 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
76.179.14.109
Hi John, sometimes I see your comments on here. I just read your article in Stereophile about Hanson Hsu. You mentioned quite the background for him. There was an upstart sub-woofer company in the early 80's started by a young grad of M.I.T. called HSU subwoofers.John,is this the same guy?...Thanks....Mark Korda
Follow Ups:
There's nothing upstart about Hsu Research nowadays. The are well established in the sub-woofer field and they now have a few speakers.
-----
"A fool and his money are soon parted." --- Thomas Tusser
> There was an upstart sub-woofer company in the early '80s started by a
> young grad of M.I.T. called HSU subwoofers...is this the same guy?
The Hsu subwoofer company, which is still in existence, was started by
Poh Ser Hsu, not Hanson Hsu.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Hanson Hsu's background is in Theater Tech and music PA. I have seen his resume and MIT is not on it.
Interesting guy, I was tickled that his DI list included a Colin Davis Messiah and some golden age Pavarotti. The Miles Gurtu pick is a great demo track.
Thanks for reading.
jm
There was not a lot of technical specification on why these particular acoustic treatments are different in their approach or implementation from any other acoustic treatment with the exception of some cryptic references to quantum (?) something, fractal mathematics, and chaos theory.
You just gonna let that cat sit in the box? Or are you going to peek inside?
Experience is a dim lamp, which only lights the one who bears it.
--Celine
Hi-
I thought I explained the "implementation" difference adequately; Hsu believes that the sound that diffuses to the rear of loudspeakers should be nipped in the bud. Obviously, if you are the proud owner of a new pair of Vivid K-1s, with two rear-firing woofers, there would have to be some discussions... . But I thought that within the space available, and in my explanation of my setup, I did cover that adequately.
The actual nature of the panels' construction under the fabric was opaque to me, as the panels were not mine to cut into. Mr. Hsu informed me that they are in the process of prosecuting one or more patent applications, and he told me that when that process got to a point where his rights will be protected, there will be a white paper.
I myself once filed a patent application that read:
"The object of the present invention is to eliminate the problem of greasy fingers encountered when eating ham slices right out of the wrapper, by employing a multiplicity of planar elements consisting of a quiescently baked leavened wheat-flour mixture... ."
Not.
ATB,
John
You did explain how they are set up differently, but not why.
I find it fascinating that items 1 1/4" deep are capable of affecting the frequency spectrum of 1hz to 160kHz.
It's a technological marvel, really.
And one that could be explored by the use of an SPL meter. Wouldn't that have been interesting?
Experience is a dim lamp, which only lights the one who bears it.
--Celine
You did explain how they are set up differently, but not why.
I find it fascinating that items 1 1/4" deep are capable of affecting the frequency spectrum of 1hz to 160kHz.
It's a technological marvel, really.
And one that could be explored by the use of an SPL meter. Wouldn't that have been interesting?
Experience is a dim lamp, which only lights the one who bears it.
--Celine
The human being himself, to the extent that he makes sound use of his senses, is the most exact physical apparatus that can exist.
Goethe, Scientific Studies
jm
I carefully repeated Mr. Hsu's claims while not endorsing them, and then I added a little irony from Shakespeare that I guess was lost on a lot of people.
I did report on my subjective impression, but anyone who thinks that a 30-year old or even older Radio Shack analog swinging-needle meter could determine anything under those conditions is grabbing a security blanket.
If you are in the market for panels, you can consider Mr. Hsu's products or not, as pleases you.
jm
Well, I guess you are correct, a product that jabs its thumb in the eye of physics would probably defy measurement anyway.
Do they make quantum fractal chaos meters?
Experience is a dim lamp, which only lights the one who bears it.
--Celine
"a product that jabs its thumb in the eye of physics"
Here's an idea... pretend it was your job to design to those Specs. and contemplate what you would do.
I think the rub it they said it "controls" down to one Hz or something along that line. I certainly could design a box that would do that, can't you? First-off words without quantifiers are babble, AKA Marketing-Speak. So how would you build something that would affect it to any degree. Well, an empty oatmeal box with the lid taped on and a pin-hole in the lid would exert some "control" at 1Hz. It's just a damper. The electrical analogy is an RC circuit with the resistor the pin hole and the capacitor the volume of the container. It might work even better to leave some of the oats inside, a broader band damper and rodent food dispenser.
You don't need resonance to achieve power loss.
Rick
I believe what you are proposing is a helmholtz resonator, but that type of trap would be tuned to a particular frequency and not have the stated bandwidth except with a greater degree of variation in construction than is described by this product in question.
And I am not saying its impossible to treat these frequencies, just that this product is bending a lot of rules to do so and, given their size and shape, would require a lot of novel and new design to do so that I am not familiar with.
And I am under the impression that the description of how the design is accomplished happens to go beyond marketing-speak into pseudo science.
Now, Mr. Marks is saying that this doesn't matter. He installed them and they had some effect, he's happy and thinks you should purchase them too. End of story.
And I think it calls into question what the reviewers responsibility is in reviewing and recommending a product and what Stereophile's editorial policy is in this regard.
Experience is a dim lamp, which only lights the one who bears it.
--Celine
How do they defy the laws of physics? You don't even know what is in them.
It has to do with their placement flush to the wall and quarter wave theory for controlling frequencies.
In his 2014 column where he recommended them he states that they affect frequencies from 1Hz to 160kHz.
So, you would think in the time between that column's publication and the most recent, it could have been better explained beyond a rehash of vague references to 'Quantum' and 'Mandelbrotian realities' which don't do much to aid the reader in his or he decision to purchase said panels or clarify how they have gotten around conventional acoustic theory.
And your point that I don't know what is in them is extremely valid and part of why I questioned Mr Marks on the subject. But apparently he doesn't know either. The difference between he and I at the moment seems to be that he doesn't care and doesn't feel it necessary to know in order to evaluate the product. And my pointing this out is apparently a hostile act.
And I quote from Mr. Marks' column from 2014:
"Their audacious claims for their ZR Acoustics room treatments (patent pending) include that the acoustical panels, which range in thickness from 3/4" to about 4", can control sound in a range from 1Hz all the way up to three octaves above the range of human hearing, ca 160kHz.
Obviously, such claims fly in the face of conventional "quarter-wave theory." Designer-inventor Hanson Hsu says that his mission is to drag architectural acoustics away from the Newtonian billiard-ball model and base it instead on quantum and Mandelbrotian realities. DHDI's technique for radically increasing the number of nonparallel surfaces in a panel "employs fractal and tessellation mathematics hybridized with chaos theory." "
Experience is a dim lamp, which only lights the one who bears it.
--Celine
First of all I have to confess a moment of dyslexia. For whatever reason I was seeing 160 Hz to 1 kHz and thought a panel trap of that thickness if properly designed actually may be able to handle absorbing in those frequencies. But 1 Hz to 160 kHz? I have to agree with you. This does seem to be beyond what physics allows for absorption using a panel of those dimensions.
I think your skepticism of the manufacturer's claims are well warranted.
jm
And you bought the review samples no doubt...
Experience is a dim lamp, which only lights the one who bears it.
--Celine
In the worlds of art, rare books, fine wine, and wooden boats, I don't run into the constant carping, paranoia, and suspicion I read on AA and elsewhere.
Sad.
john marks
PS: The reader responses to my previous column on the lost Oistrakh master tapes were uniformly civil and educated. I must point that out in the interest of fairness.
# # #
Much has to do w/ false advertising-JM.
I'm not sure I see any paranoia here. In the world of art, rare books and fine wine value and quality are subjective. In the world of acoustics a claim that an acoustic panel has an effect from 1 Hz to 160 kHz is not subjective. It's objectively testable. It is also a rather dubious claim. That isn't a paranoid POV. That is a POV that comes from a basic knowledge of the physics of acoustics.
Also when any manufacturer of acoustic treatments starts talking about moving from Newtonian physics to quantum physics it should be a huge red flag for anyone with even a basic knowledge of Newtonian physics and quantum physics. There are no discernible effects of quantum physics in room acoustics. It is for ALL practical purposes a purely Newtonian issue.
It is not paranoia to call B.S. when the smell of it is so pungent.
