How does the device know the difference between noise and music? If I play a Merzbow CD, will it be silent? How about percussion sounds which are synthesized starting with a noise source?
It could be satire, but it completely inverts the logic and hence is just confused.
For your benefit, the Salem witchhunts, the McCarthy Tribunals and the such are examples of situations of people taking anecdotal evidence and hearsay as fact, making appeals to authority, and avoiding any rules of evidence, logic or scientific reasoning.
Kinda like those supporting (promoting?) the Bybee device as efficacious.
Hi,
Exactly.
Now, no law constrains Mr. Bybee to providing detailed workings of his devices or indeed measurements or other tests when selling them, as long as they are not sold as medical devices.
I have no experience of these items nor any particular opinion. In one of these facts I am like almost everyone in this thread, namely that I lack first hand experience of the Device (and I am not overly keen to change this, life is too short and all that).
In the other facet (namely not having any opinion and withholding judgement on the basis of the hearsay and possibly false assumptions) I seem rather singular.
In the Salem Witch Trials not just hearsay was involved, but also an orthodox belief that such a thing as Witchcraft actually existed. So at fault was not just gullibility but also a fixed and inaccurate world-view (I would like to use the German term Weltanschaung but it has no direct English equivalent that conveys it's meaning right).
With Bybee Devices and other controversial things in Audio we find a group of people who hold certain fixed and orthodox world-views on what is possible and what is not passing judgement on the basis of zero direct investigation and purely hearsay but who additionally appeal to supposed authorites to make their version stick.
Now exactly HOW is the methodology and approach different from my examples above?
I guess it depends on where you stand. If you where a suspected communist in the 1950's you may have felt the McCarthy Tribunals where a witchhunt. If you happened to be an UltraCon you probably considered the McCarthy Tribunals as way too soft and rued that there was no way to use "enhanced interrogation methods" on suspected communists.
Yet the principle dynamics and mechanics of the process where the same in both cases.
Well, I guess we are only human and to learn from our forbearer's mistakes and to avoid (even in a small degree) the same ones is a bit much to expect.
Ciao T
Exactly.
Now, no law constrains Mr. Bybee to providing detailed workings of his devices or indeed measurements or other tests when selling them, as long as they are not sold as medical devices.
I have no experience of these items nor any particular opinion. In one of these facts I am like almost everyone in this thread, namely that I lack first hand experience of the Device (and I am not overly keen to change this, life is too short and all that).
In the other facet (namely not having any opinion and withholding judgement on the basis of the hearsay and possibly false assumptions) I seem rather singular.
In the Salem Witch Trials not just hearsay was involved, but also an orthodox belief that such a thing as Witchcraft actually existed. So at fault was not just gullibility but also a fixed and inaccurate world-view (I would like to use the German term Weltanschaung but it has no direct English equivalent that conveys it's meaning right).
With Bybee Devices and other controversial things in Audio we find a group of people who hold certain fixed and orthodox world-views on what is possible and what is not passing judgement on the basis of zero direct investigation and purely hearsay but who additionally appeal to supposed authorites to make their version stick.
Now exactly HOW is the methodology and approach different from my examples above?
I guess it depends on where you stand. If you where a suspected communist in the 1950's you may have felt the McCarthy Tribunals where a witchhunt. If you happened to be an UltraCon you probably considered the McCarthy Tribunals as way too soft and rued that there was no way to use "enhanced interrogation methods" on suspected communists.
Yet the principle dynamics and mechanics of the process where the same in both cases.
Well, I guess we are only human and to learn from our forbearer's mistakes and to avoid (even in a small degree) the same ones is a bit much to expect.
Ciao T
"Weltanschauung" is actually a very widely understood word in English; I may have even used it myself once or twice.
And Thorsten, as you well know, no-one here has a "fixed view" of the world. Many of us DO understand the basics of physics (you know, the stuff that makes your computer possible), the necessity of EVIDENCE by those making claims, the necessity of STRONG EVIDENCE when extraordinary claims are made, and the presumption of bullchips when such claims are made without evidence by someone who has lied and exaggerated his background repeatedly. "Investigation" is no more warranted than with a Nigerian scammer.
