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.
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.
- Listening tests only. No electrical measurements.
- 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. - Controlled tests must also be stated as such. These will recieve a higher degree of scrutiny than uncontrolled tests.
- Respect the opinions of members posting in this thread. Remember,these are opinions and anecdotal evidence. They will be respected as such.
- Controlled tests are welcome. Thorough documentation is recommended.
- Suggestions of listening test methodology are welcome, as are critiques of methods.
- Normal forum RULES also apply here.
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
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
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?
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?
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...
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
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
Its not captive in the book - at the bottom of the linked page is an index to the various sections of the glossary including - most helpfully - a reverse glossary ie "if I am hearing this effect on the music, how do I describe it?"
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?
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...
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...
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.
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.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.