ILikeMusic wrote:

Stereophile should have stopped covering the Belts after this article was published.

http://www.stereophile.com/news/10415/

Why? Even after it was revealed that Pfizer fudged data results in efficacy studies of Celebrex, thousands of people continue to use this medication. Why would anyone stop doing something because of one person's opinion?

Like I said, ILikeMusic, you're an easy dis-believer.

"You state EVERY SINGLE MANUFACTURER ------- and------ NOT A SINGLE ONE OF THEM-------and then you are surprised that you get a response challenging you!!"

I would only get a surprise if you actually listed the name of a single manufacturer that uses one of your products.

"You obviously want people to believe (as you obviously do) that if it (something) doesn’t have a piece of Foil showing, therefore it hasn’t been treated !!"

Wrong. I simply imply that it has not been treated with Foil.

"Why are you fixated on the Foils ?"

Because their use *is* visible and we can therefore know that they are not being incorporated into retail music cd's or lp's.

"Why would a manufacturer use something like a visible Foil, which would require someone to physically place a strip on each disc when there are INVISIBLE treatments ?"

You have answered this question yourself previously. Funny that you have to ask me to answer it. (Although you seem to miss the obvious point that even "INVISIBLE" treatments must be applied.  You are one sharp tool.)

From your web site

"The P.W.B. Special One Drop Liquid can be applied over all previously applied P.W.B. Foils"

"Whilst the new “Quantum” Cream is designed specifically for use with Quantum Morphic Message Labels and the new type Morphic Message Foils, it will be found that applying it to the edges of all previous types of Rainbow Foils, including their coloured derivatives, produces a worthwhile improvement."

"It is therefore essential to attach a narrow strip of Rainbow Foil to at least one of the labels of a vinyl record and to attach at least one narrow strip to the label side of a Compact Disc."

JIMV,

Your concerns and where you place your concerns are duly noted.

May,

Did you know that if you put your ear very, very close to an empty snail shell, you can sometimes hear something that sounds like "ilikmusic, ilikemusic...."

ILikeMusic,

Once again, please tell us how you would test a PWB product.

Thanks, yet again.

Sure your not Geoff under a different name? 

Your literacy level seems to be very similar.

Let's try this again.

ChrisS wrote

"Please tell us how you would test a PWB product."

Reply to #238 first.

ChrisS wrote, referring to the Science Punks Q and A with May Belt,

"...just a Q and A between two people."

I hate to judge before all the facts are in but I suspect the author of the Science Punks article had his tongue firmly planted in his cheek.  See excerpts from the Questions section below.

"Are these Tweezers supplied with the Quantum Clip, or must they be bought separately? I have a pair of forceps - will these do? 

Are any parts of the Quantum Clip serviceable? Can you suggest any reputable dealers who would be able to repair them if necessary? 

Finally, if necessary, can the Quantum Clip be used in the traditional way - e.g. to connect my car battery to a charger? 

Thank you for taking the time to answer these questions."

Geoff Kait

machina dramatica

Stephen Mejias wrote:

popluhv wrote:

Initially I was surprised that you declined to compare the cream with me, given your interest in this forum. However, if I look at it from your point of view, accepting to review something 'cause a reader suggests it would set a precedent and open a flood gate of "hey, why don't you try this... and this..." etc. so, no problem.

-Nate

That's not really my concern. I'm open to all kinds of suggestions for reviews and articles. My main concern is my time, and I'm simply not interested enough in the products to spend the time working with them. (For the same reason, I would decline offers to review computer audio devices or extremely expensive products -- they just fall outside my interest.)  I'm glad Art did it, though.

Once again, reply to what? Why?

Ilikemusic wrote,

"Sure your not Geoff under a different name?

Your literacy level seems to be very similar."

You should have written, "Sure you're not Geoff under a different name?"

Geoff Kait

machina dynamica

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BopgWulwfGo&feature=related

You're very good at this game, ILikeMusic!

Thanks, Geoff!

The Science Punks game seemed to aim at discrediting May.

