Hi All,
New member here. Just wanted to make an unbiased comment. I own a studio, and if I wanted to advertise here in your magazine (I've published extensively and taught journalism at Notre Dame) you would charge me money, which is the function of a for-profit magazine. Very fair. If my claims in that paid ad were false or misleading, that's OK, because I paid to publish. If I said my studio was better than all other studios, that would also be OK, because I paid to play.
I think maybe the problem is that Mr Winer is basically using your forum to sell his products, which, while being useful in a narrow spectrum of applicatons, are obviously not a cure-all, as most products are not. The problem also may be that you're letting him get away with it. Free advertising. I'd love to have free advertising.

Perhaps if there were an ad charge (and connected "Ad Forum") attached to these kinds of promotional messages readers might have a better perspective on the value of the claims. As it stands, people coming into this forum see Mr Winer's thinly disguised ads as "scientific discussion"

Several years ago, while surfing the web in an attempt to augment my understanding of studio design/construction (I've built five studios and helped install another six, including some very successful studios with multiple gold record credits), I found Real Traps all over the net. I wasted valuable time wading through all the claims until I ultimately discarded that option as being of limited use and too expensive. I now have a marvelous new studio designed from scratch, and I would never consider using RealTraps because of the reasons stated above. They're not bad gear, just a waste of money in my opinion.

Imgine if I were less educated in the beginning of my search, and invested all that money in treatments. I would now be upset at being "taken", and would have eventually have had to retrofit my studio. As it stands, I got it right from the first because I was directed to much less expensive, more cost/acoustic-effective ways to treat my room.

I firmly believe that this is at the core of the problem. Free advertising in any medium suggests an exchange of some sort, and your willingness to allow RealTraps to basically advertise for free compromises your stature as an independent magazine.

Thanks for lending an ear.

Stephen Foster
Howler Recording Studio
"The best recording studio in the world... no, really..."

--------------------
Howler

Quote Howler:

---

Just wanted to make an unbiased comment.

---

This is not an unbiased comment. You are member number 4 of the StudioTips group and, along with your tiresome colleagues, have a vested interest in continuing to lambast Ethan on this forum.

Are we really going to have to put up with each and every member of StudioTips posting anti-Ethan comments in turn? This really is quite pathetic.

Quote:

---

If my claims in that paid ad were false or misleading, that's OK, because I paid to publish.

---

No. If anyone spotted the falsehoods and complained these fictitious adverts would be removed very promptly. We have the Trading Standards Council in the UK to ensure all published adverts are fair and honest.

Quote:

---

I think maybe the problem is that Mr Winer is basically using your forum to sell his products

---

No. He is most definitely not doing that. It would be against the rules of the forum and we would take very prompt action. To my knowledge Ethan has never used this forum actively to promote his products. He has answered specific questions on his products in the forum, but that is a very different thing.

I realise you are new here, but regulars will know that all the moderators keep a close eye on anything that looks like a commercial activity. For example, I pulled up Jim of Sonic Distribution only yesterday for psuedo-advertising on the MR&T forum.

Quote:

---

I would never consider using RealTraps because of the reasons stated above. They're not bad gear, just a waste of money in my opinion.

---

You are, of course perfectly welcome to voice your opinion, provided it is clear that it is entirely that -- an opinion. So too are those who have used RealTraps products (or any other acoustic treatment) and found them to be effective for their purposes. For the record, there have been several of those over the years, too.

Quote:

---

I would now be upset at being "taken", and would have eventually have had to retrofit my studio.

---

This is pure speculation on your part. By your own account you have not installed RealTraps products. You therefore do not know how effective or otherwise they may be in situ. It is a presumption on your part that you would have to retrofit your studio.

It is a matter of fact that there are plenty of facilities both in the UK and the US that have found RealTraps products to provide a satisfactory solution (possibly in combination with other DIY or commercial treatments) to their acoustic requirements.

I have no vested interest in what products people choose to use, but I think it only fair to balance your clearly biased and misleading claims with a little objectivity.

Quote:

---

Free advertising in any medium suggests an exchange of some sort, and your willingness to allow RealTraps to basically advertise for free compromises your stature as an independent magazine.

---

This is a completely unfounded claim with no basis whatsoever. The motives behind your post will, no doubt, be transparently obvious to all.

Hugh

Quote Howler:

---

Imgine if I were less educated in the beginning of my search, and invested all that money in treatments. I would now be upset at being "taken", and would have eventually have had to retrofit my studio.

---

Stephen,

This is an absurd statement.

Due to the fact that I associate with both your group and Ethan - I really try hard to stay out of these things. That and the fact that I am not an acoustician (in the pure scientific sense) and thus do not posess the knowledge to either support or refute either party in this issue.

Unfortunately I now find myself forced into the mix.

It's one thing to question scientific methods...... testing proceedures - published results - all from the perspective of the search for pure science........ it's another thing to make blatant claims that are nothing shy of bulls**t.

There are many MANY studios - both professional and home - which use Realtraps products. Not only do they NOT consider themselves "taken" - they are (in fact) very happy with the results in their rooms due to these products.

For you to suggest that the outcome of a purchase of Ethan's products is to find that one has been "taken" verges on outright slander.

If this is what it comes down to - if it's no longer (for you) about science - but rather personality - then maybe you should just keep your comments to yourself.

Statements like yours, especially after your cute little opening line "New member here. Just wanted to make an unbiased comment" make me ill.........

By the way - your claim to fame makes you no more a professional in the field of acoustics than mine does.

Perhaps you should take your lead from a REAL acoustician - that being Eric, he never presents himself in public as badly as you just did.

You should be ashamed.

I sincerely apologize for adding to this mess - but sometimes it's just too much to ignore.

Rod

Edited by Rod Gervais (28/01/05 02:10 PM)

I will confess up front to being a StudioTips person so I hope by declaring this, the question can be taken on the level because there is no hidden agenda here.

My question is a straight forward question that I ask simply because I want to understand something which has relevance to the ETF testing I have done in my own room.

BTW, I am not an acoustician but I think I understand some of the principles.

Please can it be explained to me how any result other than "how does this placement of rockwool absorb, in this quantity, in this orientation, in this room?" can be inferred from the waterfall plots.

You see, to me, there are too many unknown and unique variables in the room to enable the results to be interpreted in anything other than a vague way. For example, the construction methods, materials and dimensions of the room. For example, the cumulative interaction that surely must occur between the panels dependent on their positioning. For example, the interaction with the furniture in the room (this may not make much difference below 100Hz but it surely changes the room). For example, the gain level of the sweep.

To my level of science, if you want to measure absorption to any degree of absolute accuracy, then you need to do so in a room where (and I have no idea how this is done) the effects of the room are neutral or can be neutralised. If you do so in any other type of room, you are measuring relative absorption of the materials concerned against the characteristics of the room.

Does this make sense or am I talking nonsense?

As an observation, it would also have been interesting to see the results of Minitraps or Mondotraps put alongside the results of the bare panels.

Now, at the risk of being boring, I repeat that I have no hidden agenda here. I am asking a question because as my level of acoustics knowledge increases, I have more questions - how does that work, what if you did that? etc... My initial thoughts on this absorption test lead me to raise the points above. I hope that the question will be left to stand.

Thank you and regards,

Mark

Mark, given the history of recent events, it looks very suspicious that you should choose to ask your questions on this forum, in this thread, and at this particular moment in time.

Call me an old cynic if you like but this whole sorry saga is looking increasingly like a studiotips mob invasion with the singular purpose of spreading this tedious feud as far and as wide as possible.

Tim ;o)

--------------------
Studio: www.kymatasound.com

Tim,

I do understand your point and to try and prevent that sort of conclusion, I wrote that tedious disclaimer at the start and end of my post (which I did not like having to do). I will say nothing more on the perceived "undercurrent" except to say that the question comes from me and no one else. I am a rank amateur on acoustics so it is an uplifting moment when I can reason something through in my own mind in my own terms and then draw a conclusion. It is only natural at that point to want to share it with other people and discuss my conclusions. Please don't taint my moment of minor triumph in terms of acoustics reasoning with insinuations that are not there!

I am much more interested in your views on whether what I said is accurate or not.

We need to keep this thread on topic.

Regards,

Mark

Foz and Eric, please check your private messages.

--------------------
Scott
--Where are we going and why am I in this handbasket?

Quote Tim Rainey:

---

Call me an old cynic if you like but this whole sorry saga is looking increasingly like a studiotips mob invasion with the singular purpose of spreading this tedious feud as far and as wide as possible.

Tim ;o)

---

hey Tim. regrettably i can understand how it might look that way. whatever it's worth, i'm a studiotips member and i like ethans test. so, by whatever means many studiotips members are present and dissent, but it's not a "studiotips thing". Studiotips is a lovely forum,a nd i respect the owners efforst to create a resource alot.

to address Marks point, as i tried to communicate at studiotips... you are of course observing what is going on in one particular room at one particular place. And that expresses itself clearly via which modal peaks/nodes are present and in what level and all of the tests under discussion. but...

similarly, when testing damping on a mechanical panel, you are limited to observation of the modes that are present. But this type of looking-at-one-mode analysis is done on other damping applications (i mean mechanical, not acoustical) who's value exceeds the sum of the room acoustics industry worldwide, and their results are utilized by engineers in applications that involve ... lives. buildings, bridges, cars, aircraft...

but...

begging the pardon of all if there is something i simply don't grasp, but EW states point-blank that his test does not purport to divine a sabins figure, and also that he doesn't care / this isn't the goal, he just wanted to take a "first step" at observing the effects of density and the FRK membrane.

perhaps - and i DO mean this sincerely - someone could explain to me why this cannot be done in this manner, and if the "this room, this location" argument is to be the core of that, i would caution that to argue that the result from one room not being loosely repeatable in the next room risks bordering on an argument of degeneration. The premise of C-423 and the reverb room tests is, as Foz has observed, to provide persons planning a room with reliable methods of prediction. And for the argument that "this room, this location" renders all in room tests incapable of even relative comparisons implies that

1. the impact of the FRK membrane will vary from room to room. As in it might cause a dip at 200hz sometime relative to unfaced material, but later cause a peak at that same time.
2. the impact of density will vary from room to room. As in tests in Tom-Toms room 705 is more absorbent at 70hz, but in Billy Bobs room, 701 is more absorbent at 70hz...

if these are true, then the entire premise of C-423 is invalid, and reliable predictions of performance cannot be divined. C-423 is to allow reliable data to predict things. But if this mystic room variable renders that wholly irrelevant, then such prediction cannot occur, hence the standard and all absorption tests are invalid.

And, if that is the case, then truly we have a hopeless situation here with respect to understanding these various products, designs, etc.

think about that, or feel free to debate my logic, and i hope everyone can respect that my interest in this is one of honest curiosity.

or if nobody reads my posts here or at ST, just answer this: the room/location affects the modal/frequency distribution. but do you argue that it also somehow affects which materials would perform best? as in a SSC might be far worse than a minitrap in one room, but far better in another?

Brian

Quote MarkEdmonds:

---

Please can it be explained to me how any result other than "how does this placement of rockwool absorb, in this quantity, in this orientation, in this room?" can be inferred from the waterfall plots.

---

It's a valid question Mark, and a relief to get back to the topic of the thread. As I understand it, this is exactly the purpose of the test that has been described. The way it has been described, it is claimed to enable the effect of a specific application of sound treatment in a specific room to be compared with the untreated room. I agree that the method is full of pitfalls, but as a quick and realtively easy way of seeing whether a particular room treatment plan is having the desired effect, it seems a reasonable technique to me.

Quote:

---

To my level of science, if you want to measure absorption to any degree of absolute accuracy, then you need to do so in a room where (and I have no idea how this is done) the effects of the room are neutral or can be neutralised.

---

Sure... but -- as I understand the idea -- it is not intended to provide absolute accuracy on specific absorption coefficients. I don't see how it could provide that kind of data. But if you want to compare in relative terms how one specific treatment plan works compared to another in the same room, I would have thought it a reasonable tool.

Hugh

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

fellas, i think it best for me to wipe my curiosity about this matter from my noggin and press on.

and i hope this isn't against SOS rules, but studiotips is a lovely forum, and the ST guys here are nice fellows as well in my experience. As is EW, in my experience.

but i would like to pose this question again before i go:

would the parties present feel that the

1. the absorption "curve" of some given device will vary widely from room to room.

2. the relative absorption of 2 things will vary widely from room to room. As in it's possible that, at some mode of ~80hz, a superchucnk might be superior to a MegaLENRD but inferior to a Minitrap in Bobs room. But in Brians room, the MegaLENRD reigns supreme and the Minitrap performs poorly and the superchunk causes spontaneous combustion (joke)

3. there is some reason to believe that you COULD NOT attain a test of good repeatability in some given point in some given room. i can't imagine the mechanism for this

i don't konw enough about ETF to say whether this is the proper tool, so no questions there.

if the answers to 1 and 2 are "yes, this is correct", then perhaps we must all agree that this entire topic is preposterous, as is ASTM C-423 and it's goal of reliable results for use as predictions by engineers and what not. For if there is no possible way to predict what any given device will do in some room (due to 1 or 2), then...........

feel free to add an additional reason that i have not thought of to why testing in a room cannot possibly yield a relative comparison of two things.

anyway, i shall book-shelve my fascination here, but i would like to discuss these if anyone is interested.

take care all,

Brian

I am dancing on the threshold of my acoustics knowledge here. I really had a bad time with wave mechanics at school

Brian's questions give me a good place to start so I will comment on them from my viewpoint - which I stress for anyone jumping into the thread without knowing the relative knowledge levels - is lacking in hard knowledge.

1. the absorption "curve" of some given device will vary widely from room to room.

I would say that if all other things are equal, the curve will not vary but I don't think that is the right question. It will still be the same physical entity in different rooms obviously but the effect it has in different rooms will change with the room type. Therefore, maybe the question should be "the effective absorption curve of given devices can or will vary widely from room to room." and surely you would have to say yes. Remember: when you use something like ETF, you measure the room, not the treatment.

2. the relative absorption of 2 things will vary widely from room to room.

Possible by my logic as different devices may work better at certain frequencies but if you are comparing very similar like for likes, then I would expect not.

3. there is some reason to believe that you COULD NOT attain a test of good repeatability in some given point in some given room. i can't imagine the mechanism for this

I actually find exact repeatability of measurements very difficult, even if I position things as accurately as possible and use multiple reference points but that isn't the point. I think you really mean transportability than repeatability, ie: are results I obtain in my room of any relevance outside that room? This is where my brain gets twisted and why I joined the thread.

I don't see Ethan's tests as measuring the absorption from the panels but instead, they measure the effect of those panels in that room. Isn't that the same? No, I don't think so. (Mutters to himself, are you sure you want to carry on?).

So why isn't it the same and why can't you infer absorption cababilities this way?

Simply because you have no reference point to measure against. Unless you have a flat room or a flat absorber, how do you extrapolate from the plots where it is room or where it is absorber? You can't simply take one away from the other because the presence of one changes the other.

I know my points probably sound a bit like the uncertain cat in the box thingy but bear with me.

I agree that Ethan has produced an interesting example to show how trapping changes a room but the transportability of those results is, IMO, limited.

What Ethan has shown is that in his particular room with that particular treatment, he obtained that set of results. Fine, but I honestly don't see how you can transport those results because they are too dependent on an uncontrolled environment (and I mean no disrespect with that comment).

Phew, well I got to a sort of ending.

Bracing myself...

Mark

Brian, Mark,

I seem to remember Eric telling that even normal wool (Super chunk or whatever you name it) can give strange peaks when measured in a normalized room.
So measuring, for example, a tuned device like a membrane resonator, a helmholz resonator, etc etc in a room that could have modes at the resonating frequencies of the device under test (DUT) would seem difficult, wouldn't it?

Further you should see what to do: do you have to test at different positions, average data, etc. Putting a mic in a room in a null could make you miss a mode, not?
Standard measurements in rooms are described in detail, and there is ALWAYS averaging demanded. So this is a question of having someone do research on phd level, if not better.

And you should use a stable measurement device. ETF may be very good at a certain platform, and calibrated, I don't know, but Andre Brito, Bob Gold and me have level differences measuring at the same position with ETF, and looking at Ethans tests: they don't seem extremely stable.

Brian: you're an old-time speaker enthousiast. Would you like to draw conclusions on seperate speaker behaviour from a measurement on a sub woofer in a small room?

Measuring control rooms etc using waterfalls is as ancient as the road to rome, but I wouldn't like to generalize measurements from one room on another.

So there is lots of work to do before you can say anything realistic about this.

My 200 shekel.

Tiresome Bert

I’m tired of this constant negative categorization of the “studiotips mob”.
Just because I choose to frequent a specific group, I loose my indiviuality and am rated a 16 year old gang member?
For god’s sake we’re talking a virtual group, comprised of individuals from all over the globe, who most likely (and unfortunatly) will never meet each other, most probably over 30, with little spare time and with real life responsibilities.
Stephen “Howler” Foster is the real thing, a US musician living on an Alabama mountain top, who played with Lynyrd Skynyrd & Little Feat , and I think he even has grandkids, Belgian Eric Desart is probably the highest order of acoustician any of us will ever talk to,
how can one tie those two individuals together? mob you say?
Have any of you seriously taken a moment to try and figure out WHY this “feud” as you call it exists? Why Ethan generates this output?
I personaly do have an issue with Ethan Winer, and it relates to etiquette, the presentation of data, and the acceptance of responsibility for ones actions, all of which in Ethan’s case leads IMO to potential misleading of the public.
Rod, you use the word “shame”, you mean to tell me you don’t have a problem with the fact that Ethan did his formal comparison of Minitraps to Auralex Lenrd’s using an inferior Foambymail imposter product?
And please don’t think this is a crusade against manufacturers out to make a profit:
there have recently been postings on the studiotips forum by a person who has set out on manufacturing acoustic absorption devices. He made no claims neither of himself or his products, he asked technical questions oriented towards his own personal profit, and he came out with a wealth of knowledge more than he bargained for.
BTW, all this has nothing to do with the Realtraps products themselves, and I don’t think anyone at any stage labeled Minitraps as an all out bad product.
What was said related to their limitations and their money value.
The issue at hand regards preventing potential misleading of the music-studio sector. Apparently, this is not the place for it.
Ido Yair

Quote Ido:

---

Rod, you use the word “shame”, you mean to tell me you don’t have a problem with the fact that Ethan did his formal comparison of Minitraps to Auralex Lenrd’s using an inferior Foambymail imposter product?

---

Ido,

1st - and formost - I do not have any personal knowledge that Ethan did anything of the sort........

As far as my statement - it stands......... yes I use the word shame....... when the statement is made that an entity purchasing the product has been taken - then I use the word shame.

Again - I've seen the product - in use - know satisfied customers - so the product has value....... PERIOD.

If you don't like the way Ethan goes about his business - that's your problem - and it's between you and Ethan - I have never gotten into the middle of that - but let it be due to science -

If anyone slanders either Ethan or his product - then yes they can hear it from me.

Sorry if this doesn't fit with your nice little view of the world.......

As far as I'm concerned - if someone has to resort to these types of tactics - then it strongly suggests that they have nothing else to really back their claims.

Sincerely,

Rod

Ido wrote:
>I’m tired of this constant negative categorization of the “studiotips mob”.
Just because I choose to frequent a specific group, I loose my indiviuality and am rated a 16 year old gang member?

I certainly haven’t rated anyone with the emotive title of “16 year old gang member”.

I define “mob” as a number of individuals gathering in one place with the collective purpose of aggressively attacking a person or cause.

IMO the large number of personal attacks on Ethan (in many different threads here) clearly demonstrates typical mob behaviour. I don’t recall anyone other than studiotips members indulging in this activity; hence I consider “studiotips mob” an apt description.

I am certainly not saying ALL studiotips members are members of the mob though.

Sorry about the OT nature of my post but I hope that clarifies the matter.

One last thing… I apologise to Mark Edmonds for expressing my suspicions and also thank both him and Brian Ravnaas for voicing their understanding.

Tim ;o)

--------------------
Studio: www.kymatasound.com

This is clearly 'off-topic', but I think it raises an important issue that we should address.

Quote:

---

Stephen “Howler” Foster is the real thing, a US musician who played with Lynyrd Skynyrd & Little Feat Belgian Eric Desart is probably the highest order of acoustician any of us will ever talk to,
how can one tie those two individuals together? mob you say?

---

Let me make it clear that I (and I'm sure other SOS regulars) have genuine respect for the technical and musical pedigree of both these guys and others who, for the sake of convenience, we might link together as 'the Studiotips group'.

However, the fact remains that over the last few months, whether intentionally or not, a number of founder members of the Studiotips forum have posted regularly on this SOS forum in what I think can fairly be described as a consistently belligerent manner that often spilled over into rude and offensive posts -- and all despite repeated requests (both on the forum and privately) to moderate such behaviour.

Again, whether intended or not, the result has been to create an impression of a concerted attack on this forum in general and on one of its long standing members in particular -- something which, from my perspective, warrants the description of a 'mob action'.

Quote:

---

Have any of you seriously taken a moment to try and figure out WHY this “feud” as you call it exists?

