Poll

Want to see Dave have a look at Bybee Technology's audio Quantum Purifiers?

Yes
18 (23.7%)
No
58 (76.3%)

Total Members Voted: 76

Voting closed: October 21, 2017, 10:05:41 pm

Author Topic: Bybee's Lament  (Read 13279 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Alex Nikitin

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 981
  • Country: gb
  • Femtoampnut and Tapehead.
    • A.N.T. Audio
Re: Bybee's Lament
« Reply #75 on: September 27, 2017, 11:58:55 pm »
So far not even a single link to a paper describing a DBT (for audio) with statistically valid positive results was posted here.

What you're saying is that all speakers/amps sound exactly the same. Nobody can hear any difference at all in any test.

Perhaps you can post one?

And then you act all smug because nobody goes and researches that for you??  :palm:

Oh, I did my research alright , after all I was in the industry for many years. I mean, how difficult it could be to find one paper, after all it is an industry standard, isn't it?

 ::)

Cheers

Alex
 

Offline f5r5e5d

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 346
Re: Bybee's Lament
« Reply #76 on: September 28, 2017, 12:02:18 am »
Fastl, Zwicker "Psycho-Acoustics Facts and Models"
http://www.springer.com/us/book/9783540231592#aboutBook

463 pages, 313 figures, 53 Psychoacoustics Demos on (downloadable) CD-ROM


Søren Bech, Nick Zacharov "Perceptual Audio Evaluation - Theory, Method and Application"
http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-0470869232.html
« Last Edit: September 28, 2017, 12:22:18 am by f5r5e5d »
 

Offline Fungus

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9440
  • Country: 00
Re: Bybee's Lament
« Reply #77 on: September 28, 2017, 12:04:49 am »
how difficult it could be to find one paper, after all it is an industry standard, isn't it?

"Standard"?

I thought it was just something that audiophools run screaming from. It's the monster under their beds.

 

Offline Brumby

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 8596
  • Country: au
Re: Bybee's Lament
« Reply #78 on: September 28, 2017, 12:13:38 am »
So far not even a single link to a paper describing a DBT (for audio) with statistically valid positive results was posted here.

I am having trouble with your statement, but before I go any further, can I please ask what you mean by "positive results"?

Please do not talk about "statistically valid".  I think most of us understand what that means ... just let us know what you mean by "positive results".
 

Offline Alex Nikitin

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 981
  • Country: gb
  • Femtoampnut and Tapehead.
    • A.N.T. Audio
Re: Bybee's Lament
« Reply #79 on: September 28, 2017, 12:19:16 am »
Fastl, Zwicker "Psycho-Acoustics Facts and Models"
http://www.springer.com/us/book/9783540231592#aboutBook

463 pages, 313 figures, 53 Psychoacoustics Demos on (downloadable) CD-ROM

Yes, a good book. Perhaps you can point me to a page where a blind test or a double blind test described? Or at least mentioned?

 ;)

Cheers

Alex
« Last Edit: September 28, 2017, 12:20:54 am by Alex Nikitin »
 

Offline Alex Nikitin

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 981
  • Country: gb
  • Femtoampnut and Tapehead.
    • A.N.T. Audio
Re: Bybee's Lament
« Reply #80 on: September 28, 2017, 12:33:28 am »
So far not even a single link to a paper describing a DBT (for audio) with statistically valid positive results was posted here.

I am having trouble with your statement, but before I go any further, can I please ask what you mean by "positive results"?

Please do not talk about "statistically valid".  I think most of us understand what that means ... just let us know what you mean by "positive results".

By "positive results" I mean that the difference in the sound with a change in (the system, the source, etc), was actually reliably detected rather than not detected in a double blind test. Only a "positive" result could provide a step in establishing the sensitivity of the procedure.

