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 Steve Hill » Thu Dec 16, 2004 2:51 am

I'm sorry but I'm going to lower the tone (is this possible, I hear you say?)

I might be more convinced of Paul's educational credentials if he knew how to spell counselling. [***I deleted the text to which this refers - don't bother looking for it - 0VU***](I was married to one for 27 years until she died and I don't actually think other peoples mental health problems are a subject for "humour")

I am pig-sick of people in what used to be a "nice" forum patronising people who make a living out of this stuff. Some of them with many years experience of getting pro results without these kinds of debates. Real traps/foam/100 Hz peaks debates do not make a great record.

With due respect Paul, as far as I can work out you are half way through building a garage studio, and you have a major bee in your bonnet about how the rest of us should live our lives.

Kindly give us our forum back.
User avatar
Steve Hill
Frequent Poster (Level2)
Posts: 3266
Joined: Tue Jan 07, 2003 1:00 am

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

Postby Guest » Thu Dec 16, 2004 3:34 am

I might be more convinced of Paul's educational credentials if he knew how to spell counselling. (I was married to one for 27 years until she died and I don't actually think other peoples mental health problems are a subject for "humour")

I don't really go with picking on someone's spelling but I do take your point Steve, I'm sure Paul meant no offence but it was inappropriate and has been edited accordingly.


I am pig-sick of people in what used to be a "nice" forum patronising people who make a living out of this stuff. Some of them with many years experience of getting pro results without these kinds of debates. Real traps/foam/100 Hz peaks debates do not make a great record.

I think this forum is still a nice place, well, mostly :roll:, and I'm sorry that you feel that people are being patronising towards you and other pro engineers/studio owners; I don't think that's anyone's intention and as someone who makes a living - or at least part of one - as an engineer I don't like being patronised any more than the next person.

With respect for your point of view though, this part of the forum is "Studio Design and Acoustics" and as long as things stay broadly within that category then this is as good a place as any to discuss them.

I can appreciate that these things might not interest you - you've already said that when you want a studio building, you call someone to sort it out to your spec. and that's fine - however most of the people contributing in this forum are doing so because it's of interest to them, either because they can't afford to call someone in to design their studio or because they'd rather do it themselves or even because they're just curious/interested. Whilst these debates might not help anyone make a great record they might just help someone make a better sounding record, enable them to help someone else to do so or provide a solution to someone's particular problem. If they can stay on topic and avoid the personal attacks (:protest:) they also serve to raise the general knowledge and understanding of some topics that can actually help in a really practical way.

No-one's trying to tell you how to live your life - it's none of their business anyway!. If none of these discussions interest you then that's not a problem - you can avoid the threads you don't like and carry on enjoying the rest.

Regards,

0VU :)
Guest

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

Postby Paul Woodlock » Thu Dec 16, 2004 5:11 am

Steve...

after you're last post, and nwo this, you've obviously some personal problem with me...


Steve Hill wrote:I'm sorry but I'm going to lower the tone (is this possible, I hear you say?)

I might be more convinced of Paul's educational credentials if he knew how to spell counselling.

Firstly, calling someone up on a forum typo is certainly lowering the tone,and in a very cheap way IMHO.

Secondly. I'm sorry for your sad loss. But really? ... You cannot blame me for that. I had no idea of your situation. And I would guess someone, somewhere in the world has a sadness connected with any joke. Again, I'm sincerely sorry for your loss.


Real traps/foam/100 Hz peaks debates do not make a great record.

Well you don't have to read the thread.

With due respect Paul, as far as I can work out you are half way through building a garage studio, and you have a major bee in your bonnet about how the rest of us should live our lives.

Kindly give us our forum back.

I really don't care how you live your life. I do have opinions on forms of acoustic treament, and I have opinions and views on how some information or misinformation is spread around the Internet, but how your live your life is entirely upto you.

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 Scott R. Foster » Thu Dec 16, 2004 6:11 am

Does anyone remember the original topic? Please refesh my memory.

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

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

Postby Martin Walker » Thu Dec 16, 2004 3:44 pm

Perhaps there's been too much foaming at the mouth, and not enough foaming in the corners ;)

Or have I fallen into another trap?

And if I have, is it wrongly positioned?

Sorry if no-one else finds this an absorbing topic, but I thought it might lighten the atmosphere a little :)


Martin
User avatar
Martin Walker
Moderator
Posts: 15142
Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2010 9:44 am
Location: Cornwall, UK

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

Postby Avare » Thu Dec 16, 2004 8:49 pm

Ethan Winer wrote:Not unrelated, I was told recently by someone you know that apparently some degreed acousticians do not believe porous absorbers work in corners. I find this unbelieveable since anyone can test it and have the answer in short order. You and I know that porous absorbers do work in corners, and in fact they work best there.

Consider the assumptions in the statements above. We refer to porous absorbers in corners meaning porous absorbers in the space adjacent to corners, not the corners themselves. Even your FAQ details that corners are pressure maxima and velocity minima, and porus absorbers reduce velocity. So yes, porous absorber theoretically in a corner does nothing. In reality we (studio acoustics topic type people) mean "right up against a corner."

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

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

Postby Ethan Winer » Thu Dec 16, 2004 9:29 pm

Jeff,

> As for "raw data," I don't quite understand why you think you are entitled to such information. <

That's a great point and I'm glad you brought it up. The main reason I believe I'm entitled to see the uncensored data is because it was manipulated and used to unfairly discredit my company's products on a web site that claims to be impartial. As I explained to Dan Nelson who owns StudioTips, I have no problem with comparison data appearing on the Auralex site, where it can be readily identified as a promotional tool for a commercial product. But when it appears on a site that claims to be impartial, yet the data clearly is not impartial, that's when I cry "Foul."

Since I consider that data suspect for a number of reasons, it seems only fair that I have an opportunity to review it for myself.

> You contend that other measurement methods are "more sophisticated" than the methods used by the lab. <

Absolutely. The ASTM lab tests in question measure absorption averaged in third octave bands. Period. On the other hand, ETF can resolve decay to 0.7 Hz resolution. ETF can even identify individual reflections. ETF can show the actual decay over time, by frequency, as opposed to only a single number. And it can also display RT60 from which one can compute Sabins of absorption, just like a lab.

> "This is to distinguish RealTraps from the overpriced foam and tube products that pose as bass traps." <

Point taken, and I changed the text. When I wrote that I was not aware of MegaLENRDs, or maybe MegaLENRDs weren't available yet then. I considered adding the caveat "except for Auralex's mighty MegaLENRD bass traps" :shock: but in the end decided to add "small" to better qualify the "foam and tubes" being referred to.

> What irks me most is people who think they understand something, but haven't really looked into it deep enough <

I couldn't agree more, and I have my own (shorter!) version of your proverb: "Not knowing is acceptable, but not knowing you don't know is dangerous." Unfortunately, I've seen a lot of "not knowing they don't know" lately.

--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 Guest » Thu Dec 16, 2004 10:14 pm

The main reason I believe I'm entitled to see the uncensored data is because it was manipulated and used to unfairly discredit my company's products on a web site that claims to be impartial.


I consider that data suspect for a number of reasons, it seems only fair that I have an opportunity to review it for myself


Ethan, these statements are not consistent. Just because you consider the data to be suspect, it doesn't mean that it is (I don't know either way). Stating unequivocally as in your first statement, that the data was manipulated to discredit RealTraps product, when in your second statement you admit that you "consider [it] suspect" yet have, I assume from the second part of your comment, not yet had an opportunity to review the data, is misleading and highly irresponsible. I'd be grateful if you would not state such, as yet unproven, allegations as if they are fact. If you have proof (not suspicions/rumours) then I suggest that you present it to back up your comments or refrain from making them.

In the absence of proof, please take any further discussions on this matter directly to the parties involved rather than airing them here.
Guest

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

Postby Ethan Winer » Thu Dec 16, 2004 11:02 pm

0,

Personally, I don't think this subject is appropriate for a public forum. But the suspect data has already been submitted, and Jeff asked why I think I'm entitled to see it, so I answered.

> these statements are not consistent. <

Sure they are. There's no question the graphs were manipulated by setting the baseline at 1 instead of 0 to make MiniTraps appear poor. Since whomever made the graph had no problem with that level of trickery, I wouldn't be surprised if the numbers themselves were also manipulated.

Beyond the question of willful manipulation of the graph as presented, it's already been acknowledged that the data has been "massaged," for lack of a better word, and subject to error deviation calculations. They have original data from a lab but are unwilling to show it. Instead they present tricked-out graphs and ask us to accept that the numbers from the lab report made it to the StudioTips forum intact. It's only fair that the burden of proof be on those presenting the data, especially since their integrity has been shown to be suspect.

Aside from the question of the data itself, do you really think a web forum that presents itself as an unbiased source of acoustics information should be hosting a product bashing thread that clearly has been presented in a misleading way? Would you allow someone to start a thread like that here in the SOS forum?

--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 MarkEdmonds » Fri Dec 17, 2004 2:35 pm

Ethan - given your last comments, surely the best place to sort out your data manipulation problem is on the actual studiotips forum itself? (I don't know if you have already done this or chosen not to) However, I can see that neutral ground is beneficial as long as the SOS mods don't mind the refereeing! (Is that spelt right?)

I will say this though (and hope the mods don't consider it out of line) - I would be shocked if the highly respected (by me and elsewhere) engineers who conducted these tests deliberately fouled up the data to make your product look bad. It doesn't make sense to me. Think about the risks they would be taking if this accusation were proven. I hope you are wrong on this one Ethan, I really do.

Mark
MarkEdmonds
New here
Posts: 6
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2004 1:00 am

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

Postby Savant » Fri Dec 17, 2004 2:58 pm

Ethan,

Ethan Winer wrote:> As for "raw data," I don't quite understand why you think you are entitled to such information. <

That's a great point and I'm glad you brought it up. The main reason I believe I'm entitled to see the uncensored data is because it was manipulated and used to unfairly discredit my company's products on a web site that claims to be impartial.

Since I consider that data suspect for a number of reasons, it seems only fair that I have an opportunity to review it for myself.

You have stated concerns that the studiotips graph has been manipulated, not the data. Having just looked at both of them carefully, side-by-side, I find that the Auralex Acoustology graph and the studiotips graph provide identical information for MiniTraps and MegaLENRDs. There have been no errors in the presentation of either set of data points. The issue at hand appears to be nothing more that the fact that the ordinate of the Auralex graph starts at 0 and the ordinate of the studiotips graph starts at 1. I have seen no other complaints except that one, and IMHO it is trivial. However, since that appears to irritate you considerably, I would propose either setting the studiotips ordinate to begin at 0 or, alternatively, I could reset the Auralex graph's ordinate to begin at 1. Either way, they're the same data.

Also, I do not believe you are entitled to see anything that was paid for with Auralex research money. The information is for us to do with as we see fit. Should anyone - studiotips or otherwise - misuse or otherwise willfully manipulate that data, then I will be the first person to cry "Foul." But, thus far, that has most assuredly not been the case.

If any original Riverbank information from these tests is to be released or otherwise shown to anyone, it will be on my terms. Not at the demands of anyone. Most assuredly not as a result of demands based solely on the trivial placement of the origin of a graph. That you continually imply that we have somehow been willfully manipulative or conpiratorial is ridiculous. However, if you believe you have proof of this, by all means, contact me privately and I will look into it.

> You contend that other measurement methods are "more sophisticated" than the methods used by the lab. <

Absolutely. The ASTM lab tests in question measure absorption averaged in third octave bands. Period. On the other hand, ETF can resolve decay to 0.7 Hz resolution. ETF can even identify individual reflections. ETF can show the actual decay over time, by frequency, as opposed to only a single number. And it can also display RT60 from which one can compute Sabins of absorption, just like a lab.

Again, you are missing the point. However, I wish you luck in your pursuit of this.

"except for Auralex's mighty MegaLENRD bass traps"

Comments like these are not furthering the discussion. The mods have repeatedly requested to remain civil and keep the insults, sarcasm, and other mundane comments out of this. Frankly, I am surprised that I need to remind you, of all people, to comply with the mods' requests. Nonetheless, you have openly insulted me twice in this thread and now you resort to sarcastic comments to make what point I do not know. In the past, you have openly requested that if I have issues with anything you say on your websites that I bring it to your attention and you'd be glad to consider revisions. I have taken you up on your offer and I have been publicly rebuked as a result. In the future, I will refrain from taking your willingness to cooperate seriously.

Best regards,

Jeff D. Szymanski
Chief Acoustical Engineer
Auralex Acoustics, Inc.
User avatar
Savant
Poster
Posts: 35
Joined: Fri Oct 08, 2004 12:00 am

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

Postby Steve Hill » Sun Dec 19, 2004 2:04 am

No, I don't have to read it any more and I won't. I can however feel sad about it. Especially sad about anybody who thinks any of this matters a damn, when the end objective is actually making great songs. Good rooms matter, obviously, but you can't "design" a room to make hits.

Musicians make hits. A seriously good musician will make a great song in a crap room. A bad one will sound bad in a "perfect" room - it will just reproduce the badness with perfect fidelity. This thread is, for me, far too much navel-gazing (I could be ruder...) for comfort.
User avatar
Steve Hill
Frequent Poster (Level2)
Posts: 3266
Joined: Tue Jan 07, 2003 1:00 am

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

Postby Guest » Sun Dec 19, 2004 3:13 am


No, I don't have to read it any more and I won't. I can however feel sad about it. Especially sad about anybody who thinks any of this matters a damn, when the end objective is actually making great songs. Good rooms matter, obviously, but you can't "design" a room to make hits.


Steve, I'm not sure why you feel the need to post that or why you feel sad about this thread. (Apart from all the childishness and mud slinging which is enough to make anyone sad!) Neither am I sure why you feel that none of this "matters a damn". Maybe to you it doesn't but to a lot of people obviously it does - or the thread, indeed the entire acoustics forum, wouldn't exist.

I couldn't agree more that the objective is making great music [songs] and you can't design a room to make hits. Neither however, can you design a guitar, drumkit, keyboard, amp, mic, mixer, sequencer, tape recorder, manuscript book, coffee machine, etc., etc., to make hits. By which token, the vast majority of the topics on the entire SOS forum, and indeed in the magazine, don't matter a damn. If that were true, then no-one would waste their time buying it, trying to find out about these things, and saving their money to buy them. None of these things make hits but they all help.

Musicians make hits. A seriously good musician will make a great song in a crap room. A bad one will sound bad in a "perfect" room - it will just reproduce the badness with perfect fidelity.


Unfortunately, the one thing that can make great music is also impossible to design - a great musician.

What you can design are the tools needed to make it easy/easier for a great musician to make great music. Rooms are part of this in the same way as instruments. OK, a great musician can play a crap instrument in a crap room and make great music but why not give him a decent instrument and a decent room so he can enjoy the process. And perhaps give him a knowledgable engineer so he doesn't have to worry about the technicalities. If instruments and rooms didn't matter, why do great artists prefer to use them. Not because they have to, or because they're expected to. Could it be because it makes the whole experience easier and more enjoyable for them?

This thread is, for me, far too much navel-gazing (I could be ruder...) for comfort.

Sorry you feel that way. To be honest, there are huge numbers of threads and entire areas on the SOS fora that don't interest me at all; I'm sure that the same is true for most forum users. However I, and the vast majority of other users, don't feel the need to drop in on them and accuse the participants of "navel gazing" or ruder. I just don't bother reading them. It seems to me to be polite not to complain about people discussing things that don't interest me - especially when I can simply choose not to take part in the discussion.


Sorry. Way off topic again. I'll tidy up in a day or two, when I have more time.
Guest

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

Postby Eric Desart » Sun Dec 19, 2004 10:41 am

OVU,

I should like to express my respect for you.
Not only for your last message.
I've read several of your posts.
And I see and feel an intelligent, honest, mature, critical, analytic and searching man.

Very warm and well meant regards.
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 Tequila Slammer » Sun Dec 19, 2004 12:54 pm

There's still a point being missed here. Forget musicians - sound treatment doesn't make musicians feel better.

An acoustically dead environment is not natural, so can easily cause disorientation. Cramming a singer into a small vocal booth can cause overheating problems... And we send reverb back down into the monitor mix of a singer to EMULATE real space in order to make them more comfortable and better performers. ;)

Sound treatment is for engineers, sometimes solo recording artists. It thus becomes a tool - like a microphone, monitors or a pre-amp, to aid generation of the best recording, processing job or mixdown possible.

So, are you saying a good engineer could make a fantastic recording on a multimedia mic and a pair of Creative multimedia speakers in a concerete bunker with no treatment and loads of computer noise?

Maybe (just maybe) he'd do a better job than a crap engineer with all the gear. However, the good engineer would undoubtedly do far far better in a well treated studio with high grade equipment. And the results from the bunker wouldn't sound competitive if released.

What's the point of having a fantastic musician if you can't capture the take without resonant frequency, flutter echo or noise problems? They can't be fixed 'in the mix' no matter how good the engineer.

Anyway, Jeff, I don't get your angle. It seems to me that your honour has been called into question, and you have the ability - if you tell the truth - to lay the matter to rest once and for all. So... Putting myself in your position, if I had proof positive that my products were better than the opposition I'd be releasing the data into the public domain for all to see.

Replying with 'I paid for the results so I dedcide who sees them' is at best childish and at worst indicative of deception.

Now again, in your position, if I HAD manipulated the results, or there was something I didn't like in that data, I'd be trying every method of obfuscation and distraction possible to avoid having to disclose it.

So my conclusion from reading the thread is that either you've practised deception or you're sitting on something that is potentially damaging to your company or this argument.

Anyway, this is nothing to do with me - I'll duck out now ;)
User avatar
Tequila Slammer
Poster
Posts: 21
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2004 12:00 am

PreviousNext