You are not logged in. [Log In]

Forums » General Discussion » Home Theater » Bryston vs Axiom Amps

Page 6 of 7 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 >
Topic Options
Rate This Topic
#330396 - 12/04/10 11:00 PM Re: Bryston vs Axiom Amps [Re: tomtuttle]
ClubNeon Offline

Registered: 02/06/09
Posts: 3466
Loc: Western Maryland, USA
Originally Posted By: tomtuttle
Chris, I don't understand why/how those Brian Florian cables the John linked could be "worse" than regular 12 gauge. Can you simple it down for me?

I don't think I had 12 gauge worth of wire, more like 20 (or thinner). I think that was the only reason things sounded worse.
Pioneer PDP-5020FD, Marantz SR6011
Axiom M5HP, VP160HP, QS8
Sony PS4, surround backs

#330399 - 12/04/10 11:06 PM Re: Bryston vs Axiom Amps [Re: ClubNeon]
Wid Offline

Registered: 06/22/03
Posts: 6789
Loc: The Peoples Republic of Il.

I use wires (14/4) like in the article Jakeman posted. The main reason for buying them was the wire was cheaper than regular 12/2 inwall. I paid a whole $.25 per foot for it.

"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity." Sigmund Freud

#330408 - 12/04/10 11:43 PM Re: Bryston vs Axiom Amps [Re: JohnK]
jakeman Offline

Registered: 10/03/05
Posts: 853
Loc: Toronto
If you got those followup articles in pdf format John I would like to read them.

Actually one of the main physical differences over 11awg cable, which I've found to be important for speaker cabling, is the use of twisted pairs found in 14/4 inwall wire. Its a feature which distinguishes it from a straight pair of parallel conductors and or course sets it apart from plain zip cord. The conductor pair reduced inductance while twisting the pair cancels out radiation from external sources such as EMF and also minimizes RF. I laugh to myself about the $700 which a pal of mine recently paid for a pair of 8ft Auditorium 23 speaker cables. Once you pull back the covering all they are are 16/4 twisted pairs with one solid conductor and one stranded conductor. Davis would not have approved of the solid conductor. The only other difference, as Rick suggested, is mine cost $675 less.

The connector can also have an electrical impact. The Ultralink connectors mentioned do the job though there are many other well constructed connectors available. I currently use Nakamichi connectors because they are relatively inexpensive and well made. All in, the DIY 14/4 twisted pairs plus connectors are very close and often less than the cost of zip cord so why not enjoy the extra potential benefits.

On the Canare wire, I like them as well because their construction is like the 14/4 inwall with more shielding. However I don't like that they are alot more expensive and offer no sonic improvement over the 14/4 in-wall in my systems.

Zip cord perform well, though I find the DIY twisted pairs tend to adapt better to more systems especially in downtown cities, condos or apartment buildings.
How much of the attributes mentioned above can be heard is very much speaker/amp dependent and environment dependent so don't be surprised if YMV.

#330409 - 12/04/10 11:57 PM Re: Bryston vs Axiom Amps [Re: jakeman]
JohnK Offline
shareholder in the making

Registered: 05/11/02
Posts: 10623
No, John; I have the magazines. Again, all my studies and personal experience over the years indicate that the small measurable differences which instruments far more sensitive than our ears can detect have no audible significance. Reports of contrary listening results abound, of course, but attempts to provide credible evidence of this by way of properly controlled double blind tests have failed.

Enjoy the music, not the equipment.

#330410 - 12/05/10 12:11 AM Re: Bryston vs Axiom Amps [Re: JohnK]
jakeman Offline

Registered: 10/03/05
Posts: 853
Loc: Toronto
Understood John which is why I'm not a fan of paying up for audio jewllery like expensive cables.

On the other hand it is possible that a cable with a certain combination of electrical properties can interact with varying speakers and amps in a way such that sound changes in a room either through phase shift or amplitude response. Whether that difference is an improvement or not is a different story. My approach like Colin Miller's in the article is to keep the signal as neutral as possible and not worry about it.

I'll try and dig up those old articles elsewhere.

#330463 - 12/05/10 03:44 PM Re: Bryston vs Axiom Amps [Re: jakeman]
fredk Offline

Registered: 12/06/07
Posts: 7786
Loc: Canada
Just for the record, those arsenic based bacteria still make some use of phosphates, so their effect on speaker cable will be minimal. Just an observational factoid...

Blujays1: Spending Fred's money one bottle at a time, no two... Oh crap!

#330470 - 12/05/10 04:49 PM Re: Bryston vs Axiom Amps [Re: fredk]
ihifi Offline

Registered: 10/06/06
Posts: 280
Loc: CT
It's a fact that this thread has been evolving far and wide from the original topic... naturally smile
Our HT

#330517 - 12/06/10 04:46 AM Re: Bryston vs Axiom Amps [Re: ihifi]
mpyw Offline

Registered: 07/24/09
Posts: 287
Loc: Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
what's the topic all about, again?

#330519 - 12/06/10 08:51 AM Re: Bryston vs Axiom Amps [Re: mpyw]
bridgman Offline

Registered: 08/25/04
Posts: 6068
Loc: Bowmanville, Ontario, Canada
Speaker cables and arsenic-based life. And something about amplifiers.
M60ti/VP180/QS8/M2ti, SVS PC-Plus 20-39, EP500
M5HP, Sierra-1, M40ti
M3v4, VP100

#330521 - 12/06/10 10:02 AM Re: Bryston vs Axiom Amps [Re: bridgman]
pmbuko Offline
shareholder in the making

Registered: 04/02/03
Posts: 16437
Loc: Ben Lomond, California
I know all the headlines have been saying it, but the bacteria discovered in Mono lake are not "arsenic-based" life forms. It's just that they can use arsenic in place of phosphorus when the latter element is scarce. The reason this is possible is that arsenic is chemically similar to phosphorus -- this is why it's located in the same column, one row down in the periodic table. The differences between the two are enough to make it toxic to every other life form known.

If you remember your high school biology, cells on Earth use a molecule called ATP (adenosine triphosphate) to transport energy. This bacteria can substitute arsenic for the phosphate in this molecule, which results in adenosine triarsenate (ATA), and it can also use arsenic in its DNA.
I can explain it to you but I can't understand it for you.

Page 6 of 7 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 >

Moderator:  alan, Amie, Andrew, axiomadmin, Brent, Debbie, Ian, Jc 
Forum Stats

15,238 Registered Members
15 Forums
24,017 Topics
424,287 Posts

Most users ever online:
883 @ 03/04/17 05:06 PM

Top Posters
Ken.C 18044
pmbuko 16437
SirQuack 13571
CV 11677
MarkSJohnson 11437
0 registered ()
224 Guests and
3 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newsletter Signup