From: Steven Sullivan
Date: 3/17/2004 10:06 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: xs06c.30827$SR1.35320@attbi_s04

chung wrote:
Wait a minute, isn't Hoffman the guy who promoted this gadget:

http://www.shakti-innovations.com/hallograph.htm

Indeed..and he gets mighty testy if you express skepticism about it.


Only if you don't try it first.

Just based on that, I would not participate on his forum. Didn't Steven
Sullivan got banned from his forum once for voicing his scientific
opinions? Hmmm, that sounds like another audio asylum...

It pretty much is; you can read for yourself on the Audio Hardware forum
there and see, wihtout joining.

Nah. You simply didn't follow the rules which,interestingly enough are not much
different than they are here. The major difference is that here the moderators
send the post back to you if they feel it is in violation of the rules. There
they let you post but warn you if they feel the post is in violation of the
rules. Break the rules enough times and they suspend you. Steve has been
suspended for breaking the rules a few times. Science isn't the issue.
Following the rules is. There is at least one moderator there that whole
heartedly agrees with the notion that DBTs are a good idea for eliminating
biases. Like here, they are struggling with the problem that threads get bogged
down in DBTs debates.

Hoffman himself says he dabbled with DBTs a long time ago, and?decided he
didn't need it.
Which leads to this sort of thing:


http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/sh...bec18ac0ccac48
82ed88cfc3&t=30116

Here's their DBT policy


http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/sh...bec18ac0ccac48
82ed88cfc3&t=11234


I think it was probably due to our debates.

Btw, down further in the thread, I'm the one who advised the moderator
(offstage)
to direct readers to RAHE, not RAO, if they want to learn about controlled
comparisons.
I'm also the 'krabapple' being referred to, and likely the one who prompted
the
thread in the first place.

I'm not 'banned' per se but I am prevented from posting, until I agree
to 1) never mention objective comparison methods unless I'm discussing
results
of blind tests I or others have done, and 2) never publicly question a
statement or decision
made by any of the board's moderators.


Everyone has to follow the rules. I think it is fair that the moderators
require all questions of their decisions be made in private. That isn't a
special rule applied only to you but a rule applied to all members. If you
can't follow the rules you can't play.

No, I would say that those who frequent that forum have a strong
subjectivist bend, are pro-vinyl, and I don't believe they are
reflective of the real-world audio enthusiasts at all!

There's probably a poll on there somewhere regarding that question, but as
I',m no
longer allowed to run searches, I can't point you to it. Maybe Scott
(S888Wheel) can.


There was some sort of poll on which was the medium of choice. It favored CD by
about a 3/2 ratio if I remember correctly.

i think they are a much better informed group than the public at large.

No, not true, based on the fact that Hoffman could promote that gadget
there.

Like most audiophile forums, it's populated by lots of peopel who
take dubious audiophile lore as 'fact', mainly because they surround
themselves with others of the same mindset.


It is populated by a large and diverse group of audiophiles with a common
interest in better sound.

I have yet to hear a CD capture the complexity of that same decay as
does the LP and excellent recordings. Score 1 for the LP in that regard.

If you are the one keeping score, we know the final tally already .

All he has to do is copy that LP to CD, and he'd finally hear that
'decay' he thinks CD can't do.


Been there done that. But if you don't believe me just take a look at James
Boyk's experiences with his own recordings transfered to CD and LP both of
which are available to the public for the public to judge themselves.

--

-S.

"They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason."
-- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director

i think they (members of the Steve Hoffman forum) are a much better
informed group than the public at large.

No, not true, based on the fact that Hoffman could promote that gadget
there.


OSAF. I am surprised to see you think Steve Hoffman's endorsement of a room
treatment is grounds to dismiss the opinions of the entire forum over
there.
Should others do the same to this forum based on any one opinion of any one
regular on any one subject? It looks to me like you were just looking for
an
excuse.

No excuse, you are welcome to do your survey there.


I guess you didn't want to answer the question.

Ever listen to Steve Hoffman's work?

No, never felt the urge to.

Too bad. You are missing out on some great sounding records and CDs.

Have you listened to some great
CD/SACD/DVD-A lately?

Yes I have thank you.

Let us know if you need some recommendations.

I have in the past. They were pretty good some of them but not the best I have
ever heard.



Again, I don't think you would favor the opinion of the public at large
if
the
topic were astology. You call upon the masses when you think they agree
with
you. i make no presumption about the forum members at Steve Hoffman's
website.
The *majority* of them are CD enthusiasts.

If you like, go ahead and do your survey. I think the results are
biased, but you are welcome to it, and yeaj, it could be fun.


There is no mob mentality over there that I can see. I think the results
might
be interesting over there because it is the one forum that I think comes
the
closest to being unbiased overall. I think the results would not be a s
easy to
predict there as they would here or in the Vinyl Asylum on Audio Asylum.
Perhaps you think your like minded friends here on RAHE are the ones who
are
truly unbiased?

The RAHE is a very small sampling of audio enthusiasts. I do not think
that the results here are really reflective of the mass of enthuisasts
in the world. Therefore, a survey done on this newsgroup also has
limited appeal to me.




Now back to the issue of a $300 beating a $3000 vinyl rig convincingly.
Simply listen to solo piano recordings.

I have done so quite extensively.

For instance, Lang Lang's Rach3
on which he also played the Scriabin Etudes. Listen to the stability of
the piano as the sound decays into silence in those etudes. Compare that
to the ever-present wow-and-flutter on vinyl.

I have. the wow and flutter on my system are inaudible if the record is
up
to
snuff.

Of course, one of the problems of LP as a delivery format is that there
are so many LP's that are not up to snuff, due to the difficulty of
manufacturing perfectly centered discs, etc.


There are a lot of CDs that are not up to snuf either. It goes both ways on
that issue.

CD's that are not manufactured up to snuff? Please give examples. And
compare against vinyl.

I didn't say anything about CDs not being manufactured up to snuff. I simply
said many of them are not up to snuff. Sorry for any misunderstanding. I am
sure the vast array of bad sounding CDs were probably manufactured just fine.

I will say though, the LP is definitely more prone to manufacturing
defects and to damage.


I have yet to hear a CD capture the complexity of that same decay as
does the LP and excellent recordings. Score 1 for the LP in that regard.

If you are the one keeping score, we know the final tally already .


I keep my own score yes. The results were in for me quite a while ago. I do
however look for better mastered CDs as well as LPs.


But this is really deja au all over again. Almost exactly one year ago,
you were an active participant in this thread comparing LP vs CD:


Not much has changed since then.

Here is a practical suggestion. Get that $100 Panasonic DVD-A player
that Mr. Lavo raved about. That Remastering/Upsampling may be exactly
what you need to appreciate the digital formats! If not, you are out at
most $100, and it's a nice DVD player.








I am not jumping into new formats just yet. I thought you thought CD was as
good as it gets anyways.

From: Stewart Pinkerton
Date: 3/17/2004 9:46 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: P906c.31236$Cb.514156@attbi_s51

On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 01:52:54 GMT, (S888Wheel) wrote:

From: Stewart Pinkerton
Date: 3/16/2004 10:02 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: KiH5c.22949$_w.490086@attbi_s53

I have no
problem with those who prefer Zenith El Primero mechanical watches,
but at least they don't try to pretend that the Zenith is a better
timekeeper than a $5 Casio.

Now that is a strawman. Timekeeping is not an aesthetic experience. It is
not
a relevant analogy.

Clearly, you have never met an horologist! :-)


Don't know. never even heard of one before.

I've never heard anyone say "if you've
never owned a Breguet Tourbillon, then you just aren't qualified to
comment".

Probably because it isn't relevant.

Certainly it is. CD is *vastly* more competent than LP by any
technical measure, so any expressed preference for vinyl is amatter of
subjective aeshetic preference. This is identical to the preference of
many people for the fine precision engineering required to make a
top-quality mechanical watch, as opposed to the more accurate but less
satisfying quartz watch. Now do you see the analogy?

No. people who prefer vinyl prefer the aesthetics of it's performance. I don't
believe that watch enthusiasts of this day are concerned with the aesthteics of
telling time. They may very well be interested in the aesthetics of the design
and build of the watch itself though. That is however a different matter.

BTW, a Breguet
Tourbillon costs even more than a Sirius III, so many 'high enders'
would therefore consider it to be better by default than a cheaper
watch, even though the reality is that Zenith movements are the best
that money can buy, and the Tourbillon wris****ch, like vinyl, is a
very complex solution to a non-existant problem............

There in lies the problem with your analogy. The aesthetics of music are not
comparable to accurate time keeping.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

From: chung
Date: 3/17/2004 2:15 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: m646c.31763$Cb.517413@attbi_s51

S888Wheel wrote:


Wait a minute, isn't Hoffman the guy who promoted this gadget:

http://www.shakti-innovations.com/hallograph.htm


Yes an acoustic room treatment. You sure it doesn't make a difference?

And you still have to ask?


hey I don't know if this particular room treatment works or not. i have never
tried it. If you think it doesn't make a difference without actually using it
you can always explain why it wouldn't make a difference.


He
auditioned it once at a show and liked what he heard. So what?

Just based on that, I would not participate on his forum.

Based on an endorsment of a room treatment? Wow!

Didn't Steven
Sullivan got banned from his forum once for voicing his scientific
opinions? Hmmm, that sounds like another audio asylum...

No he got suspended for not following the rules.



Those rules, as Steven explained in a follow-up post, I would find it
impossible to adhere to.

Then you must have a lot of posts returned on RAHE sinse they are not much
different.

Hence I would not participate in such a forum.

Yet you participate here. The rules are pretty clear on RAHE that one cannot
inject the issue of DBTs on a thread that discusses the sound quality of a
component unless it is already raised.

In fact, Mr. Sullivan appears to me to be a perfectly reasonable
gentleman with a well-thought-posting style. It's definitely that
forum's loss not to have him. I am much more blunt than Mr. Sullivan,
and I doubt very much if I could last there, even if I wish to join.

Perhaps you couldn't.I don't really know how difficult it is for you to follow
thier rules. Just remember most people believe they are right about most of
their beliefs. It shouldn't be so hard for a perfectly reasonable gentleman to
follow the rules of any given forum. There are several hundred doing so as we
speak at the Steve Hoffman forum.


Now how much weight should I give to a forum whose rules I don't respect?

Whatever your biases tell you.




No, I would say that those who frequent that forum have a strong
subjectivist bend, are pro-vinyl, and I don't believe they are
reflective of the real-world audio enthusiasts at all!


You would be letting your biases get the best of you. Ironic coming from
one
who seems to endorse the idea of controling biases.


It's not that I am biased.

O.K. you are one the rare people on this earth that is unbiased. I personally
have trouble with this but I am biased.

It's the fact that those who participate in
such a forum tend to be subjectivist, not interested in objective
bias-controlled methods, and much more skewed towards favoring vinyl
than the audio enthusisasts who don't frequent those forums. When you do
a survey there, you are doing a survey using that special set of
subjects, and therefore your results are biased.

Believe what you want to believe. Believe your assumptions without taking a
look. That would be the objective thing to do I guess. I don't know, I don't
practice that brand of objectivity.

From: Stewart Pinkerton
Date: 3/17/2004 9:46 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: 6a06c.31237$Cb.514394@attbi_s51

On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 23:14:10 GMT, (S888Wheel) wrote:

Chung wrote:

Listen to the stability of
the piano as the sound decays into silence in those etudes. Compare that
to the ever-present wow-and-flutter on vinyl.

I have. the wow and flutter on my system are inaudible if the record is up
to
snuff.

Quite so - but very few records can even approach the perfect
stability of CD.


doesn't really matter of you can't hear it.

I have yet to hear a CD capture the complexity of that same decay as
does the LP and excellent recordings. Score 1 for the LP in that regard.

In your experience, perhaps. I have numerous solo piano CDs where the
decay into silence is deeper and more detailed than on *any* of my LPs
- including the Sheffield direct-cuts.


Those are good but the complexity of the decay is much more apparent and vivid
on the LPs IME.

If you
are having trouble with wow and flutter I would suggest you get a better
turntable/arm/cartridge combination and a record that isn't defective or
damaged for a real demonstration of what the medium is truly capable of.

I have done so - the medium has *very* limited capabilities.


Are you having trouble with audible wow and flutter from your table?

Or listen to how quiet the background is.

Too quite. Lack of room ambience is another common problem amoung CDs. LP 2
CD
0.

Nope, CD still ahead by many lengths. Note that heavy compression is
commonly used so that the 'ambience' you hear on LP is lifted many dBs
over the natural sound, in order that it can be heard above surface
noise. You don't need to do this with CD, which has an extra 20-30dB
of dynamic range to allow low-level ambience to be heard clearly *and
naturally*.


I hear what I hear.

Your $3K vinyl simply is incapable of reproducing high
signal-to-noise ratios or the steady tone of pianos, like a $300 could.

And yet I would bet most people would highly favor it in blind comparisons
with
the vast majority of popular recordings that exist in both formats. There is
more to this picture than you are examining.

We're not talking about your personal preference for the distortions
and artifacts of vinyl, we're talking about the realistic reproduction
of music..................


I am also talking about the realistic reproduction of music. I gues what you
are trying to say is that your preferences are better than mine. I say that is
nonsense. You are not an objective reference for subjective preferences. Your
preferences are no better than mine.

These are subjective tests, and the measurements back those up.

They are hypathetical subjective tests. As I said before, in most of the
actual
tests of this nature that I have witnessed or read about the results favored
the LP.

Not in my case, nor of many of my audiophile friends. The vinylphiles
are definitely in the minority - although of course a very *vocal*
minority, as usual!

Your personal anecdotal evidence is noted. It is quite different than mine.
However those comparisons that have been widely reported are neither yours nor
mine.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

S888Wheel wrote:


i think they (members of the Steve Hoffman forum) are a much better
informed group than the public at large.

