Quote:

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

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

Well, how about this thread and actually calling Ted a fraud etc, without provocation from Ted. What about the previous thread where you attacked Ted with the same vengeance. here are some examples of Ethan's conduct.

Quote:
Fraudulent. Outright lies.

Quote:
I am 100 percent certain his data is falsified.

falsified involves intent. And no proof is offered. See post #76115

Quote:
I dare him to even try because in the end he will be shown for the lying charlatan he is.

Again accusing Ted's personal character and willful intent but no proof offered.

Quote:
But he can't because he's not telling the truth

Ethan accuses Ted of lying, but no proof provided.

See the pattern is for Ethan to accuse direct competitors like Ted, and others like me without proof. Is that being a gentleman. Don't think so. And Ted never fired the first Volley and took the insults. What a shame. Got to feel for Ted.

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

Hyping yourself are you. Are you stating you did not make false statements on AVS forum? Time to fess up Ethan.
You have already dodged the question once. Going to try for twice. If you have and you dodge the question, then you lied and proved my point.

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

Are you again stating you made no false statements on AVS or simply dodging the question? Time to fess up as you know you did. You certainly attacked Ted without provocation. Now the spot light is on you. So you going to do the two step again Ethan. I am going to give you some time to see if you fess up, or continue to lie. Everytime you dodge the question, you commit a lie and prove my point. You also show the public how insincere you are to them.

Here Ethan argues with JA because Ethan refuses to post his affiliation to realtraps, as the rules require.

Quote:
Everyone here knows that I own RealTraps, a prominent manufacturer of high performance acoustic treatment products. Real acoustic treatment products that actually work, and are proven to work using real science as shown all over the RealTraps web site. And anyone who doesn't know who I am can find out in 3 seconds on Google.

If that were true and everyone knows you, then why not post your affiliation? It is the rules so what is the problem. If he treats JA like this, imagine how he will treat you. So more evidence provided behind his facade.

It also gives Ethan to pop in an advertisement which is also against the rules. So much for Ethan's ethical and honest conduct.

Next

Quote:
But I'm not here as a representative of RealTraps. I am here as Scienceman,

Of course JA pointed out:

Quote:
It is fair to point out that, by your own admission, you have no education or training in the sciences, which is presumably why you don't comprehend the benefits of correctly performed dither, as demonstrated in your AES presentation 2 weeks ago.)

So Ethan claims he is "science man" posting a superman symbol written as scienceman. Yet he couldn't compare simple graphs as both JA and I had to correct him.

And Ethan attempts multiple times to compare tennis balls to metallic objects which obviously have different characteristics. So Ethan proves JA's comment, although Ethan hypes himself. More evidence of deception.

Pretty amazing how Ethan is quick to argue, accuse, and attack everyone without provocation, but if we react, we are not a gentleman like Ethan.

Anyway, balls in your court Ethan. Let's see if you can be honest this time or whether you play dodgeball and sidestep or whatever other tatic he may want.

Quote:

Quote:

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

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

Well, how about this thread and actually calling Ted a fraud etc, without provocation from Ted. What about the previous thread where you attacked Ted with the same vengeance. here are some examples of Ethan's conduct.

Quote:
Fraudulent. Outright lies.

Quote:
I am 100 percent certain his data is falsified.

falsified involves intent. And no proof is offered. See post #76115

Quote:
I dare him to even try because in the end he will be shown for the lying charlatan he is.

Again accusing Ted's personal character and willful intent but no proof offered.

Quote:
But he can't because he's not telling the truth

Ethan accuses Ted of lying, but no proof provided.

See the pattern is for Ethan to accuse direct competitors like Ted, and others like me without proof. Is that being a gentleman. Don't think so. And Ted never fired the first Volley and took the insults. What a shame. Got to feel for Ted.

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

Hyping yourself are you. Are you stating you did not make false statements on AVS forum? Time to fess up Ethan.
You have already dodged the question once. Going to try for twice. If you have and you dodge the question, then you lied and proved my point.

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

Are you again stating you made no false statements on AVS or simply dodging the question? Time to fess up as you know you did. You certainly attacked Ted without provocation. Now the spot light is on you. So you going to do the two step again Ethan.

Here Ethan argues with JA because Ethan refuses to post his affiliation to realtraps, as the rules require.

Quote:
Everyone here knows that I own RealTraps, a prominent manufacturer of high performance acoustic treatment products. Real acoustic treatment products that actually work, and are proven to work using real science as shown all over the RealTraps web site. And anyone who doesn't know who I am can find out in 3 seconds on Google.

If that were true and everyone knows you, then why not post your affiliation? It is the rules so what is the problem. If he treats JA like this, imagine how he will treat you. So more evidence provided behind his facade.

It also gives Ethan to pop in an advertisement which is also against the rules. So much for Ethan's ethical and honest conduct.

Next

Quote:
But I'm not here as a representative of RealTraps. I am here as Scienceman,

Of course JA pointed out:

Quote:
It is fair to point out that, by your own admission, you have no education or training in the sciences, which is presumably why you don't comprehend the benefits of correctly performed dither, as demonstrated in your AES presentation 2 weeks ago.)

So Ethan claims he is "science man" posting a superman symbol written as scienceman. Yet he couldn't compare simple graphs as both JA and I had to correct him.

And Ethan attempts multiple times to compare tennis balls to metallic objects which obviously have different characteristics. So Ethan proves JA's comment, although Ethan hypes himself. More evidence of deception.

Pretty amazing how Ethan is quick to argue, accuse, and attack everyone without provocation, but if we react, we are not a gentleman like Ethan.

Anyway, balls in your court Ethan. Let's see if you can be honest this time or whether you play dodgeball and sidestep or whatever other tatic he may want.

All that time spent on your rant and all I can see is blah blah blah blah...... Heck, at least May could keep my attention for the first paragraph and occaisonally tell a good tale or two.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

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

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

Well, how about this thread and actually calling Ted a fraud etc, without provocation from Ted. What about the previous thread where you attacked Ted with the same vengeance. here are some examples of Ethan's conduct.

Quote:
Fraudulent. Outright lies.

Quote:
I am 100 percent certain his data is falsified.

falsified involves intent. And no proof is offered. See post #76115

Quote:
I dare him to even try because in the end he will be shown for the lying charlatan he is.

Again accusing Ted's personal character and willful intent but no proof offered.

Quote:
But he can't because he's not telling the truth

Ethan accuses Ted of lying, but no proof provided.

See the pattern is for Ethan to accuse direct competitors like Ted, and others like me without proof. Is that being a gentleman. Don't think so. And Ted never fired the first Volley and took the insults. What a shame. Got to feel for Ted.

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

Hyping yourself are you. Are you stating you did not make false statements on AVS forum? Time to fess up Ethan.
You have already dodged the question once. Going to try for twice. If you have and you dodge the question, then you lied and proved my point.

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

Are you again stating you made no false statements on AVS or simply dodging the question? Time to fess up as you know you did. You certainly attacked Ted without provocation. Now the spot light is on you. So you going to do the two step again Ethan.

Here Ethan argues with JA because Ethan refuses to post his affiliation to realtraps, as the rules require.

Quote:
Everyone here knows that I own RealTraps, a prominent manufacturer of high performance acoustic treatment products. Real acoustic treatment products that actually work, and are proven to work using real science as shown all over the RealTraps web site. And anyone who doesn't know who I am can find out in 3 seconds on Google.

If that were true and everyone knows you, then why not post your affiliation? It is the rules so what is the problem. If he treats JA like this, imagine how he will treat you. So more evidence provided behind his facade.

