ref the $2000 dollar cables, that's ALL about markup for the dealer, in the same way that you always get pushed to buy an expensive HDMI cable when you get a new TV. The store makes more profit on the cables than the device they are selling.
We don't allow "wife in the kitchen" anecdotes any more, scientific testing has proven that they are:
1. Supporting their poor disillusioned husband.
2. Just saying yes as a general argument to avoid conflict and allow them to continue daydreaming about Christian Grey.
So their response is meaningless, even though they are not audiophiles...
A recent thread showed some results of measuring different cables, apart from the silly cables where specs where way off what would be considered normal, the differences were around 0.1dB not audible I would have thought. Hence why I worded it as audible... same with caps, change can be measured but again we have to ask is it actually audible or bias.
1. Supporting their poor disillusioned husband.
2. Just saying yes as a general argument to avoid conflict and allow them to continue daydreaming about Christian Grey.
So their response is meaningless, even though they are not audiophiles...
A recent thread showed some results of measuring different cables, apart from the silly cables where specs where way off what would be considered normal, the differences were around 0.1dB not audible I would have thought. Hence why I worded it as audible... same with caps, change can be measured but again we have to ask is it actually audible or bias.
ref caps of course there is measureable distortion for certain types in certain applications. This information of course gets misappropriated 🙂
Yes with caps and some resistors distortion figures can change, all measurable though🙂
Its the magic changes that cant be measured.. often described as the "difference between day and night".
Its the magic changes that cant be measured.. often described as the "difference between day and night".
No, that would be you, not Marce. It's why you're so easily suckered by frauds like Bybee.
se
A very quick informal close listen to BQP pulled out of archives says a damped quality and change in timbre....a touch of Muzak even.
Informational losses maybe.
Dan.
Informational losses maybe.
Dan.
Last edited:
Dan, when we spoke about opamps in Mooly's thread, you were adament about blatant differences in opamps. Untill confronted with a blind test, which you did not perform.
So, from now on, I will only attach any meaning to your pronouncements on aural qualities if they are based on credible and verifiable ABX testing.
So, from now on, I will only attach any meaning to your pronouncements on aural qualities if they are based on credible and verifiable ABX testing.
Ok, I never got back to that test....give me the links and I'll do it.
Do you guys ever do any short or long term AB testing ???.
Look, I have an interesting method of changing the sound of pretty much any system instantly and on the fly ...IOW I am very practiced at fast AB comparisons and picking very fine differences.
It is in the longer term listening where the differences really manifest and yield conclusions ultimately positive or negative.
For me BQP fails this test.
Typical short term DBLT is not sufficient for picking really fine differences that long term may please or even irritate.
I am sure that we have all heard gear that pleased initially, but failed in the longer term.
Short term DBLT protocols might reveal obvious differences, but fall down when presented with really fine differences.
These differences can be as fine as how a particular sound or note is rendered, and as is the nature of music these particular sounds or notes may occur infrequently, therefore requiring good sonic memory and long term listening over a range of music genres, styles, recordings and performances.
I for one (I understand there are others) am well over all this DBLT counter arguments nonsense from the usual gallery....more especially from those who have nil direct experience of the device in question.
Dan.
Do you guys ever do any short or long term AB testing ???.
Look, I have an interesting method of changing the sound of pretty much any system instantly and on the fly ...IOW I am very practiced at fast AB comparisons and picking very fine differences.
It is in the longer term listening where the differences really manifest and yield conclusions ultimately positive or negative.
For me BQP fails this test.
Typical short term DBLT is not sufficient for picking really fine differences that long term may please or even irritate.
I am sure that we have all heard gear that pleased initially, but failed in the longer term.
Short term DBLT protocols might reveal obvious differences, but fall down when presented with really fine differences.
These differences can be as fine as how a particular sound or note is rendered, and as is the nature of music these particular sounds or notes may occur infrequently, therefore requiring good sonic memory and long term listening over a range of music genres, styles, recordings and performances.
I for one (I understand there are others) am well over all this DBLT counter arguments nonsense from the usual gallery....more especially from those who have nil direct experience of the device in question.
Dan.
Last edited:
If you can't afford BQPs you might try shaking a rattle stick over your components whilst chanting incantations... the root technology is exactly the same!
For JC, Luke and everyone else that believes they can hear something the defies logic, I present The McGurk Effect. Watch the video and test yourself. In the section with the spilt screen (starting at 1:18) where the guy is mouthing fa-fa-fa on the left, and ba-ba-ba on the right, you cannot prevent hearing what your eyes are forcing you to hear, even though you are totally aware of the deception. It's human nature, you can't escape it. 😱
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-lN8vWm3m0
Mike
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-lN8vWm3m0
Mike
Thanks guys, I do believe in what I hear, and I accept that I don't know everything about physics.
Bybee has left himself open to the scrutiny of skeptics and has made no effort to defend his product and claims. It appears reasonable to be skeptical that a device in this manner could provide audible effects whilst being immeasurable, and for obvious reasons. The extant claim made by Bybee is that the devices reduce audible noise. First, let us recap the audible thresholds, then the measurable.
Testing has revealed that few subjects can detect continuous white noise 60dB below fundamental programme material and none at 80dB below. In regards to spurious random noise, the ability to detect the affect is further impaired. Therefore, if we are to believe numbers derived by tests, the purported effects of the BQP should reside within -80 decibels of the fundamental programme signal. It is reasonable that Bybee should have had its product undergone a thorough series of double blind listening tests with a review panel, but had not.
The audible threshold implicates that the effect should be well within the working range of modern and older analyzers, alike. Measuring noise from 10Hz-30kHz does not require any special techniques and some would be inclined to cover a narrower bandwidth, more in keeping with the accepted perceptible range.*Given that designing and manufacturing an electronic product requires the use of measuring equipment, it is reasonable that Bybee should have provided repeatable results, if the product functioned as described.
Either the analyzers are all broken (improbable), the accepted audible thresholds are incorrect (perhaps, there has been disagreement between academic studies), or the Bybee Quantum Purifier offers no perceptible or appreciable measurable difference (high probability).
Testing has revealed that few subjects can detect continuous white noise 60dB below fundamental programme material and none at 80dB below. In regards to spurious random noise, the ability to detect the affect is further impaired. Therefore, if we are to believe numbers derived by tests, the purported effects of the BQP should reside within -80 decibels of the fundamental programme signal. It is reasonable that Bybee should have had its product undergone a thorough series of double blind listening tests with a review panel, but had not.
The audible threshold implicates that the effect should be well within the working range of modern and older analyzers, alike. Measuring noise from 10Hz-30kHz does not require any special techniques and some would be inclined to cover a narrower bandwidth, more in keeping with the accepted perceptible range.*Given that designing and manufacturing an electronic product requires the use of measuring equipment, it is reasonable that Bybee should have provided repeatable results, if the product functioned as described.
Either the analyzers are all broken (improbable), the accepted audible thresholds are incorrect (perhaps, there has been disagreement between academic studies), or the Bybee Quantum Purifier offers no perceptible or appreciable measurable difference (high probability).
Yeah, and because it's built with top secret military technology, if he told ya he'd hafta kill ya! 🙄 😀
I'm thinkin' I'm gonna consult with some of them there Space Aliens, and build me a really cool sound enhancemenator device. I'll make MILLIONS! 😉
Mike
I'm thinkin' I'm gonna consult with some of them there Space Aliens, and build me a really cool sound enhancemenator device. I'll make MILLIONS! 😉
Mike
Last edited:
I'm going with door No.3, ie "the Bybee Quantum Purifier offers no perceptible or appreciable measurable difference (high probability)". I have seen no evidence that it offers any perceptible change beyond expectation and confirmation biases, and I have seen no evidence that it offers any appreciable measured difference. In other words, it appears to do nothing.
Ya except I've been making them for awhile now and know better, way better.
The only person who listened to me and made one on this forum loves it. Everyone ignores him too, of course.
I can't imagine why it's a surprise... it's not complicated or "new" stuff being used.
JohnC, I meant your contribution to the power conditioner, nothing to do with the Jack's.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.