I thought of re-titling this 'In the Face of Stupidity', since I am pre-occupied with the familiar responses of mankind to the P.W.B. phenomenon at this point in time, as will be echoed through these pages. An alternative title might have been 'Being Peter Belt', which was discarded since there was a relatively recent film of similar title ('Being John Malkovich') which has some interesting resonance's (the idea of getting into someone else's mind - how does he do it?) yet too distinct for my preoccupation. My preoccupation is simple: it is the critics/public that are mad, not Peter Belt. Of course I have not conducted a mental examination of Peter, but if one examines the evidence of his life in the face of the criticism, there is sufficient evidence to consider the man burdened by his discoveries rather than crazed. So here starts my ramble.
It is driven by experience, over almost 20 years I'm afraid to say (18 years actually) of getting into the whole Belt thing, and tussling with the idiotic responses promulgated by the many. With time comes the aching acknowledgement that whilst Peter's work has moved on considerably, the many that try and later turn against the products do not. The recent flurry of interest in Europe has been depressing in its familiarity. One can predict the responses with accuracy, because they reveal the limits of the thinking of those that cannot embrace anything other than the familiar. If this sounds self-righteous, think on; there is a piece by yours truly later in the Newsletter which indicates how stupid I am in grasping the principles of the phenomenon - of objects adopting 'benign' patterns through tiny acts. Yet I have no stomach for the accusations of exploitation or 'autosuggestion' any more. If one tries to argue such points on a forum, those criticising either turn nasty or disengage, because the evidence of exploitation or some unconscious phenomena are so paper thin, that a mild sneeze destroys them. I, for one, have argued that I would like to be so suggestible, and life would be much easier, and possibly cheaper, were I so; I could sit listening to an Amstrad system, ecstatic at the great sound. My own view is that those that pursue the Belt approach are less easily satisfied, more discriminating, and truly keen to obtain the best sound. These arguments also really fail to acknowledge the work involved - it is not easy sticking Foils here and there. To fully treat anything takes a long time. 'Ah! But that's the placebo. Because you've put the work in, you think it has to work'. Well, yes, I hope to achieve a result, but the results are often surprising, and not always straightforward. The recent upgrade of the Quantum Clip using smidgeons of Red and Black Creams was ridiculous in its effect - how could those coloured creams really make so much difference. But also, for those outside the realms of medical psychology, placebos don't work - why would anyone produce drugs if they did? - and my life is often full of devoting frustrating numbers of hours to tasks that yield little. I just wish I could become so ecstatic about cleaning or decorating, or repairing.
Still the most amusing criticism is that of 'exploitation', which in a way shows the bind Peter is in, and for those of nervous disposition, I am about to go psychoanalytic. I will take it as read that many of us (all?) are herd creatures, who want to belong to a group that is seen as dominant or successful. If we take the H-Fi Group, with its 1980's emphasis on heavy engineering, we have a happy group of people pleased by large chunks of metal. They despise the 'tweakers', who have a very different model of how to get a good sound. The psychoanalyst Melanie Klein developed Freud's ideas of projection (attributing to something else that which one dislikes about oneself e.g. Communists/Black people/people who live in Yorkshire are bad etc..) with her idea of Projective Identification, which is the best model of paranoia I know of. The importance of Klein's idea resides in her emphasis on projecting that which is felt to be unacceptable into the receptacle. This may seem subtle, but accounts for that 'Invasion of the Body snatchers' state of mind where on the outside things seem the same, but the inside is different. But it is more subtlethan that. Being reasonable, or even kind, arouses not a rational response but more suspicion. It is as if the positive act is construed as emanating from a bad inside force, which is using malicious forms of intelligence, if not seduction, to trick the person into believing that the receptacle of the projection is not bad. Thus the nicer you are, the more paranoia you generate. Hope that makes sense, but in essence it shows that when trying to argue rationally, one keeps hitting more and more psychotic stuff. For many years, I tried to indicate that many of Peter's tips were free - you didn't have to buy anything. This engendered suspicion. If one dared to say 'Well, try a free sample', or worse 'If you don't like it, you can get your money back' one simply got a 'You're not gonna get me with that one!' It reminds me of one of those (then) alternative comedies in the 1980s, where the comedienne Helen Lederer played a very odd maid who would say things like 'You say you're from the Gas Board, but how do I know you won't come in and murder me, then sniff my knickers for kicks?' Such absurdity is humorous on TV (at least in England), but it exposes that reality that when dealing with a primitive or paranoid state of mind, you cannot prove anything, because the person you are trying to convince has located something bad in you, and that is what they perceive.
So what do we do? Well for those with greater energies, a bit of jousting is good fun. It is always rewarding to show that at least one is not stupid. However, if you ever hoped to get anything other than stupid responses, be cured of that delusion now. The other approach is persistence. Sometimes there is a grudging respect, and thanks to such global agents as Google, one never knows where your thoughts might end up. I write this as I was recently shocked to find some abrasive words from myself on the subject of Hi-Fi journalists (cowards!) came out as the second item in a Google search for a particular equipment review. Watch what you say!
But in this way, despite all the madness and terror, these very pages are a growing defence against those that would have us all downloading cheapened facsimiles of already pale facsimiles, and starve us of the food for the mind that music can really be. The fact that this Newsletter still exists, that Peter still carries his burden, and that it leads him to still stranger pastures is hope. All the pieces within, poetic, thoughtful, angry or frustrated highlight much of interest. But it is all 'outside of the box', and not neat or easily described. Those that have struggled to put something down really are to be commended for maintaining a mind in the face of the unthinking bullies that have spent far too long flogging a horse whose last breath may not be too far off. The Hi-Fi world is in trouble, yet will anyone take notice of the things that might offer the public something?
Until Christmas.
Richard Graham
UK
Address for correspondence
P.W.B.
Newsletter
P.W.B Electronics
18. Pasture Crescent
Leeds
LS7
3QB
England
Or for you sophisticates
E-mail – to
Newsletter@belt.demon.co.uk
Dear all,
About 3 months ago a Hi-Fi customer came into our store with, in his hand, some kind of silver strip.
You must know I am in the Hi-Fi business for 18 years now.
I immediately recognized this strip as being a Peter Belt foil. I remembered it because it looked just like a strip delivered with one of our Dutch Hi-Fi magazines about 15 to 20 years ago.
The advice, when my memory is right, was to put the strip, in a certain way, on our loudspeakers.
I remember that the reactions were very different, from not audible to very enthusiastic reactions.
As, back then, I was one of the non believers. It intrigued me why others were hearing such big differences.
Anyway the Foil this client had with him appeared to be the Silver Rainbow foil you probably all know.
I was curious whether now I could hear a difference. So I took 2 identical CD's - one with & one without foil.
The difference, to my ears, was very clear. I could hear more detail, more pace & rhythm, more space between the different instruments.
You must know that during the last 10 to 15 years I have tried almost every CD tweak on the market.
I use the Staedler green pen. I use the Furutech demagnitizer, I oil the playing side of my CD's, I use the Statmat & the Mat from Art speak. I use Harmonix RF11 on every CD etc..
Even with all these tweaks there is a clear improvement with the P.W.B. Silver Rainbow foils.
I got very curious and began to read everything on the P.W.B. site. I froze about 200 CD's and about 60 LP's.
The results together with the Foils and the Electret Cream are simply stunning.
I ordered the Beginners pack and tried the Morphic Message Foils. I could not hear a difference at first, but when I started to listen the other day the sound was simply more relaxing. I also could hear more details not in a audiophile way but in a musical way .
I tried the Electret Ring ties. Again I could nor hear a difference. But when I took them off the other day the sound was deteriorating. It took me 10 seconds in order to put them back.
