Let me clear the air here, so that people do not get the wrong impression.
This is not a scandal sheet, but there are lessons to be learned by people, and that includes many here, who judge an idea or a device without any significant understanding of, or even an attempt to try it. This is commonly defined as 'prejudice' and there has been plenty of such on this thread. Now why does it occur? My impression is that there are multiple reasons, including: Wanting to feel secure in ones previously learned knowledge, a significant cynicism regarding the honesty of others, due to rumors or past experience, and perhaps other factors.
If we are to progress in understanding how to make better audio designs, it is necessary to become aware of one's own 'prejudice' as well as examples of others showing 'prejudice'. Some of the letters cited by others, appear to be 'prejudice' against the statement made by some professional here on this thread. If I could show explicit examples of this, by others, OUTSIDE this thread, we all might gain some further understanding, without inciting each other, and being then accused of insult or defamation of someone contributing here, or who is normally in the audio profession.
This is not a scandal sheet, but there are lessons to be learned by people, and that includes many here, who judge an idea or a device without any significant understanding of, or even an attempt to try it. This is commonly defined as 'prejudice' and there has been plenty of such on this thread. Now why does it occur? My impression is that there are multiple reasons, including: Wanting to feel secure in ones previously learned knowledge, a significant cynicism regarding the honesty of others, due to rumors or past experience, and perhaps other factors.
If we are to progress in understanding how to make better audio designs, it is necessary to become aware of one's own 'prejudice' as well as examples of others showing 'prejudice'. Some of the letters cited by others, appear to be 'prejudice' against the statement made by some professional here on this thread. If I could show explicit examples of this, by others, OUTSIDE this thread, we all might gain some further understanding, without inciting each other, and being then accused of insult or defamation of someone contributing here, or who is normally in the audio profession.
john curl said:
John,
I wholeheartedly agree that prejudice is the big hurdle to be taken before any learning or accepting of 'foreign' ideas will occur. There is an evolutionary reason for this, and you mentioned it also: part of it comes from the need to have at least *some* firm basis for your own 'worldview', or, with other words, some need for security. If you chase other people's ideas all day, you're not going anywhere. OTOH, if you refuse to accept anything that isn't your own, you're not going anywhere either.
So, you need some mechanism to decide which is worthwhile to chase. Well-argumented, consistent ideas, backed up by independent verification and/or measurements help. Authority as such on itself won't cut it. As Richard Feynman once said: there are three reasons NOT to believe something: authority, tradition, religion. Unfortunately, some posters here still believe that their ideas will be accepted at face value because of authority and tradition.
BTW, an interesting thing, that prejudice. I see it all around me, just not in myself. Funny.
Jan Didden
Have fun, Hannes, by reading: http://www.bybeetech.com/testimonials.asp
Some examples:
"Most importantly it tells my WHY the musicians are there, not just what they are doing... "
And this one:
"It turns out there are two types of electrons in the world, one type which tends to "hit" less. "
Some examples:
"Most importantly it tells my WHY the musicians are there, not just what they are doing... "
And this one:
"It turns out there are two types of electrons in the world, one type which tends to "hit" less. "
Oh no! There's a popular phrase of Feynman in which he expresses his belief that concerning other topics that do not concern physics "every physicist is as dumb as the next guy".
So in principle I could imagine that he had consultants.
It's just a little hard to imagine that Feynman who published fundamental works on fluid dynamics, mathematics and quantum electrodynamics - for which he got the nobel price - had a physics consultant.
I largely do not care about the Bybee stuff - if it works, that's fine with me.
What I'm wondering, however, is why it is necessary to ship - so to say - an explanation with the product. It's of course scientifically unproven so people with 'conventional' physics education are provoked and I imagine customers do not care anyway? So what's the point?
Have fun, Hannes
EDIT: oh and I apologize for being too strict in my previous post. Of course he was not standing alone.
What a pure bullsh..., but let's imagine this would be the case, then we have two fundamental hurdles:
1) Electrons drift at a rate of a few cm/second through a conductor, even if you could filter the "bad" electrons out, the compensation derived from this filtering would come a few seconds too late (cables tend to be extremely long considering electron drift rate ...)
2) (Voltage) Noise in a cable is there even if no electrons "flow" through it, so where to go with all the "bad" electrons inside this conductor ?? Sending a continuous DC current through it and "purify" it at the entry and the exit ??
I am not the opinion that plain lies are good marketing and isn't Mr. Bybee's bank account much more improved than any hifi system ?
Plus ca change...
People believe what they want to believe, whether it is objective or not. Sometimes, even in the face of contrary objective evidence.
People usually make bogus claims because:
1. They are mistaken
2. They repeat a bogus claim they have borrowed from someone whose opinion they choose to trust (naive)
3. They consider it ok to call conjecture true until it is proven false (irresponsible)
4. They choose to be dishonest (hidden agenda/manipulation)
The audio industry is full of it. Literally.
People believe what they want to believe, whether it is objective or not. Sometimes, even in the face of contrary objective evidence.
People usually make bogus claims because:
1. They are mistaken
2. They repeat a bogus claim they have borrowed from someone whose opinion they choose to trust (naive)
3. They consider it ok to call conjecture true until it is proven false (irresponsible)
4. They choose to be dishonest (hidden agenda/manipulation)
The audio industry is full of it. Literally.
Prejudice concerning Bybee has surfaced, big time, just like I expected
For the record, I have known Jack Bybee for about 15 years, and am now a part time business partner with him on a special project, that I can't talk about, until the patents are issued.
It, has NOTHING, by the way, to do with quantum physics, in case that might upset you.
I, too, was first cynical about Bybee and his 'purifiers'. BUT, I listened to the devices about 15 years ago, as an assignment from Parasound, and found that although I could not MEASURE them, I could, indeed, HEAR them, especially with STAX Lambda Pro phones with direct drive tube electronics. As time went on, I finally met Jack Bybee and we became friends. We have shared many experiences with each other, over the years.
For example, when Jack was getting is Masters degree in Physics at Cal Berkeley, he lived in the same house as I did, 10 years later, when I first moved to Berkeley in 1964.
We once went to the CAL bookstore, and Jack bought a book on meso-physics (I think that was the name) and a CAL sweatshirt, while I bought a HP calculator. He loaned me books that were way over my head, (difficult, but not impossible), on mathematics that described certain processes that he wanted me to know about, if possible, in order to understand the basis of his devices.
I have seen the insides of the devices, and helped him find the external resistors that he initially used with his early parts. (He uses more sophisticated 'resistors' now.)
His critics have been completely off base as to what he makes, where he gets his materials, or what these devices actually do.
All this I know and can attest to.
NOW, what about his internment at Cal Tech with Richard Feynman?
He explained that, in some detail, to me, this morning, not 10 minutes ago. It will have to wait for another response in future.
For the record, I have known Jack Bybee for about 15 years, and am now a part time business partner with him on a special project, that I can't talk about, until the patents are issued.
It, has NOTHING, by the way, to do with quantum physics, in case that might upset you.
I, too, was first cynical about Bybee and his 'purifiers'. BUT, I listened to the devices about 15 years ago, as an assignment from Parasound, and found that although I could not MEASURE them, I could, indeed, HEAR them, especially with STAX Lambda Pro phones with direct drive tube electronics. As time went on, I finally met Jack Bybee and we became friends. We have shared many experiences with each other, over the years.
For example, when Jack was getting is Masters degree in Physics at Cal Berkeley, he lived in the same house as I did, 10 years later, when I first moved to Berkeley in 1964.
We once went to the CAL bookstore, and Jack bought a book on meso-physics (I think that was the name) and a CAL sweatshirt, while I bought a HP calculator. He loaned me books that were way over my head, (difficult, but not impossible), on mathematics that described certain processes that he wanted me to know about, if possible, in order to understand the basis of his devices.
I have seen the insides of the devices, and helped him find the external resistors that he initially used with his early parts. (He uses more sophisticated 'resistors' now.)
His critics have been completely off base as to what he makes, where he gets his materials, or what these devices actually do.
All this I know and can attest to.
NOW, what about his internment at Cal Tech with Richard Feynman?
He explained that, in some detail, to me, this morning, not 10 minutes ago. It will have to wait for another response in future.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.