| Columns Retired Columns & Blogs |
| Loudspeakers Amplification Digital Sources | |
Analog Sources Accessories Featured | |
Music Columns Retired Columns | |
Show Reports | |
Features Latest News Community | |
Resources Subscriptions |
© 2024 StereophileAVTech Media Americas Inc., USA
All rights reserved
In the supposedly competitive world of high end audio, you'd think more rooms at CES and other Hi Fi shows would incorporate tweaks into their systems to gain an edge over the competition - as in, say, Formula One racing. But aside from the ocassional tube trap or room lens or isolation stand, tweaks just aren't part of the over-all strategy. In fact, there seems to be a very strong bias against tweaks at the shows. Is it that difficult to learn new things or is it something else?
We'll use tweaks at shows, but not where they can be seen. We will point them out to the folks who understand such,if they stay around in the room long enough.
Otherwise, it turns into a headache quite quickly,as folks are moving about so fast (from room to room), it's like speed dating with extreme opinions. Therefore the black/white character that comes out of people is quite powerful.
There's no need to alienate those who don't get tweaks..just as they walk into the room, so they (the given tweaks) are never shown to exist, for the most part.
My favorite to bring to a show, if at all possible..is a stack of AC balancing transformers..as the AC lines in hotels are quite polluted.
Jan: "How can you know that until you try the treatments? More enjoyment with no cost. How can you turn that down?"
Geoff: "In the supposedly competitive world of high end audio, you'd think more rooms at CES and other Hi Fi shows would incorporate tweaks into their systems to gain an edge over the competition - as in, say, Formula One racing. But aside from the ocassional tube trap or room lens or isolation stand, tweaks just aren't part of the over-all strategy. In fact, there seems to be a very strong bias against tweaks at the shows. Is it that difficult to learn new things or is it something else?"
I have tried many tweaks, actually.
Even explored different cremes!
In our room at T.H.E. Show, we have installed many such tweaks, and have given proponents of these tweaks (and cable and some electronic gear) free reign to try things and see what people notice.
Like I said, I'm all in favor; and we have been and will remain open to trying all kinds of stuff.
Not the issue.
Sometimes, there are discenrned differences, and sometimes not.
If any of you 'manufacturers' on either side of the aisle ever stop by, I'll even talk about the experiences over a glass of wine. (I think it would only lead to more controversy to mention any names or products on a thread that is not about that. We are supposed to be talking about 'perception,' and not 'product,' after all!)
Of the zero subjective tweakers who bothered to check out any of the links about the subtle things things that can affect perception probably noted, Michigan's analogy about 'insensible' (unable to be directly cognitively sensed) pollen creating an altered state is right on.
The points in those links was that many things that operate below the level of concious cause/effect can have cause/effect relationships with consciously unconnected perceptions.
No problem there, either.
But...
When you stop to ponder the Belt hypothesis (sorry, it doesn't rise to theory,) Michigan suddenly drops the facade of interest in subtle phenomenon and becomes 100% "Beltist."
I say, just as some are unaffected by that same pollen, there are those listeners among us who, by process of evolution, exist on different parts of the bell curve; with some listeners not requiring that type of tweak in order to "sign off" with regard to the "safety" of the environment.
That may explain why some people require more "Belt tweaks" than others before hearing an effect, and why some (many/most?) may not require them at all.
The Beltists get upset if I call them remedial, but that term was meant without malice. They won't accomodate "catching up," either.
No, it can only be "moving ahead of others."
(That was a fun button to push, by the way.)
So, be they Special Olympians in audio or be they "Supermen," they should be with it enough to get over the "everyone is subject to this type of intervention because I say so" stuff. It smacks of tantrumizing.
One of the coolest things about perception is the variability fo human experience. Beltists, don't spoil it with the "my tweak uber alles" BS, 'cause you'll miss out on all the other cool stuff!
I've still got some neat references about how what we see affects what we hear, too. I'll try to get them linked for later, so that way, the Beltists will have even more stuff to ignore about how humans can vary!
If we could only get the evangelical objectivists to really talk with the fundamentalist subjectivists, we might actually get somewhere!
Ethan vs. Jan/May/Michigan will be resolved sometime after Israel and Palestine have come to terms.
I have answered this a number of times. Once again, I tried the free tweaks suggested on the Belts' website.
Simple. In addition to repeated comments on my "ego", you are constantly asserting things such as:
This isn't some sort of general observation on audio. This is simply part of your paragraph detailing your mistaken assumptions as to my motivations and actions. Move on, Jan.
I have done no such thing. While you have exchanged such comments with others, I have not partaken in them. I am afraid you are lumping together everyone with whom you are displeased.
Odd choice of T. Kaczynski for comparison if this was your actual point. Why not Ghandi? Obviously because referencing Ghandi does not invoke the negative baggage that Kacznski does.
Moreover, someone with tens of thousands of audio equipment is hardly living the life of a luddite. Audiophiles certainly are not anti-technology. Wholly inapplicable simile.
As I previously explained, the reason I brought up my living environment was an attempt to discuss why the tweaks did not work for me using the Belt's theory as to why they work as a starting point. That is, a possible explanation as to why perceptions differ; my environment is already "safe" and perceived by me to be such.
Sadly this went nowhere. Will you respond to the actual issue raised?
Similarly, what is your better single word for the sound of distortion? After calling out "fuzzy" as a bad word, can you affirmatively replace it with a better term?
Once again, if you post on the actual topics of the thread we can all enjoy discussing these issues. Mr. Frog and May have done a wonderful job of doing so and are providing excellent examples for you to emulate.
Good power treatment and comprehensive room treatments must make a substantial improvement under show conditions.
It's probably difficult to even decently demonstrate headphones at a show.
A cogent, reasonable explanation.
I have similarly posited that the listener may already be "signing off" on the environment as that environment may make that person feel completely safe. Thus, the added tweaks will have no additional affect.
May did a nice job of detailing the the specific findings and logical steps that led to an understanding of airborne germs. I still would like a similar exegesis of the specific findings that led to this hunch that those who respond to these tweaks do so through extra sensory perception and signing off on the environment as safe.
I appreciate that a good deal of work into finding what works and what does not. But this isn't the question. How did the explanation come about and what is it factually based on?
(I hesitated in using the phrase "extra sensory perception", but I mean it only to refer to beyond the recognized five senses - not as a pejorative reference.)
Some pills make you smaller, some pills make you tall, the ones that mother gives you don't do anything at all.
The shows are not really the right venue to demo tweaks IMO, as much effort required to just get the system together in one day. No time for such niceties like testing how tweaks will influence the sound, placement, etc. And by the time the equipment is warmed up and starting to not sound like hell it's time to pack up and go home. :-)
BTW I thought we had a deal on the Teleportation Tweak at the show this year. I know, you didn't think I was serious. :-)
It is the issue! What do you suppose we've been discussing? How can you say you are open to trying anything when you refuse to try something being offered at no cost? You contradict yourself with every sentence.
Why aren't we discussing your experiences instead of spending time having you insult all of us who have tried to improve their enjoyment of music? What do you suppose this thread is about? Why the insistence that anyone who employs alternative devices is somehow flawed? Why the derisive comments toward the Belts and those who employ their products? You have insulted many of us on numerous occasions. Why would you stoop to such levels if you are so openminded? Why call me a liar? Why ignore once again my question regarding my friend's experience with her increased production? It is a simple question that doesn't require any answer beginning with, "she, like you, began as an inferior being". Why not just answer that question?
Four out of four listeners have had a positive experience with the Belt foil. You must have some thoughts on why this would happen other than calling them inferior - or imaginary - or worse. This is the issue here, Buddha. Even if you must find comfort in believing you are superior, pretend that is not the case for a moment and address the issue of four for four. Or explain why you continue to evade this question. To my mind, and apparently to MJF's thinking, you have not answered this at all. How do four people with no prior knowledge of the Belt effect realize improvements when Belt products are introduced to the listening environment? And why is monetary reward not a way to judge the results of such an improvement? If not that, exactly how should the effects of the treatments be measured? What is your solution to quantifying the effect of the foil?
If you answer none of the above, then answer this please, why do you constantly and intentionally misinterpret what is posted in order to bring it around to your view point?
You say I have a desire to be right. Calling me a liar - and worse - doesn't make you even more intent on being right when you have no proof to back up your assertions? Buddha, you have been an obstructionist throughout these two threads. Why? Why have you been so rude? Just what is at stake here for you to actually participate in this thread without resorting to calling anyone a would-be criminal?
Here is another case of you distorting what has been put in print. Where has anyone claimed to be "moving ahead"? From where I sit, listen and read all anyone has claimed is the alternative treatments we have discussed - not being limited to the Belt products though they seem to make an easy and common target for your attacks - improve one's perception of the event. If that gets a burr under your saddle, that is your problem and not ours. This is no more
Hi.
No, what I'm saying is that some people don't need hearing aids. They already 'hear' just fine.
I see. So why do you suppose high end audio exists, then? Aren't all these so-called refined audio products intended to improve our perception of reproduced sound just "hearing aids"? And if the objectivist kooks are right, aren't we all just imaginging these differences we think we're hearing on high end equipment? Couldn't we just imagine any sound we want, without actually requiring the devices that produce that sound? I'm sure the guy coming out of Best Buy with the mini-component system with the built-in iPod dock is also thinking he doesn't need hearing aids, and is perfectly happy with his system, and doesn't need to spend thousands of dollars on a high end system. He'd also have a hard time convincing me it couldn't get any better for him. But I'd have no problem believing he's "happy".
I think you're letting your understanding of the theory of these tweaks color your opinions. I'll bet that if you had heard the silver foil works by interactions with a CD laser, you would not be calling it a "hearing aid", and saying you don't require a "hearing aid".
You may need Belt tweaks, and others may not.
As I may have said in the past, I don't "need" Belt tweaks, any more than I "need" high end audio. It's not a question of need. But I do believe that if everyone used Belt tweaks, we'd have a different playing field, than the small one we're playing in now. It would add an enormous other dimension to this hobby, and extend it beyond the stratosphere. Because there are no physical limits to Belt devices. (There are only intellectual ones). Everything you own in your house can become a tweak. Including yourself. Even if the tweaks themselves only have a minor, barely perceptible effect, if applied to everything in your home.... they transform the sound of your system. In a way that you can not achieve with any other audio tweak ever devised. In other words, they all have their own unique sound, different from the sonic influence of conventional products. That's how I know you're not already hearing it, and how I know you would have a different appreciation for this if you could.
Everyone needs Ethan's traps, everyone needs Belt's tweaks...please.
It may surprise you to know, that despite my hidden status as a competitor of Ethan's acoustic traps, who came here to put a dent in Ethan's sales, I'm a supporter of Ethan's traps. The concept they're based on, acoustic principles, is valid in theory, and I've heard it in practice, with my own early experiments using acoustic treatment. As to whether his traps actually "improve" sound in all rooms is another issue, and a subjective one at that, make no mistake. But I don't know too many home audiophile listening rooms that can't ever be improved by acoustic treatments. Do you? If so, please share that information. I'd like to know which ones. Yours perhaps? As to whether someone wants the traps in their room, again, that's another question.
But let's say I bought Ethan's acoustic traps, and then I complained that they had no effect on me, and I wanted my money back. I tell Ethan on the phone "Sorry guy, they don't work on me. I guess I'm already hearing whatever the hell you think they're doing". And then he goes and fires off a very personal, provocative, discomforting line of questioning that I wasn't expecting, like...
Ethan: "So.... how did you install them?".
Froggy: "Install them? What does that matter? I tested them. Believe me, I tested them. I heard nothing".
Ethan: "It matters"
Froggy: "Well I don't know exactly how they were installed, ok, because it wasn't me that set them up. I had them at a friend's house, and he took care of the details".
Ethan: "Could you ask him how he set them up, exactly?".
Froggy: "Fine. Whatever! I'll call him up but after this, you'd better get those papers ready for the return guarantee. Got no time to waste! Okay E....... he says they were installed in the water closet. I remember now, the old lady didn't want those ugly boxes hanging off the ceiling, so we stuffed 'em in the water closet. Now when you're sending me my cheque back, please make sure you get the postal code right. It's..."
Ethan: "Uh sorry Mr. Frog, I should have explained this in the packaging: they don't work in closets."
Get my drift, B.? Fact is, you've never explained what Belt tweaks you've tried, or how you tested them. If you haven't seriously tested the foil or the cream on yourself (and say, your SO), then Jan has a stronger argument for saying your conclusive judgement is premature, then you do for countering that you're already hearing exactly whatever you think he's hearing with the foil & cream.
And I'm not saying "everyone needs Belt tweaks". You said that. Where you're getting confused is, I said everyone is affected by them. Just as with Ethan's panels. Not that the Belt devices are anything special in this regard, mind you. Everyone is affected by anything that is having a real effect. Whether they become conscious of it or not, is another issue. Why some do and some don't, is up for debate. Whether you can become conscious of it or not, is, it appears, the issue at hand. Since you still have the same degree of confidence that you are somehow totally immune to the effect of a working audio tweak, and more than that, that you are immune because you are already experiencing it, I'll ask again: how do you know you're not Pete Turner?
I will admit my ignorance here and ask who "we" might be. And also what products do you represent at T.H.E. Show?
When you stop to ponder the Belt hypothesis (sorry, it doesn't rise to theory,) Michigan suddenly drops the facade of interest in subtle phenomenon and becomes 100% "Beltist."
He does?? I'm not even sure I know what you mean by that! The Belt phenom is a "subtle phenomenon". You're living proof of that. (BTW, I'm also 100% Newtonist, and if I never mentioned that, its because I didn't want to impede your stereotyping).
I say, just as some are unaffected by that same pollen, there are those listeners among us who, by process of evolution, exist on different parts of the bell curve; with some listeners not requiring that type of tweak in order to "sign off" with regard to the "safety" of the environment.
Ok, let me see if I have this right. So now you're saying you're part of a superhuman offshoot of the human species, one that has evolved in parallel with the known human species, but has actually far surpassed it. Your father's name wouldn't happen to be "Jor-El", would it?
That may explain why some people require more "Belt tweaks" than others before hearing an effect, and why some many/most?) may not require them at all.
Or that may be explained by a simpler and far more commonly known effect: different people have different listening sensitivities.
The Beltists get upset if I call them remedial, but that term was meant without malice. They won't accomodate "catching up," either.
Speaking for this Beltist, I'm not at all "upset" by your characterization of those who've heard the Belt effect as being "remedial", and somehow catching up to rest who are already there, hearing what they've heard, and can't be affected by such tweaks. Actually, I find it hilarious. And I fully recognize that it's a reaction your ego is having to the very idea that it could be you who needs to "catch up", because you consider yourself an advanced tweaker, with unquestionable listening skills. So you try to twist it around, to make yourself (and others) believe what you feel more comfortable believing. Maybe some of the people in your listening room heard the Belt tweaks but not you, and you had to find some way to account for that, after having your ego bruised by the experience? I don't know, but you do seem to be quite convinced of this "hypothesis" you came up with afterward, to explain why you couldn't hear them. So convinced, that you won't even debate it, no matter how many times the flaws in your argument are pointed out.
That's a "belief" that you have, but what you may not understand is Beltism is not a "belief", and is not about "beliefs". The "hypothesis" if you will, is only there to try to explain how these perception-based tweaks work.
The "safe environment" theory that you've latched on to, is only a part of the explanation concerning the entire phenomenon. The tweaks work regardless of what you believe about them (and no, once again, the fact that they're not heard by everybody all the time, doesn't at all mean they don't work on everybody). Jan has shown that in his experiments, and I've proven that for myself in mine; when we both tested these products on people without telling them anything about them. So push all the buttons you want, I'll still be glad to debate these ideas, but on the flipside, I truly wish you could get beyond your ego at some point, and see that it isn't about that. I'm not convinced by anything you've said so far, that you've experimented with the Belt devices enough to come to your unique and entirely implausible conclusions about them.
So, be they Special Olympians in audio or be they "Supermen," they should be with it enough to get over the "everyone is subject to this type of intervention because I say so" stuff. It smacks of tantrumizing.
It can "smack" of whatever you want. You've yet to make a valid case to the contrary. Perhaps I missed something in there, but what you have said so far, seems to amount to: "Well I'm not worried about being harmed if I get hit in the face by a 2 by 4, because I've already been hit in the face by a 2 by 4. See?".
One of the coolest things about perception is the variability fo human experience. Beltists, don't spoil it with the "my tweak uber alles" BS, 'cause you'll miss out on all the other cool stuff!
No one but you appears to be saying there isn't variability in human experience. Although I admit I'm pretty bored these days with the conventional tweaks you probably mess around with, I'm not "missing out" on anything. I'm not against using any kind of tweaks, if I think it is truly advancing my sound. In fact, I've probably done more conventional tweaking than anyone here! I spent two decades messing with conventional tweaks, and once very nearly wrote a book on the subject (but decided there just wasn't enough interest in audio tweaks to make it worth the effort). I also used to occasionally post my conventional tweaks on the audiotweaks site.
Even with my conventional tweaks I was usually too far ahead of the curve, and people would say I was nuts. And they would know that of course, because they were so superior in their knowledge of what can affect reproduced sound, they didn't even need to try the tweaks to know they don't work. The only difference in talking about the perception-based Belt tweaks is I'm put in a different category of "nuts". The thing I prefer about the Belt tweaks is, if they work, they almost always advance my sound. That means much less time spent fussing with conventional tweaks that often just change your sound in a million ways, and not truly advance it. That's one thing that makes them a lot "cooler" than most other more common tweaks that are signal or acoustic-based.
I've still got some neat references about how what we see affects what we hear, too. I'll try to get them linked for later, so that way, the Beltists will have even more stuff to ignore about how humans can vary!
Again with the strawman.... That humans can vary is not a point being debated by anyone I can see, but more importantly, that humans can vary is not evidence that they do not. You're still searching for truth by combing extremities between black and white.
If we could only get the evangelical objectivists to really talk with the fundamentalist subjectivists, we might actually get somewhere! Ethan vs. Jan/May/Michigan will be resolved sometime after Israel and Palestine have come to terms.
You're the one who wishes to paint things and people in extremes. Makes good copy, I guess. The truth doesn't lie in the middle, it's everywhere, and I'll warn you now, it likes to play hidey-hide. So you have to actively seek it. It's not going to be there waiting for you, just because you went to try and meet it in the middle. But it's there in some things that Jan said, some things that I've said, some things that May's said, some things that Ethan has said. Heck, even some things you've said! Alas, that some people don't hear Beltist tweaks because they are already hearing Beltist tweaks isn't one of them. When you've done even half of the experiments I've done in the Belt domain, and maintain the same opinion that it has and can't have any effect on you, I'll yield to your learned insight...
BTW, I am all for you putting up links that help extend our awareness of perception. I'll even put up one of my own. You may have already heard of Dr. Masaru Emoto's ice crystal experiments. These are about rice. People repeated his experiments on food, like rice, finding that if you sincerely utter positive thoughts to the food, it will sustain itself better than when you speak negative thoughts to food samples, that will perish faster.
http://www.nbc10.com/news/5476558/detail.html
http://thebiodisc.blogspot.com/2008/03/masaru-emoto-rice-hado-experiment.html
http://riceexperiment.blogspot.com/
We're discussing "perception" in this thread, and the ways our perception of audio can change, without changing the acoustic space or the signal. So here's a couple of experimental excercises anyone can try, in keeping with the theme. They are said to be able to affect perception. Even so, I wouldn't expect any major change, but it's an easy, interesting excercise, so the next time you sit down to listen to your stereo, you might wish to see if any of these exercises has any effect on your perception of the sound you are hearing, to result in any kind of change in the perceived sound quality. (n.b. In all cases, in all listening tests, one should listen normally first, then enact the test, then replay the test track, listening to it again from the beginning).
Excercise 1: Socks
Remove and replace one sock.
Excercise 2: Feet
Cross and uncross your feet.
Excercise 3: The Wayne Cook exercises:
Repeat these 3 postures:
Wow, busy morning!
I'll start with this one.
"We" is my audio buddy Big Mike and we don't represent any products. We rent one of the suites each year (year five coming up) at T.H.E. and bring some of our favorite audio gear and tunes and have a demo room with nothing for sale - hence, our name, NFS Audio. Our goal is to provide a place where showgoers can go and be audiophiles for a while, without "business" changing the sound! Also, it is good motivation to go through the wine cellar and drag out some bottles to kill!
We have had the same room each year, and T.H.E. gives us two days to set up shop, on average.
Since we already live in town, we can avail ourselves of available power conditioners, "room treatments," and lots of other cumbersome goodies that many exhibitors can't.
Our cables and gear are already "broken in" and we don't have to worry about gear having been shipped or out of our possession.
With the same room each time, and the quite ample set up time, I have been pleased with the sonic experience, in general.
_____
Part two:
The reason I don't often specifically mention which tweaks I try is that it's a no win situation - if I don't agree about the foils, cremes, or what not, I will be wrong to you...no matter what. There is no way around the paradox of "this tweak affects everybody, at all times, always has, always will" crap.
Example: Are you persuaded if I say that I've listened with 12 [not just four] fellow listeners and all heard nothing from a certain tweak? Is my Oh-for-Twelve example compelling to you? Does four of four offer proof that 12 of 12 didn't hear something?
My point on this debate is that universal claims are not correct with regard to this type of tweaking.
If I tell you that I
Quote Michigan:
No, what I'm saying is that some people don't need hearing aids. They already 'hear' just fine.
I see. So why do you suppose high end audio exists, then?
(Because we want a closer experience of the sound of live music...which we can experience and enjoy as live music despite not having attended with belt tweaks in place...or which was not recorded with belt tweaks in the studio...amazingly.)
Aren't all these so-called refined audio products intended to improve our perception of reproduced sound just "hearing aids"?
(Yes. And some may be better at hearing the event without cremes on the coffee table than you are, unbelievably.)
And if the objectivist kooks are right, aren't we all just imaginging these differences we think we're hearing on high end equipment?
No, but we may be imagining some. This is not a zero sum war with objectivists or subjectivists vying for 100% 'correctness.')
Couldn't we just imagine any sound we want, without actually requiring the devices that produce that sound?
(Many people do, and many of us carry the sound of live music in our heads this way. What else would you call a sonic reference, if not carrying a sound in your 'imagination?' How else would you know a Belt tweak made a difference, if not for an 'imaginary' recall of a previous listening experience?)
I'm sure the guy coming out of Best Buy with the mini-component system with the built-in iPod dock is also thinking he doesn't need hearing aids, and is perfectly happy with his system, and doesn't need to spend thousands of dollars on a high end system. He'd also have a hard time convincing me it couldn't get any better for him. But I'd have no problem believing he's "happy".
(We agree on that. That is not proof that an audiophile requires Belt tweaks, however.)
I think you're letting your understanding of the theory of these tweaks color your opinions. I'll bet that if you had heard the silver foil works by interactions with a CD laser, you would not be calling it a "hearing aid", and saying you don't require a "hearing aid".
(Not likely, I never thought those CD dampers you were supposed to put on CD's when you played them improved the sound, either. The style of explanation is not relevant to failure to function.)
You may need Belt tweaks, and others may not.
As I may have said in the past, I don't "need" Belt tweaks, any more than I "need" high end audio. It's not a question of need. But I do believe that if everyone used Belt tweaks, we'd have a different playing field, than the small one we're playing in now. It would add an enormous other dimension to this hobby, and extend it beyond the stratosphere. Because there are no physical limits to Belt devices. (There are only intellectual ones). Everything you own in your house can become a tweak. Including yourself. Even if the tweaks themselves only have a minor, barely perceptible effect, if applied to everything in your home.... they transform the sound of your system. In a way that you can not achieve with any other audio tweak ever devised. In other words, they all have their own unique sound, different from the sonic influence of conventional products. That's how I know you're not already hearing it, and how I know you would have a different appreciation for this if you could.
(There aren't any 'physical' limitations to my enjoyment of music, Michigan. Sorry, amigo, you are trying to limit people to 'shades of yellow' when they already see the rainbow. Like I said, welcome; but you are preaching to the choir, brother!)
OK, after this I gotta get some work done!
Michigan:
"Ok, let me see if I have this right. So now you're saying you're part of a superhuman offshoot of the human species, one that has evolved in parallel with the known human species, but has actually far surpassed it. Your father's name wouldn't happen to be "Jor-El", would it?"
Nope, not claiming superhuman anything, just saying I'm glad you found something that helps you hear what others likely already hear. Your own need to feel like you are in on something that others are not is feeding your disagreeability here.
That may explain why some people require more "Belt tweaks" than others before hearing an effect, and why some many/most?) may not require them at all.
Or that may be explained by a simpler and far more commonly known effect: different people have different listening sensitivities.
Yes! I think there are people with varying listening sensitivities, and your tweaks may not seem to work for them because they were more sensitive than you to begin with!
Thank you!
I agree.
There, wasn't that easy?
Finally!
How do they "work" if a person doesn't hear them?
How does one know they work on everyone if they cannot be heard by everyone?
I mean this respectfully, but repeating the hypothesis doesn't make it true. Merely stating that they work because they allow people to sign-off on their environment doesn't make this true.
How was this biological based hypothesis reached?
How does one know that the tweaks work on everyone?
I am not aware of any other claimed sensory phenomenon that exhibits a response in every single person, let alone the same response.
Some people are color-blind and see many fewer colors, others have an extraordinary number of taste buds and olfactory receptors and can taste and smell distinctions that rest of us can only imagine. Not everyone feels warmth or pain. Hearing differs with phenotype, sex, and age. Not to mention how even therapeutic drugs work differently on different people, etc.
Why are Belt tweaks the only alleged sensory phenomena claimed to "work" on everyone?
WOW!
OH, WOW!
YEP, WOW!!!
Well, I guess that takes care of "respect" leading us through the rest of this thread.
Excuse me ...
ROTFL
OK, that's done with.
I can't comment on your ego?! Someone with a username like "Elk" and I can't comment on your ego?!!!
Well, yes, I suppose that's why I can't comment on your ego. It would be redundant.
Though, I assure you, I meant the "ego" you do not push forward to make a point. But just the fact you took umbrage at that ...
You are allowing your prejudices to show. Don't make that my fault too. It's not my fault you are not the sane one here.
Now that's your ego defending you, little buddy! You really don't believe that BS line, do you?
Oh, I bet you do, O Sane One.
Ghandi, huh?
Excuse me ...
ROTFLMAO at that thought.
OK, that's done with.
Really, the thought that I am in a discussion with two people who see themself as Buddha and Ghandi is hillarious. You don't the the humor there? Too bad, it's dripping down the restroom wall right now.
That just sorta proved TK was the right choice.
TK thought so too until they came and got him.
Certainly I will, if you'll tell me what it is. It got kinda lost in all the personal insults laying around here. You and Buddha aren't having dup cross reference your stuff are you?
Gee, pretty much right back at'ja.
We can proceed now guided by the excellent examples of respect you and Buddha have laid out for us. There can't be much left to this unless you two actually get some foil from May so you know what the hell you're talking about. (Notice I made no reference to your ego, Mr. Elk.)
Hi, Flexible Frog!
I tried your suggestions. I felt a little silly with the sock experiment, but I tried it nevertheless.
None of the exercises changed how the audio sounded, but the Wayne Cook exercises feel good. Surprisingly so for something so simple and without involving stretching. It is a little bit like the first time I got close to getting the Alexander technique posture correct. While this was years ago, it has somewhat of the same effect.
How do they "work" if a person doesn't hear them?
If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it.... does it make a sound?
How does one know they work on everyone if they cannot be heard by everyone?
I believe was speaking purely in relation to the theory/hypothesis, and I explained that aspect of it.
I mean this respectfully, but repeating the hypothesis doesn't make it true. Merely stating that they work because they allow people to sign-off on their environment doesn't make this true.
Absolutely, I agree. That's why it's called a "hypothesis" instead of "an indisputable, peer-reviewed, fully established scientific fact". What you just said btw, is really an oversimplification of a much more complex phenomenon, IMO, and hardly begins to suggest what it all involves. And I don't begin to suggest that anyone in the world fully understands it yet. Hell, even after a quarter of a century, we're still at the very beginning stages of acknowledging whether it even exists.
How was this biological based hypothesis reached?
Good question. I believe its answered here
How does one know that the tweaks work on everyone?
Right here: (thump, thump). {insert tapping heart sfx}
Ok, didn't think that would do it. Well it's really the same as any audio component, product or idea that works, that can have a real effect on sound or perception of sound. If it works, it works. Period. It's like the tree falling in the forest. It's still going to make a noise, whether you are there to hear it or not.
I am not aware of any other claimed sensory phenomenon that exhibits a response in every single person, let alone the same response.
How about "fear"? Is anyone entirely immune to fear, or are we programmed to fear?
This study on lab mice seems to indicate as much:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob...e03f760399d9a00
I'm not suggesting the same fear stimulus will exhibit the same response in everyone. But then, I'm not suggesting that about the Belt tweaks either, note.
Some people are color-blind and see many fewer colors, others have an extraordinary number of taste buds and olfactory receptors and can taste and smell distinctions that rest of us can only imagine. Not everyone feels warmth or pain. Hearing differs with phenotype, sex, and age. Not to mention how even therapeutic drugs work differently on different people, etc. Why are Belt tweaks the only alleged sensory phenomena claimed to "work" on everyone?
I think you're confusing senses with "sensory phenomena". It's not an extra "sense" that was discovered, it's a phenomena that relates to the senses. It's more of a sense-itivity, you might say, to everything in the world around us. And by "everything", what I really mean is, "everything". It might help for some to think of the Belt phenomenon (not the same thing as "the Belt effect" note) as a universal "energy"; like Chi, Orgone, or the collective unconscious. All that Beltism does, whether a tweak you devise yourself or a PWB device, is tap into this "energy", and allow you to manipulate it. The idea is to manipulate it toward beneficial effects (but make no mistake, you can go the other way too, with it). The Belts hypothesize that where the effect is beneficial, it is reducing an inherent stress mechanism we have retained throughout our evolution. The high level senses we presently have, are simply the means we use to be able to register / observe the effects that manipulating the energy has. If you show me a person who has no ears, no olfactory senses, born blind, and all his taste buds are dead, he is still affected by this energy. He just won't ever be able to register it. Keeping in mind this isn't going to change much, as all of us with our functioning senses are not normally aware of this sensitivity anyway.
Well, at least one of the excercises seemed to do some sort of good! I haven't tried the Wayne Cook excercises myself, yet. I'll have to do that...
Jan, re-read my last post addressed to you. There are no insults sent in your direction. Why respond as you have?
One issue I raised was to consider a person listening in an environment which they sign off on as safe. Perhaps Belt tweaks do not work on such a person as there is no additional "safety" to be found.
I asked for your response. Again, without relying on Mr. Frog, what is your take on this?
I have also asked questions as to the foundation of the explanatory hypothesis for the Belt tweaks. While I suspect only May or perhaps the Frog are able to fairly address this, if you are knowledgeable enough to answer please do.
I admit bemusement with your new insistence that I must test the foil for my opinions to have validity.
You previously insisted that I try the free tweaks before expressing an opinion. I did. They failed.
You don't get to insist that the coin be repeatedly flipped merely because you are unhappy with the results of the coin toss.
P.S. My choice of Daemon is for the most uninspired of reasons. E.L.K. happen to be my initials. Amusingly no one noticed until I worked in an office where professionals are identified by their initials, a common practice. One could do much worse than such a totem.
Yeah.
Like mine.
KPH.
In Kingston, Ontario..where I live..there is a psychiatric hospital.
It's called..KPH. I think I posted on that oddity before, though. I haven't had any calls as of late for nutbars asking to be admitted. Co-incidentally, (OR NOT!! heh heh) my phone number is one digit off from theirs...and gets confused with mine every now and then...when some nutbar needs to admit themselves for a rest.
Life can be strange.
KBK stands for the one-time nickname handed to me by a goofball friend in the audio biz who called me 'Kenny-Bob-Kenny' one day.... cuz I'm from the sticks.
Yah gotta understand: It's all about the Humour.
Any of you folk think you might need to call me? hhmmm?
MJF: I see. So why do you suppose high end audio exists, then?
Because we want a closer experience of the sound of live music...which we can experience and enjoy as live music despite not having attended with belt tweaks in place...or which was not recorded with belt tweaks in the studio...amazingly.
You know what's evern more amazing? The Belt phenomenon was recorded in the studio. It's present in every recording ever made.
MJF: Aren't all these so-called refined audio products intended to improve our perception of reproduced sound just "hearing aids"?
Yes. And some may be better at hearing the event without cremes on the coffee table than you are, unbelievably.
Really? Oh. I thought you said these creamless people didn't need "hearing aids".
MJF: Couldn't we just imagine any sound we want, without actually requiring the devices that produce that sound?
Many people do, and many of us carry the sound of live music in our heads this way. What else would you call a sonic reference, if not carrying a sound in your 'imagination?'
So why not save on electricity, if nothing else, and just imagine musicicans playing before you? Do you really need the crutch of a fancy audio system, Buddha? I'm sure your neighbours don't, and would encourage this direction.
How else would you know a Belt tweak made a difference, if not for an 'imaginary' recall of a previous listening experience?
Call it instinct. Under test, I could listen to an instrument I've never heard before (I don't mean just live, but never -period-), and I'd still know just as easily as anything, whether it's been improved, or degraded.
MJF: I'm sure the guy coming out of Best Buy with the mini-component system with the built-in iPod dock is also thinking he doesn't need hearing aids, and is perfectly happy with his system, and doesn't need to spend thousands of dollars on a high end system. He'd also have a hard time convincing me it couldn't get any better for him. But I'd have no problem believing he's "happy".
We agree on that. That is not proof that an audiophile requires Belt tweaks, however.
Nor is it not proof that he couldn't benefit from them. Case in point, I have in fact improved my Worst Buy mini component system with a Belt tweak. How? Simple. Placing an empty envelope from PWB on top of it.
MJF: I think you're letting your understanding of the theory of these tweaks color your opinions. I'll bet that if you had heard the silver foil works by interactions with a CD laser, you would not be calling it a "hearing aid", and saying you don't require a "hearing aid".
Not likely, I never thought those CD dampers you were supposed to put on CD's when you played them improved the sound, either. The style of explanation is not relevant to failure to function.
Fair enough. So what other tweaks or audio components have you tested, that you have not been able to hear, and later concluded that this is because you were already hearing them?
MJF: As I may have said in the past, I don't "need" Belt tweaks, any more than I "need" high end audio. It's not a question of need. But I do believe that if everyone used Belt tweaks, we'd have a different playing field, than the small one we're playing in now. It would add an enormous other dimension to this hobby, and extend it beyond the stratosphere. Because there are no physical limits to Belt devices. (There are only intellectual ones). Everything you own in your house can become a tweak. Including yourself. Even if the tweaks themselves only have a minor, barely perceptible effect, if applied to everything in your home.... they transform the sound of your system. In a way that you can not achieve with any other audio tweak ever devised. In other words, they all have their own unique sound, different from the sonic influence of conventional products. That's how I know you're not already hearing it, and how I know you would have a different appreciation for this if you could.
There aren't any 'physical' limitations to my enjoyment of music, Michigan. Sorry, amigo, you are trying to limit people to 'shades of yellow' when they already see the rainbow. Like I said, welcome; but you are preaching to the choir, brother!
How you got that from what I wrote, I'm not sure. I never said or implied there were "physical limitations to your enjoyment of music". What I wrote was that there were no physical limits to Belt devices, because you can use them to create tweak devices out of any object in your home. This makes them unlike any other audio tweak out there.
But since you brought up the concept of physical limitations to the enjoyment of music, yes I do think you're seriously kidding yourself if you think you're not missing anything by not being part of this revolution (regardless of whatever reason that you're not). Because for one, you can't improve sound in quite the same way that you can with these tweaks, without implementing them. I know how much you'd like to imagine you can, but unfortunately that's physically impossible. Just as its physically impossible for you to get all the sonic benefits of a Rockport Sirius from an Emerson record player, simply by the belief that your listening skills are so advanced, your lowly Emerson is already a Rockport, for all intents and purposes. I don't know, perhaps that sort of thing happens all the time in a parallel universe somewhere. But I've never heard of that happening in this world. To put it politely, that's just wishful thinking to the power of 10.
If we could go back to the real world for a minute, I'd like talk some more about those physical limitations... are you easily ("easily" as in, within seconds and without having to take anything apart), able to effectively tweak and improve the sound from your clock radio? Your mp3 player? Your car stereo? Your cellular telephone? Your PC? Your TV? Can you tweak and improve the sound of live concerts? I can do all of those things and much more, with Belt stuff. Moreover, I can -continue- to improve all those things, minute by minute if I wanted to, for as much as I wanted to. As you're already stretching credulity by a mile to claim you are already experiencing the sonic advantages of any tweak you can't hear, simply by way of your superior listening skills, it would be insanity to claim that your superior listening skills continue on their own to improve your perception of sound by the minute. Because by now, your hearing would be so good, you should already know what I'm -thinking-!
Ergo, there are physical limitations to your enjoyment of music. Thank you. Thank you very much. <insert audience applause here>
OK, after this I gotta get some work done!
You and me both, bro!
Nope, not claiming superhuman anything, just saying I'm glad you found something that helps you hear what others likely already hear.
Again, sorry to be a handmaiden to logic but, you can't even begin to know just what it is we are hearing with perception-based Belt tweaks, if you've never heard any of them. However, you can speculate blindly as you've been doing, yes. That won't get you any closer to the truth. More serious experimentation might. Safe to say, no one who hasn't heard a beneficial Beltist modification of an object, has ever heard anything exactly like it. As I said, they all produce a unique "house sound", as do all different categories of audio devices.
The reason I suggested you were equating yourself with Superman, is because of your belief that some listeners don't require "signing off to the safety of the environment", because they "exist on a different part of the bell curve wrt evolution". Which I take it is your roundabout way of saying "they are more advanced, evolutionary-wise". Except, that doesn't follow, because as I explained to you and/or Elk, this "extra" sensitivity we have to our environment is like, coded in our DNA. It's operating way below the intellect, way below consciousness. You can tap into it consciously if you are a careful listener yes, but that's not the level it operates on. It is either present in everyone, or present in no one, but there's no in-between. So you see, rather than saying I'm more advanced or evolved than you, in this sense, I'm saying I refuse to believe I'm special! I refuse to believe I have special qualities that cause me to have this not commonly known sensitivity to objects in my environment, while others don't. Especially when that's not what the majority of my testing has revealed.
I can speculate too, and say perhaps the reason I had no problem hearing Belt tweaks from the onset, is becuase I never let ideologies stand in the way of a good tweak. I don't care about how some audio thing works, I only care whether it improves my sound or not. And I was a careful listener when I tried my first Belt tweak some 20 years ago, because I'd experimented with a lot of other tweaky stuff before that.
You own need to feel like you are in on something that others are not is feeding your disagreeability here.
I don't have that "need". Just because it happens to be a reality that I'm in a very small minority of this community, doesn't mean I want it that way. In fact, if you thought about what you said, you'd realize just how silly it is. Who puts out a website to share his experiences with the general public, if he wants to feel like he's "in on something others are not"?? Wouldn't I just shut up about it, like most Beltists do?
MJF: Or that may be explained by a simpler and far more commonly known effect: different people have different listening sensitivities.
Thank you!
I agree.
There, wasn't that easy?
Finally!
Great! I knew we would eventually agree on something! And I'm glad you are finally willing to admit that your listening skills are not as good as some other people's listening skills, which explains why you can't hear some tweaks that others do. That's a big step towards reducing the ego, and increasing awareness, for sure.
BTW Buddha, in case I haven't mentioned this, that's a mighty commendable gesture on the part of you and your friend, toward the audiophilly community, to go all that trouble and expense to rent booths at an audio show, for several years in a row in fact, when you are not even selling anything, and serve free wine to boot! I don't know anyone else that would even think to do that. Is there a report we can read online somewhere, of the sessions? It'd be interesting to know what was demonstrated, and what people's thoughts and experiences were.
The reason I don't often specifically mention which tweaks I try is that it's a no win situation - if I don't agree about the foils, cremes, or what not, I will be wrong to you...no matter what. There is no way around the paradox of "this tweak affects everybody, at all times, always has, always will" crap.
Example: Are you persuaded if I say that I've listened with 12 [not just four] fellow listeners and all heard nothing from a certain tweak? Is my Oh-for-Twelve example compelling to you? Does four of four offer proof that 12 of 12 didn't hear something?
Actually, now that I think about it, I've never seen you discuss any tweaks you've tried, in any sort of detail. I don't see it as the "no-win situation" you do. Why do you see it as a winner/loser battle anyway? Is this an ego thing? Because I thought it was supposed to be "an audio thing"? Are we here to help each other or just fight each other?
Maybe it can be a "win-win situation", if you divulge the details of these mystery tests you took. They might help to explain why you're convinced the test, or tests, was/were faultless; and that a permanent conclusion can be made that you are already hearing what they're supposed to be doing. Forget anonymous examples, give me the actual details of the actual test(s) you did, that involved Belt tweaks! I'll be glad to discuss any tests I've done in detail, to make it a level playing field. Names are not necessary. Just:
- what tweak(s) you tried
- how you installed it / them
- what type of test / how you set up and ran the test
- how many people were involved
- how many tests you did
- the test results
Consider this: even if 35 people failed to hear the tweak 65 times, but you had never once installed the tweak properly because you didn't realize you hadn't, that might explain it. As I said before, my Belt tests on others are probably more successful because I know what I'm doing. That's a decided advantage, here. Someone who doesn't know anything about these products might not set it up right, and there's your answer.
My point on this debate is that universal claims are not correct with regard to this type of tweaking.
Universal claims are not correct with regard to any type of tweaking, for just the reasons I described above. Because the manufacturer can't control the procedures people might use to test their tweaks, any tweak can fail a test, if the tweak is not set up properly. How do we know this isn't the case with you, if you won't go into the necessary details?
If I tell you that I
Fun!
Thanks for the laugh.
Yes, it would seem so.
As a matter of 'perception' it would seem the most inflated egos around here are the ones constantly trying to educate us on the death of the ego!
RG
This depends on how we define "sound". Is sound the physical propagation of sound waves or is it sound only if a human hears it?
In relying on this analogy, if sound is the physical propagation of sound waves what physical property do the Belt devices exhibit or affect that can be measured or otherwise observed independent of human sensory perception? That is, once again, how do they work if no human is around to hear them? What exactly do they do?
I have read this before and it is a good story, but it doesn't answer the question - unless the answer simply is "we made it up".
There is no more factual support here for a specific biologically based hypothesis of "unconscious safe sign off" then there is for the simple statement, "we have absolutely no idea how it works."
Accepting for a moment that all of these tweaks work and in fact improve a listener's enjoyment of reproduced sound, how do we get from here to the explanatory statements that this is because:
1) we have an evolutionarily created need to unconsciously "sign off" on imperceptible aspects of our environment, and
2) this sign off occurs not because we see or hear that there is no threat, but because of immeasurable and unidentifiable energy changes in the environment?
From what I have seen, there is just as much evidence for an explanation that the tweaks amplify frequency differences through atomic sized natural amplifiers leading to intermodulation products that make music sound clearer.
Fear is a learned response. Thus, different cultures fear different objects or experiences. Different members of the same family often fear different things.
The mouse study is not a study of "fear", it is a study of instinctual freeze and flight response in mice.
Exactly. The claim is that we respond in an extra-sensory fashion; that is, not through our five known senses. Yes?
Agreed! We spend a little time in the NFS room at every CES. It's always one of my very favorite stops, and I think a lot of visitors feel the same way. Buddha and Big Mike provide a wonderful atmosphere for enjoying music and building friendships.
Well, Buddha, you'll have to take that issue up with whoever claimed these treatments were universally effective for everyone every time. After all this reading I can't remember whether anyone here ever made that claim. I know I didn't. As a matter of fact I claimed just the opposite when I said the treatments and devices we've been discussing for the last two and one half months are not for everyone and the benefits from any one specific item will be as variable to the individual as any other "tweak" on the order of cables, isolation devices or "traditional" room treatments. I'm unaware of anyone here stating that the individual does not control the benefit of the treatment by what they bring to the table when they use the devices. That would seem to be just as realistic an approach as thinking about what we choose for our components. I use thermionic devices in my system along with single driver, dipole transducers. I don't expect everyone to do the same because even those friends who enjoy my system for what it is have their own systems that are unlike mine. Their systems do things mine ignores and vice versa.
This claim of "universality" you have created is nearly as much a "Buddha-ism" as is the claim for inferior listeners requiring assistance to catch up. You have created this myth without proof and you have now, by repeating it numerous times to yourself and anyone who will listen, convinced yourself that it is a fact and not something you created to soothe your perception of how you hear.
What I believe you are basing your "theory" upon is the universality of the DNA imprint which sits at the base of many of the Belt devices. In doing so you have created a strawman of the Belt treatments to use as a bludgeon when you say you do not require any "enhancements" in order to enjoy your music to a greater extent than I can. If you wish to argue the existence of the DNA imprint, then do so. But don't argue that the Belts are or are not responsible for its existence. Particularly when you don't understand the devices and treatments we've discussed over the course of these two threads. Or do you? Do you understand how the Mpingo discs operate? You didn't seem to when we started the first thread and you were just as derisive and dismissive toward those products as you have been toward the Belt devices.
From what you have posted here so far, I would agree with MJF that you probably have no understanding of the thinking behind the Belt "system". However, you have used the Belts as a weapon against any and all alternative treatments. This is where the first of these two threads began - with alternative room treatments. And you were just as vocal in your opposition and ridicule of any such device you deemed to be "voodoo". Now, at this point, the Belts just make an easier target for your "theories". The problem here is you are creating these theories to suit your own needs and then distorting the words of others to shore up this line of defense and obvious dislike for "alternatives".
I'll assume you don't see yourself doing this but it has been pointed out to you on numerous occasions that you are not interpreting what has been posted as it has been written. Here's my theory in response to the information you've provided so far - and this is based upon my experience and is what I came to believe after dealing with clients over a few decades.
I have dealt with numerous clients who enjoyed the hobby of HiFi but who became very frustrated over the years when they weren't hearing what the audiophile press suggested they should experience. Most of these clients had the wherewithal to buy all sorts of components, cables, stands, room devices, etc. and they did so on a repeated basis at a rather furious rate always searching for the next thing that they could experience. It became an addiction for them. Their listening rooms typically looked more like an audio store than most real audio stores I worked in. No matter what they bought, however, they never found what they were looking for and most of them eventually went from what you would call a determined "subjectivist" approach to a staunch "objectivist" demeanor. What they could not find they insisted just wasn't there to be found - for anyone - and they became increasingly shrill in their attacks toward anyone not of the same opinion. I always likened this to that odd and dangerous male behavior which says, "If I can't have her, no one can." At that point the client typically let those ego devices which keep each of us as "the sane one" ramp up its defenses and everyone who disagreed was relegated to an inferior status of "fool". No component that didn't measure better could sound better. Cables were the creation of snake oil salesmen. And so on and so on. Remember, this is based upon my actual experience and I would hope you would accept my experience as just as valid as your own. The only difference I can see is I did this day in and day out for over two decades.
Now I'm sure you'll say none of this is true in your case - I would expect no less of you. You are after all the superior being and in your own mind the sane one here. But that is my experience with individuals who have invested large sums of cash in audio gear and yet still remain suspicious of claims made for certain products - especially tweaks. If they can't hear it then no one can hear it and that's what they will preach until they leave this Earth.
Hi Jan.
I was going to send this post to the Dead Zone before I saw that Elk had already provided a wonderful and appropriate response. This particular post -- like so many of your posts lately -- strikes me as being entirely disrespectful and unduly dismissive.
My advice to you would be very much similar to what others have been urging all along: I feel you should try being more positive, understanding, accepting of others' ideas.
Why? I posted, "Or, we can call a truce and act like we do respect each other." What I got was your reply. Possibly Stephen doesn't see things as I do (I've come to accept that as true) but I would say there are no more insults in my reply as I found in yours. How long ago was it that someone posted, "Perception is everything."
I think you are looking too hard for an explanation that fits what you've already decided is true. I am not a Belt expert so my answers cannot have the benefit of years of doing experiments with their or other similar products. What I do know is I must repeatedly tell my one friend to stop listening for the effect of whatever he tries. Don't overthink the process. Apply "concert ears". In his job he solves problems and he is always looking for a "path" to follow which leads him to a result. Doing that with the Belt devices is fruitless.
I agree with you that not all the Belt devices are going to result in an enhanced experience with your music. When you consider how many devices and treatments are available you would think logically that if you apply all these "tweaks" then you must be increasing the quality of sound by magnitudes to the point of the most unbelievable experience you can imagine. And that is where, IMO, you would be wrong. Not to discount the benefits of the numerous treatments applied together but you have to learn to walk before you can run. And if you try learning to walk by thinking about physically putting your one foot in front of the other, you are over thinking what needs to be done here. You need to approach this as a baby learns to walk.
You are assuming your physical environment is what the Belt devices are all about. May or MJF might say I'm wrong on this and they should know but I would tell you the physical envorinment around you is not what the Belt products are about. Forget the physical world you can touch or see and concentrate on the way a bird knows how to fly South when it migrates. Think of the things which have become so ubiquitous in our environment that we simple accept them without considering their effects. Concentrate on how a flower knows when to open and close and follow the sun during the course of a day. If you don't already know, read a bit on how para-magnetic materials can aid the growth and disease resistance of a tomato plant. Think about how a dog can know when it's human is leaving the office on any given day. In other words, learn to forget the physical world you can sit on and realize there are things we cannot see, touch or smell that affect our life. If, when you do so, you can only think of voodoo witches and ghosts which you do not believe in, then you might not ever be a good candidate for the Belt products, IMO.
I would, however, suggest you try the foil and cream. I know I sound like a broken record here but these are going to offer more benefit tham I find in the "free" devices. That's not to say I discount the free suggestions but only to say I have not had the foil have no effect on anyone I've asked to listen. Remember, walk before you run. Like looking at modern art, you might not get one scuplture but then you stumble across a painting that strikes you as profound and suddenly more works of art start to make sense. You have to allow your perception free rein and while you believe you are good at this now it might take that one painting to open the window to what is out there.
I would agree with MJF that the foil will equal the benefits of stepping up to a good cable from a lower quality cable in the same line. With that in mind not everyone gets good cables and what they can do is not what everyone wants. What they can do is often something you work up to understanding once you "get" good cables.
If you tried to explain to someone who takes driving as just a way to get from point to point, they wouldn't understand the intuitive feel of manipulating the steering of your car by way of tire pressure. OK, that's what you will get from the Belt products. Nothing specific has changed in a gross manner - a few pounds of air pressure holding up a 3k pound projectile - but the enhancement is perceived as significant by those who feel the difference. How long did it take you to learn that feel and how to use it? As you get used to what the tire pressure does to the steering of your car you become a more relaxed driver at controlling the outside forces of the road. In a way that's what you need to bring to the Belt products.
As you say only May can fully explain the process that brought forth the products. But I would tell you that any approach which claims the tweaks failed is headed in the wrong direction. First, you are approaching the experiment as a "tweak". You are setting yourself up for something and when it doesn't come you are saying it is the device which failed. How can crossing your legs "fail"? Is it the fault of the water that you didn't experience what you had hoped for? Here's what I take from that, Elk, you place the water in the room and sit down in what you believe is a safe phyiscal environment thinking now you should hear something. Nothing. You cross and uncross your legs. Nothing. OK, the devices failed. If that's your approach then you are likely not going to succeed because you expect the device to do the work for you - but you don't believe you need the device because everything around you is "safe".
See where I'm going with this? You want to be able to run right off the bat and, if you can't, you can only assume its the road that's at fault. If you hit a wrong note while playing an instrument, it's not the fault of the instrument. If you wind up in the hay bales you can't assume it's the car's fault.
Now, the thing to not do is assume it's your responsibility to make the devices work. Sit and think about knowing when your human is leaving work before you try anything else.
And I'm not tossing the coin again. I found the foil to be more consistent as a first time treatment. I think most people would find the same.
>>> "What I am trying to understand is why the two of you concluded that the tweaks work as a result of evolutionary sensitivities that humans possess.
I appreciate that you apparently looked into physical explanations such as resonance control, etc. But how did you come to conclude that we are sensing a "safe" environment in some sort of extra-sensory fashion? (beyond our five senses)
I am not demanding that you "prove" that you are correct. I am just curious as to how you reached your conclusion." <<<
******************
Elk, I am going to have to turn your words around. You ask "How do the tweaks work as a result of evolutionary sensitivities and how did we reach our conclusion ?" I am going to have to turn your phrase around to "How did you conclude that evolutionary sensitivities were involved which then resulted in the various 'tweaks' ?" Because we were trying to work out what was 'going on' LONG BEFORE we actually got to the stage of having any 'tweaks'. We didn't come to the conclusion that we are sensing a "safe' environment FIRST, we came to the conclusion FIRST that we were sensing an 'unsafe' environment which was putting us under tension !!! It was only LATER that we realised that we (human beings) must also be programmed (again by evolution) to search for signs of reassurance - so that we can 'sign off' our environment as 'safe'.
You see. Over a period of some 3 years, we were confronted with numerous things which we found to be 'changing' the sound which could NOT be explained from within conventional electronic, audio or acoustic theories. We had, if you can visualise, numerous pieces of a jigsaw puzzle scattered around which did not fit into any picture we knew of and which seemed completely random.
In the late 1970s, in designing and manufacturing our last commercial audio product - a "State of the Art" actively driven orthodynamic (low mass diaphragm) tower speaker system - we encountered numerous things which affected the 'sound'.
Trying different housing cases for the amplifiers we found that aluminium sounded different to steel which sounded different to wood, which sounded different to perspex which sounded different to acrylic. We found different materials used in such as heat sinks sounded different. We found that the wires for wiring the hundreds of orthodynamic drive units in the speaker panel sounded different - EVEN THOUGH the wire construction was identical (the metal conductors and configuration of the conductors were identical), all that was different was the different colours of the outer insulation (for ease of manufacturing) !!! This 'hearing different wires sound different' was coincidental with what Jean Hiraga (the Editor of a French Hi Fi Magazine) had been finding in the mid 1970s - i.e he was saying that he could 'hear' different wires sound different !!!
On returning home after exhibiting our speaker system at the London 1981 Hi Fi Show, Peter decided that he was going to have to seriously investigate 'what was going on' before progressing any further !!! The story is well known how he started by investigating (listened to) many different metals when used as a conductor, grading them regarding how they sounded. At around the same time, Ivor Teifenbrum (of Linn Turntables) was claiming that passive speakers, when present in the same room as speakers which were being listened to, had an adverse effect on the sound of the speakers being played. This was the start of Ivor's campaign for single speaker dem rooms in retailers showrooms !!
But, on investigating Ivor's claims regarding the adverse effect of passive speakers and telephones in the listening room, we discovered something different - that the passive speaker CONES (as blamed by Ivor) were NOT the problem !! It was the passive speaker drive unit MAGNETS, in the room, which were the cause of the adverse problems - and then, subsequently, we found that any batteries which were also present in the room were also having an adverse effect on the sound !!
This growing number of 'things adversely affecting the sound which could not be explained' from any of the conventional audio, electronic or acoustic theories are the 'pieces of the jigsaw' I referred to earlier. There was NO overall explanation. The pieces of the jigsaw were just random pieces with no coherence. Then, added to that, came the shock experience of, one day, ruining our sound by applying a chemical to a small stain on the coffee table in an attempt to deal with the stain. Using the SAME disc, through exactly the same audio equipment, in exactly the same room, with exactly the same table in exactly the same position as always yet the 'sound' was suddenly spoilt !!!! Again, we had no explanation as to why the sound had changed and the table was banished to the garage !! When that was done, the sound was back being OK again.
So this situation continued for many months i.e. The list of things which could 'adversely affect the sound' growing longer by the week !!! Until !! One day I was reading an article about plants and, suddenly, in the middle of this article was the reference to a certain plant producing a particular chemical when it was under stress. We suddenly realised that the chemical named as a 'stress chemical' was one of the ingredients of the chemical which Peter had applied to the small stain on the coffee table. Suddenly, however tentatively, there was some sort of explanation we could follow - at least a path we could explore along !! Could it be us (human beings) who had been 'sensing' the stress chemical and going under tension ourselves - which in turn had caused the sound to be perceived as 'worse'?????
The rest of the story is known. How Peter tried every chemical he could get his hands on, listening to the effect of each one, until one day he found one which gave him such an improvement in the sound that it left him devastated !! The rest, as they say, is history !!
The concept that it MUST BE us (human beings) who had been reacting adversely to the passive magnets, to the batteries, to the different wires, to the different materials, to the different plastics began to take shape because it was the ONLY concept which could bring all of the experiences together. The pieces of the jigsaw began to come together. If such as plants can 'communicate' with each other without having the senses of sight, hearing, taste, smell, touch as WE know them, then there is obviously a strong possibility that there can be similar sensibilities within us (retained through evolution). What sensibilities were important millions of years ago, before the senses as we know them now, must still be active (and relevant) to some extent now !!
What I have described were the important 'milestones' in our discoveries. There were many other minor events which just added to the overall picture. It was not just that Peter discovered something which 'improved' his sound but, much more importantly, he found that he could go back over all the previous experiments he had carried out and if the metal conductors, plastic insulation material, magnets, batteries etc which had all had adverse effects on the sound and if all those things could be 'treated', they could remain in the room without them causing any further problems !!!!! In fact, in particularly finding that 'treated batteries', present in the room, acted as 'beneficial devices' led us further into the area of 'hearing aids'. But, again, the story of THAT is also well known.
I refer to them as 'milestone' events similar to the 'milestone' event I described when Louis Pasteur 'experimented' with his device (a similar device is STILL used today in wine making) and how Pasteur REALISED what the end result really meant !!! Which then led Dr Joseph Lister to realise the consequences of what Pasteur had discovered !!! The history of 'antiseptics' shows the tremendous uphill battle which Joseph Lister THEN had to face !!!
Let me tell a story from 100 years ago which has a parallel in today's world of audio.
There was a famous surgeon (from now on I will refer to him as 'the famous surgeon'). Throughout the whole controversy caused by Lister's concept that the 'germs were in the air' and Lister's various 'antiseptic techniques', the 'famous surgeon' maintained that he NEVER used any of Lister's antiseptic techniques but still had one of the best patient survival records. This was true. Yes, the 'famous surgeon' had one of the lowest incidences of his patients dying of septicaemia. All visiting journalists who were invited to watch the 'famous surgeon' do his operations all confirmed what the 'famous surgeon' claimed - that he never used any of Lister's antiseptic treatments !!! But, the 'famous surgeon' had one well known quirk which was mentioned in every report about him - and that was that he insisted that his success on the majority of his patients surviving was because he used the sharpest surgical knife blade so could do the fastest operations - giving less time for the micro-organisms which caused septicaemia to erupt from within the patient !! And, to this end, immediately before making the first surgical cut, he always insisted on sharpening his surgical knife on one of those fast revolving knife sharpening stones he kept in the operating theatre !!! All the visiting journalists knew this and reported this but always printed the explanation given by the 'famous surgeon' - that his success rate was because of the insistence of using the sharpest surgical knife. It was only when another journalist visited and watched the 'famous surgeon' operating that there was a change in such reporting. The new visiting journalist was fully conversant with Lister's 'the germs in the air' concept and realised what was happening. He realised that when the 'famous surgeon' sharpened his knife on the fast revolving sharpening stone, heat was generated on the knife blade - sufficient heat to kill some of the 'germs' on the knife blade !!!!!!!! The VERY 'germs' which Lister was talking about !!! The 'famous surgeon' HAD BEEN using a technique (however inadvertently) which could be explained from Lister's 'germs in the air - or on the instruments' concept !!!!
But, throughout the preceding years, the 'famous surgeon' had been maintaining all along that any 'germs in the air' were nothing to do with him - that the sharpest surgical knife blade was the most important thing !! Without being aware at all that he had, all the time, inadvertently, been dealing to some extent with Lister's 'germs in the air - or on the instruments' !!
Now to the world of audio. And one particular 'tweak' which causes controversy.
Let me make it quite clear that I fully accept many people's description that when using the Shakti Stone device, they can 'hear' improvements in their sound. The explanation put forward by the producers of the Shakti Stone device is that surrounding all audio equipment there is an electromagnetic field - that that electromagnetic field doubles back on itself, adversely interfering with the audio signal going through that item of equipment. That the Shakti Stone device is a passive device (non active) UNTIL it is placed onto an item of equipment where the already created electromagnetic field itself causes the passive circuit inside the Shakti Stone device to be activated - which in turn creates a contra electromagnetic field which then prevents the original electromagnetic field interfering with the audio signal - and this is the reason put forward why the Shakti Stone device gives an improvement in the sound !! If people follow that explanation then they will only ever place the Shakti Stone device onto an item of audio equipment. If, however, they inadvertently placed the Shakti Stone device onto such as the telephone or a computer game console in the room they would 'hear' an identical improvement in their sound !!! But, the audio signal is not going through the telephone or the computer game console !!! So, the original explanation no longer holds water. But, until someone actually experiences something like that, they will never challenge the original explanation !!
Now, let me offer an alternative explanation. Supposing it is as suggested by the producers of the Shakti Stone device that an item of audio equipment creates an electromagnetic field around it ? But supposing this electromagnetic is not doubling back on itself and interfering with the actual audio signal but that the very presence of this electromagnetic field is actually preventing the listener from 'signing off' their environment as 'safe ? Supposing, when placing the Shakti Stone device onto the item of audio equipment it's passive circuit inside IS activated by the existing electromagnetic field and creates a further counter electromagnetic field so cancelling out the original adverse effect ? So reducing the adverse effect 'sensed' by the listener, so enabling them to be able to better 'sign off' their environment as 'safe, so enabling them to be able to relax more, so enabling them to be able to resolve more of the information which is already in the room ? This explanation would now explain why the sound would be perceived as better if, or when, the Shakti Stone device was placed onto such as the telephone or the computer game console in the room !!!!!
How many more of the controversial 'tweaks' can be explained and understand with a similar explanation ?
If you have read the link (the earlier Stereophile Forum debate) I gave you Elk, you will see that someone also asked the question "If you were manufacturers of audio equipment, why did you not do what most manufacturers would do in such circumstances ? Why did you not just incorporate your discoveries into your own speakers and headphones ?"
My answer to that question was that we obviously had that choice and thought long and hard but finally made the commercial decision, to take the other option, to try to produce devices and techniques which anyone, anywhere in the world could use on their OWN audio system and in their OWN listening environment !! The rest, as they say, is history !!
Because most of the things we experienced changing the sound could not possibly have had any effect on the audio signal going through the equipment nor on the acoustic air pressure waves in the room, then we realised that the wealth of information we were beginning to hear MUST HAVE BEEN in the room all the time but we (human beings) had not been resolving it all correctly.
>>> "(I hesitated in using the phrase "extra sensory perception", but I mean it only to refer to beyond the recognized five senses - not as a pejorative reference.)" <<<
That IS the problem with using the phrase "extra sensory perception". So many people use it as a pejorative reference !! It allows them to get out of doing some serious thinking !!
Going back to my earlier example of the human body programmed by Nature to constantly sense the temperature of it's environment so that it can maintain a constant body temperature - one would never describe that activity as "extra sensory perception" !!! It is a perfectly natural function but just not thought about !!
And, I don't think that anyone would be able to predict WHICH person would be able to detect a one degree change in environmental temperature - but that does not alter the fact that the body can and does, without the human being actually being aware of it doing so.
Your quotes Elk:-
>>> "Fear is a learned response." <<<
>>> "The mouse study is not a study of "fear", it is a study of instinctual freeze and flight response in mice." <<<
Fear is no more a learned response than the body 'sensing/reading' the temperature of it's environment is. From the earliest of creatures they have had to 'sense/read' their environment and respond with whatever response Flight, Fight or Freeze was needed. Flight, Fight or Freeze is NOT a learned response - it is an instinctive one !!! Already there, from the earliest time of evolution. You don't LEARN to shiver when you are cold. Dogs don't LEARN to pant when they are hot. The instinctive Freeze or Flight of the mouse is surely, logically, only AFTER it has 'sensed' danger/predator/intruder ????? Meaning it has already been sensing it's environment for it to know that it needs to take any Freeze or Flight action !!
Again, logically, meaning that it MUST HAVE already BEEN 'sensing/reading' it's environment every second of every minute of every hour of every day of it's life. NO exception !!! NO mouse is exempted. NO mouse can say "Oh, no, I am not affected. I feel perfectly safe and secure."
So, exactly why cannot the human body be 'sensing/reading' it's environment for danger/intruder/predator signs in exactly the same way ? Why cannot you or Buddha be 'sensing/reading' (as just one example) the numerous AC power cables in your environment - pulsating away 50 - 60 times per second - leaving you completely uncertain as to what to do about it ? Following on from that 'uncertainty' means 'don't relax' until you ARE certain. And Nature dictates that 'don't relax until you are certain' means stay under tension until you get sufficient reassurances that things are 'safe'. How do you do that with the AC power pulsating away 50 - 60 times per second ?
>>> "Accepting for a moment that all of these tweaks work and in fact improve a listener's enjoyment of reproduced sound, how do we get from here to the explanatory statements that this is because:
1) we have an evolutionarily created need to unconsciously "sign off" on imperceptible aspects of our environment, and
2) this sign off occurs not because we see or hear that there is no threat, but because of immeasurable and unidentifiable energy changes in the environment?" <<<
How do we get from here to explanatory statements ? A good question. But surely it is a question EVERYONE should be trying to answer ? What do you think Peter and I have been struggling to do for the past 27 years ? One thing I DO know. Reverting to it's "suggestion", "the placebo effect", "imagination", "having your local priest blessing your listening room", "audio faith healing", "magic talismans", "effective marketing", etc. as explanatory statements is not the way forward !!!!!!
Regards,
May Belt.
[
This does appear to be what they are stating. Yet they than claim that they in fact physically affect existing present energy patterns and we sense this It is an intriguing combination of "doesn't affect the physical environment/does affect the physical environment" in a somewhat Zen sort of way.
My impression is that the more salient point they are making is that the tweaks do not physically affect sound waves as sound waves, but instead physically affect the environment in a way that the listener responds to.
This is fair. If you find this more effective it is worth passing this experience on.
Have you tried the foil on your system specifically? If so, what use had the most beneficial affect?
I disagree that one "gets" cables. Either one hears a change in the sound or one does not. I don't find it to be an experience of understanding or cognitively appreciating.
OTOH, whether the cables is worth the cost is a "do you get it? issue. For most people, the change the cable brings is not worth much - more a curiosity.
This is why a disinterested person can be so useful in evaluating equipment changes. Either they hear a difference or they do not. They have nothing vested. There is nothing to "get". Either it works or it doesn't.
An interesting analogy.
It takes a great deal of experience and paying attention to notice changes in tire pressure, especially in a street car. Even then, it is more a curiosity and deriving satisfaction from having developed the skill to notice the difference.
This may be where the analogy fails, but are you stating that the Belt products are this subtle? If this is the case, it will take a great deal of exceedingly careful listening to determine if the Belt products do anything. OTOH, the last bit of polish on an already shiny surface is still a nice improvement.
I never thought of blaming the water.
It appears to be that you are stating that one needs to actively learn to experience the Belt products and tweaks. Is this the case?
This seems to be quite different than what the Frog and May have been stating. My impression from them is that the products cause a change in us and this change provides an improved sound reproduction experience. Thus while one with experience listening to audio may value the changes more, the affect of the product is automatic.
May,
Thank you for your long and thorough answer. You went to a great deal of work and thought to put it together.
This first section that I quoted was particularly helpful for my understanding, as was your reference to the autonomic nervous system (regulating body temperature, etc.).
I also appreciate that you observed the results and worked to isolate the causes so that the effects were repeatable - then you tried to determine what was common among the various causes. Good, solid investigation here.
Is it fair to summarize that your hypothesis of "signing off as safe "is your best current working explanation, and that you would be absolutely tickled if someone could better explain what your are observing and experiencing - even if the explanation was completely different?
I ask because my impression is that what you are passionate about is the journey and discovery, as well as sharing. Similarly if you can learn from someone else, you are all ears.
FYI, as an undergraduate student in Theatre Arts I was also schooled in the Alexander Techniques. I still use them when my back is bothering me. At the time they were part of a series of classes which were intended to introduce the bio-mechanics of acting and emotional recall. Think back to the "concert ears" and rituals we discussed earlier. Using one technique to open the doors of perception to another technique is quite valid.
I think you're still working too hard at this. Do you think the bird ponders when it is time to migrate? That may sound too "new age" but that's how I think you should approach these experiments.
Right now I'm using the foil mostly on CD's. I've placed it on a few items within the room, almost all of them are electronic devices. My impression is the foil is an introduction to understanding a new language. If you were to decide to learn Italian, you would begin by hearing the sounds of the words. You know they are Italian words but they wouldn't really make sense to you because you do not yet have the facility to put those sounds into the context of words and the words into ideas. But the sounds are still present and you respond to the sounds without knowing exactly what they mean as thoughts being expressed rather than just words being spoken. So it is with the Belt products, one leads to the next. (Which is I think the most dangerous part of the treatments. You can get to the point where you are too focused on the treatment and miss the benefit. We are talking about devices and treatments which can in many cases not work due to improper application but worrying over application is certain to have a negative effect on your perception of the music which is the reason you are using the device. Remember Shade's candle lighting ritual?)
The foil has had a discernable effect on my enjoyment of music when I use it on CD's. To me that means I've learned the meaning of "ciao". Now I'll progress with more familairity with the words and what they mean. I don't know that this is how it works for everyone but I am likening it to the comparison between the sound of live music and reproduced sound. There's a learning curve where you begin to discriminate between what is correct and what is not and what is important to make the sound more correct to fit your priorities. None of us tread the same path when deciding what is important to us. Here's where I'm learning which Belt devices give me a result that plays to what's important to me.
Overall I would say the "effect" of all the devices (I have found to work at this point - not all have) has been to reduce the amount of reproduced sound I have with what approaches more realistic sound. How do I describe this to someone who says the language I use has no value?
This is not a Belt treatment but I recently experimented with a bit of paper in my system. I had three different pieces of paper to try with two of them being a similar color other than the finish of the paper - one was a bit more "metalic" - and the third piece was a totally different color. I listened and heard benefits similar to what I get from the foil and cream. Each piece of paper had it's own sound signature. I decided which I preferred and called my friend to tell him I was sending him something to try. After receiving the three pieces of paper he called me back and described almost exactly what I had heard with each color. He ended up preferring the same piece of paper I was using. Now we've talked a lot and I know when he says "this" he means "that". But it's this sort of choosing between similar colors that will make the Belt products work for you.
That is what I'm finding with the Belt devices. The ones that say "better" are the ones that play up what I am attracted to and the one's that say nothing or little are filed away for later.
My other friend has the foil and cream along with a few other things (a reef knot) on her transcription equipment -such as it is, only a computer and a headset. You can see what the benefits have been to her.
Possibly we disagree and possibly I just mean something other than what you read. My feeling is we all bring our own priorities to the game. Do you "get" a cable that doesn't play to your priorities? Probably not. If you try a few cables that still don't play to your priorities, you'll probably walk away not "getting" cables. It's like the guy who sticks a tube amp in his system to get "tube sound" and then realizes it's not the best decision to have anything in your system have a specific sound. He won't get tubes.
You're right in that the language often fails us when we wish to describe what is not there. How do you describe more natural reproduction? Usually by focussing on what has been taken away that implied less natural sound. But, within the confines of my priorities, that is what the foil and cream provide, they take away what is not realistic to the music.
Is a disinterested person the best as a guide to what is happening? Possibly not. I would rather have an interested person without any preconceptions. Do I want someone who has no interest in music evaluating my system? No. Do I want someone who loves music but isn't tied up in audiophile "things" evaluating my system? They generally have an interesting input as to what is going on.
Here again we're going to disagree somewhat. I never found it to be a "curiosity" as much as an education. Like I said, it was a tool to use which made me think less about being in constant control of the situation and allowed me to concentrate more on simply driving. I would associate it with a Zen approach to removing anything that keeps you from being one with the car and the road and the journey. You don't think so much moment to moment because you might have to respond to danger as you now get to enjoy the big picture.
How subtle is "more natural"? If you are listening for gross differences I think you are going to be disappointed. If you are listening for the sort of differences that would allow a parent to recognize which identical twin was in front of them, then I think you might have a better shot at a result. Very real once you know what's in front of you. I think it was an original "Twilight Zone" that had a troop of soldiers out on the battlefield. The Sargent was always riding the one recruit. The situation required one soldier to go out to scout the enemy and the Sargent ordered the recruit out on what was very likely a suicide mission. As the soldier returned through the the brush in the dark of a moonless night, the others rejoiced because the recruit had made it back from what was certain death. The Sargent shot him dead about 50 yards out from their position. Horrified at what they had just witnessed the others ran to the body only to find an enemy soldier in the young recruit's uniform. When they asked the Sargent how he knew it wasn't his recruit he was killing, the Sargent replied, "I hated him so much I knew how he walked." Listen for that.
For me, yes. For someone else, I don't know. It's not so much "learning" as it is allowing the products to cause a beneficial result. Think of taking a mineral supplement. Not much is noticeable the first week, then you start to realize the cumulative benefits of the product. How do you recognize the benefits of the product? Possibly because something that was there is no longer there.
I'm not so sure I would say the products cause a "change" in us and I'm not so sure that's what May and MJF have said. What I read and understand is the products affect us in a way that allows us to feel "safe". Is that a change? Is that a change when we consciously are not aware we were not safe to begin with? No, once again I think you're working too hard to put this in the context of a "logical framework" so you can feel more at ease with how this all transpires. Think about your human coming home, Elk. How's that work? I bet that's one safe feeling puppy.
You made the statement; "You previously insisted that I try the free tweaks before expressing an opinion. I did. They failed." From what other you have posted, can you tell me how the tweaks failed? I know they had no benefit in this case. But how do you know they failed? What is it that convinced you they failed? No trick question, just think about it and answer as best you can.
Stephen, from that I come away thinking you feel calling someone a liar, a would-be criminal and telling them they are inferior and full of sh*t are more positive, understanding and accepting ways to communicate on this forum. Hmmm! I'll have to consider that approach.
The last couple of exchanges were excellent, in my opinion. Thanks.
What about the other 1744?
Wow!
That is the freakiest dem room I've ever seen, and those are the freakiest speakers I've ever seen! Mega cool stuff.
>>> "My impression is that the more salient point they are making is that the tweaks do not physically affect sound waves as sound waves, but instead physically affect the environment in a way that the listener responds to." <<<
That's it, Elk. !!! You've got it. However, can I qualify it slightly ? Just reading "physically affect the environment in a way that the listener responds to" implies that the environment is passive, non active, nothing going on, then we come along and DO something physical in the environment which affects the way the listener responds. Whereas our concept is that the modern environment is NOT passive, there IS much going on, in fact it is 'seething' with things 'going on' which we (human beings) are struggling to 'deal with'. Then, yes, we come along and 'treat' some of those things in such a way that allows us not to have to work so hard at having to 'deal with' these things. Which, in turn, allows us to resolve more of the information which is already in the room.
Did you read my Part One, Part Two and Part Three articles in Positive Feedback Online ?
The other points I am raising in those articles and wanting people to understand is that there is a wealth of information ALREADY handled perfectly well by their existing audio equipment and ALREADY presented into the room by their speakers but much of that existing information (in the room) they are not resolving correctly - because of all that is present in the modern environment.
Regards,
May Belt.
Yike!
You are right, now I do want something that makes me feel safe.
I did read all of the online articles you reference. Thank you for pointing them out.
Elk wrote:
This depends on how we define "sound". Is sound the physical propagation of sound waves or is it sound only if a human hears it?
Physical propagation of sound waves, natch.
In relying on this analogy, if sound is the physical propagation of sound waves what physical property do the Belt devices exhibit or affect that can be measured or otherwise observed independent of human sensory perception?
Well, find me the device that can measure the neurological procesesses of human sensory perception on this level, and I'll find you the device that can measure the effect indpendent of the observer.Til then, empirical observation will have to do I'm afraid. Laser interferometry has been suggested, if you need some help.
That is, once again, how do they work if no human is around to hear them? What exactly do they do?
As I've said in my last message, manipulate energy. It's a very subtle process; at least on the level humans can understand it. I don't pretend to know what's happening at the level of the energy, in this process.
I have read this before and it is a good story, but it doesn't answer the question - unless the answer simply is "we made it up". There is no more factual support here for a specific biologically based hypothesis of "unconscious safe sign off" then there is for the simple statement, "we have absolutely no idea how it works."
This depends on how you define "factual support".
Accepting for a moment that all of these tweaks work and in fact improve a listener's enjoyment of reproduced sound, how do we get from here to the explanatory statements that this is because:
1) we have an evolutionarily created need to unconsciously "sign off" on imperceptible aspects of our environment, and
2) this sign off occurs not because we see or hear that there is no threat, but because of immeasurable and unidentifiable energy changes in the environment?
I think you're mixing together some of the things I have said with some of the things May has said. Some of the things I've said were based on my observations, some of the things the Belt's have said were based on theirs. Having said that, I can surely understand where they have gotten some of their observations. But I don't necessarily know how all of it originated, because I wasn't there during the development process, or the decades of research that ensued.
From what I have seen, there is just as much evidence for an explanation that the tweaks amplify frequency differences through atomic sized natural amplifiers leading to intermodulation products that make music sound clearer.
That was the original theory, yes. But we've progressed on from there.
Actually, if you believe that, then I'd say you haven't been reading the PWB articles much. Of course, that depends on how you define "evidence"...
I am not aware of any other claimed sensory phenomenon that exhibits a response in every single person, let alone the same response.
MJF: How about "fear"? Is anyone entirely immune to fear, or are we programmed to fear?
Fear is a learned response.
No, it's inherent. They're even talking about developing "fear-fighting drugs" that work on inhibiting our fear receptors. But it can be 'conditioned', thus 'learned' if you will. Of course, what you tend to believe might depend on who you ask... ie. whether it's a behavioural psychologist or a biological psychologist...
Thus, different cultures fear different objects or experiences. Different members of the same family often fear different things.
Yes, I know people will fear different things. That's why I wrote the part you left out:
I'm not suggesting the same fear stimulus will exhibit the same response in everyone. But then, I'm not suggesting that about the Belt tweaks either, note.
The question I asked is, who is immune to fear? It's an instinct, a survival mechanism, and an innate emotion. Who is immune to it?
The mouse study is not a study of "fear", it is a study of instinctual freeze and flight response in mice.
The fight/flight response is a fear response. It is triggered when the animal is under danger of attack.
MJF: If you show me a person who has no ears, no olfactory senses, born blind, and all his taste buds are dead, he is still affected by this energy.
Exactly. The claim is that we respond in an extra-sensory fashion; that is, not through our five known senses. Yes?
This depends on how you define "respond".
One way to look at it, is Beltists are basically guinea pigs (witting or unwitting) in a global ongoing experiment, since about 27 years. Problem is, no one's collecting the data, so the phenomenon remains little understood. And even easier to criticize, because it's just an anecdote here and an anecdote there, peppered in with anecdotes of some people who've tried the products and can't hear a damn bit of difference. Then when you add the fact that the theory touches upon biological concepts not yet discovered by science, and the products themselves look a hell of a lot like common household safety pins, stationary store markers, and dollar store laser-etched foil, I can see where it all starts to look a little, um, "suspicious", to uninitiates. But if you did analyze the experiences collectively, I think it would be very compelling. Among that data, you would see responses to an external stimuli that are not consciously provoked, and can't be suggestions. I'm speaking of reduction of stress, not the 5 senses. I believe I've experienced that myself, on occasion, during my trials.
This does appear to be what they are stating. Yet they than claim that they in fact physically affect existing present energy patterns and we sense this It is an intriguing combination of "doesn't affect the physical environment/does affect the physical environment" in a somewhat Zen sort of way.
My impression is that the more salient point they are making is that the tweaks do not physically affect sound waves as sound waves, but instead physically affect the environment in a way that the listener responds to.
By jove, I think he's gawt it.
It appears to be that you are stating that one needs to actively learn to experience the Belt products and tweaks. Is this the case?
This seems to be quite different than what the Frog and May have been stating. My impression from them is that the products cause a change in us and this change provides an improved sound reproduction experience. Thus while one with experience listening to audio may value the changes more, the affect of the product is automatic.
Yes I agree with your second paragraph, but the two ideas are not mutually exclusive. The change is automatic. The conscious perception of the change is not. If you read Peter Turner's review on the Belt tweaks on my site, you'll hear that for him, it would take a couple of minutes (I think), for the effect to kick in. And it took numerous tries for him to finally 'get' the effect. This is not out of line with what some others have reproted. So it's not "either/or". For some (ie. me) your first recognition of the BE (Belt Effect!) is instantaneous. For others, it may take a while.
Jan wrote:
Great post, Jan.
Think of the things which have become so ubiquitous in our environment that we simple accept them without considering their effects
That's really the crux of it, my friend. In our modern environments, we simply accept everything around us without considering the effects it might have on our physiology. Yet once you really get into studying this phenomeon on something more tangible than an intellectual basis, you can start to see just how foolish it is to accept everything around us, without any consideration about what effect they might have. Even the order that the things we have are in, can have an effect. How many people think about about the effect a can of soup or box of cookies they brought in from the supermarket, might have on them, their perception of sound and other senses? Only Beltists do.
In other words, learn to forget the physical world you can sit on and realize there are things we cannot see, touch or smell that affect our life. If, when you do so, you can only think of voodoo witches and ghosts which you do not believe in, then you might not ever be a good candidate for the Belt products, IMO.
I think you're right. Someone who can't or rather won't begin to open their mind to the idea that the realities of the world and their own physiology is greater than what they know from what they learned or were taught, might not be a good candidate. Once you become aware that this can really happen, that there really is something going on with everything around us to where you can do all kinds of seemingly unrelated things and alter the sound of your audio or your video, I don't know that you can look at the world again in the same way, because you realize how little you know about how things work in the universe. Someone who's perfectly happy with what they already know of the world is likely to want to stay that way!
If you tried to explain to someone who takes driving as just a way to get from point to point, they wouldn't understand the intuitive feel of manipulating the steering of your car by way of tire pressure.
Another great analogy, and one I see myself in. I use the intuition of "feeling the road and steering the car by way of tire pressure" during my experiments, in order to get to the place I want to go to, musically speaking. (my body is the car) As a big fan of the old Twilight Zones, I also liked your analogy of the soldier who through experience, learned to perceive the detail of how the enemy soldier walked (though I just very vaguely remember that episode). I can relate to that too, e.g. I sometimes have to be able to perceive the sound of a plastic tie in one location, from that of another location 1mm away. I wouldn't be surprised if most people without the same experience could not catch that detail.
Like looking at modern art, you might not get one scuplture but then you stumble across a painting that strikes you as profound and suddenly more works of art start to make sense. You have to allow your perception free rein and while you believe you are good at this now it might take that one painting to open the window to what is out there.
Another very thoughtful analogy that's perfectly suitable IMO to explain the Belt experience, but one that speaks to me on another level, as I'm just getting interested in modern art at the museums.
How long did it take you to learn that feel and how to use it? As you get used to what the tire pressure does to the steering of your car you become a more relaxed driver at controlling the outside forces of the road. In a way that's what you need to bring to the Belt products.
I think you hit upon another key aspect of all this, and one reason why I suspect some people don't hear anything from these tweaks, particularly initially. It may be a learning process just to find out what's happening, exactly. Because they don't affect sound as other products do. So it may not be obvious that anything has changed, until you have experimented enough with the devices to learn the "feel" of the "Belt sound". To identify what its contributing to the overall sound. If you're just used to doing tests where you go through the usual routine of listening for frequency response changes, you're not likely to get it. No Belt product has any effect on any particular part of the frequency response. But if you're just listening to the feel of the music overall, it starts to feel a bit more natural, more relaxed, smoother... than you're likely to be hearing the influence of the Belt device.
This is not a Belt treatment but I recently experimented with a bit of paper in my system. I had three different pieces of paper to try with two of them being a similar color other than the finish of the paper - one was a bit more "metalic" - and the third piece was a totally different color. I listened and heard benefits similar to what I get from the foil and cream. Each piece of paper had it's own sound signature. I decided which I preferred and called my friend to tell him I was sending him something to try. After receiving the three pieces of paper he called me back and described almost exactly what I had heard with each color. He ended up preferring the same piece of paper I was using.
It may not be a PWB device you were fooling with, but what you discovered is indeed a "Belt effect". I have done many experiments with colour wrt perception of sound. I can affirm that each colour has its own sonic signature (it is affecting the energy), and moreover, where you place the item also changes your sound in that respect. But the signature of the colour will remain the same; think of it as a specific frequency.
Michigan, why limit Belt tweaking to audio?
The art, driving, dining, and wine examples should be amenable to your hypothesis, as well.
Anyway...The color phenomenon is interesting.
Again, there seems to be a great deal of person to person or item to itme variability.
As Michigan mentions, he may notice different effects from different colors, and other may actually notice similar phenomena.
There was one study done that looked at vehicle (train and sports car) images, while people viewing these images were played a recording of the sound of the given type of vehicle as they viewed the picture. Even though the sounds were presented identically, those viewing images of red trains and cars reported the accompanying sounds as being louder than the same sounds when played while viewing green vehicles.
From the subjective perspective of those subjects, the red car WAS louder, so to speak.
(Of course, in typical human fashion, there was human to human variability, but the trend was thus.)
However, this effect was lost when viewers were presented simple color swatchs without an "object" shape. In that case, they heard "accurately."
Interesting that small differences (shape) that can make for big alterations in perception!
Link to article that reviews the study:
Color/Loudness Study
Michigan, in addition to colors, have you tried different shapes?
Michigan, why limit Belt tweaking to audio? The art, driving, dining, and wine examples should be amenable to your hypothesis, as well.
That's a good question. Because for me, this is where it is best utilized, and most of my experiments with the phenomenon have been within the domain of sound, and more specifically, reproduced music. Not that I haven't experienced other effects from the tweaks, but audio is where it is best observed, I find.
Anyway...The color phenomenon is interesting.
And that's just the tip of the iceberg. It's a very big sea.
Again, there seems to be a great deal of person to person or item to itme variability. As Michigan mentions, he may notice different effects from different colors, and other may actually notice similar phenomena.
Yes, and I think this varies greatly with the amount of experience you have testing the devices. I know a lot of things that other Beltists don't, simply because I've put in the effort, out of my quasi-scientific interest in the phenomenon (as opposed to my interest in ameliorating my audio system). But colour isn't one of them. The fact that colour affects the perception of sound quality is very well known among the Beltist community. And alas, nowhere else outside of it.
From the subjective perspective of those subjects, the red car WAS louder, so to speak.
Interesting study, but those are subjective impressions which seem to have a psychological basis. This is not the same thing I'm talking about, when I say colour affects the perception of SQ. For example, you don't have to see the colour to be able to identify its influence.
Interesting that small differences (shape) that can make for big alterations in perception!
Oh, you have no idea, my friend....
Michigan, in addition to colors, have you tried different shapes?
Of course. What do you think the L-Shape Device on my site is based on?
>>> "This is not a Belt treatment but I recently experimented with a bit of paper in my system. I had three different pieces of paper to try with two of them being a similar color other than the finish of the paper - one was a bit more "metalic" - and the third piece was a totally different color. I listened and heard benefits similar to what I get from the foil and cream. Each piece of paper had it's own sound signature." <<<
Jan, you are describing something which you say is not Belt associated but I think the work we have done on colours would fill a small book !! Again, as I keep saying to Elk, the story is well known.
In the early 1980s, in the middle of trying to work out a way of demonstrating our Cream-Electret i.e doing before, after and back to before experiments, we discovered that colours are important - that different colours have a different effect on the 'sound'. This was before we had acquired a CD player and some CDs so, by the time we had a CD player, we were already aware of the problem with different colours. We therefore knew that the colour printing on the labels of CDs could be a problem - and so the different artwork and colours, printed on the label side of CDs proved to be !!!!
One person who had been following Peter's work was Laszlo Darvas, the Editor of the Hungarian Hi Fi Magazine. He decided to do some experiments of his own and actually took it further than even Peter had done. Laszlo got a Hungarian manufacturer of Compact Discs to make him 10 CDs. All the CDs to be identical (musicwise) with the printing on the label side to be identical printing but for the actual printing on each individual CD to be printed a different colour. He then listened to each individual CD and graded them according to how they 'sounded'. Having made HIS choices, he then sent all 10 CDs to a colleague to carry out the same experiments. Laszlo Darvas detailed the results of his experiments, coupled with those of his colleague, with the descriptions of what each colour 'sounded' like in a letter to the editor of the British Hi Fi News, offering the editor of Hi Fi News an identical set of CDs for the editor to do his own experiments !! Nothing was ever followed up by Hi Fi News, in fact I don't think Hi Fi News ever even acknowledged Laszlo's letter to them because all they did was to forward Laszlo's letter to Peter with a note saying "We think you might find this interesting, Peter." - NOT realising that Laszlo had only done the experiments in the first place because of what Peter had already been discovering !!!!!
Colours ARE important. That is why I could say earlier that Ethan could do all the acoustic measuring he wanted to in a room, fit all the acoustic panels he wanted to, listen to exactly the same disc, through exactly the same equipment, with exactly the same acoustic panels in exactly the same position but if he changed the colour of the material of the acoustic panels, the sound would change !!!! NOTHING to do with acoustics !!!!
Regards,
May Belt.,
When I was working as a stage designer I read and investigated the psychology of color to better understand how to use the tools I had available to me. This, of course, extends a bit beyond that simple stuff.
I decided to try the experiment after reading about the various colors on the Belt pages and a few other passive device web sites. The paper was used in the tray of my Rega CD player so I couldn't see the paper and I had (as far as I would think) no reason to wish differences between colors other than "works" and "doesn't work".
I have the Apollo and my friend has the Saturn. We both use McIntosh amplifiers, mine tubed and his solid state. Even with what I expected to happen I was a bit taken aback by the obvious difference in sound between the two dissimilar colors and the just as obivous but "tweaked" improvements existing between the similar color with the metalic or mat finish. Maybe it has to do with stray laser light as some have surmised but that wouldn't explain the considerable change in soundstaging and bass quality heard with the various colors, and the degree of "warmth" and presence to the overall sound created by the two similar colors as opposed to the more solid state qualities of the dissimilar color. Would it? This was almost to the extent I was switching between two very good amplifiers from a very good company, one with transistors and the other with tubes.
Since MJF and May have been dealing with this for a while, for both of you, what color is your listening room?
So much cool stuff about audio and listening:
Ever find yourself leaning forward to listen?
Most efficient listening strategy for localizing sound.
I'd love to see this HEARCOM stuff used in our "tweak" environments that we create:
Multi Item Subjective Testing.
Even more interestingly, maybe that kind of evaluation might demonstrate what happens with the subjective "DBT Deafness" we audiophiles like to talk about when faced with our failure to hear differences in DBT that we hear in sighted listening!
I like this next one because it shows how a listener can be manipulated and a "vocalizer" need not be "sincere:"
Listener emotion can be created by vocalizer who may not share the same "feeling" that is being conveyed.
Makes you realize how those great moody singers have mastered a sort of "manipulative" skill. I don't mean that in a pejorative way - it just demonstrates a skill that effective singers are able to tap into. "Emotion on demand," so to speak! In a way, it's skillful emotional lying.
(I prefer to think of what they do as "channeling" emotion.)
Also something that soundtrack producers seem to grasp quite completely.
This next one points out the "primacy of vision," but also makes me wonder. Perhaps all of us audio oriented types lean more toward primacy of sound. Hence, or endeavors - maybe we really aren't "normal."
Vision > Sound in affecting emotional response.
Maybe as a group, we are somehow stunted compared to "normal" civilians!
If you follow the side bar links for that article, it will take you to similar studies. It seems vision trumps sound, but that the combo of sound and vision is most effective for "normal" people.
It also makes me think more about why so many of us prefer to listen in the dark. There may be some 'emotional' masking that takes place when we listen in light and are faced with a visual field that is emotionally disconnected from what we are hearing. The room looks the same no matter what emotion the music is trying to tap into.
Makes me like those audiovisual "nuts" a little more.
For myself, I find some visual "effects" pleasing to have in the room, and some I find dissonant. Some visuals seem to be "multi-emotional" and some not.
Any other "lights out" listeners here?
Jan wrote:
I decided to try the experiment after reading about the various colors on the Belt pages and a few other passive device web sites. The paper was used in the tray of my Rega CD player so I couldn't see the paper and I had (as far as I would think) no reason to wish differences between colors other than "works" and "doesn't work".
How do you mean "it was used in the tray"? Is this just a small piece you taped to the top of the tray? Otherwise, I can only imagine it interfering with the mechanics.
If you think it might be doing something with stray laser light (let's forget about the fact that its not even on the same wavelength as laser light....), then try taping the paper to the end of one of your IC's, going into the CD player; see if something registers.
Since MJF and May have been dealing with this for a while, for both of you, what color is your listening room?
Er... white. That's not to imply this is a sound-enhancing colour. I've not done any research into the effects of different coloured paint on sound, though I have thought about it. I know Peter has, but I don't know if he found any special colour that is conducive to good sound. I'm thinking of painting my place this summer, so maybe I'll do some experiments then; slap some different colours on the wall, see what they sound like. But there are other factors to consider too, such as the fact that I don't want to live within dark walls; nothing stronger than a pastel. And as you know, colours have a psychological effect as well, so that limits choices even further.
Consider that the best sounding colour for a wall, might depend on what the wall wants, and not you, your landlord, or your significant other. If I'm ever to compromise on my audiophile principles, this is one area where I would. For the same reason, you won't find any of Ethan's traps in my room. The interior designer in me may not be as dedicated as the audiophile in me, but he can kick the audionut's ass, so I can't do much about that. In my experiments with coloured objects on my mp3 player, I can't say I found any special colour that is above all others, with those objects under that test. As I said, each contributes its own character. PWB's use of colour in their products is pretty intentional, I believe. Meaning, if their devices use colour for a specific reason, the colour used will depend on the object and its application. Hence, there's a lot of research involved here.
Pages