You are here

Log in or register to post comments
SAS Audio
SAS Audio's picture
Offline
Last seen: 9 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: Jun 6 2007 - 6:56am
Accurate?

June 25th, Clifton and myself were winding down a discussion and Ethan Winer entered in and compared graph "A" (20-2khz measurements of room response) to the frequency response of a Bryston amplifier. I immediately saw a couple of problems.

1) Comparing the two graphs is completely inappropriate as I shall discuss near the bottom of the post.

2) Graph "A", which was suposedely a measurement of the room response in a normally furnished but untreated room at low frequencies, immediately raised red flags as to its accuracy.

(Other subjects and information will be presented as well.)

I continued to discuss the situation with Ethan and was able to obtain more information including response graph "B" (200 to 20khz measurements), his microphone being accurate from 20-800hz, and Mackie HR824 amp powered speakers that have a response of +/- 1.5db from 39-20khz.

I have obtained enough information to evaluate his measurements/graph. Some of the information I will present is fairly widely known, so some will already understand the material. Below is graph "A".

The red line is a representation of the frequency response with associated comb filtering/reflection problems.

For those who don't know what comb filtering is, as defined by Wikipedia:

"a comb filter adds a delayed version of a signal to itself, causing constructive and destructive interference.
(peaks and nulls/valleys for those new) The frequency response of a comb filter consists of a series of
regularly-spaced spikes, giving the appearance of a comb."

It is correct that the effects of comb filtering occur at regular intervals. Notice the spikes at approx 47, 94, and 141hz (blue line). However the maximum total deviation of 35 db produced red flags.

After Ethan posed graph B, more red flags appeared. Graph B is a representation of the measurements Ethan gathered
between 200hz to 20khz.

Let's start with graph B. The blue line shows the room response and the effects of comb filtering. But the 1/3 octave response (red line) is what we are primarily interested in. The red line basically shows the woofer's average response dropping 11db or so from 300hz to 2khz, and then the response suddenly rises at 2khz, where the speaker crossover "transfers" the signal from the woofer to the dome tweeter. Notice after peaking at approx 3.7khz, the red line falls until the spl is 5db down at 10khz, 7db at 12khz, 10db at 14khz, and a whopping -23db at 20khz.

The spl reduction over such a wide frequency clearly indicates comb filtering/reflections are not the cause of the spl reduction over a broad 3.7khz to 20khz range, 16.3 khz width. What this indicates is that the measurement is severely "off axis" (speakers are not facing the microphone).

This evidence is supported by the 8.75 inch woofer's average output (red line) also dropping approximately
11db from 300hz to 2khz. There is less spl drop from the woofer because of the much lower frequencies involved.
If the speakers were facing directly from the speaker to the mic, the average spl -11db drop would not be there and the tweeter's average spl drop would also not be there, as mentioned near the bottom of my post.

One can mimick this response (if one has a meter and signal generator) by simply rotating the front of the speakers
away from the microphone. One can also check out the tweeter's on and off axis response curves on the internet/review magazines and compare them to graph "B".

Another suspected problem is the huge 35db total deviation from 30 to 200hz in Ethan's measurements (graph A). However, by simply reversing the polarity of one speaker (reverse the leads to one speaker), one can mimick Ethan's measurements. By the way, one can minimize total comb filter/reflection deviation by placement of the speakers.

In fact, one can raise the deviation up to nearly double the max/min db change (measured response) then when both speakers are of the same polarity. We have all heard the low frequency response dramatically change by reversing the polarity of one speaker. That is because the total deviation of peak to null has dramatically increased.

Now consider this. If Ethan's totally deviation measurement of 35db were correct, then reversing the polarity of one speaker would result in a nearly 60db or more maximum/peak to minimum/null spl deviation. Of course this is absurd.

When one hears the speakers with one speaker reversed polarity, one hears a total deviation of 20s-30s db, not near 60 or more db. Anyone with an spl meter can measure this change as an experiment.

With a 60db+ deviation, and the reference bass level set to 80db spl, some frequencies/bass notes would peak at 110db while the weakest/null bass notes would measure only 50db.

According to the "Threshold of Audibility Curves" based on Fletcher the "very critical" listeners ("top 5%") would barely hear 50hz at 50db spl, as 50db is the threshold of hearing at 50hz ("in the absence of noise").

The average listener's threshold is 63db spl so they would not hear 50hz at all, let alone if the null were lower than 50hz.

If 90db is the reference, a 50hz valley/null spl would be 60db, so average listeners would still be just at the hearing threshold at 50hz.

If we change the frequency to 70hz, the threshold for the "top 5%" is 40db spl while the average listener's threshold is 53db spl.

So if 90db were the reference, a null at 70 hz would barely be heard, while nothing would be heard with a null below 50hz. (Fletcher curves and quotes courtesy of RCA Radiotron Designers Handbook, written by 26 engineers, page 620.)

It is obvious that a 35db deviation for correct polarity is incorrect, except possibly in some very rare circumstances.

Another red flag that I do not see on Ethan's websites, but mentioned in a post in "Entry Level":

"Even if it was done with an SPL meter, mine is flat within 1 dB from 20 Hz to 800 Hz. The graph below shows side-by-side tests using my SPL meter and the AKG microphone."

No account is made concerning the accuracy of his microphones above 800hz, so we have no idea how accurate the mic actually is, nor could I find any information on Ethan's websites or online.

I would have to assume the microphone(s) are not accurate. Otherwise he would have stated the mic would have been accurate up to 10khz or 20khz, not 800hz.

If the mic response is down (-Xdb) from accurate at the higher frequencies, then leaving out this information leaves the impression of a poorer room response than it actually is. If the mic response is plus (+Xdb) from accurate, then he still did not reveal the rooms true response. Most mics are -db accurate at high frequencies.

Since Ethan left this important information out of the post and website, visitors have to assume the measured response/graphs are actually accurate.

Ethan has posted on Entry Level Forum that 35db deviation is typical for a room. Here are his comments found at http://forum.stereophile.com/forum/showf...part=4&vc=1
"The first graph below shows the low frequency response you'll have in a typical bedroom size listening room." (Upper post on page.)

In another post at http://forum.stereophile.com/forum/showf...part=4&vc=1

Ethan states:
"The LF graph I posted earlier is at an even higher resolution. And that is even closer to the true response arriving at your ears. By the way, these graphs are absolutely typical for home-sized listening room."
(Lower post on page. If typical then the maximum deviation can easily exceed 35db.)

Ethan states on his website at http://www.realtraps.com/facts.htm
"What's the point in buying gear that's ruler flat from DC to microwaves when the acoustics in your room create peaks and dips as large as 35 dB throughout the entire bass range?"
So I conclude 35db is not typical and above 35db would be rare.

It is also interesting that the perceived sound of a speaker/room with less than 1/3 octave deviation spikes (comb filtering/reflection) is much much different than with wideband tonal deviations that electronic components can produce.

The speaker/rooms can measure high spike deviations and the ear has a hard time detecting them while any wide band tonal imbalance/measurement in components is easily detectable.

So electronic components need to be incredibly close to flat response to sound correct. Trying to compare the Bryston amplifier to speaker/room response is absurd and amateurish.

At http://www.realtraps.com/rfz.htm Ethan states:
"Some people use thin panels made of fiberglass or foam, or blankets, and believe that's sufficient. But those materials absorb reflections at higher frequencies only."

This is correct, thin panels of fiberglass are poor for treating low frequencies. However, an entire roll of R-19 fiberglass insulation in the corners is very effective and offers an inexpensive alternative to more expensive options.

Keep the plastic cover intact though, and yes it does look bad, but it also works. At a house in Madison, Wisconsin a few years ago, the owner had one roll in each corner behind the speakers and it really helped. When a 2nd roll was added to those corners, the results were even better. Boomy bass became nice.

At http://www.ethanwiner.com/believe.html,
Notice figure 2 on Ethan's personal site. It uses the same speaker/amp in the same room as graph "B", yet figure 2 appears quite different than graph "B". Notice the differences in average spl response from 4khz to 18khz.

In figure 2 between 4khz and at least 16khz, the average response does not drop. At 4khz, 8khz, and 16khz the spl averages approximately 78db (not counting comb filter). At 18khz approx 75db. (Close to the speakers 3db window, +/- 1.5db to 20khz.)

However, the red line in graph "B" is on average dropping from 4khz to 18khz. At 4khz we see 93db, at 8khz approx 89db, at 12khz approx 85db, at 16khz approx 83db, and at 18khz approx 80.5db,

so approx 13db drop for graph "B" vs 3db drop in figure 2. Same speaker, amplifier, and untreated room.

In conclusion, anyone can produce similar results to the graphs presented by simply placing the microphone in the listening position, changing the location and rotating the speakers so the drivers are not facing the microphone, and reversing the polarity of one speaker by reversing the cable leads.

If possible please re-read each sentence carefully and consider what is actually said because there are many subjects and lots of technical information covered.

dcstep
dcstep's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 16 2007 - 4:59pm
Re: Room Measurements

Keep in mind that Ethan is selling room treatments. Surely, there are many problem rooms like the one shown, but IME that's not typical.

Dave

Elk
Elk's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 months 1 week ago
Joined: Dec 26 2006 - 6:32am
Re: Room Measurements

I have seen plenty of rooms with 20+dB swings with 1/3 octave smoothing. I have never been present to see measurements used with the resolution that Ethan uses in this graph. I can accept better than 20dB swings with higher resolution - but this is informed speculation at best.

SAS, are you really asserting that Ethan's measurement graphs are wholly fictional and that he has actively misrepresented the process by deliberately skewing the results by "rotating the speakers so the drivers are not facing the microphone, and reversing the polarity of one speaker by reversing the cable leads".

That's quite an allegation.

ethanwiner
ethanwiner's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 1 2005 - 2:26pm
Re: Room Measurements


Quote:
SAS, are you really asserting that Ethan's measurement graphs are wholly fictional and that he has actively misrepresented the process by deliberately skewing the results by "rotating the speakers so the drivers are not facing the microphone, and reversing the polarity of one speaker by reversing the cable leads".


Heh, yeah, crazy man, just crazy.

The HF roll-off is from the Radio Shack SPL meter I used for that test. My main concern is bass frequencies, below about 300 Hz. That's where all rooms have the most problems that are hardest to solve. Just putting decent quality absorption at the side-wall and ceiling reflection points will fix reflection-caused peaks and nulls at mid and high frequencies. But even with a dozen high quality bass traps a bedroom size room will have several 30 dB peak/null spans. If you have a bedroom size room and don't measure that, and the room doesn't have large openings, then you're measuring wrong.

Here's a photo of the 16 by 11.5 by 8 foot "lab" room at my factory we use for many tests:

Some tests have two speakers, but this is the basic layout. The small bits of masking tape on the floor mark the 38 percent point front to back, and the center left and right plus some other left-right positions. Hopefully it's clear in the photo that the loudspeaker is facing forward.

--Ethan

bifcake
bifcake's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Nov 27 2005 - 2:27am
Re: Room Measurements

I think that what Ethan is saying is that we all need to play our 5 and 6 figure stereo systems in padded rooms.

SAS Audio
SAS Audio's picture
Offline
Last seen: 9 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: Jun 6 2007 - 6:56am
Re: Room Measurements


Quote:

Quote:
SAS, are you really asserting that Ethan's measurement graphs are wholly fictional and that he has actively misrepresented the process by deliberately skewing the results by "rotating the speakers so the drivers are not facing the microphone, and reversing the polarity of one speaker by reversing the cable leads".


Heh, yeah, crazy man, just crazy.

The HF roll-off is from the Radio Shack SPL meter I used for that test. My main concern is bass frequencies, below about 300 Hz. That's where all rooms have the most problems that are hardest to solve. Just putting decent quality absorption at the side-wall and ceiling reflection points will fix reflection-caused peaks and nulls at mid and high frequencies. But even with a dozen high quality bass traps a bedroom size room will have several 30 dB peak/null spans. If you have a bedroom size room and don't measure that, and the room doesn't have large openings, then you're measuring wrong.

Here's a photo of the 16 by 11.5 by 8 foot "lab" room at my factory we use for many tests:

Some tests have two speakers, but this is the basic layout. The small bits of masking tape on the floor mark the 38 percent point front to back, and the center left and right plus some other left-right positions. Hopefully it's clear in the photo that the loudspeaker is facing forward.

--Ethan

"Hopefully it's clear in the photo that the loudspeaker is facing forward. "

Only problem is you state at http://forum.stereophile.com/forum/showf...e=0&fpart=5

"and the speakers were a foot or two from the front wall. The setup followed this method:"

Speakers plural, not one speaker you show in your picture and your statement about "the loudspeaker is facing forward." (Singular again.)

We also see your room is not only untreated, but also no basic furniture or rug, nothing. So what room does someone live in that has no furniture, carpeting etc?

So what is true? Are any of your posts, your graphs, or the mics accurate, here or on your websites?

ethanwiner
ethanwiner's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 1 2005 - 2:26pm
Re: Room Measurements


Quote:
So how can we believe anything else you say, your graphs, or the mics accuracy?


I don't know what your point is.

I photograph almost every test we do, and this photo just happened to be on our web site available for easy posting here. Above I wrote:

"Here's a photo of the 16 by 11.5 by 8 foot "lab" room at my factory we use for many tests"

Which is indeed the case. I didn't say it's a photo of that specific test. I also said:

"Some tests have two speakers, but this is the basic layout."

And indeed, the point of the photo is just to show the room, and that I don't make a habit of facing the speakers away from the microphone.

Look guy, I'm really sorry you don't understand all the issues with measuring the response of small listening rooms. So I have to work harder, which I'm willing to do. But if you think I'm lying or making stuff up as I go, there's no basis for further discussion.

--Ethan

SAS Audio
SAS Audio's picture
Offline
Last seen: 9 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: Jun 6 2007 - 6:56am
Re: Room Measurements


Quote:

Quote:
So how can we believe anything else you say, your graphs, or the mics accuracy?


I don't know what your point is.

>I cannot grasp how you could not understand my simple statements and points?

"I photograph almost every test we do, and this photo just happened to be on our web site available for easy posting here. Above I wrote:"
"Here's a photo of the 16 by 11.5 by 8 foot "lab" room at my factory we use for many tests.
"Which is indeed the case. I didn't say it's a photo of that specific test. I also said:
"Some tests have two speakers, but this is the basic layout."

>So now you are stating you used two speakers for that specific test, not one speaker? Huh.

>Let's take a look from another angle. What would the public's impression have been if I had not quoted you stating that you used speakers (plural) for the test and kept you honest?

>What if only one speaker were used in your test. It would make it easier for you to argue that 35db maximum deviations are accurate. (See information concerning 60db+ deviations in my initial post on this string.)

>At the same time it would dismiss some of my information in my initial post since only one speaker was used, not two speakers.

"The HF roll-off is from the Radio Shack SPL meter I used for that test."

>But you state here
http://forum.stereophile.com/forum/showf...e=0&fpart=5

"but I don't recall if I used my Radio Shack SPL meter or my AKG C451 with a calibrated CK22 capsule."

"And indeed, the point of the photo is just to show the room, and that I don't make a habit of facing the speakers away from the microphone. "

>It may not be a habit, but......

"Look guy, I'm really sorry you don't understand all the issues with measuring the response of small listening rooms."

>Anybody can make a generalized, off the cuff response.

>Do you have some specific technical information you would care to pass on concerning my observations in my initial post?

>Your room maximizes the amplitude of the comb filteing/reflections effects hence maximum spl deviations in the mids and highs.

>No rugs, has bare walls, no lamps nor shades, no chairs, no couch, and not even any windows with drapes or curtains,
hence the maximum amplitude of reflections.

>Yet you believe this room accurately represents a normal room for the entire audio range and you post graph "B", and figure 2 on your website without any explanation.

"So I have to work harder, which I'm willing to do. But if you think I'm lying or making stuff up as I go, there's no basis for further discussion. "

--Ethan

ethanwiner
ethanwiner's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 1 2005 - 2:26pm
Re: Room Measurements


Quote:
I cannot grasp how you could not understand my simple statements and points?


It would really help if you learned how to work the quote feature. It's not that hard. The problem with your initial post is it's all over the place, and I don't have two hours to figure out what you're saying or asking. It was easier to read Elk's summary and address that.


Quote:
So now you are stating you used two speakers for that specific test, not one speaker? Huh.


Again, I have done lots of tests and I don't always bother to look up which test had how many speakers when posting a graph. Most of my tests used two speakers played in mono. In the big picture it doesn't matter because the results are basically the same - many 30 dB peak / null spans in the bass range.

If you'd like me to post graphs done with one speaker, and with two speakers, and label which is which, I'll be glad to do that. For efficiency I don't upload every single test photo to my site just so I can link to it in forum posts. So when I need a graph I look through the existing articles on my company's site, pick a graph that's relevant, and copy the URL to a post. But, just for you, I'll be glad to post any graphs and photos you'd like to see.

It seems you're grasping at straws trying to find some fatal flaw in my tests that you can point to and proclaim, "Aha - I knew that terrible response was not typical!" But my test results are typical.


Quote:
But you state here
http://forum.stereophile.com/forum/showf...e=0&fpart=5

"but I don't recall if I used my Radio Shack SPL meter or my AKG C451 with a calibrated CK22 capsule."


It's impossible to tell from a 20-200 Hz graph which microphone was used because both microphones are highly accurate down there. But in the full range graph I know it was the RS meter from the HF roll-off.

Again, you'll do a lot better addressing the issues at hand, rather than try to trip me up or find evidence of mischief and/or incompetence.


Quote:
Do you have some specific technical information you would care to pass on concerning my observations in my initial post?


If you'd like to list a half dozen points or questions I can address, I'll be glad to do so. But please be concise.


Quote:
No rugs, has bare walls, no lamps nor shades, no chairs, no couch, and not even any windows with drapes or curtains, hence the maximum amplitude of reflections.


Yes, empty room. This does exaggerate problems at higher frequencies, but the bass response is not changed much with furniture and carpet etc.

Also, most of my tests in that room are to assess the effectiveness of various absorber designs. So it's important to start with an empty room, so that adding panels makes as much change as possible. If we started with a furnished room the delta would be lower, and subtle differences would be hidden. This is the same idea as testing absorbers in an acoustic lab's reverb chamber. A large empty concrete room is measured for RT60 in third octave bands. Then the absorbers being tested are added and the RT60 is measured again. The sabins of absorption in each band can then be computed directly from the difference in decay times. Absorber testing is explained in more detail in this article from Sound & Vibration, a magazine by and for professional acousticians:

Alternative Test Methods for Acoustic Treatment Products

--Ethan

gkc
gkc's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Feb 24 2006 - 11:51am
Re: Room Measurements

Who could possibly live and listen to music in such a room, Ethan? Why would anyone want to?

If not, then what good is it for applying real room solutions?

I know, I know, scientists (and, unfortunately, pseudo-scientists) just love data gathered in unreal, abstract situations. Something about "control." But how do you get from this cell to a real-live room that listeners would want to inhabit? Why bother? If you publicized photos of this room on "Wanted" posters, saying this is what awaits suspected terrorists at Gitmo, then I'm damn sure many of 'em would go straight, out of fear of imprisonment.

Ah, the science of Audio. Ethan, I had no idea you made these sorts of sacrifices, in the name of comb-filters. I apologize for everything nasty I have said or implied. You make Thoreau look like a Sybarite. Hell, at least he had a couple windows, through which he could observe the ants. Man, this is some Spartan shit! Good luck. I hope you get off the piss 'n punk sometime soon...

tom collins
tom collins's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 2 months ago
Joined: Apr 3 2007 - 11:54am
Re: Room Measurements

Hey Cliff: there are many people that listen in rooms that size because they have to. many urban dwellers and some suburban as well may only have a room that size that they can devote to audio. having the option of treating that room so that the response is decent might be important to some working guy that just wants a retreat for his audio. i usually like your posts, and hope i just misunderstood you on this one as it sounds a little judgmental in regard to some people's living circumstances.

Tom

SAS Audio
SAS Audio's picture
Offline
Last seen: 9 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: Jun 6 2007 - 6:56am
Re: Room Measurements


Quote:
Hey Cliff: there are many people that listen in rooms that size because they have to. many urban dwellers and some suburban as well may only have a room that size that they can devote to audio. having the option of treating that room so that the response is decent might be important to some working guy that just wants a retreat for his audio. i usually like your posts, and hope i just misunderstood you on this one as it sounds a little judgmental in regard to some people's living circumstances.

Tom

Hi Tom,

I think Clifton's response was quite correct. The bare room will give a quite different response in the mids and highs vs a normally furnished room.

One can clap their hands in a bare room, then furnish it and hear the difference.

Ethan states: "Just putting decent quality absorption at the side-wall and ceiling reflection points will fix reflection-caused peaks and nulls at mid and high frequencies."

The type and amount of treatment for the bare room will be quite different than a normally furnished room.

Ethan has not been able to refute any evidence or points I presented in my initial post. For those new, one can clearly see this in his previous posts.

He simply tries to change the setup and equipment involved in an attempt to negate the relevance of the evidence I presented,,, since he cannot refute it.

The rest of his posts are simply damage control comments.

ethanwiner
ethanwiner's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 1 2005 - 2:26pm
Re: Room Measurements


Quote:
Ethan has not been able to refute any evidence or points I presented in my initial post.


What evidence or points? The ones where you accused me of turning the speakers around? Or purposely reversing the polarity on one channel? Sheesh. Your entire premise in this thread is fatally flawed, and based on fantasy and misinformation.

Please do us both a favor and download the free Room EQ Wizard software, then take a Radio Shack SPL meter and measure a few "normal size" furnished rooms. After you've done that, post the graphs here and we'll have a basis for a discussion.

--Ethan

tom collins
tom collins's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 2 months ago
Joined: Apr 3 2007 - 11:54am
Re: Room Measurements

maybe i misunderstood and am oversensative - i thought the comment was on the size of the room, not the bareness of it. if that was the context - appologies and i agree, no one would want to listen in a naked room such as that. although, i have to tell a story about my college days. i was friends with the apartment manager where i lived. one day he said you have to see this. he took me in this apt. and there was a killer (late 70s) front end and 2 huge and expensive (at the time) infinity ribbon tweeter speakers, a bean bag, 1 plate, 1 fork, 1 cup and that was it. the room wasn't any bigger than ethan's demo room there.

tom

SAS Audio
SAS Audio's picture
Offline
Last seen: 9 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: Jun 6 2007 - 6:56am
Re: Room Measurements


Quote:

Quote:
Ethan has not been able to refute any evidence or points I presented in my initial post.


What evidence or points? The ones where you accused me of turning the speakers around? Or purposely reversing the polarity on one channel? Sheesh. Your entire premise in this thread is fatally flawed, and based on fantasy and misinformation.

Please do us both a favor and download the free Room EQ Wizard software, then take a Radio Shack SPL meter and measure a few "normal size" furnished rooms. After you've done that, post the graphs here and we'll have a basis for a discussion.

--Ethan


Quote:
Your entire premise in this thread is fatally flawed, and based on fantasy and misinformation.

Unfortunately Ethan still cannot refute any evidence I presented in my initial post on this string.

If Ethan thinks my initial post is "fatallly flawed, and based on fantasy and misinformation", why hasn't he informed us of those flaws? Mysterious isn't it. Afterall, I have given him opportunity after opportunity. Simply because he cannot refute the scientific evidence I presented.

Unfortunately, I recently discovered that Ethan has posted manipulative and deceitful comments about me in Room Acoustics Forum.

I quote his comments and respond at

http://forum.stereophile.com/forum/showf...part=4&vc=1
(His original comments are on page 3.)

Of course it is easy to refute his disparaging and deceitful comments by simply providing links and quotes from those links. So his comments were exposed as being deceptive and misleading.

Well, Ethan again responds by again resorting to minupulation and deceit, and this time adds name calling.


Quote:
Just to be clear, I am not ducking anything. Rather, I'm ignoring you because you are a troll.

But of course he just did.

----------

Hi Tom,


Quote:
maybe i misunderstood and am oversensative - i thought the comment was on the size of the room, not the bareness of it. if that was the context - appologies and i agree, no one would want to listen in a naked room such as that....

tom

No need to apologize Tom. All is ok and we appreciate your input.

ethanwiner
ethanwiner's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 1 2005 - 2:26pm
Re: Room Measurements


Quote:
If Ethan thinks my initial post is "fatallly flawed, and based on fantasy and misinformation", why hasn't he informed us of those flaws?


Here you go, for the very last time:

The speakers were not wired with reverse polarity or turned around to face the front wall.

ethanwiner
ethanwiner's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 1 2005 - 2:26pm
Re: Accurate?


Quote:
an entire roll of R-19 fiberglass insulation in the corners is very effective and offers an inexpensive alternative to more expensive options.


Heh, I can't let this one go. I know what you're trying to do but it won't work. Even though I'm in the business of selling room treatment, I still maintain my Acoustics FAQ for beginners and DIY types. I feel so strongly about the importance of acoustics and room treatment that I'd rather someone buy from a competitor or DIY than do without. Indeed, I'm way ahead of you on fiberglass bales - the following has been in my above FAQ for more than five years:

"Another great and inexpensive way to make a bass trap - if you have a lot of room - is to place bales of rolled up fluffy fiberglass in the room corners. These bales are not expensive, and they can be stacked to fill very large spaces. Better still, they are commonly available and you don't even have to unpack them! Just leave the bales rolled up in their original plastic wrappers, and stuff them in and near the room corners wherever they'll fit. Stack them all the way up to the ceiling for the most absorption."

I'm all for DIY, and I encourage others too. Toward that end, I noticed this page on your web site:

http://www.sasaudiolabs.com/price1.htm

I was particularly interested in the JenaLabs "EASY ONE" AC Power Filter for $1,300, halfway down the page, because I know what goes into a power line filter and it doesn't cost $1,300. Indeed, this article from 1997 shows how to build an excellent power line filter for about $40:

Kill Studio Hum and Buzz at the Source

As you can see it's not difficult to build a high performance power line filter! It's just one heavy extension cord cut in half, a small plastic box from Radio Shack, and an RFI filter commonly available for about $30. With only five soldered connections the while thing will take less than an hour to make. And it will be as good as, if not better than, any commercially available power line filter at any price.

--Ethan

SAS Audio
SAS Audio's picture
Offline
Last seen: 9 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: Jun 6 2007 - 6:56am
Re: Accurate?


Quote:

Quote:
an entire roll of R-19 fiberglass insulation in the corners is very effective and offers an inexpensive alternative to more expensive options.


Heh, I can't let this one go. I know what you're trying to do but it won't work. Even though I'm in the business of selling room treatment, I still maintain my Acoustics FAQ for beginners and DIY types. I feel so strongly about the importance of acoustics and room treatment that I'd rather someone buy from a competitor or DIY than do without. Indeed, I'm way ahead of you on fiberglass bales - the following has been in my above FAQ for more than five years:

"Another great and inexpensive way to make a bass trap - if you have a lot of room - is to place bales of rolled up fluffy fiberglass in the room corners. These bales are not expensive, and they can be stacked to fill very large spaces. Better still, they are commonly available and you don't even have to unpack them! Just leave the bales rolled up in their original plastic wrappers, and stuff them in and near the room corners wherever they'll fit. Stack them all the way up to the ceiling for the most absorption."

I'm all for DIY, and I encourage others too. Toward that end, I noticed this page on your web site:

http://www.sasaudiolabs.com/price1.htm

I was particularly interested in the JenaLabs "EASY ONE" AC Power Filter for $1,300, halfway down the page, because I know what goes into a power line filter and it doesn't cost $1,300. Indeed, this article from 1997 shows how to build an excellent power line filter for about $40:

Kill Studio Hum and Buzz at the Source

As you can see it's not difficult to build a high performance power line filter! It's just one heavy extension cord cut in half, a small plastic box from Radio Shack, and an RFI filter commonly available for about $30. With only five soldered connections the while thing will take less than an hour to make. And it will be as good as, if not better than, any commercially available power line filter at any price.

--Ethan

I see you actually mentioned rolls of R19 insulation, but it took you 1 1/2 weeks to remember we said the same thing? Hmmm. And what has that have to do with the accuracy of your graphs posted on this string?

So you are still attempting to divert from the subject of your graphs, since you are unable to refute the evidence I presented. And you are now claiming to be an expert in RF?


Quote:
I was particularly interested in the JenaLabs "EASY ONE" AC Power Filter for $1,300, halfway down the page, because I know what goes into a power line filter and it doesn't cost $1,300. Indeed, this article from 1997 shows how to build an excellent power line filter for about $40:


Quote:

I have used filters made by Corcom (sold by DigiKey) and Cornell-Dubilier with great success, and they range in price from $25 to $65 each, depending on their capacity in Amperes. Don't waste your time with cheaper units; buy only Series R two-stage L-C (inductor-capacitor) filters.

From you webpage link

http://www.ethanwiner.com/dimmers.html


Quote:

As you can see it's not difficult to build a high performance power line filter! It's just one heavy extension cord cut in half, a small plastic box from Radio Shack, and an RFI filter commonly available for about $30. With only five soldered connections the while thing will take less than an hour to make. And it will be as good as, if not better than, any commercially available power line filter at any price.

http://www.cor.com/Series/PowerLine/R/

What Ethan conveniently failed to mention is that the R series specs (similar to other cheap models and brands) list only from approximately 150khz to 30mhz. Pretty easy to build this type of filter.

However, the Jenalabs filter extends into the low giga-hertz (billions of cycles per second). I am sure a few other high quality manufacturers do as well. This is extremely difficult to design and build (and keep tight tolerances that are necessary) by the way.

For those interested in Jenalabs qualifications

http://www.jenalabs.com/cryogenics/cryo-jena.html

Ethan claims he


Quote:

know what goes into a power line filter


but his recommended filters do not claim to reject high power sources such as FM, TV, Microwaves, and RFI from "digital" and pulse width modulated amplifiers, and other industrial RFI at very high frequencies, above 30mhz.

"Series R two-stage L-C (inductor-capacitor) filters" are hardly top quality to cover such wideband of frequencies.

As one can also see, his claim of "at any price" is simply without foundation.

So it appears that you continue to provide minipulative and deceptive information.

But that all important question still remains Ethan. When are you going to refute any evidence I presented in my initial post concerning your graphs?

You can't because the evidence is valid. Ethan, and you have no one to blame but yourself.

(I quoted his entire post so he cannot conveniently edit it without our knowledge.)

ethanwiner
ethanwiner's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 1 2005 - 2:26pm
Re: Accurate?


Quote:
since you are unable to refute the evidence I presented.


Somebody shoot me now. Please.


Quote:
the Jenalabs filter extends into the low giga-hertz (billions of cycles per second).


Blah blah, yet more BS. The fact is most people do not benefit from power "conditioner" products. And when there is a problem with clicks and pops every time the refrigerator etc kicks in, the filter I showed will solve that completely. And for a hell of a lot less than $1,300. And cryo'd? That's a joke, right? I thought you said you're an EE? Real EE's don't believe in cryo'd nonsense. Sheesh, the first time I saw that price I thought it was a misprint. Seriously, how many of those do you sell a year? Please be honest.


Quote:
(I quoted his entire post so he cannot conveniently edit it without our knowledge.)


ROFL.

Look, whatever your name is, I bet you're actually a decent guy just trying to make a living like everyone else. But you sure have a "way" about you that comes off as combative. Why do you do that? What the heck did I ever do to you?

--Ethan

SAS Audio
SAS Audio's picture
Offline
Last seen: 9 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: Jun 6 2007 - 6:56am
Re: Accurate?


Quote:

Quote:
since you are unable to refute the evidence I presented.


Somebody shoot me now. Please.


Quote:
the Jenalabs filter extends into the low giga-hertz (billions of cycles per second).


Blah blah, yet more BS. The fact is most people do not benefit from power "conditioner" products. And when there is a problem with clicks and pops every time the refrigerator etc kicks in, the filter I showed will solve that completely. And for a hell of a lot less than $1,300. And cryo'd? That's a joke, right? I thought you said you're an EE? Real EE's don't believe in cryo'd nonsense. Sheesh, the first time I saw that price I thought it was a misprint. Seriously, how many of those do you sell a year? Please be honest.


Quote:
(I quoted his entire post so he cannot conveniently edit it without our knowledge.)


ROFL.

Look, whatever your name is, I bet you're actually a decent guy just trying to make a living like everyone else. But you sure have a "way" about you that comes off as combative. Why do you do that? What the heck did I ever do to you?

--Ethan

Actually, read my first post and one will see how this string got started. Ethan posted graphs evidently trying to dupe the public and me. It was obvious that something was wrong.

Anyway, I started this string posting my critique of his graphs. Ethan has yet to refute any evidence I presented, over 1 1/2 weeks ago.

In essence, one can mimick Ethan's measurements/graphs by simply rotating the speakers off axis and reverse polarity in one speaker. In otherwards, give the worse possible room response.

Ethan has tried every trick in the book to sneak around an explanation. This included the attempt to change the setup, equipment used, after I posted, and switching the subject attempting to put me on the defensive.

Now he attempts to place himself above those who worked on NASA and classified projects.

Of course he is hardly qualified to critique superior minds. But he puts on the facade, just like he tries to dupe the public.

One other thing. Ethan claims the AC line filters he recommends stops pops and clicks from refrigerators etc.


Quote:
And when there is a problem with clicks and pops every time the refrigerator etc kicks in, the filter I showed will solve that completely.

And
http://www.ethanwiner.com/dimmers.html


Quote:
The best solution to these clicks is to install an RFI filter in the power line that feeds your audio equipment....
I have used filters made by Corcom (sold by DigiKey) and Cornell-Dubilier with great success, and they range in price from $25 to $65 each, depending on their capacity in Amperes.

Unfortunately the clicks and pops occur in the audio frequency range. The AC line RFI filters are of virtually no value below 150khz, and especially in the audio range that we hear.

So Ethan, do you want to explain how the AC RFI line filters help in reducing pops and clicks? Seems you believe in magic as well.

bifcake
bifcake's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Nov 27 2005 - 2:27am
Re: Accurate?

This thread has turned into a major pissing match!

SAS Audio
SAS Audio's picture
Offline
Last seen: 9 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: Jun 6 2007 - 6:56am
Re: Accurate?


Quote:
This thread has turned into a major pissing match!

Actually there is no "pissing" contest as Ethan has little if any credentials or credibility, especially after his minipulation and deceptive tatics.

Initially I posted evidence that Ethan has not been able to refute to this day.

He has attempted to claim that I had "large holes in my knowledge", yet he has not been able to explain even one of those large holes, to me or to the public. It was his perfect opportunity to squelch the evidence I presented, but he could not because he knows he cannot, assuming he actually understands what he claims which I also doubt.

He has attempted to change the test equipment and components used, after my initial post, changing the subject multiple times in order to get him off the hot seat, using the sympathy card, even posting that silly AC RFI filter and claiming it works to eliminate pops and clicks in the audio range. So now the filter magically works below 150khz, which even at that frequency offers little protection. Looks like Ethan does believe in magic.

Just another example demonstrating that Ethan knows very little about electronics.

Another attempted (there are more) minipulation and deceptive tactics.

http://forum.stereophile.com/forum/showf...e=0&fpart=4


Quote:
When he couldn't understand my room measurement graphs he accused me of making up the data

Again same tatic. He cannot refute the evidence I presented, so he replies with a generic statement claiming that I do not understand and I then accused him of making up the info? If that were the case, then he could have simply refuted my evidence, one point after another. But he could not.

The evidence/information I presented is basic material that any knowledgeable person would understand and could refute, if it were false. But Ethan continually sidestepped it because he could not.


Quote:
People who argue the most against the importance of acoustic treatment are invariably people that have never heard a well treated room."

I clearly refute his false and deceptive statement by quotes and strings that he also participated in, so he knew what my position was.

I have not comment further on mics, but notice he claims his mic was checked for accuracy from only 20-800hz, yet used it to measure from 20-20khz.

And a mic is calibrated using 1khz as a reference by Neumann and other sources. Ok, let's assume 400hz or even no frequency was used as a reference. A typical full range mic is accurate at midband. Yet Ethan would have us believe that the response falls 11db from 300 to 2khz, rises and then falls off nearly 23db from 3.7khz to 20khz all caused by either the room (but not comb filtering), mic, or speaker.

I don't know how many more examples one would have to present to demonstrate Ethan has some big problems with his measurements that he fostered off to the public.

It is quite clear to me that Ethan is simply a marketer. I know of several companies who hire others to design their products, all the while taking credit. It is also quite evident Ethan knows little about electronics, but is quite adept at marketing tatics, as I have demonstrated.

It will be interesting to see how Ethan tries to sneak around my last two posts.

bifcake
bifcake's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Nov 27 2005 - 2:27am
Re: Accurate?

Let's put this thread to bed. I don't think there's anything to be gained from it. Everything that could be said, has been said.

Buddha
Buddha's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 1 month ago
Joined: Sep 8 2005 - 10:24am
Re: Accurate?


Quote:
Let's put this thread to bed. I don't think there's anything to be gained from it. Everything that could be said, has been said.

Sure, you'd say that, you time-thieving unethical component grifter.

bifcake
bifcake's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Nov 27 2005 - 2:27am
Re: Accurate?


Quote:

Quote:
Let's put this thread to bed. I don't think there's anything to be gained from it. Everything that could be said, has been said.

Sure, you'd say that, you time-thieving unethical component grifter.

I hang my sinning head in shame. I am torry.

SAS Audio
SAS Audio's picture
Offline
Last seen: 9 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: Jun 6 2007 - 6:56am
Re: Accurate?


Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
Let's put this thread to bed. I don't think there's anything to be gained from it. Everything that could be said, has been said.

Sure, you'd say that, you time-thieving unethical component grifter.

I hang my sinning head in shame. I am torry.

Good night Alex and Buddha. Snore, snore, snore.

ethanwiner
ethanwiner's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 1 2005 - 2:26pm
Re: Accurate?


Quote:
This thread has turned into a major pissing match!


