I guess I would be more skeptical of tweaks if I hadn’t had such positive experiences as I have had. Footers, mass damping, tube rolling, tube damping all make significant and meaningful contributions to the overall sound of my system. The iQSEs are yet another tweak to come along that do for the music exactly what others have mentioned above. It is about a “quiet” to the space between notes, to the delicate decay of notes into the soundspace, its about vocals sounding more like the singer is in the space with you than an electronic reproduction.
Buying good gear for your system is to me the “easy part”. Tweaking your set-up to maximize the capabilities of your gear is the real fun of our hobby. The musical result is the ultimate payoff for the effort serious tweaking takes.
I guess I would be more skeptical of tweaks if I hadn’t had such positive experiences as I have had. Footers, mass damping, tube rolling, tube damping all make significant and meaningful contributions to the overall sound of my system.
Annoying, isn’t it.
While not all tweaks work for all systems, many do. I have learned to suspend disbelief and to try.
My first tweaky experience was borrowing an inexpensive audio stand and placing my components on it. The improvement was immediate, notable and obvious. It still bothers me intellectually that a simple stand makes this level of difference. Cables fall into the same category.
I think we accept the explanations for vibration control and cables as so many of us have now heard the improvements they make. When these tweaks were new, the naysayers were just as loud as they are now as they dismiss Jack Bybee’s products. Fortunately, the hobby continues to move on, whether some object or not.
Perhaps. But, this response acknowledges you are well aware your post was gratuitously insulting. The only apparent disagreement we have is the extent.
This is the behavior I seek to cure. If my post is more palatable and meaningful for you by deleting the intensifier “extremely,” please read it without the offending word. I’m flexible.
Or, to avoid the terminology controversy entirely, I will phrase it simplistically and bluntly: Knock it off.
As you know there’s snake oil out there: there are nasty people who ‘invent’ nonsense tweaks, write pseudoscientific rubbish to promote them and rip people off. These people rely on lack of scientific and technical knowledge, expectation bias, placebo effect, etc.
If a forum such as this is not the place to call out such confidence tricksters then where is? In my opinion making fun of rubbish, be it technical, political, religious or social is a valid way of drawing attention to nonsense that waste’s people’s time, money and energy. I don’t use offensive words but my ideas may offend and that’s tough. The alternative is the kind of censorship that libertarians would abhor in public life and which should have no place here.
I won’t be confining myself to platitudes because robust debate is more useful. So I’ll speak my mind and you’re free to criticise: other forum members can judge.
Thanks, Peter and Elk. There’s a lot of snake oil out there, as Peter correctly points out.
That said, one of the precepts of this forum is kindness and room for alternative opinions without fear of attack. I don’t think Peter was attacking though we do need to be careful with language so those who express opinions that run counter to our own don’t feel attacked. And there the word feel is important. We all have sensitive feelings and if we feel attacked—even if that was never the intent—then we’ve managed to restrict people who are a bit shy from posting.
I have spent time with Jack Bybee and is magic tweaks. They generally work. I don’t know why and the reasons he gives strike me as bordering on bullshit. None the less, they seem to work. This is where I personally draw the line. For something to qualify as snake oil, in my opinion, both the explanation and the results have to be bunk. If one or the other remains valid then I think we may be doing a disservice putting them in a solid category as black and white as truth or fiction.
I recently heard a Ted Talk that exemplified this very issue. How we can experience the undeniable, yet falsely ascribe meaning to it. In fact, funny enough, this is the subject of tomorrow’s Paul’s Post.
Paul - thanks. The calming voice of reason as always. I would disagree though about the “attacking” bit - if the gist of the post is to infer that the poster is “off his chump” if he thinks the device in question “does something”, then I would say it constitutes an attack.
It assumes either the tweaker’s hearing or ability to discern what is real and what is expectation bias is faulty. So it is, in effect an attack on the person’s sanity and/or hearing.
Peter: OK - I’ll judge. Don’t pass judgement on stuff you haven’t heard. I can judge your words because you decided to publish them. It is possible to be overly narrow-minded and not “believe” anything (except, I’m guessing, peer-reviewed science), just as it is possible to be too open-minded, thinking anything can and does work.
The former point of view often results in things being dismissed out of hand which may, upon experiment, prove to have merit. This is every bit as poor and unscientific of an approach as what you criticise - the other side of gullible expectation bias.
Proper, “robust debate” is not at its best when based on one side or the other having no direct experience of the subject of the debate. That’s just gainsaying. It’s saying - “Can’t be - therefore don’t believe either it or, by extension, you”.
peter … I’m the guy that started this thread and in your initial comment you said the following :-
“You may, however, have paid a higher price than you thought, in the form of barely concealed laughter by those less easily taken in than yourself.”
I would pretty much take that comment as saying you are laughing at me, which I find extremely offensive.
I initially spelt your name with a small letter in error but as I went to fix it I thought it was pretty apt in that small p as in small minded, so I’ve left it.
I also suggested earlier you try the Bybee iQSE yourself in your system, then you could make a honest judgement and contribute to the thread with justifiable experience but of course you’re not willing to do that, just criticise with absolutely no experience of the product.
Really, who is the one being laughed at?
My experience is I’ve tried 2 of these in my P10 and found the music more organic and thus more involving and I’ve subsequently added one to each of my components and I’m extremely happy with the results.
By the way I’ve been an audiophile for some thirty plus years, heard many systems, been through many tweaks. I know my system inside out and can easily tell when a change is made whether it’s for better or for worse.
“In theory, there should be no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there often is.”
I am an engineer, and by nature I tend to examine anything coming from the scientific theories that I learned in school. But there is such a thing as “expectation bias” for the scientific crowd, too, whereby we rest solely upon our assessment working from theory and avoid all practice. It’s good to get over that, and actually try a thing or two yourself, letting your ears and your heart tell you what sounds truer to the music.
I believe this is the basis for the statement: “If you haven’t tried it, then you don’t have an opinion.” - Ivor Tiefenbrun
I would advise Peter to relax and try it - - he might find he likes it! (And he might find he does not, too.)
After much trial and error, I settled one IQSE over the DAC chips and analog output circuit board of my outboard DAC, and one on the grill over the circuit board of my P-5 (opposite end the transformer). These are probably the most clarifying and successful tweeks that I have ever added to my system. Not sure if I need to remove the top cover of the P5. May try it if I can figure out how to lift off the top.
Thus, I would not reject the product merely because it does not make sense to you.
But in some cases I would.
I quote from the Bybee website.
“Bybee Quantum Purifiers operate on the quantum mechanical level to regulate the flow of electrons that make up the signal (picture a metering light regulating freeway traffic flow). Current flow within the Quantum Purifier is unimpeded and ideal (think of the unencumbered flow of traffic on a lightly traveled expressway). During transit through the Quantum Purifier, quantum noise energy is stripped off the electrons, streamlining their flow through ensuing conductors. Unwanted quantum noise energy dissipates as heat within the Quantum Purifier rather than emerging as a layer of contamination residue over the audio/video information.”
This is what those with real technical knowledge describe as ‘quantum woo’, the incorrect use of science words to impress who don’t have knowledge of the relevant discipline. If a product is claimed to make an improvement without any technical explanation being given then there may be a basis for suspending one’s skepticism and ‘giving it a go’. But when the technical ‘explanation’ is pseudoscientific rubbish I recommend the highest degree of skepticism and retention of one’s money to spend in other ways.
Thanks, Peter and Elk. There’s a lot of snake oil out there, as Peter correctly points out.
That said, one of the precepts of this forum is kindness and room for alternative opinions without fear of attack. I don’t think Peter was attacking though we do need to be careful with language so those who express opinions that run counter to our own don’t feel attacked. And there the word feel is important. We all have sensitive feelings and if we feel attacked—even if that was never the intent—then we’ve managed to restrict people who are a bit shy from posting.
I have spent time with Jack Bybee and is magic tweaks. They generally work. I don’t know why and the reasons he gives strike me as bordering on bullshit. None the less, they seem to work. This is where I personally draw the line. For something to qualify as snake oil, in my opinion, both the explanation and the results have to be bunk. If one or the other remains valid then I think we may be doing a disservice putting them in a solid category as black and white as truth or fiction.
Thank you Paul. I'm grateful for your assumption that I didn't intend to attack sheridd2. It appears that my sense of humour doesn't suit some of the forum members.
It’s a problem when some people feel attacked if the slightest doubt is cast upon their opinion. You and the moderators have a difficult time if some members cannot stomach criticism, and I, too, have a problem if I cannot suggest that a view is wrong.
My view of debate is that it cannot be meaningful if there’s a rule that one must not say something that might make somebody feel offended. That’s because there are some people who think that ‘everybody is entitled to their opinion’ means that everybody’s opinion must be treated as equally valid and any suggestion that their opinion is less valid is taken as an attack. Similarly there are some people who think that there is a right not to be offended: they will feel attacked if they feel offended and they’ll feel offended if I or somebody else say that they’re wrong. (By the way problems of this kind are stifling debate in far more important places than these fora, such as universities in both your country and mine (UK). If one cannot criticise then there is no debate; without debate there is no progress. Without progress there is no hobby: we’ll end up wallowing in sycophantic and meaningless commentary.
As I read the forum I’m fascinated and dismayed, fascinated by the engineering knowledge of some and dismayed by the outrageous certainty displayed by others. Despite Elk’s assertion that expectation bias is known by everybody here there are some who deny that this aspect of human psychology applies to them. They may inadvertently mislead others and whilst some here appear to have unrestricted financial resources others have to manage their audiophile budget carefully. So if the evidence leads me to conclude that there’s a risk of members spending their money on nonsense products then I say so. I suppose I’ll just have to say so more plainly and with less of my particular sense of humour.
Thanks. Sometimes people feel attacked and when that happens we naturally put up defenses - we’re not going to erase 2.5M years of being human in a few decades.
I am just returned from the show in Denver at I launched a stupid joke at someone who did not know it was a weak attempt at humor. I could see the fellow felt I was on the attack and stiffened up at my words. Not what I had intended. I quickly unwound the situation because I had the advantage of watching body language - something that doesn’t happen in this medium of the forums.
We all have good intentions here: to learn, to share, to relate - as if we’re all at the pub sharing a pint. It can get rowdy, it can get nasty, but we can always see the smile on the face of the person next to us (while at a real pub) but not so much here (which is why the stupid smilies work).
Let’s all work on being gentle and if we’re going to use humor let the other know our intent and body language.
Paul … disappointed in where this discussion is going.
I’m all for constructive criticism when members are prepared to try a tweak and post their findings even when they don’t agree with what I’ve found, but for Peter to say the following two statements in his opening post in this thread :-
The Bybee website - “It has all the hallmarks of being pseudoscientific rubbish” - shows he actually has no technical knowledge himself to refute the claims.
“You may, however, have paid a higher price than you thought, in the form of barely concealed laughter by those less easily taken in than yourself.” I don’t see any constructive comment in this, just a position of snobbery, in that I’m better and know more than you and this comment is being made with no actual experience of the product?
I also don’t see any humor in his statement.
I suggested to Peter to try one as I’m pretty sure there’s a money back guarantee but of course he chose to ignore this.
Peter said
Despite Elk's assertion that expectation bias is known by everybody here there are some who deny that this aspect of human psychology applies to them.
I have yet to see anyone here assert expectation bias does not apply to them. But I have seen many directly acknowledge the existence of expectation bias and confirmation bias, explicitly warning others to take this into account when evaluating their excitement over a new addition to their system.
I suppose I'll just have to say so more plainly and with less of my particular sense of humour.
Again, it is not an expression of humor to make comments such as “You may, however, have paid a higher price than you thought, in the form of barely concealed laughter by those less easily taken in than yourself.”
Instead, this is a direct humiliating attack on another member, uncalled for and unwelcome.
You are welcome to comment on Mr. Bybee’s products. Perhaps start by explaining specifically what is inaccurate with his explanation as to how his product works. So far you have dismissed it as “rubbish” and “quantum woo.” Why precisely is it rubbish? Why exactly is it quantum woo?
I suggest also keeping in mind expectation bias works both ways. It is at least as powerful when one has convinced yourself that you will absolutely not hear any difference. With this mindset, one likely will not.
Mr. Bybee’s marketing speak may not be compelling, but his underlying product just may be. Why not give it a try out of pure open-minded curiosity? I had a lot of fun trying Peter and May Belt’s products with this mindset.
Debate and discussion is actively welcomed. But please discuss ideas and products, not people.
“Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people.”
- attributed to former First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt.
I’ve thought of an illustration to cover Peter’s original comments, it’s like someone posting a review of a movie based solely on the film studio’s review.
People who see the movie can comment on the story, acting, directing, editing and soundtrack etc.
Not everyone is going to like all aspects of the movie and obviously some will like the movie more than others, that’s ok, it’s personal taste and that’s very acceptable because they have seen it and formed their own judgement, but to write a review, (slagging it off in this case), without having actually seen the movie, that’s just plain stupid.
Many of the explanations put forth by interconnect and cable manufacturers make little sense, some are abjectly silly. Yet, despite ridiculous claims, many of us find wire makes a significant difference. That is, we listen to an interconnect and determine whether it sounds better, ignoring the marketing-speak.
It is valid to express that a proffered explanation does not make sense or is less than credible. But ridiculous marketing does not invalidate a product; a great product may be replete with a laughable theory as to why it works.
Thus, we need to suspend disbelief and try. Of course, if one is so offended by the explanation as to be unwilling to try a product this is perfectly fine. No one should make fun of you, it is your choice. But this does not make those who are willing to listen to a new product gullible naive idiots, basking in confirmation bias. Instead, they are open-minded and willing to judge on their own.
As with all things audio, trust your ears - not marketing claims. Conversely, do not dismiss a product on the basis of its marketing. Again, trust your ears.
Elk, “extremely insulting” is a ridiculously exaggerated description of my remark. You over-react.
Elk didn’t over-react. You’re wasting our time with these weak arguments. Where is your data that “that human minds are astonishingly biased by expectations”? Why assume that buyers are likely to over-rate new equipment? Most savvy audiophiles use different techniques to reduce personal bias. For instance, my wife is a good musician but has zero interest in audio gear. Without knowing about my new purchases, she MUST like the sound or else…
On the other hand, you’ve clearly made no effort to reduce your negative bias. You’re willing to spend a lot of time to denigrate a product before actually hearing it. I would respect your opinion (good or bad) if you hear new products with an open mind.
Thanks to sheridd2, louawalters, ihmeyers, ned and other for getting off the couch to try new products and share their experiences. Without this type of info, we might miss out on useful tweaks for our PS Audio gear (eg. Synergistic Research Black fuses, Tungsram tubes).
I have a pair of iQSE on order and will see if they improve my Direcstream or BHK amps.
