 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
70.19.196.127
You guys have to look at this. OY. My geschlichtl is verklempt!http://www.soundlabsgroup.com.au/audioconsulting/audio_consulting_audio_transformers.htm
There are some other gems on the site... Someone please explain
Bybee Quantum Purifiers. Mind you I've taken graduate level
coursework in quantum as well as stat. thermo. and my bullpoopie
detectors are screaming Defcon 1 right now.-- Jim
Follow Ups:
silver resistor....isn't that an oxymoron?
Nothing to see here...
There are some other gems on the site... Someone please explain
Bybee Quantum Purifiers. Mind you I've taken graduate level
coursework in quantum as well as stat. thermo. and my bullpoopie
detectors are screaming Defcon 1 right now.
As well they should be as Bybee's full of pure, unadulterated bullpoopie. That's really all there is to explain. :)
se
or are you letting your opinions take control?I HAVE tried them, and I and EVERYONE who has participated in the comparisons here (now over ten different people) all heard a difference, and all preferred the sound with the Bybees in the speaker leads. However, they all had different descriptions of what they heard...
i am not fitting them as standard in my products because I want them to stand on their own feet - and to give the client some tweaks to play with.
Just because something doesn't fit current physics thinking doesn't mean it doesn't work!
Allen
Nicely put Allen,
I have never "pushed" such a tweak as I like to let the end user do some research and/or listening to come to their own conclusions. It my personal finding that the best applications for the Bybees is in [some] speaker crossovers and the B+ of tube amps between the main transformer and solid state rectifying bridge."i am not fitting them as standard in my products because I want them to stand on their own feet..."
Exactly. Let the product establish itself on it's own merits.
Happy Listening,
Response34
Build your system for yourself, not the critics!
If you think they make a noticable difference within your preamp power supplies or elsewhere in your preamps, I'd be curious to give them a try in my rtp3c whenever it gets built.
The bybee debate again. My findings with bybees is that they do work from a listening experience. I don't care if you cannot find out how, but I'm sure there are things about black holes we are yet to discover as well.
My perception of reality is that my ears had no problem telling the difference between them in & out of my system.regards
Ian
The real question is whether the same effect could be had for one tenth, one hundredth, or even one thousandth the cost (or less). Without having a plausible explanation for how they work, or even a rational description of what they are supposed to do, it's hard to believe they are a good value for the money. Have you tried swapping out the Bybees with 0.1 Ohm resistors?Apparently Jack Bybee has no problem selling these things without understanding what they do and how they work. If it were my business, I would have a hard time sleeping at night.
-Henry
...it's not your company, and they're not your customers... so why get apoplectic over it? Does it make you feel superior, or are you acting as the great protector of the great unwashed?
I'm pretty sure you're getting carried away with your characterization of my motives. Perhaps you should apologize.-Henry
can't be all that difficult to do. It's not like it is a Peerless output TX or anything. It may take a few to get past an accidendal destruction event though....
regards,
Douglas
!
Show me the Math...there's no such thing as magic!
John Curl took one apart.It's just a conventional 0.02 ohm metal film resistor that's stuffed inside some sort of ceramic tube (the leads of the QP are simply the leads of the resistor), some end caps are placed over the ends of the ceramic tube and some sort of "stuff" is painted onto the ceramic tube. It's then covered with heatshrink.
Although Bybee has predicated these devices from day one on the concept of superconductivity (and still does, their new "Slipstream" is just a marketing term to describe Cooper pair bonding, which is at the heart of the BCS theory of superconductivity), and has claimed that the ceramic used is a superconductive material, the material isn't even conductive to speak of as the things measure 0.02 ohms which is the same value as the resistor inside.
So no current flows through anything other than a conventional metal film resistor.
Which means that other than the effects of the resistor, the only thing these can possibly do is have an effect on the external electric and magnetic fields as a consequence of the permeability and permittivity of the materials used.
se
...is have an effect on the external electric and magnetic fields as a consequence of the permeability and permittivity of the materials used <The point is that they do something FOR THE SONIC ASPECTS - no matter why.
Allen
...is have an effect on the external electric and magnetic fields as a consequence of the permeability and permittivity of the materials used <The point is that they do something FOR THE SONIC ASPECTS - no matter why.
I never said they didn't or couldn't. If nothing else you're adding a small value metal film resistor to the signal path.
My point is that Bybee is a fraud. You're free not to care and you're free to financially reward and promote someone engaging in fraud. But that doesn't make him any less a fraud.
se
when i know what something is claimed to do - and believe I hear an improvement - I always get a bunch of people to listen without being told ANYTHING about what's being tried. Maybe not double blind - but more than good enough to see what they think. I only ask them to decide which of the two options they prefer musically, I never give them any preconceptions - and I do the switching.Allen
Bybee claims the Quantum Purifiers absorb 1/f noise produced by passive and active devices. I've also seen it claimed that they dampen ringing and overshoot on square waves. And yet they are supposed to have no measurable effect on the time- or frequency-domain response of the circuits they're connected to.The problem I have with these claims is that, if true, they turn conventional electronics and statistics theory right on its head. If I accept these claims, I can't trust anything I think I know about electronics.
Allen, you must have the facilities to verify these claims. Surely you can measure the 1/f noise of one of your preamps, then slap in some Bybees, and validate that the noise has dropped without changing the frequency response...
It seems to me that the claims made about these devices are pretty straightforward. Either they do what they claim to do, or they don't. If they do not, in fact, dampen and absorb 1/f noise and square wave ringing as claimed, then the marketing is fraudulent. It follows that whatever subjective effect they do have is caused by some mechanism other than what the manufacturer claims, and it may be worthwhile to determine what that (presumably well-understood and ordinary) mechanism is so that we can exploit it at low cost in our DIY audio circuits.
If, on the other hand, these simple devices can be demonstrated to perform these amazing feats of quantum statistics, then this is a profoundly important discovery the knowledge of which needs to be broadly disseminated...
That's what I think, anyway, no save-the-world arrogance implied or intended.
-Henry
I have never even read his claims - and have no interest in making complex measurements beyond what I have so far. Which were very quick and basic R & inductance measurements. To my quick test they appear like a piece of wire.But when I next fire up the 110MHz HP spec analyser I intend putting some fast risetime square waves (say at 1MHz) through them and see if they do anyting more to the spectrum than the same length of wire does.
I am not suppoting Mr Bybee, or his advertising claims. I'm just protesting people who pour doodoo on something they themselves havn't tested. Maybe he doesn't know what they actually do, or maybe he rally does and we are just flapping our gums. Just wait untill i find a way to effectivly market my "Magic Boxes" - they'll leave Tice Clocks and Bybeess for dead in the phoophoo dust stakes.
Allen
Allen
"I am not suppoting Mr Bybee, or his advertising claims. I'm just protesting people who pour doodoo on something they themselves havn't tested."Allen, I know how you feel, and have felt exactly the same way many times myself. Having said that, I feel obligated to say that I have not tried the Bybees. In fact, I haven't even talked to anyone that has. So... I won't claim they don't work.
But, I have read the claims. As a trained physicist I found them to be a shameful mixture of buzzwords and nonsense that apparently sticks to the ribs of some people with money to spend (you said you haven't read the claims, so I give you amnesty.)
The point is that it's really hard for me to look past that. I'm not a religious person, but if I were then I imagine that it would be something like listening to someone spew nonsense that they claimed was straight from the Bible (what I recognized as nonsense and not from the Bible) all in an effort to sell some trinket from their wagon.
Look, I don't know that the trinket doesn't do everything that they claim. Could be that it does. But do they have any business exploiting a field of knowledge (or faith) that so many have spent their lives working to perfect - something that they don't understand even a tiny bit but are willing to pretend that they do. Do they have any business exploiting that in the name of making a few bucks?
I say, if they're going to brandish science to sell their wares then let science be the judge. After all, it's the repeatability of good scientific claims that make them defensible. If the claims can't even begin to be supported by the science they claim to stand on, well... they just have no business. Let them sell their products without abusing the efforts of generations of hard working people.
-- Dave
Right, I'm not pouring doodoo on Dr. Bybee. I'm just curious about what these things really are. There are so many confused or just plain dishonest people in the audiophile world (not to mention the world in general) that it only makes sense to be a bit skeptical when confronted with such an extraordinary claim.The Bybee marketing says if you put a Quantum Purifier in series with a signal-carrying line, it will selectively remove 1/f noise from the signal. Now, the 1/f noise is random and therefore unpredictable. So to remove it, the Bybee would have to accomplish what is essentially the holy grail of signal processing -- to predict the unpredictable, and thereby separate signal from noise as if by magic. It's really an extraordinary thing.
Consider if we made a faithful recording of 1/f noise and tried to send it as signal over an analog transmission line. Would the Bybee separate our intentional 1/f noise from the residual 1/f noise on the circuit? Or would it remove all the 1/f noise? Or none of it? How could the Bybee tell the difference?
I'm definitely not trying to make doodoo here. These are interesting questions, at least to me. So don't get me wrong. Personally, I think the likelihood that Bybees are a scam, intentional or not, is very high. But I don't have an axe to grind at all with anyone who uses them, likes them, or finds them a good value.
-Henry
Consider if we made a faithful recording of 1/f noise and tried to send it as signal over an analog transmission line. Would the Bybee separate our intentional 1/f noise from the residual 1/f noise on the circuit? Or would it remove all the 1/f noise? Or none of it? How could the Bybee tell the difference?
It must be prescient, just like the IntelligentChip . :)
se
I am truly frightened by the thought that there are people in the world that will actually buy this stuff and insist that it works.-Henry
I am truly frightened by the thought that there are people in the world that will actually buy this stuff and insist that it works.
That's the thing. Because there's a significant psychological component involved in our subjective perceptions, there's virtually nothing which doesn't "work" for some number of people.
So you can just sit around and dream up all sorts of nonsense out of thin air and count on some number of people tyring it and getting results from it.
Peter Belt has been demonstrating this since the 1980s. Others have since followed. And I don't hesitate to include Bybee among them.
se
or are you letting your opinions take control?I HAVE tried them, and I and EVERYONE who has participated in the comparisons here (now over ten different people) all heard a difference, and all preferred the sound with the Bybees in the speaker leads. However, they all had different descriptions of what they heard...
i am not fitting them as standard in my products because I want them to stand on their own feet - and to give the client some tweaks to play with.
Just because something doesn't fit current physics thinking doesn't mean it doesn't work!
I never said they dind't "work." Hell, even putting photographs of yourself and your audio system in your freezer "works." Writing special words with special pens on things in your listening room "works." So there's pretty much nothing you can dream up that doesn't "work."
What I said was Bybee is full of crap. A quack. A charlatan. A fraud. Take your pick.
And personally, I don't care to patronize quacks, charlatans and frauds. Simple as that. But that's just me. Others don't mind and that's fine with me.
se
from HP: ...it may be worthwhile to determine what that (presumably well-understood and ordinary) mechanism is so that we can exploit it at low cost in our DIY audio circuits.Which is a brilliant idea. It will be discussable here until Bybee pays for Asylum Sponsorship I suspect. My piddling attempt at spreading some details of TX construction were squished, even when I offered to give away the construction details.
regards,
Douglas
!
Show me the Math...there's no such thing as magic!
I agree 100% with Steve Eddy (as he argues in the Tweakers' Asylum). Square wave overshoot and 1/f noise can be measured. If these things do what their manufacturer says they do, then it should be possible to demonstrate it objectively. But apparently the effects are unmeasurable. Therefore, the claims Bybee makes for the objective effects of his devices are flat-out lies. That's enough for me.-Henry
I agree 100% with Steve Eddy (as he argues in the Tweakers' Asylum). Square wave overshoot and 1/f noise can be measured. If these things do what their manufacturer says they do, then it should be possible to demonstrate it objectively. But apparently the effects are unmeasurable. Therefore, the claims Bybee makes for the objective effects of his devices are flat-out lies. That's enough for me.
.Exactly.
And we have a word for the act of lying in the course of convincing others to part with something of value, such as money. It's called FRAUD.
Now maybe I'm just being too principled here, but I simply can't bring myself to financially reward those who willfully engage in fraud. And all the money back guarantees in the world won't change that for me. It's still FRAUD.
se
Henry
Please comment on my " What you see ... and " post.
I would love to be educated by your insight.
Willie
The ringing and waveform distortion you see in your square wave tests are mostly due to non-flat phase and frequency response. They don't indicate harmonic or intermodulation distortion and may very well be inaudible, regardless of how ugly they look. The ear is remarkably insensitive to phase distortion.An oscilloscope is a very, very useful instrument (you have a nice one, by the way. I have an HP54600A, although I keep a Tektronix 475A on the bench), but not very good for distortion measurements.
-Henry
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
