Game Changing Tweak

I am an EE engineer by training, so when encountering pseudo-tech jargon I tend to be a bit more skeptical than the average person. What I mean by pseudo-tech jargon is blending real scientific principles or equations with non-technical or marketing in a compelling cocktail that ultimately claims a positive effect, but never quite telling a scientifically coherent story along the way. The highly technical concepts are often times sufficient to reassure the non technical minded people that real science was employed in the making of the product, getting their guard down.

Then again, exotic effects do exist and from when initially discovered the science may lag behind in explaining how & why it works. Sometimes the science can lag years, decades or even centuries after the phenomenon has been initially described or discovered. 

But none of this should matter. To my way of thinking, the burden of proof should not belong to the consumer, but rather to the producer of the technology. I should not have to buy a $300 product in order to find out if it works or not. Instead, the manufacturer should publish before & after type of proof. In the case of this product, perhaps show the “before” and “after” output signal of an amplifier or a speaker (since 1-2dB are the claimed improvement). Better yet and for even greater believability, send it to an independent testing facility and publish the results.

The fact that it isn’t offered raises some alarms for me personally. This doesn’t automatically imply it doesn’t work. Just that, IMO proof should be honestly and transparently offered by those who make the product.

I’m not telling anybody how to spend their money, nor do I intend to insult anyone along the way.

Appreciate you sharing such a relatively inexpensive tweak with huge returns as you have described.. If by chance others don't get the same results, they can always come back to this thread and express their disappointment. However with such a generous return policy, how can you go wrong?

@phd 

My sentiments exactly. BTW, my analog has benefited as well. I think it's apt to say the Electraclears "purify" sound. It's subjective, but I'm
enjoying it. 

I would think that an oscilloscope with logging features would enhance any measured testing. Words just cant make up for measured results.  

I agree with MillerCarbon more often and rarely with of the naysayers. 

I use PPT products but found that too many Omega Mats over isolation power transformers, rear of speakers and power boxes can result in a loss of air/ambiance/highs and too much mid-range emphasis.  I also found out from the manufacturer after having found my system sounding weird was that PPT products should not be used where there are magnets.  By adding and subtracting the number and type of Mats I was able to fine tune their use and benfit.  I now use 2 Omega+Mats on power boxes, 2 on top and 2 beneath my isolation power transformer and 1 on the rear of my speakers at the crossover section.  My friend who introduced me to them has no magnets in his system and installed all the PPT products 10X to 20X what I have now.  It works for his system.   

I also use SR HFT system with 32 placed as indicated in the instructions for Levels 1 through 5 and speaker kit.  I tried altering some of their order and resulted in worse sound.  The only one that does not work is the HFX on the tweeters (emphasizes the highs/frequency range out of balance).  Neither the PPTs nor the SR products give me adequate scientific reasoning for their successful use but that doesn't stop me. 

I tried over a dozen types of footers for my equipment and ended up with various Stillpoints.  Those have a stronger scientific basis than SR and PPT products.