Bybee Q-P Listening tests

[Pano]

Here is a thread for listening tests ONLY of the Bybee Quantum Purifier.
Please use this thread to report your listen tests and subjective experiences of the Bybee Quantum Purifier.

Here are a few rules for this thread.

1. Listening tests only. No electrical measurements.
2. Uncontrolled tests must be stated as such. These will be treated as opinion only, not facts.
   Opinions and personal experiences are welcome, but do not cry, moan or pitch a fit if they are not met with universal praise.
3. Controlled tests must also be stated as such. These will recieve a higher degree of scrutiny than uncontrolled tests.
4. Respect the opinions of members posting in this thread. Remember,these are opinions and anecdotal evidence. They will be respected as such.
5. Controlled tests are welcome. Thorough documentation is recommended.
6. Suggestions of listening test methodology are welcome, as are critiques of methods.
7. Normal forum RULES also apply here.

[anatech]

Hi Pano,
Fantastic idea!

I can only see one possible problem with your rules, and that would be "what constitutes a controlled listening test"? Can you define this a little more so that everyone is clear?

-Chris

[Pano]

I will define my tests as soon as I have a protocol!

Anyone else is free to propose their own.

[anatech]

Hi Pano,
Well, universally reproducible is out. That standard is too high.

You know what would really help the entire industry? This may exist somewhere, but I don't know where. A universal definition list that applies various terms with some definition. At least something we can use locally in this thread. That would allow everyone to use the same definitions to describe what they hear.

If this doesn't exist, why not create a "dictionary" for use here?

-Chris

[Pano]

Well what we would like in a controlled listening test is to be sure that the person listening has no clue as to whether the Bybee is in or out of the circuit. No visual clues, no accidental clues from the test rig or the person running the test.

That would be the basics.

[anatech]

Hi Pano,
Yup.

Come on people! Dive right on in here!

-Chris

[Cal Weldon]

Swan Dive:

I plan to sit at my bench and listen to a few different sets of multi-way speakers, then a couple sets of FR's on the input leads at a low volume. I then plan to move on to just woofers, mids and tweeters with a final test being done to interconnects. I will be doing the connecting and deciding when and how they are connected or not.

After that I will ask someone to assist me while behind a large piece of grill cloth so I am unable so see or have influence on the testing procedure. Anyone dislike those for tests?

[aardvarkash10]

Originally Posted by anatech

You know what would really help the entire industry? This may exist somewhere, but I don't know where. A universal definition list that applies various terms with some definition. At least something we can use locally in this thread. That would allow everyone to use the same definitions to describe what they hear.
-Chris

Absolutely - language is the bigges problem in this area. I found this over the weekend while considering exactly that problem.

IMO, its not perfect, but it does provide a single refence point for all those airy-fairy terms we use...

[anatech]

Hi Cal,
That is a great test of grill cloth!
You wouldn't believe how easy it is to select grille cloth or internal stuffing / padding with some easy tests done with your ear and some wide band source of (hopefully natural or real) sound.

A valid test. Have at 'er and let us know.

Hi aardvarkash10,
Thanks for the link. Now for one not held captive in a book. That is a good start for ideas.

-Chris

[Pano]

Yes Cal, that's pretty valid, I think. You'd want to do a large number of trials and have the sequence generated randomly. Then you keep a score card.

Whoever is doing the testing should receive the random sequence from someone here, and of course not show it to you.