John, that just proves my point that life is a confidence game. Unfortunately confidence does not equate to proof. If you choose to believe something that does not mean that others are foolish or closed-minded not to.
Belief in things just because you find the person (there is a troubling sense of that in your posts) behind the product credible on some level (perhaps even on a level unrelated to their products). There is a level of faith in mystery there that I find somewhat abhorrent.
I find this again and again with certain audiophiles of my acquaintance, they purchase products because they like or trust the designers - sometimes it is because they want to feel they have a personal relationship with the product.
Ron E, my relationship with Bybee devices started in REVERSE of your assumptions.
What first happened is that I was asked by my employer, Parasound, to study these devices.
I was just about ready to give up, because standard measurements were getting me nowhere, but then I decided to LISTEN to the devices in operation. At the time, the Bybee device was a complete unit, the size of a small loaf of bread, with an AC outlet on one side, and an IEC connector on the other, to receive a line cord.
I plugged it into the power line of my STAX LAMBDA Signature headphone, with tube driven power amps, and listened to my favorite vinyl discs, through a Vendetta phono preamp and a several thousand dollar phono cartridge, (a very good one 15 years ago). This is about as direct as I can go, even today. I was surprised at the sound difference and IMPROVEMENT with the Bybee inserted. I would have rejected it, out of hand, otherwise.
I made a concerted effort to find and meet Jack Bybee afterward. I tracked two fellow engineers who had met him previously, and they both attempted to tell me that he was some sort of nut. I persisted, anyway, and we later became friends.
Jack doesn't care about the critics, here. He has faced them internally and externally all his life. Bob Cordell and Andy_C could have met Jack Bybee in early October and spoken to him directly, if they had any questions, but they decided not to. They would rather talk about him, in this way.
What first happened is that I was asked by my employer, Parasound, to study these devices.
I was just about ready to give up, because standard measurements were getting me nowhere, but then I decided to LISTEN to the devices in operation. At the time, the Bybee device was a complete unit, the size of a small loaf of bread, with an AC outlet on one side, and an IEC connector on the other, to receive a line cord.
I plugged it into the power line of my STAX LAMBDA Signature headphone, with tube driven power amps, and listened to my favorite vinyl discs, through a Vendetta phono preamp and a several thousand dollar phono cartridge, (a very good one 15 years ago). This is about as direct as I can go, even today. I was surprised at the sound difference and IMPROVEMENT with the Bybee inserted. I would have rejected it, out of hand, otherwise.
I made a concerted effort to find and meet Jack Bybee afterward. I tracked two fellow engineers who had met him previously, and they both attempted to tell me that he was some sort of nut. I persisted, anyway, and we later became friends.
Jack doesn't care about the critics, here. He has faced them internally and externally all his life. Bob Cordell and Andy_C could have met Jack Bybee in early October and spoken to him directly, if they had any questions, but they decided not to. They would rather talk about him, in this way.
I e-mailed PMA some measurements on the Bybee devices, done by an independent lab more than 15 years ago. Unfortunately they don't show much, BUT they do show something. I had hoped that he could post it here. As I said it will not show much, any more than a 15 HP improvement in a Dyno test shows much, but there it is.
For you, Scott, nothing makes any difference. Dick Sequerra bought some Bybee devices more than a decade ago, but then you should not ask him about it, as it would only upset your relationship with him.
I certainly understand your objection here, Ron. But life is full of shortcuts. We can't independently test and verify everything. So some faith is warranted, that's the way humans work.
There are a couple of audio designers I know in whom I put a lot of trust. Why? Because they consistently build the best sounding stuff I've ever heard. Some of it so good, it has changed my life. So I tend to trust what they do and what they tell me. Not 100%, but still a great trust. Especially since they aren't trying to sell me something.
If Michael Jordan told you that drinking Peruvian goat milk made him jump higher and dunk better, you might be inclined to believe him. If I told you the same thing, you'd be pretty skeptical. Especially if I were trying to sell you a gallon of expensive milk. 😀
(This is regularly abused, of course. That's why trusted celebs are paid a lot of money to flog products. No names, please __ cough - cough)
Well everyone, it is now time to tell you a true story of how I once let friendship get in the way of optimum audio design. Some of you are not going to like it, but it is a real problem sometimes, when friends make things and you use their efforts in your products. It happened around 1990, when I first was engaged by Parasound to improve an existing power amplifier prototype.
This prototype used an IC as a balanced-to-unbalanced converter, and operated essentially at unity gain. They initially used a National LF353 for the prototype. One of my tasks was to find the optimum IC to use. It had to be fet input, dual, minidip, reasonably fast, and unity gain stable.
As I recall, it came down to an OP-42 or an AD712. Both were extra good IC's at the time, but I knew Scott Wurcer personally, so I elected to use his AD712 design.
Well, things proceeded smoothly, until it was time for the reviewers to evaluate the unit.
My Boss and I flew and drove to Santa Fe, NM where Stereophile was located. I happened to get a ride from Bob Harley, who then worked for Stereophile, so we talked together for about an hour, during the ride. Thank goodness we got along. I then made sure that the amp was working as well as it could be, and I returned with Bob back to the airport.
Later, I was told that the amp had failed a subjective reviewing test. It just did not sound that good. It measured OK, but it sounded 'average'
So, I was forced 'to take the Bull by the horns' and REMOVE the IC chip, as it appeared to be the only real restriction in the otherwise discrete design. This infuriated my boss, and I had to explain to him that with our new relationship, I did not want to step on too many toes, and the IC I chose, if any IC would work out, would have been OK.
In any case, we removed the IC, and re-introduced the product for review as the MK 2 version of the HCA 2200. Then, of course, I was severely criticized for NOT using an IC in the front end, by 'The Audio Critic', but 'Stereophile' gave us a B review, not bad for the bang for buck quality of the amp.
Analog Devices took a dim view of this and sent a letter of protest to Parasound. And so it goes.
It just goes to show you, just because a friend, like Scott Wurcer, makes something, you better double check it out sonically, yourself, before using it.
This prototype used an IC as a balanced-to-unbalanced converter, and operated essentially at unity gain. They initially used a National LF353 for the prototype. One of my tasks was to find the optimum IC to use. It had to be fet input, dual, minidip, reasonably fast, and unity gain stable.
As I recall, it came down to an OP-42 or an AD712. Both were extra good IC's at the time, but I knew Scott Wurcer personally, so I elected to use his AD712 design.
Well, things proceeded smoothly, until it was time for the reviewers to evaluate the unit.
My Boss and I flew and drove to Santa Fe, NM where Stereophile was located. I happened to get a ride from Bob Harley, who then worked for Stereophile, so we talked together for about an hour, during the ride. Thank goodness we got along. I then made sure that the amp was working as well as it could be, and I returned with Bob back to the airport.
Later, I was told that the amp had failed a subjective reviewing test. It just did not sound that good. It measured OK, but it sounded 'average'
So, I was forced 'to take the Bull by the horns' and REMOVE the IC chip, as it appeared to be the only real restriction in the otherwise discrete design. This infuriated my boss, and I had to explain to him that with our new relationship, I did not want to step on too many toes, and the IC I chose, if any IC would work out, would have been OK.
In any case, we removed the IC, and re-introduced the product for review as the MK 2 version of the HCA 2200. Then, of course, I was severely criticized for NOT using an IC in the front end, by 'The Audio Critic', but 'Stereophile' gave us a B review, not bad for the bang for buck quality of the amp.
Analog Devices took a dim view of this and sent a letter of protest to Parasound. And so it goes.
It just goes to show you, just because a friend, like Scott Wurcer, makes something, you better double check it out sonically, yourself, before using it.
Last edited:
Good story, but I would like to see the letter. I already said I and a director of engineering were "F" bombed over the phone by an irrate designer who told us we were deaf if we could not hear the difference between gold ball bonds and thermo-compression ones. We just laughed it off.
I also think to select a component just because you happen to know the guy making it is pretty illogical to say it nicely. That was the real error made here.
jd
Not at all. If you have a good friend, but you base your choice on another product on sound engineering arguments, why should a friend feel bad about it, if it is a real friend?
You based your choice on unsound arguments ('I know this guy') and as a result you brought trouble to yourself as well as to your friend.
I would call this a 'learning experience' 😉
jd
Not at all, there was no other IC that would have been better in this application at the time. It was just the fact that it was an IC, with low open-loop bandwidth, for the most part that apparently made the difference. The rest of the circuitry, from preamps through the power amp was all discrete, except for the servos, where the AD711-2 works well, even today.
That's not what you said. You said:
To me that says you selected the opamp because you knew Scott.
But I'll leave it at that John.
jd
As far as I'm concerned ridiculing Shakti Stones, Brilliant Pebbles, etc. is fair game and it's no personal disrespect. If you choose to defend these products that's up to you.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.