Guest fordgtlover Posted March 22, 2014 Posted March 22, 2014 (edited) 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. If only I could 'like' this post more than once... Edited March 22, 2014 by fordgtlover
davewantsmoore Posted March 22, 2014 Posted March 22, 2014 (edited) The 'guy' is the architect of his own misfortune Developed for "military applications" sounds like no type of misfortune to me .... but we don't really know do we. If they work, they work... and I've not heard one ("Island Living" and not being independently wealthy, has it's drawbacks). ... but in-depth experience with playback systems shows there are many things which produce a repeatable, very large and obvious benefit (or at least change) ... but even large changes are sometimes difficult to nail down, due to vagaries of hearing, psychology... and the gremlin which plagues most of us, boundaries (rooms). My experience (and those who demonstrate experience with playback systems generally seem to agree) is that these big things, when controlled and tested (sometimes difficult) completely swamp small changes and effects. If when equally well controlled for, tests cannot demonstrate the audibility of these small changes, the maybe we just do not hear them simply because they are small... or is there another reason?! Actually finding this out for sure (because it cannot be done haphazardly) is extremely difficult. Of course, people who just hear it, and go with it... can do this and be happy. I'm not suggesting anything wrong with that. Those seeking more reliable results or evidence, might never find it, and might be missing out. Perhaps I wouldn't be so on the fence if I heard one.... but the speakers here right now, have 8 amps and 12 drivers. :/ Yikes. Perhaps I can speak with the ADF about some funding?! Edited March 22, 2014 by davewantsmoore
Telecine Posted March 22, 2014 Posted March 22, 2014 Bybee drives a Bentley. He is enduring no misfortune. A large fortune, yes.
Audiobugged 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... Well he doesn't quite look for real to me That be 'coz he's no muggle. That be an elf or more likely a happy hobbit from bags-end...
Guest fordgtlover 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. Agree. Of course, the confounding factor is that he is making money out of this. When my mother was dying of cancer, it seemed that every few weeks she would email me about some magical cancer cure. The first few times I Googled the claims and told her that she needed to talk to her medical team. Of course each and every one of these magical cures was unproven to have any effect other than to extract money from a desperate woman. She did chase a few of the less expensive ones, but she was slowly sending herself broke chasing empty promises - it broke my heart to watch. Needless to say her cancer wasn't cured despite attempts with some of the cheaper magical cures. Modern medicine didn't cure her either. The difference between the magical cures and modern medicine is what they promised. The magical cures made ridiculous claims with no evidence (apart from the occasional - my daughter had cancer and now she doesn't stories), and they often asked for ridiculous sums of money, or you had to travel to South America or Asia for these crazy treatments. Modern medicine was honest with her. The Doctors never gave her false hope that she would be cured. They were transparent in their approach. They explained what they did understand about her cancer and told her when they didn't understand things. They kept her informed about her chances and what they were trying. Modern medicine was honest with her while the purveyors of magical cures babbled pseudo-scientific claptrap. While I'm not qualified to analyse the underlying reasons for my ongoing skepticism about baseless and pseudo-scientific audio claims, my amateur guess is that it has something to do with shysters making false promises to and profiteering from my dying mother. I make no apologies for my position and I have no desire to put money in the pockets of anyone that needs me to believe they have insight that can't be independently verified - just try it... no thanks Edited March 22, 2014 by fordgtlover 6
BradC 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. exactly, that's the difference between science and pseudoscience. Just compare the difference in results for the two different approaches (in all fields, not just audio)
davewantsmoore Posted March 22, 2014 Posted March 22, 2014 no desire to put money in the pockets of anyone that needs me to believe they have insight that can't be independently verified Me neither. "Independently verified" could be "with my own ears" ... but even then, I'd want to be 'sure'.
