Quote:

>>> “If by stating that I do not hear any difference due to tweaks is pissing on someone's parade” <<<

But you did not JUST enter the discussion JUST to say that “you do not hear any difference due to tweaks”.   You went much, much further !!!!

Yes, I did read your comments on the ‘HiFi Tuning Fuses’ section.   And, yes, you did say "Notice I didn't say other people don't hear things." But only again AFTER:-

Quote:

>>> “I chalk this up to my perception of what I'm hearing, you know, something going on in my head. I'm not about to go chasing my perception with cables, fuses, or other tweaks.” <<<

If you don’t want to benefit from other’s experiences i.e. better sound, then why enter discussions on ‘techniques on obtaining better sound’ ?   JUST to be able to say “I don’t hear any difference due to tweaks” in a very roundabout way ?

I would suggest that you have entered such discussions because you DO actually want to discourage others from trying for themselves (by doing what you describe as ‘putting another view’).   Or else why put it ?

You are as entitled to your opinion as anyone else but it is surely very boring to keep responding to discussions on various tweaks with the usual “I don’t hear any difference due to tweaks”?  

I think tmsorosk summed it up quite nicely (and politely) with his earlier reply to you.

Quote:

>>> “I guess that means that you haven't tried them. You'd be surprised what you can learn by experimentation.” <<<

Regards,

May Belt.

So now you're down to questioning my motivation, and the appropriateness of relating my own experiences on the subject. I think it's because that's all you have left. Anything to quell dissenting opinion I suppose.

My personal experience, and non-belief in the effectiveness of audio tweaks stands, and the more it is challenged, the more I will repeat it. If your goal is to stifle opinions that don't agree with yours, you are going about it in the wrong way.

Quote:

>>> “Anything to quell dissenting opinion I suppose.” <<<

You suppose wrong !!

Regards,

May Belt.

Sorry for the belated response. 

I think a lot of people have an idea what scientific evidence is. It is the result of application of the scientific method, such as observing something, formulate a hypothesis, design controlled tests, execute the tests, evaluate results, and formulate a theory to explain the observation. Others may have somewhat more complete definitions, but we all get the idea. 

Some of the tweaks have not provided such evidence, only anectdotal expriences. Even the capacitor mod tweak I did and wrote of so far has only my own anectdotal experience on my stereo gear. I do have reports from at least two other audiophile friends that this tweak is for real.  Even so, I provided caveats regarding reporting that in a scientific manner, even though I remain convinced that the effect is real. I leave open the possibility that a DBT of one modded and an identical non-modded gear may prove me and my friends wrong.

I quote your response to 'evidence':

"Well, by scientific evidence, one assumes that you mean some sort of measurements. But I suspect that is one big Mazza ball hanging out there.  But how would you go about measuring the effects of the photos in the freezer tweak?  Since the photos in the freezer doesn't affect the audio signal anywhere in the system, the electrical power anywhere in the system or any acoustic waves arriving at the listener's ears, one assumes the standard procedures for measurements must be abandoned.  LOL

What is the scientific evidence that the atomic bomb works?  I don't think it is all the mathematical formulas.  It's the fact that the bomb exploded. ...  "

No Geoff, I do not restrict it to some standard measuements, although standard measurements can be evidence, even in this case. If one can prove via mesurements that the acoustic waves at the listener ears are absolutely identical regardless of whether the photos are in the freezer or not, then the conclusion would be that the audible changes the listener reports are not explained by any part of the entire chain of audio reproduction up to the listener's ears.

I cannot imagine how photos in the freezer can affect the audio signals or the acoustic waves. It's not impossible, but in my mind the effect is infinitesimal. But what if it does?

Since we cannot prove a negative, that photos in the freezer do not affect the audio signal, we must prove 'something' is affecting what a listener hears, identify what that 'something' is, and show that the 'something' really is doing that. It may be more than one 'something'. Or it may be as simple as expectation bias. Where's the evidence that is convincing, because some hear it and some do not?

You're right that the clear evidence of the atomic bomb working is that it exploded. There is no doubt that the atomic explosion happened, because the effect is hard to miss. There remains doubt about some of the tweaks, in which not everyone agrees that there was an 'explosion', so to speak.

Here's a simple tweak that is easily illustrates the foregoing. Let's say the tweak is 'changing the volume control setting'. If the change is sufficiently large (the 'explosion') then it is audible to all. Now decrease the change, and it will be detectable by some and not others. Decrease it even more, then it will eventually be inaudible to all. Frequency response differences, already scientifically investigated, fall into this category, and the evidence is there.

The difference between the volume control and some of the exotic tweaks is that the level is adjustable in the volume control. Some of the tweaks so far has not shown such level-behavior that's amenable to adjustment to even do such a test. If more of some tweak yields more audible effect, then there's has to be a scientific reason for what it is affecting, and hence measurable in some way. The volume control tweak example is measurable as position of the volume control setting, or SPL by microphone, or other methods.

I agree that the test of the photos can be easily done, such as with one person putting the photos in the freezer (or not in) and the test subject does not know whether the photos are in the freezer or not. Art did and reported in a single-trial, single-blind test, that no difference was heard by MF. More trials (as you said "repeat")  would be useful to gain statistical power of whether there is a detectable effect. Whoever tries this test, don't fall into the trap of getting negative results 9 times and on the 10th trial get a positive result and then incorrectly concluding that the result is positive.

"... You come over as not having as much rigidity of thought as others."

I try to keep an open mind, not always successfully. One can learn from being wrong. One won't learn if one thinks that one is always right.

If one is an acknowledged expert in a particular field, it's more likely that one is right than wrong in that subject field compared to someone who is not an expert. What I see is people who are not known-experts in a subject area, claim to be an 'expert', and making extraordinary claims about areas in which the experts already have investigated and published to the contrary. This often happen because the non-experts are not fully informed or fully understand the research areas as the experts do. Then I have a hard time being convinced of what the non-expert says is correct, particularly after I read what the experts have published and I compared both sides of the argument.

Absolute Pitch, you said,

"I think a lot of people have an idea what scientific evidence is. It is the result of application of the scientific method, such as observing something, formulate a hypothesis, design controlled tests, execute the tests, evaluate results, and formulate a theory to explain the observation. Others may have somewhat more complete definitions, but we all get the idea."

I disagree with your premise that that all steps of the scientific method are required to produce evidence for audio tweaks.  All you need is observation, like Newton observing the apple falling under the "force" of gravity.  That observation, in and of itself, was enough to make Newton realize that something was going on.  Of course, you have to trust your senses that what you are observing is real.  If you go shopping for a new TV you pick the one that has the best picture, right?  Nothing complicated about it, you trust what your eyes tell you.  You do not ask for evidence that LCD technology is superior to plasma technology, or whatever, do you?  Thus, if you observe the capacitor mod tweak improved the sound, that is evidence that the capacitor mod is effective in your system.  Obviously it is not proof, just some evidence.  Aren't audiophiles more interested in whether a tweak works than how it works? I certainly hope so, since there are a lot of mazza balls hanging out there that lack "scientifically validated" explanations, Schuman Frequency generators, tiny bowls, ebony discs, clocks, chips, foils, et al.  If all the unusual and preposterous tweaks that have come out in the past 20 years had to undergo some sort of peer review or other scientific scrutiny for audiophile approval, a lot of folks would not have the benefits of those inventions.

You said,

"Some of the tweaks have not provided such evidence, only anectdotal expriences. Even the capacitor mod tweak I did and wrote of so far has only my own anectdotal experience on my stereo gear. I do have reports from at least two other audiophile friends that this tweak is for real.  Even so, I provided caveats regarding reporting that in a scientific manner, even though I remain convinced that the effect is real. I leave open the possibility that a DBT of one modded and an identical non-modded gear may prove me and my friends wrong."

But manufacturers are not required to provide evidence or proof, maybe you are thinking of reviewers, they do provide measurements of speakers and amplifiers, why not tweaks?  I know what you're thinking, how is a reviewer going to measure some of the more controversial tweaks, the ones that go bump in the night? Furthermore I don't think there really is anything like identical non modded gear since every room is different; room acoustics themselves are sufficiently diverse to make such an experiment as you suggest impossible.

You said,

"I cannot imagine how photos in the freezer can affect the audio signals or the acoustic waves. It's not impossible, but in my mind the effect is infinitesimal. But what if it does?"

No one said it does affect audio signals or acoustic waves.  In fact, i'm saying the photos in the freezer definitely do NOT affect audio signals or acoustic waves.  That is actually one of the points of performing the photos in the freezer tweak over long distance - as Art did for his article.  The photos of MF in Art's freezer cannot affect audio signals or acoustic waves in the listening room of MF, I think you will agree.

You said,

"Since we cannot prove a negative, that photos in the freezer do not affect the audio signal, we must prove 'something' is affecting what a listener hears, identify what that 'something' is, and show that the 'something' really is doing that. It may be more than one 'something'. Or it may be as simple as expectation bias. Where's the evidence that is convincing, because some hear it and some do not.  You're right that the clear evidence of the atomic bomb working is that it exploded. There is no doubt that the atomic explosion happened, because the effect is hard to miss. There remains doubt about some of the tweaks, in which not everyone agrees that there was an 'explosion', so to speak."

Well, that's precisely the problem with all  controversial tweaks, isn't it?  That the explanation provided is not "acceptable" and/or that results are not consistent.  This is why there has been a cable controversy for the past 30 years.  We certainly can't expect MIT or NASA or even AES to step in and settle any of this.  

You said,

"Here's a simple tweak that is easily illustrates the foregoing. Let's say the tweak is 'changing the volume control setting'. If the change is sufficiently large (the 'explosion') then it is audible to all. Now decrease the change, and it will be detectable by some and not others. Decrease it even more, then it will eventually be inaudible to all. Frequency response differences, already scientifically investigated, fall into this category, and the evidence is there."

Well, frequency response is an interesting subject because speakers that measure the same frequency response can often sound quite different, and stereo cartridges that measure the same frequency response also can often sound quite different, even just in terms of frequency response.  That was what got the guy at Stereo Review in so much hot water 30 years ago, when he claimed that amplifiers that measured the same will sound the same.   

You said,

"I agree that the test of the photos can be easily done, such as with one person putting the photos in the freezer (or not in) and the test subject does not know whether the photos are in the freezer or not. Art did and reported in a single-trial, single-blind test, that no difference was heard by MF. More trials (as you said "repeat")  would be useful to gain statistical power of whether there is a detectable effect. Whoever tries this test, don't fall into the trap of getting negative results 9 times and on the 10th trial get a positive result and then incorrectly concluding that the result is positive."

Actually, as I pointed out already, Art did not perform the photos in the freezer experiment correctly, and as May Belt already pointed out even if he had performed it correctly, MF did not have the opportunity to compare the sound with photos in to photos out.  If he had, who knows, he might have found the sound with the photos in the freezer to be better.  

Finally, I can't resist pointing out the irony of demands for evidence for the photos in the freezer tweak which is , of course, free.

Geoff Kait

Machina Dynamica

"All you need is observation, like Newton observing the apple falling under the "force" of gravity."

Let's compare your exemplar comparing Newton to Belt tweaks....

Does the apple fall only if Sir Isaac knows it's being dropped?

Does Sir Isaac see the apple fall when he is told it will be dropped, but fail to do so if he is not told at what instant, or which type,the apple is being dropped?

In a sighted test, does the apple fall, but if Sir Isaac is blindolded, does the apple fail to fall?

You picked a great example going for Newton.

If one is observant, can Newton's prediction be replicated with SBT or DBT?

Is there gravitational DBT "deafness?"

Can one measure what Sir Isaac reported?

How many apples out of 100 that are dropped from Isaac's tree will fall to earth?

How do we know this so called gravity exists without an objective, measurable outcome?

Is gravity a fact? How do we know? Is it a theory? If so, that implies testability. May fails at this requirement for 'theory.'

Sir Isaac described physical phenomenon he observed and worked to an objective testable theory, what May descibes is the equivalent of the invention of "intelligent falling."

Ironic choice of icons.

Again, not saying someone may hear what May tells them to, I am just opposed to her 'handicapping' those who don't require her balm in order to have an equivalent experience.

I'm not even claiming Sir Isaac provided the final answer - theories are potentially disprovable. May's are not.

Quote:

>>> “Do you deny that expectation bias can account for all of these accounts that you cite?” <<<

Do YOU deny that any of the accounts I cite could be descriptions of people ‘resolving far more of the musical information than they had been doing prior to applying the (whatever) ‘tweak’ ?

Quote:

>>> “Most immediately apparent was a slightly darkened (more quiet) background fabric from which every sound seems to blossom more fully.

