SY said:
I didn't notice that he ever denied that. It's the armchair critics who don't seem to notice that possibility.
Even my experiments with photographs in a freezer, although seem to work the way described, don't exclude the possibility that psychoacustic plays a big role here. But to me it doesn't really matter. If it works, it works, the final outcome is important, not the actaul mechanism that leads to it..
If only people could understand that
Hi,
Untill we know that for a fact we shouldn't accuse anyone as being fraudulent; what happened to the innocent untill proven guilty principle?
Besides, as said before, the argument is moot as anyone willing to experiment with it is free to do so at the expense of materials cost and time invested.
Cheers,
Untill we know that for a fact we shouldn't accuse anyone as being fraudulent; what happened to the innocent untill proven guilty principle?
Besides, as said before, the argument is moot as anyone willing to experiment with it is free to do so at the expense of materials cost and time invested.
Cheers,
Please cut it out guys. This discussion seems to be leading to hurt feelings. Personally, I come to this forum to learn from what I see as a collective of intelligent people with views, experience and knowledge I do not yet posess. I'm not trying to be humble. I really am happy to have access to this learning tool and am blown away by the amount of knowledge you people freely share. I do not want to see these same people ending up disregarding someone's opinion or factual information in a later discussion on a different topic because of an argument that led astray into personal territory. As this thread goes on I read more and more personal attacks and clever wordsmithing aimed at discrediting the other side. In my opinion this shakti thing is becoming a huge trident in the a**. This thread has turned from a discusion on why or why not this may work to a "he said she said" type argument I commonly have with my wife that ultimately has nothing to do with the issue that started it.
I have yet to meet a person that has not taken this route of argument before and understand the human nature that is leading us astray from the original topic. I just don't want it to go too far.
I do sit on a definite side on this topic, but I will refrain from posting because I do not want to end up being misquoted, slandered, or pigeon-holed into a certain category. There may be others that feel this way and it's a little shame that their views will not be heard.
I have yet to meet a person that has not taken this route of argument before and understand the human nature that is leading us astray from the original topic. I just don't want it to go too far.
I do sit on a definite side on this topic, but I will refrain from posting because I do not want to end up being misquoted, slandered, or pigeon-holed into a certain category. There may be others that feel this way and it's a little shame that their views will not be heard.
Illusus said:
And this is also an issue that shouldn't be overlooked.
Some people would like to present a view, but because of unfriendly atmosphere and hostile attitude from others they prefer to keep it to themselves.
I have no problem saying that putting photographs in a freezer works for me. I tried it few times (in and out of a freezer) and each time the results were very conclusive. I'm not afraid of laughs and jokes. I might joke about it myself on occasion
But will we progress, if nobody will share their observations, no matter how absurd they may seem initially? Probably not as much as if things were carried out different way. Nobody forces you to believe what's being said here. Nobody even ask you to listen. You can easily choose a topic that suits your interests. But if your only interest is to fight the "fraudulant" products, I think you should be in a different company. I personally don't want you to tell me what's wrong and what's right. Please let me decide myself.
I also think that the whole discussion developed in this particualr thread wasn't complete waste of time. I hope it helped some of us to understand better certain issues and maybe act differently next time.
Ladies, please! Will you retract your claws? Squabbling is fun but this thread did start out with a point.
No one seems to be following a logical course of action in trying to understand this device and the integrity of the company that manufactures it.
Let's start with the company and cut them a small initial break by not pre-emptively labeling them as "scammers." I point out first that their claims for the various items they produce, at least as far as I have investigated, lean to offering very minor improvements, their flowery rhetoric notwithstanding. I'll admit that it didn't dig to deeply into this. A 2 to 3 db reduction in the effects of EMI, etc. is not a great deal. Neither is a few horsepower for an engine capable of 300 horsepower. I cannot speak to the validity of these claims but there certainly seems to be adequate 2nd party testing and support.
Maybe Shakti & Co. are pickpockets but that isn't the real point.
ON TO THE DEVICE
Any item placed anywhere in a listening room will physically alter the sound field via one or more of these mechanisms - resonance, diffraction, reflection or absorption. Variables are the type(s) and degree of effect. Even a small item such as a coffee cup MUST have at least some physical effect; it is unavoidable. It follows, then, that the Shakti device does, as it must, have a physical effect and at least one argument against it can be put to rest. One cannot say it does nothing.
