This Newsletter reveals yet more of a process affecting P.W.B. customers that is most impressive. When the Newsletter was starting up, I remember trying to get everyone involved in activities that now seem to occur spontaneously, with great authority. I would draw your attention to the fact that at least one letter by a P.W.B.ite seems to appear in the pages of Hi-Fi News each month. On a different level, but just as striking, are the articles in this Newsletter, by Ken Hyam and Philip Turner in which a real, imaginative piece of research is made available to us, without too much anxiety. I would thus suggest that a confidence and authority is emerging in the group that reads this Newsletter, and no one person or group can shake this easily. Using P.W.B. devices has always meant that one had to trust what ones experiences were, and not what a critic said. There is a willingness to public-ate this more and more, and so the likes of Steve Harris should watch out!
Of course there are developments at P.W.B. that are hard to disregard, and the recent series of New Foils, plus more recent Q products are hard to ignore as real progress. The leaps in sound quality are difficult to predict, even if used to the P.W.B. devices, and the possibilities that open up, in terms of what good sound could be, are simply mind blowing. But, again, those on a tight budget can gain much from the writings of Ken and Philip, and they are ignored at your peril! I can only add again that these articles really are very exciting, because they really do take us beyond even what P.W.B. has done; it should be noted though that P.W.B. is often too busy to research all possible uses for a product, and we all should be trying to see how far we can go. The two letters of Kevin Kehoe confirm this, and I hope he forgives me for using both of them.
Peter Turner and Todd Cunliffe advance the question of hierarchy further, and raise interesting questions that need further thought. I have spoken to P.W.B. about the matter of simplicity that Todd raises, and it is clearly a complex matter. It would seem to be a useful rule of thumb to suggest that all products should be as simple as possible, and of course this might mean cheaper, integrated products. However, this is only one view, and I think Peter Turner would still suggest that sound engineering principles have their place. I find myself moving away from this more and more, and find Ken Hyams article helpful in understanding certain obscure phenomena. For example, readers may remember how my massively treated Marantz CD player seemed to fare so poorly in Peters system. To this day I think that something odd happened, because it was so unmusical, and at home, it is the very definition of musical. I had thought it related to introducing an alien brand, but Ken suggests some other idea that seems too odd to be true, yet makes sense of such a phenomenon. If a theory is any good, it should make sense of previous experiences, and Kens idea does.
There will always be space here for the different views, and the truth may well lie in between such views. Keep sending your views to:-
P.W.B. Newsletter
P.W.B Electronics
18. Pasture Crescent
Leeds LS7 3QB
Or for you sophisticates
E-mail – to Newsletter@belt.demon.co.uk
A Comforting Foil
There have been so many new foils from P.W.B. of late that it seems surprising that he could have found time to develop another, but thank goodness he has. The Comfort Foil, introduced early in 1996, is another wonderful Foil, in keeping with the recent New Foils, but also bridging to some newer developments. I say this because this Foil, aimed at the experience of distress and discomfort, such as that resulting from injury, seems to lend any object it is attached to a comforting, warm quality. Hard to describe, but I find it introduces a sense of balance that simply feels right. It is particularly good on the back of photographs, and on discs, slave labels etc..
It looks like many of the New Foils, with minuscule print and a superimposed orange wavy line overlying Rainbow Foil. Cut into 2-3mm strips, it goes everywhere and anywhere, and is very, very good. These New Foils are hard to distinguish in terms of which is the best one to have etc.., and, probably, you should try them all. Worth having though for photographs, and not just your own. Before deciding how to proceed though I think you should read what is below...
The Quantum Rainbow Foil and Cream
I must say that these products, which I think can usefully be called Q Foil and Cream, have been a problem for me. I never liked applying Electret Cream, and was terribly relieved when Morphic Liquid emerged, as it didn't leave smears all over the place. These products have not only got me over this problem, but have frightened me in terms of their efficacy. I would like to think of myself as a hardened P.W.B. user, not worried by the strangeness of the products or their effects. These ones were troubling though, because they are so powerful. I proceeded much more slowly than usual with them, both relishing the effects, but uncomfortably amazed by their power.
The basic premise is that the products help with the interface between a P.W.B. device and the object it is attached to. The Cream works in its own right, but the Foil needs the Cream to work. The Cream is spread around the edges of the P.W.B. device, such that the Cream bridges the object and the device. Ideally, a small strip of the Q Foil should be attached to the object, or Slave Label on the object, and Cream spread around the edges of the Foil. Any excess Cream can be removed by using a paper handkerchief/tissue. The Cream is thus used around Foils, Labels, Magnadiscs, Ring Ties, and any other P.W.B. device that you can think of.
The effect of this is pretty extraordinary, even by P.W.B.'s standards, and the sense of balance that is also introduced is breathtaking. The sound is not only cleaner, more detailed, but so ultimately right. The increase in volume has to be heard to be believed and one feels as if the volume control has been turned up 11 (oblique reference to Spinal Tap).
The Q Foil in its own right, with the Cream of course, is very, very, very. But when it is attached to Slave Labels, wow! It is tremendous on discs, and everything else, including Photographs. P.W.B.'s suggestion that it allows energy into the object seems right, as the music springs to life. In terms of cost, the Foil and Cream are very cost-effective, and the Foil can be cut into more narrow strips than some of the others, as it does not have lines of print/message on it. But the best is yet to come..
After applying the Cream to the periphery of a device, one can add to the effect quite enormously by, yes, you've guessed it, tapping. The Cream jar is a considerable device in its own right, by tapping the device with the jar. In my experience this is a big leap, and an essential part of the treatment. Every Foil, Ring Tie, Label, Magnadisc will respond, and the Q Foil goes into different league when tapped. But it doesn't even stop there. I must pre-empt Philip Turner here, for the sake of clarity, and for full details you must read his article, although if anything I think Philip underestimates the effect of his discoveries. What you do is....
When tapping the device, after the application of Cream, you must look at the device being tapped with the jar. This is crucial, and as Philip will describe, it is an essential part of all P.W.B. techniques. If you can, think good, good good whilst tapping, this is to your advantage. So a worthwhile tip? Well sort of, because it doesn't stop there. If you can get someone to look at the device as well as yourself, whilst you tap, you will find the improvements are really striking, almost devastating. I have tried it on the Labels on my Photo Folder, and even the Foils stuck onto my photo. Good Golly Miss Molly was about the only sensible remark to emerge from my lips. Philip describes all of this very well, and it is a good idea to think of throwing a party to gather many in your home, It also seems permanent, and thus locks the benefit into the object.
This makes the Q products unbeatable value, and they come in very cheap and small packages. Quite a step forward!
But then one hears rumours of a Q Clip, for extensive treatment....
You've Got The Look!
I wonder how many of you have tried Tapping (using P.W.B. products) without looking?....
Well, in my experience, the proverbial Tap only works when you look at the point of contact. Just try it with the Yellow Hammer and a drink.
Go on! Go and get your Hammer, a drink, and sit down, and get Tapping! (Taste, Look-Tap-Taste, Don't-Look-Tap-Taste; it will only take a minute).
This also holds true for the Quantum Cream, Violet Barcode Pen, X-Pen and Smart Metal (although its difficult not to look because burns usually result). In summary, any P.W.B. application functions better when given a good looking at!
I thought that this deserved a tad more research, and I proposed a few experiments.
The questions posed were:
If my look can prove beneficial, would more people looking prove beneficial?
Can state of mind affect the quality of the look? (I will add some of my knowledge on this matter re. cultural phenomenon of the evil eye and that the derivation of envy is from the Latin invideo; to look into, in not a very nice way - RG ).
For many months now, Thursday nights have become the host of regular gatherings with a small group of friends sharing a mutual interest in Music, Life and P.W.B..
It was one of those evenings that I casually introduced the experiment to the usual proceedings. There were seven of us altogether, varying in years from 16 to 32 years (2 girls, 5 boys). No forewarning was given as to the details of the experiment, just that one was to be conducted. Once we were all comfortable, and an interesting tune was played, I began by asking everyone to watch me whilst I tapped the Magnadiscs and Foils on the front of each loudspeaker - previously Quantum Creamed and Tapped by me alone.
The effect was wonderful. Even whilst tapping, I could feel the atmosphere lift around me, almost like a discharge of static, but with a sense of warmth and goodness. I sat back down with the others, and noticed, an increased sense of camaraderie, and merriment. The sound has become more laid back, with a richer acoustic; detail was easier to follow, and yes, the volume level did seem to have increased slightly. The effect this had on us as a group was of greater interest though: the whole mood of the room was affected; there was less fidgeting and more laughter, laced with contagious enthusiasm.
I revelled in this ambience for a while and then decided to pop in a different CD. The musical style was a change, but there was no change in the vibe in the room. The music from this CD (fully treated) somehow was missing something - it wasn't quite communicating as well, and sounded harder than the last CD. I wasn't happy with this and consulted Trog, he suggested another CD but decided to try tapping the CD. I asked everyone to look again.
The effect of Tapping the CD was similar if not greater than our previous experiment with the loudspeakers. The ambience was refreshed, and I felt at ease. Trog agreed with me, the music worked again (The CD was previously Tapped by me alone).
Later, whilst the same disc was playing, another friend arrived; we all welcomed him, but the hardness had returned. Yes, you've guessed it: I asked everyone to look whilst I tapped the loudspeakers once more. The ambience then returned....
The music played on until the small hours; it had been an interesting night.
I must point out that I had no preconceived ideas before this experiment, and was quite surprised by the results. But I still had a few questions; further experiments were necessary.
Id given an X-Pen and Foils to a friend for Christmas. He recommended an experiment he'd done, which involved everyone present in the room, signing a CD. This warranted investigation.
Another Thursday session, and after playing a couple of minutes of a favourite Moloko CD. All present signed and > OK'd the disc. Id already signed the disc previously (fully treated of course). The effect of this was greater change than from everybody looking at the loudspeakers! The up in volume effect was very noticeable; did you turn it up? was asked. But I didn't like the effect as much as the Quantum Cream/Tapping experiments; it wasn't as warm a change, more in yer face and overpowering. Also people seemed less at ease, and the music dominated the proceedings. In retrospect though, the atmosphere before the experiment on this night wasn't as good as the week before. A friend who Id not seen for ages was present, it was late, and wed all consumed a fair amount of alcohol.
Its funny how mood can affect these experiments. But the important point here is that on two separate occasions, the effect of the group of people interacting with the system/environment - albeit concentrated on a minor part - could produce profound changes in the system/environment itself. This group can effect an effective change, but state of mind was having an effect which required further investigation.
Rather than go into more detail, it seems that Quantum Cream is quite sentient, almost empathic.
I know this sounds very Psycho-kinetic, or even Paul McKenna, but in the area of P.K. research, there is scientific data that human beings can affect random or chaotic experiments by focusing their senses or will. There is also evidence that chanting or even praying can have a distinct effect.
Anyway, I digress. We know through using language with P.W.B. techniques - especially the type that evokes a strong emotional response - beneficial or detrimental words will affect us, whenever we speak, write or even think them. What P.W.B. have managed to do is to lock these patterns into objects. Capturing moods if you like. The tap will imprint your expression and the P.W.B. device will send it back to you constantly, which is a good thing really human emotions are so transient.
Try looking/tapping whilst thinking bad, bad, bad. Then try but think good, good, good. didn't you feel better second time round!
Go on, be an Angel and give your environment a good seeing to!
Philip Turner
Its all true, and really works. RG
Richard, I fear that will not do. Are you not forgetting that the older units in my Naim SBL loudspeakers had been Belted to the maximum degree possible to me? In order to make a valid comparison between the two components, it is necessary to compare like with like: listening to the new units with no Belting would have been interesting, and I wish now that I had done it; but it would have answered none of the questions which really needed an answer: namely the effects of Belting. It will help I think if I take the story further.
I was enjoying the sound of the units, when there arrived from Leeds some of the new Blue Z foil. For those that are not familiar with this astonishing development, it is a gold foil, with a wavy blue line running across its length, and some printing on it, which I have, so far, not deciphered. In my experience it is the most potent foil yet.
Its effect upon my system was too deepen all the good results I had been getting, to the extent of creating a virtually new sound. It is always difficult to be sure when the running-in process has been completed with a new unit; but mine have had fairly extensive use by now, and I do not think there is much, if any running-in still to do; but I have heard the sound improve steadily as I have thought of new places to stick the foils. By this time, I have used up the original strip, and more will be needed. How far can this process be taken? In my experience diminishing returns set in after a time, making it uneconomical to press on further.
Here, then, is a series of events that have produced, in my judgement, improvements in the sound of my system, of a kind one would have associated more with a move up to a totally different class of equipment - though I greatly doubt if the kind of improvement to which I am referring can be produced by changes in equipment, as any user of Belt devices will understand.
Yet, within this vast change, there is one element which has nothing to do with P.W.B., but struck me so forcibly at the time as almost to shock me. That was the effect of introducing the new bass/mid units to the SBL speakers. This supervened before the units had been run in: it was so obvious and striking as to be impossible to ignore; it was just there. Much has happened since, but nothing alters the central fact of those units. Does that answer your question Richard?
Perhaps it was my growing affection for Blue Z foil which caused my eye to fall upon the lead which takes the signal from my transport to the DAC. This lead had already been frozen, domed, and generally given the treatment, besides being fitted with the correct sequence of ring-ties. Now it occurred to me to wonder what effect, if any, would be produced by adding new Blue Z foil. There was only one way to find out, and it did not take many seconds to attach the foil. I was delighted by the result, and recommended this addition to anyone using Blue Z foil (anyone who doesn't should regret what they are missing). I was moved by this to try the effect on the optical link which synchronies the two boxes, so as to secure the lowest jitter. This is one of those very small-bore cables, and it took a little trouble to get the foil to stick. In the end I resorted to my old ally Bostick, which certainly stuck the foil on, but with what effect upon its operation, I know not.
The result was minimal, if any .... or at least I thought so until I went back to the tuner in order to get on with this: it is sounding so good that I have begun to wonder ... At any rate, this little ploy proves that I do not always suggest to myself what the result of the experiment is going to be!
A further note, principally on the remarkable Blue Z Foil, which seems to me a very significant innovation indeed, I have in this room a Calor gas heater, which comes in handy at various times - as when I need heat, but have not got the room-heater on. It is a heavy and somewhat cumbersome brute, and I do not remove it when it is not in use - not least in case the system should sound better with it out of the room! I have often wondered about the effect of this heater, and have tried various foils without noticing any effect. Why not see what the Blue Z could do? I placed a strip on the connector which takes the gas from the cylinder to the burners, and incorporates a tap to control the flow. Expecting the usual negative result, I tried it and was knocked over by the degree of improvement I heard. Why foiling that particular part should be effective where other haven't, I cannot think - unless it be the Blue Z, which would have had the effect had I placed it elsewhere.
But the moral is clear: experiment widely: you may astonish yourself!
Peter Turner
I think I should just add a note here, whilst supporting the last point strongly; the rules are such that unless one tries, one will never know, and the manufacturers and magazines do not know about these matters.
My point about the drive units is that Peter added some of the newer foils to them immediately, and as with Blue Z, I think many of us would agree that they are much better than earlier foils. Peter thus had fitted new foils and new units. The shocking improvement could come from either of these changes, or both of them together. My feeling was that the new units would be seen as contributing more, when clearly the new foil might have made a big difference. I hope this clarifies my thinking, and urges me to suggest we all proceed slowly when trying to deduce what is contributing to the good sound.
RG
Whilst I have chosen my particular mix of relatively low budget items carefully, I would estimate recent improvements somewhere in the region of 75%.
That is, the same system without P.W.B. products attached (directly to items, and to the environment) would only give a quarter of the listening experience that I have now.
The P.W.B. Newsletter reports I have read, frequently underline and confirm this phenomenon. Now, I would like to pose, to fellow Belters and readers of the Newsletter, a new type of question.
1) Have you experienced occasionally that instead of sounding harsh, muddled or just reasonable, someone else's system sounds marvellous?
On returning home, have you then found that your own system has suddenly gone off i.e. it actually sounds worse that when you last listened to it?
2) Have you ever programmed your CD player, or rather misprogrammed it, so that the disc was spinning meaninglessly, and the display was reading nonsense? When you rectified the mistake, did you find that the sound had gone down?
3) I have been plunged into semi-despair by both of the above! Another situation in which I recently experienced a marked worsening of sound was prompted by a rave review of an amplifier. I seriously believed two years after seeing his review that I had found the bargain of the decade. It was the same amp., markedly reduced from £900 to £250, unless I was dreaming. I brought the brochure home, with its little photo of the amp, and studied it ardently. However I was not entirely sure that to go ahead was exactly the right thing to do. To make matters worse, my existing system now sounded terrible. To add to my chagrin, record after record seemed thin to listen to, shallow and uninvolved.
I would like to know whether others have shared these type of experiences. If so, I can suggest the following remedy, based on an experiment, using the Red X-Pen.
It seemed to me that had my amplifier been a close friend, or my CD player a member of my family, my actions, even my thoughts, in the above situation would have hurt or offended them. Admittedly, a nervous system is necessary to experience emotional or physical pain, but circuits, wires, chips, designed to reproduce the human voice could also be capable of feeling fear, jealousy, of emanating love..
Perhaps this was too far-fetched. It was simply the case that these inanimate objects, kicked into life by the spark of electricity, were indeed like members of the family, as far as my own psyche was concerned. Peter and May have frequently affirmed so much in their writings.
Nethereless, for practical purposes, I wanted to work on the theory that the amplifier-owner relationship was somehow reciprocal. This too seemed entirely in harmony with what P.W.B. has been saying for so long.
Another precedent exists in the field of objects of dart. Old books, rare manuscripts, paintings and violins are valued the world over because of something they impart to their owners/audiences. Perhaps they retain that something dormantly, only to generate it again when stimulated by the attentive care of the right human being. A piece of electronics is in no doubt in a different category from the above objects, but an equally reciprocal relationship, in terms of energy could be inferred.
So much for the theory. In my new P.W.B. collection was lying a Red X-Pen. The time seemed right to experiment. The results are as follows.
Having offended my Sugden amplifier, by brandishing the above-mentioned brochure, featuring its possible replacement under its ........ volume control, I listened to its pained attempts to reproduce music. It sounded thin and two-dimensional. It sounded peaky and it hurt.
I would make amends. On a piece of pink note paper, I wrote with the Red
X-Pen:
SORRY SUGDEN
SUGDEN OK
Within minutes the sound came rushing back to its former richness. The music took on the same sheen and timbre that excites and inspires the listener. It was as if a tired and hungry man, having downed a glass of mead, and a slice of pork pie, felt replenished.
My explanation is that objects, apparently inanimate, have energy fields which interface with human energy patterns in a reciprocal way. However, along with this assertion I acknowledge the need to question. Have other readers been conscious of anything like the above? Does my interpretation seem fanciful?
I conclude that to reject this idea is not necessarily to reject my experience. It would be merely to support the status quo that the human psyche is purely a self referral system. It is merely our perception that is altered; the material world is a neutral mass responding to mechanistic laws entirely.
It is in the experiential realm that we continue to investigate what is, and what is not true.
Postscript
Still thinking about members of the family I removed the word sorry after a couple of days, and left the work OK. Once an apology has been given, it is vital to maintain ones self respect.
(Thanks to May Belt who encouraged me to develop the idea into an article, which at first I had raised tentatively in a letter to her!)
Kenneth Hyam
I know P.W.B. products work on our perceptions and not on the equipment they are attached to. Every time I purchase devices such as new Foils, Contracaps, Ring Ties, etc.., I am amazed at the sound improvement.
But what I find really hard to come to terms with is the apparent increase in dynamics. I have the amp. Volume set at about quarter to nine nearly all the time, and I know that this presents no problems next door.
I am tempted to go round and ask them if they are aware of the recent volume increase!
Now Wendy has not played a CD in months. She went into the front room the other day and put on a Mozart Piano Concerto, and it caught her out too. Mind you she still gives me funny looks when I say it's the P.W.B. effect. Another area that I find transformed, as if by magic, is the effect on my CD's of 1920s 78 rpm discs - Carter Family Anchored in Love. The surface noise and hiss have been lifted into a less obtrusive area, leaving the music much easier to follow.
I also remember reading that CD was not as good as vinyl at getting ambience across, and I thought this was true. With the new foils etc. in place, this is another area where I perceive a very big difference.
Example: Music for Queen Mary by Henry Purcell, with Emma Kirkby on Sony.
In quiet passages you can hear the size of Westminster Abbey, and London's hum spread out between the speakers, especially during the drum beats towards the end of the disc.
Most of all, its the almost addictive enjoyment that can now be had from all types of music, which those devices make possible. What's more, there are whole areas at P.W.B. that I have not yet explored!
Our loose change piggy bank is in grave danger of getting a knock on the head!
Kevin Kehoe
I am one of the many who, over the years, followed up various Hi-Fi magazine tips and tweaks to gain that little bit extra from the old stereo system. At some point, P.W.B. entered the picture - I think it may have been from a Hi-Fi article in one of the many magazines, I used to purchase at the time.
As a result, I sent for, and received, a free pack of Black Foils. I cut them up and stuck them on various bits of equipment, door frames etc. as instructed.
Along with bits of paper under chair feet, knotted wire cups on water pipes I felt I had gone a long way towards being certified! However, along with more acceptable tweaks, such as different turntable supports etc.., I started to notice a change for the better. It must be said I was more inclined to believe that it was the conventional tweaks that were responsible. Gradually, almost without me knowing, the fiddling with supports, mats etc.., came to a stop. The P.W.B. products continued to arrive, and the sound continued to improve.
Apart from adding a CD player, and a replacement cartridge (much cheaper) my system remains the same.
I recently received a strip of X Foil, Black 26 and Blue Z Foil, along with the latest Safehole, Communication and a free of charge strip of Comfort Foil.
It is the above foils that have prompted this letter. P.W.B. products have tended to creep up on me - until now! I wont go into detail except to say that if the TV picture and sound was good before, get snipping and look again. As for CD and LP reproduction startled is the word! P.W.B. Electronics have lifted a CD up, and I can only boggle at the possibilities.
Kevin Kehoe
So the hierarchy debate continues. For myself, I find the difference between equipment more often than not to be just that; differences. The Hi-Fi world peddles so much divergent solutions to the problems of sound improvement that one is inclined to conclude it is merely tinkering with difference. The plethora of cable designs is perhaps the most extreme and dotty manifestation of this, but it is only one of many such examples.
For all this, the question of the minimum conventional performance required from Hi-Fi is of prime importance if P.W.B. is to take its rightful place in mainstream audio thinking. I can only say that I regret not making contact with the Belt phenomenon earlier. By doing so, I would have avoided buying some very expensive equipment, and would have been able instead to use P.W.B. treatments much more extensively for a smaller overall cost.
So what's the least you have to spend on equipment? As far as CD players go, I have no doubts - as little as possible. I made my one and only CD purchase some years ago from a Comet Discount Store. It was an end of line model costing me £150, and I didn't even bother trying it out as I was already convinced that P.W.B. treatments could make all the difference to its performance. I am still using the player, which, suffice to say, has changed beyond all recognition, through the use of P.W.B. devices. Having heard no better elsewhere, I have no desire to upgrade it.
From the Belt perspective, the simpler the design of amplifiers and speakers and indeed all equipment the better. Fewer electronic and mechanical components to deal with reduces the cost of treatment, and allows more time and money to treat other objects in the listening environment. Some 8 years ago, steeped as I was at the time in the Linn philosophy, I bought a pair of their Isobaric loudspeakers. Unfortunately, this occurred about 4 months before me first encounter with the P.W.B. phenomenon, which was soon to change totally my thinking on audio performance.
The Isobaric contains one of the most elaborate designs ever dreamt up, using no less than 6 drivers per box and very complex crossover networks with dozens of components! The internal cabinet construction is equally complex, with many compartments and surfaces. These factors, combined with a bombproof construction make the Isobaric very labour-intensive and expensive to treat, compared with a simpler speaker design. In hindsight I would never consider buying speakers like this again.
Having had experience over the past few years treating a wide range of audio equipment, including cheap straightforward speaker designs, I have often been stunned at the results, and am now convinced that budget priced systems are capable of attaining the most exalted of musical standards.
Todd Cunliffe
The question that Todd is attempting to address in this piece are questions that many of us have tried to answer some time. No matter how hard one tries, it is difficult to throw off the previous hierarchical models, propagated by engineers, manufacturers and magazines. I am more convinced now that even certain engineering standards are not essential to get good sound. But then the audio industry always had such information - you may remember all the fuss about Linns Ittok arm being ultra rigid, then an arm held together by string (Well-Tempered arm?) functioned just as well.
I have had a recent discussion with Philip Turner on this matter, and I think we all need to push him to reveal the full contents of his Thursday evening workshops, as he clearly has studied these matters with his friends. Philip, I know, once believed that one needed to spend a certain amount on, say, an amplifier to get a decent sound, because below this level the component quality was poor, and affected the sound adversely. He no longer believes this, and quoted a test in which a treated Computer Games CD console was no different from his treated high-level Sugden CD player. He also told me about hearing Absolute Sounds equipment recently, and to feeling appalled by the quality of sound produced.
One area that I would like to explore is the one of is simple better?, paraphrasing that Linn advert. Philip told me of how a number of electrical devices in his home, such as transformers, which when treated, and then removed lead to a deterioration of sound. Consequently, I wonder if a complex speaker, with multiple drive units, albeit fully treated, would be better than a more simple one that has been fully treated. But, as Todd says, economics enter here, as one is likely to pay more for such a speaker, and then lose out in the treatments that one could be applying to the TV etc..
This seems a much more interesting question, and perhaps readers may have views, and Philip may have done some further work on this matter (i.e. start writing Philip).
RG
Ø