With the Intermediate pack things really began to get interesting. I did put some of the Green Cream sample on the coils of my loudspeakers. What I heard was simply amazing. The soundstage just became a whole lot deeper. Microdetails became a lot clearer etc..
I began to write messages like Audionote > O.K. Unison Research > O.K. on the Gold Message foils. This really works !!
The music was becoming more lifelike, with every component I put a message on.
In the meantime I had 2 photographs in the refrigerator. Until today they are in there and as far as I am concerned they stay there.
The next thing I tried was the CCU ring tie. I put it on my listening chair. The improvement in the soundstage was simply amazing.
The music improved in almost every aspect. I began to get a feeling I have when visiting a live concert.
A few days later I demonstrated the Red X pen & the CCU ring tie to a friend of mine. I let him write Analogue Audio > O.K. on a simple white label. We could hear the improvement within a second. In a few minutes he wrote the > O.K. message on every unit - his CD player, amplifiers, sub woofer, super tweeters etc.. With every message the sound became more open & relaxing.
We also tried a negative message like Analogue audio > shit. When we put this on the pre amp instead of the positive > O.K. message the sound became worse.
We hang the CCU ring tie on a cord in the room. The improvement was the same as in my listening room. He was very impressed.
As a joke, at the end of my demo, I did put a battery in the freezing department. He couldn't laugh about this because the music become very Hi-Fi like and boring like a cheap Hi-Fi set ( compared with the improvements just heard).
The last thing I tried was the Smart Metal. I had my technician prepare a few magnets with the Smart Metal.
At home I did put the magnets on my Hi-Fi rack. This stuff really works !!! Voices become more three dimensional.
There's one risk at trying P.W.B. devices. Once you heard the improvement there is no way back. When I take them off, the music becomes just boring.
In the near future I will try to improve the sound in our listening room at our store.
The last few years I often did improve the sound in people's houses.
I am sure Peter Belt's devices will be a big help in doing so.
When this is just the beginning it's hard for me to imagine how far the sound will improve.
Perhaps in a year I will be in the Hi-Fi Valhalla where angels sing to me in the most beautiful voices.
Kind regards,
Luc Hovens
Netherlands
The plot is familiar – a TV screenplay with two stars (I mean Radio Times asterisks not famous actors). Man has heart transplant or other organ that once belonged to someone else and starts to develop personality or character traits of previous owner. Usually, our hero ends up tracking down the widow and getting involved. As the plot unfolds the less we care and … Yawn…. Oh! For a good novel!
Yet, there is a curious fascination that keeps us watching until the end. Will the qualities of the previous owner take him over, or will the main character's real personality reassert itself?
It takes long to find out.
Recently, even though my old car was going fine, I decided to get another, newer second hand car and began to experience the same kind of conflicts with the car as the hero of our late night movie experiences with his heart. The clutch, which at first seemed a doddle, became difficult and awkward. I felt I was battling against a hidden presence – I tried to drive as if I was in my own car, my old car, but it felt like someone else's car. I drove like me and the car juddered. I tried to drive like "him" and it went more smoothly. But I felt more anxious.
It was worse in the evening when I was tired out returning home from work, as if my energy needed to engage in a kind of battle but was too weak. At one point I did a John Cleese and started shouting rude things at the car in a most vindictive way.
Let's leave me there for a bit and pick up on what happened to a friend of mine who got rid of his expensive to run old Jaguar and bought a high performance Saab – again of course a second hand model.
He was driving down the motorway and, before he knew what he was doing, somehow got into a race with a BMW and a Mercedes who themselves had overtaken him racing each other down the motorway. His Saab caught up and overtook these two at imprisonable speeds when he looked at his speedometer and was horrified to see he was touching 140mph.
My friend's analysis: "This car just isn't me. I can't go slowly in it."
My analysis: I'm gradually getting the hang of my car it and I'm not giving up just yet.
It is also almost as if a car is indeed an organ that has been transplanted. People who love their cars feel as though the car is an extension of themselves, if not an organ then certainly a limb.
As for my friend's 140mph exploit: could he have been unconsciously trying to "burn in" his automobile as some people burn in their Hi-Fis? Was he showing the car "who's boss"? Or was the car showing him something about itself or even about its previous owner?
Well, before this turns into a two star (asterisk) article let me come to the point: May Belt recommended the Blue Boundary Ties on Crocodile Clips devices to be fitted to accelerator and clutch, plus one onto the driver's seat and for good measure a Fabric Pin on the upholstery. Once these were fitted, I felt an immediate improvement. My driving has gone from porridge to cream and, provided I'm not too tired or tense, I am in my element. The radio sounds incredible too and the next stage will be to treat the CD changer in the boot. Here comes Summer!
(The ultimate irony was that the previous owner of my car – I heard through the grapevine – missed his old car and said he preferred the controls on it to his new car costing five times the price.)
Kenneth Hyam
UK
We have a customer who plays the piano, teaches the piano, tunes pianos and renovates pianos as does his brother. Our customer has told me the story of how if his brother has been on a visit to his (the customer's) home he can always tell, later, when he (the customer) plays his piano if his brother had been playing it.
May Belt
I treated the Clip and Tweezers as suggested and carried out the following tests.
1. I played a record of George Shearing playing piano with a small group with strings coming in to support.
2. I then clipped all the plugs of my Hi-Fi components and listened again.
3. I then clipped all the loudspeaker connexions and listened again.
4. Finally, I clipped the record itself and listened again.
Results
On the first listening I thought the record sounded good with Shearing's piano very charming and full sounding but the whole mix seemed a bit muffled and vague.
On the second listening I noticed the backing group sounding much sharper and clearer; the piano sounded more tuneful and rhythmical; the soundstage was very tangible between the speakers.
On the third listening, I noticed the same holographic quality of the sound stage but this time I got a shock when the orchestra came in. The strings sounded loud and punctuated as if, instead of coming from a woolly background, they were leaping out at you. Very convincing!
The final listening was musically sheer enjoyment. There was tunefulness and a melodic presence about the piano that was simply missing from the first three listenings.
To sum up, this is like discovering the Clip all over again. It is as if the improvements are on the same scale as from no Clip to Clipped. Now we have from Clip to Creamed Clip and the results are astounding.
Ken Hyam
UK
Environmental distortion. Does the term sound familiar?
It should be since it was introduced by Tom Tweak in the Christmas 2004 Newsletter and it neatly puts a label on those influences/forces in the local environment which P.W.B. enthusiasts recognise are a serious impediment to obtaining the optimum sound quality from audio systems. The problem with environmental distortion is that it cannot be measured by conventional measuring techniques; it is out of consciousness and we are not even aware of its existence until it has been reduced but fortunately, thanks to the research of P.W.B., we can now carry out simple procedures in our own homes that can bring about startling improvements to what we hear from our audio systems and, in many cases, at zero cost.
The background to the following events is that I have been running my own small business for 28 years and during that time I have never disposed of any records concerned with taxation matters. If the truth be known I am a hoarder, I must have some deep seated emotional fear that prevents me from parting with things. I believe the psychological name is "Anal Retentive". Let me make quite clear right away. I do not have any problems down below. Certainly not ! However, for those poor souls who do, I am told that an old fashioned remedy which is good is prune juice. Anyway, the records have been piling up in my home for years and stored in cupboards and drawers all over the house but none actually in my listening room. I am advised by my accountant that I should keep Income Tax records for 7 years. H M Customs & Excise, however, in their infinite wisdom dictate that I must keep anything appertaining to VAT for at least 15 years. Not to be outdone, and can you believe this, my Insurance broker informs me I should keep all insurance certificates for 45 years - chance would be a fine thing. But you get the picture; there was a lot of paper work scattered about the house in box files and lever arch files. I had, on a number of occasion, come round to the conclusion that it was time to get rid of the older files but that was a job that could always be done tomorrow and I never got round to actually making the effort.
