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.

Geoff, are you having a hard time comprehending my posts?

I have consistently argued in favor of conducting blind testing to evaluate audio system modifications.  You (and I) admit that such testing can eliminate the bias that I am concerned with and that I claim is the source of the perceived audio improvements attributed to the tweaks under discussion. Then you turn around and claim that this is somehow a problem with my position.  Can you explain this to me?

Of course other psychological changes can affect listening perception besides expectation bias - I have been remiss in lumping all biases and emotional state changes under 'expectation bias' or 'confirmation' bias. So your second point is a good one, although you overstate it. Poll results have indicated that over 50% of Americans believe in psychic phenomena. This group of people are likely to be biased in believing the effectiveness of the photo in the freezer effect.  Also audiophiles may tend to believe in the efficacy of tweaks because they tend to be cheaper than the hardware cost of their system. Regarding Stereophile in particular, all of the reviewers I am aware of are tweak-friendly. Regarding Art Dudley, the author of the article prompting this thread, he admits in the article to being tweak-friendly. And of course proper test set up can eliminate both negative and positive bias.

My beef [Why do I need to keep repeating myself?] is this - where is the testing that justifies the extraordinary claims being made in support of these controversial tweaks?

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).

Geoff writes

"Just because these things [various sorts of human bias] exist doesn't necessarily mean they explain preposterous tweaks."

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.

"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."

Can you point me to a web page where this process is described in detail?

If not, please define 'something'.  Please describe how you know this something had spoilt your sound. Please cite research detailing human response to plant based ethylene release.  Please provide detail how your products counteract the human responses to ethylene.

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! 

Geoff wrote
"Didn't you just agreed that bias can be eliminated by proper testing?"

OMG. Yes it 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.  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.

Capiche?

Geoff wrote

"ILikeMusic said, 

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

You seem quite sure.  How do you know?"

Let's consider the first of my statements.

Well, your buddy May wrote

"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."

She implies that people that do not acknowledge what I wrote as fact are stupid.  Are you stupid Geoff?

Regarding my second statement, that friendly energy patterns are not factual. I contend this is also true. From wikipedia: "The usual test for a statement of fact is verifiability, that is whether it can be proven to correspond to experience." I have yet to see even a testable definition of friendly energy pattern, much less an experiment description to test for one.  Perhaps May will supply us with both?

Lastly your paraphrase of what I wrote is completely inaccurate.  Referencing my original post #159, it can be easily seen that "Their existence is factual." was twisted by you into "Their (controversial tweaks) is factual.", but a correct expansion would be "The existence of human bias is factual."

And this in your reply to my post which made the observation that

"You seem to miss the point at each and every turn."

QED.  Geoff I suggest you enroll in a remedial English reading comprehension course. You would truly benefit.

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

I do not deny being ignorant of a great many things.

Geoff wrote,

"As I already said, many tests have been done over the years, including blind tests."

This is great news. And apparently you have reviewed them and concluded that various forms of bias do not account for the perceived benefits of some of these tweaks. Fine. 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.

Geoff wrote,

"Why would you accept anyone's word for it?"

I routinely accept people's words on a wide variety of matters.  But extraordinary claims involving "adversaries in my listening room" and "photos in the freezer" require extraordinary evidence. I am hoping your response to the above request can be a step in this direction.

Geoff wrote,

"Why do you expect someone else to do the work for you?"

I have covered this before in this thread.  The onus is not on me to prove or disprove every crackpot idea that comes along.  I have neither the time nor inclination to do so. Generally the onus is on the individual who makes the claim. Once a theory has been  expressed in testable and measurable terms and some data has been collected on the theory by its originator, the results are published (if indeed they are worthy of being published) for peer review. Then the results are verified by others. This is my understanding of how the scientific method generally works.

Geoff wrote,

"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."

This is ridiculous.

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?

Geoff - thanks for the 3 links to the PWB product reviews.

I guess I misunderstood. I was expecting write ups of carefully controlled double blind tests over a significant number of participants. Instead I read two reviews of PWB products involving a single listener who is fully aware at all times of what set up he is listening to and one review of an informal single blind test involving one participant over two total trials for each of two different PWB products.

None of this amounts to even a single test.

Geoff wrote

"Actually there is no onus on the individual making the claim."

Of course there is no onus on the individual making the claim.  Anyone may make as many preposterous claims as they wish without providing proof. Now if they want skeptical individuals to believe in one of their claims the onus falls on the individual making the claim to provide proof.

And again I am interested in the claims regarding the mechanism of operation of the tweaks, not claims of individuals about what they thought they heard.

Yet, you want to dismiss thousands of years of emperical documentation of experiential research of the practice of acupuncture with a few lousy studies (non-asian) and a explanation of expectation bias!

What does a well constructed DBT or SBT actually tell you, ILikeMusic?

You're such any easy dis-believer, ILikeMusic! What constitutes proof for you?

Ilikemusic, shouldn't you be going after dowsers and spoonbenders and other paranormal activity?  No magazine in this hobby performs carefully controlled blind tests of the type you propose.  Don't you know that?  Even if they did, it would be just plain silly since everyone knows that negative results of such tests are meaningless.  Don't you know that?  The Amazing Randi, the famous witchhunter, has made a career of devising carefully controlled blind tests with many trials that are so carefully controlled that no one can possibly pass them.  Isn't that really the type of test you have in mind?

Geoff Kait

machina dynamica

Ilikemusic wrote,

"Of course there is no onus on the individual making the claim.  Anyone may make as many preposterous claims as they wish without providing proof. Now if they want skeptical individuals to believe in one of their claims the onus falls on the individual making the claim to provide proof.

And again I am interested in the claims regarding the mechanism of operation of the tweaks, not claims of individuals about what they thought they heard."

The manufacturer is under no obligation whatsoever to provide proof of his claims - including mechanism of operation.  Hell, the manufacturer is not even under any obligation to provide an explanation of the mechanism of operation in the first place. Don't you know that? Even in patent law proof of mechanism of operation is not required. Besides, why would manufacturers care about satisfying the demands of a few skeptics or overly suspicious people out there?  

Geoff Kait

machina dynamica

Providing proof would also put a lot of lawyers, marketing agencies, and other purveyors of flummery out of work!

ChrisS wrote:

Yet, you want to dismiss thousands of years of emperical documentation of experiential research of the practice of acupuncture with a few lousy studies (non-asian) and a explanation of expectation bias!

What does a well constructed DBT or SBT actually tell you, ILikeMusic?

1,000 years of bloodletting as the dominant paradigm, it must be effective.

This afternoon it's off to the phrenologist, then over to the 6,000th anniversay of the Flat earth Society....because, you know, a long tradition proves something works.

(By the way, I have nothing against accupuncture - if someone says they like it, fine. Just so long as they don't insist that everyone needs the same 'treatment' that they do to feel good. Thanks for helping prove my point!)

ChrisS wrote:

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?

I've tried them, and tried to host demos of their efficacy - to no benefit ever being noted by anybody.

Next, check the number of replies to any threads about Art's typical columns.

The real winner here is Art!

(Although I consider the two columns to be stunt Hi Fi writing, not related to the actual hobby.)

Plus, Art will get even more column inches out of this in the future when he pulls his "I hate naysayers and drop stumps on them" column.

Art is in win/win country when he writes about this stuff! he gets more replies on this one topic than he normally gets in three years of the usual stuff.

Like I said, make it part of the May edition each year, since it arrives in April.

ChrisS wrote:

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."

I wouldn't use Celebrex as an example. It actually does something.

Hey, I know! Ask May, the FDA, or OSHA for the ingredients list of her imported creme. You'll blithely scmhear your finger in it, but you Google Tylenol side effects?

That's consistent.

Celebrex actually does something? How many people have died using Belt products compared to those who have used Celebrex?

Anton, do you actually know the controversy around Celebrex? Did you buy into the Celebrex "flummery"?

Please read...

Anton, did you say something?

Anton, I get it! You're making fun... Bazinga!

Oops, double post.

Of course I am making fun. This topic is solely about either the people who make fun of the hobby by trying to scam money from it, or of others making fun of the scammers.

The whole subject is making fun of something....for either side.

On the Celebrex thing - the joke was: "It actually does do something....and that thing is bad."

There are people, however, who still use Celebrex because they make an informed decision regarding risk and potential benefit. For some, it's the only thing that works for their problem - would you refuse to let them make that choice?

By the way. Beyond fish....Did you ever try to get your kid to eat cow shit or maggots?

Why not? He might like it!

Did you say something?

ChrisS wrote:

Did you say something?

Do you eat Balut?

You have an interesting idea of fun...

http://www.cracked.com/article_14979_the-6-most-terrifying-foods-in-worl...

Geoff wrote

"The manufacturer is under no obligation whatsoever to provide proof of his claims - including mechanism of operation.  Hell, the manufacturer is not even under any obligation to provide an explanation of the mechanism of operation in the first place. Don't you know that? Even in patent law proof of mechanism of operation is not required. Besides, why would manufacturers care about satisfying the demands of a few skeptics or overly suspicious people out there? "

after I wrote

"Of course there is no onus on the individual making the claim. ...  Now if they want skeptical individuals to believe in one of their claims the onus falls on the individual making the claim to provide proof."

Geoff, your debating and reading comprehension skills are on par with a typical 8th grader.

Geoff wrote

"Besides, why would manufacturers care about satisfying the demands of a few skeptics or overly suspicious people out there?"

No one including myself is demanding anything.  As to why, a manufacturer wants to expand his market. Your claim that the number of skeptics is few is highly questionable.  Understand that the skeptic membership includes every single audio equipment manufacturer and recording label in the world since not a single one of them incorporates these tweaks into their products at assembly.  Would May like for one of her ridiculous Quantum Foil strips to be affixed to every cd and lp manufactured? for her ludicrous cream to be applied to every piece of audio equipment manufactured?

"Ilikemusic, shouldn't you be going after dowsers and spoonbenders and other paranormal activity?"

I routinely do just that.  It is my duty.

"No magazine in this hobby performs carefully controlled blind tests of the type you propose.  Don't you know that?"

And your point would be? And this admission after writing

"As I already said, many tests have been done over the years, including blind tests."

showing that you twice claimed otherwise.

"Even if they did, it would be just plain silly since everyone knows that negative results of such tests are meaningless.  Don't you know that?"

This is nonsense.

"The Amazing Randi, the famous witchhunter, has made a career of devising carefully controlled blind tests with many trials that are so carefully controlled that no one can possibly pass them."

This is the most revealing statement that you have made on this forum.

Yes, Geoff, science is a rigorous process.

I wonder if Randi could devise an experiment in which gravity would fail?

"Isn't that really the type of test you have in mind?"

I have in mind, at a minimum, a double blind A/B experiment where A=no cream, B=cream over 1-2 dozen trials for each of 4-5 dozen participants, the experiment repeated by 2-3 independent individuals/organizations and in which the results and test procedures are published in respected scientific forums and are available for peer review. And yes, I highly doubt that the participants as a whole will do better than random guessing.  Sounds like you do too.  I also realize that this will likely never happen.  So be it.

The amount of money, knowledge and fame involved in a 'positive' outcome of such a series of tests is quite staggering. It is meaningful that nobody cares to investigate it seriously.

Quote:

"I have in mind, at a minimum, a double blind A/B experiment where A=no cream, B=cream over 1-2 dozen trials for each of 4-5 dozen participants, the experiment repeated by 2-3 independent individuals/organizations and in which the results and test procedures are published in respected scientific forums and are available for peer review. And yes, I highly doubt that the participants as a whole will do better than random guessing.  Sounds like you do too.  I also realize that this will likely never happen.  So be it.

The amount of money, knowledge and fame involved in a 'positive' outcome of such a series of tests is quite staggering. It is meaningful that nobody cares to investigate it seriously."

ILikeMusic, in "real life", when does this actually happen?

Quote:

"I also realize that this will likely never happen."

Then why ask?

Quote:

"The amount of money, knowledge and fame involved in a 'positive' outcome of such a series of tests is quite staggering. It is meaningful that nobody cares to investigate it seriously."

Do you think Pfizer tests this way (ie. Celebrex)?

ChrisS wrote:

Quote:

 

"The amount of money, knowledge and fame involved in a 'positive' outcome of such a series of tests is quite staggering. It is meaningful that nobody cares to investigate it seriously."

 

Do you think Pfizer tests this way (ie. Celebrex)?

Thomas Keller is a known Beltist.

It's not that his food is so good, it's that by schmearing a little "electret" creme under each table, it allows diners to turn off their tension mechanism and just taste the food better.

If you schmear some "electret" creme on your wine glass, it will not change the flavor of the wine, it will just beter enable you to fully taste the wine's flavor.

Same goes for books. Pick one you didn't like so much, the rub "electret" creme inside the cover and you will enjot the book better.

I see, making more fun!