# Rainbow Foil, Initial impressions



## PinkFloyd

My sample of Rainbow foil arrived this morning and I treated one shpongle disc with a 1mm strip and left the other Shpongle disc untreated..... both shpongle discs are the same album "are you shpongled"






 UNTREATED DISC





 DISC TREATED WITH 1mm OF RAINBOW FOIL

 I was "highly" sceptical that a 1mm strip of foil could make the sound any better so really did go into this with a closed mind. I listened to the first track of the untreated disc and then listened to the first track of the Rainbow foil treated disc and you know what?................
















 CLOSEUP OF RAINBOW FOIL



















 The Rainbow foil treated disc sounded a bit clearer and it was a lot easier to pick out the different instruments..... I was (am) stunned and am in the process of treating a few more CD's and will report back (in full) once I have made copies of a few of my favourite albums and audition them with and without Rainbow foil.








 EDIT: I'm going to have to be absolutely certain that the Rainbow foil is producing this improvement and not my imagination so it will be a few days before I fully review it. All I can say at the moment is it sure appears to have made a pretty pronounced improvement to the Shpongle album..... I keep doing an A B listen and the treated disc clearly sounds a lot more defined and less muddy sounding than the untreated copy....... I didn't think a few days I'd be writing more than one sentence about the stuff (along the lines of it doesn't work) but I think there's more to this Rainbow foil than meets the eye and, as such, it deserves comprehensive listening tests.

 I'm about to treat my Sennheiser HD600's with it (a 1mm strip attached to both HD600 labels) to see what effect that has and I am also going to open the CD player up and attach a strip of rainbow foil to the laser mechanism....... if all the other people who have ordered samples can do the same thing we can evaluate this stuff along the same testing procedure.

 Pinkie >OK x26


----------



## PinkFloyd

Others who are awaiting their Rainbow foil samples may be interested in this article taken from a google groups thread:

 "If you have never tried this before, get a photo of yourself, and 
 place a strip of Rainbow Foil on the front and back of your image. 
 You need a photo without other people in it, and I would suggest an A-
 B-A test of listening first, applying the Foil, listening again, 
 removing the Foil, and listen for the third time.
 You can then sign your 'name > o.k.' and 'x 26 'x on the rear. Listen 
 again. Then put the photo in a bag (PWB clear bag ideally) and write 
 the 'x 26 'x motif on the bag and put it in the freezer. You might 
 want to check on the PWB website for the details of this which were 
 produced when the Red 'x' pen was introduced a number of years ago.

 The importance of this approach is that you treat yourself, wherever 
 you are, and if you ever go to concerts, listen to a car stereo or 
 visit friends, the photo benefit travels with you. I like it for this 
 very reason.

 Peter has pointed out that all photos in the home have an effect on 
 the sound anyway, and so you get the benefit of this particualrly in 
 the home - it's a bit like the freezer which improves the sound 
 alone, but also becomes a device for treating other items. 

 When you have treated a photo it becomes a device too! Place the 
 photo against say a loudspeaker, and tap the photo with the red pen. 
 You can also dial your own telephone number, and placing the photo 
 against the receiver, get a pleasing result by tapping the photo.

 As with everything else, the better a photo is treated the better the 
 result. So I will list what I have done and you can decide what you 
 wish to do:

 The following Foil strips are applied to the front and back of the 
 photo:-
 Rainbow
 X 
 Black 26
 Blue Z
 Safehole
 Communication
 Comfort
 Quantum
 Frosted
 2cm and 3cm Film

 If you have a Clip, the Grey Clip Film can also be added.

 I then spray the photo with Morphic Liquid, and when dry, cover the 
 Foils in a film of Electret Cream, and tap the Foils with the Jar.

 Finally sign and add 'x 26 'x to the rear of the photo and apply the 
 Clip.

 I then place mine in a specific PWB Photo Folder - a bit like the one 
 introduced recently for Rooms; I think the people and car versions 
 are getting out of date now, and so I will use this posting to beg 
 Peter for an update (and surely the CD disc is getting long in the 
 tooth too...).

 The Photo then can go in the freezer. If you don't have a PWB Photo 
 Wallet I think the bag with 'x 26 'x on it will help alot anyway.

 The photo, as stated above becomes a device for tapping, and your 
 very presence elsewhere will enhance things for others.

 And finally, treat the photos of everyone in the home, and take 
 photos of your car if you have one, and your locked front door. The 
 same treatment to these really helps. Peter has expressed the 
 importance of boundaries, but felt the car was experienced as akin to 
 a family member. I'm not so sure I concur with this, but do feel that 
 one has a relationship with the car that is powerful, 
 whether 'feeling' its perimeter when parking, or thrashing it Basil 
 Fawlty style! Someone should comment somewhere on whether the car was 
 designed anthropomorphically (two headlight eyes and grill-mouth).

 As usual, the above advice is for people to experiment, and too few 
 of us do these things to know how generisable they are. 

 As stated re: freezing, May has developed cheap trial packs of 
 Message Foils to try, and such a pack would treat freezer, Photo and 
 much more.

 This process though I think is most freaky of all of Peter's ideas 
 because it resonates with the image manipulations of magic and 
 voodoo. But then are the ideas of magic but the crude formulations 
 and methods of individuals aware of action at a distance? Who knows!

 Good Luck, and I'd be interested to hear your results.

 Richard Graham"


----------



## HD-5000

Where do I get free samples of this stuff?


----------



## HD-5000

Never mind, I just found the X coordinate pen thread.


----------



## oneeyedhobbit

I hope people don't really believe this...

 If any difference at all is made, it is likely psychosomatic. Do a double blind test and I'm sure your subjects will notice no difference.


----------



## br--

You're late. April Fools was two weeks ago.


----------



## PinkFloyd

erm......... I'm afraid to announce that this is no April fool joke and I'll put my credibility on the line............ this stuff works, try a free sample you've got nothing to lose.

 Pinkie.

 Free sample of P.W.B. Silver Rainbow Foil
 If you would like a free sample of P.W.B. Silver Rainbow Foil
 Please send your full postal address to:-

foil@belt.demon.co.uk 

 sourced from: http://www.belt.demon.co.uk/


----------



## Welly Wu

You got to be kidding me right? How can a strip of cheap multi-colored foil put on the LABEL side of a compact disc improve the sound quality? I would believe it if it tried another different approach on the DATA side of the disc but this??


----------



## ooheadsoo

Blind test? The point of the foil is seeing it. Does it push your mind towards hearing things differently? Could very well do that. In fact, it's *supposed to do that.*

 If your mind and senses are susceptible to it, then it works for you. The mind is very powerful.


----------



## PinkFloyd

As I say........... "free sample" use your ears.


----------



## AlphaHX

Quote:


 _Originally posted by oneeyedhobbit _
*I hope people don't really believe this...

 If any difference at all is made, it is likely psychosomatic. Do a double blind test and I'm sure your subjects will notice no difference. * 
 

its the placebo effect. i for one is quite skeptical about it. i ordered a free sample. its free stuff... cant hurt. if it doesnt work, i can just stick on random stuff and make them look shiny. lol. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 before we all start bashing PinkFloyd, look at this way, if i was ill and a doctor gave me a sugar pill and the placebo effect kicked in and i felt like a million bucks the next morning... sugar pill or not, it did the job. if PinkFloyd is happy with his rainbow foil then lets not rain on his parade.

  Quote:


 _Originally posted by Welly Wu_
*You got to be kidding me right? How can a strip of cheap multi-colored foil put on the LABEL side of a compact disc improve the sound quality? I would believe it if it tried another different approach on the DATA side of the disc but this??* 
 

last time i checked, the "label" side is what holds the "data". try taking a cd and scratch the "bottom / non label" side with a knife or a sharp object then try scratching the "label" side. ull notice that the "label" side will peel off taking the "data" side with it causing the cd to become a see-thru peice of plastic. the "non label" side will just get all scratched up but it wont rip off the thin film of "data" thats on the cd.


 ive read a while back (i think it was in headfi) about specific cds to use to burn audio. supposively the black cds were the best since the dark color absorbed most of the laser light when reading. theres a slight chance that this strip does the same thing... one problem tho... it doesnt cover the entire cd so i dont see what a shiny rainbow strip could possibly do. you could see that normal cds dont absorb most of the light just by holding up a normal "light green" tinted cd up to the light and u can see right thru it.


----------



## oneeyedhobbit

Quote:


 _Originally posted by PinkFloyd _
*Others who are awaiting their Rainbow foil samples may be interested in this article taken from a google groups thread:

 "If you have never tried this before, get a photo of yourself, and 
 place a strip of Rainbow Foil on the front and back of your image. 
 You need a photo without other people in it, and I would suggest an A-
 B-A test of listening first, applying the Foil, listening again, 
 removing the Foil, and listen for the third time.
 You can then sign your 'name > o.k.' and 'x 26 'x on the rear. Listen 
 again. Then put the photo in a bag (PWB clear bag ideally) and write 
 the 'x 26 'x motif on the bag and put it in the freezer. You might 
 want to check on the PWB website for the details of this which were 
 produced when the Red 'x' pen was introduced a number of years ago.

 The importance of this approach is that you treat yourself, wherever 
 you are, and if you ever go to concerts, listen to a car stereo or 
 visit friends, the photo benefit travels with you. I like it for this 
 very reason.

 Peter has pointed out that all photos in the home have an effect on 
 the sound anyway, and so you get the benefit of this particualrly in 
 the home - it's a bit like the freezer which improves the sound 
 alone, but also becomes a device for treating other items. 

 When you have treated a photo it becomes a device too! Place the 
 photo against say a loudspeaker, and tap the photo with the red pen. 
 You can also dial your own telephone number, and placing the photo 
 against the receiver, get a pleasing result by tapping the photo.

 As with everything else, the better a photo is treated the better the 
 result. So I will list what I have done and you can decide what you 
 wish to do:

 The following Foil strips are applied to the front and back of the 
 photo:-
 Rainbow
 X 
 Black 26
 Blue Z
 Safehole
 Communication
 Comfort
 Quantum
 Frosted
 2cm and 3cm Film

 If you have a Clip, the Grey Clip Film can also be added.

 I then spray the photo with Morphic Liquid, and when dry, cover the 
 Foils in a film of Electret Cream, and tap the Foils with the Jar.

 Finally sign and add 'x 26 'x to the rear of the photo and apply the 
 Clip.

 I then place mine in a specific PWB Photo Folder - a bit like the one 
 introduced recently for Rooms; I think the people and car versions 
 are getting out of date now, and so I will use this posting to beg 
 Peter for an update (and surely the CD disc is getting long in the 
 tooth too...).

 The Photo then can go in the freezer. If you don't have a PWB Photo 
 Wallet I think the bag with 'x 26 'x on it will help alot anyway.

 The photo, as stated above becomes a device for tapping, and your 
 very presence elsewhere will enhance things for others.

 And finally, treat the photos of everyone in the home, and take 
 photos of your car if you have one, and your locked front door. The 
 same treatment to these really helps. Peter has expressed the 
 importance of boundaries, but felt the car was experienced as akin to 
 a family member. I'm not so sure I concur with this, but do feel that 
 one has a relationship with the car that is powerful, 
 whether 'feeling' its perimeter when parking, or thrashing it Basil 
 Fawlty style! Someone should comment somewhere on whether the car was 
 designed anthropomorphically (two headlight eyes and grill-mouth).

 As usual, the above advice is for people to experiment, and too few 
 of us do these things to know how generisable they are. 

 As stated re: freezing, May has developed cheap trial packs of 
 Message Foils to try, and such a pack would treat freezer, Photo and 
 much more.

 This process though I think is most freaky of all of Peter's ideas 
 because it resonates with the image manipulations of magic and 
 voodoo. But then are the ideas of magic but the crude formulations 
 and methods of individuals aware of action at a distance? Who knows!

 Good Luck, and I'd be interested to hear your results.

 Richard Graham" * 
 


 This is absolutely ridiculuous, how are people believing it?!?! Its the biggest load of bunk I've ever read...so, if I treat a picture of myself and stick it in a freezer my hearing will miraculously improve? That is grade A bull sh1t my friends, as are all of these products. There is no evidence in any field of science about harmful energy fields that affect sound reproduction. This sounds more like wacky religion to me. A foil sticker cannot improve sound quality, there is no logic behind that at all. All it is is shiny foil, buy your own shiny foil stickers, toss them on a CD, and nothing will happen. Its snake-oil at its finest!


----------



## ooheadsoo

It's called placebo EFFECT. It works, that's all there is to it. If someone's cancer gets better after a sugar pill, it's still better. Did the pill do anything? Well yes, actually, it most likely affected his mental health in a positive manner which probably contributed to his body fighting off the cancer.

 If you don't want to try the free sample, don't try it. You know, all those people who got better after taking a sugar pill...still got better, after all.

 I think you most likely could devise your own foil strip that would do the same job. Would help if it looked as nice though, and not just "tossed on a cd." The big scam is probably selling the foil for so much money. At least they offer a free sample.


----------



## oneeyedhobbit

I'm perfectly versed in what the PLACEBO effect is, it hence my refernce to what so many are calling a sound improvement being psychosomatic. But, to by a piece of foil to achieve the placebo effect is stupid. If you know it is the placebo effect, save your money--that is the point I've been trying to make.


----------



## ooheadsoo

The effect only works if you actively do something to stimulate it. The effect also has a fairly high probability of working, as has been shown in countless studies, medical and not. To do nothing = 0% chance. People play the lottery and gamble on far less chances than the placebo effect.


----------



## oneeyedhobbit

But thats not my point. The placebo effect does absolutely nothing, its all in your head. To waste your money on these products doesn't improve the sonics of your system in any way, shape, or form. Instead, your brain reacts and you think there is some kind of improvement, only because you expected it. But if there is no real and tangible improvement, why waste the money? Save your cash for CDs or real upgrades.


----------



## ooheadsoo

The mind is a strange thing. The perceived difference can be staggering. Have you ever experienced anything like this before? I know that for myself, just listening to the same performance of a piece of music in two different moods can result in responses ranging from me being apathetic to totally enthusiastic about all the little things going on in the music. For example, Mozart is a snoozer for me at home, but it's different when a friend is here listening with me. We're not saying anything, just listening together. Or a song that sounded really cool to me would sound like a real cheeser of a piece when another friend is here and I'm showing it to him. Suddenly I'm filled with self-doubt that my friend will think it's as cool as I previously did, and I suddenly spot all sorts of flaws in the music writing that make it kinda lame. It's powerful stuff and worth a shot.

 In any case, did you see the substitute foil that pinkie mentioned in the other thread? Possible for a $1 sheet to be used with 1000 cds or so. Now, at that rate, I'd be more than willing to try out some o' this good ol' placebo stuff.

 As an aside, I thought to let you know that I'm currently in the process of burning in my subwoofer. Yes, the woofers will change with use, I don't think anyone will fight that one since DIYers have taken measurements before and after use and post the average results online (average of different woofers of the same model) so that DIYers without expensive testing equipment can voice and design their crossovers. And the amp is new too, though I don't know how much evidence there is for an amp burning in over time. In any case, I'm trying to convince myself that my subwoofer is sounding better and better each day! Wish me luck


----------



## HiGHFLYiN9

Standing up for Pinky.... If it makes you enjoy your music more then who cares if it works and why it works. Besides its free to try, might as well try it before you bash it. I'm definently not going to pay the equivalent of 20 pounds for the stuff but if you want more for a $1 then why not.


----------



## oneeyedhobbit

I'm not directing my comments solely at Pinkie. I just don't agree with the notion of using products like this as a means to "trick" our brain into causing a perceived difference, staggering or not. The actuality is that there is no difference. Instead of throwing our money at something that does not work, it makes more sense to me to realize this and save our pennies for real upgrades. 

 I am confident that where a double blind test done, no difference would be heard with the foil and without. To satisfy inquiring minds, I've ordered a sample piece, and with the help of a friend, hope to answer this question once and for all.


----------



## Ross

I know that interconnects make a big difference, that power cords make a noticeable difference, that supports and stands make a big difference ... but I really don't believe this stuff will make a difference.

 The thing that I find silliest is the claim - if I am reading the instructions correctly from PinkFloyd's photo - that it will improve vinyl LPs. Even if you can accept some possible, although unlikely benefit for CDs (something to do with reflected light), it must be absurd when applied to records or cassettes. The claim that "any spinning object such as a vinyl record or compact disc interacts with the gravitational force to produce adverse energy patterns" is just silly and contrary to even a basic knowledge of physics.


----------



## radrd

I've blind tested interconnects and found no difference, so I'm not about to bother with this stupid foil.


----------



## HiGHFLYiN9

Quote:


 _Originally posted by Ross _
*it will improve vinyl LPs. Even if you can accept some possible, although unlikely benefit for CDs (something to do with reflected light), it must be absurd when applied to records or cassettes.* 
 

That seemed really strange to me too


----------



## Orpheus

you guys didn't read the stuff on the manufacturer's website.

 it states that these foil thingies go ANYWHERE in the listening area. and they really mean ANYWHERE. as in putting it underneath the couch you sit on will improve sound.

 and basically, they attribute most of this effect to psychology.

 so, yes, they basically admit it's all a placebo type effect in a way.

 and with that said, there's no point in arguing whether these affect the sound physically or not. the manufacturer basically says, no, they don't.

 what IS claimed is that these things will make music sound better. and apparently, they do work, cause pink says his music sounds better. so i guess that's that, huh?


----------



## ooheadsoo

Yes, Orpheus got it bang on. It's not supposed to be a physics thing. They say straight up in their papers that it's metaphysical. All of their products are like that. Where they get off charging so much for it, I don't know, but that has something to do with our perceptions of their products too.


----------



## PinkFloyd

If you click on each one of peter belt's "products" you'll be treated to an in depth explanation: http://www.belt.demon.co.uk/product/product.html


----------



## rodbac

Quote:


 If any difference at all is made, it is likely psychosomatic. 
 

_LIKELY???_

 There's a distinct difference between "psychosomatic" and the placebo effect. One has real, measurable results and the other does NOTHING (you merely convince yourself a difference exists).

 Don't confuse the two.


----------



## ooheadsoo

Hehehehehe, I get a chuckle every time I read their explanations


----------



## Hirsch

Quote:


 _Originally posted by rodbac _
*LIKELY???

 There's a distinct difference between "psychosomatic" and the placebo effect. One has real, measurable results and the other does NOTHING (you merely convince yourself a difference exists).
* 
 

In pharmacology, a placebo can produce real, measurable results. A placebo is a stimulus that can produce psychosomatic effects. Think about it.


----------



## Hirsch

Quote:


 _Originally posted by radrd _
*I've blind tested interconnects and found no difference, * 
 

Good for you. You've saved a lot of money. 

 I know a person who is color-blind. He cannot distinguish between blue and green. If I test that person blinded, I can prove that green and blue are the same color. Or can I??? What would the negative result really mean?


----------



## Vedder323

careful guys... Ars is making fun of us.

http://episteme.arstechnica.com/eve/...m=806002673631


----------



## Welly Wu

FCUK THEM!


----------



## HiGHFLYiN9

Quote:


 _Originally posted by Welly Wu _
*FCUK THEM! * 
 

Well I can understand it doesn't make much sense to anyone, but the title audiophiles are stupid is a little ignorant. Although the posts in it are pretty funny...


----------



## Edwood

LOL, Mike. 

 Isn't it a little late for April Fools? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 -Ed


----------



## ServinginEcuador

Quote:


 _Originally posted by PinkFloyd _
*this stuff works, try a free sample you've got nothing to lose.

 Pinkie. * 
 

I'll bet that several naysayers will not even order a free sample, yet will continue in their naysaying nonetheless. 

 Personally, I'm gonna email for a free sample soon and try this for myself. I got nothing to lose, so I might as well try it.

 Thanks for having the guts to post this and tell us what you think Pinkie. Always good to read your insights into stuff, and I'll add this to my list of things I appreciate that you do here.


----------



## Orpheus

Quote:


 this stuff works, try a free sample you've got nothing to lose. 
 

 actually, yes, you do have something to lose: your sanity.


----------



## PinkFloyd

Quote:


 _Originally posted by Orpheus _
*actually, yes, you do have something to lose: your sanity. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


* 
 

I'm not yet rating this stuff and haven't tried any other discs yet and did originally say:

 "I'm going to have to be absolutely certain that the Rainbow foil is producing this improvement and not my imagination so it will be a few days before I fully review it."

 The treated Shpongle disc still sounds slightly better than the untreated version and if it "is" due to a placebo effect then, fantastic, I'm not complaining 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I'm not endorsing Rainbow foil or suggesting it's a miracle but "I" hear a difference and if it's my imagination at work then........ good again  can only be good news, even if it is placebo at work.

 I coat the edges of all my CD's with a green felt tip pen and I swear they sound better for it.... the green pen tweak may be pure snake oil but I believe my CD's sound better with it 

 If you "think" something is going to make the sound better it invariably will sound better...... nothing wrong with the power of the imagination in my book even if it takes a bit of foil to get your imagination working 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Another little thing entirely off the sound quality bit....... since the arrival of the Rainbow foil I have decided to quit drinking...... coincidence or positive energy?

 Pinkie.


----------



## rodbac

Hirsch was right earlier (that placebo and psychosomatic effects are related).

 However, if you think your music improves with the addition of a sticker to the label, it's neither "placebo effect" nor psychosomatic. *There is no change in the music/sound*, so there is no measurable 'effect' to give a name to (actually, there probably is, but it will mean "purely in your head").

 If you want to contend that _you_ can indeed hear a difference (and that's all that matters), then submit yourself to a proper AAB study of it. If you can perceive the difference as you contend, that test will confirm it and you can tell the naysayers to go to hell.


----------



## PinkFloyd

I can't wait to hear what the other head-fier's who ordered samples find it


----------



## Haribo

Very funny thread


----------



## ooheadsoo

Oh geez. No one meant the sound changed. It was meant that their perception of said sound changed.


----------



## HiGHFLYiN9

Quote:


 _Posted by 1Stunna of arstechnica_
*that thread really has everything needed to prove this thread's title (Audiophiles are stupid) (except speaker rocks and green markers).
 edit: Oh, holy ****. think it will bring my dead dog back to life?: http://www.belt.demon.co.uk/product/...m/quantum.html
* 
 

Makes you wonder when 1Stunna did more than the rest of us and actually read one of the articles.


----------



## Orpheus

Quote:


 Another little thing entirely off the sound quality bit....... since the arrival of the Rainbow foil I have decided to quit drinking...... coincidence or positive energy? 
 

 ....that is interesting. i think you have found the next Aspirin. heh he.


----------



## rodbac

Quote:


 Oh geez. No one meant the sound changed. It was meant that their perception of said sound changed. 
 

Ok, ok- their perception. Fine.

 So one of them should submit to the study and let us see if they perceive a difference reliably.

 As it is, it sounds like they're saying that since they think it sounds better, it does.

 Also, don't turn this into a subjective argument- either the music is altered or it isn't. There is nothing subjective about this.

 Note, too, that I'll retract any claims I've made against this for now if you'd like. To be fair, I'll remain neutral on this until we get the results of the study back.


----------



## HiGHFLYiN9

I think Peter Belt is better at starting fights than he is at making tweaks.


----------



## ooheadsoo

Don't you think most audio tweaks are subjective rather than objective? Any cable skeptic can tell you that there's no definite proof and just about every A/B/X test in a properly set up system has shown that no one can tell when blind or double blind. Yet when the subjects aren't blind, you must admit that the use of the more expensive cables increases their enjoyment of their system. That has its own sense of validity.

 Hearing is the most difficult sense to quantify and control. Most people don't even have the vocabulary to describe it in a universally understood manner. Despite your scientific urges, hearing is very much a subjective matter. In fact, most things are very subjective. One sign often pointed out that is a sure sign of collusion is when all eyewitnesses of a crime give the same account of the events that transpired, even immediately after the crime has been committed and still at the crime scene. You may hear everything at once, see everything at once, but it doesn't mean you process it all in the same way as everyone else. This is a sad fact of life with our senses. That's how these people get away with charging all this money. Is it because the customers are blinded by their own ignorance or are gullible? Well, maybe gullible, but there's no doubt in my mind that they are hearing an improvement when they say they are.


----------



## Hirsch

Quote:


 _Originally posted by rodbac _
*However, if you think your music improves with the addition of a sticker to the label, it's neither "placebo effect" nor psychosomatic. There is no change in the music/sound, so there is no measurable 'effect' to give a name to (actually, there probably is, but it will mean "purely in your head").
* 
 

With all due respects, have you attempted this tweak and taken measurements? If not, how can you say that there are no measureable effects? All that's happening here is that you *believe* that there will be no measureable effects, which is even less real data than PinkFloyd's subjective listening test.

  Quote:


 _Originally posted by ooheadsoo _
*That's how these people get away with charging all this money. Is it because the customers are blinded by their own ignorance or are gullible? Well, maybe gullible, but there's no doubt in my mind that they are hearing an improvement when they say they are.* 
 

You're leaving out one major possibility. The people really are getting their money's worth out of the product. I won't go into testing issues due to forum rules (which others should also consider).

 Mind you, I have no idea whether this works or is nonsense. However, I see little point to speculation in the absence of real data. The only data here is Pink Floyd's trial. So, the preponderance of actual data says that it may be worth a try.


----------



## ooheadsoo

Hirsch: absolutely. If you're hearing the improvements, you absolutely are getting your money's worth. No argument there. Most importantly, it makes you *happy.* Meanwhile, people like me who have shallow pockets will toe the line bordering skepticism for our own mental state of health


----------



## Orpheus

Quote:


 Mind you, I have no idea whether this works or is nonsense. However, I see little point to speculation in the absence of real data. The only data here is Pink Floyd's trial. So, the preponderance of actual data says that it may be worth a try. 
 

 hirsch, there is no data. nothing measurable anyway. even the manufacturer says so on his website! this is absolutely a 100% try-it-yourself kind of deal.

 as i see there's no way to measure whether Pink actually hears a difference, which would be the only thing that i could think of to verify this products validity, based on what they are claiming... well, there really is no objective debate over this product.


----------



## rodbac

Quote:


 With all due respects, have you attempted this tweak and taken measurements? If not, how can you say that there are no measureable effects? All that's happening here is that you believe that there will be no measureable effects, which is even less real data than PinkFloyd's subjective listening test. 
 

I told you- I'll retract any negative statements I made if Pinky will do a proper test.

  Quote:


 The only data here is Pink Floyd's trial. So, the preponderance of actual data says that it may be worth a try. 
 

With all due respect to Pink Floyd, his data is worthless until it's corroborated with definitive data. If I claim the sun's going to come up in the west tomorrow morning, my theory doesn't get equal weight with "rises in the east" until it's proven otherwise- we have very good reason to believe it will continue to rise in the east, so claims to the contrary will have to be backed up by a lot more than "I believe it to be so" to be considered seriously.

 And again, if it's working as he says it is, it will be obvious in the test. Hell, I'll conduct it- we can have a few beers for the occasion (my treat).

  Quote:


 as i see there's no way to measure whether Pink actually hears a difference 
 

Oh, but there is. We'll go buy two copies of Wish You Were Here. We'll put the rainbow on one, we'll sit Pinky in a chair facing the other way, have him put on my A900s (or HD600s, his choice), and I'll randomly play them for him in some acceptable way (1 minute bites x 100 or something?).

 If he can "perceive" a difference with the tape vs without, it will be glaringly obvious in the results.


----------



## ooheadsoo

The perception is inherently tied to the knowing that the tape is on which cd. We've already agreed that the sound doesn't actually change so a blind test is unnecessary. 

 How about this analogy. Watch a sappy love movie by yourself. Enjoy yourself?

 Watch it with your girlfriend holding your hand. Different perception? 

 I don't think many people would argue that the movie changed.


----------



## rodbac

Quote:


 I don't think many people would argue that the movie changed. 
 

The movie _didn't_ change- the time you spent watching the movie was more enjoyable, which is commonly what people are meaning when they say "it was better when I went and saw it with my gf". They don't claim the story was told better or the "DOLBY DIGITAL SURROUND" was more detailed.

 Further, he (no offense, Pinky) didn't claim he had a better time listening to the music- he says it sounded better to him, which I'm pointing out is a very easy thing to corroborate and silence his critics.

 Now, I'm all for Pinky being happy listening to his music, but if it takes a piece of tape on his CDs to help that, maybe we (or he) need to be looking for what's keeping him from enjoying the music fully in the first place.


----------



## GSh

wow....first there were the one-way cables...then the suspending your cables off the ground...and of course that device that literally shaved off some plastic off your cds....

 ...now rainbow foil...hahaha this world is better than the matrix..hahahahah


----------



## ooheadsoo

No, but they did claim that it was more enjoyable with their gf (gf = tape, if you hadn't noticed) and I can bet you that they noticed a bunch more details in the movie than they didn't before. Those details were there just the same in both cases.

 "which is commonly what people are meaning when they say "it was better when I went and saw it with my gf" Now replace gf with tape. The key stimulus was the gf, not the things that I didn't even mention in my analogy.

 I know you understand the analogy but are choosing to deliberately misunderstand.

 You are willing to admit that the mere presence of a gf can change one's perception of a movie, but if I had said I had a better time listening to Diana Krall with my girlfriend, would you be as willing? 


 "Now, I'm all for Pinky being happy listening to his music, but if it takes a piece of tape on his CDs to help that, maybe we (or he) need to be looking for what's keeping him from enjoying the music fully in the first place."

 Now, that's a perfectly valid point. However, if we can find that $1 tape, I think it'd be an easier solutions


----------



## rodbac

Quote:


 I know you understand the analogy but are choosing to deliberately misunderstand. 
 

I'm doing nothing of the sort, ooh. I'm actually striving pretty hard to play fair here, when this subject has absolutely nothing to stand on to be honest with you.

 You're trying to claim something to the effect of "If he says it sounded better with the tape, then the tape made it sound better."

 I'm reminding you that the tape did nothing (or, since I'm playing fair, that I believe the tape did nothing and am willing to prove it).

 In logic, there is an axiom that states something to the effect of "that which can explain anything, explains nothing". It means that if I claim there is a dragon in my garage and you don't see him when I take you to look, I can't explain that away by saying "you can't see him if he doesn't want you to see him". Since I can apply that to anything at all ("you can't detect his fiery breath with infrared if he doesn't want you to be able to", etc), then it is not a valid explanation. Period.

 This applies to this situation because saying "if Pinky thought it sounded better, then it did" could be applied to ANY claim anyone wanted to make about a product/treatment/whathaveyou.

 If someone wants to claim they simply had a groovier time listening to music after <insert product/treatment here>, then we can all roll our eyes and accept it. If, however, they want to say they thought the music sounded better because of <insert product/treatment here>, they should be willing to back it up because _music sounding better is detectable and testable_, and I'm not talking about "what really constitutes 'better'", I'm talking about them being able to tell a tester which copy of the cd they're listening to.

 [edit]

 removed- edit2 explains it more clearly.

 [edit2]

  Quote:


 No, but they did claim that it was more enjoyable with their gf (gf = tape, if you hadn't noticed) and I can bet you that they noticed a bunch more details in the movie than they didn't before. Those details were there just the same in both cases. 
 

The point is that there were _other reasons_ the details were noticed. If his girlfriend's presence made him, say, more attentive (so he noticed more about the movie), then it was the _attentiveness_, not the girlfriend, that made the difference. The correct claim, then, would be that attentiveness makes a movie more enjoyable, NOT that girlfriends make movies more enjoyable.

 And, again, if all we're talking about is that he "was in a better place during the movie", or something equally useless to the rest of us, then we just roll our eyes and say good for him.


----------



## ooheadsoo

Let's take it another step further. What caused the extra attentiveness?

 You know, I think you're right. I think I'm right too. The difference is that I place more value in the end result, where you put more value in the means to achieve the result. 

 "And, again, if all we're talking about is that he "was in a better place during the movie", or something equally useless to the rest of us, then we just roll our eyes and say good for him."

 Yes! But I try to stay away from rolling my eyes


----------



## rodbac

Quote:


 You know, I think you're right. I think I'm right too. The difference is that I place more value in the end result, where you put more value in the means to achieve the result. 
 

Fair enough.


----------



## radrd

I really should have been a bit more careful about posting on Ars about this. Linking directly to this product would have been a much better idea rather than linking to this forum. I personally think anyone who believes this stuff works is being stupid (sorry), but not _all_ audiophiles in general. Regardless, I didn't have anything nice to say, so I should have kept my mouth shut. Sorry.


----------



## rodbac

Yeah, maybe the title was too general and harsh, but a little critical thought is never, ever a bad thing.


----------



## HiGHFLYiN9

Quote:


 _Originally posted by radrd _
*I really should have been a bit more careful about posting on Ars about this. * 
 

Well it could have been worse, most of the posts over there were funny anyways so it made for some entertainment.


----------



## shivohum

I've tried the rainbow foil stuff, and posted my results on Audioasylum:

  Quote:


 I recently received a free sample of Peter Belt's rainbow foil in the mail today, courtesy of an old Greg Weaver column in Soundstage (http://www.soundstage.com/synergize/synergize041999.htm).
 I tested the foil by applying it to the Chesky Ultimate Demonstration Disc, listening, removing the foil, listening again, then repeating the process over and over.

 Simple conclusion: either the foil doesn't work at all, or the magnitude of the differences it creates are SO tiny that they're not worth mentioning. At some points, I did *initially* feel the foil was making a difference -- for example, on Spanish Harlem, I felt Rebecca's voice get warmer and more expansive -- but with closer listening, the effect entirely disappeared.

 I also tried another Peter Belt recommended tweak, which can be found at http://www.belt.demon.co.uk/whatamess.html , :

 "Any home with a deep freezer within the premises is having a significant beneficial symmetrical pattern imposed throughout the premises. To prove this it is possible to destroy the symmetrical pattern within the deep freezer. All that is necessary is to place an untreated battery or magnet, or a hologram (such as those found on virtually every plastic charge card) inside the deep freeze compartment. Simply place any one of these objects within a plastic bag, place within the freezer compartment and any musical sound within the listening room will be profoundly adversely affected. Removing the object from the deep freeze compartment will immediately restore the previous high standard."

 I put the battery in the freezer, listened quickly, took it out, listened again, and repeated the process many times. Result: no changes in the sound quality. 
 

Take it for what it's worth...


----------



## pirate

Quote:


 _Originally posted by Orpheus _
*....that is interesting. i think you have found the next Aspirin. heh he. * 
 

or the next sugar pill


----------



## PinkFloyd

Ok,

 Before we go any further on this subject I think it a good idea to learn a little bit about the man himself. From what I read head-fiers are under the impression that peter Belt is a snake oil merchant but that's not the case.

 I received an absolutely whopping bundle of papers and articles from Mary Belt this morning and was quite stunned to learn that peter belt produced his own electrostatic headphones, orthodynamic low mass diaphragm headphones and a range of revolutionary light plastic film loudspeakers back in the 1960's, 70's and 80's.

 He was at the forefront of the Hi-Fi scene and revolutionised the orthodynamic headphone market with his diaphragm consisting of a thin polyester film bonded to a thin foil of aluminium instead of the usual copper. Mary Belt even sent me one of the original diaphragms along with the bundle..... see picture:







 I wish I could upload this bundle as it's packed with extremely interesting stuff and informative articles but to do so would take many mega bytes of space on my website!

 Once I've finished fully reading this bundle I'll be more than happy to send it to genuinely interested parties as it goes toward explaing rainbow foil and much much more in depth.

 Just to let you all know that Peter belt is not someone who's just arrived on the scene, he's been researching and designing Hi-Fi products (including headphones!!) since the 1960's so I think he knows a thing or two about Hi-Fi.

 Certain people here have suggested that the rainbow foil be "measured" and that one persons opinion in not a good enough measurement.... well for me, I use my ears and they are a good enough measuring tool for me 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 The same can be said with everything... just because one person likes the sound of the sennheiser HD600's doesn't mean the next person will like them and no degree of "measuring" will change that.... only your own ears can decide and, considering you can a free sample of this stuff then why not use your own ears and give it a whirl?

 I'm serious on the bundle and if anyone is interested I'll post it over once I have finished reading it. it contains some quite mind opening articles 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 In the meantime, some interesting discussions can be read at : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PWB/

 I just wanted you all to know that there's a lot more to Peter Belt than Rainbow foil.





 An original PWB orthodynamic low mass diaphragm

 I'll be reporting back on the rainbow foil shortly once I have fully evaluated it along with a helper who will be blindfolded on a chair with his head facing away from the CD player (seriously!) I've got about 22 rainbow strips left so I can try them out on a variety of objects as well as CD's. If it turns out they do nothing then the exercise will not have been wasted time as I've learn't a lot about another Hi-Fi manufacturer and have read some interesting stuff......... if it turns out that the rainbow foil does indeed work for me then that's an added bonus.

 One way or the other, I'll report back with my honest impressions of the rainbow foil and I hope the other head-fiers who ordered a sample do likewise.. comments from those who have tried it, whether negative or positive, are a lot more useful than comments from people who have only seen pictures of it. 

 Subjective V objective... plausible V implausible..... science V magic...... whatever, I'm willing to let my ears be the final judge.

 Pinkie.


----------



## taoster

at least it came with some interesting reading material


----------



## rodbac

Quote:


 Certain people here have suggested that the rainbow foil be "measured" and that one persons opinion in not a good enough measurement.... well for me, I use my ears and they are a good enough measuring tool for me The same can be said with everything... just because one person likes the sound of the sennheiser HD600's doesn't mean the next person will like them and no degree of "measuring" will change that.... only your own ears can decide and, considering you can a free sample of this stuff then why not use your own ears and give it a whirl? 
 

I suggested no such measurement whatsoever, and I'm not trying to quantify "good" (or any other such safe-haven for relativists).

 I'm correctly and fairly letting you know that *if the tape is doing anything for you* (allowing you to enjoy the music more, or whatever claim you'd like to make), *it will do it whether you know it's there or not*, and it will be very, very easy to verify with experiment.

 However, if the tape only helps you when you know it's there, IT AIN'T THE TAPE, and you might as well be "reviewing" your shoelace color for us.


----------



## tomek

i'm with rodbac on this one.

 what kind of shoelaces are you using pinkfloyd? 

 ps: i emailed for some rainbow foil myself to keep an open mind, but if it helps just by having it in the room, i'm REALLY skeptical about this one.


----------



## PinkFloyd

Quote:


 _Originally posted by rodbac _
*
 However, if the tape only helps you when you know it's there, IT AIN'T THE TAPE, and you might as well be "reviewing" your shoelace color for us. * 
 

Hence the blind listening tests which are about to take place


----------



## PinkFloyd

Quote:


 _Originally posted by taoster _
*at least it came with some interesting reading material 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


* 
 


 The sample doesn't come with this material. I requested full documentation and PWB electronics history from May Belt in order to better understand the man, the company and their concept. I find it best to be armed with as much information as possible before evaluating something. I didn't request one of their original orthodynamic low mass headphone diaphragms though and that was a real bonus and a piece of headphone history.

 Pinkie.


----------



## Hirsch

Quote:


 _Originally posted by rodbac _
*However, if the tape only helps you when you know it's there, IT AIN'T THE TAPE, and you might as well be "reviewing" your shoelace color for us. * 
 

Very sloppy logic, actually. An expectancy effect is a possible hypothesis when a study is unblinded. However, it's not the only one, and simply because a study does not control for expectancy effects does not invalidate it.


----------



## rodbac

Quote:


 Very sloppy logic, actually. An expectancy effect is a possible hypothesis when a study is unblinded. However, it's not the only one, and simply because a study does not control for expectancy effects does not invalidate it. 
 

Hirsch, cmon.

 First, the logic is perfectly sound- you're going to have to trust me on this, I guess.

 Next, to humor you, the "expectancy effect" is EXACTLY why the test can't be performed with the subject knowing which CD he's listening to- it's a fallacy (self-fulfilling prophecy and all that) and it most certainly DOES invalidate the test, *if* we're testing to see if he indeed hears the sound improve.

 If you want to test for the "expectancy effect", you're free to do so. However, *if you want to test the claims being made here (that the subject hears improved sound), you MUST eliminate it*.

 [EDIT]

 Because I'm not trying to be too combative:

 Do you understand why the expectancy effect has to eliminated?

 Let's say we test unblinded and find that he reports hearing a difference (which we already know to be true). We then have a number of things that may cause him to report the difference (there may indeed be a difference in the sound that he either finds better or worse, or your "expectancy effect", or... or...).

 So the question then becomes "how do we figure out which of those possible causes is the true cause of him reporting a difference?"

 Since our ultimate objective is to see if there really is a difference in the sound (as is claimed), we eliminate the other possible causes. so we make the test double-blind AAB to eliminate your "expectancy effect".


----------



## ooheadsoo

But the expectancy effect is the DESIRED effect. We don't WANT to eliminate it. I thought we already agreed that the sound itself doesn't change by the use of a piece of tape placed under the coffee mug and only our perception of it??

 Yes, it's not a property solely belonging to the tape and it's possible that pink could achieve the same effect all by his lonesome buck naked in a vacuum, but that's pretty hard. The tape is a perfectly good crutch.


----------



## rodbac

Quote:


 _Originally posted by ooheadsoo _
*But the expectancy effect is the DESIRED effect. We don't WANT to eliminate it. I thought we already agreed that the sound itself doesn't change by the use of a piece of tape placed under the coffee mug and only our perception of it??

 Yes, it's not a property solely belonging to the tape and it's possible that pink could achieve the same effect all by his lonesome buck naked in a vacuum, but that's pretty hard. The tape is a perfectly good crutch. * 
 

If all you're looking for is the "expectancy effect", then Pink might as well review how the color of his shoelaces affected the sound, too, because his review will have precisely *nothing* to do with the tape.

 It becomes a useless exercise.


----------



## Hirsch

Quote:


 _Originally posted by rodbac _
*Hirsch, cmon.

 First, the logic is perfectly sound- you're going to have to trust me on this, I guess. * 
 

This is a DBT-Free forum. I've been skirting the rules as closely as I dare, but there are places I can't go. You can't go there either. If this discussion heads in that direction, I'll lock the thread down.

 I do this professionally, in pharmacology. I'm perfectly capable of spotting faulty designs, and faulty claims based on inadequate experimental design or incorrect assumptions. And no, I don't have to trust you on this, particularly when you're wrong. Read *exactly* what I wrote. The possibility of expectancy playing a role in a perceptual phenomenon is not a guarantee that it does. We want to eliminate it as a hypothesis. However, just because it remains a hypothesis does not make it the reason the phenomenon occurred.

 Improved sound is a subjective experience. If a subject says the sound is improved, it is. We can't get into his brain to measure this (well, actually we could, but the expense would be extreme and the ethics questionable), so we're left with the data. The sound is improved.


----------



## Leporello

Quote:


 _Originally posted by Hirsch _
*This is a DBT-Free forum. I've been skirting the rules as closely as I dare, but there are places I can't go. You can't go there either. If this discussion heads in that direction, I'll lock the thread down.
* 
 

Amazing. The way to end all rational dicussion.



 Regards,

 L.


----------



## rodbac

First, I apologize if I've trampled any forum rules. I don't mean to, and I'm rereading the guidelines right now... forgive me for not knowing what DBT is.

  Quote:


 The possibility of expectancy playing a role in a perceptual phenomenon is not a guarantee that it does. We want to eliminate it as a hypothesis. However, just because it remains a hypothesis does not make it the reason the phenomenon occurred. 
 

Of course not, and it's not what I'm claiming. I think it's obvious that I'm claiming "expectancy" most certainly IS the reason he hears any difference. So either he can eliminate it as a possiblity and make the review useful, valid information, or we can keep it as a hypothesis and the review will be as useful as shoelace color or the condition of his carpet.

  Quote:


 Improved sound is a subjective experience. If a subject says the sound is improved, it is. We can't get into his brain to measure this (well, actually we could, but the expense would be extreme and the ethics questionable), so we're left with the data. The sound is improved. 
 

For the last time, I'm NOT claiming he didn't think the sound was improved. I'm claiming that the tape had nothing to do with it (or at least not anymore than (to stay consistent) his shoelace color).

 Hirsch, I don't usually make it a habit to argue with mods. I won't be offended if you lock the thread or ban me to end this. However, I respecfully submit that you're missing the point. Your background should make this crystal clear- it's not a difficult situation.


----------



## Hirsch

Quote:


 _Originally posted by rodbac _
*
 Hirsch, I don't usually make it a habit to argue with mods. I won't be offended if you lock the thread or ban me to end this. However, I respecfully submit that you're missing the point. Your background should make this crystal clear- it's not a difficult situation. * 
 

No problem. A ban would only be considered for a serious breach of the Terms of Use, not disagreement with a moderator. OTOH, I think we've reached a point where the Cable Forum rules prevent us from going deeper into some of the issues raised.


----------



## rodbac

Which rules, and what does DBT mean?


----------



## Orpheus

i believe it means "Double Blind Test"... i really wish they would clarify that in the title though... i didn't know what it meant either at first. at first i thought it was short for "debate." i dunno.


----------



## rodbac

AH. God, I just noticed that in the title... (woops).

 So what does that mean? No critical thought is to be applied? I'm ok with that if so...


----------



## guzzler

DBT = double blind test. It's where neither the volunteer or the person setting up the equipment for that person knows which item is in place, in this case the presence or not of the Silver Foil

 it's not permitted in *this* subforum (Cables... etc), because it makes any discussion completely circular ie, polarised between those who hear a difference, and people who want a full double blind test so it becomes pointless and time wasting

 as Hirsch said though, no ones going to get banned, it's just a way to stop a thread becoming intrenched into two opposite sides with no hope of reconciliation 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 g


----------



## tomek

as long as Pinkie administers the test himself it's only a blind test, which would be good enough for me!






 i can understand why DBT discussions would be banned on some communities and forums, but it's always seemed to me that the discussions here have been very rational and polite, not like some of the stuff I've seen on Hydrogen Audio!


----------



## rodbac

Quote:


 as long as Pinkie administers the test himself it's only a blind test, which would be good enough for me! 
 

deleted- I just got it...


----------



## PinkFloyd

For all of you who clearly didn't read my initial comment:

 "I was "highly" sceptical that a 1mm strip of foil could make the sound any better so really did go into this with a closed mind."

 I then said:

 "I'm going to have to be absolutely certain that the Rainbow foil is producing this improvement and not my imagination so it will be a few days before I fully review it."

 I conducted a test this afternoon based on the following, it may not be highly scientific and is open to critisism but so be it:

 THE TEST:

 I burnt 2 copies of a track I know very well....... "Ocean club" from the Yello "Baby" album.

 I burnt them using NERO 5.5 using the same type of CDR from the same batch and at a speed of 4X to ensure the copies were as accurate as possible.

 I labelled one disc Rainbow 1 and the other Rainbow 2:






 Rainbow 1 was "untreated" and Rainbow 2 was treated with 2 x 1mm strips of Rainbow foil.

 My CD player had been warming up for 48 hours and my headphone amp is left constantly powered up so the equipment was fully warmed up before this test. I also looped a CD (not one of the rainbow discs) and let the headphones play for 1 hour before the comparitive audition just to ensure they were listened to from cold.

 Here is the perverse part 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I got an assistant to to pull up a chair next to the CD player armed with the 2 CD's... (he hadn't a clue about the rainbow foil by the way, I had told him I wanted to see if I could detect a difference in sound with CD's burnt at different speeds 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 )

 I positioned my chair facing away from him and the CD player and asked to him to play a track from an independent CD so he could fix a volume level I was comfortable with. 

 He was armed with a pen and paper and was instructed to write down any comments I had after each listen.... ie "better" "not as good" etc. I also asked him to mix them up... ie: not play them alternately.. disc 1 followed by disc 2 back to 1 then to 2 etc. but to occasionally play the same disc twice but to open the CD drawer so it wasn't obvious he was doing this.

 The test commenced and the first 10 minutes or so I couldn't differentiate any change whatsoever...... all three tracks that had been played all sounded the same until track 4 which sounded decidedly more defined in the bass.... easier to follow with a much raspier sounding trumpet and the finger "clicks" were very real sounding. Track 5 went the same as track 4..... definitely nicer sounding than tracks one two and three. Track 6 sounded as though a veil had been thrown over the CD lazer but, having said that it, was easier to listen to than track 4 and 5 though nowhere as exciting and analytical.... more musical maybe.

 Track 7 went back to "open and analytical" and the bass again became easier to follow.... track 8 sounded the same as track 7.... track 9 throwing that same rose tinted veil over the proceedings and track 10 going back to analytical and open.

 Ok, after 40 minutes of this and 10 identical tracks from 2 different discs being fired into my ears I was ready for the results and here they are as they were recorded by my assistant and the CD revealed in brackets:

 Track one: "sounds good" (rainbow 2)
 Track two: "sounds the same" (rainbow 2)
 Track three: "same again" (rainbow 2)
 Track four: "much more defined, easier to follow" (Rainbow 1)
 Track five: "same as the last one analytical" (Rainbow 1)
 Track six: "slightly veiled yet musical" (Rainbow 2)
 Track seven: "definitely more open and airy" (Rainbow 1)
 Track Eight: "that's the same track again (laugh) " (Rainbow 1)
 Track nine: "that's the other disc it's veiled" (Rainbow 2)
 Track ten: "ok lets call it a day that's the one I like" (Rainbow1)

 When I looked at the results, fully expecting the tracks that sounded open, analytical and detailed to be rainbow 2 and found they were the untreated disc I was pretty gobsmacked!

 I did a quick AB blind with assistant listening but he reckoned they all sounded the same so that wasn't a lot of help but all credit to the guy the only music he listens to is from a radio at work and he looked undecidedly uncomfortable sitting there 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I cannot really form an opinion from this test but It's possible the rainbow foil works but makes the sound more musical throwing a rose tinted veil over the sound and less analytical sounding (I prefer analytical) than an untreated disc. It could also be a variation in the quality of the CDR's I used ....... etc. etc. there was a difference but I prefered the untreated copy in this pretty string and sellotape test.

 I know there are plenty of head-fiers awaiting a free sample of Rainbow foil and maybe they can conduct a more comprehensive AB comparison.... 

 Pinkie..... confused!

 EDIT: The shpongle treated disc still sounds better than the untreated disc 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Maybe they are from 2 different pressing plants (both original recordings) and I should swap the rainbow foil over.

 A note for all you who mentioned the word "gullible" etc. There's a difference being open minded and trying something for free and learning stuff rather than diving in and buying into snake oil just on the say so of someone else........ use your ears then decide.


----------



## Orpheus

but here is a logical problem:

 this foil doesn't necessarily have to be on the CD, as the manufacturer said. it doesn't even need to be in the audio system, anywhere. so, unless you get the dude to remove the CD and also remove all unused material from the premises too, you did not get correct results--you'll have to do the experiment all over again.

 the manufacturer does not talk about, as far as i know, any distance effects. i don't remember him ever saying that a strip on the CD itself will cause a greater effect than putting it underneath your chair, for instance.

 the point i'm trying to make is that this kind of product doesn't lend itself to any kind of testing. i doubt you can come up with any conclusive results at all.

 this is like talking about religion. impossible to prove. the manufacturer has reinforced his product so well, it's practically impossible to prove whether it works or not.

 you basically believe it or you don't.


----------



## gpalmer

Quote:


 _Originally posted by Orpheus _
*you basically believe it or you don't. * 
 

 Don't, although I'm willing to concede I have a closed mind and didn't even try it!


----------



## ServinginEcuador

Pinkie,

 Thanks for the insightful and honest review. Your A/B testing was quite thorough, and yielded some shocking conclusions. This stuff seems to make som edifference, but not for the good of the audio signal. Oh well, I applaud you for taking the chance and trying these out. Guess this will save the maker some money as I don't want to waste my time with it now. I got too many other things to do and with all the reviews I have to do this would just waste my time.


----------



## PinkFloyd

Quote:


 _Originally posted by Orpheus _
*
 this is like talking about religion. impossible to prove. * 
 

True..... but if you believe in religion it works for you Dean..... you don't have to prove your beliefs to anybody unless you are a preacher....... if you believe in Rainbow foil (which I don't) and it makes your sound experience more fulfilled then it's good for "you"

 I started this thread to basically alert head-fier's to the free Rainbow foil samples in the hope they would look forward to receiving something good through the post which may or may not improve their listening experience...... if so they could share their thoughts with us and if not they could also share their thoughts... 

 If nothing else, this thread has got a few people thinking. The power of the sub conscience is immense and if a bit of the rainbow makes people think the sound is better then I'm all for it........ 

 Paint the whole world with a rainbow.

 Mike.


----------



## rodbac

Thanks, PinkFloyd. Your effort is appreciated.

 We could argue methodology, sample size, etc. but I don't want to continue this.

 The reason, though, that things like this are dismissed without even trying them is not that anyone is close-minded- it's that there is absolutely no reason to think it even _might_ work. His claims are based 100% in pseudoscience and it's obvious they're bunk with even a rudimentary education in critical thought.

 However, if anyone wants to just tell me (or any critic) to just **** and leave them alone because if they like it, they like it, and that's the end of the discussion, so be it.


----------



## PinkFloyd

Quote:


 _Originally posted by rodbac _
*Thanks, PinkFloyd. Your effort is appreciated.

 We could argue methodology, sample size, etc. but I don't want to continue this.

 The reason, though, that things like this are dismissed without even trying them is not that anyone is close-minded- it's that there is absolutely no reason to think it even might work. His claims are based 100% in pseudoscience and it's obvious they're bunk with even a rudimentary education in critical thought.

 However, if anyone wants to just tell me (or any critic) to just **** and leave them alone because if they like it, they like it, and that's the end of the discussion, so be it. * 
 

Rainbow edit:


----------



## gpalmer

Quote:


 _Originally posted by PinkFloyd _
*It may simply be the fact that you are an (explitive removed)? * 
 

 Pink I know you are going through some rough times, but is that really necessary?


----------



## ooheadsoo

I know you quoted this in your reply, but you didn't seem to respond to it.

 "Yes, it's not a property solely belonging to the tape and it's possible that pink could achieve the same effect all by his lonesome buck naked in a vacuum, but that's pretty hard. The tape is a perfectly good crutch."

 The tape is just as good as the shoe laces. Works for pinkie. What's wrong with that? Actually, I would argue that the shoe laces don't work as well as the tape because there is no supporting essay and/or community backing the shoe laces as an audio product.

 I think that's it for me, I'm starting to repeat myself...


----------



## PinkFloyd




----------



## Hirsch

Quote:


 _Originally posted by rodbac _
*The reason, though, that things like this are dismissed without even trying them is not that anyone is close-minded- it's that there is absolutely no reason to think it even might work. His claims are based 100% in pseudoscience and it's obvious they're bunk with even a rudimentary education in critical thought.
* 
 

The prosecution used this argument with great success in "The Church vs. Galileo". They won, too. That didn't make it right.

 There are reasons not to try something. It could be dangerous, or expensive, or even very time consuming. However, for something like this, none of the above applies. In fact, PinkFloyd has now provided some rather convincing evidence that something is happening sonically, whether it is good or bad. Like it or not, the foil made a difference. To claim further that there is no effect is indeed close-mindedness.

 There is no substitute for experiencing this for yourself. The cost is trivial. Time to s**t or get off the pot.


----------



## PinkFloyd

Quote:


 _Originally posted by Hirsch _
*The prosecution used this argument with great success in "The Church vs. Galileo". They won, too. That didn't make it right.

 There are reasons not to try something. It could be dangerous, or expensive, or even very time consuming. However, for something like this, none of the above applies. In fact, PinkFloyd has now provided some rather convincing evidence that something is happening sonically, whether it is good or bad. Like it or not, the foil made a difference. To claim further that there is no effect is indeed close-mindedness.

 There is no substitute for experiencing this for yourself. The cost is trivial. Time to s**t or get off the pot. * 
 

This is classic head-fi  power to the rainbow


----------



## tomek

hahahah!

 he did ask for it!

 i've got some of this stuff on the way pinkie, and thanks for the review and for having the balls to post something like this.


 personally, i think there is somethign to be said for him being able to pick out the rainbow disc almost every single time. it seems like every time the disc was changed he knew it, and he had a clear preference for one over the other.

 i've always been a skeptic, and think that it is first necessary to decide if there even IS a difference between components, let alone make a confident decision whether one is better. I think that Pinkie's test has shown some evidence for both questions, and I for one, am quite surprised and impressed!


----------



## ooheadsoo

I've gotta get my hands on some of this $1 stuff...at $1, who wouldn't try it out?

 Anyone find it yet? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I don't want to ask for a free sample of a product I have no intention of buying...


----------



## PinkFloyd

Peter Belt........... Genius or nutter? the jury is out.


----------



## HiGHFLYiN9

Quote:


 _Originally posted by ooheadsoo _
*I've gotta get my hands on some of this $1 stuff...at $1, who wouldn't try it out?* 
 

Well according to Pinky's test the Foil made the cd "more veiled", so evidently the foil may cause more harm than good. What's even more amazing is that the results were consistant and did not waiver.


----------



## PinkFloyd

read what I Said I thought it sounded a bit veiled but also more musical if that makes sense?


----------



## gpalmer

Quote:


 _Originally posted by Hirsch _
*The prosecution used this argument with great success in "The Church vs. Galileo". They won, too. That didn't make it right.* 
 

 LOL, good point Hirsch!


----------



## rodbac

Quote:


 There are reasons not to try something. It could be dangerous, or expensive, or even very time consuming. However, for something like this, none of the above applies. In fact, PinkFloyd has now provided some rather convincing evidence that something is happening sonically, whether it is good or bad. Like it or not, the foil made a difference. To claim further that there is no effect is indeed close-mindedness. 
 

Hirsch, I've been very, very patient through all this, but now are you honestly comparing this hooey to claims of the earth revolving around the sun or something??

 In 2004, we know just a little something about how digital media works. For you to try and tell me that SOMETHING THE LASER CAN'T EVEN SEE makes some difference in how the little 1s and 0s are put together for sound is so insulting as to be criminal. Or are you trying to claim that I have no knowledge of what I speak and you're Galileo (with a vastly greater understanding of digital music reproduction)?

 Regarding PinkFloyd's "test", and with all due respect to PinkF., if any of you believe for a second that the tape makes the sound more "veiled", you're certifiably crazy.

 PinkFloyd, I appreciate what you tried to do, but your test was flawed (I said I didn't want to bring it up, but now I'm going to). To start with, you can't just have two discs- you'll need at minimum 5 or 6 of each to eliminate anomalies (it's very easy for 1 disc to be different from another, but highly improbable for 6 to be discernably different from another 6 and for those 6 to end up with the tape on them). Actually, if you want to be serious about it, PM me and I'll give you the minimum criteria for a valid test


----------



## PinkFloyd




----------



## tomek

out of interest pinkie, would you be willing to switch the foil and try it again?

 if you did that, it would eliminate my last few doubts about this product.


 also, i didn't understand the end of your post about the test. blind, you preferred the non foil disc and then later in your EDIT:, you said that you somehow preferred the foiled one????


----------



## PinkFloyd

Quote:


 _Originally posted by rodbac _
*Hirsch, I've been very, very patient through all this, but now are you honestly comparing this hooey to claims of the earth revolving around the sun or something??

 In 2004, we know just a little something about how digital media works. For you to try and tell me that SOMETHING THE LASER CAN'T EVEN SEE makes some difference in how the little 1s and 0s are put together for sound is so insulting as to be criminal. Or are you trying to claim that I have no knowledge of what I speak and you're Galileo (with a vastly greater understanding of digital music reproduction)?

 Regarding PinkFloyd's "test", and with all due respect to PinkF., if any of you believe for a second that the tape makes the sound more "veiled", you're certifiably crazy.

 PinkFloyd, I appreciate what you tried to do, but your test was flawed (I said I didn't want to bring it up, but now I'm going to). To start with, you can't just have two discs- you'll need at minimum 5 or 6 of each to eliminate anomalies (it's very easy for 1 disc to be different from another, but highly improbable for 6 to be discernably different from another 6 and for those 6 to end up with the tape on them). Actually, if you want to be serious about it, PM me and I'll give you the minimum criteria for a valid test *


----------



## HiGHFLYiN9

Quote:


 _Originally posted by PinkFloyd _
*read what I Said???? * 
 

Yes, twice, am I missing something?


----------



## PinkFloyd

> _Originally posted by highflyin9 _
> *Yes, twice, am I missing something? *
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## tomek

hey pinkie, i had a real question for you up there, not an attack


----------



## ooheadsoo

Quote:


 _Originally posted by rodbac _
*For you to try and tell me that SOMETHING THE LASER CAN'T EVEN SEE makes some difference in how the little 1s and 0s are put together for sound is so insulting as to be criminal. * 
 

I can't resist...
 Wow...still going on and on about how the tape is supposed to change the sound. No one thinks it changes the sound. You're the only one running around thinking that we think it changes the sound. What happened to that discussion we had about it being the perception? You seem to think our senses are absolute and perfect devices and function at 100% capacity all the time, every day. I really don't get it. Didn't we agree to this already? IT DOESN'T CHANGE THE SOUND.


----------



## Orpheus

Quote:


 PinkFloyd, I appreciate what you tried to do, but your test was flawed (I said I didn't want to bring it up, but now I'm going to). To start with, you can't just have two discs- you'll need at minimum 5 or 6 of each to eliminate anomalies (it's very easy for 1 disc to be different from another, but highly improbable for 6 to be discernably different from another 6 and for those 6 to end up with the tape on them). Actually, if you want to be serious about it, PM me and I'll give you the minimum criteria for a valid test 
 

 dude.... i've been trying to tell you all the same thing forever.... yes, his test is flawed, but way beyond what you said. his test is flawed because of what the manufacturer claims!--check out what the manufacturer's claiming! the guy says this stuff goes ANYWHERE. not just on the disc. these means this stuff anywhere on the premises has an effect. this also means that a treated CD that's on the premises should also affect the sound of untreated CDs cause just having the crap anywhere in his frickin house is gonna do something!

 do you understand how futile it is to conduct any test on this material? the manufacturer already states clearly that this stuff does not cause a measurable effect, at least not by today's understanding. he also credits most the perceivable effect to psychology. furthermore, this material basically affects anything, everywhere.

 this material seems to be made out of whatever God uses as paper. it is the end all of audio tweaks, the way the manufacturer has presented it.

 thus, any test you try to perform objectively, only returns your efforts with rubbish. worthless data.

 again, you can offer a million reasons why the Bible don't make sense, but no Christian will listen to you. and it's the same for this material. it don't make no sense at all. there's no point in conducting scientific-type tests, as the manufacturer's statements already exempted his product from criticism.

 again, i stress, *the manufacturer's statements already exempted his product from criticism.* end of story.

 (and personally, i find such types of products to be highly questionable, when the manufacturer makes claims that are not supportable by any scientific means.)


----------



## gpalmer

LOL, I don't know Orpheus, look at it this way, if his claims are correct and no distance for the effect is given or implied doesn't that mean we already have better sounding CDs without having to buy anything? We should be rolling out the red carpet for this guy, he's improved all our music!


----------



## fewtch

Quote:


 _Originally posted by rodbac _
*LIKELY???

 There's a distinct difference between "psychosomatic" and the placebo effect. One has real, measurable results and the other does NOTHING (you merely convince yourself a difference exists).

 Don't confuse the two. * 
 

But the placebo effect *does* do something (that's why the word "effect" is used).

 You're assuming that there's a world external to and separate from your senses that exists whether you perceive it or not. Aside from consensus agreements, can you prove this assumption?


----------



## Haribo

Quote:


 _Originally posted by gpalmer _
*LOL, I don't know Orpheus, look at it this way, if his claims are correct and no distance for the effect is given or implied doesn't that mean we already have better sounding CDs without having to buy anything? We should be rolling out the red carpet for this guy, he's improved all our music! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


* 
 

I think you're correct. Just efter I realised that this was the case my CD's suddenly sounded much more detailed and more dynamic. Wherever those fancy rainbow stickers are they sure work. My music has never sounded this good before!!!

 More rainbow foil to the people!


----------



## rodbac

Ok- I'll try to make this my last post, as I feel like you guys are just playing a prank now...

 Ooheadsoo, if you'd have read, you'd have seen that Hirsch said "the foil did something", which is clearly not the case. The _belief that the foil was there_ did something, but not the foil. Since that same argument could be made for Pinky's sock, it wasn't the foil.

 Orpheus, you're completely correct. I just got the impression there were some here who actually believed this foil was worth something and couldn't stomach the ignorance for some reason.

 And fewtch, don't freak me out like that.


----------



## fewtch

Quote:


 _Originally posted by rodbac _
*And fewtch, don't freak me out like that. * 
 

I ponder stuff like that all the time. It can be... uhhm, "mind expanding" 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




.

 Really, questioning commonly held assumptions can make a major difference in one's life. The assumptions that seem most obvious may be the ones that are actually most in doubt.


----------



## Orpheus

so here's the deal since we have an understanding:

 if this product works for you, by all means, use it! whatever it takes.

 but if you object to the fundamental idea behind this product, well, you're screwed, just like me! i don't believe in God, or at least any popular version. i don't believe in this product. i don't believe in many things. so, ultimately, i am unhappy--about sound, about life, whatever.

 so, if Pink finds this product useful, he should be very happy. it's cheap. it's easier than heck to use (all you have to do is give up some bills for it--the moment it arrives at your door your music has already gotten better! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 )

 in the mean time, i'll sit here and find misery in my own system. and be proud that i can be so sad.

 (dang... if only all audio components can be so deep! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 )


----------



## ooheadsoo

Don't change the argument on me! Stick to shoelaces, dagnabit!

 Shoelaces, foil, if it works, it works! Isn't that what we've been saying all along? I felt good after eating a cow, I felt good after eating a horse. Both made me feel good, that doesn't mean cows are not as valid as horses, just because both were true. Not sure the point of your argument there. Hey, someone could make audio socks and market it. I would still say they worked for the person that bought it if they said that it worked for them. Doesn't mean I would buy it though


----------



## Orpheus

gpalmer,
  Quote:


 LOL, I don't know Orpheus, look at it this way, if his claims are correct and no distance for the effect is given or implied doesn't that mean we already have better sounding CDs without having to buy anything? We should be rolling out the red carpet for this guy, he's improved all our music! 
 

 i'm way ahead of you man:

http://www5.head-fi.org/forums/showt...5&pagenumber=4

 i quote myself: "PS--i have a question... Belt says that it doesn't have to be applied to any one piece of your audio system. so, does that mean that by him merely manufacturing the product, all the sound systems of the world have instantly become audiophile quality?--after all, we don't actually have to see the product to feel it's effects. he does say that he believes it mostly a psychological effect. so, let's save him some shipping cost and tell him to leave it at his factory, k?"


----------



## gpalmer

Quote:


 _Originally posted by Orpheus _
*gpalmer,
 i'm way ahead of you man:
* 
 

 D'Oh, sorry I read the start of the thread and then just skipped to the bottom!


----------



## Orpheus

oh no... this was posted in the thread about the "x-pen" another product of theirs. i was just saying, we think alike.


----------



## tomek

as much as i'm skeptical and this rainbow foil is the most ridiculous thing i've ever heard about (even for here), there are two redeeming points that i think you should keep in mind lest you be 'closeminded'.

 1) belt isn't some yogic hippy, he's a man with far more hifi experience than the rest of us that has taken a very difficult and brave position in questioning audio from a new perspective, 'sound', not 'gear' oriented. as far out and bizarre as this product is, his explanations behind it are very rational and he completely understands how crazy he must seem, but only asks for a chance (hence the free offer, how often do you see a free offer with the other snakeoil in this hobby?). he doens't claim to understand the mechanism behind rainbow foil, but suggest that there might be more at play here than we currently understand.

 2) pinkie did seem to correctly identify between the two discs, although i await his response to my request that he switches the foil and tries again. i have yet to see any example of a successful blind test for cables or numerous other 'accepted' audio tweaks. in fact, most evidence is to the contrary although if you speak up against cables then people tend to imply you're deaf or stupid.


 i still think that people have been too harsh on people speaking out against rainbow foil and the argument that 'if it works it works' is pretty damned weak and makes me want to start selling $1900 cables and giving people audiophile haircuts.


----------



## ooheadsoo

C'mon, give me a break here! It's a weak product! It demands a weak argument! Any other argument ends in a stalemate because it would be too scientific! You need to move the competition to your own turf and force him to accept your terms and conditions! It's all in the head. By the way, with a 2 cd test, you can guess the "right" cd correctly 100 times in a row and it still doesn't mean much statistically speaking...any way, it's all fun and games, and it's not like it's costing anyone anything.


----------



## Orpheus

Quote:


 i have yet to see any example of a successful blind test for cables or numerous other 'accepted' audio tweaks. 
 

 actually, you can ask Hirsch. he did do a test of cables among some peers last year or so. i never did see the results... only a mentioning that the results seemed to conclude that no one could clearly hear a difference. but i dunno... maybe he can speak up here--though it's a bit off subject. this was quite a while ago.


----------



## tomek

yes hirsch, if you wouldn't mind directing me to the results of that test!


----------



## Hirsch

Quote:


 _Originally posted by Orpheus _
*actually, you can ask Hirsch. he did do a test of cables among some peers last year or so. i never did see the results... only a mentioning that the results seemed to conclude that no one could clearly hear a difference. but i dunno... maybe he can speak up here--though it's a bit off subject. this was quite a while ago. * 
 

We did the pilot run, but never followed through. I don't trust the pilot results, since there were some serious flaws in our methodology that didn't turn up until we were under way. The jury is still out. FWIW one person out of three could consistently identify interconnects, and none out of three could consistently identify power cords.


----------



## Orpheus

so, any plans to try the test again?--i think 3 people isn't a large enough pool though.


----------



## Hirsch

Quote:


 _Originally posted by Orpheus _
*so, any plans to try the test again?--i think 3 people isn't a large enough pool though. * 
 

Three people indeed is not enough. The length of time we gave to listen to samples was not enough. We were able to perform 12 comparisons on interconnects and 12 on power cords, which wasn't enough. We were all exhausted at the end of the afternoon, which was too much. All of which goes to illustrate the difficulties in this type of thing. It's not a yes you hear it no you don't type of affair. Yes you hear it speaks for itself. One person reliably identifying interconnects is enough. The differences are there, and the fact that two others could not indicates that they were not as sensitive to what was happening as the other person, not that there are no differences. However, the presence of a total negative is not enough. You need to have some estimate of the variance present when a just noticeable difference (JND) is used (which you're going to need to experimentally test and calculate, so that responding is just above random) to generate a power analysis to determine exactly how many people you're going to need to have confidence in a negative result. You're then going to need to run a positive control, where there is a comparison at the JND to confirm that people are still sensitive to the JND. It's very easy for people to start guessing, which can hugely increase the variance and erase any chance of significant results in detection of differences. However, if it increases the variance at the JND, however small, you can discount it as experimental error. The gist of this little paragraph is that doing it right isn't easy. Something like ABX doesn't begin to approach some of these problems.


----------



## tomek

how exactly do you establish a JND in a cable test?

 i'm familiar with it in other tests, but how would you do it with cables?


----------



## wali

Audiophiles are stupid! Vol 999...

 Can't blame them
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 .


----------



## rodbac

Wali, that title wasn't fair or accurate and was apologized for.

 The amount of gullibility that has surfaced is surprising, though, I have to admit. The lack of knowledge of the scientific method (albeit with good intentions) has caught me off guard, too, but I don't think it's really the focus of this forum (which is certainly ok).


----------



## Orpheus

Quote:


 The gist of this little paragraph is that doing it right isn't easy. Something like ABX doesn't begin to approach some of these problems. 
 

 yeah, i think you're right. the other thing is, with only 12 evaluations each, it's very possible your one single person who demonstrated some ability might have been able to simply guess correctly.

 but i know you have a job doing this kind of stuff... i also vaguely remember some formulas from my days in the stat classes that allows you to calculate when results are statistically significant. i dunno how many out of 12 that that person got right... but if he got all 12 right, well, then that sounds pretty overwhelming (though still possible to flip coins with the same result.) but if it's just like 9/12, well, that's only 3 above odds, which could be accountable by random chance, i would think.

 anyway, i would like to discuss this with you further some time. you see, i do want to do such an experiment, but i think your results would be more credible than mine if you happen to find that cables don't make a difference. and of course, mine would be more credible if it was found that cables do. cause you know, i publicly don't believe too much, and you do.

 but anyway, that's a subject for another thread in a non "dbt-free" forum. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 perhaps we can discuss this further in the Member's Lounge?


----------



## gpalmer

There would be at least one other problem I think you'd need to address. While I can hear differences in interconnects in my system very reliably, I'm not at all sure that I could do this in someone else's system. There are so many parameters to listen for it's incredible. When I change interconnects in my system, it is the differences that stick out to me but only because I am familiar with the sound that I have heard in the past.


----------



## Hirsch

Quote:


 _Originally posted by tomek _
*how exactly do you establish a JND in a cable test?

 i'm familiar with it in other tests, but how would you do it with cables? * 
 

Both simple and difficult at the same time. You see, there's no real need to do it with cables, even if that's what you're testing. Simplest would be a gain manipulation, but there are a host of other possible parameters, many of which are likely to have more face validity, if nothing else. Could be almost anything, and it's probably an interesting exercise to figure out what's best. Since it's not known what cables are actually doing, you're working in the dark, almost. You'd want a level that your sample performed above chance, but with some error so that it's not too easy. The idea behind a positive control is to insure that your test situation isn't altering sensory thresholds. The trick is picking the right threshold to use as your control.


----------



## Orpheus

then at least we can say that those who claim this or that cable makes a day or night difference in sound are exaggerating. if it takes so long to evaluate each cable, and if people doubt that they can hear the difference in other systems... well, i think it's fair to say, cables in general make small differences at most.
  Quote:


 Simplest would be a gain manipulation 
 

 i don't think this is a good idea. it's also possible various cables might "sound" louder than others. it's better to stick to one single variable: the cable. same source, same amp, same headphones, and same volume... just change the cables.


----------



## Hirsch

Quote:


 _Originally posted by Orpheus _
*
 but anyway, that's a subject for another thread in a non "dbt-free" forum. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 perhaps we can discuss this further in the Member's Lounge? * 
 

Fine with me. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  Quote:


 _Originally posted by Orpheus _
*
 then at least we can say that those who claim this or that cable makes a day or night difference in sound are exaggerating. if it takes so long to evaluate each cable, and if people doubt that they can hear the difference in other systems... well, i think it's fair to say, cables in general make small differences at most. * 
 

No, it's not. The differences may be small, but so what? I've been in the situation where in a controlled test I couldn't tell the difference between a pair of cables, and yet one of the cables in my setup literally saved it for me, when I thought getting the sound right was hopeless. The other was the one making it hopeless. You're a musician. How much difference does just "slightly" out of tune make in your music? Sometime small differences are important.

 As gpalmer pointed out, we are much more sensitive to alterations in systems that we know and use a lot. There are also time factors to be considered. Sometimes I won't know what I like or dislike about what I'm hearing for days, or weeks. If I can't identify it, I'm not going to be able to tag it in an A/B situation.


----------



## Orpheus

Quote:


 How much difference does just "slightly" out of tune make in your music? Sometime small differences are important. 
 

 yes, you're right. good point.


----------



## gpalmer

Quote:


 _Originally posted by Orpheus _
*then at least we can say that those who claim this or that cable makes a day or night difference in sound are exaggerating. if it takes so long to evaluate each cable, and if people doubt that they can hear the difference in other systems... well, i think it's fair to say, cables in general make small differences at most.* 
 

 No, I can hear the differences in other systems, but I would bet that there are systems out there that would not be clear to me. This has always been one of the weakness in tests I have seen, researchers bring folks in to listen to systems they have never heard before which means they don't have a baseline for comparison. Seriously, think about how long it takes to learn the nuances of a new CD player or amplifer and be able to express them, then take that and extend it to the entire system. Generally I would say that cables are a finishing touch sort of difference and would agree that they are not a night and day change which is usually why I would compare them last after all other components are in place.


----------



## Orpheus

Quote:


 Seriously, think about how long it takes to learn the nuances of a new CD player or amplifer and be able to express them, then take that and extend it to the entire system. 
 

actually, you're talking to a guy that doesn't claim to hear much of a difference between amps and CD players either. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 but then again, i have always bought only the best... so maybe if i evaluated lower-end components i might hear something. i dunno. but i have never claimed to have "golden ears." in fact, you might even have noticed, i have not a single time commented on the "sound" of an amp. even in that big Grace thread i started, i only talked about clear attributes like the noise floor. i never once commented on its tonality.

 yesterday i switched from the Grace to the good-old MG Head. and you know, i think i did kinda hear a difference. the MG Head seemed to sound "thicker." but that's about all i could tell you.

 so, you see, no big component review coming from me any time soon. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 anyway, i interpret Hirsch's last comments to mean that despite cables making subtle differences, they can be critical to obtaining the best performance from a system. and i concede, yes, if they do make a difference, they can be very important to the sound.

 well, maybe in a bit i'll start a whole thread on the subject of creating a valid cable-evaluation test.

 so, Pinkfloyd... how goes the rainbow foil evaluations? i guess you've found something more important to evaluate at the present time. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 good.


----------



## gpalmer

Quote:


 _Originally posted by Orpheus _
*anyway, i interpret Hirsch's last comments to mean that despite cables making subtle differences, they can be critical to obtaining the best performance from a system. and i concede, yes, if they do make a difference, they can be very important to the sound.* 
 

 That's exactly how I would phrase it, subtle but still important.


----------



## tomek

gpalmer,

 have you noticed the difference between your cables in anything resembling a blind situation?

 not necessarily an A/B, but how about listening to one cable for an extended period of time and then asking someone to either switch/not switch it without letting you know. 

 i only say this from my own very recent experience when aerius designed a cable for me which three of us listened to and all agreed on the same sonic improvements it provided, only to be stumped when blind we couldn't notice any difference whatsoever. 

 i know and believe myself that sometimes a/bing things is difficult, but then i think when the difference is very difficult to notice, if noticed at all in an A/B i have to question the staggering and fantastic claims made to improvements from cabling when people review or discuss them.



 i guess what i'm really getting at is this, and i think it's a point to keep in mind.


*A/Bing cables for a difference only seems to be difficult when you're aware of which cable is currently being played, otherwise it can be quite astounding how cable A and B differ.* 

 i'm sure anyone who's questioned cables at time has noticed this phenomenon and it's quite shocking and disturbing when you think about the money involved.


----------



## tomek

Quote:


 _Originally posted by Orpheus _
*
 well, maybe in a bit i'll start a whole thread on the subject of creating a valid cable-evaluation test.

* 
 

Count me in. I'd like to do this properly, once and for all, so that I can finally stop wondering and doubting. 

 Some well known cables, some DIY cables, and some real cheapo standard cables I think would be a good idea so that we have the entire spectrum there and aren't limiting ourselves to just comparing the well known cables to each other (which might have very little difference between them).


----------



## gpalmer

Quote:


 _Originally posted by tomek _
*gpalmer,

 have you noticed the difference between your cables in anything resembling a blind situation?* 
 

 Yes, I have had people change them and had no problem identifying which cable was which. The incident I find most interesting though was I had purchased a set of Acoustic Zen Silver Reference cables from a reseller I have used many times. He had burned them in before shipping them. Well I got them in and swapped them with the Silver References in my system and the sound was wrong. The AZ Silver References have a rather stiff sound when they haven't been burned in and these cables did not sound burned in. This wasn't a slight difference, it stopped me dead in my tracks as I walked away from my system. So I sent him a mail asking if he was sure he had burned them in. He said he had, but things didn't sound right to me so I pulled out my system and examined the cables. It turns out that when I had installed them I installed one of them backwards and didn't realize it. Once I oriented it in the proper direction everything sounded normal, but the incident left me rather puzzled since I was never a big believer in directionality, but here I was hearing it and responding to it in a case where I could only have heard it.


----------



## tomek

Quote:


 _Originally posted by gpalmer _
*Yes, I have had people change them and had no problem identifying which cable was which. The incident I find most interesting though was I had purchased a set of Acoustic Zen Silver Reference cables from a reseller I have used many times. He had burned them in before shipping them. Well I got them in and swapped them with the Silver References in my system and the sound was wrong. The AZ Silver References have a rather stiff sound when they haven't been burned in and these cables did not sound burned in. This wasn't a slight difference, it stopped me dead in my tracks as I walked away from my system. So I sent him a mail asking if he was sure he had burned them in. He said he had, but things didn't sound right to me so I pulled out my system and examined the cables. It turns out that when I had installed them I installed one of them backwards and didn't realize it. Once I oriented it in the proper direction everything sounded normal, but the incident left me rather puzzled since I was never a big believer in directionality, but here I was hearing it and responding to it in a case where I could only have heard it. * 
 


 That is incredible, it's good to hear things like that once in a while to make this debate oh so much more interesting.

 In fact, the only thing more phenomenal than that is how off topic this thread has become.

 Let's start that other one in the member's lounge!


----------



## Orpheus

http://www5.head-fi.org/forums/showt...threadid=69363

 let's do it.


----------



## PinkFloyd

Can all of the guys who have ordered free samples of rainbow foil make themselves known and maybe we can set up some type of test?

 I was in deep thought earlier and if Jude could attach some rainbow foil to the hardware used to run head-fi then we would all benefit, as every time we visited head-fi we would be entering a rainbow treated zone.

 Some of you may be interested in reading Greg weavers (soundstage.com) take on the Rainbow foil: http://www.soundstage.com/synergize/synergize041999.htm

 Pinkie.

 More articles to come....... I've got a super one where 8 highly respected UK Hi-Fi Journalists "all" agreed that they heard an improvement in sound quality at a Peter Belt demo...... they couldn't hear a difference until Peter treated the telephone in the room with some Rainbow foil (he had treated the CD's etc. but it was not until he treated the telephone that they heard a major improvement.... Peter stated that it sometimes takes more than simply treating the CD).......... I'll scan the article in in due process.......... 8 leading hi-fi experts were involved in the test BTW for the purist....... they were all blind to what was taking place.

 Pinkie.


----------



## Hirsch

Quote:


 _Originally posted by PinkFloyd _
*
 I was in deep thought earlier and if Jude could attach some rainbow foil to the hardware used to run head-fi then we would all benefit, as every time we visited head-fi we would be entering a rainbow treated zone.
* 
 

The server seems to be running much faster today. Maybe he's already done it


----------



## PinkFloyd

Quote:


 _Originally posted by Hirsch _
*The server seems to be running much faster today. Maybe he's already done it 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


* 
 

maybe it's this that's causing it Hirsch ? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Seriously this thread is "72" hours long and has had 143 posts and 4416 views.......... there's gotta be something to this stuff I've never seen such a response on head-fi.......... ever.

 Rupert Sheldrake and Peter Belt may be onto something here 





 Pinkie.


----------



## Orpheus

you know... i'm curious......

 why this foil though? what is it about it's shiny prismatic appearance that makes it any better than any other material?

 how did Belt arrive at using this specific material?


----------



## PinkFloyd

Quote:


 _Originally posted by Orpheus _
*you know... i'm curious......

 why this foil though? what is it about it's shiny prismatic appearance that makes it any better than any other material?

 how did Belt arrive at using this specific material? * 
 

Never question magic or it will become science.


----------



## rodbac

Quote:


 how did Belt arrive at using this specific material? 
 

Through a highly scientific process of elimination and careful testing of each material's "sound improving" qualities...

 that, or "OOOOH it SPARKLES!"


----------



## PinkFloyd

Quote:


 _Originally posted by rodbac _
*Through a highly scientific process of elimination and careful testing of each material's "sound improving" qualities...

 that, or "OOOOH it SPARKLES!" * 
 

Have you e-mailed for a "FREE" sample yet? Give the sample a go and "then" you're in a position to comment.


 Pinkie,


----------



## rodbac

Quote:


 Have you e-mailed for a "FREE" sample yet? Give the sample a go and "then" you're in a position to comment. 
 

Pinkie, cmon.


----------



## PinkFloyd

Quote:


 _Originally posted by rodbac _
*Pinkie, cmon. * 
 


 Email is quite easy to master.............. even you could manage to order a free sample rodbac............ go for it


----------



## rodbac

Quote:


 Email is quite easy to master.............. even you could manage to order a free sample rodbac............ go for it 
 

Didn't need to- I did a little experimenting myself and I can only say...

 OH. MY. GOD.

 Color me embarrassed- IT WORKED.

 I first tried a variation of the rainbow (you'll see it on the right side of the CD) which produced no results. But then I tried the real thing (on the left of the CD) and the soundstage opened up dramatically and it was like I had a whole new set of equipment! 

 Sorry for badmouthing this, Pinkie and Mr. Belt. IT WORKS IT WORKS.

 TRULY AMAZING.

 My test CD:

http://a4.cpimg.com/image/BC/79/3235...-02000180-.jpg


----------



## gpalmer

Quote:


 _Originally posted by rodbac _
*Didn't need to- I did a little experimenting myself and I can only say...

 OH. MY. GOD.
* 
 

 LOL, are you sure the marker you used was specially prepared by Mr. Belt?


----------



## rodbac

They weren't, but I'm sure his would have worked even better.

 I'm restructuring my investments right now to get a chunk of dough together to send to him... you know, just a little something to help out the pioneers in this field.

 [EDIT}

 To update you all, I'm now experimenting with different colors of *crayons* using a rectangle (1/4" x 1"), and the results are truly STAGGERING:

 I first tried maize which only served to yellow the sound.

 After getting similarly disappointing results with maroon, mahogany, and magenta, I then happened upon burnt sienna and it was like THE HEAVENS ABOVE OPENED UP. 

 The bass was deeper, the highs clearer, and the vocals more beautiful than I thought possible.

 BUT, that's not even the best part, simply by virtue of having my burnt sienna rectangle on the CD and playing it while the dishwasher ran, THE DISHES CAME OUT CLEANER THAN THEY EVER HAVE BEFORE.

 I'm going to have a dumptruck full of my money backed up to Belt's door and bury him in cash. THANKS MR. BELT!

 [EDIT2]

 And the dog and cat are now finally getting along...

 [EDIT3]

 And my golf game has never been better... 300 yd drives... pin-seeking approaches... the truest putts I've ever hit...


----------



## HD-5000

This is the best thread ever!


----------



## ooheadsoo

That's the way rodbac! Man, you wasted 3 days having a pointless discussion with me when all this time you could have treated your cds and your coffee mug and your dinner plates and improved your life tremendously! (I don't see why this trick couldn't work for all aspects of our lives. Good luck with your golf game!)

 I'll be waiting for your impressions once you get the REAL deal from the Belts!


----------



## radrd

Quote:


 I don't see why this trick couldn't work for all aspects of our lives. 
 

A cheap alternative to viagra maybe?


----------



## rodbac

Well, after the burnt sienna crayon deal, I decided to dig out these:

http://a4.cpimg.com/image/F8/C5/3236...-01320156-.jpg

 and, surprisingly, they didn't affect my music AT ALL. I'm writing to Belt to get an explanation for this...

 However, I did find one benefit:

 MY WAFFLES TASTE ALMOST THREE TIMES BETTER! That's right- they improve the taste of waffles dramatically.

 The bizarre thing, though, is that pancakes are unaffected. Go figure.

 Well, I'm off for some more testing...


----------



## Duncan

Quote:


 _Originally posted by HD-5000 _
*This is the best thread ever! * 
 

I agree... it's pretty damned funny this thread, although I guess it should be put into CI... its not like its very erm - productive, is it 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I'll leave it here for now, until I get back from my meet... unless another mod spots it, and hurries it across there...

 But... let me get this straight, if I stick some tin-foil and green felt tip pen on my head, i'll all of a sudden be completely irresistable to the opposite sex? wow... forget sweetening up the sound of my CDs - i'm gonna be sweetening up the ladies


----------



## PinkFloyd

Quote:


 _Originally posted by Duncan _
*I agree... it's pretty damned funny this thread, although I guess it should be put into CI... its not like its very erm - productive, is it 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I'll leave it here for now, until I get back from my meet... unless another mod spots it, and hurries it across there...

 But... let me get this straight, if I stick some tin-foil and green felt tip pen on my head, i'll all of a sudden be completely irresistable to the opposite sex? wow... forget sweetening up the sound of my CDs - i'm gonna be sweetening up the ladies 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


* 
 

Oh come on Duncan, this is a "tweak" and it's not certifiably inane, there are still plenty of head-fiers who are waiting for their free samples and it would be good to hear from them before shunting this subject into the loony bin.

 You may look a bit daft with rainbow stuck on your forehead but I'm sure the ladies would be impressed if you wore a Rainbow foil pimps hat with a pink ostrich feather


----------



## rodbac

Quote:


 Oh come on Duncan, this is a "tweak" and it's not certifiably inane, there are still plenty of head-fiers who are waiting for their free samples and it would be good to hear from them before shunting this subject into the loony bin. 
 

Not certifiably inane?? Are you crazy? UNDERSTATEMENT OF THE YEAR! They work like CHAMPS, as does anything with a rainbow on it!!!

 For example:

 I tried some socks with different colors on them- no change for either my music or my waffles. HOWEVER, when I layered first a blue sock, then a yellow sock, then a red sock, THE EFFECT REAPPEARED!!! It seems we need to have a representative color from certain specific regions of the EMS for it to work, BUT WORK IT DOES!!!!!!!11

 I am now simply carrying "rainbow coalition" buttons with me wherever I go, and instead of, for instance, wasting time running a head cleaning on my printer when printing photos, I just place one of my magic buttons on the printer and I DON'T PERCEIVE THE GAPS IN TEH INK ANYMORE!!! I am not ****ting you- you have GOT to try this.

 Not certifiably inane, indeed, Pinky. Don't go limp on me now- we are truly on to something here....


----------



## Hirsch

Quote:


 _Originally posted by rodbac _
*
 I tried some socks with different colors on them- no change for either my music or my waffles. HOWEVER, when I layered first a blue sock, then a yellow sock, then a red sock, THE EFFECT REAPPEARED!!! It seems we need to have a representative color from certain specific regions of the EMS for it to work, BUT WORK IT DOES!!!!!!!11

* 
 

Let's see. Rodbac at first complains about lack of proper testing. So Pink Floyd actually does the test, and determines a difference. Now Rodbac is posting nothing but ridicule, apparently unable to afford the $2.00 postage that would be needed to try it for himself. At least we now know what Rodbac is.

 The idea of designing an experiment to test for sonic differences has been resurrected in the Members Lounge in a thread started by Orpheus. I will be moderating that thread closely. Attacks and ridicule will not be permitted in it, only serious discussion about how to design the proper experiment. Agreement will not be necessary, or even desireable, as long as posts to that thread are *polite* and are attempts at a positive contribution.


----------



## rodbac

Ridicule? I am agreeing 100% with Pinky on this.

 The effects of those things are amazing. For you to term my agreement "ridicule" is insulting- if I heard/tasted/saw/perceived a difference, it existed. End of discussion.

 Power to the rainbow!

 [EDIT]

  Quote:


 At least we now know what Rodbac is. 
 

You're kidding, right?


----------



## Duncan

Quote:


 _Originally posted by PinkFloyd _
*Oh come on Duncan, this is a "tweak" and it's not certifiably inane, there are still plenty of head-fiers who are waiting for their free samples and it would be good to hear from them before shunting this subject into the loony bin.* 
 

Maybe the product is the true audio messiah, I have no inclination to find out, but the reason for it being likely to end up in CI is not the 'tweak', but the responses... hardly educational for the passing rainbow tweaker is it


----------



## ooheadsoo

Hey Rodbac, maybe your first one or two ridicule posts were funny, so I chimed in with one too, but it's in pretty poor taste now, IMO.


----------



## rodbac

What are you implying, ooheadsoo- that I couldn't have experienced the differences I'm reporting?

 If so, why would you think such a thing, since experiences like that are precisely what this thread is about?

 If not, then why would you think I'm ridiculing?


----------



## ooheadsoo

Because there's a marked gap between you and pinkie: sincerity.


----------



## rodbac

Quote:


 Because there's a marked gap between you and pinkie: sincerity. 
 

You're incorrect.


----------



## reeseboisse

A proud member of Team Psychosomatics should have a free sample coming soon.

 In addition to that, I also created an intricately detailed voodoo "doll" of my Creative Sound Blaster PCI audio card, stuck it in the freezer, and attached to it a tag saying "Best source on the planet". Since doing so, I've noticed a vastly larger soundstage, along with unbelieveable extension in both the highs and lows. Instrument separation has also increased dramatically.


----------



## rodbac

reeseboisse, that's just the tip of the iceberg. Send away for a tiny gay/lesbian pride 'rainbow shirt' and outfit the soundblaster voodoo doll in it (the rainbows on those shirts are second to none and will take the sound from your card up anywhere from 3-5 more notches).


----------



## PinkFloyd

Quote:


 _Originally posted by Hirsch _
*Let's see. Rodbac at first complains about lack of proper testing. So Pink Floyd actually does the test, and determines a difference. Now Rodbac is posting nothing but ridicule, apparently unable to afford the $2.00 postage that would be needed to try it for himself. At least we now know what Rodbac is.

 The idea of designing an experiment to test for sonic differences has been resurrected in the Members Lounge in a thread started by Orpheus. I will be moderating that thread closely. Attacks and ridicule will not be permitted in it, only serious discussion about how to design the proper experiment. Agreement will not be necessary, or even desireable, as long as posts to that thread are polite and are attempts at a positive contribution. * 
 

Hi Hirsch,

 I believe they send the samples free of charge and they pay the postage so it's not even a $2.00 issue, probably just a closed mind issue.


----------



## rodbac

Quote:


 I believe they send the samples free of charge and they pay the postage so it's not even a $2.00 issue, probably just a closed mind issue. 
 

For the last time, I'M WITH YOU. I TRIED IT. I LOVE IT. I'M SOLD. I'M A BELIEVER.

 What else would you like me to say to convince you?


----------



## PinkFloyd

Quote:


 _Originally posted by rodbac _
*For the last time, I'M WITH YOU. I TRIED IT. I LOVE IT. I'M SOLD. I'M A BELIEVER.

 What else would you like me to say to convince you? * 
 

Silence would be good


----------



## gpalmer

Quote:


 _Originally posted by PinkFloyd _
*Silence would be good 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


* 
 

 LOL!


----------



## rodbac

Surely you wouldn't want to silence your biggest supporter, Pink. Tell me it isn't so!


----------



## greenhorn

http://www.belt.demon.co.uk/faq/faq82000.html

 So cool...


----------



## greenhorn

... and there's more where this came from:

http://www.belt.demon.co.uk/whatamess.html


----------



## oneeyedhobbit

Quote:


 _Originally posted by reeseboisse _
*A proud member of Team Psychosomatics should have a free sample coming soon.

 In addition to that, I also created an intricately detailed voodoo "doll" of my Creative Sound Blaster PCI audio card, stuck it in the freezer, and attached to it a tag saying "Best source on the planet". Since doing so, I've noticed a vastly larger soundstage, along with unbelieveable extension in both the highs and lows. Instrument separation has also increased dramatically. * 
 

I love it reese, I love it.

 But really, this is such bunk. I mean, if you're going to feed us this drivel, try to make it believable. Where the hell in nature do we find the numeric sequence 'x 26 'x? At least toss out 1.618033989..... or something.


----------



## PinkFloyd

I can swear that attaching Rainbow foil to my monitor has changed the appearance of Head-Fi 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	








 Picture to keep Rodbac amused whilst the rest of us talk serious science and magic theories


----------



## rodbac

Quote:


 I can swear that attaching Rainbow foil to my monitor has changed the appearance of Head-Fi 
 

Excellent- but why the rolleyes?


