What do you think about this Scott? :rolleyes: Please give this a try

Interesting thread. I came across this in my internet travels. 8 pages wide, several hundred posts long, filled with some 500 supremely ignorant twits, all ganging up on one or two tweakers. And what do the 500 supremely ignorant twits all have in common, class? Welp, besides all being "ignorant twits" (as you may have guessed), out of this large, braying group of IT's, not ONE OF THEM has tried ANY of the products that they are filling their forum's pages with ridicule and mockery of.

Let me just say, "been there, done that". All the responses I've seen here on the subject of the CLC or Belt's devices have not a shred of originality or even a hint of intelligence behind them. And no, I'm not "HifiSoundGuy" or "GoodSound". I'm a different kind of tweak freak.

I'm not afraid of childish ridicule coming from obvious fools, I welcome it. So if you want to attack me with your piddling mockery and derision, I'll take every one of you ignorant geeks on at once, chew u up and spit you out before breakfast. All I ask is that you have the gonads to not whine and moan about locking the thread or banning. PARTICULARLY WHEN NONE OF YOU INFANTS CAN SEEM TO STAY AWAY FROM THE THREAD.

So.... pretend gunslingers, can we all agree to play "NO RULES" for this thread (mods included)? I say let FREE SPEECH reign for a change. Otherwise, it wouldn't be a fair fight, if people start clucking about closing the thread and banishment. Let it die a NATURAL death. If you can't agree to free speech in this ideological battle between me and the 500 twits who condemn products they don't understand, then let's see if anyone can actually post something intelligent on the subject, when challenged to.

That is to say, if you're not going to actually LISTEN to the products you sweepingly dismiss, mock and ridicule, or claim to be fraudulent, then PROVE that you are right. Or prove the theories wrong. Now how many of you fools think you understand quantum mechanics that well?

Welcome to the saloon, delius. As you may or may not have noted, we do our best not to impose rules here - as long as things stay reasonably civil, folks don't get banned and threads don't get locked or deleted. This thread is about as "un-civil" as we get, and we've reached the eighth page without restrictions on free speech, without calls for closing the thread (aside from a few folks who simply got tired of the notion of the products in question), and without anybody getting banned. We don't play "no rules" but we do stick to the small pool of rules that our hosts have set out for us. If you find it necessary to resort to personal attacks and insults while chewing us up before breakfast, that would violate one of the only rules our hosts had - we can't help that. If you are interested in debating the technical or scientific merits (and limitations) of devices like the CLC, then we can talk until and even beyond breakfast if you like.
I know precious little about quantum mechanics, quantum physics, or the more "exotic" sciences - I know how to design systems to push air and water around, shuffle heat back and forth, and apply basic principles of engineering. As soon as the makers of the Clever Little Clock pick a single, specific, science-based explanation for how it works, I'll be sure to read up and if necessary pick the brains of a few extremely bright acquaintances (such as a particle physicist at Stanford's accelerator and the internationally-published mathmatician that my wife calls "dad") before setting out to debunk their explanation. In the meanwhile, I'm afraid that not even calling me a "supremely ignorant twit" will convince me to spend $200+ or my limited free time on testing a battery powered clock whose mere presence in my house or car will alter my perception of reality.

Nice way to join the saloon, my friend. Before you dismiss every response in this thread out of hand, know that many of us "fools" are also Electrical Engineers, Professional Audio/Video Installers, Sound Engineers, Mechanical Engineers, and generally folks with good education and enough intelligence to make reasonable assumptions. Which, if you've read this thread, you will see has happened on most occasions.

Of course, on the other hand, there's you, who apparently need only contribute calling the regular posters here "fools," "twits," "infants," and "ignorant geeks" to make your point. For all of your blustering about how we need to prove ourselves right, or the theories we refute as wrong, you haven't met those standards at all. Time to ante up if you expect a shred of credibility.

I don't find it necessary to resort to personal attacks and insults unless I'm attacked or insulted in any way. However, I've never seen a Belt thread that didn't have personal attacks or insults, and this one has PLENTY towards HifiSoundGuy and GoodSound. In fact, I've never seen a Belt thread where the naysayers are actually prepared to have an intelligent debate on the issue. Or even know what an intelligent debate is.

