Home 
Accessories Room Treatment The Synergistic Research ACOUSTIC ART Real-Time Analogue Room Treatment
Accessories Room Treatment The Synergistic Research ACOUSTIC ART Real-Time Analogue Room Treatment
Accessories
| The Synergistic Research ACOUSTIC ART Real-Time Analogue Room Treatment |
| Written by Jason Victor Serinus |
| Thursday, 18 June 2009 00:00 |
|
Page 6 of 6
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
|
Subscribe to this comment's feed
