Go ahead, ask me that question.
Sorry, it still bugs me that you let a fraud like that drag down your excellent and well-deserved reputation.
I don't remember that (then again I did the forum in 1985, so it may have changed, or perhaps those brain cells are gone
) What I do recall is that people got quite emotional, they were encouraged to divulge dark secrets, face their fears in front of a crowd of strangers etc, I guess that for a lot, getting things off their chests had a transformative effect. I absolutely loathed getting up in front of a crowd and talking, That didn't really change after the forum
It was definitely a psycological thing (and to some extent for those suceptable it could be borderline brainwashing). I think that the people who benefited most were the people that had something missing in their lives, similar effect to people finding religion, cults, drugs, or whatever...
Whilst I wouldn't say it transformed my life, I don't think that the $700 (which at the time was a lot for me!) was a complete waste either. I didn't go to any of the followup training, felt all a bit too cultish to me, but don't regret having had the experience
Tony.
edit +1 for the noise, not going to buy into the bybee argument....
Last edited:
Are you then responsible for SE's opinions then, SY? In my opinion, if I had evidence against someone or something, then expressing my opinion about them would seem appropriate. However, so far as I know, neither SY or SE has ever analyzed a Bybee device, although I showed SY one, years ago. He could have gotten one from me, if he actually cared to know more, but he didn't. He bought a number of other things from me, including parts and even a piece of test equipment. This is the problem, if you have real evidence that the Bybee device is a fake 'something' then show it. If not, then why bother to discuss it at all? I didn't bring the subject up.
Doesn't take a specific in-depth knowledge of a subject to note gaping holes in logic and flaws in argument eg diversions to unrelated topics, appeals to authority, that sort of thing.
No John - this is the problem. If there IS any real evidence that the Bybee devices work (and again, by work I mean do what they purportedly do on repeatable and consistent basis), no-one has seen it. And the maker refuses to disclose it. In these situations it is only proper to be conservative.
And no. Testimonials, no matter how well represented, are not evidence. They are hear-say and at best anecdotal.
Dfidler - this argument has spanned years, and every so often raises up to haunt us!
This is one of the gentler discussions regarding the device, no layers involved yet.
All the verbal badinage, is us doubters trying to wring even the slightest hint of the QP's true nature, underneath all the quatum advertising and claims.
Interestingly the etymology of Quantum is Quantus meaning "how much", this is the cry often heard when the price of quantum audio devices (or audio devices with quantum technologies (sic) ) is divulged to the prospective buyer.
This is one of the gentler discussions regarding the device, no layers involved yet.
All the verbal badinage, is us doubters trying to wring even the slightest hint of the QP's true nature, underneath all the quatum advertising and claims.
Interestingly the etymology of Quantum is Quantus meaning "how much", this is the cry often heard when the price of quantum audio devices (or audio devices with quantum technologies (sic) ) is divulged to the prospective buyer.
Steve has a reasonable layman's grasp of the physics involved, and his points are correct irrespective of his lack of formal training.
I've offered repeatedly to test the devices used as recommended. Offer is still open. I will not lay out $200 (each!) of my money for the privilege any moreso than I'm going to give my banking information to the nice Nigerian gentleman who likes to send me emails ("But you haven't tried him! How can you prove he's not the son of the former oil minister?").
As you know, I am very explicit about my test methods and setup when I give test results, so anyone can replicate them; this is one of those things in scientific practice which enforce honesty. Here's Bybee's chance to silence the naysayers!
Hey, at last they look good and something secretive for 100 a pop is affordable cocktails parler.
I commonly respond to the Lagos gent that it's not enough.
extra strange tantrums
just like the BQP's you refuse to validate with real world information verifiable outside your fantasy world, no doubt... phonyphony
just like the BQP's you refuse to validate with real world information verifiable outside your fantasy world, no doubt... phonyphony
Personally, I would be willing to throw in $10 or so towards the purchase of one for measurement and analysis by SY. Based on my modest hourly rate, I have already spent quite a lot more than that reading this thread. If we got some good results, I would consider it money well spent. I see that Michael Percy sells some for about $90 ea. I'm not sure why we would need to cough up $200 for one, surely the device characteristics would be measurable in the lower cost units as well.
I'm serious. Anyone else willing to contribute?
I know but my point is that the OP asked for opinions from people who have heard them, presumably to identify an appropriate sample of yays and nays so that he could investigate further. In effect, he was looking for an informal review of experienced opinions (people who've used the device).
What he got was a tidal wave of vitriol that he got everywhere else he looked.
This recent revival of the thread has turned into "put up or shut up"; like validation by diyAudio means anything to ByBee, who isn't even involved in the discussion. Better still, it's turned into a witch hunt to the effect of "let's buy it and prove them wrong"!
Fair enough, independent validation of the technology is a laudable goal but not by this lot. This lot is already going into it with the mindset that it's rubbish which is a serious danger to tainting the results, no matter how well documented the tests are (which should be done in another thread). For instance, what are the agreed-upon metrics? What are you looking for? What tests would be performed? (Please DO NOT answer these questions in this thread). Hell, subjective vs objective is still a hotly debated topic in HiFi. Exactly what do you think your measurements will achieve when people can't even agree on the fundamentals?
Seriously, if you want to discuss the (de)merits of the BQP, why not start a new thread and bash it there? Continued discussion in this thread is off topic and that's being condoned and even applauded.
Aargh! The guy asked a simple ******* question and all he got was a bunch of conjecture!
As for JC, he's uninformed and is reportedly passing on second-hand, half-remembered information (by his own admission). Any scientist would ignore this stuff completely so why is everyone playing along?
Move along, nothing to see here.
I'm in too.
Start a new thread, post the intended tests, measurements and equipment that will be used (ie - will it only be a single sample of equipment or will it be involve a modest representation of classes of hardware).
Then document what it is you're looking for. Do that and I'm in.... as long as it gets it's own thread.
Ditto.
As a business man, Mr C. has a score list as worse as can get, he's entitled to his personal opinion.
(on the other hand, i'm still waiting for the Skid Mark titanium quantum purifiers)
Last edited:
If someone asks for the best way to transfer money to that nice Nigerian man, don't expect that everyone will debate Western Union versus wire transfer- the discussion (involving any actual grown-ups) will be around the nature of the scam.
If Bybee's devices do ANYTHING beyond emptying the wallets of the gullible, it will show up in measurements of noise spectra, distortion, frequency response, RF immunity, or whatever. As I said, any testing I do is FULLY documented and will follow the suggested claims of the particular device purchased for this. If there is some kind of effect (beyond that expected from a 0R2 or whatever resistor), I'll be the first one to sing its praises. I freely admit that I don't expect this to be the case, but as I said, my methodology will be transparent, fully documented, and replicable. I think that John will admit that I am quite competent and appropriately equipped to run these tests.
Since I have a crappy system with lousy resolution (or so I'm told by lots of people who have never actually listened to it), I won't try to do controlled listening tests- that will be someone else's cross to bear.
It's interesting and telling that the guy making money off of all this won't bother to substantiate any of his claims.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.