If you delve more deeply into the dowsing lore there is an enormous amount you can learn about what is under by what is on top.
I've been reading this thread from page 1053 on, so mind me if I miss / repeat something that was already said before.
There has been a lot of interesting discussion. I used to believe that we need rigorous double-blind tests to tell whether one stereo system sounds better than the other, and that the test results MUST correlate with what we hear. However, early on I noticed that gear that measure amazing can sound disappointing and artificial, and some things that measure bad can sound natural. Even worse, gear that sounds great at one place, can sound abysmal after a move. Nevertheless, absolutely minor changes (such as demagnetizing your LP) can make a big difference in sound, while big changes in measured values can be disappointing. While this is by no means the tendency (better figures / measurement is usually better sound), but when the observation goes against the trend, then we should investigate as there's something at work that we might learn from.
This is the reason d'etre of this forum.
These devices and tweaks deserve attention, so we can 1. understand how they work, 2. improve on them.
Also, the innovators at each age (just think of Newton) have always been ridiculed by both their peers and the crowd in general. We have the luxury that today we get nasty replies online instead of being burned at the stake.
My method of telling snake oil from snake meat is the oldest of all: try it out! if we had a forum rule "no try - no post" that would certainly distill this (and every other) thread down to a treasure trove of useful information.
(Hint for moderators: Maybe a posting checkbox /different background color differentiating general posts from posts based on first-hand experience with product?)
Suggestibility has often been mentioned, however it works both ways: based on preconceptions, people can strongly convince themselves that they are not experiencing anything different when there is significant difference present. For example, my friend absolutely refused to accept that LP can sound better than CD. On a fated night we listended to dozens of CDs / LPs, the LPs generally sounding better, yet in spite of what he was hearing (him being an excellent, trained musician, and a top-level scientist) he refused to accept that LPs sounded better. "They cannot sound better". Faced him with a live A/B test: Weather Report/Heavy Weather LP and CD, both started at same time. I was A/B switching on the fly, and did not tell him what was playing (both at same volume). One was significantly better than the other, he could easily tell the difference, and when I switched back and forth. But he did not believe when I told him it was the LP that he found better sounding. He insisted that I tricked him - that the CD is still playing, and I did some programming trick on the display that it shows it's not playing. He only accepted the truth when I ejected the CD and the music was still playing. I could see in his eyes that his digital perfection-dream collapsed. Leaving him an empty husk of a man, and his brain hungering for a scientific explanation based on hard facts - as the LP sounded better exactly in those areas where he expected the CD to excel (he perceived the LP sounding quieter than the CD - his impression was that the CDs noise floor was higher.
That being told - we are usually blind to everything that falls outside our accepted, well-reasoned logic and the more trained we are the harder it is to accept a new concept. We bang our heads to the wall, but in 200 years even a kid can point out how foolish we are of certain notions in our age.
That brings me back to this thread....
I've never seen before such intense product bashing based on so little first hand evidence as the Bybees received here. Maybe there's more going on and I've missed something (my apologies), but to me it seems that apart from a handful of posters who had experience with Bybees, the rest are using the following logical transformation to create a myth: "X - whom I never met - posted he could not hear a difference := it's snake oil". No offense, please, this was my first impression as I kept on reading this thread and observe the Bybee-bashing unfold into a belief system. Of those who posted here of actual experience, some did not hear a difference, some did hear positive, some negative changes. If the subject was a CD player, than 3 positive posts, 1 neutral, 1 negative - the general agreement would be "good product, with accepted general reception". Opinions on expectations reversed the general acceptance for the Bybees.
I have heard about 100+ gear modified with first generation Bybees, in rigs centered mostly around CJ preamps/amps, in a room that had excellent power conditioning and room treatments, mods done by my mentor who tried every possible application of the Bybees. Indeed, there are places where they work best (closer to a transformer leg the better, more pronounced effect on the neutral leg than on the hot) and where they have no or little effect. CJ gear (and speakers hooked up to them) in general respond to Bybees very well, even our lead-ear friends could tell the (positive) difference (they reported mostly "yea, sounds better when the thing is on"). When there were 18-20 Bybees inserted into a system, that literally had them transformed to a new level of detail, dynamics, and low sound floor. Same model CJ preamp with no bybees vs one with 12 Bybees - entirely different animal.
On the other hand, Bybees can have different effect based on how your system is voiced. If it's too thick sounding, it will clean it up and make it focused. This has the "positive" reception. If it's already clean sounding it will still make it more focused but too thin. As if it was cleaned up way too much. When you listen to such a setup, the verdict will be neutral or negative.
You tend to hear this hollowing with SE amps without feedback, single driver speaker, and lots of silver wires. So, YMMW. If it does not work for you (or for people you have heard about ), there's a small wink chance that the real issue is not with the station, but with installation . BTW, no one is to blame, as there is not much published on where and how to use these devices, partly, because this is a new arena. Untreaded waters, experimentation encouraged.
Also, I can second John's experience with the new Bybees - although I have heard very little of them, but my mentor replicated a device with a similar effect, based on the Bybees. That was truly a revelation (completely transform both sound AND picture), and the only way to explain how it works is through quantuum mechanics.
No, I will not describe how those work as there are too many parallels with the Bybees and I want him to be able to come up with new ideas. If people take his invention, and make cheaper copies that do 75% of what the Bybees do, he will not be able to fund his newer inventions.
Part of the confusion surrounding Bybees is because he does not tell what they actually do. His site uses flourishing descriptions instead, which of course frustrate those who try to make sense of it. I'm on John's side with this, it is up to JB how much he reveals of his devices. While people sneer at the prices, please also calculate that that is his life's work, and he has spent / spends tons of resources working on them. For all his efforts, they are reasonably priced. If they appear overpriced, simple solution, do not buy them. I'm not affiliated with JB. I met him once in person when my mentor invited him over, and he told us how he discovered the effect. He is a genuine inventor, when you ask him in person he will answer many of your questions and he will tell you when he cannot answer your question because it's trade secret. I've heard his devices countless times, and they do work. They are not resistors in a fancy foil. And yes, some people like what they do, very few not, and other's can't hear it. BTW my general experience is that those who can't hear it, can hear very little. No offense, but I was genuinely shocked at our regular audio club meetings that how little most people actually hear. The sad part is that the lack of hearing is not genetic, but stems from lack of education - people do not know what to listen for. Once you learn, though, it is easy to spot things and you can't go back. Still, the massive ignorance of listening habits and skills is completely unexplained among audio aficionados. //Hint: if you are not training your ears actively, you are missing out 90% of the audio journey...//
What JB found, especially his newest technology, is onto something big that will flourish in the decades ahead and will be textbook stuff for kids two generations away. While his devices seem costly, he has been using the revenue to step it up, and improve on his devices big time. I wish him well, and to be able to share with us more of his inventions - which cost "a lot" now, but in our grandkids time will be 0.1c a piece and part of every household equipment.
While we are on snake oil land, I'd rather give 500$ to an inventor for a quirky invention, than 100K$ for unimaginative gear which are just an iteration of a proven formula with a higher, improved pricetag. And for those who cash out 100K+$ for a pair of speakers, anything under 1K$ is truly peanuts... ain't there a gizmo that costs at least 20K? Quite a shame to put such cheap stuff into that expensive rig, nothing to brag about :_) Why deprive big kids their toys?
There has been a lot of interesting discussion. I used to believe that we need rigorous double-blind tests to tell whether one stereo system sounds better than the other, and that the test results MUST correlate with what we hear. However, early on I noticed that gear that measure amazing can sound disappointing and artificial, and some things that measure bad can sound natural. Even worse, gear that sounds great at one place, can sound abysmal after a move. Nevertheless, absolutely minor changes (such as demagnetizing your LP) can make a big difference in sound, while big changes in measured values can be disappointing. While this is by no means the tendency (better figures / measurement is usually better sound), but when the observation goes against the trend, then we should investigate as there's something at work that we might learn from.
This is the reason d'etre of this forum.
These devices and tweaks deserve attention, so we can 1. understand how they work, 2. improve on them.
Also, the innovators at each age (just think of Newton) have always been ridiculed by both their peers and the crowd in general. We have the luxury that today we get nasty replies online instead of being burned at the stake.
My method of telling snake oil from snake meat is the oldest of all: try it out! if we had a forum rule "no try - no post" that would certainly distill this (and every other) thread down to a treasure trove of useful information.
(Hint for moderators: Maybe a posting checkbox /different background color differentiating general posts from posts based on first-hand experience with product?)
Suggestibility has often been mentioned, however it works both ways: based on preconceptions, people can strongly convince themselves that they are not experiencing anything different when there is significant difference present. For example, my friend absolutely refused to accept that LP can sound better than CD. On a fated night we listended to dozens of CDs / LPs, the LPs generally sounding better, yet in spite of what he was hearing (him being an excellent, trained musician, and a top-level scientist) he refused to accept that LPs sounded better. "They cannot sound better". Faced him with a live A/B test: Weather Report/Heavy Weather LP and CD, both started at same time. I was A/B switching on the fly, and did not tell him what was playing (both at same volume). One was significantly better than the other, he could easily tell the difference, and when I switched back and forth. But he did not believe when I told him it was the LP that he found better sounding. He insisted that I tricked him - that the CD is still playing, and I did some programming trick on the display that it shows it's not playing. He only accepted the truth when I ejected the CD and the music was still playing. I could see in his eyes that his digital perfection-dream collapsed. Leaving him an empty husk of a man, and his brain hungering for a scientific explanation based on hard facts - as the LP sounded better exactly in those areas where he expected the CD to excel (he perceived the LP sounding quieter than the CD - his impression was that the CDs noise floor was higher
.That being told - we are usually blind to everything that falls outside our accepted, well-reasoned logic and the more trained we are the harder it is to accept a new concept. We bang our heads to the wall, but in 200 years even a kid can point out how foolish we are of certain notions in our age.
That brings me back to this thread....
I've never seen before such intense product bashing based on so little first hand evidence as the Bybees received here. Maybe there's more going on and I've missed something (my apologies), but to me it seems that apart from a handful of posters who had experience with Bybees, the rest are using the following logical transformation to create a myth: "X - whom I never met - posted he could not hear a difference := it's snake oil". No offense, please, this was my first impression as I kept on reading this thread and observe the Bybee-bashing unfold into a belief system.
Of those who posted here of actual experience, some did not hear a difference, some did hear positive, some negative changes. If the subject was a CD player, than 3 positive posts, 1 neutral, 1 negative - the general agreement would be "good product, with accepted general reception". Opinions on expectations reversed the general acceptance for the Bybees.I have heard about 100+ gear modified with first generation Bybees, in rigs centered mostly around CJ preamps/amps, in a room that had excellent power conditioning and room treatments, mods done by my mentor who tried every possible application of the Bybees. Indeed, there are places where they work best (closer to a transformer leg the better, more pronounced effect on the neutral leg than on the hot) and where they have no or little effect. CJ gear (and speakers hooked up to them) in general respond to Bybees very well, even our lead-ear friends could tell the (positive) difference (they reported mostly "yea, sounds better when the thing is on"). When there were 18-20 Bybees inserted into a system, that literally had them transformed to a new level of detail, dynamics, and low sound floor. Same model CJ preamp with no bybees vs one with 12 Bybees - entirely different animal.
On the other hand, Bybees can have different effect based on how your system is voiced. If it's too thick sounding, it will clean it up and make it focused. This has the "positive" reception. If it's already clean sounding it will still make it more focused but too thin. As if it was cleaned up way too much. When you listen to such a setup, the verdict will be neutral or negative.
You tend to hear this hollowing with SE amps without feedback, single driver speaker, and lots of silver wires. So, YMMW. If it does not work for you (or for people you have heard about
), there's a small wink chance that the real issue is not with the station, but with installation . BTW, no one is to blame, as there is not much published on where and how to use these devices, partly, because this is a new arena. Untreaded waters, experimentation encouraged. Also, I can second John's experience with the new Bybees - although I have heard very little of them, but my mentor replicated a device with a similar effect, based on the Bybees. That was truly a revelation (completely transform both sound AND picture), and the only way to explain how it works is through quantuum mechanics.
No, I will not describe how those work as there are too many parallels with the Bybees and I want him to be able to come up with new ideas. If people take his invention, and make cheaper copies that do 75% of what the Bybees do, he will not be able to fund his newer inventions.
Part of the confusion surrounding Bybees is because he does not tell what they actually do. His site uses flourishing descriptions instead, which of course frustrate those who try to make sense of it. I'm on John's side with this, it is up to JB how much he reveals of his devices. While people sneer at the prices, please also calculate that that is his life's work, and he has spent / spends tons of resources working on them. For all his efforts, they are reasonably priced. If they appear overpriced, simple solution, do not buy them. I'm not affiliated with JB. I met him once in person when my mentor invited him over, and he told us how he discovered the effect. He is a genuine inventor, when you ask him in person he will answer many of your questions and he will tell you when he cannot answer your question because it's trade secret. I've heard his devices countless times, and they do work. They are not resistors in a fancy foil. And yes, some people like what they do, very few not, and other's can't hear it. BTW my general experience is that those who can't hear it, can hear very little. No offense, but I was genuinely shocked at our regular audio club meetings that how little most people actually hear. The sad part is that the lack of hearing is not genetic, but stems from lack of education - people do not know what to listen for. Once you learn, though, it is easy to spot things and you can't go back. Still, the massive ignorance of listening habits and skills is completely unexplained among audio aficionados. //Hint: if you are not training your ears actively, you are missing out 90% of the audio journey...//
What JB found, especially his newest technology, is onto something big that will flourish in the decades ahead and will be textbook stuff for kids two generations away. While his devices seem costly, he has been using the revenue to step it up, and improve on his devices big time. I wish him well, and to be able to share with us more of his inventions - which cost "a lot" now, but in our grandkids time will be 0.1c a piece and part of every household equipment.
While we are on snake oil land, I'd rather give 500$ to an inventor for a quirky invention, than 100K$ for unimaginative gear which are just an iteration of a proven formula with a higher, improved pricetag. And for those who cash out 100K+$ for a pair of speakers, anything under 1K$ is truly peanuts... ain't there a gizmo that costs at least 20K? Quite a shame to put such cheap stuff into that expensive rig, nothing to brag about :_) Why deprive big kids their toys?
I've already suggested a reason why they work at all above, that the bybee box device is just copper plates and metal plates inside of a wooden box. So therefore the effect COULD be that there is interference in the air which is being picked up and introduced into the system.
I've also suggested that the same affect can be generated by introducing a zener diode or some other noise source into an audio system.
That effect "the only way to explain how it works is through quantuum mechanics." is merely noise being picked up and tricking the listener into making a recording sound more natural.
So from my viewpoint the effect is not unknown to regular physics.
IS THERE a place on the internet where you have tried to explain the effect with regular physics? Or is that brickwalled too by protecting property rights..
Last edited:
Its ok I'm confusing another companys product with yours.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/the-lounge/234829-funniest-snake-oil-theories-214.html#post5193711
Major league snake oil.
Well this is the lounge and this is a thread for laughing at snake oil products.This is the reason d'etre of this forum.
repeat. check the thread title
no, its that there is no measurable change above the added resistance.
While we are on snake oil land, I'd rather give 500$ to an inventor for a quirky invention, than 100K$ for unimaginative gear which are just an iteration of a proven formula with a higher, improved pricetag. And for those who cash out 100K+$ for a pair of speakers, anything under 1K$ is truly peanuts... ain't there a gizmo that costs at least 20K? Quite a shame to put such cheap stuff into that expensive rig, nothing to brag about :_) Why deprive big kids their toys?
This is DIY forum. people don't spend megabucks on things.
DBT tests what we can hear. The whole point of DBT is that the test results show what can actually be heard, rather than what people think/imagine/hope they can hear while receiving input via other senses (e.g. brand, price, designer). Note that "sounds better" is not a useful test if high fidelity sound reproduction is the aim.janos said:
It has been known for at least 60 years that some listeners have a preference for sound with some low order distortion, and with some adjustment of frequency response. Such listeners do not like hi-fi, because it does not have their preferred distortions and has a fairly flat frequency response.
Demagnetising an LP is not possible, because it was never magnetised in the first place. Thank you for alerting us to treat the rest of your remarks with due caution.
Most of them do not work, and therefore cannot be improved. Those that do work often work in a way which is different from that claimed by the seller/inventor; a little physics is usually sufficient to provide an explanation. All these tweaks work extremely well as economic asset transfer devices.
Innovators have not always been ridiculed. Those ridiculed are not always innovators. Likening audio tweaks to advances in serious science is merely silly.
On the contrary, it would make the thread completely useless. You obviously have no idea how science (and civilisation) works: we learn from each other and so have no need to try something which existing knowledge tells us cannot work. For example, I have no need to try arsenic because it is known that is is toxic. One of the things we know is that if someone has spent money on something which he believes will be an improvement then he is likely to perceive it as an improvement, however little it does (or even if it degrades the signal).
That would be acceptable, provided that it was accompanied by a code or colour indicating the level of scientific education and experience of each poster. Ideally, some indication of level of gullibility too.
He was right, if by 'better' you mean 'more like the original sound'.
You are right, if by 'better' you mean 'provides the distortions and frequency response bumps which I prefer'.
This is not an anti-Bybee thread. It is a 'poke fun at snake oil' thread. The logic being used is 'the claims being made do not accord with known science (typically electromagnetism, but sometimes mechanics)'. It is actually fairly uninteresting to us whether someone believes he hears a difference or not, as we are not judging his perceptions.
Oh dear! The Q word again!!
You misunderstand us. We are not frustrated. We are amused/puzzled, perhaps slightly annoyed.
Ah, now we have the D word (at least implicitly). Those who can't hear it are deaf.
Many of us are not on an "audio journey". We just wish to enjoy music.
Many of us would rather spend $500 on well-engineered stuff designed according to the laws of electromagnetism. No imagination is then needed; just normal engineering creativity.
In an ideal world that would be true, but in an ideal world there would be no snake oil to disperse. In the real world of confusion and doubt, people simply declare that the experiment was flawed (e.g. it used DBT, or assumed 'conventional science').traderbam said:
Something I have discovered on this forum is that people can have sufficient understanding of technical terms to hold a false opinion about them, but hopelessly insufficient knowledge to follow and accept a reasoned refutation of that opinion. Being unable to understand the counterargument, they then declare that their false opinion must be true because nobody has successfully convinced them otherwise (thus adding a logical error to their technical confusion).
I just want to qualify that by saying I have experienced only a few people in DIY Audio who behave like this. And I should also add they have a strong, vested interest in their ideas in some way and will sometimes defend them to the point of being absurd. Amateurs don't tend to behave like this.That is soooo true and is my own recurring experience in this forum.
Some amateurs do, but in my experience dogged persistence in holding a false technical view is a likely flag for commercial interest. What is unclear is why so many people with weak technical skills decide to make money from them, rather than choosing something else where their skills are greater.
My own experience is somewhat more frustrating: long term amnesia regarding opinions errant. I might post a competent rebuttal to a mistaken or mis-attributed idea, seeming to clear the air of the malodorous whiff. Then, in a matter of days to months, the same poster(s) are trotting forth the same gassy fish, replete with bow, sparkles and a monkey on a squeezebox.
Maybe this is why this is the SNAKEOIL themed sub-forum. It is the persistence of the oleaginous residue that makes bunkum so darn vexing.
GoatGuy
It doesn't take much to sell to suckers and there is one born every minute.
Characteristics of snake oil products tend to give them away...
Eg:
1) Huge price mark-up, like price 100x material cost
2) Hijacking of a topical scientific principle, but the claims contain scientific blunders and lack of understanding of those principles and science in general.
3) No credible, controlled trial to show efficacy.
4) One person company, absence of credentials or exaggerated/fake credentials.
5) Strip-down of product reveals ordinary components that have been obscured.
please add more...
Eg:
1) Huge price mark-up, like price 100x material cost
2) Hijacking of a topical scientific principle, but the claims contain scientific blunders and lack of understanding of those principles and science in general.
3) No credible, controlled trial to show efficacy.
4) One person company, absence of credentials or exaggerated/fake credentials.
5) Strip-down of product reveals ordinary components that have been obscured.
please add more...
( #4 ... 6 ) Glowing testimonials from ' professionals ' with prefixes such as Dr or Professor added to their names , upon closer inspection it turns out that the Dr is a hypnotist and the Professor a school janitor.
Last edited:
Military sales... like Japan said if N K fired another missile over their heads, it would be shot down. Never did it the second time... you spend lots of money, and feels it works. What is the hard truth?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.