AFAIK all that I said is correct...the QP's went missing and Cal graciously purchased another pair, tried them on quite a few individual drivers without any real subjective conclusions and since then nil.
My input is to have applauded him on on his new construction efforts and my encouragement that he try the QP's in his new systems in various locations but so far no response to my suggestions nor subjective results.
It was also stated that Speaker Dave would write some report but as far as I am aware that has not materialised either.
I do not question Cal's integrity but I am curious that he has not reported more....hell if I forked out $200 I would be curious to try them in every situation possible.
In my view it would not be difficult to incorporate the QP's into his first portable speaker whilst constructing the second one...more hours listening means more experience with them in a full range configuration.
Stuart, please consider that I ain't dissing you nor Cal.
Eric.
The post following is the result of watching this and the other related threads, and being the one person who has posted the summary of links to other discussions on the subject both on this site and in others.
My point being that these devices have been around now for a significant period of time and are in use, but the very best that has been in anyway independantly said for them is that they somehow alter the sound, but not enough to make the reviewer rush out and buy them.
The only independant verifiable and quantified testing I could find ANYWHERE was by SY and it essentially came back with the same outcome (I note the reasonable limits on the testing done so that doesn't enter the argument).
On the basis that the devices have been ten years in the market in various forms and still no-one knows what they do, how or even if they do anything, no measurements have been made that show any audable difference within reasonable limits, added to which is the changing claims by supporters as to what equipment may best use them, where they should be located and what the expected results should be... I stand by my low expectation of enlightenment.
And this is no slight on Cal who is applying exactly the right level of priority to the testing - his own.
If you'd said 'I'm not holding my breath' that would be consistent with this. But you didn't, rather you said:
don't hold your breath.
That's equivocation, a well known debating tactic 😀
It's seems to me to be more an analysis of your true statement - that there will never be any valid results produced - unless you are now withdrawing this statement?
Unconvincing. The way to do that would be to say 'Yeah, I see now my reasoning was flawed. Thanks for pointing it out' 🙂
Eric,
I am busy with things that are giving me pleasure, what are you up to?
There have only been one set of QP's purchased and I have spent about 10 hours doing my tests. I have nothing more to add than you can see in the other thread. I am not concerned about the financial outlay but I see you are. Interesting.
When other things are in their place, I will get back to more testing. For now they sit on the back burner.
My testing will be posted in the 'Cal experience' thread not here.
In the meantime you guys have fun wasting each of others' time. I'm glad I have more important things to do.
I am busy with things that are giving me pleasure, what are you up to?
There have only been one set of QP's purchased and I have spent about 10 hours doing my tests. I have nothing more to add than you can see in the other thread. I am not concerned about the financial outlay but I see you are. Interesting.
When other things are in their place, I will get back to more testing. For now they sit on the back burner.
My testing will be posted in the 'Cal experience' thread not here.
In the meantime you guys have fun wasting each of others' time. I'm glad I have more important things to do.
Well if this is time wasting, sure is fun 😀
Rationalisation, a well-known phenomenon in psychology.
@ jkeny: If you say so. However, not what I meant.
@ abraxalito: Ahh, good then. Actually, my reasoning was fine - my language was flawed and inconsistent.
@ abraxalito: Ahh, good then. Actually, my reasoning was fine - my language was flawed and inconsistent.
Well you told me I was wrong about your reasoning, so how can I be the mindreader here? Looks like another deflection....
Hi Cal, I have things of my own cooking also.....two 1kW amplifiers on the repair/renovate bench, work at Scitech (a science exhibition/education center) building/prototyping exhibits, staging crewing work, and a TDA7296 amplifier design using 3 layers and all the layout tricks that I can think of...and devising a repeatable testing setup to define the characteristics a unique QPish device....that and a few beers. 😉
It looks like you are making good progress with your Boombox, and good luck with the results.
My suggestions of trying your QP's on complete loudspeakers, or line level feeds or power feeds is to give you more time using different gear and applications is to help you to get a handle on what their subjective changes are....fine changes in sonics can be difficult to subjectively describe initially and can take some to recognise...even JC is somewhat unclear except to say that they do 'something' and reduce 'tizziness'.
Rock on, Eric.
AVE...
Pano, I would like to suggest the procedure for accurate blind test:
1. Prepare a tracklist of music compositions, each representing one genre.
2. Place speakers in one room, all other equipment somewhere else.
3. The listener(s) have to listen to each track at least 5 times and note if there is a difference in sound.
4. Between each playback the test runner has to turn everything off, disconnect the cables in place, where the QP should be connected, toss a coin and connect it only when it would be heads. If it's tails, the he should pause for a few seconds to emulate connecting or disconnecting QP. Then he notes the result and turns everything on, and begins another playback.
5. The time between each playback should be constant, so the listener(s) won't be able to guess, if the device is connected or not.
6. The whole test should be repeated at least 3 times with the same configuration, I would suggest to do one test per day. Then it would be good idea to change some elements of equipment, especially speakers and amplifiers.
7. The results should be compared directly to the test operator's notes. How many times the listener(s) guessed that QP was connected, when sound was better, when worse, is this change consistent for all tests, can be perceived as a statistic error, etc.