It also gives Ethan to pop in an advertisement which is also against the rules. So much for Ethan's ethical and honest conduct.

Next

Quote:
But I'm not here as a representative of RealTraps. I am here as Scienceman,

Of course JA pointed out:

Quote:
It is fair to point out that, by your own admission, you have no education or training in the sciences, which is presumably why you don't comprehend the benefits of correctly performed dither, as demonstrated in your AES presentation 2 weeks ago.)

So Ethan claims he is "science man" posting a superman symbol written as scienceman. Yet he couldn't compare simple graphs as both JA and I had to correct him.

And Ethan attempts multiple times to compare tennis balls to metallic objects which obviously have different characteristics. So Ethan proves JA's comment, although Ethan hypes himself. More evidence of deception.

Pretty amazing how Ethan is quick to argue, accuse, and attack everyone without provocation, but if we react, we are not a gentleman like Ethan.

Anyway, balls in your court Ethan. Let's see if you can be honest this time or whether you play dodgeball and sidestep or whatever other tatic he may want.

All that time spent on your rant and all I can see is blah blah blah blah...... Heck, at least May could keep my attention for the first paragraph and occaisonally tell a good tale or two.

So you can't understand basic quoted points, of science, and a simple post. I suggest you reread the post again.

Or maybe this might help.
I am giving Ethan chances to come clean and show his respect to the public; or whether he dodges the concerns, demonstrating his continuing deception to the public. All this has to do with how he will treat the public, whether continuing to dupe them or not dupe them.

Hope this helps you in understanding.

I actually went through it this time. I see a whole lot "Ted said" and "Ethan said" along with a bunch of irrational attacks on Ethan. Didn't see fuck all in the way of science. You know what would help. filter the bullshit and talk directly about this science that I keep missing. I found none. Lets see you talk about the subject, about the science of the subject and nothing else. Nothing about what an evil guy you think Ethan is. Nothing about who said what about whom. That is all blah blah blah blah as far as I am concerned. Good luck. I hate to curse your response with my predictions but I don't think you have anything to say about the science of room acoustics and I am sure that your response will be more blah blah blah. This time some of it aimed at me. Go ahead prove me wrong. Talk about room acoustics and science without talking about Blah blah blah.

(Huge block quote quoted troll-style, snipped):

Quote:
All that time spent on your rant and all I can see is blah blah blah blah...... Heck, at least May could keep my attention for the first paragraph and occaisonally tell a good tale or two.

I agree Scott. Steve should put "Hello Kitty" stickers all over his writings, and lots of links to Hanna Montanna fan sites, so that he could keep your attention in between you sucking on fizzy stix and getting your seat all wet because you don't have the patience to walk all the way to the little boy's room. Wait there a minute Scott, let me go tell him.

Quote:
Mr. Sammet: You should consider giving special consideration to our "special needs" members, who's attention span is roughly equivalent to that of an Osterizer, and who's reading comprehension skills are about on par with a ball peen hammer. Remember: leave the big words out, one point per post and NO posts longer than 2 lines. After that, lil' Scott gets a headache and gets all feisty on ya.

Okay Scotty, I hope everything will be amenable to you from hereon in. Oh sorry, I meant I hope the baja in the doodoo makes a gummy.

more blah blah blah. At least you didn't ramble.

Quote:
And again Scott nails it. Has anyone noticed that Steve Sammet still hasn't backed up his claim about me and the AVS forum with a link? Or issued an apology? All I see is a bunch of blather followed by "back in your court." What a surprise.

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

Everyone see how Ethan dodged coming clean, exactly as predicted. Notice Ethan could not even address his own unethical behaviour. So Ethan keeps the public in the dark. Want to try again Ethan before I do present the evidence.

Watch his response.

Quote:

Everyone see how Ethan dodged coming clean, exactly as predicted. Notice Ethan could not even address his own unethical behaviour. So Ethan keeps the public in the dark. Want to try again Ethan before I do present the evidence.

Watch his response.

I got to say that I'm with Scott on this one. This post definitely falls under the "blah blah blah" category.

Quote:

Quote:
It is proven that the more words someone writes, the more likely they're lying.

Found it:

Those who lie online use more words than truth-tellers in chat room postings, messages, CU researchers find

This is relevant too:

How to Detect a Liar through Language Cues

It's very easy to see these traits in the posts by SAS and Frog, as well as some others who have the sense to back off since Ted's admission.

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

Once again, sidestepping and dodging by Ethan. Again he could not address his baseless personal accusations and attacks on a competitor, his behaviour on this string, with Ted, JA etc, let alone his other problems on other forums.

As one can see, Ethan has a set of standards. As has been quoted, Ethan can break the forum rules and accuse anyone of fraud, but all others have to abide by a different set of rules, or risk being accused and attacked.

You wish to come clean now Ethan or continue to hang yourself by your own words.

Notice the baseless accusation with links. Yet again Ethan dodges his responsibility to the public to come clean.

Quote:
Has anyone noticed that I still haven't backed up my lying claims about Michigan with any valid evidence? Or issued an apology? All I have made is a bunch of blather followed by me tucking my tail between my legs and running away from him as fast as my little legs can take me, in order to avoid the several posts now where he demanded that I back up my claims What a surprise! And what gall for me to demand that someone else do what I won't - provide proof of their defamatory claims! What a surprise, for me to think that no one sees the contradiction here, after me repeating this behaviour a thousand times before!

Fixed it for you Ethan. Because I know that's what you -meant- to say. Now please take your own Whiner advice and STFU already. If no one cares about your witless hypocrisy and endless self-contradictions, then no one cares about your Whining either.

What matters most is your unfounded charges of fraud against Ted Denney. That is a stain on your own business, "RealTraps", and IMO should not be supported here, and I don't know why for the life of me that you as a competing manufacturer are being given this freedom to trash a fellow member in good standing, and a direct competitor of yours. IMO, because of your atrocious and unprofessional behaviour (particularly recently), anyone who at this points still considers buying your ugly fridge boxes, that as has already been said any high schooler with a staple gun can make in his garage, needs only read one of your many desperate and pathetic defamation attacks on one of your competitors in this business. They will see, as the rest of us did, that not only do you not even know your way around a REW data graph, not only are you the most incompetent "self-professed acoustics expert" any of us has known, but that you are not at all bothered by making all sorts of lying accusations against your opponents without thinking that you need to substantiate your personal accusations with evidence. Or even aware that you have no credibility even demanding that others do what you refuse to do yourself.

For this and other reasons, as I have always said, you are your own worst enemy.

Quote:
This is relevant too:

How to Detect a Liar through Language Cues

No, sorry, that is not just irrelevant, that is stupidly irrelevant. What's relevant is the article entitled:

"How to Detect a Cowardly Hit & Run Liar Through the Fact that he Refuses To Substantiate His Lies With Valid Verifiable Evidence, and Always Avoids Demands To Do So, While Falsely Accusing Others of Lying About Him Being a Liar, By Only Providing Irrelevant Articles Intended to Obfuscate the Truth".

Trying reading THAT article Whiner. Or at least THIS part, #7, of the article you cited, while avoiding the subject of your lies and your lying evasions!!:

"Observe thematic stability. When speakers are not telling the truth they deviate from the main topic of conversation. This is an evasive strategy associated with psychologically distancing oneself from the lie."

Quote:

Quote:

Everyone see how Ethan dodged coming clean, exactly as predicted. Notice Ethan could not even address his own unethical behaviour. So Ethan keeps the public in the dark. Want to try again Ethan before I do present the evidence.