And what I don't like, is not being able to fight back if I -am- attacked or insulted. As a Beltist, I have received no end of mockery and derision from ignorant dickwads on the net. As have ALL Beltists EVERYWHERE (except the Belt discussion group, natch). I've had 50 guys pile on top of me at once, throwing stone after stone, and for the better part of a year, I've happily taken them all on without pitching a sweat. Unlike most Belt experimenters, I'm not embarassed to stand behind the products. Problem is, those "tough geeks" who think their witless mockery and derision is somehow clever & unique, run screaming to the mods when I begin to insult them in return of their insults toward me. And then they deliberately try to break the User Policy to try to get the thread locked, or try to get me banned because they can't take what they dish out.

I could care less whether you spend $200 on the CLC. In fact, I don't care much about the CLC. And I agree its to Geoff's detriment that he doesn't publish even a basic explanation for the clock on his site. But on the other hand, as an experienced Beltist and producer of my own alternative audio products, I can understand Geoff's position on witholding the white paper for the CLC (even though he has posted white papers for some of his other alternative audio products). He says he was not encouraged to do so because of what happened when he offered explanations for his GSIC chip (and it was ripped apart by the audio inmates on AA). It doesn't matter if they did not succeed in refuting the product. They merely have to "appear" to have succeeded in refuting the product, because the avg. layperson is probably not going to make the distinction between actually knowing what they're talking about, and appearing to know what they're talking about (since the discussion is centered around the intricacies of QM, which flies over most people's heads).

And I don't care how long you've studied quantum mechanics, you can't claim to understand it well because -no one- does. It's a very bizarre world at that level, and there's a lot we don't understand about it today. What kills me is the arrogant skeptics who use science as a religion, and claim there is nothing that isn't understood. And that whatever isn't understood isn't scientific. How the hell do these people think science evolved? Fact is, there is ALWAYS some phenomena that isn't scientifically proven or validated. That doesn't mean it isn't valid, it simply means it hasn't been validated by a peer review group, for whatever reason. So how best to know whether it's valid or not? You TRY the damn thing! Especially if we're talking about audio phenomena. If you don't have the scientific curiousity to try it, that's fine too. Just don't claim it doesn't work, then! You haven't even begun to earn the right to do that.

I don't know when Kaitt plans to come out with an explanation for his CLC clock, but I'm sure you and everyone else here wouldn't believe it anyway. And that's assuming you'd understand it to begin with! All I know is that this isn't an original idea, he reworked a device that Peter Belt invented years ago. And to the idiots that think its just a Timex clock with an orange sticker on it, it isn't. You can remove the orange sticker, it'll still function as an audio device (just not as well). I tried recreating the clock with my own and an orange sticker.... didn't even come close to the sound of the CLC. It has a lot of mods to it, including something done to the lithium battery.

I can however, tell you one of those mods, that you can apply to your own digital clock in your listening room. Advance the time by 99 minutes. Can that alone affect sound, despite all the other clock mods missing? I think it can. But that little tweak is probably not something anyone I've seen here would be able to perceive. Let alone believe. And having a strong enough disbelief in a phenomenon is enough to install a reverse placebo effect on yourself.

The fact that Geoff's clock is said to work anywhere in the home, but not outside the home (other than the family car), tells me that it works on principles similar to most, if not all the Belt products. Which should tell you it doesn't push the air or heat anything up! What ignorant morons who condemn Belt products can't even get their heads around, is the fact that none of these products work on the signal chain. Nor can they, in any possible way. And when the IM's (ignorant morons) hear Belt claiming they work on the "perception of the listener", these witless goofs go on to interpret that as meaning Belt is admitting they are placebo's. It simply means what it says. Geoff's clock and all PWB products cause our senses to become more acute.

The reasoning behind that isn't something you can explain to IM's in the two-word sound bites they feel most comfortable with. The Belt's have taken 20 years to hash out the theories behind all this, until they felt comfortable with it. They take 6 pages to try to explain it, and then apologize for condensing it. But because it does have to do with the way we are constantly reacting (subconsciously) to our immediate environment, this explains why Geoff says you have to take the clock out of the house to remove the effect. He also observed that it works in the family car. I have a vague idea why, as I believe there has in the (Beltist) past been established a connection between our car environment and our home environment. Beltists routinely apply the products to their cars, and to them, even a picture of the family car has a significance.

This is what I call "dedicated audiophiles", because even the hardest core tweakers, you don't usually hear of them tweaking the sound of their car stereos (other than the usual pitiful monster cable upgrades). I have in fact transformed the sound of my car audio with simple Belt techniques (never mind the actual products). Some people can't hear the effect of the CLC, but that's a different problem altogether. Most of the time, its because of the stupid ways they're testing it (ie. if their belief system says it has to be blind tested, they'll inevitably come up with "blind results"). Other reasons are because they do not know how to listen. They have NO idea what to listen for, and fall back on what they know (ie. highs/mids/lows). Belt products don't change "highs/mids & lows". They produce changes across the board, and not in the freq. spectrum per se. Other people can hear the CLC in action, and have posted testimonials on Geoff's site. For whatever reasons that only Geoff and God understand, Geoff has decided to use these to convince people of the validity of the clock, in lieu of a white paper. But OF COURSE, predictably, the permanent hater-skeptics all say the quotes are fake. You can't ever convince someone of something they're not ever willing to be convinced by. That's what I call "willful ignorants". So.... which one are you?

You best know who you're talkin' to, pardner. In other parts, I'm known as Fast Jack McGraw. Fastest gun North, South, East aaaaaaand WEST of the Pecos.

Ho really? I read a good deal of this mockfest before adding my 2 and a half bits to it, and what I saw on most occasions was the usual stupid mockery, derision, ridicule, blind condemnation and sweeping dismissals that accompany just about every single thread I've ever read on the net in which someone dared to mention they heard the effects of a Belt or Machina Dynamica product. I also saw "gunslingers" here calling Kaitt and Belt "frauds", in pretty blatant ways. Where I come from, dem's fightin' words. Now, were they asked by you or anyone else to prove their libelous claims against Kaitt or Belt? Nope. They weren't. It seems that so long as you join the chorus of majority opinion, you're allowed to crap all over anyone. NO PROOF NECESSARY to join the mob.

And you know what I didn't see, pardner? I didn't see anyone who attacked HifiSoundGuy or Goodsound show that they had tried the Belt products that these guys kept insisting they try, before attacking them. So where's all these "reasonable assumptions" you speak of in this thread? Perhaps we haven't been properly introduced... You see, I'm a Belt-basher-basher by trade. ("SHP: Bashing Belt-bashers for 50 Years"). If there were all these "reasonable opinions" about Belt and Belt-like products in this thread, well.... I wouldn't be here having this conversation with you right now, squaw.

Quote:

Of course, on the other hand, there's you, who apparently need only contribute calling the regular posters here "fools," "twits," "infants," and "ignorant geeks" to make your point. For all of your blustering about how we need to prove ourselves right, or the theories we refute as wrong, you haven't met those standards at all. Time to ante up if you expect a shred of credibility. [/QB]

You see, you're already wrong. I -have- met the proper standards of proof. Listen carefully: I have tried the products you bash. That's all the proof that these, or ANY audio products require. Because NO one product in audio works for everyone. Comprende, amigo?
Now if instead of more bluster you're ready to put your money where your mouth is, that's easy to do.... all these products that people have spent so much time and energy bashing, all come with money back guarantees.

sticks and stones may break your bones....

"fools," "twits," "infants," and "ignorant geeks"
you must admit Delius...
we all have our moments...
and some of us really shine...

rocks, clocks , ointments and foils...
accousticly tuned or not...
mind altering or not...
money back or not...
my credit card info... Geoff will not get...

I 've exchange a few words with him by e-mail...
and ''legit'' business is not the feeling I got...
schoolyard ethics is more accurate...
He, much like you prefered, name-calling rather than stand behind his products...
TRUST is definitely not something I felt

my astologer/palm reader warned me about CLCs and pebbles...
I'd sooner buy extended warranty...
for the soup cans I use as speaker stands...
and alter my mind's perception through other more fun and less faith-based ways...

Even though offering a comment at this point risks raising the ire of delius, I thought I would venture a few thoughts.

Delius suggests that people who do not test a product should not comment on the product’s effectiveness. Can anyone afford to buy every product touted to improve anything in life, including audio, for a personal evaluation? And even if sums approaching the total worth of B. Gates were available, then there still wouldn’t be enough time in the day to determine what claims are valid and what claims are not. Any realist must evaluate through whatever means of research and reasoning is available to them and, compared to all that is available, vastly limit their investment of time and money in any personal enterprise. Humans learn from each other in almost everything – if we all started from scratch ignoring the experience and learning of others, we’d still all be hunter-gatherers living in caves. We learn from those we can reasonably trust to impart to us useful information in certain areas. We listen to the sellers of products and services, we also listen to those who have experience.

There have been a few persons who have and/or are testing such products as the CLC. Often the methods used are an attempt to evaluate without personal preference. If, as delius suggests, blind testing provides blind results, then delius is also suggesting that, with certain types of products and services, one must look positively upon, and believe in, a particular item or service in order to perceive the occurrence of the benefit – the benefit will not occur outside of our personal knowledge/belief system. Hmmm . . .

When most people begin flight training, there are instances when their innate perceptions tell them one thing while the instruments tell them something else. Among other things, pilot training teaches the principles of flight, the abilities and limitations of the equipment, and learning to change one’s perception and reliance system to include and trust, with scrutiny, instruments that provide information we would otherwise have no way of knowing with reasonable accuracy in many real-world situations.

In audio, while the phrase, “Do what sounds best to you” has some merit, it is far from an accurate measure. Many people unknowingly grow up with the perception that the proper level of loudness is reached when a general level of certain types of distortion in the reproduction is reached. Take these people into an environment where the reproduction is much more accurate than they are used to and they will, if left to adjust the volume to ‘loud,’ invariably turn up the volume to many times the level of their own system as measured by a dB meter. However, the interested person will learn to distinguish between amplitude and distortion and their listening habits change as a result.

Perceptions can be changed for better or worse. If the basic criteria is, ‘what makes me happy,’ then the measurable parameters could be all over the place. If I divorce myself from analytical procedures and reasonable approaches, then I am subject to the whim of every salesperson to come along.

Which brings me to my bottom line, which may, after all, at least partially fit into what delius is saying. If I believe a product is ‘bunk, snake oil, hooey, and/or hoax,’ I might as well not buy it because ‘bunk, snake oil, hooey, and/or hoax’ is the perception-during-use I would receive after buying.

Lastly, my perception of delius’ tone is that of a rant somewhere between irritation and anger. If I were the marketer of some product, and others doubted what I was saying, if the product could stand on its own without my building up a perception-in-advance, I might be disappointed, but I could say, “The product speaks for itself.” If the product needs to be ‘sold’ in the sense of snake oil, then I might be more upset – whether I truly believe in my product or whether I know it is bunk, people are not believing ME (my sales-speak), they doubt ME and I am personally offended. The person ‘selling’ a point of view is less likely to persuade an audience if the seller is obviously offended and angry with the audience.

Pardon my experience (EE and mass communication education plus three-and-a-half decades of real-world audio and video, production and transmission, technical and creative work), but I’m going to put my time and money into that which is, to a fair degree, usually measurable and verifiable.

Oh, can you see, in my business, if a product needs to be ‘pre-sold’ to the end user to be of any benefit, then none of the items such as the CLC would be of any benefit to have in the production facility – unless the audience were ‘sold’ on the idea that the audio was produced while CLC’s, or some other such product, were in one or more of the studio, control room, technical areas and the parking garage. So I would need to prompt the audience to go to a web site, learn about the wonderful product, then come back to the show to listen to the ‘improved’ audio, which might sound improved whether or not the devices were actually present since it is the perception being influenced, not the tangible attributes of the production, recording, transmission, reception or reproduction.

After all, it is the attributes of those functions in which I have been interested for over four decades. Perhaps I missed the boat somewhere . . .

[Edit: spelling correction.]

Sorry, but you have not. Your original point was not that you'd tried the tweaks, it was that you said we were all idiots for forming opinions without trying them. And since neither you, or Geoff, or anyone else who pushes this junk can produce even a scintilla of quantifiable evidence or reproducible results that they have any measureable effect whatsoever (and mind you that "I heard a difference" is neither of these things), then the obvious conclusion is that the effect is psychological.

If you want to hide behind the "no one product works for everyone" facade, fine, but it's a two way street, because at a basic level these products do not work for me, and just like you, my opinion is all that matters when facts are nonexistent.

One other thing, delius - the concept of "intelligent debate" would never rely upon name calling. It just makes it clear that you have a lot of anger towards your mom for making you live in her basement.