I notice you don't deny the accusation. What, you and SY working as a team or something? 😀
se
So let´s put together what we know by now :
It is a hollow 0.025 Ohm resistor with a conductive ceramic coating.
The ceramic is connected to the resitor through vias. The ceramic is from unknown material that is crucial for the purifying action. ( Beryllium Oxide ? )
The purifiers influence 1/F noise and are no inductors with RF filtering action.
That 1/F noise reduction can not be measured with averaging because it needs a signal to path thruw that swaps the measurement result.
The whole arangement filters parallel to the signal and not serial.
The arangement is a cavity resonator that resonates on the electron resonance frequency of 28GHz / Tesla. Similiar contructions are used in Microwave technology.
There was some mentioning of super conductivity at room temperature.
That is something i have trouble with because THAT whould make Bybee really rich.
Anyway, if he found that secret : congratulation !
I can not wait to read the scientific report.
I think that is a lot of information and i wait for the first voluntary that actually builds something like this.
It is a hollow 0.025 Ohm resistor with a conductive ceramic coating.
The ceramic is connected to the resitor through vias. The ceramic is from unknown material that is crucial for the purifying action. ( Beryllium Oxide ? )
The purifiers influence 1/F noise and are no inductors with RF filtering action.
That 1/F noise reduction can not be measured with averaging because it needs a signal to path thruw that swaps the measurement result.
The whole arangement filters parallel to the signal and not serial.
The arangement is a cavity resonator that resonates on the electron resonance frequency of 28GHz / Tesla. Similiar contructions are used in Microwave technology.
There was some mentioning of super conductivity at room temperature.
That is something i have trouble with because THAT whould make Bybee really rich.
Anyway, if he found that secret : congratulation !
I can not wait to read the scientific report.
I think that is a lot of information and i wait for the first voluntary that actually builds something like this.
I agree with Joachim !
Hi guys,
This is nicely said Joachim.
I always have this disagreement with colleagues that pretend that measuring is the way to go! Well, yes measurements are good but listening is for me the best way to find flaws in audio. nevertheless I know that without measurements you can't proof anything!
In Holland we say, "meten is weten" (to measure is to know).
So Joachim, I'm all ears when you're done measuring these purifiers!
John, thanks for sharing what you know about audio(components) with us, stay cool and don't worry about the critics. 😎
All the best.
Audiofanatic 😉
Hi guys,
This is nicely said Joachim.
I always have this disagreement with colleagues that pretend that measuring is the way to go! Well, yes measurements are good but listening is for me the best way to find flaws in audio. nevertheless I know that without measurements you can't proof anything!
In Holland we say, "meten is weten" (to measure is to know).
So Joachim, I'm all ears when you're done measuring these purifiers!
John, thanks for sharing what you know about audio(components) with us, stay cool and don't worry about the critics. 😎
All the best.
Audiofanatic 😉
Superconductor at room temperature? You would win the Nobel prize for that. I still remember when Müller and Bednorz presented their breakthrough discovery in 1986 at the IBM Research Laboratory in Switzerland; they found a rare earth composed material which reached superconductivity at 35 degrees Kelvin. They got the Nobel price for that. Their discovery triggered a race to find even more attractive materials, and to the best of my knowledge the present record is at 138 degrees Kelvin. Absolutely remarkable, but still far away from room temperature.
The claim of a reduction of the 1/f noise: This type of noise is generated in semiconductors, like transistors or opamps. If the device could reduce this type of noise, one would logically assume, that it had to be inserted somewhere at the input or ouput pins of these devices. How it can remotely achieve this miracle when inserted e.g. into the power cord would certainly need an explanation.
The claim of a reduction of the 1/f noise: This type of noise is generated in semiconductors, like transistors or opamps. If the device could reduce this type of noise, one would logically assume, that it had to be inserted somewhere at the input or ouput pins of these devices. How it can remotely achieve this miracle when inserted e.g. into the power cord would certainly need an explanation.
"That 1/F noise reduction can not be measured with averaging because it needs a signal to path thruw that swaps the measurement result."
So.. anti-average instead! Send a signal through twice (or through two magic beads, one signal in reverse polarity to the other) and then sum them and look at what's left. The signal cancels as completely as you can match the levels and delays,and the noise goes up 3dB every time the number of pairs that get summed doubles, so the signal-induced noise can eventually be detected in all of its supposed badness. If it isn't seen, keep summing in more and more anti-phase pairs until it is. Or till the whole idea is dismissed. (Of course, be sure to compare to doing the same thing without any signal applied also, and both with and without beads.)
"I always have this disagreement with colleagues that pretend that measuring is the way to go! Well, yes measurements are good but listening is for me the best way to find flaws in audio"
Well, it's rather obvious that listening isn't actually ruled out in doing measurements, isn't it? Where does this "either/or" assumption come from? Measuring with ears is more or less what a statistical sample of double-blind listening tests is.
So.. anti-average instead! Send a signal through twice (or through two magic beads, one signal in reverse polarity to the other) and then sum them and look at what's left. The signal cancels as completely as you can match the levels and delays,and the noise goes up 3dB every time the number of pairs that get summed doubles, so the signal-induced noise can eventually be detected in all of its supposed badness. If it isn't seen, keep summing in more and more anti-phase pairs until it is. Or till the whole idea is dismissed. (Of course, be sure to compare to doing the same thing without any signal applied also, and both with and without beads.)
"I always have this disagreement with colleagues that pretend that measuring is the way to go! Well, yes measurements are good but listening is for me the best way to find flaws in audio"
Well, it's rather obvious that listening isn't actually ruled out in doing measurements, isn't it? Where does this "either/or" assumption come from? Measuring with ears is more or less what a statistical sample of double-blind listening tests is.
No, Joachim. It is a small resistor placed inside a ceramic form that is coated with rare earth materials. No BeO, just a Be resistor, yes the very metal. The rare earth oxides are listed elsewhere. The ceramic form is conductive because of the rare earth materials and with metal endcaps, forms a resonant cavity.
Thanks John for further expanation and correcting me. I took the chance to sum up because i had the feeling that contrary to SOME contributors you actually provide information albeit in an encripted form. I find that method of information delivery fascinating because it stirs up phantasy and intuition. Maybe some people expect from you absolutley exact descriptions of all the tiny details. I do not need that. I trust you as long as i do not find mistakes through my own analysys methods. I am doing mistakes all the time and still are able to design audio equipment that people like.
We are all learning all the time except the ones that know everthig without owning or testing it.
Hy Bill !
Yes, why not listening AND hearing as every wise designer does ?
I whould realy like to work with you on a method to measure these critters.
When i am back in the states i can buy some for you too if you like.
This get´s intesting. I only hope that the tone of this thread could develop into something more productive.
We are all learning all the time except the ones that know everthig without owning or testing it.
Hy Bill !
Yes, why not listening AND hearing as every wise designer does ?
I whould realy like to work with you on a method to measure these critters.
When i am back in the states i can buy some for you too if you like.
This get´s intesting. I only hope that the tone of this thread could develop into something more productive.
I am only generalizing, because I have not been directly told the whole story. Most of what I have stated, I have seen, measured and determined. Jack is VERY careful not to tell me everything. I told him, myself, not to give anything important away, because I tend to give info away.
I guess the issue I have is how microwave technology targeted at a frequency range 9 orders of magnitude higher than 1/f noise could have any effect on what is essentially an issue below 50Hz or so?
I am confused wrt to the issue of measuring 1/f noise and the purported effect that the bybee has on it - semiconductor manufacturers habitually measure rather small changes in 1/f noise as a consequence of process and design improvements in op-amp designs they are developing or manufacturing.
There are techniques for measuring 1/f noise that might involve rms, quasi-peak or peak detection over a large number of sample intervals and averaging the post measurement magnitude only. Since the random phase is removed (leaving only magnitude and no sign) from the measurement the averages would not result in the usual gaussian 3dB reduction for each doubling of the sample quantity, but would instead reflect the average amplitude of the 1/f noise over those samples. (There are probably a lot of other ways to do this, this is what I would do in an ATE environment.)
I guess what I am saying is that in this case at least the difference if attributable to a change in 1/f noise should be measurable with some care - the fact that it puportedly can't be leaves me scratching my head.
I believe my ears, and I try to design things that measure well by the criteria I consider important, but measurements are important and can help to improve the listening experience through careful design iteration and reevaluation.. (Both listening and measurement)
I also make my own cables, believe in hideously expensive caps because of differences I can both hear and in many instances measure, and use fairly expensive connectors partly because they maintain their signal integrity over time and don't produce measurable distortion in the signals passed through them.
One of the more unfortunate experiences I had during the time I had the business was being a hero by undoing some unwitting audiophile's tweaks to a now wildly malfunctioning component. I got paid well for my efforts, but rather wished it was not necessary..
So I have never been able to determine to my satisfaction that the bybee actually helps anything, the fact that it doesn't hurt is beyond the point..
I am confused wrt to the issue of measuring 1/f noise and the purported effect that the bybee has on it - semiconductor manufacturers habitually measure rather small changes in 1/f noise as a consequence of process and design improvements in op-amp designs they are developing or manufacturing.
There are techniques for measuring 1/f noise that might involve rms, quasi-peak or peak detection over a large number of sample intervals and averaging the post measurement magnitude only. Since the random phase is removed (leaving only magnitude and no sign) from the measurement the averages would not result in the usual gaussian 3dB reduction for each doubling of the sample quantity, but would instead reflect the average amplitude of the 1/f noise over those samples. (There are probably a lot of other ways to do this, this is what I would do in an ATE environment.)
I guess what I am saying is that in this case at least the difference if attributable to a change in 1/f noise should be measurable with some care - the fact that it puportedly can't be leaves me scratching my head.
I believe my ears, and I try to design things that measure well by the criteria I consider important, but measurements are important and can help to improve the listening experience through careful design iteration and reevaluation.. (Both listening and measurement)
I also make my own cables, believe in hideously expensive caps because of differences I can both hear and in many instances measure, and use fairly expensive connectors partly because they maintain their signal integrity over time and don't produce measurable distortion in the signals passed through them.
One of the more unfortunate experiences I had during the time I had the business was being a hero by undoing some unwitting audiophile's tweaks to a now wildly malfunctioning component. I got paid well for my efforts, but rather wished it was not necessary..
So I have never been able to determine to my satisfaction that the bybee actually helps anything, the fact that it doesn't hurt is beyond the point..
Last edited:
Maybe a moderator should just moderate and keep personal opinions / predjudices out of the moderations. Just moderation for inappropriate usage of the forum according to the objective rules of the website.????
"Scam" is a highly opinionated word and not an objective take on this thread and it's original intentions.
Who moderates the moderators?
JD
"Scam" is a highly opinionated word and not an objective take on this thread and it's original intentions.
Who moderates the moderators?
JD
A littel harsh, I think a few of us here agree with Sy. If Jack wants to silence us, he's free to front up and explain how it works. Sadly he doesnt. If you go back a few posts, his purifiers were labeled as witchcraft.
Hi,
I did not label Jack Bybee's product as witchcraft. Instead I compared the way this thread was going to a plain old witchhunt, such as has been traditional in America from the Salem witch trials into todays society with examples like the McCarthy Tribunals and the Rosenbergs (and possibly Ms. Prouty).
I also observed as the "authorities" where at the forefront of this witchhunt we better all shout along "Burn the witches", lest we ourselves are next (we meaning anyone deviating from the orthodox viewpoint as defined, applied and enforced by the "authorities"...
I guess satire is not any longer a common shared line of humor.
Ciao T
I did not label Jack Bybee's product as witchcraft. Instead I compared the way this thread was going to a plain old witchhunt, such as has been traditional in America from the Salem witch trials into todays society with examples like the McCarthy Tribunals and the Rosenbergs (and possibly Ms. Prouty).
I also observed as the "authorities" where at the forefront of this witchhunt we better all shout along "Burn the witches", lest we ourselves are next (we meaning anyone deviating from the orthodox viewpoint as defined, applied and enforced by the "authorities"...
I guess satire is not any longer a common shared line of humor.
Ciao T
Hi,
I think the issue is that the impartial referee (read Moderator) is publicly taking sides, instead of confining himself to assuring the discourse remains civil. In fact, some of the comments made by a moderator would likely be classed as libel under British law. This does raise issues of a perceived lack of impartiality on the part of some.
I for one enjoy locking horns with Sy and do not think that he would use his moderator powers to enforce his points, but other may think differently.
Ciao T
I think the issue is that the impartial referee (read Moderator) is publicly taking sides, instead of confining himself to assuring the discourse remains civil. In fact, some of the comments made by a moderator would likely be classed as libel under British law. This does raise issues of a perceived lack of impartiality on the part of some.
I for one enjoy locking horns with Sy and do not think that he would use his moderator powers to enforce his points, but other may think differently.
Ciao T
Last edited:
SY is not acting in the role of moderator - the mod icon is not in place. He is therefore as free as anyone to enter and contribute to the discussion.
Given that unlike the majority of us he actually knows a few of the protaganists, it would be damaging ot hte thread to exclude him. And he and JC have a history of this sparring that doesn't seem to have injured either of them (let alone JB), so no harm, no foul...
Given that unlike the majority of us he actually knows a few of the protaganists, it would be damaging ot hte thread to exclude him. And he and JC have a history of this sparring that doesn't seem to have injured either of them (let alone JB), so no harm, no foul...
- Status
- Not open for further replies.