bhobba Posted March 22, 2014 Posted March 22, 2014 How much is a bybee? I think the prices are on his site. Thanks Bill
rocky500 Posted March 22, 2014 Posted March 22, 2014 (edited) I can understand your point too bhobba (try them myself) but for every product out there, there seems to be the same speel for all of them. Just have to look at the many cable manufacturers to see what they say about there products. Same with most products. These seem quite expensive (not easy to buy and try) and it would be nice to get some verification on there design from at least another independent source. Edited March 22, 2014 by rocky500
bhobba Posted March 22, 2014 Posted March 22, 2014 In post 67 of this very thread zipstartcanoe's partner - with a PhD in Physics - said it is definitely not as described. How many PhDs do you need to say the same thing? Just the ones I know and who know me.. Thanks Bill
bhobba Posted March 22, 2014 Posted March 22, 2014 (edited) I can understand your point too bhobba (try them myself) but for every product out there, there seems to be the same speel for all of them. Just have to look at the many cable manufacturers to see what they say about there products. Same with most products. These seem very expensive and it would be nice to get some verification on there design from at least another indendent source. This is getting to the nitty gritty of the real issue here. A clash of philosophies. I trust my ears - I hear a difference so I don't get worried about claims like it works at the quantum level. I don't really care how it works. I hear differences in cables. Again I don't really care why they sound different - although people into designing such things say the dialectic has something to do with it. Now if you think its all hooey then there is a simple answer. Go down to your local Hi Fi store and ask for a blind test of cables. Can you pass it? Can the person in the store pass it? It's much more germane to the issue than participating in the endless threads that go nowhere. Again I think the mods should move this to the Great Debate section. Thanks Bill Edited March 22, 2014 by bhobba
bhobba Posted March 22, 2014 Posted March 22, 2014 (edited) All of this is relatively easily resolved. It would be possible for a materials testing laboratory to cut the Pacific 1711 resistor open and analyse its construction to determine whether it just comprises of copper/tin/silica like every other resistor or not? Sure - nothing stopping you or someone else doing it. But the issue here is just because you find the claims not creditable it does not mean he must subject it to your standard of proof. Thanks Bill Edited March 22, 2014 by bhobba
Audiobugged Posted March 22, 2014 Posted March 22, 2014 Thanks for that explanation Bill. I guess it takes a certain belief and hearing it to accept the claims for the Bybee. All of this is relatively easily resolved. It would be possible for a materials testing laboratory to cut the Pacific 1711 resistor open and analyse its construction to determine whether it just comprises of copper/tin/silica like every other resistor or not? Steve. Testing it like so in a muggle lab will likely reveal little. To find anything untoward, the test will at a minimum need to be conducted by the real PhD's at somewhere like Hogwarts. 1
davewantsmoore Posted March 22, 2014 Posted March 22, 2014 Sorry Dave - if you make defamatory statements about someone and they decide to take you to task about it the burden of proof is on those making the defamatory statements. Yes, I have modified my post above.
davewantsmoore Posted March 22, 2014 Posted March 22, 2014 I think the prices are on his site. That was somewhat dim of me :-/ Thanks.
betty boop Posted March 22, 2014 Posted March 22, 2014 I remember coming across these about some 8 years ago ?. if do a search on the forum you'll see something discussed for quite a while. so yeah not something new. and in all that time the maker I'm not aware has been under any compulsion to provide any scientific proof or support of the claims, if havent for all these years I hardly suspect going to bother much in the future. the scientific community are probably expending their energies to more important things like curing cancer and such than playing mythbuster on something like this. they probably figure we got a pair of ears and probably just as easily experience for self and come to our own conclusions easy enough...just as I did .... 2
Saxon Hall Posted March 22, 2014 Posted March 22, 2014 I remember coming across these about some 8 years ago ?. if do a search on the forum you'll see something discussed for quite a while. so yeah not something new. and in all that time the maker I'm not aware has been under any compulsion to provide any scientific proof or support of the claims, if havent for all these years I hardly suspect going to bother much in the future. the scientific community are probably expending their energies to more important things like curing cancer and such than playing mythbuster on something like this. they probably figure we got a pair of ears and probably just as easily experience for self and come to our own conclusions easy enough...just as I did .... What did your ears tell you
betty boop Posted March 22, 2014 Posted March 22, 2014 What did your ears tell you jees was a long time back... but from what I remember there was a difference...but was a bit of a meh moment... am pretty sure my thoughts were ... I have bigger fish to fry... which probably my thoughts today as well. but yeah rather than dismissing things like this, I'd suggest probably maybe worth checking out before jumping to conclusions so how many here passing judgement on said thing have actually had some experience with it ? come on be honest 1
David A Posted March 22, 2014 Posted March 22, 2014 I just thought i'd let you keyboard warriors know that Jack Bybee is a real person, and this is that person... 2
Tony M Posted March 22, 2014 Posted March 22, 2014 I've seen a lot of snake oil over a 40+ year career in evidence-based medicine. Testimonials have almost zero scientific credibility and that's for obvious reasons to anyone with an analytical approach. I no longer have any patience with the "just try it for yourself" spiel. It's universally used because individual positive subjective outcomes are guaranteed regardless of merit - it always was and probably will always be that way. I'd be more than happy to be involved in a blind trial of just about any audio enhancement, but I don't feel any pressing need to subjectively evaluate something that pushes my BS meter to the max. I find the "it's quantum physics - you wouldn't understand" argument disingenuous. After all, a great scientist is one who makes the esoteric aspects accessible to the masses through lucid communication. 10
THOMO Posted March 22, 2014 Author Posted March 22, 2014 I've seen a lot of snake oil over a 40+ year career in evidence-based medicine. Testimonials have almost zero scientific credibility and that's for obvious reasons to anyone with an analytical approach. I no longer have any patience with the "just try it for yourself" spiel. It's universally used because individual positive subjective outcomes are guaranteed regardless of merit - it always was and probably will always be that way. I'd be more than happy to be involved in a blind trial of just about any audio enhancement, but I don't feel any pressing need to subjectively evaluate something that pushes my BS meter to the max. I find the "it's quantum physics - you wouldn't understand" argument disingenuous. After all, a great scientist is one who makes the esoteric aspects accessible to the masses through lucid communication. Tony, Pretty much nails it. To quote Christopher Hitchens.... "If somebody makes a claim without evidence then you should dismiss it without evidence" 4
Volunteer sir sanders zingmore Posted March 22, 2014 Volunteer Posted March 22, 2014 I just thought i'd let you keyboard warriors know that Jack Bybee is a real person, and this is that person... Well he doesn't quite look for real to me 1
David A Posted March 22, 2014 Posted March 22, 2014 Well he doesn't quite look for real to me Stone cold
Cichlabxr Posted March 22, 2014 Posted March 22, 2014 On the edge of my seat waiting for the first reviews of the Bybee-Curl Holographic Power Source .
David A Posted March 22, 2014 Posted March 22, 2014 On the edge of my seat waiting for the first reviews of the Bybee-Curl Holographic Power Source . Yeah that looks like a very serious power distributor .
bhobba Posted March 22, 2014 Posted March 22, 2014 (edited) "If somebody makes a claim without evidence then you should dismiss it without evidence" As well as the imperative need to let everyone know about it and dump on the guy that had the gall to make a claim that didn't come up to your standard of proof. And while we are at it lets get these silly pesky claims about cables out of the way as well. After all I am sure all its going to take is my enlightened rationalism for everyone to see the light despite the fact its been thrashed out innumerable times before. Thanks Bill Edited March 22, 2014 by bhobba
Cichlabxr Posted March 22, 2014 Posted March 22, 2014 (edited) Now that they can film electrons, I never thought that would be possible when I was at school. Makes me wonder, how long before we can see the music? Now surely that would settle all these disagreements. Edited March 22, 2014 by Cichlabxr
rocky500 Posted March 22, 2014 Posted March 22, 2014 (edited) Yeah that looks like a very serious power distributor . For some reason that one seems to have the spidey senses going off. "AC Module which is Bybee Technologies filtering technology and a crystal technology that makes air molecules more compliant. The results are a power source that is unsurpassed on the market. It truly makes the listening area 3 dimensional, increasing the sonics and staging like no other device. MSRP: $5495 (see pricing note below)" Edited March 22, 2014 by rocky500
eras Posted March 22, 2014 Posted March 22, 2014 (edited) The 'guy' is the architect of his own misfortune (or fortune, given he stands to profit). By marketing a product with no verifiable science, at least, by means of measurement or understanding, he is open to skepticism and cynicism- fairly or unfairly. That is not to say that the product does not work, and I invite people to decide for themselves either through trial or otherwise according to each their own convictions; but I personally cannot fault those who would call out 'hokum' or pseudoscience, particularly if the component appears to most closely represent a simple resistor. Should we call him to task? Maybe. This is a selfish endeavor and I say this with no malice of thought, but should there have been an intent to deceive, than the disapprobation is warranted. If he were forthright (and there are good reasons to not to be, i.e., intellectual property) then this would be an non-issue. Hence, he has orchestrated his own misfortune. As well as the imperative need to let everyone know about it and dump on the guy that had the gall to make a claim that didn't come up to your standard of proof. Edited March 22, 2014 by eras 2
Audiobugged Posted March 22, 2014 Posted March 22, 2014 Soon Hey those look real familiar... I think that was in my bulgogi beef!?!
Saxon Hall Posted March 22, 2014 Posted March 22, 2014 Here is an example of how unverifiable claims destroyed an Australian Icon's credibility. Take a simple item and invest it with miraculous properties and watch the fallout http://forum.jdmstyletuning.com/showthread.php?2926-Peter-Brock-s-quot-Energy-Polarizer-quot
Recommended Posts