 

It was just as immediately apparent that there was a reduction of stridency to upper midrange and lower treble bands, a minimization of the "glare" - 

Noises previously buried down in, or slightly masked by, the noise floor are released much more coherently and identifiably

 

One of the more delicious aspects of its effectiveness is the resultant elevated bass performance. While the lowest registers are not any deeper, they are clearly more defined. Picking or fingering of strings in bass runs becomes much more apparent and discernable, allowing a greater ease in following complex bass lines. It also contributes seemingly faster rise times, with clearer decay and fall off than without its application.

 

And talk about enhanced spatial performance! Post treatment reveals more "space" between instruments, and greater "air" around them. We are treated to a more focused soundstage, with greater specificity to images. Staging is typically slightly wider, deeper, and taller, with heightened "illumination" of the rear left and right corners of the soundstage. The result is an overall perspective that is more honest, more faithful to reality, with better focus and more realistically sized.

What I heard was unmistakable.   The soundstage expanded moderately in width, and almost doubled in depth.   The upper midrange and treble was less strident and forward, and better integrated into the midrange.   Transparency was improved:   Image dimensionality was improved significantly, with better localization and differentiation of individual sounds, and there was more “air” surrounding each instrument.” <<<

These are an amalgamation of descriptions by ‘professionals in audio’ reporting their listening experiences after trying one, many or all of the ‘tweaks’ from the list I have referred to earlier.

I would seriously suggest that these descriptions fit FAR MORE a ‘greater resolving of the musical information’ than would come from expectation bias.

We are not talking here about people saying simply “Oh, I think the treble is better today”., or “The sound is better this evening than it was last night”.    The descriptions I quote would indicate MORE musical information being resolved.

Regards,

May Belt.

Many of us are fully aware that you, Anton/Buddha, have an “anti” agenda regarding Peter and May Belt.   That is why I have, many times, suggested that Belt techniques be removed from the discussion so as to be able to look at the subject of what can give ‘improvements to the sound’ without bringing personalities into it.   There are enough of the other ‘tweaks’ which I have listed and their effect on the sound to build any discussion around.

I will say again.   Imagine Peter Belt had never been born – which would then mean that May Belt would never have worked, in the audio industry, alongside Peter for the past 60 years !!!

Now, Anton/Buddha, leaving May and Peter Belt out of the discussion to avoid personality attacks, lets discuss the other ‘tweaks’ and whether, in your opinion, they come under the category of “people having a deficiency and therefore needing remedial devices”., or whether the many “professionals in audio” people, describing their effect for others to benefit from, really just needed them as “props, talismans, rituals, potions, elixirs etc" !!

Regards,

May Belt.

Quote:

>>> “If one is an acknowledged expert in a particular field, it's more likely that one is right than wrong in that subject field compared to someone who is not an expert” <<<

And, the quotes I have given of some people’s experiences ARE from significant people who have been involved in the professional side of audio for many, many years.

Regards,

May Belt.

Anton/Buddha/Enophile - you apparently didn't get the memo that Newton's physics went out the window.  Some feller by the name of Einstein came along a while back. Maybe you've heard of him.  Now, am I saying you might not be qualified to pass judgement on anyone's scientific theories?  You decide.

You seem to be saying that you really don't care what the theory of gravitation is, as long as it exists.  If that's the case, then why would you care about any Belt theories, I mean other than they obviously stick in your craw?  Stand in line behind many others, including JA and AD.

You can paint a donkey different colors but it's still a donkey.  - old audiophile axiom

Geoff Kait

Machina Dramatica

You seem to forget....that you were the one who brought up Newton!

LOL!

I give you as much credit as possible, so I worked purely with your own 'straw physicist' argument.

"Newton was legit, therefore May is legit."

I've been through all this "honor by association" stuff when May was busy comparing herself to Lister.

Fallacies are fallacies, Geoff.

Your 'ooh ooh ooh' about Newton was purely self inflicted, Geoff. Were you sitting under a canteloupe or baseball tree and got caught unawares? If you want Einstein, then start with Einstein...and then you'll still be behind the curve. You'd like him as a tweak example, I bet - he believed in a cosmological constant and said, "God doesn't play dice."

Good for May, I guess, and she tried using the old "They all laughed at Einstein...until he sat down at the piano" in the past as one of her examples of what great minds she should be considered among.

Go Google Einstein's cosmologic constant and tell us how that worked out.

So, answer those 'antique' science questions for us...I gave you plenty.

Here's another - if only 50% of the time, the apple fell, would Sir Isaac have pulled a "I'm like Lister" and insisted his theory was still universally applicable?

As I keep having to point out, I am not opposed to someone hearing what May tells them to, only that she is wrong in saying everybody needs the same prescription.

Even Lister knew that - he didn't insist antisepctics be used to treat every patient in every setting.

Some people may need/want what May sells in order to get off, others not....and they will have the same joy.

Oooh, threatening, I know.

May Belt wrote:

Many of us are fully aware that you, Anton/Buddha, have an “anti” agenda regarding Peter and May Belt.   That is why I have, many times, suggested that Belt techniques be removed from the discussion so as to be able to look at the subject of what can give ‘improvements to the sound’ without bringing personalities into it.   There are enough of the other ‘tweaks’ which I have listed and their effect on the sound to build any discussion around.

Well, yes, I do have an 'anti' May agenda, because you pathologically "make stuff up" and sell 1200 dollar roach clips. But, no, May, I do not have an "anti" agenda regarding someone hearing what you suggest they hear. I only switch back to 'anti' when you insist people who are already enjoying their Hi Fi just fine are deluded unless they hear as your faith requires of them. I get enough of that from the robed guys outside the airport. Some people don't need vision correction, May. Others do. Viva for them!

I will say again.   Imagine Peter Belt had never been born – which would then mean that May Belt would never have worked, in the audio industry, alongside Peter for the past 60 years !!!

I would imagine if no Peter, then you'd be living in a Sheldrake ashram selling something else. Perhaps we'd be arguing in a wine forum about how your "electret creme" enhanced the flavor of wine....just so long as the taster knew the tweak was there.

Now, Anton/Buddha, leaving May and Peter Belt out of the discussion to avoid personality attacks, lets discuss the other ‘tweaks’ and whether, in your opinion, they come under the category of “people having a deficiency and therefore needing remedial devices”., or whether the many “professionals in audio” people, describing their effect for others to benefit from, really just needed them as “props, talismans, rituals, potions, elixirs etc" !!

I think it's time you answer some of the many question I have posed to you on this very thread. Look around and tell us about 'electrets' and your creme as I asked up the thread, please. You like to ask, but then ignore others when they question you.

I will answer yours from your last paragraph now - I think there are obvious hacks in "professional audio" and "audio journalism."