Watch his response.

I got to say that I'm with Scott on this one. This post definitely falls under the "blah blah blah" category.

Is there some reason why Ethan cannot come clean of his unethical behaviour to the public on AVS forum? Is it ok to provide false information so the public will sabatoge their own audio systems? Does he respect the public so little.

Quote:

Quote:
What matters most is your unfounded charges of fraud against Ted Denney.

LOL, I guess you missed the post by Ted where he admitted his "proof of performance" data is, well, let's just say "not valid."

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

There was an error in the measurement file that led to errors in the waterfall graphs. When I discovered the problem I made my mistake public. I made a mistake, I did not commit fraud.

With all do respect, FUCK YOU Ethan.

Ted Denney III
Lead Designer, Synergistic Research Inc.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
What matters most is your unfounded charges of fraud against Ted Denney.

LOL, I guess you missed the post by Ted where he admitted his "proof of performance" data is, well, let's just say "not valid."

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

There was an error in the measurement file that led to errors in the waterfall graphs. When I discovered the problem I made my mistake public. I made a mistake, I did not commit fraud.

With all do respect, FUCK YOU Ethan.

Ted Denney III
Lead Designer, Synergistic Research Inc.

Very classy response there Ted that will go a long way towards your credibility which is lacking as of late.

"I am not a crook" Richard Nixon

Keep up the good work Ted fans, I notice how you band together when logic fails.

Quote:

With all do respect, FUCK YOU Ethan.

Ted Denney III
Lead Designer, Synergistic Research Inc.

Wow Ethan! That's two "fuck yous" in one day! You're batting a 1000!

We are closing in on "Greatest Thread Of All Time."

Manufacturer of sonic resonators posts data showing he actually makes absorbers...

Subjectivists celebrate...

Ethan immediately identifies the fallacy of the data, pointing out it was due to computer based differences...

Subjectivists call Ethan numerous names...

Ethan stands his ground...

Andy points out that there is a difference between a claim that a product is resonator or an absorber...

Andy derided for using something as droll as 'semantics'...

Ensuing subjectivist validation of the fact that it matters not what a manufacturer claims or seems to understand about his product for which he has made claims so long as he claims something wonderful...

Fellow manufacturer who has haunted Ethan's measurement data validates Synergistic's data by printing graphs and overlapping them, pronouncing the differences notable, with no mention of any problem with the so-called measurements...

Ethan still says the emperor is naked...

Emperor admits nakedness...

Ethan condemned because he didn't list exactly the style of specific fuck up made public in the "Mission Accomplished" post by the manufacturer...

Subjectivists rally around "Ethan is an asshole" in lieu of saying, "Damn! Ethan picked up on that error immediately!"....

Ethan defends himself by pointing out that the original post claiming to vaildate a product by 'false' data presentation was, as he pointed out, false...

Subjectivists take this as further proof of Ethan's villainy...

Ethan demonstrates his inability to keep his sig line straight, giving the "Fox News Subjectivists" a target to take their minds off the fact that Ethan positively KILLED them on the measurements they all fell in love with...

Ethan's critics, like good Republicans, offer the equivalent of, "Larry Craig? Well, Bill Clinton!" and then its high fives all around...

Objectivist's bottom line" "Bogus data, proves nothing."

Subjectivist's bottom line: "Screw the data, fuck Ethan! This is everybody's fault and, especially, Ethan's!"

Perfect Hi Fi thread.

Quote:
We are closing in on "Greatest Thread Of All Time."

Manufacturer of sonic resonators posts data showing he actually makes absorbers...

Subjectivists celebrate...

Ethan immediately identifies the fallacy of the data, pointing out it was due to computer based differences...

Subjectivists call Ethan numerous names...

Ethan stands his ground...

Andy points out that there is a difference between a claim that a product is resonator or an absorber...

Andy derided for using something as droll as 'semantics'...

Ensuing subjectivist validation of the fact that it matters not what a manufacturer claims or seems to understand about his product for which he has made claims so long as he claims something wonderful...

Fellow manufacturer who has haunted Ethan's measurement data validates Synergistic's data by printing graphs and overlapping them, pronouncing the differences notable, with no mention of any problem with the so-called measurements...

Ethan still says the emperor is naked...

Emperor admits nakedness...

Ethan condemned because he didn't list exactly the style of specific fuck up made public in the "Mission Accomplished" post by the manufacturer...

Subjectivists rally around "Ethan is an asshole" in lieu of saying, "Damn! Ethan picked up on that error immediately!"....

Ethan defends himself by pointing out that the original post claiming to vaildate a product by 'false' data presentation was, as he pointed out, false...

Subjectivists take this as further proof of Ethan's villainy...

Ethan demonstrates his inability to keep his sig line straight, giving the "Fox News Subjectivists" a target to take their minds off the fact that Ethan positively KILLED them on the measurements they all fell in love with...

Ethan's critics, like good Republicans, offer the equivalent of, "Larry Craig? Well, Bill Clinton!" and then its high fives all around...

Objectivist's bottom line" "Bogus data, proves nothing."

Subjectivist's bottom line: "Screw the data, fuck Ethan! This is everybody's fault and, especially, Ethan's!"

Perfect Hi Fi thread.

Oh my that does about wrap it up

Quote:
We are closing in on "Greatest Thread Of All Time."

Manufacturer of sonic resonators posts data showing he actually makes absorbers...

Subjectivists celebrate...

Ethan immediately identifies the fallacy of the data, pointing out it was due to computer based differences...

Subjectivists call Ethan numerous names...

Ethan stands his ground...

Andy points out that there is a difference between a claim that a product is resonator or an absorber...

Andy derided for using something as droll as 'semantics'...

Ensuing subjectivist validation of the fact that it matters not what a manufacturer claims or seems to understand about his product for which he has made claims so long as he claims something wonderful...

Fellow manufacturer who has haunted Ethan's measurement data validates Synergistic's data by printing graphs and overlapping them, pronouncing the differences notable, with no mention of any problem with the so-called measurements...

Ethan still says the emperor is naked...

Emperor admits nakedness...

Ethan condemned because he didn't list exactly the style of specific fuck up made public in the "Mission Accomplished" post by the manufacturer...

Subjectivists rally around "Ethan is an asshole" in lieu of saying, "Damn! Ethan picked up on that error immediately!"....

Ethan defends himself by pointing out that the original post claiming to vaildate a product by 'false' data presentation was, as he pointed out, false...

Subjectivists take this as further proof of Ethan's villainy...

Ethan demonstrates his inability to keep his sig line straight, giving the "Fox News Subjectivists" a target to take their minds off the fact that Ethan positively KILLED them on the measurements they all fell in love with...

Ethan's critics, like good Republicans, offer the equivalent of, "Larry Craig? Well, Bill Clinton!" and then its high fives all around...

Objectivist's bottom line" "Bogus data, proves nothing."

Subjectivist's bottom line: "Screw the data, fuck Ethan! This is everybody's fault and, especially, Ethan's!"

Perfect Hi Fi thread.

(monty python voice)
It's a fair cop!

Quote:

Quote:
What matters most is your unfounded charges of fraud against Ted Denney.

LOL, I guess you missed the post by Ted where he admitted his "proof of performance" data is, well, let's just say "not valid."

