| BobM |
I've seen people say to attach Bybees in-line with the + speaker cable. I've seen people say to put them on each + driver terminal. I've seen people say to put them in-line with a digital cable to a DAC. I've seen people say to use them in the power section of an amp, or in a front end power supply or conditioner.
Now, these little things are not inexpensive, at about $85 each. Where is the best place to use them for a first try-out without committing a lot of cash? Anyone try them and find little or no improvement, or worse, a degredation in sound?
Thanks,
Bob |
|
|
| SkinnyBoy |
| quote: | Originally posted by BobM
I've seen people say to attach Bybees in-line with the + speaker cable. I've seen people say to put them on each + driver terminal. I've seen people say to put them in-line with a digital cable to a DAC. I've seen people say to use them in the power section of an amp, or in a front end power supply or conditioner.
Now, these little things are not inexpensive, at about $85 each. Where is the best place to use them for a first try-out without committing a lot of cash? Anyone try them and find little or no improvement, or worse, a degredation in sound?
Thanks,
Bob |
put them everywhere... they're ONLY $85 each.... ;) :xeye: :rolleyes: I don't even know what ya talking about.. lol |
|
|
| Peter Daniel |
Partsconnexion started to carry those. Here what is written in a latest newsletter:
About Bybee Technologies - And Bybee Quantum Purifiers
Jack Bybee, a theoretical physicist specializing in quantum mechanics and superconductivity, developed a series of esoteric wire and power purification technologies for the passive sonar systems of the U.S. Navy’s atomic submarine fleet. Even the battery stored DC power used in these submarines required special filtration to lower the noise floor to a level that did not compromise sonar performance. Many of the military applications of this technology are still classified; however, continuing research has led Jack Bybee to the development of solutions specific to power and audio/video circuits: the Bybee Quantum Purifiers.
The Problem
There are many kinds of noise associated with electronics. In audio reproduction, electronic noise is often manifested as lack of detail, focus and resolution. In video, this noise creates obstacles to achieving industry standards for sharpness and color definition. The removal or reduction of noise in the conducting medium is our goal.
The Noise
Bybee Quantum Purifiers address several kinds of electronic noise. Thermal noise in electronic equipment is typically created by the excitation of phonons, which are resonances in conductors caused by the movement of electrons through the quantum well. Phonons are a type of noise in themselves; they are caused by a certain class of electrons colliding with the crystal lattice of conductors (silver, copper, etc.) through which they are being transmitted. Such phonons travel, not at the speed of light, but of sound, and therefore are instantly out of phase with the signal. Shot noise, which is generated by the operation of transistors, is similar in nature to thermal or white noise. Low-frequency (1/f) noise is always present, and increases as an inverse power of the frequency.
Electrons
The Bybee solution is based on principles derived from quantum mechanics, the study of how electrons behave at the subatomic level. Quantum physicists have learned that electrons have an intrinsic angular characteristic expressed in terms of spin (either up or down), which describes their orbital behavior around the nucleus of an atom. When subjected to Bybee’s high-temperature near-superconductive material, electrons tend to join in a beneficial manner, increasing the velocity of propagation (VP) by forming what are known as Cooper’s Pairs (one spin-up electron joined with a spin-down). Coopers’ Pairs have the unique ability to tunnel through the crystal lattice of the conductor (such as a copper wire) essentially unimpeded, therefore eliminating virtually all quantum noise phenomena. To understand this effect, imagine a football game in which the player receiving the kick off could run straight down field to the goal line without being touched by any defenders.
The Bybee Quantum Purifiers
Bybee Technologies has developed devices fabricated from ceramics doped with oxides of rare-earth metals such as zirconium and neodymium. They achieve a VP of 92% of the speed of light, which is far higher than VPs of common conductors, which typically range from 50 to 70% of the speed of light.
In addition to being near-superconductive, Bybee Quantum Purifiers are electrically passive and stable in any circuit. They induce no phase shift whatsoever, and are totally non-reactive—meaning there is no reactance between capacitance and inductance.
These qualities are beneficial in numerous ways. When placed between an amplifier’s power transformer and diode bridge, for example, the Quantum Purifier eliminates undesirable impedance mismatches. In an amplifier-to-speaker connection, the absence of reactance creates an optimal signal transfer and presents an easier load to the amplifier. When transmitting digital information, the Bybee Quantum Purifier eliminates the overshoot and ringing that can occur in the leading edge of the square wave. This type of distortion is a major contributor to the harshness and glare often associated with digital sound.
Small (Electronics) and Large (higher current - Speaker)....Reg. $84.95 each - on SPECIAL for $74.95 each....$139.95/pair ! |
|
|
| Bill Fitzpatrick |
| Actually, the knot goes in the ground lead, not the +. |
|
|
| mrfeedback |
| quote: | Originally posted by BobM
Now, these little things are not inexpensive, at about $85 each.
Anyone try them and find little or no improvement, or worse, a degredation in sound?
Thanks,
Bob |
As Skinnyboy suggests just try some and decide for yourself (and report your findings).
I have read various comments from those who have actually tried them (and plenty from those who have not tried them) and I am reasonably confident that I have an understanding of their subjective effect.
I think you will need to experiment with varying numbers of them and their locations, and even then they may not be to your ultimate liking.
I am interested to hear some user opinions too.
Eric. |
|
|
| mrfeedback |
| quote: | Originally posted by Peter Daniel
Partsconnexion started to carry those. Here what is written in a latest newsletter:
Small (Electronics) and Large (higher current - Speaker)....Reg. $84.95 each - on SPECIAL for $74.95 each....$139.95/pair ! |
Any idea of how many they are selling ?.
Eric. |
|
|
| mrfeedback |
| quote: | Originally posted by Bill Fitzpatrick
Actually, the knot goes in the ground lead, not the +. |
Yes Bill, thankyou for that, but you didnt state which end that should be ?. :xeye:
Eric. |
|
|
| Steve Eddy |
| quote: | Originally posted by Peter Daniel
Partsconnexion started to carry those. Here what is written in a latest newsletter: |
That's just a parroting of what's on Bybee's website.
