Bybee Quantum Purifiers

[bhobba]

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.

 

Can that the absence of electrons acting as a particle itself be understood in purely classical terms?

 

And if it cant why do you believe conduction can be understood classically?

 

Thanks

Bill

[bhobba]

Are we not allowed to discuss quantum mechanics here?

 

You can discuss anything you like here.

 

But I would suggest an audio forum is not really the forum for it.

 

Still if you want to go down that path here are the fundamental postulates of QM.

 

1.  Observables are Hermitian Operators, O, defined on a complex vector space whose eigenvalues give the possible outcomes of observations.

2.  The expected outcome of an observation E(O) = Trace (PO) where P is a positive operator of unit trace and is by definition called the state of the system.

 

Axiom 2 is called the Born Rule and to some extent is derivable from the first axiom via Gleason's Theorem.

 

Is that direction you want this to take?

 

Thanks

Bill

[BradC]

Can that the absence of electrons acting as a particle itself be understood in purely classical terms?

 

And if it cant why do you believe conduction can be understood classically?

 

Thanks

Bill

Hole quasi particles are not necessary for understanding of conduction in conductors.

 

Electrical properties of conductors and dielectrics can be understood with classical EM theory.

 

Holes are only necessary for the treatment of semiconductors.

[betty boop]

do we need a whole new sub forum for this one

[bhobba]

Hole quasi particles are not necessary for understanding of conduction in conductors.Electrical properties of conductors and dielectrics can be understood with classical EM theory. Holes are only necessary for the treatment of semiconductors.

 

How do you know whatever is in Bybees is an ordinary conductor?

 

Thanks

Bill

[sir sanders zingmore]

Exactly.

Like I have said many times in this thread, this is not about Bybees, its about differing philosophies in audio.

Thanks

Bill

Nah, it's about bybees

[betty boop]

Nah, it's about bybees

 

whether the Dingo got it or not is still up for debate I believe ?

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KvGMQbwAJmw

[bhobba]

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.

 

Yea - that's the thing that gets me about this whole business and attendant carry on.

 

Obviously what he has on his site it simply marketing hype - he is not going to let the real secret out whatever it is.  Its probably some quantum effect but exactly what he is not going to say.  People who are saying its all BS, we are being fooled, bla bla bla need to think CAREFULLY.  QM is responsible for all sorts of strange things such as the one I mentioned about the absence of electrons actually acting like a particle itself.  It is not beyond the realm of possibility that from his work in the military he has found a way to reduce noise at the quantum level.

 

But that's not the point.  The point is there are many strange things in audio.  One example is the striking effect isolation platforms make.  Until you have heard it you would think it hooey - but once you do you leave shaking your head.  There are many others.

 

This thread isn't really about Bybees, its about two different philosophies in audio.  On one side we have people who judge things by what they hear.  If they cant understand it - well it doesn't affect what they hear.  On the other side we have people that say if it looks like hooey it must be hooey.  Isolation platforms, Bybees, cables all look like hooey - ergo - it is hooey.

 

I don't know if there is anything special about the resistor used in Bybees.  As the thread pointed out it's not an off the shelf item so your guess is as good as mine.  But so?  What are we - frustrated engineers and scientists or are we audiophiles?  I know what I am - I sometimes think others haven't quite gasped this hobby is about listening to stuff.

 

Thanks

Bill

Edited March 23, 2014 by bhobba

[bhobba]

Nah, it's about bybees

 

whether the Dingo got it or not is still up for debate I believe ?

 

Yea.  Issac Asimov recounts the following interesting story.

 

His class read the poem Abou Ben Adhem.  Its about Ben Adhem, whose name was not in an angel’s tablet as one who loves the lord.  But he asked to be written as one who loves his fellow man.  Later the Angel appeared and showed him the tablet of those that loved the lord. The poem ends with “And lo! Ben Adhem’s name led all the rest.†Isaac was ready for the teacher’s question: “Why did Ben Adhem’s name lead all the rest?†“Alphabetical order, sir!†Isaac volunteered.

 

Yea - this is really a thread about Bybees like the reason the name appeared at the head of the list was alphabetical order.

 

The vehicle is Bybees - the underlying theme is if it looks like hooey it must be hooey.  Extorting listen to it makes no difference - its hooey - obviously.

 

Thanks

Bill 

Edited March 23, 2014 by bhobba

[ehtcom]

Yea - that's the thing that gets me about this whole business and attendant carry on.

 

Obviously what he has on his site it simply marketing hype - he is not going to let the real secret out whatever it is.  Its probably some quantum effect but exactly what he is not going to say.  People who are saying its all BS, we are being fooled, bla bla bla need to think CAREFULLY.  QM is responsible for all sorts of strange things such as the one I mentioned about the absence of electrons actually acting like a particle itself.  It is not beyond the realm of possibility that from his work in the military he has found a way to reduce noise at the quantum level.

 

But that's not the point.  The point is there are many strange things in audio.  One example is the striking effect isolation platforms make.  Until you have heard it you would think it hooey - but once you do you leave shaking your head.  There are many others.

 

This thread isn't really about Bybees, its about two different philosophies in audio.  On one side we have people who judge things by what they hear.  If they cant understand it - well it doesn't affect what they hear.  On the other side we have people that say if it looks like hooey it must be hooey.  Isolation platforms, Bybees, cables all look like hooey - ergo - it is hooey.

 

I don't know if there is anything special about the resistor used in Bybees.  As the thread pointed out it's not an off the shelf item so your guess is as good as mine.  But so?  What are we - frustrated engineers and scientists or are we audiophiles?  I know what I am - I sometimes think others haven't quite gasped this hobby is about listening to stuff.

 

Thanks

Bill

Bill,

I put these *type of products* in the "Duck Test" category.

 

Suppose you see a bird walking around in a farm yard. This bird has no label that says 'duck'. But the bird certainly looks like a duck. Also, he goes to the pond and you notice that he swims like a duck. Then he opens his beak and quacks like a duck. Well, by this time you have probably reached the conclusion that the bird is a duck, whether he's wearing a label or not.  (Richard Cunningham Patterson Jr.)

 

Cheers, Earle.

 

*Products with no scientific consensus*

[Steve M]

A lot of conjecture and filling of gaps in this thread by the supporters, but shouldn't Jack Bybee himself try and do this by giving more information, without letting his secrets slip too much? From what I have quickly viewed on the web, he seems to have NEVER waded in on the questioning and deep discussions about his products - perhaps it's indefensible? Instead he let's the likes of John Curl (much to his detriment because he now looks a bit silly/voodo-ish amongst his peers) or rely on guesstimates from end users like Bill, Bodhi and others to perpetuate the myth.

In this thread there are only two people able to comment on the outlandish claims of super conductivity and things operating at quantum levels to improve sound, that is BradC and Zipstartcanoe's physics partner. The latter has spat her drink out and has rejected it outright it seems, so BradC, what is your opinion on the spiel given on the Bybee website ... Is it silly or not?

All that said, I am inquisitive and would love to hear for myself what the Bybees do on my own resolving system (Berylliums to Accuton to Lowther to Stats) or we could try them on Marios finely tuned ML1 Ultras system, Jones99 Dynaudio Evidence Masters ($120K) or Tasso's latest acquisition Magico S5 which are all very accurate.

If Bill or Hiradi wishes to pass on a set of Bybees for the WA contingent to assess, it would be much appreciated??

Cheers,

Steve.

Edited March 23, 2014 by Steve M

[DoggieHowser]

Bill,

I put these *type of products* in the "Duck Test" category.

 

Suppose you see a bird walking around in a farm yard. This bird has no label that says 'duck'. But the bird certainly looks like a duck. Also, he goes to the pond and you notice that he swims like a duck. Then he opens his beak and quacks like a duck. Well, by this time you have probably reached the conclusion that the bird is a duck, whether he's wearing a label or not.  (Richard Cunningham Patterson Jr.)

 

Cheers, Earle.

 

*Products with no scientific consensus*

 

Have you heard it quack?

 

FWIW, I think some hifi gear tend to use hyperboles in their marketing. I dunno if they are effective. I know my eyes probably rolled over the first time I heard quantum this and resonator that.

 

Think Synergistic Research and their Quantum Tunnelling claims. 

 

Think Nordost and their Quantum Resonators. 

 

Maybe there's no way to explain it. 

 

Ask Franck from ASI with his insane wooden cubes and resonator bells. He can't explain it either. He just says he experiments and uses what sounds best to him. 

 

ps Stereophile has reviewed a number of these Quantum thingamabobs from these other houses as well over the years.

Edited March 23, 2014 by DoggieHowser

[BradC]

As I said before, the jargon is gibberish.

 

I have a PhD in physics, and am familiar with the actual quantum mechanics terms and what most of them mean.

 

It really does fall into the category of pseudoscience.

 

Furthermore, as mentioned earlier in this thread, if Jack Bybee really did have a way to reduce noise (1/f noise, shot noise, Johnson noise, excess noise, etc) there would be far more money to be made in the field of communications. I can assure you that no such device is used in any reported communication system.

Edited March 23, 2014 by BradC

[DoggieHowser]

As I said before, the jargon is gibberish.

 

I have a PhD in physics, and am familiar with the actual quantum mechanics terms and what most of them mean.

 

It really does fall into the category of pseudoscience.

 

Furthermore, as mentioned earlier in this thread, if Jack Bybee really did have a way to reduce noise (1/f noise, shot noise, Johnson noise, excess noise, etc) there would be far more money to be made in the field of communications. I can assure you that no such device is used in any reported communication system.

 

I don't claim to know how it works and to be honest, Bybee's hyperboles are no worse than Nordost's or Synergistic Research's. 

 

But all I care about is if it works in my system. And even with my initial bias, those thingamabobs do work. 

[Steve M]

As I said before, the jargon is gibberish.

 

I have a PhD in physics, and am familiar with the actual quantum mechanics terms and what most of them mean.

 

It really does fall into the category of pseudoscience.

 

Furthermore, as mentioned earlier in this thread, if Jack Bybee really did have a way to reduce noise (1/f noise, shot noise, Johnson noise, excess noise, etc) there would be far more money to be made in the field of communications. I can assure you that no such device is used in any reported communication system.

Thanks Brad ...that's good enough for me.

The website reads like gibberish to me too (I can discern the trickery going on) and, unlike you I was hopeless at physics at uni ;-(

Steve.

[Steve M]

Have you heard it quack?

 

FWIW, I think some hifi gear tend to use hyperboles in their marketing. I dunno if they are effective. I know my eyes probably rolled over the first time I heard quantum this and resonator that.

 

Think Synergistic Research and their Quantum Tunnelling claims. 

 

Think Nordost and their Quantum Resonators. 

 

Maybe there's no way to explain it. 

 

Ask Franck from ASI with his insane wooden cubes and resonator bells. He can't explain it either. He just says he experiments and uses what sounds best to him. 

 

ps Stereophile has reviewed a number of these Quantum thingamabobs from these other houses as well over the years.

Doggie makes a good point, hi-fi is riddled with dubious products. I am not on a 'bag Bybee bent' necessarily, just that the subject matter was raised here on SNA and it goes against any sense of logic that I might have. Especially since the product has been ripped open and there is only a resistor in there, even the wrapping looks generic.

Steve.

[ehtcom]

Have you heard it quack?

 

FWIW, I think some hifi gear tend to use hyperboles in their marketing. I dunno if they are effective. I know my eyes probably rolled over the first time I heard quantum this and resonator that.

 

Think Synergistic Research and their Quantum Tunnelling claims. 

 

Think Nordost and their Quantum Resonators. 

 

Maybe there's no way to explain it. 

 

Ask Franck from ASI with his insane wooden cubes and resonator bells. He can't explain it either. He just says he experiments and uses what sounds best to him. 

 

ps Stereophile has reviewed a number of these Quantum thingamabobs from these other houses as well over the years.

 

 

Sorry Bill & other defenders, however the pictures don't lie.

IT IS JUST A 50c RESISTOR ...that can cost you up to $500 if you go via the Bybee route.

But, you know us 'philes we'll believe anything??

 

Quack.

[Catostylus]

Oh look, a duck.

[Telecine]

As I said before, the jargon is gibberish.

 

I have a PhD in physics, and am familiar with the actual quantum mechanics terms and what most of them mean.

 

It really does fall into the category of pseudoscience.

 

Furthermore, as mentioned earlier in this thread, if Jack Bybee really did have a way to reduce noise (1/f noise, shot noise, Johnson noise, excess noise, etc) there would be far more money to be made in the field of communications. I can assure you that no such device is used in any reported communication system.

Thank you. I think that pretty much seals it.

[sir sanders zingmore]

Yea.  Issac Asimov recounts the following interesting story.

 

His class read the poem Abou Ben Adhem.  Its about Ben Adhem, whose name was not in an angel’s tablet as one who loves the lord.  But he asked to be written as one who loves his fellow man.  Later the Angel appeared and showed him the tablet of those that loved the lord. The poem ends with “And lo! Ben Adhem’s name led all the rest.†Isaac was ready for the teacher’s question: “Why did Ben Adhem’s name lead all the rest?†“Alphabetical order, sir!†Isaac volunteered.

 

Yea - this is really a thread about Bybees like the reason the name appeared at the head of the list was alphabetical order.

 

The vehicle is Bybees - the underlying theme is if it looks like hooey it must be hooey.  Extorting listen to it makes no difference - its hooey - obviously.

 

Thanks

Bill 

 

like the night and day differences that exist between DACs until you can't see them?

That sort of hooey?

[Catostylus]

@Telecine:Only for the rational.

Edited March 23, 2014 by Catostylus

[bhobba]

Have you heard it quack?

 

What was it Meatloaf said 'You took the words right out of my mouth'

 

How about something really radical - go out and hear some and post your impressions.

 

Call me weird, but that seems a lot more constructive that the same old rubbish regurgitated in a thread whose topic has been done to death time and time again.

 

Why anyone thinks another thread will turn out any different.  

 

We have two camps - they will never see eye to eye.

 

Thanks

Bill

[bhobba]

like the night and day differences that exist between DACs until you can't see them? That sort of hooey?

 

It might be worthwhile for you to actually read what I write before attributing something to me.

 

I posted I couldn't tell which was which was which - not they didn't have differences.

 

Thanks

Bill

[bhobba]

I have a PhD in physics, and am familiar with the actual quantum mechanics terms and what most of them mean. It really does fall into the category of pseudoscience. Furthermore, as mentioned earlier in this thread, if Jack Bybee really did have a way to reduce noise (1/f noise, shot noise, Johnson noise, excess noise, etc) there would be far more money to be made in the field of communications. I can assure you that no such device is used in any reported communication system.

 

How can you be assured of this?

 

Wait - I see now - 'reported' - got it. 

 

Thanks

Bill

Edited March 23, 2014 by bhobba

[sir sanders zingmore]

It might be worthwhile for you to actually read what I write before attributing something to me.

 

I posted I couldn't tell which was which was which - not they didn't have differences.

 

Thanks

Bill

 

Bill, I apologise if I misunderstood what you said. Sorry