Quote:
Hmmmm...let me see, I'm guessing Scott dressed up for Holloween as a Helmoltz resonator. Am I close?

If it's any consolation you are consistant.

Quote:

Maybe it is all about what's effective and what isn't.

I think it is more about doing away with the "magick" products. The sonex/auralex stuff is based on sound principles but the execution doesn't work all that well.

Quote:

Quote:

Maybe it is all about what's effective and what isn't.

I think it is more about doing away with the "magick" products. The sonex/auralex stuff is based on sound principles but the execution doesn't work all that well.

Depends on how you use it.

Apparently I'm the only one here with actual experience with Sonex. Although Scott may have something very close.

"Based on sound principles" - Yeah, right. Sonex is a perfect example of a product where the mfgr's data, assuming there is any, would probably show something happening in terms of frequency response, but listening tests would reveal that the sound deteriorates.

Need more ammo? Let me help you out:

1. But it's been scientifically proven.

2. Could all those recording studios be wrong?

3. But it has been around for 30 years.

4. I know an audiophile who swears by the stuff.

5. I saw a positive review of Sonex in Stereo Review.

Quote:
The CoD has been hard at work.

Ethan is deemed an attacker of competitors. Nice, in your argument, you have elevated the Synergistic ART system via your semantics!
If this is so, then where are the examples of Ethan attacking companies who pose an even more grave threat?
He leaves Primacoustic alone, he doesn't even rail at Auralex style products like P.T. Kaitt does!
Ethan doesn't attack ASC, either.
He's fine with Russ Berger Design.
Ethan doesn't stalk Sonex.
Maybe it is all about what's effective and what isn't.

Ok! It looks like break time is over, and we're back to talking about Ethan. Everyone's favorite lying sociopath, or shoot-from-the-hip good ol' boy who sticks it to them tweakmeister cheats. Depending on how many of his products you have in your room.

You may be overthinking the whole thing, Buddha. Ethan doesn't necessarily go after competitors depending on some arbitrary "threat level". His attacks on S-Art were deliberate, organized, and planned, yes... but not -that- deliberate! To my knowledge (and yes, I DO have more knowledge of this than the avg reader here, as I've been tracing some of his footsteps across the net), he has only gone after companies in his radar. Meaning, if Synergistic is already being discussed on the forum, then it'll be the target. Those other companies you mentioned were not. "sE" is one of his direct competitors. As I showed in a previous message here, Ethan insulted another member on that forum for recommending an sE product, over his similar product. But he only did so after the company was mentioned.

So I'm not saying there's a lot of intelligence behind his plan, it's just pure motivation. Why S-Art, when they don't make similar acoustic products? Very likely because the acoustic products they make are more appealing to consumers. So it doesn't hurt him at all to tell those consumers that his products are "proven", and S-Art's are "fraud". Why Furutech? Well, they sold acoustic products more similar to his. If he could convince consumers that Furutech makes fraudulent products, then he's cast doubt on all their products. So again, it doesn't hurt to ruin a competitor's reputation, no matter what particular acoustic products he designs.

I hope this is finally clearer to you.

Quote:
I'm guessing Scott dressed up for Holloween as a Helmoltz resonator. Am I close?

That would be a vacuous space with an opening that emits noise?

Am I close?

Quote:

I hope this is finally clearer to you.

the only thing that is clear is that you do not know what you are talking about. sE electronics is a microphone company. they produce one item, the Reflexion Filter that targets acoustics...but it is not "competition" as you suggest. they are a microphone company.

the thing is pathetic. a farce. I know. we own one.

Quote:
the only thing that is clear is that you do not know what you are talking about.

sE electronics is a microphone company. they produce one item, the Reflexion Filter that targets acoustics...but it is not "competition" as you suggest. they are a microphone company.

No, the only thing that's clear is Ethan's hired you as his PR guy, as you keep desperately trying to excuse his misdeeds. This link showing a recording pro comparing sE's Reflexion filter and Ethan's PVB and asking opinions on which to get proves that you're the one who doesn't know what you're talking about. Or rather, I should say, doesn't want to know:

http://forum.recordingreview.com/f8/se-electronics-reflexion-filter-real-traps-pvb-3186/

And if SE is not a competitor, then you'd better ask boss Ethan why he insulted another member on a different forum simply for recommending the SE Reflexion product over his. Furthermore, Ethan has a pattern of attacking any companies that make competitive acoustic products, regardless of what they're mostly known for. Furutech is also not strictly an acoustics company, but they do make acoustic products not unlike Ethan's, and he charged them with "fraud" last year. So where's the evidence of the "fraud" do you suppose? "Up In Smoke" maybe? How about his evidence of "fraud" against S-Art? Did he snort it?

Quote:

Quote:
I find myself nodding in agreement with a number of things Kait tried explaining to you about acoustic treatments.

First let me give you props for talking about audio before disagrreing with everything you are saying. Kait didn't really "explain" anything. Probably a good choice. He expressed his opinions and sonic impressions of Sonex. I'm certainly not going to argue with him about his opinions even if I still believe he is spoofing subjectivists all the way.

Quote:

By your remarks on the subject, you act like acoustic room treatment panels are just magic pills that you take whenever you have bad sound.

No "magic" involved. What they do is pretty straight forward. Whether or not it is good or bad is entirely subjective. That is always the case when we start to talk about "good' and "bad" in a context of aesthetic values.

Quote:

That they are "proven" to work, so can not be doing anything bad to your sound.

That is your leap not mine. they are proven to work in that they do exactly what they are advertised to do. Whether or not you find it good or bad is up to you.

Quote:

They are only "proven" to have an effect on acoustic waves. So does an empty fridge box.

An empty fridge box will not act as an absorber or a bass trap though.

Quote:

As Steve has (again) been patiently trying to explain to you, "work" means a lot of things to a lot of people.

He has been making a semantical argument? I did not realize that. If that is what you want to say on Steves behalf....

Quote:

My observations with the kind of products your friend Ethan sells, in my room and that of many of my friends, is that they "Yammy-fy" your sound.

I'm not going to argue with you about your perceptions. Ethan isn't my friend though. I don't know him personally.

Quote:

What that term refers to is to sort of reduce a highly engineered Stereophile Class A/B/C/etc amplifier, into something that more resembles the sound of a mid-fi Yamaha receiver. Which gets you further away from the musical goal, not closer to it.

having gone from an actual Yamaha mid-fi reciever to ARC SP 10 and D 115 I can actually relate to that comparison. IME the effects of room treatments in my room were exactly the opposite.

Quote:

You can do the same sort of thing to the signal chain by, say, sticking an equalizer in the path of the signal, and thinking that you are improving the sound by twidding with the knobs, because you're "compensating" for your room anomalies.

You won't catch me doing that. IME it doesn't work at all.

Quote:

Completely oblivious to what the hell else that equalizer has just done to your sound. That's a good analogy actually, because sticking acoustic treatment traps on all the walls, is much like fiddling with an equalizer for the room itself.

actually it is quite different. The room treatments reduce room reflections. There can be some skewing in the frequency response if the treatment is applied without some attention to that problem. But do it right and that is not an issue. OTOH a bad room can have the same effect as an equalizer adjusted by an angry monkey.

Quote:

All rooms, like all systems, have inherent colorations. By adding large room acoustic panels, you add further colorations.

That is simply incorrect. absorbtion and bass traps can only reduce room colorations. now if one finds particular room colorations to their liking or if there is a certain synergy between one's speakers and the existing room colorations one may have a preference for the room colorations. But the effect of absorbtion and bass traps is always a reduction in room coloration.

Quote:

What happens after that depends on your belief system; measurer or listener? Just as with audio equipment, you can look at data measurements and "believe" your sound is better. Then tell your ears to shut up, if they ever suggest otherwise. Or, if you actually know how the many ways music reproduction can degrade, you might then recognize that "degrade" is what the room treatments are doing to important characteristics of your sound.

If you like the room colorations then no doubt reducing them will be a subjective degredation. So far IME I have yet to find a reduction in room colorations to ever degrade the sound of my system. It has nothing to do with liking measurements.

Quote:

But the "measurer" only hears what he chooses to hear; which is the "improvements" the treatments have made. This I believe is more or less what Kait meant by "YRMV" (Your Room May Vary). What he also said about people getting used to a certain sound, even though it is an artificial sound, can never be overstated.

There is a reason why more refined audiophiles, seeking a purer, less colored sound, avoid acoustic room treatments, even tacking carpets to the walls.

Yeah right. Nice try. More refined my ass. If you actually want less "colored" sound then you want room treatments. If you like room colorations that is your choice. Even if you don't understand that it is a coloration that you are choosing. Nothing wrong with a preference for more colored sound.

Quote:

If you prefer say amplitude over phase,

"If I prefer amplitude over phase?" I'm tryin so hard not to make fun of this.

Quote:

dryness of bass over resolution of timbre, one aspect of one measurement being more or less correct, while other aspects that may not sign in as "present!"on the manufacturer's data sheet, but can cause the relationship you have to the musical message to become worse, then room treatment products are probably for you.
But not me, sorry "dude". I won't allow anything to come into either my room, or my system, that fucks with the core elements of the sound that provides to the brain, the connection it needs to react to that sound as it does real music. And it is all too easy to screw up your sound worse, in an effort to make it better, and believe it's better to justify all your expense and bother in installing room traps. If that happens, then what you get in the end is just "sound". Noises that resemble music, but do not fool the brain very much. So it does not respond in the same way as it would in the presence of music. This is the essential reason for why the "measurers" will never see eye to eye with the "listeners". That's not to knock your system if you like the way it sounds. Just don't be telling me or anyone else here, that's that way it's gotta sound, and acoustic traps are what everybody needs, if not wants. That's just your trip.

OK......If room reflections and gross bass colorations float your boat....

No doubt there are some colorations that I like. I like the colorations of my electronics and my TT rig. I just haven't had the same luck with room colorations.

First let me give you props for talking about audio before not responding to anything you are saying. Sorry, I haven't the time nor energy to respond to all this, particularly as I know that it's going to be a big ol' square dance with you, where I have to go round and round in circles to even hope to get you to understand anything, such as how and where you went wrong in your presumptions. Then the circles would get broken into even tinier circles, because not only do you reply line by line, you cut three words out of my line and then argue against the three words. Eventually, it'll be single words, then just letters that make up the words. And just I -know- you'll find some way to break up the letters and argue against the letter fragments. Does this mean we have no common ground and will never find any? Not quite. I agree with what you wrote here (with just very minor tweaking):

Scott sort of wrote: "Yeah right. Nice try. Less colored my ass. If you actually want more "colored" sound then you want room treatments. If you like more room colorations that is your choice. Even if you don't understand that it is a coloration that you are choosing. Nothing wrong with a preference for more colored sound. "

You're foolish to think a room doesn't have colorations because you stick a few room traps into it. You're simply fooling yourself into thinking it doesn't. To sum up the problem, I again find that what Kait related to you about your "virgin ears" most fitting, as its what I was trying to get across. All acoustic treatments can show "something happening in terms of frequency response, but listening tests would reveal that the sound deteriorates." How the sound deteriorates is something you don't understand, and that I can't explain to you, if you don't even understand basic audio terminology and on top of that, don't have real-world experience with different room traps, and what it does to different rooms. But even if you do, that's really not enough. Like I said, you have to be able to recognize the many ways audio sound can deteriorate. Because how the degradative effects the room traps have on your sound is not necessarily going to show up "on paper" and say "here I am!". As long as you think your Sonex etc. is doing something good, I suppose it can't hurt. It's all an illusion anyway, right? But, while you can fool the conscious mind, you can't fool the subconscious. So the room traps may help you play with FR and related parameters, but will actually prevent you from hearing all that's in the music. You won't notice that, because you've gotten used to a degraded, colored sound.

As a consumer, my goal is to achieve and maintain a musical sound. That's not as easy as it "sounds". As a recording engineer, if I need to "tweak" a certain room in order to obtain a certain sound, this is where acoustic treatments make sense. The goals for a concert space do not need to be the same as for a home listening room.

Quote:

Quote:
Logically flawed? Do you mean ad hominem *arguments* are a logical fallacy?

yep

Nope. Try again. You're sure to get it right this time Scotty.

"The ad hominem argument is not a fallacy..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
I find myself nodding in agreement with a number of things Kait tried explaining to you about acoustic treatments.

First let me give you props for talking about audio before disagrreing with everything you are saying. Kait didn't really "explain" anything. Probably a good choice. He expressed his opinions and sonic impressions of Sonex. I'm certainly not going to argue with him about his opinions even if I still believe he is spoofing subjectivists all the way.

Quote:

By your remarks on the subject, you act like acoustic room treatment panels are just magic pills that you take whenever you have bad sound.

No "magic" involved. What they do is pretty straight forward. Whether or not it is good or bad is entirely subjective. That is always the case when we start to talk about "good' and "bad" in a context of aesthetic values.

Quote:

That they are "proven" to work, so can not be doing anything bad to your sound.

That is your leap not mine. they are proven to work in that they do exactly what they are advertised to do. Whether or not you find it good or bad is up to you.

Quote:

They are only "proven" to have an effect on acoustic waves. So does an empty fridge box.

An empty fridge box will not act as an absorber or a bass trap though.

Quote:

As Steve has (again) been patiently trying to explain to you, "work" means a lot of things to a lot of people.

He has been making a semantical argument? I did not realize that. If that is what you want to say on Steves behalf....

Quote:

My observations with the kind of products your friend Ethan sells, in my room and that of many of my friends, is that they "Yammy-fy" your sound.

I'm not going to argue with you about your perceptions. Ethan isn't my friend though. I don't know him personally.

Quote:

What that term refers to is to sort of reduce a highly engineered Stereophile Class A/B/C/etc amplifier, into something that more resembles the sound of a mid-fi Yamaha receiver. Which gets you further away from the musical goal, not closer to it.

having gone from an actual Yamaha mid-fi reciever to ARC SP 10 and D 115 I can actually relate to that comparison. IME the effects of room treatments in my room were exactly the opposite.

Quote:

You can do the same sort of thing to the signal chain by, say, sticking an equalizer in the path of the signal, and thinking that you are improving the sound by twidding with the knobs, because you're "compensating" for your room anomalies.

You won't catch me doing that. IME it doesn't work at all.

Quote:

Completely oblivious to what the hell else that equalizer has just done to your sound. That's a good analogy actually, because sticking acoustic treatment traps on all the walls, is much like fiddling with an equalizer for the room itself.

actually it is quite different. The room treatments reduce room reflections. There can be some skewing in the frequency response if the treatment is applied without some attention to that problem. But do it right and that is not an issue. OTOH a bad room can have the same effect as an equalizer adjusted by an angry monkey.

Quote:

All rooms, like all systems, have inherent colorations. By adding large room acoustic panels, you add further colorations.

That is simply incorrect. absorbtion and bass traps can only reduce room colorations. now if one finds particular room colorations to their liking or if there is a certain synergy between one's speakers and the existing room colorations one may have a preference for the room colorations. But the effect of absorbtion and bass traps is always a reduction in room coloration.

Quote:

What happens after that depends on your belief system; measurer or listener? Just as with audio equipment, you can look at data measurements and "believe" your sound is better. Then tell your ears to shut up, if they ever suggest otherwise. Or, if you actually know how the many ways music reproduction can degrade, you might then recognize that "degrade" is what the room treatments are doing to important characteristics of your sound.

If you like the room colorations then no doubt reducing them will be a subjective degredation. So far IME I have yet to find a reduction in room colorations to ever degrade the sound of my system. It has nothing to do with liking measurements.

Quote:

But the "measurer" only hears what he chooses to hear; which is the "improvements" the treatments have made. This I believe is more or less what Kait meant by "YRMV" (Your Room May Vary). What he also said about people getting used to a certain sound, even though it is an artificial sound, can never be overstated.

There is a reason why more refined audiophiles, seeking a purer, less colored sound, avoid acoustic room treatments, even tacking carpets to the walls.

Yeah right. Nice try. More refined my ass. If you actually want less "colored" sound then you want room treatments. If you like room colorations that is your choice. Even if you don't understand that it is a coloration that you are choosing. Nothing wrong with a preference for more colored sound.

Quote:

If you prefer say amplitude over phase,

"If I prefer amplitude over phase?" I'm tryin so hard not to make fun of this.

Quote:

dryness of bass over resolution of timbre, one aspect of one measurement being more or less correct, while other aspects that may not sign in as "present!"on the manufacturer's data sheet, but can cause the relationship you have to the musical message to become worse, then room treatment products are probably for you.
But not me, sorry "dude". I won't allow anything to come into either my room, or my system, that fucks with the core elements of the sound that provides to the brain, the connection it needs to react to that sound as it does real music. And it is all too easy to screw up your sound worse, in an effort to make it better, and believe it's better to justify all your expense and bother in installing room traps. If that happens, then what you get in the end is just "sound". Noises that resemble music, but do not fool the brain very much. So it does not respond in the same way as it would in the presence of music. This is the essential reason for why the "measurers" will never see eye to eye with the "listeners". That's not to knock your system if you like the way it sounds. Just don't be telling me or anyone else here, that's that way it's gotta sound, and acoustic traps are what everybody needs, if not wants. That's just your trip.

OK......If room reflections and gross bass colorations float your boat....

No doubt there are some colorations that I like. I like the colorations of my electronics and my TT rig. I just haven't had the same luck with room colorations.

First let me give you props for talking about audio before not responding to anything you are saying. Sorry, I haven't the time nor energy to respond to all this,blah blah blah blah blah.

::yawn::

Quote:

I agree with what you wrote here (with just very minor tweaking):

Scott sort of wrote: "Yeah right. Nice try. Less colored my ass. If you actually want more "colored" sound then you want room treatments. If you like more room colorations that is your choice. Even if you don't understand that it is a coloration that you are choosing. Nothing wrong with a preference for more colored sound. "

Now that is just idiotic thing to say. It is the opposite of what I wrote and is completely wrong. Do you know what a coloration is? I have to ask because I can't see how someone who actually knows what a coloration is would think that bouncing the sound from the speaker off the walls would be less colored sound. So do you know what a coloration is? If so please explain how bouncing sound off the walls makes for less colored sound.

Quote:

You're foolish to think a room doesn't have colorations because you stick a few room traps into it.

You're foolish to think that I think a room doesn't have colorations because one sticks a few (bass not room) traps into it. In what world is a "reduction' in colorations synonymous with an entire elimination of them? Please, pay attention to what is actually being said.

Quote:
You're Blah blah blah blah blah.

Boring.

Quote:

As a consumer, my goal is to achieve and maintain a musical sound. That's not as easy as it "sounds". As a recording engineer, if I need to "tweak" a certain room in order to obtain a certain sound, this is where acoustic treatments make sense. The goals for a concert space do not need to be the same as for a home listening room.

You are a recording engineer? Oh jeez.

Quote:

Quote:
Logically flawed? Do you mean ad hominem *arguments* are a logical fallacy?

yep

Nope. Try again. You're sure to get it right this time Scotty.

"The ad hominem argument is not a fallacy..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Don't need to try again. It is a logical fallacy.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
I find myself nodding in agreement with a number of things Kait tried explaining to you about acoustic treatments.

First let me give you props for talking about audio before disagrreing with everything you are saying. Kait didn't really "explain" anything. Probably a good choice. He expressed his opinions and sonic impressions of Sonex. I'm certainly not going to argue with him about his opinions even if I still believe he is spoofing subjectivists all the way.

Quote:

By your remarks on the subject, you act like acoustic room treatment panels are just magic pills that you take whenever you have bad sound.

No "magic" involved. What they do is pretty straight forward. Whether or not it is good or bad is entirely subjective. That is always the case when we start to talk about "good' and "bad" in a context of aesthetic values.

Quote:

That they are "proven" to work, so can not be doing anything bad to your sound.

That is your leap not mine. they are proven to work in that they do exactly what they are advertised to do. Whether or not you find it good or bad is up to you.

Quote:

They are only "proven" to have an effect on acoustic waves. So does an empty fridge box.

An empty fridge box will not act as an absorber or a bass trap though.

Quote:

As Steve has (again) been patiently trying to explain to you, "work" means a lot of things to a lot of people.

He has been making a semantical argument? I did not realize that. If that is what you want to say on Steves behalf....

Quote:

My observations with the kind of products your friend Ethan sells, in my room and that of many of my friends, is that they "Yammy-fy" your sound.

I'm not going to argue with you about your perceptions. Ethan isn't my friend though. I don't know him personally.

Quote:

What that term refers to is to sort of reduce a highly engineered Stereophile Class A/B/C/etc amplifier, into something that more resembles the sound of a mid-fi Yamaha receiver. Which gets you further away from the musical goal, not closer to it.

having gone from an actual Yamaha mid-fi reciever to ARC SP 10 and D 115 I can actually relate to that comparison. IME the effects of room treatments in my room were exactly the opposite.

Quote:

You can do the same sort of thing to the signal chain by, say, sticking an equalizer in the path of the signal, and thinking that you are improving the sound by twidding with the knobs, because you're "compensating" for your room anomalies.

You won't catch me doing that. IME it doesn't work at all.

Quote:

Completely oblivious to what the hell else that equalizer has just done to your sound. That's a good analogy actually, because sticking acoustic treatment traps on all the walls, is much like fiddling with an equalizer for the room itself.

actually it is quite different. The room treatments reduce room reflections. There can be some skewing in the frequency response if the treatment is applied without some attention to that problem. But do it right and that is not an issue. OTOH a bad room can have the same effect as an equalizer adjusted by an angry monkey.

Quote:

All rooms, like all systems, have inherent colorations. By adding large room acoustic panels, you add further colorations.

That is simply incorrect. absorbtion and bass traps can only reduce room colorations. now if one finds particular room colorations to their liking or if there is a certain synergy between one's speakers and the existing room colorations one may have a preference for the room colorations. But the effect of absorbtion and bass traps is always a reduction in room coloration.

Quote:

What happens after that depends on your belief system; measurer or listener? Just as with audio equipment, you can look at data measurements and "believe" your sound is better. Then tell your ears to shut up, if they ever suggest otherwise. Or, if you actually know how the many ways music reproduction can degrade, you might then recognize that "degrade" is what the room treatments are doing to important characteristics of your sound.

If you like the room colorations then no doubt reducing them will be a subjective degredation. So far IME I have yet to find a reduction in room colorations to ever degrade the sound of my system. It has nothing to do with liking measurements.

Quote:

But the "measurer" only hears what he chooses to hear; which is the "improvements" the treatments have made. This I believe is more or less what Kait meant by "YRMV" (Your Room May Vary). What he also said about people getting used to a certain sound, even though it is an artificial sound, can never be overstated.