No Clowney, I did not miss that at all. I see that you're really that thick in the head that I have to actually explain to you that the term "not valid" is not the equivalent of the term "fraud", which is exactly what you have accused him of, and I am still looking for your evidence of that. First of all, the initial REW graph was stated by both Ted and JA as being only a preliminary to much more involved tests to come, including 3rd party evaluation of Ted's products. So as you damn well know, it was not meant to stand as the be all and end all of tests for the S-ART devices (Which reminds me... where's YOUR 3rd party evaluation, and which "woo woo" conducted the tests?).

Secondly, there was a 500ms, that is 500 MILLIsecond, difference exhibited in one of the tests. Getting variables that small to match is more than understandable to anyone who does serious comparison testing in audio. But regardless of your ignorant and malicious statements of what the reason is for the discrepancy, the FACT is that YOU did not properly recognize the actual problem with the test, and you most certainly did NOT prove your charges of "fraud" against Ted Denney. Whereas Steve Sammet has shown us in the past actual proof that you -have- been caught fraudulently doctoring test results on forums, and you have recently proven to us in the ART thread that you have the mindset to do that, and long before Ted, you have even been suspected of doing this with the Furutech files. Which is why I refused at the time to engage in the test that you were begging me to take, saying that you have been caught so many times lying to us on Stereophile forums, that I wouldn't trust you to conduct a televised pie eating contest.

Since you have told us the internet is your Bible, here's another net truism for you:

The first and the loudest to make the accusation, is the most likely to be guilty of it.

Furthermore, I now have to presume that this response, which shows yet another evasion of my demand that you prove your unsubstantiated accusations against me, you are admitting to all and sundry, that you flaunt all sense of ethics and propriety in your public persona, and have no problem admitting that you make lying accusations against members of Stereophile. Not bravely standing before your reputation like a gentleman who stands by his words and has nothing to hide. But rather ducking into a back alley and hiding behind a garbage bin like a slippery weasel, when someone like me comes around looking for you and demanding that you to take responsibility for your words, and answer for your lying accusations.

I think that is all that is necessary to explain why -you- have completely failed to support your abusive defamatory accusations against Ted Denney and Synergistics. (Just as you failed to support your defamatory accusations against Furutech, and -everyone else- you have made such accusations against). I know you're not doing too well with your fridge boxes, which explains why you have become so desparate, as to attack the good reputation of a man and company in direct competition to you, and a member in good standing of this board. I don't know how you are getting away with doing that so irresponsibly and explicitly as you have so far, on a commercial forum like Stereophile with fixed rules in place about one industry member trashing another. So all I can do, is hope that Ted sues you for whatever it is you -are- worth.

Yep! I think that about sums it up. I also think that we should all have the "Fuck Ethan" as our signature line right below our affiliations.

Michigan, as much as I love you, 500ms is a long time!

It's "One thou..." of "One Thousand one."

No flame, just pointing out that if your left and right speaker were off by that much, not even Peter Belt could fix it!

It's so large a piece of time, even objectivists can hear it!

Quote:
Very classy response there Ted that will go a long way towards your credibility which is lacking as of late.

"I am not a crook" Richard Nixon

Keep up the good work Ted fans, I notice how you band together when logic fails.

"David L. Troll" wrote to Mr. M. Frog:

Quote:
all you know is "witty" comebacks and snide remarks that lend nothing to the subject at hand.

I think we can both agree that you don't know how to do witty comebacks Mr. Troll, but this "Ted fans" response shows you do at least know how to do snide remarks. Even within 2 days of joining our forum. What's less obvious is: what exactly are you supposed to be "lending to the subject at hand" with this post?

Quote:
Since you have told us the internet is your Bible, here's another net truism for you:

The first and the loudest to make the accusation, is the most likely to be guilty of it.

An act known in some circles as kommitting a Krueger. :-)

Quote:
I don't know how you are getting away with doing that so irresponsibly and explicitly as you have so far, on a commercial forum like Stereophile with fixed rules in place about one industry member trashing another.

We put up with Ethan's antics because, having broken bread with him and been impressed by his cello playing and by his composing skills, I remain convinced that way down beneath the anti-social surface and the bluster is a real human being.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Hey Buddha,
any chance you can show which Subjectivists were in celebration, not doubting it but I thought on the whole the posting was reasonably balanced apart from a select few...
Ignoring last 5 pages though

Cheers
Orb

SAS really needs to stop grinding his axe with Ethan. It has become quite tiresome... he(Sammet) always looks for an inroad to attack Ethan and spout the same tired rumours he spouted months ago. This thread is not about Ethan. It is about ART products.

Context is everything, Buddha. Firstly, the 500ms is not being used as a timewise "measurement", but as a "means" with which to attack Ted Denney. And by extension, HE audio, if that is your bag. And that -is- the bag of numerous people in this thread. Particularly these mysterious new members who have all joined in the last couple of days, are all exclusively posting to the ART threads, and are all making attacks on Ted and his products. (Who was under no obligation to post anything here).

Indeed, Ted was the one who mentioned to us that there was a 500ms difference between the before and after graphs. But yet at NO POINT did Ethan point out that the graph of the room treated with the ART System starts approx 500ms back from zero. Which both Ted and -you- say is a significant difference! Let's review what Whiner did say about the differences between these two graphs:

if you can't see that the underlying data is identical in the Before and After graphs, then you really do not understand room measuring software. This is not an insult, but a fact.

Yet in this outrageous campaign of his to destroy the reputation of one of his competitors, Ethan would have every reason to try to point out the 500ms discrepancy, and clearly prove his argument of fraud against Ted. But as both Ted and Steve noted, he never did (until of course Ted identified the problem himself! Woohoo!). Neither did Ethan's mysterious unnamed alleged "High Priest Guru of Room EQ Wizard", that Ethan "claims" backs him up, point out the 500ms flaw to Ethan, to have him relate it in his pitiful defense in these threads. When Ethan DID finally learn of the mistake where one test was shown to start 500ms early, he called the ENTIRE set of data "total bullshit". Further to that, Ethan also failed to even point out the amplitude differences for that matter. He only stated there were differences in the decay time. So you tell me, WTF did Ethan prove in this thread that he actually knows about reading REW graphs?

As usual, Ethan blows a lot of hot air and has made a lot of pathetic, angry arguments from authority here, but hasn't actually proven anything. Except that he knows how to get his ass sued for defamation, or booted off of audio forums. Of course, Ethan didn't need to read any graphs to launch his defamation tirade against ART, because Ethan certainly didn't need no stinkin' "graphs" in the previous threads where he accused Ted of fraud. So Ethan's motives in this thread for claiming falsified data that he did not attempt to prove, Photoshopped graphs he did not attempt to prove, or claiming hacked files that he did not prove were hacked, could simply have something to do with the fact that Ted is a competitor. And that Ethan is known across the audio forums for attacking his industry competitors, in order to present himself as the only acoustics expert worth trusting. (Though the many comments about Ethan's integrity, suggest that you are probably better off trusting Bernie Madoff!).

A Loose Chronology of Facts Illustrating Why Ethan Whiner Is Probably Going To Get His Ass Sued Over This:

* Ethan said he needed the REW files to investigate whether the files have been falsified.

Yet at the beginning of this attack thread, Ethan clearly stated the data was falsified, based only on the waterfall graphs, not the REW data.

* Then when Ethan was called on that major inconsistency in his story, guess what the weasel's slippery dippery hit & run answer was to that? Basically this:

"I give up. So I won't answer you, Mr. Orb. Instead, I will just repeat the unsubstantiated BULLSHIT against S-Art Inc. that I ranted about at the beginning of this thread, and then fake me some indignation, a la James Johnson. And hope that nobody notices that I have stupidly admitted in a public post that I did not have enough evidence to substantiate my earlier claims of outright fraudulence against Mr. Denney, before scrutinizing his data files. I especially hope that Mr. Denney's attorney, who's office memos are probably already referring to me as "shitforbrains", doesn't see that post."

...Which is right over here, in case you missed it: http://forum.stereophile.com/forum/printthread.php?Board=rants&main=76304&type=post

It ends with "Do with this information as you see fit". Which I'm sure is one of many of Ethan's lines that is later going to haunt him.

* Ethan demanded to John that he identify the REW expert who will be working for Stereophile in evaluating Ted's product. Then Whined loud and long when his bawling stomping fits yielded no satisfaction. But when politely asked to identify his own "REW expert", who "supposedly" backs up Ethan's unsubstantiated tirades? His Ethanitical excuse was: "As was pointed out earlier, legitimate experts usually prefer not to be identified as having anything to do with BS products".

So now we're supposed to believe that an unnamed 3rd party audio expert who allegedly agrees with Ethan's unsupported drivel, will not identify himself because somehow, he will be associated as a backer of said "BS" acoustic devices. DesPITE the --fact-- that the expert is said to have evaluated the acoustic device data as -invalid-. Right. I know how dumb you have to be to expect people to believe what Ethan expects people here to believe. But just how dumb do you have to be to actually believe that I wonder?

* Ted agreed to supply the raw files of his test to JA, proving that he had NO intent to deceive.

* Whiner said Ted 'fabricated the data' via Photoshopping. He did NOT provide any basis for the fabrication, nor did he show any evidence of such. He simply said "they are not physically possible". This was initially solely based on his notion that "golf balls" (which these are NOT) could not make any acoustical difference in a large (15k sq. ft.) room.

* So look at the data again, Buddha. Are you saying that without investigating anything, you are "100% certain" that what Ted presented on the graphs is not physically possible, and that he was a "liar" and his data was "falsified"? For that is what Ethan has said. Then Ethan blasted John Atkinson for daring to make him sign his affiliation along with everyone else who is an industry member, and even worse! Daring to give Ted Denney "the benefit of the doubt" that he perhaps may not be a "lying falsifying fraud".

And so once again folks, we get back to Ethan's original mental deficiency that has been the cause of so many nasty flame wars here: the stubborn refusal to believe in anything he doesn't already believe in, and a total disrespect for others, and their beliefs.

Quote:
We put up with Ethan's antics because, having broken bread with him and been impressed by his cello playing and by his composing skills, I remain convinced that way down beneath the anti-social surface and the bluster is a real human being.

I understand. He may be tragically ignorant... but at least he's passionate in his ignorance.

and Frog, I just want to clarify something... the ART user base/demographic bears little resemblence to the REALTRAPS userbase. these guys are not Ethan's competitors. No way, no how. Ever. Those people who use standard/accepted methods of dealing with unruly acoustics have no interest whatsoever in mystical /fringe products...

real competitors to Ethan--

www.gikacoustics.com

www.auralex.com (sucks!)

Quote:
and Frog, I just want to clarify something... the ART user base/demographic bears little resemblence to the REALTRAPS userbase. these guys are not Ethan's competitors. No way, no how. Ever. Those people who use standard/accepted methods of dealing with unruly acoustics have no interest whatsoever in mystical /fringe products...

I have in the past used standard accepted methods of dealing with unruly acoustics; I believe in those standard methods in principle, at least. And while I have not tried any of the ART devices, I would certainly say I am interested and intrigued by them, have no reason to believe they don't work, from what I have read of them and similar devices (considering some of the devices that I do use to improve my sound, the singing bowls are to me what bass traps are to Ethan. ie. Not in the least bit "mystical" or fringe). So I would not hesitate to buy them if I was interested in doing so and they convinced me they were worth it following a proper dem. So you may have a point, but "no way, no how, ever"? I don't think so. Then again the radiator grills in a home setting are very intrusive in every way, and this is where the differences may lie. Professionals in audio have their biases and consumer audiophiles have theirs. This is why neither can agree on the same standard of sound.

Anyway, as I have pointed out, I believe Ethan's intent here is to establish himself to readers as a leading expert on acoustics, which if he's successful, can only help his business, regardless of who his customers are. This makes Ted an easy target for Ethan; as Ted's products utilize an alternative and less well established approach to room acoustics. Anyone who markets products that employ much lesser known and established principles than their contemporaries face an instant disadvantage and an upward struggle. So net bullies and unethical tradespeople need only appeal to people's prejudices of "common knowledge" and "common sense" in order to kill their competition.

Remember that more acoustic products on the consumer market gives people more options. Audiophiles who's wives will slaughter them and dance about on their graves if they propose installing 6' bass traps in the living room, may very well have a piqued interest in Ted's alternative acoustic products, and risk abandoning their comfortable prejudices. Even in a studio setting these behemoths just kill the whole mood of the place. I'd put the so-called "WAF factor" of your typical bass trap at about -5 million. Compare that to tiny, discreet, beautiful little Asian singing bowl d

Quote:
* So look at the data again, Buddha. Are you saying that without investigating anything, you are "100% certain" that what Ted presented on the graphs is not physically possible, and that he was a "liar" and his data was "falsified"?

No, actually, I posted that I thought Ted was posting honestly. As I recall, I said to Ted...

"I give ya credit for the effort of performing the measurements.

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

It was fun considering it."

For that is what Ethan has said.

I think if we are to talk about Ethan here, his accuracy about the data being immediately visibly false should be given to his credit.

Then Ethan blasted John Atkinson for daring to make him sign his affiliation along with everyone else who is an industry member, and even worse! Daring to give Ted Denney "the benefit of the doubt" that he perhaps may not be a "lying falsifying fraud".

And so once again folks, we get back to Ethan's original mental deficiency that has been the cause of so many nasty flame wars here: the stubborn refusal to believe in anything he doesn't already believe in, and a total disrespect for others, and their beliefs.

Ethan did not stubbornly refuse to believe anything, he was more adept than you, I, or SAS (who said he even overlapped the graphs and verified an effect) at identifying a wholesale error. 500ms is worse than those dubbed Kung Fu movies! 500ms is so huge, as I mentioned, objectivists are capable of hearing it. 500ms is vast! Ethan hit this ball square from post one and got the Jonathan Swift treatment from the usual confederacy, did he not?!

The fact that Ethan did not go to the herculean effort of re-timing Ted's data for him is not Ethan's problem, it was purely a Ted problem. As Homer Simpson would say on Ted's behalf, "D'OH!"

Now the Ethan haters gather round and say, "Poor baby Ted, that mean ol' Ethan beat you up. Ethan's a bad bad man.

Please.

Time to score Ethan the strike and Ted the empty frame and move back to "Of course the effect didn't show up on the data, these types of devices are heard at levels beyond measurement...

Point Ethan.

Quote:
We are closing in on "Greatest Thread Of All Time."

Manufacturer of sonic resonators posts data showing he actually makes absorbers...

Subjectivists celebrate...

Ethan immediately identifies the fallacy of the data, pointing out it was due to computer based differences...

Subjectivists call Ethan numerous names...

Ethan stands his ground...

Andy points out that there is a difference between a claim that a product is resonator or an absorber...

Andy derided for using something as droll as 'semantics'...

Ensuing subjectivist validation of the fact that it matters not what a manufacturer claims or seems to understand about his product for which he has made claims so long as he claims something wonderful...

Fellow manufacturer who has haunted Ethan's measurement data validates Synergistic's data by printing graphs and overlapping them, pronouncing the differences notable, with no mention of any problem with the so-called measurements...

Ethan still says the emperor is naked...

Emperor admits nakedness...

Ethan condemned because he didn't list exactly the style of specific fuck up made public in the "Mission Accomplished" post by the manufacturer...

Subjectivists rally around "Ethan is an asshole" in lieu of saying, "Damn! Ethan picked up on that error immediately!"....

Ethan defends himself by pointing out that the original post claiming to vaildate a product by 'false' data presentation was, as he pointed out, false...

Subjectivists take this as further proof of Ethan's villainy...

Ethan demonstrates his inability to keep his sig line straight, giving the "Fox News Subjectivists" a target to take their minds off the fact that Ethan positively KILLED them on the measurements they all fell in love with...

Ethan's critics, like good Republicans, offer the equivalent of, "Larry Craig? Well, Bill Clinton!" and then its high fives all around...

Objectivist's bottom line" "Bogus data, proves nothing."

Subjectivist's bottom line: "Screw the data, fuck Ethan! This is everybody's fault and, especially, Ethan's!"

Perfect Hi Fi thread.

As a subjectivist I was only "guilty" of riding Andy on his semantical argument. And I stand by that given the big picture. That being the data.

Quote:

Quote:
We put up with Ethan's antics because, having broken bread with him and been impressed by his cello playing and by his composing skills, I remain convinced that way down beneath the anti-social surface and the bluster is a real human being.

I understand. He may be tragically ignorant... but at least he's passionate in his ignorance.

so the guy who looked at the waterfall graphs and nailed them for exactly what they were is the ignorant one? You might want to switch from Michigan J Frog to The Mad Hatter.

Hi Buddha,

Quote:

Manufacturer of sonic resonators posts data showing he actually makes absorbers...

Resonators has been used for decades for room treatment damping. Helmholtz resonators are a clear example of home and church use. Did you read my links explaining such basic information?

Quote:
Ethan immediately identifies the fallacy of the data, pointing out it was due to computer based differences...

Would you wish to quote that information. From what I saw, Ethan only mentioned decay differences between the graphs, and not computer based problems until after Ted brought the 500ms problem to our attention. Again if you found otherwise, I would appreciate seeing the comment.

Quote:
Andy points out that there is a difference between a claim that a product is resonator or an absorber...

See above. Someone is ignoring basic and decades long science. And Ethan made such an erroneous comment as well in response. Of course it was to demean Ted's products. Did you not read from the links I provided?

Quote:
Ensuing subjectivist validation of the fact that it matters not what a manufacturer claims or seems to understand about his product for which he has made claims so long as he claims something wonderful...

Where did that come from? From the start only accusations without proof seem to be presented. Where was any data presented, until recently.

Personally, I want to see the evidence before making a decision, not part of a lynch mob or believing some competitor's accusations before the data is even in. Can't we be resonable.

Quote:
Fellow manufacturer who has haunted Ethan's measurement data validates Synergistic's data by printing graphs and overlapping them, pronouncing the differences notable, with no mention of any problem with the so-called measurements...

Ethan never mentioned any 500ms problems. Ethan only mentioned decay differences, no other differences or any problems with the data. Again if so, we would like to see a quote.

In fact he could not read and compare the graphs as is. JA and I had to explain the other comparative differences to him. So he knew squat, couldn't even compare the graphs without our help. If Ethan had any idea there was a 500ms problem with the measurements (until Ted mentioned it) Ethan would have been the first to mention it and attack Ted from that perspective. In fact JA and I would have not had to help Ethan compare the graphs if Ethan had mentioned the 500ms problem (before Ted brought it to our attention.)

Quote:
Ethan condemned because he didn't list exactly the style of specific fuck up made public in the "Mission Accomplished" post by the manufacturer...

See above Buddha.

Quote:
Subjectivist's bottom line: "Screw the data, fuck Ethan! This is everybody's fault and, especially, Ethan's!"

Personally I want the evidence, not some competitor's obvious and predicted accusations, especially with Ethan's history of data/graph manipulation to dupe the public.

There is one other area to cover.
Ethan was calling Ted a "fraud" and "liar" long before the data was ever presented.

If the bowls change the highs, the sound will be perceived differently. Let's wait for the evidence before making judgements.

I suggest we get the data and stop the lynch mob mentality.

Take care Buddha.

Quote:
SAS really needs to stop grinding his axe with Ethan. It has become quite tiresome... he(Sammet) always looks for an inroad to attack Ethan and spout the same tired rumours he spouted months ago. This thread is not about Ethan. It is about ART products.

Hi Ncdrawal,

No it is also about the accuser's competency as well. If someone is incompetent or has an axe to grind against a competitor, even breaking the forum rules to accuse, then his accusations will be viewed/regarded quite differently then evidence presented by a third party.

The "rumors" are fact, sorry Alex. And you were one of several who posted in the 'three cheers for Ethan' thread, hyping Ethan after he attempted to screw the public by faking a room's frequency response by manipulating the setup (part of the coverup), Ethan himself finally claiming he was using a screwy meter for measuring data (-22db down at 20khz), and finally admitting he was using a bare room, no rugs, no furniture, no curtains, nothing.
How respectful to the public NC and Ethan.

Not surprising you and your buddy Ethan wish to cover all this up.

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

What "observations"? Ethan basically just said it was all bogus and that Ted was fraud. Ethan never even made much in the way of specific observations, and never supported any of his "observations" with clear evidence. If I say I can predict that the Rams are going to win against the Cardinals, making it clear that I hate the Cardinals, and the Rams do win... then wow!, do I get special credit for predicting that? Can I claim ESP now? Or is it possible that like Ethan, I had but 2 choices, and just got lucky with one?

Now.... if I said "The Rams are going to win against the Cardinals, and here exactly is why they are going to win, here is how they are going to win (the final touchdown will be 500ms before the time is out), and this is exactly how many points they are going to win by.... Then maybe I should start collecting that credit.

Ethan did not stubbornly refuse to believe anything

Stubbornly refusing to believe anything is basically his "shtick". How about we start with the "10 golf balls in a 15k sq. ft. room". He stubbornly refused to believe this could have any effect. His evidence? "Because I say it's so".

He stubbornly refused to believe the data wasn't Photoshopped.

He stubbornly refused to believe the files weren't hacked.

He stubbornly refused to believe the engineer Stereophile hired to evalute s-art wasn't a "woo woo" (wtf that is).

He stubbornly refused to believe that I'm not a competitor of his.

He even stubbornly refused to believe that he should be made to sign his name along with everyone else.

I could go on if you'd like.

he was more adept than you, I, or SAS (who said he even overlapped the graphs and verified an effect) at identifying a wholesale error.

Well actually.... I never even cared to look at the data, until tonight when I wrote this reply. And why would SAS be wrong in his observation, pray tell? No one is saying there isn't an effect, just that the data is somewhat inaccurate due to test error (and anyone who's done any research in audio knows how possible this is), and must be withdrawn until it can be properly recorded.

500ms is worse than those dubbed Kung Fu movies! 500ms is so huge, as I mentioned, objectivists are capable of hearing it. 500ms is vast! Ethan hit this ball square from post one and got the Jonathan Swift treatment from the usual confederacy, did he not?!

No, it's more like Ethan was scratching himself, the ball bounced off of his disproportionately large head, and then because the ump wasn't looking, Ethan claimed he struck it with the bat. As I already pointed out in great detail, the problem with this sort of one-eyed revisionism is that as Ted and others pointed out, Ethan never actually identified the 500ms error. If the 500ms is so "huge", this makes it even more glaring that Ethan failed to find it.

The fact that Ethan did not go to the herculean effort of re-timing Ted's data for him is not Ethan's problem, it was purely a Ted problem.

Why would he? No one asked him to. All he had to do was just identify that the timing was off on one of the tests by 500ms, in order to support his unsubstantiated charges of Ted being a "fraud". Ethan had no clue.

Now the Ethan haters gather round and say, "Poor baby Ted, that mean ol' Ethan beat you up. Ethan's a bad bad man. Please.

I say, let's just leave that for the judge to decide what Ethan is.

And that's really it, isn't it? The difference between whether you "choose" to believe Ethan's unsubstantiated golfball rant, whether the 500ms discrepancy was an innocent mistake or a deliberate cop-out move by a shady fraudster, whether it was identified by Ethan (despite no evidence ever showing it was) or not, certainly doesn't rest on visible and plainly evident FACTS or nuthin' like that! No, it appears it all comes down to whether you are an "Ethan hater" or an "Ethan lover".

Am I really the ONLY one who can possibly remain objective here???!! Geesh!

Time to score Ethan the strike and Ted the empty frame and move back to "Of course the effect didn't show up on the data, these types of devices are heard at levels beyond measurement...

Point Ethan.

Point: NO ONE.

Ethan proved fully NONE (as in ZERO) of his many slanderous claims against Ted. And Ted? Ted proved none of his claims either; only because he voided his own (preliminary) data and withdrew the submission. Moreover, this is not an ego-party or a flag-waving contest, but a search for understanding. The TRUE objectivist (as opposed to the pseudo-objectivist), the TRUE scientist (not the pseudo-scientist), awards points to no one until all the facts are in, and the data objectively analyzed. For most, that should mean waiting for the Stereophile test.

Quote:
so the guy who looked at the waterfall graphs and nailed them for exactly what they were is the ignorant one? You might want to switch from Michigan J Frog to The Mad Hatter.

Oh that's hilarious. And such an "original" quip, it could only be the work of a comedic genius. Oscar Wilde has got nothing on you son. Let me guess the relevance. You first heard of "The Mad Hatter" when Johnny Depp's role brought it to your attention? Thought as much.

"Nailed them for exactly what they were"? Your master Whiner called them "falsified". Where is your evidence that the waterfall graphs were "falsified"? He also said they were "Photoshopped". I'm sorry... did you provide the evidence that they were "Photoshopped", before ignorantly saying he "nailed it"? Because I missed that. I also did not see Whiner provide any such evidence, so I'm sure you will be correcting that, Mr. Nailed It. Whiner also claimed that Ted had to hack the data file for the graph. Is -that- evidence coming along, Mr. Nails?

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

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

(Don't come out until I do).

Ethan.
"I am not biased! I know room acoustics, and measuring software, intimately. I know what's physically possible and what is not. The graphs Ted posted are not physically possible. They have to be falsified. There's no other explanation."

He nailed that one big time.

"In this case, I do indeed know more about science than those who consider Ted's data plausible. I have extensive experience with measuring rooms, and deep knowledge of the waterfall graphs produced by the REW software. If you'd like to discuss details of why those graphs are obviously bullshit, I'm glad to elaborate. For one hint, see JJ's post about the conservation of energy. "

Boy right on the money. So was JJ.

"
Ted's original two graphs show the exact same data, but expressed with different decay times. Any mechanism that changes the decay times must by definition change the peak heights and peak bandwidths. But clearly that's not the case in Ted's After graph. This also shows how little Ted Denney and his apologists know about room acoustics, because it's so obvious for this reason that the data was faked."

Ouch. deadly accuracy in his interpetation of the waterfall graphs. All this before the error was reported.

Ethan. "I am not biased! I know room acoustics, and measuring software, intimately. I know what's physically possible and what is not. The graphs Ted posted are not physically possible. They have to be falsified. There's no other explanation."

He nailed that one big time.

Tell me, are you just dense or what? I asked you to provide evidence the graphs were falsified. All you have done here is to repost Ethan's unsupported accusation of them being falsified, more empty vigorous assertions, and then you restated another one of your obtuse Americanisms: "he nailed that one big time".

So there it is folks, it's official. Neither Whiner nor his apologist Scott here have any evidence whatsoever for the charges of falsification against Ted Denney. When asked for evidence? They just stare at you with their mouths gaping open and repeat "Duh graffs R false, hokay?".

"In this case, I do indeed know more about science than those who consider Ted's data plausible. I have extensive experience with measuring rooms, and deep knowledge of the waterfall graphs produced by the REW software. If you'd like to discuss details of why those graphs are obviously bullshit, I'm glad to elaborate. For one hint, see JJ's post about the conservation of energy. "

Boy right on the money.

Yes; if I had asked you to give me more cheesy Americanisms. But no, I asked you to provide substantiation. Here again, all you have provided is Whiner doing what he does best, ie. spouting bullshit about himself, and his risible appeals to authority. There is NOTHING being proven here, about Ted's graphs. Furthermore, it doesn't look like you even read the paragraph, or understand anything yourself. Do you have any clue Scotty on how to formulate a logical argument in a debate? If you think you do, I suggest you do so already. You are REALLY not making the Whiner apologists look good here.

"Ted's original two graphs show the exact same data, but expressed with different decay times.

Ouch. deadly accuracy in his interpetation of the waterfall graphs. All this before the error was reported.

I take it the "ouch" must be a complaint from your brain from having to work too hard. Problem is, you haven't taken it out of the box yet, Scotty. I already said in my last response to you that all that Whiner did was point to decay discrepancies, while failing to understand that there were more than decay anomalies. So you really are that dense, because all you are doing here is confirming what I said, and again providing ZERO EVIDENCE of anything I asked you to provide. Where does he show that he understands the amplitude differences, for example?

I find this hilarious! So far, every Ethan apologist that I have queried has been unable to prove to me that he had any idea of what he was talking about re: the waterfall graphs. Or that there is any relation at all between Ethan's hatred of Ted with Ted's finding on his own graphs. Instead, each of Whiner's defendants has simply ignored my specific calls for proof that Ethan has continually failed to show, and like a faulty robot, just repeated Whiner's appeals to authority, or his unsubstantiated accusations, or other obfuscations to evidence. Let's watch Scotty do the same thing again!

Okay Scott: Since you ran away from the "hard questions" just like I knew you would, I kept 'em close to me, so here they are again. If you run away from these questions again, we'll assume that you and Ethan are huddling in a corner somewhere, with your fingers in each other's ears, and your hands over each other's eyes:

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

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

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

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

Quote:
Ethan.
"I am not biased! I know room acoustics, and measuring software, intimately. I know what's physically possible and what is not. The graphs Ted posted are not physically possible. They have to be falsified. There's no other explanation."

He nailed that one big time.

"In this case, I do indeed know more about science than those who consider Ted's data plausible. I have extensive experience with measuring rooms, and deep knowledge of the waterfall graphs produced by the REW software. If you'd like to discuss details of why those graphs are obviously bullshit, I'm glad to elaborate. For one hint, see JJ's post about the conservation of energy. "

Boy right on the money. So was JJ.

