|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
194.247.237.89
Check out this new discussion going on at audio circle. Tests and pictures of dismantled bybee.http://www.audiocircle.com/circles/index.php?topic=38705.0
What do you think?
Follow Ups:
that is still right on target. And John Kreskovsky is still as talented a scientist/speaker designer as we are likely to hear from. The fist link in the referenced post is no longer active, but the thread is still pertinent.Roger Hill
I found it a great read, perhaps better than our current efforts. If we are doomed to repeat history it's fun to see how we're doing...
This has been an on going issue for too many years. I'm hoping that this round puts a dent in this nonsense.
d.b.
.
Another audio designer which doesn't trust his own ears. I offer to D.B. the following algorithm to test Bybee claims:1. Listen to Bybee device
2. If you don't hear effect - proclaim it to be nonsense - stop. At least I will know you are deaf(as many others) and have no other agenda in background.
If you do hear -
3. Listen to small inductance "discovered" in your measurement
4. If you hear the same effect as with Bybee - proclaim it to be marketing trick and sell millions to audiophiles - I will be first to buy.
If you have no effect - sorry D.B. You measured the wrong things.
i go through this all the time with my customers concerning cabling.i know we are not talking cables but it still applies.
a) your system may not be able to resolve the difference between cables.
b) you physically may not be able to resolve the difference between cables.
in either case no difference is heard/seen but it doesnt change the fact that there is a measurable difference between the cables.
it doesnt matter what it measures.
all that matters is how it changes the sound in your system.
I've spoken to several manufacturers who have incorporated the Bybee devices into their gear. The majority do not wish to be identified and to become embroiled with the controversies as we see here. Those who use it say they hear a change and that they can not duplicate it by conventional means, however.But then I once made a simple device for digital playback which actually made Stereophile's recommended list I demoed it at several CES booths and, at that time, the Altis designer looked at it as said that there was no way it could affect the sound, and proceeded to place the device on his n=mega buck transport. One of the principles of Audio Prism just happened to be the room also. While the Altis designer proclaimed there was no sonic difference, the AP guy asked for a sample which I gladly provided him with....
Moral: not all designers listen for the same thing.
"I also think about all the time I spent listening to various recordings during prototype work on all the gear I designed and built. I also can reflect on all the time I spend in my Lab/office listening to music either for the sheer pleasure of it or while I am working on a project."
When I choose a part for whatever I happen to be working on I review the data sheet first. If the data sheet clearly indicates that this part is not suitable for my application, then it stops right there.
The Bybee unit only offers marketing hype, hearsay, and no clear data. In the past I have done listening tests to some "audiophile"
parts, and have come away with either one of two things.
1. This is a P.O.S.
2. I can do this cheaper and get the same results.
I'm not wasting my time any further, the unit is going back to owner for examination with an S.E.M.
d.b.
I believe the Bybee affects the voltage-current phase angles of the AC current. Have you done an analysis of the effect of the Bybee on the voltage-current phase angles?just curious
Stu, are you up to something, or are you a asking a simple technician grade question?
As I posted earlier, the Bybees sems to have the most dramatic effect after inductive components, like transformers and inductors. I do believe standard electronic theory has the voltage leading the current by 90 degrees. Being that I hear more detail in the lower frequencies, I simply suspect that placing the current more in phase with the voltage helps the lower frequencies more as the larger speaker drivers tend to be more current hungry.Unfortunately, I have no instrumentation to even attempt to try and measure this hypothesis, and for you doubters, please remember it is only a hypothesis. It may be totally off base and incorrect, but I have not seen any attempt to measure this, hence my question.
In most electronic design, we work primarily with voltages but I have always wondered about current. Since the EU is demanding that power factor correctors be installed in most electronic devices in the near future, quite oviously the voltage/current relationaship is quite important. There is very little I can find about the audibility of such relationships, however. If it is important for AC power, it must have similar ramifications with an AC signal.
I tried to do a search on the internet last night on elastic and inelastic electron collisions. The papers (each) would cost me more than an IC tweak for any real info. Try it yourself and see, just for fun.
From a technician's point of view, this Bybee device could not do anything like that, but from a physicist's point of view, maybe there is something to it. I can't measure it, and I don't know how to look for changes. I do know that Jack is always telling me to mount them near the inductors, but he won't tell me precisely why. It might be that the out of phase condition of the E-I flow after the inductor creates inelastic electrons or something.
nt.
Stu, where are you?
nt.
The only thing that will effect the phase angle is the small amount of inductance that the internal power resistor has. When you do the math for this the phase angle is less than 1 degree at 60 Hz.
d.b.
you haven't checked the possibility out. Again, just a question and I'm not asking for speculation.
Let's try a different approach. What you and Curl are claiming is analogous to the following claims. Charlton Heston claiming he perfomed all of his miracles in the Ten Commandments.
Claiming that the people of Boston should not put away their snowshovels, snowplows, and snowblowers, because we are getting a foot of snow in July.
Does it get any more absurd than this? Does anyone with a rudimentary education think that 0.3 microhenries of inductance is an issue at 60 Hz? You probably have that amount of inductance in 20 ft. ot less of Romex.
d.b.
Listen very carefully here: Just because you have no knowledge of basic electrical theory does not mean I have to test for certain conditions that are already known NOT to exist. Take a course in AC electronics 101 please, it would be a great service to not only your customers, but yourself.
This reminds of what many techniclly ignorant high enders call being
"open minded". There's a difference between being open minded and ignorance of already known electrical properties.
Puhlease!
d.b.
I had already stated that the Bybees have the greatest effect on sound when placed after inductive devices. I am not concerned with the inductance of the Bybee itself. I am asking the question: could the Bybee alter the current/voltage phase relationships of the preceding inductive device and if you have tested for this hypothesis. The inductance of the Bybee, being minimal as per your testing, would not affect the phase relationship by adding inductance which would, in my thinking, actually increase the phase shift, at least from the basic physics I have taken on the university level.I asked a fairly simple question. It is of no relevance to your honor or integrity if you haven't tested for this hypothesis. I am not trying to impugn your intentions or observations. I am asking because I believe most designers work with voltage amplification and often neglect the effects of current and its relationship to voltage. The fact that power factor correction is growing in importance means that we may have to consider that equivalent in the generation of an active AC signal. It is much more difficut with a continuously variable AC signal, though. I know of no work that analyzes this voltage/amperage relationship, and I believe the instrumentation required would be quite costly. It would be no shame to say that you haven't done so.
You do not know the purpose of the ceramic tube, and I am simply making an observation from my usage. If you, in all your wisdom, can proclaim that there is absolutely no way that any of the components used in the construction of the Bybee can alter this relationship, just say so.
