XXHighEnd

I have just made a very substantial improvement to my system. But I wanted to try and present a logical and considered appraisal so here is some background, what it is and why it works (possibly?). So I make no apologies for this fairly lengthy post.

Background - I have always been cynical about silver cables – not so much *whether* they make a difference but more *why*.  After all if we don’t know *why* how can we know if we have properly addressed the problem. Enter ByBee internal speaker bullets.

What do they do? – reduce “electron” noise so producing a smooth signal or charge flow (electrons travel slowly and signal / charge travels in the region of the speed of light).  In other words they reduce the noise caused when electrons get smashed up passing through the crystal lattice in wires, crossover components, amplifier components et al. It just seemed to me that all a piece of wire has to do is transfer a signal from point A to point B without affecting the signal / charge flow and if ByBee’s worked then they did so by addressing a very fundamental thing.

Oh Yea! – as a cynic that’s what I thought – but reconsidered when I read that the technology was invented by a physicist under contract to the US Navy to reduce electrical noise in submarines so that sensitive Sonar could work better. To me much more interesting than the spotty faced Oik at the local hifi shop trying to flog me silver wire at a stupid high price.

Tests – I did some simple tests to find out the following:

1.   Do silver speaker cables make a difference to sound quality?
2.   Do ByBee bullets make a difference to sound quality?
3.   Which makes the biggest difference Bybee or Silver cable?
4.   Do silver speaker cables make a difference to sound quality when ByBee bullets are installed?

Results of Tests – I use very cheap copper speaker wire in my bi amped GainClone system (see http://www.phasure.com/index.php?topic=1575.msg17981#msg17981). So I borrowed expensive silver speaker cable from my mate David. First I put my system back to single amplifier operation and got used to the sound (with my cheapo copper speaker cables). Then I installed the silver speaker cables. The result a definite improvement more refined and better delineated sound but I have to say after a period of listening there was a bit of an edge to the sound but I think that might have been caused by the use of PE plastic covering albeit loose covered (who knows that is just a guess).

Test 1 result – silver speaker wire does significantly improve sound quality but not without some reservations with the particular wires I tried.

Test 2 result –ByBee bullets installed by soldering one to each of the 4 drive units in my speakers so 8 eight ByBee’s in all.  I switched the system back on and started to play some jazz “Double R B” – immediately the first thing I noticed was that the tape hiss on this old recording was more noticeable not in a bad way just that there was more detail – and then the music started –the improvement was clear –more detail, clearer, better bass, more rounded sound, speakers really disappearing, better imaging, more dynamic but all this presented with a really smoth delivery. I have to say this was a jaw dropping improvement in sound quality to these ears anyway. But see the note of caution below.

Test 3 results – ByBee bullets produced a much bigger improvement than silver speaker wire. There is absolutely no contest – and without any reservations at all, they make a big improvement with no downside. And remember that this is with my cheap copper speaker cables (they cost me £30 including delivery but took some time to prepare and terminate).

Test 4 results – for me this is by far the most interesting test. With the ByBee’s installed I changed my cheap copper speaker wire for silver wire. If there was no difference then the indications have to be that bullets address a fundamental issue and silver only addresses a part of that issue. The result – I tried but I really could not hear any significant difference between copper wire and silver wire with the ByBee’s installed. I tried four times (it is not possible to do a quick side by side comparison in my system and it takes time to change everything over). If there is a difference then it is not clear to me. I guess the point is that even if there is a difference it is not as big as the difference without ByBee bullets installed.

Conclusion – it does appear to me that ByBee Bullet’s address a real fundamental issue. The improvement in my system is very substantial and fundamental. My ByBee Bullets are on 30 day approval but there is no way they are going back – these babies (or bybees?) are staying – for good.

Note Of Caution –  the above is they way it sounds TO ME in MY SYSTEM I would hate to be responsible for anyone buying these on my recommendation and being disappointed. But you could always get them on 30day approval do some tests and see what you think.

Are they expensive? – yes but if you compare them with silver wire (even cheap silver speaker wire in my system would be over £4k) then they look like a bargain to me. 

So MANI (AKA GOLDEN EARS) my system has evolved substantially recently with first the SP1 change and now the ByBee’s. If you are passing by you would be more than welcome to come along for a listen again. But this time I WANT A RIDE IN THAT NSX!!!!!

P.S. as usual I am told the ByBee Bullets need at least 200 hours to give their best. Mine have about 50 hours on now and already they are improving. To think they could be better - now that is an interesting thought.

Best regards to all you similarly afflicted HIFI addicts

Paul

Paul hi,

A great finding and very interesting to hear about the tests and the effect of the bybees. I have been interested in the theory bybees but given the costs had not really concidered trying them. Our systems are so similar however that if I can stump up the cash they would proberbly be a good upgrade here as well.

Its funny you should mention tape hiss being more prominant, I am having a bit of a problem with tape hiss when I play at 8 or 16 x up sampling. I wonder if I could ask you to do a small test. Could you try the recording that has the tape hiss but play it with up sample rate set to 176k (4x) and 88k (2x). With these settings is there and change to the amount of hiss you hear ?

Best regards,

Nick.

Hey Paul, thanks for the test. I always thought these bybee bullets are something from the snakeoil party but it seems to be different. One question to the comparison between the silver and copper cables: Do the compared cables have the same diameter of conducting surface, the same geometry and the same isolating material?  No offence, but otherwise you would have an systematik error which leads to, that you cannot draw any conclusion from the comparison between the silver and copper cable, except that the ONE cable sounds better then the OTHER. But that says nothing about the quality of silver and copper as conductor in a cable.
What I found very interesting is the statement that the differences betwen the cavbles vanishes when the bybees are used. That would meen, if the cables are realy different in their geometry and isolation material, the bybees reduce the effects of capcitance, inductance and the dielectric. That is surprising to me.
Greetings
Adrian

Hi Paul,

I know very well the Bybee purifiers because my Spectron amps have they installed. This is from the Spectron site:

Super-Effect Bybee Purifiers - it adds a different quality; the palpability, presence and 3D body that up to now only a tube amp, particularly SET could provide. The Super-Effect Bybee Purifiers are described in more detail by Bybee Technology (see Golden Goddess 'Super Effect' Speaker Bullets) http://bybeetech.com/products.asp (http://bybeetech.com/products.asp). The main difference is that we install these filters between the transformer and the diode bridges where their effect is maximum.

I had a previous version of Spectron without the Bybee and what I can tell is that there is a notable difference with the latest version with it installed, now the sound is smoother and more vivid and yes more 3D (huge in fact with the monoblocks).

About silver/copper cables, I have a different experience than yours,  I yes noticed a difference, I don´t know if your different position of the Bybee in your speakers could make it unnoticeable in your system.
I´m using now copper cables, well, in fact I´m using copper for the mids/highs and silver for the bass but I´ve been using for some time silver cables in the whole system and I´ll probably return to test again the silver cables with the NOS1 USB now in the system to see how they sound.

About the price of the silver speaker cables you have tested WOW! 4k GBP is really high, how many meters you need?.  The silver cables I have have a reasonable price and I like them very much in my system, although of course I don´t know what speaker cables were you talking about and maybe there is not a possible comparison in between yours and mine:
 
Tempo Electric:http://www.tempoelectric.com/cables.htm (http://www.tempoelectric.com/cables.htm)

Clear Day cables (which I liked more than the Tempo Electric):
http://www.cleardaycables.com/ (http://www.cleardaycables.com/)

Juan

Hey Adrian, Nick & Juan - wow isn't hifi complicated!!!! - I suppose that is what makes it so interesting. I guess the first thing is that yes the geometry of the cables is different. But the important thing is that there was a very significant difference in silver versus copper before installing the Bybee's but there was not afterwards. So if I went back and changed geometry diameters etc would that change the result - I really have to think that it would not particularly if you read my experiences below - but hey more than anyone I really do know that I could be wrong.

If you have a look at some of my other posts (not sure if it is clear though) I think that the really bad thing is plastic coating on speaker cables - the geometry etc makes a difference (more thinner wires for HF units is a good thing - which is what I ended up with) but that is the icing (but quite significant) on the cake really - but hey that is only my experience on limited tests. Also see below I am not convinced that plastic coating creates capacitance problems I think it is something else. But what? well there are theories out there like MDI. And do ByBees remove the bad effect of plastic coating well that would be really interesting - and I would like to test that one out but it would take time that I do not have.

Re the comments on capacitance inductance and resistance I do not think they are relevant to the Bybee's as they will not have any affect on these parameters. But this is where it gets complicated my view on these (for what its worth) is:

Resistance - not important so long as it is low and if you have sensible amps there should be no effect. And by the way I think when people speak about damping factors it is total hogwash resistance of speaker cable is tiny and will not affect damping factors at least not compared with other factors in the output circuit like speaker coil resistance etc.

Capacitance - some basic calculations will show that the capacitance of even the worst cables with the worst plastic coating will produce tiny capacitance in parallel with the output of the amp. Any half decent amp will not notice it at all. Well maybe someone is going to correct me but I would be interested to hear a convincing technical argument that capacitance matters.

Inductance - This should be a big deal in most systems and should be as low as possible. Is that a problem? - not at all just twist the wires together properly and inductance problems become very small (if you do it right).

But then that leaves us with quantum effects on electrons - not easily understood by mere mortals (even Einstein gave up on that one - ie "god does not throw dice") but that is where Bybee's enter courtesy of very clever physicists !!

Oh by the way Juan with bi amped speakers I need 24 meters of silver cable so more expensive for me probably than most.

But I really only wanted to let everyone know what my findings were on fairly limited listening tests at the very least if anyone is interested try these units on 30 days money back guarantee but please please please do not take my word for it.

The only thing I know for an absolute fact is that the sound quality I get now is improved by a very large amount due to the Bybees.

