What's in a Name?
I have been thinking a great deal recently about how names, logos, and brand names pose such a risk to good audio and video replay, that one wonders if you can ever quite overcome the problem with a successful brand. The cottage industry products always seem to do very well, and perhaps point the way, as do the modification services that change common components for less available, if pricier alternatives.
The theory, as I understand Peter's evolution of Rupert Sheldrake's ideas, is that more a pattern (a piece of information, such as a name, a design, a product, a component) recurs in nature/the universe, the more links between them occur, and the greater risks for noxious patterns to be come attached to the original pattern. This is a fundamental theory which explains much, and the problems, for example, of CDs, phono sockets, mains plugs, and anything else that is common. If you look at the catalogue of P.W.B products, many items are geared towards these problems, such as Charge Barriers, or the Digiplus. These products aim to break the noxious connections, and reduce the intrusion of morphic resonance. This idea also hints at our search for new and improved products, that get us closer to the original aesthetic core, but only increase the risks that success will increase the distance.
The issue for me was not heightened by the success of the improved Gold Foil, and the messages I wrote upon it, nor the wide application of message Foils, but the chance to test out the new CD formats that have come from Japan. The first I believe was the SHM format, in which a different plastic was supposed to increase a more accurate reading of the disc. Sony has more recently introduced the Blu-spec CD, which resulted from the advanced mastering techniques used for Blu-ray discs, where more sharply defined pits in the disc improve disc reading. All well and good, though I have yet to find a disc that is read differently by my PC, as all seem to give the same result on Accuraterip.
The results on listening though have been rather different. For whatever reason, I really like the sound of the SHM discs that I have imported – even untreated ones sound so much better; smoother, richer, with a 'more-ish' compelling quality. This is true for classical or rock discs. Blu-spec, I find quite a different story. Whilst there is a sense of greater clarity, there is a harsh, almost out-of-tune quality, that I like less. I might still prefer the Blu-spec disc to the original (just), especially if fully treated, but , in simple terms, something is not quite right. Now the plastics used, the substance of the disc and the manufacturing processes can all play their part, but I was wondering how damaging Sony's name has become in the process.. This line of enquiry has led to me to wonder if because of morphic resonance, Sony can no longer make a good product.
What has also become apparent, in this world of massive consumerism, we have never been in so much need of the P.W.B developments. A piece of Gold Message Foil, with a message crafted with the Red 'x' Pen may be the necessary start to your system. Unless you can make your own, unique piece of equipment….
Richard Graham
A Tale of Two Newsletters
This title might appear to be related to the evolution of the Newsletter, such that you will read in this volume pieces constructed and considered over time, but also a 'digest' of more immediate thoughts and suggestions, that were posted on the online forum. (The latter volume , is an ingenious solution to digesting the bursts of energy and imagination that occur periodically in the online forum.) Sadly, the title relates more to that great writer of the nineteenth century, Charles Dickens, and those immortal opening words 'It was the best of times, it was the worst of times' from 'A Tale of Two Cities'. If those words do not capture something of our modern experience, I know no more. So why start like this? Well….
I start with the source. I am looking at a CD that I want to treat, simply to begin with, using just Rainbow Foil. It is a lovingly restored version of Puccini's 'La Boheme', with Pavarotti and Freni in the lead roles, conducted with astonishing affection by Karajan. The master tapes have been mastered to 24 bit/96khz digital files, that have then been downsampled to the CD format. A lavish book is provided, not only with information about the recording and the work (still a favourite), but also to contain the discs. The only problem is, that every time the discs are inserted or removed from this book/case, they become more scratched, and whatever the attention to detail so far, the discs are not what they could be. The thousands of pounds spent on this loving restoration is now spoilt by a shard of such idiocy, that one wonders how it can be recovered. Decca have gone and repeated the same mistake with Sutherland and Pavarotti's 1970s 'Lucia'. Let's hope they don't mess up 'Puritani' next, or 'Turandot'.
I am often struck, that in a world in which the LCD screen is king, and much is transmitted through the eyes, how much, 'common sense', integrating information from our range of sensory organs, is so limited in our current world. There is no doubt, to my mind, that only one stream of information or evidence will be used when making decisions or judgements. Tantalisingly, there is a world of possibility just out of reach. You may argue that I am much the same, just looking at a disc and judging how it will play -Pavarotti does sound magnificent, with Karajan's contribution hardly less impressive, from my discs, yet, there may have been more. A pity.
Of course, this is the year when the purse strings have been pulled so tight that innovation has hardly had room to breathe though development in some areas has been impressive. For example, developments in server based systems has come on leaps and bounds, and I may need to worry less about my discs when the future may more likely involve downloads than disc spinning. Blu-ray does afford us the possibility of astonishingly rich and vivid pictures and sound, and there have even been good films and music to transfer to disc. Yet that feeling that there could have been more, does not escape us. The results we achieve, although impressive, falls short of the more full experience. It is curious, that over 25 years since the CD was introduced, we are still trying to make it work. Meridian have achieved much with new upsampling filters (the 'apodizing' filter, that has caught on), but the spinning disc has other problems than getting the bits off of it without the damaging 'pre-ringing'.
However, not everything is related to spinning discs and manufacturing processes. The presence of inside spaces remains a potent source of difficulties, for which there has been a relatively easy solution. If there were to be a product of the year, then perhaps Inside Foil would be that product. It is often the case that one learns about new applications for a product sometime after having started to use it. This was very much the case with Inside Foil, which can be applied widely, and very effectively (especially after a super-wipe with Green Cream and One Drop Liquid), to almost anything, as long as it is out of sight, preferably in some sort of compartment. One of the most easy to access compartments is the battery compartment of a remote control, and treating both the batteries and the compartment, including the lid to it, proved to be fantastically effective. The same results followed sticking Inside Foil on the inner aspect of all cupboard doors. Yet some CDs still trailed, and making sense of inside spaces could only do so much, but at least I was making the best of a bad job.
May has frequently told us that the information or 'good sound' is already in the room, and liberal application of P.W.B techniques and products confirms that hypothesis. Some design and engineering helps in equipment, but a fog of adverse patterns always threatens what could be seen or heard. Going back to my earlier point about some CDs (Blu-spec CDs for example - see later), I do wonder if some products are so intrinsically caught up in the problems of morphic resonance, that no amount of treatment can quite save them - I know Peter can be quite horrified by the products that are sold to the public. This is then quite a dilemma when one needs to replace a product, and sadly, there is no obvious place to look for guidance. The magazines, apart from the odd piece by the likes of Keith Howard, offer little comfort. Their judgements are often at odds with my own. Dealers need to earn a living. So what is the solution?
Well, the solution is rather obvious, and goes back to making the best of a bad job. If we can recognise that brands, designs, and components are all going to be linked horribly, we set about trying to reduce these links, and the morphic resonance, though we will need a Red Pen (not necessarily a P.W.B one, if you are strapped for cash), some Gold Foil (again, white labels can offer some benefit), and as many authentic P.W.B products as one can get. Flooding your environment and equipment with messages is the best we can do, until some bright spark starts to apply the principles in the design of audio and video equipment, and to everything else in our homes. I have followed this path, and have used more Gold Foil than ever before, with messages suggested by members of the online forum. Ironically, when so much is wrong, I can actually now reveal that I have achieved the best sound and viewing experience ever. Even that scuffed 'Boheme' sounds simply wonderful, and one hears Karajan's mastery, creating tension and atmosphere like no other.
Dickens's 'Tale of Two Cities' was a response to the French Revolution of the late eighteenth century. We have our own technological revolution to contend with now , with its similar powers to democratise and free many from the constraints of ignorance and class. But other problems reduce pleasure in the arts. At the close of the year, it is of considerable comfort that Peter, May and Graham are all working hard to make the side-effects of such progress less terrible , improving what we already have, and developing who knows what. It could not be better.
Until the next decade! Merry Christmas to all.
Richard
Ripping Yarns
I have become obsessed with the technological revolution, of how the changes globally, to ourselves, are comparable to the industrial revolution, or introduction of the printing press. No longer do I feel comfortable writing with a pen, and readily feel impatient when something isn't responded to immediately. Progress has thrown me back into earliest infancy! So in light of this, I am astonished how quickly my patterns of listening to music have changed. I was a fairly early adopter of CD, as surface noise and distortion in the classical repertoire were always harder for me to bear than the failings of CD reproduction. Opera did especially well, reducing the need for multiple changes of disc per act or piece. And of course, Peter was there to improve the sound of CDs, which was, perhaps, in some ways more impressive than the improvements to vinyl - the spinning of an aluminium disc was a greater challenge to the senses. Later digital formats, such as MiniDisc gave way to Apple, and the hard-drive based iPods, and more recently to solid state players from Cowon. Oddly, I feel that there is a quality of sound from hard-drive sources that I like, quite different from solid state players, and certainly preferable to MiniDisc, even in the latter's last phase of high capacity discs. However, Minidiscs may have been closer, technologically to hard-drives, which confounds my liking of iPods, but that is what I feel, irrational or rational. All of these formats required the ripping of discs in some way to get the music onto the player, and so for the best part of a decade, I have been preoccupied with the best way to do this. But before going further into this matter, I want to draw your attention to some comments made by Keith Howard in the December edition of 'HiFi News'.
In this edition Keith is reviewing the latest version of Naim's hard-drive based music server/player, the HDX. I have heard good things about this from my dealer, though he, like myself, is more of a Meridian man than a Naim one, so favours the crazily named Sooloos system from Meridian. Keith, in usual informal, yet rigorous fashion, examines many aspects of the HDX, including the result that music replay is superior from the hard drive (compared with CD drive), even though the contents of the former are ripped from the latter drive. What was then fascinating, was that wave files ripped onto a USB stick, using Keith's MiniMac, were not as good as those ripped from the Naim CD drive. Same bits, three different results. As usual, Keith is unblinking in his pursuit of truth, and simply reports what he hears, without any intrusion of theory. Indeed, theory barely enters into the discussion at all, which is all the better for it.
This is where P.W.B comes in. I will report shortly on some provisional observations about ripping CDs, but would like to think now about why digital transports sound different. You may come across on many forums the 'bits are bits' folk, who suggest all transports, even disc players, and the cables attached to them are all the same. What motivates them to do this I presume is a product of envy, such that no-one else can have anything superior. Such painful emotion might explain the hostility the often erupts in these discussions. The discovery of jitter seemed to help, but as every manufacturer now develops their own re-clocking devices, and jitter becomes vanishingly low, we have another problem of how to understand difference. Filters can be used to explain differences again, but not all. And so we have the problem, that players that perfectly rip/play CDs, reduce jitter, and have sophisticated filters, sound different.
For those using a PC or Mac to rip CDs for streaming or to make compilations, the two preferred programmes to use are Exact Audio Copy (EAC) or db poweramp. I have used the former for so long, that despite some advantages of db poweramp, I still use EAC. This programme also has the advantage of being able to rip a whole CD image as one file, which is good for classical discs if you have replay system that will not play gaplessly. But there is an interesting aspect to the db poweramp community - they report different results from different drives, and there is much discussion about the superiority of a TEAC drive used in the RipNAS device. The latter is supposed to produced better sounding files when ripping CDs. Yet all are bit perfect? The problem is further compounded when one realises that superior sounding files also result from ripping SHM and Blu-spec CDs, though Accuraterip confirms the rip as identical to its ordinary counterpart.
If you are like myself, and are slowly archiving all of your CDs, these are important and troubling issues, though not entirely surprising. For many years, I have been able to hear the benefits of ripping treated CDS, on a treated PC, in a treated environment. Further, as the P.W.B treatments have progressed, I get noticeably superior results. This is easy to confirm, as I can rip again tracks that I ripped using EAC a few years ago, and the recent copy sounds noticeably cleaner. Treatment of disc, the microenvironment, and wider-environment all make a difference, and some of this is presumably achieved by design or accident in the products design. How the P.W.B improvement gets into the file I cannot fathom, as the environment is the same for old and new files. I suspect that the usual beneficial patterns get into the digital file in some way that allows us to perceive them more accurately. This does of course beg the question as to whether Peter could develop digital products that sit on our hard drives, much like a strip of Foil does physically.
So any conclusions to date? Well, it's really the rather usual one of treat everything as much as you can! Starting with the CD (and don't forget to rip with the passive Electret Disc in the CD case) then moving onto the PC. Whilst all the labels and foils have their place, don't forget the four Special Blue Magnadiscs above the DVD/CD drives (I place mine on the top of the PC tower). For some a Digiplus is useful, though 3.5mm sockets seem to be becoming the norm. (Again, in terms of product developments, a USB or 3.5mm plug version of the Digiplus would be amazing.) And then you move to the environment: first the room the PC is in, then the whole flat/house, including entry points for electricity, gas and water.
It has just been announced that Linn are no longer making CD players, and the future will undoubtedly involve more server-based replay systems. I think this is great, as one starts to access those great discs that would have otherwise gathered more dust. Some systems find links and remind you of forgotten treasures. But the key question is whether downloaded digital files, straight form the record company, without recourse to a disc will give us even better results. A question for 2010?
Richard Graham
P.W.B. – New Member
As a new member in the last few months to P.W.B products, I thought I would jot down some of my experiences in treating my system and house/ environment. To date I have only used the free sample which May kindly sent and following this, the Beginners Pack and a length of Smart Solder. On top of these products, I have been using some of the free tips which I will go into later.
I would like to be able to say that on each single application of a P.W.B product, I sat down and listened prior to treatment and then compared the sound after! However, I would be lying through my teeth if I said that! Perhaps if I had a bit more patience and maybe a bit more time without work and family distractions, then I would have tackled things a bit more systematically. That said, I did so on several occasions and noticed definite changes. I reckon my scatter gun approach is probably fairly common amongst P.W.B customers.
So where do I start?.......well how about what worked for me?
One of the biggest and most noticeable improvements came from treating my cd's with Rainbow Foil, Cream Electret and then freezing them. The difference in sound quality between the cd untreated and treated is pretty huge! More air, more detail, more bass and sweeter treble. Incidentally, as far as bass goes, my speakers are home made with Decware DFR8 full range drivers so there are no separate tweeters and woofers and hence no crossover circuit. Full rangers as you know don't tend to go really deep like a deep thing, but they have always been acceptably deep to my ears. I have thought of maybe enhancing things a little bit with a subwoofer, however my brief experience with the above treatment and the other treatments I have done, has raised the possibility, or more likely the probability that they are capable of more depth than what I'm currently hearing!. Anyway…subwoofer on hold for the meantime!
I have placed strips of Inside Foil, Safe hole, Comfort and Blue Z foil on several items including inside both the Amplifier and CD player and inside my speakers, ensuring Cream Electret is also applied and wiped off with a kind of super wipe (tissue, strip of rainbow foil, black dot and then frozen). I also signed and marked 'x 26 'x inside and out on the casings using a standard red Lumocolor 313 pen modified with a strip of rainbow foil and cream, then frozen …ok it's a start!. These applications to the Amp and CD player were all done at the same time, as I felt it was a bit of a hassle to keep dismantling and rebuilding just to try out an individual strip.
On top of all that, I have been using Smart Solder to treat a quantity of small magnets I bought which were stuck to anything metal in the system and home. All the system AC plugs were smart soldered and also the AC wire plug terminations. Again using my basic X Co-ordinate Pen, I have been busy signing and 'X 26'X ing loads of things on the Hifi itself and around the home.
The combined result of all the foils, cream, solder etc is pretty astonishing and a major increase in sound quality! I reckon in terms of upgrades, it is the equivalent to major component changes involving a lot of money!
Having read very positive results using the Smart solder on the drive unit magnets, I decided to treat the DFR8's. I can't say that I noticed a major increase and I was a wee bit disappointed, however they are already excellent drivers and maybe there are other factors involved, masking improvements? …Would the lack of a crossover have an effect? I don't know. Anyway I've got a plan!!
The whole freezing thing has really impressed me and to date all the cables excluding the speaker cables have been through the freezer. On top of this my valve CD player has also been through the freezer after it had been foiled and creamed. No problems were encountered, and I made sure it was sealed and triple bagged using bin bags. I also ensured it was thoroughly dried out prior to power up. Again I noticed an increase but not as big as that of the CD treatment.
Back to my plan….I will shortly be removing the drivers and plan to freeze them together with the signal wire and binding posts. The signal wire will also get the reef knot treatment before re-assembling! I also plan to try the Green Cream in the future. I have a feeling this will lift them and also improve the already pretty respectable Bass.
I mentioned the reef knot thing and this has truly impressed me and also a few scoffers at work! In my office there sits an old cheap midi system with cheap bell wire speaker cable and a plastic covered wire for an aerial. It has never sounded good and radio reception was very poor with a lot of interference and background noise. One afternoon, being a little bored I put a reef knot in the mains cable, aerial wire and speaker wires. On switching it back on the sound was incredible for such a cheap system. Not only was the background noise gone, but radio reception was much improved and everything about the music was greatly enhanced. My colleagues would not believe me when I told them later, so I undid the knots and returned it back to the original condition. I then let them hear all the rubbish first, then tied the reef knots and let them hear again. The jibes stopped and the questions started … how did you do that?
Many hours have been spent foiling and creaming lots of things and to be honest this is all part of the fun….I don't think I would enjoy my music quite so much if it just landed on a plate with zero effort! Anyway, I am looking forward to trying new products and tips in the future and at present I am waiting on a set of Anti-Cables arriving. Prior to installing I think they will be creamed, smart soldered, reef knotted and frozen…..Can't wait! .... keep up the good work and thanks again!
Stewart Dunsmore
New Experiences
I must honestly admit that when I received the red pen, I was extremely skeptical, even as open minded as I consider myself to be. So skeptical, that I decided to enlist the services of three additional sets of ears from my high end audio buddies. If I experimented with the pen by myself and heard a difference, because of the fringe and counter-intuitive nature of the product, I didn't trust myself to go this alone. What caused me to move forward with the purchase is the amazing level of success that I have with the clocks. The clocks are also very, very strange but extremely effective.
When I explained to my three audio friends what to expect from the pen, they all scoffed in disbelief, but were willing to try since they are also fans of the clocks.
We put the first CD in the player, listened to it, took it out , put it in the case. Afterwards, I signed the case and added the > O.K. , drew a line above the barcode and put the CD back in. When the CD started to play, the level of improvement was shocking being immediately apparent and very unsettling. All of us in the room heard the change and our jaws were on the floor in disbelief! How could this be? We played CD after CD yielding a similar effect. We experimented with signing the CD directly with the same level of improvement. We even compared what happened after cleaning the signature off of the case to see if the CD went back to its original sound, and it did!
The next day I used the foil on all of my equipment in my two-channel system and the level of improvement and involvement defies description. I will try to explain what I hear or what I call "The Experience," since that is what it really feels like. The sound becomes much more three-dimensional, hyper-relaxed, transparent and organic, just like the live performance. Something else happens that I find difficult to put into words. It seems as though I am drawn into the musical performance as if my body and mind are much more willing participants. The musical presentation has a semi-addictive quality that makes it hard to turn off. I feel as though I am traveling down some type of mental worm hole and cheating time and space by experiencing the actual performance instead of a recorded facsimile.
I read the full review on the red "x" pen in SoundStage and your response. I found the explanation of you and your husband's research and journey to be fascinating. I was also told by Geoff Kait that the two of you are also the original designers of the Clever Little Clock. How you figured these things out is simply amazing. Audio is a strange and fascinating hobby. I guess that's why I've been involved with it for the last 35 years. This step in my audio journey has taken me to the level of fantasy that I have always dreamed of.
Many Thanks
Phillip Thorne
The Pot Calling the Kettle Black.
I started messing with Belt tweaks (aka "treatments") about 20 years ago. People who don't personally know me are inevitably skeptical whenever I relate my experiences to them, insisting I am fooling myself. Even my best friend, who knows all about my adventures in Beltism and is absolutely a believer in it because I spent more than two years transforming the sound of everything in her place, is sometimes not a believer. Never mind the night and day differences her hifi went through. Never mind the blind trials we both passed through, testing PWB products. Never mind that her friends keep asking me to treat their systems, after hearing what I did to her car stereo. Sometimes, she just switches off and becomes a skeptic. Which is quite alright by me, it keeps me on my toes.
Earlier this evening, was one of those times. I had treated the electric kettle. Not something you usually think of and say "Gee, I wonder how I can get the water kettle to improve my hifi system?". But it's a good thing I don't impose those limitations on myself, because the water kettle treatment sounded fabulous! Anyway, to demonstrate this, I had my friend listen to music on the laptop computer, with the water kettle sitting on the stove, not plugged in. I repeated the selection a few times, so she would know the sound well. Then I went and plugged the water kettle into the electrical outlet on the stove. And her mouth stood open. And I could tell from the stunned way she was looking at me, she must have heard the changes! I know I did, they were quite transformative; not as subtle as might be expected. But she didn't actually say at first, whether she heard a difference. Only a request to repeat the test with another song. It was obvious she couldn't believe what her ears were telling her the first time, and wanted a second opinion from her own ears. The second opinion came, and it said the same sort of thing; there was definitely something going on here that had improved the sound. She said as much, only she added that she felt she could not trust her own ears to tell her the truth! And I knew why. Because despite her many brushes with my "weird tweaks", she could not conceive of how plugging a kettle in could improve the sound. There's a kind of disconnect that occurs; sort of like being handed an object in the dark. You know you have the object in your hand because you can feel it, but you may not know what it is, or who put it there.
Presuming the experience won't be dismissed outright, the conventional mind might react to that and say the working kettle was affecting the home's AC current. Two problems there: 1) the laptop was on battery power. 2) The outlet on the stove had long stopped working, so there was no current going to the kettle; no water boiling! Yet the effect was solidly evident, and immanently repeatable. In trying to understand what's going on, e.g. why or how tweaking a kettle could possibly have a noticeable effect, improvement even, on your sound quality, it might seem like you have to redraw the map of everything you thought you knew about audio or science. And that you shouldn't have to, if these seemingly odd practices were producing real effects, real changes in the sound! Well I know that placebos don't last for 20 years, otherwise they defy the very definition of the word. So I know from that alone, that the changes are real. But before redrawing the map, outside observers to this phenomenon tend to try to understand it by looking at the map from the wrong end! Thinking it is the sound of the equipment we're attempting to change, when in fact, it is the ability of the listener to hear sound in general, that is being affected by these esoteric products and processes. It's a physical change all the same, but instead of the hifi equipment undergoing physical changes, it is the listener himself. Which means that whatever improvements are gained, are not limited to hifi equipment. This has all sorts of advantages over conventional audio upgrades, obviously.
What's needed is a sense of perspective. Seeing how the process with the electric kettle is connected with the Red X Pen which is connected with the Paper Under A Chair Leg which is connected with Cream Electret and Rainbow Foil and so on. They all deal with the same problem of adverse energy in the environment in different ways. A true understanding of how all these are linked comes with the experience of experimenting with the different products and ideas. Some may work better than others for you, and some may only be consciously perceived later, after revisiting them. Regardless of what product is used, generally, greater benefits are had by greater numbers of treatments. It may take a while before a full transformation occurs, but when it does, is when the impossible, or the improbable, no longer holds the same meaning for you that it once did.
My favourite item from the P.W.B line for those with an initial interest in these unique products is the appropriately named "Beginner's Pack". Because it includes the two basics, Rainbow Foil and Cream Electret, which every P.W.Ber should have. But, because it also allows sampling of even more esoteric products up the line, and shows the diversity of how many different ways there can be to approach the environmental problem, and demonstrates how different products can produce different characteristics of sound, within the same sphere. Even if, as with the foils, they appear to be very nearly the same thing!
To achieve an easier time of identifying differences with the products, I often recommend a few suggestions. ie. a) Multiple tests and treatments. e.g. If one 2 x 15mm strip of foil on a CD logo is too difficult to catch in a test, seven or nine equally treated CD's at a time is usually enough. b) Some might have difficulty discerning differences in an A-B test, because the treated objects are in the room during both tests; and can influence the sound in general. This is easily rectified by removing the treated object(s) from the room, when trying to assess their influence on the sound. c) Some listeners find it helpful to come back and guage their sound a half hour later, where the effect might take a little while to take hold. Others might not be sure what has changed, because they're not expecting the sort of changes they might be hearing. What I find changes most with these products is my connection to the music. The sound might appear a bit darker, because there is less "hash", or distortion that so often characterizes electronically reproduced music. This is what makes things sound more like real music. At the same time, I observe an increase in how deeply I connect with the music; so that is what I most often listen for. I have an easier time of enjoying music when I have successfully treated an object in the environment.
I did another interesting experiment with the above-mentioned friend recently. I stood in the doorway of the listening room, with a laptop computer, on which displayed the front page of The Huffington Post (an internet news blog). The listening room was heavily treated with P.W.B devices. The adjacent hallway was not. Holding the laptop in my hands (on battery power), I showed what the display looked like when the screen was held in the middle of the doorway, just slightly over the listening room side. Then, what it looked like when moved a few inches over to the hallway side of the doorway. Although the lighting in the rooms was the same, we could both see the display was different each time it was in the listening room side. On that side, the images were clearly sharper, richer coloured, more true-to-life. The entire display was easier to read, as it had better contrast.
Try doing that with a new set of speakers!
cico-buff
Improving CD Replay
On reflection isn't it staggering the improvements that have been made to Compact Disc reproduction since they were first introduced in 1985. The first CD players simply could not compete with vinyl and we used to think in those early days this was the fault of the CD discs themselves. As time and technology moved on, HiFi companies like Meridian with their MCD showed that digital had potential for even serious audiophiles.
Later SACD and DVDA were created but they never really took off in the same manner as red book CD. This was a shame because their sound quality does build upon standard format CD with new titles on SACD still appearing in small numbers from audiophile labels. Perhaps it was because the two higher resolution formats were competing against each other may have contributed to their downfall.
I went into a record store last Saturday, first time in years. This is because these days most of my music purchases are mail order via the internet. I also like to purchase 24/96 FLAC downloads from HDtracks. This large record store was quiet for a Saturday and prices are lower, perhaps we have something to thank for illegal downloads. Record shops should adapt to the changing market and offer hi speed downloads direct to ipods and memory sticks.
What can P.W.B offer to increase our enjoyment from this digital medium? Firstly as frequently mentioned is the freezing of CDs' or the player itself. Improvements include a smoother sound and better stereo imaging. One improvement I recently discovered was to treat the Compact Disc logo that as well as appearing on CDs' also appears on the front of players. Covering that logo with a rainbow foil is an effective treatment. Then I moved onto the compact disc tray and creamed this with Cream Electret. I am fortunate to have the Retrieved Memory Disc to help with the negative effects of removing a disc from its jewel case.
These improvements take little effort and the rewards far outweigh the time taken to apply. Digital is no longer fatiguing but a joy to listen to bringing hours of enjoyment and entertainment. I recently invested in a Digiplus to treat one of the unused Coax digital inputs of my Nagra DAC. Finally a friendly four legged device under one of the equipment feet to complete the changes. I now have some really sublime listening sessions.
There is often debate about whether one should invest in P.W.B products or audio components. I believe both are of equal importance with circuit design, component choice and manufacture techniques all having their part to play.
I hope the Belts continue their work and research as their contribution to our pass time is significant. The audio industry snubbed them when they realised the threat to their profit margins. But the Belts continued to build upon their discovery and bring us new products. I would love to know what household friendly substance was used to neutralise that coffee table many years ago but appreciate this is probably a trade secret.
Steve Paines, UK
A Year to Remember
This has become a year to remember regarding the improvements made to the quality of sound from
my music system. A number of things contributed to this:-
1 I bought another amplifier (Copland) because as some of you may remember, I have a Hafler XL 600 which contains a fan that over the years has become very intrusive due to the improvements made in sound quality brought about by the PWB products. The Copland is absolutely silent in operation and also improves in most aspects of sound quality (not Greatly but there all the same). The Hafler is now driving my Stax Lambda Signature Headphones. The Copland has been extensively Belted with all the foils and creams at my disposal.
2 A new fusebox was fitted in place of the old fusewire box and the earthing was improved with better quality wire. The new box was Belted to a far higher level that I was able to treat the old box. The new fusewire was creamed with Black, Green and Electret, this was done for the whole run of wire running from the meter outside until it entered the house. The detached garage was wired for power at the same time and that cable was also treated for the run.
3 This was the extensive use of the 'Strange Looping' message labels (Gold) which were attached to all music equipment, TV, New Fuse Box, Computer and Modem, Headphones, Power supplies to Amp and CD Player. The improvement with those was very noticeable and seemed to get better as time went by.
4 A couple of weeks ago I was browsing through some old postings, one of which was from David regarding the superwipe which two of those have two of that have a number of foils attached, but David mentioned creaming the labels which I had overlooked. This I duly did but in addition to this I then superwiped the second one's foils with first superwipe and then wiped the first with that. I then went on a wiping spree treating all foils that I could find outside the equipment. I also re-creamed some ornaments, pictures, picture plates hanging on the wall, lights and plantpots (and this was only in my Music Room!!). The result is nothing short of astonishing and I can't stop listening.
I hope some this may help the recent converts to Beltism. I just wish I had a switch that would turn off the Belt effect so that people could come and hear the amazing difference in sound quality compared with say 1992 when most of my system was purchased (Hafler,Meridian 206 CD player, Audiolab T tuner and Michell Argo Pre-Amp). I only use my current B&W speakers because my Snell Type J's fell apart and the Hafler fan. The need for upgrading has not arisen since I was introduced to Belting.
Best Wishes to all
Graham M
A Discordant Note – The Flight to Mediocrity
I write this piece to share my experience and also out of a profound dismay for the flight to mediocrity such as mini discs, IPODS etc with their miniscule amounts of data. Don't get me wrong. This is not meant to be a snobbish disparagement of these formats nor a desperate grab to hold onto older technologies. I can appreciate their convenience but if you are looking for fidelity they are sadly deficient. I am also not a believer in "if it costs more it must be better", and being an Aussie I love underdogs and would be ecstatic if I could find a cheap system that bettered everything else. It has also been my experience over the 37 years I have been in this wonderful hobby that at all price points, there are many average or even bad components, including at the top, and that some cheaper items outperform some significantly more expensive ones. My purpose for writing this piece is to give you something to ponder in the pursuit of a better listening experience.
To preface my remarks: I am a believer! I have found the sound, and the sound is P.W.B! I have invested a not inconsiderable amount of time and money in P.W.B devices. I continue to marvel at how they increase my ability to perceive the sound and delight in putting itzy bitzy pieces of foil on CDs and shocking most visitors I demonstrate this to. But I want to take issue with the P.W.B commandment that a P.W.B treated budget piece of equipment will sonically (to our ears) outperform any expensive untreated piece. This has not been my experience with my ears and senses. For the last 5 years I have been the proud owner of TAD/Pioneer Exclusive 2251 speaker clones. They had the original TAD horn, bass driver and crossover, but the laminated wooden cabinet and dispersion horn were custom made and differed from the original. They were not inexpensive, but I was told that they were inferior to the original. Even so they were significantly superior to anything I had owned before which had most recently included the first generation Verity Audio Parsifals which they replaced, and Sonus Faber Extremas before that. Recently I was made an offer I could not refuse for my fantasy speaker, a pair of new old stock TAD/Pioneer Exclusive 2404s, the 2251s big brother. They are very much to my current philosophical hi-fi liking being simple two-ways thereby greatly increasing the chance of the crossover integrating the drivers and not interfering too much with the sound, efficient so allowing me to use single-ended tube amps, and using a horn driver for most of the frequency range. The TAD horn has a freedom from many resonances which reminds me of a good planar speaker with its absence of enclosure resonances. And I love their appearance with their beautiful Japanese woodwork and their retro industrial horn look. Here they are if you would like to take a peek http://quarkconcept.online.fr/tad2404.htm I could not afford to buy them outright but luckily the seller, who is a friend, agreed to a generous trade-in (my 2251 drivers are now quite rare) and a deposit with the balance to be paid by installments whenever I am able to.
I got them home and after only 3 hours of playing music I compared them to my well run in and significantly P.W.B treated 2251 clones. Here are the treatments I can remember that I had made previously to the 2251s: I opened them up and attached a fabric tie to the damping material and attached a variety of foils to the drive units and the rear cabinet; a strip of inside foil was placed inside the cabinets, Sol-Electret applied to the threads of the screws fastening the woofer to the cabinet, green cream and the three creamed inverting foil and the Red Pen 'x 26 'x were applied to the cabinets, freeze effect foils were applied to the exterior curves (woofers and the wooden horn dispersion unit), green cream was applied to the woofer domes, and much was quantum clipped.
The 2404s had very little treatment when I made the comparison. Unfortunately, this is not as clean a comparison as I now would like because the thought of comparing the 2251 treated clones with untreated 2404s did not come to me until after I has ministered 2 P.W.B treatments: I quantum clipped the speaker cable terminations while they were connected to the 2404s and a few 4 inch copper wire jumpers received some black cream.
Well, how do the 2404s sound after only 3 hours of playing and being a long way from being run in and from sounding their best? Like nothing I have heard before. They are superior in every aspect, and are in another class to what I had previously experienced including my 2251 P.W.B treated clones. And I look forward to considerable lifts in my perception of the 2404s sound as they run in and as I apply all my P.W.B treatments to them. This time however I cannot muster up the courage to go inside. This would involve unscrewing the 16" woofer with the wiring still attached and I worry that I might bump and gouge the cabinet as I did when doing this with one of the 12" woofers of the 2251 clones.
Since then I have made two more comparisons. The first was between my Audion PX25 mono power amps which had been the subject of a reasonable amount of P.W.B treatments (quantum clipping, Green and Black creams, foils, Red X Pen etc) inside and out, and some custom mono block Audions with VAIC 52B valves with I was told essentially the same circuit as my Audions but with the highest quality components being used eg silver wired transformers etc. The custom Audions had absolutely no P.W.B treatments. The second was with my P.W.B treated (green and black creams, Red X Pen, some black and white ring ties, quantum clipped) TAD bi-wire speaker cable and some Kinoshita Monitorlink speaker cable (I only had one pair and could not bi-wire), again with the latter having absolutely no P.W.B treatments. In both cases the non treated items blew the treated items away being to my ear superior components.
I love P.W.B treatments which give me a level of sound experience that I cannot otherwise achieve. Unfortunately for me, P.W.B has not been able to make budget gear sound better than very good gear which is typically expensive (although in the case of the Kinoshita cables, their pricing is very reasonable compared to the competition). So I would like to leave you with the thought that there is no substitute for great gear, and that P.W.B treatment makes great gear sound greater. Open thinking and happy listening!
Chris Ingram
Hong Kong
Samplers and Wallets..
.. or 'The Rock Machine turns you on'.
Some of you, who are as long in the tooth as myself, may remember the aforementioned LP, a groundbreaker at the time as it provided a cornucopia of tracks from different artistes, from the same record label (CBS) and at an extremely reasonable price. Of course, the thinking behind it was to get the punters interested enough in a band/artist so that an album sale followed. This proved to be a very good idea that soon spread to the other record labels. At one time there was a whole glut of the things and many a speculative purchase was made (The Flock, It's a Beautiful Day, BS&T, Quintessence, Third Ear Band, to name but a few ), with varying degrees of success.
Flash forward to today and what do we have? We have magazines with cover-mount CDs that fulfil the same purpose (although not attached to any one record label). Over the past few years I have accumulated lots of these and, to be frank, they take up a load of shelf space. I have had to weed out some of the less interesting ones but am still left with a fair few. The good thing is that they are not bar-coded, so no problem there.
As luck would have it a chance conversation with one of the new guys at work led me into getting one of those CD wallets that holds around 300 discs. That meant that I was able to cater for all the compilation discs, my Blues and Reggae discs and some 'miscellaneous' stuff. It also meant that I could discard the rear covers and, thereby, get rid of about 200 bar-codes. Inside the wallet I have placed a clear plastic bookmark that has been foiled (especially with Inside Foil), creamed , Superwiped , Clipped and then frozen. This resulted in a definite lift in sound quality… and more shelf space.
