You do of course filter out the effects of a typical sports venue PA system. Please show me one without 10's of %'s of all possible distortions.
Most modern ones! With 250kw ++ of amplifier power you really don't clip much anymore. The subwoofers when used (not used for all program material) may clip. The woofers stay out of clipping. The midrange usually runs at 5% of power capacity or less. Maximum power goes to the tweeters! The absorption of the air requires as much as a 20db boost at 8,000hz! I only have one arena system that even goes to 12,000hz.
There are almost no harmonics higher than the 3rd on the tweeters, the air just won't pass them.
See http://www.jblpro.com/pages/pd_series/pdf/PD764.pdf for a typical modern arena speaker and http://www.jblpro.com/catalog/support/getfile.aspx?doctype=3&docid=201 At operating levels distortion is much better than you would expect.
But even if the loudspeakers would be at 10% distortion or greater you would expect that to mask the DSP units problems.
Simon, I am VERY IMPRESSED with the progress in PA loudspeakers. When I tested them, we were using 1'' and 2'' throat horns from JBL. Really bad horn throat distortion. That is why we went to direct radiators, with the 'Wall of Sound', up to 4KHz.
It has been a long time since I checked out what JBL was up to. I insulted them at the time, showing them my measurements, and asked them when they were going to improve their product.
It has been a long time since I checked out what JBL was up to. I insulted them at the time, showing them my measurements, and asked them when they were going to improve their product.
SY:
The graphs provided by John indicated (to me) very clearly a low pass filter action on the neutral (I forget if it was voltage or current) as before and after results. In simple electrical modeling, this indicates to me the device had SIGNIFICANT series inductance and/or parallel capacitance. Your results that the Bybee acts, smells, and tastes like a resistor are in stark disparagement with those graphs showing the filtering action. Hence my conclusion that either a Bybee wasn't actually tested, or the test procedure was flawed.
John:
I fully expect that you have much more test equipment than I do, and have much more experience also. I was not trying to insult you. As a daily user of Dranetz / BMI latest and greatest equipment, I can state for certain the equipment used way back when was not suitable for anything but low bandwidth measurements which would would be better taken by oscilloscope. The equipment was misapplied. The test results you provided (in my humble opinion) would have been the result of easy-to-measure parameters (L, C, R). Those specific results were not the result of nano-super-quantum anything.
The graphs provided by John indicated (to me) very clearly a low pass filter action on the neutral (I forget if it was voltage or current) as before and after results. In simple electrical modeling, this indicates to me the device had SIGNIFICANT series inductance and/or parallel capacitance. Your results that the Bybee acts, smells, and tastes like a resistor are in stark disparagement with those graphs showing the filtering action. Hence my conclusion that either a Bybee wasn't actually tested, or the test procedure was flawed.
John:
I fully expect that you have much more test equipment than I do, and have much more experience also. I was not trying to insult you. As a daily user of Dranetz / BMI latest and greatest equipment, I can state for certain the equipment used way back when was not suitable for anything but low bandwidth measurements which would would be better taken by oscilloscope. The equipment was misapplied. The test results you provided (in my humble opinion) would have been the result of easy-to-measure parameters (L, C, R). Those specific results were not the result of nano-super-quantum anything.
I suspect that audio noise was in the capability of the BMI equipment. L,C, and R were PRECISELY defined in other graphs that accompanied this test result. I have NOT posted them, because they say NOTHING except that the resistor inside (at the time) was .3 ohms. Unfortunately, my test equipment is NOT that quiet. I get quiet measurements ONLY with SIGNAL AVERAGING and that will defeat the measurement we need to make. NO nanotubes were in the device measured in the original test result, just rare earth materials deposited on the surface of a cavity resonator. THAT is the purifier, not the resistor.
I'm puzzled by this John, so perhaps you can explain.
OK, the device is the actually "just rare earth materials deposited on the surface of a cavity resonator." Where is this cavity resonator? I thought it was a low value resistor at the center of the Bybee. Is there something else?
If it's a 0.025R resistor, then why is the rare earth material not simply shunted by the resistor? Now if all the current passed thru the rare earth elements, I could understand. Or even a large percentage. Why doesn't the resistor simply shunt the effect?
OK, the device is the actually "just rare earth materials deposited on the surface of a cavity resonator." Where is this cavity resonator? I thought it was a low value resistor at the center of the Bybee. Is there something else?
If it's a 0.025R resistor, then why is the rare earth material not simply shunted by the resistor? Now if all the current passed thru the rare earth elements, I could understand. Or even a large percentage. Why doesn't the resistor simply shunt the effect?
I have a number of these devices left over from experimenting with them a few years back. I heard a difference, primarily a reduction in grain on vocals and strings. They seemed to affect the spitty quality I attributed to hash I attribute to power supply rectifiers. With this effect there seemed to be a better sense of low level resolution.
At that time I attempted to measure their response through the midrange where I heard an effect. My approach was to remove the resistor and see what the raw device was doing. My measurements were skewed by a quirk in my PicoScope’s response; I was measuring a phase shift that started in the low KHz through 10 KHz. Unfortunately this was bogus. The odd thing is that it occurred with both my AD216 and 3206 AD converters. They showed the shift but ...
That said, I've been meaning to go back and see how the naked device responds to raw noise and impulses, which is what I hear them removing. If you look at the device as a feedforward mechanism around the .025 ohm resistor there might be something there.
I have very little time to go off in another direction right now but would be willing to supply an already dismantled device (with resistor) and a second matching stock device to Sy to do what you will with.
I'd be curious as to the results as I (believe) actually hear an effect. I lost interest in Bybee's claims when he was suggesting inserting them in the ground returns for the speaker as I view ground as sacred and not to be messed with. I also had issues when I experimented with the high current ones in series with the rail voltages to the output stages to my amps and they just introduced stability issues. My take is that they must be having some effect if they react in any way. But, once again, there are only so many directions one can run at once but my curiosity is revived by this thread so I’m happy to supply them. Just PM me.
Regards,
Mike
Mike, you seem to know (essentially) what you are doing. IF you do remove the INTERNAL resistor by unsoldering the end-cap, you have probably overheated the active layer on the ceramic form, and putting it back together may not be useful. Jack uses special low temp solder and a RF driven soldering iron system to do this. I wish that I had his soldering equipment. Putting the Bybee devices in the ground or neutral, for some reason, seems to work BETTER much of the time, than when in the signal path. I have no idea why this would be so, but it seems to work out that way, according to Jack.
Hi John,
I can't dispute Jacks assertions about damaging the device with heat as he designed the devices. Intuitively though, I originally inspected the devices and it was apparent that the material was fired onto the ceramic tube and there was evidence to my eye that the encaps were just soldered on by normal means. Heating the endcap itself and not the tube allowed it to easily be removed and the resistor removed. I do not see any signs of a change in the look of the film. I guess there could be damage but my instincts tell me no.
I'm sure he builds these thing differently now but a lot can be deduced by looking at the older cruder execution of his design, which is the device I heard the effect through.
Once again, as far as using them in the ground return I can’t argue with the suggested application of the devices as my experiences are limited compared to the designer’s. My experiences just through up a red flag for me.
Regards,
Mike
I have not read the whole thread (life is too short!), but my impression is that if this device works at all (which I am not clear about, despite claims made by sincere people) it certainly does not work in the way claimed, as that would require the device to be able to distinguish between signal and (quantum) noise in the same frequency range. This would mean that the device is akin to Maxwell's demon i.e. carry out its master's wishes by using special knowledge denied to mere mortals. It would also require that once filtered, the electrons somehow retained their new order despite future scattering from dislocations, phonons etc. This I do not believe.
It is said that the device removes quantum noise, and converts it to heat. Surely the removal of randomness (i.e. the imposition of order) would require energy input, so the device should cool itself (as it has no other energy source)? Otherwise it violates thermodynamics. However, I accept that the cooling may be very small compared with the ohmic heating in the resistor, so perhaps difficult to detect.
My own suggestion (if it does anything, other than enhancing the placebo effect) is that it removes RF surface modes from cables (see http://www.corridor.biz/FullArticle.pdf). It is conceivable that it could be better at this than a conventional choke, which is aimed at reducing the more commonly recognised current-based modes. The energy in the surface mode could be dissipated as heat in the ceramics. By the way, ceramics can be made which have quite unusual electromagnetic properties (I worked for a while with a research team) so it is not inconceivable that a suitable arrangement could choke off surface modes. Conventional measurements, treating the item as a two-terminal component, might not detect these properties.
I am not a believer, but I have found that sometimes a genuine effect can be dismissed because it is accompanied by a crazy explanation. We can usually safely reject the crazy explanation, although just occasionally (quantum mechanics?) the crazy explanation turns out to be true!
It is said that the device removes quantum noise, and converts it to heat. Surely the removal of randomness (i.e. the imposition of order) would require energy input, so the device should cool itself (as it has no other energy source)? Otherwise it violates thermodynamics. However, I accept that the cooling may be very small compared with the ohmic heating in the resistor, so perhaps difficult to detect.
My own suggestion (if it does anything, other than enhancing the placebo effect) is that it removes RF surface modes from cables (see http://www.corridor.biz/FullArticle.pdf). It is conceivable that it could be better at this than a conventional choke, which is aimed at reducing the more commonly recognised current-based modes. The energy in the surface mode could be dissipated as heat in the ceramics. By the way, ceramics can be made which have quite unusual electromagnetic properties (I worked for a while with a research team) so it is not inconceivable that a suitable arrangement could choke off surface modes. Conventional measurements, treating the item as a two-terminal component, might not detect these properties.
I am not a believer, but I have found that sometimes a genuine effect can be dismissed because it is accompanied by a crazy explanation. We can usually safely reject the crazy explanation, although just occasionally (quantum mechanics?) the crazy explanation turns out to be true!
It's been pointed out before that the claims violate first principles. Not just the Second Law, but the First as well.
However, since no effects show up in the audio band at any sane level, it's safe (in the total absence of any supplier data to the contrary and any controlled listening test) to categorize this as a relatively expensive placebo enhancer.
Like any good scam, what you're buying is the story, not the performance.
However, since no effects show up in the audio band at any sane level, it's safe (in the total absence of any supplier data to the contrary and any controlled listening test) to categorize this as a relatively expensive placebo enhancer.
Like any good scam, what you're buying is the story, not the performance.
I just bought the three cheapest, I may be crazy, but that doesn't mean I'm stupid!
- Status
- Not open for further replies.