Stick your fingers in your ears & say blah, blah.
Maybe pano wants to contribute as I thought he was running the listening tests
Maybe pano wants to contribute as I thought he was running the listening tests
Well, I think there is also value in casual listening tests as well. Just weight them accordingly, but it's still data.
From what threads I have read over the years, I doubt those who don't believe in physical testing will be swayed at all by any findings from the testing efforts. I think that listening tests will be just as valid after the findings of measurements as before.
Looking at this another way, I'd like to see listening tests run up to and past any release of measurements. People will choose one truth over another using their own beliefs and values.
As an additional thought. Wouldn't it be great if JC could assist with listening tests? He could even show what to listen for. If he attends in person, he could also avail his other devices for listening tests. That might be the best way to be able to look for a change. You could run one set before he talks, then another after he speaks on them. He may even have some way to buy them.
-Chris
From what threads I have read over the years, I doubt those who don't believe in physical testing will be swayed at all by any findings from the testing efforts. I think that listening tests will be just as valid after the findings of measurements as before.
Looking at this another way, I'd like to see listening tests run up to and past any release of measurements. People will choose one truth over another using their own beliefs and values.
As an additional thought. Wouldn't it be great if JC could assist with listening tests? He could even show what to listen for. If he attends in person, he could also avail his other devices for listening tests. That might be the best way to be able to look for a change. You could run one set before he talks, then another after he speaks on them. He may even have some way to buy them.
-Chris
Guys, cool it please!
Just try to set something up and do the testing. Personally, I hope that something can be heard, and I also hope it can be measured. I think John's involvement in a listening test might be a help also. Just try to ignore any pseudoscience in case anyone attempts an explanation.
Hi aardvarkash10,
Hi jkeny,
Why the devil are you being so negative? It isn't helping anyone at all. Besides, what SY said JC posted is correct, a fact.
Remember, attack ideas or statements only, never the member! Don't continue your present line of commenting.
-Chris
Just try to set something up and do the testing. Personally, I hope that something can be heard, and I also hope it can be measured. I think John's involvement in a listening test might be a help also. Just try to ignore any pseudoscience in case anyone attempts an explanation.
Hi aardvarkash10,
Accepting reality goes a long way in conducting a reasonable test. I don't think that "perfect" or 100% controlled is achievable.
Pretty much! 😀
Why not fix something up as a stopgap measure? Later you can modify another for better performance.
Hi jkeny,
Why the devil are you being so negative? It isn't helping anyone at all. Besides, what SY said JC posted is correct, a fact.
Remember, attack ideas or statements only, never the member! Don't continue your present line of commenting.
-Chris
Last edited:
I actually find it odd in the extreme that the listening tests promoted seem to be confined only to afficionados - those who "know what to listen for".
Either these things make a difference or they don't - its that simple. Subjects need NO specialised ability or knowledge in the first instance. By carrying out the experiment, two major groups can be identified - those who CAN reliably hear a difference, and those who cannot.
After that further testing can be done amongst those who CAN reliably identify the component to find out WHAT is allowing them to identify it.
This is the perfect experiment for a Masters or Doctorate student with an interest in human hearing and perception.
WADR anatech, a personally administered, sighted listeniing test is as relevant a test as me looking at an items price tag and saying "F**K me it costs a lot - it MUST work". The only data it provides is data on the inability of individuals to understand scientific process.
Either these things make a difference or they don't - its that simple. Subjects need NO specialised ability or knowledge in the first instance. By carrying out the experiment, two major groups can be identified - those who CAN reliably hear a difference, and those who cannot.
After that further testing can be done amongst those who CAN reliably identify the component to find out WHAT is allowing them to identify it.
This is the perfect experiment for a Masters or Doctorate student with an interest in human hearing and perception.
WADR anatech, a personally administered, sighted listeniing test is as relevant a test as me looking at an items price tag and saying "F**K me it costs a lot - it MUST work". The only data it provides is data on the inability of individuals to understand scientific process.
OT
Yep - thats the process! But I'm sure you've done it - "I'll just change... hey what about... well I'm so far in know I may as well...." hehehe.
Love it.
End OT
Yep - thats the process! But I'm sure you've done it - "I'll just change... hey what about... well I'm so far in know I may as well...." hehehe.
Love it.
End OT
There is so much chat about these Bybees that I don't see how a listening test could be without expectation. The measurements will probably influence the listening tests, but that's the breaks. All the spin and positive reviews will also have an effect on the listening. There is nothing we can do about that except true double blind testing. No one in the test knows what is being tested. That would be best.
Hmmm.... I may be able to arrange that.
Hmmm.... I may be able to arrange that.
Hi Pano,
Please do. I'd be interested in the results. I'm a closet listener you know ...
Hi aardvarkash10,
It wouldn't be so bad if there weren't audible and measured improvements. Th problem is that there really are. I can hear it, the customers can hear it, and bloody hell, I can measure it too. That all adds up to a lot of work on the bench just trying to finish something simple.
However, I can trick myself by saying "let's just clean it up, correct bias and offset plus maybe tuner alignment (couple hours now) and I'll attack this later. I use this as a pre-screening method. Units that don't have potential are traded for something else. Looking at the schematic often shows me what can be improved resulting in very good performance, and which ones are simply not ever going to be worthwhile.
Come on, if I can do it, so can you.
-Chris
Please do. I'd be interested in the results. I'm a closet listener you know ...
Hi aardvarkash10,
Oh yeah! I just did that again in fact.
It wouldn't be so bad if there weren't audible and measured improvements. Th problem is that there really are. I can hear it, the customers can hear it, and bloody hell, I can measure it too. That all adds up to a lot of work on the bench just trying to finish something simple.
However, I can trick myself by saying "let's just clean it up, correct bias and offset plus maybe tuner alignment (couple hours now) and I'll attack this later. I use this as a pre-screening method. Units that don't have potential are traded for something else. Looking at the schematic often shows me what can be improved resulting in very good performance, and which ones are simply not ever going to be worthwhile.
Come on, if I can do it, so can you.
-Chris
OT (again...) for Chris:
yeah, well to mollify you a bit, the signature line is another example of my tendancy to hyperbole. A pre-amp including a Cornet octal phono section feeds a barstardised EL36 (6CM5) pp power amp into some Zaph-clone wall speakers via a Wharfdale Sub.
The kids all listen to their i-Pods through EL84SE units (three of) and a range of different cast-off speaker experiments.
THe scope lives in the lounge...
yeah, well to mollify you a bit, the signature line is another example of my tendancy to hyperbole. A pre-amp including a Cornet octal phono section feeds a barstardised EL36 (6CM5) pp power amp into some Zaph-clone wall speakers via a Wharfdale Sub.
The kids all listen to their i-Pods through EL84SE units (three of) and a range of different cast-off speaker experiments.
THe scope lives in the lounge...
re:'THe scope lives in the lounge...' that'd be more entertaining than the stuff my wife likes to watch....
Supposing the test subjects were told they were listening for diferences between speakers/amps/sources (pick one) and not told about the QP's... No more preconceived notions, everyone is looking for diferences and not dismissing them out of hand...
Or get a room full of Bybee believers and see if they can reliably identify the QP in the DBT!
Obviously a room full of sceptics who know the QP's just measure like resistors and violate various laws of everything are not the best people to use for the test.
Or get a room full of Bybee believers and see if they can reliably identify the QP in the DBT!
Obviously a room full of sceptics who know the QP's just measure like resistors and violate various laws of everything are not the best people to use for the test.
You see now, there's a guy who knows about framing & the psychology of testing. What's so difficult? Again, doing the listening tests before the measurements is a no-brainer, too!
I find this just amazing. Pano suggested listening tests, and what happens? 33 posts (so far) of hot air discussing the way to do a listening test yap yap yap - BUT NO ONE SEEMS TO HAVE ACTUALLY LISTENED YET!
I have, I was lent some speaker Bybees by the Swiss agent. All my speaker connections are with 4mm banana plugs/sockets, and if you've read my SuperCables CookBook you'll know I favour low mass connections - so I simply sioldered some "MultiContact" 4mm plugs and sockets to each end of the sample Bybees and added them to the system. One Bybeee per speaker, in the "+" lead.
The system was Vacuum State RTP3c preamp, Vacuum State dpa300B poweramps, Vacuum State SilverFoil interconnects and speaker cables, and home made cone speakers using Ted Jordan JX150 woofers and JX53 tweeters, with a series crossover. Source was either vinyl or a heavily modified SONY SCD-777ES SACD player.
The Bybess were left in the system for about a week and the system used normally, then they were removed afor another week, then returned for a third week.
Then one Saturday, they were in and out on an hourly basis with intense listening scrutiny.
The result? They made a noticable sonic difference, which I initially considered a very small improvement, but by the end of the test I could still tell the change they made, but I was now undecided if it was an improvement or not
As they are quite expensive, they were given back and we never have, and still don't offer them as any form of upgrade for our products.
OK?
Regards, Allen
I have, I was lent some speaker Bybees by the Swiss agent. All my speaker connections are with 4mm banana plugs/sockets, and if you've read my SuperCables CookBook you'll know I favour low mass connections - so I simply sioldered some "MultiContact" 4mm plugs and sockets to each end of the sample Bybees and added them to the system. One Bybeee per speaker, in the "+" lead.
The system was Vacuum State RTP3c preamp, Vacuum State dpa300B poweramps, Vacuum State SilverFoil interconnects and speaker cables, and home made cone speakers using Ted Jordan JX150 woofers and JX53 tweeters, with a series crossover. Source was either vinyl or a heavily modified SONY SCD-777ES SACD player.
The Bybess were left in the system for about a week and the system used normally, then they were removed afor another week, then returned for a third week.
Then one Saturday, they were in and out on an hourly basis with intense listening scrutiny.
The result? They made a noticable sonic difference, which I initially considered a very small improvement, but by the end of the test I could still tell the change they made, but I was now undecided if it was an improvement or not
As they are quite expensive, they were given back and we never have, and still don't offer them as any form of upgrade for our products.
OK?
Regards, Allen
YES! Very good indeed.
I opened this thread for 2 reasons. 1). To propose what might be a good listening tests. 2) For those who had actually heard the Bybee to post their impressions. Until Alan's post above, we've had nothing but chatter about biased listeners. Sigh... Bias goes both ways, you know - for and against.
I'll test them in some sort of blind test (I was hoping to get help on the protocol here) and will recruit some listeners who have never heard of a Bybee. Not only that, I purpose to pay them for correct answers as a form of positive feedback. That should motivate the listeners to pay better attention to the test. 😀
Only I will know what a Bybee is and how it measures. So my scores will be compared against those who know nothing. Should be interesting.
But please - isn't there someone else who has used the Bybee and liked it or not? Care to share your thoughts? It does not have to be a controlled test, anecdotal evidence is welcome.
I will try to write up some ideas for a listening test tomorrow when I get home.
I opened this thread for 2 reasons. 1). To propose what might be a good listening tests. 2) For those who had actually heard the Bybee to post their impressions. Until Alan's post above, we've had nothing but chatter about biased listeners. Sigh... Bias goes both ways, you know - for and against.
I'll test them in some sort of blind test (I was hoping to get help on the protocol here) and will recruit some listeners who have never heard of a Bybee. Not only that, I purpose to pay them for correct answers as a form of positive feedback. That should motivate the listeners to pay better attention to the test. 😀
Only I will know what a Bybee is and how it measures. So my scores will be compared against those who know nothing. Should be interesting.
But please - isn't there someone else who has used the Bybee and liked it or not? Care to share your thoughts? It does not have to be a controlled test, anecdotal evidence is welcome.
I will try to write up some ideas for a listening test tomorrow when I get home.
Since they are very unclear in their marketing material about where the gizmos should be placed, this makes the listening tests pretty complicated. Don't hear anything when they're on the AC line? You should have used them in the tweeter feed. Nothing there? Dumbass, you should have used them in series with the output of your CD player! And so on and so on. I think you'll need to start with people who claim to have heard the effects in a specific application and test them in that specific application.
In low impedance applications, you should be using a 0.025 ohm resistor as a control.
In low impedance applications, you should be using a 0.025 ohm resistor as a control.
And even Alan's impression is... well, lets be honest here, vague and inconclusive. This from someone with extensive experience and a solid reputation.
Good luck with finding anything anecdotally...
What part of this is vague & inconclusive?
They make a sonic difference, according to Allen & therefore should show up in measurements! This the first such report here & shouldn't be dismissed!
Last edited:
No, it's not. John Curl already reported that the devices were only audible when he knew they were there.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.