You are here

Right , A potentially contentious Post, in defence of Real traps "mini" traps.

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

Re: Right , A potentially contentious Post, in defence of Real traps "mini" traps.

Postby Eric Desart » Fri Dec 24, 2004 12:33 am

:roll: Reminder 2 (curious how many are needed)

Total: 3 requests and 2 reminders.
PS: this are acoustic questions related to measurement reports, and don't go away.
User avatar
Eric Desart
Regular
Posts: 150
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2004 1:00 am
The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing ............... Albert Einstein

Re: Right , A potentially contentious Post, in defence of Real traps "mini" traps.

Postby Hugh Robjohns » Fri Dec 24, 2004 10:28 am

As you rightly say, he has been provided with the data he requested. He has been asked either to substantiate his original claim that the data was manipulated or apologise. That seems a fair request to me. The ball is very much in Ethan's court.

I understand Ethan and Jeff have been discussing the data privately between themselves, and have reached some level of agreement regarding statements on their websites. There is nothing we can do as moderators to force Ethan one way or the other, but continued calls here will serve little practical purpose.

I'm happy to give Ethan some time to respond, but I would suggest if no progress is made by the end of the month we close this thread down for good, and leave any interested parties to draw their own conclusions.

hugh
User avatar
Hugh Robjohns
Moderator
Posts: 26389
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2003 12:00 am
Location: Worcestershire, UK
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound

Re: Right , A potentially contentious Post, in defence of Real traps "mini" traps.

Postby forumuser729356 » Fri Dec 24, 2004 1:24 pm

Perhaps a view given by one of the lurkers who like me are perplexed by this thread
SOS has the data - SOS have reviewed and the reviewer has bought the products - why can't SOS settle the argument
The SOS review stated
"Mini Traps offer very effective bass trapping down to 90Hz and below."
Is this still valid?
Confused of Peterborough (and no - I don't know Paul)
forumuser729356
Regular
Posts: 51
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2005 1:00 am

Re: Right , A potentially contentious Post, in defence of Real traps "mini" traps.

Postby Ethan Winer » Fri Dec 24, 2004 6:13 pm

Folks,

> As you rightly say, he has been provided with the data he requested. He has been asked either to substantiate his original claim that the data was manipulated or apologise. That seems a fair request to me. The ball is very much in Ethan's court. <

In light of the holidays I find it distasteful having to continue this argument, but since three of you have now demanded an answer I will oblige. As I explained to Hugh by email earlier today:

The data that Jeff posted recently offers nothing new. It's just the same data in a different format - total Sabins per unit rather than Sabins per linear foot. The addition of someone else's calculation of a confidence factor adds nothing because the underlying raw numbers - the change in decay time inside the lab - are not given. That is what I've been asking for all along, not the same old data on RAL's stationery. Without seeing the decay time in each band with and without the samples present there's no way for me or anyone else to determine if the sample sizes really were sufficient.

I'll also mention that Jeff and I are still working hard to find a peaceful resolution to this ongoing feud, a solution that will truly end the arguing in a way that satisfies both of us. I find it amazing that so many people who have no vested interest in any of this continue to express such strong opinions.

Please folks, rather than ask me to demand that Jeff provide yet more data, or that Jeff demand I provide better evidence against the data, I urge you all to allow the two of us to work this out on our own. Okay?

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

Re: Right , A potentially contentious Post, in defence of Real traps "mini" traps.

Postby Paul Woodlock » Fri Dec 24, 2004 6:39 pm

Ethan Winer wrote:Folks,

> As you rightly say, he has been provided with the data he requested. He has been asked either to substantiate his original claim that the data was manipulated or apologise. That seems a fair request to me. The ball is very much in Ethan's court. <

In light of the holidays I find it distasteful having to continue this argument, but since three of you have now demanded an answer I will oblige. As I explained to Hugh by email earlier today:

The data that Jeff posted recently offers nothing new. It's just the same data in a different format - total Sabins per unit rather than Sabins per linear foot. The addition of someone else's calculation of a confidence factor adds nothing because the underlying raw numbers - the change in decay time inside the lab - are not given. That is what I've been asking for all along, not the same old data on RAL's stationery. Without seeing the decay time in each band with and without the samples present there's no way for me or anyone else to determine if the sample sizes really were sufficient.

I'll also mention that Jeff and I are still working hard to find a peaceful resolution to this ongoing feud, a solution that will truly end the arguing in a way that satisfies both of us. I find it amazing that so many people who have no vested interest in any of this continue to express such strong opinions.

Please folks, rather than ask me to demand that Jeff provide yet more data, or that Jeff demand I provide better evidence against the data, I urge you all to allow the two of us to work this out on our own. Okay?

--Ethan

Ethan, you ain't fooling anyone with your continual sidestepping.

Sample sizes are nothing to do with your allegations of StudioTips maliciously manipulating data to make your Mini-traps look bad. In fact he StudioTips data also actually shows the Mini-Trap to perform better than your own tests.

Your allegations say that STUDIOTIPS intentionally manipulated the data to be malicious against you, try to destroy your business, etc,etc The sample size is a seperate issue and one which has been explained to you many times by Eric and Jeff.

So please do not continue to sidestep. It's particularly patronising to the many intelligent folks participating in this thread.


So I ask once more....


Do you STILL alledge that Studiotips intentionally manipulated the data with the sole purpose of maliciously making your Mini-traps look bad, or not?

It's a direct question, completely on topic. Please answer without sidestepping and without involving Jeff or any other side issues of sample size, etc, etc this time?

It's quite simple. All you have to do is convert the raw RAL data ( now published ) to the values on the StuDiotips graph and see if there's a difference. Take you a couple of minutes with a calculator. And in light of your allegations, I'd be very suprised if you haven't done this already. It would be the first thing I'd do, if I were in your shoes.


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

Re: Right , A potentially contentious Post, in defence of Real traps "mini" traps.

Postby Eric Desart » Fri Dec 24, 2004 7:30 pm

Ethan,

In fact in the group here it is of no interest what deals you make with Jeff regarding your sites.
The only thing that interest me on sites that it honestly represents data based on real physics.
That's in the interest of anyone searching for solutions and understanding.

There is only one possible answer. Either the reports are falsified from page 1 to 4, or page 5 representing the by the standard defined statistical boundaries are falsified by Auralex or Jeff. This can't be discussed.

So I support Paul's question and Hugh's contribution, and it is interesting for anyone to know if this data can be used for subsequent discussions about the science or not.
And that's not related with what You and Jeff agree upon.

Acoustics is a science, related to research and physics, not what parties agree to show on there sites.

Anyhow you help to show some of the points I made here. I really do not underestimate the insight and intelligence of the Moderators and lots of the contributors here.

Remember you showed only numbers, hardly looking as whatever report. why should I believe those?

We started to discuss physics based on measurements. 250 messages, 500 man-hours and many gallons of sweat further and we're still stuck on the same measurements.
For what? For only ONE SINGLE REASON:
They give a dry comparison of the MiniTraps with other devices. And you don't like the results to be shown.

You LOVE smoke screens.
Answer a simple question: how much must be the difference between the empty room and the room with sample. You must know since you want to compare it with that.
And don't tell that you run the numbers with whatever friend. Ask him those numbers then.
And further, in this very thread Jeff offered to answer questions from that acoustics friend. You just talked over that offer as if it wasn't made, non-excisting.

You're not interested in a solution at all. The smoke screen is much more functional for you. They must either disappear or neutralized with whatever means.

In fact I don't mind how you personally feel about them, but you block any constructive progress.
User avatar
Eric Desart
Regular
Posts: 150
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2004 1:00 am
The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing ............... Albert Einstein

Re: Right , A potentially contentious Post, in defence of Real traps "mini" traps.

Postby Eric Desart » Sat Dec 25, 2004 10:21 am

**Edited by Hugh Robjohns**
I'm sorry, but I'm deleting this entire post.

I cannot believe that Eric felt the need to post something like this on Christmas Day. It added nothing whatever to what has already been said above.

Good will to all men. Happy Christmas!

hugh


User avatar
Eric Desart
Regular
Posts: 150
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2004 1:00 am
The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing ............... Albert Einstein

Re: Right , A potentially contentious Post, in defence of Real traps "mini" traps.

Postby Eric Desart » Sat Dec 25, 2004 7:57 pm

Hugh Robjohns wrote:It added nothing whatever to what has already been said above.


Quote is not correct.

I clearly referred to:
The statistics refered by Ethan as someone else's numbers, as such adding nothing to the already existing data is a misleading and incorrect statement (wittingly or ignorance), but make intrinsic part of numbers calculated by RAL in compliance with the standard and representing the validity of the tests. Those same numbers are automatically calculated as per the same standard for his own IBM measurements.

Ethan does not need one single number more to judge the validity of those tests.

Since Ethan refers to minimum difference numbers, versus which he wants to judge the RAL measurements for which he claims to lacking data, I want to see those.
And this is double but I want to emphasize this.
This is acoustics.

Waiting to be moderated once more, but keeping copy of the originals.
User avatar
Eric Desart
Regular
Posts: 150
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2004 1:00 am
The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing ............... Albert Einstein

Re: Right , A potentially contentious Post, in defence of Real traps "mini" traps.

Postby thefruitfarmer » Sat Dec 25, 2004 10:54 pm

Eric

Who would you accept to arbitrate this argument?

Is there any independent body (acceptable to all parties) who could test the commercial and home made acoustic treatments so we can have some meaningful data to compare the various solutions?
User avatar
thefruitfarmer
Frequent Poster
Posts: 628
Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2004 12:00 am
Location: Kent UK

Re: Right , A potentially contentious Post, in defence of Real traps "mini" traps.

Postby Eric Desart » Sun Dec 26, 2004 2:05 am

Hello Fruitfarmer,

First my respect. You read what is written and ask rightfully in a gentle manner for a solution.

In general:
Corner absorption need more study to do whatever general detailed correct statements.
This isn't a matter of doing somewhere some measurements even when trying to follow standard procedures as much as possible.
The current underlying procedures as described for labs, the tuning of the labs, and the principle in itself contradicts the design of the current standards.
In simple language: the standards are designed to measure material in a diffuse field. Corner absorption by definition contradicts that principle.
I went more extensively into several related points (mainly question marks) in a reply to Max.

What can one see?
One can find typical trends. There is few data publicly available.
The best what one can do is making a comparative test, to see how different devices behave in identical circumstances.
And additionally if there are general (but still relative vague and not quantifiable) principles to be recognized.

AFAIK the only one existing comparison now in the "Public Domain" is the comparison executed by RAL which is under fire here.

For me those or other tests could have been executed in any accredited lab, University or whatever related Research Institute.

The current argument is in fact no argument at all.
It indeed looks confusing for people or acousticians with less specific related background.
There are that incredible amount of messages spent on it, that it seems that some rather complicated issues must be solved, which can be interpreted from different angles.

The almost cynical part is: it isn't.

One just needs to read/know the related ASTM standard: what it defines in function of discrete objects and continue to the part how the accuracy related to statistical boundaries of the executed measurements are controlled, exactly described by this standard and one can stop wondering.
It's ALL there and exactly described in this standard.

Seeing this thread, it's indeed hard to believe, but it isn't more complicated as that.

So the only remaining question here is:
Is the data as presented by Jeff on behalf of Auralex falsified or not?
  • If not then those measurements are valid, proven by the numbers on page 5.
    Hence they represent the acoustic behavior of those devices as measured in the exact circumstances as described.
  • If they are accepted to be falsified that's the same as saying that Jeff on behalf of Auralex committed fraud here.
    I personally checked this data, and know that they represent the original RAL data. That I checked them is written on the 2nd picture showing photos of the devices which I entered here. So that also means I should have committed fraud too.
This thread gives the suggestive impression this is about the acoustics of those measurements.

It isn't. It are just measurements as executed in every accredited laboratory, using ASTM procedures, to be found in the world, and controlled in function of accuracy as any measurement is controlled.
Those measurements also fulfill the related ISO requirement in function of quantity for discrete objects.
The main difference with other measurements is that corner absorption isn't standard in itself.

So which arbitrage is needed?
This goes about an arbitrage in function of the integrity of all people involved in function of the exact presentation of the original RAL data.

If RAL should follow this, I can assure you that they shouldn't believe their eyes when reading this thread (I even don't dare to imagine what they should think).

But I invited Ethan to show the numbers he wants to check the requested lacking RAL data against. Since it seems the last argument I trust Ethan will do that.
Somehow ASTM seems to cover that, otherwise I have no idea what Ethan needs the suggested lacking information for.
And those numbers I ask for only need to cover the frequencies covered by the standards, to prevent further confusion.
User avatar
Eric Desart
Regular
Posts: 150
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2004 1:00 am
The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing ............... Albert Einstein

Re: Right , A potentially contentious Post, in defence of Real traps "mini" traps.

Postby Eric Desart » Sun Dec 26, 2004 3:21 am

Sorry unlucky formulated.

Eric Desart wrote:But I invited Ethan to show the numbers he wants to check the requested lacking RAL data against.

I should like to see those numbers, even when not requested anymore as an agreement between Jeff and Ethan related to the respective sites.
It was an acoustic argument which I should want to see substanciated.
User avatar
Eric Desart
Regular
Posts: 150
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2004 1:00 am
The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing ............... Albert Einstein

Re: Right , A potentially contentious Post, in defence of Real traps "mini" traps.

Postby Eric Desart » Sun Dec 26, 2004 11:10 am

A minor addition

Eric Desart wrote:In simple language: the standards are designed to measure material in a diffuse field. Corner absorption by definition contradicts that principle.

The reason for this relationship with a diffuse field, is to maximal exclude the influence of the room itself on the measurement results, in order to present absorption data as neutral as possible.
Compare this with a control room. One wants a control room to be neutral in order to make the sound mixes as transportable as possible.
Corner absorption by definition is defined by the modal behavior, which is related to size and shape of the room and positioning of the devices within that room.
A lot of study is needed to understand and quantify those influences. And corner absorption is only a marginal phenomenon in the total acoustics picture (read market).

For the Europeans who shouldn't know:
RAL is Riverbank Acoustical Laboratory which is originally designed by Wallace Clement Sabine himself, and belongs to the best know Acoustics Labs in US.
http://asa.aip.org/books/sabines.html

They do have a name to protect.
User avatar
Eric Desart
Regular
Posts: 150
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2004 1:00 am
The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing ............... Albert Einstein

Re: Right , A potentially contentious Post, in defence of Real traps "mini" traps.

Postby Hugh Robjohns » Sun Dec 26, 2004 11:11 am

This really isn't getting us anywhere, and I am becoming increasingly concerned about the allegations of 'Fraud' suggested on the part of one or other party involved here. Such claims potentially put the SOS forum site in a difficult legal position.

It seems to me, after six pages of this argument, that we have arrived at a position where Ethan is continuing to argue that the original sample size was insufficient to generate reliable figures. Eric and Jeff seem convinced that the tests were done adequately and are valid.

I have not seen any suggestion that these two positions are likely to change in the foreseeable future, and there doesn't appear to be any chance of further factual evidence being provided to support either argument.

I think any interested readers will have already arrived at their own conclusions by now, and further squabbling here will simply be a waste of bandwidth.

I know that Ethan, Jeff and the Studiotips site administrator have been working together to arrive at a mutually agreeable solution to the form and content of information published on their various websites, and in that regard perhaps this debate will have produced a useful and constructive outcome that benefits everyone.

I appreciate that Eric and Ethan will continue to feel personally slighted over their (and others) comments to each other in this SOS Forum, but I really don't see their continuing demands and counterdemands for apologies and retractions to be of interest or value to Forum members.

So, after careful consideration, I have decided to lock this thread so that everyone involved can move on. Should there be any significant new developments, I have no objection to a new thread being started by anyone to report them, or indeed to create any new threads that deal with specific technical topics (in a non-personal and non-aggressive way). However, I don't think it will serve anyone to entertain any new threads here that simply serve to continue the bickering, and you can expect very heavy moderation of anything that falls into that category.

I wish everyone a happy and prosperous New Year, and hope that 2005 brings a little more peace and goodwill to the Forum!

hugh
User avatar
Hugh Robjohns
Moderator
Posts: 26389
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2003 12:00 am
Location: Worcestershire, UK
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound

Previous