Clever Little Clocks

Here's something that will make Home Theater and Music much more enjoyable, Two Clever Little Clocks from www.machinadynamica.com You can get these clocks cheaper over on www.audiogon.com in the Tweak site there $125.00 each. They have a thread on these clocks here http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?aamps&1138572451&read&3&4&

Umm say what? How can a clock that isn't hooked into the audio system do anything for the sound of the system?

This is a joke right?

Or perhaps you just like the style of the clock?

No, this is no Joke! I really do not know how or why it works, I just enjoy music alot better when the clocks are in the room. I know this sounds real crazy but this product really does work. Its the best tweak I have ever tried, its like getting a speaker upgrade! When I first heard about these clocks over on the audiogon forum I thought they were all nuts!! until I tried them out for myself....I'm a BELIEVER now!

I try to keep an open mind when encountering new technology, but I think even if you'd lifted off the top of my skull I still would have had a hard time going along with this statement...
I think I'll leave my credit card in my wallet for this one.

Is it April 1 already?

You get better sound with two clocks in the room than just one, I have my two clocks on a long shelf behide my couch facing each speaker....WOW! These clocks improves Video too.

Looks like they really cleaned your clocks too. Now that's service!

Personally, I get better results with a garden gnome. I had to try 3 different varieties of gnome until I settled on the oxygen free cow dung model put out by Monster. They're not THX certified, but they'll have to pry this dung from my cold dead hands...

Film at 11.

LOL, you should sell those garden gnomes on eBay Ritz.

From www.machinadynamica.com/machina41.htm OK folks, I knew you were waiting for this, so I'm going to tell you why these work.

It has to do with psycho-acoustics. Since, according to their web site, this item has no influence over the signal, components or acoustics, then, if it has any effect, it must be in the psycho realm.

So the reason this works for some people is that:

Some people will believe anything.

I used to use two of these in my theater but I felt the sound was too bright, actually a touch on the brittle side to the point where it gave me a headache. I ended up messing around with my two Clever Little Clocks and found that tilting one of them to a 37.2 degree angle hidden deep inside my guest bedroom closet and the other one smashed, burned and put on my downstairs mantle in an urn, I get the sound that is the most rewarding. Crystal clear highs, endless dynamics and slam like you wouldn't believe. Trust me, DO NOT GIVE UP ON THESE! PLACEMENT is EVERYTHING!!!
I wish I knew they had different styles to choose between when I ordered mine.

So, I did a little Googling and found out two things, neither of which is that surprising. Maybe some long term Outlaw audio gurus already knew about the ‘tweak’ site HFSG is ultimately promoting, but today was my first visit.

1) HFSG seems to show up in several forums under different names promoting various items including colored foils and colored creams in addition to clocks with colored dots.

2) It seems that the ‘inspiration’ for many of HFSG's posts comes from a web site with a home page , a product page and a bit of waxing philosophical in a piece called “ What A Mess -- an alternate view of reality .” Some of the product descriptions . . . well, they speak for themselves.

Caution: before delving into part two too deeply, there are measures perhaps some of us should take. The preemptive cautions may range from wearing a Depends to a bit of legal moderate imbibing. I’m thinkin’ this fellow was using his Quantum Clip for some reality altering other than described in that product’s usage for improving audio, video and satellite reception.

I find it very ironic that someone would post that stuff here.

From what I can tell, most Outlaws are no-nonsense kind of audio/videophiles who don't believe a lot of hype when it comes to anything.

Perhaps this guy should stick to forums for Audioquest speaker cables and other "snake-oil" gear.

I mean come on. People are here because we want VALUE for our hard earned money and don't want to waste it on a bunch of crap that most likely does nothing at all.

Besides for $150 you can get a lot nicer wall clocks than that little $5 Timex jobby with a dot on it. At least then you'll have a clock that looks nice, even if it doesn't do anything for the performance of your gear.

These clocks are not snake oil, they really improved my audio/video system for the better. Everybody has different taste so just because I like them doesn't mean you will like them too.

HiFiSoundGuy, any chance you could post some pics to show us how you integrated them into your setup?

No , I do not have anyway to post pictures right now but I can tell you my room 16w by 22L and I have two large shelf cabinets right behide my couch and I have each clock up in each shelf about 5 1/2 feet up off the floor facing right across from each speaker. My couch is about 7 feet from my speakers and shelves are about 15 feet from my speakers.

Please please please tell me that this is either the snakeoil salesman or just someone horsing around. I have sent the link to about a half dozen audiophile friends and it has certainly generated some guffaws, but that's about it. So if you're the proprietor of the snake-oil, go away. If you're just a very confused individual who is now out a few hundred bucks for some $5 clocks, then you might want to get out more.....

OK. I couldn't pass this up. If nothing else, at least the Clever Little Clock DOES tells time. (This is assuming of course that you can see around that annoying dot on the LCD... And that you can set the local time and not lose the acoustical benefits promised.) So while it may cost 40 times more than the Not So Clever Little Clock I can get at Target, it's not a TOTAL loss of my hard earned $'s.

No, the winner of the "Total Loss of My Hard Earned $'s" category is going to have to be the Brilliant Pebbles . Sweet! I have been looking for something to act as a "EMI/RFI absorber" for my 990. And only $129.00 for the LARGE jar!!! Audio bliss is only a jar of stones away. :p


later,
simp

I have my own patent-pending method of improving my sound system: I adjust the worn out rheostat of my cryogenically treated halogen torchiere lamp until the RFI it's emitting inside my house cancels out the bad RFI beamed in by space aliens. The good RF from my perspicacious big lamp time travels and enters a quantum universe to seek out and destroy the space alien's parents, hence preventing any bad RF from bothering me in my lifetime. This is really true - I swear it on my aluminum foil helmet!

As for the Clever Little Clock - P.T. Barnum would have loved it!

Personally, I'm holding out for the cold fusion theater amp. Perhaps a jar of magic beans/pebbles is all I need to get that working. Quick, call the patent attorney!

Though I do like the jar of rocks concept. Get your rocks off while listening to your stereo! The battle cry of the audiophile I say...

Man........... Look at everyone in a lather over those clocks. You would have thought he suggested using the unbalanced connection on the 990, a 180 Amp breaker for the 7700 or a cryogenically modified, hermetically sealed, python skin sheathed, double helix 2 conductor power cord on his DVD player.

Some of the babble that has been written here over the years is no less outragous than that which HiFiSoundGuy is suggesting. It's just his opinion.

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.

I enjoy my music a lot better when my beer is in the room. At only $125/bottle, I have 24 left to sell. Hurry, they're going fast!

An opinion has NO quantification or qualification, that is exactly what makes it an opinion. Fact could be qualified and quantified. To me his opinion is no different than the opinion that the 990 sounds better than the 950, the 7700 sounds better than the 7100 or the 770. I have read very few facts on most forums, just opinions and babble, take what you want and leave the rest. Outrageous ones like the clocks just make me giggle more and reaffirm that most things here are just opinions……both mine and yours.

Not all opinions are weightless or not based on such things as experience or expertise.

An opinion such as that a simple clock can make a difference in quality of a sound system isn't even on the same level as an experienced audiophile giving their experiences between two pieces of equipment. One is completely baseless and the other is based on quantifiable experience that is also rooted in reality.

Keta,
I wouldn't say I'm "in a lather" over these "Clever Little Clocks". This is all just light hearted banter. The only time I really get in a lather over a clock is when my alarm goes off on Monday morning....

later,
simp

Well said sraber. If I'm up in arms over anything is that someone would actually pay $125 for a $5 Timex clock.

But as someone once said, "a fool and their money are soon parted".

I thought it was "A fool and their money are some party".

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).

If I said I thought the 990 sounded better than the 950, I'd expect to be asked why, and if I give no credible detail in my answer I'd also expect to be excoriated for it (deservedly so). HiFiSoundGuy did just that, and without any supporting evidence it sounds like fiction, no matter what his agenda.

drinks at my place at 8:00
maybe the clock will earn it's keep.

Semantics of my statement. Thanks

Here, in this context, we differ. Fiction is a lie and would be deliberately false or has the intent to deceive. Opinions are beliefs one has about a certain issue, usually not based on facts but on observations.

Blogging is correct that the weight of an opinion should be based on experience and expertise. This clock guy hasn't shown me much in the way of experience or expertise, which is why I (and many others) dismiss his claim outright. The opposite is true when someone like Gonk gives an opinion, I listen and don't believe it is fictitious because I've learned to value his opinion over the years, even in instances where I disagree.

My original point is that something this silly and petty as those clocks has now got close to 30 posts.....and I've wasted perfectly good beer drinking time typing about it.

Well, if you had one of those Clever Little Beer Hats (tm), you could have been drinking WHILE typing about the clocks.

Too bad machinadynamica doesn't sell something that's actually USEFUL, like that, though.

By the way, I'd say that it would appear that this person is deliberately making claims about a product that at best are delusional and at worst are deceitful. If that doesn't make the claims about the clocks fiction, I don't know what is.

Anyhow, back to the consuming of the beer.

*glug glug glug*

Agreed

Yeah, the person appears to be a shill. He appeared on the forums on March 2 and the vast majority of the posts revolve around this dubious device as well as the little ad in the poster's signature. Seems like the garden variety snakeoil salesman to me.

If the original poster is just some deluded consumer who now feels like crawling under a rock in shame after being blatantly scammed, then well....I'll gladly donate my old electricity and magnetism physics text to you. My wife has been threatening to throw it away. There's an excellent idea for a psychoacoustic feedback mechanism...the wife smacks you in the back of your noggin when you attempt the purchase of worthless audio tweaks. I'm still in training, but my wife swears it will work someday. Hope springs eternal.

I'm not connected with this company in any way! For me this product has made listening to music much more enjoyable and thats what its all about right? I knew before I posted this here it was going to be like this but I'm buying a RR2150 and thought I let you all know about these Clever Little Clocks too. I now have these clocks on top of my shelf cabinets 7 1/2 feet tall and the sound is more open and 3-Dimensional. What I really like about these clocks is that they take away a lot of the distortion from the music making the music much more enjoyable. I know this is hard to believe but this is what its doing for my system.

Just washes all that dang distortion right out of your music, eh? Great!!

It just goes to show you, people will buy anything.

Ritz, I'll bet if you started manufacturing and selling those gnomes on the web, someone would buy them and then give you a glowing reference about how great they are. Maybe Outlaw will let you sell them thru their site

HFSG and either his friends or membership clones have posted at several other audio forums on the web. Always glowing reports about the clocks, pebbles, foil, cream, etc. Some of the posts report some blind testing with friends and positive results. At least one 'person' reported positive results by introducing a $10 or $15 clock they bought from an everyday store.

I see three possibilities.

1) The products developed by PWB, based on whatever ideas he has about the more-than-physical universe, cause genuine, verifiable results. If this is true, then there are effects in other than just audio/video perception.

2) One or more persons are creatively posting for their own entertainment, to laugh at our reactions, or other agenda.

3) The perception of various people, to varying degrees, is affected merely by the idea that something has changed, whether they have a good idea of what is going on or not.

I sort of think #2, simply because I don't want to believe anyone that dumb could afford computer time.

I'm with Charlie. Nobody could be THAT stupid and still have the capacity to search out and use the forums.

HFSG, I'm going to clue you in to another audiophile secret. If you wrap your privates in duct tape, wait 5 minutes, stand on your head for 2 minutes, then slowly rip the tape off while listening to your stereo, it will vastly improve the soundstage and add at least 20db of dynamic range to the program material. Honest. I'd be happy to supervise a double blind test with you and the proprietors of PWB and summarize the results here. We'll have to conduct the test a half dozen times or so since we want to minimize the effect of guessing. Hopefully, the results can be achieved without resorting to switching to backs or (in PWB's case) palms.

I'll even supply the ice packs.

Cheers,

I sort of wish the clocks were digital displays. Then you could use the theory that the clocks actually were a countdown timer that were counting down to the point where you hit yourself on the head for buying the thing in the first place.

I wouldn't waste my time or your's if these clocks did not work. These clocks are the Real Deal!

Go away.

See.......Now it's over 40 posts

It's #2

and this one:

MoonlitMatt, I have a Denon 2400 receiver and rock music sounded really bad with this receiver but it sounds fine now that I have Two Clever Little Clocks in my room. I have a RR2150 on the way, I can't wait!

HiFiSoundGuy, I just want to say, "Thanks!" Your post (and the subsequent dialog) led me to check out the manufacturer's web site. I haven't had that good of a laugh in a long while. I think my favorite was the isolation "kit" for three hundred dollars. You know, the one consisting of three slabs of granite, nine springs, and what looks to be three pieces of rubber or plastic. The best part? You supply your own granite (or flagstone as a cheaper alternative).

I was laughing so hard my wife came in to see what was going on. I showed her the clocks, rocks, and springs and she said, "They're selling this stuff on eBay? They should be reported." When I told her it isn't eBay, just a manufacturer selling online, she couldn't even speak. Merely shook her head and walked away.

So, again, I say, "Thank you!" A great way to end a Monday.

HiFiSoundGuy, I think I'm in the strong majority here in being basically insurmountably dubious of the clock simply because it flies in the face of all the science we've ever been taught. The manufacturer's web site doesn't do anything to dissuade me simply because it actively works to avoid providing any basis for the clock to influence the listening (or viewing) environment. At this point, my engineering degree screams at me from my cubicle wall, insisting on some sort of explanation of how a $5 battery-powered clock could have special batteries installed and some other vague modifications made that would not only justify the $125+ price tag but would also affect two separate human senses by being somewhere in the same house (or in a car parked next to that house).

Clearly, you have experienced a benefit from these clocks (your willingness to open this thread knowing the probable reaction of a group of gunslingers proves that). Hey, if it works for you, more power to you. But considering the principal consumer group that Outlaw has pursued, I doubt you'll find many others around here willing to even try the CLC.

Owl's_Warder, my wife had a similar reaction when I told her about the clocks over the weekend. She spent the next couple miles asking me if I was serious, clearly unable to accept it and actually a bit worried that a company had seriously set out to sell these clocks. (Don't ask about her reaction to the jars of rocks.) And this is the daughter of a long-time audiophile with $1,000+ speaker cables in his system.

Owl's_Warder, I had a good laugh myself the first time I saw that web site, it was funny for sure. You really have try a product out to see if it does anything or not and these clocks really did improve the sound of my system for the better.

gonk, until someone here trys these clocks out for themselves they will never believe it. Never! If I had the money I would pass two of these clocks around to the members here.

i;d pass on the clocks, and take 28 markers!annybody have a favorite color?

A couple ‘good’ questions with commentary:

1) How far and in what directions does the ‘improvement field’ extend from a CLC?

Commentary on 1: Sometimes your sound system seems to change in characteristics without explanation. If you live in an apartment or condominium, it could be that your neighbors moved their clocks around or bought a new one. It could be that a car with a digital clock just pulled up outside.

2) As the number of clocks on the planet increases, does the perception of audio and video worldwide improve correspondingly?

Commentary on 2: A couple of years back I helped a friend install a home-theater-in-a-box system. Certainly this gear was not on par with what I had in my home, but I always wondered why the gear that cost 1/5 of another system could sound so decent in what could be considered a poor audio environment. Now I know: more clocks in their house. Instead of upgrading with HD audio or HDTV, I could just buy about a dozen $10 clocks.

Who knows what I've been missing?

I appreciate your willingness to try to convince us of some merit in this "tweak," HiFiSoundGuy, but I'm afraid this group really isn't the target market for the Crazy Little Clocks. Here's the problem that I have (and it's basically the same problem we all have in various forms): there remains no scrap of explanation as to how a simple clock could yield the results they claim. As a bit of contrast, let's look at another tweak that does not connect to the signal chain at all: sound treatments. How does a four foot tall bass trap help the sound if it doesn't plug into the wall or carry the signal at any point? Basic science can back up the assertion that the device can, when in the correct location, alter the acoustic behavior of the room and prevent unfortunate sound wave interactions within the room. That rational and reasonable explanation can help someone justify trying one out. A company that instead offers a device that they clearly state (in what some might call a brief lapse of snake oil dispensing) does not directly interact with the audio and video hardware in any way, form, or manner and is also not affecting the transmission of sound waves or light within the room (unlike a bass trap or a good front projection screen) is giving us a very different pill to swallow. This online community is one that is not likely to ever accept a product like this, and experiments like this one at Audiogon aren't going to help your case (the quote "Feel free to draw any conclusions you wish (other than, perhaps, that by a two to one ratio people found that two boxes of pens had more of an effect on the sound of the system than the clock!)" from that post really doesn't help Machina Dynamica's already-absent credibility). I'll commend you for your determination, but I'll also suggest that your audience is not one that will ever care to listen.

painttoad, pass me a purple, please.

Now it's 50........It's like a rash you can't help scratching

If you read the seller’s/manufacturer’s/inventor’s/theorist’s web sites, you see that the CLC is a product not designed to affect the playback system or the sound in any way. The purported effect is to reduce interference with and enhance the function of perception as human beings make their way through the ebb and flow of somewhat messed up time-space. As such, there is no technology-based measuring device currently available to verify the effect. The only ‘valid’ test is an individual who tries the product.

I wonder is some form of the above verbiage will make it to one or more of the seller’s/manufacturer’s/inventor’s/theorist’s web sites.

I think, however, that most listeners will note a greater change in their perception of music on their systems by listening with their eyes sometimes open and at other times closed, or with a change in mood (happy or angry, sad or hopeful, awkward when they realize they paid $200 for a $2 clock, etc.) than the same listeners will note by adding couple little clocks.

bestbang4thebuck, I was going to order another clock but Geoff Kait, the seller of these clocks, told me that two clocks are about as much improvement as you can get with these before the diminishing returns start kicking in but one person is using three of these clocks, audiogon and audio asylum member Wellfed, this is the person I talked to before buying these clocks. Room size, from what Geoff told me these clocks will work in very large rooms with great effect, they have not tested these to see what the room max is yet. They do not work outdoors at all but they do work in your car really good.

Perhaps if they had a 30 day money back guarantee?

Hehe...I think we are having way too much fun with this one...perhaps for that reason alone we should thank HFSG.

You have made your point. The others can read your posts and then use their own judgment. Needless to say that not all will agree with you. Personally, I'm not one to do much tweaking (along the lines of the mysterious products made by Shun Mook, etc). The only tweaking I employ is placing mass/weight on top of each of my speakers to help stabilize them and reduce cabinet vibration/resonance. To my ears, this tweak really helps to open them up. The other is using a clamping device of some sort on an LP when played (in my case it is a solid brass puck of about 1.5 lbs. with rubber on the underside). A clamp stabilizes the LP and dramatically reduces microvibrations. This tweak really does work (actually I wouldn't call this a tweak more than I would call it a necessity)...with analog, it is always best to use some form of LP clamping than none at all.

BloggingITGuy, they do have a 30 day money back guarantee on these clocks.

I can honestly say that this has given me pause to ponder my life. I can't believe I could actually be selling 3 dollar clocks for $150. Why don't they teach this in school? A handful of rocks for hundreds of dollars? Are you kidding me? I may just have to change directions.

I was thinking about my forays into tweaking and how different my approach is to the clocks, and thought of a good experiment for anyone one the fence who has money to burn:

First, buy two of the clocks, and try them for a week. See what you think. If they don't work out, use that 30-day money-back guarantee.

Second, read Good Sound by Laura Dearborn, and try just one of the tweaks she talks about in the book (if you haven't already) relevant to your system; the book is 20 years old, so some of the stereo tweaks aren't relevant for HT.

Personally, I saw more improvement in my system's sonic performance after reading that book years ago, making adjustments that cost me nothing, than I ever did with any other change (upgrading cables, vibe isolation, power conditioner, etc.) outside of a significant component upgrade.

Anyone tries it, let me know.

The way I tested these clocks was putting them in my system for a week then I put them out in my car. Then listen to the same CD's again for a week on my home stereo system. This is the best way to test these because when you take these clocks out of your system and put them outdoors the effect stays in your system for a while so you can't do a quick A/B test to see whats going on.

Approaching 60 !!!

I love this guy. If he can make 20 nonbelievers talk about this for 5 days, show their wives, girlfriends and neighbors, then he's alright in my book. HFSG doesn't seem to get rattled; he just keeps throwing it out there. I love a good prank so I think this guy is a genius.
You can bet that someone has bought a clock due to this discussion. Maybe two.

I must ponder the effect they may have if I put them on our nightstands in the marital sanctum, and see if they don't make for some improvement therein.

If they don't work, do they double as alarm clocks?

Now there is a new one, at least to me: the effect stays in your system for a while after removing the clocks. (What? Time keeps advancing even though the clocks are gone, you know.) The clocks must break up the improper alignment of vibes in an area and/or create the proper alignment of vibes. Once the clocks are removed, it takes a while for the vibes to go back to whatever the improper vibe arrangement is.

Kind of like using the same spoon to keep several pots on the stove sufficiently stirred, I guess that some neighbors can share a set of clocks, as long as the clocks spend some time in each abode, thereby multiplying the great value in audio/video enhancement that the clocks already provide.

As far as alarm clocks, I think that if you change the time that is set on the clock, the enhancement provided goes away. So if the time on the clock is not correct when you receive the clock, you could be frustrated trying to use an alarm feature.

However, if you can use set the alarm so that the correct number of hours and minutes goes by before you need to wake, it could be that the enhancement of perception is so great that you can hear the music from whatever CD is nearest to you and the clock even without turning on any of your audio equipment. Just put your wake up music CD on the nightstand with the clock! I'm not sure if there is a special cream you need to apply to the CD first though. If the effect is too strong, however, how many other people will be awakened with your music in their head? Just in your room, or in your whole living space, or maybe you have to warn your neighbors so they don’t needlessly spend money on psychiatric counseling?

I wonder how that affects the optimal clock count? What if I place it, then move it to the "other" location, and back, and so forth? Seems like I could save some money there by using a single clock in two locations intermittently, counting on the "residual" effect from the currently vacant clock-site.

HFSG, this is really quite enough. It is not your role in life to convince everyone else in here that these devices work. The only one you have to convince is yourself. If they work for you, great...leave it at that. You're having to do all this defending...but to what end?

Leave it.

I do have a couple of questions though: do you have to set the time an hour ahead and an hour back in April and October when we have the time changes? Will doing that have a deleterious effect on the sound quality? Will there be some sort of time phase shift? Will you hear sound an hour earlier or an hour later? What happens if you change the time on one clock but not the other? Will you then hear this huge hour-delay echo effect?

Did you get better gas mileage when you put them in your car??? :p
Bill

I don't know about gas mileage, but I think it must be tough keeping the car on the road with a three dimensional rendition of "I'm a Believer" surrounding you with that now clock enhanced factory car stereo!

Resistance is futile. The distinctiveness of your cheesy clocks will be added to our own. You will join the clock collective and serve us.

You really do get a lot more out of your system by adding two of these clocks to your system, $125 each sounds like its way way over priced but only because you never tried it and you really do not know how good this product really is. This is one of those products that you really have to try to be believed. If I had not tried this product for myself I would still be saying they were all nuts and crazy! You get two batteries with each clock, each battery will last for 5 years. I really do not think your be saying they are way over priced and do not do anything after you see and hear it for yourselves what this product can do!

Doesn't the manufacturer say putting them in your car won't work because the effect is too strong? So it looks like you weren't really doing an comparison as the effect of the clocks was still working. Hmm, looks like your mind may have been playing tricks on you when you though you could notice a difference. If I were you, you may want to revisit this whole clock thing. Sorry HiFi guy you just lost the last .0002% of credibility you had.

From the Manufacturers website:

Going strong at 70!!!!! and still people trying to discredit these things.

I think it may be time to simply lock this thread to that no new entries can be made, and new threads from HFSG ignored. For someone who says he is "not involved in any way with the company", he is certainly going full-tile with the sales pitch.

If or when I see a review of these devices either in Stereophile or The Absolute Sound (I don't think that will ever happen), then MAYBE I will consider examining them further.

In the meantime, I have discovered that pricking my finger and strategically applying a drop of my blood on speakers makes them sound more liquid. But the improvement will be only be heard if the blood is centrifuged in order to get the highest concentration of red cells. And it has to be centrifuged for exactly 45.723 seconds....it has to be exact.....and it can only be my blood.

Jed, what they mean by that is, if you have a garage in your house the effects will be too strong if you put the clocks in your car there.

Ah, yes. How stupid of me.

Sigh... I've tried not to say much in this thread, but I think I'm going to have to give in and post one more time...

That's not the way their statement reads to me - they specifically mention the garage just a moment before saying not to put it in the car. Of course, the whole concept of the clock is so utterly silly that arguing semantics is like debating whether or not to lock the door to your cabin on the Titanic - whatever the outcome of the discussion, the whole mess is going straight to the bottom of the ocean.

Locking the thread is tempting, but I don't know that the discussion has technically violated any forum rules (and for that, I should pause to commend all of the gunslingers for keeping our posts remarkably light-hearted and well-behaved - it wouldn't be hard to imagine the thread sinking to a pretty nasty level). A part of me sincerely wants to believe that HFSG is just a guy who is very pleased with his clocks and is remarkably determined to pass that along to others, although his determination could also all too easily be equated to guerilla marketing (similar to what was reported at Penny Arcade a couple times recently ). But without proof of some sort of guerilla marketing, the best approach is probably to shrug, shake our heads, and drive on past the train wreck that is the Crazy Little Clock.

gonk, your right on, I'm just real happy with this product and I'm just passing the word around so you all can get more out of your systems also.....that's all.

Even if there has been some irritation involved, I think this thread has been very entertaining - I wouldn't close it! Besides, I'd much rather have these points made here where they belong than have them seep into other threads that should remain true to their topics. That way, those that become too irritated just have to resist the temptation to read in this one thread.

I haven't seen such creative writing or laughed as much in the Saloon in quite a while.

What he said ^^^^

This response combined with the post that preceded it had me ROTFL!

I also agree that this thread has produced some of the best posts since the last contest.

I'm wondering - I'm pretty sure I have one of those Timex clocks already - how much for just the batteries? Also, are replacement batteries available? Do the clocks ever wear out and need their aura refreshed?

I'll sell you one of those special Willy Wonka batteries for $124. Pay no attention to the Radioshack label...they stole the idea from me. Harumph!

In a related note, what if I put the batteries in a a different clock? Or other appliance? I'm just imagining the potential here.

Oooh... over 80 posts! (Sorry, Keta. I know you're the official post counter for this thread, but it had to be done.)

Thanks for watching my back Owl! Stay tuned....more will post...it can't be helped. It's like a train wreck.

All your clocks are belong to us.

Somebody set up us the clock.

Vee hav vays ov meking yew beliefe that yoor owdio sistem iz better then it rilly iz!

ok, must defend HFSG,i couln't take it so i ordered 2 clocks and decided to share my results.placement is everything!after careful consideration,i decided that ideal placement would be in front of the rear wheels of my truck,slightly towed in.wow,what a difference it made as i appreciated the sound of my motor reaching 6k.then the test.i dumped the clutch!you could distinctively hear every piece of those clocks disintegrating in my wheel well.something that i definitely would not have been able to experience had HFSG not introduced these clocks to the forum.

thanks,
joe

After a grueling research and scientific experimentation I decided to open one of the magic batteries. If you follow the link you will see a photo of the (quite impressive I might add) hidden source of power for the CLC.


http://www.unit5.org/christjs/Potato%20Battery.htm

Now THOSE are Clever Little Clocks!
Bill

I believe the secret to the batteries is that they run at 1.21 gigawatts.

Ahh...so it's really the Mr. Fusion that makes them so effective?

I think I hear the Mr. Fusion asking for more beer.

They talk about the other products that Peter Belt has here http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PWB

Read the link. Not quite sure what to say about that.....


later,
simp

(ahh, I shouldn't...)

To the original poster, if you honestly think those clocks do what the sales copy claims, you should know that you -- yes, you -- can collect $1,000,000 from the James Randi Educational Foundation if you can demonstrate that you can hear the difference under scientifically controlled conditions. JREF Challenge

I'd also suggest you look at some of the recent and highly useful threads posted here that discuss room treatment. There are much better materials available for this purpose than clocks.

...so...why hasn't that $1 Mil been claimed by anyone yet....hmmmmmmmmm???
Bill

Mackey, for room treatment I use these clocks and Cream Electret and Silver Rainbow foil. These are all Peter Belt's products and you can try out the foil and cream for FREE too just contact May Belt at foil@belt.demon.co.uk and tell her you would like a free sample of these products and that you heard about this in some reviews in SoundStage magazine, I got my free sample in about 11 days.

OK, Mr. Sound Guy. Now I'm sure you're an advertisement.

I was actually trying to help. Please stop insulting our intelligence. You won't make a dime off of us.

Its official, HiFiSoundGuy is a serious troll. I feel bad for anybody who actually purchase one of these "products".

Rainbow Foil? You would have to be the dumbest SOB in the world to believe that crap. I mean seriously mentally challenged. Not just dumb but brain dead. OMG that is funny stuff. HiFiSoundGuy, please tell me how much better your cassette tapes and CD's sound now that you can perceive speech and music. I love your testimonials. Best thread ever!

On a more serious side, when I do searches for the products you mention I can only find way over the top testimonials like yours. The funny thing is is that none of you Belt "enthusiasts" ever get rattled. You guys get slammed over and over in forums and all you guys do is introduce more and more products of Belt's that you use along with ways to order and contact the company. That to me doesn't sound very credible. Sounds more like people who are paid to sell something. I think its a shame you have chosen to cheat and scam people for a living, but I am positive you have no shame in doing it. I am sure your parents would be proud.

I thought these products were snake oil too until I tried them for myself! You know, your room is one the most important things in your system, if you do not get the room right first it doesn't matter what other components you use in your system it will never sound very good no matter how much money you spend on it!

Your -er, I mean, "these" products are snake oil. It's trivial to demonstrate this, as follows:

Shakti stones, Bedini ultra clarification, and Bybee purifiers will improve your system one hundred times as much as the full PWB treatment and the products you espouse.

Prove me wrong. I dare you.

Scam artist, how is rubbing topical cream that literally cost more than gold all over my cds helping my room?

Shudder... So now we have Silver Rainbow Foil and Cream Electret keeping the clocks company. Even if the concept of "harmful energies" didn't peg the needle on my BS meter, suggestions like the following would certainly put it in the red...

Because of course the specific arrangement of ink required to form the word "disc" somehow affects the way that CD's create weird, screwed up energ patterns...

Obviously, we haven't yet evolved enough to be comfortable with the energy influences of paper...

That last makes me wonder if it will help to eliminate squeaky hinges when used to polish doors, or at least make the squeaks more musical...

I have to give Peter Belt credit for some great creativity. Somehow imagining how the development meetings must have played out for each of these just makes me chuckle (and cringe a bit).

You can put the cream and foil on your speaker cabinets, walls and ceiling for room treatment also. You can put these products in a lot of different places with great effects!

I tried that. It gave my system an oily, greasy sound that was completely unlistenable. Notes that had been clear before now slid around from one frequency to another as they scrambled to gain traction. The effect was particularly bad in classical, where staccatto passages would now land with dull splats as they impacted the now creamy surfaces of my listening room. However, in fairness, I must say that The Ramones improved slightly under the veneer of goo.

When I attempted to get a refund, I was informed that I would have to return the entire product. This took several weeks of careful, painstaking work with a putty knife and constant humidification to prevent the goo from drying out. I was unable to do this before the trial period expired, and my request was refused.

---

OK dude, you've had your fun, but you're not even a good liar. Remember where you're posting. We don't take kindly to tinhorns around here.

OK, but should I use 10 or 15 SPF?

Remarkable... Added bonus - the aluminum foil walls shield you from alien mind control beams...

gonk...that's the sad part...it won't even do that!
Bill

SHHHHH!!! They might hear us....

You just have to have an open mind when trying tweaks like this! Better sound! That's what its all about Right! Stay tuned! you might just learn something!

The only thing I may "lean" from you is a Lien on my house after I go bankrupt for buying all your crappy overpriced junk.

Jed, you got it all wrong, These products are Peter Belt's products not mine, I just a very happy user of these products. People do get really mad when they think there missing out on something! You are starting to show your true colors!

Oh no, you've got it quite wrong. You're the one missing out, since all the other snake oil products work BETTER than the ones you've already (allegedly) bought! Why can't you open your mind and see this?!?!?

Go try them and then report back! We are so privileged to have such an open-minded fellow to look out for us!

Make sure you try them ALL, though! The possibilities for your system are endless!!!

Mackey your right, the possibilities are endless but at a price $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$! They are lots of suckers out there that will fall for it too!!

we should all be ashamed of ourselves!while this has been entertaining,with lot's of thoughtful dialog,i do NOT think it is worth the fact that we have now made HFSG a 'gunslinger'....shame...

Yeah, I got it all wrong. :rolleyes:

Its your life and you can choose to use it to cheat and steal from ignorant people if you like, but don't expect to be treated with respect. Since you are trying to scam us, I will show you the same respect you have shown me. Sorry, seen this way too many times, Mr. Happy Customer of Peter Belt. I am not ashamed of making you a "gunslinger" because your posts do honestly amuse me, but don't act surprised when people treat you like the scam artist you are.

Anyway, I do look forward to more of your posts so I can see all of Belt's new products. Always entertaining. The idea of somebody spending 10k to rub sun tan lotion all over their walls, ceiling, cabinets was pretty darn funny, so keep it up, but please don't expect anybody here to take you seriously in the slightest bit. Take care and I am glad you got a sense of my true colors.

I have been moving around these clocks a little and I now have them on each side of my couch facing each speaker. WOW! My system sounds pretty DAMN good now! These clocks are something very special! I would bet the farm on this tweak!

is this curegeorg?

