Peter Belt

[bob orbell]

Dose anyone remember this chap, I have just got rid of a lot of old Hi-Fi mags. and who should be on the front cover of one but the man himself, you know he said that if you wair a paper clip in your lapel the music sounds better. He also sold bits of square paper to put under just one foot of your kit claming nothing should be square, curtains should be follded up at one corner to avoid being square. I saw him at a Hi-Fi show in the late seventes, he even asked people to remove their wrist watches, and I even heard some of the audiance saying (that sounds better) .I wonder where he is now, villa in Spain maybe. BOB

[pre65]

Originally Posted by bob orbell

.I wonder where he is now, villa in Spain maybe. BOB

Or an asylum ?

[bob orbell]

By the way, there are pages on this topic on THE ART OF SOUND forum.

[pre65]

Originally Posted by bob orbell

By the way, there are pages on this topic on THE ART OF SOUND forum.

Probably another reason not to go there then.

[Greg.]

http://www.belt.demon.co.uk/index.html

[bob orbell]

Yes I remember it all now after clicking your link Greg, has any one tried any of his trick's with positive results, be very interested if they have, got to go now and find some blue paper and two saftey pins. BOB

Originally Posted by bob orbell

Dose anyone remember this chap, I have just got rid of a lot of old Hi-Fi mags. and who should be on the front cover of one but the man himself,

If its the Hi Fi Answers where he's holding up a small machine and wearing a knowing grin... that's the mag that first got me interested in what Peter Belt was doing.

Whenever I read a thread about Peter Belt, like this one, I'm always amazed at how it is entirely built out of complete and total ignorance about both the man, and his products. I am consistenly seeing that the arguments against Belt show that the author (nor his readers for that matter), have even a basic understanding of PWB Electronics products. e.g. People mistakenly view Peter Belt's products as audio products. They're not. They're products for audio. There's a big difference to be understood here.

For one, it's ridiculous to ridicule Peter Belt by saying he claims a safety pin or square of paper can affect the audio signal, when he never made any such claim. He is claiming that many things, those mentioned here among them, change our perception of sound. I think (at least I hope!) we can all agree that our physical condition, or mood if you will, affects and changes how we hear. So if you undergo a physiological change, it can be expected that a change in perception of sound might result. Well that is all that Peter Belt's (PWB's) products do: they change our physical condition. Specifically, they lower a kind of tension present in all of us, which triggers an increase (of one type or other) in the standard of our senses. (Though, this can go both ways, and is not by any means limited to PWB's products). Understanding how and why this is even possible, means having to understand (by way of research or other means), that there are well defined energy patterns present on all objects. Even us, if you don't mind being considered an "object".

There is really no limit to what can be accomplished in audio, if you understand how to harness these energy patterns to advantage.

Peter Belt makes funny looking products that are actually very cleverly engineered, and among the most advanced of any audio manufacturer. Their only fault, is they look more at place at a stationers. Still, it's equally ridiculous (not to mention ignorant) to ridicule his products by pointing out what they look to be, then quoting prices for them that are out of line with what you think they are or do. For by this sort of reasoning, there's no difference between a cubic zirconia and a true diamond. To the untrained eye, they both look the same. What do you say to someone who tries to argue they can get the same thing on eBay for a fraction of the price, by typing "cubic zirconia" into the search engine?

you know he said that if you wair a paper clip in your lapel the music sounds better.

Never heard of that. There is a safety pin that PWB sells, that you can wear in your lapel to improve your sound. Perhaps that's what you're thinking of? The safety pins are treated . What this means in layman's terms, is that PB changed the energy pattern of the object, to one more beneficial to human sense. That's why you see a plastic tie at the end of the PWB Electronics safety pin. Both of those objects have been treated. I don't know that a regular safety pin would do anything. So if there are any lunkheads out there, going around trying ordinary safety pins and then dismissing the entire phenomenon of Beltism because it's not doing anything for them.... that would be the reason why.

[Shane]

Originally Posted by Charlie Poole

What this means in layman's terms, is that PB changed the energy pattern of the object,

I like to think I'm open-minded and that I don't dismiss things just because I don't understand how they work. I've also had demonstrations of things which affect audio which all rational thinking says shouldn't work, but the phrase above is where I have problems.

What do you mean by the "energy pattern" of an object? To me, the phrase is meaningless and misleading. Object can contain energy (try pickeng up a charges capacitor, for example!), but what sort of energy does a safety pin contain, and how is that energy arranged in a pattern that can be modified?

[pre65]

I can understand how (perhaps ) objects in the hi-fi environment like TV's on standby might affect what's going on, but not the sort of things that Belt advocates.

We all know (or should do ) that the "room" can affect how ones hi-fi will sound but surely it is to do with the objects themselves, like curtains, furniture carpets etc, not how many legs a table has or pages in a book or even photos in the freezer.

As I said before, I did try a few of Belts suggestions but they had no discernible effects on me or my music.

Perhaps if I had a degree in Psychology things would be different.

Originally Posted by pre65

I can understand how (perhaps ) objects in the hi-fi environment like TV's on standby might affect what's going on, but not the sort of things that Belt advocates.

Reasong being, you're basing your understanding on what you already know. Not what you don't know. So "hash" in the electrical system is what makes sense to you, because it fits better with what you know. And indeed your suspicions are right. Anything plugged into your house wiring, from tv's to toasters, will have a (usually detrimental) effect on your sound. But not for the reasons you suspect. Obviously a toaster is not drawing any power while plugged in but turned off. Yet like the tv, it can have an effect on your sound, whether your system is down the hall. There are two arguments that can be made for this; one that follows convention and one that doesn't. I'm not sure they need to be mutually exclusive.

e.g. Yes, it can be shown that objects in a room have an impact on acoustic pressure waves. For example, if you move your speaker about, you can say it will interact differently with room boundaries or nearby objects, and thus produce changes in sound. But what if you move your speaker placement, and find that the same differences in placement also show up on headphones, without even playing the speaker? When you've done it enough to rule out the placebo effect, then you have to go beyond the "safety" of understanding what you know, and allow room for new ideas and possibilities to explain what is occurring. The room does affect one's sound, but it isn't just the physical form of the objects in the room that does. It's the energy fields they produce (a different kind of physics). The table legs and photos in the freezer and all of those "wacky suggestions" that have no rhyme or reason to you, are all about changing the fields, to better suit how humans interact with them. It's actually not Peter's suggestions that are weird. It's the phenomenon that's weird. Ask anyone who does serious research in quantum physics if he thinks any of it is weird.

As I said before, I did try a few of Belts suggestions but they had no discernible effects on me or my music. Perhaps if I had a degree in Psychology things would be different.

Well, I'd say some "suggestions" are more effective than others, just as some of Belt's products are more effective than others. Combined, they're usually somewhat more effective. I can't say as to why they didn't work for you, as I don't know you, what you tried, or how they were implemented. I know that some beginners have had success, and some not. I know that some have had to try numerous products or suggestions before they did. But for me, they always had discernable effects on my music, and much later, I was able to discern their physical effects. I think part of the reason might be how they are being implemented. I say that for two reasons; one I'm very skilled with how they should be installed. So if I install devices, it's going to be a positive change.

Two, I am constantly being asked by friends to improve their systems with "whatever it is you do". Especially the systems in their car. In other words, they don't care what it is I am doing, or how it works. Why should they, they're not even audiophiles. All they know is that when I am done installing the various bits and pieces, the resulting upgrade in sound always knocks them over. If I could really do this with a placebo, as the skepti-cynics allege this is what it's based on, that'd be great. I'd just tell them after a few minutes "all done, mate!". Except that malarkey wouldn't fool anyone. Not even non-audiophiles. On the other hand, if I had to try to do this using conventional methods, I would tell them "forget about it". Ever try just installing a head unit into a Honda? I wouldn't wish that on my worst enemy.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go install a new head unit into a Honda.....

I'm a great believer in following my instincts, and on these Belt matters by inbuilt bullshit detector is working overtime.

You mean you asked to read my article on improving the efficacy of listening tests, just so you can then declare it "bullshit"? Are you sure it's a bullshit detector you own, and not a bullshit producer? Sometimes people mix those two up. Are you really saying that your instinct tells you that anything you can't personally hear in audio is "bullshit"?