The Totem beaks - WTF?

[peter_m]

If you read this review, go to the second half, where they mention the "Beak". A bullet shaped paper weight thingy that is supposed to enhance properties of almost any speakers.... just by pacing it on the top.

http://www.uhfmag.com/Issue56/Forest.html

Are these guys for real? This can't make any sense?

 

[djQUAN]

I vote for snake oil.

this is funny....

the response graph with the "beaks" look like it was drawn by a kid....

check out the part around 23Hz. not only is it near vertical, it seems to be sloping to the wrong side......

 

[BudP]

peter_m

Ask Nanook, he knows about this sort of stuff. Has some interesting arcana of his own to muse on too.

I can say that Vic Tiscareno, former designer at AudioPrism and now Apple black projects leader, considered them essential for listening to Totem Acoustic speakers with. I couldn't tell a difference, but I didn't listen to them all day long either

Doesn't mean a thing, but, if you track down and read some of my threads, you will likely consider this foolishness quite tame.

Bud

 

[peter_m]

I used to live about a 6 minute walk from Totem head offices. I used to be proud that quality speakers came from the old neighborhood. Now I am ashamed.

 

[JRace]

I used to live about a 6 minute walk from Totem head offices. I used to be proud that quality speakers came from the old neighborhood. Now I am ashamed.

????

This is nothing new. They have been using beaks for years...

 

[Nanook]

Doth I sense my ears a ringing?

Might I suggest some of Canada's finest 'erb prior to my beginning here ?(it doesn't help, but it can make ya feel "better")

Before you all condemn this (the "beaks"), please do this:

for canucks and 'mericans, get 4 quarters and 2 dimes. (must use a box type loudspeaker). Do as in the sketch. Listen.

for all else try whatever coin is similar in size and weight.

Convince yourself or not . Better yet try it on a spouse or non-audio friend.

Then report back, and tell me what ya think. If the effect is noticeable to you or your test subject(s) and positive, you may have an inkling as to what is happening with the "beaks"

Also note that these speakers have been written up all over the place.

 

[BHTX]

This is ridiculous.

 

[Nanook]

ridiculous?

BHTX This is ridiculous.

hmmm...

shun mook
Harmonix, etc. Are they all wrong? Until you try any tuning device for yourself and come to your own conclusions, try to have an open mind. When I first tried the coins, I thought I was totally wacko! Really try it and if you or others can hear no decernable difference then that's fine. If you do, then that's fine too. Just try it. at $1.20 to try (well free 'cause you already "own" the coins🙂 ) it may be the best $1.20 you've spent. If not, you haven't spent (perhaps) hundreds. Go buy yerself a Coke or the soft drink of choice with the coins and relax.

 

[peter_m]

ok, sure!

 

[poynton]

If you read this review, go to the second half, where they mention the "Beak". A bullet shaped paper weight thingy that is supposed to enhance properties of almost any speakers.... just by pacing it on the top.

http://www.uhfmag.com/Issue56/Forest.html

Are these guys for real? This can't make any sense?

These were discussed some time ago, about Christmas if I remember correctly, along with other 'snake-oil' devices. The most extraordinary of these were 'resonators' produced in France, I think, which enhanced the perceived image. They even worked when placed in the garden not in the listening room. A review is in the loony-moons.

Andy

 

[BudP]

Peter_m and other healthy skeptics

Like I said, you wanted to ask Nanook.

Now, please go here and read, laugh, snort or try it out.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=102180

And then here and do the same
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=100399

I don't support or deride anything, until I have had an opportunity to work with it. The second link, if you push through it, has some very interesting tests, provided by some pretty interesting folks. Shortly, some of your fellow countrymen will be running some blind listening tests, specified by another one of your country's most skeptical contributors.

All of it looks like foolishness. All of it. But, so did Lincoln Walsh's speaker cone ideas and Lynn Olson's amplifier ideas and Le Cleach's horn flare rate ideas.

Another point to make is that you can try this nutso stuff out and you don't have to tell anyone you did, or pay a penny for the experiment. Your rep is not on the line here.

Loosen up a bit, these are not diseases you can catch, really, nothing to fear.

Bud

 

[willycom]

i really think that this is not snake oil , cause the difference is not subtle.

try to listen the beaks in several positions (move them from left to right / front to rear and vice versa) and you will notice that the 'staging' will be wider/ narrower ; the vocal will be a bit forward/back.

the best way to test these beaks is to have another person changing / replacing the beaks for you (so you don't move from your seat)

i haven't tried coins / metal cans etc, so i don't know about them, but they might work as well 🙂

 

[SY]

hmmm...

shun mook
Harmonix, etc. Are they all wrong?

Of course they're not. They've done a fine job of extracting money from suckers.

 

[Loren42]

"He adds that actual frequency measurements have been run on speakers with and without Beaks, but he has supplied neither the methodology nor the actual measurements."

Doesn't this smack of pathological science?

Langmuir put it this way:

• The maximum effect that is observed is produced by a causative agent of barely detectable intensity, and the magnitude of the effect is substantially independent of the intensity of the cause.
  
• The effect is of a magnitude that remains close to the limit of detectability, or many measurements are necessary because of the very low statistical significance of the results.
  
• There are claims of great accuracy.
  
• Fantastic theories contrary to experience are suggested.
  
• Criticisms are met by ad hoc excuses.
  
• The ratio of supporters to critics rises and then falls gradually to oblivion.

