|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
64.12.116.7
In Reply to: Re: Oh dear! posted by Henry Pasternack on December 28, 2004 at 17:02:32:
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!
Follow Ups:
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.
...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.
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.
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
"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.
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.
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.
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
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: