You are here

Auralex Roominator Kits??? Any good??

Customising, building or repairing your own gear? Need help with acoustic treatment or soundproofing? Ask away…

Re: Auralex Roominator Kits??? Any good??

Postby Digipenguin » Wed Nov 24, 2004 1:52 pm

blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. I see your mouths movin' but..................
User avatar
Digipenguin
Regular
Posts: 59
Joined: Thu Dec 12, 2002 1:00 am
Location: St. Louis, Missouri USA
John D. Geisen Owner DPS

Re: Auralex Roominator Kits??? Any good??

Postby Paul Blenn » Wed Nov 24, 2004 3:43 pm

I am pretty much in the same camp as Doezer. I went to an amazing studio the other day (GRADO's from the Nuendo forum) and he was using the Auralex stuff. His control room sounded amazing. That may not be the case with mine by using the same product but it still vouches for the Auralex stuff!

Paul Blenn
Paul Blenn
Poster
Posts: 34
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2003 12:00 am

Re: Auralex Roominator Kits??? Any good??

Postby Ethan Winer » Wed Nov 24, 2004 5:35 pm

DoeZer,

> Sorry if Ive caused some kind of crossfire at this stage! <

Not at all - this is hardly your fault!

I'll start with the biggest lie of all:

Paul Woodlock wrote:

I come here in peace ... I too would like the war to cease, as with all negativity, it's destructive.


In fact, Paul and his friends started this "war," and they perpetuate it every chance they get. It's a shame this has now arrived at the SOS forum, but I'm not surprised. These guys - Eric Desart, Paul Woodlock, Scott Foster, Dan Nelson, and Andre Vare - have been making trouble unprovoked for more than a year now. This is just one more in a long line of audio forums where they show up with the sole motive to insult me and my company's products. Identical threads have occurred at Harmony-Central, Recording.org, the AV Science forum, GearSlutz, and probably one or two more I'm forgetting. The sequence is always the same: I'm helping someone with treatment questions and these guys show up and hurl insults. They always come in groups and gang up on me, so it appears to onlookers that more than just one person disputes me. Just look at their Posts counts and you can see they're "out of towners" who came only to make trouble.

I'm sure it's very frustrating to these guys that they are unable to destroy my business, but they sure are trying. The fact is that RealTraps has grown enormously this past year because we make a terrific product and sell it for a reasonable price (excluding European pricing which is a different issue). Every single review we've received has been wildly favorable, and in every single case the reviewer bought the traps instead of sending them back. Three more gushing reviews will be out in pro audio magazines over the next two months, and all of those reviewers also bought our traps after reviewing them. Earlier this year RealTraps doubled its manufacturing space, and we now have two full-time shifts cranking out traps day and night to keep up with the demand. This is hardly the sign of an incompetent company or inferior product.

If their goal is to dispell acoustic misinformation, why do they attack me instead of the companies they believe sell inferior foam fraudulently using faked data? Why attack MiniTraps as a bad value when so many companies sell clearly less-effective products for five times the cost of a MiniTrap? Their bias is obvious to all, which is why one of our customers posted the following at the AVS forum after these guys showed up to make trouble by sending AVS forum members to THIS StudioTips thread that takes personal attacks to a new level:

That whole thread is like a rocket scientist telling me how to get more thrust out of my Pontiac. Gimme a break. As a type of engineer, I'm always amazed at the rule which, in general, states: The more education and time you have, the more patronizing and arrogant you become. These guys prove it ... Those guys are at the other end of the spectrum, being bloated with their own purpose to debunk anything by crunching a few numbers and prattling on just to hear their own voices. I know the type very well. We do not get along. I'm a solution person, so my logic would be to say "the traps could work better if you blah, blah, blah", not tear into the product as though it were a Yugo of the audio world. If they're all so friggin' smart, where's their competing product that they prototyped, marketed, and made a business out of? And if so, why are pieces of cardboard tube stuffed with bunny-fluff worth a grand each? There's more to a product than making it a paradigm ... Are there better systems? Sure. There's always something or someone better than you or your product. It's called competition. Do I know what they are? Nope. Do the RealTraps work for me as expected? Yup. Works great for "my little system in my little room", thank-you much.