No, not true, based on the fact that Hoffman could promote that gadget
there.


OSAF. I am surprised to see you think Steve Hoffman's endorsement of a room
treatment is grounds to dismiss the opinions of the entire forum over
there.
Should others do the same to this forum based on any one opinion of any one
regular on any one subject? It looks to me like you were just looking for
an
excuse.

No excuse, you are welcome to do your survey there.


I guess you didn't want to answer the question.

I thought I answered that question already. I said that this forum is
not a good sampling of audio enthusiasts. I have no excuse to look for,
since you're the one who asked to do the survey; I never said it made sense.

Compared to other forums, rahe has a higher proportion of engineering
professionals, so I certainly hope that those who are judging the
quality of the information provided here would keep that in mind.


Ever listen to Steve Hoffman's work?

No, never felt the urge to.

Too bad. You are missing out on some great sounding records and CDs.

Your opinion is noted.






snip



I am not jumping into new formats just yet. I thought you thought CD was as
good as it gets anyways.


Whether I think CD is as good as it gets is immaterial to you. What
could be significant is that since Mr. Lavo is also a vinyl lover, he
and you should have similar standards as to what constitutes life-like
sound. So if he loves that player, you may like it too, and who knows,
it may change your overall position on that format.

That player is a CD player as well. While I highly suspect that it will
sound significantly different to me, perhaps the fact that it has
remastering/upsampling may make you prefer it over what you have. At
worst, Circuit City or Best Buy has good return policies.

S888Wheel wrote:

From: chung
Date: 3/17/2004 2:15 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: m646c.31763$Cb.517413@attbi_s51

S888Wheel wrote:


Wait a minute, isn't Hoffman the guy who promoted this gadget:

http://www.shakti-innovations.com/hallograph.htm


Yes an acoustic room treatment. You sure it doesn't make a difference?

And you still have to ask?


hey I don't know if this particular room treatment works or not. i have never
tried it. If you think it doesn't make a difference without actually using it
you can always explain why it wouldn't make a difference.


Well, if you really want to know, ask Mr. Hoffman why it would work,
since it sure is an extraordinary claim that it does.

Oh, in case you did not get it the first time, here's something about it
that you should read:

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...s3.newsguy.com


He
auditioned it once at a show and liked what he heard. So what?

Just based on that, I would not participate on his forum.

Based on an endorsment of a room treatment? Wow!

Didn't Steven
Sullivan got banned from his forum once for voicing his scientific
opinions? Hmmm, that sounds like another audio asylum...

No he got suspended for not following the rules.



Those rules, as Steven explained in a follow-up post, I would find it
impossible to adhere to.

Then you must have a lot of posts returned on RAHE sinse they are not much
different.


No, I never had to question a product that our moderators endorse on
this forum. As far as I can see, it is still OK to mention objective
comparison here.

Hence I would not participate in such a forum.

Yet you participate here. The rules are pretty clear on RAHE that one cannot
inject the issue of DBTs on a thread that discusses the sound quality of a
component unless it is already raised.

See above. The fact that someone like Mr. Sullivan could be asked to
stop posting would bother me. I wouldn't want to be in a forum where
people with his analytical ability are missing!


In fact, Mr. Sullivan appears to me to be a perfectly reasonable
gentleman with a well-thought-posting style. It's definitely that
forum's loss not to have him. I am much more blunt than Mr. Sullivan,
and I doubt very much if I could last there, even if I wish to join.

Perhaps you couldn't.I don't really know how difficult it is for you to follow
thier rules. Just remember most people believe they are right about most of
their beliefs. It shouldn't be so hard for a perfectly reasonable gentleman to
follow the rules of any given forum. There are several hundred doing so as we
speak at the Steve Hoffman forum.

There are probably a lot more on AA, too. There are even people hanging
out on RAO! So what's the point here?


Now how much weight should I give to a forum whose rules I don't respect?

Whatever your biases tell you.

Of course, my biases are right!





No, I would say that those who frequent that forum have a strong
subjectivist bend, are pro-vinyl, and I don't believe they are
reflective of the real-world audio enthusiasts at all!


You would be letting your biases get the best of you. Ironic coming from
one
who seems to endorse the idea of controling biases.


It's not that I am biased.

O.K. you are one the rare people on this earth that is unbiased. I personally
have trouble with this but I am biased.

Let me rephrase to make it clear. It's not whether I am biased or not.


It's the fact that those who participate in
such a forum tend to be subjectivist, not interested in objective
bias-controlled methods, and much more skewed towards favoring vinyl
than the audio enthusisasts who don't frequent those forums. When you do
a survey there, you are doing a survey using that special set of
subjects, and therefore your results are biased.

Believe what you want to believe. Believe your assumptions without taking a
look. That would be the objective thing to do I guess. I don't know, I don't
practice that brand of objectivity.


How do you know I have not taken a look? You're right, though, you would
believe what you want to believe.

chung wrote:

That player is a CD player as well. While I highly suspect that it will
sound significantly different to me, perhaps the fact that it has
remastering/upsampling may make you prefer it over what you have. At
worst, Circuit City or Best Buy has good return policies.


Sorry, meant to say "I highly doubt that it will..."

On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 00:20:34 GMT, (S888Wheel) wrote:

From: Stewart Pinkerton
Date: 3/17/2004 9:46 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: P906c.31236$Cb.514156@attbi_s51

On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 01:52:54 GMT, (S888Wheel) wrote:

people who prefer vinyl prefer the aesthetics of it's performance. I don't
believe that watch enthusiasts of this day are concerned with the aesthteics of
telling time. They may very well be interested in the aesthetics of the design
and build of the watch itself though. That is however a different matter.

Not really - why do you think 'high end' vinyl rigs *look* so fancy?
Doesn't affect the sonic performance one whit, but they are exactly
the same 'big boys toys' as expensive mechanical watches - less
performance, more pride of ownership. You can't possibly be trying to
tell me that the particular 'aesthetics' of vinyl are somehow better
on a Rockport Sirius III than on a SME 10...............

And yes, a $5,000 Zenith *does* tell time better than a $2,000 Omega.

BTW, a Breguet
Tourbillon costs even more than a Sirius III, so many 'high enders'
would therefore consider it to be better by default than a cheaper
watch, even though the reality is that Zenith movements are the best
that money can buy, and the Tourbillon wris****ch, like vinyl, is a
very complex solution to a non-existant problem............

There in lies the problem with your analogy. The aesthetics of music are not
comparable to accurate time keeping.

Ah, you don't care about wow on piano solos?
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

S888Wheel wrote:
From: chung
Date: 3/17/2004 2:15 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: m646c.31763$Cb.517413@attbi_s51

S888Wheel wrote:


Wait a minute, isn't Hoffman the guy who promoted this gadget:

http://www.shakti-innovations.com/hallograph.htm


Yes an acoustic room treatment. You sure it doesn't make a difference?

And you still have to ask?


hey I don't know if this particular room treatment works or not. i have never
tried it. If you think it doesn't make a difference without actually using it
you can always explain why it wouldn't make a difference.


He
auditioned it once at a show and liked what he heard. So what?

Just based on that, I would not participate on his forum.

Based on an endorsment of a room treatment? Wow!

Didn't Steven
Sullivan got banned from his forum once for voicing his scientific
opinions? Hmmm, that sounds like another audio asylum...

No he got suspended for not following the rules.



Those rules, as Steven explained in a follow-up post, I would find it
impossible to adhere to.

Then you must have a lot of posts returned on RAHE sinse they are not much
different.

Despite what you claim the rules here are NOT the same and they are NOT
enforced in the same manner. The *only* 'objectivist' posts that
SHtv allows are those discussing measurments/tests that actaully
have been done byt he poster, or by someone else. And as you note,
failure to adhere to that rule results in more than just a deleted
post.

Most of my posts that get returned here, are returned because the *language*
might offend someone..not the content.
(I have yet to figure out the algorithm by which this decision is made, btw.)
The remainder are usually responses to threads the moderators closed while
I wasn't looking. ;

Hence I would not participate in such a forum.

Yet you participate here. The rules are pretty clear on RAHE that one cannot
inject the issue of DBTs on a thread that discusses the sound quality of a
component unless it is already raised.

Which subjectivists manage to do with happy regularity. Which, if DBT
is such anathema, makes me wonder why *subjectvists* like yourself
participate here.

In fact, Mr. Sullivan appears to me to be a perfectly reasonable
gentleman with a well-thought-posting style. It's definitely that
forum's loss not to have him. I am much more blunt than Mr. Sullivan,
and I doubt very much if I could last there, even if I wish to join.

Perhaps you couldn't.I don't really know how difficult it is for you to follow
thier rules. Just remember most people believe they are right about most of
their beliefs. It shouldn't be so hard for a perfectly reasonable gentleman to
follow the rules of any given forum. There are several hundred doing so as we
speak at the Steve Hoffman forum.

Most of whom appear to believe in things like 'cable sound'....and go
completely unchallenged. It's good to have your beliefs validated.

SHtv isn't RAHE. I think we've established that.

--

-S.

"They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason."
-- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director

From: chung
Date: 3/17/2004 8:58 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: 60a6c.34149$po.308850@attbi_s52

S888Wheel wrote:

From: chung
Date: 3/17/2004 2:15 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: m646c.31763$Cb.517413@attbi_s51

S888Wheel wrote:


Wait a minute, isn't Hoffman the guy who promoted this gadget:

http://www.shakti-innovations.com/hallograph.htm


Yes an acoustic room treatment. You sure it doesn't make a difference?

And you still have to ask?


hey I don't know if this particular room treatment works or not. i have
never
tried it. If you think it doesn't make a difference without actually using
it
you can always explain why it wouldn't make a difference.


Well, if you really want to know, ask Mr. Hoffman why it would work,
since it sure is an extraordinary claim that it does.

I want to know why you arte dismissing it without a trial. It is hardly an
extraordinary claim to claim room treatment makes a difference. Mr. Hoffman had
a casual listen to it. It is no more his burden to explain why it works than it
is anyone elses burden to explain why their amps or speakers work. If you don't
have a good explination for why this product cannot make a difference as a room
treatment then you are hardly being scientific or objective in dismissing it
without a trial. So can you explain how and why it can't possibly work as a
room treatment?

Oh, in case you did not get it the first time, here's something about it
that you should read:


http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...&selm=bmuda102
80t%40enews3.newsguy.com


Sounds like they are saying that the product does something about the ill
effects of early reflections. Sorry but that is a part of well established
priniclples of room acoustics. Early reflections can cause problems. Diffusion
is a means of dealing with early reflections by the way. Nothing they say is in
conflict with the idea that their product works as a diffusor.But please feel
free to explain how it cannot have any effect on the sound if you feel you
don't need to hear it in practice.


He
auditioned it once at a show and liked what he heard. So what?

Just based on that, I would not participate on his forum.

Based on an endorsment of a room treatment? Wow!

Didn't Steven
Sullivan got banned from his forum once for voicing his scientific
opinions? Hmmm, that sounds like another audio asylum...

No he got suspended for not following the rules.



Those rules, as Steven explained in a follow-up post, I would find it
impossible to adhere to.

Then you must have a lot of posts returned on RAHE sinse they are not much
different.


No, I never had to question a product that our moderators endorse on
this forum. As far as I can see, it is still OK to mention objective
comparison here.

As it is there. One cannot make an objective comparison though without an
audition or at least some explination as to why something cannot possibly work.
The moderators do not participate in the discussions here as they do there. As
a note. I have never seen the moderators endorse anything here so you obviously
have never had anything to question.

Hence I would not participate in such a forum.

Yet you participate here. The rules are pretty clear on RAHE that one
cannot
inject the issue of DBTs on a thread that discusses the sound quality of a
component unless it is already raised.

See above. The fact that someone like Mr. Sullivan could be asked to
stop posting would bother me. I wouldn't want to be in a forum where
people with his analytical ability are missing!

He was only asked to follow the rules which he frequently broke. That is not an
unreasonable request and many others manage to succeed in doing so over there.
I find it troubling that you would see this as a problem. Steven can post over
there any time he promises to follow the same rules everyone else is expected
to follow.


In fact, Mr. Sullivan appears to me to be a perfectly reasonable
gentleman with a well-thought-posting style. It's definitely that
forum's loss not to have him. I am much more blunt than Mr. Sullivan,
and I doubt very much if I could last there, even if I wish to join.

Perhaps you couldn't.I don't really know how difficult it is for you to
follow
thier rules. Just remember most people believe they are right about most of
their beliefs. It shouldn't be so hard for a perfectly reasonable gentleman
to
follow the rules of any given forum. There are several hundred doing so as
we
speak at the Steve Hoffman forum.

There are probably a lot more on AA, too. There are even people hanging
out on RAO! So what's the point here?

The point is that a moderated forum that has a few simple rules shouldn't be so
difficult to deal with. You say the problem is with the forum. I say the
problem is with Steve's reluctance to follow the rules there. He made the
choice every time he broke their rules. he wasn't treated any differently than
anyone else.



Now how much weight should I give to a forum whose rules I don't respect?

Whatever your biases tell you.

Of course, my biases are right!

Of course






No, I would say that those who frequent that forum have a strong
subjectivist bend, are pro-vinyl, and I don't believe they are
reflective of the real-world audio enthusiasts at all!


You would be letting your biases get the best of you. Ironic coming from
one
who seems to endorse the idea of controling biases.


It's not that I am biased.

O.K. you are one the rare people on this earth that is unbiased. I
personally
have trouble with this but I am biased.

Let me rephrase to make it clear. It's not whether I am biased or not.


It's the fact that those who participate in
such a forum tend to be subjectivist, not interested in objective
bias-controlled methods, and much more skewed towards favoring vinyl
than the audio enthusisasts who don't frequent those forums. When you do
a survey there, you are doing a survey using that special set of
subjects, and therefore your results are biased.

Believe what you want to believe. Believe your assumptions without taking a
look. That would be the objective thing to do I guess. I don't know, I
don't
practice that brand of objectivity.


How do you know I have not taken a look?

Deductive reasoning. Even a subjectivist can read the writing on the wall. Be
honest, have you given it a good look or have you just checked the links Steven
cited?

You're right, though, you would
believe what you want to believe.







Not always. I wanted to believe CDs would sound better to me than LPs. Actually
I can make a pretty long list of things I want to be true that I don't believe
are true.

chung wrote:
S888Wheel wrote:


Wait a minute, isn't Hoffman the guy who promoted this gadget:

http://www.shakti-innovations.com/hallograph.htm


Yes an acoustic room treatment. You sure it doesn't make a difference?

And you still have to ask?

He
auditioned it once at a show and liked what he heard. So what?

Just based on that, I would not participate on his forum.

Based on an endorsment of a room treatment? Wow!

Didn't Steven
Sullivan got banned from his forum once for voicing his scientific
opinions? Hmmm, that sounds like another audio asylum...

No he got suspended for not following the rules.

Those rules, as Steven explained in a follow-up post, I would find it
impossible to adhere to. Hence I would not participate in such a forum.


Mr. Wheeler also cannot be aware of the many email back and forth betweem myself and the
moderators, where I made the case for the wrongheadedness of their rules, before my
suspension. It sin't like I didn't try to change the system. I have offered several times
to be moderator myself, to give them more balance.

In fact, Mr. Sullivan appears to me to be a perfectly reasonable
gentleman with a well-thought-posting style.

Believe me, my posting style there was mostly the same. As opposed to, say,
Mr. Hoffman, who sometimes simply flies off the handle, and is of course allowed to get away
with it. It's his playground, after all.

It's definitely that
forum's loss not to have him. I am much more blunt than Mr. Sullivan,
and I doubt very much if I could last there, even if I wish to join.

Few real objectivists last there...how could they? The barrage of ridiculous claims of
difference is punishing. You do get the 'well I'm mostly objectivist but I think emotions
factor in/there's stuff we don't know' sort of wishy-washy 'objectivist', and that's about all
they can tolerate.

Now how much weight should I give to a forum whose rules I don't respect?

There's good information there but it takes a bit of effort to find it. Lots of interseting
inside info on mastering and such. Hit-or-miss discussion of remastered releases (good info
on what's out there, bad info on how it sounds).

OSAF. I am surprised to see you think Steve Hoffman's endorsement of a room
treatment is grounds to dismiss the opinions of the entire forum over there.
Should others do the same to this forum based on any one opinion of any one
regular on any one subject? It looks to me like you were just looking for an
excuse.

No excuse, you are welcome to do your survey there.

Ever listen to Steve Hoffman's work?

No, never felt the urge to. Have you listened to some great
CD/SACD/DVD-A lately? Let us know if you need some recommendations.


Hoffman is doing SACD now (after being kinda ambivalent at best about it before he got the
gig). Touting the superioity of the SACD layer over the CD layer of his releases, he claims
they are NO different going into the converters. Yet comparison of them as .wavs indicates
they could have been mastered at different levels. See the posts surrounding this one

http://forums.lukpac.org/viewtopic.p...fortunate#4424




--

-S.

"They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason."
-- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director

S888Wheel wrote:
From: Stewart Pinkerton
Date: 3/17/2004 9:46 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: P906c.31236$Cb.514156@attbi_s51

On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 01:52:54 GMT, (S888Wheel) wrote:

From: Stewart Pinkerton
Date: 3/16/2004 10:02 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: KiH5c.22949$_w.490086@attbi_s53

I have no
problem with those who prefer Zenith El Primero mechanical watches,
but at least they don't try to pretend that the Zenith is a better
timekeeper than a $5 Casio.

Now that is a strawman. Timekeeping is not an aesthetic experience. It is
not
a relevant analogy.

Clearly, you have never met an horologist! :-)


Don't know. never even heard of one before.

I've never heard anyone say "if you've
never owned a Breguet Tourbillon, then you just aren't qualified to
comment".

Probably because it isn't relevant.

Certainly it is. CD is *vastly* more competent than LP by any
technical measure, so any expressed preference for vinyl is amatter of
subjective aeshetic preference. This is identical to the preference of
many people for the fine precision engineering required to make a
top-quality mechanical watch, as opposed to the more accurate but less
satisfying quartz watch. Now do you see the analogy?

No. people who prefer vinyl prefer the aesthetics of it's performance. I don't
believe that watch enthusiasts of this day are concerned with the aesthteics of
telling time. They may very well be interested in the aesthetics of the design
and build of the watch itself though. That is however a different matter.

Wrong. Horological hobbysists can well be interested in the 'aesthetic' charm
of an analog watch telling time slightly inaccurately, and in the rituals of
setting and re-setting the watch. They might even proffer the opinion
that the perfect accuracy of digital timekeeping -- not just the design of the watches,
the actual functioning of them -- is somehow 'cold' and 'charmless'
and 'uninvolving'. The connection to vinylphilia should be apparent.



--

-S.

"They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason."
-- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
S888Wheel wrote:
There is no mob mentality over there that I can see. I think the results
might
be interesting over there because it is the one forum that I think comes
the
closest to being unbiased overall.

I presumse you mean about LP vs CD, because otherwise your claim is not
supported by the evidence. SH.tv is *heavily* biased on some topics.

There are a lot of CDs that are not up to snuf either. It goes both ways
on
that issue. I will say though, the LP is definitely more prone to
manufacturing
defects and to damage.

LP also has more inherent, audible, and to some, euphonic departures from
accuracy, than CD.

After the tenth play of an LP it will never, ever, again sound like the
first play. That's why vinyl enthusiasts of long ago purchased O/R machines
and tapes. Of course, now there are optical discs to record to.

S888Wheel wrote:
From: chung
No, I never had to question a product that our moderators endorse on
this forum. As far as I can see, it is still OK to mention objective
comparison here.

As it is there. One cannot make an objective comparison though without an
audition or at least some explination as to why something cannot possibly work.

I doubt you'd get by the moderators with the second option, and for the first,
you'd need to have *done* an objective comparison, or report about someone
who did.

"Cannot possibly' btw is a ridiculous standard, because die-hards will
always hold out the 'possibility' of things that are scientifically
extremeley unlikely (including, if you visit the proper forums,
things like the 2nd law of thermodynamics)

OF course, any old
'explanation' for why somethign *does* supposedly work, is allowed
on SHtv...and here. Except here, it can be challenged.


See above. The fact that someone like Mr. Sullivan could be asked to
stop posting would bother me. I wouldn't want to be in a forum where
people with his analytical ability are missing!

He was only asked to follow the rules which he frequently broke.

LOL. 'Frequently', Scott? Were you counting? In fact it only takes a few episodes
of rule-breaking to get suspended.

The point is that a moderated forum that has a few simple rules shouldn't be so
difficult to deal with.

AFAIR, the rules about 'objectivist' posts were not in force when I joined.

You say the problem is with the forum. I say the
problem is with Steve's reluctance to follow the rules there.

There is no 'problem' on my end, Scott. It's not like I'm battering down the walls to
get back in there. The 'problem' is the same as with msot other audiophile outlets:
rampant pseudoscience, if not outright hostility to even the *suggestiong* of
reality-testing of claims.


He made the
choice every time he broke their rules. he wasn't treated any differently than
anyone else.

Well, except for Mr. Hoffman himself, who gets special dispensation to be
bitchy.

How do you know I have not taken a look?

Deductive reasoning. Even a subjectivist can read the writing on the wall. Be
honest, have you given it a good look or have you just checked the links Steven
cited?

I too would urge Chung to take a look , especially at the Audio Hardware forum.
Priceless stuff.



--

-S.

"They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason."
-- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director

Steven Sullivan wrote:



Hoffman is doing SACD now (after being kinda ambivalent at best about it before he got the
gig). Touting the superioity of the SACD layer over the CD layer of his releases, he claims
they are NO different going into the converters. Yet comparison of them as .wavs indicates
they could have been mastered at different levels. See the posts surrounding this one

http://forums.lukpac.org/viewtopic.p...fortunate#4424





Thanks for the interesting thread. It is actually somewhat surprising
that some of those posts passed moderation, since they directly refuted
what Hoffman claimed.

As another anecdote, I listed to Perahia's Goldberg Variations fairly
carefully on both the SACD and the CD versions. I thought that they
might have made some subtle mastering changes in the two versions, but I
couldn't tell them apart, once I equalize volume.

chung wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote:



Hoffman is doing SACD now (after being kinda ambivalent at best about it before he got the
gig). Touting the superioity of the SACD layer over the CD layer of his releases, he claims
they are NO different going into the converters. Yet comparison of them as .wavs indicates
they could have been mastered at different levels. See the posts surrounding this one

http://forums.lukpac.org/viewtopic.p...fortunate#4424





Thanks for the interesting thread. It is actually somewhat surprising
that some of those posts passed moderation, since they directly refuted
what Hoffman claimed.

LOL. Well, there's a reason for that...that link isn't to the Hoffman
forum, it's to a forum (lukpac.org) started by *another* guy who got suspended from
the Hoffman forum. Please feel free to post there with no fear
of draconian 'rules' against objective comparison.
While posting of .wav comparison data is allowed on SHtv,
most of the posts on that lukpac thread would almost certainly
never make it onto SHtv, for obvious reasons.

Thomh, btw, *is* one of the few objectivists who'se still a participant on
SHtv and who still *tries* to inject some sense into its ravings.
His posts are worth looking up an SHtv, and I would certainly do
so had I the capability.

As another anecdote, I listed to Perahia's Goldberg Variations fairly
carefully on both the SACD and the CD versions. I thought that they
might have made some subtle mastering changes in the two versions, but I
couldn't tell them apart, once I equalize volume.

I've measured level differences on msot if not all of the few SACD/CD
pairs I've analyzed. Either they're being mastered differently or the
hardware that decodes the two formats in consumer gear tends to output
at different levels. Do we know for a fact taht decoding in
consumer gear isn't 'fudged' the way it was for HDCD vs CD?

--

-S.

"They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason."
-- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director

S888Wheel wrote:


I want to know why you arte dismissing it without a trial.

It's probably the same reason I don't try Shatki stones, or the green
magic CD pen...

It is hardly an
extraordinary claim to claim room treatment makes a difference.

Perhaps it is not an extraordinary claim to you. To me, and to others,
it is an extraordinary claim that something with the dimensions of that
gadget could diffuse sound effectively.

Mr. Hoffman had
a casual listen to it. It is no more his burden to explain why it works than it
is anyone elses burden to explain why their amps or speakers work.

So he took a casual listen and claims that it really works? And he is
willing to put his name behind that product so as to give it more
credibility? Isn't he at all curious as to why it may work? Does he
endorse the Shakti stones also? Is that how he endorses cables, too?

If you don't
have a good explination for why this product cannot make a difference as a room
treatment then you are hardly being scientific or objective in dismissing it
without a trial.

A good explanation to you means something very different than a good
explanation to me. Mr. Pierce tried to help you out in that post, and
apparently that was not a good enough explanation.

Did you try the magic green CD pen?

So can you explain how and why it can't possibly work as a
room treatment?

Did you read Mr. Pierce's post?

Oh, in case you did not get it the first time, here's something about it
that you should read:


http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...&selm=bmuda102
80t%40enews3.newsguy.com


Sounds like they are saying that the product does something about the ill
effects of early reflections. Sorry but that is a part of well established
priniclples of room acoustics.

Hmmm, of course there is the issue of scale. It seems like if someone
assembles a list of buzz-words together behind any product, you would
believe that someone needs to prove that the product does not work, for
you. The buzz-words themselves, of course, have some valid meanings and
applications, but you have to judge the scale. Example: someone claims
that magic green pens can reduce the random scattering of laser signals
inside the CD player. Now "scattering", "laser", "random" are all
meaningful, real words. But assembled in that context, in the
application shown, the effects cannot be real.

Early reflections can cause problems. Diffusion
is a means of dealing with early reflections by the way. Nothing they say is in
conflict with the idea that their product works as a diffusor.But please feel
free to explain how it cannot have any effect on the sound if you feel you
don't need to hear it in practice.

By the way, I showed the gadget to several engineering friends of mine,
they almost fell off the chair laughing.

If you need someone to explain to you why something does not work every
time, boy, someone would be really busy .





He was only asked to follow the rules which he frequently broke.

Those are the same rules I would also break!



The point is that a moderated forum that has a few simple rules shouldn't be so
difficult to deal with. You say the problem is with the forum. I say the
problem is with Steve's reluctance to follow the rules there. He made the
choice every time he broke their rules. he wasn't treated any differently than
anyone else.

I have already listed my problems with those rules. Why would I want to
be in a forum whose owner's views and methodologies I do not agree with?
Do I need to spend more time online?

On the other hand, you don't have to defend why you are in that forum!





snip


How do you know I have not taken a look?

Deductive reasoning. Even a subjectivist can read the writing on the wall. Be
honest, have you given it a good look or have you just checked the links Steven
cited?

Uhhh, your deductive reasoning is quite poor then. I have visited that
forum many times, since Mr. Sullivan (krabapple) first brought attention
to some of the posts there, many months ago. I also saw the derisions
the majority of the members shown for Mr. Sullivan's attempts to be
objective. That's how I form my opinion that the % of vinylists and
subjectivists there is much higher than in the real world. And I am
being 100% honest.


You're right, though, you would
believe what you want to believe.







Not always. I wanted to believe CDs would sound better to me than LPs. Actually
I can make a pretty long list of things I want to be true that I don't believe
are true.


Don't we all!

chung wrote:
S888Wheel wrote:


I want to know why you arte dismissing it without a trial.

It's probably the same reason I don't try Shatki stones, or the green
magic CD pen...

It is hardly an
extraordinary claim to claim room treatment makes a difference.

