Are you willing to engage in a DBT where you have truely no contol of the outcome? None of the believers seem to be.
The weight of known physics vs someone in their garage tinkering together some circuits that seemingly contradict the principles of thermodynamics and information theory is presumptious to me. YMMV.
Its an interesting question and at present I'd not be interested. The reason being I listen to music for two purposes - one is pleasure, and the other is to develop better amplifiers/DACs (which also is just for fun). A DBT would serve me no purpose - it wouldn't be for fun.
Right, they might have arguments similar to my own. I'm not a believer or a non-believer myself, I take the view that the best cable is no cable at all. So the discussion is rather moot - cables are a symptom of 'component thinking' whereas my own preference is system thinking. My current line of research is whether there is advantage in closing the feedback loop around whatever cables are unavoidable (only the speaker cables in my way of thinking).
Well of course, when people come up with directionality claims, I'm with you. Let's consider the psychology before revising basic science.😛 But science makes better progress when people in their garages are included as well, rather than marginalised. So let's examine what they're saying to see if it holds water - 'presumptiousness' is not a scientific term so does not enter into science as I perceive it to be.
No problem at all with any of this, Ed (IMHO) did not do due dilligence in following up on his measurements. Planting those figures as proof of something is just agitprop.
Diligence is, as always, key to doing good anything. I must have filtered out those figures - measurements are just like statistics, the key to them is in how they were obtained.😛
Any comments on using a null test? "Good" cable to the positive terminal "bad" cable to the negative terminal, feed both the same polarity signal, and listen to the difference.
.
.
Well, what Ed Simon apparently did was design and build his own distortion analyzer, even though he owns an Audio Precision, and has just about everything that a rational engineer could have. He doesn't work in his garage, either.
For the record, Jack Bybee, MODIFIES the actual purifier that comes from aerospace. I know this, because I have seen the raw units, and it would be virtually impossible to make them in a garage. They do have a 'homemade' look, once he modifies them, however. If you have heard different, then you are listening to malicious gossip, that is all. It would be like claiming that I don't use fets in my best designs, but just cheap bipolar devices. If someone told you that, would you believe them? Would you try to find out the 'truth' by looking at a photograph, looking at a unit, yourself, or just plain asking me? It is difficult to sort 'truth' from malicious gossip, if you don't follow up. I have followed up with regards to Jack Bybee, perhaps you should too.
At the risk of annoying you further, why don't you just ask your friend (and mine), Dick Sequerra. He has seen and used the early Bybee devices (about 15 years ago). All you have to do is ask him, and ask him to tell you what he told me about them, years ago.
For the record, Jack Bybee, MODIFIES the actual purifier that comes from aerospace. I know this, because I have seen the raw units, and it would be virtually impossible to make them in a garage. They do have a 'homemade' look, once he modifies them, however. If you have heard different, then you are listening to malicious gossip, that is all. It would be like claiming that I don't use fets in my best designs, but just cheap bipolar devices. If someone told you that, would you believe them? Would you try to find out the 'truth' by looking at a photograph, looking at a unit, yourself, or just plain asking me? It is difficult to sort 'truth' from malicious gossip, if you don't follow up. I have followed up with regards to Jack Bybee, perhaps you should too.
At the risk of annoying you further, why don't you just ask your friend (and mine), Dick Sequerra. He has seen and used the early Bybee devices (about 15 years ago). All you have to do is ask him, and ask him to tell you what he told me about them, years ago.
Sorry Frank, that's misleading. Stuart and others, me included, champion the scientific method, and that has never been proven wrong.
Scientific theories may be shown, in time, to be incorrect and incomplete, but that's something else. In fact, that happens, precisely because the scientific method is so all powerfull!
jd
That is correct. The only chance you have to get a new idea accepted is repeated, overwhelming evidence again and again.
Claims without evidence are a lost battle even before you start. As is evident here.
I'm reading Gallileo's biography at the moment. It took him 20 years from the time he developed his ideas till he published them. What did he do in those 20 years? Repeated, ongoing observations, piling up evidence again and again. Still was difficult to get it accepted, but with all the painstaking and consistent evidence he couldn't fail in the end.
jd
Last edited:
Directional cables again
Heard of A.C. signals?
John I thought the super mysteries purifier was Navy/submarine based, strange to get them from aerospace!!! To reduce the noise floor in submarines etc etc.
😕
Do the military/inducrial complex use directional cables in thier coms. systems?
Or any other system for that matter!
Heard of A.C. signals?
John I thought the super mysteries purifier was Navy/submarine based, strange to get them from aerospace!!! To reduce the noise floor in submarines etc etc.
😕
Do the military/inducrial complex use directional cables in thier coms. systems?
Or any other system for that matter!
Jan, Galileo didn't have trouble getting the science accepted. The churchmen understood it just fine.
The problem was dogma and politics. See di Santillana, The Crime of Galileo, MIT Press.
The problem was dogma and politics. See di Santillana, The Crime of Galileo, MIT Press.
Yes, but to break through the dogma and politics needs strong evidence, otherwise you're going nowhere. Not saying it's a walk in the park, but just throwing up anecdotal claims has no chance at all. As it shouldn't. If there is something to it, it will eventually prevail.
jd
You'd do better to read Feynman. He actually wrote about physics.
Not in the slightest.
JC, what a pity you didn't keep those so-so sounding speakers you designed 30 yrs ago. Can you imagine the quantum leap in sound quality you would have today by installing Bybee purifiers in them? Along with much better sounding modern electrical wire? And the latest and greatest caps, inductors, resistors, pucks, dots and lord knows what else.
Shame.
cheers,
AJ
sky's the limit
So if this "effect" is so prevalent, so well discerned by many individuals, why hasn't some clever individual (like JC perhaps) exploited it? After all, being a non-linear effect, one could conceivably develop amplification devices using nothing more than directional wires, or different sounding wires. Why bother zone refining silicon, doping n and p type semis at high temps in clean rooms and such, when all one needs to do is draw some wires and build detection and amplification devices out of wire alone.
heck, maybe this computer is now obsolete, what with microdiodes and such. Go ahead, develop an acceptable method to hear "electrons and atoms interacting" in the ways you attest to in your post. We're all waiting
So if this "effect" is so prevalent, so well discerned by many individuals, why hasn't some clever individual (like JC perhaps) exploited it? After all, being a non-linear effect, one could conceivably develop amplification devices using nothing more than directional wires, or different sounding wires. Why bother zone refining silicon, doping n and p type semis at high temps in clean rooms and such, when all one needs to do is draw some wires and build detection and amplification devices out of wire alone.
heck, maybe this computer is now obsolete, what with microdiodes and such. Go ahead, develop an acceptable method to hear "electrons and atoms interacting" in the ways you attest to in your post. We're all waiting
I have not mentioned JB here. Ed is doing some interesting stuff. I have made several suggestions on further research to fine tune his results. BTW I thought he was using his AP with a null bridge for the resistor measurements.
Swapping cable directions and picking up different amounts of local interference is not my idea of "directionality".
You probably have forgotten that months ago, I posted the idea (with some results) of driving a bridge of R's and C's with signals in quadrature to easily measure capacitor distortion. I thought it was pretty clever myself. I was hoping someone would pickup and run with it.
Last edited:
Everything you wrote. I can't pick apart the various false assumptions, incorrect characterizations, meaningless name-checks, and random philosophical navel lint.
Can you back up that science does progress on the basis of foot-stamping, appeals to authority, bandwagons, or tale-spinning???
That's a rather extraordinary claim.
Audiophilia and this thread certainly does, but not science.
Its not a claim that I'm making, and of course there's a whole spectrum between those two extremes. Its a false dichotomy you've introduced, but that's by the by. As previously made clear, its for the claimant to put up the evidence to support their claim. So far, SY has been extraordinarily reluctant to put up evidence, but we will see.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.