The LSi9...is it really that good?

falconcry72

cnh wrote: »

Lots of strokes for all kinds of folks: some people love Cuban cigars, others spend on Napoleon brandy, Armani suits and Rolex watches. Some drop six figures on a sporty car, and others love their caviar.

Pricey cables, sure if you have the coin. But no one stops anyone from enjoying what they can afford to hear. And that's as it should be.

cnh

I like that.

brianle

I have the same experience with the LSi 9 as heiney9 had. The LSi 9 just gives a bit too much lower mid-bass in my room.

Geoff4rfc

cnh wrote: »

Pricey cables, sure if you have the coin. But no one stops anyone from enjoying what they can afford to hear. And that's as it should be.

Agreed, and I'm sure that basic philosophy is an everyday part of life.

What I don't understand is, after watching the promo video explaining the what the box does, why can't you have just one box at one price and achieve what the box is saying it can do and that's that.

I see that each step up box has more articulation poles. And, if I understand the purpose of box correctly, it's job is to bring the harmonic frequencies into perfect, or near perfect, harmonic timbre imaging balance as well as eliminating contaminates left in the line from a previous signal.

So, after hearing what a great thing the box is responsible for, I can get said box but behold, here's another more expensive box to do the same thing only better? But wait, you can still upgrade to an even more expensive box to achieve the same thing only better still? But wait...........

The box prices and specs range in price from 1,499 to 46,999. I just don't get this, if the box does such a wonderful thing harmonically, why doesn't it just do it and be done, why does it only do it so well for a certain price?

heiney9

Geoff4rfc wrote: »

Agreed, and I'm sure that basic philosophy is an everyday part of life.

What I don't understand is, after watching the promo video explaining the what the box does, why can't you have just one box at one price and achieve what the box is saying it can do and that's that.

I see that each step up box has more articulation poles. And, if I understand the purpose of box correctly, it's job is to bring the harmonic frequencies into perfect, or near perfect, harmonic timbre imaging balance as well as eliminating contaminates left in the line from a previous signal.

So, after hearing what a great thing the box is responsible for, I can get said box but behold, here's another more expensive box to do the same thing only better? But wait, you can still upgrade to an even more expensive box to achieve the same thing only better still? But wait...........

The box prices and specs range in price from 1,499 to 46,999. I just don't get this, if the box does such a wonderful thing harmonically, why doesn't it just do it and be done, why does it only do it so well for a certain price?

You obviously don't understand the contents of the box. That said, I'm sure the law of diminishing returns applies, but then there are better and better systems out there that can and do show differences even at the top end of the cable line.

H9

heiney9

Geoff4rfc wrote: »

So, after hearing what a great thing the box is responsible for, I can get said box but behold, here's another more expensive box to do the same thing only better? But wait, you can still upgrade to an even more expensive box to achieve the same thing only better still? But wait...........

Reread that..........if it's better then it's not exactly the same thing. It's something different. See, you answered your own question.

Geoff4rfc

heiney9 wrote: »

See, you answered your own question.

I don't believe my question is answered. The box performs a service to the music through the cables. All the offered upgrades tells me the box doesn't get it right the first 7 times. If the box does such a service, why doesn't it get it done as efficiently as possible the first time around?

I can see the science involved, I can't see why it's not achieved in the first box.

Granted, I'm new to this technology, so my question seems valid. Again, not trying to tear it down, just hoping someone can explain what I'm not finding obvious to everyone else.

heiney9

Different levels of performance cost more. You are assuming each cable does the same thing, they don't; the cables that cost more do more even though it's the same basic concept. You need to do a lot more reading at the MIT site. The answers are there.

If you are concerned spend the $24,000 and get the top of the line and be done with it.

H9

Geoff4rfc

The video on what's inside the box was 20 minutes long. What else is there to know. Why can't you get optimum performance with the first box?

heiney9

Geoff4rfc wrote: »

The video on what's inside the box was 20 minutes long. What else is there to know. Why can't you get optimum performance with the first box?

I don't work for MIT and I am not the engineer who developed the products. GO TO THE MIT site and start learning. A 20 minute video doesn't make YOU an expert. There is an entire white paper on what MIT cables are about and how/what they do.

Really, take the time to learn, which can take several years in this hobby or move on. There are no 10-20 minute answers.

H9

Geoff4rfc

heiney9 wrote: »

GO TO THE MIT site and start learning. A 20 minute video doesn't make YOU an expert. There is an entire white paper on what MIT cables are about and how/what they do.

Really, take the time to learn, which can take several years in this hobby or move on. There are no 10-20 minute answers.

H9

Are you getting rude with me? Your caps definitely show you're getting impatient with me. Take the time or move on? Wow dude, thanks a ton.

Implying that by my watching the video makes me think I'm an expert? If you had actually read my post, I admitted to being new here was looking for someone to help me understand, you obviously are not that person since you are yelling at me to do more research or move on.

Sorry to step on your toes and waste your precious time. And since you're so eager to yell at people with valid questions, maybe it's time for you to move on, but then again, maybe you just enjoy yourself too much.

EndersShadow

Geoff:

If I understand it correctly the more articulation poles the fewer gaps in overall frequency response as the poles provide more overlap the more you have.

Its not to say you would notice a difference between a cable with 15 and one with 20, but you might notice a difference between one with 3 and one with 10.

I should be able to tell you in a few weeks as I will be going from EXp1's with 4 to MIT Shotguns that have a couple more :eek:

Geoff4rfc

EndersShadow wrote: »

Geoff:

If I understand it correctly the more articulation poles the fewer gaps in overall frequency response as the poles provide more overlap the more you have.

Its not to say you would notice a difference between a cable with 15 and one with 20, but you might notice a difference between one with 3 and one with 10.

I should be able to tell you in a few weeks as I will be going from EXp1's with 4 to MIT Shotguns that have a couple more :eek:

Wow, that was such a great explanation! Thanks brother. And to think another poster said it couldn't be done.

I'm interested to hear your review on your upgrade.

PrazVT

I found this interview with Bruce Bryson answered alot of questions regarding the tech MIT uses ...

http://www.mitcables.com/reference-library/us-reviews/dagogo2010brucebrissoninterview.html

cstmar01

each step up on the MIT line will help better your music however I wouldn't put their top of the line (which they weren't for the picture before the top of the line are the Orcale series which look very different) on a 1200 buck AVR.

Now if I had some Magico or YG top of the line and wanted to get the most out of everything I'm not going to stick a pair of monster SC or IC's into my system.

Personally if you want to find out there is a demo program on the forum that is run. Cost of shipping will get them to your door and you can try it in your own system.

Personally in HT I never notice a huge difference with cables. There was some but not as much as when I switched over and did more in my 2 channel. Granted my HT wasn't cheap but it was not nearly like my 2 channel is.

Each level helps improve on what was already done. To get more you pay more. A Geo isn't the same price as a BMW. They both have wheels and run, but when you go up the BMW will do things better than the Geo.

Personally I've had Signal, AQ, Nordost, Cardas and MIT. I like MIT the best and think they are great. Right now I'm going to switch everything to the Shotgun line. Its not the highest but its not the lowest and think it will give me the best bang for my buck for that set up.

F1nut

Geoff4rfc wrote: »

Agreed, and I'm sure that basic philosophy is an everyday part of life.

What I don't understand is, after watching the promo video explaining the what the box does, why can't you have just one box at one price and achieve what the box is saying it can do and that's that.

I see that each step up box has more articulation poles. And, if I understand the purpose of box correctly, it's job is to bring the harmonic frequencies into perfect, or near perfect, harmonic timbre imaging balance as well as eliminating contaminates left in the line from a previous signal.

So, after hearing what a great thing the box is responsible for, I can get said box but behold, here's another more expensive box to do the same thing only better? But wait, you can still upgrade to an even more expensive box to achieve the same thing only better still? But wait...........

The box prices and specs range in price from 1,499 to 46,999. I just don't get this, if the box does such a wonderful thing harmonically, why doesn't it just do it and be done, why does it only do it so well for a certain price?

For the same reason one amp costs $500.00 and another $5,000. Both do the same thing, but one does it better than the other.

ravaneli

I have this feeling that if we could do a blind test to heyney9, with and without MIT cables, he would in the long run guess it right 50% of the time. As good as a coin. Just a feeling, not a fact, don't jump on me now.

heiney9

Go ahead, I know I could pick the MIT's 100% of the time. They are that much better, night and day. Bring yourself and a few other pairs of cables to my crib and let's get to it. I know my rig and listening environment forwards, backwards, upside down and sideways. Not a problem at all.

H9

gdb

You really stepped in it there pal.

BeefJerky

ravaneli wrote: »

I have this feeling that if we could do a blind test to heyney9, with and without MIT cables, he would in the long run guess it right 50% of the time. As good as a coin. Just a feeling, not a fact, don't jump on me now.

heiney9 wrote: »

Go ahead, I know I could pick the MIT's 100% of the time. They are that much better, night and day. Bring yourself and a few other pairs of cables to my crib and let's get to it. I know my rig and listening environment forwards, backwards, upside down and sideways. Not a problem at all.

H9

Let's do it! I also suggest we get some good examples of MP3 encodings versus lossless as well. I have a feeling he won't be able to pick those out as well as he claims either. But hey, I'd be happy to be proven wrong!

Oh, and Brock, your attitude towards Geoff here is yet another shining example of your piss poor attitude as of late. If you don't want to help someone; there's no need to be rude and deliberately obtuse.

F1nut

ravaneli wrote: »

I have this feeling that if we could do a blind test to heyney9, with and without MIT cables, he would in the long run guess it right 50% of the time. As good as a coin. Just a feeling, not a fact, don't jump on me now.

So, what cables MIT cables have you tried? Oh that's right, none. Just the facts, not a feeling.

Geoff4rfc

F1nut wrote: »

For the same reason one amp costs $500.00 and another $5,000. Both do the same thing, but one does it better than the other.

Vague at best. I thought we were past the obvious comparisons. This answer offers zero specific accountability to the question, in fact it detracts. "one amp costs...., and another costs.....". There are countless amps of different make, power output, style, intended use, etc etc.

The box(s) in question is made by one company and serves one purpose.

Endershadow has been the only one here of offer an answer that can be digested with specific information pertaining to the specific question.

So I'm good with that.

heiney9

BeefJerky wrote: »

Let's do it! I also suggest we get some good examples of MP3 encodings versus lossless as well. I have a feeling he won't be able to pick those out as well as he claims either. But hey, I'd be happy to be proven wrong!

Oh, and Brock, your attitude towards Geoff here is yet another shining example of your piss poor attitude as of late. If you don't want to help someone; there's no need to be rude and deliberately obtuse.

Beef, take a hike I don't need your attitude. Geoff is being deliberately obtuse or he is just an idiot. MIT are the people to explain to him the kind of details he's expecting us to give him. I kindly pointed him in that direction and it was ignored. Not to mention if he had taken the time to search for information on this forum, which has been her over 10 years most if not all parts of his question would be answered.

H9

heiney9

Geoff4rfc wrote: »

Vague at best. I thought we were past the obvious comparisons. This answer offers zero specific accountability to the question, in fact it detracts. "one amp costs...., and another costs.....". There are countless amps of different make, power output, style, intended use, etc etc.

The box(s) in question is made by one company and serves one purpose.

Endershadow has been the only one here of offer an answer that can be digested with specific information pertaining to the specific question.

So I'm good with that.

Call Joe Abrams or MIT then you will get the specific answers you crave. At your current level of comprehension I doubt you'll understand any of the terminology or engineering behind the concepts and implementation. But knock yourself out.

H9

BeefJerky

heiney9 wrote: »

Beef, take a hike I don't need your attitude.

You're welcome to add me to your ignore list if you can't handle my posts.

Geoff is being deliberately obtuse or he is just an idiot. MIT are the people to explain to him the kind of details he's expecting us to give him. I kindly pointed him in that direction and it was ignored. Not to mention if he had taken the time to search for information on this forum, which has been her over 10 years most if not all parts of his question would be answered.

And yet, another very helpful member on this forum was able to help him. So, yes, it can be done, you just didn't want to bother. So again, if you don't want to help, then kindly avoid posting.

As for your poor attitude, I wasn't even the first one to point it out; there were at least two other respected members who noticed it. However, rather than make an effort to improve your attitude, you continue to act the same or worse. In fact, I don't believe you are even capable of admitting to the errors of your ways.

heiney9

Sorry, but you can express whatever you want about my posting style, it's not changing just because you say it should. Talk about a God complex, if you are so bent out of shape, which you clearly are or you wouldn't be carrrying on in mutliple threads, about my posts.........then use the ignore feature as well.

H9

Geoff4rfc

heiney9 wrote: »

Geoff is being deliberately obtuse or he is just an idiot. MIT are the people to explain to him the kind of details he's expecting us to give him.

Umm, you yelled at me Mr kindly. I was hoping people with experience with this product would chime in, you obvious don't so why shoot your mouth off? Plus, you obviously don't have the answer so again, why waste yourself?

heiney9 wrote: »

At your current level of comprehension I doubt you'll understand any of the terminology or engineering behind the concepts and implementation. But knock yourself out.

I wish you would have let me know we went to school together. My level of comprehension may not be where you want it to be on the subject of MIT cables, but it does reveal that you wear your a** for a hat.

pyrocyborg

Well... cables are a debate, and will always be, unless someone really does an experiment with a large number of participants, a few control groups (non-audiophile) and different experimental conditions (audiophile with crappy interconnect that were told that those were a certain brandname cable; audiophile group with brandname cable; etc). That way, some people could be set, but others will probably never be even if there is empirical evidence of a certain truth.

MP3, on the other side, are, depending on the bitrate, easy or harder to discernate. 320 lame might score 50/50 versus flac/cd, because there isn't a lot of flaws in there, but after listening a flac, there might be something you like better, even if you can't "point it out". Psychoacoustics effects like masking sure do a good job giving you the impression that you ear something, but on some tracks, it just doesn't make it right. Anyways, using almost every recent methods to compare both formats, there is some bias induced by memory (you can't adequately compare using a memory, even if it is a few minutes old... even a few seconds old makes it all different from what it really is).

Sure, you might need a revealing system to hear a difference between 320/flac, but my guess is both "feels" different one from another.

heiney9

http://www.polkaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?129583-MIT-Shotgun-S3.3-Cable-Demo-Review-Round-4&highlight=MIT+demo

BlueFox

pyrocyborg wrote: »

Sure, you might need a revealing system to hear a difference between 320/flac, but my guess is both "feels" different one from another.

Guessing is fun, but experience counts.

ravaneli

placebo.
Demand a blind test.