Firstly thankyou for posting your data. :)
However, as we are now hopefully nearing a conclusion on this long suffering thread and the issues it concerns, there is still the matter of the very serious allegations regarding the Integrity of the Auralex/StudioTips 4 Corner device data by yourself.
Ethan Winer wrote:On Malice
...... Those guys keep insisting that a MegaLENRD occupies "the same effective corner area" when that is clearly untrue. A MegaLENRD is 34 inches across the face and a MiniTrap is only 24 inches wide, so a MegaLENRD impinges far more into the room. ( 1.5" further into the room to be exact - Paul W ) Those guys know this, yet they continue to purposely misstate the facts out of malice toward me. In fact, my point about a MegaLENRD having four times the mass of a MiniTrap was not to criticize MegaLENRDs because they take up more space in a room (which they do). Rather, it was to show how efficient a MiniTrap is for coming so close to the same performance below 125 Hz even though it has only 1/4 the material.
But the intentional deception and malice goes farther than that. Take a close look at the Sabins data in the "four devices" thread they link to at every opportunity. The correct way to display this is with 0 Sabins as the base line, and the absorption in each band shown as some positive value. But this data was intentionally biased to start at 1, not 0, to force MiniTraps farther down the graph and wrongly make them seem "worse." When presented correctly the "shelf" behavior of MiniTraps at mid and high frequencies is far more evident, and the response appears less "peaky." This intentional fudging of the data shows a willful intent to deceive and a disregard for science, yet these guys want people to believe they're unbiased. As further proof this was done intentionally, when Auralex published the same data in their Acoustology newsletter the graph was properly based at 0, not 1. So "whoever" put together the report that appears at StudioTips did this willfully and knowingly. In the name of science and fairness to foam, of course.
Ethan, disregarding the 'quality' of the allegations ( 0 and 1 origin's etc ), the allegations still stand, as we've seen nothing further to say they don't.
You've now had access to the RAL data, which of course proves that the data was neither altered, nor indeed manipulated for any negative or malicious reasons against RealTraps or yourself. We may have other issues with you, but we have NEVER brought those arguments into the domain of any lab tests and subsequent publication on StudioTips. Because doing so would mislead DIY studio builders. And despite our differences, good nad honest test data to help these peeps has ALWAYS had a higher priority over scoring any points in the tedious war between you and studiotips.
So, can I ask you now to fully and publically retract and apologise for your allegations against the Auralex/Studiotips data? Doing so IMO would not only serve you well in the end, but will also help to bring this crazy war to a conclusion.
And in the spirit of peace, I would also like to apologise to you for any 'names' I have called you throughout this thread.