Then another AVS forum regular added this:

I'm not sure what to think about this thread. I glanced over the link to studiotips.com, and quickly spotted several comments and suggestions by mods and the site admin that just don't stack up. Whether it is spreading misinformation or just a misunderstanding doesn't really matter... I read enough to know that I'd go elsewhere for accurate answers.


That Paul Woodlock and Scott Foster ("Foz") continue to refer to a MiniTrap as a "panel absorber" shows that neither of them has a clue what a MiniTrap actually is or how it works. That Paul would further pretend to read my mind ("Ethan deliberately used the FOAM-BY-MAIL foam for comparisons to his Mini-Traps, becuase he KNEW the foam-by-mail foam is not made out of the correct material") is simply amazing.

Folks, I hope this will be my last post on the subject. I have a business to run, and I've wasted too much time - yet again - on this nonsense.

Thanks.

--Ethan
User avatar
Ethan Winer
Regular
Posts: 207
Joined: Tue Nov 19, 2002 1:00 am
Location: New Milford, CT USA

Re: Auralex Roominator Kits??? Any good??

Postby Paul Woodlock » Wed Nov 24, 2004 6:02 pm

cc. wrote:
My experience with the mini traps is that the lack of absorbtion at the higher frequencies is a feature. It is true that after putting in the mini traps there were still problems higher up which had to be fixed by installing foam. But I needed the foam anyway: to cut down reflections either side and above the mix position and to deaden my vocal recording area. After doing this the room's pretty balanced.


Greetings CC :)

You say it's a feature in your experience, but you don't really say why.

The point is that whether you call it a feature or not, a narrow band mini-trap is a very questionable player in the various solutions for a typical home studio.


And here's why....


There are, amongst others, TWO main treatments for small room acoustics. Small room being defined as less than 2500 ft3, which means MOST average home rooms.

1] Room Mode problems

2] Early reflection problems


1] Room Mode problems depend on the size and shape of the room, and occour NOT just in the BASS area, but extend up to the lower midrange as far as 300 to 400Hz in some cases. This can mean 4 to 5 octaves needs addressing.

A narrow band panel such as a mini-trap isn't the best solution in this case. Broadband devices like the Auralex MegaLENRD OR the DIY rockwool wedge/panel solution work much better. And futhermore for the layman who isn't up to calculating the effects of each axial, tangential or oblique mode, the broadband absorber solution offers a quick and easy method.

Argmuents like "The mini-traps lack of absorption at higher freqeuncies prevents a dull room" is misleading. We're talking LOWER MIDS here, not Upper mids or high frequencies. More absoprtion at 300 to 400Hz does NOT Dull a room.

The ability of the braoadband solutions to absorb well into the lower mids IS an excellent feature where room modes are concerned.

The best place to put trapping is is corners where the standing wave pressure from the room modes is at it's greatest. In a corner the defining factor for taking up space is the front face of the trap. So the argument that a Mega lenrd/ROckwool wedge is 4 times the volume than a minitrap doesn't wash for corners. IN fact even a DIY rockwool panel 4£ thick placed across a corner works better than a Mini-trap.


I guess the point is that it's not just the total amount of absorbtion that matters - it's where it is too.


Yes, you right. As said above Bass trapping shoudl bedone in corners. Both vertical corners ( wall meets wall )< and horizontal corners ( Wall meets ceiling/floor ).

In fact tri-corners ( wall meets wall meets ceiling )are the best.

2] Early reflections are a different kettle of fish than room modes. While room mode trapping ( I won't call it bass trapping, as modes aren't just in teh bass ) is there to trap the WHOLE room, Early relfection control is there to provide a RFZ ( reflection free zone ) at the LISTENING POSITION.

Early reflections are defined as those which arrive at the ear lessthan around 20ms after the direct sound. refelctions less than 20ms are perceived by the ear as eing part of teh direct sound, and thus smear the sound, cause a fuzzy stereo image and a 'comb filtered' frequency response.

The way to cure early reflections is to use the Mirror Trick. This involves sitting in the listening position and getting a friend to move a mirror around all the surfaces of the room. Where ever you can see a speaker in the mirror, that is where to place absorption panels.

An early reflection absoprtion panel of a given thickness works better is there is an air gap behind it. Air is FREE< so it's good way to get extra absorption if the budget is tight. For example, in order of effectiveness ( best first )......

1] 6" Absorption

2] 4" Absoprtion + 2" Air Gap

3] 4" Absorption

etc
etc

you get the idea :)


To conclude....

For anyone who knows an ounce about acoustics, to say the Mini-Traps narrow band performance with lack of absorption at higher ( Lower mid ) freqeuncies is a feature is simply a marketing smokescreen to cover up a flaw in the design when applied to small room acoustics.

I would advise anyone who is thinking of acustically treating their home studio, to do a little research on room modes and the frequencies they are likely to affect, and you'll soon realise why a broadband trapping solution is much better.

I'm sure the humble Mini-trap has it's uses, but the contentious threads that seem to follow it around are only there becuase of the misleading claims over foam, and mini-trap marketing hype which accompanies it.

If Real-Traps ( Ethan ) accepted that Foam is a more than viable alternative and stopped trying to mislead people, then there wouldn't be any need for people like Eric Desart to go around trying to put the truth back into DIY acoustic treatment.

cheers :)


Paul
Paul Woodlock
Regular
Posts: 183
Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2004 1:00 am

Re: Auralex Roominator Kits??? Any good??

Postby Paul Woodlock » Wed Nov 24, 2004 6:34 pm

Ethan Winer wrote:DoeZer,

> Sorry if Ive caused some kind of crossfire at this stage! <

Not at all - this is hardly your fault!

I'll start with the biggest lie of all:

Paul Woodlock wrote:

I come here in peace ... I too would like the war to cease, as with all negativity, it's destructive.


In fact, Paul and his friends started this "war," and they perpetuate it every chance they get. It's a shame this has now arrived at the SOS forum, but I'm not surprised. These guys - Eric Desart, Paul Woodlock, Scott Foster, Dan Nelson, and Andre Vare - have been making trouble unprovoked for more than a year now. This is just one more in a long line of audio forums where they show up with the sole motive to insult me and my company's products. Identical threads have occurred at Harmony-Central, Recording.org, the AV Science forum, GearSlutz, and probably one or two more I'm forgetting. The sequence is always the same: I'm helping someone with treatment questions and these guys show up and hurl insults. They always come in groups and gang up on me, so it appears to onlookers that more than just one person disputes me. Just look at their Posts counts and you can see they're "out of towners" who came only to make trouble.


Well it's only fair that we have a chance to respond to your claims isn't it.

We have busy lives as well, and we don't relish having to follow you around and put people right.

And I might add I DID NOT come here specifically to bait you.

I've been on this forum off and on for a few years. I haven' been here for a while, and have recently signed up to the V3 forum again.

My first post here was regarding Floating Floors actually, and at that time I didnt even know you ( Ethan ) were posting here.

In fact it was in this thread, that YOU started it all off again, NOT US.

We're just here to fairly have our say on the matter.


I'm sure it's very frustrating to these guys that they are unable to destroy my business,..


No one is trying to destroy your business.

If their goal is to dispell acoustic misinformation, why do they attack me instead of the companies they believe sell inferior foam fraudulently using faked data?....


A] we're NOT attacking you as such, we're merely showing the truth.

B] We do contend Foam-By-Mail products. But of course Foam-By-Mail do NOT trawl the Web forums ( Like you ) making misleading claims. If they did, they would get an anser from us too.



I'm not sure what to think about this thread. I glanced over the link to studiotips.com, and quickly spotted several comments and suggestions by mods and the site admin that just don't stack up. Whether it is spreading misinformation or just a misunderstanding doesn't really matter... I read enough to know that I'd go elsewhere for accurate answers.


And now your discrediting the obviously excellent info and expert advice given at StudioTips. Something that can't be contended.



That Paul Woodlock and Scott Foster ("Foz") continue to refer to a MiniTrap as a "panel absorber" shows that neither of them has a clue what a MiniTrap actually is or how it works. That Paul would further pretend to read my mind ("Ethan deliberately used the FOAM-BY-MAIL foam for comparisons to his Mini-Traps, becuase he KNEW the foam-by-mail foam is not made out of the correct material") is simply amazing.


No it's not amazing Ethan. You didn't use Proper acoutic Foam as a comparison becuase you KNOW it would show your mini-traps in a less than favourable light.

Ahh, so a Mini-trap isn't a Panel/Membrane Absorber then?

Have you changed it's design? What is it then? It's certainly NOT a braodband absorber that's for sure.



Folks, I hope this will be my last post on the subject. I have a business to run, and I've wasted too much time - yet again - on this nonsense.

Thanks.

--Ethan


Ethan, with respect it is YOU who STARTED all this.

YOU have acommerical agenda. WE do NOT.

You are trawling the web posting on as many acoustics forums as you can.

NO ONE is questioning your desire to help people.

What we are questioning, and have the data to prove it, is your methods of marketing and claims of EXPERT.

YOU are the one spreading a FALSE claim that FOAM is not a good acoustic tratment. Which is a LIE because I know you know otherwise. If you areup for complete honesty, then why not provide a comparison to Auralex Foam on your RealTraps site instead of the vastkly Inferior Foam-By-Mail. Then people who visit your site can make an HONEST choice between Mini-Traps and Foam? But I doubt very much you will do that, as the results wont' be in your favour.


And as for 'Insults'..

Scott and I haven't insulted you in the slightest here. We've simply provided some info, that is backed up by Lab Data, to enable people to make an honest choice when spending their hard earned money on acoustic treatment.


Ethan, if you want this to stop, then it upto YOU to change.

You can claim the victim of some fictional campaign against you as much as you like, but people, when given the chance to see both sides of the story can clearly see whose the cause of all this negativity, and which solution for trapping is better for them.

And lastly, I would like to apologise to the SOS folks who run this forum, that ONCE again Ethan has caused us at StuioTips to respond to Ethan's Foam discreditation campaign which has ended up here. If Ethan stops spreading the negative Foam Myth, then WE will stop having to put people right. Simple.

thanks :)


Paul
Paul Woodlock
Regular
Posts: 183
Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2004 1:00 am

Re: Auralex Roominator Kits??? Any good??

Postby Digipenguin » Wed Nov 24, 2004 7:34 pm

Moderators, can we just lock this thread or better yet, delete it. It's nosediving............and it never reaches the ground.

Hey guys, can you take this back to RO or Studiotips?
User avatar
Digipenguin
Regular
Posts: 59
Joined: Thu Dec 12, 2002 1:00 am
Location: St. Louis, Missouri USA
John D. Geisen Owner DPS

Re: Auralex Roominator Kits??? Any good??

Postby Digipenguin » Wed Nov 24, 2004 7:35 pm

Please?
User avatar
Digipenguin
Regular
Posts: 59
Joined: Thu Dec 12, 2002 1:00 am
Location: St. Louis, Missouri USA
John D. Geisen Owner DPS

Re: Auralex Roominator Kits??? Any good??

Postby Scott R. Foster » Wed Nov 24, 2004 9:14 pm

I refuse to descend into the weird world of personal problems some would prefer... but for the record, it is true, I am technically incorrect to refer to a MiniTrap as a panel absorber - it is in fact a membrane [or diaphragm] absorber with a mineral fiber damping core.

The MT is made from a 2" 705 FRK [6 pcf] mineral fiber type panel with a reinforced paper foil [aluminum] facing and an additional back panel of 1" of 703 type material (total 3" of mineral fiber with the paper foil diaphragm on the front side).

The rigid fiberglass core is covered with a heavy synthetic cloth which is slightly glued on the fiberglass backside (703) and onto the foil at the front side (front = 705 FRK paper foil).