hiradi Posted March 23, 2014 Posted March 23, 2014 Me neither. "Independently verified" could be "with my own ears" ... but even then, I'd want to be 'sure'. Dave, I am in Hobart next weekend and if you would like to hear some Bybees , drop me a PM and you can connect a pair to your speakers... 2
Steve M Posted March 23, 2014 Posted March 23, 2014 (edited) This thread makes for fascinating reading: http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/power-supplies/164631-diy-bybee-quantum-purifiers.html "Well, it's all there, in front of you, everyone. Anyone with a mind to, can come to understand most of what I have been (patiently) trying to explain. Some aspects of Bybee's technology have been omitted, specifically by me, because either I don't know much more, OR I am not allowed to tell you. In summary, the Bybee devices are neither ferrite, nor can they be made by amateurs with customary materials. They are not fake or hand made, but consist of relatively sophisticated components, put together in final form, by Jack Bybee. Thinking about these devices as an electronic technician or engineer would do, will get you nowhere, because these devices use quantum mechanical processes to work. The OBVIOUS parameters lead nowhere. For example, there is no significant resistance, inductance or capacitance, except what occurs naturally as a wire might have, added to the device. Now I stand behind this and please remember that I have known Jack Bybee for about 15 years, I have seen the devices without their protective covering. I have seen several generations of these devices developed over the past 15 years, just like automobile models, like Honda, etc. I have measured myself and have independent measurements made by AMES Research Labs about 15 years ago in my possession, including noise reduction. And finally, I actually listened to them and was impressed, BEFORE I even knew who Jack Bybee was, and still use these devices in my audio system, today." [John Curl ex Parasound designer, and friend of Jack Bybee]JC also confirms elsewhere that it is just an ordinary resistor used, and that there is Beryllium and other exotic materials used in the surrounding parts of the Bybee, even though the cut-away picture of the device shows nothing. The following is controversial ... "Jim Hagerman's post I found over at another site sums it up. Hope no-one minds. "My better judgement tells me I should not say anything... But I met the guy once at a psuedo-technical presentation he gave regarding the purifiers. It was easy to remain a skeptic as the crowd stooped to kiss his feet. Lots of fancy jargon used. No true explanation, though. I tried various queries to see what I could pull out of him, but he was extremely deceptive, perhaps intentionally so (can you blame him?). Never a straightforward answer, incomplete responses. The scary part (for me) was that he did it with a quirky, smug smile as though he was duping me. Hey, maybe I read him wrong. But the unbelievably vague responses combined with his demeanor left me very unsatisfied. Ok, so I decided to leave him alone. I didn't want to be a total ays howel. As the evening progressed and discussions varied all over the map, I was absolutely dumbfounded by what he didn't know. That is, amongst topics in electronics and physics. I was awestruck by some of the things he said. How could he get so much wrong and be a physicist? The next day I did a bunch of searches. No patents. No scientific papers. Yes, he was a consultant to a Navy lab (submarines?) for like two years back in the 70s. And then something about Berkeley alumni. Again, the lack of credible information spoke loudly. I am left completely unfulfilled. Nevertheless! I have heard purifiers in A/B tests. Yes, they do make a difference. Most of the time it was for the better. Subtle, but it was there. I would say they tend to remove a level of graininess, and by doing such, appear to improve on the background noise level. Scary, but isn't that what they claim?" *Also, claims of 'super conductivity at room temperature' made for the Bybee technology, which if true would make Jack Bybee a science superstar and worth billions of $$$$ ?? This whole saga is fraught with a lack of proper information (deliberately maybe?) and anyone with intelligence reading the Bybee website can tell its not quite right. Lots of talk about litigation from the Bybee camp over the years , but no action so far, probably because they are concerned about the 'discovery' phase of American legal procedings where both sides have access to each others information to determine the facts. Edited March 23, 2014 by Steve M 3
rocky500 Posted March 23, 2014 Posted March 23, 2014 (edited) Found some other products that are based on quantum mechanics operating on the scale of picometers. Sound like they use the same terminology too. They can align Protons and Electrons in Atoms to improve our audio and visual experience. http://www.improveaudio.com/how-does-it-work.htm How can anyone not be skeptical (trying to ne nice here) when his latest product is a power board with a little AC module with 3 wires on each side all for $5995. "plus includes an AC Module which is Bybee Technologies filtering technology and a crystal technology that makes air molecules more compliant." What does "makes air molecules more compliant" really mean? Edited March 23, 2014 by rocky500
Catostylus Posted March 23, 2014 Posted March 23, 2014 What does "makes air molecules more compliant" really mean? It means "come in, sucker".
betty boop Posted March 23, 2014 Posted March 23, 2014 Dave, I am in Hobart next weekend and if you would like to hear some Bybees , drop me a PM and you can connect a pair to your speakers... there you go. power of forums... its how I got to experience the item in question...and wihtout costing me a cent to come to my own conclusions...as easy as that otherwise becomes kind of ironic isnt it...asking the maker to provide basis for their claims...and yet on other hand happily making all sorts of claims without ever even experiencing first hand 2
Audiobugged Posted March 23, 2014 Posted March 23, 2014 I am positive that whether you understand the benefits of bybees or not is dependent on whether you are a pure-blood, half-blood, mud blood or a muggle. Or perhaps whether you are looking to sell/on-sell your bybees...
Saxon Hall Posted March 23, 2014 Posted March 23, 2014 Found some other products that are based on quantum mechanics operating on the scale of picometers. Sound like they use the same terminology too. They can align Protons and Electrons in Atoms to improve our audio and visual experience. http://www.improveaudio.com/how-does-it-work.htm How can anyone not be skeptical (trying to ne nice here) when his latest product is a power board with a little AC module with 3 wires on each side all for $5995. "plus includes an AC Module which is Bybee Technologies filtering technology and a crystal technology that makes air molecules more compliant." What does "makes air molecules more compliant" really mean? It means there is a nano dominatrix to whip the air molecules into compliance?
rocky500 Posted March 23, 2014 Posted March 23, 2014 otherwise becomes kind of ironic isnt it...asking the maker to provide basis for their claims...and yet on other hand happily making all sorts of claims without ever even experiencing first hand Look at PS Audio with there new Dac. They have videos with the designer explaining there there new Dac and taking questions instead of can't tell you anything it is a highly guarded miltary secret that works on the quantun level, so good luck trying to prove any of my claims sort of thing.
betty boop Posted March 23, 2014 Posted March 23, 2014 Look at PS Audio with there new Dac. They have videos with the designer explaining there there new Dac and taking questions instead of can't tell you anything it is a highly guarded miltary secret that works on the quantun level, so good luck trying to prove any of my claims sort of thing. just how many manufacturers actually provided well researched peer referenced scientific papers to back up their claims. personally I couldnt give a flying.. as with the psaudio whatever with their videos...if I were interested. I'd listen to what its like in my system. thats all that really matters. manufactueres can make what ever claims they like as far as am concerned. because I have a very simple means to make my own judgement...my own ears works every time and leaves the scientists working on far more important things than having to verify to me something I can quite easily verify myself... 3
THOMO Posted March 23, 2014 Author Posted March 23, 2014 Steve, I would love a dollar for every time somebody has claimed that some component "removes a level of graininess" or something very similar. Perhaps they do but so does 1mm solid core copper cable you can use as speaker cable and which you can buy from Bunnings for $1 per metre. There are also plenty of cheapish interconnect cables that can reduce the graininess of your system.If that is what you want.Who is to say it is accurate but it is easy and cheap to achieve with a bit of experimentation. Maybe even try a .025 ohm resistor ?
Guest guru Posted March 23, 2014 Posted March 23, 2014 i think the resistor has very little to do with the effect of these devices, it's a minimal value well made reliable resistor. the coating and its influence is where the money shot action comes from. same with stillpoints ers paper and capacitors. bybee is happy to say nothing due to the fact that discussions like this keep the product selling merrily. as a reference regarding resistors and noise, kondo was for years modifying shinkoh resistors on the end caps to shut the little buggers up, now I think they roll their own.
BradC Posted March 23, 2014 Posted March 23, 2014 (edited) as someone who has studied quantum mechanics, I can confirm that the jargon used in relation to this device is gibberish.More interestingly, noise in circiuts such as Johnson noise and shot noise do have their origin in the discrete (ie quantised) nature of matter. However, their effects can be understood with a purely classical treatment.so quantum mechanics does manifest itself in normal electronics, but there are no strange quantum effects relevant to electronics that are not understood. The real study of quantum effects is counter intuitive, but on such small energy and size scales, that it is not affecting your audio system Further on this, as strange as it sounds, mechanical resonators have been built that demonstrate quantum mechanical properties. ie they have quantised modes. However, they are really small, and really cold! Edited March 23, 2014 by BradC 3
Cafad Posted March 23, 2014 Posted March 23, 2014 So it seems that the guys that pulled that Bybee apart should have taken more notice of the wrapping then (I won't quote post #160 but that is what I'm referring to), I don't suppose they noticed if the wrapping was grounded to the resistor at one end or not? Or both? Or neither? I would guess that something is going on between the electric field around the resistor and that this field interacts with the wrapping in some way. I can't say which way of course since I don't have a clue as to QM and only half of one when it comes to electronics but it sort of makes sense.
bhobba Posted March 23, 2014 Posted March 23, 2014 (edited) just how many manufacturers actually provided well researched peer referenced scientific papers to back up their claims. personally I couldnt give a flying.. as with the psaudio whatever with their videos...if I were interested. I'd listen to what its like in my system. thats all that really matters.manufactueres can make what ever claims they like as far as am concerned. because I have a very simple means to make my own judgement...my own ears :)works every time and leaves the scientists working on far more important things than having to verify to me something I can quite easily verify myself... Exactly. Like I have said many times in this thread, this is not about Bybees, its about differing philosophies in audio. Thanks Bill Edited March 23, 2014 by bhobba
bhobba Posted March 23, 2014 Posted March 23, 2014 (edited) as someone who has studied quantum mechanics, I can confirm that the jargon used in relation to this device is gibberish. I too have studied QM from a number of sources such as the following: http://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Mechanics-A-Modern-Development/dp/9810241054 I simply do not agree. Not that the marketing blurb given on the site isn't your typical puffing gibberish that abounds in advertising - but that there may not be some quantum based effect going on. However if the supposed science of this thing is the issue, I again point out this forum is not the appropriate place to discuss it, the link I gave previously is much better suited. Thanks Bill Edited March 23, 2014 by bhobba
Volunteer sir sanders zingmore Posted March 23, 2014 Volunteer Posted March 23, 2014 Are we not allowed to discuss quantum mechanics here?
Recommended Posts