Bundy, sit back and watch the fur fly! This is one cable topic that people here at AudioGon are just a polarized on as the dealers. I will state that I am a MIT user. I had a dealer tell me that using these with my equiptment was "like going to church and afterward going to a peek show". I guess he likes my gear and not my cables. He did kindly offer to sell me something appropriate. Many that hate them the most have never put them in their system and tried them, as it seems to be with many of the topics that get heated reactions here.
I love the sound of them, the sound takes a while to gorw on you. When they synergize with the components in your system the sound has a certain something to it that sets my toe's a tappin.
Dealers would never push what they sell and trash the competition, would they?
Other than that, I would say that some find the voodoo boxes and arrows indicating the preferred direction of electron flow a little suspect.
Nonetheless, mine sound fine to me.
MIT sounded terrible with my gear...but that's just my gear (and my ear). Hey! My gear and my ear! Could that be the start of a new catchphrase? Maybe I'll become famous *after* all! Anyway, I prefer the sound of Kimber (everything from Hero to Select 1030).
I don't think it's sour grapes or anything, it's just sales. I own some Classe equipment, and when I visit a store that doesn't carry the Classe line, they are sure to tell me what junk it is. MIT was one of the first underground cables (not Monster) to make it big in the late 80's and early 90's. Many resented them, and rebelled when they became successful, because the anti-establishment had become the establishment. I've heard MIT sound wonderful in certain systems, I've even tried them in my system, without much luck. I prefer Tara Labs cables myself. To each their own.
I went from Kimber to MIT and am just amazed. At first they did not sound too different but after a few hundred hours, a very special sound creeped up and it impresses me very much. The imaging, soundstage, and bass are incredible. I just love mine and don't care what anyone says. People forget that components, cables, room, placement, and the listener, form a system. If any one part is different, you cannot compare two systems to each other. I use T2 biwire speaker and proline xlr interconnects. Arthur
Here's my 2 cents. MIT, Transparent, etc - these are filters (and don't give me that caca about how "wire is a filter too" and bla bla bla) - dude, these are filters - big ones, small ones, high pass, low pass, all pass, etc.
Now, if you've bought your rig because the quality of the components is high, how much "fixing" do you think that they'd need? I mean, if I had something like Wilson Audio X-1 Grand Slamms being pushed by a couple of Boulder amplifiers - I'd be pretty secure that my system doesn't need some filter box on it to "fix" the sound - I'd want wire that got the hell out of the way and let these incredibly high resolution components do what they were designed to do! Hell - I PAID huge bucks to have the best, why in the hell would they need to be fixed???
Now if I had some mid-fi rig that was weak, I'd want to filter the crap out of it and hopefully get it sounding ok by filtering out the nasty parts. Makes sense, no?
So there's a relationship here - an inverse relationship: The crappier your system, the more you need filtration, and the more expensive your filterboxes get. The better your system is, the less filtration you'll need until you get to real high end sound - where you'd probably want to get the dang filters out of the way and let your system escape the bindings and bloom into its full potential.
I think people tend to like filtered cables more because they get big, sexy boxes attached to their cables and that looks like its worth more and doing more for the sound than other wires. As far as I'm concerned filters can be a destructive gimmick ((because filters are by their nature "subtractive") that look good but limit the true performance potential of any truly high resolution system they are hooked up to.
And if this doesn't make sense to you, think about it this way: If these black boxes are so good, why in the heck don't the speaker companies and electronics guru manufacturers employ them in their components? I mean, I'm sure the filter companies would absolutely love to license their "technology" to anyone willing to pop a sticker in their speaker or electronic box ... but you just don't see it.
And if THAT doesn't make sense to you, what about the fact that you can go into JoBlow's HiFi and buy the "X" model of your favorite filterbox cable and hook it up to your rig ... only the filterbox company has no idea what you're hooking it up to, and JoBlow has no idea what you're hooking it up to - so how can this generic filter work optimally for your specific system? Answer: It can't. It's generic which, by it's definition, means it's not optimized/optimal.
