Mark.
Sorry but in your post ""what color is the traffic light at the next intersection right now, red, yellow, or green?") beige does not seem to have been an option given within the parameters of the question. Nor was the person asked what other colour they may prefer. Or have I missed something?
When you say "Therefore if someone says I can hear this Bybee is doing something to the sound, that's discrimination.".
But just for a moment lets assume that the listener has calibrated ears, that person is descriminating true, but based on standardized objective "readings".
Discrimination..
"Recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another."
Sorry but in your post ""what color is the traffic light at the next intersection right now, red, yellow, or green?") beige does not seem to have been an option given within the parameters of the question. Nor was the person asked what other colour they may prefer. Or have I missed something?
When you say "Therefore if someone says I can hear this Bybee is doing something to the sound, that's discrimination.".
But just for a moment lets assume that the listener has calibrated ears, that person is descriminating true, but based on standardized objective "readings".
Discrimination..
"Recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another."
Jotom750,
Mostly I was referring to preference and discrimination as they apply to human perceptual testing (for some info on that subject please see the attached). In some cases there is no electronic instrumentation to tell us what we need to know. Sometimes it may be useful to employ biological sensors. For one audio example, JBL used trained listening panels to evaluate speakers.
Also, in a presentation from several years ago, ESS made some statements about what they think audiophiles are hearing and why standard measurements may not show everything very well. One issue has to do with what they call non-PSS measurements. PSS stands for Periodic Steady State, a type of analysis known in the field of RF engineering. However, most common AP type measurements using one or more fixed sine waves as test signals are also PSS. Here are some quotes:
There is a slide which initiates discussion about audiophiles with the words, "Understanding what audiophiles are hearing."
"The surprising reality is that sigma-delta DACs can be audibly distinguished from a conventional DAC despite measuring very much better than that DAC."
"...an important point: The human ear detects signals well below the noise level of the DAC."
"The ear is exquisitely sensitive to "unusual" noise sources. Your ancestors camped out by a waterfall (white noise) and yet their 'ears pricked up" when they heard a hint of a predator moving in the undergrowth. (The equivalent visual phenomenon is "seeing something out of the corner of your eye). Noise, to a large degree, can be accommodated by the ear and is not troubling, but the tiniest "anomalous" noise is raised to the conscious level."
"Sigma-delta modulators create non-periodic steady state noise (non-PSS) artifacts..."
"Periodic Steady State analysis is common in RF circuits. It means that the system is forced to repeat a pattern of behavior over and over again with a certain time period. Any artifact is presumed to also repeat in this time period."
"Audio measurements such as THD and DNR are done in the Periodic Steady State. Therefore, they will not activate non-PSS noise. You will not find non-PSS noise by looking at THD, DNR, and SNR."
"As the audio signal moves, the noise does not remain the same."
"Non-PSS noise is the biggest issue, but experiments suggest there are more problems. For example: Audiophiles rate as inferior systems that have variable excess phase noise."
"We find that an unconditionally stable loop sounds better in listening tests."
Link to presentation: https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/read/23182504/noise-shaping-sigma-delta-dacs-ess-technology-inc
My point from the quotes is only to the effect that some things are difficult to measure using common test methods.
In addition, one other thing nobody seems to know how to measure is the stereo illusion of sound stage, including width and depth. At least we know that humans use multiple sensory methods for horizontal localization. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_localization#:~:text=its current location.-,Human auditory system,us to localize sound sources.
We also know that some cues for depth include ratio of direct to reverberant sound, and air loss of HF with distance.
What better means do we have to evaluate system performance in some areas, than to use humans as biological sensors? For that to work, we need to rely on discrimination.
Mostly I was referring to preference and discrimination as they apply to human perceptual testing (for some info on that subject please see the attached). In some cases there is no electronic instrumentation to tell us what we need to know. Sometimes it may be useful to employ biological sensors. For one audio example, JBL used trained listening panels to evaluate speakers.
Also, in a presentation from several years ago, ESS made some statements about what they think audiophiles are hearing and why standard measurements may not show everything very well. One issue has to do with what they call non-PSS measurements. PSS stands for Periodic Steady State, a type of analysis known in the field of RF engineering. However, most common AP type measurements using one or more fixed sine waves as test signals are also PSS. Here are some quotes:
There is a slide which initiates discussion about audiophiles with the words, "Understanding what audiophiles are hearing."
"The surprising reality is that sigma-delta DACs can be audibly distinguished from a conventional DAC despite measuring very much better than that DAC."
"...an important point: The human ear detects signals well below the noise level of the DAC."
