[Stu Pitt]

Its really no surpise to me that the B60 didn't sound too great with the Dyns.  The Special 25 are too difficult a load for it.

The B60 is a great amp, but it has its limits.

[rob80b]

This guy Whitehouse was in denial too:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine_communications_cable#Bandwidth_problems

After 200 years we should know better.

Nap. 

Hi Nap

Maybe if we are sending our signals great distances…..
Yes there are differences in cables, in the sixties and seventies cables were so bad they acted as antennas and hum was quite often a problem, although this can also be attributed to the design of the components in terms of noise reduction.
If the cable is competently constructed, therefore good connectors and assembly with proper shielding the electrical signal between components should be complete, balanced cables take care of the problems associated with long runs.

But the on going debate and this will probably go on for ever  , is that different cables attribute to a system sounding different, smoother, grainier, better depth, sound stage you name it; on any given day our perception can be quite different and then we get in the area of  psychoacoustics which is huge.

Robert

[Napalm]

Hi Nap
Maybe if we are sending our signals great distances….

Hi Robert,

I agree with that, I was using the jester sign 

I normally have no objection against someone mentioning how he can change sound with 15 feet speaker cables.

But a what, 1/2 inch long pre-in pre-out shunt? wow, they must have some really special ears....

So here I come with 

Nap.

[rob80b]

Its really no surpise to me that the B60 didn't sound too great with the Dyns.  The Special 25 are too difficult a load for it.

The B60 is a great amp, but it has its limits.

Hi Stu

Unlike most Dynaudio speakers the 25s are actual quite an easy load unlike my 1.3MKs, problem is they are so damned revealing.
Given time I'm going to try the combo again, there should not be that big a difference, both preamps are very similar and the amp in the B60, though it does not have Bryston’s Quad… Comp…does have the current transistors and should sound much smoother and sweater than it did, more so than the 4B within its limits.

Robert

[rob80b]

Hi Robert,

But a what, 1/2 inch long pre-in pre-out shunt? wow, they must have some really special ears....

So here I come with 

Nap.

Thanks Nap

You made me think of the most obvious culprit, which I overlooked.
This B60 was acquired from a studio and was in pretty bad shape cosmetically, probably sat through hours if not years of smoke, beer fumes etc. Both the volume and input selectors are noisy and should be cleaned or replaced so I can imagine those shunts, which I completely forgot to clean.
Oxidization is one of the most detrimental contributors to bad sound and if not air-tight all connections should be cleaned once in a while, this could also apply to the modular boards in Bryston amps.
I’m almost convinced now that this could have contributed to the irritability of the upper frequencies, which are the first victims of dirty connections. I’ll give the B60 another whirl, expecting the best.

Robert

[rob80b]

Thanks Nap

You made me think of the most obvious culprit, which I overlooked.
This B60 was acquired from a studio and was in pretty bad shape cosmetically, probably sat through hours if not years of smoke, beer fumes etc. Both the volume and input selectors are noisy and should be cleaned or replaced so I can imagine those shunts, which I completely forgot to clean.
Oxidization is one of the most detrimental contributors to bad sound and if not air-tight all connections should be cleaned once in a while, this could also apply to the modular boards in Bryston amps.
I’m almost convinced now that this could have contributed to the irritability of the upper frequencies, which are the first victims of dirty connections. I’ll give the B60 another whirl, expecting the best.

Robert

Now that I think about it, given the premises stated above, I think any conclusions from my review in the first post should be put on hold.

Robert

[94cdnm3]

Hey I was trying to be helpful with the jumper replacement suggestion but so be it if you don't want to try it out just to be sure. It is so simple and so easy to do if you have a set of quality interconnects lying around but cheers anyways!

[rob80b]

Hey I was trying to be helpful with the jumper replacement suggestion but so be it if you don't want to try it out just to be sure. It is so simple and so easy to do if you have a set of quality interconnects lying around but cheers anyways!

Hi 94cdnm3 (love some of these names, sometimes I feel like I'm addressing a computer, second thought maybe I am)

Looked at the jumpers, hard to tell if there is copper under the gold coating or just bent steel (not as good a conductor as copper) so I'll try your suggestion, I've got some 10" Audioquest Quartz RCAs laying around.

Robert

I've asked James http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=80951

[94cdnm3]

Sounds good,let us know if you hear a difference. I know I did. Cheers!

[rob80b]

Looked at the jumpers, hard to tell if there is copper under the gold coating or just bent steel (not as good a conductor as copper) so I'll try your suggestion, I've got some 10" Audioquest Quartz RCAs laying around.

Robert

I've asked James http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=80951

"Engineering - tells me the jumpers are gold plated brass.

james"

So an all copper jumper or quality interconnect may indeed improve performance, I'd say the quality of the connection between preamp and amp is fairly critical.

Robert

[Stu Pitt]

The length is pretty short in the pre-out/main -in loop, so I'd guess that differences between jumpers and materials would almost be negligable.  Corrosion/oxidation would obviously have an effect though, hence different materials?

The main reason why there'd be better performance is due to shielding, IMO.  The exposed metal jumpers seem to me like they had the potential to act like an antenna for EMI and/or RFI.

I use the Audioquest jumpers that cost about $25.  Made a difference in my system.  Mainly, it sounded cleaner.

I'm not expert, so take my ideas as you will.

[rob80b]

The length is pretty short in the pre-out/main -in loop, so I'd guess that differences between jumpers and materials would almost be negligable.  Corrosion/oxidation would obviously have an effect though, hence different materials?

The main reason why there'd be better performance is due to shielding, IMO.  The exposed metal jumpers seem to me like they had the potential to act like an antenna for EMI and/or RFI.

I use the Audioquest jumpers that cost about $25.  Made a difference in my system.  Mainly, it sounded cleaner.

I'm not expert, so take my ideas as you will.

Hi Stu,

I'll take a look at those, no sense adding anything longer.
Also as James mentioned the jumpers are gold platted brass, which I understand is about 20% less or more in terms of conductivity than pure copper.

Thanks for the tip.

Robert

[Stu Pitt]

I don't think gold is used for its conductive properties.  Im pretty sure copper is actually a better conductor.  Copper oxidizes/corrodes easily, which decreases it's performance.  I guess gold is a better conductor than oxidized copper. 

From what I understand, gold plating is used on exposed areas for it's anti-oxidizing properties.  It's the best blend of conductor and anti-oxidation. 

Silver is reportedly the best conductor, but oxidizes quicker than the rest, decreasing it's performance.  If you can keep up with the tarnishing, it's probably the best choice.  People have varying opinions on which metal sounds better though. 

[Napalm]

People have varying opinions on which metal sounds better though.

Rumors has it that the golden ears can even hear the difference between different silver isotopes. Radiogenic Ag-107 from the Santa Clara meteorite is said to be the absolutely best. 

Nap. 

[vegasdave]

Rumors has it that the golden ears can even hear the difference between different silver isotopes. Radiogenic Ag-107 from the Santa Clara meteorite is said to be the absolutely best. 

Nap.