A set of ByBees were installed into two generic plastic boxes, with two sets of speaker terminals at each end. A set of resistors (equalling the value of the ByBees) was installed into identical plastic boxes. Each set was arbitrarily labelled 'A' and 'B'. The boxes were sent to trialists, who were asked to describe any differences they may have heard.
In general, the majority heard no difference. A small number described some differences. Preferences were split equally between ByBees and resistors. The conclusion was that any differences were imaginary.
IF someone purchasing ByBees has actually performed a rigorous, DBT to validate their decision, then I would certainly not describe that decision as delusional. Do you know of any listener who has made such a decision based on a logical, structured test? I do not.
I don't know of anybody who does that when they buy a washing machine, or almost anything else. Its probably quite rare.
Regarding the word delusional,
de·lu·sion·al
adjective
1) characterized by or holding idiosyncratic beliefs or impressions that are contradicted by reality or rational argument, typically as a symptom of mental disorder.
"hospitalization for schizophrenia and delusional paranoia"
2)based on or having faulty judgment; mistaken.
"their delusional belief in the project's merits never wavers"
I assume you are not referring to diagnosable psychiatric disorders. Maybe you mean faulty judgement or mistaken?
If so, all humans are at times delusional, and far more often that they are aware of. There is something called naive realism, when people think they see the world around them and the people in it, everything, all as it really is.
That includes people who are convinced they are logical and rational.
If you want to take a look: Naive realism (psychology - Wikipedia)
These are the main components:
-)Believe that they see the world objectively and without bias.
-)Expect that others will come to the same conclusions, so long as they are exposed to the same information and interpret it in a rational manner.
-)Assume that others who do not share the same views must be ignorant, irrational, or biased.
Interesting stuff. Naive Realism is a pattern of delusional beliefs in the sense of being mistaken. But, it's not a disease. Its more like a major aspect of the human condition.
#1 seems to fit nicely.
ABSOLUTELY! The 'placebo effect' is evidence of this. Which is why, when extraordinary claims are made, then we need to go to extraordinary lengths to validate those claims. I freely admit that I have been guilty of delusional beliefs in the past and will likely be so guilty in the future. Fortunately, in the case of ByBees, we have a suitable test that can test the claims made about the devices.
I did not intend to suggest that the delusional beliefs that ByBees act in the way the manufacturer describes (which they clearly do not), is a disease. It would be accurately described as 'uncritical thinking'. Kinda like the people who voted for Donald Trump. A simple analysis of his claims would have ensured that he would not, now, be the most powerful individual on the planet.
Ok, so what resistance value was that and which particular type of BQP device.
How many 'trialists' ?.
How many trialists 'described some differences' ?.
What were the descriptions of 'some differences' ?.
So the subset of trialists that heard differences and described them, also expressed preference...again, how many is that ?.
By whom ?....logically not the trialists who described differences and expressed preference ?.
How was this test conducted and when ?.
Dan.
I'd be very careful uttering these words, especially if you were a musician. I can guarantee you that old barnicle of a conductor would hear and have corrected the slightest out of tune and timbre musician in the orche
stra.
For me though, I'd have Simon7000 measure it, them.
Otherwise I'd have to use my lowly HP34401A, or HP3457A,
or that Keithley 2001 I lost the enclosure for. With the four wire
things HI LO HI LO with special clothes pins looking things on
the end of them. Come to think of it, scheisse verklich,
I do have an all kind of parts in all kind of places in various states
of repair...with notes on them, about what needs to be done next,
which leads me back to having Simon7000 measure it.
Wadayathink Ed, can we run with it?
Yes, 0.025 ohm is very easy to measure. Our power amps have often lower output impedance, so there is much more interesting question, how do you guys measure power amp output impedance, frequency dependence of the output impedance and, the most important, non-linearity of the output impedance, at different frequencies? I hope everyone here realizes that amp output impedance is non-linear, which applies especially to class AB and B amplifiers, crossover region, not mentioning class D. I am not asking to get an advice, I just want to turn attention to something less trivial than measuring 0.025 ohm resistor.
@Anatech & PMA,
As i don´t know if SY used the same device as in the mentioned test i can´t conclude.
As i know from various discussions in this forum that SY´s strong bias could sometimes had some impact i´d unfortunately would not take his attempts as the final/conclusive word. That should not imply any intentional doing but bias is everywhere.
I´ve linked already in august, this is the article i was referring to:
http://www.gecom-technologies.com/images/pdf/Bybee_Quantum_Purifier_Teil2.pdf
Unfortunately in german, shown are graphs of impedance measurement, THD + N and a signal combined from a noise source and a 10 Mhz sinus.
As i don´t know if SY used the same device as in the mentioned test i can´t conclude.
As i know from various discussions in this forum that SY´s strong bias could sometimes had some impact i´d unfortunately would not take his attempts as the final/conclusive word. That should not imply any intentional doing but bias is everywhere.
I´ve linked already in august, this is the article i was referring to:
http://www.gecom-technologies.com/images/pdf/Bybee_Quantum_Purifier_Teil2.pdf
Unfortunately in german, shown are graphs of impedance measurement, THD + N and a signal combined from a noise source and a 10 Mhz sinus.
It is the usual caveat- a NHST has two possible outcomes, the nullhypothesis can be rejected or the nullhypothesis can not be rejected.
In the latter case one can not conclude that no difference exists, ecause the statistical analysis only shows if a specific result is compatible with the nullhypothesis or quite unlikely under the assumption that the nullhypothesis is true (i.e. is not so much compatible with the nullhypothesis).
You did not mention the number of participants it would be important to have that information too.
Based on your short summary it seems to have been a paired comparison but not done in the "forced choice condition" but in the variant with a tie, which means with the "no difference/preference" option.
That the majority of participants voted for "no difference/preference" is btw very uncommon under the premise that in reality no audible difference exist.
It is much more common that the majority if judging two identical stimuli (i.e. the same stimulus twice) nevertheless voted for preference/difference but nearly equally distributed.
it´s a crosscultural phenomenon, although in the proportions varying across countries, but quite constant over very different product categories.
Could it bee, that the participants knew upfront what they were listening to and were biased against a difference? As you have said, even words have an impact and that doesn´t vanish just because they are doing a "blind" test.
Pavel,
I assume you know the normal method is to use a second amplifier (often the other channel of a stereo unit) to drive voltage through a resistor into the channel under test. The common test is to use an 8 ohm resistor and measure the voltage of the device under test while it has no output with a swept signal. The idea is that with such a small output signal the test amplifiers output voltage through the fixed resistor is a good approximation to a current source.
I gather you have tried this and want better data.
If you have a precise load resistor then the THD should vary as you change the level of a test sine wave for a given frequency if the output impedance changes with level. But I don't think you can reasonably get a resistor good enough for that test. (Not just the resistance element but also the connections.)
You could make one using many small resistors in a low inductance assemblage and go so far as to test it with the delta R in an oven method.
I suspect that with a pair of such resistors of different values you could get an approximation of the output impedance by using two "identical" amplifiers each driving a different value of resistor and comparing the output levels. To verify then swap the amplifiers and run the levels and sweeps again. I think that may allow you to get close.
Y'all I only discuss Bybees on April first. Probably will present some new test results this or the next one.
Last edited:
Google actually goes a good job. Unfortunately I was not there to show them the errors of their way.
Mixing fixed tone and noise measurements (where video BW and resolution BW matter) are fraught with opportunities for error. On some level the lack of curiosity is surprising, someone hands you the philosophers stone and you say, "That's nice" and hand it back. There are lots of quick experiments I can think of like lowering the level of the 10MHz tone until it is equal to the noise (try to fool the demon). I mean really, nonsense (an inert entity knows that a tone at 10MHz and nothing else is what "we" want) stares you in the face and you don't try to figure out what's going on?
Last edited:
Hi Jakob2,
Stuart tested the device that Cal bought for that purpose, which was a "small" one of the two available models. Others also had an opportunity to test the same part. I don't recall any differing opinions.
-Chris
Then I wish you knew him. Stuart is a professional and does tests without bias. He even tries to prove himself wrong on guard for "confirmation bias". If Stuart tested something (and he tested all kinds of materials over the years) and came to a conclusion, I would tend to accept those conclusions. I have seen experiments he has set up and run. They are always reproducible results as his methods are always carefully developed and executed in an impartial way.
Stuart tested the device that Cal bought for that purpose, which was a "small" one of the two available models. Others also had an opportunity to test the same part. I don't recall any differing opinions.
-Chris
At times I'm reminded of an article in one of our pop electronics magazines questioning the speed of signal propagation. He took a scope and connected a pulse generator and one end of a spool of wire to channel 1 and walked around an entire city block unraveling the spool and connecting the other end to channel 2. He took a picture of the display to prove that some of the signal must have propagated at >c.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.