You are here

Log in or register to post comments
SAS Audio
SAS Audio's picture
Offline
Last seen: 10 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: Jun 6 2007 - 6:56am
Re: Update


Quote:

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

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".

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

SAS Audio
SAS Audio's picture
Offline
Last seen: 10 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: Jun 6 2007 - 6:56am
Re: Update


Quote:

Then tell Ethan to stop with the continual rants and deceptive tatics. It is that simple, Ethan "disciple".

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


Quote:

Then tell Ethan to stop with the continual rants and deceptive tatics. It is that simple, Ethan "disciple".

SAS Audio
SAS Audio's picture
Offline
Last seen: 10 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: Jun 6 2007 - 6:56am
Re: Update


Quote:

Quote:

Then tell Ethan to stop with the continual rants and deceptive tatics. It is that simple, Ethan "disciple".

Interesting that you had 2 days to post this in response to Ethan latest post and stop things then, but you didn't.

Let's see what Ethan decides.

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

I just noticed this thread was live again. I promise that there's no conspiracy.

SAS Audio
SAS Audio's picture
Offline
Last seen: 10 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: Jun 6 2007 - 6:56am
Re: Update


Quote:
I just noticed this thread was live again. I promise that there's no conspiracy.

Good to hear Alex. Here is a link for those new, to an article written by Martin DeWulf, a criminal defense attorney. Notice especially the middle section "Internet".

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

I have had personal experiences with at least 4-5 reviewers and past reviewers who either wanted under the table deals with me but I refused, or confessed to backround deals with manufacturers, and individuals who are highly suspect. (Not Stereophile nor BFS.)

We discussed this a little in the past Alex.

Take care.

Buddha
Buddha's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 2 months ago
Joined: Sep 8 2005 - 10:24am
Re: Update

Not so much beating a dead horse, I see it this way...

Remember the movie "Crime of Passion?"

I'm picturing this argument more like the scene where China Blue first hooks up with the cop.

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


Quote:
I think I have been quite fair and dealt with the issues.


I'm sure you think that.


Quote:
What I do understand is that you have now posted a suspicious Radio Shack graph response curve in Audio Circle


Why do you think it's suspicious? You saw my test setup, no? There were four other "expert witnesses" at this test, and none mentioned a flaw in the setup.


Quote:
Otherwise why post a new string concerning an RS spl meter graph that is so different than what others have measured/posted.


Because most "others" do not have the knowledge or tools to do a valid test.


Quote:
your own two graphs using the RS meter look quite different


Both tests were in the same room, but at totally different places in the room.


Quote:
You ... attempted to intimidate me.


LOL. I'm sure you feel intimidated in this discussion, but that's not my fault!


Quote:
one can mimick your graphs by simply rotating the speakers and reverse polarity one speaker.


Perhaps, but that's not what I did. Think about it. Why the heck would I want to do something like that? What could I possibly gain?


Quote:
you had not checked the accuracy of the RS mic above 800hz.


I compared my SPL meter to my AKG years ago and posted the results many times. Maybe not in this thread though. So here it is again:

The above graph is from the same data as the RS / AKG comparison below 200 Hz. I split the data into two graphs because of a graphing limitation with the ETF software. This is one reason I used REW for my more recent microphone comparison.


Quote:
Either that or you knowingly posted a grossly inaccurate graph/measurements and withheld this information from the public until you were caught.


Irrelevant and accusatory comments like that show exactly why you're being an ass.


Quote:
you stated that the graphs were "typical" for a room


They are. I have asked you several times now to measure a few rooms using proper software and post the results here. You can even download the REW program for free. So what's the hold up?


Quote:
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.


Which is proof that you are clueless. The graph that compares 1/3 and 1/12 octave smoothing was definitely done with my Radio Shack SPL meter. The rapidly falling HF response is the key.


Quote:
Ethan's measurements are vastly different when compared to measurements and corrections at other sites.


So now science is decided by consensus?


Quote:
Let's see what Ethan decides.


I already decided weeks ago that you're a nut-job.

Steve, I honestly don't know what your point is with all these rants. You have been given a dozen opportunities to clarify what you don't understand, so I can explain. But since that requires you to acknowledge not being an acoustics expert, I guess it's easier for your ego to bash me. Whatever. Carry on.

--Ethan

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

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

I agree Alex. I'm just defending myself against an ignorant tirade.

SAS Audio
SAS Audio's picture
Offline
Last seen: 10 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: Jun 6 2007 - 6:56am
Re: Update

Long post, but there is important information through out. Clincher near the bottom for those not so technically minded.

Me:

Quote:
What I do understand is that you have now posted a suspicious Radio Shack graph response curve in Audio Circle

Because the two graphs I posted above do not match when checking the average, even 1/3 octave responses.


Quote:
Ethan: "Why do you think it's suspicious? You saw my test setup, no? There were four other "expert witnesses" at this test, and none mentioned a flaw in the setup.

Suddenly you have witnesses? Who are they? We will find out how expert they are as we read below.

Me:

Quote:
Otherwise why post a new string concerning an RS spl meter graph that is so different than what others have measured/posted.

Ethan:

Quote:
Because most "others" do not have the knowledge or tools to do a valid test.

Again, we shall see if what he says below is true or hogwash.

Me:

Quote:
your own two graphs using the RS meter look quite different

Ethan:

Quote:
Both tests were in the same room, but at totally different places in the room.

That would explain the 1/12 octave reflections. Not the average response from 200-20khz.

Me:

Quote:
You ... attempted to intimidate me.

Ethan:

Quote:
LOL. I'm sure you feel intimidated in this discussion, but that's not my fault!

