Cable vs. Electronics: biggest bang for the buck

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.

Asa : Guess I disagree.

you say >”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?”

Well, for openers I just do not understand the first paragraph. A “Newtonian” explanation will not speak to the molecular/quantum distinctions you make in the first part of the sentence so really I don't see what you mean. Newton had no clue what an electron was much less molecular-quantum distinctions did he?

More basically, components do more than LOOK different. It's not about “appearance.”
They DO different things. Some complex - Some not so complex. It's all technology but at different levels. You say “it's all matter and its all passing energy.” ( So are you and I , are we no different than a wire?) Well yes, but a lot more is true too. A wire's job, for the most part, is simply to “pass energy” as you put it. A signal goes in one end and should go out the other. Unchanged. It does not have to transduce it like a driver or amplify it like a tube circuit. A driver must transform energy from electric charge to magnetic energy then to mechanical energy then to acoustic energy. Each transformation requires distortion and presents special problems. A tube, driver and a wire are all components -- but one has a relatively easy job to do and one has a far more complex one to do.

I know (or they tell us) at some quantum level we and all around us are the exact same. But for purposes of audio and everyday life a failure to see the differences in 18 inches of wire and an amp's circuit topology is simply amazing to me. Even in Physics (as currently understood) the laws that explain big things (gravity) do not apply to or fully explain small things (quantum physics.) Your attempt to explain away all of the differences in everyday life based upon things that apply to tiny quantum worlds seems a madness if you ask me. It's like deciding to walk out in front of a car because at a “fundamental quantum-molecular level” the car and you are basically the same star dust and almost entirely empty space. Unfortunately you’ll be dead.

In any event, I think the differences are more than "irrelevant variables" and the issue is not that they are "different looking forms" of some fundamental single micro reality but that they function very differently and have very different levels of complexity in the world in which we live. Anyone who has tried to make a cable and an amp circuit can tell you. See Sean's point above.

> “wire and amps are ***** in their fundamental nature, are no different for purposes of comparison.” Again this argument proves to much. From a micro genetic point of view you could probably say that a mouse and a lion are the same in their “fundamental nature.” That being the case, it’s a fool who does not see the differences in them for practical purposes.

IMHO, Your focus on the similarities of objects (abstraction/generalization) at one level (usually the micro) has caused you too lose site of the more important differences that do not fall within your chosen categories of abstraction. Abstraction is dangerous that way. It tends to emphasize the similar and ignore the particular and individual. (I have to laugh; I'm starting to talk like you)

Sincerely
I remain

Sean: yea, I agree. Wire is over-priced. If you can make it yourself and be happy with the result why in heavans would anyone pay someone else lots of money? Makes sense to me.

Clueless: thank you for the effort of your response. Actually I agree with most everything you say. You assume a difference because you make an assumption about what I said that is, er, fundamentally misplaced. I never said that applications of method and observation don't change as symmetries of complexity in matter arrangement change. Of course they do; everyone knows that. What I said was that when applying empiric parameters to varying levels of matter complexity, those attached to scientific materialist assumptions tend to categorize those varying levels not on complexity, or an empiric application of method to that complexity, but rather, limit the categories that can even be compared in the first instance (amp vs. wire) by categorizing wire-matter as something fundamentally different; so different that wire is not "technology" or a "component" and that anybody who receognizes this bias hiding behind abstractions is being un-scientific. We see this all the time in wire vs. amp discussions. Essentially, an assumptive bias runs throughout the relation of science and empiric method and technology that says that as complexity of the rearrangement increases (tools as rearranged matter work in concert, ie. a "machine") then, that rearrangement becomes more technolog-ic, and from that assumption, that the more complex rearrangement is "better". This then cascades into the reductionist assumption that the now "lesser" complex tool is too be dispensed in the categorization (wire is no longer a "component") which allows a complete reduction in its consideration. In other words, the discussion begins with an underlying assumption that wire is not "technologic" in any way and that those arguing from the contrary vantage are somehow being less "scientific" or empirically rigorous. None of this, of course, means that matter that manifests through our rearrangement into varying "complexities" does not respond to the application of scientific empiric method in differrnt ways.

However, I will note that, psychologically speaking, many people who are attached to scientific assumptions that negate matter rearrangement (tools/technology) that are less complex, are also the same people who invariably assume that anyone citing that bias must be also saying that there are not any differences of application to varying symmetries of complexity, even though one may have never said that. In other words, if one cites the categorization bias above, then those attached to defending that bias always seem to come in and say that you are saying that all rearrangement is radically relative, when that was never said at all. That you did this may be a point of reflection...

On "Newtonian" etc., not enough space here. If you want to talk more on this, please contact me directly and I will respond. My name is Mark Bucksath. Again, thank you for your reasoned, well thought response; it was nice to see.