#6312 - 12/06/06 05:31 PM
Re: Clever Little Clocks
|
Gunslinger
Registered: 12/05/06
Posts: 43
|
Originally posted by bestbang4thebuck: Even though offering a comment at this point risks raising the ire of delious, 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? Yes. They can when it's free. Please refer to the part of my message where I already mentioned the fact that the products from PWB and Machina Dynamica are free to try (MD gives you a 30 day money back guarantee on almost all their products, PWB gives you a similar money back guarantee on all their products, and PWB is even in the habit of giving away free samples to potential customers who are serious about trying and possibly buying the products). If that isn't enough to prove things for yourselves, I have my own website created to allow people the opportunity to test out the theory behind the revolutionary Belt techniques, even if they are not serious about buying any of the products: http://www.geocities.com/soundhaspriority/ 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. Yeah, don't worry, I've received the "no time" argument by others before you, as well. It's poppycock and jabberwocky. There are several hundred messages in this thread, many from "repeat customers". All taking time, energy and effort to come up with endless spasms of mockery and ridicule, in order to take out all your agression on things you are ignorant of. It's a sort of placemarker for paranoids who feel helpless in a world that they believe is all out to "get them" (and their wallets). And even though I have no affiliation with them, I take it personally when you freaks call PWB "frauds and charlatans". Because I have never seen a more honest and righteous company in my lengthy audiophile career. They even contact their customers to give them free updates for life, on certain products. I don't know any other audio company that does that. One could easily have tested the silver foils in the time it took you to write your message and read mine. If you don't even have the slightest interest in taking a few minutes to try to verify truly revolutionary audio technologies, then at least don't pretend to be an audiophile and have an interest in the audio hobby. I would say that given the interest in BASHING Belt and Kaitt (just calculate the time it took for everyone to write these hundreds of messages on the two manufacturers), there is a natural interest in their products. Now if that were positive energy being spent, instead of ugly negative energy, something positive might have actually come out of it. Say for example, some brave little trooper actually found out through trying what they were busy lambasting, that there's actually something valid behind all of it. And that they've improved their audio systems like never before, and learned something new about the way the world works at the same time. I say, education is the antidote to blind ignorance, and "education is nothing to be afraid of". But you can't be lazy and have it fed to you on a silver platter, or a Google search engine. I've witnessed how theories don't work because they require people to abandon belief systems that have been drummed into their heads for decades. Its too scary for most people to even contemplate, so they shut their brains off and turn on the mockery machine. 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. Funny you should mention that. The products of PWB, and as far as I know the crazy CLC clock, all work on the theory that there is an energy created from the experience and learning of others. In addition to that, that we still have primitive minds, as part and parcel of our "evolved" mentality. But we're not talking hunter-gather primitive, we're talking amoeba primitive. Finally, there are hundreds of people using PWB products daily (many on a PWB discussion group) who all learn from each other. Some of them are doctors, some are lawyers, some are professional audio journalists (who have reviewed the CLC and Belts products favorably). You are all ignoring their experiences, filing them all as "sad, self-deluding lunatics". Because the products they use to good measure, which most if not all of you have never tried, doesn't "mesh with your perception of reality". The mirror sees things in reverse. Ironically, PWB assesses that we have evolved because we don't dismiss the experience and learning of others. Unfortunately, they have to limit that to our earliest stages of evolution. Because its clear that even in the 21st century, most of you are still in the "redneck science" stage. You're shouting "where are these invisible germs you speak of! Show us the germs!!". While people are dying of preventable infectious disease all around.... 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. You've just described sheep playing "follow the leader". And therein lies the problem.... I have nearly 30 years experience in audio. You know who I listen to? I listen to two things. I like to call them "ears". I know its a revolutionary concept for many to actually learn how to LISTEN to audio products for yourselves, instead of playing "follow the leader" and buying whatever the heck you read from the "authorities" in audio magazines, telling you what's good, what's "reasonable" to purchase. If you're sheep as descibed, you're gonna need to sit down for this next bit of radical news..... guess what? They've lied to you. AUDIO MAGAZINES: I don't mean "misled". I mean LIED. I know of managers of audio publications who know that Belt's products work, they've heard them in their own homes or at public demo's. But they will NOT allow a pro-Belt article. Why? It pisses off the manufacturers, which put bread on their table. Audio mags are in the business of selling audio, not articles. And when people are told that they have an option for the same money, to -improve- their present audio instead of always replacing it with the latest and greatest, and that this is more cost-effective, guess who doesn't like to hear that? The guys who make the bread that the audio rags put on the table. SELLERS: Surely, you can't be serious? You think you're going to get unbiased advice from the SELLERS of the actual product? That they're going to tell you what the best thing you can do with your money is? Now THAT'S what I call "gullible". They can put utter trash inside of a huge hunk of aluminum, and people will buy it, if the aluminum is nicely designed. Meanwhile, someone comes out with a $20 plastic amp that takes out the trash.... THOSE WHO HAVE EXPERIENCE: Which experience? Experience that mirrors YOUR experiences? You don't learn anything