Bybee Quantum Purifier Measurement and Analysis - Page 51 - diyAudio
Go Back   Home > Forums > General Interest > Everything Else

Everything Else Anything related to audio / video / electronics etc) BUT remember- we have many new forums where your thread may now fit! .... Parts, Equipment & Tools, Construction Tips, Software Tools......

Please consider donating to help us continue to serve you.

Ads on/off / Custom Title / More PMs / More album space / Advanced printing & mass image saving
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 8th September 2010, 02:01 AM   #501
Speakerholic
diyAudio Moderator
 
Cal Weldon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Near Vancouver


Can't say I paid attention to who deleted the other posts but I just got rid of a bunch that had nothing to do with testing or analyzing.

Return to topic shall we?

Thank you.
__________________
Next stop: Margaritaville
Some of Cal's stuff | Cal Weldon Consulting
 
Old 8th September 2010, 07:29 AM   #502
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Fairfield, IA
Default OK then: a test suggestion for Bybee and other magic dust

Hello to all.
Based on the replies made to the suggestion we investigate or develop methods similar to the ones Acuity ran for Nordost, and see if the Bybees show any blips with similar tests, well... I'd like to stir the pot some more.. even if I do "doubt the bybee", I wanna know for sure.

BTW... before I get constructive, and believe me, I will... some tongue in cheek to make an important point... Please feel free to skip ahead if you're feeling a little roasted...

SIR!
I have no desire to "insult the Audio Engineering Society" by implying they maybe missed out on something... (wow, I didn't know the AES had become a Holy Orthodoxy that needs defending from heretic free thinkers...)...

but I AM going to suggest that we need to take another look at testing with non-linear content, musical and otherwise, and I would like to suggest a few ideas for testing this way. Why? Because it seems clear to many of us that we are still hearing things that don't show up in the most commonly applied tests. Even if the "Holy Audio Orthodoxy" says the earth is flat, some of us somehow still free to suspect otherwise.

Remember THD was king until Matti Ottala showed us all about TIM? Remember how BAD some of those POS transistor amps sounded?
Oh wait, then the doubly blind men showed us we can't possibly tell the difference... and we suddenly couldn't hear any other forms of distortion because we don't have measurements for them... Yeah i know, we just can't hear cables... uh huh.

OK, so here's an actual suggestion to test for audible non linearities:

1) Start with something like bwaslo's audible diff tester. With it's time correction features, that method looks promising indeed.
And you know what? With some additional processing, we might be able to extend its functionality and generate measurable output. How? Well, use a really high resolution storage scope to measure diff-maker's output and apply boatloads of averaging to see/measure/listen to it with huge s/n ratio. ("Averaging?" I can already hear them say: Gadzooks man, if we have much time variance that won't work! well, as stated above, bwaslo already took care of some/much of that, but then add #2 and #3 and you have even mo' resolution)

2) Use a really good D/A. (try Antelope Audio Zodiac+).
reduce jitter and time errors by syncing everything up with a good external clock or syncing to the Zodiac's clock

3) Do NOT use a CD or a hard disk for the signal source! Store a variety of demanding HiRez 192/24 (go to 384/32 when they become available) musical test files on a good Solid State Drive and use that as a source instead of... anything with moving parts - eliminates a bunch of mechanical and jitter/timing variables and makes the tests a LOT more repeatable relative to time.

4) Using #3 above, because the signal may be MUCH more repeatable in time, it may now become possible to select very demanding musical signals... play them hundreds/thousands of times... and measure, store and average the output from the diff-maker... you get much higher test resolution by averaging many hundreds of tests together...if the time sig is repeatable you can go waaay beyond 24 bits...
and non-linear anomalies that affect the audio band may show up more clearly, (even if said anomalies are well beyond the audio band, if they are audible, they may show up more clearly with a good high s/n non linear diff test such as proposed)

So, again, refer to suggestion #3 .... from what I've been able to find, SSD's would exhibit much less of this time variance, also they are a much lighter load on the 'puter's power supply, a non trivial issue when compared to an optical drive or hard drive. And they seem to sound much cleaner than Hard drive... I can hear the differ...(uh-oh, another controversy brewing.)

Other considerations:
5) Maybe reduce power supply and ground plane noise issues by using battery power where practical. Use freshly charged batteries with way overspec'ed current capacity.

6) Test inside and outside a D'Arsonval cage to determine differences. It's entirely possible some of these bybees/cables/terminators/magic devices are simply filtering some RF artifacts, and it would be good to see what happens if we put 'em near a strong rf signal and can hear/test a difference.

7) Check the effect of isolation transformers between DAC outputs and the amps being used for testing. Once upon a time, I thought a DAC I was auditioning sounded really bad, then I found out it was reacting to the class D amp it was driving... when I put a good Jensen isolation transformer in between 'em the DAC sounded very good indeed.

8) To test cables and bybees use a variety of loads, and make sure at least one of them is a real speaker that presents truly nasty low impedances and highly reactive loads.
Test them at very low, middle level and extremely high power ranges. At high volumes some speakers show some really big impedance changes, it'd be interesting to see if any of these magic bullets help at high levels vs low. (Yes, I doubt it also, but test first, then talk trash.) Use earplugs.

9) Use a variety of test amps. Determine their audible diff characteristics.

10) test the cables being used and determine their audible diff characteristics Listen and also look at the differences using a storage scope, run many tests with the same track and average the time signals (if they are not jittery) and measure the output of the diff-maker.

Again: Yeah, I know, the Bybee is probably bogus, but if we SAY we're gonna be fair, let's actually BE fair, OK?

Methinks the preceding methodology will be much more useful in helping to determine what makes some cables/capacitors/inductors sound different from others... but IF the Bybees also show a blip here, well, wouldn't that just be a real embarrassment to some of us cynics!

In the meantime, please look over these suggestions and see if they hold up to scrutiny. I think they may work very well indeed, but I do not have the equipment, nor the time to do this. Any takers?
 
Old 8th September 2010, 10:17 AM   #503
neb001 is offline neb001  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Caldwell View Post
3) Do NOT use a CD or a hard disk for the signal source! Store a variety of demanding HiRez 192/24 (go to 384/32 when they become available) musical test files on a good Solid State Drive and use that as a source instead of... anything with moving parts - eliminates a bunch of mechanical and jitter/timing variables and makes the tests a LOT more repeatable relative to time.

So, again, refer to suggestion #3 .... from what I've been able to find, SSD's would exhibit much less of this time variance, also they are a much lighter load on the 'puter's power supply, a non trivial issue when compared to an optical drive or hard drive. And they seem to sound much cleaner than Hard drive... I can hear the differ...(uh-oh, another controversy brewing.)
I know this is slightly OT, but do you have proof of these claims? A computer's drive internally caches reads, the operating system software pre-caches reads, and it's very likely the software being used to play a music file off a drive is doing some caching of it's own. None of this changes with a switch from a standard HDD to a SSD. Clearly if there are timing issues with playing from a HDD then files being read would no longer be bit perfect, correct?
 
Old 8th September 2010, 10:40 AM   #504
sandyK is offline sandyK  Australia
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Sydney
Quote:
Originally Posted by neb001 View Post
I know this is slightly OT, but do you have proof of these claims? A computer's drive internally caches reads, the operating system software pre-caches reads, and it's very likely the software being used to play a music file off a drive is doing some caching of it's own. None of this changes with a switch from a standard HDD to a SSD. Clearly if there are timing issues with playing from a HDD then files being read would no longer be bit perfect, correct?
Check out the replies from Wavelength, then Chris Connaker at Computer Audiophile. Especially the comment from Chris about the Symposium.
There is far more detail about that from Chris Connaker in a much earlier post, where he details the way the tests were performed using proper procedures.
SandyK

Does SSD sound better than Hard Disk? | Computer Audiophile
 
Old 8th September 2010, 11:18 AM   #505
SY is offline SY  United States
diyAudio Moderator
 
SY's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Chicagoland
Blog Entries: 1
The claims are made that these devices produce audible effects with conventional media and in conventional applications. Let's not get sidetracked with discussions of exotic sources, exotic applications, and incorrect understandings of signal processing and measurement methods.
__________________
You might be screaming "No, no, no" and all they hear is "Who wants cake?" Let me tell you something: They all do. They all want cake.- Wilford Brimley
 
Old 8th September 2010, 11:29 AM   #506
neb001 is offline neb001  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by SY View Post
The claims are made that these devices produce audible effects with conventional media and in conventional applications. Let's not get sidetracked with discussions of exotic sources, exotic applications, and incorrect understandings of signal processing and measurement methods.
My apologies, it's the first I've seen of such a claim so I had to ask. Now back to our regularly scheduled Bybee fun!

I'm slightly hurt by the idea that a computer based source is exotic

Last edited by neb001; 8th September 2010 at 11:31 AM.
 
Old 8th September 2010, 11:41 AM   #507
Pano is offline Pano  United States
diyAudio Moderator
 
Pano's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Milliways
Blog Entries: 4
I agree. The Bybee is supposed to be a "No Brainer" improvement. Not a tiny little tweak audible on only the finest systems.

No need for a microscope when a magnifying glass will do fine.
 
Old 8th September 2010, 11:55 AM   #508
SY is offline SY  United States
diyAudio Moderator
 
SY's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Chicagoland
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by neb001 View Post
I'm slightly hurt by the idea that a computer based source is exotic
Not so much around here- my CDs are all ripped to hard disk, and I use the computer plus PCI card as a primary music source. As soon as I'm finished a version of Jan Didden's mods to my DCX2496, the DACs in that will be my primary source.
__________________
You might be screaming "No, no, no" and all they hear is "Who wants cake?" Let me tell you something: They all do. They all want cake.- Wilford Brimley
 
Old 8th September 2010, 11:57 AM   #509
diyAudio Member
 
jacco vermeulen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: At the sea front, Rotterdam or Curaçao
Send a message via Yahoo to jacco vermeulen
Quote:
Originally Posted by panomaniac View Post
on only
Rather amusing one, that is.

How much would someone invest in a system component, before $200 and up worth of QP's is a consideration.
(in the event that they do the wild thing)
__________________
No More Mr Nice Guy
 
Old 8th September 2010, 01:18 PM   #510
peterr is offline peterr  Netherlands
diyAudio Member
 
peterr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Amsterdam
The innards of a bybee:

Click the image to open in full size.

Click the image to open in full size.

Click the image to open in full size.

Taken from Here
__________________
Keep an open mind. It helps.
Peter
 

Closed Thread


Hide this!Advertise here!
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Info on Bybee Quantum Purifiers needed Peter Daniel Everything Else 68 19th December 2012 08:28 AM
Bybee Quantum Purifier Experience. mrfeedback Everything Else 321 27th August 2010 09:41 PM
diy bybee quantum purifiers? mbl Power Supplies 549 16th April 2010 10:38 PM
measurement and analysis tools D_Dubya Full Range 12 31st May 2008 02:07 PM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 04:28 PM.


vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright ©1999-2014 diyAudio

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2