There is a reason why more refined audiophiles, seeking a purer, less colored sound, avoid acoustic room treatments, even tacking carpets to the walls.

Yeah right. Nice try. More refined my ass. If you actually want less "colored" sound then you want room treatments. If you like room colorations that is your choice. Even if you don't understand that it is a coloration that you are choosing. Nothing wrong with a preference for more colored sound.

Quote:

If you prefer say amplitude over phase,

"If I prefer amplitude over phase?" I'm tryin so hard not to make fun of this.

Quote:

dryness of bass over resolution of timbre, one aspect of one measurement being more or less correct, while other aspects that may not sign in as "present!"on the manufacturer's data sheet, but can cause the relationship you have to the musical message to become worse, then room treatment products are probably for you.
But not me, sorry "dude". I won't allow anything to come into either my room, or my system, that fucks with the core elements of the sound that provides to the brain, the connection it needs to react to that sound as it does real music. And it is all too easy to screw up your sound worse, in an effort to make it better, and believe it's better to justify all your expense and bother in installing room traps. If that happens, then what you get in the end is just "sound". Noises that resemble music, but do not fool the brain very much. So it does not respond in the same way as it would in the presence of music. This is the essential reason for why the "measurers" will never see eye to eye with the "listeners". That's not to knock your system if you like the way it sounds. Just don't be telling me or anyone else here, that's that way it's gotta sound, and acoustic traps are what everybody needs, if not wants. That's just your trip.

OK......If room reflections and gross bass colorations float your boat....

No doubt there are some colorations that I like. I like the colorations of my electronics and my TT rig. I just haven't had the same luck with room colorations.

First let me give you props for talking about audio before not responding to anything you are saying. Sorry, I haven't the time nor energy to respond to all this,blah blah blah blah blah.

::yawn::

Quote:

I agree with what you wrote here (with just very minor tweaking):

Scott sort of wrote: "Yeah right. Nice try. Less colored my ass. If you actually want more "colored" sound then you want room treatments. If you like more room colorations that is your choice. Even if you don't understand that it is a coloration that you are choosing. Nothing wrong with a preference for more colored sound. "

Now that is just idiotic thing to say. It is the opposite of what I wrote and is completely wrong. Do you know what a coloration is? I have to ask because I can't see how someone who actually knows what a coloration is would think that bouncing the sound from the speaker off the walls would be less colored sound. So do you know what a coloration is? If so please explain how bouncing sound off the walls makes for less colored sound.

Quote:

You're foolish to think a room doesn't have colorations because you stick a few room traps into it.

You're foolish to think that I think a room doesn't have colorations because one sticks a few (bass not room) traps into it. In what world is a "reduction' in colorations synonymous with an entire elimination of them? Please, pay attention to what is actually being said.

Quote:
You're Blah blah blah blah blah.

Boring.

Quote:

As a consumer, my goal is to achieve and maintain a musical sound. That's not as easy as it "sounds". As a recording engineer, if I need to "tweak" a certain room in order to obtain a certain sound, this is where acoustic treatments make sense. The goals for a concert space do not need to be the same as for a home listening room.

You are a recording engineer? Oh jeez.

blah blah blah blah blah ... :yawn: Bo-ring!

Quote:

Quote:
Logically flawed? Do you mean ad hominem *arguments* are a logical fallacy?

yep

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
I find myself nodding in agreement with a number of things Kait tried explaining to you about acoustic treatments.

First let me give you props for talking about audio before disagrreing with everything you are saying. Kait didn't really "explain" anything. Probably a good choice. He expressed his opinions and sonic impressions of Sonex. I'm certainly not going to argue with him about his opinions even if I still believe he is spoofing subjectivists all the way.

Quote:

By your remarks on the subject, you act like acoustic room treatment panels are just magic pills that you take whenever you have bad sound.

No "magic" involved. What they do is pretty straight forward. Whether or not it is good or bad is entirely subjective. That is always the case when we start to talk about "good' and "bad" in a context of aesthetic values.

Quote:

That they are "proven" to work, so can not be doing anything bad to your sound.

That is your leap not mine. they are proven to work in that they do exactly what they are advertised to do. Whether or not you find it good or bad is up to you.

Quote:

They are only "proven" to have an effect on acoustic waves. So does an empty fridge box.

An empty fridge box will not act as an absorber or a bass trap though.

Quote:

As Steve has (again) been patiently trying to explain to you, "work" means a lot of things to a lot of people.

He has been making a semantical argument? I did not realize that. If that is what you want to say on Steves behalf....

Quote:

My observations with the kind of products your friend Ethan sells, in my room and that of many of my friends, is that they "Yammy-fy" your sound.

I'm not going to argue with you about your perceptions. Ethan isn't my friend though. I don't know him personally.

Quote:

What that term refers to is to sort of reduce a highly engineered Stereophile Class A/B/C/etc amplifier, into something that more resembles the sound of a mid-fi Yamaha receiver. Which gets you further away from the musical goal, not closer to it.

having gone from an actual Yamaha mid-fi reciever to ARC SP 10 and D 115 I can actually relate to that comparison. IME the effects of room treatments in my room were exactly the opposite.

Quote:

You can do the same sort of thing to the signal chain by, say, sticking an equalizer in the path of the signal, and thinking that you are improving the sound by twidding with the knobs, because you're "compensating" for your room anomalies.

You won't catch me doing that. IME it doesn't work at all.

Quote:

Completely oblivious to what the hell else that equalizer has just done to your sound. That's a good analogy actually, because sticking acoustic treatment traps on all the walls, is much like fiddling with an equalizer for the room itself.

actually it is quite different. The room treatments reduce room reflections. There can be some skewing in the frequency response if the treatment is applied without some attention to that problem. But do it right and that is not an issue. OTOH a bad room can have the same effect as an equalizer adjusted by an angry monkey.

Quote:

All rooms, like all systems, have inherent colorations. By adding large room acoustic panels, you add further colorations.

That is simply incorrect. absorbtion and bass traps can only reduce room colorations. now if one finds particular room colorations to their liking or if there is a certain synergy between one's speakers and the existing room colorations one may have a preference for the room colorations. But the effect of absorbtion and bass traps is always a reduction in room coloration.

Quote:

What happens after that depends on your belief system; measurer or listener? Just as with audio equipment, you can look at data measurements and "believe" your sound is better. Then tell your ears to shut up, if they ever suggest otherwise. Or, if you actually know how the many ways music reproduction can degrade, you might then recognize that "degrade" is what the room treatments are doing to important characteristics of your sound.

If you like the room colorations then no doubt reducing them will be a subjective degredation. So far IME I have yet to find a reduction in room colorations to ever degrade the sound of my system. It has nothing to do with liking measurements.

Quote:

But the "measurer" only hears what he chooses to hear; which is the "improvements" the treatments have made. This I believe is more or less what Kait meant by "YRMV" (Your Room May Vary). What he also said about people getting used to a certain sound, even though it is an artificial sound, can never be overstated.

There is a reason why more refined audiophiles, seeking a purer, less colored sound, avoid acoustic room treatments, even tacking carpets to the walls.

Yeah right. Nice try. More refined my ass. If you actually want less "colored" sound then you want room treatments. If you like room colorations that is your choice. Even if you don't understand that it is a coloration that you are choosing. Nothing wrong with a preference for more colored sound.

Quote:

If you prefer say amplitude over phase,

"If I prefer amplitude over phase?" I'm tryin so hard not to make fun of this.

Quote:

dryness of bass over resolution of timbre, one aspect of one measurement being more or less correct, while other aspects that may not sign in as "present!"on the manufacturer's data sheet, but can cause the relationship you have to the musical message to become worse, then room treatment products are probably for you.
But not me, sorry "dude". I won't allow anything to come into either my room, or my system, that fucks with the core elements of the sound that provides to the brain, the connection it needs to react to that sound as it does real music. And it is all too easy to screw up your sound worse, in an effort to make it better, and believe it's better to justify all your expense and bother in installing room traps. If that happens, then what you get in the end is just "sound". Noises that resemble music, but do not fool the brain very much. So it does not respond in the same way as it would in the presence of music. This is the essential reason for why the "measurers" will never see eye to eye with the "listeners". That's not to knock your system if you like the way it sounds. Just don't be telling me or anyone else here, that's that way it's gotta sound, and acoustic traps are what everybody needs, if not wants. That's just your trip.

OK......If room reflections and gross bass colorations float your boat....

No doubt there are some colorations that I like. I like the colorations of my electronics and my TT rig. I just haven't had the same luck with room colorations.

First let me give you props for talking about audio before not responding to anything you are saying. Sorry, I haven't the time nor energy to respond to all this,blah blah blah blah blah.

::yawn::

Quote:

I agree with what you wrote here (with just very minor tweaking):

Scott sort of wrote: "Yeah right. Nice try. Less colored my ass. If you actually want more "colored" sound then you want room treatments. If you like more room colorations that is your choice. Even if you don't understand that it is a coloration that you are choosing. Nothing wrong with a preference for more colored sound. "

Now that is just idiotic thing to say. It is the opposite of what I wrote and is completely wrong. Do you know what a coloration is? I have to ask because I can't see how someone who actually knows what a coloration is would think that bouncing the sound from the speaker off the walls would be less colored sound. So do you know what a coloration is? If so please explain how bouncing sound off the walls makes for less colored sound.

Quote:

You're foolish to think a room doesn't have colorations because you stick a few room traps into it.

You're foolish to think that I think a room doesn't have colorations because one sticks a few (bass not room) traps into it. In what world is a "reduction' in colorations synonymous with an entire elimination of them? Please, pay attention to what is actually being said.

Quote:
You're Blah blah blah blah blah.

Boring.

Quote:

As a consumer, my goal is to achieve and maintain a musical sound. That's not as easy as it "sounds". As a recording engineer, if I need to "tweak" a certain room in order to obtain a certain sound, this is where acoustic treatments make sense. The goals for a concert space do not need to be the same as for a home listening room.

You are a recording engineer? Oh jeez.

blah blah blah blah blah ... :yawn: Bo-ring!

Quote:

Quote:
Logically flawed? Do you mean ad hominem *arguments* are a logical fallacy?

yep

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
I find myself nodding in agreement with a number of things Kait tried explaining to you about acoustic treatments.

First let me give you props for talking about audio before disagrreing with everything you are saying. Kait didn't really "explain" anything. Probably a good choice. He expressed his opinions and sonic impressions of Sonex. I'm certainly not going to argue with him about his opinions even if I still believe he is spoofing subjectivists all the way.

Quote:

By your remarks on the subject, you act like acoustic room treatment panels are just magic pills that you take whenever you have bad sound.

No "magic" involved. What they do is pretty straight forward. Whether or not it is good or bad is entirely subjective. That is always the case when we start to talk about "good' and "bad" in a context of aesthetic values.

Quote:

That they are "proven" to work, so can not be doing anything bad to your sound.

That is your leap not mine. they are proven to work in that they do exactly what they are advertised to do. Whether or not you find it good or bad is up to you.

Quote:

They are only "proven" to have an effect on acoustic waves. So does an empty fridge box.

An empty fridge box will not act as an absorber or a bass trap though.

Quote:

As Steve has (again) been patiently trying to explain to you, "work" means a lot of things to a lot of people.

He has been making a semantical argument? I did not realize that. If that is what you want to say on Steves behalf....

Quote:

My observations with the kind of products your friend Ethan sells, in my room and that of many of my friends, is that they "Yammy-fy" your sound.

