john curl said:
My fault. I was short on time and my daughter wanted me to read her a story...and I'm be damned if I'm going to tell a child not to cherish the printed word. They'd revoke my license to be an author.
Okay, take it from the top...
Take any arbitrary circuit. Establish a decent signal ground. Then couple that to earth/'real' ground with a choke. My question being whether a choke will be sufficient (instead of a bridge diode or low value resistor, for instance) to stop garbage from coming into the amp from the outside. The more I think about it, the more I like it, but I may be missing something.
Or perhaps even in addition to the diode bridge.
Charles? Same question, please, if you're out there.
scott wurcer said:
Scott,
That's easy. At the present level of technology, it's impossible for video to fool the eye. It's two dimensional. The image isn't life-sized. The colors are subtly off. Edge enhancement doesn't match what we see with the naked eye. Etc. etc. etc.
Audio, while far from perfect, is much farther along in terms of realism. A decent (not even necessarily super-expensive) audio system images in three dimensions, is reasonably close to tonally accurate, and has at least some sense of dynamics. Given that audio is comparatively better off, we can turn our attention to more subtle things. Video won't get there for a while yet.
BC said:
P.S. Grey, angels don't dance on pins.
My mistake.
They do pole dances at the local skin emporium, instead.
Grey
Steve mentioned various times that he and John are "debating" The purpose of debating is to win, the purpose of "dialog" is to increase understanding through discussion... Dialog often creates new ideas and solutions from misunderstandings and explanations.
Most people here are involved in dialogs which is about the most powerful tool to learn and discover that there is. Scientists are always going to conventions and meetings because it is proven that this leads to new ideas and solutions. The point is not to "win" discussions. Debates and semantic arguments are not always helpful.. The Sophists got a bad name for this same approach.
As has been mentioned, one should just learn to NOT respond to persons that are making demands on you that are unfair. Just by not responding one can avoid a lot of frustration. And not responding doesn't mean accepting that the other guy is right, it's just not responding. Others "get" this, they understand that a person is choosing not to respond and that it doesn't mean that they are "beaten".
Steve is in the bin for a post that has been removed, but even before this, his style in this thread was the sort that isn't looked on favorably here.
variac
MODERATORS' NOTE:
Steve has pointed out that John probably used the term "Debated" first, however that doesn't change my points in the comments above.
Most people here are involved in dialogs which is about the most powerful tool to learn and discover that there is. Scientists are always going to conventions and meetings because it is proven that this leads to new ideas and solutions. The point is not to "win" discussions. Debates and semantic arguments are not always helpful.. The Sophists got a bad name for this same approach.
As has been mentioned, one should just learn to NOT respond to persons that are making demands on you that are unfair. Just by not responding one can avoid a lot of frustration. And not responding doesn't mean accepting that the other guy is right, it's just not responding. Others "get" this, they understand that a person is choosing not to respond and that it doesn't mean that they are "beaten".
Steve is in the bin for a post that has been removed, but even before this, his style in this thread was the sort that isn't looked on favorably here.
variac
MODERATORS' NOTE:
Steve has pointed out that John probably used the term "Debated" first, however that doesn't change my points in the comments above.
Scott,
That's easy. At the present level of technology, it's impossible for video to fool the eye. It's two dimensional. The image isn't life-sized. The colors are subtly off. Edge enhancement doesn't match what we see with the naked eye. Etc. etc. etc.
Audio, while far from perfect, is much farther along in terms of realism. A decent (not even necessarily super-expensive) audio system images in three dimensions, is reasonably close to tonally accurate, and has at least some sense of dynamics. Given that audio is comparatively better off, we can turn our attention to more subtle things. Video won't get there for a while yet.
I couldn't disagree with you more. I work with video every day. People have no idea what they are actually watching. 1080p, 1080i, 720 p, It depends on how good the source is. How many times do you think your video has been compressed and decompressed before you see the magic of HD?
Sorry about the off topic post.
That's easy. At the present level of technology, it's impossible for video to fool the eye. It's two dimensional. The image isn't life-sized. The colors are subtly off. Edge enhancement doesn't match what we see with the naked eye. Etc. etc. etc.
Audio, while far from perfect, is much farther along in terms of realism. A decent (not even necessarily super-expensive) audio system images in three dimensions, is reasonably close to tonally accurate, and has at least some sense of dynamics. Given that audio is comparatively better off, we can turn our attention to more subtle things. Video won't get there for a while yet.
I couldn't disagree with you more. I work with video every day. People have no idea what they are actually watching. 1080p, 1080i, 720 p, It depends on how good the source is. How many times do you think your video has been compressed and decompressed before you see the magic of HD?
Sorry about the off topic post.
MikeW said:Scott,
That's easy. At the present level of technology, it's impossible for video to fool the eye. It's two dimensional. The image isn't life-sized. The colors are subtly off. Edge enhancement doesn't match what we see with the naked eye. Etc. etc. etc.
Audio, while far from perfect, is much farther along in terms of realism. A decent (not even necessarily super-expensive) audio system images in three dimensions, is reasonably close to tonally accurate, and has at least some sense of dynamics. Given that audio is comparatively better off, we can turn our attention to more subtle things. Video won't get there for a while yet.
I couldn't disagree with you more. I work with video every day. People have no idea what they are actually watching. 1080p, 1080i, 720 p, It depends on how good the source is. How many times do you think your video has been compressed and decompressed before you see the magic of HD?
Sorry about the off topic post.
Go to a SONY store and find the split screen demo of Blu-Ray on the left and DVD on the right and find one single person that honestly says they can't see any difference. My point is that you can do A/B comparisons with video that you fundamentally can not do with audio, i.e. you can compare two sources at the same time. You could conceivably set this same demo up with the Bybee line conditioner on one DVD player and not the other. What do YOU think we would see.
john curl said:
John,
I don’t want this to become contentious, so I’ll make a couple of more comments and drop it. The military secret story is cute but it wears thin. We are asked to believe someone can sell a product based on classified information (to anyone) based solely on the fact that they don’t tell anyone how it works, and an individual is allowed by the military to privately solicit non-disclosure agreements to disclose classified information to a third party (clearance or not, need to know etc.).
Bybee’s website could fool me, it seems very intent on selling stuff. $4200 for a set of terminations does not seem like much of a favor to me.
john curl said:
I simply asked if someone had a split screen video setup somewhere, it is truely unbelievable how sensitive the human eye is to hue differences. I'll gladly test the evidence. I did Google it and Bybee does claim visual improvement of video images. It really is amazing considering the color gamut of any video system does not even get close to nature.
OTOH I'm too old and tired to go out and spend effort to disprove things that violate first principles. When someone presents a device that to work would have to violate causality why do I have to accept their claim until I can disprove it?
janneman said:
Jan,
WRT Saturation of CM choke with Dif signal, this is not so.
The exact opposite is the case.
With differential signal, currents actually cancel and as such the
core flux is low depending on balance and symmetry of coils.
I agree with CM chokes after bridges, they do very little
to attenuate dif pulse currents.
Terry
john curl said:
Evidence? I don't see a lick of actual numbers, figures, graphs, or any actual supporting results/evidence on the bybee website. No noise reduction numbers, no noise spectra, no measurement examples with equipment that use the 'purifiers.' Or to actually see the results you have to have clearance too?
Show me numbers (in comparison to an equivalent 0.025ohm resistor) and I might believe it.
scott wurcer said:
Perhaps you're missing my point. Audio passed this level when the soldiers came home from WW II, having been trained to service radios and radar installations. What had once been mysterious now became a "Hell, I can do better than that!" kind of thing and audio began to progress rapidly. The obvious and necessary things got taken care of and peoples' attention turned to less obvious things in reproducing sound. The THD wars, for instance, were won fifty years ago. Now everybody and his house cat can build something with THD below the level of perception of human hearing. So people who care start looking for other things to improve in sound reproduction.
Video is now at the point where audio was after WW II. Everybody's set was black and white in the '50s, color in the '60s, and then came the '70s and...what? Nothing. Incremental improvements, at best. They were still using the same technologies for recording program material they'd been using since the beginning: Film for theatrical releases and magnetic tape for television. Film was--and remains--a very good medium, but how many people do you know who had then or even now the facilities to play a full road show 70mm print? Nobody? Me either. So magnetic tape became the consumer medium (we'll not bother with the VHS vs. Beta war) and there things stayed for another twenty years. Finally we got DVD and semi-decent large playback systems (I don't count the ones from the '80s--they were grotesque) and video has experienced a big push in technology. Not because anyone came home from Gulf War I with video expertise, but because the electronics industry decided that audio was saturated and they needed a new way to make money.
Of course people can see the difference. Video is progressing by leaps and bounds, precisely the way audio did during the middle of the last century when the man on the street could wander into a shop and hear something remarkably better than what he had at home even if it was only a year or two old. But it's a diminishing returns curve and audio is well along. Video is moving rapidly now, but progress will taper off. In fact, I'm not convinced that the higher resolution video software and hardware are going to take hold, in part because DVD is "good enough" for most people (note that I didn't say they could not see a difference) and in part because the economy is weakening just as Blu-Ray is trying to gain market acceptance.
I think the next "big" thing in home video will be some form of 3-D, but the technology isn't ready yet and won't be for a while. At that point, market penetration will depend on pricing and whether our economy is still in trouble.
Note that a lot of people can hear differences with DVD-A and SACD, yet they baulk at buying another player and all their old recordings for the third or fourth time. As a result, DVD-A is essentially dead and SACD is nowhere near being the barn-burner that everyone assumed just a few years ago.
Video will follow the same path.
Grey
Hi all,
Just a note on the Bob electron problem, as he encounters transformers.
Two types of coupling are available to Bob, well three actually. None of them allow him to cross into enemy territory, unless smoke is being let out of the transformer or someone left out the dielectric barriers and scraped the insulation from adjacent wires (enemy agents from la corona land are usually found in the local area)
Otherwise it is a mirror image repliBob we see lurking on the secondary side.
Bud
Just a note on the Bob electron problem, as he encounters transformers.
Two types of coupling are available to Bob, well three actually. None of them allow him to cross into enemy territory, unless smoke is being let out of the transformer or someone left out the dielectric barriers and scraped the insulation from adjacent wires (enemy agents from la corona land are usually found in the local area)
Otherwise it is a mirror image repliBob we see lurking on the secondary side.
Bud
Originally posted by john curl
[snip] Soon, I am told, a review of the newer Bybee devices will be put forth in 'The Absolute Sound' by a physicist who has the clearances to be told HOW the Bybee actually works, and who has signed a non-disclosure agreement with Jack Bybee so that he won't 'let the cat out of the bag' so to speak. I hope it will come out and will reveal greater insight than we have now.
Ohh, that's great. We have finally an engineer who *really* knows how they work, and he signs a non-disclosure agreement. Worthless, again.
Jan Didden
[snip] Soon, I am told, a review of the newer Bybee devices will be put forth in 'The Absolute Sound' by a physicist who has the clearances to be told HOW the Bybee actually works, and who has signed a non-disclosure agreement with Jack Bybee so that he won't 'let the cat out of the bag' so to speak. I hope it will come out and will reveal greater insight than we have now.
Ohh, that's great. We have finally an engineer who *really* knows how they work, and he signs a non-disclosure agreement. Worthless, again.
Jan Didden
- Status
- Not open for further replies.