This procedure can be used to test any device that is claimed to make sound better...
Personally I believe that non-blind tests are not accurate: when using any "sound improver" the listener expects to hear that improvement and this changes his perception of sound. This makes any tests of this type unreliable. Also I had some experience with people who stated that some "magical devices" made their "magic" on sound, power supplies, fuel usage, car engines, etc. They all claimed those various, expensive devices worked (often bending or breaking the laws of physics, logic and common sense), but were unable or unwilling to provide the measurable evidences...
Pano, I would like to suggest the procedure for accurate blind test:
1. Prepare a tracklist of music compositions, each representing one genre.
2. Place speakers in one room, all other equipment somewhere else.
3. The listener(s) have to listen to each track at least 5 times and note if there is a difference in sound.
4. Between each playback the test runner has to turn everything off, disconnect the cables in place, where the QP should be connected, toss a coin and connect it only when it would be heads. If it's tails, the he should pause for a few seconds to emulate connecting or disconnecting QP. Then he notes the result and turns everything on, and begins another playback.
5. The time between each playback should be constant, so the listener(s) won't be able to guess, if the device is connected or not.
6. The whole test should be repeated at least 3 times with the same configuration, I would suggest to do one test per day. Then it would be good idea to change some elements of equipment, especially speakers and amplifiers.
7. The results should be compared directly to the test operator's notes. How many times the listener(s) guessed that QP was connected, when sound was better, when worse, is this change consistent for all tests, can be perceived as a statistic error, etc.
This procedure can be used to test any device that is claimed to make sound better...
Personally I believe that non-blind tests are not accurate: when using any "sound improver" the listener expects to hear that improvement and this changes his perception of sound. This makes any tests of this type unreliable. Also I had some experience with people who stated that some "magical devices" made their "magic" on sound, power supplies, fuel usage, car engines, etc. They all claimed those various, expensive devices worked (often bending or breaking the laws of physics, logic and common sense), but were unable or unwilling to provide the measurable evidences...
I have some speakers for those.
Am I on your ignore list? Have you not seen the post(s) where I have said, and pointed to a link, and quoted from the manufacturer that these are not intended to be used with a full range system nor are they intended for use on the power feed? You're scaring me man.
Anyways I need no encouragement to get back to the testing but let me say it again - I AM BUSY WITH OTHER THINGS RIGHT NOW.
There I feel better.
Hi Cal,
Given that this is a voluntary hobby, and you've gone far out and beyond what can be expected, just leave the darn things until you are motivated to play with them some more. There is not point what-so-ever in pushing through on something that should be enjoyable when you aren't interested.
Besides, it's your job to keep the lights on! Take the money and work as it comes (like there is any reasonable choices there!). The hobbies can wait.
Hey Eric,
Although we are all more than a little curious about the claims made for the Bybee devices, we need to be happy with whatever Cal figures out. At the very least, he will be honest. In fact, he is endeavouring to test these in accordance with the manufacturers recommended uses to give them as much of a chance of "working" as there can be. We have seen other knowledgeable members poo-poo Cal's equipment, his experience and his ability to listen critically. For weathering some pretty insulting comments without giving up completely, he's a star. I for one can understand why Cal may be a little disheartened and de-motivated (if that is a word). Completely understandable from where I sit.
I don't see anyone willing to put Cal on retainer for his efforts. In fact, I'm not aware of anyone else who has bought any Bybee devices who is willing to report on them. Surely there is someone anxious enough to see results that could spring for their own set - isn't there?
-Chris
Given that this is a voluntary hobby, and you've gone far out and beyond what can be expected, just leave the darn things until you are motivated to play with them some more. There is not point what-so-ever in pushing through on something that should be enjoyable when you aren't interested.
Besides, it's your job to keep the lights on! Take the money and work as it comes (like there is any reasonable choices there!). The hobbies can wait.
Hey Eric,
Although we are all more than a little curious about the claims made for the Bybee devices, we need to be happy with whatever Cal figures out. At the very least, he will be honest. In fact, he is endeavouring to test these in accordance with the manufacturers recommended uses to give them as much of a chance of "working" as there can be. We have seen other knowledgeable members poo-poo Cal's equipment, his experience and his ability to listen critically. For weathering some pretty insulting comments without giving up completely, he's a star. I for one can understand why Cal may be a little disheartened and de-motivated (if that is a word). Completely understandable from where I sit.
I don't see anyone willing to put Cal on retainer for his efforts. In fact, I'm not aware of anyone else who has bought any Bybee devices who is willing to report on them. Surely there is someone anxious enough to see results that could spring for their own set - isn't there?
-Chris
Yeah these would crank your big cabs good and loud. 😎
No need to be scared...they measure 0.025 ohms dc series resistance and measurably not different at audio frequencies so seemingly virtually zero dissipation in any audio application....that means you presumably can't harm them in any application that you can think of in a medium power system....e.g your new boom boxes.
So despite the makers word, what's to lose in trying them anywhere and anyhow you feel like ?
Rock on.
Eric.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.