analog_sa said:
Bad soldering?
In any case, I'm delighted to see that SOME people are keeping an open mind.
Exactly SY.
But of course there is something on the Bybee issue that hasn't been mentioned. I can accept, because it is measurable, that this person has found a very clever way to lower the noise from a DC source. I know how small the received signals are from sonar, especially at the edge of the range (and that's were you want your enemy to stay). So, extremely low noise supplies will help to wring that extra few yards of range out of the system. That is measurable, I guess.
The problem starts when you apply this quiet-DC technology to audio. You can still measure the DC noise improvement, but YOU CANNOT PROVE IT MAKES IT SOUND BETTER, even if you believe it honestly.
So our brilliant Mr Bybee is convicted to try to peddle his stuff on word of mouth and the reputation of people like John. And that's a pretty dismal state for an engineer to be in, I would think.
Jan Didden
But of course there is something on the Bybee issue that hasn't been mentioned. I can accept, because it is measurable, that this person has found a very clever way to lower the noise from a DC source. I know how small the received signals are from sonar, especially at the edge of the range (and that's were you want your enemy to stay). So, extremely low noise supplies will help to wring that extra few yards of range out of the system. That is measurable, I guess.
The problem starts when you apply this quiet-DC technology to audio. You can still measure the DC noise improvement, but YOU CANNOT PROVE IT MAKES IT SOUND BETTER, even if you believe it honestly.
So our brilliant Mr Bybee is convicted to try to peddle his stuff on word of mouth and the reputation of people like John. And that's a pretty dismal state for an engineer to be in, I would think.
Jan Didden
analog_sa said:
Did you see the follow-up post: you need to burn them in, 40 hrs ususally does it!
Haha, that's humor!
Jan Didden
SY said:
Bart Hughes, the Amsterdammer mentioned in the article, was known at the time as "Johnny the Self-Kicker'. He was well known for having drilled an extra hole in his forhead. Of course, the skin grew over it, so you couldn't see it, but apparently one could feel it. I never had the honor, at that time my parents were convinced that Amsterdam was bad for my mental health. So I went into audio. I don't think Amsterdam could have done as much damage to my mental health, though.😀
Jan Didden
janneman said:
This makes perfect sense and can be verified by careful blind testing (if you substitute "get used to them" for "need to burn them in").
Jan, you don't have to be abrasive about it. Actually, Bybee devices have been measured, and Bybee once showed this noise reduction in a graph generated by an AC power line analyzer. The change was pretty small, but I have heard the difference in what they do, often enough. What amazes me IS when the Bybee device actually negatively effects the sound in some locations in some systems, including mine. Why?
Sheldon said:
Yes, agreed from that perspective. That is also an experience I have. You gradually get to know new attributes of your system over time. Then if there is another change (or you go back) then THAT sounds not quite right, if the chance is large enough.
But how would you blind test it? Do a blind test after 'burn in' assuming that it shows that the earlier configuration (without the purifiers) now sounds bad? That way you can 'prove' that anything is an improvement.
Jan Didden
"An unproven "tweak" on a fighter jet can mean people die."
What actually happened was that many people did die in the 7 crashes of the Stealth bomber and in many crashes of the stealth fighter. And not because of tweaks (as you say). Most of the bomber crashes were proven conclusively to have resulted from problems with the calculations in the flight computer. One occurred as recently as few years ago in Indian Ocean, don't know what happened there but I can Guess 🙂 These mistakes, unfortunate as they were, occurred because the system of development, measurement, testing, etc. was flawed. If you want to find a similar tragic failure of "the system" look no further than the Challenger disaster or even the recent shuttle disaster (how soon they forget).
We do know one of the 7 stealth fighters that crashed was shot down (so we can't blame Lockheed for that one) and one suffered a wing falling off during an air show, not exactly a stellar performance, eh? In the case of the stealth fighters, the Air Force says the crashes were due to pilot fatigue and/or disorientation. Right.
What actually happened was that many people did die in the 7 crashes of the Stealth bomber and in many crashes of the stealth fighter. And not because of tweaks (as you say). Most of the bomber crashes were proven conclusively to have resulted from problems with the calculations in the flight computer. One occurred as recently as few years ago in Indian Ocean, don't know what happened there but I can Guess 🙂 These mistakes, unfortunate as they were, occurred because the system of development, measurement, testing, etc. was flawed. If you want to find a similar tragic failure of "the system" look no further than the Challenger disaster or even the recent shuttle disaster (how soon they forget).
We do know one of the 7 stealth fighters that crashed was shot down (so we can't blame Lockheed for that one) and one suffered a wing falling off during an air show, not exactly a stellar performance, eh? In the case of the stealth fighters, the Air Force says the crashes were due to pilot fatigue and/or disorientation. Right.
john curl said:
John, apologies if I sounded abrasive, not intentionally so.
And it is interesting you can measure noise reduction in a power line test setup, my question was, how to prove with reasonable confidence that it improves the sound.
It comes back to that, doesn't it? Same as those pebbles and stones. Some measurements (at least for the stones) but nothing at all on the effect on audio, and that's what counts. No blind tests. I think it is an opportunity missed, that is, if you have confidence in your own products.
I looked at the Bybee website, read a review, and apparently they are supposed to work by absorbing certain frequencies. The idea being (if I got it right) to reduce the 1/f noise below 2kHz which would clean up the sound. But how do these things know the difference between noise and the sound signal? If we knew that, straightforward engineering could do the trick, and we ALL would be much happier (except maybe Mr Bybee😉 )
Jan Didden
deja vu all over again
breaking news today, 14 Sept 2004 (subtitled "trust me, we definitely have the weight problem fixed this time")
enjoy, GK
Lockheed says fighter jet weight issues resolved
Tue Sep 14, 2004 02:09 PM ET
By Chelsea Emery
NEW YORK, Sept 14 (Reuters) - Lockheed Martin Corp. (LMT.N: Quote, Profile, Research) on Tuesday said it has whittled down one version of its F-35 Joint Strike Fighter jet by 2,700 pounds, putting the design on track to meet or exceed all performance requirements and easing concerns that weight problems could derail the program.
Investors, analysts and aerospace executives have worried that federal budget constraints could cause the U.S. Air Force to reduce its planned purchase of the JSF. Concerns about the weight of the short-takeoff/vertical-landing (STOVL) version of the F-35 only exacerbated fears about the outlook for the supersonic stealth aircraft.
"It's quite important because there's been so much publicity about the overweight condition of the aircraft," said Paul Nisbet, analyst for research firm JSA Research Inc. "It's good news for stockholders because it would take away one of the reasons that could be used to cancel the program, or cut it way back."
breaking news today, 14 Sept 2004 (subtitled "trust me, we definitely have the weight problem fixed this time")
enjoy, GK
Lockheed says fighter jet weight issues resolved
Tue Sep 14, 2004 02:09 PM ET
By Chelsea Emery
NEW YORK, Sept 14 (Reuters) - Lockheed Martin Corp. (LMT.N: Quote, Profile, Research) on Tuesday said it has whittled down one version of its F-35 Joint Strike Fighter jet by 2,700 pounds, putting the design on track to meet or exceed all performance requirements and easing concerns that weight problems could derail the program.
Investors, analysts and aerospace executives have worried that federal budget constraints could cause the U.S. Air Force to reduce its planned purchase of the JSF. Concerns about the weight of the short-takeoff/vertical-landing (STOVL) version of the F-35 only exacerbated fears about the outlook for the supersonic stealth aircraft.
"It's quite important because there's been so much publicity about the overweight condition of the aircraft," said Paul Nisbet, analyst for research firm JSA Research Inc. "It's good news for stockholders because it would take away one of the reasons that could be used to cancel the program, or cut it way back."
janneman said:
Sorry, being a bit tongue in cheek. Can't really do a proper blind test. But one might be able to show for most subjects that the impression of "worse" would weaken after adjusting to the change for a time.
BTW, for me, the issue is not that various tweaks can't change or improve the sound because that's hard to rule out. The fact that that the explanations provided are patent nonsense doesn't mean something can't have the stated outcome- it could still work for perfectly mundane reasons. The issue for me (and sounds like for you) is what's the likelyhood something will be worth the time and money spent trying it? The goofier the explanation, the less likely I'll try it. We all play the odds every day. I like them as much in my favor as possible.
Sheldon
Thinking a bit more about it, there is an issue that is important to me beyond something working or not. I don't have a big problem with someone saying "I tried this and it works", even if I think it unlikely. As others have said here, there's not necessarily a requirement to back it up with valid test data. However, many of these things are accompanied by scientific sounding explanations of why it works the way it does. In that case, I think it's entirely fair and in the scientific tradition to demand data or revelant citations of prior data. Otherwise, the author is missapropriating public trust in established scientific principles. That should be challenged.
Jan, Jack Bybee is moderately well off, he gets himself INTO TROUBLE, from his wife, for investing time and money into making audio products. He does most of it in his garage, these days. He was born in 1929, a long time ago, and he doesn't have to do anything, except for the love of audio. He also likes cars, boats, good food and wine, but audio is where he puts his extra effort, in order to improve audio systems. He could care less if someone doesn't want to try his stuff, and he offers a moneyback guarantee. What more can you expect? Double blind tests? Heck I don't even do them with my amps, anymore. Better measurements? Even I don't even have the test equipment in order to measure them properly. A clear explanation of how they probably work? It's either poorly understood or classified. There are no papers out there that give a definitive explanation as to how these devices work. Still, I use Bybee devices in my audio and video equipment. They work for me, and they work for many others, BUT I have been in situations where they DIDN'T WORK in a positive way, but actually made the sound too soft. Why? I can't be sure. Still they did SOMETHING, when they should not have made any difference, given typical measurements, any more that a few inch piece of wire.
janneman said:
This is the typical listening duration for adjusting the hearing "sensation" to meet the anticipatated result.
It's not anything burning in - it's learning in ....
A glass of wine often speeds up the process ;-)
/
geoffkait said:
Well, the challenger disaster was the result of management budging for political and economic pressure and refusing to listen to engineering. That is blameable.
The other thing may well be due to a software fault that escaped detection. It is well known that it it IMPOSSIBLE to exhaustively test complex software. Although it can be blameable, if the testers could have been reasonably expected to find that particular bug, it is something of another dimension than the avoidable challenger disaster.
Jan Didden
john curl said:
Well, seems like he is having fun, and I can envy him for it (just a few more years!). And he can do it the way he wants, with/without testing, in his garage, in his loft whatever. He sounds like a likeable guy.
BUT, that doesn't oblige me or anyone else to treat his devices different from any other similar ones.
Sheldon above wrapped it up nicely IMO. You've got to make choices, you try to weed out the outright crackpots and take your chances with the rest. If the sellers have a strong case, I guess they will try to show results in independent testing. If not, OK with me, but then my choices will be different.
Jan Didden
Jan,
Discussion on this thread often becomes hyberbolic when measurement and subjectivity are brought together.
Nonetheless, it seems reasonable that if folk are claiming to hear a difference in sound quality, that there must be something to measure.
In another thread a while back we mentioned masking effects. These are a nice example of conjunction of measurement, subjectivity, and theory.
It would seem to me an awful lot of the argument we've read in this thread moves in thiis fashion:
"I can hear it."
"Well we can't measure it!"
And eventually, sometimes, it ends up at, "So's your old lady!"
I think there's not enough examples of kinds of phenomena which lead to defined examples of subjectively experienced, and objectively measured, good and bad sound.
Earl Geddes is on to something:
http://www.gedlee.com/distortion_perception.htm
Deliberately create deficiencies in the sound and measure what the reaction is. Now we've created data for engineers and designers to work with.
Geddes designs speakers and he's doing the research because he needs the data because otherwise his design efforts will be less than optimal. There is no point in optimizing something which is subjectively irrelevant when there may well be some other parameters which are subjectively pertinent and need improvement..
The codec developers and cell phone companies like Nokia are heavily into this type of research, also, but for different reasons. They are trying to optimize doing the most with the least band width expenditure.
I kind of sympathize with the Shakti stones guy because perhaps for some applications in some places his device makes a diference but what the heck is it? I doubt if all subjective deficiencies have been catalogued.
If it does, will it make a difference that matters in a Walmart boombox or in one of John Curl's creations?
Discussion on this thread often becomes hyberbolic when measurement and subjectivity are brought together.
Nonetheless, it seems reasonable that if folk are claiming to hear a difference in sound quality, that there must be something to measure.
In another thread a while back we mentioned masking effects. These are a nice example of conjunction of measurement, subjectivity, and theory.
It would seem to me an awful lot of the argument we've read in this thread moves in thiis fashion:
"I can hear it."
"Well we can't measure it!"
And eventually, sometimes, it ends up at, "So's your old lady!"
I think there's not enough examples of kinds of phenomena which lead to defined examples of subjectively experienced, and objectively measured, good and bad sound.
Earl Geddes is on to something:
http://www.gedlee.com/distortion_perception.htm
Deliberately create deficiencies in the sound and measure what the reaction is. Now we've created data for engineers and designers to work with.
Geddes designs speakers and he's doing the research because he needs the data because otherwise his design efforts will be less than optimal. There is no point in optimizing something which is subjectively irrelevant when there may well be some other parameters which are subjectively pertinent and need improvement..
The codec developers and cell phone companies like Nokia are heavily into this type of research, also, but for different reasons. They are trying to optimize doing the most with the least band width expenditure.
I kind of sympathize with the Shakti stones guy because perhaps for some applications in some places his device makes a diference but what the heck is it? I doubt if all subjective deficiencies have been catalogued.
If it does, will it make a difference that matters in a Walmart boombox or in one of John Curl's creations?
Frank,
If Geddes interests you, how about this one:
What is interesting that the research team consists of equal numbers of engineers and psychologists...
Jan Didden
If Geddes interests you, how about this one:
What is interesting that the research team consists of equal numbers of engineers and psychologists...
Jan Didden
I've always found the effects of solder composition on sound to be a bit contentios but if you have found otherwise, who am i to argue 🙂
Btw i seem to vaguely remember that a well known speaker manufacturer incorporates the Bybees into their crossovers.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.