Yes, by inserting a resistance, in the particular case when it was connected in the power supply line PE (protective earth) wire.
You don't perceive any connection between this and the disrespectful comments you make on a daily basis here?john curl said:
From time to time you have claimed understanding on the basis of being a physics graduate. It now turns out that you only studied classical physics - you must be much older than I imagined! I would have expected quantum physics to be a standard part of any undergraduate physics course since the 1950s. However, at least you may have some excuse for believing the Bybee story - although even a classical physicist ought to know that in order to affect a circuit it is necessary for a passive component to act via its impedance. No impedance means no action!
We don't. Bybee offers a spurious explanation. We are just pointing out that it is spurious, for the benefit of those who lack a quantum education and so are unable to make that judgement themselves.VladimirK said:
Again, this is where I rely on recordings that to most ears are on the edge of being acceptable - take a specific behaviour that people complain about: excess, unnatural silibance with female vocalists - this is a distortion artifact that is particularly annoying, and irritating to listen to, people notice it straightaway. When the system is running well that negative quality subjectively completely disappears - but when the SQ is degraded it may start to rear its ugly head, be quite prominent ... IOW, the trick is to rely on elements in the sound which are just on the edge of being unpleasant - the hearing system immediately sends a signal to your consciousness when the line is crossed from aye to nay, or vice versa ...
Last edited:
How can I possibly understand, or fail to understand, something that wasn't presented?
What evidence are you referring to?
I expressed no opinion here on this matter, I only pointed out that no scientific evidence whatsoever as for the Bybee devices not working as claimed was presented here. It is a plain fact that no such evidence was presented here.
Hi Scott,
Putting the Bybee devices to test is an excellent idea. I'd love to see the results of your tests.
As for the alleged 'misunderstanding', would you agree that a conclusion which isn't based on any empirical tests isn't a 'scientific evidence'?
Do you agree with the following Wikipedia's definition of 'scientific evidence': Scientific evidence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ?
Why do you keep saying that when it is so obviously untrue? I ask you again: What evidence would you find acceptable, since you are dismissing all the measurements performed up to now?
+100.
Hi Scott, given the resources (test gear etc) that you have available, I/we would be very interested to know what you find.
I assume that you have a range of audio systems to try subjective testing also.
Regards, Dan.
Everyone said the same thing to me as well, until they found out that the data contradicted the claims and were consistent with a plain old resistor.
Who will be the next person whose measurements everyone wants to see, and are then roundly ignored by the prisoners of the cabal?
Well, SY is said to have made some tests - but that thread was closed down for some pretty obvious reasons. Whether SY reported the fullest results of his research is unclear, but I seem to remember that he removed part of the device - a, acc.to JC, exotic resistor. The thread referred intended to was to cover a two part test: SY reporting on lab testing, BigCal on subjective impressions. Cal's work is covered in a newer thread as it took him some time to obtain unmodified samples.
SY's tests - in my opinion - were compromised by his testing a device other than as that device is presented by the maker.
SY - again, in my opinion - was unwise to take on the burden of lab testing if only because he had already expressed such condemning personal views on the device; his results were bound to be seen as being aimed at producing results to support his pre-stated opinions. [A doctor running diagnostic tests does not amputate even a small finger before starting through a formal test regime.]
[I am relying on a 72 year old's memory on the statement regarding alteration of the test sample; it is possible that the offending resistor was not removed until testing had been completed. Consequently I apologise in advance should it be proved that my memory is in fail-mode on that detail!!]
Cal has repeated here that his subjective tests proved for him that the device - although having marginal benefits as tested - was somewhat a disappointment, especially when considering the costs involved.
If anyone wants to check the facts of this post they had better use the search function.
SY's tests - in my opinion - were compromised by his testing a device other than as that device is presented by the maker.
SY - again, in my opinion - was unwise to take on the burden of lab testing if only because he had already expressed such condemning personal views on the device; his results were bound to be seen as being aimed at producing results to support his pre-stated opinions. [A doctor running diagnostic tests does not amputate even a small finger before starting through a formal test regime.]
[I am relying on a 72 year old's memory on the statement regarding alteration of the test sample; it is possible that the offending resistor was not removed until testing had been completed. Consequently I apologise in advance should it be proved that my memory is in fail-mode on that detail!!]
Cal has repeated here that his subjective tests proved for him that the device - although having marginal benefits as tested - was somewhat a disappointment, especially when considering the costs involved.
If anyone wants to check the facts of this post they had better use the search function.
Nothing like a good showdown , errrr , or throwdown ...
Can you be more specific John , are you refering to the Chef with tons of opinions and recipes , yet never actually cooked a meal in his life ...
Last edited:
Max,
That subjective testing could be a ruse unless you test another device in the exact same position and see if it can create the exact same phenomena. If you can hear the insertion of the Bybee and you replaced it with a simple resistor and you could hear the exact same shift in the sound would you still attribute special properties to the Bybee device? That is what I think we are all saying here, have been saying the entire time. There is nothing magical about the Bybee, it is a resistor. Even John has confirmed that the Bybee is not a capacitor or an Inductor. I would say also it is not a transistor or diode or any other unknown device unheard of before. We all understand that it is not an active device with logic, it would not have a way to do a comparative analysis that would allow it to by a determinative result separate one type of waveform or electron from another.
You seem to be fairly knowledgeable about some aspects of PA sound. Now you have to do a real comparison of something like a Bybee and a comparable resistor with the identical electrical value and see if you hear the same thing with your subjective test.
We have also been talking about inserting this resistance in two very different places in a circuit. One being on the neutral ground path before the power supply on the AC power line and the other being at the speaker positive and negative terminals. You would have to do the same, but be aware of the admonition that at least here in the US that would be considered illegal and ill advised on the AC power line due to safety issues. Our national standards would say you can not insert that low powered type of resistor on a high current power line cord between the positive source and the neutral ground, period.
That subjective testing could be a ruse unless you test another device in the exact same position and see if it can create the exact same phenomena. If you can hear the insertion of the Bybee and you replaced it with a simple resistor and you could hear the exact same shift in the sound would you still attribute special properties to the Bybee device? That is what I think we are all saying here, have been saying the entire time. There is nothing magical about the Bybee, it is a resistor. Even John has confirmed that the Bybee is not a capacitor or an Inductor. I would say also it is not a transistor or diode or any other unknown device unheard of before. We all understand that it is not an active device with logic, it would not have a way to do a comparative analysis that would allow it to by a determinative result separate one type of waveform or electron from another.
You seem to be fairly knowledgeable about some aspects of PA sound. Now you have to do a real comparison of something like a Bybee and a comparable resistor with the identical electrical value and see if you hear the same thing with your subjective test.
We have also been talking about inserting this resistance in two very different places in a circuit. One being on the neutral ground path before the power supply on the AC power line and the other being at the speaker positive and negative terminals. You would have to do the same, but be aware of the admonition that at least here in the US that would be considered illegal and ill advised on the AC power line due to safety issues. Our national standards would say you can not insert that low powered type of resistor on a high current power line cord between the positive source and the neutral ground, period.
Thanks, yes I do well understand the points that you make.
Agreed, inserting in the mains neutral line is dubious for safety reasons, and also likely to kick more junk (due to parasitics) into the safety earth line of the DUT.
For a double insulated two wire supplied system, there should be no real safety concerns, however parasitic coupling into the system local ground would change.
One test is of the BQP device only, another and perhaps more relevant test is to measure any changes in a complete system, and at the load end of speaker cables.
Scott?, mentioned tweaking CMR on his complete system, and not individual components of the system.
This might be another parameter to check for changes.
All the tests I mention would need to be comparative to a particular type (or range of types of) of resistor with same measured DCR value as BQP.
Dan.
Agreed, inserting in the mains neutral line is dubious for safety reasons, and also likely to kick more junk (due to parasitics) into the safety earth line of the DUT.
For a double insulated two wire supplied system, there should be no real safety concerns, however parasitic coupling into the system local ground would change.
One test is of the BQP device only, another and perhaps more relevant test is to measure any changes in a complete system, and at the load end of speaker cables.
Scott?, mentioned tweaking CMR on his complete system, and not individual components of the system.
This might be another parameter to check for changes.
All the tests I mention would need to be comparative to a particular type (or range of types of) of resistor with same measured DCR value as BQP.
Dan.
Last edited:
It is rather sad that the amount of ignorance being displayed by Joshua_G, acting like a child in a debate does not further anybody's knowledge. like JC there is no data that can be presented that will sway these views.
Though I do look forward to Scotts results, whatever the results they would be hard to disagree with, from both sides.
On the subject of test methodologies, what are the gotchas/considerations/advices when using a 600R/600R audio line output transformer when used to bridge across various loads, in particular an amplifier output terminals, or a loudspeaker input terminals.
Also, what is the difference between say, 150/150, 600/600, 3K/3K, etc 1:1 coupling transformers when used between low impedance source, and high impedance input ?.
Dan.
Also, what is the difference between say, 150/150, 600/600, 3K/3K, etc 1:1 coupling transformers when used between low impedance source, and high impedance input ?.
Dan.
Last edited:
So you are arguing just for the sake of arguing? Are you a Monty Python fan?Joshua_G said:
Evidence has been presented on this website, which I believe should qualify as "here": SY's measurements. Plausible arguments based on known science have also been presented here. If these are insufficient for you then you will have to do your own tests if you wish to hold a considered opinion. If you do not wish to hold such an opinion then don't keep demanding 'proof' from those who have formed such an opinion, as it makes you sound like a 3-year-old in a sweet shop.
I do not recommend removal of the safety bonding wire from any system. It is there to force the circuit breaker to open in the event of a hot to chassis fault, and it must maintain chassis potential below 50 volts during that process. edit: it is a common misconception that a circuit breaker is there to protect humans. IT IS NOT... The purpose of a circuit breaker is to protect the WIRES after the breaker. The safety bond is there to force the breaker open in the event of a fault, and it's impedance must be capable of protecting humans during the fault. Widgits which may disable either function cannot be tolerated.
I do not recommend it be used in a neutral line as well, as failure of the device due to an untoward event can leave the chassis hot to ground.
I do not recommend it be used in a hot line, as I do not believe it is a listed component for that function by any NRTL's.
PMA..you correctly identify the haversine components of the waveform presented by JC. What you now need to model is a mutual coupling between one of the power conductors and a safety bond, as that is the specific statement on the paper, that of neutral to ground voltage. You have to set that coupling constant to a value consistent with +/- 1 volt peaks as shown in the graph with the load at perhaps 20% draw, and then modulate the draw with an audio current such that the current gates through the input rectifiers to reach the line cord through the transformers. You will then see the audio hash presenting to the safety bond conductor.
edit: As another alternative model, retain the mutual coupling to the safety bonding conductor, but inject hash into the hot/neutral circuit using another mutually coupled device, simulating an industrial environment which contains lots of uncontrolled time varying magnetic fields. Modification of the ground loop impedance will modify the ground loop currents as well. Using a scope probe to view the ground to neutral voltage with no real current path will be a clear demonstration of Faraday's law of induction.
The loop impedance of that safety conductor will determine the actual voltage presenting neutral to ground. The "widget" being discussed will decrease that current by it's insertion.
See above.
It seems later you give up this option as a repeat of existing data. Oh well. Had you wished to proceed, I coulda made up a low value cvr and a divide by 2 for you to use as a bridge.
jn
Last edited:
Hi Brian,
1. The Bybees SY tested were the ones I purchased. He has not altered them AFAIK. I am not aware of any others he may have tested. SY can confirm.
2. I did not state I heard a benefit. I said I thought I may have heard a difference on one of the many tweeters I tested but that may have been autosuggestion. I desperately wanted to hear something, anything, I could report back to the members.
I hope that helps to clear it up.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.