Kurt,
If you want to compare foam to my products, at least do it fairly. That is, show the relevant frequency ranges. Since you are either unwilling or incapable of providing a fair and unbiased comparison, I request that you edit your post to remove all references to my company's products.
Thanks.
--Ethan
Topic Tags
Comments
Kurt, > I don't think there are any references to your compan
Kurt,
> I don't think there are any references to your company.
You wrote, "4” wedge foam and 4 corner trap wedges will be as effective as a mini or panel trap."
MiniTraps is a registered trademark of RealTraps, LLC. The specs you [improperly] give for a panel trap are taken from a copyrighted page on the RealTraps web site, and that data is valid only for RealTraps products, not panel traps in general.
> If you hadn't deleted the thread
I truncated the thread because it was detracting from the professionalism of my forum. You turned it into an exercise in name calling, not me. You continued to ignore my points, and continued to express an "opinion" about my products even though by your own admission you have no experience with my products. Heck, I even retained your valid point that foam has unfairly become a scape-goat.
> This is simply comparison of the coefficient ratings of various products as I can get them.
The fact that you list absorption at 1 KHz. for a RealTraps low-bass panel trap shows you have no clue as to what a panel trap does or how it's intended to be used. I told you repeatedly that a low-bass trap peaks at 90 Hz, and that data for foam at 125 Hz has no relationship to what it does at lower frequencies. Continuing to list the same erroneuous data in this second post shows me that you are skewing the data intentionally, and have an intent to defame me and my company.
What did I ever do to you to deserve such lousy treatment? What is your real motive here?
--Ethan
Ethan, I have no motive. I have no agenda. I'm not selling any
Ethan,
I have no motive. I have no agenda. I'm not selling anything. I am only attempting to generate interesting content for RO. If you have some other data you would prefer to post in regard to the performance of your types of products please feel free to do so. I will be happy to incorporate any new data into my comparison. If you wish to find data to substantiate that the foam data is incorrect, please be my guest. I have removed the oversight reference to your trademarked name..
Originaly posted by Ethan: I truncated the thread because it was detracting from the professionalism of my forum. You turned it into an exercise in name calling
You should not have deleted those posts. You had no right to do that. You don't have the authority to delete something just because you don't like what it said. Let the readers decide for themselves. Moderators are only to delete threads or post for profanity, porn, race-gender-gay/hate. Anything that can get us in trouble with the server.. anything else is up to the discretion of the site admministrator. I have the whole thread saved. If you wish we could repost it and then you can show me where I called you any names. I am not making this personal. It is about Foam VS. Wood Panel Traps.
Kurt
As far as I am concerned, the same rules apply to everyone. Dele
As far as I am concerned, the same rules apply to everyone. Deletions are only to be done in the situations I previously sited. Any other deletions are only done by the site administrator, for what ever reason they may have. Moderators do not have the authority to delete whole threads for any reason.
Originally posted by Kurt Foster: Deletions are only to be done
Originally posted by Kurt Foster:
Deletions are only to be done in the situations I previously sited. Any other deletions are only done by the site administrator, for what ever reason they may have. Moderators do not have the authority to delete whole threads for any reason.
Do the moderators know that rule? Because they don't all seem to follow it. In fact, I wouldn't be at all suprised if this post got deleted.
BTW, I'm not referring to Ethan.
Originally posted by sheet: That no rules thing is bogus. Whe
Originally posted by sheet:
That no rules thing is bogus. When some one who is not a moderator goes to town on a manufacturer, or a concept, the PM's come in, your statement is edited, etc.
:) All I see here is debate, you have been around for a while now.
On my DAW if I perform an incorrect procedure an icon appears that say's; "Oh! I see." I just have to backtrack to find what I did wrong.
Someone may post something, then after consideration, may correct their own post. But there is a time or two when a post is a bad one, a request is made, denied, and there IS no choice. These decisions are not taken lightly.
--Rick
Originally posted by J. Slator: Originally posted by Kurt Fos
Originally posted by J. Slator:
Originally posted by Kurt Foster:
Deletions are only to be done in the situations I previously sited. Any other deletions are only done by the site administrator, for what ever reason they may have. Moderators do not have the authority to delete whole threads for any reason.
Do the moderators know that rule? Because they don't all seem to follow it. In fact, I wouldn't be at all suprised if this post got deleted. Well if they don't perhaps this will serve to let them know. I can say that I do not delete posts except under those conditions.
