New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Rainbow Foil, Initial impressions - Page 5  

post #61 of 466
Quote:
Originally posted by Orpheus
....that is interesting. i think you have found the next Aspirin. heh he.
or the next sugar pill
post #62 of 466
Thread Starter 
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.
post #63 of 466
at least it came with some interesting reading material
post #64 of 466
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.
post #65 of 466
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.
post #66 of 466
Thread Starter 
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
post #67 of 466
Thread Starter 
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.
post #68 of 466
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.
post #69 of 466
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".
post #70 of 466
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.
post #71 of 466
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.
post #72 of 466
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.
post #73 of 466
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.
post #74 of 466
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.
post #75 of 466
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.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
This thread is locked