Greetings, earthling.

[Alex_UK]

But that's too simple an analysis of the story, I'm afraid. First of all, I'd be the last to say the improvements are "so obvious". That is in fact probably the biggest factor against the products and concepts. I don't have any stats on how many who test them can hear their effects, but I think there are too many who don't. Then they are even more contemptuous of Beltism than they were before. I can really only guess at the reasons in general, but I think they are:

Sorry? I'm getting to the point where I have had enough, this was fun to start with, but is getting beyond a joke now -"the biggest factor against the products and concepts" ...is that people can't hear the effects - in other words, they don't work! And then, you're surpised people are "even more contemptuous of Bletism than they were before" - wonder why?

* Often, it is FREE tweaks that are demo'ed. The free tweaks are less effective than the actual products. And of the actual products, I think its only SR foil that has often been made available as a free sample. I can hear it's effect fine, but I can't say it's the company's most effective product. But potential customers are usually not going to get to hear the better products.

Ahh, so now we're getting to the crux of the matter, if you really want to hear what Belt can do - throw some money at him - I'm sure he could do with a few more SHILLings in his piggy bank!

Amazing, isn't it, that there are hundreds of ways of chanelling these (unseen, unproven) energies into better sound reproduction (whether we can hear it or not - doesn't mean its not there...) - but the "divine power" or whatever it is that created them, has decided that only the ones that cost lots of money will make the biggest difference! How uncanny!

I'm not going to waste any more of my time dissecting this, but thank you for your continued attention, and your exhaustive knowledge of everything to do with Peter Belt which I was unaware of until you brought this back from the dead.

[Soundhaspriority]

I think Beltism is one stage too far and one that brings the whole subjectivist approach into disrepute.

Paper clips and folding the corners of one page of all your books makes no difference. Ergo stands and cables make no difference.

So nothing makes a difference and everything makes a difference. Sounds about right.

Beltism is everything that high end audio tries to be, tries to acheive. It's already there in the Belt sound. it is in fact, the counterpart to all conventional audio research.

The subjectivist approach is only in "disrepute" by objectivists. Who are themselves in disrepute by subjectivists. Beltism is only too far for those audiophiles afraid to go beyond a certain distance. At least not without a tether and a chaperone, assuring they will find their way back. I'm not in this hobby for reputation, I'm in it for "sound".

[Soundhaspriority]

Sorry? I'm getting to the point where I have had enough, this was fun to start with, but is getting beyond a joke now -"the biggest factor against the products and concepts" ...is that people can't hear the effects - in other words, they don't work! And then, you're surpised people are "even more contemptuous of Bletism than they were before" - wonder why?

Are you having me on? Are you being deliberately obtuse? I don't twist your words around, please don't twist mine. You quoted them, then you responded with a distortion of my quote. Why, if not to argue against me in a dishonest way? I wrote "the biggest factor against the products and concepts" is that they are not "so obvious". Even so, that depends on how bad your listening skills are. But you deliberately distorted this to claim I said "people can't hear the effects - in other words, they don't work!". Do you not realize that it's obvious to people that you are inventing words to put in my mouth?

I have performed countless blind tests throughout the years, that have shown that people could hear the effects of PWB products, or ideas. Perhaps it is time for me to ask you Alex, what exactly is YOUR expertise on Beltism here? How many demonstrations have you given? How many tests have you run? What methodologies did you use? Exactly what products have you tested?
I get the feeling that you are "arguing from ignorance" here. In which case, clearly, as can be witnessed with so many, the contempt audiophiles have for Beltism is unwarranted. Not to mentional ignorant and irrational. It is in fact an insult to the entire notion of science, and scientific history.

Ahh, so now we're getting to the crux of the matter, if you really want to hear what Belt can do - throw some money at him - I'm sure he could do with a few more SHILLings in his piggy bank!

