• FAQ  • Search  • Memberlist  • Usergroups   • Register   • Profile  • Log in to check your private messages  • Log in 

LefreQue Tone Bridge


Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    trumpetherald.com Forum Index -> Other Toys
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
dstdenis
Heavyweight Member


Joined: 25 May 2013
Posts: 2123
Location: Atlanta GA

PostPosted: Mon Jul 11, 2016 11:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

royjohn wrote:
...Question for me would be whether this particular gizmo actually works $55 better than your DIY gizmo. To know for sure would require some behind the screen testing, I guess.

That's a good question. I'm not sure, but I can say that the makers of LefreQue could have designed a simpler device if they wanted to. This thing has two plates instead of one, an odd shape of the plates, small dots and indentations that position the plates close to each other, and better than the most basic materials and plating. The fact that they went to this trouble makes me believe they thought it makes a difference. Like you say, it would take some testing to evaluate that.
_________________
Bb Yamaha Xeno 8335IIS
Cornet Getzen Custom 3850S
Flugelhorn Courtois 155R
Piccolo Stomvi
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
etc-etc
Heavyweight Member


Joined: 19 Jan 2008
Posts: 5704

PostPosted: Tue Jul 12, 2016 1:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I would say if it was too simple-looking, buyers would develop remorse much faster.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
LaTrompeta
Veteran Member


Joined: 03 May 2015
Posts: 476
Location: USA

PostPosted: Tue Jul 12, 2016 6:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I recently played a gig with a clarinet player who used one of these, and she seemed to believe that it makes a big difference. Maybe it does, but I can see how it would help woodwinds more than brass.

What exactly is the "sound gap" that we are trying to bridge on the trumpet?

My policy with regards to any new gadget goes as follows:

1. Did Bud use it?
2. Did Maurice Andre use it?
3. Did Maynard use it?

If they don't need it, I guess I don't either.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TKSop
Heavyweight Member


Joined: 23 Feb 2014
Posts: 1584
Location: UK

PostPosted: Tue Jul 12, 2016 7:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

LaTrompeta wrote:
I recently played a gig with a clarinet player who used one of these, and she seemed to believe that it makes a big difference. Maybe it does, but I can see how it would help woodwinds more than brass.

What exactly is the "sound gap" that we are trying to bridge on the trumpet?

My policy with regards to any new gadget goes as follows:

1. Did Bud use it?
2. Did Maurice Andre use it?
3. Did Maynard use it?

If they don't need it, I guess I don't either.


None of those used Reeves sleeves or PVA'd horns either...

Did they need those things? No.
Do we need them now? No.

Do they, nonetheless, help us achieve the results we want? Consensus is Yes.
Could it be argued that they could've benefited from those advancements? Yes, just because they managed just fine (and then some) without them doesn't mean they wouldn't have appreciated them.



On topic...
I have one (red brass) - I do feel a difference, and a different difference depending on where on the horn I put it. I'm not convinced I like it, but would have to experiment more to be certain.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
LaTrompeta
Veteran Member


Joined: 03 May 2015
Posts: 476
Location: USA

PostPosted: Tue Jul 12, 2016 7:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I do feel, however, that the more time we spend playing around with equipment, that takes time away from diligent, useful practice.

These gadgets may very well help. I have tried a number of them (heavy weight caps, megatone mouthpiece, leadpipes galore, etc.) and have found very few to be of long-term benefit.

Nevertheless, some big-name players have really like some of them, so I can see that they are not always just gimmicks.

I wonder, though, is the trend toward experimenting with equipment a newer thing? Was it as common 50 years ago as it is today?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dstdenis
Heavyweight Member


Joined: 25 May 2013
Posts: 2123
Location: Atlanta GA

PostPosted: Tue Jul 12, 2016 7:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I read Brian Shook's bio of William Vacchiano, who loved to tinker with trumpet-related gadgets. So there's one.

My understanding of this gadget's purpose is that it makes the harmonic overtones align better with the fundamental pitch so the instrument feels like it's better in tune. This allows our subconscious to spend less time pushing the pitch up and down trying to find the center. Or something like that.

I haven't spent much time messing with this gadget. I just put it on the trumpet, played some things I had just finished practicing and noticed the difference---more than I expected. So I'll keep using it.
_________________
Bb Yamaha Xeno 8335IIS
Cornet Getzen Custom 3850S
Flugelhorn Courtois 155R
Piccolo Stomvi
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
LittleRusty
Heavyweight Member


Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 11200
Location: Santa Clara, Ca

PostPosted: Tue Jul 12, 2016 8:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

TKSop wrote:
None of those used Reeves sleeves or PVA'd horns either...

Did they need those things? No.
Do we need them now? No.

Do they, nonetheless, help us achieve the results we want? Consensus is Yes.

I don't think we can state that that is the consensus. One could easily point out that the vast majority of players don't use Reeves sleeves or have PVA's therefor the concensus is no.
TKSop wrote:
Could it be argued that they could've benefited from those advancements? Yes, just because they managed just fine (and then some) without them doesn't mean they wouldn't have appreciated them.

It could also be argued that they wouldn't have benefited. Just because they didn't try them doesn't mean they would appreciate them either.

If you like them, fine. There is no need to attempt to justify them to anyone else by inventing support from people who have never tried them.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
oxleyk
Heavyweight Member


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 4034

PostPosted: Tue Jul 12, 2016 8:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

dstdenis wrote:
My understanding of this gadget's purpose is that it makes the harmonic overtones align better with the fundamental pitch so the instrument feels like it's better in tune. This allows our subconscious to spend less time pushing the pitch up and down trying to find the center. Or something like that.


This was my impression as well with the binder clip testing I did. Also, articulation felt cleaner. I noticed more improvement on my cornets, a Bach Strad 181ML and a Getzen Eterna 800 LB, than on my trumpet, a B&S Challenger.

This improvement may be something that only the player notices, but isn't that enough?

Kent
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TKSop
Heavyweight Member


Joined: 23 Feb 2014
Posts: 1584
Location: UK

PostPosted: Tue Jul 12, 2016 1:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

LittleRusty wrote:
TKSop wrote:
None of those used Reeves sleeves or PVA'd horns either...

Did they need those things? No.
Do we need them now? No.

Do they, nonetheless, help us achieve the results we want? Consensus is Yes.

I don't think we can state that that is the consensus. One could easily point out that the vast majority of players don't use Reeves sleeves or have PVA's therefor the concensus is no.


If we're being anal about it, the consensus of those that have tried them is what matters, and in both cases the consensus among those that have tried both PVA's and Sleeves is that there is a noticeable effect, and most often a definite improvement.

Most players not having tried them doesn't mean that most players disagree with statement, it means they have no opinion on it.

Quote:

TKSop wrote:
Could it be argued that they could've benefited from those advancements? Yes, just because they managed just fine (and then some) without them doesn't mean they wouldn't have appreciated them.

It could also be argued that they wouldn't have benefited. Just because they didn't try them doesn't mean they would appreciate them either.

If you like them, fine. There is no need to attempt to justify them to anyone else by inventing support from people who have never tried them.


It could be argued (and I've seen it done) that they may well have just gotten lucky breaks with equipment, that they had the pick of large batches that would make it more likely that their gear was closer to a perfect match than your average player gets by walking into a store and accepting the first bach 37 and 3C that the salesmen got out.


Just because they didn't try them doesn't mean they would've appreciated them, but nor does it mean they wouldn't - my experience is that with certain advancements the consensus (among those that tried them) is so strong that it seems likely that the greats would probably have agreed... far from a statement of fact, but it's a strong suspicion, nonetheless.


At any rate, I think you misunderstand my intentions...
My point with that post was (intended to be) that just because the greats didn't have certain gear-related choices available to them that we have now doesn't mean that they wouldn't have appreciated them (and I picked a couple of cases I'd expect it to be more than likely they would have done).
The point that (paraphrasing) 'xyz greats didn't have this stuff so I don't need it either' is closing doors to potential advancements that could enhance your performance and enjoyment.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
etc-etc
Heavyweight Member


Joined: 19 Jan 2008
Posts: 5704

PostPosted: Tue Jul 12, 2016 2:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

oxleyk wrote:
dstdenis wrote:
My understanding of this gadget's purpose is that it makes the harmonic overtones align better with the fundamental pitch so the instrument feels like it's better in tune. This allows our subconscious to spend less time pushing the pitch up and down trying to find the center. Or something like that.


This was my impression as well with the binder clip testing I did. Also, articulation felt cleaner. I noticed more improvement on my cornets, a Bach Strad 181ML and a Getzen Eterna 800 LB, than on my trumpet, a B&S Challenger.

This improvement may be something that only the player notices, but isn't that enough?

Kent


A $0.25 binder clip works as good as the $66 gizmo?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
oxleyk
Heavyweight Member


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 4034

PostPosted: Tue Jul 12, 2016 2:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

etc-etc wrote:
A $0.25 binder clip works as good as the $66 gizmo?


Take it easy there, big spender. I found binder clips for 16 cents apiece.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
LittleRusty
Heavyweight Member


Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 11200
Location: Santa Clara, Ca

PostPosted: Tue Jul 12, 2016 2:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

TKSop wrote:
LittleRusty wrote:
TKSop wrote:
None of those used Reeves sleeves or PVA'd horns either...

Did they need those things? No.
Do we need them now? No.

Do they, nonetheless, help us achieve the results we want? Consensus is Yes.

I don't think we can state that that is the consensus. One could easily point out that the vast majority of players don't use Reeves sleeves or have PVA's therefor the concensus is no.


If we're being anal about it, the consensus of those that have tried them is what matters, and in both cases the consensus among those that have tried both PVA's and Sleeves is that there is a noticeable effect, and most often a definite improvement.

Most players not having tried them doesn't mean that most players disagree with statement, it means they have no opinion on it.

Oh so, so, so wrong. I have seen so many people who have not tried them and have very strong opinions.

TKSop wrote:
LittleRusty wrote:

TKSop wrote:
Could it be argued that they could've benefited from those advancements? Yes, just because they managed just fine (and then some) without them doesn't mean they wouldn't have appreciated them.

It could also be argued that they wouldn't have benefited. Just because they didn't try them doesn't mean they would appreciate them either.

If you like them, fine. There is no need to attempt to justify them to anyone else by inventing support from people who have never tried them.


It could be argued (and I've seen it done) that they may well have just gotten lucky breaks with equipment, that they had the pick of large batches that would make it more likely that their gear was closer to a perfect match than your average player gets by walking into a store and accepting the first bach 37 and 3C that the salesmen got out.


Just because they didn't try them doesn't mean they would've appreciated them, but nor does it mean they wouldn't - my experience is that with certain advancements the consensus (among those that tried them) is so strong that it seems likely that the greats would probably have agreed... far from a statement of fact, but it's a strong suspicion, nonetheless.


At any rate, I think you misunderstand my intentions...
My point with that post was (intended to be) that just because the greats didn't have certain gear-related choices available to them that we have now doesn't mean that they wouldn't have appreciated them (and I picked a couple of cases I'd expect it to be more than likely they would have done).
The point that (paraphrasing) 'xyz greats didn't have this stuff so I don't need it either' is closing doors to potential advancements that could enhance your performance and enjoyment.

I don't disagree with the basic premise, that there are new inventions that help improve the instrument. Your original post made a very sweeping claim, which, IMHO, was based on conjecture, and implied endorsement by people who hadn't tried the device.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
dstdenis
Heavyweight Member


Joined: 25 May 2013
Posts: 2123
Location: Atlanta GA

PostPosted: Fri Jul 15, 2016 6:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Another update: I've found the LefreQue works well on my Bb trumpet and cornet. I couldn't figure out a good way to put it on the flugelhorn because of the tuning leadpipe, so I won't bother.

I've been putting it on the instrument when I begin to practice, then I try to forget it's there and just play. Still, every now and then I'll think something slotted better than usual and felt especially good, then I'll think "oh yeah, I wonder if that gadget had something to do with that?"

I also plan to play without it a few times after I've gotten used to it to see whether doing without would mess me up.
_________________
Bb Yamaha Xeno 8335IIS
Cornet Getzen Custom 3850S
Flugelhorn Courtois 155R
Piccolo Stomvi
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bach_again
Heavyweight Member


Joined: 03 Apr 2005
Posts: 2297
Location: Northern Ireland

PostPosted: Fri Jul 15, 2016 7:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

LaTrompeta wrote:

What exactly is the "sound gap" that we are trying to bridge on the trumpet?


A marketing term.
_________________
Check out Barkley Microphones!

www.facebook.com/barkleymic
www.instagram.com/barkleymicrophones
www.barkleymic.com

John Lake, solo trumpet, Infinity ribbon mic:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9LkI7uvqDzc
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
oxleyk
Heavyweight Member


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 4034

PostPosted: Fri Jul 15, 2016 8:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

dstdenis wrote:
Another update: I've found the LefreQue works well on my Bb trumpet and cornet. I couldn't figure out a good way to put it on the flugelhorn because of the tuning leadpipe, so I won't bother.

I've been putting it on the instrument when I begin to practice, then I try to forget it's there and just play. Still, every now and then I'll think something slotted better than usual and felt especially good, then I'll think "oh yeah, I wonder if that gadget had something to do with that?"

I also plan to play without it a few times after I've gotten used to it to see whether doing without would mess me up.


A good test for me has been any Arban interval study. My normal tendency is to over- or under-shoot the notes, especially when increasing the tempo. When I add the binder clip the notes sound more centered and the intervals pop into place much more easily. I also notice a more fluid connection in scales, which I think Steve Dillard mentioned.

I'm still hesitant about getting the Lefreque device because of the price, but they certainly look better than a binder clip.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mfan
Veteran Member


Joined: 06 Aug 2003
Posts: 212
Location: San Diego

PostPosted: Sun Jul 31, 2016 2:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I rarely post here anymore but wanted to add my two cents. Lefreque is the real deal. I was a huge skeptic and was convinced it would not work. Boy was I wrong. I am a professional player living in San Diego. When I realized Steve Dillard aka The Horn Trader was local I went to see him. I brought a trusted pair of ears and we went to go test this thing out. My buddy sat across the rehearsal hall from me with his back to me as I tested red brass, silver plated brass and solid silver Lefreque models. I would play the same passage twice once with it on and once with it off. While all the Lefreque models gave me different colors he chose every excerpt I played with it on over the excerpt without. Every single time. My buddy who was giving me crap for being interested in the snake-oil in the first place took home a red brass model for himself. Now after a few more days of rehearsals and performances I can honestly say I will never leave the house without my Lefreque.

It may seem ridiculous but it adds a layer of polish to my sound, and if it gives me an edge why would I refuse that? Maybe it doesn't work for everyone. I would suspect a certain level of musicianship must be attained to really appreciate the benefits. For example I had been playing more than 15 years before I really understood what overtones and difference tones were. And if you don't understand that then you can't really appreciate what Lefreque does for your sound.

I am primarily a lead player and my friend is a brass quintet guy. The red brass made the biggest impact for him while little to nothing for me. The solid silver was great for me but was a step in the wrong direction for him. I don't know if this is a function of our personal playing styles or more related to our mouthpiece and horn combinations. I will say though it would be a good idea to try finding a dealer and choosing the correct one for you.

Steve has a video up on the horn trader website. Doesn't really do it justice but gives a pretty good idea of the actual benefits. He gives on and off demonstrations and even on crappy computer speakers you can hear a difference. And for crying out loud man put that binder clip away and buy the real thing!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
roccotrumpetsiffredi
Veteran Member


Joined: 04 Jul 2015
Posts: 169

PostPosted: Sun Jul 31, 2016 3:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

So if it really works, does it mean Monette is onto something with integral/ threaded integral mouthpieces?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bach_again
Heavyweight Member


Joined: 03 Apr 2005
Posts: 2297
Location: Northern Ireland

PostPosted: Sun Jul 31, 2016 3:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mfan wrote:
I rarely post here anymore but wanted to add my two cents. Lefreque is the real deal. I was a huge skeptic and was convinced it would not work. Boy was I wrong. I am a professional player living in San Diego. When I realized Steve Dillard aka The Horn Trader was local I went to see him. I brought a trusted pair of ears and we went to go test this thing out. My buddy sat across the rehearsal hall from me with his back to me as I tested red brass, silver plated brass and solid silver Lefreque models. I would play the same passage twice once with it on and once with it off. While all the Lefreque models gave me different colors he chose every excerpt I played with it on over the excerpt without. Every single time. My buddy who was giving me crap for being interested in the snake-oil in the first place took home a red brass model for himself. Now after a few more days of rehearsals and performances I can honestly say I will never leave the house without my Lefreque.

It may seem ridiculous but it adds a layer of polish to my sound, and if it gives me an edge why would I refuse that? Maybe it doesn't work for everyone. I would suspect a certain level of musicianship must be attained to really appreciate the benefits. For example I had been playing more than 15 years before I really understood what overtones and difference tones were. And if you don't understand that then you can't really appreciate what Lefreque does for your sound.

I am primarily a lead player and my friend is a brass quintet guy. The red brass made the biggest impact for him while little to nothing for me. The solid silver was great for me but was a step in the wrong direction for him. I don't know if this is a function of our personal playing styles or more related to our mouthpiece and horn combinations. I will say though it would be a good idea to try finding a dealer and choosing the correct one for you.

Steve has a video up on the horn trader website. Doesn't really do it justice but gives a pretty good idea of the actual benefits. He gives on and off demonstrations and even on crappy computer speakers you can hear a difference. And for crying out loud man put that binder clip away and buy the real thing!


It is a psychological effect. The mass added to the system is negligible. The "sound gap" is made-up marketing BS of the highest order.

Now, here's the rub. If you play better with this device on then it is a worthy investment, because you believe in what it does and that therefore produces positive results. If someone believes a binder clip to do the same, then the benefit is likely similar; they are similar in weight, and both pretty much superfluous to the instrument.

I think it was someone like Gordon who said "If a player believes a gadget will make them play better, it will." and to that end, I have no issue with the device. The power of the mind is remarkable. Ben Goldacre's book "Bad Science" (amongst others) proves the power of the placebo. Truly remarkable. And that is with physiological problems and illnesses!

Anyway, I don't care either way if anyone wants to use these, but they truly are a gimmick. And one that works if you think it will. And that's fine. I'll try one if it is possible (and with my mouthpiece that may not be the case) - it will be my loss.

Mike
_________________
Check out Barkley Microphones!

www.facebook.com/barkleymic
www.instagram.com/barkleymicrophones
www.barkleymic.com

John Lake, solo trumpet, Infinity ribbon mic:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9LkI7uvqDzc
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
mfan
Veteran Member


Joined: 06 Aug 2003
Posts: 212
Location: San Diego

PostPosted: Sun Jul 31, 2016 3:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I would argue it is not psychological. It does actually change the way the horn plays. I'm surprised you would claim this Michael as you play a mouthpiece that fills with water. It that also psychological? I infrequently post here because of other users that post facts about products and gear they have never tried.

I know it changes the way I play as others can hear it in blind tests. It changes the way I play the same way the shape of a tuning slide does. The same way a bell flare will change my sound. Bore size, bell diameter, brass vs silver. Placement of bell braces, alignment of valves, mouthpiece weights, backbore sizes.... the list goes on and on. ALL of these little things change the way you sound. Some are drastic and some only make a minute difference. Why is it so hard to accept that Lefreque would also make an actual difference?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bach_again
Heavyweight Member


Joined: 03 Apr 2005
Posts: 2297
Location: Northern Ireland

PostPosted: Sun Jul 31, 2016 4:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mfan wrote:
I would argue it is not psychological. It does actually change the way the horn plays. I'm surprised you would claim this Michael as you play a mouthpiece that fills with water. It that also psychological? I infrequently post here because of other users that post facts about products and gear they have never tried.

I know it changes the way I play as others can hear it in blind tests. It changes the way I play the same way the shape of a tuning slide does. The same way a bell flare will change my sound. Bore size, bell diameter, brass vs silver. Placement of bell braces, alignment of valves, mouthpiece weights, backbore sizes.... the list goes on and on. ALL of these little things change the way you sound. Some are drastic and some only make a minute difference. Why is it so hard to accept that Lefreque would also make an actual difference?


Several points:

The Apredato is a very skeletonised mouthpiece under a sleeve full of water. I think the skeletonization does more than the water. It is more drastic than adding a couple grams here or there. I also don't think James Morrison's explanation 'holds water' so to speak.

I am fully aware of the psychological effects of these things, and embrace the fact that I too am susceptible to this, and whether or not the Apredato makes me play better because of this fact I don't really know, but I use it because I like how it sounds - just like you. It is, however, physically a more substantial change to the piece. There are other factors at play here which further remove the two scenarios:

I had a brand new mpc modified, not the one I was accustomed to; manufacture variance brought into question.
The rim on the new mpc is near flawless, my old piece was beat up.
The piece was re-plated after modification.

Back to you:

The blind test is only useful if you don't know when the device is added. Otherwise subconsciously you will be changing how you play, try as you might. The test needs to be blind at both ends; the operator and the audience otherwise it is useless, scientifically speaking.

Things like bell flare change the sound, response, resonances and resistance experienced by the player. We don't have data to claim that the freak has the same magnitude of impact. I argue that it doesn't, but that the psychological component is very real and very strong, and for that reason alone it may impact just as much or more as other major design components.

Like I said; it likely does nothing beyond the placebo, but the belief that it does is strong enough that it produces positive outcomes, and just like in medicine; a positive outcome is good placebo or otherwise. It just doesn't mean that the effector did anything beyond the psychological.

That book "Bad Science" is really worth a read.

Imagine in this scenario "placebo" is no modification IE the horn and mouthpiece totally stock, and that the "homeopathic" option is the snake oil aka the freak.

Quote:
So how come you keep hearing homeopaths saying that there are trials where homeopathy does do better than placebo? This is where it gets properly interesting. This is where we start to see homeopaths, and indeed all alternative therapists more than ever, playing the same sophisticated tricks that big pharma still sometimes uses to pull the wool over the eyes of doctors.

Yes, there are some individual trials where homeopathy does better, first because there are a lot of trials that are simply not "fair tests". For example - and I'm giving you the most basic examples here - there are many trials in alternative therapy journals where the patients were not "blinded": that is, the patients knew whether they were getting the real treatment or the placebo. These are much more likely to be positive in favour of your therapy, for obvious reasons. There is no point in doing a trial if it is not a fair test: it ceases to be a trial, and simply becomes a marketing ritual.

There are also trials where it seems patients were not randomly allocated to the "homeopathy" or "sugar pill" groups: these are even sneakier. You should randomise patients by sealed envelopes with random numbers in them, opened only after the patient is fully registered into the trial. Let's say that you are "randomly allocating" patients by, um, well, the first patient gets homeopathy, then the next patient gets the sugar pills, and so on. If you do that, then you already know, as the person seeing the patient, which treatment they are going to get, before you decide whether or not they are suitable to be recruited into your trial. So a homeopath sitting in a clinic would be able - let's say unconsciously - to put more sick patients into the sugar pill group, and healthier patients into the homeopathy group, thus massaging the results. This, again, is not a fair test.

Congratulations. You now understand evidence-based medicine to degree level.


- Ben Goldacre

Again, if this helps, good. All I'm saying is it's likely psychological. And if you are unsure how powerful the mind is, read the book (3rd plug!). The mind is remarkable.

Mike[/quote]
_________________
Check out Barkley Microphones!

www.facebook.com/barkleymic
www.instagram.com/barkleymicrophones
www.barkleymic.com

John Lake, solo trumpet, Infinity ribbon mic:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9LkI7uvqDzc
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    trumpetherald.com Forum Index -> Other Toys All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Page 2 of 6

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group