Unfair YouTube Strike Policy on Copyright Claims

[scattershot]

Gene:
Audio-Visual hobbyists like myself have a lot of appreciation and admiration for your website because of the fact your very knowledgeable staff provides quality and honest reviews / comparisons that aren't compromised by being beholden to advertisers. Your staff debunk the snake oil myths and give us the factual goods! Your site is rare in this industry and readers like myself are worried about anything that could compromise or threaten the existence of this site and its content.

I don't know what your financials are like, but if you need money to fight a legal battle I for one would be willing to donate to a legal fund, a sort of crowd-sourcing effort if you will. I don't know what your readership numbers are, but maybe some modest donations can be helpful if enough people offer them. So I for one would not think any less of the site if you needed to appeal for crowd funding to cover your legal bills. Individuals and companies that attempt to use the DMCA to silence whistle blowing need to be put into their place!

 

[mtrycrafts]

...

Second Audioholics Video Ethan Winer Issued a Copyright Infringement to Youtube

Notice this time Ethan Winer filed the complaint with Youtube under his personal account (Ethan Winer) instead of Real Traps like he did for the first claim. This was likely done to not draw suspicion with Youtube of the same person hitting us multiple times for the same image. This is very clever and very cowardly in our opinion.​

Can you and did you bring this to youtube's attention?

 

[gene]

Gene:
Audio-Visual hobbyists like myself have a lot of appreciation and admiration for your website because of the fact your very knowledgeable staff provides quality and honest reviews / comparisons that aren't compromised by being beholden to advertisers. Your staff debunk the snake oil myths and give us the factual goods! Your site is rare in this industry and readers like myself are worried about anything that could compromise or threaten the existence of this site and its content.

I don't know what your financials are like, but if you need money to fight a legal battle I for one would be willing to donate to a legal fund, a sort of crowd-sourcing effort if you will. I don't know what your readership numbers are, but maybe some modest donations can be helpful if enough people offer them. So I for one would not think any less of the site if you needed to appeal for crowd funding to cover your legal bills. Individuals and companies that attempt to use the DMCA to silence whistle blowing need to be put into their place!

That is very kind of you and I really appreciate this post. I do sometimes ponder if it's worth doing what we do b/c it often offends manufacturers or consumers of the products/technologies that we discuss. However your type of response really brightens the situation.

I do my best to provide accurate information but also realize I am NOT infallible which is why we have a peer review process with experts far more knowledgeable than us (ie. Dr. Floyd Toole).

Anyways, let's see where this goes. I don't relish legal battles but this one is a matter of principle. I have the type of personality where I am willing to expend my finances and sacrifice my business if necessary to defend 1st Amendment rights. In era where press releases are pawned off as "reviews", I feel it a civic duty to maintain a level of integrity in journalism that is often lacking today both in politics and the audio press.

 

[gene]

Can you and did you bring this to youtube's attention?

All I get at YT is a 200 max character window to submit rebuttals. We are a fly on the wall in the grand scheme. They don't care.

 

[mhdaniels31]

ironicly after reading this article I went and did a little research on mr. ethan winer who is notorious on several forums for his comments and behavior sorry about youtube it sucks when your running a legitmate buisness and your attacked by a snake oil sales man

 

[gene]

Ethan Winer emailed me requesting I post his response in our forum thread.

Hi Gene,

I'm not going to get into an argument with you, but you obviously need a

few things to be clarified. You should post my reply below in your forum

and on your News page:


* My objection to your videos is they insult and demean me personally.

It has nothing to do with "differing opinions" on room acoustics. You

call the products I designed ugly and say they're not a good solution to

bass problems. See attached image.


* I had no idea that YouTube has a "three strikes" rule. I think it's a

good idea! But my intent was never to shut down your entire channel.

Many of your other videos have very good information!


* The only reason I complained under my own name the second time is to

leave RealTraps out of it. YouTube's form is confusing, asking for both

a company name and a person's name. I had no idea they would list

RealTraps as the complainant when people tried to view your video. So

the next time I used my own name. Your beef is with me, not RealTraps.

I'm not even involved with RealTraps anymore except as a figurehead. Jim

Lindenschmidt is now the business manager, and my partner Doug runs the

factory.


