Good idea, if a decrease in noise from a phono source can't be heard then a decrease in noise from nothing can be heard.
Understood, but noise spectra from records are... noisy. Noisy in the sense of having high variability and noisy enough to cover up phenomena.
Figure 2 of the His Master's Noise article shows the way I do attenuators for a balanced phono stage measurement. It might be interesting to do it that way, with and without the Bybees in each leg, then repeat the measurement with the input transformer bypassed, a larger signal source, and a source impedance of (say) 1k in series with 500mH to simulate an MM.
The DCR of the Bybee is supposed to be 0R025, so a 0R25 resistor will be noisier. Might as well short the input...
Figure 2 of the His Master's Noise article shows the way I do attenuators for a balanced phono stage measurement. It might be interesting to do it that way, with and without the Bybees in each leg, then repeat the measurement with the input transformer bypassed, a larger signal source, and a source impedance of (say) 1k in series with 500mH to simulate an MM.
The DCR of the Bybee is supposed to be 0R025, so a 0R25 resistor will be noisier. Might as well short the input...
what does it claim to do? Strip extraneous noise signals from a waveform without affecting the underlying carrier.
Test has to emulate that - a carrier signal (SYs sine for example) with a noise component embedded in the signal.
Further, since the claim is that there is a residual effect and the clean Bybeed signal continues through the following devices without picking up further noise, the test would need to measure at upstream nodes to identify whether that is the case.
Variations could look at pure and multiple frequency carriers as well as varied "noise" impressoins.
Test has to emulate that - a carrier signal (SYs sine for example) with a noise component embedded in the signal.
Further, since the claim is that there is a residual effect and the clean Bybeed signal continues through the following devices without picking up further noise, the test would need to measure at upstream nodes to identify whether that is the case.
Variations could look at pure and multiple frequency carriers as well as varied "noise" impressoins.
A low distortion sine could be burried in white noise say at -30dB, by avaraging the sine is recovered and distortion measured, that is repeated with the Bybee in the chain. The sine could also be supressed digitally and then the noise analysed in both cases with and without the Bybee. My Praxis measurement system could do that. Instead of a sine a multitone signal could be used that resembles more music. Music can be used too as stimulus in the Praxis software.
If possible I would like to see what effect the device has on higher frequency noise as well as audible range, say 10 to 100Mhz superimposed on some signals if at all possible.
My reason is to see how much effect they have on audio signals where digital noise may be present, be it fom a SMPS or other digital source.
My reason is to see how much effect they have on audio signals where digital noise may be present, be it fom a SMPS or other digital source.
Someone else will have to do all but the crudest RF measurements. But the waveforms that John Curl posted were much lower frequency than that. That's where I'm concentrating- if there's an effect from RF that's audible, it will show up in the audible and (controversially) ultrasonic frequencies.
If a hundred dollar gizmo has no more or different effect on power supply and analog signal than a 2 cent bead (or for that matter, a 10 cent resistor) placed in the same spot, I think anyone who's not terminally gullible will have to draw the obvious conclusion.
If a hundred dollar gizmo has no more or different effect on power supply and analog signal than a 2 cent bead (or for that matter, a 10 cent resistor) placed in the same spot, I think anyone who's not terminally gullible will have to draw the obvious conclusion.
I'm game for the Bye Bee W fivesome experiment.
How many silver purifiers for that, you reckon ?
I don't think all the voodoo in the world would keep that experience from haunting your dreams.
se
This may prove fruitless. From the Bybee site:
"this quantum purification technology has proven that eliminating sub-audible noise—i.e., noise unmeasurable by typical test-bench instruments--"
So it is already claimed that would should not be able to measure it. At least with "typical" equipment.
However, this is an electrical device that is inserted in series. It may be used on AC lines:
"The simplest AC modification is to primary power: Place the purifiers between the AC input -- typically an IEC socket -- and the transformer input. For best results the recommended procedure is to put a purifier on both the hot and the neutral leg;"
Or it may be placed in the line level signal path:
"For optimum performance improvement with RCA jacks, connect a purifier at (or as close as physically possible to) the positive terminal of the jack, and a second purifier on the return leg. Treating only the positive leg will also enhance performance, but to a lesser degree."
They can also be used on speaker lines, near the driver:
"To modify dynamic loudspeakers, the best possible results are obtained by connecting a purifier at both the positive and negative terminals of each driver."
From the above statements we can clearly see that the device is meant to work in series with the current flow. A purifier on each both wires leading to the device is best.
I really don't know how we can measure this "sub-audible noise." But listening tests, or viewing tests on video are supposed to reveal important improvements.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.