Perhaps it is not an extraordinary claim to you. To me, and to others,
it is an extraordinary claim that something with the dimensions of that
gadget could diffuse sound effectively.

Mr. Hoffman had
a casual listen to it. It is no more his burden to explain why it works than it
is anyone elses burden to explain why their amps or speakers work.

So he took a casual listen and claims that it really works? And he is
willing to put his name behind that product so as to give it more
credibility? Isn't he at all curious as to why it may work? Does he
endorse the Shakti stones also? Is that how he endorses cables, too?

As regards cables, yes. He's been pushing cables by his friend 'Grover'
for months now, as being the ones he can *finally* endorse.
Zilch in the way of objective listening data, of course...
or even measurements, AFAICT. They just sound SO GOOD.




--

-S.

"They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason."
-- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director

"Norman Schwartz" wrote in message
...
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
S888Wheel wrote:
There is no mob mentality over there that I can see. I think the
results
might
be interesting over there because it is the one forum that I think
comes
the
closest to being unbiased overall.

I presumse you mean about LP vs CD, because otherwise your claim is not
supported by the evidence. SH.tv is *heavily* biased on some topics.

There are a lot of CDs that are not up to snuf either. It goes both
ways
on
that issue. I will say though, the LP is definitely more prone to
manufacturing
defects and to damage.

LP also has more inherent, audible, and to some, euphonic departures
from
accuracy, than CD.

After the tenth play of an LP it will never, ever, again sound like the
first play. That's why vinyl enthusiasts of long ago purchased O/R
machines
and tapes. Of course, now there are optical discs to record to.

Beg pardon, but if Stylasted as soon as purchased and played with either a
low mass arm and cartridge (such as the ADC XLM or Shure V15) at less than
gram, or alternately, played with a properly set-up medium mass, medium
compliance MC shibata-type stylus cartridge at under 2 grams, the record can
be played and played and played with no noticeable audible deterioration.
You just can't play it over and over right away. It takes some time for the
vinyl to restore itself between plays. We're talking hours here, not days.

From: Steven Sullivan
Date: 3/18/2004 10:28 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

S888Wheel wrote:
From: chung
No, I never had to question a product that our moderators endorse on
this forum. As far as I can see, it is still OK to mention objective
comparison here.

As it is there. One cannot make an objective comparison though without an
audition or at least some explination as to why something cannot possibly
work.

I doubt you'd get by the moderators with the second option

Maybe maybe not. I suspect that if you brought some good explinations to the
table without being overly confrontational it would pass. of course there is
nothing preventing anyone from doing it here. hint hint.

and for the first,
you'd need to have *done* an objective comparison, or report about someone
who did.

No. I have never seen a post stating that someone listened to the thing in
question and asserted that they didn't hear a difference ever get rejected.


"Cannot possibly' btw is a ridiculous standard, because die-hards will
always hold out the 'possibility' of things that are scientifically
extremeley unlikely (including, if you visit the proper forums,
things like the 2nd law of thermodynamics)

It is only if you take it out of context as you have done here. If you insert
it back into my assertion it is far from ridiculous.


OF course, any old
'explanation' for why somethign *does* supposedly work, is allowed
on SHtv...and here. Except here, it can be challenged.


It can be challenged there as well. You just have to do it the right way.



See above. The fact that someone like Mr. Sullivan could be asked to
stop posting would bother me. I wouldn't want to be in a forum where
people with his analytical ability are missing!

He was only asked to follow the rules which he frequently broke.

LOL. 'Frequently', Scott?

Yep

Were you counting?

Nope

In fact it only takes a few episodes
of rule-breaking to get suspended.

Now yes. They cut you a lot of slack in the early days.


The point is that a moderated forum that has a few simple rules shouldn't
be so
difficult to deal with.

AFAIR, the rules about 'objectivist' posts were not in force when I joined.

They were created in reaction to your many confrontational posts. No one ever
told you not to talk about your beliefs there. They simply asked you not to
inject it into other people's threads. The rules are very much the same over
here.


You say the problem is with the forum. I say the
problem is with Steve's reluctance to follow the rules there.

There is no 'problem' on my end, Scott.

I think the suspensions would be evidence to the contrary.

It's not like I'm battering down the walls to
get back in there. The 'problem' is the same as with msot other audiophile
outlets:
rampant pseudoscience, if not outright hostility to even the *suggestiong* of
reality-testing of claims.

Did you ever try just starting such a thread rather than breaking te rules and
jumping on others who started their own threads? It really isn't hard to
express opinions there or here if one follows the rules.


He made the
choice every time he broke their rules. he wasn't treated any differently
than
anyone else.

Well, except for Mr. Hoffman himself, who gets special dispensation to be
bitchy.

Yes. He does have special privilidges. It is his forum and it is his business
literally and figuratively.


How do you know I have not taken a look?

Deductive reasoning. Even a subjectivist can read the writing on the wall.
Be
honest, have you given it a good look or have you just checked the links
Steven
cited?

I too would urge Chung to take a look , especially at the Audio Hardware
forum.
Priceless stuff.


Of course if you want to learn about the different masterings of some of the
most loved recordings one will find far more valuable information in the music
section, the favored section of that forum.

From: Stewart Pinkerton
Date: 3/18/2004 9:44 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: hel6c.34808$_w.569157@attbi_s53

On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 00:20:34 GMT, (S888Wheel) wrote:

From: Stewart Pinkerton
Date: 3/17/2004 9:46 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: P906c.31236$Cb.514156@attbi_s51

On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 01:52:54 GMT, (S888Wheel) wrote:

people who prefer vinyl prefer the aesthetics of it's performance. I don't
believe that watch enthusiasts of this day are concerned with the aesthteics
of
telling time. They may very well be interested in the aesthetics of the
design
and build of the watch itself though. That is however a different matter.

Not really - why do you think 'high end' vinyl rigs *look* so fancy?

Which ones would you be refering to? my old SOTA Star looked like a cutting
board. It did have a nice wood venere but that was it. My Forsell has a nice
gold name plate. That's about it for fancy styling. Do you find your table
unneccesarily fancy looking?

Doesn't affect the sonic performance one whit,

I agree. The wood venere on my old table nor the gold name plate on my current
one affects the sound one whit.

but they are exactly
the same 'big boys toys' as expensive mechanical watches - less
performance, more pride of ownership.

Which highend tables are you refering to that offer "less performance?"

You can't possibly be trying to
tell me that the particular 'aesthetics' of vinyl are somehow better
on a Rockport Sirius III than on a SME 10...............


I have never compared the two. I can tell you however I like them better on my
Forsell than the Rockport.

And yes, a $5,000 Zenith *does* tell time better than a $2,000 Omega.


I don't really pay much attention to watches.

BTW, a Breguet
Tourbillon costs even more than a Sirius III, so many 'high enders'
would therefore consider it to be better by default than a cheaper
watch, even though the reality is that Zenith movements are the best
that money can buy, and the Tourbillon wris****ch, like vinyl, is a
very complex solution to a non-existant problem............

There in lies the problem with your analogy. The aesthetics of music are not
comparable to accurate time keeping.

Ah, you don't care about wow on piano solos?
--


Sorry I wasn't clearer in my point. We were discussing your *analogy* to
watches. Remember the context?
Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

From: Steven Sullivan
Date: 3/18/2004 10:06 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

chung wrote:
S888Wheel wrote:


Wait a minute, isn't Hoffman the guy who promoted this gadget:

http://www.shakti-innovations.com/hallograph.htm


Yes an acoustic room treatment. You sure it doesn't make a difference?

And you still have to ask?

He
auditioned it once at a show and liked what he heard. So what?

Just based on that, I would not participate on his forum.

Based on an endorsment of a room treatment? Wow!

Didn't Steven
Sullivan got banned from his forum once for voicing his scientific
opinions? Hmmm, that sounds like another audio asylum...

No he got suspended for not following the rules.

Those rules, as Steven explained in a follow-up post, I would find it
impossible to adhere to. Hence I would not participate in such a forum.


Mr. Wheeler also cannot be aware of the many email back and forth betweem
myself and the
moderators, where I made the case for the wrongheadedness of their rules,
before my
suspension. It sin't like I didn't try to change the system. I have offered
several times
to be moderator myself, to give them more balance.


Of course I cannot. Those emails were private, as they should be. Mr. Sullivan
cannot be aware of my emails with a moderator also in regards to my
disagreement with some of their rules. I managed to disagree with them in
private without a suspension. It is possible to disagree with some rules on a
forum and still follow those rules.

In fact, Mr. Sullivan appears to me to be a perfectly reasonable
gentleman with a well-thought-posting style.

Believe me, my posting style there was mostly the same. As opposed to, say,
Mr. Hoffman, who sometimes simply flies off the handle, and is of course
allowed to get away
with it. It's his playground, after all.


Yes it is his forum. It is also his business (literatly) being discussed much
of the time.
It's definitely that
forum's loss not to have him. I am much more blunt than Mr. Sullivan,
and I doubt very much if I could last there, even if I wish to join.

Few real objectivists last there...how could they? The barrage of ridiculous
claims of
difference is punishing. You do get the 'well I'm mostly objectivist but I
think emotions
factor in/there's stuff we don't know' sort of wishy-washy 'objectivist', and
that's about all
they can tolerate.


You always had the option of starting your own threads on the subject rather
than breaking the rules and intrusively injecting them into other threads.

Now how much weight should I give to a forum whose rules I don't respect?

There's good information there but it takes a bit of effort to find it. Lots
of interseting
inside info on mastering and such. Hit-or-miss discussion of remastered
releases (good info
on what's out there, bad info on how it sounds).

OSAF. I am surprised to see you think Steve Hoffman's endorsement of a
room
treatment is grounds to dismiss the opinions of the entire forum over
there.
Should others do the same to this forum based on any one opinion of any
one
regular on any one subject? It looks to me like you were just looking for
an
excuse.

No excuse, you are welcome to do your survey there.

Ever listen to Steve Hoffman's work?

No, never felt the urge to. Have you listened to some great
CD/SACD/DVD-A lately? Let us know if you need some recommendations.


Hoffman is doing SACD now (after being kinda ambivalent at best about it
before he got the
gig). Touting the superioity of the SACD layer over the CD layer of his
releases, he claims
they are NO different going into the converters. Yet comparison of them as
.wavs indicates
they could have been mastered at different levels. See the posts
surrounding this one

http://forums.lukpac.org/viewtopic.p...fortunate#4424




--

-S.

"They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason."
-- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
...
"Norman Schwartz" wrote in message
...
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
S888Wheel wrote:
There is no mob mentality over there that I can see. I think the
results
might
be interesting over there because it is the one forum that I think
comes
the
closest to being unbiased overall.

I presumse you mean about LP vs CD, because otherwise your claim is
not
supported by the evidence. SH.tv is *heavily* biased on some topics.

There are a lot of CDs that are not up to snuf either. It goes both
ways
on
that issue. I will say though, the LP is definitely more prone to
manufacturing
defects and to damage.

LP also has more inherent, audible, and to some, euphonic departures
from
accuracy, than CD.

After the tenth play of an LP it will never, ever, again sound like the
first play. That's why vinyl enthusiasts of long ago purchased O/R
machines
and tapes. Of course, now there are optical discs to record to.

Beg pardon, but if Stylasted as soon as purchased and played with either
a
low mass arm and cartridge (such as the ADC XLM or Shure V15) at less than
gram, or alternately, played with a properly set-up medium mass, medium
compliance MC shibata-type stylus cartridge at under 2 grams, the record
can
be played and played and played with no noticeable audible deterioration.
You just can't play it over and over right away. It takes some time for
the
vinyl to restore itself between plays. We're talking hours here, not
days.

And how about those microscopic dust etc. particles attracted to, and ground
into the vinyl during a play even *after* the LP has been both vacuum
cleaned (VIP, Nitty Gritty, etc.), Lasted and the stylus Stylasted? It is
also impossible to keep Rice paper, etc. jackets absolutely free from lint.
It gets into there even from the clothes you happened to be wearing. Even if
you play and listen wearing your birthday suit, superficial layers of your
sloughed off body skin will get in there and on the records. One would have
to play LPs in one of those dust free rooms attired in special apparel from
head to toe. Who needs it?

From: chung
Date: 3/18/2004 3:41 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: hsq6c.37359$KO3.93225@attbi_s02

S888Wheel wrote:


I want to know why you arte dismissing it without a trial.

It's probably the same reason I don't try Shatki stones, or the green
magic CD pen...

It is hardly an
extraordinary claim to claim room treatment makes a difference.

Perhaps it is not an extraordinary claim to you. To me, and to others,
it is an extraordinary claim that something with the dimensions of that
gadget could diffuse sound effectively.

What are the minimal dimensions for any acoustic room treatment to work? Is
there a formula you can cite?


Mr. Hoffman had
a casual listen to it. It is no more his burden to explain why it works
than it
is anyone elses burden to explain why their amps or speakers work.

So he took a casual listen and claims that it really works?

Looks that way.

And he is
willing to put his name behind that product so as to give it more
credibility?

When asked he says this product is for people with lots of money and suggests
that people audition it before drawing any conclusions about it. It doesn't
seem to me that he is actively trying to have people believe in it without
trying it first.

Isn't he at all curious as to why it may work?

Ask him.

Does he
endorse the Shakti stones also?

I don't know.

Is that how he endorses cables, too?


Yes.


If you don't
have a good explination for why this product cannot make a difference as a
room
treatment then you are hardly being scientific or objective in dismissing
it
without a trial.

A good explanation to you means something very different than a good
explanation to me. Mr. Pierce tried to help you out in that post, and
apparently that was not a good enough explanation.

i must have missed that. Did he offer an explanation as to why thsi particular
room treatement won't work? Maybe you can cite his explanation for me so I can
read it.


Did you try the magic green CD pen?

No. What would this have to do with room treatments anyways?


So can you explain how and why it can't possibly work as a
room treatment?

Did you read Mr. Pierce's post?

I guess not.


Oh, in case you did not get it the first time, here's something about it
that you should read:


http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...&selm=bmuda102
80t%40enews3.newsguy.com


Sounds like they are saying that the product does something about the ill
effects of early reflections. Sorry but that is a part of well established
priniclples of room acoustics.

Hmmm, of course there is the issue of scale.

Please feel free to discuss the issue.

It seems like if someone
assembles a list of buzz-words together behind any product, you would
believe that someone needs to prove that the product does not work,

No. That is a total misrepresentation of my position. With a room treatment I
would say that for someone to claim it is bogus one would have to either
audition it or provide an explination as to why it wont work.

for
you. The buzz-words themselves, of course, have some valid meanings and
applications, but you have to judge the scale.

Don't presume to speak for me please. You generally get completely wrong when
you do so and it is simply offensive.

Example: someone claims
that magic green pens can reduce the random scattering of laser signals
inside the CD player. Now "scattering", "laser", "random" are all
meaningful, real words. But assembled in that context, in the
application shown, the effects cannot be real.

Why do you keep bringing up green pens? Have I ever endorsed their use? How
about talking about why you are so sure this particular room treatment won't
work. You seem quite convinced it won't. Please keep in mind that I have made
no claims one way or another. If I were to audition it and found it lacking, I
would not hesitate to say so.


Early reflections can cause problems. Diffusion
is a means of dealing with early reflections by the way. Nothing they say
is in
conflict with the idea that their product works as a diffusor.But please
feel
free to explain how it cannot have any effect on the sound if you feel you
don't need to hear it in practice.

By the way, I showed the gadget to several engineering friends of mine,
they almost fell off the chair laughing.

So?


If you need someone to explain to you why something does not work every
time, boy, someone would be really busy .

Why do you insist on beeing so demeaning? Why do you try to draw wierd
universal conclusions about me based on this particular issue and then turn it
into a personal attack? We are not running for office against each other. You
could do a lot more just to address what it is that makes this product
ineffective. Your friends' laughter isn't very convincing.



He was only asked to follow the rules which he frequently broke.

Those are the same rules I would also break!


Well if you are incapable of following rules then you would also be treated in
kind over there. I am at a loss to understand how objective gentlement would be
incapable of following the rules of that forum though.




The point is that a moderated forum that has a few simple rules shouldn't
be so
difficult to deal with. You say the problem is with the forum. I say the
problem is with Steve's reluctance to follow the rules there. He made the
choice every time he broke their rules. he wasn't treated any differently
than
anyone else.

I have already listed my problems with those rules. Why would I want to
be in a forum whose owner's views and methodologies I do not agree with?
Do I need to spend more time online?

Probably not


On the other hand, you don't have to defend why you are in that forum!


I haven't. Perhaps you didn't notice that. I do find it to be a very useful
resource in the search for the best mastered issues of my favorite recordings
though. If that is something that intersts you, you might also find it useful.


snip


How do you know I have not taken a look?

Deductive reasoning. Even a subjectivist can read the writing on the wall.
Be
honest, have you given it a good look or have you just checked the links
Steven
cited?

Uhhh, your deductive reasoning is quite poor then. I have visited that
forum many times, since Mr. Sullivan (krabapple) first brought attention
to some of the posts there, many months ago. I also saw the derisions
the majority of the members shown for Mr. Sullivan's attempts to be
objective. That's how I form my opinion that the % of vinylists and
subjectivists there is much higher than in the real world. And I am
being 100% honest.

Still sounds to me like you are just looking where Steven has suggested you
look.



You're right, though, you would
believe what you want to believe.







Not always. I wanted to believe CDs would sound better to me than LPs.
Actually
I can make a pretty long list of things I want to be true that I don't
believe
are true.


Don't we all!

I try not to speak for others.

S888Wheel wrote:


snip


If you don't
have a good explination for why this product cannot make a difference as a
room
treatment then you are hardly being scientific or objective in dismissing
it
without a trial.

A good explanation to you means something very different than a good
explanation to me. Mr. Pierce tried to help you out in that post, and
apparently that was not a good enough explanation.

i must have missed that. Did he offer an explanation as to why thsi particular
room treatement won't work? Maybe you can cite his explanation for me so I can
read it.

Go ahead, read that post first. Then ask questions if you still are not
clear.



Did you try the magic green CD pen?

No. What would this have to do with room treatments anyways?


Because it is the same issue. It is up to them to explain why those
things work. Do you believe they work? If not, are you going to explain
here why they don't work?


So can you explain how and why it can't possibly work as a
room treatment?

Did you read Mr. Pierce's post?

I guess not.

Why do you want me to give you an explanantion, when you wouldn't even
read one that is already there?



Oh, in case you did not get it the first time, here's something about it
that you should read:


http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...&selm=bmuda102
80t%40enews3.newsguy.com


Sounds like they are saying that the product does something about the ill
effects of early reflections. Sorry but that is a part of well established
priniclples of room acoustics.

Hmmm, of course there is the issue of scale.

Please feel free to discuss the issue.

Size of the diffuser is imporrtant. The effective area of that gadget
cannot possible make the kind of difference that is claimed.

It seems like if someone
assembles a list of buzz-words together behind any product, you would
believe that someone needs to prove that the product does not work,

No. That is a total misrepresentation of my position. With a room treatment I
would say that for someone to claim it is bogus one would have to either
audition it or provide an explination as to why it wont work.

Someone already gave you an explanation, and then you did not read it,
and asked for another one. Like I said, I don't know what kind of
explanation makes sense to you.


for
you. The buzz-words themselves, of course, have some valid meanings and
applications, but you have to judge the scale.

Don't presume to speak for me please. You generally get completely wrong when
you do so and it is simply offensive.

Example: someone claims
that magic green pens can reduce the random scattering of laser signals
inside the CD player. Now "scattering", "laser", "random" are all
meaningful, real words. But assembled in that context, in the
application shown, the effects cannot be real.

Why do you keep bringing up green pens? Have I ever endorsed their use?

Because it is the same kind of issue. Have you tried it? Does it work?
Does someone have to explain to you why before claiming that it is bogus?

How
about talking about why you are so sure this particular room treatment won't
work. You seem quite convinced it won't. Please keep in mind that I have made
no claims one way or another. If I were to audition it and found it lacking, I
would not hesitate to say so.


Early reflections can cause problems. Diffusion
is a means of dealing with early reflections by the way. Nothing they say
is in
conflict with the idea that their product works as a diffusor.But please
feel
free to explain how it cannot have any effect on the sound if you feel you
don't need to hear it in practice.

By the way, I showed the gadget to several engineering friends of mine,
they almost fell off the chair laughing.

So?

They don't seem to need any explanation from me to tell that it is bogus.



If you need someone to explain to you why something does not work every
time, boy, someone would be really busy .

Why do you insist on beeing so demeaning? Why do you try to draw wierd
universal conclusions about me based on this particular issue and then turn it
into a personal attack? We are not running for office against each other. You
could do a lot more just to address what it is that makes this product
ineffective. Your friends' laughter isn't very convincing.

Not to you. But not one of them has to ask for an explanation why it
would not work.


snip



How do you know I have not taken a look?

Deductive reasoning. Even a subjectivist can read the writing on the wall.
Be
honest, have you given it a good look or have you just checked the links
Steven
cited?

Uhhh, your deductive reasoning is quite poor then. I have visited that
forum many times, since Mr. Sullivan (krabapple) first brought attention
to some of the posts there, many months ago. I also saw the derisions
the majority of the members shown for Mr. Sullivan's attempts to be
objective. That's how I form my opinion that the % of vinylists and
subjectivists there is much higher than in the real world. And I am
being 100% honest.

Still sounds to me like you are just looking where Steven has suggested you
look.

Now that's funny, coming from someone who thinks I was being demeaning...

"Norman Schwartz" wrote in message
news:FoG6c.39310$JL2.455279@attbi_s03...
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
...
"Norman Schwartz" wrote in message
...
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
S888Wheel wrote:
There is no mob mentality over there that I can see. I think the
results
might
be interesting over there because it is the one forum that I think
comes
the
closest to being unbiased overall.

I presumse you mean about LP vs CD, because otherwise your claim is
not
supported by the evidence. SH.tv is *heavily* biased on some
topics.

There are a lot of CDs that are not up to snuf either. It goes
both
ways
on
that issue. I will say though, the LP is definitely more prone to
manufacturing
defects and to damage.

LP also has more inherent, audible, and to some, euphonic departures
from
accuracy, than CD.

After the tenth play of an LP it will never, ever, again sound like
the
first play. That's why vinyl enthusiasts of long ago purchased O/R
machines
and tapes. Of course, now there are optical discs to record to.

Beg pardon, but if Stylasted as soon as purchased and played with
either
a
low mass arm and cartridge (such as the ADC XLM or Shure V15) at less
than
gram, or alternately, played with a properly set-up medium mass, medium
compliance MC shibata-type stylus cartridge at under 2 grams, the record
can
be played and played and played with no noticeable audible
deterioration.
You just can't play it over and over right away. It takes some time for
the
vinyl to restore itself between plays. We're talking hours here, not
days.

And how about those microscopic dust etc. particles attracted to, and
ground
into the vinyl during a play even *after* the LP has been both vacuum
cleaned (VIP, Nitty Gritty, etc.), Lasted and the stylus Stylasted? It is
also impossible to keep Rice paper, etc. jackets absolutely free from
lint.
It gets into there even from the clothes you happened to be wearing. Even
if
you play and listen wearing your birthday suit, superficial layers of your
sloughed off body skin will get in there and on the records. One would
have
to play LPs in one of those dust free rooms attired in special apparel
from
head to toe. Who needs it?


You are simply overstating reality. All I can say is that I have records
from the mid-sixties that have been cared for as above and played several
times a year and they still sound virtually brand new. For one thing, I do
not leave records just sitting around, not even for five minutes. They come
out of their covers, go on the turntable, come off the turntable and go back
into their covers. I also try to keep my turntable mats free of free dust
before playing records. But other than that they get ordinary care. I do
not even own a record cleaning machine (although I do clean them once with
distilled water and a brush before Stylasting.)

I get a bit tired of hearing people dissing vinyl here who obviously did not
or do not care for their records. Most of the problems mentioned here can
be avoided or mitigated with care. If you cannot be bothered, and prefer CD
for its convenience, that's fine..its your choice. But people who love the
sound of vinyl are also willing to invest the energy into keeping it as
pristine as possible.

So please quit attacking vinyl for its "avoidable" flaws...its like saying
older cars are inferior because you have to wax them. They are not inferior
to the collectors who own and enjoy them and get more pleasure from them
than they do from newer machines.

S888Wheel wrote:
From: chung
Date: 3/18/2004 3:41 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: hsq6c.37359$KO3.93225@attbi_s02

S888Wheel wrote:


I want to know why you arte dismissing it without a trial.

It's probably the same reason I don't try Shatki stones, or the green
magic CD pen...

It is hardly an
extraordinary claim to claim room treatment makes a difference.

Perhaps it is not an extraordinary claim to you. To me, and to others,
it is an extraordinary claim that something with the dimensions of that
gadget could diffuse sound effectively.

What are the minimal dimensions for any acoustic room treatment to work? Is
there a formula you can cite?


Most room treatment work by absorption of sound waves so that
standing-wave patterns are reduced in the room. (This gadget claims to
reflect energy.) The dimensions of each of the strips of the
"Hallograph" appears to be about 2 inches by 2 feet or so, so each of
the strips has about an area of about a third of a square foot. Have you
seen any room treatment this small?

Compared to the refective surface area behind the speakers, this is an
extraordinarily small area (much less than 1%). How possibly could this
"contour the frequency, amplitude and time coefficients of the first
reflections" to achieve "stunning realism"?

Here's another claim: "Activated panels generate a musically
complimentary reflective energy that transforms your listening room by
overshadowing typical room distortions which muddy the bass,
overbrighten the presentation and blur the soundstage".

This is a passive device, so how possibly can it generate a "musically
complimentary reflective energy" compared to the much larger reflections
from the surfaces behind the speakers? Remember it can only "generate"
as much as it could possibly receive, and you can see how small the
receiving surface is.

Let's do a back-of-the-envelope calculation. Assume that you place this
gadget 4' from the speaker. Assume that the speaker is a perfect
radiator (which it's most likely not, since a large portion of the power
is radiatied from the front). The surface area of a sphere 4' in radius
is 4*pi*16=210 sq ft. So this gadget can intercept, give or take, at
most 0.5% of the speakers output power, and therefore reflect at most
that. How could this possible achieve the stated claims. For most (non
dipolar) speakers, this % would be even smaller, since much more power
is radiated to the front.

Now, can you come up with any reason why this gadget could be effective?

OTOH, I know some people who honestly would hear the differences, if it
were suggested to them (especially by people whose opinion they respect)
that there is a difference. So maybe these things do work, for those who
believe that they work.





snip

Example: someone claims
that magic green pens can reduce the random scattering of laser signals
inside the CD player. Now "scattering", "laser", "random" are all
meaningful, real words. But assembled in that context, in the
application shown, the effects cannot be real.

Why do you keep bringing up green pens? Have I ever endorsed their use? How
about talking about why you are so sure this particular room treatment won't
work. You seem quite convinced it won't. Please keep in mind that I have made
no claims one way or another. If I were to audition it and found it lacking, I
would not hesitate to say so.


The point of bringing the green point is simply the analogy between the
two in the manner scientifically meaningful words are assembled to
create the illusion of credibility, which obviously some people fall for.

In green pen claims, they mention "scattering", "laser", "random", etc.
In the Hallograph claims, they mention "frequency", "time", "amplitude",
"state-of-the-art", "room distortions", "time coefficients of first
reflections" (???), etc. In both cases, they are trying to snow people
with impressive-looking terminolgy.

