nezbleu,
If you do not agree with John it is in his words because he is so much smarter than everyone else. He has a way of saying I am a trained physicist but I don't understand basic principals or won't acknowledge such. He keeps telling people not to believe those who are much smarter than he is. He has a very high regard for himself and will discount any who show him he is wrong. He is very condescending to even those who attempt to help him, I wouldn't think he would be someone anyone could work with without bowing down to his grandiose ego. His constant egging on of those who think him a guru is to tell them to ignore anything that he will not acknowledge. Joshua is not worth our efforts to respond to as he does not understand what he is defending and is only asking for an answer that he will not respect anyway, his is just a Symantec argument. He will not answer what would satisfy him, Scott's investigation will meet the same result, he will just say that any testing Scott does is not relevant and is not a scientific proof. It will only be an opinion based on biased thinking. You can not settle a problem like this with logic, logic is discounted in whole.
If you do not agree with John it is in his words because he is so much smarter than everyone else. He has a way of saying I am a trained physicist but I don't understand basic principals or won't acknowledge such. He keeps telling people not to believe those who are much smarter than he is. He has a very high regard for himself and will discount any who show him he is wrong. He is very condescending to even those who attempt to help him, I wouldn't think he would be someone anyone could work with without bowing down to his grandiose ego. His constant egging on of those who think him a guru is to tell them to ignore anything that he will not acknowledge. Joshua is not worth our efforts to respond to as he does not understand what he is defending and is only asking for an answer that he will not respect anyway, his is just a Symantec argument. He will not answer what would satisfy him, Scott's investigation will meet the same result, he will just say that any testing Scott does is not relevant and is not a scientific proof. It will only be an opinion based on biased thinking. You can not settle a problem like this with logic, logic is discounted in whole.
And the other silly bit here is that everyone has does any degree of fiddling with a decent setup, in any area, knows that doing such affects the sound. Sometimes it's obvious why, other times one can surmise the link between cause and effect, but in quite a number of instances it just does not add up, no matter how many times one goes around in mental circles, as to what's really going on. The problem is that the hard core objectivists absolutely refuse to accept that the last can exist, they insist that they must have complete understanding, now! - therefore, the reported phenomenon must be a fiction, a delusion ... 
,
,
Not from me, you don't, or at least until now. I had at least expected civil discourse from you. Instead, when I asked Joshua a simple question, you jumped in and implied that I was being unreasonable or attacking him in some way. I really don't appreciate that, I think it was rude and uncalled for.
So let's set it all straight, shall we?
1. Joshua keeps saying that no evidence has been proffered to show that the Bybee "devices" do not do what they claim. He is wrong about that, and you know that he is wrong because you have seen that evidence just like everyone else here.
2. All the measurements of these "devices" (note the use of quotes, because I think the word "device" implies a functionality not yet demonstrated to be present), including the measurements presented by you, are consistent with an ordinary resistor.
3. You started by saying that these "devices" do what is claimed by their manufacturer. Now you say that the manufacturer's claims are intentionally misleading, but that the devices do... something... which sometimes is good and sometimes is bad, but is somehow different from what an ordinary resistor would do.
You are exhibiting behaviour that is consistent with "cognitive dissonance". That is, you have, or had, a strongly held belief based on personal experience. A person known to you, and whom you respect and trust, told you that some things he made would do wonderful things, and you tried them, and you "heard" a difference. Unfortunately, others cannot hear what you claim to hear, so your first way of dealing with that is to insist that either they lack sufficient discrimination in their hearing, or their systems are insufficiently "resolving", because you "know what you heard". But you are an engineer, and you know that audible differences are measurable, and neither your own measurements nor those of others support your conclusions. All the evidence points to these things doing nothing.
So you keep moving the goal posts, changing the claims, and implying that those who do not drink your particular brand of koolaid are either somehow incapable of "getting it", or malicious. Even when someone asks a simple question like "What kind of evidence would be acceptable?" you lash out and imply that the question is unreasonable.
There, is that level enough for you?
Yes, that is the process that needs to be followed - make one change, note any difference, unmake the change, does the situation then revert if an alteration in sound was noted after the initial change. However, that may make you no wiser as to what the direct cause and effect linkage is, if there are too many possible suspects - you stabilise a component with many, many parts within, damp vibrations of the case; and sound improves - which part or aspect within is the culprit?
Another complication is that the improvement, or degradation, may take some time to manifest - of the order of hours sometimes.
With regard to discerning changes, the easy way is to use demanding, 'bad'
recordings - no audiophile nonsense here - if you want to see whether a car's suspension is better or worse, you drive it down the nastiest, bumpiest tracks you've got around ...
Very true ... ultimately, all road surfaces need to be handled deftly, so any problems shown, at any time, are an issue. Anyway, IME if the bad roads pass muster, then the good ones sail through the test, . Perhaps the ideal is a hybrid, which defaults to passive, with a very high speed transition to active when sensors detect more challenging conditions.
An 'active' audio could be one with refined DSP as part of the mix, motional feedback from the woofer, etc ...
. Perhaps the ideal is a hybrid, which defaults to passive, with a very high speed transition to active when sensors detect more challenging conditions.An 'active' audio could be one with refined DSP as part of the mix, motional feedback from the woofer, etc ...
Nezblue, I had no idea that I had said anything relating to you. I was communicating with Joshua, perhaps I should have done it privately. I am concerned that if this thing gets too far out of line, then he might be censored big-time. It has been done before. It had nothing to do with anyone else, however I do have to live with disrespectful comments on a daily basis here, that should be obvious.
Apart from numerous tests, and assessment of the claims, plus the evidence put forward by JC and explained by JN.
I have also linked various threads, such as:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/ever...-purifier-measurements-double-blind-test.html
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/ever...ee-quantum-purifier-measurement-analysis.html
there are a couple for you to study, then you may post a comment that has some content.
And the other silly bit here is that ... The problem is that ... absolutely refuse to accept that the last can exist, they insist that they must have complete understanding, now! - therefore, the reported phenomenon must be a fiction, a delusion ...
I can not imagine why persons with top education in circuit theory demand explainations of quantum effects. I believe, with all willingness from Bybee side, specialists in EE would hardly be able to discuss "specific electrons" at specific bands and states. An electron becomes "specific" then it escapes from cathode due to thermal energy. What precludes an electron to become specific due to possible interstate jump activated by HF noise?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.