Have you listened to very many new music releases? I will not name names, but there is a "master of the remix" who can't seem to press an LP one ounce better than the originals he is mocking from 40 years ago. And, yes, he does use talisman tweaks. 

As for reviewers - do we now have proof your rainbow foil does not function because Art had failures with it? He obviously simply did not require your vaporware in that instance.

There is another reviewer who is extremely well known (and seems to buy into your line of claim making) who can't even tell if he's listening to a broken CD player or a cable that doesn't conduct signal.

 

Regarding your narcissistic habit of comparing yourself to the great minds of science....

Even Einstein, Newton, and Lister went to church, May. And, as Geoffie pointed out, Newton and Einstein have already been proved wrong!

As I keep saying, May. I am not opposed to people hearing what your tell them to. I am opposed to the frankly bullshit notion of your claim to universal applicability. 

I have said before, we have used your tweaks, and Geoffie's at show demos and not one person, ever, has been able to identify an effect. At one show, one of the 'believers' (Geoffie knows who) even went room to room with a not so clever clock and had a zero percent (as in zero) percent audibility rate. We've got CD's that have been "intelligent chipped" and listened with the editor of an extremely well known astronomically named online audio review journal - who couldn't tell if ANY discs had been treated, including his own.

So, call us when you have a testable/disprovable hypothesis to work with.

Regards,

May Belt.

Anton/Buddha/Enophile said,

I have said before, we have used your tweaks, and Geoffie's at show demos and not one person, ever, has been able to identify an effect. At one show, one of the 'believers' (Geoffie knows who) even went room to room with a not so clever clock and had a zero percent (as in zero) percent audibility rate. We've got CD's that have been "intelligent chipped" and listened with the editor of an extremely well known astronomically named online audio review journal - who couldn't tell if ANY discs had been treated, including his own.

Hey, Anton/Buddha/Enophile, it's pretty obvious you need to get a new circle of friends, you know, ones who can hear.  Just curious, did milk squirt out of the astronomically named online audio review journal editor's nose?

Geoff Kait

Machina Erotica

You and May treat questions with great fear.

Go for it, answer some!

Watch his trend.

Content free, no nutritional value!

Anton/Buddha/Enophile - Actually, if you don't mind my saying so too much, I treat your disingenuous questions and smirky posts with the contempt they deserve. 

Geoff Kait

Machina Dramatica

 No problem, Geoffie.

Your and May's obfuscation are now available for all to see.

Keep up your dark mission!

I don't blame you for not answering the questions. I didn't think you could in the first place. You are merely living down to our expectations.

Anton/Bubbha/Enophile - shouldn't you be standing out on a ledge somewhere?  By the way, nice touch slithering back in under a new moniker.  

Geoff Kait

ILikeMusic, expectation bias can be easily eliminated as a culprit. Don't you know that?

Geoff Kait

Machina Dynamica

Your shit is tired, troll.

Get with the discussion.

You fancy yourself and May to be Newtonian - how so? Answer some questions or go troll the Asylum.

geoffkait wrote:

ILikeMusic, expectation bias can be easily eliminated as a culprit. Don't you know that?

Geoff Kait

Machina Dynamica

Tell him how, Geoff.

Give him the set up.

We can use Art as the monkey....

Once the effect of this "electret" (still no explanation from May regarding the ridiculous use of the term 'electret,' I see....wonder why, May?) creme 'wear off,' he can get an incense holder or spoon and schmear the "creme electret" on it and take it into and out of the room.

Then, he can have a minion or spouse take it in and out without Art knowing what is where and see if he can identify the circumstances.

May and Geoff like Newton, so, lets use a system that would fit with their example.

100/100 apples will fall to earth when dropped.

Let's see what percentage of the time Art can identify the presence or absence of the creme.

Side bets: Odds Art will go for it?

So if you were to try a free sample of the foil or the cream and you heard a difference, you wouldn't believe yourself? Even if you expected not to, but you did anyways?

Acupuncture- unexplainable by conventional medicine/science, has been used for thousands of years by millions of people. Next time you tweak your back or twist an ankle or have an ailment that's untreatable by conventional medicine, go see a qualified, properly trained acupuncturist (not an MD or physio or anyone who takes a weekend course). Not 100%, like everything else, but can work on animals, kids, or anyone who doesn't speak Chinese or anyone who doesn't even know anything or have expectations about acupuncture.

For awhile, no one could explain why the earth wasn't flat, but someone eventually went to the edge and looked.

Just curious, Anton/Bubbha/Enophile, when did you make the conscious decision to be a big phoney?

No need to respond, it's a rhetorical question.

Geoff Kait

machismo dramatica

Ilikemusic said,

"To be clear let me state again that I do not deny that people believe that some tweaks improve the enjoyment of their stereo.  I believe this is a result of expectation bias directly and is not related to 'friendly' energy patterns or 'intruders' in the listening environment, etc.

I do not exclude myself from the influence of expectation bias. If I were to try a tweak that had no identifiable influence on the waves reaching my ears and I thought I heard a change in sound, I would conclude (without access to more controlled experiments) that I was being subject to a psychological change and not a change to my system due to 'friendly' energy patterns, as May Belt describes his theory."

There's a bit of a problem with your argument, well two problems, actually.  The First problem has already been pointed out, that while everyone acknowledges that there is such a thing as expectation bias, which might come into play when auditioning a very expensive amplifier or a set of cables that has received a lot of high praise, for example, that type of bias can be easily removed by blind testing, which might be especially suitable for those who might be easily swayed by considerations of cost or other peoples' opinions or who are not experienced testers/reviewers.

The Second problem with your argument has to do with controversial tweaks, like the Belt products - the ones that are the most preposterous or outrageous, or have explanations that appear to make no sense, or have NO explanations - like the photos in the freezer tweak.  It's those tweaks that you have been psychologically conditioned, as it were, to expect NOT to work.  So, *expectation bias* in the case of controversial tweaks has the OPPOSITE meaning from how you are using it.  The photos in the freezer tweak is a prime example of a tweak anyone would strongly expect NOT to work. The psychologically conditioned "skeptic" will hear nothing, assuming he tries it, because of (negative) expectation bias.  He has psyched himself out.  LOL.  But there's hope even for the most suspicious individual as this type of bias can be removed by careful testing just like the other type.  So where's the beef?

Geoff Kait

www.machinadynamica.com

You don't rely on your senses a 100% of the time? Are you on your way to being a paranoid delusional schizophrenic? Of course not! How much do you rely on your senses? 90%? 75% of the time? Any less and you may have trouble grocery shopping... Or are your senses selective, 99% sometimes, but not always? If they are, when? When you choose to?  Do you rely on your senses only when you know what's influencing you? Do you live in a bubble?

Flat earth, inane? "Back in the day", when a "flat earth" or the Earth being the centre of the universe...(fill in the blank) was Truth and Reality, people died when they refused to believe in (......) when their observations and experience told them another reality existed.

Today, there's lots of "flat earth" people. And lots of people still die when they refuse to believe.

Acupuncture is a great example of a practice of a "scientific"/medical methodology that's been time tested and used amongst many cultures (Japanese, Koreans, French, British, Germans and anyone else who had contact with Chinese civilization)- there's thousands of years worth of documentation of empirical data with well documented studies showing repeatable results! How much more scientific can you get! After years of not knowing how acupuncture "works", with emerging technology, conventional western science/medicine is only now starting to get a handle on this "other" science.

Here's a list of what acupuncture works on- http://www.shannonfeely.com/2008/06/world-health-organization-report-on-acupuncture/

And you dismiss acupuncture with a few bad "studies" and an explanation of "bias"! Give me a break.... I don't suppose pharmaceutical companies will come knocking on your door to ask you to do research for them.

Ed and May are looking over the edge. You seem to be afraid to go there. Or shall we dismiss you as just being biased?

Like I said before, you guys are like my kid who refused to try fish because he knew he wouldn't like it.

The samples are free. Get some and give them a try. Do your DBT's, SBT's, or try them at a party! You and your friends might learn something. Or maybe not.

Then talk.

ChrisS wrote:

Like I said before, you guys are like my kid who refused to try fish because he knew he wouldn't like it.

The samples are free. Get some and give them a try. Do your DBT's, SBT's, or try them at a party! You and your friends might learn something. Or maybe not.

Then talk.

Nothing to do with your analogy.

What if your kid tried fish and didn't like it?

May Belt would postulate the kid is incorrect about fish and there is something with him.

I've tried the tweaks, even had several of Geoffie's own tweaks on hand at shows for multitudes to 'experience' - nothing. Not even from people who worship the tweaks when they know they are present. Even from renowned audio writers/critics.

Geoffie claims that those who miss out on hearing something happen with his schtick means the listener is in error.

I contend some people don't need the schtick to have the same fun.

Anton/Buddha .   Personal attacks are completely uncalled for !!

Is this going to be a repeat of what has happened over the last few years ?   That personal attacks will just increase ?

Quote:

>>> “Good for May, I guess, and she tried using the old "They all laughed at Einstein...until he sat down at the piano" in the past as one of her examples of what great minds she should be considered among.” <<<

Quote:

>>> “May Belt would postulate the kid is incorrect about fish and there is something with him.” <<<

I have told you repeatedly not to put words into my mouth which I do not/did not say.  I know this is ONE of your techniques but will you please stop doing it !!

Regards,

May Belt.

Anton said,

"I've tried the tweaks, even had several of Geoffie's own tweaks on hand at shows for multitudes to 'experience' - nothing. Not even from people who worship the tweaks when they know they are present. Even from renowned audio writers/critics."

Mr. Smarty Pants, the intelligent chip wasn't even my tweak.  Doh!  Besides, for the hundreds if not thousands of folks who have heard the intelligent chip, including editors of magazines people have actually heard of, real reviewers not make believe reviewers, and real audiophiles, there's bound to be a few drunk wingnuts who either can't hear or can't follow directions. Furthermore, one has to ask, who would believe anything you say, anyhow?  

Multitudes?  Were you serving loaves of bread with the booze?  

Geoff Kait 

Machina  Dynamica

we do artificial atoms right

Quote:

>>> “1) Do you *still* not understand that any number of personal claims to hearing a difference does not constitute sufficient evidence to justify belief in an extraordinary claim?” <<<

What extraordinary claim do you refer to ?    That people are resolving more of the musical information by carrying out certain ‘tweaks’ ??    If that is what you are referring to, then it is not an extraordinary claim !!   It fits people’s descriptions of what they heard.

I don’t say the personal claims are EVIDENCE (as in a court of law evidence) I say they point far more to a better resolving of more of the actual musical information than YOU, personally, are prepared to allow could happen.  

Quote:

>>> “2) Do you deny that expectation bias can account for all of these accounts that you cite?” <<<

You are talking to me as though I have no understanding whatsoever that there are such things as Autosuggestion, The placebo effect, Imagination, Expectation Bias, Effective Marketing etc.   I am not stupid, all of those things exist, in the world, to some extent.   Nor am I stupid that I cannot see the way you have worded your question with the use of the word ALL (of the accounts) !!!.   You demand a Yes or No answer when the subject area is SO vague, SO unknown as in “it might”, “could be possible”, “consider one in a million” type of thing.

It is more an emphasis on the PROBALITY of whether it is expectation bias at work.   YOU believe the probability is large - that it IS ‘expectation bias’ at work as the explanation for people hearing improvements – in fact so high is YOUR probability that you seem to think it is 100% probability - whereas I think that there is a MUCH greater probability that the descriptions of the improvements heard are actually showing a greater resolving of more of the ACTUAL musical information which was not being resolved prior to doing the (whatever) ‘tweak’.

I am beginning to get, in your tone, a slight whiff of the aggression and bullying tactics used many times by Anton/Buddha. 

The term I use of a “friendly energy field” is used as a form of shorthand, a way of quickly communicating, to others, a concept where it would take a long time to describe something built up over 30 years of investigating.   The start (which many people already know) was finding that something we had used in our listening room - which was later revealed to be one of the techniques which Nature uses to communicate Danger signals - had completely spoilt our sound.   On investigating what else, present in the modern environment, could be having a similar adverse effect without us previously ever realising such led us to eventually discover something which had the opposite effect – something which IMPROVED our sound.   Which made us realise that Nature must also have techniques (as well as danger signals) to denote Reassurance  i.e. ‘It’s OK, the danger has gone away’, OR “It’s OK, you can relax, I am a member of your herd/group/shoal/pack, not a predator”.

To give one example (without revealing any of our secrets).

Quote:

>>> “The stressful life of plants.

Talking to plants, it seems, is not as rewarding as listening to them……   The findings by the Applied Physics at the University of Bonn, could have important implications…..  The Bonn scientists have found that when a leaf or stem is sliced, the plant signals pain (or perhaps dismay) by releasing the gas ethylene over it’s entire surface……………

But, the Bonn University team believes plants do more than chatter about aches and pains as if passing time in a doctor’s waiting room.   The team also thinks plants warn each other about approaching danger – i.e an “alarm signal”<<<

It is also known that when a tobacco plant is attacked by the tobacco leaf virus, it sends a warning signal to the other healthy (not yet infected) tobacco plants.

Now, ILikeMusic, how much ethylene based things have YOU got in your listening room ?   What chemical mixtures are used in the insulation material of all YOUR cables ?

Would YOU know (from a sound point of view) if you had introduced a cable with insulation material made with the chemical mixture containing ethylene into your listening room and would YOU know why your sound did not sound as good ?   If you are/were ignorant of such things having an adverse effect, how could expectation bias be the thing which made the sound go worse if you ‘unknowingly’ introduced such a cable into your listening room?   If YOU don’t know which chemical mixtures might give the opposite, i.e a reassuring energy pattern, then expectation bias could not be the explanation if you found the sound to have suddenly improved !!

As I have said before, many of the ‘tweaks’ I listed were developed from an earlier ‘chance’ event i.e. something unexpectedly changing the sound where NO change was “expected” to happen.

Could you have some of the chemical mixtures in some of the insulation materials (a small list given below) surrounding YOUR cables – in YOUR listening room ?   Would YOU know which of those chemical mixtures give “danger signals” and which give “reassuring” signals ?

Bextrene., P.V.C (Poly Vinyl Chloride) ., polythene., polyethylene., polystyrene., polyurethane., polypropylene., polyalkene., P.T.F.E., Teflon.  the list is endless.

As I said.   My use of the term “reassuring energy pattern” is used as a shorthand method of communicating a concept to others !!!

Quote:

>>> “May try answering the following two questions with either a Yes or a No.  Save us your long winded, tangential ramblings.” <<<

The world isn’t Black and White, Yes or No.  And yes, faced with a variety of minds (some closed or half open) my answers have to be long winded sometimes !!!!!!!!!!!!!!   I repeat, the world is not Black and White, with Yes or No answers.

Regards,

May Belt.

Yes, my kid finally tried fish and now he likes it! If he had tried all kinds of fish (British style halibut or cod and chips, Chinese style rock cod with ginger and green onions, barbaqued salmon with butter, dill and lemon juice, etc. ) and still didn't like fish, we would accept that and we wouldn't beat him over the head about it.... He happens to like all of that now.

If you try a "tweak" and you experienced no change, but somebody else tries the same and they experience a change that's palpable and repeatable, what might you conclude? What might you be asking yourself? I hope lots of questions...

I have a lot of fun trying out some of these tweaks, or even trying out food I've never had before...

"I disagree with your premise that that all steps of the scientific method are required to produce evidence for audio tweaks.  All you need is observation, like Newton observing the apple falling under the "force" of gravity.  That observation, in and of itself, was enough to make Newton realize that something was going on.  Of course, you have to trust your senses that what you are observing is real.  ..."

I'd agree with you to the extent that "observation" does tell you something is going on. It does not provide any information on how. Only after some work did Newton formulate a theory that's called gravity. We now describe gravitational force theory as inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the two masses' centers of mass. Then the theory is tested repeatedly and AFAIK is valid on a macroscopic world scale. (I can't remember where I read it, but I think it was recently reported that it is valid to atomic scales too, but don't quote me on this one.)

Some tweaks provide nothing other than an observation. There's more work to be done. Of course that will bring up questions whether the effect is borderline that some hear the tweak and some do not, or there is a perception effect or bias effect going on. A scientific test is supposed to control the parameters so that the variable being tested is the only one varying. In the case of the apparently 'borderline' effect for some tweaks, not all variables have been controlled. So it is understandable that if bias could be an effect, it should be eliminated in a test. Such a test has not been done on those tweaks.

"... Furthermore I don't think there really is anything like identical non modded gear since every room is different; room acoustics themselves are sufficiently diverse to make such an experiment as you suggest impossible."

I'm not thinking of modded or non-modded gear in many rooms, etc. What I was saying is that I did not do a controlled test to eliminate the bias variable in my room with my stereo gear. I implied that such a test is possible in controlled conditions in a specific test room (Harman International has such a room). Identical non-modded amps are not room-related if the same room is used. More than one room can be use to show what variability a different room would introduce to the results. To prove identity, the two non-modded amps have to be audibly indistinguishable under controlled conditions and which conditions allows for sufficient aural sensitivity.

"No one said it does affect audio signals or acoustic waves.  In fact, i'm saying the photos in the freezer definitely do NOT affect audio signals or acoustic waves.  That is actually one of the points of performing the photos in the freezer tweak over long distance - as Art did for his article.  The photos of MF in Art's freezer cannot affect audio signals or acoustic waves in the listening room of MF, I think you will agree."

As for photos in the freezer, I am pretty much in alignment with you that it could not possibly affect the sound waves. Art and MF probably live far enough apart, even if the photos did affect sound waves, attenuation is too great to make any 'affecting' to be infinitesimal.

Yes, Art did not do the test with the photos in or out of the freezer in a typical manner where the test subject is asked to compare two states. However, he did ask if MF heard any difference from earlier that day compared to when Art called him on the phone. In that sense, he did the test with MF completely unaware of when and whether the photos were in the freezer or not. MF was unaware that any test was even going on - even better.

"Well, frequency response is an interesting subject because speakers that measure the same frequency response can often sound quite different, and stereo cartridges that measure the same frequency response also can often sound quite different, even just in terms of frequency response.  That was what got the guy at Stereo Review in so much hot water 30 years ago, when he claimed that amplifiers that measured the same will sound the same."

That is too general, especially in the case of speakers, perhaps cartridges too. Perhaps I was not clear enough. What I was thinking of is electronics, say an amplifier, in which the frequency response is subtly varied to see if it's audible. It's not the single amplifier being tested, it's the audibility of frequency response deviations that's varied and audibility to those deviations that's being tested. 

"... Thus, if you observe the capacitor mod tweak improved the sound, that is evidence that the capacitor mod is effective in your system.  Obviously it is not proof, just some evidence.  Aren't audiophiles more interested in whether a tweak works than how it works? ... "

Of course, it's not proof, which is why I wrote that I did not do a controlled SBT or DBT test that would have eliminated my own bias. I am sure many audiophiles are interested in tweaks that work. I wrote what I think 'works' without presenting proof. Some will require the proof before going to the trouble of doing the tweak I reported, and others before me reported.