----------



## PinkFloyd

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rodbac* 
_Excellent- but why the rolleyes?_

 


 Can't you notice the difference?


----------



## prisoner #6

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rodbac* 
_reeseboisse, that's just the tip of the iceberg. Send away for a tiny gay/lesbian pride 'rainbow shirt' and outfit the soundblaster voodoo doll in it (the rainbows on those shirts are second to none and will take the sound from your card up anywhere from 3-5 more notches)._

 

I couldn't help but observe some wonderful irony here. Weren't there some folks who left head-fi a while back because they found the site too homophobic? I guess it's safe to say that things have taken a dramatic turn--now that we'll all be sporting rainbow gear on everything we own!


----------



## rodbac

Quote:


 Can't you notice the difference? 
 

Can't I notice what difference- that you edited the rolleyes out of your post to lighten the mood?

 Regarding that picture, I would be willing to bet dimes to dollars that that guy is now getting more ass than a toilet seat, whatwith the power of that rainbow and all.

 What's sad, though, is that he wasted all that time bending balloons when all he really had to do was put on blue, green, yellow, and red socks (in that order, I've found)...


----------



## PinkFloyd

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rodbac* 
_What's sad, though, is that he wasted all that time bending balloons when all he really had to do was put on blue, green, yellow, and red socks (in that order, I've found)..._

 

I'm afraid I won't be able to duplicate your sock tweak as I don't have any yellow, green or red socks in my sock drawer and I certainly won't be shopping for them


----------



## stark23x

People actually take this guy seriously? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  Quote:


 The simplest method of treating the C.D., Video and vinyl discs is to place a 3 or 4 cm long line in one position at the edge. After applying the Violet mark to the edge of the disc as described, the treatment is then activated by tapping the Violet marking with the end of the cap of the Violet pen. 
 

Wow. First you scribble on the CD, or VINYL(!) or even computer discs (I swear, the site claims this works) and then you *tap* it? Do I have to do the hokey-pokey too? How about animal sacrifices?

 I'm not going to get into the debate with fans of bunk science...I'm just amazed that anyone who can tie their own shoes would buy into such unbridled nonsense. Call me closed-minded all day...so be it.

 Team Closed-Minded <---me.
 Team Anti Snake Oil <---also me.


----------



## rodbac

Quote:


 I'm afraid I won't be able to duplicate your sock tweak as I don't have any yellow, green or red socks in my sock drawer and I certainly won't be shopping for them 
 

Well, when you run out of stickers and need something to boost your music and improve the taste of your waffles (not pancakes, though, and I still haven't heard back from Belt why this is), you'll feel differently...


----------



## PinkFloyd

For all you sceptics out there I can recommend some essential reading which may go toward giving you a better understanding of morphic resonance. Rupert Sheldrake has written some very interesting papers on Morphic resonance and you can read them here: http://www.sheldrake.org/papers/Morphic/index.html


 Here is a small excerpt from Ruperts Papers on Morphic Resonance :


 Part I - Mind, Memory, and Archetype Morphic Resonance and the Collective Unconscious 
 by Rupert Sheldrake 

 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 In this essay, I am going to discuss the concept of collective memory as a background for understanding Jung's concept of the collective unconscious. The collective unconscious only makes sense in the context of some notion of collective memory. This then takes us into a very wide-ranging examination of the nature and principle of memory-not just in human beings and not just in the animal kingdom; not even just in the realm of life-but in the universe as a whole. Such an encompassing perspective is part of a very profound paradigm shift that is taking place in science: the shift from the mechanistic to an evolutionary and wholistic world view. 

 The Cartesian mechanistic view is, in many ways, still the predominant paradigm today, especially in biology and medicine. Ninety percent of biologists would be proud to tell you that they are mechanistic biologists. Although physics has moved beyond the mechanistic view, much of our thinking about physical reality is still shaped by it-even in those of us who would like to believe that we have moved beyond this frame of thought. Therefore, I will briefly examine some of the fundamental assumptions of the mechanistic world view in order to show how it is still deeply embedded in the way that most of us think. 

 MECHANISM'S ROOTS IN NEO-PLATONIC MYSTICISM 

 It is interesting that the roots of the 17th-century mechanistic world view can be found in ancient mystical religion. Indeed, the mechanistic view was a synthesis of two traditions of thought, both of which were based on the mystical insight that reality is timeless and changeless. One of these traditions stems from Pythagoras and Plato, who were both fascinated by the eternal truths of mathematics. In the 17th century, this evolved into a view that nature was governed by timeless ideas, proportions, principles, or laws that existed within the mind of God. This world view became dominant and, through philosophers and scientists such as Copernicus, Kepler, Descartes, Galileo and Newton, it was incorporated into the foundations of modern physics. 

 Basically, they expressed the idea that numbers, proportions, equations, and mathematical principles are more real than the physical world we experience. Even today, many mathematicians incline toward this kind of Pythagorean or Platonic mysticism. They think of the physical world as a reification of mathematical principles, as a reflection of eternal numerical mathematical laws. This view is alien to the thinking of most of us, who the physical world as the "real" world and consider mathematical equations a man-made, and possibly inaccurate, description of that "real" world. Nevertheless, this mystical view has evolved into the currently predominant scientific viewpoint that nature is governed by eternal, changeless, immutable, omnipresent laws. The laws of nature are everywhere and always. 

 MATERIALISM'S ROOTS IN ATOMISM 

 The second view of changelessness which emerged in the 17th century stemmed from the atomistic tradition of materialism, which addressed an issue which, even then, was already deep-rooted in Greek thought: namely, the concept of a changeless reality. Parmenides, a pre-Socratic philosopher, had the idea that only being is; not-being is not. If something is, it can't change because, in order to change, it would have to combine being and not-being, which was impossible. Therefore,. he concluded that reality is a homogenous, changeless sphere. Unfortunately for Parmenides, the world we experience is not homogenous, changeless, or spherical. In order to preserve his theory, Parmenides claimed that the world we experience is a delusion. This wasn't a very satisfactory solution, and thinkers of the time tried to find a way to resolve this dilemma. 

 The atomists' solution was to claim that reality consists of a large number of homogenous, changeless spheres (or particles): the atoms. Instead of one big changeless sphere, there are a great many small, changeless spheres moving in the void. The changing appearances of the world could then be explained in terms of the movements, permutations, and combinations of the atoms. This is the original insight of materialism: that reality consisted of eternal atomic matter and the movement of matter. 

 The combination of this materialistic tradition with the Platonic tradition finally gave rise to the mechanical philosophy which emerged in the 17th century and produced a cosmic dualism that has been with us ever since. On the one hand we have eternal atoms of inert matter; and on the other hand, we have changeless, non-material laws which are more like ideas than physical, material things. In this kind of dualism, both sides are changeless-a belief that does not readily suggest the idea of an evolutionary universe. In fact, physicists have been very adverse to accepting the idea of evolution precisely because it fits so poorly with the notion of eternal matter and changeless laws. In modern physics, matter is now seen as a form of energy; eternal energy has replaced eternal matter, but little else has changed. 

 THE EMERGENCE OF THE EVOLUTIONARY PARADIGM 

 Nevertheless, the evolutionary paradigm has been gaining ground steadily for the past two centuries. In the 18th century, social, artistic, and scientific developments were generally viewed as a progressive and evolutionary process. The Industrial Revolution made this viewpoint an economic reality in parts of Europe and America. By the early 19th century there were a number of evolutionary philosophies and, by the 1840's, the evolutionary social theory of Marxism had been publicized. In this context of social and cultural evolutionary theory, Darwin proposed his biological theory of evolution which extended the evolutionary vision to the whole of life. Yet this vision was not extended to the entire universe: Darwin and the neo-Darwinians ironically tried to fit the evolution of life on earth into a static universe, or even worse, a universe which was actually thought to be "running down" thermodynamically, heading toward a "heat death." 

 Everything changed in 1966 when physics finally accepted an evolutionary cosmology in which the universe was no longer eternal. Instead, the universe originated in a Big Bang about 15 billion years ago and has evolved ever since. So we now have an evolutionary physics. But we have to remember that this evolutionary physics is only just over 20 years old, and the implications and consequences of the Big Bang discovery are not yet fully known. 

 Physics is only just beginning to adapt itself to this new view, which, as we have seen, challenges the most fundamental assumption of physics since the time of Pythagoras: the idea of eternal laws. As soon as we have an evolving universe, we are confronted with the question: what about the eternal laws of nature? Where were the laws of nature before the Big Bang? If the laws of nature existed before the Big Bang, then it's clear that they are nonphysical; in fact, they are metaphysical. This forces out into the open the metaphysical assumption that underlay the idea of eternal laws all along. 

 LAWS OF NATURE, OR JUST HABITS? 

 There is an alternative, however. The alternative is that the universe is more like an organism than a machine. The Big Bang recalls the mythic stories of the hatching of the cosmic egg: it grows, and as it grows it undergoes an internal differentiation that is more like a gigantic cosmic embryo than the huge eternal machine of mechanistic theory. With this organic alternative, it might make sense to think of the laws of nature as more like habits; perhaps the laws of nature are habits of the universe, and perhaps the universe has an in-built memory. 

 About 100 years ago the American philosopher, C. S. Pierce, said that if we took evolution seriously, if we thought of the entire universe as evolving, then we would have to think of the laws of nature as somehow likened to habits. This idea was actually quite common, especially in America; it was espoused by William James and other American philosophers, and was quite widely discussed at the end of the last century. In Germany, Nietzsche went so far as to suggest that the laws of nature underwent natural selection: perhaps there were many laws of nature at the beginning, but only the successful laws survived; therefore, the universe we see has laws which have evolved through natural selection. 

 Biologists also moved toward interpreting phenomena in terms of habit. The most interesting such theorist was English writer Samuel Butler, whose most important books on this theme were Life and Habit (1878) and Unconscious Memory (1881). Butler contended that the whole of life involved inherent unconscious memory; habits, the instincts of animals, the way in which embryos develop, all reflected a basic principle of inherent memory within life. He even proposed that there must be an inherent memory in atoms, molecules, and crystals. Thus, there was this period of time at the end of the last century when biology was viewed in evolutionary terms. It is only since the 1920's that mechanistic thinking has come to have a stranglehold upon biological thought. 

 HOW DOES FORM ARISE? 

 The hypothesis of formative causation, which is the basis of my own work, starts from the problem of biological form. Within biology, there has been a long-standing discussion of how to understand the way embryos and organisms develop. How do plants grow from seeds? How do embryos develop from fertilized eggs? This is a problem for biologists; it's not really a problem for embryos and trees, which just do it! However, biologists rind it difficult to find a causal explanation for form. In physics, in some sense the cause equals the effect. The amount of energy, matter, and momentum before a given change equals the amount afterwards. The cause is contained in the effect and the effect in the cause. However, when we are considering the growth of an oak tree from an acorn, there seems to be no such equivalence of cause and effect in any obvious way. 

 In the 17th century, the main mechanistic theory of embryology was simply that the oak tree was contained within the acorn: inside each acorn there was a miniature oak tree which inflated as the oak tree grew. This theory was quite widely accepted, and it was the one most consistent with the mechanistic approach, as understood at that time. However, as critics rapidly pointed out, if the oak tree is inflated and that oak tree itself produces acorns, the inflatable oak tree must contain inflatable acorns which contain inflatable oak trees, ad infinitum. 

 If, on the other hand, more form came from less form (the technical name for which is epigenesis), then where does the more form come from? 

 How did structures appear that weren't there before? Neither Platonists nor Aristotelians had any problem with this question. The Platonists said that the form comes from the Platonic archetype: if there is an oak tree, then there is an archetypal form of an oak tree, and all actual oak trees are simply reflections of this archetype. Since this archetype is beyond space and time, there is no need to have it embedded in the physical form of the acorn. The Aristotelians said that every species has its own kind of soul, and the soul is the form of the body. The body is in the soul, not the soul in the body. The soul is the form of the body and is around the body and contains the goal of development (which is formally called entelechy). An oak tree soul contains the eventual oak tree. 

 IS DNA A GENETIC PROGRAM? 

 However, a mechanistic world view denies animism in all its forms; it denies the existence of the soul and of any non-material organizing principles. Therefore, mechanists have to have some kind of preformationism. At the end of the 19th century, German biologist August Weismann's theory of the germ-plasm revived the idea of preformationism; Weissman's theory placed "determinants," which supposedly gave rise to the organism, inside the embryo. This is the ancestor of the present idea of genetic programming, which constitutes another resurgence of preformationism in a modern guise. 

 As we will see, this model does not work very well. The genetic program is assumed to be identical with DNA, the genetic chemical. The genetic information is coded in DNA and this code forms the genetic program. But such a leap requires projecting onto DNA properties that it does not actually possess. We know what, DNA does: it codes for proteins; it codes for the sequence of amino acids which form proteins. However, there is a big difference between coding for the structure of a protein-a chemical constituent of the organism-and programming the development of an entire organism. It is the difference between making bricks and building a house out of the bricks. You need the bricks to build the house. If you have defective bricks, the house will be defective. But the plan of the house is not contained in the bricks, or the wires, or the beams, or cement. 

 Analogously, DNA only codes for the materials from which the body is constructed: the enzymes, the structural proteins, and so forth. There is no evidence that it also codes for the plan, the form, the morphology of the body. To see this more clearly, think of your arms and legs. The form of the arms and legs is different; it's obvious that they have a different shape from each other. Yet the chemicals in the arms and legs are identical. The muscles are the same, the nerve cells are the same, the skin cells are the same, and the DNA is the same in all the cells of the arms and legs. In fact, the DNA is the same in all the cells of the body. DNA alone cannot explain the difference inform; something else is necessary to explain form. 

 In current mechanistic biology, this is usually assumed to depend on what are called "complex patterns of physio-chemical interaction not yet fully understood." Thus the current mechanistic theory is not an explanation but merely the promise of an explanation. It is what Sir Karl Popper has called a "promissory mechanism"; it involves issuing promissory notes against future explanations that do not yet exist. As such, it is not really an objective argument; it is merely a statement of faith. 

 WHAT ARE MORPHIC FIELDS? 

 The question of biological development, of morphogenesis, is actually quite open and is the subject of much debate within biology itself. An alternative to the mechanist/reductionist approach, which has been around since the 1920s, is the idea of morphogenetic (form-shaping) fields. In this model, growing organisms are shaped by fields which are both within and around them, fields which contain, as it were, the form of the organism. This is closer to the Aristotelian tradition than to any of the other traditional approaches. As an oak tree develops, the acorn is associated with an oak tree field, an invisible organizing structure which organizes the oak tree's development; it is like an oak tree mold, within which the developing organism grows. 

 One fact which led to the development of this theory is the remarkable ability organisms have to repair damage. If you cut an oak tree into little pieces, each little piece, properly treated, can grow into a new tree. So from a tiny fragment, you can get a whole. Machines do not do that; they do not have this power of remaining whole if you remove parts of them. Chop a computer up into small pieces and all you get is a broken computer. It does not regenerate into lots of little computers. But if you chop a flatworm into small pieces, each piece can grow into a new flatworm. Another analogy is a magnet. If you chop a magnet into small pieces, you do have lots of small magnets, each with a complete magnetic field. This is a wholistic property that fields have that mechanical systems do not have unless they are associated with fields. Still another example is the hologram, any part of which contains the whole. A hologram is based on interference patterns within the electromagnetic field. Fields thus have a wholistic property which was very attractive to the biologists who developed this concept of morphogenetic fields. 

 Each species has its own fields, and within each organism there are fields within fields. Within each of us is the field of the whole body; fields for arms and legs and fields for kidneys and livers; within are fields for the different tissues inside these organs, and then fields for the cells, and fields for the sub-cellular structures, and fields for the molecules, and so on. There is a whole series of fields within fields. The essence of the hypothesis I am proposing is that these fields, which are already accepted quite widely within biology, have a kind of in-built memory derived from previous forms of a similar kind. The liver field is shaped by the forms of previous livers and the oak tree field by the forms and organization of previous oak trees. Through the fields, by a process called morphic resonance, the influence of like upon like, there is a connection among similar fields. That means that the field's structure has a cumulative memory, based on what has happened to the species in the past. This idea applies not only to living organisms but also to protein molecules, crystals, even to atoms. In the realm of crystals, for example, the theory would say that the form a crystal takes depends on its characteristic morphic field. Morphic field is a broader term which includes the fields of both form and behavior; hereafter, I shall use the word morphic field rather than morphogenetic. 

 MIGRANT BEARDED CHEMISTS 

 If you make a new compound and crystallize it, there won't be a morphic field for it the first time. Therefore, it may be very difficult to crystallize; you have to wait for a morphic field to emerge. The second time, however, even if you do this somewhere else in the world, there will be an influence from the first crystallization, and it should crystallize a bit more easily. The third time there will be an influence from the first and second, and so on. There will be a cumulative influence from previous crystals, so it should get easier and easier to crystallize the more often you crystallize it. And, in fact, this is exactly what does happen. Synthetic chemists find that new compounds are generally very difficult to crystallize. As time goes on, they generally get easier to crystallize all over the world. The conventional explanation is that this occurs because fragments of previous crystals are carried from laboratory to laboratory on beards of migrant chemists. When there have not been any migrant chemists, it is assumed that the fragments wafted through the atmosphere as microscopic dust particles. 

 Perhaps migrant chemists do carry fragments on their beards and perhaps dust particles do get blown around in the atmosphere. Nevertheless, if one measures the rate of crystallization under rigorously controlled conditions in sealed vessels in different parts of the world, one should still observe an accelerated rate of crystallization. This experiment has not yet been done. But a related experiment involving chemical reaction rates of new synthetic processes is at present being considered by a major chemical company in Britain because, if these things happen, they have quite important implications for the chemical industry. 

 A NEW SCIENCE OF LIFE 

 There are quite a number of experiments that can be done in the realm of biological form and the development of form. Correspondingly, the same principles apply to behavior, forms of behavior and patterns of behavior. Consider the hypothesis that if you train rats to learn a new trick in Santa Barbara, then rats all over the world should be able to learn to do the same trick more quickly, just because the rats in Santa Barbara have learned it. This new pattern of learning will be, as it were, in the rat collective memory-in the morphic fields of rats, to which other rats can tune in, just because they are rats and just because they are in similar circumstances, by morphic resonance. This may seem a bit improbable, but either this sort of thing happens or it doesn't. 

 Among the vast number of papers in the archives of experiments on rat psychology, there are a number of examples of experiments in which people have actually monitored rates of learning over time and discovered mysterious increases. In my book, A New Science of Life, I describe one such series of experiments which extended over a 50-year period. Begun at Harvard and then carried on in Scotland and Australia, the experiment demonstrated that rats increased their rate of learning more than tenfold. This was a huge effect-not some marginal statistically significant result. This improved rate of learning in identical learning situations occurred in these three separate locations and in all rats of the breed, not just in rats descended from trained parents. 

 There are other examples of the spontaneous spread of new habits in animals and birds which provide at least circumstantial evidence for the theory of morphic resonance. The best documented of these is the behavior of bluetits, a rather small bird with a blue head, that is common throughout Britain. Fresh milk is still delivered to the door each morning in Britain. Until about the 1950s, the caps on the milk bottles were made of cardboard. In 1921 in Southampton, a strange phenomenon was observed. When people came out in the morning to get their milk bottles, they found little shreds of cardboard all around the bottom of the bottle, and the cream from the top of the bottle had disappeared. Close observation revealed that this was being done by bluetits, who sat on top of the bottle, pulled off the cardboard with their beaks, and then drank the cream. Several tragic cases were found in which bluetits were discovered drowned head first in the milk! 

 This incident caused considerable interest; then the event turned up somewhere else in Britain, about 50 miles away, and then somewhere about 100 miles away. Whenever the bluetit phenomenon turned up, it started spreading locally, presumably by imitation. However, bluetits are very home-loving creatures, and they don't normally travel more than four or five miles. Therefore, the dissemination of the behavior over large distances could only be accounted for in terms of an independent discovery of the habit. The bluetit habit was mapped throughout Britain until 1947, by which time it had become more or less universal. The people who did the study came to the conclusion that it must have been "invented" independently at least 50 times. Moreover, the rate of spread of the habit accelerated as time went on. In other parts of Europe where milk bottles are delivered to doorsteps, such as Scandinavia and Holland, the habit also cropped up during the 1930s and spread in a similar manner. Here is an example of a pattern of behavior which was spread in a way which seemed to speed up with time, and which might provide an example of morphic resonance. 

 But there is still stronger evidence for morphic resonance. Because of the German occupation of Holland, milk delivery ceased during 1939-40. Milk deliveries did not resume until 1948. Since bluetits usually live only two to three years, there probably were no bluetits alive in 1948 who had been alive when milk was last delivered. Yet when milk deliveries resumed in 1948, the opening of milk bottles by bluetits sprang up rapidly in quite separate places in Holland and spread extremely rapidly until, within a year or two, it was once again universal. The behavior spread much more rapidly and cropped up independently much more frequently the second time round than the first time. This example demonstrates the evolutionary spread of a new habit which is probably not genetic but rather depends on a kind of collective memory due to morphic resonance. 

 I am suggesting that heredity depends not only on DNA, which enables organisms to build the right chemical building blocks-the proteins-but also on morphic resonance. Heredity thus has two aspects: one a genetic heredity, which accounts for the inheritance of proteins through DNA's control of protein synthesis; the second a form of heredity based on morphic fields and morphic resonance, which is nongenetic and which is inherited directly from past members of the species. This latter form of heredity deals with the organization of form and behavior. 

 THE ALLEGORY OF THE TELEVISION SET 

 The differences and connections between these two forms of heredity become easier to understand if we consider an analogy to television. Think of the pictures on the screen as the form that we are interested in. If you didn't know how the form arose, the most obvious explanation would be that there were little people inside the set whose shadows you were seeing on the screen. Children sometimes think in this manner. If you take the back off the set, however, and look inside, you find that there are no little people. Then you might get more subtle and speculate that the little people are microscopic and are actually inside the wires of the TV set. But if you look at the wires through a microscope, you can't find any little people there either. 

 You might get still more subtle and propose that the little people on the screen actually arise through "complex interactions among the parts of the set which are not yet fully understood." You might think this theory was proved if you chopped out a few transistors from the set. The people would disappear. If you put the transistors back, they would reappear. This might provide convincing evidence that they arose from within the set entirely on the basis of internal interaction. 

 Suppose that someone suggested that the pictures of little people come from outside the set, and the set picks up the pictures as a result of invisible vibrations to which the set is attuned. This would probably sound like a very occult and mystical explanation. You might deny that anything is coming into the set. You could even "prove it" by weighing the set switched off and switched on; it would weigh the same. Therefore, you could conclude that nothing is coming into the set. 

 I think that is the position of modern biology, trying to explain everything in terms of what happens inside. The more explanations for form are looked for inside, the more elusive the explanations prove to be, and the more they are ascribed to ever more subtle and complex interactions, which always elude investigation. As I am suggesting, the forms and patterns of behavior are actually being tuned into by invisible connections arising outside the organism. The development of form is a result of both the internal organization of the organism and the interaction of the morphic fields to which it is tuned. 

 Genetic mutations can affect this development. Again think of the TV set. If we mutate a transistor or a condenser inside the set, you may get distorted pictures or sound. But this does not prove that the pictures and sound are programmed by these components. Nor does it prove that form and behavior are programmed by genes, if we find there are alterations in form and behavior as a result of genetic mutation. 

 There is another kind of mutation which is particularly interesting. Imagine a mutation in the tuning circuit of your set, such that it alters the resonant frequency of the tuning circuit. Tuning your TV depends on a resonant phenomenon; the tuner resonates at the same frequency as the frequency of the signal transmitted by the different stations. Thus tuning dials are measured in hertz, which is a measure of frequency. Imagine a mutation in the tuning system such that you tune to one channel and a different channel actually appears. You might trace this back to a single condenser or a single resistor which had undergone a mutation. But it would not be valid to conclude that the new programs you are seeing, the different people, the different films and advertisements, are programmed inside the component that has changed. Nor does it prove that form and behavior are programmed in the DNA when genetic mutations lead to changes in form and behavior. The usual assumption is that if you can show something alters as a result of a mutation, then that must be programmed by, or controlled by, or determined by, the gene. I hope this TV analogy makes it clear that that is not the only conclusion. It could be that it is simply affecting the tuning system. 

 A NEW THEORY OF EVOLUTION 

 A great deal of work is being done in contemporary biological research on such "tuning" mutations (formally called homoeotic mutations). The animal most used in the investigations is Drosophila, the fruitfly. A whole range of these mutations have been found which produce various monstrosities. One kind, called antennapedia, leads to the antennae being transformed into legs. The unfortunate flies, which contain just one altered gene, produce legs instead of antennae growing out of their heads. There is another mutation which leads to the second of the three pairs of legs in the Drosophila being transformed into antennae. Normally flies have one pair of wings and, on the segment behind the wings, are small balancing organs called halteres. Still another mutation leads to the transformation of the segment normally bearing the halteres into a duplicate of the first segment, so that these flies have four wings instead of two. These are called bithorax mutants. 

 All of these mutations depend on single genes. I propose that somehow these single gene mutations are changing the tuning of a part of the embryonic tissue, such that it tunes into a different morphic field than it normally does, and so a different set of structures arise, just like tuning into a different channel on TV. 

 One can see from these analogies how both genetics and morphic resonance are involved in heredity. Of course, a new theory of heredity leads to a new theory of evolution. Present-day evolutionary theory is based on the assumption that virtually all heredity is genetic. Sociobiology and neo-Darwinism in all their various forms are based on gene selection, gene frequencies, and so forth. The theory of morphic resonance leads to a much broader view which allows one of the great heresies of biology once more to be taken seriously: namely, the idea of the inheritance of acquired characteristics. Behaviors which organisms learn, or forms which they develop, can be inherited by others even if they are not descended from the original organisms-by morphic resonance. 

 A NEW CONCEPT OF MEMORY 

 When we consider memory, this hypothesis leads to a very different approach from the traditional one. The key concept of morphic resonance is that similar things influence similar things across both space and time. The amount of influence depends on the degree of similarity. Most organisms are more similar to themselves in the past than they are to any other organism. I am more like me five minutes ago than I am like any of you; all of us are more like ourselves in the past than like anyone else. The same is true of any organism. This self-resonance with past states of the same organism in the realm of form helps to stabilize the morphogenetic fields, to stabilize the form of the organism, even though the chemical constituents in the cells are turning over and changing. Habitual patterns of behavior are also tuned into by the self-resonance process. If I start riding a bicycle, for example, the pattern of activity of my nervous system and my muscles, in response to balancing on the bicycle, immediately tunes me in by similarity to all the previous occasions on which I have ridden a bicycle. The experience of bicycle riding is given by cumulative morphic resonance to all those past occasions. It is not a verbal or intellectual memory; it is a body memory of riding a bicycle. 

 This would also apply to my memory of actual events: what I did yesterday in Los Angeles or last year in England. When, I think of these particular events, I am tuning into the occasions on which these events happened. There is a direct causal connection through a tuning process. If this hypothesis is correct, it is not necessary to assume that memories are stored inside the brain. 

 THE MYSTERY OF MIND 

 All of us have been brought up on the idea that memories are stored in the brain; we use the word brain interchangeably with mind or memory. I am suggesting that the brain is more like a tuning system than a memory storage device. One of the main arguments for the localization of memory in the brain is the fact that certain kinds of brain damage can lead to loss of memory. If the brain is damaged in a car accident and someone loses memory, then the obvious assumption is that memory tissue must have been destroyed. But this is not necessarily so. 

 Consider the TV analogy again. If I damaged your TV set so that you were unable to receive certain channels, or if I made the TV set aphasic by destroying the part of it concerned with the production of sound so that you could still get the pictures but could not get the sound, this would not prove that the sound or the pictures were stored inside the TV set. It would merely show that I had affected the tuning system so you could not pick up the correct signal any longer. No more does memory loss due to brain damage prove that memory is stored inside the brain. In fact, most memory loss is temporary: amnesia following concussion, for example, is often temporary. This recovery of memory is very difficult to explain in terms of conventional theories: if the memories have been destroyed because the memory tissue has been destroyed, they ought not to come back again; yet they often do. 

 Another argument for the localization of memory inside the brain is suggested by the experiments on electrical stimulation of the brain by Wilder Penfield and others. Penfield stimulated the temporal lobes of the brains of epileptic patients and found that some of these stimuli could elicit vivid responses, which the patients interpreted as memories of things they had done in the past. Penfield assumed that he was actually stimulating memories which were stored in the cortex. Again returning to the TV analogy, if I stimulated the tuning circuit of your TV set and it jumped onto another channel, this wouldn't prove the information was stored inside the tuning circuit. It is interesting that, in his last book, The Mystery of the Mind, Penfield himself abandoned the idea that the experiments proved that memory was inside the brain. He came to the conclusion that memory was not stored inside the cortex at all. 

 There have been many attempts to locate memory traces within the brain, the best known of which were by Karl Lashley, the great American neurophysiologist. He trained rats to learn tricks, then chopped bits of their brains out to determine whether the rats could still do the tricks. To his amazement, he found that he could remove over fifty percent of the brain-any 50%-and there would be virtually no effect on the retention of this learning. When he removed all the brain, the rats could no longer perform the tricks, so he concluded that the brain was necessary in some way to the performance of the task-which is hardly a very surprising conclusion. What was surprising was how much of the brain he could remove without affecting the memory. 

 Similar results have been found by other investigators, even with invertebrates such as the octopus. This led one experimenter to speculate that memory was both everywhere and nowhere in particular. Lashley himself concluded that memories are stored in a distributed manner throughout the brain, since he could not find the memory traces which classical theory required. His student, Karl Pribram, extended this idea with the holographic theory of memory storage: memory is like a holographic image, stored as an interference pattern throughout the brain. 

 What Lashley and Pribram (at least in some of his writing) do not seem to have considered is the possibility that memories may not be stored inside the brain at all. The idea that they are not stored inside the brain is more consistent with the available data than either the conventional theories or the holographic theory. Many difficulties have arisen in trying to localize memory storage in the brain, in part because the brain is much more dynamic than previously thought. If the brain is to serve as a memory storehouse, then the storage system would have to remain stable; yet it is now known that nerve cells turn over much more rapidly than was previously thought. All the chemicals in synapses and nerve structures and molecules are turning over and changing all the time. With a very dynamic brain, it is difficult to see how memories are stored. 

 There is also a logical problem about conventional theories of memory storage, which various philosophers have pointed out. All conventional theories assume that memories are somehow coded and located in a memory store in the brain. When they are needed they are recovered by a retrieval system. This is called the coding, storage, and retrieval model. However, for a retrieval system to retrieve anything, it has to know what it wants to retrieve; a memory retrieval system has to know what memory it is looking for. It thus must be able to recognize the memory that it is trying to retrieve. In order to recognize it, the retrieval system itself must have some kind of memory. Therefore, the retrieval system must have a sub-retrieval system to retrieve its memories from its store. This leads to an infinite regress. Several philosophers argue that this is a fatal, logical flaw in any conventional theory of memory storage. However, on the whole, memory theoreticians are not very interested in what philosophers say, so they do not bother to reply to this argument. But it does seem to me quite a powerful one. 

 In considering the morphic resonance theory of memory, we might ask: if we tune into our own memories, then why don't we tune into other people's as well? I think we do, and the whole basis of the approach I am suggesting is that there is a collective memory to which we are all tuned which forms a background against which our own experience develops and against which our own individual memories develop. This concept is very similar to the notion of the collective unconscious. 

 Jung thought of the collective unconscious as a collective memory, the collective memory of humanity. He thought that people would be more tuned into members of their own family and race and social and cultural group, but that nevertheless there would be a background resonance from all humanity: a pooled or averaged experience of basic things that all people experience (e.g., maternal behavior and various social patterns and structures of experience and thought). It would not be a memory from particular persons in the past so much as an average of the basic forms of memory structures; these are the archetypes. Jung's notion of the collective unconscious makes extremely good sense in the context of the general approach that I am putting forward. Morphic resonance theory would lead to a radical reaffirmation of Jung's concept of the collective unconscious. 

 It needs reaffirmation because the current mechanistic context of conventional biology, medicine, and psychology denies that there can be any such thing as the collective unconscious; the concept of a collective memory of a race or species has been excluded as even a theoretical possibility. You cannot have any inheritance of acquired characteristics according to conventional theory; you can only have an inheritance of genetic mutations. Under the premises of conventional biology, there would be no way that the experiences and myths of, for example, African tribes, would have any influence on the dreams of someone in Switzerland of non-African descent, which is the sort of thing Jung thought did happen. That is quite impossible from the conventional point of view, which is why most biologists and others within mainstream science do not take the idea of the collective unconscious seriously. It is considered a flaky, fringe idea that may have some poetic value as a kind of metaphor, but has no relevance to proper science because it is a completely untenable concept from the point of view of normal biology. 

 The approach I am putting forward is very similar to Jung's idea of the collective unconscious. The main difference is that Jung's idea was applied primarily to human experience and human collective memory. What I am suggesting is that a very similar principle operates throughout the entire universe, not just in human beings. If the kind of radical paradigm shift I am talking about goes on within biology-if the hypothesis of morphic resonance is even approximately correct-then Jung's idea of the collective unconscious would become a mainstream idea: Morphogenic fields and the concept of the collective unconscious would completely change the context of modern psychology.


 Society, Spirit & Ritual: Morphic Resonance and the Collective Unconscious - Part II 
 by Rupert Sheldrake 


 SOCIETY AS SUPERORGANISM 

 In Part II of this essay, I want to explore some ideas about the social and cultural aspects of morphic fields and morphic resonance. A familiar comparison might be that of a hive of bees or a nest of termites: each is like a giant organism, and the insects within it are like cells in a superorganism. Although comprised of hundreds and hundreds of individual insect cells, the hive or nest functions and responds as a unified whole. 

 My hypothesis is that societies have social and cultural morphic fields which embrace and organize all that resides within them. Although comprised of thousands and thousands of individual human beings, the society can function and respond as a unified whole via the characteristics of its morphic field. To visualize this, it is helpful to remember that fields by their very nature are both within and around the things to which they refer. A magnetic field is both within a magnet and around it; a gravitational field is both within the earth and around it. Field theories thus take us beyond the traditional rigid definition of "inside" and "outside." 

 A superorganism concept of animal societies dominated behavioral biology until about the early 1960s. Then ? as Edward O. Wilson, the founder of sociobiology, notes in his book, The Insect Societies (1971) ? there was a general shift in paradigm in favor of mechanistic reductionism, which explained animal societies purely in terms of interactions among genetically?programmed individuals. The superorganism concept has not been forgotten, however, and forces itself again and again upon people who think about animal societies. 

 There is an inherent problem in the concept: if one says that the animal society is a kind of organism, then what kind of organism is it? What is it that can possibly organize all the individual animals within it? I am suggesting that there is a morphic field which embraces all the animals, a field which literally extends around all the animals within it. This field coordinates their movements just as the morphic field of the human body coordinates the activities and movements of the cells and tissues and organs. This concept better describes the characteristic phenomena of animal societies than the idea that they are all individually interacting yet separate things. 

 MARAIS AND THE WHITE ANTS 

 For example, it explains how termites building columns which are adjacent yet separate know how to build arches so that the two sides meet at exactly the right place in the middle. Termites are blind, and the inside of the nest is dark, so they can't do it by vision. Edward O. Wilson considers it unlikely that they do it by hearing or acoustic methods, because of the constant background of sound caused by the movement of termites within the mound. The only hypothesis that Wilson, who represents the most hard?nosed reductionist school of thought, considers likely is that they do it by smell. And even he agrees that that seems farfetched. 

 If, in fact, the column construction is going on within a social morphic field which embraces the whole nest and which contains a "mold" of the future arch, then the termites' movements are coordinated by this field and it's much easier to understand how the columns can meet. If that is the case, it should be possible to investigate it experimentally. 

 In the 1920s, South African biologist Eugene Marais wrote The Soul of The White Ant, in which he described experiments investigating the effect of damaging South African termite mounds. Marais took a large steel plate several feet across and several feet deep and hammered it into the center of a termite mound. The termites repaired the mound on both sides of the steel plate, building columns and arches. Their movements were coordinated even though they approached the wall from different sides. Amazingly, the termites on opposite sides of the steel plate built arches that met at the steel plate at exactly the right position to join if the plate had not blocked their way. This seemed to demonstrate that there was some kind of coordinating influence which was not blocked by a steel plate. Obviously, this would be impossible to do by smell, as Wilson suggests, since even termites can't smell subtle odors through a steel plate. 

 Unfortunately, no one has ever repeated these experiments, even though it would not be difficult to repeat them in a country where termites are common. If Marais' result was replicated, it would ?strongly suggest that there was a field coordinating the actions of the individuals. 

 WAYNE POTTS AND THE MANEUVER WAVES OF BIRDS 

 As another familiar example of the superorganism concept, consider schools of fish: when predators swim into a school, the fish dart quickly to the side in a coordinated way in order to clear a path through the middle. They move very fast in response to quite unexpected stimuli, yet they do not bump into each other. The same is true of flocks of birds. A whole flock can bank as one without the birds bumping into each other. 

 Recently, studies investigating the banking of large flocks of dunlins by American researcher Wayne Potts have been conducted. He filmed their maneuvers at a very rapid rate of exposure, so that he could later slow the process down and examine it frame by frame. When he did so, he found that the rate of propagation of what he calls the "maneuver wave" is extremely fast: about 20 milliseconds from bird to bird. This is much faster than the birds' minimum reaction time to stimuli. He measured their startle reaction time using dunlins in the laboratory in dark or dim light. He set off photographic flashbulbs and measured how long it took the birds to react. He found that it took the individual birds about 80?100 milliseconds; that is, they reacted as individuals four to five times more slowly than the rate at which the maneuver wave moved from bird to bird. The banking maneuver could begin anywhere within the flock?at the front or back or at the side. It was usually initiated by a single bird or a small group of birds, and then propagated outwards much faster than could be explained by any simple system of visual cuing and response to stimuli. 

 THE COLLECTIVE BEHAVIOR OF HUMAN GROUPS 

 If one thinks of the flock as being coordinated by a morphic field and the "maneuver wave" as a wave in the morphic field, then this phenomenon is much easier to understand than it is when explained in terms of ordinary sensory physiology. The above examples illustrate a few of the areas in which actual empirical studies are possible ? areas which suggest the existence of group minds or group fields in the coordination of collective animal behavior. It has often been suggested that a similar phenomenon may be at work in human groups, especially in the behavior of crowds. A number of studies has been conducted by social psychologists on what they call "collective behavior," which includes the behavior of crowds, football hooligans, rioting mobs, and lynching mobs, as well as rapidly spreading social phenomena such as fashions, fads, rumors, crazes, and jokes. All such phenomenon would fit readily into the concept of group morphic fields. 

 In interviews, athletes on successful teams commonly compare their teams to a composite organism where everybody fits in and knows where their teammates are going to be. The team behaves more like a single organism than like a composite of separate individuals. Through practice together, teams build up this response to each other; words such as empathy or sixth sense are often used to describe the feeling they share. 

 If we think of societies and social groups as being coordinated by morphic fields, then we realize that the groups themselves come together and dissolve as teams do ? but their fields are more enduring. We are in these fields virtually all the time: family fields, or national fields, or local fields, the fields of various groups to which we belong. We are contained within these larger collective patterns of organization much of the time but because they are always present, we cease to be aware of them. We take them for granted, just as we take the air we breathe for granted, because the air is also always present. However, if we are held under water for a while, we no longer take the air for granted; we quickly become conscious of our need for it! Similarly, people placed in solitary confinement quickly become aware of the importance of social interaction. 

 Many anthropologists have commented on an almost indefinable "something" which holds the members of the society together. French sociologist Emile Durkheim spoke of this as the "conscience collective" (in French, the word conscience means both conscience and consciousness). He believed that one of the major functions of the "conscience collective" was to maintain the cohesion of the social group. It behaved similarly to a group field, and many of the activities of the group consciousness were concerned with maintaining and stabilizing the continued existence of the group field itself. 

 MCDOUGALL'S GROUP MIND AND THE SHADOW 

 In the 1930s William McDougall, who wrote The Group Mind (1920/ 1972) and several other books on social psychology, theorized that a group mind existed which included all members of a society and which had its own thoughts, its own traditions, and its own memories. If we think of such a group mind as an aspect of the morphic field of the society, it would indeed have its own memory since all morphic fields have in?built memory through morphic resonance. 

 The problem with ideas like this one is that it is not possible yet to define t what the group mind is or how it could be measured. Given the positivistic mood of sociology which prevailed then (and now), McDougal's concept of the group mind was not developed further. Traumatic social conditions then dampened any remaining receptivity to notions involving group forces. By the 1930s, the shadow side of collective consciousness had taken tangible form in Nazi Germany. Because this shadow side was all too real, most people were frightened of any concept suggesting group minds or group consciousness. Certainly we have all seen the shadow side of group consciousness only .too clearly in the last few decades. What we need to realize, however, is that there is much to be learned from thinking about the more positive side of group fields or group consciousness. 

 In more recent sociological and anthropological theory, a holistic approach to society has become quite common. In fact, compared with the biological and physical sciences which have been based on reductionist principles, a great deal of sociological and anthropological theory has taken a consistently holistic perspective. It was within this broader intellectual environment, characterized by Durkheim's conscience collective and McDougall's group mind, that Jung formulated his concept of the collective unconscious. 

 IS SOCIETY AN ORGANISM? 

 The idea that human society is an organism is extremely widespread; it is perhaps one of the most common metaphors extending throughout the history of Western thought. It exists in our language in phrases such as the body politic, head of state, arm of the law. These are organic metaphors which imply the unified, organic nature of society. The same notion is also common in religious metaphors, and is expressed in such descriptions of the Christian church as the mystical body of Christ. More specifically, Christ compared himself to the vine of which the people were the branches, again connoting an organic unity. Even in 17th?century political thought, which was far more atomistic in tone, philosopher Thomas Hobbes compared society to a leviathan, a great monster, using still another organic metaphor. 

 Although many of us still think of society as a form of collective, living organism, the earth is now considered to be dead. This wasn't always so; in Latin, mater means mother and materia means matter. Thus, in the Indo-European languages, matter comes from the same root as mother. Unfortunately, since the 17th century, Mother Nature in Western consciousness has been turned into dead matter; the mother has become unconscious, only preserved as a dim memory in the word matter. Instead, it is the economy that has become alive. We speak of a growing economy which can be sick or healthy, and which goes through cycles. Economies have all the attributes of giant living organisms, with an autonomy which even politicians, businessmen and bankers cannot control. The economy has become a self?regulating, self organizing system, very much alive in a supposedly dead world. Thus the economy has come to life at the expense of the earth, and that is one of the problems with which many people are currently grappling. 

 The concept of morphic fields containing in?built memory helps to explain many features of society: for example, there are traditions, customs, and manners which enable societies to retain their organizing principles ? their autonomy, pattern, structure, and organization ? even though there is a continuous turnover of individuals through the cycles of birth and death. This is similar to the way in which the morphogenetic field of the human being coordinates the entire body even though the cells and tissues within the body are continuously changing. 

 RITUALS: SPIRITUAL AND SECULAR 

 There are certain contexts in which social memory not only becomes conscious but is actually invoked in all societies; this is through ritual. Rituals are found in all societies all over the world, both in cultural and religious contexts. For example, in our own society the Jewish feast of Passover recalls the dreadful visitation of death throughout Egypt when all the first?born were killed, except the first born of the Jews who were protected by the ritual blood of sacrificial lambs smeared on the doorways of Jewish houses. In the Christian Mass, the ritual of Holy Communion, in which Christians drink the blood and eat the body of Jesus ? refers back to the primal Last Supper when the Passover feast was transformed and Jesus himself became the sacrificial victim. 

 In every society there are also hundreds of social and cultural rituals. In America, there is the national custom of the Thanksgiving dinner which commemorates the first Thanksgiving dinner offered by Pilgrims upon their safe settlement in New England. We also have many minor rituals of everyday life, such as the rituals of greeting and parting. Saying good?bye, for example, originally meant "God be with you." When we say good?bye, we give a ritualized blessing which retains some of the power of the original ritual, even though most people are no longer conscious of its original meaning. Similar ritual acts on large and small scales permeate even our modern "enlightened" societies. 

 What do people think they're doing in rituals? In major rituals, the ritual is usually associated with a story which refers back to a frequently forgotten primal event. For example, Guy Fawkes night is a secular ritual in England: every November 5th, bonfires are lit all over England, fireworks are set off, and effigies are burned over the bonfires. In this case, the ostensible story concerns a man named Guy Fawkes, one of the Roman Catholic conspirators in the so?called "Gunpowder Plot" who tried to blow up the House of Parliament in the 17th century. 

 However, lying behind that supposed explanation is a much older ritual: the Celtic festival of the dead. On November 1st, the ancient Celtic pre-Christian festival of the dead was celebrated whereby the old year was burned in effigy, as effigies are burned on Guy Fawkes day. During this period, it was believed that there was a "crack in time" when the living and the dead, the past, the present, and the future all came together. The eve of the festival of the dead was Halloween, when the spirits and ghosts came out and the dead walked again. Similarly, in the Christian calendar, November 1st is "All Saints Day" and November 2nd is "All Souls Day," when the souls of the departed are commemorated and requiem masses are said in churches even today. So, behind our present?day celebrations lay a much older ritual background: a pattern behind a pattern. Many of these ancient rituals are alive and well in the modern world. 

 RITUALS AS MORPHIC RESONANCE WITH ANCESTORS 

 In general, rituals are highly conservative in nature and must be performed in the right way, which is the same way they have been performed in their past. If rituals involve language, the most important of them use sacred languages. For example, Brahmanic rituals in India use Sanskrit, a language which is no longer spoken except by Brahmins, and the Sanskrit phrases must be pronounced the correct way in order for the rituals to be effective. We find a similar practice in a Christian context. The Coptic church in Egypt dates back to ancient times when Coptic was the spoken language; so in modern Cairo, you can attend a Coptic service and the language you hear is the otherwise dead language of ancient Egypt. The survival of ancient Egyptian in the Coptic liturgy was one of the important clues that enabled the unraveling of the language of ancient Egypt with the help of the Rosetta Stone. Similarly, the Russian Orthodox church uses Old Slavic, and, until recently, the Roman Catholic church used Latin. There are hundreds of such examples. 

 Ritual acts must be performed with the correct movements, gestures, words, and music throughout the world. The same pattern is found from one country to another as participants perform the ritual in the same way it has been performed countless times in the past. When people are asked why they do this, they frequently say that this enables them to participate with their ancestors or predecessors. So rituals have a kind of deliberate and conscious evocation of memory, right back to the first act. If morphic resonance occurs as I think it does, this conservatism of ritual would create exactly the right conditions for morphic resonance to occur between those performing the ritual now and all those who performed it previously. The ritualized commemorations and participatory re-linking with the ancestors of all cultures might involve just that; it might, in fact, be literally true that these rituals enable the current participants to reconnect with their ancestors (in some sense) through morphic resonance. 

 MANTRAS AS SPIRITUAL TRANSMISSION 

 In light of this idea, various aspects of religious ritual can be viewed with a new significance. For example, consider the use of mantras in the Eastern traditions. Mantras are sacred sounds or words which often have no explicit meaning. The best known of the Indian mantras is OM. A Christian mantra (and, in fact, it is also a Jewish and Muslim mantra) is AMEN. Although it translates literally as, "So be it," it has a much deeper significance as a mantric phrase. When chanted in its original form of AMEN, it was an extremely powerful mantra. It survives at the end of Christian prayers and hymns even though most people are unaware of why it is there. 

 In Tibetan and Hindu tradition, the mantra is communicated to the disciple by the guru (or master) as part of an initiation. Using the mantra, the disciple is able to connect with the guru as well as with the entire tradition that transmitted the mantra through the guru.? In Tibetan Buddhism there is often an actual visualization during the chanting of the mantra. The acolytes visualize the guru who has given it to them floating above their heads, and then visualize the entire lineage of masters and gurus behind him, right back to the Buddha himself. There are Tibetan pictures of people sitting and meditating with a tree growing out of their heads ? a tree filled with faces and figures. These are called "lineage trees," and they represent the spiritual lineage through which the transmission comes to the disciple. 

 Just as morphic resonance provides a more comprehensible explanation of the power of mantras, it also helps explain certain prohibitions that might not otherwise make sense. All religions have prohibitions on blasphemy (the wrong use of sacred words), such as the Judeo?Christian admonition not to take the Lord's name in vain. People are often instructed to use mantras only in the appropriate context and not to bandy the word around in casual conversation. I myself have heard Hindu gurus caution that inappropriate use will weaken the mantra. This makes impressive sense when explained in terms of morphic resonance: Instead of acting as a key tuning one into the meditative states of one's own past and of the past of the guru or lineage of gurus, the mantra would also tune one into all the casual conversations at which the word had been bandied around. Thus, extraneous influences which would dilute or weaken the intended effect of the mantra would be brought in via the phenomenon of morphic resonance. 

 RELIGIOUS "PATHS" AND ARTISTIC "SCHOOLS" 

 Other aspects and characteristics of religious traditions become clear when viewed in terms of morphic fields. Many religious teachers compare their way to a path, as in Christianity when Jesus says, "I am the Way," or as in Buddhism where there is the eight?fold path of the Buddha. The notion is that through a religious initiation, the individual is set on a path which the initiator of the path? Buddha or Christ?has trod before them, and on which many other people since then have also trod. The people who have gone along that path create a morphic field ? and not only those who established the initial path, such as Buddha or Christ, but all those who followed after them contribute to the morphic field, making the pathway easier to traverse. In Christianity the concept is explicitly stated in the Apostles' Creed through the doctrine of the "Communion of Saints." Those who follow the path of Jesus are not only aided by Jesus himself but also by the communion of saints ? all those who have trodden the path before. 

 If we take the notion of "schools of thought" or "schools of art," we have another area of traditions in which groups of people share in a common ideal and a common pattern of activity. Here again, artistic and philosophical traditions make more sense when considered in terms of organizing and enduring morphic fields. Art historians write about the flow of influence from the Venetian school to the Flemish school, for example. This mysterious flow of influence could be understood as the result of the process of successive schools of art tuning into the morphic fields of the earlier schools. (I am indebted to Susan Gablik, 1977, for this idea.) If we think of paintings as having morphic fields for their actual structures, we can then see how a kind of "building up" occurs through morphic resonance. A painting in a given school is created; other people see it. Every time a new painting in that school is made, it alters the field of the school. There is a kind of cumulative effect. Just as an animal within a species draws upon the morphic fields of the species and, in turn, contributes to those same fields, a work of art produced within a school draws upon the morphic field of the style of the school and contributes to it, so that the style evolves. 

 KUHN'S SCIENTIFIC "PARADIGMS" AS MORPHIC FIELDS 

 A very similar analysis applies to the history of science. We can think of different schools of thought and different areas of inquiry in science as having their own morphic fields. In fact, we speak about the field of physics, the field of biology, the field of geophysics, the field of metallurgy, and so on. It is my opinion that we could take literally the very use of the word field in this context. Within each field of science there are sub?groups: in physics, for example, there are astrophysicists, quantum theorists, and so on, and sub?schools within those sub?groups. Entrants to each must go through the proper initiations; they must study and pass the right exams; and all have their own folklore, mythology, and founding fathers. This is essentially the insight of Thomas S. Kuhn in his great book, The Structure Of Scientific, Revolutions (1970). He says that science is a social activity, and that scientists are initiated into the professional group by the practicing group of scientists. These social groups are self?regulating and self?organizing, just like any other field structure. Scientists strongly resent it if outsiders come along and tell them how to run their outfit. Physicists, for example, feel that they are the best people to judge what should go on in physics. Even if governments want to regulate the science of physics to their own ends, then they do it with the help of physicists. They have to set up committees and grant?giving agencies on which physicists sit for peer group reviews. 

 We see the same pattern in other professional groups: in trade unions, in the American Medical Association, in groups of engineers, and so on. Kuhn pointed out that at any given time, there is a consensus within each group about the way reality operates and the way that problems should be solved. This is what he called a paradigm. In his book, Kuhn uses the word paradigm in two senses, as he makes clear in his second edition. The paradigm is not just a conceptual way of looking at things, a model; rather, it is a shared consensual view of reality upon which the professional group depends. In each group, the members recognize those they consider proper co?members of the professional group, and those whom they recognize as outsiders ? as not being within their group. This is the social aspect of paradigm. 

 But a paradigm also includes a model of the way problems can and should be solved. The Newtonian paradigm has a model of the way to solve physical problems; Newton's gravitational equations are an example of such a model. As students progress through the stages undergraduate, graduate, and post?doctoral work, they are given increasingly difficult problems to solve. But they are always given examples of how these problems should be solved ? a "style" of doing the solving ? which is acceptable within the paradigm. 

 A shift in paradigm involves both a new way of solving problems (because there is a new way of thinking about the problems involved), and also the building up of a new social consensus among practitioners. Both Gablik and Kuhn have pointed out that the concept of paradigm in the sciences is similar to the notion of style in art: paradigms have the kind of cumulative, developmental, evolutionary quality that characterizes styles in artistic traditions. Indeed, Kuhn went so far as to model his theory of scientific development on art history. Previously, science had been treated as if it were a purely rational activity based on the cumulative building?up of knowledge, completely independent of the social and professional dimensions taking place within the scientific process. Kuhn demonstrated that the same kind of patterns which were accepted by many historians of art were also at work within the sciences. 

 A view of paradigms as morphic fields helps us to understand why they are so strongly conservative in nature, for once the paradigms are established, there is a large social group contributing to the consensual reality of the paradigm. A very powerful morphic resonance is evolved by this way of doing things; and that is why paradigm changes tend to be rather rare, and why they meet with strong resistance.

 The hypothesis of formative causation proposes that memory is inherent in nature. In doing so, it conflicts with a number of orthodox scientific theories. These theories grew up in the context of the pre-evolutionary cosmology, predominant until the 1960s, in which both nature and the laws of nature were believed to be eternal. Throughout this book, I contrast the interpretations provided by the hypothesis of formative causation with the conventional scientific interpretations, and show how these approaches can be test ed against each other by a wide variety of experiments. Sheldrake begins this essay with an interesting insight regarding the evolution of Jung's and Freud's conceptions of the unconscious out of the previous world view of Soul. He then explores a number of provocative ideas about "mind extended in time and space" that give us fresh perspectives on power, prayer, and consciousness. 

 We've all been brought up with the 17th century Cartesian view that our minds are located inside our brains. In this view, our minds are completely portable and can be carried around wherever we go, packaged as they are inside our skulls. Our minds, therefore, are essentially private entities associated with the physiology of each of our nervous tissues. This idea of the contracted mind, a mind which is not only rooted in the brain but actually located in the brain, is an idea that is so pervasive in our culture that most of us acquire it at an early age. It is not just a philosophical theory (although, of course, it is that); it is an integral part of the materialistic view of reality. 

 SOUL, MIND, AND CONSCIOUSNESS 

 Our understanding of the concepts of mind and soul is actually a question of how we define the word consciousness. I prefer to view the attribute of consciousness as being restricted to human beings and, perhaps, some of the higher order of animals in which one could say there was some kind of self consciousness. Much of the behavior which we consider to be mentally organized, however, actually arises out of unconscious processes. Riding bicycles with great skill, for example, does not involve conscious memory; it does not involve conscious thought. Bike riding utilizes a body memory that involves a great deal of unconscious action and doing. We acquire many complex skills on an unconscious level skiing, swimming, piano playing, and so on. 

 Such learning is notoriously difficult to describe in words because it does not involve conscious thought in the normal pattern of thought as a directed intellectual activity. A more useful concept that is difficult for us to use nowadays because its meaning is obscure to most people is the concept of the soul. In Aristotle's system, animals and plants had their own kind of soul, as did nature as a whole. This was the animistic view: the idea that there was an "anima" or soul in all living things. (Inanimate matter did not have a soul.) The very word animal, of course, comes from the word anima, meaning soul: animals are beings with soul. Actually, prior to the 17th century, it was believed that all of nature, and the earth as a whole, had a soul; the planets all had a soul. But the concept of soul was banished by 17th century mechanistic science. 

 The older view of soul is, I think, a better concept than that of consciousness. The word closest to it in modern usage is mind. The modern usage of mind, however, is almost identical with the word consciousness; mind incorrectly implies consciousness. We then have to use the term, unconscious mind, as Jung and Freud did. This usage has appeared to be a contradiction in terms to the academic world, so they have tended to reject it (and Jung's and Freud's conceptions of it, as well). The concept of soul, however, does not necessarily imply consciousness. The vegetative soul, which is the kind of soul that organizes the embryo and the growth of plants, was not viewed as functioning on a conscious level. When we grow as embryos, we don't have any memory of the process. We don't consciously think out, "the heart comes here, and I know I'll develop a limb out there, teeth here," and so forth. These things just seem to happen in a way that is tacit, implicit, or unconscious but yet soul like in the way they are organized. 

 Until the time of Descartes, three levels of soul were conceived. The vegetative soul contained the form of the body and governed embryology and growth; all animals and plants were viewed as having it. Then there was the animal soul, which concerned movement, behavior, instincts, and so on; all animals as well as humans were seen as having this level soul. Over and above the vegetative and animal soul in human beings was the rational soul, which was experienced as the more intellectual, conscious mind. 

 Descartes contended that there was no such thing as vegetative or animal souls. All animals and plants were dead, inanimate machines. The body itself was viewed as nothing more than a machine. It did not have an animal soul governing unconscious instincts and patterns. Those processes were entirely mechanical in nature. The only kind of soul human beings had, on the other hand, was the rational, conscious soul: "I think; therefore I am." Thinking thus became the very model of conscious activity or mental activity, and in this way, Descartes restricted the concept of soul or spirit to the conscious, thinking, rational portion of the mind, which reached its highest pinnacle in the proofs of mathematics. Descartes' perspective left us with the idea that the only kind of consciousness worthy of the name was "rational consciousness" especially mathematical, scientific consciousness. In a sense, Descartes created the problem of the unconscious, for within 50 years of his work, people started saying, "Wait a minute, there's more to us than just this conscious mind, because there are things that influence us that we are not conscious of." Thus the idea of the unconscious mind, which we generally regard as having been invented by Freud, was actually invented again and again and again after Descartes. By defining the mind as solely the conscious part and defining everything else as dead or mechanical, Descartes created a kind of void that demanded the reinvention of the idea of the unconscious side of the mind (which everyone before Descartes had simply taken for granted in the soul concept). (There is an excellent book on this subject by L.L. Whyte called The Unconscious before Freud, published by Julian Friedman, London, 1979.) 

 The problem we are encountering now is that, having eliminated the concept of soul in the 17th century, we are left with concepts such as mind which are not really adequate for what we mean. If we want to get closest to what people meant by soul in the past, the modern concept of field is the most accurate approximation. Prior to Isaac Newton's elucidation of the laws of gravity, gravitational phenomena were explained in terms of the anima mundi, the soul of the world or universe. The soul of the world supposedly coordinated the movements of the planets and stars and did al! the things that gravitation did for Newton. Now from Einstein, we have the idea of space time gravitational fields that organize the universe. In this concept of fields one can see aspects of the anima mundi (soul) as being of the universe. Souls were invisible, nonmaterial, organizing principles. Fields, especially morphic fields, are invisible, nonmaterial, organizing principles that do most of the things that souls were believed to do. 

 MIND EXTENDED IN TIME AND SPACE 

 In Jean Piaget's book, The Child's Conception of the World, he describes how by the age of about ten or eleven, children learn what he calls the "correct view" that thoughts, images, and dreams are invisible "things" located inside the brain. Before that age they have the "incorrect view" (as do so-called primitive people) that thoughts, images, and dreams happen outside the brain. 

 The Cartesian view of the mind as being located in the brain is so pervasive that all of us are inclined to speak of our minds and brains as if they were interchangeable, synonymous: "It's in my brain," rather than "it's in my mind." In the 20's and 30's, various philosophers and psychologists, particularly Koffka, Uhler, and Wertheimer of the Gestalt school challenged this view. 

 I want to argue that our minds are extended in several senses. In previous articles, we discussed how our minds are extended in both space and time with other people's minds, and with the group mind or cultural mind by way of their connection to the collective unconscious. Insofar as we tune into archetypal fields or patterns which other people have had, which other social groups have had, and which our own social group has had in the past, our minds are much broader than the "things" inside our brains. They extend out into the past and into social groupings to which we are linked, either by ancestry or by cultural transmissions. Thus, our minds are extended in time, and 't believe they are also extended in space. 

 Throughout this article, I want to make a simple point that is a very radical departure from traditional theory. The traditional theory of perception is that light rays reflected from objects travel through electromagnetic fields, are focused by the lens of the retina, and thereby produce an image on the retina. This triggers off electrical changes in the receptor cells of the retina leading to nerve impulses going up the optic nerve into the cerebral cortex. An image of an object somehow springs into being inside my cerebral cortex, and something or someone inside sees it. A "little man in my brain" somehow sees this image in the cerebral cortex and falsely imagines that the image is "out there," when, in fact, it is "in here." Personally, I find this explanation extremely implausible. In my experience, my image of an object is right where it seems to be: outside of me. If I look out the window, my perceptual field is not inside me but outside me. That is, the objects are indeed outside me, and my perception of them is also outside me. I'm suggesting that in our perceptual experience, the perceptual fields extend all around us. While, as the traditional view holds, there is an inward flow of light impulses which eventually lead up to the brain, I also experience an outward projection of the images from my mind. The images are projected out, t and in normal perception, the projection out and the flow in coincide, so that I see an image of an object where the object really is located. 

 In hallucinatory types of perception, I can see images whether they are there, in fact, or not. Consider "psychic blindness": people can be hypnotized so that they no longer see objects which are actually in their view. In such a case of "psychic blindness," the inward flow is present but not the outward projection. More normally, the movement out and the movement in coincide with each other as part of a coordinated process, creating a perceptual field that embraces both the observer and the object. 

 This idea of the extended mind is a matter of common belief in ancient and traditional societies. If this concept were true, it would mean that we could influence things or people just by looking at them. In India, for example, it is believed that a person who either looks on a holy man, or is himself looked on by the holy man, receives a great blessing. In many parts of the world, including India, Greece, and the Middle East, it is believed that if you look upon something with the eye of envy - the "evil eye" - you therefore blight it. People in many cultures still take great precautions against this so-called evil eye. In India, it is considered to be extremely unlucky for a childless woman to admire a baby who belongs to another woman (whereas in our society, this is merely good manners). This is because she is assumed to be envious of the baby. Once a childless woman breaks this taboo, rituals must be performed (such as making a circle of salt around the baby and reciting various mantras) to exorcise the harmful influence. 

 When new buildings go up in India, scarecrows are fixed on the buildings; similarly, when there is a good crop of wheat or rice, scarecrows are placed in the field. These scarecrows are not intended to "scare away crows" literally, but rather to attract the evil eye of people who might otherwise blight the crop by looking upon it with envy. The scarecrows act as "lightning conductors" because anything with a human figure attracts the eye. The Indian people also put out round pots with huge white spots stuck on sticks; the eyes are drawn to the pots because the white spots took like eyes. For similar reasons, people throughout the Middle East wear talismans which contain eyes; in Egypt, the eye of Horus serves a similar function. All this is done to protect against the evil eye. 

 If we do affect things or people by looking at them, then can people perceive when they are being looked at, even when they cannot actually see some one looking at them. In both realms of fictional literature and real-life experience, many people claim to have had the experience of knowing they were being watched and then turning round and seeing someone staring at them. As undergraduates at Cambridge, some of us had read a Rosicrucian advertisement about the power of the mind. It said something about, "Try this simple experiment: look at the back of someone's neck and see if they will turn round after a few minutes." During boring lectures we acted as suggested, and it often worked; we found that we could fix our attention on the back of someone's neck and after a minute or two, the person often looked uncomfortable and turned round. 

 Although there is a great deal of anecdotal evidence that people sense when they are being watched, there is almost no scientific investigation of this phenomenon. The entire world literature on the subject that I've been able to find consists of three papers: one written in 4896, the next one in 1910, and a final paper in 1953. Two of the papers show positive effects, although they were both done on very small subject populations. 

 I've done some simple preliminary experiments over the last few months in workshops. The way we conducted the experiment was very simple. Four people volunteered and sat at one end of the room, with their backs turned toward the audience. We put each person's name on his or her back by way of identifying them. Then, in a series of trials, I would hold up cards in a random sequence containing the name of the person the audience was to watch. For example, if I had selected "Tom," I would hold up a card reading, "Trial 1, Tom," and everyone in the audience would stare at the back of Tom's neck for fifteen seconds. At the end of each trial, all four subjects would write down whether or not they thought they were being looked at during that time period. At the end of the series of trials, we compared when the volunteers thought they were being looked at, with whether or not they really were being observed. 

 My results so far indicate that people vary tremendously in their degree of sensitivity to being watched. In one workshop I conducted in Amsterdam, there was a woman who was 100 percent accurate; she knew each time she was being watched. She was the best subject I've encountered. When I asked if she knew why she had done so well, she said that as a child she used to play this game with her brothers and sisters. They practiced and she got very good at it; she had volunteered because she was sure she'd still be able to do it, even though she hadn't done it for 20 or 30 years. 

 A friend of mine has been conducting this experiment in one-on-one trials with friends and colleagues. In over 600 trials ping 65 - 70% of the time, which is statistically significant. indicate that there is an outgoing influence from the eyes or from the mind; perhaps mental influence does extend beyond the boundaries of the physical body. It has been suggested that this might be a telepathic rather than a visual influence. There is a simple method of checking that out. In some trials, the people doing the looking could turn around so that they are facing away from the volunteers and just think about the designated volunteer rather than look at him or her. If there was greater effect when the volunteers were actually being looked at than when they were being thought about, then one could be type was functioning. 

 A variation of this experiment is to examine the effect of distance on the perception of the subjects. Have the person being looked at located at a considerable distance from those looking at him (binoculars could be used) and then see if the effect still works. If it does, then set up trials using video or closed circuit television. Imagine an experiment in which there were four people in a studio (or even in different studios), with cameras running continuously, and a randomized switching device so that the person being looked at in each trial is randomly determined. Imagine a typical television audience of millions of viewers. Now, what if the subjects could distinguish when they were being looked at by other people over television. There one would have a massive, large-scale demonstration of extended mind in a way that could be conclusive. 

 This format, too, could be extended. You could have people looking at subjects in the Soviet Union via satellite linkups; one could elaborate this pattern indefinitely. What happens to actresses and actors, to prominent political figures, when they are looked at by millions of people? Are they affected by being in people's minds? 

 Large-scale experiments to test hypotheses could do more to bring about a paradigm shift than any amount of lecturing about the limitations of the mechanistic theory. Our perceptual fields may reach far beyond our physical brains; when we look at the stars, our minds may literally reach to the stars. There may be almost no limit on how far this process can extend.


----------



## rodbac

Ok, Pink, now YOU'RE just making fun of it...

 If you don't believe in it, fine, but posting drivel like that is just insulting.

 Now, I'm off to get some more yellow socks...


----------



## PinkFloyd

Stop being silly Rodbac, if you can't understand it, don't want to attempt to understand it or can't get your mind round it take your silly sock references elsewhere. This is a very interesting thread and not a place for you to air your socks in public.


----------



## radrd

I vote neither Rodbac nor PinkFloyd posts in this thread anymore. Then maybe it will either die or become worth reading again.


----------



## rodbac

Quote:


 Stop being silly Rodbac, if you can't understand it, don't want to attempt to understand it or can't get your mind round it take your silly sock references elsewhere. This is a very interesting thread and not a place for you to air your socks in public. 
 

Nice try, Pink, but posting some banal nonsense from a dude like R.S. is insulting to all our intelligences.

 And don't, for a second, think I haven't read and understood (well, as much as he'll allow with his diatribe) his points. Hell, I OWN "Dogs That Know When Their Owners Are Coming Home...", and it's one of the most idiotic book I've ever read, and I'm a person who BELIEVES in some of it. His "science" is the most fallacy-laden bunch of bull you and I will likely ever read.

 And considering your defense of it, I'd like to ask: Did YOU read it?

 One other thing, too- don't insult me by dismissing my 'sock' claims...

  Quote:


 I vote neither Rodbac nor PinkFloyd posts in this thread anymore. Then maybe it will either die or become worth reading again. 
 

et tu, radrd? Ok, I can take a hint...


----------



## PinkFloyd

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *radrd* 
_I vote neither Rodbac nor PinkFloyd posts in this thread anymore. Then maybe it will either die or become worth reading again._

 

Pardon? I started the thread and I think I'm entitled to my opinions as much as anybody else radrd. The above excerpt from Rupert Sheldrake is very interesting and very relevant to this thread or do you discount his work as hocus pocus?

 You suggest that the thread may be worth reading again if I stop posting in it... are you are saying that Rupert Sheldrake's essay is "not" worth reading? I think it's both informative and extremely relative to this subject.

 hmmmmm....

 Pinkie.


----------



## PinkFloyd

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rodbac* 
_Nice try, Pink, but posting some banal nonsense from a dude like R.S. is insulting to all our intelligences.
_

 

Do you speak on behalf of the members of Head-Fi or on behalf of the global population when you say Rupert Sheldrake is "insulting to all our intelligences" or do you simply have split personalities?

 I bet you think the world is flat and that babies are delivered by storks.. you've given your thoughts on the subject and everyone is well aware of your stance but do you have to keep on repeating it over and over and over again?

 You haven't tried rainbow foil yet you "know" it doesn't work..... you say me posting an article by Rupert Sheldrake is insulting everyone's intelligence.... You seem to think you know everything about the world and can speak on behalf of the world....... 

 Nuff said.


----------



## 10068

Since i'm feeling kind of ill today, i'm not going to read that whole thing by Shelkdrake or whatever his name is.. 

 But I can say that the idea of Collective Unconscious is pretty cool, and actually makes a lot of sense if you think about it.

 What i'm curious about (since I probably won't read that Morphic Resonance stuff, heh) is what people like rodbac are saying is bull... ALL of this guy's writings, or just the Morphic Resonance stuff... because I can assure you an idea such as Collective Unconscious defenitely has a place in science.

 Speaking of which (a bit off-topic, but meh), a great book I recently read was The Self-Aware Universe: How Consciousness Creates the Material World by Amit Gotswami... he references to Collective Unconscious (well his main points are basically a version of that, heh). Fascinating stuff though.

 EDIT: Visited one of the links greenhorn supplied.. something about "friendly energy".. that instantly puts this Rainbow stuff under dumb in my book 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I can definitely wrap my mind around Consciousness, Quantum Mechanics, etc, but don't go telling me there's such a thing as "freindly energy", and this energy is friendly such that it will befriend your CDs and make them happier. And, as we all know, happy CDs sound better. Right? Sure, whatever.


----------



## radrd

Quote:


 Pardon? I started the thread and I think I'm entitled to my opinions as much as anybody else radrd. The above excerpt from Rupert Sheldrake is very interesting and very relevant to this thread or do you discount his work as hocus pocus? 
 

You've both made your opinions clear ALREADY. You believe this crap works and he doesn't. Until someone else comes along with some sort of new insight into the matter, you are essentially ruining your own thread.

 As far as whether that essay is worth reading, I personally doubt that anyone who doesn't believe this crap works is going to bother reading it (me...). However, I'll concede that it's probably interesting and maybe even informative. If I were you I would encourage discussions on that, possibly in a new thread about the psychology of listening or whatever. However, the rest of your posting back and forth with Rodbac about whether the foil works is pure idiocy. Let it go already.

 Now someone is going to point out that my posting is idiocy, and I'll spot you a quick touche to avoid saying it later.


----------



## PinkFloyd

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *radrd* 
_You've both made your opinions clear ALREADY. You believe this ******** works and he doesn't._

 

I take it "Bullsh*t" is a reference to the "Peter Belt Rainbow Foil" and I assume your appraisal results from your listening tests with Rainbow foil? 


  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *radrd* 
_As far as whether that essay is worth reading, I personally doubt that anyone who doesn't believe this crap works is going to bother reading it (me...)._

 

Why are you contributing to this thread then if you aren't going to bother reading anything as you don't believe in it, are you only here to thread crap?



  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *radrd* 
_However, I'll concede that it's probably interesting and maybe even informative._

 

That's very open minded of you but why not dispense with the "probablies and evens" and take a few minutes to read it first and then provide comment based on what you have read?

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *radrd* 
_ If I were you I would encourage discussions on that, possibly in a new thread about the psychology of listening or whatever._

 

If you were me you'd be of an open mind and would be trying a sample for yourself and wouldn't be shooting of sweeping statements like "You believe this ******** works and he doesn't." "I personally doubt that anyone who doesn't believe this crap works is going to bother reading it" etc. etc.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *radrd* 
_However, the rest of your posting back and forth with Rodbac about whether the foil works is pure idiocy. Let it go already._

 

Oh you managed to read that then? You're obviously a selective perceiver who only reads what they want to..... you say you're not interested in reading about the rainbow foil........ again I ask, "why are you looking at this thread?"

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *radrd* 
_Now someone is going to point out that my posting is idiocy, and I'll spot you a quick touche to avoid saying it later. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			



_

 

You said it.


----------



## Earwax

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PinkFloyd* 
_Ok, after 40 minutes of this and 10 identical tracks from 2 different discs being fired into my ears I was ready for the results and here they are as they were recorded by my assistant and the CD revealed in brackets:

 Track one: "sounds good" (rainbow 2)
 Track two: "sounds the same" (rainbow 2)
 Track three: "same again" (rainbow 2)
 Track four: "much more defined, easier to follow" (Rainbow 1)
 Track five: "same as the last one analytical" (Rainbow 1)
 Track six: "slightly veiled yet musical" (Rainbow 2)
 Track seven: "definitely more open and airy" (Rainbow 1)
 Track Eight: "that's the same track again (laugh) " (Rainbow 1)
 Track nine: "that's the other disc it's veiled" (Rainbow 2)
 Track ten: "ok lets call it a day that's the one I like" (Rainbow1)

 When I looked at the results, fully expecting the tracks that sounded open, analytical and detailed to be rainbow 2 and found they were the untreated disc I was pretty gobsmacked!_

 

Hey, I'm impressed that you were able to tell the two discs apart with that much accuracy. 

 I'm 3 days and a hundred posts behind in this thread, so maybe this has been brought up already, but here goes anyway. 

 My guess is that the real difference here is that the little strips of foil tape threw off the balance of the CD and affected the way it was read by the player. (jitter?)

 If I'm right, any heavy tape like duct tape or whatever would make a difference.


----------



## PinkFloyd

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Earwax* 
_Hey, I'm impressed that you were able to tell the two discs apart with that much accuracy. 

 I'm 3 days and a hundred posts behind in this thread, so maybe this has been brought up already, but here goes anyway. 

 My guess is that the real difference here is that the little strips of foil tape threw off the balance of the CD and affected the way it was read by the player. (jitter?)

 If I'm right, any heavy tape like duct tape or whatever would make a difference._

 

Very possible Earwax and highly probable. I can't quite grasp why some CD's sound "a lot better" with the foil and others sound a tad "muddy" it's maybe a balance issue throwing the CD into oscillation or maybe that's the way Rainbow foil thinks the CD should sound............ I'm still trying to figure it out and will report back in due course.


----------



## ooheadsoo

I think that everything the Belts have on their website is slanted towards giving the impression that their products work. Given HOW their products work, it's very important that everything give the right impression. If you're going to try the foil, reading through the website would be a good idea. In fact, I think that's one of the main purposes of the website.


----------



## PinkFloyd

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ooheadsoo* 
_I think that everything the Belts have on their website is slanted towards giving the impression that their products work. Given HOW their products work, it's very important that everything give the right impression. If you're going to try the foil, reading through the website would be a good idea. In fact, I think that's one of the main purposes of the website._

 


 Request a sample my friend.... if you read my initial post I went into this with a very closed mind........ you won't lose anything trying the Rainbow foil FOC.

 If it's placebo and it makes you enjoy your music all the more then good....... I believe there's a lot more to it however and I'll upload my findings in due course. In the meantime I urge you to email for a free sample (Free) and evaluate the stuff at your leisure............ give it a try it's a free sample.

 Free sample of P.W.B. Silver Rainbow Foil
 If you would like a free sample of P.W.B. Silver Rainbow Foil
 Please send your full postal address to:-

foil@belt.demon.co.uk 

 sourced from: http://www.belt.demon.co.uk

 As easy as pie.

 Pinkie.


----------



## ooheadsoo

Heya pinkie. As I said, I don't want to ask them for a free sample when I have no intention of buying it. I would, however, be open to buying a sheet of the $1 stuff if we ever find it


----------



## PinkFloyd

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ooheadsoo* 
_Heya pinkie. As I said, I don't want to ask them for a free sample when I have no intention of buying it. I would, however, be open to buying a sheet of the $1 stuff if we ever find it 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 


 How do you know you'll never buy it?


----------



## ooheadsoo

I know I'll never buy it because I'm a poor person still trying to work my way through college...I'm not at the "tweaks" stage of my system yet! Plenty of ways to go before I spend serious money on tweaks


----------



## PinkFloyd

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ooheadsoo* 
_I know I'll never buy it because I'm a poor person still trying to work my way through college...I'm not at the "tweaks" stage of my system yet! Plenty of ways to go before I spend serious money on tweaks 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

It''s Free


----------



## ooheadsoo

Yes, but I don't plan on buying their regular foil, which is quite costly. Plus I"m in the states so them shipping the free sample to me will cost them a pretty penny. And if I ever did buy the foil from them, it cost ME a pretty penny 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 My next major purchase is going to be a DEQ, most likely...THEN I'll start thinking about tweaks


----------



## reeseboisse

ooheadsoo: Morals have no place in audio. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 On topic, I do actually have 4 of my CDs in the freezer. And it will make them sound better, dammit or else.

 Team Psychosomatics is, without a doubt, the best team to be on.


----------



## HiGHFLYiN9

Got my sample a couple of days ago and finally had the chance to use it. I put the disc in the player, listened carefully to the first 15 seconds of a track I'm very familiar with (FSOL-The Isness, I've heard this song ~40 times) twice in a row, quickly opened the player, put two small piece of the tape on, one on the right, one on the left, and went back to the same track and listened to the first 15 seconds. What I found was that I could detect no difference, none at all. Everything was exactly how it was the first and second time i listened to it, and the 40 times before that. Oh well, it killed a few minutes in the hot anticipation of contemplating, if only for a moment, that a sticker would make a CD sound better.


----------



## PinkFloyd

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *highflyin9* 
_Got my sample a couple of days ago and finally had the chance to use it. I put the disc in the player, listened carefully to the first 15 seconds of a track I'm very familiar with (FSOL-The Isness, I've heard this song ~40 times) twice in a row, quickly opened the player, put two small piece of the tape on, one on the right, one on the left, and went back to the same track and listened to the first 15 seconds. What I found was that I could detect no difference, none at all. Everything was exactly how it was the first and second time i listened to it, and the 40 times before that. Oh well, it killed a few minutes in the hot anticipation of contemplating, if only for a moment, that a sticker would make a CD sound better. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Great that your sample arrived highflyin9. Do you think 15 seconds is really enough to detect any differences? Whatever changes there are with any tweak (if any) are usually extremely subtle and can only be detected after a prolonged listen.

 If you were auditioning a new cable you wouldn't unplug it after 15 seconds and then plug your old cable in... comparisons can't be made with such a brief listen..... the subtleties of any tweak will only become evident after a good listen and they won't "jump out" and grab you by the balls, it doesn't work that way unfortunately 

 Try listening to your favourite album all the way through with the rainbow foil in place. It's also a good idea to listen to your crappiest recording too to see if it has improved.

 All the best.

 Mike.


----------



## setmenu

I have to hold my hand up here and admit I skipped much of this thread..

 Mike
 That diaphragm caught my eye, do you know whether it was actually part of a commercially produced product?
 I have a bit of soft spot for planar phones.. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 As for the foil I would certainly exercise caution as to where one actually
 sticks it..

 Personaly if I want a quick sound upgrade that can easily be undone,
 I simply pretend that I am listening with the finest system available to man 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 And if all else fails, buy new music 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	





 Setmenu


----------



## tomek

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *highflyin9* 
_I've heard this song ~40 times) twice in a row, quickly opened the player, put two small piece of the tape on, one on the right, one on the left, and went back to the same track and listened to the first 15 seconds._

 

Pinkie's right, that's nowhere near the chance that any other component would get. I love getting ripped apart for A/Bing cables, even though I spend an hour doing it, and being told that it's not a fair way to judge a component. Others insist that I have to 'leave it in my system' for a while.

 Really people, for the lack of any solid evidence we've seen for cables making a difference, people are very happy to hand over 100USD for a pair which they usually fail to compare with any scrutiny, but people are very quick to discount and even refuse the possibility of a FREE tweak.

 I really think that Mr. Belt would be more successful if he

 1) called it "reference foil" instead of "rainbow foil"
 2) introduced several models
 3) most importantly, *charged* for it instead of giving it away for free!


 ps: Pinkie, have you tried switching the foil onto the other disc to eliminate the possibility it was simply a burn or jitter issue?


----------



## HiGHFLYiN9

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PinkFloyd* 
_Try listening to your favourite album all the way through with the rainbow foil in place. It's also a good idea to listen to your crappiest recording too to see if it has improved._

 

Yeah I know what you mean, I try to choose the most intricate passages and a/B quickly so the memory doesn't fade. I've had a lot of luck detecting differences in cables this way. I left the stickers on the cd since i didn't feel they were hurting anything and listened to it the whole way through last night, still didn't notice any differences though. I must have got a defective strip!


----------



## PinkFloyd

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *highflyin9* 
_Yeah I know what you mean, I try to choose the most intricate passages and a/B quickly so the memory doesn't fade. I've had a lot of luck detecting differences in cables this way. I left the stickers on the cd since i didn't feel they were hurting anything and listened to it the whole way through last night, still didn't notice any differences though. I must have got a defective strip! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

From what I gather the strips on the CD alone may not be enough, try a strip on your headphones and on a piece of furniture or your telephone etc. Furniture appears to be a very important factor in all of this and it also requires treating. I today received the following e-mail from May Belt which I am sure she won't mind me reproducing here and the parts relating to forum threads hit the nail on the head!.

 "Dear Mike,

 One of the contributors to the head-fi web site, whilst asking for a sample, has
 challenged me that "If we are feeling confident in our product, please feel free
 to chime in !!"

 I have replied to him that

 "I do not usually respond to the various forums. You see, this aspect has been
 going on for twenty years and our experience is that words alone will not change
 people's attitudes - people have to experience for themselves. Then, if they are
 seriously interested in what it is all about, they usually ask for further
 clarification. Then, when that happens, we can have a meaningful dialogue."

 Mike, I would prefer to stay out of discussions, particularly as hardly anyone
 has been able to have experience - most of the requests for samples have come
 from overseas, so they will not be receiving their samples until next week.

 Our experience over the past twenty years has shown that when some people first
 hear of our devices and techniques, they usually respond by making silly
 references to them.

 Then, when challenged by others who report that they have actually heard our
 devices give them 'improvements to their sound' some people progress to
 responding with ridicule. This is the point when intelligent people tend to
 'back off', because intelligent people are usually intelligent enough to know
 that it is really pointless to argue with people who only want to ridicule.
 Therefore, usually, any discussion stops there - and the ridiculers win.

 If the intelligent people still refuse to 'back off' the ridiculers react with
 insults, then, if the discussion ? still continues, the ridiculers progress to
 downright verbal attack.

 We have found that people have to get to the first rung of the ladder - which is
 to open one's mind to new ideas, which, it seems, you have been prepared to do.

 The next rung is to be prepared to look at existing belief structures and to ask
 if they can be opened up or are they already rigidly entrenched.

 To make a start - can I outline some basics ? I am afraid that I will have to be
 outrageously simplistic otherwise it will be the length of a book.

 There are only two ways that conventional electronic or acoustic theories will
 allow sound to be changed. These are.

 1) Something having an effect on the audio signal (and this includes affecting
 the digital information stored on a disc or analogue information stored on a
 vinyl record or audio tape).

 2) Something having an effect on the acoustic air pressure waves in the room.

 If the human being is considered at all, then it is usually only along the
 concept of being a receiver i.e. how, physically, the ear drum receives the air
 pressure waves.

 You now have to look at the world of audio.

 Engineers are constantly trying different circuits, trying different ideas,
 trying different components, trying different suggestions and so on. If they
 experience the sound improving, or the sound getting worse when they expected it
 to get better, or the sound not changing at all when they expected a change,
 then they have to find an explanation as to why. What I say (again being
 outrageously simplistic) is that they go down a 'conventional check list' for an
 explanation.

 1) Is it something to do with capacitance ? If the answer is no, then they go on
 to the next on the list.

 2) Is it something to do with resistance ? If the answer is no, then they go on
 to the next - and so on.

 3) Is it something to do with inductance ?

 4) Could it be something to do with the dielectric ?

 5) Could it be something to do with vibrations ?

 6) Could it be something to do with static ?

 7) Could it be something to do with microphony ?

 8) Could it be something to do with RF interference ?

 Usually, the engineers can find some explanation from within that conventional
 group which satisfies them and therefore they feel no need to look any further
 for any other explanation.

 However, there are occasions when they cannot find an explanation from within
 conventional theories or, they have been doing something else - not connected
 with audio - and find that the sound has suddenly changed ! If they are a
 'professional in audio' then this worries them, because there should obviously
 be some explanation. What I say they do next is to put the problem, this
 'observation without an explanation' on an invisible shelf which is marked "to
 be investigated later, when I have time".

 During an intense period of designing and manufacturing his own amplifiers to
 actively drive the orthodynamic tower and separate bass unit loudspeaker system,
 Peter found that this invisible shelf was groaning under the weight of all these
 'observations without an explanation'.

 It was the event with the coffee table which was the turning point. Peter was
 forced to begin the process of looking elsewhere for an explanation. The only
 explanation which began to emerge was 'it must be the human being who is doing
 the changing'. Peter began to realise that it must have been us (human beings)
 who had somehow been sensing the 'stress' chemical applied to the table and by
 going under tension, that was why the sound was perceived as worse. Then, as I
 have described before, being a good experimenter, he searched every drawer,
 every shelf, every cupboard and tried every chemical he could get his hands on
 and he then discovered a chemical which, when applied to various objects in the
 room, created an improvement in the sound !! Also, as I have described before,
 Peter was devastated. You would think that he would be delighted but, no, he was
 devastated - which is not surprising. He had just spent the past 30 years of his
 life trying every which way to produce good sound and now he had the best sound
 he had ever had in his life - by applying a particular chemical to objects in
 the room - objects which could not, by any stretch of the imagination, be
 associated with audio !!

 Peter then began to take down from the invisible shelf and dust off, one by one,
 the 'observations without an explanation' and look at them again with this new
 concept of 'could it be the human being reacting' ? And, the new concept slowly
 began to provide explanations.

 But this, in turn, began to generate yet more questions.

 1) What is the human being reacting to ?

 2) How is the human being reacting ?

 3) Why is the human being reacting ?

 This is why I started my correspondence with Greg Weaver with the concept that
 people have to be able to 'throw an intellectual switch' and look at the subject
 from a different perspective. Whilst ever they chose to stay rigidly within
 conventional electronic and acoustic theories they will never be able to achieve
 a better understanding of what is really going on in the world of 'sound'.

 The adverse reaction to Peter's discoveries by so many people involved in audio
 (either as producers of audio equipment or consumers) mirrors what has happened
 so many times in history. I am writing the Peter Belt story as a parallel to the
 Joseph Lister story and you will find I have given a brief outline of the Joseph
 Lister story in the Vol 4 No 4 Newsletter (accessed via our home page).

 Also, in Vol 5 No 1 Newsletter, you will find a description under the heading
 Bar Codes etc of how Peter discovered the effect and influence of colours,
 leading to the realisation of the beneficial effect of Rainbow Foil (prismatic
 foil).

 One really good example of what I mean is the controversy surrounding colouring
 the edge of a CD with the colour Green. This is one of those cases where someone
 'heard' an improvement in the sound by colouring the edge of a CD with the
 colour green. They had to find an explanation so they looked down the check list
 and came up with the explanation of something to do with reflection or
 refraction of the laser beam. I have referred to this in my article headed Bar
 Codes mentioned above. When one does more experiments but this time using a
 Violet/Purple colour, one can mark the edge of a vinyl record or the edge of an
 audio tape with the colour Violet/Purple as well as marking the edge of the CD
 and one can get a similar improvement in the sound !! But, there is no laser
 beam involved with a vinyl record or an audio tape !!! So, the original
 explanation is no longer valid. This is just one instance of an observation
 without an explanation !!

 In the summer of 1998, I gave a talk about some of the history behind P.W.B. to
 a group of P.W.B. customers and one of these customers filmed my talk with a
 camcorder. We were able to transfer this film to a video tape.

 The video recording is three hours long and, unfortunately, the sound quality
 for the first two thirds of the talk is not as good as I would like because the
 camcorder was sited at the rear of the room. However, after the interval, the
 camcorder was moved closer and the sound is better for the last part of my talk.
 But I think that enough can be heard to get a fair understanding behind our
 thinking. My talk does not concentrate on how to 'treat' equipment etc or how to
 carry out various techniques but concentrates more on the journey we have made
 to the position we had reached in 1998. If you would like to borrow a copy of
 this (UK standard) video, please let me know.

 Kind Regards,

 May"







 ************************************************** ***
 * P.W.B. Electronics pwb@belt.demon.co.uk
 * http://www.belt.demon.co.uk http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PWB
 ************************************************** ***


----------



## PinkFloyd

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *setmenu* 
_I have to hold my hand up here and admit I skipped much of this thread..

 Mike
 That diaphragm caught my eye, do you know whether it was actually part of a commercially produced product?
 I have a bit of soft spot for planar phones.. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 As for the foil I would certainly exercise caution as to where one actually
 sticks it..

 Personaly if I want a quick sound upgrade that can easily be undone,
 I simply pretend that I am listening with the finest system available to man 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 And if all else fails, buy new music 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	





 Setmenu_

 

Hi Setmenu,

 Yes, the diaphragm is a low mass diaphragm which was used in the PWB (Peter Belt) Orthodynamic headphones. If you are a collector of these I can send it to you as I really don't have much use for it.. it sure is an interesting looking thing though very fragile.






 All the best.

 Mike.


----------



## gpalmer

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PinkFloyd* 
_"Dear Mike,
 ...

 he searched every drawer,every shelf, every cupboard and tried every chemical he could get his hands on

 Kind Regards,

 May"
 ..._

 

This is one part of the thread I'm not having any problem believing, can you say lysergic acid enzymes...


----------



## tomek

DID YOU SWITCH THE FOIL ONTO THE OTHER DISC AND TRY IT!?!?!?!?


----------



## setmenu

It is hardly surprising that with 'Hi-Fi' such apparently metaphysical approaches arise.
 The recording and playback of music is a real junction between art and science,in that people with leanings in both directions are readily drawn in.
 The consumer is is under a constant assault from such objective/subjective
 pressures.

 For instance how and earth is listening to some of the finest expressions of the musical arts supposed to place ones mind into a dry objective analytical state?

 For me it can be hell to trying to avoid being drawn into the music for all
 but the most gross sonic aberrations.[if I love the music]

 Concentration is hard work.
 What does one do to relax....listen to music...

 Ahhh..so when one is working at listening to ones Hi-Fi , it takes effort.
 If you are not vigilant, and concentration starts to slip, things can start
 to improve...

 I know we are all supposed to be expert listeners here, but you really need
 to be made of stern stuff to repel music,s sweet advances for any length
 of time.

 Hmm, what the hell am I saying here.. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



 Perhaps the spiritual nature of art needs it's analogue [I am sorry could not resist] in audio playback.
 For want of a better word: Ritual.
 Anticipation of pleasure, time to contemplate what is to come.
 Perhaps the vinyl lover is on to something here, lovingly placing and cuing that precious fragile shiny black disk.
 Compare that to raking through a menu on a hard drive!


 So it seems to me the Belt site represents something more than merely a another attempt to achieve a material audio nirvana.
 I get the impression of old time symbolic artifacts, that are more for focusing
 the mind rather than an electric field or two.
 To some degree the choice of artifact strikes me as joyously arbitrary.

 Look at electrons for instance.......Exactly!

 To my artists eye, discreet electronic components are fabulously abstract things!
 Lovely pink copper wire sounds warm...silver wire, well it is silver eh?

 Of course at some point we all need to agree on a reality for things to work,
 but on the fringes not everybody sees in the same way.


 Enough of my bollocks 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	





 Mike, thanks for your kind offer.
 It will be interesting to look at.
 I will PM you.

 Cheers

 Setmenu


----------



## PinkFloyd

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tomek* 
_DID YOU SWITCH THE FOIL ONTO THE OTHER DISC AND TRY IT!?!?!?!?_

 

Hi tomek,

 The answer is no I haven't switched the foil on Rainbow 1 and Rainbow 2 as the copies could be flawed and I don't think a copied version sounds as good as the original.

 Instead I decided to go back to shpongle 1 and shpongle 2 as they are "both" originals from the same pressing plant. I didn't have an assistant so I performed the test knowing which disc was what. I removed the foil from shpongle 1 and placed it onto shpongle 2 and it was clear that shpongle 2 sounded a bit clearer than shpongle 1. I then swapped the foil from shpongle 2 back to shpongle 1 and, again, shpongle 1 sounded "clearer" I then removed the foil from shpongle 1 and listened to both untreated disc and I couldn't differentiate between them.

 Now this may be going into the realms of the insane but I swear I perceived greater clarity whenever the foil was in place. I am now in the process of treating parts of the system and will also experiment by placing foil on furniture etc. 

 I've treated my Senn HD600's, amp, CD player and a chair to date and didn't think much more about treating other CD's and found myself enjoying the music.... I didn't think of attributing this new sense of "musical enjoyment" to the rainbow foil but it's very possible, somewhere down the line, that it's got something to do with it whether it be placebo or not.... I'm certainly not ruling the rainbow foil out, maybe just trying to detect a difference with the rainbow foil has been the spark I needed to ignite my passion for music again? There are a lot of variables but I'm not going to question them, I'm just glad I'm enjoying the music again!





 RAINBOW AND PYRITE TREATED AMP





 RAINBOW TREATED SENNHEISER HD600's

 Whatever the Rainbow foil is or isn't I can't measure it and tell you....... all I can say is that since it's arrival my interest in music and tweaks has been re-fuelled and I feel a lot better for it. 

 Pinkie.


----------



## PinkFloyd

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *setmenu* 
_It is hardly surprising that with 'Hi-Fi' such apparently metaphysical approaches arise.
 The recording and playback of music is a real junction between art and science,in that people with leanings in both directions are readily drawn in.
 The consumer is is under a constant assault from such objective/subjective
 pressures.

 For instance how and earth is listening to some of the finest expressions of the musical arts supposed to place ones mind into a dry objective analytical state?

 For me it can be hell to trying to avoid being drawn into the music for all
 but the most gross sonic aberrations.[if I love the music]

 Concentration is hard work.
 What does one do to relax....listen to music...

 Ahhh..so when one is working at listening to ones Hi-Fi , it takes effort.
 If you are not vigilant, and concentration starts to slip, things can start
 to improve...

 I know we are all supposed to be expert listeners here, but you really need
 to be made of stern stuff to repel music,s sweet advances for any length
 of time.

 Hmm, what the hell am I saying here.. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



 Perhaps the spiritual nature of art needs it's analogue [I am sorry could not resist] in audio playback.
 For want of a better word: Ritual.
 Anticipation of pleasure, time to contemplate what is to come.
 Perhaps the vinyl lover is on to something here, lovingly placing and cuing that precious fragile shiny black disk.
 Compare that to raking through a menu on a hard drive!


 So it seems to me the Belt site represents something more than merely a another attempt to achieve a material audio nirvana.
 I get the impression of old time symbolic artifacts, that are more for focusing
 the mind rather than an electric field or two.
 To some degree the choice of artifact strikes me as joyously arbitrary.

 Look at electrons for instance.......Exactly!

 To my artists eye, discreet electronic components are fabulously abstract things!
 Lovely pink copper wire sounds warm...silver wire, well it is silver eh?

 Of course at some point we all need to agree on a reality for things to work,
 but on the fringes not everybody sees in the same way.


 Enough of my bollocks 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	





 Mike, thanks for your kind offer.
 It will be interesting to look at.
 I will PM you.

 Cheers

 Setmenu_

 

Setmenu, that seriously was absolutely poetic, very well put and a pleasure to read.

 "so when one is working at listening to ones Hi-Fi , it takes effort.
 If you are not vigilant, and concentration starts to slip, things can start
 to improve..."

 Exactly!


----------



## zotjen

I must say I find this whole thing fascinating. I don't quite grasp how placing rainbow foil on a coffee table can improve the sound from headphones though, since it's not part of the system. In any case, my free sample of rainbow foil is on its way. I also plan on trying the freezer experiment with photographs, hopefully tonight. 

 Tom, who's always open to new things.


----------



## tomek

i applaud Belt for recognizing that variables affecting the enjoyment of music are not confined to the electronics that reproduce them.

 this is a big realization and one that all of us, even the skeptics, should look to incorporate into our attempts to 'maximize' our systems. look past the specific, admittedly silly physical item that is the rainbow foil, and recognize a new approach to enjoying audio.

 my favourite tweaks? i've noticed that shutting off the computer, turning off the lights, and getting comfortable greatly increase my enjoyment of music. far, far more in fact, than any cables or other 'tangible' tweaks that are so widely accepted here. 

 ever notice how much nicer some music is on a sunny day? ever notice how wonderful a cd or your system can sound when you take some time away from it? ever notice how if you listen too much, habituation can kick in and it doesn't wow you like it has tbefore? ever listen to your system and think something sounds wrong, even though you haven't touched a thing? ever notice that it doesn't sound right if someone that you're showing it too isn't terribly impressed?

 i can't imagine an artist researching types of bulbs to illuminate his work to make it more enjoyable, but i can imagine him recognizing how factors internal to himself might influence it.

 it's very easy to fall into the trap of thinking the only way to improve your system is to throw more money, more THINGS at it, and more gear. especially with the nature of the guys here: music lovers at heart, tech oriented in the brain. we all know that things are subjective because we don't all have the same taste, but i wish we'd also recognize that there is subjectivity and inconsistency within us, not only between us.

 laugh all you want at Belt, but he's reminded me that I shouldn't spend so much time with the tape measure, angling my speakers in 3 degrees, and should focus on other factors that affect the way i perceive and enjoy music, which in my experience have had a far greater effect on music, but which haven't traditionally been things that one mentions in the 'Tweaks' section of such a gear oriented site!


----------



## PinkFloyd

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tomek* 
_i applaud Belt for recognizing that variables affecting the enjoyment of music are not confined to the electronics that reproduce them.

 this is a big realization and one that all of us, even the skeptics, should look to incorporate into our attempts to 'maximize' our systems. look past the specific, admittedly silly physical item that is the rainbow foil, and recognize a new approach to enjoying audio.

 my favourite tweaks? i've noticed that shutting off the computer, turning off the lights, and getting comfortable greatly increase my enjoyment of music. far, far more in fact, than any cables or other 'tangible' tweaks that are so widely accepted here. 

 ever notice how much nicer some music is on a sunny day? ever notice how wonderful a cd or your system can sound when you take some time away from it? ever notice how if you listen too much, habituation can kick in and it doesn't wow you like it has tbefore? ever listen to your system and think something sounds wrong, even though you haven't touched a thing? ever notice that it doesn't sound right if someone that you're showing it too isn't terribly impressed?

 i can't imagine an artist researching types of bulbs to illuminate his work to make it more enjoyable, but i can imagine him recognizing how factors internal to himself might influence it.

 it's very easy to fall into the trap of thinking the only way to improve your system is to throw more money, more THINGS at it, and more gear. especially with the nature of the guys here: music lovers at heart, tech oriented in the brain. we all know that things are subjective because we don't all have the same taste, but i wish we'd also recognize that there is subjectivity and inconsistency within us, not only between us.

 laugh all you want at Belt, but he's reminded me that I shouldn't spend so much time with the tape measure, angling my speakers in 3 degrees, and should focus on other factors that affect the way i perceive and enjoy music, which in my experience have had a far greater effect on music, but which haven't traditionally been things that one mentions in the 'Tweaks' section of such a gear oriented site!_

 

That's pretty much spot on Tomek.... it's easy to forget that we "humans" are the weakest link in the chain and we have to be in the right frame of mind before we can enjoy music and seriously become part of the groove.

 I, like you, prefer a dark room with my eyes closed whilst listening to and picturing the performance in my mind and that's a hard state of being for a lot of people to achieve...... they expect it to be served on a digital platter...... it's all about being relaxed and at one with the music and Peter Belt "should" be applauded for " recognizing that variables affecting the enjoyment of music are not confined to the electronics that reproduce them" as you pointed out.

 I'm off to close my eyes and get into some music and use my imagination to paint my own tapestry of images like we used to do before the advent of the music video..........

 Pinkie.


----------



## marios_mar

because I really cannot go through this hilarious post (not enough time) can someone tell me on what page of it I can find an explanation of how this stuff works. A scientific explanation or something.


----------



## PinkFloyd

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *marios_mar* 
_because I really cannot go through this hilarious post (not enough time) can someone tell me on what page of it I can find an explanation of how this stuff works. A scientific explanation or something._

 


 I quote the lyrics from the "pocket Universe" album by Yello (one of the best albums sound quality wise you'll ever hear) this is track 11 (beyond mirrors) :

 "The age of science has failed to explain our universe in rational terms.

 Consequently the power of magic has gradually emerged from our conscious minds to fathom the unfathomable.

 Our most distinguished scientists reluctantly admit, that mankind is nothing but some billion creatures, sitting on a piece of solar driftwood floating in space.

 Magic is the art of influencing the cause of events by the intervention of spiritual forces or some other occult device.

 According to arthur c. clarke any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

 Early civilization often mistook the unexplainable world around them to be magic.

 Rupert sheldrake in his book "seven experiments that could change the world" has stated that scientist’s attitude toward their experiments affect the results of their experiments.

 There is no such thing as a definite fact in science and therefore the irrationality of magic plays an important part in our rational world.

 Werner heisenberg, the leading 20th. century physicist has stated, that mass is a physical interpretation of energy.

 Religious organizations have understood the power of magic; and therefore monopolized the interpretation of the supernatural to control the human mind.

 The universe as a whole is beyond explanation.

 Only at the end of the 20th century the roman catholic church admitted, that the great visionary galileo galilei was, in fact, correct.

 The second millennium has come to an end. scientists have to admit that the universe is magic."

 Listen to that track in a relaxed state and you're sorted 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




The masters of electro here! 

 Pinkie.


----------



## marios_mar

where can I get a free sample of the sticker. I want to try it with an album I know very well.


 what is a DBT free forum btw. Can you explain?


 ps. I didnt know YELLO have good sounding recordings. Havent listened to them recently. Groove is in the heeeeeeeeearrrt.....


----------



## radrd

Quote:


 because I really cannot go through this hilarious post (not enough time) can someone tell me on what page of it I can find an explanation of how this stuff works. A scientific explanation or something. 
 

You can't find an explanation, at least not one that a rational human being would call an explanation, as putting foil on something will not make it perform better. Period. That is, unless we are talking about wrapping up leftovers in aluminum foil. Foil serves a purpose there, as the leftovers will not spoil as quickly. Putting foil on your CDs is really just a waste of perfectly good foil that could be used to preserve food for a while.

 Now, one can argue that putting foil on something will make you think it will sound better. I personally don't like to trick myself into believing something sounds good, but YMMV.


----------



## setmenu

It is of course worth remembering that the emperor can indeed , have no clothes.


 Setmenu


----------



## PinkFloyd

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *radrd* 
_You can't find an explanation, at least not one that a rational human being would call an explanation, as putting foil on something will not make it perform better. Period. That is, unless we are talking about wrapping up leftovers in aluminum foil. Foil serves a purpose there, as the leftovers will not spoil as quickly. Putting foil on your CDs is really just a waste of perfectly good foil that could be used to preserve food for a while.

 Now, one can argue that putting foil on something will make you think it will sound better. I personally don't like to trick myself into believing something sounds good, but YMMV._

 

And just when this was getting interesting again....... who's next on the "I haven't tried it but I'll slag it rota"?


----------



## minya

Remember those bracelets you had as kids, made of plastic that would stay straight until you snapped them against your wrist (so they'd curl around your wrist)? I forget what they're called. Anyway, I remember owning at least one coated with none other than *RAINBOW FOIL*. If I had had Peter Belt's brilliant genius guiding me as a young child, surely the properties of the rainbow foil snappy bracelet would have granted me a great many more successes than I've already experienced. I'd be a lottery winner, I bet.

 Actually, I'm really happy right now. Everything in my life is going extremely well. Probably because I was smart enough to wear a rainbow foil bracelet fifteen years ago.

 - Chris


----------



## PinkFloyd

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *minya* 
_Remember those bracelets you had as kids, made of plastic that would stay straight until you snapped them against your wrist (so they'd curl around your wrist)? I forget what they're called. Anyway, I remember owning at least one coated with none other than *RAINBOW FOIL*. If I had had Peter Belt's brilliant genius guiding me as a young child, surely the properties of the rainbow foil snappy bracelet would have granted me a great many more successes than I've already experienced. I'd be a lottery winner, I bet.

 Actually, I'm really happy right now. Everything in my life is going extremely well. Probably because I was smart enough to wear a rainbow foil bracelet fifteen years ago.

 - Chris_

 

I refer you to May belt's email and suggest you read it minya.......... take a step up the ladder and open your mind (understand what this is all about)


----------



## marios_mar

will someone tell me what DBT is?


----------



## PinkFloyd

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *marios_mar* 
_will someone tell me what DBT is?_

 


 It's PWB Rainbow foil in latin 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 (On a serious note I'm sure Hirsch will answer your question in due course)


 Pinkie.


----------



## greenhorn

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *minya* 
_Actually, I'm really happy right now. Everything in my life is going extremely well. Probably because I was smart enough to wear a rainbow foil bracelet fifteen years ago.

 - Chris_

 

Chris, just try to imagine how fantastic things would have been today if you had worn not only one one, but TWO of those bracelets - one for each wrist!!! 

 Something to regret for the rest of your life! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I did not posess such a bracelet... poor me.


----------



## marios_mar

c'mon hirsch I am waiting. I cant find the forum rules somewhere to read. Please explain.

 You also didnt tell me Pink where to get free samples.


----------



## radrd

Double Blind Test. For determining which cable sounds better, the subject wouldn't know which cable is being used and administrator does not know which cables should sound better. I'm no scientist, so there are certainly better explanations available, but that one seems right to me (as it would pertain to a cable test, that is.)


----------



## PinkFloyd

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *radrd* 
_Double Blind Test. For determining which cable sounds better, the subject wouldn't know which cable is being used and administrator does not know which cables should sound better. I'm no scientist, so there are certainly better explanations available, but that one seems right to me (as it would pertain to a cable test, that is.)_

 

That sounds about right, It tells you more about DBT at http://skepdic.com/control.html


----------



## radrd

To the best of my ability, I was answering Marios's question. Next I was going to try to get him some links if my explanation was not sufficient.

 As to the point of this thread, would you please explain it to me? I'm serious. What's the point?


----------



## PinkFloyd

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *greenhorn* 
_Chris, just try to imagine how fantastic things would have been today if you had worn not only one one, but TWO of those bracelets - one for each wrist!!! 

 Something to regret for the rest of your life! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I did not posess such a bracelet... poor me. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	







_

 

Edit:


----------



## radrd

He was probably talking about Rodbac, or perhaps me. Obviously you aren't mocking anyone, you actually believe this stuff works...

 Now, he may have believed that you would have to be crazy to believe this stuff works, and therefore this thread is a huge game you are playing to show just how dumb some audiophiles can be. If that's the case, then I applaud you, as this thread is a shining example that I'm sure I will link to again at some point in the future when I need to prove just how sheeplike audiophiles can become.

 Now, would you mind telling me, seriously, what the point is with this thread?


----------



## setmenu

It,s a metaphor for life 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	





 Setmenu


----------



## fewtch

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *minya* 
_Remember those bracelets you had as kids, made of plastic that would stay straight until you snapped them against your wrist (so they'd curl around your wrist)?_

 

I was more into squirtguns and cap guns than bracelets, meself... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PinkFloyd* 
_Turn the lights down and have a few beers or whatever your "tipple" is and prepare yourself for some seriously good music.......... you're not getting the point of this thread at all.........._

 

Errm, hopefully not emotion at the expense of reason... the two can coexist just fine, they aren't at war with each other.


----------



## Edwood

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *marios_mar* 
_will someone tell me what DBT is?_

 

*D*ouble *B*lind *T*est


 Not allowed to do it in this forum. As it would negate threads like this one. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 -Ed


----------



## daycart1

Does this stuff help with noisy vinyl? Do you put it on both labels or just the side you are playing?


----------



## mxs1030

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the seller of RAINBOW FOIL also the seller of the $500 "quantum clip".


----------



## tortie

Phew! Just finished reading this thread. For all its worth, I requested a sample from them...just because this thread has reached 17 pages! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 [size=xx-small] This thread has more than 15 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.[/size]


----------



## Demolition

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *setmenu* 
_It,s a metaphor for life 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Setmenu is, of course, right. I've been following this thread from the beginning, waiting for someone to say exactly what he has just said.

 This is not merely about audio. It has to do with everything. The Belts have devised an ingenious way to draw out the dreamers from the skeptics. This seems to be borne out by what May Belt said in her letter to Pinkie about opening the mind and taking the first steps. She's not talking about audio only, she's talking about throwing off an unquestioning agnosticism and looking at things (all things) with new eyes.

 Seems pretty obvious that Pinkie is having a grand old time. The skeptics, on the other hand, are generally acting very annoyed. I'd say that the foil is working perfectly for the function in which it was intended.

 D.


----------



## marios_mar

Hmm it seems now I want to try this sticker. Please provide me with a link to get some free sample and see if i like it.


 Anyone added it to their tweaks in their profile?


----------



## stark23x

The BEST and MOST SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN way to improve the quality of your music is to send me one thousand dollars.

 You don't get anything in return except the satisfaction of knowing I will spend your money on hookers and beer, but that personal satisfaction will improve the quality of your CDs no matter the source, amplification or headphones. You don't have to receive confirmation of the beer or hooker purchases: just knowing you contributed is enough to open your mind to the special feelings that buying me sex & booze will bring.

 You cannot tell me this won't work until you try it.

 Also, there are no refunds, or photos.


----------



## PinkFloyd

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *mxs1030* 
_Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the seller of RAINBOW FOIL also the seller of the $500 "quantum clip"._

 

Yes, Peter Belt also sells the Quantum clip which costs £500 ($897 US)

 Details here: http://www.belt.demon.co.uk/product/...m/quantum.html


----------



## greenhorn

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *stark23x* 
_The BEST and MOST SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN way to improve the quality of your music is to send me one thousand dollars.

 You don't get anything in return except the satisfaction of knowing I will spend your money on hookers and beer, but that personal satisfaction will improve the quality of your CDs no matter the source, amplification or headphones. You don't have to receive confirmation of the beer or hooker purchases: just knowing you contributed is enough to open your mind to the special feelings that buying me sex & booze will bring.

 You cannot tell me this won't work until you try it.

 Also, there are no refunds, or photos._

 

You won't fool no one here! We know you would actually use the $1000 just to buy rainbow stickers!


----------



## Dane

Hah, amazing thread. Haven't read it all though, but:

 1. It seems like there isn't claimed any objective effect, thus all the people talking about blind test havn't understood this unique product offering.
 2. What matters is whether it subjectively works or not. If it works it works. The placebo effect is very real.

 This is however not the real question:

 You have to consciencely or unconsciencely believe there is or might be an effect in order for the placebo effect to work. The real question is: What on earth is it that makes otherwise intelligent people believe in fairy tales like this?

 And the phenomenon is very common. A large percentage of people believe in something that is, shall we say, highly unlikely.


----------



## setmenu

It is interesting how much in common the cable audibility test thread/s have
 with this one.
 whilst more people seem to have confidence in cable audibility than the effects of the Belt products , cable 'tests' at present
 do not seem to show differences that would account for some peoples strong responses to different types.

 This of course does result in faith battles..

 Hmm, I wonder whether there is any correlation between those who believe
 in the hearing the 'unmeasurable' audio artifact, and those who believe in that 'something' 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	







 Setmenu


----------



## Dane

See you in Hell setmenu!

 MuahHaHaHaHaaaa


----------



## ooheadsoo

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Dane* 
_Hah, amazing thread. Haven't read it all though, but:

 1. It seems like there isn't claimed any objective effect, thus all the people talking about blind test havn't understood this unique product offering.
 2. What matters is whether it subjectively works or not. If it works it works. The placebo effect is very real.

 This is however not the real question:

 You have to consciencely or unconsciencely believe there is or might be an effect in order for the placebo effect to work. The real question is: What on earth is it that makes otherwise intelligent people believe in fairy tales like this?

 And the phenomenon is very common. A large percentage of people believe in something that is, shall we say, highly unlikely._

 

The pages and pages of essays on the belts' website are supposed to serve that purpose.


----------



## Dane

Pink: Since you get correlation (donsn't matter that it was negative) when blind-testing the foil, this is a great oppertunity to get a MAJOR system upgrade:

 WIN A MILLION DOLLARS!

 Since you are able to sense, while blind testing, the energies emitted by the foil, you will be a good candidate for the challenge:

http://www.randi.org/research/index.html

 Be warned though, Mr Randi is known for having a severe negative effect on energy fields - claimed phenomenons mysteriously goes away in his presence 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 When you get the money could you please provide me with a modest 1% fee for bringing this unique oppertunity to your attention - 10000$ will do me good 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 And what about the X-pen or cable supports!

 Sorry, just having a bit of fun here 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 The Randi site is actually very fun and educational reading - really gives you some insight into how easily the human mind can be tricked. Even people who think they did a proper DBT may often fool themselves.


----------



## PinkFloyd

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Dane* 
_Pink: Since you get correlation (donsn't matter that it was negative) when blind-testing the foil, this is a great oppertunity to get a MAJOR system upgrade:

 WIN A MILLION DOLLARS!_

 

If I won a million dollars (in my case pounds sterling) that would be a major "downgrade" to me as I would have so much to lose (money wise) and so little time to spend it and readjust as I've run my life on self destruct mode...... a million bucks would be a worry 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	





  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Dane* 
_Since you are able to sense, while blind testing, the energies emitted by the foil, you will be a good candidate for the challenge:

http://www.randi.org/research/index.html_

 

erm....... I'm not sure I want to take that challenge....... just look what a million bucks has turned him into..... an old man with a white beard... I'm quite content with my appearance as it is 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Dane* 
_Be warned though, Mr Randi is known for having a severe negative effect on energy fields - claimed phenomenons mysteriously goes away in his presence 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

They probably get absorbed in that supersized beard before reaching his sensory system 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Dane* 
_When you get the money could you please provide me with a modest 1% fee for bringing this unique oppertunity to your attention - 10000$ will do me good 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Money doesn't rock my Rainbow...... I'd be happy to share 1% of my wisdom with you however.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Dane* 
_And what about the X-pen or cable supports!_

 

Is that a question I'm supposed to understand? can you elaborate?

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Dane* 
_Sorry, just having a bit of fun here 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 The Randi site is actually very fun and educational reading - really gives you some insight into how easily the human mind can be tricked. Even people who think they did a proper DBT may often fool themselves._

 

Nothing wrong with a bit of fun as long as the material is humerous and a spellchecker is used (preferably your brain) before publishing the "joke"


----------



## tomek

http://cgi.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/auc....205&1082584174

 i think these are way dumber than the rainbow foil!

 i really need *museum* grade acrylic...


----------



## ServinginEcuador

Hey, at least they only cost $46. That foil stuff, in sufficient quantities, would cost a LOT more.


----------



## Dane

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PinkFloyd* 
_Money doesn't rock my Rainbow...... I'd be happy to share 1% of my wisdom with you however._

 

Thanks! I might need it if I decide to try out some of your cool tips and tricks (that cross feed looks like a nice little project).

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PinkFloyd* 
_Is that a question I'm supposed to understand? can you elaborate?_

 

No. Sorry about my spelling, I only have my brain to assist me I'm afraid (was it really that bad...) Maybe some of that rainbow stuff under my keyboard will help....


----------



## greenhorn

I conducted last evening the following experiment.

 I took my favourite CD, a piece of Scotch (you know, the adhesive transparent tape 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 ) long of 30 cm., as well as a couple of bottles of beer.

 I put the CD and sat on my recliner, as usual. I began to listen. The CD sounded good - as usual.

 I cut a 3 cm. long piece of Scotch tape. Without interrupting the listening, I stuck it on the top of my amp. I took a beer and drank it. The CD sounded the same as before and as it always did.

 I took a second piece of Scotch tape and stuck it next to the first one on the top of the amp. I drank a second beer and sat again on my recliner. 

 Well... it seemed to me that mids began to be more lush and that highs got more clarity than usual. The difference was really a small one and I could not even be 100% sure it was not a simple placebo effect. So what I did was to cut a third piece of 3 cm. of Scotch tape (was the length important? I really can't tell, but I want to give all details in cas that somebody wishes to repeat the experiment) and stuck it next to the prevous two pieces, on the top of the amp. I drank a third beer and listened again.

 Confirmation that it was not just a placebo effect came immediately. Yes, highs were clearer and mids smoother. moreover, lows gained in precision and music overall sounded really better than before stucking the three pieces of Scotch on the amp.

 Now it was time for the CD player. 

 To make the long story short: half an hour later I was enjoying music like I never did before. It was just as if I was sitting in the front row at the concert. Both my amp and my CD player were now nicely decorated with three 3 cm. long strips of Scotch transparent tape each and 8 beer bottles were lying empty next to me. 

 I went to bed happier than ever - an easy-to-do trick had been able to improve enjoyment of music in such a spectacular manner!

 This morning I wanted to take a listen once more to my newly improved system - and this is where I was badly disappointed. Music sounded again as usual, I mean like before I had stuck the pieces of Scotch tape on the equipment... I was surprised and really sad. Well, that's life.

 Now my conclusions are:

 1. The Rainbow thingie is clearly a hoax, since one can obtain *exactly* the same results using normal Scotch adhesive tape;

 2. Improvements don't last overnight. I will thoroughly check if this is due just to the elapsing of a couple of hours or if direct daylight has some effect too. Maybe if the Scotch tape were not a transparent one? To be checked.


----------



## setmenu

That seems a bit below the belt. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



 If I understand correctly 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Setmenu


----------



## greenhorn

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *setmenu* 
_That seems a bit below the belt. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



 If I understand correctly 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Setmenu_

 

I guess you're referring to the fact that the name of the Rainbow stuff seller is Peter Belt...


----------



## setmenu

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *greenhorn* 
_I guess you're referring to the fact that the name of the Rainbow stuff seller is Peter Belt... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 









 Not exactly my intended reference.
 Seems I did not spot my unintended humor.
 Darn! Shame to unconsciously waste belt jokes and get caught with my pants down 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	





 Setmenu


----------



## PinkFloyd

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *setmenu* 
_







 Not exactly my intended reference._

 

Nor mine, it's easy to fire vague shots with the bravery of being out of range but I think it would be a lot more sporting if the shots were fired from a visible cannon and the reason for the shots declared. No harm done this end 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	





  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *setmenu* 
_Seems I did not spot my unintended humor.
 Darn! Shame to unconsciously waste belt jokes and get caught with my pants down 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

LOL good one 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	






 I think we need to buckle up and get this thread back on course and discuss the Rainbow foil instead of laugh at it. Brace yourselves for a few developments on the Belt front. As we speak a Dutch astronaut is in space trying to get a grip on the space-time continuum and, as we all know, Peter Belt was light years ahead with his take on this. I quote from a recent thread at the PWB discussion group: (http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/PWB/message/941)

 "From: "amartherus" <amartherus@h...> 
 Date: Thu Apr 22, 2004 9:25 am
 Subject: scientific experiment ESA/Soyoez


 Hi all,

 First of all I'd like to thank May for her clarifying answers.

 Since we have a Dutch astronaut in space, my attention was drawn to
 one of the many scientific experiments they are performing. One
 experiment is about a theory of Albert Einstein of 1916. A large
 object like the earth will warp the space-time continuum. Scientists
 developed a system of four little balls and a gyroscope to measure
 this in space. In addition, some scientists suspect since a few
 years, that rotation of an object also warps the space-time
 continuum. I hope they will succeed in their measurements and this
 will become common knowledge.
http://www.space.com/missionlaunches...ch_042004.html
 Why do I bring this up?
 It just reminded me of a guy named Peter Belt, who already knew years
 ago, that rotating objects like a spinning CD, affect the space-time
 continuum and worse, that it can be "measured" by our own ears.
 Better said, our senses become disturbed because of the warped space-
 time.
 On top of that, he developed a "cure", the Silver Rainbow Foil (and
 many more).

 Arkie Martherus
 The Netherlands"

 Still think Rainbow foil is a joke?

 Pinkie.

http://www.space.com/missionlaunches...ch_042004.html


----------



## marios_mar

i dont. I never did actually unless I tried it.

 So where can I get samples pls?


----------



## PinkFloyd

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *marios_mar* 
_i dont. I never did actually unless I tried it.

 So where can I get samples pls?_

 

Here: 
http://www.belt.demon.co.uk/


----------



## stark23x

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PinkFloyd* 
_Still think Rainbow foil is a joke?_

 

Yes. Or rather, a placebo.


----------



## radrd

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PinkFloyd* 
_Still think Rainbow foil is a joke?_

 

YES. But, maybe I haven't been fair. 

 Pinkie, could you just summarize exactly how this foil is supposed to make my music sound better? Keep it to 1-3 sentences please. Thanks.


----------



## Haribo

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PinkFloyd* 
_It just reminded me of a guy named Peter Belt, who already knew years
 ago, that rotating objects like a spinning CD, affect the space-time
 continuum and worse, that it can be "measured" by our own ears.
 Better said, our senses become disturbed because of the warped space-
 time.
 On top of that, he developed a "cure", the Silver Rainbow Foil (and
 many more).

 Arkie Martherus
 The Netherlands"_

 

OMG this is beyond funny 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	










 I love this thread.


----------



## tortie

This thread is the 2nd most replied upon thread in the tweaks sections....ever

 Thanks to Peter Belt & his rainbow foil. We haven't even discussed the quantum clip yet


----------



## PinkFloyd

It appears the deep freezer is one of the most important areas to treat and your interconnects can be frozen for improved sound quality: http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/PWB/message/833 I'm going to try freezing my interconnects and will apply some rainbow foil to the freezer and see what happens


----------



## PinkFloyd

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *radrd* 
_YES. But, maybe I haven't been fair. 

 Pinkie, could you just summarize exactly how this foil is supposed to make my music sound better? Keep it to 1-3 sentences please. Thanks._

 

According to PWB:

 "The interaction of all spinning discs with the gravitational force produces energy patterns that adversely affect the human being's ability to correctly perceive sound. The energy patterns created are in the frequency range adjacent to the visual energy spectrum and directly affect our cognitive senses. Narrow strips of this revolutionary, adhesive backed foil, neutralise the adverse energy by inverting the energy pattern and therefore restoring it to a naturally occurring environmental pattern."

 Pinkie.


----------



## PinkFloyd

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tortie* 
_This thread is the 2nd most replied upon thread in the tweaks sections....ever_

 

Do you also realise this thread is only 10 days old tortie? 

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tortie* 
_Thanks to Peter Belt & his rainbow foil. We haven't even discussed the quantum clip yet 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			






_

 

There are many other PWB products that deserve evaluation such as:



 P.W.B. Chunky Pens 
 Quantum Clip 
 Coloured Electret Ring Ties
 P.W.B. Cream Electret 
 P.W.B. Sol - Electret 
 P.W.B. Red 'x' Co-ordinate Pen 
 Digiplus 
 Coloured Magnadiscs
 Smart Metal 
 Spiratube
 Morphic Message Foils 
 Beginners Pack and Intermediate Pack
 P.W.B. Copper and Aluminium Foils
 Brown Ties assembly for Upholstery Curtains Carpets
 CCU 
 Real Foil
 Inside Foil 
 Quantum Rainbow Foil and Cream 
 Inverting Foil

 All of these products can be found here: PWB Products


----------



## PinkFloyd

Apologies..... Double post


----------



## tortie

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PinkFloyd* 
_Do you also realise this thread is only 10 days old tortie? _

 

Only ten days old? Do you realise what you have done Pinkly?!?! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	







 BTW I emailed them for a sample, but the didn;t reply back.


----------



## PinkFloyd

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tortie* 
_Only ten days old? Do you realise what you have done Pinkly?!?! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	





_

 

The popularity of this thread could possibly be due to the Rainbow foil neutralising the adverse energy within Head-Fi... just a thought, but nearly 8,000 views in 10 days is pretty extraordinary and it goes to show the positive power behind the rainbow foil IMO.. whatever this stuff does, it does it on a grand scale.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tortie* 
_BTW I emailed them for a sample, but the didn;t reply back._

 

That could also be due to the popularity of this thread and they may have run out of foil due to the demand for samples


----------



## Haribo

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PinkFloyd* 
_The popularity of this thread could possibly be due to the Rainbow foil neutralising the adverse energy within Head-Fi... just a thought, but nearly 8,000 views in 10 days is pretty extraordinary and it goes to show the positive power behind the rainbow foil IMO.. whatever this stuff does, it does it on a grand scale._

 

Funny threads usually get lots of hits


----------



## daycart1

I just want to say in the strongest possible terms that the Sennheiser HD 600 sound is veiled and,


 ??? [size=xx-large]What??[/size]

 The rainbow foil seems to have diverted this post from its proper forum!!


----------



## radrd

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PinkFloyd* 
_According to PWB:

 "The interaction of all spinning discs with the gravitational force produces energy patterns that adversely affect the human being's ability to correctly perceive sound._

 

So, essentially he is pointing out that a spinning disk defies gravity, as in its 'natural state' it would not be spinning.

  Quote:


 The energy patterns created are in the frequency range adjacent to the visual energy spectrum and directly affect our cognitive senses. 
 

So, this spinning, since it is not natural, makes us feel bad. It shoots out negative energy.

  Quote:


 Narrow strips of this revolutionary, adhesive backed foil, neutralise the adverse energy by inverting the energy pattern and therefore restoring it to a naturally occurring environmental pattern." 
 

And this foil erases that negativity with happy rainbow energy, returning our senses to perceiving that the world is completely natural.

 Here's my response to all that: Lot's of stuff defies gravity and doesn't make music sound worse. Furthermore, pretty colored foil doesn't blind us to the spinning anyway. It's still spinning, and we can still perceive that spinning. In fact, I do not agree with the idea that rainbow colors make people happy. Honestly, rainbow colors make me feel depressed, as they are too busy and artificial for me. A rainbow in natural does not look like this foil; nothing does. I prefer nice solid dark colors. Given that, why would this rainbow foil improve my outlook on music even if it sends out energy?

 Rock on Luke Skywalker. You'd probably be better off taking your gear to a priest and having him bless it.


----------



## greenhorn

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *radrd* 
_You'd probably be better off taking your gear to a priest and having him bless it._

 

Hmmm... I can see here the seed for the next "most hit thread".

 Now would the priest necessary be of the same religion as the owner of the gear? I mean, if a Christian audiophile would ask a Rabbi to bless his gear, would it still work? 

 Secondly, what if the priest cheats and, instead of blessing the gear, simply stucks some Rainbow Foil on it in some hidden place?

 Thirdly, what if a previously Rainbow Foil treated gear is getting blessed? Will it sound twice as good or we can identify here a point of diminishing returns?


----------



## PinkFloyd

OK all you rainbow sample guys...... what I'm about to say is not BS and you may want to consider this your first move when your sample arrives:

 I've been reading "very" deeply into the PWB bundle I received from Mary Belt last week and time and time again there is reference to the domestic "deep freezer" and how essential it is to treat this component as your "front end" 

 I thought attaching strips of Rainbow foil to my CD's was "madness" at first but after listening to the "difference" the Rainbow foil made to shpongle1 I thought "in for a penny in for a pound"

 I haven't delved into "heavy Belt" with all the creams and frozen photos etc........ I simply attached a strip of my sample Rainbow foil to the side of my freezer (you could call this a "Lite Belt" tweak considering the Rainbow sample was free)

 Jesus H Christ I couldn't believe my ears when I played shpongle1 and shpongle2. I kid you not, the rainbow treated Shpongle was "even more" defined and crystal clear than it was with the Rainbow treatment on the disc alone.......... now this is going to p*ss the sceptics off BIG time....... shpongle2 sounded equally as good!

 At first I couldn't accept or comprehend the "freezer" as a "component", let alone one that required treating, I now consider the domestic freezer as the primary source component... this is the first port of call with Rainbow foil. I am not as elaborate as Peter Belt and won't attempt to BS an explanation but any Head-Fiers who are in receipt of a free sample may want to treat their freezer first. 

 More to follow............

 Pinkie.


----------



## tortie

This is MADNESS!! Madness I tell you!


----------



## Sugano-san

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PinkFloyd* 
_Jesus H Christ I couldn't believe my ears when I played shpongle1 and shpongle2. I kid you not, the rainbow treated Shpongle was "even more" defined and crystal clear than it was with the Rainbow treatment on the disc alone.......... now this is going to piss the sceptics off BIG time....... shpongle2 sounded equally as good!_

 

This is the most intruiging thread I have seen on head-fi in a long long time. And I am not kidding, either.


----------



## Steve999

I have been aware of the rainbow effect for decades. The harmony created by the colors of the rainbow wreaks havoc upon dissonant and aharmoinc distortion artifacts. It disperses them amongst the neurons in your cerebral cortex that do not correspond to euphonic comprehension. These artifacts are lodged in your unconcious like little splinters of wood piercing your reality.

 Unfortunately, while the sound is improved, the brain damage is immediate and permanent. Millions of neurotransmitters are ripped to shreds, blasting explosions of dopamine, a biological narcotic, throughout the lower layers of your medulla. There is a splashing rainbow aharminic distortion flashing through your personal space and time, distorting your universe and placing you in a state of quantum delay that is not perceived by your conscious self but which shatters your alternate realities like infinite panes of mirrored glass. Your optic and auditory nerves are corrupted and shifted into phases more compatible with the lower life forms, such as birds, reptiles and even amoeba.

 Is this too high a price to pay for euphonic euphoria? I think so. Especially when you could just a Behringer DEQ2496 digital equalizer.

 Just my humble opinion.


----------



## Earwax

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PinkFloyd* 
_ I simply attached a strip of my sample Rainbow foil to the side of my freezer (you could call this a "Lite Belt" tweak considering the Rainbow sample was free)_

 

Which side? Inside or Outside?


----------



## greenhorn

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Steve999* 
_I have been aware of the rainbow effect for decades. The harmony created by the colors of the rainbow wreaks havoc upon dissonant and aharmoinc distortion artifacts. It disperses them amongst the neurons in your cerebral cortex that do not correspond to euphonic comprehension. These artifacts are lodged in your unconcious like little splinters of wood piercing your reality.

 Unfortunately, while the sound is improved, the brain damage is immediate and permanent. Millions of neurotransmitters are ripped to shreds, blasting explosions of dopamine, a biological narcotic, throughout the lower layers of your medulla. There is a splashing rainbow aharminic distortion flashing through your personal space and time, distorting your universe and placing you in a state of quantum delay that is not perceived by your conscious self but which shatters your alternate realities like infinite panes of mirrored glass. Your optic and auditory nerves are corrupted and shifted into phases more compatible with the lower life forms, such as birds, reptiles and even amoeba.

 Is this too high a price to pay for euphonic euphoria? I think so. Especially when you could just a Behringer DEQ2496 digital equalizer.

 Just my humble opinion. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

You might receive soon a job offer for Chief Director Head Manager of Peter Belt's Public Relations Department. 

 Beware, they will ask you to sell your soul, have your convictions reversed and use your writing skills for better promoting the Rainbow Foil.


----------



## stark23x

I've come to the conclusion that Pinkie is putting us on.


----------



## greenhorn

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *stark23x* 
_I've come to the conclusion that Pinkie is putting us on._

 

Or maybe he's the current Chief Director Head Manager of Peter Belt's Public Relations Department...


----------



## Dane

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *stark23x* 
_I've come to the conclusion that Pinkie is putting us on._

 

Have you, really


----------



## tortie

Pinky's gone mad! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Somebody help me pull that Belt clip off him!!!


----------



## PinkFloyd

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Earwax* 
_Which side? Inside or Outside?_

 

Outside Earwax..... I couldnt get the rainbow foil to stick onto the ice inside the freezer.


----------



## PinkFloyd

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *greenhorn* 
_Or maybe he's the current Chief Director Head Manager of Peter Belt's Public Relations Department... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Thanks for the compliment Greenhorn 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 If I "were" manager of PWB's PR department the last place I would attempt to promote Rainbow foil would be on head-Fi and I certainly wouldn't be giving free samples away to everyone..... my philosophy would be "buy then try" and not "try before you buy".

 I've noticed one thing here which is very interesting and if this thread serves no other purpose than to point this out then it will have been well worth it...... There are free samples of this stuff available yet all the negative responses and jokes have come from people who haven't even sent off for a free sample, let alone try it. They are "assuming" the rainbow foil cannot do anything to the sound and are quite content to ridicule it and judge it without any knowledge of it whatsoever.

 That would be like me jumping in on a thread discussing Cardas cable and calling it a "load of hocus pocus" even though I have never tried cardas cable. I wouldn't do that, however, and before I made any comments on cardas cable I would have made sure I listened to the cable first and only then would I present my findings / opinions......... seems sensible?

 I sometimes wish that certain Head-Fi members would adopt this approach and actually "listen" to an item and not just contribute their opinions and silly remarks with no knowledge of the item in question..... it only makes them look silly in the long run 

 Pinkie.


----------



## 10068

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PinkFloyd* 
_I've noticed one thing here which is very interesting and if this thread serves no other purpose than to point this out then it will have been well worth it...... There are free samples of this stuff available yet all the negative responses and jokes have come from people who haven't even sent off for a free sample, let alone try it. They are "assuming" the rainbow foil cannot do anything to the sound and are quite content to ridicule it and judge it without any knowledge of it whatsoever.

 That would be like me jumping in on a thread discussing Cardas cable and calling it a "load of hocus pocus" even though I have never tried cardas cable. I wouldn't do that, however, and before I made any comments on cardas cable I would have made sure I listened to the cable first and only then would I present my findings / opinions......... seems sensible?

 I sometimes wish that certain Head-Fi members would adopt this approach and actually "listen" to an item and not just contribute their opinions and silly remarks with no knowledge of the item in question..... it only makes them look silly in the long run _

 

Well spoken.

 PS: You know what else makes people look silly? Having 300-post-count threads about some stupid foil!


----------



## PinkFloyd

Can all the naysayers and people who have ordered "free" samples of the Rainbow Foil please take a moment to read Greg Weavers comments at Soundstage and also the correspondence he received from Soundstage readers:

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


----------



## Steve999

Thanks. I'll take that as a compliment. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *greenhorn* 
_You might receive soon a job offer for Chief Director Head Manager of Peter Belt's Public Relations Department. 

 Beware, they will ask you to sell your soul, have your convictions reversed and use your writing skills for better promoting the Rainbow Foil._


----------



## tortie

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PinkFloyd* 
_Can all the naysayers and people who have ordered "free" samples of the Rainbow Foil please take a moment to read Greg Weavers comments at Soundstage and also the correspondence he received from Soundstage readers:

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

 

Dont worry mike, i'll take your word for it 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I'll reserve judgement until I get to try it our myself. As should be the case with everyone else...


----------



## PinkFloyd

This would be a good jingle for Peter Belt: Paint the whole world with a Rainbow


----------



## reeseboisse

... Oh no, no no no, oh this cannot be happening; music sounds better.

 I $hit you not, I got the envelope, ripped it open chuckling, and read the included pamphlet thinking to myself "This is hilarious, it's so insane."

 Then I stuck a little peice onto a CD I've had and listened to fairly regularly for years and years and years (Third Eye Blind's self titled album) all the while grinning to myself, looking forward to having a reason to make fun of the stuff, and stuck it into my PC's CD-ROM drive.

 The next thing that entered my mind began with "Holy" and ended with a certain vulgarity that stands for "Fornication Under Consent of King".

 It actually works. I can't say why, and I can't put my finger on what exactly it is that sounds better; it isn't any obvious peice of the sonic spectrum that's noticably improved. It's just that it all sounds a little bit more musical, a little bit more involving, and a smidge more full.

 I must be going insane. Thank you PinkFloyd. I still am having trouble fathoming it, but damn...


----------



## PinkFloyd

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *reeseboisse* 
_... Oh no, no no no, oh this cannot be happening; music sounds better.

 I $hit you not, I got the envelope, ripped it open chuckling, and read the included pamphlet thinking to myself "This is hilarious, it's so insane."

 Then I stuck a little peice onto a CD I've had and listened to fairly regularly for years and years and years (Third Eye Blind's self titled album) all the while grinning to myself, looking forward to having a reason to make fun of the stuff, and stuck it into my PC's CD-ROM drive.

 The next thing that entered my mind began with "Holy" and ended with a certain vulgarity that stands for "Fornication Under Consent of King".

 It actually works. I can't say why, and I can't put my finger on what exactly it is that sounds better; it isn't any obvious peice of the sonic spectrum that's noticably improved. It's just that it all sounds a little bit more musical, a little bit more involving, and a smidge more full.

 I must be going insane. Thank you PinkFloyd. I still am having trouble fathoming it, but damn... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Nice one reeseboisse!

 Anyone else received their "free" samples yet? As I originally said......... it would be a good idea to exchage our views and test the rainbow foil once we had a chance to evaluate it..........

 I stand by that and look forward to hearing the opinions from the rest of the
 samplers.

 reeseboisse when did your sample arrive?

 All the best.

 Pinkie.


----------



## reeseboisse

I got mine not 30 minutes before writing my post. I'm still sort of testing, by playing a CD, putting on the foil, and being baffled. So far I've treated 3 CDs, (a small number, since I end up listening to the entire thing when I put the foil on, as opposed to the few test tracks I select- a testament if I know of one) and am still working on more. 

 I'm also sort of curious: have you tried it on a burnt CD containing (very high bitrate) compressed music (converted to redbook)? I want to try it, but I also don't want to waste my precious sample. I would assume it works, since it seems it's not what's on the disc that counts, simply that it spins. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I'm still weary though, as I don't have much of this, and can't really afford more right now. 

 This definitely will be the first "tweak" I invest in, however, when I'm done making more physical upgrades.

 I'm still so confused by this whole thing. How can something so ridiculous work so well?

 EDIT: 
 And I've been sold, by nothing more than a certain 2-3 seconds or of music. 

 I put in the Royal Tennenbaums soundtrack (a favorite of mine, for testing and in general) and when I got to track 5, Sonata for Cello and Piano in F Minor performed by the Mutato Muzika Orchestra, (which begins with a dramatic few notes played by a solo cello,) I sort of thought to myself how artificial it sounded, and pondered for a second about how I could use the EQ to fix the problem. Well, I listened to some more of the CD, took it out, applied the foil, and started the disc from the beginning. When I got to track 5, my jaw literally dropped; the cello was beautiful. I hadn't done anything in the meantime, I had barely even moved, and yet, here was this incredible transformation. Before, the cello seemed to lack fullness and texture, had a somewhat tinny presentation, and seemed to lack a couple of ambient cues. Now, however, it sounds like a *cello*. 

 Incredible.


----------



## ampgalore

Are people actually being serious you are saying that you can hear a difference?

 What about placing magnets around your CD players? I remember reading somewhere that will somehow improve sound as well...

 What about placing lead shields around your player and amp? I also remember reading somewhere that this will reduce the amount of cosmic background radiation reaching your player and amp...


----------



## reeseboisse

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ampgalore* 
_Are people actually being serious you are saying that you can hear a difference?_

 

I am, and I can. And it's not even that subtle.

 I have not tried the other things you mentioned, and don't plan to. See, thing with the rainbow foil, is that when I first heard about it, I got that feeling of "It's so crazy, it just might work." It may sound strange coming from someone who uses this rainbow foil stuff, but the other suggestions sound somewhat silly.


----------



## ampgalore

Silly? Lead shielding will definitely block out all those nasty radiations, visible and invisible, reaching the player and the amp, which can potentially degrade the quality of playback and amplification.

 Strategically placing magnets around the CD player will create a stable magnetic field, which can counter-act the wow, flutter, and jitter, that is so common place during playback.

 I stand by these new tweeks.


----------



## stark23x

Once again...I renew my offer. Send me $1000, which I will spend on cheese in a can and gasoline, and I will guarantee that if you believe, you will find a marked sonic enhancement in both the aural and the visual components of your personal entertainment systems. The refractory epathic vibrational recoupment of the unidirectional occurrence will compensate for acoustin atmospheric resonance deficiencies in any playback equipment.

 It's something that will simply have to be experienced. You cannot deny this to be a true scientific breakthrough unless you try it. And remember, you must believe...or the angel dies, and I kill your puppy, plus you get no sonic enhancement.


----------



## greenhorn

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *stark23x* 
_The refractory epathic vibrational recoupment of the unidirectional occurrence will compensate for acoustin atmospheric resonance deficiencies in any playback equipment._

 







 Man... you're simply THE BEST!


----------



## PinkFloyd

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *reeseboisse* 
_I got mine not 30 minutes before writing my post. I'm still sort of testing, by playing a CD, putting on the foil, and being baffled. So far I've treated 3 CDs, (a small number, since I end up listening to the entire thing when I put the foil on, as opposed to the few test tracks I select- a testament if I know of one) and am still working on more. 

 I'm also sort of curious: have you tried it on a burnt CD containing (very high bitrate) compressed music (converted to redbook)? I want to try it, but I also don't want to waste my precious sample. I would assume it works, since it seems it's not what's on the disc that counts, simply that it spins. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I'm still weary though, as I don't have much of this, and can't really afford more right now. 

 This definitely will be the first "tweak" I invest in, however, when I'm done making more physical upgrades.

 I'm still so confused by this whole thing. How can something so ridiculous work so well?

 EDIT: 
 And I've been sold, by nothing more than a certain 2-3 seconds or of music. 

 I put in the Royal Tennenbaums soundtrack (a favorite of mine, for testing and in general) and when I got to track 5, Sonata for Cello and Piano in F Minor performed by the Mutato Muzika Orchestra, (which begins with a dramatic few notes played by a solo cello,) I sort of thought to myself how artificial it sounded, and pondered for a second about how I could use the EQ to fix the problem. Well, I listened to some more of the CD, took it out, applied the foil, and started the disc from the beginning. When I got to track 5, my jaw literally dropped; the cello was beautiful. I hadn't done anything in the meantime, I had barely even moved, and yet, here was this incredible transformation. Before, the cello seemed to lack fullness and texture, had a somewhat tinny presentation, and seemed to lack a couple of ambient cues. Now, however, it sounds like a *cello*. 

 Incredible._

 

I know this may sound a bit crazy but stick a small piece on the outside of your freezer and then listen to an "untreated" disc.... let me know if you hear anything.

 Pinkie.

 Interesting post: http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/PWB/message/930


----------



## PinkFloyd

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Orpheus* 
_....that is interesting. i think you have found the next Aspirin. heh he._

 

Peter Belt implements aspirin in some of his tweaks:

 "A material which has a special adverse effect on our sense of hearing is wood. Part of the process of enhancing the photosynthesis of plants has been incorporated into the trunk and branches of trees. This pattern is retained in all the wood that we use to construct objects within our close environment. If the five hole paper device is placed in the centre of any wood panel, particularly the panel of a loudspeaker cabinet, the process of listening to some music and then removing the device readily demonstrates the detrimental effect of using wood for this purpose. Aspirin is a medicine that is used throughout the world and many people may not be aware that it's origins were discovered in the bark of the willow tree. Evolutionary forces had encouraged the willow tree to absorb a specific chemical to enhance the ability of the tree to connect to the established energy patterns that belong to the previous era of our sense of hearing. Many of our instinctive behavioural patterns also belong to this era in evolutionary time." 

 "If an aspirin tablet is placed over the central hole of the five hole white paper device, the association of the evolution of the tree and all other life forms can readily be heard manipulating our sense of hearing. The aspirin can be placed on the centre hole of the five hole paper device, which is then placed on top of the photographic illustration of the four legged life form for the greatest beneficial effect." 

 Full article can be viewed here: http://www.belt.demon.co.uk/product/...pwbdevice.html


----------



## some1x

I highly recommend Feng Shui for Audiophiles as the logical next step in your system tweaks. Optimal component placement, color, distance, geometry, alignment with earth magnetic fields are but a few topics covered in this revolutionary new book.

 Check it out.


----------



## PinkFloyd

OMG! anyone who has sent off for a sample of foil....... Please set some aside to treat your equipment with as well as your CD's.

 It could have been a fluke and I could have been imagining it when I thought my CD's sounded better after attaching a strip of rainbow foil to my household deep freezer so I went one stage further and attached a large chunk to the PCB of my Chiarra amplifier which I know so well as I built it and am aware of every nuance it injects into the sound.

 I don't care what anyone thinks about the Rainbow foil but I can categorically state that it works....... for me. I was absolutely amazed by the clarity and sheer naturalness of sound the Chiarra exhibited after the introduction of the rainbow foil... this isn't a subtle change in the presentation of the sound, it's a major one. The biggest conventional improvement to the Chiarra was the introduction of 2 x Opa 627's on a browndog....... they brought about a wider soundstage and a lot more clarity to the proceedings yet they (in my opinion) also made the overall presentation of the music sound slightly chocolaty.

 The introduction of the Rainbow foil has removed the chocolaty "rose tinted" delivery of the music and everything sounds so "natural" now.

 I'm going to send my last remaining strip of rainbow foil to Nigel (a fellow Head-Fier who owns an identical chiarra to mine, I made his amp and it's identical to mine, and see what he makes of it) he considers Peter Belt tweaks to be "twilight zone" like the majority of Head-Fi so it will be extremely interesting to learn of his findings.

 I'll report back on this experiment shortly and I'm sure Nigel will contribute his usual unbiased and honest thoughts in due course.

 One thing which I've just noticed which maybe some photography experts here can comment on........ I took 2 photos of the Chiarra with the Rainbow foil in situ, photo 1 was taken with the rainbow foil in situ and not powered up. Photo 2 was taken with the rainbow foil in situ with the Chiarra powered up.

 Can you see the difference? the rainbow foil looks pretty "foil like" with the amp unpowered but once the amp is powered up it takes on a different form and the prisms face a different way......... if there's a simple explanation for this I'd appreciate feedback from photography experts and photoshop experts alike who will confirm these are genuine photo's which have not been tampered with.





 CHIARRA SWITCHED OFF WITH RAINBOW FOIL IN SITU





 CHIARRA SWItCHED ON WITH RAINBOW FOIL IN SITU 

 Has anybody else received their sample yet?

 All the best

 Pinkie.


----------



## PinkFloyd

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *some1x* 
_I highly recommend Feng Shui for Audiophiles as the logical next step in your system tweaks. Optimal component placement, color, distance, geometry, alignment with earth magnetic fields are but a few topics covered in this revolutionary new book.

 Check it out._

 

Can you provide a link to a stockist of this book? It sounds like a good mind opening read. (if the book exists)

 Pinkie.


----------



## Steve999

I can see objective evidence in those pictures that the foil works. Once you turned your equipment on, it energized the foil, and affected the camera somehow. The color balance is much better in the picture where you turned on the amplifier and the energized effects of the foil are obvious to any observer. Further, it is obvious the foil, once energized, not only improved the performance of your stereo equipment but also energized and improved the performance of your digital camera. I warn you, naysayers will say you simply used a flash in the second picture. Some people are just impossible to satisfy. I for one thank you for these pictures. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Edit to correct technical ambiguity.


----------



## tortie

I requested a sample 9 days ago and although they have not replied, the sample just arrived today. Pretty fast, especially when you consider they are on the opposite side of the globe from me. 

 I will try some experimenting of my own with this foil. If this foil doen't work on my sound equipment, I will try putting it on my old video card to see if I can sqeeze some extra frame rates from it


----------



## ServinginEcuador

Michael,

 It sure can't hurt, so why not put some on a video card. In fact, according to these guys that sell it you just need to have it in the same hemisphere for it to work.


----------



## marios_mar

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PinkFloyd* 
_According to PWB:

 "The interaction of all spinning discs with the gravitational force produces energy patterns that adversely affect the human being's ability to correctly perceive sound. The energy patterns created are in the frequency range adjacent to the visual energy spectrum and directly affect our cognitive senses. Narrow strips of this revolutionary, adhesive backed foil, neutralise the adverse energy by inverting the energy pattern and therefore restoring it to a naturally occurring environmental pattern."

 Pinkie._

 

How was the energy emmited by the spinning disc detected and how does the foil match this energy for all formats, even when not spinning so much (cassette tape).

 I requested some samples to try it out. I really believe that it will not make a difference so the placebo effect won't be important. I have my favorite CD twice so I will place a rainbow foil sticker to one and leave the other without a sticker.

 Am I allowed to do some blindfolded testing of the two discs and report the results?


----------



## bangraman

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Steve999* 
_I can see objective evidence in those pictures that the foil works. Once you turned your equipment on, it energized the foil, and affected the camera somehow. The color balance is much better in the picture where you turned on the amplifier and the energized effects of the foil are obvious to any observer. Further, it is obvious the foil, once energized, not only improved the performance of your stereo equipment but also energized and improved the performance of your digital camera. I warn you, naysayers will say you simply used a flash in the second picture. Some people are just impossible to satisfy. I for one thank you for these pictures. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Edit to correct technical ambiguity._

 


 Wow yes, I must order some of that foil to stick onto the foreheads of anyone I'm taking a photo of. The results are fantastic!!!!!


 Will getting my subjects to hold a 9V battery work, or do I need to go for the full 240V AC?


----------



## marios_mar

Can this rainbow foil improve your love life as well?


----------



## tortie

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *marios_mar* 
_Am I allowed to do some blindfolded testing of the two discs and report the results?_

 

Yes, if your the only one who doesn't know, but the one changing the disk does, than that is only single blind testing, not the prohibited double blind test 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





* RAINBOW FOIL FIRST IMPRESSIONS*

 I just made an 2 identical copies of Stereophiles Editor's Choice CD, one with the foil and the other without the foil. I first listened to tracks 10 & 11 of the untreated disk then swtiched to the one with the foil. The first time I listened to the CD with the foil, loud popping sounds were everywhere! I removed the CD, inserted the untreated one again, no popping noises. I tried the treated disk again, the popping sounds were gone (what weird s**t was that?!). I did not notice any sonic difference between the two disks. Im afraid to use the treated CD now because the foil might be causing some unbalancing on the CD when it spins. But for the sake of science, I will try to blind test the CDs when my wife arrives later tonight. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	







 Marios, 

 I try will confirm the "improved love life" aspect of the foil tonight.


----------



## marios_mar

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tortie* 
_Marios, 

 I try will confirm the "improved love life" aspect of the foil tonight. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

LMAO!!!!!!!!!!

 Ok give us your impressions of the foil tommorow morning.

 And don't forget to do the blindfolded test. But not double. Your wife must know.


----------



## tortie

For the past several hours, I have been swapping the disks back and forth, no audible differences for me. I do notice that my CDP sometimes has a hard time reading the CD with the foil, sometimes the crackling & popping sounds come back. I have to open the tray and reinsert the CD to make those weird sounds disappear. I wont risk damaging my CDP by using these with my CDs.

 I'll try sticking these to my gear, although I doubt they make any audible changes there but they do look cool 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Marios, no changes in the love-life angle either.


----------



## PinkFloyd

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tortie* 
_For the past several hours, I have been swapping the disks back and forth, no audible differences for me. I do notice that my CDP sometimes has a hard time reading the CD with the foil, sometimes the crackling & popping sounds come back. I have to open the tray and reinsert the CD to make those weird sounds disappear. I wont risk damaging my CDP by using these with my CDs.

 I'll try sticking these to my gear, although I doubt they make any audible changes there but they do look cool 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Marios, no changes in the love-life angle either. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Tortie.... one of the guys at the PWB group suggests that 2 equally sized pieces of rainbow foil are attached either side of the hole on the CD to balance things out...... he reckons things sound better with 2 pieces so that may be worth trying?

 All the best.

 Pinkie. > .O.K


----------



## tortie

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PinkFloyd* 
_Tortie.... one of the guys at the PWB group suggests that 2 equally sized pieces of rainbow foil are attached either side of the hole on the CD to balance things out...... he reckons things sound better with 2 pieces so that may be worth trying?

 All the best.

 Pinkie. > .O.K_

 

Will do mike. 

 tortie > .O.K.

 LOL


----------



## PinkFloyd

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tortie* 
_For the past several hours, I have been swapping the disks back and forth, no audible differences for me. I do notice that my CDP sometimes has a hard time reading the CD with the foil, sometimes the crackling & popping sounds come back. I have to open the tray and reinsert the CD to make those weird sounds disappear. I wont risk damaging my CDP by using these with my CDs.

 I'll try sticking these to my gear, although I doubt they make any audible changes there but they do look cool 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Marios, no changes in the love-life angle either. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 


 Tortie... this may be a stupid question but did you attach the rainbow foil to the label side of the CD or the data side? I find it very odd that you should be experiencing crackling and popping sounds 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 If you have attached the Rainbow to the label side then there should be no popping or crackling whatsoever unless the rainbow foil is revealing the cracks and pops on the recording? It could be that the rainbow is allowing you to hear the recording, warts and all, have you considered that?

 All the best

 Pinkie. > .O.K x 26


----------



## tortie

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PinkFloyd* 
_Tortie... this may be a stupid question but did you attach the rainbow foil to the label side of the CD or the data side? I find it very odd that you should be experiencing crackling and popping sounds 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 If you have attached the Rainbow to the label side then there should be no popping or crackling whatsoever unless the rainbow foil is revealing the cracks and pops on the recording? It could be that the rainbow is allowing you to hear the recording, warts and all, have you considered that?

 All the best

 Pinkie. > .O.K x 26_

 

Yes, I did attach it to the label side, covering the "disc" name as the instructions said. The popping sounds come and go. When I would insert the treated disk, sometimes it would have popping sounds, sometimes it may not have any popping sounds at all. When I remove the treated disk, listen to the other disks then insert the treated disk again, there's a chance that the popping sounds would reappear, but not all the time. Removing the treated disk and reinserting it to the CDP would make the noises go away. Removing the sticker also makes the problem go away, I tried this twice. So I think it is some sort of reading error since reseating the CD to the tray or removing the sticker solves the problem. Putting an equivalent strip on the opposite side of the disk doesn't solve the problem either.

 The popping sounds might be the rainbow foil revealing the cracks and pops on the recording, but then it doesn't happen 100% of the time with the treated CDs.

 Edit: I'll try the foil on some other disks and give my verdict after a week or two.


----------



## eric343

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PinkFloyd* 
_Can you see the difference? the rainbow foil looks pretty "foil like" with the amp unpowered but once the amp is powered up it takes on a different form and the prisms face a different way......... if there's a simple explanation for this I'd appreciate feedback from photography experts and photoshop experts alike who will confirm these are genuine photo's which have not been tampered with._

 

The lighting and angle is drastically different in the second photo. The nature of the foil is such that it will change like that as a result of a shift in light / angle.


----------



## eric343

Posting my impressions here: http://www4.head-fi.org/forums/showt...461#post795461


----------



## PinkFloyd

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *eric343* 
_Posting my impressions here: http://www4.head-fi.org/forums/showt...461#post795461_

 

Okey dokey..... will look


----------



## fyrfytrhoges

that little deal at the beginning of the thread was hilarious, and even though i have never heard this "tweak" i would be more skeptical about this one than any other i have ever heard of.


----------



## marios_mar

I've ordered some sample to try it out.

 The people answered very politely with a huge email explaining their backround and their sales policies etc.

 They seem nice. 

 When the rainbow foil comes I will try it out to see if it works for me or not. If not I will just stick it on my CDP for the looks.


 Btw Pink is it necessary to have the sticker on each disk? Can you just have the sticker somewhere sitting, absorbing the psychoavoustic energy coming from the spinning of the disc?


----------



## PinkFloyd

Andreas asked me, (May Belt)
 You write to your article:
 "All these energy patterns, prevent the sense of hearing from creating
 stationary energy patterns on the objects within our environment". How can
 our sense, create energy patterns on the objects? Isn't a sense, a
 perceptive (passive) phaenomenon? If I have understood incorrectly again,
 excuse my poor English!

 Another idea that I believe could be explained further, is the connection
 between the photosynthesis process and the four leged animals, since the
 latter do not share the benefit of photosynthesis.
 Andreas,
 *****************************
 Here is my long awaited answer.
 Andreas,
 I find it extremely difficult to describe 20 years of thinking in just a few
 sentences, even in a few paragraphs.

 I will have to be oversimplistic to attempt to describe a very complicated
 subject.

 You have to combine the subject of how human beings evolved to where we are now,
 with Sheldrake's morphic resonance energy patterns.

 In order to survive, Nature must have programmed creatures to sense/monitor
 their environment every millisecond of every second of every minute of every
 hour of every day. In order to detect movement Nature must have dictated that
 the early creatures had to take note of certain co-ordinates (taken from the
 many different energy patterns which existed at that time). Let us imagine that
 there were (hypothetically) at least 20 different co-ordinates which the
 creatures had to read/sense and then take a mental photograph of them. This
 mental photograph was then stored in the working memory. The next millisecond,
 the creatures had to again read/sense the same 20 co-ordinates and take a mental
 photograph which was then compared with the previous mental photograph. If any
 of the 20 co-ordinates had changed, this then alerted the creature to the fact
 that a change had taken place within their environment. Each subsequent
 millisecond the 20 co-ordinates were read/sensed because the creatures had to
 determine whether any predator was moving towards them, moving away from them,
 or staying parallel with them and to decide what action to take in order to
 survive (the well known flight, fight or freeze). To be oversimplistic, the
 creatures had to be able to establish a reference point (a stationary point)
 from which to determine when and where any changes took place - what Peter and I
 call the 'x' point - and that all these things were happening long before the
 senses as we know them evolved but that we (human beings) have still retained
 (through evolution) many of those ancient abilities.

 What Peter and I believe is that objects in the modern environment, with their
 different energy patterns, are not allowing us to determine the correct 'x'
 point (a correct reference point), which means that we cannot resolve our
 environment correctly, which means that we remain under tension. One very good
 example, if one was needed, is the moving and alternating AC power energy - this
 particular energy pattern was never available when the early creatures were
 evolving !! Who knows, in this modern environment, we may be presented with
 hundreds of pseudo co-ordinates which cause confusion and which we cannot
 resolve. It is not that our sense of hearing is creating energy patterns on
 objects, it is that the objects themselves have different energy patterns which
 our sense of hearing (as well as our other senses) are struggling to resolve but
 cannot - the sense of hearing is a far more complex system than being a mere
 receiver of air pressure waves. What Peter has discovered are ways of creating,
 on objects, via our devices, particular 'friendly, reassuring' energy patterns
 which allow us to relax more. Because, when you think about it, Nature could not
 allow creatures to be constantly 'on the alert' - it would be too wasteful of
 energy - there must also have been energy patterns which meant "it is OK, you
 can relax, the danger has gone away". And Peter and I believe that the early
 creatures learnt to communicate with each other (long before the senses of
 hearing and sight developed) and to send each other 'danger' signals and
 'reassuring' signals - so, the early creatures would have been 'looking out' for
 both danger signals AND reassuring signals and we (human beings) are still
 continuing to do that. So, the senses are not passive, they are interacting the
 whole time with our environment and, we believe, there are other ancient 'senses
 ' within us which do not come under any of the descriptions of the five known
 senses - touch, smell, taste, hearing and sight. So, Peter and I believe that
 (with acknowledgement to Sheldrake) basic morphic resonance patterns
 appertaining to living things were established millions of years ago.

 Now we have to jump to one side and look at plant life. Again, I will have to be
 outrageously simplistic. By the time the early creatures emerged from the dark
 depths of the oceans, plant life had already established morphic resonance
 patterns of how to 'deal with' light energy (again with acknowledgement to
 Sheldrake). But this was not just passive photosynthesis. Plants also developed
 different means of propagating, different defensive mechanisms and, when
 creatures emerged - how to make use of different insects and animals We believe
 that Nature makes use of energy patterns which already exist so, she could have
 used a combination of the way plants 'deal with' light energy and the already
 existing 'hearing' sense when the early creatures emerged from the oceans and
 had to 'deal with' the (new to them) energy of light. We believe that Nature
 made use of parts of the already existing hearing mechanism to create a
 primitive 'seeing' mechanism and this was so successful from a survival point of
 view that the sense of sight was given priority.

 Now, looking at both creatures and plants. Both types are 'linked' to their past
 and use particular mechanisms to achieve this linking.

 Peter and I believe that when the human (Homo Erectus) evolved, standing up on
 two feet gave humans one main advantage - and that was to develop a more
 sophisticated brain but, in doing so, we lost some of the 'linkage' to the
 past - which animals retained via their four legs and tail.

 We believe that the energy patterns (co-ordinates) which were initially used by
 the early creatures were all natural - there was nothing unnatural millions of
 years ago but, in today's modern environment there are thousands of man made
 objects and materials which have no 'link to the past' because they have no
 past.

 Let us have a look at a few concepts. As I have said before, I regard concepts
 as stepping stones, they allow you to explore, providing you remember to put up
 a marker flag at the point where you are starting.

 If you look at a man made, modern object, in the modern environment - yes, light
 energy enters it but the man made object does not 'know' how to deal with the
 light energy - it does not have a link to the past ! And, because the object
 does not 'know' how to deal with the light correctly, we (human beings) cannot
 resolve the energy pattern produced by the object - so we stay under tension.

 I do not have great knowledge of medicine but I understand that sometimes, when
 a person is injured and has many serious injuries, the brain shuts off the pain
 signals coming from the injuries and concentrates all it's energy on survival.
 When the brain decides the person is safe, the pain signals are allowed to
 resume.

 Imagine now a Compact Disc, or vinyl record or audio tape with a wealth of
 information stored on it (a far greater wealth of information than anyone has so
 far realised). This wealth of information is processed perfectly adequately by
 the audio equipment and is eventually presented into the room and this
 information reaches the person's ears. But, the human being's body and mind is
 struggling to resolve the numerous and conflicting energy patterns in their
 environment, searching for 'reassuring' energy patterns, so the brain says to
 the hearing mechanism "Hold on a moment, I will have to put you on low power
 until I can resolve the environment". If, however, you can superimpose on the
 man made objects and materials in the environment a 'friendly/reassuring' energy
 pattern, then more of the brain energy can be released and the brain can return
 to the hearing mechanism saying "Now, what was it you were listening to, I have
 more power to devote to you now ?"

 Again, as I have said many times before. If you can 'treat', with P.W.B.
 Devices, many objects in the listening room (objects which could not be
 associated with the actual audio signal nor the acoustic air pressure waves) and
 get an improvement in the sound, then this improvement in the sound means that
 you are hearing additional information. But, where has this additional
 information come from ? The only answer seems to be that this additional
 information has been there, in the room, all the time you have been trying to
 listen - you just had not been able to 'hear/perceive' it before 'treating' the
 objects.

 Now, to your original question Andreas.

 Peter began to ask the question. "If the modern objects, in the modern
 environment have no 'link to the past', how can we provide one ?"

 We have known for some years that a specific number of holes pierced in a piece
 of paper was 'beneficial'. It would seem that light travelling through these
 particular holes creates a specific energy pattern which we do not react
 adversely to. So, Peter linked the five holed piece of paper with the image of a
 four legged plus tail animal to create one 'link to the past' and then added the
 aspirin tablet. The basic chemical now used in aspirin was created specifically
 by the bark of the willow tree to give the willow tree a specific advantage. So,
 he used the aspirin tablet, with it's link to a tree which HAS learnt to 'deal
 with light', which in turn has another particular 'link to the past' and then
 placed this combination onto a piece of equipment. The result is the experiment
 he has given to people to try for themselves. If you can hear an improvement in
 the sound when attaching this combination to an object i.e. you can hear
 additional information, then this should show people just how much they (human
 beings) are sensitive to different energy patterns in their environment and just
 how this sensitivity can affect their hearing/perception.

 In a recent posting, James Takamatsu referred to my description in my paper
 "Challenging the Conventional" of the playing of a violin to illustrate how the
 working memory upgrades itself automatically to new standards and that you
 cannot then go below that new standard without cringing. Another description I
 often use is what I call "the ticking clock effect' to illustrate the points I
 have just been making. This was more common many years ago when most rooms had a
 wind up, loud ticking, mechanical clock in it (not like today when most clocks
 are quiet, electrical or battery ones). You could be totally engrossed reading a
 book when all of a sudden you looked up startled. But, when looking around, you
 could not see any reason why you should have been startled because nothing
 appeared to have happened. Then, you realise that the clock had stopped ticking.
 Your body and mind had been, subconsciously, constantly
 monitoring/sensing/reading your environment every millisecond without you being
 aware of it whilst you were quietly reading. Then, you were alerted because your
 brain had realised that something had changed from one second to the next. The
 clock had stopped ticking.

 I have two articles amongst my archive material which you may find interesting.

 The first one is by John von Radowitz entitled "Deadly fish uncovers hidden
 human genes."

 "Unlikely similarities between people and the Japanese puffer fish have
 uncovered almost 1,000 previously unknown human genes.

 An international consortium of scientists said yesterday it had completed a
 draft blueprint of the genetic makeup of the puffer fish, Fugu rubripes. The
 sequence contains roughly the same number of genes as the larger human genome,
 but they are much more densely packed.

 By comparing human and puffer fish genomes, the scientists were able to predict
 the existence of almost 1,000 unidentified human genes. Most of these genes, yet
 to be located in the human genome, have unknown functions, the researchers
 reported in the journal Science.

 Dr. Samuel Aparicio, of the Wellcome Trust Centre for Molecular Mechanisms in
 Disease at Cambridge University, said: "For the first time we are seeing the
 overall differences, as well as the similarities, in the protein parts that make
 up fish and man.

 When we matched the predicted Fugu proteins directly against the human genome
 sequence, for 961 cases we found that there was a match in humans that didn't
 overlap an already predicted or known human gene.

 This flags up for geneticists the position of potentially novel human genes.
 Direct comparisons of the fish DNA show more human genes will be found by
 comparing fish with man.

 The puffer fish sequence is helping to find previously undiscovered features of
 the human genome - a process compared with the decipherment of the Rosetta
 stone."

 **************************************

 The second article was published in the Independent (a British Newspaper) in May
 2002.

 It is by Roger Boyes and entitled "It's not easy being green - just hear your
 plants scream."

 "Tread softly in the garden and pluck that rose with care: flowers cry when cut,
 cucumbers squeal and even healthy fruit gurgles according to new acoustic
 research on the stressful life of plants.

 The findings, released by the Institute of Applied Physics at the University of
 Bonn, could have important implications for farmers since, with the proper
 eavesdropping device, one can now distinguish between healthy and sick
 vegetables. Talking to plants, it seems, is not as rewarding as listening to
 them.

 The Bonn scientists have developed laser-driven microphones that pick up sounds
 inaccessible to the human ear. When a leaf or a stem is sliced, the plant
 signals pain (or perhaps merely dismay) by releasing the gas ethylene over it's
 entire surface.

 Doctor Frank Kuhnemann of Bonn University has been trapping the ethylene in a
 bell jar. The gas molecules are later bombarded with calibrated laser beams,
 which makes them vibrate. This produces a soundwave picked up by the
 microphones. "The more a plant is subjected to stress, the louder the signal we
 get on our microphone" he said.

 The Bonn scientists have tested a range of plants, always in rooms with
 controlled temperatures and simulated natural light. But they were most
 surprised by the reaction of the cucumber. The vegetable appeared to be in good
 shape, yet according to the acoustic measurements, it was virtually shouting
 with agony.

 A closer study showed that it had developed mildew, yet the symptoms were not
 visible. This finding is likely to make an impact on agriculture. "We can detect
 an infection the day after it has set in" said Dr Kuhnemann's colleague Ralph
 Gaebler, "Farmers, looking at their plant in the field, have to wait eight or
 nine days until the mildew spots have visibly broken out before they notice the
 problem," he said in an interview with Deutsche Welle radio station.

 By eavesdropping on plants it should be possible to develop an early warning
 system to detect pests and disease. Knowing the stress level of fruit and
 vegetables can also be an aid in efficient storing and transporting. Acoustical
 evidence demonstrates that apples emit higher levels of ethylene, which causes
 neighbouring plants to wilt. As a result, the scientists urged fruit producers
 to store apples separately.

 When ripe fruit is packed with unripe, a substantial amount of fruit often ends
 up rotting even when the shipments are separated by type. The scientists in Bonn
 have solved this mystery: differences in ripeness are often invisible, but can
 be detected acoustically in the form of ethylene. It should therefore be
 sufficient to measure fruit with laser microphones to separate it into batches
 of appropriate ripeness before loading it on to ships and trucks.

 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. The 'alarm signal' is a
 chemical message transmitted between individual plants: this too can be measured
 by the new equipment." (My italics - May Belt.!!)

 **************************

 As I said in my earlier e-mail to you Andreas - the world is a pulsating,
 dynamic world.

 Plants are more involved than with mere photosynthesis. They do not have a sense
 of hearing or a sense of sight but they communicate with each other by chemical
 means - as must have been the case with the early creatures. And, there is a
 strong possibility that we (human beings) have retained many of those ancient
 abilities through evolution.

 When you get even a glimpse of the complexity of the world, some of the reports
 in audio magazines of unexplained things 'changing sound' can begin to make more
 sense. In the Spring 2004 Newsletter, I made reference to certain adhesives,
 lacquers etc which were being described by the manufacturers and journalists as
 'friendly to acoustics'. Also, there was the chat forum comment by one of our
 long standing customers, Ron Adamson, after reading about the wooden speaker
 cone which had been soaked in sake (rice wine), saying "When is the audio world
 going to put two and two together ?" And also his reference that he had 'treated
 ' his normal, standard, speaker cones some sixteen years ago with our
 Cream-Electret and gained considerable improvements in his sound.

 I have just been reading again a review of a Koetsu cartridge by Ken Kessler a
 year ago. Ken describes the Koetsu as sounding excellent but there is one
 sentence in the middle of his review which says " The cartridge's body is
 covered in hand-applied lacquer made from the sap of the urushi tree........."
 In an earlier review Ken had presumed that the lacquer used on the Koetsu
 cartridge was good because "with time, the lacquer will harden even further,
 enhancing the strength of the already-rigid body, eliminating whatever vestiges
 of resonance might remain."

 One has to ask the questions "Is the lacquer used beneficial because (as Ken
 presumes) it hardens with time therefore reduces resonances ?" or "Is the Koetsu
 cartridge perceived as sounding good only because of how it is made from a
 technical or mechanical point of view or could it be perceived as sounding good
 because of how we (human beings) are reacting because of the use of lacquer made
 from the sap of the urushi tree ?" Because no one is yet thinking along those
 lines, nor are they yet prepared to 'throw an intellectual switch' and consider
 different concepts, hardly anyone in the audio industry is yet at the stage of
 asking the question "If I cover a 60 Dollar cartridge with the lacquer made from
 the sap of the urishi tree, would it 'sound' much better ?" From my experiences
 with the few journalists who have actually been prepared to ask that question,
 and the corresponding question "If I 'treat' this, or that, or that, or that
 with Peter's Cream-Electret, will it 'sound' better ?" they were/are not allowed
 to publish the answers.

 So many P.W.B. customers already know the answer to that type of question - they
 have already climbed many of the rungs of the 'ladder of progression', they have
 been prepared to consider a new concept.

 May Belt.



 ************************************************** ***
 * P.W.B. Electronics pwb@belt.demon.co.uk
 * http://www.belt.demon.co.uk http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PWB


----------



## eric343

Either they're nuts or they're trying to scam you... that's beyond what I'd expect of a psychiatrist performing an experiment for the heck of it...


----------



## tortie

Quote:


 "flowers cry when cut, cucumbers squeal and even healthy fruit gurgles according to new acoustic research on the stressful life of plants.

 The Bonn scientists have developed laser-driven microphones that pick up sounds inaccessible to the human ear... they were most surprised by the reaction of the cucumber. The vegetable appeared to be in good shape, yet according to the acoustic measurements, it was virtually shouting with agony.

 

Which beg's the question, did the Bonn scientists hear the "screams of pain and suffering" of the marijuana leaves when they were smoking it?


----------



## eric343

ROFL!!!!!!!! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			














 Good one.


----------



## PinkFloyd

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *eric343* 
_Either they're nuts or they're trying to scam you... that's beyond what I'd expect of a psychiatrist performing an experiment for the heck of it..._

 

Come on man, the studies on the stress levels of fruit are very important and they will soon be able to seperate the stressed fruit from the happy fruit so it will arrive in the supermarket as fresh as a daisy.

 "By eavesdropping on plants it should be possible to develop an early warning
 system to detect pests and disease. Knowing the stress level of fruit and
 vegetables can also be an aid in efficient storing and transporting. Acoustical
 evidence demonstrates that apples emit higher levels of ethylene, which causes neighbouring plants to wilt. As a result, the scientists urged fruit producer to store apples separately."


----------



## radrd

Quote:


 Come on man, the studies on the stress levels of fruit are very important and they will soon be able to seperate the stressed fruit from the happy fruit so it will arrive in the supermarket as fresh as a daisy. 
 

That's a joke, right? Are you nuts?


----------



## PinkFloyd

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *radrd* 
_That's a joke, right? Are you nuts? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Are you blindfolded to accept new ideas?

 And nope......... it's not a joke.


http://www.peva.org/images/timesonli...ing_plants.htm

http://www.lightwatcher.com/lightbytes/plant_cries.html

http://www.eartharc.com/artman/publish/article_48.shtml

 etc. etc. etc.

 Pinkie.


----------



## eric343

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PinkFloyd* 
_Are you blindfolded to accept new ideas?

 And nope......... it's not a joke._

 

Just a note on that "screaming" thing. The "screaming" seems to come from the method that the scientists used to measure the concentration of ethylene gas -- NOT the plant itself. The plant emits ethylene, the scientists measure the concentration of ethylene that HAPPENS to create "screams."

  Quote:


 The gas molecules are later bombarded with calibrated laser beams,
 which makes them vibrate. This produces a soundwave picked up by the
 microphones. 
 

Unfortunately, people with their own agenda seem to have purposely misinterpreted this...

 Interestingly enough, I seem to remember that if one piece of fruit goes bad and starts producing ethylene, the rest of the fruit in the same container will go bad also.


----------



## eric343

Oh, and one more thing. I think it's important enough to warrant a separate post.

 If you read PWB's lengthy and rambling reply, it's quite obvious that he's taking entirely unrelated "proof" and loosely stitching it into his "argument" that in itself seems to be composed of a number of unrelated-to-audio ideas designed to convince the reader, if at all, by flooding him with text.


----------



## tortie

I have had the foil for a week now. I tested it on some CDs & put some on my headphones, amp & CDP. I can not hear any difference with or without the foil. Looks like it does not work for me.


----------



## ServinginEcuador

Thanks for the info Michael. It sounds like this was and always has been a snake oil job. Maybe not malicious, but snake oil nonetheless.


----------



## PinkFloyd

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tortie* 
_I have had the foil for a week now. I tested it on some CDs & put some on my headphones, amp & CDP. I can not hear any difference with or without the foil. Looks like it does not work for me._

 

Ah well Tortie as they say, nothing ventured nothing gained...... in this instance nothing "was" gained by you but at least you gave it a try before commenting 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 The jury is still out at this end and it really is not easy doing AB comparisons and hearing a difference between a foiled disc and a non foiled disc... in my original test with the Shpongle discs I felt the rainbow treated disc sounded slightly more together time after time but that may have just been a placebo effect.

 I must admit I think my music sounds ever so slightly better with the rainbow foil attached onto the PCB of my amp but, again, that may be purely placebo and, if it is, I am not knocking it one bit. If it sounds good to me then I'm happy.

 All the best.

 Enjoy the music!

 Pinkie.


----------



## eric343

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PinkFloyd* 
_I must admit I think my music sounds ever so slightly better with the rainbow foil attached onto the PCB of my amp but, again, that may be purely placebo and, if it is, I am not knocking it one bit. If it sounds good to me then I'm happy._

 

I'm going to quote here a post I made over at AVSForum.

  Quote:


 Well, that's the thing. If we can hear a difference, does it matter whether the difference is due to an actual system change, or just the placebo effect?

 How much is the placebo effect (and fancy packaging, marketing BS, etc) worth?


----------



## PinkFloyd

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *eric343* 
_I'm going to quote here a post I made over at AVSForum._

 

Yep, It's a pretty obvious thing to us who have been involved with Hi-Fi for many years eric 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Placebo plays a "massive" part in everything, not just audio. The anticipation of a new component arriving and the "rave reviews" all enter our sub conscious mind and we "know" it will sound good because our sub conscious has been programmed into believing it "is" good. Whatever our sub conscious is fed........ it will believe that to be the truth.

 Pinkie.


----------



## eric343

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PinkFloyd* 
_Yep, It's a pretty obvious thing to us who have been involved with Hi-Fi for many years eric 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Placebo plays a "massive" part in everything, not just audio._

 

Hmm... I should really take some classes in marketing.


----------



## ServinginEcuador

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *eric343* 
_ How much is the placebo effect (and fancy packaging, marketing BS, etc) worth?_

 

Good points. How much of what we "hear" is formed by what we "see" and "perceive"? If two identical cables arrived at your door, one in bubble wrap and popcorn foam, and the other in a wooden box with felt, would the tendency to "perceive" the assumed quality difference be due to the fact that one came packed differently?

 I try to rule out subjective, and my cheapskate nature plays into that. I want the cheapest cables to perform at the level of the higher priced ones, and have found a couple that matched up to what some more expensive cables did, and I sold them. I kept the cheap cables. Whil I can't rule out subjectivity, I can do my best to reduce it at least.


----------



## PinkFloyd

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ServinginEcuador* 
_Good points. How much of what we "hear" is formed by what we "see" and "perceive"? If two identical cables arrived at your door, one in bubble wrap and popcorn foam, and the other in a wooden box with felt, would the tendency to "perceive" the assumed quality difference be due to the fact that one came packed differently?

 I try to rule out subjective, and my cheapskate nature plays into that. I want the cheapest cables to perform at the level of the higher priced ones, and have found a couple that matched up to what some more expensive cables did, and I sold them. I kept the cheap cables. Whil I can't rule out subjectivity, I can do my best to reduce it at least._

 


 Well Doug,

 Let's answer that by referring to a recent post by Hirsch (Head-Fi's interconnect DBT expert) who stated that the Cardas V2 cable sounded better than the Cardas V1 cable and I quote:

 "I'll chime in, since I've just changed from the V1 to the V2 of the Cardas. Jude nailed the main points nicely. Nice secure connectors, and the most flexible aftermarket cable around. However, I think he's understating the sonic difference. It's not just the highs. The Cardas V2 really opens up the HD-600, providing improved clarity up and down the frequency range. Using a modded SHA-1, I had a hard time telling which headphone was the HD-650 with a Moon Audio Silver Dragon, and which was the HD-600 with Cardas v2. Ultimately, the HD-650/Silver Dragon had slightly better clarity and frequency extension. However, I'll admit I'm extremely happy with the HD-600 and the new Cardas. The v2 of the Cardas cable brings the HD-600 to an extremely satisfying level of performance."


 It's pretty obvious from where I stand that Hirsch was experiencing the Placebo effect considering that Cardas stated there was no sonic difference between V1 and V2 of their cable and I quote:


 "Yes, we have made a second version of the headphone cable. The only way
 to tell is by the plastic plugs for the headphones... They have our logo
 on the outside and are exactly the same size as a stock HD600 plug. The
 old version uses the same pins but the plastic plugs are much smaller
 and do not have our logo on them. There is no sonic difference between the two versions."
 Sourced from: http://www4.head-fi.org/forums/showthread.php?t=70253


 Now, there is nothing wrong with Hirsch thinking that the V2 sounded a lot better than the V1, even though there is no sonic difference between them, he's happy with version 2 and was possibly thinking "V2 must mean it's been improved so it must sound better" 

 Never underestimate the power of Placebo, I trust this Rainbow thread will have given Head-Fiers insight into the placebo effect and an insight into the world of the marketing man.

 Pinkie.


----------



## tortie

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PinkFloyd* 
_
 I must admit I think my music sounds ever so slightly better with the rainbow foil attached onto the PCB of my amp but, again, that may be purely placebo and, if it is, I am not knocking it one bit. If it sounds good to me then I'm happy._

 

Yes, what sounds good to you is the most important thing. The thing with audio tweaks is not whether it is a placebo effect or not, as long as it brings you better enjoyment with your music then the tweak has done its job.


----------



## Steve999

Much of what goes on at head-fi makes rainbow foil look like rocket science.

 The problem with not understanding what is placebo and what is not placebo in the audio world (and the hard facts are out there and well-settled, though not the least bit welcome at head-fi, or in stereophile, etc.) is that you are much more likely to achieve exceptional high-fidelity and much more likely not to waste your money if you understand what produces audible changes and what does not. The people who fall for the bunk have a responsibility to themselves get a grip. The information is out there. Otherwise, enjoy the kool-aid.


----------



## ServinginEcuador

More and more I'm beginning to put less and less credence in those who don't do stricter A/B testing. I learned this due to my own calls on what's better before I could doa direct comparison. I sold off the Senn 600 and Equinox cable before I could compare them directly to the Sony CD3K. I thought the Sony was much better for the longest time, and now have both sitting right next to me, actually two pairs of Senns, and find that when I compare them both I like the Senns better. I also am finding out certain things about the Equinox cable that I didn't know befre I sat down with a second pair of Senns using a stock cable. I'm not gonna say too much more on this as I'm writing an article on the Equinox, but I have found out a lot now that I have sat down with them and done a direct A/B with them.


----------



## radrd

Quote:


 The people who fall for the bunk have a responsibility to themselves get a grip. The information is out there. Otherwise, enjoy the kool-aid. 
 

Amen.

  Quote:


 Are you blindfolded to accept new ideas? 
 

Are you blindfolded to accept new ideas? Take a look at exactly what you wrote and exactly what it actually implies. Ironic isn't it. You are blindfolded to the fact that these people are working very hard to convince you that something is true when any rational human being can see that this is snake oil. And embracing snake oil because you like placebos makes you an idiot.


----------



## marios_mar

so after 14 pages of posting pink you sort of admit that the rainbow foil is all about the placebo effect it offers? 


 Btw. these guys sent me the samples very quickly with a bit of documentation. Very professional guys.


----------



## PinkFloyd

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *marios_mar* 
_so after 14 pages of posting pink you sort of admit that the rainbow foil is all about the placebo effect it offers?_

 

Marios,

 To be honest, I'm not sure. I "think" my amp sounds slightly better after attaching a strip of Rainbow foil to the PCB, whether this is due to the foil or my imagination I can't say.

 There's really no way of "proving" if it's the foil or the imagination is there?

 If I were to categorically state it was the foil I'd probably be branded a lunatic and tarred and feathered by all the naysayers here so I'm not going to say any more on the subject and leave it up to the other people who have received samples to come to their own conclusions.

 These guys did a test with a PWB tweak and they conclude it is "not" placebo... it's worth reading: http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue8/belt.htm

 All the best.

 Pinkie.

 PS: Have you tried your sample yet?


----------



## Dane

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PinkFloyd* 
_Well Doug,

 Let's answer that by referring to a recent post by Hirsch (Head-Fi's interconnect DBT expert) who stated that the Cardas V2 cable sounded better than the Cardas V1 cable and I quote:

 "I'll chime in, since I've just changed from the V1 to the V2 of the Cardas. Jude nailed the main points nicely. Nice secure connectors, and the most flexible aftermarket cable around. However, I think he's understating the sonic difference. It's not just the highs. The Cardas V2 really opens up the HD-600, providing improved clarity up and down the frequency range. Using a modded SHA-1, I had a hard time telling which headphone was the HD-650 with a Moon Audio Silver Dragon, and which was the HD-600 with Cardas v2. Ultimately, the HD-650/Silver Dragon had slightly better clarity and frequency extension. However, I'll admit I'm extremely happy with the HD-600 and the new Cardas. The v2 of the Cardas cable brings the HD-600 to an extremely satisfying level of performance."


 It's pretty obvious from where I stand that Hirsch was experiencing the Placebo effect considering that Cardas stated there was no sonic difference between V1 and V2 of their cable and I quote:


 "Yes, we have made a second version of the headphone cable. The only way
 to tell is by the plastic plugs for the headphones... They have our logo
 on the outside and are exactly the same size as a stock HD600 plug. The
 old version uses the same pins but the plastic plugs are much smaller
 and do not have our logo on them. There is no sonic difference between the two versions."
 Sourced from: http://www4.head-fi.org/forums/showthread.php?t=70253_

 

It isn't nice to pull the pants off a fellow HeadFi'er like that - naughty, naughty. Maybe it was the logo that gave improved clarity up and down the frequency range


----------



## PinkFloyd

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *radrd* 
_ And embracing snake oil because you like placebos makes you an idiot._

 

I assume this observation is fact and is taken from your personal experience?


----------



## PinkFloyd

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Dane* 
_It isn't nice to pull the pants off a fellow HeadFi'er like that - naughty, naughty. Maybe it was the logo that gave improved clarity up and down the frequency range 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

That wasn't my intention at all Dane I was merely citing this example to show that there are forces other than technological improvements that can affect our perception of sound, such as the power of our beliefs and our expectations.


----------



## Nigel

Well my piece of Rainbow Foil arrived a few days ago, thanks PinkFloyd, & I carefully placed it inside the Chiara headphone amplifier in roughly the same area as Mike's. Guess what? I could hear no differences in sound quality whatsoever. To be truthful, I wasn't expecting to hear any magical improvements anyway. I've had past experience of Peter Belt & his products in the late 1980's & wasn't convinced then. But hey, what do I know?

 Incidentally, I came across an old Hi-Fi mag four page article on Mr Belt, April 1991. To briefly sum up the Editor's comments.

 < I came to Belt open-minded, & commissioned the articles in this month's issue because I was fascinated; I wanted to know for myself. But I've drawn a total blank. I can only reach a personal decision that 'the Belt effect' is tosh of the first order.>
 Jez Ford

 I guess nothing has changed thirteen years later.

 Best,

 Nigel


----------



## PinkFloyd

This thread was originally intended as a belated April fools joke but the longer it went on, the more I realised how Head-fi was lacking in new ideas / content etc. The thread is barely one month old yet it's had 11,000 views and 353 replies does that show you how stale the Sennheiser debate on Head-Fi had become?

 IMO Rainbow foil is nothing more than "tin foil" and Peter Belt is a jester, A Jester who offered free samples nonetheless and he must be respected for that.

 This thread has been a diversion from the norm and I trust it has been informative and entertaining.

 Pinkie.


----------



## Daroid

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PinkFloyd* 
_This thread was originally intended as a belated April fools joke but the longer it went on, the more I realised how Head-fi was lacking in new ideas / content etc.

 The HD600 v HD650 debate had peaked and I just thought a change of direction was in order.

 IMO Rainbow foil is nothing more than "tin foil" and Peter Belt is a jester, A Jester who offered free samples nonetheless and he must be respected for that.

 This thread has been a diversion from the norm and I trust it has been informative and entertaining.

 Pinkie.

 The thread is barely one month old yet it's had 11,000 views and 353 replies does that show you how stale the Sennheiser debate on Head-Fi had become?_

 

BAHAHA! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	










 Was just about to post a "you're crazy"-type of reply when I at last reached page seven. Good idea to check out the last post first. This made my day (and everybody else's I think). Thanks


----------



## tortie

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PinkFloyd* 
_This thread was originally intended as a belated April fools joke but the longer it went on, the more I realised how Head-fi was lacking in new ideas / content etc.

 Pinkie.

 The thread is barely one month old yet it's had 11,000 views and 353 replies does that show you how stale the Sennheiser debate on Head-Fi had become?_

 

Damn you Pinkie!


----------



## Steve999

Yeah, this was entertaining and thought-provoking to the max. Nice thread.


----------



## Orpheus

insane.


----------



## PinkFloyd

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PinkFloyd* 
_This thread was originally intended as a belated April fools joke but the longer it went on, the more I realised how Head-fi was lacking in new ideas / content etc. The thread is barely one month old yet it's had 11,000 views and 353 replies does that show you how stale the Sennheiser debate on Head-Fi had become?

 IMO Rainbow foil is nothing more than "tin foil" and Peter Belt is a jester, A Jester who offered free samples nonetheless and he must be respected for that.

 This thread has been a diversion from the norm and I trust it has been informative and entertaining.

 Pinkie._

 

The REAL truth is.... the naysayers win and I can't be arsed (there's no point) wasting any more time on this topic. You win...... the rainbow foil and all PWB products are snake oil, happy now? ..... end of my contribution to this thread.


----------



## radrd

Well, Greenhorn deserves a bit of credit here. He picked off your thread for what it was quite some time ago. Nice catch Greenhorn . 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 I'm impressed that you stuck with it this long, considering how few people fell for your joke and believed that this foil makes a difference. Unless the joke was that you were trying to convince people that _you_ are an idiot. In that case, bravo! You succeeded admirably! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 So what is your _real_ take on this crap, Pinkie?


----------



## marios_mar

ok thanks for saving me the time to try out the samples that came.

 is the whole belt company a joke? is it intented as a joke or what?


----------



## PinkFloyd

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *radrd* 
_Unless the joke was that you were trying to convince people that you are an idiot. In that case, bravo! You succeeded admirably! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



_

 

That comment is expected and inkeeping with your opinions on audiophiles in genereal radrd. May I remind you of a few of your comments which will show others that you are just here to ridicule and have nothing constructive to say other than to call people idiots and stupid:

 Quote *" [size=x-large]Audiophiles are stupid![/size] "* This was the title of the thread you started at the ARS forum where you stated *"Yeah, I know, I'm ashamed to say that I own power cables and interconnects. I don't believe they work anymore though. It's all a bunch of [size=x-large]crap[/size]"* http://episteme.arstechnica.com/eve/...m=806002673631

You say on ARS  *"I'm not calling *him* [size=x-large]stupid[/size], I'm calling audiophiles [size=x-large]stupid[/size]. The very fact that [size=x-large]crap[/size] like this exists and people buy it is [size=x-large]stupid[/size]. He he he... I wonder if I'm going to get banned from Head-Fi?"*

You then say on Head-fi after your post on ARS was discovered *"I really should have been a bit more careful about posting on Ars about this. Linking directly to this product would have been a much better idea rather than linking to this forum. I personally think anyone who believes this stuff works is being [size=x-large]stupid[/size] (sorry), but not all audiophiles in general. Regardless, I didn't have anything nice to say, so I should have kept my mouth shut. Sorry."* Yes _you_ should have kept your mouth shut because your comments made you look like a nincompoop

You then say  *"I've blind tested interconnects and found no difference, so I'm not about to bother with this [size=x-large]stupid[/size] foil." * 

You joke about the rainbow foil as being *"A cheap alternative to viagra maybe?"*

Then you suggest *"I vote neither Rodbac nor PinkFloyd posts in this thread anymore. Then maybe it will either die or become worth reading again."* hmmm.

You then use the idiot word again but this time you call yourself an idiot  

*"You've both made your opinions clear ALREADY. You believe this [size=x-large]crap[/size]  works and he doesn't. Until someone else comes along with some sort of new insight into the matter, you are essentially ruining your own thread. As far as whether that essay is worth reading, I personally doubt that anyone who doesn't believe this [size=x-large]crap[/size] works is going to bother reading it (me...). However, I'll concede that it's probably interesting and maybe even informative. If I were you I would encourage discussions on that, possibly in a new thread about the psychology of listening or whatever. However, the rest of your posting back and forth with Rodbac about whether the foil works is pure [size=x-large]idiocy[/size]. Let it go already. Now someone is going to point out that my posting is [size=x-large]idiocy[/size], and I'll spot you a quick touche to avoid saying it later."*

You then make a quite valid contribution and come very close to what this thread is all about: 

*"Now, he may have believed that you would have to be [size=x-large]crazy[/size] to believe this stuff works, and therefore this thread is a huge game you are playing to show just how [size=x-large]dumb[/size] some audiophiles can be. If that's the case, then I applaud you, as this thread is a shining example that I'm sure I will link to again at some point in the future when I need to prove just how sheeplike audiophiles can become."*

You respond to the scientific studies on the fruit and say *"That's a joke, right? Are you [size=x-large]nuts[/size]?"*

Then. the idiot reference again: *"You are blindfolded to the fact that these people are working very hard to convince you that something is true when any rational human being can see that this is snake oil. And embracing snake oil because you like placebos makes you an [size=x-large]idiot[/size]."*

And again: *"Unless the joke was that you were trying to convince people that you are an [size=x-large]idiot[/size]. In that case, bravo! You succeeded admirably!"*


That was your contribution to this thread radrd and all you did was call people "idiots", products "crap" and Audiophiles "stupid"

I think it's quite obvious who has made a total ARS hole out of themselves here. By the way, have you ever considered using a Thesaurus? There are more elaborate ways of calling people an "idiot"


----------



## PinkFloyd

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *marios_mar* 
_ok thanks for saving me the time to try out the samples that came.

 is the whole belt company a joke? is it intented as a joke or what?_

 

Marios,

 I'm not saying that at all. I've only tried the Rainbow foil and, to me, I thought the music sounded better and, as there is no scientific evidence, I put that down to placebo effect.

 My comments in the above thread were basically saying "ok, I agree, all PWB stuff is crap and this thread is a big joke" I don't mean that but what's the point in attempting to discuss this any further with all these thread crappers calling people idiots and lunatics etc.? May as well just say "yeh you are all correct.... everything is crap" I've just had enough of these small minded ignoramuses and don't wish to attempt to discuss anything with them waiting in the wings with their put downs and smart arse comments.

 You've got your sample so try it but if you find it improves the sound then don't post your findings here of you'll be branded a fruitcake or an "idiot"


----------



## radrd

Thanks Pinkie. For a while there, I thought you'd started ignoring my posts altogether. It's nice to know my view has not gone totally unappreciated. Who knows, maybe if you work hard enough you can get me banned? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  Quote:


 By the way, have you ever considered using a Thesaurus? There are more elaborate ways of calling people an "idiot" 
 

Indeed there are, but why dress it up? Plus, it wouldn't be worth the extra effort.


----------



## PinkFloyd

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *radrd* 
_Thanks Pinkie. For a while there, I thought you'd started ignoring my posts altogether. It's nice to know my view has not gone totally unappreciated. Who knows, maybe if you work hard enough you can get me banned? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Don't be daft 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	





  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *radrd* 
_Indeed there are, but why dress it up? Plus, it wouldn't be worth the extra effort._

 

You mean it was an "effort" to think up words like "crap" "idiot" etc. ?


----------



## tortie

Play nice guys.

 It was bad form in radrd's part in posting that thread is arstech, but he has already apologized for his mistake.

 About this rainbow foil business; I hope everybody here understands that everyone experiences things differently. Pinky can hear a difference with the foil & I can't, but that does not give me the the right to bash him or even argue with him just because I did not hear what he heard. This applies even more so to those who have not tried the foil for themselves. 

 There are a lot of threads here that start with somebody sharing his or her experience with a component or tweak and another poster will add "You are dead wrong, it should sound like this..." or "I hear differently, so there is something wrong with you or your hearing..." Nobody should tell another person what he can or should hear.


----------



## rgraham

I have followed this thread for a while, but have not known if I could add anything, but here goes.

 I have used Rainbow Foil for as long as it has been available, and Peter Belt products since 1988! I swear by them, but they do not make a wax cylinder sound like DVD-Audio.

 The subjective nature of music is a problem, and those that feel we can objectify the issue would probably use a computer to decide whether Tolstoy or George Eliot are the greater novelist, or Ibsen or Chekhov the greater playwright.

 I personally am surprised at how many feel current science has reached the peak of knowledge, and how could a headphone engineer who has strayed from the path, discover anything? As a medical practioner, I am aware that Digitalis existed inside the foxglove, and was used, well before 'scientists' produced Digoxin and its derivatives. Nature provided what the scientist could discover, and use. How many here accuse the pharmaceutical industry of exploitation?

 Testing Rainbow Foil is always problematic, and usually arouses the intense responses seen here. There is inevitably a pressure to report no effect - is that 'correct' though?

 I personally find it offensive that people feel comfortable to obtain samples from Mr Belt - at his expense - only then to accuse him of trying to exploit them! Presumably they either feel their grip on their sanity is so slight that they can easily be fooled, or that Peter Belt has discovered a fantastic means of generating money through marketing ineffective products - an extraordinarily cynical notion. But then this is the audio industry.

 It would be nice for once to see a real, balanced discussion of the matter, where a true scientific mind was at work, but instead, as I have witnessed over the past 16 years, infantile male rivalry and hysteria dominate.

 I ask one question only - is this a forum where true responses on anything can be documented? Pink Floyd's recent postings answer that. So where does that leave you?

 Richard Graham


----------



## Steve999

Hey!!! Welcome to head-fi!!! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I enjoyed your post!!! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rgraham* 
_I have followed this thread for a while, but have not known if I could add anything, but here goes._


----------



## classe

I alsoo asked for a sample of foil.
 This was last year. And yes the cd sounds better with foil.
 You will be hearing more details and you will get a little bit more warmth.
 My father thought alsoo that it was nonsens and more.
 But out of 3 cd's; everytime he picked out the Belt version.
 Then i tried more stuff from Peter like Cream Electret etc. and again you will be hearing more details, more space between instruments.
 So i'm very happy with Peter his products.
 Greetings Bernhard.
 And for everyone who is thinking: this is a joke: It is NOT.


----------



## eric343

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rgraham* 
_I personally am surprised at how many feel current science has reached the peak of knowledge, and how could a headphone engineer who has strayed from the path, discover anything? As a medical practioner, I am aware that Digitalis existed inside the foxglove, and was used, well before 'scientists' produced Digoxin and its derivatives. Nature provided what the scientist could discover, and use. How many here accuse the pharmaceutical industry of exploitation?

 Testing Rainbow Foil is always problematic, and usually arouses the intense responses seen here. There is inevitably a pressure to report no effect - is that 'correct' though?

 I personally find it offensive that people feel comfortable to obtain samples from Mr Belt - at his expense - only then to accuse him of trying to exploit them! Presumably they either feel their grip on their sanity is so slight that they can easily be fooled, or that Peter Belt has discovered a fantastic means of generating money through marketing ineffective products - an extraordinarily cynical notion. But then this is the audio industry.

 I ask one question only - is this a forum where true responses on anything can be documented? Pink Floyd's recent postings answer that. So where does that leave you?_

 

To answer a few of your points, nobody here is saying that current science has reached the "peak of knowledge" or anything like that. Rather, we're saying that the PWB foil is simply ineffective (and as such, overpriced). Unlike the pharmaceutical industry, whose remedies have a known and reasonably quantifiable effect, the rainbow foil seems to have no effect other than as a placebo. As such, it would be fair to accuse Peter Belt of exploiting the placebo effect to make money. (To be fair, he's not the only one to have discovered "a fantastic means of generating money through marketing ineffective products" -- look at the amber bead tweaks page.)

 Also, when you say there is pressure to report "no effect," I would argue that that is more than countered by the pressure to report *some* effect. Since, as you said, audio is a user-dependent experience, a user of the foil that reports hearing a difference with the foil might be percieved as having better hearing than a user that reports no difference, thereby increasing their "status" (if only in their own mind) in the public forum. An excellent example of this phenomena is presented in "The Emperor's New Clothes." In essence, not hearing a difference in the world of audio might be percieved as tantamount to admitting that one is incapable of hearing a difference-- and therefore, it takes guts and brute honesty to declare that there is no difference.

 Lastly, Peter Belt sent those samples out free with no attached conditions. Therefore, he cannot expect us to report the truth as we hear it, even if the truth could be detrimental to his business. A similar situation faces audio reviewers who recieve free gear from audio manufacturers, in that a bad review of gear could cut off the reviewer's supply of gear from that manufacturer or even end his career (if no other manufacturer wants to risk a bad review). As a result, you'll likely never see a bad review in an audio magazine.


----------



## eric343

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *classe* 
_My father thought alsoo that it was nonsens and more.
 But out of 3 cd's; everytime he picked out the Belt version._

 

May I ask for more details regarding the procedure you used? The way you word it implies that you performed a true double-blind test, however you don't give enough details to verify that this is indeed the case. The credence that a statement gains by declaring a blinded test is worthless if the test was not actually blinded.


----------



## eric343

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PinkFloyd* 
_but if you find it improves the sound then don't post your findings here of you'll be branded a fruitcake or an "idiot"_

 

Well, from radrd anyway 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 My beef is with those that claim it HAS to be something other than the placebo effect, without backing that statement up. As I've said before, it's not necessarily worthless if it relies on the placebo effect -- as we can see, even the placebo effect can make your system sound better.


----------



## rgraham

I value your faith in the pharmaceutical industry, and hope the measurable benefits of so many of the drugs that have law suits against them is evidence that published measurable effects are a guarantee. See Thomas Quastoff.

 Could you demonstrate evidence within this thread of a pressure to hear *some* effect? Your posting, amongst others, denigrates the experience of those that do; if I support Pink Floyd's venture, it is out of respect for a courageous exposition. Do you really believe anyone is pressured to hear an effect? If so, who has such influence, and why is Peter Belt not making millions? I spend a minor fortune going to various opera houses, including Salzburg etc, and yet find the results often lacking. Still, when it works it is magic, truly. What do you make of the sums spent, and the varied response? I have paid more in Salzburg than anywhere else, yet some 'cheaper' performances have been superior - to me. Why? Is it a reverse placebo effect?

 My understanding of the placebo effect is that a pharmacologically inert substance effects the same result as a pharmacoactive substance, which is treating an ill. I struggle to see what my placebo response is treating. I would much rather the benefit on a cheap Sony system, and would be happy to be deluded. As it is, I find the effects of Belt products on Merdian 800, 861, 8ks staggering (at least forgive my anglophile tendencies). If you could enhance this placebo effect, I would be financially grateful to you; trust me, if someone had what Belt has to offer, at a lower price, I would consider it.

 I still hold to the point that many obtain samples from Belt and function in quite a paranoid manner. Why would there be so much ridicule and sarcasm on reporting results? And if a protectionist attitude must pervade, can you ensure that all subscribers eat healthily, avoid products of the alcohol and tobacco industries, exercise moderately, and subscribe to the 'nanny state' that prevents all challenges and protects us all from thinking for ourselves.


----------



## PinkFloyd

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rgraham* 
_I have followed this thread for a while, but have not known if I could add anything, but here goes.

 I have used Rainbow Foil for as long as it has been available, and Peter Belt products since 1988! I swear by them, but they do not make a wax cylinder sound like DVD-Audio.

 The subjective nature of music is a problem, and those that feel we can objectify the issue would probably use a computer to decide whether Tolstoy or George Eliot are the greater novelist, or Ibsen or Chekhov the greater playwright.

 I personally am surprised at how many feel current science has reached the peak of knowledge, and how could a headphone engineer who has strayed from the path, discover anything? As a medical practioner, I am aware that Digitalis existed inside the foxglove, and was used, well before 'scientists' produced Digoxin and its derivatives. Nature provided what the scientist could discover, and use. How many here accuse the pharmaceutical industry of exploitation?

 Testing Rainbow Foil is always problematic, and usually arouses the intense responses seen here. There is inevitably a pressure to report no effect - is that 'correct' though?

 I personally find it offensive that people feel comfortable to obtain samples from Mr Belt - at his expense - only then to accuse him of trying to exploit them! Presumably they either feel their grip on their sanity is so slight that they can easily be fooled, or that Peter Belt has discovered a fantastic means of generating money through marketing ineffective products - an extraordinarily cynical notion. But then this is the audio industry.

 It would be nice for once to see a real, balanced discussion of the matter, where a true scientific mind was at work, but instead, as I have witnessed over the past 16 years, infantile male rivalry and hysteria dominate.

 I ask one question only - is this a forum where true responses on anything can be documented? Pink Floyd's recent postings answer that. So where does that leave you?

 Richard Graham_

 

Hi Richard,

 Welcome to Head-Fi and that was a superb first post! In answer to your question I doubt there are any forums where true responses can be documented as you will always have people with different views and people who are not interested in the topic only intent on ridiculing and deriding others opinions. 

 That, sadly, is the way it is at Head-Fi and I feel that people should not comment on equipment / tweaks unless they have experience of the equipment / tweaks but who am I to lay down any common sense guidelines like that?

 You are absolutely correct, infantile male rivalry and hysteria do tend to dominate the proceedings and people seem more concerned on "getting the last word in" and scoring points than discuss the topic in question in a rational adult manner.

 I was, am, prepared to open my mind to PWB products but certainly not in "open air" on these forums as the pack mentality and naysayers even managed to get me to call Peter Belt a "jester" due to repeated inferences that I was an "idiot" for even considering thinking about rainbow foil, let alone actually listening to my music with a strip of rainbow foil attached to a CD.

 The pack of naysayers and know alls always manage to get the upper hand in these threads as it's easy for them to throw their uninformed comments into the arena (usually along the lines of you are an idiot and you're talking crap) which makes it hard for the people who want to discuss a subject in depth and "seriously" In the end, the serious folk who want to discuss are basically forced out of the arena by the idiots who want to spoil the debate or are cajoled into agreeing with them to not be seen as a "lunatic"

 If these idiots stayed away from subjects they were not interested in and spent their time pursuing subjects they were interested in then we could debate and analyse products without the intervention of ill informed, self appointed arseholes with no purpose in life other than to badmouth everything around them. We all know these people have low self esteem and the only place a person with low self esteem wants you to be is below them so they'll do their utmost to put you there. (another subject another channel!)

 Enough of my ramblings, I'm off to listen to a Rainbow treated CD in "private" and enjoy the music 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Out of interest Richard..... are you Dr. Richard Graham who compiles the P.W.B Newsletters? I noticed there was reference to a Dr. Graham at http://www.belt.demon.co.uk/ Is that your good self?

 If so, I'm sure you will be better served than I to give a bit more insight into Peter Belt's theories.

 All the best.

 Pinkie.


----------



## Dane

I must say I'm starting to get confused. I first thought this thread was a humorous way to catalyze a discussion around placebo. Surely nobody can disagree that the placebo effect is real, so why all this discussion. If a particular tweek works for you it really works. Period. Although I haven't read all posts I don't recall anyone saying that the Belt products worked for other reasons than placebo, so what's the problem. Still I dont understand how the placebo effect could be triggered in the first place - but that's just me.

 Regarding the recent "idiot" discussion, I (perhaps wrongly) understood Pinks postings as an indirect way of making fun of people (= they are idiots). Things like stating that the freezer was considered his main souce component is just one example. So what is really the difference between the direct and the indirect way... the end result is making fun of people.

 On the other hand, Pinks reaction to people saying directly what I thought he had said indirectly all the time confuses me. I think it's part of his joke though, but who knows. Man, you're so complex! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 Yeah, I didn't spell check this - live with it


----------



## Steve999

Yeah, this thread is mind-warping but I can't get enough of it. I have no idea where this pinkie fellow really stands but he's obviously frightfully clever and highly entertaining. This is reading and entertainment of a very high order.

 Eric343, I'll make a note to put you on my "do not ignore" list. That was an awesome insight. I have to agree 100 percent on this one.....

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *eric343* 
_Also, when you say there is pressure to report "no effect," I would argue that that is more than countered by the pressure to report *some* effect. Since, as you said, audio is a user-dependent experience, a user of the foil that reports hearing a difference with the foil might be percieved as having better hearing than a user that reports no difference, thereby increasing their "status" (if only in their own mind) in the public forum. An excellent example of this phenomena is presented in "The Emperor's New Clothes." In essence, not hearing a difference in the world of audio might be percieved as tantamount to admitting that one is incapable of hearing a difference-- and therefore, it takes guts and brute honesty to declare that there is no difference._


----------



## PinkFloyd

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Dane* 
_Although I haven't read all posts I don't recall anyone saying that the Belt products worked for other reasons than placebo, so what's the problem. Still I dont understand how the placebo effect could be triggered in the first place - but that's just me._

 

Please read them all Dane and also follow the links and read the articles, You'll get the full gist that way.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Dane* 
_Regarding the recent "idiot" discussion, I (perhaps wrongly) understood Pinks postings as an indirect way of making fun of people (= they are idiots). Things like stating that the freezer was considered his main souce component is just one example._

 

Again, you have to read the full thread. I didn't say a lot about the freezer but it appears the freezer is the most important device to treat according to some of the articles I quoted from the P.W.B newsgroup.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Dane* 
_On the other hand, Pinks reaction to people saying directly what I thought he had said indirectly all the time confuses me. I think it's part of his joke though, but who knows. Man, you're so complex! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Thanks for the compliment! an "enigma" sure does sound better than an "idiot" 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Dane* 
_Yeah, I didn't spell check this - live with it 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

That went down like a fine wine Dane and is much appreciated........ superb


----------



## PinkFloyd

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Steve999* 
_Yeah, this thread is mind-warping but I can't get enough of it. I have no idea where this pinkie fellow really stands but he's obviously frightfully clever and highly entertaining. This is reading and entertainment of a very high order._

 

Thanks Steve, I tend to agree with you on that observation 

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Steve999* 
_Eric343, I'll make a note to put you on my "do not ignore" list. That was an awesome insight. I have to agree 100 percent on this one....._

 

Agreed again


----------



## oneeyedhobbit

Pardon me if this sounds rude, but the sceptic in me demands it pointed out:

 Several head-fiers have asked Peter Belt for a sample of their rainbow foil. I was one of them. I set up a double blind test, and found it to be a load of bunk. But thats beside the point. Any way, I got a sample--and was asked how I learned about Peter Belt's products. I informed him of Head-Fi, honestly enough. Presumably, several head-fiers have done this. Now, two new posters come, who ONLY follow the thread about Rainbow Foil, and their ONLY posts are to defend it?


----------



## radrd

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *eric343* 
_Originally Posted by PinkFloyd
 but if you find it improves the sound then don't post your findings here of you'll be branded a fruitcake or an "idiot" 

 Well, from radrd anyway 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



_

 

You're damn right. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  Quote:


 Several head-fiers have asked Peter Belt for a sample of their rainbow foil. I was one of them. I set up a double blind test, and found it to be a load of bunk. But thats beside the point. Any way, I got a sample--and was asked how I learned about Peter Belt's products. I informed him of Head-Fi, honestly enough. Presumably, several head-fiers have done this. Now, two new posters come, who ONLY follow the thread about Rainbow Foil, and their ONLY posts are to defend it? 
 

I see what you are getting at, and I agree. Plus, to avoid additional redundancy from me, those two guys can see above.


----------



## PinkFloyd

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *radrd* 
_You're damn right. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	





 I see what you are getting at, and I agree. Plus, to avoid additional redundancy from me, those two guys can see above. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 


 Why are you commenting? You are only here to crap on the thread, why don't you see what a pratt you are? Go and take your rubbbish "outside" where it belongs. If you've got nothing constructive to say then stay away from this topic........... is that hard for you to comprehend?


----------



## PinkFloyd

Edit.


----------



## eric343

Pink, just use the Ignore function.


----------



## radrd

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PinkFloyd* 
_Why are you commenting? You are only here to crap on the thread, why don't you see what a pratt you are? Go and take your rubbbish "outside" where it belongs. If you've got nothing constructive to say then stay away from this topic........... is that hard for you to comprehend?_

 

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!

 You're lucky I'm busy right now. Maybe if this thread is still alive sometime this weekend I'll sit down type out some more crap for you to get pissed off about. Maybe I'll actually take your advice and get out a Thesaurus. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 As is frequently the case, Eric is right. If you ignore me, I'll probably get bored and go away. Maybe.


----------



## Nigel

Pinkie,

 Can you truthfully detect any differences in sound quality using the Rainbow Foil?


----------



## eric343

rgraham, I'd like to start off by saying that I was unaware you were so closely affiliated with PWB as to be the author of their official newsletters. I assumed that you were (as you implied) simply a user of their products.

 Also, classe, if you are also affiliated with PWB, [and this applies to rgraham too] it would be wise to declare this affiliation as failure to do so will result in a ban. The moderators here have zero tolerance for "shill" posting (where a manufacturer promotes their own products under the guise of a happy customer).

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rgraham* 
_I value your faith in the pharmaceutical industry, and hope the measurable benefits of so many of the drugs that have law suits against them is evidence that published measurable effects are a guarantee. See Thomas Quastoff._

 

I'm surprised at hearing that from someone that attempted to link the pharmaceutical industry to PWB in order to support the latter. On the other hand... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  Quote:


 Could you demonstrate evidence within this thread of a pressure to hear *some* effect? Your posting, amongst others, denigrates the experience of those that do; if I support Pink Floyd's venture, it is out of respect for a courageous exposition. Do you really believe anyone is pressured to hear an effect? If so, who has such influence, and why is Peter Belt not making millions?

 I spend a minor fortune going to various opera houses, including Salzburg etc, and yet find the results often lacking. Still, when it works it is magic, truly. What do you make of the sums spent, and the varied response? I have paid more in Salzburg than anywhere else, yet some 'cheaper' performances have been superior - to me. Why? Is it a reverse placebo effect?

 My understanding of the placebo effect is that a pharmacologically inert substance effects the same result as a pharmacoactive substance, which is treating an ill. I struggle to see what my placebo response is treating. I would much rather the benefit on a cheap Sony system, and would be happy to be deluded. As it is, I find the effects of Belt products on Merdian 800, 861, 8ks staggering (at least forgive my anglophile tendencies). If you could enhance this placebo effect, I would be financially grateful to you; trust me, if someone had what Belt has to offer, at a lower price, I would consider it.

 I still hold to the point that many obtain samples from Belt and function in quite a paranoid manner. Why would there be so much ridicule and sarcasm on reporting results? And if a protectionist attitude must pervade, can you ensure that all subscribers eat healthily, avoid products of the alcohol and tobacco industries, exercise moderately, and subscribe to the 'nanny state' that prevents all challenges and protects us all from thinking for ourselves. 
 

Richard (I assume you are the Dr. Richard Graham that PinkFloyd referred to), you ask for pressure on the users to hear some effect. I say that pressure comes from three points: the nature of this forum, the marketing materials of PWB, and the user himself. I have already explained the "Emperor's New Clothes" principle as applied to audio.

 The marketing materials of PWB (or, in fact, the marketing materials of any audio firm) are designed to persuade the potential customer that the audio product (in this case, the rainbow foil) will indeed have an effect, and thereby persuade the potential customer to become an active customer. However, as a result of that marketing, the user has certain expectations as to the end product-- that it will perform. 
 Obviously, if the product has obviously no effect (such as in the case of an ineffective soap), the user's experience will win over their subconscious expectations. However, unlike soap, the world of audio is such that the changes are often subtle, and the subconscious has great sway over what we percieve (as you should know). Therefore, a user that accepts the words of PWB's marketing may very well believe that he or she should be hearing changes, and therefore hears them.

 The placebo effect can come into play even without exposure to marketing, as we see in the case of classe's father. For the sake of argument, I will assume that classe explained to his father at least the basic idea behind the foil ("It makes stuff sound better.") and perhaps even told his father of his own impressions regarding the foil's performance. His father, though under no social pressure to report results (as on a public forum) or already persuaded that there would be results (as with marketing), is under pressure from himself to hear a difference. As I have said time and time again, the subjective and user-dependent nature of audio means that for some, not hearing a difference would be an indication of inferiority. Especially if classe made it clear to his father that he (classe) could hear a difference-- his father, as anyone, would out of pride be subconsciously hoping that he, too could hear one. 

 Whew, that was a bit of typing. My apologies if I'm making any incorrect assumptions about the nature of human psychology-- I don't have your level of formal training in the subject.

 Ok, back to the topic at hand. You speak of your various trips to opera houses (and I must say, I'm impressed-- I wish that I had your time and financial resources!), and mention that there is no direct correlation between the amount of money you spend and the amount of enjoyment you get out of a performance. I would suggest that since there IS indeed no direct correlation, there is no "reverse placebo" effect-- if there were, the amount of enjoyment you got would be roughly inversely proportional to the amount of money you spent. Therefore, I would say that the differences between performances were large enough to "overcome" the placebo effect. Once you realized that the "cheaper" performance was in fact superior, the initial assumption that the opposite was the case was dissolved and you were able to look at the performance from a different mental perspective. I've noted similar occurrences-- the phenomenon of opinon regarding a certain object oscillating from "perfect" [new-toy syndrome] to "awful" [buyer's remorse] until it settles to a more accurate point.

 Your discussion of the placebo effect as applied to pharmaceuticals is largely irrelevant in the context of this discussion. Why? Not only are we not applying the placebo to a system that is physically affected by the mind (as our bodies are, in the sense of hormonal variations and similar), but your idea of "treatment" is completely off the mark. Tweaking, in the traditional audiophile sense, is the addition of esoteric treatments with the goal of making a good system better. The assumption is always made that tweaks will be better audible on a better system-- you forget that we assume a more expensive component to be far more transparent and resolving of system changes. Therefore if a Belt product were to result in greater percieved changes on a cheaper system, we would have to overcome the mental hurdle of admitting that a "vastly inferior" system is more transparent and therefore superior in some way. You wouldn't want to find out that that expensive Meridian system wasn't worth every penny, would you? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Lastly, I'd like to respond to your accusation of paranoia. You ask why there is so much ridicule and sarcasm on reporting results-- and I say, isn't it obvious? Those that are taking the sarcastic attitudes are those that have concluded that the PWB foil is worthless except as a placebo; in their minds, they are mocking a scam and helping the community by ensuring that nobody falls for it. You must admit, the foil has not be recieved by blind denial and close-mindedness! If you look at the beginnings of this thread, those that tried it (including myself) were clearly willing to accept that it could make a difference. Rather, and I will use myself as an example, I heard a difference but was unsure whether it was "real" or whether it was a placebo, and did some informal but effectively (as far as I'm concerned) blinded tests to determine this. As a result of this testing, I came to the conclusion that the foil operates on the principle of a placebo.

 Oh, and would you mind clarifying how your last sentence relates to audio? Though I can vaguely see how a "protectionist" [of current schools of thought] attitude might fit in to your arguments, I fail to comprehend how "healthy eating" and a "nanny state" has anything to do with what we hear. Similarly, I fail to see how any of this "prevents all challenges" or "protects us from thinking for ourselves." Rather, it's debates like this that ARE challenges and ENCOURAGE us to think for ourselves!


----------



## Nigel

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rgraham* 
_
 Do you really believe anyone is pressured to hear an effect? If so, who has such influence, and why is Peter Belt not making millions? 

 I still hold to the point that many obtain samples from Belt and function in quite a paranoid manner. Why would there be so much ridicule and sarcasm on reporting results? ._

 

Even if the listener was pressured into hearing an effect, or pressured not into hearing an effect, if differences in sound quality really existed, the listener would hear them.
 Could it be that Peter Belt is not making millions because there is no effect to be heard? After all, his products have been available for twenty or so years. Surely, if there were any benefits to be gained in sound quality we wouldn't still be at this stage, having this discussion. The same discussion that existed in the UK Hi-Fi press twenty years ago. Incidentally, what did happen to Paul Benson? 

 People obtain samples from Mr Belt in an attempt to increase their listening pleasure. When they try his products & hear no differences they have every right to pass comment, even sarcastic ones.


----------



## Nigel

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rgraham* 
_. Why would there be so much ridicule and sarcasm on reporting results? ._

 

Reading the second posting in this thread, which is a quotation from your goodself Dr Graham, I can't believe your asking the forum that question.


----------



## rgraham

Let me clarify a few points.

 This is not the first discussion forum to 'debate' this matter, and ridicule and sarcasm about Belt's work extends back to the 1980s. But if you feel all postings here are honourable, fair enough. There are clearly some who feel sarcasm is fair game.

 If the history of Belt's work is looked at, there is considerable evidence in the HiFi community of hearing *something* then denying it. What you make of that I don't know. It coincided with a powerful Japanese company threatening to withdraw a substantial advertsing contract.

 I agree we all want better sound, and am amazed how poor much equipment is. If Belt or even Donald Rumsfeld can improve that, it is worthy of consideration. Still it won't make Sony or Philips any money in licences.

 I did not raise the issue of placebo, but there interesting aspects to that phenomenon, including, I believe, that the effect is short lived. You are probably thinking more of suggestibility, but I still feel if I can be vulnerable to hear something, others can be not to. But for all of us, the effect is unlikely to be long-lasting. I really would go to a hypnotist if they could persuade me I was hearing a Meridian system when I was in the car/listening to a mini system, but of course it wouldn't work. We cannot be fooled that easily.

 As regards my production of the Newsletter - if I had indicated that, I suspect many of the points raised would not have been considered at all. I am obviously an enthusiast and am repatedly knocked sideways by Belt's products. The fact that this has occurred over many years may be significant. I have tested the products on many audio naive individuals, who have all heard something under reasonably blind conditions, but there are many problems. Firstly, audio is not a priority in many peoples' lives, and the industry has some responsibility there. Secondly, even if it is, many think the whole Belt process is just too strange; a good friend once said 'It's obviously a load of nonsense, but could you treat my system?'. And I did to good and appreciated effect. One particular Britsh Company may still not have removed Belt's devices from their listening room. I don't 'out' the closet Belters, but I don't deny their existence.

 If people are interested, there are many free Belt tips - they'll annoy you though - which can be tried without getting foil. Some do relate to the freezer. The question of why some things don't work, or there is no response is important, and I don't have all of the answers. But for some they do work, and how. This is worth reporting, and I believe should not be attributed to a psychological process that is poorly understood. I obviously relate back to medicine for a number of reasons, but there is no treatment yet that works 100% for everyone.

 As for the pressure of the Belt marketting - are you serious? In England there are tweaky company's like Russ Andrews that advertise, send out fliers, all in glossy forms, with twisted science filling the text. But this has always been so, and the nonsense that Linn propagated in the late '70s (which so many swallowed) shows how the great and the good fall into feeling science must pervade. I would like your view on Belt's strategy, as I find it too understated. How would you know he existed? Doesn't quite fit with the character of a con artist. Also, how could anyone really advertise Belt's work, when the ideas and products are so out of keeping with all else?

 Curiously, Linn's single speaker dem. mission in the early '80s pre-echoed some of Belt's later ideas. But more than this - whilst some of Belt's products are not cheap (with reason) some are scarcely more than the price of a CD. 

 I think there is plenty of evidence to suggest that Belt is not playing a trick, and if he is misguided, it is surely in believing that people are going take kindly to his works.

 Much more can be said, if anything is of further interest.

 Richard


----------



## classe

Yes this was my first posting because a friend of mine who knows i've tried P.W.B. told me there was a discussion on this forum.
 Untill a few days ago i did not know that Head-Fi exists.
 But now i know, so i will visit Head-Fi everyday.
 The test with my father: he could choose 3 discs. All different music.
 First disc.
 First he listen to the 'original' cd.
 Then i send him away to another room/kitchen.
 Step 2: i placed foil on the disc. He listen again.
 He said that the second time it has more detail etc.

 Second disc.
 First he listened to the original.
 Step 2 i did NOT place foil on the disc.
 I was hoping he would say that the second was better. But NO he said is was the same as last time (original). 

 Third disc.
 I send him again to another room.
 I placed the foil and let him listen.
 Then for the last time i send him away.
 Now i let him listen to the disc without the foil.
 And he said the first time he heard the disc it was better.

 So i thought this was a good blind-test.
 It takes some time but the results are real.
 He listened on a
 Cd-player Denon 1650
 Amp. Denon pma 2000
 Interconnect Cardas Golden Ref.
 Speakercable Monster Z1
 Speaker Translator impact 30. (Dutch)

 Maybe you will hear more difference on a more expensive set-up.
 In my set-up it works.
 With kind regards Bernhard.


----------



## PinkFloyd

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *radrd* 
_BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!

 You're lucky I'm busy right now. Maybe if this thread is still alive sometime this weekend I'll sit down type out some more crap for you to get pissed off about. Maybe I'll actually take your advice and get out a Thesaurus. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 As is frequently the case, Eric is right. If you ignore me, I'll probably get bored and go away. Maybe._

 

Belt up!


----------



## zotjen

When this whole thread got started I also requested a free sample of rainbow foil. Although I've had it for a couple of weeks, I only really had a chance to experiment with it the past couple of days. I'll start out by saying that I'm the kind of person who has an open mind and is at least willing to give people the benefit of the doubt. I won't easily dismiss an idea simply because it sounds too far fetched. I will admit that the concept of putting a little piece of foil on a CD to improve the sound does seem a little bit out there, but I had nothing to lose by trying it myself. 

 I chose two CD's to test it out - Carlo Bergonzi Sings Giuseppe Verdi and Praga Khan Mixed Up. I'll admit these are probably not the best CD's to test with but they are the only ones I have duplicates of. I started with the Bergonzi CDs, placing a piece of foil on one. I then put both CDs label side down and shuffled them around. I selected one making sure I didn't see the label, listened to one track, and then did the same with the other disc listening to the same track. I then made my decision as to which one had the foil and checked to see if I was correct. Once I had my answer I shuffled the CDs again and listened to another track. I did this for three tracks with the Bergonzi CDs. I then followed the same procedure for the Praga Khan CDs listening to five different tracks.

 In all eight tests, I correctly identified which CD had the foil on it. I hardly consider myself an audiophile so I was quite surprised with the results. I will admit that three out of the eight times were merely a guess, but I did somehow manage to guess right. Although there wasn't a huge difference, I did notice slightly more detail here and there. Vocals were also a tiny bit clearer and bass had a little more punch. 

 To verfiy that it wasn't simply a matter of one CD sounding better than the other, I switched the foil on the Praga Khan CD and tested using the same procedure, listening to three tracks. Again, I identified the CD with the foil all three times although one was more of a guess.

 Although I also do believe in the power of suggestion, I don't feel it was in play here. At no point did I know whether or not the CD I was listening to had the foil on it. I didn't know which CD was supposed to sound better. This is important for me at least because prior to receiving my sample of foil, I did try the experiment listed on Peter Belt's website involving placing photographs in the freezer. I must say that when I tried this, as much as I was hoping there would be, I heard no discernible difference in sound even though I knew when the music should have sounded better. Even where the power of suggestion could have come into play, for me it didn't.

 I suppose it's possible for people who immediately dismiss the concept of rainbow foil before even trying it not to hear any difference when they do try it simply because they don't want to hear it. The same people could also argue that I heard a difference because I wanted to, however that does not explain how I was able to correctly pick the CD with the foil eleven times out of eleven when I didn't know which one had it. From a statistical standpoint I suppose it's possible, but what are the chances? Try flipping a coin eleven times in a row and see if you get heads every time.

 That said, I will admit that for me, I don't think that the minor improvement in sound justifies the cost of the foil. This should in no way imply that the foil is not beneficial. In my view the product definitely works. I just did not get enough out of it to warrant its expense. You wouldn't by a new amp if didn't provide a substantial enough improvement in sound, would you? 

 I still intend to do more testing with the foil, placing it on different components, etc. I also plan on trying it out with my brother, to see if he can tell a difference.

 Tom


----------



## tomek

Pinkie, I for one have believed and supported you this entire time. I have my own rainbow foil that I ordered from Peter Belt and I read many of the articles about it, mostly written by _open minded_ skeptics that gave it a try and were shocked with the results.

 Anyways, it's very entertaining to see guys with 400 dollar interconnects calling you an idiot for using a free tweak.

 Like mysticism is so much worse than pseudoscience!


----------



## PinkFloyd

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tomek* 
_ I have my own rainbow foil that I ordered from Peter Belt and I read many of the articles about it, mostly written by open minded skeptics that gave it a try and were shocked with the results.
_

 

Did your "free" sample make your music sound any better?


 Pinkie.


----------



## eric343

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *zotjen* 
_I was able to correctly pick the CD with the foil eleven times out of eleven when I didn't know which one had it. From a statistical standpoint I suppose it's possible, but what are the chances? Try flipping a coin eleven times in a row and see if you get heads every time._

 

This is very interesting, especially since the tests you performed were almost identical to mine. The only difference is that my tests were performed using CD-R copies of the same CD, instead of original (duplicate) CDs.


----------



## myself, aka me

Does something of equal weight also cause the same effect? What if you put it on the clear bit on the inside of the CD rather than the outside edge?

 As for the coin, I got 7 heads from 11 tosses, and my music still sounds the same.


----------



## eric343

OK, if my math is right, the odds of getting 11 out of 11 tosses is 0.5^11, or 5 in 10,000. By that same measure, 7 in a row is 8 in 1000... bonus points to anyone who can get the odds of 7 out of 11, not necessarily in a row


----------



## John Reeves

Hi,

 I've been reading this post and I am sure I will be flamed for my response but what the hell. First of all I have not tried the "magic" foil and don't intend to, since I consider it an insult to my inteligence that sticking foil on something unrelated to the sound system improves the sound. This falls in line with the sort of crap such as pyramids to sharpen a razor blade, magic crystals which heal you, and crystal ball gazing.

 I am open minded when there is a chance that sound can be improved by tweaks, and have tried loads over the years. Yes, turntable stands make a difference, yes speaker stands and positioning make a difference, yes damping of components can make a difference, but come on, sticking a bit of foil on something improves the sound -you've got to be kidding.

 However, I am willing to be convinced and even spend money if anyone can give a scientific explanation as to why this is supposed to work.

 I have to go now, my personal astrologer has arrived.


----------



## tortie

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *John Reeves* 
_
 However, I am willing to be convinced and even spend money if anyone can give a scientific explanation as to why this is supposed to work.
_

 

Here's a link to Peter Belt's site:

http://www.belt.demon.co.uk/product/...pwbdevice.html


----------



## ipodstudio

Darn, is this thread still going?? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Well, with 11,000 views at least the entire community now knows about Rainbow Foil..


----------



## John Reeves

Dear Tortie,

 Thanks for the link. I read the contents with amazement. What a load of pseudo scientific mumbo jumbo. If anything, this has put me off even more. Energy fields sounds like ectoplasm - crap. How are these measured? Talk about new age mysticism!! I checked my Harry Potter spell book and there is no mention of energy fields so they can't exist - right?


----------



## tomek

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PinkFloyd* 
_Did your "free" sample make your music sound any better?


 Pinkie._

 

I haven't done any direct comparisons. I'm just getting to know my system still and want to give it some more time to develop a 'longer term memory' of how it sounds. 

 Then I plan on doing what you did. Putting it on one copy, then the other. I'm not expecting much but I'm keeping an open mind. I've had a lot of trouble telling the difference between the 'well established' tweaks such as cables, cd mats. 

 I do wish that people would put aside their arrogant, snobbish attitudes for just one minute and consider the possiblity that factors affecting our enjoyment of the music do extend beyond only engineering/tech factors. It takes only a very brief reflection to realize that the _enjoyment_ of your music varies from day to day while the electrical/mechanical reproductive elements have stayed the same. There's something to that so I think that posterity will show that Belt was onto something, even if his exact methods may not be perfect.

 I'm currently reading a nice toilet type book called '100 Greatest Scientists of History'. Each two page spread is dedicated to a great scientist of our past, going back to ancient Greece up to present times. It's quite amazing how many of them died in either shame or anonymity only to be recognized as geniuses much later. Often, they were ridiculed by their peers and other great thinkers of their time. 

 It just goes to show, as I've had the misfortune and dissapointment to discover, that intelligence doesn't necessarily mean open mindedness. I myself have been quite shocked at people's reaction to this, many of them dismissing it without taking the opportunity to even try a FREE sample. Then they're quite content to shell out a load of cash for Bybee filters, cd mats and cables with secret esoteric geometries.

 oh well!

 I'll keep you posted Pinkie when I get around to trying the foil.


----------



## rodbac

Man, I check back in for some giggles and the fourth post I read gets my goat- I'm pathetic...:

  Quote:


 I do wish that people would put aside their arrogant, snobbish attitudes for just one minute and consider the possiblity that factors affecting our enjoyment of the music do extend beyond only engineering/tech factors. It takes only a very brief reflection to realize that the enjoyment of your music varies from day to day while the electrical/mechanical reproductive elements have stayed the same. 
 

Tomek, here's the thing: for us to accept that the tin foil has made a difference, we would also have to accept that the color of your socks might have also had something to do with it (for reasons I'll give you below), so then where are we left? IOW, by claiming that it does nothing to the music itself, but only to your perception, you're explaining nothing that your socks couldn't also explain. It's pointless to post your "impressions" as if they have any meaning to anybody but yourself.

 FIRST PROBLEM: It seems some here want to be able to claim their opinions are above reproach because the whole thing is in their head (it was your _perception_ and therefore can't be dismissed), yet take offense to being told that the foil (or whatever) did absolutely nothing to the music (that it was all in their head)! If you think of it being in your head (it was all your perception) as a positive, so be it, but don't get all indignant when others rightfully point out that it means nothing to anybody else because it was all in your head.

  Quote:


 I'm currently reading a nice toilet type book called '100 Greatest Scientists of History'. Each two page spread is dedicated to a great scientist of our past, going back to ancient Greece up to present times. It's quite amazing how many of them died in either shame or anonymity only to be recognized as geniuses much later. Often, they were ridiculed by their peers and other great thinkers of their time. 
 

SECOND PROBLEM: Digital audio is NOT quantum theory, some mysterious field where we're only beginning to understand the mechanisms- it's quite basic and very well understood, ie. *we're not guessing how this stuff works!*

 The laser that reads the 1s and 0s on the CD can't see the foil, and it doesn't read atmospheric light inside the chamber. It is impossible for it to have any effect whatsoever on the sound, unless it's throwing off the balance of the CD causing it to not read at all. Further, even if the foil was able to be somehow read by the laser, do you think the spectral lines would somehow communicate something intelligible to the electronics, "opening up the soundstage"?

  Quote:


 It just goes to show, as I've had the misfortune and dissapointment to discover, that intelligence doesn't necessarily mean open mindedness. 
 

Read up on the difference between "open minded" and "gullible", and think hard how it might apply to something like this.

 Next, read up on how CD players work.

 Then, go take a class in one of the following subjects at your local JC: critical thinking, beginning philosophy, or forensics, and maybe even a couple low-level science courses so the purpose and rationale behind the scientific method will be explained to you (and you won't think those who insist on it being at least loosely applied are just doing so to be a-holes).

  Quote:


 I'll keep you posted Pinkie when I get around to trying the foil. 
 

Don't bother- Pinkie was just fcking with you.


----------



## tortie

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *John Reeves* 
_Dear Tortie,

 Thanks for the link. I read the contents with amazement. What a load of pseudo scientific mumbo jumbo. If anything, this has put me off even more. Energy fields sounds like ectoplasm - crap. How are these measured? Talk about new age mysticism!! I checked my Harry Potter spell book and there is no mention of energy fields so they can't exist - right?_

 

LOL 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 You will have to wait for the sixth book to find out for sure


----------



## greenhorn

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rodbac* 
_Don't bother- Pinkie was just fcking with you._

 

Well...

http://www5.head-fi.org/forums/showthread.php?t=69658


----------



## tomek

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rodbac* 
_Man, I check back in for some giggles and the fourth post I read gets my goat- I'm pathetic...:

 Tomek, here's the thing: for us to accept that the tin foil has made a difference, we would also have to accept that the color of your socks might have also had something to do with it (for reasons I'll give you below), so then where are we left? IOW, by claiming that it does nothing to the music itself, but only to your perception, you're explaining nothing that your socks couldn't also explain. It's pointless to post your "impressions" as if they have any meaning to anybody but yourself.

 FIRST PROBLEM: It seems some here want to be able to claim their opinions are above reproach because the whole thing is in their head (it was your perception and therefore can't be dismissed), yet take offense to being told that the foil (or whatever) did absolutely nothing to the music (that it was all in their head)! If you think of it being in your head (it was all your perception) as a positive, so be it, but don't get all indignant when others rightfully point out that it means nothing to anybody else because it was all in your head.



 SECOND PROBLEM: Digital audio is NOT quantum theory, some mysterious field where we're only beginning to understand the mechanisms- it's quite basic and very well understood, ie. *we're not guessing how this stuff works!*

 The laser that reads the 1s and 0s on the CD can't see the foil, and it doesn't read atmospheric light inside the chamber. It is impossible for it to have any effect whatsoever on the sound, unless it's throwing off the balance of the CD causing it to not read at all. Further, even if the foil was able to be somehow read by the laser, do you think the spectral lines would somehow communicate something intelligible to the electronics, "opening up the soundstage"?



 Read up on the difference between "open minded" and "gullible", and think hard how it might apply to something like this.

 Next, read up on how CD players work.

 Then, go take a class in one of the following subjects at your local JC: critical thinking, beginning philosophy, or forensics, and maybe even a couple low-level science courses so the purpose and rationale behind the scientific method will be explained to you (and you won't think those who insist on it being at least loosely applied are just doing so to be a-holes).



 Don't bother- Pinkie was just fcking with you._

 

I appreciate your suggestion that I enroll myself in a junior college, but I think it's you that needs to enroll in grade school to learn how to read.

 At no point do your two so called 'problems' relate to anything that I said. I don't think Pinkie is upset that others can't verify his claims when they try rainbow foil. In fact, several have actually tried it and the blind tests are quite surprising. I think he has taken offence to the type of comments he has been faced with after posting that he heard a difference.

 as for your second problem, I have no idea why you are explaining to me how a cd player works. i never claimed that the rainbow foil did anything to the cd player at all. the open mindedness that i refered to was in considering that there might be more to enjoying audio than the gear itself. what is called 'placebo' by us and seems like just a nuisance that gets in the way of our determing which equipment is better could actually be looked at more closely as an effect worth studying itself.

 it's quite amazing to see the degree and consistency of difference that expensive cables make when A/B'd they make no difference at all.

 all I'm saying is that there is a lot more out there, and we should be intrigued by Pinkie's findings and his efforts to report what he found instead of taking this chance to jump all over him and insult him and any idea that strays from what we're used to.

 And as for the difference between gullible and openminded, i'd like to remind you that all i'm asking is you _consider_ the possibility that you can approach audio from another angle. I guess all the people that have received free samples of rainbow foil are GULLIBLE?

 EDIT: My cable comment was a reference to the recent threads about some headfi members who have experienced differences in cables only to lose those differences when the cables were A/B'd blind.


----------



## PinkFloyd

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tomek* 
_I appreciate your suggestion that I enroll myself in a junior college, but I think it's you that needs to enroll in grade school to learn how to read._

 

Good point tomek, it seems to me that certain people are just here to jump in with silly comments / observations and have not actually read what this thread is all about. They are selective perceivers who filter out anything that may be informative and only home in on sentences that they think they can quote and ridicule. We are adding fuel to their campaign by replying to them and I feel it prudent that their comments go unrecognised unless they have something constructive to add to this thread. If these people were talking from experience and had actually tried a "free" sample then their comments would be appreciated. It's easy for someone to say "rainbow foil is a joke" without trying it, it's also easy for someone to say "God doesn't exist" though a lot of people feel the presence of God in their lives even though he / she is an invisible force (I don't believe there is a God by the way but that's by the by) 


  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tomek* 
_At no point do your two so called 'problems' relate to anything that I said. I don't think Pinkie is upset that others can't verify his claims when they try rainbow foil. In fact, several have actually tried it and the blind tests are quite surprising. I think he has taken offence to the type of comments he has been faced with after posting that he heard a difference._

 

I'm not promoting Rainbow foil, I'm presenting my findings as "I" found them. If it works for people then great but if others can't hear any difference then that's equally cool....... ces't la vie. Everybody is different and people have different expectations and experiences of products........ I'd rather read 100 posts from people who have tried the Rainbow foil saying it is "crap" than read 1 post from a joker who "assumes" it doesn't do anything based on nothing other than his / her imagination. 


  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tomek* 
_as for your second problem, I have no idea why you are explaining to me how a cd player works. i never claimed that the rainbow foil did anything to the cd player at all. the open mindedness that i refered to was in considering that there might be more to enjoying audio than the gear itself. what is called 'placebo' by us and seems like just a nuisance that gets in the way of our determing which equipment is better could actually be looked at more closely as an effect worth studying itself._

 

I very much doubt Rodbec could explain what a capacitor does, let alone write a theosis (in his own words) on the inner workings of a CD player but I'd love Rodbec to prove me wrong on that one.


  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tomek* 
_it's quite amazing to see the degree and consistency of difference that expensive cables make when A/B'd they make no difference at all._

 

Can't comment on that one tomek 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tomek* 
_all I'm saying is that there is a lot more out there, and we should be intrigued by Pinkie's findings and his efforts to report what he found instead of taking this chance to jump all over him and insult him and any idea that strays from what we're used to._

 

Criticism from those armed with their experience of a certain product is, not only, accepted but is welcomed. Ill informed statements from people who's comments originate from their imagination are ignored, unless their imagination is imaginative and then they will be considered............ Thing is, there is really no reason for the imagination to play a part in this as PWB are offering "free" samples so everyone here has the opportunity to try the Rainbow foil...... I can't understand the need to "assume" when the stuff is free to try 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tomek* 
_And as for the difference between gullible and openminded, i'd like to remind you that all i'm asking is you consider the possibility that you can approach audio from another angle. I guess all the people that have received free samples of rainbow foil are GULLIBLE?_

 

The people that received free samples are far from gullible! They've got some Rainbow foil and a re-usable jiffy bag (if nothing else) and have been treated to an enjoyable head-fi thread. The naysayers have even been hooked on this thread....... Biggest thread in cables, power, tweaks ever...... "power of the rainbow", "divine intervention", "The power of the almighty" or "pot luck"? think about it 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Pinkie.


----------



## rodbac

Tomek says “At no point do your two so called 'problems' relate to anything that I said”, so let’s explore it:

 Earlier Tomek called naysayers (presumably not just in this thread) “arrogant and snobbish”. Rather than take him to task for inappropriately harsh language for people who point out that it’s impossible for a piece of tape on the label side of a CD to affect the sound, I skip that and go straight to a simple paragraph to explain to him what the problem is with his contention that there is something to test (considering how everyone else has already stated it’s all perception and that the tape does precisely nothing) and why his “test” results would be exactly as much use to us as his toenail clippings. So I will grant him this one- I should have explained more thoroughly why his "arrogant and snobbish" comment was misplaced and that I was explaining why.

 Then Tomek stated that he was reading a book about scientists whose genius wasn’t realized until long after their death (presumably when we finally gained an understanding of their chosen subjects and realized they were right all along). I then explained that in 2004 a CD player and digital sound reproduction is not a field we’re just beginning to understand, that we understand the mechanism very, very well and aren’t _guessing_ that the tape will make no difference- we KNOW it won’t.

 So it’s *my* reading comprehension that needs to be honed, huh? If you still think so, I’ll head back to 4th grade immediately…

 And, yes, Tomek- I AM saying that anybody who thinks rainbow foil on the label side of a CD can affect the sound in any positive way is indeed gullible.

  Quote:


 I very much doubt Rodbec could explain what a capacitor does, let alone write a theosis (in his own words) on the inner workings of a CD player but I'd love Rodbec to prove me wrong on that one. 
 

No “theosis” from me, Pinkie- I’m guessing about all of it. You mysterious music machines confuse and frighten me- it reads WHAT? With a what? Is it light- is it sound?? I don’t know!!! Man, I'm SO far out of my league...

 Hasta boys. That's all for now.


----------



## ooheadsoo

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ipodstudio* 
_Darn, is this thread still going?? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Well, with 11,000 views at least the entire community now knows about Rainbow Foil..
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Haha, my sentiments exactly.


----------



## radrd

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tomek* 
_I do wish that people would put aside their arrogant, snobbish attitudes for just one minute and consider the possiblity that factors affecting our enjoyment of the music do extend beyond only engineering/tech factors. It takes only a very brief reflection to realize that the enjoyment of your music varies from day to day while the electrical/mechanical reproductive elements have stayed the same. There's something to that so I think that posterity will show that Belt was onto something, even if his exact methods may not be perfect._

 

I won't discount the placebo effect. I just think you people are morons for embracing it in this fashion. In fact, I love the placebo effect. I know that my music sounds better when I am in a good mood, and I know it sounds better with I am looking at a sunset or even (potentially) looking at a piece of rainbow foil if you want. It sounds better at night too, as well as when I'm not tired.

 But that doesn't mean I'm going to believe in a bunch of bullsh*t about negative and positive energy affecting my mind. My mind affects itself. Period. (Unless I were drunk or high of course, which is measurable through real science)

 I'd rather listen to music and watch the sun go down than waste time and eventually money pasting foil all over my gear, not to mention supporting some scam artist, but YMMV.

 And don't give me any crap about my hypocrisy because I don't believe that cables generally make a difference either.


----------



## eric343

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rodbac* 
_ I then explained that in 2004 a CD player and digital sound reproduction is not a field we’re just beginning to understand, that we understand the mechanism very, very well and aren’t guessing that the tape will make no difference- we KNOW it won’t._

 

BS... anyone who thinks we know everything about anything is wrong. First rule of science... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Just ask any fresh-out-of-college EE whether high-fidelity interconnnects could POSSIBLY sound any better than coathangers.

 Seriously, though, I suspect that the rainbow foil is indeed a placebo effect, and that more testing under better controlled testing is necessary to authoritatively prove it one way or another.

 With that said, however, your abrasive attitude (though well-intentioned) isn't helping anything. There are two articles in the latest issue of _Skeptical Inquirer_ that deal very well with this topic; I highly recommend that everyone in this thread pick up a copy. It's an excellent magazine (cover aside) in general, too -- speaking as someone with a subscription.


----------



## tomek

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rodbac* 
_
 Earlier Tomek called naysayers (presumably not just in this thread) “arrogant and snobbish”. Rather than take him to task for inappropriately harsh language for people who point out that it’s impossible for a piece of tape on the label side of a CD to affect the sound, I skip that and go straight to a simple paragraph to explain to him what the problem is with his contention that there is something to test (considering how everyone else has already stated it’s all perception and that the tape does precisely nothing) and why his “test” results would be exactly as much use to us as his toenail clippings. 
_

 

Hey, Rodbac, it doesn't help when you make an unjustified, presumptuos statement like this. My comment about what I thought was 'arrogant and snobbish' was not directed at people that didn't think rainbow foil could affect sound, but at those who wouldn't consider the possibilty that audio enjoyment extends beyond the realm of the gear itself. 

 Perhaps the problem hear really is your inability to read exactly what was written without filling in the subtext with your own prejudices?


  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rodbac* 
_Then Tomek stated that he was reading a book about scientists whose genius wasn’t realized until long after their death (presumably when we finally gained an understanding of their chosen subjects and realized they were right all along). I then explained that in 2004 a CD player and digital sound reproduction is not a field we’re just beginning to understand, that we understand the mechanism very, very well and aren’t guessing that the tape will make no difference- we KNOW it won’t._

 

Once again, I never implied that the rainbow foil acted directly upon the cd player. However, I agree with Eric that it's quite foolish to think we know everything and I wonder why every year companies continue to make new players when there is nothing new to learn.

 My reference to the book about scientists was about paradigm shifts, which are rarely recognized and appreciated in their time. I was suggesting that Peter Belt's work could be considered a paradigm shift because it looks at audio from an entirely new direction. 


  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rodbac* 
_And, yes, Tomek- I AM saying that anybody who thinks rainbow foil on the label side of a CD can affect the sound in any positive way is indeed gullible._

 

Well, here we disagree. I took 5 seconds to write an email to Peter Belt and two days later I had a free sample of Rainbow Foil airmailed from the UK. It cost me nothing and it was interesting to try. I did have an open mind because I read several articles about it which surprisingly showed a positive benefit. 

 I don't think you need to take your skeptics high ground with me because if you've ever read any of my posts you'd know that I don't believe in anything just because people have recommended it and I don't fall for the trends and fads of Head-Fi.


----------



## tomek

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *eric343* 
_BS... anyone who thinks we know everything about anything is wrong. First rule of science... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Just ask any fresh-out-of-college EE whether high-fidelity interconnnects could POSSIBLY sound any better than coathangers.

 Seriously, though, I suspect that the rainbow foil is indeed a placebo effect, and that more testing under better controlled testing is necessary to authoritatively prove it one way or another.

 With that said, however, your abrasive attitude (though well-intentioned) isn't helping anything. There are two articles in the latest issue of Skeptical Inquirer that deal very well with this topic; I highly recommend that everyone in this thread pick up a copy. It's an excellent magazine (cover aside) in general, too -- speaking as someone with a subscription._

 

Which month's issue is this? I just got my subscription, but I'm not sure if it will include the magazine you're talking about.


----------



## Earwax

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PinkFloyd* 
_This thread was originally intended as a belated April fools joke but the longer it went on, the more I realised how Head-fi was lacking in new ideas / content etc. The thread is barely one month old yet it's had 11,000 views and 353 replies does that show you how stale the Sennheiser debate on Head-Fi had become?

 IMO Rainbow foil is nothing more than "tin foil" and Peter Belt is a jester, A Jester who offered free samples nonetheless and he must be respected for that.

 This thread has been a diversion from the norm and I trust it has been informative and entertaining.

 Pinkie._

 

It may have started as an April Fools joke, but I thought it developed into a challenge to *both* the "believers" and "skeptics" groups to re-examine their usual assumptions. 

 I never thought it was a simple attempt to poke fun at anyone.


----------



## PinkFloyd

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Earwax* 
_It may have started as an April Fools joke, but I thought it developed into a challenge to *both* the "believers" and "skeptics" groups to re-examine their usual assumptions. 

 I never thought it was a simple attempt to poke fun at anyone._

 

Yawn......... read the 2 posts "after" the one you have quoted above.

 Cheers


----------



## Earwax

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tomek* 
_Anyways, it's very entertaining to see guys with 400 dollar interconnects calling you an idiot for using a free tweak.
_


----------



## PinkFloyd

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rodbac* 
_
 So it’s *my* reading comprehension that needs to be honed, huh? If you still think so, I’ll head back to 4th grade immediately…
_

 

Rodbec,

 You refer to "school" quite a lot as if it's the be all and end all and what you were taught in school is written in stone. School gives you the basics but doesn't allow you to think, there are set questions and set answers.

 You develop your own opinions and ideas after leaving school so don't keep referring to all the set pieces you were taught at school...... take it a step further and start thinking for yourself.

 Just because you pass a driving test doesn't make you a good driver.... it means you have displayed the "basics" to an examiner and are allowed on the road if you pass your test. It's then up to you to either become a great driver or a hazard to other road users. your driving skills will only get better through "your" experience on the road..... nobody can teach you to be a good driver. Similarly, nobody can teach you life skills....... you have to learn them yourself. Eventually, you'll forget all the crap you were "taught" at school and will learn from your experience of life.

 Pinkie.


----------



## 10068

This thread is still alive and kickin? JEEZ. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 The next post needs to be something SO awful that the thread gets closed. I think having a thread like this closed @ 420 posts would be apt for such a silly topic.


----------



## PinkFloyd

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Nigel* 
_Pinkie,

 Can you truthfully detect any differences in sound quality using the Rainbow Foil?_

 

Yes Nigel, 

 I wouldn't have said I heard a difference if there was no difference. I think you know by now that I say it as I see it and I don't paper over the cracks or sensationalise or embellish things. I call a spade a spade and, generally, despise marketing BS and rip off merchants and do my best to expose to the world how audiophiles are being ripped of left right and centre by "audio boutiques" and "audio manufacturers" who are flogging a box of £40 electronics for £****

 I'm surprised, you of all people, should ask that question. On this occasion, I commented on a "free" sample which worked for me and thought I'd share it with Head-Fi. Nobody, apart from PWB, can lose (PWB spent £6 on postage alone sending me the Free sample along with a bundle of info) 

 Mike.


----------



## 10068

The question is if the difference was for the better. I seem to remember an older post of yours, where, in a blind test between a standard and "foiled" CD, you actually chose the original over the foiled version as sounding better. I think somebody postulized that the foil was putting the CD off-balance and adding to jitter or something to that effect.


----------



## PinkFloyd

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Sduibek* 
_This thread is still alive and kickin? JEEZ. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 The next post needs to be something SO awful that the thread gets closed. I think having a thread like this closed @ 420 posts would be apt for such a silly topic.










_

 

I can't wait to witness your "sensible" thread that can beat 420 posts 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 This is a class thread which stimulates and educates in more ways than one and I think it "apt" that you shouldn't post silly comments as they only detract from the serious (and fun) nature of this debate  

 All the best.

 Pinkie.


----------



## 10068

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PinkFloyd* 
_Yes Nigel,

 I wouldn't have said I heard a difference if there was no difference._

 

 Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Sduibek* 
_The question is if the difference was for the better. I seem to remember an older post of yours, where, in a blind test between a standard and "foiled" CD, you actually chose the original over the foiled version as sounding better. I think somebody postulized that the foil was putting the CD off-balance and adding to jitter or something to that effect._

 

If it's so serious, why haven't you yet responded to my serious comment above? 

 HA! I win.


----------



## rodbac

Quote:


 You refer to "school" quite a lot as if it's the be all and end all and what you were taught in school is written in stone. School gives you the basics but doesn't allow you to think, there are set questions and set answers.

 You develop your own opinions and ideas after leaving school so don't keep referring to all the set pieces you were taught at school...... take it a step further and start thinking for yourself. 
 

Pinkie, you're showing exactly how little "school" you have experienced, I'm now thinking, so don't take this too personally.

 "School" doesn't refer to just those classes that have "set questions and set answers", like calculus and history. "School" refers to education, which is, ideally, when *you're also taught HOW to think, not just WHAT to think*. Your thoughts in this thread show very clearly that you are lacking in the former, but I don't mean this as an insult to you- I think you're likely intelligent enough to grasp whatever is thrown at you. However, you've shown a marked inability to distinguish between what's plausible or possible and what's complete ********, and for that, I'm a bit sorry for you.

 You're correct that you will indeed continue to develop opinions and ideas after you complete your formal education- the question is whether those opinons and ideas are going to be based on informed, critical thought processes, or, as has been demonstrated in this thread, on pseudoscience mumbo jumbo like "Dr. Belt" bombards you with when you order magic tape from him. Start thinking for myself indeed...

 Now, back to your alien abductions and magic tape...


----------



## PinkFloyd

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Sduibek* 
_The question is if the difference was for the better. I seem to remember an older post of yours, where, in a blind test between a standard and "foiled" CD, you actually chose the original over the foiled version as sounding better. I think somebody postulized that the foil was putting the CD off-balance and adding to jitter or something to that effect._

 

For crying out loud man......... e-mail PWB ....... subject "free rainbow foil sample" and type your name and address in. Try it for yourself?

 In one test the foil treated CD sounded better, in the other I felt the foil made the recording sound slightly veiled. In both scenarios the foil had an audible effect. I've since stuck a strip on the PCB of my amp, CD player and headphones and I've also (call me mad) attached a strip to my deep freezer and can honestly say that my music sounds more "organic" and easier to listen to as a result...... when I say "easier" to listen to I mean the "vibe" and the "groove" comes to you....... you don't have to try to connect.

 Treating all of your CD's with Rainbow foil would prove expensive. I reckon treating your source, amplification, freezer and headphones with the free sample is a good starting point........ "FREE" I hear a noticeable improvement........ not a major "immediate" audible improvement but I'm interpreting the vibes in a new way and , consequently, getting into the music a lot deeper.

 Pinkie.

 And......... I'm being 100% serious. Once again......... try the free sample and give it a go, you've got nothing to lose.


----------



## Bayerdynamic

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rodbac* 
_Pinkie, you're showing exactly how little "school" you have experienced, I'm now thinking, so don't take this too personally.

 "School" doesn't refer to just those classes that have "set questions and set answers", like calculus and history. "School" refers to education, which is, ideally, when *you're also taught HOW to think, not just WHAT to think*. Your thoughts in this thread show very clearly that you are lacking in the former, but I don't mean this as an insult to you- I think you're likely intelligent enough to grasp whatever is thrown at you. However, you've shown a marked inability to distinguish between what's plausible or possible and what's complete ********, and for that, I'm a bit sorry for you.

 You're correct that you will indeed continue to develop opinions and ideas after you complete your formal education- the question is whether those opinons and ideas are going to be based on informed, critical thought processes, or, as has been demonstrated in this thread, on pseudoscience mumbo jumbo like "Dr. Belt" bombards you with when you order magic tape from him. Start thinking for myself indeed...

 Now, back to your alien abductions and magic tape... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

This thread has been highly entertaining and I'd like to thank PinkFloyd for that.
 Rodbac, I respect your views that you don't believe in the rainbow foil and other things like that. Since I enjoy reading this thread and don't want it to be closed down: you can't just say to PinkFloyd "I'm sorry for you... but don't take that as an insult" - sorry but how is that supposed to work? Well, don't take this as an insult.
 About the rainbow foil: I have ordered a sample myself and will definately try it out. However, I don't think people who don't believe in this will believe it no matter how many people post their impressions .... unless they try for themselves.


----------



## PinkFloyd

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rodbac* 
_Pinkie, you're showing exactly how little "school" you have experienced, I'm now thinking, so don't take this too personally.

 "School" doesn't refer to just those classes that have "set questions and set answers", like calculus and history. "School" refers to education, which is, ideally, when *you're also taught HOW to think, not just WHAT to think*. Your thoughts in this thread show very clearly that you are lacking in the former, but I don't mean this as an insult to you- I think you're likely intelligent enough to grasp whatever is thrown at you. However, you've shown a marked inability to distinguish between what's plausible or possible and what's complete ********, and for that, I'm a bit sorry for you.

 You're correct that you will indeed continue to develop opinions and ideas after you complete your formal education- the question is whether those opinons and ideas are going to be based on informed, critical thought processes, or, as has been demonstrated in this thread, on pseudoscience mumbo jumbo like "Dr. Belt" bombards you with when you order magic tape from him. Start thinking for myself indeed...

 Now, back to your alien abductions and magic tape... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Jude...... can you introduce a "yawn" smiley to the menu?


----------



## eric343

Sduibek, you mentioned getting the thread closed through a purposely against the rules post. Well, the surest way to do that is to start posting personal attacks... Unfortunately, the insignificant little chunk of granite that passes for your gray matter obviously isn't capable of comprehending a matter of such enourmous complexity. Your repeated nonsensical postings in this thread have reflected so badly upon both your critical thinking skills and broccoli-eating ability that you've disgraced your family name for generations to come. I daresay that I wouldn't trust you to review a single brass-cone foot, much less trust your ability to think on these levels. So please, refrain from posting your idiotic, base, pointless, ill-thought, closeminded, cruel, greedy, self-serving, kleptomaniac, stupid, slow, short slothful, bimbo, sewersucking, belligerent, toadly, derelict, miserable, dirty, and ill-concieved notions in this thread.

 Can someone report me to a moderator?


----------



## tomek

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PinkFloyd* 
_Treating all of your CD's with Rainbow foil would prove expensive. I reckon treating your source, amplification, freezer and headphones with the free sample is a good starting point........ "FREE" I hear a noticeable improvement........ not a major "immediate" audible improvement but I'm interpreting the vibes in a new way and , consequently, getting into the music a lot deeper._

 

Hey Pinkie, would you be kind enough to post exactly where and how to apply the tape to the source, amp and freezer? 

 I'm not looking for tweaks to improve 'sound quality' anymore, i'm moving towards finding ways to enjoy the music more.

 After shelling out many thousands on my stereo in the last few months, i've made the sad realization that while improved sound quality CAN improve enjoyment, it plays a much smaller factor than I once thought. There's something about grooving and connecting to the music that I find comes and goes with me...


----------



## PinkFloyd

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tomek* 
_Hey Pinkie, would you be kind enough to post exactly where and how to apply the tape to the source, amp and freezer? 

 I'm not looking for tweaks to improve 'sound quality' anymore, i'm moving towards finding ways to enjoy the music more.

 After shelling out many thousands on my stereo in the last few months, i've made the sad realization that while improved sound quality CAN improve enjoyment, it plays a much smaller factor than I once thought. There's something about grooving and connecting to the music that I find comes and goes with me..._

 

Hi Tomek,

 Your comments about grooving and connecting to the music are interesting as I experienced the same thing. One day I'dl be able to really get into the music and the next day I couldn't connect at all. Since the arrival of the Rainbow foil I've found my listening experience a lot more consistent and I am "enjoying" the music instead of analysing the "system".

 The environment in which you listen to music "can" affect, not only, your ability to enjoy the music but also your ability to relax. Peter Belts devices and feng shui are pretty closely connected as they both set out to create "positive" environments free from detrimental negative fields. Millions of people agree that feng shui "works" so why can't a few head-fiers get their minds round Peter Belts ideas? 

 Any skeptics should think about activating their education sector (the Northeast) with a crystal globe or a Wen Chang pagoda. This will help them open their minds. If they cannot sleep with their heads pointed towards their Fu Wei, they should sit facing their Fu Wei when they study. 


 Anyways, back to your question: I've applied foil to the PCB of my amp, a small piece to the front of my CD player, a piece to freezers mains plug, a large strip to my headphones and a couple of strips to the sides of the deep freeze.










 HD600's treated with rainbow foil and cream electret

 The foil does not change the information on a CD, doesn't make the freezer freeze any better and does not make the headphones perform any better. What it does do, in my opinion, is to change the perception of the music and the foil acts on the "person" and not on the equipment.

 I'm currently in the process of trying some cream electret in conjunction with the Rainbow foil. I applied some Cream electret to my Sennheiser HD600's (rubbed some into the cable and also on the headband) and my jaw dropped to the floor when I listened to the treated headphones! (seriously) I don't know what's in this stuff but it should be renamed "Magic cream" It's as if an energiser has been strapped onto the phones.... they sound a "lot" more vibrant with more energy, more impact and oodles of detail. I don't need to do a blind test.... the improvement in sound quality is "major"

 I have seriously never heard a "tweak" bring about such an enormous improvement and I have to keep slapping myself to make sure I'm not asleep and dreaming...... for god's sake I rubbed some white cream on my headphones and it's transformed the sound! This is beyond the realms of science and I can only class Peter Belt as a magician or a wizard, this stuff is "amazing" and I'll be applying it to the entire system.

 I'm off to cream electret my interconnects , CD player, amp and a few CD's and will report back later.

 All the best.

 Pinkie.


----------



## PinkFloyd

This is a free tweak that Peter Belt has made available to the audio world and even the skeptics should give this one a try. The full explanation as to how this works is given below the following pictures and it's worth reading in full.

 First of all arm yourself with a photo of a four legged animal (a photocopy or picture cut out of a magazine will do) Then cut a piece of white paper into a rectangular shape and pierce 5 holes in it as shown (make sure you can see daylight through the holes) Next up, go get an aspirin:






 Now place the 5 hole paper over the four legged animal photo and then place the aspirin over the centre hole. (note: you can glue the 5 hole paper onto the photo and glue the aspirin on if you are going to try treating your windows.... read the full instructions below)





 You can attach this tweak to windows, cables or any object with a narrow profile (read the full text below for details)





 [size=x-large]Full details: [/size] 

 Sourced from: http://www.belt.demon.co.uk/product/...pwbdevice.html

 The popular understanding of evolution is that all changes create only a significant and beneficial improvement to life. This is just not true. Nature is capable of creating a narrow evolutionary change which ignores any resulting and adverse changes to the pattern already established. 

 When Nature introduced the radical evolutionary change that necessitated human beings adopting a two legged upright stance, a new opportunity was created for radical development. Unfortunately, this leap into a new future was at the expense of losing part of the link to an essential past. 

 To understand the current situation, it is necessary to consider how the senses evolved. One of the first senses to evolve was the sense of hearing which evolved in the darkness at the bottom of the oceans. When life emerged from the environment at the bottom of the ocean and encountered light, the sense of sight began to evolve. Nature appears to always follow the path of least resistance and the sense of sight coupled itself to the already established pattern of sound energy recognition. A struggle for supremacy between the two senses has therefore been taking place for many years. 

 An added complication to the evolution of the senses with a direct effect on sight and an indirect effect on sound is the influence of all plant life on the energy pattern of light. 

 In order to increase the efficiency of the photosynthesis process, all plants and trees evolved a chemical process which encouraged the energy of light to enter the top surface of a leaf and to resist the entry of light on the underside of a leaf. This established an environmental energy pattern to which our sense of sight adjusted but which leaves our sense of hearing unable to adjust correctly. 

 We appreciate that a number of people will find the results of our research difficult to comprehend. We have therefore devised an extremely effective, free of charge experiment which we find totally convincing. All that is necessary is to take a small rectangle of plain white paper and, with a pin, pierce a hole in each of the four corners and one hole in the middle of the paper. These holes represent the four feet of a four legged life form and the centre hole represents the tail. The five holes have an additional function - in that they allow light to travel through the paper and to form an energy pattern that is compatible with the sense of hearing. This piece of paper with the five holes becomes even more effective when it is laid on top of a photographic illustration of a four legged life form. It should be noted that a photograph is a product of the modern environmental energy pattern of light and that any photograph can be beneficially manipulated with the paper pierced with the five holes. 

 When light energy is in contact with any and all objects, a situation is created that is always detrimental to our sense of hearing and some objects and materials create a chronic problem for our sense of hearing. The five hole pierced paper, combined with the photographic illustration of a four legged life form, readily exposes the adverse environmental energy patterns that adversely affect us. It should be noted that the brain deals with this problem by attenuating the sensitivity of the sense of hearing. 

 Because of the overwhelming influence, established by the plant life, on our senses, all objects are influenced by light to form an energy pattern which mimics the pattern created on a green leaf. Any narrow object such as a length of wire, a screwdriver, a writing pen, etc. will form an energy pattern from the central point, along it's length, to the two extreme ends. A larger flat object creates an energy pattern from it's central point to the four corners. All these energy patterns prevent the sense of hearing from creating stationary energy patterns on the objects within our environment. Without the ability to detect and then compare definite stationary energy against moving energy, the ability to perceive transient energy patterns is destroyed. 

 If the paper with the five holes is attached to the centre of an object with a narrow profile - such as a length of wire or a length of string - and a passage of music is listened to, and then the paper is removed and the same music is listened to again, a difference in the sound is readily perceived. The most significant problem created by all interconnecting wires is the problem exposed by this experiment. The problem exists on all types of interconnects, irrespective of their design or of their construction in any material. 

 The adverse effect of the closed spine of a book or the spine of a vinyl record cover, or the spine of a compact disc case should be evaluated by having the pierced piece of paper attached to the centre of the spine. The beneficial effect on your sense of hearing is readily perceived. 

 A material which has a special adverse effect on our sense of hearing is wood. Part of the process of enhancing the photosynthesis of plants has been incorporated into the trunk and branches of trees. This pattern is retained in all the wood that we use to construct objects within our close environment. If the five hole paper device is placed in the centre of any wood panel, particularly the panel of a loudspeaker cabinet, the process of listening to some music and then removing the device readily demonstrates the detrimental effect of using wood for this purpose. Aspirin is a medicine that is used throughout the world and many people may not be aware that it's origins were discovered in the bark of the willow tree. Evolutionary forces had encouraged the willow tree to absorb a specific chemical to enhance the ability of the tree to connect to the established energy patterns that belong to the previous era of our sense of hearing. Many of our instinctive behavioural patterns also belong to this era in evolutionary time. 

 If an aspirin tablet is placed over the central hole of the five hole white paper device, the association of the evolution of the tree and all other life forms can readily be heard manipulating our sense of hearing. The aspirin can be placed on the centre hole of the five hole paper device, which is then placed on top of the photographic illustration of the four legged life form for the greatest beneficial effect. 

 Another material which has an increased adverse effect upon our sense of hearing is any transparent material. This is particularly true of glass windows. If the five holed piece of paper is placed on any and all glass windows, the beneficial effect on the sound will be readily heard.


----------



## radrd

LOL.


----------



## ipodstudio

LOL! Pinkie, I gotta try that one..


----------



## PinkFloyd

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ipodstudio* 
_LOL! Pinkie, I gotta try that one.. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

What's with the laughing 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 It's a free PWB tweak and well worth trying out. I know it may "seem" a tad unconventional but give it a go, you may be very surprised at what you hear.

 Pinkie.


----------



## ipodstudio

who me? laughing? Not me...


----------



## classe

Pinkie; i think this is the same with interconnects or speakercables.
 Some people hear no difference and other people or in heaven.
 Alsoo put a little bit of Cream Electret on the outside cover on your equipment. See description from Cream Electret.
 Greetings Bernhard.


----------



## tomek

Which PB tweaks have caused the greatest improvements?

 I know that I read an article where the author treated some cds with the cream and foil and froze them then sent them out blind to members of his local audiophile society. He didn't even let them know what was going on, he just asked that they rank the discs.

 It seemed that freezing and the cream seemed to make a big difference...what have you found?


----------



## ipodstudio

*I put a strip of rainbow foil on my girlfriend and stuck her in the freezer. The results were astonishing.*

 ROTFLOL!!


----------



## tortie

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PinkFloyd* 
_What's with the laughing 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 It's a free PWB tweak and well worth trying out. I know it may "seem" a tad unconventional but give it a go, you may be very surprised at what you hear.

 Pinkie._

 

Im willing to give it a go. How do I place it on an interconnect? Do I just tape the picture to the IC?


----------



## classe

In my set up Rainbow foil in combination with Cream Electret.
 Coloured Magnadisc created a great improvement in my room.
 Greetings Bernhard.


----------



## PinkFloyd

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tomek* 
_Which PB tweaks have caused the greatest improvements?

 I know that I read an article where the author treated some cds with the cream and foil and froze them then sent them out blind to members of his local audiophile society. He didn't even let them know what was going on, he just asked that they rank the discs.

 It seemed that freezing and the cream seemed to make a big difference...what have you found?_

 

Hi tomek,

 I've only had the cream delivered this morning but, already, I can tell that this stuff works wonders..... my headphones sound sooooo much better after I treated them with the cream electret. I also stuck a huge strip of rainbow foil on the headband so maybe this has increased the effect? These are only two of many PWB tweaks that are available and I must say I'm impressed with both of them (astonished even)

 I haven't yet tried freezing the CD's but I shall pop a couple in the freezer overnight and try them tomorrow evening. This evening I'm going to treat all the components in my amp with the cream electret and see what improvements that brings about.

 By god, this really is enjoyable and even more so when there is an audible improvement! I'm seriously starting to believe that Peter Belt is one of those people who future generations will look back on and say "that guy was well ahead of his time".

 I don't "want" to know how these devices work but I'd like to find out more about getting the optimum out of them. It seemed to me that as the headphones were closest to my ears then they were the obvious place to start..... I cannot stress enough how dramatic the improvement is after I treated the phones with cream electret and rainbow foil.... I'm bowled over.

 By the way tomek...... the guy you mentioned above, what were his findings after sending the treated CD's to the audiophile society?

 All the best

 Pinkie.


----------



## tomek

http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue8/belt.htm

 As much as I can't help but laugh at most of the explanations to his stuff, I do applaud you Pinkie for trying it out and posting about it, although I'm sure half the fun lies in the angry naysayer responses and personal attacks. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I do agree with you, as I've said before, that what I'm really intrigued with is not the actual products that he puts out and the science behind them, but the new approach.

 It's important to remember that Alfred Russel Wallace came up with the theory of evolution by natural selection at about the same time that Darwin did. I remember having to read Wallace's and Darwin's papers in a course I took several years ago. Wallace read like he was a wacko. He saw the same phenomena and evidence as Darwin did but the explanations that he offered up really sound silly to us today, many of them having almost spiritual components.

 I mention him because although science wasn't ready yet to explain adequately what the mechanisms behind evolution were he was reporting on the evidence, as controversial and inexplicable as it was.

 I too have a feeling that Belt may one day be recognized as a man who was ahead of his time with his approach to audio perception. 

 Or he may just go down as a wacko.


----------



## PinkFloyd

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *classe* 
_In my set up Rainbow foil in combination with Cream Electret.
 Coloured Magnadisc created a great improvement in my room.
 Greetings Bernhard._

 

Hi Bernhard,

 Is it just me or did you find that the cream electret made a "much" bigger improvement when used in conjunction with the Rainbow foil? I still can't get over what a difference that cream has made to the sound I am hearing from my headphones, it's a revelation.

 Can I ask you what the coloured magnadisc does and, also, have you tried the 5 hole paper tweak?. I tried it earlier, placing it in the middle of my headphone cable but really couldn't detect any change to the sound with it in place...... I placed it on top of one of my loudspeaker cabinets and thought the music sounded slightly less bright with it in place but it was "marginal" and certainly not as pronounced as the cream electret / rainbow combination which is dramatic.

 Have you found the change to be dramatic in your listening room or just "subtle"? It's the "dramatic" change to the sound of my HD600's that's really got me excited and seriously interested in PWB tweaks.... that was in the daytime too I can't wait to hear how good the sound is once the sun sets!!

 Pinkie.


----------



## PinkFloyd

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tomek* 
_http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue8/belt.htm
_

 

Wow! That guy also found the cream electret made a pretty big difference and the results of his test with the 8 members of the audiophile society are very interesting, to say the least.

 The sun is going down over here at the moment and these headphones are sounding better and better....... excellent!!!

 Interesting stuff here too: http://www.belt.demon.co.uk/newsletter/newlett.html


----------



## classe

Hello Pinkie.
 You're right; together it is magic. And yes it is a big improvement.
 I ordered a yellow and a red and three green and a blue Magnadisc.
 I had balance problems because the left side=wall but the right was glass.
 With the green Maganadisc i got more balance in my room.
 On every window in my room (3) i put a green Magnadisc.
 On the website you can read where you should place the other Magnadiscs.

 The 5 hole paper tweak i tried.
 The changes are not dramatic for me (maybe because everything is treated with different P.W.B. products). If you place it and you listen to some music, you'll notice that there is something changed (it's more alive)
 Try to listen a half a hour to some music and then you go listening without it.

 The power of P.W.B. is that you will hear more and more and more.
 More information more details.
 If you take a for example a treated cd player and you will listen to a identical cd player without treatment; you are gonne miss a lot of information and details.
 Greetings Bernhard.


----------



## ipodstudio

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *classe* 
_Hello Pinkie.
 You're right; together it is magic. And yes it is a big improvement.
 I ordered a yellow and a red and three green and a blue Magnadisc.
 I had balance problems because the left side=wall but the right was glass.
 With the green Maganadisc i got more balance in my room.
 On every window in my room (3) i put a green Magnadisc.
 On the website you can read where you should place the other Magnadiscs.

 The 5 hole paper tweak i tried.
 The changes are not dramatic for me (maybe because everything is treated with different P.W.B. products). If you place it and you listen to some music, you'll notice that there is something changed (it's more alive)
 Try to listen a half a hour to some music and then you go listening without it.

 The power of P.W.B. is that you will hear more and more and more.
 More information more details.
 If you take a for example a treated cd player and you will listen to a identical cd player without treatment; you are gonne miss a lot of information and details.
 Greetings Bernhard._

 

Pinkie, this is not you in disguise, is it?


----------



## PinkFloyd

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ipodstudio* 
_Pinkie, this is not you in disguise, is it? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	





_

 

How could you tell? did the rainbow hat, pink suit, pink shoes, rainbow tie and green magnadisc sunglasses give me away? Drat, I thought I'd go unnoticed in that deep disguise 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Course it's not me ***!

 Pinkie 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Have you managed to locate an image of a 4 legged animal, a piece of white paper, a pin to make 5 holes and an aspirin yet?


----------



## ipodstudio

PinkFloyd said:
			
		

> How could you tell? did the rainbow hat, pink suit, pink shoes, rainbow tie and green magnadisc sunglasses give me away?
> QUOTE]
> 
> Well, not just that but...


----------



## PinkFloyd

ipodstudio said:
			
		

> Quote:
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *PinkFloyd*
> ...


----------



## ipodstudio

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PinkFloyd* 
_?? what are you inferring?_

 

LOL! Nothing, I'm just pulling your leg..


----------



## 10068

Quote:


 Sduibek, you mentioned getting the thread closed through a purposely against the rules post. Well, the surest way to do that is to start posting personal attacks... Unfortunately, the insignificant little chunk of granite that passes for your gray matter obviously isn't capable of comprehending a matter of such enourmous complexity. Your repeated nonsensical postings in this thread have reflected so badly upon both your critical thinking skills and broccoli-eating ability that you've disgraced your family name for generations to come. I daresay that I wouldn't trust you to review a single brass-cone foot, much less trust your ability to think on these levels. So please, refrain from posting your idiotic, base, pointless, ill-thought, closeminded, cruel, greedy, self-serving, kleptomaniac, stupid, slow, short slothful, bimbo, sewersucking, belligerent, toadly, derelict, miserable, dirty, and ill-concieved notions in this thread.

 Can someone report me to a moderator? 
 







 You don't think it's a bit absurb that this thread has gone beyond a post count of 400 just talking about some foil, a system tweak that may or may not be anything but placebo? It's like having a 450-post arguement over interconnects. After the first 100 posts or so, I really doubt you're getting anywhere.

 When I frst started reading this thread, I thought the anger, seriousness, zealotism, etc. was all light-hearted and in good fun.

 But seeing really close-minded and annoying posts (not refering to any one user in particular) for, what is it now, 20 pages? Gets really really really old.






 Let's hope you were joking 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 PS: No wonder Pinkie has 1900 posts. (just kidding 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




)


----------



## PinkFloyd

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *John Reeves* 
_Hi,

 I've been reading this post and I am sure I will be flamed for my response but what the hell. First of all I have not tried the "magic" foil and don't intend to, since I consider it an insult to my inteligence that sticking foil on something unrelated to the sound system improves the sound._

 

It depends on where you class the boundaries of your "sound system" to be? 

 Moving a chair in your listening room will make no difference to the sound quality? 

 Hanging a rug on the wall won't dampen a bright sound?

 Placing furniture at funky angles won't help to disperse standing waves?

 Your mere presence in the room doesn't affect the sound waves?

 Anechoic chambers are snake oil?

 What do you mean by "unrelated to the sound system "? the listening room is part of the sound system and even removing a couple of books from a bookshelf can alter the sound (talking about a loudspeaker system rather than a headphone set up here) how can you be so sure that sticking foil on your armchair won't make a difference?

 A bass note is the length of a football pitch, most listening rooms are the length of a ping pong table, to avoid standing waves the room has to be able to disperse the bass note and this is achieved by careful placement of furniture / fixings to avoid boom (the bass note meeting itself on the return path causing a standing wave) there are a lot of people who don't realise that the listening room makes up 80% of the "sound quality" we all read about but very rarely achieve.

 I'm sorry if your "intelligence" has been insulted at the mere thought of trying a free sample of rainbow foil John but I am even more worried that you may not realise that "unrelated" furniture plays a very important part in your listening experience.......Optimising your system with cables and power conditioners is only the beginning..... you also have to optimise your listening room and yourself.

 Pinkie.


----------



## PinkFloyd

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Sduibek* 
_





 You don't think it's a bit absurb that this thread has gone beyond a post count of 400 just talking about some foil, a system tweak that may or may not be anything but placebo? It's like having a 450-post arguement over interconnects. After the first 100 posts or so, I really doubt you're getting anywhere.

 When I frst started reading this thread, I thought the anger, seriousness, zealotism, etc. was all light-hearted and in good fun.

 But seeing really close-minded and annoying posts (not refering to any one user in particular) for, what is it now, 50 pages? Gets really really really old.






 Let's hope you were joking 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 PS: No wonder Pinkie has 1900 posts. (just kidding 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




) 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	





_

 

So there's a limit to a post now is there? interesting or not you believe that after 100 posts you're "getting nowhere" I tend to disagree with that Sduibek.


 This post is "just" starting to get interesting and, if your 100 post cut off point had been implemented, we wouldn't have got this far into the debate. So what if it's 50 pages long? 100 pages long? 2 million pages long? it shows that people are interested in the debate..... what is this fascination with nipping everything in the bud before it's allowed to blossom?

 If you don't like the thread or have nothing to contribute other than "close it down" then don't look at it? are you being forced to look at it?? If it's tiring to you then don't click on "rainbow foil initial impressions" seems logical to me.

 The subject matter of this thread cannot be "done and dusted" in a few days due to the nature of it. There are many head-fiers who are awaiting samples, others who are waiting for the mockers and ridiculers to get fed up with posting before posting their true informed findings and there is no "reason" to shut this down is there?

 Pinkie.


----------



## tomek

Pinkie, the real question is when are you going to write your review for the 'reviews' subform of the tweaks forum?

 I'd like to see it wedged between a Cardas cable and PS audio conditioner review.

 hahahahaha


----------



## PinkFloyd

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tomek* 
_Pinkie, the real question is when are you going to write your review for the 'reviews' subform of the tweaks forum?

 I'd like to see it wedged between a Cardas cable and PS audio conditioner review.

 hahahahaha_

 

I will not be writing a review at this juncture tomek as I'd rather investigate and experience the PWB philosophy further to get to grips with it and understand it better first.

 Pinkie.


----------



## PinkFloyd

Did you get around to experimenting with the Rainbow foil Tomek?


----------



## marios_mar

Pink I (and many others I believe) missed lots of pages of this thread. Could you please try and summarize all the important points and conclusions (if there were any that is) in one paragraph?


----------



## Steve999

LOL. A request worthy of a Ph.D. dissertation. Read the whole thing, it's first-class entertainment. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *marios_mar* 
_Pink I (and many others I believe) missed lots of pages of this thread. Could you please try and summarize all the important points and conclusions (if there were any that is) in one paragraph?_


----------



## ampgalore

Wait, I just discovered another great tweek! I swear by it.

 Place an ash tray on the left corner of your home CD deck. Start smoking a Cuban cigar (please note, the cigar has to be Cuban). 8 minutes into smoking the cigar, put the ash into the ash tray. Then hit play on your CD player.

 I tell you, it's a totally life changing experience. All my CDs sound so much better.


----------



## PinkFloyd

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *marios_mar* 
_Pink I (and many others I believe) missed lots of pages of this thread. Could you please try and summarize all the important points and conclusions (if there were any that is) in one paragraph?_

 


 Marios, as Steve999 suggests, it is well worth spending several hours reading the whole thing with an open mind in order to appreciate just what rainbow foil is all about. It's about conditioning your listening environment and, more importantly, conditioning yourself to repel the negative energy that affects your perception of the sound. Very much along the lines of Feng Shui but instead of using frogs, water and symbolic ornaments Peter Belt uses Rainbow foil, morphic message foil and quantum clips.

 All the best.

 Pinkie.


----------



## PinkFloyd

Listening to some rainbowed Santana ATM and thought I'd have a look around the PWB site.

 This is a great read: http://www.belt.demon.co.uk/whatamess.html

 The PWB group is fascinating with many new free tweaks coming in daily:

http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/PWB/


 Pinkie.


----------



## greenhorn

http://www4.head-fi.org/forums/showt...ghlight=pinkie


----------



## PinkFloyd

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *greenhorn* 
_http://www4.head-fi.org/forums/showt...ghlight=pinkie




_

 



 PinkFloyd learned from a thread I had opened that I needed a good quality 1/8 - 1/4 adaptor... and next day he has sent me one as a present.

 A big THANK YOU, PinkFloyd!

 greenhorn
 __________________
 Sell me your Audio Technica W100, W11JPN, W11R, W10LTD or W10VTG...
 -----------------

http://www4.head-fi.org/forums/showt...ight=greenhorn


 Why the cloaked referal to another thread Greenhorn? I can't understand your mindset..... if you don't like me or have a problem with me then just say it........ maybe it's just a French thing? Maybe you're pissed because I didn't charge you and sent the adapter to help you out as a friendly gesture at no cost to you? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 PM me if you've got any complaints / jealousy issues.

 Mike


----------



## greenhorn

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PinkFloyd* 
_"THANK YOU! 

 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 PinkFloyd learned from a thread I had opened that I needed a good quality 1/8 - 1/4 adaptor... and next day he has sent me one as a present.

 A big THANK YOU, PinkFloyd!

 greenhorn
 __________________
 Sell me your Audio Technica W100, W11JPN, W11R, W10LTD or W10VTG...
 -----------------

http://www4.head-fi.org/forums/showt...ight=greenhorn


 Why the cloaked referal to another thread Greenhorn? I can't understand your mindset..... if you don't like me then just say it........ maybe it's just a French thing? Maybe you're pissed because I didn't charge you and sent the adapter to help you out? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Well, if you really need it: I actually don't like you.

 If you want back that adaptor, just say. I thanked you when you had sent it to me because it really was a nice gesture of yours.

 It's only afterwards that I discovered some other sides of your character that made me dislike you. 

 BTW, I'm not French, so no use to throw mud to French people if you want to insult me.


----------



## PinkFloyd

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *greenhorn* 
_Well, if you really need it: I actually don't like you._

 

I gathered that a while back, may I ask what offends you?

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *greenhorn* 
_If you want back that adaptor, just say. I thanked you when you had sent it to me because it really was a nice gesture of yours._

 

Don't be silly..... it's an adapter........ keep it and enjoy it 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *greenhorn* 
_It's only afterwards that I discovered some other sides of your character that made me dislike you._

 

Thanks for coming out with it and putting my mind at ease greenhorn.... I appreciate your honesty, why didn't you just come out and say it originally instead of beating around the bushes posting links to all my "negative" threads? It would have saved a lot of hassle and uncertainty 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I'm actually relieved that you have spoken the truth Greenhorn and have said what you think....... I respect you for coming out with it.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *greenhorn* 
_BTW, I'm not French, so no use to throw mud to French people if you want to insult me._

 

I haven't any intention of offending you or French people.

 Sorry you don't like my manner but I can't cater for all tastes Greenhorn.......... I've got no problems with you whatsoever and will continue to read your posts if I may?

 Pinkie


----------



## taymat

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ooheadsoo* 
_Blind test? The point of the foil is seeing it. Does it push your mind towards hearing things differently? Could very well do that. In fact, it's *supposed to do that.*

 If your mind and senses are susceptible to it, then it works for you. The mind is very powerful._

 

Completely agree its all snake oil.


----------

