"MD" wrote in message
...
hank alrich wrote:
MD wrote:


I normally stay out of things like this unless the data is way off base
and/or someone is pushing an agenda. Ask Ethan what he does for a
living.


One of the things Ethan does for a living is _give away free plans_ to
construct traps that are much like those he sells, except for the
proprietary material in the damping membrane in RealTraps.

If you had balls even as big as petite green peas you'd step out from
behind your nom de plume and stand alongside your scurillious harassment
of Ethan.

Ethan has contributred a lot of helpful information here, and never have
I read that he said to buy his traps. He deals pretty much in facts
regarding room treatment, and if his business is successful (it is) that
is due to the truth of his statements about room treatments and the
benefits of trapping and diffusing, and the excellent value that his own
system offers.

--
ha
Never said Ethan doesn't contribute anything worthwhile - because I
believe he does

Don't know what the lack of balls comment means. This is a written forum.
What would I be doing if I "stood alingside"?

There are times when Ethan puts the facts forward

What is the deal with me and Ethan? Not sure there is one.

Never said the DSP solves everything. Never said it solves the decay
issues.

Here's the deal. Ethan posted an answer to a novice who was asking for
help. In that email he said digital correction doesn't work at all.

Quote - can a digital EQ system like the Behringer, working only at low
frequencies (say below about 300Hz) be expected to improve matters - In a
word, No.


This is wrong, misleading and he knows better (his own experiments and
plots have shown this and he has said differently on other forums.)

I am not saying either DSP is a panacea. To be honest I haven't seen
enough data or done enough personnal A/B tests to come to a conclusion on
whether traps or DSP are "better". For a single listening position DSP
can be quite effective and is much cheaper than traps. My ears and plots
tell me that (as do others ears and their plots)

I have a problem with someone who knows better saying something -
especially to a novice - that they know is patently wrong. Especially if
one has an agenda. If Ethan didn't know better and wasn't so well
informed I would have cut him some slack and replied on my own with a more
tempered rebuttal.

I am not in the business and have nothing to gain or lose by posting in
this thread.

Having been intrigued by the prospect of "tuning" a control-room back in the
70s and having spent a bunch of money on 'experts' and equipment, I found
that for every improvement at a "single listening position" (meaning ears
within inches of the position of the calibration mic used in the 'tuning'
process) the sound was worse most everywhere else. The net effect was that
even if some improvement was accomplished for the engineer, clients,
artists, producers, everyone else in the collaboration had their judgement
affected by the 'tuning' in a very non-helpful way. Even the engineer had
to work differently. The mixing board was about seven feet wide. That
meant that the engineer was almost always out of the sweet spot, when making
EQ decisions, which slowed down sessions and tried the patience of the
people footing the bill. We shortly pitched the mess, set about the
accoustic treatment the room needed in the first place, and lived happily
ever after. Tuning, digital or otherwise, is a very bad idea in my opinion.

Steve King