Yes, and it is very simple to understood.
From the microphone of the studio to the speaker, each stage adds its own distortions, noises, phase turns, response curve limitation to the signal it receives. And it is impossible to remove-them after, because they are *part*, now, of the signal.
Including *in* the "pink noise of the CD" ;-)
Among the ideas behind my joke was a thought of some algorithms used in photography to enhance the quality of photos, remove some noise, chromatic aberrations etc. See the buzz about the "Star eater" of Sony .
But it need artificial intelligence and form's recognition and have artifacts.
In a way, our brains are able to process a little in the direction of what Bybee pretends. I wonder what can of culture can have an embodied "Quantum purifier".
The lines about atomic properties of electrons and neutrons in the Bybee site are very refreshing. Make-me remember fairy tails when i was ... a Bybee.
This says, some people love "tube sound", as an example. They add some fancy pieces like Korg NuTube 6P1 to their system to "enhance" the sound.
Well.
It makes something. It ADD nice pair harmonics depending of the signal level while it reduce fidelity. Who have something to say against people who love scented candles ?
Last edited:
You can see the poor orphan electrons, Without home or Nucleus, already tired in the middle of the wire with all this way to go under their backpack, obliged to run at the speed of the light while those awful neutrons, dancing and trolling around them, try to to make them fall into the ditch of the surrounding isolation material...
Scary !
(What did-you says ? Electrons don't travel the wire ? No kidding !)
Last edited:
You guys are really talking from ignorance of what the Bybees are, and what they are composed of.
There are at least 3 different types of Bybee devices:
1. There is the original Bybee that has been taken apart and even measured by different people. This is the relatively large tube that is composed of a small value resistor (0.25ohms these days, 10 times higher, 20 years ago) surrounded by a ceramic form that has some sort of somewhat conducting coating on it connected in electrical parallel to the resistor (measuring about 15 ohms without the resistor attached). Originally the resistor was COMPLETELY SEPARATE from the 'active' device which originally looked like an extra long 3AG fuse, and these devices could not have been 'garage made' but were manufactured at some level of sophistication.
Later, Bybee had a different sort of 'Bybee device that was large enough that a resistor could possibly be inserted inside the ceramic casing, and that is the device that most here have seen pictures of, inside and out.
The second device apparently works much the same as the original Bybee, except that it has a lower current limit. It is much smaller than the first Bybee but inside it is very different. It allegedly is made from paralleled nanotubes, and it must take perhaps 100,000 or so in parallel to achieve the 0.025 ohms that is measured resistively when you put an ohmmeter to the device. This is the part that SY LOOKED AT, (but did not examine internally) that SY claims is a typical resistor. It seems to me that the proof would be in the dissection of the device to 'find' the resistor. This has never been done by SY or anyone else here.
The third type of Bybee device is some sort of 'coating' composed of some exotic material that is applied in different ways to usually a piece of metal, like aluminum foil, but I have seen examples of thicker metal parts used as well. It is the COATING that is the active ingredient, not the wood, foil, or even the battery sometimes added.
The battery that is sometimes used, (a magnet is sometimes used as well instead on some devices) is NOT attached electrically but acts like a catalyst in some way to improve what the device does.
Now, IF you don't believe that quality changes in sound can actually happen with such devices, then you probably will not hear anything, just out of prejudice against hearing anything different, which many here have. However, in my experience, there is often an improvement with the Bybee devices with a well set-up audio system using the best that can be had in supporting audio reproduction equipment.
So there it is, take it or leave it! '-)
There are at least 3 different types of Bybee devices:
1. There is the original Bybee that has been taken apart and even measured by different people. This is the relatively large tube that is composed of a small value resistor (0.25ohms these days, 10 times higher, 20 years ago) surrounded by a ceramic form that has some sort of somewhat conducting coating on it connected in electrical parallel to the resistor (measuring about 15 ohms without the resistor attached). Originally the resistor was COMPLETELY SEPARATE from the 'active' device which originally looked like an extra long 3AG fuse, and these devices could not have been 'garage made' but were manufactured at some level of sophistication.
Later, Bybee had a different sort of 'Bybee device that was large enough that a resistor could possibly be inserted inside the ceramic casing, and that is the device that most here have seen pictures of, inside and out.
The second device apparently works much the same as the original Bybee, except that it has a lower current limit. It is much smaller than the first Bybee but inside it is very different. It allegedly is made from paralleled nanotubes, and it must take perhaps 100,000 or so in parallel to achieve the 0.025 ohms that is measured resistively when you put an ohmmeter to the device. This is the part that SY LOOKED AT, (but did not examine internally) that SY claims is a typical resistor. It seems to me that the proof would be in the dissection of the device to 'find' the resistor. This has never been done by SY or anyone else here.
The third type of Bybee device is some sort of 'coating' composed of some exotic material that is applied in different ways to usually a piece of metal, like aluminum foil, but I have seen examples of thicker metal parts used as well. It is the COATING that is the active ingredient, not the wood, foil, or even the battery sometimes added.
The battery that is sometimes used, (a magnet is sometimes used as well instead on some devices) is NOT attached electrically but acts like a catalyst in some way to improve what the device does.
Now, IF you don't believe that quality changes in sound can actually happen with such devices, then you probably will not hear anything, just out of prejudice against hearing anything different, which many here have. However, in my experience, there is often an improvement with the Bybee devices with a well set-up audio system using the best that can be had in supporting audio reproduction equipment.
So there it is, take it or leave it! '-)
John, Scott purchased a Bybee device and he claims to have applied it according to what the manufacturer says should work. Did he try it in the way the manufacturer says should work or not? If not, what did he do wrong? If so, are you saying the manufacturer's claims are wrong? If the devices are used according to your instructions, then do you claim they will work?
Hi John,
If the transfer function says it is a resistor, it is a resistor. <--- that's a period.
The only thing that matters about any device is how it reacts to stimulus. A network analyser would have the final word on what those devices are no matter how fancy you made it.
Now, SY (who I know personally) did more than "look" at it. He took measurements, and the overall characteristic was ... resistance. If it has a little reactance or capacitance, it is then a less good resistor. A Bybee device could easily be duplicated in a garage or basement by replicating the three major characteristics or resistance, capacitance and inductance. A guy like Bob Carver would be the perfect person to study those things and come up with an equivalent network.
If it is made up of nanotubes (carbon I assume), there is no change in how the Bybee device could be replicated. It doesn't matter how you get there, it only matters that the transfer function is repeated accurately. Try to remember that magic isn't real.
-Chris
If the transfer function says it is a resistor, it is a resistor. <--- that's a period.
The only thing that matters about any device is how it reacts to stimulus. A network analyser would have the final word on what those devices are no matter how fancy you made it.
Now, SY (who I know personally) did more than "look" at it. He took measurements, and the overall characteristic was ... resistance. If it has a little reactance or capacitance, it is then a less good resistor. A Bybee device could easily be duplicated in a garage or basement by replicating the three major characteristics or resistance, capacitance and inductance. A guy like Bob Carver would be the perfect person to study those things and come up with an equivalent network.
If it is made up of nanotubes (carbon I assume), there is no change in how the Bybee device could be replicated. It doesn't matter how you get there, it only matters that the transfer function is repeated accurately. Try to remember that magic isn't real.
-Chris
I have no idea what Scott did to evaluate the device. My initial impression is that Scott used his (compromised system) similar to the one that I am listening to NPR right now, which would be too 'easy listening' to note a small change, and of course, his initial opinion that the device can't possibly do anything anyway, might impede his judgement.
I personally have not used the device that Scott tried, I have recently use an IQSE that looks somewhat similar, but is different inside, and is designed to be INSIDE an amplifier enclosure, rather than outside. It does work for me, in a big way.
I personally have not used the device that Scott tried, I have recently use an IQSE that looks somewhat similar, but is different inside, and is designed to be INSIDE an amplifier enclosure, rather than outside. It does work for me, in a big way.
Okay, what kind of resistor it it? Linear, nonlinear? Measured how?
Obviously, if you measure the gross characteristics of something that can give one set of indications, but not say much about any subtleties. I'm not trying to defend the things either, just saying people tend to find what they go looking for. If one goes looking for LCR characteristics one is more likely to find those than other things one didn't go looking for.
How exactly did you apply them? How confident are you it would work the same for anyone else?
Also, Scott said he used them as recommended. Are you saying they should have worked they way he used them? If they only work on certain systems, is the manufacture honest about saying so?
Under DBT conditions, of course?
Over here a few guys in a group I frequent did some blind tests on some ByBees, compared to some standard power resistors of the same value.
Result: NO difference.
Cost difference? Huge.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.