|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
216.209.33.106
In it's recent edition Positive Feedback Online continues to be a mouth piece for the controversial products and ideas of Peter Belt. Of course the skeptic in me is hardly surprised since started way back with Carol Clark's positive finding with the Photo in Fridge Tweak their path was inexorably set in the direction of more of the same since frankly the only reasonable alternative after something like that would be a quick (and permanent) disappearing act.Anyway the most recent contribution is an article by May Belt, the content a mixture of indignant can't get no respect and blame it on intolerance which would hardly come as a surprise to anyone who has sampled May Belt's contributions to online audio forums, this one included. Nonetheless the focus of the current article centers on the issue of the explanation for Beltian effects, i.e:
"But the real challenge in our work is presented by stumbling on repeatable and reversible effects from our products and then having to explain why and how they happen."
Now you may wondering... Why?, OH why?, is this fellow providing yet another post ridiculing those wacky Belts? Well perish the thought because I believe I may have stumbled across the explanation that has long eluded many, the Belts included.
Indeed it was May's request for assistance, "We are as interested as anyone else in finding a comprehensive theory to explain our discoveries...", which must have touched a tender spot in me, that prompted my Eureka! moment.
You see prior to that I must admit that I was still inwardly laughing at the following example of a Beltian tweak, a Dave Clark testimonial, that May had included:
"“First time I experienced Belt treatments. Had no clue what Carol was up to as I was in the other room, though I did know she was playing around with something audio. She asked me to come in and give a listen, but with the following constraints: 1) I had to play the same track three times in a row, and 2) I could not open my eyes during the session. Easy as pie! Out came my favorite Lambchop disc What Another Man Spoils and on went track 1. Hit play and… "Sounds fine Carol, sounds like it usually does; great recording, fun music, love it!" She hits Stop and after a few seconds, she hits Play again, and like "WOW, this sounds much better! Way more musical and golly-gosh-gee, this is really cool!" She hits Stop and a minute later, she hits Play again, and shit! I mean SHIT, this sounds like shit! Not the shit, but shit. Not more than 5 seconds into the track and STOP IT NOW BEFORE I TEAR MY EARS OFF! What did you do? "Well, the first time nothing, the second time I wrote Reimer > O.K! with this red pen on a piece of tape and placed one on the top of each speaker, and the third time I replaced the tape with another that said… Reimer > BAD." Huh, sounded as it usually did with nothing on the speaker, sounded really great when you wrote O.K, and sound really bad when you wrote Bad. Weird."
Golly-gosh-gee indeedy! ROTFL
Yes, I admit, that was my reaction until being touched by May's request. How to explain Dave Clark's reaction? Bang! It hit me! The tweak clearly is a Psychic Energy Focusing Lens and Carol Clark is most certainly a Psychic!
Think about it. There's no way a piece of tape with "Reimer > BAD." or "Reimer > O.K!" could in and of itself effect perception of the music being played, the very notion is clearly preposterous! But the tape acting as a Psychic Energy Focusing Lens allowing Carol Clark to beam intense karma at Dave Clark explains all. The negative case in particular is illuminating, "STOP IT NOW BEFORE I TEAR MY EARS OFF", clearly indicating the well known association between intense displeasure and bad karma.
So there you have it, at long last, mystery solved! And this is no just purely academic discovery, hardly!. Take for example the very important message that Dave Clark can divine, i.e. Brother you'd had better never really Piss Off your better half because if you do and she were to get her hands on a Voodoo Doll you ability to enjoy music would be completely irrelevant in comparison to the major hurt that she have visit upon your sorry arse.
No Guru, No Method, No Teacher
Follow Ups:
.
No Guru, No Method, No Teacher
We have but only two avenues available to us to change the sound of our audio systems:1) Make changes in the system/room
2) Make changes in the listener
We simply tend to dismiss the latter as something of less value than the former because it can't be commoditized and isn't necessarily fungible.I suspect Beltian effects manifest in the listener(s), not the electronics. I see nothing insidious about that, although I do (like others) tend to value my money differently when considering these things.
%22In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is.%22 - Yogi Berra
that would be the same change regardless of the system it's employed in, so it would be a fixed variable. =)
%22In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is.%22 - Yogi Berra
Or...you could read 'change the listener' to mean put another listener in the room, which is, now that I think about it, what it must mean and the best solution. Just like 'fixed variable' strikes me as an oxymoron...although it must not be!!
Yeah - I thought you might like that phrase, he he he...
%22In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is.%22 - Yogi Berra
scotch, perchance?
%22In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is.%22 - Yogi Berra
1) We seem to be more or less in agreement.2) How did "insidious" enter into the discussion?
No Guru, No Method, No Teacher
1) Cool2) Some consider Beltian claims to be purposefully misleading, and some consider that insidious ... so I projected.
%22In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is.%22 - Yogi Berra
Re: 2.
Well I firmly believe that they really believe what they say they believe, let's leave it at that!LOL
Hi.They keep on pushing hard to sell products basing on their self-claimed phenomenal discovery wherever & whenever they can poke their noses into. Claiming their products are scientific yet can't explain even one single word about it rationally let alone scientific substantiation which should be provided as a matter of course.
Do we need all those "the King's new dress" nonsenses here??
c-J
I suppose that's acceptable ... that they believe what they say they believe.I also think that there's nothing wrong with tweaking the listener. At the end of the day, "music" is an abstraction that is defined by the listener - not the audio system. Somewhere out there is a person for whom The Captain and Tenille represent the apex of musical achievement.
%22In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is.%22 - Yogi Berra
While I will hardly list Captain and Tennille as musical wizards I do enjoy their "Make Your Move" album, especially "Do That To Me One More Time".
I don't recall too many tunes of theirs, but the one you mentioned and the America cover, "Muskrat Love" come to mind. I do recall their variety show vaguely.
%22In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is.%22 - Yogi Berra
We are dating ourselves.
Muskrat love=true clasic
They got a boost from the movie, Anchorman - which, by the way, is easily the funniest movie I've ever seen in my life."You will eat the cat poo!"
%22In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is.%22 - Yogi Berra
because the Belts cant leave it at that. They claim to have significant technicale knowledge. They talk about having been in the business for 40 years and they claim to have done extensive research. Yet after forty years of research they seem to have ignored the scientific research on psychoacoustics. When presented with the mere possibility that the results of their tweeks are caused by bias effects they attack science and scientists. Here is a quote from May Belt about that."The dogmatic approach adopted by some engineers and scientists that a phenomenon can't be held to exist until it can be satisfactorily explained, is obviously unsound." Were the Belts simply saying, hey we have these tweeks and we don't know why they work and we don't know that they are not the results of pure bias effects I'd agree that there is nothing dishonest or irresponsible going on here. but they represent themsleves as technically knowledgable and there products as well researched and they simply deny the validity of real scientific research in psychoacoustics.
Hi.Consumers don't & buy mostly based on vendors' presentation, genuine or not. This is the dilemma a consumer can end up in. It is hard to tell the real stuff from a vendor's tooting horn.
Maybe 30-days moneyback guarantee is the last resort a consumer can take failing to get convincing evidence on the vendors' claims.
c-J
PS: Another realworld example of the King's new dress - the vendor says it is there, but don't ask why because you are not good enough to understand why.
Why do some people find the color green to be calming when it cannot be scientifically proven to be calming? I know a couple of `philes who are Belt enthusiasts. Not just fans, but real enthusiasts. If it works for them, fine. Personally, I believe I have much better ways to spend my money, but to each his or her own.I have simply reached the point where if somebody tells me their system sounds better when they wear a Big Bird costume, or maybe even use the skeletal remains of chickens as isolation devices, my thoughts are basically "Good for you". Then I go on about my business.
But that's just me.
My paradigm atoms sound better to me than any wilson speaker Ive ever heard! (Oh would that it were true!)
