I would (obviously and sensibly and logically) never say NEVER !! So, I could never say that a change in the sound when using a Belt Tweak may NEVER be a change in the listeners state of mind. I am not that stupid to make a declaration like that !!
But, Analog Scott, your question shows that you have not yet reached a level of understanding about our concepts. You are still making the wrong presumption. When I say that our concept (based on our past 25 years of research which came after the previous 30 years of manufacturing audio equipment completely within conventional electronic and acoustic theories) is that there is something physical happening in the modern environment which is having a physical effect on us (human beings) which, in turn, is having a physical effect on the electro-chemical information travelling through the hearing mechanism, I am NOT saying that there is something physical happening in the modern environment which is having a physical effect on the (ACOUSTIC) sound and that our tweaks alter that (acoustic) sound - which is your interpretation !! My use of the phrase 'affecting the sound' means affecting the information which travels through the hearing mechanism to the working memory. And my use of the description 'improving the sound' means allowing more of this information to be resolved by the working memory so that it can do a better job of presenting a better 'sound picture' to the brain.
Some people have been following the Belt story since the beginning and the ones interested can (more or less) understand what the reasoning is behind our concept and how it has come about (although I also appreciate that they can struggle sometimes). Others have no understanding at all, do not want to understand, do not want others to understand - leading to such comments as AJinFLA's "Dismissing such things as utter nonsense, and possible signs of mental illness."
The relevance today of the examples given from the past history of science is because many people are aware that the parallel is still happening - today - and that is why the examples continue to be given. Your sentence "Until you have a body of scientific evidence that supports a specific audio tweek you have no relevant analogy" show exactly that. Your sentence is no different to, 100 years ago, someone saying to Dr John Snow "Until you have a body of scientific evidence that supports your specific challenge to the conventional belief, you have no case."
No different to the reaction to Edward Jenner.
Edward Jenner was a doctor in Gloucestershire UK. He decided to test his theory, drawn from the folklore of the countryside, that milkmaids who suffered the mild disease of cowpox never contracted smallpox. In 1709, Jenner inserted pus taken from a cowpox pustule on the hand of a milkmaid called Sarah Nelmes and inserted it into an incision on an eight year old boy's arm. Jenner subsequently proved that having been inoculated with cowpox, the boy was now immune to smallpox. Jenner coined the word vaccine from the Latin vacca for cow, and called the process vaccination.
After submitting a paper to the Royal Society describing his experiment he was told that his ideas were too revolutionary.
The immediate reaction to Jenner's work was ridicule. Critics, especially the clergy, claimed it was repulsive and a satirical cartoon of 1802 showed people who had been vaccinated sprouting cow's heads. !!!
What is the difference between this reaction to Jenner 200 years ago and AJinFLA's reaction dismissing some things as 'voodoo, witchcraft' in 2007 ?
As I have always explained. If there is a phenomenon to be discovered then more people, other than Peter and I, will discover it - and that is what I described in a 'posting' a few days ago which was mysteriously deleted. I explained that others had been discovering things which affected the 'sound' but had given their findings other explanations, even though the explanations do not hold up under further scrutiny.
No different to Bazelgette who, some 100 years ago, built the London sewage system. Even though Bazelgette knew that his sewage system had halted the spread of cholera, he died still believing that the halting of the spread of cholera was because his new sewage system had got rid of the Foul air. The observation (that the spread of cholera was halted) was correct, but the explanation (that cholera was spread by the Foul air) was not !!! The same place (London), the same cholera, the same people, the same sewage system - but a different explanation (that the spread of cholera was caused by contaminated water) eventually moved the world forward !!
Regards,
May Belt.