Here is the link I referred to in Upgrade Paths.

http://forum.stereophile.com/forum/showf...part=5&vc=1

Notice I warned Ethan more than once about insinuations. As a side note I also predicted


Quote:
Is it a bare room, hardwood floors etc? I see you also did not post measurements above 200hz.

Turned out Ethan eventually
posted this picture, a bare room.

Notice one speaker instead of two. By accident??

However, after 4 weeks you still have not refuted the evidence in my initial post, so why should I be intimidated? You have simply dodged the issues and points clearly explained in that post, and changed stories as you go along.

Me:

Quote:
one can mimick your graphs by simply rotating the speakers and reverse polarity one speaker.

Ethan:

Quote:
Perhaps, but that's not what I did. Think about it. Why the heck would I want to do something like that? What could I possibly gain?

Simple. Show the worst possible graph to encourage the public to purchase treatments, which back fired when I caught you with your grossly inaccurate graphs. This will be born out further in this post.

Me:

Quote:
you had not checked the accuracy of the RS mic above 800hz.

Ethan: I compared my SPL meter to my AKG years ago and posted the results many times. Maybe not in this thread though. So here it is again:

Graph supposively from "several years ago", D

Post graph B. Notice the simularities. Virtually identical to D. However, he could not have tested the RS mic several years ago and come up with this graph, as he claims. (Continue reading.)

Ethan states concerning graph B


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


(as graph A above with gate time of 100ms.)

Post graph C from Ethan's website and Audio Circle

Notice the difference between graphs C and B,D. The red line of D is a near perfect match to graph B, posted 4 weeks ago. Notice the bold differences in the midrange, from 300 to 2khz. 11db different from C to B. That is one difference, but there is much more.

Ethan stated this in string Upgrade Paths.

http://forum.stereophile.com/forum/showf...part=4&vc=1


Quote:
Mackie HR824 but I don't recall if I used my Radio Shack SPL meter or my AKG C451 with a calibrated CK22 capsule. I use both, though lately I use a DPA 4090 for everything. Even if it was done with an SPL meter, mine is flat within 1 dB from 20 Hz to 800 Hz.

If he had measured above 800hz, he would have immediately known by looking at graph B that the RS spl meter was used, not the "AKG C451 with a calibrated CK22 capsule".

The evidence I posted is accurate to the graph B that Ethan posted.

But he could not recall. See quote above.

Ethan:

Quote:
The above graph is from the same data as the RS / AKG comparison below 200 Hz. I split the data into two graphs because of a graphing limitation with the ETF software. This is one reason I used REW for my more recent microphone comparison.

Unfortunately, as seen above the average does not match your latest graph on your website (and mentioned in AC). And another story change.

Me:

Quote:
Either that or you knowingly posted a grossly inaccurate graph/measurements and withheld this information from the public until you were caught.

Ethan:

Quote:
Irrelevant and accusatory comments like that show exactly why you're being an ass.

Me:

Quote:
See above. According to your own arguement, you made the RS graph from 20-20khz some time ago. You "claim" you knew the RS mic was grossly inaccurate, and yet you knowingly posted graph B without divulging the gross inaccuracies to anyone, no one. I am sure the public believed it was an accurate measurement. So much for Ethan's honesty.

Good think I brought forth evidence in my initial post. Otherwise everyone would have believed the graphs were accurate for ever. You certainly were not going to reveal the gross inaccuracies.

Me:

Quote:
you stated that the graphs were "typical" for a room

Ethan:

Quote:
They are. I have asked you several times now to measure a few rooms using proper software and post the results here. You can even download the REW program for free. So what's the hold up?

There are a couple of problems with your statement.

1) You used a bare room with hardwood floors, no furniture, no windows with curtains, no drapes, no nothing, which I predicted in the previous string titled Upgrade Paths.

And you did not divulge the room information either until after I posted the evidence. (Of course it does not change
the overall average response of the room from 200 -20khz. 1/12 octave, comb filtering is much too narrow bandwidth to affect the overall average.

2) The instruments I use include a Hewlett-Packard laboratory audio signal generator which is the preferred
method of testing. I can measure down to the accuracy of a frequency counter. Superb tool.

A computer based program is basically ok for those without a descent laboratory. Do you have any other equipment besides the computer program and a couple of mics?

Me:

Quote:
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.

Ethan:

Quote:
Which is proof that you are clueless. The graph that compares 1/3 and 1/12 octave smoothing was definitely done with my Radio Shack SPL meter. The rapidly falling HF response is the key.

Read my initial post on this string for the evidence Ethan has not refuted after 4 weeks. He finally tries the basic idea that the high frequency roll off is the key. Unfortunately, that is not the answer.

In fact his RS meter could not have been the meter used, as we shall see next.

----------------------------------------------------------

Here is the axe .

Ethan's graphs cannot be accurate unless you break the law of physics. The fact is that you have a condenser mic, and you have it rolling off at 12db+ above 7khz. This is impossible. Why?

Because if the RS meter had no compensation circuits at all, the RS mics maximum rate of fall would be 12db per octave.

But since the RS spl meter has compensation circuits, like any other design, it is quite impossible to obtain 12db per octave fall as even a very simple 6db per octave compensation network would prevent this. Again, you cannot defy physics.

Me:

Quote:
Ethan's measurements are vastly different when compared to measurements and corrections at other sites.

Ethan:

Quote:
So now science is decided by consensus?

Nope. See above. You cannot defy the laws of Physics.

Me:

Quote:
Let's see what Ethan decides.

Ethan:

Quote:
I already decided weeks ago that you're a nut-job.

Of course the meaning was if Ethan wished to stop posting, the string would simply die. Instead he continues with his charade of ever changing stories.

Ethan:

Quote:
Steve, I honestly don't know what your point is with all these rants. You have been given a dozen opportunities to clarify what you don't understand, so I can explain. But since that requires you to acknowledge not being an acoustics expert, I guess it's easier for your ego to bash me. Whatever. Carry on.

After seeing the evidence I posted here, I don't think there is much question Ethan has some graph problems. Wish it weren't this way.

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

Pete B
Pete B's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 3 weeks ago
Joined: Jul 21 2007 - 11:49am
Re: Update

Let me say that I only recently met Ethan and provided the Neutrik 3382 mic for the test session. I'm not a buddy of Ethans and I don't own any of his products. Let me point out that while Steve indicated that Ethan is selling a product, Steve is also selling products, preamps to be specific. Ethan has made statements to the effect that all "good" electronics sound the same and every indication seems to be that Steve is on the attack now - why? I can only conclude because he sells amplifiers.

I do not agree with everything that Ethan says about audio and I am not here to defend him. However, I believe that Steve here is way out of line with his accusations and general attack.

Let me just ask is there a thread where the results of Ethan's test session are specifically being discussed?

Pete B.

Pete B
Pete B's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 3 weeks ago
Joined: Jul 21 2007 - 11:49am
Re: Update

Steve made a comment about differences in the sound of capacitors. I'm the author of this thread, where you can read about the conclusions from one capacitor comparison test. Please note that this was from enthusiasts who were biased to believe that caps sounded different based on previous, uncontrolled observations:
http://www.classicspeakerpages.net/IP.Board/index.php?showtopic=1431

Here is a link where I discuss my own informal capacitor test based on listening:
http://www.classicspeakerpages.net/IP.Board/index.php?showtopic=2790&hl=axon+capacitor

I have also simply measured the electrical transfer function of crossovers with different caps but have not yet reported the results - nothing unexpected so I might not bother.

Let me also mention that this is not the first time I've done a capacitor test; been doing them for more than 20 years.

Pete B.

Pete B
Pete B's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 3 weeks ago
Joined: Jul 21 2007 - 11:49am
Re: Update

Putting uncontrolled observations to the test:
http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/bas_speaker/abx_testing2.htm

Pete B.

Pete B
Pete B's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 3 weeks ago
Joined: Jul 21 2007 - 11:49am
Re: Update

Let me offer some of my qualifications since this seems important to Steve. I have a graduate degree in electrical engineering where I was a teaching assistant for "Super Lab" where students are taught the basics, and for an undergraduate microwave class. My emphasis was analog and digital design with an emphasis on RF and microwave. I took graduate courses in microwave design. I also studied audio engineering and did project work in speaker design at the undergraduate level. My professional web page:
http://baselaudiolabs.googlepages.com/BASEL_CONSULTANTS.htm

Gentlemen, if you sum a direct signal with a delayed version the result is comb filtering with infinite nulls when there is no attenuation of the delayed signal; this is the 2D situation. The boundary reflections in a room provide what we call in RF design multipath. The depth of the nulls depends on the reflectivity of the boundaries, wall flex and absorption come into play here. The room is a cavity resonator and it is complex - generally a mess. There's an analogy to multipath in RF in the room where standing waves produce a spatial SPL contour. Art Ludwig does an excellent job explaining this:
http://www.silcom.com/~aludwig/images/spatial.gif

http://www.silcom.com/~aludwig/Room_acoustics.html#Spatial_response

It should be obvious from these graphs that simply moving the mic or listening position can make dramatic differences.
This is analogous to the reason why diversity antennas are used in RF.

So 35 dB, 20 dB, 10 dB room variations, why argue, it depends on so many factors. The fact is that the room is a mess due to the reflective boundaries, and the fact that it is a cavity resonator.

Pete B.

Buddha
Buddha's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 2 months ago
Joined: Sep 8 2005 - 10:24am
Re: Update

You raise great points, Pete B.

Are there any data regarding whether or not Ethan's products have been shown to be audible in double blind tests?

Pete B
Pete B's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 3 weeks ago
Joined: Jul 21 2007 - 11:49am
Re: Update


Quote:
You raise great points, Pete B.

Are there any data regarding whether or not Ethan's products have been shown to be audible in double blind tests?

Excellent question, I don't know and I'll let Ethan answer your question, LOL!

Pete B.

Elk
Elk's picture
Offline
Last seen: 8 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: Dec 26 2006 - 6:32am
Re: Update

Thanks, Pete. Interesting stuff. (the Classic Speaker Forum is also an intriguing place).


Quote:
The room is a cavity resonator and it is complex - generally a mess.

This certainly sums it up well.

rvance
rvance's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 4 months ago
Joined: Sep 8 2007 - 9:58am
Re: Update


Quote:
Thanks, Pete. Interesting stuff. (the Classic Speaker Forum is also an intriguing place).


Quote:
The room is a cavity resonator and it is complex - generally a mess.

This certainly sums it up well.

Egad, A punny thing happened on the way to this forum!

BTW, the porn thread moderator wants to know where to get a discount on a cavity resonator.

Pete B
Pete B's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 3 weeks ago
Joined: Jul 21 2007 - 11:49am
Re: Update


Quote:

Quote:
Thanks, Pete. Interesting stuff. (the Classic Speaker Forum is also an intriguing place).


Quote:
The room is a cavity resonator and it is complex - generally a mess.

This certainly sums it up well.

Egad, A punny thing happened on the way to this forum!

BTW, the porn thread moderator wants to know where to get a discount on a cavity resonator.