When I got the first units in, I was very sceptical myself. But I tried them and heard a difference. With more experimentation, I got better in determining where best to get their maximum benefits. It wasn't exactly easy and Jack does not hand out any installation manuals. My observations are simply that, and based on my experience. and through a lot of trial and error.
But if I may make one observation, Jack is still selling his devices with a guarantee and you are not. Perhaps there may be a sucker born every minute, but he sells and you are not, and that says something, especially since he did give me a 100% money back guarantee.
Stu, I don't think that the Bybee can change the voltage-current relationship directly, It has too low of resistance, inductance, and capacitance to do so. However, it 'might' change the 'state' of some of the electrons that have been made this way by the highly reactive impedance that is present. This is only a guess about the electron state, but there is more to the Bybee than has been discussed, so far, on this website.
and he has security clearance, so apparently Bybee told him far more than he can tell most people, calls the purifiers a new class of electronic devices: neither resister, capacitor, transister, nor inductor. It sort of forces you to rethink things, and I would guess that no conventional eletronics can adequately describe what the purifiers are doing. It's food for thought, however.
Now you understand the problem. I could 'hint' further, but I would just make Jack unhappy. It isn't worth it
I just love it when people accuse me of not listening. That’s when I think all the audio meetings and presentations I went to, and all the times I went to someone else’s place to listen, or out to a retail shop to listen to whatever. I also think about all the time I spent listening to various recordings during prototype work on all the gear I designed and built. I also can reflect on all the time I spend in my Lab/office listening to music either for the sheer pleasure of it or while I am working on a project.
I can even think to my formal training in music, practicing and playing up to 12 hours a day and those ear training courses I got to take every semester. Are you aware of how much you really have to listen if you are playing music with other people? Trust me when I tell you that it gets pretty intense either when either you are reading music or doing improvisation and sometimes a bit of both. My minor was Tympani; which calls for the timpanist to change tuning on the fly. My teacher made me practice those intervals in a “quote” melody, which was without a key center and definitely atonal. I could only take an hour of that a day as it was just too morbid.I am saving this post on my computer: and I will use it the next time someone decides that since I happen to design audio equipment and take electrical engineering seriously, that my only ability is to read a meter.
You owe me an apology;
d.b.
I believe he said "Listen to the Bybee" or is that too difficult to do?I find it amazing that someone can use limited tests to determine whether a device works or not without actually using it.
Say someone sent you equal lengths and gauges of PC-OFC, 3 Nines, 4N, 5N & 6N copper. Would you be able to tell the differences in wire with your LCR? (I really don't know and don't care.) But if there were no measurable differences, would you then proclaim them to be 'all the same', even though structurally, they are different?
I'd like to see you expose the lie of the existence of sub-atomic particles with the LCR! But, if you can't measure them, no matter if it may be a wrong test, they must not exist, eh, Dan?
I for one don't need complete scientific proof to explain why certain things work, tubes types sound different by mfg, damping and pointy feet create changes in equipment sound, AC outlets effect my stereo. Most work in my system and some don't. But to not run a complete set of tests and then blame the DUT for being a polished turd is just too funny. This is the audio/stereo version of political talk radio!
See link below.
Very clearly, a closed mind (and a powerful ego) here...Let me know when you build a sonic duplicate or something better, I might be interested. Of course, yours should have data sheets, be peer reviewed, submitted at UL labs, etc.
Do I owe you apology? Maybe.
But you owe us execution of algorithm I described. Otherwise you will loose your credibility. Meanwhile you don't look good but I hope to have chance to apologise.
If you really expect me to waste my time to satisfy your curiousity than your are severely delusional. However I'm not surprised given the nature of this web site and the present nature of "high end".
You still owe me an apology.
d.b.
No apologies.What do you do in audio? You don't test your measurements by listnening. The ears are much finer tool than your LCR meter for sure.
See link below
MM, I was not going to repond to you, at first. However, Dan is the crazy one, and I could not let him get away with insulting you this way. You are quite right in your test method.
Listen up Con Man; you've been blowing smoke up our butts for way too long, so it's time to treat you just another common criminal.
I just hope that when you do the time you so richly deserve it dries you out.
Get real:
d.b.
HowdyIt's hard to pick where things cross the line in some threads, but I'm sure people agree that this is on the other side...
Who have I conned, and why? You are looking at libel, buddy!
You have yet to put forth one coherent argument in defense of the unit. You misdirect, mislead, misread, and then have the gaul to say it can't really be measured.
If your going to be a spin doctor, you will need more study in that area as your "spin" is going down like a lead balloon.
Hopefully I will able to post results after the S.E.M. test is done, and get to see you spin your way out of it. If you work at it, it just might be entertaining.
d.b.
Do you think if everyone involved in this ByBee argument got into a room together there would be a punch-on?
nt
explain what exactly the Bybees are supposed to do and back it up with scientific facts?
Please?
Just this once?
Sheesh!
The maketing department is on the west coast, so you'll have to wait until they wake up. That will give you plenty of time to put on your hip boots and coveralls.
d.b.
after all, It's classified technology!
And we are all too ignorant to understand it.
You have just mastered High End Audio Marketing 101. Congatulations, you are now officially qualified to polish any turd you so desire.
d.b.
x
A conductive outer sheath would dissipate energy from the electric field components of standing waves on whatever wire to which the Bybee device was connected. The sheath would not have to be connected electrically to the wire or resistor, or to ground. A similar but cheaper approach is to use a carbon fiber sleeve at the end of the cable section, or a carbon fiber wall plate for the AC outlet.Standing waves are caused by impedance mis-matches. Cable segments (between impedance mis-matches) will support resonant standing waves at particular frequencies determined by the lengths of the segments and the speed of propagation on the cable. For audio cables one meter long, the fundamental resonant frequency is around 50 MHz.
None of this would matter for audio if there were not nonlinear elements that cause mixing of the audio signal with the RF noise, which includes the resonant tones of the cable segments. Reducing the strengths of the resonant tones reduces the magnitudes of the artifacts created by mixing.
Other approaches to reducing the strengths of the resonant tones include dynamic loading (such as the Walker Audio High Definition Links), high resistance signal conductors (such as Van den Hul The First cables), and magnetic coupling (such as Power Wraps and Skywire Audio cables).
Al,I think you made several very good points. I've been using homebrew, unshielded interconnects for years. When I first built them I thought they sounded better than anything else I'd tried except that the high end was a little "tizzy". It occurred to me that I may have made a fine, high Q antenna system, so I matched them. They had a Zo~300ohms so I built some end gadgets that had a build-out resistor for the source (~200ohms) and a 300ohm termination at the load end. That seemed to do the trick.