The oblivion prediction will probably fall to zero before I get done posting this.

Personally, when someone claims fantastic results from a minimal effort, and fails to produce a scholarly study or explanation without releasing data, they are selling us something that we dare not hold close to our noses.

 

[Loren42]

i really think that this is not snake oil , cause the difference is not subtle.

try to listen the beaks in several positions (move them from left to right / front to rear and vice versa) and you will notice that the 'staging' will be wider/ narrower ; the vocal will be a bit forward/back.

the best way to test these beaks is to have another person changing / replacing the beaks for you (so you don't move from your seat)

i haven't tried coins / metal cans etc, so i don't know about them, but they might work as well 🙂

It would not be subtle if it were both measurable and statistically relevant.

Has anyone tried placing the beaks on their head yet?

 

[stevieg]

[Just try it. at $1.20 to try (well free 'cause you already "own" the coins🙂 ) it may be the best $1.20 you've spent. If not, you haven't spent (perhaps) hundreds. Go buy yerself a Coke or the soft drink of choice with the coins and relax./QUOTE]

The man from the North is correct. Anyone can try the coins trick if they have box speakers. Don't forget difference and improvement are not the same. Measurement is fine and dandy, and a box that measures very badly indeed is unlikely to sound good. However speakers are the least accurate of any device in the audio chain, and are most susceptible to tweaky changes.

Before passing judgment, it is essential to do the experiment and observe change or not. Then measure and theorise. If you accept that you have perceived a change, but your measurements do not reveal this change, then maybe the wrong measurements are being taken.

We all accept that measurements do not tell the whole story about any piece of gear. Otherwise we would not audition, but simply read spec sheets. Indeed those of a more technical bent would not have to listen to music at all, but simply measure for pleasure.

 

[Pallas]

Wasn't the coin thing a Stereophile April Fool's joke?

As for the "beaks," one has to assume that Totem bought a lot of large phase plugs on closeout, and decided to extract maximum rents out of them. Fortunately for them, people bought them.

Not to say it doesn't do anything. The "audible" effects people note, inasmuch as they exist at all, are just people's eyes being drawn to a new shiny thing.

 

[Spasticteapot]

I've heard some Totem stuff. Highly mediocre.

Honestly, why do people buy this crap?

 

[jleaman]

I really like totem speakers, Built & designed in canada, my other favorites are Paradigm & B&W. however ill take a pair of totem's over the B&W's ( low end )

And if i had money, it would be focal's 🙂

I like how simple the totem speakers look, ive heard a few different pairs also.

I didn't pay any attention to the knob ( bullet ) on top of the speakers as it never did any thing for me, in fact i just figured it was for looks, besides can we really prove that putting that bullet on top is really going to change sound that the human ear is going to hear ? DOUBT IT!

 

[Loren42]

The man from the North is correct. Anyone can try the coins trick if they have box speakers. Don't forget difference and improvement are not the same. Measurement is fine and dandy, and a box that measures very badly indeed is unlikely to sound good. However speakers are the least accurate of any device in the audio chain, and are most susceptible to tweaky changes.

I can see no viable reason to waste my time. Ideally, a cabinet should be inert. If it is not, I would rather invest my energy in correcting the source of the problem than playing craps on my loudspeaker cabinet.

Also, if the only proof the author of the invention can offer is unscientifically based tests performed ad-hoc, that should raise a few red flags.

Before passing judgment, it is essential to do the experiment and observe change or not. Then measure and theorise. If you accept that you have perceived a change, but your measurements do not reveal this change, then maybe the wrong measurements are being taken.

There are many things in life that I do not need to try in order to determine the benefits. Jumping off of a cliff, driving nails through my hands, cocaine, and drilling tiny holes through my teeth are good examples of just a few of them.

Before I waste time on running an experiment I want the test data from the author and the exact procedure used for their experiment. I would also like the supporting theory behind the hypothesis. Without that I have no reason to waste time performing a peer review because I can't take the claim seriously.

We all accept that measurements do not tell the whole story about any piece of gear.

I think that is 98% bunk, but there is an element of truth to that. The real problem is getting good measurements, measuring the right things, and correctly interpreting what they mean. That is not a trivial task.

However, what you are implying by saying that is that the effect is unmeasurable or so far down into the noise floor as to be statistically insignificant, yet magically makes the sound better.

Otherwise we would not audition, but simply read spec sheets.

And what manufactures can you cite that publish unbiased and complete set of measurements for their loudspeakers? A quad amputee probably could count them on one hand. 😉

Indeed those of a more technical bent would not have to listen to music at all, but simply measure for pleasure.

Now that is not a realistic nor founded claim. I am a very quantitatively oriented person because I am an electrical engineer (if you couldn't tell 😉 ). I work by the scientific method. However, I am left-brained, too, and appreciate the arts (I also play acoustic guitar). In short, I get pleasure from my accomplishments as much as the next person, but I can also appreciate good art in just about any form.

In other words, I don't need a test suite of tools to enjoy a performance, but I will employ those tools to validate that I have source capable of reproducing that performance to a known quality.

The problem I have with the "just try it" parade is when someone presents a solution or discovery that claims great benefits, yet is unable and unwilling to quantifiably explain the principle behind it, let alone present any theoretical foundation for how it works, the first thing I start thinking is this person is smoking too much hope.

Finally, it is the author of the invention who bears the burden of proof here, not the audience. Let's see the data and the supporting theory, first.

As someone else noted, this does smell of April Fool's!