So sorry, touchy subject for you is it, LOL!
Or do you have a financial interest in selling boutique amplifiers, LOL!
Is this you dude? Punny? Are you referring to yourself?http://www.bananapot.com/_image_viewer.php?id=53661

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

Thanks for chiming in Pete.


Quote:
It should be obvious from these graphs that simply moving the mic or listening position can make dramatic differences. This is analogous to the reason why diversity antennas are used in RF. So 35 dB, 20 dB, 10 dB room variations, why argue, it depends on so many factors. The fact is that the room is a mess due to the reflective boundaries, and the fact that it is a cavity resonator.


Yes, exactly, and I also used diversity receivers as an example near the end of my Comb Filtering article.

As I often say, Empirical evidence trumps theory every time. If a "theory" does not predict the severe peaks and nulls that are routinely measured, then the theory needs to be revised.

--Ethan

Pete B
Pete B's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 3 weeks ago
Joined: Jul 21 2007 - 11:49am
Re: Update

Hi Ethan,

I like to at least know the reason for any deviation between theory and measurments when they do not agree.

Pete B.

SAS Audio
SAS Audio's picture
Offline
Last seen: 10 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: Jun 6 2007 - 6:56am
Re: Update


Quote:
Let me say that I only recently met Ethan and provided the Neutrik 3382 mic for the test session. I'm not a buddy of Ethans and I don't own any of his products. Let me point out that while Steve indicated that Ethan is selling a product, Steve is also selling products, preamps to be specific. Ethan has made statements to the effect that all "good" electronics sound the same and every indication seems to be that Steve is on the attack now - why? I can only conclude because he sells amplifiers.

I do not agree with everything that Ethan says about audio and I am not here to defend him. However, I believe that Steve here is way out of line with his accusations and general attack.

Let me just ask is there a thread where the results of Ethan's test session are specifically being discussed?

Pete B.

Read my previous post again Pete. The point is if Ethan's graphs are accurate. Trying to swing it around on me is not going to help. Are you for the public, or for Ethan?

There are some important points you missed.


Quote:

Ethan's graphs cannot be accurate unless you break the law of physics. The fact is that you have a condenser mic, and you have it rolling off at 12db+ above 7khz. This is impossible. Why?

Because if the RS meter had no compensation circuits at all, the RS mics maximum rate of fall would be 12db per octave.

But since the RS spl meter has compensation circuits, like any other design, it is quite impossible to obtain 12db per octave fall as even a very simple 6db per octave compensation network would prevent this.


(The 1/12 octave line demonstrates there is no grand design allowing for such a severe average spl dropoff Buddha. I hope this answers your questions in your mind my friend.)

Again, you cannot defy physics by claiming that somehow the room reflections are going to cause a generalize rate of decay of 12db per octave from 7khz to 20khz.

Sowing doubts that defy physics is not honest to the viewers.

Neither is trying to switch the subject to me. The subject of this string is if Ethan's graphs are accurate, and if Ethan can be trusted.

Read the previous posts in this string and see how Ethan has time and time again, evaded, changed stories, added information, suddenly recalled, attempted to change setups.

It is pretty simple Pete.

Secondly,

Ethan:

Quote:
Mackie HR824 but I don't recall if I used my Radio Shack SPL meter or my AKG C451 with a calibrated CK22 capsule. I use both, though lately I use a DPA 4090 for everything. Even if it was done with an SPL meter, mine is flat within 1 dB from 20 Hz to 800 Hz.

me:

Quote:
If he had measured above 800hz, he would have immediately known by looking at graph B that the RS spl meter was used, not the "AKG C451 with a calibrated CK22 capsule".

But according to Ethan's own argement, he chose to conceal the information from the public. Either that or he never used the RS spl meter. One or the other Pete.

I suggest others read my initial post again. Since Ethan's graphs/measurements of the RS spl meter are bogus, the only other explanation is my initial post, and using an accurate meter.

I don't know about you, but I am for the public.

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


Quote:
Are there any data regarding whether or not Ethan's products have been shown to be audible in double blind tests?


LOL. I know you're kidding, and you understand that room treatment is real, but this brings up an important issue.

A double bind test is needed only when there's no unified consensus. Everyone agrees that chocolate topping tastes different from strawberry topping, or that Heidi Klum is better looking than Rosie O'Donnell. There's no need for even a sighted test with those two examples. Likewise, I don't know of anyone who can't hear a change from adding room treatment. Assuming real room treatment, and enough of it to cover at least, say, 5 percent of a room's surfaces.

--Ethan

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


Quote:
I like to at least know the reason for any deviation between theory and measurments when they do not agree.


Of course! Me too. In this case the theory is solid too, and well known by acousticians - acoustic interference creates nulls that approach an infinite depth. Thus peak / null spans of 30 dB and larger in typical domestic size rooms.

--Ethan

Pete B
Pete B's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 3 weeks ago
Joined: Jul 21 2007 - 11:49am
Re: Update


Quote:

Quote:
Let me say that I only recently met Ethan and provided the Neutrik 3382 mic for the test session. I'm not a buddy of Ethans and I don't own any of his products. Let me point out that while Steve indicated that Ethan is selling a product, Steve is also selling products, preamps to be specific. Ethan has made statements to the effect that all "good" electronics sound the same and every indication seems to be that Steve is on the attack now - why? I can only conclude because he sells amplifiers.

I do not agree with everything that Ethan says about audio and I am not here to defend him. However, I believe that Steve here is way out of line with his accusations and general attack.

Let me just ask is there a thread where the results of Ethan's test session are specifically being discussed?

Pete B.

I don't know about you, but I am for the public.

Bull Sh** you're for selling your amplifiers, plain and simple, and for arrogantly attacking a competitor who states that all "good" amplifiers sound the same.

I don't know about Ethan's previous measurements, but I witnessed his most recent measurements and based on what I saw they were done as described. I suggested that the mics should have been aimed at the speaker, since otherwise the off axis response was measured - essentially. This means that the data cannot be used to calibrate any of the mics, but it does not disqualify the entire test. Many of the mics tracked quite well below 5 kHz especially for casual home use.

I do suggest that anyone selling a product should use equipment that has been recently calibrated, and at least make it clear when posting what was used.

Don't like your style, so I'm not going to read you any further. You seem to think you have all the "facts". I have no financial investment here and nothing to gain by debating you. Oh, and are you going to provide a bio, since qualifications are so important to you?

Pete B.

SAS Audio
SAS Audio's picture
Offline
Last seen: 10 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: Jun 6 2007 - 6:56am
Re: Update


Quote:

Quote:
I like to at least know the reason for any deviation between theory and measurments when they do not agree.


Of course! Me too. In this case the theory is solid too, and well known by acousticians - acoustic interference creates nulls that approach an infinite depth. Thus peak / null spans of 30 dB and larger in typical domestic size rooms.

--Ethan


Quote:
acoustic interference creates nulls that approach an infinite depth.

Provide the links.

You see, it is frequency dependent and room size. But even in the bass frequencies, only a small portion of the signal from the speaker is reflected at the exact reflection points on the wall, ceiling, and floor at a given frequency.

The rest of the signal is either direct to the mic/ear, or at other points in the room that do not reflect to the mic until after number of reflections. That is why you have a time gate.

A greater nulling and peaking process takes place when one speaker is wired opposite polarity since the main energy is opposite polarity/phase, not reflected energy.

As the frequency rises, this becomes even more pronounced.

Since such a small portion of the total signal is reflected at just the right surface, your statement is false.

Even your meters only show modest nulls, not complete nulls, supporting my position.

SAS Audio
SAS Audio's picture
Offline
Last seen: 10 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: Jun 6 2007 - 6:56am
Re: Update


Quote:
Bull Sh** you're for selling your amplifiers, plain and simple, and for arrogantly attacking a competitor who states that all "good" amplifiers sound the same.

I don't know about Ethan's previous measurements, but I witnessed his most recent measurements and based on what I saw they were done as described. I suggested that the mics should have been aimed at the speaker, since otherwise the off axis response was measured - essentially. This means that the data cannot be used to calibrate any of the mics, but it does not disqualify the entire test. Many of the mics tracked quite well below 5 kHz especially for casual home use.

I do suggest that anyone selling a product should use equipment that has been recently calibrated, and at least make it clear when posting what was used.

Don't like your style, so I'm not going to read you any further. You seem to think you have all the "facts". I have no financial investment here and nothing to gain by debating you.

So we see your real motive, that I am supposively after Ethan? Sorry, but the motive is that Ethan posted inaccurate graphs, that Ethan admits were grossly inaccurate since, as he puts it, he used the RS spl meter that he says mearsures to poorly. And that Ethan really knows very little about acoustics.

So he was allowing the public to see grossly inaccurate graphs.

You seem to also forget that the issue is whether Ethan is telling the truth or not. You also seem to dodge the comments I made.

As you argue that Ethan used the RS mic, Ethan still did not divulge using the RS mic until after my initial post.

The fact still remains that neither you nor Ethan can break the laws of physics.

I have to go to Mom's and take care of her this afternoon. See ya later gents.

Pete B
Pete B's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 3 weeks ago
Joined: Jul 21 2007 - 11:49am
Re: Update


Quote:

LOL - Good one!

ethanwiner
ethanwiner's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 1 2005 - 2:26pm
Re: Update
Elk
Elk's picture
Offline
Last seen: 8 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: Dec 26 2006 - 6:32am
Re: Update


Quote:

Quote:
acoustic interference creates nulls that approach an infinite depth.


Provide the links.

Steve, this is basic acoustics.


Quote:
Even your meters only show modest nulls, not complete nulls, supporting my position.


Incorrect. Whether these complete nulls appear on a graph is a function of x-axis resolution and mic placement. They exist in every room. In a simple system (such as a box shaped room, a point source and assuming complete reflection) the location and frequency of these nulls can be mathematically determined.

Acoustics of even a box is incredibly complex. I find it mind-boggling that concert halls that sound good can be designed on paper.

I am not taking a position on the arguments between the two of you. However, there should be agreement on the basic science.

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

You know, I was THIS close to putting this thread to bed. This close...

CECE
CECE's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 17 2005 - 8:16am
Re: Update

And another thing...........

Elk
Elk's picture
Offline
Last seen: 8 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: Dec 26 2006 - 6:32am
Re: Update


Quote:
You know, I was THIS close to putting this thread to bed. This close...


You and this porn thing. Everything has to be bedded...

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

Porn doesn't have to be bedded... It's like air... it's just out there...

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


Quote:
Whether these complete nulls appear on a graph is a function of x-axis resolution and mic placement.


The depth of nulls is also a function of how reflective the room boundaries are at the frequency of interest. Comb filter peaks and nulls can also form outdoors against a single boundary, such as the wall of a building. In fact, that's the best place to prove the effect to disbelievers because it removes the added complexity of an enclosed room and reduces the comb filtering to a single reflection.

The lower part of the image below shows a single wall with a loudspeaker source, as heard by someone 1/4 wavelength from the wall. If the wall is thick cement or brick, very low frequencies are reflected as well as mids and highs. If the wall were instead made of cardboard, mid and high frequencies will be reflected creating very deep nulls, but low frequencies reflect less (pass through) and give smaller peaks and less deep nulls.

--Ethan

rvance
rvance's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 4 months ago
Joined: Sep 8 2007 - 9:58am
Re: Update


Quote:
Is this you dude? Punny? Are you referring to yourself?http://www.bananapot.com/_image_viewer.php?id=53661

Well...I've played dozens of world famous magicians, but never WITH them, unfortunately. Alas, I am not the musician Roger Vance. I'm the quasi-, semi-, pseudo-intellectual Roger Vance.

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


Quote:
Alas, I am not the musician Roger Vance. I'm the quasi-, semi-, pseudo-intellectual Roger Vance.

And that's on a good day!

Pete B
Pete B's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 3 weeks ago
Joined: Jul 21 2007 - 11:49am
Re: Update


Quote:

Acoustics of even a box is incredibly complex. I find it mind-boggling that concert halls that sound good can be designed on paper.

You might find this interesting, the best halls so far have copied/modified other outstanding halls:
http://www.aes.org/technical/heyser/downloads/AES123heyser-Beranek.pdf

And this:
http://www.davidgriesinger.com/

There was a fascinating video of a lecture given by Beranek, let me see if I can find it.

Pete B.

SAS Audio
SAS Audio's picture
Offline
Last seen: 10 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: Jun 6 2007 - 6:56am
Re: Update


Quote:

Quote:
Provide the links.


Heh, I should have done this weeks ago. Below are links to some threads where various people show the in-room response of their systems. I don't visit this forum, and don't know any of the posters. Note that you may have to sign up to view the images, but it's free.

--Ethan

http://www.hometheatershack.com/forums/rew-forum/12257-my-room-pb13-measurements-interpretation.html
http://www.hometheatershack.com/forums/rew-forum/11573-first-measurements-i-dare-post.html
http://www.hometheatershack.com/forums/rew-forum/12070-tell-me-what-you-think.html
http://www.hometheatershack.com/forums/rew-forum/12036-newbie-1st-post-how-am-i-doing-thanks.html
http://www.hometheatershack.com/forums/rew-forum/12142-larrys-room.html
http://www.hometheatershack.com/forums/rew-forum/11832-advice-these-graphs.html
http://www.hometheatershack.com/forums/rew-forum/12101-rew-looking-hi-fi-listening-room.html
http://www.hometheatershack.com/forums/r...hing-wrong.html

It seems I am the only one who is really addressing the issues. See more below. When I find a conflict or deception, or shady tatics, I see no one else in the "objective or scientific" community is responding with disgust. Seems that
they are more concerned in helping Ethan than protecting the public.

Let me first respond to a couple of comments, then to Ethan's links.

]
Ethan:

Quote:
acoustic interference creates nulls that approach an infinite depth.

Me:

Quote:
provide the links

Elk:

Quote:
Steve, this is basic acoustics.

Me:

Quote:
Even your meters only show modest nulls, not complete nulls, supporting my position.

Elk:

Quote:
Incorrect. Whether these complete nulls appear on a graph is a function of x-axis resolution and mic placement. They exist in every room. In a simple system (such as a box shaped room, a point source and assuming complete reflection) the location and frequency of these nulls can be mathematically determined.... However, there should be agreement on the basic science.

Unfortunately zero spl output null is not true for several reasons Ethan and Elk.

1) Get a descent audio generator that one can arrive at an exact null frequency. You will not measure anything close to complete zero spl null. One reason being that there are also reflections that are also reinforcing. A null itself is simply the result of the cancellation signal being stronger than the reinforcing signal. And visa-versa with peaks when the reinforcement signal is larger than the cancellation signal.

2) Everyone look around your room. The musical signal leaves the speaker in a radiation pattern, in all directions, up, down, sideways, though not the same strength, to every part of the room. Of all this radiated signal energy, only a small portion strikes the relatively small spot (spot area depends upon the frequency) on the surfaces that reflects back to the measuring mic canceling a portion of the direct signal.

Again, try to get an audio generator and find the exact frequency of the null (which one can) and you will not measure a complete 0 spl null.

The black line in graph A and B show the narrow bandwidth reflection problems, the interactions with the room. But they do not demonstrate the problem of the average response Ethan has "measured".

The huge average roll off from 3khz to 20khz (graph B) is not caused by reflection problems, room interactions across 17khz. This has been address several times and one cannot break the laws of physics.

Ethan's so called RS spl meter graph rolling off at 12db per octave is also breaking the law of physics. Newmann mics has verified that a condenser mic, without compensation will rolloff at 12 db per octave. Of course there are possible resonances that can affect this fall. But your graph does not show any resonance problems.

So using even a simple 6db/octave compensation network, resistor and capacitor, negates his claim of a measured 12db roll off. With this simple 6db compensation network, the roll off would be only 6db per octave. And the RS meter is compensated better than 6db/octave.

And of course, Ethan suddenly recalled he used the RS mic after the evidence in my initial post. According to his argument, Ethan then knowingly withheld this evidence from the public concerning how grossly inaccurate the graphs were.

So whether the evidence I presented, or his own argument, Ethan knowingly provided false information to the public and continued to suppress it by not divulging this information until I forced his hand.

He also attempted to change setups, mics, he did attacked me from the start, attacked the Jenalabs filter I sell and in the process demonstrated his complete ignorance of electronics, changed stories, and fostered off a completely bare room as a typical room etc.

Here are just a couple of generic responses Ethan gave to my request to refute the evidence I presented. Notice no technical refute in reply, no evidence.

Ethan:

Quote:
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.

