Has anyone read this book by Pual White?
Is the diagram on page 52 correct?
Re - plasterboard on both sides of stud?

Please either post something constructive or don't bother at all. Cryptic Graemlins don't really show off your intellect to it's best advantage... Hugh Robjohns


Edited by Hugh Robjohns (28/03/06 11:29 AM)

I'm no expert, but, a quick and dirty approach to sound proofing is to add layers of plasterboard. Its not a cure-all and only attenuates to a certain point since your room construction plays a part in sound transmission.

But, a mass-air-mass system is also a good sound insulator and so, if you have the option, a double plasterboard layer as shown in the book is an "enhanced" quick and dirty way to sound isolatoin.

My worthless two cents.

Short, answer, I'd guess since its in the book it's "supposed" to be that way.

P-X

--------------------
My Home Studio Build Thread

slightly longer answer....

well Yes and No....

I guess the book could do with updating.... I haven't read it so I'm not certain, and don't have access to the diagram you're referring to..... but i recall Paul's basic series having been around for quite a long time.... easily 10, maybe even 15 years i'd have thought.... accepted wisdom has changed greatly in that period.... both at the highest levels, and at the common or garden home studio level.

"traditional" studio building, in terms of the "room within a room" type of thing, often used that kind of construction technique, and indeed, many "traditional" builders still do....

however it's not actually always the best, or "most right" answer.... indeed, it never has been, but it was an answer that generally worked well enough at the time , all things considered...

Today, i suspect it wouldn't be written the same way..... there's a great deal more information and published research available, and many more engineers and acousticians are happy enough to share their knowledge "on-line" , Indeed, on-line cyber space now exists as a practical reality.... which it didn't really, even just 10 years back........

When Paul first wrote that "basic" series, there was next to bugger all easily available.... not just in acoustics but generally about media and music technology.... and those books were written in "plain english" for the average joe punter to be able to grasp the core concepts from.... they were never intended, or marketed as being a "reference work of ultimate authority"

To be fair, I reckon it's probably approaching time to revise some of them to reflect newer standards and technologies.

whether the time or the same market really exists any more is another matter..... and one I'll happily leave to Paul and co to ponder.,.

Max

--------------------
if you don't know who i am, i aint gonna tell you.

Quote Relax:

---

Has anyone read this book by Pual White?
Is the diagram on page 52 correct?
Re - plasterboard on both sides of stud?

---

Without seeing the diagram ( can you scan it and upload it? )

Well it depends on where and what this stud wall is being used for. (

If it's a stud wall that's framing 1 leaf of a 2 leaf system ( i.e room within a room ) then you only want the plasterboard on the outside of the studs. Otherwise you create a triple leaf ( or more ) system.

--------------------
Pauls Studio Build Diary at http://forum.studiotips.com/viewforum.php?f=1

Quote Max The Mac:

---

....

When Paul first wrote that "basic" series, there was next to bugger all easily available.... not just in acoustics but generally about media and music technology.... and those books were written in "plain english" for the average joe punter to be able to grasp the core concepts from.... they were never intended, or marketed as being a "reference work of ultimate authority"

....

Max

---

( assuming the diagram refers to a triple leaf system )

Well physics hasn't changed since then. Even in plain englsih 2+2=4

Paul

--------------------
Pauls Studio Build Diary at http://forum.studiotips.com/viewforum.php?f=1

Quote Max The Mac:

---

"traditional" studio building, in terms of the "room within a room" type of thing, often used that kind of construction technique, and indeed, many "traditional" builders still do....

however it's not actually always the best, or "most right" answer.... indeed, it never has been, but it was an answer that generally worked well enough at the time , all things considered...

---

Max, do you mean that the whole "room within a room" concept is not always the right answer (presuming we're talking specifically about studio building, with an emphasis on soundproofing)? Or do you mean that a room within a room is still the right answer, but a double-sided plasterboard stud wall is not always the best way to build such a room within a room?

I ask because I was under the impression that the decoupling of two separate masses is the crucial factor in serious soundproofing, and that this is a basic function of physics (as Paul says) that would not be dependant on changing building styles or construction techniques.

Have methods been discovered or developed to achieve similar results without such decoupling?

I thought it was fairly clear and specific really Wurlitzer.... the thread's origin was directly relating to triple leaf.... not the whole room within room thing....

