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.
I think I have been quite fair and dealt with the issues. There is a look from a little different angle in the middle of this post.
What I do understand is that you have now posted a suspicious Radio Shack graph response curve
in Audio Circle in an attempt to circumvent the evidence I presented at the beginning of this string.
Otherwise why post a new string concerning an RS spl meter graph that is so different than what others have
measured/posted. In fact, your own two graphs using the RS meter look quite different, as we shall see below.
I can only assume you figured that eventually others will see this string and the evidence I provided concerning your graphs A and B. So attempt to discredit my evidence by suddenly "recalling" using a Radio Shack meter and now posting a suspicious graph of the spl meter.
To see how Ethan's AC graph of the Radio Shack spl meter fits in, we need to do a general recap to set the stage.
You entered a conversation between Clifton and me in "Upgrade Paths", and posted two suspicious graphs,
A and B, and attempted to intimidate me.
I responded with an abundance of evidence that one can mimick your graphs by simply rotating the speakers and reverse polarity one speaker. See first post of this string.
Then, you attempted to
1) change the setup of and
2) suddenly recalled that you used a Radio Shack mic,
which you claim caused the severe high frequency rolloff even though you had not checked the accuracy of
the RS mic above 800hz.
So according to your own arguement, after I presented the evidence, you "recalled" you used the RS mic that had a severe high frequency rolloff, which caused the graph to severely roll off at high frequencies. (However, it still does not refute the evidence I presented.)
The problem is that you would have been able to see the problem with your graph, and therefore which mic was used before I presented the abundance of evidence. But you did not "recall" until after I presented the evidence.
So now you cannot read your own graphs. Either that or you knowingly posted a grossly inaccurate graph/measurements and withheld this information from the public until you were caught.
Afterall you stated that the graphs were "typical" for a room, and most assumed such, until I posted my abundant evidence to the contrary in my initial post on this string.
By the way, the RS meter was not used in graph B. The only way graph B could have been made is by the evidence I presented at the beginning of this string and with an accurate mic.
OK, now the frequency response graph of the Radio Shack spl meter posted on AC. First graph B and then the graph from AC. Comb filtering is not the issue since
we are dealing with the average and 1/3 octave response above 200hz. (So changing rooms has little to no bearing since we are not dealing with comb filtering and the mics supposively are pointed directly at the speakers.) So Ethans attempt to change rooms between graph A and B was for naught.
And both graphs below are claimed by Ethan to be made using the same Radio Shack spl meter.
By the way, Ethan just attempted to change setup conditions again, after 4 weeks. However it does not change the conclusions reached by looking at the graphs.
RS spl mic response on Ethan's website and link on Audio Circle.
Notice the average and 1/3 octave responses are quite different between the above graphs, above 200hz.
And of course, Ethan's measurements are vastly different when compared to measurements and corrections at other sites.
So much for Ethan's (and I am sure others) "Scientific method".