Who knows - maybe you are right regarding the Bybee´s
I do not know if the Bybee´s should be called a quantum device or even if they work on a quantum level?
However using materials that are the least influenced by unwanted quantum effects, or using a "filter" that attenuates the unwanted quantum effects or actively controlling the quantum effects are very interesting as it is not only affecting audio performance.
simultaneously backing away from claims/insinuations you made that can be (or have been) argued, while furiously waving hands and making vague, yet strangely authoritative assertions, without actually saying anything of meaning.
I suppose its too much to ask you to name any of these so-called desirable quantum minimizations, or alluding to quantum methods, which might be enlisted to distinguish which are the wanted quantum effects and which are unwanted …
surely you must have some idea what they are, as you find it so very interesting? given these mysterious quantum thingos dont just impact on audio performance and all, but have such wide-ranging application to the universe in general, you must have thought about this a great deal?
I suppose you will say something like you arent going to take the time to educate the unenlightened with our closed minds, you have better things to do? or perhaps these discoveries are tied up in the many and varied patent applications for quantum doo-dads poised to make millions? if you told us, you would have to kill us?
utter gibberish
Phase Response Does Matter......
Even on my netbook micro sized speakers the differences between the two audio passages are easily audible.
What is the frequency vs delay response of typical systems...ditto higher end systems ?.
I have heard ferrite clip on filters causing a hardening/harshness in the subjective sound, I have also observed another particular clip on filter of same form factor to cause increase in peaks amplitudes....and subjective cleaning and detailing of sound.
Anybody here have the gear to (easily) measure the frequency vs delay relationship of a typical clip on ferrite filter placed around an audio interconnect cable ?.
Dan.
Allpass Filters - Blog - Universal Audio
Even on my netbook micro sized speakers the differences between the two audio passages are easily audible.
What is the frequency vs delay response of typical systems...ditto higher end systems ?.
I have heard ferrite clip on filters causing a hardening/harshness in the subjective sound, I have also observed another particular clip on filter of same form factor to cause increase in peaks amplitudes....and subjective cleaning and detailing of sound.
Anybody here have the gear to (easily) measure the frequency vs delay relationship of a typical clip on ferrite filter placed around an audio interconnect cable ?.
Dan.
If you're talking about in the audio band, yes, anyone with a sound card can do that. You'll find that there's close to zero effect.
Ferrites adding a little distortion is based on science. This is because unless the wires through them are truly coaxial* there will be some magnetic field coupled to the ferrite.
Magic boxes subtracting noise is based on fantasy.
* Coaxial is not quite the right word, I know. jn uses the proper term in his posts, but I can't be bothered to do a search.
Magic boxes subtracting noise is based on fantasy.
* Coaxial is not quite the right word, I know. jn uses the proper term in his posts, but I can't be bothered to do a search.
"Close to zero" means waaaaay below any audible threshold- their effectiveness is at RF, not at audio. The specifics will vary from filter to filter. Nearly all of the clamp-on devices have cutoffs at 1MHz or (usually) higher and a low Q. What's the resulting phase shift at 20kHz from a second order filter at 1MHz with a Q of 0.4?
I hope you drank them separately . . .
And tell us you dont put ice in your wine either!
I am not averse to using a ferrite here and there to stop i.a.o things emitter follower oscillation and RF ingress.
I'm a reasonably good listener and cannot hear any difference.
Use them with confidence if their effect only starts at a few MHz - after all the class D boys have no problems with them at 300 kHz, thats for sure.
I'm a reasonably good listener and cannot hear any difference.
Use them with confidence if their effect only starts at a few MHz - after all the class D boys have no problems with them at 300 kHz, thats for sure.
Yes, in fact I cited Greiner in a reply to his FB post as recommending that amplifiers be close to loudspeakers if possible and line level signals be the sent over the distance if needed. But Brent's a little defensive as he's been catching a lot of flak lately, after endorsing some Bose noise-cancelling headphones, which brought Steve Guttenberg down on him. So it goes in the wacky world of audio reviewing.
In sequence for the most part. And I save the ice for the Romanee Conti of course.I hope you drank them separately . . .
And tell us you dont put ice in your wine either!
Actually the guy most responsible for my appreciation of wine was the late actor Lawrence Harvey. He used to drink a prodigious amount of white burgundy and had it imported by Vendome, and supposedly got the entire production of a small operation in France each year, hundreds of cases. I was too young to buy wine at that time, but occasionally he'd bestow a bottle on my father, on whom he relied for audio in his various homes. When I tasted the wine I realized that there was a substantial difference in quality compared to the plonk I was allowed small amounts of at the house, usually jug wine from Almaden.
I'm reminded of this because Harvey actually did drop an ice cube into his if it wasn't cold enough, according to my father. By the way, he died of liver disease.
If one declares his Hi-End gadget device is working at a quantum level, he can turn to wikipedia (like I did now) to bring out all sorts of quantum effects as a defence against “non measurable claims” .
Turing paradox, Quantum Zeno effect, wave function collapse, all can serve him as a demonstration (to the masses) that it is the attempted measurements that affect or alter the operation of the device. All these have catchy names too!
Stubborn observers (e.g. SY) will spell “Schrödinger equation” but hey, this is all about a mere audio gadget.
Is there anyone from the people who have a grasp on these physics, ever go into applying such rigorous analysis to prove (to the masses) that the gadget is not an elephant?
Besides, can we prove a negative?
Hence:
George
PS Pop corn, peanuts and beverage consumption seems to increase every time a product with a “quantum” tag shows here and this is a macroscopic domain effect worth measuring (for the masses)
Yes, quite, there even was a Professor at Delft Technical University who postulated that the evolution of intelligent life necessarily followed from the second law, since that would be the quickest route for the universe to achieve maximum entropy.
I don't think that's it. Clearly, being a quantum device, it behaves much like
the delayed choice two slit experiment - You the observer make the decision
about what constitutes noise and the Bybee merely acts in anticipation of
your decision.
LOL.
Don't forget you always have to have a second wire (return, 0V, GND, ground)
Yes, but that return is outside the Bybee so it is a two wire device.
Oh, don't be such a W.I.M.P..
Weakly interacting massive particles - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Currently working on a liquid argon time projection chamber. I never knew that liquid argon could support 2 megavolts per cm. whoa.
Bingo. Common centroids.
jn
Quantum Schmantum
Thank you for that George! Well said. Besides, before discussing any potential cause of a measureable "noise" reduction, hadn't we deal with the main issue here:
AFAIK Ed merely said there was a difference between a resistor and the device. He had not yet quantified WHAT the difference was in terms of reducing unwanted noise as opposed to identical noise which is part of the program material.
Until this issue is resolved any discussion regarding quantum anything as applies to the device is spurious and amounts to little more than regurgitation.
I have to admit to quite a bit of skepticism, without dealing with any quantum effects in conventional electronics we are now receiving signals from Voyager 1's 18w transmitter. It is now out of our solar system, with received signal strength less than -229dBm! OK, so the 70M receive antennas have upwards of 60dB gain at 8GHz, but I'm straying from my point. To construct a communications system with far more path loss than a 1M piece of wire (315dB more, for example) does not require taking into account quantum effects in that path. Well, now that I think of it, as in this forum maybe there is a bit of Dopeler shift (sp intentional) now and then.
I am encouraged by the focus on trying to measure things people claim to hear. Thanks, Ed!
Just my 0.02 quanta.
Howie
Howard Hoyt
CE - WXYC-FM 89.3
UNC Chapel Hill, NC
www.wxyc.org
If one declares his Hi-End gadget device is working at a quantum level, he can turn to wikipedia (like I did now) to bring out all sorts of quantum effects as a defence against “non measurable claims” .
Turing paradox, Quantum Zeno effect, wave function collapse, all can serve him as a demonstration (to the masses) that it is the attempted measurements that affect or alter the operation of the device. All these have catchy names too!
Stubborn observers (e.g. SY) will spell “Schrödinger equation” but hey, this is all about a mere audio gadget.
Is there anyone from the people who have a grasp on these physics, ever go into applying such rigorous analysis to prove (to the masses) that the gadget is not an elephant?
Besides, can we prove a negative?
Hence:
George
PS Pop corn, peanuts and beverage consumption seems to increase every time a product with a “quantum” tag shows here and this is a macroscopic domain effect worth measuring (for the masses)
Thank you for that George! Well said. Besides, before discussing any potential cause of a measureable "noise" reduction, hadn't we deal with the main issue here:
AFAIK Ed merely said there was a difference between a resistor and the device. He had not yet quantified WHAT the difference was in terms of reducing unwanted noise as opposed to identical noise which is part of the program material.
Until this issue is resolved any discussion regarding quantum anything as applies to the device is spurious and amounts to little more than regurgitation.
I have to admit to quite a bit of skepticism, without dealing with any quantum effects in conventional electronics we are now receiving signals from Voyager 1's 18w transmitter. It is now out of our solar system, with received signal strength less than -229dBm! OK, so the 70M receive antennas have upwards of 60dB gain at 8GHz, but I'm straying from my point. To construct a communications system with far more path loss than a 1M piece of wire (315dB more, for example) does not require taking into account quantum effects in that path. Well, now that I think of it, as in this forum maybe there is a bit of Dopeler shift (sp intentional) now and then.
I am encouraged by the focus on trying to measure things people claim to hear. Thanks, Ed!
Just my 0.02 quanta.
Howie
Howard Hoyt
CE - WXYC-FM 89.3
UNC Chapel Hill, NC
www.wxyc.org
- Status
- Not open for further replies.