OK - I'm done ranting.
I tried a pair of MIT interconnect cables with network boxes some time ago and was disappointed. Compared to Audioquest Diamond, the MITs had a quieter high end, and the music sounded much less dynamic. After a few hours, I developed the impression the music was being compressed, suffocated. Maybe they weren't adequately broken in, or I hadn't given them enough time to get used to them. After a few days, I couldn't stand it anymore and swapped back to the Diamonds. Sorry.
I own MIT's and love them -- but I needed to experiment with different types to get it right (finally settled on the ES version). Of course, how they sound depends on "your gear and your ear" (eh dautch?). I replaced my amps and speakers and will now experiment with new speaker cable. I may find nothing better, even with my new gear.
What I hate about the MIT's are the boxes. With the Oracle series, the boxes near the speakers are hard to work with and are very obtrusive (i.e., ugly). They provide me no joy, except for the neutral sound they help produce. By the way, the break in period is about a month.
Thanks, Ozfly! It's good to know my work is being appreciated! There's nothing worse than having to suffer for your art...
I hate to tell "unclecrusty" that he is wrong due to his seeming all-knowingness in his story but here it is: If you read the MIT white papers, you will discover that there is no filtering involved in the MIT speaker cables. It is funny to see what kind of wives' tales people can come up with and firmly believe them. Perhaps he was referring to power conditioners that are installed before the power reaches the stereo but this is not the subject at hand.
The MIT network boxes are there to correct not the stereo, but the cables themselves. There is no denying the fact that all cables are fundamentally transmission lines and can be modeled as such. This modeling includes all the little nasties that many overlook like inductance and capaciatance. These last two directly induce phase delay between the current and voltage, known as power factor. Voltage and current are the ingrediants of sound - you screw them up and the result is botched. The MIT boxes realign the two and in so doing, correct the power factor and phase delay. This is assuming that the power amplifier supplies corrected it also on their end - otherwise the cables correct for that too. As an electrical engineer, I have observed pitiful responses from "high end" amps in the lab since the designer equates good sound with circuit simplicity and in doing so jeoperdizes its very existance, but that is a whole other story....
Anyone interested in the gory details may contact me directly in the interest of keeping others from getting bored. Bottom line is I love the sound of my MIT cables.
I've used MIT interconects in the past; and thought they were a good value for the money. About four years ago, when I first started upgrading my main audio system; I bought several sets of 2s and 3s from Audio Advisor during one of their MIT sales. At the time, they were a big improvement over the Monster Cable garbage I was using. I later moved on to Transparent MusicWave & MusicWave Plus ICs and speaker cables - and McIntosh electronics; and genuinely enjoy the set-up I have right now. (Though I'm going to try out some Cardas & Nordost ICs later this month!)
And I might add, that I'm currently still using some of those MIT 2s and 3s here in my media duplication business. They still sound pretty decent, and the connectors have held up quite well!
The common misnomer that networked cables (MIT - Transparent) are filtered - is incorrect. The networks are paralleled across the conductors, not in series. Their purposes are (1) group delay compensation, as mentioned above and (2) to help absorb/attenuate reflected energy so as to prevent it reaching back to the amp, the amp's feedback then attempting to make erroneous corrections based upon those signal reflections. This also smooths out the detrimental effects of the inherent reactance charactaristics of cabling, ALL of which is reactive to some degree or another, making ALL cables equivelant to filters in some way, and thus interacting with the reactive characteristics of both the source & the load. This explains why synergy is so critical when trying to optimize your setup, and why a particular cable set works differently when placed into different electrical environments. This is an unavoidable fact of life for any cable. It is gratifying to see that at least *some* such as Dautch actually comprehend what is going on in that respect. Others who may install a component or cable into their existing rig (previously optimized for a different matchup) and then experience less than stellar results, are quick to blame the new device as a bad one, obviously an oversimplified & incorrect assumption.
In my particular case, my rig took to MIT cabling like a fish takes to water, realizing a lovely combination immediately, which only improved over a 30 day interval as the cables were further used (the breakin phenomenon). Bruce Brisson definitely knows what he's doing, just very misunderstood.
