Peter Daniel said:
I'm very pleased with the Seiden but I never tried the Elma. I started using the +6 tap and switched after a few months. I'm very glad I did. I don't miss the volume and it is a more detailed sound. I do not have any balanced equipment at this time though the pre was built with this in mind for the future..
Hey, off topic. Thread jacking. There's never a cop when you need one.
I now return you to the subject.
Much of the specular reflection present in a room would tend to obfuscate the portions of the soundfield that are responsible for the depth, width and height information. There are plenty of opportunities for the DIYer to play with diffusors and their positioning.
If I were to make a pair I would design them so the undulations rotated through a full 90 degrees so there would be vertical scattering as well as everthing in between.
I sure that MDF would work just as well as oak. But you could save your self a lot of trouble in coming close to the shape the Shatkis use buy buying the wood pieces that are used to support corrugated fiberglass roofing. They are already snakelike on one edge, about the same width and come in lengths up to 8'. Not as effective a properly made snake but available at your local home center for not much money, they remove any last hope of an excuse not to do some experimenting.
I now return you to the subject.
Much of the specular reflection present in a room would tend to obfuscate the portions of the soundfield that are responsible for the depth, width and height information. There are plenty of opportunities for the DIYer to play with diffusors and their positioning.
If I were to make a pair I would design them so the undulations rotated through a full 90 degrees so there would be vertical scattering as well as everthing in between.
I sure that MDF would work just as well as oak. But you could save your self a lot of trouble in coming close to the shape the Shatkis use buy buying the wood pieces that are used to support corrugated fiberglass roofing. They are already snakelike on one edge, about the same width and come in lengths up to 8'. Not as effective a properly made snake but available at your local home center for not much money, they remove any last hope of an excuse not to do some experimenting.
Now that this thread is back to it's intended state, I'd like to share my thoughts...although while I was watching this thread develop my thoughts were expressed by others.
Anything placed in a listening environment will have some effect on the sound. The special shape of these may make that effect a positive one, however, seeing how relatively small the surface area is I estimate the change to also be small. Browsing through my "master handbook of acoustics", by F.Alton Everest, I see many diffusor designs and explanations on how they work and how to design one. All designs are made to tame certain ranges of troubling frequencies, depending on application, usually resulting in complex surface contours and large surface areas. Placement within a room also largely determines the diffusor's effectiveness and design. The Shakti diffusors do seem to have a purposefull design, and I do not doubt that they perform the job they are intended for, although I think their effects are achieved under certain conditions, such as proper placement in an already well designed listening space. I am willing to bet that a pair of well designed, more conventional diffusors mounted in trouble areas within the listening room will warrant much more noticeable gains. In my untreated listening/living room these things would mostlikely be moot.
I will not build a pair yet, not because I am not a fanatic or afraid to experiment, but because I believe I can have much larger benefits from properly placed conventional diffusors, bass traps and absorption panels. I will one day build these, but only after I have treated all of the coarse problems in my listening space, only then will I be able to give them the proper evaluation they deserve.
On another point, I am a firm believer in the placebo effect. Humans can be easily swayed by suggestion. It has been shown repeatedly that the mind is easily tricked into believing things that logically do not make sense. One of my aquaintances is a professional magician (not the birthday party, fake flowers, or the big production kind, pure sleeveless hands on, coin and card guy), I know he does not actually bend the laws of physics but his tricks are so good he fools me and others, even under the closest supervision, into a gaping mouth stupor. Unfortunately the positive placebo effect that the Shakti's would have had on me has most likely been killed off. I have now developed a biased opinion and, if anything, the placebo effect would be negative in nature. A placebo prescribed by a doctor would not give any results if he informed a patient that what he is prescribing to him is a placebo.
Anything placed in a listening environment will have some effect on the sound. The special shape of these may make that effect a positive one, however, seeing how relatively small the surface area is I estimate the change to also be small. Browsing through my "master handbook of acoustics", by F.Alton Everest, I see many diffusor designs and explanations on how they work and how to design one. All designs are made to tame certain ranges of troubling frequencies, depending on application, usually resulting in complex surface contours and large surface areas. Placement within a room also largely determines the diffusor's effectiveness and design. The Shakti diffusors do seem to have a purposefull design, and I do not doubt that they perform the job they are intended for, although I think their effects are achieved under certain conditions, such as proper placement in an already well designed listening space. I am willing to bet that a pair of well designed, more conventional diffusors mounted in trouble areas within the listening room will warrant much more noticeable gains. In my untreated listening/living room these things would mostlikely be moot.
I will not build a pair yet, not because I am not a fanatic or afraid to experiment, but because I believe I can have much larger benefits from properly placed conventional diffusors, bass traps and absorption panels. I will one day build these, but only after I have treated all of the coarse problems in my listening space, only then will I be able to give them the proper evaluation they deserve.
On another point, I am a firm believer in the placebo effect. Humans can be easily swayed by suggestion. It has been shown repeatedly that the mind is easily tricked into believing things that logically do not make sense. One of my aquaintances is a professional magician (not the birthday party, fake flowers, or the big production kind, pure sleeveless hands on, coin and card guy), I know he does not actually bend the laws of physics but his tricks are so good he fools me and others, even under the closest supervision, into a gaping mouth stupor. Unfortunately the positive placebo effect that the Shakti's would have had on me has most likely been killed off. I have now developed a biased opinion and, if anything, the placebo effect would be negative in nature. A placebo prescribed by a doctor would not give any results if he informed a patient that what he is prescribing to him is a placebo.
Sorry slightly OT, but on tangent.
Here is an example of easily built, more conventional, DIY diffusors.
http://melhuish.org/audio/DIYOT3.html
Here is an example of easily built, more conventional, DIY diffusors.
http://melhuish.org/audio/DIYOT3.html
Attachments
No criticism of Shaktis-as-art (not my style, I'm more of a Henry Moore kinda guy). There are cheaper and easier placebos, like the red pen and binder stuff of Belt's.
But when talking about any sort of actual physical function, one has to consider scaling. What are the wavelengths that are at issue? What's the size of the (un-backed up) reflective surfaces? The space between them? The total scattering cross-section? There's some fundamental physics that's just dead wrong. One might as well use a hat-rack. Have you actually tried that?
But when talking about any sort of actual physical function, one has to consider scaling. What are the wavelengths that are at issue? What's the size of the (un-backed up) reflective surfaces? The space between them? The total scattering cross-section? There's some fundamental physics that's just dead wrong. One might as well use a hat-rack. Have you actually tried that?
SY said:
Why don't you stop refering to them as placebos. There is no evidence for that. Again, cite the physics that are wrong or shut up about your pretend knowledge of physics.
You need to come to grips with the fact that you just may not know how they work.
Build them, test them, use them, and then disparage them if you need to.
I just did, in the post right above you. The issue is scale. The cross-section of an effective diffusor needs to be on the order of one-quarter the square of the wavelengths of interest. A three inch wide slat hanging in space at a distance from the sound source and the listener doesn't reflect much. Several slats with decorative curlicues on the order of an inch all spaced apart don't reflect much more, about the same as a hat-rack.
The guys peddling these gadgets offer no actual evidence of any significant effect, just the same testimonials as the Q-Ray people. I'll leave it to someone more patient than me to deconstruct the gibberish on their website that they are trying to pass off as technical.
We're talking about sound waves here. The only way in which energy can be exchanged or modified is by relection or absorption*. If you want to ride that latter horse, it's a lamer mount than the former.
* Unless, of course, you're positing forces as-yet unknown, in which case I invoke my Fifth Law: When a fundamental change in our understanding of the Universe happens, it is unlikely to emerge from someone peddling hifi gadgets.
* Unless, of course, you're positing forces as-yet unknown, in which case I invoke my Fifth Law: When a fundamental change in our understanding of the Universe happens, it is unlikely to emerge from someone peddling hifi gadgets.
Wrong Tom. SY is very much a physicist, trust me, i've known a few
The real issue with all tweaks that some of us seem to hear and others don't (won't?) is that they often affect our perception of sound through some very remote secondary/tertiary effect. If you can't quantify the effect in one way or another no self-respecting physicist will take you seriously.
A close relative of mine, follower of the same paradigm, flatly refuses to take part in any kind of auditions, even though he has keen interest in music. I don't think he would like to live in a world where perceptions mismatch theoretical expectations consistently. And i also have to agree - a lot of this stuff is madenning in the way it refuses to fit our simple models.
SY said:
The only one who saddled up, was you. What about diffraction?
http://www.stormingmedia.us/59/5922/A592201.html
Shakti Hallographs
Tom,
Did you use the same wood of Ebony/ash/fir as the commercial version?
Also the back piece of ash has a spacer installed in front of it. What did you use for that application?
Regards,
Gary
Tom,
Did you use the same wood of Ebony/ash/fir as the commercial version?
Also the back piece of ash has a spacer installed in front of it. What did you use for that application?
Regards,
Gary
What on earth has that got to do with it? Fortunately this is not the type of audio forum where people name-drop their system list in their signature lines.2glory said:
If putting a funny shaped bit of wood in your room enhances your enjoyment of your music then that is fine. Just don't pretend it does anything acoustic if it is simply too small to do that.
Last time I checked Stuart was a chemist, but even chemists know enough physics to spot this sort of snake oil!
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.