I'm not going to argue with you about your perceptions. Ethan isn't my friend though. I don't know him personally.

Quote:

What that term refers to is to sort of reduce a highly engineered Stereophile Class A/B/C/etc amplifier, into something that more resembles the sound of a mid-fi Yamaha receiver. Which gets you further away from the musical goal, not closer to it.

having gone from an actual Yamaha mid-fi reciever to ARC SP 10 and D 115 I can actually relate to that comparison. IME the effects of room treatments in my room were exactly the opposite.

Quote:

You can do the same sort of thing to the signal chain by, say, sticking an equalizer in the path of the signal, and thinking that you are improving the sound by twidding with the knobs, because you're "compensating" for your room anomalies.

You won't catch me doing that. IME it doesn't work at all.

Quote:

Completely oblivious to what the hell else that equalizer has just done to your sound. That's a good analogy actually, because sticking acoustic treatment traps on all the walls, is much like fiddling with an equalizer for the room itself.

actually it is quite different. The room treatments reduce room reflections. There can be some skewing in the frequency response if the treatment is applied without some attention to that problem. But do it right and that is not an issue. OTOH a bad room can have the same effect as an equalizer adjusted by an angry monkey.

Quote:

All rooms, like all systems, have inherent colorations. By adding large room acoustic panels, you add further colorations.

That is simply incorrect. absorbtion and bass traps can only reduce room colorations. now if one finds particular room colorations to their liking or if there is a certain synergy between one's speakers and the existing room colorations one may have a preference for the room colorations. But the effect of absorbtion and bass traps is always a reduction in room coloration.

Quote:

What happens after that depends on your belief system; measurer or listener? Just as with audio equipment, you can look at data measurements and "believe" your sound is better. Then tell your ears to shut up, if they ever suggest otherwise. Or, if you actually know how the many ways music reproduction can degrade, you might then recognize that "degrade" is what the room treatments are doing to important characteristics of your sound.

If you like the room colorations then no doubt reducing them will be a subjective degredation. So far IME I have yet to find a reduction in room colorations to ever degrade the sound of my system. It has nothing to do with liking measurements.

Quote:

But the "measurer" only hears what he chooses to hear; which is the "improvements" the treatments have made. This I believe is more or less what Kait meant by "YRMV" (Your Room May Vary). What he also said about people getting used to a certain sound, even though it is an artificial sound, can never be overstated.

There is a reason why more refined audiophiles, seeking a purer, less colored sound, avoid acoustic room treatments, even tacking carpets to the walls.

Yeah right. Nice try. More refined my ass. If you actually want less "colored" sound then you want room treatments. If you like room colorations that is your choice. Even if you don't understand that it is a coloration that you are choosing. Nothing wrong with a preference for more colored sound.

Quote:

If you prefer say amplitude over phase,

"If I prefer amplitude over phase?" I'm tryin so hard not to make fun of this.

Quote:

dryness of bass over resolution of timbre, one aspect of one measurement being more or less correct, while other aspects that may not sign in as "present!"on the manufacturer's data sheet, but can cause the relationship you have to the musical message to become worse, then room treatment products are probably for you.
But not me, sorry "dude". I won't allow anything to come into either my room, or my system, that fucks with the core elements of the sound that provides to the brain, the connection it needs to react to that sound as it does real music. And it is all too easy to screw up your sound worse, in an effort to make it better, and believe it's better to justify all your expense and bother in installing room traps. If that happens, then what you get in the end is just "sound". Noises that resemble music, but do not fool the brain very much. So it does not respond in the same way as it would in the presence of music. This is the essential reason for why the "measurers" will never see eye to eye with the "listeners". That's not to knock your system if you like the way it sounds. Just don't be telling me or anyone else here, that's that way it's gotta sound, and acoustic traps are what everybody needs, if not wants. That's just your trip.

OK......If room reflections and gross bass colorations float your boat....

No doubt there are some colorations that I like. I like the colorations of my electronics and my TT rig. I just haven't had the same luck with room colorations.

First let me give you props for talking about audio before not responding to anything you are saying. Sorry, I haven't the time nor energy to respond to all this,blah blah blah blah blah.

::yawn::

Quote:

I agree with what you wrote here (with just very minor tweaking):

Scott sort of wrote: "Yeah right. Nice try. Less colored my ass. If you actually want more "colored" sound then you want room treatments. If you like more room colorations that is your choice. Even if you don't understand that it is a coloration that you are choosing. Nothing wrong with a preference for more colored sound. "

Now that is just idiotic thing to say. It is the opposite of what I wrote and is completely wrong. Do you know what a coloration is? I have to ask because I can't see how someone who actually knows what a coloration is would think that bouncing the sound from the speaker off the walls would be less colored sound. So do you know what a coloration is? If so please explain how bouncing sound off the walls makes for less colored sound.

Quote:

You're foolish to think a room doesn't have colorations because you stick a few room traps into it.

You're foolish to think that I think a room doesn't have colorations because one sticks a few (bass not room) traps into it. In what world is a "reduction' in colorations synonymous with an entire elimination of them? Please, pay attention to what is actually being said.

Quote:
You're Blah blah blah blah blah.

Boring.

Quote:

As a consumer, my goal is to achieve and maintain a musical sound. That's not as easy as it "sounds". As a recording engineer, if I need to "tweak" a certain room in order to obtain a certain sound, this is where acoustic treatments make sense. The goals for a concert space do not need to be the same as for a home listening room.

You are a recording engineer? Oh jeez.

blah blah blah blah blah ... :yawn: Bo-ring!

Quote:

Quote:
Logically flawed? Do you mean ad hominem *arguments* are a logical fallacy?

yep

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
I find myself nodding in agreement with a number of things Kait tried explaining to you about acoustic treatments.

First let me give you props for talking about audio before disagrreing with everything you are saying. Kait didn't really "explain" anything. Probably a good choice. He expressed his opinions and sonic impressions of Sonex. I'm certainly not going to argue with him about his opinions even if I still believe he is spoofing subjectivists all the way.

Quote:

By your remarks on the subject, you act like acoustic room treatment panels are just magic pills that you take whenever you have bad sound.

No "magic" involved. What they do is pretty straight forward. Whether or not it is good or bad is entirely subjective. That is always the case when we start to talk about "good' and "bad" in a context of aesthetic values.

Quote:

That they are "proven" to work, so can not be doing anything bad to your sound.

That is your leap not mine. they are proven to work in that they do exactly what they are advertised to do. Whether or not you find it good or bad is up to you.

Quote:

They are only "proven" to have an effect on acoustic waves. So does an empty fridge box.

An empty fridge box will not act as an absorber or a bass trap though.

Quote:

As Steve has (again) been patiently trying to explain to you, "work" means a lot of things to a lot of people.

He has been making a semantical argument? I did not realize that. If that is what you want to say on Steves behalf....

Quote:

My observations with the kind of products your friend Ethan sells, in my room and that of many of my friends, is that they "Yammy-fy" your sound.

I'm not going to argue with you about your perceptions. Ethan isn't my friend though. I don't know him personally.

Quote:

What that term refers to is to sort of reduce a highly engineered Stereophile Class A/B/C/etc amplifier, into something that more resembles the sound of a mid-fi Yamaha receiver. Which gets you further away from the musical goal, not closer to it.

having gone from an actual Yamaha mid-fi reciever to ARC SP 10 and D 115 I can actually relate to that comparison. IME the effects of room treatments in my room were exactly the opposite.

Quote:

You can do the same sort of thing to the signal chain by, say, sticking an equalizer in the path of the signal, and thinking that you are improving the sound by twidding with the knobs, because you're "compensating" for your room anomalies.

You won't catch me doing that. IME it doesn't work at all.

Quote:

Completely oblivious to what the hell else that equalizer has just done to your sound. That's a good analogy actually, because sticking acoustic treatment traps on all the walls, is much like fiddling with an equalizer for the room itself.

actually it is quite different. The room treatments reduce room reflections. There can be some skewing in the frequency response if the treatment is applied without some attention to that problem. But do it right and that is not an issue. OTOH a bad room can have the same effect as an equalizer adjusted by an angry monkey.

Quote:

All rooms, like all systems, have inherent colorations. By adding large room acoustic panels, you add further colorations.

That is simply incorrect. absorbtion and bass traps can only reduce room colorations. now if one finds particular room colorations to their liking or if there is a certain synergy between one's speakers and the existing room colorations one may have a preference for the room colorations. But the effect of absorbtion and bass traps is always a reduction in room coloration.

Quote:

What happens after that depends on your belief system; measurer or listener? Just as with audio equipment, you can look at data measurements and "believe" your sound is better. Then tell your ears to shut up, if they ever suggest otherwise. Or, if you actually know how the many ways music reproduction can degrade, you might then recognize that "degrade" is what the room treatments are doing to important characteristics of your sound.

If you like the room colorations then no doubt reducing them will be a subjective degredation. So far IME I have yet to find a reduction in room colorations to ever degrade the sound of my system. It has nothing to do with liking measurements.

Quote:

But the "measurer" only hears what he chooses to hear; which is the "improvements" the treatments have made. This I believe is more or less what Kait meant by "YRMV" (Your Room May Vary). What he also said about people getting used to a certain sound, even though it is an artificial sound, can never be overstated.

There is a reason why more refined audiophiles, seeking a purer, less colored sound, avoid acoustic room treatments, even tacking carpets to the walls.

Yeah right. Nice try. More refined my ass. If you actually want less "colored" sound then you want room treatments. If you like room colorations that is your choice. Even if you don't understand that it is a coloration that you are choosing. Nothing wrong with a preference for more colored sound.

Quote:

If you prefer say amplitude over phase,

"If I prefer amplitude over phase?" I'm tryin so hard not to make fun of this.

Quote:

dryness of bass over resolution of timbre, one aspect of one measurement being more or less correct, while other aspects that may not sign in as "present!"on the manufacturer's data sheet, but can cause the relationship you have to the musical message to become worse, then room treatment products are probably for you.
But not me, sorry "dude". I won't allow anything to come into either my room, or my system, that fucks with the core elements of the sound that provides to the brain, the connection it needs to react to that sound as it does real music. And it is all too easy to screw up your sound worse, in an effort to make it better, and believe it's better to justify all your expense and bother in installing room traps. If that happens, then what you get in the end is just "sound". Noises that resemble music, but do not fool the brain very much. So it does not respond in the same way as it would in the presence of music. This is the essential reason for why the "measurers" will never see eye to eye with the "listeners". That's not to knock your system if you like the way it sounds. Just don't be telling me or anyone else here, that's that way it's gotta sound, and acoustic traps are what everybody needs, if not wants. That's just your trip.

OK......If room reflections and gross bass colorations float your boat....

No doubt there are some colorations that I like. I like the colorations of my electronics and my TT rig. I just haven't had the same luck with room colorations.

First let me give you props for talking about audio before not responding to anything you are saying. Sorry, I haven't the time nor energy to respond to all this,blah blah blah blah blah.

::yawn::

Quote:

I agree with what you wrote here (with just very minor tweaking):

Scott sort of wrote: "Yeah right. Nice try. Less colored my ass. If you actually want more "colored" sound then you want room treatments. If you like more room colorations that is your choice. Even if you don't understand that it is a coloration that you are choosing. Nothing wrong with a preference for more colored sound. "

Now that is just idiotic thing to say. It is the opposite of what I wrote and is completely wrong. Do you know what a coloration is? I have to ask because I can't see how someone who actually knows what a coloration is would think that bouncing the sound from the speaker off the walls would be less colored sound. So do you know what a coloration is? If so please explain how bouncing sound off the walls makes for less colored sound.

