https://www.thecableco.com/accessories/quantum-signal-enhancer-qse.html
"The QSE affects the polarity of all electrons and protons within it’s magnetic field, affecting their oscillation by making them more aligned with each other. This reaction creates an affect the makes the transfer or sharing of electrons more streamline and efficient. The results are a stunningly enhanced purity and energy of the signal. This device, when placed under/over components, speaker wire, interconnects and power cords reduces noise and hash to dramatically improve the components’, and speakers’ efficiency. The results are improved resolution, soundstage, dynamics, and overall musicality. The QSE works even with heavily shielded audio cables designed to withstand RFI/EMF noise from the electrical grid."
This doesn't sound like an RFI filter, but rather like a load of nonsense to me.
The QSE is a wooden panel with felt-covered bottom that is "typically placed under/over any kind of signal-carrying wire(s), and/or components."
It affects the polarity of electrons and protons, so it must be a very effective way to produce antimatter.
It affects the polarity of electrons and protons, so it must be a very effective way to produce antimatter.
That is the first I've seen one cut open. Enlightening for sure...
It probably cures a variety of ailments from the harmless to the more serious? Probably a whole host of other things, and it's not that expensive, only $300. I can't believe people get hooked on this stuff. In my area, they call things like this "fool bait."
Photons can be trapped inside carbon nanotubes where they bounce around until their energy is converted into heat.
NASA has a carbon nanotube coating that absorbs 99.95% of the light that hits it - great for preventing reflections inside telescopes!
This coating is so black, when it's painted on something like aluminum foil, it looks more like a hole than a coating. You just see nothing - the ultimate black.
https://www.britannica.com/video/colour-black-way-researchers-versions/-207765
It is a lot of nonsense in terms of theory. Whether or not the product actually attenuates any RFI remains to be determined. Same thing for Bybee devices. If someone would actually read what I wrote in those linked posts, they might learn something.
It always puzzles me when people whom I know to be very smart seem unable to separate advertising BS from what product may or may not actually do. Isn't it obvious those are two different things?
There has also been some commentary in various threads to the effect that cables can't affect sound because there is no measurable effect. That claim in and of itself is non-scientific BS.
I'm sure there are people here that know how to measure triboelectric effect in teflon insulated MC cables. People who know how to measure transfer impedance of line level shielded cables, magnetic susceptibility and emissions related to star-quad cable geometry, etc.
I'm sure there are people here that know how to measure triboelectric effect in teflon insulated MC cables. People who know how to measure transfer impedance of line level shielded cables, magnetic susceptibility and emissions related to star-quad cable geometry, etc.
Last edited:
Kimber wire sounds different than zipcord because it measures differently. When I was 25, I could hear the difference.
I spotted a magazine advert promoting plug top and equipment fuses designed for "music enthusiasts":
"Metal molecular activation technology is to increase the electron flow per second thus improving the dynamic range and reducing the background noise."
It is important to install the fuse in the correct direction.
P.S. I've searched for scientific information on 'metal molecular activation technology', but so far have drawn a blank.
"Metal molecular activation technology is to increase the electron flow per second thus improving the dynamic range and reducing the background noise."
It is important to install the fuse in the correct direction.
P.S. I've searched for scientific information on 'metal molecular activation technology', but so far have drawn a blank.
I browsed through what you wrote. It appeared not to be applicable to the QSE.
Normally advertisements are merely exaggerated, rather than complete and utter nonsense - unless the product is complete and utter nonsense.
Sometimes, but not always. You don't know unless you measure, right? My expectation is that its possible to measure Bybee devices making electrical noise if and when enough current is passed through them. Reason I suspect that is because I interviewed John Curl about it on multiple occasions. He told me what he remembered about his experiences with Jack Bybee and about John's personal experience with the devices affecting sound if enough current was run through them.
To double check I asked a long-time professional audio designer friend if he had any experience with Bybee devices. He told me they can sometimes make a poor system sound better, but usually if they have any effect it is make a good system sound worse. My friend does not use them.
Thus I am convinced Bybees are different from crystals suspended over the top of CD player, which is something I would consider to be nonsense. So far all efforts to measure Bybees that I know of have failed because of failure to test them with enough current then look for noise, possibly correlated noise in FFT skirts.
What I am asking and hoping will happen is that trained engineers will resist jumping to conclusions based on silly advertising claims. That's what it takes to get customer attention in a very competitive capitalistic world. If there is no story then there is no sale, so stories are made up. That's the game in all advertising.
Did I understand you right?
It is perfectly fine to, in example, advertise a Miracle tonic that will clean your body of toxins and invigorate your soul, while in reality you will be stuck to the toilet for hours, spilling your guts. Just a little of harmless creative marketing, no?
I’ll send you one bottle for free if you like. 😀
You do NOT understand me right.
If a product causes harm then there may be serious legal liability, including criminal liability.
OTOH, most advertising BS is legal based on court decisions that most adults know or should know that advertisers commonly exaggerate. An exception could be a celebrity endorsement by some publicly well-known person who never tried the product. OTOH, a non-celebrity actor could claim a product worked wonderfully, and in that case it is legal. Why? Because the average person is more likely to believe a well-known celebrity with a public image for honesty.
IMHO, most datasheets are now largely the product of marketing guys. They see their job as making products look attractive to engineers by extolling the product benefits while keeping any problems they know about secret. Did ESS ever warn users about hump distortion? Of course not! Its up to engineers to test components for themselves to see if the there are any problems for the engineer's particular application. If the engineer misses a problem, then great, maybe they will buy lots of silicon. My point is engineers shouldn't assume they are being told the facts, all the facts, and nothing but the facts in datasheets. They are being lured into buying product just like everyone else.
If a product causes harm then there may be serious legal liability, including criminal liability.
OTOH, most advertising BS is legal based on court decisions that most adults know or should know that advertisers commonly exaggerate. An exception could be a celebrity endorsement by some publicly well-known person who never tried the product. OTOH, a non-celebrity actor could claim a product worked wonderfully, and in that case it is legal. Why? Because the average person is more likely to believe a well-known celebrity with a public image for honesty.
IMHO, most datasheets are now largely the product of marketing guys. They see their job as making products look attractive to engineers by extolling the product benefits while keeping any problems they know about secret. Did ESS ever warn users about hump distortion? Of course not! Its up to engineers to test components for themselves to see if the there are any problems for the engineer's particular application. If the engineer misses a problem, then great, maybe they will buy lots of silicon. My point is engineers shouldn't assume they are being told the facts, all the facts, and nothing but the facts in datasheets. They are being lured into buying product just like everyone else.
Last edited:
I understand that you don’t defend Bybee product but someone whose reputation was hurt by supporting Bybee product. However, bringing up this same story every now and then will not help.
I object on the basis of principle. People tend to jump to conclusions. Its the way wetware computing works. Good to remain aware of the tendency in all of us, me included.