Cal's Bybee experience

[Cal Weldon]

The Bybees finally arrived and I've just spent close to 3 hours conducting these test. They were purely subjective listening tests because as a consumer I would like to know what they are about. These are the small Bybees, the ones that cost less than 100 dollar each. They are recommended for use in lower power applications such as mids and tweeters so that’s what I focused on. I have two, so part way through testing I decided to double them (in series) to accentuate the results as their literature suggests I might and started the testing again. I went in with an open mind and I conducted the tests in near field and very near field conditions. Volume ranged from about 60 dB to as loud as I could stand before my head started buzzing. I conducted the first part after work and the second after beer.

I used 20 different drivers from woofers to mids to tweeters. Closed back, open back, ported, sealed, aperiodic and free air. Cones, domes, horns both big and small, paper, kevlar, simulated aerogel, aluminum, titanium, phenolic, silk, polycarbonate, piezos and ribbons with ceramic, neo and alnico magnets. Some drivers were new and some were previously loved. The largest driver was 6.5” and the smallest was 5/8”. I have more but I thought this was a good mix and a good start.

To me the input is not that important because if they are capable of improving a system it should include weaker ones as the really good ones hardly need the help, yes? If you disagree that’s fine but I really don’t care, I was out to find what they could offer me, the consumer, the one who is purchasing them in an effort to improve the sound of his system.

I used only one channel, I shunted the other with a resistor. I used alligator clip test leads and/or twist connections.

On the larger units I first used a 125 mfd cap and then a 20 mfd. On the smaller units I used a 20 or a 6.8 mfd first and then a 1.0 mfd.

Results coming shortly, I'm getting thirsty just typing.

[Cal Weldon]

My findings are as follows:

I found l no affect on any of the larger drivers whatsoever.

It was on the smaller drivers, those capable of the highest frequencies such as the ribbons and only when using the 1.0 mfd cap did I notice a difference. When I say difference I wish to stress that this difference reminded me of the tiniest of attenuations which may or may not be due to their mildly resistive nature or it may be what the makers of this product are describing in their literature, I don't know. Either way, the attenuation was so minimal as to be considered miniscule from layman's standards and so much so that many would not notice the difference.

Now, from a consumer point of view I must confess disappointment. I believe that a product that makes claims such as this one should offer more in the way a noticeable difference. Even if I didn't like the difference I would still like to hear one. Would I recommend this product? Not with the testing conducted so far. I'm not finished but perhaps you guys can suggest other tests.

Please don't turn this into a 'told you so' thread. I'm not happy about the investment and I'm likely to make those kinds of post disappear really quick.

[wakibaki]

Good post Cal, sounds like a balanced evaluation. I'm surprised you can hear a difference at all, but 'miniscule' vindicates the way I feel about these things.

w

[kevinahcc20]

Cal,

Were you comparing the Bybees to the equivalent resistor or just Bybee vs no Bybee?

[john curl]

Cal, there is a return guarantee on the Bybee devices. I will personally guarantee the return of your money, IF you will return them.

[jam]

Cal,

What was the equipment used in the test setup?

[Cal Weldon]

Originally Posted by kevinahcc20

Cal,
Were you comparing the Bybees to the equivalent resistor or just Bybee vs no Bybee?

Bybee vs no Bybee, apparently the total resistance for the two equals .05 ohms. I don't have that type of resistor on hand.

Originally Posted by john curl

Cal, there is a return guarantee on the Bybee devices. I will personally guarantee the return of your money, IF you will return them.

Thank you John, a very kind offer but I often prefer to learn my lessons differently. Please don't take that as a slight. I have more digesting to do. I am hoping others might offer forth alternative listening tests I've yet to consider.

Originally Posted by jam

Cal,
What was the equipment used in the test setup?

Inexpensive.

[john curl]

If you insist, then please take Jack Bybee's and Brian Cheney's strong advice to break them in with real music or sweeping test tones for 200 Hrs before trying anything else. I know this seems stupid and difficult to you, but there it is. Brian Cheney has first hand advice on this matter and you may speak to him, if you want to. I will give you his number, privately.

[dave_gerecke]

I for one commend Cal for taking the monetary and time investments to do this evaluation. Although it is only a brief listening test, it's still nice to have someone make this sort of evaluation.

Of course, from reading Cal's first post, the most obvious thing I can determine is that Cal has WAY too many different drivers laying around. And I thought I was bad!

Peace,

Dave

[aardvarkash10]

Originally Posted by john curl

If you insist, then please take Jack Bybee's and Brian Cheney's strong advice to break them in with real music or sweeping test tones for 200 Hrs before trying anything else. I know this seems stupid and difficult to you, but there it is. Brian Cheney has first hand advice on this matter and you may speak to him, if you want to. I will give you his number, privately.

It takes 200 hours for the quantum effect to fully kick in?

Man, those quarks are slow learners aren't they? Are they forgetful as well? How often should they be used to ensure they remember what to sound like?

Gotta say I admire your testing regime Cal - any testing that requires beer is REAL testing!