There was a lot discussion of the Bybee Quantum Purifier in other threads, but no double blind listening test results, nor any measurements that I can recall. I was able to borrow a pair of Bybee Quantum Purifier "Speaker Bullets" for a day for testing.
These units physically consist of a banana plug, a body that is about 2 1/2 inches long by 1/2 diameter and a 5 way binding post. The units are plugged into an amplifier output and the speaker cables connected to the 5 way binding post, thus putting the Bybee device in series.
The first thing I did was to measure the DC resistance. The resistance was so low that I had to use a Kelvin 4 wire circuit to get an accurate measurement. I obtained a reading of 0.013 ohms on both samples. I then measured the impedance at various frequencies. As expected, the device behaved like an inductance, a very small inductance, the impedance was 0.056 at 100 KHz. Subtracting the DC resistance gives an inductive reactance of 0.043 ohms. Solving for L gives an inductance of 0.0684 microhenrys. One can accomplish the same thing with about 5 turns of #18 wire wound on a 1/2 diameter form 2 inches long. However I suspect that the Bybee device is a straight through conductor surrounded by a ferrite material of some kind.
I then ran some harmonic distortion measurements with a very good 400 watt amplifier into a 8 ohm dummy load at full power. Measurements at 1000 Hz were identical 0.007% with and without the Bybee Quantum Purifier in the circuit. I then measured THD at 20 KHz. THD at 20 KHz on this amplifier measured 0.150% with and 0.155% without the Bybee devices. I ran the amp at full power for 15 minutes and took the measurements again, got 0.145% with and 0.150% without. A change but the difference between the two was the same and very slightly in favor of the Bybee device. Of course one would expect an inductance to filter the higher order harmonics.
A weighed noise measured exactly the same with and without the Bybee devices.
So perhaps there is some "magical" property that my simple measurements would not reveal, so on to the double blind listening tests.
The double blind test set up consists of a relay box controlled by the parallel port of a computer. It is an "ABX" test, in which either A, B or X can be auditioned at will. The computer randomly chooses what source will feed X. The goal of the listener is to choose what X sounds the same as, does it sound like A or does it sound like B? The listener chooses what he thinks X sounds like and the computer records the choice then presents a new trial, with a new random choice for X. This is repeated 20 times and only at the end of the run does the computer reveal what X was for each trial and report the final score. Any score between 40% and 60% is just guessing. Scores between 60% and 75% might mean something but are still not considered highly confident. Anything 75% and above gives a 95% confidence rating that there is an audible difference between the two sources.
I confirmed that the double blind ABX test setup was working correctly. First a run with "B" disconnected, so that X would be silent if "B" was the randomly chosen source. 100% score on that one! Then a second run with A and B both connected with a jumper wire. 45% score, yes, just guessing, as I could not tell the difference.
Finally the jumper was removed from the "B" source and the Bybee Quantum Purifier installed in the "B" circuit.
I first ran the real listening tests from an FM tuner, listening to classical music from the local PBS station and "Alternative" from a college station. Result: 55% score, basically just guessing. Perhaps the FM audio quality was too poor to reveal any difference that the Bybee Quantum Purifier would make.
I then put on an EMI CD recording of Willam Tell. Result first try using the entire overture, 55%, but I thought that I was hearing some difference in high pitched instruments, such as triangles and flutes. I ran another series, but using only portions of the overture with high pitched instruments. My score improved to 60%, but still by no means night and day difference, it could well be a result of statistical fluctuation.
Next a test with vinyl. Leory Anderson Volume II, Mercury Living Presence. I used "The Typewriter" and "The Song of the Bells". again a 60% score. It could still be a statistical fluke, but what I thought I was hearing on high pitched instruments was a slightly "cleaner" sound.
Conclusion: While there *might* be an audible difference, the money spent on ByBee Quantum Purifiers would give a more audible improvement if spent on new speakers or phono cartridge upgrade instead.
Future research to be done: Test with 5 turns of #18 wire as described above and see if I get the same audible results.
These units physically consist of a banana plug, a body that is about 2 1/2 inches long by 1/2 diameter and a 5 way binding post. The units are plugged into an amplifier output and the speaker cables connected to the 5 way binding post, thus putting the Bybee device in series.
The first thing I did was to measure the DC resistance. The resistance was so low that I had to use a Kelvin 4 wire circuit to get an accurate measurement. I obtained a reading of 0.013 ohms on both samples. I then measured the impedance at various frequencies. As expected, the device behaved like an inductance, a very small inductance, the impedance was 0.056 at 100 KHz. Subtracting the DC resistance gives an inductive reactance of 0.043 ohms. Solving for L gives an inductance of 0.0684 microhenrys. One can accomplish the same thing with about 5 turns of #18 wire wound on a 1/2 diameter form 2 inches long. However I suspect that the Bybee device is a straight through conductor surrounded by a ferrite material of some kind.
I then ran some harmonic distortion measurements with a very good 400 watt amplifier into a 8 ohm dummy load at full power. Measurements at 1000 Hz were identical 0.007% with and without the Bybee Quantum Purifier in the circuit. I then measured THD at 20 KHz. THD at 20 KHz on this amplifier measured 0.150% with and 0.155% without the Bybee devices. I ran the amp at full power for 15 minutes and took the measurements again, got 0.145% with and 0.150% without. A change but the difference between the two was the same and very slightly in favor of the Bybee device. Of course one would expect an inductance to filter the higher order harmonics.
A weighed noise measured exactly the same with and without the Bybee devices.
So perhaps there is some "magical" property that my simple measurements would not reveal, so on to the double blind listening tests.
The double blind test set up consists of a relay box controlled by the parallel port of a computer. It is an "ABX" test, in which either A, B or X can be auditioned at will. The computer randomly chooses what source will feed X. The goal of the listener is to choose what X sounds the same as, does it sound like A or does it sound like B? The listener chooses what he thinks X sounds like and the computer records the choice then presents a new trial, with a new random choice for X. This is repeated 20 times and only at the end of the run does the computer reveal what X was for each trial and report the final score. Any score between 40% and 60% is just guessing. Scores between 60% and 75% might mean something but are still not considered highly confident. Anything 75% and above gives a 95% confidence rating that there is an audible difference between the two sources.
I confirmed that the double blind ABX test setup was working correctly. First a run with "B" disconnected, so that X would be silent if "B" was the randomly chosen source. 100% score on that one! Then a second run with A and B both connected with a jumper wire. 45% score, yes, just guessing, as I could not tell the difference.
Finally the jumper was removed from the "B" source and the Bybee Quantum Purifier installed in the "B" circuit.
I first ran the real listening tests from an FM tuner, listening to classical music from the local PBS station and "Alternative" from a college station. Result: 55% score, basically just guessing. Perhaps the FM audio quality was too poor to reveal any difference that the Bybee Quantum Purifier would make.
I then put on an EMI CD recording of Willam Tell. Result first try using the entire overture, 55%, but I thought that I was hearing some difference in high pitched instruments, such as triangles and flutes. I ran another series, but using only portions of the overture with high pitched instruments. My score improved to 60%, but still by no means night and day difference, it could well be a result of statistical fluctuation.
Next a test with vinyl. Leory Anderson Volume II, Mercury Living Presence. I used "The Typewriter" and "The Song of the Bells". again a 60% score. It could still be a statistical fluke, but what I thought I was hearing on high pitched instruments was a slightly "cleaner" sound.
Conclusion: While there *might* be an audible difference, the money spent on ByBee Quantum Purifiers would give a more audible improvement if spent on new speakers or phono cartridge upgrade instead.
Future research to be done: Test with 5 turns of #18 wire as described above and see if I get the same audible results.
I bought some small purifiers last year to try in some silver ribbon silver bullet ic experiments. More of a lateral move than moving subjective performance up or down. Next tried them out at positive terminals of planar neo 10 and neo 3 pairs. Felt after several weeks they robbed my system of transient snap and focus. They did seem to add some thing in the power umbilical feeding an old 1/2 Nelson MSB dac, but ultimately I was happy to recover my costs by including them in the sale of the 1/2 Nelson and it's tweaked power supply. In my experiences over about 10 months usage the results were not predictable. I have two pieces left. Does anyone think they are worth trying on eithe the inpu or output side of a passive stepped attenuator?
Since these work on the Tinkerbell principle, the key question is, "Do you believe that they're worth trying there?"
They are worth trying ANYWHERE! Jack Bybee showed me a unique purifier that fit in front of my Vendetta Research Phono preamp, just yesterday, and I was AMAZED. He gave me a spare set, and I will try it at home.
Yes, sometimes the Bybee purifiers change the sound where it seems to take away some of the 'risetime' but this mostly seems to be taking away stuff that has been added along the audio path, rather than the original source, BUT it could be taking some original signal information, as well.
The really important thing is that they do anything at all!
Yes, sometimes the Bybee purifiers change the sound where it seems to take away some of the 'risetime' but this mostly seems to be taking away stuff that has been added along the audio path, rather than the original source, BUT it could be taking some original signal information, as well.
The really important thing is that they do anything at all!
Listening room 12'by8'highby24'long. Wall shelving and liberal carpeting make it a fairly non echoing room. For last 6 months enjoying quasi dipole loaded BG planar satellite
pair augmented with 500watt transmission line sub. Triple run cat 5e braided speaker cable, amtrans twisted pair ic , yaqin 300b amp with replaced continental main caps, Mundorf s&oil caps as well as some Russian nos polystyrene caps bypassing throughout. Eithera a yaqin or tascam CD player , amp fed from wall, everything else from juice bars . Sometimes swap back in cardas cross , transparent supers, kimber heroes, wireworld Polaris as well as various power cables from same manufacturers to see if I still like mine better.Recently added cheap dual tt with a v15 cartridge and inexpensive Cambridge phono pre amp. Yaqin amp has direct in option, will be trying humidor box passive attenuator there when parts arrive.
pair augmented with 500watt transmission line sub. Triple run cat 5e braided speaker cable, amtrans twisted pair ic , yaqin 300b amp with replaced continental main caps, Mundorf s&oil caps as well as some Russian nos polystyrene caps bypassing throughout. Eithera a yaqin or tascam CD player , amp fed from wall, everything else from juice bars . Sometimes swap back in cardas cross , transparent supers, kimber heroes, wireworld Polaris as well as various power cables from same manufacturers to see if I still like mine better.Recently added cheap dual tt with a v15 cartridge and inexpensive Cambridge phono pre amp. Yaqin amp has direct in option, will be trying humidor box passive attenuator there when parts arrive.
Sounds good, MIT, the most important thing is that you KNOW the sound of your room and the equipment you are using. Then you try changes.
Jack Bybee's room was similar with damping on the walls, Bybee's everywhere, and with my preamp and phono electronics. Even though I did not have time to 'forgive' the 'weaknesses' of his listening room, my associate and I could spend hours listening to CD's, which is notable, because I can't do that here at home.
Jack Bybee's room was similar with damping on the walls, Bybee's everywhere, and with my preamp and phono electronics. Even though I did not have time to 'forgive' the 'weaknesses' of his listening room, my associate and I could spend hours listening to CD's, which is notable, because I can't do that here at home.
Reply to #15- CD is a mystery to me. The better my playback system gets, the less satisfying it becomes. Maybe I don't really play the system so much as my system plays the room. So far (about a month and a half) it's one toe in the phono pool going on head over heels. So many problems in amp speakers and cabling just seem to go away on lp.
That's the "tragedy" of CD sound - better now than it used to be, but still a slippery customer! Terribly, terribly prone to interference effects - which kill the "high end" qualities of the sound, it becomes mediocre, boring to listen to. This is always, always a distortion in the playback chain, and may require major efforts to properly eliminate ...
- Status
- Not open for further replies.