"
Ted's original two graphs show the exact same data, but expressed with different decay times. Any mechanism that changes the decay times must by definition change the peak heights and peak bandwidths. But clearly that's not the case in Ted's After graph. This also shows how little Ted Denney and his apologists know about room acoustics, because it's so obvious for this reason that the data was faked."

Ouch. deadly accuracy in his interpetation of the waterfall graphs. All this before the error was reported.

Hi Scott,

Unfortunately, you got suckered by both Ethan and J_J, surprise surprise. If you had read my previous posts, you would have seen that JA and I "helped" Ethan (and J_J) to correctly compare the graphs. (Or did they willfully decide to mislead?) I explicitly stated in a post to print, in "draft", and overlay them. But you didn't do it Scott.

Quote:
Hi Buddha,

I just printed out, printer set to "draft", both graphs and placed one over the other, light in the backround. Pretty easy to see the differences, and not just decay time as JA has already mentioned.

So Ethan and J_J either could not compare the graphs correctly, or intentionally misread the graphs. If you would have followed my advice, you would have seen the changes in width and height and no problem with conservation of energy as J_J falsely claimed as least twice. But you didn't follow my advice (and didn't respect JA's findings as well).

Mr. and Mrs. public, please be careful who you believe here and on other forums.

Take care.

Quote:

Quote:
so the guy who looked at the waterfall graphs and nailed them for exactly what they were is the ignorant one? You might want to switch from Michigan J Frog to The Mad Hatter.

Oh that's hilarious. And such an "original" quip, it could only be the work of a comedic genius. Oscar Wilde has got nothing on you son. Let me guess the relevance. You first heard of "The Mad Hatter" when Johnny Depp's role brought it to your attention? Thought as much.

"Nailed them for exactly what they were"? Your master Whiner called them "falsified". Where is your evidence that the waterfall graphs were "falsified"? He also said they were "Photoshopped". I'm sorry... did you provide the evidence that they were "Photoshopped", before ignorantly saying he "nailed it"? Because I missed that. I also did not see Whiner provide any such evidence, so I'm sure you will be correcting that, Mr. Nailed It. Whiner also claimed that Ted had to hack the data file for the graph. Is -that- evidence coming along, Mr. Nails?

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

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

(Don't come out until I do).

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

Quote:
Ethan. "I am not biased! I know room acoustics, and measuring software, intimately. I know what's physically possible and what is not. The graphs Ted posted are not physically possible. They have to be falsified. There's no other explanation."

He nailed that one big time.

Tell me, are you just dense or what? I asked you to provide evidence the graphs were falsified. All you have done here is to repost Ethan's unsupported accusation of them being falsified, more empty vigorous assertions, and then you restated another one of your obtuse Americanisms: "he nailed that one big time".

So there it is folks, it's official. Neither Whiner nor his apologist Scott here have any evidence whatsoever for the charges of falsification against Ted Denney. When asked for evidence? They just stare at you with their mouths gaping open and repeat "Duh graffs R false, hokay?".

"In this case, I do indeed know more about science than those who consider Ted's data plausible. I have extensive experience with measuring rooms, and deep knowledge of the waterfall graphs produced by the REW software. If you'd like to discuss details of why those graphs are obviously bullshit, I'm glad to elaborate. For one hint, see JJ's post about the conservation of energy. "

Boy right on the money.

Yes; if I had asked you to give me more cheesy Americanisms. But no, I asked you to provide substantiation. Here again, all you have provided is Whiner doing what he does best, ie. spouting bullshit about himself, and his risible appeals to authority. There is NOTHING being proven here, about Ted's graphs. Furthermore, it doesn't look like you even read the paragraph, or understand anything yourself. Do you have any clue Scotty on how to formulate a logical argument in a debate? If you think you do, I suggest you do so already. You are REALLY not making the Whiner apologists look good here.

"Ted's original two graphs show the exact same data, but expressed with different decay times.

Ouch. deadly accuracy in his interpetation of the waterfall graphs. All this before the error was reported.

I take it the "ouch" must be a complaint from your brain from having to work too hard. Problem is, you haven't taken it out of the box yet, Scotty. I already said in my last response to you that all that Whiner did was point to decay discrepancies, while failing to understand that there were more than decay anomalies. So you really are that dense, because all you are doing here is confirming what I said, and again providing ZERO EVIDENCE of anything I asked you to provide. Where does he show that he understands the amplitude differences, for example?

I find this hilarious! So far, every Ethan apologist that I have queried has been unable to prove to me that he had any idea of what he was talking about re: the waterfall graphs. Or that there is any relation at all between Ethan's hatred of Ted with Ted's finding on his own graphs. Instead, each of Whiner's defendants has simply ignored my specific calls for proof that Ethan has continually failed to show, and like a faulty robot, just repeated Whiner's appeals to authority, or his unsubstantiated accusations, or other obfuscations to evidence. Let's watch Scotty do the same thing again!

Okay Scott: Since you ran away from the "hard questions" just like I knew you would, I kept 'em close to me, so here they are again. If you run away from these questions again, we'll assume that you and Ethan are huddling in a corner somewhere, with your fingers in each other's ears, and your hands over each other's eyes:

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

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

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

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

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

http://audiojunkies.com/blog/1571/#comments

Quote:

Hi Scott,

Unfortunately, you got suckered by both Ethan and J_J, surprise surprise.

Yeah I'm a sucker, a real sucker for technical knowledge that leads to meaningful analysis of data. I'm pretty crazy that way.

Quote:

If you had read my previous posts, you would have seen that JA and I "helped" Ethan (and J_J) to correctly compare the graphs.

Sorry but every time I start to read your posts I see irrational attacks on Ethan's character. If you have something to say on the subject and you want me to read it you are going to have to filter that bullshit. I am utterly bored with all the blah blah blah.

Quote:

(Or did they willfully decide to mislead?) I explicitly stated in a post to print, in "draft", and overlay them. But you didn't do it Scott.

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

Quote:

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

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

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

IBID. No need to Photoshop them to create false differences when they were created the way they were. I guess Ethan should have stubbornly refused to believe Ted knew how to press the buttons, too!

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

"Hacked" vs "didn't operate the device properly," more 'semantics,' Michigan? In Ethan's world, he really did not give Ted proper credit - - is someone who screws up a program to that degree not 'hacking' the program? The difference between intentional misuse vs. unintentional misuse is your defense?

OK, manslaughter instead of murder!

Ted didn't murder the data, he killed it accidentally - yes, a lesser crime!

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

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

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

Ethan gave Ted credit for being able to start the test correctly - you are right that Ethan utterly failed to identify the original 500ms error. Ethan, to his credit, was not the one who started a thread including the term "proof positive!"

In retrospect, that's up there with "mission accomplished" at this point.

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

Ethan.

The Ethan haters are in full spin retreat mode, man. As they run away with their hair in flames and their women left to the invading objectivist, I can hear them opining, "And Ted would have gotten away with it, too, if weren't for that pesky Ethan."

To paraphrase a great literary hero, Conan the Barbarian:

Objectivist General: We have won again. That is good! But what is best in life?

Objectivist Warrior: The open soundstage, fleet frequency response curves, falcon song imaging in flight, the sonic illusion of wind in your hair!

Objectivist General: Wrong! Ethan, what is best in life?

Ethan: To crush your subjectivist enemies, to see their products driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of the women!

Objectivist General: That is good.

_

Now, I'd cut and paste Ethan's face over Arnold's for this pic, but then, knowing the skills of the audiophile community at discerning this sort of hijinks, I fear it would start a belief system that Ethan is a muscular guy who hangs with Grace Jones rather than being noticed as a fake!