A mounting number of reviewers (I am flying in a few hours today to set up another reviewer in Chicago with the ART System), over 300 customers who have purchased the Acoustic ART System (Paul at ABC, my UK distributor, buys Acoustic ART Systems 20 at a time and reorders every other month based on the power of the demonstration) all have heard the benefits of the Acoustic ART System. JA in particular has weighed in on more then one occasion to share his impressions after hearing it at trade shows. Tens of thousands of people know what high performance cables and power cords do for the performance of a high-resolution system. To us you are the one who seems stupid. In fact to deny the benefits of cables, power cords, and the like as placebo is beyond stupid- it shows you are totally incapable of using your ears and are blinded by your own dogma, this does not surprise me.

I am surprised however that you have such friends as you mention. I would be floored if after performing a demo of the Acoustic ART System in her listening room she did not hear the benefits. People are always surprised when they first hear the Acoustic ART System in action, but they do hear it and this is why it is selling extremely well.

Ted Denney III
Lead Designer, Synergistic Research Inc.

Scott,
You live perhaps 20 minutes from my design studio. You are more then welcome to visit for a demonstration of the Acoustic ART System.

Ted Denney III
Lead Designer, Synergistic Research Inc.

Quote:
In fact to deny the benefits of cables, power cords, and the like as placebo is beyond stupid- it shows you are totally incapable of using your ears and are blinded by your own dogma, this does not surprise me.

Now, if only one of them could overcome "Blind Listening Deafness."

That would solve the whole issue.

Really.

Ted, thanks for the link to Audio junkies. It made my day reading it all. Looks like those 3 sorted it out about right So just wondering since one of them brought it up, You have time to post on here everyday but not any time to do simple measurements? Just asking and oh btw what do I know because I've only been here 3 days which some people here seem to mean my opinion means nothing

Quote:
Ted, thanks for the link to Audio junkies. It made my day reading it all. Looks like those 3 sorted it out about right So just wondering since one of them brought it up, You have time to post on here everyday but not any time to do simple measurements? Just asking and oh btw what do I know because I've only been here 3 days which some people here seem to mean my opinion means nothing

Three days?

No worries, ALL opinions here mean nothing!

Hi Fi is all 'sound and fury!'

Cheers.

Quote:
Scott,
You live perhaps 20 minutes from my design studio. You are more then welcome to visit for a demonstration of the Acoustic ART System.

Ted Denney III
Lead Designer, Synergistic Research Inc.

Time for demo's but no time to remeasure and post graphs with photo's and REW files?

Quote:
A mounting number of reviewers (I am flying in a few hours today to set up another reviewer in Chicago with the ART System), over 300 customers who have purchased the Acoustic ART System (Paul at ABC, my UK distributor, buys Acoustic ART Systems 20 at a time and reorders every other month based on the power of the demonstration) all have heard the benefits of the Acoustic ART System. JA in particular has weighed in on more then one occasion to share his impressions after hearing it at trade shows. Tens of thousands of people know what high performance cables and power cords do for the performance of a high-resolution system. To us you are the one who seems stupid. In fact to deny the benefits of cables, power cords, and the like as placebo is beyond stupid- it shows you are totally incapable of using your ears and are blinded by your own dogma, this does not surprise me.

I am surprised however that you have such friends as you mention. I would be floored if after performing a demo of the Acoustic ART System in her listening room she did not hear the benefits. People are always surprised when they first hear the Acoustic ART System in action, but they do hear it and this is why it is selling extremely well.

Ted Denney III
Lead Designer, Synergistic Research Inc.

So out of ALL those people snatching up your products NONE have bothered to test them with measurements? That's kind of odd hmmm

and remember what JA said "I am not stating that JJ is endorsing the ART devices, only that if they have a repeatable effect (which is still to be shown), it can just as readily be ascribed to what they do to the listener as what they do to the sound.
Still doubt me? Take a listen to your system, Pause, smoke a joint, listen again. You will perceive major differences yet the sound is not changed at all. Do the same thing tomorrow, you will perceive the same change. There is a repeatable effect but it affects the listener, not the sound."

So yes power cords, cables and other wishful thinking do "work" as long as you convince them they do

Quote:
Ted, thanks for the link to Audio junkies. It made my day reading it all. Looks like those 3 sorted it out about right So just wondering since one of them brought it up, You have time to post on here everyday but not any time to do simple measurements? Just asking and oh btw what do I know because I've only been here 3 days which some people here seem to mean my opinion means nothing

Dude, hang around a little longer and you will find that your non conforming opinions can only be because of 'envy'.

Envy of they having what you ain't got!

Quote:
I am surprised however that you have such friends as you mention. I would be floored if after performing a demo of the Acoustic ART System in her listening room she did not hear the benefits. People are always surprised when they first hear the Acoustic ART System in action, but they do hear it and this is why it is selling extremely well.

Ted Denney III
Lead Designer, Synergistic Research Inc.

As I understand it Peter Belt is still selling his products also so amount of sales doesn't mean they are getting a good product. Just look at General Motors, they sold thousands of cars yet who claims that what they make is so wonderful? By the way I drive a Toyota

Quote:
A mounting number of reviewers (I am flying in a few hours today to set up another reviewer in Chicago with the ART System), over 300 customers who have purchased the Acoustic ART System (Paul at ABC, my UK distributor, buys Acoustic ART Systems 20 at a time and reorders every other month based on the power of the demonstration) all have heard the benefits of the Acoustic ART System. JA in particular has weighed in on more then one occasion to share his impressions after hearing it at trade shows. Tens of thousands of people know what high performance cables and power cords do for the performance of a high-resolution system. To us you are the one who seems stupid. In fact to deny the benefits of cables, power cords, and the like as placebo is beyond stupid- it shows you are totally incapable of using your ears and are blinded by your own dogma, this does not surprise me.

I am surprised however that you have such friends as you mention. I would be floored if after performing a demo of the Acoustic ART System in her listening room she did not hear the benefits. People are always surprised when they first hear the Acoustic ART System in action, but they do hear it and this is why it is selling extremely well.

Ted Denney III
Lead Designer, Synergistic Research Inc.

Congratulations on your business acumen and congratulations to your sales force. However, if you would be so kind as to provide numbers to reinforce your assertions, we would be most grateful.

PS. Proper testing methodology counts, so no cheating.

Quote:
Ted, thanks for the link to Audio junkies. It made my day reading it all. Looks like those 3 sorted it out about right

However, one poster was incorrect when he wrote "Oh by the way Gordon Holt, you know the former editor and founder of Stereophile that you probably read from cover to cover drooling over those slick adds of pricey snake oil? Well he wanted Stereophile to use DBT a as a testing method. Imagine that. Too bad that idea got buried by JA long ago.

Quote:
All I was objecting to was that, in what was just your third posting to this forum, you were making demands of me, which seemed just a wee bit presumptious on the part of a newbie.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

John,

I've been around for a while and you have the same objections when it comes to me as well. Sometimes I get a feeling that you're just not interested in reader feedback unless it's within your own predefined set of parameters.

Quote:

Quote:
All I was objecting to was that, in what was just your third posting to this forum, you were making demands of me, which seemed just a wee bit presumptious on the part of a newbie.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

John,

I've been around for a while and you have the same objections when it comes to me as well. Sometimes I get a feeling that you're just not interested in reader feedback unless it's within your own predefined set of parameters.

Man, looking back at my entire life, I have never met a 'boss man' who was more open and willing to take abuse (I mean that in a good way of 'taking abuse') as JA; and I'm not just saying that so he'll lower my subscription price!

Seriously, in the realm of Hi Fi, who is more transparent and less defensive than J effin' A?

Us audiophiles are worse than everybody except action figure collectors, too!

What Hi Fi publisher would YOU most want to share a brew with?

Quote:

Quote:
All I was objecting to was that, in what was just your third posting to this forum, you were making demands of me, which seemed just a wee bit presumptious on the part of a newbie.

John,

I've been around for a while and you have the same objections when it comes to me as well.

As I explained to you privately, AlexO, a common factor in the torrent of emails with which you flooded my inbox these past few days was the use of phrases such as "I demand..." "You must..." "You are obliged to..." "You have to..." "You need to..." "I want you to..." and so on, with no acknowledgment on your part that I might also have a considered opinion on the subject.

Quote:
Sometimes I get a feeling that you're just not interested in reader feedback unless it's within your own predefined set of parameters.

I am always interested in feedback. However, the fact that I read, say, an email from you does not automatically mean that I am then going to change the magazine's policies or content to meet your demands. Your increasing level of frustration and anger when I inform you of that fact leads me to believe that there are greater issues involved.

In the end, as I told you privately, if you are dissatisfied with my continued refusals to substitute your ideas for my own when it comes to the editing of Stereophile, you should stop reading the magazine. Or start your own, one that embodies your own philosophies.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

I did not mean to suggest that this is personal. I met Stephen Mejias and Wes Phillips and these are really nice people that I would love to drink and share stories with. However, that doesn't mean that I don't want to choke them after reading some of the stuff they write. I have a feeling that John takes things a bit too personally sometimes even when they're not meant as such and quite honestly, we do get carried away with this crap.

Quote:
Scott,
You live perhaps 20 minutes from my design studio. You are more then welcome to visit for a demonstration of the Acoustic ART System.

Ted Denney III
Lead Designer, Synergistic Research Inc.

20 minutes! have you ever been on the L.A. freeways?! Ok enough of my rant about traffic. I'd love to come give em a listen. Just let me know what times are available and I will work it into my schedule.

Last night I visited a friend who's a resident composer for one of the "big three" TV soap operas. His wife is a copywriter, but is not technical. When Ed left the room to make coffee, I started telling Sharon about this thread. I said "The guy lives in a large loft and claims that nine little saki cups placed around the room made a huge change in the room's acoustics." Sharon immediately understood the fraud and started laughing."

Thanks for providing an excellent example of the typical knee-jerk reaction by audiophiles, non-audiophiles, technical types and non-technical types to "controversial tweaks."

Quote:
Last night I visited a friend who's a resident composer for one of the "big three" TV soap operas. His wife is a copywriter, but is not technical. When Ed left the room to make coffee, I started telling Sharon about this thread. I said "The guy lives in a large loft and claims that nine little saki cups placed around the room made a huge change in the room's acoustics." Sharon immediately understood the fraud and started laughing."

Thanks for providing an excellent example of the typical knee-jerk reaction by audiophiles, non-audiophiles, technical types and non-technical types to "controversial tweaks."

Ethan!

How does she feel about your lovely listening room?

"Ethan!

How does she feel about your lovely listening room?"

"Oh, Ethan, your system sounds really wonderful!

Quote:
Last night I visited a friend who's a resident composer for one of the "big three" TV soap operas. His wife is a copywriter, but is not technical. When Ed left the room to make coffee, I started telling Sharon about this thread. I said "The guy lives in a large loft and claims that nine little saki cups placed around the room made a huge change in the room's acoustics." Sharon immediately understood the fraud and started laughing."

Thanks for providing an excellent example of the typical knee-jerk reaction by audiophiles, non-audiophiles, technical types and non-technical types to "controversial tweaks."

Hmmm more like the response of a rational person that knows BS when she hears it, but then you sell some controversial tweaks yourself I've noticed. Ever had them tested in a DBT or even simple acoustic measurements? Care to share any GRAPHS you may have done? hmmmmm?

Quote:

Quote:
So as usual, we see that you have NO idea what you're talking about, and you're only intention here is to make a nuisance of yourself. Tell you what. Go play in the yard, Scotty. I'll call you when you are needed.

(Don't come out until I do).

Blah blah blah. Did you say anything on the subject? Couldn't get past your dumb ass first papragraph.

LOL! That's because you're a complete dumbass, who can't win a debate to save his life. Because you can't even process half a paragraph of a rebuttal, without your little baby brain cracking under the strain, and flying south for the winter to destress! But that's ok, little Scotty. I knew that you would play your usual "Blah blah blah" card, as an excuse to run away from any demands for you to support your blah blah blah with proof. It was clear from your pathetic attempt to refute my arguments even that one time, that you had absolutely no clue of the subject you were arguing with me on. And I already knew you were not going to be able to support a single claim you made, or refute a single argument I made against you. So you're a challenge to no one here, and your evasions of proof are a surprise to no one here. You are managing to make Ethan look even stupider, in just standing next to him as you are, and trying to defend him. So I suppose you do have a role to play.

Like your Master Ethan, you proved to be unable to respond to a single request from me that you provide evidence that Ethan even knows how to read a REW graph, let alone that he was right in anything he said against Ted's data. In fact, it's obvious you don't even understand anything about the graphs, since all you were able to do in your debate with me was to regurgitate the same irrelevant and refuted misinformation about Ethan's analysis, that you had read elsewhere. So I take it that both of you are now afraid of me, and cowering in the same corner somewhere, hoping that I don't ever ask you to support your bogus claims again! How fitting! (Since it's Halloween and all.... )

Happy Halloween, lil' Scott and lil' Ethan! Since you boys are still hiding from me, you get no candy!
Instead, here's something that'll REALLY scare ya! More than "Boo!":

1) Where is your evidence that the waterfall graphs were "falsified"?

2) He also said they were "Photoshopped". I'm sorry... did you provide the evidence that they were "Photoshopped", before ignorantly saying he "nailed it"?

3) Whiner also claimed that Ted had to hack the data file for the graph. Is -that- evidence coming along, Mr. Nails?

4) So far, every Whiner apologist, including Whiner himself, has failed to respond to this simple fact: which is that in his many "broad and unspecified assessments" that he "felt" the waterfall graphs were not right, Whiner FAILED to find a glaring 500ms difference between the before and after graphs. But yet at NO POINT did Ethan point out that the graph of the room treated with the ART System starts approx 500ms back from zero. Had he done THAT, then he would have "nailed it", Nailzy. Instead, Whiner was unable to even point out anything but decay anomalies, and several other members had to point out that there was more to the differences than this.

Quote:
More blah blah blah. I can't get past your first sentence on this one. Are you this boring in person?

Are you this dumb in person??

Quote:

Look, Ethan and JJ nailed the problem. There was a missing first half second which corolates exactly with everything they both said about the problems with the waterfall graphs. Even a guy like me who is pretty fuckin far from an expert on reading these graphs gets their point. Conservation of energy, missing first half second....do *I* need to spell that one out for you? How did *you* miss that problem? Why wasn't the gross error in the data as obviously wrong to you as it was to JJ and Ethan? So yeah, basically I was suckered by a plain display of their expertise on the subject over the novice opinions that ran contrary. I include myself among those novices but I had the good sense not to take a side until the dust settled on the data.

Sorry Scott, but the requirements for conservation of energy were satisfied if you would have listened to my instructions, and JA.

It is obvious you are not going to perform the printed overlay comparison I detailed because it would demonstrate Ethan and J_J as wrong, which is not in your agenda.

Sorry you cannot be honest and support the public instead of special interests.

Quote:
Scott,
You live perhaps 20 minutes from my design studio. You are more then welcome to visit for a demonstration of the Acoustic ART System.

Ted Denney III
Lead Designer, Synergistic Research Inc.

Now why would Scott do that? Then he might risk looking like the fool he is, wouldn't he? I predict Scott will NOT take you on your offer for a personal dem of these controversial devices, even if he lives RIGHT ABOVE your design studio! If ever he does, his only reason would be so that he could deny differences no matter what he hears, and then go back here and gain a bit more credibility from trashing your product. Freedom from criticism he's never tried it.

For people like Scott, Ethan, AlexO, BothAndy's, rgibran, David L., Joamonte and ALL of the new sockpuppets of Ethan's that came here specifically just to trash you (too numerous to name), it's not about the "sound". It's about maintaining and disseminating their ideologies against the unconventional, keeping the status quo.

For Ethan it goes a bit further, it's about making sure no one buys your product over his.

Quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last night I visited a friend who's a resident composer for one of the "big three" TV soap operas. His wife is a copywriter, but is not technical. When Ed left the room to make coffee, I started telling Sharon about this thread. I said "The guy lives in a large loft and claims that nine little saki cups placed around the room made a huge change in the room's acoustics." Sharon immediately understood the fraud and started laughing."
_____________________
"Thanks for providing an excellent example of the typical knee-jerk reaction by audiophiles, non-audiophiles, technical types and non-technical types to "controversial tweaks."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Hmmm more like the response of a rational person that knows BS when she hears it, but then you sell some controversial tweaks yourself I've noticed. Ever had them tested in a DBT or even simple acoustic measurements? Care to share any GRAPHS you may have done? hmmmmm?"

You sure ask a lotta questions, pardner. Most likely you have DBTs on the brain. Take two PLACEBOs and see me in the morning.

Quote:
I did not mean to suggest that this is personal. I met Stephen Mejias and Wes Phillips and these are really nice people that I would love to drink and share stories with. However, that doesn't mean that I don't want to choke them after reading some of the stuff they write. I have a feeling that John takes things a bit too personally sometimes even when they're not meant as such and quite honestly, we do get carried away with this crap.

Actually JA is the most balanced poster on these forums, are you sure it is not your own bias that is clouding the judgement and opinion of John?
It is interesting that on these forums one of the most spoken about subject is bias when listening and auditioning equipment.
However, the reality is bias is with us every day and can affect nearly all decisions and judgements we make.
Just look back at the debiasing paper I posted awhile back to see how it is affecting most posters here (including myself I admit).

So far in this thread, the only poster who looked to follow an actual process of thought to weigh all factors and this meant a more subdued posting (no statements of facts-information that are not or cannot be quantified) on the subject was JA.
IF you do not believe, read a debiasing article and then work the way back through this thread.

And just curious (this is to all of us), about 5-10 pages back it looked like there was a consencus to let this topic die down until the next stage; I am specifically going back to the point where we got the quote of JJ mentioning shit happens and we should all move on, with others agreeing.

So any chance we can get back to that nice balanced end of a topic again?
Just hoping as the last set of pages will be turning many off, including myself in parts.

Cheers
Orb

Post after post he's still "Machina Exotica".

How about he gets it right, too?

Quote:
Post after post he's still "Machina Exotica".

How about he gets it right, too?

Yes, Geoff needs to get his afflilation right also, not just Ethan. Geoff, you're on notice.

Quote:

Quote:
Last night I visited a friend who's a resident composer for one of the "big three" TV soap operas. His wife is a copywriter, but is not technical. When Ed left the room to make coffee, I started telling Sharon about this thread. I said "The guy lives in a large loft and claims that nine little saki cups placed around the room made a huge change in the room's acoustics." Sharon immediately understood the fraud and started laughing."

Thanks for providing an excellent example of the typical knee-jerk reaction by audiophiles, non-audiophiles, technical types and non-technical types to "controversial tweaks."

Hmmm more like the response of a rational person that knows BS when she hears it, but then you sell some controversial tweaks yourself I've noticed. Ever had them tested in a DBT or even simple acoustic measurements? Care to share any GRAPHS you may have done? hmmmmm?

More like who gives a fuck what some wife of some friend thinks of an anecdote about a thread on an audio forum. I told a friend who has a cousin whose dog was at the vet and somebody in the waiting room thought.....

Quote:
Care to guess who is posting the above abuses against people who own the Acoustic ART System over on a different forum? Who do the above quotes sound like to you? They are from three

Quote:
Ted, thanks for the link to Audio junkies. It made my day reading it all. Looks like those 3 sorted it out about right So just wondering since one of them brought it up, You have time to post on here everyday but not any time to do simple measurements? Just asking and oh btw what do I know because I've only been here 3 days which some people here seem to mean my opinion means nothing

Oh spare us the phony heartbreak "David L.", do. ABSOLUTELY your opinion means nothing. I have no problem putting that in writing and having a notary sign it, if you want.

I'll even say why, in case it isn't obvious to everyone yet. You are either a sockpuppet or a plant for Ethan Winer (I make no distinction, as the motive is the same). If you're a mouthpiece for Winer, you're a friend of his, along with Joamonte and others, from one or more of the acoustics forums he hangs out on; e.g. AVS, the Room Acoustics Forum by Rives Audio on AudioAsylum, AudioCircle, etc. Joamonte lives on AVS, Rives, etc., and you show up one day later, with the exact same opinions, and in the exact same threads as Joamonte. Since you have exactly the same style and venom in your writing as Krabapple, that's who you likely are, posting under a different name. You are obviously here as a hostile intruder. You are an anti-audiophile shill. As I have seen in the little time you've been here, you have exactly the same positions that all anti-audiophiles on forums like Hydrogen Audio hold. You try to contain that fact so as to be treated as a "regular member", and not give yourself away too much. But like all other idiots on Hydrogen, you are not even smart enough to do that.

Point is, wherever Ethan fished you up from, or whatever your other sockpuppet name is on the acoustics forums you know each other from (and no, I really don't care about those details), you are a sockpuppet cross-forum bashing troll who came here on request from Winer, to fight Stereophile on his behalf. Therefore, your so-called "opinion" is bought and paid for by Ethan Winer. In case there was any doubt in anyone's mind, you even just eliminated it by defending the pornographic profane tirades against Ted, from the 3 sockpuppets that Ethan put up on AudioJunkies. No kidding, since you are likely one or all of them. You have shown ZERO interest in non S-ART related threads (which only proves to me that you're too stupid to even be good at hiding the fact that you're a troll), and you ONLY posted to S-ART threads, or threads about Ethan Winer. BTW, how clever of you to pretend you don't know each other, while you are killing yourself to echo and defend everything that Winer says. I certainly didn't see through that either, "David L.".

We have all seen this before. Winer used this cross-forum bashing tactic on us before, in order to help him fight his battles. Winer doesn't just post "threads" here. He wages campaigns of war, and engages footsoldiers from outside to help him fight the regular membership of Stereophile. And his "issues" are always something against high end audio, or audiophiles. Most of those aholes left the forum, thankfully, after the Furutech thread closed. Krabapple, Krueger, etc. Like you, they didn't care about insulting JA or anyone else here, because they knew they weren't here to stay. But, they almost took some of the regular members here with them, by creating troll vs. regular battles that put some of the regulars at risk of being banned, for trying to defend their forum against the intruding Winer trolls.

The forum was very quiet in the time since, and we mostly got along until Ethan's S-ART thread. That's primarily partly because those sockpuppets of Ethan's left to go back to their cult enclaves, and make fun of the "audiophools", who believe in "magic cables and power cords" from high atop their own perches. The other part of the reason there was calm and peace on this board, is because their leader "Ethan Winer" ran away, right after he saw that he would have to identify his company in his sig, and maybe be held responsible for his character assaults on members here. I come back after a period of absence myself, to see a very long and loud thread spring up in no time, and guess who's responsible for creating it?

The S-ART thread he created looked just like the one on the Furutech device, in which he -starts off- mind you, flailing his arms and shouting his little lungs out against this company, and citing such inflammatory and defamatory accusations like "fraud". This, before ever trying the device, or knowing anything real about it. And no, my report of its effectiveness never persuaded him to shut up even a bit. So now Ethan opens up another controversial audiophile-bashing thread, and now there is again a lot of animosity between both real members and Ethan's sockpuppet trolls.

I don't know if that's good or not. Perhaps, this is what the members want; and I don't mind myself, if that's the case. Before Winer crying "fraud" again in yet another attack of unsubstantiated charges against another industry member, and before his second wave of sockpuppets moved in, it was definitely quiet, like I say, and maybe quiet=boring. Just let's not pretend that what Winer started over the Furutech / Olive threads, isn't the exact same thing happening over again.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
So as usual, we see that you have NO idea what you're talking about, and you're only intention here is to make a nuisance of yourself. Tell you what. Go play in the yard, Scotty. I'll call you when you are needed.

(Don't come out until I do).

Blah blah blah. Did you say anything on the subject? Couldn't get past your dumb ass first papragraph.

LOL! That's because you're a complete blah blah blah blah blah blah blah

Did you say something? I got through the first six words and then it turned to blah blah blah blah blah

Quote:

Quote:

Look, Ethan and JJ nailed the problem. There was a missing first half second which corolates exactly with everything they both said about the problems with the waterfall graphs. Even a guy like me who is pretty fuckin far from an expert on reading these graphs gets their point. Conservation of energy, missing first half second....do *I* need to spell that one out for you? How did *you* miss that problem? Why wasn't the gross error in the data as obviously wrong to you as it was to JJ and Ethan? So yeah, basically I was suckered by a plain display of their expertise on the subject over the novice opinions that ran contrary. I include myself among those novices but I had the good sense not to take a side until the dust settled on the data.

Sorry Scott, but the requirements for conservation of energy were satisfied if you would have listened to my instructions, and JA.

It is obvious you are not going to perform the printed overlay comparison I detailed because it would demonstrate Ethan and J_J as wrong, which is not in your agenda.

Sorry you cannot be honest and support the public instead of special interests.

Are you seriously suggesting that I should re-examine the data that we now know is bogus to demonstrate that you were right that the bogus data was legitimate and that Ethan and JJ were wrong in calling bogus data bogus?

seriously?

so one is dishonest if they aren't a fucking moron? You did catch the part about the data being bogus did you not?

Quote:
As I understand it Peter Belt is still selling his products also so amount of sales doesn't mean they are getting a good product.

Nor does it mean they aren't. Your point?

Quote:
So yes power cords, cables and other wishful thinking do "work" as long as you convince them they do

There's another odd thing to say on an audiophile forum. So you don't think power cords and cables make any difference. Great. Remind me again, what is your "alleged" reason for joining this audiophile forum? Maybe you're just here by mistake, is that possible? Perhaps you are confusing Stereophile for AVS, DIY, Hydrogen, A/V or one of those, perhaps? They're the ones who will give you no quarrel about everything sounding the same.

Not responding to known idiots and conspiracy nut jobs is soooooooo satisfying Have fun ranting and raving you three. Try not to have a stroke in the process

Quote:

Quote:
Sorry Scott, but the requirements for conservation of energy were satisfied if you would have listened to my instructions, and JA. It is obvious you are not going to perform the printed overlay comparison I detailed because it would demonstrate Ethan and J_J as wrong, which is not in your agenda. Sorry you cannot be honest and support the public instead of special interests.

so one is dishonest if they aren't a fucking moron? You did catch the part about the data being bogus did you not?

Speaking of "fucking morons" Scott, I see that you're very frustrated and angry toward Steve. Who has been very patient with you I might add, given the fact that you don't seem to be able to follow your own arguments, in a debate. Even getting you to understand the simplest point of logic, is an uphill climb, with a lot of misdirected profanity and anger from you along the way. So although I don't think it's worth the effort with you, I'm going to help Steve. I have a lot of experience working with retards and morons you see. So I have a special sensitivity and understanding to your kind, and that's why I think that I could be of help to both him and you here. Ok now, come here, stand still, shut your mug, and listen carefully you f'in idiot, because I'm only going to tell you this once:

You started this debate throwing out the term "conservation of energy", although you have no idea on earth what it means, or how it relates to acoustics. You just heard JJ using it, and all you know is that you have to try to help your master Ethan "save face" somehow. So in all your Scotty wisdom, you who wouldn't know how to wire 2 speakers together right, decided that you would argue audio on a technical level with a professional audio engineer who's forgotten more than you ever knew. Smart move. (tap, tap). Well, the engineer is trying to respond to your irrelevant claim about "conservation of energy", by telling you to print the damn graphs out already, overlay them, and hold them up to the light. By expecting you to do this, he probably doesn't realize that you don't know how to put 2 sheets of paper together, let alone how to read the graphs, let alone know what "conservation of energy" requirements are.

And so instead, you went on another one of your silly shit fits, confirming both your ignorance, and anger over your own ignorance. Steve is assuming you are not being honest by refusing to repeat the observation both he and JA made about the graphs. I assume you're just dumb. So please understand, I am not impugning your honesty here. I really do think you are honestly dumb. A sort of bumbling nitwit. Here's another example of what I mean. You wrote:

Quote:
Are you seriously suggesting that I should re-examine the data that we now know is bogus to demonstrate that you were right that the bogus data was legitimate and that Ethan and JJ were wrong in calling bogus data bogus?

seriously?

Well, you see, the "data we now know is bogus" is NOT the data that you are arguing with Steve about. You are simply being asked to verify the issue with the graph that YOU yourself brought up!! Steve was merely rebutting your argument to him, and here you are off on another idiocy attack, where you are totally confused and trying to simplify this obviously difficult subject for you to think about, into anything that might make sense to whatever your brain is wired to handle. You can't even understand the concept that the "data" is not "bogus", only one element on one graph is in error. The term "bogus", assuming you even know what that means, and believe me I don't, doesn't enter into it.

Your inability to understand what is actually going on with the graphs, appears to be shared by ALL of those who are defending Ethan as having really known what the problem was with the data graphs. It has become clear that those who are claiming Ethan had any real insight into these graphs, are doing so out of either ignorance of the facts, or an agenda. This happens a lot actually, on audio forums. Shame, really!

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
Sorry Scott, but the requirements for conservation of energy were satisfied if you would have listened to my instructions, and JA. It is obvious you are not going to perform the printed overlay comparison I detailed because it would demonstrate Ethan and J_J as wrong, which is not in your agenda. Sorry you cannot be honest and support the public instead of special interests.

so one is dishonest if they aren't a fucking moron? You did catch the part about the data being bogus did you not?

Speaking of "fucking morons"

So you come when you are called. Good boy. Now lay down and play dead.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Look, Ethan and JJ nailed the problem. There was a missing first half second which corolates exactly with everything they both said about the problems with the waterfall graphs. Even a guy like me who is pretty fuckin far from an expert on reading these graphs gets their point. Conservation of energy, missing first half second....do *I* need to spell that one out for you? How did *you* miss that problem? Why wasn't the gross error in the data as obviously wrong to you as it was to JJ and Ethan? So yeah, basically I was suckered by a plain display of their expertise on the subject over the novice opinions that ran contrary. I include myself among those novices but I had the good sense not to take a side until the dust settled on the data.

Sorry Scott, but the requirements for conservation of energy were satisfied if you would have listened to my instructions, and JA.

It is obvious you are not going to perform the printed overlay comparison I detailed because it would demonstrate Ethan and J_J as wrong, which is not in your agenda.

Sorry you cannot be honest and support the public instead of special interests.

Are you seriously suggesting that I should re-examine the data that we now know is bogus to demonstrate that you were right that the bogus data was legitimate and that Ethan and JJ were wrong in calling bogus data bogus?

seriously?

so one is dishonest if they aren't a fucking moron? You did catch the part about the data being bogus did you not?

I sincerely suggest you re-read my posts again and study science as that will help you to discern what was actually occurring. Ethan and J_J did not correctly specify the problems in the given graphs in any way, shape, or form.

Since J_J could not read the graphs correctly, he had no way of knowing of if conservation of energy was being violated, which according to the given graphs were not. He certainly did not mention any 500ms problems either. Not unless one believes in magic Scott.

Ethan also could not compare the given graphs correctly, as JA and I pointed out. And Ethan certainly never mentioned or even indicated there was any 500ms problem. In fact Ethan only mentioned a decay change and claimed nothing else was changed, which was not true of the given graphs because conservation of energy was not violated. So Ethan was completely dead wrong in every scientific catagory. Ethan clearly made an incorrect comparison of the given graphs but called them fake anyway (surprise surprise). But Ethan lucked out because Ted had made a completely different error that neither Ethan nor J_J never ever saw.

Now instead of attacking Ted's products, why don't you wait for the evidence. IF the evidence/review shows Ted's products to work, you are surely going to have egg on your face. You willing to take that chance Scott. You can laugh if the evidence/review shows no benefit of Ted's products.

Please stop attempting to preempt the data by character assassination of Ted. It just makes you guys look really bad.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Look, Ethan and JJ nailed the problem. There was a missing first half second which corolates exactly with everything they both said about the problems with the waterfall graphs. Even a guy like me who is pretty fuckin far from an expert on reading these graphs gets their point. Conservation of energy, missing first half second....do *I* need to spell that one out for you? How did *you* miss that problem? Why wasn't the gross error in the data as obviously wrong to you as it was to JJ and Ethan? So yeah, basically I was suckered by a plain display of their expertise on the subject over the novice opinions that ran contrary. I include myself among those novices but I had the good sense not to take a side until the dust settled on the data.

Sorry Scott, but the requirements for conservation of energy were satisfied if you would have listened to my instructions, and JA.

It is obvious you are not going to perform the printed overlay comparison I detailed because it would demonstrate Ethan and J_J as wrong, which is not in your agenda.

Sorry you cannot be honest and support the public instead of special interests.

Are you seriously suggesting that I should re-examine the data that we now know is bogus to demonstrate that you were right that the bogus data was legitimate and that Ethan and JJ were wrong in calling bogus data bogus?

seriously?

so one is dishonest if they aren't a fucking moron? You did catch the part about the data being bogus did you not?

I sincerely suggest you re-read my posts again and study science as that will help you to discern what was actually occurring. Ethan and J_J did not correctly specify the problems in the given graphs in any way, shape, or form.

Sure they did where as you didn't identify any problems. Why is that? How is it that Ethan and JJ were ables to so positively see that there was something seriously wrong with the data where as you didn't? Do you at least acknowledge there was something seriously worng with the data?

Quote:
Since J_J could not read the graphs correctly,

OK so one of the guys who clearly called the out data as bogus couldn't read the graphs? So he got lucky? And you.....got terribly unlucky? How is it that the huys you say got it so wrong were the ones to call the data bogus way before that fact was revealed while you say nothing about your own inability to recognize that the data was obviously bogus?

Quote:
Ethan also could not compare the given graphs correctly, as JA and I pointed out. And Ethan certainly never mentioned or even indicated there was any 500ms problem.

He pegged severely fucked up data as such. Again how is it that he could so easily and with such confidence look at the graph and call the data bad (which we now know it was) and you couldn't? How is it that the guys who got it right in terms of the validity of the data are in your eyes the guys who got it all wrong and the guys who stood behind shit data are the guys who got it right? makes no sense.

Quote:
In fact Ethan only mentioned a decay change and claimed nothing else was changed, which was not true of the given graphs because conservation of energy was not violated. So Ethan was completely dead wrong in every scientific catagory. Ethan clearly made an incorrect comparison of the given graphs but called them fake anyway (surprise surprise).

But it was technically fake in that it was grossly eroneous and nonsensical and physically impossible.

Quote:

But Ethan lucked out because Ted had made a completely different error that neither Ethan nor J_J never ever saw.

Suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuure.

Quote:

Now instead of attacking Ted's products,

Where have I attacked Ted's products? I guess you are as good at reading my posts as you are at recognizing bogus waterfall graphs.

Quote:

why don't you wait for the evidence.

I am waiting for evidence.

Quote:

IF the evidence/review shows Ted's products to work, you are surely going to have egg on your face.

I am? How so?

Quote:

You willing to take that chance Scott.

What chance? what are you going on about?

Quote:

You can laugh if the evidence/review shows no benefit of Ted's products.

Why would I do that?

Quote:

Please stop attempting to preempt the data by character assassination of Ted. It just makes you guys look really bad.

You might want to lay off the drugs dude. You are paranoid. Where have I tried any such thing? No wonder you go on these weird rants about Ethan. If it aint drugs did you have some sort of severe head wound in the past? what's going on to provoke these paranoid delusions?

1) Where is your evidence that the waterfall graphs were "falsified"?

Ah, now I'm on your page - like I opposed the flip between resonator and absorber, I will also oppose your semantic flip: No, the graphs weren't falsified after the fact, they were created inappropriately, thereby not being falsified. They were wrong from their inception! Right you are, not falsified!

Ok, so we're in agreement that Ethan LIED when he claimed they were falsified. A good start!

IBID. No need to Photoshop them to create false differences when they were created the way they were.

Ok, so we're in agreement that Ethan LIED when he claimed they were Photoshopped. We're starting to get to the truth here!

In Ethan's world, he really did not give Ted proper credit - - is someone who screws up a program to that degree not 'hacking' the program? The difference between intentional misuse vs. unintentional misuse is your defense?

Well, at least you do understand the issue here; intentional misuse vs. unintentional misuse. Ethan claimed "intentional misuse" by Ted. But again Ethan LIED. Just as with all the other lies, he failed to support his claims with evidence. YES, Buddha, there is a HUUGGGGGE difference between:

a) "hacking files" to falsify data in order to deceive the recipient (which was exactly Ethan's claim)

and what actually happened:

b) admitting to one and all that the readings didn't start at the same time, and would not be accurate.

Now... are you SURE you are looking at all of this with an unbiased eye?

Like I posted, I give credit to Ted for having done it; and also to Ethan for noticing that it couldn't be real almost immediately. That bastard.

Yes, I agree with you again. Ethan IS a bastard. Particularly for the reason you just finished mentioning. Ethan never noticed what was actually wrong with the data. So he's even an incompetent bastard, because he tried to make everyone believe both here, and on AudioJunkies forum, that he was this was this great guru of REW software, and practically invented the waterfall graph. Yet this fool who made loud appeals to his authority from the very beginning of his fiasco, could not point out a glaring 500ms error, during a mad tirade against the producer of this data, whereby he tried to think of everything that he could invent to say the data was bogus. The -only- reason Ethan could possibly have had for not nailing Ted on the clearly verifiable 500ms error, was because he really doesn't know how to read those graphs. Even JA and Steve found information on them that Ethan missed, and then denied existed!

I am sorry for your friend Buddha, but Ethan has been playing you and everybody else here for a fool, over this. You won't see that, but I can read it between many of his recent lines. He is actually trying to get his supporters to cover up his mistakes for him, and make it look like he correctly called the outcome of the test, and that he was right all along to call Ted a fraud. When in fact, Ethan himself knows that flubbed this one badly. That he had no real basis to call Ted a fraud or impugn his data. That's why I say he is playing you like he plays his cello. First, Ethan started out with a motive; to destroy his competitor's reputation. Then, Ethan based his attack on nothing more than a "suspicion" the data was corrupt. As we know from watching US politics, it is often just enough to imply corruption against your opponent, in order to get him to lose the election.

This is why he always spoke in generalities that never quite revealed exactly what his objections were to Ted's data, always made accusations based on no more than his self-professed claim of expertise, provided NO evidence for his claims (only that YOU the reader would be too stupid to understand it, so just sit there, shut up and believe his expert accusations), and spoke in loud, brash words that communicated how "CONFIDENT" he was in his claims (to get foolish people to believe that if he is this confident that he would court a lawsuit and all, he must certainly know what he's talking about!).

He did say "it couldn't be real", yes. But did he ever specifically prove WHY? No. What he said was, "Trust me, I have a REW expert on my side, which I will not identify, and he says I'm right. And you can not have any effect from 10 golf balls in a large room. The proof for that is the fact that I said it, so there". So no Buddha, no credit for Whiner. A farm truck filled with pot-bellied pigs could have "guessed" the data was corrupt, or not corrupt. About 50% of them would have been right, like Ethan.

Ethan certainly went further in identifying the problem than Ted did. SAS even went along with Ted's data (at risk of agreeing with Ethan...anathema.)

Qualify yourself. How so, if he was unable to identify the only actual error in the data? All I saw was Ethan flailing his arms and yelling "FRAUD!" at the top of his lungs.

Ethan gave Ted credit for being able to start the test correctly - you are right that Ethan utterly failed to identify the original 500ms error.

...And one more important point proven, where Ethan was shown to be UNABLE to identify the only real problem with those data graphs. So what good did Ethan do here, exactly with this thread? All he did was set up a huge mound of shit, and then turn the fan on everyone. F'in egomaniac is what he is.

You think in the future that sane industry members are going to look at this behaviour from Ethan and the rest of his sockpuppet drones and want to participate on this forum? Is that what you want? A complete absence of industry participation, that could help to advance our knowledge? Because it looks like we're well on our way there.

Ethan, to his credit, was not the one who started a thread including the term "proof positive!"

Oh, of course not. Ethan just started "Re: Proof of performance for Synergistic ART", and in his second post wrote:

"I call bullshit. That data is clearly fabricated. Made up. Fraudulent. Outright lies. Rigged. Photoshopped."

At the end of which he wrote: "No input is needed from anyone else in this thread, from people of either "belief system."

Which SURELY must clue you in to the fact that the man is a complete idiot, and a wackjob at best. If only to think that by writing that, every one will respect his demand and stay out of the thread. Except the person he wishes to defame. Ethan loses 10 million more points for his as-yet-unproven claims of fraudulence and falsification, over whatever credit you take from Ted for his Proof Positive thread.

Ted was fantastically classy about fessing up to the flawed data - who do we give credit for compelling him to 'put up, or shut up,' however? Ethan.

Oh boy. Not even that is true. Ted posted his data to a dead thread, some 6 months after it died. Ethan even said he "bumped the thread".

The Ethan haters are in full spin retreat mode, man.

"Retreat mode??". Where are you getting that?? Hell, I'm only getting -started-, me! Ethan's the one in "full spin" mode! He's trying to spin his flubbery every possible way he can. You know who Ethan reminds me of now? John McCain saying he helped to create the Blackberry, Al Gore saying he created the internet, or Ronald Reagan claiming responsibility for ending the cold war. You know what they all have in common? They're all liars.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Look, Ethan and JJ nailed the problem. There was a missing first half second which corolates exactly with everything they both said about the problems with the waterfall graphs. Even a guy like me who is pretty fuckin far from an expert on reading these graphs gets their point. Conservation of energy, missing first half second....do *I* need to spell that one out for you? How did *you* miss that problem? Why wasn't the gross error in the data as obviously wrong to you as it was to JJ and Ethan? So yeah, basically I was suckered by a plain display of their expertise on the subject over the novice opinions that ran contrary. I include myself among those novices but I had the good sense not to take a side until the dust settled on the data.

Sorry Scott, but the requirements for conservation of energy were satisfied if you would have listened to my instructions, and JA.

It is obvious you are not going to perform the printed overlay comparison I detailed because it would demonstrate Ethan and J_J as wrong, which is not in your agenda.

Sorry you cannot be honest and support the public instead of special interests.

Are you seriously suggesting that I should re-examine the data that we now know is bogus to demonstrate that you were right that the bogus data was legitimate and that Ethan and JJ were wrong in calling bogus data bogus?

seriously?

so one is dishonest if they aren't a fucking moron? You did catch the part about the data being bogus did you not?

I sincerely suggest you re-read my posts again and study science as that will help you to discern what was actually occurring. Ethan and J_J did not correctly specify the problems in the given graphs in any way, shape, or form.

Sure they did where as you didn't identify any problems. Why is that? How is it that Ethan and JJ were ables to so positively see that there was something seriously wrong with the data where as you didn't? Do you at least acknowledge there was something seriously worng with the data?

Quote:
Since J_J could not read the graphs correctly,

OK so one of the guys who clearly called the out data as bogus couldn't read the graphs? So he got lucky?

And you.....got terribly unlucky? How is it that the huys you say got it so wrong were the ones to call the data bogus way before that fact was revealed while you say nothing about your own inability to recognize that the data was obviously bogus?

Quote:
Ethan also could not compare the given graphs correctly, as JA and I pointed out. And Ethan certainly never mentioned or even indicated there was any 500ms problem.

He pegged severely fucked up data as such. Again how is it that he could so easily and with such confidence look at the graph and call the data bad (which we now know it was) and you couldn't? How is it that the guys who got it right in terms of the validity of the data are in your eyes the guys who got it all wrong and the guys who stood behind shit data are the guys who got it right? makes no sense.

Quote:
In fact Ethan only mentioned a decay change and claimed nothing else was changed, which was not true of the given graphs because conservation of energy was not violated. So Ethan was completely dead wrong in every scientific catagory. Ethan clearly made an incorrect comparison of the given graphs but called them fake anyway (surprise surprise).

But it was technically fake in that it was grossly eroneous and nonsensical and physically impossible.

Quote:

But Ethan lucked out because Ted had made a completely different error that neither Ethan nor J_J never ever saw.

Suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuure.

Quote:

Now instead of attacking Ted's products,

Where have I attacked Ted's products? I guess you are as good at reading my posts as you are at recognizing bogus waterfall graphs.

Quote:

why don't you wait for the evidence.

I am waiting for evidence.

Quote:

IF the evidence/review shows Ted's products to work, you are surely going to have egg on your face.

I am? How so?

Quote:

You willing to take that chance Scott.

What chance? what are you going on about?

Quote:

You can laugh if the evidence/review shows no benefit of Ted's products.

Why would I do that?

Quote:

Please stop attempting to preempt the data by character assassination of Ted. It just makes you guys look really bad.

You might want to lay off the drugs dude. You are paranoid. Where have I tried any such thing? No wonder you go on these weird rants about Ethan. If it aint drugs did you have some sort of severe head wound in the past? what's going on to provoke these paranoid delusions?

Fabricating excuses to believe in Ethan is your privilege Scott, but the science says otherwise.
How simple can I make this. It has already been explained how Ethan was completely wrong in comparing the given graphs. Because he made a complete mistake comparing the given graphs and calling them bogus does Not mean he understood the real mechanisms as to why the graphs were false. JA saw Ethan's problems as well and JA has years of experience and education. The fact that Ethan called them bogus for the wrong reasons does not mean he understood the correct reasons the graphs were invalid. Do you now understand. If J_J posts that conservation of energy is being violated and it is not, what am I suppose to do, preach lies to satisfy you. JA and I both saw that conservation of energy is not being violated. Have you yet printed out the graphs as I suggested days ago Scott.

Have a good weekend.

Quote:

Fabricating excuses to believe in Ethan is your privilege Scott, but the science says otherwise.

Bullshit. Show me the "science." And then explain how the guys that called the bogus data bogus were so wrong while you missed the fact that the data was bogus.

Quote:
How simple can I make this. It has already been explained how Ethan was completely wrong in comparing the given graphs.

Dude wake up and smell the coffee. he called the data bullshit and the data was bullshit. In what sane world is that getting it completely wrong? How did you miss it?

Quote:

Because he made a complete mistake comparing the given graphs and calling them bogus does Not mean he understood the real mechanisms as to why the graphs were false. JA saw Ethan's problems as well and JA has years of experience and education. The fact that Ethan called them bogus for the wrong reasons does not mean he understood the correct reasons the graphs were invalid. Do you now understand.

Ethan nailed the data for what it was. The only question is was it doctored on purpose as Ethan claims or was it a computer glitch. Whether or not Ethan got Ted's motive right. He certainly nailed the data as being severely doctored.

Quote:
If J_J posts that conservation of energy is being violated and it is not, what am I suppose to do, preach lies to satisfy you. JA and I both saw that conservation of energy is not being violated. Have you yet printed out the graphs as I suggested days ago Scott.

Have a good weekend.

having a great weekend thanks. Had the best seats in the house today at Disney Hall. Great concert. But I digress. Let's see if JA will back you up on this one.

Quote:

Quote:
Scotty, l'enfant terrible, dribbled the following bile off his bib:

OK so one of the guys who clearly called the out data as bogus couldn't read the graphs? So he got lucky?

And you.....got terribly unlucky? How is it that the huys you say got it so wrong were the ones to call the data bogus way before that fact was revealed while you say nothing about your own inability to recognize that the data was obviously bogus?

He pegged severely fucked up data as such. Again how is it that he could so easily and with such confidence look at the graph and call the data bad (which we now know it was) and you couldn't? How is it that the guys who got it right in terms of the validity of the data are in your eyes the guys who got it all wrong and the guys who stood behind shit data are the guys who got it right? makes no sense.

But it was technically fake in that it was grossly eroneous and nonsensical and physically impossible.

Suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuure.

Where have I attacked Ted's products? I guess you are as good at reading my posts as you are at recognizing bogus waterfall graphs.

I am? How so?

What chance? what are you going on about?

Why would I do that?

You might want to lay off the drugs dude. You are paranoid. Where have I tried any such thing? No wonder you go on these weird rants about Ethan. If it aint drugs did you have some sort of severe head wound in the past? what's going on to provoke these paranoid delusions?

Bullshit.

Dude wake up and smell the coffee. he called the data bullshit and the data was bullshit. In what sane world is that getting it completely wrong? How did you miss it?

Ethan nailed the data for what it was. The only question is was it doctored on purpose as Ethan claims or was it a computer glitch. Whether or not Ethan got Ted's motive right. He certainly nailed the data as being severely doctored.

SASAudio wrote:

Fabricating excuses to believe in Ethan is your privilege Scott, but the science says otherwise. How simple can I make this. It has already been explained how Ethan was completely wrong in comparing the given graphs.

Good luck with that, Steve. As I have observed in my attempts to drive some sense into this insolent twerp's empty head, you simply can not make any concept simple enough for him. You will just frustrate yourself trying. He is what we call "willfully obtuse". The reason he will not print the graphs as you asked, in order to try to understand the science of what he is arguing about, is that he doesn't know how to read them. Not sure of the reason he is being so hostile and angry toward you, when you have been nothing but polite and patient with him. I think he must be angry with you because you are making him work his brain too hard. No matter what you say to a drone who's been "programmed" by Ethan, he is only going to repeat his positions ad nauseum until one of you dies. And remember, he can just go and get a recharge. So you're not gonna outlast him. He does not understand science, he does not understand logic, he most certainly does not understand conservation of energy, he does not distinctions between one element of the data being invalid, or another, or anything more subtle than the terms "bogus data" and "he nailed it dude". I mean look at what you're dealing with! He's actually telling you that he thinks that if you make a claim "with confidence", that means you must be correct, because otherwise "dude", you wouldn't be so confident! I'm sorry that you're dealing with a retard, so I'm just giving you a heads up on this, in case.

The only thing he really understands is that he has to appear to defend his master Ethan's reputation, while Ethan himself is hiding under a rock somewhere, reading this debate and laughing his head off about the fact that poor Scotty has no clue about how clueless Ethan has really been throughout all of this. You put it really well, when you said:

"The fact that Ethan called them bogus for the wrong reasons does not mean he understood the correct reasons the graphs were invalid."

It is clear to me now that Ethan apologists are just spinning their wheels in the debates that followed Ted's withdrawal of his data, after discovering a specific flaw. To help their cowardly leader save face, they have attempted to repeat his misrepresentations of what occurred here. But, alas, they have all come short. It was kind of sad to watch actually, because it is clear from reading their befuddled Ethan-apologizing arguments, that they don't even understand the points they are arguing on! (This is no better seen than with Scott's "debates", if you can call it that). Ethan himself is staying well out of these debates, even farther away from any demands on him to provide proof of his accusations of fraud and falsification, and is desperately trying to revise the history we just witnessed in this thread.

In this sordid chapter of Stereophile forum history, Ethan has defied the rules of both Stereophile, business ethics and community standards of propriety. In yet another blatant attempt to destroy the reputation of one of his direct competitors. He he lied in his accusations against Ted Denney and has -failed- to support every one of them, he has lied about the test data, and even failed to notice the actual problem with the test data, until it was pointed out to him by his very opponent. To help bring this all home, I am going to outline the undisputed outstanding controversies that show that Ethan really is incompetent. Neither Ethan, nor any of his apologists, will be able to refute any of this with evidence showing otherwise. I know this, because I have already debated everyone, including Ethan, on the following facts, and no one has. So the following stands as true and undisputed fact:

PREMISE:

* Ethan did NOT make ANY claim against Ted's data, that he was able to prove, and support with evidence. He claimed Ted's data was invalid, but for the wrong reasons. He was entirely wrong in the comparisons he made between the graphs, and in the end, showed that he did not understand why the graph data was false, despite his wrongful claims that it was.

* Ethan did NOT make ANY accusation against Ted Denney, that he was able to prove, and support with evidence. Ethan's accusations included "fraud", and "falsification of data".

FACT:

* Ted was the one who informed us of a flaw in his data. Although Ethan Winer was killing himself to try to find flaws in Ted's data, Ethan, who "claimed" to be an expert on these waterfall graphs, NEVER noticed a 500ms discrepancy in the start time of the IN test. Something that even his apologists are saying is a "humungous difference". Ethan's response to this has been the usual, when confronted with evidence of his failures. Which is: shut up and hide under a dark couch, and hope this fact will go away by itself.

* Ethan accused Ted of perpretrating "fraud" over his products. He provided NO evidence to support his accusation of fraud, and never proved it.

* Ethan claimed Ted had or was in the process of hacking his REW files, but provided NO evidence to support his accusation, and never proved it.

* Ethan claimed Ted had Photoshopped his files, but provided NO evidence to support his accusation, and never proved it.

* Ethan claimed Ted had "rigged" and "falsified" his files, but provided NO evidence to support his accusation, and never proved it.

* Ethan claimed the only difference in the graphs was one of a decay discrepancy, but failed to provide any evidence of such. (Ethan is already a -proven liar- on this board wrt audio tests that he has misrepresented. So it is a given that Ethan has to show evidence for all claims, including claims of observation).

* OTOH, Ethan failed to recognize amplitude differences, which JA and SAS pointed out. JA: "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)"

* Both Ethan and James Johnson falsely claimed COE was violated, and would not even attempt to overlay the graphs, as anyone who did could verify this was not so.

And that is the story of Synergistic ART tests, as it now stands, and will if and until further data is submitted. So even at this point, even if this goes no further, Ted if he so wishes, has a perfectly sound basis for slapping Ethan with a defamation suit. As Ethan has irresponsibly made public claims of fraud and falsification of data against Synergistic ART, for which he has -never- proven, or attempted to provide valid evidence for. Ethan? I suggest you get yourself a good lawyer already. And when he looks at this thread and immediately tells you to shut up? Take his advice.

> So far in this thread, the only poster who looked to follow an actual process of
> thought to weigh all factors and this meant a more subdued posting (no statements
> of facts-information that are not or cannot be quantified) on the subject was JA.

As I mentioned earlier, I think you have got hold of the wrong end of the stick. JA is weighing factors to suit his purposes, Ted is doing likewise, so is Ethan, so is Geoff, so am I, so is Michigan J Frog. These purposes are not the same and so the weighting of the factors is not the same leading to people singing different tunes. It does not necessarily follow that people are not considering all relevant factors although I am sure it happens to some degree.

Having knowledge about acoustics as it applies to Ted's devices from either the principles or from experience is relevant when it comes to helping to work out what "process of thought" people may be following. I appreciate that you do not have this knowledge but who might that is contributing to this thread? Although JA gives the appearance of not having it, do you think this is likely given his day job? If you think he probably has the knowledge then what "actual process of thought" is he following? Note that it does not have to be evil or sinister despite Halloween but just doing his job as editor of Stereophile.

If, for example, you remembered with confidence Newton's laws of motion from school and someone was selling a product which relied on a large pebble falling to the ground faster than a small pebble. How would you argue in a thread like this for the path of truth and light? Would you argue from principles or go to the difficulties of setting up an experiment? How important is that path of truth of light compared to other things like business?

> So any chance we can get back to that nice balanced end of a topic again?

The answer to that lies with why all threads like this end in the same way despite it surely irritating/annoying most of the posters on the forum. The Open Bar has proved effective in addressing a similar type of problem in the past but I cannot see a similar solution to this one. Simply banning the small number of posters involved is likely to do more harm than good for the forum overall. Do you have a suggestion?

Funny enough I have had the luck to work with a mathematical room modelling company in the past, while not audio the concepts are pretty similar and they were debating whether to expand their solution into this sector.

One thing I have learnt from working in technology/science, you never weigh factors to suite your purposes as it only skews the decisions and judgements.
And yes your right all the others you have mentioned are doing exactly what you said.

Now to see your own process of thought; did you go and look at any debiasing articles before you responded to me?
If not then your as guilty as the rest, excluding JA IMO.

TBH I am giving up with this thread, the only valid conclusion to come out in the last 5 pages now is that nearly everyone is behaving as kids in a school class where the teacher has gone outside.
At a test, why not point out the balanced posts in the last 5 pages?

Edit:

You asked for a suggestion?
Everyone go back and work out why they started behaving as they have since the point it was all looking balanced (way back to when comments such as shit happens and time to move on).
The only real solution is for posters to see the bias in themselves and understand scope of what is factual combined with validation-due diligance.
To do that all need to be done is look back to the point this topic went right off the rails and compare.
Cheers
Orb

Need to go all the way back to page 20 to see how this thread went so bad from most posting balanced to what we got now.
Snapshot of page 20:

Quote:

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

Amazingly everyone was cordial with each other with agreements from Ethan/SAS/JJ/JA/Scott/Ted/etc.
Ask what goes wrong to make everyone turn; and not one individual can be held to blame as others respond.

Cheers
Orb

So with that all in mind, good time for people to do search on debiasing and re-read the thread from there to see how we all became affected.
Unless of course we are not interested in the factual scope-process/validation, and importantly to quantify what was going on in more than the broadest basis.
Cheers
Orb

> Funny enough I have had the luck to work with a mathematical room modelling
> company in the past, while not audio the concepts are pretty similar and they
> were debating whether to expand their solution into this sector.

It is their decision but they will need to find customers that want to purchase their product. How many audiophiles get involved with room treatment despite it being by far the most effective place to spend money in terms of sound quality achieved for pound notes spent? And what proportion of those would be prepared to spend similar sums just for guiding information on how to do the job systematically?

I strongly doubt it is going to be of much interest to the type of person that follows and purchases current day audiophile hardware. I think Ted's bowls are likely to be of more interest.

> One thing I have learnt from working in technology/science, you never weigh
> factors to suite your purposes and it only skews the decisions and judgements.

I would suggest that before this you sort out the problem being addressed and the objectives. The technology/science may have only a minor supporting role making it of relatively little importance to success.

> Now to see your own process; did you go and look at any debiasing articles before
> you responded to me?

The topic of this thread is measurements of the sound field due to Ted's bowls. This is one of the few cases where we can be confident questions of sound perception are not relevant as a factor.

> If not then your as guilty as the rest, excluding JA IMO.

Guilty of what?

> At a test, why not point out the balanced posts in the last 5 pages?

A test of what?

I would say that from their viewpoint most posters are generating balanced posts. Several of them appear to have mild mental health issues but that probably goes with the territory. The fact that much that is posted is in conflict with established scientific knowledge and/or what I believe to be true does not stop it being true to the posters. Unlike some here, I have no problem with this.

Quote:
Bullshit. Show me the "science." And then explain how the guys that called the bogus data bogus were so wrong while you missed the fact that the data was bogus.

I see, so calling something "bullshit" and the data turns out to be false means Ethan correctly understood the problem. I ask for evidence/clarification but nothing posted by you.

I have already explained this at least twice Scott. If you don't understand basic science may I suggest taking a course or "going back" to MadTV and do your makeup work. (True, he has won major awards for makeup at MadTV. Congrats.)

Quote:
Dude wake up and smell the coffee. he called the data bullshit and the data was bullshit. In what sane world is that getting it completely wrong? How did you miss it?

So claiming something is "bullshit" means Ethan understood the problem. Hmmmmmm. If Ethan gave the wrong reason it means Ethan didn't understand what he was doing. Pretty basic buddy. According to your logic, If anyone gives any wrong reason, any wrong reason why the graphs were false, then they were right. Interesting logic to say the least Scott.

Ethan was claiming bullshit before the graphs were ever posted, in fact Ethan claim BS in an earlier string this year. And isn't Ethan a competitor, so the attacks on everything.

And are you not supporting a competitor who has a record of duping viewers into sabotaging their rooms so room treatments are even more important. Hmmm.....

And the evidence has not been presented yet. Maybe you are right, maybe wrong. We will have to wait and see is my position. For you gents to continue attacking Ted demonstrates a competitor's mentality and strategy.

Quote:
Ethan nailed the data for what it was. He certainly nailed the data as being severely doctored.

And there is your continued problem. Prove it. As explained at least twice, Ethan never understood the correct mechanisms why the given graphs were false. So he did not know what he was doing. He could not list a single correct reason the data was doctored. Yet you support such wild claims of Ethan.

JA and I both had to correct Ethan on reading the given information. Ethan had no clue why the graphs were fake as he gave a completely wrong reason. This is basic science Scott. Again, if Ethan gave the wrong reason it means Ethan didn't understand what he was doing. I have requested you show proof with quotes to the contrary, but you have not, just rethoric. If you wish to continue your misguided nonsense, that is your decision. By the way, are you a customer of Ethan's?

I always wanted to visit Disneyland in Ca. Watched Walt Disney all I could.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
Scotty, l'enfant terrible, dribbled the following bile off his bib:

OK so one of the guys who clearly called the out data as bogus couldn't read the graphs? So he got lucky?

And you.....got terribly unlucky? How is it that the huys you say got it so wrong were the ones to call the data bogus way before that fact was revealed while you say nothing about your own inability to recognize that the data was obviously bogus?

He pegged severely fucked up data as such. Again how is it that he could so easily and with such confidence look at the graph and call the data bad (which we now know it was) and you couldn't? How is it that the guys who got it right in terms of the validity of the data are in your eyes the guys who got it all wrong and the guys who stood behind shit data are the guys who got it right? makes no sense.

But it was technically fake in that it was grossly eroneous and nonsensical and physically impossible.

Suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuure.

Where have I attacked Ted's products? I guess you are as good at reading my posts as you are at recognizing bogus waterfall graphs.

I am? How so?

What chance? what are you going on about?

Why would I do that?

You might want to lay off the drugs dude. You are paranoid. Where have I tried any such thing? No wonder you go on these weird rants about Ethan. If it aint drugs did you have some sort of severe head wound in the past? what's going on to provoke these paranoid delusions?

Bullshit.

Dude wake up and smell the coffee. he called the data bullshit and the data was bullshit. In what sane world is that getting it completely wrong? How did you miss it?

Ethan nailed the data for what it was. The only question is was it doctored on purpose as Ethan claims or was it a computer glitch. Whether or not Ethan got Ted's motive right. He certainly nailed the data as being severely doctored.

SASAudio wrote:

Fabricating excuses to believe in Ethan is your privilege Scott, but the science says otherwise. How simple can I make this. It has already been explained how Ethan was completely wrong in comparing the given graphs.

Good luck with that, Steve. As I have observed in my attempts to drive some sense into this insolent twerp's empty head, you simply can not make any concept simple enough for him. You will just frustrate yourself trying. He is what we call "willfully obtuse". The reason he will not print the graphs as you asked, in order to try to understand the science of what he is arguing about, is that he doesn't know how to read them. Not sure of the reason he is being so hostile and angry toward you, when you have been nothing but polite and patient with him. I think he must be angry with you because you are making him work his brain too hard. No matter what you say to a drone who's been "programmed" by Ethan, he is only going to repeat his positions ad nauseum until one of you dies. And remember, he can just go and get a recharge. So you're not gonna outlast him. He does not understand science, he does not understand logic, he most certainly does not understand conservation of energy, he does not distinctions between one element of the data being invalid, or another, or anything more subtle than the terms "bogus data" and "he nailed it dude". I mean look at what you're dealing with! He's actually telling you that he thinks that if you make a claim "with confidence", that means you must be correct, because otherwise "dude", you wouldn't be so confident! I'm sorry that you're dealing with a retard, so I'm just giving you a heads up on this, in case.

The only thing he really understands is that he has to appear to defend his master Ethan's reputation, while Ethan himself is hiding under a rock somewhere, reading this debate and laughing his head off about the fact that poor Scotty has no clue about how clueless Ethan has really been throughout all of this. You put it really well, when you said:

"The fact that Ethan called them bogus for the wrong reasons does not mean he understood the correct reasons the graphs were invalid."

Blah blah blah. My god don't you have anything better to do? how many people do you really think get past the first few words?