Proven by experiment. All of them. Ever hear of the atomic bomb? The measurement that proved light is bent by warp in spacetime, not “force of gravity.“ People sometimes don’t realize we had a revolution in physics. That was more than 100 years ago. We can’t see a black hole but we can measure it, it’s mass, it’s size, it’s spin, it’s accretion disc. I suspect we can put that one to bed.
“The Universe is not real locally“ was proven by experiments by the three gents who won the Nobel prize in physics last year. Aspect, et Al. Check it out.
Time dilation was also proven by experiment. If things were just theories you couldn't be able to manufacture quantum mechanical devices like lasers.
“The Universe is not real locally“ was proven by experiments by the three gents who won the Nobel prize in physics last year. Aspect, et Al. Check it out.
Time dilation was also proven by experiment. If things were just theories you couldn't be able to manufacture quantum mechanical devices like lasers.
Last edited:
Instead of arguing the ones against the others, let us join our efforts and together design a nifty audio something. This something will house an inside something. This inside something must not have any measurable effect. It must not affect the audio signal, by no means. Best choice for the inside something might be a nothing, thus becoming an inside nothing. Instead, the completed something may be fitted with some optical and/or olfactoric gimmicks. Then an appropriate name or even better, a designation for this something will have to be found.
We will then build a first series of 1000 such somethings and litter 900 of them. As a strict and meticulous measure of quality control and selection. We only want to deliver pristine quality.
After this preliminative, but important work, we shall have to broadcast a release event. And we shall highlight that we are absolutely honest and truthful: We shall point out that this something has no measurable effect. So from the objective point of view, it seems useless to add this something to any audio gear. Independently and despite of this fact, during long and grueling hearing sessions absolute no effect was observed on the acoustical perception: Neither shielding/unshielding the something, nor connecting/unconnecting it made stritcly no difference. Therefore, also subjectively we are faced to a null device. We will openly commit all these informations.
We shall not only be honest and truthful. We also will be very humble and therefore additionally declare that our auditory systems individually fail between 10kHz and at best 20kHz, so we do not belong to the golden ears elite. Nevertheless, because this something was very well thought out, nicely crafted and then passed through a rigurous selection process, it might have an effect as well in terms of an ever better audio experience. A certainly notable effect, indeed, but only perceivable for the very best, attentive and sensitive listeners. Therefore, this offer will uniquely be addressed to the very few and most exceptionally gifted audio afficionates. Both objectivists and subjectivists section is strongly recommended to experience this unique experiment of including the something into theirs audio setup. Such as the rest either refusing belonging to one of these sections, or those committed to both sections.
Inherently to the intense design efforts, the engaged manufactoring and finally the rigorous items selection process it will not be possible to sell this something below $250. Nevertheless, we leave the 100 first somethings for $150 each as an introduction gift with a rebate of $100. Don't hesitate, first come, first served.
All successful and satisfied customers reporting any significative, positive change of theirs audio listening experience while using this something will get a honorable mention on this website. Be the welcomed to join audio excellence.
We will then build a first series of 1000 such somethings and litter 900 of them. As a strict and meticulous measure of quality control and selection. We only want to deliver pristine quality.
After this preliminative, but important work, we shall have to broadcast a release event. And we shall highlight that we are absolutely honest and truthful: We shall point out that this something has no measurable effect. So from the objective point of view, it seems useless to add this something to any audio gear. Independently and despite of this fact, during long and grueling hearing sessions absolute no effect was observed on the acoustical perception: Neither shielding/unshielding the something, nor connecting/unconnecting it made stritcly no difference. Therefore, also subjectively we are faced to a null device. We will openly commit all these informations.
We shall not only be honest and truthful. We also will be very humble and therefore additionally declare that our auditory systems individually fail between 10kHz and at best 20kHz, so we do not belong to the golden ears elite. Nevertheless, because this something was very well thought out, nicely crafted and then passed through a rigurous selection process, it might have an effect as well in terms of an ever better audio experience. A certainly notable effect, indeed, but only perceivable for the very best, attentive and sensitive listeners. Therefore, this offer will uniquely be addressed to the very few and most exceptionally gifted audio afficionates. Both objectivists and subjectivists section is strongly recommended to experience this unique experiment of including the something into theirs audio setup. Such as the rest either refusing belonging to one of these sections, or those committed to both sections.
Inherently to the intense design efforts, the engaged manufactoring and finally the rigorous items selection process it will not be possible to sell this something below $250. Nevertheless, we leave the 100 first somethings for $150 each as an introduction gift with a rebate of $100. Don't hesitate, first come, first served.
All successful and satisfied customers reporting any significative, positive change of theirs audio listening experience while using this something will get a honorable mention on this website. Be the welcomed to join audio excellence.
Last edited:
You seem to be making assumptions.
Why do you expend so much time and energy using Bybee's an an example of the scientific process?
Could you fight more worthy battles?
No, he set out to test the bybee unconnected monitor improver. He found it did nothing.
I am human, no argument there.
I didn't bring up Bybees. Why do I wonder what they do or don't do? Because its an example of a human EE mental/conceptual/system-model barrier that we need to overcome if we are to make some further advances in understanding audio as perceived by humans.
Another controversial issue came up recently in another thread which had to do with cable directionality. https://www.diyaudio.com/community/threads/daves-attempt-at-a-null-test.403488/post-7460696 It has some similarities with trying to understand what Bybees may do.
I am interested in the subject of signal-correlated noise as it affects human perception of audio, and as it relates to semiconductor devices used in audio devices such as sigma delta dacs. That's not to mention the growing issue of substrate-coupled-noise is mixed signal ICs. This interest came about from the study of sigma delta dacs.
Also, I will say that I think my views on noise have been influenced by Bart Kosko's book on the subject. Panned by some people looking for a different kind of book, but seems to me its to get you thinking very broadly about noise, all kinds of noise, all the different kinds of white noise, etc. The more technical stuff is in the endnotes/footnotes and in the cited reference material quoted at the beginning of each chapter.
https://sipi.usc.edu/~kosko/profile_1.html
https://www.amazon.com/Noise-Bart-K.../ref=tmm_kin_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=
Although I agree with both of you, I might add that it is only the limitations of our limited knowledge that make us think some things are useless, simply because we still don't know how to relate one to the other.
I would say that "they do not yet seem useful" in relation to the state of our current knowledge.
I think it'svalid in both the medical and audio fields.
Science is an endless beta testing.
Mark, I think you’re right to connect the Bybee devices to the wire directionality issue since both appear to be dealing with noise in the cables. The Bybee effect appears to be the control of free electrons in the conductor, which is IMO th basic idea behind wire directionality. The free electrons will be able move efficiently, without as much bumping into crystalline grain structures, like stroking a porcupine‘s quills one way vs the other.
Bybee says, “How it Works: The QSE affects the polarity of all electrons and protons within it’s magnetic field, affecting their oscillation by making them more aligned with each other. This reaction creates an affect the makes the transfer or sharing of electrons more streamlined and efficient.
AudioQuest describes wire directionality as being a noise issue.
And when the free electrons are able to move more efficiently, more “streamlined” in Bybee’s words, the cable will be able to handle more current and the “signal” will have lower distortion. Bybee devices, generally speaking, apparently act like traffic cops, making the traffic of free electrons flow more smoothly and efficiently.
This concept also applies to cast copper wire and single crystal wire both of which eliminate or greatly reduce the grain boundaries in the wire that interfere with smooth and efficient electron motion.
“A sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.”
Bybee says, “How it Works: The QSE affects the polarity of all electrons and protons within it’s magnetic field, affecting their oscillation by making them more aligned with each other. This reaction creates an affect the makes the transfer or sharing of electrons more streamlined and efficient.
AudioQuest describes wire directionality as being a noise issue.
And when the free electrons are able to move more efficiently, more “streamlined” in Bybee’s words, the cable will be able to handle more current and the “signal” will have lower distortion. Bybee devices, generally speaking, apparently act like traffic cops, making the traffic of free electrons flow more smoothly and efficiently.
This concept also applies to cast copper wire and single crystal wire both of which eliminate or greatly reduce the grain boundaries in the wire that interfere with smooth and efficient electron motion.
“A sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.”
Last edited:
I'm going to jump off this roundabout with a last observation. DeVore are a company selling very simple (it seems) but also quite expensive speakers. These do not objectively measure very well, (unless supplied with "objective measurements" as with Stereophile and others, I think that any speaker review is worthless). For me, the first job of a transducer is to output what is input as accurately as possible. Some of these differences may not be easily quantifiable, though an effort should be made to do so. (I happen to think that speaker efficiency has a large effect on "listenability" of speakers, though this is not as easily quantified as simple freq resp). Then if people wish, to account for room conditions, other equipment performance and personal taste, they can do so.
So how does the marketer excuse these inaccuracies away? Simply by saying that "objectivity" is a flawed concept, and that people should buy what they like. Of course people should do that, but I don't want to get 1/2LB of coffee, having been told it was 1LB and having paid for 1LB just because I like the taste. Objectivity and subjectivity are not mutually exclusive in the decision making process, they are mutually inclusive, the relative weightings or subjective values of each being dependant on and assigned by the user. But without some objective data how does one start that process?
For me objectivity wins, mostly, (unless subjectively decided against). 🙂
So how does the marketer excuse these inaccuracies away? Simply by saying that "objectivity" is a flawed concept, and that people should buy what they like. Of course people should do that, but I don't want to get 1/2LB of coffee, having been told it was 1LB and having paid for 1LB just because I like the taste. Objectivity and subjectivity are not mutually exclusive in the decision making process, they are mutually inclusive, the relative weightings or subjective values of each being dependant on and assigned by the user. But without some objective data how does one start that process?
For me objectivity wins, mostly, (unless subjectively decided against). 🙂
“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.”
Peter Belt is a horse of a different color inasmuch as his products usually, not always, deal with things that are independent of the audio signal anywhere in the system. His products tend to deal with the effects of the local environment on perception of sound, but also long distance effects on sound. Yikes! Whereas Bybee stuff is generally straight physics, albeit quantum physics.
The present discussion of Bybee stuff is much more akin to such audiophile devices as Stein Music Harmonizer, Golden Sound Super Tweeter, WA Quantum Chips, the Intelligent Chip, Quantum Corporaction wall plug, perhaps the Tice Clock, Shun Mook Cable Jacket, crystals.
Peter Belt is a horse of a different color inasmuch as his products usually, not always, deal with things that are independent of the audio signal anywhere in the system. His products tend to deal with the effects of the local environment on perception of sound, but also long distance effects on sound. Yikes! Whereas Bybee stuff is generally straight physics, albeit quantum physics.
The present discussion of Bybee stuff is much more akin to such audiophile devices as Stein Music Harmonizer, Golden Sound Super Tweeter, WA Quantum Chips, the Intelligent Chip, Quantum Corporaction wall plug, perhaps the Tice Clock, Shun Mook Cable Jacket, crystals.
Last edited:
My solid state physics are some time ago but I remember enough of them to to just call quit on this thread after this uncorrelated juxtaposition of terms.
That's not what he's saying as I understand it. He claims the present metrics settled as "objective" are incomplete or over-simplified. Early digital not factoring jitter for his example. I just watched it again and he appears to be covering the same ground as widely disparate warnings from Jacques Ellul in "The Technological Society" to more recently Erik J. Larson's "The Myth of Artificial Intelligence", that is the risk of seeing intelligence as purely algorithmic, limited to "established and proven techniques" or the current capabilities of AI. Perhaps the reason for his side track into the deaf audiophile with the balloon.
The biggest surprise was his praise of 1970s Japanese receivers. The biggest 'duh' was loudspeaker reviewers will probably hear a switch labelled as "direct" as better sounding.
For a solid example of a field overtly and explicitly rejecting the concept of objective truth in both academia and practice, see contemporary news.
I’m guessing they don’t have a chapter for directionality in solid state physics textbooks. Maybe not for audio electronics, either.
Last edited:
Thanks - good tip! I'd only seen overpriced ones, but found a UK copy there 🙂
Not a big fan of long videos or podcasts. I have paid little attention to any of the posts but let me add fuel to the fire:
https://darko.audio/2023/10/podcast-10-hi-fi-myths-busted-w-peter-comeau/
dave
https://darko.audio/2023/10/podcast-10-hi-fi-myths-busted-w-peter-comeau/
dave
He might have believed what he said (not sure about that), but the truth it wasn't.
That should be crystal clear after all the tests, reasoning, measurements and listening tests.
And nobody tried to ruin him. People got so fed up with all the BS that the atmosphere became toxic.
You reap what you sow.
Jan
- Status
- Not open for further replies.