Jan, The answer is very clear it can improve your perception of a musical reproduction!
[snip]ES
Yes and that can be a very good reason to spend money it, I understand that. Ifd it sounds better to you, by all means!
Yes, the possibility always exist. It has not been proven that it doesn't work, it has only not been proven that it works. But people have been jailed based on lesser evidence.
Edit: I agree that personal attacks should be avoided.
jan didden
Now there is a story I have that is quite off topic.
Yes people have been jailed for much less and some have not been for much much more.
As I mentioned before John Wesley Hardin a notorious American gun slinger claimed more than 40 dead by his guns. He served 15 years of his 25 year sentence. After that he became a lawyer!
Last edited:
Hi John (Curl),
Notice that this thread is titled "Bybee Quantum Purifier Measurement and Analysis". This probably means that we are talking about real measurements. This only came about because a pair were supplied for testing. That's because another member paid real folding money for a device that you support in order that it could be tested. You could have very easily provided some for testing to a person you know and trust, and yet you refused to assist in that way. Not looking good, John.
Jack Bybee may not care one way or the other, but you do. You are the one who put your reputation on the line for these things. So it turns out that you have a vested interest in how things turn out. Given that you aren't pushing to have these devices tested in order to vindicate what you have been saying, I can only assume that you know (for sure) that testing will not confirm what you have been saying. Also, testing without a tear down does not reveal any secrets, so there is no barrier to your participation. In fact, if these simple electronic tests could reveal the principles that these devices rely on, the fact that someone else has provided samples for testing let's you off the hook as far as revealing any proprietary information is concerned.
The results do not support the claims made for this device. The tests do prove that these devices do not have any characteristics that could affect a signal passed through them. So while the tests do not prove the devices work, I'd suggest that the tests have so far proved that these devices do not posses the properties required to have an effect on electrical current passed through them. By extension, I'm comfortable with saying the devices do not work as advertised.
John, if you can prove me wrong, please do. This examination has never been concerned with Jack Bybee. You are the only one who can been affected through all of this. I'll go on record as claiming the devices do not work, so my (meager) reputation is on the line the other way, in opposition to your claims.
-Chris
We would have, had you not brought the subject up to begin with. However, you did and pressed on the strength of your reputation that the device works as advertised. When pressed for some proof or testing, you declined. In fact, you have steadfastly refused to even attempt to describe how the device is supposed to work.
Notice that this thread is titled "Bybee Quantum Purifier Measurement and Analysis". This probably means that we are talking about real measurements. This only came about because a pair were supplied for testing. That's because another member paid real folding money for a device that you support in order that it could be tested. You could have very easily provided some for testing to a person you know and trust, and yet you refused to assist in that way. Not looking good, John.
Jack Bybee may not care one way or the other, but you do. You are the one who put your reputation on the line for these things. So it turns out that you have a vested interest in how things turn out. Given that you aren't pushing to have these devices tested in order to vindicate what you have been saying, I can only assume that you know (for sure) that testing will not confirm what you have been saying. Also, testing without a tear down does not reveal any secrets, so there is no barrier to your participation. In fact, if these simple electronic tests could reveal the principles that these devices rely on, the fact that someone else has provided samples for testing let's you off the hook as far as revealing any proprietary information is concerned.
The results do not support the claims made for this device. The tests do prove that these devices do not have any characteristics that could affect a signal passed through them. So while the tests do not prove the devices work, I'd suggest that the tests have so far proved that these devices do not posses the properties required to have an effect on electrical current passed through them. By extension, I'm comfortable with saying the devices do not work as advertised.
John, if you can prove me wrong, please do. This examination has never been concerned with Jack Bybee. You are the only one who can been affected through all of this. I'll go on record as claiming the devices do not work, so my (meager) reputation is on the line the other way, in opposition to your claims.
-Chris
John:
I was poking fun at the folks flaming back and forth at each other.. not you!
When things get too serious ya know I have to crack a stoopid *** joke!
read my previosu post..Remember I was with Jack and Carl at CES 2000 and I'm the dipshit that wired a few
of Jacks first AC boxes *** backwards..(and Jack did not clarify this before hand in my defense)!!
BTW you need any faceplates..I still got a few silk screenings around!
I was poking fun at the folks flaming back and forth at each other.. not you!
When things get too serious ya know I have to crack a stoopid *** joke!
read my previosu post..Remember I was with Jack and Carl at CES 2000 and I'm the dipshit that wired a few
of Jacks first AC boxes *** backwards..(and Jack did not clarify this before hand in my defense)!!
BTW you need any faceplates..I still got a few silk screenings around!
Last edited:
...and the sun sets on another season of "Believe or Know" - tune in next season as our favorite antagonists wrestle with those primordial questions:
Can the money spent on audio tweaks buy your way to sound nirvana for devices with no rational benefit?
Do devices with higher prices and no rational benefit sound better than those with lower prices?
Does "burn-in time" shorten as price increases, or do the neural connections that recognize and beatify the listener's latest acquisition develop at a rate independent of money spent?
Can God make a rock so heavy that even He can't lift it???
Can the money spent on audio tweaks buy your way to sound nirvana for devices with no rational benefit?
Do devices with higher prices and no rational benefit sound better than those with lower prices?
Does "burn-in time" shorten as price increases, or do the neural connections that recognize and beatify the listener's latest acquisition develop at a rate independent of money spent?
Can God make a rock so heavy that even He can't lift it???
No they don't. Sy refused to do any RF testing.
If he HAD done RF testing and found a beneficial effect, that would have proved that the devices DO work, and the only remaining argument would be about the pricing.
Refusing to test for an effect does not prove that there is no effect.
Hate to disappoint them, but I'm not doing RF tests.
up you go then Godfrey.
I'm actually fascinated. THE original question (riiiiiiiiight back in 1993) has still to be conclusively tested and answered - can a difference (between bybee/non-bybee) be reliably identified?
THE electrical characteristics are actually unimportant - the rubber hits the road at the ears if you'll allow me to mix a few metaphors...
I'm actually fascinated. THE original question (riiiiiiiiight back in 1993) has still to be conclusively tested and answered - can a difference (between bybee/non-bybee) be reliably identified?
THE electrical characteristics are actually unimportant - the rubber hits the road at the ears if you'll allow me to mix a few metaphors...
he certainly should have the expertise - I understand he has background in rf engineering, but could be wrong. Certainly tubelab has offered to do rf testing.
Question is, is it relevant?
Listening (perception) testing would answer the fundamental question as to whether the device has ANY widely perceivable affect at all.
Without that, its all open to conjecture. IMHO, the testing so far is rs about face - unless you can show there IS a perceived difference, it's crazy to go looking for how it comes about.
Or looking to try and prove that it isn't (can't?) coming about...
Question is, is it relevant?
Listening (perception) testing would answer the fundamental question as to whether the device has ANY widely perceivable affect at all.
Without that, its all open to conjecture. IMHO, the testing so far is rs about face - unless you can show there IS a perceived difference, it's crazy to go looking for how it comes about.
Or looking to try and prove that it isn't (can't?) coming about...
Yes, but according to data sheets infinitesimal.
Actual figures would be interesting.
Huh ?.
Eric.
Any they have performed quanta purification because they have RF impedance properties?
I can sell someone aspirin and tell them it will heal their brain cancer. When they question it and I tell them it thins their blood, who cares?
Fraud is still fraud.
Most who use ferrite beads do not consider the application correctly. RF incursion can be common mode or differential. Putting a ferrite around a coax for example, will attentuate net cross sectional current rf with no affect on internal signal currents (they are net zero current on cross section.) If the intrusion is via chassis currents, this would help, otherwise squatsola..Where planar RF gets into the system is always fun to discover..edit..(for example, in a hot rf area with a pre and amp, ferrite on the IC would help ground loop pickup, but it cannot reduce any signal picked up by the preamp, as it will pass it along the coax in a way that the ferrite will not see.)
Best bet is always feedthrough caps due to current geometry, but that ain't happenin with home hi-fi.
As you stated, building this transformer entity does indeed allow flexibility not normally found with ferrites. In general, users do not have the luxury of choice of permeability of the powder, fill percentage, or powder size.
You should be doing RF sweeps for this design, not trying to derive operation by viewing leading edge transients.
Cheers, John
Last edited:
OT bickering removed. Stick to the subject, gentlemen. Please remember that this is a PUBLIC forum.
I believe this is false. SY has no proper means of RF testing, thus he did not perform the tests.
Nor is RF suppression claimed for the "device." The claims (besides physical and material specs, which the "device" did not conform to) are noise reduction and increasing electron velocity. I tested these claims. The "device" does not meet those claims.
If someone else wants to make up new claims for Mr. Bybee and run tests on that moving target, they're welcome to. That's uninteresting to me.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.