Quote:
It is clear to me now

Thanks, that was truly funny.

Quote:
blah blah blah blah blah.....

Just couldn't get past your assertion of clarity. That was funny. After that your post looked like the same old tired, long winded, delusional bullshit.

Quote:

Quote:
Ethan certainly never mentioned or even indicated there was any 500ms problem.

Actually, that's not correct. When I faked the graph to show what Ted likely did, I changed the decay times by 300 ms.

Oh well there ya go. You missed by 200!!! This proves conclusively that you and JJ are idiots who can't read a waterfall graph to save either of your lives. You are also an evil psudoscientist Dr. evil bad man. Conservation of energy is bullshit! We don't know everything.

Quote:

I apologize profusely for not wasting more time trying to precisely replicate his fraud.

Make all the excuses you want. You were off by 200! That is a big number. It's time to do the happy dance. you have just admitted to being a total fraud. this proves the bogus data was actually right even though we know it's wrong!!

So your arguing a case against what I am making about bias....
Without reading debiasing paper of any kind?
Dont you think it is this type or thing that is contributing to a 3rd of the pages so far (from page 20) not being of any use?
Also you do not agree that the balance of posting has taken a major turn from page 20 onwards?
If you can see that, then look back and compare JAs posting (more balanced and less biased IMO) to everyone else in this thread, its an eye opener on how to post.
If you do not, then we are see this thread differently to each other.

Edit:
And the result will be an endless cycle of posting even though everyone reached some sort of agreement back on page 20 with the suggestion by them to wait until next testing.

Thanks
Orb

A lot of my friends are professional musicians, composers, and recording engineers. They regularly bring their DVDs (and now Blu-rays) to my house to watch because my system is so much better than theirs."

I'm not quite sure why, but professional musicians and recording engineers seem to be all thumbs when it comes to putting together a home system. Now, why would that be?

Quote:
Anyway, I don't know any of those people. I did talk to AlexO for 20 minutes on the phone yesterday, but mostly we just laughed at you and Hamster.

Who the fuck is questioning somebody's behavior here?

Quote:

Quote:
Anyway, I don't know any of those people. I did talk to AlexO for 20 minutes on the phone yesterday, but mostly we just laughed at you and Hamster.

Who the fuck is questioning somebody's behavior here?

thatd be like *you* questioning a forumite's behaviour

Troublemaker till' the end!

Quote:

Quote:
Ethan certainly never mentioned or even indicated there was any 500ms problem.

Actually, that's not correct. When I faked the graph to show what Ted likely did, I changed the decay times by 300 ms. I apologize profusely for not wasting more time trying to precisely replicate his fraud.

BTW, I figured out the main problem plaguing Frog and Hamster: Penis envy. Yep, a teeny weeny. It seems so obvious in hindsight.

So Hamster, when do we get to see your proof that I was "caught faking data" or whatever it is you claim?

Carry on.

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

So another change of story and claim, well after the fact.

How many more fish stories do you have under your belt. Michigan is correct on page 30 where he lists all your claims which turn out to be false.

Ethan change my position Winer.

Quote:
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.

Yep. Notice that if Ethan, J_J, and Scott had simply printed out and overlayed the graphs, they would have clearly seen there was no problem with conservation of energy, the height and width were changed. Notice Scott refuses to check himself. Notice Scott sidestepped whether he is an owner of Ethan's products. What does that tell you about him. Of course who says they did not check and simply provided false information to the public. What we do know is that Scott, Ethan, and J_J were giving out false information.

As you list they have already made claims and mislead the viewers many times before. But as long as they can demean a competitor and screw the consumer public with false information here. Also notice Ethan still dodges the question and cannot answer "innocent".

Here is a link again:
http://www.boundforsound.com/reviews.htm#Truth

Quote:
On some of the message boards there are known instances of audio manufacturers and dealers having infiltrators (shills) post as sincere consumers in an effort to undermine the popularity of competitors products while subtly propping their own.

One can see a great example with these guys.

Quote:
Yep. Notice that if Ethan, J_J, and Scott had printed out and overlayed the graphs, they would have clearly seen there was no problem with conservation of energy. Yet they claimed and mislead the viewers several times. So another example of gross incompetance. But as long as they can demean a competitor and screw the consumer with false information here.

Do tell us how overlaying the graphs some how shows there was no problem with the conservation of energy in light of the first 1/2 second of energy that is missing from the bogus data. Do you know what conservation of energy is?

Quote:

Do tell us how overlaying the graphs some how shows there was no problem with the conservation of energy in light of the first 1/2 second of energy that is missing from the bogus data. Do you know what conservation of energy is?

Glad you brought this point up Scott. Let's look at these two points.

1) So how could J_J claim there is a conservation of energy problem then. He could not have so you just proved J_J, Ethan, and you are incompetent since none of you could honestly make that charge. Thanks again Scott.

2) If you, Ethan, or J_J had simply overlayed the given graphs, you would see that the heights and widths were already different, so again you could not claim a problem with conservation of energy. I appreciate your help in hanging Ethan, J_J, and yourself.

Have a great weekend.

Ethan, I don't think chaning your sig to "[RealTraps Dude]" now is appropriate. While I appreciate that you are now trying to distance your comments from your business, that could very well leave someone with the impression that you are just a customer or fanboy of RealTraps. In fact, it's not even obvious that the name "RealTraps" alone is a company. Unless you have changed your company name to "RealTraps Dude", please revise your signature to correctly identify your company affiliation. Keep in mind that readers may not know what "RealTraps" is, when you revise your affiliation sig. Steve Sammet has identified his full name, company name, address and website. If he is not afraid of full disclosure along with his comments, I don't see why you should be if you stand behind yours, as you claim. I would also like to ask you to add your affiliation to your posts at the beginning of this thread, which you neglected to do.

Remember, the rules apply to you as they do to everyone else.

Quote:

Quote:

Do tell us how overlaying the graphs some how shows there was no problem with the conservation of energy in light of the first 1/2 second of energy that is missing from the bogus data. Do you know what conservation of energy is?

Glad you brought this point up Scott. Let's look at these two points.

1) So how could J_J claim there is a conservation of energy problem then. He could not have so you just proved J_J, Ethan, and you are incompetent since none of you could honestly make that charge. Thanks again Scott.

2) If you, Ethan, or J_J had simply overlayed the given graphs, you would see that the heights and widths were already different, so again you could not claim a problem with conservation of energy. I appreciate your help in hanging Ethan, and J_J, and yourself.

Have a great weekend.

Booyah!! I just gotta say, this is hilarious. Watching Scott make a fool of himself, when it's just painfully obvious he has no understanding of acoustic science whatsofreakinever (even as he is getting crib notes on what to say from JJ in PM!), I almost feel sorry for the little troll. As you, I and others have shown here, being an Ethan apologist is not an easy job! Even Ethan is smart enough to avoid defending his own incompetence, in this thread. That's why he sends out the drones!

Don't be fucking with a man's business. And if you own a business don't be stupid enough to get into a public pissing contest. Fucking idiots.

> So your arguing a case against what I am making about bias....

??? Please quote.

> Without reading debiasing paper of any kind?

I have read, written and developed mathematical models for removing bias from experimental measurements as part of the day job. But I cannot see what relevance this has to a thread on the measurements of Ted's bowls?

> Dont you think it is this type or thing that is contributing to a 3rd of the
> pages so far (from page 20) not being of any use?

No. But perhaps you mean something different by bias? If so, please feel free to enlighten us but I would suggest doing so without making demands that we have to go off and read stuff without a reasonable indication of what and why first.

> Also you do not agree that the balance of posting has taken a major turn from
> page 20 onwards?

??? Please quote.

> If you can see that, then look back and compare JAs posting (more balanced and
> less biased IMO) to everyone else in this thread, its an eye opener on how to
> post.

Yes JA is experienced at posting. No his posts are not balanced and without bias. His posts are strongly influenced by his being the editor of Stereophile which seems fair enough to me. Whether he is more or less biased than the others posting would seem nigh on impossible to judge given that almost nobody is trying to achieve the same thing with their posts.

> If you do not, then we are see this thread differently to each other.

Of course. Our prior knowledge about all sorts of things related to this thread will lead to us to see a different thread. I find these differences interesting but experience suggests audiophiles generally do not.

> And the result will be an endless cycle of posting even though everyone
> reached some sort of agreement back on page 20 with the suggestion by them to
> wait until next testing.

I didn't reach any agreement. The small group of people that continued the thread did not reach agreement. I would suggest/agree that a substantial proportion of the forum's readers probably gave up on the thread around that point. Not because of any stated agreement but because they had seen that small group of people and what they were doing many many times before. But note that at least one poster joined in after this point - people post for a variety of reasons.

Quote:
Yep. Notice that if Ethan, J_J, and Scott had simply printed out and overlayed the graphs, they would have clearly seen there was no problem with conservation of energy, the height and width were changed. Notice Scott refuses to check himself. Notice Scott sidestepped whether he is an owner of Ethan's products. What does that tell you about him. Of course who says they did not check and simply provided false information to the public. What we do know is that Scott, Ethan, and J_J were giving out false information.

As you list they have already made claims and mislead the viewers many times before. But as long as they can demean a competitor and screw the consumer public with false information here. Also notice Ethan still dodges the question and cannot answer "innocent".

On some of the message boards there are known instances of audio manufacturers and dealers having infiltrators (shills) post as sincere consumers in an effort to undermine the popularity of competitors products while subtly propping their own.

That's Ethan in a nutshell. So of course he dodges the question as to whether he is guilty of the above, because he knows he is. It has now been established as undisputed FACT on this forum that Ethan Winer of RealTraps, LLC (New Milford, CT) has created sockpuppet shills with names like "JohnnyR" and "Fiji555" on at least other forums, ie. AudioJunkies, where even THEY thought it was Ethan Winer! The writing style was exactly Ethan's, the details involved pointed directly to Winer, and the MO was exactly what is described in the quote above. Ethan infiltrated a review of the S-ART devices on AudioJunkies, with dozens of sick, angry, malicious posts against Ted and Synergistics, in order to undermine popularity of his competitor. Under no less than 3 sockpuppet identities; posting as a "sincere consumer", including "subtle propping" of links to his own site. (I'm not quite sure yet if the "David L." sockpuppet we now see on this forum isn't Ethan as well. It certainly is working for Ethan, if not). For all intents and purposes, the dishonest way he's been debating you, trying to defend Ethan Winer at all cost, Scott might as well be a paid shill for RealTraps, but I have no evidence of such.

The AudioJunkies shills though is what made me realize that with Ethan Winer, we are dealing with one sick puppy here. I have never seen or heard of any owner of an audio company behave with less moral integrity than Ethan Winer. Truly, it makes me sick to my stomach to see what Winer has been doing behind the scenes. I mean what is next on the agenda for this lowlife? Have someone kneecap Ted Denney, hoping that he won't be able to make any more acoustic products?

In case you missed it, this post, with data collected from yours truly and Ted D., exposes Ethan's shilling:

http://forum.stereophile.com/forum/printthread.php?Board=rants&main=76669&type=post

Quote:
[RealTraps Dude]

Ethan, I explained yesterday in another postings why I feel it so important for those professionally involved in the audio industry to use tags that identify themselves as such. The Forum engine makes it very easy to add a consistent tag.

I am losing patience, therefore, with you _not_ using an appropriate affiliation in your postings, even after repeated requests. Before you rush to say that "Real Traps dude" is sufficient identification, please note that the issue is not what _you_ feel appropriate but what _I_ I feel appropriate. So from now on, please use "Ethan Winer, proprietor, Real Traps" or "Ethan Winer, owner, Real Traps" as a tag to every posting you make. Thanks in advance for doing so.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Quote:

Quote:

If you can see that, then look back and compare JAs posting (more balanced and less biased IMO) to everyone else in this thread, its an eye opener on how to post.

Yes JA is experienced at posting. No his posts are not balanced and without bias.

Sorry you feel that to be the case. I do try to choose the words I use with care. Could you quote an instance from this and the related threads where I said something that was not factually correct or was not clearly labeled as conjecture.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Quote:
Do you know what conservation of energy is?

Oooh, oooh, I do, Mr. Kottah. Conservation of energy is putting the Frogster and SAS on one's ignore list.

>> Yes JA is experienced at posting. No his posts are not balanced and without bias.
>> His posts are strongly influenced by his being the editor of Stereophile which seems
>> fair enough to me."
>
> Could you quote an instance from this and the related threads where I said something
> that was not factually correct or was not clearly labeled as conjecture.

Balanced and without bias quoting would have included the next sentence, or at least the first part, because it makes it clear what type of balance/bias we are talking about (I have added the next sentence to the quoting above.)

Not balanced and without bias does not mean "not factually correct or was not clearly labeled as conjecture". This is a very common tactic of yours.

The examples of your posting in favour of Stereophile's interest are large and varied. Here is an example involving us where it is significant part of the thread:

http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?forum=critics&n=19944

but I will pass on trawling through your other postings in this thread to dig up examples.

I would like to finish by pointing out there is nothing wrong with being biased and unbalanced in favour of Stereophile when you are the editor! I am also biased and unbalanced in favour quite a few things that are important to me.

Quote:

Quote:
I am losing patience, therefore, with you _not_ using an appropriate affiliation in your postings

John, I lost patience a year ago with your failure to enforce the same rule on Froggy, who obviously has a vested interest in discrediting me.

And as I have said before, Ethan, Frog is not a manufacturer or dealer or distributor. You are a manufacturer, and the rule is unambiguous in that regard.

Quote:
You can say "We have no evidence" all you want, but that's not a reasonable or fair defense.

It is not a "defense," Ethan. It's the fact of the matter.

Quote:
Your bias is showing John, and I'm not the only one who has noticed. Of course, it's your forum. You are free to run it however you see fit. If you prefer that charlatans like Ted can spout obviously fraudulent bullshit "proof of performance data" unchecked, that's your right too.

This has nothing to do with your opinion of high-end audio or your feelings about products like the Synergistic bowls or my supposed bias, Ethan. Ted Denney follows the rules of the forum, clearly displaying his corporate affiliation. You do not. That's all I am concerned with in this specific instance.

If, after repeated warnngs, you continue to disobey our forum rules, and play this game of "You're not the boss of me," we shall have no choice but to ban you from posting anywhere but in the "Manufacturers" section.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
Yes JA is experienced at posting. No his posts are not balanced and without bias. His posts are strongly influenced by his being the editor of Stereophile which seems fair enough to me.

Could you quote an instance from this and the related threads where I said something that was not factually correct or was not clearly labeled as conjecture.

Balanced and without bias quoting would have included the next sentence, or at least the first part, because it makes it clear what type of balance/bias we are talking about (I have added the next sentence to the quoting above.)

I didn't quote the next sentence because it seemed tautological. Its omission didn't change the meaning of what you wrote. But okay, now that it has been reinstated, again, please could you quote an instance from this and the related threads where I said something that was not factually correct or was not clearly labeled as conjecture.

Quote:
Not balanced and without bias does not mean "not factually correct or was not clearly labeled as conjecture". This is a very common tactic of yours.

If what I said wasn't factually correct or was conjecture presented as fact, you would have a point, that my postings, contrary to what "orb" has written, would be biased. Which is why I asked you to support your statement with actual quotes.

Quote:
The examples of your posting in favour of Stereophile's interest are large and varied. Here is an example involving us where it is significant part of the thread:

http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?forum=critics&n=19944

Huh? Are you saying that I am not supposed to respond to incorrect criticisms of my activities? As you can read in my essay at http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/406awsi/ , Ben Goldacre was just plain wrong on his basic facts.

Quote:
but I will pass on trawling through your other postings in this thread to dig up examples.

As the topic you raised was examples of my so-called bias affecting my postings to this thread, surely you are obliged to offer some support for your statement? The reason you have to pass, of course, is that there aren't any examples.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

This is what happens to an idiotic business person. There is a 90% chance your business will fail within the first five years. You're up to a good start. You big dummy!

Entire contents of this site Copyright

Andy,
I went back as I remembered there was a post you did that highlights bias IMO; basically this was a post of yours in the other Ted thread responding to me (my comments were broken up by you with >):

Quote:
> Now we are going round in circles.

No we are not. You are avoiding answering questions that would hopefully show that you had hold of the wrong end of the stick.

> It is about due diligance and validation,

No it is not. What is going on here has a lot to do with business, what people get out of posting forums, etc... Due diligence and validation, at least in the scientific sense, is mostly certainly not what the audiophile business or hobby is about. And there is no reason why it should be as far as I can see. But Ethan and JJ will no doubt disagree.

> this applies to everyone who wants to make a statement of fact; meaning Ethan/
> JJ and of course including Ted,

When it comes to matters audiophile, what is a fact to one person is not necessarily a fact to another. Facts need a shared set of beliefs with which to determine what is or is not true and that is often absent when audiophiles disagree.

> and explains why JA has been more circumspect in his own thoughts and posts
> regarding this until he has a more detailed analysis.

Not sure about the circumspect, it looks quite ambitious to me although it does depend on which way they decide to jump in the end.

> but it is balancing what can be said as professional fact or that for general
> discussion on a forum.

Why? You may not have any confidence in acoustical matters but that does not mean that others do not either via experience or scientific understanding. What was the basis of Ethan's confidence?

(The above is in response to an earlier version of the post and below is a response to a later one if things do not quite line up)

> And Andy, bear in mind both of those work in the audio industry so if JA can
> setup an investigation for his decision process, why can't they?

Because JA judges it to be a profitable investment in providing rewarding content for Stereophile. The same would not seem to apply to either Ethan or JJ. Remember that there is no question about the efficacy of Ted's devices in either Ethan or JJs minds and so such a test would need to be performed for other reasons.

Of interest two parts really stand out; facts and belief cannot go together as research papers that I have read reach the conclusion that relying on belief is actual part of the bias process.
In essence belief requires trust in the unknown; I believe in God, I believe in Evolution; neither can be proved although aspects can be modelled/theorised but never validated conclusively,these are just 2 very basic but simple examples.
If you do not agree by all means join the debate where I raised the post regarding evolution (and yes I do believe that theory of it stands up, but not completely).

The other point was your conclusion JA judges it to be profitable investment for Stereophile.
Again look at that in the cold light of day; Audio magazines are a semi-niche sector, and on top of this as I said before even the mainstream error correction products are again niche; so the market of business interest for JA in this regard is negligible.
How many Stereophile readers you think even bother with panels or top end digital correction such as Audyssey or Lyngdorf?
Not enough to warrant the conclusion that the driving force for JA's interest is purely business as you suggest.

On top of this, is your last post in this thread responding to JA.
I guess you and me could go on, but I appreciate it is highly unlikely we will agree on this and what has been occurring after page 20 in this topic, and to a little extent early on.

Cheers
Orb

> Huh? Are you saying that I am not supposed to respond to incorrect criticisms
> of my activities? As you can read in my essay at http://www.stereophile.com/
> asweseeit/406awsi/ , Ben Goldacre was just plain wrong on his basic facts.

I linked to a discussion of the bias/balance in that article where it is made clear that Ben Goldacre was not wrong about his facts. Pointing directly at the article is not a particularly balanced thing to do because it would require too much from an inexperienced reader.

> As the topic you raised was examples of my so-called bias affecting my
> postings to this thread, surely you are obliged to offer some support for your
> statement?

Please quote the part about "postings to this thread". This is the same kind of example as in your previous reply.

> The reason you have to pass, of course, is that there aren't any examples.

I think we have enough examples in these few posts and the links. If you consider your reply and the previous one to be a good example of your bias/balance then I am content. A reader can look at them, follow the links, read the discussion and draw their own conclusions. I am confident of the conclusions that those with a scientific background are going to draw and I suspect you are pretty confident of the conclusions that your audiophile readers are going to draw.

Quote:

Quote:
I am losing patience, therefore, with you _not_ using an appropriate affiliation in your postings

John, I lost patience a year ago with your failure to enforce the same rule on Froggy, who obviously has a vested interest in discrediting me. You can say "We have no evidence" all you want, but that's not a reasonable or fair defense. Your bias is showing John, and I'm not the only one who has noticed. Of course, it's your forum. You are free to run it however you see fit. If you prefer that charlatans like Ted can spout obviously fraudulent bullshit "proof of performance data" unchecked, that's your right too.

Oh good grief, where to begin? How about you show some gratitude, for that "bias" you say JA has, as it has been in -your- favour. You would not even have been able to begin to run around the forums here falsely accusing Ted Denney of "fraud" and "falsification of data" for the last two weeks as you have done, upsetting a lot of people in the process, if it were not for that "bias" you are now publicly Whining about. For every other industry member has to abide by the rule that an industry member may not comment on the validity of another member's products. Not that there are any other industry members on this forum who would actually stoop to the levels that you have, accusing another member of commercial fraud; a possibly criminal act. And you did this without ever providing evidence, nor does it look like you ever will support your accusations!

Furthermore, as we have also witnessed, JA has bent over forwards and backwards to accommodate you, as you willfully violate the industry member disclosure rule. You were fully aware of that rule before you took mercy on us with a hiatus and never disclosed your trade. You were fully aware of what it meant when you came back and never disclosed your trade. You were fully aware when you were asked to correct your behaviour in this thread (and you never did correct the sig in your first posts in this thread). You were fully aware of what you were doing when your sig was approved, and you changed it to "RealTraps Dude"; which does not fully disclose who you are, and the company you represent. So it appears to everyone that you have to be forced to follow expected rules of behaviour, and that you do not have the integrity to do so on your own.

How do you think this reflects on your acoustic treatment business, RealTraps? Are you not aware that your messages here show up in Google searches, for when a customer wants to verify the real reputation of a company, to know whether he can trust the people behind it, before he puts down an order of hundreds or thousands of dollars? How do you think it looks to have your name, "Ethan Winer", your company, RealTraps LLC, constantly associated with charges of lying, fraud, unscrupulous business practices, sockpuppetry, blatant and malicious shilling, unwarranted, unsupported defamation of your competitors, stalking members of the community and just being an infamous asshole. I mean good God, Ethan. Knowing a fraction of what I now know about you, I wouldn't buy any products from you if you were giving them away with free beer. Just on principle alone.

Now for the weird stuff. In regards to your paranoid persecution complex, whereby you insist that I am an industry member and won't take "shut up already" for an answer, it has already been politely suggested to you that you seek psychological counseling for that. How is that coming along, can we get an update? Does it not occur to you that if you are going to make such an accusation against me, you have to provide solid, valid, verifiable evidence of your claim, and the name and address of the company or companies you are claiming I am in the employ of? I am sorry but in the real world, "Ethan suspects that x member is a fraud, or x member is a secret industry rep, or x member is stealing my luggage" is not considered proof of anything, except that you appear to be 2 tacos short of a combo plate, and not to be taken seriously. What exactly do you expect John to do here? Hire a freakin' detective to track down secret info on every member you "suspect" of being an industry insider, that you feel persecuted by? Do you realize what that would cost the magazine, considering how many members you feel persecuted by? Don't you think you're already costing Stereophile enough, with the damage you're doing to its reputation, and leaving it vulnerable to possible litigation with your runaway "fraud" tirades? Come on, Ethan. Try not to be stupid for a change. You know, it's not a bad idea to try to have people laugh with you sometimes, instead of always at you.

As I have already stated in great, flowing detail, my intention is not to discredit you at all. Unlike you who works in the trade, I have no ideological problem with acoustic room treatment products, conventional or otherwise. I simply have a problem with rotten, corrupt, pathological liars. If you keep it honest Ethan, you behave yourself and at least pretend to act like you're an adult with honour and integrity, you won't even know I exist. If you continue to use our forum as a pulpit for mean, nasty, filthy, defamatory lies that are abusive to our members and to audio in general, or you continue to disrespect the truth with your deceitful hypocrisy, well look in your rear view mirror. See the froggy? Know the froggy. If your abusive lies won't go away, neither will I. But I can understand why you have a problem with someone who exposes your deceit and abuse. It kind of makes it harder to -be- deceitful and abusive, doesn't it? Well, I have a very good solution for that: don't just threaten to ignore me a thousand and fifty times like we've seen you do... do it. That doesn't mean continue to Whine about me to others, while you've pretended you've put me on ignore. Just do it and shut up already.

Quote:

Quote:
As the topic you raised was examples of my so-called bias affecting my postings to this thread, surely you are obliged to offer some support for your statement?

Please quote the part about "postings to this thread". This is the same kind of example as in your previous reply.

My initial response was to a posting made by you in which you contradicted a statement made by "Orb" that a careful read of this thread revealed that I was being balanced _in this thread_ and, therefore, presumably unbiased _in this thread_. If you are now pretending that, no, you meant unbiased in general, in the wide world outside of this forum, your writing skills (and perhaps your thinking skills) need some remedial work.

Quote:

Quote:
The reason you have to pass, of course, is that there aren't any examples.

I think we have enough examples in these few posts and the links.

Really. Then please pay me the respect of showing _where_ in this thread or the related ones where I have let my bias affect what I have written. (And "we"? Do you have a mouse in your pocket?)

You may be happy enough playing your semantic troll games but I have to take your accusation seriously. Here we have two manufacturers attacking one other, with possible legal consequences. It is important, therefore, that the postings I have made to this thread as the magazine's editor should favor neither one side nor the other, except concerning purely factual matters.

So again, if you feel that _not_ to be the case, please support your claim with examples from this and the related threads. If you cannot or will not do that simple thing, then the obvious conclusion is that you are merely letting your own biases and prejudices color your opinions.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

> Of interest two parts really stand out; facts and belief cannot go together
> as research papers that I have read reach the conclusion that relying on
> belief is actual part of the bias process.[...]

What we consider to be true/false/fact is based on belief. Some believe the scientific method is a pretty neat way to determine facts about the physical world. Others such as audiophiles have a less confidence in it and consider other sources of belief. Facts do not exist independently of belief systems although a scientific belief system is sometimes implicitly assumed.

> The other point was your conclusion JA judges it to be profitable investment
> for Stereophile.

If he did not think it a profitable thing to do why, as editor of Stereophile, would he have done it?

> Audio magazines are a semi-niche sector, [...]

I do not understand the point you are trying to make.

Everybody wants to be the conductor.

"What we consider to be true/false/fact is based on belief. Some believe the scientific method is a pretty neat way to determine facts about the physical world. Others such as audiophiles have a less confidence in it and consider other sources of belief. Facts do not exist independently of belief systems although a scientific belief system is sometimes implicitly assumed."

I believe in artificial atoms. I believe in quantum superposition. I believe in quantum teleportation. I believe in morphic resonance. I believe in the scientific method.

Quote:
I believe in artificial atoms. I believe in quantum superposition. I believe in quantum teleportation. I believe in morphic resonance. I believe in the scientific method.

This is a strange thing to say. The scientific method does not require belief. It, rather, beyond a rejection of ultimate solipcism, is testable and verifiable. Belief in science is inappropriate and represents a misunderstanding of science.

Quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I believe in artificial atoms. I believe in quantum superposition. I believe in quantum teleportation. I believe in morphic resonance. I believe in the scientific method.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"This is a strange thing to say. The scientific method does not require belief. It, rather, beyond a rejection of ultimate solipcism, is testable and verifiable. Belief in science is inappropriate and represents a misunderstanding of science."

I'm simply responding to Andy's belief (oops, my bad) regarding audiophiles beliefs (oops, again). Let's look at another similar post by Andy1919 on another audio board yesterday:

"It is interesting when audiophiles genuinely try to explain the basis of their beliefs and enthusiasms. Unfortunately, in doing so they open themselves up to potential ridicule. You have made a number of assumptions about audiophiles that are likely to be in conflict with what the more mathematically/scientifically inclined of your students see and believe."

Andy1919 apparently views himself as a sort of Catcher in the Rye, or savior, for the poor, gullible consumer. As if all audiophiles unwittingly accept anything and everything. As if a clutch of mathematicians is required to de-program the unfortunate, misguided audiophile. Geez, here I am lecturing you about anti-audiophile stances.

Quote:
This is a strange thing to say. The scientific method does not require belief. It, rather, beyond a rejection of ultimate solipcism, is testable and verifiable. Belief in science is inappropriate and represents a misunderstanding of science.

"This is strange. Verrrrry strange indeed!". Reading you James, I have to say, you really remind me a lot of a friend I used to work with, back in my glory days. Name was "Marvin". Real short... Had a kind of squeaky, nasally, lilting voice. Used to blow things up a lot. Just out of curiousity... do you own a helmet with a broom head on top?

Quote:
This is a strange thing to say. The scientific method does not require belief. It, rather, beyond a rejection of ultimate solipcism, is testable and verifiable. Belief in science is inappropriate and represents a misunderstanding of science.

No, sorry James, wrong again. Your so-called "scientific method" is very much a question of belief. You have to believe in the test methodology, for one. You, like other anti-audiophile dogmatists, approach science like a religion, and believe in flawed methodologies, that have never even been scientifically validated. So long as they appeal to your prejudices, that is always enough. The result that comes from flawed methodologies may be equally flawed, but the devout zealot of quasiscientific quackery, ie. you, will believe in and preach the flawed result at all and any cost. Even if there are no less than 10 million pieces of other evidence that seem to suggest another possibility. So I'm afraid your uncertain outcome leaves a lot of room for doubt. Excuse me for a moment... (does anyone have a match I could borrow?)

Quote:

Quote:
This is a strange thing to say. The scientific method does not require belief. It, rather, beyond a rejection of ultimate solipcism, is testable and verifiable. Belief in science is inappropriate and represents a misunderstanding of science.

No, sorry James, wrong again. Your so-called "scientific method" is very much a question of belief. You have to believe in the test methodology, for one. You, like other anti-audiophile dogmatists, approach science like a religion, and believe in flawed methodologies, that have never even been scientifically validated.

Interesting point Michigan. One can consistently obtain the same results test after test, yet be consistently wrong due to an unseen variable. As such belief that you are actually right, covered all the bases, is necessary.

It is clear to me that any measurements taken "in house" will be called into question IF they show a measured improvement in room acoustics with the Acoustic ART System in place. It is also clear (to me) if I provide the raw measurement files to back up measurements that show a direct correlation of performance for the Acoustic ART System that some will claim they have been hacked, or some form of fraud will have been necessary to explain the measured improvement. Obviously posting in house measurements is a no win scenario. For this reason I will not make any measurements public until I can post measurements conducted by an outside 3rd party.

Ted Denney III
Lead Designer, Synergistic Research Inc.

Quote:
It is clear to me that any measurements taken "in house" will be called into question IF they show a measured improvement in room acoustics with the Acoustic ART System in place. It is also clear (to me) if I provide the raw measurement files to back up measurements that show a direct correlation of performance for the Acoustic ART System that some will claim they have been hacked, or some form of fraud will have been necessary to explain the measured improvement. Obviously posting in house measurements is a no win scenario. For this reason I will not make any measurements public until I can post measurements conducted by an outside 3rd party.

Ted Denney III
Lead Designer, Synergistic Research Inc.

What a fucking cop out Ted. So now you are afraid to post any in house measurements based upon some one might pick on you? Jeezzzzz but what happened to Proof Positive? All of a sudden you don't even trust your own measurements or the ability to discuss or even share the REW files that supposedly should now be accurate? I and others will see this as a major FAIL on your part and just more stalling.

"What a fucking cop out Ted. So now you are afraid to post any in house measurements based upon some one might pick on you? Jeezzzzz but what happened to Proof Positive? All of a sudden you don't even trust your own measurements or the ability to discuss or even share the REW files that supposedly should now be accurate? I and others will see this as a major FAIL on your part and just more stalling."

Aw, shaddup!

Quote:
It is clear to me that any measurements taken "in house" will be called into question IF they show a measured improvement in room acoustics with the Acoustic ART System in place. It is also clear (to me) if I provide the raw measurement files to back up measurements that show a direct correlation of performance for the Acoustic ART System that some will claim they have been hacked, or some form of fraud will have been necessary to explain the measured improvement. Obviously posting in house measurements is a no win scenario. For this reason I will not make any measurements public until I can post measurements conducted by an outside 3rd party.

Ted Denney III
Lead Designer, Synergistic Research Inc.

Well, THAT was unexpected!

Of course. No reason to repeat the test and do it correctly.

"I screwed up my own data and caught heat for it. I will therefore refuse to play any more."

That's just pathetic.

I think Bose does stuff like that.

Ted, you don't know it, but you've already won. No matter what you post, the CoD will go for it, and even if there are positive findings, Ethan will then claim they are too small to be audible and the CoD will continue to haunt hi as the evil perpetrator of audio unhappiness.

Both sides have their turf scoped out, so go for it and make some data - complete the argument about any effect being measurable and then allow everyone to move on to arguing if the measurmenets reveal an improvement of if they are too small to be heard!

Ask youself, if someone were a fake, How would he proceed at this pont? Then, do the opposite!

Would a righteous designer take his ball and go home, or take it harder to the hoop?

Buddha,
Again I will post "objective" measurements however they will accomplish nothing if they do not come form a 3rd party. In house measurements at this time, and in this venue, would be little more then a waste of time.

When I return from my first vacation in 2 1/2 years I will make that full COURT press. Count on it.

In the mean time I have created a new thread that shows real evidence in support of the ART System that can be discussed and disseminated by forum members.

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

PS. In prior threads you have shown yourself to be someone who is at least open to the idea that the Acoustic ART System "might" work. If you would like please contact me at SR tomorrow and I will arrange for you to audition the system. This is the ultimate test and proof in my book.

Quote:
That's just pathetic.