Just Got A SE Reflexion Filter And...

[neon]

Originally Posted by Ethan Winer

You can hear Doug's natural voice as recorded through the same microphone in the Comb Filter demo video on the RealTraps site. He may not be much of a voice-over talent, but his voice is not nasal.

Also, to be clear, the response I measured for the comparison graphs of sound blocking and coloration are accurate, and I stand behind them.

I'm not sure product comparisons are unfair, but I appreciate that it may seem that way. Many products are too similar to hear much difference. But other things really do vary a lot. For example, we've all seen microphone shoot-outs and loudspeaker comparisons, and those are popular for a good reason - it lets people hear different sounding products without having to actually buy one of everything just to try them all.

--Ethan

I think Real Traps should give credit to SE because they came out with the concept with the Reflexion filter ...concept that you took to create you PVB....instead of bashing them in that video of your website!!!
Not very nice!!..how you would feel if Auralex o Ready Acoustics could do the same with your products??

[Jamz0r]

Originally Posted by Ethan Winer

I'm not sure product comparisons are unfair, but I appreciate that it may seem that way.

Maybe you should consider making a new video for this one, Ethan.
Removing all doubt could be good for business.

By the way, A Cello Rondo is very cool!

[World Of Wiz]

Originally Posted by darkwater

Ethan says that the photos shown were not taken during the actual recordings. The position was true during the test.

I think both products are good.

Well I'm sure they are but based on that test I'm not sure if I will by their products. It just seems very dishonest.

[doubledecker]

I dont know why on earth Realtraps even bother.
SE was the first company to come up with something ingenious like Reflexion filter and they've made a killing on it.
Everybody who wanted something like that has bought it allready.
Realtraps attempt just looks really pathetic.
I also can feel Behringer's version approaching fast

[neon]

Originally Posted by doubledecker

I dont know why on earth Realtraps even bother.
SE was the first company to come up with something ingenious like Reflexion filter and they've made a killing on it.
Everybody who wanted something like that has bought it allready.
Realtraps attempt just looks really pathetic.
I also can feel Behringer's version approaching fast

Totally agree!

Originally Posted by Jamz0r

Maybe you should consider making a new video for this one, Ethan.
Removing all doubt could be good for business.

Listen do not be naive!!..the audio can be always manipulated! it is clear in the video RealTraps intention was to destroy the SE Reflexion Filter credibility !!

Originally Posted by Ethan Winer

I'm not sure product comparisons are unfair, but I appreciate that it may seem that way. -Ethan

cool!!

MMMhh ! Very arrogant answer!
check this video!
http://realtraps.com/video_pvb.mp4

[Ethan Winer]

Originally Posted by neon

I think Real Traps should give credit to SE because they came out with the concept with the Reflexion filter

Actually, we've had this for at least two years before the RF came out:

how you would feel if Auralex o Ready Acoustics could do the same with your products??

In fact, both companies have done exactly that - and much worse - to us. Especially the second one you mentioned. I won't post links here, but anyone who wants to know more is welcome to email me for details.

Look, I'm not here to bash anyone. Product comparisons are not a new concept, and every company that feels they have a product that's better than the competition will try to present their product in the best light. I'm sorry if anyone is offended by our comparison. As I stated, I stand behind our audio comparison and measurement data. If anyone is interested I'll be glad to explain more about how such products are tested, and why any device placed near a microphone must affect the sound.

--Ethan

[Jamz0r]

Originally Posted by doubledecker

I dont know why on earth Realtraps even bother.

What, would you rather have nobody out there trying to improve on designs so everything just remains status quo? I like the idea of new and improved devices myself.

It really seems that some of you are bitter.

[Zacchino]

I have a reflection filter by SE. Do RealTraps have a crossgrade offer ?
Okay just kiddin.

Real Traps seems better not only to my ears, but to my eyes also. The artist is completely immerged in a "black book", which leave him focused only on what he's hearing. +1 for RealTraps.

I mean, the only fact that it is bigger means everything, yet it still fits on a mic stand. I won't be surprised to see SE come up with another model btw. +1 for realtraps

Now, I didn't have the time to give an A/B for the texture used by SE compared to RealTraps and I hate numbers and graphics.

If RealTraps could have something to handle the vocal partition, they would definitely win my opinion, because SE didn't push the concept far enough for me.

Innovating doesn't mean it's the best. It only means it's the only one for a given time.

[t.dizzle]

Originally Posted by Zacchino

I won't be surprised to see SE come up with another model btw.

Rumour has it that they've manufactured a smaller version of the RF.

[chrisma]

How about some of you SE Reflection Filter owners post up some sound clips so we can judge for ourselves since this thread doesn't want to die. Opinions are great and all but let's hear some examples of real usage. Both accapella and full mixes would be great. Come on, I know y'all can let us hear a lil some em some em!

[rapfreak]

i don't see why people are so knee jerk about ethan comparing his new real traps version to the se. don't we all do that on here? if i remember correctly before he even announced that he was comparing them there were GS members asking him how they compared.
both of these are just updated gobos and those have been around for a long time. no one is ripping anyone off. whoever does is the best and markets the best will ultimately win.
i think ethan has gone so far out of his way to be giving of his time and knowledge on this forum and others that people should really stop bashing him and just be glad we have a new, and hopefully better, option.

[doubledecker]

Originally Posted by Ethan Winer

Actually, we've had this for at least two years before the RF came out:





In fact, both companies have done exactly that - and much worse - to us. Especially the second one you mentioned. I won't post links here, but anyone who wants to know more is welcome to email me for details.

Look, I'm not here to bash anyone. Product comparisons are not a new concept, and every company that feels they have a product that's better than the competition will try to present their product in the best light. I'm sorry if anyone is offended by our comparison. As I stated, I stand behind our audio comparison and measurement data. If anyone is interested I'll be glad to explain more about how such products are tested, and why any device placed near a microphone must affect the sound.

--Ethan

Well, i've had something like that for about 14 years now.
Genious of SE is in placing the filter on the same stand where the mic is, and making it very small.

[ONE LUV]

Originally Posted by t.dizzle

I don't sing or rap....just the producer/engineer. Most of my guys have been holding the lyrics up or to the side. Then I adjust the mic position accordingly. Been thinking about using a clip like the one on pop filters and hanging lyric sheets with that.

why not buying an older laptop with usb and 15" screen and hanging it behind the filter.

then hiring a secretary for typing lyrics and save em on usb-stick.

the artist just needs to connect the usb-stick into the laptop and got all his lyrics on an 15" screen...

using paper and pencil is ooooooldschool!

[Ibvee]

Laptops (especcially older ones) can be noisy...

might try to remove the screen from the laptop, and extend the cable, don't know if that's possible.

[sedohr]

Originally Posted by rapfreak

i don't see why people are so knee jerk about ethan comparing his new real traps version to the se. don't we all do that on here? if i remember correctly before he even announced that he was comparing them there were GS members asking him how they compared.
both of these are just updated gobos and those have been around for a long time. no one is ripping anyone off. whoever does is the best and markets the best will ultimately win.
i think ethan has gone so far out of his way to be giving of his time and knowledge on this forum and others that people should really stop bashing him and just be glad we have a new, and hopefully better, option.

Well said.

[Ethan Winer]

Originally Posted by rapfreak

if i remember correctly before he even announced that he was comparing them there were GS members asking him how they compared.

Exactly. The main inspiration for our comparison was numerous requests from GS members! As they say, Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

no one is ripping anyone off.

Yes, that too. I never accused Se (or any of the other myriad recent "acoustic treatment" upstarts) of ripping off RealTraps, though some have come mighty close. One company changed one letter of our name and used it as their own until I threatened to sue them. Another company took our concept of a sturdy metal frame with multiple mounting options and now sells something surprisingly similar. A lot of treatment vendors directly copied me by following me around from one audio forum to another offering "advice" on acoustics and room treatment, whether they were truly qualified to do so or not.

As you observed, competition is healthy, and is good for consumers too! The company that actually understands the science of acoustics best, and uses that knowledge to create the best product at a reasonable price point, is the one that ultimately wins. Hopefully most people will take the time to read the technical info on the RealTraps web site to have an informed opinion.

--Ethan

[halfguard]

ethan is the man when it comes to room treatment. not to mention how much free advice he gives out on multiple forums and his own website. actually, when building our vocal booth, we took almost all the advice from his posts and some from john sayers. hes got a wealth of info and is not afraid to share it. he actually shows everyone how they can build their own treatments.

[neon]

Well...nobody here doubts that Ethan W. have knowledge about acoustics...that is not the point, but why he always justify everything ??? Ethan admit that the comparison and your PERSONAL qualification on your video where you say that the SE Reflexion Filter have a "Nasal quality" is not a concept!! is a tactic to blow the SE Reflexion filter reputation!

Also the product you said you had 2 years before the Reflexion Filter was released is not the PVB (check previous pics)!!!!!!!!....are gobos that many people were using many, many years ago....upset me that you believe we are fool !!! tutt that shows that the SE Reflexion filter is the original concept, say thanks to SE for that so inspiration to create the PVB!

Guys, let's be honest.

Should we trust a product comparison done by ANY manufacturer?

In Ethan's tests there's a "nasal" quality attributed to using the RF. NONE of the independent users of the RF speak of this nasal quality.

So think about this. THE ONLY place the Reflexion filter shows a "Nasal Quality" is in the test of a competitor, who's pictures show a problem in the RF's testing (though we do take into consideration the pictures were not taken during the actual recordings), while that competitor is saying "notice the nasal quality".
tutt


You guys don't see a problem in this?

HONESTLY do you expect a manufacturer to EVER do a comparison test that his product doesn't win?

Let us not be foolish. Don't trust manufacturer comparisons. Try the products out. Take the recommendation of friends who's opinions you trust. Don't look at the product pictures and say "Oh this one is probably better from the pic".

Take steps that make sense.
Trusting manufacturer comparisons makes no sense.

Would you let MR. Hayney sell you a house?tutt

[Ethan Winer]

Originally Posted by no ssl yet

Should we trust a product comparison done by ANY manufacturer?

No kidding.

Seriously, as I explained in another thread, what we heard and measured is what it is. It was not our intent going in to show that the RF adds a nasal quality. That's something we noticed while recording, and decided on the spot to point that out. There was no trickery, and certainly no intentional trickery.

If any of y'all live near me and would like to bring over an RF for a re-test while you watch, I'm all for it. This way it's not just me saying our PVB colors the sound less, but it's an RF owner agreeing too.

Also, I have to point out that the level of hostility I see here shows there's more going on behind the scenes than a few RF owners being po'd that their product didn't fare so well in a side by side test.

--Ethan

Originally Posted by Ethan Winer

No kidding.

Seriously, as I explained in another thread, what we heard and measured is what it is. It was not our intent going in to show that the RF adds a nasal quality. That's something we noticed while recording, and decided on the spot to point that out. There was no trickery, and certainly no intentional trickery.

If any of y'all live near me and would like to bring over an RF for a re-test while you watch, I'm all for it. This way it's not just me saying our PVB colors the sound less, but it's an RF owner agreeing too.

Also, I have to point out that the level of hostility I see here shows there's more going on behind the scenes than a few RF owners being po'd that their product didn't fare so well in a side by side test.

--Ethan

Ethan, no offense to you personally but, unless I was the person who tested the RF with you against the PVB, I wouldn't trust the test. (And I would suggest that others not trust it).

As long as a manufacturer participates in the testing there will be some doubt of the results.

No hostility from me (can't speak for others)
I don't own either of the products.

But, I do notice the only place this "nasal" quality shows up is in YOUR comparison test. It's kinda suspect.

I'm not suggesting any trickery of any sort. But it is kinda suspect.


And guys in Ethan's defense. I've used 2 gobos beside a mike in the exact same fashion as his PVB for years. It's unfair to say the RF led him to release his PVB, and even if it did it's not a bad thing. (It's easy to see a product and say "that's just like what I've been using" except when you're a manufacturer you say "Damn I should be selling mine!"

[Fuel]

Originally Posted by doubledecker

Well, i've had something like that for about 14 years now.
Genious of SE is in placing the filter on the same stand where the mic is, and making it very small.

Originally Posted by Ethan Winer

Actually, we've had this for at least two years before the RF came out:




--Ethan

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!!

[Glenn Kuras]

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!!

Fuel,
I think Ethan is saying he had this picture showing how you can rope off a area of your room with panels.
Glenn

Originally Posted by myfipie

Fuel,
I think Ethan is saying he had this picture showing how you can rope off a area of your room with panels.
Glenn

Come on Glenn,
you have to admit it's a far stretch for someone to say his product idea preceded the RF because he used gobos around a mic stand.

Are you really helping to defend this?

[Glenn Kuras]

Originally Posted by no ssl yet

Come on Glenn,
you have to admit it's a far stretch for someone to say his product idea preceded the RF because he used gobos around a mic stand.

Are you really helping to defend this?

I think you are twisting my words a little. I was just saying that Ethan had promoted his micro trap as to be used as roping off a area also. Maybe I just read it differently then someone else would have. But, I saw that picture Ethan posted a few years ago and the first thing I thought was "Hey I guess you could rope off a area for vocals". But hey if he is saying something different then, well....

Ethan is a big boy, so maybe I should not say anything at all.

Glenn

Originally Posted by myfipie

I think you are twisting my words a little. I was just saying that Ethan had promoted his micro trap as to be used as roping off a area also. Maybe I just read it differently then someone else would have. But, I saw that picture Ethan posted a few years ago and the first thing I thought was "Hey I guess you could rope off a area for vocals". But hey if he is saying something different then, well....

Ethan is a big boy, so maybe I should not say anything at all.

Glenn

Glenn, I think you missed what Ethan was actually saying. I'm not twisting YOUR words, I'm giving you his.

Someone said basically that he got his idea for the PVB type thing by seeing the RF (My opinion is even if he did, it's not a bad thing.)

But Ethan's response was "NO I had this (Picture of the Gobos around the Mic stand) years before the RF"

[neon]

Toatlly agree with NoSSLYet!

Come on Glenn.....you are in this acoustic biz....you know how old Gobos are!!! that is not RealTraps invention!!....do not try to defend Ethan..specially with something so ridiculous as that picture and his statement...I think you do not want to lose ethic credibility as Ethan.....
You have to be naive to believe Ethan words and videos lately.

[Glenn Kuras]

Originally Posted by neon

Toatlly agree with NoSSLYet!

Come on Glenn.....you are in this acoustic biz....you know how old Gobos are!!! that is not RealTraps invention!!....do not try to defend Ethan..specially with something so ridiculous as that picture and his statement...I think you do not want to lose ethic credibility as Ethan.....
You have to be naive to believe Ethan words and videos lately.

Ok let me make clear that I never said I backed Ethan’s test. I will leave my personal thoughts on that out of the forums. And not to read into anything, I don't think Ethan was trying to pull a fast one on that test or anything like that. cool?

About the picture and statement, I was only giving my thoughts on what he was saying and that is all. Heck guys he is my competitor, so for me to say what I did should be a good thing, right? Are there something’s I don't like about Ethan? SURE. But one thing that I do believe is he does have ethics.

One more time I said "But, I saw that picture Ethan posted a few years ago and the first thing I thought was "Hey I guess you could rope off a area for vocals". I never said it was a Real Trap invention. But as SSL pointed out maybe I did miss a line or 2 of the thread. I will go back and read it.

Sorry guys not taking sides at all.

Glenn

[Ethan Winer]

Originally Posted by no ssl yet

you have to admit it's a far stretch for someone to say his product idea preceded the RF because he used gobos around a mic stand.

This is getting past stupid. I'm not going to argue with guys who have a low post count, hide behind anonymous screen names, and have an obvious agenda. (Not you SSL.)

I was interviewed a few weeks ago for the Project Studio Network podcast and I clearly credited Se Electronics for coming up with a cool idea. It's "on the record," so to speak, and was weeks before this thread, so go there and download those two shows and hear for yourself.

Nobody currently in the business of selling acoustic panels can claim much original. Most of this stuff was developed by 1950, and the BBC can take credit for many of the designs and concepts used today. However, I do believe I can rightly claim a fair amount of innovation in this business, and the Articles page on the RealTraps site proves that IMO.

Small room acoustics needs to be handled very differently from large rooms, which is where most of the focus in past years has been. So while I can't claim to have invented the bass trap or fiberglass acoustic panel, I've probably done more to refine it (membranes tightly bonded to fiberglass, mounting methods that encourage an air gap, the importance of corner placement etc), than anyone else in recent history.

Only a few years ago many professional acousticians did not understand that small rooms have peaks and nulls at non-modal frequencies. Now, after all of my published articles and online activity it is accepted and understood by all that bass traps need to absorb all frequencies, not just those related to room modes. I have a dozen more examples of new thinking I've brought to the table over the past four or five years.

My point is not to pat myself on the back. But if anyone is guilty of copying, it is the many companies who now copy me and my products.

In the end, my partner and I had a meeting last night and agreed we should remove what some of you perceive as a biased comparison between two products. We created a new demo last night, and as soon as I get a chance I'll replace what's on our site now with the new demo.

Okay?

--Ethan

[Scott@RealTraps]

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? ;-)