Did you write this after the first pint of Guiness, or the last? Now I feel like I am debating a 3 year old. Let me try to find a concept a 3 year old can understand, that might make it for you. Okay, how about this: do you believe that speaker wire sound isn't a hoax, or does that also fall into the devil's domain, according to you? For now, I'll assume that audio speaker wires aren't part of a grand conspiracy of deception for you. The cheap 22g zip wire that comes free with your loudspeakers is going to work just fine, isn't it. It will provide "proof of concept", that it will improve the sound more than if you don't use it, or say, employ a coat hanger in its place. And the wire's free, which appears to be your favorite selling price. Now here's the bad news, so hope you're sitting down for this: if you "really want to hear what speaker wire can do", you should really buy some Nordost cabling, or something along those lines. Now Nordost is also going to insist you throw some SHILLings in their piggy bank for the wire. You see my dear little Alex, unfortunately, it's hard to find audio companies these days that give their products away at your favourite price of free. PWB is about the only one that will, as a matter of fact.

If you have some kind of moral issue or whatever with paying a company for their products, you are free to suffer with the freebie speaker wire. Even free to believe its every bit as good as the Nordost. Just don't complain about the fact that quality sound is something you have to pay for in this hobby. Either get used to it, or find a new hobby.

Amazing, isn't it, that there are hundreds of ways of chanelling these (unseen, unproven) energies into better sound reproduction (whether we can hear it or not - doesn't mean its not there...) - but the "divine power" or whatever it is that created them, has decided that only the ones that cost lots of money will make the biggest difference! How uncanny!

Look, I have to say this Alex: you're ranting now, it's an ignorant foolish rant that only betrays your willingness to pretend you know something about subjects you obviously have little to no experience in, and I think it's unbecoming of you. Maybe Aquapiranha has started to rub off, or maybe I gave you too much credit for having a head on your shoulders, and being able to think and reason. Not go diving off the deep end, into fallacious presumptions.

Ever heard of Dr J. Hughes Bennett? Because that's who you are emulating here. He was one of the surgeons famously ridiculing Joseph Lister, the father of antiseptic surgery, saying "Show us the germs! Quick, close the door or Lister's invisible germs will get in!!". He of course refused to believe in Lister's hypothesis that people were dying at high rates on the wards because surgeons went out of their way to not adopt clean procedures. While Lister's concerns were ignored and his hypothesis unable to be proven to accepted standards of scientific rigor, people continued to die from preventable infections, caused by unclean medical practices. From Glasgow University some 100 years ago to your door, nothing has changed for those who share your attitudes. It is these very attitudes of blind arrogance that hold up real scientific progress. If you are wont to do this, that's fine with me. Just do not even try to pretend with me or anyone, that you know anything about science or scientific protocol, or have any respect for scientific discovery. Where you walk, you walk with the Luddites and the Bennetts.

There is obviously no new knowledge that can enter your gated mind at this point in your life, but purely for the benefit of others that may be reading, I will educate you anyway on your misguided rant:

- Not "hundreds", there are innumerable ways to change the energy patterns. I have probably changed them hundreds of times, just myself alone. They are not "unproven". You just pulled this out of your backside. Of course, you don't state what "proven" is, so it's a concept that's always debatable.

- "Whether we can hear it or not, doesn't mean it's not there" applies to EVERYTHING in audio. You've just never been able to think hard enough to realize that.

- By "divine power that created them", you assume they were "created". I take it you are religious and believe in God, from having said that. I'm not and I don't, but then, I don't believe in making blind ignorant assumptions in the first place, when I'm trying to understand an unfamiliar concept. No one who has studied them extensively, knows the true nature of the energy patterns (but they do know a lot more than anyone who hasn't studied them. Get the hint?). Just like no one knows what occurred before the universe came into existence. So maybe, whatever force is responsible for the energy patterns are part of our universe and were always there. Or maybe they came into being with the creation of our species. All I know is that YOU know nothing about this, so don't say they were "created".

- "The "divine power" or whatever it is that created them, has decided that only the ones that cost lots of money will make the biggest difference! How uncanny!"

As for this most mindless of your mindless presumptions, it should probably be noted at this point that Peter Belt is not the only engineer working in audio who has made observations that simply don't fit with conventional theories that engineers are versed with; nor even the only one who has flirted with the energy fields he is most associated with, and came up with products or ideas that exploited them.

Having worked with it for 25 years plus, he understands the phenomenon better than anyone on the planet. Where the hell do you think all these "free tweaks" came from exactly? You don't seem to realize how silly you sound, comparing free tweaks from PWB, with their paid products, and complaining that the free ones should be just as effective as the ones you pay for. There is a lot of (brilliant) research, development and hard work that goes into making Belt's products, and most importantly, proprietary knowledge which neither I nor anyone else in the world has. That alone would and should explain why you sticking paper clips in your ears are not likely to create products more effective than Peter Belt - PWB can. I certainly can't, and you certainly wouldn't have a hope in hell of doing so. But sometimes I think I have come pretty close, and I'm pretty jazzed about that. That is, until I actually hear one of PWB's actual products, and then I'm quickly reminded of how brilliant Belt is, and makes it all look easy. But what you so dearly fail to understand is, there is no "rule of law" from any "divine power" that says that one can not create methods of channeling these energy patterns in ways more effective than a PWB product, including their top of the line products. But he took 25 years to develop his TOL products, and discovered the phenomenon. So the chances that anyone today could, is unlikely.

If you think you could, there's nothing stopping you, go right ahead. I'll even agree to test it against a top PWB product and give your device a fair assessment. But if you think you could take any common object, do nothing to it and expect it to sound the same as those I am talking about, then you're just a talker, and useless as an audio researcher. I could easily pick your useless object as having no influence on the sound, in a blind test comparison. So if its that easy to sell do-nothing "mojo trinkets" like everybody on AOS thinks PWB is selling, and that you can make a mint off of them by doing so like Peter Belt is doing, then why the hell isn't anyone else competing with PWB?? It's obviously not because no company in the world would think to want to sell items to gullible customers, or that anti-PWB ranters here have too many scruples. Even if the products do NOTHING, it's not even illegal to sell them as audio devices. The reason no one in 25 years has put up shop selling cheap common untreated household objects that do nothing but yet purport to affect sound, is because they know they would lose money on the startup, and not make a dime after it gets out that their products don't do anything.

[Steve Toy]

There is a certain unpleasantness to your posts Paul. In even robust expression of our argument here we remain polite and respectful of others. Read our ethos.

Troll alert!

[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.

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" - 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? 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?

The most interesting part of your last post to me - "There is a lot of (brilliant) research, development and hard work that goes into making Belt's products, and most importantly, proprietary knowledge which neither I nor anyone else in the world has."

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?

[REM]

Surely if there was anything at all in any of PWBs' products or procedures or methods or whatever then Paul and indeed Belt himself could have retired as millionaires long ago, without having to sell so much as a safety pin or green marker pen to anyone.
How, simply submit your 'scientific' theories for appraisal by that nice James Randi bloke. If you can convince him any of it is genuine he will give you a million bucks, so there it is, a fortune ready and waiting, like taking sweets from a baby. So Paul, why are you waiting?

[Soundhaspriority]

There is a certain unpleasantness to your posts Paul. In even robust expression of our argument here we remain polite and respectful of others. Read our ethos.

Troll alert!

"Troll alert!"?? Are you serious? Well first of all, if you are referring to my response to Alex above, then you must have missed the fact that he was being rude to me without provocation, and I don't like when people deliberately misrepresent my words like that, especially when they know how to properly quote them. Now, let me tell you a few things about how I have seen others remaining "polite and respectful of others" in the "robust expression of our argument here" toward me.

Right following my first post to the forum, Steve, aka Aquapiñata, writes a nasty personal rant against me; the first of a geat many such angry rants against me. Next post he calls me a "deluded nutjob". He does however threaten to leave the thread. But then, predictably, returns to it, to continue a campaign of personal attacks against me, whereby he has been trolling me **in every single post** of his. However, I did not see you issue one of your "troll alert!'s" to him, over his behaviour in that thread. Did I miss that? Well he is now officially stalking me from the PWB thread, over to a thread I started in the tweaks section. Whereby in every post he makes to it, all he is doing is attacking me and crapping all over my thread. He is listed as a Senior Member, but is apparently still unaware of these ethos rules:

"Defamatory comments about any other member of this forum or any other hi-fi forum.

We aim for this forum to be relaxed, easy-going backdrop for stimulating and informative discussions to take place. The forum will thus be managed with this objective in mind."

So are the admins it seems, because Aquapiranha is given free reign to attack me in -every- single one of his posts about me. All of which I have graciously refrained from responding to, you will note, in order to avoid an all out war, and respect the board's ethos. Because if I ever did respond to the troll's rabid rants about me, that's exactly what you would have. A lot of "tears" that he warned about. (Except they would all be coming from him). But yet, while continuing this obsession he has had with me as soon as I joined, and attacking me in my own thread whilst contributing absolutely nothing to the topic of my thread, I see he has now just called for my banishment. Simply because he has this personal vendetta against me, and is currently having a **total and complete meltdown** over the fact that I am ignoring him.

I don't think Steve is the only one who doesn't get the "polite and respectful" part of the ethos you refer to. I believe I was accused by two members of "wearing a tin foil hat", simply on the basis that they don't approve of the audio products I consume (even though they are proudly made in the UK!). Not a very original insult, but then, we're not exactly talking brilliant minds here. One of your fellow adminstrators called me a lunatic, and then "just" a raving fanatic. I was accused of being "immoral" by Aquaboy, a "drug dealer" by another member (Greg), who openly wished me to go to prison no less. I was also accused of being Peter Belt , as well as accused of being a "brainwashed disciple" of Peter Belt (Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong....). The conspiracy nutters here have also accused me of being a host of other people that showed up in their Google searches, along with being an "evangelist", a "SHILL" (in both small case AND caps), of "preying on potential punters" (whatever that means), and told to shut up and go away more times than I can recall.

So far, no Admin has said anything about any of that, however. But, for daring to respond to a post misrepresenting PWB, and for defending my positions, two admins have weighed in, calling me a "troll" and a raving lunatic. Even though I have not made the kind of outright character attacks on others here, as I have just described above. And you talk to me of a "certain unpleasantness" you are sensing. Well, I'll tell you, I'm sensing it too.

[Themis]

Paul,

I think you should find several kind of "tweaks" :

- One that would make most of the posters here take you seriously (it will be a hard tweak, this one)
- One that will help you respond normally to criticism (without using phrases like "knowledge that can enter your gated mind at this point in your life" or "this most mindless of your mindless presumptions" and so on)
- One that will make you understand that in forums "there's no point in trying to discuss publicly with an admin"
- Finally, one that will help you shorten your lengthy messages, especially when there's little to say. (this appears to me a very hard tweak, too^^)

I would advise you to ask PB some help on these, too much for a single person...

[Stratmangler]

.... .. / ... .... .. .--. .--. -.-- / -....- / .. - .----. ... / - -- . / - --- / -... . .- -- / -... .- -.-. -.- / - --- / - .... . / -- --- - .... . .-. ... .... .. .--. --..-- / -. --- -... --- -.. -.-- / .... . .-. . / --. .. ...- . ... / -.-. .-. . -.. . -. -.-. . / - --- / -.-- --- ..- .-. / .--. ... . ..- -.. --- -....- ... -.-. .. . -. - .. ..-. .. -.-. / -... . .-.. .. . ..-. ... .-.-.-

Chris

If you're wondering what the above means make use of this.

[Soundhaspriority]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).