Cheers

Alex
 

Offline f5r5e5d

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 346
Re: Bybee's Lament
« Reply #81 on: September 28, 2017, 12:55:08 am »
are you just trolling? (as if I have to ask)

every human hearing result, figure is based on blind listening tests as documented in the bibliography, simply can't get Psychoacoustic results published in peer reviewed journals without adhering to blinded test protocols, showing statistically significant positive results

its just weak rhetoric if you are going to try to peel off AB/X from related Triangle, MUSHRA, ect. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ABX_test
 

Offline Alex Nikitin

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 981
  • Country: gb
  • Femtoampnut and Tapehead.
    • A.N.T. Audio
Re: Bybee's Lament
« Reply #82 on: September 28, 2017, 01:24:19 am »
are you just trolling? (as if I have to ask)

every human hearing result, figure is based on blind listening tests as documented in the bibliography, simply can't get Psychoacoustic results published in peer reviewed journals without adhering to blinded test protocols, showing statistically significant positive results

its just weak rhetoric if you are going to try to peel off AB/X from related Triangle, MUSHRA, ect. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ABX_test

Did I say anywhere that the positives do not exist? I just think it would be very educational to show on an example what kind of differences can be reliably detected in a DBT. Audio industry is forced to use a bad tool as there is no known alternative. It does not make the tool any better.

Cheers

Alex
 

Offline f5r5e5d

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 346
Re: Bybee's Lament
« Reply #83 on: September 28, 2017, 01:58:56 am »
Clark, David L., "High-Resolution Subjective Testing Using a Double-Blind Comparator", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 30 No. 5, May 1982, pp. 330-338

JND Loudness vs Frequency


I occasionally get push back when showing this from 'audiophiles' that don't believe you have to match to 0.1 dB to avoid this blinding protocol 'leak'

some bragged that ~"we matched the preamps to 1 dB"
 
The following users thanked this post: Alex Nikitin

Offline Kjelt

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 5208
  • Country: nl
Re: Bybee's Lament
« Reply #84 on: September 28, 2017, 01:59:33 am »
Oh there are plenty alternatives and the great advantage is that there is objective test equipment that can detect differences better than humans. Try that with for instance wine tasting where such devices can only detect alcoholpercentage and colour but no sensor to objectively measure taste.
The huge problem is that equipment that measures objectively better for instance less distortion and bandwith of 0-100kHz vs 0-22kHz does not necessarily sound better to a human.

But to get back on topic those objective measurement devices do not detect any difference when an audiophoolery accesory is used. None, nada zero. So the main question is then do we know and understand all essential parameters that contribute to audio perception and is the accesory indeed fraude or is there more that meets the ear?
« Last Edit: September 28, 2017, 02:01:57 am by Kjelt »
 

Offline Alex Nikitin

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 981
  • Country: gb
  • Femtoampnut and Tapehead.
    • A.N.T. Audio
Re: Bybee's Lament
« Reply #85 on: September 28, 2017, 02:09:48 am »
Oh there are plenty alternatives and the great advantage is that there is objective test equipment that can detect differences better than humans. Try that with for instance wine tasting where such devices can only detect alcoholpercentage and colour but no sensor to objectively measure taste.
The huge problem is that equipment that measures objectively better for instance less distortion and bandwith of 0-100kHz vs 0-22kHz does not necessarily sound better to a human.

But to get back on topic those objective measurement devices do not detect any difference when an audiophoolery accesory is used. None, nada zero. So the main question is then do we know and understand all essential parameters that contribute to audio perception and is the accesory indeed fraude or is there more that meets the ear?

I would agree on all points, it is not a problem to measure differences, the problem is to correlate these measurements with the listening experience. As I did design equipment for mass production I could not afford any of that voodoo stuff, so I had to find definite hardware reasons for variations in the sound quality  ;) . In most cases it was possible even if sometimes with quite unexpected results.

Cheers

Alex
 

Offline Kjelt

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 5208
  • Country: nl
Re: Bybee's Lament
« Reply #86 on: September 28, 2017, 02:25:24 am »
And as with other human sensory stimulants such as beverage, food etc, do these experiences not vary with the mood you are in and experiences prior to this one? Is it possible for a human being to be absolutely objective?
I have listened to quite some setups in my lifetime but I find it impossible to "store" the experience to compare it later on. There might be persons in this world that do, as there are persons with for instance absolute hearing that can 100% positively say which note is played at any time (a human frequency counter)  :)
I am neither and have sold and changed setups till I was happy and now stick with it.
 

Offline Fungus

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9440
  • Country: 00
Re: Bybee's Lament
« Reply #87 on: September 28, 2017, 03:09:17 am »
Clark, David L., "High-Resolution Subjective Testing Using a Double-Blind Comparator", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 30 No. 5, May 1982, pp. 330-338

JND Loudness vs Frequency


I occasionally get push back when showing this from 'audiophiles' that don't believe you have to match to 0.1 dB to avoid this blinding protocol 'leak'

Yes, that's a well known problem. Easy to avoid with passive components though, eg. cables, magic rocks, etc.

The Audiophools will just say the cables aren't properly burned in though, or that too much skepticism sucks all the energy from the magic rocks.
 

Offline Fungus

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9440
  • Country: 00
Re: Bybee's Lament
« Reply #88 on: September 28, 2017, 03:13:51 am »
And as with other human sensory stimulants such as beverage, food etc, do these experiences not vary with the mood you are in and experiences prior to this one?

Of course.

When you last had lunch has a far greater influence on the sound than any cable ever could.
 

Offline Simon

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 12817
  • Country: gb
  • Did that just blow up? No? might work after all !!
    • Simon's Electronics
Re: Bybee's Lament
« Reply #89 on: September 28, 2017, 04:34:53 am »
@ztatic ... Did I touch a nerve?

You did. You are the other side of the coin from the one who wants to be bamboozled -- you want to pretend that everyone tempted for whatever reason by bamboozlement does not also want to avoid bamboozlement. It's quite annoying, and you go about it with an air od such authority. You're quite an annoyance.

Now, I unsubscribed from this thread immediately after my last post, but still got a fucking notice or your fucking post, you asshole. How the fuck to get un-registered from this fucking joke of a forum, with all you fucking pieces of shit here? Is that enough to get me banned? I sure the fuck hope so.

Wish granted
https://www.simonselectronics.co.uk/shop
Varied stock of test instruments and components including EEVblog gear.
Also, if you want to get ripped off: https://www.ebay.co.uk/usr/simons_electronics?_trksid=p2047675.l2559
 

Offline Brumby

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 8596
  • Country: au
Re: Bybee's Lament
« Reply #90 on: September 28, 2017, 10:54:28 am »
So far not even a single link to a paper describing a DBT (for audio) with statistically valid positive results was posted here.

I am having trouble with your statement, but before I go any further, can I please ask what you mean by "positive results"?

Please do not talk about "statistically valid".  I think most of us understand what that means ... just let us know what you mean by "positive results".

By "positive results" I mean that the difference in the sound with a change in (the system, the source, etc), was actually reliably detected rather than not detected in a double blind test. Only a "positive" result could provide a step in establishing the sensitivity of the procedure.

Cheers

Alex

To take this on face value, it would seem that you are saying that the only way a DBT could be considered valid is if there were positive statistically significant results identifying a difference that we are saying cannot objectively exist.  If this be the case, then - by definition - it cannot ever be demonstrated.

However, in trying to place what you are saying into a scenario that can achieve the desired result, I have this proposal, assuming we have the ability to switch configurations in a suitable manner:
 - That instead of changing just one parameter - the audiophoolery device being in or out - we have a second parameter that is also changed.  The change in this second parameter would need to be subtle, but one that would be expected to be detectable, especially in a statistically significant sample.
 - The test would be run, varying both parameters and the results analysed.
 - For the results to be valid, the variation of the secondary parameter should be clearly identifiable.  If not, then the whole test should be dismissed.  With a valid test, if the audiophoolery product were actually making a difference, then this, too, should be clearly identifiable - but if there is no statistically significant differentiation, then the audiophoolery product can be said to have no effect.

@Alex Nikitin - is this the sort of thing you meant?

There are two questions, though.  The first is "What should this secondary parameter be?".  To be appropriate to the test, I imagine it should probably produce an effect that is the same as the audiophoolery product claims.  That, in itself, would seem to be a challenge - but considering the claimed effects of these products are so indefinite, does it really matter?

The second question is: Do you have a 3 state test or a 4 state test?  In a 3 state test, the configurations would be: (i) Vanilla  (ii) with Audiophoolery device  (iii) with secondary parameter change.  A 4 state test would have one extra state: (iv) with Audiophoolery device and secondary parameter change.  (Not sure which way to lean on this one.)



Just putting this out there...
 

Offline Kjelt

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 5208
  • Country: nl
Re: Bybee's Lament
« Reply #91 on: September 28, 2017, 05:13:12 pm »
@brumby perhaps you should read the arguments against abx first.
The most given arguments are that humans have no audio memory to compare two sources in different times. Others are that listening to audio is fatigueing the ear and influencing what comes next.
Let alone differentiate three, four etc. perhaps try an abx test yourself first a couple of times there are some online to differentiate between 128kb mp3 and wav for instance.
I have done a few in my time and failed them all even between sacd and cd, only the last one on tv between a new violin and stadivarius i had right, but since that were only two samples it could be luck , statistics remember?
 

Online helius

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2774
  • Country: us
Re: Bybee's Lament
« Reply #92 on: September 28, 2017, 05:49:36 pm »
The most given arguments are that humans have no audio memory to compare two sources in different times.
We don't have a very good color memory, either. You can perceive subtle differences in color (each Munsell color coordinate is perceptually distinct) but remembering specific colors over any timespan is nigh impossible. The same is likely to be true for all subjective experiences.
 

Offline Brumby

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 8596
  • Country: au
Re: Bybee's Lament
« Reply #93 on: September 28, 2017, 06:01:13 pm »
I've had a lot of critical experience with colour on a day-to-day basis - not so much with audio.  I'm also aware of the impact proper statistical analysis can have against common beliefs.

The point is well taken - but that leaves us with the question:  How do you demonstrate audiophool products to be the fraud that they are?
 

Offline Rbastler

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 286
  • Country: it
  • Wörk Wörk
    • Rbastlers Blog
Re: Bybee's Lament
« Reply #94 on: September 28, 2017, 06:18:15 pm »
I've had a lot of critical experience with colour on a day-to-day basis - not so much with audio.  I'm also aware of the impact proper statistical analysis can have against common beliefs.

The point is well taken - but that leaves us with the question:  How do you demonstrate audiophool products to be the fraud that they are?

Wy do you need to demonstrate they are a fraud ? Who demonstrated with what that they are legit in the first place ? No need to disproof something, that wasnt proven in the first place.
Just making claims isnt a proof. Thats what those who make audiophool stuff so, making claims or getting some dubious certificates and fancy brouchures. Which reminds me of Daves "White van speaker scam" video, where he mentions they showed you fancy brouchures.
http://rbastlerblog.jimdo.com/
Gamma spectrometer works. Now some yellow crystals need regenerating and testing.
 

Offline Kjelt

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 5208
  • Country: nl
Re: Bybee's Lament
« Reply #95 on: September 28, 2017, 06:19:49 pm »
@color: nice experiment take two lightsources with different colortemperature for instance 2700K and 4000K, put a red cocacola can in a dark room only light the 4000k source wait and look at the can for two minutes, switch light off and light the 2700K light, the can color looks totally different more orangered, wait two minutes and your brain adapts so it is red again. You can switch back again and have the same effect.
The brain is very tricky.

but that leaves us with the question:  How do you demonstrate audiophool products to be the fraud that they are?
Good question, personally my answer would be if the objective measurement devices can not detect any change, there probably is no change ( in the known parameters as volume, frequency spectrum etc.)
Let the audiophool sellers explain why something would make a difference and make a fool of themselves with their unscientific mumbojumbo.

And as a last remark before i am going to continu enjoying my vacation in the lovely tuscan landscape why should we try to prevent fools for buying this stuff anyway?  :-//
I mean it is surely noble to protect people from fraude but as can be seen with Dave and the batteroo case it takes infinite more energy to counter a false claim then to make a false claim, and those arguments were compared to audio rather easy to contradict and proof wrongly.
A lot of buyers from audiophoolery are rather happy with their purchase, i think the same for homeopathic medicine, where one molecule of active medicine is present in 5000 litres of flyid, making the odds that this molecule is in your bottle of 10ml very tiny.
Do we have to do this for everything everywhere?
 

Offline xani

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 353
Re: Bybee's Lament
« Reply #96 on: September 28, 2017, 06:46:11 pm »
I would agree on all points, it is not a problem to measure differences, the problem is to correlate these measurements with the listening experience. As I did design equipment for mass production I could not afford any of that voodoo stuff, so I had to find definite hardware reasons for variations in the sound quality  ;) . In most cases it was possible even if sometimes with quite unexpected results.

So what you are really saying is "we make audio equipment perform objectively worse so it is perceived as subjectively better" ?
 

Online helius

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2774
  • Country: us
Re: Bybee's Lament
« Reply #97 on: September 28, 2017, 06:53:51 pm »
Maybe it helps to distinguish different types of claims, because I don't think they are all scammy or at least not in the same way:
Type 0: Certain components have audibly distinct characters, which is consistent with their measurements and theory of operation. Type A/AB/D amplifiers, DHTs, etc. Different loudspeakers and headphones.
Type 1: Claimed differences in sound which have measurable differences, but no reason to believe one is the cause of the other. Rolling different opamps. Fancy (>$10,000) turntables. Isolation transformers. High-end CD players.
Type 2: Physical differences may be present, but measuring them is extremely difficult and the likelihood of audible changes is very remote. Boutique capacitors. Contact enhancing liquids. OFC cable?
Type 3: No measurable difference exists, and the suggestion of audible changes is laughable. "Audio grade" solder. Special power cable. "Quantum" anything.

One problem with using instrument measurements as a proxy for subjective hearing is that you need the right measurement, and the corresponding instrument might not exist. I think this is the distinction between Types 2 and 3: OK, I'll grant that it is possible that there is some harmonic microphonic effect or magnetostriction or something that is better or worse in a $600 capacitor. I don't know how you'd go about proving it but the remote possibility is there. It does seem like a real engineer would design the system to not be so sensitive to that slight difference, making the overall effect negligible. But it's totally clear that "quantum purifiers" do nothing; there isn't any conceivable instrument that would show an (electrical) difference from an off the shelf resistor.
 

Offline Alex Nikitin

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 981
  • Country: gb
  • Femtoampnut and Tapehead.
    • A.N.T. Audio
Re: Bybee's Lament
« Reply #98 on: September 28, 2017, 07:03:19 pm »
I would agree on all points, it is not a problem to measure differences, the problem is to correlate these measurements with the listening experience. As I did design equipment for mass production I could not afford any of that voodoo stuff, so I had to find definite hardware reasons for variations in the sound quality  ;) . In most cases it was possible even if sometimes with quite unexpected results.

So what you are really saying is "we make audio equipment perform objectively worse so it is perceived as subjectively better" ?

No, never in my designs. I do not believe in introducing crap into the signal for subjective purposes (except when dithering a digital already crappy signal). However a budget design is always a compromise, so you have to balance the limitations to get the right sound - without sacrificing the technical performance. There is a 2001 review of one of my designs available on-line from Stereophile website, including measurements, you can see for yourself.

Cheers

Alex
 

Offline Brumby

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 8596
  • Country: au
Re: Bybee's Lament
« Reply #99 on: September 28, 2017, 07:09:14 pm »
... but that leaves us with the question:  How do you demonstrate audiophool products to be the fraud that they are?

Wy do you need to demonstrate they are a fraud ? Who demonstrated with what that they are legit in the first place ? No need to disproof something, that wasnt proven in the first place.
Just making claims isnt a proof. Thats what those who make audiophool stuff so, making claims or getting some dubious certificates and fancy brouchures.
This is a perfect question for the Op ... pity he's not around any more.

For the rest of us, I would say it's a simple matter of seeing engineering used to dress up cow dung and selling it as perfume.

It stinks.
 


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf