I'd say the signal to noise ratio of this thread is probably too low to measure with conventional techniques - maybe we need to resort to quantum methods? 😉
John: For the benefit of the ignorant among us (myself clearly being one of them), please could you explain how speeding up the electrons causes information theory to become null and SNR to be increased?
John: For the benefit of the ignorant among us (myself clearly being one of them), please could you explain how speeding up the electrons causes information theory to become null and SNR to be increased?
Much. The point is, there's no shells, the mobility is a function of electron-phonon scattering, and the electrons are totally delocalized and indistinguishable. It's not an intuitive picture. The key here is thinking about bands, not electrons, shells, or levels. 😀
I agree, and am aware of these theories. But even if the "speed" of the electron increased over the length of the nanotube (or even the entire Bybee thingy), the effect would be minuscule compared with the length of the entire signal path. Besides, the information (music) traveling the signal path is not carried in the electron, it is in the field that moves quickly along the wires and is produced by the small movements of electrons. I don't need the electrons to move faster, if anything I might imagine an introduced discontinuity of field due to the abrupt motion of electrons in this small portion of signal path.
I think you need to convince me that the speed of the actual electron in the signal path has any impact on the sound quality. Then convince me that that impact is positive. So far, even if all the effects you reference actually are what is occurring in a Bybee quantum purifier, you have yet to give any indication as to why that might improve sound.
I do believe my brain is a quantum device (I know a little about brains, I am a Neurologist), so this thread is being filtered by many quantum devices. Unfortunately the result is more noise, not less....
Quite. It is highly feasible that an ideal (n.b. not realisable, practicably at least) component will have zero negative effect (produce no noise), however actively having a positive effect (removing noise) is the thing I can't fathom.
You're a guy, right? Right. Put me on the defensive? No siree. Put the *** in Dallas. Uh huh. My message was loud and clear. If you didn't get the message, the message was not for you. Cheers.
I have always understood that, all things being equal, a single ended phono input is preferable because it has only one input resistor to generate noise. (Resistors in the input stages of low level preamps are the predominant source of noise.) Am I wrong?
As for following this topic, I cope quite well by adopting the "killfile" approach as used for many years on USENET. In other words, having determined that John is "fishing without a license", I don't read any of his posts or any replies made by others to his posts.
The distance between one end and the other end of the Bybee device is the distance. It has been getting shorter over the years. The resistor 'effective distance with leads' has gotten even shorter than the Bybee devices. However, how could that make any difference to a Newtonian? ;-) In fact, X-rays cannot exist.
Not wrong so much as incomplete. First, the input resistor is rarely a significant noise source since it's shunted by the much lower impedance of the cartridge. Now there IS a noise penalty from using a pair of input devices (transistors or tubes) in balanced instead of a single one for single-ended, but there is a nice workaround for that. And hopefully, the Powers That Be will have my phono preamp article up pretty shortly so you can see what that is...
You can do even better and just leave them out altogether. Then the distance becomes ZERO. Not to mention eliminating half a dozen or more additional contacts in the signal path.
To that end, I've created a brand new product.
I call it, the Un-Bybee.
And it's absolutely FREE! (just pay $9.95 to cover shipping and handling) 😀
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
se
all sounds a bit similar to that other perveyor of all things 'quantum audio' peter belt. Like mr bybee's products, belt's come supplied with a large helping of mumbo jumbo and a nice website where you too can be enlightened, as well as have your wallet lightened.
belt has a number of unhinged, fanatical and downright religious followers (soundhaspriority / SHP / shippy being the most obvious) who will pop up anywhere his name is mentioned to sooth the unbelievers as they suffer the pain of the ignorance.
if this stuff is classified, howcome it can be sold to the public? does that make the distributor a spy????
😛
belt has a number of unhinged, fanatical and downright religious followers (soundhaspriority / SHP / shippy being the most obvious) who will pop up anywhere his name is mentioned to sooth the unbelievers as they suffer the pain of the ignorance.
if this stuff is classified, howcome it can be sold to the public? does that make the distributor a spy????
😛
John: If your argument that the Bybee product defies logic hinges upon the notion that we (the nay-sayers in this thread) do not understand it simply because it operates by mechanisms that can only be understood on a quantum level - and is therefore somehow above us, as if some act of magic - then it truly is a weak one.
I am a firm believer that if one cannot explain an idea - at least in principle, if not actuality - to even a child, then either: a) the child is of below average intelligence; b) the believer does not understand his belief; c) his belief is incorrect and does not stand up to reason.
Now, accepting the fact that we are not children, and given the level of reasoning of my fellow nay-sayers, I firmly believe (a) is not true.
Further, as you have been unable or unwilling to explain the modus operandi of the device, I can further conclude that (b) is also not true.
What does that leave us with?
I am not stating categorically that the device does not work, simply that given my years of experience and education I am in no position to believe any claim I have heard so far.
As a scientist I stand up and make the fundamental statements that all scientists should make:
1) Show it to me.
2) Explain it to me.
3) Prove it to me.
You've done (1), but failed to do either (2) or (3). I shall willingly sing the praises of Jack Bybee if you can fulfil my humble request.
Cheap at twice the (non)cost in comparison to the Bybee - sign me up for five!
http://canadianhifi.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/product_full/product/125/06xInside.jpg
Beeh, only 1 input set and 1 output set for 5 grand.
Mine is bigger, and has a lot more knobs (knobs are crucial), must be truely "dishonest" from the viewpoint of ethics.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.