Quote:

>>> “The Science Punks game seemed to aim at discrediting May.” <<<

It happens, Chris.   With some it is a game, with others it really is serious.

The reason why I joined the Stereophile Chat Forum quite a few years ago was after someone referred me to one of the “serious” ‘postings’ –  by Anton/Buddha no less !!!

To quote him :-

Quote:

>>> “The Peter Belts of this world are sly, like the serpent. They are driven off, but then always find ways to slither back into to hobby to suck the green life blood from the uninitiated…. We, as ethical audiophiles, have a duty to remember the past, so that others aren't doomed to repeat it.” <<<

And, it continues today.

Regards,

May Belt.

Hi May,

Thank you for your posts!

I find it most fascinating that those here who appoint themselves as "The Spanish Inquisition" are skeptical, not so much of different products and ideas, but of their own imaginations, scientific curiosity, and comprehension of the unknown.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tym0MObFpTI

1) All who are not skeptical of their "comprehension of the unknown" please raise their hands.

2) Problem with Chris, Geoff and May is that they confuse their imagination with reality.

3) And how exactly is one not skeptical of one's own imagination?

4) And when have  Chris, Geoff or May ever demonstrated scientific curiousity?

Congratulations, Chris, for posting easily the most ridiculous statement in this thread and quite possibly the entire forum.

ILikeMusic,

It must be frightening to have such little imagination!

"It's a world of laughter, a world or tears
its a world of hopes, its a world of fear
theres so much that we share
that its time we're aware
its a small world after all

CHORUS:
its a small world after all
its a small world after all
its a small world after all
its a small, small world

There is just one moon and one golden sun
And a smile means friendship to everyone.
Though the mountains divide
And the oceans are wide
It's a small small world"

Actually, having such little imagination and curiosity must make the world a much safer place for you. Keeps the monsters out of your closet and from that dark place under your bed...

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/maurice-sendak-where-wild-things-read-christopher-walken-212430177.html

Ilikemusic wrote,

"1) All who are not skeptical of their "comprehension of the unknown" please raise their hands.

2) Problem with Chris, Geoff and May is that they confuse their imagination with reality.

3) And how exactly is one not skeptical of one's own imagination?

4) And when have  Chris, Geoff or May ever demonstrated scientific curiousity?

Congratulations, Chris, for posting easily the most ridiculous statement in this thread and quite possibly the entire forum."

It would appear there is no joy in Mudville.  

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcPSmFhmhJ4

Geoff Kait

machina dynamica

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

"Imagination is the ability of forming images and sensations when they are not perceived through sight, hearing, or other senses."

"In various spheres, however, even imagination is in practice limited: thus a person whose imaginations do violence to the elementary laws of thought, or to the necessary principles of practical possibility, or to the reasonable probabilities of a given case is regarded as insane.

The same limitations beset imagination in the field of scientific hypothesis. Progress in scientific research is due largely to provisional explanations which are developed by imagination, but such hypotheses must be framed in relation to previously ascertained facts and in accordance with the principles of the particular science."

Then why can't you imagine "acupuncture"? Anything outside your sphere of understanding must give you nightmares!

Quote:

>>> “Progress in scientific research is due largely to provisional explanations which are developed by imagination, but such hypotheses must be framed in relation to previously ascertained facts and in accordance with the principles of the particular science." <<<

No one, but no one would dispute that basic concept!!!      However, it depends on what can be defined correctly as “ascertained facts” !!     I would suggest, as I have copied below, that OBSERVATION comes first !!!!!!   Then imagination -  creating various hypothesis developed from considerable knowledge and experience – then investigation and so on…….

I would further suggest, ILikeMusic, that continually insisting that you won’t consider discussing anyone’s listening experiences until they have given you proof that they have eliminated ‘expectation bias’ is the first blocker !!   That OBSERVATION and then IMAGINATION are instantly halted – so no further does it go with you.

A few years ago there was a thread – with similar dissenting/disbelieving voices – about people’s listening experiences and four of the answers to the dissenters were very apt !!

Quote:

>>> “OBSERVATION.. drives science.” <<<

Quote:

>>> “Reply by Elk :-

 

Exactly.

 

Observe!

 

Become curious.

 

Investigate.

 

Try to quantify.

 

Lather, Rinse, Repeat, until the explanation and the measurements correlate with the observations.” <<<

Quote:

>>> “Some observations are even contradictory - photons are both waves and particulate. While hard to wrap one's mind around, this is just the way it is.

 

Additionally, we are still doing it and still learning! We do not know everything. We are not done in any field, including electrical circuits.” <<<

Quote:

>>> “It pays to remember the rhythm by which science has always advanced:  First comes the admission of the existence of inexplicable phenomena; only then can theories be advanced to explain them.

---Richard Lehnert” <<<

I very much admire one of the world’s foremost pioneers of neuroscience – V S Ramachandran and would like, humbly, to quote from him :-

Quote:

>>> “I have let educated guesswork and intuition steer my thinking wherever solid empirical data are spotty.   This is nothing to be ashamed of :   Every virgin area of scientific inquiry must first be explored in this way.   It is a fundamental element of the scientific process that when data are scarce or sketchy and existing theories are anaemic, scientists must brainstorm.   We need to roll out our best hypothesis, hunches, and hare-brained, half baked intuitions, and then rack our brains for ways to test them.   You see this all the time in the history of science……….As the biologist Peter Medawar pointed out “All good science emerges from an imaginative conception of what might be true” <<<

.

I can’t help feeling, ILikeMusic, that you are demanding that things be “tested” when people’s experiences are showing that the stage is still at” that when data are scarce or sketchy and existing theories are anaemic, scientists must brainstorm” level !!!!!

We are STILL looking for explanations for the effect on the sound of the numerous so called “tweaks” I have listed previously – STILL at the OBSERVATION level, STILL at the “when data are scarce or sketchy and existing theories are anaemic, scientists must brainstorm” level !!!!!

There just does not seem to be the attitude of “Lather, Rinse, Repeat, until the explanation and the measurements correlate with the observations” coming intellectually from you at all.   

The world of audio is nowhere near the “measurements correlate with the observations” stage yet !!!!!    

It is still at the Richard Lehnert’s stage.   “First comes the admission of the existence of inexplicable phenomena; only then can theories be advanced to explain them.”

Regards,

May Belt.

Ilikemusic wrote,

"The same limitations beset imagination in the field of scientific hypothesis. Progress in scientific research is due largely to provisional explanations which are developed by imagination, but such hypotheses must be framed in relation to previously ascertained facts and in accordance with the principles of the particular science."

That is hardly true.  There is no such requirement in scientific research that a "hypothesis be framed in relation to previously ascertained facts and in accordance with the principles of the particular science." if there were such a requirement there would be considerably LESS progress in scientific research. Without people who were able to think outside the box, free from the arbitrary restrictions of your statement, the number and depth of scientific fields would certainly have been fewer and shallower.  

Without free thinkers, not bound to your arbitrary restrictions, there would have been no black hole theories, no quantum physics, no relativity theory.   In fact, the greatest strides in science, such as quantum mechanics, were achieved IN SPITE of not being in accordance with the principles of a particular science and IN SPITE of unacceptance of these new, "preposterous" ideas by the scientific establishment. 

Geoff Kait

machina dynamica

What exactly is it about acupuncture that needs imagining?

 "No one, but no one would dispute that basic concept!!!"

 Stop the presses! (Haha - this is hilarious.) It seems that your buddy Geoff disputes it.

 "OBSERVATION  first  ... Then imagination -  creating various hypothesis developed from considerable knowledge and experience – then investigation ..."

 We have the observations of many personal testimonies claiming audible changes in perceived sound and of many claiming no audible changes.  We have at least two hypothesis attempting to explain these observations - the Belt theory of 'friendly' energy fields (which will need significant further explanation so that it may become a testable theory and ultimately a theory capable of making predictions) and the 'bias' theory (already heavily studied in the soft science of psychology). So now we are in the investigation phase.

 "I would further suggest, ILikeMusic, that continually insisting that you won’t consider discussing anyone’s listening experiences until they have given you proof that they have eliminated ‘expectation bias’ is the first blocker !!   That OBSERVATION and then IMAGINATION are instantly halted – so no further does it go with you."

 The error here is that my demand for proof properly originates in the investigation phase of scientific enquiry.  We have observations and hypothesis - it is time to test.  I outlined a double blind test procedure in post #195.  Would you be swayed by results of such a test?  Your buddy Geoff wants to go no further than the hypothesis stage as evidenced by his stating

 "Gee, that sounds just like the sort of test The Amazing Randi would propose - I.e., one that no human being has a snowball's chance in hell of passing."

 "I can’t help feeling, ILikeMusic, that you are demanding that things be “tested” when people’s experiences are showing that the stage is still at” that when data are scarce or sketchy and existing theories are anaemic, scientists must brainstorm” level !!!!!"

 I certainly do demand that things be tested.  I certainly agree that your 'friendly' energy field theory is anaemic - untestable and useless as a tool for prediction. However various forms of human bias are quite capable of explaining all claims relating to audible differences due to the Quantum Foils and PWB cream electret.  This will remain so until a series of double blind tests show that audible differences are still perceived under blind conditions.

 "There just does not seem to be the attitude of “Lather, Rinse, Repeat, until the explanation and the measurements correlate with the observations” coming intellectually from you at all."

 Really? I continue to request that you reframe your 'friendly' energy field theory so that these energy fields may be discovered and measured.

 "The world of audio is nowhere near the “measurements correlate with the observations” stage yet."

 It never will (if the measurements you speak of are of audio properties). Human perception of hearing squarely overlaps with the domain of human psychology.  It is this fact that allows charlatans such as yourself to continue operating.

Double blind would not be the correct methodology for Belt products. If Belt products are said to have permanent effects, then where is the control? You would need to design a test for these products as if you were testing the effects of a permanent surgical procedure.

Do not attribute to me a quote that I cited from wikipedia.

First I think you misinterpret the phrase 'the principles of the particular science'.  This does not mean that a new theory must agree with every particular of existing, accepted theory.  Rather, in general it should be an improvement on existing theory - either in terms of simplicity, clarity, increased predictive or explanatory power.

Second I believe your summary of science history is simplistic, misleading and ultimately self serving.

 "In fact, the greatest strides in science, such as quantum mechanics, were achieved IN SPITE of not being in accordance with the principles of a particular science and IN SPITE of unacceptance of these new, "preposterous" ideas by the scientific establishment. "

Quantum mechanics arose out of the need to explain certain phenomena that could not be explained by existing theory.  To the extent that they did attempt to explain these phenomena, they were necessarily not in accordance with existing theory.  To the extent that they were new theories, they were not immediately accepted by the scientific community.

 Quantum mechanics was not a single idea.  It was built layer upon layer with the foundation layer  consistent with many existing scientific ideas, theories and, of course, observations.  Some examples (again from wikipedia)

 In 1924 de Broglie speculated that nature did not single out light as the only entity to exhibit wave-particle duality. He proposed that ordinary particles such as electrons could also exhibit wave characteristics in certain circumstances.

Adopting the proposal by de Broglie that particles of matter have dual nature and in some situations act like waves, Schrödinger (1926) produced the basic equation of quantum mechanics. 

In 1926, after his student Werner Heisenberg had formulated the first laws of quantum mechanics, Born collaborated with him to develop the mathematical formulation that would adequately describe it.

 Dirac laid the foundations for quantum electrodynamics (1927) with his discovery of an equation  incorporating both the quantum theory and the theory of special relativity.

 von Neumann's new mathematics encapsulated in his operator theory proved Schrödinger and Heisenberg theories equivalent mathematically.

"If Belt products are said to have permanent effects, then where is the control?"

Which products are claimed to have a permanent effect? Dudley perceived changes when he removed the Quantum Foil from one of his compact discs.  I presume permanence would not be an issue with the foils.  For permanent effects, certainly the double blind addition of the tweak could be tested. In further testing, an untreated piece of identical equipment could be substituted for a treated one, with the unit not under test being removed from the listening environment.  Identicality could be verified in a separate, initial test.

Does May Belt offer that warning of permanence to buyers of these products? After all not all people will like the effects of a given tweak.

June 8, 2012 - 4:21am
#1

History of Quantum Theory

Ilikemusic wrote, 

"Do not attribute to me a quote that I cited from wikipedia."

Why quote from Wikipedia unless you agree with the statement?  Are you enamoured with the high fallutin' language you quoted. 

Ilikemusic wrote,

"First I think you misinterpret the phrase 'the principles of the particular science'. This does not mean that a new theory must agree with every particular of existing, accepted theory.  Rather, in general it should be an improvement on existing theory - either in terms of simplicity, clarity, increased predictive or explanatory power."

I'm not referring to generalities.  I'm referring to scientific theories that are not based on accepted theories at all - like the work of Einstein, Heisenberg, Schrodinger, Hawking, Sheldrake, etc.  Besides, the "explanatory power" of new theories is wishful thinking on your part, as can be seen by the absolute dismissal by the scientific establishment of the work of Einstein, Heisenberg, Schrodinger, Hawking and Sheldrake.  Doh!  

Ilikemusic wrote,

"Second I believe your summary of science history is simplistic, misleading and ultimately self serving."

I was not intending to be so presumptuous as to attempt to summarize the history of science.  Your strawman argument is noted.

 ilikemusic wrote,

""In fact, the greatest strides in science, such as quantum mechanics, were achieved IN SPITE of not being in accordance with the principles of a particular science and IN SPITE of unacceptance of these new, "preposterous" ideas by the scientific establishment.". (Geoff Kait's quote)

"Quantum mechanics arose out of the need to explain certain phenomena that could not be explained by existing theory.  To the extent that they did attempt to explain these phenomena, they were necessarily not in accordance with existing theory.  To the extent that they were new theories, they were not immediately accepted by the scientific community."

Exactly!!  So you are agreeing with me.  Good strategy. Heh heh

 Ilikemusic wrote,

"Quantum mechanics was not a single idea.  It was built layer upon layer with the foundation layer  consistent with many existing scientific ideas, theories and, of course, observations.  Some examples (again from wikipedia)"

Noone says it was a single idea.  But the work by Heisenberg and Schrodinger and some orhers WAS original and not based on existing theory.  The layering as you call it came later.  It was the fact that the initial theories were NOT consistent with existing scientific theory that made them so revolutionary! 

Geoff Kait

machina dynamica

But doesn't it just come down to who really gives a sh!t about all this? Who the hell wants to engage in this endless manipulation of the listening environment to gain an undetermined amount of supposedly marginal to marked improvements? Ultimately, if enough of this is completed can one stop? Or does one's time listening to music mostly involve trying to discover if continual inane teasing makes something sound better?

There's some questions for ya.

them all!

White Magnadiscs.

If a Coloured Magnadisc is attached to a surface which is white (such as a white ceiling), then placing a White Magnadisc on top of the Coloured Magnadisc will make the Coloured Magnadisc less conspicuous. For example, if a Green Magnadisc has been attached to a white ceiling or a Yellow Magnadisc has been attached to a white painted door frame, then placing a White Magnadisc on top of the Coloured Magnadisc will make the Coloured Magnadisc less conspicuous.

ILIkeMusic cited from Wikipedia

"Do not attribute to me a quote that I cited from wikipedia."

Geoff wrote

"Why quote from Wikipedia unless you agree with the statement?  Are you enamoured with the high fallutin' language you quoted. "

Are you that uneducated and unintelligent that you must ask this question?

Ilikemusic cited from Wikipedia

"Do not attribute to me a quote that I cited from wikipedia."

Geoff wrote

"Why quote from Wikipedia unless you agree with the statement?  Are you enamoured with the high fallutin' language you quoted. "

 Ilikemusics responded in his usual snotty manner,

"Are you that uneducated and unintelligent that you must ask this question?"

I assume I must be more educated and intelligent than you judging by your lack of argument skills and reliance on Wikipedia quotations.  Are you having another one of your bad hair days?

Geoff Kait

machina dramatica

Jackfish wrote,

"I am not stupid enough to have read all of this thread.

But doesn't it just come down to who really gives a sh!t about all this? Who the hell wants to engage in this endless manipulation of the listening environment to gain an undetermined amount of supposedly marginal to marked improvements? Ultimately, if enough of this is completed can one stop? Or does one's time listening to music mostly involve trying to discover if continual inane teasing makes something sound better? 

There's some questions for ya."

Well, let's take the most civil question you asked, "if enough of this is completed can one stop?"

Think of it this way, if one buys enough speakers and electronics does he just stop? Or does one become dissatisfied and want even better sound?  No need to respond, it's a rhetorical question.  

Geoff Kait

machina dynamica

Geoff wrote

"I'm referring to scientific theories that are not based on accepted theories at all - like the work of Einstein, Heisenberg, Schrodinger, Hawking, Sheldrake, etc.  Besides, the "explanatory power" of new theories is wishful thinking on your part, as can be seen by the absolute dismissal by the scientific establishment of the work of Einstein, Heisenberg, Schrodinger, Hawking and Sheldrake.  Doh! "

You include Sheldrake with scientific giants like Einstein, Heisenberg, Schrodinger, Hawking?   That is sad.

"Besides, the "explanatory power" of new theories is wishful thinking on your part, as can be seen by the absolute dismissal by the scientific establishment of the work of Einstein, Heisenberg, Schrodinger, Hawking"

This is ridiculous and really does not make sense. You claim that Einstein's theories have no explanatory power? Are you serious man? Delay in general acceptance of his work was relatively short, especially considering the ground breaking nature of the work, and was due a variety of reasons, none of which had anything to do with your ridiculous claim of a lacking of explanatory power of the theories themselves.

One example of the explanatory power of Einstein's work (the theory of special relativity was published in 1905) and the quickness with which it was accepted -

from Wikipedia

"Although Planck already in 1909 compared the changes brought about by relativity with the Copernican Revolution, and although special relativity was accepted by most of the theoretical physicists and mathematicians by 1911, it was not before publication of the experimental results of the group around Arthur Stanley Eddington (1919), that relativity was globally noticed - also within the public."

"During 1911, he had calculated that, based on his new theory of general relativity, light from another star would be bent by the Sun's gravity. That prediction was claimed confirmed by observations made by a British expedition led by Sir Arthur Eddington during the solar eclipse of 29 May 1919."

"Besides, the "explanatory power" of new theories is wishful thinking on your part, as can be seen by the absolute dismissal by the scientific establishment of the work of Sheldrake."

I agree that Sheldrake's claims have zero explanatory power as they are unfalsifiable and therefore outside of the scope of scientific experiment. His "morphic field" concept is pseudoscience.

"But the work by Heisenberg and Schrodinger and some orhers WAS original and not based on existing theory. "

Their work had strong elements of originality but still were largely based on existing theory.

Ilikemusic wrote,

"You include Sheldrake with scientific giants like Einstein, Heisenberg, Schrodinger, Hawking?   That is sad."

I included Sheldrake because his theories are original and are dismissed by the scientific establishment, not because I consider him a scientific giant.  Follow?

Ilikemusic wrote (citing Wikipedia)

"Although Planck already in 1909 compared the changes brought about by relativity with the Copernican Revolution, and although special relativity was accepted by most of the theoretical physicists and mathematicians by 1911, it was not before publication of the experimental results of the group around Arthur Stanley Eddington (1919), that relativity was globally noticed - also within the public."

So, you admit it took many years for Einstein's theory of relativity to be accepted.  That is my point. 1919 would be 14 years after Einstein's publication of his theory, as you yourself point out.  

Ilikemusic wrote,

"I agree that Sheldrake's claims have zero explanatory power as they are unfalsifiable and therefore outside of the scope of scientific experiment. His "morphic field" concept is pseudoscience."

But that's exactly what the scientific establishment said of Einstein, Heisenberg and Schrodinger!  And that's also what Einstein said of Heisenberg and Schrodinger.  See the irony?

Ilikemusic wrote,

"Their (Heisenberg and Schrodinger) work had strong elements of originality but still were largely based on existing theory."

Not so true in the case of Heisenberg, but even Schrodinger's work, which came later, was very original.  They are both considered pioneers in the field. Nuff said.

Geoff Kait

machina dynamica

geoffkait wrote:

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

Some people stop chasin', and others never start. Analogous to endless banter on Internet forums.

Ilikemusic wrote,

"I agree that Sheldrake's claims have zero explanatory power as they are unfalsifiable and therefore outside of the scope of scientific experiment. His "morphic field" concept is pseudoscience."

Now you're just showing your lack of knowledge.  Morphic resonance has been shown to be a real phenomenon and there was actually a prize of $10,000 awarded to the person whose experiment demonstrated it.  There have been other experiments as well that demonstrate the concept.  So you are wrong again - Sheldrake's claims are both falsifiable AND inside the scope of scientific experiment.  Oh, I almost forgot to mention David Bohm was on the panel that judged the morphic field experiments.  Feel free to look him up on Wikipedia.

Geoff kait

machina dynamica

Jackfish wrote,

"Some people stop chasin', and others never start. Analogous to endless banter on Internet forums."

Gosh, I never thought of it like that.

Geoff Kait

machina dynamica

http://io9.com/5916646/pbs-autotunes-mr-rogers-the-results-are-tender-and-trippy

ILikeMusic wrote:

What exactly is it about acupuncture that needs imagining?

That acupuncture is based on another science.

ILikeMusic wrote:

"If Belt products are said to have permanent effects, then where is the control?"

 

Which products are claimed to have a permanent effect? Dudley perceived changes when he removed the Quantum Foil from one of his compact discs.  I presume permanence would not be an issue with the foils.  For permanent effects, certainly the double blind addition of the tweak could be tested. In further testing, an untreated piece of identical equipment could be substituted for a treated one, with the unit not under test being removed from the listening environment.  Identicality could be verified in a separate, initial test.

Does May Belt offer that warning of permanence to buyers of these products? After all not all people will like the effects of a given tweak.

If Belt products do not alter the electronics, component accessories, or software, but changes the perception of the listener, there's no way of knowing if the mechanism of that change produces a permanent change in the listener or has a long-lasting residual effect. Like being exposed to radiation or a medication, even intermittently, over time, PWB products may affect all listeners and testers that DBT may not be able to sort out.

White Magnadiscs have a permanent effect if they are left in place.

Jackfish wrote,

"I'm sure

White Magnadiscs have a permanent effect if they are left in place."

Foils, magnadiscs, spiratube, labels, cream, and many other PWB products are intended to be attached to various items, that's how the effect is achieved.  Removing a foil or magnadisc will eliminate the effect, although it appears that some degree of effectiveness can be achieved by simply having the foils or magnadiscs, etc. in the room, say sitting on a table.  Since the white magnadisc, like the colored ones, is treated it isn't too surprising that it could improve the effectiveness of the colored one it covers.

Geoff Kait

machina dynamica

White Magnadiscs is that when placed over Coloured Magnadiscs they make the Coloured Magnadiscs less conspicous on a white background. I know it works doing that. But so would a circular white paper sticker the same size as the Coloured Magnadiscs. But of course there is some wonderful sound improving paper sticker available so I would have to spend some time trying to find out which sounded better, the magnet or sticker. Hmm, I wonder if the Coloured Magnadiscs work the same if I'm color blind?

By the time someone pervasively employs foils, magnadiscs, labels, cream, freezing, digipluses, photographic blockers, clips, super intelligent chips, clever little clocks, white poppies, frog jump in water, blue/green meanies, promethean base, helical springs, nimbus sub-hertz platform, brillant pebbles, teleportation tweaks, turquoises, top bananas, tru tone duplex covers, endless spirals, vitruian mimics, anja dollops, involution dribble, shamballa buttons, ethereal strips, pilot wave modulators, decoherence filters, forward curves, Hamiltonian plugs, scattering bucky balls, plum pudding exciters, coincidence meshes, etc. sound and mind won't matter.

Jackfish wrote,

"White Magnadiscs is that when placed over Coloured Magnadiscs they make the Coloured Magnadiscs less conspicous on a white background. I know it works doing that. But so would a circular white paper sticker the same size as the Coloured Magnadiscs. But of course there is some wonderful sound improving paper sticker available so I would have to spend some time trying to find out which sounded better, the magnet or sticker. Hmm, I wonder if the Coloured Magnadiscs work the same if I'm color blind?"

The white magnadisc is optional.  You could in fact leave the colored magnadisc uncovered.  You could also cover the colored magnadisc with a disc of plain white paper. It's up to you, you are the decider.  In fact, you could try the white magnadisc and the plain white paper and if you felt the plain white paper was just as good, you could send the white magnadisc back for a refund. If someone doesn't know there's a magnadisc in the room, say it's hidden, will he hear its effects?  

Jackfish also wrote,

"By the time someone pervasively employs foils, magnadiscs, labels, cream, freezing, digipluses, photographic blockers, clips, super intelligent chips, clever little clocks, white poppies, frog jump in water, blue/green meanies, promethean base, helical springs, nimbus sub-hertz platform, brillant pebbles, teleportation tweaks, turquoises, top bananas, tru tone duplex covers, endless spirals, vitruian mimics, anja dollops, involution dribble, shamballa buttons, ethereal strips, pilot wave modulators, decoherence filters, forward curves, Hamiltonian plugs, scattering bucky balls, plum pudding exciters, coincidence meshes, etc. sound and mind won't matter."

I raise you three bottles of antiparticles, two wormhole stabilizers and a quantum fluctuation reducer.

Geoff Kait

Machina Dynamica

deployment of Special One Drop Liquid, Electret Discs, Chunky Pens, Quantum Clips, Morphic Message Foils, Coloured Electret Ring Ties, Sol-Electret, Red 'x' Co-ordinate Pens, Smart Metal, Spiritubes, and CCU Ring Ties will get me closer to audio nirvana. Then I'll be waitin' on the Coinciding Resonance Flux Capacitor, which just might be the end for me. I hope.

".....there's no way of knowing if the mechanism of that change produces a permanent change in the listener or has a long-lasting residual effect. Like being exposed to radiation or a medication, even intermittently, over time, PWB products may affect all listeners and testers that DBT may not be able to sort out."

Great.

Kep us posted on that!

Sheldrakism is a pie eyed cult religion.

The list would be more accurate with...

L Ron Hubbard, Franz Joseph Gall, George Hull, Charles Redheffer,  and Rupert Sheldrake.

There, that's better.

Sheldrake is to science as Charles Taze Russell was to Biblical interpretation.

I had a funny feeling the mention of Sheldrake would make that vein in your forehead pop out. What's the technical name for that, Pavlovian response?  

Geoff Kait

Machina Dramatica

geoffkait wrote:

I had a funny feeling the mention of Sheldrake would make that vein in your forehead pop out. What's the technical name for that, Pavlovian response?  

 

Geoff Kait

Machina Dramatica

Sheldrake-ism is a mindless magic cult. Listing him with anybody who was an 'actual' scientist is fallacious marketing.

I do not wonder at your affection for him - birds of a feather, and all.

Kind of like Celebrex, only now you're drooling?