Cables & Accessory Reviews

....and cue the beginning of the argument between those who think AS is *not* the place to publish glowing reviews of ridiculous and absurdly overpriced tweaks and those who think that anyone who criticizes these tweaks is a narrow-minded fool whose myopic refusal to acknowledge the possibility that such tweaks create "jaw-dropping'" and "toe-tapping" differences in one's system means that one is not serious about our shared hobby!

Objectively, that the two reviews S Plaskin has posted to AudioStream feature incredibly expensive and dubious fringe products made by the same company strikes me as a curious editorial decision.

Subjectively, so much of the review strikes me as wonderful satire penned by John Cleese or Michael Palin that I don't even know where to start...

Finally, I would happily choose to pay *no attention* to this review were it not for its having been awarded a Greatest Bits, something that I've learned to pay attention to if awarded by Michael.

Michael, I'm sure I speak for many AS readers when I write that I've learned to trust your POV (been reading your thoughts on hifi since your days with 6 Moons) and would pay cash money to read your take on the Synergistic Research products.

You have folks who pay serious money for gear with no tone controls as they "might add something to the sound", and then this? There must be some folks who think that mastering engineers really don't know what they are doing(and often when I can't understand what a vocalist is saying, I would agree) and folks will spend serious money doing what many of us hated what the Bose 901's did. But, I don't mind people doing what makes than happy with their hard earned money as long as no children or woodland animals are hurt.

press release not a review. SR must be thrilled to get such incredible free advertising on this site for every product it releases.

The part that really gets me is the 4-5 second warm-up period. What could possibly be the physics of that?

Apologies to Mr. Dylan. Guess I'm not skeptical that the Atmosphere is having an effect, it's just whether the effect ameliorates rather than simply alters room "problems". If we all live with the RF issues both in creation as well as reproduction of sound, why mess with that? I might go for the device if it was doing nothing more than expanding the soundstage, given the limitations of my room. But that's about all. Guess I'll just have to bring it in-house for a trial.

Lead 'designer'? Is that what they call him? Lead witch doctor, more like.

Doesn't he KNOW that most of our equipment is in metal grounded boxes and the cables are screened? Course he does, but he is hoping we don't.

"A fool and his money" etc. This sort of stuff is what makes expensive 'High Fidelity' a total joke among sane electronic engineers.

He'd better not trying promoting that garbage in the UK. Our Advertising Standards Authority' will soon finish him off. And our 'Weights and Measures' will bury him. (If you don't know things both of those outfits know things for you.)

With all due 'respect', remember how John Atkinson, Plaskin, et et all make at least some of their living, even if they don't necessarily get paid by Audiostream.

And even if not paid at all they still get the 'fame'.

By 'reviewing things'. IE - keeping the audio pot boiling. That is ALL they are doing and why they do it. It doesn't have to be about sensible things like the recently reviewed Primare, the 'fame' and possible money works just the same

Low Frequency 'RF' generator? No. The antenna would literally have to be TENS OF MILES long at the stated frequency, and at the stated power you would have to be within inches of ALL of it. And you aren't tall enough :). They use such things at a MUCH higher 'Very Low Radio Frequency' to send messages to underwater nuclear submarines and the antenna are vast. (And their frequency will of course use a shorter antenna than this thing needs.)

A 'Who knows most about submarines and Faraday cages' competition is pointless anyway. He is not claiming anything about screening, as far as one can tell from the gibberish, he claims it's 'psychoacoustic' and both you and me have said aren't going to buy it.

He's aiming at the -

"It works, trust me. Give me your 2000 dollars" crowd. I'm not one of those and neither are you :)

Unless I'm wrong, this would seem the first "active" product from SR in terms of direct user control. Though I don't think that's a bad thing in and of itself (we all have to fiddle with the volume control from recording to recording with given differing sound levels) it would seem an odd thing to muck around affecting sound stage, and other attributes, from album to album, that were originally determined by the recording engineers, etc. I'd call it the Baskin Robbins of music listening. Many of us who call ourselves audiophiles generally are trying to fix problems in the playback system and room, rather than alter what the artist may have wanted in reproduction.

I don't know if you tested this in conjunction with SR's HFT/FEQ products in your room, but it would seem that this is a bit of an FEQ on steroids. As I recall Ted described the FEQ as "A low frequency pulse generator that acts as an RF dither for RF and EM noise in a listening room or space". So this takes thing much further.

SR has certainly come a long way from a cable company "Your Cable for Life".

There is a lot of discussion(?)above about this device/product, but as far as I can surmise no one can speak from the experience point of view...actually hearing it in an active, working system.

This morning I had the opportunity to "audition" the Atmosphere with the ATM. For full disclosure, I heard it at Steve Plaskin's home, in his system. I have known Steve for many years, and have been involved in "high end" audio for more than 4 decades. Steve invited me over to experience, the product/device, and run it through it's paces. I had not talked with him about it in any significant way, had not read his review, nor had I any other knowledge about it (including claimed abilities, what it was supposed to do, etc.) It was a guy coming into a listening session with absolutely no preconceived expectation. Steve merely invited me over to listen to some music...and listen to how his system currently "sounds". This is not unusual as I am invited over periodically for a listen.

So what did I think, let me say, without hesitation or equivocation, that the Atmosphere + ATM is a remarkable product. It absolutely "works". It absolutely had an effect on my perception of the music, on the presentation of the music, and on my listening experience. It is not subtle, and it is not hard to hear or discern. In my opinion, any audiophile would here the effects.

