Synergistic Research: SCAM

[One and a half]

27 minutes ago, Confused said:

Thinking about this. My headphone system uses a SMPS powered RME ADI-2 DAC fs. I also have a Paul Hynes SR-4 sat on a shelf doing nothing.

 

So there is an easy enough subjective experiment I could try here when I have some time.

Apart from a physical connector issue, the SR-4 should be capable of supplying the RME with 12V @ 2A with ease.  You should hear a difference (for the better) right away.

[DrT]

Just today we received a new Synergistic Research item; and it is truly amazing. AMAZING. It's their FEQ Carbon acoustic field generator with the tuning module that sits on top. This device makes the sound stage even more halographic and enhances the music's dynamic response. Bass is deeper, treble cleaner, voices suspend midair. Relatively poor recodings (as the Door's Riders On The Storm) now sound like a HD version; and are no longer bad recordings. The soundstage is bigger, taller, and even better than before. Sounds float midway between the plane of the speakers and our listening seat.

Josh offered to send us one last week and I was hesitant; our system was already mesmerizing; but he offered for us to try it for a month and if we didn't see any merit, return it. Man; this thing is a keeper. Already hearing from the many naysayers on this blog I'm sure this will trigger more cries of snake oil, it can't be, it doesn't add up scientifically, etc etc but I'm telling you, these effects are blatant; not at all subtle; and this device is a keeper. AMAZING.

[bodiebill]

Wonderful find, that word 'halographic'. It may typify Synergistic Research quite well.

Mind you, I am not one to criticize things I do not understand. Then I would be a negative person indeed. I even own their Acoustic Art room treatment, comprising of Vibratron, Gravitron, Magnetron, and Bass Station. Although I could never point out whether they made any difference, I always kept them for their quiet enigmatic aesthetics and as a reminder of the ritualistic nature of this hobby.

[DrT]

Man... this thing is really something. I don't know if adding it to a system with no other SR components will have as profound an effect but for only $2300 with a 30 day guarantee it's worth a try. Oh, the Cobra? eye candy...

[DrT]

A point to ponder; several have mentioned the really great sound in the SR room at shows, how they stop in just to hear the sound or the song playing. Indeed Scott Walker uses excellent components (Magico, Soulution, etc) but I can guarantee you that without the SR stuff you could never duplicate that same experience. The magic, the huge soundstage, the halographic presentation, the immersive effect would be missing. This Carbon acoustic field generator is like being in a large stadium with sound coming from all directions. 

[Samuel T Cogley]

44 minutes ago, DrT said:

Man... this thing is really something. I don't know if adding it to a system with no other SR components will have as profound an effect but for only $2300 with a 30 day guarantee it's worth a try. Oh, the Cobra? eye candy...

 

Isn't it all eye candy or affluence porn?

 

 

[DrT]

A bit off subject but... noooo Sam; the stereo is ear candy, the Cobra eye & adrenaline candy. Guy sports. The only folks thinking 'affluence porn' are those guilty of envy. For a guy growing up poor & parentless, at ages 14-16 sleeping in the local Golden Gloves boxing gym, homeless back in the days before welfare & the gov safety net; a guy who worked his way up without any assistance except the GI Bill after Vietnam combat at age 18, a guy who for the past thirty years pays six digit fed income tax; I am proud, very proud, of where we are. 'nuff said.

[Racerxnet]

2 hours ago, DrT said:

Man... this thing is really something. I don't know if adding it to a system with no other SR components will have as profound an effect but for only $2300 with a 30 day guarantee it's worth a try. Oh, the Cobra? eye candy...

Gee whiz DrT. The knock off cobra really makes you look impressive. Lol

[DrT]

Frankly don't care about impressing anyone except myself but are you sure it's a knockoff?

[JoeWhip]

Have no idea whether it is a knockoff but man DrT you are coming on a bit too strong here to take you seriously.

[Racerxnet]

15 minutes ago, DrT said:

Frankly don't care about impressing anyone except myself but are you sure it's a knockoff?

I'd bet 1000 to 1 it's not in the cobra registry as an original. Maybe a factory 5  knock off. Besides that, nobody is interested in your dick swinging contest.

 

Enjoy!

[DrT]

Racerxnet: "dick swinging contest"?? ahhhh... just another prime blowhard. But that said; waaaay off topic. Sorry I posted the pic of our factory built continuation series; it was in the camera & popped up while dragging pics of the FEQ Carbon, but obviously it offends some of the low-Testosterone crowd on here. I'm done; thought that maybe as an actual owner of the latest SR gear I could shed some light on those interested; or those that merely enjoy the hobby (as we do). Too many haters, know-it-alls; so... see ya! 

[fas42]

10 hours ago, Blackmorec said:

I just got back from a hi-fi show with >70 systems playing music and what was very noticable was that most systems shared the same problems, namely:

Lack of purity and transparency

Lack of really good imaging and sound stage depth

Lack of bass clarity 

Lack of detail, musicality and finesse 

 

Thanks for that info. It confirms that the manufacturers are still advancing at their glacial pace, in terms of engineering better products.

 

9 hours ago, pkane2001 said:

 

FIFY. There is no scientific explanation, measurements, or, in fact, blind tests to demonstrate that they are doing any of the above. How do you reckon they developed this new science with no known measurements or repeatable, objective testing? How do they validate that the product actually does anything at all, or, in fact, how do they do quality control?

 

 

There's no new science. Anyone who has a reasonably transparent, normal setup, and who has decent ears , can hear that fiddling with almost any part of the system alters the sound. So, some individuals decide to capitalise on that, and produce items that can help in some cases - and sell them for big money, to people who don't want to try their own workarounds ... gosh, it's the American Way, ain't it?

 

7 hours ago, Confused said:

I am not saying that there is no benefit from anything in your list, but I think the -60dBFS experiment must tell us something about what matters, where, and by how much.

 

No, it doesn't. I bought a reasonable Yamaha player, a CD-1050, from a pawnbroker once; and tried the -60dB test. What it told me was that one channel was down in linearity, but the other one was fine. The slightly poor one made some hashy noises, a bit like a tube guitar amp with the gain wound right up - but with normal material this weakness was completely inaudible.

 

7 hours ago, Confused said:

 

I think the more the we can understand the exact mechanisms, the better we can focus out time and money on what matters. It is about knowledge and understanding.

 

 

Yes, people say this all the time ... and then ignore anyone who doesn't follow the accepted lines of thinking, .

 

The truth is too simple for most to be willing to consider it ... every point in a system where the integrity is not adequate will be enough, in most cases, to degrade the subjective SQ - from, say, "gorgeous" to "flat, compressed, 2D; uninvolving". And the answers are just as simple ...

[fas42]

5 hours ago, DrT said:

 Relatively poor recodings (as the Door's Riders On The Storm) now sound like a HD version; and are no longer bad recordings. The soundstage is bigger, taller, and even better than before. Sounds float midway between the plane of the speakers and our listening seat.

 

Umm, "bad recording"? I have that CD, in a vanilla mastering - the tracks are quite brilliant, in the soundscapes they throw up ... what mixes of this era are very prone to doing, is highlighting deficiencies in the playback; diluting the impact, via remastering, is the usual workaround for less than stellar replay.

[pkane2001]

17 minutes ago, fas42 said:

There's no new science. Anyone who has a reasonably transparent, normal setup, and who has decent ears , can hear that fiddling with almost any part of the system alters the sound. So, some individuals decide to capitalise on that, and produce items that can help in some cases - and sell them for big money, to people who don't want to try their own workarounds ... gosh, it's the American Way, ain't it?

 

Fiddling with any part of the system does cause a difference. It just happens to exist mostly between the ears, and not in the equipment. If you listen for a difference, you'll hear it - it's as simple as that. And even decent ears are not needed for this.

[Samuel T Cogley]

1 hour ago, DrT said:

Sorry I posted the pic of our factory built continuation series

 

You're not, though. 

[fas42]

3 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

Fiddling with any part of the system does cause a difference. It just happens to exist mostly between the ears, and not in the equipment. If you listen for a difference, you'll hear it - it's as simple as that. And even decent ears are not needed for this.

 

And you believe so strongly in that, Paul, that it interferes with your ability to actually be sensitive to variations - the desire to be right about this undermines your chance of understanding more.

 

[pkane2001]

4 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

And you believe so strongly in that, Paul, that it interferes with your ability to actually be sensitive to variations - the desire to be right about this undermines your chance of understanding more.

 

 

To the contrary, I don't believe this. I believe in testing the right way. I know based on science and research that our hearing is disproportionately affected by other senses, and in particular, vision. I certainly believe in audible differences, and hear them in some cases where many others don't. But I don't rely on sighted testing, as it is proven to be extremely unreliable and easy to fool. When I hear a difference, I test for it by eliminating other senses and biases from the test. As long as you don't, you're falling for a simple mind trick that makes you hear things simply because you're trying to. 

 

Think as to why your message doesn't resonate with others. It's not because it's so amazing that people just don't get it. It's because you're hearing things and generalizing and making conclusions on top of a quicksand. On top of an "audible" illusion that your mind creates for you and nobody else. Others hear different things because they listen for different things. For most it's also an illusion, but a different one. As much as you repeat your same message here, you'd think it would get more support for it if it was real. Think about it.

 

[fas42]

14 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

To the contrary, I don't believe this. I believe in testing the right way. I know based on science and research that our hearing is disproportionately affected by other senses, and in particular, vision. I certainly believe in audible differences, and hear them in some cases where many others don't. But I don't rely on sighted testing, as it is proven to be extremely unreliable and easy to fool. When I hear a difference, I test for it by eliminating other senses and biases from the test. As long as you don't, you're falling for a simple mind trick that makes you hear things simply because you're trying to. 

 

In some cases, a simple mind trick. But not in all. And some changes are far too involved to continually reverse; impossible to do blind, say, because the change requires your interaction to make happen. The solution, for me, is the "rattle in the car" mindset ... there is an annoying rattle, somewhere in your vehicle; you keep adjusting things, looking everywhere that it could be, touching things that might be the cause - until, finally, the noise stops. Just because something obvious might be the problem doesn't make it go away when you alter that, or try to ignore the sound.

 

I gave up hifi entirely for over 10 years, because I couldn't stand not being able to solve a specific rattle problem - I wouldn't put that in the class of, "a simple mind trick" gone wrong.

 

14 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

Think as to why your message doesn't resonate with others. It's not because it's so amazing that people just don't get it. It's because you're hearing things and generalizing and making conclusions on top of a quicksand. On top of an "audible" illusion that your mind creates for you and nobody else. Others hear different things because they listen for different things. For most it's also an illusion, but a different one. As much as you repeat your same message here, you'd think it would get more support for it if it was real. Think about it.

 

 

Ah, the "audible illusion" ... the funny thing is that I constantly work towards achieving a full strength illusion - the good days are when I get closer; the bad ones are when it seems I've gone backwards ...

 

Okay, I'll give another version of how the illusion works: someone starts talking in front of you - you will have no trouble pointing to where he is, eyes closed. Now record his voice; and create a wall of small speakers, from floor to ceiling, wall to wall. Each speaker is next to another, the Bose 901 thing. Play back his voice with the identical capture of that voice, to each speaker, simultaneously - now, where is, ummm, Wally?

 

Yes, I've thought about it ... it's a combination of, "only expensive stuff can do it!", "bad recordings are the reason my system doesn't sound so good", and group think. If you spend decades thinking a certain way, it's hard to change. The difference for me is that I started thinking differently decades ago, and everything since has continually confirmed, and evolved that set of ideas.

 

 

[Rexp]

2 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

Umm, "bad recording"? I have that CD, in a vanilla mastering - the tracks are quite brilliant, in the soundscapes they throw up ... what mixes of this era are very prone to doing, is highlighting deficiencies in the playback; diluting the impact, via remastering, is the usual workaround for less than stellar replay.

Do you have the serial number for that CD so I can make sure I don't buy it?

[fas42]

Ummm, this is what it should sound like,

 

 

That's the album ...

[Blackmorec]

7 hours ago, pkane2001 said:

 

Fiddling with any part of the system does cause a difference. It just happens to exist mostly between the ears, and not in the equipment. If you listen for a difference, you'll hear it - it's as simple as that. And even decent ears are not needed for this.

So let’s see what would be involved in actually making this happen. Firstly I’d need to be able to imagine a deeper, wider soundstage, increased 3 dimensional specificity, greater timbral accuracy and information, increased pace, rhythm and timing, clearer, sweeter, purer treble, deeper more sonorous bass, increased musically correlated harmonics, greater air and ambience, a better rendition of the recording venue, greater intensity, increased emotional response, listener involvement and joy.   And I’d have to do all that day in and day out, with perfect reproducibility, across all recordings.  Doesn’t sounds like listening to music would be very relaxing, not with all that super skilled, high intensity brain activity going on. I could imagine that listening to music would be exhausting, more like writing a maths exam than sinking into a immersive soundscape and letting the music take over.  No, according to your hypothesis, my brain would be cooking.  

 

Actually, what I think is really going on is that some systems are so swamped in noise and other problems that small improvements cannot be picked out of all the noise and resulting loss of detail, so differences become minuscule, so small and insignificant that they could easily be imagined with very little effort. The result would then of course be doubt…is this change real or am I just imagining it? 

 

 

[Confused]

14 hours ago, One and a half said:

Apart from a physical connector issue, the SR-4 should be capable of supplying the RME with 12V @ 2A with ease.  You should hear a difference (for the better) right away.

I checked the SR-4 cable that I have, the connector was originally for an sMS-TX-USBultra. It looks identical in size to the RME connector, and it physically fits. So unless I am missing something subtle here, I am good to go.

[Confused]

8 hours ago, fas42 said:

No, it doesn't. I bought a reasonable Yamaha player, a CD-1050, from a pawnbroker once; and tried the -60dB test. What it told me was that one channel was down in linearity, but the other one was fine. The slightly poor one made some hashy noises, a bit like a tube guitar amp with the gain wound right up - but with normal material this weakness was completely inaudible.

How did you do an equivalent type -60dB test with a CD player? 

 

8 hours ago, fas42 said:

Yes, people say this all the time ... and then ignore anyone who doesn't follow the accepted lines of thinking, .

 

Personally, I do not ignore anyone who does does not accept the accepted lines of thinking, as long as the thinking they are describing is logical.

[Rexp]

5 hours ago, fas42 said:

Ummm, this is what it should sound like,

 

 

That's the album ...

Really? That hurts my golden ears.