[Edwood]

"Now I am not a scientist or engineer, and I have never even played one on TV."

-Ed

 

[breez]

The reviewer didn't 'break-them-in' before evaluating them? Blasphemy!

edit: Oh, burn-in is fine too, but break-in gives a more natural sound.

 

[VicAjax]

Quote:

Originally Posted by breez The reviewer didn't 'break-them-in' before evaluating them? Blasphemy!

after i burned in my hallographs, i found them to be dark, grainy, and slightly smoky.

 

[JWFokker]

How do the splinters affect your listening experience after a thorough break-in period?

 

[Enverxis]

and ill bet they make the sound totally different when you paint them hot pink

 

[eyeteeth]

They look to be in the Acoustical room treatment category and room treatment is a real measurable phenomena. Their amount of positive effectiveness would be the only question, knowing that everything in the room is indeed interacting.

Isn't dismissing something out of hand being as dumb as accepting something unquestioningly?

http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volum...s-12-2004.html

"Speakers typically radiate sound forward, but they will radiate some sound in all directions. Very often speakers are placed close to walls and its best to get rid of any unnecessary sound coming from behind the speaker before it can bounce around the room. If possible, place absorption material on the walls behind the front and center speakers."

 

[rodbac]

Quote:

Isn't dismissing something out of hand being as dumb as accepting something unquestioningly?

In a formal debate, you're correct.

In the real world, though, we use common sense to filter what we need to seriously investigate and what we don't. If we didn't do that, we'd be considering special paint colors to make our Accord faster and other silliness.

Consider if I was selling a special race paint for your car that I claim will dramatically increase the speed of any car painted with it because it will reflect the sun's energy more efficiently than normal paint, decreasing the pressure around your car. Would you keep it on your list of things to try when preparing your car to race? Not if you're sane, and here's why:

You know that paint color should theoretically have no effect (freshman physics tells you there is no decrease in pressure associated with energy reflection). Further, you know that cars that go fast for a living (say, Nascar) don't have any special paint- in fact, they're covered with all manner of logos and writing. In fact, you know that noone has ever worried about what color their car is when they're trying to get it to go faster.

This small body of knowledge allows you to cross my paint off your list and be assured that you're not sacrificing that last little bit of performance for doing so, despite my claims.

I don't know for sure that these are complete nonsense (they're another object in a room, so at least theoretically could have some effect), but I know how drastic the effect of having my kitchen chairs in the room is, and considering there's a lot more to them, I'd suspect their effect will be at least as much if not greater.

 

[eyeteeth]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rodbac I don't know for sure that these are complete nonsense (they're another object in a room, so at least theoretically could have some effect), but I know how drastic the effect of having my kitchen chairs in the room is,

Then we agree. As I said my only question is the amount of effect those things have. They could even be worthwhile additions for some systems/rooms (although the price is silly, I'd DIY).
Your kitchen chairs would have a greater affect if raised off the floor and placed directly behind the speakers btw.

 

[VicAjax]

Quote:

Originally Posted by eyeteeth Isn't dismissing something out of hand being as dumb as accepting something unquestioningly?

yes! absolutely!

 

[Alu]

FIY I actually found those pieces in an article in a rather serious stereo magazine (Stereo/german).

Even though it is supposedly written by someone who's known for writing weird articles.

 

[PhilS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by eyeteeth Isn't dismissing something out of hand being as dumb as accepting something unquestioningly?

Absolutely. But to paraphrase Clint Eastwood (The Good, The Bad and The Ugly), "There are two kinds of people in this world." There are those who are willing to try almost any tweak and listen to it with their ears to see if it sounds better. If it does, that's all that matters (putting aside cost for the moment). If the music sounds better, they don't care that there's no proven scientific explanation for the audible improvement. On other side are those who focus heavily on the science, who don't believe that one needs to listen to such tweaks as there is no need to, who will say that various tweaks cannot make an improvement and that any perceived audible effect is merely a placebo effect. Of course, many of us don't fit neatly into either camp, but in any event, those who are sympathetic with the latter camp will always make fun of the former camp, due to the nature of the positions in the two camps and probably due to the types of personalities the two camps tend to attract. Sometimes, poking fun at the tweakers is educational, amusing (as it is in this thread), and generally advances our "hobby" in general, i.e., it is a good thing. Other times, it's just annoying, as other threads in this forum (not this one) illustrate.

