> Rather than simply edit your last post <
I can't imagine why you would consider editing my post. I have made no insults, only pointed out the insults of others against me. This is a huge
distinction! If you believe I have made inciteful or insulting comments in this post or others, I request that you leave them so others can judge. In fact, your extensive editing and toning down of the many insults against me
served only to hide evidence of the ulterior motives of my detractors.
I will answer every one of your points using the same detail as you did, even though not one
of your points is remotely related to the subject of standing waves.
> I'm not sure why you felt the need to quote Eric's comment <
To show that so far he has offered little of substance, only more insults.
> other than to divert attention from your own behaviour <
What behavior? This is not the first time you accused me of "bad behavior." In another thread you stated, "Ethan hasn't been above some name calling and frankly childish behaviour." At that time I replied:
That's a serious charge that's neither true nor fair. I have always been cordial to Eric, even when he's insulted me personally and professionally ... If you can show examples of me calling names or being childish I'd love to see them.
You never replied. If you have an example of me behaving badly, either show it now or stop accusing me of that, okay? I'm sorry to say your own bias is becoming quite apparent.
> he [Eric] had the decency and good manners to moderate his own post <
There is no decency in wasting forum bandwidth with posts that say only "I'm very frustrated trying to think of something to say here, other than insults that I know will be moderated."
> Several people, including cc, Paul, thefruitfarmer, DigiPenguin and Eric have made good, on topic remarks in this thread. <
That's why I was careful to say, "the only arguments against me
have been..." John Geisen's point that "Standing waves are caused by equal frequency waves traveling in different directions, including opposite" was excellent and on-topic.
> I think that what they're saying is that your FAQ is wrong <
You would think so, but they never have anything specific to criticize. They just say it's wrong. This is a common theme with Eric and his followers, to claim that I'm wrong but without ever explaining how or why I'm wrong.
> there are things in your FAQ that I would disagree with <
Again, either state your specific technical objections or stop accusing me.
> "Pick up a college-level text on basic electronics and look up standing wave, then tell me if it says anything about room modes." is one of the more ...er.. unusual remarks I've seen <
It is an absolutely valid remark! And it was stated a lot nicer than Scott Foster's earlier comment to me, "pick up a frickin' text book and learn the subject." Rather than criticize me by saying my statement is "unusual" you should explain why it's not correct. Standing waves do
occur in radio cables, and there are no room modes in those cables. Standing waves also occur at non-modal frequencies inside a room and at all audio frequencies against a boundary outdoors. If you dispute either of the two previous sentences, please explain how they are wrong.
> a mention of room modes in a discussion of standing waves in an electronics text is somehow proof of your statement that the two are unrelated is rather spurious <
It's not spurious at all. I never said room modes and standing waves are unrelated. What I said - and proved beyond any doubt - is that a standing wave is not the same thing
as a room mode. This too is a huge distinction.
> true or untrue? Is "Look at the FAQ second in the list on my article page" banned on RO (assuming that refers to recording.org)? A straight, one word answer will suffice. If you want to explain the one word answer then fine <
The one-word answer is No. At least, not currently. This is so far off-topic I'm astonished you brought it up, but I'm glad to explain. In fact, I started to do that in my previous reply, but then decided that Kurt Foster of Recording.org is hardly an authority on acoustics so whether he approves of my FAQ or not is irrelevant.
As many SOS regulars know, I wrote THIS
FAQ to explain the basics of acoustic treatment. When I founded the Acoustics forum at Recording.org (RO) several years ago I put a "sticky" post in that forum requesting that newcomers read the FAQ first and then ask follow-up questions. My FAQ served the forum very well for about a year. Then Eric Desart showed up and petitioned RO principals Chris Bialuski and Kurt Foster to remove me as a moderator because I'm not qualified to explain acoustics. He also told them my FAQ is full of errors, and I use it to drive traffic to the RealTraps web site even though it never resided on the RealTraps site. Of course, the entire purpose
of my FAQ is to show people how to build their own treatment so they don't have to buy it from me or anyone else. Think about that.
Kurt Foster, who knows little about acoustics and so can only choose which "expert" to believe, removed me as moderator and asked me to stop posting a link to my FAQ. I asked him what specifically he disagreed with and he admitted he was not qualified to comment. But since Eric is an expert and Eric says my FAQ is wrong, then it must be wrong. Talk about "argument from authority!" After a month or so I was finally able to get Kurt to at least look at my FAQ, so he could see it was not an advertisement for RealTraps. At that time he posted publicly at RO that it's okay for me to link to my FAQ again. I have since stopped posting there because every time I did five guys from StudioTips would show up and hurl insults. Sound familiar?
> your writings have been challenged by people who have reasonable claim to be regarded as experts in their field <
I have already shown they are not the experts they claim to be, by proving beyond all doubt that a standing wave is not the same thing as a room mode. I have also shown that standing waves occur at non-modal frequencies, which is another thing Eric had disagreed with before but can no longer dispute. I have a long list of other technical gaffs and errors made by Eric Desart. I see no point in listing them all here, but I will if you really want me to. Bear in mind that for two years now these "experts" have denied that basic quarter-wavelength comb filtering occurs at a single boundary.
Their entire case
that I am not an expert, and only pretend to be, is based on this disagreement over the definition of room modes and standing waves, and quarter-wavelength comb filtering. I have clearly shown that I am right and they are wrong on both of these issues, so who really is the expert?
So, is this what we're reduced to - each side trying to show that the other is a moron? More to the point, just because someone has a degree doesn't mean they're always right. And just because someone doesn't have a degree doesn't mean they're wrong. To be perfectly clear, I have no idea what formal credentials Eric and his followers may or may not have because they never listed them publicly. But whether Eric has a Ph.D. or is totally self-taught is unrelated to the facts about standing waves.
If Eric continues to insist that a standing wave is the same thing as a room mode, I ask him directly to explain this: Radio stations employ a Standing Wave Ratio (SWR) meter between the transmitter and antenna to measure the ratio of direct and reflected energy. This lets the engineers make adjustments to ensure that maximum transmitter power gets to the antenna, rather than be reflected back into the transmitter's output and wasted. Since clearly there are no room modes in a radio transmission line, how can one be the same as the other?