is this foam any good?

[Paulkent]

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!

Paul

[knightfly]

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

[bert Stoltenborg]

Thanx for the link, Steve!

[Ethan Winer]

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

[Eric_Desart]

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.

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.

....... is an actual, point by point, FACTUAL rebuttal by Ethan

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)

[knightfly]

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

[John Sayers]

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 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