Curegeorg is not even on the same level as this guy. Curegeorg may have an opinion that sometimes differs from the group here and he may say it loudly, but he is not an unethical scam artist.

Glad to hear those clocks are working out for you HiFi!

I'm in HiFi HEAVEN now! WOW! WOW! WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

i know,jed,a joke at curegeorg's expense.i'm sure when he shows up he'll have something for me.

damn,i started page 4

We all wish you were in heaven right now HiFi!

At the risk of sounding like Captain Obvious, the near-unanimous concensus here ("near" only because I'm counting HFSG's clear stance on the subject) is that purchasing any Peter Belt product is essentially the definition of someone being suckered. Come on, here, it's a battery-powered clock (or a sheet of aluminum foil, or a jar of cream) that by its mere presence in your vicinity affects how you hear (or apparently see). The whole principle on which Belt's array of products is based is a scientifically ludicrous carte blanche for ripping people off, and it relies on people's willingness to believe some techno-babble (and their ability to convince themselves that the gibberish justifies the money they've forked over) to keep his customers from trying to tar and feather him. Some might even say that it's a polar opposite of Outlaw's business approach (offering a no-frills design approach that gives lots of bang for the buck rather than writing bad science fiction and using it to sell junk at an exorbitant profit), and it's certainly an approach that is never going to get a foothold with the regular crowd around here. As I've said before, I'll give HFSG points for persistence and wish him well with his upcoming RR2150, but hopefully he's already recognized that further hyping of these products is serving only to provide a bizarre form of amusement for everyone involved.

Sounds like a scam...or perhaps, scamola.

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.

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.

:1
:1
:rolleyes: priceless or something like that.

gonk,you seem to be havin' fun here,instead of answering questions,good for you

Seems pretty clear to me that this guy is a business associate of Mr. Belt, or maybe the man himself. Why else would he adhere so single-mindedly to this brand of babble, while ignoring all the other hundreds of audiophool scams out there?

Or it could always be mental illness.

Or, perhaps, synaesthesia... I note this gem from the PWB group HiFiCrackhead linked, evidently written by Mrs. Belt:

Really makes you wonder.

[RepoMan]Did you eat a lot of acid, Miller, back in the hippie days?[/RepoMan]

Anyway, sorry for perpetuating this crap. I'm done. It was a lark.

I showed up to the game late on this post... Holy cow!

For anyone familiar with Burger King's new spokesperson, Dr. Angus ("I have a PhD in Cheesy!"), I think we just found his illegitimate son.

As for the clocks, allow me to retort with my own bit of pseudo-science...

Two digital alarm clocks sitting in phase would actually create a larger vortex of disruptive energy. What physics taught me is that light has a weight, albeit at the Angstrom level. Nonetheless, the "weight" of the light emitted from the digital display, coupled with an identical digital display analogous in nature and addressed in the sagittal plane would empirically materialize a virtual vortex of saturated energy, which manifests into a symbiotic relationship with said auditory source, thus creating a torrent of interference juxtaposed quadraphonically to an etherial plane of alternate existence. Now here's where it gets complicated...

Do us a favor HFSG, troll some where else. Either that or post on something thought provoking involving "archaic" home theater methods. Now if you don't mind, I have to whack my Pterodactyl with a club to get it to play the B-side of my stone-ground LP - a la the Flintstones.

Great quote, R. Mackey - you'd think they'd have been kind enough to say which outer insulation colors "degrade" the sound quality. :rolleyes: Perhaps we have a new forum catch-phrase: posts that delve into the realm of snake oil and dubious science could be described as "Belting" the thread.

This whole thread has a Ph.D in cheesy, Houghers. And I'm beginning to wonder if it isn't acid-laced cheese, at that. The colors, man...

The outer insulation color does degrade the sound quality! I'm now using a (white in color) cable for my power cable for my Denon 2400 receiver, it does sound better!! You have to try a product first to see if it does anything or not RIGHT! RIGHT! Go head and make fun of these products, its EASY to do when you have NEVER tried ANY of THEM OUT for YOURSELVES!!!

Honestly Gonk, no offense, but its kind of common sense to know its red, light blue and hazel.

Sounds like you are getting angry HiFi. Looks like your true colors are starting to show.

Hifi Guy,

I've never tried on women's panties to see if it will affect the quality of my stereo equipment either. Does it? I expect a full report.

Too bad public ridicule doesn't improve audio equipment. That would save you a fortune.

I got this off another forum, someone talked to Geoff on the phone about how these clocks work and this tells you a little more about them. The Clever Little Clocks is a time travel device. It minimizes the time difference between the time captured on the recording and the current time. This ads realism to the music. Because this device functions as a sort of a time travel apparatus it is not necessary to connect to the audio circuit. It has entirely to do with shortening the distance between time events. Now this is just a little about these clocks, Geoff said that he would tell us more about these clocks at a later date.

so,you do have a sense of humor...

Man, I sure hope that's a sense of humor cropping up. If it's not, I've gone from bemused pity to slack-jawed amazement regarding human gullibility.

Well, at least I know that those clocks will never pass THX certification.

Call this thread a potato and stick a fork in it...

I've got a gun. Can I shoot the horse?

Only if the gun has time correct riflings.

Oh and you have to use a pure silver bullet too.

Time travel? Didn't I say something about 1.21 gigawatts earlier in this thread? Nice post HiFi!

good grief!.....again, i think it's high time this thread was locked. it's out of control. i mean come on....it's up to FOUR PAGES now. how much more is necessary?

The clever little clocks cured my genital warts this weekend. And just in time, I almost had to explain them to the wife. They really are time travel devices. Seriously, you have to try a product first to see if it does anything or not RIGHT! RIGHT!

I was having a similar problem with phase variances until I called up Scotty to realign my warp cores. Damn, have you SEEN the price of dilithium these days? Some clock manufacturer has been buying up all the free lithium to keep his schizophrenia in check...kinda like Sybil meets the Hunt brothers...

Anyone seen my tinfoil hat?

Your hat's probably on that hook on the wall - you know how those tinfoil hats disappear against the silver rainbow foil you covered the walls and ceiling with.

You think so? I think it's a goof myself. I mean, a scam would have to sound a little more plausible than this I think, whereas a guy out to blow some free time with a little harmless trolling would sound ... a lot like this.

Well, I actually enclosed my theater room in a Farraday cage to prevent the effects of errant clocks that may be dangerously too close. Buying anticlocks was too troublesome as proper placement became an issue to maximize the mutual annihilation of the time/space flux from the offending clocks in other parts of the universe. And Parts Express has had my Heisenberg compensators on backorder for a month. WTF?!?! I'll have to see if I can find some on Ebay.

I have a spare set I could sell. They look precisely like jars of rocks, but .....

After I posted that HiFi's last few posts have taken a turn for the really bizzare, so I agree, he is just a troll having fun.

Thanks HiFi, I haven't had a good laugh like this in a while. now everyone knows what I do at work....

I'm sure after someone here trys these out for themselves that they too will become a believer too.

I'm still waiting to find a buyer for those Heisenberg compensators. Way better than clocks, the foil isn't even close. I sneer at the ointment from my uncertainty corrected room. Suckers!

Well, at least you don't need the Heisenberg compensators to be certain that HFSG is full of fertilizer. That much is certain. Depending on the direction of the wind, you CAN know HFSG's exact position and momentum at the same instant. 8-)

I thought that Timex digital clock looked familiar. It turns out that I bought that same Timex clock few years ago for $7.99 plus tax at Walmart. I didn't even knew that it has such hidden feature. So naturally I tried to improve my sound system by "installing" in my HT room but it didn't help. Maybe I need two clocks for stereo effect, you know how important to have similar sound stage and timbre matching.

Here's a little more about how these clocks work. The clock is allowing for the accumulation of orgone energy. Hence the increase of the vestigial within the listening room or the confines of the home. This link will tell you more about orgone energy http://skepdic.com/orgone.html

Here's a little more about the concept of irony: Using The Skeptic's Dictionary as a reference for nonsensical boogeyman powers that time-traveling digital clocks (gah! digital!!) have over your stereo will not convince anyone.

I've got to hand it to you, HiFiNutJob, you're either a satirist of the first order, or the most clueless human being in all of recorded history. Here's to you, and everyone out there living nine sigmas away from the pack.

Ok, seriously? This one makes post 155 about this? Well done, gentlemen (and ladies, as appropriate)!

Man, the "scientific" explanations of the clocks are actually sillier than the vague "take our word for it" hand-waving of the Machina Dynamica site. I'd take the time to apply a logical analysis to the array of claims that have been set forth to date to identify the assortment of holes that exist, but it's just too silly to warrant the effort. Besides, logic and orgone really don't belong in the same hemisphere...

So, if one is drawing an analogy within the realm of science fiction, or more appropriately fictional science, after reading the http://skepdic.com/orgone.html article, once could say in our day and age, as opposed to seventy years ago:

Orogone energy = ‘The Force’

Bions = Midichlorians

Orgonomists = the Jedi, as in the only ones who can consciously interact with The Force via Midichlorian bi-directional influence.

From a more down-to-earth historical perspective, if PWB ever starts making claims regarding medical benefits of PWB products, there might be a back-in-time experience in that the personal history of Wilhelm Reich would be close to occurring once again. The construction and operation of such items as the Orgone Accumulator and the Orgone Mini-Shooter sound just like they could be PWB-described products.

Mackey's experience with the Electret cream was too much. Thanks HiFi for (unwittingly) causing such a great thread!

HiFiSoundGuy,
Why don't you arrange to have 2 of these CLC's sent to me, and I will do a full blind test with 12 (or more) people (both enthusiasts and non-enthusiasts), and publish the results here.
I will then either return the units, or, if I find them operating as promise, I'll send you money for their purchase.
Sound fair?
You keep saying you want us to just try them, well, here's your opportunity to show us how much you believe in this product.
Awaiting your answer,
Lonny (Lonster) Avenmarg

Now how am I going to rid myself of my body Thetans? And I'm worried that widespread use of these things might provide the power necessary to raise the city of R'yleh from the ocean and awaken Cthulu from his long slumber. I'm getting my tinfoil hat ready.

Lonster,
I have a better idea: since, as HiFi has pointed out, the CLC is a "time travel device" he could send you the clocks to test and you could return them to him before he sent them to you.....


later, (is it really later? or is that just what my clock would have me believe?)

simp

Like I said before I'm only a user of this product and if I had the money I would pass two of these clocks around to the members here because I know after you try these out for yourselves you will see that this product is the real deal! You can talk to Geoff on the phone and he will tell you everything about these clocks

Or perhaps lonster's test has already been documented ? Give him a way to defy time and lonster works fast, doesn't he?

sooner,
gonk

By the way, I stumbled across some threads at Audiogon that are clearly cousins of our own fun little debate. One included (heaven help me) this familiar comment , which went unrefuted by the MD rep (although he also didn't seem pleased to see the claim repeated in a public forum). After 4+ pages, this whole concept just continues to give my brain cells a weird sort of nervous twitch... :rolleyes:

gonk, they were only testing one clock. Two of these clocks are a lot better than just one!

Ah...good detective work, Gonk. So we really do have a (not so) Clever Little Shill on our hands...

There is so much opportunity in this world that it just amazes me when people go FAR out of their way to rip people off when it would actually be easier to just earn an honest living. A sad commentary on human nature, I suppose...

Ritz, I am surprised in your comments! HiFi is just passing along a great time travel device that doubles as a really, really cheap alarm clock. What is the problem?

Actually, the most insulting thing about HiFi is that he is really a terrible con man. It's one thing to blatantly try to steal from people because you are a loser, its another thing to be a moron at the same time. Kind of insults the intelligence.

HFSG, you could loan lonster your clocks, if you wanted to. I mean, doesn't it take a few days for the effects to dissipate from your system? You'd never even notice they were gone.

Here's a good tweak I put under all my components, speakers and my Clever Little Clocks too. I took three pennies and stacked them on top of each other and then wrap them in tape and put them under each component feet (I have mine on top of each Mi-Roller) I use three under each component. Try this and see what you think after a few days.

...a dimension of sight, a dimension of sound....next stop...The Twilight Zone!
Bill

Next stop? Some folks are already there. 8-)

HFSG,
Why is there a need to wait a few days? And what is it in the penny's that makes any difference? Is it the copper? I doubt it, because most of the newer pennies in circulation nowadays are aluminum anyway.
Or maybe this is a 'clever little way' to remind your audio equipment that you are too CHEAP to put your money where your mouth is.
Hmm?

Lonster

Funny, I have all my components sitting on cheerios wrapped in tinfoil....uh, heavy duty tinfoil

i can't afford the pennies,i'm saving up for cable elevators.

i can't afford the pennies,i'm saving up for cable elevators.

...for my shoes... :p
Bill

I suggest the "Clever Little Turd" Gag items available on Ebay. Much cheaper.

I hear that the "Clever Little Turd" can only time travel forward into the future and not back to the past. That is a deal killer for me.

I don't know, Jed M - travel forward could improve the sound of recordings that haven't even been made yet. I wonder how RIAA would feel about that...

Do the pennies go heads up, heads down, 2 heads to 1 tail, or 2 tails to 1 head? Do the heads go in any particular direction (like Feng Shui) such as magnetic North or facing Geoff Kait's mansion? Scotch, masking, duct, carpet, electrical, or red tape? If you use quarters does the sound get richer?

With the approach of April 2 and Daylight Savings Time when HFSG turns his clocks ahead is he apt to be consumed by his Clever Little Time Machines and taken forward in time one hour.
Do both clocks have to be set forward at exactly the same moment so he is not (should he return from the first time travel) sucked back into his time space continum once again.
Is it possible we wouldn't hear from him until someone moves his clocks back in the fall.
God forbid someone removed the batteries before he returned. What state did he say he lived in?

a state of confusion brad225,a misinformed,gullible,state of confusion.

Hey, those clocks will look great next to my pet rock collection.

PS. I almost have the whole set.

Well, it seems like 6 penny's is the magic number for this penny tweak. I'm using duck tape to wrap around the penny's, I took three penny's and stacked them and then wraped them in duck tape then I did three more the same way and stacked them and put duck tape around the 6 penny's. I use three of these under each component. I heard about this tweak over at Positive-Feedback magazine.

i prefer to have airspace above my amps.can i use a nickel and a penny instead?or is that gonna blow the effects of your "tweak"?also i'm a painter,can i use american pg masking tape?

...jeeez paintoad...do you want to tear the fabric of time???
Bill

Maybe Peter Belt will be endorsing a new product line soon - the "clever little coil rolls." Just don't call to ask about the price for the "basic" penny rolls, or they might try to sell you the gold doubloon variation...

Has anybody else tried to hogtie their dog to smooth out the upper frequencies?

Not my dog, but I did shave the cat. Really helped with those high frequencies!

Poor wittle putty-tat!!

Yeah, I do have to say that I notice how much smoother the soundstage gets when a cat jumps on my lap.

Have also done some Schroedinger's Cat experiments that have proved inconclusive as opening the box to tell whether the condition of the cat had anything to do with the improved quality of sound voids the validity of the experiment.

I should also note that the multitudinous posts to this thread have improved my home theater experiences not one whit.

And it doesn't seem to matter if I have the laptop in or out of the house.

Has helped to decrease my stress levels, though while also raising my incredulity to all time highs.

Next thing you know, someone will be espousing how their real working "flux capacitor" helps smooth out the soundstage and give a system increased fidelity.

Although if one doesn't believe in monogamy, perhaps increased fidelity isn't such a good thing?

First of all, you need two browsers open to this thread on two separate computers to get the full benefit. You also need to tweak the placement of both monitors (I've seen reports that having the two facing each other about 3" apart works well sonically, although of course it does detract from the ability to read the thread - which may in fact be why it works so well).

well,i decided to try some xperimenting.i figured since i have 7 audio only components,i would put $1.26 (3 stacks of 6 pennies time 7) on my extra shelf,right in the middle.sounded great!moved the money to the front of the shelf and i lost depth in the soundstage.moved to the rear of the shelf and i got a incredibly deep soundstage.WOW!i decided to put a $10 bill about 2/3 of the way back on the shelf,just about perfect.since all was going so well,i decided 1 more:i took the $10 bill to the beer store,grabbed a 12 pack,had them leave the $10 in the drawer.they kindly gave me back .40 which i promptly put 2/3 of the way back on the shelf when i got home.

it took awhile,but after about 10 beers i realized how AWESOME my system sounded!

so the .86 i "saved" by altering hfsg 'tweak' can go back to the piggy bank for my cable elevators. but now i have to drink a 12 pack everytime i listen to the system.oh well,was gonna do that anyway. :p (wonder how good it would sound with a bottle of captain morgan)...

crap, gonk,i've been using 2 browsers on ONE computer.thanks again for getting me straightened out.

It's all in the details, 'toad - that's the true joy of this sort of tweaking...

I suppose you forgot to try putting a beer on the rack, Hmmmmmmmmmm??

All this talk of shaved cats....and I thought this was a family show.... :-)

I do notice that my system sounds a lot better after a bottle of bordeaux. Now if I could just find my clever little corkscrew...

Just remember the cardinal rule of "beer on equipment racks as acoustical treatment": make sure the beer stays in the can/bottle/glass/stein. Un-contained beer may increase conductance between electrical components to an excessive degree. The corollary to this rule is of course "don't let the magic smoke out." Once you let all the smoke out of anything electronic, you can't put it back.

maybe it's the combination of the 2 internal clocks that give the effect?similar to the effect hfsg is getting?

and i did try a beer in the rack but they kept getting too warm,too fast.they must be COLD!and you must rotate stock!i only recommend this tweak for the adanced users.it is very time consuming and you must rotate beers exactly every 4 min. 23 sec. but on the upside:if you miss the rotation,you can always buy a clever little clock and go back in time to correct yourself!

...dooog ooos leeef t'nod I .worromot krow rof etal saw I dna yaw gnorw eht snips elbatnrut ym woN .sdrawkcab ni yrettab eht tup I tub skcolc eseht fo eno deirt tsuj I

get 'em tek!

tek,
try the beer thing. you'll feel muuch better.


retsnoL

Now, tek, you know you aren't supposed to mess with the battery. It's just good that you didn't toss in a cheap generic alkaline battery instead of that precisely customized lithium one - for all we know, you'd be skipping seconds and even minutes at rando


ut the battery back in correctly and let us know... Damn. Looks like somebody swapped my lithium battery for a cheap alkaline one. I guess I'll never get those seconds back now.

By the way, I see that Machina Dynamica must have made some upgrades to the Absurd Scam Clock - they've bumped the price up to $199.

Don't forget to leave the battery in your freezer overnight before you install it......that'll phase-align the positive/negative photons with greater accuracy! :rolleyes:

If you want the clocks to really work, ie time travel, you need to find plutonium filled batteries. Available through most local Al Qaeda outposts.

i think you would get better results setting a unplugged bose cube in the room.

I like that method of wiring up Bose cubes. You might be on to something there...

That is certainly the best way to get good sound out of a Bose speaker...make sure nothing's connected to it. 8-)

Maybe you could hide crickets in them. Then they should produce really life-like sounds!

instead of buying these clocks how about going to my website www.scifionline.net and click on the google ads i get 5 cents for every click ,it will help pay for my 990, wink wink
come on help a fellow outlaw

IF YOU ALL ONLY KNEW WHAT YOU HAVE BEEN MISSING OUT ON BY NOT HAVING TWO OF THESE CLOCKS IN YOUR ROOM! IT'S ONE OF THE BEST TWEAKS OUT THERE!

We do know. You told us. None of us believe you. None of us care anymore. Get a new act.

Wup, there went my eardrums - thanks for the shout. I'm with Jed on this one, HFSG. As the six pages of this thread can attest, we're all well aware of the clocks. We also recognize the complete absurdity of the product at any price.

EDIT: Lonster makes an excellent point. Shutting up now...

If you guys would just stop posting responses....this thread would just dry up and blow away, like a tumble weed rolling across the barren wasteland that is HSFG's common sense.
Pleaase, for the sake of all humanity, STOP the POSTING!

(thank you)
Lonster

I like these clocks so much that I ordered another clock! You can get these clocks for only $100.00 EACH now on Audiogon! Just tell them that you only want one battery with your clock not two batteries.

Please bring us back tomorrows lottery numbers next time you go back to the future...Oh, I see you just got back...well??? :p
Bill

But where's the fun in that?

Since MANY silly concepts have become aired on this trhread I felt compelled to add my own little comment. Since time travel was uttered as to the reason for the CLC's effectiveness...I have but one thing to say ( also from the past ). My favorite character on Lost in Space...

"Oh the Pain, the pain"

Thank you Dr. Smith..."Warning!...Warning!

HFSG:

Some words of advice:

1. I question that you ever bought or own any Outlaw product that you purported to have in previous posts. If you are not interested in purchasing or helping others with Outlaw or other "real" audio products, you should be banned, despite all the laughs we have gotten over the past 2 months.

2. If you are for real, how about a pic of you in front of either your retro receiver, or preferably in front of your two CLC's on 6" shelves (or whatever they are). A Hi Fi guy like you should have no problem posting a digital pic somewhere, right?

3. If you are full of it, as Tony (Dan Cortez) on Seinfeld says to George, "Beat it Dude!!!!"

And don't forget, "Step off George!"...

damn hackers , hacked my site again
it was just a scifi fan site , thats the 5th time since january,

Gad, this thread is still going? It should be shot and put out of it's misery.

Having just read this entire thread, it's easy to see the utter absurdity of the suggested tweaks (except for the most rabid believer) and the people who sell such crap are either conmen or delusional themselves.

However, other than being further (much further) out on the spectrum of the objectivist/subjectivist debate, is there anything ultimately different about this compared to the claims made about cables, burn in discs, vibration control devices, cd pens, amp shelves, pucks, isolation feet, clarifiers, electromagetic stabilizers, and so on?

How many companies sell speaker cables, power cords and/or interconnects for thousands of dollars, with a straight face? Lets face it, for better or worse, hifi audio product marketing is designed to simply separate people from their disposable money. The question is whether it is fraud or not.

Is there any difference between psychoacoustics and a scientifically measurable process if both result in a perceived improvement in sound? On the one hand, I can easily conclude that anything that is only psychoacoustics and unmeasurable by any known scientific method is fraud and anything that is measurable and independently verifiable not. On the other hand, if you hear a difference and believe you are getting the promised result, why aren't you? If you are absolutely sure you are getting what you paid for, is there fraud?

In other words, if it sounds better to you, who's in a position to tell you it doesn't, you've been defrauded and you are a fool?

Oh, and what about the "wow" factor for something that is very expensive, looks beautifully designed and made with expensive component parts, that ultimately is a true work of art and in many instances is a large component of the cost. If it looks so good and sounds good to you, where does that lie in the debate?

In general, fraud lies in the intent of the one promoting the product. However, in the high fidelity world, with consumers believing what they hear, you'd be hard pressed to prove it. Compared to snake oil medicine, where sick people can die by taking it either because it's toxic and/or by not pursuing medically valid treatments, not many people are going to complain, especially if they think they got what they paid for.

For me personally, it's a matter of degree.

• I'm not going to buy a $2,000 set of speaker cables and I find the proposed science behind them to be rather dubious, but that dubious science at least retains a passing acquaintance with reality. The signal is what a cable is concerned with, and the cable does have to transmit that signal - what weird permutations are involved in carrying that signal have been and will continue to be open for debate among those who wish to debate it.
• Vibration isolation devices are similar - it's an extreme application of technology that already exists for vibration control (we use it on the fans and pumps we include in the HVAC systems I design every day) and I don't think the audible impact of such devices is possibly going to be appreciable. There are exceptions, of course: a co-worker recently got a DVR and found that its hard drive was transmitting vibrations into his cabinet and keeping his wife awake at night. He put some Mason isolators under the DVR and the noise ceased. In most cases the devices will at least functionally isolate vibration to at least some degree. Again, what impact that isolation may have can be debated among those who wish to debate it.
• CD pens just amuse me - they're pretty absurd, but at least they're attempting to directly interact with the signal path. It's not a very convincing attempt, but at least they considered offering some inkling of credibility.
• The Clever Little Clock (and its cohort jars of rocks or sheets of aluminum foil) doesn't even attempt to integrate into the signal path. It doesn't even have to be in the same room as the system (although apparently it does need to be inside the structure, since setting it outside causes it to cease to affect the system). It doesn't come in a package made from a single chunk of milled aluminum or hand-carved hardwood. It's a cheap, generic clock with a lithium battery inside and an orange sticker on the face. The rationales offered to justify it are purposefully vague and often contradictory. I'd feel better about saying that having my persian cat in the room improves sound because his mass and fur acts as a sort of moving acoustical treatment than saying that a battery powered clock sitting in a drawer of the end table has any effect on how my system sounds. Heck, I'd feel better say that having my cat in the house dampens the acoustical signature of the conventional foundation - it's still absurd, but at least I can point at a 20-pound cat sitting on the floor and say "mass, structural system, vibrations."

I say all this not to defend the dealers of other absurd "tweaks" - it's just that, at least for me, the CLC and its companion products are such an extreme and ludicrous exaggeration of the audio tweak concept as to offend on a whole separate level. Likewise, most of the other negative responses (and the humorous ones) come from like-minded folks who are in this forum because they are interested in the practical nuts and bolts of good home theater - we're not an audience prone to the tweaks you mention to begin with.

Is it a fraud? I'll leave that to legal experts to debate. Is it a concept so "out there" as to read like a parody (until you find out they actually take money in trade for their goods)? Oh, most definitely...

I think ROOM TREATMENT gets you the biggest improvement in AUDIO.....its not your speakers or audio gear....its your ROOM! I'm sure glad I got these clever little clocks now!! WOW!!

I'm sure glad you got them too!! It just pleases me to know that YOU have helped support a person who was too lazy and sleazy to take the time to actually do something positive for the audio industry. Now he can spend the money YOU sent him to upgrade his system with REAL audio gear.
By the way, I have some old tires that have no tread left, that I would like you to buy. They actually work BETTER, now that they are BALD because without the treads, they are just like a racing slick tire. Better traction, better cornering and they would be the perfect accessory to add to your car to increase performance. AND, since there's no tread on them, once you come to your senses, and decide that the best place for your CLC's is in the driveway, right behind the tires I sold you, you can run them over knowing that there will be no pieces of CLC stuck in the treads!! How about $150.00 per tire.
Thanks,
Lonster

You know, generally I try to adhere to the personal rule "don't feed the trolls," but sometimes you see a case where the troll food is such a fun meal that I can't fault the poster for putting the food on the table...

I actually bought a few of these and there is no audible difference but I am now stuck in 1956. How do I time travel to the future. Any help is appreciated HiFi.

Stay!

Just wait a few years and the local babes will be burning their bras and so forth. And buy Yahoo when you get the chance.

can i program in the time bill gates went public?

i don't like random 'rides' anymore,i prefer to know where i'm goin!

I'm pretty comfortable using the word fraud when describing the "tweaks" hawked by the CLC folks. They definitely operate on the "there's one born every minute" principle. Out of morbid curiosity, I'd love to know how many shmoes actually made a purchase.

Cheers,

Well, techincally he made no claims as to what they would do for anyone other than himself, or for a general case. Very careful.

A work of art, really.

It's very much a sort of "P.T. Barnum" sales pitch, and on a scale that I'd consider at least ethically fraudulent even if their presentation may be carefully crafted to avoid being legally fraudulent. Step right up, folks...

The beauty of it is that for me, it's like a well done satire of typical (more seriously marketed) audio snake oil like wunder-cables and power-wires.

"Use this gold plated super shielded IEC power cable and HEAR THE DIFFERENCE!"

It's art I tell you. ART!

bought one at walmart $6,95

You all are missing out on a better sounding stereo system......THESE CLEVER LITTLE CLOCKS ARE THE REAL DEAL!

yes,

he's back!!

the thread lives on.....

I really wish this thread would die already.

Yes, I'm BACK! If someone here would just really try two of these clocks out, then this thread would NEVER DIE! http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/general/messages/442789.html

HFSG, I believe that maybe you have been extensively modified using a number of highly-specialized techniques. Thanks for coming back around.

Have you all seen this thread... http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/general/messages/442789.html

Aw, come on, you know you love it. If you REALLY hated it you'd actually ignore it! We love to laugh and bitch about it, admit it!

While you're back (!), HiFiSoundGuy, how have you been enjoying your RR2150? Your unit should have shipped out at least six or eight weeks ago, but we haven't heard any feedback from you on it. (Maybe you could even post a picture of an RR2150's slick aluminum faceplate looming over a couple of plastic CLC's...)

OUCH!

if nobody minds,i'm gonna link this on the s10 forum 4 giggles

oye!!!
this thread is unbelievable...
it's a good thing ridicule doesn't kill...
There would be a hell of body count here...
being from Québec we do things slightly different here...
I like to use snowballs as spike feet for my speakers...I also found I get incredible accoustics if my dwelling is near or under a bridge...speaking of which I got a couple extra lying around...I'd be willing to part with them if the right offer came around...Anyone ? HiFiSoundGuy perhaps ?
Come on let's make a deal !
25% off the second bridge...
and I'll throw in a couple of my multi-format digital cactuses...
Get'em while they last...

All you need... is to believe...
OBVIOUSLY!!!

And always, I repeat: always hop around on one foot and squawk like a chicken while employing any of the highly specialized finer tweaks. Yes, it interferes with the music, but it's well worth it.

I have to admit (and certainly some of you out there also) when I opened the latest link from HFSG and it said GENERAL ASLYUM across the top
of the page I did laugh out loud and wondered if it was the letter head of his current place of residence.


http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/general/messages/442789.html

Out of my sight! Thou dost infect my eyes.

(from: Richard III)

There comes a time when I think it would be in everyone's best interest to mercifully remove a user's login. As much as it pains me to say it, I think this may be one of those times....

On a weird note...
I've been corresponding with goeff at machina dynamica...I had a few sceptical questions...
ok the clocks are weird..but the pebbles in a jar.
WOW!!! I just wondered if I could make my own...

And I must say...
For a guy selling accoustically tuned rocks and clocks...
he's got no sense of humor...
he qualified me as a dumd shut-in for being amazed at his products...
I guess he mistook me for one of his customers..

his answers read like a trustworthy legitimate business reply...

NOT!!!
Oh! gotta go...
phone ringing... must be an order for a bridge...

What, you mean your customer service experience from a company selling acoustically tuned jars of rocks was less than stellar? How startling!

I know....
What's this world coming to...

You big baby. Buck up. ;-)

A variation of this 'science' applied to archaeology? Not sure how long this link will be good, but perhaps there is a connection . . .

http://www.yahoo.com/s/355320

I would like to tell eveyone here that these clocks really do work! I have two in my system and I did a tweak to them and its a night and day difference now! Here's what I did, I put some P.W.B. Memory Foil from http://www.belt.demon.co.uk on the batteries inside the clocks but before I put the foil and creams on the batteries I put the foil in the freezer. Here's what I did, I put the foil and creams in a freezer bag and put it in the freezer for 4 days. After that I wraped freezer bag with aluminum foil and then wraped it in a thick towel and put it in the freezer for 12 more hours. After that I put it in the refrigerator for 48 hour and then I put it in the coldest part of the house for 24 hours. After that I then put the creams and foil on the batteries. Big Big improvement!!

I find that 5 days in the freezer is the optimal time frame for sonic improvements on my system.

What was P.T. Barnum's famous quote again?

How often do you have to re-refrigerate/freeze the various foils, creams, and placebo sugar pills to maintain your audio quality?

The effects last for years! I do all my CD's and DVD's like this! You too can try some P.W.B. Memory Foil for FREE!! Just contact May Belt at foil@belt.demon.co.uk and tell her that you would like to try a free sample of Memory Foil and that you heard about this over on their yahoo group forum, it takes about 2 weeks to get the foil in the mail. After you get the foil and creams just freeze it and try it out. Enjoy!!

The best places to put this Memory Foil on is on your battery inside your remote controls, inside your speaker cabinets on the crossover circuit boards, on the circuit boards inside your gear. On the back side of the memory foil it shows you where to cut the foil. Enjoy!

I think I just heard the engineering degree on the wall behind me try to roll over in its frame...

This thread is like driving past a train wreck.
I just can't help myself. I have to click and look for the carnage, blood and dismembered bodies.
I know that I am killing my brain cells, rupturing synapses and creating subconscious memory fragmentation every time I read another post, but for some reason, I just can't stop.

Oh well.

Lonster

I can't believe this thread!

Here's another tweak that's a lot cheaper:


All you need is some fruit and gummy lifesavers. Here's a quote from the "inventor" on the sound qualities of gummy candy:
"These flexible little candies have a consistency similar to sorbothane. I placed one under each avocado and my player relaxed into a nice siesta."

Well, I did another tweak to these clocks, I put some Quick Silver Gold contact enhancer from www.QuickSilverGold.com on the contacts of the batteries inside the clocks and it improved things even more!! I'm going take these clocks to some stereo shops later on and see what they think about these amazing clocks!!

Lonster, I’ve constructed a hat made with three kinds of foil, and treated both my scalp and the foil with two types of color cream so that my brainwaves will remain the pure and undistorted while reading this thread. I also have special clock in the basement corner opposite from where the DSL line comes into the house and another in my pants pocket so that when I click on a link or the back button in my web browser I am assured that the data is as it was when it was originally made. Os raf ev’I dereffus on lli stceffe.

And my great compliments to garcianc2003! Did you ever try freezing the fruit?

Let me know when and where, I'd love to be there! Bound to be the demo of the century (of the week).

