Mapman stated - "gk your recall and logic are both flawed. You collect your facts selectively and draw conclusions as you see fit.
I totally agree with you mapman. He attempts to provide so much information (which is a good thing) but then takes parts of the discussion totally out of context for his own purpose only to argue or belittle his rival.
Just one Example of the many: Mr. Kait says -
“Funny. 88% reduction at 20 Hz is NOT normal. You guys apparently still don’t understand isolation or what a low pass filter actually is. What is not mentioned in the report - but is obviously the case - is that at frequencies higher than 20 Hz the isolation effectiveness is even higher than 88%, for purposes of discussion circa 97% at 30 Hz and 99.5% at 40 Hz. Those number are fairly typical of ANY reasonably good mass-on-spring isolation device. Furthermore, it’s as obvious as the nose on your face that the 88% reduction was compared to the case without the isolation. You guys just can’t seem to catch a break. ;-)”
His Keywords are WHAT IS NOT MENTIONED IN THE REPORT - But Obviously the Case is....
Mr. Kait is making an argument that has no basis. He is making nothing more than a very large assumption. At the end of the day, the topic in conversation was to provide our opinion on independent third-party testing where this test was not. Therefore the data has no value outside of good marketing.
Mr. Kait should have come back when he or they have an actual formal third-party report that doesn't have homemade Microsoft XL graphs and poorly defined language. Then he could claim independent results that carry weight.
Mr. Kait says -
“http://www.solid-tech.net/products/discs-of-silence-4537455 Finally! Someone was smart enough to copy my original Nimbus Sub Hertz Isolation platform design;”
Accusing Solid-Tech of being a copycat is really, really low. Please provide us any Patents or a Trademark on the original design that supports such a statement.
Mr. Kait, in my opinion you tend to lower the bar wherever you go even when a mistake is made and apology follows.
Example:
Mr. Kait hammers back after an apology is made - “Sorry to hear about your memory. If my memory serves it’s actually you who has been doing most of the name calling. In fact if I strip away the name calling and attitude and shilling of your products from the majority of your posts here there’s really not that much left. So that would make you a liar. A liar with a bad memory. If you can’t keep up with the discussion can I respectfully suggest you find someone who can?”
Calling anyone a liar is far below that of whale crap, so unless you provide undeniable evidence to back your claim, I suggest you go play daddy on someone else. Mr. Kait, you are stepping on thin ice here, liable for slander and defamation of character. Next time we will defend via other means.
I have related to you in comedic fashion on a few posts, feeling the need to 'reply in kind' to your 'observations' on the people posting, our company personnel and myself included (tit for tat) - but leave the audience to determine who the name caller is or better yet, anyone can review any of your historical 4,000+ posts in order to assist with their decision. You have been doing this long before my personal involvement on this forum. In my opinion, if you cannot on occasion take some of your own medicine, you might want to visit someone who can help you become a more positive person.
In audio - “product performance” and “value” always trumps the written opinions of anyone, anywhere, anytime and anyplace... including those who personally ridicule or insult others (accidently or directly) on this forum that are seeking personal gain, self or company recognition, self satisfaction or whatever they were never able to accomplish in life (everyone included).
Very truly yours,
Robert - Star Sound