Quote:
Buddha and Big Mike provide a wonderful atmosphere for enjoying music and building friendships.

Please indulge my monthly contribution to this hardy thread.

Buddha, Is Big Mike anything like your buddy Leon? If so, you may already have the ultimate tweaks for signing off on your personal safety.

But you should try the foil and cream anyway. My samples arrived within a week of my request. I think they'd be a perfect complement to your Lowthers with Lights and Libations tweaks.

Quote:

Quote:
Buddha and Big Mike provide a wonderful atmosphere for enjoying music and building friendships.

Please indulge my monthly contribution to this hardy thread.

Buddha, Is Big Mike anything like your buddy Leon? If so, you may already have the ultimate tweaks for signing off on your personal safety.

But you should try the foil and cream anyway. My samples arrived within a week of my request. I think they'd be a perfect complement to your Lowthers with Lights and Libations tweaks.

Hi, amigo.

I have tried them. They have been around for quite a while.

Michigan's enthusiasm and enjoyment even got me trying to make some!

With CDR's being as inexpensive as they are, I tried out some different cremes to see if perhaps something along that line would move me, but alas, not so far.

I even had an e-friend here who tried the pen, freezer, picture stuff on my behalf - nada.

I used to even try my own forms of cryo, which I've posted about before.

I have managed to make some DIY interconnects that sounded terrible, speaker wire, too! Which actually gives me hope. If I can make bad ones, that at least shows they can sound different from each other!

I like the experimentation of tweaking.

Last year, a buddy of mine bought a radiology center, with a CT and an MRI machine and I even tried some MRI'd and CT'd CD's and LP's!

At work, we have access to an audiology booth and some cool toys - I've been trying out some things to see what may or may not happen with auditory thresholds - seeing if there can be an "objective" finding that correlates with my "subjective" opinions.

One interesting thing I have been able to measure is that, alone, alcohol actually raises one's auditory thresholds (how quiet something can be and still be heard,) but when I have tried the same experiment with certain concentrations of alcohol containing certain sugar and citric acid proportions, I can actually lower some auditory thresholds. I htought that was kind of cool.

Next, I tried the "best working" combination on my wife and measured her, with similar findings.

And that's where that stands.

Next year at THE, I'll try some on audiophiles and see what they notice.

It's not a "loading" dose effect, either. The amounts required would not inebriate someone, typically.

So, question for you. If you try the Belt tweaks and they work, please let us know what changes you notice. If they don't work - how will YOU interpret the result? Would you be missing out on something, or were you there to begin with? That seems to be quite the bone of contention!

P.S. Another cool thing I learned is that there is such a thing as an audible threshold below zero dB on some scales. It doesn't mean that we can hear signal that is not present, it's just the product of certain ways of measuring, but I think it's cool to say that there are those who can hear "less than zero dB."

As to the signing off on the environment, I will fall on the sword and admit to being the descendent of omnivores who associate the alarm signals emmitted by plants and animals with with safety, the completing of the hunt or gather, and relaxation time. Seriously, I take those signals as dinner bells; so, perhaps I sign off on my environment differently. What was alarming to the plant is comforting and life confirming to me. There are many examples of paradoxical processes in human physiology - this may be one, like whether or not you can smell asparagus pee or taste the bitterness of Brussels Sprouts. Lots of room for variability in that there evolution (says the blue eyed brunette.)

I don't think it is until after we actually "find" food that we encounter those alarm signals, eh? Unless we are sneaking up on our vegetables and taking them in their sleep. Think it over. Since the tweaks may or may not work for people, it may be a matter of geneology.

Oh, yeah, Big Mike is bigger than my main man, Leon.

Michigan's enthusiasm and enjoyment even got me trying to make some!

Great to hear, but what do you mean by "make some"? Do you mean you experimented with non-Belt foil and creme?

With CDR's being as inexpensive as they are, I tried out some different cremes to see if perhaps something along that line would move me, but alas, not so far.

What "cremes"? How did you apply them?

I used to even try my own forms of cryo, which I've posted about before.

I missed that. By "your own forms of cryo", do you mean home freezer or true cryo temps? I take it that didn't do anything for you either?

I have managed to make some DIY interconnects that sounded terrible, speaker wire, too! Which actually gives me hope. If I can make bad ones, that at least shows they can sound different from each other!

With speakers like that, you're just realizing this?? I've made my own DIY IC's and speaker wires, but God knows I wouldn't use them on my main system! Ok for home theatre, maybe. I tend to think the results people sometimes talk about with their DIY wiring may be a little overrated.... Then again, a lot of commercial stuff is probably overrated too.

I like the experimentation of tweaking.
Last year, a buddy of mine bought a radiology center, with a CT and an MRI machine and I even tried some MRI'd and CT'd CD's and LP's!

Now that I haven't tried before..... Anything?

Would you be missing out on something, or were you there to begin with? That seems to be quite the bone of contention!

True, but I think the only reason that's so, is because it isn't even close to being right. And also probably because I've never heard anyone else say "I didn't hear the difference between the Arcam and the Cambridge, no doubt because I'm already at the listening skill level of one of them". If anyone other than you believed this, I imagine it could be an effective new marketing strategy for Durabrand. (If you haven't heard of this audio brand, it's because you haven't been shopping in the right stores. Its exclusive to Wal-Mart). Their marketing slogan could simply be:

"You are there."

With a picture of their mini-component chain, against the backdrop of a real live concert. The ad would explain how Durabrand customers don't need fancy high end audio equipment because their advanced listening skills already compensate for it. Yeah, I like that. I think I'm gonna pitch it to them.

As to the signing off on the environment, I will fall on the sword and admit to being the descendent of omnivores who associate the alarm signals emmitted by plants and animals with with safety, the completing of the hunt or gather, and relaxation time. Seriously, I take those signals as dinner bells; so, perhaps I sign off on my environment differently. What was alarming to the plant is comforting and life confirming to me. I don't think it is until after we actually "find" food that we encounter those alarm signals, eh?

No, it's not about how we react to how plants react. That was just a point of comparison, to help explain that in order to survive and propagate, we likely had to have had some form of communication between our environment and the members of our species, before we developed the five senses we now have. And since plants do this, it may not be out of the realm of possibility that we may have done this, and still be doing this. The hypothesis is supported by much observation, from the tweak experiments, showing that we are sensitive to our environment on a chemical level, even the same chemicals plants are sensitive to, among other things. Some have heard this via the PWB tweaks, some have not. Note, that's not at all the same thing as saying "some are able to hear this, some are not". I'm not convinced that's the case. I don't know that dietary habits is a prerequisite to hearing a Belt tweak. If you do any sort of research into it, I think you'll find not. If that were so, it would be the carnivores who hunt and eat only meat and not fruits or vegetables, that would be amenable to the tweaks.

Unless we are sneaking up on our vegetables and taking them in their sleep. Think it over. Since the tweaks may or may not work for people, it may be a matter of geneology.

Sure, that could be it. Or it could astrologically-based. I mean, maybe only Capricorns and Tauruses (Taurii?) can hear the tweaks? Or maybe its dependent on the colour of your eyes, or whether your great-great-uncle had a trick knee? I suppose anything's possible. Probable however, is another matter.

Hola!

I guess a point of detail: Posting something now doesn't necessarily mean that I only now "realize" something. I've been trying to make Hi Fi stuff since I was a kid - home brew, as it were.

Anyway, I didn't get a noticeable result from the radiology stuff, but I had never heard of it being tried before, and the opportunity was there.

(I can't 'hear' the Bedini Clarifier, either, so YMMV.)

With regard to the cryo, we used to have a whole array of freezers - from regular home style, to cold room, to really really cold air ones, to liquid nitrogen when I worked at UCLA, and I tried bunches of things with various transmutations.

What I found was that I could ruin stuff that had already been assembled!

Maybe (maybe) I could hear a differebce with some connectors I had disassembled and gradually 'treated,' and maybe with some bare wire.

I think this sort of thing is best done at an industrial level, since I did not have the means to get lengths of bare wire, treat them, and then put on a true air-tight covering.

(I also tried bare wire taken from room temp to "broil," as well, but only succeeded in making things sound worse - I probably oxidized the dang wire.)

With regard to human variability, maybe I see there being more to it than others may.

I'm old enough to recall when The Absolute Sound actually did list astrological signs for reviewers! Which, I guess is as fine as some other theories, since it is based on verifiable observations - positions of moon and stars, eh?

I don't buy that theory, either, but there are those who claim universal applications for that, so what are ya gonna do?

My own theory:

We are very complex creatures, and at the nexus of chemistry, physics, and yes, psychology/neurology, there is a complex stew that may make some people more apt to 'respond' to certain 'ideas' or 'interventions' than others.

If your uncle with the trick knee used to whip you with Monster Cable, you may have a different set of responses to speaker wires than I do, especially if you are sitting in your listening room knowingly looking at said wire.

For all we know, there could just as easily be blood type or eye color gene variability for tweaks as there is to this "signing off" hypothesis. It's too bad that the 'power of suggestion" gets such bad press. There are hard neurological findings associated with this concept, yet people get so angry when we talk about something that is "all in your head." This whole hobby exists "all in your head." If something makes a person's experience more pleasurable, that's great! It gets dicey when someone feels the need to claim his experience must apply to everyone.

You kind of derisively mentioned "imagination," but to me, the whole concept of Hi Fi is a pursuit intended to acquire (or re-acquire) a sonic experience that, after the instant of the live performance, exists only in my 'imagination.'

So, with some tweaks, we may be talking about something that aids one's 'imagination' in getting the feeling of a live event, and I do not mean that in a negative way at all. If something helps someone do that, via whatever means - measurable acoustic room treatment, or cremes and foils that aid in signing off on distracting elements, great! Our only argument comes when one person claims his 'aids' de facto apply to all listeners.

Michigan, a question, have you ever tried making up your own tweaks, or have you pretty much gotten them from the Belts?

I'd be curious to learn of your own successes...or failures! I think we can learn from both!

Buddha - Don't reckon I've heard of anyone who's tried so many things and had so few good results. Is there anything you've tried that produced really good results, or has it all been pretty much a bust? If all that had happened to me, I'd start to worry about getting some sorta complex...

Anyway, I didn't get a noticeable result from the radiology stuff, but I had never heard of it being tried before, and the opportunity was there. (I can't 'hear' the Bedini Clarifier, either, so YMMV.)

Great! That's all I needed for the go-ahead to buy an MRI and CT scanner, and try my own hand at treating my CDs and LPs. Well, that and a loan for a few million dollars....

With regard to the cryo, we used to have a whole array of freezers - from regular home style, to cold room, to really really cold air ones, to liquid nitrogen when I worked at UCLA, and I tried bunches of things with various transmutations.

Have never cryo'ed anything, but I have frozen all kinds of audio equipment and such (the right way, with a slow defrost), and have had tremendous success doing this.

(I also tried bare wire taken from room temp to "broil," as well, but only succeeded in making things sound worse - I probably oxidized the dang wire.)

Peter did this over 25 years ago, and did manage to improve things, but then, he never put it on broil!

With regard to human variability, maybe I see there being more to it than others may.

Or alternatively, you also 'see' things that aren't there, namely what you wish to see, based on what you are predisposed to believe. Speaking of which, you should know in any large pharmacological study, there is going to be human variablity. But if the drug is proven to have a chemical effect on human biology, then it is having this effect on everyone. Let's say hypothetically they develop a chemical that breaks down certain integrins, but you have no cancerous cells in your body, so you are not likely to have the same reaction to this, but as you have the same biology as everyone else, the chemical will still be doing what it is designed to do.

We are very complex creatures, and at the nexus of chemistry, physics, and yes, psychology/neurology, there is a complex stew that may make some people more apt to 'respond' to certain 'ideas' or 'interventions' than others.

Agreed.

For all we know, there could just as easily be blood type or eye color gene variability for tweaks as there is to this "signing off" hypothesis. It's too bad that the 'power of suggestion" gets such bad press. There are hard neurological findings associated with this concept, yet people get so angry when we talk about something that is "all in your head."

Indeed. Those "objectivists" who argue against placebos, cite that things that don't make any sense scientifically are pseudo-science, or use the example of "cold fusion" to bolster their arguments against fantastic claims, should be made to read this: http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg18524911.600

This whole hobby exists "all in your head." If something makes a person's experience more pleasurable, that's great! It gets dicey when someone feels the need to claim his experience must apply to everyone. You kind of derisively mentioned "imagination," but to me, the whole concept of Hi Fi is a pursuit intended to acquire (or re-acquire) a sonic experience that, after the instant of the live performance, exists only in my 'imagination.' So, with some tweaks, we may be talking about something that aids one's 'imagination' in getting the feeling of a live event, and I do not mean that in a negative way at all. If something helps someone do that, via whatever means - measurable acoustic room treatment, or cremes and foils that aid in signing off on distracting elements, great!

I agree with what you're saying, but if by "imagination" you're referring to the bit about Durabrand, I don't think Hi-Fi was meant to recreate an illusion of the live event with Durabrand.

Our only argument comes when one person claims his 'aids' de facto apply to all listeners.

You keep being told otherwise by everyone you're debating the issue with, and must really want to believe it, because you keep ignoring what they're saying; which is that no one is saying this!

Michigan, a question, have you ever tried making up your own tweaks, or have you pretty much gotten them from the Belts?

Hmm... I could have sworn I already talked about this, a number times. Yes of course, I have made up many tweaks. Many of my Belt experiments are on my own tweaks, all of them work on the same phenomenon that the Belt tweaks address. Some of them I've posted on my site. The Colgate Device, The Rock Salt device, and if I recall correctly, the Drinking Water technique are my own creations. The L-Shape Device I mentioned to you earlier is not my own, but the specific file you can download from my site, is my own creation. I worked many hours on creating that particular form of the shape, for printout.

I'd be curious to learn of your own successes...or failures! I think we can learn from both!

All my own Beltist tweaks are technically successes, because it seems I've always been able to improve my sound in at least some ways. But as I'm quite critical of that sound, I tend to reject a lot of it, because it may improve some things and make others worse. Hence I don't use the rock salt technique myself, for example. And as I was explaining to Jan, while I tried many permutations of coloured twist ties along a headphone cable, in the end none of the colour combinations did it for me, because each one added its own coloration to the sound. Doesn't mean it can't work, but probably means you can easily do overkill with some of these things, and its not easy to find out what works. As for successes that passed my standards, well I'm a bit shy about sharing that, particularly as there doesn't seem to be much interest in these uncommon audio tweaks in general. But tell you what... since I haven't seen you talk about your experiments, give me a successful tweak of yours that I can easily try myself, and I'll give you one of mine!

Hi, I've had positive results from alot of things. It kind of varies from item to item.

Good results with Bright Star Audio's isolation platform for my turntable.

"Different" results with different turntable platter mats - no universal recommendation, just that they can make a difference.

Good results with most any record cleaning solution I've tried.

Like Blu Tac for this and that.

Rather than put various goo type things on interconnects, I think I plug and unplug every month or so - this may be the same as thinking my cars drives "better" when I've just changed the oil or washed it, though.

D'stat gun = good.

Working on speaker placement = very good.

I think I can tell some differences between interconnects, and have arrived at having some favorites, but YMMV.

Star grounding = very very good. This almost approaches the "everyone should go for it" level of goodness. The Granite Audio product makes this very easy.

For some gear, things like Shakti stones has seemed to make a difference, but this varied from piece of gear to piece of gear, and did not make a difference on some items.

"Line conditioners" have had some good effect, but can also be detrimental, so the caveat about YMMV remains.

There was a great little device that was actually a shallow cup/saucer shaped thing that was an easy-to-implement set of supports for various pieces of electronic gear, and even for speakers on an old floor I couldn't/wouldn't put spikes into that I liked a great deal.

There was another device that a friend of mine put on the TV cable line once that actually made a pesky low level hum go away in the Hi Fi - even though I had a line conditioner. (Interesting!) That was very specific to a given room situation, but does point out the potential utility of looking at electrical interference/interaction on your system that may come via other devices!

Man, there's lots.

Cartridge cleaners, Tip Toes, different "feet," different shelves, different capacitors and resistors in a speaker crossover...even "dust cover up" vs. "dust cover down" on turntables when they used to come with those things.

It's not that I've had "so few good results," it's probably an effect of having tried lots of things.

So, Geoff, is the converse true? If everything/anything started to make a difference, wouldn't you worry about a complex then?

What things have you tried that didn't work?

I can even recall a "reviewer" in the industry who has never not heard a tweak "work." That strikes me as just as odd (maybe more so) as someone who hears nothing of which we speak.

This has been an amazing thread. It's rare to get so many "manufacturers" involved on the same thread.

Buddha, my debut at the Las Vegas show was in 1997 with Pierre Sprey of Mapleshade Recording Studio, who brought me out to Vegas to be in his exhibit, after I demonstrated my then new Nimbus Sub-Hertz Platform (0.5 Hz) for him in Washington, DC. Pierre had wrangled a brand new Nakamichi Dragon CD system for the show - an innovation of the CD player was forming a vacuum around the transport section during play. All cabling suspended from ceiling. Interconnects Omega Mikro 56 g conductors by Ron Bauman. (Shannon Dickson in his piece in Stereophile referred to this system, which included the then new googly-eyed Gallo Ref speakers, as Plan 9 From Outer Space.)

Later, I particpated in two Curl/Crump exhibits with my Nimbus and Prometheans, at the latter I isolated 4 of the brand new JC-1s and the CTC Builders Blowtorch Preamp. I was asked by uber-impresario J. Tinn to be part of the famed Tenor-Rockport Hyperion exhibit at the Tuscany the same year - that particular system was thought by many observers - including Jonathan Valin and Michael Fremer - to be among the best systems they had ever heard any where, any time. I had five (count 'em) of my iso stands in the Tenor/Rockport room and 5 in the Crump/Curl room that year.

Brilliant Pebbles was introduced at London Hi Fi Show in 2003. Brilliant Pebbles and Intelligent Chip were demo'd by yours truly at CES in 2005 and by Ken Kessler that same year at London Hi Fi show to large audiences, as well as to editor and staff of Hi Fi News.

In the Golden Sound room at CES 2005 special bluestone (courtesy of American Stone in Las Vegas) versions of Promethean Base isolated everything, including the power supply for the BWS Consulting preamp I glommed onto for the show. Also in evidence in Golden Sound room: Chinese water trick, Clever Lil Clocks, Ultra Tweeters (GHz), photos, pebbles, Acoustic Discs, Nirvana triple-layer iso stand, Magic Rings, other.

Quote Michigan: "Or alternatively, you also 'see' things that aren't there, namely what you wish to see, based on what you are predisposed to believe. Speaking of which, you should know in any large pharmacological study, there is going to be human variablity. But if the drug is proven to have a chemical effect on human biology, then it is having this effect on everyone. Let's say hypothetically they develop a chemical that breaks down certain integrins, but you have no cancerous cells in your body, so you are not likely to have the same reaction to this, but as you have the same biology as everyone else, the chemical will still be doing what it is designed to do."

Hi,

With regard to your pharmacology example, we know this to be both true and untrue, as curious as that may sound.

And you raise several intersting points, all at once.

In studies, there is a statistical array of responses, from "nothing happens" to "works great." Many subjects may notice or exhibit no response at all - the drug is not effective for them. The drug is not having its "effect on everyone." (That may be one of the places you and divurge on our view of tweaks. Like a drug not having the same effect on everyone, whether they know it or not, certain tweaks may operate in analogous fashion.

Now, subjects may have absorbed the drug and metabolized it, but there is no measurable response. I'd say it didn't have the same "effect on everybody." It's not that the drug actually worked and they are not open minded enough to respond, it may be that the drug in question was metabolized differently by them, or the drug did not address their own particular physiologic process. There is almost never a uniform result with this sort of thing - there are even studies now that show black people, or redheads, may respond fifferently, not at all, or in an exaggerated fashion when compared to a pooled group with meshed data.

The last thing we can claim is a universal effect on subjects.

All sorts of outcomes can result within a group of people who receive one certain intervention.

Plus, all of this presupposes that we are dealing with a factor that we are trying to address - to make the subjects in question end up with more "normal" physiology - with the drugs, we are trying to help people catch up with normal. In this way, your drug analogy is apt. Drugs are used to help re-approximate normal physiology in those who have a disease (dis-ease) state. Giving the same intervention to someone who is already normal can produce null results or even do harm.

It's not that people without the disease in question are claiming they are superior, either. It's all about trying to return a subject to the normal state. I can't recall any examples of scientists berating a normal subject for not feeling better when given a drug designed to treat a problem. It seems to happen in audio - be it from objectivists or subjectivists!

In the same drug studies, the drug is often compared with placebo. This is because scientists recognize the impact of doing an intervention, and how knowledge of an intervention can affect someone. Call it a psychological phenomenon if you like, but I prefer to think of it as phsyiologic, because placebo can often create measurable outcomes. This also seems to upset subjectivists, but I say, "an outcome is an outcome." If even an audio placebo can please someone, we should be glad for that person. To stay with your drug example, if we give someone a placebo and they feel better, would it be legitimate for them to declare that everyone should notice the same effect they did? Would it be fair for them to get angry when it is pointed out by others that they did not share the same effect? Why is pointing out that a placebo produced an effect allowed in one area of interest, but anathema in another?

The scientists in those studies also appreciate the importance of blind testing in order to minimize bias effects.

It's not just an example of an anti-cancer drug not affecting those without cancer, it's also a matter of the same drug having an entire bell curve of effect on those who require it.

Even when a drug passes muster and is 'accepted' as effective, that is merely a statistical inference, not a guarantee of effect. There are many many examples of people being given a certain drug for a certain problem and having nothing happen.

Similalry, though, using your example, if we do give that anti-cancer drug to a patient without cancer, if we are lucky, you will be right - nothing will happen, primarily because they do not have the problem the drug is designed to "cure."

In this case of a well person receiving such a bio-tweak, is the subject not perceiving the bio-tweak, or did they not need it in the first place?

Michigan, your drug study example is excellent. It relates to audio, and this thread in particular, on many levels; from human to human variability, normal vs. 'not normal' and the need to 'tweak' one's state, placebo effect, blind testing, and variable responses to the same intervention, even among those with a shared 'problem.'

Kudos, Michigan!

Disclaimer: Typed in real-time while getting dinner ready. Apologies for mangled syntax or spelling!

Cheers, mate.

Someday, I hope to experience some brewed or fermented liquid with you.

Give someone a drug and them measure the effects. Did the problem resolve itself? Objective tests then prove whether the disease was treated or the condition affected. No one asks whether the music sounded more realistic after the tester takes a sleep aid. That would seem to be the benefit we wish to elicit with "tweaks" but there is no repeatable method to "prove" the results of any treatment when the results are purely subjective. It is essentially the problem with DBT's of audio gear. What or who is being tested?

Quote:
Give someone a drug and them measure the effects. Did the problem resolve itself? Objective tests then prove whether the disease was treated or the condition affected. No one asks whether the music sounded more realistic after the tester takes a sleep aid. That would seem to be the benefit we wish to elicit with "tweaks" but there is no repeatable method to "prove" the results of any treatment when the results are purely subjective. It is essentially the problem with DBT's of audio gear. What or who is being tested?

Hi, Jan, I agree, 'DBT Deafness' makes some of these issues hard to 'prove,' and I don't mind subjective listening as its own reward.

(In instantaneous DBT, I may not be able to tell my wife from her sister with ten second snippets... ...)

The cult of DBT's church is not built on a strong foundation, I find.

So, not so much DBT, but 'repeatability' is interesting to me.

I like the notion of trying to see if a certain listening expeience is repeatable - can I, with all the time I like, without knowing what the change was, describe the intervention the same way repeatably.

We all have our things we like to do in the hobby, and I admit to liking the idea of investigating how much of what I hear is produced by a piece of gear or produced by me.

Unlike objectivists, I line up with people who think electronic gear and "cables" can sound different. Funny thing, though...as soon as you get an objectivist to hear a difference, he immediately falls back on, "One of those items was not properly engineered. All properly engineered items of this type sound the same."

Anyway, my point with the drug thing was that it is not as simple as "proving" whether a disease was effected - there is a whole array of possible responses!

If you want to be scared, amused, bemused, or made crazier (than an audiophile already is,) go to the Pub Med Library of Congress Medical Literature site and look up a certain drug or medical problem you are familiar with. There are no definitive drugs or sometimes even definitive symptoms for most things. Most of what we claim to "know" in life is the result of a 'majority' decision, not the result of a definitive finding!

(Hope none of that sounded disagreeable, it's just a fascinating topic.)

Anyway, my point with the drug thing was that it is not as simple as "proving" whether a disease was effected - there is a whole array of possible responses!
...
Most of what we claim to "know" in life is the result of a 'majority' decision, not the result of a definitive finding!

Exactly! A point I've always tried to impress upon the professional skeptics that science is not to be equated with the rule of God, or anything like that. It's just a man-made belief system, like religion; ie. christianity or scientology. While religions don't go out of their way to find objective proof in their beliefs, science does. This is why its esteemed as sharing nothing with religions. But while it may be reliable, it is not infallible. It is fraught with politics and other man-made creations that distort the very truth it purports to seek and reveal. The further the skeptics get away from true scientific ideals, the more I will equate their beliefs with religions that don't care about objective truth. Your "Cult of the DBT" is exactly what I'm talking about. Some people who claim to be speaking for science, are indistinguishable to me from those who claim the moon is made of green cheese.

Up until not that long ago, it was thought ulcers were due to stress, until a bacteria was discovered which stood that theory on its head (of course, this wasn't readily accepted either). What is scientifically true is what we presently believe to be scientifically true. In the case of the pharmaceuticals, you query patients and some wil tell you that their symptoms disappeared or reduced. But how do you know they're right, from that? Maybe the symptoms disappeared on their own, at the time of study. Maybe the symptoms are still there, and the patients are undergoing the famous placebo effect. What if it doesn't help the patient, how do you know it didn't work? What if the patient never had that disease in the first place, but another one with similar symptoms?! I would tend to agree that there are no definitive drugs or sometimes even definitive symptoms for most things. You try to ensure repeatability through large sample groups, but I think it can still leave some questions open, particularly if the drug has to be hurried through the system, because its needed in the field (aka drug politics).

I too like the notion of trying to see if a certain listening experience is repeatable. Which is why I will rarely do just an "A" test before concluding something, but repeated A-B tests, as much as needed to convince me it is repeatable. This "energy" that I spoke of, that permeates everything in our environment... that can be measured subjectively via listening tests.... it is repeatable, by me. The same sort of "frequency" can be found in the same location, on different comparable objects. That's not part of a coincidence, that's part of a measurable phenomenon. In this case, a 'measurement' taken one day, will be exhibit the same results as a measurement taken 3 years later. That's why I keep notes on what I'm doing, so I can keep track on all of this, and be able to repeat the same effect anywhere, any time. And I can on any system I've tried to repeat the experiments on, so I know they're not system-dependent.

Cheers, mate. Someday, I hope to experience some brewed or fermented liquid with you.

Cheers, all around! But I don't think the brewski thing is ever going to happen, as I don't drink alcohol. (No, I'm not "on the wagon", I have just never taken to the horrible taste of alcohol! And believe it or not, I've never substituted for that with any other drugs! Never smoked, never drank coffee, and contrary to much public opinion, never went on "recreational drugs", like pot, etc. Drugs skewer your perception, and I prefer to be in control of my own mind. Don't even like the idea of putting pharmaceuticals in my bloodstream. Thankfully, I've rarely ever needed to.)

>>> "As I said, each contributes its own character. PWB's use of colour in their products is pretty intentional, I believe. Meaning, if their devices use colour for a specific reason, the colour used will depend on the object and its application. Hence, there's a lot of research involved here." <<<

Regarding colour.

Yes, as you say MJFrog, the colour used will depend on the object, the material the object is made from and its application. And, Yes, there is a lot of research involved here !!!! Colours are significant. Different materials PREFER certain colours. Different applications require certain colours. As I said in an earlier 'posting', you can change the 'sound' in the room by changing the colour of the material used in such as Ethan's acoustic panels - without changing the acoustics of the room in any way and without changing any measurements !!

This is why I entered the previous discussion of "with acoustic effects, does size matter ?" and why I challenged Ethan that what can affect 'sound' in a room is NOT 100% acoustic.

Regards,
May Belt.

May, I've been on your site numerous times now and have seen the references to the Red 'X' Pen and the Violet Pen, etc. I've read about the various colored creams you provide. But is there anything you can tell me about color in general? What might I read to get myself more familiar with how you think about color beyond the generality of "color matters" or the specifics of applying the Violet Pen to the edge of CD's?

Jan, it is an extremely difficult thing explaining the effect and the significance of colours. WE only understand some of it !! We know what to do for what effect and we know of a few of the rules - but an overall theory we do not have. The one thing which HAS come out of our investigations is that it is not what we SEE - it is what we sense !!

If the scientists are correct - that an object absorbs all the colours EXCEPT the one you can see and if the scientists are correct - that every single colour is of a different frequency, then that means that the object absorbs all the frequencies EXCEPT one !! We think that, over millions of years of evolution, there was a sensitivity to all these different frequencies long before the sense of sight ever developed !! In exactly the same way that there is radiation - but we cannot SEE it visually. There is magnetism - but we cannot SEE it visually. There is the force of gravity - but we cannot SEE it visually. But, they are all there - in the environment - throughout evolution !!

In the middle of our experiments, trying to find a way of demonstrating the Cream-Electret, we used some thin adhesive backed plastic material - to apply the Cream to - then attach the pieces of adhesive backed plastic to an object - listen - then remove the piece of plastic and listen again. In other words, to demonstrate the Cream once removed !! But, initially, all we got were random results. Excellent sometimes and not good at other times. UNTIL we realised that during the experiments, we had been using pieces of different coloured plastic and applied them to different objects. As soon as we realised that the COLOUR of the plastic material was important and that was what was causing the random results we started our experiments all over again !! Then we found that aluminium and wood objects 'liked' RED., steel objects 'liked' BLUE., and glass and anything transparent objects 'liked' Green.

Now, everything we do and everything we make we have to check that we are using the 'correct' colour and the correct material. We CANNOT choose the colour - the colour is dictated by what effect it has on the 'sound' and what it must have been 'linked' to during evolution. We cannot choose the material - each material we use is dictated by what it 'sounds' like. In all the talks I have given, I always say "We might have wished to use gold plated and diamond studded material for aesthetic reasons but if common or garden plastic 'sounds' the best and responds best to our 'treatments', then we have to use common or garden plastic !!

If you DO try the free experiment of placing a piece of plain Blue paper under a plant pot or vase of flowers in the listening room and find that it does improve the sound, replace it with a piece of plain White paper (or any other colour paper) and listen again. I think you will find that you will not enjoy the sound as much !! In this particular instance, Blue 'links' with the earth's surface - which is what the flowers in the vase are missing - i.e that 'link'.
Yes, I know, it's weird !!

Regards,
May Belt.

Quote:
If the scientists are correct - that an object absorbs all the colours EXCEPT the one you can see and if the scientists are correct - that every single colour is of a different frequency, then that means that the object absorbs all the frequencies EXCEPT one !!

I think I understand what you're saying but that isn't exactly how my learning in color theory operates - unless you are speaking only of primary colors. Even them we get into trouble in several ways. Other than pure primaries everything else is a mix of two primaries and then they can be slid along the scale of black to white to arrive at a shade or tint. Then we get into additive and subtractive mixing which even gives us different primaries; red/blue/yellow or red/blue/green. And those colors have now been replaced by more accurate descriptions of what our eyes respond to. For subtractive mixing the real colors are cyan, yellow and magenta and for additive mixing; red orange, middle green and blue violet. From what I see you tend to stick with the old school primaries - red, blue, green - for the most part with some brown, violet and gold mixed in.

Quote:
Now, everything we do and everything we make we have to check that we are using the 'correct' colour and the correct material. We CANNOT choose the colour - the colour is dictated by what effect it has on the 'sound' and what it must have been 'linked' to during evolution. We cannot choose the material - each material we use is dictated by what it 'sounds' like.

Maybe you can't answer this but, since the colors are affecting the listener are the actual colors used related to how we see color (cyan/magenta) or just to how we think of "color" (red/blue)? In other words, are the materials being treated choosy about the difference between cyan and blue or green? I hope I'm not asking for trade secrets here but I can't imagine you have specific colors made up for your pens. Some companies (Cartpak for one) make very specific colors for artists which are mixes of their colors and relate to their specific pallette complete with numbers to assure the same color throughout their line of products. And some (Sharpie) just do "red" and "blue", etc.

That leaves me with two questions I suppose. In your testing are you concerned with color variation from one manufacturer to another or is one "red" just as good as any other "red", one green as a good as any "green"? If I go to the art supply store and buy a "red" pen, where am I on a scale of effectiveness vs. your product? Can I get a taste of what might happen with your pens by using commercially available products so that I might be better able to choose what I want to order from you? Or, do you have suggestions on how to start with the colored pens and creams?

>>> "From what I see you tend to stick with the old school primaries - red, blue, green - for the most part with some brown, violet and gold mixed in." <<<

Easy answer, Yes.

>>> "Maybe you can't answer this but, since the colors are affecting the listener are the actual colors used related to how we see color (cyan/magenta) or just to how we think of "color" (red/blue)? In other words, are the materials being treated choosy about the difference between cyan and blue or green?"<<<

Not so easy an answer. Sticking to the previous example of the 'old school primary colours', the materials being treated ARE choosy within those parameters !!

>>> "That leaves me with two questions I suppose. In your testing are you concerned with color variation from one manufacturer to another or is one "red" just as good as any other "red", one green as a good as any "green"? If I go to the art supply store and buy a "red" pen, where am I on a scale of effectiveness vs. your product? Can I get a taste of what might happen with your pens by using commercially available products so that I might be better able to choose what I want to order from you? Or, do you have suggestions on how to start with the colored pens and creams?" <<<

First of all Jan, you can't duplicate our Cream-Electret or our Coloured Creams. Many processes go into these Creams (in fact into all our products). However, although our pens are also 'treated' by many processes, you can experiment with Pens you can buy from a stationers. So, yes, you can get a taste of what might be possible with a fully 'treated' pen. As referred to in Carol Clark's article the Red pen we use and recommend is the Staedtler Red Lumocolor (permanent ink) Fine tip.

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

If you have success (improving your sound) with a standard Red pen and written beneficial messages attached to items of equipment, then you can try other experiments i.e same message but a different coloured pen and to then try to work out explanations for yourself.

Regards,
May Belt.

Hi Buddha,

Quote:
Funny thing, though...as soon as you get an objectivist to hear a difference, he immediately falls back on, "One of those items was not properly engineered. All properly engineered items of this type sound the same.

As a suggestion one might ask them to describe in detail the flaw in the design and see how they respond. My bet is that they will simply give you another generic response because they know little if anything about designing.