Peter Belt / PWB headphones

[Marco]

At Jimmy's place, I could hear all manner of illogical things and, spookily, some audible things were done without me knowing what he was doing (moving bottles of "holy" water in and out of his fuse-box for instance........). I'd then go home and try some things and not be able to detect one jot of difference. Every visit, I had my specs "polarised" and had a drink of his polarised water before listening commenced

Bloody hell, and I thought I was 'out there' with Phase 17 Mana under my system!

Sorry, Dave, but that's just OCD loony-tune material!

Marco.

[Filterlab]

Gentlemen,
Hello, I am David Chmura the chap who happened to open this old can of worms when I happened across a dusty old pair of "PWB Moving Coil MC." phones in my loft and mentioned them to Rob.
Having read all of the replys to Robs posting I feel I should say sorry for having stirred your memories of days (some darker) when we were all ready to listen and try just about anything to reach that Holy Grail.
One chap who saw my listing on eBay suggested they were a model used in a BBC studio and was very well versed to all things Dynamic, electrostatic, Isodynamic etc.
I hope who ever ends up with them will fill me in with the rest of the mystery.
Its an honour to be allowed into your company and thank you Rob for all your help.
David

Hi David!

You're more than welcome mate, and don't worry about having stirred up the snake oil hornets nest (if that makes sense), there's nothing audiophiles like more than a good natter about some of the loonier side of hi-fi!



You may post a link to your auction in the Private Exhibitions area if you wish.

[oscarboyy]

Rob
Just thought I would let you know that I sold the PWB headphones to a chap who thinks and I quote " these phones may not be susceptable to high frequency outputs from generators and spark quench switches for coils. He needs something to listen to particular hums and pitch variations within a faraday cage".
All that for £50. what can I say.
Yet to fit the Shure V15 to my SME as unable to bend down low enough and long enough till the new hip settles down.
Have just bought 2 quad CDs that will play on my cinema sound from a guy in the States one by the Temptations and one by Marvin Gaye, could be interesting.
Catch up soon. David

[Chris]

I remember having my specs "syringed a la Peter belt" by Martin Colloms if I remember rightly using an empty syringe which supposedly gave out a flow of negative ions at a show - must have been a Penta, I suppose. At the same he demonstrated the advantages of biwiring. Must have been suggestion, of course, but the effect was amazing - all the dross disappeared and everything sounded crystal clear.
We were all young once.

[Soundhaspriority]

If you think the debates now about cables, mains conditioners etc generates war on the Forums Mr Belt did the same back in the 80's in shops, on the letters pages of magazines etc. He was one of the first well known after market adjusters, in the UK. He discovered that certain things done to kit would benefit the sound. There is a term used on Forums for this kind of thing (FOO). Hi-fi answers, Hi-fi News, Audiophile etc brought knowledge of PB to us and even gave bits of his accessories to the public free to try. The problem with PB's stuff is it well, kind of stretches credibility to breaking point. He had little bits of triangular foil that you stuck to CD's, Speakers, mains plugs etc. Grey coloured Spiral tube for putting on cables etc. Cutting notches into mains plugs (i'll give him that one but the effect came from cleaning the plug not the silly cuts you filed into the plug).

How do you know the effect came from cleaning the plug? I used to cut those notches 20 years ago, to good effect. I never cleaned the plug. You are making incorrect assumptions about the mechanism for this tweak. And there's nothing "silly" about those cuts; they have a rhyme and a reason.

He also first suggested the placement of screw head slots to be all aligned in mains plugs. He also had bits of wire looped that you would attach to your speakers. I know people who having been at his demos have said that they thought he was a hypnotist.

Uh-huh. And apparently on the weekends, he secretly fights crime under a hidden identity. At one of Peter's demos, all had heard the improvements he created, but said they were gone when he left the room. Proving that people aren't always rational, despite thinking otherwise. Even when they hear changes brought about by "impossible things", they prefer to wish them away with irrational judgements - rather than have a closer study of those "impossible things". I'm sure there is at least someone on this forum who has heard the effects of a Peter Belt device. But then wished it away as "fanciful beliefs", the result of the ubiquitous "placebo effect", and has since filed the experience away under the category of "the impetuousness of youth". It's entirely their right to walk a narrow path in life.

I just want to note for the record, that some of the "PWB witnesses" of the UK audio scene in the 80's have a greater sense of scientific curiousity than that, and are not restrained by an innate fear of learning new things that don't follow conventions they were taught in grammar school. One notable difference between us and the many who have denounced Peter's products on prejudice, without proper experience of them, is that we are knowledgable about the fact that placebos don't last for 25 years. Some of us even work in the scientific research and medical fields, and have direct experience with placebo trials. So Peter Belt's products have indeed proved the test of time.

Not having tried much of his stuff I can't say in all honesty that none of it works but, as I said earlier it does stretch credibility to breaking point and beyond.

So who's fault is that? The researcher or the naysayer?

King of FOO, perhaps but it was fun, none the less. If it was FOO, PB must have had a right good laugh at all who tried it and raved about it, and the lengths some Audiophiles would go to. A joke perhaps at our expense. But it is funny.

I don't see anything "funny" about it myself, nor have I ever. Peter Belt is a serious engineer in the UK, has contributed greatly to the advancement of audio, and is as honest a man as you will find. I'm quite certain there isn't anything "funny" about any of it for him either. Many who tried those free tweaks included in the mags did hear differences. In fact, many of them are STILL hearing differences 20 years later, from purchasing his latest products. For those that didn't hear anything, there could be many reasons for that. Not everybody can hear differences in cd players or cables. Some can't even tell when you've changed their speakers. So does that mean it's all "FOO"?? Is the pursuit of quality audio just a joke for us to laugh at, because the "truth" is, everything sounds the same and always did?

It was a bit of fun back in the 80's, but when I think about it, this sort of thing really does do harm to the hobby. I wonder how many gave up or ran away thinking we are even bigger nuts than many of us are all ready,.

No, it's the contrary. "This sort of thing" of dismissing advances in our hobby is what does real harm to the hobby, and prevents it from progressing in new ways. More importantly, it prevents us from really hearing what our systems our capable of. I have never understood this old argument about how how advanced products or ideas do harm to the hobby. Frankly, as a true and serious audiophile, I could not --possibly-- care less what outsiders think of me or my hobby. I gues I must be a minority in this "community", that I care more about how my music sounds than what non-audiophiles think of me. If we take this misguided belief to its logical conclusion, then we should all be using iPod docks and forget about the pursuit of quality audio. Because surely that will help non-audiophiles relate to us better.

PWB is not the "extreme end of this hobby", as many are trained to believe. There is no "extreme end" of our hobby. There are only different approaches to the same end (quality sound), and different degrees of advancement in those approaches (wrt Newtonian convention). The concern should not be what non-audiophiles, who are very far removed indeed from understanding the more advanced ideas in audio, think of us. If they will deprive themselves of good sound because they are afraid of what some of those products look like, then I don't want them in our hobby. Their hearing is probably shot anyway from sticking buds in their ears all day long, and the music they listen to would probably not benefit from being well reproduced. They would probably come to hate it, if it were. So the real concern here should be: as audiophiles, are we limiting ourselves by our beliefs? Many skeptics who when they finally hear what it is they've been decrying as "FOO" for so many years, come to learn just that.

Was PB the King Of FOO ? (I mean real madness) And those who tried it by paying for it, well were they just ?

No. And you might want to update your newsfeed: http://www.belt.demon.co.uk There is no "was" about Peter Belt. He never stopped researching and producing new products that utilize the revolutionary phenomenon he discovered in the 80's. He has made hundreds of products since then, based on it. Some of which have been positively reviewed by some online magazines.

The "Kings of Foo", or "real madness", comes from those with narrow world views, who limit their knowledge and experience to whatever is 'safe' for them and whatever is known to them; whatever they can easily digest, intellectually speaking. Those stuck in the past, in so many ways. Every once in a while, a scientist or researcher comes along who is too far ahead of the curve, with theories too advanced for the masses, who dictate what will and won't become "mainstream"; accepted by all. And he is summarily dismissed and shunned as a "madman", or a "charlatan" and run out of town on a rail. Despite the fact that his findings could actually help people and advance knowledge of our world. The "real madness" then, is to restrain real progress by way of real prejudice. There's your "FOO", sir.

Regards,


Shippy.

[Beechwoods]

Excellent first post, Shippy! Welcome to The Art Of Sound. When you get the chance, it would be great if you could post up something of your own system and what you like, in the Welcome forum. See it as 'setting out your stall'

Peter Belt definitely polarises opinion, and it's interesting to hear from such a firm advocate of his methods and products. Aside from the 'mains plug notches' tweak, have you tried any of them first hand?

It's certainly good to hear he's still going!

[aquapiranha]

Be careful chaps. On another forum a year or so ago this ridiculous belt character came up. Lo and behold, a newly joined forum member appeared to defend his idiotic bull#### to the death. each post was long, meandering and used multiple quotes from other posters. I can see where this is going, and it will end in tears.

Personally, I see the word 'quantum' on anything to do with hifi, and I sigh. Anyone who can make a living out of selling £200 crocodile clips to disillusioned audiophiles should hang his head in shame IMO.

[Alex_UK]

Not sure why this thread is suddenly brought back from the dead by Shippy, (probably a google search brought you here?) but interesting to read nonetheless. I won't comment - I have no experience of the man or his tweaks, but I do have a question that I have wanted to ask for ages - what does "FOO" actually stand for? (If you can repeat it!?)

[aquapiranha]

Foo means anything without scientific proof or reasoning. You could say for example that the difference between cables is foo. I think it comes from WW2 when fighter pilots called UFO's Foo Fighters, but I could be wrong!

http://www.unmuseum.org/foo.htm

[Beechwoods]

Quite possibly more than you ever wanted to know about Foo...

http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3092.txt