--------------------
if you don't know who i am, i aint gonna tell you.

The diagram in question shows a double leaf partition with a brick wall seperated by an air gap then a stud wall. But with plasterboard on both sides of the stud to me this makes a triple leaf structure.
I will try and get the diagram posted up today

can i just point out the copyright violation that that's likely to involve... ????

this may be SOS forum... and Paul may be the editor in chief... but it's still relevant....

Max

--------------------
if you don't know who i am, i aint gonna tell you.

Quote Max The Mac:

---

I thought it was fairly clear and specific really Wurlitzer.... the thread's origin was directly relating to triple leaf.... not the whole room within room thing....

---

Whoa! I don't think that was actually clear at all. It wasn't clear from the original post whether he was referring to a double plasterboard wall inside a brick external wall (ie, triple leaf), or to a double plasterboard internal partition wall on its own (ie, double leaf, but not decoupled).

He's only now explained that he meant the former. That being the case, I understand it's pretty well accepted that, for a given amount of mass and a given total wall width, one is better off with all the mass on the outsides and the largest air-gap possible - ie double leaf rather than triple.

Anyway, I was only asking.

There's also the question of whether it actually IS a triple leaf...

if one builds such a wall so that it's absolutely solid/rigid ... with no Decoupling strips/Airgaps/resilient bars or other such devices... then arguably, it's possible that it's actually fairly considered as more of a single leaf of greater mass than double light weight leaf and spring

however, in practice, this is not usually the case...

(I still haven't seen the book...... but I'm NOT in favour of a breach of copyright.... I'll just have to see about buying it, or seeing if Paul has electronic versions of the diagrams that he is willing to email me with.,... )

Ref Paul Woodlock.

1) actually the accepted "laws of physics" change regularly, as and when mankind makes new discoveries that render previous theories and models obsolete........ it's called progress apparently.....

2) actually it appears that it's not nearly as old as I thought..... Copyright for current edition is early 2003 i believe.... Indeed, I wonder if he's revised earlier editions of some of the range of "basic's" books, I recall suggesting some media tech students use some of them as additional "plain english" notes back in the 90's ... and I'm fairly sure it was PRIOR to their apparent copyright dates...

--------------------
if you don't know who i am, i aint gonna tell you.

PW is currently out at the Frankfurt show, but I'll point him at this thread on his return to explain his thinking.

Hugh

--------------------
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound

Thanks Hugh,
Would be interesting to hear his reasoning.

This is an interesting thread,
Less for the content but goes directly to the responsibility of an author.

For Relax it seems impossible, notwithstanding other info he read as internet user, to accept that a well known book of a well known author, can contain wrong principles.
Relax gets in fact a clear answer in his recent (only couple of days old) thread *, yet just restart exactly the same question in this very thread.
* Previous thread containg exact same question, clearly pointing to the triple leaf principle.

It also shows, that specifically when one wants to stylize things, for a public not interested or educated in the underlying science, but in the practical result ... the how to, the accuracy becomes even more important, because readers will blindly accept such info and base their decision process on it. Certainly when it doesn't consern opinions but assumed factual data or physical principles.

Eric

PS: I don't think this is breach of copyright, when a quote (which in this case seems a diagram rather than text) is used and entered, but constitutes "FAIR USE" since it is fundament of the discussion of a specific principle the diagram seems to represent.
As long as the exact context isn't presented, the discussion (without any commercial goal but educative from nature and in the interest of many) remains questionable.
One can't expect anyone to buy a book just to check one page.
One should of cource repect exact references and source.

--------------------
The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing ............... Albert Einstein

Post deleted by Hugh Robjohns

Eric read the PM I sent you and stop being a prat!


Edited by Hugh Robjohns (29/03/06 02:46 PM)

Eric,
I know I posted this question a few days ago in another thread but I wanted to draw more attention to the subject.
Having only a basic knowhow in the subject and everything I do know as you rightly say coming from what I have read in this forum and a few articles and books written by people who know allot more about the subject than myself. I therefore have to believe what they are saying.
I am currently building a studio so I purchased the book to see if there were any more tips on different subjects. When I saw the diagram it did conflict with previous things I had read on the subject but knowing what I do about the author Paul White and his vast experience in the field I thought there must be a very good reason for the type of design shown.
I am not to far away from completing the studwall in my studio so I just wanted to make sure I wasn't making any mistakes which would be hard to remedy at a later stage.
I am very apreciative of the responses I get to questions posted here and most of my knowledge has come from this forum it is a great thing to have access to expert opinions and knowledgeable minds.
Relax

Relax,

The answer I gave you in the previous thread is correct.