And I liked it...a lot. Now, whether others will like the various effects is another matter. That is so often the point of argument. But, rest assured whether one likes the various presentations or not, the audible changes are there. I listened to a wide range of music over a couple of hours before I read any of the notes attached to the scenes. If one wants to have an idea of what it does, read the notes. In my opinion, and experience, they are well articulated and accurately reflect what I heard.

Also, in my experience, I had no sense that the device "fixes" problems created by one's playback system or corrects for room problems. It is not like, for example, the Dirac Room Correction programs. It simply changes presentation of the music to ones choice within the various options...and it does it flawlessly. The interface with the iPad program was seamless.

Before all you naysayers start throwing bricks at me, I have no vested interest in the success or failure of this product. I am just reporting what I experienced and I heard. I don't know how it actually works, but it does. And again, does so beautifully.

Regarding the cost - benefit ratio, that is for the individual to decide. For me, given what I have spent on hardware, tweaks, devices, etc., over the years, I find it, for what it does in comparison to many other things I have bought, not totally out of the ballpark.

I would say, throw away any preconceived notions (if you are able) and do yourself a favor and audition it. If nothing else, it is fun to play with and to experiment with the various presentations.

In speaking with Ted or Peter at SR did you get the impression that the Red ATM, and others in the works, will be room specific, or in some fashion system specific? Given that the ATM seems to be a passive device, I'd expect you'd not have a mix, nor more than one "working" at a time.

Maybe I'm putting the cart before the horse, given that the combinations and permutations need quite a bit of testing before guidance is forthcoming.

The Red ATM is not specific to any room. It just adds 4 scenes (settings) with additional advanced settings.

The ATM has 2 functions. The first is that it unlocks the 4 scenes associated with it. The other is that it is a big HFT and also improves the sound. Once the scenes are unlocked, they don't depend on the ATM. I don't see why you couldn't have multiple ATMs with multiple scenes.

Future ATMs will offer features for room specifics' so I've been told.

My friend really was impressed the Atmosphere. I gave a few demos and then just let him play with the thing.

OK.

Suppose this works as advertised - some kind of (ultra) low-frequency RF generator. Presumably it's quite powerful to suppress the stray RF in the room otherwise and potent enough to create perceptual change.

Since it "psychoacoustically" changes what is perceived according to testimony from Mr. Plaskin, Atkinson, and bjeff1 above, then one must assume that it changes the auditory signals from the ears (either the middle ear or the cochlea) or neuronal signals to the brain or the brain processing of sound itself.

I'm curious then how has it been determined that such a device that is capable of *perceptual change* has been safe for human use? Has the FCC or IEEE signed off on this device in terms of electromagnetic safety?

I'd be concerned about sitting in the room in close proximity to this device for hours, or having kids wander around the vacinity if this thing could somehow be unsafe especially for longterm use! Surely there must be some agency looking into this kind of atypical technology... Was this addressed by the documentation?

I did not receive any documentation. This is a good question and should be directed to Synergistic.

"Maybe he should show is that there is indeed a problem. Even if we believe his feelings, we really have no idea that this thing makes the sound better. It's just different. You may like the difference, but who to say it's any more accurate?"

Ahh, just what makes you or anybody think that "more accurate" is always the goal? Certainly, the recording engineers do all sorts of things that vary greatly from accurate. Much of the gear that people actually seem to like well enough to buy and listen to varies from "accurate". Accurate is just one approach to something that "sounds good". It may not even be the best way, at least for everybody. If liking the difference and how it sounds isn't what this is about, well, I'm not sure what is.

In addition, this is a review. That is to say, a subjective examination of how one reviewer likes the product and the associated sound. It isn't supposed to be journalism, any more than a review of that new restaurant is.

As to the RF exposure limit, that's a really good question. I don't believe ANSI specifies any exposure requirements at all for any radiation below 3 KHz. Many of the standards don't cover below 300 KHz. Based on the size of the power supply for this particular product, it's hard to imagine that the radiated power is even as high as a cell phone or a wireless tablet or keyboard that you might have sitting in your lap. Still, it's an interesting question. The same could be asked about Ethernet cables and wires carrying DSL signals, too. Either nobody has considered this, it was investigated and deemed not to be an issue, or the same sort of people who say nothing like this could affect your perception of sound have dismissed it.

Again, I have no opinion about how well or even whether this product works other than the subjective reports provided by some observers. An awful lot of people seem to get terribly hot under the collar over things that aren't explained to their satisfaction, though.

I wonder, is it more like my noise-canceling headphones, where it "listens to" the ambient radio frequencies, and then broadcasts a phase-inverted version, to cancel them out? Or, does it work like my air purifier, and absorb all the radio frequencies into itself? Enquiring minds want to know.

It is true that occasionally amps and speakers will hum if there's noise on the power line. Thus, a clean power supply makes sense. But, that's not how this thing works. It's canceling out RF that's ambient in the room. To think that the ambient radiofrequencies are strong enough to distort the signal seems a stretch. Except for distortions that are plainly audible, like cell phones used to give off, the ambient RF is bound to be orders of magnitude smaller than the signal in the music.

But, that's irrelevant because if stray RF did have an impact, the fix isn't more RF, of any type. The fix is grounded shielding.

One more possibility - is the device actually emitting sound? Remember stochastic resonance theory? The idea that a little bit of noise can actually boost the perception of a signal? Are we sure this thing is dead silent on its own?

If somebody sent me one of these for a few weeks, I'd sit there and A/B/X it - I'd have a pal turn the system off and on, and I'd try to guess whether it was on. If I could guess reliably (and if I preferred it on - even a little bit), I'd buy it.