The original description Bybee had on his web page was much funnier. This is my favorite:
The Bybee Quantum Mechanical Filter that was developed from this research is a device that creates a barrier and literally sizes, cleans, aligns and stabilizes individual electrons and throws out the bad/irregular electrons. The heavy and well damped mass around the purification devices is to absorb these discarded electrons.
Anyway, since the Bybee Quantum Purifiers are just a 0.02 ohm wirewound resistor hidden inside a ceramic tube and some heatshrink, why not just get some 0.02 ohm wirewound resistors and try those before paying $85 for a 0.02 ohm wirewound resistor hidden inside a ceramic tube and some heatshrink?
se |
|
|
| Pjotr |
| quote: | Originally posted by mrfeedback
..........I for one would appreciate that you reduce of this kind of detracting cynicism, and that you understand that it only encourages others to likewise chime in - "......and ohwuhh do not forget to put a knot in the + of your speaker wires too" for example.
Sincerely, Eric. |
Are you kidding me? Well actually there was a couple of years ago a serious debate about this in a German DIY magazine and there were people that clamed to hear a difference. That started a lengthy investigation about a knot in the + as well in the – as well in both. Also the difference between one and more knots was investigated and serious measurements taken concerning the change of inductance of the cable.
The first claims started actually as a 1 April joke. The discussion finally ended by someone that put a knot in his left ear and claimed a huge improvement in his right ear and vv. Knots in both ears was not a success.
Cheers ;) |
|
|
| BobM |
Steve - you wrote the following:
--------------------
Anyway, since the Bybee Quantum Purifiers are just a 0.02 ohm wirewound resistor hidden inside a ceramic tube and some heatshrink, why not just get some 0.02 ohm wirewound resistors and try those before paying $85 for a 0.02 ohm wirewound resistor hidden inside a ceramic tube and some heatshrink?
--------------------
Just wondering if you opened one up and verified this or if this is just your theory of what's inside? I haven't heard from anyone who has pried one open. That would be very useful information. I'm not new to self-modding equipment and would eagerly appreciate actually knowing what's in there and take the inexpensive way out.
Thanks,
Bob |
|
|
| Steve Eddy |
| quote: | Originally posted by BobM
Just wondering if you opened one up and verified this or if this is just your theory of what's inside? I haven't heard from anyone who has pried one open. That would be very useful information. I'm not new to self-modding equipment and would eagerly appreciate actually knowing what's in there and take the inexpensive way out. |
That's what John Curl, an associate and staunch defender of Bybee said he found when he took one apart.
I made a mistake though. It's a 0.02 ohm metal film resistor, not wirewound. The leads of the device are just the leads of the resistor.
se |
|
|
| FLZapped |
Just some thoughts:
| quote: | | ...Low-frequency (1/f) noise is always present, |
Gee, this looks familiar. Hmmmm, oh yeah, this is the definition of pink noise. So does that mean with a Bybee filter installed, you can't hear the output from a pink noise generator? Does this also mean that they will convert white noise into pink noise? :bigeyes:
-Bruce |
|
|
| li_gangyi |
| I dun think they work...I've even seen shops selling ferrite (for cables) going at SGD $10..wad a waste of money... |
|
|
| Netlist |
According to Mr. Bybee:
Bybee Technologies has developed devices fabricated from ceramics doped with oxides of rare-earth metals such as zirconium and neodymium.
"Devices" seem to be a metal film resistor. Nothing wrong with that although I can’t see why an added 0.02 ohm resistor in the circuit could possibly improve an audio chain. Everyone I know always told me that less is better here. Or is it the “Doping process” that does the trick?
Zirconium
Neodymium
/Hugo |
|
|
| li_gangyi |
| ain't neodynium used to make harddirve magnets?? might be because of it's "wonderful magnetic properties" |
|
|
| Netlist |
| quote: | Originally posted by li_gangyi
ain't neodynium used to make harddirve magnets?? |
In my search on google I recall seeing something about HDD's en neodynium. :nod:
/Hugo |
|
|
| Jarno |
I don't think Bybee should be taken to seriously. Although the text on the website is claiming scientific innovation. The text itself is not clear and scientific. Just mentioning scientific phenomena and linking them is not making a text scientific.
For a text to be truly scientific, cause and effect relations need to be mentioned as well as the conditions under which a certain phenomenon is happening (not sometimes, but ALWAYS). These four (and there are actually five) components are essential to a scientific explanation.
Failing to use such causal relations makes a "scientific" text not truly scientific but hogwash (this goes for physics, cultural sciences, psychology and biology are another story).
Greetings,
Jarno. |
|
|
| BobM |
I almost wish I hadn't started this thread. I found several other inquiries on Bybees on various forum's and they all immediately degenerated into Peter Belt - like discussions of unexplainable science vs hooey.
Unfortunately I only got one, possibly two, answers from people who have actually tried these and experimented with them. Fortunately I did receive some private correspondence with engineers who have a VERY good reputation in the industry and say that something is definitely happening here. This includes measured differences, and not any real explaination for them other than the Bybees were in or out of the circuit.
Some people frown on real or imagined differences with botique parts. Fortunately there are some very talended and experienced people who design and voice equipment using these same parts and are willing to share that experience with nothing to gain except exposure. I want to thank them for their time and willingness to vocalize their opinions in the face of much opposition.
Enjoy,
Bob |
|
|
| mbroker |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jarno
I don't think Bybee should be taken to seriously. Although the text on the website is claiming scientific innovation. The text itself is not clear and scientific. Just mentioning scientific phenomena and linking them is not making a text scientific. |
True to one with a scientific background, but there is little difference to your average layman. How many people adamantly believe in the **** on http://www.freelectricity.com/ ? Besides, the marketing hype was probably written by someone with little to no knowledge in the sciences.
Regarding Bybees, I have no wish to spend any amount of money on devices whose ads are obviously a load of BS, whether or not the devices are conclusively determined to be audible.
Mark |
|
|
| li_gangyi |
| hey...I would rather spend my 85 bux on something like better PSU caps and bigger trafos.....that will defintely improve my sound instead of frettting over some thing like this... |
|
|
| mrfeedback |
| quote: | Originally posted by BobM
I almost wish I hadn't started this thread. I found several other inquiries on Bybees on various forum's and they all immediately degenerated into Peter Belt - like discussions of unexplainable science vs hooey.
Unfortunately I only got one, possibly two, answers from people who have actually tried these and experimented with them. Fortunately I did receive some private correspondence with engineers who have a VERY good reputation in the industry and say that something is definitely happening here. This includes measured differences, and not any real explaination for them other than the Bybees were in or out of the circuit.
Some people frown on real or imagined differences with botique parts. Fortunately there are some very talended and experienced people who design and voice equipment using these same parts and are willing to share that experience with nothing to gain except exposure. I want to thank them for their time and willingness to vocalize their opinions in the face of much opposition.
Enjoy,
Bob |
Hi Bob,
Yes it actually amuses me how loud the opinions are of those who have not tried QP devices, and the range of justifications for such ignorant stance - and all without ever having used any.
Eric. |
|
|
| li_gangyi |
| simply put...it's SNAKEOIL |
|
|
| mrfeedback |
| quote: | Originally posted by li_gangyi
simply put...it's SNAKEOIL |
Little do you know.
Eric. |
|
|
| Pjotr |
| quote: |
simply put...it's SNAKEOIL
|
Snake oil is everywhere, not only in audio. So if snake oils make people happy, let it be. It is a property of snake oil that it is good for everything. Since no one comes up with something really explainable or verifiable the answer to Bob’s original question is: You can put is everywhere where good and bad electrons are involved as far as I understand the explanations so far. If you only deal with good electrons it is of no use, same if there are only bad electrons in your system.
For me, there are so many snake oils around the world that I can not try them all in my lifetime and do not have the money for it. I select only those that have a realistic chance for succes or have a well established reputation before I spend my money on them
Cheers ;) |
|
|
| SY |
| quote: | | Or is it the “Doping process” that does the trick? |
Unintended truth there. |
|
|
| li_gangyi |
| more like human factor... |
|
|
| Netlist |
The only correct way of finding out if it works is a scientific approach. If those devices are used "for the passive sonar systems of the U.S. Navy’s atomic submarine fleet" there must have been a lot of research involved.
Now, Mr. Bybee must has been researching the devices when he was working for the navy so why shouldn’t we?
I'm not a physicist and certainly know nothing about quantum physics but at least I searched the net to find something. Although I don’t care if such devices improve sound or not (don’t have good enough ears) it would be interesting to know the scientific truth. If we can’t find that answer we will always be divided in two camps: the believers vs. the non-believers, which leads nowhere.
/Hugo |
|
|
| li_gangyi |
| I'll camp and wait for proof...I mean scientific proof...must be hard solid prove...before I'll actually buy these... |
|
|
| john curl |
It's tough when SE is around to misunderstand what I was saying.
Physically, this is what you SEE! A really good metal film .02 ohm resistor, surrounded by what appears to be a ceramic form. BUT, it is not just a ceramic form. It has a layer of 'something' on its surface, AND it has silver endcaps that connect to this surface and the resistor leads. DUH! Maybe, just maybe, it is more than it looks like. |
|
|
| Steve Eddy |
| quote: | Originally posted by john curl
DUH! Maybe, just maybe, it is more than it looks like. |
And maybe it's not. *shrug*
se |
|
|
| Steve Eddy |
| quote: | Originally posted by john curl
It's tough when SE is around to misunderstand what I was saying.
Physically, this is what you SEE! A really good metal film .02 ohm resistor, surrounded by what appears to be a ceramic form. BUT, it is not just a ceramic form. It has a layer of 'something' on its surface, AND it has silver endcaps that connect to this surface and the resistor leads. |
By the way, here's what you had said:
Chang, the devices are a fabricated hollow cylinder of ceramic material with metal end caps. Inside the cylinder is passed a metal film resistor that is attached to the metal end-caps that has a value of .02 ohms. The resistor leads are the outside connection. Even if you took them apart, you could not know more that what I just stated, unless you are working in a physics lab.
No mention of any layer of "something" on its surface or of the end caps connected to said "something" on its surface. And despite all the talk of superconductors on Bybee's website, neither the ceramic nor this "something" seem to be conductive to any degree at all as you also said the thing measures 0.02 ohms, the same value as the resistor.
I can only understand what you actually say, John. I'm not a psychic.
se |
|
|
| mrfeedback |
Hi John,
Can you describe your sonic evaluation of the QP's in differing applications (forget about the naysayers for now).
Thanks, Eric. |
|
|
| fdegrove |
Hi,
| quote: | | No mention of any layer of "something" on its surface or of the end caps connected to said "something" on its surface. And despite all the talk of superconductors on Bybee's website, neither the ceramic nor this "something" seem to be conductive to any degree at all as you also said the thing measures 0.02 ohms, the same value as the resistor. |
If the device measures 0.02 ohm how can there be a superconductor involved in // with the resistor?
Cheers,;) |
|
|
| Steve Eddy |
| quote: | Originally posted by fdegrove
If the device measures 0.02 ohm how can there be a superconductor involved in // with the resistor? |
Well, Bybee calls it "near superconductive" but apparently it's more like "near nonconductive." :D
se |
|
|
| fdegrove |
Hi,
| quote: | | Well, Bybee calls it "near superconductive" but apparently it's more like "near nonconductive." |
Bygones....:D |
|
|
| Steve Eddy |
| quote: | Originally posted by fdegrove
Bygones....:D |
Buy bongs? Got one, thanks. Autographed by Tommy Chong before he got popped for selling 'em. :)
se |
|
|
| fdegrove |
Hi,
| quote: | | Buy bongs? Got one, thanks. Autographed by Tommy Chong before he got popped for selling 'em. |
Guess the bees were to quick to autograph?
Byebyebees,;) |
|
|
| li_gangyi |
| a c0mplete waste of $$$ I would sae..and this debate is a biggie wate of time...haha |
|
|
| fdegrove |
Hi,
| quote: | | a c0mplete waste of $$$ I would sae..and this debate is a biggie wate of time...haha |
Guess you don't care for proof now, do you?
It ain't over till it's over buster,
I'd love to hear feedback, proof would be great but I don't count on that....
Gracias,;) |
|
|
| li_gangyi |
| ....so when will the feedback come?? when some guy with deep pockets go get the bybee?? |
|
|
| fdegrove |
Hi,
| quote: | | ..so when will the feedback come?? when some guy with deep pockets go get the bybee?? |
When chicken grow brains?
Anything else you care to post?:smash:
Geez...;) |
|
|
| john curl |
| You folks are really foolish. You DON'T try something, yet you are SURE that it is bogus. I KNOW that the Bybee device is real, maybe too subtle for most, but real, nonetheless. I have HEARD both positive and negative results with the Bybee, myself. Am I crazy? Why not always positive results? It appears to do 'something'. |
|
|
| mrfeedback |
| quote: | Originally posted by john curl
You folks are really foolish. You DON'T try something, yet you are SURE that it is bogus. I KNOW that the Bybee device is real, maybe too subtle for most, but real, nonetheless. I have HEARD both positive and negative results with the Bybee, myself. Am I crazy? Why not always positive results? It appears to do 'something'. |
Hi John, can you describe the positive and negative circumstances, and the nature of the 'something'.
Thanks, Eric. |
|
|
| fdegrove |
Hi John,
| quote: | | You folks are really foolish. You DON'T try something, yet you are SURE that it is bogus. I KNOW that the Bybee device is real, maybe too subtle for most, but real, nonetheless. I have HEARD both positive and negative results with the Bybee, myself. Am I crazy? Why not always positive results? It appears to do 'something'. |
I can do the maths on business models and have heard about the law of diminishing returns, thanks...
Still, untill I know exactly why I should hear a difference and do hear it, I can be very hard to persuade to depart with hard earned cash.
Trust me, I listen/listened to things most members would still label as lunatic fringe but when it comes to parting with 85$ a pop on something that may, eventually, not so sure, bring an undefined improved difference to my system I tend to be on the cautious side and not hand over the cash.
Can you blame me, or anyone else for that matter?
| quote: | | Hi John, can you describe the positive and negative circumstances, and the nature of the 'something'. |
That would help.
Thanks, Eric.
Cheers,;) |
|
|
| vince8 |
| I,(personally) believe in supporting cottage industries!... and Being a part-time potter,can appreciate the # of trials the bybees may have had to go through to get a ceramic 'glaze' coating (of the properties required) to stick to that resistor- The arguments of audibility become unimportant.....(but I do wish I could create a product someone would send me 75.00 for.) |
|
|
| fdegrove |
Hi,
| quote: | | and Being a part-time potter,can appreciate the # of trials the bybees may have had to go through to get a ceramic 'glaze' coating (of the properties required) to stick to that resistor- |
Question is...Is Bybee a cottage industry comparing to home pottery?
| quote: | | The arguments of audibility become unimportant.....( |
Oh no, they don't...If your pots look failed you won't sell'em or would you?
Difference is, here we have to hear the difference.
Cheers,;) |
|
|
| vince8 |
| I must agree...all I have to do is make something look/feel nice. He has to make it sound nice, and help others understand why- |
|
|
| fdegrove |
Hi,
As I haven't come across any other post of yours, welcome to the forum.
| quote: | | He has to make it sound nice, and help others understand why- |
Yes, helping others to understand why is where most do fall short.
Not that easy at all by any means.
Cheers,;) |
|
|
| Richard C |
| It would be interesting to make some 'dummy' Bybees and see if the same sonic effects are observed;) |
|
|
| Richard C |
| The first electronics book I ever owned made the analogy between traffic flow and electron flow... little did I know that it was ahead of its time and was actually talking about quantum physics. :bigeyes: |
|
|
| john curl |
| You folks have no idea of what you are talking about. You have to try a Bybee to know if it does anything or not. It works for me. SE attacks a number of individuals and products that he has never tried. Of course, the rest of you, I'm sure, know that, and laugh along with him. It would appear that a 'fair hearing' is impossible on this thread or others. |
|
|
| Steve Eddy |
| quote: | Originally posted by john curl
You folks have no idea of what you are talking about. |
Then enlighten us, John. If us folks have no idea what we're talking about, show us that you have an idea what you're talking about. Or even that Bybee has an idea what he's talking about. Something beyond your usual excuse that Bybee is being intentionally misleading on his website to protect his trade secrets. If he has secrets to protect, then what you do is not say anything. You don't make a lot of fraudulent BS claims.
| quote: | | SE attacks a number of individuals and products that he has never tried. |
What I attack are laughable, BS claims like those that have been made on Bybee's website for years. The BS claims made on his website have absolutely nothing to do with trying anything. Why do you continually try and confuse the two?
| quote: | | Of course, the rest of you, I'm sure, know that, and laugh along with him. |
Quite a few have laughed along with me at the BS claims made on websites like Bybees.
If you don't like people laughing at his BS claims, tell him to stop making them.
| quote: | | It would appear that a 'fair hearing' is impossible on this thread or others. |
People are free to try whatever they want. I've never ridiculed or impugned anyone for having tried the Quantum Purifiers or even for saying they improved their systems.
se |
|
|
| john curl |
Folks, just for fun, let's try to learn about noise.
Most of us are familiar with Johnson noise. This is a noise formula, that is derived from quantum mechanical equations, that is easy to apply. Basicially, it states that a 10 ohm resistor will have .4nV/rt Hz noise at room temperature, if it is a PERFECT resistor. I'm sorry that I can't make the last statement even easier to understand by those who have not studied this stuff, but I can't.
However, all all 10 ohm resistors perfect? NO! In fact, many cheaper resistors will have lots of EXCESS noise, depending whether there is an AC or DC current flowing through the 10 ohm resistor or not. This noise can completely overwhelm the intrinsic Johnson noise, and is sometimes referred to as 1/f noise.
Now this EXCESS noise is always present to some degree, and I suspect that this is the noise that the Bybee device addresses. |
|
|
| Richard C |
| Just out of interest how does the Bybee device differentiate between noise and signal? |
|
|
| Steve Eddy |
| quote: | Originally posted by Richard C
Just out of interest how does the Bybee device differentiate between noise and signal? |
I asked that question before and never got an answer.
Apparently the Quantum Purifiers are prescient. Either that or there's one bunch of electrons that are responsible for the music signal and a completely different bunch that are responsible for noise and the Quantum Purifier is able to separate the two.
Perhaps that's what Bybee meant on his original website when he claimed that the Quantum Purifiers "literally sizes, cleans, aligns and stabilizes individual electrons and throws out the bad/irregular electrons."
I guess the "bad/irregular electrons" are the ones that are responsible for noise and the good/regular electrons are the ones responsible for music.
se |
|
|
| john curl |
| Apparently so. For everyone else, just do a 'Google' search on 'quantum noise' just for the heck of it. |
|
|
| Steve Eddy |
| quote: | Originally posted by john curl
Apparently so. For everyone else, just do a 'Google' search on 'quantum noise' just for the heck of it. |
Just for the heck of it is all it'd be for.
quantum noise: Noise attributable to the discrete and probabilistic nature of physical phenomena and their interactions. Note 1: Quantum noise represents the fundamental limit of the achievable signal-to-noise ratio of an optical communication system. This limit is never achieved in practice. [After FAA] Note 2: Examples of quantum noise are photon noise in an optical signal and shot noise in an electrical conductor or semiconductor.
shot noise: The noise caused by random fluctuations in the motion of charge carriers in a conductor. (188) Note: There is often a minor inconsistency in referring to shot noise in an optical system: many authors refer to shot noise loosely when speaking of the mean square shot noise current (amperes2) rather than noise power (watts).
Now what, John? No one's saying the noise isn't there. Just that once there, you're not going to get rid of it without also getting rid of the signal as well. All any component can do is limit the amount of noise it contributes.
The Quantum Purifier is made of a 0.02 ohm resistor and measures 0.02 ohms and will contribute no less than the noise of a 0.02 ohm resistor, not to mention the added noise due to the additional solder connections required. In terms of noise, you'd be better off without the Quantum Purifiers than with them.
Do you have the capabilities of measuring noise, John? If so, go ahead and compare the noise of a Quantum Purifier to that of a 0.02 ohm resistor.
se |
|
|
| fdegrove |
Hi,
| quote: | | The Quantum Purifier is made of a 0.02 ohm resistor and measures 0.02 ohms and will contribute no less than the noise of a 0.02 ohm resistor, not to mention the added noise due to the additional solder connections required. |
And the Johnson noise of the resistor itself, right?
Well, it ain't all that simple...
Sticking to plain physics is the biggest mistake ever in audio.
'Nough said,;) |
|
|
| Steve Eddy |
| quote: | Originally posted by fdegrove
And the Johnson noise of the resistor itself, right?
Well, it ain't all that simple...
Sticking to plain physics is the biggest mistake ever in audio. |
Ok, Frank. Then you enlighten us.
se |
|
|
| johnferrier |
Are there recordings made with Bybees? If they improve playback process, they would also improve the recording process. If anyone knows about the merits of Bybees, I imagine that Sennheiser engineers would know.
JF |
|
|
| fdegrove |
Hi,
| quote: | | Ok, Frank. Then you enlighten us. |
I won't, and I have my reasons but I do damm well know what John's about.
Sorry,;) |
|
|
| Steve Eddy |
| quote: | Originally posted by johnferrier
Are there recordings made with Bybees? If they improve playback process, they would also improve the recording process.
|
Save it for later. We're about to be enlightened here. Now sit down as assume the position. Lotus that is. :)
se |
|
|
| Steve Eddy |
| quote: | Originally posted by johnferrier
Maybe now is a good time to ask. Steve have you ever met John Curl (and talked with him in person)? |
I've never met John in person, but years ago, back in the late 80s/early 90s when we were both on The Audiophile Network BBS, I spoke to him a couple of times over the telephone.
Strangely enough, we seemed to get along just fine back then. But that was back before he fell for Bybee's BS and I poked some fun at Bybee's website over on another forum several years ago.
se |
|
|
| johnferrier |
Cool. Just thought you may have crossed paths at CES or something (or, as strange as it may seem, worked together at one time).
Thanks for being candid.
JF |
|
|
| johnferrier |
Steve feels that you got along years ago. I don't think he questions all your opinions (particularly regarding your work in audio circuit design). Maybe it just seems that way.
I don't know. I still wonder though if recording studios use Bybee's equipment. In particular, I think that Sennheiser (and Sony) engineers would be aware of its merits.
JF |
|
|
| Peter Daniel |
| Why Sennheiser? |
|
|
| johnferrier |
Because they manufacture what I consider to be the most crucial pieces of the audio chain: the electro-mechanical transducers that convert sound to electricity (microphones) and electricity to sound (headphones). So whether it was used in their products or used for research or testing their high end products, I would think that they would be aware of all forms of high end interconnects/wiring.
I also included Sony (same reason), but I could also add ATC engineers too.
JF |
|
|
| Steve Eddy |
| quote: | Originally posted by john curl
Today, I spoke to Jack Bybee about the latest stuff on this website, then I asked Jack if I should just change the subject. |
Speaking of the latest stuff on his latest website, I wonder how Intel feels about his new "Bybee Inside" slogan? :D
se |
|
|
| mrfeedback |
| quote: | Originally posted by john curl
Folks, just for fun, let's try to learn about noise.
Most of us are familiar with Johnson noise. This is a noise formula, that is derived from quantum mechanical equations, that is easy to apply. Basicially, it states that a 10 ohm resistor will have .4nV/rt Hz noise at room temperature, if it is a PERFECT resistor. I'm sorry that I can't make the last statement even easier to understand by those who have not studied this stuff, but I can't.
However, all all 10 ohm resistors perfect? NO! In fact, many cheaper resistors will have lots of EXCESS noise, depending whether there is an AC or DC current flowing through the 10 ohm resistor or not. This noise can completely overwhelm the intrinsic Johnson noise, and is sometimes referred to as 1/f noise.
Now this EXCESS noise is always present to some degree, and I suspect that this is the noise that the Bybee device addresses. |
One thing that is mission critical is the spectral nature of these types of noises in a recording or playback system.
If the noises are 'musical' they can sit in behind the music and become largely irrelevant and un-noticed.
However if the noise spectrums are in discord with the music, then they can become glaringly obvious, and a noticeable distraction.
I have devices that bend the noise spectrums throughout the system.
The result of this is that noise essentially disappears and the music is more clearly laid bare, becomes more intelligible and fine nuance details in the music become more easily 'available' to the ear, and I expect that the QP devices are doing similar.
Last night I did a full treatment (power and signal) to a several thousand watts PA system and the result was quite outstanding.
The guys on stage reported that they had the best foldback ever, and the front of house sound was just great - all music and no hash, and no ear irritation.
Of course the crowd had no idea about this experiment, but their body language and rousing cheers between songs said all - even the venue (jaded) management came up and complimented the sound and remarked that this was the best sound that they had ever heard in this venue.
All it took was a few special power and signal extension leads patched into the system, and this installed inhouse PA became a totally different system for the night- Justin (sound guy) and the band were seriously impressed and Justin quietly begged me to leave them in for tonights (different) show - no dice just yet.
To all the cynics here who have not actually tried these kinds of techniques (QP), this concept may well be beyond your comprehension, but let me assure you that these effects are real, and very real and far reaching at that.
Circuit design and layout techniques are of course important.
How the multiple circuits in a system dynamically handle noise mixed in with the desired signal is mission critical to the final 'sonic signature' of a system.
The interesting thing is that by bending the spectral nature of the system inherent noise, noise and resultant artifacts can become innocuous due to being being musical in nature and coherent with the music.
The other result is that the precision requirements of the circuits are rendered rather less important, and mediocre to mid-range systems can be made fully acceptable and jump out of their skin.
Very high quality systems (AUS$40k) become fully musical, comfortable, involving and delightfully enjoyable.
This is not rocket science.
Eric. |
|
|
| Steve Eddy |
| quote: | Originally posted by mrfeedback
I have devices that bend the noise spectrums throughout the system. |
How do you bend the noise spectrums throughout the system without also bending the music spectrum?
Or are you simply adding more noise to the signal?
se |
|
|
| Steve Eddy |
| quote: | Originally posted by mrfeedback
To all the cynics here who have not actually tried these kinds of techniques (QP), this concept may well be beyond your comprehension, but let me assure you that these effects are real, and very real and far reaching at that.
|
So let's hear the concept and let us decide whether it's beyond our comprehension.
This "you wouldn't understand even if I told you so I'm not going to tell you" bit is as old as the hills.
se |
|
|
| stokessd |
For a device as clearly dubious as this, using your ears to determine an effect strikes me as a really bad means of testing efficacy. After all ears are pretty poor measurement devices, especially over time. Some of the claims on the bybee site should be easily testable using measurement equipment. Like the ability of the device to toss out "bad electrons" or "resents an easier load to the amplifier" or "When transmitting digital information, the Bybee Quantum Purifier eliminates the overshoot and ringing that can occur in the leading edge of the square wave"
Listening to an $85 device with questionable science behind it is the last thing a rational person should do, measure them.
It's this sort of device and mentality in this industry that produces simple pre-amp devices which cost as much as a car.
Sheldon |
|
|
| Steve Eddy |
| quote: | Originally posted by stokessd
For a device as clearly dubious as this, using your ears to determine an effect strikes me as a really bad means of testing efficacy. After all ears are pretty poor measurement devices, especially over time. Some of the claims on the bybee site should be easily testable using measurement equipment. Like the ability of the device to toss out "bad electrons" or "resents an easier load to the amplifier" or "When transmitting digital information, the Bybee Quantum Purifier eliminates the overshoot and ringing that can occur in the leading edge of the square wave" |
John has test equipment which he says is sensitive enough to measure the distortion of interconnects and other wires. So he should be easily able to measure any differences brought about by the Quantum Purifiers.
He said he's upgraded his distortion analyzer with the lowest noise opamps available, but I don't recall him ever saying that he's added any Quantum Purifiers to his distortion analyzer to bring its noise down even further. If they work as Bybee claims they do, they should help him achieve even higher resolution measurements.
So how 'bout it, John? Are there any Quantum Purifiers in your 1700B? If not, why not?
se |
|
|
| mrfeedback |
How do you bend the noise spectrums throughout the system without also bending the music spectrum?
Both change - subjectively the noise drops and the music lifts.
Or are you simply adding more noise to the signal?
Nope, but I am changing the noise and consequent artifacts spectral nature.
Eric. |
|
|
| Steve Eddy |
| quote: | Originally posted by mrfeedback
How do you bend the noise spectrums throughout the system without also bending the music spectrum?
Both change - subjectively the noise drops and the music lifts. |
So you're ultimately reducing the dynamic range, yes?
| quote: | Or are you simply adding more noise to the signal?
Nope, but I am changing the noise and consequent artifacts spectral nature. |
What spectral nature are you referring to? Other than interference type noise, the noise in an audio system is broadband and has no spectral spikes or the like. So what exactly are you referring to when you say "spectrum"?
se |
|
|
| mrfeedback |
So let's hear the concept and let us decide whether it's beyond our comprehension.
I expect that you will be hearing it everywhere you go in future.
This "you wouldn't understand even if I told you so I'm not going to tell you" bit is as old as the hills.
No I did not say that, but I did say - To all the cynics here who have not actually tried these kinds of techniques...... - very BIG difference.
Eric. |
|
|
| mrfeedback |
No, but solder alloy types in the connections still have their usual influence.
Eric. |
|
|
| Steve Eddy |
| quote: | Originally posted by mrfeedback
So let's hear the concept and let us decide whether it's beyond our comprehension.
I expect that you will be hearing it everywhere you go in future. |
Ok, so you're just trying to get some pre-release marketing going.
| quote: | This "you wouldn't understand even if I told you so I'm not going to tell you" bit is as old as the hills.
No I did not say that, but I did say - To all the cynics here who have not actually tried these kinds of techniques...... - very BIG difference. |
What has anyone trying "these kinds of techniques" have to do with their ability to comprehend the concept?
Does one have to measure the resistance of a resistor in order to comprehend the concept behind resistance? Of course not.
It's seeming to me that you're just trying to generate some marketing "mystique" about these concepts and techniques you vaguely refer to for commercial purposes.
se |
|
|
| mrfeedback |
Originally posted by Steve Eddy
So you're ultimately reducing the dynamic range, yes?
Subjectively the instantaneous dynamic range is increased, and markedly so.
What spectral nature are you referring to? Other than interference type noise, the noise in an audio system is broadband and has no spectral spikes or the like. So what exactly are you referring to when you say "spectrum"?
"No spectral spikes" conclusion is dependant on the resolution of the testing aparatus used.
I believe that system noise is not purely white at all.
I reckon that overall system noise is the product of a whole bunch of spectral sets throughout the system.
Cascaded circuit stages intermodulate these individual spectrums and cause further clouds of junk, and these junk collections are inherent in recordings and further modified (made worse) in replay systems.
'Spectral cleaning' at the start of a system produces dramatic results at the destination end because system modulation and intermodulation products are exponentially reduced.
Your nickel-iron cored audio isolating transformers are strong filters, and if you like the sound of nickel then all power to you - I find nickel is subjectively toxic and strongly distubingly irritating.
Eric. |
|
|
| Christer |
| quote: | Originally posted by mrfeedback
How do you bend the noise spectrums throughout the system without also bending the music spectrum?
Both change - subjectively the noise drops and the music lifts.
|
Are you saying that you deliberately change the frequency
response of the system???!!! Sure you can reduce some noise
that way, with the side effect of also reducing the signal at
some frequencuies. That sounds similar to the ancient DNL
noise reduction technique which I hope nobody takes very
seriously nowadays. Eric, please tell me I have misunderstood
you. No serious audiophile would deliberately corrupt the
frequency response, I think. |
|
|
| mrfeedback |
Sinewave testing reveals no FR (10Hz-30kHz) changes, and THD+N testing reveals no changes.
Music changes are subjectively clearly aparrent.
Eric. |
|
|
| johnferrier |
Okay Mrfeedback you are not going to indicate exactly what you are using, but you are using either Bybees or equivalent, right? I'd like to be clear at least this far.
JF |
|
|
| Steve Eddy |
| quote: | Originally posted by mrfeedback
Originally posted by Steve Eddy
So you're ultimately reducing the dynamic range, yes?
Subjectively the instantaneous dynamic range is increased, and markedly so. |
Ok. So what's happening objectively?
| quote: | What spectral nature are you referring to? Other than interference type noise, the noise in an audio system is broadband and has no spectral spikes or the like. So what exactly are you referring to when you say "spectrum"?
"No spectral spikes" conclusion is dependant on the resolution of the testing aparatus used. |
What's the resolution of the testing aparatus you use?
| quote: | | I believe that system noise is not purely white at all. |
You believe? You mean you haven't checked it out?
| quote: |
I reckon that overall system noise is the product of a whole bunch of spectral sets throughout the system. |
You reckon? You mean you haven't checked it out?
| quote: | | Cascaded circuit stages intermodulate these individual spectrums and cause further clouds of junk, and these junk collections are inherent in recordings and further modified (made worse) in replay systems. |
And which is this based on? Belief or reckoning?
| quote: | | 'Spectral cleaning' at the start of a system produces dramatic results at the destination end because system modulation and intermodulation products are exponentially reduced. |
Ok, so you spectrally clean the noise even though just reckon that there are some strange spectral anomalies?
I'm sorry, but I can't understand how someone can approach solving a problem when the problem hasn't actually been determined, but merely "reckoned."
I'm glad you're not practicing medicine. I can see you prescribing high colonics for people with the sniffles because you "reckon" they have the sniffles because their colons are backed up and intermodulating intermodulating with their sinuses.
Hey, if whatever you're doing is working for you, great. But you came into this discussion as if you had some notion as to what the QPs are actually doing rather than marketing and reckoning.
| quote: | | Your nickel-iron cored audio isolating transformers are strong filters, and if you like the sound of nickel then all power to you - I find nickel is subjectively toxic and strongly distubingly irritating. |
And this has what to do with QPs?
By the way, the attached image is the power averaged spectrum of an Audio Precision System Two Cascade's residual output of a 1kHz fundamental at 30mV. The fundamental's been notched out hence the dip at 1kHz. The dB scale is relative to the 30mV fundamental.
The noise spectrum appears to be flat as a ruler except for a just noticeable rolloff at 20kHz due to bandlimiting. Don't see any spectral spikes here. And if I'm not mistaken, I believe the System Two Cascade also uses transformers. |
|
|
| Steve Eddy |
| quote: | Originally posted by mrfeedback
Sinewave testing reveals no FR (10Hz-30kHz) changes, and THD+N testing reveals no changes.
Music changes are subjectively clearly aparrent. |
Subjective differences in quality are known to occur with small changes of volume. An old trick that's been exploited by audio salesmen for decades.
Small changes in volume would not effect frequency response or distortion.
So, you going into the resistor business like Bybee? :)
se |
|
|
| Steve Eddy |
| quote: | Originally posted by mrfeedback
Sinewave testing reveals no FR (10Hz-30kHz) changes, and THD+N testing reveals no changes. |
What about phase response?
se |
|
|
| mrfeedback |
Originally posted by Steve Eddy
Ok, so you're just trying to get some pre-release marketing going.
No that is already done - user's word of mouth is one form.
What has anyone trying "these kinds of techniques" have to do with their ability to comprehend the concept?
Because these sonic changes are unlike anything that you have heard previously, and past experience and conditioning precludes you (and most others) from accepting this concept easily without direct experience.
Those who have tried my leads have jokingly tried to tell me that I am crazy before having tried them, but universally have done an about face after using them.
Justin's comment last night after the show was "Mate, you're a ****ing legend for what you did to the sound tonight" - those are big thankyou words from a very experienced guy who lives, eats and breathes high quality live and studio sound.
Does one have to measure the resistance of a resistor in order to comprehend the concept behind resistance? Of course not.
Reading a simple resistance meter leaves out a whole bunch of parameters.
It's seeming to me that you're just trying to generate some marketing "mystique" about these concepts and techniques you vaguely refer to for commercial purposes.
No I am just relating to you some real world examples and experiences (mine and other's) in order that you may open your mind a little.
Mystique and BS factor is absolutely not my intention.
Eric.
Another genuinely happy sound engineer photo. |
|
|
| mrfeedback |
| quote: | Originally posted by johnferrier
Okay Mrfeedback you are not going to indicate exactly what you are using, but you are using either Bybees or equivalent, right? I'd like to be clear at least this far.
JF |
Hi John, you are welcome to call me Eric.
In answer, vaguely simiar and completely different at the same time, and a million different forms of implementation.
Eric. |
|
|
| johnferrier |
Great, Eric thanks. Clearly you enjoy what you are doing with audio. I appreciate that.
JF |
|
|
| Steve Eddy |
| quote: | Originally posted by mrfeedback
In answer, vaguely simiar and completely different at the same time, and a million different forms of implementation. |
More gibberish.
se |
|
|
| Christer |
| quote: | Originally posted by mrfeedback
Sinewave testing reveals no FR (10Hz-30kHz) changes, and THD+N testing reveals no changes.
Music changes are subjectively clearly aparrent.
Eric. |
Hm, OK, so are you saying that the frequency response is
temporarily altered when the signal changes, during transients
for instance?? Anyway, it seems you are deliberately
deviating from trying to achieve the straight wire with gain.
It sounds to me that you are actually manipulating the sound
to try getting an illusion of better sound. I admit, that this
need not necessarily be wrong. Any sound reproduction is
about trying to recreate an illusion, of course, but delibarate
manipulations of the sound is a dangerous path to walk. Have
you tried it on many different types of music for instance? |
|
|
| johnferrier |
They're using string theory: two paper cups with a string between....sorry bad joke.
JF |
|
|
| Steve Eddy |
| quote: | Originally posted by johnferrier
They're using string theory: two paper cups with a string between....sorry bad joke. |
Hehehehe.
Was hoping for some enlightenment. Silly anecdotes are a penny a dozen. But it's just been a page full of gibberish and doubletalk.
se |
|
|
| Steve Eddy |
| quote: | Originally posted by Christer
Hm, OK, so are you saying that the frequency response is
temporarily altered when the signal changes, during transients
for instance?? Anyway, it seems you are deliberately
deviating from trying to achieve the straight wire with gain.
It sounds to me that you are actually manipulating the sound
to try getting an illusion of better sound. I admit, that this
need not necessarily be wrong. Any sound reproduction is
about trying to recreate an illusion, of course, but delibarate
manipulations of the sound is a dangerous path to walk. Have
you tried it on many different types of music for instance? |
He's just pulling our chains, Christer. We're not going to get any useful information out of any of them.
se |
|
|
| mrfeedback |
| quote: | Originally posted by Christer
Hm, OK, so are you saying that the frequency response is
temporarily altered when the signal changes, during transients
for instance?? Anyway, it seems you are deliberately
deviating from trying to achieve the straight wire with gain.
It sounds to me that you are actually manipulating the sound
to try getting an illusion of better sound. I admit, that this
need not necessarily be wrong. Any sound reproduction is
about trying to recreate an illusion, of course, but delibarate
manipulations of the sound is a dangerous path to walk. Have
you tried it on many different types of music for instance? |
Hi Christer,
I am saying things like if you send an audio signal through multiple circuit stages each of which displays harmonic and intermodulation distortion characterists, then a small alteration at the beginning of the chain will strongly affect final output - this is normal knowledge.
Conductors and insulations in the signal chain impart spectral filtering characteristics, and therefore I don't think of any straight wire as straight, and much less any active stage.
To my ear recordings are as bent as hell when we get them, and interestingly can be sort of dynamically unbent at replay - highly regarded gear does this, and does not just amplify perfectly.
I expect that the QP's do this too.
Eric. |
|
|
| mrfeedback |
| quote: | Originally posted by johnferrier
Great, Eric thanks. Clearly you enjoy what you are doing with audio. I appreciate that.
JF |
Hi John,
I regard music as fun and for entertainment, and not something to get retentive about.
The photo is of a colleague last night half way into the show - we were both completely happy with the mix and the sound and Justin is amply expressing that.
When you get a live system sounding REALLY good, then it is just pure joy all around the room, and last night we achieved this spectacularly.
Live music that you like is better than recorded anyday, and when live music is sounding RIGHT then you can't help feeling happy and just plain enjoying it, and sharing it.
Enjoy too, Eric. |
|
|
| Steve Eddy |
| quote: | Originally posted by mrfeedback
Conductors and insulations in the signal chain impart spectral filtering characteristics, and therefore I don't think of any straight wire as straight, and much less any active stage. |
They do? Based on what? You're making an outright claim here now, Eric. I don't see any "believes" or "reckons" in there.
| quote: | To my ear recordings are as bent as hell when we get them, and interestingly can be sort of dynamically unbent at replay - highly regarded gear does this, and does not just amplify perfectly.
I expect that the QP's do this too. |
Again, based on what? How does the resistor that Bybee's selling do anything different than the resistors already in the signal path?
se |
|
|
| shuang |
The best place to try Bybees is the +ve terminal of speakers.
You can try applying one per speaker cabinet, then if you like the effect try one per driver per cabinet. Once you are a convert, you can experiment with other applications such as AC.
I have been tweaking my system for the past six months, and have found this application of Bybees to be the best tweak I have experienced beyond building DIY Bass Traps.
It really opened up the sound and added detail. I have a Rotel amp and preamp with Arcam CD player and Paradigm Studio 60 speakers.
See the following links for Bybee testimonials.
http://www.ecoustics.com/s.php?search=bybee
http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/searc...&sortOrder=DESC |
|
|
|