---

I think the reason why this 'feud' exists has become obvious to those of us closely involved, but I would venture to suggest that the 'cause' has now overshadowed the 'reason' to the point where it has become a sport! At least, that is how it looks from over here.

I can fully understand the frustration many feel when faced with some of Ethan's 'unorthordox thinking' and sometimes less than rigourous claims. I have often shared that frustration! A scan of the old forums will reveal that a great many people, including me, have debated technical issues with Ethan many times in the past to clarify potentially misleading or inappropriate claims -- but none of it involved the kind of animosity and vitriol we have seen from Studiotips members here in recent months.

It has been said before, but it is worth saying again, head-on personal and abusive attacks in a public forum such as this really is not the way to improve matters from any point of view.

It is one thing to correct technical errors (politely) or to voice a differing opinion about a specific technical approach. Quite another to make wild claims about the ineffectiveness of specific commercial products (and that may apply to both sides here), or offensive personal comments. It is the latter that have caused the majority of problems here and which I am trying to keep under control.

Quote:

---

The issue at hand regards preventing potential misleading of the music-studio sector. Apparently, this is not the place for it.

---

I think that is an unfair claim. Sound On Sound is known throughout the world for its unbiased and accurate information and opinions, and those virtues are reflected on this forum. As is the friendly and helpful attitude that everyone involved in SOS shares.

Despite the claims by Ed and others in the recent Studiotips thread, there are absolutely no 'commercial agendas' here, although I doubt you'll take my word for it! For the record, I have visited and worked in several studios treated with Real Traps products (often along with other commercial and DIY treatments) and found them to sound very good. The sum total of my experience of this product has been a positive one. While I certainly agree that in the UK the product is extremely expensive, it is also relatively quick and easy to install and is sufficiently attractive to be used 'nude'. These are things that those with deep pockets appear to appreciate.

Having said that, it may be worth stating that Paul White and I have never installed Realtraps products for any of our StudioSOS articles. Most of the treatment in those articles have been based on Auralex and Primacoustic foam solutions. And no, there is no 'commercial agenda' with those companies either....

The bottom line is that Ethan's behaviour on the SOS forums has, over several years, been generally helpful and demonstrably unbiased over a wide range of topic areas (not just those relating to acoustics). I can't recall any situation over the entire lifetime of the SOS forums where he has tried actively to promote his company's products, although he has on occasion answered specific technical questions -- as have many of the other manufacturers who 'lurk' here.

The only potentially 'overt advertising' that you could accuse Ethan of is the use of his company's slogan in his signature. However, this is common to most if not all manufacturers and their representatives as we feel it is important that posters know when they are dealing with 'professionals' as opposed to 'amateurs' and can interpret the information they receive appropriately.

Hope that clears up a few issues. Sorry for the length of the post. Perhaps we can all move forward now and enjoy the exchange of information and views in the friendly and constructive way for whihc SOS is known.

hugh

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

Quote Ido:

---

Rod, you use the word “shame”, you mean to tell me you don’t have a problem with the fact that Ethan did his formal comparison of Minitraps to Auralex Lenrd’s using an inferior Foambymail imposter product?

---

In a fairly recent thread, Ethan has clearly stated that he used the Foam-by-mail product, and as I see it there has been some civil discussion on these forums between Ethan and Jeff, and also some communication off-line between them to try to address some of the issues between them. What should be pointed out once again is that Jeff has largely kept to entirely civil and professional language in challenging Ethan, and I would credit Jeff in this regard. The fact of the matter is, a similar civil and professional approach is essentially all we are asking.

--------------------
Scott
--Where are we going and why am I in this handbasket?

Gentlemen,
I appreciate you’re latest responses.
Perhaps the veterans at Studiotips witnessed things others didn’t (perhaps not.. ),
Hugh, I assure you 'unorthodox thinking' is not the issue (I and others actually thrive on it. any good UK suppliers ?),
and in any case, having said my piece, I’m done with this.

Rod,
I can actually relate to your latest response.
I have no wish to cause you any akwardness, so I’ll be sending you private mail.

Salam,
Ido

Okay, it looks like a little peace and moderation has broken out at last, and most of the original 'combatants' have taken a little rest from things. This thread has now diverted well off the original topic, and it looks like everyone has lost interst in that (for a while at least), so I am going to lock this thread to draw a discreet line under things and allow everyone to move on with a fresh frame of mind.

Hugh

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