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!
