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.