[ The MusicWeb Message Board ]

CELEBRATING 20,000 Classical CD reviews on-line; 21,000 visitors each day.
Return to MusicWeb International

That infuriating effective PWB Foil Posted by David Bloomer on October 4, 2005, 7:09 pm 149.99.164.248 Hi The Foil: One of at least 2 possibilities: I really hear what I think I hear, OR I am barking bananas and should be carefully watched. My friends and I are utterly at a loss as to an explanation but we all SWEAR we hear a distinct "Change" in the sound of our systems when using the Foil. (for me, an "improvement") Enjoyed your review very much although the BELT psycho-babble still turns me off (but not as much as previously, and THAT scares the hell out of me) David  Post a Response

Re: That infuriating effective PWB Foil Posted by Bill Kenny on October 5, 2005, 8:56 am, in reply to "That infuriating effective PWB Foil" 82.152.166.101 Thanks David. Yes, it's a mysterious business sure enough. On balance,I think that Peter and May Belt have made some discoveries for which there is simply no orthodox explanation and I can see that this would be a problem for them: it must be very difficult to advertise products saying, 'These things work but we don't know why.' I'm convinced however that they are totally sincere about their claims and they do offer a money back guarantee if customers are not satisfied. And (importantly) after I had written the two reviews, I tried two or three more of their experiments but with much less success. I conclude (well, so far at least) that a point arrived at which I simply ran out of open-mindedness somehow and began to expect that nothing much would happen as I proceeded further. So it didn't. I'm still thinking about this because it begins to sound as though 'faith' in Belt products is required somewhere along the line and yet (since my first experiments 'worked' even though I was extremely sceptical about them) I don't think that simple 'belief' is the entire story. My best bet at the moment seems to be to let go the whole thing for a while, perhaps revisiting it in a month or so. When I've done that, my ideas about the apparent end-point of improvements from 'Belting' may become clearer to me. If they do, I'll write them up. Regards, Bill  Post a Response

Re: That infuriating effective PWB Foil Posted by harry winterbottom on October 27, 2006, 3:16 pm, in reply to "Re: That infuriating effective PWB Foil" 129.35.231.17 I really do not believe that it's down to open mindedness. I got the free foil, tried it on an album that I have two of, so that I could do a comarison and couldn't believe what I was hearing. So, without telling them why or what I had done, each time one of my kids came into the room I played a track from each copy a couple of times and asked which was better. They always responded that the 'belted' copy was more open and that the un-belted sounded muffled. I also had one test where I applied it to a cd where the results were negative. Although I can't for the life of me remember which album it was.  Post a Response

Re: That infuriating effective PWB Foil Posted by Ford on November 3, 2005, 5:35 am, in reply to "Re: That infuriating effective PWB Foil" 152.76.0.130 As audio quality is notoriously "subjective", what is needed is a strict double-blind experiment. E.g. two CDs, one specially treated, are played simultaneously. A switcher attached to a stereo alternates (imperceptably) between sources at random intervals, and a listener records their impression of the changing quality of the sound. E.g. 2: during a listening session, "tainted" materials are imperceptably introduced into and withdrawn from the room. And why not a GREEN pen?  Post a Response

Re: That infuriating effective PWB Foil Posted by Paul Serotsky on November 4, 2005, 12:00 am, in reply to "Re: That infuriating effective PWB Foil" 80.229.144.169 "Blind" comparisons are normally fine. The problem here is that things aren't "normal", because we're dabbling in the "arcane". For example, if you were to do a double-blind comparison using a "switcher" as described, and if the result was that no "difference" was perceptible, then that result would be "explained" by the "fact" that the switcher possessed some disruptive "negative energy field" of its own - which (of course!) "negated" the "positive energy field" created by the various rituals - in other words, it "scrambled" the outputs. 'Twas ever thus in the realms of pseudo-science - whatever happens, the "theory" will always provide an "explanation". I hope that the significance of the plethora of quotation marks in the above is not lost on anyone!  Post a Response

Re: That infuriating effective PWB Foil Posted by Bill Kenny on November 5, 2005, 8:40 am, in reply to "Re: That infuriating effective PWB Foil" 82.153.210.14 Over the past week or so, using my own free will and at no expense whatever, I have happily frozen and slowly thawed a number of my audio interconnect cables in accordance with the advice offered by PWB Electronics. The results have been a) that my audio system has not blown up when the treated cables have been installed in it, b) that so far as I can tell my health has not been affected adversely and c) that the sound from the system is even more pleasant than formerly. I note with some interest however, that according to Ford's posting, these results are inconsequential because they have not been double-blind tested and that Paul Serotsky appears to believe that I am either the victim or my own gullibility, or that I am the victim of some appalling plot by Peter and May Belt to deprive me of my money. I am clearly not a victim of financial extortion since the freezing process costs me nothing. And since I freely admit that I have no idea whether freezing cables imroves their performance because their metallic grain structures alter, because changes to dielectric materials happen or because the gnomes who live in my freezer worked some kind of magic on them, I can also live comfortably without having an exact explanation for the phenomenon. If I choose to buy products from PWB Electronics as a consequence of my cable experiments, then I do so willingly and without pressure from anyone. In that regard I am no different from my wife who (like millions of other women ) regularly chooses to buy cosmetics claiming to make her even lovelier but which are not subject to scientific testing for their effectiveness. Sometimes, my wife thinks that her cosmetic experiments are helpful and sometimes not, but invariably she regards her decision to try them as a matter of personal choice. Unlike my wife however, I would be able get my money back from PWB Electronics were I subsequently disatisfied with my purchases. In the pursuit of scientific veracity however, I should like to invite both Ford and Paul Serotsky to replicate the cable freezing experiment under whatever scientific conditions they can devise. If they can provide decent sample sizes and controls, I am sure that we have a number of unbiased scientists among MusicWeb reviewers who could consider their results very carefully. Meanwhile, I shall carry on enjoying the results that my own uncontrolled experiments have produced so far.  Post a Response

Re: That infuriating effective PWB Foil Posted by Paul Serotsky on November 5, 2005, 9:29 pm, in reply to "Re: That infuriating effective PWB Foil" 80.229.144.169 Whoa, Bill, tha's barking up a tree that I didn't climb! I was commenting ONLY on the effectiveness of the "double-blind" test itself. My contention is simply this: where the theory behind what is being tested is (shall we say?) less than rigorously defined, the test is ineffective. This is a far cry from saying that the effects are not experienced by any given individual! My apologies for causing any misapprehension.  Post a Response

Re: That infuriating effective PWB Foil Posted by Bill Kenny on November 6, 2005, 9:47 am, in reply to "Re: That infuriating effective PWB Foil" 82.153.210.62 Thanks Paul. When I find some time, I will try to write a follow-up piece for MusicWeb tackling some of the scientific issues arising from both the Belts' explanations of their 'treatments' and from the repeated demands they receive for some kind of 'double blind' testing. What is clearly the case though, is that significant numbers of people do experience improvements after using Belt products while significant numbers appear not to do so. My own position (like another significantly large group I suspect ) is that some of the Belt procedures that I have tried, do work satisfactorily while others don't seem to do much at all. This fact seems worthy of further thought on my part. The results from my own Belt experiments of course (as an experiential phenomenon) are no different at all from the other sorts of hi-fi 'upgrade' attempts pursued over the last forty years or so. Like many others, I have used a miscellany of different brands of cabling, different power supplies, tone arms, cartridges and suchlike, some of which have turned out to be money well-spent and others not. Actually, when I come to think about it, even some the 'failures' have been quite a bit of fun. Anyone remember holophonic sound or early dbx companding? Regards, Bill  Post a Response

Re: That infuriating effective PWB Foil Posted by Dominy Clements on November 10, 2005, 2:27 pm, in reply to "Re: That infuriating effective PWB Foil" 213.201.165.106 I worked at Farringdon records on Cheapside in the late '80s, and Jimmy Hughes would regularly drive 'Tony' our Italian boss up the wall by sticking PWB foils over everything which might affect sound quality. I walked around for years with one stuck under my watch. We had a fairly antiquated LP system in the basement at Farringdons, but the sound was decent enough. I don't remember hearing much difference with or without the foils, but I remember asking myself (and others) how (for instance) sticking a foil under my electronic watch would make a difference, when at the same time the basement shop was being bombarded with all kinds of radiation and interference from neon lamps, air conditioning and goodness knows what else. My problem is a question of proportion. It's like insisting we all fit our cars with filters and cat. converters, while new runways are being built for jet aircraft which burn gazillions of gallons of government subsidised high-octane kerosene. Without removing the one, how can you tell the difference by improving the other. Yes, you have to start somewhere, but - like minidisc compression - surely the big one masks the little. I have an open mind, and would love to 'believe'. I too have been known to smear my CDs lovingly with treated cloths and green felt-tip, have poked little squares of paper (one corner carefully shamfered) under the feet of my separates, and the rest. I'm afraid life is now too short, and I can hear my ears becoming less sensitive every year, so I fear I have succumbed to the raging fields of harmfulness coming from TV, computer, fridge, lighting, radio, mobile phone, passing mopeds, passing water..... wee little foils are too puny I fear - like treating a roadside accident victim with homeopathy.  Post a Response

     «Back to thread

Thank you for using the MusicWeb Message Board. Len Mullenger - Founder of MusicWeb