Transmission lines? Do you have any idea how long a speaker cable would have to be in order to start showing transmission line effects?
Check it out: Let's go as high as CD reproduction of frequency and say that we're throwing a 20kHz signal down the old pipe. Now while the speed of sound is decidedly slow in air, the speed of an electrical signal in a wire comes close to the speed of light. It gets bogged down a little by the insulator, but a common speed is about 70% of the speed of light.
Light travels at about 300,000km per second, or approx. 186,000 miles per second. That's fast, so let's slow it down and put some plastic in the way - a little PTFE and we've got it down to 70% of that speed, or 130,200 miles per second. (Disk brakes, wouldn't ya know...)
Now, 20kHz means that the signal is oscillating 20,000 times per second. If we want to figure out how long a single wavelength @ 20kHz is while travelling in the pipe, we just need to divide 130,200 miles by 20,000. In this case we get a wavelength of 6.51 miles, or 34,372.8 feet
Double that for 10kHz (68,745.60 feet)
Quadruple that for 5kHz (137,491.2 feet)
Octuple that for 2.5kHz (274,982.4 feet)
When would you begin to see transmission line effects? Full wave? Half wave? Quarter wave? Eighth wave? 1/1,000th wave?
Let's get kooky here and say that transmission line effects may actually contribute some sideband funkies at 1/4,096 wave - lets' see how long your speaker cable would have to be (@ frequency) to show up some of these tranmsmission line effects that the magic boxes seem to cure:
20kHz @ 1/4,096 wave = 8.391797 feet (do-able)
10kHz @ 1/4,096 wave = 16.783594 feet (less do-able)
5kHz @ 1/4,096 wave = 33.567188 feet (much less do-able)
Now ... what are the chances that there are any registerable transmission line effects at 1/4,096 wave?
Er ... none
You'd be lucky to "experience" transmission line effects at 1/16th wave which, at 20kHz would require a 2,148.3 foot long speaker cable.
Phase delay between current and voltage? You'll have to fill me in on what this means, because I have absolutely no idea at all.
Phase "delay" is a function of time and, therefore, a function of frequency - frequencies are susceptible to phase shift, but voltage and current? Voltage and current are not - I repeat for the deaf - NOT the "ingredients of sound". They are, first of all, two different things and second of all inextricably (for audio purposes) intertwined by Ohm's law (V = IR, I = V/R, R = V/I)
Sound is, simply: frequency and amplitude. If you want to get a little more detailed, throw in rise time and slew rate. Power @ frequency is where you need to be focused because in order to move air the system has to do work, and that takes power. So, on to power factor (which describes the efficiency of a power system) and its correction:
I can't for the life of me figure out how a filterbox corrects for the power factor of the variable output of an audio power amplifier with its varying frequency and amplitude along with varying impedance @ frequency. Even if you could reliably characterize a "power factor signature" in a single system, the "signature" is going to be different from amplifier to amplifier, and speaker to speaker, and from the almost infinite variations between choices of amplifiers matched to choices of speakers - making any generic "power factor correction" magicbox impossibly crippled to work optimally in any but a single, originally characterized system.
Power factor correction is typically a power supply solution for inductive loads - and the solution itself is typically just a bunch of paralleled capacitors (as reactive current "generators"). So if the magic box is performing "power factor correction" it would be evidenced as oddly high parallel capacitance - and with the combination of series inductance (cable and system) and high parallel capacitance (magic box) you start to model a low-pass filter. That is, if the magicbox itself doesn't already throw some additional series inductance into the "loop" (get it? inducatnce? Loop? ha?)
Maybe it's just more glamorous to say "Power Factor Corrected" or whatever the slingline is, but it sure sounds to me like a second order low pass filter. Filter filter filter. And that's ok, I guess, as long as the knee frequency is high enough ... but even then a low pass filter will induce phase distortions that weren't characterized in the system before the magicbox was shoved in line.
All of this hocus pocus is comical. Power Factor Correction for the variable output of an audio amplifier. Correct the phase distortion between current and voltage. I just don't know where this silly stuff comes from.
To be fair, maybe I misunderstood something in your post - if I did, accept my apology. And if you like your MIT cables - God Bless and follow your bliss and may the Force be With You, I'm not about to tell you what should give you your kicks. But as far as I can tell from what I've read, seen, and now read from you - these boxes are filters, probably low-pass filters, which in and of themselves will introduce phase-shift, not correct it.
Again, I restate - if you've got a high rez audio rig, there's no reason to "correct" anything with exotic blackbox cables - just get good quality cables that don't generically modify the intended, already designed circuit of the amplifier and the speaker.
I have tried the MIT and transparent cables...the high end ones and NEVER liked them. As someone has said above, my kimbers were far superior sounding. I really wanted to keep them because of the "COOL" factor with the professional/expensive look of the network boxes but my ears could not break in to the sound.
Transparent cables sound downright "BLAND" and MIT sounds "THIN AND BRITTLE".
Finally...I have come to a conclusion that "BOXES ARE FOXES"
You do not have to agree with my observation but if you do a search on MIT and Transparent cables, look how many comes up and look at the highly depreciated prices. Must tell you something though???
As I replied to Abal, even parallel capacitance as a "power factor correction" will, together with the series inductance of the circuit (and perhaps even an inductor in the magic box) create a second order low pass filter - but maybe just maybe it works as you say it does, and maybe that is desireable.
IF that is the case ... why not just make add-on boxes with leads on them instead of making whole cables? Jack Bybee does this, Walker does this, there are a couple of aftermarket boxes that work in this gap - why not MIT and Transparent? They aren't selling cables, per se - they are selling cable-fixers. So why not fix a greater variety of cables with the magic boxes?
And if the magic box prevents reflected energy from returnining to the feedback loop of an amplifier, would it be safe to assume that they wouldn't have this effect with amplifiers such as zero-feedback SET types?
And cables that are THAT reactive are just poorly designed, IMHO. But as you say, "This explains why synergy is so critical when trying to optimize your setup, and why a particular cable set works differently when placed into different electrical environments. This is an unavoidable fact of life for any cable." - basically we understand each other in that these magicboxes cannot be optimized for all systems, but can fit only particular systems and this with only varying degrees of optimization depending upon how far from the original modeled system the system under test falls.
all doubting Thomas's STILL sound the same
Unklecrusty: I am not defending MIT, Transparent, etc... I have no real experience with them nor do i feel the need to investigate them.
Having said that, all i can say is that changing the line length of ANY speaker cable will present the amplifier with a different feedpoint impedance. This in turn can play games with how it loads up, the correction circuitry, etc... If MIT, Transparent or for that matter Kimber, Goertz, Monster, etc... presents the amp with an impedance that it likes, it will work better.
The bottom line would be to hook up various cables to a system one by one and test them. One could feed various test signals into the system and check to see what produced the most linear loading at the amp and speaker's binding posts. I had intended to do this sometime in the near future just to see how measurable the differences really are. On top of that, i'm wondering how closely the waveform would equate to actual sound quality i.e. would a severely distorted waveform produce severely non-linear sound ??? I guess i'll have to wait and see. Sean
Great post. Thanks for your input. I also was looking at MIT. Thanks Again
I agree with the basic premise of your comments i.e. an impedance compensation network is valid for the specific system that it was designed for. Change just one variable ( speaker, cable, amplifier, etc... ) and that network is no longer valid or "most correct". Trying to do anything other than "tweak" a specific set of components within a system for optimum performance by using cables with "universal" values in their "magic boxes" is completely "generic" in my eyes and a highly flawed approach. That is why i said that i have no desire to investigate MIT, Transparent, etc... Sean
FWIW, I have never been interested in trying out any of the networked cables simply because of the boxes themselves. Can't say anything for 'em or against 'em one way or the other sonically speaking (tho' their prices often do seem a bit excessive), but I suspect I am not alone in my prejudice.
My 2 cents - I love 'em. I think the opposite is true unklecrusty - the better the components the greater the need for a neutral cable. The 350 SG EVO and 350 reference ic's that I use are incredible. There is no sonic signature that I can pinpoint - they disappear and let the music flow in my system, you find out what your components are capable of reproducing in terms of tonality, imaging, and presence. To me, even with MIT 330 series and 750 speaker cables, they get the tone right and all other wire I've tried simply cannot. Instruments sound real. The one weakness with MIT is cost - the reference stuff is outrageously expensive. However, the performance difference between 330 series and 350 series is very significant, like any significant component ugrade in the chain. I like the networks, the higher up the chain you venture - the more and bigger the network. The reference stuff has metal boxes instead of plastic. Asthetically, I think they look cool - purists can't stand the idea of a network, frankly, I don't care - I just strive for satisfaction. As someone mentioned there is alot of passion with regard to MIT and I'm someone is going to passionately blast my post.
love 'em upstream of the preamp... hated them between the pre & the amp...
...even if we disagree about what "neutral" means.
I've got some pretty expensive and hi res products going in my rig, and I've tried some of the top macigbox reference cables for loudspeakers and interconnects - gave a long chance - but they just did something to the sound that I didn't like. It got all extra detailed on top and bottom but the midrange disappeared - like someone eq'd my system with a 'disco curve' bump the highs and lows and suck out the middle. It didn't sound like natural music to my ears (I listen to a lot of acoustic guitar/vocal stuff).
Regardless - it just doesn't make sense to this old hack that some "network" (fancy name for filter) on a cable can make a megabuck high resolution system perform better than its designers intended it to perform. Passive "networks" work by taking something out of the signal. "Power Factor Correction" is essentially parallel capacitance - fine for induction motor systems and power supplies - but mixed with the essential series L of the circuit that it is hooked into you get a second order low pass filter.
You say you like it. Great. I'll never argue with you about what you like. All I've been saying is call it for what it is and don't pretend its something magical and unknowable - I realize that many folks need to imagine that it's too complicated to grasp in order to justify spending big money on sexy boxes, and for them ... well, I never quarrel with religeous people because there's way too much 'faith' in the argument and I like proof.
And proof is really where alot of this bug me. You can buy a kazillion dollar amplifier, speaker, preamp, cd player, whatever ... whip out your screwdriver and have a look inside and see what they are doing and where your money has gone. With these magicbox cables, everything is a big secret and sealed up inside so you can't see what you spent your money on. You have to take it all on faith if you're going to opt in.
Unclekrusty, while we're on the subject of cables that take a more "active" approach, is it safe to assume you are also skeptical about "active shielding" a la Synergistic?
I've never been sure whether to believe the physics claimed for that approach. . . but I also haven't experimented with their really high-end stuff. I didn't hear a benefit at the more moderately priced end of the spectrum.
Unklecrusty: While one can "usually" see what is inside of an active audio component, one can almost always measure the results. Thinking along those same lines, I would be curious to actually do that with some of these "networked" cables under lab conditions. If they produced ANY type of an abberation with an ideal load ( nominal impedance with minimal reactance ), you can sure as hell bet that "crazy" things would take place on a reactive load that a loudspeaker would present to an amplifier. On the other hand, they might measure "perfect" on a dummy load and still run into problems with specific reactive loads. Once again, the only way to find out would be to test them and see.
Sheesh, with all of these different "projects" & "testing" that i want to do, maybe i should spend less time on the puter and more time actually doing them : ) Sean
Well, my experience with MIT goes back over 10 years ago and
it was only with one interconnect. I'm sure MIT makes some fine products. I got a pair of interconnects thru Audio Advisor, and they sent the MIT's, even though I had ordered another brand which I can't remember now. Anyway, I initially liked them ok. After a while though, the one side would cut out. It took quite a while to figure out it was the interconnect. By then I had been making some interconnects and had some other brands for comparison. I undid the RCA end's and I was shocked at the crappy construction. No wonder it would short out, it looked like they had been assembled and soldered by a 5 year old. I re-terminated them, and they were initially ok I thought, but in short time they gave me ear fatigue. So, that one experience has steered me clear from their products.
I don't know much about what they are doing by direct experience - but I will tell you this much: back in the day a guy named Demian Martin came up with and patented something called a "cable charger" and it seemed pretty interesting - keeping a bias voltage charged on the shield. It seems to me that Synergistic has either licensed or otherwise "appropriated" Demian Martin's cable charger - don't know which, but if you do some research into the cable charger you will probably get some good info.
As I said, the people that make the most noise about these cables have never put them in their system and given them a real try. If unclegingivitus would stop flappin' his gums and listen to something before deciding what sounds good and what dosen't it might carry more weight. As it is it just makes him sound like a fool!
well said Max
That fool is doing some such as Bundy & other newbies a great disservice with his so-called technical explanations, regarding the reasons why we (those of us who DO understand & like what we are hearing) just cannot possibly be realizing the truth in what we have actually experienced for ourselves. Even comes right out & admits that he's had no actual experiences with the product! Respected manufacturers such as Audio Research, Spectral, Hales (to name a few) apparently have no idea what they are using these networked design cables for either? Serious credibility issues are readily apparent in taking such a posture.
I used to laugh at the networked designs myself (and also at upgrade cables of any nature) until I actually tried them. Not laughing anymore. My speaker cables alone are a $4000 list item, so I'm putting my money where my mouth is.
I have used the MIT 770 tube series 2 speaker cables to great effect. I eventually sold them because I couldn't use the length in a new configuration I was using. These cables did something to the timing of the music, as Bob Bundas explained above and as Patrick notes, a "toe tapping", time and phase correct quality that I haven't heard duplicated by any other cable. My wife absolutely hated them, two bulky network boxes and thick hoses. I can't say I miss their looks but honestly, I think they are superb cables providing they are matched to the right system. Why people summarily dismiss them and feel they color the sound, I know not why. Probably as noted above they had the wrong cable match to the wrong system. The guy I sold mine to loves them as well.
What are some "good" MIT's that are commonly available on the used market but won't break the bank ? I know that they have TONS of different models available and some of them are quite specialized. If i was interested in checking a set of these out, who should i contact to get the lowdown on them ? Sean
PS... You guys can "kick" me too. I've never used these first-hand and my comments are based on logic / pre-conceived ideas. Having said that, there is a reviewer that i "basically" trust and he has spoken quite highly of various MIT designs.
Sean the expert is right here: contact Joe Abrams the MIT rep. (membername = joeabrams). Joe is a straight\up dude who will advise you within the context of your intended application or desire to experiment. He will talk with anyone via phone or email & will get answers that he doesn't have, or even refer you to the factory tech support if you so desire. I've even talked at length with Bruce Brisson himself, who patiently answered questions & advised me accordingly. Joe offers a 30 day $-back guarantee & the best deals you ever dreamed of on new or demo MIT cable, the interconnects, speaker cable, AC cords, icon connectors, whatever. Just keep an open mind: remember I was once laughing at MIT myself, & considering the level I'm at now that is a testament. I didn't start out at that level, but what I experienced was so convincing that I had to upgrade when the opportunity presented itself. Joe almost got his cables sent back to him, but he convinced me to wait out the full month first. I wouldn't trade them now for anything. The networks on Oracle series are in fact tunable according to the application (this addresses your concern above). Breaking in new MIT speaker cable takes quite awhile, & you can't use a Duotech because it kills the networks. Nordost machine might be OK, but ask Joe.
I bought Harmonic-tech pro 9 plus to replace my MIT MH750. When I listened with the Harmonic-tech, I was hearing detail, paying attention to the bass line, noticing the image. When I listened with the MIT, I was thinking about the girl I met when I first heard that song playing. I ended up keeping the MIT.
Sean, Bob is right on with his rec of Joe Abrams, immensely knowledgable about this hobby in general. I just hope newbies on this forum looking for help can differentiate between legitimate advice, and opinions based on personal experience and just plain banter.
Sean, will share the name of the reviewer and your experience with the MIT's?
Unclegingivitis? Look - has anyone taught you how to read? I never made a comment about MIT's sound - only the "technology" for want of a better word. BobBundus has so many pro MIT posts you'd think he was the inside sales dude for the Brisson Boys or that he's getting a cut from Joe Abrams with how many posts he's had telling folks to contact Joe.
You need to read and retain, Maxxie bubba - and seek to understand what is being said. I don't have anything against anyone preferring these cables - I just have an opinion, my opinion, that truly good hi fi doesn't need second order low-pass filters doing any kind of "power factor correcting" nonsense to the hi fi.
Think about this, Maxxie - at first the argument presented was that the "networks" aren't there to correct the hifi but are there to correct the cables themselves. That leaves open the argument for not making cables at all but making boxes that attach to other people's cables (much more useful idea).
THEN, the cables aren't cable correctors after all, they are Power Factor Correctors (correcting the inductive load of the hifi by adding in some parallel capacitance) - so they aren't, in fact, correcting the cables they are generically correcting some imagined power factor efficiency problem between the amplifier and the speaker (which amp and which speaker? Who the hell knows ... it can't be all of them at once, can it?).
I'm always amazed when arguments like this one are raised and all the pro-macigbox people come out of the woodwork and shake their little magicboxes in anger at the challenger screaming, "I don't care what you say - they sound good in my system!" Yeah? So what? That means you blew a bunch of money on a system that sounded like crap until you were able to "fix" it with some second order low-pass filters on your wires.
Wow - I'm impressed to the Max, Maxxie. But that's not even the issue - the issue is that these hocus pocus magicboxes are filters. My position is that truly good hifi isn't in need of filters. I've presented a sound argument and have been challenged with nonsense and circular logic.
Hey - if you love your magicbox cable - then love it. Love it on your own terms, but don't pretend for a minute - for a second that they are doing something other than changing the signals that are passing through them. That's a filter. It don't get no easier than that, Goob.
And purposefully changing a signal is not, in my opinion, what High End Audio is about - not what a truly high resolution system requires. Spend tens of thousands of dollars on an amplifier and and tens of thousands of dollars more on speakers, and again on preamp and source ... and they won't work perfectly together with good precision cabling? They need some mystery-box-cable hooking them up and filtering their signals in order to sound right? Man - if that were actually the case - the manufacturers of amps, speakers, etc - whatever these things pretend to fix - would have dissected these boxes faster than fart leaves a dog and put the stuff in the components themselves. Hasn't happened, Maxxie - and that's a shame for the probox people because it's the amp makers that are in a better position to determine what values these filters should have for their particular products. The magicbox boys can't make a signle filter for all seasons and expect it to work perfectly in all cases - it's just not possible.
So enjoy your boxes, no one has told you not to. I've only presented an argument that correctly characterizes the boxes as filters and presents the opinion that real high-resolution audio doesn't need the help of generic filtration.
Unsound: As i stated, i have no "real" experience using MIT's in any of my systems. As to the reviewer in question, it was J. Peter Moncrieff of IAR. Sean
Sean, thanks for the reply. I meant any future experience with MIT. Now if I can only get you to reveal your secret bargain preamp.
Uncle, you are entitled to your perception and your comments and your preconceived ideas about how things oughta be, after all, everyone is. And as to what is in the boxes, it really doesn't matter, only the music does and that is the REAL point.
You wouldn't be the first to have your views overturned by default when you use your ears instead of your logic, it does happen in this hobby, believe it or not.
If I, infact could not read, in the case of unclecrusty's loony rantings,I think it might be a plus. If you want to believe that my equiptment sounds like "crap", I suggest that you are just going further off into you own perverse fantasy world. By attacking my system you reinforce what I said before about you sounding foolish. My system is listed for you viewing unclecrusty. It's comprised of components by some of the world's most respected desingers, since I had nothing to do with their production, you are only insulting the people that make them.
I have not listened to every cable out there and you will not find me raving like a mad man about how XYZ cable is wrong based on some stupid theory. If you want theory over sound there are plenty of ways you can get that by buying equiptment from tin eared audio gurus who think like you do. They are incapable of any real world judgment as to how something performs because they wouldn't know good sound if it bit them on the ass, or don't care, as long as they follow some design manifesto and slap it on the bench to perform some useless test and come up with usless numbers to reinforce their usless theory. Listening is the only valid final measure of the performance of an audio product, period! I know how to read, and you don't know how to listen!
Tubegroover - agreed. I've never said anything about how people should or shouldn't enjoy themselves. I've merely argued about a philosophy. Believe me - I can understand absolutely how a filter set can make a HUGE difference in a setup that wouldn't have otherwise been optimal - essentially "matching the unmatchable" - in those cases filters may make sense - stitching together disparate parts into a recognizeable whole.
But, IMHO, system matching is the first and most important step to building a stellar hi fi, and the match between amplifier and speaker probably the most critical (aside from matching the speaker to the room and vice versa) - I believe that if an amplifier and speaker are well matched, no hocus pocus box could possibly make them better than they would be with high definition boxless audio cables.
Unclekrusty I challenge you to try to find a dealer demonstrating a Spectral/MIT system. Listen for yourself as to whether the MIT cable is acting like a filter. I think you will be surprised by what you hear.
I had similar preconceived notions before hearing a Spectral/MIT system at Overture Audio in Delaware. I had never heard a system do such a good job of getting out of the way of the music. It had greater low level resolution, transparency, clarity, and purity than any other system I had ever heard. As far as I could hear, the MIT cabling was not doing any filtering whatsoever.
I have subsequently purchased a Spectral amp and preamp and have nearly finished re-wiring with MIT cables. I couldn't be happier with the gains in transparancy, etc.
Kennyb - I agree 110% as I have listened to a Spectral/MIT/Wilson Sophia setup at Sound Decision in Maryland - the most detail I have ever heard. However, despite loving the sound of my MITs in my system, it was too much for me. I pulled out one of my favorite CDs for this demo because it has a not-too-good recording and that is exactly what it sounded like. The back ground noise was unbearable and ultimately turned me off. The point is that there was more detail and transparency than I have ever heard - proof to my ears that MIT will transmit whatever they are handed. Arthur
I'm with you crusty. Not that it matters, but I heard one of those 2C3D systems by Avalon/spectral/MIT/asc--expensive junk.
Expensive junk huh, interesting.....
Maxiepooh - I read your system outline and I agree wholeheartedly that you need filtered wires. If I were you I would consider more MIT for loudspeaker cables ... -or- unload the ARC stuff and replace it with real hi fi.
Your first sacrifice - unload the SP9 and find something like a used CAT SL1 or Counterpoint SA-11. Get some fresh tubes and burn it in ... then take that magicbox out and realize that it was taking the snazzle out of the uppermid/lowertreb glare on the SP9 - and you'll also hear way deeper into the music.
Next - out with the VT 50. Wimpy. Try getting an old Jadis Defy 7 Mk.II or above. Pull the magicbox out and hear the real magic of real tubes done really well. The Mk. I - bad idea, might catch fire. The Jadis combined with the CAT or Counterpoint pushing the Vandies - you'll shit a new VPI Brick after you realize what you've been missing. Especially if you get yourself a nice pair of Kimber 4Ag to drive the 2ce's with.
The 2Ce's are great speakers - they need great electronics in front of them.
unclekrusty he da man...he sure knows what he's talking about, at least as far as my pair of ears go!
Tried several other highly regarded cables with my system and went back to MIT. What I hear that sets the MIT apart from the other cables is the layering of soundstage and incredibly real and focused image. To me it is night and day. I would like to know if any MIT supporters agree and how MIT opponents can possibly disagree. And how is equalization and/or filtering even relevant?
Well Uncle, we're certainly in agreement on electronics and speakers!