Quote:

You're foolish to think a room doesn't have colorations because you stick a few room traps into it.

You're foolish to think that I think a room doesn't have colorations because one sticks a few (bass not room) traps into it. In what world is a "reduction' in colorations synonymous with an entire elimination of them? Please, pay attention to what is actually being said.

Quote:
You're Blah blah blah blah blah.

Boring.

Quote:

As a consumer, my goal is to achieve and maintain a musical sound. That's not as easy as it "sounds". As a recording engineer, if I need to "tweak" a certain room in order to obtain a certain sound, this is where acoustic treatments make sense. The goals for a concert space do not need to be the same as for a home listening room.

You are a recording engineer? Oh jeez.

blah blah blah blah blah ... :yawn: Bo-ring!

Quote:

Quote:
Logically flawed? Do you mean ad hominem *arguments* are a logical fallacy?

yep

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
I find myself nodding in agreement with a number of things Kait tried explaining to you about acoustic treatments.

First let me give you props for talking about audio before disagrreing with everything you are saying. Kait didn't really "explain" anything. Probably a good choice. He expressed his opinions and sonic impressions of Sonex. I'm certainly not going to argue with him about his opinions even if I still believe he is spoofing subjectivists all the way.

Quote:

By your remarks on the subject, you act like acoustic room treatment panels are just magic pills that you take whenever you have bad sound.

No "magic" involved. What they do is pretty straight forward. Whether or not it is good or bad is entirely subjective. That is always the case when we start to talk about "good' and "bad" in a context of aesthetic values.

Quote:

That they are "proven" to work, so can not be doing anything bad to your sound.

That is your leap not mine. they are proven to work in that they do exactly what they are advertised to do. Whether or not you find it good or bad is up to you.

Quote:

They are only "proven" to have an effect on acoustic waves. So does an empty fridge box.

An empty fridge box will not act as an absorber or a bass trap though.

Quote:

As Steve has (again) been patiently trying to explain to you, "work" means a lot of things to a lot of people.

He has been making a semantical argument? I did not realize that. If that is what you want to say on Steves behalf....

Quote:

My observations with the kind of products your friend Ethan sells, in my room and that of many of my friends, is that they "Yammy-fy" your sound.

I'm not going to argue with you about your perceptions. Ethan isn't my friend though. I don't know him personally.

Quote:

What that term refers to is to sort of reduce a highly engineered Stereophile Class A/B/C/etc amplifier, into something that more resembles the sound of a mid-fi Yamaha receiver. Which gets you further away from the musical goal, not closer to it.

having gone from an actual Yamaha mid-fi reciever to ARC SP 10 and D 115 I can actually relate to that comparison. IME the effects of room treatments in my room were exactly the opposite.

Quote:

You can do the same sort of thing to the signal chain by, say, sticking an equalizer in the path of the signal, and thinking that you are improving the sound by twidding with the knobs, because you're "compensating" for your room anomalies.

You won't catch me doing that. IME it doesn't work at all.

Quote:

Completely oblivious to what the hell else that equalizer has just done to your sound. That's a good analogy actually, because sticking acoustic treatment traps on all the walls, is much like fiddling with an equalizer for the room itself.

actually it is quite different. The room treatments reduce room reflections. There can be some skewing in the frequency response if the treatment is applied without some attention to that problem. But do it right and that is not an issue. OTOH a bad room can have the same effect as an equalizer adjusted by an angry monkey.

Quote:

All rooms, like all systems, have inherent colorations. By adding large room acoustic panels, you add further colorations.

That is simply incorrect. absorbtion and bass traps can only reduce room colorations. now if one finds particular room colorations to their liking or if there is a certain synergy between one's speakers and the existing room colorations one may have a preference for the room colorations. But the effect of absorbtion and bass traps is always a reduction in room coloration.

Quote:

What happens after that depends on your belief system; measurer or listener? Just as with audio equipment, you can look at data measurements and "believe" your sound is better. Then tell your ears to shut up, if they ever suggest otherwise. Or, if you actually know how the many ways music reproduction can degrade, you might then recognize that "degrade" is what the room treatments are doing to important characteristics of your sound.

If you like the room colorations then no doubt reducing them will be a subjective degredation. So far IME I have yet to find a reduction in room colorations to ever degrade the sound of my system. It has nothing to do with liking measurements.

Quote:

But the "measurer" only hears what he chooses to hear; which is the "improvements" the treatments have made. This I believe is more or less what Kait meant by "YRMV" (Your Room May Vary). What he also said about people getting used to a certain sound, even though it is an artificial sound, can never be overstated.

There is a reason why more refined audiophiles, seeking a purer, less colored sound, avoid acoustic room treatments, even tacking carpets to the walls.

Yeah right. Nice try. More refined my ass. If you actually want less "colored" sound then you want room treatments. If you like room colorations that is your choice. Even if you don't understand that it is a coloration that you are choosing. Nothing wrong with a preference for more colored sound.

Quote:

If you prefer say amplitude over phase,

"If I prefer amplitude over phase?" I'm tryin so hard not to make fun of this.

Quote:

dryness of bass over resolution of timbre, one aspect of one measurement being more or less correct, while other aspects that may not sign in as "present!"on the manufacturer's data sheet, but can cause the relationship you have to the musical message to become worse, then room treatment products are probably for you.
But not me, sorry "dude". I won't allow anything to come into either my room, or my system, that fucks with the core elements of the sound that provides to the brain, the connection it needs to react to that sound as it does real music. And it is all too easy to screw up your sound worse, in an effort to make it better, and believe it's better to justify all your expense and bother in installing room traps. If that happens, then what you get in the end is just "sound". Noises that resemble music, but do not fool the brain very much. So it does not respond in the same way as it would in the presence of music. This is the essential reason for why the "measurers" will never see eye to eye with the "listeners". That's not to knock your system if you like the way it sounds. Just don't be telling me or anyone else here, that's that way it's gotta sound, and acoustic traps are what everybody needs, if not wants. That's just your trip.

OK......If room reflections and gross bass colorations float your boat....

No doubt there are some colorations that I like. I like the colorations of my electronics and my TT rig. I just haven't had the same luck with room colorations.

First let me give you props for talking about audio before not responding to anything you are saying. Sorry, I haven't the time nor energy to respond to all this,blah blah blah blah blah.

::yawn::

Quote:

I agree with what you wrote here (with just very minor tweaking):

Scott sort of wrote: "Yeah right. Nice try. Less colored my ass. If you actually want more "colored" sound then you want room treatments. If you like more room colorations that is your choice. Even if you don't understand that it is a coloration that you are choosing. Nothing wrong with a preference for more colored sound. "

Now that is just idiotic thing to say. It is the opposite of what I wrote and is completely wrong. Do you know what a coloration is? I have to ask because I can't see how someone who actually knows what a coloration is would think that bouncing the sound from the speaker off the walls would be less colored sound. So do you know what a coloration is? If so please explain how bouncing sound off the walls makes for less colored sound.

Quote:

You're foolish to think a room doesn't have colorations because you stick a few room traps into it.

You're foolish to think that I think a room doesn't have colorations because one sticks a few (bass not room) traps into it. In what world is a "reduction' in colorations synonymous with an entire elimination of them? Please, pay attention to what is actually being said.

Quote:
You're Blah blah blah blah blah.

Boring.

Quote:

As a consumer, my goal is to achieve and maintain a musical sound. That's not as easy as it "sounds". As a recording engineer, if I need to "tweak" a certain room in order to obtain a certain sound, this is where acoustic treatments make sense. The goals for a concert space do not need to be the same as for a home listening room.

You are a recording engineer? Oh jeez.

blah blah blah blah blah ... :yawn: Bo-ring!

Quote:

Quote:
Logically flawed? Do you mean ad hominem *arguments* are a logical fallacy?

yep

Quote:

Quote:
Nope. Try again. You're sure to get it right this time Scotty.

"The ad hominem argument is not a fallacy..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Quote:
Don't need to try again. It is a logical fallacy.

Now that is just idiotic thing to say.

Jan's got your back froggy

I had no idea that there was an Ed McMahon behind every Walter Mitty. Only on message boards do frogs get to pretend to be recording engineers and "audio researchers."

The fact is Ethan Winer confessed to defrauding the public by faking the RS mic data/graphs.

Here is the seventh forum I found, Audio Circle, that Ethan posts a link and advertises his fake RS mic data/graphs. It is in a "sticky" no less and his link still works.

http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=17842.0

Quote:
People often ask which affordable microphones I recommend for measuring their room. To answer this question I tested ten popular microphones ranging from an inexpensive DIY model to a Josephson with Microtech Gefell capsule costing $1,800, and wrote up the results for this article: Comparison of Ten Measuring Microphones. Enjoy!

Scott and Ncdrawal are paying a terrible price for being shills.

Here is what Martin DeWulf states. Notice the similarity of this string, Ethan, Scott, Ncdrawal and the quote.

http://www.boundforsound.com/reviews.htm#Truth

Quote:
On some of the message boards there are known instances of audio manufacturers and dealers having infiltrators (shills) post as sincere consumers in an effort to undermine the popularity of competitors products while subtly propping their own.

Scott and Ncdrawal continue bashing Ted (Synergistics) while supporting Ethan Winer's confessed fraud and his products.

Quote:
Ethan's products are proven. Ted's arent.

Quote:
Well, yes, I back him up, because he is in the right. Ted posted some graphs.....while SAS stays his usual course and whinges about "ethan's lying to the public

What does ethan's personal life have to do with this?

Even though the explanation has been given several times, They continue to shill.
Why does ethan's personal life have to do with this? Slick sidestep.
Ethan confessed to falsifying RS meter data/graphs to defraud the public out of money. Turns out he has been doing it for years. Does that sound like just a personal issue.

Nc, page 44

Quote:
sammet has been bitching for months and months.. broken record at this point. hes like the guy with the "end is nigh" sign. noone gives a damn but him

Notice no proof, just an accusation. And still no condemnation of Ethan's years long fraud, stealing money from the public after is was discovered and revealed on this string. Instead attack the one who broke the story of Ethan's confession.

All this fits Martin's article. Attack a competitor and defend a confessed fraud.
Lot's more evidence that Nc and Scott are shills, bought and paid for by Ethan.

Quote:
Only on message boards do frogs get to pretend to be recording engineers and "audio researchers."

Only on message boards do make-up artists get to pretend to be acousticians and audio scientists.

Quote:
Jan's got your back froggy

And you got nuthin', not even recognition of reality.

Ah yes, Roquefort holds a special place in his hart for you dear Ethan. But where are my manners? Please, allow me to introduce myself. I am Roquefort, special investigator of all things PU. Yes Roquefort PI of PU, so beware.

Wherever the smell is as fresh cut cheese you will find Roquefort. Whenever words gloss over truth in support of lies, you will find Roquefort. When facts are covered under so much stinky cheese you will most certainly find Roquefort, for it is I, Roquefort PI, inspector of PU.

SE not a competitor to our esteemed college Ethan Weiner?
http://www.seelectronics.com/rf.html

Well Roquefort did a little digging about, it did not take Roquefort long- http://www.ghostacoustics.com/

Ethan you rascal, there you go again. I am sure Roquefort and Ethan will be good friends, no?

Quote:
The fact is Ethan Winer confessed to defrauding the public by faking the RS mic data/graphs. Here is the seventh forum I found, Audio Circle, that Ethan posts a link and advertises his fake RS mic data/graphs. It is in a "sticky" no less and his link still works.

Scott and Ncdrawal are paying a terrible price for being shills. Notice no proof, just an accusation. And still no condemnation of Ethan's years long fraud, stealing money from the public after is was discovered and revealed on this string. Instead attack the one who broke the story of Ethan's confession.

All this fits Martin's article. Attack a competitor and defend a confessed fraud. Lot's more evidence that Nc and Scott are shills, bought and paid for by Ethan.

Wow, you mean Big E. has done the very same thing he accused Ted here of; faking audio graph data? Ethan, who in the last few weeks ran throughout the halls of Stereophile shouting long and loud rants against Ted, accusing him of criminal intent, but never proved his accusations whatsoever? Ethan who now completely shuts up when evidence is shown that he is in fact guilty of faking data graphs himself on another forum? Could it be that Ethan Winer, proprietor of "Real Traps, LLC", the so-called "acoustic treatment experts", is behind the scenes laughing at the fact that he gets to accuse his competitors of the very deceitful "hard data" tricks that -he- uses to dupe consumers on the various audio forums he shills on? And that he gets friends, dealers and customers of his to shill on forums like this on his behalf? Like we saw him doing in front of the scenes, by demanding that customers on the Gearslutz forum put in a good if they use his products?

You mean this is yet another example of where Ethan has been proven to deceive consumers on an audio forum, and his apologists, ie. NCdrawl, Scott, etc. etc. have nothing to say about that? I'm shocked!! SHOCKED!!! Why this is nothing less than.... organized deceit and hypocrisy! A con on the consumer! I would never guess that Ethan Winer, who gives free advice to all even if they bought his competitors product, would be this unscrupulous and unethical!

Ethan and his apologists seem to have read Martin's article from 2003, because they appear to be following it to the letter:

On some of the message boards there are known instances of audio manufacturers and dealers having infiltrators (shills) post as sincere consumers in an effort to undermine the popularity of competitors products while subtly propping their own. This has happened on a number of occasions - with disastrous results. Opinions without foundation can be spread as Gospel truth, while dissident ideas clearly and honestly expressed are dismissed as heresy and characters are assassinated. Persons without qualifications fabricate biographical histories and then write reviews which are from all outward appearances legitimate - but are fantasy. If someone is bold enough to call their bluff, he may be piled on, or simply deleted. Unhappy splinter groups find their own equilibrium by joining together under a common cause, while being hidden from the world under numerous passwords and overlapping intruder defense mechanisms. Roving cliques (ie. "Joamonte", "David L.", "JohnnyR", "Fiji5555", etc.) go from board to board like wild thugs stomping on diverse opinions like empty aluminum cans under heavy boots, as knowledgeable old timers and veterans look on and laugh. Board moderators use their powers (of deletion) to tilt the playing field in favor of friends and contributors.2 It

Tres interesting. sE advertises an entire new line of acoustics products, not just "one item". Which better explains why Ethan was so angry that "badboymusic" recommended an sE product over his, on another forum. However, to my knowledge, it was one of Ethan's biggest shills, NCDrawl, who claimed sE was not a competitor to Ethan's RealTraps:

Quote:
NCDRAWL wrote: "the only thing that is clear is that you do not know what you are talking about. sE electronics is a microphone company. they produce one item, the Reflexion Filter that targets acoustics...but it is not "competition" as you suggest. they are a microphone company."

Don't worry, you won't hear any more from "NCDRAWL" on the issue, much less an apology to me admitting he was wrong in defending Ethan's anti-competitive attacks. Oh, NC will go after you very agressively at the -start- of a "debate", when he thinks he's got it in the bag. But like Ethan, and all intellectual cowards, he runs away from any and all rebuttals that prove him wrong. That is, until the next time he thinks he's "got in the bag".

[quote=toad] ...

toad, you are a damned fool. thats the reason I haven't responded to you..or Sammet. I am not a shill, not on Ethan's payroll...as ive stated, more than once, I don't own any of his products. My spaces were outfitted by a LEGITIMATE realtraps competitor--- GIK Acoustics.

you idiots have confused the issue. sidetracked.. way, way off topic now.

the thread is about SYNERGISTIC and "proof positive" (turns out there was /is no proof positive!)

start an Ethan Winer slagfest somewhere else... I swear to christ, you idiots will take any opportunity you can to slag Ethan.

let me ask you a serious question.

What do you hope to accomplish with your pathetic rants? The public turning on Ethan? Right. never going to happen.

Ethan's products have been proven and endorsed by some of the biggest names in recording engineering. Over and over again.

SR products are endorsed by a few audiophiles. you do the math.
guess what. it is going to stay that way. forever. irregardless of what you(Toad) or Sammet does. the sooner you accept that and make peace with it...well, the better off you will be. the real issue here(the very one you are clouding with your idiotic ranting) is Ted and his inability to show anything that resembles "proof"..

He may, but he hasn't yet. He's the one with egg on his face. realtraps sales will continue, as they always have.

Toad, you and sammet need to tell your boss to take 10 minutes and post some legitimate graphs.

Frog,
Roquefort does what Roquefort can.

It seems Ethan only knows how to let off farts, and those who are with him can only laugh and sniff them. This pleases Roquefort greatly for it was their fetid stench that propelled Roquefort PI of PU into action.

Quote:
Wow, you mean Big E. has done the very same thing he accused Ted here of; faking audio graph data? Ethan, who in the last few weeks ran throughout the halls of Stereophile shouting long and loud rants against Ted, accusing him of criminal intent, but never proved his accusations whatsoever?

Remember in the past Ethan also claimed to be the most honest gent on this forum, in fact several times. Now he is caught defrauding the public for years. Sound like any politicians you have heard of?

NC,
Roquefort eagerly awaits the objective test results for Synergistic Research's Acoustic ART System as do we all.

But even from my vantage point far from this conflict Roquefort can smell smoke, and where there is smoke, there is sure to be fire.

http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/accessori...-treatment.html

I want to expound further on sE... they do sell mics that , to the laymen(the guys just getting into audio)represent good value. The two guys that are in charge of the company are salesmen, not technically-minded.They buy their microphones from a company in China with their own name plate attached. The mics probably cost less than 100 bucks to purchase, yet they sell some models for over 1,000.00. sE doesn't even do anything to the mics..no modding, no assemblage.. they come to them(sE) in a nice velvet bag that is inside of a wooden box. all that sE has to do is slap a nameplate on , a shipping label, and off they go.

I have no doubts that their acoustic products are of similar lineage..

Quote:
Frog,
Roquefort does what Roquefort can.

It seems Ethan only knows how to let off farts, and those who are with him can only laugh and sniff them. This pleases Roquefort greatly for it was their fetid stench that propelled Roquefort PI of PU into action.

Aren't you going to formally post the fact that you write articles for sale to audiophiles, then?

Isn't that a requirement, since you make something sold to audiophiles.

Or am I confused, are you just another audiophile with no evidence and a bad attitude?

Quote:
NC,Roquefort
As for my belief system, it should be evident. My post describes the differences I've heard. If direct experience isn't good enough for someone - if they're going to play the "objective" vs. "subjective" game, and throw the placebo effect stuff at me, as though a music critic abandons all powers of discrimination when listening to music on a high-end system - so be it. I have nothing to prove.

thats all fine and good..anecdotal "evidence".. audiophile reviewer spiels..yes, they can be taken into consideration...but don't be deluded into thinking this is the same thing as "proof". it isn't.
hell, some people rave about the CD stoplight pen..but its a damned fact that that thing doesn't work.

ive said nothing about blind testing. I won't even get to that stage until I see some real data backing up Ted's claims...

Quote:
ive said nothing about blind testing. I won't even get to that stage until I see some real data backing up Ted's claims...

You want evidence? Man, don't hold your breath!

Quote:
toad, you are a damned fool. thats the reason I haven't responded to you..or Sammet. I am not a shill, not on Ethan's payroll...as ive stated, more than once, I don't own any of his products. My spaces were outfitted by a LEGITIMATE realtraps competitor--- GIK Acoustics.

You don't have to own his products to be a shill, but this already pointed out before to you. Anyone can deny, but the evidence is what you do, and on this string tells a different story. Here is a definition to compare Ncdrawal's behaviour to.

Quote:
A shill is an associate of a person selling goods or services or a political group, who pretends no association to the seller/group and assumes the air of an enthusiastic customer. The intention of the shill is, using crowd psychology, to encourage others unaware of the set-up to purchase said goods or services or support the political group's ideological claims. Shills are often employed by confidence artists. The term plant is also used.

Shilling is illegal in many circumstances and in many jurisdictions[1] because of the frequently fraudulent and damaging character of their actions.

Now check what Martin DeWulf wrote:
http://www.boundforsound.com/reviews.htm#Truth

Quote:
On some of the message boards there are known instances of audio manufacturers and dealers having infiltrators (shills) post as sincere consumers in an effort to undermine the popularity of competitors products while subtly propping their own.

Synergistics has claimed to have sold 300. All that takes away sales from EW.

Ncdrawal, Scott, and J_J have refused to post contempt with Ethan for:

Breaking rules to begin with

posting accusations of intent to "fraud", "photoshopping", "rigged" etc. against another manufacturer/competitor

EW being caught falsifying data/graphs for years.

Yet Nc, Scott, J_J continue, page after page, to refuse to condemn his actions on any one of these three counts, but instead hype him.

And to have shills to coverup one's crimes, well just shows how disrespectful he is to the consumer.

"Ive said nothing about blind testing. I won't even get to that stage until I see some real data backing up Ted's claims... "

Pretty sneaky... I'm sure we're all atwitter with anticipation. The double whammy!

You want proof, he wants proof, we all want proof. But what is proof? Roquefort long ago accepted that cables, and in particular AC power cords to have a most efficacious effect on Roquefort's system. A modest system but one that aids my in digestion.

As for this most peculiar acoustic treatment, the only proof that will satisfy Roquefort will be the day I hear it for myself. Happily I have a set on order from The Cable Company and so I will reserve personal judgment.

Roquefort wishes to make a prediction. If they do not work for me I am certain my opinion will be greatly championed by those whose motives and conflicts of interests have been laid bare for all to see. And if I should find pleasure then my opinion will only be a weak voice in the chorus. Of this I am certain.

NC Roquefort wishes to bestow upon you a special prize for a masterpiece of slight of hand and diversionary deceit. What the microphones, which in your estimation, came from China, and that Ghost Acoustic treatments, do also, but what is this mystery? But what does this have to do with sE being a competitor and therefore the motivation of our esteemed colleague Mr. Ethan Weiner to launch into yet another defamation campaign against yet another of his competitors?

To you NC my first of what I am sure will be many awards:

Yes fart and sniff, this seems to be a bonding agent between Ethan and his merry men.

Nice sockpuppet/troll, MJF/Sammet/etc

(Roquefort).

Sammet. I would like to know, and by that, I mean, id like you to provide a link where Ethan admitted defrauding someone?

Quote:
I want to expound further on sE... they do sell mics that , to the laymen(the guys just getting into audio)represent good value. The two guys that are in charge of the company are salesmen, not technically-minded.They buy their microphones from a company in China with their own name plate attached. The mics probably cost less than 100 bucks to purchase, yet they sell some models for over 1,000.00. sE doesn't even do anything to the mics..no modding, no assemblage.. they come to them(sE) in a nice velvet bag that is inside of a wooden box. all that sE has to do is slap a nameplate on , a shipping label, and off they go.

I have no doubts that their acoustic products are of similar lineage..

I see. So, the facts so far are:

a) You have further words to "expound" on sE, but absolutely no comment to make when you called me an "idiot" for suggesting they are a competitor to your boss, Ethan Winer. No apology for insulting me when you were proven wrong and I was proven right. And no retraction of your false claim about them not being a competitor to Ethan, after I proved how he insulted a forum member for recommending an sE product over his.

b) You go on to slag SE by blathering about the poor quality of their microphones, like as if that has jack squat to do with anything here, or that your "opinion" on anything to do with acoustic products is to be considered credible or objective, seeing as you've proven to be under Ethan's thumb.

c) Now you denounce sE acoustic products as poor, even though you admit to never having tried them.

Yup, you've got us all convinced that you certainly can't be a shill for Ethan Winer! No bias with you, no sir! Thank you for that.

toad, you are a damned fool.

Wait a second... aren't you the RealTraps shill who -insisted- that sE was not a competitor to RealTraps, and told me I was an idiot for saying so? Aren't you the fool who after saying that, and then seeing my response where I proved that they made a competing product, you then turned tail and ran away from me, utterly leaving your bullshit words behind to fend for themselves? And then when "Roquefort" came on the scene and proved that sE makes an entire line of acoustic products that compete with the RealTraps line, what did you have to say to that? Oh yeah. Nothing! You ran away again. Only to come and throw angry insults at me. And trash their microphones, like as if that has f all to do with anything we were discussing. Yeah, I can sure understand that you don't act at all like a shill for RealTraps!

So you see the difference between us "NC"? Unlike you, I don't just call you a "fool" out of anger. No, I -prove- it. I don't just call you a shill, I show -evidence- for that. Evidence simply in the fact that you did not apologize to me and retract your wrongful assertion that sE is not a competitor of Ethan's, after you were -proved- wrong. Had you done so already, that would have gone a long way to convincing people you are not a shill for RealTraps, and can be considered objective about Ethan. And you wonder why people think you're a shill for Ethan?

My spaces were outfitted by a LEGITIMATE realtraps competitor--- GIK Acoustics.

Uh-huh. And the "proof" of that is where exactly? Same place as the "proof" your name is "T. Ray", I suppose? (which sounds really made up, btw). Remember, I have shown many times, that your word means nothing. For like Ethan, you have contradicted it so many times I've lost count, and run away whenever I or someone points out your bullshit words, and you clearly can't defend them. Then there's the fact that you jump at every opportunity to attack those who you perceive as attacking your partner Ethan, in a screaming rage, as you're doing now. So yeah, you're really going a long ways to convince us you're not shilling for Ethan here! Especially since you already admitted to having conversations over the phone with him about treating your studio. Not only do you dismiss out of hand without consideration, every piece of evidence that proves his misdeeds, but you clearly attack, even -after- you said you were out of here and not going to do that any longer! So obviously you have good reasons for being this protective of the Whiner. So what is it, NC? If he's not your acoustics treatment dealer, perhaps he's your pot dealer then? Or more likely, you're his!

Ethan recently claimed, no --insisted-- I was an industry member and asked JA to force me to "reveal" my industry affiliations, simply because I did what you are doing. Went on the offensive against him (to counterbalance all the deceit he engages in). You never had any objections to what he said about me, did you? That's because you clearly behave as someone who is --not-- neutral and objective in all of this. So you shouldn't have any objections when someone paints you with the same brush Ethan uses to paint his enemies.

I swear to christ, you idiots will take any opportunity you can to slag Ethan.

Just like you shills will take any opportunity to defend him and prop up his lies.

No matter WHO slags your boss, "Mr. W"!...

http://forum.stereophile.com/forum/printthread.php?Board=rants&main=61596&type=post

start an Ethan Winer slagfest somewhere else..

That's funny. I don't recall you telling Ethan in this thread to start a Ted Denney "slagfest" somewhere else. Oh yeah, I'm really convinced you have no dog in this show now, NC!

the thread is about SYNERGISTIC and "proof positive" (turns out there was /is no proof positive!)

Oh, so THAT you gloat about, eh? Nice! Really shows us how your lips are not planted on Ethan's backside! It's not like "Well there was an error with the software, but TD announced a 3rd party test would be taken, so no accusations of foul play could be made, so let's wait for that to come". No, you GLOAT instead, about the mishap, and imply something sinister. So Mr. Objective, why do you and boss Ethan run away every time I ask you where is the "proof positive" of Ethan's claim that there was fraud and falisification involved? Yeah, how -could- anyone get the idea that you're on Ethan's payroll here?! And you know what? You're even more convincing that you're not shilling for Whiner, when you write lines like this:

Ethan's products have been proven and endorsed by some of the biggest names in recording engineering. Over and over again.
realtraps sales will continue, as they always have.
the sooner you accept that and make peace with it...well, the better off you will be.

So what size would you like your "RealTraps" t-shirt in, Mr. "Moi? An Ethan Shill?" Drawl?

What do you hope to accomplish with your pathetic rants?

I was just wondering that of you. What do you hope to accomplish with your pathetic rants? Unlike you, I don't really have any "goals" in mind that I "need to accomplish". Unlike you, I don't get "paid" for anything I say about Ethan, not in favours, products or otherwise. I already told you this many times, but you seem to have a learning disability: unlike you, I have respect for what is true. If Ethan, or anyone I see, is willfully engaging in lies, but particularly a campaign of malicious lies to destroy his competitors, then it is my duty, as it is everyone's who respects the truth, to object to that. My conscientious objection is to prove that he lies and how he lies. Yours is to tear your freaking hair out from what I see, chew on your fingers, punch the screen, and yell out insults and obscenities to anyone you perceive as doing harm to your precious, precious honest and innocent as a newborn baby Ethan. Oh, and you want us to know that you're not a shill, of course, nope. That and a dollar and a half will buy you a cup of coffee.

The public turning on Ethan? Right. never going to happen.

Right. The only thing that's "never going to happen" is you telling the truth about your boss Ethan. Maybe you really should have taken your own advice and gotten out while you only had nearly all of your credibility destroyed. Because every time you open your mouth and tell a lie in defense of Ethan, there I am again with hard proof, to make you look like the lying fool you are:

roostert wrote: Ethan, you clearly use these sites for your personal gain....People can argue that you're here to help when anyone has a question....blah, blah, blah....I call it good business. You create good will, help folks out, and your company will ultimately benefit. Great business model, IMO. However, when I see you say things like you've said in this post, it makes me feel as if the only reason you "help" people, is because you will benefit. Saying to someone they are real "F'n" professional, is well, really un"F'n" professional. Sometimes as leaders in the audio community, or whatever community, you have to take the criticism, false accusations, etc...and rise above

piano wrote: Wow..... in my opinion, that is just embarrassing to be that unprofessional, Ethan. In my opinion it is not a good way to get clients - it scared me away. I love your videos and your expertise but wow..... in my opinion, there is no need to go off on someone like that as a retailer/ manufacturer. NOT COOL. In my opinion, I just see bitterness and no apology (as you should).
-----------------------
Ok, then I see no apology. I am just a bystander here in this. Personally, I like the PVB better than the Se Reflection filter. However, it really turns me off when I see what I see as unacceptable behavior from a retailer. In my opinion, scary behavior. In my opinion, I wonder, "will this behavior be turned on me if buy something and I do not like something?" In my opinion, it's better to be a gentleman.

(Hmm... didn't Ethan Winer also lie about himself in saying he was "a gentleman" here recently? So this shows even the most rational and impartial members of the public disagree!"

hardtoe wrote: Wow - Ethan, you may or may not be right, but I think that your insulting comments also reflect poorly on your professionalism. If you think someone is not worth listening to, then why not just ignore them - by dragging them through the mud, you get dirty yourself. Posting with respect is the one thing that will keep this place from turning into more of a circus then it already is - first the mastering forum (Bob Katz - S#$% to Shinloa Thread) and now the acoustics forum. Are we nasty bullies or thoughtful adults???

The Listener wrote: Just because of Mr.Winers forum (re)presentation I became biased (meaning: I won't buy any) towards Real Traps products, too. But that doesn't have to mean anything for others and it doesn't represent the only reality. Just our opinions about his "wiseguy" attitude. It's just personal (a)e(s)th(et)ics.

IM WHO YOU THINK wrote: Ethan man you are stooping way lower than you should here. (It's not becoming. I understand the need to defend yourself but dude you're the manufacturer of a product don't stoop to this.)

neon wrote: Realtraps posted nasty and doubtful audio files in their website some time ago about the superiority of the PVB and the mediocre results of the SE Products! Actually many GS Fellows complained about it. The point is that Mr Winner feels he is entitled to comment and do whatever he wants, but other can not do it!

badboymusic wrote: For everyone not familiar with Ethan's tactics, He will insult and try to bully you out of the conversation. Any questions he cannot answer, he just ignores (no matter how many time you ask him). Let's see if he will address my questions with answers, insults or his side stepping (which he's already tried with the camera angle claim, which tells us his intent is to deny that they were shot in different locations). My guess is Ethan never proves they were shot in the same location. Watch the video RealTraps - PVB Demo (Doug) Only an Ethan FanBoy would not be able to realize the smoke detector would be visible (if it were there).

http://www.gearslutz.com/board/gear-shoo...h-action-3.html

Aren't you going to formally post the fact that you write articles for sale to audiophiles, then?

Isn't that a requirement, since you make something sold to audiophiles.

"Write articles for sale to audiophiles"? You're actually equating a writer of audio with a manufacturer of audio products, and that they have to identify their affiliation in their sig on account of this?? Sweet mother of Mary, James. When the good Lord was handing out brains, you must have had your tongue stuck to a lampost. Far more tangible than "writing about audio" in magazines that are sold to audiophiles, is your work for Neural & DTS. Neural actually make physical audio products, and DTS make software for use in audiophile products. Both of that is a hell of a lot closer to the forum's stipulation for industry members than "random posters who write about audio". Because if we went by your kiddy crib logic, everyone on the forum is an industry member.

Or am I confused, are you just another audiophile with no evidence and a bad attitude?

Or are you just another audiophile with no evidence and a bad attitude? Where exactly is your evidence "Roquefort" is an audio journalist?? Same place as your good friend Ethan's evidence for fraud and falsification against S-Art?

proof from Ted?

*chirp, chirp*

and how the hell does one become a "writer of audio?"

i am very, very curious to hear your recordings, "recording engineer"..

hilarious!

Quote:
Nice sockpuppet/troll, MJF/Sammet/etc

(Roquefort).

Sammet. I would like to know, and by that, I mean, id like you to provide a link where Ethan admitted defrauding someone?

It has already been posted, with link, two or three times earlier, which you saw, including the 7 other forums he posted the falsified data/graphs.

Ah, Mich never claimed to be a recording engineer, go back and re-read.

Quote:

Quote:
Nice sockpuppet/troll, MJF/Sammet/etc

hmm..... I do not see anywhere where Ethan says "i have defrauded the public"

as for re-reading..if you assholes would learn how to use the quote function, things would be a lot easier.

Quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
where are the examples of Ethan attacking companies who pose an even more grave threat?

He leaves Primacoustic alone, he doesn't even rail at Auralex style products like P.T. Kaitt does!

Ethan doesn't attack ASC, either.

He's fine with Russ Berger Design.
Ethan doesn't stalk Sonex.
Maybe it is all about what's effective and what isn't.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"LOL, I made that point to John Atkinson just this morning by email, and he disagreed!"