I wonder if the company offers a 100% money back guarantee? Or, would they loan me one? Is somebody out there willing to give it a try? Steven, maybe you can convince the company to loan it to you so you and a friend can a/b/x it.

I don't think he says it is distorting the RF. Nor absorbing it.

From what I can vaguely make out from the gibberish his box is distorting our heads.

If this works through manipulating the RF fields in the room, then someone should be able to use an RF probe and oscilloscope or an RF detector and computer screen to show what the electromagnetic field looks like in the room with the device off, and then in each of its different settings. I'd suggest an RF probe, since if this works through manipulating the EM field, it would work through its effect through the RF modifying signals in the wires and electrical components of the sound system (because RF has to be received by something), not on space or air. Or through its effect on the electrical fields generated in the grey matter of the meat puppets doing the listening... which I'd find alarming.

Seems to me that it's a very simple and objective way to see if there's anything going on with field manipulation. If there are visible perturbations, if audio signals running through cables look measurably different when the device is present and on than when it's not present and off, and if the signals are changed differently in the different modes, then skepticism about the device gets a hard nudge to the side. Something real will have been proven to be occurring - now the debate becomes whether that's effective, and not whether an effect exists.

This leaves open, however, the potential health effects. There's a fair amount of literature on health problems in people who work around strong RF or magnetic fields, or around ones that operate in certain ranges. I'd think twice - no, a dozen or more times - before adding to my personal electromagnetic absorption load.

It seems to me that although a lot of folks have protested with varying degrees of volume, nobody has actually offered any more reason why this can't work than Synergistic Research has offered why it can work. Less, in fact. Perhaps some time on a dunking stool or attached to a large wooden stake surrounded by flames would be in order for the people (I guess there's more than one) at Synergistic Research. That'll determine the truth, by gum!

I'm not sure what to think of people's reactions myself...

It does appear that a big complaint is not the accuracy of the claims but the adequacy of them. There's lots of reasons why a vendor of anything might not offer up complete detailed white papers jury reviewed by a thousand peers over their product.

1. Trade secrecy

2. They feel the explanation is too complicated

3. The product is based on experimental work where the functioning isn't well understood

4. None of the above

Of course, I don't know which of these is true. I suspect almost nobody reading this review and the follow on comments does either.

The same is true about the level of RF (if that is indeed what is happening) and their effects of health. Nobody here knows what frequency this operates at or its level. If it's sub-100 Hz, then I bet the mains power has a far larger field strength than this product. Antennas everywhere, too. (Maybe that's not healthy, either...) If it's higher than 300 KHz, then it is subject to regulation by the FCC and OSHA. This is a real question.

Whether this product is effective is a different question. So far, we've read about a total of five people who have tried it and commented. Every one has had positive things to say. Are they all liars or crazy? Perhaps. Will everyone find the product helpful? Doubtful. To start, there's lots of people who don't a rat's kestrel about listening to music in the first place.

I'm being dumb commenting about this, aren't I? I'm just adding to the noise. Nobody's minds will be swayed one bit, will they?

Atmosphere operates at the Earth’s Schumann resonance and harmonics which are below regulated frequencies at an output below regulated signal strength. To put its output in perspective a child's remote control transmitter, cell phones, WiFi and FM broadcasts are all output at far higher levels and frequencies than Atmosphere's natural signal. If anyone is seriously worried about Atmosphere’s relatively weak RF transmission (and not merely looking for something to complain about), they should first think about replacing their cell phone with a cup and string.

As to signal neutrality or remaining true to the recorded event our internal research shows that all systems and indeed the listening experience are always affected by radio frequencies whether you use Atmosphere, or not. The use of Atmosphere merely enables you to take control of your RF environment to both eliminate bad sounding days while custom tailoring the sound of your system to best compliment your favorite recordings and personal preferences.

Yours in music,
Ted Denney
Lead Designer, Synergistic Research Inc.

I must be one lucky guy. My room is little effected by RFI at least relative to using a level 5 HFT/FEQ setup (that's engaging or disengaging the FEQ). Seems that the Atmosphere, like the FEQ, is operating within the the same electromagnetic spectrum, just at a more pronounced level. So, that leaves me wondering a bit more as to how the Atmosphere and associated ATM operate to alter the system sound. I gather that internally, via the software control, the app is reshaping the spectra and its output. Am I in the ballpark on this? And I'm assuming that for those of us using the FEQ, it might be best to relocate that to say, the rear of the room, while bringing the Atmosphere to the FEQ's prior location. Suspect you'll have more info/docs on the SR website on how to deploy this technology, especially as new ATM's come about.

The app apparently changes the frequencies generated by Atmosphere.

Peter Hansen of Synergistic suggested a side wall placement of the FEQ, but your rear wall suggestion sounds very interesting.

I haven't tried putting back the FEQ into service, but maybe in a day or two. And yes, the Atmosphere would take the position of your FEQ.

We don't have to prove it doesn't work (proof of negatives is logically impossible anyway), they have to prove it does. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".
And Steven saying it's ok isn't that.

Trade secrecy?
"Trust me, send your 2000 dollars"

The article (not Steven's comments) is complete and utter gibberish. It is such rubbish you can't even tell how it is SUPPPOSED to work. They probably did that on purpose.

And we haven't forgot their 'quantum cables'. They claimed they had a machine that introduced 'quantum effects'. Oh Yeah? Go convince Edward Teller. Even the somewhat weird 'Computer Audiophile' and its minute clique of active posters laughed at it (not 'officially' of course).

At least Shunyata has got the honesty to name its cables after snakes :)

I had. And I don't like things being "All about my opinion" anyway. But with your comments, based on a total lack of knowledge of how it 'works', and the other posters 'blind faith' in how wonderful it 'might' be and telling the non-faithful to 'prove' it doesn't work I feel my last and final comment on these hucksters (as demonstrated more than once before this gizmo appeared) was justified.

Note I'm staying off criticism of the box itself. But you don't know how it works, if it does, I don't, and it appears that the designer doesn't either as he in effect gave two different 'explanations' to you, one 'suppressing the RF' and another 'psychoacoustic'.

His 'explanation' to John Atkinson is different again. He goes on about the 'ionosphere' to him. John also said that so much was going on it was difficult to tell what was what.

And note that John Atkinson, who appears somewhat unconvinced ("I remain skeptical") by the 'explanation' he got, says that to emit RF at that low frequency would need "An antenna the size of a small country, not a 40 inch tall box." which is basically the same as I said.

So what have we got?
1)From known physics it can't emit the low frequency RF claimed. And we do know quite a lot about radio in 2015.
2)Such low frequency RF won't affect our other boxes. John or the 'follow up' guy said so and it coincides with my professional knowledge.
3)As it can't emit any RF at the frequency stated it can't affect our 'perception'.
4)The designer either doesn't know how it works or won't tell. It certainly doesn't work in the way his 'explanations' say it does.

I'm glad you said it was NOT a 'review' by you. A review is "It goes 180 mph, it's painted red, it's noisy, and the seats are uncomfortable and it's bumpy and very cramped and you can't see out the back etc". IE - mainly fact, much of it not from the manufacturrs literature. NOT "I liked the difference it made".

You mention 'wide latititude'.

1) Are we allowed to express our unfavorable opinions or is the site just a manufacturers party?
2) I'm not charging 2000 dollars.

"Are we allowed to express our unfavorable opinions or is the site just a manufacturers party?"

You have to be kidding.

I'm moving away from this particular 'piece' now. But as the several posts than do NOT say 'Awesome' when prompted are criticized or some attempt is made at refuting them or asking for 'proof' of their objections one might, and I say only 'might' wonder.

I do of course fully understand that the magazines and the manufactures feed off each other. No HiFi other than the stuff so often (but not here) sneering referred to as 'high street' or 'purchased by the great unwashed' would NEVER BE SOLD if it was not for the magazines, paper or online. (Though we do have the Naim Mu-so (only) in ONE British department store chain.) And we are ALL 'the man in the street' when not actually working, aren't we?

We are a VERY small and fringe population. Far more so even than my radio controlled model planes. And dubious 'tweak' stuff is a 'fringe of a fringe'. It's like the small outfits selling imitation carbon fiber indicators at motorcycle shows.

Regards, none of this is directed at you or Michael.

As someone who has purchased Synergistic products in the past, and who has a Atmosphere and ATM on preorder, I have always found them to work as advertised and as Steven’s well done reviews have stated. One big plus was that they worked with each other by building upon the other. Back a few months ago when I purchased my FEQ I specifically asked if the Atmosphere with ATM, which was in the works, would work with the FEQ and was told that they used “different” technology and would work “together“ with each other and not make the FEQ obsolete in my system. Putting it off to the side does sound like the FEQ effect is so reduced by the ATM it might as well be obsolete in a system that uses both, so I’m very curious as to what you find out Steven, as this playing together may not be the case as with the other products and from what I was told. Let’s see if Ted Denney or Peter Hansen of Synergistic have a comment on this for us FEQ and future Atmosphere and ATM users, but I have a strong feeling I should have waited.

Eltonnotjohn you state "...he (me) in effect gave two different 'explanations' to you, one 'suppressing the RF' and another 'psychoacoustic'"

Eltonnotjohn where exactly did I state (provide links) Atmosphere 'suppresses RF' or use the word 'psychoacoustic' to describe Atmosphere?

"His 'explanation' to John Atkinson is different again. He goes on about the 'ionosphere' to him"

Where exactly did I cite the ionosphere? Provide links but I'll give you a clue, that was JA's correct narrative to explain the Schumann resonance to Stereophile readers.

As to our signal generator not being able to produce the ULF and LF frequencies we claim, this is simply not true; you have absolutely zero evidence to back your claims nor do you have any experience with Atmosphere. You do however seem to have an inordinate amount of time to Troll a subjective review which begs the question, why? In my experience only a crazy person would devote the kind of time you have spent here unless you've got skin in the game? Clearly I'm not hiding behind a fake sock puppet name Mr. "Eltonnotjohn"

As to John Atkinson not being sure or unclear regarding what he heard while listening to Atmosphere...

"Ted played music on the Mola Mola/Eclipse/Luxman system with the Atmosphere turned on, to get listeners used to the sound, which was indeed excellent. He then turned off the Atmosphere and to my shock, given my skepticism about Ted's claims, the sound did indeed get worse, the soundstage shrinking and a hard edge appearing to midrange sounds. WTF!?!?! My world tilted a little"

"Still in a state of shock—I knew what I had heard..."

-John Atkinson, Stereophile
http://www.stereophile.com/content/rmaf-2014-john-atkinson-wraps-his-wre...

Clearly John Atkinson knew exactly what and was not unclear regarding Atmosphere's affect on the sound of the system.

Lastly I am only responding to you in order to set the record straight for anyone who might mistake your ramblings for fact. SR users know full well the validity of SR products and it is for their sake that I am responding here. I am not in the habit of wasting time with likes of you any more than I would engage anyone who claims the USA did not land on the moon, or that the world is flat.

Yours in music,
Ted Denney
Lead Designer, Synergistic Research Inc.

Don you will not be disappointed when adding Atmosphere and ATM to your system. When combining Atmosphere with an FEQ you simply need to move your FEQ to a side wall between your listening position and your speakers with Atmosphere now taking the FEQ's previous center stage position. To verify the fact FEQ and Atmosphere work well together simply remove the FEQ once you have listened to both and you'll quickly return the FEQ to its new position in your listening room.

Yours in music,
Ted Denney
Lead Designer, Synergistic Research Inc.

An engineer friend sent me this information concerning John Atkinson's comments about the size of the antenna:

From Eltonnotjohn:

"And note that John Atkinson, who appears somewhat unconvinced ("I remain skeptical") by the 'explanation' he got, says that to emit RF at that low frequency would need "An antenna the size of a small country, not a 40 inch tall box." which is basically the same as I said."

Correct information:

A little antenna theory for you...

One of the most efficient antenna designs uses radiating elements that are one half wavelength long at the operating frequency. Radio hams know that. A variation of that is a quarter wavelength vertical antenna worked against a ground screen, which "makes up" the missing quarter wavelength.

But, antennas need not be resonant to radiate. At all. Resonance just implies a particular radiation pattern and helpful feed point impedance. Off resonance, antennas work just fine, but have reactive (capacitive or inductive) components in addition to purely resistive. So, they are harder to impedance match. If you can match them well, you still have the question of efficiency. That has to do the current levels and the use of actual conductors (like copper) that aren't superconductive. Those are just lossy.

If you can get past that, a theoretical isotropic antenna - one that radiates equally in all directions - has about 2.15 dB less gain than a lossless half wavelength dipole antenna. You can't get much smaller than an isotropic antenna either - it's a point source.

So, that aspect is not really right and to the point.

In a way, this should be somewhat obvious based on practical experience. Do some products with transformers cause hum in other pieces of gear? That’s 60 Hz, where a “real antenna” (dipole) is about 10 times shorter than a dipole for this Schumann resonance frequency - only about 1500 miles long. Are they attached to antennas that long??

The whole point of the Schumann resonance is that it is the size of the resonator created by the cavity between the Earth’s surface and the ionosphere. Pretty large…

Of course, I don’t know anything about how this affects perception of sound. It seems to be an area that most credentialed experts steer clear of. Maybe they don’t want to deal with internet experts.

I did find this, though: http://acousticalsociety.org/sites/default/files/docs/echoes/v5n3.pdf

It’s about another very low frequency phenomenon. It was researched by a guy who used to head of some group at Bell Labs and was then a professor in New Mexico. The other was a professor in the health department. The article was published in the Acoustical Science of America whatever, hardly a New Age group. They just shrugged their shoulders after a rigorous test and said, “beats us!” I’m sure something like this can be nit-picked to death and declared to be impossible. But, that’s crap, too. Unexplained is not the same as impossible, much to the chagrin of so many of these proponents of DBT and that sort of thing.

Concerning testing of the Atmosphere:

The guys who are demanding rigorous testing of all this probably aren’t willing to shell out the $25K for a suitable spectrum analyzer (I looked it up) or even just the rental of a suitable test facility for even a half day at over a thousand bucks. Nor the price of suitable analysts to run the gear and make the test. Not to mention whatever it might take to determine what the actual affect on the aural system this product stimulates

Thanks for the quick reply Ted, I thought my comment might get lost within the other exchange. For what's it worth (not much to others I would guess) I have always had a positive improvement with your products, and believe me I don't want to spend the money! Anyway I will find out when I get my Atmosphere + ATM soon. Keep up the good work and looking froward to the Black Hole launch.
Regards.

I know that you use many of the SR components, but it would really be helpful if you could provide a bit of detail of your system. I'm certain it has evolved over time. And I suspect that many of us would also benefit in knowing more about your room dimensions and other particulars. That's of importance, since the SR product set is so focused on ameliorating the many issue of listening space, along with power and general interference with system sonic performance.

Looking forward to results of your FEQ with Atmosphere testing.

Absolutely amazing!!!!!

I added the FEQ to the side as Ted suggested. It seemed to supercharge the Atmosphere. The effect of the Atmosphere is magnified.

Outstanding!

Owners of the FEQ will have a definite enhancement of Atmosphere.

They were not reluctant to explain how they did it.

And I don't fall for your 'Quantum' Effect' cables and the machine you used to 'create' that effect either. Not even the guys at Computer Audiophile fell for that. Ask 'Jud' who also posts here.

What does that make you? You don't have to ask, you know already - look in your wallet if in any doubt.

Not at all. As we all know perfectly well. He's got a living to 'earn' and not having any answers he blusters instead and attacks those of us who don't say 'awesome' when prompted to do so.

And do people really believe that sites such as this and the printed equivalent are anything other than advertising media? Of course not. Why pretend they are?

If I' not here tomorrow you will know why. They will just have proved what I said :)

It's not just me, it is several others. Including the highly respected Archimago.

And now we have Steven saying it is even more 'amazing'.

And the 'designer', unlike the go to the moon people (does he REALLY think he can stand alongside them?) won't even tell us how it works. His stuff at the beginning was gibberish. It doesn't even count as 'pseudo-scientific' gibberish.

Compare that with Nelson Pass, who even gives circuit diagrams of the stuff he sells.

[more of the same deleted, Ed.]

So please delete me.

