Subscribe
Add to Technorati Favourites
Add to del.icio.us

This web diary will log some of my various thoughts and experiments within the scientific domain of Beltism. It goes into more personal details, than the associated website. "Beltism" is a relatively new science (discovered by Peter W. Belt), still little known and understood. It deals with energy fields in our environment that affect human senses, by reducing the tension these fields create within us, when around them. This allows us to better perceive sounds, in particular, musical sounds. Among other things, the practice of Beltism can improve our ability to perceive both music and video. The goal behind my research into Beltism is first and foremost; to better understand this marvelous and oddly mysterious phenomenon. Secondly, it is to learn how to improve the quality of my sound at home (or at concerts). This focuses primarily in increasing the quality of music reproduction, but by extension, it also includes improving the sound of home cinema, tv, computers, mp3 players, car stereos, etc. Even video, such as tv or computer monitors. Anyone reading this blog can participate in at least some of whatever experiments I may detail, as they require no technical expertise or implements, and hopefully, benefit from them.

n.b. This is a more personal offshoot of my site, "The Advanced Audiophile", which provides more background on Beltism and its founder and creator. It contains as well, a plethora of experiments created mostly by Peter Belt, for the curious to dip their toe in the water and experience one of the world's least known and most fascinating discoveries of human science. (See tab at top of page). Have fun!

Bookmark and Share

Categories:

I get a lot of that, actually. And a lot of this as well: "How come I never heard of it?!". This is an alternative science that has a lot going against it, in terms of how implausible it seems. But it has been studied and practiced by thousands of people across the globe for over a quarter of a century, because it has helped them and their acquaintances achieve benefits for that long. It has passed blind tests involving over a thousand participants. It has been testified to by numerous journalists in both print and online audio publications, since the 80's. Myself, I have been witnessing its effects for nigh on twenty years. It just isn't something that's all that easy to get into normally; intellectually or otherwise.

But once that happens everything changes. And the impossible becomes the implausible, the implausible becomes the possible. I maintain, from experience in testing the phenomenon on others, that you don't have to be an audiophile to hear the effects, or appreciate the considerable benefits that can be derived from them. But it helps. However, it doesn't help if you're the type of audiophile who is more concerned with ideology than you are with sound quality. With an open mind and open ears, there can be a lot to learn within the science of Beltism. And help is usually only a click or two away. Hope you find something worthwhile and interesting while you are here. n.b. Posts that contain actual experiments anyone can try themselves, will be tagged with the label "Experiments". (see "Categories" in the sidebar)


"Truth in science can be defined as the working hypothesis best suited to open the way to the next better one."- Konrad Lorenz

Bookmark and Share

Categories:


A long time ago, in a galaxy far far away, a group of elite Jedi fighters were training to use a mysterious "force", to aid them in their quest for security and a better life.

On this planet, not so many years ago (roughly 10), I embarked on a series of audio experiments that involved aligning slotted screws on light switch plates (link), so that they were 180 degrees vertical. This was, naturally, an idea from Peter Belt, of P.W.B. Electronics. One which I sought to validate or invalidate. Of course, like all P.W.B. ideas on improving perception of sound that I have ever tried, it worked. Actually, I knew that going in. I was already an experienced “Belter” by that point, and I had already done the screw alignment thing elsewhere.  Apart from the improvement in sound, what I noticed each time that I aligned the screws, was that my throat would start to create saliva. A kind of tension in the throat feeling.

Of course, like most everyone at first, I didn’t think too much of it. Strange though, that it kept occurring right after that specific event of "turning the screw”, and even if it didn’t happen every time, it happened over and over again, as I went throughout the house turning screws on all the wall plates. I have since experienced this very same feeling dozens of times or more, over the years that have passed. I didn’t know it then, but this was one of the most earliest times when I finally started becoming conscious of the fact that the things I would do during my audio research experiments, could be felt before they were ever heard. 

 Another early example of this, was after I initiated some sort of tweak. It didn’t have to be a P.W.B. “Belt tweak” either. I would go to hit PLAY on the CD or cassette player, and I’d get a funny feeling. A premonition, of what the resulting sound would be, just before hitting the PLAY button. Whether that "premonition” was a good or a bad feeling, it was almost always spot on. Again, as with the screws, I didn’t quite join an association with the audio-related change I was effecting. By way of my logical thinking, I just thought it was a strange coincidence, until I could be sure there was a connection. 

 Well now I am sure there is a connection. I have been for years. I use that connection all the time now, when attempting improvements in my sound. In fact, I still get that “throat saliva” feeling (a symptom of anxiety and tension). But only on occasion, and only under specific conditions. I have yet to determine if there’s a pattern for the saliva condition. But, for example, it recently happened when the polarity of my speaker wires was wrong. I fixed the polarity and that stopped the whole throat salivation feeling.  Sometimes I’ll be setting my equipment up and feel some anxiety, and I don’t know why. Then I take an educated guess, switch the speakers or the speaker stands around, and that’s what it was. (Yes, paired items do reflect a difference, when switched from left to right and vice versa). Or, like today, the feeling of unrest was due to 3 pieces of "Fun-Tac" putty adhesive under one speaker, placed in a triangular fashion, that did not match the 3 pieces under the other speaker, placed in an upside down triangle! This has been a "game-changer”. Not just for my hobby, but for my life. I can’t help but make comparisons to the mysterious "force" effect, from the Star Wars trilogy. Because now, that’s me. I am “Obi-Wan Kenobi” in audio terms, and I can feel the "force", that is all around us, imbued in all things. But don't worry, I will only use it for good (sound), not evil!

 For example, I can pick up a rock, or a glass of water, or scotch tape, a book, a pencil, a USB key, touch a wall… whatever… and using "the force", in a couple of seconds, I can determine that object’s “energy character”. Suffice to say, this is a great help in audio research experiments. I could, for example, approach an entire box of phono cables, that would take a traditional audio researcher countless hours to listen to, to determine the best sounding cable. Picking up and tossing each cable on to the floor, I could go through the box in a minute or two, and narrow down the best choices for trial, before listening to anything.  

Now, I don’t mean to make it sound like it's as easy as 1-2-3. The process is usually more complicated than just grabbing something for a second. Because, for example, I came to realize that the energy patterns change depending on which hand (or finger) is used to touch the object. Or when the item is changed from one hand to another. But in this case, the pattern merely -switches-. It’s not a random change, either. Like most of these sensations I'm dealing with, it’s a predictable one. More or less, I’ve learned to discard such “extraneous information”, and get a more meaningful reading of the energy patterns inherent in a “thing”. But wait, don’t back out of the room just yet!  I still do traditional listening tests! I still need to know just how my “feeling tests” correlate with the listening part. But there is always a connection between the two. And, over 10 years and hundreds of such tests later, I now know it is not a coincidence.

If there’s anything I would like people to take away from my story (besides “He’s cray-cray…. Just back up slowly and get out of the room!”), it’s to listen to those “coincidences” you may be feeling. For you may find, after time, there may be a connection with the feeling, and the event.  As an example of that, I was on the couch watching a movie one time, and all of a sudden, I feel a drop in inner tension. I may have heard a slight noise, but I didn’t know what happened. I looked over to my left, and indeed, an AC adapter had fallen out of the wall outlet, taking two or three wires out. That was not a coincidence, either. Every time I pull a plug out of an outlet or extension, that very same “drop in tension” feeling occurs.

This is because anything plugged into an outlet, is creating tension within us. And no, it's not an electrical phenomenon, ie. EMF/RFI. This will occur even if the device is not being powered, or the wire is not connected to anything. Because any one thing joining another, creates a certain tension. (It is why I recommend not to push speakers and stands right up against the wall, but to leave a tiny gap so that the two objects don’t touch).  I’m sure it strains credulity for many people, to say you can feel “energy” in objects by touching them.

Well, let me go a little further than that. This "force", these "energy fields" that I am sensing (that we are all sensing at all times, conscious or not), are not just within objects or hovering over them. They are around them. Meaning, they project out. How far out? I don’t know. I didn’t test them from outer space. I only know that I can sense their projection from one end of a room to another. For all I know, it is, like everything else in the universe…. Infinite, or nearly so.

Here’s an example of that…. One time, I was watching a friend give a Tai Chi demonstration to a group of us. He was showing us the two different styles of Tai Chi he learned. All of a sudden, I could sense changes within me, when he switched over to the second style. (He didn’t announce the switch). Of course, I had no idea that was going to happen. But it felt just like with the audio experiments. Where I would effect a change with a physical action, and feel that change within me. Except this time, I wasn’t touching any object, to feel the changes. I was simply using my sense of sight, and that by itself, could create perceptions of feeling, much as with the audio experiments.  Since then, I’ve corroborated this effect countless times.

For example, I can look at words or pictures on a computer screen, and feel specific kinds of energy from looking at specific pictures or words. (And btw, after copying and pasting the words or pictures in the digital realm, its energy will change. Even though the content itself does not). Concluding that the constantly varying levels of tension within us, change not just by the presence of objects in the environment, but by looking at them! Ok, it may not quite be “Schrodinger’s Cat” but… did Schrodinger have a mouse, perhaps? Another example might be where I am ordering three components on a shelf of my audio stand. One of them is a DVD player that is the most heavily treated audio component I have ever done. It has over 150 treatments done to it! So I put it on the bottom, then stack two components on top of that. But without bothering to listen, I can tell by feel, that this was not an ideal arrangement.

So how should they be stacked, I wondered to myself? I only know that I am not about to run listening tests on each of the possible ways to order these components! I didn’t even want to take the time and trouble to physically change them around, and feel the changes. So instead, I just looked at the components, and after doing so, some mysterious sort of sixth sense feeling (aka "the force"!) seemed to suggest to me that the treated player should go in the middle. So I tried it that way, and the feeling feedback from that particular order felt more or less right. It gave a more restrained sense of tension. 

My logical mind however, did not at all suggest that putting the treated player in the centre of the stack was the best option. Experience, if nothing else, told me it should be on the bottom. I would have reasoned that on the bottom, the object with the “good energy” acts as a foundation, and has a better chance to influence the objects on top it. Not the case, since the middle position gave the better feeling. Upon listening, as always, that feeling was confirmed. The sound had improved, but not in a way I’d expected. Instead of the expected richer sound with greater resolution, it was a more integrated sound, with greater ability to convey that elusive sense of ‘musicality’. A sound that was more captivating, than incisive. The kind of sound I never want to change, in the rare times I stumble upon it. 

But all that aside, trust me, there are definite drawbacks to being the “Obi-Wan Kenobi” of the audiophile world. As my friend Morrissey would say, “It’s lonely on a limb”. When I started out here in the online part of the audio community, some thirty years ago perhaps, I was already right out there on the bleeding edge of “audiophile loonies”, as they might have called us. I had my green “CD Stoplight Pen”, my red LED big-digits Tice power clock,  and no dogmatic technophile was going to tell me what time it was, in audiophile land!

But, at least I could say I had a few audiophile friends online, who heard the effects of things like green CD markers and other avant-garde audio gadgets, and whether they understood them or not, they were on my side of the ideological fence. They knew there were things people could hear, that science couldn’t explain (at least not with their tired old “sugar pill” theory). And so long as it improved their sound, they accepted that, whether they felt they understood the science behind the tweak or not. But this? Well, friends, this is different. This is where even what were once my brothers in arms on the audio forums, did not want to admit they knew me, or were associated in any way. There were the objectivists, there were the subjectivists… and then there was me! They didn’t even know what category to stuff me into. So they just labelled me “the audio witch doctor”.

This was not me saying “I bought a weird audio product that has some sketchy reasoning behind it, or simply no previously established modus operandi, and I swear it made a difference!". Because I know that some other people also bought that weird audio product, and maybe it was even reviewed in a magazine or two. Instead, this was me saying “I can feel specific modes of energy and degrees of tension by touching or just looking at things”. It’s the point where everyone leaves the room, and I’m standing on the podium speaking to my own echo.  Then, out and among the other members of the global audio community, the question becomes; “How do I convince someone who has no clue about any of this stuff?  Who has already built up decades of prejudices, most likely based on conventional (Western) belief systems - which says and knows nothing about “energy patterns” that affect human senses? Who not only is not at the level of where he can feel changes that affect his perception of sound, but probably cannot come anywhere near my level of listening skill, slowly built over a forty year interest in audio, when it comes to just registering fine differences, regardless?”.  It’s like convincing a man blind from birth, that yes, every object has a different “color”. He has no present way of validating that for himself, so he falls back to the default trigger; “It sounds like rubbish, I don’t believe you”. 

 When it comes to being able to “feel” changes before you hear them during (and outside of) audio tests, last I checked, no one is saying this. But… eh, perhaps not quite. There was a fellow I read of, name of “Frank Tchang”. He is notable for having designed small singing bowls, for audio use (similar to Synergistic Research's "Acoustic A.R.T. resonators"). They act as a room treatment system. To me, he is notable for one particular thing: he was said to have said something along the lines of, “Listening is a crutch for those who can’t feel”.

In keeping, I had read that he tested locations for his resonator bowls by feel alone. He is, in fact, at the time of this writing, the only other person in the audio world that I know of, that has at least a comparable ability to mine. So I am not completely alone on this (whew! Thought I was going crazy for a minute there….!). But… I doubt we have the same abilities. I’ve not heard of him applying this phenom to sight, for example. And, as individual “researchers”, we’re going to go in different directions and gain different abilities. Like anyone with anything. The other drawback to all of this, is a heightened sense of tension. Without which, I would not be able to do what I do. So it is a double-edged sword, for me.

Thankfully, I am not constantly feeling gnawing tension, on a conscious level, during everyday activities. That would be unbearable. But when I am focused on the listening experience, during tests and experiments, then I do feel those states of tension. It can also occur randomly, but it’s manageable. (i.e. I’m not thinking about audio but packing away boxes for housekeeping, I tear off the label from the plastic container, and without warning, I can feel a slight "whoosh" of tension lowering. Regardless of whether the label contains a bar code or not).  My argument, is that everyone is feeling these same states of tension. (Else, the other theory being, I am not made of human!). It’s just that I did enough audio experiments, in a particular niche of audio, to develop consciousness of what we are all feeling. Every. damn. day. of. our. lives! 

As you might imagine, this condition also makes me particularly critical of audio systems. So don’t invite me to listen to yours. I might not like it. And I won’t be shy about telling you so! I’ve heard half-million dollar systems at audio shows that I thought sucked (for the money, especially). Why, because for however majestic and powerful it was otherwise, their sound was ultimately not natural, and creating tension. It didn’t move me like a properly musical system can.

I’ve even put together systems for $500 that have a more pleasing and natural sound, producing lower levels of tension. It’s not easy, but it’s doable. The difference is, before “the awakening” (discovering "the force"), I could tolerate bad sounding sound systems. Didn’t sound good, so what, it wasn’t going to kill me. Now, it feels more like it might!  I was listening to my TV recently featuring a conversation with David Letterman, on some Bose satellite speakers I installed…. Which I’m sure sounded perfectly fine to anyone else. Put on a critical ear, and maybe you might say “They have slightly peaky upper mids, so what? Adds clarity”). Anyone else would have listened to the show, and that’s the end of it. But after a few minutes, I could no longer stand to listen to this, because of the tension created by those little Bose speakers! (And I knew very well they were the source of my unease, after I later modified them to behave better. Which I detail in the article “Home Cinema For The Minimalist Audiophile".

Much of that tension created by the speakers was eased somewhat, by simply placing the Bose cubes on their sides, rather than upright. The reason for this, is because Bose in their infinite wisdom, placed the drivers so that the usual voice coil terminations, pointed toward the right - instead of downward. Like all other speakers in the universe. You’re dealing with magnets here also, and that’s especially nasty stuff! So in its original unmodified state and upright position, the Bose speakers are creating tension. I might not notice it much, when cleaning house. But when playing something (like dialogue on the TV), that tension is literally amplified. Making me an unhappy camper, after a while. No one ever said being an "advanced audiophile” was going to be easy! Hey, it’s hard enough just being an audiophile these days! 

May the force be with you!

Bookmark and Share

http://guardianlv.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/quantum.jpg

I’m starting to change my way of thinking about the so-called “Belt phenomenon”. Starting to realize that, there is no “Belt phenomenon” as such. And its wrong for me to think about it in those terms. Yes, there’s a “Belt phenomenon”, in that Peter Belt discovered this hitherto unknown(?) scientific phenomenon some three decades ago. But it’s not a “Belt phenomenon”, in that it has anything to do with, or is in any way framed or limited by PWB products. Although they are still the best tools by which to discover and benefit from this yet-to-be scientifically validated phenomenon.

But what did Peter Belt discover, after all, some 30 years ago? He discovered that a chemical on a coffee table can change the sound. Is that what he discovered? He discovered that colours also affect the perception of sound. Is that what he discovered? I think what Peter discovered was barely the tip of the iceberg, if the iceberg was the size of the universe. I say this with the utmost admiration and respect that I have for Peter Belt, that I think Peter discovered what he was able to discover. Just as we all do. He discovered what he was able to perceive. But what about all the things that might be happening around us, that we don’t perceive? That mainstream science is not even remotely aware of? What’s this all about, anyway? Where does it come from?

I’ve been trying to answer that question for years. And for years, I’ve always thought about it in terms of “Beltism”. That is, if you take a treated object, like an item from the line of P.W.B. products, or even something you created yourself (ie. the 5-pinhole tweak), and you apply it to an untreated object, your perception of sound will change. But throughout the years, throughout much of my own observations in this field, I’ve been constantly bumping into the concept that all paths diverge into one. The energy fields we’re working with don’t change simply because we are treating objects, a la Beltism. They are changing all the time, without help from anyone, for a great variety of reasons. But we don’t know any of this, because its beyond our threshold of perception. What the PWB products help to do, is create changes that (hopefully) fall within our threshold of perception. Then we can “see” (hear) what’s happening, as though something previously invisible becomes visible.

But how many people will think to do a listening test after just barely moving a sculpture on a shelf, or a pencil on a desk, or after shifting a chair, turning off a light, turning on the water, letting sunlight into the room, drinking orange juice, eating a Crunchie bar, putting a shirt on a hanger, moving an electrolytic capacitor a fraction of a millimetre, or simply touching a loudspeaker? No one will, that’s how many. You’d have to be insane to even want to. Or you’d have to be me. Because I have heard, and-or felt (same thing) the effects of most of the things I just listed. And the couple that I didn’t test (Crunchie bar, shifting chair), I can pretty much apply the same rules to anyway, as I would have already done related tests.

What I may have observed, is only a glimpse to all that is going on behind the scenes, with these constantly moving, changing energy fields. Which is why I say, I’m shifting my perception of what we call “Beltism”, into thinking of it more as the audio portion of what is indeed, if the last five years of my life actually happened, a universal phenomenon. Which may very well go beyond our borders to be part of the way the universe itself works. I am writing this to help you think about sound in a different way. In the hopes that you, the reader, will in time, learn to discover some of what I have discovered, and perhaps learn things about the perception of sound that are new or novel to you. While its a lengthy subject to discuss, I can hand out some examples of things that you might want to look at, that need to be re-thought.

Let’s start with speaker spikes. Most audio people have these on their stands or somewhere. (If so, they’re ruining your sound but, I’ll not get into that here!). You know that if you remove them, your sound will change. Conventional audio theory will talk about resonances, isolation, mechanical coupling, points of contact and otherwise very credible scientifically founded theories to explain those changes. But none of those theories will tell you why your sound will equally change via headphones, once you remove the spikes. This is where we can start to see that everything is at one with everything. There are no hard limits, there is no “Beltism”. It’s all the same thing. And it’s all “perception” of sound. There is nothing we are hearing, that isn’t already being perceived. I’m really not sure how to explain that! So I’ll offer another example.

You bring a new tube amplifier into your home. It has a certain sonic characteristic you recognize. Well, your partner’s voice will be influenced by that same sonic characteristic this amp would have, even if it is not plugged in or connected to anything. So will the telephone. See where I’m going with this?! So will anything you hear at home. But the changes in perceived sound aren’t limited to the new amp. A chair also has a sonic characteristic. So does a Mars Bar. Or a chopstick. Or a nail file. There is no difference whatsoever among these objects. When audio people talk of "sonic signatures" that various audio components are known to have, they do not realize that comfy chairs, desks, remote controls, candle holders... all such things have "sonic signatures" that are exactly the same in nature as those that we know to  characterize audio equipment. And all the objects you have will all influence your sound, with their own “sonic signatures”, made up of the materials, shapes and types of energy they are containing/emitting to all living things. Including you, your kids, your dog, your plants, insects and who knows, perhaps the broccoli sitting in your refrigerator.

If everything has an energy, and it does, everything has an influence on living senses. The most apparent of which is the sense of hearing. Probably the first time I bumped into this observation, quite some years ago, was when I needed to connect an antenna to the FM transmitter in my GPS. I used a piece of Cat 5 cable I had lying around. Now, I’m familiar with the sound of Cat 5 cable, having used it to make interconnects many years prior. I never liked Cat 5 for sound, though, and that’s why I noticed the distinctive dry sound of Cat 5 superimposing itself on the music, once I installed it as an antenna. To confirm this, I tried others and every other wire I tested as an antenna imposed the same sonic signature I would have heard if used as signal wire in a stereo system. Now we’re getting somewhere! From that alone, we can extrapolate that if you just bought fancy new Solen caps to improve the sound of your amp, they will already bear their influence on your sound as they are just waiting to be soldered in (although it will definitely be a weaker change).

For the same reasons, loudspeaker cabinets that are said to influence the sound because of the materials they are made of, will do just that.  But in the same ways they colour the sound coming out of the loudspeakers, they will colour the sound coming out of your radio alarm clock.  Just as we know PWB products to do. Understanding of this universal rule is not without its advantages. At night, when my partner is asleep and I need to test my treatments on loudspeakers, or test various speaker stand locations, I simply do my listening tests on headphones. (Everyone else does it the old-fashioned way! ;-) ). Or let's say I want to test various materials used to fill loudspeaker stands; ie. sand, lead bearings, rice, popcorn... It's very tedious to empty and fill two stands several times over for each material. Instead, I only need to take one stand, place a few grains of sand, rice, lead bearings or whatever I'm testing on top of the stand. Along with the iPhone. Listening to music on the phone will reveal what each material sounds like, and that is just as good in determining what to expect from the filled stands. Or perhaps I need to test the sonic influence of a change I made to the house electrical wiring, and I’m on a ladder and the nearest source of electronic music is two flights up…. I’ll just test it on my iPhone. Saves a lot of wear and tear on the ol’ footsies. ;)

Since this energy that influences our senses is really in/around everything, it is by no means limited to physical objects. Without getting too far into this, I can give one recent observation as a good example. At one point I was doing some tests on the hifi system, using the computer as the music source. But I thought the sound was awful. More than that, I recognized the characteristic of its awfulness. Because earlier, I had played around with the equalizer in iTunes, as the bass was distorting through the computer speaker sub. So I reduced several bass frequencies. Now, with the computer being heard through the hifi stereo system, the iTunes equalizer was ruining the bass on the stereo. I then turned off the equalizer in iTunes, and voila, my sound was back to normal. I had correctly identified the problem with the sound. Now here’s the interesting part: I wasn’t listening to iTunes at the time. I was listening to a music video on YouTube.

See what I mean, now? The next time you reduce all your bass frequencies on your computer in iTunes, and you wonder why there’s a sudden lack of bass on your portable radio…. turn off the EQ on your computer. Or the next time you are adjusting your speaker stands or speakers.... make sure you acheive a good sound, that you are happy with. Because the positioning of those speakers will not just affect the sound from the speakers. They'll have the same effect on everything from the sound of your partner's voice, to the sound of eggs frying in the pan. Not to mention your levels of tension, and other related effects. And to be sure, there is nothing special about positioning loudspeakers. The energy that is unifying everything like this does not know what a loudspeaker is. So the way you set up your kitchen table set, for example, will have a comparable effect.

Everything is everything. I never stop being reminded of that. It may take time, it may take patience... but if you don’t mind that and you endeavour to look at the ways that everything around us is connected, and you know where to look, you will see it too. Once you do, I promise, you’ll never look at the world the same way again.




"The view from the mountain
Is the same as the one from the shore
The view from an open window
Is the same as from a closed door
The fabulous sunset
Is a joy to behold
And the chains of perception
Have broken their mold


Ev’rythang
Terence Trent D’arby

Bookmark and Share

I belong to a small but forward-thinking group of people, I like to call "audiophiles without boundaries". AKA the "limitless audiophile". AKA "Beltists". AKA "Advanced Audiophiles" for "Alternative Audio". For we don't allow ideology and dogma to dictate the limits of our listening pleasure. Science yes, we have a great respect and interest in science. But dogma? No. Not even dogma masquerading as science, either. Our definition of "science" is not just limited to what the mainstream peddles as "correct thinking", while rejecting everything it hasn't yet had the inclination to accept.

The reason I call this group "the limitless audiophiles", is because I just treated a cell phone, a few minutes ago. The traditional audiophile, hampered by conventional beliefs, does not, can not, and will not try to improve the sound of a cell phone. It's not possible under conventional rules. This isn't the days of hobbyist kit amps where you can change out the tubes or stock electrolytic capacitors for higher quality equivalents. You can't change anything on a smartphone type cell phone. Especially current models you can't even get into. The electronics are too small, and even if they weren't, higher quality parts are not available. You're certainly not going to be changing the speaker on it! All you can hope to do to improve the sound from your smartphone is to upgrade your ear/headphones.  But that's not improving the sound of your smartphone. That's improving the sound of your earphones. And any jamoke can do that!

Yet, who wouldn't want to? When the ubiquitous smartphones have replaced cassette Walkmans, CD Walkmans, MP3 players, iPods etc. They are the number 1 portable device for listening to music. And there are no "high end audiophile" smartphones, per se. Your typical smartphone/cellphone today, regardless of its price, is going to come with a teeny tiny speaker that for sound quality, is way outperformed by a Japanese transistor pocket radio from the 50's. Their poor sound quality makes listening to the smartphone's mp3 player via speaker almost useless. Your only choice for listening to music on the devices is through headphones. Which is not always practical, and even that leaves much room for improvement. Also, wouldn't it be nice just to have a better sound quality overall, so ringtones are a bit less shocking to the ear?