I was just trying get good sound so I didn't make any measurements, but anecdotally I think this supports your advice.
For these, dynamic loading with R-C networks may be a good compromise.
While I didn't dissect them, I did measure the output impedance on the sources I was using and they all seemed to be a pretty flat 100 ohms so I just assumed that they had an internal series resistor. As near as I could tell the ~600ohm total load wasn't causing distortion problems but it's probably on the edge unless they used good line drivers.Had I heard problems my plan was to just use a bigger build-out and turn up the volume. The line really only needs to be matched at the load end.
But using a cap is a good idea and may make the scheme usable with a wider variety of equipment and lower Z lines. Perhaps a COG mono would do the job. I'd be loath to add much dielectric absorption.
What I did probably isn't optimal. I'm not a very good audiophile as I tend to stop messing with the equipment when I'm happy with the sound. These days it's computer software, the wretched "players" sound varies with type, versions, settings, lunar phase... At least they are easy to A/B test.
Rick
My Wadia 861 seems to have a good, strong set of output drivers. I did not notice degradation when I first tried loading the cables with 600 ohms at the amps, but, upon further refinements, it became clear that the sound was better with higher impedance.
Well, you've managed to plant a definite seed of doubt. I think I was so pleased with how much better my system sounded after changing the interconnects that I just didn't bother to drag the distortion analyser in from the garage.At a guess I'd suppose the Wadia to have a stouter output stage, if anything, so I'd better revisit mine.
a
This guy Banquer seems to think if it can't be measured, it cannot exist. I've read his bullshit elsewhere. Reminds me of the "earth is flat argument", and "digital beats anolog". I have to ask, if he's so smart why is RE Designs belly up??
This guy Banquer seems to think if it can't be measured, it cannot exist.
At least he's got the balls to post using his own name.
se
Hi SteveNow please repeat after me !
DON'T FEED THE TROLLS
DON'T FEED THE TROLLS
While I respect Dan Banquer, I just don't think he's seeing the whole picture.I understand that his T&M has come up with some basic resistance etc. in the Bybee but so what? If you put a crappy audio resistor on that bench and a really good audio one, if they are within tolerance wouldn't they measure the same? What does that tell you about using them in audio?
There's the ceramic tube, an unknown conductive white material and the unknown black material. Sure looks a lot like the stuff I see in vintage tuners as components, and those where obviously there for a reason (I'm no expert in vintage components). Yet, they are simply discounting this because they don't know what it is. Ceramic can be made from many rare earth elements that do affect the signal.
Is the tube and conductive paint in the circuit path?
I don't really care about Bybee's, I have never used them. I had a dac once that did use some in the power supply, but I had no idea how that affected the sound. People in whose ears I trust, have ultimately disliked the Bybee effect in most areas (but did clearly hear an effect). I have always wanted to try them in our products power supply, but I haven't cared enough to outlay the substantial time and money involved just to try them. Bybee doesn't offer discounted or free samples to manufacturers to try them (at least they didn't to me when I approached them).
If anyone can show how the ceramic tube effects electrical functions that would be just wonderful. However, that appears not to have happened to date, so you will have to excuse my scepticism. Given that the LCR meter tested out to 100 kHz, and my own testing out to 2 MHz, it appears to me that the ceramic is not a factor below 2MHz.
d.b.
Dan,Someone on the "other site" measured some conductance on the outer stuff, it's not clear to me whether it was an attribute of the ceramic or a coating upon it. Whichever it was, it's probably the key to this thing, if indeed it's anything beyond flummery.
My current philosophy is to assume that other's experiences are usually true and that their explanations for the same are usually bogus. If that's the case here, it behooves one to consider what might actually be happening within the device. If indeed the shell is resistive, then a reasonable model would be a series resistor and inductor, the WW resistor, shunted by a resistor, the shell. Due to the geometry of the thing, the shell, for lack of a better term, will have low inductance and should remain largely resistive into the GHz region. So throughout a large part of the spectrum it will be lossy. Unfortunately I haven't been able to tell from the postings how conductive the shell is. Based upon your measurements the corner of the resistor is about 15KHz so the effect, if any, will be above that.
If you have access to other gear, perhaps at work, try measuring the critter at much higher frequencies. The interesting point would be the location of the second corner where the outer conductance dominates the transfer function.
I think your position is that measurable electrical characteristics of the device, will fully account for any effect that it may have. I suggest that if you fully characterize the device electrically and then build another that exhibits the same characteristics then you are ready to put your theory to the test. If they both "sound" the same you will have proven either that the quantum BS is just that or that your device exhibits the same magic, which it may. If different, then there may be more things in heaven and earth...
For what it's worth, I tend to believe pragmatically that I don't need to worry about quanta below q. I've made my living for four decades using that assumption and have seen no reason to doubt it. But I'm keenly aware that engineering is based completely upon simplified models of the "real" world, and mine may be simpler than most. You just can't get anything accomplished without deliberately ignoring a lot of stuff and experience brings you up short when you've guessed wrong.
Good luck in your investigations. I would really like to know if there is anything to this. Certainly the "technical" marketing stuff on their website is highly off-putting, but the hell of it is that doesn't necessarily mean that it doesn't help in some fashion.
If it was an outer conductance it would bypass the resistor encased in the unit. This appears not to be the case as the LCR measurements show, and I took a frequency response to below 10 Hz. If it is supposedly a shield it would be connected at one end, and to ground. There is no ground connection only the two leads for the input and output.
Where do you want to go from here?
d.b.
Hi Dan,I want to go up in frequency! At some point the Xl of the resistor's inductance will be so high that the outer conductance dominates the impedance and you will see a "knee" where the impedance stops rising with increasing frequency.
If you can get gain access to an RF network analyzer you can be done in a matter of minutes.
Looking forward to what you find.
Actually if you take a close look at the LCR results the inductance is starting to go down at 100Khz. This is probably due to the capacitance between the "windings" of the resistor. Please: go back to the Audiocircle thread and take a close look at the LCR measurements.
d.b.
In order for this network to work at all at these frequencies for measurement the "resistor" would have to be a 50 ohm load over a huge band. Secondly, when does the AC line represent a 50 ohm load?
You might wish to take some time and think about the above.
d.b.
And I think that no one would spend the money on network analyzers that only analyzed networks that presented conjugate matches to the analyzer!The analyzer will be happy to tell you what's happening on networks that aren't 50 ohms. Just ground one end and look at S11 and you'll know what the impedance really is. If you have access to an analyzer buy lunch for one of the guys that use it a lot and I bet they'll be glad to help. If you don't, what do you have? There are a lot of ways to measure these things, and I've probably done most of them, but the network analyzers are cool and fast.
With respect to the inductance at 100kc, I'm looking at your data. Did you happen to notice what the Q was doing at the various frequencies? Also I'm not clear what the column with ohms as a unit is. Is it the impedance of the DUT or the resistive component of the impedance?
You're probably right about stray capacitance rearing it's ugly head, you'll likely find a self-resonant frequency, but the Q may be low depending upon the shunt resistance. Watch the phase.
You might consider doing a careful sweep by hand using your function generator and scope noting amplitude and phase as you go. If there is any question about the Zo of the Fn generator or it's ability to drive low Z loads consider using a build-out resistor to give you exactly a 100ohm source.
On behalf of myself and likely many other interested folks, thanks for looking into this.
Rick
O.K. Rick, Let's take a close look at some microwave theory here.
If you take that analyzer and connect a length of romex or line cord, and terminate into 50 ohms, your insertion loss and return loss will be all over the map. Why? because romex is not a 50 ohm line. The insertion loss alone will negate any conducted power along the line. Now instead of a nice clean 50 ohm termination use a variable termination of anywhere from 1 ohm to 10K ohms and think of the insertion and retrun loss under those conditions.
Now think of a power resistor claiming that it will absorb microwave energy and placing somewhere on the AC line. If you manage to place the resistor in exactly the right place it might reduce some RF, but in reality this will be purely by chance because we don't know exactly where the 1/4 wave will be. Move the "resistor" 1/4 of an inch and you will get a different response.
Now take that analyzer and connect something like a tripplite isobar, line cords and all with a varable termination. The isobar standard filters with real chokes, and MOV's will prove far losssier that the "power resistor". To it's benefit it will give some decent surge suppression, and low frequency RF attenuation where you really need it.
If microwave is an issue for household/consumer lines it will a radiated issue, not a conducted issue. Shielding will help, decent grounding practices will help, But if you think about any real power at microwave frequencies it should not be legal or allowed near any consumer or residence.
Now, for those of you who have their audio systems next to radar transmitters....................................
Hope this helps;
d.b.
Hi Dan,The reflected impedance is not quite ALL over the map. I presume the map in question is a Smith chart in which case it will be running around in a circle at the VSWR radius.
I don't think anyone claimed that the power resistor would absorb microwave energy, but I did speculate that it might provide a low impedance for the audio, or AC and that it's inductance would force higher frequency currents to flow more in the outer resistive layer which should stay resistive into the GHz region. As you pointed out, stray capacity in the resistor may limit it's ultimate attenuation.
As far as location goes, it probably doesn't matter as much as you'd suppose. To the traveling wave it's a loss, to the standing waves it varies, but except for the comb of frequencies where it's right at a current node it will help, especially since the reflected energy will pass through it over and over.
Microwaves are an issue for all of us nowadays, of course on the plus side it's convenient being able to hear our cell phones ring through the stereo... They may start radiated but usually end up getting picked up by the wires.
So, back to the issue at hand, I think we are looking for mechanisms that could account for the Bybee filters helping without invoking magic. Magic of course meaning things I don't understand...
I think we need to go back to the initial premise:
If it sounds like a duck, walks like a duck, and looks like a duck, is it a duck?
Not in High End Audio: it's the quantum visualization of a duck.
d.b.
OK Dan,Are you saying that girls WON'T be hopelessly attracted to guys with Bybee purifiers in their systems? You can trust advertising, we have laws...
It well may be floobydust and that further study would reveal nothing. Tis your call, you're doing all the work. I guess my electrons will just have to get along as best they can, smashing into each other and falling into holes like drunken sailors.
Regards, Rick
PS: I'm married to a birder. Just because something looks, sounds and walks like a duck no longer makes it a duck. Nowadays it's DNA has to declare it a duck. Thought you'd like to know...
Dan, it should be obvious from the photos that there are two metal endcaps that are soldered to each end of the resistor. Yes, there is conductance across the outside case, but its measurement is swamped out by the low value resistor in any 'normal', you know, RLC measurements. Hint: Think microwave.
John,I finally can't resist asking although I probably shouldn't, just what is your position with respect to these products? You appear very knowledgeable about them but seem unwilling to do more than drop scattered hints regarding their operation, efficacy or application. NDA? Trade secret? Orneriness?
The goofy thing is I really can't tell if there is anything here to actually be interested in. The anecdotal reports are confusing and inconsistent and the marketing hype seems silly. Or a masterpiece of obfuscation.
Do you actually use these components?
Thanks, Rick
.3 microhenries and a small amount of shunt capacitance to earth ground will work for that. However since your outer shell is not connnected to ground I see little RF rejection here. Maybe you had some measurement issues here, microwave demands much care for accurate measurement.
d.b.
the large ones at least, are rated for basically unlimited voltage (at least 1000 volts and is more dependent on the insulation appplied) and 15 amps current. Tell me that that resister used is rated for 15 amps. That ought to give you a clue of what the ceramic tube is doing.
As for the black coating on the ceramic tube, ever notice that an ohm meter leads simply pressed against the surface reads open, but if you scratch the surface of the coating, it produces continuity?
How much continuity? Say from the center of the ceramic tube to an end? Even a rough measurement would be interesting.I would think that the resistor would be happy with 15A. If it's 25mohms that would only be 3/8 W.
Rick
The conductive ceramic body is NOT a shield. The resistor is inside, but it can be placed outside as well.
You sir, are on a phishing expedition. In a post below this you contend that 1/f noise is the issue. 1/f noise mathematically is only significant below roughly 10 Hz. This end of the thread you are talking the outer extreme of microwave frequencies. (1Ghz and up?)
Nice try but the bait isn't working, and I have better things to do than have this kind of nonsense served up in my face.
Get real;
d.b.
Dan, 1/f noise can start at 1 megahertz. Look at RF fets. What is wrong with you?
HowdyAnd what does your LCR meter tell you about putting ERS paper over a chip or around a cable?
If the ERS paper is conductive Then you might have a shield. The question is, why does someone want to shield a resistor?
What does it tell you Ted?
d.b.
HowdyI wasn't presuming that ERS paper had anything to do with Bybee devices. I was asking a serious question to see what kinds of things you think you can measure with your LCR meter and how you would interpret the results when the component in question wasn't primarily a resistor, inductor or capacitor in circuit.
What does it tell me? That you are dancing around the question.
According to some of the internet links that come up when you type in ERS Paper it is a nickel infused into paper. Since nothing is coming up in basic measurement out to 2 MHz except the increasing amplitude across the unit due to it's inductance, I will be more than happy to let you find someone else to "Dance" with on the subject.
d.b.
HowdySo what makes you think you can measure and characterize the "interesting" part of a Bybee device response with those same self admitted ineffective (for this purpose) measurement techniques?