Originally posted by Kurt Foster: Moderators are only to dele
Originally posted by Kurt Foster:
Moderators are only to delete threads or post for profanity, porn, race-gender-gay/hate.
in another thread, you said the guidelines for deleting threads are racism, porn, and slander......i need some clarification if im gonna be posting here because i tend to get on the slanderous side.......
Originally posted by Gidge: Originally posted by Kurt Foster
Originally posted by Gidge:
Originally posted by Kurt Foster:
Moderators are only to delete threads or post for profanity, porn, race-gender-gay/hate.
in another thread, you said the guidelines for deleting threads are racism, porn, and slander......i need some clarification if im gonna be posting here because i tend to get on the slanderous side....... Moderators are only to delete threads or post for profanity, porn, race-gender-gay/hate. I would also delete anything that might put RO in a position of being sued for slander. That covers it but ther real guideline is just be polite, have some manners. Points can be made without personal attacks and name calling..
Originally posted by sheet: I use a Mac. Is that offensive? l
Originally posted by sheet:
I use a Mac. Is that offensive? lolLet's have these guys build a room. Both of them can deck it out with a minimum amount of their respective products of preference. Then lets test the room and see who has the chops.
What I would like to do is, test my room without treatments, then apply $500 worth of Ethans treatments. Take a measurement. Take down Ethans treatments and apply $500 worth of foam and test. see which $500 is the $500 best spent...
This sure seems like a "less filling/tastes great" exchange...
This sure seems like a "less filling/tastes great" exchange...
How about we say that both methods are very useful and perform as advertised, and leave it at that? I for one hate to see 2 people I respect and admire professionally diminished to a cleaned up version of a ****** flame war...
Ken
For the record.. I NEVER said that panel traps and miniature mem
For the record.. I NEVER said that panel traps and miniature membrane diaphragm absorbers don’t work. I am perfectly willing to accept that they work very well. I am asserting that FOAM WORKS TOO! I have no problem with foam being allowed to coexist in the same world with other methods. It is Ethan who insists that his way of doing things is the only way and nothing else will do.
What are my motivations for taking this stance? Well, for one I hope to get my recording CR in better shape without spending $1500! So I want something that is less expensive (less filling).
What are Ethan’s motivations for taking his stance? (tastes better!) Well for one, he made some statements regarding the performance of his traps and absorbers vs. foam a while ago, before he had taken his products to the lab to be tested. The results of these tests have shown that while the panels traps work well and are superior in some applications, they do not “kill” foam as Ethan has previously stated. Foam is still a worthy competitor. But Ethan has to maintain his stance in light of the statements he made in the past.
Last, Ethan is a manufacturer of Panel Traps and miniature membrane diaphragm absorbers. He wants you to buy his product and not someone else’s. I expect that, just as I expect that from anyone else who is a manufacturer. I on the other hand, am not selling anything!
I am comparing data as it is supplied to me by various manufactures and it appears to me that foam will do the job for me in my situation. Ethan has a point when he says that foam can be overkill in some situations. In a very small area, the amount of foam needed to trap the area out would cause over absorption and make the room too dead. In that scenario, panel traps would be a better choice because they not only bass trap but they are also reflective. By using both absorption and reflective surfaces, something of a balance may be struck. But on the other hand, I myself, would never try to build a control room in a very small place for a number of reasons (but that’s another discussion). In a larger area, I believe that foam may be useful. My situation is that I will put up 3 corner style foam bass traps (6’), lined with a 4’ row of 4” foam on each side. I am notoriously bad at math but I think this will give me a coverage of 60 square feet of 4” foam in each of the front corners of the room where my Mains are located. I believe that my 120 square feet of 4” foam will do much more for the sound of the room for an expenditure of $500 or less, than 2 of Ethan’s miniature membrane diaphragm absorbers that would cost about the same or 2 of his panel traps that would supply no absorption and be even more expensive.. Kurt
Kurt, RealTraps does not sell the cheapest treatment solution
Kurt,
RealTraps does not sell the cheapest treatment solutions. We sell the best treatment solutions. If all you can afford is $500, then by all means buy foam and cover your walls. It won't be as good as treating your room properly with MiniTraps, but hey, that's all you can afford.
Foam is certainly a viable solution for amateurs, home recordists, and weekend studios that charge $20 per hour. Folks like that probably care about the sound of their rooms, but obviously not enough to justify professional acoustic treatment. Or perhaps they know the difference but just can't afford to do a proper job.
On the other hand, real audio pros understand the difference between the cheapest solution and the best solution. These folks don't use a SoundBlaster Live as their main sound card and Radio Shack mikes for drum overheads. They assess acoustic treatment using the same criteria as when buying mikes, preamps, and outboard gear.
--Ethan
Looks like this really boils down to a money issue. If you got
Looks like this really boils down to a money issue.
If you got it spend it if you don't you can do like I do and wait till I have it or do like some others do and find a different way to get it done.
I spend WAY to much money to get exactly what I want.
This makes my wife crazy but I've never bought one piece of studio gear because I couldn't afford what I really wanted. Except maybe a a Sony Oxford and I really don't need that.
I will try to make this clear. I am asserting that my $500 foam
I will try to make this clear. I am asserting that my $500 foam traps will do as much or more for my room than $500 worth of Ethan’s treatments will do. $500 of foam will work as well in my room as $500 of panel traps , 705 absorbers or mini traps. $500 worth vs. $500 worth.. I see no reason to spend more than I have to regardless if I have it or not.. To suggest that I am less of a person because I don't want to deposit a large chunk of cash into Ethan’s account borders on a personal insult and is the kind of tactic that used car salesmen use.
All through this thread I have directly answered all of Ethan’s questions and challenges. He however chooses to convolute his answers when he responds. Take a look at the whole thread and decide for yourselves who is "spinning" the responses. All I want are direct responses.
Kurt, > I am asserting that my $500 foam traps will do as muc
Kurt,
> I am asserting that my $500 foam traps will do as much or more for my room than $500 worth of Ethan’s treatments will do.
For someone who has never seen, let alone tried, any of my products, that's quite an assertion!
> All through this thread I have directly answered all of Ethan’s questions and challenges.
Ha ha ha ha ha. You're kidding, right?
I'm planning to start a new thread later today listing all of the points I made that you ignored or never addressed. Then you do the same, and we'll tally the results.
> Take a look at the whole thread and decide for yourselves who is "spinning" the responses.
Yes, if ever there was a good use for a forum poll, this is surely the time and place!
--Ethan
Originally posted by Ethan Winer: On the other hand, real audio
Originally posted by Ethan Winer:
On the other hand, real audio pros understand the difference between the cheapest solution and the best solution. These folks don't use a SoundBlaster Live as their main sound card and Radio Shack mikes for drum overheads.
Ouch... I've been hit below the groin! ;)
Originally posted by falkon2: Originally posted by Ethan Wine
Originally posted by falkon2:
Originally posted by Ethan Winer:
On the other hand, real audio pros understand the difference between the cheapest solution and the best solution. These folks don't use a SoundBlaster Live as their main sound card and Radio Shack mikes for drum overheads.
Ouch... I've been hit below the groin! ;) Me too buddy
Originally posted by Ethan Winer: Kurt, > I am asserting th
Originally posted by Ethan Winer:
Kurt,> I am asserting that my $500 foam traps will do as much or more for my room than $500 worth of Ethan’s treatments will do.
For someone who has never seen, let alone tried, any of my products, that's quite an assertion!
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that 120 square feet of (foam) absorption will affect a rooms response more that 8 square feet would (minitraps). Once again, you don’t answer directly by saying “Yes they will” or “ No they won’t”.
> All through this thread I have directly answered all of Ethan’s questions and challenges.
Ha ha ha ha ha. You're kidding, right?
This is what is known as a “dismissive reply”. It is an attempt to discredit a statement without addressing the issue. Once again, a repeat of the behavior I was initially describing. If there is any question I haven’t addressed, please bring it up and I will address it. Once again I will say, I never have said that Ethan’s approach to bass trapping and absorption doesn't work. What I am saying is that FOAM WORKS TOO. I don't see what the big deal is. Yes, Ethan, foam works, and you have to exist on the same planet with it.
Kurt
Falcon and Dan, > Ouch... I've been hit below the groin! ;)
Falcon and Dan,
> Ouch... I've been hit below the groin! ;)
Sorry for unfairly including the SoundBlaster Live as audio gear that's not professional. I was trying to make a point, but you are correct that an SB Live can indeed provide pro results. I used one for years for many pro projects. In fact, I still have an SB Live, but a Delta 66 is now my main audio card. I use the SB for editing SoundFonts, and as a metronome in Sonar.
--Ethan
Kurt, Okay, below are all the points I've made that you have
Kurt,
Okay, below are all the points I've made that you have never addressed. In some cases I combined paragraphs to keep each separate point as one unit.
The amazing thing I noticed as I compiled this list is how I had to make the same points over and over because you continued to ignore them, and failed to understand the science of acoustic absorption and material measurement.
--Ethan
----------------
The fact that you list absorption at 1 KHz. for a RealTraps low-bass panel trap shows you have no clue as to what a panel trap does or how it's intended to be used. I told you repeatedly that a low-bass trap peaks at 90 Hz, and that data for foam at 125 Hz has no relationship to what it does at lower frequencies. Continuing to list the same erroneous data in this second post shows me that you are skewing the data intentionally, and have an intent to defame me and my company.
RealTraps does not sell the cheapest treatment solutions. We sell the best treatment solutions. If all you can afford is $500, then by all means buy foam and cover your walls. It won't be as good as treating your room properly with MiniTraps, but hey, that's all you can afford.
Foam corners absorb about one third as well as MiniTraps at the lowest frequencies. If you consider that to be a "worthy competitor" there's nothing else I can possibly say!
Moreover, you fail to account for the physical size of the products being compared. Absorption coefficients explain how much a material absorbs independent of size, so a product that is twice as effective as another but is only 1/8th the size has only 1/4 the effectiveness overall!
The published data for foam corners includes as many as five surfaces, even though only one surface is actually absorbing when the foam corner is installed. I realize you don't understand the importance of this, so I urge you to consult with someone more knowledgeable than yourself if you don't want to take my word for it.
A full complement of MiniTraps actually costs about the same as a full complement of foam - somewhere between $800 and $2000 for most rooms.
At 100 Hz MiniTraps are far more effective than foam, as you can see in the graph above. And as an overall solution for a reasonable price, MiniTraps again win over foam every time. Do MiniTraps cost more per square foot of coverage than foam? Of course. But in the larger picture they are a better value because they do a more complete job at all low frequencies. And since they absorb low frequencies so much more effectively than foam, you can install enough of them to truly solve the LF problems without making the room too dead as usually happens with foam. If boominess and lack of definition below 125 Hz. don't matter to you, then by all means buy foam and save a few bucks. But if accurate monitoring at all low frequencies is important to you, then using real bass traps - MiniTraps or wood panels - is the only acceptable solution.
First, you need to understand the difference between wood panel membrane traps, fiberglass-based broadband absorbers with a membrane, and plain fiberglass and foam. These three types of absorbers work on three different principles! Panel traps give their best performance when mounted flush against a wall because they work on wave pressure. Foam, fiberglass, and fiberglass with a membrane act on wave velocity, and thus work worst when flat against a wall. These are important fundamental concepts that you must understand before you can assess acoustic absorbers and fairly offer opinions on their performance. One important reason that panel traps are so much better than foam or fiberglass is they achieve optimum absorption when mounted on a wall. A room has only so many corners. So when the corners are all treated and bass problems still exist, panel traps can be mounted on the walls where they do a much better job than foam. It would be great if you could just look at data and pick the product with the highest numbers. But it's not that simple. To use your logic, why spend $35 for a meal at a nice steak house when you can get the same number of calories for only $4.25 at Taco Bell? [Added 6/23 - Here's an analogy you may understand better: Why pay $1000 for a high-end mike preamp when you can get the same 60 dB of gain from a $50 Radio Shack preamp?]
"Falls off rapidly" is relative. At 250 Hz a MiniTrap on the wall is three times more absorptive than the same volume of foam on the wall. So even though the absorption falls off, it continues to remain more than three times more effective than foam down to the data cutoff at 100 Hz.
So please show us a comparison between four inches of foam across a corner and a MiniTrap across a corner.
You compared foam with 705, but 705-FRK is what RealTraps sells and what we use in our MiniTraps. Two inches of the FRK type has an absorption coefficient of 0.60 at 125 Hz versus only 0.32 for four-inch foam. So in fact 705-FRK is four times more effective at 125 Hz than the same volume of foam. I suppose you now want to compare two inches of 705-FRK with eight inches of foam? Note that MiniTraps are built with much more than just 705-FRK, so the above applies only to foam vs. 705-FRK and not vs. MiniTraps which are much better than just 705-FRK.
Please tell me which NRC information you are referring to. The data I have for 2-inch 705-FRK shows absorption of 0.60 at 125 Hz. Compare that to 0.11 for 2-inch Auralex Studiofoam Wedges, 0.13 for 2-inch Auralex Metro, and 0.15 for 2-inch Auralex Wedgies. If you consider 0.15 to be "almost as effective" as 0.60 you need some math lessons. Even if you compare 2-inch 705 to 4-inch foam, the 705 is still more than twice as effective.
Here's some "hard data" on MiniTraps. All values are absorption coefficients:
100 Hz. = 2.69
80 Hz. = 0.99
63 Hz. = 0.34
50 Hz. = 0.27
Now, please tell me how these figures compare to the stuff you got from Foam by Mail. Or anything sold by Auralex or Sonex or any other foam vendor for that matter.
Yes, and you won't see any foam vendor list data that low either. Our explanation that labs are not certified to test below 100 Hz. is not a cop-out. It's absolutely true, and not listing that data publicly on our site makes us more ethical, not less ethical.
You really need to read the sidebar "The numbers game" which is in the forum FAQ and also on the MiniTraps page. It explains in great detail how some vendors unfairly fudge the numbers to their advantage. The section that follows that sidebar on the MiniTraps page explains why these numbers are in fact valid for MiniTraps. So while our data shows MiniTraps being nearly three times more effective than corner foam at 100 Hz, the difference is likely even larger because the placement for the foam corners is not defined. Please read that part of the MiniTraps page carefully, and if there's something you don't understand I'll be glad to explain it.
You compare apples to oranges, and misrepresent our wood panel traps which work on a completely different principle than foam. The LB panel traps peak at 90 Hz and the HB series peak at about 180 Hz. Each absorbs over a range of about 1-1/2 octaves, and both types are needed to properly treat a room. To compare an LB7 to foam at 500 Hz. complete misses the point, and obscures its true value as a bass trap. If you want to compare foam to a RealTraps product, look at the MiniTraps test data published on our site. It shows absorption coefficients and Sabins as both numeric data and graphs for several products. And if you want to compare our wood panel traps to foam, at least compare them in the ranges they are designed for! But you also have to read "The numbers game" to understand how the data for foam corners is overstated. Only then will you understand why an LB7 is far superior to any foam corner at 100 Hz, regardless of what the foam vendor claims.
If you'd like to explain why you think I have skewed data I'll be happy to address your comments.
Special bonus - Back in March I sent you this by email:
------------
An LB7 peaks at around 90 Hz. and is not intended to do anything much above a few hundred Hz. The HB models peak at around 180 Hz. and aren't intended to do much in the midrange either. But these are bass traps, not broadband absorbers, and for bass they work really well. This is why we also sell fiberglass absorbers - to pick up where the panel traps leave off.
If a foam product offers specs at 100 Hz. it will be much worse than an LB7. It is rare to see a foam product spec'd at that frequency because by then the material is doing very little. If not, they're either lying (not unheard of) or taking advantage of the "edge effect" which unfairly boosts the numbers. Not unlike "lies, damn lies, and statistics." In fact, all of the numbers shown above for foam are unfairly including the "edge effect" which is proven by all those numbers higher than 1.0.
When materials are measured for absorption, the total front surface area is considered. But what is not considered is the edges of the material. Some of the foam products are as thick on the edges as on their front surface, so the measurements can be fudged to make them seem up to twice as effective as they really are. By definition, the largest legitimate absorption coefficient is 1.0 because that means 100% of the sound [at that frequency] is being absorbed. So when you see numbers larger than 1.0 - like those in the table above - you can be sure the specs unfairly include the edges.
For a piece of material that's two by two feet and four inches thick, the edges account for almost half of the exposed surface - but they're not considered in the calculations! And when the material is mounted to a wall with all the edges touching each other, the edges are not absorbing. However, in fairness, if the material is placed in a checkerboard pattern, the edges are absorbing. And if it's mounted on a wall in vertical stripes, then the side edges are working but not the top and bottom.
When a foam triangle "bass trap" is attached to a corner as intended, the top, bottom, and two rear edges are not exposed to the air. So in practice four of the five edges do not absorb anything, even though all those surfaces were exposed to the air when they were tested!
------------
Then you replied, "I appreciate your response, and unlike some of our other exchanges, I get this."
Apparently you didn't get it then, and you still don't get it now.
I don't know what else I can say before you'll understand that MiniTraps and RealTraps wood panel traps are better than foam. Yes, they cost more, but they do a much better job. As proof, a large number of our customers came to us after having spent a lot of money on foam and being dissatisfied. After installing RealTraps they were happy. Case closed.