"I have simply reached the point where if somebody tells me their system sounds better when they wear a Big Bird costume, or maybe even use the skeletal remains of chickens as isolation devices, my thoughts are basically "Good for you". Then I go on about my business."Not only am I all for that, I am one of those people who will base my purchases on sighted evaluations. My theory is simple. Yes bias affects permiate our perceptions. Yes one can eliminate *certain* biases under blind conditions. In the end when we all sit down to listen for pleasure however, we are listening under sighted conditions and biases are once again in play. Personally I like auditioning things blind and sighted. It gives me a chance to try to eliminate sighted biases and live with them both. In the ned what I like is what is better...for me. That is what counts. People who think bias effects don't matter are fooling themselves and people who think that DBTs will save them from bias effects are also fooling themselves. I am at peace with the uncertanty of my aesthetic perceptions. I enjoy them just the same.
OTOH. Snake oils salesmen are not OK with me. When manufatcurers knowingly or irresponsibly misrepresent their products I have a problem with that. Claims of research that never was done or done with no regard to research protocols, 10,000 dollar cables with "networks" that are nothing but an empty plastic box with cables running straight through them. Assertions that plainly and obviously are in violation of the laws of physics, etc Thses things are not acceptable IMO and manufacturers should be called on the carpet for this sort of nonsense.
you have put it in terms that you personally can deal with. Those who claim to hear a difference really believe they can, and neither you or I can disprove it. People spend money on psychics (in fact some Asian billionaire justleft his entire fortune to one), yet I would never do so. By the same token, I can't prove that these phychics haven't done anyone any good.The point is that once you come to understand people are going to spend their money on stuff you think is silly no matter what, it gets easier to deal with. And just a little bit beyond that, you'll find there is actually some humor there. (I am an equal opportunity inmate, so I'll qualify that by saying I cannot prove who the joke is really on.....yet.)
> > you have put it in terms that you personally can deal with. Those who claim to hear a difference really believe they can, < <I deliberately used a term that is associated with deceptive practices.Those who claim to hear differences are not necessarily dealing with snake oil.
> > and neither you or I can disprove it. < <
It can be proven to a reasonable dgree one way or the other.
> > People spend money on psychics (in fact some Asian billionaire justleft his entire fortune to one), yet I would never do so. By the same token, I can't prove that these phychics haven't done anyone any good. < <
of course not since good and bad are subjective terms here.
> > The point is that once you come to understand people are going to spend their money on stuff you think is silly no matter what, it gets easier to deal with. < <I don't have a problem with how people spend their money. I do have issues with how people advertise and represent their products though.
> > And just a little bit beyond that, you'll find there is actually some humor there. (I am an equal opportunity inmate, so I'll qualify that by saying I cannot prove who the joke is really on.....yet.) < <
It's on anyone who gets too worked up over being right
But I'm still not spending my money on any "stupid stuff". ;~)
It just doesn't work very well for the snake.
"Those who claim to hear a difference really believe they can, and neither you or I can disprove it."MRI scan during listening with and without said tweak? PET scan. We can look directly at brain activity.
...nobody ever DOES anything like this, they TALK about doing something, but they don't ever DO anything.
It is becoming infuriating I tell you.
a
Belt devotees? "Allow me to repeat myself twice" then! ;~)
a
nt
Hey Clark, did I tell you that I have a picture of you in my freezer? I tried to take it out but couldn't find it next to the red herring!
s
Still waiting for that useful post, Clark. The meter is running.
Why not try with a helpful explanation of why you think placebo effect doesn't work all the time, Clark? Instead you pick up on the one phrase that you can pick a bone of contention with and make a useless post. Again.
> We simply tend to dismiss the latter as something of less value than the former because it can't be commoditized and isn't necessarily fungible.An interesting point. I think to a degree it is commoditized with the advent of things like "high end" listening chairs. I think to a degree the attention some manufacturers pay to the stylings of their products also has to count. Ironically in other similar endevours this is actually a valued aspect of the experience and given much attention. As an example most food critics will go into great depth in discussing the ambience of a restaraunt. There is no debate that it affects the eating experience and that fine food lovers not only acknowledge the importance of it but embrace it. The flavor of the food certainly isn't affected by the decore but the "experience" certainly is.
I hadn't thought about the comparison to a restaurant ambience, plating of the food, etc - but this is essential to the overall experience. "Flavor" as an attribute isn't necessarily contained within the food exclusively - although it lends some safety to think of it that way. Like all perceptions, "flavor" is an abstraction that coheres in the mind (I use that phrase too often, maybe) ...Here's an example: My wife is from Japan. The first time she tasted Cheez Whiz here in the states (while she was @ university) she said that she thought it tasted like a portabello mushroom or had some similar flavor in that respect. So is there an absolute flavor to Cheez Whiz, concretely translatable from tongue to tongue, or does it affect each person a little differently?
As an audio example: I found a Roland Kirk LP that I absolutely LOVE. It's called "I Talk with the Spirits" - on which Kirk plays flute exclusively and the jazz is more or less traditional and less out, free, second chicago school, avantgarde, etc. It's a statement LP about flute playing, actually.
As a jazz lover and collector I think this is one of my all-time favorite LPs. I have several clients that are also avid jazz collectors, and while visiting they have played some fabulous tracks for me and I think that - in most cases - we have very similar tastes. One of my clients obtained a copy of the LP at my suggestion - wasn't terribly thrilled with the music. Very surprising to me, as I thought the music was entirely within the range of things he had played for me and professed to like.
I think we tend to think of perceptions as concrete for emotional safety and social wellbeing, but where the rubber meets the road each of us can look at the same thing and see something different, or at least see the same thing differently.
Flavor, as you suggested, has many parts to it that aren't necessarily contained within the food itself - ambience, plating, celebrity-chef status all seem to affect our perception of flavor.
%22In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is.%22 - Yogi Berra
that putting pics in your freezer or pieces of tape with something scrawled on them atop your speakers changes the listener? I hardly think this kind of thing equates with ambience of restaurants (as mentioned below). Somehow I doubt any of the world's best chefs place pics of food critics in their bistro's freezer or pieces of tape with "Lobster bisque> delicious" on their pots in hopes of influencing the taste buds of food critics.
Whatever ritual a person goes through or is otherwise exposed to has the ability to alter their perceptions. So - if the ritual of putting apicture in the freezer works on the mind, or if pieces of tape with scrawlings works on the mind ... even if the rituals are superficial, the effect on the mind is real.See: Christian Science Healing
%22In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is.%22 - Yogi Berra
What Mr. Clark heard was so real that, even in a blind test, he was easily able to determine the effect of that tweak on the sound of his system.He could also easily tell when no tweak was in place.
No placebo effect there, he heard nothing from placebo and heard "correctly" during the test.
I don't see how Mr. Clark was affected by a pre-existing "belief" on this trial.
;)
I don't have an answer for that - just suspicions about how things may operate. Science is a process, a journey ... not a destination.
%22In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is.%22 - Yogi Berra
My hunch is that this is somehow related to horses that can do math.;)
Since he has already easily passed a blind test why was he too gutless to accept Randi's $1,000,000 challenge?
If you think that moron Randi would ever pass over $1,000,000 to anyone then you really ought to invest (heavily) in Belt tweaks because there's a near certainy that they will work a charm for you.
You are a hoser.
Forget about the JREF Challenge as being real. It is NOT a honest to goodness opportunity. You should know better by now BTW. If you need help with this, feel free to write. I do have proof you know.FWIW, I consulted Clark Johnsen, Geoff Kait, and Steve Eddy about the advisability of applying for the JREF Challenge way back when. Clark and Geoff advised against it, portraying the Challenge as it turned out to be in reality. Steve Eddy considered it a legitimate enterprise at the time, but changed his opinion after witnessing JREF's treatment of me during my time there.
Perceptions can of course be altered by many things. Its not hard to understand that one's overall mood during or immediately prior to listening to music can affect perception, as could general ambience. But even if someone is (IMO) so susceptible to suggestion that they are convinced putting a pic of themselves in their freezer makes listening to their system more satisfying, what would happen if unbeknownst to him/her, while they're listening the freezer went on the blink? Or someone took the pic out of the freezer and put it in the oven? All of a sudden the music would sound less satisfying? This seems to be similar to what Clark is saying about the tape thing, which I find silly.What about unlacing shoe laces on sneakers in your closet? Turning a salt shaker upside down prior to listening? Putting purple lipstick on your dog? Think the Belts performed exhaustive experiments before deciding the pic in freezer or writing on tape worked best?
As far as I can tell, the essence of what May Belt always has to say amounts to a challenge to prove a negative, and a statement of the obvious -- science can't explain everything, and scientific dogma has been shown to be wrong in the past. If you choose to believe wearing one orange sock and one green sock makes Sibelius sound better it has no negative effect on me. But I'll catch the Belts later. Much later.
Bad Acid
=)
%22In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is.%22 - Yogi Berra
nt
...isn't all acid 'bad'?
Well, can't say ... I've never partaken as I've been worried what it might unleash.=)
%22In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is.%22 - Yogi Berra
Now you're talking... I'm going straight to the cosmetics counter after work. Wait, I don't have a dog... will this tweak work if you put the lipstick on a cat instead? Wait, my cat doesn't have any lips! Crap!
Once you get the specially treated lipstick, you can apply it to a picture of a dog and it will still work.Hope that helps.
Those of us of a certain age have been through that -- "better living through chemistry" and all that.
We'll be back right after the network news...
Hey, this is a place where we can finally make some concrete progress on this type of tweak!Mr. Clarke's syetem is obviously capable of the resolution required to hear this tweak. Plus, he described the effects as blatantly obvious. PLUS, he listened in blind fashion.
So, if writing "O.K." was enough to get him to exclaim, "WOW, this sounds much better! Way more musical and golly-gosh-gee, this is really cool!"...imagine what he would have heard had she written "Fantastic" or "Orgasmic" or "Like I'm in the same room," or "Like I'm in the venue!"
Obviously, if writing "Bad" vs. "OK" can make such an obvious difference, the next place to take this is to write "Sonic Nirvana" and start doing research into which words yield the best result.
Also, if "Bad" vs. "Good" is obvious to the ear, he should be able to tell us how other words sound when they are used in this manner. We could assemble a lexicon that people with certain systems could use to help with small fixes when their system lacks that certain je ne sais pas.
This should be pretty easy. As Mr. Clark mentioned, the effect is so obvious, it can be heard blind!
The application of this tweak is so potentially eipc, I'm ecstatic we finally have a trusted source who can take us on a tour of other audio terms and their effect on the sound of our gear.
Ah huh? Such a narrow sighted viewpoint, really I'm terribly disappointed, I mean it's all fun and games until someone writes "You died and went to Heaven" (to say nothing of the negative case!)
Just wanted to let you know that given the (recent) evolution of the thread I wouldn't object to the entire thing being relocated to Isolation Ward (not that my approval for such is required, of course).
No Guru, No Method, No Teacher
nt
someone the audio community at large identifies as a quintessential snakeoil salesman, as a compliment.
No Guru, No Method, No Teacher
"angry, frustrated troll cops plea." LOL
consider yourself ignored.
No Guru, No Method, No Teacher
I think the thread is best left here. Why muck up Isolation Ward?
Say goodnight, Gracie.
Rather exceptional isn't he! he-heCan't say I ever expected to see such a vigorous defense of the Photo In The Fridge Tweak, something that even Tweaketeer Extraordinaire CJ apparently doesn't care to comment on. LOL
Anyway I dare say this thread has provided a valuable lesson... sometimes ignoring is the *only* sensible option. :)
| ||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: