Let's Look At Some Of YOUR Claims............
I have some questions -
In your product (The Interface) web pages, you make several claims and statements and I would like you to clarify on some points.
Eliminate ground loop hum - At 60 Hz, yes ok.
Eliminate interchassis current noise - is that not ground loop hum ?.
Provide superior RF suppression - how and where ?.
Provide common-mode noise rejection - How and where ?
Get better than balanced performance from your unbalanced inputs - any test results to substantiate this ?.
"The transformers are effectively decoupled from external vibration by E*A*R Specialty Composites' C-1002 Isodamp gaskets under each transformer, with the circuit board upon which they are mounted decoupled from the enclosure using E*A*R Isoloss VL sandwich mount standoffs and low-resonant nylon fasteners. Further decoupling is provided by four E*A*R Isoloss VL feet on the enclosure itself. "
Why so much Isodamp and Isoloss materials ?.
Connection is made via WBT's finest 0208 Topline female RCA sockets with Kimber AGSS pure silver wire used for the minimal internal wiring. The output damping network (bypassable for connecting to inputs of exactly 10k Ohms) comprises a single Caddock type MK precision film resistor and WIMA type FKP polypropylene film capacitor per channel, neither of which are in series with the signal path.
Ok, so what is so good about the RCA sockets ?.
Why silver internal wiring, and why Kimber silver wire ?
Why a Caddock resistor ?
Why a WIMA capacitor, and why polypropylene ?
What's wrong with being in the signal path ?.
Eric.
I have some questions -
In your product (The Interface) web pages, you make several claims and statements and I would like you to clarify on some points.
Eliminate ground loop hum - At 60 Hz, yes ok.
Eliminate interchassis current noise - is that not ground loop hum ?.
Provide superior RF suppression - how and where ?.
Provide common-mode noise rejection - How and where ?
Get better than balanced performance from your unbalanced inputs - any test results to substantiate this ?.
"The transformers are effectively decoupled from external vibration by E*A*R Specialty Composites' C-1002 Isodamp gaskets under each transformer, with the circuit board upon which they are mounted decoupled from the enclosure using E*A*R Isoloss VL sandwich mount standoffs and low-resonant nylon fasteners. Further decoupling is provided by four E*A*R Isoloss VL feet on the enclosure itself. "
Why so much Isodamp and Isoloss materials ?.
Connection is made via WBT's finest 0208 Topline female RCA sockets with Kimber AGSS pure silver wire used for the minimal internal wiring. The output damping network (bypassable for connecting to inputs of exactly 10k Ohms) comprises a single Caddock type MK precision film resistor and WIMA type FKP polypropylene film capacitor per channel, neither of which are in series with the signal path.
Ok, so what is so good about the RCA sockets ?.
Why silver internal wiring, and why Kimber silver wire ?
Why a Caddock resistor ?
Why a WIMA capacitor, and why polypropylene ?
What's wrong with being in the signal path ?.
Eric.
john curl said:
With all respect John, what exactly are you trying to say? That
Steve is wrong about the quantum physics? Then please say
so and, if possible, try to explain why. I don't understand
quantum physics well enough to know myself.
Or are you saying that Bybees own explanation is wrong? Then
how can we possibly know we are wrong if he is lying to us but
has told you the truth in secret?
For those who like to misunderstand me, please note I am not saying anything about whether these things work or not.
Re: Let's Look At Some Of YOUR Claims............
Sure.
I take it that was already clarified for you?
Not in the classic sense of multiple ground paths.
See Hum & Buzz in Unbalanced Interconnect Systems
How? By way of the transformer's limited bandwidth as well as the RC network you mention later. Where? In the device.
How? By way of the transformer's high common-mode input impedance. Where? In the device.
Sure. See the JT-11P-1'sdata sheet. CMRR for a 600 ohm unbalanced source is 100dB.
Typical electronically balanced interfaces can't achieve that level of CMRR due to source impedance imbalances.
See Subtleties Count in Wide Dynamic Range Analog Interfaces and AES preprint 4372, A New Balanced Audio Input Circuit for Maximum Common-Mode Rejection in Real-World Environments.
Because that's what I ultimately preferred.
They were what I ultimately preferred.
That's what I ultimately preferred.
That's what I ultimately preferred.
That's what I ultimately preferred.
Ask the folks who go
about anything "in the signal path." I mentioned it for their edification.
Any more questions?
se
mrfeedback said:
Sure.
I take it that was already clarified for you?
Not in the classic sense of multiple ground paths.
See Hum & Buzz in Unbalanced Interconnect Systems
How? By way of the transformer's limited bandwidth as well as the RC network you mention later. Where? In the device.
