So, if all "those others" would end their product descriptions with "And hey, they look nice also and took a lot of effort to produce", they would be in the clear?
//
Well bybee says
Which violates various laws of physics as well as being total hogwash vs 'made with care to be nice to use without scratchy sounds when you move around'. One is an honest description one is snake oil sales at its finest.
If you cannot handle a product being 'premium' in terms of look and feel stick with a toyota for your daily driving needs!
The only thing that fixed me was the right woman! I did warn her she wouldn't want to see me hulk out. Only done it once with her, in london with my daughters and was forced to go into defensive mode. I can see I was a very mild case compared to you though.
Note to self: Do not annoy Jacco if I am ever likely to meet him
You have nearly 100lbs on me!
No worries, I'm the life of any party*, when I'm 'medicated'.
It's my current partner, who has taught me most about myself.
(* unfortunately, I didn't come with an OEM control/emergency button for that either, tend to end up in the most unusual places/situations.
One could interpret that as an open-minded view towards everything/everyone, or not able to make up-front/personal choices)
So how do we protect the gullible which seem to be the core issue.
A) Bybee describe a design mechanism and claims some desirable properties. These are most probably not true or at least very questionably. The consumer will not get the proposed value.
B) Mr Eddy describe a number of design mechanisms; "ultra-fine stranded Type 2 copper litz with a pure silk wrap and covered with our French Silk™ braided sleeving" - wow! - but don't really claim any sound properties in particular, at least not per design mechanism/choice. It's implied that they give "great sound" but not explained how.
I agree to that A is the worse offender (if a lie is at hand) to the gullible but they both, i argue, albeit to a different degree, do it. They both want to sell the products, they just go about in a different ways. Lie or ignorance might be one. Sweet-talking an other. None of them present facts and their consequence to the sound in a correct way. They however fail in different ways.
SY - I can not find any false statements on the page.
A at least don't propose properties that can't be said to be important in a normal permanent stereo setup like weight and stiffness - it's all about the sound right? - talking the interconnects here.
//
A) Bybee describe a design mechanism and claims some desirable properties. These are most probably not true or at least very questionably. The consumer will not get the proposed value.
B) Mr Eddy describe a number of design mechanisms; "ultra-fine stranded Type 2 copper litz with a pure silk wrap and covered with our French Silk™ braided sleeving" - wow! - but don't really claim any sound properties in particular, at least not per design mechanism/choice. It's implied that they give "great sound" but not explained how.
I agree to that A is the worse offender (if a lie is at hand) to the gullible but they both, i argue, albeit to a different degree, do it. They both want to sell the products, they just go about in a different ways. Lie or ignorance might be one. Sweet-talking an other. None of them present facts and their consequence to the sound in a correct way. They however fail in different ways.
SY - I can not find any false statements on the page.
A at least don't propose properties that can't be said to be important in a normal permanent stereo setup like weight and stiffness - it's all about the sound right? - talking the interconnects here.
//
Nevertheless, many might find it convincing and won't be in a position to sensibly form their own opinion. Some form of rational explanation is necessary it seems, for such ideas to be considered possible by the technically unwashed. It doesn't seem to matter whether and such explanation can readily be challenged or even understood, it seems to be the 'person' and the 'presentation' who is believed and trusted rather than the facts of the matter by those who decide it seems a plausible claim.............
I don't think we can; neither is it our place IMO. All one can do is make sure it doesn't happen to each of us personally (if that matters to us), whilst at the same time not missing out on genuine opportunities, rare as they might be. And, personally, exploring some pretty strange and interesting aspects of human behaviour. That's my 2p worth.
If he is guilty of that so is mercedes, lexus, BMW, any designer clothing brand, handmade real wood furniture and anything 'nice' you might wish to own.
Do you suggest we have a revival of the puritans?
I will note that I am not the target market for Steve's products, and I have never met him. But having gone through his website there is NOTHING that would lure anyone unless they wanted some really nice looking and feeling hand made leads for their headphones. He doesn't even claim that those properties will improve the listening experience although they most probably would.
You have a big chip on your shoulder over this I can tell, but not sure why. 'It's a quality product (full stop)' when it actually is a quality product is nothing underhand. In the modern world its almost underselling.
I can definitely appreciate the direction you're trying to go with this post, but it's probably best to reduce the left-right brain language, as pretty much everyone has moved away from this mindset (oh the puns!), especially in light of fMRI + EEG studies that show overall brain activity no matter the personality type (acknowledging my reluctance to bring data in from these types of studies). Handedness does have some amount of split brain (due to motor neuron interconnections).
I think your point aligns to something I've certainly noted about myself: I'm awfully rational most of the time. Except when I'm not, then I'm awfully rational about justifying my irrationalities. (I've gotten better with age noting which state of affairs I'm in).
As Scott said above, I'd be going into any ABX rooting for the most straightforward (things that make solid engineering sense), lowest cost setup to win. So I'd be extremely biased in any sighted testing--I'd need blinding to have a honest chance. Let me be upfront about that.
Why gullible ?
Mr Steve makes stuff people find attractive, e.g. decadent ones as myself.
He doesn't lie about the content.
A donkey cable manufacturer sells products that look like they have to go into something even less attractive.
And they lie.
(Real French Silk, have you ever felt Real French Silk ? Mr Steve, Mr Steve, trade for some resin ? © Waterworld/GM Vietnam)
If "gullible" means being willing to pay for what is offered and accurately described, sure. Of course, that's not what gullible means, but I make allowances for non-native English speakers (especially because my knowledge of Scandinavian languages approaches zero).
Oh, I thought he meant Gul-lible, which translated would make Generouslyly.
Gullig in Swedish means sweet, but in Norwegian it's Sot, which in Dutch stands for Fool.
Languages, very confusing (as if my mind isn't the only burden to carry)
Good thing some folks at this forum are breythartsik.
Last edited:
Do you work for the government? What the **** is that? You counted the same thing twice.
You obviously haven't understood the exercise. It's one point or no point. You assigned .1 points as a modification based on how you feel about it. The magnitude to the measurment is 100% irrelevant. If it measures it does something. The point wasn't to evaluate whether the Bybee is valuable, but that it has more facts for the fact it doing something, as opposed to nothing.
I think it's 100% fair to say you don't believe it's worth the cost for what it does, but that bares no relation to whether it functions.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.