A very weird upgrade? The PMR (Passive Multi-vocal Resonator)

[RothwellAudio]

While I have no comment to make on this particular product or its effectiveness I will say that room acoustics are an important and often overlooked aspect of good sound reproduction. I sometimes wonder if the folks who obsess about the merits of one brand of resistor over another have given any thought to their room's acoustic performance.

[Spectral Morn]

You need to read the review.

The music possessed a more authentic quality in terms of touch, tone and timbre and as a result sounded less electrical and thus less fatiguing. Image density also seemed to gain some weight, giving instruments more decay and "hang time" — the very ingredients that can fool one into believing real instruments are in the room. Harmonic integrity and truth of timbre were phrases that kept coming to mind

This is what these things always do. But there's no cheap way to get this same effect, of course. Can't get them for a tenner from Maplin. Always from these specialist blokes with weird horn and valve systems who have been working on it in a shed for 'years'. Never any explanation for how it works, even though this arcane knowledge might undermine the Standard Model and provide a major breakthrough in our understanding of Physics. None of that 'Nobel Prize' crap for these chaps; much better to keep the secret to yourself so that you can flog a dozen a year to super-wealthy hi-fi enthusiasts who have run out of things to spend money on.

Sorry, Neil, we have to disagree on this one.

That's fine Martin.

I think it important folks understand where I am coming from. I am not defending this product. I can't, I haven't heard or tried it in my room, but I won't decry it either, or piss take it because it just might make a difference to the room acoustics and room acoustics are often the overlooked element in folks systems.

Helmholtz resonators are tubes, they effect room acoustics, simple pipes, so why can't other items equally effect rooms acoustics ? I was very sceptical that relatively small metal bowls could effect the sound of a room, and yet they did. I know what I heard. I can't explain it.

My comments were based purely on addressing a sadly familiar pattern of posting from certain quarters and in general, piss taking and offering comments about performance or lack there of, value for money etc based on zero direct experience. How can one talk with any degree of credibility when one has not heard a thing ? One can't simple as that.

I don't care what the item is, you can't and that is it. Go try a thing and offer an opinion. I will then take it on board. Offer a derisory piss taking opinion based on no experience and I will disregard it. Your words will be like a 'a loud gong or a clashing cymbal' all noise, but without value.

[Macca]

Neil - I agree with keeping an open mind and I agree about needing to hear something for yourself.

As you say it is an object and placing it between the speakers may do something to change the perceived sound, but then so will a placing a large rubber plant there. That still leaves some questions unanswered, and that is where my personal criticism lies.

The review does not explain in any way how it works. By the time we have got the sound out into the room, which is where this object has its effect, we are dealing with standing waves in air. So the only effect it can have is on those standing waves. An O level physics explanation would suffice. But there is nothing.

Bearing that in mind why does it need to be made of bronze? Why not plastic, or concrete, or hard baked mud? They would all reflect sound.

Why does it cost $2K? Is it made of bronze so that there is some perceived value that can warrant the price?

If it does have a measurable (and therefore potentially audible) effect, how is this consistent in any room, with any type of speaker or set up configuration? It is a room treatment that works the same in any space? Really?

[YNWaN]

What I find interesting about this, or similar concept ideas, is that they do not claim to cancel or absorb resonances. In fact they claim exactly the opposite which is to resonate in sympathy with the acoustic signal. As such they ate literally claiming to improve your listening experience by adding peripheral noise to it - extra resonance on top of that replayed. It is conceptually a very difficult thing to equate with accurate reproduction.

In reality, the bowl may well ring strongly when flicked but the force needed to achieve such an excitation to resonance is many folds greater than achievable from free air pressure (or structural vibration). Any benefits are likely due to the conical, and (hard surface conical) reflective nature of the design being directly in line with the listener - an acoustically padded panel in a similar position certainly has a pronounced effect (and measurable).

[Spectral Morn]

What I find interesting about this, or similar concept ideas, is that they do not claim to cancel or absorb resonances. In fact they claim exactly the opposite which is to resonate in sympathy with the acoustic signal. As such they ate literally climbing to improve your listening experience by additional no peripheral noise to it - extra resonance on top of that replayed. It is conceptually a very difficult thing to equate with accurate reproduction.

I agree and yet the removal of the Synergistic Research items from a room reduced the quality of sound in the room, and bringing them back in restored it - go figure. I can't explain it.

[Spectral Morn]

Neil - I agree with keeping an open mind and I agree about needing to hear something for yourself.

As you say it is an object and placing it between the speakers may do something to change the perceived sound, but then so will a placing a large rubber plant there. That still leaves some questions unanswered, and that is where my personal criticism lies.

The review does not explain in any way how it works. By the time we have got the sound out into the room, which is where this object has its effect, we are dealing with standing waves in air. So the only effect it can have is on those standing waves. An O level physics explanation would suffice. But there is nothing.

Bearing that in mind why does it need to be made of bronze? Why not plastic, or concrete, or hard baked mud? They would all reflect sound.

Why does it cost $2K? Is it made of bronze so that there is some perceived value that can warrant the price?

If it does have a measurable (and therefore potentially audible) effect, how is this consistent in any room, with any type of speaker or set up configuration? It is a room treatment that works the same in any space? Really?

Those are very good questions.

[YNWaN]

I don't know DS, I've also heard all (or many of) those 'persuasive demos' you quote and, for the most part, they did nothing for me.

[Spectral Morn]

I don't know DS, I've also heard all (or many of) those 'persuasive demos' you quote and, for the most part, they did nothing for me.

Fair enough.

[YNWaN]

Sorry, I had to edit some of my previous post because my iPad predicted words I didn't think I had typed - sorry.

[YNWaN]

I really don't think you can add resonance to a playback of a recording and add anything of real value. I listen to a really broad range of music and recordings and the idea that you can randomly apply resonance to improve it all is simply unbelievable.