How? By way of the transformer's high common-mode input impedance. Where? In the device.
Sure. See the JT-11P-1'sdata sheet. CMRR for a 600 ohm unbalanced source is 100dB.
Typical electronically balanced interfaces can't achieve that level of CMRR due to source impedance imbalances.
See Subtleties Count in Wide Dynamic Range Analog Interfaces and AES preprint 4372, A New Balanced Audio Input Circuit for Maximum Common-Mode Rejection in Real-World Environments.
Because that's what I ultimately preferred.
They were what I ultimately preferred.
That's what I ultimately preferred.
That's what I ultimately preferred.
That's what I ultimately preferred.
Ask the folks who go
about anything "in the signal path." I mentioned it for their edification. Any more questions?
se
Well folks, this is the situation. The Bybee devices work on a quantum level that is advanced enough that it is almost impossible for anyone to understand, even the makers of the devices. NO, Jack Bybee does NOT make the quantum devices, he buys them from a manufacturer. Jack Bybee and his family/friends have to modify the quantum devices to add the power resistor and other materials in order to make the quantum devices useful for audio applications.
What Jack Bybee states on his website is essentially what the devices do, but the exact reason for why they do it is not apparent in his description. This can lead to confusion, but it can't be helped.
Steve Eddy likes to trash talk Jack Bybee, as well John Bedini, Jon Risch and me, for example, and has done so for years. We are commonly referred to as 'charlatans' by Steve Eddy.
Now, for a little background on Jack Bybee.
As the website probably states: Jack Bybee is 70++ old a retired physicist. In the '50's, he got at masters in physics at UC Berkeley, 6 blocks from where I live today. He had previously been a Marine officer in the Korean War, and apparently found working on military projects during the 'cold war' to his liking. Jack worked at a major company about 40 years ago in the SF Bay area in a group they called the 'Bumblebee division' at least as a joke, because the projects they worked on, 'could not possibly work'.
Over the years, Jack worked directly with Richard Feynman at Caltech as a consultant on superconductivity, and still likes to play around with physics projects. His 'quantum purifier' is one of his projects. He does it to keep busy, he is already well off and has been 'retired' for years.
I have a BA degree in physics, myself. That is not saying much, BUT it is far more that Steve Eddy has, and my conversations with Jack Bybee over the last 7+ years has re-awakened in me an interest in physics, as I had put it aside more than 35 years ago, in order to be an electronic design engineer.
When Jack and I talk, we talk physics, not money or any other BS. For example, this week I noted an article in the 'Scientific American'Nov '03 called 'All Screwed Up' on p.22 This is about an unexplored property of light.
Jack suggested that I put this up as one of our ideas, in order to get it attacked by Steve Eddy and then, later give him the reference in 'SA', but I would prefer not to give Steve Eddy any future ammunition to work with, so I just point it out here to the rest of you.
For all it's worth, you can take or leave the Bybee devices, but you can't understand their operation by pulling apart what is on the Bybee website, or baiting people to give more info.
What Jack Bybee states on his website is essentially what the devices do, but the exact reason for why they do it is not apparent in his description. This can lead to confusion, but it can't be helped.
Steve Eddy likes to trash talk Jack Bybee, as well John Bedini, Jon Risch and me, for example, and has done so for years. We are commonly referred to as 'charlatans' by Steve Eddy.
Now, for a little background on Jack Bybee.
As the website probably states: Jack Bybee is 70++ old a retired physicist. In the '50's, he got at masters in physics at UC Berkeley, 6 blocks from where I live today. He had previously been a Marine officer in the Korean War, and apparently found working on military projects during the 'cold war' to his liking. Jack worked at a major company about 40 years ago in the SF Bay area in a group they called the 'Bumblebee division' at least as a joke, because the projects they worked on, 'could not possibly work'.
Over the years, Jack worked directly with Richard Feynman at Caltech as a consultant on superconductivity, and still likes to play around with physics projects. His 'quantum purifier' is one of his projects. He does it to keep busy, he is already well off and has been 'retired' for years.
I have a BA degree in physics, myself. That is not saying much, BUT it is far more that Steve Eddy has, and my conversations with Jack Bybee over the last 7+ years has re-awakened in me an interest in physics, as I had put it aside more than 35 years ago, in order to be an electronic design engineer.
When Jack and I talk, we talk physics, not money or any other BS. For example, this week I noted an article in the 'Scientific American'Nov '03 called 'All Screwed Up' on p.22 This is about an unexplored property of light.
