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).