Well, Soundbloke, may I ask for your educational background, audio design experience, and the test equipment that you use to make objective measurements?
Unfortunately, on another subject: I like Jack Bybee, and many of the gadgets that he as made for the last 25 years that I have known him, work for my audio system, but they are damn difficult to measure in any way, objectively, and I have had to rely on both my and other colleagues' ears to hear if they really work. I have tested Jack's veracity over the decades (yes, I sometimes had some doubts) but he has always come through, in that his stuff works (at least for the stuff I have tried), he has advanced physics knowledge, and that he went to UC Berkeley in the 1950's.
The rest, like whether he worked directly with Richard Feynman at Cal Tech in the '60's as a consultant to him on modern superconductivity, I can't directly prove, but it makes sense, once you know him. For the record, I hate his website and its 'easy' explanations of how his stuff works, and I do think that he overestimates the general change that his devices make, but I use them in my best system, generally, sometimes spilling over to my less optimum playback, that I normally use daily for Cable TV and sound loops. That's about all I can say at this time.
Unfortunately, on another subject: I like Jack Bybee, and many of the gadgets that he as made for the last 25 years that I have known him, work for my audio system, but they are damn difficult to measure in any way, objectively, and I have had to rely on both my and other colleagues' ears to hear if they really work. I have tested Jack's veracity over the decades (yes, I sometimes had some doubts) but he has always come through, in that his stuff works (at least for the stuff I have tried), he has advanced physics knowledge, and that he went to UC Berkeley in the 1950's.
The rest, like whether he worked directly with Richard Feynman at Cal Tech in the '60's as a consultant to him on modern superconductivity, I can't directly prove, but it makes sense, once you know him. For the record, I hate his website and its 'easy' explanations of how his stuff works, and I do think that he overestimates the general change that his devices make, but I use them in my best system, generally, sometimes spilling over to my less optimum playback, that I normally use daily for Cable TV and sound loops. That's about all I can say at this time.
I choose to keep my identity secret on this forum. (That being said, the much-missed Siegfried Linkwitz rumbled me, as has another frequent contributor to this forum). FWIW I am a Doctor of Science that started in audio engineering and later moved into neuroscience, but I prefer to be judged on my contributions rather than past-glories. The foundations of the measurement analysis I use has been largely disclosed here and I have been trying to encourage others to investigate my findings to corroborate that which I am informed enough not to trust without the appropriate validation.
As to Jack Bybee, there is nothing on his website that affords any credibility whatsoever, other than the aforementioned disclaimers that explain everything he offers is "sub-audible". If he is not a charlatan, then it is only these phrases that excuse him - somewhat hidden as they are amongst the frequent ill-defined terms such as "quantum alignment": It is garbage, not "easy explanations". As for your claims that his stuff "works", I direct you to my previous posts in this thread regarding the spectacular capacity for delusion that exists in us all.
For what??? Concerns over this kind of quantisation (labelled then as "fuzzy distortion") were shown many decades ago to be fanciful at best - and that was when it was applied to semiconductors in the circuit! Did you not ever question what was claimed to be happening?
Do you think Dr. Hawksford is also 'fanciful'?
And of course, I always question what is claimed to be happening, it is just that I have heard differences using some 'tweaks' and so I think they are real, even if I do not precisely know the mechanism.
If you access to an electron microscope, maybe we can settle this, objectively.
And of course, I always question what is claimed to be happening, it is just that I have heard differences using some 'tweaks' and so I think they are real, even if I do not precisely know the mechanism.
If you access to an electron microscope, maybe we can settle this, objectively.
It would help you to reread what I wrote in responses to Lucas_G because you missed the point by a mile.
Hawksford's work on fuzzy distortion was rejected. Vanderkooy showed that comprehensively (and the two later worked on at least one paper together). The notion of fuzzy distortion therefore proved to be 'fanciful'. Hawksford's numerous other contributions show the substantial contributions he made, however, so it is not a criticism of him. Nor would I ever countenance such a criticism. I work on the principle that if someone is able to form a testable theory, then having it disproved is as important as finding the results to affirm it: It is progress, no matter what the result.
But I do not believe an electron microscope is required to demonstrate whether or not Bybee devices produce any change at all to the signals at the ears - or indeed anywhere else. I am not arguing that you do not think you hear differences, but only for the reasons that I cited previously, you thinking that you hear differences is not sufficient to state that the devices work. And in this case, without anything that even approaches a theoretical construct that would permit you to hear a difference, I suggest that you are simply deluded.
If this theoretical construct triggers a response that is repeatable, and defeatable (as in it makes a noticeable difference when taken out) It would then become part of that individuals system even if it’s nothing other than a security blanket.....maybe the ‘piece of mind‘ is an important way for a subject to open up and absorb a listening session as somehow being more important and unique to ones self.
I find sometimes just being different than the herd gives much more satisfaction even if it is more difficult (or more expensive.....can you really put a price on piece of mind?)
I find sometimes just being different than the herd gives much more satisfaction even if it is more difficult (or more expensive.....can you really put a price on piece of mind?)
Last edited:
BTW, I would like to note that I do appreciate this discussion in this very place. The way both sides express themselves here shows much more dignity, and gives genuine food for thought. In the other threads this kind of argument always immediately resulted in bashing. I am glad to see it can be done in a much more civilised and organized way...
I've been usingSN96.5AG3.5 and SN96AG4 since ~1991 for wave soldering and hand soldering and it works quite well when soldering thru hole parts in not so dense packed pcbs. (interconnects as well)
Of course the usual problems due to the high temperature and one should be aware of the whisker issue especially in some climate zones.
Is that not post-rationalisation of a delusion? Such affirmation is indeed commonplace, but we are entering into the realms of astrology, reading tea leaves and faith in general that will see us banned here... I emphasise that my previous posts highlighted that the Bybee devices not only lack any credible theoretical construct as to why they would make a real difference, but that they are actually promoted as being "sub-audible"! I would suggest therefore that their considered acclaim requires significant bias rather than a simple misguided leap of faith.
But our perception is not all delusion. Perception is probably well described as an illusion, but for the most part it is based on our sensed reality. I reserve the term delusion for that which lacks any such real foundation.
Admitted that it would be better to go back and search for our exchange about the terms, but I think the conditional on "maintained.....in face of all evidence" is new, as I thought it was more a provision that one should be aware of the fact that it could be a delusion, although/because usually nobody really tries to find out.
I beg to differ, as it is not just a purely subjective assessment, presumed that there is no interaction in the process.
The way Markw4 describes it, it seems to be more an approach to qualitative tests instead of the usual quantitative "blind" attempts.
Premises are of course that the describing vocabulary is synchronized among the listeners and that it is sufficiently detailed, but then it can be a valid approach indeed.
Last edited:
You are correct, my apologies. The condition was added to the definition of delusion. To be clear, there is a particular type of delusion that exists in the face of all evidence to the contrary that I should have better qualified.
Just being subjected to a test that is indicated by someone else to have a non-null result is sufficient bias.
Next time I’m unsure of something I’ll run it by ya to see where I stand.
Is that not what you did this time?
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.