| Pjotr |
Since the previous ByBee QP thread has been withdrawn.
From http://www.vonschweikert.com/db100.html :
BYBEE QUANTUM PURIFIER
In addition, we have employed the Bybee Quantum Purifiers to eliminate high frequency distortion caused by RFI and other high frequency noise. These filters absorb distortion above the range of audibility to ensure very quiet operation of the horn tweeter in the critical range. Although this technique is controversial, the sonic effects are quite audible and dramatic. We believe the DB-100 to have the smoothest yet most detailed sound available, cost-no-object!
I regard von Schweikert as one of the top speaker designers with his feet firmly on the ground (I own a pair of VR-1’s). Von Schweikert does not need to use QP’s to market his speakers, so I regard his use serious. What to think about it?
Please no flaming, I am sceptical myself enough ;)
Cheers |
|
|
| Steve Eddy |
| quote: | Originally posted by Pjotr
Since the previous ByBee QP thread has been withdrawn.
From http://www.vonschweikert.com/db100.html :
BYBEE QUANTUM PURIFIER
In addition, we have employed the Bybee Quantum Purifiers to eliminate high frequency distortion caused by RFI and other high frequency noise. These filters absorb distortion above the range of audibility to ensure very quiet operation of the horn tweeter in the critical range. Although this technique is controversial, the sonic effects are quite audible and dramatic. We believe the DB-100 to have the smoothest yet most detailed sound available, cost-no-object!
I regard von Schweikert as one of the top speaker designers with his feet firmly on the ground (I own a pair of VR-1’s). Von Schweikert does not need to use QP’s to market his speakers, so I regard his use serious. What to think about it? |
Well, let's see...
In addition, we have employed the Bybee Quantum Purifiers to eliminate high frequency distortion caused by RFI and other high frequency noise. These filters absorb distortion above the range of audibility to ensure very quiet operation of the horn tweeter in the critical range.
Here he's claiming the Quantum Purifiers are doing something completely different than what Bybee has been claiming they do. According to Bybee and Curl, they're supposed to be getting rid of quantum 1/f noise.
Though von Schweikert's claim might actually be closer to the truth than what Bybee has been claiming. If the so-called "near superconductive" ceramic surrounding the 0.02 ohm resistor was simply nothing more than a big ferrite bead, that would certainly help to filter out RFI and other high frequency noise and interference.
I wonder if von Schweikert has tried using a 0.02 ohm resistor stuffed inside a big ferrite bead?
Although this technique is controversial, the sonic effects are quite audible and dramatic.
Just another empty claim of audibility to be heaped on the mountain of all the other empty claims of audibility that have come before it.
Von Schweikert may well be wholly sincere in his claims. But sincerity in itself doesn't prove anything. So we really don't know any more now than we did before.
Anyway, that's what I think about it. :)
se |
|
|
| john curl |
| SE knows nothing about how the Bybee QP purifiers work. I can't tell him, either. However, I have tried and now use Bybees in my home system. VS apparently has found them useful, as I do. His explanation is partially correct, but incomplete. For the record, there is NO ferrite in a Bybee filter. |
|
|
| Steve Eddy |
| quote: | Originally posted by john curl
SE knows nothing about how the Bybee QP purifiers work. I can't tell him, either. |
Look, if you're going to keep playing this silly cloak and daggar bit and not tell anyone how they DO work, the I'd suggest you stop going around making unsubstantiated claims about others not knowing how they work.
| quote: | | For the record, there is NO ferrite in a Bybee filter. |
Well, until we're told what is in it, we don't know what's not in it either, more unsubstantiated claims notwithstanding.
se |
|
|
| Pjotr |
Hmm
Please guys will you leave out the personal parts. I like to see more on evidence about the thing itself. To quote D. Self:
“If something comes up repeatedly without evidence it is worth investigating it”
Many people are convincing (although by using their ears) that those QP’s modify the signal in some way. If that is the case I think it can be measured too. And if Bybee itself developed that thing serious, most likely he did not do that with a black pot on an ancient stove powered by peat.
Cheers ;) |
|
|
| Christer |
Pjotr, I agree with you and I don't mind speculating about the
possible causes of effects I am sceptical about. As long as
we cannot prove whether it exists or not, we simply don't know.
If the Bybees do work and do so in the way Bybee claims himself,
then I am afraid there are very few on this forum who are able
to understand how and why, since it seems central to the
explanation to understand quantum physics concepts like
Coopers pairs. Do any of you understand that? I don't for
sure, but at least I searched the web to check that there is
actually something called Coopers pairs. So does Bybee
know something we don't have a clue about or does he just
use terminology that so few of is understand that we won't be
able to figure out whether he made it all up? I suppose John
has this deep knowledge of quantum physics since he seem
to understand how the Bybees work. Somewhat puzzling,
although not necessarily contradictory, since he recently
seemed to have the opinion that not even semiconductor
physics was very relevant for audio. |
|
|
| fdegrove |
Hi,
| quote: | | These filters absorb distortion above the range of audibility to ensure very quiet operation of the horn tweeter |
What's the range of audiblity??
10 to 30 KHz?
Nah, it is not. In audiometric terms perhaps, yet we feel musical emotions way beyond these frequencies, bone conduction is one clue...
"These filters absorb distortion"
Oh dear, how so, JC?
I'd really like to know but even when looking at nano electronics I fail to see how.
Please do tell.They may well absorb something but other than real world filtering using a combination of L, C and R, how??
Surely the sheer mention of nano-electronics is going to fly back in my face again with a megaton of meaningless me-too explanations?
Don't you get tired of 'splaining bright sides to the dark side of the moon?
I know I do,;) |
|
|
| Salsero |
Gentlemen,
I have also been perplexed by the Bybee Quantum Purifiers. In one ocassion I sent the inventor a set of questions but never received a reply. So I followed up and nothing. MY question was:
Copper pairs are ONLY relevent to Yttrium-Barium-Copper Oxide Low Temperature (less than 90k or 183C below zero), so his claim did not explain their behavior. Additionally, there is a maximum current above which the copper pairs dissociate at these low temperatures. He claims that these filters were developed to work with sonar systems where cooling near 77k is viable. I may not be an expert but I was un-impressed at the lack of response. I take the word of those who say they work, but would like a more "beefy" explanation before plunging so much cash into them.
Salsero |
|
|
| Steve Eddy |
| quote: | Originally posted by Christer
If the Bybees do work and do so in the way Bybee claims himself,
then I am afraid there are very few on this forum who are able
to understand how and why, since it seems central to the
explanation to understand quantum physics concepts like
Coopers pairs. Do any of you understand that? I don't for
sure, but at least I searched the web to check that there is
actually something called Coopers pairs. |
While both Bybee and John have invoked Cooper pairs with regard to the Quantum Purifiers, Cooper pairs are just a buzzword red herring for several reasons.
First, while Cooper pair bonding seems to explain superconductivity in Type I superconductors, which basically involves pure metals, it doesn't quite seem to explain superconductivity in Type II semiconductors, which include the metal oxide ceramics which Bybee says the ceramic in his purifiers is made of.
Second, Cooper pair bonding doesn't really occur until you begin to approach the critical temperature of the superconductor (Tc). Which even for the highest temperature superconductor to date is FAR FAR below room temperatures.
Third, the ceramic material in the purifiers doesn't seem to conduct at all (seeing as the purifiers measure 0.02 ohms, the same as the 0.02 ohm resistor it's made of) so virtually all the current is flowing through a conventional 0.02 ohm resistor. So any issues with regard to superconductivity are pretty much moot.
But if you want to read up about Cooper pairs just for the fun of it, here's a good place to start:
BCS Theory of Superconductivity
se |
|
|
| Steve Eddy |
| quote: | Originally posted by Salsero
Copper pairs are ONLY relevent to Yttrium-Barium-Copper Oxide Low Temperature (less than 90k or 183C below zero), so his claim did not explain their behavior. |
Acutally Cooper pairs are relevant to all Type I superconductors which are your pure metals. YBCO is a Type II superconductor, and last I read, the BCS theory didn't fully explain superconductivity in Type II superconductors.
| quote: | | Additionally, there is a maximum current above which the copper pairs dissociate at these low temperatures. He claims that these filters were developed to work with sonar systems where cooling near 77k is viable. |
Which is moot seeing as the purifiers are being used at room temperatures and higher.
se |
|
|
| john curl |
| When it comes to Bybee, Steve Eddy has no idea of what is going on. |
|
|
| Steve Eddy |
| quote: | Originally posted by john curl
When it comes to Bybee, Steve Eddy has no idea of what is going on. |
Great. Now perhaps you'd care to address what I actually said.
Like how the only conductive element in the Quantum Purifiers (the 0.02 ohm resistor) has anything to do with superconductivity.
se |
|
|
| mrfeedback |
I have tried putting Super Conductor material on top of audio output and Dsp chips and the sonic resultant was deeply disturbing and not at all pleasant - drove me and two witnesses out of the room quick smart.
When it all comes down to it, if the QP's make a pleasing change to audio reproduction who cares about how they actually work - millions and millions of people use household items everyday to their satisfaction without a clue as to how they work.
I am more interested in a subjective evaluation of the sonic effects/changes caused by the QP's, and listener long term findings - JC can you give us some descriptive subjective findings and your long term opinion please ?.
Eric. |
|
|
| mrfeedback |
'Like how the only conductive element in the Quantum Purifiers (the 0.02 ohm resistor) has anything to do with superconductivity.'
Steve, there is a bigger picture going on and you are not seeing it.
Eric. |
|
|
| Steve Eddy |
| quote: | Originally posted by mrfeedback
I am more interested in a subjective evaluation of the sonic effects/changes caused by the QP's, and listener long term findings - JC can you give us some descriptive subjective findings and your long term opinion please ?. |
Why not buy some and try them for yourself? How can anyone else possibly tell you what your particular subjective experiences in your particular situation will necessarily be?
Wouldn't it be better to subjectively evaluate them without being pumped and primed with a lot of preconceived notions and expectations?
I always try and avoid the subjective findings of others, subjectivity being so well, subjective. I prefer to subjectively evaluate on my own terms with as little external influence as possible.
se |
|
|
| Steve Eddy |
| quote: | Originally posted by mrfeedback
Steve, there is a bigger picture going on and you are not seeing it. |
The whole point of all the buzzwords, doubletalk, contradictions, obfuscations and evasions is to keep people from "seeing it" while trying to make it appear that there's actually something there to see. DUH!
Otherwise known as the old huckster's motto of "If you can't fascinate 'em with facts, baffle 'em with BS."
se |
|
|
| mrfeedback |
Originally posted by Steve Eddy
Why not buy some and try them for yourself? How can anyone else possibly tell you what your particular subjective experiences in your particular situation will necessarily be?
I find that intelligent subjective evaluations from experienced listeners reveal reliable information.
Wouldn't it be better to subjectively evaluate them without being pumped and primed with a lot of preconceived notions and expectations?
When it comes down to it I listen with my own ears, but reviews are still valuable.
I always try and avoid the subjective findings of others, subjectivity being so well, subjective. I prefer to subjectively evaluate on my own terms with as little external influence as possible.
I thought blind testing and psycological factors were the only pages in your book - are you saying that you actually have subjective opinions.
Eric. |
|
|
| mrfeedback |
Originally posted by Steve Eddy
The whole point of all the buzzwords, doubletalk, contradictions, obfuscations and evasions is to keep people from "seeing it" while trying to make it appear that there's actually something there to see. DUH!
Steve, I suggest that you actually try them so that you can have a properly valid viewpoint - at this stage you are reacting only to written information and the fact that you cannot understand that they can possibly work.
Otherwise known as the old huckster's motto of "If you can't fascinate 'em with facts, baffle 'em with BS."
Well now you don't actually have any first hand facts or experience, so any comment by you on this subject, by your logic should should be instantly tipped into the BS basket - think about it.
Eric. |
|
|
| Steve Eddy |
| quote: | Originally posted by mrfeedback
I find that intelligent subjective evaluations from experienced listeners reveal reliable information. |
But nothing like firsthand experience though.
| quote: | | When it comes down to it I listen with my own ears, but reviews are still valuable. |
But nothing like firsthand experience though.
| quote: | | I thought blind testing and psycological factors were the only pages in your book - are you saying that you actually have subjective opinions. |
Certainly.
Just that I don't feel that my subjective opinions have any particular inherent value to anyone other than myself. So I generally don't make much mention of them except in passing.
I prefer to encourage people to try things for themselves and come to their own conclusions. I've no interest in feeding any sort of herd mentality and would hate for someone to not even give something a try for themselves just because it may be something I don't particularly care for.
se |
|
|
| Steve Eddy |
| quote: | Originally posted by mrfeedback
Steve, I suggest that you actually try them so that you can have a properly valid viewpoint - at this stage you are reacting only to written information and the fact that you cannot understand that they can possibly work. |
My trying them has absolutely nothing to do with my viewpoint with regard to the BS technical claims that have been made about them.
| quote: | | Well now you don't actually have any first hand facts or experience, so any comment by you on this subject, by your logic should should be instantly tipped into the BS basket - think about it. |
I'm sorry, but I do have firsthand facts as to the BS technical claims that have been made about them. They're all right there on Bybee's website for all to see.
se |
|
|
| mrfeedback |
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. |
|
|
| Christer |
| quote: | Originally posted by john curl
When it comes to Bybee, Steve Eddy has no idea of what is going on. |
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. |
|
|
| Steve Eddy |
| quote: | Originally posted by mrfeedback
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. |
Sure.
| quote: | | Eliminate ground loop hum - At 60 Hz, yes ok. |
I take it that was already clarified for you?
| quote: | | Eliminate interchassis current noise - is that not ground loop hum ?. |
Not in the classic sense of multiple ground paths.
See Hum & Buzz in Unbalanced Interconnect Systems
| quote: | | Provide superior RF suppression - how and where ?. |
How? By way of the transformer's limited bandwidth as well as the RC network you mention later. Where? In the device.
| quote: | | Provide common-mode noise rejection - How and where ? |
How? By way of the transformer's high common-mode input impedance. Where? In the device.
| quote: | | Get better than balanced performance from your unbalanced inputs - any test results to substantiate this ?. |
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.
| quote: | | Why so much Isodamp and Isoloss materials ?. |
Because that's what I ultimately preferred.
| quote: | | Ok, so what is so good about the RCA sockets ?. |
They were what I ultimately preferred.
| quote: | | Why silver internal wiring, and why Kimber silver wire ? |
That's what I ultimately preferred.
| quote: | | Why a Caddock resistor ? |
That's what I ultimately preferred.
| quote: | | Why a WIMA capacitor, and why polypropylene ? |
That's what I ultimately preferred.
| quote: | | What's wrong with being in the signal path ?. |
Ask the folks who go :yikes: about anything "in the signal path." I mentioned it for their edification.