* I read through your "Reprint Rights, Terms and Conditions of Use" web

page carefully, and I don't see where it says by letting you print my

article you have unlimited future rights to use my material elsewhere

for any reason you see fit. Further, according to YouTube's "Fair Use"

explanation, you fail on points #1 (you're not a non-profit company) and

#4 (your use of my video harms me and is clearly not a parody).


--Ethan

 

[gene]

Here is my response:

Ethan/James;

I will be happy to post your response in our forum thread on your behalf but I hope you realize that you’re basically admitting to submitted copyright infringement strikes against us on YouTube NOT because of the actual image in question but because you got hurtfeelioma when I subjectively called Bass Traps (and accidentally said Real Traps) ugly. Hugo annotated the video per your request that clearly indicated I meant to say bass traps in general not your product brand in particular. Regardless it’s an opinion and you made it clear that if someone uses a negative adjective to describe your product, that you’re going to either threaten to sue them or commit a cowardly act of copyright infringement like you did to the Audioholics YouTube channel twice. I never said bass traps don’t work. In many articles and even our follow-up video (which you again got taken down on YouTube), I said they do work but can be unsightly (opinion) and bulky (true) and lossy (true) and that there are alternatives for sound REPRODUCTION in small room acoustics. Again it’s obvious you’ve got hurtfeelioma and for that I apologize. But, by no means have I discredited your products as being ineffective.

The complaint form is fairly straight forward on YouTube but I’m willing to take your word on it. However, if that is true, then you should have retracted and resubmitted under the same account for better transparency to YouTube.

You need to reexamine what “fair use” means on the web, perhaps with a Copyright/Patent Attorney. I will not dispute the legality of this with you.

Back in 8/22/15 you indicated that this matter was settled when we annotated the first video and even gave RealTraps props in the 2nd video. But, it’s obvious you didn’t want to let this go based on the article you wrote (Early Reflections are NOT Beneficial) which disparaged both myself and Dr. Floyd Toole, along with various posts you made at AVS. Ironically, you even went so far as to use one of my images without my consent; something you complained about is unfair and unjust.

At this point I find it very hard to take you at your word. The only show of good faith at this point is for you to retract both claims against us on YouTube and give me formal release of any copyright claims against the image in question. The alternative is we both lawyer up (which I have already done) and settle this in court. While I’d rather not go there, at such a contest, you stand at a disadvantage.

PS. I notice you posted this in a Facebook group along with a waterfall graph misrepresentation of my room. It’s obvious you don’t in fact want this to end.

The name of the FB group is Home Theater Enthusiasts for those that are interested. I can't figure out how to join and post in it but oh well.

 

[Josuah]

My name and writings are being displayed, so I thought I would provide a bit more context.

Thanks for contributing. What I read from what Gene quoted and what you wrote is that multiple subwoofers and calibrating for multiple listening locations can help address peaks and valleys due to room modes. And at those specific frequencies both the amplitude and time/decay characteristics improve. I don't disagree with that and as mentioned before the waterfall measurements support that.

What I am disputing is that the time/decay characteristics are improved at other frequencies. I suppose one could argue that if the original amplitude is not modified then the decay should not be modified either. However that is not what I see in the waterfall measurements, and it is not what I would expect to be true once you are introducing additional sound sources into the room—you only increase the complexity of reflections and while the initial amplitude of each sound source can be reduced in order to hit the desired first amplitude (i.e. frequency response) you cannot guarantee somehow deconstructive interference of the reflections at all frequencies that would cause reflections to "go away" faster than before. Instead there must be some constructive reflections.

???

 

[jinjuku]

What is the personal attack that Ethan is speaking to?

Also Dr. Toole even comments that absorptive traps can be unsightly.

 

[gene]

What is the personal attack that Ethan is speaking to?

Also Dr. Toole even comments that absorptive traps can be unsightly.

I said Real Traps were ugly, but I meant bass traps in general. That was apparently offensive enough for Ethan to take these actions.

 

[3db]

I said Real Traps were ugly, but I meant bass traps in general. That was apparently offensive enough for Ethan to take these actions.

He complained, you corrected and then he went after you. If what he says is true as you have posted, then he should revoke his claim against you in Youtube citing it as communications problem and be done with it. The fact that he's unwilling says one of two thing; a) He's too proud to admit he too made a mistake, and/or b) he has an ulterior motive. Bass traps are ugly. They just are. They look really cool in a studio but there is no WAF in them at all for a living/family room.

 

[gene]

He complained, you corrected and then he went after you. If what he says is true as you have posted, then he should revoke his claim against you in Youtube citing it as communications problem and be done with it. The fact that he's unwilling says one of two thing; a) He's too proud to admit he too made a mistake, and/or b) he has an ulterior motive. Bass traps are ugly. They just are. They look really cool in a studio but there is no WAF in them at all for a living/family room.

He obviously doesn't want to resolve this as he continues to post manipulated graphs of my room on a Facebook Group BEFORE the latest data I presented in my new article. I can't reply b/c I am not an approved member, but here is a screenshot.

 

[e-t172]

It's unclear to me why multi-sub/SFM removes the need for bass traps. To me they're complementary: bass traps (at least the type sold by RealTraps) are ineffective below 100Hz, which is where multi-sub is effective (subwoofer frequencies are 80Hz and below, typically). On the other hand, bass traps are very effective above 100Hz, where multi-sub is ineffective since subwoofers aren't used at these higher frequencies.

So, by combining both multi-sub/SFM and bass traps, you can "fix the room" for pretty much the entire modal region - from 20Hz to about 300-500Hz or so, above which the room influence diminishes and the loudspeaker takes over (as Dr. Toole explained).

In light of this, Ethan Winer's nervous breakdown definitely seems like an overreaction. multi-sub is not a replacement for bass traps; they target different frequency ranges.

However I must say that I'm quite appalled by the lack of rigor in Ethan's "Early Reflections Are Not Beneficial" article. Especially the section about Toole, where Ethan shows simulated frequency responses from reflections: the plots show that the only differences are below 1kHz... in other words in the modal region. The thing is, there is no concept of "early reflection" for low frequencies - this is a medium/high frequency concept. Dr. Toole's points about off-axis response refer to frequencies above the modal region; they don't apply to the modal region, where the loudspeakers, room, and human hearing interact differently. In fact, by posting these plots Ethan pretty much proved Dr. Toole's point. Also it will take more than a one-page rant without any references to counter Dr. Toole's book where the reference section is literally 17 pages long.

 

[Floyd Toole]

Hi Josuah, You are obviously more than casually interested in this topic, which is good.

In normal domestic listening rooms it is unusual to have excessive general "reverberation" at low frequencies, which is what you are talking about when you discuss reflections that do not contribute to room modes and the associated standing waves. This is because the room boundaries and furnishings generally provide sufficient scattering and absorption. Booms occur of course, and that is the purpose of taming them by whatever means at your disposal. The "booms" are the problem, not the uncorrelated reflections. The only exceptions are rooms with very reflective, concrete or masonry walls. Actually, the first serious listening room I set up, at the National Research Council of Canada, was in a lab space which had, guess what, a concrete floor and plaster on block walls. This was in the early days, 1975 or thereabouts. It was colossally bass heavy, so I built some stagger-tuned membrane absorbers, placed them optimally, and brought it into submission. So I started my career with experience using what are now commonly called "bass traps". The room is described in the Appendix of my JAES paper "Listening Tests - Turning Opinion into Fact", in the June 1982 issue. It became the prototype for the first IEC (International Electrotechnical Commission) recommendation 268-13 attempt at standardizing listening rooms. It still exists and is used.

Fast forward to 2015, and you will find a 30-page JAES paper by me "The Measurement and Calibration of Sound Reproducing Systems" in the July/Aug issue. It is "open access" so it is free for all to download. Go to www.aes.org, click on publications, click on open access, type Toole and download. In it you will find massive discussion on bass buildup and the consequences it has to what we hear in homes and cinemas. A certain amount of it is unavoidable, unless you simply render the space anechoic - and that really does not sound good, believe me. The key is to have the right amount of broadband absorption, and find a way to tame frequency-specific resonances without making the room overly dead.

So, somewhere between too much absorption and too little absorption is the happy medium we all want. Eliminating all reflections - the room - is definitely not the goal. Humans evolved listening in reflective spaces, and are comfortable listening in them. In fact, it is now pretty much agreed that we perceptually "stream" the sound of the room as separate from the sound of the sources - that is what happens in live performances. A Steinway is a Steinway; only the hall changes. For home listening, the room is most influential when listening to a single loudspeaker, mono, as in a hard L or R panned instrument, the double-mono phantom center image, or the dominant center channel in movies. Stereo makes us slightly more tolerant, and multichannel makes us greatly more tolerant: more real sources of sound.

Recent research indicates that even fussy recording engineers quickly adapt to different kinds of acoustical conditions and simply get on with the job. The exception may be those who have hearing loss - it is an occupational hazard among recording engineers and musicians. Then one of the side effects is a reduced ability to discriminate between multiple sound sources, including reflections. Creating a strong direct sound field is the solution, and the popularity of "near-field" monitors is another indicator that a strong direct sound, without reflections, helps out. Very recent research yielded some alarming information: we can lose that spatial resolving ability and still show normal audiometric hearing thresholds. Nasty!

One big difference between now and the "old days" when habits were developed, is that loudspeakers are much, much better. When the reflected sounds have a spectrum that is similar to the direct sound the precedence effect really works well, and all of the sounds merge into a perceptual whole. If that is not the case, as in some memorable monitor speakers with lousy off-axis response, the only solution was to absorb all of the early reflections - e.g. the UREI 811 and relatives, in control rooms with a "dead end". Get rid of the bad sounds in a truckload of fiberglass. It made sense then, but we can do better now.

There is much more to the story, and right now I will get back to writing it for the next edition of my book.

Cheers, Floyd

 

[WaynePflughaupt]

The second I disagree with is that room correction software can be used to equal effect as increased absorption.

I think this is reflected in your waterfall graphs for the 1 sub no EQ vs. 5 subs w/EQ. Overall the decay of the 5 subs w/EQ is longer, even though the frequency response is much better and there are a few points where the decay does get better.

What I am disputing is that the time/decay characteristics are improved at other frequencies. I suppose one could argue that if the original amplitude is not modified then the decay should not be modified either. However that is not what I see in the waterfall measurements...

With all due respect, it appears to me that you may be misreading the waterfall graphs. The only place where the 5-sub graph appears worse, compared to the 1-sub graph, is below 40 Hz. And that is only because the frequency range in the latter is ~12 dB lower in level. Anytime signal level is increased, apparent ringing naturally increases, because it (logically) takes longer for the signal to fade away.

Bottom line, the only meaningful way you could compare ringing between the two would be for both to have reasonably similar response and signal levels below 40 Hz. I suggest reading through this thread to learn more about waterfall graphs, signal levels and modal equalizing.

Primary Seat, One Sub, No EQ​

Primary Seat, 5 subs, With EQ​

Regards,
Wayne A. Pflughaupt

 

[Floyd Toole]

I have seen some number of those photogenic waterfall diagrams lately. If you have my book, look at Figure 13.23 showing several ways of portraying exactly the same room data. In waterfall diagrams there is a trade-off. You can have high resolution in the frequency domain, or high resolution in the time domain, but not both. This gets forgotten, or is not known by those making the measurements, or - cynically - is used to mislead.
The top curve is a high-resolution steady-state frequency response, reasonably smooth, a good result one might think.
The first waterfall (b) shows a room out of control, with numerous "resonances" ringing forever. This is the one with high resolution in the frequency domain, showing lots of detail, but as you move forward from time=0 the curves change only very slightly, maintaining their shape out to 350 ms. This looks alarming. But every curve moving forward is an average of events over 142 ms, so rapid change is impossible to see even if it is happening.
The next waterfall in (c) has less resolution in the frequency domain, but more in the time domain, and now we see that the events in the time domain are more interesting, changing. In (d) with poor frequency resolution we see that moving forward from t=0 the curves start changing immediately, quickly taking on very different shapes moving forward. It is clear that there is only one resonance of any consequence and it is about 10 dB below the initial sound level, i.e. not likely to be a problem.
All that was done here was to change the settings on the analyzer. The original data was unchanged. It is the same room. Yet we have seen what could be portrayed as an uncontrollably boomy room, through to one that is very well controlled. Fortunately, that is the message conveyed by the steady state room curve, and that is precisely how it sounded - good.

Waterfalls can be useful, but many I see are just eye candy.

 

[Josuah]

Ah, I think I know what is misleading me about the waterfall graphs. Thanks for making me take another look at them, Wayne. The problem is like you said that the second one increases the amplitude of the frequencies I was looking at. The numbers were small so I was kind of only paying attention to the graph lines, and assuming the "fix" was to address the resonant peaks/modes which would drop the peaks back down the rest of the signal, but in fact it's more like boosting the rest of the signal up to match the peaks.

Thanks for pointing me at those waterfall graphs in your book, Floyd. This also helps me understand why looking at the waterfall graphs in isolation will be misleading.

FWIW, my current room setup is probably very closely aligned with the approach Gene is suggesting here, with a very large amount of absorption but not very thick absorption, multiple subs, and PEQ.

 

[gene]

It's unclear to me why multi-sub/SFM removes the need for bass traps. To me they're complementary: bass traps (at least the type sold by RealTraps) are ineffective below 100Hz, which is where multi-sub is effective (subwoofer frequencies are 80Hz and below, typically). On the other hand, bass traps are very effective above 100Hz, where multi-sub is ineffective since subwoofers aren't used at these higher frequencies.

So, by combining both multi-sub/SFM and bass traps, you can "fix the room" for pretty much the entire modal region - from 20Hz to about 300-500Hz or so, above which the room influence diminishes and the loudspeaker takes over (as Dr. Toole explained).

In light of this, Ethan Winer's nervous breakdown definitely seems like an overreaction. multi-sub is not a replacement for bass traps; they target different frequency ranges.

However I must say that I'm quite appalled by the lack of rigor in Ethan's "Early Reflections Are Not Beneficial" article. Especially the section about Toole, where Ethan shows simulated frequency responses from reflections: the plots show that the only differences are below 1kHz... in other words in the modal region. The thing is, there is no concept of "early reflection" for low frequencies - this is a medium/high frequency concept. Dr. Toole's points about off-axis response refer to frequencies above the modal region; they don't apply to the modal region, where the loudspeakers, room, and human hearing interact differently. In fact, by posting these plots Ethan pretty much proved Dr. Toole's point. Also it will take more than a one-page rant without any references to counter Dr. Toole's book where the reference section is literally 17 pages long.

As I said in the following article and related YouTube Video:
http://www.audioholics.com/home-theater-calibration/bass-optimization-for-home-theater
which also mimics what Dr. Floyd Toole has also shared,

Bass traps are one way, multi-sub + SFM is another for dealing with bass below the crossover point. EQ can be effective up till about 500Hz. That said, we never discourage a combo of both, especially in non-symmetric rooms where ideal sub positioning may not be possible. However, care must be given to not overtreat as it can be unsightly and lossy compared to instead deploying multi-sub.

The real problem is when folks ignore the science of multi-sub simply b/c it doesn't fit their agenda of selling more passive treatments. In my opinion, as a result this clouds the discussion with misrepresentations or own made up fallacies similar to what we see with exotic cables, politics, fill in the blank......

 

[gene]

With all due respect, it appears to me that you may be misreading the waterfall graphs. The only place where the 5-sub graph appears worse, compared to the 1-sub graph, is below 40 Hz. And that is only because the frequency range in the latter is ~12 dB lower in level. Anytime signal level is increased, apparent ringing naturally increases, because it (logically) takes longer for the signal to fade away.

Bottom line, the only meaningful way you could compare ringing between the two would be for both to have reasonably similar response and signal levels below 40 Hz. I suggest reading through this thread to learn more about waterfall graphs, signal levels and modal equalizing.

Primary Seat, One Sub, No EQ

Primary Seat, 5 subs, With EQ​

Regards,
Wayne A. Pflughaupt

Excellent post, I thank you for doing this! I probably should have level matched to make an apples to apples comparison but you hit the nail on the head.

 

[gene]

For those following the FB Group Discussion here:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/hometheaterenthusiasts/

I posted one and only reply to address it and Ethan's commentary:

Dear Home Theater Enthusiasts;

Thanks you for accepting me into the group. This looks like a cool FB page that I plan on exploring when time permits. Between raising a family, running a business, and defending my business from senseless attacks like what Ethan Winer/Real Traps is currently engaging in, I have little time or desire to engage yet into another debate on this fine group.

If anyone has questions/concerns, they are welcome to post follow-ups in our related forum thread:
http://forums.audioholics.com/forums/threads/how-realtraps-and-ethan-winer-conducts-business.98090/

I thank everyone for discussing this current situation and I empathize for those that are fans of Ethan Winer and Real Traps. As I've said in one of our YouTube videos (that ironically Ethan got taken down), I think Real Traps makes quality products that are 3rd party tested against acoustical standards to actually prove that they work. Do I think they can be unsightly? Yes, especially when you put 40 of them into a domestic living space.