The problem with what you wrote is that what you call the "world of acoustics" is the conventional 1980s world of tube traps, corner tunes, diffusers, abfusers and such. There is nothing inherently wrong with coming up with a "new physics" if that's what he Hsu did and certainly nothing wrong with taking advantage of quantum physics if one can. Have you never heard of SteinMusic Harmonizer or the Red X Coordinate Pen or the Intelligent Chip or clever little clock? LOL You do realize quantum physics is 80 years old, no? People still believe quantum physics is relegated to the infinitely small, for example. Lol. When you state that Newtonian Physics applies to macro world phenomenon what you really mean is that we *perceive* it as Newtonian but it's still actually quantum. The lines between classical Newtonian physics and Quantum Physics and between classical physics and Relativistic physics are not well defined. There is no fine demarcation line between them. A car moving at 60 miles an hour only appears to obey Newton but actually is obeying Einstein. It's only a convenience that we say it's Newtonian. That's kind of the whole point of what happened - it was a paradigm shift and Einstein actually buried Newton! Hel-loo!
Edits: 03/23/15
The laws of physics have not changed since the 1980s. There is something very inherently wrong with *claiming* one has come up with new physics when it comes to acoustics. that being it would be bullshit. Nothing has changed since the 80s when it comes to the laws of physics. If you don't think so just go out on a freeway and when you get hit by a truck get back to us and tell us how quantum physics saved you from the effects of Newtonian physics.
I see. You think we know all there is to know about physics. That I actually believe. That's kind of my whole point. I rest my case.
Where did I say we know all there is to know about physics? You are resting your case on a series of logical flaws. If you think you can make a case for quantum mechanics having an audible effect on room acoustics please go for it. but let's keep it scientific please.
To say that physics is the same as it was in the 1980 s is equivalent to saying we have not learned anything new since then. Physics as a field of study is dedicated to uncovering reality. Thus physics is continually changing. It is reality that hasn't changed, only our understanding of it. I use the word "our" editorially. Lol I encourage you to make a trip to your local library and check out some books on Logic. As I sell room acoustics products that are quantum mechanical in nature I suspect I'm a better judge than you are as to whether quantum mechanical devices can or cannot affect the sound. I have at least three such products. I could mention the Ultra Tweeters, they're another example of a quantum mechanical device that affects the room acoustics.
Edits: 03/23/15
well maybe we have a misunderstanding here. When *I* say that "physics hasn't changed since the 80s" I am talking about the actual laws of physics not our understanding of them. No point in getting bogged down in semantics. If you want to call it "reality" instead of the "physics" just go back and replace the word "physics" with reality in my posts because that is what I was talking about.
But let's get back to the physics of room acoustics since we are talking specifically about room acoustics. I would assert that we haven't learned anything new since the 80s about the fundamental nature of the physics of room acoustics. We have certainly developed better tools for analysis and are better at measuring and modelling room acoustics largely due to the improved computing power of CADs.But those tools all still rely on our pre 1980s understanding of room acoustics. There are no studies that I know of showing anything that would suggest room acoustics as they pertain to human hearing is governed by anything other than well known Newtonian principles. Princilples that have been well known since before the 80s.
If you have anything scientific to offer that runs contrary to that assertion I'd love to see it. Any new body of verifiable evidence. Any new studies. Any new theories that have been published in peer reviewed scientific journals. I would be very interested in reading about it.
But the physical laws governing room acoustics really are as basic to physics as all other Newtonian laws. For most **practical purposes** they are all we need and the evidence in support is pretty conclusive. Are there quantum fluctuations happening in every listening room? Yeah, of course, billions and billions of them. Are they affecting the audible acoustics of a listening room? No.
Again, if you have something with scientific substance that says otherwise I'd love to read about it.
Thanks for lecture, but I am the theoretical physicist in this discussion. And I have been designing quantum mechanical devices for ten years. One need look no further than the humble CD laser for an example of an audio related quantum mechanical device. As I already said, I have at least three quantum mechanical audio products. You can hide your head in the sand all you want. Schroedinger's cat is actually intended to illustrate how quantum mechanics on a micro scale affects reality on macro scale. Your belief that quantum mechanics is somehow relegated to the infinitesimally small is a common misconception. There is no fine line between quantum physics and classical physics. How small can something really be and still affect the sound seems like an excellent title for a new thread. Lol
Edits: 03/24/15
I asked for some real science and all you give me was posturing. I'd ask again for some real science but I know you don't have any.
