Shakti Stones

Has anyone actually tried this? Abbey Road Studios is reportedly using several of this that made me wonder if this is truly one of those quite pricey withcraft stuffs for tweak that really work.

I'm worried I might get a good scolding here from Tones for asking about this.He just had a bad one with the Densen DeMagic cd.


http://www.audiophilecandy.com/prodet.asp?pcode=M-AUD-SHSTO&rel2=&0=More+Info


regards

 

Not at all, just don't expect me to be the one to try them out for you!

 

Weren't these mentioned in a recent Hi-Fi choice article?

They contain circuitry or something that is supposed to stop interference (RFi etc) if I am correct.

 

Yes that's right.Learned about it from David Vivian's HFC article.Just curious about it really. From the descriptions, obviously it's quite a more techie kind of tweaky device. What got me wondering was the fact that a big studio like Abbey Road is resorting to such a device. Well, according to David Vivian that is.


regards

 

There does seem to be some method to the madness.

However, somewhere like Abbey Road studios is going to be rammed with a hell of a lot of equipment, so there is going to be loads of RFi floating around.

You could always go for the cheaper option of building a kind of Farraday cage to encapsulate each piece of equipment. Might look a bit shit though!

 

I suspect Abbey Road was sent some free samples, and somebody tried them out for a laugh. If you expect to see this kind of witchcraft in recording studios you'll be sorely disappointed IME.

Why is it that all of these products claim to reduce RFI but none of them provide any evidence that they actually work? (You'd think the effect would be measurable.) I'm all in favour of subjectivism in audio (if it sounds better to your ears, it is better), but any company making technical claims should back them up with evidence. The fact that none of them do or can gives the game away, really.

-- Ian

 

Never say never, ERS does kind of the same thing, and it works, I know, I did put some inside my player...

 

When I had an audible RFI problem with my phono stage, ERS made no difference at all, so I dispute the "it works" claim. There don't appear to be any measurements available to show how well or badly it reduces RFI, which is my complaint. Where's the evidence? (Don't say, "my ears", as that's not the issue. Whether somebody can hear an effect and likes it is not the same as whether the product in question actually does what it claims to.)

-- Ian

 

Hi,

Shatki stones are interesting looking devices. There are a number of materials which can act as EMI (electromagnetic interference) asorbers. These devices can surpress at high frequncies. A lot of these are used in filter circuits & power supply decoupling. In a lot of cases you can measure this but whether it has a sonic improvement is a different kettle of fish.

There are many ways to try to reduce EMI, some seem to work better than others. Also some may work in one environment, while not in another environment. Any filtering device or absorber will only filter so much. EMI can happen at a wide range of frequencies.

I have never tried any of these so I don't know how well or badly they work.

Here are some info on the stones. It seems that Abbey road & Pink Floyd have used them.

http://www.shakti-innovations.com/information.htm

http://www.shakti-innovations.com/dynotests.htm

http://www.shakti-innovations.com/shaktiwhitepaper.htm

http://www.shakti-innovations.com/emitests.htm


SCIDB

 

Hmm, Shakti does actually seem to take ojective testing seriously, unlike most snake oil peddlers - the white paper has a fairly extensive list of objective testing that seems to show their product actually works. Might be worth looking into.

Dunc

 

They are awesome, I have 3 stacked on the power conditioners alone, and so many inside/ontop my amp, I needed a bigger shelf BTW on some kit they do work well, as does the ERS.
I just love the all the postive input lately

 

But then, Dunc, as I've just found out, Densen, an apparently reputable maker of hi-fi equipment, put out this demagnetising CD, with many fine and persuasive-sounding reasons as to why it's the greatest thing since sliced bread. The results of my purchase you can read in the "Reviews" section. Personally, I trust these people and all the other snake oilers about as far as I can throw the "Queen Mary". No wonder professional audio engineers fall about laughing when the subject of audiophiles comes up.

 

Does Densen provide numerous references to objective testing performed on the DeMagic thing, though? I'm not exactly suckered in my technobabble marketing hype, but if they provide solid-looking objective evidence in the thing's favour, that's a different kettle of fish.

Dunc

 

Admittedly no, they don't, but when a reasonably reputable manufacturer of hi-fi equipment comes out with something like this, it has much the same effect ("Gosh, there must be something to it!"). I'm afraid that, now having been through stands, interconnects, power cords and now demagnetising and having found it all wanting, I can't believe that stones of any description are going to be any better, except for very large ones dropped from a great height on to the equipment, thus justifying the purchase of better equipment.

I've come to the conclusion that the only way to get noticeably better sound is to buy better equipment. Tweaking exists largely for the purpose of making money for the tweaker makers. If people hear a difference, well and good, I have no problems with that, just as long as they don't insist that we all have to hear it.

 

I'm with Tony.

I'm not very impressed by the Shakti claims either. It's extremely unclear whether anything tested for would actually make an audible difference anyway (the electromagnetic emission and thermodynamic energy transfer tests, for example). It's science in the service of marketing.

-- Ian

 

That's quite a long way - skeletons aren't THAT heavy - boom boom!!!

As an aside - did you know the QE2 does something like 57 feet to the gallon??

 

THE "Queen Mary", Dom, currently moored at Long Beach, CA, and no skeleton, not the late Queen of the same name whose memory I treasure every time I raise a mug of her tea. Please remain after class and write out 1000 times, "I must not make unresearched smart-alec remarks on hi-fi forums".

The fuel consumption actually sounds not bad for something that size. Wonder what it would be like in car mpg equivalent? I know that the car mpg equivalent for the French TGV (high-speed train) is sensationally high, something like 2l/100Km (about 141mpg).

 

Maybe he meant the Queen Mary II which AFAIK is still moored at it's construction dock in France after that accident with the boarding ramp...

I wonder if people will call the Queen Mary II the QM2 - doesn't quite roll off the tongue as easily as QE2 does it?

Michael.

 

Perhaps the QMT, to go along with my favourite drop, Queen Mary Tea?

 

For a second there Tones, I thought you'd come acroos the claims that Shakti have made about the increase in engine performance (fuel injection efficiency) that they'd measured when they'd strapped one of their stones to the engine management computer of a car. Now that is surely an objectively measureable scenario, but has not much to do with audio I guess you could say unless you're a believer in RFI affecting the sound of audio equipment.