Quite possibly the greatest amp ever!

kuntasensei

I bought one. I put it in the back of my Delorean and the strangest thing happened...

headrott

Habanero Monk wrote: »

I think it's like that character in Mystery Men that can only turn invisible if no one looks, but only MIT works in reverse: They only make a difference if you can see them connected.

I would venture to say that pretty much all MIT cable users on this forum can hear a difference in their own system whether they can see the MIT cables connected or not. It is apparently people such as yourself and some others that cannot hear the differences between Monoprice cables and MIT cables whether they see the cables attached or not.

When using Monoprice cables or any other lower quality cables, the things you "see" disappear are your imaging, soundstage, clarity, detail, transparency, and frequency spread. Why don't you get in on the next MIT cable demo that hopefully Jesse will set up (if there is enough interest). Say that you are interested, in the thread here.

Jhayman

So what you're saying is that anyone including all the members of this forum if you are not using MIT cables or $$$$ cables then their systems suck..sans all the things you say are missing?

headrott wrote: »

I would venture to say that pretty much all MIT cable users on this forum can hear a difference in their own system whether they can see the MIT cables connected or not. It is apparently people such as yourself and some others that cannot hear the differences between Monoprice cables and MIT cables whether they see the cables attached or not.

When using Monoprice cables or any other lower quality cables, the things you "see" disappear are your imaging, soundstage, clarity, detail, transparency, and frequency spread. Why don't you get in on the next MIT cable demo that hopefully Jesse will set up (if there is enough interest). Say that you are interested, in the thread here.

tonyb

Jhayman wrote: »

So what you're saying is that anyone including all the members of this forum if you are not using MIT cables or $$$$ cables then their systems suck..?

He didn't say that chief. He was simply making a point on what could improve in ones system with the right cable. Doesn't have to be MIT either. I don't use them, but I sure won't judge others who do. To each his own in this audio hobby of ours.

There is no denying that a difference exists in quality and sound between cables of various price categories. Much like every other consumer product out there, you get what you pay for. With that said, still....there is no guarantee that price will reflect performance either. That's where experience comes in to try for yourself. If your unwilling to try different things then that kinda puts a cramp in any opinions expressed.

brgman

Jhayman wrote: »

So what you're saying is that anyone including all the members of this forum if you are not using MIT cables or $$$$ cables then their systems suck..sans all the things you say are missing?

Yep.Thats what he said.
Truth hurts huh?

decal

It never ceases to amaze me, how any thread on any audio site, can somehow morph into a cable babble war.

kuntasensei

pearsall001

Now now fellows...be nice! :razz:

heiney9

Jhayman wrote: »

So what you're saying is that anyone including all the members of this forum if you are not using MIT cables or $$$$ cables then their systems suck..sans all the things you say are missing?

WOW, that's not at all what he stated. Not even close. He simply stated in response to Habenaro Monk's comment that differences can be heard with MIT cables vs. cheap cables (yes, mono price is about as cheap as you can get). You should be able to relate since you just had your own cable epiphany. The comment about MIT was in direct correlation to HB's post, not out of thin air.

Sheesh, it amazes me how people can read into things that aren't even close to being there. Be aware of the context next time.

H9

brgman

I think Greg was simply saying that if you don't use MIT cables you should drag your gear outside and light it on fire cuz it's really not worth having.

Jhayman

Of course that's what he meant, are you saying those are not his beliefs anyway, even if he was merely mocking HM's post?

heiney9 wrote: »

WOW, that's not at all what he stated. Not even close. He simply stated in response to Habenaro Monk's comment that differences can be heard with MIT cables vs. cheap cables (yes, mono price is about as cheap as you can get). You should be able to relate since you just had your own cable epiphany. The comment about MIT was in direct correlation to HB's post, not out of thin air.

Sheesh, it amazes me how people can read into things that aren't even close to being there. Be aware of the context next time.

H9

Habanero Monk

Sure let me know the next time the lending program makes it's way. Please keep in mind that I will perform this SBT just to keep myself honest.

My comment was about the potential lack of not having at least some control over knowing what was currently in use.

Habanero Monk

Not sure what to make of this (from Audio Circle):

The nice folks from MIT cables asked us to do an A-B test of their $1500 a pair super cables with great big boxes built into the speaker lines. We set up a true double blind test comparing the MIT cables with the ones I was using, especially modified 16 gauge zip cord from Home Depot (especially modified by me - cut to the correct length to reach from the amp to the speakers - very important!! ).

The results, ran three tests with all listeners sent out of the room and the setup changed by one of my guys who did not take part in the listening tests. There were four guys from MIT, me, Jim Salk, his wife Mary, and a couple of interested bystanders. We held the test just after the show ended on Sunday afternoon.

The instructions to the hookup guy were to either change or not change the cables. The amp volume control was not touched, we listened to the same cut, the first on on the Shelby Lynne album, "Just a Little Lovin'". We were using my Insight Control amplifier and Insight DAC and Jim's new ribbon tweeter version of the Songtowers. It was as very high definition, transparent, dynamic, and wide range system.

After the first two sessions, in which the cables may or may not have been changed and who knows which were started with, I instructed my guy to definitely swap to the other cables for the third session. Again no listener knew which they were listening to.

We listened a third time, and then voted. In a nutshell, the first session received zero votes. The voting was essentially split between session two and three with the vote divided between the two about equally and among both the MIT guys and the AVA - Salk guys.

Then the moment of truth. The first session was MIT cables. The second session was also MIT cables (nothing changed). The third session was my $2.00 zip wire speaker cables.

The results (just as I would have expected) RANDOM!

