|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
150.148.14.5
In Reply to: RE: How they work? posted by plugmein on October 01, 2015 at 03:12:39
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?
Follow Ups:
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
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: