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 » Mon Dec 20, 2004 5:41 pm

OVU - I just wanted to say that it is the unnecessary mudslinging that makes me sad - and only that. There used to be a helpful spirit of collegiate debate and mutual enquiry in this forum.

People with genuine, interesting questions may well be nervous about sticking their heads over the parapet if they think they are going to get caught up in flame wars, and we will all be the poorer for their understandable reticence. I know mods are (very!) busy and this is by no means their only or main job, but things have slipped through that should not have. From me too I expect, in which case I apologise to everyone. But I thought someone ought to bat for the forum's core values and try to get us back on course.

It seems to need a good dose of Christmas spirit to restore normality, in my humble opinion.
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 » Mon Dec 20, 2004 7:39 pm

Steve, Thanks for the clarification - the misunderstanding was mine not yours - I'm sorry I came in so heavily.

I agree completely that the mudslinging is pointless and does nothing to further discussion. And yes, it makes me sad too. I hear what you say about the friendliness here taking a bit of a battering lately (I don't exclude myself from that). It's partly my fault for not being around to more strictly keep an eye on things. I also have to admit to stirring things up with some of my posts.

People with genuine, interesting questions may well be nervous about sticking their heads over the parapet if they think they are going to get caught up in flame wars, and we will all be the poorer for their understandable reticence.

Yes, I agree with that too. Hopefully not too many people will be put off by the silliness in a couple of threads. There are still things going on elsewhere that are positive, helpful, and staying away from the kind of intimidating crap that would put me off. People asking basic questions shouldn't be worried about receiving abuse/ridicule as it shouldn't happen - beyond a bit of good natured piss-taking when they should know better ;) - and I hope we get back to that not being the case.

things have slipped through that should not have.

Yep - my fault. It's been a difficult call. I've tried to take the line of letting people say things in their own way and leaving as much as possible so that readers can judge for themselves the poster's intent and viewpoint. I've left things that should, with hindsight, have been jumped on earlier. Thankfully, Hugh has been there at least some of the time picking up after me and keeping the place tidy. I'll try to keep a better hold on things but, unless requested/instructed otherwise, I'll always tend to the side of letting people say their thing in their own way - even if it does get close to/slightly over the line. Perhaps I should set the standard a little higher.

But I thought someone ought to bat for the forum's core values and try to get us back on course.

Thanks :)

It seems to need a good dose of Christmas spirit to restore normality

Christmas?! Bah Humbug! :tongue: ;) (or is that the wrong sort of spirit? ) :bouncy:
Guest

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

Postby Eric Desart » Tue Dec 21, 2004 10:51 am

I want to express my congratulations towards Ethan Winer.
Ethan, you really are a master in this.

***You're not so bad yourself Eric. I've deleted the rest of this nonsense as it is clearly intended to be highly provocative and contains no technical content whatever. ***

Edited by Hugh Robjohns.

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 » Tue Dec 21, 2004 11:27 am

0VU wrote: I also have to admit to stirring things up with some of my posts.

You ain't kidding! ;)

Hopefully not too many people will be put off by the silliness in a couple of threads.

Agreed. The recent 'flaming' is strictly contained between a very few specific people with little tolerance or respect for each other's points of view and experience, combined with astonishingly poor self control. It is best ignored really, and the only reasons for tolerating it at all in this forum thus far is that occasionally some useful nugget of acoustic science pops out.

Yep - my fault. It's been a difficult call.

Don't think it's fair to carry that particular can entirely on your own 0VU. Initially you were the only acting moderator in this forum. Even with me assisting it's been very hard to keep on top of posts from different timezones when we all have to sleep occasionally. The only solution would be a fully moderated forum where nothing appears until vetted. We used to have that in the old V2 Q&A forum and it became a frustration for many. I'd rather not see that re-introduced just to deal with the current spat, which will (hopefully) soon pass anyway.

Merry Christmas to all SOS readers and our faithful forum regulars. Rest assured that normal service will be resumed (eventually) and that I will be keeping a close eye on things over the festive break just in case anyone decides to launch any unwarranted exocets... :roll:

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 Savant » Tue Dec 21, 2004 10:30 pm

:blush:
SOS mods and subscribers:

First, I would like to offer my most sincere apologies for any contribution I have made to the "flame war." It was never my intention to have things digress as they have. I enjoy reading through the many great offerings of SOS - both online and in print - and this sort of thread should NOT, IMO, be considered "par for the course" for this forum.

Next, I have given the matter at hand a lot of thought and I would have to agree with Tequila (et al) that releasing the information that has been requested is the right thing to do. (Truth be told - and I may get edited here, but I feel a need to state this clearly - it is the lack of tact and professionalism on the part of some of the people requesting the information that have been unacceptable to me in a personal sense. But that's just me. :headbang:) And, looking at the bigger picture, I do not want to be the one hampering transparency. Thus, I have scanned the requested lab data sheets and placed them on the Auralex website. The PDF can be downloaded here. As I hope is plain to see, the data sheets are directly from Riverbank. Page 5 of the PDF is a graph of the %uncertainty from the spreadsheet provided to us by RAL (%uncertainty information is not available in any other format for the tests in question). This is a stock graph in the RAL spreadsheet, but I have changed the formatting in an effort to make it more readable. I can assure that, as is always the case with any data that originates from Auralex and Riverbank, the numbers have not been altered in any way, shape, or form.

One more note about the PDF: The data are sabins per sample. Each sample was 8' in length. The graphs presented by Auralex and studiotips normalized the data to represent number of sabins per foot of corner. I.e., the sabins of absorption per sample given on each of pages 1-4 of the PDF were divided by 8 and graphed. I just wanted to point this out in case it isn't immediately apparent.

It is my hope that this will put an end to what I feel have been empty and misguided allegations. I believe folks here have requested similar information from others in this thread. Considering that, it is also my hope that those in question will return this gesture of full disclosure in the interests of scientific discourse.

Please feel free to contact me if you have questions or concerns.

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 Ethan Winer » Tue Dec 21, 2004 11:10 pm

Jeff,

Thanks very much, you truly are a stand-up guy for doing that. :angel:

Of course, I'm sure I'll have some comments after I've had a chance to look it over.

--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 Hugh Robjohns » Wed Dec 22, 2004 12:34 am

Jeff, I fully appreciate your concerns over publishing this raw data, but in this instance I think it was a wise and generous thing to do, and I sincerely hope that it moves not only this thread forward, but also the idiotic and fruitless arguments between the various correspondents.

You are a Gent, sir!

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 Scott R. Foster » Wed Dec 22, 2004 2:31 am

Ethan Winer wrote:Jeff,

Thanks very much, you truly are a stand-up guy for doing that. :angel:

Of course, I'm sure I'll have some comments after I've had a chance to look it over.

--Ethan

Great!

How about publishing your data as well.. I am curious to see that third IBM test of MiniTraps.
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 Paul Woodlock » Wed Dec 22, 2004 5:16 am

Foz wrote:
Ethan Winer wrote:Jeff,

Thanks very much, you truly are a stand-up guy for doing that. :angel:

Of course, I'm sure I'll have some comments after I've had a chance to look it over.

--Ethan


Great!

How about publishing your data as well.. I am curious to see that third IBM test of MiniTraps.



It's coming.... :)


Ethan Winer wrote:Scott,

> What is the volume of the IBM test chamber? <

I don't know. I seem to recall Eric or Jeff once stating the size in another thread somewhere, so maybe they can tell you.

> When will you publish your most recent IBM data on MiniTraps <

I don't know why you think you are entitled to any knowledge and other benefits of tests I paid for personally. I already stated publicly that the last round of tests were very close to the second round, so it wasn't worth changing the graphs on the RealTraps site. Some frequencies were up a coupla percent and others were down a similar amount. Overall they were all about the same.

To give a direct answer, I'll gladly show you my IBM data as soon as I'm sent the entire uncensored report from Riverbank. :bouncy:

.....

--Ethan
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 » Wed Dec 22, 2004 10:13 am

Paul Woodlock wrote:
Foz wrote:
Ethan Winer wrote:Jeff,
Thanks very much, you truly are a stand-up guy for doing that. :angel:
Of course, I'm sure I'll have some comments after I've had a chance to look it over.
--Ethan

Great!
How about publishing your data as well.. I am curious to see that third IBM test of MiniTraps.

It's coming.... :)
Ethan Winer wrote:Scott,
> When will you publish your most recent IBM data on MiniTraps <
I don't know why you think you are entitled to any knowledge and other benefits of tests I paid for personally. ...........
To give a direct answer, I'll gladly show you my IBM data as soon as I'm sent the entire uncensored report from Riverbank. :bouncy:
--Ethan


:headbang: And maybe best directly   the one as made by the lab on official IBM paper to prevent doubling the thread :roll:
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 » Wed Dec 22, 2004 10:37 am

Paul, Foz and Eric appear to be frothing at the mouth in their excitement, but they have a valid point!

I trust, Ethan, you will honour your side of the bargain and provide acess here to the original IBM data.

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 Eric Desart » Wed Dec 22, 2004 10:47 am

Hugh Robjohns wrote:.... but also the idiotic and fruitless arguments between the various correspondents ....

Hugh,
What is the function of such non-specified reproaches?

Maybe some of us were even consulted in function of this decision of Auralex?
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 » Wed Dec 22, 2004 1:33 pm

Eric Desart wrote: What is the function of such non-specified reproaches?

Hmmm. It was an off the cuff comment. Perhaps I meant it to remind all those involved to tow the line regarding sticking to the technical topics and refrain from the name calling and personal/professional accusations that have no place on this forum.

Maybe some of us were even consulted in function of this decision of Auralex?

Sorry, you've lost me here. I don't understand the point you are trying to make.

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 Scottdru » Wed Dec 22, 2004 1:41 pm

Hugh Robjohns wrote:Paul, Foz and Eric appear to be frothing at the mouth in their excitement, but they have a valid point!


Indeed they do. Maybe we can at least get a few things settled once and for all here.

Anyway . . . while we are on the subject (since it has been brought up twice now), has anyone done any proper testing on the absorption coefficients of mouth foam in corners? And does corner mounted mouth foam also exhibit the same peaks around 100 Hz? ;)

:headbang: :bouncy: :beamup:
User avatar
Scottdru
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1165
Joined: Tue Dec 17, 2002 1:00 am
Location: NYC: isle off the coast of Europe
Scott --Where are we going and why am I in this handbasket?

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

Postby Eric Desart » Wed Dec 22, 2004 2:37 pm

Hugh Robjohns wrote:
Eric Desart wrote: What is the function of such non-specified reproaches?

Hmmm. It was an off the cuff comment. Perhaps I meant it to remind all those involved to tow the line regarding sticking to the technical topics and refrain from the name calling and personal/professional accusations that have no place on this forum.
Maybe some of us were even consulted in function of this decision of Auralex?

Sorry, you've lost me here. I don't understand the point you are trying to make.
Hugh


Hugh,

You ask an honest answer.
You made it sound that there are a bunch of immature guys with idiotic arguments, not capable of coming to an end.

The guys at the other end of your Forum can have lot's of live and acoustic experience.

I see that a lot of dry made points are evaded.
This thread covered mostly non-related points as narrow-band analysis, measurement techniques, the validity of measurements and integrity of RAL, Auralex as a company and Jeff as an individual, myself and Studiotips, his Owner Dan and his management team.

Systematically they are doubted and accused with wittingly deceit and Malice by 1 single person, who BTW NEVER showed ANY single official IBM report in his live.
The used arguments only prove the lack of related background and knowledge of the accuser.

While I know those techniques, can understand what happened, really and honestly not blaming anyone, it are the moderators who let this happen.

That comments become sometimes more cynical and personal than needed, is frustration to get other parties to the core of things.

You moderated my message but it clearly described what happened in this thread refering to the origin and relevant points, and it indeed pointed to the one who caused it to happen. My moderated message WAS functional in this thread.
And the moderators let it happen, by not recognizing it, or whatever other circumstance.

The general unspecified suggestion of immature guys with endless idiotic fruitless arguments is not fun and uncalled for.

And while this is clearly Auralex's and Jeff's call, what I mean with this comment is that indeed acousticians and others do speak with one another as well on acoustic topics as well to find responsible solutions out of a situation which should not exist in the first place.

One last point:
The RAL measurements is a matter of doubting the integrity of all parties involved.

The 3rd IBM measurement is a matter of lacking data for a commercial product, which is executed specific based on RealTrap's own comment that the 2nd measurement was poorly executed in function of MiniTraps positioning, where Ethan told they he personally should control perfect placement for the 3rd measurement.
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

PreviousNext