For people wanting technical details on Atmosphere please see the following link:

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Synergistic-Research/292108336578

For those wanting a bit more to chew on please watch the videos:

http://www.avshowrooms.com/Synergistic_Research.html

Then order up a 30-day trial to see how this works for you.

The only piece missing is a means for effectively tagging your preferences by album and linking the tags in your library to the iPad app. I suppose you could use iTunes or MP3Tag to create a means for at least building the information and making it visible when playing back and then dialing in which profile you want to use.

"So, you've got the FEQ located on a side wall, halfway between your listening position and the speakers, and the front of the FEQ directed towards your sitting position, or towards the rear of your room?"

Yes

The FEQ is on a bottom shelf of a table near the floor. I do remember Peter Hansen suggesting that the FEQ should be directed toward the listener. I played around with the FEQ orientation and toward the listener was best for me.

I'm not sure what you mean there, SP. CG's comments make perfect sense: A review of a DAC is going to list the type of chip used, perhaps a reference to caps and power supply design, a critical look at build quality, perhaps at board design and output topology, the quality of posts, connectors, etc., and, finally, how all of this sounds when put together.

If anyone's trying to move the goalposts it's companies like SynergisticResearch, Shakti and to a lesser extent Mapleshade, who are asking the consumer to take a completely uninformed leap of faith (sorry Paul Tillich!) that their products, all of them extraordinarily expensive, do all of these AMAZING things without offering even the slightest hint that their claims might need some kind of substantiation. Why should the hunk of air-dried maple I place under my turntable make that turntable sound better than if it were sitting on a kiln-dried hunk of maple, as Mapleshade claims? Pierre Sprey would, of course, call me an idiot to presume otherwise, and I think Ted's comments in this very forum and in the linked video are comparably disrespectful to those of us who might want to know why a tiny disc of aluminum should cost as much as it does, or why I might need four or five of them, or ten, thousands of dollars worth, to place throughout the inside of my components, or why a mysterious tower that alters the RF in my listening room should, again, cost multiple thousands of dollars when I haven’t even been told what’s on the inside of it.

In the video, Ted claims that any person who’d like a scientific explanation about one of his products is a ‘jihadist’ (sic), one of the uncountable number of confounding comments he makes during the course of the video.

Additionally, Ted says, “The Atmosphere excites the HFQ’s around the room…(creating) a different sonic environment…There are millions of phase points…The Red (module) is great for rooms with a lot of glass…(Ted) recommended the module be plugged in for an hour…”

I'm not being difficult here but instead am exercising my right to be skeptical about what sounds, charitably, like utter nonsense. For example, how does the Atmosphere "excite" the HFQ's? Is it exciting other things in my house, or are its powers of excitement proprietary? Are those powers of excitement seeking out other Synergistic Research products only, or might the Atmosphere also excite Steven Plaskin's beloved Shakti Hallographs, causing them to quiver delightfully? Is it okay for me to be curious about these things, or is this indication that I'm a jihadist? What does the Red module do that's better for rooms with lots of glass? Does the reflective surface have to be glass or would the Red module also work well on sheetrock walls? Or would I need another type of module to use in that room? Why does the Atmosphere need to be warmed up? Does RF manipulation get..better...over time?

And I absolutely agree with CG that this Atmosphere product purports to solve a problem that does not exist for the vast majority of listeners: In fact, here in dirty old Baltimore City, my stereo sounds the same at 9am as it does at 2pm as it does at 10pm. Marketers have used this common 'begging the question' fallacy for years, demanding that the consumer has a problem and then, rather kindly, offering a solution to that problem the consumer doesn’t have!

As mentioned, I'm a big fan of AudioStream and Michael's writing and will continue to visit this site regularly. I'm also curious as to why SR has gotten two press releases on these pages written by SPlaskin, and find it comical that Lead Designer Ted has to label anyone who criticizes his products a jihadist rather than explain exactly how all of his fancy new products actually work! Wouldn't that save all of us a TON of time?

Finally, Steven, I'm curious to know if you still use Shakti Hallographs, and if you're going to buy the review sample of the Atmosphere and/or other SR products.

The goalpost remark implied that the same expectations should be placed on all manufacturers; his expectations, not mine.

Now why the Synergistic reviews:

I have been a customer of SR for a number of years and have an interest in Ted's products. Also, I live relatively close to the factory. This is also important for the following reason:

Synergistic Research, like a number of other high end audio companies, likes to visit the reviewer for installation and to make sure everything is working properly for the reviewer. This makes me a natural due to my proximity.

I saw the Stereophile and Positive Feedback reports about the Atmosphere at the RMAF. I asked Ted if I could review it.

I haven't had the Shakti Hollographs installed here for many years.

I listened to a great recording of Rachmaninoff's 4th Piano Concerto today. The Atmosphere made this recording even more enjoyable. Yes, I will keep the Atmosphere.

By the way, besides using the PowerCell, I have the Shunyata Triton and Hydra DPC-6 here as well with a number of Shunyata AC cables. It's not all Synergistic at Lucy's lab (my min pin and audio adviser)

I think you are missing my point. But I also think we have discussed this to death. I appreciate your dissatisfaction with Synergistic's technical explanation of the Atmosphere. But I see things differently.

After a good deal of rearranging things I was able to elevate the FEQ 1 foot off the floor level and place it on 3 MIGs.

This improved things once again over the floor level. The effect with Atmosphere is definitely more pronounced.

Thanks for the updated comments on adding the FEQ into the mix Steven. Will let you know my impression after I get the Atmosphere + ATM, although the ATM, that for me at least is more interesting than the Red, is the upcoming one that "improves liquidity and musicality".

Steven,

[Nonsensical rubbish deleted, Ed.]

BTW, low frequency RF "ULF" is dealing with Schumann resonance matters and needs to be used carefully and judiciously as this will, among other effects, affect the REM sleep cycles and therefore should not be left on if sleeping within its range on a regular or, especially, protracted, basis. There are other effects as well. There is a good deal of literature on extreme low frequency RF.

"To the best of my knowledge, it is not a warm-up period. What is happening is that the RF generator is ramping up when engaged."
No, I don't think so, certainly not entirely. What is more likely happening is that it takes a bit of time for the ULF transmission to affect your brain waves into synch, to control your receptivity. If the ramp-up is gradual, then it is likely for the purpose of the best way to synch the generator and your brain.

Nor is the use of this effect the least bit original to Synerrgistic. It's been around before and single-frequency units can be bought for around $200 for a powerful whole-house unit and less for a portable from Less EMF in Albany last I looked in on their website, for just one instance, if they are still selling theirs but I did hear they were concerned about the medical implications of the devices. They are not an audio outfit, but other audio meant offers of similar products have been around. Generating ULF is fairly easy and not expensive, I have done it in a crude way in minutes on my workbench using junk parts and a function generator. Not to say that this device's controls and use of dual generators aren't far more sophisticated to get the range of effects described, this much is novel. But the cost of this vs. the selling price is entirely a different matter. While they can try justifying the price against the "originality of their execution", well, that CAN try, but they do not succeed, with at least me, and I am sure there are many others less hypnotized by the hype than the buyers of their wares.

What Synergistic has done is what they do best - make a wonderful profit based on their name and "talismanic" propaganda, to borrow Denney's own word describing the hypnotically hand-waving mesmerism. The effect of the Schumann resonance is to affect brain wave patterns to create a more receptive feeling during which music sounds better because YOU feel better. This is similar to what Synergistic's marketing does. They convince their audience that their products are worth that much money, so the buyers (into this) are more receptive and think that the music sounds better...enough to justify the cost while the sellers go smiling to the bank. Note I didn't say their products don't work. Only that their marketing sure does but will politely refrain from judging the buyers...As for the promoters...another matter, judge the emperor's tailors for yourselves.

I'll proudly stand by what I have written and experienced. Your comments present your true agenda which is to belittle Synergistic and anyone that enjoys their products.

But I suspect you will never bother to experience Atmosphere and have a legitimate opinion.

You applaud yourself and your abilities. Lets see if you can build a product like this with an iPad app that changes the perceived sound as predicted by Synergistic.

As for the price, impress us with your product at a substantially lower price. Find dealers and market it as well. After all, you are a very special guy.

I'll just chalk your comments up to a lot of hot air polluting the atmosphere.

Just because you dare me to spend my time doing this does not mean I would be foolish enough to. Please get your taunt out of the High School locker room and lets be more adult. The size of yours or their success does not wow me. I looked into this type of effect years ago and concluded that there are too many medical risks to invest much time into it despite the pleasurable novelty of the effect. It has also occurred to me that there are also possible medical benefits to it such as controlling REM cycles intentionally for sleep problems that as best I can tell no one has hit on, but letting this loose largely unsupervised in this manner is not a good idea. This should be researched more deeply and not used frivolously. If Synergistic is willing to risk possible legal blow-back, well, that would fit well with their generally arrogant demeanor. Good luck to them, the risk may not be commercially lethal and I suppose they can afford a lot of insurance. I have other projects I consider of more interest and see no reason to get into this just to war with you. Sorry if I stung you with the title to my comments. But quite a few other comments also make it clear that my viewpoint is hardly singular in this regard and justified.

Should an opportunity to hear this present itself (likely at some point) I would not avoid doing so, but hardly because you don't think I would. I believe in checking everything out and judging by experience rather than predisposition. And yes, I have heard quite a few Synergistic products and found them not to my sonic tastes. I don't just dislike them for their demeanor. I clearly re-state that I did NOT say this would not work. Nor do I doubt what you experienced and wrote about. Why would I? I experienced the general effect years ago myself. I know it can work because I have already experienced this from both other products (the Acoustic Revive product for one spent a few days here) and duplicated the effect myself. And yes, this appears to be a more sophisticated version. Rather clearly I have NOT attacked the device as "bunk" as a few others have without even experiencing it. It is interesting but an artificial "mood enhancer". I prefer the more real satisfaction of getting my equipment and acoustics to actually sound better rather than employ electronic Xanax or something of the sort to induce a musically receptive trance state, and at possible risk over time.

The basic Schumann Effect is even used in the space station to help regulate the astronaut's health as they are outside of the natural field and our biology evolved within it. But they are not playing games with it to affect musical receptivity. ULF also has some rather dire effects at other frequencies as the research of Puharich, Lakhovsky, and others found. Tesla also touched on the subject. Mixing frequencies and tweaking them to tune your perception is something that will take protracted monitoring to assess. But it is known that leaving a single SR frequency a generator on for weeks on end goes from generating a pleasant feeling to general enervation and a feeling of malaise (but easily avoidable by, obviously, simply shutting the device off when not needed). This is not such a trivial thing to be playing with. We are already bathed in every frequency of RF daily in modern life. I'd as soon not add to that. But that is my preference. You do what you want, your smileage may vary. But don't do the "moose antlers and razz" "I double dare ya" juvenile bit, please. Not becoming and isn't going to draw me into any such contest.