I realize this may be offensive to Mr. Winer but sometimes things aren't all roses when dealing with people's opinions in social media, internet blogs, etc or discovering science that offers alternative ways to solve a problem that you spent your livelihood making a business on using other methods. We all must grow thicker skin and in the case of science, adapt and incorporate new methods and solutions when appropriate.

As someone who comes from a military family that has served and sacrificed in our armed forces protecting our freedoms, I am particular sensitive to protecting and upholding our 1st Amendment Right of Free Speech. Ethan's email response to me today was very clear that he purposely got YouTube to take 2 of our videos down NOT because of the actual copyright claim of the image in question but because he felt offended and slighted by the messages in our videos. Ethan is intelligent and realizes that the ONLY way YouTube will take a video down is via a Copyright Dispute. All other complaints (sans pornography) carry very little gravity with YouTube in taking videos down. YouTube makes you read and sign a disclaimer that you fully understand the consequences of taking such actions so I don't buy him veining ignorance as to the seriousness of what he did to us TWICE and under two different login profiles. He knew last week that we received our first strike, yet knowing that, he filled a second complaint to earn us a second strike. I again believe he purposely filed these complaints under two different login profiles to game the system so YouTube wouldn't flag a similar complaint for the same image being filed by the same person. This is very clever and sneaky and in my opinion, cowardly.

I will not debate the merits of fair usage of images as I currently have in my employment one of the best Patent/Copyright Attorneys in the country reviewing this case for me. I will leave that to him and Ethan's attorney to work out in the coming weeks.

I tried my best to come to terms with Ethan back in August 2015 where we annotated our Acoustics video to say we meant "Bass Traps, not Real Traps" and then we shot a second video about Multi-Sub (which ironically he got banned) where we mentioned his company has being one of the few that 3rd party tests their products. At the time he agreed via email that this was sufficient. However, he then continued trying to debate me on the topic of multi-sub throwing Dr. Floyd Toole into the email string. After going back and forth numerous times, Floyd and I both realized progress was not being made so I opted out. Ethan then took it upon himself to continue this at AVS forum followed by a very misinformed article titled "Early Reflections Are NOT Beneficial". This time he took an image diagram of my room (without my permission) and 4 photos of Dr. Floyd Toole's room (without permission of S&V Magazine or Floyd) to disparage our work. It was then that I realized Ethan’s actions didn’t match his words. It’s unclear to me if he or his doppelganger are the ones calling the shots.

I can handle that he attacks my articles, claims, and equipment/room choices for my home theater. However, I think it's pretty appalling how he attempts to discredit a true expert and pioneer in our industry. Dr. Floyd Tool doesn't just publish his opinions. He bases his claims on peer reviewed science. To my knowledge, Ethan has never submitted his work to a peer review process or a technical standards body. Instead, in my opinion, he quite masterfully massages waterfall graphs to create the need for more....bass traps! He took data I sent him from my room BEFORE I employed SFM or optimal sub positioning and massaged the graph to make it look like I had a problem. He continues to ignore the graphs from my recent article showing before/after frequency response and waterfall plots located here:
http://www.audioholics.com/home-theater-calibration/bass-optimization-for-home-theater

Ethan apparently finds this whole situation amusing as he now suggested that I open up our YouTube Channel (the very channel he is attempting to get shut down) to host a live debate with him. I absolutely will NOT do this. I've presented my work in the form of numerous peer reviewed editorials and YouTube videos. The contents of my articles are in agreement with the latest science pioneered by industry experts like Dr. Floyd Toole, Dr. Sean Olive, Todd Welti, etc. In contrast, Ethan is on the wrong side of science in this debate and if that's his prerogative then more power to him. He was banned on our forum quite a long time ago for similar antics and I found out through the operatives of Sound and Vision Magazine, he was banned there too for similar reasons.

Earlier today, I suggested that Ethan retract his claims against us on YouTube since he "wasn't aware of the three strike rule" and instead he came on this group to further disparage and misrepresent my views and measurements. I am done debating with Mr. Winer and instead focusing on running my AV publication and helping fellow enthusiasts as best as I know how to through education.

I apologize for this long rant and I hope it cleared up some concerns people may have about this situation.


Sincerely,

Gene DellaSala
President, Audioholics.com