[Ethan Winer]

Originally Posted by rimskidog

Sorry Ethan but that's unbelievably arrogant

WTF? I'm sticking to facts and using hard data, and you're tossing insults? Again, WTF? If you want to discuss the science that's fine. But cut the crap, okay?

I've been very clear that I'm not an acoustician.

I can tell.

Your implication that there is no (or even negligible if I'm being generous to you) difference between the sound of concrete alone and wood on concrete

And your evidence with hard data to the contrary is?

What if the wood is an inch thick, or two, or even six? Are you saying there can be no resonance?

This is where it becomes clear you are not an acoustician. I say that not to insult you. It was your own words.

Something happens to that energy that is not immediately reflected back.

Oh? And what would that be? Again, please be very specific. If you have any numbers or graphs, that can only help.

I am not saying that you are wrong in the outcome.

Then why are you arguing so vehemently?

More to the point, where is your data? I'm the only one here who has posted anything "concrete," excluding Andre's graph that is not useful because details of the material are not known.

Why don't you prove to us that other factors shouldn't be taken into account instead of dogmatically repeating your position. It's you that is stating your thesis as objective fact.

I find this unbelievable! I am the only person here showing hard data, while you toss silly theories about how wood that's six inches thick does "Something happens to that energy that is not immediately reflected back." What is that "something?" What exactly are you arguing, and why?

Dood, if you believe that wood on concrete sounds substantially different from concrete alone,why don't you prove your case with hard evidence? This is not the first time I suggested that to you.

--Ethan