How To Fix Broken Hair And Split Ends

Audio upgrades and working memory




Mieris, Jan van (1660-1690) - A Woman Playing Harp

*********************** ************************************************** ********



Belt May

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

by: Regarding my 1998 talk


Every year we gain new customers who do not can obviously get to know the "Belt Story", which began in the early 80's.

Many others, with us for as long a time, instead have a full understanding of the effect of our products and our techniques on the quality of sound reproduction.

I'll try to explain:

audio enthusiasts often have a different opinion and a different yardstick of what should or should be considered "good" in terms of sound quality.

It 's always a lively interest in trying to get better through certain techniques and tweaking. It

test, experiment, and often are unable to get a better result apparently.
If the result of departure had already judged "good", the new level would suggest to use the term logically "Excellent."

But if you were to go back removing or modifying the application of the accessory that has led to an improved, it would be difficult to continue to use the term "good" listening again to the previous result will appear much worse than we had thought of have been stored previously.

Many of our customers are not accustomed to this situation and, after obtaining improvements, remain perplexed as a mediocre experience in what previously believed was "good."

few years ago (1998) during a conference with a group of customers and fans of philosophy PCB, I thought it appropriate to explain the concept through a particular experience really happened.

It 'necessary to establish the exact chronology of the episode at length to explain the concept in a comprehensive manner.

The story begins with a visit to the laboratory of a famous audio manufacturer.

The engineer had heard about the techniques of Peter (Peter W. Belt) and was interested to know.

Assume then thirteen hours as the beginning of this story.

The engineer performing his listening tests in an environment where computers were placed in one side and various measuring devices in a while 'other was housed in a space where the listening tests were carried out, a situation common to many research laboratories and design audio components.

was therefore decided to perform in this environment, one where it usually does most of the listening tests, demonstration of applications and techniques of Peter.

The first listening impressions revealed a mediocre sound quality, the sound was dull, slow and compressed, so we asked to increase the volume in an attempt to make it look more exciting.

The engineer of course agreed, but not before talking to pointed out that increasing the level of the music would become tiresome to listen to and that the sound would become intrinsically harsh and aggressive.

fact this was what happened.

When something happens, instinctively apppassionati blame to the various equipment, those who at the source to the amplifier and cables those who, of course, to its environment.

Even then blamed the engineer some details of the audio chain as a cause of bad results.

Peter accomplished at this point some processing on computers, measurement equipment and other objects in the room.

at 13.15, after results, it was listened to the system. All

commented positively the result and the sound quality was described as "better."

Peter, at this point, he made of new treatments on the electrical apparatus in operation and other objects in the environment and, at 13.30 with a new listening test, the new result was verified.

All in agreement, considering the result as "excellent", and discovered, in consequence, which could increase the volume as you like without the sound became harsh and aggressive and that the music is intrusive.

Now this happens often to many of our customers are amazed how, after using our techniques, can bring up the volume without the sound from becoming aggressive and confusing, despite a few moments before the result had seemed to be still "good". I receive many

requests for information on this aspect that is most amazing is the element after the application of the treatments and the consequent production of a superior sound quality.

What fans are almost never in their trials in comparison, is to repeat not, go back after that is obtained by any technique, improved the quality of listening.

And you wonder why for so long they thought it was the source, it was the cables, which were the speakers that the amp was an environmental problem or the cause of the bad result, and why, without having changed nothing, the sound is more harsh and aggressive.

They just simply say, simply, is incredible!

Peter makes other treatments at 13.45 and after further listening test finally judged "excellent" result.

At this point Peter decides to remove some treatments and, at 14, listened to the result: the sound seemed much worse and it was necessary to reduce the volume of listening because the music was again confused and uncomfortable.

these marvels not just the engineer who told us his concerns in these terms: - Peter, I do not understand, I do not like this sound, but I also realize that what I'm hearing is that a quarter of an hour ago judged excellent!

What in that session I was really surprised to see it as a chief engineer, designer and manufacturer of audio equipment, may have no idea of \u200b\u200bthe functioning of working memory (working memory).

The working memory is part of a survival mechanism and is automatically updated with the new norms and new information as and when they appear important to our brain.

During listening tests carried out, the working memory had, through the repetition of hearing after different treatments, auto-refreshing in an increasingly high standard.
The return to a previous step, although the result was so far giudicato eccellente, risultava traumatico a causa dell' acquisizione di un superiore livello di qualità e, con esso, del corrispondente aggiornamento della working memory.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Se usciamo da un'ambiente chiuso dove diverse persone fumano o hanno fumato, e passiamo ad uno meno inquinato, la sensazione tornando al precedente è quella non riuscire più ad accettare una situazione dove, appena qualche minuto prima, ci eravamo comunque adattati.

Acquisiamo, attraverso l'esperienza di un migliore vivibilità in un ambiente più pulito, l'informazione della precedente esistenza di un pericolo per la nostra salute, ed il acquired data, odor and feeling uncomfortable environment, will remain in our memory as a caveat in the case we presented a similar situation again.

The acquisition of better sound quality, especially if followed by an addiction to the long term, actually creates a new reference to our perceptual system, and in relation to this future information will be evaluated and judged that we will reach from future musical stimuli.

Only if these stimuli are consistent and coincide with what we have stored as a standard of quality, we will acquire them and judge them positively.

I tend to use the term "exceptional" when the quality event exceed the level of our quality acquired, and is intuitive to deduce the variability of subjective value judgments not only in terms of taste but of the existing quality standards, obviously different from person to person.

Focus on the pleasure of listening, very easy in the early acquired in the absence of quality standards, will now be difficult for the listener evolved, due to the physiological inability not to recognize or ignore the flaws that come to the fore in his ear.
The resulting split of the attention, the music is the technique that will prevent as a result, a relaxed and full enjoyment of the sensory messaggio musicale.

How To Fix Broken Hair And Split Ends

Audio upgrades and working memory




Mieris, Jan van (1660-1690) - A Woman Playing Harp

*********************** ************************************************** ********



Belt May

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

by: Regarding my 1998 talk


Every year we gain new customers who do not can obviously get to know the "Belt Story", which began in the early 80's.

Many others, with us for as long a time, instead have a full understanding of the effect of our products and our techniques on the quality of sound reproduction.

I'll try to explain:

audio enthusiasts often have a different opinion and a different yardstick of what should or should be considered "good" in terms of sound quality.

It 's always a lively interest in trying to get better through certain techniques and tweaking. It

test, experiment, and often are unable to get a better result apparently.
If the result of departure had already judged "good", the new level would suggest to use the term logically "Excellent."

But if you were to go back removing or modifying the application of the accessory that has led to an improved, it would be difficult to continue to use the term "good" listening again to the previous result will appear much worse than we had thought of have been stored previously.

Many of our customers are not accustomed to this situation and, after obtaining improvements, remain perplexed as a mediocre experience in what previously believed was "good."

few years ago (1998) during a conference with a group of customers and fans of philosophy PCB, I thought it appropriate to explain the concept through a particular experience really happened.

It 'necessary to establish the exact chronology of the episode at length to explain the concept in a comprehensive manner.

The story begins with a visit to the laboratory of a famous audio manufacturer.

The engineer had heard about the techniques of Peter (Peter W. Belt) and was interested to know.

Assume then thirteen hours as the beginning of this story.

The engineer performing his listening tests in an environment where computers were placed in one side and various measuring devices in a while 'other was housed in a space where the listening tests were carried out, a situation common to many research laboratories and design audio components.

was therefore decided to perform in this environment, one where it usually does most of the listening tests, demonstration of applications and techniques of Peter.

The first listening impressions revealed a mediocre sound quality, the sound was dull, slow and compressed, so we asked to increase the volume in an attempt to make it look more exciting.

The engineer of course agreed, but not before talking to pointed out that increasing the level of the music would become tiresome to listen to and that the sound would become intrinsically harsh and aggressive.

fact this was what happened.

When something happens, instinctively apppassionati blame to the various equipment, those who at the source to the amplifier and cables those who, of course, to its environment.

Even then blamed the engineer some details of the audio chain as a cause of bad results.

Peter accomplished at this point some processing on computers, measurement equipment and other objects in the room.

at 13.15, after results, it was listened to the system. All

commented positively the result and the sound quality was described as "better."

Peter, at this point, he made of new treatments on the electrical apparatus in operation and other objects in the environment and, at 13.30 with a new listening test, the new result was verified.

All in agreement, considering the result as "excellent", and discovered, in consequence, which could increase the volume as you like without the sound became harsh and aggressive and that the music is intrusive.

Now this happens often to many of our customers are amazed how, after using our techniques, can bring up the volume without the sound from becoming aggressive and confusing, despite a few moments before the result had seemed to be still "good". I receive many

requests for information on this aspect that is most amazing is the element after the application of the treatments and the consequent production of a superior sound quality.

What fans are almost never in their trials in comparison, is to repeat not, go back after that is obtained by any technique, improved the quality of listening.

And you wonder why for so long they thought it was the source, it was the cables, which were the speakers that the amp was an environmental problem or the cause of the bad result, and why, without having changed nothing, the sound is more harsh and aggressive.

They just simply say, simply, is incredible!

Peter makes other treatments at 13.45 and after further listening test finally judged "excellent" result.

At this point Peter decides to remove some treatments and, at 14, listened to the result: the sound seemed much worse and it was necessary to reduce the volume of listening because the music was again confused and uncomfortable.

these marvels not just the engineer who told us his concerns in these terms: - Peter, I do not understand, I do not like this sound, but I also realize that what I'm hearing is that a quarter of an hour ago judged excellent!

What in that session I was really surprised to see it as a chief engineer, designer and manufacturer of audio equipment, may have no idea of \u200b\u200bthe functioning of working memory (working memory).

The working memory is part of a survival mechanism and is automatically updated with the new norms and new information as and when they appear important to our brain.

During listening tests carried out, the working memory had, through the repetition of hearing after different treatments, auto-refreshing in an increasingly high standard.
The return to a previous step, although the result was so far giudicato eccellente, risultava traumatico a causa dell' acquisizione di un superiore livello di qualità e, con esso, del corrispondente aggiornamento della working memory.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Se usciamo da un'ambiente chiuso dove diverse persone fumano o hanno fumato, e passiamo ad uno meno inquinato, la sensazione tornando al precedente è quella non riuscire più ad accettare una situazione dove, appena qualche minuto prima, ci eravamo comunque adattati.

Acquisiamo, attraverso l'esperienza di un migliore vivibilità in un ambiente più pulito, l'informazione della precedente esistenza di un pericolo per la nostra salute, ed il acquired data, odor and feeling uncomfortable environment, will remain in our memory as a caveat in the case we presented a similar situation again.

The acquisition of better sound quality, especially if followed by an addiction to the long term, actually creates a new reference to our perceptual system, and in relation to this future information will be evaluated and judged that we will reach from future musical stimuli.

Only if these stimuli are consistent and coincide with what we have stored as a standard of quality, we will acquire them and judge them positively.

I tend to use the term "exceptional" when the quality event exceed the level of our quality acquired, and is intuitive to deduce the variability of subjective value judgments not only in terms of taste but of the existing quality standards, obviously different from person to person.

Focus on the pleasure of listening, very easy in the early acquired in the absence of quality standards, will now be difficult for the listener evolved, due to the physiological inability not to recognize or ignore the flaws that come to the fore in his ear.
The resulting split of the attention, the music is the technique that will prevent as a result, a relaxed and full enjoyment of the sensory messaggio musicale.

2010 Free Prom Dress Catalogs Mailed

Extreme audio experience (Inglese)



**********************************************************************************

May Belt

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

From: Regarding my 1998 talk


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 !! " <<<> >> "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.

2010 Free Prom Dress Catalogs Mailed

Extreme audio experience (Inglese)



**********************************************************************************

May Belt

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

From: Regarding my 1998 talk


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=&amp;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 !! " <<<> >> "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.

Bel Sti Forum Firmware

Audio upgrades and working memory. (Inglese) Subject





Master of the Female Half Lengths (1490-1540) - The Concert, 1530, Schloss Rohrau, Wien
*********************************************************************************


May Belt

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

From: 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.


May Belt

Bel Sti Forum Firmware

Audio upgrades and working memory. (Inglese) Subject





Master of the Female Half Lengths (1490-1540) - The Concert, 1530, Schloss Rohrau, Wien
*********************************************************************************


May Belt

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

From: 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.


May Belt