new from only listening to those who echo what you secretly want to hear (ie. whatever sounds "reasonable" to you). They give you rat-ass explanations for things (explanations that are dead wrong), and so long as it sounds "reasonable" to you, you scoop it up like ice cream. Those who have experience may mean well, but you can't discover new experiences of your own if you're going to be a sheep and play "follow the leader" and blindly follow their experiences. Us Beltists are among the most advanced audiophiles in the world, advanced beyond both (most) manufacturers and the audio community. Believe it or not, even those most highly degreed with the most experience, can be (and often are in my experience), WRONG. Those same people "with experience", which includes audio journalists, managers of audio periodicals, audio engineers, and experienced audiophiles, all told me that Belts products was BS for the gullible and the perpetually deluded. Except I never listened to them, nor did I give a good god Damn how they worked. I'm not afraid to try things in audio because I don't fully (or partially) understand how they work. Most audiophiles don't understand how their gear works, and yet somehow, they're able to hear sound come out of it. So I tried the PWB tweaks simply because it was a free way to possibly upgrade my sound, and if it didnt work, it didn't work. Except it did. And then I was able to say "F&KU" to all the "experienced" audio people who told me it was all BS. I am not someone who's in the least bit impressionable, naive or prone to fits of folly. So when I say the Belt products and techniques (and CLC) work, I mean they ALL WORK. That's a FACT. I've been testing them for twenty years, blind & sighted, both on myself, on other audiophiles, and on many non-audiophiles. I've completely transformed the sound of systems entirely using Belt principles. I'm not talking "I think I can hear a difference but its pretty subtle...". I'm talking COMPLETE TRANSFORMATION, NIGHT & DAY. So while y'all are still stuck at the primitive "Does it work?" stage, that phase is long over for me. And it is for my friends too, even though they still don't understand how I am able to change the sound using applications that do not come anywhere near the stereo system itself... 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 delious suggests, blind testing provides blind results, then delious 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 . . . No that's not what I'm saying, you're putting words in my mouth by applying your own personal interpretations over top of mine. I have done experiments with Belt products on many non-audiophiles, without ever telling them what it is that I've done. I can easily do that, because some are subtle enough that I don't even have to lift my ass off the couch to affect a change. And yet, a change is usually (not always) heard by the subject. I've even had people blurt out that their systems sounded better, without even being aware of the fact that I had worked on their systems at all (I had in fact, "Belted" them). That proved to myself that you do not have to perceive the occurence of the benefit in order for a benefit to occur and be perceived. In audio, once you learn to have confidence in your ability to listen, and once you learn how to listen, you have no use for "belief systems". Now if you're gonna get into blind testing in audio... well, first, let me say I have over 10 years of experience with that. My conclusions mirrors that of many other audiophiles and audio journalists. Who have come to realize bind testing is not an accurate means of resolving fine differences among audio products AT ALL. In fact, even among members of the AES (some of which I've spoken to), there is no consistent opinion that blind testing is the holy arbiter of audio products. There's been research as far back as the 70's (I dont recall the details any longer) that show it confuses the brain. Plus, it even contravenes the scientitic range rule. The problem is, gullible audiophiles who think they're cleverer than the rest by attempting to "avoid biases", are in fact using their own prejudices to adopt a test methodology that has never been proven to work. The only test methodlogy FOR AUDIO that I know can be proven to work, is simple sighted listening. It can also be proven to not work but then, guess what? So can DBT's. What I'm suggesting is that everyone has their own threshold of audibility. The participants of a blind test do NOT have your ears, and you're a complete and utter FOOL if you rule your life according to the experiences of others. Meaning you buy or don't buy equipment based on what some people did or didn't hear in a blind listening test. The problem is, it appears that most audiophiles do not listen much to what they're going to buy. So they never learn how to resolve fine differences among products, so they have to remain sheep and blindly follow what the leaders tell them. And because they do not have much testing experience, they believe what the leaders tell them, when the leaders say there's no difference among wires and cables (for example). Its easy for them to believe that when a wire test comes up, because their listening skills are piss poor, and guess what, they can't tell a difference. So they then go on audio forums stupidly proclaiming expensive wire and cable is all BS... If there were a tax on ignorance, a lot of people on these audio forums would be some poor bastards indeed.... 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. That's fine, if you're a pilot. Nice try but sorry, what we're talking about with audio is a different beast. The human ear for one, is far more sensitive than the best test instruments today, and secondly, how do you know what the hell to measure, when there could be hundreds of things you could measure for in an audio product? But before you consider answering that, even if those last two points weren't true, your point still falls flat on its face when one considers the fact that it is impossible to measure PWB or MD products, since they have no effect on the signal chain. So maybe you can file your nice pilot analogy away for a more relevant argument? In audio, while the phrase, “Do what sounds best to you” has some merit, it is far from an accurate measure. Accurate for whom? A test dummy? You seem to keep forgetting the subject: its audio. Reproduction of music, you know? It's like you're trying to tell someone to listen to a more accurate recording, when they are trying to tell you that they like listening to "Scraping Foetus Off The Wheel" records.... "What sounds best" is, and always will be, the only valid measure in audio for the audio consumer. Now as far as "accuracy" is concerned, that's a whole nother can of worms. Not so easy for an audio consumer to determine what is more accurate in a recorded performance. However, the interested person will learn to distinguish between amplitude and distortion and their listening habits change as a result. But what is the "interested person" to do when they are not aware of the distortions inherent in their sound, because they never made themselves aware of them? Why did they never make themselves aware of them? Easy. Because of what you said above about "listening to the leader". If you only go by what "common sense" and "authoritative leader" sources tell you, then you will probably never think its worth experimenting with alternative audio, like PWB or Machina Dynamica. Once I said "F&KU" to the sources of authority that tried to block the paths I could go down, that led to discovering "the Belt effect" (which rules all PWB products and the clever little clock). When I applied "the Belt effect" to my own stereo systems, a new kind of distortion was revealed to me. It was revealed through the process of being eradicated by the Belt effect. At one point, I thought that $20,000 was enough to eradicate most kinds of distortion, but I was obviously wrong. I have Belted systems tagged beyond $100k and guess what? That same kind of distortion is heard to disappear after the Belting process. I've seen some call it "hifi hash". Guess what else? It can ONLY be eliminated by Belt's products or techniques (including the CLC, which is really a Belt product). Nothing else works on the same level, so nothing else can eliminate this kind of distortion. Not the most expensive power conditioners on the market. And it IS a "distortion" (caused by our own senses under stress). And my listening habits -did- change as a result of being aware of this distortion. Now, I can easily differentiate between the effects of a Beltist tweak and a non-Beltist one. But you can't, and neither can anyone else, who's never experienced it. Nor can you measure this kind of distortion as much as I know you'd like to, that's currently impossible. When through experimentation and observation you do begin to understand the nature of the Belt phenomenon, how human senses are under stress all the time under -normal- living conditions (and how they find "relaxation" through the designs of the products), then you have no trouble believing that stresses can profoundly affect the brain during unnatural blind testing procedures. 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. No, you don't get it. Once you learn how to listen, you're not subject to any sales people. I just nod at sales people at hifi stores and have fun listening to their spiel. It's -always- some crap that tells me I know a lot more about audio than they do (but they seem to like considering everyone's a novice...). If you adhere to what you "think" are proper procedures (analytical and what you consider "reasonable"), then you'll do far more damage to your listening pleasure than a salesperson could possible do in a lifetime of Saturday afternoons. The problem stems from the fact that you can't miss what you never had. If peple convince themselves there's no differences to be had with wires, footers or cd players, because of their religion of "analytical procedures and reasonable approaches", then they'll never know what they are missing, having never had enough experiences testing such things. Which brings me to my bottom line, which may, after all, at least partially fit into what delious 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. ..and like most people, you've just shut off an intellectual switch. It's a switch that says "I don't want to think for myself. I'd rather let other people do that for me". I also have a lot of respect for John Bendini. (Another marketer of alternative audio products). Why? Because I tried an invention of his, and it had amazing effects. (It hasn't yet been marketed, and I dont know if it ever will be). I know the product works, I use it all the time to good effect, but I'm probably one of the only people in the world who do (if not the only!). Now I have sympathy for his role as a marketer of such products. Because I realize he has to convince John Q. "Reasonableness Only Please" Average. ie. People like You, that his product works. But what if he doesn't really know how it works, only that it does? Or what if some flaming agenda-driven skeptic or other "debunks" the theory, at least in the minds of those laypeople already predisposed to believe its bunk, even though the product actually does work? What if the John Q. "Snake Oil-Weary" Average lumps it in with new age crystals, and everything else they know to be "bunk", because they're not seeing the product on the shelves of their precious Best Buy stores, next to the iPods? In other words, other audio sheep are not buying it in droves, and are instead mocking it in droves. Along with new age crystals, Tice clocks, etc etc. But the truth remains (try to imagine this as true), this product WORKS. I think a good analogy for Bendini's product is the CLC clock. I know it works. Doesn't work for eveyrone, I know that, but it does work for some (I do NOT believe the testimonials on his site are fraudulent). Most people believe its "bunk, snake oil, hooey and/or hoax" and mostly because of their own ugly built-in prejudices. As few who bash alternative audio products have ever actually tried them. Which brings me to my bottom line. I don't believe in buying products that don't work. Particuarly not $200 bedside table clocks. I applaud Kait for his invention, because I'd like to see this hobby progress with new ideas, and I think new ideas should be encouraged. But I certainly wouldn't be applauding if his product didn't work, nor do I think he's stupid enough to market a product he hasn't tested to work. I believe it doesn't work for some because of the reason you just outlined. If the perception during use you'd receive after buying the product is that its "bunk" (because you can't undestand how it works and maybe, the manufacturer doesn't really know either), then you instill a reverse placebo as I already mentioned. You shoot yourself in the foot, ensuring you will never use or understand how new technologies in audio can work, and you prefer the old donkey and plow that you have been accustomed to, handed down by your grandfather and his grandfather (who happens to be Isaac Newton). Even if you did hear differences, youd attribute them to your imagination. I've seen THAT happen with folks once too many times as well. THE real bottom line however is, all these products were talking about come with a money back guaranteee. Which means you dont have to buy products that dont work. Lastly, my perception of delious' tone is that of a rant somewhere between irritation and anger. Nope, its more of an "attitude", than actual "feelings". Which I would guess comes from the "attitude" I read in several hundred messages in this thread, all bashing two (possibly one?) guys who advocate products none of the bashers heard or tried. Any arrogance you perceive from me does not even come close to the collective arrogance of all your mates in this thread who call products "fraudulent" when they've never even tried them. 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. If you're talking about me (and its kind of hard to decipher), well then you're a bit confused; I'm not "selling" a POV. I'm not selling anything. I'm offering my POV, like everyone else is doing. I dont have to persuade anyone of anything, I make no commisions on that. And I'm certainly not stupid enough to believe I can convince someone of something they dont want to believe. I'm only trying to represent the truth, after seeing it bashed, trampled and pissed on here for several hundred messages spanning 8 or 9 pages. You seem oblivious to the hostility of the "audience" here, and are acting like as if I have no reason in the world to adopt a similar attitude, after witnessing hundreds of ignorant twits who have never had a shred of experience with the products that I use on a daily basis, but nevertheless saw fit to bash them and call their manufacturers frauds and cheats. 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. Well then you must not be talking about audio, because the art of music reproduction doesn't fit your neat definitions of it. There is an entire world called "quantum mechanics" which to a fair degree, is not "usually measurable and verifiable". So yes, I -will- "pardon your experience" because I can see you have no experience in QM, to believe that everything in the world worth putting any effort into has to be measurable and verifiable. Thankfully for the rest of us, there actually are still people (called "scientists") who are still trying to understand the little known areas of our world/universe. Or maybe I can put that another way and say that my experiments with the Beltist side of QM has shown that all Belt phenomena is "measurable and verifiable". I can also consistently predict how a given device will perform, or in what way a series of procedures will play out (but I do not always hear what I expect to). It just isn't measurable and verifiable with mechnical/electronic test instruments (which themselves can be prone to different kinds of error). It requires a good pair of ears. How many decades of experience with audio did you say you have, that you still don't trust your own ears to measure and verify such phenomena? 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. I don't see why. Chesky records uses 128x oversampling converters to do their recordings. The "audience" (consumer) doesn't really need to know any of that goop in order to appreciate the improvement in quality (although they do put it on their liner notes). So perhaps some are "sold" on the idea of the 128x oversampler. All I know is they produce superior recordings. But if I were to use CLC's in the studio, I certainly wouldn't advertise it to John Q. Public. Most people wouldn't understand it, and think its silly to talk about "audio travel clocks" improving the audio. Likewise, if some recording engineer installs audiophile cable to improve the recordings, he doesn't have to advertise that. 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. Er, no. If you're suggesting its all a placebo and the devices don't have to be present for an improved perception of sound, that's a false claim. But under the placebo effect, you can sometimes fool people to believing a change (try doing a double blind test on a group of people where you DON'T change anything, and you'll probably have a few reporting a change nevertheless). However, what's a lot trickier, is to maintain that fake change over the long haul. If placebo's worked, we'd all be taking cheap sugar pills instead of expensive medication. And guess what? You can influence recordings as well. And the perception transfers. I've done experiments where I've Belted my CD burner (but burned the same tracks to a similar CDRW before Belting). The resulting CDs were superior to the ones made on the same (but pre-Belted) burner. Guess what else? You can hear this for yourself. Since you were speaking about "prompting the audience to go to a web site to learn about the wonderful product", I created a website where you can download edited MP3's of the recording sessions I just mentioned. Mind you, because of all the processing, the differences between the two versions are not nearly as considerable as what I initially heard. But I believe to the discriminating ear, they are still discernable: http://www.geocities.com/cico_buff/ And keep in mind, if they are discernable by you or others, then it shows that the attributes of production, recording, transmission (web transmission) and reproduction (on another system) can all be influenced by my simple Beltist techniques. You can even easily set up a blind test with the files if that floats your boat. But, in keeping with my notes above on blind testing, I suggest that will probably eradicate whatever differences remain, particuarly for those not very experienced with listening tests. 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 . . . You did miss the boat somewhere.... about 25 years ago, when Belt discovered the phenomenon that our senses are linked with all the objects around us in our environment (which he initially attributed to EMI, but later discovered the theories of morphic resonance, which made more sense wrt the phenomena he was observing). Guess what else? You DON'T know everything about audio or the world.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#6313 - 12/06/06 05:39 PM
Re: Clever Little Clocks
|
Desperado
Registered: 04/19/05
Posts: 361
Loc: Plano, TX
|
Seriously, who wants to read all of that? Do you really think yourself that interesting? I think you may be in for an awakening, rude-style. This is less interesting than your average white paper. Oh yeah, and as a "producer of [your] own alternative audio products," I was wondering how long it'd take to put your website out there. I'm soooo there.
_________________________
--Greg
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#6314 - 12/06/06 06:54 PM
Re: Clever Little Clocks
|
Desperado
Registered: 03/21/01
Posts: 14054
Loc: Memphis, TN USA
|
Well, kudos for the lengthiness of your posts (particularly that last one) - your devotion to your cause seems well matched by your word count. 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. It seemed (and still seems) appropriate to point out that you were (and seem to continue to be) condemning us for actions which had not even been committed yet, which do not generally take place in this forum, and which have to date not taken place. If you can avoid personal attacks and insults as tools in presenting your arguments, then I consider it safe to say that you will not be martyred by the forum members or administrators as you seem so certain will be the case. To date you at least have skipped personal attacks, but I'd suggest that opening your presence in a thread by describing previous posters as "supremely ignorant twits" might classify as a bit insulting. Of course, employing a healthy seasoning of belittling, derisive, and insulting statements throughout your posts can be an excellent way to anger and upset an audience that you wish to push into an uproar. Plus it is just indirect enough not to be a clear case of insulting behavior. It's a slick technique, and one that you seem to have raised to high art. As for complaints of an absence of intelligent debate by anyone who questions Belt concepts, there are always a possible explanations that don't require all doubters to be "IM"s (to borrow you acronym). One possible explanation would be the approach in which you classify anyone who does not agree with your views or show a willingness to "play along" with them as a fool incapable of thoughtful discourse, thus making any subsequent debate "un-intelligent." The attitude that produced the following statement makes that a strong possibility: 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. If you dismiss people who actually test these concepts and find no benefit in the concepts because they must not know how to listen or they tried to use a stupid test technique and you automatically condemn people who haven't tested the concepts, then the only people left who are capable of intelligent conversation are the ones with whom you already agree. As prophecies go, it's pretty self-fulfilling. Gotta run for now. It seems likely that this little spectacle will continue a bit longer, so I'll probably check back in from time to time...
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#6315 - 12/06/06 08:19 PM
Re: Clever Little Clocks
|
Gunslinger
Registered: 12/05/06
Posts: 43
|
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 your problem with that is what....? Do you want me to apologize for pointing out your blatant ignorance in this thread? How you can even pretend to justify damning products you've never tried and know nothing about, and being so g-d arrogant as to call their manufacturers "scammers", is beyond me. In case you have no idea what I'm talking about, here's what I'm talking about: Sluggo says: Sounds like a scam...or perhaps, scamola. Speaking of being idiots for forming opinions without trying them, here is a personal insult you made to another member here, one who was advocating products you never tried and know nothing about, but nevertheless seem to think you know enough about them to call their manufacturer a scammer: Sluggo says: HFSG, I believe that maybe you have been extensively modified using a number of highly-specialized techniques. In another post, full of those "nonexistant facts" that you so despise, you blatantly accused this forum member, a member who attacked absolutely NO ONE, in any message he ever wrote in his life (as far as I can see), of being an insincere troll, and worse, taking a commission from a company who's products he advocates.... Sluggo Says: If HFSG isn't having some fun with the forum making us all tut-tut his adherence to this nonsense, he's almost definitely making a buck off of any sales resulting. Either way, we're playing the game his way. If you want to hide behind the "no one product works for everyone" facade, fine,
It's not a "facade", it's a fact that no product works for everyone, and do I sound to you like I would hide behind -anything-? 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. No, you're not "just like me". When facts are nonexistent and I don't understand how something does or even can work, I don't beat my chest and shout derisively at anyone who presents such a product, pretending I'm now a f&$*ing expert on it. That's because its the behaviour of a stupid, arrogant pig, who pretends to be intelligent but hasn't even yet learned to think for himself. What I'm trying to say is, you are not presenting your views as "opinions". You are presenting them as "facts". I think you would need this to be illustrated in the simplest way possible, because your posts show you don't seem to understand the difference between opinions, claims and outright false accusations: e.g. OPINION:Sluggo says: "It is my opinion that the CLC clock and your silver foils do not work." Sluggo might even go on to say: "I qualify my opinion by stating that in lieu of facts that I can readily absorb and understand, I have to assume they don't work". e.g. IRRESPONSIBLE AND LIBELOUS DOGMATISM PRESENTED AS FACT:Sluggo says: "The CLC clock does not work, neither does any of this other ridiculous bullsh&t you're trying to foist upon us, and the manufacturer is a scammer, who even admitted it doesn't work!!" Now let's revisit what Sluggo actually said in this thread, shall we? Sluggo Says: From the sound of the Belt scenario, it's probably a pyramid scheme, like Amway or Scientology, or most any middle management position. He's definitely going to make a lot of money on this. Speaking of "nonexistent facts" Sluggo, what factual evidence do you have to even think of suggesting Belt's company is a "pyramid scheme"? Do you understand what the concept of "libel" constitutes? Do you consider making groundless and libelous accusations against manufacturers to be "intelligent debate"? I'm sure the owners of this web site do not. But you didn't stop at libelling PWB Electronics, did you? No, you shot off your fat arrogant yap to where you were hurling groundless and libelous remarks at Machina Dynamica, here: Sluggo says: Come on, this is crap and even Geoff knows it. He's so brazen about it he'll even tell you.
...There are apparently enough people out there who think nothing of throwing their money away, which explains why a company like Machina Dynamica stays in business. Two factually unqualified statements where you not only claim that you know for a fact that MD puts out useless products, but that MD's founder, knows for a "fact" that his products do not work, and yet sells them anyhow. You did not show a single shred of verifiable evidence to support your contention that Kaitt claimed his own products were bogus, even though that would have been trivial to support your allegations against him, and the least one would expect before making slanderous accusations toward someone who's products you never even tried. One other thing, delius - the concept of "intelligent debate" would never rely upon name calling. I agree. Which is why I saw absolutely NO attempt at "intelligent debate" from you or your posse for the breadth and length of hundreds of messages. Proud of what you and your friends have offered for internet posterity, are you? Here's how you welcome new members who dare to have an opinion on audio that doesn't meet your qualifications: Sluggo says: And they all got their heads handed to them as well. Anyone who makes such a claim without any quantification or qualification is asking for it in these parts. So in other words, if someone has an opinion on an audio product and they don't provide enough evidence that you can easily digest to back it up according to your standards, they get their "heads handed to them on a plate". And you wonder where -my- attitude comes from, eh, lil' Slugger? Let me remind you that you made -no shortage- of claims and accusations "without quantification or qualification". Therefore, by your own belligerent words, you're "asking for it". Here's another example below, of your idea of "intelligent debate". It can also be used to serve as an example of what your idea of "intelligence" is. Because you even criticize audiophiles who describe the sound of audio products as not having "opinions" but "fiction". In other words, you're stating as fact that whatever they claim to hear, is fictional, because it isn't accompanied by the various "quantifications and qualifications" you personally require before accepting the experiences of others as valid. Then, almost as if you felt you weren't being enough of an arrogant d*ck here, you condemned HFSG and all other forum members as having worthless opinions if not accompanied by your precious "quantifications and qualifications", while you had no qualms about posting outright defamatory (and inflammatory) remarks and accusations against both Outlaw Forum members and manufacturers of the products that the members advocate, without so much as a hint of "quantifications and qualifications" to back your arrogant dross up. Sluggo says: Sorry, Facts ARE quantifications and qualifications, and opinions not based upon facts (even perceptions, like "I noticed the highs rolled off less") aren't opinions, they're fiction (even if we still call them opinions). It just makes it clear that you have a lot of anger towards your mom for making you live in her basement. Wow... the "you're still living in your parent's basement" quip. I didn't realize I was surrounded by 21st century Oscar Wilde's. How long did it take you to come up with that brilliant piece of originality? Given what this says about your relative level of intelligence, I'm wondering if I should even meet your hackneyed attempt at witticism with a comeback line? No, I think I'll give you a pass, Sluggette. It occurred to me that you probably really are living in your parent's basement. Or at least, whatever section of the trailer home that y'all have designated as "the basement".
And finally, your last coup de maitre:
Seriously, who wants to read all of that? Do you really think yourself that interesting? I think you may be in for an awakening, rude-style. This is less interesting than your average white paper. First, I couldn't care less whether you read me or not. Second, you just admitted "white papers" are not interesting to you. Obviously, they hurt your brain, as much as reading beyond three lines of text hurts your brain. Yet you tried to convince me at the beginning that you were capable of an intelligent debate. So now it becomes clear why you bash advanced products you don't understand. You couldn't understand them even if you wanted to. So whatever hurts your brain, makes you angry. And whatever makes you angry.... you bash. Nice "debating" with you, Sluggo. Looks like I win by default. But you could have saved us both some time if you simply admitted at the first that you weren't intelligent enough to even read a debate, let alone engage in one.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#6316 - 12/06/06 09:37 PM
Re: Clever Little Clocks
|
Desperado
Registered: 04/19/05
Posts: 361
Loc: Plano, TX
|
Ugh. If you don't care, then why bother with the novella? I at least have enough respect to keep it short. Keep the words coming, if it makes you feel better. Just like any other cheap novel, I'll skip to the last line to see how it ends...and apparently, you win! Congrats.