Think whatever you wish Ted.
I'm done with this nonsense thread.
d.b.
Howdy DanIf you aren't measuring the right thing how can you expect to find (or disprove) anything? If your measurements completely characterize a device you ought to be able to produce a device that has the same audible effects in a DBT as the Bybee device. Image the money you could make :) (And you could do it with no "B.S." in your marketing.
Note my comments to Ric M on microwave measurement and the AC line.
Have a nice day;
d.b.
nt
If it's function is supposed to be a shield then I would think one would want to ground the shield. That does not appear to be the case here.
d.b.
Listen to Jim, (on the other website) Dan. The answer is outside your 'box'. Conductive ceramic? How, why?
Show how that effects an electrical measurement John, or is that like asking you how an Intellichip effects an electrical mesurement.
Put up or shut up.
d.b.
Dan I just GAVE you the test instrument that you can use to MEASURE the noise difference in the AC line, (assuming it is dirty) with the Bybee device. This is the BMI 8800 AC Analyzer. Put up or shut up, yourself. I have the noise comparisons in front of me, so I know there is a difference.
I'll look into the analyzer, but you haven't answered my question as to why you think 1/f noise is significant in this application.
d.b.
Dan 1/f noise can be across the entire audio band.
Perhaps you know better than STAX, on how to design a power supply, because their power supply is the one that was helped in my original example. Then, your results with a Bybee might be different. By the way, Bybee devices don't appear to help power amps as much as preamps, headphone amps, and digital processors. This is from general experience.
With a good feedback regulator 1/F noise should not be an issue. Are you and Stax sure you are not mistaking this for a grounding problem, or some other problem?
For all the work I have done on pre amps, and the measurements that have gone with them, 1/f noise has NEVER been an issue.
Thanks for your reply, you have saved me my hard earned money so I don't waste it renting the BMI 8800 AC analyzer.
d.b.
Raj and Jim on the other website are on target. Dan, this is completely over your head. You are just a glorified tech, and you can't even reason anything outside this box that you are inside of. It's OK for you to be where you are, but it doesn't give you the right to criticize or mislead others, which is what you are prone to do in this situation.
nt.
A great thread. The contrast between people who ask questions and find answers and people who rely on woo and verbal belligerence couldn't be plainer.Banquer asks a simple question: if there is something else to test for, what is it? So far there's no response.
At the very least, this should encourage cheap tweakers with time on their hands to circumvent the charlatans, buy some .025 ohm power resistors, wrap 'em in stuff if the mood strikes, and try 'em out. Let us know.
Bybee offers a money back guarantee. If you can't hear a difference you can return it for a refund. If you can't hear a difference, why bother testing? If you do hear an improvement testing is of little import.
StuPS: I have sold and installed Bybee units for a good number of years, Only one customer asked for a refund and that was when he installed the units in a used CD player that he didn't particularly like the sound of. The sound changed, but he still didn't like it so he asked for a refund. He owns other Bybee devices, however.
Try substituting a small value choke, about 1 microhenry, in place of the Bybee units and make a comparison. Keep the visuals out of the equation and see what happens.
But I guess that wouldn't be good for sales now would it.
d.b.
or at least something similar, as I am not sure of the exact value of the choke I used (it was a while ago). Sonic effect is totally different. Also tried a simple resister in lieu of the purifier also, with little to no effect. As far as my sales went, I installed the units in the components, where the customer would not normally see them, under the covers and sometimes under the circuit boards. Their positive evaluation was not due to a casual visual presentation
I do admit that simply soldering in the Bybees does not necessarily guarantee an audible improvement, however. You have to know where to place them and they work best when situated after an inductive component.
Stu, what you say makes sense to me. Bybees sometimes seem to remove too much from the music, but they do more than they would appear to do if you just consider simple measurements. Measurement wise, by technician grade tools, they just 'look' to be a small value resistor with the residual inductance that is associated with the resistor leads and perhaps the resistor body.
So comparing apples to oranges makes sense to you? Are you compenstated well enough for encouraging folks to polish turds?
Get real.
d.b.
If your not sure of the value of the choke than all bets are off. They must be under one microhenry, and if they are on a core, the core must not saturate under load conditions.
d.b.
No one of any technical expertise in this area is on the original website. They don't have the measurement equipment to actually measure a Bybee device.
"No one of any technical expertise in this area is on the original website. They don't have the measurement equipment to actually measure a Bybee device."
If it can't be measured the claims cannot be verified. Sounds like the original prototype of the Intellichip or Clever Little Clock. However; the LCR meter measurements verify that the unit in questions is a power resistor with an amount of inductance to it. That we can measure and verify.
Get real John;
d.b.
It can be measured, at least sometimes. When I locate the Bybee file, I will get you to rent (or buy) the proper equipment to measure it.
Thank you John.
d.b.
Dan, the equipment used 12 years ago to measure the change in noise made by a Bybee device on a power line was the BMI 8800 AC analyzer.
If it's 1/f noise how is that going to effect a reasonably well designed linear power suppply?
d.b.
Hukk
Seems like an interesting thread though.
They haven't even begun to evaluate a Bybee. I did everything that they have done, measurement wise, more than 10 years ago. Bybee even published an independent measurement of his earlier device (more than 10 years old) with impedance curves, and even a noise measurement. I have it in my files.
The RESISTOR is not the important part of the Bybee, but it has changed over the years. First, it was a .3 ohm non-inductive wirewound, often purchased surplus. I was there and helped pick out the resistors myself, on one occasion.
Later, a more custom resistor of about .025 ohms was made that is beyond anything that Dan Banquer can evaluate without a physics lab.
The latest models use an even more exotic resistor, that is beyond most of what is even believed to exist by many on this website.
Dan is going to get into BIG trouble, if he starts mouthing off, without really knowing what he is evaluating.
Maybe Bybees do work, but so do ferrite blocks for $4.
Why ruin your reputation over something so dubious?
Can't you understand why some people such as myself are offended by such "tweaks"? It's an insult (and immoral) plain and simple.
What message does such crap send to young music lovers/audiophiles?
I admit it. I don't get it.
It all happened about 12 years ago. I was asked by my employer (Parasound) to evaluate the Bybee device.
In fact, I have a fax dated June 26, 1995 from Parasound that reads af follows:
'Dear John,
Enclosed is a prototype of the line conditioner from Jack Bybee. Richard (my boss) and Mike Klasko (Menlo Labs) visited his lab full of suspicion. After listening to a system with a conditioner for the preamplifier and power amplifier, both Richard and Mike claim that they heard a significant improvement.
Please evaluate this filter (without tearing into it) and see if you can verify that the improvement is quantifiable. Richard is showing an interest in marketing the unit only if there is a technical explanation for its performance. '
That is how we initially approach things. However, my measurements 12 years ago were virtually the same as what Dan measured.
I just about gave up, BUT THEN I LISTENED TO THE BYBEE DEVICE through my STAX Lambda headphone system driven directly by a Vendetta phono stage and my favorate Grateful Dead (Live Dead) vinyl record. Wow! There was a real difference.
This got me curious as to who Jack Bybee was, and what he was doing inside this block of 'cement' and the rest is history.
over the last 34 years I admit to being skeptical. Most of the money I spent yielded no audible improvements. That's true of my gear also. When you replace a $800 power amp with one costing $6200 you expect to hear an improvement. I did not hear a $5400 improvement. The difference was subtle and not noticeable on many recordings.
Like I said, maybe Bybees do work but the mystery surrounding the device and exactly what it is supposed to do does not help its being accepted.
At least one can try Bybees and return them if desired.
Why the hell is it that engineers find it so easy to dismiss things that aren't in their text books? If those things were 100% right, there would be no science left and no advancements. Dogma is dogma and is often wrong IMO.Glad you took the time to listen. It is pretty easy to tell the gear that gets listened to, and the gear that doesn't.
That is why I am somewhat more successful in designing audio equipment than some who don't trust their ears or the opinions of their associates.
That is why I am somewhat more successful in designing audio equipment than some who don't trust their ears or the opinions of their associates.
If people are to be expected to trust their ears, then what purpose does feeding them bullshit serve? If you have to feed them a bunch of bullshit, then you're clearly not expecting them to simply trust their ears. You're expecting them to trust the bullshit.
And if you're going to resort to feeding people bullshit, don't get your panties in a bunch when people point out the bullshit and call it what it is.
se
Steve, when have you given any really useful input here?
You just talk about things that you know nothing about or have not even tried. You condemn without examination. That's called prejudice.
Steve, when have you given any really useful input here?
You just talk about things that you know nothing about or have not even tried. You condemn without examination. That's called prejudice.
What I have done over the years is to question the claims made by Bybee. These have been legitimate questions. Questions any rational, thinking person might ask.
And over the years what have I ever got from you in response to those questions? Nothing but hand-waving and personal attacks.
So now when have YOU ever given any really useful input here?
Asking legitimate questions is a useful endeavor. What has been useful about your hand-waving and personal attacks?
se
Steve, you are lying about Jack Bybee in order to defame him on the other website. Jack does not say that he is using room temperature superconductors. He only says that SOME of the properties attributed to superconductors are used in his material. One of these is the formation of Cooper pairs to some degree.
Steve, you are lying about Jack Bybee in order to defame him on the other website. Jack does not say that he is using room temperature superconductors. He only says that SOME of the properties attributed to superconductors are used in his material. One of these is the formation of Cooper pairs to some degree.
How 'bout to no degree, John? He's invoked the BCS theory numerous times and claimed them to be "near-superconductive," when the things aren't even moderately conductive. The goddamn resistor in the thing is more conductive than his "near-superconductive" ceramic.
His invoking the BCS theory is a load of crap, John. Now go wax Jack's balls or something.
se
He stands on the decks of submarines as they descend to 10,000 feet!He risks prosecution from the DOJ by selling classified technology to audiophiles for peanuts!
He harnesses the power of quantum mechanics because, let's face it, Maxwell's equations just don't cut it at heroic operating frequencies like 20 kHz!
He is a martyr who makes daily sacrifices so that audiophiles can continue to pursue their dream of high-quality sound at low prices!
So the next time someone accuses Jack Bybee of being a fraud, a quack, a liar or a charlatan, instead ponder this question, "How come he doesn't get the Congressional Medal of Honor for his great sacrifices to audiophilia and indeed mankind in general"?
!
You've obviously never seen a pair of well waxed uh... huevos.se
Superconductivity is usually a sudden onset sort of effect. However, Cooper pairs can and do exist below superconductivity. You have no idea what the ceramic material does over all frequencies, both very high and low. I don't have the equipment to measure it, and Dan doesn't even know where to look.
Superconductivity is usually a sudden onset sort of effect. However, Cooper pairs can and do exist below superconductivity.
I'd ask you to provide a source for that, but I know you can't but let's say that they do. So what? Whatever Cooper pairs may form isn't even sufficient to bring the conductivity of whatever ceramic it is to anywhere near the conductivity of even the resistor.
Even if we assume that the thing is fully superconductive and had no resistance at all, the best you could say about it is that it wouldn't produce any noise of its own. Their simply being Cooper pairs wouldn't remove any noise upstream from it, nor any noise downstream of it. It would simply pass the noise along without adding any more of its own.
But since it's not superconductive, and the ceramic isn't anywhere near as conductive as the resistor and its resistance is essentially that of the resistor, it will produce the noise of a 0.02 ohm resistor, plus the noise from the additional contacts and solder joints involved.
You have no idea what the ceramic material does over all frequencies, both very high and low.
No, I sure don't, John. So why don't you fill us all in on how Cooper pairs remove noise from upstream and downstream of the devices?
I don't have the equipment to measure it, and Dan doesn't even know where to look.
Even if you had the equipment I'd take any measurements of yours with a large grain of salt after your claim of having measured diodes in wires.
se
For the record, those who make the actual Bybee device, not Jack Bybee himself, told Jack to recommend to me a short article that appeared in 'Electronic Engineering Times' p. 40 Aug 14, 2006. The title is: 'Phonons may drive high-Tc superconduction'.A short excerpt: 'Phonons are vibrations in the crystalline lattice of a material that interact with electrons by enabling pairs to overcome their natural repulsion to enter a lower-energy state called a Cooper Pair After pairing, they weave through the lattice without any of the usual atomic collisions that cause resistance.'
Also, ' If the mechanism that enables high-temperature superconduction can be quantified, then designers worldwide could craft materials that eventually would enable room-temperature superconductivity.'
And finally: '...reveals that the mechanism causing high-temperature superconducting may be phonons after all. '
Well, I can't claim to completely understand it, or exactly how it relates to the Bybee device, but it sounds a lot like what Jack Bybee says about his device.
Don't worry Steve, I realize that you will never understand or believe it. It is just to far outside your 'box', but I do hope that others get the hint.
Don't worry Steve, I realize that you will never understand or believe it. It is just to far outside your 'box', but I do hope that others get the hint.
No, John. I understand it just fine and have no problem at all with the article. You're the one who's utterly without a clue here. So much so that it's just plain sad.
For the record, those who make the actual Bybee device, not Jack Bybee himself, told Jack to recommend to me a short article that appeared in 'Electronic Engineering Times' p. 40 Aug 14, 2006. The title is: 'Phonons may drive high-Tc superconduction'.A short excerpt: 'Phonons are vibrations in the crystalline lattice of a material that interact with electrons by enabling pairs to overcome their natural repulsion to enter a lower-energy state called a Cooper Pair After pairing, they weave through the lattice without any of the usual atomic collisions that cause resistance.'
Yes. This is from the BCS theory of superconductivity, which is 50 years old this year.
Also, ' If the mechanism that enables high-temperature superconduction can be quantified, then designers worldwide could craft materials that eventually would enable room-temperature superconductivity.'
Certainly.
And finally: '...reveals that the mechanism causing high-temperature superconducting may be phonons after all. '
Yes.
Basically what the article is saying is that while the BCS theory has held for Type I superconductors (such as certain pure metals), they hadn't been able to observe this mechanism as being the cause in Type II superconductors (the metallic oxide ceramics). So magnetic resonance was postulated as a theory to explain superconductivity in Type II superconductors.
The article states that in the previous month, research at Oak Ridge National Laboratory indicated that magnetic resonance was the more likely cause, but that that more recent research at Cornell indicated that the BCS theory may still hold.
Here's the article for those who would like to read the whole thing rather than your carefully selected quotes:
Phonons may drive high-Tc superconduction
Well, I can't claim to completely understand it, or exactly how it relates to the Bybee device, but it sounds a lot like what Jack Bybee says about his device.
DUH! Well of course it sounds a lot like what Jack Bybee says about the device. That's because Bybee has been using the BCS theory to "explain" his devices since day one. I'VE BEEN SAYING THIS FOR FIVE !@#$% YEARS, JOHN!
I've never had any issues with the BCS theory so don't give me this crap that I will never understand it or believe it because it's too far outside my "box." When you say shit like this it just demonstrates what an utterly clueless rube you truly are.
What I have had issues with is Bybee using the BCS theory to explain the device. Why? Because it's irrelevant.
I don't care what kind of ceramic Bybee has had cooked up for him. It's not superconductive at room temperature. It's not even "near-superconductive" at room temperature. Again, it's not even as conductive as the goddamn RESISTOR!
So while the BCS theory isn't bullshit, using it to explain how a device that's not even as conductive as a resistor is. But it's "good" bullshit in that the best bullshit exploits an element of truth, in this case the BCS theory. So that when people Google something like "Cooper pairs" they'll find something that's "real," instead of what they'd find if they Googled "pixie dust."
But this kind of bullshit relies on clueless rubes such as yourself who are so utterly devoid of any sort of critical thinking skills they'll never do any thinking beyond "Cooper pairs."
And that is why you are the one here who will "never understand."
se
Steve, what the article implies is that BCS theory might hold for high temperature Type 2 superconductors as well as type 1 superconductors that it already covers.
The direct connection with Bybee devices is just that he uses some material that apparently creates Cooper Pairs to some degree.
For some reason, you keep insisting that Coopers Pairs only are formed at very low temperatures, and when they do form at all, they make the material immediately superconductive. Then you go on to trash Jack Bybee, as you have for the past 7 years.
Here we go again!
Steve, what the article implies is that BCS theory might hold for high temperature Type 2 superconductors as well as type 1 superconductors that it already covers.
Uh, John, that's what I just said in my previous post. Did you not read what I wrote or do you have problems comprehending simple English?
The direct connection with Bybee devices is just that he uses some material that apparently creates Cooper Pairs to some degree.
But obviously not to any appreciable degree as again, the ceramic is not even as conductive as the resistor.
For some reason, you keep insisting that Coopers Pairs only are formed at very low temperatures, and when they do form at all, they make the material immediately superconductive.
Given the behavior of superconductors and the very rapid transition very near their critical temperature, this would seem to be the case.
Then you go on to trash Jack Bybee, as you have for the past 7 years.
Yes, because what you seem wholly incapable of undersanding here (and really, talking to you about this is literally like trying to talk to a five year old) is that even if we allow that there may be some tiny number of Cooper pairs involved in the conduction of the Bybees, that's not even enough to give the ceramic a conductivity equal to that of the resistor.
And even if we allowed that the ceramic in the Bybees was made from a room temperature superconductor and that all of the current flowing through it was by way of Cooper pairs, then the best you could say about that is that it wouldn't contribute any noise of its own.
Conduction via Cooper pairs wouldn't remove any noise produced upstream, nor would it prevent any noise being added downstream. Again, it would simply not produce any noise of its own. But in all these years you have demonstrated that you can't even grasp this very simple concept or apply any sort of critical thinking at all for that matter.
All you've been able to do is parrot what you've been told by Bybee while claiming that others don't understand anything.
se
"Dan is going to get into BIG trouble, if he starts mouthing off, without really knowing what he is evaluating."
Really; if you have any data, that relates to any electrical properties please feel free to either send me to a link or whatever.
For the time being, if it looks like duck, quacks like a duck, and walks like a duck, I'll assume it's a duck.
If the data is anything like your distortion data on wire, don't even bother to reply, and your word at this point is about as valid as an Intellichip.
Get real John;
d.b.
The latest models use an even more exotic resistor, that is beyond most of what is even believed to exist by many on this website.
You know, John, you must have a truly incredible pair of arms for them to have not worn out from all the hand-waving you've done over the years.
Ooooh. It's even more exotic. Beyond what most here would believe to exist.
Just what the hell does that mean, John? I'll tell you what it means, it means dick. It's just more of the same silly-ass hand-waving nonsense you've been engaging in for years now.
Exotic. That's right up there with "classified technology," "near-superconductive," and a whole host of other bullshit marketing buzzwords that have issued forth from you and Bybee.
Let us know when you can actually muster some substance, John.
se
You are very strange man. Sometimes you look to be decent technician and audiophile. But sometimes... Well, if we have discussion on Bybee you look full-length idiot. And I will explane why. You look as full-lenght idiot because you don't want to listen,listen,listen,listen,listen,listen... 1000 times listen.
Personally I put 2 sleapstrem Bybees in B+ supply line of my tubed pre and was floored by cleanising effect of devices. And I didn't suspect there was noise at all. So just try them and LISTEN. Or maybe you are deaf? It can be, I know of a lot of deaf audio designers and technicians in my country for example.
You are very strange man. Sometimes you look to be decent technician and audiophile. But sometimes... Well, if we have discussion on Bybee you look full-length idiot. And I will explane why. You look as full-lenght idiot because you don't want to listen,listen,listen,listen,listen,listen... 1000 times listen.
What has listening to do with anything I've said beside absolutely nothing?
I could listen until the Green Party won the presidency and the hand-waving bullshit that's been spewed by Bybee and Curl wouldn't be any less hand-waving bullshit.
Personally I put 2 sleapstrem Bybees in B+ supply line of my tubed pre and was floored by cleanising effect of devices. And I didn't suspect there was noise at all.
Great. Glad you're happy.
Personally I prefer to not patronize those who blow smoke up my ass trying to sell me something.
Or maybe you are deaf? It can be, I know of a lot of deaf audio designers and technicians in my country for example.
Again, tell me what listening has to do with anything I've said.
se
mmhifi if your system has audible/objectionable noise, then your components are to blame. I have barely audible noise open input and with the attenuator at max. And I use tubes.
Buy quiet gear. The Bybees can't fix a gross noise problem, most of which is produced by the supply and is switching noise and its harmonics.
I agree completely, mmhifi. They have to listen, but they won't.
I agree completely, mmhifi. They have to listen, but they won't.
Tell me, John, how does listening change the bullshit claims?
If I tell you my cables are made of pixie dust, how would your listening to them change the fact that I'm just feeding you a load of bullshit? Are you claiming that your listening would somehow cause my cables to be made of pixie dust?
se
WOW!I'm new to this site, but had so much fun reading about this couldn't help but put my $0.02 in.
I've cut a few records in my life....some Gold, some Platinum, and NEVER heard of this device.
We used to use some vintage Neumann tube mikes, a decent console, Yamaha NS-10-M monitors, cut analog and digital, but never heard of this thing. Guess I'll have to look this up and see what all the hype is about.
In 1985 I modified a Sound Work Shop series 40, 56 input console and got it prety much flat from 35kHz down to 10Hz. Turns out the coupling caps were the sonic problem. Heck, the Op-amps are more than capable.
The sad thing was that when you took the output from the console to a power amp, then speakers (with cables), the whole thing went to slam.
So...If this thing is a super small value resistor, with some inductance, how does that improve the sonic quality of the amps and speaker cables. The cables, in and of themselves, are loaded down with resistance, capacitance, inductance....As Little Richard says in the GEICO ad...."Some body hep me".
The residual inductance is mostly in DB's test setup. Jack HATES inductance. Unfortunately, even a resistor has some inductance.
The guys who hate Jack Bybee are technicians who like to think of themselves as engineers, who don't understand physics, or even the implications of something made by physicists, except for what they learned in tech class. These guys are falling all over themselves and measuring the wrong mechanism. The resistor is only incidental to the actual working component. How many times do I have to say this!
Let's see. There's clearly a resistor *in* the signal path, as measured and as revealed when the extra casing is removed.So you say that's not "the mechanism". OK, what *is* the mechanism? Presumably something in whatever Mr. Bybee's little elves have put around the resistor.
So what causes what, by what principles? If this *is* physics, the answer should be clear and there should be peer-reviewed literature backing the mechanism up. "Physics" does not mean that you get to make things up.
I realize it's useless to press this as you've dug yourself in so deep, but trading on credentials is idiotic, and "implications of something designed by physicists" is a pretty good indication that smoke is being blown. In the absence of peer-reviewed publication and clear explanation, I have to conclude that when you people say "quantum" you mean "double-secret woo." One is reminded of an infamous piece of plastic with alleged but undetectable "quantum dots" a couple years ago.
CD, you have no idea what you are talking about. Many new phenomena are classified or at least considered confidential information.
When did you first hear about the Stealth fighter or bomber? In a peer reviewed paper?
Did you know that the semiconductor diode was classified info in WW2? The Germans would have loved to get a peer reviewed paper on it, back then. Their radar would have improved immediately, perhaps to the level that the British had already.
New concepts are trickle-downed from the establishments who first developed them, without necessarily first having them peer reviewed by someone.
Oh I get it, the Bybee units are going to be airdropped onto terrorist strongholds, where they will examine them, go into endless debate on the audio properties, and wind up forgetting about their AK 47's, and RPG's.
BRILLIANT!
Sounds like another classic case of "my job is so secret not even I know what it is"
d.b.
Hi Dan
I'm assuming your talking about http://www.rpginc.com/or did you mean Role Playing Games? if so the JC's definatley got you playing in the sandpit with the arch-demon of his netherworld Mr Eddy.
nt
Keep up the good work Dan.
Some people think that's my style of doing things; I say it's a definitive lack of style:)
d.b.
Pretty sad that when someone questions a ridiculously priced cable or some crazy tweak the person is nearly crucified. And the person is only a tech and not an electrical engineer or physicist or rocket scientist! So what?
Where is the FTC when cable and accessory companies make outrageous claims in their print ads? If a drug company or car company or any company other than an audio accessory company made such wild claims, they'd be slapped with a huge fine.
The whole audio industry is a joke if supposedly educated people can defend these claims. No wonder youngsters have no interest in audio equipment to enjoy their music on. They don't want to be brainwashed by the lunatics in this mad industry.
Hi Nightdog I agree and picking up another point you made"And the person is only a tech and not an electrical engineer"Is just a personal insult to anyone with an electrical engineering background with an enquiring mind.
The Oxford Engish dictonary defines an engineer as:
A person skilled in the design and use of engines or machines in any of branch of engineering.
A person with a higher qualification in any given subject, does not have the right to denigrate anyone else in that subject matter only a responsibility to educate them.
In fact such insults actually says more about the insulter than the insulted could ever say back to them.Hence I'm not in the least surprised Dan is more than a bit pissed off.
"The whole audio industry is a joke if supposedly educated people can defend these claims. No wonder youngsters have no interest in audio equipment to enjoy their music on. They don't want to be brainwashed by the lunatics in this mad industry."
I agree 100%.
d.b.
So I take it Mr. Bybee is exercising the most stringent controls to make sure that his little thingyrooers don't fall into the hands of our enemies. Otherwise it's pretty much curtains for the Free World.
You never know!
The resistor is only incidental to the actual working component. How many times do I have to say this!
As if you have any idea.
You denegrate others claiming they don't understand physics, yet you yourself have yet to demonstrate that you even have any understanding of physics beyond someone who paid half attention in high school. Because of this you have never been able to speak to the argument or to answer legitimate questions. Instead you resort to hand-waving and personal attacks.
You can only blindly defend Bybee by parroting what you've been spoon-fed by him and have no clue whatsoever whether what you're defending is even defensible.
Think about that before you go talking about what others understand and what they don't.
se
As a matter of curiosity, why is the resistor being "upgraded" if it isn't important?Thanks, Rick
The resistor is as important as, let's say, the exhaust system in your car. It is somewhat important, but it doesn't power the car. Improvements can be noted, however.
z
Yeah huh?
How fascetious of you!
s
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: