Some may say I'm ignorant , but I created a proper "ecosystem" for hearing
the differences in audio electronics.
Both me and my other builders have definite preferences and CAN hear a
superior design over the mediocre.
"Wasting time" is fun to some. Sometime the waste "pays off".
PS - This thread is a known resource for "off the wall" ideas ....
EDIT - the "two groups" need to be merged. If a particular design stands out with a listening test .. why ?
(slew , harmonic content , type of feedback , or some unknown mechanism ?)
OS
Last edited:
Now, how could we separate the authentic from the fake?
Most 'Randites', or those who attack new products or ideas with religious zeal, often find the FIRST thing that MIGHT make a similar, even if unlikely, alternative. You know, like many flying saucer sightings are actually mistaking the planet Venus for a UFO.
If that doesn't work, then attack the credibility of the witness, etc, etc. Anything, to not address the issue as something extraordinary.
I think that we can do better than this.
Most 'Randites', or those who attack new products or ideas with religious zeal, often find the FIRST thing that MIGHT make a similar, even if unlikely, alternative. You know, like many flying saucer sightings are actually mistaking the planet Venus for a UFO.
If that doesn't work, then attack the credibility of the witness, etc, etc. Anything, to not address the issue as something extraordinary.
I think that we can do better than this.
Now, how can we do better?
Well, we can first try the new idea or product and note any difference. Now, IF you use ABX testing, it almost guarantees that you will not get anything but null results. This could be that the product does nothing, OR it could be that the test obscures the subtle difference that the product gives. OK, now that you do that, does this mean that the product is fake? No, not really, UNLESS you completely analyze the product under test (especially if the differences are based in physics) to see what EXACTLY the product is made of. This is expensive, both in lab and component destruction, so most 'Randites' just attribute the device's gross characteristics to the essence of entire device. This is where the critic becomes the 'liar' rather than the producer of the device. IF you do not do a complete analysis, even to sourcing the product's components, you are just speculating, not proving. And so it goes! '-)
Well, we can first try the new idea or product and note any difference. Now, IF you use ABX testing, it almost guarantees that you will not get anything but null results. This could be that the product does nothing, OR it could be that the test obscures the subtle difference that the product gives. OK, now that you do that, does this mean that the product is fake? No, not really, UNLESS you completely analyze the product under test (especially if the differences are based in physics) to see what EXACTLY the product is made of. This is expensive, both in lab and component destruction, so most 'Randites' just attribute the device's gross characteristics to the essence of entire device. This is where the critic becomes the 'liar' rather than the producer of the device. IF you do not do a complete analysis, even to sourcing the product's components, you are just speculating, not proving. And so it goes! '-)
It is not this John. Most of us believe in science and physics as the basis, letting the door opened to any new discovery. It means each phenomena when it is discovered and experimented, has to be explained, and in harmony with the laws of physics that had been demonstrated as 'working' and verified.
Or a new theory has to be demonstrated, as Einstein and many others did.
Everything else is B.S., or snake oil, if you prefer.
That not means we do not listen and try to understand the causes of this or that. That not means we knows everything about the way our ears brains are working when we listen to music.
I'm sorry, John, but if this Bybee purifier was serious, it had to be patented, then presented at all the audio community in detail with correct explanation of its effects on the audio signal. And not sell like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLEhh_XpJ-0
In fact, it looks like this Mr Bybee has an hypnotic power on you, John. And this does not help your image.
On the other side, i have a big respect for all you did in audio design, using the Ohm law, datasheets of components, you ears + measuring instruments (correlating).
Last edited:
I remember, in 70, people were beginning to talk about "surround".
So our company had sell an amp with a "surround" output. It was made by connecting an extra speaker between the two hot left and right output connections, across two power resistances.
A big secret that we had camouflaged by drowning the resistances in an impressive looking block of resin.
In the research and development office, we where intellectually honest enough to think it was just pure dishonest snake oil !
(Well, many years later, the Dolby surround was not so far from this ;-)
So our company had sell an amp with a "surround" output. It was made by connecting an extra speaker between the two hot left and right output connections, across two power resistances.
A big secret that we had camouflaged by drowning the resistances in an impressive looking block of resin.
In the research and development office, we where intellectually honest enough to think it was just pure dishonest snake oil !
(Well, many years later, the Dolby surround was not so far from this ;-)
Last edited:
John, long time ago, i convinced myself of the obvious superiority of a loudspeaker cable... Some effect of the metal used, or the geometry, or the insulation material ?
.. until i had the good idea to add passive compensation networks to my enclosures, in order they have a flat impedance curve on all the audio range and more. ;-)
I respect your input Esperado, and I might agree that you found a good way to minimize the effect of loudspeaker cables. However, what am I supposed to do with my Wilson Sashas? I would barely know where to begin.
Now am I a cable 'nut'? Not really, I am still using a modest set of Cardas cables that I got used about 20 years ago. Could I do better? Maybe.
Now am I a cable 'nut'? Not really, I am still using a modest set of Cardas cables that I got used about 20 years ago. Could I do better? Maybe.
I see the potential spin here that certainly relates to the Bybee mojo. Paramagnetism is one way to achieve room temperature levitation, carbon sheets are sold from many sources for science fair projects. To the untutored seeming magic, or maybe room temperature super conductivity.
Just had a guy here making some kind of sputtering machine come to me to measure his neodymium magnets thingy. I recommended using stainless or copper spacers, he said...have to be careful of the TCE causing geometry changes....
So's I asks em...ummm, what temp are you operating at?
Answer? 200C.
Bzzzzzzzt. wrong answer..
I remember this "guy" I know heatshrinking some neo's together, demagged em all..
And to think, it's because of that "guy", that I knew to ask the designer the right question...
I love this forum...
I hope everyone has a happy and prosperous new year, regardless of what one defines as prosperous..
John
Really? I think ABX testing has been pretty good at identifying actual audible differences. Fractional dB differences in level or FR are readily detected in ABX tests. Stuff that most people can't detect in normal listening seldom shows up in ABX tests, even when the tests are performed by those who claim the difference is "not subtle" in sighted tests. "Differences" that demonstrably do not exist (like between one cable and the same cable) have been detected in sighted tests. And so it goes...
Hehe, of course you know. Desoldering each speaker, adding a Zobel (RC) to compensate coil's inductance( or two if you want to compensate more precisely the eddy currents effects). Adding a RLC to compensate the free air resonance of each of them. Now, you will have probably to touch their filters...
But, may-be easier to use your influence to ask Mr Wilson to do it for you and his customers. At the price he sells his enclosures, a flat response curve AND a flat impedance curve seems a minimum. And the benefit of the resonance compensation network on the bass response, the ease both compensations together add to the filters calculations and 'voicing' ;-) is such obvious that it is worth the price and the effort.
It has indeed. Ears-only testing has shown all sorts of differences, which ones are important and audible, and what preferences are. There's a huge body of literature, and smart engineers make use of those results in their work.
"No differences" is John's rather imprecise term for the inability of particular products he promotes to be distinguishable from others without peeking. Peeking is very important in the fashion audio world, where "trust your ears" means, "don't trust your ears."
Indeed. One of those smart engineers I alluded to is Sean Olive, whose "How To Listen" training is invaluable for people who want to develop a real skill in critical and analytical listening.
Harman How to Listen
Harman How to Listen
- Status
- Not open for further replies.