Glenn,
> are you saying that Riverbank is 50% off?? <
As I explained in my email to you earlier, when MiniTraps were tested at Riverbank the absorption reported was twice as high at 100 Hz as when we measured them at IBM. So in this case the disparity is 100 percent, not 50 percent. I'm not saying that testing is not useful - if nothing else it helps to weed out obvious frauds like Foam By Mail. But to deny that labs vary a large amount, especially at low frequencies, is to deny reality. Perhaps we should test our traps at Riverbank in the same corner locations as you did, or maybe you should test your traps at IBM in the same corner locations as we did. That would be the only honest way to compare them.
> you can be the bigger d!ck thats fine <
That was uncalled for, no?
--Ethan |