There is an interesting tidbit on quantum wire here. One of the things touched upon is the manufacture of "ropes" of carbon nanotubes. IIRC, in another thread a QP was dissected and found to be a "ferrite bead wrapped in carbon fibre covered in shrink wrap".
I know next to nothing on the subject, but I found that interesting, even if it is only a coincidence.
I know next to nothing on the subject, but I found that interesting, even if it is only a coincidence.
Yeah, the new ones a use carbon fiber according to the website.
SY, you've mentioned those measurements posted by JC several times, but I can't find them. Will search harder.
EDIT: Ah ha, maybe this?
The noise that is removed seems to have a P-P amplitude of about 300mV. That should not be too hard to measure, right?
SY, you've mentioned those measurements posted by JC several times, but I can't find them. Will search harder.
EDIT: Ah ha, maybe this?
The noise that is removed seems to have a P-P amplitude of about 300mV. That should not be too hard to measure, right?
I have gotten into this thread very late unfortunately. Maybe if I had gotten into it early it would have gone into a less defamatory and more egalitarian direction.
I have used quantum purifiers for many years and they work. It is not just a psychoacoustic effect. I put them at both low level signal inputs and at power supply inputs to the preamp. What happens is that there seems to be more silence and less noise within music and even between notes. It also makes the music sound more organic and more of a whole. Though I only tried this on one preamp I suspect it would happen even if it went into a superior one to mine. It is not a frequency dependent effect but a noise dependent effect. Of course if the noise is frequency dependent it will seem like a frequency dependent effect.
There seems to be a problem when studying an effect such as this because I personally don't think even the inventor really understands what's going on in the underlying effect. For instance, he has described it as a superconductor effect. I would say that is going too far, by half. Nevertheless just because there is some hype regarding the advertising here it has a real good effect on the sound. Often when a subject is little understood, such as the physics behind these little marvels, any inaccuracy in description by the inventor will be latched onto as proof that it is ALL hype.
There is another aspect to this also. In any area of science that is in the transition area between established knowledge and pure ignorance there is an area where we don't know what to measure. Our ears can give us insight that the effect is real. In this case our own ears provide us with the intuition to point us in the right direction. I wonder just how many people that have decried this as hokum have actually tried them? Not many I bet. So that means that those individuals have inferior intuition about the effect these devices create. In the boundary areas of scientific knowledge intuition is all we have to go on because we don't even know what to measure. But our ears hear it.
My purely speculative intuition tells me that these devices do create an effect related to superconductivity. They are not really superconductors of course but are instead created from materials related to the ingredients in high temperature superconductors. There is no known superconductor that consistantly works at room temperature. No, what I suspect is happening is that there is a transitional superconductive effect in these materials. In other words there is lost information, decoherence and smearing of transients in information in music as the reproduction goes down the chain. However that information is somehow still there if it could be decoded. I think the transitional superconductive effect has some effect on retrieving this lost information.
One interesting thing I did was to try several purifiers in series on low level signal on the theory that if one is good, then two might be better. The effect was to create a squeaky quality to the music. Very unnatural. It was almost as if a door to information transfer was too tightly wound, (as many people are
).
I have used quantum purifiers for many years and they work. It is not just a psychoacoustic effect. I put them at both low level signal inputs and at power supply inputs to the preamp. What happens is that there seems to be more silence and less noise within music and even between notes. It also makes the music sound more organic and more of a whole. Though I only tried this on one preamp I suspect it would happen even if it went into a superior one to mine. It is not a frequency dependent effect but a noise dependent effect. Of course if the noise is frequency dependent it will seem like a frequency dependent effect.
There seems to be a problem when studying an effect such as this because I personally don't think even the inventor really understands what's going on in the underlying effect. For instance, he has described it as a superconductor effect. I would say that is going too far, by half. Nevertheless just because there is some hype regarding the advertising here it has a real good effect on the sound. Often when a subject is little understood, such as the physics behind these little marvels, any inaccuracy in description by the inventor will be latched onto as proof that it is ALL hype.
There is another aspect to this also. In any area of science that is in the transition area between established knowledge and pure ignorance there is an area where we don't know what to measure. Our ears can give us insight that the effect is real. In this case our own ears provide us with the intuition to point us in the right direction. I wonder just how many people that have decried this as hokum have actually tried them? Not many I bet. So that means that those individuals have inferior intuition about the effect these devices create. In the boundary areas of scientific knowledge intuition is all we have to go on because we don't even know what to measure. But our ears hear it.
My purely speculative intuition tells me that these devices do create an effect related to superconductivity. They are not really superconductors of course but are instead created from materials related to the ingredients in high temperature superconductors. There is no known superconductor that consistantly works at room temperature. No, what I suspect is happening is that there is a transitional superconductive effect in these materials. In other words there is lost information, decoherence and smearing of transients in information in music as the reproduction goes down the chain. However that information is somehow still there if it could be decoded. I think the transitional superconductive effect has some effect on retrieving this lost information.
One interesting thing I did was to try several purifiers in series on low level signal on the theory that if one is good, then two might be better. The effect was to create a squeaky quality to the music. Very unnatural. It was almost as if a door to information transfer was too tightly wound, (as many people are
).
How do you know this? Could you describe the controlled listening protocols you used to come to this conclusion (which you've stated as a fact, rather than as an anecdote)? Blinding procedures, scoring, randomization, equipment used, level matching procedure?
I would answer your question if you applied it to all aspects of your own design. But it seems to me you have a bias against these devices that would be impossible to overcome. From now on whenever you write an article I hope you apply all the same standards to your own listening on an electronic device you have created. Otherwise, can you spell h-y-p-o-c-r-i-t-e. You cannot apply this standard to others because, from what I have seen, you have not appied it to yourself in a rigorous fashion.
Highly unlikely. We are actually doing pretty well, as these things go. Most of us are understandably skeptical.
You have to admit that it is very hard to get past the ad copy. However, at least some of us will have that opportunity at some point during this exercise.
That would seem to indicate that whatever they do is additive and not necessarily good.
It's simple to overcome. Test data that indicates a difference which is plausibly audible or a controlled listening test which demonstrates a difference. Pretty simple, really, not at all impossible.
I'm stepping up to the plate for some lab work. Are you willing to back up your claims?
I simply meant they made a difference to my ears in the sound quality. Are you saying lab work, as in using standard definitions of distortion and noise? Because if you are then I suspect you will find nothing. Why don't you just break down and get a pair and install them. See what you hear. After all the copy you have produced here it seems like this was the very least you could do to prove you have neutral intentions. I just don't believe that you "do" have neutral intentions otherwise all this negative copy wouldn't have come out without you even trying them. Knock yourself out testing them but I would view any results suspiciously. If you really want to do all this testing it shouldn't be you that does the testing because you have proven yourself in this forum not be impartial about the Bybees. Get someone else who is more neutral than you.
Last edited:
How do you keep on beating me to this? Jeez
That's why I'm a writer for a famous magazine.
Then why did you go so far beyond that and say "It is not just a psychoacoustic effect"? You went from simply relating your subjective experience which isn't open to question or challenge to making an objective claim.
se
We had a QP thread that had all those arguments that you provide. It was shut down by the mods because really it was leading nowhere.
This thread was opened for the single purpose to do some measurements on the devices. If you are interested also, help us get that done. We all understand your arguments, but why not discuss any possible audible effects after we have some measurement results in? Please don't try to derail this thread.
Thank you,
jan didden
You are off by a factor of 2. The description is going too far by "whole".
I believe your speculative intuition is incorrect.
Copper wire is created from materials related to the ingrediants in HTS.
YBCO:
Yttrium barium copper oxide - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
BSCCO
Bismuth strontium calcium copper oxide - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Pray tell, what superconductor works inconsistently at room temperature?
You suspect incorrectly.
A superconductor is only able to pass current with no resistance, nothing more, nothing less. It is not magic.
It's really neat, though. I run 200 amperes through niobium titanium wires that are only 13 thousanths of an inch thick with copper jacket. The wire guage is #28, but the temp is 4.5 Kelvin.
I also use HTS, G-2 from american super. Neat stuff, CVD made on stainless strips, only requires 77 Kelvin to work.
Needless to say, the speculation about near room superconductivity is just that...speculation, and terribly off the mark.
Cheers, John
ps. Hey old guy...I watch the tests with interest...Let me know if ya needs anything I can assist with...
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.