Did you try a control to check whether it was Jack's device that made the change or any similar device would make the same change? How did you control out your own expectation bias?
I still think you are having a laugh.
Last edited:
Next thing in Hi-End..
Don't worry, let me introduce Mr Earbuddy, he's my houskeep...err I mean earkeeper, I put him at work when heading for the bed!
He's a bit shy but gentle, and.. oh did I mention he's house-trained too!
ps. John I can offer you a discount on these buddies, your OPPO 105 for one of these and if you decide within 24h I will give you one extra for free, your bybees will sound better than ever before!
Don't worry, let me introduce Mr Earbuddy, he's my houskeep...err I mean earkeeper, I put him at work when heading for the bed!
He's a bit shy but gentle, and.. oh did I mention he's house-trained too!
ps. John I can offer you a discount on these buddies, your OPPO 105 for one of these and if you decide within 24h I will give you one extra for free, your bybees will sound better than ever before!
Attachments
I am curious, generally there is a line of technical reasoning when taking action of change from an engineering point of view. Do you know the sequence of the though process leading to each tweak? Or is it random?
Normally what I try and do is if I can hear a good enough difference, I will try to do measurements to using different test signals to figure out what makes sense by looking at the response. This is one way I discovered a cap manufacturer was using a different material for a cap of same specs, and proved it. Most of the time, it is possible to find a difference in measurement using not so common methods.
No, timbre is defined as "tone", and is directly related to harmonic structure and frequency response. It is not a dynamic quality.
No, those terms are not at all related.
By no means new, but only a marketing term.
Yes, I have no trouble ignoring the peanut gallery amateur comedians.
I gather this includes Bybee Music Rails regulators and BQP's in addition to the iQSE wooden devices.
Yes digital typically sounds wrong, but not only for the reasons generally attributed.
All that abrupt and time varying routing and switching of energy 'packets' sets up chaotic behaviors that propagate throughout every material in the system.
The cool part is that this noise can be largely 'undone' by introducing 'ordering'.
There are large problems with layout.
When ones belief system (backed by typical measurements) precludes considerations such as directions of mutual couplings then layout becomes 'random', including non identical channels.
Next engineering step is properly understanding how materials and circuit topology interact on energy throughput.....non recursive stages (Non GFB) and local FB stages modify energy throughput in fundamentally different ways to GFB stages.
The final step is dictating the fine behavior of these circuit types by application of 'filtering' at the appropriate energy 'handover' points.....works for me.
Truly good and proper audio design requires a 'holistic' understanding and viewpoint, and not just that from in front of a CAD design screen.
My direction for now is indeed in fixing existing systems...polishing turds.
Typical consumer systems are let's face it pretty good on the spec sheet, or at least good enough according to the standard measurements.
Performance and sound of mainstream audio gear is quite uniform nowadays, and rather better than older gear sold as hifi.....it's pretty hard to find a modern AV receiver that sounds really 'bad'.
However the materials and layouts cause all kinds of mischief that manifests as boring or fundamentally irritating sound and this is what the public gets.
My approach is that by filtering existing energy inputs and outputs such gear can perfectly readily be made fun again, and economical such that it is possible to become a 'standard' commodity retrofit item.
Future plans is to apply this knowledge OEM into stage backline, sound reinforcement systems and recording systems.
This will enable fundamentally improved live music and recordings (both already done and well proven).
These recordings in turn modify the behavior of playback systems and for the better.
The full extent of the benefits of this approach are realised when the playback system is 'treated' also (also done and well proven).
Curiously this 'whole signal chain' treatment sets up a 'coherence' such that the record/playback system essentially disappears, and realistic and always pleasing '3D holographic' sound results.
I regard this 'filtering' knowledge as a gateway to understanding and better engineering and implementation of electronic and electric systems in general, not just audio.
Yes, undoubtedly.
This cable swapping does certainly affect/effect systems but I view it as an unnecessarily expensive method of attempting to 'tune out' sonic faults.
The power cable for instance is the energy source for a system and the materials included will 'filter' this energy supply not unlike BQP.
Boutique cable manufacturers make all kinds of claims regarding cable conductors, insulators and geometry etc, but I suspect most are clueless about what is really going on, and the result is an expensive crap shoot with variable results.
The real results will come when recognition is given of the deep fundamental goings on regarding energy transmission and transduction and interactions....you, Jack and I are working on it.
There is so much more I could say about other than audio applications but not here, this is the most fun that anybody could have, seriously.
Dan.
Dan, I don't have any trouble returning the compliment by ignoring you as well, be my guest. Even my smallest peanut outsizes your largest coconut, so to speak. However, with John, it is more difficult. He is a fine electronic engineer who has done some innovative stuff, plus he has had a modicum of formal education too. It is much more difficult to see a man of that stature go astray.
I thought "PRaT" was a description of the people who believe in "PRaT".Max Headroom said:
There may be a tiny amount of merit in talking this way about transducers, but such behaviour from electronics is rather unlikely. In fact, it would be hard to deliberately engineer a circuit to exhibit these behaviours so accidentally making a circuit which somehow delays or advances the signal (which is what you are claiming) can be dismissed as creative imagination.
This thread was started so we could laugh at snake oil. A clue is in the thread title. Pitching up in such a thread is a rather peculiar way of avoiding or ignoring people like us. You are of course most welcome here, but please don't be offended when we laugh.john curl said:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.