However during a rare moment of decisiveness ( and these are becoming rarer ) my mind was made up that all records over 15 years would have to go and so with unusual bravado 12 + years of records were then quickly bind and then, while I was still in the mood, I decided to remove all the rest of the business files from out of my house and store them on shelves in my attached brick garage. On completion of the task I settled down to a good listening session . It will come as no surprise to P.W.B. fans that the sound from the loudspeakers was now noticeably sweeter and detailed and television pictures were brighter with colours more saturated and generally easier on the eye. There were also additional benefits that to me are just as important, in that the house now felt more spacious accompanied with a feeling of being more at ease and comfortable. To me it also seemed that objects in the room now stood out more from the background as if they had extra space around them. All were benefits from simply carrying out a bit of house keeping. I was now on a roll and my attention was directed next towards my collection of VHS tapes. I have been collecting tape recordings since I first bought a Philips Hi-Fi stereo tape recorder in 1985. My tape recording activity dramatically increased in 1990 when I upgraded to a Panasonic Nicam recorder when Nicam TV broadcasts were due to commence in the Manchester area. This recorder was state of the art when bought and cost £1000. and has only recently been disposed of. The vast majority of the recordings are live broadcasts of BBC Proms. The collection is now approx. 600 tapes and covers a third of a wall in my listening room. The trouble is, I know that 95% of these tapes will never be played again. On a number times I have browsed through them with a view to recycling i.e. re-recording some of them but there is always a ( good? ) reason why I shouldn't and I rejected the idea.
There are of course a few tapes that get the occasional playing and what springs to mind is the "1986 First Night of the Proms" with Lorin Maazel conducting Mahler No.8 What a performance and the BBC TV montage effects as Maazel urged on the orchestra at the finale are a spectacle that never fails to impress. The 1992 Last Night" is another favourite when Tatyana Nikolaeva - a student befriended by Shostakovich - played his 2nd Piano Concerto .A performance I now use as a benchmark. Also that night was Kiri in absolute glorious voice and Peter Maxwell Davies's "Orkney Sunrise and Wedding" almost brought the house down. Another tape I look forward to playing is the winner of the 1987 "Leeds International Piano Competition", Vladimir Ovchinnikov ; what extraordinary long fingers he has, which helps explain a stunning performance of the Rachmaninov 2nd Piano Concerto. The beauty of replaying these old tapes is that every time I play them they always come up sounding and looking better than the previous playing. The reason being, in the time between, additional P.W.B. treatments have significantly upgraded the system.
I must also mention another tape I wouldn't part with and this is something of an oddity. It was a Granada TV broadcast that I recorded 8th August 1988. It appears to be in the home of a TV presenter where an enthusiastic chap from Yorkshire was demonstrating "bizarre" techniques to the presenter on how to improve the sound from his vinyl playing system. Incredible as it seems this chap was turning up the corners of curtains with safety pins and putting a piece of paper under the leg of a chair. Another trick was to treat the edge of the LP with a felt tip pen. I ask you, how desperate are the TV people that they have to broadcast this drivel to fill in programme time. Obviously this programme was intended to be sent out on 1st April. A classic case of programme scheduling "cock-up" if ever there was . However, I intend to keep the tape !!
Getting back to the main subject of these tapes. Magnetic tapes are just that - magnetic - and all these tapes are in my listening room". From the early days of P.W.B. we learned that magnetic devices in a listening room are taboo. If you want to get the best sound then you must remove all magnetic devices from the room/house. The pity is we have to have magnets in moving coil loudspeakers ( is this a clue why Electrostatics sound so good )? But otherwise never allow magnets in the room and yet in my room I have a third of a wall of magnets. You can imagine what was going through my mind (having at last broken through the emotional block of hoarding) - remove those tapes and who knows what audio nirvana will be revealed! So it was out with the tool kit, a trip into the garage and up with two more shelves. This gave me sufficient storage for 100 VHS tapes. 100 tapes were duly transferred from listening room to garage. With this task completed I sat down expectantly for another good listening session. The result? Well, I can honestly tell you I was shocked. A good shock you enquire? No it was not a good shock. Removing all those tapes had proved to be a very bad exercise indeed. The sound quality was now degraded considerably and TV pictures seemed to have suffered even more dramatically. Where previously pictures had been sharp and vividly coloured there was now a comparatively drab and somewhat fuzzy picture. So what could have caused this severe adverse effect that by removing sound degrading magnets which should have improved the sound had actually produced the opposite effect. The only explanation that I can come up with is that since 1988 I have been treating video tapes with P.W.B. foils etc.. ( so the foils are to blame then? Well, not exactly ). In the early days whenever a new treatment became available I would apply it to all tapes. As time went by and the collection grew this became to expensive so I would only apply all treatments to the last tape bought or played. With all the treatments now available many tapes have over time had considerable P.W.B. treatments. My reasoning is that the power of all these treatments has transformed the VHS tapes from degrading devices to upgrading devices. This would support the argument that equipment P.W.B. sufficiently treated becomes a device itself. Richard is always banging on about this and my experience lends weight. One of the unfortunate effects of removing a P.W.B. treatment is that the sound then seems to be muchworse than before the treatment was applied in the first place and this I think is what had happened. So did I bring back the tapes to restore the quality? The answer is no because I needed the space (see below) but it was weeks later after further treatments before the sound was restored to what it was. However, I will not be collecting any more VHS tapes not because of any lessons learned but purely due to modern technology my collecting mania has moved in a new direction .
My last hardware acquisition is a Sony RDR-HX1000. I can highly recommend it. This is a DVD recorder with built in Hard Disc recorder and the recording quality is a dream. My new collection is growing nicely and I recently bought a stack of DVD-RWs ready for the BBC Proms which are start again this month. How many DVD recordings will I actually watch in the future? From past experience I guess not many but I would to hate to miss that special Event.
Best regards.
Tom Marsden.
UK
Yes. Tom - it really is as long ago as 1988 when Peter was invited by Granada Television to take part in a TV programme.
All the viewer saw, during the broadcast TV programme, was Peter and the TV presenter. What the viewer did not see were the reactions of both the sound recordist and the camera man nodding their heads and smiling when they heard the improvements Peter was making to the sound being played in the room.
Later in the programme Granada TV, in an attempt to provide what they would have described as a 'balanced viewpoint' they had Russ Walker (of Quad) giving the usual/general (prevalent) fallback opinion that "if anyone claims to hear any changes in the sound - it can only be explained by vivid imagination or auto suggestion".
This viewpoint (which everyone is familiar with) and which is held by many people in the audio industry is continued and illustrated further in my article later in the Newsletter.
May Belt.
UK
May Belt has often suggested we throw some sort of mental switch to allow us to consider what is happening when we use P.W.B. products. Not easy, as one is throwing off years of experience, and more powerfully, an education that grabbed our minds before they were formed.
In Khun's examination of the philosophy of science, he is clear that much scientific development is simply not scientific. It's aim is to enlarge upon, but fundamentally support, that which we learnt from science books in our pasts. He asks the question 'Can one discover something there is no paradigm for?' This is very familiar.
Yet after many years (18 years now for me!) of using P.W.B. products, I simply cannot believe that I remain both stupid and loyal to ideas and principles that I have witnessed failing repeatedly. None is more striking than the 'gargantuan' myth that pervades the world of Hi-Fi, where the massively, indeed wastefully constructed items are perceived as 'better'. Musical Fidelity continues to produce amplifiers, as do the likes of Krell, with silly output numbers – for what, one might ask? Peter's work challenges this, where 'itsy bitsy' pieces of Foil, or traces of a cream make more difference than the 'chaotic' butterfly beating it's wings.
You may be wondering why I am re-treading such obvious ground. Sadly for me, even now, I rediscover these 'new' principles time and time again, and this was all completely highlighted for me with the introduction of the creams to upgrade the Clip, and some discussions of Morphic Liquid on the forum. I am aware that over the years Peter has shown us that small gestures – a tap, a flame or ice-cube, a trace – can make very big differences. Yet somewhere in my mind, I cling to ideas that the creams need to be ever present, rather than recognising that their application imparts a pattern to the object that cannot easily be undone. Of course most of these changes can be undone with the right ('wrong') chemicals, and one must live in mortal fear of cleaning products. On the whole though, once the pattern is imparted, it stays. So traces of Red and Black creams on the Clip and Tweezers brings about an upgrade that effectively transforms the Clip, and it stays.
Where I was puzzled was in relation to Tom Marsden's re-spraying of discs with Morphic Liquid after applying creams to discs. Surely, I thought, the benefit would be washed off? Rubbish. As Tom indicated, one can re-spray and actually improve things much more, because that beneficial pattern is already 'in' the item, and more Morphic Liquid just improves things further. This principle is a good one, and as Morphic Liquid often gets forgotten, let me tell you your discs might really benefit from a Spring Clean/Super Wipe, which of course then improves your TV pictures…
Peter often uses the model of 'homeopathy' for indicating how a small amount of something might effect a change in pattern. He's right, and once there, not easily lost.
Richard Graham
UK
I've applied strips of Real Foil to all of my stereo equipment, including power cords and interconnects, and have treated every piece of furniture in the room, plus numerous other objects, all resulting in a significant improvement to the sound. I've also applied Real Foil to many of my already highly-treated (for me) CDs, which is what I'll be concentrating on with my new order. Every time I apply a strip to a CD I'm very impressed with the immediately resulting improvement. It seems to me that the effect grows as I listen, so that by the time I've reached the end of the CD the sound is even better than when the strip was first applied. It also seems to me that the effect of applying a strip of Real Foil varies with the quality of the recording. If it's a good quality recording to begin with, I notice a bit of an increase in perceived volume together with an increase in clarity and richness and a more natural overall sound. On lesser quality recordings I find a decrease in volume, which I compensate for with about an additional 2 dB volume adjustment. With that adjustment I also get the enhancements in sound that I get with the better quality recordings. I think the decrease in volume is the result of the Real Foil reducing some grit and edge which contributes to the volume perceived by my ears. When that's gone, I need to increase the volume setting to get the same perceived volume that I was used to. Strange.
Bill Kollins,
USA.
I try to cover this particular area at the beginning of my 1998 talk but I approach it slightly differently. I describe how, when people are dissatisfied and perceive their sound as being harsh, aggressive and shouty, they find that they cannot increase the volume any more because the sound only goes even more harsh, aggressive and shouty. But, after using our devices and techniques, their sound is no longer perceived as harsh, aggressive and shouty and they find that they can then increase the volume control and still have an incredible quality of music but without the sound now going harsh, aggressive and shouty.
Kind Regards,
May Belt
UK
In a sense this piece is a complaint, and to P.W.B. And it is of the most unusual variety. In a way, it follows Peter's continuing inversion of much that is accepted in the world of audio, and perhaps physics. The basic complaint I have is that recorded sound at home, and even in the car, has now reached such a high level, it is superior to live music.
If any reader thinks I am referring to the distorted bellowing of most PA systems, I'm not. I am referring to regular experiences of opera, symphonic and chamber music in the great halls of the world. Having just returned from the fabled theatre at Bayreuth, not even the genius of Wagner could overcome some of the difficulties on that well thought out development. It does make a mockery though of what many companies, let a lone critics, think of as a reality to aspire to when thinking of audio performance - I do not count recording sessions due to the very artificiality of 'takes'. Only Jimmy Hughes ever used to refer to the concert hall in my memory. Without it, one simply does not know what a singer really sounds like.
But still, to go into the concert hall, and feel disappointed with the sound, despite a good performance, is something I have complained bitterly about to May and Peter. I know Peter sympathises, and think he is reluctant to brave the theatre having witnessed so much bad sound in the past. Still, there are ways forward, and I thought I should share this, otherwise the joys of the concert hall or theatre would die. There is one small irony here. As you will read, Tom is a passionate Proms man, and it seems highly likely to me, that he will experience a superior 'sound'/performance at home, given all of his treated equipment and other devices, to those at the Albert Hall.
In our age of terror, one does have to be careful as to what one takes into a public building, and I have trimmed a little of what I would do, but the first place to start is ones self. Two aspects: firstly, your photograph must be treated to the highest degree; secondly a garment pin. This, for those that haven't got one, is rather like the fabric (aka CCU Brown Tie assembly) safety pin, and just gets clipped onto any item of your clothing. Similar effect to the fabric pins, but always with you. This pin with your treated photo offers some benefit in all places. I have then taken to sticking two fabric safety pins into our seats, and feel no shame in any hall - just wait for the lights to dim. Other tips include taking two strips of foil - I prefer Real Foil - with a little Electret cream, and I stick them secretly where I can once the lights are dimmed. On more adventurous occasions, I have taken along the Clip and Tweezers. It's amazing how much clipping can do for a performance. The advantage of the Tweezers is that with the tips squeezed together, they can be pressed secretly against many objects - not as good as the Clip, but better than nothing. Other activities have rather fallen away, and there remains work to be done on this matter. It is problematic that we live in an age where we can access easily some of the greatest performers that have lived. When a 1950s recording can sound better at home than a live performance of the piece now, I worry. A backhanded compliment to Peter, but also a worry for the future, given how much things have progressed. And hopefully 'live' will live.
Richard Graham
UK
Curing digititis.
Although I'm only a user of Silver Rainbow Foil, Cream Electret and a self made Red 'x' Coordinate Pen, I would like to share my experiences here. There are so many things you can do to improve your sound quality.
About half a year ago, I removed all damping material out of my loudspeakers. It is a two way, French design, bass reflex, self-made, with a 7-inch Kevlar woofer and a 1-inch textile dome tweeter. Of course, everything inside the speakers was already creamed, foiled and signed. I took out a large plastic bag full of BAF (bonded acetyl fibre). This bag I should have thrown away according to May's advice, but I kept it at the attic, foiled with Silver Rainbow Foil.
Immediately I heard differences: far more midrange information, more space, and contrary to my expectations more treble. After a break-in period of 10 days, everything suddenly fell into place. There is no question anymore of "extra" midrange or treble; it just sounds very, very, natural and warm. And (again) it seems that there is more and more information on whatever CD I put in my Denon CD-player. Analog replay gained even more quality, because it always seemed to lack something in the top end. I previously thought this was the nature of all MM's, and that it was required to buy an expensive MC pickup element. Not so!
Then there came a moment that this magic vanished, disappeared. What happened? How can I get back my good sound? Well, first, it was not that bad. Just a sense of 'digititis' entered my system. I could easily have blamed it on the electricity supply, solar winds, or a bad day at the office... but these days my thinking is different from a few years back. We had the fronts (façades) of our house repaired, cleaned and the joints between the bricks partly renewed. Furthermore, we totally removed the sunscreen because with a large tree in front of our house, we never used it. Finally, the workmen applied a special anti-rain coating. Our house looks fabulous, just like new now.
The only drawback was a slight decrease of music reproduction quality of my Hi-Fi system. May Belt was of great help when she suggested to cream small areas of all outer walls with Cream Electret. Of course, this helped a lot: the digititis vanished. Aren't we all sorcerers? However, I got the full magic back only after bringing away the waste material, and other garbage. Here in The Netherlands we have to bring our construction garbage and chemical remains, like tins of paint, to a general municipal disposal unit.
Now, my Hi-Fi-system sounds better than ever before.
Still, there is a lot more work to do.
Kind regards,
Arkie Martherus
The Netherlands
The Audio Asylum - Cartoon.
Almost as successful as a fusion of 'Jack the Giant Killer' with Sega's prickly little spin-dryer of a hero - an amplifier that costs around £17.00! And it's digital. And it's surprisingly good. Here's all about it.
Many long standing readers of the Newsletter will know that I am concerned about having good music with me at all times - see last years piece on treating an iPod - and this includes a healthy use of P.W.B. products. I have for some time been wondering if the little digital amplifier sold by Russ Andrews - the so-called Rave Amplifier - was right for the suitcase Hi-Fi, which could be part of any holiday experience. As it costs £199.00 I have been wavering for many, many months. Then in an edition of 'Hi-Fi World', an article described the above budget miracle, said it was very good, perhaps because the chip set is the same as that used in many other Hi-Fi digital amplifiers. The Sonic T Amplifier (available at thinkgeek.com as the T-Amp, and probably other places) is an 8W digital amplifier, that can be run on batteries (less good) or a 12V power supply, and sounds very good - real Hi-Fi. The 'Hi-Fi World' article dwells too much on issues of running it in, and what voltage brings the best out of it. I chose a different way of improving it.
Like all great puppies, this amplifier just about sits on your hand, and really needs batteries to anchor it onto a surface. It is very light, has only one 3.5mm input, and spring clip terminals for the speakers, plus a lot of vents that make it difficult to see how it could be treated. The battery compartment though contains multiple flat surfaces that allow many foils to be attached. And that's where I started; I attached every foil (X, Real, Black 26, Blue Z, Safe hole, Communication, Comfort, Quantum, Frosted, Freeze Effect, Inside, Inverted, Aluminium, Copper Present, and Retro Foils, plus Grey Clip Film, and the 2cm/3cm Clear Films - gasp!) and a Gold Square. This sounds much worse than it is, as if over time you build up a stock of each foil, you can cut a strip to use easily. I could not fit strips of Gold Foil for the Red 'x' Pen, but after spraying, super-wiping, and then applying Electret, and then the coloured creams for the metal foils etc.., I managed to sign the thing in a few places, using the usual messages, including 'x 26 'x. I also sprayed and creamed some batteries, clipped them and put a spot of Sol-Electret on all contacts in the battery compartment, before putting it all back together, for a final clipping.
It then spent a couple of days in and out of the freezer, in a bag with a 'bookmark'.
To accompany it, I managed to find a pair of cheap and efficient JBL Control Ones in the UK for the knockdown price of £50 at misco.co.uk (were Simply Computers), and with some P.W.B. speaker cables, a treated Kimber 3.5mm plug lead (with all the necessary Ring Ties) and a treated iPod, with loss less files, I was ready to go.
And it's uncanny. I guess the cost of the P.W.B. items adds a bit, and the speakers so far have had only a minor treatment, for an amp and speakers costing little more than Sony's portable ones, and far less than many iPod speakers, this is real music. And it is very good, and very detailed. You simply cannot believe how good such bargains are.
I will post more on the forum in due course, following some further ideas (speakers, and power supplies), but given that some phones will now accept SD cards for AAC files etc.., this could be the craziest means of worrying the High End yet. Will this open their eyes?
By the way, it is nowhere near so good without treatments.
Richard Graham
UK
In the sixteen or seventeen years I have been aware of P.W.B., I think I may have spoken on the phone to May or Peter three or four times. It isn't that they are not very nice people to speak to – they are very nice people indeed. It's that when I dial the number my mind turns to awe struck jelly and, with the phone back on the hook; hardly a word of the conversation can be recalled. Early example: Dial P.W.B.. "Hello, P.W.B. Electronics here" (I don't think he did the "How might I help" routine) Ah' Hello Peter, My name is Kevin Kehoe, I have purchased some of your products in the past and… Yes, Yes I know you Kevin! The rest of the discourse has disappeared from my recollection. That surreal moment when he said "I know you" is on a par with having the opportunity to make a call to any of one of your favourite science Heroes, past or present, and hear them say Hi Kevin, how's things? When you have experienced a few P.W.B. sound lifts, a Hero status builds quickly and, at fifty-four years of age, I find that I'm behaving the same way as a twelve year old at his first pop concert. I now mainly confine my correspondence to E-mail – a little distance between Hero's and their supporters can save time and prove more productive!
OK, I do have a tendency to exaggerate sometimes, but every P.W.B. sound lift not only adds greatly to my musical enjoyment, it also demonstrates that there is a huge gap in the understanding of how our senses work. Here we are, a small group of music enthusiasts, the main purpose of which is to mutually improve our listening pleasure, now standing at the edge of a huge field of discovery. Isn't it a wonder! The Belt's are showing us things that science has yet to catch up with. How exclusive is that? I have read many popular science books – how great advances were made, sometimes in the face of extreme resistance – but I never thought for a moment I would get to witness at first hand the flowering of such an new and exciting concept. And, be part of such an exclusive and select group of - dare I say – very ordinary folk, being awakened to the fact that all is very much not what it seems when it comes to our sense of hearing and sight. There is also the possibility that other senses - such as taste could also be included. But the first two is not bad for starters! And in this statement, I'm not exaggerating at all. In fact, it is difficult to overstate!
I must say too, that it is comforting to know that I can make a contribution to this Newsletter in the knowledge that most of those who read it would be polite if they feel the need to make a criticism of what I have to say.
Not so the Audio Asylum Internet site, where May Belt made some recent contributions. For a platform where alternative views on things Hi-Fi can be voiced, it seems to attract some pretty closed-minded people! When they could not get the better of her in some head to head exchanges (where May put forward some of her best and clearest explanations of the ideas behind P.W.B. Products and Philosophies) the returning postings quickly descended into either ridicule or great trails of gobblygook that, had I read them a thousand times, would still be no wiser as to the idea they were trying to put across! The thought entered my head to go in with a backup posting, but this was instantly replaced with a further, more cautious one.
If May Belt, with all her formidable skills for persuasive discussion, could draw flack of that intensity, what chance would I, a mere mortal stand? It would be like a lamb to the slaughter. I quietly withdrew from the site.
Back on our own "Home sweet home" site, it is always a delight to read postings from fellow Belter's with regard to getting the best from P.W.B. Products. A free Quantum-Clip upgrade arrived recently which I found so good that I almost suspected that the pre-updated Clip had beenfaulty! – Such was the intensity of the results. This got even better thanks to some of the tips picked up from Tom Marsden.
My own experience earlier this year with Cream-Electret which, after spending an hour or two applying it to the corners of rooms, window frames, door frame angles, wardrobes and other room furniture as an alternative to attaching quarter doweling –far too obtrusive - brought a very good result. I appreciate the fact that, had I gone for the attachment of the doweling, the possible benefit would have come from a different source than that of the Cream-Electret. But, it did highlight for me the need to be a little loose in the application of this Product. The more items you treat, the better will be the result. I pass on this piece of experience with confidence.
I have also been reminded how good Spiratube can be. When I ordered a P.W.B. Intermediate Pack recently for the specific purpose of treating my Brother's car. (I have yet to pin him down to a day, but when I do I shall post the results) The sample of Spiratube included in the pack got quickly used up and have had to purchase more. After a renovation to the bathroom this year I began to reapply some P.W.B. Treatments when ever a spare moment was at hand. At some point in this process, I read some postings regarding Spiratube and attached some of the 12mm to the pipe work to the bath, hand wash, WC and shower. As I had not been carrying out any other treatments at the time, the sound lift was almost certainly a direct result. Again, I put this forward for others to try – especially as Spiratube is quite an inexpensive product and, with the added benefit that should you not hear a result, it is easily removed and reapplied elsewhere.
The final thing I would like to say is this: One of the main criticisms I receive from colleagues and friends is for my assertions that there has been yet another sound lift since we last talked on the subject. As I have not yet had any big breakthrough's regarding my efforts to get any of them to give P.W.B. Devices a serious trial, this is something that can only be appreciated by fellow P.W.B. users. It is long since I too began to think that there must be some critical point where P.W.B. Devices might not produce impact. If this critical point does in fact exist, I for one have still not reached it. There have been many "Belting sessions" where I could not honestly say I heard a change. But, sooner or later, through the use of a new product or inspiration with an older one, "Ping"- there it is - like the switching on of a light bulb.
Kevin Kehoe.
UK
It was a stupid quarrel with a friend, about the interpretation of some piano sonatas that led me to seek old gramophone recordings on CD. The results were unexpected.
The invention of CD and the modes of archive transferring, led some small companies to try to save the old recordings, improving them by digital processing. Companies like Pearl, Naxos, Arbiter, engineers with passion for music, like Ward Marston, or Mark Obert-Thorn, committed themselves to search, discover, listen, compare and render in the best possible way, interpretations of legendary figures of piano, that had already passed the gates of mythical.
It's unbelievable indeed, what quantity of musical information they have managed to extract from the ageing gramophone records, waving aside, tones of surface noise and millions of clicks and pops – but also, adding reverberation and high frequencies, or enhancing the seamy bass of the records that made the pianists too often, seem like playing with piano-like toys for children.
This my little "research", coincided with trying the Quantum Rainbow Foil and its Cream. It is one of the cheapest foils of P.W.Belt that in my own space, happened to be one of the most effective. One obvious implication of its use was the stabilization of the picture in the TV, as if the straight lines on the monitor (that were flickering like fluorescence lights) had calmed down. And a sense of quietness in the space, that helped the fundamental frequencies to accompany more distinctly, more fully, the higher harmonics, aiming my fair Hi-Fi system, to communicate, not only the musical information of those particular CD's, but a very respectable part of the musical poetry of the performances, too.
So, it is for some months now, that they visit my drawing room like mirages seen by the light of a lamp, true "suns of the sleepless" but with warming beams, the mythical Masters with their staves: Paderewski, with the most ethereal, maybe, sound heard coming from a piano, Schnabel with his full of harmony Beethoven readings, Solomon with its artistic heroism, Friedman with his bolting temperament, Busoni with the lyre of Orpheus, Cortot with his unique Mediterranean nuances, a person I scarcely met through my own teacher, who has long ago gone to join him again.
They come – a light white noise, like a lull accompanies their sitting on the seat in front of the instrument - and then, notes, magical sounds fill the space with colors and dreams, alien and forgotten, but so personal and live.
It is true, that some years before the invention of gramophone, talented inventors had turned to the search for pianos reproducing the performances. The same musicians were sitting in front of the piano and their hammering on the keys was transformed to electrical signs that were recorded. Then, engineers traced back to those records and, in co-operation with the pianists, were making a piano roll. It can be said, that the piano rolls, were the first digital recordings in history.
What should one choose? A medium that would carry with extreme distortion the sound of the artist from the studio to the lounge, or a "live" instrument that would perform alone, moving its keys with the same speed and force as the artist?
The result is now established: Edison's invention, although musically and sonically inferior to the reproducing pianos, beat the latter – it was surely cheaper and handier. Was the defeated wronged, though?
The same companies that offer us the old recordings, dispose also modern recordings of restored old reproducing pianos. One of them, proposes us the result of the performance of a robot, driven from a high precision digital system on a concert Steinway piano. As Nimbus label claims:
"What makes Nimbus' Grand Piano series unique stems from the technical ability of the 'Robot' accurately to reproduce the nuances of the original performances, at concert levels. Duo-Art rolls feature a special set of perforations along both edges of the roll which can control up to 16 different intensities of hammer stroke. This, alongside the ability to vary the volume and intensity of the melody independently of the accompaniment and also independently of the sustaining and soft pedals, creates a series of tonal intensities and gradations beyond the capacity of the human ear to distinguish. Put simply this system does not sound like a machine playing a piano - it sounds like a live pianist. Not only that but because it is so accurate we can distinguish one pianist from another. Consequently this series enables us to hear a style of pianism which is long dead but which has its roots in the great composer-performers of the Romantic era. So, for example we are able to hear a recording of one of Liszt's Grand Etudes de Concert from a roll made in 1924 by Frederic Lamond who at the age of seventeen was taken to study with Liszt in Weimar".
You can have a listen for yourselves: http://www.wyastone.co.uk/nrl/gp_ra.html
It is not only easy for everyone to distinguish the differences of, say, Lamond's pianism as recorded for the gramophone and the one coming through the above described piano rolls, but it can rightly claimed for the sound of the latter, to be truly mechanical, soulless, cold and impersonal – even annoying. Welte-Mignon's Piano Rolls, offered by Naxos, seem to me to carry warmer warm touch and to be quite amusing, but always, in the sense of music coming out of a mechanism.
Why so? Is it due to the imperfection of the production of the roll (and the human ear proving to distinguish, not only 16, but 160 and 1600 different intensities of hammer stroke), or there exists something else that evades us - and can diversify also, the live performances between artists?
What is the element that renders the tone-colors (and not only the fluctuation of a pianist), unique, when between him and the chord, intercedes a given mechanism that leads to a mechanically moving hammer? Do we really know?
Would a modern system of reproducing pianos, that could record with absolute precision the power of the strikes of the fingers on the lifeless keys, reproduce fully the nuances of the human artist? If yes, why no one tries to build it - and if not, why not?
It took me 40 years of audiences and a very few years of experimenting with the Belt stuff, in order to lead to this childish question. Even if I have not the answer though, I won't hesitate to urge every lover of music, of every kind, to spare a few pounds and listen to those ageing performances that newer pianists would only dream of.
It is all about magic – the very poetry of the soul.
Andreas Makrides
Athens, Greece
Kevin Kehoe has mentioned in his article earlier in this Newsletter that I decided to join an Internet audio discussion group called "Audio Asylum". *** Over a number of years I had been following many of the discussion threads on this particular Internet site primarily to see how different people with a declared interest in audio and in good sound responded to other people's views and experiences.
During those years I had found so many of the responses to be blinkered, or immature or rude or aggressive or even all of these combined. However, after observing some sensible and intelligent 'postings' I decided to reply to some of the points being raised.
I am still finding that people are just not prepared to move (think) away from the narrow confines of the conventional teachings. One response stood out as epitomising the general belief structure. In an article published in a recent issue of Stereophile one journalist, in the process of challenging some people's subjective and controversial experiences, stated that, in his opinion, if what they were describing did not fit in with something physical happening either to the audio signal or to the acoustics - in other words 'physical real' - (i.e. fitting into conventional theories as he understood them) then those people's experiences could only have happened because of autosuggestion, imagination, personal mood or effective marketing !! The journalist conceded that this effect could feel just as real as 'physical real' but the general tone of the article was dismissive of other people's experiences if it did not fit in with that journalist's view of the audio world. But, this general and overall view actually dismisses other people's intelligence. To describe it quite simplistically..
We have the first group of people who think completely within conventional electronic and acoustic theories and who usually state, quite categorically, not boding any argument, that the things which a second group are describing as changing the sound cannot possibly be changing the sound because conventional theory will not allow it. That the second group of people must be influenced by auto suggestion, imagination, personal mood or effective marketing. What the first group of people will not do is to listen seriously to what the second group are telling them. Not only will they not listen to other people's experiences but they use the ridicule response of "If these people can actually hear what they are claiming, then they must have discovered some 'new science' - a 'new science' that no one else knows about."
The second group of people are saying that they too know conventional theory, that they were also taught the same conventional theory, from the same text books, by the same teachers, at the same colleges, passed the same exams, and got the same degrees but that they also know what they have heard. That they are intelligent enough to consider any effect of auto suggestion, imagination, personal mood or effective marketing and, after giving all these serious considerations, still stand by what they have heard - even though they cannot explain why the sound has changed !!
The first group of people do not seem able to 'think out of the box' - to realise that it does not need to be an introduction of a new science - it can be a greater understanding of an already existing science - the science of evolution - and what is having an effect on the human being !!
With this new way of looking at an existing area of science, conventional theories of electronics, audio or acoustics are not actually challenged. With this new way of looking at it, the audio signal travelling through the audio system is not affected, the acoustic air pressure waves in the room are not affected, it is the human being who is being affected and the consequence of that effect is for the sound/perception of the information to be affected.
What our concept IS challenging is the mind set of many of the people working within the audio industry.
This brings me to the latest interview I have just read, published on the on line Stereophile Newsletter.
The interview is the journalist Wes Phillips interviewing Mark Levinson (who as many of you will be aware is well known as a manufacturer of Hi-Fi equipment).
I recall way back on 2002, again during a published interview with Mark Levinson, Mark stating that he believed that there was "something affecting human beings - things which we can sense and respond to. That it may be neurological, something involuntary." Mark Levinson had begun to put the blame on the PCM (Pulse Code Modulation) operating system.
During this latest (2005) interview, Mark is stating his belief that the PCM digital technology "created stress that disrupted neural and muscular functions. That we are immersed in a vast sea of digitized noise, cell tones, game sound, portable digital players, movie and television soundtracks, computers ..... as a result, we are undergoing a constant barrage of stress that cumulatively can overwhelm our nervous systems to the point that music becomes untherapeutic, contrary to its true nature."
You can see from Mark's words that he is realising (and has been realising for some time) that there is something, in the environment, which is affecting us (human beings), that it's effect may be neurological and involuntary. Mark is still putting the blame on the PCM operating system - and this is where I do not think that Mark has gone far enough in his thinking Peter and I believe that just about EVERYTHING in the modern environment is creating problems for us (human beings) because millions of years of evolution has dictated that we have to continually be reading/sensing our environment for danger/intruders and also for reassurance/safety and because we cannot now resolve correctly what we are sensing we therefore remain under tension.
Mark Levinson's approach (as a person well known in the USA) should have made the journalist Wes Phillips at least stop to think, to consider another concept on what can affect sound other than straight conventional theory, but no, Wes Phillips ends his interview with the words "I remain unconvinced that we audiophiles are suffering from the problem described by Mark Levinson."
May Belt.
UK
*** www.audioasylum.com
And the sections I usually post on are Tweakers, General, Critics and Prop Head.
Tweaks/DIY - http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/tweaks/bbs.html
General - http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/general/bbs.html
Critic's Corner - http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/critics/bbs.html
Propeller Head Plaza - http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/prophead/bbs.html
During the talks I give, I have chosen to describe some of the things Peter and I have experienced in the world of audio by using hypothetical stories rather than describing the actual true stories. This is because I had preferred not to name specific individual companies, retailers or journalists which would single them out (for what appears as criticism) when we have had many parallel events with other companies, retailers and journalists. My stories may appear, on the face of it, as downright criticism but what my aim throughout has been is to describe a general malaise, a general mind set prevalent within the audio industry which discourages (to put it mildly) serious investigations into what could have an effect on the sound or the perception of sound - which, after all, is surely what the audio industry is all about.
The hypothetical story I have used a few times is about a fictitious Dr. Joe Bloggs with his six graduate engineers working for five years at a cost of a quarter of a million pounds/dollars. On what ? On something which will probably never become an industry standard ? On something which never becomes generally accepted as a breakthrough in producing good sound, only a possible technical advance ?
One light hearted comment has been made to me is that "surely I might be exaggerating somewhat, surely what I describe could not happen".
So to show I am not exaggerating I will describe an actual true story which, coupled with elements from other true stories, formed one of my hypothetical stories. The company involved in the true story is KEF (based in Maidstone, Kent, UK).
The factual information I have taken from an article written by Keith Howard and published in the Audiophile magazine in November 1993.
To quote directly from the article:-
"Arrange for an assortment of loudspeaker designers to meet together; then toss the words 'room interaction' into the conversation. You might as well have put a lighted splint to touch paper. All present will be very well aware that the characteristics of the listening room and loudspeaker interact in a way that is critical to the performance perceived by the listener, but you will search in vain for a consensus about the ramifications of this for speaker design. Some will say that the room contribution should be minimised by making the speakers as directional in their output as possible; others will favour precisely the opposite approach of making the room's contribution large, which demands wide speaker directivity, not narrow.
You need know nothing about either loudspeaker design or psycho acoustics to surmise that this diversity of opinion stems from a fundamental ignorance of how speaker and room characteristics combine with those of human auditory perception to determine the listening experience. In this knowledge vacuum, unproven and often half-baked hypothesis abound.
So, here we have the scene set for someone to come along to do some research into that very specific subject of loudspeaker/room interface!
To quote directly from the article again:-
"In 1986, researchers at the Technical University of Denmark determined to do something about this: to fill some of the yawning gap in our knowledge about speaker/room interaction. First they proposed a collaboration with their compatriots Bang & Olufsen, then - when it was realised that greater funding would be forthcoming if the project were part of the EC's Eureka initiative - a foreign company was also invited to join.
KEF, with it's established commitment to research, was the obvious choice, the more so as Richard Small had just joined the Maidstone company from his previous post in the School of Electrical Engineering, University of Sydney where, during the early 1970s, he had written what are acknowledged as the standard analyses of closed box, reflex and passive radiator loudspeaker systems.
The three partners thrashed out the aims and objectives of the Archimedes project, as it was named, beginning in May 1986. Their proposals were then submitted to their respective governments, and on the inauspicious date of 1st April the following year funding began. Government support was different in the two countries but it made possible a research project the scale of which has never been seen before in the world of high fidelity. At the end of Phase One of the project, the partners were claiming that the work carried out had already consumed 3 years, 30 man-years and $3 million. By the end of Phase Two in the June of 1993, when KEF's funding ceased (B & O's had ended in March 1992), the figures were more like 5 years, 50 man-years and $5 million."
I think that the resultant product which KEF later introduced and which they claimed was the direct result of this research into speaker/room interface was their Uni-Q loudspeaker drive unit. I do not wish to comment on this specific drive unit or it's effectiveness only to say that, logically, if all those years of research, man-years and money had eventually produced an answer to problems of loudspeaker/room interface then, surely, the KEF loudspeaker system using the resultant Uni-Q drive unit would, from that time onwards, have become the benchmark loudspeaker system - the industry standard loudspeaker system against which all other loudspeaker systems were judged. But, this is not the case. In group trials of loudspeaker systems the KEF loudspeaker systems do not shine above all others - in fact during many trials other manufacturers speakers come out ahead of KEF speakers in listening trials - other Brand name manufacturers who have not devoted so much time, man-years or money in that specific area but have concentrated on finding what 'sounds' best - and if that happens to be because of the simplest of crossover networks or no internal damping material then so be it.
