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 Paul Woodlock » Thu Dec 23, 2004 12:28 am

Ethan,

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.

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 Ethan Winer » Thu Dec 23, 2004 4:22 pm

Paul,

Jeff Szymanski and I have been working very hard, behind the scenes, to bring an end to this ongoing feud. Another combative post from you is not necessary or welcome. I appeciate and accept your apology, but I will not rise to the bait. So please drop it, okay? If you want my thoughts on the RAL report, I suggest that you email me privately and I'll be glad to tell you in detail.

--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 » Thu Dec 23, 2004 5:58 pm

Ethan Winer wrote:Paul,

Jeff Szymanski and I have been working very hard, behind the scenes, to bring an end to this ongoing feud. Another combative post from you is not necessary or welcome. I appeciate and accept your apology, but I will not rise to the bait. So please drop it, okay? If you want my thoughts on the RAL report, I suggest that you email me privately and I'll be glad to tell you in detail.

--Ethan


I take it your previous and long standing allegations against StudioTips and the presentation of the RAL data still stand then?

My previous post was not designed to bait you or indeed continue a tit-for-tat war in the slightest. Quite the contrary infact. I've no need ( or want ) to be combative here anymore. You've seen the RAL data, so either your allegations still stand or they don't. Which is it?

Sounds combative to me :roll: , but I appreciate your frustration... Hugh Robjohns

And no I won't E-mail you privately over the RAL data. You made your allegations fully public here, so in view of that I think it's only fair to everyone that you make any revised views, if you have them, PUBLIC!!


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 » Thu Dec 23, 2004 7:06 pm

Can I please ask the moderators to support the rightful request of Paul? Otherwise it's hardly possible to discuss the science and acoustic principles behind them.

It not causes but prevents further fruitless arguments.

Please?
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 Paul Woodlock » Thu Dec 23, 2004 7:53 pm

Eric Desart wrote:Can I please ask the moderators to support the rightful request of Paul? Otherwise it's hardly possible to discuss the science and acoustic principles behind them.

It not causes but prevents further fruitless arguments.

Please?

Greetings Eric :)

I can't for the life of me, think of ANY reason why ANYONE who is a non-biased participator in this thread would have any reason NOT to support my request.

It was Ethan's allegations that started this all off. We have defended those allegations, and Ethan has asked to see the raw RAL data so he can turn his 'assumed allegations' into 'valid allegations'

Well Ethan has the data now. The ball is in his court. There's no need for anymore fruitless arguments. We'd all like to put this to bed, and get on with discussing the science...

So Ethan, pray tell us...

ARE YOUR ALLEGATIONS BASELESS? OR... ARE YOUR ALLEGATIONS STILL VALID?



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 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: 26280
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

PreviousNext