 

[eyeteeth]

Quote:

Originally Posted by VicAjax yes! absolutely!

Thanks.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alu FIY I actually found those pieces in an article in a rather serious stereo magazine (Stereo/german).

I think it's the rather goofy appearance of those things that have people automatically assume a derisive posture. While there isn't anything too weird looking about other acoustic treatments like wall mounted diffusers, and their presence can be understood logically, visually.

I had a recreational conversation with a Television broadcast audio engineer a month ago at his home who knew nothing about the audiophile world and I had him shaking his head in disbelief with descriptions of gear and price tags. He didn't have much of a stereo at all as he described how there wasn't much point due to how disappointing it would sound after coming from live studio performances.

Of relevance to this thread is that he mentioned how acoustic treatment was of paramount importance.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilS There are those who are willing to try almost any tweak and listen to it with their ears to see if it sounds better. If it does, that's all that matters (putting aside cost for the moment). If the music sounds better, they don't care that there's no proven scientific explanation for the audible improvement. On other side are those who focus heavily on the science, who don't believe that one needs to listen to such tweaks as there is no need to, who will say that various tweaks cannot make an improvement and that any perceived audible effect is merely a placebo effect. Of course, many of us don't fit neatly into either camp,

I find thorough technical documentation to be a great psychological comfort.

Kidding aside, I do appreciate when especially a cable maker provides good info on the construction of their product. I hate when they're mysterious.
The advent of CD showed that scientific measurement wasn't enough or that it wasn't applied well and it took complaints from people using their ears to bring about better digital mastering.

 

[rodbac]

Quote:

The advent of CD showed that scientific measurement wasn't enough or that it wasn't applied well and it took complaints from people using their ears to bring about better digital mastering.

First, there's nothing about "science" that works to dismiss these, only common sense- as has been said a few times now, everything in a listening environment will have a theoretical effect.

Next, what about CDs showed science to be inadequate as you described above?

Also, it should be noted that if there was something unaccounted for or unexpected being reported, someone deciding to "use people's ears for better digital remastering" (or whatever you're saying took place) is a shining example of sciece in action! That IS science in its purest form.

 

[hifiguy]

There is no doubt wood is good when it comes to audio. Many, many products have used wood to upgrade performance to new levels. There is a reason many very expensive phono cartridges, headphones, isolation devices, and many, many more.

Wood offers really excellent broad band resonance reduction. Think of all the variations in hardness, the width of the rings, and the ability to be shaped almost infinitely.

Anything you do to an audio system is going to affect the sound quality. The complexity of music makes this inevitable. I haven't heard these, and I wouldn't pretend to know whether they improve the sound or not. But I can say with total assurance that they are going to change the sound.

I hate to admit it, since I am a manufacturer as well, but I immediately started planning some experimentation along these lines just to see what happens. This seems like a project made for the DIY'er. I'll bet you'd be doing a great deal of experimenting, but some of the methods are made abundantly clear just by looking at the Hallograph.

Two kinds of wood immediately makes it clear we are talking about two overall levels of hardness, and two entirely different grain structures. The squiggly shape is going to minimize sympathetic resonances from reflecting back and forth along the length of the runners.

I wouldn't be surprised if they worked well. I would be surprised if I shelled out $1,000.00 for a pair of them. But, I haven't heard them. It wouldn't be the first time I've been surprised.

 

[Sinbios]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Enverxis and ill bet they make the sound totally different when you paint them hot pink

of course, the layer of paint will totally change the frequency of the thing!