Since the previous ByBee QP thread has been withdrawn.
From http://www.vonschweikert.com/db100.html :
BYBEE QUANTUM PURIFIER
In addition, we have employed the Bybee Quantum Purifiers to eliminate high frequency distortion caused by RFI and other high frequency noise. These filters absorb distortion above the range of audibility to ensure very quiet operation of the horn tweeter in the critical range. Although this technique is controversial, the sonic effects are quite audible and dramatic. We believe the DB-100 to have the smoothest yet most detailed sound available, cost-no-object!
I regard von Schweikert as one of the top speaker designers with his feet firmly on the ground (I own a pair of VR-1’s). Von Schweikert does not need to use QP’s to market his speakers, so I regard his use serious. What to think about it?
Please no flaming, I am sceptical myself enough
Cheers
From http://www.vonschweikert.com/db100.html :
BYBEE QUANTUM PURIFIER
In addition, we have employed the Bybee Quantum Purifiers to eliminate high frequency distortion caused by RFI and other high frequency noise. These filters absorb distortion above the range of audibility to ensure very quiet operation of the horn tweeter in the critical range. Although this technique is controversial, the sonic effects are quite audible and dramatic. We believe the DB-100 to have the smoothest yet most detailed sound available, cost-no-object!
I regard von Schweikert as one of the top speaker designers with his feet firmly on the ground (I own a pair of VR-1’s). Von Schweikert does not need to use QP’s to market his speakers, so I regard his use serious. What to think about it?
Please no flaming, I am sceptical myself enough
Cheers
Pjotr said:
Well, let's see...
In addition, we have employed the Bybee Quantum Purifiers to eliminate high frequency distortion caused by RFI and other high frequency noise. These filters absorb distortion above the range of audibility to ensure very quiet operation of the horn tweeter in the critical range.
Here he's claiming the Quantum Purifiers are doing something completely different than what Bybee has been claiming they do. According to Bybee and Curl, they're supposed to be getting rid of quantum 1/f noise.
Though von Schweikert's claim might actually be closer to the truth than what Bybee has been claiming. If the so-called "near superconductive" ceramic surrounding the 0.02 ohm resistor was simply nothing more than a big ferrite bead, that would certainly help to filter out RFI and other high frequency noise and interference.
I wonder if von Schweikert has tried using a 0.02 ohm resistor stuffed inside a big ferrite bead?
Although this technique is controversial, the sonic effects are quite audible and dramatic.
Just another empty claim of audibility to be heaped on the mountain of all the other empty claims of audibility that have come before it.
Von Schweikert may well be wholly sincere in his claims. But sincerity in itself doesn't prove anything. So we really don't know any more now than we did before.
Anyway, that's what I think about it.
se
SE knows nothing about how the Bybee QP purifiers work. I can't tell him, either. However, I have tried and now use Bybees in my home system. VS apparently has found them useful, as I do. His explanation is partially correct, but incomplete. For the record, there is NO ferrite in a Bybee filter.
john curl said:
Look, if you're going to keep playing this silly cloak and daggar bit and not tell anyone how they DO work, the I'd suggest you stop going around making unsubstantiated claims about others not knowing how they work.
Well, until we're told what is in it, we don't know what's not in it either, more unsubstantiated claims notwithstanding.
se
Hmm
Please guys will you leave out the personal parts. I like to see more on evidence about the thing itself. To quote D. Self:
“If something comes up repeatedly without evidence it is worth investigating it”
Many people are convincing (although by using their ears) that those QP’s modify the signal in some way. If that is the case I think it can be measured too. And if Bybee itself developed that thing serious, most likely he did not do that with a black pot on an ancient stove powered by peat.
Cheers
Please guys will you leave out the personal parts. I like to see more on evidence about the thing itself. To quote D. Self:
“If something comes up repeatedly without evidence it is worth investigating it”
Many people are convincing (although by using their ears) that those QP’s modify the signal in some way. If that is the case I think it can be measured too. And if Bybee itself developed that thing serious, most likely he did not do that with a black pot on an ancient stove powered by peat.
Cheers
Pjotr, I agree with you and I don't mind speculating about the
possible causes of effects I am sceptical about. As long as
we cannot prove whether it exists or not, we simply don't know.
If the Bybees do work and do so in the way Bybee claims himself,
then I am afraid there are very few on this forum who are able
to understand how and why, since it seems central to the
explanation to understand quantum physics concepts like
Coopers pairs. Do any of you understand that? I don't for
sure, but at least I searched the web to check that there is
actually something called Coopers pairs. So does Bybee
know something we don't have a clue about or does he just
use terminology that so few of is understand that we won't be
able to figure out whether he made it all up? I suppose John
has this deep knowledge of quantum physics since he seem
to understand how the Bybees work. Somewhat puzzling,
although not necessarily contradictory, since he recently
seemed to have the opinion that not even semiconductor
physics was very relevant for audio.
possible causes of effects I am sceptical about. As long as
we cannot prove whether it exists or not, we simply don't know.
If the Bybees do work and do so in the way Bybee claims himself,
then I am afraid there are very few on this forum who are able
to understand how and why, since it seems central to the
explanation to understand quantum physics concepts like
Coopers pairs. Do any of you understand that? I don't for
sure, but at least I searched the web to check that there is
actually something called Coopers pairs. So does Bybee
know something we don't have a clue about or does he just
use terminology that so few of is understand that we won't be
able to figure out whether he made it all up? I suppose John
has this deep knowledge of quantum physics since he seem
to understand how the Bybees work. Somewhat puzzling,
although not necessarily contradictory, since he recently
seemed to have the opinion that not even semiconductor
physics was very relevant for audio.
Hi,
What's the range of audiblity??
10 to 30 KHz?
Nah, it is not. In audiometric terms perhaps, yet we feel musical emotions way beyond these frequencies, bone conduction is one clue...
"These filters absorb distortion"
Oh dear, how so, JC?
I'd really like to know but even when looking at nano electronics I fail to see how.
Please do tell.They may well absorb something but other than real world filtering using a combination of L, C and R, how??
Surely the sheer mention of nano-electronics is going to fly back in my face again with a megaton of meaningless me-too explanations?
Don't you get tired of 'splaining bright sides to the dark side of the moon?
I know I do,
What's the range of audiblity??
10 to 30 KHz?
Nah, it is not. In audiometric terms perhaps, yet we feel musical emotions way beyond these frequencies, bone conduction is one clue...
"These filters absorb distortion"
Oh dear, how so, JC?
I'd really like to know but even when looking at nano electronics I fail to see how.
Please do tell.They may well absorb something but other than real world filtering using a combination of L, C and R, how??
Surely the sheer mention of nano-electronics is going to fly back in my face again with a megaton of meaningless me-too explanations?
Don't you get tired of 'splaining bright sides to the dark side of the moon?
I know I do,
Gentlemen,
I have also been perplexed by the Bybee Quantum Purifiers. In one ocassion I sent the inventor a set of questions but never received a reply. So I followed up and nothing. MY question was:
Copper pairs are ONLY relevent to Yttrium-Barium-Copper Oxide Low Temperature (less than 90k or 183C below zero), so his claim did not explain their behavior. Additionally, there is a maximum current above which the copper pairs dissociate at these low temperatures. He claims that these filters were developed to work with sonar systems where cooling near 77k is viable. I may not be an expert but I was un-impressed at the lack of response. I take the word of those who say they work, but would like a more "beefy" explanation before plunging so much cash into them.
Salsero
I have also been perplexed by the Bybee Quantum Purifiers. In one ocassion I sent the inventor a set of questions but never received a reply. So I followed up and nothing. MY question was:
Copper pairs are ONLY relevent to Yttrium-Barium-Copper Oxide Low Temperature (less than 90k or 183C below zero), so his claim did not explain their behavior. Additionally, there is a maximum current above which the copper pairs dissociate at these low temperatures. He claims that these filters were developed to work with sonar systems where cooling near 77k is viable. I may not be an expert but I was un-impressed at the lack of response. I take the word of those who say they work, but would like a more "beefy" explanation before plunging so much cash into them.
Salsero
Christer said:
While both Bybee and John have invoked Cooper pairs with regard to the Quantum Purifiers, Cooper pairs are just a buzzword red herring for several reasons.
First, while Cooper pair bonding seems to explain superconductivity in Type I superconductors, which basically involves pure metals, it doesn't quite seem to explain superconductivity in Type II semiconductors, which include the metal oxide ceramics which Bybee says the ceramic in his purifiers is made of.
Second, Cooper pair bonding doesn't really occur until you begin to approach the critical temperature of the superconductor (Tc). Which even for the highest temperature superconductor to date is FAR FAR below room temperatures.
Third, the ceramic material in the purifiers doesn't seem to conduct at all (seeing as the purifiers measure 0.02 ohms, the same as the 0.02 ohm resistor it's made of) so virtually all the current is flowing through a conventional 0.02 ohm resistor. So any issues with regard to superconductivity are pretty much moot.
But if you want to read up about Cooper pairs just for the fun of it, here's a good place to start:
BCS Theory of Superconductivity
se
Salsero said:
Acutally Cooper pairs are relevant to all Type I superconductors which are your pure metals. YBCO is a Type II superconductor, and last I read, the BCS theory didn't fully explain superconductivity in Type II superconductors.
Which is moot seeing as the purifiers are being used at room temperatures and higher.
se
I have tried putting Super Conductor material on top of audio output and Dsp chips and the sonic resultant was deeply disturbing and not at all pleasant - drove me and two witnesses out of the room quick smart.
When it all comes down to it, if the QP's make a pleasing change to audio reproduction who cares about how they actually work - millions and millions of people use household items everyday to their satisfaction without a clue as to how they work.
I am more interested in a subjective evaluation of the sonic effects/changes caused by the QP's, and listener long term findings - JC can you give us some descriptive subjective findings and your long term opinion please ?.
Eric.
When it all comes down to it, if the QP's make a pleasing change to audio reproduction who cares about how they actually work - millions and millions of people use household items everyday to their satisfaction without a clue as to how they work.
I am more interested in a subjective evaluation of the sonic effects/changes caused by the QP's, and listener long term findings - JC can you give us some descriptive subjective findings and your long term opinion please ?.
Eric.
mrfeedback said:
Why not buy some and try them for yourself? How can anyone else possibly tell you what your particular subjective experiences in your particular situation will necessarily be?
Wouldn't it be better to subjectively evaluate them without being pumped and primed with a lot of preconceived notions and expectations?
I always try and avoid the subjective findings of others, subjectivity being so well, subjective. I prefer to subjectively evaluate on my own terms with as little external influence as possible.
se
Re: Secondary Effects.......
The whole point of all the buzzwords, doubletalk, contradictions, obfuscations and evasions is to keep people from "seeing it" while trying to make it appear that there's actually something there to see. DUH!
Otherwise known as the old huckster's motto of "If you can't fascinate 'em with facts, baffle 'em with BS."
se
mrfeedback said:
The whole point of all the buzzwords, doubletalk, contradictions, obfuscations and evasions is to keep people from "seeing it" while trying to make it appear that there's actually something there to see. DUH!
Otherwise known as the old huckster's motto of "If you can't fascinate 'em with facts, baffle 'em with BS."
se
Originally posted by Steve Eddy
Why not buy some and try them for yourself? How can anyone else possibly tell you what your particular subjective experiences in your particular situation will necessarily be?
I find that intelligent subjective evaluations from experienced listeners reveal reliable information.
Wouldn't it be better to subjectively evaluate them without being pumped and primed with a lot of preconceived notions and expectations?
When it comes down to it I listen with my own ears, but reviews are still valuable.
I always try and avoid the subjective findings of others, subjectivity being so well, subjective. I prefer to subjectively evaluate on my own terms with as little external influence as possible.
I thought blind testing and psycological factors were the only pages in your book - are you saying that you actually have subjective opinions.
Eric.
Why not buy some and try them for yourself? How can anyone else possibly tell you what your particular subjective experiences in your particular situation will necessarily be?
I find that intelligent subjective evaluations from experienced listeners reveal reliable information.
Wouldn't it be better to subjectively evaluate them without being pumped and primed with a lot of preconceived notions and expectations?
When it comes down to it I listen with my own ears, but reviews are still valuable.
I always try and avoid the subjective findings of others, subjectivity being so well, subjective. I prefer to subjectively evaluate on my own terms with as little external influence as possible.
I thought blind testing and psycological factors were the only pages in your book - are you saying that you actually have subjective opinions.
Eric.
Is This Some Kind Of A BS'ing Competition ?............
Originally posted by Steve Eddy
The whole point of all the buzzwords, doubletalk, contradictions, obfuscations and evasions is to keep people from "seeing it" while trying to make it appear that there's actually something there to see. DUH!
Steve, I suggest that you actually try them so that you can have a properly valid viewpoint - at this stage you are reacting only to written information and the fact that you cannot understand that they can possibly work.
Otherwise known as the old huckster's motto of "If you can't fascinate 'em with facts, baffle 'em with BS."
Well now you don't actually have any first hand facts or experience, so any comment by you on this subject, by your logic should should be instantly tipped into the BS basket - think about it.
Eric.
Originally posted by Steve Eddy
The whole point of all the buzzwords, doubletalk, contradictions, obfuscations and evasions is to keep people from "seeing it" while trying to make it appear that there's actually something there to see. DUH!
Steve, I suggest that you actually try them so that you can have a properly valid viewpoint - at this stage you are reacting only to written information and the fact that you cannot understand that they can possibly work.
Otherwise known as the old huckster's motto of "If you can't fascinate 'em with facts, baffle 'em with BS."
Well now you don't actually have any first hand facts or experience, so any comment by you on this subject, by your logic should should be instantly tipped into the BS basket - think about it.
Eric.
mrfeedback said:
But nothing like firsthand experience though.
But nothing like firsthand experience though.
Certainly.
Just that I don't feel that my subjective opinions have any particular inherent value to anyone other than myself. So I generally don't make much mention of them except in passing.
I prefer to encourage people to try things for themselves and come to their own conclusions. I've no interest in feeding any sort of herd mentality and would hate for someone to not even give something a try for themselves just because it may be something I don't particularly care for.
se
Re: Is This Some Kind Of A BS'ing Competition ?............
My trying them has absolutely nothing to do with my viewpoint with regard to the BS technical claims that have been made about them.
I'm sorry, but I do have firsthand facts as to the BS technical claims that have been made about them. They're all right there on Bybee's website for all to see.
se
mrfeedback said:
My trying them has absolutely nothing to do with my viewpoint with regard to the BS technical claims that have been made about them.
I'm sorry, but I do have firsthand facts as to the BS technical claims that have been made about them. They're all right there on Bybee's website for all to see.
se
- Status
- Not open for further replies.