Synergistic Research Acoustic ART analogue room tr

I'd like to take a stab at whoever is responsible for this nonsense! The Greeks and Romans used "sounding vessles" in their open-air theaters to produce reverberation, not a desireable trait for audio listening.
http://www.vitruvius.be/boek5h5.htm

Tbg, they simply can't be doing anything to the sound waves once they're out of the speakers and into the air/room, because 400 years of experimental physics say it isn't possible. Maybe they have an affect on the working of the equipment itself? I wouldn't know, but that's not what the manufacturer asserts.

On the other hand, I'm in no position to refute what you say you experienced. What I strongly refute, however, is what you seem to believe caused that experience (i.e. the bowls.) So where does that leave us? Autosuggestion? Self-hypnosis? Herd mentality?

All those causalities are worth exploring, and maybe some others I've not thought of. But my point is that whatever mechanism is responsible for the experience of a difference, or improvement for the listener(s), lay with them, and not with the hardware.

One of the pillars of the art of magic, is "mis-directed attention". And who is to say one must have the services of a magician to accomplish it?

Bill, it's called the "Emperor's New Clothes" syndrome. It exists in all fields of human endeavor, because concious deception is a uniquely human trait, and the "Achilles Heel" of our species ;--((

Tbg, I'm sorry. The "they" I was referring to was the little bowls themselves. What physics tells us is that for a rigid object, rigidly mounted, to reflect a sound wave in air, it must have its smallest dimension at least half that of the wavelength to be reflected.

Working the math backwards, if the largest of these devices is half the size of a CD case (3 inches), then it could reflect a 6 inch (.5 foot) long sound wave. Sound travels at ~1100 ft/sec in air at sea level. 1100ft/sec. divided by .5 foot = 2200 Hz (cycles per second) the lowest frequency which that object could reflect (or be excited by to make it resonate.)

A wave front leaving a loudspeaker quickly grows to over a hundred square feet just a couple of feet out from the speaker. If these devices are roughly 9 sq. in. in area (1/16 of a sq. foot) it would take approximately 1500 of them in front of EACH speaker to significantly reflect (or be excited by) any frequency above 2200 Hz -- and that's just for the largest of these little devices.

The key word here is "significantly"! Sure, everything affects everything else. Cryogenics, pyramids, etc. I'm totally down with the "butterfly effect"; however, it takes a LOT of Monarch butterflies beating their wings IN UNISON across Mexico to affect the weather in China ;--)

If the people at SR had provided some test results showing the amplitude and frequency at which a single one of these devices resonated when excited ONLY by the frequencies generated by an audio system in a typical room, then I would consider them to be "active". However I would also probably conclude that one or two of them wouldn't be enough to SIGNIFICANTLY affect the sonics of of an audio system. To wit -- from the SR website, it says very clearly:

Ted visited Buddhist Temples and observed how Tibetan Prayer Bowls altered temple acoustics. These singing bowls affected a sudden shift in acoustics whenever they were activated, and when additional bowls of varying tone were also activated, the acoustics continued to change. Ted reasoned that a system of resonating bowls could be developed to discreetly treat room acoustics without the need for large unsightly tuning devices

Have you seen the THOUSANDS of bowls in a typical Buddhist Temple? Sure, they resonate all right, but as in the above quote, they have to be "activated" -- and NOT BY THE CHANTING OF THE BUDDHIST MONKS! They have to struck with a mallet!! Perhaps someone struck Ted with a mallet and he thought it was the bowls that were resonating ;--)

I hope that clears up the basis of my skepticism.

Neil

.

"Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd." - Voltaire

I believe there is a causal explanation for anything we can observe -- and that includes our own sometimes over-active imaginations ;--) It's certainly true that (current) science often lags behind observed phenomena -- certainly no reason to dismiss the observation itself.

In other words, it comes down to how comfortable one is with "not knowing". Richard Feynman, the world-famouns quantum physicist, mathematician and Nobel Laureate, quite eloquently, put it this way:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MmpUWEW6Is&feature=player_embedded

I think the problems (OK, the arguments) begin when 3 audiophiles in a room each make a similar observation, while 3 others, present at the same time and possessing normal hearing, observe no change or difference at all.

Both groups can't be "right", or can they? I would be inclined to say they can; while remaining comfortable, for the time being, with my inability to explain how that could be.

Thanks Richard Feynman ;--))
.

. . . . . and of your ilk, experience is not expressed ;--))

By "normal hearing", I simply meant "not stone deaf"!
Tbg, my post was actually in support of your position -- don't know how you thought otherwise; or reacted defensively . . . peace brother ;--))
.