I particularly like the way the reviewer says "I don't know what I'm talking about, but even if I did I wouldn't understand this stuff!"
I can't really understand it either, and I got a BA in physics 50 years ago. I have known Jack for more than 20 years, and he is the only guy who has amazed me with the application of quantum mechanics in audio. Jack, early on, loaned me some of his books, and they were way over my head. One contained a chapter on 'quantum filters' but I had a hard time, not in reading it, but in understanding what I was reading. Jack has to be very careful with me, because I tend to disseminate information without qualifying it as to secrecy, so I never get the whole understanding of anything he makes. He has lived in a 'secret' world, where these things apparently get developed, but the rest of us are not allowed to get info from.
What I recommend is that those who doubt Jack, either ignore him or TRY what he offers. Just bad mouthing him or me will do no good, for either you or me.
Scott, you know that I am not very smart, according to you. '-)
What I recommend is that those who doubt Jack, either ignore him or TRY what he offers. Just bad mouthing him or me will do no good, for either you or me.
Scott, you know that I am not very smart, according to you. '-)
Here is the "origin story" I think: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon-13_nuclear_magnetic_resonance My issue would be that the energy needed to even tweak the carbon magnetic resonance would be very high. However since carbon 13 is 1.1% of carbon on this planet.
I can't find evidence that CO2 is magnetically sensitive in NMR. The fields in NMR are so far beyond anything in nature I don't see how it could do anything. If the story had any legs changing the level in the 200 Hz to 350 Hz region probably won't help in sound reproduction.
There is some discussion of carbon monoxide poisoning and MRI in the lit. That doesn't look like a path I want to pursue.
I can't find evidence that CO2 is magnetically sensitive in NMR. The fields in NMR are so far beyond anything in nature I don't see how it could do anything. If the story had any legs changing the level in the 200 Hz to 350 Hz region probably won't help in sound reproduction.
There is some discussion of carbon monoxide poisoning and MRI in the lit. That doesn't look like a path I want to pursue.
He still hangs with that crowd or does he have a fully equipped physics lab in his garage? Funny when I ask real physicists about this stuff they can't be bothered to get past the first paragraph, usually they just hand it back laughing.
...and you will still get shot.
[You know that of course, so I assume that you are just pulling ((quite a lot of) chains by posting that stuff]
😀😀😀 [given for your audacity!]
John, it would be more accurate to say, "it is claimed that the nitrogen in the air is changed in some way." Of course, one could also claim an opinion to the effect that,"nitrogen activated by C13 is a potent carcinogen." Who's to say?
We need to get past the nitrogen "activated" whatever that means. Read it slowly and carefully, garbage physics.
Understood. My response was not intended to be entirely serious. Besides, C13 doesn't look hazardous, as you can see from the chart below.
Attachments
What? This thread didn't burned out yet? Oh, OK John Curl just dropped an other Baybee bomb in it.😀
I put this Bybee 'review' up because that is one place where state-of-the-art audio experimentation is happening.
I don't expect the very critical here to try a Bybee, or that we have to discuss it in detail. If another equally serious effort to improve audio quality was put up for discussion, I would probably follow it, but most folks here are not really interested in true audio excellence, you just want to play around with making audio.
Kind of like: Homemade beer or wine. I am sure there are a number of websites, books, etc that will cover this subject. However, the same books probably do not discourse on the subtle factors of making a fine wine or a great beer, you know, WORLD CLASS. Winner of competitions, products that are heavily bid for, even only used on special occasions. That is how I design audio products, and it is not always possible for amateurs to do the same quality, even if you think you can.
Yet, if I bring up something that I have found from experience that makes for better sounding electronics, I get a lot of back-chatter about how it is impossible, etc., yet I win a lot of review's approvals because of the extra attention that I give my designs. You too could learn a new thing or two about audio design, but criticizing Jack Bybee or me is not going to get you any closer to better audio
I don't expect the very critical here to try a Bybee, or that we have to discuss it in detail. If another equally serious effort to improve audio quality was put up for discussion, I would probably follow it, but most folks here are not really interested in true audio excellence, you just want to play around with making audio.
Kind of like: Homemade beer or wine. I am sure there are a number of websites, books, etc that will cover this subject. However, the same books probably do not discourse on the subtle factors of making a fine wine or a great beer, you know, WORLD CLASS. Winner of competitions, products that are heavily bid for, even only used on special occasions. That is how I design audio products, and it is not always possible for amateurs to do the same quality, even if you think you can.
Yet, if I bring up something that I have found from experience that makes for better sounding electronics, I get a lot of back-chatter about how it is impossible, etc., yet I win a lot of review's approvals because of the extra attention that I give my designs. You too could learn a new thing or two about audio design, but criticizing Jack Bybee or me is not going to get you any closer to better audio
Interesting stuff..... I worked in inorganic chemistry building for awhile (chemical explosives) and one area where machining Beryllium took place. I was told this --- It was very toxic if you breathed any dust from machining it. However, if you ingested some Be it would not cause damage and pass thru. Lung cancer/disease seemed to be the issue with Be.
FWIW ??
-RNM
John, People here are interested in good audio. The problem is that even if someone did come up with a new device that sounded great, nobody would believe it if the new device was claimed to work on completely implausible physical principle. If whoever invented the thing doesn't know how it works, fine. But, in that case they shouldn't make up stories about it. And, all this so far assumes the device does anything good for sound at all, which it may or may not.
Berylliosis: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berylliosis
Acute Beryllium Poisoning: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acute_beryllium_poisoning
The way toxicoligists look at it, everything is toxic. The only question is, at what dose?
Last edited:
I cherish my critical faculties and am sorely disappointed that yours are lacking in this respect.
But, and this is the spot of light here, it isn't getting you any farther removed from improving audio either.
Vacuphile, what are you criticizing? My mental or my listening faculties? You see, I TRUST what I hear, even though I know that my hearing is not as critical as it used to be, so, IF I hear a difference, I take it seriously! I do not insist that something can't sound different, just because I can't understand the underlying principle for the change. That is what you guys do, I try to keep an open opinion about things if I can.
This opens up new inputs, and it has been useful.
For example, high speed diodes. For years, I ignored high speed diodes in power supplies. Then at the insistence of an audio friend (at the time, later a business partner) I tried high speed diodes in my Vendetta Research SCP-2 preamp and noted the difference. Even today, I am still using high speed diodes in my best designs, and even upgrading early SCP-2s that had regular diodes for customers who want the update.
Now, Mark Johnson has told all of you in detail how to measure the difference in diodes and has offered all kinds of suggestions as to improve your power supplies. Have any of you even tried to hear or even measure the difference? I hope that a few of you have, but I know that the majority of my critics have not and will not, just 'because'. I'm sorry that so many don't believe in subtle differences in audio design as regards to audio quality, so won't bother. Oh well, on to the next subject.
This opens up new inputs, and it has been useful.
For example, high speed diodes. For years, I ignored high speed diodes in power supplies. Then at the insistence of an audio friend (at the time, later a business partner) I tried high speed diodes in my Vendetta Research SCP-2 preamp and noted the difference. Even today, I am still using high speed diodes in my best designs, and even upgrading early SCP-2s that had regular diodes for customers who want the update.
Now, Mark Johnson has told all of you in detail how to measure the difference in diodes and has offered all kinds of suggestions as to improve your power supplies. Have any of you even tried to hear or even measure the difference? I hope that a few of you have, but I know that the majority of my critics have not and will not, just 'because'. I'm sorry that so many don't believe in subtle differences in audio design as regards to audio quality, so won't bother. Oh well, on to the next subject.
I don't need to criticize your listening faculties, you are your own fiercest critic by refusing to demonstrate those listening faculties under controlled circumstances.
FYI, if I hear a difference, I take it seriously too. But I never heard a repeatable and verifiable difference for which no explanation based on hard facts could be found.
Mark Johnson provided some pertinent information illustrated by measurements about ringing and the impact of different kinds of diodes. I thank him for that. If someone could correlate these measurements with verifiable audible differences, that would be even more interesting.
In the meanwhile, please don't confuse real knowledge with marketing babble.
FYI, if I hear a difference, I take it seriously too. But I never heard a repeatable and verifiable difference for which no explanation based on hard facts could be found.
Mark Johnson provided some pertinent information illustrated by measurements about ringing and the impact of different kinds of diodes. I thank him for that. If someone could correlate these measurements with verifiable audible differences, that would be even more interesting.
In the meanwhile, please don't confuse real knowledge with marketing babble.
Just the usual 'I haven't experienced it, so it can't exist' mantra.
I trust what I hear, and I trust what others report too.
I have found a way to change the playback sound of WAV files.
I have uploaded processed and non processed pairs of WAV files to Dropbox and provided the download links to others.
These others who have downloaded the WAV files report hearing the differences and describing the differences in same words.
I don't have proper explanation of how this works, but a dozen other parties do report hearing differences between processed and non processed files.
The conclusion is that my processing indeed works, even if there is no physics explanation at present.
Dan.
Last edited:
Of course we measure the difference, that's how you empirically find the right snubbing value. Mark's advice is about the cheapest 'real' reduction in power supply crud you can do. And no quantum wibble required!
- Status
- Not open for further replies.