Quote:
Originally Posted by
Alex_UK
Paul, I do require further education - you are correct that I have not bought any of PWBs products, so yes, I am speaking from "ignorance." Frankly, I am not willing to invest my money (or time trying multiple "free" tweaks), which in my opinion (and lots of other) have no logical or scientific foundation.
I just posted a tweak in the appropriate section that takes 1 minute to set up. Now I know for a fact you have spent longer than a minute just writing these replies. So really, "logical or scientific foundation" doesn't enter into it in this case.
Quote:
Trying to compare the cable argument with Belts products is "deliberately obtuse" in my opinion - comparing something that has sound theory in science to something that "appears" to the uninitiated to be "magic" -
You're comparing the idea of whether cable works at all, with the idea of whether PWB products work. That's not what I was comparing. There is no controversy about whether audio cable passes a signal, except maybe with guys like "Aquapinata", huddling in the corner over there. The controversy comes when you claim cable sound can not simply be predicted by its capacitance, resistance or inductance values. As most HE cable manufacturers and adherents do. But because PWB is not the ONLY thing that can't fully be objectively measured in audio, you still have a lot of controversy about whether, if it can be presumed the values are sympatico with your equipment, there is any sonic benefit to fancy audiophile grade cables.
Quote:
surely you can see that normal, rational people will not easily accept some unseen, unproven and unmeasured "energy field" exists, that can be manipulated simply by putting pieces of paper under chair legs, specially treating safety pins, putting clocks forward etc. etc. etc. - just because Peter Belt and his followers say it does?
Surely you can see that?
Of course. You have no experience with it, or at least no positive experience with it, that confirms that the professional journalists who swore they did hear the effects were right. That is why I keep insisting that the two essential things that people who wish to argue theories on audio forums need to do:
1) Listening tests
2) MORE listening tests
They don't even have to be Belt-based listening tests. A lot of the problems I run into with tests, is that audiophiles simply don't do much of them, and hardly enough to get past all but the grossest differences. No wonder loudspeakers are always such a hot item in audio. For right or wrong, I believe the better your skills, the more likely you are to hear differences in e.g. cable direction, phase, Shun Mooks, the Furutech LP demagnitizer, the Hallograph candleabra, and finally, Belt devices. If you can't resolve to medium or fine differences, then believe me, Belt devices is not the only thing you won't hear. You'll tell me a lot of things are bollocks if you have no real experience hearing them. What I'm saying is if you can hear the Belt stuff, then how it all works underneath it all **does not and should not matter**. It never mattered to me, WHY should it matter to you or anyone else? I probably have over 30 tweaks on my site that if combined and applied wisely, have the potential to completely transform a system, and add at least thousands of pounds (currency!) to it. That fact passes most people by. Why? Basically 3 reasons: 1)Fear, 2)Crippling ideologies and 3) Didn't run a successful test
That last one's usually the dealbreaker. The difference between most Beltists of 25 years and those who think Belt should be horsewhipped and dragged through the streets of old London on the back of a carriage, is one endured a successful listening test; the other didn't. The latter who didn't are basically cement-headed fools not yet realizing -they- are the gullible fools, not the Beltists. And all it takes is the ability to recognize what has changed in the sound. One such fool once threatened to come to Leeds to punch my lights out, after the test didn't work. Problem is, I've never been to Leeds. But that's a fool, for you. (Foolishness can be guaged by the "more assumptions you insist on making in life, the bigger the fool you are"). And all it took was a little aspirin, a small bit of paper with 5 pin pricks, and a picture of a cat. Oh, and (finally), one last listening test that worked. And the fool became a slightly happier and more grateful man, and never spoke an ill word of me or Mr. Belt again.
Quote:
You appear to be a well educated and intelligent man, so I am wondering why you are making it your mission to educate us "non-believers"? What's in it for you? You obviously believe these products make a huge difference, maybe like Jehovah's Witnesses who go door knocking, you just feel compelled to spread the word out of the goodness of your heart?
What's all this nonsense about a "mission"??? I never said I had a "mission"! That is simply another one of YOUR misguided presumptions. Does anyone say you are an evangelist with a "mission" if you like and advocate Naim products, or whatever it is you fancy? I'm not doing anything different than you or anyone else here, by defending audio products or ideas that I happen to believe in. However, it seems like it's some kind of a crime to you to defend products or ideas in audio that one believes in, if the audio product or idea doesn't jibe with what most think it should be. There is a lot of ignorant misconceptions about Peter Belt and PWB. So it's natural that I would have a lot to say about it. If there wasn't such a massive swell of false assumptions about Belt (and really nasty ones I might add), then I would have less to say on the subject, I guarantee you.
What's in it for me, you say? Interesting that PWB skeptics really have cynical, mistrusting hearts and minds, because they always wish to imply there is something sinister going on with me, simply because I dare to defend products they don't believe work (and wouldn't know, since they usually never give them a serious try). e.g. Several of your forum-mates have accused me of being a "shill" for PWB. I'm sure no one here has ever been accused of being a "shill" for speaking out on behalf of their Rega decks. That said, it's true that PWB is different than Rega, in that its products operate under different principles than nearly every other product in audio. The Belt products are, and you would have to agree with this if you heard them working, nothing less than REVOLUTIONARY. They are not simply a means of making a few bucks in an audio niche market; that is simply how the science is being applied (it could be applied to treating water, or improving the image on video monitors or perhaps even treating certian medical conditions). They are elements of a new science.
THAT sir, is "what is in it for me", if you must know. Science. Unlike nearly every respondent I've seen so far, I have a respect for science. I understand its limitations, as *well* as its value. If the response to my tweak thread are anything to go by, there is another way in which my thinking is more unique than that of my opponents here: I have a genuine curiousity toward science. I never use science as a crutch to **avoid** science (ie. avoid understanding new concepts or technologies; no matter how far out they may seem). Even if I can not conceive of how something can work and don't wish to find out, with no experience in that domain, you will not hear me say "That's total bollocks that is!! And I should know, I'm familiar with what bollocks looks like, as a lot of that comes out of my mouth naturally!". I won't make such a judgement until its proven one way or the other to me. Beltism is a science which has largely been ignored, simply because it does not appeal in any way to common prejudices, and that causes people to pass nasty judgements and make sweeping dismissals of it, without even bothering to have any experience with it.
That is an anti-scientific attitude of arrogant dogmatism, and I have seen more than my share of this from AOSers in the PWB thread. This is what I believe should be fought against by ALL true believers in science.
Quote:
For the benefit of me and the rest of the forum, please could you describe the processes of the "(brilliant) research, (and) development" and maybe quantify the hard work for Belt's products? And how do you know only Belt has this knowledge?
Well gee, they're his products, and only his company makes his products. That is the definition of proprietary knowledge. I know of one company that makes a product based on one of Belt's products. But I also know from what I read, that their version of the product is their version; not based on any knowledge of proprietary information from the company. I hope you understand that I do not have intimate knowledge of the specific processes that go into developing the products, and if I did, I sure as hell wouldn't share it with you, or on any forum. For that would be the "proprietary knowledge" concept I talked about. I know from reading the company newsletters over the years, a bit of what goes into making the products. e.g. Some products are more expensive to manufacture than others, some products took a long time to develop, because of having to sort out potential problems they may have under certain conditions. As with any manufacturer, consistency is important, and you have to try and deliver a product that's going to perform in predictable ways, as you claim it will or should. It's easy to see how other products, such as the coloured ring ties, took a lot of time to develop; because each colour only sounds best inside of a certain combination of colours, and that pattern changes depending on what kind of object (wire) it is connected to. One carrying AC signals requires a different layout than one carrying audio signals. Then there is figuring out where each colour is best located on the cable, in relation to the other colours. (Not to mention figuring out how to induce the proper energy pattern into the ring ties in the first place).