Since, it seems, that only one? person in this thread has heard the effects of the device and most thread participants are nay-sayers, it might be constructive to figure out what it is physically capable of doing.
WHAT DOES/CAN IT DO?
Based on the device's construction we can safely disregard resonance and absorption effects, at least in comparison to it's other attributes.
There is about 1 square foot of reflective area so it can be considered a reflector. However, a normal room has a reflective surface far greater than what the device provides and a few square feet wouldn't make much of a difference particularly since it is covering up the same amount of reflective area that it provides. It is unlikely that the device's reflective effect would have any significance unless one were to "aim" it so as to pick up a reflection from another surface and direct it to the listener. Even then, I would imagine the effects to be minimal.
There are numerous curved edges so it can be considered a diffractor/diffusor which has a partial extra dimension of effect (it's effect is not confined to the horizontal as some diffusors are). Also, It's effects would be mostly limited to the mid-range and high frequencies. Regardless of what else you might want to say about it, this device is a diffusor. Diffusors are your friend.
WHAT CAN'T IT DO?
It cannot effect the first reflections as their claim states. The first reflections, as I have mentioned previously, are normally from the side walls and floors, although this can vary with speaker placement. With the device behind and to the outside of the speakers, it cannot effect these first reflections even if they come from the rear wall partly because the recommended positioning is wrong and even if that were not the case, the first reflection from the rear can only occur at lower frequencies where the speaker is radiating omnidirectionally and the effectiveness of the device decreases with decreasing frequency. Their claim seems to be in error regarding this point and, as far as I can see, seems to be the only claim they make aside from an audible improvement.
IS WHAT IT DOES REALLY AUDIBLE?
I would say, without having the opportunity to listen to them, "barely+" and "it depends." Perhaps on a par with Polypropylene vs Mylar or Class A vs Class A/B - I don't know, you tell me. I haven't yet started to sweat the small stuff.
As to "increased focus", which is an effect that tom1356 observes . . . any increase in the diffuse field, even if the diffusors are not in optimum positions with regard to the listening position, will increase to some degree the clarity of the direct sounds because they will be more prominent. Perhaps this is what he means by "increased focus."
MY CONCLUSION
I consider the Shakti devise to be a diffusor which is less effective than a properly designed diffusor of the same size would be. The manufacturer's recommendations for the placement of your first pair are inapt. These devices have questionable artistic value and to my mind look like they were beaten with an ugly stick. They seem to be overpriced by a factor of about 2. I think the money would be better spent on a pair of RPG diffusors, or better yet, for DIY, construct your own.
This commentary is not to suggest that I have any clue as to what I'm talking about and I'm looking for an escape clause as I write these last words.
No one seems to be following a logical course of action in trying to understand this device and the integrity of the company that manufactures it.
Let's start with the company and cut them a small initial break by not pre-emptively labeling them as "scammers." I point out first that their claims for the various items they produce, at least as far as I have investigated, lean to offering very minor improvements, their flowery rhetoric notwithstanding. I'll admit that it didn't dig to deeply into this. A 2 to 3 db reduction in the effects of EMI, etc. is not a great deal. Neither is a few horsepower for an engine capable of 300 horsepower. I cannot speak to the validity of these claims but there certainly seems to be adequate 2nd party testing and support.
Maybe Shakti & Co. are pickpockets but that isn't the real point.
ON TO THE DEVICE
Any item placed anywhere in a listening room will physically alter the sound field via one or more of these mechanisms - resonance, diffraction, reflection or absorption. Variables are the type(s) and degree of effect. Even a small item such as a coffee cup MUST have at least some physical effect; it is unavoidable. It follows, then, that the Shakti device does, as it must, have a physical effect and at least one argument against it can be put to rest. One cannot say it does nothing.
Since, it seems, that only one? person in this thread has heard the effects of the device and most thread participants are nay-sayers, it might be constructive to figure out what it is physically capable of doing.
WHAT DOES/CAN IT DO?
Based on the device's construction we can safely disregard resonance and absorption effects, at least in comparison to it's other attributes.
There is about 1 square foot of reflective area so it can be considered a reflector. However, a normal room has a reflective surface far greater than what the device provides and a few square feet wouldn't make much of a difference particularly since it is covering up the same amount of reflective area that it provides. It is unlikely that the device's reflective effect would have any significance unless one were to "aim" it so as to pick up a reflection from another surface and direct it to the listener. Even then, I would imagine the effects to be minimal.
There are numerous curved edges so it can be considered a diffractor/diffusor which has a partial extra dimension of effect (it's effect is not confined to the horizontal as some diffusors are). Also, It's effects would be mostly limited to the mid-range and high frequencies. Regardless of what else you might want to say about it, this device is a diffusor. Diffusors are your friend.
WHAT CAN'T IT DO?
It cannot effect the first reflections as their claim states. The first reflections, as I have mentioned previously, are normally from the side walls and floors, although this can vary with speaker placement. With the device behind and to the outside of the speakers, it cannot effect these first reflections even if they come from the rear wall partly because the recommended positioning is wrong and even if that were not the case, the first reflection from the rear can only occur at lower frequencies where the speaker is radiating omnidirectionally and the effectiveness of the device decreases with decreasing frequency. Their claim seems to be in error regarding this point and, as far as I can see, seems to be the only claim they make aside from an audible improvement.
IS WHAT IT DOES REALLY AUDIBLE?
I would say, without having the opportunity to listen to them, "barely+" and "it depends." Perhaps on a par with Polypropylene vs Mylar or Class A vs Class A/B - I don't know, you tell me. I haven't yet started to sweat the small stuff.
As to "increased focus", which is an effect that tom1356 observes . . . any increase in the diffuse field, even if the diffusors are not in optimum positions with regard to the listening position, will increase to some degree the clarity of the direct sounds because they will be more prominent. Perhaps this is what he means by "increased focus."
MY CONCLUSION
I consider the Shakti devise to be a diffusor which is less effective than a properly designed diffusor of the same size would be. The manufacturer's recommendations for the placement of your first pair are inapt. These devices have questionable artistic value and to my mind look like they were beaten with an ugly stick. They seem to be overpriced by a factor of about 2. I think the money would be better spent on a pair of RPG diffusors, or better yet, for DIY, construct your own.
This commentary is not to suggest that I have any clue as to what I'm talking about and I'm looking for an escape clause as I write these last words.
Hi,
I think the two types of filmcaps hardly compare sonically but I see your point.
From what I've read on their site I think you're absolutely correct; much better diffusors can be constructed for less money....especially if the Shaktis won't have any effect at all...
I also very much doubt the device can possibly have any effect on anything below, say, 1KHz. Not that it should as the ear is more sensitive upwards of that frequency.
Let's see what Tom has to say about this.
Cheers,
I think the two types of filmcaps hardly compare sonically but I see your point.
From what I've read on their site I think you're absolutely correct; much better diffusors can be constructed for less money....especially if the Shaktis won't have any effect at all...
I also very much doubt the device can possibly have any effect on anything below, say, 1KHz. Not that it should as the ear is more sensitive upwards of that frequency.
Let's see what Tom has to say about this.
Cheers,
I don't know what frequencies they effect but the result is a soundstage that reaches further in all directions (forward in front of the speakers is the most dramatic improvement).fdegrove said:Hi,
I think the two types of filmcaps hardly compare sonically but I see your point.
From what I've read on their site I think you're absolutely correct; much better diffusors can be constructed for less money....especially if the Shaktis won't have any effect at all...
I also very much doubt the device can possibly have any effect on anything below, say, 1KHz. Not that it should as the ear is more sensitive upwards of that frequency.
Let's see what Tom has to say about this.
Cheers,
Triangles, xylophones, chimes, and I are all the big winners here.
Dark side of the moon on SACD is even more of a sonic treat.
I am using beryillium ribbon tweeters good to above 50k. This may have some bearing on the overall sound.
Peter Daniel said:I wouldn't mind building them myself, just to try. Is there a material choice important here? I could use solid maple, but it will be harder to machine than lets say MDF.
BTW: I ordered silver S&B 102s
I used the maple because I'm sure thats what the originals are mostly made of and it matches the system. I've heard of others using MDF with good results.
Welcome to an exclusive club. I love the silver TX-102's and I'm sure you will too. If you can avoid the +6 db tap it does sound better. Will you be using the Seiden switch?
Keep me posted on what you find when they arrive.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.