The scammer, in this case, works by duping a friend of his who has a stellar reputation and allowing him to take the thrown stones. That makes him, IMO, worse than just a scammer, he's also a coward. Think of how Uri Geller destroyed the reputations of Hal Puthoff, John Taylor, and other people whom he took in his confidence game.
Fortunately, American libel law doesn't apply here- in US law, truth is an absolute defense and scammers fear the discovery process (in the legal sense). If the Bybee devices actually were what the scammer claims, he and/or his acolytes would have actual EVIDENCE of these marvelous effects. Instead, the only things that are invoked are superstition, appeal to "helping the team," veiled threats, and insults from True Believers with no knowledge of the relevant technologies, but armed with inapt analogies and whines about "persecution" by the "closed-minded." Anything to avoid actually presenting EVIDENCE, and anything to continue to take in money.
I find this sort of behavior disgusting, and his dupes worthy of pity. My wife keeps asking me why I can't be dishonest and make some money at this. "Awww, you could make up better stories than this stuff." 😀
And Thorsten, as you well know, no-one here has a "fixed view" of the world. Many of us DO understand the basics of physics (you know, the stuff that makes your computer possible), the necessity of EVIDENCE by those making claims, the necessity of STRONG EVIDENCE when extraordinary claims are made, and the presumption of bullchips when such claims are made without evidence by someone who has lied and exaggerated his background repeatedly. "Investigation" is no more warranted than with a Nigerian scammer.
The scammer, in this case, works by duping a friend of his who has a stellar reputation and allowing him to take the thrown stones. That makes him, IMO, worse than just a scammer, he's also a coward. Think of how Uri Geller destroyed the reputations of Hal Puthoff, John Taylor, and other people whom he took in his confidence game.
Fortunately, American libel law doesn't apply here- in US law, truth is an absolute defense and scammers fear the discovery process (in the legal sense). If the Bybee devices actually were what the scammer claims, he and/or his acolytes would have actual EVIDENCE of these marvelous effects. Instead, the only things that are invoked are superstition, appeal to "helping the team," veiled threats, and insults from True Believers with no knowledge of the relevant technologies, but armed with inapt analogies and whines about "persecution" by the "closed-minded." Anything to avoid actually presenting EVIDENCE, and anything to continue to take in money.
I find this sort of behavior disgusting, and his dupes worthy of pity. My wife keeps asking me why I can't be dishonest and make some money at this. "Awww, you could make up better stories than this stuff." 😀
I know!
It's a Big Bang noise filter. BB noise peaks at about 160GHz. The low-conductive ceramic liner has the effect of broadening the trap bandwidth of the cavity.
w
Oh good, my copy of Microwave Office still works. You should see this patch antenna in animation, it's really cool
It's a Big Bang noise filter. BB noise peaks at about 160GHz. The low-conductive ceramic liner has the effect of broadening the trap bandwidth of the cavity.
w
Oh good, my copy of Microwave Office still works. You should see this patch antenna in animation, it's really cool
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Hi Sy,
Okay, one is getting old I guess.
Okay, I think we need to divide the subject.
1) Is JB trustworthy, should you pay him a lot of money for his devices?
2) Do his devices work according to his claims of their operation?
Now both the above make interesting debate but are actually quite OT for the OP's question.
3) Do his devices do something that may result in improved sound quality and is it possible to get similar results with DIY means?
That is the topic here. And all your debate on the other two point is moot and does not address 3). And you implicitly reject that JB's devices may have ANY effect (not necessarily the claimed one) without investigation, without evidence, without investigation and strictly on the basis of hearsay and reputation. I would not call such an approach reasonable or scientific.
Note, I do not suggest you buy JB's devices, investigate his claims etc., however your quite vociferous attacks on anything that according to your weltanschauung should not work do not do yourself and your abilities credit and justice.
Back to 3) - as said, I have no experience as to what JB's devices do, I have quite a bit of experience with a wide range of conventional and less conventional readio frequency noise reducers.
If the active operational item inside the JB devices are what I noted earlier I suspected they are than DIY versions are entirely possible AND his devices may indeed have a positive effect in many systems, though not proportionate to expense (again, this is a slippery topic) and perchance not according to his explanation.
So here is your motive, the same one as with all "Debunkers", including arch-charlatan Randi.
BUT (and this is crucial), if you were more supportive of DIY "reverse engineering" projects like what was attempted here in this thread you would be able to expose exactly what is going on, gain real respect and do the community a real favor. And you may even put "The scammer" (sic) out of business.
But of course it is easier and more fun to just blow off steams and call names.
Ciao T
Okay, one is getting old I guess.
Okay, I think we need to divide the subject.
1) Is JB trustworthy, should you pay him a lot of money for his devices?
2) Do his devices work according to his claims of their operation?
Now both the above make interesting debate but are actually quite OT for the OP's question.
3) Do his devices do something that may result in improved sound quality and is it possible to get similar results with DIY means?
That is the topic here. And all your debate on the other two point is moot and does not address 3). And you implicitly reject that JB's devices may have ANY effect (not necessarily the claimed one) without investigation, without evidence, without investigation and strictly on the basis of hearsay and reputation. I would not call such an approach reasonable or scientific.
Note, I do not suggest you buy JB's devices, investigate his claims etc., however your quite vociferous attacks on anything that according to your weltanschauung should not work do not do yourself and your abilities credit and justice.
Back to 3) - as said, I have no experience as to what JB's devices do, I have quite a bit of experience with a wide range of conventional and less conventional readio frequency noise reducers.
If the active operational item inside the JB devices are what I noted earlier I suspected they are than DIY versions are entirely possible AND his devices may indeed have a positive effect in many systems, though not proportionate to expense (again, this is a slippery topic) and perchance not according to his explanation.
So here is your motive, the same one as with all "Debunkers", including arch-charlatan Randi.
BUT (and this is crucial), if you were more supportive of DIY "reverse engineering" projects like what was attempted here in this thread you would be able to expose exactly what is going on, gain real respect and do the community a real favor. And you may even put "The scammer" (sic) out of business.
But of course it is easier and more fun to just blow off steams and call names.
Ciao T
Thorsten, do you investigate the Nigerian guys who send you emails? I mean, they COULD be real.
(shaking head in sadness)
(shaking head in sadness)
I have encountered the bybee quantum clarifier, and could not truthfully determine whether it clarified anything or not. In or out of the circuit the result seemed completely indistinguishable to me and the few others who were party to the experiment. This wasn't even a double blind A/B test FWIW...
I'm surprised that my last post elicited no response when I hinted at this...
I'm surprised that my last post elicited no response when I hinted at this...
Exactly like my hypothesis about how Santa Claus or the son of the former Nigerian oil minister could be real.
You've confused me for the scammer making the claim.
My hypothesis (it's a cynical scam) can be falsified by EVIDENCE that it has an effect. Just like the guy selling the perpetual motion machines.
My hypothesis (it's a cynical scam) can be falsified by EVIDENCE that it has an effect. Just like the guy selling the perpetual motion machines.
Nope, I am not the confused one, you are - the above is a strawman. You made the claim, which was 'they COULD be real' (regarding the Nigerian emails that T gets). You claimed it, so to be scientific you'll have to put up the hypothesis for how. Now you're bullchipping that its me that's confused😛
Ah, I see the issue, it's linguistics. You might want to look up the words "sarcasm" and "irony." I suspect that, despite English being his second language, Mr. Loesch understood this perfectly.
In any case, it's easy to falsify the Nigerian email scam. I'll forward you the next one that I get, and will leave it to you to send him your banking information and the $10,000 in transfer fees. Please report back with your results.
In any case, it's easy to falsify the Nigerian email scam. I'll forward you the next one that I get, and will leave it to you to send him your banking information and the $10,000 in transfer fees. Please report back with your results.
Hi,
I have no hypothesis.
I did however remark repeatedly that I have seen photos of the insides of Bybee Purifiers and the actual "active" content appeared to be a RFI blockers that where generically available and where (by the manufacturer) advertised as not being ferrite based and having some advantages over generic ferrite's.
This is not a hypothesis, but an observation.
However, if my observations are actually accurate anyone is free to formulate their own hypothesis.
I am an engineer, so I am primarily concerned with "what works", not necessarily "how it works". Some stuff I know works operationally is hard to reconcile with classic, orthodox physics, but that has not stopped it from working rather well.
Someone scientifically inclined would probably already hold a hypothesis on the subject as part of her/his weltanschauung. Often this hypothesis is a null hypothesis and more to the point, maintainance of this weltanschauung requires the null hypothesis to be true. Placebo and Nocebo work very well in such situations.
Luckily as Engineer I am unfettered by such intellectual shackles and prison bars. Often having no strong convictions means one is not convicted by oneself and imprisoned by ones strongly held beliefs.
Now IF I where to advance a general hypothesis on many a tweak in "High End Audio" (an area of endeavor full of dabblers and autodidacts in the worst sense and way) and how the "development" of such proceed I would suggest the following as likely:
1) Person A tries something and finds it works well.
2) The item tried is generally and widely available at fairly low cost or easy/cheap to manufacture.
3) He recommends it to some friends and audio aquaintances.
4) Some will try it gush about the results.
5) Many will be dismissive because "it cannot work" or "it is too cheap" or "It is too common". Or they will not like it because there is no Theory or hyphotesis as to "why it works".
6) Someone will recommend to him "You should package and sell this. Many will want it. You just need to market it right."
7) He will figure out that to get his "invention" (it is an invention in the true sense of the Latin root word "invenis") recognised and sold he will have to disguise it (which involves a lot of manual labour in the small volumes involved and hence drives up cost even if Person A is basically honest) and provide some "theory" (however unrealistic and fake) to it's workings.
8) Some reviewer will get some, try it and will declare "this is the greatest tweak since slicing bread". Sales will pick up.
9) Some narrow-minded individuals in one or other forum will take offense at what they perceive and attempt to take them for a ride and will go to great length to call Person A a scammer, dis-regardless if his "invention" does anything or not.
Ciao T
I have no hypothesis.
I did however remark repeatedly that I have seen photos of the insides of Bybee Purifiers and the actual "active" content appeared to be a RFI blockers that where generically available and where (by the manufacturer) advertised as not being ferrite based and having some advantages over generic ferrite's.
This is not a hypothesis, but an observation.
However, if my observations are actually accurate anyone is free to formulate their own hypothesis.
I am an engineer, so I am primarily concerned with "what works", not necessarily "how it works". Some stuff I know works operationally is hard to reconcile with classic, orthodox physics, but that has not stopped it from working rather well.
Someone scientifically inclined would probably already hold a hypothesis on the subject as part of her/his weltanschauung. Often this hypothesis is a null hypothesis and more to the point, maintainance of this weltanschauung requires the null hypothesis to be true. Placebo and Nocebo work very well in such situations.
Luckily as Engineer I am unfettered by such intellectual shackles and prison bars. Often having no strong convictions means one is not convicted by oneself and imprisoned by ones strongly held beliefs.
Now IF I where to advance a general hypothesis on many a tweak in "High End Audio" (an area of endeavor full of dabblers and autodidacts in the worst sense and way) and how the "development" of such proceed I would suggest the following as likely:
1) Person A tries something and finds it works well.
2) The item tried is generally and widely available at fairly low cost or easy/cheap to manufacture.
3) He recommends it to some friends and audio aquaintances.
4) Some will try it gush about the results.
5) Many will be dismissive because "it cannot work" or "it is too cheap" or "It is too common". Or they will not like it because there is no Theory or hyphotesis as to "why it works".
6) Someone will recommend to him "You should package and sell this. Many will want it. You just need to market it right."
7) He will figure out that to get his "invention" (it is an invention in the true sense of the Latin root word "invenis") recognised and sold he will have to disguise it (which involves a lot of manual labour in the small volumes involved and hence drives up cost even if Person A is basically honest) and provide some "theory" (however unrealistic and fake) to it's workings.
8) Some reviewer will get some, try it and will declare "this is the greatest tweak since slicing bread". Sales will pick up.
9) Some narrow-minded individuals in one or other forum will take offense at what they perceive and attempt to take them for a ride and will go to great length to call Person A a scammer, dis-regardless if his "invention" does anything or not.
Ciao T
- Status
- Not open for further replies.