No information was presented as to how it was fatally flawed. He could have nailed me right them, but he could not.

Ethan:

Quote:
Here you go, for the very last time:
The speakers were not wired with reverse polarity or turned around to face the front wall.

Again he could have nailed me, but he could not. Some knowledge base Ethan has, right.

Yet, not one "objectivist/scientist" has supported the public and opted for Ethan to come clean.

As far as Ethan's links. Let's start from the beginning.

Ethan:

Quote:
Heh, I should have done this weeks ago. Below are links to some threads where various people show the in-room response of their systems. I don't visit this forum, and don't know any of the posters. Note that you may have to sign up to view the images, but it's free.

--Ethan

http://www.hometheatershack.com/forums/rew-forum/12257-my-room-pb13-measurements-interpretation.html
http://www.hometheatershack.com/forums/rew-forum/11573-first-measurements-i-dare-post.html
http://www.hometheatershack.com/forums/rew-forum/12070-tell-me-what-you-think.html
http://www.hometheatershack.com/forums/rew-forum/12036-newbie-1st-post-how-am-i-doing-thanks.html
http://www.hometheatershack.com/forums/rew-forum/12142-larrys-room.html
http://www.hometheatershack.com/forums/rew-forum/11832-advice-these-graphs.html
http://www.hometheatershack.com/forums/rew-forum/12101-rew-looking-hi-fi-listening-room.html
http://www.hometheatershack.com/forums/r...rong.html<br />
<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

So Ethan does not frequent this forum, but that is the only place he could obtain information/graphs?

And the public won't be able to see all the links with graphs since one must become a member.

And what Ethan did not tell you is that to become a member, one has to be referred by entering a member's name.

Make things as tough as possible for the public seems to be Ethan's MO.

Since the public does not have clean access to these graphs, I will not check them either.

I also see you selected certain posts to support your claim. However I doubt the graphs are without major problems since they come from newbies. For example, they used subwoofers, so crossovers and their associated problems, including either nulls or spikes in response at and near the crossover frequency. And they used 5.1 setups, not 2 channel.

Yet you claim that my links (from a reviewer etc) were not performed properly, while you use first timers to measure. Ethan's tatics at work again.

Ethan also stated this:


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.

So why not link to those "various acoustics-related forums" so that all, the public could see them Ethan.

Look at the dates for the posts Ethan listed above. Two in June, and 6 in July.

To be specific, June18, June20, July 1, July 15, July 17, July 20, July 23, July 31, all in 2008. Six of the posts were after Ethan and I started this debate. The last one is the day before Ethan's post, August 1.

No wonder Ethan waited several weeks. Hmmmmmmmmmmmm.

By the way, there is one gent who has been following all your posts, and website, and he is not your typical viewer. He knows your tatics, MO, etc.

Let's see if they try to bury this post with pictures etc.

Pete B
Pete B's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 3 weeks ago
Joined: Jul 21 2007 - 11:49am
Re: Update

From Art Ludwig:
http://www.silcom.com/~aludwig/images/hbl_opt.gif

http://www.silcom.com/~aludwig/Room_acoustics.html

From his site:
The response was calculated at a point 2/3 of a room length away from the woofers, centered in width, and 3-feet above the floor. I also made calculations at points 2-feet away from this point, in various directions. The geometry is shown here http://www.silcom.com/~aludwig/images/room.gif[4.4 kb]. The large red circles are the two woofers. The 5 small circles are the points where the response was calculated. The color of the listening points match the color of the curves in the computed frequency response[24kb]. The top graph is for the horrible room, and it is pretty horrible. The second result is for the optimum room (design #3), with equal interior volume. It is also horrible. The lines across the top show the room resonances, and unlike the cooked-up corner-corner test case, the response no longer neatly follows the resonances. The response also changes a lot when the listening point is moved two feet in any direction. The reference sound level of 0 dB is the level 1 meter in front of a theoretical point source in an anechoic chamber. For a speaker mounted flush in a wall, the image program creates an image at the same location as the real speaker, increasing the sound level by 6 dB. The center listening point is 12.7 feet away from the woofer, which in free space would reduce the level about 12 dB. So if there were no "room gain," the level of the black curve would be -6 dB. The resonances and images provide a room gain which boosts the response substantially above -6 dB, a big help in achieving a big bass response, but at quite a cost in smoothness of response. And remember this is with absolutely perfect speakers. Maybe knowing about room response is like knowing how sausage is made - its better to be ignorant. But being an engineer I want the truth, even if it is ugly. I played around with various room dimensions, speaker placement, etc, without much success. The one thing that did appear to smooth out the response was to increase the absorption coefficient, and particularly the absorption of the wall facing the speakers. At some point I plan on looking into this further.

Pete B.

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


Quote:
The top graph is for the horrible room, and it is pretty horrible. The second result is for the optimum room (design #3), with equal interior volume. It is also horrible.


No kidding, and again this is typical. Except in the magical fairy land where Steve lives and works.

--Ethan

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


Quote:
there is one gent who has been following all your posts, and website, and he is not your typical viewer. He knows your tatics, MO, etc.


Yes, I believe I know exactly who you are referring to.

Elk
Elk's picture
Offline
Last seen: 8 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: Dec 26 2006 - 6:32am
Re: Update

Pete,

Thanks for the links on acoustics and halls. Very neat.

This stuff is fascinating.

SAS Audio
SAS Audio's picture
Offline
Last seen: 10 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: Jun 6 2007 - 6:56am
Re: Update


Quote:
From Art Ludwig:
http://www.silcom.com/~aludwig/images/hbl_opt.gif

http://www.silcom.com/~aludwig/Room_acoustics.html

From his site:
The response was calculated at a point 2/3 of a room length away from the woofers, centered in width, and 3-feet above the floor. I also made calculations at points 2-feet away from this point, in various directions. The geometry is shown here http://www.silcom.com/~aludwig/images/room.gif[4.4 kb]. The large red circles are the two woofers. The 5 small circles are the points where the response was calculated. The color of the listening points match the color of the curves in the computed frequency response[24kb]. The top graph is for the horrible room, and it is pretty horrible. The second result is for the optimum room (design #3), with equal interior volume. It is also horrible. The lines across the top show the room resonances, and unlike the cooked-up corner-corner test case, the response no longer neatly follows the resonances. The response also changes a lot when the listening point is moved two feet in any direction. The reference sound level of 0 dB is the level 1 meter in front of a theoretical point source in an anechoic chamber. For a speaker mounted flush in a wall, the image program creates an image at the same location as the real speaker, increasing the sound level by 6 dB. The center listening point is 12.7 feet away from the woofer, which in free space would reduce the level about 12 dB. So if there were no "room gain," the level of the black curve would be -6 dB. The resonances and images provide a room gain which boosts the response substantially above -6 dB, a big help in achieving a big bass response, but at quite a cost in smoothness of response. And remember this is with absolutely perfect speakers. Maybe knowing about room response is like knowing how sausage is made - its better to be ignorant. But being an engineer I want the truth, even if it is ugly. I played around with various room dimensions, speaker placement, etc, without much success. The one thing that did appear to smooth out the response was to increase the absorption coefficient, and particularly the absorption of the wall facing the speakers. At some point I plan on looking into this further.

Pete B.

http://www.silcom.com/~aludwig/images/hbl_opt.gif

Notice his optimized room is just as bad as the horrible room. What kind of rooms were used, the dimensions, construction, surfaces etc. For example, were the walls resonating. No one knows if this is even close to a typical room.

You produce one measurment and claim this is typical with no variables accounted for. Not very scientific.

Is a cube room or 16x16x8 foot room typical? Maybe we should test a 6x6x6 room, is typical as well.


Quote:
A room with a lot of soft furniture, heavy carpeting and drapes will be relatively "dead," and the peaks and valleys of the frequency response typically vary by 5-10 dB. A room with bare walls and floor will be very "live," and the peaks and valleys vary 10-20 dB or more.

After reading the above quote, the author is coming up with 40db variations in his room as you point out. So what does that say about the conditions of his room vs what he just said. Doesn't sound too typical to me.

Now notice Ethan's test room. A completely bare room, nothing, nothing in the room, not even curtains. Just 4 completely bare walls, floor, ceiling. And you and Ethan calls this typical.

Does this mean it is possible to produce this high of deviation? Sure. Does this prove it is typical? No. Pretty clumsy Pete with little solid scientific evidence, and alot of unknowns.

Below is a graph showing the computer and actual measurements and the author claims that it "is not too bad" Hmmmmmm. Look for yourselves at the discrepancies between the two lines. One is the computer program and the other is the actual room.

This shows the variables of the actual room vs the program results. Again I see no dimensions of the room listed. Please supply if I missed it.

No information about the crossover frequency or possible speaker interactions etc. He claims measurements from 20-100hz, but graphs shows up to 200hz. So are the mains hooked up? Is the driver itself having weird resonant problems? We don't know.

--------------

Ethan....


Quote:
No kidding, and again this is typical. Except in the magical fairy land where Steve lives and works.

I see you completely sidestepped my last post and all the issues involving your "ethical" behaviour etc. Typical ever since you broke into a conversation and started going after me in "Upgrade Paths".

Just another Ethan prepared script with no substance. Kinda demonstrates how little he actually knows vs the illusion he wants to convey, the facade he wants you to see.

------------

Ethan....


Quote:
Yes, I believe I know exactly who you are referring to.

Let's just say his territory covers several states, has 28 years of experience, and knows your MO.

Notice no one addressed Ethan's questionable ethics. Not surprising. Does not appear they are looking out for you, the public.

Again, for those new, good read is Martin DeWulf "truth be told".
http://www.boundforsound.com/reviews.htm#Truth

Especially the internet section.

Pete B
Pete B's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 3 weeks ago
Joined: Jul 21 2007 - 11:49am
Re: Update


Quote:
Pete,
Thanks for the links on acoustics and halls. Very neat.
This stuff is fascinating.

You're welcome. Can't find that video lecture by Beranek. It was served out of Georgia Tech University, but seems to be gone. Anyone have it?

SAS Audio
SAS Audio's picture
Offline
Last seen: 10 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: Jun 6 2007 - 6:56am
Re: Update

For those who have not read "Truth be Told" by criminal defense attorney and editor of Bound for Sound Martin DeWulf; who essentially describes how groups of people work together to prop up their favorite company while undermining others....

And according to Wikipedia


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

As an example, according to Ethan's own argument , he knowingly posted inaccurate graph B with a grossly inaccurate RS meter (34db variation) yet never revealed this to the public. Yet nt one of his supporters has commented on this one ethical issue, let alone all the others.

On audogon, for instance, accusations have popped up concerning a particular speaker manufacturer offering commissions to individuals to act as shills.

Another preamplifier company has props who "work" on Audio Circle and recently AVS forum. It includes individuals and reveiwers. And it is not me (nor BFS or Stereophile).

Just be careful folks when visiting different forums.

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


Quote:
Let's just say his territory covers several states, has 28 years of experience, and knows your MO.


Okay, who? Spill. And what does this have to do with me?

Folks, watch as Steve side-steps and avoids this direct question.

--Ethan

Pages

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