Jack suggested that I put this up as one of our ideas, in order to get it attacked by Steve Eddy and then, later give him the reference in 'SA', but I would prefer not to give Steve Eddy any future ammunition to work with, so I just point it out here to the rest of you.
For all it's worth, you can take or leave the Bybee devices, but you can't understand their operation by pulling apart what is on the Bybee website, or baiting people to give more info.
John Bedini......talk trash.....?
No.....never.......
I probably mentioned this here before, but........
I have a copy of the Bedini press release for his CD magnet spinning doo-hickey thing.
The date on it is Feb. 31. I thought it was a joke when it showed up on our fax machine.
Yeah, with stuff like that, no wonder SE has too much ammo to work with. The last thing that he needs is more.
But somehow he will find it.
Jocko
No.....never.......
I probably mentioned this here before, but........
I have a copy of the Bedini press release for his CD magnet spinning doo-hickey thing.
The date on it is Feb. 31. I thought it was a joke when it showed up on our fax machine.
Yeah, with stuff like that, no wonder SE has too much ammo to work with. The last thing that he needs is more.
But somehow he will find it.
Jocko
john curl said:
Thank you very much for all those words John. I’ve tried to put them in several orders to grab a message from it.
The only thing that showed up useful is that nobody is able to understand what the QP’s do, even Jack Bybee seems not. But do you really think this is credible?
But back to the ground: QP’s seem to remove distortion or whatever other nasty things from the music signal. Well distortion is part of the signal at the end. So if the QP’s remove part of the signal this must be measurable, isn’t it? Or are small gods involved here hidden in the ceramic?
I started this thread asking for evidence, but even you as a good friend of JB seems not be able to give that. Ok that’s also an answer, thanks.
Cheers
john curl said:
If they don't understand how they work, how were they able to design them in the first place? For that matter, how do they know that they work at all?
Again, why haven't you installed any QPs in your 1700B and your spectrum analyzer? If they work as Jack claims, you should be able to significantly improve your measurement resolution.
If they make such an improvement in audio equipment, they'd have to make at least as much an improvement in audio test equipment.
How quaint.
If his website states what the devices essentially do, then why do they measure 0.02 ohms, the same value as the resistor that's inside of them?
If the devices do at all what Bybee claims on his website, then they'd have to have a resistance far far lower than 0.02 ohms.
BS is generally intended to confuse.
If the shoe fits...
So? I can show you a bumblebee flying. But the only thing flying with regard to the Quantum Purifier claims are the flies buzzing around the BS.
Again, so?
Yet again, so? This is just more smokescreen. It does absolutely nothing to answer any of the valid questions which have been put forth.
If you don't wish to answer them, fine. But don't try and fool people by spewing "credentials" as if that somehow proves anything with regard to the issue at hand.
Then tell Bybee to stop baiting people with the BS on his website.
se
Pjotr said:
Yet Bybee's website is full of claims as to what they do.
Mostly it's just a very simplified layperson's description of Cooper pair bonding. Yet there's obviously no Cooper pair bonding taking place or the things wouldn't measure the same resistance as the resistor that's inside of them.
se
Right....
Doesn't seem like Bybee knows either since he throws out Quantum properties that can't possibly occur at room temperature. (Which several other people here are also aware of and question.)
So why don't you fill us in on what's missing instead of making off-hand remarks, John. And if he's made such a great room temperature super-conductor discovery, wouldn't you think he'd be in line for a Nobel? Yet we see no mention in any peer journal regarding this amazing breakthrough, do we?
-Bruce
john curl said:
Doesn't seem like Bybee knows either since he throws out Quantum properties that can't possibly occur at room temperature. (Which several other people here are also aware of and question.)
So why don't you fill us in on what's missing instead of making off-hand remarks, John. And if he's made such a great room temperature super-conductor discovery, wouldn't you think he'd be in line for a Nobel? Yet we see no mention in any peer journal regarding this amazing breakthrough, do we?
-Bruce
Well folks, there it is. You either learn and grow, or you waste time and energy criticizing what you have never experienced or have access to the understanding of what you criticize.
I tried the Bybee devices before I knew anything about them. They worked for me then, and they work for me now. In truth, in some situations, the Bybee devices very well could remove signal artifacts as well as other noise. So you try them and see if removing 'glare' for example, is worth perhaps some subtle signal artifact deep in the noise. This is a subjective judgement.
For example, I have found that with batteries powering my equipment, I prefer NOT to use a Bybee. However, anything plugged into the wall seems to benefit from them on the AC line. The very best hi fi playback seems to depend on the taste of the listener. Bob Crump and I generally don't like to use Bybees in the audio path of our reference preamp, or in our JC-1 power amp, because they can tend to 'lose' a small amount of 'information', but I use an inline Bybee from my video input coming from a DVD or VCR. I also use Bybees in the AC of all Video, digital and preamp inputs. We generally find that Bybees don't do much for power amps, for some reason.
The most striking place that I found the Bybees useful is in loudspeakers with bright, forward sounding tweeters, like my WATT 1's. The next most important location was in the AC line connecting to my STAX Lambda Pro headphone system.
When we go to CES, we will be using Bybee devices in our AC inputs. We have found it depends on the 'garbage' on the AC line, and interestingly, some locations don't seem to have much 'garbage' on the AC line, but CES is usually a worst case location.
I hope this gives you, more open minded individuals. an example of how Bybee devices are used and when and where they tend to work. No one expects any of you to actually invest in a Bybee. They are usually most worthwhile with very good audio systems, where a great deal of money, time and adjustment is already put forth. In these situations, the Bybee devices generate a lot of enthusiasm. In more midfi applications, they are just too expensive to consider for what they do to improve the audio or AC.
I tried the Bybee devices before I knew anything about them. They worked for me then, and they work for me now. In truth, in some situations, the Bybee devices very well could remove signal artifacts as well as other noise. So you try them and see if removing 'glare' for example, is worth perhaps some subtle signal artifact deep in the noise. This is a subjective judgement.
For example, I have found that with batteries powering my equipment, I prefer NOT to use a Bybee. However, anything plugged into the wall seems to benefit from them on the AC line. The very best hi fi playback seems to depend on the taste of the listener. Bob Crump and I generally don't like to use Bybees in the audio path of our reference preamp, or in our JC-1 power amp, because they can tend to 'lose' a small amount of 'information', but I use an inline Bybee from my video input coming from a DVD or VCR. I also use Bybees in the AC of all Video, digital and preamp inputs. We generally find that Bybees don't do much for power amps, for some reason.
The most striking place that I found the Bybees useful is in loudspeakers with bright, forward sounding tweeters, like my WATT 1's. The next most important location was in the AC line connecting to my STAX Lambda Pro headphone system.
When we go to CES, we will be using Bybee devices in our AC inputs. We have found it depends on the 'garbage' on the AC line, and interestingly, some locations don't seem to have much 'garbage' on the AC line, but CES is usually a worst case location.
I hope this gives you, more open minded individuals. an example of how Bybee devices are used and when and where they tend to work. No one expects any of you to actually invest in a Bybee. They are usually most worthwhile with very good audio systems, where a great deal of money, time and adjustment is already put forth. In these situations, the Bybee devices generate a lot of enthusiasm. In more midfi applications, they are just too expensive to consider for what they do to improve the audio or AC.
John, thanks for clarifying your view on this. My previous postings
were inteded to try provoke you slightly to see if you could at
least tell us what you think and know and not just claim that
others don't know. I think what you wrote is a satisfcatory
explanation of what you think is the truth and what you know.
You also seem to know Jack Bybee well enough that we may
perhaps dare believe that he would agree with the version
you told us.
Now, this still doesn't explain much about the purifiers
themselves, but that is another issue, which is not settled.
Maybe it is actually the case they do work due to some very
subtle quantum physics effect. I don't understand much
quantum physics, so I wouldn't dare to claim it is impossible,
however sceptical I remain that they could work that way,
if they work at all. Just don't expect people to accept this
as the truth and stop discussing the purifiers. It is fine with
me if you are convinced, that is your full right, but don't expect
everybody else to share that belief. Due to the many unknowns,
you even admit that Bybee himseld doesn't quite know, it would
be a sign of very bad health of the forum if everybody accepted
this as truth without further evidence.
were inteded to try provoke you slightly to see if you could at
least tell us what you think and know and not just claim that
others don't know. I think what you wrote is a satisfcatory
explanation of what you think is the truth and what you know.
You also seem to know Jack Bybee well enough that we may
perhaps dare believe that he would agree with the version
you told us.
Now, this still doesn't explain much about the purifiers
themselves, but that is another issue, which is not settled.
Maybe it is actually the case they do work due to some very
subtle quantum physics effect. I don't understand much
quantum physics, so I wouldn't dare to claim it is impossible,
however sceptical I remain that they could work that way,
if they work at all. Just don't expect people to accept this
as the truth and stop discussing the purifiers. It is fine with
me if you are convinced, that is your full right, but don't expect
everybody else to share that belief. Due to the many unknowns,
you even admit that Bybee himseld doesn't quite know, it would
be a sign of very bad health of the forum if everybody accepted
this as truth without further evidence.
Steve Eddy said:
Actually, there are many such cases. Just check what the
pharmceutical companies write themselves about some of
their drugs. I have found things like "it is believed to work
by ....". So how did they come up with them in the first place?
By guesswork, experimentation and experience, I suppose.
Need I mention Viagra and Salazopyrine (can't remember
the spelling). Two examples of drugs developed to have
a ceratin effect but didn't deliver. Then they were found to
have other, unexpected effects instead, which they are
massively prescribed for. The difference is that even if it is not
known how they work, they have to be proven to through
rigourous empirical studies. Some of those studies can still
be questioned though, and sometimes further studies come
to a different conclusions.
Now, this doesn't help us about the purifiers, but for once I
did not agree with your argument Steve. Did I hear an applaud
from certain people?
Moot argmument. It was recently proven by a british (I think)
research team that bumblebees indeed can fly. It is very
relieving. I no longer have to go see a psychiatrist every summer
when I see a bumblebee taking off from a flower.
Neither this means anything for the credibility of
Bybee and his explanation, either way.
Christer said:
What about those High Definition Links from Walker Audio? Discussing ByBees all over is getting boring
http://www.walkeraudio.com/high_definition_links.htm
Peter Daniel said:
What about those High Definition Links from Walker Audio? Discussing ByBees all over is getting boring
http://www.walkeraudio.com/high_definition_links.htm
Yes, and who knows, even it they Bybees turn out not to deliver,
maybe someone will find them useful for something else, as in
the case of Viagra (no I didn't mean they would be useful for
the same thing
).
Christer, thanks for your input. It's true that the bumblebee has recently been proven that it can fly, BUT 40 years ago, that was not the case. Therefore the name, in case anyone is confused about this.
Let's say you are in a cold war, as we were in 40 years ago and had lots of money to try things. Would you not try and use everything and anything that seemed to work?
I think about England during the 2'nd World War, and its codebreaking. We are NOW only getting some of what really happened, 60 years later. Why? Because even after the war, it was still classified.
I don't like to work at this level, and I have never worked on classified projects, and in truth, I am known to have a 'big mouth'. DuH! ;-) Therefore, I have insisted that Jack not tell me anything that might compromise him, because I'm sure it would slip out in the heat of discourse. Even today, I had to erase most of one of my messages here, once I realized that I had said too much.
This cramps my style, but I have to work within certain constraints, or else not tell you folks anything at all. I do my best with the situation. SE will tell you that I am doing something else, but I ask you, what has he done for audio that adds to the state-of-the-art. Use input transformers? Oh boy!
Let's say you are in a cold war, as we were in 40 years ago and had lots of money to try things. Would you not try and use everything and anything that seemed to work?
I think about England during the 2'nd World War, and its codebreaking. We are NOW only getting some of what really happened, 60 years later. Why? Because even after the war, it was still classified.
I don't like to work at this level, and I have never worked on classified projects, and in truth, I am known to have a 'big mouth'. DuH! ;-) Therefore, I have insisted that Jack not tell me anything that might compromise him, because I'm sure it would slip out in the heat of discourse. Even today, I had to erase most of one of my messages here, once I realized that I had said too much.
This cramps my style, but I have to work within certain constraints, or else not tell you folks anything at all. I do my best with the situation. SE will tell you that I am doing something else, but I ask you, what has he done for audio that adds to the state-of-the-art. Use input transformers? Oh boy!
fdegrove said:Hi,
Can anyone 'splain to me how Aspirine works?
Cheers,
Don't know, I have never tried to figure out if they know. At
least it one of the (perhaps the) oldest synthetical drugs,
so there has been plenty of time to figure it out. If I remeber,
I'll ask as a friend who is a physician if he knows whether they
know. I do remember him saying once, though, that if it had
been invented to day he doubted it would have been approved
for medical usage. I am convinced they work though, but I
cannot claim it is not by placebo. I remember a case not too
long ago when my headache was gone a few hours after taking
them (can't remember if it was actually an ASA drug, or
soimetinge else). The funny thing was, I later found out I had
actually forgotten to take them.
john curl said:
You know John, even physicians often say that a placebo effect
is also an effect. Anyway, see my response to Franks response
to your post.
BTW it not only MIGHT hurt your stomach, it DOES. There are
alternatives that are less harmful to the stomach, like
paracetamol, which I think has eventually been approved even
by FDA (we have had it for ages, but I remeber not being able
te ge it in the US).
Further, it is at least in may experience the case that
thers is no single best headache drug, it depends on both
the reason for the headache and on the individual.
Edit: got the history wrong, Franks post was not a response
toy yours, as I though.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.