OK, OK, I guess I better say something about Bybee.
First, when Bybee says 'sub-audible' I am pretty sure that he does not imply 'inaudible' which is what many here would imply. No, his devices often work almost 'subconsciously' or the sound just seems to improve, like your loudspeakers are having a 'good day' or something similar. You know it when you hear it, or you remove it after listening to it for awhile, and things don't stay the same. Now this subjective response is also muddied by the nature of the particular Bybee being tried.
In the early days, starting 25 year ago. Then, Bybee used a sub-device (that he packaged) that he got elsewhere, kind of like an individual component like a fuse or a resistor, or even 2 lead solid state device. In fact, the first Bybee components looked like an slightly extra long ceramic fuse, but it had funny coated contacts that could not be soldered to, so Jack put them in automotive fuse holders that he extended by sawing them in half to accept the extra 'fuse' length. Then a resistor was put in parallel, much lower in value than the measured resistance value of the Bybee device, perhaps a 0.3 ohm wire wound power resistor that obviously took most of the current, and then he had someone put it into a solid epoxy block. This is what I most often use today, but I got them about 20 years ago. This is the device that I originally tried, before I even met Jack Bybee, and only heard it (obviously) using my STAX headphones, with a direct tube drive, and I put it in series with the power cord (this was an AC line only device) at first. I would not seriously attempt to detect an obvious difference with my Sequerra Met7's, because heck, they don't have any extended highs or lows, just a pretty good and forgiving midrange. I happily listen to them for TV and background music every day, but I don't consider them 'hi fi' or anything.
Over the decades, Bybee designed a completely different line of devices and that is what Scott bought, and never actually scientifically tested. This device is not directly connected electrically, but allegedly changes the air in the room, itself, so it takes some time to do anything useful for a short time and the effects also remain for a short time (15 min?) making it really difficult to do an A-B. It is a completely different device and process from the inline Bybees, so let's not get them confused, when criticizing them.
Now why the battery, seemingly unconnected to anything? Apparently it creates a local scalar field (physics, not engineering here) that 'amplifies' the effect of the active particles that are embedded in a coating deliberately placed on the metal strip. A real scientist would test this coating, rather than ignoring it. It is the active ingredient. And so it goes!
First, when Bybee says 'sub-audible' I am pretty sure that he does not imply 'inaudible' which is what many here would imply. No, his devices often work almost 'subconsciously' or the sound just seems to improve, like your loudspeakers are having a 'good day' or something similar. You know it when you hear it, or you remove it after listening to it for awhile, and things don't stay the same. Now this subjective response is also muddied by the nature of the particular Bybee being tried.
In the early days, starting 25 year ago. Then, Bybee used a sub-device (that he packaged) that he got elsewhere, kind of like an individual component like a fuse or a resistor, or even 2 lead solid state device. In fact, the first Bybee components looked like an slightly extra long ceramic fuse, but it had funny coated contacts that could not be soldered to, so Jack put them in automotive fuse holders that he extended by sawing them in half to accept the extra 'fuse' length. Then a resistor was put in parallel, much lower in value than the measured resistance value of the Bybee device, perhaps a 0.3 ohm wire wound power resistor that obviously took most of the current, and then he had someone put it into a solid epoxy block. This is what I most often use today, but I got them about 20 years ago. This is the device that I originally tried, before I even met Jack Bybee, and only heard it (obviously) using my STAX headphones, with a direct tube drive, and I put it in series with the power cord (this was an AC line only device) at first. I would not seriously attempt to detect an obvious difference with my Sequerra Met7's, because heck, they don't have any extended highs or lows, just a pretty good and forgiving midrange. I happily listen to them for TV and background music every day, but I don't consider them 'hi fi' or anything.
Over the decades, Bybee designed a completely different line of devices and that is what Scott bought, and never actually scientifically tested. This device is not directly connected electrically, but allegedly changes the air in the room, itself, so it takes some time to do anything useful for a short time and the effects also remain for a short time (15 min?) making it really difficult to do an A-B. It is a completely different device and process from the inline Bybees, so let's not get them confused, when criticizing them.
Now why the battery, seemingly unconnected to anything? Apparently it creates a local scalar field (physics, not engineering here) that 'amplifies' the effect of the active particles that are embedded in a coating deliberately placed on the metal strip. A real scientist would test this coating, rather than ignoring it. It is the active ingredient. And so it goes!
Last edited:
Welcome to the world. Having multiple options for the same thing is not unique to audio. It is just that in other fields it is simply accepted and you pick the one that suits and move on.
Perhaps it is in the 'pretty much' bit that the difference lies.
Without any moving parts, a battery can be used to create an electric field which is non scalar by nature. What kind of scalar field does it create? One scalar field I am aware of is Higgs field, but it permeates the whole universe regardless of any battery. Kindly explain using terms commonly used by mainstream physicists.
Last edited:
Oh no! please not here..😱😱
My goodness....the Blowtorch gang left their playground and took over this thread...😱😱
It's a hobby. Almost no one does, hardly unique to subjectivists.
I suspect many numbers-chasing Hypex owners also secretly believe their amps sound better than a Crown DC300a. Does it seem likely designers pushing so hard to expand the state of measured art do so only for the satisfaction of chasing number irrelevant to the music experience? For 50+ years? Seems irrational.
Any benefit might have been offset by dental fillings. 🙂
There’s a whole bunch of reference/studies on sub audible effects in audio, most are about initiating a sequence in radio etc, but there’s also many studies involved in the fields of audio perception that you claim to be so proficient......but yet you jump on this term as if it were to be used for your own subliminal trigger in support of your theories.
Just spitballing here.....I’m not defending bybee’s as I have no experience with them, just that sub audible in this context does not mean what your portraying it to mean.
Last edited:
Thanks for the correction, I mis-used the term. In future I'll say 'parlance'.
This looks not to be a meaningful definition of 'audible' in the context where it was used. Which was 'Bybees are not audible'.
According to you, everything that's heard from using a Bybee is a delusion. Let's assume that your stance is correct for the purpose of the following:
A person listening out to hear an effect from using a Bybee will either hear them or not. If they hear an effect then they're audible (in my parlance because I don't distinguish by the source of the audibility, either 'reality' or imagination). Would you say they aren't 'audible' to those same listeners, in your parlance? If you answer in the affirmative it seems that 'audibility' doesn't apply to experience, but if not, to what does it apply?
But not within the 'bone of contention' here which is your claim 'No they have not'.
Correct. He made a claim, you asked him to back it up, he failed to do so. You repeatedly invited him to back it up. All perfectly reasonable to me.
Same happening here - you made a claim 'No they have not'. I have asked you to back it up. You've repeatedly failed to - in many cases deflected onto an irrelevancy as I see it. The claim that they're deluded isn't relevant to the experience - the claim 'No they have not' applied to experience, irrespective of its source.
Actually not, that was a side issue. I'm asking you to deal with the question which led to my entry into this discussion - how do you know they didn't have the experience they said they did?
So was your claim 'No they have not' a lax one? So far you've not wished to take it back, its still very much 'out there'.
For the hard of reading, Mark4w's original quote:
Bybees do not physically effect audio reproduction. The people that think they have found otherwise are deluded. Therefore they have not found Bybees effect audio reproduction. My response stands correct.
If what they hear is a deluded perception, then you are correct to say that Bybees are not audible. What they hear must instead emanate from elsewhere in their cognition, not from a physical effect of the Bybees. Your bone of contention arises from your ideolect.
I have answered it. There remains nothing to take back.
It is plainly relevant to the accuracy of my response. Your issue again stems from your ideolect.
I did not say they did not experience something, only that what they thought they heard was not the physical (audible) effect of the Bybees. Bybees do not do anything to physically effect audio reproduction, but they do appear to serve in motivating the gullible to perceive something. What they perceive does not emanate from a real, physical cause, however, but as I have alluded to earlier in this thread, their experience appears to arise from an overriding motivating factor to hear something (my supposition). I have not ventured an opinion on that motivation or why such a motivation should arise.
There is no reason to take it back.
The prefix "sub" means below. I can find no useful distinction between the term inaudible and one that means below audibility.
I have made no such claim, but you are right in that I am not aware of the "many studies" that you reference.
Who are these people who think they have found otherwise? Markw4 only mentions those who have found otherwise.
Clearly a denial of their experience and also a denial of what Markw4 claims.
Another deflection - from what they found, to what they thought they heard. Which isn't the issue under discussion, just something of your own creation.
There exists no proof whatsoever that anyone has found anything. Therefore they merely think they have found something.
Please read my last response. I have denied nothing.
There is no deflection (from me at least). What they found is clearly what they thought they heard. Unlike others in this thread, I have never doubted the veracity of their reports, only the physical basis for asserting they are not deluded.
Please take the time to try and understand what is being and has been discussed in this thread. You will find there are plenty of ill-defined areas and I welcome any constructive criticism of my (or anyone else's) contributions. But your contributions do not fall into that category and appear to be pedantry for pedantry's sake. Is there a point of relevance I have missed?
Proof belongs only in math. There's a claim though - why not take the claim at face value? Why editorialize it in a way that suits your preconceived notions?
Not clear to me at all. The words don't contain 'think' or 'thought' that's entirely your own gloss. Why editorialize the claim?
I can't see how changing 'they found' to 'they thought they found' isn't doubting the veracity of their claim. Do help me out here.
The point of relevance is (as I have mentioned before) your own self-consistency. That's of utmost relevance in a discussion of delusion because the easiest person to delude is oneself.
I have not. I have no preconceived notion. I merely made a contribution to this thread that provides a mechanism to explain why delusion is possible.
Also in this thread I have made contributions that discuss proof in the models exploited in objective testing. Your remark is pedantic.
Read the thread if you require clarity. The edited "gloss" is of your own making.
Once more... Thinking your have perceived something does not mean what you have perceived has any real basis beyond the neurons in your nervous system. There is nothing in your cognitive basis that prevents such delusion. So you can can indeed think you have found some real effect, when in fact you have not and merely think that you have.
The issues of consistency arise because of your ideolect. Once more I state that there are ill-defined areas in this discussion (of which I am well aware and have cited previously). There are also difficulties arising from language (of which I am well aware and were even discussed a few posts previously re tinnitus).
You are right that self-delusion is commonplace (indeed you might even suggest that the notion of the self is a delusion, but that is not a discussion for this forum). But there is nothing deluded about my contributions in this thread. I have clearly stipulated the couple of occasions where I have added my own inferences. And I have clearly attempted to answer all the responses that have been directed to me in which uncertainty has featured many times. How do you think I am deluded?
I conjecture this is denial.
One man's pedantry is another's rigour. So what if its pedantic - are you using the term pejoratively?
So you claim, but the evidence doesn't support your claim.
Not disputed, but irrelevant. I conjecture deflection.
Do go on - how does this arise because of my ideolect? I'm all ears.
So you claim. But the evidence from my interactions with you is suggesting denial. To wit - repeated deflections, which you've denied.
What I think wouldn't be doing science. Look at the evidence from our interactions. A simple question from me about supporting a claim you made has gone around and around and around. Why might this be? Was there something malformed about my original question? If so you could have explained that in your first response.
I'm still waiting for evidence to support the claim that there is an audible effect. I think audible is a useful term relevant to the discussion. I don't know what subaudible is supposed to mean to Mr Bybee
Again, pedantry. Is a theoretical model ever anything other than conjecture? Is anything ever proven? Is there a point to your contributions here?
I am using the term because you are deflecting the thread from the context of its discussion. Given that I have answered your queries, it serves no useful purpose.
Yes it does.
We are heading towards a puerile argument. It is entirely relevant since your misunderstanding this aspect of the discussion appears to have spawned your responses.
Because you referenced your interpretation of audible when it has been discussed previously that gives rise to ill-defined areas in this discussion.
That maybe your perception, but as this thread highlights, we are all prone to delusion. I have also not deflected anything, merely clarified my answers, which you appear not to understand or not want to understand. My perception of your motivation I will instead keep to myself in the hope of remaining on topic.
I supplied my answer. You have not accepted it. I have reiterated my answer. And so the circle continues. In that there is absolutely nothing suggestive of delusion in my thinking.
I'm out of this for now.😀 Do PM me with your thoughts on my motivations though, I'll read with interest.
Last edited: