Bybee Q-P Listening tests

Pano

Administrator
Paid Member
2004-10-07 6:05 am
Panama
Here is a thread for listening tests ONLY of the Bybee Quantum Purifier.
Please use this thread to report your listen tests and subjective experiences of the Bybee Quantum Purifier.

Here are a few rules for this thread.
  1. Listening tests only. No electrical measurements.
  2. Uncontrolled tests must be stated as such. These will be treated as opinion only, not facts.
    Opinions and personal experiences are welcome, but do not cry, moan or pitch a fit if they are not met with universal praise.
  3. Controlled tests must also be stated as such. These will recieve a higher degree of scrutiny than uncontrolled tests.
  4. Respect the opinions of members posting in this thread. Remember,these are opinions and anecdotal evidence. They will be respected as such.
  5. Controlled tests are welcome. Thorough documentation is recommended.
  6. Suggestions of listening test methodology are welcome, as are critiques of methods.
  7. Normal forum RULES also apply here.
 

anatech

Administrator
Paid Member
2004-06-06 8:31 pm
Georgetown, On
Hi Pano,
Well, universally reproducible is out. That standard is too high.

You know what would really help the entire industry? This may exist somewhere, but I don't know where. A universal definition list that applies various terms with some definition. At least something we can use locally in this thread. That would allow everyone to use the same definitions to describe what they hear.

If this doesn't exist, why not create a "dictionary" for use here?

-Chris
 

Pano

Administrator
Paid Member
2004-10-07 6:05 am
Panama
Well what we would like in a controlled listening test is to be sure that the person listening has no clue as to whether the Bybee is in or out of the circuit. No visual clues, no accidental clues from the test rig or the person running the test.

That would be the basics.
 
Swan Dive:

I plan to sit at my bench and listen to a few different sets of multi-way speakers, then a couple sets of FR's on the input leads at a low volume. I then plan to move on to just woofers, mids and tweeters with a final test being done to interconnects. I will be doing the connecting and deciding when and how they are connected or not.

After that I will ask someone to assist me while behind a large piece of grill cloth so I am unable so see or have influence on the testing procedure. Anyone dislike those for tests? :D
 
You know what would really help the entire industry? This may exist somewhere, but I don't know where. A universal definition list that applies various terms with some definition. At least something we can use locally in this thread. That would allow everyone to use the same definitions to describe what they hear.
-Chris

Absolutely - language is the bigges problem in this area. I found this over the weekend while considering exactly that problem.

IMO, its not perfect, but it does provide a single refence point for all those airy-fairy terms we use...
 

anatech

Administrator
Paid Member
2004-06-06 8:31 pm
Georgetown, On
Hi Cal,
That is a great test of grill cloth! :)
You wouldn't believe how easy it is to select grille cloth or internal stuffing / padding with some easy tests done with your ear and some wide band source of (hopefully natural or real) sound.

A valid test. Have at 'er and let us know.

Hi aardvarkash10,
Thanks for the link. Now for one not held captive in a book. That is a good start for ideas.

-Chris
 

Pano

Administrator
Paid Member
2004-10-07 6:05 am
Panama
Yes Cal, that's pretty valid, I think. You'd want to do a large number of trials and have the sequence generated randomly. Then you keep a score card.

Whoever is doing the testing should receive the random sequence from someone here, and of course not show it to you.
 

anatech

Administrator
Paid Member
2004-06-06 8:31 pm
Georgetown, On
Hi aardvarkash10,
Okay, thanks.
I very foolishly decided to read the article and ended up a little stoned feeling. Couldn't wait to get out of there to be honest with you. All I can say is that they haven't changed a bit over time. I'll head back and follow the link.

diyAudio - keeping music out of my house since March 2007...
Why?

-Chris
 

jkeny

Banned
2007-02-06 12:43 am
Dublin
Before discussing the way the listening tests are conducted is it not essential that the listening tests be conducted before the measurement test results are revealed? This has already been raised over on the other thread but was curtailed by the rules of that thread.
Avoiding Framing is what this is about

If the measurement tests are revealed before the listening tests then the expectations of the listeners will already have been set.

No measurable difference will predispose the listener to finding no audible difference in the listening tests.

What's the plan here? Are the listening tests being done before the measurement results are revealed?
 
depends how the listening test is designed. If a double blind including a bybee, a "placebo bybee" and an unchanged source is used (or indeed and better still, if the DUT is un-identified to the subjects AND the test administrator) then there is every reason to expect a reliable outcome from a WELL DESIGNED AND MANAGED test.

By unidentified, I mean that participants have no idea what the device is, who made it and what, if any, claims are made for its efficacy.

Beyond that, subjects should be screened for previous knowledge or preconceptions - not to exclude them necessarily, but to ensure that any bias is identified and controlled. Again, its an issue of test design and indicates the level of planning and understanding that has to be done BEFORE sweepingly announcing that listening tests will cure all and can be easily done...
 

jkeny

Banned
2007-02-06 12:43 am
Dublin
I really think you are ignoring a fundamental if you ignore this timing issue! Everything else you mention is laudable but why avoid a simple timing issue?

You cannot do anything about people's pre-conceived notions but why introduce another one by releasing the measurements before the listening.
 
I really think you are ignoring a fundamental if you ignore this timing issue! Everything else you mention is laudable but why avoid a simple timing issue?

You cannot do anything about people's pre-conceived notions but why introduce another one by releasing the measurements before the listening.

Its not avoided. Its controlled for. Get over it. Accept that EVERYONE going into a test brings prior knowledge and bias. You can't eliminate it, you CAN control for it.
 

jkeny

Banned
2007-02-06 12:43 am
Dublin
Too late. Curl has already said that it measures no different than a resistor
So why are you bothering? What's the point of this whole excercise?
and that you can't hear it without peeking.
Are you being serious now?

Its not avoided. Its controlled for. Get over it.
Jeez, are you conducting or participating in the listening tests? You really sound like your running the whole show!
 
Last edited: