In my last post, I mentioned that I had one last thing that I intended to post about. This one goes back to the Catch-22 that I commented about some time ago. As I expected, my willingness to listen to the MP3 files that were offered as an example of what Belt devices can do was dismissed. I'd expected the reasoning for this dismissal to be due to some fault in my ability to listen, but it was instead because suddenly (after at least three references to the site as a way to hear what Belt devices can do) it was not a reliable demonstration.
Gonk, my wayward friend, I don't know if you can hear yourself talk, but if you could, you'd find that you were positivey dripping with prejudice against me, and against the products and techniques I support. If you're setting out to "prove" that none of this stuff is true, then how do you expect me or anyone to agree that you have taken a fair and unbiased approach here?
Your biased attitude is particularly acute in these words: "suddenly (after at least three references to the site as a way to hear what Belt devices can do) it was not a reliable demonstration".
1) First of all, you're implying I changed something by the word "suddenly". When YOU are the one who "suddenly" decided you would put the mp3's through all kinds of processing, believing that won't change the sound. I have conducted far more tests than you on the audibility of mp3 processing (in fact I had a site on that subject as well, replete with mp3 test files to demonstrate how processing mp3's changes the sound), to know that this very much can and does change or degrade the sound.
2) Secondly, regardless of how many references I made to my site (and 3 were necessary since people here can't read and were unaware I had made any), I made it very clear telling and everyone who visited my site that the mp3 test was not the most reliable demonstration, and I explained why. Quote:
"In both the cases of the Dhera Dun tracks and the Demo tracks, the original versions that I heard exhibited FAR greater differences than what you may hear after they have all been compressed to MP3, downloaded and all the rest. " So I don't appreciate your deliberate ad hominem arguments here, which only underlines the grave prejudices you've had throughout this experiment, and your basic insincerity in trying out my tests.
3) Thirdly, I don't appreciate you mischaracterizing the things on my site as "Belt devices". "Belt devices" are devices made by Belt, or described by Belt. You did not try Belt devices, so don't imply here that your findings have any bearing whatsoever on PWB's products.
To top it off, we got the following claim not long after my post about my experiences with the MP3 files: quote:
I repreat: IN HUNDREDS OF MESSAGES, NO ONE HERE HAS YET TO TRY A SINGLE CLC CLOCK OR BELT PRODUCT OR TECHNIQUE! Sigh... And here I was under the impression (based both on delius's own posts and on the site in question itself) that listening to those damned files over and over and over again (yes, I tried repeatedly over the course of several days) was supposed to serve as a means of trying one of these techniques.
I'm sorry that you misguided yourself, but you do that a lot, you know. So does everyone else here do that a
lot . It's not my fault that you do, so stop blaming me for your mistakes. I repeat my claim, because it still stands true: IN HUNDREDS OF MESSAGES, NO ONE HERE HAS YET TO TRY A SINGLE CLC CLOCK OR BELT PRODUCT OR TECHNIQUE! The stuff on my sites are not Belt techniques per se, part of it is from my own experimenations within the realm of the Belt phenomenon, part of it was culled from other sources, namely biogeometry.
As further reminder of our Catch-22, a couple more attempts at courteous discourse (including one apology!) have been met with long-winded diatribes (along with a pleasant and brief flash of humanity, when the ranting 1600-word response to garcianc2003's apology ends with a two-line "apology accepted" and offer of some pineapple).
How far deep did you have your head in the grog this season, Gonk? I did not write any "rant" to garcianc2003. I suspect you consider anything longer than 3 lines a "rant", and I suggest you try cracking open a dictionary at least on a random occasion, and have an idea of what you're talking about before you speak. I have and have had no quarrel with garcianc2003. I even offered him "pineapple", for christ's sake. Do you think I do that for everyone? Besides, I don't see what any of my posts to garcian2003 has to do with your experiments on my sites? More ad hominem attacks and misdirected hatred and prejudice from you. I suggest you cast aside your hypocrisy and stick to the issues. Too much fluff on this board, man can't live by fluff alone, you know. If you're supposed to be the man of science here, act like it! And if its your role to lead the flock, then be a
good leader.
Throughout the test, my wife was unaware of what I was doing, so her sensitive ear (which has spotted many minor changes in the system in the past) would serve as a blind check of the shapes
Are you kidding? You mean you expected your wife to notice the changes, out of the blue like that, without sitting down and concentrating on the differences, to try to find out what they might be? Again, I can see you have no experience testing tweaks, and I'm sorry if you think you're an expert at it (at least you sound like you think you are). Because with expectations like that, you're clearly not. Most changes one makes to the sound won't be heard that way no matter the DUT, and with just 2 L-shapes in place, definitely not!
Perhaps you think I could be vacuuming the rug and notice someone had slipped off or on one of the L-shapes?! Definitely not! Even 12 of them is unlikely to be considered a major transformation of anyone's system. The only point of the experiment though, is to see whether the differences can be discerned -at all-. If they can, it demonstrates the phenomenon to the listener. If they can't, it demonstrates that particular test does not demonstrate the phenomeon to the listener at that particular time. That's all.
So is my system now studded with taped-on images and shapes? Have I ordered any clever clocks, little or otherwise? Are there going to be various sized jars of rocks, pieces of foil, or thin layers of cream appearing around my house?
Stop teasing me now, I'm on the edge of my seat already!
Oh no! That's three commissions that I lose! Have you any IDEA how much money you just cost me?!
With an assortment of MP3 files, CD's, and DVD's (giving some consideration to picture quality from the DVD's as well as sound quality from all three formats), I was unable to find any difference using the L-shapes. There was no improvement when they were added, and no degradation when they were eliminated.
Frankly, I'm shocked! No, I don't mean I'm shocked you didn't hear the difference, I'm shocked you think you should have. I know you're ready to blame me for your mistakes again, but nevertheless, the fact remains that you didn't follow my instructions again. Two L-shapes are not enough for someone with your listening skills. I wrote that in my instructions, that the average listener might need at least a dozen installed. Why do you think there are 4 per picture? I even wrote details about how to listen, how to conduct the test. It's clear here, you followed none of that. You certainly won't find anything about me saying you should take a week to detect changes. If I had to do that, it would take me approximately 15 years before I could successfully treat a single object.
At the end of the test, I remain unmoved by Peter Belt's concepts. Is that because I don't want to believe, or because I'm afraid to believe, or because I believe that I'm not supposed to believe?
I'd say it's a bit of all three.
None of the above - I gave it an honest try, and found that it had no effect.
Sorry, you made an effort, yes, you get more credit than anyone here for making an effort, because at least you can say you made an effort. But you did NOT give it an honest try. To begin with, if you had intended to give it an honest try, one would think you would have asked me or emailed me to let me know what you were undertaking, and asking for my advice on how to go about it properly, so you don't waste your time by botching it up. Which, let's face it, you very much did.
And if you refuse to conduct or repeat an experiment according the guidelines proposed by the author of the experiment, well then Mr. Man-Of-Science, you have no right to claim to have done a competent trial, and no right to draw any credible conclusions from its results.
Clearly others have made similar efforts and had different results. I can't say why that was,
I can, and no, it isn't autosuggestion. So that leaves other factors, of which there can be many (Sorry that life and the truth isn't as simple as you'd like to make it out to be, that's not my fault either). One person threatened to fly to my country to bash my head in, because he felt humiliated that he tried one of my devices (not the L-shape), and it didn't work. I can read between the lines and see you're suffering from the same effect that he did, that many skeptics have had. It's a kind of "remorseful" feeling as I understand it. A feeling that says "You and your silly quantum audio tweaks! I want my time back, dammit!". It's accompanied by the exact same dismissive attitude, that you believe you proceeded to carry out the tests just perfectly fine, you won't hear otherwise, and you're going to reassert your limited narrow views of audio even more. In fact, for all I know, maybe you now believe in even less audio devices than you did before!
Now, in the case above, I don't know what the angry skeptic did that might explain why the test didn't go over well. I didn't care for his attitude so I never asked him. However, for some reason he retried the experiments, and I don't know if he changed anything but he heard exactly what he should have heard in the first place. Then his attitude" changed 180 degrees, and he thanked me for introducing him to the advanced audio concepts. The last time we had this conversation, I already gave you numerous reasons for why you didn't get results. So you do have an idea why that was, you simply refuse to acknowledge it. Scientifically objective, you are not.
but the simple fact remains that neither of the sites offered in this thread as examples of Belt devices have done anything for me. I find myself agreeing very much with the words written 19 years ago by J. Gordon Holt in this editorial - not only because if my initial skeptical reaction to the concepts, but because of these attempts to actually give the concepts a chance in my home. If it works for you, congratulations, but I simply don't buy it.
