New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Rainbow Foil, Initial impressions - Page 6  

post #76 of 466
Which rules, and what does DBT mean?
post #77 of 466
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.
post #78 of 466
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...
post #79 of 466
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
post #80 of 466
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!
post #81 of 466
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...
post #82 of 466
Thread Starter 
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.
post #83 of 466
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.
post #84 of 466
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!
post #85 of 466
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.
post #86 of 466
Thread Starter 
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.
post #87 of 466
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 stfu and leave them alone because if they like it, they like it, and that's the end of the discussion, so be it.
post #88 of 466
Thread Starter 
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 stfu 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:
post #89 of 466
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?
post #90 of 466
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...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
This thread is locked