I can't believe that someone who apparently has a degree in physics can make such silly statements. How do electrons fit in to Maxwell's equations? What do you think makes up a significant proportion of the charges and currents, but electrons? If you are asking about the discrete nature of electrons, then all you need to do is consider how little charge is carried by each one so how many of them are needed for any significant current. It seems you may have been taught it in school, yet at some deep level you failed to learn it.john curl said:
Pure FUD. If we don't understand conduction then aircraft don't fly and gravitational waves are just a figment of our imagination.Max Headroom said:
It is unclear if this comment was an attempt at humour or an admission of total confusion.soongsc said:
We are attempting to offer free physics tuition. Maybe we should start charging a fee.
Maxwell's equations are the 'classical' (actually, relativistic) approximation. To understand things better you have to use quantum electrodynamics. Given that understanding Maxwell's equations seems to be beyond most people dissing them, it is unlikely that they could grapple with QED. So they have to resort to FUD.
The problem we are coming up against here is that it is relatively easy to learn some new words and put them into sentences which make ridiculous claims. It is much harder to learn enough about the meanings of those words to be in a position to understand a reasoned refutation of those claims. Hence the profoundly ignorant remain ignorant, yet kid themselves that it is us (in some cases, real scientists - who are quite accustomed to having their views challenged by other real scientists) who are closed minded.scott wurcer said:
This is the Nobel Prize claim. The rest of the claimed effect could just be due to the proximity of a Maxwell demon, so less interesting.Max Headroom said:
Paul Dirac first made the connection. His book on quantum mechanics is very readable. It may still be in print. The first edition contained an error: having found 'antiparticle' electron states emerging from the maths he assumed they were protons, but later editions corrected this to positrons. Of course, it tells us nothing useful about designing audio circuits because all we need to know is already in Maxwell's equations. I note that when it comes to audio the 'quantum' word is used almost exclusively by people who know nothing about it, and almost never by people who do.john curl said:
Most physicists have seen tracks left by positrons, which were predicted by Dirac after he developed his quantum-electron-EM theory. Everyone else has basically two choices:soongsc said:
1. accept what we say
or
2. buy the book, read it, understand it, point out the flaws in Dirac's argument, correct it, then explain the experimental results which appear to confirm the existence of antimatter.
Of course not. "Shootout" is typical subjective casual comparison which is far from DBT.
Yes, May Belt posted on the Stereophile forum, that the Belt products did not affect the electrical signal nor the sound in the room. She wrote that their products affected the listener's perception. If she had stopped there everything would be good, but she went on the the listener did not need to know (or be aware of) about their products in the room.
OK, because someone finds this quote worthy, I feel the need to also post.
Although neither side will likely admit it, there are 2 sets of "closed minds" here, though I personally wouldn't call them closed, just not yet able to see or at least acknowledge the other side of the story. Perhaps one side doesn't understand some of the science being discussed and how their statements fly in the face of the facts as we know them, but others are throwing out arguments that suggest QM and QED are the final word in physics and there's no way people could be hearing what they say they are hearing. Or suggest that double blind audio studies are infallible at capturing what EVERYONE hears without allowing that perhaps there IS a 5% (or 1%?) who can hear much more than others.
BTW, that's not a scientific assessment of double-blind testing. DBTs do capture the average response pretty well, but they fail miserably at capturing the outliers. In fact, they are DESIGNED to capture the average, and statistical analyses used for them can't (thus far) evaluate the potential real existence of the outliers. I know statistics well...
In short, these kinds of discussions don't have to be personal, and they shouldn't be.
I'm waiting to hear one side say "I know what we're saying flies in the face of what we know about physics, but I also know what I'm hearing" (instead of trying to explain it in terms they don't fully understand). And waiting for the other side to say "I understand you feel like you hear a change, but it doesn't make sense given what we know about physics, though maybe there's something we don't know that might someday explain it" (instead of acting like the laws of physics are immutable and fully known or acknowledging that maybe someone else can hear things they can't). Those two phrases, worded this way, acknowledge what the other side is saying without agreeing to it nor casting aspersions to those who say it.
I find I learn a lot about people from HOW they say things. Those who attack people instead of their ideas sound, frankly, like they feel threatened...
But then, again, it's always nice to have some laughs while I listen to music at night. So carry on.
From Wikipedia: "In most cases, double-blind experiments are regarded to achieve a higher standard of scientific rigor than single-blind or non-blind experiments. In these double-blind experiments, neither the participants nor the researchers know which participants belong to the control group, nor the test group."
So, in double-blind testing, neither the participant nor the experimenter that works with participant knows which group the participant has been randomized to, control group or test group. Why? So the experimenter who interacts with the participant can't accidentally reveal, or be influenced by, which group the participant is in.
What does all that have to do with the usual ABX hearing tests some people like to do? Presumably it would mean if there is some proctor overseeing the participant taking the test, neither the proctor nor the participant knows if X is A or B.
That being the case, what does it have to do with whether the top 5% or top 1% could be accurately tested? By itself, shouldn't it have zero effect? Why should either person be given the correct answers before the test is over in order to better identify outliers? Doesn't make any sense to me.
Obviously, if there is a problem with testing for listening ability outliers (and I think there is), it probably isn't because of double-blind or not.
So, in double-blind testing, neither the participant nor the experimenter that works with participant knows which group the participant has been randomized to, control group or test group. Why? So the experimenter who interacts with the participant can't accidentally reveal, or be influenced by, which group the participant is in.
What does all that have to do with the usual ABX hearing tests some people like to do? Presumably it would mean if there is some proctor overseeing the participant taking the test, neither the proctor nor the participant knows if X is A or B.
That being the case, what does it have to do with whether the top 5% or top 1% could be accurately tested? By itself, shouldn't it have zero effect? Why should either person be given the correct answers before the test is over in order to better identify outliers? Doesn't make any sense to me.
Obviously, if there is a problem with testing for listening ability outliers (and I think there is), it probably isn't because of double-blind or not.
Why does any of this have to do with anything concerning the scientific community's understanding of physics? The insinuation that what some hear from amplifiers, cables, speakers, etc. requires a revision of physical laws or discovery of some unknown fields or forces is incredibly fatuous.
Yes, I agree DBTs are the standard, not single blind nor non-blind, and I wasn't saying DBTs aren't valid. They most certainly are. But I think a lot of people extend the interpretation of results the wrong way.
What can be said about ABX results depends on how it was run and what results are presented. Typically a large number of tests and subjects are run and statistics are evaluated. Normally researchers would select a null hypothesis that no difference can be heard. Statistic can say a lot if this null hypothesis can be rejected (normally at a 95% confidence level), in other words, subjects COULD hear a difference. It can say nothing at all if the null hypothesis CAN'T be rejected (lower than 95% confidence level). In other words, all you can say in that case is that we don't know if a difference can be heard.
AND those results are applicable in most cases to the gear being tested, not to the individuals being tested.
Now, I don't know if it is statistically (or practically) valid to apply an ABX test to individuals many times and with many people to find out whether or not ANYONE can hear a very small difference (one that would, of course, have to be able to be measured so that we know it exists) and HOW SMALL that difference could be. Such an approach would take a lot of thought from a statics standpoint. At least for me. But I'd guess, again, that even if you had a large sample size, it would be difficult or impossible to determine if any INDIVIDUAL could hear a difference. Over a very large sample size (number of individuals) it's possible one or more individuals might guess correctly for the entire set of tests (unless the number of repetitions was VERY large for each subject, hence my saying it may not be practically possible). In short, as I said, these studies are not generally suited to determining if any individual has certain capabilities (e.g. acute hearing).
But..some types of DBTs are analyzed using non-parametric statistics and I'm not as well-versed in that arena so I'm going to do some more reading before I go any further on this. It's a tricky field to get right, and you'd be surprised at the level of scientists who apply statistics incorrectly.
Wired for the deaf
I guess I am deaf to cable differences in sound, as long as they are not those with networks.
Or dangerously mismatched to Naim amplifiers. My original Nait 5/Flatcap 2 combo were not amused with the Nordost wiring the salesman recommended me to try.
They're nice paperweights now, but I no longer have the patience for a product so fussy and difficult to mix and match.
I don't get why I can't hear the cable differences most audiophiles assure me they hear, at semi regular equipment demos from industry reps at a local store.
I've enjoyed years of making and selling custom speakers, and tweaking crossovers by ear, to suit clients' tastes and rooms.
At these industry reps demonstrations, I can reliably pick out the room mode suckout and reinforcing frequencies, as well as their speaker crossover points, and bass management crossover points, to their chagrin.
But I can't hear the diffetence between 14 gauge zip wire, and perfect surface, or monocrystal, or orthoganal winding, or ribbons.
Maybe it's time for a charitable foundation, please donate, to the wire deaf. (Me.)
I guess I am deaf to cable differences in sound, as long as they are not those with networks.
Or dangerously mismatched to Naim amplifiers. My original Nait 5/Flatcap 2 combo were not amused with the Nordost wiring the salesman recommended me to try.
They're nice paperweights now, but I no longer have the patience for a product so fussy and difficult to mix and match.
I don't get why I can't hear the cable differences most audiophiles assure me they hear, at semi regular equipment demos from industry reps at a local store.
I've enjoyed years of making and selling custom speakers, and tweaking crossovers by ear, to suit clients' tastes and rooms.
At these industry reps demonstrations, I can reliably pick out the room mode suckout and reinforcing frequencies, as well as their speaker crossover points, and bass management crossover points, to their chagrin.
But I can't hear the diffetence between 14 gauge zip wire, and perfect surface, or monocrystal, or orthoganal winding, or ribbons.
Maybe it's time for a charitable foundation, please donate, to the wire deaf. (Me.)
I'm not saying anything about re-writing the laws of physics though I can see why you might think I did. I'm much more concerned with the idea that there may be some things that some people hear that we aren't looking in the right places to find. If I or anyone else knew where to look for that answer we'd be able to put this discussion to bed. And yes, I realize it MAY be already in bed. Sadly (as my last post hinted at) such things can't really be put to bed statistically/scientifically.
My point is that people on both sides are trying to make statements that are, for one reason or another, not valid, and some (many?) are doing so via personal attacks rather than well reasoned discussion - and not letting it lie when neither side can agree.
And BTW, I'm a total skeptic about Bybee product, and most (perhaps all) of the snake oil products discussed here.
NP2RX-TIMBRE Neutrik | Mouser
4x 10k audiophile cables in one convenient package. Too bad they don't have an RCA version... Neutrik, if you are listening: huge untapped market potential
4x 10k audiophile cables in one convenient package. Too bad they don't have an RCA version... Neutrik, if you are listening: huge untapped market potential
I can’t keep up with this thread 
Has anyone conducted a properly controlled test on any Bybee product? That’s the bottom line for me. If Bybees make a material difference over a placebo (if you will) then that’s great. I’m looking forward to Scott’s evaluation.
So far I’ve only heard hearsay. And I don’t know why a prominent figure like John Curl, physicist, would be promoting a product so vigorously without having done a controlled test. Is the improvement that JC perceives so big that he doesn’t think a formal test process is necessary?
Has anyone conducted a properly controlled test on any Bybee product? That’s the bottom line for me. If Bybees make a material difference over a placebo (if you will) then that’s great. I’m looking forward to Scott’s evaluation.
So far I’ve only heard hearsay. And I don’t know why a prominent figure like John Curl, physicist, would be promoting a product so vigorously without having done a controlled test. Is the improvement that JC perceives so big that he doesn’t think a formal test process is necessary?
Last edited:
I can’t keep up with this thread
Has anyone conducted a properly controlled test on any Bybee product? That’s the bottom line for me. If Bybees make a material difference then that’s great. I’m looking forward to Scott’s evaluation.
So far I’ve only heard hearsay. And I don’t know why a prominent figure like John Curl, physicist, would be promoting a product so vigorously without having done a controlled test. Is the improvement that JC perceives so big that he doesn’t need to use a formal test process?
There was a 'group' of users who were going to buy a 'purifier' doo-daa and some one was going to see what it did / didnt do.... in a 'lab' iirc.
Cant remember the threads title, but I remember reading it and am waiting for it to surface again.
The waiting is more exciting than watching water based paint dry under water
That would put it out.. blow some petrol fumes over them perhaps, or use a spray bottle. Better still would be some kindling first, then a spray of petrol.
One side seems to understand very little science at all, including how science works. Nobody has said that QED is the final word in physics - in fact we expect it to be replaced/enhanced one day. What we are saying is that when this happens it won't be because an audiophile has directional cables; in the meantime the physics we have is perfectly adequate to explain how audio systems actually work.Carlp said:
Any study which claims to find out what people hear must take place in such a way that it is only hearing which is tested. Done properly, it is extremely likely that it will be found that some people hear better than others. However, what usually happens is that people who are quite sure that they hear better than others then find that under test conditions they only hear what others hear. Instead of admitting that they do not have golden ears they blame 'test stress' for their lack of performance.
No. Statistics can show how likely it is that a person with outlier results has genuine ability or is just being lucky. For this you need to have done a sufficient number of tests, of course.
You seem to cast this discussion as being between those with facts, and those with conventional knowledge which they are clinging to. You are wrong on both counts. They do not have facts, they just have anecdotes. We know our knowledge will one day be extended/replaced, but we also have the fact that our current knowledge is adequate to explain far more demanding applications of science than audio electronics.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.