Custom Canare 4s11 cables vs. MIT EXP 2

audio_alan

Ok, so a lot of us jumped on the MIT EXP 2 cable misprint and puchased them at a ridiculous discount (Or is the regular MSRP ridiculous? That's up for debate...). I decided to take the opportunity to compare them to some custom Canare 4s11 cables that I purchased for $30 on the forum recently. (I wish I knew how much those Canare cables actually cost to make...) Anyway, after I attached the banana ends and pushed on the pain in the butt banana covers on the MITs, I was all set to test.

The setup that I used was as follows:

Pioneer CD changer -> Dared SL-2000a Preamp -> Adcom 545 (modded by Ben) -> SDA-SRS

I started with the custom Canare 4s11 cables by playing some music that I was familiar with, then I switched to the MIT cables. At first I thought the MIT's sounded brighter ... maybe ... but I wasn't quite sure. I decided that it might not be fair to compare them right away because the MITs might need to "burn in", so I walked away and let them play for a couple hours... (I also wanted to let my tubes warm up a bit more)

After a couple hours I came back and listened to the MIT's. I thought they sounded good. Then I switched back to the Canare cables. They sounded about the same. I kept chosing different songs, switching back and forth, finding another song, switching back and forth, etc. I switched them so many times that at one point I forgot which one I was listening to at that moment. That tells me that they sound almost identical. So, my conclusion is one or more of the following:

1) I need to let the MITs burn in some more, and then compare them again.
2) The Canare wire might be on-par with the MIT EXP2's.
3) The low-end MIT EXP 2's might just be hype and don't live up to the MIT name or their higher end cables.
4) Something in my setup is keeping the MITs for truely shining to their full potential? (Perhaps I need better IC's? Although the current ones should help or hold back both cables identically).

One thing I can say -- If the MITs don't get any better, I'll still be happy with the 10 footers for $50 a pair. The construction is great and the bananas fit very snugly. However, if I paid the normal $200/pair, I might be a little ticked about now...

I plan to compare them again, as well as outfit a third set of cheaper wires with bananas to add another reference point. If I still can't hear a difference, I might throw in the towel...

Anyone else test out their new MIT cables yet? Opinions?

On3s&Z3r0s

audio_alan wrote: »

Anyone else test out their new MIT cables yet? Opinions?

LOL... no way am I falling into that trap again! :frown::biggrin:

steveinaz

I'd recommend letting them run in system for a week or two. Sometimes cables (and DAC's) need to be listened to in the long term to really start catching the differences, and hearing the "big picture" improvements (if present). This also gives you time to try a much larger assortment of music.

audio_alan

On3s&Z3r0s wrote: »

LOL... no way am I falling into that trap again! :frown::biggrin:

Uh huh... I knew my post would be met with some skepticism as to my intent. :rolleyes: Seriously though, I tried to perform an honest test and my results were "shrug, I can't tell the difference". You'll notice I didn't say "all cables are snake oil", or anything of the sort. I'm really trying to have an open mind (and ear) about this. I thought I'd post on the forum to see what others have found. No trap, just converstaion. I don't want this to become a cable holy war either...

steveinaz wrote: »

I'd recommend letting them run in system for a week or two. Sometimes cables (and DAC's) need to be listened to in the long term to really start catching the differences, and hearing the "big picture" improvements (if present). This also gives you time to try a much larger assortment of music.

Yeah, perhaps I should just enjoy them and try again in a couple weeks/month. That should rule out any possible lack of burning in... (I usually play my stereo 2-5 hours a night).

zingo

Thanks for posting your process and thoughts as I always like comparisons. I would do the same test in another month and see what results you get. They may be the same or different, but either way would be interesting.

On3s&Z3r0s

audio_alan wrote: »

... perhaps I should just enjoy them and try again in a couple weeks/month. That should rule out any possible lack of burning in... (I usually play my stereo 2-5 hours a night).

That was my plan too. I've been listening to them a couple hours each night since I got mine. But I'm hoping this weekend I get some time to do a big speaker upgrade on my 2B's. Then I'll start a serious burn-in campaign during the days for the speaker mods and the cables, so after a couple weeks I should be all set to see where I ended up. I'm definitely interested to hear what others think too!

jinjuku

At first blush it would be a coin toss with my Belden/GLS cables.

Been putting through material that I am intimate with (and some I play) AIC-J.O.F, Ah-Via Musicom (expressly Song for George) and Austin City Limits, Holtz the Planets, DeBussy, Rachmaninoff (all TelArc), Pat Metheney, Michael Hedges.

Imaging, separation, staging, depth, are great with either. It's a quality cable with terminations that I really like. I wouldn't have paid ~$250...

cokewithvanilla

audio_alan wrote: »

Anyone else test out their new MIT cables yet? Opinions?

I'll bite... I switched out my cheapo non terminated 12ga wire (that was getting dull from oxidation??) with the MIT's yesterday... the sound is identical.

Because of the price, I am satisfied with my purchase. I now do not have to worry about cables being an extremely weak link, like I did when I had $2 cables. They look nicer and are easier to switch out and what not... like you, if I spent $200 on them, I would feel incredibly ripped... I certainly have no wish in finding out if 1,500 dollar cables make a difference... because if cables costing 100x more than mine didn't make a noticeable difference..........

maybe someone can answer this... do cables matter more closer to your source? I noticed no diff with speaker cables, hardly any difference with Silver vs copper interconnects, but a huge difference in silver vs copper when connecting the source to the pre

nooshinjohn

The gear used make a difference as well... remember synergy? I noticed a difference immediately between the Monster and the MIT's in my two channel rig, with the MIT's sounding quite a bit better. I have yet to compare them to the Canare's... for the money spent, these cables were a great deal and will forever have a spot in my HT rig. I do see some Shotguns in the two channel at some point...

polkfarmboy

If cables are good then why would one not notice a difference instantly in comparison to a cheap cable ?

I do believe it may be easy're to tell the diff with good quality solid state gear .

dragon1952

audio_alan wrote: »

...........I decided to take the opportunity to compare them to some custom Canare 4s11 cables that I purchased for $30 on the forum recently. (I wish I knew how much those Canare cables actually cost to make...)

T

Blue Jeans Cable sells the Canare 4S11 for 1.35 per ft. I've tried it in a couple systems and didn't really care for it much compared to other stuff I had at the time.
I don't know the quality of your Pioneer CD changer (or the quality of the recordings you played) but if it's just your run of the mill changer that can make a difference when comparing cables. But those are probably fairly comparable cables anyway, I would think.

DaveHo

Flame suit on...

I'm not much of a believer in cable differences, given that both are of the same quality materials & are terminated properly. Maybe my ear just isn't keen enough or I don't tend to listen closely enough. FWIW, I use the 4s11 in my sytem & have been pleased. Before that I used Kimber 4TC, which I sold for more than the 4s11 cost me...

-Dave

F1nut

Because of the price, I am satisfied with my purchase. I now do not have to worry about cables being an extremely weak link, like I did when I had $2 cables. They look nicer and are easier to switch out and what not... like you, if I spent $200 on them, I would feel incredibly ripped... I certainly have no wish in finding out if 1,500 dollar cables make a difference... because if cables costing 100x more than mine didn't make a noticeable difference..........

Flawed logic at best. You should sign up for the MIT CVT1 cable demo at the top of the page. You get to try $1500.00 speakers cables with two sets of matching IC's all for the cost of shipping.

tonyb

Keep in mind folks that any brand is not a "one size fits all". Some cables have more synergy in a given system than others.
Let the MIT'S burn in for a good 2 months, then put your old cables back in and see if you can tell the difference. If not, then move on to another brand or keep what you have.

cokewithvanilla

F1nut wrote: »

Flawed logic at best. You should sign up for the MIT CVT1 cable demo at the top of the page. You get to try $1500.00 speakers cables with two sets of matching IC's all for the cost of shipping.

hah, I just meant that I wouldn't PAY 1,500 for the chance to see if they are better. IMO, if a much better cable didn't make a difference, I wouldn't chance buying a cable that costs more than the msrp on any one piece of my gear (well, almost), just to see if I can notice a difference. I have a feeling, in my system, that 1,500 can be much better spent than on cables.... that's all.

Same goes for cars... if I am replacing a pulleys on a track car, and I bought some expensive ones that were supposed to reduce drag and my lap time or time in the quarter didn't change with the update, I would likely not shell out 1,500 to the same company for some 'even better' pulleys. That might be flawed logic, because they might just be that much better... but we learn from experience and sometimes we have to extrapolate. Experience on MY vehicle, or my system is better than testimony from Jeff Gordon or whatever. And even on principle, if the same company can't give me any better results at 100x the price, should I even go back to that company and give them more money to see if 750x is what is necessary for a difference? Maybe that's flawed as well, maybe it's my fault, my car, my system, my abilities... but why would I risk it (on this system)?

But hell, for free? sure, I'd give em a try

polkfarmboy

That trial sounds good but I feel like you gotta have really high end gear in your system before speaker cables start to make sense . When you have spent so mutch money on 3k preamps and 6k speakers etc etc then the cheapest upgrade would probably be a pair of $1500 speaker cables


I tend to now think that If MIT put the arrow on those $1500 speaker cables the wrong direction they would getting sold for $375 . After all the 10ft exp2 were $200 but got discounted to $50 . I conclude that the cables are the biggest con in audio that we cant avoid if we want to put together a good system

audio_alan

Thanks for the replies everyone. It sounds like other people are experiencing less-than-stellar performance out of the EXP2's as well. I will definitely try the comparison again in a couple months, just to see if the cables (or my ears) have changed. Regardless, it's not that I'm really disappointed in them for the measly $50 they cost, but I'm not blown away by them either when I consider their real MSRP. I guess I was just expecting more from an MIT cable...

I do think that my Pioneer CD changer is probably a weak link, but it's so convenient to have 100 CD's loaded and ready to rock. Since the Dared SL-2000a has 2 inputs, maybe I should buy a higher quality single disc player to hook to it as well, for critical listening. But when convenience is more important than quality (i.e. a party), I can switch to the other input and let my changer crank the tunes. After all, I don't think anyone that comes to my house is as obsessed with music as I am! :biggrin: hahaha

F1nut

I decided that it might not be fair to compare them right away because the MITs might need to "burn in", so I walked away and let them play for a couple hours...

A couple of hours? Try a couple of hundred.

I do think that my Pioneer CD changer is probably a weak link

Agreed. I doubt that even MIT Oracles would help it sound any better.

cokewithvanilla

F1nut wrote: »

A couple of hours? Try a couple of hundred.

What I don't understand is the no difference in sound. If cables do in fact make a difference, shouldn't we notice a difference in the sound? I am not saying better or worse, but just a difference.

How is it possible for regular nothing special non terminated 12ga wire to sound the same as $200 dollar special cable with '4 articulation poles'? That implies that if there is a difference at all, it is so small as to not be noticeable on my gear. I know my gear isn't expensive, but at what point do you notice the difference? I think the MSRP on my gear was $5,200 at the time it was made. Are you saying that if I step into the 10k class, all the sudden everything will be obvious?

People keep mentioning synergy with the gear... but that makes no logical sense to me. That means, you are saying that my $2 wire has the exact same synergy as the MIT's... that shouldn't be possible with anything. IF they make a difference, every different design should be slightly different, right?

The only thing I can guess is that it is a difference that isn't readily apparent. As in, there really is a difference in certain areas that you can't exactly point out and when I A/B them, I have forgotten about this difference in the time it took to switch. It's almost like I should put one on the left channel and one on the right... but somehow, that doesn't seem to make sense.

As far was burn in, I am a bit skeptical. If this does make a difference, I would assume that it would be a gradual difference as they burn in (both for speakers and for cables). Because of this gradual change, I would not notice it, and even if I did, I would have forgotten how they used to sound by that time. It's like when movies zoom the camera so slowly so that you don't even realize it until your full on that persons face, and by that time, you actually have to rewind to check to make sure that it even happened at all. Aside from that, the fact that they sound identical just throws up a another problem... Burned in nothing special vs not burned in something special... identical.. how?

To be honest, if MIT offered to give me $215 for them (full MSRP) back, I would probably decline. They do have some sort of psychological benefit for me, despite the 'evidence'.

I had hoped this purchase would ease my skepticism, but if anything, it has strengthened it.

cstmar01

polkfarmboy wrote: »

I conclude that the cables are the biggest con in audio that we cant avoid if we want to put together a good system

really? you tried something once and thus have come to the conclusion?

I just like the idea that oh you have to have super high end gear, no you don't. You just have to listen and its not always a one time deal, but we all like to jump to conclusions quickly and dismiss it rather than trying things out for awhile.:rolleyes:


guys I went weight lifting once and didn't notice anything different so I'm going to give up now.

F1nut

cokewithvanilla, I would suggest you live with the MIT's for 2 weeks. After that, swap your old cables back in.

cokewithvanilla

cstmar01 wrote: »

guys I went weight lifting once and didn't notice anything different so I'm going to give up now.

guys i bought one bottle of magic weight loss pills and didn't notice a difference, but since i can't simply call BS, i had to buy every other magic pill ever made. I exhausted the equivalent of the GDP of France in the process, and gained 25 pounds.

That goes both ways. At what point, with any product, are you allowed to stop shelling out money and make a conclusion? There have been tons of products that have been proven useless that people have sworn by... if someone one day proves cables to be in this category, what would you say?

F1nut wrote: »

cokewithvanilla, I would suggest you live with the MIT's for 2 weeks. After that, swap your old cables back in.

I'll give it a shot

dragon1952

cokewithvanilla wrote: »

What I don't understand is the no difference in sound. If cables do in fact make a difference, shouldn't we notice a difference in the sound? I am not saying better or worse, but just a difference.

How is it possible for regular nothing special non terminated 12ga wire to sound the same as $200 dollar special cable with '4 articulation poles'? That implies that if there is a difference at all, it is so small as to not be noticeable on my gear. I know my gear isn't expensive, but at what point do you notice the difference? I think the MSRP on my gear was $5,200 at the time it was made. Are you saying that if I step into the 10k class, all the sudden everything will be obvious?

People keep mentioning synergy with the gear... but that makes no logical sense to me. That means, you are saying that my $2 wire has the exact same synergy as the MIT's... that shouldn't be possible with anything. IF they make a difference, every different design should be slightly different, right?

The only thing I can guess is that it is a difference that isn't readily apparent. As in, there really is a difference in certain areas that you can't exactly point out and when I A/B them, I have forgotten about this difference in the time it took to switch. It's almost like I should put one on the left channel and one on the right... but somehow, that doesn't seem to make sense.

As far was burn in, I am a bit skeptical. If this does make a difference, I would assume that it would be a gradual difference as they burn in (both for speakers and for cables). Because of this gradual change, I would not notice it, and even if I did, I would have forgotten how they used to sound by that time. It's like when movies zoom the camera so slowly so that you don't even realize it until your full on that persons face, and by that time, you actually have to rewind to check to make sure that it even happened at all. Aside from that, the fact that they sound identical just throws up a another problem... Burned in nothing special vs not burned in something special... identical.. how?

To be honest, if MIT offered to give me $215 for them (full MSRP) back, I would probably decline. They do have some sort of psychological benefit for me, despite the 'evidence'.

I had hoped this purchase would ease my skepticism, but if anything, it has strengthened it.

The main criteria for speaker cables is gauge and resistance. Two different brand cables with exactly the same gauge and resistance will likely sound very similar. After that you have purity of conductors, dielectric, connectors and geometry. Differences are usually subtle, but discernible. It depends on how revealing your system is and how closely you really listen to music. If your speakers are set up correctly and you sit in the sweet spot it makes it much easier. If there's a weak link in your system anywhere that's not going to help. I just swapped out my original Audioquest Midnight cables for Kimber 8VS and I can hear a difference sitting at my computer in the back corner of the room the first time I listened to them. The Kimber are newer technology with purer copper, variable gauge conductors and a different geometry. My system is very accurate and revealing. There are a lot more variables than just swapping speaker cables or IC's and hearing an obvious change. I would think the MIT's with their tuned poles or whatever they call their technology would sound different than generic rat shack cable.

DarqueKnight

cokewithvanilla wrote: »

I'll bite... I switched out my cheapo non terminated 12ga wire (that was getting dull from oxidation??) with the MIT's yesterday... the sound is identical.

By what listening evaluation procedure over what length of time did you come to this conclusion?

cokewithvanilla wrote: »

I noticed no diff with speaker cables, hardly any difference with Silver vs copper interconnects, but a huge difference in silver vs copper when connecting the source to the pre.

cokewithvanilla wrote: »

What I don't understand is the no difference in sound. If cables do in fact make a difference, shouldn't we notice a difference in the sound? I am not saying better or worse, but just a difference.

polkfarmboy wrote: »

If cables are good then why would one not notice a difference instantly in comparison to a cheap cable?

Sonic differences are not always the instantaneous, "in your face", "clobber you over the head type". This is particularly true if you don't know what to listen for. I am often not aware of sonic differences until I compare my LISTENING NOTES and SOUND STAGE MAPPING CHARTS.

When I listen, I don't strain to hear differences. I don't think about what the other piece of gear sounds like. I only attempt to document and describe what I hear. I map out the location of sounds in the sound stage and note the attributes of those sounds. I use well-recorded music that I am familiar with. It takes multiple listening sessions to do all this because, unless the soundscape is only composed of two or three sounds, you can't catalog everything presented in one pass. What I often find during listening note comparisons is that sounds will have changed positions and/or character. Sometimes sounds not apparent with one piece of gear will become apparent with another. Sometimes I hear more room ambiance with one piece of gear than another, etc., etc. Sometimes I note no difference at all.

polkfarmboy wrote: »

That trial sounds good but I feel like you gotta have really high end gear in your system before speaker cables start to make sense.

cokewithvanilla wrote: »

Are you saying that if I step into the 10k class, all the sudden everything will be obvious?

I certainly wouldn't say that. I have a modest stereo system in my office at work consisting mostly of 1980's vintage electronics and speakers. In this system, I can hear differences in interconnects, speaker cables, speaker modifications and electronic components.

My office system consists of:

Nakamichi CA-5AII Preamp (1988 MSRP $1150)
Adcom GFA-555 Mk II Power Amp (1995 MSRP $900)
Yamaha CDX-1110u CD Player (1988 MSRP $1200)
Yamaha TX-1000u Digital Tuner (1988 MSRP $550)
Signal Cable Analog 2 Interconnects
Monster Cable Z2 Reference Speaker Cable
Signal Cable MagicPower Power Cords
Polk Audio SDA CRS+ (TL Mod) Loudspeakers. (1989 MSRP $1000)

Total MSRP of electronics and speakers = $4800 (equivalent to $8726 in 2011 dollars).

The cables used in this system are:

Signal Cable Analog 2 ($54/3 ft. pair)
Signal Cable MagicPower Cords ($59/3 ft. cable)
Monster Cable Z2 Reference Speaker Cable ($200/15 ft. pair)

polkfarmboy wrote: »

I had hoped this purchase would ease my skepticism, but if anything, it has strengthened it.

As others have advised, listen over a longer period of time, then "fall back" to the original cables. Take good listening notes throughout the entire process.

polkfarmboy

Why quote me as saying "I had hoped this purchase would ease my skepticism, but if anything, it has strengthened it"

You made a mistake on that bud

cokewithvanilla

DarqueKnight,

I guess I see what you're saying... and that is why I said in a previous post that maybe there is a difference that isn't readily apparent.

thing is, IMO, if you have to write down and compare notes to find out if something is better, you probably also need to write down and compare notes as to whether or not you need the better one.

If I bought a $250,000 Ferrari and had to compare notes to find out if it was better than a used 96 saturn... I'd probably have something to say about that. Or maybe to be a bit more fair, if I bought a 200 dollar bottle of vodka and had to take notes to compare it to 5 o'clock.....

Perhaps what I am saying is, for me, cables might be too little improvement for my dollar. Who knows though, I will pull these off in a few weeks and put on the old ones and report back. By that time, I will probably have my obligatory 200 hours on these things.

jinjuku

Check out Dr. Sean Olives' blog.

You can download V 2.04 of 'Harmon How to Listen'.

This will either help you discern audible differences or it will solidify your position that, for you, there is not difference to be heard.

dragon1952

cokewithvanilla wrote: »

DarqueKnight,



Perhaps what I am saying is, for me, cables might be too little improvement for my dollar. Who knows though, I will pull these off in a few weeks and put on the old ones and report back. By that time, I will probably have my obligatory 200 hours on these things.

Some people are anal about how their system sounds and some aren't. Some people try to tweak every last ounce of performance and are willing to spend what it takes, and some are happy with 'good enough'. If you went out and spent $2K on a new CDP to replace your changer maybe you wouldn't think the difference was worth it...someone else might be ecstatic. To each their own. What I'm saying is "Too little improvement for my dollar" is very subjective. You are most likely expecting too much, which is the problem with many who spend big bucks on improvements. They expect to get their socks knocked of relative to the price they paid.

DarqueKnight

polkfarmboy wrote: »

Why quote me as saying "I had hoped this purchase would ease my skepticism, but if anything, it has strengthened it"

You made a mistake on that bud

I thought my point was clear in that those looking for instant gratification, such as yourself, might be disappointed if the amount of listening time and the listening procedures used are inadequate or inappropriate.

cokewithvanilla wrote: »

I guess I see what you're saying... and that is why I said in a previous post that maybe there is a difference that isn't readily apparent.

The difference might be readily apparent...or not...depending on the experience level of the listener and other factors such as room acoustics, system resolution and listening evaluation methodology.

Training and experience play significant roles in one's ability to discern some types of sensory information. For example, I expect that I might not be able to differentiate between two bottles of red wine,...I don't drink. A trained and experience wine taster could probably differentiate them on color, aroma, taste and the way each feels on the tongue.

cokewithvanilla wrote: »

...thing is, IMO, if you have to write down and compare notes to find out if something is better, you probably also need to write down and compare notes as to whether or not you need the better one.

You should have either a mental or written list of specific performance goals for any equipment purchase, whether it is an amplifier or a toaster. That is why, when I began planning my last two channel system upgrade, I listed specific performance goals I wanted the upgrade equipment to realize.

cokewithvanilla wrote: »

...If I bought a $250,000 Ferrari and had to compare notes to find out if it was better than a used 96 saturn... I'd probably have something to say about that. Or maybe to be a bit more fair, if I bought a 200 dollar bottle of vodka and had to take notes to compare it to 5 o'clock...

"Better" is often relative to the intended use of an item. It depends on what your goals are. Some due regard should be given as to what you want to accomplish with a particular item. I don't wear my "better" shoes and clothes when I am doing yard work...even though they are..."better".

If all you are an ordinary citizen and all you are doing is going to work and running personal errands, then the Ferrari is impractical overkill. If you are an entertainment celebrity and you need to represent to the public that you maintain a certain lifestyle, then the Ferrari is a business necessity.

If all you want to do is get drunk, then the cheapest, lowest quality vodka will do. If you savor such things as taste, aroma and after effects on your body, then a high quality vodka is in order.

Likewise, you shouldn't switch equipment without having a reason to do so. It does not make sense to me to switch just because something is supposedly "better". How it is better? Image placement? Clarity? Bass articulation? You should have certain performance improvements in mind.

How can you know when you have found something if you don't even know what you should be looking for.

Systems

DK,
I have an intuition that your real voice is similar to that of Darth Vader.
Is that true?:biggrin:

DarqueKnight

pepster wrote: »

DK,
I have an intuition that your real voice is similar to that of Darth Vader.
Is that true?:biggrin:

Voice no (low baritone as compared to Vader's growly low bass).
Personality, yes.