|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
73.17.166.127
Anyone try these devices? I was skeptical but once tried I can't live without. Yes the claim on how they work seems far fetched but who cares about claims the proof is in the listening. If you ever have a chance to please give them a listen they make for a more natural, airy presentation.
(Dealer disclaimer)
Follow Ups:
But I have to....
Not having seen these in person... $2000???????????? I hope that's enough question marks to convey my incredulity. Not as to the function because I wouldn't poo poo anything I haven't heard for myself, and I haven't heard these.
My question, and I'm really trying not to be a dick here, because I have no idea what goes into making these things or how much R&D costs for this stuff, is "Why do you price them out of reach of almost EVERYONE?" Even if I heard an improvement, I wouldn't be able to keep them and he won't make a dime.
Have these guys ever heard the "Sell to the classes, live with the masses" line? Again, if you're only making $100 bucks at the $2000 price point, I get it..you're doing the best you can. But if you want to rake in $1800 in profit on each set of 8, you're limiting your market.
When I see the product on the website, and read the description in Stereo times:
"rectangles of quarter-inch-thick, laminated ABS plastic approximately 2" by 6" with a 6" pigtail of wire sticking out the end"
Come on... $2000?
I fully understand what you are saying and once you have them in your hand you would say the same thing until you heard the effect.
You are not paying for workmanship or material but for R&D I would assume.
"My question, and I'm really trying not to be a dick here, because I have no idea what goes into making these things or how much R&D costs for this stuff, is ..."
You should've just stopped right there. It would behoove you to remember that old adage: don't judge a book by its cover.
Because I have purchased 4 of these (& listened to them extensively over the last week), and I've now ordered 2 more.
These, combined with the Syn Res ART system, and 2 pairs of Shakti Hallographs have produced the best sound I've ever had in this room.
If you read the Stereotimes review, that is EXACTLY what I'm experiencing. I have more air, 3-dimensionality, body, depth of soundstage . . . width; a resonator guitar now just hangs there in the air, with awesome sustain.
Are they worth the price of admission? For me the answer is yes. But I understand that answer depends (largely) on your income bracket . . . like so much in high end audio.
Having tried them, they do have an effect, improvement, I cant really point as shifting them slightly gives another effect.
Its almost as if like a room treatment where you different placements gives different results.
Im not certain they are at the right position given my room.
I would say they are a world apart from other tweaks for the money. Maybe I need lots more experimentation to get the correct effect.
Took <1 hour to find the correct positioning in my room -- which is DIFFICULT to tame.Don't be afraid to move them around and experiment.
I do not use Dirac live, but a friend has it on his computer & we have measured my room on numerous occasions and this is the best it's ever measured. I'm not saying that is due to the Bybee's, as I have other room tuning devices. I'm right on the verge of pulling the trigger on a Syn Res Black box, which should (hopefully) help tame the bass.
Edits: 10/29/15
Did the extra RN's make a difference.
They definately are having some kind of effect for me with staging, yes, maybe more dimensional. It has so
far not blew open the soundstage as I was expecting with just 4 units.
I have have a host of harmonix dots, Stein harmonizer system and diamonds, ipc devices and rr777, synergistic Art and many hft which has turned the boomiest room to sound very nice.
Was everso intrigued with the Synergistic black box which was reported to work well, but cost even more than a full set of Bybee neutralizers. But it is for bass treatment and gave it a miss as its placement is supposed to be where the synergistic bass station currently sits.
Every single room tweak I have has a sonic impact and shifting any by 1cm causes a obvious change to the sonics.
How have you ended up placing the room neutralizers and effect you realised. It is repoted to work well over the equipment as well.
Mention was also made to the effevtiveness of the stein music new blue sun treatment.
Wonder how it compares....
I always remember another adage attributed to P.T. Barnum (he probably didn't even say it) which makes me continue asking questions until I'm satisfied.
One fact that seems to lend credence to at least the cost is that I'm finding that buying pure carbon 13 in amorphous form seems to be expensive. I can only imagine that once acquired, working with it must be a daunting task.
The few people that have been able to sample these things seems completely satisfied as well.
Just like I won't take anything at face value and have little confidence in reviews, I also despise it when tweaks are dismissed out of hand by folks that haven't heard them in person. It happens most often when the tweak in question, like this one, is relatively expensive.
Real world accounts like yours are much more valuable to me. That and the ultra expensive raw material being used are factors that push me towards maybe giving these things a shot.
My listening room is constricted. A converted garage with plenty of height but not enough width (only 10 feet wide). If these things are able to "make the walls fall away" that would be great!
These aren't going to turn a Chevette into a Ferrari.
What other room tuning devices do you have in there currently?
I fully understand what you are saying and once you have them in your hand you would say the same thing until you heard the effect.
You are not paying for workmanship or material but for R&D I would assume.
12" x 48" tall, now $9.32, only 44 at a store close to me
http://www.homedepot.com/p/SAKRETE-12-in-x-48-in-Tube-for-Concrete-200077374/100324386
Try 4 and see if you like the difference.
http://www.jdbsound.com/work/testroom.html
Talking into a quadratic diffusor sounds horrid, while a circle evenly disperses the sound (to me).
Works really well at 2 x diameter frequency (12" awesome above 2khz) and works somewhat down ro 500hz.
polycyndricals work too.
5:54 talking into quadratic.
9:40 you hear guitar by poly, real traps qrd, book case, wall, absorption.
Been thinking over these types of treatments for a while. The only tip I have to add for decoration. Those of us into photography can photograph cool patterns in nature of man made\artistic then get them printed at Wallmart for $15-25 and glue those photos to the barrels. Incedently Walmart has very nice roll printers that produce excellent prints for reasonable prices up to 2'by6' with amny sizes below that. IF anything this will increase reflection and increase stiffness a little. That maybe good or maybe bad.
Scott
Out of curiosity (& hopes they actually work as advertised), I ordered 4. The WAF is quite high.
I will report back with my findings . . . if anyone is interested. They should arrive in a couple of days.
being allowed to return if you hear no difference.
Easy to ship, in either direction, and from what I see there is no permanent fixing required.
If this was the case I might give it a try otherwise i think i will spend the money on an "only driven on Sundays" by Grandma Mitsubishi EVO with an unbelievably low price.
Looked for longer than I wanted to to see if this was offered by BYBEE. Went to three retailer's sites with no mention.
There will always be a need for value for money spent, won't there?
Bybee has always offered a money back guarantee. dont know about all is dealers though
Use your brain and spend your money on something nice to eat.
First off, what Uncle Stu said. Secondly, I was a beta tester for these and found them to absolutely open up the listening space and "melt the walls", if you will. Obviously, they are still in place in my setup. I suggested to Jack that he call them LEOs (listening environment optimizers) but he stuck with room neutralizers.
As with most things audio, it's hard to justify the price simply by looking at what is sitting in your hand.
Is it OK to ask how they are said to work? It is hard to envision one device that could "neutralize" any or even most listening environments, since there is so much variability from one system to another. I don't argue with your subjective impressions.
The description sounds like a type of RF receiver or generator? It has two wire leads that might act as a antenna?
Thanks for the tutorial, plugmein. I asked Jack on the phone for an explanation but it really went over my head. As I remember it, basically, there is a compound in the device that somehow works on the carbon 13 atom to enable air (which it is, of course, coupled to via the device itself)to better propagate sound waves???. Truthfully, it just reeks of snake oil but I am in the subjective camp and I can reliably sense that the room just expands or opens up or becomes more or less boundless when the RNs are installed. There is only one listening room I experienced them in where I (and the owner) could detect no effect and this was a large custom designed for audio octagonal room with a domed 20" high ceiling. The speakers, as placed, are so far from any edge or ceiling boundaries already that a feeling of total openness already exists.
Believe Jack.
Based on his explanation, as limited and over my head as it was, I have been experimenting on my own and have come up with some rather impressive audio benefits. I have combined the C13 isotope with other isotopes and crystals and achieved what I consider fabulous results.
Still undergoing beta testing and further development though.
Certain combinations work as Bybee's RN and the Stein. Placed against the RCA jacks and transformers the audio increase is phenomenal.
Let the naysayers bray, I believe the C13 enhancement raises audio to a whole new level of performance
From a Stereo Times review:
"A RN is made of a thick layer with encapsulated crystalline material which, like the so-called "stuff" used in Bybee's power cord, produces magnetic moments in C13 isotopes. The presence of these polarized isotopes in the air stimulates nitrogen atoms to resonate at higher energy levels."
Makes no sense to me but the fact I heard an improvement is all that matters.
Wiki says Nitrogen is ~78% of the atmosphere, whereas C12 (in CO2) is .04%. C13 isotope in CO2 is about 1% of the CO2, or .004% total of atmospheric gases. So, a perturbation of a gas that is about .004% of the atmosphere in a listening room would affect Nitrogen in the atmosphere such that it propagates sound "better" (whatever that means). It's probably better to say that one doesn't know how this device works, realizing that you only quoted what Stereo Times published. Not saying it doesn't work. On the other hand, is there not at least one other product that claims to work in similar fashion, at least the endpoint is said to be an improvement in sound propagation because the air becomes easier to move?
Wiki says Nitrogen is ~78% of the atmosphere, whereas C12 (in CO2) is .04%.By coincidence, 0.04% by volume is roughly the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Are there not influential figures in the US, European and UN polities who want us to send several blank cheques to this or that address to resolve ever-so-serious issues caused by its presence?
Phunny stuph, fizzicks.
Edits: 10/01/15
1% of .04% is .0004%, not .004%. My bad.
That balance among the different atmospheric gases is a delicate one, and no one doubts that small changes in the relative amount of CO2 can have a profound effect on our environment. The question among doubters is usually whether the observed recent changes are man-made or... heaven-sent? Beyond that we probably should not go; we will be censored.
My bad.
As it goes, as soon as I posted, I thought to myself, "Hmmmmmm. Should have checked the sums" - seems I got away with it. Whatever, my point was that small concentrations can and do matter and that your argument does not actually discredit the Bybee thingie. Not having access to one, I can't say more.
D
Just to be clear, I am not trying to discredit Bybee. I am reallly not qualified to discredit him. But I do think it's fair to ask a question about how a product works to do what is claimed for it by Bybee. To me, that is part of the value of having forums such as Audio Asylum. The mechanism quoted in Stereo Review (not exactly an accredited scientific journal) raises more questions than it answers.
The burden of proof is always on the one who claims a phenomenon exists. That review gives more of what sounds like an elusion rather that an explanation. It leave me feeling quite skeptical. Of course for those who have tried it and like it in there system, I can't argue with that. I personally need feel something has technical merit before I will buy in, so until I get a chance to actually hear it or at least get a plausible explanation, I will look elsewhere to improve the sound of my system.
Dave
"The burden of proof is always on the one who claims a phenomenon exists"
This is simply not true. It's possible to point out a phenomenon without having any idea of what is going on, let alone proof.
An example : when I was at university, a lecturer I knew collected "unknown phenomena" - One for example was a closed test tube with some mercury inside, along with Neon at a certain pressure. When you moved the tube you got flashes of neon light. Apparently, nobody knew how or why this happened. But it was childishly easy to demonstrate the phenomenon.
I hear this theory being touted every time a weird tweak appears. What is actually happening is that JB has come up with a new product. Then people ask him how it works. He tries to explain it without giving away his hard work. In the process, those who report his words often garble them somewhat. And I suspect that he maybe tries to obfuscate as much as educate.
OK so I bet that nobody said to Stradivarius "Come on, explain EXACTLY how and why your violin sounds so good, or I won't believe that it sounds great."
No, people simply listen to the violin and make judgement based on the resulting sound.
The idea that every product that is produced must have a deep theoretical underpinning is a new one. Until fairly recently that's how most products were made. They were often developed empirically - ie use what works. When people put whiskers on crystals to create the first solid state diodes, which were used to make "crystal radio sets", they didn't understand how this worked. But they could say "look - current one way, not the other - how it works? No idea" And if they had some cooky theory as to how it worked "eg it's acting like an electron funnel" they would have been wrong.
But if tweak makers take the other approach and simply say "I have no idea how it works, but it DOES work" then this doesn't shut up the folks who insist they must know how it works.
I know this might sound heretical, but I suspect Jack only has a series of hypotheses about how his things work. He might be right. Or not. But to actually prove or demonstrate in a convincing (to himself or his peers, which I presume means people who understand advanced physics) way that a particular hypothesis is actually correct would likely require more effort and resources than he has available - labs, research personnel, equipment; that's all expensive. And anyway, what's important is that product actually works.
You must have missed where I said, "until I get a chance to actually hear it".
Dave
I won't bore you or others by dissecting every paragraph of your post to show where or whether your many analogies fall short, or don't fall short. I will simply say that I see this as two separate questions:
(1) Does the product "work"? The answer to that is entirely subjective, since in this hobby each of us can only depend upon his or her hearing, where objective measurement is not possible.
(2) How does the product work? This question is important to those who like to learn what lies behind observable physical phenomena of all kinds, like "Why is the sky blue?" When the maker of an audio tweak does offer an explanation for the performance of a given product, then it seems to me that he or she is leaving himself open for others of a scientific bent to examine and evaluate that explanation. In this case, the explanation, as recounted in Stereo Review, and I think elsewhere, only poses new questions. For me, this does not mean that the product cannot work as claimed or that others are "wrong" to buy into it. However, I do have to say that your apologia for Mr. Bybee is unconvincing. If he does not know how it works, then it would be OK to say so. If he wants to keep the mechanism secret for financial reasons, that's OK, too. Both alternatives are more acceptable than propagating patent BS, if indeed that's what this is. If the explanation for the mechanism of the Room Equalizer (or whatever it's formally called) is a fabrication that did not ever come from Bybee, then of course I apologize for assuming so.
Edits: 10/03/15
You answered "The burden of proof is always on the one who claims a phenomenon exists" with It's possible to point out a phenomenon without having any idea of what is going on, let alone proof.
You express the point well. (BTW, I've used the Stradivarius violins analogy in the audio context for years not least because experts apparently still aren't sure what makes them special. Therefore they can't be.)
But I'd argue that you cannot "prove" a phenomenon, you can only demonstrate (or not) that it occurs. Observation is the starting point for science, not theory. What works is generally what counts in engineering. The demand that this or that phemonenon be "proved" or at least backed by a credible hypothesis is essentially a call for better marketing. It's often a good call to make but it sure isn't science.
The difference needs to be pointed out over and over but, still to no avail.
unclestu, I cannot understand what you think is so funny about ryelands post. That in itself is an unexplainable but clearly observed phenomena!
You must have missed his point because I would think you would be in agreement with that sound and reasonable Scot.
He definitely points to the use of isotope carbon 13 as being responsible for much is not most of the effect of his latest tweak. Research carbon 13, there is a ton of information about the isotope. That he does not post the implementation of C13 is his prerogative.
Like anything man made, it is possible to backwards engineer any product. I have partially done it and others I know also have followed suit. Those that carp that no explanation is handed out on a silver platter, are, well, at least in my mind, asking way too much.
I have spent many hours researching and purchasing material and have been amply rewarded with my experimentation. Some naturally have lead to dead ends, but then others have lead to rather phenomenal results.
Carbon 13 is the first think I looked up before I posted. I was trying to understand, but the explanation. I did not see anything in the description of Carbon 13 that would make it function as described, particularly in such small quantities.
I wish I had the kind of money and time to test many of the claims I have heard in audio, but I have neither. So I have to go buy my experience and best judgment. From my experience, shaky explanations lead to shaky products. I cannot claim it to be true in this instance, but if all I have to go on is an explanation like this, I am not going to buy. However my opinion could very well change upon hearing the product. I have changed my mind before after hearing results.
Dave
If you ever want a beta tester look no further! I have an open mind but more important open ears!!!!!! :-)
You don't understand marketing. Sometime revealing the workings means that anyone can duplicate the results. While that's is not so bad, it certainly means the hours or days or years of research goes down the drain with no renumeration for the discoverer.
If you've worked for years on an idea why should you have to disclose your secrets? Bybee has thrown hints out. Whether you want to follow up on them is your prerogative. If you are looking for a hand out, forget it.
For his C13 I have been experimenting on my own for the better part of this year and have achieved marvelous results. Many were negative, but then that's the experimental process. Negative results are as important as the positive ones. Not understanding the process that Jack derived his products, you can start to understand the hard thought that went into the process, at least if you attempt understandingy doing the research
When his purifiers first came out I was bowled over with the sound change but as I installed more I realized it had limitations. Jack explained that it had military apps and could not disclose the complete workings, but invited me to play a game of 20 questions. With enough questions I got a fairly decent idea of the workings and had , of course, to change my thinking ( actually to educate myself further)
Very few readers of this forum are willing to do this
You don't understand marketing.
You have no knowledge of what I might or might not understand of marketing but I do know that you didn't read my post properly.
I said nothing about how a product should be marketed. What I suggested (rightly or wrongly) was that those calling for "scientific" explanations as a precondition for trying a device were making a normative point about marketing, not a scientific one.
If you've worked for years on an idea why should you have to disclose your secrets?
I never suggested anyone should. Your jibe "If you are looking for a hand out, forget it" is thus out of place and your remarks on experimenting with Jack Bybee's products, though interesting, are essentially irrelevant.
Hope this clarifies things.
You can indeed start with Theory, if the Theory is supported by prior observations (aka, "data"). Then over time the viability of any Theory is tested by further Observations. If future observations don't hold with the relevant Theory, then the Theory eventually must be questioned. It's a chicken and egg thing.
> > > "You can indeed start with Theory, if the Theory is supported by prior observations (aka, "data"). "Well apart from the point that starting with a Theory that is supported buy prior observations is not actually starting with a Theory - the observations were prior.
More importantly, the word Theory has a special meaning in science. It means "a well substantiated explanation". So you simply can't start with a theory, as a Theory needs substantiation.
What you start with is a hypothesis. A good hypothesis leads to predictions which can be experimentally verified.
> > > "Does the product "work"? The answer to that is entirely subjective, since in this hobby each of us can only depend upon his or her hearing, where objective measurement is not possible."
There is a well-known scientific technique that can fairly easily demonstrate whether the product works (or not). But I understand that it's not allowed to be discussed on this forum. (However, I find it invaluable.)
Edits: 10/03/15 10/03/15
The TRUE test of a theory is IF it makes verifieable predictions.
Too much is never enough
Explanation is the weakest. If you can predict accurately, you are really on to something. However, being able to manipulate is the strongest demonstration of a theory.
Dave
Didn't we essentially say the same thing?
I don't know that even the most predictive (and verified) TOE (Theory of Everything) would allow us to do some of the SciFi stuff the lunatic fringe Dream About. Beam Me Up!
Too much is never enough
My intent was to add-to, not correct your post. Sorry if it did not come off that way.
Dave
No, you're FINE.
You got me thinking about stuff like electromagnetism which SEEMS to be totally explained by theory. And predictions were made. But more importantly, you were correct in that the understanding led to useful STUFF. Like Stereo, for example?
Now, going forward, what predictions are coming from modern theory? Will some SciFi stuff be POSSIBLE?
Stay Tuned:
Too much is never enough
I am looking forward to buckyballs (fullerenes), superconductors and nanotechnology myself. A more linear IC chip would be welcomed.
Dave
I'm looking forward to a cousin of the buckyball in the form of GRAPHENE. Planar speakers and headphone drivers would be possible from a sheet maybe 2 microns thick. (20,000 angstroms).
Semiconductors ALL have 2 'tails' and a large linear region between.
Too much is never enough
That is very interesting stuff. I can see quite a few application for audio. How about a self-amplifying ribbon driver, or a self amplifying phono cartridge with built-in EQ?
Dave
Just start a mental list.
Optics?
Engineering material?
Semiconductor?
Aerospace?
Space 'sail'? That would also generate electricity?
Every facet of engineering, chemistry and science are potential fair game for new graphene applications and uses.
Maybe even some kind of semi-permiable membrane? I have NO idea!
Too much is never enough
I understand you want to know how things work, as I do but the explanation leaves me with more questions than answers but all I can say is they make a profound change in my listening room and I can now not live without them. I lent them to a friend and for the time they were out of my room I was not as engaged in the sound but when I got them back there it was again. It's very easy to put these devices up (with Blue-tack) and remove them quickly, although it did take a few days to get them in the right locations, and those locations were different than the directions that came with the product.
Have you heard them yourself yet?
no, I have not had access. Does Bybee offer a 30-day trial, or something like that?
If you live in the NH/MA area I can bring them over for a listen.
(Dealer disclaimer)
Born in Connecticut and a New Englander at heart (perhaps a factor in my skeptical nature), but I live in the Washington, DC, area. Thank you for the offer. Do they have a dealer in DC/MD/Northern VA?
I don't know if there is a dealer in your area you would have to contact Bybee.
Thanks
Yes heard them and they do make a significant difference in the presentation but they are expensive for what they seem to be made of. If they were half the price then I'd have a set myself.
knows his stuff and I have never tried anything he has developed that didn't work
Unclestu
"Certain combinations work as Bybee's RN and the Stein. Placed against the RCA jacks and transformers the audio increase is phenomenal"
Do they work better in this application over them used in the room?
Bybee sell a half set, not sure if that was meant to be use as you described or powerful as a set of 4 in room acoustics.
Stien has a new blue sun which per piece cost double of the room neutralizers, could they be comparable?
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: