I have little problem with people investigating the entire gamut of potential causes and fixes to a problem, many breakthroughs are made in this way. However, it is most efficient to eliminate the most likely and easily addressed causes before investigating esoterica. We as a group have far more developed tools at our disposal as engineers than we do as quantum physicists, if there are even any in this group. So before looking to a cause which is outside our expertise or abilities to easily quantify, should we not first exhaust our efforts using known tools and methodologies?
When a light goes out in our house, we do not first check to see if the quantum state of the house wiring is in flux, we check the bulb, then the circuit breaker. If all does check out, then more diverse analytics are employed, but not until the most likely causes are examined.
Cheers,
Howie
When a light goes out in our house, we do not first check to see if the quantum state of the house wiring is in flux, we check the bulb, then the circuit breaker. If all does check out, then more diverse analytics are employed, but not until the most likely causes are examined.
Cheers,
Howie
First step if it sounds different the sound pressure field at the ear is different, otherwise it's like saying the light is not really off.
Unfortunately for audio this can require instruments and the ability to examine the data and eliminate irrelevant or confounding information. Ridikas, when you asked if folks felt DSD causes intermodulation distortion how do you single it out by ear only without training using instruments to learn what it sounds like? So going backwards it by definition can be measured.
Actually, there is a way. Also, your question could be taken as a sort of unintended pun. For example, a piano is an instrument and it might do.
Wow, cool! There's not that many people who have actually heard those. Sure thing, will keep you posted!
John,
You should know better than to promote that nonsense to someone who obviously doesn't know much about physics. That area of study has been eroded by flim flam artists for the sole purpose of separating fools from their money. The entire Bybee issue falls down when you consider that anything as secret and powerful as you claim it to be would never be allowed to see the light of day. The US government would have shut Jack Bybee down so fast! He would have been disappeared. Since you have taken physics, you know that entire story is a load of that brown stinking substance left by your average bull after eating and digesting.
I'm actually dismayed that you would try that load of mental trash here - again. What is even worse is that you are creating that us vs them BS and creating your little fan club when you should be supporting the truth of the matter. You know how to be a real engineer, but since your stint at Mark Levinson you've really wanted to be a showman more than deal with the realities of what you do - which is engineering.
You have mis-stated what members here are all about. No one is trying to remove ritikas from the thread. But the silliness and nonsense has no place here where most of us know better. You're just winding up another member to go on a misguided disruptive path, I guess because that is how you get your kicks.
-Chris
You should know better than to promote that nonsense to someone who obviously doesn't know much about physics. That area of study has been eroded by flim flam artists for the sole purpose of separating fools from their money. The entire Bybee issue falls down when you consider that anything as secret and powerful as you claim it to be would never be allowed to see the light of day. The US government would have shut Jack Bybee down so fast! He would have been disappeared. Since you have taken physics, you know that entire story is a load of that brown stinking substance left by your average bull after eating and digesting.
I'm actually dismayed that you would try that load of mental trash here - again. What is even worse is that you are creating that us vs them BS and creating your little fan club when you should be supporting the truth of the matter. You know how to be a real engineer, but since your stint at Mark Levinson you've really wanted to be a showman more than deal with the realities of what you do - which is engineering.
You have mis-stated what members here are all about. No one is trying to remove ritikas from the thread. But the silliness and nonsense has no place here where most of us know better. You're just winding up another member to go on a misguided disruptive path, I guess because that is how you get your kicks.
-Chris
I realize that, the intention was to have someone add IMD at controlled levels as training. This rapidly gets complicated since IMD from soft compression and crossover are very different.
The main point was what does IMD mean to someone without some technical framework?
Too many Tom Swift books followed by the Jesuits. I think there is another member here that remembers Fr. Crowley's endless sick puns.
Why do we spend all this money on CERN, Fermilab and neutrino experiments when new physics can be found simply by swapping mains cables on audio equipment?ridikas said:
Reading an old textbook is preferable to reading no textbooks. People drag out the Q-word because they think they can be reasonably certain that nobody here understands QM, or at least those who do cannot get any genuine QM facts into those who don't. Blaming Q for audio funnies is a safe game to play, because those who believe it can't understand any refutaton from those who know it is nonsense.john curl said:
So why don't you tell us, with your broad knowledge of quantum mechanics, how it effects audio.
Instead of all this back and forth, can we start by agreeing on a few things in order to lens the discussion?
If someone has better definitions, especially from those practicing in the field, please correct me:
1.) Any *real* auditory event must be from the result of air molecules impinging on the listener. This is a very simplified, but fundamental starting point.
2.) What we perceive ourselves to hear is a complex convolution of the *real* auditory event and innumerable (well, maybe, but it's not an understatement to say that we don't fully know how the brain works) mental processes. That include all kinds of modulation to how close (and what) we're paying attention, how much we fill in details from memories, our expectations of how we think it should sound, social cuing, etc. That's not to say it's wholesale made up, but what we hear and the process by which the signal is shuttled across electrons and air is highly highly HIGHLY affected by what's in between our ears.
That doesn't require any insincerity by the user, at all. We're so far away from perfect actors it's not even funny; we're extremely fallible. To trust our own experience as solidly representing the *real* effects is a fool's errand. That's why, on one side, if you want to say something definitively, use of real controls and methodologies to combat all the confounding mental processes are needed. Real effects are translatable across individuals, whereas perceptions is idiosyncratic, albeit heavily influenced by our interactions with others.
If someone has better definitions, especially from those practicing in the field, please correct me:
1.) Any *real* auditory event must be from the result of air molecules impinging on the listener. This is a very simplified, but fundamental starting point.
2.) What we perceive ourselves to hear is a complex convolution of the *real* auditory event and innumerable (well, maybe, but it's not an understatement to say that we don't fully know how the brain works) mental processes. That include all kinds of modulation to how close (and what) we're paying attention, how much we fill in details from memories, our expectations of how we think it should sound, social cuing, etc. That's not to say it's wholesale made up, but what we hear and the process by which the signal is shuttled across electrons and air is highly highly HIGHLY affected by what's in between our ears.
That doesn't require any insincerity by the user, at all. We're so far away from perfect actors it's not even funny; we're extremely fallible. To trust our own experience as solidly representing the *real* effects is a fool's errand. That's why, on one side, if you want to say something definitively, use of real controls and methodologies to combat all the confounding mental processes are needed. Real effects are translatable across individuals, whereas perceptions is idiosyncratic, albeit heavily influenced by our interactions with others.
Actually I used to think that. So I started to write an article about it for the late Ed Dell.
When I get the time there is about six months more of research and testing to finish the book the article has grown into.
There is nothing hidden or not obvious once noted, measured and corrected about power supplies.
I do expect to get a patent on a power cord design from all the work. It surprisingly to many may just be there are issues a power cord may make worse or improve. The most I will say is these issues are not reasonably addressed by much of the banter here.
ES
Given that TV Physics is a fight to get the meaning across despite the dumbing down the producers want, he doesn't do a bad job. It's a losing battle though.
For all those confused A quantum sense of smell – Physics World might help. Sadly no upgrade to Robin eyes with their build in compasses.
A power cord that improves any piece of equipment no matter how poorly the PS is designed would a great boon to the industry. NOTE: I never make any comments on PS threads so there is nothing to disagree about.🙂
Ridikas, see what happens when I use the 'B' word here? '-)
Now, I have tried to avoid upsetting people here, anatech primarily, by not mentioning the 'B' word unnecessarily for awhile, but now conclusions about Mr. 'B' have been drawn by anatech, and I have to correct them.
First, I have known Jack B. for more than 20 years. I have a lot of his stuff in my own audio system. I generally don't have to pay for his 'stuff', but sometimes I do have to buy him dinner or something in return. They are rather expensive and I have talked to Jack about this, but if one actually saw what the prime materials actually cost, and the amount of time and energy Jack and his family associates puts into these products, they are almost a bargain, but not quite. No, he makes some profit from these devices, but not that much. In fact, except for boredom that he would acquire from the extra time that he would accumulate, he would be better off not bothering making these devices. He has plenty of money put aside. I certainly would not bother, myself to put all that effort into making these things.
Now when it comes to the 'secret' nature of these devices, they definitely come from old military secrets, but I am sure the most of the world knows these secrets now, over the decades since they were first implemented. The problem is to 'declassify' these 'secrets' so they can be talked about in 'Popular Electronics' or some such. Also, many of the core devices are made for the military today, and they have no direct avenue to sell to the public. They never have had to bother. In any case, because of his association with these devices, and continuing communication with some people (nobody that I know) Jack has kept up with the latest technology, that is quantum based, and makes audio products, usually from 2'nd line quality parts that he can get. I presume they would just throw them away, if he didn't use them. This is not to say they are fake or anything, just that the military gets first pick.
It is a very dicey thing with military secrets, and Jack tries to avoid any trouble. He knows that if he went too far, or said too much, he WOULD be picked up and punished. He has had a few warnings from (you know who) over the years.
Let me give an example. Remember when some German guys took apart some early B devices and published them in an audio magazine? Well there was a resistor buried inside the actual B device that had some printing on it, even brand and part #. Some people actually went searching for this resistor, and Jack got notified that people were asking about it. Yes, the parts manufacturer knew who Jack was and they had sold him this particular part, BUT they are not for general sale. Why? Well, they are made for a special purpose, i.e. what Jack is doing with them. They just work better for this quantum based purpose, than typical resistors. Jack told me independently for years that these resistors we costing him about $7 each, not the $0.50 that SY insists is the equivalent part. Why does Jack pay so much for a 'phony' part? Because it actually does something better than an equivalent resistance resistor does in this application. In any case this was where Jack got some feedback, not necessarily of the best kind.
I could go on forever, but I know that it would not be appreciated by many here. But I insist that Jack B is on the up-in-up, he is an honest guy, and he was a consultant (superconductivity) to Richard Feynman when Dr. F was at Cal Tech, and Jack was on loan from Hughes (were he worked at the time). Believe it or not!
Now, I have tried to avoid upsetting people here, anatech primarily, by not mentioning the 'B' word unnecessarily for awhile, but now conclusions about Mr. 'B' have been drawn by anatech, and I have to correct them.
First, I have known Jack B. for more than 20 years. I have a lot of his stuff in my own audio system. I generally don't have to pay for his 'stuff', but sometimes I do have to buy him dinner or something in return. They are rather expensive and I have talked to Jack about this, but if one actually saw what the prime materials actually cost, and the amount of time and energy Jack and his family associates puts into these products, they are almost a bargain, but not quite. No, he makes some profit from these devices, but not that much. In fact, except for boredom that he would acquire from the extra time that he would accumulate, he would be better off not bothering making these devices. He has plenty of money put aside. I certainly would not bother, myself to put all that effort into making these things.
Now when it comes to the 'secret' nature of these devices, they definitely come from old military secrets, but I am sure the most of the world knows these secrets now, over the decades since they were first implemented. The problem is to 'declassify' these 'secrets' so they can be talked about in 'Popular Electronics' or some such. Also, many of the core devices are made for the military today, and they have no direct avenue to sell to the public. They never have had to bother. In any case, because of his association with these devices, and continuing communication with some people (nobody that I know) Jack has kept up with the latest technology, that is quantum based, and makes audio products, usually from 2'nd line quality parts that he can get. I presume they would just throw them away, if he didn't use them. This is not to say they are fake or anything, just that the military gets first pick.
It is a very dicey thing with military secrets, and Jack tries to avoid any trouble. He knows that if he went too far, or said too much, he WOULD be picked up and punished. He has had a few warnings from (you know who) over the years.
Let me give an example. Remember when some German guys took apart some early B devices and published them in an audio magazine? Well there was a resistor buried inside the actual B device that had some printing on it, even brand and part #. Some people actually went searching for this resistor, and Jack got notified that people were asking about it. Yes, the parts manufacturer knew who Jack was and they had sold him this particular part, BUT they are not for general sale. Why? Well, they are made for a special purpose, i.e. what Jack is doing with them. They just work better for this quantum based purpose, than typical resistors. Jack told me independently for years that these resistors we costing him about $7 each, not the $0.50 that SY insists is the equivalent part. Why does Jack pay so much for a 'phony' part? Because it actually does something better than an equivalent resistance resistor does in this application. In any case this was where Jack got some feedback, not necessarily of the best kind.
I could go on forever, but I know that it would not be appreciated by many here. But I insist that Jack B is on the up-in-up, he is an honest guy, and he was a consultant (superconductivity) to Richard Feynman when Dr. F was at Cal Tech, and Jack was on loan from Hughes (were he worked at the time). Believe it or not!
Did I miss the brickbats? I see you got JC going again on the "B" word. He needs some new material these guys are awesome YouTube
Last edited:
Audio gears with PSRR of some 100dB, and on top of that the power supply's own attenuation between primary and secondary with another few dB, if someone can hear differences between power cords through that I guess we have some titan ear candidates suitable for a position at LIGOS.
Or perhaps it's time to merge this thread with... 🙂
Funniest snake oil theories
Or perhaps it's time to merge this thread with... 🙂
Funniest snake oil theories
Are you responding to this post:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/the-...owtorch-preamplifier-iii-302.html#post5419846
Excellent post John. I know they're trying to shut me up and eventually will ban me, but that's okay. I will never stop freely expressing my experiences and ideas however and whenever I want to. You should not be afraid to post anything you want about Bybees in this thread, or any other.
When that huge Bybee thread was happening some years ago, some of my audiophile friends bought the old style Bybees, with the 0.025 Ohm Pacific resistors inside. We tried it in several systems and could all hear clear differences and most of us though it made a positive impact.
I also bought stock Pacific 0.025 Ohm resistors to test and they by themselves also made a change in sound, but a different change than the full Bybee.
I would have no problem using and recommending them. I would try the new ones, but they're expensive and for now I have other things that I would like to upgrade first.
Just because Bybees cannot be measured or explained to everyone's satisfaction, it doesn't give the right for Anatech to bully those who use and promote them.
Getting back to power cables (capacitors, etc.) I also don't agree with the idea that they only make a difference in a poorly designed or broken system or noisy power line, etc. I've heard plenty of cables that made a difference in well built components and using AC power line filters.
This is the kind of close mindedness that continues on. If it makes a difference, then something must be broken. Close minded engineers never invent anything, they only play with the toys engineers with an imagination invented.
Last edited:
There is a reason why getting a strong patent is not easy. Not just US either.
This is the kind of very big ego that is a detriment to invention. Is it possible that your hearing is not so good, or maybe the ability to understand what to listen for needs work? And that there are other much more capable people out there?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.