Some will have no desire to know how a tweak works, as you said, only that it does. How would they know it works without proof, especially if the effect may have a bias component? It happens that I'm one audiophile that wants to know how it works for more than just curiosity. The the value of proving it works and knowing how: to be able to go to the next level, and provide audiophiles tweaks that work consistently for as many as possible.

Absolutepitch said,

"Some will have no desire to know how a tweak works, as you said, only that it does. How would they know it works without proof, especially if the effect may have a bias component? It happens that I'm one audiophile that wants to know how it works for more than just curiosity. The the value of proving it works and knowing how: to be able to go to the next level, and provide audiophiles tweaks that work consistently for as many as possible."

Well, as I pointed out a couple posts ago to Ilikemusic, who also expressed reservations regarding bias, careful testing procedures such as blind tests should easily eliminate bias, or placebo effect or other psychological issues as culprits. Just because these things exist doesn't necessarily mean they explain preposterous tweaks.

Well, if by "proof" you mean some scientific equations or a study by some esteemed institution, organization or audio magazine to validate or refute some theory or proposition then I suspect you will have to wait a very long time.  Their plates are full.  And there is no political or economic advantage for them, anyway.  For controversial tweaks like Schumann Frequency Generators, Shun Mook ebony discs, Shakti Stones, Intelligent Chips, crystals, morphic message foils, tiny precious metal bowls, Lessloss Blackbody, liquid cables, the new breed of fuses, and so forth it appears that listening is the only real means we have of gauging if they work.  But proof of how they work is probably not in the cards.  I assume you aren't enamored of the manufacturers' explanations for these tweaks, eh?  I predict enterprising audiophiles will most likely have to get to the "next level" on their own, using their own ears.

Geoff Kait

Machina Dynamica

Ilikemusic - If you agree that proper testing can eliminate bias, then why all the drama? If we are agreeing in principle that expectation bias can't be used to explain away controversial tweaks I will move on.  

Art Dudley is tweak friendly for conventional tweaks, you know things that make Engineering Sense, but for controversial or unconventional tweaks i suspect not so much, ditto for Stereophile reviewers in general, and for all reviewers generally. Perhaps you skipped over the reservations, sometimes said with humor, about the Belt products Art expressed in both of his Belt articles.  As I already pointed out, he didn't perform the photos experiment correctly anyway so his friendliness or unfriendliness toward the photos in the freezer tweak is kind of irrelevant. Myself, I never met anyone, or read any comments anywhere by anyone, who thought the photos in the freezer tweak would have a snowball's chance in hell of working.

you said, 

"Where is all the testing for these controversial tweaks?"

There is a actually (some) testing of Belt products out there by audio magazines, in particular Positive Feedback, some of it blind.  It should go without saying that considerable testing is undoubtedly done by customers, who, like you, are not without skepticism.  Are you volunteering?  Would you like MIT or NASA or DARPA or AES or some government lab to get involved? As you undoubtedly know, most magazines review controversial tweaks by listening to them.  As opposed to examining them under a microscope.

Geoff Kait

Machina Dynamica

For most of us, we don't have to keep testing a toaster to know it can make toast. Used properly, the toaster makes toast, or it doesn't.

You can test these tweaks, but I'd rather try them if they sound useable or interesting to me. For most of us, the tweak works (and we like the effects and we can afford them) or it doesn't (or we don't like the effects or can't afford them).

Ilikemusic said,

"You seem to miss the point at each and every turn.  Their existence is factual.  The existence of 'friendly' energy patterns is not.  Therefore bias is the more rational, more probabilistic answer to the claims being made about audio tweaks."

Somebody's sure missing something.  Didn't you just agreed that bias can be eliminated by proper testing?  If it is eliminated, bias is not the more rational answer. There MUST be another answer, friendly energy patterns or something else.  Bias was eliminated.  Hel--looo!  

Score: bias 0, friendly energy patterns 1.

You said, 

"Their (controversial tweaks) is factual.  Friendly energy patterns are not."

You seem quite sure.  How do you know?

geoff kait

machina dynamica

advanced audio concepts

Testing only.  No text.

geoff kait

machina dynamica

The only bullying going on is your continued insistence that your tweaks are, by definition, universal.

I have stated inumerable times that if someone cares to hear things as you tell them to, that is terrific. Where we diverge is regarding the remedial and universal nature of your tweaks. You insist on pathologizing people who do not require your medications! The definition of bullying.

I duly note that you have steadfastly refused to answer any of the questions we have raised about your product on this thread.

I will restate one question based on the name of the product: if the "electret" creme has no effect on the actual electronic gear in the room, then why the use of this 'misnomer marketing?' 

The use of the term implies an understanding of said term! 

Ilikemusic, you said,

"OMG. Yes it (bias) can be eliminated, but you have to actually *do* the testing to determine the result of whether listeners will be able to hear a difference under test conditions or not." 

As I already said, many tests have been done over the years, including blind tests.  Not only are you not aware of them as you are not aware of a lot of things, but It is *you* who has not done any testing.  Why would you accept anyone's word for it?  Maybe you should consider changing your moniker to Iliketoargue.  

Ilikemusic, you said,

"If they are able to reliably hear a difference under blind test conditions then the tweaks are having an effect beyond bias; otherwise, bias is the primary cause of perceived hearing differences under casual listening settings - not the tweaks.  My hypothesis is that listeners will not be able to reliably tell when any creamy substance is smeared somewhere in the room without knowing when.  I think this is a rational hypothesis.  The alternative, with expectation bias removed, would be a truly extraordinary and ground breaking outcome, worthy of a Nobel Prize.  I am betting against this outcome."

Why do you expect someone else to do the work for you?   Your "rational hypothesis" is full of hot wind, you have nothing to support your claims, not counting blind Ignorance. I hate to judge before all the facts are in, but you appear to be nothing more than a pseudo skeptic on the loose in way over your head.  

Geoff Kait

machina dramatica

Jimv wrote,

"IMHO, any tweak or device that consists of a tiny number of parts in a box sold at a price many, many times above its cost and which produces a result that only some can hear...well, that is audio flummery."

Oh,, you mean like an amplifier?  That reminds me, we really should consider resurrectIng the thread on how small a device can be and still be effective.  I'm sure you'd get a big kick out if that one.  :-)

How much do tweaks cost?  Since you brought it up let's see, what do these things you're so worried about cost?

Pwb Rainbow Foil      About 30.00 for pack of 250 foils.

pwb Cream Electret.  About 30.00 for enough to last a year

intellgent chip, original.   16.00

Cryogenically treated CDs, LPs, cables, etc.   about 10.00 per lb.

High end fuses.   Prices start around 20.00

Photos in the Freezer Tweak.     free

Shun Mook Mpingo disc.    75.00, 30.00 on used market

Geoff Kait

machismo erotica

"If the explanation of the effect reads like a tome on alchemy or is 99% psychology driven...again, audio flummery."

You can say the same thing of Kellog's Corn Flakes or any marketing hype aimed at kids.

Ilikemusic, you said,

"generally the onus is on the individual who makes the claim."

Actually there is no onus on the individual making the claim.  That's an old wives tale perpetuated by pseudo skeptics.  

You also said, 

"So you should have no problem in helping me to educate myself on this matter by giving me a reference to one or more of these tests.  If these tests involved the PWB tweaks (cream, foil, photo in the freezer), that would be appreciated greatly. This step would certainly advance this debate."

Always Happy to oblige.  Consider yourself educated.

Review of PWB Rainbow Foil by Soundstage at link below.

http://www.soundstage.com/synergize/synergize041999.htm

For your continued education, here's the link to Positive Feedback's review of Peter Belt's Red X Coordinate Pen:

http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue1/beltpen.htm

yes, the cream has been reviewed, too:

http://www.soundstage.com/synergize/synergize071999.htm

Geoff Kait

machina Dynamica

Let's add pharmaceuticals... The massive scale of flummery in marketing drugs makes some companies billions of dollars and endangers the health of millions. The same "scientific" methods some folks here are demanding to be applied to Belt products and other tweaks when applied to pharmaceuticals don't actually explain how they work and only tell us that some products don't kill very many people and that they work for some people some of the time.

The voracity and zealotry with which people are attacking the Belts seem outrageously disproportionate to the total impact their products will have one's health, one's wallet, the world economy, global climate and the Universe (don't forget your towel)!

My example of the practice of acupuncture is appropriate. What appear to be stone needles have been excavated from archeological sites in Asia as well as in Europe that have been dated at 8000-10,000 years old. Acupuncture is still practiced all over the world today because it works, but until recently, conventional science and medicine had no way of explaining how this treatment metholodogy works.

Conventional western "science" seems to be just as poorly applied to Belt products and other tweaky products as it is to acupuncture. Quantum physics perhaps? Well, the language is so awkward and the ideas hard to get your mind around. How about just exploring what the Belts have to say and offer? You don't have to accept anything, of course. Just try out their products and see what happens. If they work and you get more out of your music system, great! If not, nothing lost.

Maybe some day "science" will catch up with the Belts.

Let's try an experiment....

After reading this,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tylenol

take 2 regular strength Tylenol tablets. After 2 hours, now knowing about Tylenol, did you notice if the Tylenol had a greater effect or a lesser effect?

Did it make a difference if you only read advertising about Tylenol?

Did it make a difference if you bought your Tylenol from WalGreens or a small drugstore?

Did anything change your expectations of how Tylenol would work for you?

Why ask the Belts to do something no one else does in real life? When asked for explanations about their products and they offer what they feel are ways that can help us understand how their products work because conventional science isn't equipped to do so, then people complain.

When yet another variation of painkiller gets put on to the market, the best marketing agency with the best flummery, makes that company a pile of dough, but no one asks for tests and "white papers". No one complains, until people start dying from that product, but by that time the company has made enough money to hire the best lawyers and then you get Advanced Flummery!

What was that I was ranting about before? Oh yeah....

Hey kid, try some fish!

You might like it.

Now try the same experiment with Celebrex-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celecoxib

"Again Sam spends a couple of pages on magic/quackery, and again the price is offensive...I do not mind being a sucker now and again but the scale as evidenced by the price of the magic gong is scary."

Quote:

>>> “Where we diverge is regarding the remedial and universal nature of your tweaks. You insist on pathologizing people who do not require your medications!” <<<

You are BACK again with the misquoting.   I DO NOT insist on pathologizing people who do not require our devices and techniques.  ( I can’t even repeat your own word of “medications” as it is so silly a way of looking at the subject)

Quote:

>>> “I duly note that you have steadfastly refused to answer any of the questions we have raised about your product on this thread.” <<<

I have zero tolerance for aggression and abuse (and bullying) – which explains why I don’t respond immediately to people who bully using repeated demands for answers to something they have latched on to as a means (a stick ??) to bully people with !!!!!!!!!!!!     What appears to be a simple question, asked by someone, becomes bullying when they keep demanding  over and over again “Why won’t you answer this one question, Why won’t you answer this one question, Why won’t you answer this one question”.

It is such a well known technique that there is a specific term for it in the North of England (and quite possibly elsewhere) – it’s called “badgering”, as in ‘constantly badgering’ someone.

It happens to such as John Atkinson regularly – people repeatedly ‘badgering’ him with “We want measurements, we want measurements, Why don’t you give us more measurements ?   We won’t shut up until you give us more measurements.   We want measurement proof.”   

This ‘badgering’ became so incessant (from a number of people) during the lengthy ‘thread’ on the tiny ART devices that the engineer who John A had asked to carry out some measurements on the effect of the ART devices eventually declined citing ‘I don’t need any (“anticipated aggravation” ?) in my life, thank you very much’.

Quote:

>>> “I will restate one question based on the name of the product: if the "electret" creme has no effect on the actual electronic year in the room, then why the use of this misnomer marketing? 

The use of the term implies an understanding of said term! “ <<<

If ANYONE understands the meaning of the word “Electret” then I can assure you it is ME.

We manufactured Electrostatic and Electret headphones.   “ELECTRET” headphones !!!- meaning permanently polarised diaphragms !!!!!!!!!

When we later discovered HOW to permanently “treat” many more things (many materials) including our Cream, we looked around for a descriptive word meaning ‘permanently treated’ and, as a shorthand method of communicating, we chose the word “electret” !!!!!    Just because YOU do not know how to ‘permanently treat’ something (materials) does not mean that we cannot use the descriptive word “electret” to convey the concept of ‘permanently treated’ !!

It is the Cream which is permanently ‘treated’ and so it can be used to describe the cream.   AND the Foils if we so choose.

This week you have ‘latched onto’ the word “electret”, next week it will, not doubt, be something else.   As in the past !!!!

Regards,

May Belt.

Wow, 174 (+1) posts on this thread!! I guess I find it perversely entertaining to see people arguing about products that they've never tried and have no intention of ever trying and yet have so much to say without any first hand experience!

Is that what Law is about?