Hmmmm, interesting. So, let me understand this, Nathan. You think I'm attacking Sonex because they are a competitor of mine? That's rather bizarre since most people would contend we're not really competitors. You know, kind of like your contention that Real Traps and Synergetic Research are not really competitors because Real Traps are for people who, uh, believe in "sound engineering principles."

If you do actually consider Machina Dynamica and Sonex competitors, which seems to be the case, which one of my products do you consider competition to Sonex? Brilliant Pebbles? You know, the one you referred to as the prime example of an "obvious hoax" in your AES presentation."

proof from Ted?*chirp, chirp*

What part of "wait" are you having so many problems understanding? Obviously, if you honestly were interested in proof of these products (or any), and not just interested in your role as "Winer-bot", happily attacking Ethan's opponents on behalf of him, you'd have already demo'ed them yourself by now.

For the meantime, where's that proof I was asking you about "fraud and falsification" charges? Running away from that, like you're running away from your foolish claim that sE is not Ethan's competitor? Maybe you want to distract everyone again from focusing on your fallacious bullshit with how bad their mikes are, is that the plan? I thought you said you weren't some anonymous asshole who doesn't stand up for his words, so what happened to that? Where's my apology for telling me I was wrong about sE?

and how the hell does one become a "writer of audio?"

Um, I don't think you're going to have to worry about that in your lifetime. Anyway, why are you asking me? Sounds like a question for wacky James!

i am very, very curious to hear your recordings, "recording engineer"..

So am I. 'Specially as I didn't know I had any. hilarious!

But look, I really don't want to be mean and burst this little fantasy world you and brother Ethan always live in. So hey, just pick any record who's sound you really like. I engineered that.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
Nice sockpuppet/troll, MJF/Sammet/etc

hmm..... I do not see anywhere where Ethan says "i have defrauded the public"

as for re-reading..if you assholes would learn how to use the quote function, things would be a lot easier.

That's pretty funny Mister Drawl, given that your entire post is a solid quote. Which makes it appear like you're talking to yourself, because you can't figure out how to use the quote function well enough to even avoid looking like you're having a conversation with yourself. Or maybe you are having a conversation with yourself, and calling yourself "assholes", as you speak of yourself in the plural form? Who knows with you, you always seem one burger short of a happy meal.

So is this sort of buffoonery supposed to be an homage to Ethan? An imitation of Ethan? A mockery of Ethan? Or is this just simply you being a buffoon, like Ethan? I ask because I'm starting to have trouble telling you two jokers apart.

Quote:
Who knows with you, you always seem one burger short of a happy meal.

When I start tying reef knots in my curtains or putting photographs in the microwave or whatever the shit you beltist fuckers do, then call me crazy.

truth be told, I just enjoy screwing with you. You are an easy target. Racists normally are.

Quote:
When I start tying reef knots in my curtains or putting photographs in the microwave or whatever the shit you beltist fuckers do, then call me crazy.

"You Beltist fuckers"?? Sounds more like you have the makings of a racist bigot. Sorry, make that a -crazy- racist bigot. Although I do not condone this ugly attitude of yours, I do think I understand where you're coming from. Because where you're from, "Beltism" just means being beaten by a belt. But maybe if they put out a set of foils with a design of the confederate flag on it, you and the other trailer park boys would warm up to it, no? Anyway, no one I know, Beltist or otherwise, ties reef knots in their curtains or puts photographs in the microwave. That -is- crazy. So other than your transparent hatred and bigotry towards "Beltists", I don't know why you insist on making up crazy bullshit about them. Isn't there already enough crazy bullshit to go around between you and Ethan?

Quote:
truth be told, I just enjoy screwing with you.

Thank you for your honesty, NC. Spoken like a true anonymous asshole and sockpuppet troll! I knew that pap you were trying to feed me about how "discourteous" everyone else is, and how "courteous" -you- are was exactly that. Still, excuse me if I'm not convinced your "screw with you" plan is working. I mean given that every single time you open your mouth to respond to me, I keep making you look like a contradictory fool and a true dumbass, I keep winning every debate you initiate, and defeating every argument you make, I keep demonstrating how you have to run away from me and hide from your own worthless words every time I expose your arrogant BS for what it is, it sounds more like you enjoy screwing yourself. You're probably used to that, though, so I guess that's just a "night on the town" for you. But if your goal in all of this is to prove that you're the most mindless idiot in the room, you're doing well, but I have to say, you're certainly not convincing anyone you're not a mouthpiece for Ethan Winer. Nor are you making him look any better, except when you stand right next to him and open your mouth. So as a suggestion, maybe Ethan can have you speak to the crowd just before him, the next time he does an AES presentation. Then, instead of laughing at the buffoon, as they did in his last presentation to the AES, people would be laughing so hard at you, that he would almost sound like he knows what he's talking about for a change.

Quote:
You are an easy target. Racists normally are.

So "Beltists" are the same as "racists" according to you? LOL! Hmmm... on second thought, make that one burger, one fries, one soda, one box, and one commercial tie-in toy short of a happy meal.

Quote:
"You Beltist fuckers"?? Sounds more like you have the makings of a racist bigot.

Beltists now claim to be a race?

Are you of Beltist ethnicity, Michigan?

Would a Mississippi preacher refuse to perform a wedding between a Beltist and an objectivist?

Imagine trying to raise children in such an environment!

Hmmm, what do Beltists look like?

Unblinking eyes? (No, rabid objectivists would be indistinguishable!) We'll have to establish some distinguishing racial characteristics...

Michigan and Ethan, as disparate as their opinions are, both seem like they would be good to have over for dinner. I can imagine a sort of Sidney Poitier Spencer Tracy thing...

I'll settle for being a mixed breed audiophile - characterized by large brain, big weiner, a paragon of fashion sense, and a veritable pheromone factory.

Quote:
"You Beltist fuckers"?? Sounds more like you have the makings of a racist bigot.

Beltists now claim to be a race? Are you of Beltist ethnicity, Michigan?

Yes Buddha, as a matter of fact I -am-. I was raised Beltist, my parents were Beltists, their parents were Beltist. What is so hard for you to understand about this? I still have some very painful memories from my childhood where we were pelted with rocks while forced to flee our village by people crying "go away you Beltist fuckers!!". (Although I have to admit, the rocks made really good devices to improve our sound, after they were treated properly of course). The point is, our people have endured hundreds of years of opression and intolerance by the prevailing orthodoxy. I thought Stereophile was a safe haven! (sob sob)

Would a Mississippi preacher refuse to perform a wedding between a Beltist and an objectivist? Imagine trying to raise children in such an environment!

Laugh if you want, but I actually know a couple who got married, and the woman was a practicing Beltist, while the man was a staunch "jj-style" objectivist. There's nothing wrong with the children, so I don't know where you're getting that. They do practice Beltism to treat their RS meters, equalizers, sound processors, home theatre systems, QSC amps and bass traps.

Hmmm, what do Beltists look like? Unblinking eyes? (No, rabid objectivists would be indistinguishable!) We'll have to establish some distinguishing racial characteristics...

Well the safety pin on the lapel is usually a giveaway.

Michigan and Ethan, as disparate as their opinions are, both seem like they would be good to have over for dinner. I can imagine a sort of Sidney Poitier Spencer Tracy thing...

I didn't see the movie. Did Sidney Poitier poke the other guy in the eye with a carrot?

I'll settle for being a mixed breed audiophile - characterized by large brain, big weiner, a paragon of fashion sense, and a veritable pheromone factory.

Well, add "natty dreadlocks" long enough to whip you in the face, and you've pretty much described any male Beltist.

Quote:

Quote:
"You Beltist fuckers"?? Sounds more like you have the makings of a racist bigot.

Beltists now claim to be a race? Are you of Beltist ethnicity, Michigan?

Yes Buddha, as a matter of fact I -am-. I was raised Beltist, my parents were Beltists, their parents were Beltist. What is so hard for you to understand about this? I still have some very painful memories from my childhood where we were pelted with rocks while forced to flee our village by people crying "go away you Beltist fuckers!!". (Although I have to admit, the rocks made really good devices to improve our sound, after they were treated properly of course). The point is, our people have endured hundreds of years of opression and intolerance by the prevailing orthodoxy. I thought Stereophile was a safe haven! (sob sob)

Would a Mississippi preacher refuse to perform a wedding between a Beltist and an objectivist? Imagine trying to raise children in such an environment!

Laugh if you want, but I actually know a couple who got married, and the woman was a practicing Beltist, while the man was a staunch "jj-style" objectivist. There's nothing wrong with the children, so I don't know where you're getting that. They do practice Beltism to treat their RS meters, equalizers, sound processors, home theatre systems, QSC amps and bass traps.

Hmmm, what do Beltists look like? Unblinking eyes? (No, rabid objectivists would be indistinguishable!) We'll have to establish some distinguishing racial characteristics...

Well the safety pin on the lapel is usually a giveaway.

Michigan and Ethan, as disparate as their opinions are, both seem like they would be good to have over for dinner. I can imagine a sort of Sidney Poitier Spencer Tracy thing...

I didn't see the movie. Did Sidney Poitier poke the other guy in the eye with a carrot?

I'll settle for being a mixed breed audiophile - characterized by large brain, big weiner, a paragon of fashion sense, and a veritable pheromone factory.

Well, add "natty dreadlocks" and you've pretty much described any male Beltist.

It is now far, far past the time to close this thread. All we have here is people enabling the Tadpole and the Steve to continue their griefing.

Quote:
It is now far, far past the time to close this thread. All we have here is people enabling the Tadpole and the Steve to continue their griefing.

Oh man. Who invited James to the party? I told you, the guy's a buzzkill!

Just like a troll to quote 50 lines of text, only to respond with one. James, don't you have something better to do than hang around this thread, that you never contributed anything to, and get into everyone's business? We're trying to discuss audio here, so if you're not interested in doing that, then killjoy somewhere's else. Surely you have some important "papers" to write, don't you? Some important preaching to do somewhere to convert lost audiophile souls who insist on better sound? As we speak, there could be a party in your own neighborhood where teenagers are drinking beer. Have you alerted the police yet? What are you waiting for then?! I am certain that somewhere, someone hasn't fully experienced the misery that is being next to James "Don't call me James!" Johnson. Please go and find them, as we're already acquainted with you. Alternatively, curl up somewhere with a good dictionary and learn how to communicate in English, so that way you don't keep inventing new words. (Although I have to admit, your "Englishisms" are pretty droll). Thank you in advance.

Quote:
It is now far, far past the time to close this thread. All we have here is people enabling the Tadpole and the Steve to continue their griefing.

Continuing your false vindictive behaviour as usual J_J. Not surprising since you and Ethan are "in bed together". How honest, ethical, and scientific of you.

And how honest, scientific and ethical of you to encourage X, after he has confessed to doctoring data/graphs for years, to continue in such behaviour. Boy how you respect the public while you encourage the hand slipping into other's pockets for their wallets.
Yep, we can sure trust you to be honest to the public.

No Michigan, J_J is another one of those guys who plays scientist while encouraging the fraud, to slip his hand into the pockets of the public and gently slip their wallets out.

Quote:
It is now far, far past the time to close this thread.

Agreed. I'm closing all of the related threads, as well.

Thanks, everyone, for participating. I hope it was fun, interesting, valuable. I'm sorry for all of the negativity that was created along the way. Maybe we can revisit these ideas another time, in a more productive and mature way.