And no, I'm certainly not going to buy any Synergistic products. Marketing based on mystery, magic and arrogance don't fly for me. And that's my prerogative to dislike, and I have stated so in , I believe, a reasonable fashion. Or does my opinion become unreasonable because you disagree?

Your opinion about Synergistic doesn't bother me. You are the one hurling insults at me. Don't buy it is just fine; really.

One gets very tired dealing with audio cowboys so quick to shoot down a product while having no experience with it.

"Or does my opinion become unreasonable because you disagree?"

You know that this is not the case or you would be blocked. You are looking for the argument. I gave it back to you the way you presented it to me.

You have no idea how much RF is emitted by this product or if it has a deleterious effect on one's health. Ted states that it is minimal. Prove him wrong.

Good bye.

"You know that this is not the case or you would be blocked."

Yet, after I showed you that you did not even read what I wrote correctly, and after Bowdlerizing my first paragraph in the first commentary before that...You censored my last comment, following your "Your opinion about". Awkward to realize you are wrong?

Weak, Mr. Plaskin. And not a service to your readers.

I will leave you with a parting word, then, that perhaps only you will see, so long as you censored *my* good bye.

Remember the Tellig & Armor All debacle, should the health risks I warn of come to light. Or ask about it if that was before your time with Stereophile. Expect a deserved and public "I told you so"...

Then why was my next to last and brief reply to Mr. Plaskin's dismissive "Your opinion about" consisting of pointing out a matter of fact and a matching good bye censored? It did not appear here.

To repeat that, what I stated was that I did *not* say there was a large amount of RF emitted. That is Mr. Plaskin's "cowboy" supposition. Please read what I actually wrote. Perhaps you are being dismissive without paying attention. Ted Denney is correct in saying that it is a "minimal", as in very small, amount. We are in agreement in that small regard so that is hardly needing proof otherwise - *as worded*. But the Earth's natural field is even smaller - measured in femtoWatts at any local point - yet biologically significant to our health! For this device to work, its field has only to be (slightly) stronger to swamp the natural field just strongly enough to artificially affect us. This is still, indeed, a very small field relative to most other RF fields we are bathed in every day, so such a claim can be truthfully made. But only if compared to something like, say, cell phones, which work in short, powerful, packet-condensed bursts, or most other common RF makers. And at very different frequencies. In at least my opinion, in question is a miniature field that may prove to not have miniature effects over time given that the even smaller natural field - of this specific character (and not even remotely the high frequencies of cell phones or most other RF emitters) - is biologically significant to us. Consequently, the "heads up", not to be confused with specific dire predictions triggering the seriousness with which you take yourselves.
It is a matter of relative significance.

Think about *that*, please.

Mr. Lavorgna, I have actually enjoyed what you have written in the past. But, sadly, all this has undermined my confidence in what I find here, from either of you. I.e. you will now be taking yourselves more seriously than I will.

Now, once again, should this actually reach the readers *this* time,

Good Bye. Good Luck.

Here is an interesting site touting the health benefits from devices that emit Schumann Resonance. They offer several generators for sale. Also, note the statement relating to sound depth to audio equipment.

http://www.lessemf.com/schumann.html

I am posting this as a bit of fun and not a scientific endorsement of Atmosphere or its safety.

Since CES 2015, a number of reviewers have stated that they were impressed with Atmosphere and the quality of sound they heard at the Synergistic room at CES.

Do your own listening and arrive at your own conclusions.

Whenever theres a review of Synergistics products on any site, I see people saying that thay are " FAKE" , " SNAKEOIL" , " BS" etc etc. As a many year owner and user of different Synergistics products its my right to say the only BS, snakeoil, fake is the readers who have never used Synergistic products but only take it on themselves to make bad comments for the heck of it. Since you can try any of their products for a month for free, please go ahead and try them, then write your comments...or SHUT THE F... UP as you sound like little spoiled children. I believe Acoustic Arts works, so does the FEQ, HFT, Tranquity Base and the cables that I own. Just ordered PHT and looking forward to enjoying them too. If they dont work I will just send them back. But most likely they will remain with me unless a friend steals them after hearing their wonders. Please please be fair to everyone when critisizing them especially you have no idea of that product. Enjoy your music, thats all that matters at the end.

Thank you for re-mentioning the Less EMF site, Mr. Plaskin, which I brought up in my very first post on this matter. Emil's a knowledgeable fellow about many things, particularly the interesting shielding materials I buy from him and deserves a mention. His version is very reasonably priced.

The Schumann Resonance is indeed natural and important to our health, my very point. But fooling with it UN-naturally is the very matter at point. I can only inform to try to open your eyes. The seeing is up to you. The hearing is not in contention, as stated.

And, Mr. “Karemz”, I reiterate that I did not use the terms “fake” and such nor said they do not work. I DID say I have tried them, in my listening room (and not just one), and did not like the sound, and that, sir, IS my prerogative to enjoy or not, as it is to criticize after having listened to them, WHICH I HAVE. If these are your “cup of tea”, then enjoy them, but perhaps you should follow your own advice and in the manner and tenor given when insisting that everyone including myself should after not having read what was written, or done so accurately. Apparently you are guilty of your own criticism and criticizing without reading what was written and sounding like a political commenter in the newsfeeds. Perhaps YOU should be more fair in YOUR criticism?

Note that the old adage “where there’s smoke, there’s fire” applies well here, where smoke is indeed being blown up our, ahem...…wallets. Or what did you think I was going to say? If that many responders have this opinion of Synergistics, maybe the smoke means something, eh?