It is one of those typical axioms which nested itself in the studio world, and the electro acoustic world, at least in studiogroups on the net.

This are no new thoughts as Max suggests, but plain dry physics.

When I came on the net ca 5 to maybe 6 years back, I never saw anywhere a warning against this triple leaf system.
At the contrary I saw people advising it, based on the idea: if it's decoupled the more cavities and panels the better.
I couldn't believe my eyes when seeing how convincing people were about something they really had no background about.

Hence it's mainly me starting to introduce that warning in studiogroups.
A lot of related stuff and pictures were only entered later on.
Then Brian ca 2 to 2.5 years back with his real scientific attitude, insight and in-depth investigations in this field, supported the thought.
I even changed plans (>> 10 years back) to remove this misconception from an international well-known studio designers design involved in over 500 studios world-wide.

This isn't new, but related to principles already teached when I was young (that's a while).

I was preparing some tables and real calculations to show the effect of triple leaf systems on the MSM, comparing them with double leaf systems, and the inefficiency related to the use of the same mass.

But due to Hughs handling of me, I don't think about sharing it here anymore.

I maybe will enter related detailed calculations at Studiotips later.

Hence there are only 2 possibilities:
1) Either you misinterpret what Paul White entered in his book which I don't know, since I don't have it.
2) Or Paul is plain wrong. And then I do understand your confusion and unbelieve.

But Hugh made me real mad here, hence it's no good to continue this for me and I become much less diplomatic.

Eric

PS: And thanks for clarifying, and showing understanding for what Hugh thought necessary to moderate once more.

--------------------
The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing ............... Albert Einstein

Eric.

I've seen no actual evidence to suggest that Hugh removed anything...( the system usually leaves a note telling us who edited or deleted something, and when) although i may well be wrong... I often am. (note that I do NOT have any god like super powers in this area... as I've clearly stated in the past... so I cannot actually be 110% certain of that)



is it just possible you forgot to fully submit the post? I've done it myself a few times... especially when I'm trying to keep track of being actively involved in multiple threads...


as an aside from that...
these constant whines about moderation are doing no-one any good at all.

either play by the house rules.. or accept the moderation . or don't play...

even if he did, i must tell you that Hugh never edits or removes material without good reason.... he's THE most patient and even handed moderator on the team... The only one of the original team for the acoustics forum that is still prepared to do it and put up with the constant warring and sniping.



which boils down to.

it's your bed, you made it, so now you get to lay in it.
( but it's not your house.... )


best regards
Max

--------------------
if you don't know who i am, i aint gonna tell you.

I always mean what I say, not because I'm that clever, but only tell what I know. And while, being human,I can sin, but am extremely careful to question myself first.
Hence that message existed and is removed without any trace.

Rather than a lot of text, tell me what I did wrong worth moderating.

It has all been explained to you in a PM from me sent at 1000 this morning. Hugh Robjohns

Even Relax knows exactly what I meant, and explained his reason for re-entering a thread for which he already had a clear answer.

But don't bother. I don't further either.

Just to explain:
I answered clear in the previous thread and ended with an "if indeed" advice to Paul White.
I didn't want to go further in that, knowing that SOS should confront or hint Paul with it.

Then Relax re-entered that thread.
At first, I choose not to intervene, knowing this was sensitive and just confronting Relax in a gentle manner with the fact that he had his answer already.

That may have been your intention... but the use of graemlins left it wide open to a variety of misinterpretations. A simple written statement to the effect that this matter had already been discussed in the other thread would have been far more constructive and clear. Hugh Robjohns

Best regards
Eric

Edited by Hugh Robjohns (29/03/06 03:19 PM)

Eric, Max
Mountains and Molehills!
No big deal no harm done!
Relax

there was a post here this morning that has now gone, dont mean to stir things up, just trying to be fair!

--------------------
www.rpgeurope.com
*all comments and posts are my own, and nothing to do with RPG....*

Quote Max The Mac:

---

I've seen no actual evidence to suggest that Hugh removed anything...( the system usually leaves a note telling us who edited or deleted something, and when) although i may well be wrong... I often am.

---

As a point of fact, Max, I did remove one of Eric's posts this morning, and I've just amended another. The content of the first was not related to the subject under discussion, but merely another whinge that I had the audacity to alter that moronic post he entered at the top.

I sent him a detailed PM at the same time explaining the reasons behind my actions. It appears he has failed to read or understand this.

Given that he is a moderator himself of the Studitips website, I continue to find some of his posts here beyond belief. When he sticks to technical matters he can be invaluable. When he posts without thinking he is a royal pain in the ass. Sorry to be so blunt, by my patience is exhausted.

I had endeavoured not to air this dirty washing in public, but since he seems so determined to do precisely that, let's get it over and done with! Let me explain my undertsanding of the situation.

1. Relax started a new thread on the topic of double skin stud walls that Eric had already given what he considered to be the complete answer in the previous thread.

2. In his (presumed) angst, Eric posted the graemlins above.

3. I saw that post and felt Eric's contribution was rude and inappropriate. Firstly, Relax was perfectly at liberty to start a new thread under a new title if he wanted to try to gather more feedback (I presumed he was actually trying to catch the eye of Paul White). Secondly, and more importantly, anyone new to the forum seeing that kind of instant response to a perfectly fair question would think badly of the forum (or some of its contributors). That is why I considered it inappropriate. Regardless of his personal frustration with Relax's new thread, as a moderator himself he should have known better than to post that kind of insulting and thoughtless response.

4. I considered simply deleting Eric's first graemlin post, but given the complaints he has made in the past about SOS moderation in general, and mine in particular, I thought it better to comment in public instead.

5.Rather than consider the reasons for the moderating action, and seeing the bigger picture, Eric goes off on one and has a rant. Nothing new there... However, that rather than contact me privately to discuss, Eric likes to sling the mud in public. The resulting rant was entirely inappropriate to the thread content (which had been fairly good constructive and helpful up to that point) -- and since it was largely abusive of me personally I deleted it while simultaneously responding fully to all the points made, direct and in private to Eric via PM.

The log says that was at 0859, but the system clock hasn't been updated and it was actually at 0959 BST.

Eric either hasn't read that calm and reasoned PM, or has chosen to ignore my explanations, which is rather sad...

Quote:

---

as an aside from that...
these constant whines about moderation are doing no-one any good at all. either play by the house rules.. or accept the moderation . or don't play...

---

Sadly, Eric doesn't seem to understand this simple concept. I've explained it to him enough times myself in the past

Quote:

---

even if he did, i must tell you that Hugh never edits or removes material without good reason.... he's THE most patient and even handed moderator on the team... The only one of the original team for the acoustics forum that is still prepared to do it and put up with the constant warring and sniping.

---

Kind of you to say, Max. But even I have my limits...
In the PM I warned of an imminent banning if this kind of whinging continued. I guess if he hasn't read the PM it would be unfair to ban him now... but my finger is poised for the very next time... It will be a shame in some ways, but in the interests of consistency, other have been banned for similar provocations in the past.

hugh

--------------------
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound

But I like Eric! He's barking mad and inhabits a private world of his own that adds sparkle to any party - even this one!

I imagine him having to take time off writing (post after post after post across every forum he can inhabit in three different languages) to bite the carpet and foam at the mouth.

I suppose somebody has to provide adult supervision, though.

--------------------
www.the-byre.com No longer Forum Member

Hugh,
As it was myself who started this thread I feel a bit responsable for causing an argument although as you say above all I was trying to do was gather as much info on the subject as possible and grab Pauls attention.
My intention was not to cause offence to anyone.
This will not put me off using this forum as an invaluable source of knowledge as I am sure I will be asking allot of stupid questions in the future as my studio progresses.
Thank you for your time and patience
Relax

The Byre,

You should be surpriced how little groups I visit and how little posts.

But I like content, you need show to compensate.
But your message indeed is you. Thanks for helping me.


General

The ONLY thing that should happen here, rather than pages full of text, is Hugh telling (without ifs and buts):
"Sorry Eric I meant well but misinterpreted your post".

Me



--------------------
The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing ............... Albert Einstein

Quote Relax:

---

As it was myself who started this thread I feel a bit responsable for causing an argument although as you say above all I was trying to do was gather as much info on the subject as possible and grab Pauls attention.

---

It's quite OK, Relax. I have no problem with you or your (double) post. It's just a little spat between Eric and me (again ) and nothing to worry about. And as soon as Paul gets back I'll ask him to comment on this debate.

Personally, I suspect the Pauls' advice in the book was based on what were commonly held ideas a few years ago, and although the copyright date of the book has been changed, I doubt the bulk of the material has. Understanding of this area of acoustics has improved considerably and the general advice has changed. All I can say is that those books were written on the basis of Paul's first hand experience and aimed at the budget-concious home recording enthusiast. But I'll leave it to PW to comment further.

Quote:

---

This will not put me off using this forum as an invaluable source of knowledge as I am sure I will be asking allot of stupid questions in the future as my studio progresses.

---

Glad to hear it ;-) Hopefully, Eric will still be around to offer helpful advice when you need it in the future too... We'll all help him pick the toys up and put them back in the pram later

hugh

--------------------
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound

Quote Eric Desart:

---

The ONLY thing that should happen here, rather than pages full of text, is Hugh telling (without ifs and buts): "Sorry Eric I meant well but misinterpreted your post".

---

Alternatively, Eric could apologise for his possibly well meant but obviously unhelpful response at the start of the thread, and for subsequently throwing a pointless and objectionable hissy-fit!

Eric, I'm not the slightest bit interested in playing childish games with you aand your ego. You've had all the warnings you're going to get. You can either abide by the rules and accept the very mild moderation that is occasionally required to temper your less thoughtful and congenial posts, or you can leave the forum. I don't much mind which you choose, but I will happily say that on your better days you are a valued and helpful contributor and it would be a shame to part company for something as trivial as this. But it's your choice, and we've walked this road so many times before....

hugh

--------------------
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound

For me,


The value of most "replies" to posts in this forum is immeasurable. Some would argue that replies are measured by the amount of success they generate for the "poster", but they also may generate other successes for those just want to "learn".

I believe the "pool" of acoustic experience, knowledge and pratical application advice here rivals many other acoustical forums. With that, I hope every one here continues to provide the same kinds of advice that has made this forum a benchmark for many others, and that the contributors of this forum take a step back every once in while to ask themselves what will "help", and what will not, then extrapolate.



Just my 2 cents.

Thanks to all who contribute truth, applicable knowledge, and occassionally, wit.


~ Joel

--------------------
http://www.readyacoustics.com
Joel DuBay Sr

Following numerous warnings and his continued dissent, Eric Desart has now been banned from the SOS forums.

Hugh Robjohns

--------------------
The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing ............... Albert Einstein

Edited by Hugh Robjohns (30/03/06 09:25 AM)

Lets add some sex, booze and drugs....
Then we can stop watching soaps on TV.

Ah come on Huge! Now I've got nobody whose chain I can jerk!

Put Mad Eric back on, please! Just for me!

--------------------
www.the-byre.com No longer Forum Member

Quote Eric Desart:

---

Following numerous warnings and his continued dissent, Eric Desart has now been banned from the SOS forums.

Hugh Robjohns

---

What the hell. As long as we have The Byre we don't need the Belg.
How's the building of the transmission loss chamber going?

Not that it is any of my business, but I think it was incorrect of Hugh to ban Eric.

OK, Eric could be, shall we say, irascible, but he did understand the acoustics of building materials and poked huge holes in the bogus 'science' of some people who make a living (or so it seems) telling people half-truths about a subject that they only half understand.

I have a feeling that, by demolishing arguments that were put forward by people who were, how shall I put this 'close' to SOS magazine, Eric had put himself in an unpopular position with some people.

A run-in with Eric was fun, because you knew that you were dealing with someone who understood his field (but not much else). OK, his communication skills left a great deal to be desired, but this is typical of people who devote themselves to a technology at the apparent cost of just about everything else.

I for one, do not want this forum or any forum, come to that, to evolve into a sober place of intellectual discussion, where the good and great hand down their wisdom of the ages to lesser mortals.

--------------------
www.the-byre.com No longer Forum Member

Quote The Byre:

---

Not that it is any of my business, but I think it was incorrect of Hugh to ban Eric.

---

You are right, Andy, it's none of your business, but I don't mind discussing it further to correct any misapprehensions.

Quote:

---

OK, Eric could be, shall we say, irascible, but he did understand the acoustics of building materials

---

Absolutely. No argument from me there. He has contributed some very good information to this forum and assisted a lot of people. I hope he calms down and can be reinstated soon.

Quote:

---

I have a feeling that, by demolishing arguments that were put forward by people who were, how shall I put this 'close' to SOS magazine, Eric had put himself in an unpopular position with some people.

---

Not sure quite what you mean here. Who is 'close to SOS'? Do you mean Ethan? I don't think so... The occasional spats that broke out between the pair of them were often tedious and puerile, but sometimes lead to useful information and clarifications of important points. Thankfully, their interaction has improved in recent months and the forum has been running on a far more even keel of late.

I wouldn't describe Eric as 'unpopular' with anyone here, either. He simply won't accept moderation in any form and seems to takes everything as a personal affront. Maybe it's a language or humour problem, and I have always made a allowances for that, but there comes a point when it's simply not worth the trouble. He is quick to accuse others of misinterpreting his comments, yet seems unable to accept that he may be equally guilty of the same thing.

He has had plenty of warnings regarding his behaviour on this forum in the past, and has consistently chosen to disregard them. The matter could probably have been resolved amicably behind the scenes this time around too, but he chose to continue to rant in public, inappropriately and unjustifiably.

Now I think we have really said quite enough about this sorry issue.

hugh

Quote The Byre:

---

I have a feeling that, by demolishing arguments that were put forward by people who were, how shall I put this 'close' to SOS magazine, Eric had put himself in an unpopular position with some people.

---

Ditto
But then I am only a long term subscriber - who cares what I think

Hugh,I saw the missing post and I understood what Eric was going on about when he posted his gremlins and I found it amusing.

By banning him, you have proven his point.

I had a look back at some of these threads that you described as 'childish and purile' and quite honestly, I for one do not get it. To poke fun at someone and be less than polite about someone who spouts half-truths and pseudo science is, from what I can see, perfectly acceptable. You do it often - in fact, you've done it to me!

And you were right to do so!

I came late to the accoustics forum, for the simple reason that at first one person seemed to be the giver of all wisdom. Except that wisdom was, well, not very wise. The terminology and 'science' was just too bizzar to be taken seriously, so I just stayed away.

Then Eric came along and things heated up nicely!!! Here is the first time he got stuck in -

Link to Post

Now, the discussion in that thread is not what interests me, but the fact that several people took part in that discussion that have since just gone away.

SOS is a commercial venture and the future of every magazine, TV programme, radio show and newspaper is the Internet. Getting the forum right is vital for the future success of SOS mag. Banning people who know what they are talking about and are prepared to call self-styled experts to task, does not strike me as furthering that future.

Accoustics is one field that SOS has been weak and that article that showed that you can solve your control room problems by holding the dog's duvet infront of the window was pinned to the notice board of a very famous London studio for a couple of weeks. So your forum needs every Eric you can get!

If this is to be an open forum for debate about all things audio, then fine, I'm in!

But if it is to be a cosy and closed group designed to protect the interests of a select few, then I shall pick up all my toys and put them back in the pram.

I leave the final words with Paul Woodlock, hardly the most provocative person on this forum, taken from that thread linked above:

Quote:

---

Eric's intentions are no secret. His intentions are to keep the Internet free from misleading and incorrect acoustics info. He has the knowledge and experience to do this. Rather than question Eric, you should question the information from folks Eric is trying to correct

---

--------------------
www.the-byre.com No longer Forum Member

I shall only add my tiny 2 cents:

Though a relative new comer to this forum, I think I can consider myself on a good footing with those who contribute to this forum.

If I may, I'd like to say this:

I visit many forums that are acoustic related, and I enjoy the give and take that these forums provide related to different "opinions" about acoustics. However, when I see someone post something at one forum, then something 180 degrees different at another forum, I think it is important to point this out. Being brash and churlish about it is really not necessary, but if the criticism leveled is RIGHT ON the mark, I see no need to censor it. I don't agree that expletives have any use in any forum, but content and truth are a necessary part of disseminating GOOD information. And, sometimes that includes pointing out when others are not telling the truth, with proof/ history to back it up. Indeed, I see no need for name calling, but to point out that someone has embellished or worse, flat out LIED about something, is what these forums should do in addition to propagating more discussion about various topics. You know, you have to weed out the BS, and I am happy that Eric is willing to do this in his own way.

