Re: Snake oil and stuff....
I think what most are saying is that if they do anything at all, they're not doing what Bybee claims they're doing. And trying them doesn't confirm anything with regard to whether the actually do anything in particular beyond subjective perception which is fine in itself.
Personally I'll never try one because even if it gave me multiple eargasms, I wouldn't buy them because I don't care to profit those who feel they have to feed people a steaming pile of BS to sell something.
Just a matter of general principle.
Thank you for the kind words. Mind if I ask if you could refresh my memory on that other debate?
Care to send one out for free for chemical analysis? 'Course you won't get it back in one piece. 😀
se
Danny said:
I think what most are saying is that if they do anything at all, they're not doing what Bybee claims they're doing. And trying them doesn't confirm anything with regard to whether the actually do anything in particular beyond subjective perception which is fine in itself.
Personally I'll never try one because even if it gave me multiple eargasms, I wouldn't buy them because I don't care to profit those who feel they have to feed people a steaming pile of BS to sell something.
Just a matter of general principle.
Thank you for the kind words. Mind if I ask if you could refresh my memory on that other debate?
Care to send one out for free for chemical analysis? 'Course you won't get it back in one piece. 😀
se
Re: byebe
Why bother with all that when you can readily get aluminum oxide and other ceramics in tube form and just cut it to length?
se
vince8 said:
Why bother with all that when you can readily get aluminum oxide and other ceramics in tube form and just cut it to length?
se
This might be interesting to those who haven't seen it already, but this is the response from Jack Bybee when asked to explain the purifier without braking confidentiality:
"When developing the technology we did not fully understand why certain metal oxides absorb or damp specific frequencies and to the best of my knowledge we still do not."
Here's a link to the full review:
bybee review
I'd give them a try... if I had the money.
"When developing the technology we did not fully understand why certain metal oxides absorb or damp specific frequencies and to the best of my knowledge we still do not."
Here's a link to the full review:
bybee review
I'd give them a try... if I had the money.
1 out of 1 physicists don't recommend......
In response to Email that I sent to a widely published physicist whose area of research includes phonons and quantum effects:
"I am currently traveling in ********. _ Thus, I will be brief.
I am not an audiophile, and the target market seems to be them.
From what I have seen on that web site with buzzwords,
I would not pay a penny for them.
_
Please do not quote my name on this (I do not want to get
into this issue any further, since I am now swamped with
lots of work ). _ Regards, ******** "
I felt guilty bothering him but was curious about his reaction.
In response to Email that I sent to a widely published physicist whose area of research includes phonons and quantum effects:
"I am currently traveling in ********. _ Thus, I will be brief.
I am not an audiophile, and the target market seems to be them.
From what I have seen on that web site with buzzwords,
I would not pay a penny for them.
_
Please do not quote my name on this (I do not want to get
into this issue any further, since I am now swamped with
lots of work ). _ Regards, ******** "
I felt guilty bothering him but was curious about his reaction.
I don't see why people get worked up about not being able to explain sonic differences scientifically.
I think it's a pretty well accepted fact by now that i/c 's and speaker cables sound different (note: not always better) although nobody has explained this in a definitive way. Some years there were exactly the same arguments and ridicule thrown about these and more recently about power cables.
It doesn't hurt to have an open mind and try stuff out as long as it's cheap , free or you can get a refund.
I think it's a pretty well accepted fact by now that i/c 's and speaker cables sound different (note: not always better) although nobody has explained this in a definitive way. Some years there were exactly the same arguments and ridicule thrown about these and more recently about power cables.
It doesn't hurt to have an open mind and try stuff out as long as it's cheap , free or you can get a refund.
Quite the opposite. When differences have been heard (and verified), the reasons are quite well-known and straightforward.
The computer in front of you is testimony to the depth and detail to which we understand the processes of conduction and signal flow.
I am not quite sure you are right but if this is so please show me an accepted explanation of how two cables that measure the same can sound different. I don't believe a couple of pf here and a couple of milliohms there per 100 ft is accepted as being an explanation of sonic differences perceivable by the human ear.
Show me a case where two cables that measure the same have a sonic difference that's been verified in a valid listening test.
NB: A valid listening test is NOT a review in Stereophile or a testimonial backed up with the usual, "Even my wife heard the difference!"
Just a matter of general principle ?.
Steve,
As I understand it, JB's accountant wrote the website stuff, and JB does not really care about what is said to promote them, especially when his above quote is known.
I expect that after all the stupid pontificating that he has recieved from the unknowing flamethrowers, he just plain does not care about debating any of it.
He knows, and his clients know that BQP's work, and there are many satisfied clients, shops are distributing them, and the likes of John Curl are willing to defend them.
He does admit that the effects can be variable according to the system used, and indeed gives a money back guarantee - I do not think that anybody can ask for more than this.
Regarding your two quotes, so which one is it Steve ?
In your first quote you are willing, and your second quote is an about face !
Suppose for no cost to yourself except time, you did get to hear them and like them, then which way would you then turn ?.
Eric / - Some things around here don't add up.
Steve Eddy said:
Steve Eddy said:
Steve,
As I understand it, JB's accountant wrote the website stuff, and JB does not really care about what is said to promote them, especially when his above quote is known.
I expect that after all the stupid pontificating that he has recieved from the unknowing flamethrowers, he just plain does not care about debating any of it.
He knows, and his clients know that BQP's work, and there are many satisfied clients, shops are distributing them, and the likes of John Curl are willing to defend them.
He does admit that the effects can be variable according to the system used, and indeed gives a money back guarantee - I do not think that anybody can ask for more than this.
Regarding your two quotes, so which one is it Steve ?
In your first quote you are willing, and your second quote is an about face !
Suppose for no cost to yourself except time, you did get to hear them and like them, then which way would you then turn ?.
Eric / - Some things around here don't add up.
1 out 2 physicists does recommend......
Phred, it sounds like you caught him on a bad day !.
I think some of the 'buzzwords' are correct, if only applied improperly, and therby understood incorrectly.
Even JB admits that he is not completely sure of the BQP mechanism !.
Just because we do not understand them, does not mean that they do not work !.
I appreciate your understanding of, and insistence on electrically correct circuitry, but I know that this is not the whole story.
Regards, Eric.
Fred Dieckmann said:
Phred, it sounds like you caught him on a bad day !.
I think some of the 'buzzwords' are correct, if only applied improperly, and therby understood incorrectly.
Even JB admits that he is not completely sure of the BQP mechanism !.
Just because we do not understand them, does not mean that they do not work !.
I appreciate your understanding of, and insistence on electrically correct circuitry, but I know that this is not the whole story.
Regards, Eric.
My dog ate my homework.......
......And my accountant wrote my website. WHY would someone who is a physicist let his accountant write the technical claims? Why shouldn't he care about what people think? If all the technical information is nonsense, maybe the stories of his background are made up. It does hurt his credibility and hurt potential sales. The simple electrical engineering claims don't even make sense. I've seen television psychics with more plausible stories. I have been down this road when evaluating other "magic" audio devices. How can I think other peoples word about the product when they can swallow this stuff? Dick Olsher review even had additional dubious engineering explanations of what it does. I had a coworker that once said to my the a man who has no trouble lying to you will probably have no trouble stealing from you.
P.S. A second year engineering student can tell you why even the basic electrical engineering claims don't make sense. When I see false and easily measurable engineering claims a a real physicist with published credentialsin this area tells me that the physic part is just a collection of buzz words why should I cut them any slack on this. Real products don't need this kind of hogwash to sell them.
......And my accountant wrote my website. WHY would someone who is a physicist let his accountant write the technical claims? Why shouldn't he care about what people think? If all the technical information is nonsense, maybe the stories of his background are made up. It does hurt his credibility and hurt potential sales. The simple electrical engineering claims don't even make sense. I've seen television psychics with more plausible stories. I have been down this road when evaluating other "magic" audio devices. How can I think other peoples word about the product when they can swallow this stuff? Dick Olsher review even had additional dubious engineering explanations of what it does. I had a coworker that once said to my the a man who has no trouble lying to you will probably have no trouble stealing from you.
P.S. A second year engineering student can tell you why even the basic electrical engineering claims don't make sense. When I see false and easily measurable engineering claims a a real physicist with published credentialsin this area tells me that the physic part is just a collection of buzz words why should I cut them any slack on this. Real products don't need this kind of hogwash to sell them.
My Accountant Helped Me With My Homework...
Hi Phred,
I am not defending the BQP site, and nor do I want to per se.
I really do not care what statements are made if the product works, and I entirely believe that it does, but I have not tried them for myself.
Yes, wrong terminology does damage the credibility, but does not make the claims of sonic changes invalid whatsoever in my view.
I know that the RLC claims do not make sense, but these are not the only parameters in a circuit, are they ?.
My position is that I am curious about these BQP devices, and other listeners are saying that they are effective - that is proof in itself enough for me.
The magnitude and nature of change is still unknown to me.
Eric. / - Open minded on some things.
Hi Phred,
I am not defending the BQP site, and nor do I want to per se.
I really do not care what statements are made if the product works, and I entirely believe that it does, but I have not tried them for myself.
Yes, wrong terminology does damage the credibility, but does not make the claims of sonic changes invalid whatsoever in my view.
I know that the RLC claims do not make sense, but these are not the only parameters in a circuit, are they ?.
My position is that I am curious about these BQP devices, and other listeners are saying that they are effective - that is proof in itself enough for me.
The magnitude and nature of change is still unknown to me.
Eric. / - Open minded on some things.
Bybee's
Oh yea, the claims on the web page are BS.
Like I stated before. I don't have to sell them nor need the money form them, and I don't have to pile any BS on anyone to get them to try any of our products.
If you wanted to try some I would be glad to give you, as a fellow profession in this industry, a special accommodation price that makes me nothing.
Then again you may still feel like you would be helping Jack Bybee in some way even buying them from me at cost.
We hashed out a worthless debate concerning the terminology used to describe a product.
You correctly coined the product with the technical definition of it being a mass spring system, as I tried to convey it as having dampening qualities beyond that and that it was unlike a literal "mass" and a "spring".....
I can send a pair out to you for evaluation, but if they do not return in the same condition that they left in you are buying them.
The web site is misleading and does take away from the credibility of the product.
I don't know who wrote what is on his web site, but can't imagine why he would allow that stuff to even be on there.
In e-mail exchanges I have had with him I get the impression that he really has no desire to prove himself to anyone and does not care one bit what some people think.
I won't either, but I also stand behind my personal observations.
I was curious as well.
Indeed a lot of credible people have reported effectiveness to some level.
Best advice again is that if you really want to try them and you can do so with the confidence of knowing that you can return them if you like or keep them if you like and have really nothing to loose then what keeps you from trying them.
Oh yea, the claims on the web page are BS.
Like I stated before. I don't have to sell them nor need the money form them, and I don't have to pile any BS on anyone to get them to try any of our products.
If you wanted to try some I would be glad to give you, as a fellow profession in this industry, a special accommodation price that makes me nothing.
Then again you may still feel like you would be helping Jack Bybee in some way even buying them from me at cost.
We hashed out a worthless debate concerning the terminology used to describe a product.
You correctly coined the product with the technical definition of it being a mass spring system, as I tried to convey it as having dampening qualities beyond that and that it was unlike a literal "mass" and a "spring".....
I can send a pair out to you for evaluation, but if they do not return in the same condition that they left in you are buying them.
The web site is misleading and does take away from the credibility of the product.
I don't know who wrote what is on his web site, but can't imagine why he would allow that stuff to even be on there.
In e-mail exchanges I have had with him I get the impression that he really has no desire to prove himself to anyone and does not care one bit what some people think.
I won't either, but I also stand behind my personal observations.
I was curious as well.
Indeed a lot of credible people have reported effectiveness to some level.
Best advice again is that if you really want to try them and you can do so with the confidence of knowing that you can return them if you like or keep them if you like and have really nothing to loose then what keeps you from trying them.
Good, We Have Someone With Experience Of BQP.
Danny, my advice is to ignore the flamers.
Can you describe to us the overall sonics changes that you note when using BQP, and in what locations - power, signal, speaker etc.
Can you also describe the nature of changes to for example, female vocal, male vocal, violins, guitar, bass, snares, cymbals, harmonica etc, etc.
Thanks,
Eric.
Danny, my advice is to ignore the flamers.
Can you describe to us the overall sonics changes that you note when using BQP, and in what locations - power, signal, speaker etc.
Can you also describe the nature of changes to for example, female vocal, male vocal, violins, guitar, bass, snares, cymbals, harmonica etc, etc.
Thanks,
Eric.
Re: Just a matter of general principle ?.
If he doesn't really care what is said to promote them, then he obviously has no scruples whatsoever and doesn't care that he is engaging in fraud and ultimately has nothing but contempt for those who would buy them.
And by the way, the "information" on the web site was rewritten. Though it simply replaced one pile of BS with a bit different pile of BS.
What's surprised me perhaps more than anything else about this whole Bybee saga is how many people are willing to stand up and publically excuse and defend out and out fraud.
What has engaging in fraud have to do with whether or not one debates something? If he chooses not to debate any of it, that's fine with me. But why would he not care about engaging in fraud? Again, he shows nothing but contempt even for those who would buy his product.
Again, "work" is an ambiguous term. Because of human pysioliogy and psychology, literally anything will "work" if by "work" you mean something results in some subjectively perceived difference or improvement.
So exactly what do you mean by "work"?
I can ask for more than this. I can ask that he stop engaging in fraud. A money back guarantee is no defense for fraud.
No it's not. If I can find a lab to do the chemical analysis of the ceramic for a decent price, I'll obtain one used.
The issue is moot. Even if as I said previously they gave me multiple eargasms, I would neither buy them nor keep them in my system. I don't support frauds in any way shape or form. Even if Bybee didn't profit financially from my purchase, his devices will never be a part of my system.
Again, this is purely a matter of principle on my part. If you don't share those principles, that's fine. To each their own. I'm simply stating what mine are.
Least of all Bybee.
se
mrfeedback said:
If he doesn't really care what is said to promote them, then he obviously has no scruples whatsoever and doesn't care that he is engaging in fraud and ultimately has nothing but contempt for those who would buy them.
And by the way, the "information" on the web site was rewritten. Though it simply replaced one pile of BS with a bit different pile of BS.
What's surprised me perhaps more than anything else about this whole Bybee saga is how many people are willing to stand up and publically excuse and defend out and out fraud.
What has engaging in fraud have to do with whether or not one debates something? If he chooses not to debate any of it, that's fine with me. But why would he not care about engaging in fraud? Again, he shows nothing but contempt even for those who would buy his product.
Again, "work" is an ambiguous term. Because of human pysioliogy and psychology, literally anything will "work" if by "work" you mean something results in some subjectively perceived difference or improvement.
So exactly what do you mean by "work"?
I can ask for more than this. I can ask that he stop engaging in fraud. A money back guarantee is no defense for fraud.
No it's not. If I can find a lab to do the chemical analysis of the ceramic for a decent price, I'll obtain one used.
The issue is moot. Even if as I said previously they gave me multiple eargasms, I would neither buy them nor keep them in my system. I don't support frauds in any way shape or form. Even if Bybee didn't profit financially from my purchase, his devices will never be a part of my system.
Again, this is purely a matter of principle on my part. If you don't share those principles, that's fine. To each their own. I'm simply stating what mine are.
Least of all Bybee.
se
Re: Bybee's
Great. That's how it should be. Now if only some of that will rub off on Bybee. 🙂
Thank you for the offer (which I'll happily reciprocate) but yes, there'd still be the principle of the matter.
Ah, thanks. Was that here or over on AA?
Yes. I was only being facetious. 🙂
I can imagine why. But I think I've made that sufficiently known already. 🙂
One who truly has no desire to prove themself to anyone doesn't make any claims about themself or allows others to make claims about themself in the first place. There's simply no point in making any claims unless you're prepared to substantiate them or if they're aimed only at those who swallow anything without question.
se
Danny said:
Great. That's how it should be. Now if only some of that will rub off on Bybee. 🙂
Thank you for the offer (which I'll happily reciprocate) but yes, there'd still be the principle of the matter.
Ah, thanks. Was that here or over on AA?
Yes. I was only being facetious. 🙂
I can imagine why. But I think I've made that sufficiently known already. 🙂
One who truly has no desire to prove themself to anyone doesn't make any claims about themself or allows others to make claims about themself in the first place. There's simply no point in making any claims unless you're prepared to substantiate them or if they're aimed only at those who swallow anything without question.
se
Bybee's
Okay here is what I noticed.
I first just tried them externally connected to the positive binding post.
I left them alone and let them burn in for 40 to 50 hours then started listening.
In listening with them in and out of the circuit, back to back, several times over and over it became pretty clear what the effect was.
It was easier to notice with music that was not a continual roar of a steady signal.
It was the dead space between notes that was clearer.
It sounded like the noise floor was lower in the ranges that the tweeter was covering.
Acoustic instruments were clearer as well. Resolution and detail level all sounded better.
I also found that using them right on the tweeter as the last thing in the signal path was better still.
I have not tried them in electronics yet, but plan to real soon. I have heard that they are most effective there.
Steve, that was at AA on the tweaks asylum (I think).
Okay here is what I noticed.
I first just tried them externally connected to the positive binding post.
I left them alone and let them burn in for 40 to 50 hours then started listening.
In listening with them in and out of the circuit, back to back, several times over and over it became pretty clear what the effect was.
It was easier to notice with music that was not a continual roar of a steady signal.
It was the dead space between notes that was clearer.
It sounded like the noise floor was lower in the ranges that the tweeter was covering.
Acoustic instruments were clearer as well. Resolution and detail level all sounded better.
I also found that using them right on the tweeter as the last thing in the signal path was better still.
I have not tried them in electronics yet, but plan to real soon. I have heard that they are most effective there.
Steve, that was at AA on the tweaks asylum (I think).
What's Good For The Goose, Is Good For The Gander ?.
quote from Steve Eddy's site -
"Wow. I had to check twice. I unplugged and disconnected both my Stax headphone amp and Genesis subwoofer amps so the setup is simple: CD to InterFace to preamp to Rowland amp (which has input transformers). I swear the bass is back and this with stand mounted speakers!
There is a quality to the sound that reminds me of the Rowland preamp I had that also used input transformers. Overall, the sound is very clear and there is a noticeable lack of sibilance and high frequency grunge. I am absolutely hooked.
William C.
San Francisco, California
Did you cook this one up in your garage Steve ?.
It seems that what is good for you, is unacceptable of others.
This review is full of contradiction as I read it -
"Wow, I had to check twice" - hey ?. - If it is so effective then there is no ambiguity.
"I swear the bass is back...." - Same again, either it is or it is not, simple.
Sounds to me more like "because of loss of detail, and the highs are rolled out, the bass is back".
Also, talking about crappy websites your 'Reviews' button does not 'work' - is that because nobody else has anything good to say about your box, or you ?.
Why would you want to deny yourself enhanced sonic pleasure ?
I say you should go join the flat earth society.
Yes we have all heard a gutfull of your 'principles', but nothing positive or illuminating from you at all, and this has been well spoken about behind the scenes, and none of it complimentary.
Steve, you are really not contributing anything around here except disagreeable noise, and this commonly about things of which you have no direct knowledge.
Steve, You can stick to your principals all you like, but in future it would be much better that you keep out of particular threads, especially when it is stated initially and later very clearly that 'Experience of BQB only' and 'no flaming' - it seems like you just cannot help your negative outlook self.
Eric / - Done dealing with Eddyots.
That they modify sonics as described by users - surely that one is not too hard to understand is it ?.
Yes, you are lying again - if you meant that you would have said so in the first case.
Your principles must cause you a lot of missing out on some of the finer things, and it shows - glaringly so.
quote from Steve Eddy's site -
"Wow. I had to check twice. I unplugged and disconnected both my Stax headphone amp and Genesis subwoofer amps so the setup is simple: CD to InterFace to preamp to Rowland amp (which has input transformers). I swear the bass is back and this with stand mounted speakers!
There is a quality to the sound that reminds me of the Rowland preamp I had that also used input transformers. Overall, the sound is very clear and there is a noticeable lack of sibilance and high frequency grunge. I am absolutely hooked.
William C.
San Francisco, California
Did you cook this one up in your garage Steve ?.
It seems that what is good for you, is unacceptable of others.
This review is full of contradiction as I read it -
"Wow, I had to check twice" - hey ?. - If it is so effective then there is no ambiguity.
"I swear the bass is back...." - Same again, either it is or it is not, simple.
Sounds to me more like "because of loss of detail, and the highs are rolled out, the bass is back".
Also, talking about crappy websites your 'Reviews' button does not 'work' - is that because nobody else has anything good to say about your box, or you ?.
I'm not surprised that you do not remember - you seem to get involved in a lot of flaming and naysaying in a lot of forums.
You are very commonly sarcastic, and unaccepting of others generally - perhaps you need to get out more, or try something new - a sex life would be a good start.
Little do you know !. I have heard devices that I expect well outdo the BQP, and yes they WORK.
Why would you want to deny yourself enhanced sonic pleasure ?
I say you should go join the flat earth society.
Yes we have all heard a gutfull of your 'principles', but nothing positive or illuminating from you at all, and this has been well spoken about behind the scenes, and none of it complimentary.
Steve, you are really not contributing anything around here except disagreeable noise, and this commonly about things of which you have no direct knowledge.
Steve, You can stick to your principals all you like, but in future it would be much better that you keep out of particular threads, especially when it is stated initially and later very clearly that 'Experience of BQB only' and 'no flaming' - it seems like you just cannot help your negative outlook self.
Eric / - Done dealing with Eddyots.
Nice To Communicate With Someone Who Is Not Deaf.
Hi Danny,
Thanks for your reply.
As a matter of interest how long have you been using the BQP's ?.
Eric.
Hi Danny,
Thanks for your reply.
As a matter of interest how long have you been using the BQP's ?.
Eric.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.