?

Sa-dono · « **Reply #40 on:** 23 Sep 2003, 01:25 am »

Quote from: satfrat

Ok guys, I gotta fess up. ....I WAS WRONG, Bybee`s DO roll the highs off, no doubt about it. Hantra and others, ya`all was right, I was dead wrong.

"WHOOOAH!" (<---Keanu Reeves impression)

I never thought I'd see the day where satfrat would say this

Thanks for fessing up satfrat! Glad you enjoyed Bill's setup. Keep us updated on what you think once you receive your speakers

John Casler · « **Reply #41 on:** 23 Sep 2003, 04:33 am »

I'm currently open to the Bybees in the power line since this is before the electrons are translated and become frequency impulses.

I guess I'm looking for "raw power" filtration, balance and treatment, but not after the signal has been formed and transmitted.

Should have a Bybee equipped unit to play with this week.

Hope the ears are up to the task.

Xi-Trum · « **Reply #42 on:** 23 Sep 2003, 12:44 pm »

Quote from: john curl

However, they don't always do 'good' for the audio signal. Jack Bybee accepts this, so should everyone else.

If Jack Bybee agrees, who are we to argue?!

Quote from: satfrat

Bybee`s DO roll the highs off

Thanks for confirming my (and others') impessions. Such roll off takes away the liveliness of the music. As I said, it does have its positive attributes. It essentially comes down to personal preference. It's one of those things that people should try to see if it works for them.

chuck josephson · « **Reply #43 on:** 23 Sep 2003, 02:15 pm »

Quote from: Hantra

Don't be so quick to laugh. Those of you who think that cable resonance is a joke are discounting many fundamental principals of basic physics.

As a matter of fact, the smartest guy I have ever met in my life actually told me on the phone once to go and get some Ace bandages and wrap my speaker cables tightly.

He was right. That got rid of MANY of the issues I was having with the cable getting confused at complex passages.

So don't discount it, and laugh about it until you give it some basic thought.

B

I have been preaching wire dampening for 20 years and nobody has ever been interested,although they are spending thousands of dollars on wires.Where is the intelligence?The results are amazing .I have pictures of my methods in Gallery.Speaker wires can be
covered by a rug.

audiojerry · « **Reply #44 on:** 23 Sep 2003, 02:58 pm »

Quote

I WAS WRONG, Bybee`s DO roll the highs off, no doubt about it. Hantra and others, ya`all was right, I was dead wrong. BUT, and this is where Bill & I differ, I liked my Ridge Street better and I felt that the rolloff was an easy tradeoff for everything else that this cable did.

Tradeoff is an excellent way of putting it. Most everything we do in building a system requires tradeoff's and compromises. Choosing tubes may trade off accuracy for liqudity. Choosing solid state maye trade off midrange bloom for bass slam.

In the case of choosing a Bybee filter in the analog signal path, maybe the trade off is to remove high frequency artifacts generated by things such as rfi, spurious noises amplified by the feedback loop, digital jitter errors, etc, in exchange for loss of some resolution.

As a system becomes more resolving, the potential for introducing audible artifacts not part of the recording is increased. I think a lot of these artifacts are sometimes mis-interpreted by listeners as "air" or "detail". Bybee's probably can remove some of this "false" data. In a way, Bybee's might result in making one's system less hi-rez.

If you can cure the cause of the artifacts, such as by using cleaner power filtration, better rfi rejection, better d-to-a conversion, etc, the use of Bybee's might be a detriment rather than an asset.

I dunno

Psychicanimal · « **Reply #45 on:** 23 Sep 2003, 03:12 pm »

Dan Wright's mod to my Swans mini-monitors included four Bybees per his suggestion. I am not going to have them desoldered in order to A/B their effectiveness.

What I do know is that Dan has told me that they do not work in some systems/applications but that most people do like them. My system is not state of the art in terms of resolution, si I figure the Bybees soldered at the drivers are doing overall good. Again, I would not tamper with an inline application in an IC/digital cable. Lak has the plug in versions for interconnects and--if Im correct--for the speakers. I will ask for his input, as his system is highly resolving.

Tyson · « **Reply #46 on:** 23 Sep 2003, 04:44 pm »

I suppose that's the nice thing about tunable speakers - I just bump up the tweeter control if I feel something is rolling off the highs

I have bybee's everywhere in my system, and I've got the overall sound tuned to exactly my preference.

audiojerry · « **Reply #47 on:** 23 Sep 2003, 06:03 pm »

Quote from: Tyson

I suppose that's the nice thing about tunable speakers - I just bump up the tweeter control if I feel something is rolling off the highs I have bybee's everywhere in my system, and I've got the overall sound tuned to exactly my preference.

That is a nice option to have, but I think it's an example of another trade-off, unless your tweeter configuration is such that you have more than one tweeter covering different frequency ranges. By increasing the tweeter output to compensate for the Bybee's loss of resolution, you may be increasing the output over a frequency range that includes far more than the undesirable artifacts, which could result in an unbalanced situation with the other drivers. This may then force you to compensate the output of the other drivers by adjusting their level controls, which could become a pretty daunting endeavor.

Then again, multiple driver speakers represent another form of tradeoff because of crossover/coherency obstacles, but the tradeoff is for a speaker that can handle a wider dynamic and frequency range.

I'm not claiming I can hear it myself, because I've never attempted to try, but some purists say that having a potentiometer type level control in the signal path degrades transparency. In fact, Brian of VMPS recommended replacing the potentiometers in my RM2's with appropriate value resistors once I had the level controls tuned the way I wanted. I'm not sure how this would have worked, but I never had them long enough to experiment.

oops, getting off topic, I'm sure

nathanm · « **Reply #48 on:** 23 Sep 2003, 06:33 pm »

Quote from: audiojerry

That is a nice option to have, but I think it's an example of another trade-off, unless your tweeter configuration is such that you have more than one tweeter covering different frequency ranges. By increasing the tweeter output to compensate for the Bybee's loss of resolution, you may be increasing the output over a frequency range that includes far more than the undesirable artifacts, which could result in an unbalanced situation with the other drivers.

That would be true unless of course the listener thought the overall sound was tuned exactly to his preferences.

People get so paranoid about having controls. Adjustability is a GOOD thing. One pot, if it allows you to tweak the sound the way you want, is a good thing. The real trade off is having NO parameters to adjust whatsoever. That's why tone controls are stigmatized, cause of this paranoia about a single piece of electronics in the chain. Nobody could possibly design a good, "transparent" tone control or volume pot. Everything else is possible, but whoah a tone control - oh man that is beyond the ability of any electronics designer!

I don't get it. Maybe Jack Bybee should design a potentiometer so it could have the audiophiles' blessing?

Psychicanimal · « **Reply #49 on:** 23 Sep 2003, 06:47 pm »

Quote from: audiojerry

By increasing the tweeter output to compensate for the Bybee's loss of resolution, you may be increasing the output over a frequency range that includes far more than the undesirable artifacts, which could result in an unbalanced situation with the other drivers.

Quote from: nathanm

People get so paranoid about having controls. Adjustability is a GOOD thing.

jqp · « **Reply #50 on:** 23 Sep 2003, 07:05 pm »

Quote from: john curl

Folks, I have been with Jack Bybee, when the devices even failed to give improved sound quality in the POWER LINE. INLINE is a lot more intimate. Let's get down to basics. First, most people think that Bybees are a fake, and do nothing at all. But, of course, they do, do something! This is not easily measurable, trust me, I have some of the best equipment available. However, they don't always do 'good' for the audio signal. Jack Bybee accepts this, so should everyone else.

Quote from: satfrat

Ok guys, I gotta fess up. Today, I met a fellow AC member, Billatlakegeorge and listened to his system,,, SWEEET. He had Parasound amp (A52), processor(C2), tuner, and Onix Reference 2 speakers. He also had a digital cable made up by Alan Maher utilizing Shakti. The sound was crystal clear with ultra sweet highs. I brought along my Ridge Street Digital Link with 2 Bybee`s as a goodwill gesture and of course, we compared. We also differed in our opinions, mainly preference, but there was one thing we agreed on. I WAS WRONG, Bybee`s DO roll the highs off, no doubt about it. Hantra and others, ya`all was right, I was dead wrong. BUT, and this is where Bill & I differ, I liked my Ridge Street better and I felt that the rolloff was an easy tradeoff for everything else that this cable did. There seemed to be more body to my cable with a deeper soundstage and just more balance thruout the whole range with the Ridge Street w/Bybee`s whereas Bill`s Shaki cable was definitely crystal clear on the highs but the sound was very localized. Bill felt different about it as he likes everything well defined. This is all personal preference and we both agreed that these were two VERY GOOD digital cables. But I did feel I needed to state for te record that I was sorely mistaken about this Bybee rolloff on the highs. But theres no way in hell that you`ll see any of my Bybee adapters up for sale anytime soon. This could all change once I get my new Lorelei`s tho? Regards, Robin

I am seeing audio history being made!

I have not heard bybees or ferrites, just read about them. These comments are interesting and seem to confirm my understanding of what is going on.

chuck josephson · « **Reply #51 on:** 23 Sep 2003, 07:20 pm »

Quote from: Psychicanimal

I do not know about that particular application (inline filtration in a digital cable) but that's something I would not tamper with. The Bybees are polishers and should be used as such. In order for a polisher to work effectively one must first do coarse and medium grade filtration: common mode noise, transverse mode noise. It is then when the polishig becomes noticeable and much appreciated. I have Bybees soldered to all four drivers of my mini monitors and when I send my transport for modding ...

would bybees help on transparent
reference cables which already have a network?

Psychicanimal · « **Reply #52 on:** 23 Sep 2003, 07:33 pm »

Quote from: chuck josephson

would bybees help on transparent
reference cables which already have a network?

Chuck,

I e-mailed Lak asking for his input on the subject matter.

nathanm · « **Reply #53 on:** 23 Sep 2003, 08:15 pm »

Quote from: Psychicanimal

Quote from: audiojerry
By increasing the tweeter output to compensate for the Bybee's loss of resolution, you may be increasing the output over a frequency range that includes far more than the undesirable artifacts, which could result in an unbalanced situation with the other drivers.

Quote from: nathanm
People get so paranoid about having controls. Adjustability is a GOOD thing.

Erm, I'm not quite sure what the point of this "reply" is, Psych.

audiojerry · « **Reply #54 on:** 23 Sep 2003, 08:25 pm »

?????
Nathan wrote:

Quote

People get so paranoid about having controls. Adjustability is a GOOD thing. One pot, if it allows you to tweak the sound the way you want, is a good thing. The real trade off is having NO parameters to adjust whatsoever. That's why tone controls are stigmatized, cause of this paranoia about a single piece of electronics in the chain.

Actually, "anal" might be a better adjective than "paranoid".

Nathan, where should we draw the line between paranoia and concern?
How many user adjustments and additives can you have before it has any negative audible effect? Adjustments on the amp, preamp, cd player, speakers?

Let me ask you this? With a 3 way speaker, which is better: 3 potentiometers controlling the level of each driver, or a 3 way electronic crossover with no passive crossover devices? If you believe one is better than the other, then I suggest that you may be a little paranoid because you think that you could hear a difference.

Taking it a step further, is it possible that a lot of folks think that both alternatives affect the final result, and that it may either be beneficial or detrimental?

Of course, if you can't hear any difference, then you are correct in your representation of the views of those who share your perspective.

Same goes for the recording process. Look at how many ways recording "engineers" can now "adjust" and "shape" the sound to their liking. I'm sure they think they are making it better. But, what someone think sounds good is a personal bias.

JohnR · « **Reply #55 on:** 23 Sep 2003, 09:43 pm »

Quote from: nathanm

Quote from: Psychicanimal
Quote from: audiojerry
By increasing the tweeter output to compensate for the Bybee's loss of resolution, you may be increasing the output over a frequency range that includes far more than the undesirable artifacts, which could result in an unbalanced situation with the other drivers.

Quote from: nathanm
People get so paranoid about having controls. Adjustability is a GOOD thing.

Erm, I'm not quite sure what the point of this "reply" is, Psych.

It's the latest fashion! Double-quoting is the new black! Double-quoting without answering is even hipper!! It's enigmatic, mysterious, and removes all necessity for the messy (and now, of course, unfashionable) business of articulating an actual thought! Get with it Brother Nate!!

nathanm · « **Reply #56 on:** 23 Sep 2003, 10:17 pm »

Jerry, this has nothing to do with who can hear differences or not. I am merely speaking in a broad sense about the "anal" aversion amongst the hifi crowd to such things as rotary controls which allow a continuous range of adjustment, whatever that may be. It seems that people think if it's a potentiometer then it must be "bad" and detrimental to the sound. I'm just saying that as Tyson said, his speaker has a simple tweak which allows adjustment of the driver. Whatever minor sonic degradation the device itself may or may not be causing seems overshadowed by the fact that this simple device allows a quick and easy adjustment to suit the listener's taste. If I think, "Hey it sounds a little rolled off" I'd rather adjust a pot than pull out the soldering iron.

I am also suggesting that it seems funny how nobody could possibly design a pot that doesn't completely annihilate fidelity. Designer caps, resistors and wires will pass scrutiny, but why not pots? It just seems odd.

Quote

Same goes for the recording process. Look at how many ways recording "engineers" can now "adjust" and "shape" the sound to their liking. I'm sure they think they are making it better. But, what someone think sounds good is a personal bias.

Of course! Which is why I am suggesting that adjustability is favorable rather than being stuck with a one trick pony.

Quote

How many user adjustments and additives can you have before it has any negative audible effect? Adjustments on the amp, preamp, cd player, speakers?

Well for the most part modern hifi gear has NONE of that stuff! In lieu of this people seem to switch gear every 2 months looking for the sound they want when perhaps all they needed was a little nudge here and there to the freqency balance, maybe? If Bybees roll off the highs perhaps there could be an [i[adjustable[/i] Bybee that swings it the opposite direction? All I am saying is that I would rather have flexibility and adjustment than none at all.

Tyson · « **Reply #57 on:** 23 Sep 2003, 10:45 pm »

True dat, after I got the 40's and a good matching amp/pre (van alstine), I stopped buying new gear for my 2 channel system. It's nice to be off the upgrade merry-go-round.

John Casler · « **Reply #58 on:** 24 Sep 2003, 12:26 am »

Quote

If Bybees roll off the highs perhaps there could be an "adjustable" Bybee that swings it the opposite direction?

I think all you have to do is reverse it, as in, run it backwards, and it "adds" rather than subtracts.

Well it sounds reasonable anyhow

jqp · « **Reply #59 on:** 24 Sep 2003, 01:29 am »

Quote from: Tyson

True dat, after I got the 40's and a good matching amp/pre (van alstine), I stopped buying new gear for my 2 channel system. It's nice to be off the upgrade merry-go-round.

Yeah Tyson I really believe you are off the upgrade merry-go-round