My new workmate is a regular Womad goer and he has loaned me his travelling CD wallet, which is similar in size to the one that I now have. It is full of World and Funk music. I haven't had time to play all of the discs, but what I have heard has certainly broadened my taste, with a few more prospective purchases added to my, ever increasing, wish-list. Current faves are : Tinariwen, Toumast, Rachid Taha and Baaba Maal. Plus, for any Reggae lovers out there, Alpha Blondy does a neat line in African Reggae.
By the way, I have also noticed that untreated discs sound very much improved, following treatments in other areas, a product of which is that I am getting a very informative playback at low levels. Of course, one contributing factor may be that I have invested in a complete set of ring-ties for my CD to pre-amp cables. Twisting the cables together first and then attaching the ties, resulted in greater clarity and depth of soundstage. Well worth the outlay.
Regards to all,
Brian
PWB - The Ecological Choice!
The "Green Audiophile". Did you know that all P.W.Bers are, to some degree, "green" audiophiles? Yet, while many of our more common appliances are "going green", by becoming more efficient to own and operate, everything from household appliances to computers to tv monitors, it seems that hasn't quite hit the audiophile industry at large, in the same way. But I have begun to see signs of this happening. One such sign being the Cambridge Audio Azur integrated amplifiers; 550 and 650. The series has gained a stamp of approval from the Energy Star program, and in standby mode, operates on 1 watt of electricity. It's also packaged in a "greener" way. (1) The rapid evolution of technology, a low initial cost, and planned obsolescence in consumer electronics have resulted in a fast-growing surplus of electronic waste around the globe. In the United States, an estimated 70% of heavy metals in landfills comes from discarded electronics, while electronic waste represents only 2% of America's trash in landfills. The EPA states that unwanted electronics totaled 2 million tons in 2005. Discarded electronics represented 5 to 6 times as much weight as recycled electronics. (2)
Making our hifi products more efficient to operate is all fine and dandy. But it seems the impact of producing them and what happens to them after their useful life is something far more serious to consider. They can contain hundreds of individual components; including metals, chemicals, plastics, polypropylene, and toxic materials. All of which require a lot of energy and materials in their manufacture, and all of which are materials that are very slow to decompose in landfill sites, and can leech chemicals while doing so. Even some attempt at recycling these components is not any sort of ideal solution. Because recycling these items, where possible, may be both difficult and expensive. Plus, recycling itself expends a lot of energy (of many forms), and has its own environmental impact. Recycling of materials from electronic scrap raises concerns over toxicity and carcinogenicity of some of its substances and processes. Toxic substances in electronic waste may include lead, mercury, and cadmium. Carcinogenic substances in electronic waste may include polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). Capacitors, transformers, and wires insulated with or components coated with polyvinyl chloride (PVC), manufactured before 1977, often contain dangerous amounts of PCBs. (2)
Up to 38 separate chemical elements are incorporated into electronic waste items. Many of the plastics used in electronic equipment contain flame retardants. These are generally halogens added to the plastic resin, making the plastics difficult to recycle. Due to the flame retardants being additives, they easily leach off the material in hot weather, which is a problem because when disposed of, electronic waste is generally left outside. The flame retardants leach into the soil and recorded levels were 93 times higher than soil with no contact with electronic waste. The unsustainability of discarding electronics and computer technology is another reason commending the need to recycle or to reuse electronic waste. (2)
Of course, the ideal solution is not to create these products in the first place! But that makes it unnecessarily hard on the music lover who wishes to hear his or her favourite artist in their home. Most P.W.Bers are (as usual!), way ahead of the curve on this. Under conventional rules, you are only hearing a fraction of what your hifi is capable of delivering to your ears. But the conventional "wisdom" in audio dictates that in order to upgrade your sound, in order to hear "more", you have to buy new components! So there is this constant process of trading in or selling off your old hifi gear to get the latest and greatest (2.0) version of it, or simply different equipment. What happens to the old gear is something most people don't think about. We know from the facts stated above, they aren't growing flowers in the landfill site!
However, there is an alternative. The availability of P.W.B products allows for the option to keep and maintain your hifi gear, and all "upgrading" is done to the hifi equipment itself, instead of replacing it with more equipment when you outgrow its sound. This is an incredibly efficient means of acheiving the same end, as you think about it. For the environmental impact of producing products the nature of P.W.B's is less than the packaging used to produce your typical audio products! A P.W.Ber, if he or she so chooses, can keep their audio components out of the landfill site for as long as possible, and throughout its life and continually upgrade and maintain a sound every bit as good as his conventional audio counterpart. Better actually, because the kind of musically coherent sound possible through the productive use of P.W.B products is simply not possible via conventional practices. Nor will it ever be, because of the inherently different nature of the two approaches to high resolution audio.
Sources:
(1) "The Greenest Audio Systems Of 2008"
Http://www.metaefficient.com/audio-equipment/eco-friendly-audio-speakers.html
(2) From "Electronic Waste"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_waste
Cici buff
Article by May Belt.
Regarding my 1998 talk.
This year, we have had a group of new customers who, I have begun to realise, will not have been following the whole Belt story from the beginning (around the mid 1980s).
Many of our existing customers have been with us throughout that length of time and have developed a level of awareness of the effect of our devices and techniques and a fairly good understanding of their effect on the sound !!
Let me try to explain.
People can have what they regard as a level of sound from their equipment which they would (and do) describe as "good". Yes, they would like to improve their sound further if they could, so they become interested in reports of various so called 'tweaking' techniques. They try a technique, hear an improvement - an improvement where they would probably now describe the sound as 'excellent'. But, when they remove the technique (or device) and listen again they find that they can no longer describe the sound as they had done previously i.e as 'good' - even though, previously (before the 'tweak') they had been describing that same sound as 'good'.
Many of our existing customers are, by now, used to this effect happening and are no longer surprised or perplexed as to why they cannot just, automatically, go back to describing their sound as 'good', exactly as they had done previously !!
By the time (in 1998) when I did my talk to a group of P.W.B. Customers, I was already aware of this peculiarity and so, even though I had intended to do my talk in chronological order of our various discoveries, I decided to start my talk with a particular experience.
To set the scene for you I will describe in writing the first few items in my talk. This will give you some idea of how I go about explaining things in my talk - how I attempt to get ideas over to people.
I begin by describing how one can use various methods to get information across.
1) Pen and paper.
2) Blackboard and chalk.
3) Stories - both true and hypothetical.
I explain that I will try to keep things in chronological order but it will sometimes be difficult to do so. That my first story is taken out of chronological order because I want to get certain important points over at the very beginning.
My first story is a true story about a visit to see the Chief Design Engineer of a manufacturer of audio equipment. He had heard of Peter's work and wanted more information.
I introduce the IDEA of a clock because I want to show how time was elapsing whilst we were there.
So, I start my (hypothetical) clock at 1 o'clock. The Chief Engineer usually did most of his listening tests in an area within his workplace where there were his computers and his measuring equipment down one side of the room, and a small area where he had his audio equipment, so we decided to also use that room for Peter to demonstrate his techniques as it was obviously the room which the Chief Engineer was most familiar with.
We listen to the chief engineer's audio system in order to know what standard he usually listened to before Peter did any treatments. We found the sound to be 'slow', 'boring', 'sat on', so we asked if the volume control could be turned up. The Engineer said that of course it could but we had to be aware that, with the volume control higher, when the music got to a 'busy bit', then the sound would go harsh and shouty - and sure enough it did. Usually, when this happens, different people blame different items of the equipment - some blame a 'bright' cartridge., some blame the amplifier., some blame the 'bright' tweeter. I don't remember what the chief engineer blamed on this occasion, but he blamed something !!
Peter did some of his treatments on the computers and measuring equipment, some treatments on the audio system and some treatments on other things in the room.
At 1.15 pm we sat down to listen again. We all now commented that the sound was 'much better'. Peter then did some more treatments on the test equipment, the audio system and things in the room and at 1.30 pm we sat down to listen again. We all now described the sound as 'excellent' and we found that we could now turn the volume control up without the sound going harsh and shouty when the music got to a 'busy bit'. Now, this happens to many of our customers. I know it happens because they write and tell me so. They say "It is amazing, I can now turn the volume control up without the music now going harsh and shouty".
What they do not do is to go back and re assess their old beliefs. They do not say "Wait one moment, wait one moment. For the past five years I have been blaming the cartridge for the sound going harsh and shouty." or "For the past ten years I have been thinking the amplifier was to blame, or, for the past fifteen years I have been blaming the tweeter - I am using the same tweeter, I have not touched the tweeter, I have not touched the cartridge, but the sound is no longer harsh and shouty." They don't challenge their earlier beliefs - they just say "Oh, its amazing".
Peter carried out some more treatments and at 1.45 we sat down to listen again.
"Wow, that is really superb sound" we all commented.
What Peter did next was to remove a few of the treatments from the test equipment, from the audio equipment and from some things in the room and at 2.0 o'clock we sat down to listen again. The sound was dreadful and we found that we had to now turn the volume control down as the music had gone harsh and shouty again.
What happened next shocked me then and still shocks me to remember it.
The Chief Engineer said "I do not understand that Peter. I do not like the sound now and yet all you have done is to take me back to the standard we had half an hour ago which I was describing as excellent. And yet I am now cringing at the sound".
Why I was shocked was that I realised that here was a Chief Engineer, designing and making audio products who had no understanding whatsoever of how the working memory works. The working memory is part of the survival mechanism and upgrades itself completely automatically to new standards and new information IF that new information is important. During that short period of time, our working memories had upgraded themselves automatically to the new standard of 1.45 pm and did not like being taken below that standard when we listened at 2.0 o'clock after Peter had removed a few of his treatments. The cringe (at 2.0 o'clock) is our working memory shouting, kicking and screaming because it had been taken below the standard (at 1.45 pm) it had just become accustomed to !!
The important points I had wished to raise with that story was
a) Different people blame different items of equipment for the sound not being as good as they wished i.e going harsh and shouty.
b) When they do something which removes this harsh, shouty effect whilst still listening to these same items of equipment, they do not go back and re assess their previous beliefs.
c) The working memory is part of the survival mechanism and upgrades itself automatically if the new standard or new information is important.
*******************
Just recently (16th November 2009), Giuseppe Scardamaglia sent an e-mail detailing the results of some experiments he, and a group of audio enthusiasts, had been carrying out with the Cream-Electret. Giuseppe had also published these results on an Italian audio Internet Chat Forum. I have copied below this e-mail because it coincides with observations made some 22 years ago by Keith Howard (the Editor of Hi Fi Answers) and Jimmy Hughes.
Copy of Guiseppe's E-mail on Creaming Capacitors :-
----- Original Message -----
From: Giuseppe Scardamaglia
To: pwb@belt.demon.co.uk
Sent: Saturday, November 14, 2009 11:10 PM
Subject: Cream electret in Rome.
Dear May
Another mammoth thread about the unconventional. Can be found at the link below
http://www.videohifi.com/forum/topic.asp?ARCHIVE=&TOPIC_ID=123499
Here are the results (in English) of Guiseppe's experiments
This time, a demo in Rome at home of Ouragan 66 (Stefano Correnti), ten people and me.
A very expensive system, Accuphase transport and dac, Gryphon top of the line preamp and power amp, Vienna Acoustics Klimt speakers, top of the range.
Object: demonstration of influences on sound quality caused by the presence in the room of some objects, and application of cream electret.
How a a cream can improve the sound quality shocked many audiophiles, the have never heard something like.
Was detected:
Sensitivity to the presence of a magnetic cartridge at 3 meter from the listening seats.
Sensitivity to the presence of different capacitors, all degrading the sound quality standing on the flloor near the speaker, all except one yellow chinese polypropilene (like other tested) but with a beneficial influence.
tested, present in the room, near the speaker but not in use.
Philips mkt (too soft sounding, deadened the music)
Solen mkp ( bright but a little harsh)
Mundorf M cap (very expensive, used on BW Nautilus 800 series, soft, dark sound)
Mundorf mkp white (like Solen)
Audyn cap ( good , small influence on sound)
Chinese yellow mkp (sound improving by their presence in the room )
Wima mks ( very bad, dull and lifeless)
Wima mkp ( bright, a little harsh)
About the last two Wima, it's interesting to note that the two capacitors were identical in size and colour (red), the difference is only on the different dielectric inside ,
mks= polyester, mkp= polypropilene.
Knowing the sound of capacitors when they are working setted on crossover board, its astonishing to find that the sound of every cap electrically connected was very similar to the sound perceived when they were present in the room, not connected.
The presence in the same place , near the speaker, of a copper stripe degraded the sound, changing the copper with teflon, a stripe of the same dimension, was perceived beneficial.
The presence of an motorcycle helmet, polycarbonate and polystirene, was considered very sound degrading.
Step by step, the application of the cream, was considered beneficial by all listeners, with a progressive improvement of the system.
My nick is Leonida
***************************************
Keith Howard's and Jimmy Hughe's comments ...................
Reading Guiseppe's recent experiences, people will be able to understand, much better, Keith Howard's comments in the "Hi Fi Answers" audio magazine, November 1987 issue - 22 years ago !! And also Jimmy Hughes comments in the "Audiophile" audio magazine, December 1990 issue - 19 years ago !!
Keith Howard was, in 1987, the Editor of "Hi Fi Answers" and Peter Belt 'treated' the "Hi Fi Answers" demonstration room at the September 1987 London Hi Fi Show. Peter then 'treated' both the "Hi Fi Answers" demonstration room AND the "New Hi Fi Sound" demonstration rooms at the following October 1987 Bolton Hi Fi show.
To quote Keith Howard :-
>>> "Dateline: 2nd October, Bolton. Next door to us were "New Hi Fi Sound", who were planning CD versus DAT demonstrations. They came armed with numerous amps and speakers, and had begun the depressing task of trying to find a combination that would work acceptably. By the time they came into our room to witness Peter Belt at work, they were almost suicidal. When they'd witnessed what he achieved for us, though, they asked politely if he would do the same next door. He agreed, and two hours later they were all smiles.
I can fairly say, I think, that together we made some of the best sounds at the show !! " <<<
To quote Jimmy Hughes (on Peter Belt's 'treatments'):-
>>> "Similarly a local retailer recently experimented with sheets of corrugated card stuck the walls to try and dampen things down a bit, the sound being over-bright. Sound familiar ? It did to me ! In my retail days we had similar problems with our dem rooms..... Back in the seventies, we knew no better, and if it didn't work.... well, we'd tried our best.
We're now in the nineties but few people seem to have any more handle on the problem than we had 10 or 15 years back. The good news is that a technology now exists (i.e Peter Belt's techniques) that allows real control over the kind of adverse circumstances just outlined. The bad news is that most people within the industry have closed ranks on it, not wishing to involve themselves in something that - used creatively and imaginatively - could lead to the kind of improved results of which most of us have only dreamed." <<<
***************
This then leads back again to my 1998 talk. Looking at the subject of the Cream-Electret and Giuseppe's experiences with the 'sound' of different passive capacitors in the listening room and how these capacitors can be 'treated' with the Cream-Electret to 'overcome' the adverse effect they were having on the 'sound' !!
I outline a similar story in my 1998 talk :-
I describe Peter taking a jar of Cream-Electret to a well known audio journalist in the following story :-
I explain how an amplifier manufacturer had a Mark 1 version using a particular standard capacitor. How the manufacturer had tried a newly available 'special low tolerance' capacitor, found it gave an improvement in the sound over and above the standard capacitor he was using in his Mark 1 version amplifier. So, he decided to keep producing the (inexpensive) Mark 1 version amplifier with the standard capacitor but to now introduce a new (more expensive) Mark 2 version amplifier, now using the new, expensive 'special low tolerance' capacitor.
The particular journalist we were visiting had, much earlier, reviewed the Mark 1 version amplifier and now, had just reviewed the new, expensive, Mark 2 amplifier. He had described it as 'sounding' so much better than the Mark 1 version. This was the point at which Peter and I visited this journalist
Further from my talk:-
Peter told the journalist the story of discovering the chemical and making the Cream and the journalist could not wait to try the Cream. Peter said that he did not want to apply the Cream to the equipment that the journalist listened to regularly. Peter explained that once the Cream was applied, then that was it - it had done it's job and the effect could not be removed. So, therefore, it was not possible to do before and after and back to before experiments. Peter asked the journalist if he had anything that he did not like the sound of. Peter said "Let's give the Cream a really good test, let's try it on something you do not like the sound of". The journalist remembered the Mark 1 amplifier which had been put away, because after he had heard the standard of the prototype Mark 2 amplifier he no longer enjoyed listening to the Mark 1 amplifier.
We listened to the Mark 1 amplifier and we also did not like the sound of it because we had just become accustomed to the better sound of the prototype Mark 2 amplifier which the journalist had been using. Peter now removed the lid of the Mark 1 amplifier, creamed the polyester film capacitor, creamed the top of the transformer, creamed a small part of the printed circuit and we then sat down to listen to the Mark 1 amplifier. It was superb sound and we found that the sound of the 'creamed' Mark 1 amplifier was now better than the 'uncreamed' Mark 2 amplifier. The journalist was amazed. Peter and I now thought that our troubles were over, now the journalist had heard what our treatments could do, surely he would want to write about them.
No way !!
Our troubles were only just beginning. How could the journalist, three months after advising the magazine readers to beg, borrow or steal to buy the new Mark 2 amplifier suddenly write. "Oohps, sorry folks, all you really need to do is to buy a jar of Peter Belt's Cream, cream some of the components in the Mark 1 amplifier and it will sound better than the (expensive) Mark 2 amplifier which the manufacturer and the retailers are trying to sell you. And, as an added bonus, you will still have plenty of the Cream left to do many more things in your equipment and in your environment." Nor could the audio magazines print things like that. When the audio magazines rely for their survival on advertising revenue from manufacturers and retailers wanting to sell NEW equipment, then there is no way that an audio magazine wants to print articles telling readers how to improve their existing equipment so that it sounds better than new equipment the very manufacturers and retailers are trying to sell.
So, the journalist keeps quiet - and the magazines keep quiet !!
I now return to the story of the amplifier manufacturer but now we have new information, new knowledge. We see that there are more factors involved. Far more factors than what was originally believed by the manufacturer i.e. the extremely low tolerance of the new capacitors.
The chemical mix of the polyester film for the standard capacitors used in the Mark 1 amplifier is different to the chemical mix of the polyurethane film of the new, very low tolerance capacitors used in the Mark 2 amplifier. It so happens that we (human beings) react differently to the chemical mix for polyurethane than we do to the chemical mix for polyester.
Guiseppe's recent experiences confirm what we had been demonstrating 25 years ago !!
Further :-
In the particular circuit used in the amplifier, we (human beings) prefer the component layout of the capacitor - at right angles to the other components as in the prototype Mark 2 amplifier - rather than all the components laid parallel to each other as in the Mark 1 amplifier. But, very importantly, the prototype Mark 2 amplifier was the only one with that (new) component layout. Because, when it came to the production run for the Mark 2 amplifier, the production manager reported to the designer that when the operatives were bending the long wires of the new larger capacitor to be able to fit it into a space, they were breaking the wires. So, the designer was told that, for ease of manufacture, the layout of the components would have to be redesigned so that all the components could be inserted into the circuit board parallel to each other !!! The journalist had provided an excellent review on the prototype Mark 2 amplifier with the better component layout but all the subsequent Mark 2 amplifiers coming off the production line all had their components laid out parallel to each other. This meant that the production Mark 2 amplifiers were nowhere near sounding as good as the prototype one originally reviewed.
BUT, none of this was ever reported. The buying public had been told that the Mark 2 amplifier sounded better because of the new, low tolerance capacitor and that explanation went into the history books (mythology) and was never challenged. This sort of thing happens regularly in the audio industry. An engineer or designer hears an improvement in the sound, searches for an explanation, is satisfied with an explanation nearest to conventional theory and therefore looks no further for any other explanation. The observation (that the sound has improved) and the explanation go into the history books (mythology) linked together and it is extremely difficult (nearly impossible) at some future date to challenge the original explanation without people reacting as though you are also challenging the original observation !!
The reason why the prototype Mark 2 amplifier sounded better than the Mark 1 amplifier was far more to do with the fact that we (human beings) react less adversely to the chemical mix of the polyurethane film than we do to the chemical mix of the polyester film and that we (human beings) react less adversely to the component layout of the prototype Mark 2 amplifier (the capacitor at right angles to the rest of the components) than we do to the component layout of the Mark 1 amplifier (all the components parallel to each other). To prove this you would have to do the following experiment ( we have done experiments similar to the one to be described many times over the past 15 years!!).
If, after listening to the Mark 1 amplifier with the new, low tolerance polyurethane film capacitor fitted instead of the polyester film capacitor, you then change back to the polyester film capacitor and listen again. Because you have already heard the better standard, you will not now like the sound of the Mark 1 amplifier with the original polyester capacitor. BUT, if you leave the polyester film capacitor in the Mark 1 amplifier and you now go to a passive (but identical) Mark 1 amplifier - one just sitting passively on a shelf - not connected to the AC supply or to the audio system and you change the polyester film capacitor in the PASSIVE Mark 1 amplifier for the new, low tolerance polyurethane film capacitor, you will hear an identical improvement in the sound as you had heard when it was fitted in the (working) Mark 1 amplifier !! showing that any explanation to do with "an effect on the signal" is no longer valid. There is no signal going through the low tolerance polyurethane capacitor in the passive Mark 1 amplifier !!!! but you are experiencing an identical improvement in the sound !!! So, there must be something else going on !!!!
That is why passive items of equipment, when present in the listening room, just sitting passively on a shelf, can be 'treated' in an identical way to the actual working equipment and gain a similar improvement in the sound.
May Belt.
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 2009