There is nothing magic, or even particularly interesting about the device... the concept of covering mineral fiber with a membrane to make a dampened absorber is an old and well understood idea. A similar effect arises from installing paper backed house insulation between studs [though with a higher peak due to the varying weight of the paper membrane and the nature of the damping from the different weight of the material to which it is attached]. One could emulate the effect more closely by simply covering a pair of panels of fiberglass or rockwool with some type of membrane [foil, paper, cloth, plastic], or choosing a foil backed panel in the first place. Different weights of membrane, and damping material will yield different peaks. You might consider a lower density panel and/or a heavier membrane if you seek better overall low frequency absorption or a lower peak [respectively].

The FRK foil and the heavy cloth serve the purpose of the "membrane" in the MT and cause a peak in the absorption characteristic to the device. This is diverse from a true panel trap in that limp membranes do not exhibit the bending waves [and absorptive resonances] that a stiff panel will. But that's all a tempest in a teapot to the lay user... both are simply forms of devices that present resonant boundaries to the sound source and have the "Q" of the resonating element broadened slightly through the use of a damping element [mineral fiber in this case].

The MT is surrounded by a metal frame with decorative perforations. It is a stable and smart looking unit, but damned heavy due to the metal frame. It is also very expensive given that one could build an acoustically similar device for a fraction of the cost [buy some 705 FRK and add a heavy cloth cover and a 703 backing and Bob's your uncle]. FWIW I think this type of device should be avoided... but if that’s what you want, you CAN build one.

The big difference between a "roll your own" damped membrane device and a factory built MT is the frame... if you need/want a heavy metal frame and are willing to pay for it... fine by me. If OTOH you don't need a heavy frame, but want to get similar results for less money, you could build a lightweight wood frame for a similar core of stuffings and then cover with fabric of your choice.

The ML OTOH is a faceted wedge made of a high end acoustic grade foam... also smart looking. The material is not only acoustic grade, it also has fire resistant properties lesser foams will not exhibit. ML's are also expensive, but they are light and absurdly easy to install [toss em in the corner]. Comparing these to crappy foam wedges made of inappropriate materials is silly.

If you have a source for acoustic grade foam, I reckon you could also build ML equivalent units for yourself with a foam cutting tool and achieve some cost savings, but I have no information on cost and know of no one who has tried that method. Also, the facets are acoustically relevant... so you might want to look into how to get that style of faceting [a simple flat face will not work as well at giving a flat absorption curve across the band].

FWIW I have no axe to grind with any manufacturer, though I detest deceit, particularly when science is involved... it just aint cricket in my book. ML's and MT's are what they are, and if they float your boat then God bless your little heart, but spreading dis-information to folks looking to understand the physics and materials science behind such devices is just wrong.

Like most things "acoustic" both of these devices are fairly pricey IMO, neither of em are magic, and they won't do anything that devices you can build for yourself won't do just about as well [or better]. Moreover, unlike the ML's, the MT's aint broadband... and claims to the contrary are false.

IMO, when it come to absorbers, building your own is the "best" answer if you can muster up some basic craft skills [or know someone who can]. For those who cannot get it together enough to build acoustic fixtures, or wish to avoid the chore... pay the man and get on with life. But don't expect me to go along with your dream that you have acquired something magic with your money... you didn't.

Sometimes when folks spend large sums [of their own, or their client's money] they have a need to pretend that they got something unavailable to others willing to work their toward the same goal by different means... sometimes this is true... a Yugo aint a Rolls... but sometimes, all they did was avoid the chore of doing it the hard way [earning their fee?].

Good Luck!

:headbang:
User avatar
Scott R. Foster
Regular
Posts: 72
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2004 1:00 am

Re: Auralex Roominator Kits??? Any good??

Postby Paul Woodlock » Wed Nov 24, 2004 9:32 pm

Digipenguin wrote:Moderators, can we just lock this thread or better yet, delete it. It's nosediving............and it never reaches the ground.

Hey guys, can you take this back to RO or Studiotips?


Why?

Presumably you're not a devotee of censorship, so it's only fair that people have a chance to put the record straight regarding the perfomance and properties of both proper Foam Absorbers, DIY broadband Traps, and narrowband Membrane Absorbers such as Mini-Traps.

Do you not think it is fair that readers should be able to make an INFORMED choice on acoustic treatment products without being misinformed?

So why do you want the thread deleted? Do you have a hidden agenda?

