Quote:

Quote:
No! it's not fake by photoshop because JA can proof its true by "loaded both images up in Apple's Preview program. Switching rapidly between the images reveals not just differences in decay time but also differences in the amplitude of modes either side of the highest-level modes (which are not changed in amplitude)." later...

Don't be silly. You created the difference by truncating the time segment on one then pasting the time scale from the other, just as Ethan did. But if you look at the two graphs Ted Denney provided, you can't turn one into the other with a party trick like this.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Save it for evidence.....

It is exactly the way Ted had done from what I see....While I read you measurement report since I am a kid and really respect your experience on your work on equipment measurement , but this time from what I see , I must said Ethan is right....

Synergistic research's result
before
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3527/4038031909_9a764716a0_o.jpg
after
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2456/4038031715_76e2d366b1_o.jpg

Check this out....

Just play a little more with the gate time ,or measure a second round instantly ,which usually will have a little different , that all it take to fake a measurement...

I would agree with Ethan , if Ted able to public his REW file, it will be more convincing to those of us who familiar with REW software...

Quote:
Who's doing the tests? Why not save money by having Ted chip in to help pay for them? How about having Earl Geddes do the tests? He knows more about acoustics than practically anyone on the planet.

Does anyone expect unbiased test results from someone being paid by a publication that is, in effect, a puppet of the industry?

so you expect stereophile to falsify objective test results? What reason do you have for that? Stereophile has published hundreds of objective test results in the past. is there any evidence that they have ever falsified any of those results?

Quote:
Why would anyone consider an engineer "woo woo," unless you are already preparing the case that that person should be disqualified if their results do not align with your beliefs?

You are twisting my words, and it seems you're doing that intentionally. I said - twice now - that I applaud you for commissioning an independent test! I mentioned the "not a woo woo" caveat only as an aside, even though it should be obvious. So why won't you just tell us who the expert is? What reason could you possibly have to not reveal that fully and openly from the start?

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

I especially liked the suggestion that Ted (help) pay for the test. Give andy_c some extra credit.

Quote:
to say people are sticking up for Ted and then stating what a band of thieves is going over the top.

It really isn't. That Ted falsified those graphs is obvious to anyone who understand REW or similar programs. I have enough professional respect for a few of the guys on the "other" side to know that they must realize the data is fraudulent. If not, then they're not just jerks but incompetent too. Maybe you're right! Maybe they really are incompetent.

I'm sure this will be settled to everyone's satisfaction as soon as Ted posts the famous REW file.

Then again, it seems likely he'll never do that. Ted promised last Saturday "I will post photos of the listening room and other details later this weekend." Yet "this weekend" came and went and I see no photos or details. Ted also promised "This report should be complete and posted by the middle to the end of November" and promised he would also make the REW file public.

Can we all agree that if the REW files have not been made public by December 1st that is conclusive proof that Ted is a fraud and falsified his data? Or maybe we should just conclude that now. Why else would Ted edit his posts to remove those two promises?

Quote:
you could possibly fund asking those who do the mathematical modelling (and we are talking about a limited number of people/companies here who could) of rooms and error correction to look at those charts for their views without mentioning what the product was

Dude, you're making this much more complicated than needed! Please read this carefully:

It is physically impossible for nine golf-ball sized anythings to affect the acoustics in a 15,000 cubic foot room as shown.

Once you understand why the above is true, all the rest falls quickly into place.

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

And it is not about being complex but ensuring due diligance is followed Ethan.
You could very well be right, but you need to take those measurements to be validated, and the only ones who really can are the real experts in mathematical room modelling/correction.
If you cannot understand that you must go beyond what you believe is correct to ensure validity, then being involved in this discussion is pointless for you.

Ethan, please look back at everything you have said and the process, it is biased in a way to suite you.
As I explained instead of coming out with the statements you are, why don't you actually follow up constructively.
We saw exactly the same with your posts on that paper for a different product several pages back where your statement was premature.
And I am sorry to say other statements of yours in this thread are premature to say the least.
If you are so bothered, why dont you involve a 3rd party to investigate this?
Which is what JA is doing that now seems your not happy with.

Thanks
Orb

Quote:
you need to take those measurements to be validated, and the only ones who really can are the real experts in mathematical room modelling/correction.

I'm an expert in room waterfall data. I also posted (above) the opinion of an another REW expert who agrees the data looks like the same test but with the window settings changed. How many experts will satisfy you?

This reminds me of the time I visited a friend after he got a new big-screen TV. I pointed out the "jpeg" dots around some text on an ad and explained that's an artifact of video data compression. I'm sure you know the type of artifacts I mean, yes? My friend asked me how I knew that's what it was, and I told him I compress jpeg images all the time, and I just know that's what it looks like. Likewise, I know what REW waterfalls look like when the decay times in a room really do change. What Ted posted is obviously bogus. If you don't trust me as an expert, then I guess you'll have to continue to give Ted the benefit of the doubt. That's fine. This will all be resolved soon enough, I'm sure.

Quote:
why dont you involve a 3rd party to investigate this?

Because Ted Denney won't release his data files for us to look at!

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

Ethan,
so far you have pointed out that you personally do not need all the data to state the charts are wrong and falsified.
Therefore either the charts before and after are enough, or they are not that means you are premature in stating your position on what is seen.
Which is it?
Because it now seems your making an excuse on why a 3rd party cannot verify the charts, that you managed to reach a conclusion on.

Cheers
Orb

I give up. Last time:

It is obvious to anyone who understands REW that Ted's data is fake.

Do with this information as you see fit.

I don't know what happened to Orb's last post, but it disappeared while I was replying.

It's not my call to identify the REW expert I asked to look at the graphs. As was pointed out earlier, legitimate experts usually prefer not to be identified as having anything to do with BS products. I will say that this person is highly skilled in the use of REW, and he's known by pretty much every serious REW user as a leading REW expert.

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

Ah I deleted it Ethan as it didnt really have anything to do with the discussion, was more just seeing how you felt being asked the same question you were asking JA
Really didnt think it was necessarily right of me to ask you if you mind sharing the name of the expert, would be better if they could take a thorough look at the graphs and provide a more detailed response - that would be cool.

If you delete your post will delete this as well, damn was only there for like 1 minute before I deleted it lol.
Cheers
Orb

No need to delete any posts, and I stand behind my assertion that the other expert is a true REW expert. In keeping with Ted's offer to send John Atkinson his REW file, I'll gladly tell JA who this other expert is if he cares. Then JA can post here that he agrees the other expert is indeed an expert and everyone will have to believe me.

Or, let's just wait until December 1 and we'll all know the truth for sure.

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

I regret to inform everyone that I have found a disparity between the files used to create the graphs with and with out the ART System in place. Sadly this accounts for the significant difference seen in the published waterfall graphs. The measurement without the ART System in the room starts at the Zero plot line (as it should) while the measurement with the ART System in the room starts approx 500ms back from zero. For this reason all data presented thus far is inaccurate. I have no idea how or why one of the data files was corrupted in such a way. Please note I am not burying this and wish to offer a sincere apology to all of you who supported me in my initial findings.

You can see a picture of the Energy-Time window that illustrates the problem here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/43917596@N04/

We are moving forward with measurements and analysis from an objective third party with experience in the field of digital room correction for publication later this year. Stereophile has likewise committed to publish its own independent findings. While it is disappointing and unfortunate that I jumped the gun when posting my initial graphs, these are exciting times for a new discovery in the field of treating acoustics and I hope to provide proof beyond the subjective before the end of the year.

Thanks Ted,
sorry to say this is why I go on about independant validation before making a point.
However its great now to see a process moving forward.

But you better get ready to take a dig from some posters here for as you say jumping the gun/premature reasoning

Cheers
Orb

Quote:
I don't know what happened to Orb's last post, but it disappeared while I was replying.

It's not my call to identify the REW expert I asked to look at the graphs. As was pointed out earlier, legitimate experts usually prefer not to be identified as having anything to do with BS products. I will say that this person is highly skilled in the use of REW, and he's known by pretty much every serious REW user as a leading REW expert.

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

Oh c'mon. JA has to name his expert but you don't? Ethan, check yourself for double standards here. I get it that you are very confident. but for those of us non experts one standard of proof is a must for us to pass our judgement.
Anonymous expert opinion is an oxymoron.

Thanks Orb,
Yes I know I'll take a hit from some, lesson learned. Regarding proof, I already know the ART System works, I just need to illustrate this to people who want objective verification and I believe I can.

Yours in music,
Ted Denney III
Lead Designer, Synergistic Research Inc.

Guess i better restate my question here so it doesn't get deleted. Does this revelation in effect show that Ethan was essentially correct in his analysis of the waterfall graphs?

Quote:
Thanks Orb,
Yes I know I'll take a hit from some, lesson learned. Regarding proof, I already know the ART System works, I just need to illustrate this to people who want objective verification and I believe I can.

Yours in music,
Ted Denney III
Lead Designer, Synergistic Research Inc.

I give ya credit for the effort of performning the measurements.

Ethan gets credit for his observations, if not his motivation!

It was fun considering it.

Maybe both Ethan and JA are correct, only way to tell is if someone looked at all the charts in detail and try to model it, hopefully this would show the error and also any measured changes.
At a minimum Ethan looks to be right, although a lesson from this is; could anyone actually calculate the level of mistake just from analysing the charts.
Could had saved many pages of posting
Also I would say the hostile posting at times possibly threw some of us off as well.

Cheers
Orb

Can John, or perhaps Ted, let us know if the Stereophile sponsored investigation is still going ahead?

I guess all that saved evidence will go to waste, and the lawsuit is probably not going to proceed, either.

Quote:
I guess all that saved evidence will go to waste, and the lawsuit is probably not going to proceed, either.

And once more, conservation of energy emerges unscathed.

Quote:
[

As has been noted, you cannot prove a negative unless you just simply say, "You can't make me prove a negative but I can prove a negative just because I say it is a negative."

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

Ethan,you might want to turn states evidence. the feds are going to get your ass, for sure.

I applaud Ted for his candor and taking it on the chin, coming out and admitting an error in measurements.

I applaud Ethan for spotting an inconsistency clearly and early on.

I believe Ethan deserves an apology from all those who doubted his knowledge of acoustic sciences based solely on his academic credentials. Even JA did not spot the inconsistencies. That speaks volumes of Ethan's knowledge and experience. At least in my book.

Err,
Have you thought he could had just asked for the data to be verified as he noticed that at points x,y,z,etc matches exactly to delay of 500ms, instead of coming out stating it was done as fraud with just one specific change proving it was falsified?
There is a chance both Ethan and JA are correct so is it right for Ethan to state that there was only 1 difference in the charts related to delay with nothing actually quantified?

Due diligance applies to everyone, both Ted and Ethan.
And also to the rest of us who did not think to ask Ted to go back and verify his data-measurements.

But yes kudos to Ethan picking up on the time delay even though exact details were not given, which is why though Ethan says I am overcomplicating it made sense for mathematical room modellers/correction experts to go over the charts in detail before any statements as fact were given.
In some way, we are all at fault here.

Cheers
Orb

Quote:
Can John, or perhaps Ted, let us know if the Stereophile sponsored investigation is still going ahead?

Why shouldn't it go ahead? I commissioned the work before this thread started.

And Ted Denney deserves some credit for admitting that there was an error in his data. He could have kept quiet.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

> Why shouldn't it go ahead? I commissioned the work before this thread
> started.

That is good to know. As for why, I was simply checking because I do not know the dependencies of the arrangement between Ted, yourself and the unnamed leading audio engineering consultant to comprehensively examine Ted's resonators. For example, Ted may now have decided it would not be in his company's best interests to proceed.

> And Ted Denney deserves some credit for admitting that there was an
> error in his data. He could have kept quiet.

Unlike Ethan, I have no problem with Ted, his products or his marketing. Not sure he deserves much credit for for putting himself in the position in the first place but having done so it was probably the wisest way forward in the circumstances as I perceive them.

Quote:
Err,
Have you thought he could had just asked for the data to be verified as he noticed that at points x,y,z,etc matches exactly to delay of 500ms, instead of coming out stating it was done as fraud with just one specific change proving it was falsified?

I agree Orb. It is too bad some have to resort to malicous, vicious attacks when one could have easily done as you suggested. What a shame some cannot behave in a professional, ethical manner.

You realize Ted was attacked by the same individuals, including Ethan, called the same dirty names in an earlier string before any data was presented. So we know, at least to a degree the intent of the attacks.

And attempting to compare golf balls to metallic products, not once but twice. First semester 101 would laugh Ethan out of the class room. So is the analogy gross incompetence or a premeditated attempt at deceiving the viewers.

Quote:
There is a chance both Ethan and JA are correct so is it right for Ethan to state that there was only 1 difference in the charts related to delay with nothing actually quantified?

I did not see Ethan correctly identify the real problem either. As mentioned above JA had to correct Ethan on misreading the differences between the graphs. Again, this is basic 101, first semester stuff. Read their comments again friends and check yourselves.
If Ethan could not read those graphs correctly, how could he have known the real, actual problem. You have to identify the problem correctly before one can find the correct solution. The fact is Ethan was simply attacking Ted, as he already had in an earlier string, and got lucky that Ted found a problem.

Quote:
But yes kudos to Ethan picking up on the time delay even though exact details were not given,

As mentioned above, where did Ethan mention that. As mentioned above, Ethan could not correctly compare the graphs, which is 101, first semester, and had to be corrected by JA. So how could he have known the real problem.

I hope this helps the viewers understand the real situation.

-----

Hi Buddha,

Whether Ted sues or not, is a decision between he and his lawyer.

Imo, there seems to be quite substantial information, motive, means, opportunity. His lawyer will undoubtly consider:

1) degrading words used again Ted,
2) Mr. Winer knew the forum rules were being violated, as per "Note to Manufacturers" states, and yet willingly proceded, demonstrating intent
3) Winer has attacked before in a previuos string, using the same malicious words, and before any evidence was presented
4) the use of inaccurate information to defame Ted even further

And more.

Cheers

Whereas Ethan could have been more diplomatic in his disagreements, you got to give credit where credit is due. He sensed there was something rotten in Denmark even if he didn't know exactly what died and where.

Quote:
...and also to the rest of us who did not think to ask Ted to go back and verify his data-measurements.

But yes kudos to Ethan picking up on the time delay even though exact details were not given, which is why though Ethan says I am overcomplicating it made sense for mathematical room modellers/correction experts to go over the charts in detail before any statements as fact were given.
In some way, we are all at fault here.

Those are great!

To paraphrase..."Baby, you fucked up. You trusted me."

At the moment of posting his data, Ted's job was to present something thorough and dependable. We are not supposed to be a vetting service, yet it turned in to that.

"In some way, we are all at fault here?"

Ted comes in, posts information that is incorrect, and somehow it turns into all of us being at fault?

Nope, don't see it.

I know there are multiple colliding agendas here.

Ethan's main critics were driven to sugar coat their critique of Ted's data in order to continue to villify Ethan...imagine Ethan having posted that "data" and how it would have gone!

All in all, a bright spot of activity, actually!

We should all save the thread "as evidence!"

Steve, I never address you in the forum because it's pointless, and Stephen Mejias doesn't like when I do that.

But I'm going to make an exception now because you are way WAY out of line.

Quote:
First semester 101 would laugh Ethan out of the class room.

No Steve, you would be the one laughed out of class for not understanding that nine magic goof balls cannot possibly affect a 15,000 cubic foot room. You are pathetic in your attempt to continue saying I'm the bad guy in the face of overwhelming evidence, and now admission, that Ted Denney's data was total bullshit.

I saw it was bullshit. JJ saw it was bullshit. Ncdrawl saw it was bullshit. Andy saw it was bullshit. My REW expert friend saw it was bullshit. And now we all know for certain it's bullshit. Yet you have the sheer gall to continue to attack me on the science. Do you not realize how pathetic you look? Do the right thing here Steve, as Ted did. Man up and admit you were wrong and Ethan was right. It only hurts for a little while.

Quote:
If Ethan could not read those graphs correctly, how could he have known the real, actual problem.

You are un-fucking-believable! How dare you?

Folks, if there was ever any doubt about Steve Sammet's ethics, his continuing comments after Ted's admission has put that to rest.

Okay, my work is done here. You will read no more posts from me to Steve, no matter how outrageous he is.

Ethan Winer
Proud owner of RealTraps, but posting on my own behalf

I completely agree, Buddha. In fact, I posted a new topic dealing with what I think is the bigger issue than Ted producing erroneous data. You can find it here

I'm actually surprised that no one picked up on the bigger issues at hand.

Quote:
Whereas Ethan could have been more diplomatic in his disagreements, you got to give credit where credit is due. He sensed there was something rotten in Denmark even if he didn't know exactly what died and where.

I don't think so Alex. As mentioned in my last post, imo, the reasons are because Ethan had:

1) already previously attacked Ted in an earlier string before any evidence was presented

2) Willingly and knowingly broke the forum rules, showing intent

3) Did not understand how to compare two simple graphs, which is 101, first semester at that. JA and I had to correct him. If he so misunderstood how to compare simple graphs, how could he have known the solution. He did not.
As mentioned in point one, Ethan was already attacking a competitor before the graphs were ever posted. Ethan just got lucky.

3) Ethan defamed Ted's products by falsely commenting that "resonators" are the last thing he would use. Yet "resonators" have been used for decades for room treatments, as Ethan already knows and has posted on other forums in the past.
So Ethan willingly presented false information to further demean Ted's products when Ethan clearly knew "resonators" have been and are currently being used in room treatments.

4) On page 8,

http://forum.stereophile.com/forum/showf...part=8&vc=1
Ethan's two graphs are quite different than Ted's as anyone who has taken 101 could explain. Again another false and misleading post and info by Ethan.

Remember, there are third partys that will check Ted's products out. Maybe they will find evidence, maybe they won't. Let's wait for the evidence before some here lynch and hang him.

Hope this helps clarify things.

Ethan no you were not correct. You did not correctly identify the problem with the graphs. What you did was to wrongly impugn my motives and call my character into question. You made patently false accusations regarding my motives. I did not commit fraud as you asserted. I did not Photoshop the graphs as you asserted. I did not hack the file as you asserted.

I was not attempting to fool people by knowingly falsifying my tests. I overlooked a flaw that placed the start of four test sweeps 500ms behind the actual zero start point and this skewed the graphs. I made a mistake and I am sorry for letting good people down. You did not call that, you attacked me in the most caustic way you could.

Ted Denney III
Lead Designer, Synergistic Research Inc.

Buddha,
I agree for the most part - in fact look back at what I said to Ted.