I agree that Eric is hard to read sometimes, but this is more a fallout from English not being his native language than anything else in my opinion. Too, we all have a hard time understanding things that differ from our own experience or that go against the grain of what we really WANT to believe, and I believe that Eric is one of very few people who will accept nothing but the truth, even if it means looking churlish on occasion.


In my humble opinion, Eric brings a good bit of fresh air and ABJECT truth to this forum and he has made immeasurable contributions to the acoustics world here, and elsewhere. Now, I don't know Eric. But I know his contributions to this field. He is wonderfully revered by his piers and his students and I count myself among those who admire his offerings to the world of acoustic knowledge.

To revamp his post in my opinion is worse than deleting it all together. I would choose the latter for any post I made. But this is the function of a moderator. And I understand we must use our judgment to determine what is best for the integrity of this forum and those who read and/ or participate.

I just respectfully disagree with expelling him all together. I'd like to see Eric reinstated.

Thank you for allowing me to chime in.

Joel DuBay

Quote The Byre:

---

Hugh,I saw the missing post and I understood what Eric was going on about when he posted his gremlins and I found it amusing.

By banning him, you have proven his point.

---

Hugh,

It is not all that often I find myself in agreement with Byre, this (however) is one of those times.

While I (as a moderator on 2 sites) might understand the need for occassionally editing a post for content - and have been known to do so on occassion (including posts made by my good friend Eric), banning a member takes things to an entirely different level.

Eric, while being different in background from myself, sees things much as I do, which is that inaccuracies in acoustics cause more confusion than one might believe.

And this causes posters to have to go further for information - to dig deeper than they should have to - in order to try to find reality.

This thread is a perfect example of that taking place.

The poster reads something in a book that flies in the face of what he hears others saying to be true - and then - seeing as money is not something one wishes to throw away - finds himself in the position of visiting multiple sites asking the same damned questions to try to find a consensus on what is right or wrong.

Unfortunately - there are those who will blindly defend the book (or post - or person - whatever the case may be) causing more confusion on the part of the original poster.

Seeing as everyone cannot be expert in this field - people who are feel the need to again try to straighten things out - and become more and more frustrated along the way because of the fact that they are stating the same thing hundreds (sometimes thousands) of times over - all becuse the myths just don't want to die.

I understand Eric's frustration ...... and although I understand yours as well - I believe that banning him went beyond what was necessary.

I do hope you would reconsider.

Sincerely,

Rod

Quote The Byre:

---

Banning people who know what they are talking about and are prepared to call self-styled experts to task, does not strike me as furthering that future.

---

That wasn't why he was banned, as you know full well.

Quote:

---

that article that showed that you can solve your control room problems by holding the dog's duvet infront of the window was pinned to the notice board of a very famous London studio for a couple of weeks.

---

It's nice to know that SOS reaches so many professional studios and that they find it so useful, but I don't think we've ever suggested a duvet will "solve your control problems."

What we have often suggested and demonstrated is that a duvet can be a very quick and cheap means of making a significant improvement to a room's acoustic problems in some situations. This is easily demonstrated to be the case too. Where is the problem, Andy?

Quote:

---

But if it is to be a cosy and closed group designed to protect the interests of a select few, then I shall pick up all my toys and put them back in the pram.

---

I think you need to get out and see more daylight, Andy -- I know the long dark days are longer and darkest up there

This forum obviously isn't a closed group and clearly isn't designed to protect the interests of any select few. There has never been a problem with anyone giving or correcting misinformation here, or on any other forum -- provided it is done in a civilised and reasonably respectful way, and in accord with the house rules.

As I've said, hopefully Eric will calm down in time, realise that there are always two sides to every situation (not just his side), and then perhaps we can clear the air and reinstate him. He knows he can contact me at hugh@soundonsound.com should he want to.

In the meantime you can continue to watch toys being thrown about and Bert's gleeful stoking of the fires over in this entertaining thread at www.studiotips.com

hugh

--------------------
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound