possible you just don’t want to hear it so you can maintain your position that it can’t possibly be so!? Someone in an earlier post here said, how can Jason state that he now couldn’t live without the Acoustic ART system!? Well then he doesn’t understand how improvements whether incremental or enormous gratifies an audiophile, or someone who enjoys HT too for that matter. Someone who puts years into developing his reference system can hear even the slightest changes, good or bad. Typically however that is not the case for a HT enthusiast. A HT enthusiast might want more bass, or cleaner dialogue or articulate speech. Look you can be skeptical but to completely obliterate a product you know very little about and have not heard yourself only means you have a closed mind. If it’s the price that offends you, well that’s something else. Would you consider the Acoustic ART system if it were affordable? I’ll bet you would.
Typical
written by Juan Anna Too , September 26, 2009 How foolish this all is people thinking that ART does anything else besides making your wallet lighter. Pseudo science seems the norm in this day and age. People want to believe something so they spend way too much money on gadgets that "improve" their systems sound. You ever notice how all the tweeks NEVER make it sound worse? Hmmmmm just more BS to be bought by the gullible it seems. Write comment
|

















