Quote:
Your actual explanation of what was wrong with Ted Denney's graph was incorrect.

Please show a post where I was incorrect in stating what's wrong with Ted's data.

In fact I was exactly correct: Ted showed a large change in decay times, and I said that those decay times are not possible. Period, end of story. Indeed, it is you who was wrong in your analysis. You and all the other Ethan-bashers are furious that I was right and "one of your own" was revealed as a scoundrel. Not bad for a guy with no college degree, eh?

Quote:
Ted Denney has stated that it was a genuine error

And I have explained repeatedly that such an error is not possible. You have to go out of your way to do what Ted did. Hence, it was not incompetence but fraud.

John, your bias is clear. You constantly claim I was incorrect on the science when in fact I was proven correct. You constantly claim to be "agnostic" even in the face of overwhelming evidence of 1) outright fraud, and 2) no proof that Ted's magic bowels do anything and lots of proof they don't. Your entire tone toward me, from criticizing me for not having a college degree to calling my products "competitors" to Ted's magic BS, and so much more, is evidence of your bias. Versus your tone toward the "other side" and continuing to protect Frog-stool.

John, your entire world would not fall to pieces if you showed a little common sense in your approach to obvious BS. It's okay to praise overpriced but high quality products. But you don't have to embrace, or "allow for the possibility" about every preposterous BS tweak that comes down the pike.

Ethan Winer
Proud owner of RealTraps, but posting on my own behalf
And always using my real name

Quote:
John, your bias is clear...John, your entire world would not fall to pieces if you showed a little common sense in your approach to obvious BS. It's okay to praise overpriced but high quality products. But you don't have to embrace, or "allow for the possibility" about every preposterous BS tweak that comes down the pike.

Ethan, I am a reviewer and editor and as such have to remain dispassionate. As insulting as I am sure you will find this to be, you and Ted Denney are equivalent to me. You are both manufacturers whose products are covered in my magazine. You are both passionate about the beneficial effect of those products. So, as strongly as you hurl accusations of fraud at Ted Denney because you can't see any reason why his products should do anything at all, and accusations of bias against me because I don't adopt your hard-line stance as my own, all that concerns me is that I treat you both equally. Which I have done.

And "BS tweaks"? Each of us draws the line at a different point. For example, you include the use of dither in digital signal processing in the BS tweak category. But if there is a subject that has been studied to death so that it fully understood why its proper use is beneficial, it is dither. Yet you publicly rail against _dither_ as BS!!!!

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Quote:
you include the use of dither in digital signal processing in the BS tweak category.

Don't you get tired of stuffing words into my mouth? Were you even at my AES workshop? If you were, you'd know that the first thing I said about dither is it's never a mistake to use, and in some rare cases it can actually make an audible improvement. Then I went on to explain why in practice using dither is almost never audible.

So yet again John you prove that you are biased, and in this case (third time at least for dither) that you are glad to mis-characterize what I say to suit your own agenda. So much for remaining dispassionate.

Ethan Winer
Proud owner of RealTraps, but posting on my own behalf
And always using my real name

Quote:

Quote:
you include the use of dither in digital signal processing in the BS tweak category.

Don't you get tired of stuffing words into my mouth?

I haven't been, Ethan.

Quote:
Were you even at my AES workshop?

Indeed I was, and I took detailed notes.

Quote:
If you were, you'd know that the first thing I said about dither is it's never a mistake to use, and in some rare cases it can actually make an audible improvement.

My notes have you also saying that in practice its use is unnecessary.

Quote:
Then I went on to explain why in practice using dither is almost never audible.

Your AES presentation involved the crazy things that audiophiles espouse. You mentioned jars full of pebbles, moved on to AC cords and ended up with dither. You categorized all three as being examples of audio myths as compared, for example, with products like your own RealTraps. (Though you did have the good manners to apologize for mentioning your company's products.) You had the audience laughing at loud at the first example (the pebbles), laughing also at the AC cords, but not at all when you moved on to dither. Yes, you tried to cover your backside about dither, but when you then went on to try to perform listening comparisons with and without dither, I felt you had lost both your audience and your point, Ethan.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Please show a post where I was incorrect in stating what's wrong with Ted's data.

Oh geez... try EVERY post. If that confuses you, start here at your first false accusation of fraudulence. It contains your claims that graphs were " fabricated. Made up. Fraudulent. Outright lies. Rigged. Photoshopped.". Even Buddha, one of your biggest cheerleaders, who mounted a mighty, although not at all effective, attempt to vindicate you in his debates with me, conceded the point that you were wrong about citing things like Photoshopping, rigging and making up of data.

http://forum.stereophile.com/forum/printthread.php?Board=rants&main=76055&type=post

In fact I was exactly correct: Ted showed a large change in decay times, and I said that those decay times are not possible. Period, end of story. Indeed, it is you who was wrong in your analysis. You and all the other Ethan-bashers are furious that I was right and "one of your own" was revealed as a scoundrel. Not bad for a guy with no college degree, eh?

Yes, but only assuming you dropped out of grade 3. Where by then you should have already learned that "I say" is not evidence of anything but that you can keep your mouth running for an extended period of time. Something doesn't become factual "Science Man", if you add the words "Period. End of story" to the unsupported claim either. However, emphatic words like that does seem to work well to convince your zombie cheerleading squad and your RealTraps sockpuppet shills here that you "nailed it dude!". According to their debates defending you. As for your tired old quibble about the decay times, you have been repeatedly told now by me and several others that your claim is false. Print the damn graphs out already and overlay them. Any objective person with an inkjet can do this simple task and see that you are wrong about the peaks. So stop embarassing yourself further over this argument, get a clue, and stop spouting false and refuted information here. Speaking of which, *you* are the one who has been revealed as a falsely accusing scoundrel on this forum, and that's not going to go away, Ethan:

http://forum.stereophile.com/forum/printthread.php?Board=rants&main=76669&type=post
http://forum.stereophile.com/forum/printthread.php?Board=rants&main=76985&type=post

And I have explained repeatedly that such an error is not possible. You have to go out of your way to do what Ted did. Hence, it was not incompetence but fraud.

You're putting your foot in it, and courting disaster once again Ethan. You're also revealing your incompetence and lack of knowledge with RoomEQ. When running numerous sweeps averaged for one measurement in a live room, it is not at all uncommon for the software to shift the time line from absolute zero. Yet here you are flapping your gums as loudly as you can to try to discredit the reputation of a competitor, saying the only possibility here is "FRAUD!". Actually, forget what I said about your lack of knowledge of REW. I know enough about you now to realize that you probably already know about these glitches that can occur with the software under certain conditions, but are not being honest with the public about what could have happened here with this test. This is clearly a blatant and strategic attack to take out a competitor. Here is a document listing what looks to be about 500 possible things that can go wrong with this program. I don't know which version was used in this test, but I ask interested readers to check the example below; where one recent bug fix documented a problem with an incorrect start time on a given condition.

Oh, and yes, I fully expect "Dirty Tricks" Ethan and his zombie crew of Ethan-apologists to apologize to me for having said or implied that Denney was responsible for the glitch!!!!!!

============================================================
Room EQ Wizard Revision Histor
V4.11 Bug Fixes
"Start time of captured data on scope plot was incorrect when using left channel as ref(erence)."

http://www.hometheatershack.com/roomeq/changehistory.html
============================================================

Yeah Ethan, you really have proved here that it would be "IMPOSSIBLE" for the software to glitch, as Ted had said it had. In a way, I'm actually kind of glad that you are repeating your accusation of "FRAUD" and assertion that Ted had to go out of his way to get the energy time line to shift. Because when he hopefully drags your sorry Winer ass to court over this, his lawyers are going to have a field day raking you over the coals. Hopefully there will be enough left of you to sue for whoever owns Furutech!

John, your bias is clear. You constantly claim I was incorrect on the science when in fact I was proven correct.

Again, I'm going to ask you to please stop spreading lies. The facts show you have never even come close to proving this claim, and further evidence of that fact, is the fact that you have never even tried to substantiate the claim yourself.

You constantly claim to be "agnostic" even in the face of overwhelming evidence of 1) outright fraud, and 2) no proof that Ted's magic bowels do anything and lots of proof they don't.

The "outright fraud" has come from *you*, Ethan. For rather than prove "outright fraud" which you never even came close to, you proved via your sockpuppetry shilling on other forums against the S-Art devices, or your bringing in plants and shills to this forum to help you wage a campaign of disrepute upon S-Art, that YOU are a fraud. A cheat. A liar. A charlatan. A confidence trickster. A snake oil ratbag. And a true snake in the grass with absolutely ZERO integrity or worth to your name.

Your entire tone toward me, from criticizing me for not having a college degree to calling my products "competitors" to Ted's magic BS, and so much more, is evidence of your bias. Versus your tone toward the "other side" and continuing to protect Frog-stool.

Oh ho!!! That's a laugh and a half!!!! laugh: Man, do you ever know how to put the Whine in "Whiner". The man speaks so highly of your hospitality and cello playing, that he has bent the rules to allow you to falsely accuse an industry member and a company who's products are apparently going to be reviewed in the pages of Stereophile magazine. Which I see you have been doing repeatedly since last year!! Not just against the S-Art company, but against numerous other manufacturers, as I have enumerated in a post yesterday. So you would not even be in a position to falsely accuse any manufacturer of fraud if it weren't for John's bias toward you. Even a simple and easily proven thing like this you have to lie about. Unbelievable! You really need to see a therapist, Ethan. You've got some major problems about you. You with your numerous demands to JA that I am a competitor out to get you (which is actually something that -you- do on this and other forums), and all of -this-? I seriously think you have a paranoid personality disorder.

"Paranoid personality disorder is a psychiatric diagnosis characterized by paranoia and a pervasive, long-standing suspiciousness and generalized mistrust of others."

Those with the condition are hypersensitive, are easily slighted, and habitually relate to the world by vigilant scanning of the environment for clues or suggestions to validate their prejudicial ideas or biases. They tend to be guarded and suspicious and have quite constricted emotional lives. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paranoid_personality_disorder

And I don't know why you're crying to JA about not having a college degree. Shouldn't your obvious lack of education be directed to yourself?

John, your entire world would not fall to pieces if you showed a little common sense in your approach to obvious BS. It's okay to praise overpriced but high quality products. But you don't have to embrace, or "allow for the possibility" about every preposterous BS tweak that comes down the pike.

This from the lunatic who thinks that any speaker cable worth more than $5 bucks or sold outside of Home Depot is a "preposterous BS tweak". Yeah, your credibility is at an all time high I would say.

<snip, snip>

"Your AES presentation involved the crazy things that audiophiles espouse. You mentioned jars full of pebbles, moved on to AC cords and ended up with dither. You categorized all three as being examples of audio myths as compared, for example, with products like your own RealTraps. (Though you did have the good manners to apologize for mentioning your company's products.) You had the audience laughing at loud at the first example (the pebbles), laughing also at the AC cords, but not at all when you moved on to dither. Yes, you tried to cover your backside about dither, but when you then went on to try to perform listening comparisons with and without dither, I felt you had lost both your audience and your point, Ethan."

save for evidence

Hey, isn't it about that time in a thread where Ethan asks people to differentiate high end speaker cables and interconnect in DBT?

"Hey, isn't it about that time in a thread where Ethan asks people to differentiate high end speaker cables and interconnect in DBT?"

Old news. The Amazing Randi already beat him to it.

"An ordinary man has no means of deliverance."

Quote:

Quote:
What's wrong with Ted's data is it showed a huge change in decay time with no corresponding change in the peak heights or peak bandwidths. There are a lot of ways to fake a faster decay time, and I already said "Sorry for not wasting yet more of my time trying to precisely match Ted's mischief" or some such. Such fraud can be perpetrated several ways. One way is to change the Waterfall window settings, then use Photoshop to paste new axis legends to hide the change. But there are other ways. For example, the Analysis window settings also alter the appearance without any change to the data. Or Ted could have imported a Wave file from a different measurement session. And so forth.

As I said before Ethan, your knowledge of how to fake data is impressive. But your actual explanation was incorrect, as could be seen by overlaying the graphs.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

John, is it possible to show us the overlaying graph you mentioned..

Thanks in advance.

New rule, as Bill Maher would say:

"It isn't enough to identify bad data, one must first explain exactly how the bad data was brought into existence. The mere fact that no actual data could ever appear that way is irrelevant. The precise mechanism by which the bad data was rendered bad must be expressly delineated before any acknowledgement of insight into the data being bad is allowed."

Example:

"Dad! King Kong just killed that guy!"

"Son, it's special effects, it isn't real. No worries."

"Looks real to me, dad! So does King Kong!"

"No, son, it's not real. None of it."

"Then, exactly how do they do that?"

"I'm not sure how they did this one, there are many ways it could have been done."

"Dad, you are obviously full of shit. If you can't tell me exactly how it was done, then you're just guessing. I think it's real. It overlaps with photos of gorillas quite well."

"Son, I've been around long enough to know animation and special effects vs. photojournalism, OK? It's obviously not a real giant gorilla or real violence."

"Sorry, dad. You lose. Unless you can tell me exactly how they did this scene, you get no credit for knowing if it's real or not. In fact, I think all cinema is real. They call it cinema verite, in fact!"

"Fine, remind me not to comfort you tonight that I know the monster in your closet isn't real, either."

The brave new world of "Hi Fi Skull Island!"

Quote:
New rule, as Bill Maher would say:

"It isn't enough to identify bad data, one must first explain exactly how the bad data was brought into existence. The mere fact that no actual data could ever appear that way is irrelevant. The precise mechanism by which the bad data was rendered bad must be expressly delineated before any acknowledgement of insight into the data being bad is allowed."

Example:

"Dad! King Kong just killed that guy!"

"Son, it's special effects, it isn't real. No worries."

"Looks real to me, dad! So does King Kong!"

"No, son, it's not real. None of it."

"Then, exactly how do they do that?"

"I'm not sure how they did this one, there are many ways it could have been done."

"Dad, you are obviously full of shit. If you can't tell me exactly how it was done, then you're just guessing. I think it's real. It overlaps with photos of gorillas quite well."

"Son, I've been around long enough to know animation and special effects vs. photojournalism, OK? It's obviously not a real giant gorilla or real violence."

"Sorry, dad. You lose. Unless you can tell me exactly how they did this scene, you get no credit for knowing if it's real or not. In fact, I think all cinema is real. They call it cinema verite, in fact!"

"Fine, remind me not to comfort you tonight that I know the monster in your closet isn't real, either."

The brave new world of "Hi Fi Skull Island!"

a perfect post.

Quote:
John, is it possible to show us the overlaying graph you mentioned.

They were posted by Ted Denney in the "Evidence" thread. Download them to your desktop by right-clicking on each. Open the files in Preview (Mac) or Microsoft Photo Editor (PC) and toggle between them.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Quote:
Your actual explanation of what was wrong with Ted Denney's graph was incorrect.

First, I identified correctly what was wrong (decay times). More important, you don't know that Ted didn't use Photoshop! Just because there might be other ways for Ted to falsify his data doesn't mean he didn't use Photoshop. Indeed, he still has not let us see his data file, which is the only way he can prove the faster decay times were faked via window settings rather than simply pasted in Photoshop. So please prove he didn't use Photoshop. Not that it matters.

John, why are you so obsessed with the specific way Ted perpetrated his fakery? It's not enough that I nailed the decay times disparity?

Ethan Winer
Proud owner of RealTraps, but posting on my own behalf
And always using my real name

Quote:
you include the use of dither in digital signal processing in the BS tweak category ... you publicly rail against _dither_ as BS!!!! ... I took detailed notes ... You mentioned jars full of pebbles, moved on to AC cords and ended up with dither.

You took notes, eh?

In fact, as I always do, I explained at my workshop that I never argue against the use of dither, even though the benefit of dither is rarely audible. In this case it's very easy to prove what I said, because I have it on video!

Note that my very first words are "And again, I never argue against dither." Here's the link, so there's no way you can wiggle out of this one:

Dither discussion from Ethan Winer's 2009 AES workshop

Yet again I show you as being biased against me - and science in general. I accused you of stuffing words into my mouth, and this video proves it beyond all doubt. Apology accepted.

Ethan Winer
Proud owner of RealTraps, but posting on my own behalf
And always using my real name

Kind of reminds me of the classic preface "with all due respect" usually followed with complete disrespect. prefacing your argument against dither by saying you would never argue against dither hardly erases your argument against dither. The mere juxtaposition in your presentation was an implied argument against dither.

Nice try Scott. I'm sure there's an Alice in Wonderland reference in there somewhere. "Even though you said one thing, you really meant the opposite."

The point was that JA stuffed words in my mouth, accusing me of saying something I did not say. Busted!

Ethan Winer
Proud owner of RealTraps, but posting on my own behalf
And truthful over all else

Quote:

Quote:
John, is it possible to show us the overlaying graph you mentioned.

They were posted by Ted Denney in the "Evidence" thread. Download them to your desktop by right-clicking on each. Open the files in Preview (Mac) or Microsoft Photo Editor (PC) and toggle between them.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

No I can't because Ted have delete all the graph....But luckily I save a copy ....

Pink color and "before" , red color are "after".

This is the graph Ted posted , and you have overlay them to confirm that this 2 are from different measurement,you were telling us this 2 graph have different peak and room mode behavior by your "overlaying", right?

....and you were also telling us Ethan is wrong to comment that "Ted's data is it showed a huge change in decay time with no corresponding change in the peak heights or peak bandwidths."...for this 2 graph, right?

Quote:

Quote:
you include the use of dither in digital signal processing in the BS tweak category ... you publicly rail against _dither_ as BS!!!! ... I took detailed notes ... You mentioned jars full of pebbles, moved on to AC cords and ended up with dither.

You took notes, eh?

Yes. Sorry

Quote:
In fact, as I always do, I explained at my workshop that I never argue against the use of dither, even though the benefit of dither is rarely audible. In this case it's very easy to prove what I said, because I have it on video!
Note that my very first words are "And again, I never argue against dither."

But surely, Ethan, the fact that you devoted a significant proportion of your AES presentation, which was entitled "Audio Myths - Defining What Affects Audio Reproduction" to dither and its lack of audible benefit suggests, at least to this observer, that you _were_ arguing against dither. First you talked about the illusory effects of "Brilliant Pebbles," then you talked about the nonsense promulgated by companies that market high-end AC cables, then you talked at length about dither and why its supposed beneficial effect is almost never audible.

Saying you don't do something but then doing that same thing gives the lie, surely? If dither is not an "audio myth," why did you devote so much of the time taken by a workshop on "Audio Myths" to it?

Quote:
Here's the link, so there's no way you can wiggle out of this one:
Dither discussion from Ethan Winer's 2009 AES workshop

Actually, it was JJ who interrupted you by recommending that dither always be used. You agreed with JJ but then went on to mock those who find different spectra/pdfs of dither to have audible effects. You even poked fun at someone who had said a specific type of dither resulted in "fuller sound" by suggesting that the listener had confused the effect of dither with that of bass traps. And then you stated that there is no audible difference that can be detected between the use of dither and straight truncation of long word-length data. (Your subsequent attempted demonstrations of this are not included in the video clip posted above.)

So if you are _not_ "arguing against dither," it's hard to see what else negative you could find to say against it. :-)

Quote:
Yet again I show you as being biased against me - and science in general.

Against science _ in general_? Because I refuse to adopt your opinions and beliefs as my own? Because, unlike someone who worships at the altar of "Scientism," I behave in a truly scientific manner and remain agnostic about things that yet to be examined? Or is it simply because I have been trying to get you to conform this forum's postings rules, Ethan?

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Quote:
at least to this observer, that you _were_ arguing against dither.

I can see what it seems that way, but I wasn't arguing against it. The colored rocks and other obvious BS were at the beginning of my presentation, then I clearly moved away from that to discuss audio myths. That dither makes an audible difference is indeed a myth. Most of the time anyway. When people say the fullness or imaging etc change with dither, they're just wrong. That is always due to something else, whether comb filtering or expectation.

Bottom line, I do recommend that people use dither because small distortions can add up. But in the big picture, dither is not very important. Indeed, if dither hadn't been discovered, CDs would still beat analog tape and vinyl LPs every day of the week.

Ethan Winer
Proud owner of RealTraps, but posting on my own behalf
And always using my real name

Quote:
That dither makes an audible difference is indeed a myth. Most of the time anyway.

Dither creates a distortion much like center-clipping, only on every sample instead of just small signals.

I have to say that I think you're being too dismissive of dither here, although in some cases there is evidence of self-dither, due to other noise sources.

However, taking the view that other noise sources are part of the SOURCE, dither preserves the structure of those other noise sources better than no dither.

This may not be entirely a huge effect, but I think you're too dismissive of dither, especially when repeated requantization is going on here and there.

<snip, snip>

"The colored rocks (Brilliant Pebbles) and other obvious BS were at the beginning of my presentation, then I clearly moved away from that to discuss audio myths."

saved for evidence

Quote:
That dither makes an audible difference is indeed a myth. Most of the time anyway. When people say the fullness or imaging etc change with dither, they're just wrong. That is always due to something else, whether comb filtering or expectation.

Comb filtering? Did you not listen to Poppy Crum's presentation that preceded yours? The measured comb filtering that you get from two different listening positions is irrelevant because the ear/brain's masking action suppresses early subsequent arrivals. That is why you can recognize someone's voice in different rooms, even at distances that are way beyond the critical distance ie, where the reverberant energy dominates. JJ made that point in his presentation by muting his mike and continuing to speak. It was still recognizably JJ's voice, even where I was sitting.

Quote:
Indeed, if dither hadn't been discovered, CDs would still beat analog tape and vinyl LPs every day of the week.

I hate to burst your bubble, Ethan but the reason so many early CDs had high frequencies that sounded, in the words of the late Raymond Cooke of KEF, like "grains of rice falling on stretched tissue paper" was because the ubiquitous Sony DAE-1100 editor used to produce those CDs a) was not truly unity gain when set to 0dB gain, ie, it was always doing mathematical operations on the data, and b) those operations were not dithered.

FYI, I did blind preference tests on CD vs LP in 1982 and 1983 with the, to me at that time, surprising result that the LP was a) preferred by a large majority, and b) often misidentified as CD!!!

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Quote:

Quote:
at least to this observer, that you _were_ arguing against dither.

I can see what it seems that way, but I wasn't arguing against it. The colored rocks and other obvious BS were at the beginning of my presentation, then I clearly moved away from that to discuss audio myths. That dither makes an audible difference is indeed a myth. Most of the time anyway. When people say the fullness or imaging etc change with dither, they're just wrong. That is always due to something else, whether comb filtering or expectation.

Bottom line, I do recommend that people use dither because small distortions can add up. But in the big picture, dither is not very important. Indeed, if dither hadn't been discovered, CDs would still beat analog tape and vinyl LPs every day of the week.

Ethan Winer
Proud owner of RealTraps, but posting on my own behalf
And always using my real name

Although I have never personally seen it in my lifetime, I do hope you at least have some understanding of the difference between "scientism" and "science". So assuming that, I'm curious to know what exactly it was you said during the talks that disproved those coloured rocks? Because since you have never tested it and have no knowledge of it, I can only imagine you pelting the product with "scientific ridicule" as proof its irrelevance. And since you were preaching to the choir as I have understood it, your "scientific ridicule" was under no challenge by any members of the audience. Was this meet just a physical extension of what occurs on like, Hydrogen Audio, or a sincere attempt to scientifically analyze controversial audio products?

"Although I have never personally seen it in my lifetime, I do hope you at least have some understanding of the difference between "scientism" and "science". So assuming that, I'm curious to know what exactly it was you said during the talks that disproved those coloured rocks? Because since you have never tested it and have no knowledge of it, I can only imagine you pelting the product with "scientific ridicule" as proof its irrelevance. And since you were preaching to the choir as I have understood it, your "scientific ridicule" was under no challenge by any members of the audience. Was this meet just a physical extension of what occurs on like, Hydrogen Audio, or a sincere attempt to scientifically analyze controversial audio products?"

Well, you have to give Nathan a little credit: he knows his audience. I'm sure he would have gotten the same response at one of Randi's staff meetings.

First, I identified correctly what was wrong (decay times). Please stop repeating refuted claims, Ethan. You did not, and were explained many times why you did not, hence the continued lack of evidence for your claim.

More important, you don't know that Ted didn't use Photoshop! Just because there might be other ways for Ted to falsify his data doesn't mean he didn't use Photoshop. Oh, that's quite the change of tone from you 2 weeks later, isn't it? Problem with your position now is, you didn't say anything like "Ted may or may not have used Photoshop. Just as I may or may not be telling lies to damage my competitors reputation". No, you were quite clear in saying: "That data is clearly fabricated. Made up. Fraudulent. Outright lies. Rigged. Photoshopped."

Indeed, he still has not let us see his data file, which is the only way he can prove the faster decay times were faked via window settings rather than simply pasted in Photoshop. That too is false. Ted publicly stated he would let JA see the raw files if desired. As we all know, he'd have to be a fool to send it to you, because as you have shown us, you know 50 ways to hack a REW file. Remember when you were begging everybody here to take your silly vengeance test on the Furutech files? The ones you created because you were seethingly angry at having failed a listening test that most everyone else here had no trouble hearing? And you created it for me and insisted I take it, and I refused to and you called me all sorts of grade school names in response? Well, same reason. One would have to be a fool to trust you to conduct an audio test fairly, when you have something to prove against it succeeding.

So please prove he didn't use Photoshop. Not that it matters. Yes. It does. Ethan, I have already explained to you that this is a logical fallacy, and that you need to ditch the "Science Man" suit, and instead get an actual education in the fundamentals of scientific argument. If you do not understand what "argument from ignorance" is about, read here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_proof If however, you do understand what a logical fallacy is, then please stop trying to debate issues of audio science, until you further develop your education in this matter.

John, why are you so obsessed with the specific way Ted perpetrated his fakery? It's not enough that I nailed the decay times disparity? False. If you had "nailed" anything, you would have identified the glaring -500ms discrepancy in the time line in the after graph. Which was the only actual problem with the data. Hence, you failed to identify --the only actual problem with Ted's data.-- Since you still have serious problems understanding this, to put it in a way you might, if this were a test graded on a scale of 1 to 100%, you got 0%. aka ....

Bupkis.

Zilch.

Nada.

Jack.

Zip.

Bugger all.

Sweet nothing.

(Just let me know when anything registers.....)

You are half way home, Michigan.

Now, all you need to do is turn this topic full circle to Ted's data actually offering proof positive! I mean, you have proven Ethan wrong in his assertion that the data was fallacious, so the rest should be an easy stroll in the park!

You are half way home, Michigan. I mean, you have proven Ethan wrong in his assertion that the data was fallacious, so the rest should be an easy stroll in the park! Yes, but there is that one small but important distinction you missed. I think this will make the 100th time that I've pointed it out, so why don't we get the candles out and celebrate that? Ethan was not wrong in his assertion the data was fallacious. Ethan was quite correct on that, actually. Way to go Ethie! But then... a monkey having a bad acid trip would also have been correct, at least half the time. Ethan was wrong in how he claimed it was fallacious.

Now, all you need to do is turn this topic full circle to Ted's data actually offering proof positive! Sorry, I'm not Jesus. I can't turn water into wine, any more than I can turn a pathological skeptic into a believer. Even harder if the pathological skeptic is being expected to believe in a set of measurements for a product that he perceives as a threat to his own bottom line. Harder still if the pathological skeptic has actively directed at least two sockpuppets to shill against it here, and at least three sockpuppets to shill against it on other forums. Which is why I am compelled to conclude that if an earthquake were to be recorded by REW, and the test was overseen by the entire team of REW's development, Stereophile, The Audio Critic, the National Research Council, Harman Int'l, Bryston Ltd, Infinity, NASA, all members of Hydrogen, AVS & DIY, and the results published here by Ted D. and submitted as the evidence of his little black bowly things, we could be sure of this one fact:

Ethan and his two little darling sockpuppet shills (David L. & Joamonte) would dismiss the test as either fallacious, inaudible, impossible, impractical, unobtainable, not feasible, rigged, Photoshopped, rotoscoped, hacked, manipulated, tricked up, bogeyfied, doctored, adulterated, gerrymandered, or that everyone else looking at the data is under the influence of a secret mass hypnosis. Paid for by Ted and JA.

I don't know about you, but... I'm more worried about what's going to happen to his two sockpuppet shills when the 3rd party Stereophile measurements show positive proof and they're out of a job. Poor Ethan can barely take care of his 3 sockpuppets on AudioJunkies, and now 2 more mouths to feed?....

We gotta get you to CES, amigo.

I think an ART party is called for, to tell you the truth.

You could stay at our place, honored guest.

Ethan, you could, too - we'll give you the kids' room!

Crap, though - I'd have to get the old system hooked back up.

Quote:
The point was that JA stuffed words in my mouth, accusing me of saying something I did not say. Busted!

Ethan Winer
Proud owner of RealTraps, but posting on my own behalf
And truthful over all else

Ethan. Ethan. Ethan. Why do you insist on turning our happy little family forum into a house of lies? When does it ever stop with you, the lying and the twisted hypocrisy? You're the ony person I know who lies in his sig! In his sig! I don't even have to go into your actual content to expose your falsehoods! Just your sig is enough now! If you want me to stop discrediting your words as you complained about, I'll be happy to. All you have to do is stop lying to us! Is that really that hard for you to do?? Do you remember writing this?:

Originally Posted by badboymusic
People offer their opinions on this site about products all the time.

Ethan Winer: Yes, but usually they have the intelligence and decency to comment only on products they've actually tried.

...It's from a pro audio & acoustics board you're on called "gearslutz". Considering how many times we have seen you "comment" here, to put it lightly, on products you never actually tried, either the above is yet another piece of self-contradicting hypocrisy from you, which shows as Ncdrawl writes, that you do not have any conviction or integrity to stand by your own words , or you are admitting you have no intelligence or decency. Which is it?

Now talk to me about this next response that closely follows in the same Gearslutz thread. The guy you just insulted, "badboymusic" responds to you thusly:

So you insult my intelligence and claim to know what products I have tried.

Ethan Winer, since you are the owner of the company Real Traps. Are you not concerned in the slightest that your constant bullying of others will make people not want to purchase your products? At the very least I would think you would stop it, if for no other reason than how it could hurt your business.

You don't see anyone from the company SE insulting the people who preferred the PVB.

He certainly got it right about you being a net bully. So as we see, you are an exemplary case, for most representitives of acoustic treatment audio do not go around trolling forums, insulting, libelling and bullying people on the net. "Badboymusic" is telling you the same thing JA told you here recently, and what you have no doubt heard at least 100 times by everyone else on the internet audio forums: you are only hurting your business by insulting people's preferences and trying to damage the reputation of your competitors. Does your partner Doug Ferrara know what you are doing here, and how you are harming his half of the business?

Next, this other fellow, "The Listener", responds to badboymusic to relate this fact to him that he won't buy any of your acoustic products from Real Traps because of your wiseass attitude and personal ethics:

Just because of Mr.Winers forum representation 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.

You respond to "The Listener" to say:

But it's childish when people make a habit of chiming in about products they know nothing about just to bash me personally.

Well tor

Quote:
New rule, as Bill Maher would say:

"It isn't enough to identify bad data, one must first explain exactly how the bad data was brought into existence. The mere fact that no actual data could ever appear that way is irrelevant. The precise mechanism by which the bad data was rendered bad must be expressly delineated before any acknowledgement of insight into the data being bad is allowed."

Example:

"Dad! King Kong just killed that guy!"

"Son, it's special effects, it isn't real. No worries."

"Looks real to me, dad! So does King Kong!"

"No, son, it's not real. None of it."

"Then, exactly how do they do that?"

"I'm not sure how they did this one, there are many ways it could have been done."

"Dad, you are obviously full of shit. If you can't tell me exactly how it was done, then you're just guessing. I think it's real. It overlaps with photos of gorillas quite well."

"Son, I've been around long enough to know animation and special effects vs. photojournalism, OK? It's obviously not a real giant gorilla or real violence."

"Sorry, dad. You lose. Unless you can tell me exactly how they did this scene, you get no credit for knowing if it's real or not. In fact, I think all cinema is real. They call it cinema verite, in fact!"

"Fine, remind me not to comfort you tonight that I know the monster in your closet isn't real, either."

The brave new world of "Hi Fi Skull Island!"

Hehe nice,
but possibly a more comparable one would be:
Siesmologists pronounce that California will disappear into the sea due to a cataclysmic earthquake.
They cannot predict when, the specific mechanism that will trigger it (regarding tectonic plates just general) but it is dooooom!
General public perk up in interest but then go mmmmm as well there just no info but it is doooooom!

X years from now those siesmologists (if happens in their lifetime) go "I told you,oh why wasnt something done about it oh woe!!!!".
"Why didnt we evacuate California now!!!"
Although this may be like 1000s of years away (or could be soonish so why not evacuate California now as it may happen now or in a generation and they will be proved right).
Of course anyone and I would say a lot of people are predicting California will vanish in an earthquake.
When it happens they will go "I told you so!".

Still without more information this is not really helpful, but they will be as right as Ethan, IMO

Cheers
Orb

Quote:
I think you're being too dismissive of dither here, although in some cases there is evidence of self-dither, due to other noise sources.

I have done so many listening tests that show dither not being audible that I can find no other conclusion. Not only tests by myself, but with others having younger ears. Once a friend and I compared dither versus truncated on one of his 24-bit mixes during the end where the reverb dies to silence over several seconds. Even playing just that last part, with the gain raised by 30 dB (which would have blown the speakers if we played the main part of the tune), neither of us heard a difference.

Again, I am talking about typical pop music where the average level never falls below -20. And again, I never say don't use dither. And yet again, I'm addressing mainly the comments we see that dither affects fullness or other aspects of frequency response.

Ethan Winer
Proud owner of RealTraps, but posting on my own behalf
And always using my real name

Quote:
Comb filtering? Did you not listen to Poppy Crum's presentation that preceded yours? The measured comb filtering that you get from two different listening positions is irrelevant because the ear/brain's masking action suppresses early subsequent arrivals. That is why you can recognize someone's voice in different rooms, even at distances that are way beyond the critical distance

It's not that simple. First, from my perspective the main thing comb filtering does is skew the frequency response. Yes, the skewing is caused by different arrival times. But I'm talking about changes in response when playing music, not recognizing whose voice we hear from a distance. Many of my published examples of comb filtering show what happens at mid and high frequencies, but comb filtering also happens at bass frequencies. I mention comb filtering only because I've heard people claim many times that dither affects the "fullness" of music. That simply cannot be so. At least I can't see why, and nobody has ever given a good explanation. JJ?

Quote:
the reason so many early CDs had high frequencies that sounded, in the words of the late Raymond Cooke of KEF, like "grains of rice falling on stretched tissue paper" was because the ubiquitous Sony DAE-1100 editor used to produce those CDs a) was not truly unity gain when set to 0dB gain, ie, it was always doing mathematical operations on the data, and b) those operations were not dithered.

Sure, and that's why I said earlier that distortions can accumulate, so it's "good practice" to minimize distortion at every step even if each step alone is not a problem.

But modern DAW software uses 32-bit floating point math. So 1) the distortion even from 100 gain changes in series is still audibly transparent, and 2) there's no longer a need to dither at each step. My comments apply to the current generation of software people use today. Not to software from ten or twenty years ago.

Ethan Winer
Proud owner of RealTraps, but posting on my own behalf
And always using my real name