http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Acoustic-Foam-Sou ... dZViewItem
Found this on ebay.Does anyone know it it compares to anything like the auralex stuff?
Thanx :)
is this foam any good?
Originally posted at johnlsayers.com, topic 4656.
I don't know if it's the same as the Foam By Mail crap... It might be though. See this thread.
> See this thread <
Sheesh, I'm the one who paid IBM's acoustics lab $400 to discover that Foam by Mail is a ripoff, and that link sends readers to another site - as if they broke the story. :(
--Ethan
Thanx.I dont think i'll be buying any of it.I think i'll probably use the diy route
You must be joking (but with a very poor one) Credit where it belongs. And it belongs in Studiotips Sharward's link was right where it belongs. You did NOT broke the story. I did. It toke me exact 6 months trying to let you identify this foam which you presented as unidentified typical foam to enhance the superiority of MiniTraps. US people helped me to sent them over to Belgium to investigate them. This costed all parties involved more than the 400 $ you paid (purchase, special packing, special transport, import duties). You measured them April 15, 2004 On my explicit request, recognizing this measurement immediately as junk foam not representative for whatever acoustic foam, you refused to identify it in public with as argument : respect for the supplier Here you find the real story: Breaking the Foam by Mail Story posted October 15 2004 (check rest of page too for EW and ED) And even after it is proven dat the published data of FBM is fraudulent, and you couldn't do anything else anymore than identifying FBM (but still waited couple of months until much more people knew) on your site, you still use it for the same purpose knowing that no layman site visitor will know that this measurement is in no way representative for whatever type of acoustic foam. They assume you enter it as representative foam (not the worst acoustics foam for this purpose available on the face of this earth) Nowhere you make ANY reservation for this foam. http://www.realtraps.com/data.htm And this is what you STILL write in very bold in the left green margin> See this thread < Sheesh, I'm the one who paid IBM's acoustics lab $400 to discover that Foam by Mail is a ripoff, and that link sends readers to another site - as if they broke the story. :( --Ethan
And this quote and shown measurement (numerical and in graph) is based on this junk foam. Hence you just use it to mislead people. There isn't another corner foam measurement shown. And now you will also claim the honor of the work of others which tried and (partly) succeeded to protect people against your more than questionable info and methods. The ONLY and SINGLE reason that People know this is FBM, is the above linked story, which costed me a lot of energy and money (the latter not only me). Without it you should never have mentioned it anywhere. Basically you made it only public after I did and publically confronted you with it. It should indeed look stupid if the whole net knew before you yourself identified it. So I broke the story, not you. Therefore I got even assistance from others. And we had to spend significant money and energy in order to be able to protect people against it. You did nothing to protect people against it, and your site still doesn't. You just (mis)use it to sell RealTraps, knowing that laymen have no idea about foam differences. The cynical thing is that YOU POSSES REAL LENRD MEASUREMENTS. It's not for nothing you still use this junk copycat LENRD foam measurements. But being honest should get you in trouble with all those Reviews in Audio Magazines and Press Releases, isn't it? Lots refer to it, orchestrated by you, as additional pseudo objective/scientific proof of the RealTraps superiority. Hence we speak about ten thousands of people. And you know that most reviewers won't see this either, they just trust you, and you won't tell them. Please don't claim whatever honor about this story. There is none for you, not the slightest bit. Another quote in very bold in the left green margin"One standard MiniTrap is nearly six times more effective than the same four-foot length of corner foam at 100 Hz and all lower frequencies."
Since the thread of Oct 15, 2004, referred higher up YOU KNOW beyond ANY REASONABLE doubt that this are falsified numbers. And it's YOU not ME that should check the validity of numbers you use on your site to convince others from whatever. Already from within the first couple of weeks of your measurement dated April 15, 2004 you were clearly warned that those numbers were very questionable. You did nothing to check them since they served your purpose. And you continued using them even after you got proof (provided by others doing YOUR job), they were false. How can fraudulent practices of another company contribute to anything related to RealTraps???? You give it a stupid explanation in relation to advantages of corner placing, knowing that you talk nonsense. Those published specs are just falsified numbers without ever being measured as such, nothing else, and you know that. All those things were clearly discussed and mentioned to you several times, without you doing anything about it. You just plain ignore it. Basically for me this tells about Ethan Winer. And to make this clear: I have no interest in whatever foam and am even a typical mineral wool user. I only like honest practices. I accidentally have a background allowing me to see that measurements are reasonable or not for traditional materials. 99 % of site visitors and magazine readers don't. They just rely on the assumption that people presenting themselves as experts give objective, representative information. Not even the reviewers recognize such measurements for what they are, as lots of related articles and reviews proof. If a reviewer for the first time experiments with good corner absorption and then feels covered by such unreal measurement differences, that can possibly influence such review as well. Reviewers are also human beings which can't be specialized in everything and sensitive to external factors, even when they are extremely integer and don't want to. As many others they are subject to deadlines and planning."Even with the added advantage of being placed in a corner, the corner foam performed far worse than its published specs."
- One of many, many examples (hence this is not SOS specific):
SOS Review sept : http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/sep04/a ... ltraps.htm
For any magazine reader, this comment by SOS validates those unreal comparisons as representative. They have nothing else to go on. At the time of this review those junk copycats were still undifined. The referred graph relates to them, compared with the RealTraps. Not difficult to be better than those copycats: ANYTHING is.However, when having his Mini Traps and Micro Traps lab-tested, Ethan went to the extra expense of having some rival foam-based products measured under exactly the same conditions to provide the more comparative results you can see in the graph below.
Uhhhh...WOW!
Chuck,
> Uhhhh...WOW! <
Yeah, no kidding. Eric is a bitter old man who gets a bug up his butt from time to time. It's probably due to typical "holiday depression" because he always starts trouble around this time of year. He did the exact same thing somewhere else last year.
All I can imagine is that Eric is very jealous of me, so he attacks me in forums like this when he's feeling depressed. It's probably best just to pity him and ignore him.
--Ethan
That must be about the cheapest response anyone could think of. Have you noticed that you NEVER defend your so-called case with arguments against me? Of course you need to have them. My whole message is filled with plain factual statements. But I can imagine you asking people to ignore me. I expose the real Ethan isn't it?Chuck, > Uhhhh...WOW! < Yeah, no kidding. Eric is a bitter old man who gets a bug up his butt from time to time. It's probably due to typical "holiday depression" because he always starts trouble around this time of year. He did the exact same thing somewhere else last year. All I can imagine is that Eric is very jealous of me, so he attacks me in forums like this when he's feeling depressed. It's probably best just to pity him and ignore him. --Ethan
OK, folks -- so there you have it. The rebuttal to Eric's barrage of evidence and persuasive argument is a weak personal attack:
- Accusation of being a "bitter old man"
- Accusation of "holiday depression"
- Accusation of jealousy
- Appeal to ignore him
> The rebuttal to Eric's barrage of evidence and persuasive argument is a weak personal attack <
You haven't been around here very long have you?
As an aside..
Eric, I love the fact that your signature says 'best Regards'
even at the end of a fairly fierce post! Kind of takes the edge off.. hehe nice.
Paul
As of this moment...You haven't been around here very long have you?
- Joined: 02 Jan 2005
Posts: 1584
Maybe we could agree to disagree and leave it at that. It is Christmas after all.
I can agree to that. :-)
I fucking hate political and diplomatic stuff.....
Wasn't chistmas about a guy being nailed to a cross because he said stuff some other guys didn't like?
That and the fact that the people of the time believed him to be the messiah/King of Kings/King who would sit on David's throne for ever which they understood from Old testament prophecy to mean he would come and kick arse (ass for you americans) and help the israelites (who were currently in a state of relatively little power as a nation) overthrow the pseudo religious-government of the time... Although, in reality it seems from scripture Jesus never proported to be an earthly king but instead would represent something which was a paradigm shift away from the thinking of the time. So the reason he was killed was probably because of the political implications rather than directly what he actually said and did. Though it is true, he did get them (pharisees /sadducees riled quite a lot!) ahem.. sorry, a little of the boil there.. Merry crimbo! PaulWasn't chistmas about a guy being nailed to a cross because he said stuff some other guys didn't like?
Guys, the ONLY, repeat ONLY, further post in this thread that I WON'T delete is an actual, point by point, FACTUAL rebuttal by Ethan. Barring that happening, I'll likely just lock the thread.
Ethan, if you've made erroneous comparisons then Eric isn't "making trouble again" - if you've NOT done so, here is your invitation to set the record straight point by point.
When a business makes statements on their advertising material, that business should expect to be criticized if/when those statements are shown to be questionable; therefore any statements made in any advertising material should be defendable, or such statements should not be made in the first place. If you've not used any questionable statements then you should have no trouble defending the statements you've made.
As commercial sound treatment products go, I don't believe you have anything to apologize for regarding your traps - but perhaps a bit more candor when referring to foam would help to NOT make it seem as if you're talking about Auralex instead of the "wannabe" stuff -
Even though you don't appear to have been involved, this
http://forum.studiotips.com/viewtopic.php?t=537
sounds like a pretty honest (non-lab) evaluation to me - keep in mind that I was ALSO NOT involved so may have missed something.
I am kind of curious why OTHER businesses can handle their detractors without having to resort to name-calling though - maybe if you stick to factual accounts you can accomplish this as well. Here is your chance. What you do with it is up to you, but please keep it civil.
All others - feel free to read, but other than that please refrain from comment. I am so fucking sick of this "WorldWideWar" I can hardly stand it, so it would be unwise to redirect my displeasure... Steve
Thanx for the link, Steve!
Steve,
> here is your invitation to set the record straight point by point. <
I expected better from you because you know very well that I have rebutted all of Eric's accusations at least a dozen times or more.
Do I really have to post links to all the times I explained this already over the past 3+ years?
That Eric decided to dig through old posts looking to pick a new fight yet again should be obvious to you. I'm really dissapointed that you put the burden on me to spend yet more hours of my time defending against baseless attacks by an obvious trouble maker.
> When a business makes statements on their advertising material, that business should expect to be criticized if/when those statements are shown to be questionable <
There's nothing questionable about anything on the RealTraps site. Our site has the most comprehensive and accurate acoustics information of anyone in this business. Our product tests are explained in detail, with lab photos and additional information, and nothing there is less than totally honest.
> I don't believe you have anything to apologize for regarding your traps <
Yeah, no kidding. We have the best reputation in the business, and our traps are used by more professionals - real professionals like Nile Rodgers, Charles Dye, Barry Gibb, Herbie Hancock, Butch Vig, many others - than any other brand. I have nothing to apologize for. However, Eric Desart has plenty to apologize for because he's a school yard bully who has made a career out of defaming me and trying to keep me on the defensive. If anyone deserves to be attacked it is Foam by Mail, who are obvious frauds and cheats using blatantly faked data. That you would pretend to be naive asking why I won't address Eric's criticism is truly disappointing.
> Even though you don't appear to have been involved, this
> http://forum.studiotips.com/viewtopic.php?t=537
> sounds like a pretty honest (non-lab) evaluation to me
What does that have to do with Foam by Mail, or the fact that I was the one who proved that FBM is a fraud after paying to measure their foam in a lab?
Steve, if you expect me to defend against Eric's baseless attacks yet again, be prepared for a few attacks of my own. And they won't be baseless. Not name calling, but at least a dozen instances showing that Eric is not the expert he claims to be. I really don't want to do that because, as you know, that just leads to more of this bullshit. But if you really want more of that here, then so be it. But you're the one requesting it, not me. And of course Eric loves to see this, which is exactly why he started a new fight yet again. Do you really want this to continue?
Or here's another thought : Would you prefer that I stop visiting here, and stop contributing, and stop helping folks as best I can? If you'd like me to go away, please just say so and I'll be glad to oblige.
--Ethan
You never did. All my points are as exact as can be, and you know them to be true. They are important to many, many people relying on data they find in magazines, reviews, articles and acoustic data/info they find on sites.Steve, > here is your invitation to set the record straight point by point. < I expected better from you because you know very well that I have rebutted all of Eric's accusations at least a dozen times or more.
If not complying with Steves rightful post, I accept that you grant me to be correct on all counts. And if you do reply, please stick the related points. You're previous replies were attempts to discredit and riducule me, without saying anything of substance, but diversions to mispresented non-related facts. Your current reply is just another diversion, nothing more. It additionally includes a hint for more of that to come rather than setting my points straight. Basically you tell: accept Eric's data as false, or else ..... (but nicely packed)....... is an actual, point by point, FACTUAL rebuttal by Ethan
OK, here's why I don't think this is as one-sided as you would have us believe -
From the Realtraps site -
"As you can see, one standard MiniTrap is nearly six times more effective than the same four-foot length of a popular brand of corner foam at 100 Hz and all lower frequencies." (Emphasis added) -
If I were Auralex, this would really piss me off. It's obvious to me that the company name (only in this case) was left out so readers could come to the conclusion you were referring to Auralex' products. I personally would have used FBM's name there, since you've not pulled any punches in (correctly) bad-mouthing their crap elsewhere (and with actual test results, no less)
From the Realtraps site - "Also observe that MicroTraps match or exceed the performance of 3-inch acoustic wedge foam panels above 160 Hz, even though MicroTraps are only one inch thick." -
From your chart of absorption coefficients, MicroTraps don't even EQUAL 3" wedge foam below 250 hZ; is this a typo, or am I going blind?
From the Realtraps site - "During testing the MiniTraps were mounted exactly as we recommend - in one test they were spaced four inches away from the mounting surface" -
In your absorption chart, you refer to Minitraps as "on wall" - these two conflicting statements make it difficult to decide which is which, and require careful reading (and understanding, which not that many customers have) - again, not as straightforward as I'd like to see.
From the Realtraps site - "Even with the added advantage of being placed in a corner, the corner foam performed far worse than its published specs."
This, if I were Auralex, would also piss me off. It's an obvious blast at foam in general, allowing the casual reader to "assume" you might be referring to Auralex products, and "being nice" by not mentioning names.
OK, you asked and I spent more time than I have to give at least a partial answer; my personal feeling (and that's exactly what it is, no more, no less) is that you tend to "skate too close to the edge" on some of your comparisons/comments for my taste. Not that other manufacturers are innocent of this; I got politely asked to leave the Tascam forums after calling their marketing team a bunch of outright liars (re: the DM-24 and its capabilities).
It's also my opinion (again, that's all it is) that, as I stated before, you have no NEED to present anything but BRUTAL HONESTY in ANY of your materials on your site - no innuendo, no "popular brand" inferences, just facts. I feel that your products can stand on their own merits without this, and wouldn't hesitate to recommend them to anyone who's not forced to DIY in order to accomplish their goals on a limited budget.
That said, I currently get to sleep about 4 hours a night as it is; I'm not going to shorten that time even more by joining in this "war" of yours. Nor am I going to choose sides, because neither you nor Eric is perfect and you both are entitled to your opinions.
When it degrades to name-calling, I'll stop it. Otherwise, if you don't want to defend yourself with facts, that's your call. It's also your call whether you post here; if you want to stop because I won't fight your battles for you, fine.
Personally, I think you do yourself a dis-service; with a satisfied client list like yours, I wouldn't care if Alton Everest hisself stood up from his grave and said I was shit. I'd just laugh and count my money... Steve
I have to agree with Steve here - this Eric/Ethan war has been going on for some time now and to be honest I wish it was happening over at studiotips, which is in fact Erics's site.
I have great respect for both of you as we have been reading each others posts for many years now and it's been the joint efforts of us all, including Jeff from Auralex, that has made our readers consider acoustics a factor in creating great sound as much as GEAR!! which was all people talked about when I first entered the net almost 10 years ago.
I must say I was not misled by Ethan's figures regarding the foam he tested, there's more foam around besides the FBM product - everyone that opens a package lined with shaped foam immediately thinks of sticking the stuff on the wall and Ethan's measurements do show that this is not a good idea. On the other hand the foam from Auralex IS different, in density, fire retardent factors etc and Jeff has politely addressed that on numerous occasions as has Steve and myself. Let's face it - the advantage of Auralex and Ethan's traps are their convenience - purchase, put on the wall and bingo acoustic problems solved. Where we differ slightly is that on this site we take into account the geometry of the room and the mounting of the speakers etc.
There is nothing to stop people from doing what Tom Misner did recently for his control rooms at SAE here in Byron Bay where he just purchased the 4" foam from which Auralex is cut and lined the whole damn room with it :shock: Some people do have a problem with using rigid fibreglass for environmental reasons, which I understand, and is why I used wool insulation when refurbishing Music Farm for Olivier Newton John's recording sessions. (you may remember she had just recovered from breast cancer treatment).
Eric - you are the one who is constantly attacking the other members and I would ask you to please refrain from doing this - I realise there maybe a culture difference, most Belgians I've come across are usually pretty hotheaded but you take the cake mate.
cheers
john