_________________________
--Greg
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#6317 - 12/06/06 09:44 PM
Re: Clever Little Clocks
|
Gunslinger
Registered: 12/05/06
Posts: 43
|
Originally posted by gonk:
It seemed (and still seems) appropriate to point out that you were (and seem to continue to be) condemning us for actions which had not even been committed yet, which do not generally take place in this forum, and which have to date not taken place. What are you talking about? Are several hundred messages in this thread that support my condemnation not enough for you? Why do you think I stopped by? I saw several hundred messages, all attacking one or two guys who advocate the CLC clock or Belt products. What I also saw was that neither of those two guys ever made any personal attacks against anyone here, they persisted in non-inflammatory remarks advocating products they believed in, and continued to be attacked with the usual mockery, ridicule, scorn, derision and contempt. Products which as far as I can tell, not a single detractor had tried. Now if they somehow deserved all of it, I would have kept moseying along. But instead, I decided to pitch a tent. Especially after I saw some of you accusing both the members and the manufacturers of the products of nothing less than fraud. I posted examples of this to Sluggo. Who decided after so many months of stupidly accusing members and manufacturers of fraud without even having the moral decency to support his accusations, to show us all an example of how to take "the high road". By accusing me of living in my mother's basement. If you can avoid personal attacks and insults as tools in presenting your arguments, then I consider it safe to say that you will not be martyred by the forum members or administrators as you seem so certain will be the case. You didn't ask "why" I would seem so certain.... During a recent visit to a popular forum, I was quickly "martyred" after simply describing the Beltist tweaks I had done to my amp. And this was after I was reluctant to tell people what I had done (knowing the attitude they would adopt, which is the very same attitude that poisons this place), and half the forum begging me to reveal my "secret" tweaks. I was immediately branded a troll, demands were made to close the thread, shortly after that I was banned, no explanation given. You may think I'm angry, but I'm far more amused when I see the kind of fear, paranoia, risible ignorance and even hysteria that such audio products inspire in people. It brings out the very worst in people, when it's in fact a positive thing that ought to bring out the best. To date you at least have skipped personal attacks, but I'd suggest that opening your presence in a thread by describing previous posters as "supremely ignorant twits" might classify as a bit insulting. Of course, employing a healthy seasoning of belittling, derisive, and insulting statements throughout your posts can be an excellent way to anger and upset an audience that you wish to push into an uproar. Plus it is just indirect enough not to be a clear case of insulting behavior. It's a slick technique, and one that you seem to have raised to high art. Thanks. I appreciate that you recognize my talents.... ;-) Obviously, you can probably guess that I prefer unmoderated forums. But moderated ones are.... well, a "challenge". I admit, they're not nearly as fun. Everyone ends up sounding like the same person with a different name. However, I don't think even the gunslingers here would accuse me of being HifiSoundGuy... As for complaints of an absence of intelligent debate by anyone who questions Belt concepts, there are always a possible explanations that don't require all doubters to be "IM"s (to borrow you acronym). One possible explanation would be the approach in which you classify anyone who does not agree with your views or show a willingness to "play along" with them as a fool incapable of thoughtful discourse, thus making any subsequent debate "un-intelligent." The attitude that produced the following statement makes that a strong possibility: Nice theory, but you're overlooking the fact that I made that complaint based on what I read -before- I hitched my horse here. So I have no part to play in the fact that we're looking at the end of a thread that contains 300 messages on alternative audio products, and never mind "intelligent debate", I did not see even a single attempt at a proper debate in it. It looks like you all had made up your minds about the products and the members who advocated those products, right from the start. And I'm not saying a debate would have changed anyone's mind, because as I just said, I don't see that anyone wants their mind to be changed. I'm not trying to steal anyone's opinion here. Every audiophile has the right to be wrong, if they choose to. But if people are going to claim to be "right" about Belt's or MD's products, which is are products that I know something about (more Belt than MD), and even present them as "factual", they'd better have more than bluster and ridicule to support their claims. Particularly when "gunslingers" are hurling unfounded libelous accusations of fraud against members and manufacturers, as though they have every right to do so. In some forums (I haven't yet checked this one), that's an instant ban. If you dismiss people who actually test these concepts and find no benefit in the concepts because they must not know how to listen or they tried to use a stupid test technique and you automatically condemn people who haven't tested the concepts, then the only people left who are capable of intelligent conversation are the ones with whom you already agree. As prophecies go, it's pretty self-fulfilling. You're oversimplifying things again. I do not condemn people who haven't tested the concepts. Any test is still better than not testing at all, I would suppose. But I condemn some of the tests that people use, and I advocated using sighted tests, as most people use to evaluate any other product. (When you bought your audio components, did you run blind tests on them in the hifi shop?) I'm quite sure that I have a lot more experience conducting sighted & blind tests both on myself and others, so I am not regurgitating some theory I read in an audio magazine. I explained to you in my last message in some detail, why blind testing for audio was just plain stupid. But the "stupid" part is not the test itself. I can appreciate the desire