In quantum world, present and future time are one and the same (remember, fast electrons). Whatever is in there, knew what’s going to happen next.
I marked the mistakes in your procedure:
1. You missed worshiping them first.
2. Seven days is zero time with these quantum xxx, ask SY. So, there was no break-in.
3. Should be a dummy amp and a small load (in quantum reality, phenomena are upside-down)
4(A,B,C) Obvious luck of belief. What did you expect then as an outcome!
When you will test the new generation of these devices, try not to repeat these mistakes.
George
Seven is equal to one for small values of seven.
To be clear, John has NEVER been restricted from making any technical argument he likes, or presenting any data he's gathered. Never. Ever. If he's got an argument or data here, let's have it.
To be clear, John has NEVER been restricted from making any technical argument he likes, or presenting any data he's gathered. Never. Ever. If he's got an argument or data here, let's have it.
(Does the same applies to eight?)
Richard, this was made about 20 years ago from AMES Research Lab on the SF peninsula. It is the output from a power line analyzer. I have other supporting measurements, but they show mostly that the device will look mostly like a resistor. In those days, 0.3 ohms or so was the standard resistance. Today it is 0.025 ohms.
Jack found that the neutral-ground can actually be more affected than hot to ground. I don't know why. One device is normally in the hot load, another in the neutral from load.
Cal, I'm afraid my skepticism wasn't adequately expressed. I tend (as I've said from time to time on this site) to be remarkably resistant to suggestion when listening to audio. Of course the standard response, from the believers in a particular tweak, is that I just don't have very sensitive hearing.
But I can spot some fairly subtle things that have always turned out to be explicable via well-founded physics, like a recent case of a significant time delay in a wireless subwoofer, when the other party was persuaded that things would be corrected with equalization in the frequency domain.
So I am not surprised, based on what I have read, that the Bybee stuff is subtle at best. And having said that, I would really like to find something that (a) I can hear and (b) would be a suitable subject for study, to understand it.
its exactly what he posted on at least one other occasion, thats what it is.
not sayin 'you should have seen that before, why ask?' just that its just recycled 'information' not something that wasnt included in the argument long ago. this 'conversation' seems to have been going on for at least a decade as far as I can tell?
@gpagag
yes I did also notice that 'we'
Last edited:
What's difficult in all this is that some things make dramatic differences in waveform shape, such that programs like DiffMaker are struggling or are completely useless in providing meaningful information - a somewhat 'extreme' version is having multiple digitised copies of a particular LP, using a very high quality TT - the wow factor alone is beyond the capabilities of the program to deal with. Yet, people listening will state that the playbacks are essentially identical ...
And on the other hand seemingly identical waveforms, nulling to very high levels, are still, by ear, distinctly different. Then it comes down in part whether the listener feels that one version is 'superior', in a way that is definitely relevant in a long term sense. And therefore, whether the tweak that caused that difference is of significant value ...
And on the other hand seemingly identical waveforms, nulling to very high levels, are still, by ear, distinctly different. Then it comes down in part whether the listener feels that one version is 'superior', in a way that is definitely relevant in a long term sense. And therefore, whether the tweak that caused that difference is of significant value ...
Well people can IGNORE technical information. However, it has been presented today, just like it was, years ago.
John this guy likes your work, he should let you have a set so you can work on the Mk2 version ................. 🙂
Audio Advisor Insight - Parasound JC-1 and JC-2 Back Story - YouTube
Audio Advisor Insight - Parasound JC-1 and JC-2 Back Story - YouTube
Last edited:
Not even close. Especially because the last few times you floated this out, you apparently had no idea of how the data were gathered, what the repeatability was, or what was actually being measured.
Care to try something else?
technical measurements? without providence and methodology, graphs presented as proof, are ALWAYS discounted
Indeed, I agree fully. You have never addressed any of the measurements, just criticized the person doing them for not taking a ride in the Bentley or disassembling them.
Kills the aftermarket? Not when you take those same Eupen cords, cover them with some Techflex and heatshrink and sell them for several hundred dollars like JPS Labs did. 😀
They eventually got busted, but only when someone who owned one had the unmitigated audacity to cut off the Techflex and heatshrink to see what was underneath.
Now they're trying to sell a $5,000 headphone.
se
Who threatened you? I've been talking about them for years, calling Bybee a quack, a fraud and a charlatan. Haven't heard a peep from anyone. And I live in the United States. I'd hate to think how difficult it would be to bring a libel suit against someone in Europe.
se
Unfortunately, it's very easy in Great Britain. Unlike the US, truth is not a defense.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.