Trust your ears, my friends, and even my 'foes'. ;-) Good to talk to you, today, Ed Simon. Thanks for the info.
Hi Scott (and others here),
Okay, as we have established that if we have an RF Filter device in an Audio System we may improve S/N Ratio. And I have suggested as working hypothesis, based on the insides of a Bybee Device, that a slightly non-traditional RFI Filter may be at the core.
If so, the device could have real effects (though not neccesarily the exact ones claimed), it could provide a better performance than traditional ferrite based RF Blockers and the rest may just have been the marketing department running off with something they do not understand and turning it into something else.
When I see TV adverts for washing power and many other items or see adverts in Magazines and so on, I find the same tendency of marketing departments to overstate their case and push well past the boundaries of good taste and actual facts.
I once wrote in a draft for a white paper that a certain pre-amplifier circuit had been adopted from ones used in Quantum Particle research. What came back in the draft from marketing was that we use a "Quantum Preamplifier" and actually quite innocently, as it was believed my long version would bore readers and it required shortening (clearly the marketing department understood nothing of what I had written 🙂 )! Good thing I actually read the copy and corrected it (I often do not feel like doing that). This could have been quite controversial otherwise and I may be called names now... 🙂
Anyway, my scenario above would allow DIY Devices and would allow the original devices to do something (even potentially positive) in an audio system. And it explains the hype and controversy using the presumption of innocence and happen-stance instead of ill will. Maybe I am wrong on all counts, but maybe I'm quite close to the truth?
Like our Founder Timothy F.X. Finnegan, I prefer a pint or two (or more, as needed) of Irish Stout over Dr. Pepper. I also prefer good German Wheat Beer over Dr. Pepper.
The Committee for Surrealist Investigation of Claims of the Normal
Ciao T
Okay, as we have established that if we have an RF Filter device in an Audio System we may improve S/N Ratio. And I have suggested as working hypothesis, based on the insides of a Bybee Device, that a slightly non-traditional RFI Filter may be at the core.
If so, the device could have real effects (though not neccesarily the exact ones claimed), it could provide a better performance than traditional ferrite based RF Blockers and the rest may just have been the marketing department running off with something they do not understand and turning it into something else.
When I see TV adverts for washing power and many other items or see adverts in Magazines and so on, I find the same tendency of marketing departments to overstate their case and push well past the boundaries of good taste and actual facts.
I once wrote in a draft for a white paper that a certain pre-amplifier circuit had been adopted from ones used in Quantum Particle research. What came back in the draft from marketing was that we use a "Quantum Preamplifier" and actually quite innocently, as it was believed my long version would bore readers and it required shortening (clearly the marketing department understood nothing of what I had written 🙂 )! Good thing I actually read the copy and corrected it (I often do not feel like doing that). This could have been quite controversial otherwise and I may be called names now... 🙂
Anyway, my scenario above would allow DIY Devices and would allow the original devices to do something (even potentially positive) in an audio system. And it explains the hype and controversy using the presumption of innocence and happen-stance instead of ill will. Maybe I am wrong on all counts, but maybe I'm quite close to the truth?
Like our Founder Timothy F.X. Finnegan, I prefer a pint or two (or more, as needed) of Irish Stout over Dr. Pepper. I also prefer good German Wheat Beer over Dr. Pepper.
The Committee for Surrealist Investigation of Claims of the Normal
Ciao T
Last edited:
And that, my friends, is the nub of it. As an "expert" in the field of audio engineering, my expectation of JB is that he can provide a clear, lucid and accurate description of what any device he has designed is doing. If indeed he doesn't know to any real level of certainty (as JC has implied), then he hasn't "designed" anything except for a fancy case and a great marketing pitch.
Correction, he may have designed it, but not engineered in any sense of the word.
And so back to the OP - why would you emulate something that even its designer cannot explain?
For whatever reason, people still think that the Bybee device is some sort of RF filter, you know, something that filters RF frequencies. It is is not. It might be an RF resonator, certainly the dimensions show this to be so. The resistor is ONLY added to establish a slight voltage drop across the entire device, in order to activate it, and pass the low frequency signal or power. Does this make it more clear?
No, really. Do we really have to KNOW EXACTLY how something works. We did not know how superconductivity worked for many decades. Should it have been avoided and banned from demonstration, just because of that?
Many here simply do no believe in subtle factors that might make a hi fi system sound better. This includes parts quality, cables, connectors, and even Bybee devices, that are only discussed here in order to impugn Jack Bybee. I doubt that more than 5% of Bybee's critics have ever even SEEN a Bybee device, much less, seriously tried it in a quality hi fi set-up. Why then should these people care one way or the other? I think we all know the answer to this question. It is unfortunate that this sort of criticism is so prevalent on this website. This is just my opinion and not directed at anyone in particular.
Many here simply do no believe in subtle factors that might make a hi fi system sound better. This includes parts quality, cables, connectors, and even Bybee devices, that are only discussed here in order to impugn Jack Bybee. I doubt that more than 5% of Bybee's critics have ever even SEEN a Bybee device, much less, seriously tried it in a quality hi fi set-up. Why then should these people care one way or the other? I think we all know the answer to this question. It is unfortunate that this sort of criticism is so prevalent on this website. This is just my opinion and not directed at anyone in particular.
Hi,
But maybe he just invented it? (Invent from the latin inveniō - as in find or discover)
This may be so. I find lot's of stuff tends to be like that, in the real world.
Can't answer for the OP, but I for one do not need to know how it works, only what works. Not that I would not like to know, mind you, but I'm not getting into existential crisis if I don't.
Ciao T
But maybe he just invented it? (Invent from the latin inveniō - as in find or discover)
This may be so. I find lot's of stuff tends to be like that, in the real world.
Can't answer for the OP, but I for one do not need to know how it works, only what works. Not that I would not like to know, mind you, but I'm not getting into existential crisis if I don't.
Ciao T
no you are right John - the vast majority of technology would be unavailable to mankind if there was a requirement to understand how it worked before you used it.
The PC for instance, and for many, a faucet.
But the maker, the designer, the engineer who has built something and presumably has done so to have the item fulfill a particular need in a particular manner, who would presumably have ensured that it did not do anything untoward, and most especially if this person made his intellectual and industry depth a pivotal component of their integrity, when they claim that they "created a new generation of plug-in accessories and cables based on a breakthrough in quantum purification technology" then surely that person can explain that technology and its application in this product?
The PC for instance, and for many, a faucet.
But the maker, the designer, the engineer who has built something and presumably has done so to have the item fulfill a particular need in a particular manner, who would presumably have ensured that it did not do anything untoward, and most especially if this person made his intellectual and industry depth a pivotal component of their integrity, when they claim that they "created a new generation of plug-in accessories and cables based on a breakthrough in quantum purification technology" then surely that person can explain that technology and its application in this product?
Hi John,
I do not know the current stuff, but WAY BACk when these first came up I noticed what looked like a specific kind of EMC/RFI suppressor involved.
As this has been bugging me, I have looked for it.
I found what I remember seeing (my memory may be faulty) here:
http://www.chomerics.com//products/documents/emicat/pg183chodropemiabsorbers.pdf
These Devices are from Chomeric and called Cho-Drops and are claimed to supress RFI with a flat attenuation without involving ringing etc. and to have a very low and even group delay, so they can even be used on signal lines.
Of course, I may be entirely wrong, but I think having these devices in signal lines may very well bring material improvements in todays RF Rich environment.
Ciao T
I do not know the current stuff, but WAY BACk when these first came up I noticed what looked like a specific kind of EMC/RFI suppressor involved.
As this has been bugging me, I have looked for it.
I found what I remember seeing (my memory may be faulty) here:
http://www.chomerics.com//products/documents/emicat/pg183chodropemiabsorbers.pdf
These Devices are from Chomeric and called Cho-Drops and are claimed to supress RFI with a flat attenuation without involving ringing etc. and to have a very low and even group delay, so they can even be used on signal lines.
Of course, I may be entirely wrong, but I think having these devices in signal lines may very well bring material improvements in todays RF Rich environment.
Ciao T
IF you try the product, as I did, about 15 years ago, perhaps you would find what it appears to do to generally improve the sound quality. Sometimes, it actually removes something from the music that is necessary for satisfactory results, however it generally improves the sound by taking the 'edge' off without rolling off the highs. Try measuring it sometime, and you will be amazed how difficult it is to measure, but it is still audible to many people, including me, even if it would be more convenient if it didn't work.
It is a 'Bandaid' as we call it in the USA, or a patch, but it often works.
Sometimes, crossover distortion in a power amp is useful to create the illusion of more bandwidth than a loudspeaker can actually produce. If you remove the crossover distortion, the sound will become subjectively overdamped or rolled off. This is what the Bybee devices sometimes do, and it is generally removed from that application. Is it removing some signal with the noise? Perhaps. I can't prove it, either way.
It is a 'Bandaid' as we call it in the USA, or a patch, but it often works.
Sometimes, crossover distortion in a power amp is useful to create the illusion of more bandwidth than a loudspeaker can actually produce. If you remove the crossover distortion, the sound will become subjectively overdamped or rolled off. This is what the Bybee devices sometimes do, and it is generally removed from that application. Is it removing some signal with the noise? Perhaps. I can't prove it, either way.
Last edited:
This is assuming that Mr Bybee is unable to explain his device, which indeed is incompatible with his credentials (as we have been told).
But it might very well be that Mr Bybee deliberately choses not to provide any explanation. The mystical and unexplained has a great attraction to people. This thread would have been very different and quite possibly very much shorter if a tech explanation had been available.
The problem Mr Bybee would face, if he would provide a tech explanation, is to back up that explanation with measurements or other facts. Commercially, it is much better to rely on the mysticism.
This leaves unanswered the question whether the devices do anything or not in any objective way, but that never seemed to make any difference to his customers anyway 😉
jd
Previously John had said that Bybee intentionally misleads people with regard to his explanations as to how they work.
This, by definition, would constitute fraud.
se
apples and oranges
Obviously, this comparison won't hold water. Opposed to bybees, superconductivity (whether fully understood or not) is a clearly measurable phenomenon and, not unimportant, has also found many useful applications.
Steve,
I am not a lawyer and not particularly up on American fraud law, but I suspect that this would be difficult to substantiate.
The transaction is for a physical item with a price sticker. This item is said to do certain things and to follow certain principles, but I'm sure somewhere in all the writing these a sentence somewhere or a phrase that relativates all of this to:
"It may not always work"
and
"We think it works that way but are not sure"
I think no matter what device I sell (unless for medical use) having something like that in the small print and actually delivering the physical device in exchange for the cash would make it difficult for fraud charges to be recognised in court.
On the other hand, English libel law is amazingly lax about who can bring cases and what constitutes libel.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libel_tourism
I'd be careful (personally) not to call someone a fraudster or scammer in public, unless I can provide proof that would up in the courts of land where the accusation is being made.
Because in this case the accusation may be considered untrue and a English court MAY hear such a case and find for the plaintiff and such a judgement MAY be enforceable in the US (attempts to bring legislation that would stop this kind of thing failed to pass in 2006, was re-introduced in 2009 but still has not been passed.
I think it is worse if anyone having an official capacity in a given on-line forum (such as a moderator) makes such accusations, as this may leave the whole forum open to action and liability.
As said, I am not a lawyer, but I am aware of several such cases. So if Mr. Bybee for example would be really bothered by what we (or shall we say some) say here he may very well be in a position to spoil our fun and maybe more, which would really be a major shame.
Hence being a little circumspect in ones comments and a little civil even to those who we strongly disagree with and suspect of ill motives would be advisable, al least until the necessary US legislation clears the house and assembly.
Ciao T
I am not a lawyer and not particularly up on American fraud law, but I suspect that this would be difficult to substantiate.
The transaction is for a physical item with a price sticker. This item is said to do certain things and to follow certain principles, but I'm sure somewhere in all the writing these a sentence somewhere or a phrase that relativates all of this to:
"It may not always work"
and
"We think it works that way but are not sure"
I think no matter what device I sell (unless for medical use) having something like that in the small print and actually delivering the physical device in exchange for the cash would make it difficult for fraud charges to be recognised in court.
On the other hand, English libel law is amazingly lax about who can bring cases and what constitutes libel.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libel_tourism
I'd be careful (personally) not to call someone a fraudster or scammer in public, unless I can provide proof that would up in the courts of land where the accusation is being made.
Because in this case the accusation may be considered untrue and a English court MAY hear such a case and find for the plaintiff and such a judgement MAY be enforceable in the US (attempts to bring legislation that would stop this kind of thing failed to pass in 2006, was re-introduced in 2009 but still has not been passed.
I think it is worse if anyone having an official capacity in a given on-line forum (such as a moderator) makes such accusations, as this may leave the whole forum open to action and liability.
As said, I am not a lawyer, but I am aware of several such cases. So if Mr. Bybee for example would be really bothered by what we (or shall we say some) say here he may very well be in a position to spoil our fun and maybe more, which would really be a major shame.
Hence being a little circumspect in ones comments and a little civil even to those who we strongly disagree with and suspect of ill motives would be advisable, al least until the necessary US legislation clears the house and assembly.
Ciao T
It simply depends on the veracity of John's claim that Bybee intentionally misleads with regard to claims about the Purifiers. If John's claim is true, it's fraud. It's fraud whenever you mislead anyone in the course of getting them to give up something of value, such as money.
Irrelevant.
If I try and sell you something and tell you something about it that I know not to be true and say it intentionally to mislead you, saying it may not always work doesn't absolve me of defrauding you.
The last thing Bybee would want to do would be to bring a libel suit against someone.
In American law, discovery is the pre-trial phase in a lawsuit in which each party through the law of civil procedure can request documents and other evidence from other parties and can compel the production of evidence by using a subpoena or through other discovery devices, such as requests for production of documents, and depositions.
se
Hi,
Non of this applies in England, if he chooses to bring the suit in England, which was my point. So all the American law is irrelevant in this case. And yes, it is possible for an American to sue another American for libel in English court and to have the judgement enforced in the USA.
Ciao T
Non of this applies in England, if he chooses to bring the suit in England, which was my point. So all the American law is irrelevant in this case. And yes, it is possible for an American to sue another American for libel in English court and to have the judgement enforced in the USA.
Ciao T
- Status
- Not open for further replies.