to be objective, I am objectively minded myself. The stupid part is the "belief" that the tests are valid (because they appear to create a condition of objectivity and authenticity), and that the results of any blind test will tell you all that you need to know about a product. You obvously can't imagine how many perfectly good products were dismissed due to the stupidity of people adhering to results of blind tests in audio. Even the editor of a major audio magazine was duped into selling his fine amp and living with a crappier one (which did NO good things to his sound), as a result of blind testing. Yes, I recognize the merit blind tests have in other applications of science. However, they were never proven to have any merit in audio applications and in fact, contravene the scientific range rule, as I pointed out. I see those who adhere to blind tests as no more than religious zealots, convinced that they are following reasonable scientific principles and not crazy personal religions. And I'm sorry to have to inform you, but simple "blind tests" are not good enough for serious proponents of blind tests. For that, you need an ABX comparator, and a means to level match to within 0.01 db. Otherwise, you'll be accused of introducing listener bias into the tests by those adherents to blind tests, and your tests are therefore meaningless. Now how many people are equipped to do that, or even have the knowledge? But even if they happen to have a spare ABX comparator lying around, and a sensitive db meter, plus at least a second person to make it double blind, note that ABX tests have revealed no differences between wires, cd players, or amplifiers. ("Comparing Audio Components", David Clark's, JAES, 1983). Most people, even "Outlaws" I'm sure, can nevertheless hear differences between these types of components. Are they.... FOOLING themselves, perhaps? I don't bloody well think so. Blind tests, and -properly conducted- blind tests, seem to think so, though. So as much as you might think you're clever and "avoiding being duped" by running audio products through blind testing procedures, you're really not. They're about as reliable as a Republican ballot box security guardian. You can't avoid being duped, in audio. You can only avoid good sound. If not having good sound is the cost I must pay to avoid being duped, guess what? I'd rather be duped.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#6318 - 12/06/06 09:54 PM
Re: Clever Little Clocks
|
Desperado
Registered: 04/19/05
Posts: 361
Loc: Plano, TX
|
Cliff notes version: delius is angry about the insults lobbed at tin foil and clocks, thinks everyone who doubts their merits are "idiots," but in the end delius would rather be duped.
Rating: three out of four stars. Needs more cow bell.
_________________________
--Greg
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#6319 - 12/06/06 10:04 PM
Re: Clever Little Clocks
|
Gunslinger
Registered: 12/05/06
Posts: 43
|
Originally posted by sluggo:
Ugh. If you don't care, then why bother with the novella? You actually think it was for you? Wow. You do seem to think highly of yourself. But only the good Lord knows why. I at least have enough respect to keep it short. I think its because you don't have a choice. As you can see, I do. But this respect you say you have, it's for whom, precisely? Me, whom you accused of living in my mother's basement? HifiSoundGuy and Goodsound, whom you both accused of being frauds, scammers and trolls? Respect for PWB or Machina Dynamica, whom you libelled as scammers? Or respect for your fellow gunslingers, whom you think are also at risk of hurting their brains from having to read anything longer than three lines? Keep the words coming, if it makes you feel better. Just like any other cheap novel, I'll skip to the last line to see how it ends...and apparently, you win! Congrats. Yeah, but it's not what I consider a "good win". If someone is simply too lily-livered to show up for the gunfight, and you never get to draw on him, there isn't much in the way of satisfaction. Still, I did prove my point quite nicely about your ability to have an intelligent debate.... Keep on shootin' blanks, pardner...
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#6320 - 12/06/06 10:20 PM
Re: Clever Little Clocks
|
Gunslinger
Registered: 12/05/06
Posts: 43
|
Originally posted by sluggo: [QB] Cliff notes version: delius is angry about the insults lobbed at tin foil and clocks, thinks everyone who doubts their merits are "idiots," but in the end delius would rather be duped. I can see that you were wise beyond your years Greg, to have slept through all your classes, before finally dropping out of school in grade 6. You've made it clear to all that reading is a chore to you and comprehension, an impossibility. But don't be angry about having been duped out of a high school diploma, to where you're taking it out on audio manufacturers and Outlaw forum members, and accusing them of fraud, scamming, trolling and everything but peeing on your dog. What you should do is take it out on the high school where you work as a janitor. Because its really the school that harmed you, by not letting you join (which leaves you ill equipped today to enter anything that remotely resembles an "intelligent debate"). So maybe you could start small and try popping the trophy display case with your broom handle and run?
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#6321 - 12/06/06 10:30 PM
Re: Clever Little Clocks
|
Gunslinger
Registered: 12/26/05
Posts: 206
Loc: Central Ma.
|
I thought this CLC posts were all in good fun, but to have someone come in and insult Gonk and Sluggo, two of the most helpful and In my honest opinion upstanding posters in these forums and to call the rest of us twits and idiots, it's just not right. so what if we don't agree with you. you are entitled to your own opinions but don't go bashing us, I enjoy coming on this forum because it doesn't have al the chest beating the others do and the posters are polite and eager to teach those of us who are not engineers and geniuses.thank you I've said my piece.
_________________________
Outlaw 990/7125,Denon 2910,Toshiba A3, Klipsch RF35,RC35,RS35,RW12,SMS-1
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
0 registered (),
135
Guests and
2
Spiders online. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
8,717 Registered Members
88 Forums
11,331 Topics
98,707 Posts
Most users ever online: 884 @ 11/01/24 01:32 AM
|
|
|
|