If we decide to discuss the data with certain assumptions then yes we are wrong, examples include data is right (no mistakes), data is deliberately faked (not proven for the reasons I mentioned many times that should had been part of the process), and also the process we all took in responding to Ted and to each other, and finally bias.
So in some way; yes we are all at fault here but not necessarily the same way.

As I said in another post, this could had been resolved much quicker - within the 1st several pages, or even before any posts occurred if due diligance was done by everyone including Ted.

I am not looking to villify Ethan (not sure if you specifically meant me as you quoting me), all my points have been relating to validation/bias and due diligance before making defacto statements/facts, it is just a lot of us wanted to understand what was happening before committing to a conclusion for the reasons I have mentioned in other posts as well.

But I do hope this does not turn into a pissing contest by others in general (not meaning you).

On the positive side, the charts were highlighted to be flawed (grtz Ethan), and there will be due diligance in future regarding this topic, including more detailed analysis I hope before any side/person makes a conclusive comment again.

Thanks
Orb

Quote:
Ethan no you were not correct. You did not correctly identify the problem with the graphs. What you did was to wrongly impugn my motives and call my character into question. You made patently false accusations regarding my motives. I did not commit fraud as you asserted. I did not Photoshop the graphs as you asserted. I did not hack the file as you asserted.

I was not attempting to fool people by knowingly falsifying my tests. I overlooked a flaw that placed the start of four test sweeps 500ms behind the actual zero start point and this skewed the graphs. I made a mistake and I am sorry for letting good people down. You did not call that, you attacked me in the most caustic way you could.

Ted Denney III
Lead Designer, Synergistic Research Inc.

Quote:
Ethan no you were not correct. You did not correctly identify the problem with the graphs. What you did was to wrongly impugn my motives and call my character into question. You made patently false accusations regarding my motives. I did not commit fraud as you asserted. I did not Photoshop the graphs as you asserted. I did not hack the file as you asserted.

I was not attempting to fool people by knowingly falsifying my tests. I overlooked a flaw that placed the start of four test sweeps 500ms behind the actual zero start point and this skewed the graphs. I made a mistake and I am sorry for letting good people down. You did not call that, you attacked me in the most caustic way you could.

Ted Denney III
Lead Designer, Synergistic Research Inc.

But Ted it took you almost a year to come up with measurements and when you finally did you managed to screw up royally. Such a mistake does make it appear that either you don't know what you are doing or......

Honestly how hard is it to take a measurement without the bowls then place said bowls into the room and REPEAT the same measurement? You keep saying you are swamped with business and responsibilities and running a company YET you find plenty of time to respond on here during the day. I'd suggest getting back to doing those simple measurements and posting them here pronto.

Quote:
Steve, I never address you in the forum because it's pointless, and Stephen Mejias doesn't like when I do that.

Not surprising Ethan uses big talk, but notice he won't reply. You will see why as one reads this post. The first embarrassment is that Ethan has been exposed manipulating data/graphs to grossly over inflate a rooms response, not once but at least twice in order to 'create' more business for himself. But it gets worse.

2) At AVS, Ethan claimed his own mic frequency response graph (FR) was accurate, thus by following his claim, a viewer is suckered into sabatoging his own room by over inflating the bass by +7db (20hz), nearly twice as loud as it should be, and +3db at 40hz. Of course this creates bloated/fat bass so a need for bass treatments. So be careful you don't get suckered into sabatoging your own room by this guy.

3) Ethan claims to be scienctific while unethically claiming one can use tennis balls to simulate metallic products. Talk about insulting science, he would be laughed out of the classroom.

4) After getting caught manipulating his room graphs and attempting to cover it up at least twice, his friends actually started a string entitled "Three cheers for Ethan". This after Ethan attempted to defraud the public.

Yes it is not surprising Ethan will not respond to me.

Quote:
But I'm going to make an exception now because you are way WAY out of line.

Ethan's first lie in his post. As we shall see, Ethan is completely out of line. As one will see, under Ethan's facade is calculated deceit, misrepresentation as well as incompetence and more. I will address each of his points in order as well.

Quote:

Quote:
First semester 101 would laugh Ethan out of the class room.

No Steve, you would be the one laughed out of class for not understanding that nine magic goof balls cannot possibly affect....

You cannot equate golf balls to metallic devices as their characteristics are completely different. Any comparison is worthless as any first semester 101 science student would know. As JA mentioned earlier and you yourself have stated, you do not have any science classes and this is a clear demonstration thereof. You would not last 2 minutes on the witness stand.

Secondly according to the forum rules, you are not to demean competitors, yet you willingly violated this rule by calling Ted a "fraud" etc. And I don't fake or falsify data/evidence like has been demonstrated by you in the past 1 1/2 years. So when you condemn Ted, you are condemning yourself multiple times over.

Quote:
You are pathetic in your attempt to continue saying I'm the bad guy in the face of overwhelming evidence, and now admission, that Ted Denney's data was total bullshit.

The spotlight is on you buddy as you have defrauded the public multiple times in the past and attempted to hide it. At least Ted admitted his mistake and is willing to allow a 3rd party to test his products.

Where is your scientific evidence, comparing tennis balls to metallic objects. As seen above that is either fraudulent or incompetent at best. So what happened to your overwhelming scientific evidence.
As stated earlier, you would be laughed out of the science class room, except you have never taken science, as JA has already pointed out.

The fact you could not compare two simple graphs and JA and I had to correct you also demonstrates the difference between the hype and reality. How about the tennis balls comparison to metallic. Or how about false claim that resonators (of course helmholtz resonators included) should not be used, when they have been used for decades to tame resonances in rooms, which you knew. There is more on Ethan's fraudulent graphs to dupe the public.

Quote:
I saw it was bullshit. JJ saw it was bullshit. Ncdrawl saw it was bullshit. Andy saw it was bullshit. My REW expert friend saw it was bullshit. And now we all know for certain it's bullshit.

First of all, where is your evidence? Again we see none, just opinions. But we have seen you changing positions and posting half truths/other tatics in other strings. And it is always to benefit you or your side. Interesting how the truth changes by your change of opinion. Anyway, let's wait to see what 3rd parties find in data.

>>Secondly, most of your "science" friends you listed were also present when you rudely interrupted a conversation Clifton and I were having, and you got caught faking a room graph. At the end is the punch line.

Remember, you manipulated room data/graph by rotating the speakers away from the mic to create a wild FR response abnormalities. After being caught, you then attempted to change the test conditions from two speakers to one speaker. How ethical of you. However, you got caught by your own previous words, that you had used two speakers.

Since that did not work you then changed the microphone's frequency response by a whopping 19 db to cover the wild fake room response graph. Not only -19db in the highs, but by -11 dbs in the mids as well. All in an attempt to cover his scam of faking his room graphs.

He claims he could not remember which mic he used before the fact, the mics and graphs were that close. The mics were only 3db different in mid/highs before the test according to Ethan's own graphs. Now suddenly the mic changed response by a whopping 19db from before.

If the mic were 19 db different before the test Ethan should have easily recognized the mic. But Ethan could not read the graph (does that sound familiar from above) nor Ted's graphs.

However, Ethan's own previous mic graphs show both mics within 3db. So Ethan made the change to the mic's response by 19db after the fact, again to cover his fake room response graph.

Of course, another question is if the response was that bad before, why didn't he use the good mic to measure and post here. Well let's take a look.

>>The subject Ethan interrupted with, along with posting the fake graph, was the poor response of a room. Since he now claims and argues that the mic had very poor response from the beginning, -19db off from the reference mic and
-22db off total, he is actually measuring the poor mic and the room response.

Let's check to see how Ethan's arguement holds up in the case of science. If the mic were 19db off, 22db total, the room graph will appear much worse than the room actually is because the mic is so far off. Of course one needs room treatments. Pretty slick scheme; fake the severity of the room acoustics to push product.

>>So while Ted made a mistake but admitted it and is willing to allow 3rd party testing, Ethan has willingly and knowingly attempted to dupe the public, the viewer, by manipulating the room data/graph via calculated manipulation of the measurements and manipulation of test conditions.

>>Get this. After he was caught faking the room measurements, attempting to change the test conditions, and changing the mic response, after all this, his friends (ethan listed some) started a string entitled, 'Three Cheers for Ethan'. How is that for looking out for and respecting you, the customer.

Quote:
Yet you have the sheer gall to continue to attack me on the science.

As one has seen above Ethan has been caught twice not being able to read even basic 101 graphs, including a simple frequency response graph, let alone false and manipulated data/graphs. And he calls that science. Yes, the science of duping the public. According to Ethan's claim and logic, he could not even tell the difference between two room graphs that were a whopping 19db apart at the high end because of the mic. Yet earlier he claimed he couldn't remember which mic he used for the test since they were so close in response.

The only reason your taking credit is that you found a difference in the decay, which every one saw. Of course as JA and I pointed out that you could not read the rest of the graphs correctly. That and your not being able to tell a 19 db difference in simple FR graphs indicates your lack of basic education.

So let's be honest Ethan. You cannot read let alone compare graphs with any credibility. The fact you were attacking Ted, saw a decays were different, which everyone saw to begin with, automatically put you in the position to claim credit without any further knowledge whatsoever.

The fact that Ethan has twice been unable to read and understand basic graphs, by his own argument, and your claim that tennis balls can duplicate metallic objects etc, shows the true Ethan reality.

But wait, at AVS forum Ethan actually instructed people to 'misread' a mic graph that he posted, and incorrectly setup their rooms to over excentuate the bass by 7db (20 hz), to push more product. So the customer was instructed to mess up his own rooms and create over excentuated and boomy bass.

Quote:

Quote:
If Ethan could not read those graphs correctly, how could he have known the real, actual problem.

You are un-fucking-believable! How dare you?

And how dare you providing false data/graphs on the public while attempting multiple cover ups. You have been exposed by your own mouth and actions in the past and now again.

Quote:
Folks, if there was ever any doubt about Steve Sammet's ethics, his continuing comments after Ted's admission has put that to rest.

See above. As one can see above, just another Ethan Winer deception.

Quote:
Okay, my work is done here. You will read no more posts from me to Steve, no matter how outrageous he is.

Not surprising with this statement after what we have seen of Ethan's tatics and unethical behaviour. If you want to be duped and sabatoge your own audio system, look to Ethan Winer.

Quote:

Secondly you were told not to demean competitors by the forum rules, yet you violated this rule by calling Ted a "fraud" etc. So what if I do as well.

Pot, kettle ...

Quote:
Thanks Ted,
sorry to say this is why I go on about independant validation before making a point.
However its great now to see a process moving forward.

But you better get ready to take a dig from some posters here for as you say jumping the gun/premature reasoning

Cheers
Orb

I'd like to file this whole affair under the phrase **** happens.

People do make mistakes. It's over, there is no evidence to date, and it's time to just let it be.

Quote:

Quote:

Secondly you were told not to demean competitors by the forum rules, yet you violated this rule by calling Ted a "fraud" etc. So what if I do as well.

Pot, kettle ...

Can we get some waterfall graphs with and without the pot and kettle in the room?

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Secondly you were told not to demean competitors by the forum rules, yet you violated this rule by calling Ted a "fraud" etc. So what if I do as well.

Pot, kettle ...

Can we get some waterfall graphs with and without the pot and kettle in the room?

How big to I get to make the kettle, can I put a membrane over it, and what am I allowed to put inside of it?

Quote:

Quote:
Thanks Ted,
sorry to say this is why I go on about independant validation before making a point.
However its great now to see a process moving forward.

But you better get ready to take a dig from some posters here for as you say jumping the gun/premature reasoning

Cheers
Orb

I'd like to file this whole affair under the phrase **** happens.

People do make mistakes. It's over, there is no evidence to date, and it's time to just let it be.

Wise comment J_J.

Now maybe folks will wait for third party findings to share. People tend to have more confidence in third party anyway, at least from my experience.

Cheers.

Quote:
Why shouldn't it go ahead? I commissioned the work before this thread started.

Agree fully. At least then we'll get presumably valid data from someone who knows what they're doing. And I hope we'll get it sooner than another year from now!

Quote:
And Ted Denney deserves some credit for admitting that there was an error in his data. He could have kept quiet.

LOL, no, he could not have kept quiet much longer!

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

Quote:

Quote:
Thanks Ted,
sorry to say this is why I go on about independent validation before making a point.
However, it's great now to see a process moving forward.

But you better get ready to take a dig from some posters here for as you say jumping the gun/premature reasoning

Cheers
Orb

I'd like to file this whole affair under the phrase **** happens.

People do make mistakes. It's over, there is no evidence to date, and it's time to just let it be.

An excellent suggestion, JJ.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Quote:
I regret to inform everyone that I have found a disparity between the files used to create the graphs with and with out the ART System in place. Sadly this accounts for the significant difference seen in the published waterfall graphs. The measurement without the ART System in the room starts at the Zero plot line (as it should) while the measurement with the ART System in the room starts approx 500ms back from zero. For this reason all data presented thus far is inaccurate. I have no idea how or why one of the data files was corrupted in such a way. Please note I am not burying this and wish to offer a sincere apology to all of you who supported me in my initial findings.

You can see a picture of the Energy-Time window that illustrates the problem here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/43917596@N04/

We are moving forward with measurements and analysis from an objective third party with experience in the field of digital room correction for publication later this year. Stereophile has likewise committed to publish its own independent findings. While it is disappointing and unfortunate that I jumped the gun when posting my initial graphs, these are exciting times for a new discovery in the field of treating acoustics and I hope to provide proof beyond the subjective before the end of the year.

Ted,

Will the error in the ETC graph , create that kind of error in you previous waterfall result?.......I am seriously in doubt!

Or is this ETC graph is just another of your photoshop creation? some of us may ask.....

Why don't you publish the corrupted REW file if what you explain is true, only if you able to provide us the corrupted REW file than we can believe you are innocent, simple as that.....

Quote:
Steve, I never address you in the forum because it's pointless, and Stephen Mejias doesn't like when I do that.

That's right. I don't like it because the two of you end up acting like babies. I'll let this go for now, but won't hesitate to delete posts and close the thread if I feel the conversation becomes pointless.

Quote:
I don't like it because the two of you end up acting like babies.

Stephen, really! I never insult others unless they insult me first. I am much more of a gentleman than Steve Sammet!

In the other "bigger issue" thread, Steve Sammet yet again accuses me of "Ethan has been caught deceiving people" as he always does. I challenged him to either show proof or STFU and apologize to me. I am a highly respected regular contributor at the AVS forum. I challenge SAS to show otherwise.

I suggest you watch that "bigger issue" thread closely, and see if SAS is able to back up his claims. If he can't, then you'll know for sure who's the baby and who is credible. And I hope you too will tell him to STFU and grow up.

Thanks in advance for your unbiased diligence.

--Ethan

First, the BS:

Stephen, really! I never insult others unless they insult me first. I am much more of a gentleman than Steve Sammet!

Next, the truth:

Unfortunately, the evidence against you here shows that quite unlike Steve, you've proven to be quite the cowardly lying weasel, which is kind of the direct opposite of the "gentleman" you are hoping to have ??? believe you. If your intention is to have those who know you well double over in laughter, congratulations, I think you have accomplished that. This is not an insult, because it is a truism, which I have already proven, and which you confirmed by avoiding. Since you insist on misrepresenting yourself here with this misleading tripe, I will prove it again:

1. In this thread, without any provocation whatsoever from me insulting your silly cartoony-name, you insulted me, my honour, and my -entire- family line; from one proud generation of "Frogs" to the next, by declaring "you purposely hide your identity". Not -one single shred of proof- for that upnrovoked accusation, every time that you have made it. It has become "tedious and boring" for you to continue attacking my identity, without cause, without provocation, and without justification. So you need to apologize for that unprovoked personal insult on me and my family. And in the future, either you will stop making it, or you will not attempt to without first providing valid, verifiable evidence for your accusation (that means NOT by asking me to prove a negative, Homer). I have already provided evidence to the contrary, and since you can not ever support your false accusations against our members, that means you will stop making them.

2. In your next unprovoked insult, you wrote: "The frog is subject to the same rules of identification as all others in the business. Please enforce your rules evenly. Thanks. "

Once again, in no way had I ever insulted you first over presenting your credentials, only to point out what was proven true. This next lying accusation from you was not true, however. When I demanded that you retract your accusation or provide evidence, your response was to tell JA that it was his job to prove that I wasn't an industry member. WTF???!! I mean really! WTF kind of insane response is that?!! You actually asked the editor of Stereophile to spend his time entertaining your delusions, by going around to all the private members of this forum, and "somehow" prove to your mental condition that they are not industry members?? All because that you resent the fact that Stereophile is forcing you to admit that you are the owner of a room acoustics business? You have always refused to stand behind your own words, so I can understand why you don't want readers to know that these unsubstantiated ignorant rants you toss out all day are coming from the owner of an audio business, but that doesn't excuse you. Since you show that you don't even understand the concept of what "proving a negative" is about, I suggest that you go back into lurking mode and learn a lot more about logic, debating and the scientific method, before embarrassing yourself further. You are definitely not one to be taken seriously by any reasonably sane individual.

First, the BS:

(RE: Mr. Sammet): "I challenged him to either show proof or STFU and apologize to me... I challenge SAS to show otherwise."

Next, the truth:

I already challenged you to the same in this thread; to either STFU and apologize to me, or show proof of your above false accusations against me. In response to my challenge, you did what you always do Winer: tucked your tail between your legs and ran away. Sorry, you have ZERO case to make against anyone else; whether true or not. It appears you failed "Waterfall Graphs 101" so that you could pass "Hypocrisy 101".

In the other "bigger issue" thread, Steve Sammet yet again accuses me of "Ethan has been caught deceiving people" as he always does.

With the above examples, I have just proven Steve Sammet correct and that you are being deceitful again in your defense. Until you can provide proof for your misrepresentations of me, it can be properly assumed that you have once again been caught trying to deceive people. FWIW, you have also been caught trying to deceive people about Ted Denney. I have read the exchanges carefully, and you never supported anything you said about him either.

I suggest you watch that "bigger issue" thread closely, and see if SAS is able to back up his claims. If he can't, then you'll know for sure who's the baby and who is credible. And I hope you too will tell him to STFU and grow up.

One has only to read you for more than 5 minutes to realize that you constantly run away from challenges to back up your claims, Winer. Maybe you're just having teething problems? I suggest you STFU and grow up yourself, before you go on the attack against your fellow members and competitors again like you have here. Your whining ignorant tirades in this thread and your strawman arguments about golf balls being the functional equivalent of highly machined metallic resonator acoustic devices not only shows a complete lack of knowledge of the science of acoustics, but it does absolutely no good to the reputation of the scientific skeptic; which you are purporting to represent here. But it probably makes no difference to yours per se, since your reputation on audiophile forums is equivalent to that of a screaming religious fanatic on the atheist forums.