Bybee Q-P Listening tests

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jump to Latest
#61
ok, searching two of the loooooongest threads on the subject, heres what I came up with.

http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/everything-else/13058-bybee-quantum-purifier-experience-3.html#post152615

http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/everything-else/13058-bybee-quantum-purifier-experience-8.html#post153670

http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/everything-else/13058-bybee-quantum-purifier-experience-10.html#post154003

http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/everything-else/13058-bybee-quantum-purifier-experience-13.html#post2279103

http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/everything-else/13058-bybee-quantum-purifier-experience-14.html#post2280655

http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/power-supplies/164631-diy-bybee-quantum-purifiers-4.html#post2145171

http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/power-supplies/164631-diy-bybee-quantum-purifiers-5.html#post2146720 (links to a breathless review of the QPs)
 
#62
It's good to see some people coming forth with reports of sonic differences. Personally, I don't care whether these are defined, as in your report Jam or ill-defined as in Allen's - they are sonic differences heard by the reporter nevertheless.

I thought that it is also immaterial, for this exercise, whether the differences are considered beneficial or not or whether you kept the Bybee in your system or not?

Obviously, at some point people need to make up their own minds as to whether it will be beneficial for them but this is hardly the point of the exercise, is it?
 
#65
yeah - cant vouch for it being comprehensive, but certainly representative.

Interesting points:

- I scanned over 1,000 posts (searched "bybee" first and then selected likely threads). These are the only ones I found claiming to have heard Bybees in captivity.

- They are, generally, equivocal.

- The equivocal nature of the personal accounts is offset by the one paid-for review and the review of a retailer. Go figure.

Initial unscientific conclusion - there is not a large population of vocal and satisfied Bybee owners out there, or if there is, they don't want to say so.
 
Last edited:
#66
aardy,

That about sums it up. The devices can be make a small difference ,not neccessarily for the better, in fact possibly the main use may be with noisy digital equipment.

In my honest opinion, if a Bybee device helps your system it can usually traced to badly designed components.

So how would you evaluate the device?

If it helps where does the real problem lie?

Is it cost effective?

It certainly can affect the sound of your system to some small degree.

For me, if you have good well engineered components you don't need the Bybee device. It is not the magic bullett that some people claim but merely an expensive band aid.

Regards,
Jam
 
#69
SY said:
No, what he says is that sonic differences disappear when you can't peek but they exist when you can. That makes no sense to me, but that's John's opinion and he's entitled to it.
Click to expand...

Ah, as a physician, I can interpret this. It says "I accept the placebo effect and like it even when I know it isn't real".
And good for him! What is wrong with the placebo effect? It is all about enjoying the music.
I think music sounds better with a glass of good scotch. I can't measure the sonic benefit, especially after several glasses, but I like the way it works. Over time, I will spend more on scotch than I would if I bought Bybees, but some placebos work for some people and some don't.
I have picked my poison.

Back to to the thread, unfortunately all listening reviews noted so far are simply not blinded and therefore significantly affected by bias and the placebo effect.
Sometimes there is a phenomena wherein the desire to overcome ones own bias and be fair is so strong the only conclusion can be "equivocal", recognize that term? The best intention leads to the elimination of information.
I suspect that has been a problem even with the most respected experimenter such as all of our good intentioned reviewers.

Blinded testing. Who has Bybees and time? I have neither.
 
#71
Last edited:
#72
aardy,

The first rule of being an audiophile when replacing or adding components ( A change does not mean better ).......this rule seems to be violated by almost everyone in this hobby especially reviewers.The key here is to know your system and not constantly keep changing components. Establish a base line and work from there.......too many changes all at once throws this in the crapper.

Once you are comfortable with the sound begin experimenting. When evaluating a component make a list of both pro's and con's of the new addition. This is where most audiophiles get caught and assume any change is for the better.

Jam
 
#73
#74
Any discussion of the Bybee's seems to degenerate to the equivalent hostilities of political discussions. I don't know why that exactly is - I just know it happens. Just like discussions of politics are a Rorschach Ink Blot test of one's world view the Bybees discussions seem to have the same effect. In some ways that seems more interesting than what the Bybees actually do or don't do. That's just from reading the links Ardvarkash10 posted and from my own experience.

As far as what Allen Wright said about using the QPs: The claimed effect is that the QPs somehow eliminate noise, or at least have the subjective effect of removing noise. This would mean that a very clean system would benefit less from them. Why don't people test the QP just as Mr. Bybee describes them. That is we should test both listening and spec wise for the removal of noise. That means doing the listening tests on audio equipment that is not superlatively low noise. Very clean and low noise systems would be benefited less then if you extended Bybee's own claims.

By the way, my system with QPs is a Dcs Delius and Purcel used as preamplifier to an old Creek CD using the digital out, Spica TC-50 speakers, Mesa Tigris tube amp, Cardas Golden Cross ic and speaker cable, PS Audio 600 Watt power conditioner. I would say the weak links in my system are the Tigris and the Creek. And in my system the greatest benefit was installing the QPs directly on the tweeter and woofer terminals. You guys know what I've already said how the QPs affected my system so I won't repeat it here.
 
#75
exeric said:
By the way, my system with QPs is a Dcs Delius and Purcel used as preamplifier to an old Creek CD using the digital out, Spica TC-50 speakers, Mesa Tigris tube amp, Cardas Golden Cross ic and speaker cable, PS Audio 600 Watt power conditioner. I would say the weak links in my system are the Tigris and the Creek. And in my system the greatest benefit was installing the QPs directly on the tweeter and woofer terminals. You guys know what I've already said how the QPs affected my system so I won't repeat it here.
Click to expand...

So you added .05 ohm to each driver's total R value.

Have you figured what that does to the crossover? Would that explain the difference you are hearing?
 
#78
Bybee on Audio Diffmaker?

Hi, I have looked but not found an answer to this Q... has anyone hooked up a Bybee and tested it on Libetry Audio's DiffMaker software? This would be especially easy to do with the line level bybee's

For those not familiar with Diffmaker, it performs a fairly accurate "subtraction" of the processed signal from the original.

One of the funniest things I've read about is the experiment where Liberty Audio tested an audio track with a Souza marching band track mixed in at 60dB down, and no one could consciously detect a difference between the original track and the "souza mix" track....

but when they ran it through Audio Diffmaker, the Souza stuff was clearly audible. Pretty good magnifying glass then, and it might help determine if the Bybee is actually making a difference, and perhaps also what kind of difference.

I have Diffmaker. But I don't have Bybee's and am not inclined to buy them as of yet. Anyone want to lend me a set so's we can run em through Diffmaker?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom