Quote:

It was presumptuous but hardly unreasonable. Bottom line is Ethan nailed the data for what it was, bogus. That was a clear demonstration of his expertise. I still want to know why you didn't see that the data was obviously bogus? How about the judgement shown in posting that bogus data?

And I could win the lotto and then claim I know how to win it every week. Doesn't mean I knew what to do to win. Completely misreading a graph and then claiming to know what was wrong is sheer nonsense, not true.

But keep grasping for straws Scott.

Quote:

Quote:
I thank you for bringing this to our attention Steve. I know it took time to collect this evidence, but it does prove several points here, which tie in to Ethan's attacks on Synergistic. Because they exhibit a pattern of dishonesty and lack of professional integrity on the part of Mr. Winer. This shows that the real motives behind Ethan Winer attacking his direct competitor, Ted Denney, accusing him of selling snake oil, are purely business-related. And not as Ethan would have us all believe, just him being "the brave snake oil fighter, fighting to protect gullible audiophiles from being taken in".

Yes, it is interesting that on AVS, Ethan flat out admits that he provide false infomation and graph.

Maybe you are confusing Ted and the graphs he posted here with Ethan and AVS.

Quote:
Then, Ethan let the lightning bolts fly and Ted's data was discredited. Which, of course, was taken as proof by some of Ethan's dark intentions.

Except you have been informed of this many times; Ted's data was not "discredited" by Ethan. For your claim to be true, Ethan would have had to point out the real problem with the data; and Ethan had no clue. Your stated position that Ethan knew the data was invalid before Ted said it was, is a specious argument. For Ethan never proved any of his arguments, he never even presented them with much of any specificity. Whatever objections he did manage to present claimed were successfully refuted by JA and SAS. So far, from all that we have seen, all arguments contrary to Ethan failing to prove his case of fraud, falsification and correctly identifying the actual flaw with the data submitted, are filled with an incredible and unyielding bias toward Ethan, are totally lacking in facts, and are not looking at the events objectively.

How can we expect to get anywhere in any audio debate here, I wonder, if people are going to fail to present clear evidence that proves their case, continually ignore evidence that refutes their argument, and just choose to believe whatever it is they are predisposed to believing? With zero regard for what is actually true? In the face of the glaring and unrefuted evidence that Ethan did not correctly read those graphs or correctly identify shit with these graphs, these continued denials by Ethan-backers are becoming more and more ridiculous to me. Moreover, as the lack of evidence supporting Ethan's initial arguments against the data shows, Ethan only called it wrong in the beginning because he desparately -wanted- to make people believe Ted's measurements were wrong. Even this has been substaniated by Steve, referencing earlier threads where Ethan again called "bullshit" on Ted's claims, before Ted had ever attempted to post objective data.

Yes, as Ethan's desparate sockpuppetry on AudioJunkies has shown us, Ted IS a competitive threat to Ethan Winer's "RealTraps" business. Which is why I find it hard to believe that any adult here who is at all familiar with who Ethan Winer is, and who has a rational mind and any degree of cognitive skill or objectivity, would ever expect Ethan to NOT fall all over himself trying to discredit Synergistic, and Ted's data. How is that NOT in keeping with everything that Ethan has been in the past? *Of course* Winer is going to have something critical to say about Ted's tests! If he hadn't, I would have had to step outside to see how many suns were in the sky, because I'd have to be on a different planet. (And no, Ethan doling out "free advice" on traps doesn't make him Mahatma Gandhi. This is a common practice in many trades, because it makes good business sense).

Quote:
I know a victory for Ethan is a terrible thing for the Ethanhater Club to handle, but he popped you guys square in the kisser with this data stuff.

LOL! I believe it evident that it is your personal bias, and the obvious prejudice visible in your reaction to all of this, that shows here. Because you have not shown any evidence that Ethan knew what he was talking about at the time, putting aside his face-saving excuses after the fact. Not even that he correctly identified what we know as the actual problem (neither did anyone else, of course). What Ethan did manage to do, and where I will give him full credit, is called in the business "Pulling A Homer". It means "to succeed, despite idiocy": http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/pull_a_Homer

I think the phrase will soon be known as "Pulling a Winer".

Quote:
Best to regroup and wait for your next opportunity. You're making Ethan appear to be more sympathetic the more you rail at his success on this issue.

Only to those who have already signed their souls to Ethan Winer. And those are not minds I would want to mess with, in any case!

Quote:

Quote:

It was presumptuous but hardly unreasonable. Bottom line is Ethan nailed the data for what it was, bogus. That was a clear demonstration of his expertise. I still want to know why you didn't see that the data was obviously bogus? How about the judgement shown in posting that bogus data?

And I could win the lotto and then claim I know how to win it every week. Doesn't mean I knew what to do to win. Completely misreading a graph and then claiming to know what was wrong is sheer nonsense, not true.

But keep grasping for straws Scott.

Right. You are claiming Ethan won the proverbial lotto and *I'm* grasping at straws?

You still haven't told us how you missed so badly on the data given that we know the second waterfall graph was missing the first half fucking second!? Another bad luck lottery story? Ethan hit the jackpot twice and JJ hit it once? that is some good luck.

What next? Bass traps don't actually work and all the improved rooms were just more lottery winners?

Quote:
Ted, I would have ignored your obviously BS "data" if you didn't bump this thread. I'll be as direct as possible:

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

Appears to be the shot gun approach.

Fabricated, no proof.
Made up, no proof.
fraudulent, no proof,
outright lies, no proof.
rigged, no proof.
Photoshopped, no proof.

Sounds to me like he had no idea of what was wrong, just as long as he attacked the info in every way shape and form. Of course the last attack would be 'Ted did not use a third party to perform the test'. So no matter what, some would attack the data one way or another.

Quote:
The only way you will convince me (and other science-minded folks) that I'm wrong is:

Wow, that is earth shaking. He was stating that days, weeks ago, before the data ever showed up.

Quote:
1. Post a photo showing the room and placement of the microphone and your magic bowls. I always document my tests with photos, and I assume you did too. After all, this is a truly groundbreaking announcement that defies all we know about physics!

Yet JA posted that Ethan admitting he had never had a science curriculum. So how would he know "that defies all we know about physics." If what Ethan says is true, then a helmoltz resonator (used in homes/churches for damping) defies the laws of physics.

Quote:
2. Send me the REW data file to examine for myself. You can email it to me through my home page www.ethanwiner.com. If your data is valid you can't possibly object to sending me the REW file. It's just measuring data, containing nothing proprietary that's not already visible in your waterfall graphs. I'd like you to send me the file right away, now, today. If you wait even one extra day I'll assume you needed time to manipulate the file.

Does anyone believe that it is ethical for a competitor would read Ted's data and do it honestly and not doctor it himself? It is a ridiculous, unethical request Buddha.
If you are a democrat, would you give your most sensitive info/strategy to a republican, or visa versa. Of course not.

Quote:
Ted, extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof. What you claimed to have achieved using 10 golf ball-sized doo-dads in a 15,000 cubic foot room is unbelievable. We both know you fabricated that REW data, which is beyond shameful.

Maybe Ted did or didn't, but where is the proof? And what about comparing golf balls to metallic objects. And remember, JA stated he did not have a science curriculum.

If everything is attacked, like we saw above in the "shotgun approach", how could he not take credit even if he understood nothing.

If this were a court of law, the prosecutions case would not last as long as it takes to read this post before the judge granted the defense a dismissal. A frivilous lawsuit to say the least.

Take care Buddha.

Quote:

Quote:
Ok, so you just showed that you were unable to understand Steve's evidence or know how to read a graph. I am truly shocked by that news, Scotty.

We can get far more relelvant information about room acoustics from one of my Bulldog's farts than we can from any of your posts.

Interesting. Yes, I guess that would explain where your "knowledge" of room acoustics comes from.

BTW, why do you keep distorting my words in your quotations of me with these infantile "blah blah blah" retorts of yours, right smack in the middle of a line, when I've said something unflattering about you? Truth make you bit uncomfortable, my insecure little anklebiter? Do you actually think that by hiding the truth, no one will remember it was already posted two messages ago? Man, are you ever a funny dorkling.

What a lucky coincidence for Ethan!

Calling bullshit just as Ted was about to coincidentally post his, "I made an innocent mistake" retraction of his so-called data.

If we should not give Ethan credit for seeing Ted's "proof positive" as bogus, then why should we give Ted the benefit of the doubt that his mistake was so innocent?

All this stuff about motives is merely a smoke screen to cover up Ethan's correct call.

Geez, I fight with Ethan all the time. I think cables sound different, I think listening is the first principal of Hi Fi, the list goes on. But on that day, standing in the batter's box, Ethan said that the data was wrong, it could not have been legitimately obtained, and he was willing to stand in and take the heat.

Ted, who had all the time in the world to get his story straight, folded his tent and has thusfar retreated.

Ethan did fail - to consider incompetence (if it really was that - Michigan, how do you know Ted made only an 'innocent mistake?) in his assessment of Ted's presentation.

If we want to call Ethan's motivation into question, then why not consider Ted's? (I think the discussion should be about Ted's data and was it real or not, but that seems to be beyond the pale for many.)

I think to everyone's credit, no one had called Ted a fraud except Ethan. But, by your own hand, if you expect people to think Ethan is just a force of aural evil who got in a lucky punch against the valiant Sir Ted, then you shold be ready for people to ask how you know Ted wasn't cooking the data in order to get a leg up? Was it just too obviously false to qualify as being regarded as deceptive?

Which was it, incompetence, or willful deception?

I guess it has to be one or the other.

Ethan is wrong plenty of the time. Just not about that data being impossible.

Ethan doesn't trust Ted, Ted doesn't trust Ethan. They met on the field of battle and Ted was vanquished - this time.

Making this all about Ethan is just a distraction technique. It was all about the data.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
I thank you for bringing this to our attention Steve. I know it took time to collect this evidence, but it does prove several points here, which tie in to Ethan's attacks on Synergistic. Because they exhibit a pattern of dishonesty and lack of professional integrity on the part of Mr. Winer. This shows that the real motives behind Ethan Winer attacking his direct competitor, Ted Denney, accusing him of selling snake oil, are purely business-related. And not as Ethan would have us all believe, just him being "the brave snake oil fighter, fighting to protect gullible audiophiles from being taken in".

Yes, it is interesting that on AVS, Ethan flat out admits that he provide false infomation and graph.

Maybe you are confusing Ted and the graphs he posted here with Ethan and AVS.

Are you flat out stating Ethan never made this statement.

Quote:
Yes, at 20 Hz the RS meters are off by 4 to 8 dB, but at 30 Hz the disparity is only about 4 dB.

After he stated this.

Quote:
the RS meter needs no correction between 20 and 700 Hz.

Really the only point is that the viewers, customers see the conflicting statements.

If it is 4-8db off, it needs correction or you have sabotaged your own system by setting the bass way too high.

8db is nearly doubling the loudness of the bass over what it should be. 8db louder requires alot more bass treatments, guess who makes the profit.

Quote:
If we should not give Ethan credit for seeing Ted's "proof positive" as bogus, then why should we give Ted the benefit of the doubt that his mistake was so innocent?

Buddha, he saw the resonators "proof positive as bogus" long before the data was ever posted. So what is your point.

Quote:
Ted, who had all the time in the world to get his story straight, folded his tent and has thusfar retreated.

Yep, and that is Ted's problem.

Quote:
If we want to call Ethan's motivation into question, then why not consider Ted's? (I think the discussion should be about Ted's data and was it real or not, but that seems to be beyond the pale for many.)

And that is the reason for the third party test, if it is still on.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

It was presumptuous but hardly unreasonable. Bottom line is Ethan nailed the data for what it was, bogus. That was a clear demonstration of his expertise. I still want to know why you didn't see that the data was obviously bogus? How about the judgement shown in posting that bogus data?

And I could win the lotto and then claim I know how to win it every week. Doesn't mean I knew what to do to win. Completely misreading a graph and then claiming to know what was wrong is sheer nonsense, not true.

But keep grasping for straws Scott.

Right. You are claiming Ethan won the proverbial lotto and *I'm* grasping at straws?

You still haven't told us how you missed so badly on the data given that we know the second waterfall graph was missing the first half fucking second!? Another bad luck lottery story? Ethan hit the jackpot twice and JJ hit it once? that is some good luck.

What next? Bass traps don't actually work and all the improved rooms were just more lottery winners?

You still have not printed out the graphs yourself, but you are attacking me and JA. And Ethan never knew as Buddha's quotes from him clearly demonstrate. You conveniently left that out again. Nobody saw the problems with the data graphs.
That is why Ted had to give us the specific reason, 500ms off. See Ethan did not know or he would have already mentioned it in no uncertain terms.
Keep grasping for straws Scott.

Quote:

Quote:
If we should not give Ethan credit for seeing Ted's "proof positive" as bogus, then why should we give Ted the benefit of the doubt that his mistake was so innocent?

Buddha, he saw the resonators "proof positive as bogus" long before the data was ever posted. So what is your point.

Point was, Ethan saw the data and said it could not be valid.

Bada bing.

If we start saying Ethan got lucky and "pulled a Winer," then I guess we need a similar saying for proclaiming "proof positive" then utterly retracting the statement as..."Pulling a Ted?"

I mean, he went so far as to produce data that was in direct contradistinction to his own effing product claim of making resonators, for crying out loud. Just how far off base would Ted have to be before you'd say, "Damn, Ted?"

Making Ethan the argument instead of the data being the argument just provides Ethan more ground to take up your idea and say in retort that Ted has ill intentions.

I think they are both well intended, actually. The personal animosity is just for flavor.

Quote:
Point was, Ethan saw the data and said it could not be valid.

For the upteenth time, anybody can say that. Prove that he understood what he was attacking. In fact Ted had to announce that 500ms problem existed, not Ethan.

Quote:
That is why Ted gave us the specific reason, 500ms off.

Well, it's a good thing we had someone around with Ted's level of expertise to solve the problem!

What would have done without Ted's insightful work?

I knew a guy once who tried to perform a kidney biopsy and got aorta.

At the inquest about the subsequent near fatal bleed and six month hospitalization, the guy had the nerve to say, "At least we know he didn't have any problem with his aorta!"

Getting buried so deep so fast. Anyway, last time post for any who missed it. Here is the post that shows how Ethan falsified information and then admitted it on AVS, although he claimed innocence.

Here is the link to the AVS string concerning an analog RS meters low frequency accuracy.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1063837

And the false information Ethan posted that will cause customers to sabotage their audio systems.

Quote:
You already got the good advice to download REW, and I'll just add that the RS meter needs no correction between 20 and 700 Hz. More on that here:

Comparison of Ten Measuring Microphones

Here are some correction tables from others regarding the old analog meter.

AudioXpress.

RS meter reading is down X db. Actually need to add numbers.

Frequency Unit A Unit B
20hz -4.2db -4.8db
31.5 -1.1 -1.6
40 -1.1 -1.0

Blue-ray forum: http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=38765&highlight=radio+shack

Meter reads low and X db needs to be added to reading.

20.0 hz: + 7.5 db added to meter reading
25.0 hz: + 5.0 db
31.5 hz: + 3.0 db
40.0 hz: + 2.5 db
50.0 hz: + 1.5 db
63.0 hz: + 1.5 db
80.0 hz: + 1.5 db
100.0 hz: +2.0 db
125.0 hz: +0.5 db

By the way, I can't find one forum or anyone else who uses Ethan's graph for RS mic correction.

I contacted Neumann Mics and received this reply on July 28, 2008. This is what they stated concerning Ethan's measurement technique.

"Regarding the realtraps.com they
describe a quick&dirty, *relative* measurement technique, which has nothing to do with standardized measurements; but it might give a first approximation of the behaviour of the measured mics. By the way, measurement mics come in 3 tastes: diffuse-field equalized, pressure-field
equalized and free-field equalized. The Bruel&Kjaer website gives you a few hundred pages of info to read on this topic."

With best regards
Georg Neumann GmbH, Berlin

Microphone Development

So Ethan's mic graph, both highs and lows, are certainly not accurate according to Neumann Mics.

So what did Ethan state on AVS.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1063837

Quote:
and I'll just add that the RS meter needs no correction between 20 and 700 Hz. More on that here:

Comparison of Ten Measuring Microphones Link.

Here is Ethan's graph.

The black line is the RS analog mic on axis, directed at the source. Notice Ethan has the analog RS mic's response the same as the reference mics in the lower regions. But Ethan's measuring technique is "dirty" according to Neumann Mics.

Unfortunately this graph is not accurate according to any of the real experts one sees at various websites I have seen.

So how does a meter that reads low impact a system. When one setups his system, one naturally wants a flat response from bass through treble. In otherwards the bass SPL to be the same as the mids and highs SPL, a natural, flat overall response.

We know many if not almost all forums, except Ethan, post that the RS meter is somewhere between 4.2 and mostly 7.5db down. When one sets up his audio system so that the RS meter reads "flat" in the bass he will actually be 4.2 to 7.5db too high in the bass (10db is double the perceived loudness). If someone has a radio with separate bass and treble controls and the bass control is turned up, the bass becomes too heavy and it sounds fatter.

By following Ethan's advice, Mr. Public, you, unknowingly made your system sound worse than before by actually raising the bass response too high. The need for room treatments becomes even greater. So Ethan creates his own market on unsuspecting you, the public.

That is all for now.

Quote:
Well, it's a good thing we had someone around with Ted's level of expertise to solve the problem!

Quote:

Well it clearly shows Ethan did not know doesn't it.

Quote:

Quote:
Well, it's a good thing we had someone around with Ted's level of expertise to solve the problem!

Quote:

Well it clearly shows Ethan did not know doesn't it.

I was being sarcastic. Clearly, Ted didn't know until Ethan yelled about it! Now it's two idiots making simultaneous errors?

I know Penn and Teller can't really cut people in half.

If I saw them do that and said, "That can't be real," am I just getting lucky? Maybe they do go through a new assistant every evening and Sunday afternoon.

If you claimed they really were cut in half and I said, "No, it's a trick," would I have know the exact way it was done?

Would you say, "Prove it by telling me how it was done. Otherwise you are just making a lucky guess," would I be proven wrong about saying nobody was actually cut in half by not knowing the mechanics of the trick?

Ethan knew the data couldn't be real. How Ted manipulated or screwed up the data does not change its incorrectness.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

It was presumptuous but hardly unreasonable. Bottom line is Ethan nailed the data for what it was, bogus. That was a clear demonstration of his expertise. I still want to know why you didn't see that the data was obviously bogus? How about the judgement shown in posting that bogus data?

And I could win the lotto and then claim I know how to win it every week. Doesn't mean I knew what to do to win. Completely misreading a graph and then claiming to know what was wrong is sheer nonsense, not true.

But keep grasping for straws Scott.

Right. You are claiming Ethan won the proverbial lotto and *I'm* grasping at straws?

You still haven't told us how you missed so badly on the data given that we know the second waterfall graph was missing the first half fucking second!? Another bad luck lottery story? Ethan hit the jackpot twice and JJ hit it once? that is some good luck.

What next? Bass traps don't actually work and all the improved rooms were just more lottery winners?

You still have not printed out the graphs yourself, but you are attacking me and JA.

I am not attacking anybody. I am asking you how you missed the fact that the data was extremely fucked up because it was missing a half a second while Ethan and JJ nailed it. I see you have no answer for that question.

Quote:

And Ethan never knew as Buddha's quotes from him clearly demonstrate. You conveniently left that out again. Nobody saw the problems with the data graphs.

Bullshit. Ethan knew it and he put it on the line because he was so certain. How is it that you can deny these basic facts and expect anybody to take you for anything other than a complete nut case? You keep envoking JA but I don't see JA jumping in and taking your back. What next? Are you going to blame the Ram's season on bad calls by the refs? Tiger Woods isn't actually a good golfer he just gets lucky?

Quote:

That is why Ted had to give us the specific reason, 500ms off. See Ethan did not know or he would have already mentioned it in no uncertain terms.
Keep grasping for straws Scott.

More bullshit. He nailed the data for being what it was. That he didn't give an exact number or that he has an opinion that it was intentional has no bearing on the fact that he nailed the data as bogus while you missed it. Why don't you have any explanation for your gaf? A missing half second and you didn't notice. How is that? It was so grossly off that JJ and Ethan asserted that the data was physically impossible. How can you look at data that is physically impossible and not see a problem? The answer is pretty fuckin obvious. Ethan and JJ are the experts and you are not.

Maybe you should just tell us the sky isn't blue. I mean if you are going to just sit there and deny the facts that are as plain as the color of the sky why not go the whole nine yards?

Quote:

Sorry, I don't see how. If I want to post whatever I think is meaningful, I'm not prevented from doing that because some people want to post off topic.

Its like trying to find roses in a garden that is full of weeds. Yeah, sure..you can find them, but you have to get pricked a lot before you do.

Quote:
If you really want to know, the reason there are so many pissing matches here, is because there are a lot of ideological "hawks"

yeah, sure..but that extends to the "fringe" guys as well as the "science" guys. Neither side is exempt.

Quote:
I know more than that; -nothing- will persuade the ideologues (fence sitters might be). If there has never been any acceptable "data" for these pathological skeptics that would show that amps, cd players, cables, wires and power cords can all have a marked impact on your sound, then it isn't Ted's waterfall graphs

I promise you that if Ted's graphs are legit..if there are provable phenomena at work, then Ethan will apologize and open his mind up.

Quote:
that are going to persuade people like Ethan Liar

is that necessary? How does calling names help here?

Quote:
I don't know what on earth would prompt you to say that "Ethan means well" in his malicious, lowlife attacks of false and defamatory accusations against Synergistics

I know Ethan. This is why I said it. He may be passionate about his convictions, but a better guy, you'll be hard pressed to find....

Quote:
Good God! We're talking about a direct competitor of his!

Not a competitor at all. The folks who buy real traps are not interested in SR-ART. You can take that to the bank.

Quote:
We're talking about someone who went on AudioJunkies, posted as a shill under 3 different handles

prove it. You have a lot of circumstantial data, but no hard proof. SOckpuppets are not Ethan's MO.

Quote:
****Then who comes along right after that? "David L.", the Ethan Winer sockpuppet

again, the burden of proof is on you. Sockpuppets are not Ethan's MO.

Quote:
Nice try NC, but it's not the same thing. I did NOT accuse "David L." of fraud

but you accused Ethan of having sockpuppets, which , in a roundabout way, is accusation of fraud. no difference.

Quote:
You misunderstood my point. That whole spiel was to point out that Ethan would never admit they were, no matter what evidence Ted provides.

You are wrong there, Frog. if those things work, Ethan will proudly admit that he was wrong. Want to bet on it?

Quote:
other than Ethan Liar, chief owner and liar of RealTraps, LLC).

again, not necessary.

Quote:
Well that's really funny! Yes, I agree, that is a very good example of irony! I mean given that "ncdrawl" is not your name

I actually included my name(Teddy Ray) in the post above.

Now..can you answer the question? Why do you refuse to state your identity? You don't identify yourself online, nor do you include any IDing info on things that you mail.

I am just curious why? That is a serious question.

..when one's real name is attached to every post, it DOES serve to make the poster more responsible. That has been proven. No names-no accountability.. you are just some anonymous asshole. (I am guilty too, but again..my name is Teddy)

and.. i am not on any "side"...

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

It was presumptuous but hardly unreasonable. Bottom line is Ethan nailed the data for what it was, bogus. That was a clear demonstration of his expertise. I still want to know why you didn't see that the data was obviously bogus? How about the judgement shown in posting that bogus data?

And I could win the lotto and then claim I know how to win it every week. Doesn't mean I knew what to do to win. Completely misreading a graph and then claiming to know what was wrong is sheer nonsense, not true.

But keep grasping for straws Scott.

Right. You are claiming Ethan won the proverbial lotto and *I'm* grasping at straws?

You still haven't told us how you missed so badly on the data given that we know the second waterfall graph was missing the first half fucking second!? Another bad luck lottery story? Ethan hit the jackpot twice and JJ hit it once? that is some good luck.

What next? Bass traps don't actually work and all the improved rooms were just more lottery winners?

You still have not printed out the graphs yourself, but you are attacking me and JA.

I am not attacking anybody. I am asking you how you missed the fact that the data was extremely fucked up because it was missing a half a second while Ethan and JJ nailed it. I see you have no answer for that question.

Quote:

And Ethan never knew as Buddha's quotes from him clearly demonstrate. You conveniently left that out again. Nobody saw the problems with the data graphs.

Bullshit. Ethan knew it and he put it on the line because he was so certain. How is it that you can deny these basic facts and expect anybody to take you for anything other than a complete nut case? You keep envoking JA but I don't see JA jumping in and taking your back. What next? Are you going to blame the Ram's season on bad calls by the refs? Tiger Woods isn't actually a good golfer he just gets lucky?

Quote:

That is why Ted had to give us the specific reason, 500ms off. See Ethan did not know or he would have already mentioned it in no uncertain terms.
Keep grasping for straws Scott.

More bullshit. He nailed the data for being what it was. That he didn't give an exact number or that he has an opinion that it was intentional has no bearing on the fact that he nailed the data as bogus while you missed it. Why don't you have any explanation for your gaf? A missing half second and you didn't notice. How is that? It was so grossly off that JJ and Ethan asserted that the data was physically impossible. How can you look at data that is physically impossible and not see a problem? The answer is pretty fuckin obvious. Ethan and JJ are the experts and you are not.

Maybe you should just tell us the sky isn't blue. I mean if you are going to just sit there and deny the facts that are as plain as the color of the sky why not go the whole nine yards?

I don't think the public is buying into 1) the lynch mob attacks on Synergistics Research, a competitor, and 2) finding out the lynch mob is supporting consumers being swindled. The best solution is to come clean and move on.
That is my advice.

Quote:
Not a competitor at all. The folks who buy real traps are not interested in SR-ART. You can take that to the bank.

That is the first time I heard that they are not competitors. Finding another scapegoat.

What a lucky coincidence for Ethan! Calling bullshit just as Ted was about to coincidentally post his, "I made an innocent mistake" retraction of his so-called data.

No Buddha, that is not what happened. Ethan called "Bullshit!" long before Ted posted a shred of data. Ethan never stopped calling "Bullshit!" after Ted posted the data, before Ted posted the retraction, or after Ted posted the retraction. This is what the
idiot does by trade. He calls "Bullshit!" on everything he doesn't like in audio, but especially a competitor product. Since *he* is the one who is full of "Bullshit!" all the time, Winer -never- actually proves his claims of "Bullshit!". Unless I missed where he proved his claims of "fraud" and "falsification" against Denney? Have you got that information?! Didn't think so. You are trying to make the argument that Ethan must be right because he was so damn LOUD about his claims. That's just silly. We are talking about a loud dogmatic fool here, who has made many such similarly brash statements in the past, and has so much egg on his face to show for false claims, that if you add a bit of cheese, you can make a fritatta out of him.

If we should not give Ethan credit for seeing Ted's "proof positive" as bogus,

Again and again, you and Scott et al. fail to make this simple distinction; and I'm struggling to understand why!! No one is saying Ethan did not correctly guess that Ted's data was "bogus"!!!! It's a **fact** that he did this, its right there in the posts. But any dufus could guess that correctly, when there are only 2 choices to go on. Once again with feeling: The argument being made here, based on the *facts* shown, is that Ethan did ***not know why*** the data was bogus. He has long since been proven wrong in the claims that he did make against the data, and never showed us the real problem. What exactly is so hard for Ethan defenders to understand about these simple facts?

then why should we give Ted the benefit of the doubt that his mistake was so innocent?

Ok, that's finally a fair question! What I hear you saying is, "How do we know Ted didn't withdraw the test *because* of Ethan's Whining... On the premise that even though Ethan is a fucking goofball, who knows if the goof might eventually get something right, and point out a *real* and *specific* characteristic of the graph data, that would finally prove it really was flawed?".

Well, think about this a little harder. This test was only meant to be a teaser of sorts, a preliminary proof of concept. We know that in the background, Ted and John were working on proper, formal tests, involving a 3rd party engineer and all. This was all Stereophile approved, and -will- appear in an upcoming review in Stereophile. So Ted has absolutely no motive to submit a bogus test now, to dupe a bunch of malignant yo-yo's on a small audio chat forum, if he risks having a future 3rd party test subvert that effort. Plus, he told John he'd be happy to submit the raw files to him. Now if you want to finger John in your little conspiracy theory about Ted submitting knowingly false data just to prove your friend Ethan is not a lying fool, I won't even go there. I'll just say now that it was nice knowing you.

All this stuff about motives is merely a smoke screen to cover up Ethan's correct call.

Great, then *show* us how Ethan "correctly" called it! All you have been showing so far is vigorous assertion. Start off by showing me where Ethan pointed out what you called a gross error, in the 500ms start time of the after test. Then after you get done with that, go and refute every item I listed in my post "The Conclusion" in the original thread, which lists all the things I am aware of, that Ethan failed to prove. If you fail to disprove my arguments as Ethan did, then this is all just a smokescreen by you, Scott, AlexO, Ethan, James and others, to cover up Ethan's ****incorrect call****.

But on that day, standing in the batter's box, Ethan said that the data was wrong, it could not have been legitimately obtained, and he was willing to stand in and take the heat.

Yes, but ---again--- Buddha, Ethan was ***not*** willing to show actual ******evidence***** that could not be disputed, to show **where** the data was wrong. Proof of that being, neither can you. "Taking the heat" is no problem for this arrogant fool, as I have explained to you above. Shit, anyone can say anything about anything. But as my friend Paul Simon says, proof is the bottom line for everyone. You know and I know, Ethan Winer ****never**** brings the proof. He just makes a lot of bogus claims on this board, that now has me convinced that I could not find a bigger fool, if I scrutinized the guest list at every tea party protest there ever was.

Ted, who had all the time in the world to get his story straight, folded his tent and has thusfar retreated.

Written with a pure Ethanistic bias. Substantiate what you are implying here. "Story straight??". When did this turn into a criminal investigation for you? Ted only had one story, so what are you talking about? "All the time in the world"?? Are you trying to suggest Ted should have known some time before that there was a flaw in his reading? Exactly what evidene are you basing that on? "Folded his tent and retreated"? Hayzeus, man; did he not say he has CES preparations to make, reviewers to visit, products to develop?! And you want him to do what exactly? Stay here on this forum that only sucks his time, money and energy, so he can take more abuse from its members in the interim before new tests are prepared? Well honestly, I have no idea why he hasn't done that Buddha. Yup, I guess that proves "fraud" and chicanery, by the standards so many are practicing here.

Which was it, incompetence, or willful deception? I guess it has to be one or the other.

Why is it always one extreme or another around here? How about a "simple fucking mistake", is **that** not possible?! Are you perfect? Maybe Ethan is, is that it? Even James, who is at least half the lunatic that Ethan is, said about this: "shit happens". A rare moment in which the man is right.

Ethan doesn't trust Ted, Ted doesn't trust Ethan. They met on the field of battle and Ted was vanquished - this time.

This isn't about "trust", nor was Ted "vanquished". It's about Ethan trying to discredit Synergistic, a competitor, on this (and other) forums. When ironically, the liar claims I am the competitor doing this to him. Ethan lost this battle, for the permanent damage that he did to his reputation, and to his company, RealTraps, LLC. This will not be forgotten, I assure you. It will live on and on in Google, and used against him in the future. Hopefully in a court of law.

Ethan is wrong plenty of the time. Just not about that data being impossible.
]Making this all about Ethan is just a distraction technique. It was all about the data.

Quite the opposite; every time that I or anyone else tries to ask you or other Ethan defenders to talk about the data, and show exactly where Ethan proved it was invalid, you all ignore the question and change the subject! That is the only reason I am still in the fight!

Quote:
Ted had to tell all of us. Don't give credit where credit is not due.

Yes, Ted is the real expert here.

Too bad he hadn't fully blossomed as an expert until after Ethan told him the data could not be real.

Ethan is lucky we have someone like Ted around to help show us when some idiot posts false data!

Ethan, if it weren't for Ted, the CoD would still think you were crazy for not believing the information. Ted saved your sorry ass by pointing out the fact that you were accidentally right.

Plus, Ted figured it out using nothing more than a paper clip and a Bic lighter! (Having access to all the raw data meant nothing - obviously - or he would have figured it out sooner! His genius kicked in ex post facto!

He did elaborate. so once again you are just in denial of basic simple facts. So why no answers to my questions? I'll ask again in case you missed them some how....

How did you miss the fact that the data was extremely fucked up while Ethan and JJ called it? He gave a before and after with the after sans THE FIRST HALF SECOND. How did you miss that? Ethan and JJ nailed the problem if not the *exact* reason behind the problem. given the fact that it could have been deliberate just as easily as a fuck up and it could have been photoshopped it is hard to say Ethan was anything but spot on. I still can't figure out how you, an alleged man of science can't put together the missing first half second and JJ's comment about the conservation of energy. Buy anyhoo.......I'll make a prediction. I don't have to be an expert on waterfall graphs to accurately predict you will continue to deny simple basic facts and once again dodge my questions about how you missed catching highly fucked up data and why you continue to give Ted a free pass on posting such fucked up data.

Quote:
He did elaborate. so once again you are just in denial of basic simple facts. So why no answers to my questions? I'll ask again in case you missed them some how....

How did you miss the fact that the data was extremely fucked up while Ethan and JJ called it? He gave a before and after with the after sans THE FIRST HALF SECOND. How did you miss that? Ethan and JJ nailed the problem if not the *exact* reason behind the problem. given the fact that it could have been deliberate just as easily as a fuck up and it could have been photoshopped it is hard to say Ethan was anything but spot on. I still can't figure out how you, an alleged man of science can't put together the missing first half second and JJ's comment about the conservation of energy. Buy anyhoo.......I'll make a prediction. I don't have to be an expert on waterfall graphs to accurately predict you will continue to deny simple basic facts and once again dodge my questions about how you missed catching highly fucked up data and why you continue to give Ted a free pass on posting such fucked up data.

Yes, it could have been photoshopped, and then claimed as innocent error when the heat was applied, as long as we are going to make up motives and methods.

(Ted, I obviously don't think you did anything intentionally, just running with SAS's argument about Ethan The Terrible.)

Quote:
Now..can you answer the question? Why do you refuse to state your identity? You don't identify yourself online, nor do you include any IDing info on things that you mail.

Fear of having his real professional reputation attached to ins relentless misconduct and greifing on the net, perhaps?

Maybe he is just ashamed of himself as a human being.

Quote:

Quote:

You still have not printed out the graphs yourself, but you are attacking me and JA.

I am not attacking anybody. I am asking you how you missed the fact that the data was extremely fucked up because it was missing a half a second while Ethan and JJ nailed it. I see you have no answer for that question.

The point is, Scott, is that while Ethan, as it turned out, correctly stated that there was something wrong with the graphs, as Steve has said,his actual explanation of what was wrong was incorrect. One graph could not be turned into the other by simple PhotoShopping or by changing the time scale, as Ethan claimed. As JJ subsequently said (and forgive my paraphrasing) mistakes can happen with any experimenter's work and we should await further testing without drawing conclusions about anyone's motives.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Heh heh I'm gone for a few days but the same shit from Frog Boy, Stevie and Bug Boy. Just thought I'd drop by and wave to those three so I stir the shit pot up some. I bet this is all it takes for them to froth at the mouth and post page after page of more "info". yep it's me the "sock puppet" as some refer to me Yeah I couldn't possibly be an individual that doesn't agree with Ted's methods or products. I mean just how many rational people in the world are there anymore? Anyone who agrees with Ethan is probably a pinko communist or doesn't think for themselves. That's why I admire the above mentioned triad so much. Where else can you read about SO much not even related to Ted's measurements? Thank God and the Red White and Blue for the ability to claim your products actually do something without having to supply any proof. Well I'm bored now and will retire back to my "evil lair" so the Triad can spew more venom for their own enjoyment. Heck we can probably get another 3 pages out of them just from my one post.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

You still have not printed out the graphs yourself, but you are attacking me and JA.

I am not attacking anybody. I am asking you how you missed the fact that the data was extremely fucked up because it was missing a half a second while Ethan and JJ nailed it. I see you have no answer for that question.

The point is, Scott, is that while Ethan, as it turned out, correctly stated that there was something wrong with the graphs, as Steve has said,his actual explanation of what was wrong was incorrect. One graph could not be turned into the other by simple PhotoShopping or by changing the time scale, as Ethan claimed.

Huh? You mean the missing half second wasn't a change in the time scale? That did not actually account for at least the vast majority of the gross differences between the two waterfall graphs? It does not account for JJ's comments about conservation of energy? It does not account for Ethan's claims of physical impossibility of that data?

Quote:

As JJ subsequently said (and forgive my paraphrasing) mistakes can happen with any experimenter's work

I have no problem with that. I have acknowledged that Ethan is being presumptuous in ascribing motive here. But the facts are the data was severely screwed up and Ethan and JJ called it before Ted corrected his mistake. How is it not evidence of Ethan's and JJ's expertise that they could so confidently assert that the data as it was originally presented was erroneous because in their opinion it was physically impossible?

Quote:

and we should await further testing without drawing conclusions about anyone's motives.

I haven't drawn any conculsions about Ted's motives much less his produts. My conclsuions have been about the data and various comments on that data by various individuals. It seems pretty clear to me that Ethan and JJ nailed the data as bogus before it was revealed that it was bogus. It also seems pretty clear to me that their calls were evidence of their expertise at analysis of waterfall graphs. do you disagree?

OTOH make no mistake about it, I have drawn a few conclusions about Steve's expertise, level headedness and his ability to talk about Ethan with any trace of rationality. But that in no way reflects on Ted or his products. I mean seriously, the guy claims to be a man of science and he feels I am being dishonest because I don't go back and re-examine completely bogus data to varify that it could have been possible. Seriously? that missing half second doesn't completely confirm the impossibility of the data?

and...accusations aside... the fact of the matter is...you can never really have too much room treatment, too many bass traps. I think Ethan has like 40 or 50 something in his own room?

never too much room treatment.

"I haven't drawn any conculsions about Ted's motives much less his produts. My conclsuions have been about the data and various comments on that data by various individuals. It seems pretty clear to me that Ethan and JJ nailed the data as bogus before it was revealed that it was bogus. It also seems pretty clear to me that their calls were evidence of their expertise at analysis of waterfall graphs."

Actually, that's not accurate. Ethan was saying long before the graphs were shown that the ART devices could not physically work, and that any data produced would support that premise. So the bad data played into Nathan's "they can't possibly work and any data must be rigged" scenario. Nathan still argues that the bowls cannot work, in particular, and that resonators, in general, cannot work. They are just too damn small, I think sums it up.

Quote:

Getting buried so deep so fast. Anyway, last time post for any who missed it. Here is the post that shows how Ethan falsified information and then admitted it on AVS, although he claimed innocence.

Here is the link to the AVS string concerning an analog RS meters low frequency accuracy.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1063837

And the false information Ethan posted that will cause customers to sabotage their audio systems.

Quote:
You already got the good advice to download REW, and I'll just add that the RS meter needs no correction between 20 and 700 Hz. More on that here:

Comparison of Ten Measuring Microphones

Here are some correction tables from others regarding the old analog meter.

AudioXpress.

RS meter reading. Need to add X db to meter reading.

Frequency Unit A Unit B
20hz -4.2db -4.8db
31.5 -1.1 -1.6
40 -1.1 -1.0

Blue-ray forum: http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=38765&highlight=radio+shack

Meter reads low and X db needs to be added to reading.

20.0 hz: + 7.5 db added to meter reading
25.0 hz: + 5.0 db
31.5 hz: + 3.0 db
40.0 hz: + 2.5 db
50.0 hz: + 1.5 db
63.0 hz: + 1.5 db
80.0 hz: + 1.5 db
100.0 hz: +2.0 db
125.0 hz: +0.5 db

Audio Asylum before RS digital meters were sold.

http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/general/messages/49147.html

Add X db to meter reading.

20HZ= 6.2DB
25HZ= 4.4DB
31.5HZ= 3DB
40HZ = 2DB
50 = 1.3DB
63HZ = .8DB
80HZ = .5DB

By the way, I can't find one forum or anyone else who uses eith Ethan's graph or Audioxpress's graph for RS mic correction. All others I have seen uses the data/graph Blu-ray posts.

I contacted Neumann Mics and received this reply on July 28, 2008. This is what they stated concerning Ethan's measurement technique.

"Regarding the realtraps.com they
describe a quick&dirty, *relative* measurement technique, which has nothing to do with standardized measurements; but it might give a first approximation of the behaviour of the measured mics. By the way, measurement mics come in 3 tastes: diffuse-field equalized, pressure-field
equalized and free-field equalized. The Bruel&Kjaer website gives you a few hundred pages of info to read on this topic."

With best regards
Georg Neumann GmbH, Berlin

Microphone Development

So Ethan's mic graph, both highs and lows, are certainly not accurate according to Neumann Mics.

So what did Ethan state on AVS.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1063837

Quote:
and I'll just add that the RS meter needs no correction between 20 and 700 Hz. More on that here:

Comparison of Ten Measuring Microphones Link.

Here is Ethan's graph.

The black line is the RS analog mic on axis, directed at the source. Notice Ethan has the analog RS mic's response the same as the reference mics in the lower regions. But Ethan's measuring technique is "dirty" according to Neumann Mics.

Unfortunately this graph is not accurate according to any of the real experts one sees at various websites I have seen.

So how does a meter that reads low impact a system. When one setups his system, one naturally wants a flat response from bass through treble. In otherwards the bass SPL to be the same as the mids and highs SPL, a natural, flat overall response.

We know many if not almost all forums, except Ethan, post that the RS meter is somewhere between 4.2 and mostly 7.5db down. When one sets up his audio system so that the RS meter reads "flat" in the bass he will actually be 4.2 to 7.5db too high in the bass, approaching double the amount of bass that should be. (10db is double the perceived loudness). If someone has a radio with separate bass and treble controls and the bass control is turned up, the bass becomes too heavy and it sounds fatter.

By following Ethan's advice, Mr. Public, you, unknowingly made your system sound worse than before by actually raising the bass response too high. The need and amount of room treatments becomes even greater, so greater expenditure. So Ethan creates his own market on unsuspecting you, the public.

That is all for now.

Some may think AVS was a one time mistake. It is not. I quickly found several more websites the other day preparing for my post where falsified information has been presented. I think it is good to keep all the information together and present it now. And it is science plain and simple.

1) Audioholics forum

http://forums.audioholics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=23494

Quote:
I have both the RS meter and an expensive calibrated microphone. Below 800 Hz they track each other within 1 dB (no correction curve needed or used), and that's plenty accurate for low frequency testing.

Of course +1db is admittedly false, it is between 4 and 8 db.

From AVS, the admission of greater deviation in the RS meter at low frequencies by Ethan.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1063837

Quote:
Yes, at 20 Hz the RS meters are off by 4 to 8 dB, but at 30 Hz the disparity is only about 4 dB.

If one over basses by 8db, one nearly doubles the amount of bass, and the need for even more room treatments.

2) From Tapeop forum

http://messageboard.tapeop.com/viewtopic.php?p=314434&sid=8f2f165db7255c748859c32071416c52

Quote:
As for the Radio Shack SPL meter, those are fine up to about 800 Hz. Above that the accuracy falls off. But the major problems in small rooms are usually below 300 or 400 Hz anyway, and the RS meter is fine for that.

yet the meter is 4-8db off, nearly double the bass (8db) that should be for flat response.

3) From Soundonsound

http://www.soundonsound.com/forum/showflat.php?Number=70159

Quote:
I tested my Radio Shack SPL meter against my expensive calibrated AKG mike, and they were within a dB of each other below 500 Hz.

4) Again Soundonsound

http://www.soundonsound.com/forum/showflat.php?Number=334510

Quote:
I have three microphones I've used with ETF. One is a Radio Shack SPL meter and it's fine for low frequencies. When I did a side by side comparison with my expensive AKG C451 and calibrated omni capsule, the RS meter tracked within 1 dB up to 800 Hz.

Again way off from the correct value, so one will overbass their room if one follows the RS meter.

5) Gearslutz forum/board

http://www.gearslutz.com/board/so-much-g...st-tone-cd.html

Quote:
Yes, the RS meter is fine for low frequencies, which is what you mostly care about.

Again no one knows how far off the RS meter really is. If one follows the recommendation one will have over bass and need more treatments.

6) From Sound and Vision

http://forums.soundandvisionmag.com/archive/index.php/t-410469.html

Quote:
I wouldn''t worry about "correcting" the response for a Radio Shack SPL meter.... You can be sure these mikes deviate at higher frequencies, but in the bass range they''re well within 1 dB of each other.

As one can see this false information has been made available on many websites which will cause one to overbass their systems and require more room treatments to correct. And the admission came from Ethan's own "mouth".

Now we have to look at the mids/highs. Please print out Ethan's graph above and we will be looking at the black line representing the RS meter.
The horizonatl line shows 20 to 20.0khz. That is the frequency. The vertical numbers, 48, 56, 64, 72, 80, 88 are the spl in db. A simple example reading the graph, at 1khz the spl is approx 79.5-80db according to Ethan's graph. If you read it correctly, excellent and we can procede.

At 6khz the black line reads 88db.
At 10khz the black line reads 78db.
At 12khz 74db.
At 15khz 66db.
At 17.5khz 54db.

By definition an octave is double or half in frequency. twice 6khz is 12khz. Half of 12khz is 6khz. Each represents an octave change.

Let's take a look at the difference between spls at 6khz and 12khz, one octave. 6khz is 88db and 12khz is 74db for a difference is 14db. Hmmmm we seem to have several problems.
How about 7.5khz and 15khz. 7.5khz is approx 85db and 15khz is approx 66db, a whopping 19db change in one octave.

1) For a condenser element typical freefall drop is 12db per octave. However we show a 14db and 19db changes per octave.

2) The RS meter has internal compensation circuitry to compensate for a typical 12db drop. So if the circuitry is in place how can we have a 14db or 19db drop, let alone a 12db drop. In fact the data from other reliable sources show this response correction for the RS analog meter.
From Audio Asylum Forum before digital RS meters were sold.

http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/general/messages/49147.html

5KHZ = 1.3DB
6.3KHZ = 2 DB
8KHZ = 3 DB
10KHZ = 4.4DB
12.5KHZ = 6.2DB
16KHZ = 8.5DB
20KHZ = 11.2DB

Notice only an approx 4db drop vs 14db from Ethan's graph, 6khz/12khz.
What about from 6khz to 20khz. Audioasylum, Blu-Ray graph shows approx 9db drop. Ethan's graph we find minimum at 17.5khz and 54db. At 6khz we have 88db, so whopping 34db drop. 34db vs 9db drop. Very interesting indeed.

Friends Ethan's RS meter data/graph has some major major problems. Ethan already admitted, by his own words, the bass portion was falsified. Sure looks like the mids/highs were as well.
Yet one can still find the falsified data/graph on Ethan's company website and last I checked in some of his videos.

Either the circuitry is not working, the mic is very unusual, it has been tampered with. So why does the fake graph still exist year after year on his website. Because the false data is to his advantage.

So Ethan confesses his 10 mic comparison graph is fraudulent in the bass/midbass region and the highs are also fake as we have just seen. Last time I checked, Ethan still posts this graph on his and/or company's website to this day and in videos.

Please be careful when reading and accepting data/graphs from those claiming "science" or "scientists". Real scientists do not commit unethical conduct and fraud.

Quote:

OTOH make no mistake about it, I have drawn a few conclusions about Steve's expertise, level headedness and his ability to talk about Ethan with any trace of rationality. But that in no way reflects on Ted or his products. I mean seriously, the guy claims to be a man of science and he feels I am being dishonest because I don't go back and re-examine completely bogus data to varify that it could have been possible. Seriously? that missing half second doesn't completely confirm the impossibility of the data?

Well, Scott, I explained the problems to you page after page, and JA has just backed me up. So how is it JA is considered ok but I am suspect when we both explain the same problems Ethan had. If I am suspect then JA is also suspect.

Anyway JA and I both ask for patience until a 3rd party produces data. That seems quite reasonable.

Quote:
But the facts are the data was severely screwed up and Ethan and JJ called it before Ted corrected his mistake. How is it not evidence of Ethan's and JJ's expertise that they could so confidently assert that the data as it was originally presented was erroneous because in their opinion it was physically impossible?

You have already been told this about 75 times now, Scott. Anyone can assert anything. That does not prove they know what they're talking about. And they will always get it right half the time. When they do get it right on pure luck alone, this is called "Pulling a Winer". But to prove that your assertions are correct, requires something called "proof". Ethan and JJ did not have any, as their claims were refuted by the evidence, as JA has been trying to explain to you. This is why you were continually asked to have a proper look at those graphs, and presuming you understand how to read them (and it's become sadly obvious you do not), this would prove Ethan and JJ were wrong.

Quote:
It seems pretty clear to me that Ethan and JJ nailed the data as bogus before it was revealed that it was bogus.

You keep saying that, but present no evidence, other than an irrational devotion to anything Ethan Winer tells you.

Quote:
It also seems pretty clear to me that their calls were evidence of their expertise at analysis of waterfall graphs. do you disagree?

Why are you asking this, when both John and Steve already expressed disagreement at the time, with Ethan's claims about the data, and showed exactly why Ethan was wrong? Did you miss that? Because we've mentioned it to you about 50 times now.

Quote:
OTOH make no mistake about it, I have drawn a few conclusions about Steve's expertise, level headedness and his ability to talk about Ethan with any trace of rationality.

Trust me. He and I have drawn more than a few about you, in that regard. Anyone who has seen your side of the debates here can draw the same conclusions we have. Quite honestly, just from what I have seen from all of your pathetic resorts to ad hominem attacks and your epic failures of logic in these recent debates with you against Steve or myself, I would be pretty surprised to learn that you can find your way out of your own door in the morning, without written instructions, and a crayon map.

Quote:
But that in no way reflects on Ted or his products. I mean seriously, the guy claims to be a man of science and he feels I am being dishonest because I don't go back and re-examine completely bogus data to varify that it could have been possible. Seriously?

....And here you are to again demonstrate exactly why I say that. I think what one has to wonder is, are YOU serious?? It's hard to believe, given the irony of what you just said. If you are Scott, then it's official: you really don't understand the first thing about the scientific method. As Steve has asked, please go and pick up a book and educate yourself on the basics. You really need to do that, before you ever start talking about or pretending to stand for "science" again on this board.

Quote:
And they will always get it right half the time.

Well, so far, there is a 100% chance of being correct if they call Ted's data bogus. He's gonna have to pick up his game to get it to only 50%.

Michigan, that's a terrible statement. A random refutation of a subjectivist product is 50% likely to be correct, even without looking at the data?

You must be a stark raving objectivist!

to MJFrog

Quote:

I actually included my name(Teddy Ray) in the post above.

Now..can you answer the question? Why do you refuse to state your identity? You don't identify yourself online, nor do you include any IDing info on things that you mail.

I am just curious as to why? Any insight?

..when one's real name is attached to every post, it DOES serve to make the poster more responsible. That has been proven. No names-no accountability.. you are just some anonymous asshole. (I have been guilty too, but again..my name is Teddy)

Quote:
"I haven't drawn any conculsions about Ted's motives much less his produts. My conclsuions have been about the data and various comments on that data by various individuals. It seems pretty clear to me that Ethan and JJ nailed the data as bogus before it was revealed that it was bogus. It also seems pretty clear to me that their calls were evidence of their expertise at analysis of waterfall graphs."

Actually, that's not accurate.

Actually it is accurate. Ethan and JJ nailed the data as bogus before it was revealed that it was bogus.

Quote:
Ethan was saying long before the graphs were shown that the ART devices could not physically work, and that any data produced would support that premise.

Your point? How does that make my assertion that "Ethan and JJ nailed the data as bogus before it was revealed that it was bogus." in any way inaccurate? All that means is that Ethan has made other predictions that have yet to be put to the test but apparently they soon will be. So we will eventually see how Ethan's expertise holds up when it comes to his ability to determine the effectiveness of the ART devices just through the little bit he does know about them. But that is a seperate issue from his analysis of the waterfall graphs which have proven to be spot on.

Quote:

So the bad data played into Nathan's "they can't possibly work and any data must be rigged" scenario. Nathan still argues that the bowls cannot work, in particular, and that resonators, in general, cannot work. They are just too damn small, I think sums it up.

Nathan? Nathan Lane?

Quote:

Quote:

OTOH make no mistake about it, I have drawn a few conclusions about Steve's expertise, level headedness and his ability to talk about Ethan with any trace of rationality. But that in no way reflects on Ted or his products. I mean seriously, the guy claims to be a man of science and he feels I am being dishonest because I don't go back and re-examine completely bogus data to varify that it could have been possible. Seriously? that missing half second doesn't completely confirm the impossibility of the data?

Well, Scott, I explained the problems to you page after page, and JA has just backed me up.

You haven't explained jack and JA certainly has not backed you up so far.

Quote:

So how is it JA is considered ok but I am suspect when we both explain the same problems Ethan had. If I am suspect then JA is also suspect.

Your question is based on a false premise.

Anyway JA and I both ask for patience until a 3rd party produces data. That seems quite reasonable.

Given that I have not commented on the effectiveness of the products in question and have been discussing the analysis of the bogus data as an indicator of various individuals' levels of expertise in reading and interpreting waterfall graphs, your request for patience is utterly irrelevant.

"So we will eventually see how Ethan's expertise holds up when it comes to his ability to determine the effectiveness of the ART devices just through the little bit he does know about them."

Yes, that's true. I'm looking forward to it.

Quote:

Quote:

Well, Scott, I explained the problems to you page after page, and JA has just backed me up.

You haven't explained jack and JA certainly has not backed you up so far.

JA

Quote:
The point is, Scott, is that while Ethan, as it turned out, correctly stated that there was something wrong with the graphs, as Steve has said, his actual explanation of what was wrong was incorrect.

Take care and have a nice week Scott.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Well, Scott, I explained the problems to you page after page, and JA has just backed me up.

You haven't explained jack and JA certainly has not backed you up so far.

JA

Quote:
The point is, Scott, is that while Ethan, as it turned out, correctly stated that there was something wrong with the graphs, as Steve has said, his actual explanation of what was wrong was incorrect.

Take care and have a nice week Scott.

yeah and Darwin's explanation for evolution was incorrect. Guess the guy was an idiot and the creationists were right about everyting. WTF has happened to basic logic in this debate? Given the *fact* that the bogus data could have been the result of any number of causes including the ones Ethan offered, Ethan's ability to recognize bogus data can not be called into question just because the bogus data had a different cause than the one's he offered. One doesn't have to know who is at fault to recognize and correctly identify a car wreck. The data was a proverbial car wreck.

Why was it again that you couldn't identify a problem in the data when the second waterfall graph was missing a half second of information? You haven't stepped up and answered how that got by you? IOW you couldn't see a proverbial car wreck for what it was when it happened right in front of you but Ethan is the con artist because he didn't correctly identify the one correct cause out of many possible causes. WTF?

How do we know Ethan actually knew the problem and was not simply attacking just for the sake of attacking?

Outcomes, my brother.
Was Ethan correct about the data being bogus?

You keep repeating this same response, which has been refuted ad nauseum. Are you doing this on purpose to avoid admitting you are wrong about Ethan? Steve is asking you how do we know Ethan knew what was wrong with the data, when he never succeded at proving he knew what exactly was wrong. Your response is just to say he was correct about the eventual outcome, which totally avoids Steve's question to you.

I guess the way we know that Ethan knew is his intentionally black and white response. No equivocating, eh? He put it all the line. If he had been wrong, all kinds of bad things could have happened to him, including this bullshit about 'saved as evidence' stuff.

Listen to the argument you are now making. You're saying that if some random idiot on the net just blurts anything out loudly enough, that must mean whatever gibberish he says is correct. Simply because he appears to sound confident in his brash but unsupported allegations. Do you actually find this a credible argument, or are we supposed to take this as wry humor? I'm really wondering! And guess what? The presumably pending lawsuit against Ethan Winer doesn't go away, simply because Ted observed a small glitch in the data later, and retracted the test (as he should have), for recalibration. The lawsuit would be based on the false charges of fraud and falsification of published data, that Ethan Winer made against Ted D. Do you remember that I told you this was never proved? You should at least understand that it still hasn't been proved.

If I was Ethan, I'd be consulting a lawyer by now. Knowing him however, he's probably consulting a box of donuts, and working on what to name his next anti-S-ART sockpuppet.

Did Ethan leave any room for prevarication or backtracking in his opinion? No.

Proves diddly. Next.

Then, Ted admitted to using flawed data in his prcolamation about "proof positive!"
Ted was pretty damned definitive, too.

Yeah, so? What does that prove exactly? That the software isn't perfect? We know this already. Same thing could have happened in one of Ethan's tests. Would you be ragging on Ethan this hard if it did? Obviously not. If truth matters to you, you have to learn to discard your bias, else it will always block your way to knowledge.

Two absolutely contrary interpretations of the data, with Ted having a several month head start to verify and vet his data - undone in the blink of an eye by Ethan's response.

"Blink of an eye"?? Are you serious? Do you read the forum at all, Buddha? As Geoff also mentioned today, your Ethan Winer has made no secret of calling Ted and his products fraudulent for months now, *long* before there was any "data". Thassa heckuva long blink. If you want to suggest Ted had "several month head start to verify and vet his data" and should have seen the error, well then why don't you say the same of Ethan? Huh??! He hired an unidentified REW expert to analyze the data, remember?! **Nobody* here spotted the error, including James "I Invented Audio" Johnston, and including 2 Ethan-approved REW experts! Why haven't you criticized the entire membership of this forum as well?

Either that, or did you think Ethan got amazingly lucky right as he was about to get crushed by his own proclamation?

How do you go about defining a "50-50" chance as "amazingly lucky"? Ethan was "unlucky" in his claim about the decay, about the COE, about the Photoshopping, about the files being hacked, about the graphs being the same... all of which turned out to be incorrect and unproven. Woah, wait a second! Ethan did not get a SINGLE thing right (no, not even that it was "impossible")!!!Only that the test was invalid. And to get that right, he only had to guess one of two choices. You being a Vegas kid should know; luck doesn't enter into this!

What Ethan said was pretty definitive, it predicted the future, and was shown to be correct about the data being unacceptable.

Right. I predict that this coin I'm going to flip is going to land heads. No wait. "I AM 100% POSITIVELY DAMN SURE!!! THAT THIS COIN I AM GOING TO FLIP WILL LAND HEADS!!!! In fact, I have such confidence in my abilities as an expert coin flipper, that I WILL STAKE MY LIFE ON IT. Plus the lives of my children, my family, my dog, my priest, the Eastern seaboard, anyone named "George", all members of US Air Flight 417, any Irishmen over 6' tall, most of the Green Bay packers, the entire cast of "Family Guy", Donald Trump's hairpiece, and of course, the most honest person on the face of the earth that you could ever meet, darling, precious, Ethan Winer.

Oh look. I was right. Heads I win! You should have no problem believing that as well, right Buddha?

Too bad he hadn't fully blossomed as an expert until after Ethan told him the data could not be real.

Ironically, if there was even a grain of truth in what you just wrote, and Ethan *was* competent enough to spot the *real* problem, this would have all ended just as soon as it began. But guess what, Buddha? Your so-called "REW Expert", Ethan Winer, proved he doesn't know shit from Shinola. Instead, he had to have his mortal enemy, Ted, tell him what was wrong with the data. So yes, Ted is the real expert here!

Ethan is lucky we have someone like Ted around to help show us when some idiot posts false data!

Yes, but don't forget Steve as well. AVS forum was certainly lucky they had Steve around when some idiot posted false data about an RS Mic, so that he might generate interest in room treatments for his "RealTraps" business.

Plus, Ted figured it out using nothing more than a paper clip and a Bic lighter! (Having access to all the raw data meant nothing - obviously - or he would have figured it out sooner! His genius kicked in ex post facto!

I don't think you understand what happened here. Ethan didn't need the raw data to see the timing error, like I said above, anyone could have done that, but neither Ethan, his phantom REW expert, nor his sidekick James ever did.

Ethan knew the data couldn't be real. How Ted manipulated or screwed up the data does not change its incorrectness.

Ethan didn't "know" squat. See: "Pulling a Winer". All that proves is that Ethan can guess something half the time. Well hoo-dee-doo, so can my pet goldfish.

Well, it's a good thing we had someone around with Ted's level of expertise to solve the problem!
What would have done without Ted's insightful work?

Well for starters, you would have never known that there really -was- a problem with the data (since Ethan failed to prove there was), and what that problem was.

I knew a guy once who tried to perform a kidney biopsy and got aorta. At the inquest about the subsequent near fatal bleed and six month hospitalization, the guy had the nerve to say, "At least we know he didn't have any problem with his aorta!"

Well that's -his- fault for believing Ethan when he claimed to be a professional surgeon. At this point, I'd say about the only thing I would believe out of Winer now, is if he claimed to be a professional liar. At least that's about the only thing I have seen enough evidence to believe.

Michigan, that's a terrible statement. A random refutation of a subjectivist product is 50% likely to be correct, even without looking at the data? You must be a stark raving objectivist!

So what do you say to someone who makes a concrete statement of random refutation of a subjectivist product as being 0% likely to be correct, even without looking at the data, and even without looking at the actual product?! You would say "You must be a stark raving lunatic!", correct? Well, let me introduce you to the lunatic, who goes by the funny cartoony handle of "Ethan Winer". These examples of his 100% certainty on the matter all concern things the imbecile has never tried, tested, seen, handled, plugged in, fondled in a magazine, or in some cases, heard of before in his life. See if you can guess what his "magic button word" is?:

From: "Re: ART-real sonic improvements?(why Mr. Winer isnt liked) " (12-31-2008):
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BTW, how long do we give Ted to post data? A week after the show ends? A month after? At what point do we call fraud?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maybe you should post that in the Furufraud Demag thread.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I believe those weaving the tales of magic have commercial interests in the industry, but will not declare themselves as stakeholders.

EW: Exactly, which makes them dishonest frauds as well as full of shit about the facts.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(Re: Belt tweaks)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The "price" argument is a diversionary argument.

EW: Not at all. If these nonsense tweaks were free I'd have no objection. The more they cost, the more it becomes a fraud.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And I'm totally certain that all replacement AC power wires are bullshit. When people believe they hear a difference they are wrong. Either that, or the replacement power wire is defective and really does affect the sound. Though I can't see any mechanism for that other than maybe using 30 gauge wire or some such incompetence.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

n.b. Here, the idiot is calling *me* a "fraud" and a "liar", over, listen carefully, a test that I did NOT conduct. IOW, accusing me of lying and fraud because I would NOT take his test. So. Is anyone still willing to embarass themselves in Ethan's name, by saying again that he would not just flippantly call someone a "fraud", unless he was absolutely certain of his position????

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yet here we are, hundreds of posts later, and still neither you nor the others have the cajones to state publicly which of my short excerpt files is which. Frog, you are a liar and a fraud. The only way you'll ever prove otherwise is to man up and admit you can't tell which file is which, or by giving us the correct answer.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:

Quote:
And they will always get it right half the time.

Well, so far, there is a 100% chance of being correct if they call Ted's data bogus. He's gonna have to pick up his game to get it to only 50%.

Michigan, that's a terrible statement. A random refutation of a subjectivist product is 50% likely to be correct, even without looking at the data?

You must be a stark raving objectivist!

He has no idea just how badly he dissed Ted in his attempt to belittle Ethan. Funny shit.

Quote:
while Ethan, as it turned out, correctly stated that there was something wrong with the graphs, as Steve has said,his actual explanation of what was wrong was incorrect.

Bullshit! Sheesh John! For a guy who works with TEF type software all the time, you have to know that's bullshit.

What's wrong with Ted's data is it showed a huge change in decay time with no corresponding change in the peak heights or peak bandwidths. There are a lot of ways to fake a faster decay time, and I already said "Sorry for not wasting yet more of my time trying to precisely match Ted's mischief" or some such. Such fraud can be perpetrated several ways. One way is to change the Waterfall window settings, then use Photoshop to paste new axis legends to hide the change. But there are other ways. For example, the Analysis window settings also alter the appearance without any change to the data. Or Ted could have imported a Wave file from a different measurement session. And so forth. How Ted executed his specific deception is irrelevant.

I saw immediately that the data was falsified. You and the other Ethan-bashers did not. This is the key, yet you continue to impugn me. Amazing, just amazing.

As for my being over the top by assuming fraud rather than mere incompetence, there is no question this is fraud. Ted owns a company with "Research" in the name for crying out loud. I wonder what sort of "research" is actually done there.

As I already stated - why do I have to keep saying the same things over and over? - there simply is no innocent way for that "error" to happen. Once set up with the microphone and other connecting wires, the software is literally one-button operation. Further, Ted's claim that the "error" happened before the After test sounds suspect to me. I'm sure he's saying that because he needs a new excuse not to make available his "flawed" data file.

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

And Ethan you got the name RealTraps...
So you capture bears, wolves or what (after all it doesnt say acoustic or bass,etc and interestingly would a bass trap be considered a real trap, the implications).
Agreed not quite the same as research, but then most business use an interesting catching name, I doubt any (ok not many) consumers complained that they just went to buy a kilo of apples from an apple specialist and came back with a 1k laptop instead

Cheers
Orb

Quote:
So you capture bears, wolves or what

LOL, I wear my RealTraps T-shirt often. So as an animal lover, I feel obliged to point out to non-audio types when they ask, "I promise we don't do anything that hurts animals!"

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

Quote:
He has no idea just how badly he dissed Ted in his attempt to belittle Ethan.

I wouldn't assume that. Griefers are like that.

Quote:

Quote:
while Ethan, as it turned out, correctly stated that there was something wrong with the graphs, as Steve has said,his actual explanation of what was wrong was incorrect.

Bullshit! Sheesh John! For a guy who works with TEF type software all the time, you have to know that's bullshit.

No Ethan. Your actual explanation of what was wrong with Ted Denney's graph was incorrect. That you were subjequently shown to be right about the graphs' lack of meaning doesn't mean that your explanation post hoc, propter hoc becomes correct.

Quote:
What's wrong with Ted's data is it showed a huge change in decay time with no corresponding change in the peak heights or peak bandwidths. There are a lot of ways to fake a faster decay time, and I already said "Sorry for not wasting yet more of my time trying to precisely match Ted's mischief" or some such. Such fraud can be perpetrated several ways. One way is to change the Waterfall window settings, then use Photoshop to paste new axis legends to hide the change. But there are other ways. For example, the Analysis window settings also alter the appearance without any change to the data. Or Ted could have imported a Wave file from a different measurement session. And so forth.

As I said before Ethan, your knowledge of how to fake data is impressive. But your actual explanation was incorrect, as could be seen by overlaying the graphs.

Quote:
How Ted executed his specific deception is irrelevant.

I think you need to choose your words with more care, Ethan. Ted Denney has stated that it was a genuine error, not an attempt to deceive and unless you were looking over his shoulder at the time, you have no evidence otherwise.

Quote:
I saw immediately that the data was falsified. You and the other Ethan-bashers did not. This is the key, yet you continue to impugn me. Amazing, just amazing.

You have made this same accusation of me being an "Ethan basher" in your continuing complaints to Stephen and me via email that we don't suppress the speech of those who feel differently from you. Yet as I explained to you via email, I am not an "Ethan basher" in that I have neither criticized you nor your behavior except when it has concerned your continued refusal to abide by the posting rules of this forum or your unsubtantiated boast of being a "man of science." That I don't join you in condemning Ted Denney as a fraud and a con artist does not mean that I am "bashing" or "impugning" you; instead, again as I explained to you in private email, it means I remain agnostic about the devices.

Quote:
As for my being over the top by assuming fraud rather than mere incompetence, there is no question this is fraud.

And as I explained to you, it is entirely possible for someone to make a mistake, to be msguided, even to be plain wrong in their beliefs without it automatically meaning that that person is a fraud or a crook. Innocent until proven otherwise is the American Way, Ethan, your vendettas on this and other forums notwithstanding.

I think you seriously need to re-examine your on-line behavior as a manufacturer. No-one buys your products because of what you say about other manufacturers' products. You don't believe me? Ask Peter Aczel how his policy of continually attacking Stereophile in print worked out as a business tactic.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile