Sure, Measurement IsThe Final Proof...
Dan.
Thank you, but my question is (politely) addressed to Stuart.
Dan.
This argument is nothing different than one where you are asked to believe for no other reason than that you should. It is not any different than the argument made by some that they will not use blind testing in an ABX test situation, that they have to see the equipment to evaluate it. A mental predetermination will skew any test result that is why we do have scientific papers reviewed by others to look for the flaws in an argument. Don't forget that at one time the world was flat and there was no allowance except for death for believing anything different. The apple doesn't seem to have fallen very far from the tree in all this time.
Well, i propose we all together try to decide what measurements could be determined to show, once and for all, the action of Bybee Quantum Purifier on an audio signal.
I propose measurements to be done out of an audio power amp at the end of a 5m (or other) average HP cable, charged by a 6 Ohms resistance (for the comfort of the measurement) at a level of 2.5V (~90dB spl for a 90dB/w loudspeaker).
The BQP will be weld (if possible) at the extremity of the charge resistance.
The measurements will be compared with and without the BQP
Frequency response up to 200Khz. or more.
Harmonic distortion of a 50 or 60, 1000, 10 000 Hz tone.
Intermodulation with low frequencies around 50Hz et high frequencies around 10 or 20 Khz.
Slew rate with a square wave at 100kHz (traces).
Transmission delai.
What else ?
Up to your comments and suggestions.
I propose measurements to be done out of an audio power amp at the end of a 5m (or other) average HP cable, charged by a 6 Ohms resistance (for the comfort of the measurement) at a level of 2.5V (~90dB spl for a 90dB/w loudspeaker).
The BQP will be weld (if possible) at the extremity of the charge resistance.
The measurements will be compared with and without the BQP
Frequency response up to 200Khz. or more.
Harmonic distortion of a 50 or 60, 1000, 10 000 Hz tone.
Intermodulation with low frequencies around 50Hz et high frequencies around 10 or 20 Khz.
Slew rate with a square wave at 100kHz (traces).
Transmission delai.
What else ?
Up to your comments and suggestions.
Last edited:
Just one, but John says I only have crappy midfi components and I'm deaf, so don't take it too seriously.
That was already done. After each measurement, i got dizzy from how fast the goalposts were moving. The only thing really missing was RF and microwave, and I did that once I had a nice R&S network analyzer on my bench. At this point, further measurement seems pretty pointless unless someone presents enough REAL data to make the time and effort seem worthwhile.
No, I used Schroedinger compensation, which can be shown to be equivalent. Hard on the cat, though.
I listened to an elaborate two-channel system that the resident Canoga Park audiophile (i.e., not me) said had BQPs in various strategic locations. He believed that they helped. He apparently talks to Bybee extensively.
I found the system sound adequate, very good but nothing overwhelming or extraordinary (big Sound Lab panels, a next-to-largest Bryston amp, the "completion" box that Atkinson recently reviewed and concluded was essentially a Blumlein shuffler, various source components). What amused me was the guy is still a total nervous nellie about excessive bass energy somehow getting to his panels and causing arc-over. So with any uncertified material (I brought a couple of CDs) he turns the level way down. Overall, he tends to listen at rather low levels I thought.
I should add that, had the system sounded extraordinary I'd have been suspicious, as quite frankly I've heard a lot of decent audio in good rooms, and IMO something that stands out generally does so because of anomalies, not competent design.
But I'm probably deaf too, as as much as I've wanted to hear the effects of some controversial accessories, and known when they were inserted or absent, I can't bring myself to hear an effect. Yet I can spot problems and diagnose them when they exist, and usually pretty accurately.
I found the system sound adequate, very good but nothing overwhelming or extraordinary (big Sound Lab panels, a next-to-largest Bryston amp, the "completion" box that Atkinson recently reviewed and concluded was essentially a Blumlein shuffler, various source components). What amused me was the guy is still a total nervous nellie about excessive bass energy somehow getting to his panels and causing arc-over. So with any uncertified material (I brought a couple of CDs) he turns the level way down. Overall, he tends to listen at rather low levels I thought.
I should add that, had the system sounded extraordinary I'd have been suspicious, as quite frankly I've heard a lot of decent audio in good rooms, and IMO something that stands out generally does so because of anomalies, not competent design.
But I'm probably deaf too, as as much as I've wanted to hear the effects of some controversial accessories, and known when they were inserted or absent, I can't bring myself to hear an effect. Yet I can spot problems and diagnose them when they exist, and usually pretty accurately.
Thanks a lot, SY.
Well, as i don't hear (probably due to my age) RF and microwaves, as we have no reason to doubt about the honesty and competency of the guy witch was open minded and curious enough to spend time in such measurements, can-we conclude that BQP is perfectly transparent ?
1000$ is not so expensive for a perfectly transparent device, don't you thing ?
Now, the only mystery that survive is to understand how a designer as famous as John Curl can walk two feet in such a scam for no benefit !
His fidelity in friendship is wonderful, but nothing oblige him to tarnish his reputation by promoting the dishonesty of his friends.
Last edited:
I think the answer to that is John truly believes in the devices. It's possible that even Bybee himself is a true believer. It's a lot easier to sleep at night when you are merely delusional rather than a fraud.
If these devices do what they claim, why would they have not found more lucrative applications in other industries?
If these devices do what they claim, why would they have not found more lucrative applications in other industries?
Last edited:
Bentley consumes a max of fuel.
May i thank-you all for the great fun and a noticeable increase of my knowledge of quantum and alien technology, like the the Heisenberg compensation circuitry and nano particles benefits on the reproduction of heavy metal music across the empty space between galaxies.
Last edited:
I remember an episode many years ago here, about a device, vagely similar to a QP (IIRC) that was 'proven' to increase fuel efficiency and engine power of a car. The device had to be placed somewhere on the engine.
The 'proof' consisted of two graphs of the engine torque with and without the device, and indeed the graph with the device appeared to show higher torque. Until you started to look at the vertical scales, which were different in each graph.
Corrected for that, I found that the two graphs were identical.
A big discussion ensued, and the guy who designed the devices even called me on the phone, but the evidence was clear. He then blamed 'a stupid technician' in doing the test wrong (??), and he took the graphs down promising to replace them with the right ones. Which, of course, never happed.
I tried to find those old posts with no success, but I *think* they were also Bybee devices. But I am not sure, and if I am wrong, I apologise.
But it was a nice illustration of how far some people will go to peddle worthless things.
Edit: Maybe it was about Shakti stones.
jan
Last edited:
So it really is just a resistor with floobydust around it! People were not just being dismissive when they described it thus.
It kind of reminds me of the amazing receiver antennas which could be bought in street markets and from adverts in newspapers 50 years ago. These (allegedly) greatly improved broadcast reception. On inspection they consisted of a paper/foil capacitor with a bit of wire attached. People paid good money for them. To the extent that the stray capacitance of the capacitor body provided a tiny bit of end loading for the the short wire antenna they did work, but any piece of conductor would do the same. I suppose it was a good way of using up old (failed) capacitors.
It kind of reminds me of the amazing receiver antennas which could be bought in street markets and from adverts in newspapers 50 years ago. These (allegedly) greatly improved broadcast reception. On inspection they consisted of a paper/foil capacitor with a bit of wire attached. People paid good money for them. To the extent that the stray capacitance of the capacitor body provided a tiny bit of end loading for the the short wire antenna they did work, but any piece of conductor would do the same. I suppose it was a good way of using up old (failed) capacitors.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.