Any more questions?
se |
|
|
| john curl |
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. |
|
|
| Jocko Homo |
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 |
|
|
| Pjotr |
| quote: | Originally posted by john curl
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. |
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 ;) |
|
|
| Steve Eddy |
| quote: | Originally posted by john curl
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. |
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.
| quote: | | 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. |
How quaint.
| quote: | | 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. |
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.
| quote: | | This can lead to confusion, but it can't be helped. |
BS is generally intended to confuse.
| quote: | | 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. |
If the shoe fits...
| quote: | 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'. |
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.
| quote: | | 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. |
Again, so?
| quote: | | 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. |
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.
| quote: | | 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. |
Then tell Bybee to stop baiting people with the BS on his website.
se |
|
|
| Steve Eddy |
| quote: | Originally posted by Pjotr
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? |
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 |
|
|
| FLZapped |
| quote: | Originally posted by john curl
When it comes to Bybee, Steve Eddy has no idea of what is going on. |
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? :whazzat:
-Bruce |
|
|
| john curl |
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. |
|
|
| Christer |
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. |
|
|
| Christer |
| quote: | Originally posted by Steve Eddy
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?
|
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? :) :)
| quote: |
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.
|
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 |
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 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jocko Homo
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.
|
Well, what do you expect when some people give it away
so generously? :) |
|
|
| fdegrove |
Hi,
| quote: | | Just check what the pharmceutical companies write themselves about some of their drugs. I have found things like "it is believed to work by ....". |
Can anyone 'splain to me how Aspirine works?
Cheers,;) |
|
|
| john curl |
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! |
|
|
| john curl |
| Frank, please tell me has aspirin works! It is important, since I take at least one a day. What a potential waste of money and it MIGHT hurt my stomach as well. |
|
|
| Christer |
| quote: | Originally posted by fdegrove
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. :) |
|
|
| Christer |
| quote: | Originally posted by john curl
Frank, please tell me has aspirin works! It is important, since I take at least one a day. What a potential waste of money and it MIGHT hurt my stomach as well. |
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. |
|
|
| SimontY |
| quote: | | There are alternatives that are less harmful to the stomach.. |
Surely you've heard all this talk of how aspirin massively reduces the chance of developing heart disease. This is why middle-aged and elderly people are advised to take one a day.
For pain, I like paracetamol, makes me feel warm and snoozy, good for going to sleep ;)
-Simon |
|
|
| fdegrove |
Hi,
| quote: | | Frank, please tell me has aspirin works! It is important, since I take at least one a day. What a potential waste of money and it MIGHT hurt my stomach as well. |
I sincerely whished I could....And very much doubt anyone can for that matter.
The only advise I can give anyone is not to overdo it and take them in combination with vitamin C and calcium.
They're marketed in that form as efervescent tablets you dissolve in water.
If not they may potentially damage the stomach and the kidneys.
Placebos they're definetely not....To most scientists aspirine is as mysterious in it's workings as, you guessed it, Bybees.
John, you should have my e-mail address and in case you'd like expert advise, my dad is one of them.
Cheers, ;) |
|
|
| Christer |
| quote: | Originally posted by john curl
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.
|
AFAIK, it was just a few years ago that it was
proven. True, I think someone "proved" it long ago, but that
proof was later found incorrect or unsatisfactory. You know
how these british guys did it? They built a giant model of
an insect, not quite a bumblebee, though, and made a lot
of windtunnel experiments.
When I went to university some 20 years ago, I had a classmate
who was also studying for a PhD in maths at another university
in parallel with his engineering studies. His great passion, though,
was birds, and already then he was doing mathematical models
of how birds burn fat when flying over Sahara. I haven't met
him since, but just a few weeks ago,
I read that also for small birds, the physics has never quite been
able to explain how they can fly, but now this guy and one of
his student have found out by putting real birds in windtunnels
and doing massive computer analyses ofthe results. Similar to
the bumblebee, they found hithertoo unknown turbulence
effects.
| quote: |
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?
|
Fair enough, I am sure the military in many countries have
tried a lot of things they were sceptical about, and I suppose
especially the US military was quite desperate and paranoid
(not entirely without reason) in those days.
| quote: |
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.
|
Sure, those things are happening all the time. We recently
learned that despite Swedens official neutrality policy there
seems to have been a rather clear tacit understanding,
during the cold war, although
never in written form, that the US promised to help us if Soviet
should suddenly attack us. The official swedish policy was
always that you should also be treated as an enemy if you
entered from the west to push them out. Similarly, in secret
you lent us very advanced signal surveiilance equipment that
not even your other NATO allies were entrusted with, naturally
with the requirement that we share our info with you in secret.
The swedish signal surveillance intelligence (or whatever to
call it) was know to be very good in those days. They knew
about the Soviet invasion of Checkoslovakia in 1968 some
24 hours before it happened. My guess is, thsi was rather
quickly passed on to you.
Of course, just because someone refers to something as
classified information doesn't prove that there really is
anything to it. In the case of the military it could be a
smokescreen to give an impression they have something
they actually don't have, or they use it just in case even
though they don't really know if it helps.
| quote: |
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.
|
Sounds we have something in common there. Although I did
for a while work with digital design at a company, I then
turned into academic research. One of the reasons was that
I have never been comfortable even with having to remember
what is a company secret and what isn't. I did my master
thesis project at that company, and except that the examiner
at the university was allowed the full version of the internal
company report, the official version was quite brief and had
vague statements, saying 100+MHz rather than the 130MHz
or whatever it was. |
|
|
| fdegrove |
Hi,
| quote: | | Surely you've heard all this talk of how aspirin massively reduces the chance of developing heart disease. This is why middle-aged and elderly people are advised to take one a day. |
Because it tends to make the blood thinner hence reducing the stress on the cardiac muscles that have to pump it around the body.
Cheers,;) |
|
|
| Christer |
| quote: | Originally posted by fdegrove
Hi,
Because it tends to make the blood thinner hence reducing the stress on the cardiac muscles that have to pump it around the body.
Cheers,;) |
Yes, and that is, I think, a rather well understood effect, although
perhaps not quite why it makes the blood thinner. However, don't
overdo it, Usually just a very small dose a day is sufficient
for this purpose. My mother has special pills which are only
1/4 the strenght of the usual one for this purpose. |
|
|
| fdegrove |
Hi,
| quote: | | Yes, and that is, I think, a rather well understood effect, although |
Certainly. It's just happens that aspirine has an enormous amount of side effects that somehow all tend to be beneficial.
Well, most of them anyway.
Nicotine and alcohol are other misunderstood drugs that fall into the same category.
My excuse to smoke and drink and still do the 100M crawl under 55 secs you think? Nah, doesn't work like that.
Amazing, he?
Cheers,;) |
|
|
| Steve Eddy |
| quote: | Originally posted by john curl
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. |
One doesn't learn and grow on a steady diet of BS.
se |
|
|
| Christer |
| quote: | Originally posted by fdegrove
Certainly. It's just happens that aspirine has an enormous amount of side effects that somehow all tend to be beneficial.
Well, most of them anyway.
|
Yes, but also some side effects which are harmful.
| quote: |
Nicotine and alcohol are other misunderstood drugs that fall into the same category.
My excuse to smoke and drink and still do the 100M crawl under 55 secs you think? Nah, doesn't work like that.
|
Alcohol used to be considered harmful by physicians and no
alcohol at all was the politically correct recommendation. Things
have changed and SMALL doses of alcohol seems to be accepted
by most physicians as beneficial. My physician friend said that
while any use of alcohol was previously considered a risk factor,
it is now rather considered a risk factor to stay away entirely
from it, provided you don't dring much a day. (I am afraid he
drinks more wine that he should, nowadays).
Smoking is a different matter. It is often claimed to be the
only thing where the statistics is so overwhelming that it can
be safely said that smoking definitely is dangerous to your
health. Still, it seems also to be a lot of statistics indicating
that it is usually the smoking in combination with other risk
factors that is the big danger.
I think it is starting to become appropriate for some of us to
apologize to Pjotr for these excursion into medicine, bumblebees
and classified military information, since he expressively asked
for a serious discussion of the Bybees.
Maybe it is time for a moderator to try splitting the thread? |
|
|
| fdegrove |
Hi,
Christer,
| quote: | | Smoking is a different matter. |
Read what I posted...I did say nicotine, not smoking.
Anyway, this has turned into your friendly neighbourhood's health advise club.:cool:
Stevie boy,
| quote: | | One doesn't learn and grow on a steady diet of BS. |
We do grow up on a ton a misconceptions and illusions, don't we?
Do you care to remember the tons of BS you've been spoonfed at school or at home?
Abstract thinking is a help to me sometimes...Deep, deep sigh...:)
Any ammo left in them barrels?
Cheers,;) |
|
|
| Christer |
| quote: | Originally posted by fdegrove
Read what I posted...I did say nicotine, not smoking.
|
Sorry, it is getting very late, and you also mentioned you
are a smoker, which made me jump to false conclusions. |
|
|
| Steve Eddy |
| quote: | Originally posted by Christer
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. |
Sure, you can take shots in the dark and eventually hit something. Infinite number of monkeys with an infinite number of typewriters and all...
Which led me to the afterthought question I posed:
For that matter, how do they know that they work at all?
If you're just taking shots in the dark, there needs to be some indication that you've hit something. Or in this case, know when something "works."
If they have no idea how these things work, SOMETHING must have been different which was measurable and quantifiable. What was it?
Given the claims made by Bybee, they seem to pretty much do everything. They reduce noise. They increase propagation velocity. They eliminate undesirable impedance mismatches. They cause your loudspeakers to present an easier load to your amplifiers. They eliminate overshoot and ringing in digital interfaces. They reduce distortion. According to von Schweikert, they filter RFI.
Is there anything they DON'T do? Sounds rather like the patent medicines of the past which claimed to cure most any disease you were likely to contract.
se |
|
|
| fdegrove |
Hi,
| quote: | Sorry, it is getting very late, and you also mentioned you
are a smoker, which made me jump to false conclusions. |
Last thing we want is more smokers...
Take an aspirine if you're too tired and still want to hang in...It helps.
Cheers Christer, ;)
P.S. We had to derail this one, didn't we? |
|
|
| Steve Eddy |
| quote: | Originally posted by john curl
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. |
Oh come on, John. This whole "Science proved that the bumblebee couldn't fly" thing is nothing but an urban legend. Why do you keep perpetuating this nonsense? Somebody's lab assistant did some calculations which got mentioned in some book and it took on a life of its own.
The notion that the scientific community was in agreement that it was impossible for the bumblebee to fly is just more BS.
se |
|
|
| fdegrove |
Hi,
| quote: | | The notion that the scientific community was in agreement that it was impossible for the bumblebee to fly is just more BS. |
Bumblebees do fly and it's pretty obvious to me someone needs an aspirine....
Be patient old boy, proof will come along...Some day.
Ever read Moliere?
What a farce, ;) |
|
|
| Christer |
I agree Steve, but with drugs and many otherthings there
seems to still be a lot of black art and guesswork. Not
surprising considering how little is still known about the human
body, let alone the brain. How many drugs have they put
billions of
dollars into developing, just to find out they don't work, or not
well enough. Sometimes they dump them on the third world,
to get some money back, or just happened to find some other
use, like with Viagra.
As I said, with drugs there are strict regulations for how to
prove they work, although they are not always sufficient.
For the Bybees we have no such proof, it is just claims and
peoples subjective impressions. I also find it increadibly
hard to belive they could filter out noise and stuff and that
they could work equally well whether you put them on the
speaker cables, the interconnects or on the power cable.
unless, of course, it is just an RFI filter similar to a ferrite
core, as von Schveikert seem to indicate.
Nobody would be happier than me if they actually could clean
out almost any noise and stuff. I mostly listen to historical
classical recordings, and although the sound is often very
good in many respects, there usually are problems with noise
and distorsion. I wouldn't invest in them just for the very
remote possibility that they could achieve this effect, until
there is sufficient evidence, subjective or objective, that they
work for this puprpose. Anybody who tried that particular
way of using them? Hey, if someone could demonstrate to
me that even Peder Schrams 1886 recordings of Mozart
arias becomes at leat bearably enjoyable I don't think I would hesitate to buy the Bybees. |
|
|
| fdegrove |
Hi,
| quote: | | Sometimes they dump them on the third world, |
Whoever they are, past by date medicines are donated to the third world if considered safe for use.
For free, by pharmacists, dentists and doctors or any other institution involved.
Facts please? ;) |
|
|
| Christer |
| quote: | Originally posted by Steve Eddy
Oh come on, John. This whole "Science proved that the bumblebee couldn't fly" thing is nothing but an urban legend. Why do you keep perpetuating this nonsense? Somebody's lab assistant did some calculations which got mentioned in some book and it took on a life of its own.
The notion that the scientific community was in agreement that it was impossible for the bumblebee to fly is just more BS.
se |
Are you really sure it is an urban legend? Why was the british
research mentioned in fairly reliable techincal magazines. Do
you have any evidence of old proofs that they can fly. Further,
did you read that thing I wrote about the same problem with
birds, in my recent response to John. I knew that guy a long
ago and he game me the impression of being very clever and
very serious about birds. Obviously he has been obsessed
for at least twenty years with mathematical modelling of them.
Come to think of it, it has been known for over hundred years
that bumblebees can fly. Didn't Mussorgsky write "the flight
of the bumblebee"? :) |
|
|
| Christer |
| quote: | Originally posted by fdegrove
Hi,
Whoever they are, past by date medicines are donated to the third world if considered safe for use.
For free, by pharmacists, dentists and doctors or any other institution involved.
Facts please? ;) |
No, I admit I have no hard facts, and it may be conspiracy
theories I admit. Still we see a lot of claims of such things
happening. I find it hard to believe this massive amount
of articles, novels and movies about fishy behaviour by
the pharmaceutical companies totally lacks substance.
Donation of safe medicine is another story, and good thing.
When my friend and his ex-wife went to work in Angola for
a while, they wrote to all the pharmaceutical companies asking
for free drugs for personal use against every imaginable
thing they migh catch down there. When they went home they
donated all the remining medicine to this "hopsital". |
|
|
| fdegrove |
Hi,
| quote: | When my friend and his ex-wife went to work in Angola for a while, they wrote to all the pharmaceutical companies asking
for free drugs for personal use against every imaginable
thing they migh catch down there. When they went home they
donated all the remining medicine to this "hopsital". |
In Africa you can still cure a lot of illness with a single aspirine, Christer.
In audioland we can still cure alot of harshness with the judicious use of mains filtering, snubbers across diodes, better diodes, well thought out design or a tube rectified PS even for SS amps.
No aspirine is going to cure that.
Clever Trevor spoke again,;) |
|
|
| Christer |
| quote: | Originally posted by fdegrove
In Africa you can still cure a lot of illness with a single aspirine, Christer.
|
Sure, but that is a well-approved of drug which is nothing fishy
with giving to the Africans. Don't know how true it is, but
someone who had lived for a while in Africa claimed that what
kills most people is not malaria, AIDS or similar, but the common
cold. Aspirine might do some good there.
| quote: |
In audioland we can still cure alot of harshness with the judicious use of mains filtering, snubbers across diodes, better diodes, well thought out design or a tube rectified PS even for SS amps.
No aspirine is going to cure that.
|
Sure, aspirine affetcs your hearing negatively while it is working.
Strong sudden tinnitus is one of the signs of overdosage.
MODERATOR NOTICE!!!!!
I think Pjotr would be grateful if you could try splitting out
some of this into the everythin else forum. |
|
|
| Steve Eddy |
| quote: | Originally posted by Christer
Are you really sure it is an urban legend? Why was the british
research mentioned in fairly reliable techincal magazines. |
Here's a snippet from a Scientific American article on difficulties along the way of solving the mystery of insect flight:
That difficulty has even made its way into an urban legend of science, typically recounted as "a scientist 'proved' that a bumblebee can't fly" and often cited as an inspiring example for persevering in the face of overbearing dogma. The bumblebee story can be traced back to a 1934 book by entomologist Antoine Magnan, who refers to a calculation by his assistant André Sainte-Laguë, who was an engineer. The conclusion was presumably based on the fact that the maximum possible lift produced by aircraft wings as small as a bumblebee's wings and traveling as slowly as a bee in flight would be much less than the weight of a bee.
| quote: | | Do you have any evidence of old proofs that they can fly. |
It's not a matter of proving they can fly. The zillions of bumblebees flying about the planet already provides that proof. It's been a matter of understanding HOW they're able to fly.
Which is quite a different issue than we have here with the QPs. We don't have any self-evident Bybee Bumblebee. There's not one shred of objective evidence that the QPs do any of the things that they're objectively claimed to do.
In other words, you have someone making declarative, objective statements of fact about something which they say they don't understand and have no objective evidence that it's doing anything at all beside behaving as a 0.02 ohm resistor.
| quote: | | Further, did you read that thing I wrote about the same problem with birds, in my recent response to John. I knew that guy a long ago and he game me the impression of being very clever and very serious about birds. Obviously he has been obsessed for at least twenty years with mathematical modelling of them. |
Yes. But whether birds or bumblebees, their flight is self-evident. There is no such self-evidence with regard to the QPs and the claims made by Bybee.
| quote: | | Come to think of it, it has been known for over hundred years that bumblebees can fly. Didn't Mussorgsky write "the flight of the bumblebee"? :) |
No no, that's also a big mixup too. Something got lost in the translation.
Mussorgsky had heard that it was impossible for bumblebees to fly. Feeling sorry for them, the piece that he wrote was actually titled, before the garbled translation, "PLIGHT of the Bumblebee." The piece was used to kick off the big Brogans for Bumblebees campaign, to help provide shoes for impoverished bumblebees.
se |
|
|
| fdegrove |
Hi,
| quote: | | In audioland we can still cure alot of harshness with the judicious use of mains filtering, snubbers across diodes, better diodes, well thought out design or a tube rectified PS even for SS amps. |
Assuming you do have an interest in audio, please read that quote again and I assure you no aspirine will be needed.
To cure digititis you need more than aspirine; a tube rectum fried PS is a good start, add some gain clowns and a OPT and you may just end up with a new kind of aspirine for the modern world?
1984? George Orwell? Animal Farm? Who am I anyway?;) ;) ;)
Scary?;) |
|
|
| fdegrove |
Hi,
| quote: | | No no, that's also a big mixup too. Something got lost in the translation. |
Good of you to remind me...I still owe Jocko a decent recipe for his bolognese sauce.
Wich all of a sudden reminds me of "Pictures of an Exhibition" by Mussorgsky, although I really don't know why....
Must be al those quantum dots....Bummer.:xeye:
Bumblebee,;) |
|
|
| Steve Eddy |
| quote: | Originally posted by john curl
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! |
You want real state-of-the-art, John? Bedini and Bybee are way behind the curve. If you want to be on the cutting edge, you need to hook up with Belt.
P.W.B. Electronics
Hmmm...
Bedini, Bybee and Belt.
BUMBLE-B's!
:D
se |
|
|
| fdegrove |
Hi,
| quote: | | Bedini, Bybee and Belt. |
What? Never heard about retirement planning?
Cheers,;) |
|
|
| Christer |
Steve,
OK, I get you point. Either I misunderstood you, or I was
posting too late at night to think clearly. Of course, it is not
about proving that the bumblebees (or birds) fly, but about understanding how. Claiming to have a proof that they don't
fly, as that guy did is, of course, plain stupid, assuming he
actually made such a claim. Anyway, applying theory and
getting a result contradicting something which is beyond
doubt true clearly shows there is something wrong with
the theory or the application thereof.
So, back to Bybees, or was it aspirine or .....? :) |
|
|
| Steve Eddy |
| quote: | Originally posted by Christer
So, back to Bybees, or was it aspirine or .....? :) |
I'm getting a bit tired of Bedinis and Bybees and Belts and bumblebees. :bored: Think I'll go :flame: up the bong and call it a night.
se |
|
|
| Christer |
| quote: | Originally posted by fdegrove
Wich all of a sudden reminds me of "Pictures of an Exhibition" by Mussorgsky, although I really don't know why....
|
Why did you have to bring that up!!!! Now you reminded me
that there is an interesting orchestration of it by Funtek,
quite different from the usual one (Ravel, is it?). I ought to
find a recording of the Funtek version, which I haven't heard
in 20 years or so, but I have already ordered too many CDs in
the past few days. Hey, I even ordered CDs from a Czech
webshop for the first time yesterday. Good prices on Supraphon.
Sorry again Pjotr, but but, whenever did a thread last be about
what it is about on this forum? :) |
|
|
| Pjotr |
| quote: | Originally posted by Christer
Sorry again Pjotr, but but, whenever did a thread last be about
what it is about on this forum? :) |
Don’t worry, John has given an answer in some way. But as far as I understand the follow-ups, I can beat distortion and clean up the sound of my system with aspirin and paracetamol, as well as bumblebees.
With aspirin and paracetamol I have had successful results on some days, I prefer paracemol myself. But I am quite doubtful if the bumblebees will work, besides that they are difficult to obtain and to manage I think :clown:
Cheers ;)
Edit:
And oh eh, if you're interested, Emerson Lake and Palmer also made a version of "Pictures at an Exhibition" And one of the best orchestral ones is the one conducted by Sir Georg Solti from 1980 on Decca IMHO. |
|
|
| Christer |
| quote: | Originally posted by Pjotr
Don’t worry, John has given an answer in some way. But as far as I understand the follow-ups, I can beat distortion and clean up the sound of my system with aspirin and paracetamol, as well as bumblebees.
|
Oh but you see the bumblebees work, but since they are
rather friendly and harmless they are not by far as effective as
wasps or bees. Get one of these into your listening room and
I can almost guarantee that you forget about all the noise
and distorsion. You may foget about the music too, but there
is a downside to everything. :) |
|
|
| mrfeedback |
A friend of mine reckons that paracetamol causes headaches.
He said that since he stopped taking paracetamol he has not had headaches.
I took his advice and have not ingested panadol in 2 years, and I forget the last time I had a headache.
I have not had any hangovers worth mentioning in this period either.
Eric. |
|
|
| Pjotr |
| quote: | Originally posted by mrfeedback
A friend of mine reckons that paracetamol causes headaches.
|
That’s well known, but only if you take too much on a daily basis, same with alcohol and coffee. Although American coffee appears to be as harmless as water mostly.
Cheers ;) |
|
|
| mrfeedback |
"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............"
John, thankyou for your appraisal.
"For example, I have found that with batteries powering my equipment, I prefer NOT to use a Bybee."
Are you saying that as well as 'filtering' nasties in AC powered situations, these are giving an imprint/flavour that you do not always like ?
Thanks, Eric. |
|
|
| mrfeedback |
| quote: | Originally posted by Pjotr
That’s well known, but only if you take too much on a daily basis, same with alcohol and coffee. Although American coffee appears to be as harmless as water mostly.
Cheers ;) |
Neither of us ever took paracetamol daily - more like the occasional one or two in the morning after a big night out.
Since ceasing taking them I find that I don't need them.
Eric. |
|
|
| john curl |
Well folks, I hope that I have given some useful input to someone.
For completeness, let me say a couple of things:
First, I first met John Bedini about 25 years ago. He was making a class A power amp that sounded pretty good at the time. He and I had an argument about that time, I think it was about who was to pay for dinner, and we haven't spoken much since. I don't like Bedini's personality or style, but I don't usually badmouth him about it.
However, about 5 years ago, I had the Bedini Clarifier demonstrated to me at an audio store by a friend. He just wanted to show me what it does. I heard the before and after CD treatment by the Clarifier. It works.
Now why? I don't know. Does Bedini know? I don't know that either. Still, I heard the difference.
Now, Peter Belt is always put into this discussion by Steve Eddy. I don't know Beter Belt, have never tried his 'tweaks', so I have no opinion about him. I think that having no opinion is better than criticizing what I don't know about and haven't tried.
Steve Eddy will next put our pictures in the refrigerator, in order to derail any further productive discussion, if past performance is any indication. |
|
|
| Christer |
Eric,
Paracetamol and alcohol should be avoided in combination. It
can damage your brain, at least in the long run. Overdoses of
paracetamol damage your liver, but I don't know if alcohol
has any boosting effect there. On the other hand, I was told
by a physician that ASA preparates (Aspirin et. al.) does not
have any known interaction with alcohol. That was 20 years
ago, though, so there might be new results on this issue.
Of course, ASA isn't good for you stomach, which already isn't
in good shape after a night out. A secret tip from some
physicians, but they wouldn't tell a patient, is two aspirines and
a Losec when you have a hang-over. I take no responsibilty
for that either though, but I have tried even before I heard it
since it was an obvious treatment.
Any physicianas out there? Please tell ASAP if I said something
that might endanger the health. I don't want to hurt any
fellow members.
Edit: I should have added that in my experience, the best
hangover treatment is to make sure yo | | | |
