Cable vs. Electronics: biggest bang for the buck

BWhite, I can't say anything about the sound yet...I don't have my speakers and I'll get them fully modded. There's no way I can isolate the efect created by the Bybees unless I sart playing surgeon. The Bybees were the first thing Dan installed on my speakers, FWIW. The gear used with the final audition is described in the thread "Modwright Swans M1", if you're interested in seeing what was used. Definitely not state of the art, but definitely along the lines of what I'll be using...

What you explained about expanded sountage does make sense and I have experienced it when comparing the Absolute Power cord to the Tice PC3. The Absolute's soundstage is smaller yet the sound is more accurate than the Tice's.

Dan placed one of my Tice interconnects between his DAC and preamp and liked it because it is "dark" and was a good companion to the extremely detailed high frequency response of the modded Swans.

I don't plan to upgrade to another speaker or amp or anything major in my audio train (except for another Melos w/ more than the three inputs my SHA-1 has & an ART Di/O, no hurry), so if it sounds good, so be it. That's why I have a modded 1200...I just want to *play* records.

I would like to hear what Dan has to say about this, though.

Thanks a lot Phychicanimal.

I have found that the Bybee filters do give the impression of 'darkening' the sound as a lot of HF hash and distortion is eliminated. I feel, after having listened with them in a number of different applications, that the effect is very good.

It is my belief that with digital, impure power, etc., that we have become accustomed to certain amounts of distortion, hash and 'noise' in our systems. When this is removed in varying degrees, some may interpret this as a lack of detail or a 'darkening' of the sound. I find just the opposite, as the noise floor is lowered, I feel the music is better able to flow and the result is much more musical in my opinion.

The Bybee filters are completely non-reactive, so they are not actually 'filtering' the frequency responce in terms of a passive device of an LCR nature.

In the case of the Swan speakers in question, the tweeters are VERY detailed and I feel that the Bybee filters do them a HUGE service in terms of removing distortion and 'noise' byproducts that would otherwise be glaringly obvious from the speakers.

I hope this helps. I do represent the Bybee products, so you may evaluate my findings and advice as you wish. I can't claim to be 100% objective, any more than can anyone else, but I will say that I am honest about what I hear and how I interpret the information.

Thanks,

Dan W.

I don't want to drift back into something, but can someone explain to me something that I've never understood.

How can anyone who is interested in "scientific" explanations somehow differentiate one technology from another based entirely on irrelevant variables. In other words, both a piece of wire and an amp are just pieces of matter rearranged into different LOOKING forms, both which pass energy (music signal) through a lattice of molecular/atomic/quantum energy which we choose to call "matter". If you are a true scientific person, then how can you say one rearrangement of matter is the "source" and another is the mere conduit for that source, as if one appearance is somehow inherently more important than another? In a Newtonian way, how are they different?

These discussions always go on and on because a fundamental bias of one side is not recognized, namely, the categorization of one type of rearranged matter (amp) as "technology" and another type of rearranged matter (wire) as, somehow, not technolog-ic. So, am I to believe that amp-matter passing energy is different than wire-matter passing energy? To contend so, merely on surface appearance, is truly un-scientific.

I know it sounds like I'm trying to be abstract, but actually there is nothing more simple: It's all matter and its all passing energy; the "source" is the voice; the source of that voice is the mind; wire and amps are conduits of that mind and, in their fundamental nature, are no different for purposes of comparison (which is where every empiric observation begins).

If you believe that amp-matter is more of a "component" than wire-matter, then you are engaged in an irrational bias. All viewpoints which thereafter proceed from this irrationality are, inherently, irrationally premised.

Nothing is more logical than that.

Asa: I think you're right. The whole system must be engineered correctly, amps, wires, speakers, everything. There is materials and electronics science behind the design of a good cable. However there are two issues upon which I currently refuse to buy high end cables:

1) I believe I can make my own wires that are 99% as good for 5% of the cost and in very little time. If I thought I could do the same with amps, CD players, speakers etc then I'd make these as well.

2) IMHO mega-buck cables can't possibly justify their cost in terms of R&D and/or materials. Amplifiers, CD players and speakers come somewhat closer to justifying their cost in terms of R&D and materials. In other word, I suspect they're a scam. The materials cost ... well go look at a military surplus wire site ... good wire doesn't cost so much (OFC, silver plated, PTFE etc etc). As for R&D, well just how many variables can there be ? Resistance, capacitance, inductance. Low C interconnects, low L speaker cables. It's not rocket science.