Hypothetically, if one were to create a device which exploited expectation bias alone, wouldn't 'doing nothing' actually be ideal? 🙄
Who says double blind tests have to be short term?
If the differences are so "fine" and infrequently found in music that only prolonged and practiced listening can detect them, then I guess I need not worry about them. I assume they will have no impact on my enjoyment of music.
Last edited:
I get you, OS, but I might do something with that in future, and these people will not appreciate whatever I put up. What I need to do is to separate the gross filtering (mine) from the subtle filtering (Bybees) and run a comparative test, then I will know whether my input is as useful as I hope it is, or are the Bybee's doing most of the work.
I will say: Keep it simple, if possible. And first: DO NO HARM! '-) Many components are nonlinear in nature and may add to the problem, as much as they help in another way. I find this so with commercial power conditioners.
I will say: Keep it simple, if possible. And first: DO NO HARM! '-) Many components are nonlinear in nature and may add to the problem, as much as they help in another way. I find this so with commercial power conditioners.
To the "true believers"...Haven't any of you noticed that the music you listened to yesterday that sounded so sweet, so right, somehow doesn't seem as good today even though nothing in the playback chain changed? There have been many times that I have put a CD in the player and it sounded good, came back maybe a day or three later having changed nothing, and it didn't sound as good. What happened? I changed, that's what! Maybe my sinuses clogged, or someone cut me off on the road and pissed me off, or maybe the weather changed...who knows? My point is, we are all Human beings, with all of the same frailties that absolutely affect how we perceive the world around us. Most of the claims about how a different power cord or some wonder component has changed the sound of our gear fall well within the bounds of our failings. Also, I wonder why the change that is perceived is almost always an improvement? I've very rarely heard anyone admit after trying something new (especially if it cost a lot of money) that it degraded the sound.
MIke
MIke
Well, I don't know. When others who aren't interested or biased experience the same thing then it tells me something is different. What I accept is it would be very difficult to pick one from the other consistently in ab blind test.
I agree this is true in the consumer electronics world. I think specialist hifi stores have margin as they are low turnover business models with little opportunity to do the value add sale.
OK, I knew I was going to be soft target with that one.
There has been so many threads on cables in various forums, I'm sure someone in the world has done blind listening tests with proper results that we can refer too.
I'm all for 'wife in the kitchen' anecdotes, as I have experienced them, AND I know the people who contribute to them. Removing actual experience does little to prove anything useful.
A logical extension then is 'do nothing', and let expectation bias do the heavy lifting, right ? 🙄
Even in high-end audio, shoos have much higher margins on "accessories" tyan on components or systems. Typically accessories have 50% margin; even at list components have lower margin, and nobody pays list.
I think accessories have higher margins. The company I work for has a hifi retailer in the building and we get things at cost plus 10%. I got a $40 cable for $10 .
I have found a couple of articles on blind abx tests, and it seems they are often non conclusive. One from Stereophile came to conclusions I thought were a bit dubious, but one on power cords was very interesting, it's as totally random. It seems to me that we can hear differences but its our eyes tricking us, ie McGurk Effect. The following seems pretty conclusive to me.
Welcome Secrets of Home Theater and High Fidelity
Welcome Secrets of Home Theater and High Fidelity
ABX tests often break at 50/50, which doesn't instill a great deal of confidence. In order for results to be statistically relevant, the outcome must be greater than 92% on 25 sets. For decades, subjects where spoofing the tests by learning to identify the switching transient if X returned to component A. Double blind tests remain the scientific standard referenced in all formal academia.
You will find that I don't share the same sense of humor in these matters. I presume you to be an intelligent individual. You have demonstrated your ability through the execution of your analog circuit designs and the countless products they have been used in. Having left a permanent impact on analog design, there is hardly another member here with the same experience and credentials. You certainly need not this community's approval.
With that noted, I do wish to question and possibly comprehend why you, a seemingly intelligent individual, are content to perpetuate and support ideas that prescribe the device, the Bybee Quantum Purifier, does alter the signal's noise in a manner that is appreciable. If the device(s) do function in a manner which is appreciable, it should be capable of satisfying statistically relevant double blind tests and be repeatable in measured results.
In achieving ones undergraduate, masters, or doctorate, a graduate usually had to have composed a dissertation and have supported it through a peer review. Science degrees require comprehensive learning and execution of scientific principles & methodology. Outside of the continental USA, standards can be much higher, but every sciences student should have come to understand the importance of the methodology.
I have seen no measured evidence, no double blind test results, and no evidence of scientific methodology. Your wreckless abandon of the [lack of] empirical evidence to support these devices is perhaps what some find questionable. Is empirical evidence unsupportive for unseen reasons which have yet to be mentioned?
John,
You will find that I don't share the same sense of humor in these matters. I presume you to be an intelligent individual. You have demonstrated your ability through the execution of your analog circuit designs and the countless products they have been used in. Having left a permanent impact on analog design, there is hardly another member here with the same experience and credentials. You certainly need not this community's approval.
With that noted, I do wish to question and possibly comprehend why you, a seemingly intelligent individual, are content to perpetuate and support ideas that prescribe the device, the Bybee Quantum Purifier, does alter the signal's noise in a manner that is appreciable. If the device(s) do function in a manner which is appreciable, it should be capable of satisfying statistically relevant double blind tests and be repeatable in measured results.
In achieving ones undergraduate, masters, or doctorate, a graduate usually had to have composed a dissertation and have supported it through a peer review. Science degrees require comprehensive learning and execution of scientific principles & methodology. Outside of the continental USA, standards can be much higher, but every sciences student should have come to understand the importance of the methodology.
I have seen no measured evidence, no double blind test results, and no evidence of scientific methodology. Your wreckless abandon of the [lack of] empirical evidence to support these devices is perhaps what some find questionable. Is empirical evidence unsupportive for unseen reasons which have yet to be mentioned?
Addendum:
John,
I wanted to clarify my intention, which is not to trouble you. You have earned my respect, and I am respectfully challenging you a little, on an academic level, to help get down to the insolvency of this subjective vs objective matter. I do not expect you to produce an argument; I am not pessimistic, I believe you have answers, but any responsibility to accept or cull scrutiny ultimately falls on Bybee. However, you are in a unique position and it might be worthwhile clear up some of the congestion and misappropriations appointed to the BQPs, if that can be accomplished.
John,
I wanted to clarify my intention, which is not to trouble you. You have earned my respect, and I am respectfully challenging you a little, on an academic level, to help get down to the insolvency of this subjective vs objective matter. I do not expect you to produce an argument; I am not pessimistic, I believe you have answers, but any responsibility to accept or cull scrutiny ultimately falls on Bybee. However, you are in a unique position and it might be worthwhile clear up some of the congestion and misappropriations appointed to the BQPs, if that can be accomplished.
Well, it comes down to this, kouiky: I had reservations about these Bybee devices when I first heard about them, and even more suspicion when I realized that I could not measure anything significant except for 0.3ohms of resistance. However, I DID try them with the best listening equipment available at the time, and I did hear a difference, by just adding a couple of these devices in series with an AC line cord, (one for the hot, one for the neutral). It was like getting something for 'nothing'!
When I later met Jack Bybee, he gave me a lot of measured info, of which the noise difference measurement that I put up earlier was the most important. Still, a single pair of devices doesn't do THAT MUCH, just 'sugar on the frosting' and you HAVE to have a first class reproduction system to make the added cost worthwhile. Yes, these darn things are expensive, but I sort of know WHY they are expensive. First the ACTIVE component is NOT the resistor (it just helps) but a ceramic tube coated with a special partially conducting surface. I have seen several versions of the raw stock over the past 20 years, and they are continually evolving. The first looked like an extra long ceramic fuse, and had to be attached with fuse clips and the resistor (0.3 ohm) soldered in parallel to the fuse clips. One time I even went on a 'resistor run' with Jack to an electronic parts house locally. Then almost any wirewound power resistor would do, but then Jack found than only non-inductive wirewound resistors should be used, and finally (like today) a special material power resistor was best. You can't go out and easily buy these resistors (because they are especially made for this purpose) and that is what makes them special. But Jack went even farther: He got a version of these quantum parts that had soldered endcaps on each end (just like the fuse size devices that he used initially), except they had a large enough interior diameter (they are like hollow tubes with a conductive layer on the outside) that he could put a small size power resistor INSIDE the tube. This takes a lot of work, as he has to unsolder one end and remove it without overheating the active part of the device, and then he has to drill small holes so that the resistor lead wires can poke through each end, and then seal the metal end with solder and solder the leads to the end caps. At this stage, he has to cover the outside of the device with a special material (I have no idea what it is, but someone doing serious damping projects might), and then seal it over completely with some sort of cover material. He has to make these devices presentable to the public, somehow. I am impressed that he makes them at all. I have dozens of them in different sizes and ages, but I did not have to pay retail for them, either. They are too expensive for less serious audio listeners to buy. You have to have everything else in place first, to make them even worthwhile.
When I later met Jack Bybee, he gave me a lot of measured info, of which the noise difference measurement that I put up earlier was the most important. Still, a single pair of devices doesn't do THAT MUCH, just 'sugar on the frosting' and you HAVE to have a first class reproduction system to make the added cost worthwhile. Yes, these darn things are expensive, but I sort of know WHY they are expensive. First the ACTIVE component is NOT the resistor (it just helps) but a ceramic tube coated with a special partially conducting surface. I have seen several versions of the raw stock over the past 20 years, and they are continually evolving. The first looked like an extra long ceramic fuse, and had to be attached with fuse clips and the resistor (0.3 ohm) soldered in parallel to the fuse clips. One time I even went on a 'resistor run' with Jack to an electronic parts house locally. Then almost any wirewound power resistor would do, but then Jack found than only non-inductive wirewound resistors should be used, and finally (like today) a special material power resistor was best. You can't go out and easily buy these resistors (because they are especially made for this purpose) and that is what makes them special. But Jack went even farther: He got a version of these quantum parts that had soldered endcaps on each end (just like the fuse size devices that he used initially), except they had a large enough interior diameter (they are like hollow tubes with a conductive layer on the outside) that he could put a small size power resistor INSIDE the tube. This takes a lot of work, as he has to unsolder one end and remove it without overheating the active part of the device, and then he has to drill small holes so that the resistor lead wires can poke through each end, and then seal the metal end with solder and solder the leads to the end caps. At this stage, he has to cover the outside of the device with a special material (I have no idea what it is, but someone doing serious damping projects might), and then seal it over completely with some sort of cover material. He has to make these devices presentable to the public, somehow. I am impressed that he makes them at all. I have dozens of them in different sizes and ages, but I did not have to pay retail for them, either. They are too expensive for less serious audio listeners to buy. You have to have everything else in place first, to make them even worthwhile.
When it comes to formal education, I have a modest BA degree in physics, with an engineering minor. I learned my occupation on the job, mostly.
Jack Bybee has a masters in physics from UC Berkeley, and he always regrets not finishing at a PhD, because people are impressed with advanced degrees. Often it helps to convince people that you are real, when you do something significant outside the box. But both Jack and I have tutored professors in our respective specialties on occasion. Yes we are that qualified, no matter what some here think. That is why it is easy to dismiss the criticisms, as like a professor jousting with 'Sophomores' would do.
Jack Bybee has a masters in physics from UC Berkeley, and he always regrets not finishing at a PhD, because people are impressed with advanced degrees. Often it helps to convince people that you are real, when you do something significant outside the box. But both Jack and I have tutored professors in our respective specialties on occasion. Yes we are that qualified, no matter what some here think. That is why it is easy to dismiss the criticisms, as like a professor jousting with 'Sophomores' would do.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.