Well, too bad! You can't do diddley squat about it. At least not if you're a "traditional audiophile". If you're a Beltist.... an "advanced audiophile", an "audiophile without boundaries?  You want to improve the sound of your cell? Hey, that's not a problem at all! Sure, we can improve cell phones! Although it may not be that common a practice among us, of course we can do it. As Beltists, we can literally improve the sound of anything. In fact, I've tweaked many of my own smartphones, and countless such cellphones from friends. The one I did tonight took nothing but a few minutes, and made a great difference; on both headphones and speaker. It went from tinny to rich, sonorous, warmer, smoother, improved in the timbral spectrum and more musically engaging. As well as less distortion and brightness.

The willful skeptic looks at a decades old science textbook and says "That's improssible! (sic). What you're doing is not in my bible! I mean, my science textbook!". I know the song of the willful skeptic all too well. It's always the same song, published on the Broken Record label. I say in return; "For the sake of argument... say you're right. I'm imagining my smartphone's sound is much better now, and so is everyone else I did this for. But, as the effect stays with us, what's the difference between it and placebo? There is none. If there is none between it and placebo, then there's no difference between it and a real change. In effect, your argument is moot".

Because that's what it comes down to. There is only one technique in the world that even purports to improve the sound and the image quality of a smartphone. (In actuality, the human listening to it!). That is the way of the limitless audiophile. I'm smart enough not to let ideology get in the way of good sound or listening and viewing pleasure. Neither should you!

Never let ideology get in the way of learning something new and novel.


- The Advanced Audiophile

Bookmark and Share



Many Beltists, myself included, will probably know about the relevance of “reef knots”. It is an old P.W.B. idea to tie a reef knot in an audio cable to improve one’s sound. Most everyone else however, might think you're out to lunch. But yeah, it’s a real thing. And whenever I want a cheap, quick and dirty fix for a friend's sickly sounding audio system, that’s my go-to. 

It’s been a long time since I played around with the knots though, so I thought it might need revisiting. The reef knot is tied into audio cables, such as phono cables or speaker wires - which are normally placed within the signal path of the audio system. But it will also work just on rope (that has no direct connection to your stereo). It just won’t work as well, very likely. 

Actually, I was going to write an article about a different knot, since I went about seeing if I could improve upon the reliable old standard of the reef knot, coming up with a couple of variations. And maybe I came close, but in the end, I was not so sure mine was as good as Peter’s, let alone better. I'll leave that notion for another time. Instead, this will article will focus on the reef knot, as used in Beltism. This should help even if you are a Belter and you’ve been doing these reef knots in cables for years. For this article will detail a new method of using it. 

Because, instead of trying to vary or improve on the reef knot, I thought I would start with that and see if I could find a better way to use it. That much I succeeded in doing. Actually, if I say so myself  I went beyond my expectations. I found a method that gives (what I recognize as) a “correct” sound. Which to my mind, has implications far beyond reef knots or minor audio tweaks. For (done right), it is a sound that most manufacturers don’t, and perhaps can’t, quite achieve. Let’s just say, I hear the absence of this sound in their audio products. And I know why. But the reasons are beyond the scope of this article to explain, and more than I want to explain, anyway.

I don’t know if others will be able to replicate all that I was able to achieve with this simple reef knot technique in a cheap audio cable. I'm putting in enough details here to explain most of the things that I do during the process, in order to come close as possible to replicating what I'm able to do. So if you dare to try this 'tweak'/'treatment', here’s how to tell if you have succeeded: 

First, if you’ve been listening carefully to your system before the change, the upgrade in sound quality is quite apparent (to my ears, anyway). It’s a balanced sound, that has it all. Sharpness, clarity (without fatigue), timbre, taut and musical bass notes, the perfect doses of attack and decay, resolution and, most importantly, musicality. So basically, its everything I could possibly want in a sound, in one sitting. On to business….


MATERIALS

So for this revised Reef Knot Tweak, you will need one pair of RCA phono cables (I used the garden variety sort), and one old tape deck you don’t plan on using. (If you haven’t a tape deck, it could be any other audio component that has one pair of both left/right INPUTS and OUTPUTS. Such as a receiver). In this experiment, the component won’t be connected in the stereo chain, because you’ll be plugging the input to the output. Effectively making it impossible to connect the device to anything else (unless you have several input/output jacks on the component). The hard part, is getting past the idea that it needs to be connected to the stereo to have an effect on your perceived sound. But that shouldn’t be too difficult. You’ve already gone a long ways toward that, if you’re putting a reef knot in an RCA cable!

In any case, I prefer to use an unconnected component, because I suspect that when the component is plugged into an outlet, the box itself will automatically sound worse (because of what pulling juice does to its energy signature). So if it sounds worse, then the knotted cable's effect will probably suffer as well. 

Here’s how to create the reef knot:


This method is a revised version of the reef knot technique I originally showed on the main website of AA. That earlier method wasn't quite right, in fact. (Time moves on, you learn new things!). I suspect it will be preferable to use a standard black cable with red and white plugs here. It comes free with most audio video equipment. No need to separate these 2 wires. The knot you will be tying will be using both wires, and it will be a single knot at one end. (One end of the wire will be superior to the other, but for the sake of simplicity and making this doable for most people, let’s pretend I didn’t just say that. Whichever end you go with, try to make the finished knot as close to the end as possible).

You start creating the first loop by placing one end of the cable over top of itself, like so:



Next, twist the cable around the left side, like so:


Next, a second twist on that side, like so:


Next, you bring the wire underneath and across the loop, like so:


Then, you create a single twist on the opposite side, starting with: 


And a second twist on that side:


Notice that both ends of the cable are underneath the loop at this point. Now, to finish things up and improve the sound, you will tighten the knot by grasping it and both wires, and pulling until it tightens up, like so:



Finally, make the end loop smaller by placing your pinky finger in it and pulling on the opposite, longer length of wire, to result in the finished product, pictured below. 

n.b. Note the arrow pointing to the closed loop wrapping around the bottom of the knot. It's important for good sound, that this be the side that should be laying up (facing the ceiling), when you install the cable:




Ok, so wasn't that easy? You now have what I consider the right way to do the "classic reef knot" technique in Beltism. You can now employ this "treated" cable in any number of ways, such as by simply plugging the end which contains the knot, into the input jacks of various audio components (red to red, white to white). At least, this was more or less how it was always done. But now I'm more inclined to think that while it passes the "improvement" test, the sound won't be "right", with just the one cable, no matter how its installed. Fortunately, I've got 2 solutions for that below.....

Input/Output Variation:  Now for my twist on the reef knot effect: Place the red plug closest to the reef knot in the RIGHT OUTPUT of an unused audio component with input/output jacks. Place the WHITE plug on the opposite end of the cable into the RIGHT INPUT of the machine. (See photo of tape deck at the beginning of this article). Place the machine back on the shelf system containing your main audio components, correctly and with the faceplate facing you.