Paul
Paul Woodlock
Regular
Posts: 183
Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2004 1:00 am

Re: Auralex Roominator Kits??? Any good??

Postby cc. » Wed Nov 24, 2004 9:34 pm

Paul Woodlock wrote:
cc. wrote:
My experience with the mini traps is that the lack of absorbtion at the higher frequencies is a feature. It is true that after putting in the mini traps there were still problems higher up which had to be fixed by installing foam. But I needed the foam anyway: to cut down reflections either side and above the mix position and to deaden my vocal recording area. After doing this the room's pretty balanced.

Greetings CC :)

You say it's a feature in your experience, but you don't really say why.

Sorry, I didn't explain that very well. It's a feature for me because I have enough HF absorbtion in my room with the foam I am using for the reflections around the monitoring position and to deaden the vocal area. If my bass traps were also absorbing HF I'd have about two or three times more HF absorbtion than I have now, and that would be too much for me.
User avatar
cc.
Regular
Posts: 96
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2003 1:00 am
Location: lisbon at the moment

Re: Auralex Roominator Kits??? Any good??

Postby Paul Woodlock » Wed Nov 24, 2004 9:43 pm

cc. wrote:
Paul Woodlock wrote:
cc. wrote:
My experience with the mini traps is that the lack of absorbtion at the higher frequencies is a feature. It is true that after putting in the mini traps there were still problems higher up which had to be fixed by installing foam. But I needed the foam anyway: to cut down reflections either side and above the mix position and to deaden my vocal recording area. After doing this the room's pretty balanced.

Greetings CC :)

You say it's a feature in your experience, but you don't really say why.

Sorry, I didn't explain that very well. It's a feature for me because I have enough HF absorbtion in my room with the foam I am using for the reflections around the monitoring position and to deaden the vocal area. If my bass traps were also absorbing HF I'd have about two or three times more HF absorbtion than I have now, and that would be too much for me.

Greetings CC :)

Yes, but HF is NOT the area in question. The area in question for trapping are the Room Modes. Which extend from the bass to the lower mids.

HF control is not the focus of the discussions in this thread. We're talking about control of Room Modes and the best ways to do this. In a fair manner I might add.

This is why turning a caveat of a narrowband trap like a Mini-Trap into a 'feature' is SILLY in this context.

I hope that explains things.


Paul
Paul Woodlock
Regular
Posts: 183
Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2004 1:00 am

Re: Auralex Roominator Kits??? Any good??

Postby Ethan Winer » Wed Nov 24, 2004 11:23 pm

Scott,

> FWIW I have no axe to grind with any manufacturer <

Thanks for your reasonable and calm response. Now, with the following graphs we can all put to rest the notion that MiniTraps are tuned or narrow band. I'm hoping that with this data you and Paul will finally "get it" when you see these measurements that clearly show broadband improvement after adding RealTraps to a room.

The two "waterfall" graphs below show the modal ringing in the RealTraps lab - a 16 by 11-1/2 by 8 foot room - empty (top) and with traps (bottom):


Image

Image


The next two graphs show the RT60 of the room empty, then trapped. The frequency extends to 1.6 KHz which I'm sure we all agree is well past the bass range. As you can see, the reduction in RT60 is quite consistent all the way up to the 1600 Hz cutoff:


Image

Image


I know it looks to you guys like a MiniTrap is tuned, but it really isn't. Here's the data from our site to refresh everyone's memory:


Image


We all agree that the peak around 100 Hz is mainly related to corner mounting. Then, somewhat above there, the absorption falls and levels off to the 10 KHz data limit. Just as important here is the difference between the frequency of maximum absorption versus the range of effective absorption. 8 Sabins is a lot of absorption, and both MiniTraps and MondoTraps exceed that to well past 1 KHz. Again, remember that 8 Sabins of absorption from a panel having 8 square feet of front surface is 100 percent absorption. So to criticize a MiniTrap as ineffective above the mid-bass range is simply incorrect.

--Ethan
User avatar
Ethan Winer
Regular
Posts: 207
Joined: Tue Nov 19, 2002 1:00 am
Location: New Milford, CT USA

Re: Auralex Roominator Kits??? Any good??

Postby Paul Woodlock » Wed Nov 24, 2004 11:58 pm

just to be clear...

The FOAM in Ethan's graph above is the ineffective Foam-By-Mail Foam, and is NOT valid as a comparison between Mini-Traps and typical ACOUSTIC Foam.

Ethan you spent a lot of time trying ( without success ) to discredit the results from an accredited lab earlier in this thread. And now you show data from home tests done with ETF and expect them to have more credibility.

All your graphs do is show Mini-Traps have some effect and are better than fake acoustic foam.

No one's arguing that Mini-Traps don't have an effect. No one is saying MiniTraps are crap either.

Ethan is you're going to play fair then you MUST show comparable data between real acoustic Foam like the Auralex MegaLENRDS and the Mini-Traps, with the same frontal area that results from mounting in a corner.

You see that is exactly what the StudioTips Lab Data shows. And the results show that BOTH the MegaLenrds and DIY rockwool corner traps perform much better for the task in hand than Mini-Traps.

In fact even a slab of Rockwool across the corner that takes up the same space as a Mini-Trap performs better.

TEST DATA: http://forum.studiotips.com/viewtopic.php?t=536

And to anyone who thinks this thread should be closed.....

These discussions are important ( as well as interesting ), and go a long way to showing the layman the variosu choices on offer.

As long as it IS kept civil. But that means Ethan must stop trying to discredit the StuioTips Lab Data when he knows the tests were done to an accuracy at least the same as his own lab tests.

All I ( and the others at Studiotips ) want to do is cut the marketing hype, and give people a fair choice of the products on offer.

The campaign by Ethan to discredit Foam by using a fake product is simply unfair and unprofessional. As long as he continues to do this, he must be accountable for his actions.

And I must REPEAT that contrary to the over the top claims by Ethan, NO ONE is trying to ruin Ethan's business. NO ONE has a personal agenda towards Ethan regarding performance of his products and performance of Foam or any other absoprtion device.

Ethan says we don't target Foam-By-mail. Well that's becuase they don't spend half their lives trawling arund the forums spreading false BS about theit fake products. If they did, we'd be on them like a ton of bricks ;)

All we want is a marketing BS free and fair playing field. If proper test data shows one company's products to not be as good as others ( as is the case ), then it's upto the manufacturer of those products to either improve them or drop the price accordingly.

My only agenda is to protect the customer. And that's because I am one. :)


Paul
Paul Woodlock
Regular
Posts: 183
Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2004 1:00 am

Re: Auralex Roominator Kits??? Any good??

Postby Avare » Thu Nov 25, 2004 6:20 am

Great magazine and great forums! I feel sad that I have to have my debut post here be a defense against uncalled for statements about me. Fortunately, several people here know me from other forums, and thus the veracity of my statements. Others can easily search on the relevant forums to confirm my statements. My posting name is always "avare." I do not use any aliases.

Ethan Winer wrote:
These guys - Eric Desart, Paul Woodlock, Scott Foster, Dan Nelson, and Andre Vare - have been making trouble unprovoked for more than a year now. This is just one more in a long line of audio forums where they show up with the sole motive to insult me and my company's products. Identical threads have occurred at Harmony-Central, Recording.org, the AV Science forum, GearSlutz, and probably one or two more I'm forgetting.

I have never written disparaging comments about Ethan's company, its products, or Ethan.

I have never even posted on Harmony-Central! The forum where I post most often is John Sayers' Recording Studio Design.


Ethan:

Please correct your references to me.


Andre
Avare
Poster
Posts: 14
Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2004 1:00 am

Re: Auralex Roominator Kits??? Any good??

Postby Digipenguin » Thu Nov 25, 2004 7:42 am

Paul Woodlock wrote:
So why do you want the thread deleted? Do you have a hidden agenda?

Paul

You know what, Paul?

I had nothing but the utmost respect for you.
User avatar
Digipenguin
Regular
Posts: 59
Joined: Thu Dec 12, 2002 1:00 am
Location: St. Louis, Missouri USA
John D. Geisen Owner DPS

PreviousNext