Aha! Just the fact that you read that biased article by Holt, who's opinion is worth even less than yours because he didn't experiment with a lot of the products that he dismissed in that article, and how it sticks in your mind immediately after your test, says a lot about your prejudices going in. Ever heard of a reverse placebo? If you're that "afraid to believe" as you yourself put it, then you do a cockamamie job on the tests, then you refuse to take good advice on how to properly conduct the test from the person who designed the testing site, you never gave the concepts a chance. More importantly, you never gave the products a chance before concluding its all a hoax, despite the fact that they're free as well.
Secondly, you're still falsely concluding you tested Belt's devices. If you had wanted to do a test of Belt's devices, you'd have at least made an attempt to see if you could obtain the free foil sample, that I mentioned in an earlier post. For that's a Belt device. And even that's hardly the most effective Belt product, and not a measure of the entire Belt phenomenon. But it is more effective than an L-shape.
(Oh, and it's worth noting that MD and PWB are two separate entities - Delius pointed out a few posts back that PWB's been selling their products for 25 years or so, but MD was incorporated eight years ago and has only one current employee - Geoff Kait - listed on their site.)
You mean there's someone here that doesn't realize that already? Who?
I'm not listening to any more MP3 files that may or may not prove someone else's point. I've done enough to honestly evaluate these concepts to my satisfaction.
Frankly Gonk, I'm stymied as to why they call you the resident "man of science" here. I haven't seen any real objectivity from you since I got here, and I still don't, if you think you've done enough to evaluate the Belt phenomenon with what little you did. I don't know if you actually do work in any field of science or technology.... if you do, I can't believe you make a lot of progress with an approach like that. You need to learn how to properly conduct an audio test, the next time you attempt to test an audio device.
We are all entitled to our opinions, beliefs, and disbeliefs, and I've stated mine on this subject. If you don't like my opinions, beliefs, and disbeliefs, more power to you - but if you cannot accept that I hold those opinions, beliefs, and disbeliefs without feeling compelled to call me a brainless idiot, save us all the bandwidth and keep it to yourself.
Well, first of all, did you keep it to yourself when you called HFSG a shill, and MD scammers, or did you feel "compelled" to do so simply because he held the belief that the CLC clock was effective and worth trying? Did you or anyone here "save us all the bandwidth" by respecting the beliefs of HFSG/GoodSound, or did you and your friends lambaste him for 300+ messages, before I climbed on board and changed how the game was played? I mean here you go again with your hypocrisy, does it ever end?
I have no problem with your beliefs. I have a problem with you disrespecting others here on this forum for their beliefs. Including and especially me. I also have a problem with you not condemning others for their belittlement of me, as it further reveals your prejudice and hypocrisy.
EVERYONE has a right to their beliefs, right or wrong, and the right to express them on THIS AUDIO FORUM WITHOUT BEING ATTACKED BY MOCKERY, RIDICULE, SCORN, DERISION and other forms of abusive belittling . Or what you and your friends call "innocent jokes". You and your friends felt deeply driven to insult HFSG/GoodSound, since you all did so for months on end, relentlessly, despite not ever being personally attacked by this member. Not once.
The other problem I have is you stating your beliefs as FACT, when you offer no evidence to support your opinions. In fact, you have never shown me evidence for a single claim you made, despite me asking you 650 times over, and you've made a
LOT of false claims toward me.
Each time you have to reject your own examples of Belt devices (such as the MP3 files that fell by the wayside as soon as someone made a serious effort to listen to them)
There you go again, stirring up the muck and insulting me. You know something Gonk, in a moderated academic debate, you wouldn't last two rounds with me. Because your appeals to prejudice to this "audience" you keep playing to here, wouldn't get you very far, and you dont have much of any substance left to your arguments, with your personal ad hominem attacks stripped away. Arrogant as you are, like the rest, you will never admit your own mistakes. So you blame me for you screwing up the mp3 test, and not following my instructions as advised. You most certainly did not make a serious effort to test them, you made the worst kind of joke effort. AFAIC, you never listened to the mp3's, since you never listened to them properly. And they were never meant to be a "test" in the first place, or a substitute for testing the Belt phenomenon. If I knew you were going to stomp all over it like this and pretend that it invalidates PWB's products, I would have never mentioned the site to you.
As it stands, because you did not conduct any of the tests properly, you can not claim to be able to make any intelligent or meaningful conclusions about those techniques, let alone anything to do with Beltism. Sorry, but you have no credibility points in which to do so.
Previous Topic
Index