Unlike a lot of folks here, I don't have strong objections to the hype. It's marketing, after all. You gotta sell the thing somehow, and when it gets this close to the edge, what are you going to say to get noticed?
If, however, nothing turns up in measurements or controlled listening tests then I would object. So IMO if it works, a little hype is the price to pay for getting the thing sold. If it doesn't work, then it smells like flimflam.
I will declare my bias right here. I hope it DOES work as stated. The improvements to the sound would be well worth the money.
If, however, nothing turns up in measurements or controlled listening tests then I would object. So IMO if it works, a little hype is the price to pay for getting the thing sold. If it doesn't work, then it smells like flimflam.
I will declare my bias right here. I hope it DOES work as stated. The improvements to the sound would be well worth the money.
Just to ask... has anyone talked to JBybee about this plan? If not, might it be a sorta civilized thing to do?
He might even provide some information on what exactly to look for, if he wasn't busy feeling threatened, by what is actually an honest inquiry into some fairly arcane and edge of the earth thinking on his part.
Or, he may not be interested, as I certainly was, in a review by this particular peer review group, but, has anyone asked?
He might even provide some information on what exactly to look for, if he wasn't busy feeling threatened, by what is actually an honest inquiry into some fairly arcane and edge of the earth thinking on his part.
Or, he may not be interested, as I certainly was, in a review by this particular peer review group, but, has anyone asked?
I spoke to Jack Bybee today. He is NOT going to tell you more that what he has already. Jack is over 80 years old, likes to travel, independently wealthy. He could care less what most people think about his devices. He still makes devices, on order, sometimes, but he just does it to keep busy. Most of his interest and effort is the active noise reduction module soon to be released, as he says, much more effective than a single pair of Bybee devices for power line or DC supply noise reduction.
This design was created in a collaboration of Jack Bybee and Mike Vise, a fellow engineer-physicist. Jack, Mike, and I also developed a really interesting power amp together. It was shown at last October's hi fi show in Denver, but we lost our funding, so it is now in suspension. Darn good amp, though. I wish that I had one, myself.
This design was created in a collaboration of Jack Bybee and Mike Vise, a fellow engineer-physicist. Jack, Mike, and I also developed a really interesting power amp together. It was shown at last October's hi fi show in Denver, but we lost our funding, so it is now in suspension. Darn good amp, though. I wish that I had one, myself.
Why?
Throughout all these years and in spite of all the questions regarding his "purifiers," Jack has had ample opportunity to clarify or explain things beyond the nonsense on his website but has chosen to remain silent and in the shadows.
Why do you think it's finally come to this?
I say **** 'im.
se
Despite John's clearly stated biases and his vociferous promotion of these gadgets, I think you are being very unfair to him.
For the record, I am not promoting these gadgets. I could care less if anyone buys one or not. We have found them useful, in the past, to win 'listening contests' when my former partner, Bob Crump, was alive, but the devices have exceeded my budget these days, at least the devices that Jack Bybee is making for his up-market clientele. Still, I hear the difference, and have done so in a number of hi fi systems.
Sometimes, it can make the sound WORSE, at least subjectively, with a given system, but it can make a serious change. The very idea that I would have to subject myself to a double blind test approved by some PhD somewhere is over the top, in my book, in order to state that there could possibly be a listening difference.
Sometimes, it can make the sound WORSE, at least subjectively, with a given system, but it can make a serious change. The very idea that I would have to subject myself to a double blind test approved by some PhD somewhere is over the top, in my book, in order to state that there could possibly be a listening difference.
Last edited:
I would look in the few kHz, based on those BMI captures you provided earlier.
Exeric, no bias from measurement tools. I believe SY knows well the proper methodology to carry out these tests; however, if he can't measure a difference but can hear one he probably wouldn't feel too satisfied - it goes again his philosophy. But he wouldn't lie about it. He would do more measurements. He would do more listening tests. I can't imagine him giving up that easily. 
I have 226 thousand feet of near-superconducting copper magnet wire if anybody's interested. It is #49 AWG, single build poly insulation. It sounds absolutely fantastic when used for line cord applications...any system using it has NO background noise whatsoever (note)...
Cheers, John
ps...of course, near is defined as "100 meters"
note: no music either...
Last edited:
Math has nothing to do with it.
You appear to have a problem with anybody who doesn't agree with your views, and that is your problem, not Sy's.
Sy is adhering to a strict application of the scientific methodology. That methodology is used to prevent preconceived notions from biasing a test. Plain and simple. Discussion of the exact test is part of that method, while providing some silly arbitrary waveforms with no test details nor information to allow reproducibility, that is not science nor is that discussion...just handwaving..
If you can discuss rationally, modifications to the technical aspects of his testing, then do it. Otherwise, you are just practicing diversionary tactics by attacking the people who are actually doing something..
I too have preconceived notions about the invokation of "near superconducting" anything. I work with supers on a daily basis, designing and building hardware and methods that will become sota in the next 10 years..statements on superconductivity from you (or anyone else for that matter; ask Scott Wurcer
) will either be correct, or I will correct them.Anybody with a large knowledge base on a technical topic uses their knowledge to design a test regimen. You seem inclined to only detract from that effort simply because of an arbitrary fence you are looking over.
Cheers, John
Hi John,
Show me any audio amplifier that can properly process a signal in the GHz region. Please?
Personally, I doubt many audio products as built and sold will respond to signals much past 150 KHz - at best (and by design)! Anything that has gain and is stable over the AM radio band that is sold is just asking for trouble - for obvious reasons.
You're being silly now sir.
What happens to any circuit or component when you bypass it with an extremely low resistance that is non-inductive (from your comments)? Well, most of the current bypasses that component / circuit. It's a path of least resistance thing. I know, darned inconvenient that you can't just have electrons go where you desperately want them to go.
Let's say you have a resonant circuit with a Q of 100 (easily done). That low resistance destroys the Q and damps it out so that the resonance will have little to no effect on anything. The only effect the resonant circuit could have would be to distort the sound (just in case you want to argue that this resonant circuit would be a good thing).
What happens if you have an active energy source that is shorted out by a 0.025 ohm resistance? Assuming a few amps type circuit, instead of power generation or industrial machines, you're probably going to cause that energy source to fail. Just covering a hypothetical claim that somehow the black box injects any type of energy at all. After all, with close to a short across it, it will not be blocking much of anything!
Are you smarter than a fifth grader?
Hi exeric,
SY is someone I do know reasonably well. I have seen his method of experimentation, and also participated in listening tests (informal) with him in two locations in two different countries. What I will say form direct observation is that he sets up test situations with an open mind and hoping to find something. If something isn't found, he'll devise a different test in hopes of finding some result. In listening tests, he has a similar bias that we all have to some degree for a sound he is familiar with. However, he's also very good at finding and admitting to problems in his own designs and construction. In short, he is trustworthy. So is anyone else who will share their results, test setups and experiences. Why? Because if you lie or fudge the truth at all, the next person who replicates an experiment will be able to assess the test and the setup, plus see the results from that same test. That's a pretty long limb to be hung out on if you aren't honest.
As I've said before, all you really have at the end of the day is the value of your word. If you are not truthful even some of the time, your word isn't worth anything. Then you're out of work because no one will trust any report you write up. Same if you are known as a sloppy experimenter.
That is one reason that when claims are made, but there is a refusal to divulge the actual test method, equipment and other conditions, that claim loses validity. Any professional in the field knows this, and the same concept exists in all professional capacities.
Example. Working in a well known calibration lab, a certification is not acceptable unless the actual sticker has a test serial number, the model and serial of the device the certification is valid for, and the testing technician's name. The actual certificate is required to be on file in order to validate that certification, containing that same information. It contains the make, model and serial number of each piece of testing equipment that contributed accuracy for any testing, as well as the calibration date and calibration due date for same. Also included is the temperature (and sometimes humidity if needed) of the test area at the time of the testing. Also listed are any factors that may affect the accuracy, such as a lower test uncertainty ratio (4:1 minimum normally), the company name and which location of the lab. The name of the technician who performed the tests is also present.
In short, being a "good lab" with a sterling reputation isn't enough. These labs are also inspected (usually every couple years unless there has been a problem - then more often) by the governing body of any certifications they may claim to have. Most will have an internal quality person who will examine and test to even higher standards than the external body may have.
This is about the same thing as someone claiming something works without anything to back their statements up. By the nature of how professionals are trained, falsifying information isn't likely to happen. If it did, that person would probably lose their professional status. For something that took many years to attain, and the industry reputation they've built up, this is clearly not worthwhile. These people have too much to lose to falsify any tests or reports. There is the effect of the ethics clause that professionals swear to uphold.
-Chris
You're dead wrong on this. This statement from you is surprising, perhaps designed to make practical tests impossible to reproduce?
Show me any audio amplifier that can properly process a signal in the GHz region. Please?
Personally, I doubt many audio products as built and sold will respond to signals much past 150 KHz - at best (and by design)! Anything that has gain and is stable over the AM radio band that is sold is just asking for trouble - for obvious reasons.
You're being silly now sir.
Okay, once again you've made a silly statement.
What happens to any circuit or component when you bypass it with an extremely low resistance that is non-inductive (from your comments)? Well, most of the current bypasses that component / circuit. It's a path of least resistance thing. I know, darned inconvenient that you can't just have electrons go where you desperately want them to go.
Let's say you have a resonant circuit with a Q of 100 (easily done). That low resistance destroys the Q and damps it out so that the resonance will have little to no effect on anything. The only effect the resonant circuit could have would be to distort the sound (just in case you want to argue that this resonant circuit would be a good thing).
What happens if you have an active energy source that is shorted out by a 0.025 ohm resistance? Assuming a few amps type circuit, instead of power generation or industrial machines, you're probably going to cause that energy source to fail. Just covering a hypothetical claim that somehow the black box injects any type of energy at all. After all, with close to a short across it, it will not be blocking much of anything!
Are you smarter than a fifth grader?
Hi exeric,
What bothers me about this statement is that it implies distrust of someone you don't know at all, and it shows a lack of understanding about the entire basis of scientific understanding.
SY is someone I do know reasonably well. I have seen his method of experimentation, and also participated in listening tests (informal) with him in two locations in two different countries. What I will say form direct observation is that he sets up test situations with an open mind and hoping to find something. If something isn't found, he'll devise a different test in hopes of finding some result. In listening tests, he has a similar bias that we all have to some degree for a sound he is familiar with. However, he's also very good at finding and admitting to problems in his own designs and construction. In short, he is trustworthy. So is anyone else who will share their results, test setups and experiences. Why? Because if you lie or fudge the truth at all, the next person who replicates an experiment will be able to assess the test and the setup, plus see the results from that same test. That's a pretty long limb to be hung out on if you aren't honest.
As I've said before, all you really have at the end of the day is the value of your word. If you are not truthful even some of the time, your word isn't worth anything. Then you're out of work because no one will trust any report you write up. Same if you are known as a sloppy experimenter.
That is one reason that when claims are made, but there is a refusal to divulge the actual test method, equipment and other conditions, that claim loses validity. Any professional in the field knows this, and the same concept exists in all professional capacities.
Example. Working in a well known calibration lab, a certification is not acceptable unless the actual sticker has a test serial number, the model and serial of the device the certification is valid for, and the testing technician's name. The actual certificate is required to be on file in order to validate that certification, containing that same information. It contains the make, model and serial number of each piece of testing equipment that contributed accuracy for any testing, as well as the calibration date and calibration due date for same. Also included is the temperature (and sometimes humidity if needed) of the test area at the time of the testing. Also listed are any factors that may affect the accuracy, such as a lower test uncertainty ratio (4:1 minimum normally), the company name and which location of the lab. The name of the technician who performed the tests is also present.
In short, being a "good lab" with a sterling reputation isn't enough. These labs are also inspected (usually every couple years unless there has been a problem - then more often) by the governing body of any certifications they may claim to have. Most will have an internal quality person who will examine and test to even higher standards than the external body may have.
This is about the same thing as someone claiming something works without anything to back their statements up. By the nature of how professionals are trained, falsifying information isn't likely to happen. If it did, that person would probably lose their professional status. For something that took many years to attain, and the industry reputation they've built up, this is clearly not worthwhile. These people have too much to lose to falsify any tests or reports. There is the effect of the ethics clause that professionals swear to uphold.
-Chris
Hi Pavel,
If you are dealing with acoustic sensors and generators, you are now dealing with exactly what an audio engineer does. I would consider audio engineering a subset or specialty of the signal processing field. The importance that is assigned to the result may differ between an audio engineer and a signal engineer, but that's just playing with nomenclature I think.
In no way was my comment intended to diminish the stature of either profession. In fact, an attempt was made to show an equality there and allow an easier understanding of just what an audio engineer really does. Signal impairment, or distortion, is the same thing either way.
-Chris
Yes, I agree. I was referring to the act of processing electronic signals. For that, everything is identical in mechanics. Analog circuit design is signal processing, that was my intent.
If you are dealing with acoustic sensors and generators, you are now dealing with exactly what an audio engineer does. I would consider audio engineering a subset or specialty of the signal processing field. The importance that is assigned to the result may differ between an audio engineer and a signal engineer, but that's just playing with nomenclature I think.
In no way was my comment intended to diminish the stature of either profession. In fact, an attempt was made to show an equality there and allow an easier understanding of just what an audio engineer really does. Signal impairment, or distortion, is the same thing either way.
-Chris
Hi SY
My point is, consumer audio equipment is designed specifically to block higher above the frequencies beyond the accepted audio range. Indeed, we also run into faults when a component or circuit generates high frequencies that cause other circuits to act abnormally. Oscillating voltage regulators are a common example.
Cell phones can disrupt baseband communications systems, sensors and test equipment. Cell phones are unwelcome in hospitals, demolition sites and many other places for that very reason. Testing with a cell phone may be crude, but it's a tough test to pass.
I have an oscilloscope that interferes with almost every FM tuner that ends up on my bench, to the point where I can not use that equipment. It must be turned off. I hope to have just found a replacement for it. $4,500 'scope that I bought new. Nice eh?
-Chris
Well, exactly! In fact, my own personal experience has involved these problems relatively often. Considering that RFI immunity is expected to have been done on consumer equipment, it's surprising how often that problems are traced to this cause. It is one of the more difficult things there are to troubleshoot.
My point is, consumer audio equipment is designed specifically to block higher above the frequencies beyond the accepted audio range. Indeed, we also run into faults when a component or circuit generates high frequencies that cause other circuits to act abnormally. Oscillating voltage regulators are a common example.
Cell phones can disrupt baseband communications systems, sensors and test equipment. Cell phones are unwelcome in hospitals, demolition sites and many other places for that very reason. Testing with a cell phone may be crude, but it's a tough test to pass.
I have an oscilloscope that interferes with almost every FM tuner that ends up on my bench, to the point where I can not use that equipment. It must be turned off. I hope to have just found a replacement for it. $4,500 'scope that I bought new. Nice eh?
-Chris
- Status
- Not open for further replies.