Indeed it is, but that's not what's advertised. And that's a trivial lie to detect.
BTW, Cal bought it, not me. I wouldn't give my money to a scam artist, even for fun and curiosity. That's why I haven't taken it apart, it's not mine to do that with. If you'd care to donate one for disassembly, fine.
whatever the cost of it (and lets face it, at WHATEVER the cost its an expensive resistor...) the fact is that it doesn't meet the advertised specification.
From the website:
Small Slipstream Quantum Purifiers
Small Slipstream Quantum Purifiers are typically used in lower-current AC circuits, non-AC analog and digital circuits, and smaller midrange drivers and tweeters.
Specifications:
Length: one inch
Diameter: 1/3 inch
Leads: one inch, 18 gauge copper
Current-handling: 4.3 A
Voltage: >1000 V
Resistance: 0.025 ohm
PRICE: $100 each
Thats fraud imho...
From the website:
Small Slipstream Quantum Purifiers
Small Slipstream Quantum Purifiers are typically used in lower-current AC circuits, non-AC analog and digital circuits, and smaller midrange drivers and tweeters.
Specifications:
Length: one inch
Diameter: 1/3 inch
Leads: one inch, 18 gauge copper
Current-handling: 4.3 A
Voltage: >1000 V
Resistance: 0.025 ohm
PRICE: $100 each
Thats fraud imho...
It's been fraud ever since John admitted in public some years ago that Bybee intentionally misleads people as to what his devices are and how they work.
se
Let's be fair. They conduct electricity. They have a nice, flat impedance curve throughout the audio band. They don't seem to increase noise. And when people who believe that these devices do something audible buy them, they are happier with the sound, as long as they can peek. Jack Bybee gets his bank account fattened.
So in many senses, they DO work.
So in many senses, they DO work.
SY,
I am perfectly willing to believe you do not hear any difference when you apply the Bybee devices and compare them to .025 ohm resistors. I also expect all of your measurements are accurate.
In preparing a lecture I have a slide of the "Fletcher Munson" curves. They show that 3,800hz normal sensitivity is around -7db. At 100hz the normal threshold of pain is about 130db.
I have measured resistor distortion at 1/16 power level as high as -100db and as low as -175db. So I would expect there to be a measurable albeit small difference between the device and a plain resistor.
As to the claims of noise reduction, I can certainly design a circuit to compare the device to a resistor. I would bridge the device between two noise sources and measure the noise on both sides and across the devices under test. Using just resistors feeding zener diodes would allow this, an added benefit would be adjusting the source voltage would change the dynamic impedance of the zener diodes and allow for a set of measurements.
But the point is moot, as you do not hear any differences.
The question about fraud is to me silly. I have met some folks in the industry who do misrepresent themselves and their abilities. They do this on many levels and often. Some actually have made a bit of money, then they figure out that using the same deception will make them much more money in other fields!
The lack of results is a legitimate peer review. You have done the tests, gotten your results and anyone may place their own decision on the value of your work.
Arguing outside the parameters of work done may be fun, but a waste of time.
ES
Oh yes, that's the easy part alright. I know how the audio-paranoid think and could dream up and sell loads of that stuff. And I think I'd be really good at it.
But my conscience just won't let me. My wallet hates my conscience.
Ed: FWIW, I didn't see any distortion differences between the Bybee and a 50 cent current sensing resistor down to a floor of -145dBV with a 25mV signal across the resistor (i.e., 1A) @1kHz. I didn't try any bridging circuits since the thresholds here are ridiculously low and the distortion was almost certainly dominated by the driving power amp (Adcom 555).
The noise reduction claims are interesting. Somehow, the devices are supposed to reduce the noise of other parts in the signal chain. Experiment did not support this! Nor did experiment support the implied increase in electron velocity (I'm rather proud of the hack I used to measure that!).
And of course, I wasn't looking at RF- there's a lot of easy ways to keep RF out of audio components and it's uninteresting if someone is selling a gadget that does the same thing as a small inductor or a small ceramic cap at 100x the price. The non-inductive 25 milliohms will shunt most of the RF straight through in any event.
The physical specs and the physics claims are sheer fraud, at least in the few places that they're not meaningless gobbledygook.
The noise reduction claims are interesting. Somehow, the devices are supposed to reduce the noise of other parts in the signal chain. Experiment did not support this! Nor did experiment support the implied increase in electron velocity (I'm rather proud of the hack I used to measure that!).
And of course, I wasn't looking at RF- there's a lot of easy ways to keep RF out of audio components and it's uninteresting if someone is selling a gadget that does the same thing as a small inductor or a small ceramic cap at 100x the price. The non-inductive 25 milliohms will shunt most of the RF straight through in any event.
The physical specs and the physics claims are sheer fraud, at least in the few places that they're not meaningless gobbledygook.
25mv re 1v or -32db? 113db distortion is an okay resistor but not great, but again the test was did you hear a difference. I am sure there must be one at some level.
Fraud or error? Without a repeated pattern of behavior I will assume error.
J.C. is free to feel it is your error!
!!However, my sincere congratulations on actually doing the tests.
So, at worst the distortion was at -100db, the best at -175db. Assuming these are the polar ends of a normal distribution, that places an average at around -135db, or inaudible.
So, fraud (ok lets be generous here - overstatement of the reality) is ok because others are doing it. Riiight. In any case, this isn't a question of misrepresentation of ability - its misrepresentation of a component's material. THe first could charitably be called a subjective error, but the second is clearly either wilful misrepresentation or incompetence.
In order to reduce a little confusion here, the 1000V rating is like the rating of a insulated wire. You DON'T measure from one end of the wire to another. You test across the INSULATION covering the device. This is to help people who might want to put one of these devices in a high voltage environment, with the device near ground or something at a lower voltage. Just so that everyone understands this. The amperage rating limits the voltage across the device to much less than 1V. Is that clear to everyone? Any questions?
pretty obvious to anyone with even a slightly technical background John, but from my pov, an indication of a sloppy approach and frankly incompentent technical literacy at the sales end. 4.3amps? At what PD across the device? Surely a power disipation rating would be more informative and correct?
If the 1000v is an insulation rating is that AC RMS, AC peak, or DC? And if its GREATER THAN 1000V as indicated by the > symbol, how much greater?
Now, for most applications suggested, none of this would be overly relevant. But again, that doubt - do these guys ACTUALLY know what they are on about? Or are they just laying on the bee-ess to impress those who have no clue?
If the 1000v is an insulation rating is that AC RMS, AC peak, or DC? And if its GREATER THAN 1000V as indicated by the > symbol, how much greater?
Now, for most applications suggested, none of this would be overly relevant. But again, that doubt - do these guys ACTUALLY know what they are on about? Or are they just laying on the bee-ess to impress those who have no clue?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.