Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Peter Peter is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 22
Default Major Improvement!

For quite some time now I have been very unhappy with the sound of my stereo
system which consists primarily of Bryston components.

Today I had the idea to clean all of the male ends of my balanced XLR
interconnect cables and the Bryston male balanced XLR inputs, which I
proceeded to do with cotton buds and 99% isopropyl alcohol.

The results are amazing, and with indeed very little effort, I believe that
I reclaimed the original excellent sound of my stereo system.

I am somewhat perplexed by these results since the ends of all of my
balanced XLR cables are gold plated and I believe the Bryston balanced XLR
input jacks likewise. It seems to me that a gold to gold connection should
not deteriorate, and hence I wonder what is going on here?

I also wonder how often the above described cleaning should be necessary in
order to maintain top-notch sound?

Perhaps others have had similar experiences and results?

  #2   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Audio_Empire Audio_Empire is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 179
Default Major Improvement!

In article ,
"Peter" wrote:

For quite some time now I have been very unhappy with the sound of my stereo
system which consists primarily of Bryston components.

Today I had the idea to clean all of the male ends of my balanced XLR
interconnect cables and the Bryston male balanced XLR inputs, which I
proceeded to do with cotton buds and 99% isopropyl alcohol.

The results are amazing, and with indeed very little effort, I believe that
I reclaimed the original excellent sound of my stereo system.

I am somewhat perplexed by these results since the ends of all of my
balanced XLR cables are gold plated and I believe the Bryston balanced XLR
input jacks likewise. It seems to me that a gold to gold connection should
not deteriorate, and hence I wonder what is going on here?

I also wonder how often the above described cleaning should be necessary in
order to maintain top-notch sound?

Perhaps others have had similar experiences and results?


Have you ever heard of expectational bias? Thinking that all that work
(cleaning XLR contacts - six per channel per connection) should result
in a positive outcome, your subconscious provided it.

This is an old story, believe me and is the same mechanism that is at
work when one swaps out an old cable for a new, expensive one. Our cable
swapper is thinking that as much as this cable costs, it had BETTER be a
sonic improvement over the cable he just replaced and voila! When he
turns on his system, magically, everything sounds much better. The cable
is a miracle!

Our swapper then takes his costly new cable to a double blind cable test
at a local audiophile club meet, and offers it up for test. But, in the
test, no one, not even the cable's owner, can tell any difference
between the two cables being switched in the double-blind test! Even
though one cable costs many hundreds of of dollars and the other is a
"throw-away" cable that often comes packed with mid-fi and video
components, no one can hear the slightest difference when they can't
see, and therefore don't know which cable that they are listening to at
any given moment.

Truth is that your balanced, XLR connections on your Bryston components
are gold plated and if your cables' XLR plugs also have gold plated
pins, and if the connections have been mated all this time, they have
been a pretty gas-tight set of connections. Since gold doesn't tarnish
or corrode and since no dirt or airborne contaminates could possibly get
into your connections, they are unchanged from the day you mated those
connections originally and cleaning the connections could have NO real
effect on the integrity of those connections. They would be as good
today as they were the day you made them and that makes it very unlikely
that all that cleaning could make ANY sonic difference to your system.
Most likely, your growing dissatisfaction with your system's sound was
as imaginary as the cure. But if the task of cleaning your XLR
connections makes you like your system again, Bravo!

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

  #3   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Audio_Empire Audio_Empire is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 179
Default Major Improvement!

In article ,
ScottW wrote:

On May 28, 7:36*am, "Peter"
wrote:
For quite some time now I have been very unhappy with the sound of my stereo
system which consists primarily of Bryston components.

Today I had the idea to clean all of the male ends of my balanced XLR
interconnect cables and the Bryston male *balanced XLR inputs, which I
proceeded to do with cotton buds and 99% isopropyl alcohol.

The results are amazing, and with indeed very little effort, I believe that
I reclaimed the original excellent sound of my stereo system.

I am somewhat perplexed by these results since the ends of all of my
balanced XLR cables are gold plated and I believe the Bryston balanced XLR
input jacks likewise. *It seems to me that a gold to gold connection should
not deteriorate, and hence I wonder what is going on here?


If done right, you are correct. Gold to gold contact should be
reliable.
Unfortunately doing it right sometimes costs just a little bit more.

Heres a simple discussion of basic connector gold plating from Amp.

http://www.te.com/documentation/whit...f/aurulrep.pdf


I also wonder how often the above described cleaning should be necessary in
order to maintain top-notch sound?


If your problem is due to oxides from exposed base metal....you're
probably
looking at increasing frequency required with each cleaning.
You might find that simply reseating the connectors is sufficient to
reestablish
a good connection.

I'd look at the pins for signs of exposed base metal and if
visible...replace the the connector.


Perhaps others have had similar experiences and results?


I had a problem that I initially thought was a flaky connection on an
RCA but it turned
out the overtight monster connector cracked a solder joint on the
board...even though the connector
assembly was mechanically attached to the rear wall. Connectors can
be "too tight" for their own good.

ScottW


I still say that XLRs provide a very reliable, gas-tight connection and
as long as the connections are left alone (not made and broken multiple
times) there is simply no way that cleaning something that doesn't need
cleaning will actually do anything more than introduce the placebo
effect into the equation. Now, if he had said that he cleaned and
applied Stabilant 22 (Tweek) on all connection surfaces, then I might
believe that a real improvement in sound was noticed by the OP.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---
  #4   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Peter Peter is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 22
Default Major Improvement!

In reference to this topic I wonder if anyone might have had an opportunity
to evaluate the usage of Stabilant 22A vs. DeoxIT Gold for maintaining good
contact in connections?

Both manufacturers claim that their product is ideal for this purpose, but
the DeoxIT Gold is supplied in a much more user-friendly package, i.e. in a
bottle, premixed with a brush in the cap.
  #5   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Audio_Empire Audio_Empire is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 179
Default Major Improvement!

In article ,
ScottW wrote:

On May 29, 3:52=A0pm, Audio_Empire wrote:
In article ,
ScottW wrote:
On May 28, 7:36 am, "Peter"
wrote:
For quite some time now I have been very unhappy with the sound of my
stereo
system which consists primarily of Bryston components.

Today I had the idea to clean all of the male ends of my balanced XLR
interconnect cables and the Bryston male balanced XLR inputs, which I
proceeded to do with cotton buds and 99% isopropyl alcohol.

The results are amazing, and with indeed very little effort, I believe
that
I reclaimed the original excellent sound of my stereo system.

I am somewhat perplexed by these results since the ends of all of my
balanced XLR cables are gold plated and I believe the Bryston balanced
XLR
input jacks likewise. It seems to me that a gold to gold connection
should
not deteriorate, and hence I wonder what is going on here?

If done right, you are correct. Gold to gold contact should be
reliable.
Unfortunately doing it right sometimes costs just a little bit more.

Heres a simple discussion of basic connector gold plating from Amp.

http://www.te.com/documentation/whit...f/aurulrep.pdf

I also wonder how often the above described cleaning should be
necessary in
order to maintain top-notch sound?

If your problem is due to oxides from exposed base metal....you're
probably
looking at increasing frequency required with each cleaning.
You might find that simply reseating the connectors is sufficient to
reestablish
a good connection.

I'd look at the pins for signs of exposed base metal and if
visible...replace the the connector.

Perhaps others have had similar experiences and results?

I had a problem that I initially thought was a flaky connection on an
RCA but it turned
out the overtight monster connector cracked a solder joint on the
board...even though the connector
assembly was mechanically attached to the rear wall. =A0 Connectors can
be "too tight" for their own good.

ScottW


I still say that XLRs provide a very reliable, gas-tight connection and
as long as the connections are left alone (not made and broken multiple
times) there is simply no way that cleaning something that doesn't need
cleaning will actually do anything more than introduce the placebo
effect into the equation.


I generally agree with this...if the connectors were clean when mated
and are of a proper design. Sadly in the audio realm...all bets are
off.


I agree but in this case, the Bryston connectors are of very good
quality both on their equipment and their interconnect cables. If the OP
mated these connectors only once - when he assembled the system, then
they simply didn't become dirty just sitting there, doing what they were
supposed to do - transfer an audio signal from one piece of equipment to
another.

Now, if he had said that he cleaned and
applied Stabilant 22 (Tweek) on all connection surfaces, then I might
believe that a real improvement in sound was noticed by the OP.


Now you've gone off the farm .
First you insist that all gold plated XLRs are created equal and
will provide a reliable gold to gold gas tight connection.
My first question is...why does a well plated gold contact need to
be "gas-tight"? Not really important, just a knit.
Second and more important question....what will Stabilant do to
improve a well designed, highly reliable, gold to gold connection?


Good Questions. Gas-tight connections are what you get with XLRs. The
Military and Aerospace specs demand it and XLRs are designed to provide
it. A gas-tight connection insures that air-bourn contaminates cannot
get into the connection and compromise it.

Stabilant 22 is a contact enhancer. Even in a gas-tight, gold
connection, less than a third of the mating surfaces are actually
touching one another (on a molecular level). This is irrespective of the
type of connector or how tightly they are mated.


These polymer contact enhancers can improve performance and
reliability of poorly designed, poorly plated, dissimilar metal
contacts used in harsh environments.
But to claim they will make a good gold contact sound better!
It's crap.


All gold does is keep the contact surfaces from corroding. It does
nothing to increase the actual % of contact between the two gold
surfaces.

Here's a reference from stabilant that should tell you all you need to
know.

http://stabilant.com/techt22h.htm


Well, if you have a car, it probably has Stabilant in the electrical
connections somewhere. On my Vintage Alfa Romeo, An application of it
has corrected a dodgy electronic speedometer connection, has increased
the speed of my electric windows (old Italian electric windows are slow
anyway and were when new. Ask any Ferrari 308 owner), and fixed an
intermittent tail-light connection. It works. The DOD, NASA, and SAE all
agree that it is worthwhile addition to most any connection.

My first encounter with the stuff was when I worked as a cable engineer
at Lockheed Missiles and Space Company. We tested it thoroughly (I
didn't know what it was; It just had a Mil-Spec number) It worked well
and seemed to be linear well up into the microwave range where it
started to cause some problems. It was later that I found it it was
called Stabilant. We used the stuff on all DC up to VHF range
connections for the Trident model Polaris missile and included it in the
maintenance kits that Trident techs used.

This one actually claims a measurable electrical improvement but uses
PCB edge connectors.

http://stabilant.com/techt24h.htm

There is almost nothing in common between a well made connector and
PCB edge plated finger contacts and there is nothing more widely
variable in materials and quality than PCBs. I can say that even if
you accept this data...extrapolating to any connection...especially
any made by a reliable connector manufacturer is bullocks.

I would note that even connectors sometimes need to be cleaned before
use as they may have been stored poorly or repackaged by distributors
in packages that with adhesives or plastics that out gas some nasty
stuff.
Most of the time the wiping force is enough to remove or break through
and the stability of gold takes it from there..but a good contact
cleansing doesn't hurt.
In the normally benign home environment, a good gold to gold mated
contact is probably better left alone as you said.
I'm not sure I'd ever want an admitted non-linear electrically active
polymer in my contacts. Check that...I'm sure I don't want it.


That's up to you. While I don't pretend to know whether or not my system
SOUNDS better as a result of using Stabilant, I do know that it does
enhance the mating surface area of every RCA connection in the system
(and RCAs need all the help that they can get - no matter how fancy).
Removing it is easy, any alcohol-based contact cleaner will remove it.

BTW, my comment to the OP was not meant to be any kind of endorsement of
Stanilant, BTW. I just meant that cleaning contacts that don't need
cleaning couldn't POSSIBLY result in any real sound improvement, but
possibly, just possibly, applying Stabilant 22 could make some
difference. and one would have a better chance of getting a positive
result by "Tweeking" those already clean, tight connections than one
would by simply cleaning them.

Audio_Empire

ScottW


--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---



  #6   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Audio_Empire Audio_Empire is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 179
Default Major Improvement!

In article ,
"Peter" wrote:

In reference to this topic I wonder if anyone might have had an opportunity
to evaluate the usage of Stabilant 22A vs. DeoxIT Gold for maintaining good
contact in connections?

Both manufacturers claim that their product is ideal for this purpose, but
the DeoxIT Gold is supplied in a much more user-friendly package, i.e. in a
bottle, premixed with a brush in the cap.


I've used both. As I understand it, DeOxIT Gold is more of a contact
cleaner than a contact enhancer. Stabilant 22 in a contact enhancer,
pure and simple. Basically, it's the Stabilant gel that has been cut
with isopropyl alcohol to make it easier to apply with minimum waste.
When Dayton-Wright was marketing Stabilant 22 as a product called
"Tweek" , their package instructions clearly stated that the connections
should be clean and free of contaminates. I use DeOxIT Gold to clean the
contacts, then I apply Stabilant. Whether or not Stabilant does anything
for the sound, there is simply no doubt in my mind that it does work as
a contact enhancer.

I was having trouble with the electronic speedometer in my Alfa Romeo
GTV-6. I fiddled with the connector on-and-off for a year. I couldn't
get it to work reliably. I knew it was the connection with the wiring
harness that was at fault, but no matter how much I cleaned the mating
surfaces, I couldn't get the thing to work. I was looking at cutting the
old connector off and splicing-in a "new" one purchased from an Alfa
-only wrecking yard. As one last attempt to avoid that, I tried
Stabilant on the two connectors (the male on the back of the speedo and
the female at the end of the cable) I mated them, reinstalled the speedo
into the dash panel, and I've never had any more trouble with the
speedo. I've also since used it on the power window switches and the
windows actually wind faster - both up and down. I KNOW Stabilant works
as a contact enhancer (so do The US government, NASA, and the US auto
manufacturers. It has a Mil-Spec number, a NASA number, and an SAE spec
number). What I really haven't experienced is a double-blind test to
ascertain whether or not the stuff actually results in any sonic
improvement when used on all the mating surfaces on one's stereo. On
that point I remain skeptical. I have noticed a difference, I took the
"Tweek Challenge". I treated one entire channel (right) with Tweek and
left the other alone When I switched my Audio Research SP 11 from "right
mono" to "left mono", and back again, the right channel sounded much
cleaner and clearer. Is this "challenge" worth anything? Not a brass
farthing. Expectational bias will make the right channel sound better
than the left just as well as Tweek will. But I do know this: It's just
good practice to make sure that all your mating surfaces are clean, and
tight and Stabilant 22 will ensure that you are getting the best
connection possible. .

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---
  #7   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Audio_Empire Audio_Empire is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 179
Default Major Improvement!

In article ,
ScottW wrote:

On Jun 1, 5:36*am, Audio_Empire wrote:
In article ,
*ScottW wrote:
On May 29, 3:52=A0pm, Audio_Empire wrote:
In article ,
ScottW wrote:



[ Excessive quotation snipped. -- dsr ]



I still say that XLRs provide a very reliable, gas-tight connection and
as long as the connections are left alone (not made and broken multiple
times) there is simply no way that cleaning something that doesn't need
cleaning will actually do anything more than introduce the placebo
effect into the equation.


*I generally agree with this...if the connectors were clean when mated
and are of a proper design. *Sadly in the audio realm...all bets are
off.


I agree but in this case, the Bryston connectors are of very good
quality both on their equipment and their interconnect cables. If the OP
mated these connectors only once - when he assembled the system, then
they simply didn't become dirty just sitting there, doing what they were
supposed to do - transfer an audio signal from one piece of equipment to
another.



Now, if he had said that he cleaned and
applied Stabilant 22 (Tweek) on all connection surfaces, then I might
believe that a real improvement in sound was noticed by the OP.


*Now you've gone off the farm .
*First you insist that all gold plated XLRs are created equal and
will provide a reliable gold to gold gas tight connection.
My first question is...why does a well plated gold contact need to
be "gas-tight"? * Not really important, just a knit.
Second and more important question....what will Stabilant do to
improve a well designed, highly reliable, gold to gold connection?


Good Questions. Gas-tight connections are what you get with XLRs. The
Military and Aerospace specs demand it and XLRs are designed to provide
it. A gas-tight connection insures that air-bourn contaminates cannot
get into the connection and compromise it.




Stabilant 22 is a contact enhancer. Even in a gas-tight, gold
connection, less than a third of the mating surfaces are actually
touching one another (on a molecular level). This is irrespective of the
type of connector or how tightly they are mated.


All that depends on many factors, contact forces, surface roughness,
material softness etc. The question remains...if a good contact with
uohms of resistivity is established....what improvement is required?




These polymer contact enhancers can improve performance and
reliability of poorly designed, poorly plated, dissimilar metal
contacts used in harsh environments.
But to claim they will make a good gold contact sound better!
It's crap.


All gold does is keep the contact surfaces from corroding. It does
nothing to increase the actual % of *contact between the two gold
surfaces.


% of contact is meaningless. When contact resistance is negligible
making it even more neglible is....well....negligible.



Here's a reference from stabilant that should tell you all you need to
know.


http://stabilant.com/techt22h.htm


Well, if you have a car, it probably has Stabilant in the electrical
connections somewhere. On my Vintage Alfa Romeo, An application *of it
has corrected a dodgy electronic speedometer connection, has increased
the speed of my electric windows (old Italian electric *windows are slow
anyway and were when new. Ask any Ferrari 308 owner), and fixed an
intermittent tail-light connection. It works. The DOD, NASA, and SAE all
agree that it is worthwhile addition to most any connection.


As I said...in harsh environments (including high vibration) the
answer is it can improve reliability. It won't make a significant
change in contact resistance of a good contact.

My first encounter with the stuff was when I worked as a cable engineer
at Lockheed Missiles and Space Company. We tested it thoroughly (I
didn't know what it was; It just had a Mil-Spec number) It worked well
and seemed to be linear well up into the microwave range where it
started to cause some problems. It was later that I found it it was
called Stabilant. We used the stuff on all DC up to VHF range
connections for the Trident model Polaris missile and included it in the
maintenance kits that Trident techs used.


Ultra high reliability required for long term storage and short
duration mega high vibration environments. Zero in common with home
audio use.


Well, when you put it that way, You are right. Undeniably and
unequivocally. I never thought of it that way. Yes, a, clean, tight
connection is both close to zero resistance and immune from contaminates
you are right again when you say that any RCA connection has more
contact surface area than any switch in the signal path. But if you
"Tweek" one channel and not the other, you will hear a difference in an
ad-hoc blind test (have your significant other switch between them).

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

  #8   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Audio_Empire Audio_Empire is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 179
Default Major Improvement!

In article ,
ScottW wrote:

On Jun 2, 3:12*pm, Audio_Empire wrote:
In article ,

*ScottW wrote:
On Jun 1, 5:36 am, Audio_Empire wrote:
In article ,
ScottW wrote:
On May 29, 3:52=A0pm, Audio_Empire wrote:
In article ,
ScottW wrote:



*[ Excessive quotation snipped ]

Ultra high reliability required for long term storage and short
duration mega high vibration environments. * Zero in common with home
audio use.


Well, when you put it that way, You are right. Undeniably and
unequivocally. I never thought of it that way. Yes, a, clean, tight
connection is both close to zero resistance and immune from contaminates
you are right again when you say that any RCA connection has more
contact surface area than any switch in the signal path. *But if you
"Tweek" one channel and not the other, you will hear a difference in an
ad-hoc blind test (have your significant other switch between them).


Does that make it good? I'd suggest the change in impedance between
a good connection and good treated connection is less than the
variability within crossover component tolerance. If treating makes
an audible difference to a good connection, I'd suggest it is likely
for the worse rather than the better.


The test I performed, years ago, the channel I treated sounded
noticeably cleaner to me. Of course, I haven't repeated said test in
decades (heck, they don't even sell Tweek any more).

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

  #9   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
STC STC is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7
Default Major Improvement!

The difference might have been caused by channel imbalance.

  #10   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Audio_Empire Audio_Empire is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 179
Default Major Improvement!

In article ,
STC wrote:

The difference might have been caused by channel imbalance.


What difference? You really need to quote the text of the post to which
you are responding. Otherwise most people will have no idea what you are
even talking about. I sure haven't a clue about what you mean.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---



  #11   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
STC STC is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7
Default Major Improvement!

On Saturday, June 8, 2013 4:26:15 AM UTC+8, Audio_Empire wrote:
In article ,
=20
STC wrote:
=20
=20
=20
The difference might have been caused by channel imbalance.=20

=20
=20
=20
What difference? You really need to quote the text of the post to which=

=20
=20
you are responding. Otherwise most people will have no idea what you are=

=20
=20
even talking about. I sure haven't a clue about what you mean.
=20
=20
=20
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---


Sorry about that. I was using Ipad and I thought it would auto include the =
quote the post.

But if you
"Tweek" one channel and not the other, you will hear a difference in an
ad-hoc blind test (have your significant other switch between them).


There are just too many variables using your method for blind test. PreAmps=
and Amps with identical channels are rare if not impossible. Even speakers=
may not be identical. A small difference in the loudness between the two c=
hannels is enough to affect our judgment.

I am not saying you heard no difference but suggesting you may want to elim=
inate possible oversights in your test methodology. I am speaking from my o=
wn experience.=20

  #12   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Audio_Empire Audio_Empire is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 179
Default Major Improvement!

In article ,
STC wrote:

On Saturday, June 8, 2013 4:26:15 AM UTC+8, Audio_Empire wrote:
In article ,

STC wrote:



The difference might have been caused by channel imbalance.




What difference? You really need to quote the text of the post to which

you are responding. Otherwise most people will have no idea what you are

even talking about. I sure haven't a clue about what you mean.



--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---


Sorry about that. I was using Ipad and I thought it would auto include the
quote the post.

But if you
"Tweek" one channel and not the other, you will hear a difference in an
ad-hoc blind test (have your significant other switch between them).


There are just too many variables using your method for blind test. PreAmps
and Amps with identical channels are rare if not impossible. Even speakers
may not be identical. A small difference in the loudness between the two
channels is enough to affect our judgment.

I am not saying you heard no difference but suggesting you may want to
eliminate possible oversights in your test methodology. I am speaking from my
own experience.


Good points, all. This was the Tweek "Challenge" at the time. Sure, as
evidence it's worthless. And it's easy to get caught up in this crap. As
an audiophile, we all (I think) want to get as close to the "Absolute
Sound" as is possible. So when something comes along that promises to
improve connectivity between components - especially when it's used by
the aerospace and defense industries as well as the automotive industry
for the same purpose, many of us are going to try it. I'm an electronics
engineer (by trade) and even I never stopped to think that how can you
improve an electrical connection that already reads 0 ohms of
resistance?

What many of us have to do is "get over" this notion that as a signal,
there is something "special" about audio. We tend to set it apart from
other "mundane" electrical signals such as TV, radar, computers, etc.
because we love music, and don't think much about those other AC
signals. We often forget (even us engineers) that music as an electrical
signal is just another AC signal - and a low frequency one at that. It
follows the same laws of physics as do these other signals that we don't
care so much about. When I read another posters explanation about why
Stabilant really does nothing in a stereo system, I slapped my head in a
V8 Juice moment and said to myself "of course! If the connection is
already approaching zero ohms of resistance, then from DC to 20 KHz or
so, the extra contact area afforded by applying Stabilant 22 to all the
connections is going to have absolutely no affect on the audio signal
carried by those connections."

IOW, We need to change our way of thinking from it's AUDIO! to It's ONLY
audio.

only Audio_Empire

---
news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
What component made the most improvement? Jenn[_2_] Audio Opinions 96 March 9th 08 05:08 AM
Switching PS improvement A S Goh Tech 12 March 21st 06 05:16 PM
Would these inexpensive purchases be any improvement? jymusic Pro Audio 21 January 23rd 06 11:08 AM
Gec 30w design improvement and experience [email protected] Vacuum Tubes 6 March 18th 05 02:48 PM
New improvement in PC DSL connection! Sander deWaal Audio Opinions 45 January 25th 05 10:21 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:01 AM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"