Now, I assume you don't believe in the green pens, right? Do you feel
like you have to audition it first, or provide an explanation to someone
as to why it won't work? Should the manufacturer of those gadgets
provide proof that these things work first?

Is there anything at all that you would consider "snake-oil" in audio?
Do you feel like you have to explain it to someone why it is snake oil,
to that someone's satisfaction? Shouldn't that burden of proof be on the
manufacturers' shoulders?

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
news:3oq6c.37874$SR1.43873@attbi_s04...
Thomh, btw, *is* one of the few objectivists who'se still a participant on
SHtv and who still *tries* to inject some sense into its ravings.
His posts are worth looking up an SHtv, and I would certainly do
so had I the capability.

Not a participant anymore, Steven. I'm banned. Not from breaking the rules
on *their* forum,
but from breaking their rules on *other* forums. So you must be on your best
behaviour 24/7.
It seems that I was the person referred to in this post from The SH Forum
Team:

http://forums.lukpac.org/viewtopic.php?t=592

I did not get any warnings beforehand so I did not know it was me until I
tried to log on one morning
and found that my IP address was blocked from even entering the site.

Seems they did not like it when I questioned Hoffman's foolish statement
that higher sampling rates give
better resolution in the lower octaves, i.e. more points = more accuracy. I
also questioned the evidence that
he presented to support this claim which was a 30+ year old recording of the
song Fortunate Son off the
CCR album Willie & The Poor Boys. He claimed that his SACD layer provided a
deeper echo trail on the
opening snare drum hits than the CD layer did because of the higher sampling
rates provided by the DSD.
I still find this to be incredible considering that there is very little
energy above 15 Khz and not anywhere
near 90dB of dynamic range on that master tape.

However, now that Hoffman is heavily into SACD production, the Redbook
format just does not
cut it anymore. This, I might add, is contrary to his statements about his
CDs (when he was mastering those)
sounding just like the master tape.

I've measured level differences on msot if not all of the few SACD/CD
pairs I've analyzed. Either they're being mastered differently or the
hardware that decodes the two formats in consumer gear tends to output
at different levels. Do we know for a fact taht decoding in
consumer gear isn't 'fudged' the way it was for HDCD vs CD?

I have done a fairly large number of a/b listening tests where I record, at
16/44. kHz, the output of various
SACD players to my DAW via a LynxTwo soundcard. Can I or the other
participants in these tests *reliably*
tell the difference in level matched a/b testing when we do not know which
source is playing? NO!
The property, which Arny Krueger on RAP referred to as "SACD-ness", seems to
manifest itself
quite nicely on the Redbook format as does the added euphonics and flaws
that vinyl offers.
This has at least been my experience.

--------------
Thom

thomh wrote:
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
news:3oq6c.37874$SR1.43873@attbi_s04...
Thomh, btw, *is* one of the few objectivists who'se still a participant on
SHtv and who still *tries* to inject some sense into its ravings.
His posts are worth looking up an SHtv, and I would certainly do
so had I the capability.

Not a participant anymore, Steven. I'm banned. Not from breaking the rules
on *their* forum,
but from breaking their rules on *other* forums. So you must be on your best
behaviour 24/7.
It seems that I was the person referred to in this post from The SH Forum
Team:

http://forums.lukpac.org/viewtopic.php?t=592

I did not get any warnings beforehand so I did not know it was me until I
tried to log on one morning
and found that my IP address was blocked from even entering the site.


Oh dear...another voice of reason cast out from Eden.

You're welcome to post more here, AFAIC. ;


Seems they did not like it when I questioned Hoffman's foolish statement
that higher sampling rates give
better resolution in the lower octaves, i.e. more points = more accuracy. I
also questioned the evidence that
he presented to support this claim which was a 30+ year old recording of the
song Fortunate Son off the
CCR album Willie & The Poor Boys. He claimed that his SACD layer provided a
deeper echo trail on the
opening snare drum hits than the CD layer did because of the higher sampling
rates provided by the DSD.
I still find this to be incredible considering that there is very little
energy above 15 Khz and not anywhere
near 90dB of dynamic range on that master tape.

One expects to read at least six incredible things before
breakfast, when reading SHtv (in the morning).

However, now that Hoffman is heavily into SACD production, the Redbook
format just does not
cut it anymore. This, I might add, is contrary to his statements about his
CDs (when he was mastering those)
sounding just like the master tape.

No, he gets the *timbre* to sound like the master tape (or something).

I've measured level differences on msot if not all of the few SACD/CD
pairs I've analyzed. Either they're being mastered differently or the
hardware that decodes the two formats in consumer gear tends to output
at different levels. Do we know for a fact taht decoding in
consumer gear isn't 'fudged' the way it was for HDCD vs CD?

I have done a fairly large number of a/b listening tests where I record, at
16/44. kHz, the output of various
SACD players to my DAW via a LynxTwo soundcard. Can I or the other
participants in these tests *reliably*
tell the difference in level matched a/b testing when we do not know which
source is playing? NO!
The property, which Arny Krueger on RAP referred to as "SACD-ness", seems to
manifest itself
quite nicely on the Redbook format as does the added euphonics and flaws
that vinyl offers.
This has at least been my experience.

I will be interesting to see what's what when we can burn SACD tracks
directly to .wav, as we can with CD tracks. This would at least
circumvent any D/A/D issues in wav comparison.


--

-S.

"They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason."
-- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director

Subject: Audio over DVD video?
From: chung
Date: 3/19/2004 8:47 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

S888Wheel wrote:


snip


If you don't
have a good explination for why this product cannot make a difference as
a
room
treatment then you are hardly being scientific or objective in dismissing
it
without a trial.

A good explanation to you means something very different than a good
explanation to me. Mr. Pierce tried to help you out in that post, and
apparently that was not a good enough explanation.

i must have missed that. Did he offer an explanation as to why thsi
particular
room treatement won't work? Maybe you can cite his explanation for me so I
can
read it.

Go ahead, read that post first. Then ask questions if you still are not
clear.


Cite it and I'll read it.



Did you try the magic green CD pen?

No. What would this have to do with room treatments anyways?


Because it is the same issue. It is up to them to explain why those
things work.

No it's not.

Do you believe they work?

i don't have an opinion one way or another yet.

If not, are you going to explain
here why they don't work?


If not, I would.


So can you explain how and why it can't possibly work as a
room treatment?

Did you read Mr. Pierce's post?

I guess not.

Why do you want me to give you an explanantion, when you wouldn't even
read one that is already there?


Can't read it till I see it. I wanted you to explain it because you dismissed
it without an audition or an explination. If you can take the time to show it
to your friends for a laugh why can't you take the time to offer an explination
for it being so laughable?



Oh, in case you did not get it the first time, here's something about it
that you should read:


http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...&selm=bmuda102
80t%40enews3.newsguy.com


Sounds like they are saying that the product does something about the ill
effects of early reflections. Sorry but that is a part of well
established
priniclples of room acoustics.

Hmmm, of course there is the issue of scale.

Please feel free to discuss the issue.

Size of the diffuser is imporrtant. The effective area of that gadget
cannot possible make the kind of difference that is claimed.

I understood your assertion from the begining. I was just hoping you had some
specific supported explination to support it.


It seems like if someone
assembles a list of buzz-words together behind any product, you would
believe that someone needs to prove that the product does not work,

No. That is a total misrepresentation of my position. With a room treatment
I
would say that for someone to claim it is bogus one would have to either
audition it or provide an explination as to why it wont work.

Someone already gave you an explanation, and then you did not read it,
and asked for another one. Like I said, I don't know what kind of
explanation makes sense to you.


Like I said, I don't recall any such explination. You could always cite it if
it is really there. Instead of trying to attack my intelect by saying you don't
know what kind of explination makes sense to me why don't you just offer the
one that made sense to you?


for
you. The buzz-words themselves, of course, have some valid meanings and
applications, but you have to judge the scale.

Don't presume to speak for me please. You generally get completely wrong
when
you do so and it is simply offensive.

Example: someone claims
that magic green pens can reduce the random scattering of laser signals
inside the CD player. Now "scattering", "laser", "random" are all
meaningful, real words. But assembled in that context, in the
application shown, the effects cannot be real.

Why do you keep bringing up green pens? Have I ever endorsed their use?

Because it is the same kind of issue.

No it is not. We are talking specifically about room treatements and some room
treatments are known to work. You are trying to use guilt by association. That
is the nonsense politicians use to make their cases. It is not a proper tool
for objective scientists. The more objectivists argue their positions on this
forum the less scientific they look to me.

Have you tried it? Does it work?
Does someone have to explain to you why before claiming that it is bogus?


Yes.

How
about talking about why you are so sure this particular room treatment
won't
work. You seem quite convinced it won't. Please keep in mind that I have
made
no claims one way or another. If I were to audition it and found it
lacking, I
would not hesitate to say so.


Early reflections can cause problems. Diffusion
is a means of dealing with early reflections by the way. Nothing they say
is in
conflict with the idea that their product works as a diffusor.But please
feel
free to explain how it cannot have any effect on the sound if you feel
you
don't need to hear it in practice.

By the way, I showed the gadget to several engineering friends of mine,
they almost fell off the chair laughing.

So?

They don't seem to need any explanation from me to tell that it is bogus.


So? Seems to me like a rush to judgement if they are not knowledgable in
acoustics. That sort of thing doesn't impress me one bit.



If you need someone to explain to you why something does not work every
time, boy, someone would be really busy .

Why do you insist on beeing so demeaning? Why do you try to draw wierd
universal conclusions about me based on this particular issue and then turn
it
into a personal attack? We are not running for office against each other.
You
could do a lot more just to address what it is that makes this product
ineffective. Your friends' laughter isn't very convincing.

Not to you. But not one of them has to ask for an explanation why it
would not work.

That is their problem.



snip



How do you know I have not taken a look?

Deductive reasoning. Even a subjectivist can read the writing on the
wall.
Be
honest, have you given it a good look or have you just checked the links
Steven
cited?

Uhhh, your deductive reasoning is quite poor then. I have visited that
forum many times, since Mr. Sullivan (krabapple) first brought attention
to some of the posts there, many months ago. I also saw the derisions
the majority of the members shown for Mr. Sullivan's attempts to be
objective. That's how I form my opinion that the % of vinylists and
subjectivists there is much higher than in the real world. And I am
being 100% honest.

Still sounds to me like you are just looking where Steven has suggested you
look.

Now that's funny, coming from someone who thinks I was being demeaning...







It wouldn't look that way if you had something to say about threads that were
not cited by Steven.

From: chung
Date: 3/19/2004 8:51 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

S888Wheel wrote:
From: chung
Date: 3/18/2004 3:41 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: hsq6c.37359$KO3.93225@attbi_s02

S888Wheel wrote:


I want to know why you arte dismissing it without a trial.

It's probably the same reason I don't try Shatki stones, or the green
magic CD pen...

It is hardly an
extraordinary claim to claim room treatment makes a difference.

Perhaps it is not an extraordinary claim to you. To me, and to others,
it is an extraordinary claim that something with the dimensions of that
gadget could diffuse sound effectively.

What are the minimal dimensions for any acoustic room treatment to work? Is
there a formula you can cite?


Most room treatment work by absorption of sound waves so that
standing-wave patterns are reduced in the room. (This gadget claims to
reflect energy.)

Yes which means it is probably working as a diffusor if it is working at all.
So whay even bother talking about absorbtion since it obviously isn't doing
that or even claiming to do that?

The dimensions of each of the strips of the
"Hallograph" appears to be about 2 inches by 2 feet or so, so each of
the strips has about an area of about a third of a square foot. Have you
seen any room treatment this small?

I think you are underestimating the surface of these things by a substantial
amount. But they do seem to have a lot less area than your garden variety
diffusor.


Compared to the refective surface area behind the speakers, this is an
extraordinarily small area (much less than 1%). How possibly could this
"contour the frequency, amplitude and time coefficients of the first
reflections" to achieve "stunning realism"?

I don't know but it seems you don't know either. But when one considers the
effect a rather small bass trap can have when put in the right place one should
realize that room treatemtn that may appear to be too small to be effective may
have a profound effect. Just turn a tube trap in the opposite direction and
listen to the effect.


Here's another claim: "Activated panels generate a musically
complimentary reflective energy that transforms your listening room by
overshadowing typical room distortions which muddy the bass,
overbrighten the presentation and blur the soundstage".

This is a passive device, so how possibly can it generate a "musically
complimentary reflective energy" compared to the much larger reflections
from the surfaces behind the speakers? Remember it can only "generate"
as much as it could possibly receive, and you can see how small the
receiving surface is.


You seem stuck on the advertising hyperbole. Maybe you should dismiss the CD
format since it really isn't perfect sound forever as advertised.

Let's do a back-of-the-envelope calculation. Assume that you place this
gadget 4' from the speaker. Assume that the speaker is a perfect
radiator (which it's most likely not, since a large portion of the power
is radiatied from the front). The surface area of a sphere 4' in radius
is 4*pi*16=210 sq ft. So this gadget can intercept, give or take, at
most 0.5% of the speakers output power, and therefore reflect at most
that. How could this possible achieve the stated claims. For most (non
dipolar) speakers, this % would be even smaller, since much more power
is radiated to the front.


Is this your explination for why it doesn't work?

Now, can you come up with any reason why this gadget could be effective?

OTOH, I know some people who honestly would hear the differences, if it
were suggested to them (especially by people whose opinion they respect)
that there is a difference. So maybe these things do work, for those who
believe that they work.





snip

Example: someone claims
that magic green pens can reduce the random scattering of laser signals
inside the CD player. Now "scattering", "laser", "random" are all
meaningful, real words. But assembled in that context, in the
application shown, the effects cannot be real.

Why do you keep bringing up green pens? Have I ever endorsed their use? How
about talking about why you are so sure this particular room treatment
won't
work. You seem quite convinced it won't. Please keep in mind that I have
made
no claims one way or another. If I were to audition it and found it
lacking, I
would not hesitate to say so.


The point of bringing the green point is simply the analogy between the
two in the manner scientifically meaningful words are assembled to
create the illusion of credibility, which obviously some people fall for.

In green pen claims, they mention "scattering", "laser", "random", etc.
In the Hallograph claims, they mention "frequency", "time", "amplitude",
"state-of-the-art", "room distortions", "time coefficients of first
reflections" (???), etc. In both cases, they are trying to snow people
with impressive-looking terminolgy.

Now, I assume you don't believe in the green pens, right?

Right

Do you feel
like you have to audition it first, or provide an explanation to someone
as to why it won't work?

Yes. Someone did a demo and I didn't hear a difference. Good enough for me.

Should the manufacturer of those gadgets
provide proof that these things work first?


What do you mean? Is this a legal question?

Is there anything at all that you would consider "snake-oil" in audio?

Yes.

Do you feel like you have to explain it to someone why it is snake oil,
to that someone's satisfaction?

I feel it has to be tested, auditioned or explained before it can be declared
snake oil. if someone asks my opinion on something I offer it in the context of
what i know and what I have experienced.

Shouldn't that burden of proof be on the
manufacturers' shoulders?






If I can get a free audition that is good enough for me.

S888Wheel wrote:
Subject: Audio over DVD video?
From: chung
Date: 3/19/2004 8:47 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

S888Wheel wrote:


snip


If you don't
have a good explination for why this product cannot make a difference as
a
room
treatment then you are hardly being scientific or objective in dismissing
it
without a trial.

A good explanation to you means something very different than a good
explanation to me. Mr. Pierce tried to help you out in that post, and
apparently that was not a good enough explanation.

i must have missed that. Did he offer an explanation as to why thsi
particular
room treatement won't work? Maybe you can cite his explanation for me so I
can
read it.

Go ahead, read that post first. Then ask questions if you still are not
clear.


Cite it and I'll read it.


I gave the link to you several posts ago.

Here it is, again:

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...s3.newsguy.com

S888Wheel wrote:

From: chung
Date: 3/19/2004 8:51 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

S888Wheel wrote:
From: chung
Date: 3/18/2004 3:41 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: hsq6c.37359$KO3.93225@attbi_s02

I want to know why you arte dismissing it without a trial.

It's probably the same reason I don't try Shatki stones, or the
green magic CD pen...

It is hardly an
extraordinary claim to claim room treatment makes a difference.

Perhaps it is not an extraordinary claim to you. To me, and to
others, it is an extraordinary claim that something with the
dimensions of that gadget could diffuse sound effectively.
What are the minimal dimensions for any acoustic room treatment to
work? Is
there a formula you can cite?

Most room treatment work by absorption of sound waves so that
standing-wave patterns are reduced in the room. (This gadget claims
to reflect energy.)
Yes which means it is probably working as a diffusor if it is working
at all.
So whay even bother talking about absorbtion since it obviously isn't
doing
that or even claiming to do that?

You were the one who said that it was some kind of room treatment.
That's why I mentioned how most room treatments work. I was trying to
tell you that it is not a conventional room treatment (since you said
it was not an extraordinary claim that room treatments work).

You were the one who said it is a diffusor. Can you explain how
diffusors work and why this one is a diffusor? For sure, Shatki never
claimed that it is a diffusor.

The dimensions of each of the strips of the
"Hallograph" appears to be about 2 inches by 2 feet or so, so each of
the strips has about an area of about a third of a square foot. Have
you seen any room treatment this small?
I think you are underestimating the surface of these things by a
substantial
amount. But they do seem to have a lot less area than your garden
variety
diffusor.

Instead of just thinking, why don't you tell us what is the surface
area of those things?


Compared to the refective surface area behind the speakers, this is
an extraordinarily small area (much less than 1%). How possibly could
this "contour the frequency, amplitude and time coefficients of the
first reflections" to achieve "stunning realism"?
I don't know but it seems you don't know either.

See, that is the problem. You want me to give you an explanation, but I
have no idea what level of explanation is acceptable to you. It is
obvious to me that something that reflects at most 1% of the speaker's
output cannot possible "contour the frequency, amplitude and time
coefficients of the first reflections to achieve stunning realism". But
for you, that simply means that I "don't know either".

If you have made up your mind that I don't know either, you can save my
time by not asking me for an explanation.

But when one considers the
effect a rather small bass trap can have when put in the right place
one should
realize that room treatemtn that may appear to be too small to be
effective may
have a profound effect. Just turn a tube trap in the opposite
direction and
listen to the effect.

Compare the size and the construciton of a bass trap, which is
typically positioned at a corner, with the size and volume of the
reflectors in this gadget. This thing never mentioned that it only
works on bass frequencies.


Here's another claim: "Activated panels generate a musically
complimentary reflective energy that transforms your listening room
by overshadowing typical room distortions which muddy the bass,
overbrighten the presentation and blur the soundstage".

This is a passive device, so how possibly can it generate a
"musically complimentary reflective energy" compared to the much
larger reflections from the surfaces behind the speakers? Remember it
can only "generate" as much as it could possibly receive, and you can
see how small the receiving surface is.

You seem stuck on the advertising hyperbole. Maybe you should dismiss
the CD
format since it really isn't perfect sound forever as advertised.

Attempt to divert, when you cannot address the technical issues raised,
is duly noted.
Let's do a back-of-the-envelope calculation. Assume that you place
this gadget 4' from the speaker. Assume that the speaker is a perfect
radiator (which it's most likely not, since a large portion of the
power is radiatied from the front). The surface area of a sphere 4'
in radius is 4*pi*16=210 sq ft. So this gadget can intercept, give or
take, at most 0.5% of the speakers output power, and therefore
reflect at most that. How could this possible achieve the stated
claims. For most (non dipolar) speakers, this % would be even
smaller, since much more power is radiated to the front.

Is this your explination for why it doesn't work?

This simple look at the relative scales involved should serve. But
obviously you have a very very high standard when it comes to refuting
snake-oil claims. Do us all a favor, cite some technical reasons why
this thing should work, and let's go from there?

From: chung
Date: 3/20/2004 2:18 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

S888Wheel wrote:
Subject: Audio over DVD video?
From: chung
Date: 3/19/2004 8:47 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

S888Wheel wrote:


snip


If you don't
have a good explination for why this product cannot make a difference
as
a
room
treatment then you are hardly being scientific or objective in
dismissing
it
without a trial.

A good explanation to you means something very different than a good
explanation to me. Mr. Pierce tried to help you out in that post, and
apparently that was not a good enough explanation.

i must have missed that. Did he offer an explanation as to why thsi
particular
room treatement won't work? Maybe you can cite his explanation for me so
I
can
read it.

Go ahead, read that post first. Then ask questions if you still are not
clear.


Cite it and I'll read it.


I gave the link to you several posts ago.

Here it is, again:


http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...&selm=bmuda102
80t%40enews3.newsguy.com





Oh, I thought this was supposed to be an explination as to why they cannot work
as an acoustic room treatment. It looks to me like Dick is only taking issue
with the advertising hyperbole. I don't care about that sort of thing. A lot of
good products are overstated and even misrepresented in their promotional copy.
Thanks for posting the link again though.

S888Wheel wrote:
From: chung
Date: 3/20/2004 2:18 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

S888Wheel wrote:
Subject: Audio over DVD video?
From: chung
Date: 3/19/2004 8:47 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

S888Wheel wrote:


snip


If you don't
have a good explination for why this product cannot make a difference
as
a
room
treatment then you are hardly being scientific or objective in
dismissing
it
without a trial.

A good explanation to you means something very different than a good
explanation to me. Mr. Pierce tried to help you out in that post, and
apparently that was not a good enough explanation.

i must have missed that. Did he offer an explanation as to why thsi
particular
room treatement won't work? Maybe you can cite his explanation for me so
I
can
read it.

Go ahead, read that post first. Then ask questions if you still are not
clear.


Cite it and I'll read it.


I gave the link to you several posts ago.

Here it is, again:


http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...&selm=bmuda102
80t%40enews3.newsguy.com





Oh, I thought this was supposed to be an explination as to why they cannot work
as an acoustic room treatment. It looks to me like Dick is only taking issue
with the advertising hyperbole. I don't care about that sort of thing. A lot of
good products are overstated and even misrepresented in their promotional copy.
Thanks for posting the link again though.

So you are agreeing that Shatki is making bogus claims regarding this
product? Did you notice that there is not one single thing they say
about the product's virtues that stands up to close scrutiny? If the
manufacturer can't even explain what this thing does, how could you
possibly believe that such a product has any merit? It seems like you
trust Hoffman's endorsement more than any explanation that anyone gave
you, and you said he only gave a casual listen to the thing. What's
wrong with this picture?

From: chung
Date: 3/21/2004 11:02 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: oFl7c.52925$J05.418163@attbi_s01

S888Wheel wrote:
From: chung
Date: 3/20/2004 2:18 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

S888Wheel wrote:
Subject: Audio over DVD video?
From: chung
Date: 3/19/2004 8:47 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

S888Wheel wrote:


snip


If you don't
have a good explination for why this product cannot make a difference
as
a
room
treatment then you are hardly being scientific or objective in
dismissing
it
without a trial.

A good explanation to you means something very different than a good
explanation to me. Mr. Pierce tried to help you out in that post, and
apparently that was not a good enough explanation.

i must have missed that. Did he offer an explanation as to why thsi
particular
room treatement won't work? Maybe you can cite his explanation for me
so
I
can
read it.

Go ahead, read that post first. Then ask questions if you still are not
clear.


Cite it and I'll read it.


I gave the link to you several posts ago.

Here it is, again:


http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...&selm=bmuda102
80t%40enews3.newsguy.com





Oh, I thought this was supposed to be an explination as to why they cannot
work
as an acoustic room treatment. It looks to me like Dick is only taking
issue
with the advertising hyperbole. I don't care about that sort of thing. A
lot of
good products are overstated and even misrepresented in their promotional
copy.
Thanks for posting the link again though.

So you are agreeing that Shatki is making bogus claims regarding this
product?

I would say that they are engaging in hyperbole with a lot of window dressing
if the thing works as a diffusor. If the thing does not do anything at all then
the claims are clearly bogus.

Did you notice that there is not one single thing they say
about the product's virtues that stands up to close scrutiny?

I didn't look that closely. I habbitually tune out advertising copy. Products
are either good bad or somewhere in between regardless of what the folks in
marketing are writing. I for one would not want to be turned off to a
worthwhile product because I didn't like their copy. I don't dismiss a
mouthwash as a mouth wash because the folks in advertising made bogus claims
that it would prevent colds. Remember that? It still works as mouthwash.

If the
manufacturer can't even explain what this thing does, how could you
possibly believe that such a product has any merit?

First off, just becuase a manufacturer doesn't offer a technical explination
for what a product does, does not mean the manufacturer *cannot* offer an
explination. second, as I said before, I don't confuse the merits of a product
with the merits of it's advertising.

It seems like you
trust Hoffman's endorsement more than any explanation that anyone gave
you,

I do not trust his endorsement anymore than I trust or don't trust any other
anecdotal recomendations. No one has yet to give me a complete and reliable
explination as to why this product cannot work yet so there is no such
explination to contrast to Hoffman's anecdotal endorsement. Perhaps you have
forgotten the point I have made about not having drawn *any* conclusions about
this product's effectiveness so far.

and you said he only gave a casual listen to the thing. What's
wrong with this picture?


Your misrepresentation of my position on Steve Hoffman's endorsement.

Subject: Audio over DVD video?
From: chung
Date: 3/20/2004 2:20 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

S888Wheel wrote:

From: chung
Date: 3/19/2004 8:51 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

S888Wheel wrote:
From: chung
Date: 3/18/2004 3:41 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: hsq6c.37359$KO3.93225@attbi_s02

I want to know why you arte dismissing it without a trial.

It's probably the same reason I don't try Shatki stones, or the
green magic CD pen...

It is hardly an
extraordinary claim to claim room treatment makes a difference.

Perhaps it is not an extraordinary claim to you. To me, and to
others, it is an extraordinary claim that something with the
dimensions of that gadget could diffuse sound effectively.
What are the minimal dimensions for any acoustic room treatment to
work? Is
there a formula you can cite?

Most room treatment work by absorption of sound waves so that
standing-wave patterns are reduced in the room. (This gadget claims
to reflect energy.)

Yes which means it is probably working as a diffusor if it is working
at all.
So whay even bother talking about absorbtion since it obviously isn't
doing
that or even claiming to do that?

You were the one who said that it was some kind of room treatment.
That's why I mentioned how most room treatments work. I was trying to
tell you that it is not a conventional room treatment (since you said
it was not an extraordinary claim that room treatments work).

Diffusion is a common and conventional room treatment. If this thing is doing
anything it is most likely some form of diffusion. Claims of diffusors working
are not extraordinary claims.

You were the one who said it is a diffusor. Can you explain how
diffusors work and why this one is a diffusor? For sure, Shatki never
claimed that it is a diffusor.


Yes I can explain how a diffusor works. They scatter the sound reflected off of
them. This thing looks like a diffusor of sorts to me because it is a
reflective material with a surface that varies in direction. That is why I
suspect that if it is effective at all it is effective by diffusion.

The dimensions of each of the strips of the
"Hallograph" appears to be about 2 inches by 2 feet or so, so each of
the strips has about an area of about a third of a square foot. Have
you seen any room treatment this small?
I think you are underestimating the surface of these things by a
substantial
amount. But they do seem to have a lot less area than your garden
variety
diffusor.

Instead of just thinking, why don't you tell us what is the surface
area of those things?


Because I don't know but you are ignoring the fact that they are 3D objects so
you are missing by a substantial amount on your estimation of their surface
area. I think you are giving them credit for about one third the surface area
they actually have.


Compared to the refective surface area behind the speakers, this is
an extraordinarily small area (much less than 1%). How possibly could
this "contour the frequency, amplitude and time coefficients of the
first reflections" to achieve "stunning realism"?
I don't know but it seems you don't know either.

See, that is the problem.

I see the potential problem but I don't know what ratio of reflective area to
strategically placed diffused area is needed to be effective. That is the
important part of the explination that is missing. Do you see that problem?

You want me to give you an explanation,

Yes I do. A complete one that doesn't rely on assumptions.

but I
have no idea what level of explanation is acceptable to you.

I told you already but I guess it didn't matter.

It is
obvious to me that something that reflects at most 1% of the speaker's
output cannot possible "contour the frequency, amplitude and time
coefficients of the first reflections to achieve stunning realism".

I don't think that one wants a large percentage of the speakers *output* to be
diffused. The point of room treatments isn't to change the speaker but to fix
the room the speaker is in. I don't think diffusion at it's best would be
reflecting a very high percentage of a speaker's output. One wants a high
percentage of a speakers output going directly to the listeners ears.

But
for you, that simply means that I "don't know either".

So far yes. I would hope that if you knew what percentage of diffusion to
reflective area was needed to be effective you would speak up. i would also
suspect that the distances of the reflective surfaces would matter as well.


If you have made up your mind that I don't know either, you can save my
time by not asking me for an explanation.

I had not made up my mind at all when I first asked but I am forming an opinion
the more you spend time dodging an explination by claiming I won't understand
it instead of simply offering an explination.


But when one considers the
effect a rather small bass trap can have when put in the right place
one should
realize that room treatemtn that may appear to be too small to be
effective may
have a profound effect. Just turn a tube trap in the opposite
direction and
listen to the effect.

Compare the size and the construciton of a bass trap, which is
typically positioned at a corner, with the size and volume of the
reflectors in this gadget. This thing never mentioned that it only
works on bass frequencies.


Bass traps are bigger. Bass waves are also longer. I grant that it seems quite
smallish but it does not have that much less surface area to say an RPG
diffusor panel and it has the advantage of being placed anywhere in the room
where as diffusor panels are mostly up against the wall.I would not have high
expectations for this product but it does not seem impossible to me that in
some circumstances it may have some noticable effect on the sound in the right
application. Maybe it doesn't. Maybe it simply is too small. But your numbers
seem as biased ( I am confident that you have missed on your estimation on the
reflective surface area of this product as per my explination) and the
thresholds of neccessary surface area for effective diffusion is something you
simply haven't cited.I bet there are formulas of some sort or another that can
tell you the ratios between diffused surfaces and room dimensions needed for
any sort of effective diffusion. I don't know what they are so i cannot say
this product cannot be effective off hand. If you know what they are then
simply say so.


Here's another claim: "Activated panels generate a musically
complimentary reflective energy that transforms your listening room
by overshadowing typical room distortions which muddy the bass,
overbrighten the presentation and blur the soundstage".

This is a passive device, so how possibly can it generate a
"musically complimentary reflective energy" compared to the much
larger reflections from the surfaces behind the speakers? Remember it
can only "generate" as much as it could possibly receive, and you can
see how small the receiving surface is.

You seem stuck on the advertising hyperbole. Maybe you should dismiss
the CD
format since it really isn't perfect sound forever as advertised.

Attempt to divert, when you cannot address the technical issues raised,
is duly noted.

I'm sorry but your objection to this product is lacking some critical
information. I think the only diversions in this thread have been your attempts
to bring green pens into the conversation.

Let's do a back-of-the-envelope calculation. Assume that you place
this gadget 4' from the speaker. Assume that the speaker is a perfect
radiator (which it's most likely not, since a large portion of the
power is radiatied from the front). The surface area of a sphere 4'
in radius is 4*pi*16=210 sq ft. So this gadget can intercept, give or
take, at most 0.5% of the speakers output power, and therefore
reflect at most that. How could this possible achieve the stated
claims. For most (non dipolar) speakers, this % would be even
smaller, since much more power is radiated to the front.

Is this your explination for why it doesn't work?

This simple look at the relative scales involved should serve. But
obviously you have a very very high standard when it comes to refuting
snake-oil claims. Do us all a favor, cite some technical reasons why
this thing should work, and let's go from there?


I'm not the one making any claims that they work or don't work. You are. Your
assertion, your burden of explination for your assertion in the absense of any
test data or anecdotal testimonial from an audition.

S888Wheel wrote:



You were the one who said that it was some kind of room treatment.
That's why I mentioned how most room treatments work. I was trying to
tell you that it is not a conventional room treatment (since you said
it was not an extraordinary claim that room treatments work).

Diffusion is a common and conventional room treatment. If this thing is doing
anything it is most likely some form of diffusion. Claims of diffusors working
are not extraordinary claims.

You were the one who said it is a diffusor. Can you explain how
diffusors work and why this one is a diffusor? For sure, Shatki never
claimed that it is a diffusor.


Yes I can explain how a diffusor works. They scatter the sound reflected off of
them. This thing looks like a diffusor of sorts to me because it is a
reflective material with a surface that varies in direction. That is why I
suspect that if it is effective at all it is effective by diffusion.

By your definition, just about anything that receives sound waves can be
a diffusor. Since just about anything will absorb part and reflect part
of the sound energy. No, this definition is way too general to be of of
sny use. I would say that you don't know what makes a diffsor an
effective diffusor.


The dimensions of each of the strips of the
"Hallograph" appears to be about 2 inches by 2 feet or so, so each of
the strips has about an area of about a third of a square foot. Have
you seen any room treatment this small?
I think you are underestimating the surface of these things by a
substantial
amount. But they do seem to have a lot less area than your garden
variety
diffusor.

Instead of just thinking, why don't you tell us what is the surface
area of those things?


Because I don't know

That didn't stop you from thinking that I was wrong...

but you are ignoring the fact that they are 3D objects so
you are missing by a substantial amount on your estimation of their surface
area. I think you are giving them credit for about one third the surface area
they actually have.

You have to consider the area that the incident sound waves see. The
area to the back of the waves does not matter as far as reflection is
concerned.

I guesstimated that the area is 1 sq. ft. You are now saying this it is
3 sq. ft. Visualize a 1 ft by 3 ft piece of particle board. Compare that
against the gadget. See any difference?


Compared to the refective surface area behind the speakers, this is
an extraordinarily small area (much less than 1%). How possibly could
this "contour the frequency, amplitude and time coefficients of the
first reflections" to achieve "stunning realism"?
I don't know but it seems you don't know either.

See, that is the problem.

I see the potential problem but I don't know what ratio of reflective area to
strategically placed diffused area is needed to be effective.

That is the
important part of the explination that is missing. Do you see that problem?

No, the problem is you missed the scale of the thing. I was being
generous in my previous calculations. If you believe that randoming
placing three sticks with an effective area of about a square foot
behind or to the side of a speaker can make an improvement, I am sure I
cannot help you anymore.

Of course, you can read up on how engineers implement room treatments.
Funny they never could come up anything this creative!




snip

This simple look at the relative scales involved should serve. But
obviously you have a very very high standard when it comes to refuting
snake-oil claims. Do us all a favor, cite some technical reasons why
this thing should work, and let's go from there?


I'm not the one making any claims that they work or don't work. You are. Your
assertion, your burden of explination for your assertion in the absense of any
test data or anecdotal testimonial from an audition.



I'm the one who said that the claims are totally bogus. Whether it works
or not, depends on what you mean by work. I'm sure some people believe
they work, and if they believe it, that may be good enough for them.
Based on the dimensions on the gadget, there is no way the thing can
work as claimed.

Now if your question is whether it can make any measureable difference
or not, then yeah, I believe that there may be some placement of the
gadget that will make a measureable difference in the sound waves
arriving at the listening position. But I won't say that it works. It's
much more likely to screw things up than helping.

From: chung
Date: 3/21/2004 4:10 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: baq7c.54384$J05.426127@attbi_s01

S888Wheel wrote:



You were the one who said that it was some kind of room treatment.
That's why I mentioned how most room treatments work. I was trying to
tell you that it is not a conventional room treatment (since you said
it was not an extraordinary claim that room treatments work).

Diffusion is a common and conventional room treatment. If this thing is
doing
anything it is most likely some form of diffusion. Claims of diffusors
working
are not extraordinary claims.

You were the one who said it is a diffusor. Can you explain how
diffusors work and why this one is a diffusor? For sure, Shatki never
claimed that it is a diffusor.


Yes I can explain how a diffusor works. They scatter the sound reflected
off of
them. This thing looks like a diffusor of sorts to me because it is a
reflective material with a surface that varies in direction. That is why I
suspect that if it is effective at all it is effective by diffusion.

By your definition, just about anything that receives sound waves can be
a diffusor.

Are you suggesting that my definition is wrong or are you suggesting thast just
about anything can be a diffusor? Rest assured a large flat smooth wall as can
be found in most rooms is not a diffusor,

Since just about anything will absorb part and reflect part
of the sound energy.

This is not what I said a diffusor does.

No, this definition is way too general to be of of
sny use.

Sorry but you are wrong. It is the correct answer to the question you asked.

I would say that you don't know what makes a diffsor an
effective diffusor.

I would say you ought to keep better track of what you ask then. Your question
was "Can you explain how a diffusor works and why this one is a diffusor?"
Diffusors work by scattering the reflected sound. You are now saying my answer
is too broad for me to know what makes an "effective" difusor. You never asked
what makes an "effective" diffusor. Of course you have stumbled upon the truth
of the matter in so much as I do not know what the threshold of effectiveness
is for a diffusor in any given application. That is why I have not formed an
opinion on this particlular devices effectiveness without test data or an
audition. Since you have formed such an opinion I was asking you for the
explination.


The dimensions of each of the strips of the
"Hallograph" appears to be about 2 inches by 2 feet or so, so each of
the strips has about an area of about a third of a square foot. Have
you seen any room treatment this small?
I think you are underestimating the surface of these things by a
substantial
amount. But they do seem to have a lot less area than your garden
variety
diffusor.

Instead of just thinking, why don't you tell us what is the surface
area of those things?


Because I don't know

That didn't stop you from thinking that I was wrong...

Because you obviously ignored an important component of their surface area. I
don't have to know what the area of an object is to know that if you are only
considering one side of a four sided object you are wrong.

but you are ignoring the fact that they are 3D objects so
you are missing by a substantial amount on your estimation of their surface
area. I think you are giving them credit for about one third the surface
area
they actually have.

You have to consider the area that the incident sound waves see.

Agreed. The object sees the reflected waves off the back and side walls as
well.

The
area to the back of the waves does not matter as far as reflection is
concerned.

I guesstimated that the area is 1 sq. ft. You are now saying this it is
3 sq. ft. Visualize a 1 ft by 3 ft piece of particle board. Compare that
against the gadget. See any difference?

I considered the fact that a company, RPG, that has been in the business of
making diffusors and seems to have a lot of data to support thier products,
makes some products with a comparable amount of surface area.


Compared to the refective surface area behind the speakers, this is
an extraordinarily small area (much less than 1%). How possibly could
this "contour the frequency, amplitude and time coefficients of the
first reflections" to achieve "stunning realism"?
I don't know but it seems you don't know either.

See, that is the problem.

I see the potential problem but I don't know what ratio of reflective area
to
strategically placed diffused area is needed to be effective.

That is the
important part of the explination that is missing. Do you see that problem?

No, the problem is you missed the scale of the thing.

Wrong. I see it. You just aren't offering any support to your argument that it
is an issue.

I was being
generous in my previous calculations.

Not in my opinion.

If you believe that randoming
placing three sticks with an effective area of about a square foot
behind or to the side of a speaker can make an improvement, I am sure I
cannot help you anymore.

Who said anything about random placement? They are designed for "strategic"
placement. A point that *may* help compensate for their alck of surface area.
And yes I do believe the *strategic* placement of diffusors can make an
improvement. One can take a look at thr RPG website and see that they endorse
even a minimal amount of use of their diffusion products to improve the
acoustics of a room over none at all.


Of course, you can read up on how engineers implement room treatments.
Funny they never could come up anything this creative!


I think RPG has come up with some very creative products. I suspect you are
using "creative" as anegative quality though. The fact is I have read up on the
subject but I am in no position to look at a product like this and say off hand
it can or cannot work. It seems you think you can look at it and make such a
determination. So please explain. If your explination does not get any more
specific than your current one that it seems to small, I would say you have
made a leap of faith.



snip

This simple look at the relative scales involved should serve. But
obviously you have a very very high standard when it comes to refuting
snake-oil claims. Do us all a favor, cite some technical reasons why
this thing should work, and let's go from there?


I'm not the one making any claims that they work or don't work. You are.
Your
assertion, your burden of explination for your assertion in the absense of
any
test data or anecdotal testimonial from an audition.



I'm the one who said that the claims are totally bogus.

No, you said that Steve Hoffman's forum and all it's members can be dismissed
based on his endorsement of this product. His endorsement was based on an
audition. So the issue is very much whether or not this product is an effective
room treatment since that is all that Steve Hoffman's endorsement would
support.

Whether it works
or not, depends on what you mean by work.

What I mean by work is whether or not it can make a noticable improvement in
the acoustics of a room. That is, after all, the only claim Steve Hoffman has
made about this product.

I'm sure some people believe
they work, and if they believe it, that may be good enough for them.
Based on the dimensions on the gadget, there is no way the thing can
work as claimed.

Well then cite the math and the principles of room acoustics to support your
assertion. Please!

Now if your question is whether it can make any measureable difference
or not, then yeah, I believe that there may be some placement of the
gadget that will make a measureable difference in the sound waves
arriving at the listening position. But I won't say that it works. It's
much more likely to screw things up than helping.

You are saying a lot about it without any citation of known laws of room
acoustics to support your assertions.