This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.
= Introduction =

Bybee Technologies sell a range of controversial products called the Quantum Purifiers that are reported, by some, to make a remarkable change to the sound of their audio system. However, there is a degree of skepticism toward some of the claims due to the seemlingly far-fetched claims on the Bybee website.

As a result, some diyAudio enthusiasts have taken it upon themselves to test these systems and publish their results to the community.

== Device Being Tested ==

Hookup Configurations:
* on the speaker terminals?


== Device Properties ==

The leads of the device appear to be highly magnetic.

The leads are absolutely not plated copper nor copper alloy- no amount of scraping causes copper to appear. And the attraction to magnets is fierce- when I held a loudspeaker a few inches over the workbench, the parts literally flew off the table.

There's pretty simple test for nickel that I'll run- basically, it's digested in nitric acid, potassium hydroxide added to bring the pH to something over 9, then adding DMG (a chelating agent). A red color indicates nickel- white precipitate in the alkali step indicates iron. The leads do solder well, so I think jlsem's speculation is most likely correct.

John, I tried scraping as you suggested and indeed, the leads appear to be plated copperweld (i.e., copper-plated steel and highly magnetic).

= Testing Schedule =

This is less an actual schedule than a list of tests that will be (or have been) performed.

== SY ==

SY is a materials scientist and product designer by day.

In my usual fashion, the tests will follow any, "...hmmm..." results and will be an interactive process. What makes it complicated is that the suggested applications are "just about anywhere," so a lot of different things will have to be looked at with the devices in many different configurations.

Certainly measuring ripple waveforms in the manner of the "data" that John presented will be Step 1. What's its complex impedance? How does it change the noise, distortions, or RF susceptibility of test amplifier circuits when used at the inputs? How do these compare with a plain old resistor of the same value as the one inside? Do these properties change between single tone testing and complex broadband waveforms? Any changes in primary AC waveforms when used there?

That's a reasonable start, I think. What we have here is a golden opportunity- not that I think that we're going to see anything beyond snake oil (then again, SOMEONE wins the lottery), but for a new way of doing these sorts of studies, through application of collected intelligence and interactive sharing of data and methods with rigorous review.

=== Test 1 ===

Goal: determine whether it sinks in water
Discussion: blah blah
Results: it rolls
Summary: it rox

=== Test 2 - high frequency and RF Testing ===

You get the idea....

== Tubelab ==

Tubelab has offered to do HF and RF testing as that is his area of expertise and has access to good equipment.

=== Test 1 ===


== Other Volunteers ==

=== Cal Weldon ===

I have a strong opinion and I am very involved in it.

Those things better make a difference and I'm likely to skew the tests as much as necessary to ensure they do.

If they don't, I am going to film what happens to them.

Maybe I better be the last to "test" them. ;)

=== Planet 10 ===

Before that, i'd like to get a whack at them. Daniel has kit to test, and Chris & i'd just like to listen.

=== dfidler ===

I'd like to do a listening test

= Additional Test Suggestions =

The following is a list of suggestions for tests to be performed to the device. Each one does have some contextual discussion around it in the thread. To read it, click on the little blue the arrow next to the username of in the quote.

I whould put the device at the biginning of the chain, say behind a cartridge into the phonostage and then measure wideband noise over frequency.

Another idea : shorting a low noise phonostage with a 0.25Ohm resistor and then with the bespoke device.

If possible I would like to see what effect the device has on higher frequency noise as well as audible range, say 10 to 100Mhz superimposed on some signals if at all possible.
My reason is to see how much effect they have on audio signals where digital noise may be present, be it fom a SMPS or other digital source.

How about just putting a 1k resistor in series and look for 4nV/rt-Hz, it's supposed to remove the noise right? :geezer::smash:

We should x-ray them.
Do we know someone with the appropriate equipment and experience?

Yes we do. He has been x-raying vacuum tubes and posting here.
Kenpeter is the guy.

I came accross this suggestion from the website Tweekgeek, a seller of Bybees.

Tip: The performance of Bybee Quantum Purifiers can be greatly enhanced by wrapping them in Stillpoints ERS, placing them inside a copper tube only an inch or so longer than the Bybees themselves, and wrapping the tube in Stillpoints ERS. cover the finished product with shrink tubing for safety as the ERS is conductive. To our ears, this essentially doubles their performance, and works especially well with the Gold Bybees.

Of course, they sell Stillpoints ERS, too. Maybe this claimed enhancement could be tried after testing the naked Bybee!

What about a ground loop coupling/susceptibility test? Inclusion of a lumped element anything into the haversine stream will alter the loop currents.

I assume the end use system design will be code compliant and single ended drives..

I'd recommend running a swept sine 1 ampere current out to 50 Khz through the line cord, terminated at short at the male, and monitoring of the loop currents on an external ground loop using either a hall transducer, or a Danfysik Ultrastab DCCT.

It would be nice to send these to Kenpeter for X-rays when SY has finished.

... I would sure like to see how they perform when subjected to tests such as Nordost did on their cables and supply combo.

In short, they showed a new way of measuring which came up with significant differences and pretty much prove that YES they do perform better than zip cord. Please investigate this issue, it could be of similar application with the Bybee stuff.

This info is found at:

2) find New Approaches To Audio Measurement.pdf

Having tried very hard to do the "subtraction" tests shown in the Nordost doc, I can tell you that they are fiendishly difficult. At least they admit as much in the doc. Getting the amplitudes exact and the the time right to the sample is much harder than you might think.
In fact I don't see how it can be done without a synchronized DAC and ADC. Even on short, simple sound files it's no walk in the park.

Too bad, as the idea holds a lot of promise.

I've released freeware software to do such alignment and subtraction of audio time domain wav files (along with the recording functions, and even sample rate matching, and an option for frequency response equalization). It's been brought up from time to time in these forums, but for those not familiar with it --
"Audio DiffMaker" (freeware)
Audio DiffMaker

It operates in both time domain and frequency domain, as most appropriate for each function. And at sample rates to 192kHz and resolutions to 24bit. Maybe this would be another good way to check the Bybee filters with.

= Risks =

== Listening Tests ==

Listening tests are, by their very nature, subjective. One cannot rely upon the opinion of a subjective opinion as it is subject to bias. However, should tests be performed, there are certain risks involved.

it requires great familiarity with a piece of equipment to be able to notice subtle changes for worse or better. I hope you are not planning on doing the test at the Geekfest. I think the listening test should be done on very good unmodified equipment that observers have had several days preferably weeks to familiarize themselves with on different varieties of music.

Obviously, it is not particularly feasible for a focus group to undergo this level of familiarization and there is debate as to whether this level of familiarization is necessary or even a good idea per:

If it is known ahead of time that the original listening familiarization is either modified or unmodified then listeners will be able to deduce information accordingly from the double blind test as to which system has been modified.
It is imperative that there is no bias as to whether the system familiarization is done on a (one only) unmodified or modified system.

As such, it must be noted as part of the test and is left the reader to decide it's impact.

= Summary =

It will be a while before we can summarize the results.

= Acknowledgements =

* Cal Weldon - Supplied the device for testing
* SY - Performed initial lab tests
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.