No kidding, and it's all based on SAS's belief that, for reasons I'll never understand, I made up the data in my graphs. All anyone has to do is visit the various acoustics-related forums, where hi-res graphs of room responses are often posted, to see that the graphs I posted are typical. As I've said repeatedly.

What amazes me is SAS's constant attacks calling me incompetent and dishonest. WTF is that about anyway? I admit I chided him about his $1,300 RFI filter after he twice tried to portray my company's products as overpriced. But all the hostility and pissing contest stuff was started by him. He started this entire thread to attack me, apparently because he doesn't understand LF response in small rooms. Or that a Radio Shack SPL meter falls off severely at high frequencies. Does anyone here know Mr. SAS personally, or have some idea of his non-forum personality?

Which reminds me of a funny thought I often have about how people behave when they're not face to face with others. I used to say, if you want to know someone's true personality just watch them drive a car. These days you can just read their forum posts.

--Ethan

SAS Audio
SAS Audio's picture
Offline
Last seen: 9 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: Jun 6 2007 - 6:56am
Re: Accurate?


Quote:

Quote:
This thread has turned into a major pissing match!


No kidding, and it's all based on SAS's belief that, for reasons I'll never understand, I made up the data in my graphs. All anyone has to do is visit the various acoustics-related forums, where hi-res graphs of room responses are often posted, to see that the graphs I posted are typical. As I've said repeatedly.

What amazes me is SAS's constant attacks calling me incompetent and dishonest. WTF is that about anyway? I admit I chided him about his $1,300 RFI filter after he twice tried to portray my company's products as overpriced. But all the hostility and pissing contest stuff was started by him. He started this entire thread to attack me, apparently because he doesn't understand LF response in small rooms. Or that a Radio Shack SPL meter falls off severely at high frequencies. Does anyone here know Mr. SAS personally, or have some idea of his non-forum personality?

Which reminds me of a funny thought I often have about how people behave when they're not face to face with others. I used to say, if you want to know someone's true personality just watch them drive a car. These days you can just read their forum posts.

--Ethan


Quote:

No kidding, and it's all based on SAS's belief that, for reasons I'll never understand, I made up the data in my graphs.

Because you have not been able to refute any of this evidence because you cannot. All one has to do is see the wide variances in the bass, midrange and tweeter to see something is seriously wrong with those graphs.

You know it is funny that Ethan accused me of starting a new string to post my evidence. But if Ethan was telling the truth, what difference would it have made?

In fact it would have been to your advantage, a golden opportunity for you to refute the evidence I presented. But you could not even reply to my initial post.

Instead, you had to reply to Elk's post, who attempted to explain some basic points. I could only assume that you
do not even understand basic acoustics.


Quote:

All anyone has to do is visit the various acoustics-related forums, where hi-res graphs of room responses are often posted, to see that the graphs I posted are typical. As I've said repeatedly.

Interesting that he waits 1 1/2 weeks to post this information when he could have posted immediately since the graphs are often posted there. This tatic is similar to his R19 insulation comment. Hmmm.


Quote:

What amazes me is SAS's constant attacks calling me incompetent and dishonest. WTF is that about anyway?

All one has to do is check out the initial string (upgrade paths), page 4
http://forum.stereophile.com/forum/showf...e=1&fpart=4

to see his insinuations and desparaging remarks concerning my ability to perform basic electronic measurements etc.

We also see here and on Ethan's website his suggestion of using an AC RFI filter to eliminate "pops and clicks" from refrigerator motors etc.

Audio pops occur at audio frequencies (20-20khz) one can hear. Yet the specs state 150khz (almost no attenutation) to 30mhz.

So Ethan completely misapplied the use of an AC RFI filter, as the filter is worthless below 150khz. This is about as basic as it gets Ethan.


Quote:

I admit I chided him about his $1,300 RFI filter after he twice tried to portray my company's products as overpriced.

Let's see the links Ethan. By the way, you stated you suggested using R19 bundles on your own website.


Quote:

But all the hostility and pissing contest stuff was started by him.

See above and Upgrade paths starting on page 4.


Quote:

He started this entire thread to attack me, apparently because he doesn't understand LF response in small rooms.

Check above, page 4. The issue is whether your graphs are accurate. Unfortunately, you still cannot refute any evidence I presented.

So it seems your scientific and acoustic knowledge is easily as inaccurate as your electronic knowledge as evidenced in your posts.


Quote:

Or that a Radio Shack SPL meter falls off severely at high frequencies.

So suddenly you remember using the Radio Shack spl meter, after I presented my evidence. There are several problems that need addressing.

1) You never informed us of any frequency response problems before. Now suddenly you use the RS meter and
frequency response problems now exist. How convenient.

2) So you argue the RS meter was used. Unfortunately the deviation in the graph of the mid, and high frequencies cannot be but partially attributed to the RS meter's inaccuracy.

Check out these links as to the RS meter's accuracy.

http://www.digital-recordings.com/audiocd/radio.html

http://www.gearslutz.com/board/post-prod...tion-table.html

http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/general/messages/49147.html

The worst case scenario is the meter being 11db off at 20khz, yet you measure 23db off. So your graph is still 12db off.
At 10khz, the meter is off 4.4db, yet the graph averages approx 11db off, a 6.6db difference. The other links report the meter being plenty accurate.

The frequency response from 300 to 2khz drops 11db and is also not meter related simply because this is mid band and the deviations are minimal.
Checking Neumann, Audio Technica and other sources, 1khz is the reference. Yet you cannot claim your own meter is accurate at 1khz, stating your meter was checked from only 20 to 800hz. Convenient you did not check any further for accuracy. Yet the above links points to a meter that is plenty accurate well into the khz range.
So your measurements still point to a considerable downslope from 300 to 2khz and from 3.7khz to 20khz.

So the graph and associated measurement parameters were completely missing. This is sloppy and unprofessional at best and incompetent and deceptive at worst.


Quote:

Does anyone here know Mr. SAS personally, or have some idea of his non-forum personality?

This is a question that no one should have to answer, as this has to do with the matter of the accuracy of your graphs.


Quote:

Which reminds me of a funny thought I often have about how people behave when they're not face to face with others. I used to say, if you want to know someone's true personality just watch them drive a car. These days you can just read their forum posts.

Look at your own posts Ethan and see your attitude. Check back to page 4 of Upgrade Paths, this string, and

http://forum.stereophile.com/forum/showf...e=0&fpart=4

By the way, there are some of us who have seen all your posts and who are trained in observing ethical business practices.

So just keep it coming.

bifcake
bifcake's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Nov 27 2005 - 2:27am
Re: Accurate?

Here we go again.

SAS Audio
SAS Audio's picture
Offline
Last seen: 9 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: Jun 6 2007 - 6:56am
Re: Accurate?


Quote:
Here we go again.

I know Alex. I was fast asleep and snoring when Ethan woke me up with his antics and manipulative/deceptive behaviour again.

Elk
Elk's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 months 1 week ago
Joined: Dec 26 2006 - 6:32am
Re: Accurate?

This better end soon/

I'm running out of popcorn.

SAS Audio
SAS Audio's picture
Offline
Last seen: 9 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: Jun 6 2007 - 6:56am
Re: Accurate?


Quote:
This better end soon/

I'm running out of popcorn.

I was fast asleep and snoring but evidently Ethan wants the whole world to see his deceptive antics and continue to self destruct. I guess that is his business.

You know it is funny that Ethan accused me of starting a new string to post my evidence and go after him. But if Ethan was telling the truth, what difference would it have made? In fact this would have been a golden opportunity to refute the evidence I presented. But he could not even reply to my initial post.

Instead, Ethan had to read Elk's abbreviated conclusion before he could even reply, since he could only reference to Elk's post.

So not only does Ethan not understand basic electronics, but evidently has trouble understanding basic acoustics as well.

Buddha
Buddha's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 1 month ago
Joined: Sep 8 2005 - 10:24am
Re: Accurate?

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Accurate?


Quote:
This will not end well.

Oh, I don't know. What if the two guys are lovers?

bifcake
bifcake's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Nov 27 2005 - 2:27am
Re: Accurate?

Are you saying that this whole spat between SAS and Ethan is just a lovers' quarrel?

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Accurate?

I don't know. What have you heard?

bifcake
bifcake's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Nov 27 2005 - 2:27am
Re: Accurate?

Don't ask, don't tell.

Elk
Elk's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 months 1 week ago
Joined: Dec 26 2006 - 6:32am
Re: Accurate?


Quote:
Don't ask, don't tell.


What he said.

PLEASE.

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Accurate?

You surprise me, Alex. Here I had assumed you lived by Alice Roosevelt's words, "If you have something rotten to say about someone, come sit by me."

bifcake
bifcake's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Nov 27 2005 - 2:27am
Re: Accurate?

You see? I'm full of surprises.

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Accurate?

Not as many as you'd like to think.

bifcake
bifcake's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Nov 27 2005 - 2:27am
Re: Accurate?

You couldn't even give me that little tid bit, could you?

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Accurate?

Alex, you can find your tidbit online at a discount. I will not be the one blamed for enticing you.

Buddha
Buddha's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 1 month ago
Joined: Sep 8 2005 - 10:24am
Re: Accurate?

AlexO, here's your new jersey...

bifcake
bifcake's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Nov 27 2005 - 2:27am
Re: Accurate?

Gee, you think?

SAS Audio
SAS Audio's picture
Offline
Last seen: 9 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: Jun 6 2007 - 6:56am
Update


Quote:

Quote:
This better end soon/

I'm running out of popcorn.

I was fast asleep and snoring but evidently Ethan wants the whole world to see his deceptive antics and continue to self destruct. I guess that is his business.

You know it is funny that Ethan accused me of starting a new string to post my evidence and go after him. But if Ethan was telling the truth, what difference would it have made? In fact this would have been a golden opportunity to refute the evidence I presented. But he could not even reply to my initial post.

Instead, Ethan had to read Elk's abbreviated conclusion before he could even reply, since he could only reference to Elk's post.

So not only does Ethan not understand basic electronics, but evidently has trouble understanding basic acoustics as well.

Update. Ethan has now posted on Audio Circle claiming his RS spl meter (which he conveniently recalled using) has a 40db total variation from mid to highs. And his latest graph on his new webpage does not match (comb filtering not a factor) graph B here. Here is the link.

http://www.audiocircle.com/circles/index.php?topic=58000.msg514554#msg514554

ethanwiner
ethanwiner's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 1 2005 - 2:26pm
Re: Update
SAS Audio
SAS Audio's picture
Offline
Last seen: 9 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: Jun 6 2007 - 6:56am
Re: Update


Quote:
I think this post sums it up nicely:

http://forum.stereophile.com/forum/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=44576&an=0&page=0#Post44779

You have two huge problems.

1) You cannot explain the differences between the two graphs, A and B, just like you cannot refute the evidence I presented. We just want you to be honest, but instead another problem has developed with your mic graphs here and the one on your website and advertised on Audio Circle. They do not match.

2) If one reads my post on page 2, one will find BillB to simply be a follower of you, as others are on that string, and quite willing to minipulate events.

So post away, as many times as you wish. Until you resolve the problems mentioned above, you are one in hot water.

So go ahead.

ethanwiner
ethanwiner's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 1 2005 - 2:26pm
Re: Update


Quote:
You cannot explain the differences between the two graphs, A and B


If you mean the two graphs in your first post to this thread, they are from totally different rooms.

Now do you finally understand?

Assuming you do now understand, your apology is accepted.

--Ethan

SAS Audio
SAS Audio's picture
Offline
Last seen: 9 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: Jun 6 2007 - 6:56am
Re: Update

I just decided to simplify my post. So check here and Audio Circle

http://www.audiocircle.com/circles/index.php?topic=58000.msg514957#msg514957

for the latest information.

To condense things.

Here Ethan waits nearly 4 weeks to state that graphs A and B were made in different rooms.

However, on Audio Circle, Ethan states graphs A and graph C (graph from his webpage uploaded to AC) were made in different rooms.

So now we suddenly have two different stories and rooms. I guess three different rooms unless graph B and graph C were made in the same room.

Keep up the new and breaking headlines, Ethan. How many more stories have you got to entertain us with?

Oh, by the way, this is what you stated on Stereophile when graph B was posted (graph A had just been posted just earlier in Upgrade paths, page 4).


Quote:
This next graph shows the very same measurement data expressed as 1/3 and 1/12 octaves:


just above graph B. Graph A was using gate time: 100ms

I guess it was a different room though.

Interesting to say the least.

ethanwiner
ethanwiner's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 1 2005 - 2:26pm
Re: Update


Quote:
Assuming you do now understand, your apology is accepted.


I guess this means you still don't understand. Okay. It sure would be nice if you were at least civil though, but I guess that's too much to ask.

--Ethan

Pages

  • X
    Enter your Stereophile.com username.
    Enter the password that accompanies your username.
    Loading