No, what he says is that sonic differences disappear when you can't peek but they exist when you can. That makes no sense to me, but that's John's opinion and he's entitled to it.
sonic difference isn't a vague description? Oh well, that covers it then - problem solved. Puleeeease. If we can't even cope with basic language, how can we hope to get agreement on detail.
For the record quite literally "sonic difference" means there was a difference is sound. What difference though - level? Timbre? Frequency shift? Or one of the more esoteric audio concepts - air, soundstage, image depth, etc etc etc? The description is vague - as in lacking any degree of precision.
But on top of that, it is inconclusive - by his own words "...but I was now undecided if it was an improvement or not"
I'd hasten to add that its not dishonest! I take it the listening was done a while ago and life sweeps detail away in an uncompromising fashion. Allen has given as honest a round-up as he can.
But in conclusion, yeah, vague and inconclusive.
At best it tells us that when an expert installs a device and attempts to listen for differences, he thinks he can hear something.
Not a long way ahead then...
For the record quite literally "sonic difference" means there was a difference is sound. What difference though - level? Timbre? Frequency shift? Or one of the more esoteric audio concepts - air, soundstage, image depth, etc etc etc? The description is vague - as in lacking any degree of precision.
But on top of that, it is inconclusive - by his own words "...but I was now undecided if it was an improvement or not"
I'd hasten to add that its not dishonest! I take it the listening was done a while ago and life sweeps detail away in an uncompromising fashion. Allen has given as honest a round-up as he can.
But in conclusion, yeah, vague and inconclusive.
At best it tells us that when an expert installs a device and attempts to listen for differences, he thinks he can hear something.
Not a long way ahead then...
At this stage is not the exercise about finding a sonic difference when the Bybee is in the system?
Identifying this difference & whether it is beneficial or not as you state is the next stage, no?
Identifying this difference & whether it is beneficial or not as you state is the next stage, no?
You can only claim to have identified a difference if you can describe it.
So far, no description that could be repeatably used. Just a vague handwaving about "sonic difference".
The beneficial or not is a red herring - some may think it beneficial, others not depending on a vast range of external factors (room treatments, speaker placement, source material, physiological issues etc).
something that pins down what the difference represents in that persons perception. Is the brass slightly brighter? Is the woodwind slightly rounder? Does hte bass guitarist move forward on hte soundsatage? Does EVERYONE move forward 30cm? Is a layer of gauze added or removed from the soundstage?
What is it that the listener perceives as being different?
For people who claim to be able to hear minute differences in the qualities of the sound produced by high-end systems, I would expect an ability to describe that difference.
What is it that the listener perceives as being different?
For people who claim to be able to hear minute differences in the qualities of the sound produced by high-end systems, I would expect an ability to describe that difference.
So if everybody doesn't describe the same change in sound then it's not a sonic difference? Is there a list of words/phrases that are acceptable?
Last edited:
yes and yes
If people are not perceiving the same change, then how can you claim that the changes heard are because of the addition or deletion of a particular device? THe result is non-specific and not repeatable so the situation you describe almost defines proof of non-causality
A glossary was linked in post #8 on the first page of this thread.
If people are not perceiving the same change, then how can you claim that the changes heard are because of the addition or deletion of a particular device? THe result is non-specific and not repeatable so the situation you describe almost defines proof of non-causality
A glossary was linked in post #8 on the first page of this thread.
Couldn't find a glossary, maybe you can provide a link?
All I could find was "Respect the opinions of members posting in this thread. Remember,these are opinions and anecdotal evidence. They will be respected as such."
Dismissing Allen's report as vague & inconsequential is maybe not as per the above guideline?
All I could find was "Respect the opinions of members posting in this thread. Remember,these are opinions and anecdotal evidence. They will be respected as such."
Dismissing Allen's report as vague & inconsequential is maybe not as per the above guideline?
Very good, thank you, I missed that link.
This would be useful to give to participants in the listening tests to use as a framework for their listening.
I look forward to these more formal listening tests.
This would be useful to give to participants in the listening tests to use as a framework for their listening.
I look forward to these more formal listening tests.
Wow,
Allen, thank you for mentioning what you heard. Also thank you for reporting exactly what you felt without embellishment. I respect that.
For the record, I have heard some of your earlier product as a service technician. It's nice equipment, pleasant to listen to and clean sounding. I don't feel that way about most tube equipment I see. For what it's worth, appreciation from someone who has only worked on your products, but doesn't own one. It was a preamp and I only remember the impression it left. I haven't seen anything of yours since.
-Chris
Allen, thank you for mentioning what you heard. Also thank you for reporting exactly what you felt without embellishment. I respect that.
For the record, I have heard some of your earlier product as a service technician. It's nice equipment, pleasant to listen to and clean sounding. I don't feel that way about most tube equipment I see. For what it's worth, appreciation from someone who has only worked on your products, but doesn't own one. It was a preamp and I only remember the impression it left. I haven't seen anything of yours since.
-Chris
Allen's description is a bit vague, but perhaps what he heard was too. Seems like not enough to make him run out and buy more.
I look forward to the measurements. If it measures like a resistor or whatever, that would make a good dummy load. Does the Bybee sound different than a simple equivalent LCR circuit? From the claims, it should.
I look forward to the measurements. If it measures like a resistor or whatever, that would make a good dummy load. Does the Bybee sound different than a simple equivalent LCR circuit? From the claims, it should.
Hot Air!
Allen is correct.......there is a lot of hot air in this thread. He posted an honest response and was attacked for it. Grow up guys, try the experiment yourselves or please refrain for comment till the results are in, or are you so intent on crucifieing Bybee you lose sight of reason.
I had orginally supported the test to see if we could obtain a measurement to see if what we heard had some correlation to what we have experienced with the device.
I like Alan have spent al lot of time evaluating the Bybee device. My results are as follows
a) The device seems to soften the sound slightly
b) The sound looses sense of space and dimension
c.) Female vocals seem to lose some siblance which is sometimes helpful on bad recordings
This being said the device seems to help lesser systems that tend to be harsh and it can be concluded that it is helpful........but in my book two wrongs don't make a right. Regardless the differences are small just as Alan has reported.
So how about some constructive comments or is this a witch hunt.
If you are wondering about the system used, speakers are Soundlab M2, amplifiers are Passlabs X600.5's, preamp Passlabs X1, Passlabs X-Ono phono stage, Marantz SA-7 SACD player and Micro-Seiki turntable with a Dynavector XV-1s cartridge and custom cables.
Jam
Allen is correct.......there is a lot of hot air in this thread. He posted an honest response and was attacked for it. Grow up guys, try the experiment yourselves or please refrain for comment till the results are in, or are you so intent on crucifieing Bybee you lose sight of reason.
I had orginally supported the test to see if we could obtain a measurement to see if what we heard had some correlation to what we have experienced with the device.
I like Alan have spent al lot of time evaluating the Bybee device. My results are as follows
a) The device seems to soften the sound slightly
b) The sound looses sense of space and dimension
c.) Female vocals seem to lose some siblance which is sometimes helpful on bad recordings
This being said the device seems to help lesser systems that tend to be harsh and it can be concluded that it is helpful........but in my book two wrongs don't make a right. Regardless the differences are small just as Alan has reported.
So how about some constructive comments or is this a witch hunt.
If you are wondering about the system used, speakers are Soundlab M2, amplifiers are Passlabs X600.5's, preamp Passlabs X1, Passlabs X-Ono phono stage, Marantz SA-7 SACD player and Micro-Seiki turntable with a Dynavector XV-1s cartridge and custom cables.
Jam
Last edited:
Hi Jam - thanks for the description of hte changes your heard.
Where did you fit the devices in your system, and were they slipstreams, or the original larger devices?
Also, did you continue using them and if so, why?
Where did you fit the devices in your system, and were they slipstreams, or the original larger devices?
Also, did you continue using them and if so, why?
Hi aardvarkash10,
You need a shorter name heh! heh!...........
Back to the testing, I tried the devices in line with the speaker leads as well is series with the ac input of the amps and preamp.
They were the original devices. I removed the devices from my system because I felt they hurt the ultimate fidelity of the system.
I find that ferrite devices hurt the system in a similar way, as also reported by Charlie Hansen in a different thread.
Regards,
Jam
You need a shorter name heh! heh!...........
Back to the testing, I tried the devices in line with the speaker leads as well is series with the ac input of the amps and preamp.
They were the original devices. I removed the devices from my system because I felt they hurt the ultimate fidelity of the system.
I find that ferrite devices hurt the system in a similar way, as also reported by Charlie Hansen in a different thread.
Regards,
Jam
thanks jam - and in other forums I often get referred to as aardy. saves bandwidth!
There have been a number of threads on this subject - I am currently searching them all for user descriptions of the sonic change. I'll post back here when I've collated them.
There have been a number of threads on this subject - I am currently searching them all for user descriptions of the sonic change. I'll post back here when I've collated them.
Huh? I haven't seen any witches or hunters in this thread. What did I miss?- Status
- Not open for further replies.