Part 2: 




Notice the 2nd set of cables in the above photo? This is Part 2, my attempt to improve what is already a considerable improvement over the usual single knotted cable. It is only possible here, because I have a 2nd set of inputs and outputs on the cassette deck. So, on a second reef-knotted phono cable, the red plug goes into the RIGHT OUTPUT (#2), the white plug into the RIGHT INPUT (#1).

So what does this do? It completes the circle, in a sense. IMO, the sound of the one knotted cable can stand by itself, and is very attractive alone. But the sound of two knotted cables, installed this way? That's a whole 'nuther kettle of fish. 

Some listeners might not like these fish, because the mids and highs are sound very rolled off, with no sparkle or extension whatsover. But then once you listen to this, you have to ask, is every sound you're getting off of other audio devices wrong? Because there is evidently a lot right about this sound. It kind of reminds me of the sound of the Meitner DAC, back in the day, in case that's a reference for anyone... 

For one thing, it will never be fatiguing. The highs are very 'sweet' and muted, but at the same time extended. The entire range of resolution is extended, over the single cable solution. This means big bass, big deeper soundstage, and overall, the sound is even less analytical and more engaging than with the single cable solution. In fact, it doesn't sound like anything at all, it would seem. 

With the 2 cable setup, it just sounds very natural, you lose yourself in it, and even if it may have twice the resolution, you have no inclination to be sitting there picking out details. It's all about the music, with this one.  So it's the sound that I'm sticking with, at the end of this experiment.  BTW, I chose the jacks I did for a reason. So I don't know if this sound can be replicated in a device without 2 sets of input/outputs.


A few rules to live by:

- Don't be tempted to put a dozen knots into the cable. Just one - the others will mess things up.

- Don't be tempted to randomly plug up every empty RCA jack you see in your system with such a cable. Your sound will likely suffer, rather than improve. Sometimes, less really is more.

There are specific ways the energy we're manipulating here travels. This is in fact, how this whole thing works. (When this energy travels through the reef knot, it helps create a benign pattern. When the same energy travels through, say, a simple knot, or most other types of knots, it creates a pattern less appealing to human senses. Resulting in a worse, not better sound). 

If it's going to be used on inputs, I recommend just one reef knot cable per component. With the exception of the input/output variation described in this article, if more than one reef knotted cable is used, it should be an odd number of cables. And I would probably want to stop at a maximum of 3, anyway.

Much like using numerous knots within a cable, the compound effect of too many knotted cables in a system is not ideal. Yes, you may note the sound does improve exponentially, the more such cables are installed. It gets deeper, darker, richer, with better resolution of timbre. At the same time, there are negative effects; ie. the midrange gets choked, increasingly. This makes you less able to follow and get into vocals, for example.





Bookmark and Share




Have you ushered in the digital age with reckless abandon, leaving behind the analogue one? Have you neglected your CD's for digital music files, or your books for e-readers? Well then hang on to them either way, because they will help you improve the sound of whatever you do listen to! Plus, they look cool doing so. I bring you the world's first 'bookshelf equalizer'. With this experiment, I promise you will never look at your books and CD's the same way again!


HOW TO CREATE  YOUR VERY OWN BOOKSHELF EQUALIZER

This experiment involves arranging items on a bookshelf in very deliberate ways, to acheive unique improvements in sound quality. The method can work with CD's, books, DVD's (yes, including Blu-Ray....), video tapes, cassette tapes, and similar items. Below, you will find a number of variations, covering single-shelf layouts to more intricate multiple shelf layout patterns.

As with all experiments, you must listen to your sound before changing anything, then again after changing something, to see if you can determine any changes in sound quality.

BOOKSHELF EQUALIZER VARIATIONS:

Legend:

Parity = Whether there should be an odd or even number of items on a given shelf.
Pattern = The arrangement of the items. (n.b. If, ie., I reference "CD's", the instructions are the same as applies to books, DVD's, videotapes, etc.)
Sound = Type of sound that pattern produces
Spine =





Caveats:

* Remove all bookmarks from the pages of books, and shelf dividers. They impede the flow of energy.
* Start with all CD's (or books, etc) right side up, vertical on the shelf. This means, spine facing you (you can read the title), title reads left to right. Thus any items not rearranged, should remain in this default position.
* In all cases, its best to push the CD's/books toward the back of the shelf, unless otherwise stated in the pattern instructions. However, after I push them back, I like to pull them out just a hair, so that they don't actually touch the back of the shelf (else it creates interface tension, resulting in a slightly less desirable sound quality).

HALF-EMPTY:

Sound: Musical, tonally grounded. May have a toy-soundstage (ref. to small)
Parity: Even
Pattern: Note: In this variation, the items will be placed horizontally on the shelf. So, divide CDs on shelf in half. Turn the right half so that the spine is facing the rear (away from you). (e.g. For 7 cd's on the left, spine is facing you, the next 7, spine is facing the shelf.)


HALF-EMPTY (MULTI-SHELF):



Sound: Quite musical, fluid, well-balanced, beyond the usual criticisms.
Parity: Even
Pattern:
First shelf: Same as "Half Empty"
Second shelf (adjacent, to the right of first shelf): Same
Third shelf (below first shelf): same, but placed vertically

n.b. I consider this variation a standard of comparison. It is the best of all those listed in this article. Note, if it isn't reproduced just as shown in the photo, with 3 shelves, comprising the adjacent shelf and the one below the first shelf, then I can't speak for what sort of sound will come from a modification of this layout. Although, if you have a single piece of furniture, you should be able to achieve similarly good results from doing 3 shelves, one below the other (ie. horizontal, vertical, horizontal; or vice versa).

n.b. The CD's on the second shelf are empty jewel cases. Showing that it isn't simply informational fields in play here (although that is part of it).



THE MINIMALIST
: Starting with an even number of CD's, turn the CD to the left of the middle CD around.



Sound: Will retain the original timbral colour of instruments and integrity of the sonic structure. But will not significantly increase definition-resolution-information and-or musicality, as the other variations will.
Parity: Even
Pattern: Find the middle CD, turn the CD to the immediate right of that CD, so that the spine faces the shelf. (e.g. Out of 16 CD's, turn the 9th).

THE ROMANTIC:

Sound: Does not sound right, with inverted attack and decay characteristics, making for rolled-off edges. You may not care, as its musicality is enveloping.
Parity: Odd
Pattern: Turn all CD's on the shelf so that spines face towards the shelf, then find the middle CD, and turn the one just to the right of it, so that spine faces you. (e.g. Out of 15 CD's, turn no. 8).


THE ROMANTIC, Pepe Le Pew Edition:



Sound: Similar to "The Romantic", with softer strings and a complete lack of harshness.
Parity: Odd
Pattern: Find the middle CD and turn the one just to the left of it, so that spine faces shelf. (e.g. Out of 15 CD's, turn no. 7 and 8).


INSY OUTSY
:

Sound: Good resolution and balance of highs/lows, neutral tone, not the most engaging however.
Parity: Odd
Pattern: Leave the CD's on either end of the bookshelf, as is (with the spine toward you). Start from the 2nd CD, turn that one so that the spine faces the shelf. The next CD leave as is, and continue alternating so that each other CD is turned, ensuring the last CD remains with the spine facing you.


THE NATURALIST
:



Sound: Neutral sort of sound.
Parity: Odd
Pattern: Same as "Insy Outsy", except the CD's that are turned, are turned so that the spine faces the ceiling (first and last CD, spine faces the ceiling).


THE WAVE (MULTI-SHELF):



Sound: You tell me and we'll both know.
Parity: Odd
Pattern: On the first shelf, all CD's are left as normal and pushed back except: first CD is pulled out to the edge of the shelf. On the second shelf, all CD's are pulled out to the edge, except the last CD is pushed in.





Bookmark and Share

Categories:

Morphic messaging, briefly, is a means of tapping into morphic resonances (energy fields, studied by everyone from Einstein to Dr. Rupert Sheldrake). Which, in Sheldrake's meaning, implies that the past influences current activity. That there is an interconnection among activity, whether by humans or animals. From here, we go to informational fields, studying the links created in the languages that we share (both words and symbols). But it's ok if that explains little. I don't want anyone to get too hung up on the concepts. I've seen too many people do that, lead themselves down wrong paths by way of idiology (sic), and end up understanding even less about Beltism than they started with.

Morphic messaging, a term used in the science of Beltism, has in my opinion, more to do with studies in that science, than it has to do with what Sheldrake is studying. Their concepts are related, that is all. Like Sheldrake's work, Beltism is the study of particular peculiarities of Nature. So what does any of this have to do with mp3's? I'm getting to that....

A couple of years ago, I did some brief studies on the effects of morphic messaging on mp3's. They were limited to changing the name of the mp3 file, and the name of the folder that the file sits in, to words that I thought would be more conducive to "good energy", and hence, good sound. And there I discovered another "secret" that the world at large is happily oblivious to and eager to write off: not only did it improve the sound of the mp3's, but that improved sound got copied along with the file, when the file was copied (e.g. burned to disc). In fact... the copies sounded better than the originals.

More recently, I acquired this little puppy you see over on your right: the PWB Digiplus USB. It is a first for PWB Electronics, in the sense of applying the principles of Beltism to digital audio. Needless to say, it is also a first for the audio marketplace in general. In that it is a USB flash drive that purports to improve your sound. All your sound. Anywhere. Simply by plugging it into a USB jack. It does this job admirably and to great effect. Moreover, it was fun blind testing this on friends (who were not audiophiles by any stretch). Having them be startled by the improvement in sound quality, without me telling them what I was doing to change the sound.

So amid all the fun of playing around with this neat little gadget, the PWB Digiplus USB, and the comments on the device written by other customers of PWB, prompted me to make a return to studying ways of improving my mp3's. Specifically, through the use of mp3 tags that other PWB customers had started experimenting with. For the first time, in these last few days, I have done just that. And, in an AA exclusive, I share my results with the world.

I am applying the very same concepts of morphic messaging that I describe elsewhere in these articles, in the form of written language on paper. Except this time, it is an extension of the experiments I did on mp3 file names years ago. And this time, I'm not touching the file names or their folder names. This time.... we're going all the way in! We'll be hiding the messages in mp3 tags!

This is probably the easiest experiment I will ever publish on this blog. All you have to do is take your mouse, select, copy and paste the message below into your favorite mp3 tag editor. (n.b. Start your selection at the last number in the sequence, and go to the first). You can also paste this directly into the mp3 file itself, without any additional software needed. To do this in Windows, click right on the file name of the mp3 (or other music format), who's sound quality you wish to improve. 
  • Select "Properties" at the bottom of the right-click menu.

  • From there, select the "Summary" tab.

  • Click on the "Lyrics"* section (you may need to click a few times to open it up). (*And I mean that. Although the "Comments" field will work, all technicalities aside, I find the lyrics field to produce a more musical result).

  • Selecting/Copying/Pasting: Paste the text below that you selected and copied, into this "Lyrics" box field (Tip: To select text off this page, click once on the beginning of the text with the left button, keep the button depressed, drag  down to the end of the text). You can also use Ctrl-C to copy (press the Ctrl button and then "C" button at the same time), and Ctrl-V to paste (press the Ctrl button and then "V" button at the same time).Click "OK" on the box to accept the pasted text message.



------------Start of Morphic Message for MP3 (do not include this line)-----------

01001011 01000011 01000101 01001000 01000011 00111100 00100000 00111100 00101101 00101101 00101101 00101101 00100000 00111001 00111000 00110110 00100000 10110011 01101101 01100011 00101111 01101101 01100001 01110010 01100111 00100000 00101000 00110100 00101001 01011110 00101000 00111001 00101001 01011110 00110000 00110001 00100000 01110011 01101001 00100000 10110010 01100011 00100000 00101010 00100000 01101101 00111101 01000101 00100000 00110001 00110011 00110101 00110001 00110011 00110101 00110001 00110011 00110101 00101101 00101101 00101101 00101110 00100000 00101011 00101011 00101011 00110010 00110100 00110110 00110010 00110100 00110110 00110010 00110100 00110110 00100000 10110011 01101101 01100011 00101111 01101101 01100001 01110010 01100111 00100000 00101000 00110100 00101001 01011110 00101000 00111001 00101001 01011110 00110000 00110001 00100000 01110011 01101001 00100000 10110010 01100011 00100000 00101010 00100000 01101101 00111101 01000101 00100000 00111001 00111000 00110110 00100000 00110011 00110111 00110010 00100000 01110011 01110101 01101110 01101001 01101101 00100000 00110000 00100000 00101101 00101101



------------End of Morphic Message for MP3 (do not include this line)-----------


n.b. If the message makes no sense to you, don't worry, it just means you're mortal. It doesn't have to make sense to work.  If you do this, listen carefully the first time. That is, listen to your computer's sound system, before you paste the text into your favorite mp3 file and play the mp3. Then listen carefully after you apply the message. The first listen is always the most important. It's where most of the action takes place. It appears that in subsequent evaluations, the morphic message leaves traces of its influence, even though you have removed the message from the mp3's comments tag. This would make multiple A-B evaluations more difficult, as you are already experiencing an improved sound, when the message has been removed. And the improvement would likely diminish in power, after repeatedly reapplying the message. Still, I don't discourage multiple A-B evaluations of this experiment.

Consider that each morphic message links with another. So the more files you tag this way, the more that each morphic tag will impact on the other. The better your sound, overall. In fact, why do just one? Tag several mp3's, then listen to the result on the first one you tagged. Just remember to tag an odd number of files at one time. If the sound seems off, you've broken the pattern. In which case, simply tag one more mp3, and it should correct itself. Alternatively, you can try entering the message into the "Title" and "Artist" fields, instead of the "Lyrics" field, and see if you prefer the results of that.You needn't limit yourself to mp3's, either. You can do the same with JPEGs, or other picture formats, by entering the message into the comment field (though your sonic results may not be as good, note).

It's also worth nothing that if you prefer, you can do your listening test evaluations on your primary hifi system. It doesn't matter that much if you're not listening to the actual mp3 file. This is Beltism, after all. By tagging comments on mp3 files with the above message, it is possible to subjectively improve upon the sound of the original CD. Even more so, if a PWB Digi+ USB device is plugged in to the computer, while music files are being transferred to CD during the burning process!

Bookmark and Share

Categories:

Here's another thing not many people know, or are likely to believe (at least, in the beginning).... Your plain old domestic home freezer, while great for keeping peas frozen, is also a valuable tool for transmogrifying adverse energy fields into ones more beneficial to human senses. Peter Belt (of PWB Electronics Inc) discovered this some 25 years ago, following experiments with heating, and then cooling of audio signal cables. This method was actually well documented in various media outlets; the New York Times, Stereophile Magazine, Soundstage! Magazine (Online), and a demonstration of the effect for British tv was even put on YouTube. However! These all dealt with freezing at cryogenic temperatures, and the object being frozen was a CD. The understanding is that the process is changing the crystalline structure of the material frozen, realigning the molecules misaligned during the manufacturing stage. All well and good if the theory wasn't an attempt to fit a square peg into a round hole. The round hole is overlooked because proponents of the square peg theory have not gone further in their experiments, to try to get a deeper understanding of what is really going on. If they had, they would realize that you don't need cryogenic temperatures to get a similar effect of improved sound from freezing CD's. You also don't need CD's. You can freeze a book, a brass candlestick, kitchen cutlery, a set of dead batteries, a photograph of yourself.... all of these objects and more will have an immediate effect on your perception of sound. A permanent one, even, long after the frozen object has thawed.

In recent days, I've gone one step further with this. Two years ago, I detailed the freezing process on my website, "The Advanced Audiophile". It's a lengthy affair that requires 8-12 hours of freezing, and an even longer thawing time, because slow thaw is said to be the key to the improvements in perception of sound. In order to get an even deeper understanding of this, I tried experiments with very short periods of freezing time. How short? How about, 3 minutes? Too short? Make it two minutes then! And how long to let it thaw? Forget about thawing! Yes, what I'm saying is that I can freeze an object for as little as 30 seconds, and hear an improvement in perception of sound thereafter. Since this is a relatively new finding, I'm still not sure what the ideal time is, for this "flash freezing" process. To be "safe", I would try no less than 1 or 2 minutes. I do not claim the results are as good as using the full length process that the Belts advocate, which is detailed on my site. Probably not, and I don't know yet how it compares. I only claim that I can hear the differences using my shortened process, and with careful listening, perhaps you can too. If the experiment does result in a positive identification of differences, then for the observer, it would show that the given temperature and length of time in a domestic freezer would not be anywhere near enough to change the structure of the material, as the cryogenic advocates insist is the reason for the improvement in sound.

My flash freeze process should not be regarded as a substitute for the full PWB process, but it does make it easier to get immediate results from freezing objects. Which makes it easier to test for differences. Not everyone, I suppose, has an aural memory that can last the 16 hours it might require to properly "treat" an object under this full freezing process, and recall what their sound was like before they started the process. Like I say, any object can be flash frozen in a few mintues, and all have a chance of affecting our sound, whether they generate sound themselves or not. But I'd still say a good place to start is with things that generate sound; CD's, mp3 players, your car stereo, small speakers, remote controls, cell phones, etc. Listen to your sound, chuck 'em in the freezer, take them out, listen to your sound again. See if after the process your sound is a bit richer, less harsh, or more "musical", etc. Beltism could not possibly get any simpler than that!

This is an example, many actually, of members on an mp3 forum who tried my experiment of full-process freezing of an mp3 player. With great success.

Bookmark and Share

Categories:

Apart from being on and communicating from the bleeding edge of audio and life science, I also have the best sounding website on the internet. Skeptical? That's ok. I expect that. Oh. You don't know what it means? That's ok. I expected that too. It means that, being here and reading this page, you have already entered the Twilight Zone.... of good sound! This is not something that's at all easy for the average person to conceive, so perhaps its best to explain it in the form of an experiment.

Let's try this.... the idea is to switch between my website and another one you have loaded in another tab of your browser. (If you don't have any other browser tabs open, open one now!). But before you switch between the tabs, you begin a careful listen to recorded music. It could be in the form of mp3's on your computer, or you could if you wish listen to your primary hifi audio system. You would of course begin with the same song each time you switch. Whatever source of recorded music you choose to listen to, you can start by listening to your music while you have another website displayed on your computer monitor (this other website could be one loaded in another tab of your browser, or even another browser window). Make sure that as you switch between the two, the other website and mine each take up the full screen. Meaning that you have no other windows partially covering them. e.g. If you have a music player window open in order to play the test music, minimize the music player window. Also, when switching to my site, you should be able to read this text (or just be at the top of the home page, where you see the article "Welcome To The Advanced Audiophile"). When you've heard enough of the test track while you have another site displayed on your monitor, switch over to my blog. Wait a couple of seconds and begin the same song again, and listen carefully to see if the sound quality has improved. Repeat the switching as many times as necessary, until you are certain you are or aren't able to hear differences in the sound quality.

I have no trouble hearing the differences on my end. But I can't ever vouch for what people I don't know can or can't consciously hear (or feel. Yes, I can feel the difference when I switch to my blog; and if you are already particularly sensitive to the effects of Beltism, you too might feel a lowering of tension when switching to my page).  If you try and don't hear any differences in your relative sound quality , that's ok too. You're not there yet.... As I haven't yet tested the effect on anyone I know, I don't know yet if the difference is large enough for anyone to hear. If not, don't let the experience stop you from trying any of the other experiments throughout this blog. The ones you actively participate in are more likely to yield a stronger effect. OTOH, if you do hear this effect of my site producing a better sound in your home than that of another site, and you're wondering why....

....trust me, you're not alone. ;-)

Regards,

The Advanced Audiophile
 

Bookmark and Share

Next