OK hold on to your hats! It's the Synergistic Research Atmosphere Video
- Thread starter Peter Breuninger
- Start date
Thanks Peter for posting and sharing the video. Whether I agree with the content or not, this is a great service because it exposes us to things that we might not otherwise ever see. And I think the quality of your videos is very good.
I found it difficult to hear any differences when listening through my iMac. Perhaps it is because they did not repeat the same ten second music clip over and over with the different ambience settings. I kept focusing on the beautiful cello music and forgot the purpose of the demonstration. It reminds me of a discussion on another thread where the slight movement of the listening chair is criticized for being more about the sound than about the music. The defense of the chair adjusters is that they want to optimize the sound so that they can more fully appreciate and enjoy the music. I get that, but if you are constantly fussing, when are you listening? If the effect is real, I would simply not want to spend time tapping a screen on a digital interface each time there is a new song on the system. Ironic, because I do pay attention to the VTA for each LP I listen to. If it needs changing, I change it. I guess that is like the chair movements, LOL.
Listening to Peter describe the effects in the video of what I could not hear reminds me of what I did hear when auditioning the latest and greatest MIT speaker cable. There were all of these dials and switches on the network box. When I moved them, I did in fact hear changes in the spacial presentation of the music. From intimate, to holographic to canyon, as Peter describes. This was quite disconcerting. MIT describes them as SD, HD and SHD, but what I heard sounded like phase shifts in particular frequencies which made the sound either focused, front and center, or ethereal, floating and wrapping around the room. It was very strange and I preferred the lowest or SD setting.
Assuming the effects of the Atmosphere device are real, I guess it comes down to whether you want to design your system to portray what the recording engineer and artist intended, or whether you want some sense of control to affect the way a recording sounds so that you enjoy it more. I don't think one approach is any better or worse than the other.
There is a distinction between fidelity and entertainment and marketing sometimes attempts to blur the differences.
I found it difficult to hear any differences when listening through my iMac. Perhaps it is because they did not repeat the same ten second music clip over and over with the different ambience settings. I kept focusing on the beautiful cello music and forgot the purpose of the demonstration. It reminds me of a discussion on another thread where the slight movement of the listening chair is criticized for being more about the sound than about the music. The defense of the chair adjusters is that they want to optimize the sound so that they can more fully appreciate and enjoy the music. I get that, but if you are constantly fussing, when are you listening? If the effect is real, I would simply not want to spend time tapping a screen on a digital interface each time there is a new song on the system. Ironic, because I do pay attention to the VTA for each LP I listen to. If it needs changing, I change it. I guess that is like the chair movements, LOL.
Listening to Peter describe the effects in the video of what I could not hear reminds me of what I did hear when auditioning the latest and greatest MIT speaker cable. There were all of these dials and switches on the network box. When I moved them, I did in fact hear changes in the spacial presentation of the music. From intimate, to holographic to canyon, as Peter describes. This was quite disconcerting. MIT describes them as SD, HD and SHD, but what I heard sounded like phase shifts in particular frequencies which made the sound either focused, front and center, or ethereal, floating and wrapping around the room. It was very strange and I preferred the lowest or SD setting.
Assuming the effects of the Atmosphere device are real, I guess it comes down to whether you want to design your system to portray what the recording engineer and artist intended, or whether you want some sense of control to affect the way a recording sounds so that you enjoy it more. I don't think one approach is any better or worse than the other.
There is a distinction between fidelity and entertainment and marketing sometimes attempts to blur the differences.
Well, I was in a hurry and posting from a phone actually. And it did seem you perhaps were being ironic. So my apologies, I should have read with more feeling for your comment.
I agree with esldude and Dev on this one... by the description of the product you should not be able to hear any differences on a recording as it effects human perception, not the actual sound of the system. It seems really weird that we'd get a vid trying to differentiate it's effects when by admission of the inventor, it should have no effect at all on the recording.
I did hear some differences at RMAF as well, but I've heard amazing systems that use absolutely no devices similar to what SR sells. I'm making no judgements on the products them selves, their effects are just, well.. unnecessary in order to achieve good sound. It violates the KISS principle that I adhere to in audio that keeps me from spending money on non-essential things. But, everyone needs to figure out where they are going to draw the line, in a very high resolution system everything makes an audible difference. I choose to focus on improvements that actually move me toward my goals, not differences that are relatively insignificant to me.
edit: I would say that I have heard differences with a few SR products and I think they are very interesting. I think they get too much criticism because it's difficult to comprehend how they work.
I did hear some differences at RMAF as well, but I've heard amazing systems that use absolutely no devices similar to what SR sells. I'm making no judgements on the products them selves, their effects are just, well.. unnecessary in order to achieve good sound. It violates the KISS principle that I adhere to in audio that keeps me from spending money on non-essential things. But, everyone needs to figure out where they are going to draw the line, in a very high resolution system everything makes an audible difference. I choose to focus on improvements that actually move me toward my goals, not differences that are relatively insignificant to me.
edit: I would say that I have heard differences with a few SR products and I think they are very interesting. I think they get too much criticism because it's difficult to comprehend how they work.
Last edited:
Meant to reply to you yesterday regarding your earlier post. Yes, I hear what you describe about where you say it occurs. I had just the day before run into a similar experience. Helped a friend setup Dirac room correction in his system. He picked out a very similar recording with violin featured. He wanted to turn the processing on and off to see what difference he made. The recording was one that was changing every few seconds. Just by happenstance he kept switching the processing on and off just as the speed and tone of the violin was changing rather obviously. Much like in this video. Now after a few tries where he just switched at the wrong time I suggested we get something else that stayed the same for a longer period of time.
My comment about the placebo, perhaps not what you meant, was listening to a video of a device said to change sound. One hears the sound change which gets attributed to the device. This happens several times in that video. One could even think it was planned that way though I don't. Having just accidentally watched someone do the same thing trying to evaluate processing that most definitely made a real difference. Placebo works both ways. Even when a for sure audible change has been made, if you know what the change was you will hear more 'clearly' than if you didn't know.
Well other reasons to be skeptical is the size of antenna needed to develop signal strength at 7 hz as an RF signal. The SR device doesn't appear to be very large. One test would be to see how much electrical power it draws. See what strength field it could generate by working backwards.
Ah! I missed that it was USB powered. Darned funny that. Would have replied sooner, but had to pick myself up after I fell off my chair laughing.
Must have been inspired by these websites.
http://www.earthbreathing.co.uk/sr.htm
http://www.schumannresonator.com/
And here are some less expensive "solutions" to your Shuman resonance problem.
http://www.lessemf.com/schumann.html
Last edited:
I finally had the chance to watch this video. I listened to it via headphones. I will listen through both my 2 channel system and HT system when I return home. In short, I heard no differences at all just like Peter's prior videos of the HTF dots. Is it just me or do these videos, with Ted there participating, play like SR commercials hawking the product? That may be a bit harsh, but it is the impression I got watching he clips. I think it would be best if Ted was not involved at all in the video with Peter describing his impressions. A couple of other points. Why would his device need a hour or so to "warm up". That just seems nonsensical. The same is true about the cost. $2,250! Really? For a device that generates RF. Seems like a ton to me.
I love all the naysayers. Why don't you just try it (HFTs or whatever), they all come with a money back guarantees. There are numerous folks on this board who use Teds products, there is a reason why... they work. These naysayers are no different than the ones years ago when I began writing about SETs. Not a single (naysayer) person had listened to a single ended triode amplifier. Did SET go the way of the Tice clock? Hmmm. Don't think so. Our fearless leader here has them as his reference. You must keep an open mind with high end audio.
Peter I have heard rooms treated with HTFs, several sets. We played around with them and I heard no difference, none, even though the guy who bought them swore he heard it at the same time. It is his money and he can spent as he sees fit. I wouldn't waste any more time on them. As for SETs, when you had the Philly group shows with SETs, I was not impressed with them. Others love them. Not me. Again, if you love them cool. Buy what you like. As for the product in hand, it seems like the RF is effecting you. Wouldn't a fine brandy or a good pinot give the same effect at a much lower price? Remember, there were quite a few audiophiles who swore the Tice clock worked. Again, have a demo with area members of WTF and post the results. I am sure a few will be game.
Peter,
Caveat; I have not heard any of SR's product line. You are asking naysayers to try the product. Well if past examples of this type (including Tice) are followed it will go something like this; 1. I deny your product works, 2. You haven't heard it so you have no standing, 3. OK I caved and bought one but I don't hear anything, 4. You didn't set it up correctly (or similar variation) as there are lots of satisfied customers out there, 5. Took a closer look at the instructions (or had a true believer come over) and still no effect, 6. Well your ears/system aren't good enough or your system isn't resolving enough. 7. On to the next tweak.
SET is a bad example as it's what I would call a system basic in that you need something to power your system. People can argue all day long whether SET sounds as good or has enough oomph as push pull or solid state but they can't argue that a SET amplifier powers a system as there is music coming out of the speakers.
I can play all day with SR or other tweak products and hear no difference and you can be right beside me and hear a difference. Plenty of room for "discussion" there.
When someone prosthelytizes to me about these things I am always reminded about the hasidic kids who stand on the corner and ask me if I am Jewish. Don't need to try that out to know it's not for me!
Caveat; I have not heard any of SR's product line. You are asking naysayers to try the product. Well if past examples of this type (including Tice) are followed it will go something like this; 1. I deny your product works, 2. You haven't heard it so you have no standing, 3. OK I caved and bought one but I don't hear anything, 4. You didn't set it up correctly (or similar variation) as there are lots of satisfied customers out there, 5. Took a closer look at the instructions (or had a true believer come over) and still no effect, 6. Well your ears/system aren't good enough or your system isn't resolving enough. 7. On to the next tweak.
SET is a bad example as it's what I would call a system basic in that you need something to power your system. People can argue all day long whether SET sounds as good or has enough oomph as push pull or solid state but they can't argue that a SET amplifier powers a system as there is music coming out of the speakers.
I can play all day with SR or other tweak products and hear no difference and you can be right beside me and hear a difference. Plenty of room for "discussion" there.
When someone prosthelytizes to me about these things I am always reminded about the hasidic kids who stand on the corner and ask me if I am Jewish. Don't need to try that out to know it's not for me!
I think antenna technology has progressed to where the physical size of the device is not crucial. The tiny size of cell phones pretty well demonstrates that.
Still, the device is bogus.
Peter - Are you convinced enough of it's effect and merit for you to buy this review sample and keep it in your system?
I am sure there are but I can't think of any offhand. I will give it some thought on my long flight home. I will say that it is often times the case that people believe what they want to believe. Religion and politics come to mind. Snake oil in those areas may not be physical products like in audio, but are snake oil nonetheless. Of course, in those areas whether you view something as snake oil depends on your biases, which come to think of it is just like audio. I guess don't have to think about it on the plane after all. Time for bed!
Similar threads
