Something serious about ByBee's QP's?

[Pjotr]

Since the previous ByBee QP thread has been withdrawn.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

[Steve Eddy]

Originally posted by Pjotr
Since the previous ByBee QP thread has been withdrawn.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?

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

[john curl]

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.

[Steve Eddy]

Originally posted by john curl
SE knows nothing about how the Bybee QP purifiers work. I can't tell him, either.

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.

For the record, there is NO ferrite in a Bybee filter.

Well, until we're told what is in it, we don't know what's not in it either, more unsubstantiated claims notwithstanding.

se

[Pjotr]

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

[Christer]

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.

[fdegrove]

Hi,

These filters absorb distortion above the range of audibility to ensure very quiet operation of the horn tweeter

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,

[Salsero]

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

[Steve Eddy]

Originally posted by Christer
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.

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 (T_c). 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

[Steve Eddy]

Originally posted by Salsero
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.

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.

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.

Which is moot seeing as the purifiers are being used at room temperatures and higher.

se