I would try it if someone gave it/them to me. But I wont buy them.
I'd even spend the 50 dollars for the quantum resonance tester/verify-er or what ever it is to try on them. But I wont buy the Bybee devices.
It hasnt risen to the level where my curiosity is raised sufficiently.
Why dont you have Bybee mfr send me a few?
THx-RNMarsh
Sorry Richard, I don't think that I could get any sent to you for free. I did suggest that you could get them wholesale as you are a member of the serious audio design community, but even I don't them for free anymore, unless they are factory seconds or prototypes. I usually pay wholesale.
Hey, Howie, it's pretty clear by now that you are not going to get an answer to your very reasonable question. I think the claim is roughly this:
"The presence of this device in a room will change the physical properties of air molecules in the space. We think maybe Nitrogen? If you think it's the Oxygen or Carbon or Hydrogen or something, you are probably right. Anyway the change, while gradual, is profound and very quantum. We don't know what the change is or how it hapoens, but it is really quantum. This makes a change in the macro properties of the air, which changes the way sound waves propagate in the room. Again, we don't know what the macro changes are or how they affect sound propagation, but we know the change is always beneficial. If you, or Dan, have any ideas that might explain this, you are probably right. Anyway if you buy one and don't like the amazing things that it may or may not do, we will refund your money, because it didn't really cost us anything and if just one in a hundred customers doesn't ask for a refund we are all good. Quantum!"
Mark my FUD post was in jest. You raise good points and I have well thought through all of them prior to now, and my current version filter is the result of all of the considerations you raise.
Consider that 'atmosphere in or of a room' is an ages old expression and describes fields. Rooms constructed of different materials and then clad/painted in different materials can be described as having different 'feel' or 'atmosphere'. JB is inserting a different/extra into the materials equation, changing the 'atmosphere' and this drives a whole bunch of things including the acoustics, this is to be expected and has been used since forever.
Then comes the question, what elements or compounds is he employing to alter local ambient fields, and what are the biological effects of these new additional field components. I have made some materials choices for well considered reasons and the result when applied to audio systems is interesting on multiple layers or levels. First is that the audio system changes (fast burn in) and then starts to couple into the structure changing the dynamic 'atmosphere' of the room. This change in fields/atmosphere changes the overall acoustic, the ears relax and the enjoyment increases. When the room is also treated, acoustic things go to another level with the room essentially disappearing and with sounds in palpable 3D space and fun production values laid bare.
We are already prone to and affected/effected by random ambient fields of many kinds, controlling at least some local ambient fields is desirable if not necessary. Deleterious fields abound, local man made fields can be turned to physiologically beneficial easily and economically.
Dan.
Hi Dan,
Thank you for the clarification. I was more wondering about the materials that Jack Bybee exposes John Curl to. A long time ago shoe stores had x-ray machines people could stand on to look at the bones in their feet. They were assumed to be safe, since using one didn't hurt, and people could still walk around after using one. It is just that people didn't understand as much as they thought.
A device that claims to work by using low level physics forces to affect physical properties of air in the vicinity would seem to be particularly of concern. After all, there is air in the lungs, in contact with the skin, and inside pretty much all parts of the body. Why wouldn't they cause DNA mutations? Have there been long term animal studies of the devices Jack claims to have made? If they do what he says, what would be the chance of them only affecting the acoustical properties of air to make music sound better, and nothing more insidious?
Maybe John will say he trusts Jack, but the shoe store clerks and shoppers who used the x-ray machines probably trusted they were safe.
Now, I don't think there is any chance Jack's devices do what he claims by the means that he claims, and we already now about Jack's advertising style which John has essentially admitted is exaggerated. But, if there was any chance of a new technology that worked the way Jack claims, anyone would be foolish to be around it until it was it was very well understood by mainstream scientists and vetted by multiple public safety agencies.
Doing the equivalent of installing x-ray machines in a public apartment house on Jack Bybee's assurance it is safe would be the height of irresponsibility.
Of course, the entire premise of the foregoing is purely hypothetical. The point is if John believes Jack has invented this thing and it works, he should refuse to have in a apartment where there may be families living in close proximity that have no say in the matter and no knowledge of the risks. Have they been asked if they trust Jack?
Thank you for the clarification. I was more wondering about the materials that Jack Bybee exposes John Curl to. A long time ago shoe stores had x-ray machines people could stand on to look at the bones in their feet. They were assumed to be safe, since using one didn't hurt, and people could still walk around after using one. It is just that people didn't understand as much as they thought.
A device that claims to work by using low level physics forces to affect physical properties of air in the vicinity would seem to be particularly of concern. After all, there is air in the lungs, in contact with the skin, and inside pretty much all parts of the body. Why wouldn't they cause DNA mutations? Have there been long term animal studies of the devices Jack claims to have made? If they do what he says, what would be the chance of them only affecting the acoustical properties of air to make music sound better, and nothing more insidious?
Maybe John will say he trusts Jack, but the shoe store clerks and shoppers who used the x-ray machines probably trusted they were safe.
Now, I don't think there is any chance Jack's devices do what he claims by the means that he claims, and we already now about Jack's advertising style which John has essentially admitted is exaggerated. But, if there was any chance of a new technology that worked the way Jack claims, anyone would be foolish to be around it until it was it was very well understood by mainstream scientists and vetted by multiple public safety agencies.
Doing the equivalent of installing x-ray machines in a public apartment house on Jack Bybee's assurance it is safe would be the height of irresponsibility.
Of course, the entire premise of the foregoing is purely hypothetical. The point is if John believes Jack has invented this thing and it works, he should refuse to have in a apartment where there may be families living in close proximity that have no say in the matter and no knowledge of the risks. Have they been asked if they trust Jack?
I have a nagging feeling that each time the Blowtorch thread gains another Roman numeral the Bybee device’s quantum properties allow it to feed upon the diyaudio server power and free advertisement, giving it resources to slowly mutate, gain new abilities and gradually become self aware.
By Part V it will have networked with all other Bybee devices worldwide and will have begun to plot our demise.
By Part V it will have networked with all other Bybee devices worldwide and will have begun to plot our demise.
The only material relatively small, non magnetic and does not require external power to operate to affect property of air or field of a small room I can think of has got to be radioactive.
Some early quack medical devices used uncontrolled ionizing radiation (either X-Ray or radioactivity) and were dangerous.
I wouldn't worry here, the claims are random physics blather and borrowed Star Trek physics (quantum slipstream).
The claims made by Bybee and John remind us how to spot false advertisements, so in a way they are providing a public service.
Now all we need are the "white van" guys to sell excess Bybee devices. Although in that case they probably work every bit as well as the real thing. They might even package them with a pair of speakers that with the Bybee devices, now work as advertised.
-Chris
Now all we need are the "white van" guys to sell excess Bybee devices. Although in that case they probably work every bit as well as the real thing. They might even package them with a pair of speakers that with the Bybee devices, now work as advertised.
-Chris
Look guys, I'm not claiming anything, except what I hear, whether it is Bybee devices or other audio products. Personally, I could care less what any individual thinks, except in terms of their professionalism. I keep an open mind about 'tweaks and mods' and it has helped me to be a very successful audio designer. I am sure that if many of you, even if you copied one of my phono circuits, for example, would screw it up with parts substitutes, poor layout, solder, etc. That is the difference between a successful audio designer and the alternative.
.
I am not sure that there is anything special in the PCB layout of the Vendetta SCP-2, e.g.
TONE Auditions the Vendetta Research Phono Stage!
TONE Auditions the Vendetta Research Phono Stage!
That's good
Regards nearfield listening, what about toe in? Advantages of "extreme" toe in are less side wall reflection and larger sweet spot? Only works so long as far away from front wall
That's good
Regards nearfield listening, what about toe in? Advantages of "extreme" toe in are less side wall reflection and larger sweet spot? Only works so long as far away from front wall
Toe-in helps a lot with speakers which have too great or wide dispersion drivers. Gets the dispersion off the side walls. Also the cross-overs are usually designed to show flat response on-axis.
THx-RNMarsh
Well back from the AES convention. Opened my mouth at a standards commitee meeting and am now volunteered to add a bit to the data presented for loudspeakers and their drivers. I suggested that a useful bit of data would be the existing dimension of the source image moment in one number. Others would call it the acoustic center except that name has been trademarked.
The idea is that for a given frequency and axis on a driver or even complete loudspeaker system it would be handy to know how drivers combine. I suspect that using two identical drivers spaced a fixed difference apart could be measured to determine the 3 dB point at a given frequency thus inducating the point of apparent origin. To simplify things we would just use the initials of the measurement so we would call it the "E.D.S.I.M.O.N."
Comments welcome.
The idea is that for a given frequency and axis on a driver or even complete loudspeaker system it would be handy to know how drivers combine. I suspect that using two identical drivers spaced a fixed difference apart could be measured to determine the 3 dB point at a given frequency thus inducating the point of apparent origin. To simplify things we would just use the initials of the measurement so we would call it the "E.D.S.I.M.O.N."
Comments welcome.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.