Nick that sounds really interesting I will check out what you have suggested in the next couple of days (when I am not listening to music) and let you know.

All the best and happy listening
 
Paul

Paul,


1. Do the comparison *now* without the Bybees (of the quote above wasn't about that in the first place);
2. When the difference is there again, run the Densen Demagic track. Try again.
3. When the difference has gone at #1, no need to run the Densen Demagic track (it won't make a difference anymore (ehm, obviously ?)). At least not at this time (after a week or so not using the Bybees, yes).

Ad 2.
When the difference has gone now, get yourself (ha ha) the Densen Demagic CD (which consists of one 3 minute track only :)). It saves you a lot of money.
Send me an email if you want to try it fast ...

Peter

Peter,

Do you mean that demagnetizing the system eliminates the differences between cables?.

Probably all you know this article, please read the #1 The cables lie (the others are also interesting):

The Ten Biggest Lies in Audio: http://www.theaudiocritic.com/downloads/article_1.pdf (http://www.theaudiocritic.com/downloads/article_1.pdf)

Juan

Hi Peter - oh WOW take my speakers apart again, unsolder the bybee's rebuild the speakers then test the cables and then do that whole process again to reinstall them not sure I can bring myself to do that (you know I would do anything for you Peter but there are limits  :)) but anyway I use a demagnetiser frequently see below.

I do not have the Densen but I do have the IsoTek "Full System Enhancer" which demagnetises and burns in components so probably a similar thing (the demag track sounds like the sound track from a "B"  rated movie). I had been using this to burn in my new speaker drive units (running at night) for some weeks before installing the bybees so I think my system was properly demagnetised before I started all of this (not intentionally though it just happened that way).

Just a point though when I first used the demag track on my system I was sceptical but was surprised to hear it did improve things. But the difference it made is small compared with what the ByBees have done.

P

If the bybees don´t affect the cable´s resistance, inductance or/and capacitance, as Paul suggest, then must work in other unknown parameter of the cables. Magnetizing or better said demagnetizing the system could be something related with the bybees which I really don´t know.

Anyway, the differences between cables are audible although again we are talking about, usually, cables with different resistance, inductance, capacitance. Would be interesting to test silver and copper cables with the same inductance, capacitance and resistance. Would it be possible?.

Juan

Adrian / Juan - another thought on LCR in cables. My original speaker cable was the most "correct" construction I have come across. It was a proper litzendraht braid (whereas most other cables are "hyperlitz" which is a compromise) so inductance was tiny the lowest possible. Resistance was tiny due to the 48 conductors in parallel. Capacitance was low (but not the lowest). So in terms of LCR this was one of the best speaker cables on the market. But it was no where near as good as simple bare copper wire. So what is going on?

Well I really don't know but I just wonder if we should be thinking of speaker cable as a wave guide (then very different rules apply). After all it transfers signal / charge at somewhere near the speed of light. And maybe that is where the physicists started when contracted to reduce electrical background noise in submarines.

Just a thought - maybe we will never know but makes for a great dinner party discussion.

The Bybees work at a quantum level and that is really weird stuff. Neils Bohr said "Those who are not shocked when they first come across quantum theory cannot possibly have understood it" and "It is safe to say that nobody understands quantum mechanics. Richard Feynman" (my hero)

P

My spoken English is not fluent enough for such a high conversation but it could be an advantage that I could use to enjoy the dinner while I listen.

Juan

Paul, I sure do not expect you to re-change everything just for a little test. But once you are up to it anyway maybe ...

Juan, was that link regarding my post ? I don't think so.
Anyway, if one is a not-believer in "cables" it is me, but, they do matter because of filtering (easy to apply by sorts of materials). So, any "better" cable filters. NOT good.

Densen Demagic sure works, but you have to understand a little what might be happening;
Electricity flows because electrons "contaminate" eachother. So, they pass through the message so to speak. One atom gets energized ("magnetic"), so the next one does too. Now think of what may happen in a bended cable; shortcuts happen, while at the same time ways around occur. This meets in an asynchornous fashion, and we can look at it like all being mixed up a little. But what's really supposed to happen, is that the (e.g. !) shortcuts become shortcuts more easily because of a learning process. The electrons may "flow" more easy the same route as they did a longer time before.
This, btw, is how a knot in LS cables changes sound ...

Demagic undoes this by means of random frequencies and "all amplitutes". It shuffles.
And, it most certainly works. Not that I use it these days (because I always forget anyway), but I should. In the mean time it is my opinion that this sort of thing should not help at all, which is by now a main reason why I don't use it anymore; I rather have all "straight" in the first place. And a major reason is : I won't test NOS1's or XXHighEnd, with a tweak which is arbitrary, hence might not work out the same at your place.

(this was my own explanation, but I guess Densen Demagic tells similar, which I read for the last time maybe 20 years ago).

Anyway, it was my idea that the Bybees could imply similar, while it was not 100% clear to me whether Paul tried to tell that "the difference had gone" after using the Bybees. But I now understand that the difference has gone between the cables just because of applying the Bybees (and still do so).

Regards,
Peter

A side note :

It slowly becomes the most clear that something like the NOS1-USB suddenly allows for very definite judgements. They are so soo easy to make. And worse : you can even "see" what to do, when something is not completely right to your judgement. This wasn't before (not even with the original NOS1).

I got this from my own experience, and I get this from a couple of posts in here, as well as from emails from others.
I see this as new ... (absolute judgement now is easy).

Peter

No, sorry, for you was just the question: Do you mean that demagnetizing the system eliminates the differences between cables?.

The link was just to think about the general issue and directed to all.


I totally agree. The NOS1 USB is the most fantastic tool to know the "truth" of the system.

Juan

Hey Peter - I think you make a good point about the Densen treatment. To be sure from your explanation of what is going on it starts to sound similar to Bybee by working on and cleaning up the transportation mechanism of the signal riding on the "back of" slow moving electrons. But is there a difference between Densen (or Isotec) treating a magnetic effect and Bybee treating a quantum effect - well I don't know and maybe we never will but a good spot anyway - nice one.

Just remembered one thing in a write up somewhere it was mentioned that there is a quantum effect where signal noise is generated by electrons being caused to move in a random manner due to passing through the incontinuities in a circuit (like that of the crystal lattice in a conductor or components in a cross over etc etc) and that Bybee treats that - it does not sound like a magnetic effect. Also for sure the crystal lattice in silver wire is going to be significantly different to that in copper. Should be more "refined" in silver due to its cost compared with copper ha ha.

P

Guess integrating Bybee's in the NOS1 would create the best effect. Normally modifications up in the chain are the ones most gratifying.

Cheers,
Quint

You can make two cables have the same geometry and thus have the same inductance and capacitance but the resitance of the silver cable would be smaler. But I gues this would be the smalest effect. You could use a silver cable that is hollow in the inside to reduce the resistance of the conducter but that would cause changes to the skineffekt. But the lower resistance is maybe the main advantage of a silver cable. So if you would like to hear the sound of silver compared to copper, it would be ok to have a lower resistance with the silver cable because this is why you would pay for it. In the end is is not simple to say how one have to test. You could also use the same resistance (thinner silver calbe) for both cables and check different geometries which can be achieved with a thinner silver cable to test the advantage of silver...  :grazy:

There are a lot of other effects that could cause the different sound of cables like impurites, connecting different materials with different temperatures (Seebeck-Effect ), different isolators changing capacitance and so on. To make a test that leads to accurate results would need some extra time, to check for those boundary conditions too.

How the capacitance, inductance and resistance realy affect the amplifier I have never realy understood. I hope there will be the time to read something about it, to finally put an end to this state of "not knowing". But they should matter. And BTW. it is not possible to make "the best cable". You always have to treat inductance against capacitance. How this influences the sound then, will also be dependent of your electronics.

To find out how the bybees work should be possible. If the guy who is selling the bybees has worked as a scientist he could give you publications about that topic and the work he has done. Or maybe you can find some publications from him in the web?

Quantumeffects normaly mean, you have a probabilistic behaviour of the stuff you looking at. Electrons are quantum mechanical "particels" which can be described by something called a wave function. This function tells you the state of the partical or simple: It tells you where the particle might be. So, what is a quantum purifier? I don't know...but it realy might cause something on the level of electrons. Noise is created by heat, means stocastic particel movement. You can cool something down to reduce it. I do not know any other way (yet?).


Greetings
Adrian

Hey Guys - who knows? all I know is that I am sitting here listening to one of the biggest and most fundamental improvements to my system I have heard - really fundamental - I just wanted to share it with you all so please make of it what you will.

I have to agree with earlier posts that NOS1USB makes all this possible. Every one of the very significant improvements I have made recently just reveals more quality from the source. In my book that just highlights the fanatical attention to detail that Peter has paid to every aspect of the design of NOS1USB - OK there is the upsampling the software etc etc but without the attention to noise reduction in the USB interface and all the other areas of design in NOS1USB I really do not think I would hear what I am hearing now.

Only the finest front end allows this kind of discussion. Big huge respect to Peter. 

Oh and not forgetting GainClone amps how can they be this good? I forget they are there - all these improvements just happen around them and they just play the music. Astonishing when you think what is in them (or not in them).

P

Very nice, a big improvement but at what cost?
I'm convinced the sound quality is depending on the weakest part in the link, but adding something can not remove the weakest part. I'm sure it sounds as a big improvement, but so oes changing my crossover in the speakers with just one part.
Reflections, resonances, EMF anything can happen and they are all on the electron level. So using the term Quantum mechanics sounds to me as marketing bullsh*t. And then making a big buck because it is so labor intensive ... If it is really something new then why not explain the details? They can put a patent and their money income is safe. But no, they like to hide in clouds of semi scientific blabla. Sorry just my feeling.
But if we proceed on this road we need more convincing scientific evidence. I don't say there is no difference, only I feel we are ripped of by mister Bybee.

Hey Gerard how are you doing?

Fair comments but for me the blah blah is from those who sell silver cables without any knowledge as to why they sound better. And from what I have seen many of those suppliers (not all of course) do not pay attention to even the most basic simple good engineering practice. And what listening tests, investigations and comparisons have many of those suppliers made ???.

The only thing I trust in hifi is my ears and they tell me that  very cheap copper cable + Bybee is much much better than silver cable. And also that this is a big and very fundamental improvement.

But I very much take your point about what is ahead in the chain and if I had not stumbled across this forum and ended up with NOS (thanks Peter) GainClone (thanks Nick) and my cheapo speaker cables (thanks to you Gerard) maybe I would not have been in a position to hear such a big difference.

Costly? - yes but up to anyone who might be interested a 30 days money back would mean it would not cost anything to find out.

Just sharing the experience in case anyone is interested.

All the best

Paul

BUT

I advise the most strongly to wait with this for a while. Send back the Bybees, remount your copper cables. Well, unless you can wait with that for two weeks or so.

I have an NOS1 tweak which is so important - and against so much less money that you will feel very sorry if it doesn't work just *because* of the Bybees.
I have done a small test with it already, but I want at least one week more. It's worth an additional 10K of DAC, and completely totally crazy.

Of course what can happen is that with both "my tweak" and the Bybees things catch fire or something, or IOW that can be more crazy again.

In short :
I like to bet you a fine bottle of Whisky that what I have is more "devistating" than the Bybees. Whether this is in a positive sense (who wins the SQ contest) I can't tell at all, but the change is bigger than any XX, NOS1, NOS1-USB or even new speakers.

Because I don't know what actually happens (physically causes it) I would be very reluctant to apply something else which is electronics. It could totally destroy "my tweak" which is mechanic.
Buying the Bybees to next discover that it is not for the better in the very near future, seems a waste of money to me. So, just be cautious.

Peter

OK, all my intended tweaks are on hold until we hear more about this 'mechanical change' of yours Peter. Like everyone else I'm sure, I'm totally intrigued.

(One thing I certainly will proceed with though is the receipt of my new gainclone 'super amps' from Bert, which should be here within the next couple of weeks... can't wait.)

Mani.

Wow trust Peter to throw a great big spanner in the works  - so will this change require NOS1USB to be returned for modification? will it cost money if so how much?

I am intrigued

Paul

Well, I sure am glad I haven't sent my original NOS1 back yet for the USB tweak; now I assume I'll be getting the latest tweak as well. Hopefully, I'll be getting this done in late January or February when the city of Philadelphia reimburses me for all the days they taxed me and I wasn't working in the city. Pain in the ass, but a nice little savings "account", as the city taxes more than the state of Pennsylvania!

Anyway, speaking of "Quantum" tweaks (for those with more modest systems and with no technical skill in electronics) I recently purchased new speakers and they have revolutionized my listening experience. The company is new and the name is terrible-- Golden Ear Technology, Triton II Speakers, but the sound awesome. Each speaker has a built in subwoofer. They have taken my 17 watt per channel tube amp and completely filled out the mid range and bottom end. They are really amazing and have gotten very good press. http://www.goldenear.com/

The are relatively efficient at 91 db.

The speakers are so good that I got rid of my Odyssee Stratos amp cause it just couldn't compete with the vocal presentation of the tube amp.

This is nothing any NOS1 needs to be sent in for.
:nea:

Hi Peter,

Sound pretty mysterious but hopefully not a voodoo stuff.
A mechanical tweak on electronic device has got to do with vibration ? But vibration tweak is too basic anyway........

Stop guessing ....
Will wait.......

Cheers !
Praphan

Sounds as though my system is going to catch fire so maybe I will have to buy a fire extinguisher in anticipation ha ha.

P

Just cant believe it... :nea:
How can it be that time after time you are writing those posts.
Someday it has to end....
But for now i enjoy those exciting posts.  ;)'

 :wacko:

To get back to the Bybee..
On a quantum level I was thinking, if you look at the electrons moving in the direction of the cable, backwards and forwards, they can bump into other electrons and go in different directions like billiard balls. This will give some non-music related noise.
If it is possible to filter this out by only allowing electrons to pass if they go in the perfect direction which then is only the music and some basic noise it could be a (big?) enhancement.
If such a device exists it looks to me comparable to a polarizing filter for light. Only let the light through in one direction.
But how to do this for electonics?
Maybe a lot of very thin (nano)wires that can let through only one electron at a time?
Or is it just an other implementation of oxygen free copper with very large crystals or a carboncable a la van den Hull?

Hey Gerard - it is very interesting you should come up with this because the Bybee bullets incorporate "carbon fibre nanotubes" as well as other exotic materials including ceramics gold platinum and silver.

The billiard ball analogy sounds good and also there could be other weird quantum stuff happening (one electron appearing in two places at the same time, quantum tunnelling particle / wave uncertainty etc etc).

I read that whilst the physicists understood the reasons for electrical noise occurring in circuits (well as much as anyone understands quantum stuff) the methods they came up with to reduce it were largely empirical - and they freely admit that they do not really understand the real detail and mechanics of how what they did works.

Maybe as well as forcing the electrons to move in one direction the carbon fibre nano tubes also force the electrons to behave in a more predictable & less quantum manner thus achieving a smooth "slipstream" flow of electrons.

Well after a few glasses of wine it sounds good to me.

Maybe you should have been on the team ??

All the best

P

Brilliant Guess!

The electrons have to go in two directions because of the AC signal...right? But maybe it helps anyway to lead them through tiny tubes.

Hi Peter,

I am sitting here listening to my system after about 100 hours with the Bybees and the improvement is (not sure what word to use here but *very big* at the very least and probably *huge* would be more accurate). They sound much better than when they were first installed.

So first I discussed sending back the Bybees with my wife (and you have to believe me that usually she is totally ambivalent in such matters) and she told me "NO WAY". So I am now inclined to take you up on your bet with the bottle of "fine whisky" (what is your preferred brand?).

But this is where things get difficult. From what I see (or rather hear) the Bybees open up the window by making a very fundamental improvement to the signal flow from NOS to speakers. So for our *bet* there is a problem - it sounds as though your proposed modification to NOS1 will improve the signal entering the rest of the chain and Bybee's will make sure that signal will be passed through to the speakers with minimal damage (Maybee? who knows ha ha). So perhaps the two should work together. I hope so and I have my fire extinguisher handy (also with the local fire brigade on standby) just in case as you kindly suggested.

I fully understand your view that cable differences may be due to their effects as filters. I am sure you are correct but I have to say I am far from convinced that is the whole story and that is based on my listening to 5 very different constructions (including silver at the last test). Bybee makes those differences irrelevant to my humble ears anyway.

SO HERE IS THE DEAL and I agree this is not the ideal way to do it (but I am NOT taking my speakers apart again NO WAY). When you let us all know what the mechanical change is to NOS I will implement it and get my wife to judge if the improvement is more or less than when I installed the Bybees - if she thinks it is more then I will buy you a bottle of fine scotch whisky (or even Irish scotch whiskey if that is what you want).

Of course this could be a big risk to me because it could be that the Bybees are allowing us to hear even more of the improvement than you hear - but I am prepared to take that risk for the sake of the advancement of our hobby.

You can rest easy on two counts 1. my wife is totally and completely honest  2. my wife would probably tend to take anyone else's side rather than mine (if it is a close decision) just for a laugh (she is like that). But I doubt she would try to do that if it it clear the Bybee change was bigger.

Of course I HOPE THAT YOU WIN THIS CHALLENGE because it means my system will sound even better and by a long way. Ha ha I cannot lose. But there again you cannot lose - because you either win a bottle of whisky or you don't but at no cost to you. But we are both hoping you do (HA HA).

All the best

Paul

ha ha ha :rofl:

Ok, up to this point my "main problem" is that what I can let happen is about some unknown phenomenon so far. Physics tell me that what happens can't be, and I even set myself to be persistent in *when that would ever happen* I would disagree with it. IOW, something can now happen which physics don't allow (in my thinking) and which could be something revolutionary.

The appliance itself is a rather "dull" one, and its impact can be dedicated (my me !) to being able to happen to the NOS1 only. This is a bit doubtful, but since I never heard such a thing before, let's say it is.
And from there I must proceed in reasoning out what is actually happening.

I can tell you a little secret already, but let's call it a :teaser: :
What happens is completely 100% contradictionary to what we "learned" from what is good audio reproduction. But, it didn't take me 12 hours or so to reason out that what I perceive from it actually is better. Example of what I mean (completely made up, so it is not about this at all) :

We learned that two speakers are needed to more or less reproduce an image; a stage. Now I can do it with one speaker, the image is not at all what we expect from it, but after 12 hours of sitting back I can tell you (*and* you will accept it as the truth) that indeed this IS better.

Remember, completly made up this one, but it is close.

Because the net workout is better, but completely against our nature, plus it seems to be against my own thinking of how things acoustically should / can work, it needs quite some time and reasoning HOW it can do what it does. On this matter, think Blackbodies. They sure do something, but like with our fameous Schumann Resonator, they may do things to us instead of physically change sound. Those little copper/silver/gold/platinum bells are a bit in between, but sure allow to physically alter sound (whether it really does - I wonder). The Bybees *will* alter sound. Is it for the better ? possibly, but not necessarily. And here things become vague, because like with "better cables" (which fillter), when the base ain't right, the result most probably will be strange.

"My" tweak is from the latter category, but most different in its appliance. More mystique, although everybody who hears about it later will disagree with this at first. So, the appliance and reason for it is no mystery at all; the workout is though. And again, especially because it does things which are opposite to what we all learned.