Cia
And you accuse me of posturing. I haven't read such posturing jibber jabber in a long time. Fact is, some if my products don't even operate by physics, more like mind matter interaction and or biology. So your demands fir physics explanations are kind of a Strawman Argument. See my response to Rick, the one that defines the de Broglie wavelength, that's as good a place to start as any, science wise and quantum mechanics wise. I'm not sure why you're getting all worked up as quantum mechanical audio devices have been around like forever, even ones for room acoustics. What's your hang up?
Edits: 03/24/15 03/24/15 03/24/15
Your products are a fraud. Your business is a sham. This isn't about you are your scamming. It's about the physics of room acoustics. Your act is really way too old and really quite messed up.
Ah, playing the old personal attack card, eh? Wow, you ran out of ammo in a hurry this time. Just like old times. Lol. Since you aren't able to discuss physics without having a hiss fit can I suggest you go put some makeup on a goat?The more things change the more they stay the same. Old audiophile expression.
;-)
Edits: 03/25/15 03/25/15 03/25/15
I haven't made any personal attacks. I tried to engage you in a discussion on the physics of room acoustics and as usual you balked. What personal attacks have I made?
Edits: 03/25/15
"There is no fine line between quantum physics and classical physics. How small can something really be and still affect the sound seems like an excellent title for a new thread. Lol"
Yea! Well put!
I read a neat opinion a while back, unfortunately I don't recall where, that if the equation needs Boltzmann's constant then you are at the "quantum level".
Perhaps that the closest thing to an answer there can be. My world is one of "simplifying assumptions". What makes traditional engineering work is knowing what you can "safely" ignore. Naturally as our technology and understanding have improved it's practical to ignore less than it was fifty years ago, but the threshold just shifts, it's still there.
Continuity is a judgement, not the way of the universe. But we try to work around it...
Rick
Well, while Boltzman's constant is kind of the right idea it's actually the de Broglie wavelength that determines the transition point from classical physics and quantum physics for things like CD lasers and the Intelligent Chip and many other things. Thus, when a particle, e.g. Electron is confined I,e., trapped, in an enclosed space with dimensions less than about 50 atomic diameters (10 nanometers) it can no longer move as a particle but MUST move as a wave. And photons emitted in this case must be coherent, I.e. Waves. Thus the CD laser is an example of photons acting only as waves. So is the Intelligent Chip, I.e. Quantum dots.
Edits: 03/24/15
"Boltzman's constant is kind of the right idea"
Perhaps it was Planck's constant, that would make more sense. I'm reading a book on thermodynamics and have Boltzmann on the brain. And it's not a pretty picture...
Could you recommend further reading re. the trapped electron business?
TNX, Rick
They don't call it "nanotechnology" for nothing. Forget Planck's constant and Boltzman's constant. The scale you're looking for is on the order of 10-9 meters. Make sense? That's what the de Broglie wavelength is all about. Google quantum confinement. That's where the effects take place. But as schroedinger wisely pointed out quantum mechanics reaches to the macro. That's kind of the whole point.Big things have small beginnings. - Prometheus
Edits: 03/25/15 03/25/15
"But as schroedinger wisely pointed out quantum mechanics reaches to the macro. That's kind of the whole point.
And that's just what I wish to understand!
Thanks for the pointer.
Rick
Look out! Rick is on the move!
As it stands your article provides no more information regarding this product than the manufacturers website and you seem reluctant to provide any beyond "sounds good to me" nor do I sense that you feel any obligation to.
Experience is a dim lamp, which only lights the one who bears it.
--Celine
Bad stereo's ........ :)
nt
You're Welcome.
Miles/Gurtu is very nice but a touch synthetic in several spots. Robert Miles seems to like to do a digital noise/overdrive thing from time to time. Triloks CD's on the CMP label are great too. Actually they all are. The Glimpse is astounding. Robert Miles Organik and Organik remixes have some of the biggest sound stage/stereo image I've ever heard. His recordings are however EXTREMELY compressed. Only proves a compressed recording can sound good.The two are top ten for me w/Trilok my number one favorite musician.
E
T
Edits: 03/14/15
Post a Followup:
| FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
