I never saw this and can venture to say that SY never intended to measure "electron velocity". If one makes up absurd enough physics there is no way to devise a test. If that is the goal this exercise is a waste of time.
Actually, I did. Used the deflection of an oscilloscope beam as a crude detector. Agree on the last.
SY did devise a test though. And the point here is SY's claim that he tested the claims made for the device. That claim does not hold up because he invented 'electron velocity' all by himself. Its found nowhere that I can see in Bybee's claims - they speak of 'signal velocity'.
SY did say that somewhere in this morass of mushy mindlessness. I believe he laid to rest any potential extraordinary claims; at least he put up some results with details, more than any of the fanboys of Bybee Devices...
John L.
John L.
Strange. I don't understand why this is so hard. If the Bybee actually does make this great improvement to the signal, shouldn't that be easily detectable by measurement?
From the reviews and testimonials, the audible results don't seem subtle. Shouldn't someone notice something in the measurements?
The Bybee is an electrical device, not acoustic. It has to have some sort of electrical effect to do what is claimed.
From the reviews and testimonials, the audible results don't seem subtle. Shouldn't someone notice something in the measurements?
The Bybee is an electrical device, not acoustic. It has to have some sort of electrical effect to do what is claimed.
Ya think?
It's performance art, it really is. I have to doff my hat to the master.
no, the measurements that work for analysis of all other known physics stuff.
Must be time for another round up so here goes:
A Bybee device has been measured for some standard electrical and physical properties using simple and repeatable protocols that were designed to assess whether the device was what it claimed to be and did what it claimed to do, or did anything different to a control device.
It isn't entirely what was claimed physically, and it does do anything different from a control device (a standard resistor) to a reasonable level of confidence (-125db if I recall)
Since then, no-one has reproduced the tests and found differently.
Since then various claims and theories have been put forward ranging from ultra-low frequency to ultra-high frequency effects, temperature and a range of esoteric physical to subatomic effects.
Some have postulated a currently unmeasureable and unidentifed property.
To date, no data has been provided on listening tests either here or in the sibling thread set up for that purpose. Hence it is impossible to confirm or deny the device actually makes an audible difference that is identifiable and repeatable.
Draw your own conclusions.
Must be time for another round up so here goes:
A Bybee device has been measured for some standard electrical and physical properties using simple and repeatable protocols that were designed to assess whether the device was what it claimed to be and did what it claimed to do, or did anything different to a control device.
It isn't entirely what was claimed physically, and it does do anything different from a control device (a standard resistor) to a reasonable level of confidence (-125db if I recall)
Since then, no-one has reproduced the tests and found differently.
Since then various claims and theories have been put forward ranging from ultra-low frequency to ultra-high frequency effects, temperature and a range of esoteric physical to subatomic effects.
Some have postulated a currently unmeasureable and unidentifed property.
To date, no data has been provided on listening tests either here or in the sibling thread set up for that purpose. Hence it is impossible to confirm or deny the device actually makes an audible difference that is identifiable and repeatable.
Draw your own conclusions.
Draw Some More Conclusions....
Whilst in the hands of the objective tester, subjective testing was conducted but no subjective findings were ventured.
The last time I stated these facts recently, my post was deleted.
Eric.
The QP's belonging to a third party were sent by non registered mail (irresponsible in my view) to an international destination ...so we are told, and they have not arrived yet, so we are told.
Whilst in the hands of the objective tester, subjective testing was conducted but no subjective findings were ventured.
The last time I stated these facts recently, my post was deleted.
Eric.
Is that sour grapes I can smell from someone who wasn't allowed to use the forum for commercial purposes.
No, it's a discussion of SY's "measurements & analysis" as per the thread topic so try to stop OT posts, please.
Again, I ask this question:
Why is the Bybee QP only available in audio circles, Why if it is so good at reducing noise isn't it readily available for general use!
Why.
Why is the Bybee QP only available in audio circles, Why if it is so good at reducing noise isn't it readily available for general use!
Why.
This goes a long way back. I am afraid that the participants here - whatever their stated stance in this matter - have from the outset taken a view, negative, positive, or, apparently, up close and personal, which cannot but colour their present day approach.
Further, in the 9 years since this link
(http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/ever...bybee-quantum-purifiers-needed.html#post79481), the thread in which the link appears is worth a quick scan.
was posted individual's accuracy of hearing has undoubtedly deteriorated - . In the same period measuring techniques and equipment have improved. Yet here we are again, saying the same things as ever. And now we are expected to accept that a cheap resistor substitute will produce the same measured results as the 'specified' resistor. This may well be akin to saying that if we need to check out the claims made for a Bentley car then we can use a Ford as an adequate lab. substitution. [They are both automobiles, right?] Does a cheap carbon resistor measure identically - in all measurable aspects - to a highest quality certified resistor?
What has happened to fdegrove? I miss his well mannered and usually positive posts.
Further, in the 9 years since this link
(http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/ever...bybee-quantum-purifiers-needed.html#post79481), the thread in which the link appears is worth a quick scan.
was posted individual's accuracy of hearing has undoubtedly deteriorated - . In the same period measuring techniques and equipment have improved. Yet here we are again, saying the same things as ever. And now we are expected to accept that a cheap resistor substitute will produce the same measured results as the 'specified' resistor. This may well be akin to saying that if we need to check out the claims made for a Bentley car then we can use a Ford as an adequate lab. substitution. [They are both automobiles, right?] Does a cheap carbon resistor measure identically - in all measurable aspects - to a highest quality certified resistor?
What has happened to fdegrove? I miss his well mannered and usually positive posts.
No, it doesn't. But there's no mention of cheap carbon resistors here. The reference resistor used is a metal foil.
Perhaps because it has NOTHING to do with "Measurement and Analysis"?
@abraxalito: It would be grand to see changes to the velocity of electrons, but what does that translate into in sonic terms? Would it change the pitch? (I'm only half kidding).
The awards and testimonials for the Bybee are remarkable. Why has nothing been shown in measurements? If I claim that capacitor X sounds different from capacitor Y, then I can back that up with measurements. Ditto, power supplies, OPTs and other stuff. It's not so mysterious. John Curl did cap measurements decades ago.
So why nothing like that for the Bybee? If it affects the signal enough to be heard by so many, why does that change not appear in measurements?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.