And I seem to recall refuting your assertion that:

Gonko says:

And guess what? You never answered that. In fact, in the fifty-five or so times that I pointed out how you all insulted, mocked, ridiculed, defamed, and made accusations of fraud towards two members here who advocated alternative audio products (all without evidence to support your attacks or even provocation), not you or anyone here addressed my assertions. Do you think its a tidy little secret no one knows about, and that you trailer park boys think you can hide by ignoring? Yet you all continued to try to convince me you were not arrogant chest-beating pricks but "polite" and "civil" and capable of "intelligent debate". Including "Sluggo", who instead of engaging me in debate over the issues, has now resorted to biting my ankles every time I pass by.

The facts speak for themselves. There was not a single post made by HifiSound Guy or GoodSound (that I saw), in which they attacked any of you. They were just talking about audio products they believed in. I'm waiting for someone to first, own up to your unprovoked attacks on these guys, and next, tell me why most everyone on Outlaw thought they deserved to be the brunt of all your hostilities and ridicule?

Not quite true, and you know it, since you've been in this thread from the beginning. HifiSoundGuy gave you people a brief explanation of how the CLC works. Did that spark anything resembling an intelligent debate from you or anyone else? Nope. It gave rise to exponentially greater ridicule and derision. Your precious "Sluggo" then made cracks about Scientology. Here's what you wrote, since it seems you need your memory jostled:

Gonk says:

Wow. Brilliant, Gonk. Not knowing anything about the subject at hand, you dismissed the explanation sweepingly, adding "quotes" to the word "scientific", to imply you are stating for fact it isn't. So in other words, if something sounds "silly" to you because you're too ignorant to know anything about it, then it's not even worth your precious time to debate. Then you go back to your trailer home to guzzle more beer. Great face-saving gesture. Intelligent, it isn't. Despite offering no indication whatsoever that you have any clue as to the subjects at hand, you obviously think you're smarter than Wilhelm Reich, who studied under Freud, and based his life's research on orgone energy. He even died defending it. So believe that I am sincere when I tell you that I, and I'm sure the Orgone Institute and thousands of Orgone therapists around the world, would like to hear about the research you've done that proves Wilhelm Reich was imagining all of it.

Here's some more brilliant observations by you, aka Captain Obvious:

Gonk says:

So here we see you, the most "reasonable" Outlaw member, the most "helpful" and "polite", and the one most likely to survive an "intelligent debate" (or even have the balls to enter one), making sweeping dismissals of Belt's entire line of products. Not only that, but you even have the cheek to libel Peter Belt, calling him a rip off artist, and his explanations bogus. Did you provide any evidence to support your accusations? Not a f**#$ing shred. Not a crumb. Not a grain. Not a speck, and not a quantum particle of evidence. Instead, you provide "vigorous assertion". No more, no less. Which by the way, is exactly the same amount of evidence I have seen given by every -other- ignorant loudmouthed SOB who presented opinions as facts on these products, in every single place on the net. So please bear this in mind when you see my impression of you people:

"Ho hey, folks! Isn't it obvious Belt is a fraudulent rip off artist! I mean COME ON! Clocks with batteries that affect sound? He's obviously NUTS! Who does he think we are? Ignorant loud-mouthed SOB's that don't know sh*t from shinola?! And what's with all this complicated technical scientific mumbo jumbo claptrap that we don't understand, that he presents as "theories" for his products? Does he think we're STUPID, that we're going to believe in things with such complicated explanations?! He's obviously just making them complicated so that we can't understand them, so that they sound plausibull to us! (BTW, Sluggo, what does "plausibull" mean again? Am I using it right? You got up to 6th grade, didn't you?). How could there be people in the world who are STUPID enough to fall for this rip off artists rip off crap! We gotta save them from themselves, Sluggo! Or at least make fun of them, yah!"

You can't see this part, but in my impression of you and everyone like you, I'm wearing blackface. Trust me, it's really hilarious if you get the joke. Now then, who here still thinks I'm "marketing products"? C'mon, step to the front of the line, that's it, don't be shy... Okay, here's how this works. We push you off the cliff first, and then we see if you bounce, like in the comic books.... There's a good lad! Off ya go...


Tell me about it. It's clear that debating anything with the likes of you and your hombres isn't going to get anybody very far (which is not the goal, as far as I'm concerned). You've shown that in the above quote of yours that I reposted, where you simply make sweeping dismissals of that which you can't refute with verifiable evidence. Show me one sign of anyone here who's actually interested in actually -learning- something? And not just being intellectually dishonest by pretending to be interested in debates, but only for purposes of ridicule. This prevalent attitude explains why Kaitt is not eager to publish a hypotheses on the CLC. However, Belt's explanations are all over his site. But clever you, you managed to dismiss all that with a sweep of your hand, didn't you.

Attitudes like yours are why PWB and MD provide money back guarantees. So people don't have to worry about how it works in theory, and they can hear for themselves whether it works for them or not. Most audio companies do not offer you people such assurances.


That's right. Except, I'm not asking people to debate testimonials, so I don't know why you're goin' on about that. And speaking of putting testimonials on the net, as you know I posted my website here where I put up mp3's to allow you to listen for yourself to hear the Belt effect. And of course, I suppose that could be argued to be a fictitious testimonial, since you can't verify the source of the MP3's ( assuming you did hear differences). You just have to take my word that the modifications I made to effect audible changes, are exactly as described on my site. BTW, you who's so interested in this sh&t, did you even bother to listen to those mp3's?

Anyway, I also posted the address here of my other website that allows people to test the theories for themselves, by downloading a technique they can apply to their own systems. Because I know how many people like you and yours are out there, maintaing this insanely stupid and naive notion that there are companies like PWB, who've somehow managed to stay in business for 40 years, selling products that don't work. Most of the people who are customers of the company, were given free samples from magazines or the company, and it is through that that they were able to determine Belt's products do work. In strange, but tangible ways. That, PWB and myself have found, is the only way to convince anyone of -anything-. And the moment those open-minded experimenters realized that, they became in an instant, eons more knowledgable than you about audio. Fancy that. You with your 4 decades of professional involvement who thinks he knows it all, that he can decide now with a sweep of his hand what is and isn't valid in audio and science....


Fine. Then listen to my MP3's, and if you or yours hears a difference between two like mp3's, tell me what you think I did to fake the difference (assuming you are obviously not going to believe the modifications I claim to have done). I'm sure I would find it amusing to hear your paranoid conspiracy theories... (There've been so many written about me, I'm kind of a collector of them now...).

Delius,

What's your take on the above quote? Is the CLC a time travel device? You seem to have no shortage of time to type so please explain to me how the CLC works as a time travel device.

I also would appreciate if you would desist in calling other members of this forum names they do not deserve. True, they did not support HFSG and Goodsound in their posts but if you reread this thread from the beginning, you will notice that they did not ever try to tell HFSG or Goodsound that they should get rid of the tweaks they had tried. Most jokes that you keep referencing are actually responses to input from other forum members and in most cases were added as a jest and nothing more.

I await your response to my above question but if you continue to insult the intelligence of the other people on this forum, then you will nullify any useful information you may be providing. Teach us why these products work, don't insult us into why we should believe that they work.

Apparently, delius has all the time in the world, but don't let that fool you. He's not interested in making a point, only in making his presence known and keeping this inane thread alive. Just notice how he skips over direct questions entirely.

Again, I'll ask it: If you really want an intelligent debate on this subject, and complain that we are all of us unable to have one, please tell us of any other forum where you are able to do so.

Over the span of two days back in March, the CLC went from being a time travel device (as noted in Jason J's post above) to an orgone energy device , complete with this handy link . My post speaks as much to the notion of the clock as a time travel device (and I still feel no need to spend any time pointing out the obvious absurdities throughout that explanation) and the notion of it being related to orgone energy. I did speak ill of orgone energy along the way, and to be honest I don't feel bad about that.

While we're looking back into this thread's past, you had this to say about Ritz a couple posts back:
What's interesting to me is that Ritz was referring to a post I found in another forum once again describing the CLC as a time travel device. Now, I could obviously be in error somehow, but you've been defending the CLC as a Belt device - so why is it being marketed also as a time travel device? And why does that not reasonably bring into question the validity of the product in question? After all, if someone can't decide which fringe science (and oh I bet you're not going to care for that word choice) causes their product to operate, that would appear to me to undermine their credibility, thus making Ritz's comment reasonable rather than vile.
Yep, I'm cheeky. I said that the general opinion here (which you seem to have recognized some time ago and already expect to remain the same) is that Belt devices are a sham. I'll take a look at your MP3 files, but I think you and I are actually in agreement on at least one thing: the general opinion of members of this forum is and is likely to remain unswayed by Belt devices.

You're absolutely right. They are trying to sell me something. But what they aren't doing is posting about it on another manufacturer's forum. Also, they can tell me why they enjoy the product and I'll trust their opinion since they are not using psuedo-science to call me an idiot for not believing their product works.

"Sum ergo cogito", I am, therefore I think - Descartes. Time to dust off my philosophy books. Delius I hope you realize your entering the domain of philosophy and metaphysics by your posts. Gonk and most here are people of science. At least the kind I learned in secondary school that can be tested, duplicated, and verified by an independent source that is both qualitative and quantitative. The fact that no one has come forth with hard science of this nature to back up claims made by CLC and their proponents is a legitimate reason to take someone outside or inside if need be and beat the snot out of them. I suggest you tone it down a notch and start acting respectful. Where I come from you have to treat people with respect to receive it. I support my fellow Outlaws who have spoken out against this type of non-sense that has been contained in this thread. Now we have someone who is arguing philosophy and metaphysics on the group and getting nasty in the process. Delius if the CLC works for you and the lot of you enjoy it but don't expect the group to jump off the cliff with you. Right now your arguments are like those of someone trying to convince us of the traditional Santa Clause. Perhaps our 990's would sound better if we believed in Santa Clause, the world would probably be better off if there were one.

If you’re not a lawyer you missed your calling because it's people like you who try to change the rules to fit your argument. Stop trying to convince the group that 1+1=3 because you can't no matter how many insults and empty arguments you make. Demonstrate to anyone how to test a CLC for free that shows a quantitative and qualitative improvement of sound or "unplant" your "wagon" and don't come back.

P.S. Before you start correcting people's spelling you better dot your i's and cross your own t's. Proper nouns like Shinola are capitalized or perhaps you prefer to shine your shoes with sh*t!

And then...
If they don't work on the signal chain, but on perception of the listener, they're not audio products. They're psychological stimuli.
And conversely, having a belief in a phenomenon is enough to install a placebo effect. If a difference is audible and perceptible, enough people in any test group would hear it, no matter what their beliefs are.
Except that "a good pair of ears" isn't a measurable or verifiable instrument, especially considering that
so we'll all just have to take the listener's word for it.
How would you know the changes are "across the board", if you can't measure them?

You've set yourself up with a nice position, delius: these products you so love have effects that cannot be measured or identified, you claim that there are no tests that adequately isolate their effects, and not all people will be able to perceive them, especially if they don't believe in them. Easy to claim, impossible to prove, and impossible to refute. If someone perceives a difference, it's the Belt effect. If not, they're ignorant morons.

Since we've been looking back through the sordid history of this thread, it might be a good time to toss out a theory that's been on my mind for quite some time now. It's not directly related to the Clever Little Clock, memory foil, or cream electret, but is instead related to the reason the thread came into existence.

Here's my theory: both HiFiSoundGuy and GoodSound are the same person, and that person came here for the express purpose of marketing (yep, there's that word again) these products.

Wow. Right? Let's dig a bit deeper.

HiFiSoundGuy arrived in the saloon on March 2, 2006. His very first post suggested that he'd placed an order for an RR2150. His second post suggested replacing capacitors in the Model 990 with Sonicaps. His third post was the start of this thread. At the time, the RR2150 was backordered several months, so he could freely stick to the "ordered a 2150" story for some time without having to worry about being asked to make specific comments about the product.

Now, shortly before this all transpired, there was some interesting online discussion of guerilla marketing (online gaming comic Penny Arcade had a series of posts and even a comic about it, and even at one point offered a link to a blog site called The Consumerist that aparently kept track of such things along with other consumer-related topics). Could HiFiSoundGuy be a guerilla marketer? He took a little time to establish himself in the forum, even claiming to have made a purchase from the company, and then set out to relate stories of a wonderful product he'd used. That is the precise formula that guerilla marketers use. And as the thread continued, he stuck close to that formula: repeating marketing information from the manufacturer, continuously insisting that the products worked as advertised, and suggesting that others try the products out.

Then HiFiSoundGuy vanished. Why? Well, eventually RR2150 backorders from early March were all filled, and he could no longer claim to have ordered one unless he actually had . That's when he faded away. Then, months later, GoodSound arrived. His first post was in the Clever Little Clock thread, with a brief aside the next day to tell us what speakers he uses (thus helping to establish some audio "cred" by having speakers). These are not the same speakers used by HiFiSoundGuy (he had Polks, not JBL's). And yet, the two individuals have much in common. First, the name: both are built around "Sound" (again, a good way to suggest that they are fans of audio) and both use capitalization without spaces to splice words together. Second, their support for the same three products: Clever Little Clock, memory foil, and cream electret. Third, their posting style (their "accent" for lack of a better word) is very similar. Read their posts some time, without looking at anything else in the thread. Note the way they present their arguments: they re-state the idea that you have to try these, they re-state that if a few folks just tried them they'd be convinced, and they do little else. Look at the word choice, sentence structure, and everything - if you didn't have posters' names to go by, you would assume all of their posts were written by the same person.

Delius has come to this forum mainly because he has a ready-made audience with which to disagree, but his excuse was to ride to the defense of two innocent, caring individuals who had separately offered some suggestions that could help us improve the sound and picture quality of our systems. But if those innocent, caring individuals are a single person who came here only to try to drum up sales for a company other than the one that hosts this forum and did so by misrepresenting himself, then how much defense do they (does he) actually need?

Excellent theory, Gonk. However, considering that all three of them have one thing in common - not answering direct questions about the validity of their product - I'd be surprised if they weren't all part of the same marketing ploy.

First step - introduce the product on the forum, spurring the inevitable debate about it. Next step - offer a free sample to the forum mods to pass around to the forumers. The last step, which happened at Audio Asylum but not here, would have been the forumers posting reviews of this thing as they pass it around (and thus lending credence to the idea that it might work).

Failing that, the next tactic would be to send in the trolls, try to make the forum regulars seem petty and ignorant for naysaying, and hopefully spur some forumers to open their minds to the underlying doctrine.

While I do scan the lengthy posts of delius, I find more interest in most of the responses of the forum members with experience and reasoning still accepting of the derided Newtonian Physics (NP).

By the way I interpret what delius writes, the theories do not seem to be based on true Quantum Mechanics (QM) or Quantum Physics (QP) as accepted by (also derided) ‘mainstream science’ (I’ve read in those areas), but strays more into areas that might be more accurately labeled Metaphysics (MP).

When a violin string is excited into resonance, there’s a whole lot of NP going on. When the resulting acoustic energy radiates to an interpretive device that creates a record of the vibrations received, there’s a whole lot of NP going on. When electrical energy directly or indirectly causes an admittedly imperfect recreation of the original acoustic energy, there’s a whole lot of NP going on. When my ears interpret either the original or the re-created acoustic energy, there’s a whole lot of NP going on.

By the way, there are measurement instruments that will allow an analysis of acoustic events more accurately than our psycho-acoustic, bio-electrical interpretive systems can.

Those that can hear or affect music wholly or partly outside of NP are listening to something that Outlaw gear is not designed to help reproduce.

If I were deciding where to spend $500, I’d install acoustic treatments in my current room, not clocks, foils or creams. If I where to spend $1000’s beyond that, I’d remove the passive crossovers from some or all of my loudspeakers and go with custom active crossovers ahead of the amplification. I’d have to run out of a whole lot of known, verifiable electronic and NP based improvements before I would venture into any so-called ‘quantum’ or metaphysical treatments.

(The name's not 'dubiousbang4thebuck.')

[Edit: spelling correction.]