Last year someone took two of these clocks to one of the rooms at the CES show and everyone there liked them!

GoodSound said : "Last year someone took two of these clocks to one of the rooms at the CES show and everyone there liked them!"

Hey, I like chainsaws. But that doesn't mean I will take one to my audio equipment. And IF I did, it doesn't mean that it would improve the sound.

Lonster

From what Geoff said on another forum, here's how the Clever Little Clocks work. The CLC operates on the way we hear sound; i.e., its a sensory percetion issue as opposed to a system issue. The problem that the CLC addresses degrades our sensory perception-both sight and vision- to some degree. Of course, we're not aware of this degradation at all since we've always lived with it. You could say that the "better" sound (or video picture) was in the room all the time, but until the CLC was brought into the room you couldn't hear (see) it properly.

From what Geoff said on another forum, here's how the Clever Little Clocks work. The CLC operates on the way we hear sound; i.e., its a sensory percetion issue as opposed to a system issue. The problem that the CLC addresses degrades our sensory perception-both sight and vision- to some degree. Of course, we're not aware of this degradation at all since we've always lived with it. You could say that the "better" sound (or video picture) was in the room all the time, but until the CLC was brought into the room you couldn't hear (see) it properly.

The problem with what Geoff says is that he's making the whole mess up while selling $5 clocks for $150 a pop. In addition to that, the things he says are so ludicrously anathema to reasonable science and common sense that the folks around here basically chuckle, shake their heads, and only give it a second thought if they decide to find new sarcastic remarks to offer up.

Kudos on the chainsaw, by the way, Lonster. Maybe you could market a Clever Little Chainsaw - chop holes in walls, floors, and ceilings to improve the acoustics of a room. It'd be a new way to lower your noise floor (and your floor joists). We could even toss in a free Devious Tiny Disc to use for system calibration or for stabilizing one of garcianc2003's citrus isolator globes...

Look here http://www.audiokarma.org/forums/archive/index.php/t-78343.html

:rolleyes:
Suuuure. A direct quote from the keyboard of the mighty Geoff:

Come on, this is crap and even Geoff knows it. He's so brazen about it he'll even tell you.

Here are some quotes from other testers:

And this one is my favorite:

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 clocks are alot better than (just one)! After you put some frozen memory foil and quick silver gold on the batteries its a night and day difference!

Guy: "Hey baby, how ya doin'?"

Girl: "Hi there, big boy." says the beautiful girl sitting at the bar who, unbeknownst to him, is a machina dynamica undercover operative.

Guy: "I only seem tall because I am sitting on my wallet"

Girl: "Oh here, would you buy me 1, 2 or 8 of these Clever Little Clocks?"

Guy: "Sure, here's my wallet"

Girl: [giggle, hair twirl, etc.]

Guy: "Hey what's the deal with those clocks? Now that I am sitting one inch lower everything sounds different!"

Girl: "If you like that, wait until you hear the pebbles."

I put some more frozen memory foil on the batteries and my stereo system now sounds more tube-like in sound now !! I have an old Sansui G901 receiver and some old JBL L150A speakers

I'm sure that If Scott would only contact these companies and tell them that some of his forum members would like to try them out. I'm sure that they would send him two clever little clocks, a free sample of memory foil and a free sample of quick silver gold. All Scott would have to do then would be to freeze the memory foil and creams like I said in this thread and then put the creams and foil on the the batteries (do not take the batteries out of the clocks when you do this because if you do you will have to reset the clocks again (look at the audio karma forum thread that I put here it tells you how to reset the clocks right). Then put some quick silver gold on the contacts of the batteries ( break-in time for this stuff is about 7 to 10 days on the batteries) I want more people to find out just how good these clocks really are after you do these tweaks to them ! Enjoy!!

It's OK, Scott, you can put down the phone, close that blank e-mail message to Geoff, and step away from the freezer. I don't think the gunslingers really feel compelled to waste your time playing heat transfer games with cheap clocks, scraps of tin foil, or creams. We'll all remain blissfully "ignorant." (Is there an inverse of that? "Blissfully logical?" "Cheerfully rational?" Hmmm...)

Foil, cream, and a freezer...so this is a cheesecake? I'm in.

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.

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/


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.


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....


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...


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....

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?

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.

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.


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.

..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.


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 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.

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?

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.

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.


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.

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.

Well, kudos for the lengthiness of your posts (particularly that last one) - your devotion to your cause seems well matched by your word count.

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:
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...

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:

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:

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:

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-?

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:

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:

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.


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:

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:

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:

Quote:

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.

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.

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.


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.

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...

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.


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.

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.

You actually think it was for you? Wow. You do seem to think highly of yourself. But only the good Lord knows why.

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?

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...

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?

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.

Cliff Notes: delius writes lengthy posts for the good of all, outs sluggo as a dropout fraud, but finds victory bittersweet.

Scenes from next episode: delius claims throne, drives enemies before him, hears the lamentation of the women

Delius,

Thanks for the laugh. Seriously, it's great to see someone have such a great commitment to an arguement. Here are two thoughts for you:

1)"They have NO idea what to listen for, and fall back on what they know (ie. highs/mids/lows). "
-Without the highs/mids/lows you have air. (Unless your listening in some other medium.)

2) The BOSE marketing slogan, "Better Sound Through Research."
-If you scare people with enough scientific mumbo-jumbo, especially anything relating to "technology", you can get them to believe just about anything. This even includes the belief that you can great, full sound from a tiny cube and a "bass module."

I am a firm believer in the fact that when it comes to music, your own ears are the best final judge of what is "good" sound. That being said, you can trick your ears very easily. That's where science and technology of the audio industry comes in. The tools that are available give the listener a way of knowing that their own hearing perception hasn't been falsly influenced. Without this form of control, your findings are just opinions. You are certainly more than entitled to them but it doesn't give you the right to push them on other individuals no matter how you try to market them.

It isn't, is it? Life is SO unfair sometimes... So what you're saying is, it's "all good fun" when Sluggo and Bozo and whoever else goes and piles on attack after attack of mockery and ridicule toward a couple of members of this forum, for hundreds of posts of length, and calls them and the manufacturers "frauds and scammers" over products they've never tried. That's all in good fun, right? I don't know about "Gonk" (and if you think I insulted him, you have NO idea what insulting is....), but I do know about "Sluggo". He's the guy that called HFSG a scammer and the same twit that made groundless accusations of fraud against both Geoff Kait and Peter Belt. But in your "honest opinion", you consider this one of the most "helpful and upstanding posters" in these forums? What do you think that says to people about your forums?


So what indeed. I never said you had to agree with me, and I never said you're not entitled to yours. But nor do I believe you and Sluggo and whatever other would be gunslingers who's defense you'd rush to are entitled to stupidly and irresponsibly slander or libel honest audio engineers and their companies citing them as frauds and cheats no less, never mind other members of these forums, without any factual basis for your libelous attacks. As your genius friend "Sluggo" says, it's not even an "opinion" if you bash products you know nothing about and have never tried, without "quantification and qualification". It's "fiction". Or rather, "dumb ignorant prejudice", as I'd call it.


I see. So you really do consider "Sluggo" a genius. And you're right, perhaps he or she is. Next to you. But by my standards, and those of the rest of the free world, take my word for it pepito, these are not the words of a genius:

Sluggo says:

They're the words of a truly ignorant "chest-beater". Examples of this poster's arrogant chest-beating abounds throughout this thread. Examples of this poster's truly insulting and defamatory remarks against HifiGoodSound, a member who never made any attacks against Sluggo, are also plentiful in this thread. Which proves Sluggo is anything but "polite". As far as teaching anyone anything about audio, or anything about anything, if you want to be a sheep and follow Sluggo, trust me, you'd do better letting slugs invade your brain and leave eggs to nest in there. Hell, even Consumer Reports is a more reliable source of information than a "Sluggo".

Hey Slugger! We were just talkin' about ya. Don't worry, good stuff only. You know what, El Sluggo? Yer HILarious! The post you felt a need to write your little "Cliff Notes" version of is like 5 lines long! So what you're saying is... you feel that 5 lines is too much for you and your compadres to consume in one shot, because your short attention spans don't allow for that. Therefore, your need to feed everyone with your sound bite interpretations. And you seriously thought you were capable of having an intelligent debate with me, never mind winning one?! I'll save you some time for next time, Sluggo. Here's the Cliff Notes on my current post:

Cliff Notes: You're a 'tard.


I told you once. This isn't the room for an argument. It's down the hall, first door to your left.

Oh. My. GOD.

Now I'm starting to see the extent of what I'm dealing with here.... If you think that there are no further aspects to music reproduction than amplitude, it's probably because you have the very same problem your friend Loopy seems to suffer from: getting all your information on audio from a "Sluggo".

By the way, "air" is actually one of those "other" aspects of music reproduction. You know, the ones you think don't exist?

No argument there, I'm no fan of subwoofers myself, let alone Bose. And I agree that you can get people to believe almost anything with enough "scientific mumbo jumbo". We've seen no end of examples of that on this very forum, with people believing in the scientific mumbo jumbo of "blind tests", and holding that as the holy arbiter of all that is valid in audio. Or all the sheep who've been led to believe in the scientific mumbo jumbo of cd players being superior to LP replay. But you -can- get better sound through research, that's a fact. BOSE is mostly better marketing through research.

Uh, that's actually the concept of a stereo, Sluggo. I mean Loopy. I mean (oh geez, you're all starting to sound the same to me...) ... "Jason". What do you think the word "stereo" means? I mean you were starting out pretty good, making sense by saying your own ears are the best judge of what sounds good, and then you got all Sluggo on me...

Again, you seem to be purposely avoiding what this magical technology that eliminates the necessity for a working pair of ears is exactly. So I can only guess that by "controls", you're talking about the ubiquitous "blind test". As I have stated in detail in my recent posts to Gonk on the subject of blind tests, any result that comes from blind or even double blind or even ABX testing of audio products, is, and always will be, "just opinions". It can NOT and should not be relied upon. It's a waste of time, basically. The discrepancy between empirical and statistical data is far too great. Do the research, man. The JAES makes it pretty obvious. Lastly, perhaps you might care to explain how to perform a proper double blind test on cream electret? (It's a cream you put on things to improve your sound).

In order to set up the test, you have to be able to switch between states of application and disapplication. Well, its an invisible cream that requires only one micron thickness to work. Kind of hard to tell if you've removed it, and if you use a product such as alcohol to remove it, well now it can be argued that you've changed the sound through the application of the alcohol (yes, before you ask, chemicals affect sound). If you try to use two identical devices during the test (ie. CDs), it can also be argued that the identical devices might not be identical after all. You seem to want easy answers to everything, and are willing to "settle" on whatever is the easiest answer for you. But I'm sorry, in the real world, it doesn't necessarily work that way. Though most people are not aware of this, LOTS of things can change your perception of sound when you listen, including the way you're sitting. You're fooling yourself to think you can control all variables during a blind test.

Corrections: First, I'm not "marketing" my opinions. I'm "sharing" them, like you. And I'm not "trying" to share them, I am sharing them. Second, if we're talking about "rights" here, I don't think you, Sluggo or any other Bozo's here have the "right" to gang up on one or two innocent parties, and shout them down with attacks of ridicule and accusations of scamming, trolling or "marketing". All because they advocate audio products or techniques none of you know squat about, and none of you have ever even bothered to try. Those 2 guys you all slaughtered into silence never said boo to any of you. They were polite, they were impersonal, they were simply sharing their opinons on audio products. And you "Sluggoed" them with accusations of fraudulence and trolling. When in fact, you all were trolling them, happy to see them back for more opportunities to gang up on them. Being a hard core Beltist, I fully expected you all to do the same with me, so that I don't mind because.... (see my post about eating IM's for breakfast....).

CN: delius fights for the rights of the weak, reveals that he's so tough he eats people for breakfast. Oh, and we all sound the same to him.

Next up: delius has revealed himself nothing more than a troll, subsequently the rest of the forum ignores him and quits posting in the thread. Have fun, delius.

Delius,

There's a place on the web for "tweakers" like yourself:

www.audioasylum.com

I'll say it again; you, HFSG, and Goodsound are marketing a product to people reading this forum. All of your posts are nothing more than an arguement trying to convince a person reading the thread that the CLC and other such products have a place in their system. Since these products cost money, that is marketing. Nothing more, nothing less.

Have fun with your system. If your "tweaks" help you find audio nirvana, congratulations. You've reached a place that most of us are still searching for.

P.S. Audio Technology reading for you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_quality_measurement

Maybe we are all sheep, sheep looking for good sound for not a lot of money.by the way my faher worked for Bose in 1970, and worked on the 501's,and was an sound engineer at 3 local radio stations,played drums in a band had a home recording studio in 1968,I myself have worked in a small recording studio have been a soundman for a band and play some guitar,My dad was also somewhat of a tweaker who built a Quadraphonic home systemin the early seventys,I may not be an engineer but having been around music all my life I try to get the most for my money,and you Delius started this,people were poking fun at HFSG, and if I read it correctly the guy selling the CLC was rude to someone who asked about them.

Those are Newtonian tweakers. Boring. Their heads are still stuck in the 18th century. THey shuffle speakers around and declare that "tweaking". And besides, I don't consider the PWB products "tweaks". It's a demeaning for the revolutionary products they are. They are "devices". Say it after me: "d-e-v-i-c-e-s".

Sweet mother Mary. And you guys wonder why I keep calling you idiots and morons? If you are correct, and you're a billion light years from being correct, then you've just made it impossible to talk about audio on an audio forum. Congratulations! We ALL go home. Because anyone that talks about ANY audio product, say they write about how much they love their Carver receiver, is "marketing" according to you.

I don't want to get you people more paranoid than you already are, because you're already "scary-paranoid", but just think about how many people in your life are "marketing you"? Your best friend tells you how great the meal was at Red Lobster last night. Well, those meals cost money, so he is "marketing you". Nothing more, nothing less. Your mother calls to tell you that she loves using her new excercise bike. Well, she's talking about a "product", and excercise bikes cost money. Be careful! Your mother is "marketing you". And don't read any audio magazines or walk into a hifi shop. Those are dens of "marketing". I suppose that leaves places like eBay or Audiogon with which to buy your audio junk. But have you read those ads? Those ads are PURE MARKETING, my friend. It seems like all they want to do is SELL you something.

As for me, you're confused. I'm the only person in the history of this forum you -can't- accuse of "marketing". That's because the only "product" I personally "peddled", is the one on the website I listed. And its a free means of allowing audiophiles to improve their audio system. So I'm less of a marketer than you are, Jason. You sent me to Audio Asylum, and its obvious why. It has sponsors which sell products. Products cost money, therefore, you're "marketing me". STOP MARKETING ME! I won't buy your crap, crap-marketer!


True dat. And one of the reasons I talk about my alternative audio products is to give (serious) audiophiles a place to go, so they can -stop- searching. I don't know if one ever really reaches "nirvana". But I've definitely found the path to the place.


Uh.... your point, Mr. Relevant? I don't think anyone here said that you can't possibly measure certain (limited) aspects of audio equipment via technical means. Its kind of like having a nurse take your pulse. It'll tell you whether you're alive or not, but it won't give you an extensive indication of what your medical condition is.

Maybe, but that's not what I meant by "sheep". I look for good sound too, for not a lot of money. And that's precisely what I find in Belt's products (which are not all cheap per se, but a lot cheaper than replacing components, and a lot more effective than upgrades). I'm not "sheep" though. The difference is, I don't allow people like "Sluggo" to tell me what is and isn't valid, in audio. I have enough confidence to use my own ears. Both you and Jason say that all of you here are looking for good sound. Yet, when HFSG, and even a guy named "GoodSound"! mentioned products that yield "good sound", products which cost you -nothing- in the end if they don't produce "good sound", you all roasted the f$%#ers on a spit. You trolled them to no end, insulted them to the heavens, and violently accused them of being frauds and scammers.

Think about what that says about you and your buds here. Think about how it makes you people look to others on the net. When I was searching the web for pics of the RF foil and came across a message from the thread in this forum and started to read the thread, I saw "sheep". Little fluffy "sheep" that don't think for themselves, and got VERY scared and paranoid when challenged to think, and consider views of the world that differed from what they were brainwashed to believe all their lives. And so you beat up the messenger. FACT: You're ALL rigid thinkers, and won't ever find truly "good sound" in your lives, with your narrow minded attitudes.

And if you're going to continue saying I'm wrong, here's another FACT: Not a single one of you has proven the science behind those products to be false, and not a single one of you has been brave enough to debate me on that. Even after I challenged everyone who beat up on HFSG and GoodSound in this thread, to do so. The closest I got, was having your "Sluggo" complain to me about me saying that in several hundred messages, no one here showed they were capable of having an intelligent debate on the subject of these products. And when I tried to have an intelligent debate with the troll, he bitched about his brain hurting from seeing too many words in my post, and my words competing with the complexity of a white paper.

Now how do you think THAT makes you people look to others on the net? Let's review the facts, shall we?: One guy says he tried the CLC clock and it works. He advocates that others try it. He explains you have money back guarantees if you don't think it works. All you redneck audio dilettantes pile ridicule and mockery on top of him. He sweats it off, never makes any personal attacks, and continues to encourage people to consider such products. You continue pumelling him with insults and then you get even uglier, with accusations of trolling, shilling, marketing and fraudulence. When he tries to explain how it works, instead of trying to refute it, never mind trying to understand it, Sluggo et al. heap on more ridicule, and denigration with comparisons to Scientology. So what have we seen here in this ode to ignorance called "Clever Little Clocks"? Backwoods rednecks with audio systems (presumably...), greatly threatened by the mere discussion of a tiny teeny eensy weensy little travel alarm clock. They have no inkling how it works, and when an attempt is made to explain it, they won't and even CAN'T understand it. They refuse to "believe" it, or even refute it.

No, I didn't start this. HFSG started this. I'm just finishing it. I want to show the world what the face of audio ignorance really looks like. You can consider that I'm making a statement about how people in our society today are ruled by fear, paranoia, hate (yes, "ridicule" is a form of hate), and ignorance. And when challenged to "think" by those with more knowledge and authority than them, they run and hide under their beds and scribble out Cliff Notes. Bite your ankle when you pass by....

By the way, I read that stuff on Audiogon about the CLC. Geoff was rude to the guy asking about them, because the guy asking about them was rude to Geoff. I would have done the same. It appears Geoff doesn't want to publicize his theories behind the clock. Why? Because of the sort of idiots and morons we find on forums like this, who's only purpose in life it seems, is to mock and ridicule that which they don't understand and show the world what ignorant morons look like. Kaitt got a faceful of that on AA, when he tried to expound on the theories behind another one of his products.

Obviously, he didn't think it helped to have people infinitely stupider than he is, mischaracterize his theories. And he wasn't going to be there on the spot to refute it every time someone did. So it appears he decided to just let the testimonials on the clock do the marketing. And what he told Audioaril on the phone about the theories was told in confidence. Audioaril not only publicized the information, but used it to mock Kaitt's clock. Kaitt then said he had learned not to ever say anything to Audioaril in confidence again.
Now tell me brightlight, how many audio engineers do you know who will even answer the damn phone and explain to you in person how their products work? There are too many people like those on this forum in this thread, who are too nasty, uncivilized, dumb and ignorant to do anything but mock and ridicule that which they don't understand.

Which brings us finally, to HFSG. Who started this, not me. You say people were "poking fun at him". And yet, you or someone else told me that people on this forum are civilized and "polite". Not "chest beaters with attitude", like on other audio forums. Clear, unadulterated bullsh*t. HFSG and GoodSound were always polite, and all they did was advocate audio products they personally used (who's companies they were not affiliated with). Yet they were called shills, frauds, scammers, trolls, and everything but "murderers". And you people never stopped attacking them for several hundred messages. Here's what one of you geniuses wrote about HFSG being a "shill" and Kaitt being a rip-off artist, without providing a single shred of evidence for such libelous claims and personal insults to members of this forum:

Ritz says:

This kind of vile groundless libel and villification of your fellow members and audiophiles arising from sheer stupidity and ignorance is a sad commentary on human nature. And the commentary you people continue to make about yourselves has become even sadder, since I planted my wagon.

Actually, I seem to recall doing most of the questioning of your assertion that intelligent debate was impossible here. I believe that I even offered to discuss the science behind the CLC as soon as I saw something scientific to debate. All we have are testamonials, as you have stated yourself several times now. Testimonials aren't science - no matter where they come from (and, yes, that includes any testimonials I offer about any hardware, software, literature, or other what-not that I express positive or negative experience with). They can be useful input, but debating them isn't going to get anybody very far. It becomes a debate of volume - who can vouch for the testamonials they agree with the loudest and the longest - because all you have is individual opinions, and even that is based on Internet communication. If we actually set out to debate testamonials, we could go so far as to question the origin of such testamonials - after all, anybody can put anything on the 'net. I could post a fictitious testamonial complete with photos of the dissection of a CLC if I chose to, and spin it any way I wanted. Will I? Nope - but my morals don't negate the fact that it can be done, just as any simple brief testamonial (positive or negative) can be created in a heartbeat. Would that "debate of volume" be an "intelligent debate"? Not by my definition, which is why I haven't sought out such a debate. Does that indicate an absence of bravery on my part? Again, not by my definition, but you are free to define me however you wish so long as you recognize that I don't have any intention of adopting those definitions for myself.

Well, I'll say this much: using the cream electret hasn't made delius sound any less arrogant, spiteful and trollish. That's my testimonial. Cream electret sucks, and so do you, delius.

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

And I seem to recall refuting your assertion that:

Gonko says:

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

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

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

Gonk says:

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

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

Gonk says:

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

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

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


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

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


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

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


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

Delius,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(The name's not 'dubiousbang4thebuck.')

[Edit: spelling correction.]

Cliff Notes:

* Sluggo pats Gonk on the back for his unsupported lunatic conspiracy theory. Sluggo hands Gonk the "Oliver Stone" award. Gonk has made Sluggo proud to be a member of the Outlaw forums, for his magnificent displays of speculation without factual quantification or qualification.

* Sluggo contributes to Gonk's lunatic conspiracy theory, trying to expand on the original paranoid fantasy. Sluggo's contribution is to speculate that...

"... forum members who do not answer direct questions, are all part of a marketing ploy".

* Sluggo, without realizing it, implicates himself in a marketing ploy, by not answering Delius' questions to him, from day one.

NEWSFLASH: Sluggo is a guerilla marketer!


* Sluggo the Troll continues to bite Delius' on the ankle, even though Delius has ignored his trolling. Delius is awaits the "rude awakening" that Sluggo had promised. It turns out to be Sluggo pouting, whining and moaning.

* Sluggo claims "cream electret sucks". He's still never tried it, however, but knowledge or facts of an audio product has never gotten in the way of Sluggo making claims on it. Sluggo also says that "Delius sucks". Then he puts his thumb back in his mouth and pouts in a corner of the room.

* Sluggo, wisely, chooses not to refute Delius claim that Sluggo's a "'tard".

* Sluggo continues to cry, whine and moan that Delius won't answer his direct questions. It is pointed out to Sluggo that he hasn't answered any of Delius' questions. Sluggo asks for exemption, because his education and attention deficit disorder prevents him from reading anything longer than 2 lines, all of which Delius' posts surpass. Sluggo also admits he can not read "white papers", they are too difficult for him. Delius informs Sluggo that he will not grant him exemption from hypocrisy. Sluggo is currently on minor sabbatical, researching what the word "hypocrisy" means, and is planning on a major comeback.

* Sluggo predicts the rest of the forum ignores Delius, but as with every other claim Sluggo makes, it turns out not to be correct. Sluggo ensures that his prophecy never comes true, by not ignoring Delius. Immediately, and many times over. Delius however, familiar with ankle-biters like Sluggo, makes his own prediction that Sluggo will not ever be able to ignore him. Delius, predictably, turns out to be correct.

* Sluggo also predicts Delius will reveal himself as "nothing but a troll". Sluggo however, already has. Delius chooses not to feed the troll. Sluggo asks for more trolls to be sent in, because he's feeling lonely.

Next Episode: Delius continues to predict Sluggo will not ignore this thread. Sluggo continues to prove Delius correct.

Gonk wrote:

Oh that's really relevant. Just when I thought we were getting TOO relevant here...

Here's my theory. You and Sluggo share a single brain between the two of you, and alternate using it every Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Fridays. Apparently, today is Sluggo's turn.

Wow indeed. Truly, I am shocked. I've never heard of anyone tagging conspiracy theories on a Belter in an audio forum before, and dispensing the notion that they must be marketing shills. I have to say, I'm in awe of how much of an original thinker you are. Did you come up with all this by yourself, or did you and Sluggo there work out the details? Would you mind if I just look at your brain for a few minutes, to see what I'm missing?

...or how about we don't and say we did?

How did he know it was back ordered? Okay new theory. The owner of the website is HifiSoundGuy. Because he knew the Sonicaps were on back order. Now. You wanna talk about the third gunman on the grassy knoll? I say it was Ronald McDonald. I have some insider info that says Kennedy was frequenting Burger King. A LOT. And who was Burger King's biggest competitor? That's right, The Golden Arch guys. Ronald must have figured that Jack was cutting a deal with the beef producers to ship their best quality products to BK, while BK was in with the.... (zzzzzzzzz)


[LOTS of conspiratorial crap about gorrilas and comic books and penny arcades and formulas and Polk speakers and accents and blog sites and lack of hyphenation snipped out. Trust me folks, LOTS]

Yo, 4-eyes, I'm over here.... Who you talkin' to? The room's empty?

You're moving in predictable circles again, R2D2. You must not realize just how sheep-like you really are. I've had the same sort of stupid conspiracy nut-retards spend 600 lines like you just did, attempting to "analyze and deconstruct" the reason for my existence, as though I didn't have the same right as any other audio enthusiast to advocate good audio products, simply because some of the audio products I use and stand behind happens to be part of the alternative audio products niche. Now those idiots at one point or another, claimed I was separately Peter Belt, his wife, the company's newsletter editor, a shill for the company, and about 25 other people, who may or may not be affiliated with the company. Some of the even stupider speculators, chose more than one option. No one ever told them that if two men say they're Jesus, one of them must be wrong. And make no mistake my dear Gonk, you are indeed, WRONG. I've noticed at least 65 "wrongs" that you've been, in your posts so far.

First off, you're trying to prove a negative, can't be done. You guys can speculate til your blue in the face, and your speculation always ends up bearing the same value. Which is something worth just under dogsh*t. The very reason I showed up is -because- of all the dogsh*t speculation I read on the PWB and MD products. This is ALL you people have ever done. And it seems to be all you ever do here. You ever heard of educating yourselves, for pete's sake? If you stop listening to the drone of your own verbal diarrhea bouncing around in your head 24/7, you might actually learn something new in life. That's what this thread is NOW about, now that I've made an entrance. Learning something NEW, that isn't the same old dogsh*t regurgitated.

You got only -one- thing right in that stupid conspiracy rant of yours. Those two guys (or one guy, "possibly"), mostly just regurgitated the advice to try the products. Ask me questions about them and I'll do more than that. But if you don't want to know anything about these products, then don't f**ing pretend you have an opinion on them. All you have is meaningless speculation, which I repeat, is worth dogsh*t. If you think *I'm* arrogant, than you should stand in my shoes and take a hard look at yourselves. An entire group of ignorant chest-beating dogmatists all insisting that they're right, on the basis of mere speculation, and not a spec of hard evidence to be found to support your speculations. Arrogant enough to be confident enough to irresponsibly call the products fraudulent, the manufacturers charlatans, and the people who use them "shills". Had you people any sense of decency or shame, you'd be ashamed at the way you have behaved these last few months in this thread, and you'd apologize for it.

Regardless of what you "think" about HFSG or the products, there's a difference between "think" and "know". You've already proven to me that you are wrong in your dismissive assessment about these products none of you dogmatists have ever tried. So chances are good that people who don't think are probably wrong in their assessment of other people. And if you want to talk about "marketing" brightlight, anyone who advocates -any- audio product on these forums can be accused of marketing. Bottom line: No one's putting a damn gun to your head and saying "Buy this product or the bunny rabbit eats it!". And from all the blind ignorant hostility I've seen here toward all alternative audio products, I sincerely doubt that anyone here is in danger of being a victim of "guerrila marketing". Your stupid half-assed theories about this terrifying consumerist cancer sweeping the net, notwithstanding. In fact, you even admitted as much yourself in another post. So you're like, arguing with two sides of your own personality!

Gonk wrote:

I'm not asking how you felt about that, I asked what your evidence was for dismissing the entire life's work of a very important psychologist and researcher. Which continues to this day, btw. Now instead of responding with valid evidence, you're trying to duck and cover, change the subject, and oh... wait, you gave me a link to the infamous Skeptic's Dictionary. Which to people like you stands as the Abslute TrVth to all there is in the world of science. In other words, if something has an entry in the Skeptic's Dictionary, then its obviously bogus science, right? And what does the SD use to back up your assertion that orgone is pseudo-science? The fact that in the 50's, the FDA burned Reich's books and declared it wasn't valid. That's right folks, the FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION. Those brilliant, unbiased agents who showed that they couldn't possibly have had any ulterior motives for actually burning a scientists research (first time in US history, btw). Despite the fact that Reich's work had nothing to do with either FOOD or DRUG.

Now, aren't YOU claiming that its -you- who is supposed to be the one who isn't dumb, naive and gullible here, between the two of us? I mean after all, you're an independent thinker, right? You don't just believe anything anyone hands you, right? And I'm a gullible audiophile who for 20 years has placeboed himself into thinking that all of Belt's products have an audible effect, right? But yet you think a one page entry in the Skeptics Dictionary citing a 1950's scandal with the FDA proves Reich, who studied under Freud no less, was a lifelong madman? Despite studies that showed otherwise? Despite the fact that the Chinese have studied similar phenomenon for thousands of years? Despite the fact that his work is contuing to be researched and utilized? And you're supposed to be the "smart one" in this group, right? The one all the other little sheep look up to for authorative knowledge on a given subject, because you've done all the research for the sheepies, correct?

What, you in error? How can that be possible? All the sheep look up to you to be right, as the authoritative leader on audio knowledge here. Because if you're wrong, then by their alignment with you, so are all the rest of the Outlaws here....


First of all, who said it was a "time travel device"? Please show me where it is being marketed as such. Second of all, what do you mean by that? Does it mean I can go back in time and order a milk shake with my burger, instead of a soda? And what's all this about "orgone energy" anyway? Where does the manufacturer claim it runs on orgone energy? I thought it uses a lithium battery!

I'm genuinely asking, because I genuinely do not know how the CLC works. I went on their site to find out, but there is no white paper on that product. And don't say I've been "defending the CLC", I never did that. I simply said I have reason to believe it works very similarly to a Belt device, since it is based on that device. Whether Kaitt did modifications to Belt's design to somehow make it work differently (with his unusual GSIC chips, I wouldn't put it past him), I don't know.

The difference between me and your typical dumb, mindless, arrogant audiophile sheep, is that I don't question the validity of something I don't even begin to understand. Nor do I pretend to understand something I don't begin to understand. Which is another way of saying, you can't question the validity of the CLC if you don't understand how it works.


Actually, I can live with that. It doesn't imply the science is bogus, but so long as you can live with quantum theory being "fringe science" (which is the hypotheses for some products), I can live with "fringe science" to describe the basis of alternative audio products.

Again, who is that "someone" who can't decide which "fringe science" the CLC operates on? HifisoundGuy? That guy could be a madman, for all I know. So could you, btw. All I know is I didn't see Wilhelm Reich mentioned anywhere on Machina Dynamica's site. So I regard anything that isn't officially on there to be speculative BS. Yes, including purported phone convos with the designer. Particularly since its obvious there are a lot of guys out there like you and Ritz who want to see this guy crumble, simply because you have an agenda against whatever you consider "snake oil merchants".

Now, I'm going to take the opportunity here to repeat that vile comment from your friend Ritz, whom you see fit to defend here, since you didn't want to:

Ritz says:

Ritz is clearly stating here that Kaitt is a rip off artist, who is defrauding people. If I was Geoff, I would take this ignorant bastard to court, el pronto. Ritz doesn't offer a SINGLE shred of evidence to support his libelous accusations. Just like you don't ever offer any evidence for yours. And all you've been able to offer in his defense, is that HifiSoundGuy said that one of Machina Dynamica's products, the CLC clock, works on both time travel and orgone energy. Which could just be HFSG's opinion. But even if it isn't, you haven't explained to me how it can't operate on both. You've just assumed that there can't be more than one scientific attribute, attributed to a device, and if there is, then it can be considered invalid hypothesis. Belt's hypotheses incorporate aspects from both the quantum domain and biology, which is about as different as orgone energy and time travel. So if you knew even the first thing about science, you'd realize what a dumb argument you're making here, in defense of your bud Ritz. In making this really-not-very-well-thought-out argument, you've just undermined your credibility further, and made your friend Ritz's comments seem even more vile.

Which is a pattern repeated elsewhere, so you sheep do spread out in great numbers, to be sure. The real "sham" however, as I see it, is the "other part of that repeating pattern you have locked yourselves into". By that, I mean that those other flocks of mindless sheep that have echoed every last one of your sentiments on this forum, also have this in common with you people: they too have no qualms about shoving their fat feet in their mouth by condemning products they've never tried. You people talk about "science" like as if you know something about it. But to "real" scientists, what you are doing by dismissing phenomena you know nothing about and have never experimented with is not in the least bit "scientific". The irony is, if all scientists were as stupid as the people we've seen in this thread, science would never progress.

