Yes, along with about 5 other exotic measurements of impedance that I didn't bother to send Netlist. They are a hassle, because they are on 14 inch long paper and don't easily scan well. I have had them for about 15 years, when Jack Bybee first approached my employer with a letter and the measurements. They sure look real to me, but then I am an engineer who trusts things that look like official graphs. Bad habit, I guess. Personally, I have never seen a BMI 4800, but it seemed to measure something. I think that the other tests were with HP and other test equipment.
Well so far, Jack Bybee's products 'appear' to be made of some interesting and potentially exotic materials, AND we haven't gotten to the quantum device as of yet.
The Pacific resistor is only used in the larger devices, I am told. The smaller Bybee uses something that you will not be able to evaluate without an electron microscope. I tried once with a 1000 power microscope and got no resolution. Got one handy?
The Pacific resistor is only used in the larger devices, I am told. The smaller Bybee uses something that you will not be able to evaluate without an electron microscope. I tried once with a 1000 power microscope and got no resolution. Got one handy?
Actually, if you dodge around the known proclivities of the combatants, you will find that the thread has revealed more than what has previously been known about the device(s).
Sure, some of the interchange has been loaded. But it is at least EQUALLY loaded. One proponent has made a forum career out of slowly releasing half-packages of ghosted information. So be it - we know thats his style. Another has posted terse and derisive challenges to these coded realeases. So be it - we know thats his style. Another writes copious rebuttals and challenges - so be it etc etc. Still others claim a right to believe and expound on what they perceive without reference to any fact - so be it.....
In the background a couple of subject experts continue to work at the goal of identifying the operating principles (if there are any) to the actual device.
None of the individuals are anything other than helpful outside of this subject. In my book, everyone is allowed a vice, and in this situation, the vice appears to be commonly held.
Sorry I've missed all the fun but I've been away the last few days. However after catching up with this thread it seems to be deja vu all over again. One thing I'm curious about is why SY has given up on the listening tests? When I left he was all over that. I had said that listening is the real test, and that in my own system there was an obvious improvement with the Bybees. Whether others would detect a difference is another question. More important perhaps is whether those who detect a difference in their own system will think it is an improvement. I think most will. It seems to subjectively remove a low volume layer of electronic sounding "grundge". This is a very technical term that only the cogniscenti will recognize. All others will view the term as pseudoscience. Grundge represents the opposite of porn, you recognize it when you don't hear it.
I thought what Allen Wright had to say was informative. He said that he could hear the difference with the Bybees but he couldn't tell whether it was an improvement or not. I have not heard Mr. Wrights system but my inclination is to believe it might be a step above my own in terms of removing low signal level distortions. He's written about that, downward dynamic range, as being a prime target in his designs. I really think his system probably has much less of that low level grundge than mine did to start out with. It makes sense that the Bybee's might be of less benefit in a system as good as his.
As far as others focusing on the technical minutia of the lab tests, I'm thinking more and more that it will be inconclusive. The only possibility I see of finding something concrete and repeatable is what Jack Caldwell brought up regarding the Nordost article and the software offered by another person whose name I can't recall. To me this is the only hope of creating a test that has repeatable and conclusive evidence.
However it begs the question: can the difference that shows up in that kind of test be heard? It is obvious that the test can show differences in signal that CANNOT be heard. An example being the Souza march recorded 60db down on one channel of stereo that no one heard. I have to repeat that the listening test is vital. It should come before any technical lab test because it will determine whether there is any reason to go into the work that is required for a complete lab test. The reason I say that is because the complete lab test, to me at least, is looking to be more and more unfeasable. If tests were required to be done at NASA to get conclusive results I really don't think we have much of a chance. The only hope we do have is the difference test. I think what SY is testing for is just the conventional measurements. Once he eliminates those conventional measurements of differences between the Bybee and a similar piece of wire where does that leave us. It leaves us with the difference test and the listening test.
However, as I said the difference test can also show up things that no one hears. Therefore the listening test is vital. Someone else concurred with me that familiarity of a system in a listening test is required for anyone to tell if they can hear a difference in a system after a change and whether that difference sounds better of worse. Just why has the listening test been relegated to the scrap heap just because it is a subjective measurement? It doesn't make it any less useful to people who actually listen to music. I also suggest any listening test not be done on the best system one can find. A system that is just better than average may be all that is required and may actually show more difference before and after.
I thought what Allen Wright had to say was informative. He said that he could hear the difference with the Bybees but he couldn't tell whether it was an improvement or not. I have not heard Mr. Wrights system but my inclination is to believe it might be a step above my own in terms of removing low signal level distortions. He's written about that, downward dynamic range, as being a prime target in his designs. I really think his system probably has much less of that low level grundge than mine did to start out with. It makes sense that the Bybee's might be of less benefit in a system as good as his.
As far as others focusing on the technical minutia of the lab tests, I'm thinking more and more that it will be inconclusive. The only possibility I see of finding something concrete and repeatable is what Jack Caldwell brought up regarding the Nordost article and the software offered by another person whose name I can't recall. To me this is the only hope of creating a test that has repeatable and conclusive evidence.
However it begs the question: can the difference that shows up in that kind of test be heard? It is obvious that the test can show differences in signal that CANNOT be heard. An example being the Souza march recorded 60db down on one channel of stereo that no one heard. I have to repeat that the listening test is vital. It should come before any technical lab test because it will determine whether there is any reason to go into the work that is required for a complete lab test. The reason I say that is because the complete lab test, to me at least, is looking to be more and more unfeasable. If tests were required to be done at NASA to get conclusive results I really don't think we have much of a chance. The only hope we do have is the difference test. I think what SY is testing for is just the conventional measurements. Once he eliminates those conventional measurements of differences between the Bybee and a similar piece of wire where does that leave us. It leaves us with the difference test and the listening test.
However, as I said the difference test can also show up things that no one hears. Therefore the listening test is vital. Someone else concurred with me that familiarity of a system in a listening test is required for anyone to tell if they can hear a difference in a system after a change and whether that difference sounds better of worse. Just why has the listening test been relegated to the scrap heap just because it is a subjective measurement? It doesn't make it any less useful to people who actually listen to music. I also suggest any listening test not be done on the best system one can find. A system that is just better than average may be all that is required and may actually show more difference before and after.
Last edited:
Hey there.
You misread or mistake what SY has to say on listening tests and why.
He has taken up the task of measuring electrical and physical parameters of the device. He has no mandate and has not taken on a mandate to carry out user perception testing. In SY's world, that's the end of it - no mandate, no comment.
No-one to my knowledge has excluded user perception assessments, and in fact very early in the thread it has been proposed (including by me). However, its a lot harder to organise and to ensure validity - someone is going to have to do a LOT of work for it to be done in a manner that would be scientifically acceptable.
I'm interested in the comment you make on the relative merits of tweek devices (in this case the Bybee Slipstream) in a system - in essence the very high end system would benefit LESS from these devices, and progressively MORE benefit would be gained as you move down the food chain.
Now, if Bybees are doing what is claimed, that would make sense.
However, that would fly in the face of the audio-afficionados who claim that the reason I hear no difference is because my system is so crappy it can't resolve the signal fully...
Your system must fall into a hallowed middle ground based on your assertion that the Bybees made an "obvious" difference. Lowly enough to need improvement, high end enough to be able to resolve that signal and pull the curtains back so to speak.
I tend toward a psycho-acoustic explanation - those that expect to hear a difference do, especially those with an emotional and/or financial involvement.
All this can be explored after Stuart, George et al have had at the units from the purely physical pov.
And I have volunteered to do controlled listening tests. Other may do so as well. They will be tightly controlled blind tests on a familiar system.
I would say "Patience, Pilgrims, Patience". The tests have only just begun. We've just bought the horse, let's not rush to put him behind the cart.
We want to know the standard parameters of the device in AF and RF first. Then we can proceed to listening and other tests. I do agree that the listening tests will be very important, as they lie at the heart of the Bybee claims.
There are enough of us here to do a very thorough series of objective and subjective tests, but it's not going to happen in a week, or even two.
I would say "Patience, Pilgrims, Patience". The tests have only just begun. We've just bought the horse, let's not rush to put him behind the cart.
We want to know the standard parameters of the device in AF and RF first. Then we can proceed to listening and other tests. I do agree that the listening tests will be very important, as they lie at the heart of the Bybee claims.
There are enough of us here to do a very thorough series of objective and subjective tests, but it's not going to happen in a week, or even two.
or even in three...
This thread is unnecessarily long and people are obviously losing track of it. I've created the [wiki=BybeeQuantumPurifierTesting]%[/wiki] wiki page with a basic framework for the tests and results.
I suggest we use it to summarize the scientific discussion so far along with any tests (which can include double blind listening test) and results included in them. People can then subscribe to the damned thing and get updates on it and we can use this thread for discussion of the tests, the measurements and the analysis (you know, like the thread title says).
Then, when people question the methodology and tests we can point them to said wiki page and say "RTFM, please get back on topic".
Yes?
Cheers,
Dave.
Why? Can you explain the reasoning behind this please?
Can the contradictions in this not be seen?
P.S. I have my own bias about these devices but it seems like the above is also highly biased. A lot of time is being wasted if these devices show no sonic effects - surely that should be the first analysis?
Last edited:
The point is that the scientific tests results can influence the listening tests but the listening tests results cannot influence the scientific tests (presumably)
RTFM - Double Blind Procedure
Well of course double blind procedures works if one is looking for differences between devices - but if one is sure that there are no differences (as the measurements will most likely reveal) then DBT is of no consequence, don't you think?
SY, I have no interest in buying these devices - why would my listening impression be given any credence? But I'm interested in the procedures being adopted here!
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.