The point I tried to make in my story is what so many of our customers have experienced for themselves. That they can 'P.W.B. Treat' their own inexpensive/expensive loudspeaker system and gain improvements in the sound from their speaker system way ahead of what the actual manufacturer of the loudspeaker had achieved. That they can achieve these improvements even when the loudspeaker system or loudspeaker drive unit had not been the result of 5 years, 50 man-years and $5 million development work and that, after treatment, their own loudspeaker system could actually sound better than the (untreated) KEF speaker system which contained the drive unit which was the result of all that research !!
Now comes the story of Peter's involvement with KEF during the time period described.
Raymond Cooke (who owned KEF) was a personal friend of Peter's and, after the early publicity given to Peter's discoveries by Jimmy Hughes in the magazines and some of the KEF sales personnel actually hearing improvements in the sound during demonstrations of Peter's techniques given at Hi-Fi shows, Peter was invited to visit the KEF factory and meet with their engineers.
After early formal introductions with other executives everyone then walked through to the demonstration room. To get to this room, one had to first walk through the room where all the engineers were working on their computers. The engineers were asked to leave what they were doing on their computers and to come to listen to what Peter had to tell them and to listen to his techniques.
The engineers were annoyed at being asked to leave their computers, their body language was shoulders hunched, glowering faces showing dislike at being asked to actually listen !! As KEF were speaker manufacturers, Peter concentrated on the loudspeakers which were playing in the room. He looked around the speakers for something to 'treat'. He saw that there was a port opening at the rear, in fact quite an unusually large port opening, large enough for him to put his hand through and into the actual inside of the cabinet. There he attached a device onto the strengthening bar which ran from the front of the cabinet to the rear. The sound was now considerably improved and when he removed the device, the sound deteriorated. But, for the engineers, the device was not doing anything technical - it was not doing anything with the acoustics (internal acoustics or external acoustics), it was not doing anything with the audio signal, it was not doing anything which they could measure, it was not doing anything with the speaker/room interface which is what they were all working on !! Nor were all the other Foils etc. which Peter attached to the speakers. All the engineers wanted to do was to get back to working with their computers. Even though Peter left devices and details of various experiments which could be carried out, we left the KEF factory realising that no one, none of the engineers would be at all interested enough to try any experiments.
Thinking logically, would anyone expect such as Richard Small (the person in charge of the research mentioned in the quote from the article) having devoted so much time, energy and money to the particular project really wish to experiment with Cream-Electret on standard speaker drive units or strips of Foils on speaker cabinets ?
I would not dispute that the KEF engineers might have gained some additional technical knowledge after all that effort and research but, as I try to explain in my talks, anyone who has devoted such a huge percentage of time, energy and money, on such a research project will not be at all inclined to carry out any experiments which will question that high percentage of importance they have all devoted to a particular project.
If, as Peter and I believe, a magnet is a problem for human beings, then anything producing a magnetic field is a problem, irrespective of who designed it, who is using it, whether it has a polarisation like a horseshoe magnet, or a polarisation like a bar magnet (along it's length) or like a bar magnet with a polarisation through it's narrow depth (as used in orthodynamic speaker designs) or a polarisation like a round speaker magnet - a magnet is a magnet - with a polarisation pattern !! Or if, as Peter and I believe, a transformer is a problem for human beings then any transformer is a problem. Put simplistically. A transformer has energy in one (primary) winding and this energy is sent across a gap and is induced into another (secondary) winding but, in so doing, is inverted. If we, human beings, react adversely to that state of affairs, then it is irrelevant whether the transformer is an E and I transformer, or a toroidal transformer or whether copper wire is used for the coil windings or silver wire, whether it costs £10 or £1,000. A transformer is a transformer !! But, the only way for anyone to prove what we are saying is to carry out listening experiments. But engineers, just merely reading a set of instructions asking them to apply a small amount of (say) Cream-Electret to a magnet or to a transformer will just react saying "How on earth can applying some Cream to a magnet or to a transformer possibly change the sound ? WE know it cannot - so we are not going to bother to try the experiment."
The experience at the KEF factory was paralleled at a number of companies where Peter was asked to demonstrate his techniques and, even after he was successful and many of the people heard considerable improvements in their equipment - the end result was a decision by them to 'keep their heads down', 'to hide behind the parapets', 'to keep absolutely quiet about what they had experienced to avoid being ridiculed'.
Hence my use of hypothetical stories which can cover a mixture of our experiences. My aim, with the telling of the hypothetical stories, was to make people aware of how a mind set can be so restrictive and, at the same time, to also make people aware that what are quite simple procedures can have such a beneficial effect.
Another reason for my story examples is because I am asked, quite regularly and logically, "Surely, if your treatments can have such a good effect on the sound - as I have found when treating my own equipment - surely manufacturers of audio equipment would be using your treatments ?" My story examples are aimed at showing that the majority of manufacturers employ engineers to carry out a specific design remit and specific engineers are employed for a specific purpose. Which, for example, can often mean that an engineer employed because of his expertise in designing a loudspeaker crossover network can end up producing a crossover network the size of a small amplifier without any consideration given to what effect the components used could have on the human being. Or, an engineer employed to oversee the production of a CD player with the best possible measurements may have no expertise in listening. In neither of these examples would the engineers be prepared to carry out listening experiments which are out of their expertise area.
Whereas another designer may make his product decisions on what it sounds like, not what it measures like.
I was reminded of this when reading a letter written by Julian Vereker of Naim Audio and published in the Hi-Fi News in 1995.
" Everything that we do to our Hi-Fi systems affects the way that they sound; some of these things are not so straight forward........ When we were designing the Naim loudspeaker cable, we specified all the parameters that we thought were controllable in manufacture, but when we came to listen to some music on a system using the new cable, we were somewhat alarmed to note that the sound was rather 'phasey' - lacking in a coherent soundstage. This was such an obvious characteristic, we felt sure that we would be able to measure something. But we looked from DC to 500kHz, then up to 500MHz, at low currents, high currents, low voltage and high voltage and we could not find anything different in any respect between this new cable and the old design........ We also listen to mains cables of the same specification from different manufacturers for the same reasons. We know they make a difference but have not yet been able to measure anything of consequence. So we specify exactly which mains cable the moulded lead manufacturers may use when supplying us.
I feel that if one cannot be scientific, it pays to be pragmatic." Julian Vereker.
May Belt.
UK.
Recently I have been to the North Sea Jazz festival in The Hague.
As I had very good experiences with the CCU ring ties, I took one with me to the festival. Believe it or not, when I did put the CCU ring tie to my shirt during a live performance the sound got less distorted.
When I took it off during a concert, there was no way in leaving it off. I was so addicted to the better sound that within seconds I did put it back into my shirt.
My friend who was with me also heard these differences . He was a very annoyed that he hadn't taken his CCU with him. He certainly will do it with his next concert
As I mentioned before, my experiences with P.W.B. devices and this is an understatement, are very positive.
Recently I got the Quantum clip on approval. At first I was a little bit puzzled of how to use this.
One mail from Mrs. Belt of suggestions of how to use this device made things clear.
I must say: This thing really works !!
The most bizarre experience I had was when I clipped my loudspeaker fronts.
Years ago I discovered when playing with the loudspeaker fronts off the sound was a significant amount better.
However after I 'clipped' the speaker fronts, I still can'' t believe what happened, the sound became better than without the fronts. In fact it got better than I had ever heard it before.
The difference is so huge that playing without the speaker fronts does not satisfy me anymore.
I now also clipped my whole equipment, LP's and a considerate amount of CD's.
I don't know where all this is leading to, but at this point I feel almost like in Music Nirvana.
Finally I would like to thank Mrs. May for her patience & the many suggestions she gave me.
Kind regards
Luc Hovens
Netherlands
Don't forget to visit our Web
Site
@
http://www.belt.demon.co.uk
And subscribe to the P.W.B.
forum
@
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PWB
© P.W.B. Electronics 2005