I trust you mean by the "existence of the devices". Because so far, not a single person has tried any of them! You can't really claim to be "unswayed" by an audio device you've never even tested. At best, you can only claim to be "unswayed" by its theory. But as we've also seen, none of you know dick all about the theory either! And I will repeat that it doesn't matter to me, if people do or don't try the products. I'm simply here to make a statement about the members of this forum, to emphasize certain facts. (Consider it a social experiment...). Which are as follows:

* I want it on the record that no one here has tried any of the products you have all bashed, ridiculed, mocked and condemned.

* Not one of the armchair scientists here has even tried the free techniques I gave, which allow them to at least experiment with Beltist ideas (albeit in less effective ways than the commercial products). However, no one minds spending 60 times longer, typing out BS talking about the validity of the theories behind ideas that are readily verifiable, empirically.

* No one here has shown a single solitary factual basis for making libelous statements against Machina Dynamica and PWB, and for calling their products fraudulent.

* No one has apologized for such statements. The closest is Gonk who tried to make excuses for the libel of others (which I have defeated in debate).

* No one here has taken the time, or perhaps has the ability, to read and understand the theories behind the products they have bashed. (Judging by how many have the ability to extend their attention span long enough to even read my posts, it's plain to see why they have not read the materials on the manufacturer's sites. Sluggo gets a pass because he has officially admitted to being a retard).

Basically, what it looks like to me and my colleagues is, this is the audio hobbyist equivalent of the Trailer Park Boys movie. Its like the Trailer Trash Boys all got together to form an audio club, and start discussing their feelings and opinions about audio. Needless to say, facts only come along accidentally.....

Jason J wrote:

Come again? You wanna clarify that? Are you trying to tell me that no one on these forums is allowed to talk about audio products not made by the owners of this forum? And that they don't? Which sounds absolutely ludicrous to me since I'm assuming this is a public forum, but I don't see how else you mean that to be interpreted.

Well, you just gave me another example of you being an idiot, didn't you. Because I made it clear what my remarks were about. I never called anyone an idiot for not believing these products work. I called people idiots for thinking and claiming they know that these products don't work, when they have never tried them, and don't know the first thing about them. And those of you who go so far as to claim the products are fraudulent and so are the manufacturers, are libelous idiots who are courting a lawsuit. I can tell you why I enjoy the product, but that doesn't mean you'll believe me. Like all such idiots, you're predisposed to believe what you know, rather than learn about that which you don't. As for your crack about "pseudo science", you can't tell the difference between science and pseudo-science (but then, we're going back to you being an idiot again, aren't we? Which is almost redundant at this point, given the quality of all your replies). If you could, you'd be able to fill your next post with an explanation that successfully refutes the theories of Geoff Kaitt and Peter Belt, and supports your contention of "pseudo science".

But are you going to do that? Lets see if you will. We obviously know you can't, so I'm betting the farm that you won't and can't. But nevertheless, you picked up the term "pseudo-science" somewhere and now you glibly and happily apply it to everything who's scientific basis is beyond your grasp to comprehend. (Oh, are you saying I'm wrong here? Great, then tell me how the products work! [question ignored by the brilliant debater, Jason J].... Yeah, didn't think you could do that either.)

Like all non-thinkers, you go no further than to believe whatever isn't already established in peer-reviewed articles, isn't reality. And certainly doesn't merit taking 5 minutes to test for yourself, at a cost of nothing. And you reveal in that philosophy, that you don't know the first damn thing about sience. You're not even a pseudo-scientist, and I wouldn't qualify you to be up to the standards of an armchair-scientist. But prove me wrong by posting that scientific refutation you've been dying to share with the group. I'm always ready to learn something new...

bestbang4thebuck wrote:

Brilliant observation. Now just exactly who here is deriding Newtonian physics? Or is it too confusing for you to believe that there could be more than one law of physics that applies to our reality?

Quantum Physics and Quantum Mechanics are studies of the same phenomenon, so its not an either/or equasion. The science behind QM is more concrete and easy to establish than even Newtonian physics and has been accepted by the physics community, so I don't see where you get the idea that it is or should be derided by the scientific community. Perhaps you meant the "scientific commnunity" on this audio forum?

At any rate, it is NOT accurate to label Beltism under the Metaphysics tag (and trust me, you're not the first...), whether you are using the classical meaning of metaphysics, or the more popular one. In no way shape or form did I ever say it was, so your interpretations of my words are coming from your own volatile imagination, and not to be relied upon as factual. Beltist phenomenon is in theory, as I interpret it, very much grounded in physical reality; more specifically, the nature of objects around us and the nature of our brain (wrt biological theory).

True, and there's also a whole lot of OTHER things going on, too, which have nothing to do with NP, and more to do with QP (as I interpret it). I'm referring to the fact that there is far more processing by the brain on what your ears interpret than you realize, which has nothing to do with the acoustical pressure waves. In fact, there are all KINDS of factors that affect our "interpretation" of sound, particularly music, that go beyond the oversimplified process you just described. If there weren't, everyone would have exactly the same experience listening to exactly the same system. Tests reveal that not to be the case. What the Belt products purport to do, is change the way we interpret our environment, which affects the way we interpret sound.

You seem to have a habit of making statements that already established and not under argument, so I have a hard time understand what point you're trying to make here. For example, I can just as easily point out that there are a myriad of things that human ears can detect not detectable by measurment instruments. But where does that get us?

What, pray tell, is "Outlaw gear"? Is it meant to reproduce audio or video? Then it can help to reproduce phenomenon that falls outside of NP. And all of those who can hear it or see its video display can hear or affect this phenomenon. I've even created a website to allow people to do that. That way, they don't have to blindly listen to and believe people who would talk about phenomenon they know nothing about and have no experience with. Unlike you, I'm not pretending to be an expert on "Outlaw gear", to where I'm on a forum telling the world whether its valid or not.

Now if I was like you, and all others in this thread, then I'd be trashing "Outlaw Gear" (even though I've never tried it in my life or even seen what it looks like). I'd be telling people not to buy it, and I'd be calling Outlaw a criminal and a fraud and a scammer and a rip-off artist, who makes a sad statement on our precious society by selling "Outlaw Gear" (which I don't know anything about, remember). I'd be basing all of my "opinions" (if we can call it that) on sh*t that I pull out of my ever-lovin' arse. That's what I'd be doing if I was like the rest of the members here on this Outlaw Gear forum. Fortunately for you and Outlaw, I'm not. I'm a reasonable, honest and civil person who does not make stupid, groundless libelous claims against audio manufacturers and call members "scammers" and "shills" without any evidence of such, like I've seen the rest of you do here.

Well that's a SHOCKER. Somehow, I figured you for a "foil and cream guy". Again, I don't understand your need to make pointless and obvious statements. What's your point, why are you taking our time? To say "Newtonian Physics Rocks!"? Because you're simply repeating the same thing everyone else is. What you're not telling us, is why that you don't think that $500 would be better invested in clocks, creams and foils. Because I think it would be. Reason being, you can shuffle speakers around and tack egg crates to all your walls and that still would resolve the NON-Newtonian physics problems that are at the core of preventing you from hearing all that your present system is capable of. If you wont' even acknowledge those problems by researching it, how do you KNOW that your $500 is more wisely invested in that which you already know? You can not assure us that your decision is the wisest, since you're not even aware of the other physics problems that block our paths to nirvana.

Brilliant. Introduce more toys to pollute the signal! Geez, I believe even Linn abandoned that idea! Now under that scenario, you have the same Beltist problems with your audio, but you've increased the NP ones. It never ceases to amaze me how the greatest influence on our audio systems, and the greatest impairment to acheiving TRUE improvements to our sound, is our belief systems.

That's why I think non-audiophiles know more about good sound than audiophiles. Because they haven't yet concluded they know everything.

Funny! You'd run out of money before that happens! You really don't get it, but I find that quaint (in a kind of "cutesy ignorant baby" sort of way), and I don't blame you. Because to me, you're an "audio baby". Like most rigid thinkers in this 'business', you go with what doesn't frighten you, with what you know. When you get to where I am in audio, you realize that you could spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on your so-called "verifiable electronic and NP based improvements", and still never attain the kinds of improvements possibly via Beltist means. Because you've never addressed the Beltist problems that we all have to live with. You never realize how unnatural your "NP sound" is, until you apply Belt treatments, and hear what you've been living with all your life. Then, when you have enough knowledge of "the Belt sound", "NP systems" tend to sound "harsh and unnatural" to you. No matter if you have a zillion active xovers in the system, with octawiring in place and 1300 power conditioners, all daisy chained back to the hydro plant. And btw, I used to have an active system way back in the 80's, monoblocks, and other such gadgetry.... I've since "downgraded" to a single int. amp. Without a balance control....

Neither is mine "Delious"...

You all are really missing out! These CLC's just keep getting better! I dont know if freezing the memory foil and green and blue cream had something to do with this or not but this is amazing! No, I'm not connected with this company in any way!! :rolleyes: Scott should contact Geoff and May Belt and let you all find out just how good these clocks are (after these tweaks) are done to them!!

Jason J wrote:

Simple. When you set it backwards to a certain time... say for example, its 1:00pm (Geneva) time on Sat., right now, and I set it to 7:30am, I get to watch all the Saturday cartoons that I missed because I slept in. Oh, how does this improve your sound? Well that's simple too. You know how everything is better the first time you experience it? Like your first kiss, or your first lay.... Okay, I realize you probalby haven't been there yet, but try to imagine something you have done for the first time that you enjoyed. Well with this Clever Clock, you can hear music like the first time you heard it. And so it shall be written, and so it shall be done.

Are you talkin' to me? You must be confusing me with someone else. I've never called anyone here any names they didn't deserve. If you feel I have, please point out where I have, and I promise I will look at your evidence.

And if you look around, perhaps you will notice that I never said anyone here asked HFSG or Goodsound to get rid of their tweaks. Neither did anyone else. Are you familiar with the concept of "relevance" at all? Please familiarize yourself with it, and have something relevant to say, next time. What I did take issue with here, as I have already mentioned about 65,000 times now (an issue which none of you has yet directly and properly addressed), is the fact that you people relentlessly attacked HFSG and Goodsound with accusations of "fraud", "scamming" and "shilling". And by the way, mocking other members here "amongst yourselves", instead of mocking them directly, is probably more insulting.

Are you at all familiar with the concept of "libel", Jason? Does the "J" stand for "Jr." by any chance? I ask because you seem to be even more oblivious than the rest of the gang to basic common concepts in life, and I find myself needing to talk to you like you're a six year old. Once you become familiar with the concept of "libel", tell me how you justify you and/or your gunslinging comrades here making unfounded (and false I might add) accusations of "fraud" and "scamming" toward PWB and MD, as well as toward those 2 mentioned members. Remember that we're talking about several hundred messages where those products and their manufacturers were derided and called "rip off artists", but yet none of the members who were decrying those products tried any of them, nor do they even know much about the products or manufacturers.

Now, are you familiar with the concept of "bigotry"? I truly hope I'm not causing any major permanent damage to your brain here or anything, by making you think about concepts you don't normally do. "Bigotry" is a form of intolerance. "Intolerance" is what we have seen here in this thread, going on for months on end. Not familiar much with that concept either? Well, "racism" is "intolerance". So is sexism, or ageism or sizeism, etc. What we are basically seeing here, in analogous terms, is a bunch of white backwoods redneck "good ol' boys", calling 2 black guys "porch monkeys" (in so many words), and ganging up on them in order to kick them out of town.

The rednecks may not be attacking them with sticks and clubs or fists, but they are attacking them with hostile mockery, ridicule, scorn, contempt, derision, and defamation of character. The rednecks excuse their behaviour by saying "they're just havin' fun", and "jokin' around", because they haven't actually physically beat the two black guys with sticks. They've only beat them with ridicule and libelous accusations. Either way, in both cases, what we are talking about is: "bigotry", or intolerance towards those who hold different views than the majority, or have a different color of skin, or religion.

The most common thing that all stupid ugly racists or bigots have, is an intolerance of ideas that differ from their common thinking. Which means they won't accept any such thing as "evidence" or contrary opinions that their views are wrong, and they most certainly will not go out of their way to prove to themselves that their views are wrong (such as trying the controversial products or techniques mentioned here).

I really don't see how one can insult someone's intelligence, if they haven't shown any signs of it to me....

I've already given you the means to do that. Teach yourself:

http://www.geocities.com/soundhaspriority
http://www.geocities.com/cico_buff


I'm gonna make another prediction, because I have a time travel clock: If you can't hear the Belt phenomenon for yourself, none of you will ever believe it. You're not prepared to. You're too comfortable knowing what you know and too insecure to consider that you don't know it all. Your instinct is to mock and ridicule that which you do not understand, and to stuff it into "easily understandable" boxes, like "new age" or "placebo" or "Scientology" or "orgone energy" or whatever else you don't understand or don't believe in.

"I've seen things you people wouldn't believe....". And I've heard the effects of those things. And me telling you what I know, what I have done, what I have heard or what I have learned in audio/video, is only going to provoke predictably stupid reactions of laughter and mockery. I know, I've seen all of you everywhere countless times before. And you all look like sheep to me, who only know how to play "follow the leader", instead of thinking for themselves. Sometimes however.... something gives way and one or two of the sheep break away from the flock, and catches a glimpse of what I have known for twenty years.... and then they become "a believer", and change their tune....

I have already given you all the tools necessary to do that, or they are widely available. And it only costs you your time. Whether you do or not, despite what Sluggo keeps trying to drum into your heads with his dumb groundless paranoid conspiracy theories about me, does not affect me or my finances one way or the other.

Delius,

Since you cannot stop calling people names by continually misinterpreting their comments, I have no further fuel for your fire. Enjoy your status as the most verbose IM I have ever come across.

Furthermore, do not call me an idiot by not responding to your posts. You choose to knock down anything anybody has posted so it is useless to have any kind of debate with you.

Oh, by the way, this forum is hosted by a company called Outlaw, hence the term "Outlaw Gear." You get a gold star for not figuring that one out.

More posts, with no answers. You're a frightened little fool, a point which will surely be sustained by your next post.

It's okay, we understand, you're a fraud. Have fun screaming in the mirror.

Oh, look who joined the quantum BBQ. Ok, I'll admit something. I figured you were "HifiSoundGuy" long before I started posting. You might as well just combine it to "HifiGoodSoundGuy" for all the differences in your writing style. Now after reading this, I'm not convinced that you've ever been near a "CLC". It seems you haven't added enough "emoticons" to truly convince me that you are sincere. So perhaps a new conspiracy theory is in order....

You're a "Belt-basher" troll working on the inside.. (posing as a Belter/CLC owner)... Perhaps the reason you are "rolling your eyes" after you say you're not connected with the company, is to make people believe you are? So maybe you're this "Scott" guy you keep mentioning? Or maybe you're ..... "Sluggo"? Whoever you are, I think you're having us all for a larff. As you were.

Did someone say "screaming in the mirror"?

From all your bluster and boasting, I'd expect better of you, delius. I made two posts recently, and in your reactions to both you found it necessary to chop pieces out in order to build up a proper head of steam in your lengthy condemnation of my comments. The reason you can't find intelligent debate is that you are too busy finding ways to twist, misread, and dismember people's comments in hopes of proving their stupidity. Sadly, a case of not being able to see the forest for the trees...

Let me offer a few examples.

You made a stab at debunking my HiFiSoundGuy/GoodSound theory, but you ran out of steam partway through. For example, you asked, "How did he know it was back ordered?" and then proceeded to spend a paragraph rambling along on sarcastic, hair-brained answers to your question. In reality, there was a simple answer that would be obvious to anyone with some knowledge of the product I'd referred to. Maybe HiFiSoundGuy knew it was backordered because the order page for the RR2150 had said that it was backordered. Or maybe he knew it was backordered because of the discussion in the RR2150 area of this forum explaining the status of backorders. In other words, maybe he could read. As assumptions go, that's not a great stretch for posts in an online forum. Oh, and the Sonicaps mentioned in HiFiSoundGuy's second post weren't backordered - the receiver he claimed to have ordered was backordered. My post was quite clear, but in your eagerness to find fault in my argument you failed to actually read what I'd written. After your tangent about the backordered 2150, you simply "snipped out" my reasoning and walked away. For somebody who writes such long posts, that's uncharacteristically brief.

It's also interesting that in your very next post, you moved on to my other recent post and ranted a fair bit about orgone energy and the skeptic's dictionary - even though the link I offered was simply the one previously provided by HiFiSoundGuy in his post. And speaking of HiFiSoundGuy's posts, that brings us right back to chopping and skipping portions of my argument that might make distract from ridiculing me. We all know by this point that the Machina Dynamica site lacks any explanation of their CLC, but I clearly explained how we were presented with two separate explanations for its operation. I even included links (which you did not include in the quote) taking you directly to both of those two separate and contradictory explanations. Then, a couple paragraphs later, you ask me "First of all, who said it was a "time travel device"? Please show me where it is being marketed as such." Those links that you left out of your quote showed where it was presented as such, including comments from Geoff that served to confirm that he had originally provided that explanation. I'd already shown you the information you asked me to present to you. You also asked "Second of all, what do you mean by that?" My answer is simple: Mighty fine question, because the full explanation (taken directly from HFSG's previously linked post: "It minimizes the time difference between the time captured on the recording and the current time. This ads realism to the music. Because this device functions as a sort of a time travel apparatus it is not necessary to connect to the audio circuit. It has entirely to do with shortening the distance between time events.") is pretty inexplicable. That's actually my point.

Some time back, I made the statement that pursuing intelligent debate in these circumstances could lead to a "debate of volume." When someone declares victory (such as your comment "No one has apologized for such statements. The closest is Gonk who tried to make excuses for the libel of others (which I have defeated in debate).") after such maneuvers as I've described above, it becomes clear that we've ended up deep in exactly such a debate, and it is just as pointless an exercise as I anticipated.

Not even poor HiFiSoundGuy/GoodSound is safe from delius, it seems. Even the split personality he came here to ostensibly defend is nothing more than an opportunity for derision.

Awwww... do you feel that let down my personal little ankle-biting troll, because I didn't answer your one non-trolling post? I could point out the irony of your statements here, given that you make a "frightened little fool" of yourself in -all- of your posts (and have sustained this for months on end in this thread alone!). Or the fact that I already pointed out you have a far longer list of questions of mine that you were either too scared or too stupid to answer (or both). And you still never responded to that. But instead, I'm gonna show you by example how to take "the high road", and overlook your petty trolling and ankle-biting, by taking your one attempt at an intelligent debate, seriously. I suppose since you finally somehow managed to find the balls to take me on, that's the least I can do. But if you end up regretting it... don't blame me! Okay, let's party!...


You must have really thought that was a brilliant "gotcha" response, certain to squash big bad Delius, didn't cha, Sluggo? Admit it, "didn't cha"?! Ok, wait for it......

You want answers? Here's my answer:


A. "What on earth do you think an audio system is designed to do?".


No, think harder. Think like you've never thunk before, el Sluggo....

Sluggo: "Oh, it's designed to play music!"

Delius: Harder.

Sluggo: "It's designed to create the illusion of a musician(s) before you?"

Delius: Harder!

Sluggo: "It's..."

Delius: Ok, never mind, I can see we're gonna be here all day.

Psychological stimuli are sights, sounds and smells. Last I checked, audio products are designed to provoke psychological stimuli. So are Belt products. Fancy that! You've just learned something new. And I told them that I could accomplish the impossible, and they didn't believe me! Now, for how many seconds are you going to retain that information?


And conversely, having a disbelief in a phenomenon is enough to install a reverse placebo effect.

And conversely, having a disbelief in a phenomenon is enough to install a reverse placebo effect.

And conversely, having a disbelief in a phenomenon is enough to install a reverse placebo effect.


(Are you having fun yet, Sluggette? I know I'm having fun with you.)

So, what have we learned this time, Sluggy?

Sluggo: "Having a belief in a phenomenon is enough to install a placebo effect. And conversely, having a disbelief in a phenomenon is enough to install a reverse placebo effect. "

Delius: Bzzzzzt. Wrong. You failed the test. The proper answer was: "To keep an open mind and attempt to have no expectations over the result of any scientific experiment, whatever the methodology used".


Says who? YOU? Pffft! Don't make me laugh! In only 3 days, you've already given us a faceful of how little of actual fact you know about audio. So seriously Sluggy... who? The JAES? Apparently not, as the inventor of ABX, the most rigorous audio test methodology ever devised by man, can't seem to come up with results that support your claim. ("Comparing Audio Components", JAES, 1983). Preamps, amps, pickup cartridges... It was concluded that despite using test groups sufficient in size to the inventor of the methodology, no differences could be determined. Yet most people, perhaps even "people like you" Sluggo, would admit those audio products do yield differences in sound. You still fail to realize what I've already pointed out on these pages, so-called "objective tests" are part of a "belief system". You wanna know what Clark himself has to say about your religious beliefs?

"When scientific tests have been performed, listeners' audibility thresholds have appeared to be poorer by orders of magnitude compared to casual tests. It has been argued that the methods and equipment used in the scientific test have inhibited the listener's discriminatory ability. "

Yes, it "-has- been argued". By me and many others. And if we're talking about a baby like you who doesn't even have much discriminatory ability to start out with, I'll defend that notion even stronger, in your case. Fact: everything you say think and do is part of a belief system. The question is, which belief system do you adopt? Being the fool you are Sluggo, I see you've naturally gravitated toward a fool's belief systems. I wouldn't expect you to do otherwise. It looks like in order to try to avoid being just another fool, you've adopted those beliefs and become a fool just by believing in them (not that I'm saying you weren't a fool long before that. Because I'm not). In fact, I'm willing to bet you don't even know that much about those test methodologies that you've adopted as part of your religious belief system. I'll bet you've never even participated in a true ABX test, to find out how useful and effective they are. I've taken plenty. Most audio consumers haven't taken any.

I'm curious to know what a brilliant mind like yours has to say about the millions of audio consumers out there who are presently enjoying hifi systems (as we speak), which they have not chosen by way of any form of blind testing. Seriously, we could always use the laughs down here...

Did I say you did? Show me where I said that. You can't because I didn't. On the contrary, I have always advocated the (and I know this is gonna frighten you so heed this as a warning for what's coming next....) radical concept of listening to your own ears. Why do you think I went to the trouble to post my websites, which allows people to test a couple of these radical concepts for themselves? You mean all this time that I've been generous enough to give you the website address and you still haven't made the connection that it allows you to listen for yourself? Damn, you're slow. But admit it, that's where the name "Slug-go" comes from, doesn't it?


Oh my God. And you even quoted the answer to your question two seconds ago! Forget my last remark; you're not slow, you're frozen in time....

So far, my BS meter is not registering (a first for your posts), which means the above is correct. I should add that I feel I can not be "personally faulted" for the fact that the phenomenon is not (currently) measurable in any technical way.

Well, technically, nothing is impossible to refute, so long as you get someone to believe your refutation. I mean look how many people here believe that you have succesfully refuted the Belt products? But now we're getting back to belief systems. And "easy to claim"? Eh, I don't think so. If you had any idea of the complexity of the hypotheses, you'd know they aren't easy claims to make, let alone explain. I shouldn't be personally faulted for that either, they're not my hypotheses. And they may be wrong, in part or in whole. Particularly since they are (currently) difficult or impossible to prove (I mean to the satisfaction of current peer reviewed scientific standards). That however, doesn't invalidate the phenomenon.

Let me come at you from a different angle, and maybe we'll find a concept for you that you can finally begin to understand.... The origins of the universe are currently impossible to prove. And I don't just mean the initial nucleus of a beginning (we'll say the primeval atom, The Big Bang theory, but physicists don't all agree on the origins of this either), but what conditions occurred before the point of singularity. Yet we know that somehow, everything that we have seen in our world and universe flowed from that point. It wouldn't all be here today if it weren't so, and we wouldn't be observing the phenomenon that we do through the telescopes. So if you are correct in your rigid, foolish and ill-thought out stance that reality follows what can be concretely proven in peer-reviewed journals, and all else is "pseudo-scientific mumbo jumbo", then we're not having this conversation right now. 'Cos we don't exist, 'cos no one can prove exactly how our universe has come into existence.

How do we know anything about the universe anyway? Looking through telescopes right? Visual information. Humans looking with their human eyes, interpreting data. It's not that different under Belt phenomenon. You can look at a video display and interpret changes in the display prior to and following Beltist experiments. Just as with a telescope, you're using your eyes as tools to gather information. And just as you can use your eyes to measure things, you can also use your ears.

So the Belt phenomenon is not really "impossible to prove", any more than the "Hubble phenomenon". It's just that you seem to be (and struggle to remain) oblivious to the fact that our eyes and ears are used as test instruments all the time, in all kinds of sciences. And since you don't believe the eyes and ears of hundreds of Belt product users across the globe, then your only option is to do the tests yourself, in order to determine whether -your- "test instruments" are sensitive enough to pick up on the phenomenon. But given that your head seems to be filled with cement, maybe you need to be belted in the head with a sledgehammer before you'll hear anything that resembles differences. Who knows.

A bit of a clarification: The "Belt effect" is there whether someone perceives it or not. By that, I mean two things: both the change that the Belt product (or technique) effects, and the problem the Belt device is meant to address. This "problem" (a type of mental stress) is degrading your audio sound as we speak. It's in fact degrading all of your senses. You don't realize that, because you've lived with the problem your entire life. So you never knew life without it. You can't be aware of what you never experienced. That's what makes people like you fail to understand what the hell the Belt product can possibly do in the first place.

With the Belt product (or technique) in place, the change occurs, the stress on your senses is reduced, the sound is instantly perceived as better. (Note that the sound is perceived as better on any audio system in your house, and the video is perceived better as well). Now we get into the concept of "threshold of audibility/visuality". I admit I don't particularly do well as far as visual cues goes, but I can and have perceived improvements in video. I am however, an expert at audibility. Whether you are successful at determining changes for -any- audio phenomenon, including amps, speakers, turntables, cdplayers and wire, is going to depend on your threshold of audibility. Some Belt products or techniques yield relatively small differences, some larger. Some people can hear the effects and some can't. Some of that depends on the products they try and some depends on the person trying them, or a combination thereof. Naturally, many Belt products combined require a lower TA (threshold of audibility).

If a product does effect a change (and I know for a fact all Belt products and all types of audio components do), then you will perceive that change, whether you are conscious of it or not. So long as you have a functioning pair of ears (and presumably, brain). Whether you are conscious of the change is another matter. So even if you can't hear the effects of Belt product, doesn't mean it don't work, only that -you- can't hear it. However, you have already claimed you can't hear it before even testing it. That's caused by a common type of brain damage called "cretinism". Possibly caused by the slug that seems to have permanently nested somewhere inside your cranium. Is -that- why they call you "Sluggo", btw?


No, that's not what I said. Jason Jr. also got that wrong, and I'm guessing, so did all the other IM's here fail to understand my point about IM's. I've repeated it to your friend Jason, I'll repeat it to you. Please read slowly, assuming you've been able to keep up with me thus far: "If you claim the Belt effect does not exist and the products do not work, or even go so far as to claim they are fraudulent, and you have never tested such products, and/or you have no real knowledge of how and why they work, then you are, listen carefully now, an "ignorant moron"". Okay, did that finally sink in? Let me be clearer and mention that you're an IM if you behave that way over ANY audio product. And since you Sluggo have made probably the most false unsupported claims about these products, yes, you are officially an ignorant moron. I'll happily put that on a framed certificate if you want, since you seem to be happy and comfortable with this fact. But if you should ever have a problem with it, don't complain to me for pointing out the obvious truth about you. The solution is simple: stop being an ignorant moron. For some people, this mental disease is not terminal. I don't know how much hope there is in your case, particularly judging from your last post to me. But I'm a positive person, so I like to think there's hope for everyone.

What, not enough bluster and boasting? I can tweak that if you think it needs some juice.

aka "Editing". Trust me, I was doing you and everyone else a favour. The "government" was starting to get interested in your runaway conspiracy rant against the HFSG bot. And I'm sure you know what kind of trouble that can bring on...

I disagree. I really don't have to go through all those machinations to illustrate just how stupid most of these responses are, nor do I need to have "hopes of proving it". I think they're pretty damn self-evident, really. In fact, I'm amazed at how stupid some of my responses have been, and when I point that out, that's just my natural reaction (as in "Oh my God, you CAN'T be that stupid!"). I will also point out that no one has ever been able to prove me wrong about that in any of those reactions . Simply getting offended because I point out how stupid people's remarks or thinking is, doesn't prove that I'm wrong about that. You do it to yourselves, you do.

You just refuse to see how ignorant you dorks are, no matter how many times that fact is proven. I don't even care how "formally educated" you are, I'm not even talking about that. I'm talking for instance about the fact that you are continually using the principles of "good science" to support and defend your arguments that the Belt/MD products don't work. Yet in the most unscientific fashion imaginable, or utilizing principles of "bad science", you are drawing conclusions about all those products, without ever having subjected them to empirical trials, let alone DBT's. And none of you know a g-d thing about them, that much has been made crystal-clear. Especially if you're arguing against theories of "time travel and orgone energy" wrt these products. As if that isn't bad enough, you go on to speculate about people (ie. me, HifiSoundGuy and GoodSound), and you draw conclusions based on your ignorant speculations.

No, I have another theory, Mr. Gonk. The reason I can't find intelligent debate, is not because no one here is intelligent enough to have an intelligent debate. It's because no one here is intelligent enough to consider that there may be something to debate, that all these products have true merit. You've all made up your minds that these products don't work. We've seen many months of this, what other evidence is needed? Why you admitted this yourself just today when you agreed that people here believe the products are a "sham" and it is expected they will always maintain that belief. Despite having never actually tried them.... So that leaves mockery and ridicule (and attempts to "debunk" anything I say, even if I say something obvious like.... oh... "George Bush is a liar").


...Are you trying to say that the people here are dumb as a post?....

I wrote a lot of serious arguments to you, which you obviously couldn't argue against. So what did you do, you chopped out huge forests, if you even responded to them at all. And then you come at me with this conspiratorial crap about HifiSoundGuy, like as if it justifies your abusive behaviour toward him, in which you and your friends not only mocked and ridiculed this guy for hundreds of posts on end, but accused him and the manufacturers of the products he advocated as frauds and rip off artists. Even if your crackpot conspiracy theories are correct (and it seems to have eluded you that I pretty much agreed with them recently), and you have not and can not prove anything is true on your mere speculation, that still doesn't justify your rude and uncivilized behaviour. And all it does in fact is attract dogs of war like me.....

You know, I would have thought that myself. Until I met your pals Sluggo and Jason J.....


Oh, I apologize for snipping out one or two lines in your posts. I thought that was acceptable, since you've shown you have no problem snipping out 95% of mine. Whether HFSG ordered Sonicaps or a receiver, what does that have to do with the price of tea in China?? I snipped all that pointless conspiratorial crap out in order to make the point that none of it was relevant to your claim about his motivations, since it's all speculation. I thought I explained that to you already? Nor was it relevant to any of my claims, which were made for you to address, and which you by and large "chopped out" or "skipped over" as you like to say.


So what if HFSG also used the link? (Which I agree, didn't make much sense since he was trying to advocate the concept of orgone energy while referencing a skeptic's page on the subject.... But I never said he was the sharpest tack in the box, did I...). You were still the one making the point that orgone energy was bogus, weren't you? Well I happen to have a lot of respect for the work of Wilhelm Reich, so you could say I took personal offense at your unsupported claim. And guess what, Gonk? AFAIC, it's STILL an unsupported claim! I've asked you to provide solid evidence for that, and "it's interesting" that all you can come up with in response is to tell me you got the link from HFSG. As though that excuses your fallacious remarks about orgone energy. Like everyone else here, you are obviously not prepared to ever admit you're wrong about anything, (or for that matter that you've done anything wrong), or that you have been defeated in an argument. That insecurity you have by the way, is the same reason that people are afraid to try Belt products or techniques. Admitting they work raises all kinds of insecurities sheep, I mean "people" have about what they have learned about the world and what they know of themselves. So they tend to "lose their coordinates", if you know what I mean.

I was familar with that reference on Audiogon. Listen carefully to what I asked you: "Show me where it is being marketed as such". A comment by a user who claims that Kaitt told him this on the phone is not, by any definition, "marketing". An advertisement or mention on MD's site of it being a time travel device would be "marketing". You who's done so much research on "guerrila marketing" should already know and appreciate the difference. And before you come back at me and say Kaitt implied it was correct by not refuting the remark, no, implication is not marketing either. "Served to confirm" is not a "confirmation" either, it's an interpretation. We don't know exactly what Kaitt said to the poster or precisely why he was displeased with what the poster wrote, we can only speculate. Remember the earlier problem I had with you speculating? I'm certainly not going to repeat that dirty process myself.

But its my point as well. Perhaps you didn't get it. No one can explain HFSG's comments because he doesn't know what he's talking about either. Why don't you try asking him what the hell "the increase of the vestigial within the listening room" means? I promise you, we'll -both- have a good laugh if he attempts to respond. That's because he's regurgitating verbatim what he lifted off the Audiogon site. As for this crap about "orgone energy", that's just a user on that site that came up with that. I believe he wrote it as a joke, which is the problem with people disseminating false information from speculation or mockery of products. People reading this site might think that Scientology is behind the clever little clock, if they are stupid enough to believe Sluggo's remarks about that.

My point is you're as much of a fool as you think HFSG is, for arguing the clock is bogus because it can't "time travel" and doesn't run on "orgone energy". All we know for sure is, the official explanation for how the clock works is... there is no official explanation. It's entirely possible that someone somewhere misunderstood something Kaitt was trying to explain about the clock, and now dozens of people later, including you, are totally misguided about how it functions. And disseminating false information around, making others equally as ignorant. (Though yes, I feel Geoff is partly to blame for that for not yet providing any answers himself).

I know from the description alone that users and audio journalists have given about the way the clock works, that it's a Belt product (by that, I mean it operates under the same Belt principles that all Belt products & techniques operate upon). Given what I know of Belt principles, I'm probably as unlikely to believe explanations of time travel and orgone energy for the clock, as you are. However, unlike you, I don't give rat's patootie how the clock works. It's an audio device, so the only question on the table should be, does it have a positive audible effect or not? I don't see too many people here asking that. But that's really the -only- thing they should be asking...

Why do you feel this is a pointless excercise, because I was able to defeat every single one of your arguments in this thread? (Except where I agreed with you of course). I don't think it's a pointless excercise, because I think I've been very successful in making my points, all of which have yet to be refuted by anyone here. They include:

* this entire thread has been about the relentless attack of both members, products and the manufacturers of those products, that the rest of the members here "feel" are bogus. Those attacks against members who have advocated the use of "fringe science" products
have included personal remarks, all manner of insults, mockery, ridicule, scorn, derision, contempt, and went so far as defamation of character attacks with accusations of fraudulence and shilling. Libel was also directed toward the manufacturers and engineers. Absolutely ZERO freaking evidence was given by ALL attackers here to support their claims, and absolutely NO ONE tried the products they were attacking, or even knew much about them.

If the "manouevres" you're complaining about is editing of posts, well let me tell you, you do that a -hell- of a lot more with mine than I've done with yours. And I only edit what truly is irrelevant tripe. I don't cut out huge, significant arguments, as you do with mine, because you already know you can't defeat them thru debate.

No I didn't really come here to defend him/her/it, I came here to defend the truth. You guys were kicking it around like a bloody football, and stomping all over it. What I wrote about HFSG is the truth, as I know it, and its ironic you'd have a problem with that, since you did your fair share of kicking him/her/it around yourself in this thread. Speaking of which, let me get this straight..... you don't have any problem with your buds mocking and deriding HFSG for several hundred posts, or even calling him a shill and a scammer, but you have a problem with any derision you perceive coming from me, right? Let me introduce you to a concept called "hypocrisy", which you and your colleagues seem to be thoroughly unfamiliar with....

WOW!
Mighty defender of truth...
Are the worlds biggest injustices located here ?

all that bitter religous zeal leads me to believe in unresolved issues...
and all those abusive words you wrote...
don't tell me otherwise...
maybe greasing up your batteries really turns your crank...on top of altering your perception and mind...

but come on...
you can call us what you want...even hypocrites...
but please allow me to stick the same label onto you...
you're obviously getting more here than just good sound...and a quest for truth...
you seem to have quite a bit of free time to analyse all our posts...seeking truth as you say...yet you ignore the ones you can't argue...

maybe you're not gaining monetary wise...
I'm thinking...you're looking to get laid or something with one of these guys(Kaitt,Belt,HFSG,GS)...
Or hey here's crazy thought...
maybe you are one of these guys...
Frankly I don't care if you are or about your truth...
But you need to smile more...get out of the house...and out of the range of those clocks...they're really doing a number on you...
you obviously seem to believe they make you sound better too...

I posted again on this thread...damn it. I apologize to fellow Outlaws. No more feeding from me...

I know this is very hard to believe but my stereo system sounds more like live music with these tweaked out CLC's in my system now!! My TV picture looks alot better too! I really hope Scott, (the administrator here) contacts Geoff and May Belt so some of you here can find out what I have been enjoying more every day now!

Holy Moses! This thread is still alive? I've been gone from this forum for many months. I thought it was dead back then. Sheesh!


later,
sraber

I am going to attempt to back away from any of my previous attitude and direction. I’ll pose one basic multi-part ‘question area,’ with associated questions, for delius (I'm not asking you to address every individual question, unless you wish to do so, as long as the answer(s) to the basic ‘question area’ covers the associated questions too):

Basic Question, part 1a: By what process would a person know for themselves, “hear with their own ears,” or in an ‘even handed, fair’ manner, experience an appropriate evaluation of one or more PWB methods or products?

Basic Question, part 1b: If all affects upon the brain, sensory input included, can become psychological stimuli, and if the converse can also be true – one’s psychological state can influence our reception and/or interpretation of input – then how can one determine if the presence or absence of a PWB recommended practice or product as a part of the total psychological experience is having a positive or negative effect upon one’s listening experience apart from so many other variables?

(A small digression that I hope will not detract from the basic question: one might say that audio listening and/or PWB recommendations/products cannot be experienced apart from all other present variables. In this life, can we ever be in a ‘steady state’ such that the affect of one variable can be totally isolated? This is one reason that some seekers of new knowledge tend to rely on test instruments that are, as far as we know, uninfluenced by the psychological state of the person performing the test. However if it is psychological stimuli and/or a psychological result we are ultimately trying to evaluate, how would we be able to tell if one particular stimulus, or group of stimuli, from PWB methods or products is an overall positive influence on a person’s perception of an experience within the total psychological situation being experienced?

I know that there are recommendations, such as the freezing of the two proper photographs, the proper freezing/thawing of CD’s, or certain paper treatments, that can be tried without buying any PWB products, and additionally there may be some free product samples available, but what constitutes a ‘fair’ evaluation? Can I apply one or more recommendations/products within a household unbeknown to other household members and wait for one or more of them to say, “What happened, the audio sounds so much better?” This kind of evaluation seems full of problems in attributing positive change to PWB practices and products.

If I am both the one instituting the changes and the one evaluating the results, am I not setting myself up for the potential influence of ‘the power of suggestion’ or similar effect? Does this matter or not matter to the evaluation?

I guess I’m asking for an ‘evaluation method’ that some group of us could actually accept as a reasonable test, even for those who are either skeptics or critics.)

Basic Question, part 2: If there is no reasonable way, acceptable to a group, to evaluate the potential results, then can there be a reasonable way for that group to attribute positive change to the instituting of PWB methods and products?

There are several individuals outside of this forum who attribute positive results to PWB methods, and there are several individuals who report no positive results. If we only continue to add individual, contrary voices to the pool of opinions, then can any summary conclusion regarding the effects of PWB methods with regard to audio be reached?

[Edit: spelling correction.]

Well, let's take a look.... for hundreds of messages in this thread, we've seen hatred, bigotry, prejudice, oppression of minorities, and defamation of character by false accusations without supporting evidence. Yup, I'd say a few of the world's biggest injustices are located here. I believe you're guilty of a few of them yourself.

Please share your theory on that with us, I know how much you're dying to... What unresolved issues do you and your friends have that would explain your religious zeal towards one or two members who innocently advocate a few harmless audio products?

What abusive words? Are you talking about me accusing Outlaw members of fraud, shilling, trolling and scamming without offering any grain of tangible evidence? Then you're confusing me with your compadres. They wrote those abusive words.

Yes,that seems to pretty much sum up the forum's theme song. "We know we're right, we don't need no stinkin' facts to prove it, DON'T TELL US OTHERWISE!"

Or maybe scarfing up so much grease from eating fried cheese curds really turns yours.

Are you flirting with me?

I don't call what I want, I call you what you are.

No, I'm not going to do that. It's easy to call people names or stick "labels" on them. Much harder to back up your words with evidence. I have provided evidence for the hypocrisy of the members here, and like everyone else, you've provided ZERO evidence to support your "labels" on me.

Obviously, since I was already in posession of both those things, before I moseyed into this saloon.

Au contraire, my little poutine puffer. As can be seen by the length of my replies, I haven't ignored anything anyone has been able to throw at me yet, and my complaint has been of people ignoring truths I've posted that they can't argue with. Such as the truth I outlined above about the defamation of character I've seen of two of your members, by false accusations without supporting evidence. Are you going to provide the supporting evidence that went lacking in the libelous claims against the members, the products they advocated and the companies that made those products? I didn't think so. That makes -you-, guess what? A hypocrite.

You mean the previous thought wasn't "crazy thought"?

Wow. That is a crazy thought. So crazy, I've heard it about a dozen times before. From dumb crackpot conspiracy theorists who happen to look just like you, and be as crazy (and imaginative) as you. Here's another crazy thought: Maybe you're a spiteful and ignorant fool who has no qualms about looking like one on the world stage. Oh wait, maybe that can't be classified as a "crazy thought".

Well by any chance, does "syntax" or grammar fall into the category of things that you care about?

Since you're the resident poet, here's a little ditty for ya...

There was an angry old troll named "Laventura".
Who's brain cells couldn't be fewer
He misspent his youth
Has a hatred for truth
For he left his integrity in the sewer....

A wise decision. You were starting to give the other trolls here a good name.

Always happy to answer serious, sincere, non-stupid questions, willbang4abuck. Unless I don't feel to. Of course, I'm just as happy to dole out derision & ridicule, if people want to troll me or be disrespectful. I don't want anyone feeling left out, that wouldn't be fair to all.

I think I already answered that question twice already, by giving out these two website addresses:

http://www.geocities.com/soundhaspriority
http://www.geocities.com/cico_buff

Whether that's an "even handed, fair manner" to evaluate the products is indeed arguable. What isn't aruable, is that its at least a free means, and a readily accessible one. The first site holds a technique I've used in the past, that I believe works under Belt's phenomenon (but does officially in fact belong to the science of biogeometry). If used properly and in a great enough quantity, I believe it can pass the average listener's hearing threshold. The second site allows for an evaluation of the Belt effect using other Beltist techniques I have applied to a CD burner. Neither site have anything directly to do with the actual products from PWB.

During the time of a review in the online audio journal "Positive Feedback" of their Silver Rainbow Foil, the company (PWB) was giving out free samples of the foil to all interested parties who were sincere in trying out the products, with an interest in purchasing Belt products later on. I don't know if they're still doing that, because it was clear on some forums that there were plenty of ignorant hateful a--holes who hated the company so much, they asked for free samples with no intent of keeping an open mind about any of it. But only to heap more scorn and derision on the company in their little online audio clubs, and attempt to bankrupt them. Now perhaps if you ask nicely and sound like you are sincere in your effort to evaluate their products, they may still send you a free sample. The email address to make your request is: foil@belt.demon.co.uk.

That would be the most "even handed, fair manner" to properly evaluate their products, without actually buying any of them. And of course, the fair thing to do here would be to use it as instructed, and have the gonads to post an objective review (good or bad), based on at least a dozen proper applications. (The more applications of any of these techniques, the better the average Joe listener hears them. Needless to say, I only require one).

The same as with any other audio device or phenomenon: a subjective listening test, and the acquisition of listening skills. I've been called a "golden ear", which is really just a myth. Becoming a so-called "goldean ear" simply means acquiring listening skills through the experience of doing many listening tests. Once you understand what sort of changes take place in your perception of sound through the repeated changes of wire, cable or electronic components, you become more skilled at identifying (relatively) small changes brought about by audio devices (or Belt "treatments"). With normal, sighted A/B subjective test comparisons, not only can you identify the types of changes made, you can identify them relatively quickly.

I can usually identify most changes in under 5 seconds. Some people take minutes to identify the same thing, some require weeks, some give up long before that, concluding that they can't hear a thing. So it's all relative to your skill level. I can also identify whether the change is due to a PWB product or method, or whether it's due to (NP) or "Newtonian" effects. That's because both types of changes have their own unique "global characteristic" (and by implication, many "signatures" within that global character). Once you identify the "signature" of an audio change (wether Beltist or Newtonian), you determine by subjective analysis, whether that change is a positive one or a negative.

Again, whether you correctly identify the change as positive or negative is going to depend upon your listening skills and relative experience with audio, recognizing good sound. (Unfortunately, seeing what many people accept as good methods and products and which I've tested and determined to be harmful, I'm of the impression that most audiophiles do not recognize true "good sound", and instead settle for degradations of their sound, that they are convinced are improvements. One example of that would be the ubiquitous use of metal spikes). The problem arises from the fact that most audiophiles don't realize that most changes (and this is true for both Beltist and Newtonian audio products and methods)are not simply "positive or negative", but a combination of both. I'm very careful about treatments I apply to my system. I listen carefully, and accept a change only when the change proves to be more positive than negative, to my ears.

One of the ways I can tell that a change is more for the positive, is by how long I am inclined to listen to the test track. If I continue to want to listen to the test track even after I have identified the "signature" (sonic change), that's always a good sign. If I do this with a track I've heard hundreds of times, that's a better sign. (Just as if I end up liking a track I never really liked to begin with, is also a good sign). I maintain awareness of my body movements and mental connection with the music, and by guaging by how strong those connections are, I can guage the efficacy of the change.

That's a good question, and the answer is, we can not completely eliminate such variables because there are too many, and they are relatively unknown. However, there is a basic assumption by proponents of blind testing that they can isolate all variables so that the only meaningful variables that remain are the ones that determine whether or how sound has changed. Except the problem is, they know screw all about all the ways in which we are affected by our perception of sound. So they take into account none of what they don't know, obviously, and only what they know. Rendering the tests meaningless and unreliable, as far as true scientific data is concerned (however, they can always convince themselves their blind tests are reliable).

Even I don't know all those ways our perception of sound changes, but I have done enough experiments to know that it can change in very mysterious ways, beyond our consciousness. For example, based on some of Belt's observations, I have done tests showing that the way you sit, the number of socks you wear, and the hand gestures you make all have an effect on the perception of sound not only for yourself, but anyone present in the room. Peter Belt knows a lot more about this than I do, and he once used this knowledge to create rooms that were unanimously voted as having the best sound at hifi shows. When I do my own listening tests, I try to change -nothing-, move -nothing-, (needless to say, eat or drink nothing between trials), and keep conditions same as the previous trial.

This is especially important with Belt products, because you can take a Belt product and remove it from the system and put it on the chair next to you, and forget that merely by it sitting on the chair, it can still have an effect on the sound. Another such observation I've made, and I don't know exactly why it occurs, is that when I take too long between A/Bing (say, not listening for one minute or more), especially if I get up and go do something for a couple of minutes and then come back, the sound has now gotten much better. (On the other hand, the faster I repeat the same track, the more the sound degrades). I counter what we might call "the delayed test effect", by playing a few seconds of the track after I have delayed listening to it for too long, and then repeating it immediately from the beginning, in order to degrade the sound a bit, in an attempt to give it a fair chance against the previous sample in the A/B test. I also observed the sound improving if you start the cd player on pause, than going from stop to play.

In being dilligent, and because in the end the changes I effect are greater (to my ears) than the variables at play, I am nevertheless able to identify and (subjectively) quantify changes, to where I can "sculpt" a series positive changes in my system into an overall positive change in sound that is unmistakeable by nearly everyone.

That of course would require a way of measuring the energy that Belt believes is an inherent quality of all objects in our immediate home environment, and the very thing we are constantly reacting to when we use any of our senses. This may be possible at some future date using laser interferometry, but today it currently isn't.

Believe it or not (I expect "not"), when I am testing Belt products or methods, I can often tell whether a change I've issued is a positive or negative one, before that I even start the music. Why, because I "feel" the change as a sort of change in my sense of well being. (And it is always confirmed when the music tells me the change was a thoroughly positive one). Naturally, I know no objective way to measure feelings, or small changes in the relative perceptions of sound or sight (psychological stimuli). Here's how I can know if someone else has had the same perception as me: when they describe the changes they've heard. I've had skeptics who tried my techniques or the Belt products describe those changes, and because the global sonic signature of the Belt phenomenon (the rainbow foils to use an example) is unique, I know from the descriptions they use to identify the changes that it mirrors what I have heard myself. Those descriptions tell me that it couldn't be from any accidental change caused by "Newtonian" physics, or for that matter, autosuggestion (since I never told anyone what the products should sound like).


See answer to 1a above. A more detailed addition to that would be to say, "fair evaluation" depends upon the individual's threshold of audibility. For example, I can hear changes in sound made by the addition of a few specks of quartz crystal, each smaller than a grain of sand. You might need to have someone strike a Rank Co. gong in your ear, before you start to hear some new change to your sound. That's why I suggest, whether you're fooling with paper treatments (L-shapes) or strips of Rainbow Foil, you do at least a dozen applications at once. I don't even know if a dozen will do for you or the rest of the audio geniuses on this forum. Maybe one's enough, but I do know a dozen has a stronger effect than one. In any case, in any proper evaluation of an audio product, you need to learn how to listen and you need to familiarize yourself very well with the current sound of your system, in order to know whether true changes have taken place.

But it's always been the individual that convinces himself what a fair evaluation of Belt products is. I've had people try a simple 5-pinhole paper device, and after not hearing the effect, become so angry with me and themselves, that they not only refuse to try anything further, they are even more convinced it's all fakery, than they were to begin with. What those same dolts don't realize is, had they pursued the experiments, to where they are increasing the applications and even using different products and techniques, I believe its inevitable that they would have finally heard the effect themselves (unless they were do disbelieving of it, they simply didn't want to, and killed any chances of discrimination with a reverse placebo).

Absolutely. I know that for a fact, because I've seen it happen. But keep in mind, it took me weeks to get to that point! You have to know what you're doing, which means you have to use effective techniques or products, effectively. Some Belt products are more effective than others, naturally one would presume the costlier ones are the most effective (Belt products tend to be priced according to their effectiveness, not according to how much it costs to manufacture them).

The way I made this happen, was that I started tweaking my girlfriend's stereo, without ever telling her that I was doing so. At that time, she had no idea that I even did audio tweaking, or what audio tweaking was. Having advanced listening skills and being a quick learner, I was able to initiate a MAJOR change in the sound over a time period, using dozens of applications of foils and other (exclusively Beltist) techniques, both on and around the system, as well as the rest of the house. When she finally popped a CD into the stereo, she looked at me in disbelief. She didn't recognize the sound of her stereo system any longer. She looked at the components to see if anything had changed, and asked me what I knew about it, and if I had done something. At a future point, members of her family dropped by, and they had heard and lived with this stereo. When they popped a CD in, they also made comments about the sound having improved. Despite no one having told them that changes were made.

So again, yes its possible for that to happen, and I've since read many stories of people saying it did for them. Whether it does in an individual's case depends on how thorough they are in Belting their system and on the awareness of others present, who may later hear it. In my experience, I can change interconnects to really expensive ones, and others won't notice the changes. And you can change an entire component, and not get a reaction like "What did you do?" from your friend or relative. So if someone else notices any changes on their own, whether by Belt products or not, it may require a -big- change.


I don't see why. I believe the situation described above is the truest test you can possibly have to confirm genuine changes, because it is a totally unprovoked confirmation that something has improved the sound. People around you are not in the habit of saying "Wow, I just noticed all of a sudden your system sounds fantastic, what did you do to it?", when you didn't do a thing. (Not that systems can't change when you don't do a thing... but they usually degrade!). It's a far better confirmation than a double blind test, if you ask me.

Of course, by the time your family or relative notice those changes, trust me, there won't be a shadow of doubt in your mind that the change took place! We're talking major transformation here.

No. Doing a normal, sighted test means you are evaluating your system in accordance with the scientific range rule. If you're going to try to pretend to be "clever" and only do some variation of blind test, thinking this makes you a smart cookie because you'll be able to tell yourself and others that you are not leaving yourself open to the placebo effect, well you're only fooling yourself another way. The stresses you will be introducing will probably negate the stresses the Belt produts are designed to reduce, until you don't know which way is up any longer, and you conclude that you can't make any positive conclusions, going on to conclude the products have no effect.

If you eventually do hear positive changes and those positive changes are repeatable, then you have a meaningful result. I've had to say this to people so many times, it might as well be my middle name: PLACEBOS DON'T WORK. Call it autosuggestion, expectation effect, clever marketing effect, power of suggestion, or self-delusion, none of that sh*t lasts! The Belt effect does, however. I've had skeptics who became believers tell me that they did "finally" hear the effect, but they're sure that 6 months down the road, they'll change their minds. So six months down the road, I email them to ask them about it. And so far, they haven't. In fact, once you remove a Belt product, that's easy to see because the sound gets to a level worse than before you installed it.

That's wrong. You're going back to that stupid mode of thinking that I rallied so furiously against, to institute a "group evaluation" of an audio product. Every individual needs to think for themselves, and stop playing "follow the leader". There is no such thing as a "reasonable test" in audio, that negates the need for someone to do their own. (And certainly not when it costs them nothing but time to do their own subjective test). I've already explained in great detail why blind tests (in audio) are unreliable among these pages, and I've explained why sighted tests by others are unreliable (everyone having a different threshold of audibility for one). Which leaves the only meaningful test for the audio consumer to be his/her own experiences. That doesn't mean your experiences is the definitive test, even for you (you may not have implemented the experiment properly). But its a lot more meaningful than simply reading the results someone else had, and making determinations about the worth of a product based on that. Because even if the test you're reading about that other people have taken shows positive results, this will tell you whether -you- can hear it or not.

If I were to have used this "follow the leader" philosophy, I could have counted up the tests on the net that I could find on the products, and it might have come out that the majority show no positive differences, then I add the amount of (ignorant) opinions I can find on the net on the products, (most of which will be from people who have never tried them) claiming the products are a "sham", and I will have concluded (convinced that I have cleverly applied "logic" and "reason" to my conclusions) that the products don't work. I've now saved myself time and trouble by not bothering with them. And the only problem with that of course, is that my system sounds like sh*t (and by that I mean, compared to how good it could sound). I will have missed the most important and exciting revolution in audio in the last 25 years, by playing "follow the leader", and not thinking for myself, or giving this technology its proper evaluation.

That depends on the group, specificially, its common mindset. If the group feels the only "reasonable way" to evaluate such products is via the blind/double blind test, then the group may conclude that PWB methods and products are not effective (and based on pseudo science). Depending on the product and its application, those types of tests may require an ability to evaluate relatively small (but significant) changes. Which some audio hobbyists may only truly determine after weeks of evaluating a product (and then removing it from the system). This is why blind tests tend to favour differences only in products that naturally produce -large- differences (ie. speakers). (Which is why the validity of speaker differences makes speakers the least controversial product in audio today).

If the group feels that once shared experiences pass a certain threshold it can be reasonable to assume the experiences are real, then they might accept the instituting of PWB methods and products. The problem with that is the built-in prejudices general Western societies have prevents them from accepting the challenge of PWB's radical new findings, and hence they never get to the level of where positive experiences become too significant in number to ignore by the rest of the group. As we speak, countless sheep in the global community are still debating the idea that there are differences produced by wires, cables, amps, preamps, cd players, etc. Yet only one mindset can be correct on this.
Needless to say, PWB has a much harder row to hoe convincing people that, if they can't even be convinced on the whole that products (ie. wire) that directly affect the signal have a direct affect on our perception of sound.

Here's a company that comes along and says "Okay folks, never mind the wire, the mere -colour- of the insulation of the wire has an effect on your sound. No really, it does!"... and is greeted with cries of laughter, scorn, mockery & derision, instead of a reception of serious audio researchers going "Really? I'm going to try doing tests on that...". Having studied many social groups, such as the one this forum represents, I have seen that there is a hidden political backbone that creates the agenda for every group. It gets in the way of the truth, true science and progress. For example, people hear changes but are too embarassed to admit it to themselves, much less their colleagues. Audio journalists hear the effects of PWB products, but dare not risk their careers to affirm that in their publications. (Many audio journalists now regret having reported on positive changes from the PWB products, and all but denounce the products today, which is an example of how the political structure of a group can prevent dynamic changes to its mindset, almost as a form of self-preservation (preservation of identity, really). I've seen that happen here, when someone showed how frightened he was that Outlaw would become like AA, or some other group (of "tweak freaks", is the pejorative term usually used, I believe).


Which btw, can be said of nearly any audio product.


Only once the global consensus shows a significant number of people reporting positive results (or even just a significant number of respected audio journalists might do it). Fact is, PWB products can benefit everyone. Including Granma Jo with the micro stereo system (I -have- Belted micro stereo systems to great effect) or tweenie Christina with the iPod (I have Belted mp3 players to great effect). The products have even been proven to help hearing aid wearers in blind tests, so indeed they can have many applications beyond mere audio. But because of social politics and the global "follow the leader" mindset, they remain esoteric and "audio's as well as the world in general's best kept secret".... And were it not for the politics of science, I believe it would have been on the front page of the NY Times a long time ago (although, an article on the revolutionary methods of acheiving better sound by freezing musical instruments or CD's appeared in that paper many years ago, and it didn't really change much of the audio or musical instrument industry).

Delius, you disappoint. The least you could do is remember what bs you pushed last week before you spout more this week:

but, of course, you say today:

It's as if you're not even trying anymore. Where's the love?

no time for love...too busy shoving his beliefs in everybody's face...
Bull always needs a lot of shoving...

come on Delius...you can do better than poutine puffer...
could that be a hint of biggotry from you ?
I would expect more from a noble man claiming to possess absolute truth in audio...
Are you not the protector of orphans, little old ladies, stray dogs...
oh! let's not forget audio product SCAMMERS and their gullible victims...

break out your red pen...

And Delius...even though I mentioned ''bull'' and ''shoving'' in the same sentence previously...it wasn't meant as flirting...
I just thought I'd clarify that for you...
it could easily be taken the wrong way...
especially by a guy who doesn't get kissed much before he gets boned...

I don't know which is sadder... (a) that there's someone stupid enough to defend these audiophool scams, or (b) that he's willing to write 50,000 words of froth in the effort.

delius, go shill somewhere else. Better yet, since you love writing so much, write a paper and publish it. I look forward to reading how this crap works in the IEEE. Until then, get to work and keep it down.

There's something about this thread that ticks me off.

there is no spoon

In an effort to continue showing the ‘kinder side’ of the forum, without antagonism, ridicule or derision, perhaps I could ask for a post from delius describing his personal audio and Beltist history, including prior interest and experience, introduction to PWB ideas/theory, personal evaluation(s), particular results, others who may vouch for changes in perceived audio following changes made by delius in the listening environment. I know that some of this has been mentioned in bits and pieces, but perhaps something closer to a chronological progression?

[Edit: spelling correction.]

bangedbyAtruck wrote:

Well you didn't respond to the last response I gave you, so if you're just trolling, then all I'm gonna say is, keep it up, FreshOutOfLuck. This "kinder side of the forum" without antagonism, ridicule or derision, seems to come along once every 5,000 posts, when the subject of alternative audio products is discussed.

Prior to PWB ideas & theory, I was just like any other "normal" audiophile. Except I knew a lot more about audio than they did. Not because I studied engineering to build equipment pretty much like everyone else was building equipment, but because I studied what changed sound, (in an effort to understand what produced good sound). This is called, by the general community, "tweaking". So I guess I was always a "tweaker". Not because I was never satisified with my sound, but because I was fascinated by all the ways in which I heard sound could change. Even then, I would later find that some of those ways were being rejected by the community at large, as nonexistent or insignificant. Such as my experiments in isolating components from resonance (which most audiophiles never cared about then, and care even less about today), or cable direction (in which people were saying there were no differences to be had, despite my conclusions that there were... and for all I know, the sheep are probably braying that same tune today).

We're talking some 20 years ago now, around which time I read some articles in the British hifi press about strange and unusual devices by one Peter Belt..... There was a lot of controversy stirred over these products as can be imagined, with some reviewers defending them after being introduced to them and hearing their effects, others soundly rejecting them before even trying them, and other reviewers stating no differences were heard.
Well not being in the UK, I couldn't buy them myself, but I tried some of the ideas, as they were a free tweak that I could try. One consisted of cutting a notch in the center of your plug blade, which I found beneficial and continued to use on every piece of new equipment I acquired in those 20 years.

I knew nothing about how any of this worked at the time (and indeed, neither did Belt), only that the tweak worked (for me).... and somehow it did for 20 years, without my having to know how it worked. If it was a placebo, it's got to be the damndest most effective placebo ever devised by man, to have lasted two decades. I knew Belt's ideas were unique, but I had no idea what a true revolutionary the man was. I did not think in terms of "Newtonian physics" or "quantum physics" re: the little plug tweak. If anything, I believed there was a Newtonian explanation for it, probably in regards to electrons flowing across the blade, and somehow preferring having that flow somewhat interrupted by the notch. (Don't anyone even try to argue with that, as I said, I didn't really care how it worked).

In the last while, I rediscovered via the net that Belt was still alive and well, and even making a slew of new products, all of which are now available globally. Now, I'm not so sure about my Newtonian explanation for the plug blade (its probably a form of quantum energy that it manipulates, rather than electrical energy), because I've come to understand alternate theories that better explain quite a number of misapplications of Newtonian principles that people commonly make. Not simply by swallowing whatever is read without questioning it (as 99% of audiophiles do), but by making my own observations within the theoretical domain of "Beltism" (as 99% of Beltists do...).

I have since made my own discoveries concerning the phenomenon apart from what Belt has done, but within the laws of his hypotheses (and indeed, inspired by them). The site I recently posted that allows you to download mp3's and compare Belted and non-Belted CD burners covers one of those more recent discoveries. The fact is, and this -is- a "fact" no matter how much people might like to argue it, there are currently much phenomenon in audio science that can't be explained by conventional science. (And can't necessarily be proven by conventional scientific standards either). Such as the aforementioned effects of cable direction. (Of course, whatever can't be proven by conventional scientific knowledge is always sloughed off as "the placebo effect" by conventional thinkers).

After my later reintroduction to Beltism, some of my earliest personal evaluations of the theory caused me to understand how the environment we live in plays such a dominant role to our sensory perception. This was because I had applied Belt treatments (such as the laser etched metallic foils) to things that had nothing to do with the stereo (ie. water tank, electricity meter, pipes/plumbing), and was getting results better than on the stereo itself. Doing simple things like removing my video tapes (all extraneous articles containing magnets, including cassettes) from the listening room, and finding significant improvements to my perception of sound, showed me how objects in our environment have a profound effect on our senses.

The reason I have a hifi of astounding ability today, is because of the fact that I have always remained open minded audio enthusiast. I never cared much for the closed-minded pig headedness I saw in my fellow hobbyists, and never cared much for the argument of theories either. I always beleived, long before my journey through the looking-glass of Beltism, that if I felt I heard differences or improvements, that's good enough for me. The prolonged increase in my enjoyment of music was all that I needed as evidence. (Needless to say, I have since become -very good- at discovering what does and doesn't profoundly affect our enjoyment of reproduced music, whether via Beltist or conventional upgrades).

Despite the presence of the ever open mind, there's always some doubt at first that these rituals can possibly have true meaning. So I too wanted some validation for what I was hearing (no man is an island....). Which is why, for weeks on end, I never told my friend I was Belting her stereo..... At the time she didn't play music often, just a little clock radio. Which served my interests... because when she finally put a CD on, she turned and looked at me with a "What the hell just happened?" look. That was all the validation I needed, that my (secret Belting) efforts were being heard by another. Not only did she not know at the time that I had worked on her system, not only did she not know it was entirely via Beltist products and methods, but she didn't even know I was an audio nut (or tweaker). However, I had done enough that a transformation had taken place, not merely "changes".

The system was cheap old kit, valued at about $300 in today's market, I'd figure (if that). An SS Technics receiver from the 70's, an old 6-disc Denon cd changer (bottom of their line) , and a large pair of home made 3 way floorstanding speakers one of her relatives had cobbled together in the 70's. And I did not install my MIT Shotgun IC's on her system either. I left in place the garden variety freebie interconnects, and cheapass 24g speaker wire. (I did however "Belt" the IC's by tying a square knot in them at one end). After spending time treating the system & environment with Beltist techniques every day for a couple of weeks, I actually preferred its sound to that of my own (then) non-Belted system.

It was an effortless, natural sound. So open, that these massive ugly diy speakers sitting on the floor 3 feet away from you, sounded like they weren't even there. The singer in the centre of them however, did sound like she was there in the room with you. Timbre had a rich, natural tone to it, and some noise a musician made would occasionally surprise you, because it sounded like the instrument was in the room. Although it might be hard to imagine reproducing any real sense of "depth" on a system like this, particularly with an a/v cabinet planted right between (and slightly in front of) the speakers, depth was there in spades. You didn't hear "highs,mids,lows", you just heard "music". And the music you heard was very engaging. I remember trying to write messages on audio forums like this, and finding myself having to interrput my writing, because the stereo was playing, and I kept feeling compelled to go back to the couch to listen to it....

Now about those messages.... naturally, I also felt compelled to share what I had discovered with the audio community. And then I got an "education" in just what sort of an "open minded global society" we were living in today. When attempting to share some of the things I'd learned, even to the point of offering people free ways I discovered to improve their sound, I was thanked with hoots of derision, ridicule, mockery, scorn, contempt, defamatory attacks, (I think y'all know the tune by now). So as any normal person would in a situation like this, I made plans of vengeance to murder -each and every audiophile- I could find on the net. But when I did research in Wikipedia, I found this was not only socially unacceptable, but "illegal" as well:

http://www.wikipedia.org/legality_issues_murdering_closedminded_audiophiles.html

I learned through those experiences that most people out there in the online audio community are not audiophiles at all. They are at best, what I call dilletantes. They don't join audio forums to learn anything (of significance) new about audio, they come to assert what they already know. And take comfort in surrounding themselves with others who share the same beliefs and interests.

I came to realize from reading many contributions from many people on many usenet and web based audio discussion forums.... that most people simply don't know what the f**k they're talking about. And they wouldn't know, since they continually regurgitate the same wrong (but widely accepted) information between them, and they base the quality of their audio on that false information. They'll accept that wrong (or missing) information to the death, and argue it until they are blue in the face. Then continue arguing it some more.

So I decided I would let sheep be sheep, if that's what people want to be, but not allow myself to be silenced by the majority opinion, which was -always- "stupid opinions of sheer unadulterated ignorance", and always masquerading as "reasonable intellect". If for whatever reason I ever brought up my Beltist beliefs in the online audio community, I stuck to the principles of non-directionality and non-violent change, as practiced by my personal heroes, Gandhi and the Dalai Lama. Except that I wore a big chip on my shoulder and always had a sack of doorknobs close at hand. I consider them both "useful debating tools".

Yeah, you're Ghandi with a sack of doorknobs. Or perhaps you're just an angry Toby Radloff with a keyboard.

Either way, there's nothing in your messages that doesn't boil down to just how great you think you are, and what a service you think you're doing for the world. In that, at least, you are a debating tool.

Let's put it this way: either in the realm of scientific phenomena, or that of psychological phenomena, betwixt which lies your coveted "beltism," there exists a common thread related to the existence of either.

First, the phenomenon must be observable. Once that is established, the observer creates an hypothesis regarding the existence of said phenomenon, usually drawing a relationship to that which is known. Next, the phenomena can be used to predict the results of subsequent observations, or interactions of the phenomena with other known elements. Lastly, the hypothesis is tested in a way that can easily identify if it is incorrect, by multiple independent parties. And, of course, they do one other thing - they document their findings.

I'm sure you know this, delius. It's the scientific method. And believe it or not, the finest minds in our world (which I'm sure you consider equals) use this to disprove hypotheses to great success the world over. It works for any observable phenomena.

For all of your rhetoric here about the validity of your supposed findings, you have yet to show even a single instance where these hypotheses have been tested by independent sources, or even documented in an objective manner. All you've offered is circuitous reasoning why these methods don't suit your precious, exotic phenomena, and therefore any disproving done with them cannot be trusted.

One of the things Carl Sagan had said in his life that struck me was this:
A lot of people have made very good arguements in opposition to you, delius, whether or not you actually acknowledge it. But of course you won't; you simply keep on saying the same things over and over again, and ignore what doesn't suit you.

Yeah, yeah, go ahead - we're the ones who ignore the facts. Which, of course, so far amount to taking your word for it, in between fits of provocative name-calling.

Let me put it to you succinctly: enlighten us as to the belt hypotheses, and the testing he's done (or you've done) to validate them, and then have these tests run by multiple independent experimenters to the same conclusions, and I'll buy into beltism. I'll even buy the damned cream.

I read this in the news recently:

"Consumer Alert: Beware of Programs Posing as Humans.

The Daemon-Enhanced LittleClock Information Upload System (DELIUS), is a web bot designed to pose as a human and randomly generate automated responses designed to analyze the susceptibility of forum participants' to procure useless acoustic products.
The program is designed to generate increasingly long strings of data inversely proportional to sales of products. This part of the testing is designed to identify the outlier participants who are likely to buy a product even after being beaten over the head with it.
Once those users make a purchase, they are called randomly by phone with a prerecorded message asking them to shoot themselves and report if they hear any noise. The lack of responses is then used as statistical evidence to make the claim that these products are effective in totally eliminating all noise from the environment and the known universe.

Law enforcement personnel are calling this the first salvo in a war between machines and humans. Police organizations are pouring over old suicide scene photographs to determine just how long this has been going on.
"So far we have found lots of clocks in pictures" said commissioner Gordon, who added "The introduction of cream was particularly clever as it ensures that the fingerprints of the victim overwhelm all other evidence at the scene, effectively forcing the incident to be ruled a suicide."

They definitely need to work on the fuzzy logic coding of (DELIUS).

This computer program is spouting data that is purporting changes that our outside consciousness. They could probably re-write that line of code a little bit to have it say writeln('increase consciousness or expand consciousness beyond their current limits.');

With a little tweaking and a voice synthesizer this program would probably be very effective with telemarketing calls.

Let me know where I can download this poorly written program.

Or Mother Theresa with an impressive set of brass knuckles, if you prefer.

Terry Wholoff? Terry Whatloff? Who's that, the guy who stole your boyfriend? Sorry fanboy, I had nothing to do with that. And I'm not angry. You are.

How would you know? You've admitted to being too stupid to read my messages through. I am helping open-minded audiophiles improve their sound, if they so desire. And what service do you think you're doing for the world with these inane, disposable, half-witted responses of yours, troll?

Beltism lies not "betwixt", it is in the realm of scientific phenomena. As much as the universe is.

That was established 25 years ago, dork. Get your facts straight, before you pretend to talk about things you know nothing about. Like audio.

That was also done. Get your facts straight.

That was also done. That's how the hypotheses was formed, dork-o.

And so too was that done, as I have already explained in my messages. You know... the ones you admitted to being too retarded to read and understand?

I'm well acquainted with the "scientific method". I'm also well acquainted with the SRR, which obviously, you who would hide behind scientific principles you don't fully understand, are not.

Show me one post of mine where I claimed to be a genius, equal to the finest minds in our world. Just ONE, dorky. That's all I'm asking for. Try supporting your endless BS with something other than more BS, for once in your life. Since my time here, I have shown and proved repeatedly, how you and the other trailer park boys dont know your asses from your elbows, and have no qualms about presenting your ignorance of alternative audio as fact. You're obviously stupidly confusing your collective lack of intelligence and factual knowledge with me claiming to be a genius; but there's actually a difference there that went over your head.

False. You even launched an ad hominem attack against my objective 3rd party evidence, which makes you a liar here, by definition.

Now on the contrary.... here's a fact that seems to have you and the rest of the redneck audiophiles scared out of your wits, since you have ignored it 60 times over: You have yet to show a single instance where you (or any other flaming troll on this group) provide factual, verifiable, 3rd party evidence that proves the claims you and your redneck buddies here made about PWB and Machina Dynamica being "frauds", making "fraudulent products", and also HFSG and GoodSound being scammers, trolls and shills.

And no Slugfest, "lack of evidence" on the part of the manufacturers, the members of Outlaw forum, or your inability to find evidence, does not prove your point about the products being invalid. That's also the scientific method speaking, the rule you like to beat your hairy chest about.

According to the JAES, evidence which I have already knocked you upside the head with I don't know how many times, the much-controversied ABX methodology you refer to, can't be relied on to prove differences in pick up cartridges, cd players, amps, or sometimes, even speakers. I think that even the rest of your sheep brethren would hardly call those devices "precious exotic phenomena", my little ankle-biting troll.

If because of lack of confidence, listening skill or wrong-headed ideologies you are not able to prove audio phenomena to yourself by simply listening to the product, then whether the item creates an audible change or not, is a moot point to you. Everyone's mileage varies.


Nor can I recall the last time someone like you (a rigid, closed-minded fool with stubborn views) said that on an INTERNET AUDIO DISCUSSION GROUP, Sluggy. On the contrary, I've been arguing with the same sort of ignorant pig-headed imbeciles as you on audio discussion groups for over 10 years now. And guess what? They're still at it, still haven't changed their tune, despite me and a thousand other guys throwing all kinds of evidence in their face that they are WRONG. You'll DIE believing you're right, when you were dead wrong about me and everything you said about everything I said.

But as our mutual friend Sagan points out, the reason you and others here won't change, is because it's too PAINFUL to change. If you were receptive to change, you wouldn't be arguing with me so long and so loud. You'd have shutted your fat trap up by now, visited the links I posted, and tried the hypotheses out yourself. Instead, you posted a message falsely claiming that I claimed to be a producer of audio products, and dowright STUPIDLY claiming that I was selling audio products on these sites. Had you actually visited the sites you warned people about you screaming idiot, you'd have seen that there are no audio products for sell on them. Nor have you supplied a shred of evidence to prove your claim that I sell audio products myself.

And you wonder why I call you and your homies "stupid" all the time?


First of all, you and most others here haven't even MADE arguments against me. All of you wanna-be gunslingerse have proven to be either too stupid or too chickenshit to do so, even after I came on here and basically slapped every one of you lily-livered chickenfarts in the face with a white glove. I made no hesitation in taking ALL OF YOU on single-handedly, and boldly CHALLENGED each and every one of you to take me on. And all that almost every one of you could do in response, is write your usual, predictable, dumb little mockery quips. On top of that, you don't even display a hint of a refined sense of humour, in your derisive attacks. To whit: your stupid little crack about me still living in my mother's basement. SO f***king original, that mock attack was, that I actually pitied you. And quickly filed you under "R" for "Retard".

The sheer length of my posts show that I have acknowledged every single argumetn against me. However, the rare person that attempted to debate me, such as when you finally borrowed a set of balls from someone after biting my ankles for so long, and tried to debate me, chickened out right after my reply. You actually ran away, hid under a porch or something, and never attempted to continue that debate, despite your continuing practice of writing derisive messages to or about me. So I dare say, but a proper debate never got going among the herd of like-minded ignorant sheep here, and not for my lack of interest. And DON'T make your usual excuses about why that is, I'm not buying. As such, I have yet to see anything resembling a "good argument" in opposition to me. All I've heard in opposition is "where are the double blind tests?! Show us the objective third party verified double blind tests!!"


Right! Don't make me LAUGH, Sluggy! Considering that in this thread of several hundred messages, you and others here have not presented a SINGLE SHRED of evidence to support your claim that HFSG, GoodSound, Kaitt, and Belt are frauds and scammers, as well as anything else I've seen you claim, you're not one to talk about not acknowledging opposition against your claims. You just keep on saying the same things over and over, hypocrite.

I can agree with you there.

What "provocative name-calling"?.... Me calling you "stupid" is not name-calling, it's now a proven -fact-. Which you prove yourself in many ways in every message of yours. Besides that, you were one of the first who started personal attacks against me here, so don't cry about it now, fanboy.

Done that already.

Done that already.

Done that already.

Try getting a six year old to read my messages, which are too long for your fragile brain to handle, without getting a migraine. But DO NOT, I repeat, DO NOT tell me that I did not write about which I already have. And don't ask me to repeat things that are already in my messages. If you're too stupid to read the messages in the first place, then it follows that you're dumb to understand what they say.

First of all, I doubt you even have enough money to run the electricity that powers your computer. Which is why I believe you're probably typing this from the library. Second of all, I dont care whether you buy "damned cream" or holy cream, it doesn't affect me or my bottom line. Third of all, I also don't care wether you "buy into Beltism", nor do I care whether you or anyone believes what I say about it being valid. It's not my job in life to make fools believe what they are too foolish to believe, or find out for themselves.

I have given everyone here a means to find out for yourselves whether you have truly acted like risible, ignorant brain-dead fools for all of these months in condemning alternative audio products you're too stupid to understand, or whether you were right all along. Whether you choose to use those tools (the websites I posted, for the perpetually slow...), is your prerogative. And if you do, whether you hear differences or not, doesn't prove a damn thing either. It only proves you can't hear the differences. But it also proves, in a limited sort of way... whether THAT aspect of Beltism, as exemplified on my site, is within the parameters of your hearing ability.

One last thing about Kaitt: Geoff Kaitt is a rocket scientist. He knows a HELL of a lot more about science and audio, than anyone I have seen here. To equate yourselves with his knowledge of science would be to make a joke of yourselves. He's also a Beltist and is very knowledgable about the validity of Belt products. By making foolish statements like "all Belt products are fraudulent and so is Geoff Kaitt", you're claiming superior knowledge to him. And let's be clear about that: I mean you are all claiming this superior knowledge from sitting on your fat asses for years on end, chewing cud on an audio group (pretending your all audio experts). Without of course offering the world even a quantum particle of evidence proving Kaitt and all is a fraud. Whereas unlike most of you from what it appears, he has actually graduated from high school, and actually worked for NASA on interplanetary space travel. And actually heard Belt products, which is more than I can say for --anyone else here--. Apart from myself, of course. I rest my case.

To all concerned,
It appears that Delius is bent on fulfilling her own prophecy.
Her last post is so filled with personal attacks and name calling that I, for one, have had enough.
I publicly ask that she be instructed to cease and desist with the flaming, or be banned from the forum.
Thank You,
Lonster

blah!blah!blah!
when not stroking batteries...stroking Goeff Kaitt...
some rocket scientist technology...

when I contacted him he definitely behaved like a guy with something to hide rather than a proud genuine businessman selling good products...
Delius maybe you could give him a few PR pointers...you obviously know your stuff....

Do CLCs make you bitch all over the internet ?
or is it from all that freezing, lubing and stroking ?

The first quote should tell you that the person making the statement is trying to take your money. As in, the more you spend on their products, the better the result.

The second and third quote show exactly why no one on this forum, or any other for that matter, can show any evidence why Belt products do or do not work. The first states a belief. People are certainly entitled, and constitutionally protected, to their own beliefs. It doesn't mean, however, that these beliefs are based on factual information. It also doesn't give anybody the right to tell somebody why their belief system is better than anyone elses or that their belief is the one truth.

The second quote is a perception of a physical occurence. Let's go to Webster's Online for the definition of a perception:

"1 a : a result of perceiving : OBSERVATION b : a mental image : CONCEPT
2 obsolete : CONSCIOUSNESS
3 a : awareness of the elements of environment through physical sensation b : physical sensation interpreted in the light of experience
4 a : quick, acute, and intuitive cognition : APPRECIATION b : a capacity for comprehension"

The way you and I percieve an event can differ greatly dependent on any number of outside factors. You can't prove a perception. Also, what is "better" sound? Even the author of the paper that the quote comes from puts the word better in quotations. Why? It's probably because they can't prove what exactly is better.

Delius,

Should I post what website I got the quotes from?

Hell Junior. Aren't you the little boy who said you had had enough of this thread? And weren't going to post in here again, no matter how many jujubes they give you? You should have kept your promise. Each time you post, you have an uncanny habit of making yourself look even dumber than the previous time you decided to share your thinking skills with the world.

Take your claim above. You're insinuating the company is trying to rip people off. Now think very hard Junior, about why a company exists in the first place. Is it to....

a) Take up land space and crush the weeds?
b) Make soup taste like gasoline?
c) Make money?

The correct answer is: (c). Which explains why everyone from Sony to Microsoft to the barber you got that nasty haircut from is "trying to take your money". Welcome to Western capitalist society, Rusky Joe. And congratulations on finally being courageous enough to crawl out from the cave you've been living all your life. On this side of the cave, we use paper stuff to obtain other stuff. Including other paper stuff, yes.

Now don't even let me CATCH you trying to imply this company is ripping people off, because I will personally tear you a new one, Jason Junior. If you want to spread your ignorance around, confine it to the other boys in your schoolyard. Back to school for you Jr...

"When a company creates a product of this nature that works, then as if by some miracle, it becomes true that when you use multiple samples of that product, the improvement increases by as many times". That's if the products work in the first place, of course. And of course, no twerp here ever proved they didn't. Therefore, no one here has the right to claim, imply, insinuate or assert that they don't. Same for ANY audio product, including "Outlaw" audio products.

Furthermore, that company that you claim is "trying to take your money", offer a 30 day money back guarantee on ALL their products, if you are not satisfied. Tell me Jr., do ALL audio companies that rip you off offer such guarantees? Does Sony or Krell offer 30 day money back guarantees on all their audio products? Does Outlaw? Do you offer guarantees on your blind ignorance? Or are unfounded lies about audio companies that threaten and scare you, all you have to offer us?


First of all, let's see YOU show evidence that no one on any other forum can show evidence of why Belt products work. Second of all, let's see YOU provide evidence of the claims of fraudulence made on this forum against HFSG, Goodsound, PWB and Geoff Kait. No one else has had the integrity or the balls dare I say it, to do so. Will YOU be the first, Jr? Why don't you shock me, why don't you, and be the first on this forum to come up with something that looks like evidence to support the claims being made here on Outlaw?

The second and third quote can be proven, and I have posted two websites here that allow people to do just that. Stop lying, Jr., and stop making false, irresponsible, and inflammatory charges that you fail to substantiate every single time. You're a sheep trying to pull the wool over the eyes of other sheep! If that ain't the definition of ironic....


Not on Outlaw, they're not. Well not according to Lonster, anyway!

Thanks for admitting your beliefs aren't based on factual information. We might make an honest person of you yet.


Tell that to all those here who have been trying to do just that in this thread for so long.

Yes, you can, Junior. But what keeps flying past your pointy head, is the fact that you can't prove ANYTHING to ANYONE, or EVERYTHING to EVERYONE. You can't even prove differences in speakers to everyone. What are you so damn concerned about other people being able to prove things to other people anyway? Why is that your business? If you don't want to prove something to yourself, fine, stay ignorant your life through. But leave others to prove it to themselves. Don't discourage others from wanting to prove things to themselves, because some people do actually want to learn more about audio. No one has an account to render to you.

See above about how you can't prove ANYTHING to ANYONE, or EVERYTHING to EVERYONE. Some day, even you sheep will need to learn to prove things to yourselves, and stop worrying about whether it is proven to others. To answer your question another way, "good sound" is something you won't ever need to worry about. You'll never have it.


No don't bother, I'll do so:

www.belt.demon.co.uk

What you should post is what website you got your formal education from, particularly where you acquired your cognitive skills. Whatever it is, I would demand a refund, if I were you.

I love this thread. You guys are very creative. It makes stuff sound so real. Heck, you went as far as creating realistic-looking web sites and everything!
I truly enjoy engaging in the banter. Some of you are hilarious. I am just running out of ideas.
Well, enough for now. I have to go off and rub vaseline on my speaker wires and put avocado slices under my amplifier.

vaseline is good...but olive oil having a more natural, ''in tune'' molecular structure, when applied generously on your lugs and nuts will really do the trick
Don't knock it 'til you try it...

Actually Outlaw does offer a free trial period. You can read about it by clicking on the "Outlaw Homepage" link on the bottom of this page.

How can they be proven? By observation? By perception? By believing the technique is going to work? I'll say it again since you seem to be a little thick-headed: Opinion is not proof.

I could tell you I've tried the techniques posted on the websites you listed. I could tell you that I found they had no effect on my system. Is that proof they don't work? Is your telling me I'm not experienced enough to hear the changes proof they do?

This is my problem with your belief system. Learning to apply "Beltist" techniques has absolutely nothing to do with "audio". It may have to do with a person's perception of an event but in no way is it related to "audio".

If it was, why don't recording engineers use belt products? If they have that great of an effect on the reproduction of audio, why wouldn't they also have an amazing effect on the recording of audio?

Which leads me to the following: Since you keep quoting the JAES; are you a member of the AES?

I probably know more about "good sound" than you can ever dream about. My clients depend on my ears and they compliment me for them after every event.

It's the holiday season. I'm getting my fill of candy. And I'm getting some nice holiday cheer from the laughs your posts are giving me. The funniest thing about your posts is that you claim to be such an expert and yet, you never post about your own system, your occupation, or even your real name. Let me tell you, hiding behind a pseudonym gives real credit to your words.

How can we miss you, :rolleyes: if you won't go away?

Stop making threats, loudmouth. Nobody is the least bit intimidated by them, nor by your interminable essays.

Ummm... one might ask you the same question. You've posted literally tens of thousands of words violently defending the most transparent bit of snake oil I've ever heard of. Now, please, do stow it! Thanks!

Or what? You'll call me names? Or use your "bag of doorknobs"? You didn't write about it, doorknob. You simply pretended (you know, like you pretend to be an audio expert) to in order to avoid the arguement.

It certainly seemed to get to you, or you wouldn't keep bringing it up. And using your fake curse words.

Ah, your little angry rant misses one important issue: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. No one here has made any extraordinary claims -only that we believe that all these folks, including yourself, are frauds. However, the extraordinary claims you make - and since you went to such lengths to show how the "powers that be" are trying to keep this stuff supressed, they are undoubtedly extraordinary - have no extraordinary evidence. But go on, tell us that they do, anyway, and that you've already given it to us when you haven't.

Sure. And now he's selling jars of pebbles for $129. Onward and upward, as it were.

Yeah, so? Are you saying that audiophiles can't be ripped off by Outlaw products or are you saying that Outlaw products are fraudulent too?

Yes.

Yes.

No. But two out of three ain't bad.

If you were able to take your head out of your arse while you were saying that, you might have a little more credibility junior. In audio, opinion is the only proof one requires. That's not just my opinion, that's a proven fact.

You could tell me a lot of things like that, but you'd be lying. As you've already done with me in your last message. I can tell you you never tried any Belt products. If you had, you wouldn't still be here flapping your gums about subjects you know nothing about.

Don't be silly. You obviously need to be schooled, you haven't the foggiest idea of what audio is about. And the problem is, I've already explained it like you're a 6-year old, and you're still not getting it. Are you being obtuse on purpose, or this is your natural state? Tell me junior, do you know of ANY audio product in existence that purports to improve fidelity, where everyone agrees that its valid, because it's "proven"? And no, don't say "speakers", that won't work either. Go on.... show us all how clever you aren't...

You can't prove a negative either, jr. That's why DBTs that fail to provide conclusive evidence of the merits of a DUT are not "proof" it has no effect. It only proves that listeners during that test were not able to discern any. Now let me dumb it down further for your consumption: it means that if you and a classroom of Jason J's all underwent an ABX test and found no audible differences to be had after testing, say a red x pen, that might simply be proof that your listening abilities are subpar. Maybe you need to be smacked upside the head with a pair of Cerwin Vega's to tell them from ProAcs. If you don't have any confidence in your own listening abilities, and its obvious you don't since you still haven't tried any of the freely available products or techniques for yourself and would much rather shoot your cakehole off about how they can't work in theory until you turn blue in the face, why should anyone else?


Oh grand Wizard of all things Belt. DO enlighten us on your obviously profound knowledge of alternative audio. If you want to get philosophical with me, dont you think you should have at least graduated from primary school? Okay listen carefully, it's really not that difficult a concept to grasp: Beltist products and techniques improve perception of sound. Without perception of sound, "audio" doesn't work. Now let me repeat that last sentence again, so you can take it in slowly and have a chance of understanding this basic fact: without perception of sound, "audio" doesn't work. Starting to get the picture Jr.? That's how Beltist techniques are related to audio.

Now here's the problem I have with YOUR sheep-like objectivist "belief system". You're stance here, is that every single audio product you buy that purports to improve sound, has to have been "proven" to do so by an ABX test. I'm sure no standard less than that is stringent enough for Jason Jr. (otherwise, you'd look like a stupid hypocrite, Jr.).

That includes your Outlaw products, it includes fancy-ass audiophile caps, it includes every possible cable and wire out there, it includes every component and accessory in your system. So okay Lambchops, show me the ABX tests that prove they improve sound. And no, pointing me to "general" ABX tests that show differences or no differences for a particular category of product won't cut the mustard. It doesn't prove the particular products you invested good money in do provide audible differences. Or if you wish to declare publically that you're a flat-earth objectivist drone who cares nothing about good sound, and did not base any of your audio purchases on that aspect, please do so now. And I will bury you on Boot Hill before noontime.


Oh, so "Mr. Proof" is now telling us that if recording engineers don't use Belt product, that's proof they don't work??? Geez, what a genius! Why are you wasting your intellectual talents on a web forum, man? Shouldn't you be out proving super string theory or something? At least silly string theory, perhaps? I've never seen MIT shotguns or for that matter, Quad ESL-63's in a recording studio. Does that mean they don't work too?

What makes you think recording engineers are the smartest people on the planet? Rocket scientists, psychologists, doctors and lawyers use Belt products. I would think that's more impressive than recording engineers, but ymmv. I don't think you're ready for the sad truth of why recording engineers don't use Belt products. But its directly related to your hollow groundless arguments and the accusations of fraud against these products by the mindless trolls here.

The answer being, Mr. Proof, that there are way too many mindless ignorant twits in the world. Aka "rigid thinkers" like you and the R. Mackey troll and almost all of the other members in this thread, who are too threatened to even consider changing their comfortable, safe and secure world views. So threatened, that even when you make it so easy to learn new things about audio and the world we live in, that they have only to visit a website, obtain materials within seconds that will take 2 minutes to prove or disprove to themselves, they wouldn't do that.

Mindless sheep do only what other mindless sheep do. I can state as fact that its only on a rare occasion that one of you willfully ignorant sheep will find enough courage and independent will within themselves to break from the flock, ignoring the chorus of "snake oil!" criers, and try the Belt products or techniques for themselves. And then they will usually come to learn why recording engineers, or most engineers for that matter, refuse to consider their validity. At least, publically....


Who says they wouldn't? One of those websites I listed shows a very small example of how it can affect digital recordings from the treatment of a cd burner, to where the results can still be heard by someone who has no Belt products in their home.


I invented the ABX comparator. I'm trying to keep a low profile because.... I don't want to be associated with it any longer.

Pfffft!!!! That's not necesary, Jr. You're plenty funny enough as it is, without having to get "stupid-silly".


So you're an earring model? How does that make you an expert on "good sound" in reproduced music? You talk a lot about "proof" Mr. Proof, but you offer NONE. What experience do your ears have with controlled listening tests? Tell me in detail about the ABX tests that you've done, (what equipment, controls, criteria, etc you used), and the results you personally obtained. Maybe you'll sound a little more credible here trying to defend your religion of the so-called "objective test".


Great! That makes two of us. Except trust me when I say, I'm getting far more laughs, because there are far more simpletons like you on this board than there are of me.... And like squealing children, you all say the silliest, thoughtless and most hypocritical things to me...

Well first of all, no one ever asked me. I've posted all those things on other forums before. Second of all, I've never seen you post those things since I've been here. Third of all,
[b]how in the holy wide world of sports does THAT have even a neutron of relevance to what I say about audio?[b] "Proof by authority"! What a joke! Seriously people, is Jason Jr. the best you guys could come up with to face me down? Well listen Jr. Listen -carefully-: My "audio system", my "occupation", and my "real name", does not make me an "audio expert". Having 30 years of testing experience and having -learned- from that experience ("learning" is key) about what is and isn't "good sound" in the reproduction of music, makes me an expert.

But since when in Cripees have I ever demanded that people believe what I say because I'm an expert?? That what sheep do, 'tard. And I'm here to fight ignorance and mindlessness, not foster it, wacko. When I contribute to an audio group, either I leave the sheep alone or I kick the sheep in their testes. I do NOT try to produce more sheep by creating a Cult of Personality or demanding that people pray to Gods of Authority! That's what sheep like you do, because you'd be lost without someone telling you what to think, and what to believe. That's the reason so many, like you, are so deluded and ignorant about audio in the first place. So what have -you- proven other than that you can blow hot air out your arse about the religion of controlled listening tests, which you seem to have never even participated in?


And you think displaying the cognitive skills of a clinical retard in your responses gives credit to yours? I find it funny, this mindless sheep-like audio religion of yours, where you pretend to stand for the "scientific method", despite not knowing a damn thing about science. Meanwhile, you hold authority figure "Gods" as the holders of all audio truth and knowledge. "Gods" who have more experience" and "audio wisdom" than the common audiophile. "Gods" who run controlled double blind listening tests, and can tell you exactly whether an audio product is or isn't going to produce a difference in perceptible sound. Without you even having to think for yourself, fancy that.

Interesting though, that you would publicly discredit your fellow Outlaw members here, stating that all members from Sluggo, to Bang4ABuck to Gonk to Loopy to Laventura and so on and so on, have nothing but bullsh*t to contribute here. On this point, we may finally be in agreement, Jr. Happy holidays.

as far as seeing BS...
one usually finds what he's looking for...

Sure. And you now spend your days writing a paragraph refuting every sentence written by everyone in this little forum who disagrees with you. Onward and upward, as it were.

Further proof that we are dealing with an automated forum post generation system:
Sluggo's post was added at 6:49pm and it contained 1,389 characters (289 words).
D.E.L.I.U.S' post was added at 7:56 pm, it contained 9,822 characters, not counting spaces, 11,950 otherwise (2,078 words).
This means that someone would have had to:
1) been waiting around for a response
2) read, analyze and scrutinize nearly 300 words
3) carefully and methodically deconstruct such response, and
4) draft a response of nearly 7 times as many words.
All this in about an hour.
Maybe those clocks CAN bend time and space!

I have to go, my amplifier's avocados are getting smushy. I need to replace them with gummy bears.

I've hung around this thread as of late primarily because I dislike the obnoxious, insulting, and arrogant attitude presented by delius - joyously declaring anyone around him to be idiots because we don't believe in various scientifically baseless principles. I recognized the trend some time ago: a love of arguing with and insulting strangers on the internet, using things that cannot be proven or disproven as the foundation for the arguments. We have Belt's premises that can't be disproven because they can't be traditionally proven in the first place. There was even a cursory mention of orgone energy that produced another vehement objection toward my lack of faith, a tangential discussion that fits the mold very nicely. The result is a catch-22: if you try to carry on a calm, reasonable discussion (like bestbang4thebuck has attempted to do) then you get called childish names and told that you are stupid, and if you argue (be it with sarcasm, carefully thought-out logic, or snide comments) you get the same result. Makes me really appreciate Yossarian's predicament...
Funny that you mention that site... You've asked (and asked, and asked), so about a week ago I burned those MP3 files to a CD-R and tossed them in my DVD player (since I lacked any headphones and didn't think that cheap PC speakers are a good test of anything, I figured my main system would be a reasonable test). Last weekend, I gave those files a few listens while my wife and daughter both napped. The two versions of Jingle Bells were a handy test, particularly when I repeated the first ten seconds using both tracks, but I gave all six files some attention. At the most, there was perhaps a slightly higher volume level on the "full metal jacket" version of Jingle Bells, but no more than a decibel - aside from that, the two were effectively indistinguishable. I scratched my head a bit and decided to give it the ol' college try: I burned all six files to an audio CD and tried again. My 981HD passed the PCM audio to my 990, which was set to upsample mode. The results were the same.

Bottom line: I tried the MP3 files. I found no appreciable difference in the files. I continue to find no reason to give any merit to HiFiSoundGuy/GoodSound's shallow attempts at trying to sell Machina Dynamica products here in this forum, or to the value of devices like the Clever Little Clock. The catch-22? The fact that I believe these things even after listening to MP3 files that were manipulated with Belt techniques will not lessen delius's rude and insulting posts. Right there with ya', Yossarian...

1) Problem with that geek conspiracy theory is, I never responded to Sluggo's post that you refer to here, you imbecile. In fact, I never even read it. Nice to see you have quite the obsession with me, to where you're counting all the words of the posts I write, and the people you think I'm writing to. I'd know if I should feel flattered, or threatened by that.

2) You're the one who sounds like an "automated forum post generation system". You've posted the very same thing several times, and I've seen this very same idiotic conspiracy theory on other forums from users with other names.

3) This shows how easily dumb, gullible, Outlaw members get "suckered" into believing things by those representing "knowledge of authority", presenting "good sounding fallacies" as "facts".

Perhaps now you all understand why I keep pointing out how stupid you AA naysayers are? You keep basing your knowledge of audio, people, life, the world... on what idiots like what garcianc2003 tell you, rather than arriving at conclusions based on the knowledge that comes from experience, and your own mind. Sorry my little bo peep sheep... There is and can be, no substitute for experience.


Oh my God. Mockery of that which you are ignorant of. Any idea what an original thinker you are, AFPG (automated forum post generator)? I'll tell you how much. Someone who came long before you, as a response to my serious discussions of alternative audio techniques, suggested to me that they are going to try pineapple slices. Since you obviously must consider yourself such a brilliant and original satirist, I have a suggestion for you: why don't you next suggest pineapple slices?

Ah yes.... the prerequisite excuse for posting in this thread. Join Jason, Sluggo, and all the rest who stated they've had enough of me kicking their asses.... but somehow, can't seem to find a way to stay out of my way, and out of this thread. If you dislike my posts, wouldn't it be logical for you to -not- hang around this thread? Oh, but I forget.... you and your mates don't have any grasp of "logic". Well I'm sorry to do this, but I'm gonna have to slap you upside your head with "logic" anyway....

Logical observation #1: You have no basis to complain like a whining schoolgirl about me having an "obnoxious, insulting and arrogant attitude", when you and your gang of IM's have been displaying an obnoxious, arrogant and insulting attitude for several hundred messages now, in this thread. If you can't take it, don't dish it out.

Logical observation #2: At what point did I declare anyone to be stupid because they don't believe in "various scientifically baseless principles"? You can call me an "obnoxious, insulting, arrogant prick" all you want Gonko, but I don't appreciate you making false statements about me. Number one, the principles are not "scientifically baseless", number two, I've called you idiots for what I believe should be "obvious reasons" for most non-idiots, and that's apparent at least somewhere in nearly every response I've received. It includes your idiotic philosophy that you are on the side of science, while you decry and announce as "fraud" observations based on scientific principles you have never researched, know nothing about, tests you've never repeated, and have been unable to refute. Which is about as unscientific as one can get.

Again, you're trying to define me, and you got it wrong. Not very scientific, to "pretend" you know my motivations, or anyone else's here, for that matter, and state it as fact. But then again, you "pretend" you know about alternative audio, when you've never seen anything in your life but conventional audio. Perhaps you think downloading a couple of mp3's makes you an "expert" now?

I also recognized a trend, but unlike you, I'm not pretending I'm Kreskin, and I can get into the mind of anyone I see on a web discussion forum. I'm speaking more of a social trend. A necessity for people to remain rigid in their thinking, resistant to any new ideas, because it scares them to give up the known for the unknown.... The real "arrogance" comes from people like this, people like you. Who claim to "know" that which they don't know anything about, because guess what? It doesn't fit with what they already think they know! Brilliant minds, all of you....

LOTS of things can't be proven in the first place, you mindless idiot. I mentioned the origin of existence in an earlier post. I didn't see anyone brave enough to refute me on that one, including you, including various loudmouthed cretins like R. Mackey, Laventura and Loopy, and including Jason, the brilliant debater whom I wrote that post to. So I have to assume no one can, and thus everyone is in agreement on that. Now if anyone is not in agreement, then please explain what scientists can't... namely, how the f**k do we exist? If you are in agreement Gonko, that the origins of existence are currently not and perhaps can never be known, then you have no argument to make here. Instead, you've learned something about "science", which you've made it clear to me you really don't know anything about, despite all of your carping about how important it is to believe in what you consider "science". Why don't you show up at a science conference one day soon, and step up to the podium, and tell all the scientists in the room that empirical evidence doesn't mean sh*t. Tell them not to bother talking about anything that hasn't been peer reviewed in the NEJM.

Belt's premises can be proven or disproven the way any audio product or technique can: by listening. "Listening" is actually good enough for about 99% of audio consumers, who purchase audio products just that way. Believe me, I've had idiots just like you Gonko, who've argued against me for weeks, prove it for themselves when they tried the products or techniques. And some never did. NOTHING in audio, or life, can be proven to everyone's satisfaction.

True, it did fit the mold very nicely. That "mold", is your continual ignorant arguments based on either no sign of a verifiable fact anywhere near you, or some little crumb of what you think passes for a "fact" these days. Such as your link to a page in the skeptic's dictionary that according to you and your lazy ass research on Orgone energy, scientifically dismisses everything the psychologist & researcher Wilhelm Reich built his life toward. With your stupid, mindless reference to the history of the Reich affair, arguing that the FDA somehow "proved" Orgone energy doesn't exist (and it can be argued by extension, "Chi", which millions of Chinese have believed in for centuries), you've proven once again that you have no CLUE as to what you're talking about.

Yet you hail yourself as the intellectual authority on this forum. It isn't about your lack of "faith" in Orgone energy, as the reason why I've made an example of you, in exposing your profound ignorance time and again. It's about your lack of PROOF that Wilhelm Reich was chasing windmills all his life. The reason I argue with you so much, is beacuse you're so damn stupid, that you really insult my intelligence. I mean the fact that you would talk to me like you're an expert on Orgone energy, to where you can claim it has no real merit to anyone, when you probably didn't even know who or what the hell Reich was until I mentioned his name to you a few days ago, is very insulting. Problem is, your brethren here share your same ignorant, insulting attitude about science and facts. You people have absolutely NO respect for either. Ever just consider being honest with people and admitting you just simply don't know what the f*k you're talking about, and learn to shut your yap when you need to? You don't see me talking about "Outlaw audio", which I know nothing about, do you? Clearly, you could learn a lot about audio from me, or others, if you did learn to shut your yap once in a while, and open your mind, as well as your ears.


It's not that complicated. If you come at me with an "attitude", like you're really clever and know better than me, when it's obvious you aren't and you don't, you're gonna called out. That's me being honest, which is more than I can say for you, given how many times you lie about me in a single post of yours. Your pal "bang4abuck" had a nasty, disrespectful attitude. We can see evidence of this by the fact that I corrected him once, telling him my name was spelled "Delius". Yet when he sat down to debate me, he purposely misspelled my name as "Delious" at the start of his debate, even emphasizing it in bold type. That set the tone for our discussions, and so I treated him with the same lack of respect he accorded me.

I haven't seen any traces or hints of traces of "carefully thought-out logic" on this board, from anyone. So I don't know WHAT the hell you're referring to here. In fact the reason I have been able to refute each and every single argument against me or AA that anyone made here, is because there are no displays of "careful thought" or logic. You may think highly of yourselves, but trust me, by my standards, you are all weak debaters. That doesn't mean we can't enjoy a debate, for those few here who can actually come up with something other than the usual mockery and derision you find on these forums when someone brings up the subject of AA.

If you keep ALL traces of attitude out of your responses, and you ensure that your words to me are respectful of both me and my knowledge of AA, that they do not include your continual personal presumptions about me and my motivations, then you will see that I am perfectly capable of carrying on a calm, reasonable discussion about alternative audio. I've carried on hundreds of them. However, if you try to respond to me with your usual sarcasm and snide comments, then I will play by the rules set by the group, and as we've seen, I'm also much better at sarcasm and snide remarks than anyone here could hope to be.


There you again, writing things about me that aren't true. And you wonder why I have an attitude, like you do? Show me where I asked you to visit that site. Go on. Are you ever gonna even try to back up what you say? I don't recall ever asking anyone to visit those sites, let alone "asking and asking and asking". Me mentioning that no one has, is not the same as "asking".

Who asked you to burn the files to a CD? Didn't I already mention my concern on that site, that the files had been compressed and processed to such a degree, that I wasn't sure if people would still be able to hear the differences that I could on my system? That should you give you a clue that a fair test would be to not process the damn things any further! Instead, we see you putting the files through digital processors, upsamplers, burning software, CD writers, and listening to it on a CD player! Duh! I'm certainly not shocked after all that, that you were unable to easily discern differences. You're supposed to have headphones and leave the mp3's intact, and that's how one should attempt to assess these files.

I think the "bottom bottom line" is, you did. I suspect that, like many who don't have any real listening training, you don't know how to make qualitative assessments of musical differences, because you don't have a clue as to what to really listen for. So you listen for "obvious things", like changes in bass/mid/treble/volume. And you found what you thought was a change in volume, in "fullmetaljacket". But being more familiar with these things than you, I have reason to believe that what you heard was not a change in volume, but a difference in "clarity", for one. Due to the higher resolution of the FMJ ver. of Jingle Bells, the xylophone in the piece rings with greater clarity, (and the soundstage is larger) which you perceive as an increase in volume. Next time, you should remove the potatoes from your ears and listen more carefully. Because for one thing, what you described is impossible. Unless you care to explain how applying photos and labels to a cd burner will increase the volume of the recording? Other than that, the exact same conditions applied under both recordings.


Damn straight it won't, because for one thing, the fact that you and your allies never lessened YOUR rude and insulting posts toward HifiSoundGuy/GoodSound, despite making blatantly false and irresponsibly libelous statements about them and the products they advocated, which no one was ever able to provide any facts for. For another, who said my rudeness is based on whether someone tries my mp3 files? I don't recall saying that?

Next problem I have with you: Your accusation that HFSG/GoodSound made attempts to sell Machina Dynamica's products here. Keep making unfounded accusations like that, and that's not going to lessen my rudeness with you either, btw. As with all the rest here, you provide no factual evidence to make such egregious claims.... which is the problem I had with you nasty ignorant twits to begin with. If you claim to be civil, responsible and sociable people, then you don't go around making stupid accusations of shilling against anyone who advocates products or companies that you happen to have an irrational hatred for. That makes discussion of audio impossible on an audio forum, fool. It means that everyone who advocates Outlaw products, or those of any other company, is trying to sell those products. God forbid the next that comes here and says "Hey guys, I really like this Thorens turntable I bought!". Oh... here comes a gang of ignorant twits all jumping on him, and accusing him of trying to sell Thorens turntables on "their" forum!

And the last problem I have with you: Your inane and ridiculously stupid claim that because you made a really half-assed attempt to listen to a couple of mp3 files, it means you have proven that Belt theories don't work, and I should now accept the fact that you have proven this, and join all you sheep in your crusade of mindless ignorance. What the hell do you think that proves anyway? You still haven't tried a single Belt or Machina Dynamica product, you haven't even downloaded the l-shapes, which means you haven't even tried any of the techniques! Of course, to Outlaw members, you being the first to even listen to the mp3's and preach to the flock that they don't work, means you're now the God of Authority On All That Is Belt, and can claim to be an "expert" on alternative audio. And you wonder nevertheless, why I keep calling you ignorant morons? LOL!

The top quote is the very first post in this entire thread. The bottom quote is from your latest batch of hot air. And you really need a reason why nobody here cares about your posts??

Don't confuse my posts with yours, Jr. My posts are the only thing of substance on this group. The lame snide remarks consisting of 1 line, which make up 99% of the posts here, including yours, are what can be termed "hot air", or better, "worthless crap". In my last response to you, I posted strong and cogent arguments to your half-assed attempt to debate me, and this is all you've been able to come back with! "Hot shit", more like it. I mean my God man, with your disappointing show of things thus far, unlike some of your friends here, you can't even -pretend- that you know something about audio or have half a brain in your head.

As for these quotes, what's your point? That HFSG is a shill because he mentions where you can get CLC's if anyone wants to try them? How is that any different from someone here talking about buying Outlaw products? What, it's okay to shill for Outlaw but not MD? HFSG also talked about some jiffy lube product he liked, and he also advocated buying Outlaw products. So does that mean besides being paid by MD, he's also being paid by the jiffy lube people and Outlaw? You've proven nothing, except that you have nothing better to do than respond to people you don't want to respond to, and concoct paranoid conspiracy theories about people who's motivations you claim to know. But don't. Maybe if you didn't fill your head up with those stupid paranoid conspiracy theories you and your friends keep wasting time thinking up, you might not be as obtuse as you are.


There's that winning logic of yours again. Sorry, I come from the real world, where facts and proof count for something, and logic has a known standard. So its pretty easy to comment on the idiocy of your grande statement here, by saying, if no one cares about my posts, then why are you and others continuing to respond to them or write about them? Not just that, but why are you going to the trouble to pull quotes from them, pull quotes from other posts in this thread hundreds of posts before mine, in order to make the point about my posts that no one cares about them? Aren't you also the same idiot that said everyone would stop responding to me.... about 65 posts ago? And you really need a reason for why I keep on calling everyone here ignorant morons?

Really, we do care about your posts, delius. We just don't believe any of them. But then, that just makes us the same as the rest of those forums out there that banned you, you poor dear. Put some cream on it, it'll feel better.
You fit right in, delius. Just watch out, the lawyers are a-comin for us all.
Dear Santa, I've changed my mind. What I really want for Christmas is a calm, reasonable discussion about alternative audio...with delius. I promise to be respectful!
Not really so hot at it yourself
heh
You're right, you didn't ask. You just told us the answers were there. The enlightenment of the world begins. Or not.

Speaking of enlightenment, I was enlightened by reading these enlightened musings by the very enlightened PWB bunch, and one of the PWB newsletters by the infamous Richard Graham. Very, very enlightening. And light reading, too!

Gee...I dunno...
satisfying proof is here...
someone is anal....
and by the tone and quantity of the replies...
not to mention the battery lubing...
it seems pretty clear to me that someone has TOO much time on their hands....

Oh ! and people...please refrain your God complexe....
Delius has the monopoly on that....

First, my apologies for the misspelling of delius. It was not intentional, likely a semi-conscious crossover of another word on my mind of similar spelling. The use of bold is my common practice when using a forum name within sentences. Also, while I am willing to offer and/or exchange opinion, information and questions, I’m unwilling to attempt debate for I find no framework in this topic thread of late within which a reasonable debate might take place. This may help explain my lack of a certain type of response. This lack of response is not meant to be an insult. Limitation: I do not take responsibility for the reaction of delius, which I perceive as acerbic, to either of these circumstances.

Another question: If many of the PWB products are meant to address areas of concern not directly related to the physical or direct electrical performance of audio/visual equipment in recording, storing or playback, then might one infer that some PWB treatments would enhance the perception of a live performance of voices and acoustic-only based instruments, if only in the overcoming of problems perceived to be present in a listening environment?

From David Pogue's blog on the NYTimes website:

Amen!

My apologies Mr. Delius. In a clumsy attempt to make fun of this thread, which I honestly first believed to be a joke thread, I directed my sarcasm at you. That was uncalled for.

To me this was like poking fun at my neighbor for shaving his legs before running. I just don't get it, so I point and laugh. Also, it wouldn't matter how good a reason he had, I would never try it myself regardless of scientific proof. But I know my neighbor and know I can make fun of him. I should have been more thoughtful before poking fun at anyone here.

I respect your opinion and those of others in this forum and I'll save my comedy act for my friends and neighbors. Plus you beat me to the punchline, I had a good pineapple slices bit coming up... just kidding.

There is nothing "jokey" about "Clever Little Clocks", spreading Cream Electret on your radiator or writing positive messages with a Red X pen to improve the sound off your stereo system. It's as serious as a punch in the face.


Those like you who "don't get it", make fun of it, and the people who do get it. I feel justified in making fun of the people who don't get it, because they make fun of me, or those who do get it. Fair's fair. The most tangible difference between the two camps, those who don't get and those who do, is the people who do get it, have better sounding audio systems because they do. The people who don't get it won't believe that, because they equate it with trying to shave time off your speed by shaving your legs before a race. Or any other notion that they believe is silly and fallacious, like "crystal healing". Or that they believe is silly and fallacious, simply because it "sounds silly" and they don't get that either. Such as "Orgone energy" for example.

Therefore, anything that sounds silly and fallacious, gets lumped in the same pile (usually called "snake oil") by people who don't "get it". ie. I've told people to put aspirin tablets on their speakers to improve their sound, and they've responded by telling me they prefer pineapple slices. Or in your case, avocado. Then when I reject their ideas, they think they're even more clever by arguing that if people are going to try something as silly as putting aspirin on their speakers, that a pineapple avocado parfait is just as valid. And they go on to argue that if I don't try their brilliant "tweak", then I'm a hypocrite. Admit it, that was also going to be your next move, wasn't it?

Problem is, it isn't just as valid because there's a reason, well beyond placebo's, for why the aspirin will work, and another reason why the avocado pineapple parfait won't. The other problem is, those who do get it (the phenomena) have created products that they are trying to sell to those who don't get it. (Because those few in the world who do get and have improved their sound & video a hundred times over by it, number in the hundreds. Hard to put bread on the table with those kinds of numbers, let alone make a decent profit off of their hard pioneering research).

One common denominator among those who don't get it, is that they don't get a lot of things. But as irony would have it, they're the ones who believe themselves to be somewhat experts on the subject of audio. They believe that they are not and will not allow themselves to be ignorant or gullible fools, by accepting the validity of audio products if they don't or can't understand how they work. They believe those who buy esoteric products from Belt or Machina Dynamica are the ones who are the ignorant, gullible fools, and they believe that those who sell the products must be thieves and charlatans.

Even though they may like to see themselves as "audio atheists", this belief system they've built up is no different than any other religion. What makes it like a religion, is that it is based entirely on theory. However, if the theory is wrong, then it follows that the belief is wrong. You people are taking it on "faith" that the Belt/CLC phenomena is entirely bogus, because it hasn't been "officially" proven by peer reviewed scientific journals. But yet by the same token, you can't explain how we exist today, since the origin of existence hasn't yet been scientifically proven either. Even the origin of the universe is still very much a controversial subject, within the science community.

You fail to realize that phenomenon observed in empirical studies that has not yet been proven by "official" scientific standards, doesn't invalidate the phenomenon. If it did, science would never progress!! In fact, science has often progressed very slowly, and sometimes not at all, because of those scientific standards that humans have imposed. The standards themselves and the political climate surrounding them are not perfect, because they are human constructions. Despite empirical studies that showed the use of Orgone energy healing cancerous cells, the Food & Drug Administration (that bastion of scientific knowledge) in the 50's declared without inquiry or allowing the researcher to defend his work, that Orgone energy doesn't exist, and showing further evidence of prejudice & bias, even went so far as to have his entire body of work destroyed, eliminating decades of research. (Reich's story would really make a GREAT dramatic and inspirational movie, if any filmakers are reading this!....). Well if that wasn't politically motivated scientific ruling, what is?

In the well cited case of Joseph Lister, a British surgeon in the 19th century who argued for sanitization in the preparation of surgical patients, citing the notion that there were invisible airborne "germs" that were invading open wounds and killing people, he received mockery and ridicule over these "invisible germs". He was asked "Show us the germs!". He couldn't prove it until much later of course, because all he had was empirical evidence. Meanwhile, people were being killed by these ignorant surgeons, because others wouldn't listen to him. Yet on his ward, where he utilized methods of sanitization, many more survived on average. The lesson here is, "ignorance can kill".

Fortunately, audio is a little less dangerous. But there is more danger in rejecting unproven scientific phenomenon that can be readily repeated in experiments, than in accepting unproven phenomenon that might be invalid. Because if you reject it, then you may have rejected true science, and closed your mind to new discoveries, simply because your mind wasn't open enough or educated enough to understand how it could work. If you accept it and it isn't valid, you'll know soon enough.

I repreat: IN HUNDREDS OF MESSAGES, NO ONE HERE HAS YET TO TRY A SINGLE CLC CLOCK OR BELT PRODUCT OR TECHNIQUE! Even though I made it -real easy- for people to do, by citing that the products have a return guarantee, or posting a website link where you could download a technique (l-shape) and try to repeat the phenomenon in your own home. Yet all have attacked me, mocked me, ridiculed me, condemned me, and heaped scorn, contempt and derision at me, for defending these products and ideas.

There's nothing scientific or even "right" about this kind of behaviour. There certainly is nothing right about calling people and manufacturer's "frauds" and "scammers" because you don't get how these products can work. That's not only very irresponsible, but its illegal in most audio discussion forums, because its illegal in most countries (it's called "libel", which leaves you open to a lawsuit). Yet most here have repeated such libel against both members and audio manufacturer's, without remorse or thought. And this fact will stand as a marker for future Google researchers, as will my posts. (That's why I don't write them for anyone here, including myself). I think that given due time, I'm going to look like Joseph Lister (albeit a somewhat potty-mouthed version of Joseph Lister), and the rest here are going to look like... well, the term "asinine fools" comes to mind.

Back to the irony: I've always preferred introducing these advanced audio concepts to non-audiophiles. I find that they are not such rigid thinkers, because they haven't been brainwashed by audio magazines or engineering courses. They might have no idea how a cd player works, let alone silver rainbow foils. They don't argue with me until they're blue in the face that the products can't work, before they've even tried them. They don't get off on arguing theory, as so many net audio hobbyists do, and without a basis of knowledge of even conventional audio, they can't anyway. Yet despite not being trained audiophiles, they often do hear the effects of the foils or other products, even under blind conditions (not that I am advocating blind testing at all). So once positively recognizing the Belt phenomenon, in an instant, they become more advanced about audio than most people in the audio industry, let alone everyone on this forum. Like other Beltists, they "get it" (even if they don't understand it).

When you're trying to discern relatively subtle differences between compressed mp3 files (where one has been Belted), which you have put through digital processors, burned to CDs, and listened to on speakers at low volume because you're afraid of waking your wife & daughter, then yes, you may not "get it". I don't even guarantee that you'll "get it", if you download and apply 2 dozen of my L-shapes. What I do guarantee, because I know this to be true, is that when you do enough Belt treatments to your home environment (or CLC's, whatever your AA poison), and find that your system has completely transformed in sound quality, elevated way beyond the level of merely changing a single component, clear "night and day differences", then you have no choice but to "get it". That's where I was, years ago. All Beltists are familiar with the ignorance of the masses re: alternative audio products, because most (which doesn't include me), were one of them at some point. So right now, they're just waiting for everyone else to play "catch up". They realize that could take decades, particularly if they have to wait for researchers in other areas of science come across and recognize the phenomenon that Belt the audio engineer did 25 years ago.

Anyway, all this to say, apology accepted. And very big of you, I might add. Joseph has a can of pineapple slices waiting at the exit door as a parting gift....

You don't know the half of it. Our friend delius is a busy little boy, and here\'s some examples and here are some more. Read posts by anyone with an email as their user name (especially the one from his terrific webpage!), and you can easily catch the delius MO.

Not knowing just how these forums were before he trolled on in, I can't say how much of the fact that they're lacking in decent discussion is his fault. However, where the forum reaches its nadir, he's right in the middle of it. Just as here, the vast majority of his posts are thousand-word personal attacks and incessant circular arguements, and the atmosphere borders on the ridculous - certainly delius' native element.

Much as I thought this thread a fun distraction, seeing what might well be it's inevitable conclusion makes me think that it's time has passed in these parts.

Ayoye !
Thank you Sluggo...great links !
the names are different but there is no mistake...
that charming condescending touch...we've learned to appreciate...is all there
Looks to me like this kind of love has been around...somebody's been busy making friends all over the place...
the people at Coral Sea Studios sure think so...see the link at the bottom of their web page...

Good sound...maybe...
bad hat...definitely

I haven't checked this thread in a while but holy bat-cr@p ? ! This dude delius has waaaaaaaaaayyyyyyy too much time on his hands. But I guess when you live under a bridge there's not much else to do :rolleyes: .

This idiot is still posting??

Look, buster, since you're so allergic to anyone else's requests for some theory, some repeatable tests, anything other than your own vitriol, how about you just answer this:

Can you hear the difference with all your "Belt" trickery? Yes or no?

Specifically, do you think you'd be able to tell if someone replaced your BeltFoil and your BeltCream with ordinary Reynolds wrap and generic mustard?

Think you can do it without looking?

I'm not asking for ABX tests, spectral decay plots, or MP3's, burned to CD or otherwise. You get to listen and decide. Under controlled conditions, of course.

How about it, tough guy?

I think this was a new record. Posts 1 & 2? Well done.

GUYS! I thought I told you to waken me if this thread was reanimated. Slackers.


Well, I always sort of figured it was ultimately just that, variations in air pressure. Silly me.

Why is it that those with the least to say take the most time to say it? Odd.

The best way to find out if these clocks do anything or not is for Scott to contact these companies and do these tweaks to the clocks and then pass them around to the forum members here. This will stop this madness and you will enjoy your audio/video systems alot more then!............

Yeah, I think we can see that, genius. But you know what they say, you can't keep a good Sluggo down. Defeated by every one of my arguments, he's still mustering up the courage to respond to them once again. Question is, why are you still posting? All your previous posts were ignored, and unlike Sluggo, you never even showed you had the balls, let alone the knowledge to begin debating AA products with me.

Look imbecile, I've already written about the theory and repeatable tests. You seem to be allergic to "reading", in general. As far as "vitriol" goes, that's all you've ever posted in this thread?! Look up the word "hypocrite", once you learn how to read.

Don't ask me stupid questions, essay. I wouldn't be here saying what I did if I couldn't. And don't call it "trickery", asswipe. "Trickery" is you pretending to have anything other than sh*t-for-brains. Or a set of cahonies for that matter. Go graze with the other sheep, your leader is calling you.

Specifically, I have replaced some Belt techniques with "sugar pills". The sugar pills don't sound anything like the Belt stuff. But who said that Reynolds wrap and generic mustard don't have an effect on the sound? You? I think we already established you know dick all about audio from post #1.

I already have, troll. But you, I doubt you could tie your shoelaces without looking.

There's no such thing as "controlled conditions", idiot. You can not control conditions you don't know about. I've already put the info out there. You get to listen and decide -for yourself-. If you want to do tests with your head up your ass, and then conclude that you can't hear anything, that's your prerogative as well.

How about you try the products for yourself, dumb guy. Then maybe you'll earn the right to speak out against them, and have a bit more credibility here. Until then, you're just a fraud and a troll.

They figured there were enough fools to do the job of hurling mockery & ridicule already. Far as I'm concerned, you're always welcome to join the party. Just one more rear end to kick, for me.

Yes, I know. Stupidity and ignorance in all its humble glory.

Oh. You're one of "them". Sorry, I was mistaken, I thought you just came to witness the wholesale slaughtering of the fools. In that case, let me correct you, Mr. Sheep: You mean to say "stupid you", not "silly you". Let's start with that lump of haggis in your head that you're mistaking for a "brain". If it were a fully functional normal brain, you'd already have known and understood that there are far more variations with it than there are with air pressure, when listening to reproduced music. Since you like to pretend to know so much about music reproduction, let's see you explain what all the processes are that occur in the brain, as a result of hearing music? Remember, I said "all" the processes...

Even odder, why is it those most ignorant pretending to be the greatest experts?

Enlighten us, oh Slug-like one. Why is he "infamous"? I don't think anyone apart from the PWB discussion group and his personal circle of friends knows him.

And what exactly were you so "enlightened" by, troll? The fact that you were wrong when you kept implying to me that there was no internet discussion group that accepted open and respectful discussions of alternative audio like Belt products? Witless fool that you are, even with your size 11 still in your mouth, I'll accept your apology on that. And extend it by accepting your admission that you were wrong about everything else you said here to me as well.


Didn't I tell you already to stop lying? Nothing is "light reading" for you! Oh, and I'm glad you discovered anew word for you, "enlighten". Too bad you'll never experience it. Keep writing to Santa, maybe he can help.


So how are things in "Reverso World" Sluggo? Is up still down? Are lies still truth? Here's how things are in the real world: The forum you're referring to was a place where derision and ridicule ruled. It's what gets "little people" off. Naturally, that skyrocketed once I got there. But that's not my fault, I'm not responsible if you or others wish to behave like assholes. Just stop expecting me to behave differently if that's the way you wanna play it. On discussion forums, Beltists always make the best targets for bigoted assholes like yourself, who heap mockery, scorn and ridicule upon them, simply because they don't understand them or the products they use. After my time there, a professional audio journalist I'd been corresponding with emailed me to say that it was refreshing to see how I had actually gotten that forum to have serious audio discussions "for a change". Before me, it hadn't happened in -years-. Even members of the forum who vehemently disagreed on everything I said, agreed on that much. After I left, it went back to the usual dearth of serious audio discussion.

Now as for Outlaw.... I haven't checked the other threads before gracing the place with my presence, but I know for a fact before posting here there were several hundred messages in this thread alone, all of which consisted of members of this forum attacking a single member because of a product he used and supported. There was NO attempts made by you or anyone at any serious discussion of these products, from all I could see.

In fact, the only half-assed attempts made at serious discussion in this thread occurred when I came along. I know because you're one of those that made a half-assed feeble-minded attempt to seriously discuss alternative audio products & techniques. The problem is, I gave you a serious response and you ran the f**k away and hid under your bed like a frightened child. And then pretended I never responded. Same with every other person who attempted to debate or discuss the issues, that I gave serious and detailed responses to. Including my last serious response to garcianc2003, who unlike you and the rest of your band of ignorant trolls, had the good sense and "class" to apologize for attacking me with the usual sarcasm and ridicule.

Now if you want to have a serious audio discussion, troll, as you "pretend" that you do, then you can start by attempting to refute what I wrote to you in our little pseudo-debate. Heck its' been several hundred messages we've seen you mentally masturbating all over this thread every time a product is mentioned that you don't get, and I've still yet to see a shred of evidence from you, or anyone, that these products don't work or that the science behind them is false. Hell, you don't even know anything about the science behind them, so you don't even have a pot to piss in as far as attempting to refute them is concerned! Maybe that's why all you're capable of is ad hominem attacks?

What you first need to do, Greg Sluggo, is apologize humbly and sincerely for accusing Outlaw members and audio manufacturers of "fraud", "shilling" and "Scamming", when you have failed to show ANY evidence to support your libelous claims .

So even though I told you specifically you were misspelling it and you continued to spell it as you did in boldface.... nevermind, apology accepted! Truth be told, it's not my real name. And if I might say, if "Bestbang4ABuck" is not your real name, I suggest you change it. As a username, it really sucks. It's really more of a motto than a name. Even "Sluggo" is better, although it's hard to come up with a name that makes you sound any stupider than "Sluggo". Anyway.

Whether you take it or not, you and you aloneare responsible for your reactions. I find there is a hell of a lot of "blame shifting" going on here, with people not taking responsiblity for their actions and reactions. People blaming others for the fact that they are making libelous and fallacious accusations against manufacturers and others here.
People even blaming me for them coming into this thread. If read people's words, it even sounds like they are blaming me for them being too stupid to read anything that is longer than 3 lines. No, *blame yourselves*. It's only fools that blame others for their actions and reactions. I did not force anyone to mock and ridicule Hifisoundguy/GoodSound for 300+ messages, did I? Nor am I forcing anyone to mock and ridicule me. Nor should anyone whine about it if they receive the same disrespect from me that they offer me or others.

As for being "unwilling to attempt debate", I believe you did. Like the others, you never saw it through. Not that I expected anyone to actually declare "Yeah Delius, I guess you're right and I was wrong about all this Belt and CLC stuff! Uh, color me stoopid! Sorry about the derision and contempt and all! I think I see your point about us being mindless sheep, now! Who knew you were right all along!".

Well... I did. Which is why I know that any attempt to debate from anyone here is an insincere one, since you are only trying to "debunk" me in the name of all that is holy and righteous about audio, and will never let your runaway ego's admit that you really don't know doodly about alternative audio products.


Correct. There is in fact a PWB product that addresses this concern, called the "CC Tie Pin" I believe. It is meant to be worn on the person at live events, to enjoy an enhanced sense of perception at that event. I have not yet experimented with "outside onsite Belting" myself, so I won't say how well that works. But I have no reason to believe it doesn't, because I have experimented with Belting fabrics, and that's basically what that does. It's a product that reduces the adverse energy on your clothing, which translates to better sensory perception. Another area I've not experimented with, but read a tiny bit about, is the treatment of musical instruments. I would expect that you can Belt instruments as well, but I don't know how well that would work. Another interesting proposition is to treat an entire recording studio, from mics to cables to mixing board to recording equipment. Then see what effect that has on the recording itself.

Since Delius has graced this thread once again, it might be a good time to post some thoughts that I had while making a long drive to a short meeting earlier this week. Delius has criticized many of the posts in this thread as being libelous toward Geoff Kait and Machina Dynamica (MD). While rolling down I-40, I got to thinking a bit about this issue and the reasons that I personally have found myself unwilling to place any faith in MD or their products. Part of my reason does trace back to a lack of faith in Belt devices, but it goes beyond that. Let me offer a fictional series of events as an example, then I'll explain why I do not trust MD as a company.

For our analogy, I am going to look at another company. Perhaps I'll use Outlaw Audio, the company that hosts this forum. Outlaw makes well-regarded home theater equipment (receivers, surround processors, amplifiers, subwoofers, and the like) and sells that equipment directly to consumers over the internet at very competitive prices. In that regard, they share a few things in common with MD - different products, certainly, but same distribution model. They offer a 30-day money back guarantee, as does basically any internet-direct company (in fact, Outlaw was one of the first to employ this model back in 1999). They offer good products at very competitive prices, and they place a great deal of value on customer service. As a result, they have a customer base that includes a number of repeat customers and they benefit from a good deal of "word of mouth" marketing. As someone who has been using various Outlaw products since the fall of 2000, I am just such a customer. What would happen if I were to see evidence of Outlaw demonstrating a grievous lack of respect for their customers? Specifically, imagine someone who was considering or had recently purchased an Outlaw surround processor or receiver. Imagine that person calling Outlaw and getting Scott (our forum moderator and a pretty senior Outlaw employee) on the phone, then asking Scott what set Outlaw's products apart from similar products offered by companies like Rotel, Denon, Anthem, Emotiva, and the line. Imagine Scott responding by saying, "Well, dear caller, our competitors simply buy their DSP chips and DAC's from companies like Cirrus. We instead purchase the design for those chips, at which point we contract with Santa's elves to hand-craft the chips using flying reindeer antler as the substrate rather than the normal silicon. These precision-crafted, flying reindeer antler chips are far superior to their average silicon-based counterparts." Clearly, Scott would be lying to this customer. Imagine that customer believing Scott and eagerly repeating this to others in an online forum. Imagine Scott offering no explanation for this story except to tell the customer that he would have to be more careful about revealing secrets to that individual in the future. If such a series of events were to take place, I would be far from the only Outlaw customer who would no longer be willing or able to provide Outlaw with my business or to recommend Outlaw to others. Even with an excellent product at a good price, such disdain for the customers simply wouldn't deserve our business.

How does this (admittedly very crazy, if fittingly festive) analogy relate to MD? In the case of MD, we have a company with an assortment of products that provide reportedly remarkable capabilities with no clear explanation, at prices that seem excessive based on the lack of information available. The consensus opinion appears to be that these clocks (and jars of pebbles and foil) are based on Peter Belt's concepts. Cue the can opener, because that would open an all-to-familiar can of worms. But wait, there is the possibility that the clock uses Orgone energy, in which case we need that can opener to open a different can of worms. Before we open either can, though, we need to take a look at an old old post from mid-March , which provided a source for HiFiGoodSoundGuy's claim that the clock served as a time travel device. That source honestly believed that the CLC operated by minimizing the time difference between the time captured on the recording and the current time, thus adding realism to the music. Where did he get such a hair-brained notion? After all, even delius agreed that the idea was ludicrous. Well, Geoff Kait offered an answer to that question: he had disseminated the information to the poster over the phone "in confidence" that the information would remain their little secret. He told a customer this! Even worse, he simply scolded the customer for sharing this information - he didn't say, "Come on, you know I was joking around since nobody seems to be willing to accept the real story" or "Sorry you took me seriously, it is actually a Belt device not a time travel device." So we have a company that is either unwilling to admit how the device works or has so little respect for its customer base that the boss will concoct crazy stories just for the hell of it. The fact that Geoff may be be a smart, well-educated individual doesn't change anything in this case. So delius tells us that he's worked for NASA? OK, he's intelligent - just like the thousands of other engineers who have worked on projects relating to the space program (and I've known a few of those engineers, including a couple college classmates and a professor who worked for Thiokol). None of that directly correlates to whether or not he is a reliable, trustworthy businessman with a good-quality, fairly-priced product. Even leaving the Belt "can of worms" unopened (at least for the moment), I wouldn't feel comfortable giving MD my business or recommending that others give MD their business simply because the company seems to have no respect for its customer base.

I'll probably drop back into this thread later to comment on one bit of research that I am still working on, maybe shortly after Christmas...

Go on Delius...
One is better getting lost within his passion than to simply lose it...
Happy Holidays or ranting which ever suits you best

and thank you gonk for injecting a bit of much needed sanity here...once again you're ''the man''...I'm looking forward to see what kind of results your research will bring you...
anything to enlighten this theology discussion...

Consider it my "Xmas gift" to Outlaw members...

And this too:

http://us.share.geocities.com/soundhaspriority/lshape.zip

Merry AA Xmas! Yo Ho Ho!

Nice, but what you and the other sheep here fail to realize time after time after time after time (after time!), is that you don't HAVE to have "faith" in audio products. Who said you did?? Outlaw, MD, PWB.... what do they all have in common? That's right, money back guarantees! That means "no risk and no faith required!". NO audio products works on the long term because you have "faith" in it. I never had "faith" nor "lack of faith" when I started experimenting with Peter Belt's products and ideas. I simply had an open mind. Something I can't say for a single soul here, as you have all proved to be prejudicial bigots.
(With the exception of either "Bang4ABuck" or "Gonk" who did make a half-assed attempt to listen to a couple of mp3 files before happily declaring the entire Belt phenomenon null and void right afterward....).

Really? PWB has been offering money back guarantees on their products for 25 years. Only had 4 return them in that time, I believe. They must be doing something right....


I'm sure they do. So does PWB

I'm sure they do. So does PWB


So what if he was? Or does the quality of sound not matter to you people? (That's a serous question, btw). Can't the customer determine for himself whether the product has good value by listening to it? Didn't you say a return money guarantee was in place?

Not hard to imagine, since HifiSoundGuy eagerly repeated some twaddle he heard somewhere about the CLC running on "orgone energy". How would that have in impact on Outlaw, is what I don't get? You guys post and exchange false information between you every single day here. I can probably find something that's BS in nearly every single post here (that isn't mine). Oh I'm sorry, you guys actually believe you're right all the time, don't you? I hope I didn't shatter anyone's illusions...

I'm glad you're not basing this on any reality, because in the case of Geoff Kait and MD, the "disdain" was clearly on the part of the customer, who's intention was to hold Kait up to ridicule for the generous time he took to try to explain his products to a mere potential customer, and who disrespected Kait's request that he keep the privileged conversation private. You're reasoning here is a joke, because while I can't speak for Outlaw products, in the case of MD's products, you're the one who's gonna suffer here with that snobby attitude of yours, because your system will crap out without the CLC's in place.

You might as well invite friends over for a twisted "crapfest" with your audio system as the main attraction.

Clearly, it doesn't. Except for the part about the flying reindeer antlers in place of the silicone. I hear that's what the GSIC chips are made of.

False. Why do you _always_ feel a need to posit strawman arguments, Gonk? Can't you make a New Year's resolution to stop doing that in these discussion forums? That's a lie that Machina Dynamica does not have any clear explanations of their products. How about this one called "How the Intelligent Chip Works - The Definitive Explanation":
http://www.machinadynamica.com/machina64.htm

Now if you don't understand even the basics of quantum mechanics, or if you're "Sluggo" or "Jason J" or "R. Mackey", then I don't suppose a word of it is going to be "clear" to you. That's not his fault that his products work on complicated principles that dumb people figure is bullshit because they're too dumb to even begin to understand them.

I don't recall anyone saying the jar of pebbles is based on Peter's concepts. Can you point out to me who did? No, I didn't think you could, strawman. I've tried ordinary jars of ordinary pebbles in my listening room, it had an effect on the sound (albeit not a particularly great one). I believe it has enough of an influence on acoustic pressure waves to not be Beltian.

I'd like to tell you what you can do with your can opener but.... since it's Xmas, I'll just say that no, I don't believe there is the "possibility" that the clock uses Orgone energy. What I recall about that is HFSG regurgitated a joke someone wrote about the CLC. You idiots beleived it was MD theory simply because you believe all that you read on the internet. Like good sheep . However, you're also bad sheep because I already mentioned this here and yet you regurgitate the same false information because it suits your agenda. Not very honest of you, is it. Speaking of Orgone energy, I have yet to see any concrete evidence from you or anyone else that it does not exist, despite the claims made that it is bogus.

Quote:

Before we open either can, though, we need to take a look at an old old post from mid-March, which provided a source for HiFiGoodSoundGuy's claim that the clock served as a time travel device.
That source honestly believed that the CLC operated by minimizing the time difference between the time captured on the recording and the current time, thus adding realism to the music. Where did he get such a hair-brained notion? After all, even delius agreed that the idea was ludicrous.

You see, that's the problem with simple-minded sheep, I mean "people". They simplify everything because they have no choice. It's the only way they have of understanding the world. So to elaborate my simple slack-jawed friend, what I consider to be "ludicrous", is the idea that a Timex travel clock has been modified to somehow allow you to travel back and forth in time. That's is how everyone here and on Audiogon was interpreting that explanation. That is, however, NOT how I interpreted what Kait's customer had said (probably because my head isn't filled with hatred and fear of change, as it is with most).

I know Kait well enough to know he isn't mad, and I do not believe he said what people interpreted he said from what his customer wrote. I believe he may have been using time travel as an abstract to explain a hypothetical function of his device, in order to make it easier for the layperson to understand. Not having been privvy to that conversation, **along with you and everyone else on the internet**, I can't know exactly what he meant by that. Or if he even said what was claimed he said in the first place. But apparently, it wasn't simple enough and the idiot customer interpreted it to mean the clock can whisk you back and forth in time.

Quote:

Well, Geoff Kait offered an answer to that question: he had disseminated the information to the poster over the phone "in confidence" that the information would remain their little secret. He told a customer this!

No, there is NO evidence that he told the customer this. I already addressed this issue too in a previous msg, btw. There is only evidence he was not happy about what one of the customers who spoke to him was saying. I read that exchange, and it appeared the customer was mocking what Geoff Kait had told him about the CLC. Just as most others on the forum were mocking Kait and his products. We don't know exactly what Kait explained to the guy since it was a private conversation on the phone. It appears the customer may have taken Kait's words out of context, and after using those words to mock Kait on a web forum, this prompted Kait to say that he could not trust that customer again with private information.

Quote:

Even worse, he simply scolded the customer for sharing this information - he didn't say, "Come on, you know I was joking around since nobody seems to be willing to accept the real story" or "Sorry you took me seriously, it is actually a Belt device not a time travel device."

Again, that's YOUR biased, prejudicial personal interpretation of some very brief and unclear comments on a discussion board. Kait himself has neither officialy or unofficially confirmed or denied the clock is "a time travel device", or what is meant by that, if that is at all what he said about it. It's what you WANT to "believe", because it helps to not change your understanding of things. You have far greater adherence to your religious "faith" than you care to admit, "science guy". This little witch-hunt of yours against Kait is very scientific, btw.

Quote:

So we have a company that is either unwilling to admit how the device works or has so little respect for its customer base that the boss will concoct crazy stories just for the hell of it.

That's YOUR personal biased conclusion, that's not a fact. The only one that seems to be concocting crazy stories here is YOU. And no, it's not a 100% fact that Kait is unwilling to admit how the device works. I have read somewhere from Kait that a proper explanation is forthcoming.

Quote:

The fact that Geoff may be be a smart, well-educated individual doesn't change anything in this case.

Why would it, when your "case" is only supported by your personal prejudices and interpretations, and not a shred of concrete factual verifiable evidence?

Quote:

So delius tells us that he's worked for NASA? OK, he's intelligent - just like the thousands of other engineers who have worked on projects relating to the space program (and I've known a few of those engineers, including a couple college classmates and a professor who worked for Thiokol). None of that directly correlates to whether or not he is a reliable, trustworthy businessman with a good-quality, fairly-priced product.

True. But who said it did? I think the 30 day money back guarantee he offers on the clock correlates more than enough to whether or not he is a reliable, trustworthy businessman with a good-quality, fairly-priced product. Oh, I forgot... that's the part you Newtonites never like to talk much about when you're busy slamming companies like MD and PWB...
Doesn't help further your agenda much, does it?

Quote:

Even leaving the Belt "can of worms" unopened (at least for the moment), I wouldn't feel comfortable giving MD my business or recommending that others give MD their business simply because the company seems to have no respect for its customer base.

Yet you probably wouldn't think twice about buying a Sony product, despite the fact that they showed so much respect for their customer base, they had them install their own rootkits. I'm sure you don't shop at Wal-Mart either, for the degrading drug testing they force on their employees, or their anti-union stance. I'm also sure you don't own any products made in China, for their inhuman torture, abuse and murder of Falun Dafa practitioners, who may be murdered simply as a means of profit for the organ trade industry, in order to exploit their living organs. Or perhaps you think Kait is worse than the cold-blooded murdering Chinese, for condemning a rude and disrespectful potential customer/potential asshole?

I'm sure I would never find any products in your home that were purchased from countries or companies with questionable practices, Mr. Conscience. Because in your warped mind, a rude-ass customer who mocks the company president and violates an agreement of trust between him and the president who was gracious enough to take the time to talk with the whiny little shmuck on the phone to explain the products he helped design, is not at fault here. No, its the president who states he won't continue to share private, proprietary information with that "potential" customer, because the customer clearly violated their agreement that he not reveal what was said about the product. Wow, not a lot of hatred and prejudice against Kait on your part, is there?

Quote:

I'll probably drop back into this thread later to comment on one bit of research that I am still working on, maybe shortly after Christmas...

Ah yes... the L-shapes. Do tell us how that's going for you... don't forget to stick one at the top of the tree!

Well, I finally figured I would try these Belt thingies, I found the leather ones muddled my soundstage, the web type made the sound harsh and the best listening experience came from plain drawstring sweatpants.

bouhou...
If you guys don't believe in the clocks or the mustard...
I'm not playing any more....

Leeches for sale !
Get our super-charged leeches !
Dirt cheap !
No need to freeze'em, grease'em or stroke'em !
They'll suck the evil right out of you !
Money back garanteed !
(minus a small administration fee)
Don't let the medical establishement or our competition fool you...
A good bleeding cures all ills...
the procedure has been known for centuries
if you really care about your family you will purchase a jar of our special leeches for your medicine cabinet...
Order now...
we'll throw in one of our super-leech applicator absolutely free...
Don't be like everyone else...

yep, drawstring sweatpants work best, tried elastic waistband, but it was too constricting,best sound came with a t-shirt with mustard and cream stains on it also while eating a hotdog wrapped in foil

Geez! What has happened to this forum?

I've got a better idea - how about you try really really hard to refrain from personal attacks and then YOU explain how the CLC enhance music reproduction. Extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary proof and so forth.

Magic will not be smiled upon as an explanation.

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. To top it off, we got the following claim not long after my post about my experiences with the MP3 files:
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. 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).

There's still one other site offered as an example of Belt devices that doesn't cost me any money, so I wandered over to that site again and this time downloaded the bitmap file (with its four copies of a curious reversed "L" shape with an arc at the corner). I was supposed to print the bitmap out, cut the L-shapes out of the paper, and stick one to the back of my CD player near the jacks. The printer did its job, out came the scissors, out came the tape, and off I went to stick one to my DVD player and one to my SoundBridge (the two sources most likely to get use). By applying one to each, I figured it would be a good, diverse test: both a high-fidelity (DVD/CD) source and a low-fidelity (MP3) source, as well as a video source for good measure. I left them on there for nearly a week (they went on last Tuesday evening), and then removed them (as directed by the site) early on Christmas morning to see if I could detect a change. 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.

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? No, no, and no. 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. 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? None of the above - I gave it an honest try, and found that it had no effect. Clearly others have made similar efforts and had different results. I can't say why that was, 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.

At this point, I've jumped through enough hoops. I'm not buying any clocks, foils, or creams (not even with a money-back guarantee) - my last post offered an explanation of why I have no interest in giving Machina Dynamica my business, and my experiences with Delius's demonstrations leaves me just as uninterested in PWB's products as I was when this debate started. (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.) 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. 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. Or don't, if you feel so deeply driven to insult me, but remember as you type out your lengthy condemnations that each time you find it necessary to change your tune in order to declare individuals' mental incompetence you only erode what credibility you might have had with those quietly reading these posts. 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 ) in order to further belittle and berate others, you lose. The choice is yours...

What is the total post count in this thread?? :rolleyes:

A nice shot or two of Basil Haydens generally increases my enjoyment of most leisure activities, including music listening, but that doesn't make Bourbon a Hi-Fi tweak. I think.

As an added bonus Bourbon has a large body of research, both scientific and, ah, not, that describes and explains the cause and effect. Ahem.

My own "tweak" parallels Charlie's idea. Except I use a hefty measure of Jack Daniels and Coca-Cola.

I have not tried Basil Haydens...sounds like a good possibility for New Year's Eve.

Thanks Gonk :-)
I use naturally occurring substances to enhance my listening pleasures (especially when listening to Pink Floyd), but you can be damn sure I don't tape them to my audio components, place them under my audio components or rub them on my ancillary parts and pieces.
THESE substances go straight to the brain, for a direct and easily detectible improvement in sound quality and quality of life in general.
Belt THAT D..D.. Delius

Lonster

Are you still trolling? I see that you folks indulge a lot in the use of alcohol and recreational drugs before you listen to your systems, and you believe this makes the best substitute for proper audio enhancement. It might surprise you to know, that unlike you all, I don't do drugs or alcohol. But then, if I had systems that sounded like yours, I suppose I might. Its probably the only way you can make them sound any good.

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.


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.


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.

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.


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?!


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.


I'd say it's a bit of all three.

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.

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.


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.


You mean there's someone here that doesn't realize that already? Who?

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.

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.


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.

What's the story with the trolls ?
How do you see them everywhere ?
Is that a side-effect from ''belting''yourself ?

Or have the clocks opened a portal to another dimension ?

I'm all for a good afternoon of ''arts & crafts''
decorating your gear with little papers of differents shapes and colors...
a very relaxing family activity...
But I must admit my weariness...
at having trolls show up in my living room...

and after all that...
what a disapointment...
those little L shaped papers on my pc screen...
didn't dissipate the soporific effect of Delius's words...
So here I am ...afraid of trolls and sleepy...
but my gear has a festive aura...
and that's all good....
Can garden dwarves be an audio tweak too ?

I wondered what reason might be offered for dismissing my evaluation of the L-shape, and in fact I had a suspicion that it might be your claim that I didn't use enough - that I was one of those people who required more shapes in order to hear the difference. Before I mention the other part of my L-shape evaluation, I'm going to take a moment to catch back up on some things.

• Part 1: This site was one of two offered as examples of the power of Belt's concepts. If you go to that site, the first thing you will see below the title is the statement (in large, bold type) "This page is intended to provide a tangible means of demonstrating the effects of photographs on our senses." The site is part of the discussion in this thread because it was first introduced with the paragraph below:
  
  Quote:

  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/
  The site also offers the following comment regarding the negative effects of MP3's lossy compression on the sample tracks:
  
  Quote:

  Still, I feel there should be enough resolution left after all this processing to still hear at least some sort of differences beteen each version of the music track. In order to ensure more success at hearing these differences, you should play them back on good quality headphones.
  Based on all of this, I understood the six MP3 files offered on that site to be a reasonable method of listening to the effects of applying Belt techniques to a system. Had I wanted to simply dismiss these files, I could have used some mediocre earbuds and listened to the files a time or two. Instead, I listened repeatedly to all six files (both as MP3 files and as tracks on an audio CD created with Nero 6), using my main system instead of headphones because I had no good headphones available and felt that my main system would be at least as good as headphones at reproducing subtle nuances in sound. Aside from perhaps a slightly higher overall signal level from the "full metal jacket" version of Jingle Bells, I found the files to be indistinguishable from each other.
• Part 2: My MP3 file findings were dismissed because "they were never meant to be a "test" in the first place". And yet, the information that led me to try listening to them specifically identified them as "a tangible means of demonstrating the effects of photographs on our senses." If you fail to see the Catch-22 here, then so be it. All I can do is suggest that you either revise your site to identify the files as uesless demonstrations or post the uncompressed WAV files (the longest MP3 is only 60 seconds and most are only 35 seconds - toss the raw WAV files into a zip file and you wouldn't be talking about much file space at all).
• Part 3: Since my MP3 listening was apparently meaningless, I turned to the other site offered as a test of Belt techniques. Here's the first time that particular site was offered:
  
  Quote:

  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/
  I started out with two shapes, one each on my DVD player and MP3 player. I gave these nearly a week, using an assortment of familiar source material, and found no effect. I also didn't tell me wife, to see if knowledge of the shape's presence mattered. Again, no effect. This test was rejected with great enthusiasm, but that's hardly a surprise...
• Part 4: I left this one for last, since I didn't feel like digging into it until I had the den to myself for a while to do some more serious tinkering. The instructions on the Sound Has Priority site suggest that if you can't hear a difference with one or two shapes, that you should move up to a dozen. The tape came back out, and the following shapes got applied: two on the back of the DV-981HD, one on the back of the Model 990, three on the front of the DV-981HD, two on the front of the Model 990, one on the back of the SoundBridge M500, two on the front of the SoundBridge M500, and one on the top of the Model 7500. That's an even dozen. Familiar demo material (CD's, MP3's, an SACD, and Revenge of the Sith) played off and on over the course of about a day now. I still do not find any effect. This is a system that I've built up over the course of years, and that I am extremely familiar with - there was not even a subtle change introduced by the shapes.

That brings us to the present. Delius has offered us all two web sites as resources should anyone wish to conduct an evaluation of Belt techniques: Sound Has Priority (L-shapes) and Photographs as Devices (MP3 files). True, he's backed off on the MP3 files, but as recently as earlier this month it was a resource worth presenting to us. I've investigated both, and would suggest that others who have an interest in putting these techniques to the test do the same. If you find Belt's techniques to be a revelation, then I'm sure there are resources online (such as delius) who could offer you even more information. If you find the techniques to be ineffectual no matter how carefully you follow the procedures or how many times you try them, you are not alone. While we're on that subject, though, I'd like to take a moment to comment on one of delius's recent comments:
I'm not humiliated. I'm not remorseful. I don't want my time back. If I felt stupid for having taped the shapes all over my gear, I wouldn't have told anyone that I did it. For that matter, even though the shapes didn't alter the sound of my system, I still had a pleasant time listening to old favorites on my system (something that work and parenthood often make difficult, unfortunately). I'm certainly not surprised that your confrontational, insulting, and obnoxious posting style has driven others to threaten you with violence, but I don't share similar feelings. You might be trying to read between the lines a bit too hard.

I'm saddened that this forum - a place that has been a pleasant, useful, and supportive community for home theater hobbyists for nearly six years now, and I feel sure will continue to offer such a home for us for years to come - has had to endure this particular thread. We've debated everything from exotic cables to room equalization techniques (among many other topics) with intelligence, courtesy, civility, and more often than not light-heartedness. Fortunately, the rancor that has flowed through many recent posts in this thread has remained limited to this one thread, which is just one of many things for us to be thankful this holiday season. I'm off to enjoy the rest of my vacation now...

Recreational DRUGS! Talk about your ASSumptions.

Delius, you crack me up. Every time I come back to read this thread, I get a big smile on my face. Every time you post up I get the same image in my brain, and it makes me smile. Remember, in the Wizard of Oz (NO, not the big windbag behind the curtain! ), when Dorothy and Toto are in the house, and the house is flying around in the twister? Remember when the neighbor lady comes flying by on her bicycle, peddling as hard as she can, and really getting nowhere? That is the image I have of you in this thread, peddling as hard as you can, while the rest of us just read and chuckle. It must be really, really distressing to expend all that energy on a group of people that have no other interest in what you are saying, except to read it and chuckle.
Maybe YOU need some recreational drugs to help you mellow out a bit?
Trolling? My family has been making their living fishing for centuries, so YES, I have done ALOT of trolling in my time. Whatever pays the bills.
Anyway, the main reason I posted up today was to thank you for turning off all the nasty name calling that has been so prevalent in many of your previous posts. It makes the reading alot more enjoyable.
Thank You and Take care Buddy,
The Lonster

Hi, I just sent for my free sample of memory foil. I will let you all know what I think then.

For some reason I can't start my own thread so I will ask my question here, even though it will likely take a very long time to get answered.

Can Outlaw ship to France?

Oh, I think we can get you a fairly rapid response.

I don't believe that Outlaw ships to France normally, but at one time they had a European distributor and I believe that something can be arranged (forum regular barend is in Europe and has both a 990 and a 7700). If a phone call is not convenient (1-866-688-5292), you could inquire with Outlaw directly through their online support system .

It works wonderfully, just don't adulterate it with mixers - it's smooth enough already.

In other words, you have no theory or repeatable tests. I thought so.

It's "ese," not "essay." Nonetheless, I must congratulate you. You have now written the single most idiotic post I have ever read. And my experience with the Internet goes back to 1987. I've talked to Flat Earthers, people who don't believe we ever landed on the Moon, and folks who think the Yakuza is controlling the world's weather -- and they all make more sense than you.

What you're pushing here, badly I might add, is no different than those poor deluded fools. It's simply a belief, and one without any rational explanation or evidence in support -- by your own admission.

In case anyone feels the least bit swayed, one does not need to try things to know they won't work. I do not need to try Belt Foil on my washing machine to know it won't do diddly for my stereo. Similarly, I don't need to hit my stereo with a hammer to know that's a bad idea.

Ever try that, tough guy? What?? You mean you've never hit your amplifier with a hammer and listened for the difference?! Well, why not?

Similarly, I do not need to pour sand in my car's gas tank to know that's a bad idea. I don't need to leap off a ten-story building to know that it might hurt. And, last but not least, I don't need to send Peter Belt a substantial amount of money to know that it's a scam.

And try to lay off the four-letter words, shill. That sort of hostility will surely not attract new buyers.

So, this means you decline my challenge, to show that you can hear a difference on your own system? How very unsurprising.

Here's the best way to get these clocks alot cheaper!!! http://cgi.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/auc.pl?accstwek&1168049268&auc&3&4&

Hahahaha.

And all done politely. Some folks could take a lesson there.

Is this guy(delius) for real?

For once, I'm speechless...

Gonk wrote:
As I wondered what reason you might offer for declaring the L-shape worthless.


As, in fact, I had a suspicion you would not believe me on that either, and argue with me about your listening skills. And about that, there are some more facts that need to be considered. As I later learned, you boys here are not even audiophiles. You're home theatre nuts. For one thing, that means that so long as y'all are totally surrounded by speakers, you're happier than pigs in a poke. And by your own accounts here, you're all more interested in getting sloshed and stoned than improving the quality of your sound. In fact, the few that are interested in improving their sound are convinced that being inebriated -does-. Well that says all anyone needs to know about how experienced you all are at acute listening to subtle refinements in sound quality. That's why I suggested in your case, you'd need at least 20 to have any hope of hearing differences. And I mean -before- you start pulling out the rolling papers.


I already told you that you were incorrect in making that assumption. Why do you KEEP INSISTING on claiming that you know better than I do what is and isn't a fair test of Belt techniques? Between the two of us, which of us would know more about that? You who's only experience with Beltism is doing a half-assed test of a couple of mp3's I made and sticking two L-shapes on your gear, or me with 20 years of experience with Belt techniques?


I already told you Gonk, you are wrong about that. Decent quality headphones provide the best means for this type of test, they reveal subtle details easily lost in speaker sound. And since you want to argue about everything, I'm not gonna argue with you about that if you insist on contradicting me. I will repeat the fact that you present yourself as a "man of science". You can not claim the right to make valid conclusions from a test, if you will not repeat the experiment according to the author's design parameters.

And then you wonder why you couldn't hear differences, but nevertheless, claim you should have if the phenomenon existed. How very "scientific".


There it is again. I will repeat what I told you twice now, and what you ignored twice now: "THAT'S IMPOSSIBLE". The signal level couldn't have changed, what you heard was a qualitative difference. I'm sorry that you can't tell the difference, but you could if you did more listening tests like this. It won't hurt you to learn how to listen, Gonk! But you gotta take the time to do it -right-, otherwise you will never learn how to do that, and all conclusions from all your audio tests will be inconclusive.


Stop playing with my words already! "Tangible means of demonstrating effects of a phenomenon" was NEVER meant to infer this is the same as testing the actual devices! It simply means I believe I may have come up with a way to help people understand the sonic characteristics of the Belt effect. It was not meant to be a substitute for a proper test of belt products or techniques!!!!

I'm putting that in bold because I see that you're still too slow to understand this the first few times I told you this, and you keep repeating this same mantra of yours about what my tests were designed to do. So just in case the problem is that you can't hear what I'm saying to you, I hope that blinding you with bold txt will finally get you to understand my point. Now if you can't hear that in the mp3's or the L-shapes and your goal is to test the Belt effect, you were meant to go on to the next step, which could be samples of the Rainbow Foil.

Again, I find it insulting that you're trying to argue with me about the characteristics of my own test, as though you would know better. Geez, you don't even know what I did to the burner that might make a difference in the first place! I can only conclude that you are being insincere here, and never had any intention to conduct a proper, objective series of trials. You only want to be able to say to your group "Look, there's proof now that we should dismiss all these crazy clocks and creams and silver foils, just like we already knew it all along!! Now enough of this quantum audio nonsense, who brought the beers!".


I don't know if anyone can mangle my words as well as you do, but if people are going to adopt your misguided attitude that those mp3's are a substitute for actually trying Belt products or techniques, then yes, I will take that under advisement.

I tried that. It doesn't compress that much. Geocities has a 5mb filesize limit, and even the Jingle in WAV format is just over that compressed. And even if I do manage to find a way to upload the originals, now I see I have to deal with people thinking that it's still a perfectly fair test if they take my test files, season it with cajun spices, bake it in the oven at 500F, then put it through a ringer washing machine and dust it with flour, and then come back to me and tell me its the exact same thing it was starting out. And they would know, because they listened to it on speakers (not headphones, as advised), which they couldn't play too loud because their daughter was sleeping.

With the mindset of people like you believing that my little mp3 snippets are a fair test of everything Belt has been doing this past 30 years, I'm figuring maybe its better I just don't mention that site to people like you. Scuse me, I mean "objective scientists" like you.

Why would it be, you didn't even follow the instructions I gave in the L-shapes file? Since you like to quote things to use as arguments for a non-arguable case, here's what I'm referring to:

In your case, I should perhaps have said you'd need to apply at least 20 such shapes, before you could have a hope of discerning a difference.

Well it's nice to see you finally read my instructions and tried to do a proper test. But again, as with the MP3 files, I'm disturbed about the type of tests you were doing on the L-shapes. Here you're saying you applied 12 shapes and played something for the course of a day now, and the last time you said you had applied just 2 and played something for the course of a week. What exactly did you expect should happen? At some point during the course of a day, or a week, while you were busy with other things, that the sound would magically improve all of a sudden to where it jumped out at you and said "Here I am, guys! Love me for all I'm worth!"?

And you're concluding that because this didn't happen for you, and your wife didn't happen to notice this extraordinary magical hyperdrive jump in sound quality during the course of her daily affairs, despite the fact that she was never even asked to listen to the system with and without the L-shapes under what is known as a "proper listening test", then the L-shapes did nothing? I'm sorry to have to say this, but ANY audio product you test under such conditions will be a waste of time. If you were able to read my instructions telling you how many shapes to apply, then you should have been able to follow the part of the instructions where I lay out exactly how to listen. It's easy to find, it's in the section of the instructions entitled "HOW TO LISTEN".

Sound advice. But I didn't "back off" the MP3 files, and you know it. You're the one who decided you would add your own interpretation for that site, and I didn't agree with you, and in a display of that same arrogance that all other "audio bigots" display, you didn't accept my interpretation of my own mp3 site. What you fail to understand in all of this Gonk, is that there are a lot of free and easy techniques that people can try themselves, to apply Belt concepts, and perhaps overcome their incredibly stupid and narrow-minded prejudices, enough to understand that the Belt phenomenon is very much a real one. They each have different levels of effectiveness, much like cables might. Which is why its unscientific and incorrect of you to judge what you saw on my sites against all Belt products, particularly since the tests you conducted were highly irregular.

There is no way that any of these free techniques is going to be equal in effectiveness to the PWB products. If it was, they wouldn't be free. A more fair test of Belt products is the rainbow foil samples, which as I said, requires making a polite request to the company to see if they are still being made available. But even that is NOT a test of all Belt products, its only a test of one of Belt's least effective (but cheapest and most popular) ones.


True, but then, as you didn't carefully follow the procedures as I outlined them (no matter how many times you tried), you can't say whether the technique you tried is effectual or not. It is also true to say that many have found Belt's techniques effectual (including the L-shapes I posted), regardless of whether they could explain why. Some are audio journalists who have evaluated Belt's products, such as Thorsten Loesch (TNT Audio Online).

Those who haven't found the products (or techniques) effective, are usually no different than you. They go into it with a huge amount of prejudice, believing that its all nonsense, they conduct some tests in a truly half-assed manner like you did, they probably have very little experience conducting similar audio experiments, which given what you described of your experiments proved to be the case with you (which means they have no idea how to listen properly to subtle differences), and in the case of the peculiar Belt phenomenon, they have no idea what to listen for. Having never heard an audio product effect this sort of change.

Sorry, that's not gonna wash. I've had several people admit publically that they felt stupid and silly for having even considered trying such techniques. The truly stupid people are the ones who "know" they don't work, before having applied them. I can always spot them coming from a mile away. What you have in common with those people, is that you think you're smarter than you actually are. Take your perceived "logical argument" that you wouldn't have told anyone that you tried the shapes, if you felt stupid for having done so. That's a (provable) fallacy, and no less a fallacy than all the other assumptions you and others here keep making, whether they are related to the Belt/MD products, or me.

All something has to do is sound "logical" or "make sense" to you and your gang of armchair gunslingers, and it "becomes real". Even if, in reality, it isn't. So you keep fooling yourselves into believing that you "own the truth", and those few who might disagree with you are fooling themselves... or simply trying to fool others. Some of those who were smart enough to question what might or might not be real, based on whatever may have prompted them to do so, later thanked me for sharing my knowledge on audio. And in that moment, they already leapt tens of years ahead of you, and God knows how many years ahead of the rest of the trailer park boys of Outlaw, in terms of what is and isn't known about audio.


They're not supposed to alter the sound of your system. But they did alter your sound.


I'm glad you got to listen to some of your favourite music!

You'd be a little more convincing if you put the gun down while you were speaking, Gonk...... Now we don't want to have thing that go off unnecessarily, do we?

What a coincidence. All of my messages are meant to be light hearted as well. But now seriously Mr. Gonk.... Intelligence? Courtesy?? Civility??!! Are you trying for the "Hypocrite Of The Year" award, here? A quick dip into the archives says, you just might get it....


INTELLIGENCE:

There's been NO displays of intelligence in this thread, apart from my writings. EVERY single message not from me, is a condemnation of all of those who believe in products that no one here has tried, and a blind condemnation of those products. And stupid condmenations at that. No sign of wit or originality in any of the condemnations I've seen of me or my audio observations. NO intelligent arguments were ever made to me or anyone else, to support those condemnations that you and the other members here attacked me and other believers with.

As the record shows, I offered everyone ample opportunity. Very minor attempts were made to pretend to be serious about the issues, and approach the subject with a modicum of intellgent reason. I responded to every one of those in great detail, no one was able to logically refute anything I said, and indeed, didn't even try! Here's the first response I got on this forum, when I wrote my first detailed and intelligent post on the subject of these advanced audio devices:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sluggo wrote:

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


and the second intelligent thing El Sluggo said:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


...implying that I am a commercial merchant of such products, and that I am here to "shill" for my own audio company. Except that the fool never bothered to actually VISIT the site in question before making that accusation against me, where if he did he would have found out that it isn't a commercial site. Nor did he bother to ask me if I was a commercial producer of such products, before making that assumption.

That perfectly exemplfies everyone's attitude around here. Which is: 1) no need to verify what you believe, just make dumb assumptions based on your blind prejudices, that will represent the truth and the falsehoods that you will believe. 2) Any intelligent response that even attempts to delve deep into the issues at hand is going to be longer than three lines. But anything longer than three lines, especially one that isn't a mocking quip, is too much of a strain on the collective intelligence of the members of this forum. So don't talk to me about how you and your friends are capable of intelligent debate, Gonk. You're capable of running away from intelligent debate, ducking it and hiding behind trees. That, you're capable of.

Now from all I've read, you sir Gonk have showed more intelligence, courtesy and civility than anyone here. But on the whole, that's not saying much, given how much all these three qualities have been lacking on this forum. It's all too easy for me to give examples of this after I came, where you'd just say that I was responsible for everyone's extremely uncivil, discourteous, vile, obnoxious, confrontational and insulting behavior. And if I gave examples from others, well then you'd say you're not responsible for their behaviour (however, of course I am responsible for everyone's behaviour, as you and everyone continually imply to me). So these are examples from before I came, and they are all quotes coming form you:


STATEMENTS MADE BY GONK ON THIS FORUM WHO HAS NEVER TRIED ANY OF THE PRODUCTS HE HAS BASHED:

====================================================

Gonk the Audio God, declaring to all what is and isn't effective in audio, not by trying it, but by how well it appeals to his prejudices of what is and isn't real:

Gonk making libelous accusations of fraud without any supporting evidence:

Gonk engaging in that "courteous and civil discourse" he is so fond of, on the subject of the Clever Little Clock, which he has never tried. Which to some others might look a lot like that oh-so-droll and original sport of dumb mockery of things that intellectually threaten ignorant people:

Gonk offering more of his brilliant observations on audio, via attempts to apply "logic" to explain to everyone what is and isn't real or "credible" in audio. It fools most of the sheep most of the time, until someone comes along and says "Uh no Mr. Gonk. The CD pen doesn't make any attempt at direct interaction with the signal path.... and that's an easily proven fact...":

Arrrrr...captain!....she blows....

I read somewhere some fool....
And the same fool kept pushing his dogma
Take it outside Belt-Boy...
Obviously...no one here can attain your level of wits...
one might hear the same kind of logic reinforced in some pre-school...cooty debate...