"The ear is exquisitely sensitive to "unusual" noise sources. Your ancestors camped out by a waterfall (white noise) and yet their 'ears pricked up" when they heard a hint of a predator moving in the undergrowth. (The equivalent visual phenomenon is "seeing something out of the corner of your eye). Noise, to a large degree, can be accommodated by the ear and is not troubling, but the tiniest "anomalous" noise is raised to the conscious level."
"Sigma-delta modulators create non-periodic steady state noise (non-PSS) artifacts..."
"Periodic Steady State analysis is common in RF circuits. It means that the system is forced to repeat a pattern of behavior over and over again with a certain time period. Any artifact is presumed to also repeat in this time period."
"Audio measurements such as THD and DNR are done in the Periodic Steady State. Therefore, they will not activate non-PSS noise. You will not find non-PSS noise by looking at THD, DNR, and SNR."
"As the audio signal moves, the noise does not remain the same."
"Non-PSS noise is the biggest issue, but experiments suggest there are more problems. For example: Audiophiles rate as inferior systems that have variable excess phase noise."
"We find that an unconditionally stable loop sounds better in listening tests."
Link to presentation: https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/read/23182504/noise-shaping-sigma-delta-dacs-ess-technology-inc
My point from the quotes is only to the effect that some things are difficult to measure using common test methods.
In addition, one other thing nobody seems to know how to measure is the stereo illusion of sound stage, including width and depth. At least we know that humans use multiple sensory methods for horizontal localization. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_localization#:~:text=its current location.-,Human auditory system,us to localize sound sources.
We also know that some cues for depth include ratio of direct to reverberant sound, and air loss of HF with distance.
What better means do we have to evaluate system performance in some areas, than to use humans as biological sensors? For that to work, we need to rely on discrimination.
Last edited:
I don't recall anyone calling JC a liar. But, in matters such as these, the individual has to be brutally honest and ask 'on the balance of probability, is it possible that a 0.025 Ohm resistor with a coil around it amounting to no more than a few nH is going to affect the sound to such an extent that it will be audible?'
JC may well have heard a difference, but as someone mentioned earlier, human hearing is hostage to listener bias. Again, this reminds of my personal experience at a dealer event where an 'audio grounding box' was pulled out and the participants apparently heard an improvement.
(You can calculate the excess noise of a resistor and for a 0.025 Ohm device, it is going to be pV/rt Hz - i.e. very low and certainly you won't be able to measure its contribution when placed in series with the mains supply).
Probably not. Good thing that's not all the circuitry inside a Bybee. What you described is however the only circuitry there which an EE is trained to recognize by eyeballing a pic. Everyone seems to conveniently ignore the metal cylinder and its coating. What if it was coated with a ferrite material? Could enough current flow through it to generate hysteresis noise/distortion? How do you know it doesn't have something like gadolinium in it? https://www.nature.com/articles/nchem.2287
To be very clear, not saying gadolinium is in it (I don't know), but a Bybee does appear to have something in that coating that can generate some kind of noise.
Last edited:
He did the same thing with The Intelligent Chip on this very forum somewhat recently. Was he afraid sales would suffer because of his association with controversial tweaks? Your humble narrator was dragged into his comments even though it wasn’t even my product, gentle readers.
Last edited:
There is uncertainty in science. There is no such thing as "proof" in science. Do you understand why?
I'm waiting for Peter Belt to show up.... Yes, I know he's no longer between us. But we are almost at that level.
For Peter Belt stuff you will have to speak with Geoff. For now I will try to stick to what can be logically deduced and what can be scientifically measured.
We are not up to Peter Belt’s level yet, far from it. He was a very rational and honest person.
An ordinary man has no means of deliverance.
You can’t cheat an honest man and never smarten up a chump.
Geoff Kait
Audio Insider
An ordinary man has no means of deliverance.
You can’t cheat an honest man and never smarten up a chump.
Geoff Kait
Audio Insider
Last edited:
“You can’t prove it!” Hey, that line is straight out of 12 Angry Men. Is this 12 Angry Audiophiles?
What's my understanding of science got to do with your mentioning of Bybee's with their apparent properties?
By discussing Bybee's with `science', you possibly give or imply that Bybee's have some sort of credibility....... Marketing, is that a science?
Step-by-Step Process:
1. Observation: Gather empirical data about phenomena.
2. Question: Formulate questions based on the observations.
3. Hypothesis: Develop a testable hypothesis, or educated guess, as a possible answer to the question.
4. Experiment: Conduct an experiment to test the hypothesis, ensuring the methodology allows for objective measurement and can be replicated.
5. Data Collection: Collect data during the experiment, typically in quantitative form.
6. Analysis: Analyze the data using statistical methods to interpret patterns or trends.
7. Conclusion: Draw conclusions based on the analysis, and relate them to the original hypothesis.
8. Peer Review: Submit findings for evaluation by other experts in the field.
9. Theory Development: If the hypothesis withstands rigorous testing, it may contribute to a scientific theory. Otherwise, the hypothesis may be revised or discarded, and the cycle repeats.
For everyone to have a chance at being right 100% of the time, let's agree to throw away the scientific method. [That's sarcasm; just in case it was not clear.]
That being said, yes, subjectivists will always rule the world because it's the refuge of the masses to reject what they do not understand.
1. Observation: Gather empirical data about phenomena.
2. Question: Formulate questions based on the observations.
3. Hypothesis: Develop a testable hypothesis, or educated guess, as a possible answer to the question.
4. Experiment: Conduct an experiment to test the hypothesis, ensuring the methodology allows for objective measurement and can be replicated.
5. Data Collection: Collect data during the experiment, typically in quantitative form.
6. Analysis: Analyze the data using statistical methods to interpret patterns or trends.
7. Conclusion: Draw conclusions based on the analysis, and relate them to the original hypothesis.
8. Peer Review: Submit findings for evaluation by other experts in the field.
9. Theory Development: If the hypothesis withstands rigorous testing, it may contribute to a scientific theory. Otherwise, the hypothesis may be revised or discarded, and the cycle repeats.
For everyone to have a chance at being right 100% of the time, let's agree to throw away the scientific method. [That's sarcasm; just in case it was not clear.]
That being said, yes, subjectivists will always rule the world because it's the refuge of the masses to reject what they do not understand.
You seem to be jumping in without having followed lot that has already been discussed in this thread?
To your point, I didn't bring up Bybees. Somebody else did. As though Bybees can't' do anything. Well, I think that's probably not correct. However, I don't think they do what Jack Bybee claimed either. I said I think it probably shouldn't be too hard to measure what they actually do, and I provided a link to another thread where a discussion had already taken place.
What's happened since then is some people still don't be able to wrap their heads around that fact that Bybees may actually be doing some measurable. Some people keep conflating what Bybees most likley do with past marketing claims that were obviously pure BS. But marketing claims are a separate issue from the question of how Bybees might be measured to show if they do anything at all. The other confusion is by pics of Bybee opened up, where EEs only see what they have been trained to recognize in a pic. Not the same as everything they might notice in lab with a microscope and some instrumentation. Doesn't stop people from jumping to conclusions though.
Last edited:
E = mc2
proven
Gravity is warping of spacetime.
proven
Light is bent by warping of spacetime, not the “force of gravity.”
proven
The Universe is locally not real
proven
The speed of light is a constant
proven
proven
Gravity is warping of spacetime.
proven
Light is bent by warping of spacetime, not the “force of gravity.”
proven
The Universe is locally not real
proven
The speed of light is a constant
proven
I will bite. All of these are at step 9 of the scientific process. They are true until some new evidence sends them back to step 1.
For all intents and purposes, they are validated theories, which most people call facts.
I for one would be delighted to see how the scientific process described was used to arrive at this observation.
Scientific theories can never be proven. They can only be either incrementally confirmed, or refuted.
See for example: Karl Popper, Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge.
General relativity is known to be false, since it does not include quantum mechanics.
Therefore it is only an effective theory, useful in its domain.
Quantum mechanics is also known to be false, since it does not include general relativity.
Therefore it is only an effective theory, useful in its domain.
In fact, all known scientific theories are only effective theories, just useful as far as they go.
Some theories have been considered to be "facts", at least until they were refuted later on.
See: most of physics before 1905.
We must not confuse data with theories. The same data can confirm more than one theory.
Einstein did not discover that the speed of light is constant; he DEFINED it to be constant
for all (inertial) observers. Being a postulate of the special theory of relativity, this is why
space and time were found to be different from what they were previously thought to be.
See for example: Karl Popper, Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge.
General relativity is known to be false, since it does not include quantum mechanics.
Therefore it is only an effective theory, useful in its domain.
Quantum mechanics is also known to be false, since it does not include general relativity.
Therefore it is only an effective theory, useful in its domain.
In fact, all known scientific theories are only effective theories, just useful as far as they go.
Some theories have been considered to be "facts", at least until they were refuted later on.
See: most of physics before 1905.
We must not confuse data with theories. The same data can confirm more than one theory.
Einstein did not discover that the speed of light is constant; he DEFINED it to be constant
for all (inertial) observers. Being a postulate of the special theory of relativity, this is why
space and time were found to be different from what they were previously thought to be.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.