Because I like to have written down what my thoughts are before knowing (and nobody knows !!), I see it as a physically mixing of air - hence sound waves, like putting some Hammond organ rotors in front of your speakers. Again it is not this at all, but you will start to feel that this may seem to sound for the better, but it can't be correct in the mean time. How can interrupting the sound wave like this work out for the better ? Still it seems to do just that (IMO !) with now the question of why. If I can find the answer to that (and confirm it technically), *then* it really IS better. During the stage of finding out it is just a subjective thing.

Because the working is so strange and unknown, I am indeed afraid that anything can kill it. It doesn't seem fragile to me, but it interacts. Yea, but now : with what ? (this is the so far unknown part).

Ok, Paul, *of course* I better think the other way around, and of course I already anticipate on the combination of Bybees and our little subject here. But I really can't see what will be happening, unless something catching fire which really seems more obvious to me than again better sound. Also, my definition of "better sound" has gone for a while now, and all now merely is about what the heck all happens physically to let this and that show, while *all* sounds good enough already; Things can be tweaked into "different" very easily, but none is really wrong as such.

One more little story to get you hot (and your wife of course) :
Ever back in my previous house I was able to let Q-sound (Amused to Death, Immaculate Collection) work in open air as intended for headphones. So, instruments and voices at plain 90 degree angles up to 180 degrees behind you. Totally crazy, and it didn't need to be at any sweetspot at all. Just 6 meters sideways and you could still point at the instruments in open air (more people would point at the same position, those people being meters apart from eachother). Now :

I had this working (which was a kind by accident) by some type of SS amplifier (Duson, which was dutch and a take over from French Audio Analyse IIRC) and let's say it happened after 5 years of tweaking with ground wires between devices, and all other stuff we can think of, like special feet, filters, what not.
Then there was broken in, and my amp was stolen.

Ensurance paid well for it all, and because some things could not be replaced by te same (they were obsolete) I was able to save some money at the new purchase, and thought to biamp - hence bought two of the same 2ch amps where before I had one only.

Nothing in the world could let work that Q-sound again. It didn't want to anymore.

Then I found out that it didn't want to work with two amps. One still worked ! Ok, so this lead me to thinking that things must way way fragile, and possibly things from the two amps didn't want to play in the same beat. Voltage regulators influencing the sound, but now two of them with their own life. Something like that.
From there I thought about the setup of the biamping, and while it may be coming to use each amp for left and right but for bass only, and the other one for mid-high only, this can also be done with one amp per channel.
Long story short, including all the normal tweaks again but in a different setup (ground wires running different paths), I think it took me two months before it worked again.

Byyyy the wayy, the concept of the NOS1 contains this concept to some degree.

I moved to a new house some 8 years back, and up to today I never got Q-sound working in open air again. I dedicate it to the acoustics of the room, and maybe the special shape of the wooden ceiling I had in my former house. But hey, I know how difficult this was in the first, and that too many parameters influence to ever get it right again. Actually, the only thing I know is that it *can* work, because I had it working.

In the mean time, in emphasis, this is why I spend quite some time on writing stories like these; it could be an interesting read - it could be a lot of blahblah towards you - but in the mean time it allows me my necessary reasoning in a kind of official fashion; I just found out a "crux" during this writing; watch this :

Those two main amps in my old house were on top of eachother. Normal biamping is about the left part of each amp for the left channel and the right part for the right. So, each amp serves both channels. N.b.: The interaction of electronics of the before story may remain. But :
What also happens when each amp starts to be dedicated for its own channel (so one amp for left only, the other for right only), is that left and right will influence eachother in a consistent fashion. Think vibrations. Micro of course, but we all know it exists (microphonic). And since the amps were on top of eachother, their mutual influence could work. This, for one thing, I never applied in my new house, and instead the amps were on the floor way close to their respective speaker.

By now, after this long writing, I suddenly see a same application happening with the little tweak I'm talking about. Its behaviour looks (sounds) the same ... and didn't I talk about "mixing". Yes I did, and I honestly didn't know how this post would end up. So indeed, sound is mixed in a mechanichal way, and it sure looks like my two amps influencing eachother in a similar mechanichal way.

I'm sure you now can feel how delicate this is, and how anything can break it. As I said, the application by itself is robust, but the workout maybe is not at all. It *is* how electronics can be influenced and so far I am quite sure this is NOT about eliminating influences, like we could do by means of decoupling. It just doesn't sound like that, and furthermore the effect is the opposite from the theory. But I *did* say that after some thinking I will be able to point out that the effect is for the better. When I tell you about it, you will have to agree.
First I must test some more, to see whether there are downsides. Brain damaging perhaps, because something like that really could be in order ...

Peter (sorry for typos; I didn't look back)

Interesting thread.
I found this to be a Good read about the influence of vibrations
http://www.monoandstereo.com/2011/04/micro-vibrations.html
Best
Claudius
I found that moving my preamp for a couple of mm changed the sound. Vibrations? I am quite sure

I posted the link to michael greenes site in the spikes for nos thread. This guy has a holistic view on vibrations wrt to sound reproduction. Mechanical, airborne (sound) and electrical vibrations all interact in the confined space we listen music to. His theory is to improve or altere sound by tuning (harmonising?) those vibrations to eachother.

If you find Peters posts sometimes a little cryptic, the ramblings of mr Green will confuse you beyond imagination. Pictures of his tools and way of working are much easier to understand. They may appeal to those who ever opened their cd player to find it sounding better or ones that have experimented with the torque of the screws that hold their gear together....

Anyway, i think this direction of thinking holds some truth about the working of tweaks (for better and worse!) from a vibration perspective and no I am not a tune disciple. :)

Regards, Coen

Good stuff but it does not sound as though Peter's change is a vibration thing though. Intriguing it has to be said.

P

Intriguing ? INTRIGUEING ?? haha

I am as far as listening through headphones now.
Ok, did you ever experience this ? wearing headphones BUT feeling the impact of all drums and basses to your stomache ?

Yea yea, you may have heard about these things. But the small problem is : I am not wearing headphones ...

But Paul, you will be the first to receive this tweak. Of course this is only because I know you hand out fine Whiskys. The brand ? oh, any Glennfiddich s.m. will do I guess. But since you are there anyway, what about such a seaweed taste from one of those ilses overthere eh ? Ever tried it ?
But you can always mention your brand for certainty !

Peter

Seaweed - wow!!!! what have you been drinking Peter? - not sure about that but I could get hold of a nice peat tasting whisky if that is to your taste (subject of course to the outcome of the test).

But if you REALLY want Seaweed tasting scotch I am sure that can be arranged (just don't ask me to drink it with you) ha ha.

All the best - Paul

Hmmm....*thinking*......Having the impression of hearing headphones while listening to speakers should be due to the charakteristics of the speakers. In your case, you having speakers which are beaming very strong so what you say makes total sens. The other thing which would be involved to this effect are the amplifiers which are able to control the big speakers like the smal headphones. So, this tweak you are talking about should not be in the first place connected to changes to the NOS1, right? Maybe it is involved but the tweak must effekt more the amplifier or the speakers than the DAC.

Adrian, very good thinking !

Still, it is al some other way around. And, IMO exactly related to horns.
... They stopped behaving like that.

No beam of sound, but wall of sound.

:yes:

Hey Peter, I will not try to figure out what is the secret weapon but, could you tell us if it will be usable by anyone with NOS1 or even with just XXHighEnd?, with tubes or solid state electronics or any kind of speakers?. In other words, may it will be used by anyone?

Thanks,
Juan

OK guys so now I have an interesting and potentially very difficult dilemma. Here I am having invested a substantial amount of my hard earned cash (well actually profit from selling my old hifi kit :)) in some insignificant looking Bybee "thingies" (and I really do understand all you sceptics out there being reluctant to believe what I say - but please remember I am not selling these things I am just a hifi nut like all you guys - but I do have good ears). And how was I to know that Peter was going to produce something that could "blow the socks off" and make the Bybee's totally irrelevant. Well I did not see that one coming (how could I?)

The problem is this: if Peter says he has something that is going to blow our "socks off" well we all know that it really is going to "blow our socks off" - I mean really we all know that is going to be the case. 

So the big problem for me is this:  should I tell you how I am getting on with the Bybee's after burning them in for about 150 hours?  well that is a question I have asked myself a few times today because I know I could be putting my GREAT BIG FOOT in my mouth (apologies that is just one of the strange expressions us Brits use - and I have to say I am not sure why).

Also we all know that I am at serious risk of having to buy Peter a bottle of the finest Scotch Whisky (even if he does want seaweed flavour pffff).

Well I was thinking that this is actually the BEST TIME to let you know how I am getting on because just now I really do not know what is coming from Peter. So basically it is better to tell you now before his upgrade hits me rather than after when my view could be seriously affected.

OK so how do the Bybee's sound now?  The answer to that question is that they do not "sound" of anything - in other words they really have made my system sound totally "natural".

In short this (so far) is one of the very best upgrades I have ever made to any system FULL STOP. There is no other way I can say this.

And I really do not know how to describe it. For example the amount of detail from NOS1 is huge and that much is obvious when you hear it. So how does it sound with the Bybee's - well the answer is that there is EVEN MORE detail but the big difference is that it is JUST NOT OBVIOUS. I mean it just sounds right, it just sounds TOTALLY natural. Really easy to listen to. But not easy to describe.

In fact the speakers now sound as though they have to a large extent disappeared. That is a difficult one - but the best way I can describe it is that the bass and high frequency units sound totally integrated and the cross overs now sound as though they are having minimal effect.  Sounds just are not connected to the speakers any more. They sound totally natural.

But what has also happened with running in and almost unnoticed is this: the bass has improved hugely. And I do not say HUGELY without really meaning it. Bass is one of the most important areas for me (in particular the ability to hear proper tuneful and rhythmic interplay in the bass region). So what do I hear now? have my speakers suddenly started making thunderous bass? - well no and that is the whole point they have not. What they have just started to do is produce the most natural bass I have ever heard from any speakers full stop. Smooth smooth bass but totally totally natural. I am really stuck here I do not no how to describe something that sounds so natural. And substantially deeper too.

All I do know now is that the sound quality is totally seductive - natural and totally beguiling. I could sit here all day and all night and not want to go to bed (even if the house was on fire). Before SP1 and Bybee I have to say there were pretty impressive sounds BUT I always wanted to turn the volume down as it always sounded a tad loud - now post SP1 and Bybee I am always tempted to turn the volume up and that has to be a good sign.

I guess that one of the most surprising things also is that with all the big improvements I have had recently the GainClone amplifiers just continue to show the improvements - they just do not sound like a limitation in the system - these cheap diy amplifiers - at what point will they start to show their limitations? no sign of it so far.

Am I the only one that can properly hear what NOS1USB? can do - interesting question that because I do not know what Peter can hear.

Ah and I have to say Peter: this does not sound like a "filter" effect to me it really really does not.

Wow what a fantastic predicament to be in.

All the best

Paul 

Hi Paul, great to hear your bybees working that well. But I guess you comparing the sound of the bybees to the sound from your memory when you did not have the bybees installed and you did not solder them out of the system since then, right? Would it be possible to solder a switch between the bybees and your speaker. So you could change quickly from bybees to no bybees. Another way would be to solder a short cable in parallel to the bybees, to switch between cable and bybees by disconnecting the bybees and connecting the cable. This would make sure that this improvement is not caused by something else like burning in of your new amp for example.

Hi Adrian - I have been thinking maybe about doing something like that - shorting out the Bybee's may well not work properly because they are very low resistance so yes SPDT switches would work to connect the speaker wire to either the bybee or the speaker lug - but I would need eight (or 4 DPDT) of them aaarrrggghh.

But it takes a lot of time and taking the drive units out of my speakers is no fun AND I would have do all of that twice. I will see what happens when Peter "issues" the new mod. and I may well have to do something like that to determine which mod. is doing what and/or if one mod. is affecting the other.

All the best

Paul

Ok, a strange post maybe. Sure not intended to be aggressive or something ...

Adrian, without you realizing it, your last post sounds a tad disrespectful to me. This is because you don't know the NOS1 and what it does, hence how it works out for determining differences. Also, I not only know the NOS1, but I also know Paul, and it really does not need any bit of doubt to plainly believe that what he observes is real (and not a placebo, which tends to be the direction of you post (no, you sure didn't say that, but this is how it feels :yes:)).

I could make it more general towards you (and others) by saying that I always have to laugh about so many forums and posts about AB, ABX, improvements on ABX and what not, because this really isn't necessary. And, I am 100% sure that no NOS1 owner will reject this thinking of me. All, really all, is 2 second work. It hardly needs a type of music or a certain (loud etc.) beginning of it; all, again, really all what you do for changes is audible within a second.

Whether observing like this (2 seconds) will allow for judgeing it as "overall better" or the other way around is a complete different matter. This is related to my own means of "judgeing" for which I always take 5 listening evenings (of a couple of hours). And, as you may recall, it happened a couple of times that even at the fifth day I rejected my whatever change.

In the same realm it will be the most easy to read my own posts within this topic as "hey Paul, you can't be right". So, when one doesn't own an NOS1 this will be the easy thinking from my writing. But I did not say that at all, nor did I imply it, and I'm sure Paul or other NOSers didn't read it like that. And you Adrian, or others, should not too. Instead I am hoping that Paul keeps the Bybees, because it seems the only cheap way for others (and me !) to learn what the combination with that "other tweak" will bring. This, of course, as the contrary from me advising to wait with really purchasing them, because if that "other tweak" does the same, it will be a huge waste of money. But only then. Not when it works out; then some of us have Ferrari money to proceed AGAIN.

The very main moral is NOSers being able to absolute judge. This is what I say, but this is also what others say. By now it could be a commercial statement, but it really is not. It just is so, and the most convenient.

And for Paul :
My description would have been 100% the same when approached from the angle you chose. Maybe I can add a few other phenomena, but I'm sure you can do too.
*When* the outcome is exactly the same, it only more intrigues what really happens. What is improved so much hence what really causes that.

Peter (glad that he didn't prevent Paul from proceeding with the Bybees)

Well Peter I have to say this all really sounds interesting and more & more intriguing. You have not told us (understandably) much about the coming upgrade other than it is simple and not requiring return of the box to Holland (phew!) and I sort of infer that it is not invasive so possibly it will not even be necessary to take the lid off the NOS (well of course that is just a guess).

And maybe just maybe all of this is beginning to sound just a bit like some of the quantum products out there like the "Quantum Symphony" that just needs to be switched on near the hifi system. Well who knows if that device works or not. But there are other "stories" about quantum devices fitted in one piece of wire having a beneficial effect on some or all other wires in the system even though nothing is directly connected to them. Well all this is science fiction stuff to be sure.

But if what you are about to propose is not invasive and requires something(s) to be placed near to or aligned in a particular way - well it all starts to sound just a little bit like some of the weird Science Fiction Quantum stuff above.

Well maybe.

To be sure it is beginning to sound as though maybe what you propose could do the same as the Bybee's well if that is the case perhaps I will not hear any difference with your mod and in which case I am going to have to get that soldering out and dive into my speakers again - all to prove that I have just wasted a not inconsiderable amount of money  :grazy:

On the other hand ........................

All the best

Paul

Paul hi,

Do keep the bybee posts coming, fascinating stuff. I think I understand what you are trying to convey when you talk about neutrality and convincing bass. Also the dislocation of sound from your speakers, this has to be one of my favorite tricks of a really good system.

I would still not be considering investing in Bybees were it not that you have also gone down the bi amp Gainclone route. The link being that we have a common reference point for trying to describe improvements.

I am very interested  :drool: to hear what Peter's tweak does and what it is about.


Waiting for further updates,

Best regards,

Nick.

Ps I agree with your comments about the "head room" of gainclones. I have the feeling that at some point they will stifle improvements but so far it just has not happened. Long live cheapfi ! :)

Paul,

Can you UNengage Peak Extend and let me know as exact as possible what differences you perceive ?
Try the most high transient music. You know, that kind I sometimes like ...
Don't forget the ~3dB Peak Extend outputs less loud.

Peter


PS: But if you already don't use Peak Extend, do it the other way around.

Hey Peter - just started the wine and waiting for dinner guests to arrive so not a good time to do the test ha ha so tomorrow hopefully will get around to doing it.

Nick - GainClones rock - how on earth can they sound so much better than other silly high priced amps - bargain of the century in hifi terms I am sure that there must be better amps around but how much do they cost?

P

Just a misunderstanding I would say.

I am also beleave him 100%, otherwise I maybe would not post. I thought or understood that he has also a new amp in his system that is burning in. And changing two things at the same time will always lead to not knowing what of the both things you changed does the trick. I am realy interested in what he finds out and value his opinion.


I am not sure but maybe we agree. My experience is that there are changes in the system that will sound better or more right at once. And if I made a change like that, I stop comparing and start listening. If you have a good system you will not have to make a lot of AB. The difference will show very quick as better or worse. But sometimes it is better to just plug the new device in and listen to it for a longer time without thinking of testing the device. After a while I feel comfortable or not. This is the most secure testing. I guess Paul is experiencing just that. If you swap A and B very quick and both doesn't sound right, then the system is maybe not good.

I realy do not know how good the NOS1 is and I am very curious about it. It will happen to me in this life to listen to it. But until then, I must realy say I am listening to a system that is not the "best" but I can listen to it without the feeling to improve it. I cannot emphasize that enough. It sounds right (natural), detailed and relaxed. Of course I am still interested in trying out new things but I never have listened so much and tested so little. I guess I have a listen/test ratio of 95/5, which I also suggest as a new benchmark for the quality of a hifi system. :)

Hey Peter,

Apologies - I forgot to check out the effect of PeakExtend (PE) but I just remembered and here goes (note with PE engaged I increased the volume +3db compared with not engaged).

There is a noticeable difference (to these ears anyway).

Most noticeable with solo violin and massed strings the sound has a noticeable edge with PE engaged. With synths ie Yello again with high level transient material there is an unmistakable hard edge to the sound. Actually with synth. material some might think it sounds better with PE because the sound has more immediate impact but it does not take long to realise that something does not sound quite right.

So then I went to one of my favourite albums "The Gifted Ones" Basie and Gillespie. I have listened to this many times with PE engaged (my normal setup) and it never sounds anything less than superb. There is very pronounced symbol work on this album which sounds excellent through NOSUSB. Listening without PE those symbols sound even smoother and more natural (but really I did not think there was anyting wrong with them before). Then Gillespie on trumpet comes in and it also sounds smoother more natural. But actually some might think actually less detailed - but I do not think so I think that something is going on with high transients with PE engaged.

Now a BIG note of caution - is PE providing more transient detail / level that my system cannot handle or is there something going on with PE that is not right. I cannot answer that (over to you Peter) but for the time being I will listening with PE off.

I will also do some more listening to double check these results tonight.

Hope this helps.

Paul

Important notice about Peak Extension (http://www.phasure.com/index.php?topic=1771.0)

Well, after reading that back and combining my own results with yours now, I had to read it three times over to straighten my mind again. May happen to you too.

My conclusion is the same as yours. But, with "my tweak" engaged. Before I didn't know or ever really heard the difference. But I guess this is why I asked exactly *you*.

To avoid further confusion : what sounds right *is* wrong. So, not activating Peak Extend should present considerable distortion, but, it should be well beyond the audible range (frequency - think at 26Khz anyway of what I can measure, and nothing around 22KHz). Still this is very well audible ...

Notice that I mentioned to check for the high transients, because their on/off frequency can be higher than Redbook max frequency (say 22049Hz), but it *is* a frequency by itself.

The whole point is : with Peak Extend this is nicely fluently rounded as should be, and without Peak Extend this is sharp edged and containing overshoots.
The exact opposite as how we perceive it.

Here ("my tweak") it does more, because it also broadens the stage. It makes it more natural. So, with Peak Extend Off, hence with the distortion.

In the end what I asked you, is whether you'd perceive the same contradiction as I do here. So, you do.
Now what.

Man, is this confusing. Maybe this helps straightening our minds further (and for later reference) :


PE provides more transient PURE detail. A smallest nice half sine for pulses to either plus or minus only.
Not-PE provies as transient detail, but the sine is not a sine and rather a square. So, more overtones again on a base of 26KHz in my case.

A stupid theory can be that the too low frequency for Redbook compared to what real life needs (say 30KHz-40Khz), now is auto-filled by this anomaly. It, btw, follows my line of thinking that sound gets more rough when the highest frequencies are under powered and therefore gaps emerge in between the lower-ish frequencies, that creating the roughness. Somthing like this could be happening beyond the audioband as well, and now that impacts the lower frequencies  (all influences eachother in air). It gets a bit complicated maybe, but I really don't see how higher transients in frequency (!) than Nyquist permits will be filtered out by normal filtering means. So, what I do with my 26KHz is illegal in the first place, but I think it can exist in music. So, it is illegal to be there, but it is there. Now, the NOS1 lets that through perfectly, and it does that where it is allowed (because of the 768 (705.6) sample frequency). Still it can't be like that in normal 44.1 sampled data, and so anomalies occur. This now is "smeared" by the even higher frequencies coming from those squares, them filling in the gaps more smoothly, which otherwise would be there caused by the too low sample rate.

Ok, nobody will understand, and it probably is rubbish anyway. But if something clearly sounds better while it looks like sh*t, I want to know why that is, plus I don't like to not trust my ears.

What remains at this moment, is whether other NOS1 users may come to the same conclusion. I feel this is all such in the detail that possibly only Paul can perceive it. And me now. I really didn't notice it before "my tweak". It is no placebo either, because "my tweak" was at first tested with PE coincidentally off. Later we switched it on and continued listening (all sounding very new in the first place), but at later going back to one of the tracks to show off again, the super-magic seemed gone. Tweak burned-in - bad luck. Until 5 days later I wondered more and more where the general super-magic had gone, and thought of PE again. Switched if off and Bang - there it all happened again.

Ah, there's another warning for those NOT engaging Peak Extend to try :
Do not use a digital attenuation of 10.5 - 12dB (maybe avoid 13.5 as well). Here the phenomenon misbehaves within itself; depending on random stuff beyond me, either channel (never both) may collapse with the attenuated amount. So, set 12dB of attenuation and either channel may drop to -24dB. Often not, but it can.
Please notice that this must be considered XXHighEnd behaviour and nothing like NOS1 or Operating System (the latter as far as I can tell, because it *is* a bug beyond me).

:scratching::scratching::scratching:

Mmmm interesting indeed and I will read in a bit more detail later on. Just a quick couple of points though:

1.  Before Bybees I also did not really notice any difference between PE on or off. And I did try it some time ago  - maybe it did exist but for sure it was not as obvious as it is now.

2.  The improvement Bybee makes is very obvious regardless whether PE is on or off (all the listening tests I did earlier were with the Bybee's installed and with PE on). It is just that with PE on as mentioned the sound has an "edge" on dynamic material.

But I do need to do more listening with PE off to properly get to grips with the changes.

P

Haha, quite a while ago I wrote this:


I've pretty much always heard a difference between PE on or off. Does this mean that my system is even more revealing than Paul's? Or maybe it's just that my ears are better (I am a little younger after all)...  :naughty:

Mani.

Hey Mani,

HA HA bloomin' HA well for sure your ears are younger than mine (but mine are prettier!). But how the system sounds? - well you are going to have to come here for another listen to know the answer to that (BUT ONLY on condition you bring the NSX) things have changed muchly since your last visit. BUT it does make me wonder what your system would sound like with the Bybee treatment. But then again maybe you will not need to do that with Peter's coming modification. But then again again maybe you will - who knows?. None of us knows ha ha  - What is coming up in the next installment of the Bybee versus Peter's upgrade saga?

Watch this space .......................

P

I couldn't resist buying the Densen Demagic disk to give it a try. It popped through the post this morning and was duly played. To my relief no UFOs mistook it for a landing signal. Music followed and wow what just happened ? Sound after demagic is more musical with noticeably less grain and tighter and more extended bass. A great tweak for the outlay, thanks for mentioning it Peter.

I am just doing the peak extend / no peak extend test now. There is defiantly a difference am trying to make sense of it before posting more detailes thoughts. Right now I would say that peak extend turned off gives a more natural presentation with good ambiance. Peak extend on has more attack but seems ever so slightly harsh in passages with high dynamic swings.

Rs

N.

I know I mentioned improvements in bass before. But just for the record I wanted to mention how considerable and what the nature of those improvements are. Also I mentioned that whilst the improvements to the overall sound were immediately noticeable the improvements in bass crept up almost unnoticed during burn in. But when they arrived they were very very substantial (but maybe not to everyone - see below).

You know when you go to listen to a system (at a hi-fi show or a shop maybe) someone will say "wow listen to this, the bass sounds amazing". Well I have been to hi-fi shows and shops and experienced that many times (and been impressed). Recently I listened to my mate Dave's system (PMC transmission line speakers) the bass sounds extraordinary. Big with lots and lots of hugely impressive slam.

But then when I go to a live small venue Jazz gig with drums, piano, saxophone, double bass etc. (as I do quite often) where basically there is a small stage with 4-5 artists and then crammed in maybe 50-80 people watching (very small and cosy). No one has ever said to me "wow listen to the bass". It just does not sound like the "amazing bass" you get at hifi shows and shops (or even my mate Dave's PMC's - sorry Dave!). But why? all those instruments in such a small space shouldn't the bass "move the earth". Well maybe they do - but not in an obvious way.

So what does the bass in my system sound like now?  well that's just it - it doesn't sound amazing at all at least not in an immediately obvious way. I mean you are sitting listening and the bass is just not obvious - but then almost unnoticed there is a low bass note and what is impressive is that it is very low but it is also fast and most seriously important it is not affecting anything of the higher frequencies. So at once it is "disconnected" from other sounds but also perfectly integrated. Well maybe this is beginning to sound like the horse sh---t you read in a lot of hi-fi magazine reviews but I don't know how else to explain it.

So what is really impressive is that the bass is not impressive at all. Mmmm maybe I am talking horse sh---t. But for those of us that *know* sit and listen to this over an evening and it is just extraordinary. The real problem is that if I dragged someone in off the street or even got my old mum to listen to it they would wonder what the heck I am talking about - they might say it "sounds like it should" or "sounds natural" but I really do think they would NOT be that impressed.

Well I know he he - and the only way to get this kind of change normally is to perform major surgery on the speakers or get a sub woofer or make some other big change to the speakers - except that in this case I have done nothing physical to the speakers - absolutely nothing at all.

So this is actually nothing to do with the speakers - extraordinary.

I get a bit concerned writing stuff like this because someone out there might go and invest in the Bybee's (but NOT before Peter's mod) and might not hear what I hear. Then I would feel really bad.

So just remember my Mum or that random passer by off the street - they probably would not hear much or agree at all.

All the best

Paul

Well this is just going to have to wait - the baby should be popping out in the next week or two and I'm not going anywhere unless I really have to - wife's orders.

But the changes you describe sound amazing. I'm not sure how good my 'aural memory' is, but I think I'll be able to tell how much things have changed for the better. But as I've mentioned before, I already thought your system sounded great when I heard it.

Looks like 2012 might be full of audiophile surprises!

Mani.

Hey Mani - All the best to you both for your new arrival and I hope you are not in for to many sleepless nights - but I am sure you won't be.

Paul

Hey, it's me again ! :swoon:

Of course all what Paul tells has a high degree of exaggeration. :) :no:
Just take a few, and there you go.

But what's the difference with my place eh ?
Booz is the same, the amount of it is, and the sound ? really, you won't recognize a single thing of it anymore.

Earlier I said that Paul's description of his sound (change) 100% fits mine, except for me adding the wider stage to it. But let me try to add some more emphasis :

My bass was quite alright I think. Well, think back about it yourselves (those who know my system); Now ? now there's all the layers under it which always were lacking. Just a feeling before, but knowledge today.
There's detail in the sub-higher frequencies (I mean, right under them) which is completely crazy.
Yesterday I played Touch (Yellow) once again, and it won't fail in any track anymore (while earlier I could find one which was listenable -> remember the W7 Vanilla, which improved on it). Even this Touch album is not recognizeable anymore. As if it was replayed and rerecorded.

I can't find anything anymore which sounds bad, but maybe I didn't try Griffin yet. :heat:

The high frequency output seems lower, but it makes me realize that before it was too high. This, with the strange combination of far more detail being there.
The placement of this detail also is crazy; before it was there alright, but not profound because of the placement in the picture which is unknown. Today ? today things may sweep from meters outside of the speaker to the other one.
General perception is something like a 45 degree angle from your ears to where the sound comes from. In my situation this means that the sound springs from around 2 meters in front of the speakers but from the sidewall (which is some 1.5 meters more aside). Virtually this gives 3 meters outside of the speakers (but the sound won't go outside of the walls, that's why the 1.5 meters towards you is into play).

There is no way depth can be seen anymore. I talked about this before, but now it seems "complete". So, when completely back in the room (12m distance from the speakers in my case), you will hear that the speakers are at the other side of the room. But at the more normal listening distance which is 7 meters in my case, there's no vision of where the speakers are. Of course this is related to that 1.5 meters in front of the speakers where the sound springs from, and the total witdh implied by it, which would be 14 meters in my case). So, listening distance officially is 7 meters, and the width of the stage is 14 meters. This doesn't put you right in the middle, but fairly close to it.
Btw, this was about my earlier expression of listening through headphones, while no headphones are there.

Get Yer Ya Ya's 0ut -always a test album, and which worked quite alright already lately- is a sheer happening now. Now Mr sad drummer which already wasn't sad anymore, is dancing on the stage. Not only a sheer happening, but suddenly a sheer live event.
And then to think that this is a test album for me because it sounded so dull, flat and far away less than a year ago.

"My tweak" is dangerous, which is why it takes a fair amount of time to get the real merits of it, and to dial/tune it in;
Later you will learn that it is beyond Quantum stuff. Oh yes, there always is more - more beyond our understanding. This is one of them, until I understand. Well, maybe by now I do, but that doesn't mean it is under my control. It needs "whisdom" which can't be learned from books maybe. Think Chinese herbs for curement. Those guys just knew it forever and some still do.

To be clear (again) : it is nothing I found out, and it is only an application (and I didn't even find *that* out). It will be the combination with the NOS1 which makes it so special, just because the crazy detail the NOS1 can show in the first place. Now though, that detail has to know its place, and this is where the tweak comes into play. Ancient whisdom ...

There's another observation which looks contrary to what I and most always observe : I won't play louder than 80dB SPL anymore, while at first this was around 90 fo normal-max.
Explanation : well, I sort of already told it in an earlier post : my horns are no horns anymore (same as the headphone principle of course). The energy comes from virtually everywhere (instead of from the speakers - and beamed like horns tend to do), and this makes, as how I see it, no louder "force" necessary. Btw, indirectly the whisdom concerned tells similarly.
There is no single way that it ever seems possible anymore that things sound sharp, edgy, harsh. Impossible, as if it were vinyl. Possibly this is related to the room being so full of sound. Strangely enough this (to me) seems not to be about "energizing" the room. Still sound is everywhere, and the most profound is those underlayers of "bass" (but think "full sound" to grasp it better). Quite the opposite from an untweaked NOS1, but still never heard before.

The latter is related to the full sound which is accompanied with all that detail, and also still no standing waves occurring anywhere. The bass output is so much higher and so much more everywhere in the room, that yesterday I started exlicitly checking each corner and ever back more difficult places. But no.
This exactly fits the "whisdom".

The sound is totally massive, although I have the hunch that the English language doesn't have a proper word for it (I'd try "massale" for a maybe new English word). And then to think I didn'd dare to try a full orchestra yet.
The dynamics at the low end are crazy as well; sounds spring from an octave lower than before, as are the voices of Yello. This, while the attacks in them are as profound (think Cohen or Knopfler). Yes, quite a contradiction again.
Also what I keep on noticing is the vibrato in low basses; a steady good tone before, but now suddenly the vibrato is there. With synths this gives the additional roar effect. Great.

Peter

Hey Peter, do you mean just in the last few weeks, since our visit? This would be amazing. I still remember the sound of Abdullah Ibrahim's piano from your dining room... (I've since bought the CD and it sounds great at my place too.)

BTW, I really wanted to post a writeup of our experience at your place. But I wanted to do this properly and haven't had enough time these last few weeks to do the writeup justice. It seems from what you say that my writeup would have been totally out of date now anyway. It's interesting that one of my very small criticisms was going to be about the lack of truly deep, tuneful bass...

Mani.

Hi Peter your description sounds totally intriguing. I (and surely all other "Nossers" here) can't wait to hear your modification. I would say the improvement in sound quality of my system with the quantum stuff is like transforming a great wine into a vintage fine wine. It sounds like your change is more like a complete transformation like say changing a great wine into the very best Cognac or Brandy. Very very interesting to think what physically is the cause of the change.

Maybe you have discovered the God Particle (aka Higg's Boson) and in so doing uncovered all that hidden "dark energy" in your system.

And a word for a big big change in English - well my daughter suggests "Humungous" but not sure if it is in the dictionary.

The only question is - will we get the change for Christmas? ha ha.

Paul

"Sadly" yes. I wish I would have had it just a tad earlier. But indeed, the more surprising it should be to you. Same with Paul's enhancements, I'm sure, and I really (REALLY) can't imagine what will happen when the both are in. It seems beyond imagination.

Before Christmas ? maybe not. Actually not sure. I only yesterday found out about another application of actually the same, and now I guess I want to test that too. If only this were an absolute measure or skill or ... not beyond my knowledge.

One last addition (ok, for now), to emphasize how the NOS1 is involved ...
I said earlier, this is not my "invention" or anything. However, the existing references to it are totally nothing compared to the change I can achieve with it here. This tells me a lot. Just imagine ... sound from "ok" outside of the speakers, which will be some 30 60 degree angle in my case. Mind you, 30 60 degree in total, while in my before post I talked about 45 degrees mapped onto one side only. So, the 30 60 degree in total changes with this to 90 degrees in total. Only Q Sound can do that in a well dampened room (which never worked at all in my current room (also see post from a week or so back)). Now ? now everything does;
Well, I never read about such a drastic thing.

And if it were only that super wide stage ... (instruments remaining their normal sizes) - but it so much changes the whole experience. The being in the middle of it all; the wealth of sound. The 5 times more interest which suddenly is in all.

... If it weren't enough already ...

Ok this sounds like some x-feed tweak to me, but I can be entirely wrong.

For the health of the forum members i advise to release deatails asap. I can see some members igniting on pure anticipation. :)
I believe i am not worthy of this tweak yet since i am still breaking in my nos. :(

Regards, Coen

Ok, I'll soften things a bit;
That super wide stage is not in everything. I am not sure yet, but it seems that the fastest transients incur for it. And if they are not there, all is more "normal". The wall of sound remains.


Perfect ...

I have an audio pal who used a common cathode resistor and capacitor for botch channels on a simple tube amp, hereby implementing some x-feed per design. That amp sounded spacious as hell, complete psychedelic mushroom stuff.

If we are in the same territory i can imagine the 'trip'. Never got it working satisfactory in my setup though. I am not as gifted as my pal in getting these things to work. :(


Regards, Coen

But isn't this supposed to be a 'mechanical' tweak?

I've always thought that the best way of getting some crossfeed is to toe-in the speakers 'aggressively' way past the central listening position right towards the opposite wall. This way, if you're sitting in the centre, you'd get the direct sound coming from the speakers (from let's say 45 degrees off centre) mixed in with the reflected sound from the opposite wall. But I think this will only really be effective with speakers that focus/beam quite a lot. Oh, that makes horns and my Quads perfect!

Earl Geddes has some interesting thoughts on this: http://www.gedlee.com/

Would this count as a mechanical 'tweak' though?

Mani.

Ha ha, I had to wait a little and see you triple over this one.

I had some fun reading it, and made some fun out of it. Still my little phrase was correct ...


Perfect;

I managed to have expressed what I feel about "my tweak". It is exactly 100% the x-feed principle. But, as good that Coen discovered it. See ? NOSers have head starts for everything - burned in or not. :seeyou:

So, this is how the tweak behaves. Like indeed left and right are being mixed in a fast fashion. But, done at the electronics level.

1.
If this were true, it would mean that channel separation is not the best, while officially it is the very best (and audible by I think everyone). So, will it be that ? I don't think so.

2.
Is it then more likely that the information just is in the music data but it never came out before ? maybe.

3.
Or is is maybe so that the tweak incurs for just the other way around compared to the first option : it mixes the electronics (microphonically) and incurs for the effect ? This is what I have been thinking from the start.
But not anymore.

I go for option 2. But now the point is : this can't be the truth officially, or it will be beyond the whisdom.

If it is option 3, the mixing of L/R electronics, it can also be option 1, the specific music data being very well separated, the NOS1 making a "mess" of it, and the tweak makes it very OK again. But NOW the fun is : this can me measured. Well, theoretically. At least I have been thinking about a method which measures channel separation better, or at least by different means. So, the tweak should show a difference here, but at this moment I don't know of a means how (then) to differentiate between option 1 and 3.

If no difference can be shown, it must be option 2 or the measurement method doesn't work. :swoon::swoon:


But ...

Looking at Mani's last post, it is also easy to "see" that it may work some quite unexpectedly other way around;
The amount of "fullness" doesn't justify the NOT increase of standing waves. I mean, they should appear somewhere somehow, or otherwise I created myself a headroom for it which I didn't know about (it is only since the NOS1-USB that my last small proof of it disappeared). So, what if all got so much more straight hence beamed (!!) that now reflections can start working (more precisely) ?

My speakers are toed out. Beaming, say, 50cm along my ears. Those amongst you who know my situation, may get it that ~2.5m behind my listening position the beams cross.
Now, one of the things which happened, is that suddenly the sweetspot seems to be at that 2.5m-behind position. I know, because that's the position where I am when others listen (behind the bar). This seems strange - and related. Not sure how though, yet. And in addition : horns shouldn't be listened to on-axis, while now it just happens (at finding the sweetspot).

What also the most clearly happened, is that the listening position in the room highly matters. Not that it needs a sweetspot, but when I now walk in the back of the room in 90 degree angle compared to where the speakers are, the sound changes dramatically per step I take. This was not the case at all before.

This latter text, I think, implies a better beaming effect, while the straight beams incur for reflections which are almost as good (and loud !) as the early reflections, and now nicely mix in phase (maybe that "in phase" always happened, but the level of the reflections wasn't right).

Also see next post ...

SH*T

After typing the one before last sentence in the previous post, I suddenly realized that I read something about "it" this morning, which now seems to be a piece of the puzzle.
Yes, I read a lot, and I'm long from finished with it.

When wrongly applied, your mind can become in a state of, what to say ... wrongness ? This is my description of findings of others, and no "wrongness" is in there at all, but call it headache. Not so in my case. But my case ? after two beers I'm floored. Yes, I recall day before yesterday that I showed how I could not walk a straight line at all after two harmless beers. When I now think back ... this is from the time the tweak is in ... It got worse since day before yesterday when I tried to over-amplify the tweak (didn't seem to help for SQ).

Is it a mind thing afterall ? no. But sound can become too strange or something. This is what I dedicate to the massiveness which seems to "hurt" me (but which is not found so by the others here). And hey, didn't someone just talk about tripping ? well, the music itself really feels like that, or at least the music made for that seems to work out like intended. Not so before.

And really, after my normal amount of booze yesterday night, I couldn't speak one normal word anymore and went to bed at 10:30 (ok, pm).
Nothing for me, really.

So, a trip enhancer. Could be dangerous. Music does what music must do ? maybe.

Ok, let's cut this out for now. I must test more (and said so already).

Peter


PS: Coen, what is going on with you ? First you guessed my exact idea about this, and now you called it tripping which I did not mention and also didn't imply - plus I didn't know it myself. Only during the writing of this post I made the combination.
Anything else maybe ?

Well let's say that i sometimes suddenly get connected to the universal intelligence. Like finding the solution to that pita cryptogram when i am in a dull businessmeeting.

Just kidding. It must be my mind breaking in to the kharma of the nos1.

Oh....and there are a lot of hints in your posts of this thread though. ;)

Something else has intrigued me for a long time and that is why sometimes mono-ised stereo recordings (100% x-feed) exibit detail and substance that i never or hardly hear in full stereo. That observation would vote for option 2 imho.
Secondly let's not forget that lps (records) only have a very limited stereo separation (like 40db) and can sound super dense and spacious. Infact my tt setup sounded wider and deeper than my previous digital (before nos).

I guess it has to do with someting not being quite right in the stereo recording/mastering process and x-feed correcting for that.

My 2c on this matter.

Regards, Coen

P.s. It is great to learn that tripping is possible without tubes! :grin:

 

I am not so keen on telling about it, but you don't want to know how many times it happened to me that only into the third album or so it occurs to me that Sw#5 is in the wrong position (because of testing things), therewith showing the left channel through both speakers (which is rather mono-ish :yes:). And then I only notice because I know that third album, and from which channel what sound should come.
You can also say I'm deaf of course.

It is also audible because the highs sound grey-ish. Not clear.
But the spatiousness itself is still there. Just try it (Sw#5 Up, and leave all other the same). But do it as the first listening session for the day, or otherwise you already know the sound.

Okay, not knowing what "X-Feed" is I asked uncle google and got, among other things, this:

http://www.rock-grotto.co.uk/crossproject2.htm

Is this what you are talking about?

Looks like it, yes.
But remember, this is not what I am talking about at all.

When I get enthusiast ...

Eventhough I kind of physically measured it with hand-heels to eachother, opened by the angle which should approach the difference, I came to 30 degrees vs 90. Non-sense ! It's 60-65 degrees vs. 90.

Sorry !

Ok, my room is 8(W) x 12(L) x 3(H).

I just walked around with the SPL meter (actually because my wife keeps on complaining the music is too loud lately) and visited every spot and corner of the room. I used Hatfield's End for it, Revealing The Myth. SPL is 80dB EVERYWHERE. *If* there's an exception it is at those places outside of the speakers where the music seems to come from. A few dB louder there.
Only when the speakers (remember, horns here) are approached less than 2 meters there's an increase of maybe 2-3dB until 1 meter distance where I really should stop. So, say 83dB at the official measurement spot (which is 1 meter from the speaker) and 80dB at each and every spot or corner in the whole room, which, yes, is fairly large. High, low, everywhere.

Isn't this strange ...

Where I'm sitting right now, typing, I have a full stereo picture, which is at 8 meters from the left speaker, about half a meter outside of it.

It is true the sound is a tad too loud.
... which before was at 90dB ...

Peter


PeeeeeS:
I also notice that at the distance the SPL increases when approaching the speaker (which is at 2 meters) I loose the stereo picture. So, at 2 meters this is still very OK, while the other speaker is 6 meters away.

Right. With the feeling of hijacking this topic further and further (:sorry:) I now have something for you, you won't have heard of before. That is, I didn't even attempt Google to find out, so sure I am about this.

Will it be helpful for anything ? No. Totally useless. But it *is* something which seems the most strange at first, until you read my explanation about it; this will be in the last paragraph.

So ...

The "behind the bar" (see earlier post) is our kitchen. It is adjacent to the listening room and is part of the total space mentioned before. This means the smells of the kitchen will be in the (actually) living room. No problem, as long as the smells are good.
Today risotto was prepared, and this means a small fry of rise, next poored with cold bouillon. This gives a sort of heavy reaction in the frying pan with the by then frying rise. No worries, this is meant to be.

Although I didn't prepare this meal, I was in the kitchen area myself, just watching it. Nothing strange occurred, and all went OK. Smell ? no smell other than maybe unions which were fryed right before.

As happens so often, I walk towards the audio PC which is around some half-height wall; the end of it towards the kitchen is closed, so I have to walk to the other end of it, which is more near to the left speaker. Some 2 meters away from it. Behind that wall is the PC space (call that office in the living room) which by itself is 2 meters wide (and some 5 meters long). So, I walk around the back end of this wall to get to the audio PC's keyboard ...

Being just around the corner this smell came to me. A slight smell of something being overheated. Overfryed. I walked passed this area and the smell was gone. Walked into it again, and there it was again. So, after walking and "waving" through it for two times, I went to my wife (in the kitchen) and asked her to walk to the audio PC's keyboard and smell all the way. At the exact same place she stopped and says Hey !!

Let me tell you, I walk to that place back and forth maybe 20 times during a cooking session each day. Who cookes ? doesn't matter. This never happened before.

Inspired by my just half an hour back measuring the room for SPL, I thought to explicitly measure that area, which is about 1 square meter (where the smell was).

Of course I measured 4 dB "under" in exactly that area;

Last paragraph :
Immediately it is obvious to me that this small area must be under pressured. So, all air will flow to it, as will smells. But why this fairly explicit thinking, and this post anyway ?
Because the tweak I talk about is exactly about this. That I never noticed this can be a coincidence, but I don't believe it will be. Add to this, that this is just behind (in front of) the very same 1.5-2 meters in front of the speaker the sound springs from (and where I measured the somewhat higher SPL), and things start to work. What starts to work ? well, my control of it. Things become logic and measurable.
I think now I can setup some test signal (audible through the speakers, so it may not be a nice event), and tune it all in.

At first I missed this spot (with the SPL meter) because of course one can't measure each square inch so precicely. Also, normal music was playing which is very real, but not the most convenient for measuring obviously.
Now, what shall I do ? boil some love milk on the stove and start sniffing around ? the most smelling places should be conjunctures of added sound (but think standing waves). This follows from the story. But why so ? well, where the most air is, the most will sound expose ? seems logic too.

Energize the room eh ? same story in fact.
High general air pressure ? should be a good thing. Pump up the room ? looks good.

:bye:

Obsession!
I love it. I know it.
Try to tell your kids (3 and 6 years) what you are doing if you don't know what you are doing but know that what you are doing is absolutely right (although it might take some time to get where you are going, sometimes not knowing what goal you are heading to).
It took me month to dial in my system and right now I think I have to do it again. My daughter sometimes standing beside me, asking, Dad why did you touch the speaker? Because it changes the sound!
I am off working (consulting) with a smile on my face.
Don't stop!
Have a nice day
Claudius

Really I am all for a good measure of obsession - lets face it without it we would not have NOS (Netherlands Obsessive Supremo) he he.

Peter - I would be interested to know what the SPL levels look like sans upgrade (or have I missed that elsewhere?).

P

Yesterday I took the tweak out ande measured again. Different at all spots and the margin is 4dB in general, 6dB max.
Still measured with normal music playing, so maybe this is not reliable. Or maybe it just is.

But now the big surprise maybe :

I took out the tweak because I wanted to take it out.
Eh ...

The major problem I have with it is that I keep on thinking something is faked. Like the L/R fast crossing would be that.
Or maybe the major problem I have with it is that it seems I can't stand it.
Possibly the major problem I have with it is that I'm fairly sure the accuracy is debeted. Or that the sound isn't "my sound" anymore.

The whole room seems to be full with "standing waves". This is how it feels, this is how it hears. No change per spot, but a sort of "zooming" everywhere. An energy which doesn't belong. An amp which ain't right.

Maybe, just maybe the real problem is that the tweak has too many settings. Call it an infinite number of them. This, while without the real knowledge you could keep on changing settings forever, always thinking there might be a good one, while in the mean time you know things are - or feel wrong.
I am not like that. No time for it either.

In the mean time it must be so that I have lost the bet Paul. Now, are you going to give me a brand, or shall we select on the alcohol percentage (I recall that whisky can be up to close to 70%).

Sorry for the rumble,
Peter


PS: Maybe in a year's time I know how to deal with this.
:whistle:

Hey Peter,

Phew!!!!! - glad I did not send the Bybee's back.

I think we are talking a nice Single Malt perhaps one with peaty overtones ha ha.

Actually its the first time I have ever not wanted to win a "bet" hopefully you can prove me wrong in a year's time !!!!!!!!! who knows.

But your posts got me thinking about room pressurisation and I  made an interesting discovery about speaker positioning I will make a separate post later.

All the best

Paul