Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuel  
Are you kidding???? are you saying you are the creator of these panels??  ...panels like that exists many years ago..... that is not the Reflexion Filter design! not either your PVB.
Ethan.....some do not care about your numbers and tests, we are talking about ethics here!! dishonest comparison the one on your video!!  |
Do you have PROOF that Ethan is lying? You don't have to believe him (indeed it makes sense to be skeptical of tests and marketing claims put forth by ALL manufacturers), but, to put forward this kind of vicious accusation without any proof whatsoever is beyond ridiculous.
I think Ethan has quite adequately explained the reason for the confusion, and for what APPEARED to be a flaw in the test -- the pictures were taken AFTER the test, and do not match exactly the position Doug was in when they recorded the sound samples. (As an aside, even so . . . you have to consider that sometimes less experienced vocalists may be a little less likely to be conscious of their position relative to the mic that is recording them!!!) ;-)
One thing I can offer is my own observations. I was NOT there for that test (so I cannot *prove* to you that Ethan is not lying, even though I have plenty of reason to believe that he is not). But I spoke with Ethan over the phone the day after he and Doug performed these tests, and I can offer my observations and the reasons I believe Ethan did not intentionally manipulate this test to create the nasal effect.
First of all, the general feeling was that the SE Filter is not really big enough to adequately block sound in the most beneficial way for vocal recordings, and the purpose of the test was to demonstrate that our PVB offered better coverage, and that you would end up with *less* room sound getting into the mic than when you use the SE device. I knew ahead of time that this test was going to be done, and what the purpose of the demonstration was.
When Ethan called me the next day, he commented on the fact that they discovered the colouration that was imparted by the SE device, and that he and Doug were actually both surprised by it. If memory serves, I believe they were doing some preliminary editing of the sound clips in the studio where they did these tests -- as you may have noticed from the sound clips, most or all of the acoustics treatment had been removed from the room, to simulate the environment in which these types of portable devices are typically used.
Ethan noticed the nasal quality first, as he was sitting at the computer doing the editing, and he pointed it out to Doug. Doug did NOT hear it at first (again, remember that this is now a very live room with no acoustic treatment, so lots of echo and comb filtering, etc.), so Doug moved closer to the monitors and Ethan played it for him again -- and Doug said, "Hey . . . sure enough, it does sound more nasal! Well I'll be!" (Yes, Doug really does talk like that!) ;-)
So, when Ethan put the pictures and the sound together into a video, they added the comments about the nasal sound. And of course, why would he want to hide something like that?!!!
I will also point out that Doug is a real straight shooter, and very much a no nonsense guy, and would not knowingly support the idea of presenting any "rigged" or intentionally skewed tests for marketing purposes -- so whatever opinion you may hold of Ethan (rightly or wrongly), the bottom line is that Doug was also involved in this test and it would have had to get by him. And I can't see that happening if these results weren't legitimate. FWIW.
Whatever the case, because of some of the crap stirred in relation to all of this, and after a fair bit of discussion all around, Ethan has decided to do a different demo video for our PVB product.
All of this aside, I think some of the arguments presented in this thread and a few others regarding this test and the two products are really more than a bit misguided.
First of all, these products, both SE's product and our product, are made to serve a need. But neither of them is a complete or ideal solution on their own.
It is silly to think that a small object such as either of these products is a be-all end-all solution. What the CAN do is make an improvement in an environment where there is no acoustic treatment, or in which it is not practical to mount proper acoustic treatment panels or to transport such panels to such locations.
I happen to think ours does a better job, but that is for potential customers to decide for themselves, and we hope they will make that decision based on getting as much useful comparative information as they can get.
In this case, we thought the information derived from the tests could be useful for people trying to make their decisions -- which is why we've also brought in other products from other competitors in the acoustics market to test side by side with ours in the same labs (rather than relying on tests taken in two different labs that may have more degree of difference in their test results than most people realise). We are one of the only (if not THE only) companies that have gone to this level to make sure comparisons were taken from side by side testing in the same labs at our own expense.
Leaving out the nasal colouration part of this debate, it is still clear from the audio that you get more room sound back into the mic with the SE device than with our PVB device. That doesn't mean the SE device isn't effective or doesn't offer an improvement -- clearly it does. You can also hear a certain amount of room reflections coming back into the mic with our PVB. Among other things, neither device is going to stop first reflections off the ceiling! But both offer a noticeable degree of improvement.
The problem, here, is that when it comes to acoustics SIZE DOES MATTER! This is a simple fact of physics. I've been debating pointing out the error in the logic that James from SE offers in his explanations about what he says the SE filter can do as far as absorbing low frequency sound, and some negative sonic properties he alleges could be caused by the shape of our product. but at the same time I really wanted to avoid directly getting into a big hullaballoo or appearing to unfairly attack a competitor. It isn't my personal way of doing things. But I think there are some misconceptions that could stand clearing up about the science of things, and I think people are getting a little riled up over some things that they don't really have a full or correct understanding of.
I might also point out that IMHO SE is a fine company and make some very nice mics that I would be proud to own, but I also suspect James from SE is not an acoustician (at least from what I can gather from his comments/explanations), and I assume (correct me if I'm wrong) he wasn't part of the R&D process for the SE Reflexion Filter, and therefore may not be aware of some of the physics behind some of this stuff.
First of all, to claim that either of these products would offer any significant isolation in the low frequency ranges would be rather silly, because of the laws of diffraction (among other things). But, rather than get into a whole lengthy explanation of that physical principle, let me put it in some rather simpler terms.
Think of the size and amount of air displacement of a 125 Hz wave. A single cycle at 125 Hz is 11 ft, 4 inches long. A single cycle at 200 Hz is 5 ft, 8 in long, and a single cycle at 300 Hz is 3 ft, 9 in long. Now . . . think about this . . . imagine playing a 200 or 300 Hz tone (there is certainly energy in that range in lower male vocals) on your monitors and then putting a friend who is 6 feet tall and 400 lbs in between you and your monitors. Do you think that you will get a any significant isolation from that 200-300 Hz tone? It would be absurd to think so, because, even in complete isolation, the sound will diffract around him. And I can tell you that your 400 lb friend actually absorbs a heckuva lot more at 200 or 300 Hz than than the SE filter, our PVB, or any other small acoustics device. This kind of diffraction that I'm talking about even happens over and under walls in enclosed rooms. This is known in the soundproofing industry as "Flanking Noise". You can read more about that concept here:
http://www.greengluecompany.com/unde...nkingNoise.php (Lots of other great articles about soundproofing on that site as well. I think the Green Glue Company's website is more or less comparable to the RealTraps site with regard to the amount of information available on our respective subject matters!)
So, in the low frequency ranges, I don't care how many Sabins of absorption a small device might offer, it still isn't going to offer any particularly significant isolation. Maybe a little, but certainly not enough to get into hateful battles over.
Now . . . as to the claims that our PVB causes problematic resonances because it creates a corner, I'm sorry, but this too is utterly ridiculous, given that the PVB is made entirely of absorptive material -- though we do use the limp mass membrane on the EXTERNAL side to increase the isolation from high and mid frequencies.
Here's the physics -- the rigid fiberglass panels offer a great deal of absorption in the highs and mids, down into the low mids . . . and it will not reflect much, if anything back. Below a certain frequency range (I don't know the numbers off the top of my head), low frequencies will essentially pass right through and around the device. The low frequency sound will vibrate the fiberglass (and the limp mass membrane on the outside of the panel), and a very small percentage of the sound energy will be absorbed and turned into heat energy, but these materials are not dense enough or firm enough to reflect any of this energy back toward the source.
Now . . . if you were to place our PVB directly into a corner in your room and sing into it, you would definitely get some reflection in the lower vocal ranges -- but it would be reflected from the walls and back through the PVB, and NOT from the PVB itself. You'd also get reflection at certain frequencies if you were to back the PVB panels with plywood, MDF, sheetrock, plexiglass, steel, or other reflective material (depending on the absorptive/reflective/resonant properties of a given type of material).
Again, you can see for yourself what I'm talking about if you want to do some testing of your own. Try playing some low, mid and high frequency sine waves on your monitors, and then take some pillows, sofa cushions, mattresses, futons or other absorptive items and creating a corner for your monitors to play these tones into. Then come back and let me know if you are getting any resonance from the corner you created from absorptive material. ;-) You won't. Now . . . try a similar experiment, but set the whole kit and caboodle up to play right into one of the corners of your room. THAT is where you will find resonance at certain frequencies!
FURTHER . . . the way these devices work is largely to prevent a certain amount of sound from getting out into the room and reflecting back toward the mic, and then to prevent a certain amount from getting through to the mic. Unfortunately in addition to the diffraction issues discussed above, while some parts of the upper frequency range of (for example) the human voice may be somewhat more directional in nature, there is still plenty that radiates omnidirectionally -- including a fair amount of sound that radiates in all directions from a person's chest cavity while singing or speaking in full voice.
There are a number of other things i could point out here, but this post is already long enough! But I'll be happy to try to answer any questions. Also, I should also make it clear that I've skipped around a bit and really made some very general statements here to explain some more complex physical behaviours in a way that will be relatively easy to grasp (I hope) for folks who don't have much background in acoustics. But hopefully that will help some folks gain a somewhat broader understanding of some of the physical behaviours at play here.
The bottom line is that these two products are NOT complete acoustics solutions, but they can offer degrees of improvement where it is not practical or possible to use full, proper acoustics treatments, and they will have varying degrees of effectiveness in different rooms, depending on how much existing flutter echo, etc. are inherent in the room, how close you are to various room boundaries (including the ceiling) when you are using these to record, etc.
I'm not wishing to bash James or his company here, but I also don't want to see a lot of people running around with some incorrect assumptions about either product based on serious misunderstandings of the physics behind acoustics.
I really hate to see manufacturers get into vicious disputes on the web. There's plenty enough negative energy going around already (especially in the acoustics industry!), and I see that SE have responded to our test with the assumption (but no proof) that the test was somehow "rigged", and I'm sorry to see this situation has elicited that response.
Perhaps Ethan should have documented the test more carefully with real time video instead of pictures, but I think some of the result that came of the tests was unexpected, and he didn't realise he might need to defend this one. And perhaps he shouldn't have posted it at all. I dunno -- but whatever the case the video is going to be replaced. I think that's probably a wise decision, particularly given that the test was not documented adequately to counter certain challenges to its validity, and as a result was causing more questioning and angst than it was being helpful.
And, while I don't know that I'd want to get too deeply into critiquing SE's marketing spin, or they ours (it's just biz, right?), ;-) I do think it would be in their own best interests to change some of the statements on their website that are simply dead wrong on the science and completely contrary to the laws of physics. Perhaps bringing in your own acoustics consultant to review the statements, rather than simply taking my word for it, wouldn't go amiss here, James? ;-)