Golli, I hope not. I have received some PMs from readers who a
Golli,
I hope not. I have received some PMs from readers who are interested and entertained by this thread. Ethan and I have not agreed on many things from the get go but I can assure you on my part there is no animosity. I just disagree with some of his opinions. I have said repeatedly that I am sure he makes great products. I actually recomend them to people in some situations. I just don't agree with him that it is the only solution. I feel that some rooms are not so bad that a little foam can deal with the problems. That's all.
I am going to have to take a while to answer Ethan’s last post as it is quite lengthy and I have to go back to several different threads to pick up quotes. This will take some time to do and I can't get to it until this evening. Kurt
Originally posted by Ethan Winer: You continued to ignore my po
Originally posted by Ethan Winer:
You continued to ignore my points, and continued to express an "opinion" about my products even though by your own admission you have no experience with my products.
It's not just with your products Ethan. Kurt seems to have a general habit of doing that.
Originally posted by Ethan Winer: Foam corners absorb about
Originally posted by Ethan Winer:
Foam corners absorb about one third as well as MiniTraps at the lowest frequencies. If you consider that to be a "worthy competitor" there's nothing else I can possibly say!
Kinda like comparing a BMW to a Ford Fiesta.
Or a U47 vs a Radio Shack Highball mic.
One costs a lot more and for good reason!
I can't afford Ethan's traps so I'm going to build traps from the plans he has most graciously posted for free. For high frequency absorption, I'm going to use 703 bd.
If you are totally price point oriented,. why not compare a room treated that way vs foam. Bet the foam room would get it's doors blown off!
You know what? Even as sick as I am, and as deeply into decid
You know what?
Even as sick as I am, and as deeply into deciding issues that are literally life and death for me, I just want to say, as both a Moderator and as one of the sort of Secret Administration participants of RO from it's earliest days, that this thread in many areas makes me just feel like getting sicker.
So much whining.
So much ego.
So much nit-picking and 'mine's better than yours'-ing, that though we all have our moments, and I too need to be vigilant, for a moderator of this board to be unhappy with comments on what you build that once mentioned here and you engage in the discussion at all, are fair game, and regardless of what are felt to be fair or unfair comparisons...
Well, the haughtiness and holier than thou thing doesn't do a lot for me.
Yes I bitch sometimes, when something I genuinely innovated or developed that has turned into a product that others are making millions from of which I see nothing, still, people can say what they want.
If technically incorrect, I'll be sure and correct them, but I've learned one thing here, it's that it can either be a Brotherhood or it can be another Internet Jungle, uncivilized, hellish, everything from your religious beliefs to whether or not you smoke G-13 under attack.
I started off in 2000, with having to threaten to close my forum if this board was not going to be any different from RAP.
I took a stand, and the resultant uproar helped create the rule book we have.
As Moderators who have products of any kind, I've learned that it's extra, extra important to balance the 'tude and the dissemination of the Facts, against our personal feelings, and as an artist, I find that hard.
But indispensible.
Otherwise its either fascism and Control, or it's Internet Anarchy with out of control Flame Wars devouring bandwidth, instead of Issues.
I think it's pretty stinky in here.
Sorry, but I felt strongly enough to, even at the risk of being accused of being less-than-perfect (which I am) myself, say something about this conversation.
I say hit Delete, and start over, and remember, if you make a product and Moderate you are open to the can of worms, and it's important to try and correct the worms that wander in, without acrimony if possible, thereby educating and illuminating, than it is to ignore the perils of Moderating and also Creating Commercial Product, and regardless of your personal feelings about it, behave the way you hope others will, in your forum.
I set the tone in mine.
If I cuss like a sailor, so will others who aren't conscientious about it.
If I tend to be careful and use it as a moment of emphasis, so will others, I've found.
Whatever.
Carry on if you want, but it's a pretty little show of foot-stamping and pique...
From an objective viewer in orbit, who paid no attention to anything but the tone.
Hardly a high-tone runabout.
More like an abandoned Morgan with the tranny missing, a fender here and there...
Nice.
Originally posted by Ethan Winer: Kurt, If you want to comp
Ethan,
Actually I don't think there are any references to your company. I thought I removed them. I will check. If you hadn't deleted the thread this was originally posted in, you would have had an opportunity to respond and make comments. BTW deleting threads and posts is against RO policy guidelines for moderators unless directed to do so by management. But don't worry, I saved the whole thread as a file. :D
This is simply comparison of the coefficient ratings of various products as I can get them. May I remind you that you did not invent these wood panel traps. The design for them is in F. Alton Everest’s book, "The Master Handbook Of Acoustics". As far as I'm concerned, subject closed. Kurt