I do admit than when I voted, and I voted last, I said that the differences, if any, were very very small, and that I thought that session two (MIT cables) were slightly better than session one (MIT cables), and that I thought that session two was slightly better than session three (zip wires). I was as random as anyone else there.

So, given the price of the MIT cables ($1500) and the AVA Insight Control Amp ($1500), a buyer could have made the same budget choice of buying Jims's speakers ($2400) and our Insight control amp to drive them, along with some zip cord speaker wire, or buy the speakers and the MIT cables, and no amplifier at all!

Given the results of the test, which would you choose.

Best regards,

Frank Van Alstine

It seems Jim Salk is beyond reproach at most sites (maybe not here?) and that there were four MIT employees present.

BlueFox

Jhayman wrote: »

So what you're saying is that anyone including all the members of this forum if you are not using MIT cables or $$$$ cables then their systems suck..sans all the things you say are missing?

I just reread his post since I did not remember seeing anyone say, or even imply, that. And I was right, he did not say or imply that. Since you have not repudiated this post, and in fact reiterated it in post 43, we can only assume you have, at best, reading comprehension problems, or most likely a very low sense of self esteem and inadequacy.

He is simply stating the truth. MIT, and other high-end cables, bring out details in the music that are hidden with low end cables. Like it or not, that is a fact. When I replaced my Kimber Kables Hero XLR interconnects with the MIT Shotgun S1.3 XLRs the soundstage expanded, and the sound became clearer and more focused.

polrbehr

Habanero Monk wrote: »

Not sure what to make of this (from Audio Circle):

The nice folks from MIT cables asked us to do an A-B test of their $1500 a pair super cables with great big boxes built into the speaker lines. We set up a true double blind test comparing the MIT cables with the ones I was using, especially modified 16 gauge zip cord from Home Depot (especially modified by me - cut to the correct length to reach from the amp to the speakers - very important!! ).

The results, ran three tests with all listeners sent out of the room and the setup changed by one of my guys who did not take part in the listening tests. There were four guys from MIT, me, Jim Salk, his wife Mary, and a couple of interested bystanders. We held the test just after the show ended on Sunday afternoon.

The instructions to the hookup guy were to either change or not change the cables. The amp volume control was not touched, we listened to the same cut, the first on on the Shelby Lynne album, "Just a Little Lovin'". We were using my Insight Control amplifier and Insight DAC and Jim's new ribbon tweeter version of the Songtowers. It was as very high definition, transparent, dynamic, and wide range system.

After the first two sessions, in which the cables may or may not have been changed and who knows which were started with, I instructed my guy to definitely swap to the other cables for the third session. Again no listener knew which they were listening to.

We listened a third time, and then voted. In a nutshell, the first session received zero votes. The voting was essentially split between session two and three with the vote divided between the two about equally and among both the MIT guys and the AVA - Salk guys.

Then the moment of truth. The first session was MIT cables. The second session was also MIT cables (nothing changed). The third session was my $2.00 zip wire speaker cables.

The results (just as I would have expected) RANDOM!

I do admit than when I voted, and I voted last, I said that the differences, if any, were very very small, and that I thought that session two (MIT cables) were slightly better than session one (MIT cables), and that I thought that session two was slightly better than session three (zip wires). I was as random as anyone else there.

So, given the price of the MIT cables ($1500) and the AVA Insight Control Amp ($1500), a buyer could have made the same budget choice of buying Jims's speakers ($2400) and our Insight control amp to drive them, along with some zip cord speaker wire, or buy the speakers and the MIT cables, and no amplifier at all!

Given the results of the test, which would you choose.

Best regards,

Frank Van Alstine

It seems Jim Salk is beyond reproach at most sites (maybe not here?) and that there were four MIT employees present.

Well, then, that settles it. Anyone who owns/uses any MIT cables should immediately bale them up and throw them in the trash. Better still, destroy them first, to ensure that no one else can have their systems damaged by using them. Jesse, feel free to remove my name from the interested list for the [hopefully] upcoming demo... :rolleyes:

My point is, if you happen to have those speakers, that amp, that DAC, in that exact listening room, then by all means believe that review and don't buy MIT cables. Or, listen for yourself anyway, and make up your own mind based on what YOU hear. The same advice goes for anyone who has any other gear besides what was listed. Maybe?

nooshinjohn

Jhayman wrote: »

So what you're saying is that anyone including all the members of this forum if you are not using MIT cables or $$$$ cables then their systems suck..sans all the things you say are missing?

Thank you for proving to me and everyone else here that you have completed your education. By successfully derailing my thread and turning it into a cable debate, you have earned the title of Troll Emeritus. This is not an easy distinction to achieve, as many are banned from this site long before they achieve it.


Congratulations to you sir!:evil:

kuntasensei

So... you're mad at the troll... for derailing the thread... that you were using to troll...

Sorry, just wrapping my head around that one for a second. :razz:

Jhayman

I know he says I derailed it when it was him trolling in his first post with game changer referenced from a previous thread..that we were discussing, lol
Then he was still trolling by referencing Emo in another post..
Ummm kettle calling pot, John

nooshinjohn

I Started this thread to have a little fun at the expense of a crappy little amp on Ebay. Everybody, including you there J, got that. Every post made here also had some fun with that. You Emoettes really need to lighten up. This is just a hobby for pete's sake, not a contest. The only heaven found here is in the sweet spot.

Habanero Monk

polrbehr wrote: »

Well, then, that settles it. Anyone who owns/uses any MIT cables should immediately bale them up and throw them in the trash. Better still, destroy them first, to ensure that no one else can have their systems damaged by using them. Jesse, feel free to remove my name from the interested list for the [hopefully] upcoming demo... :rolleyes:

My point is, if you happen to have those speakers, that amp, that DAC, in that exact listening room, then by all means believe that review and don't buy MIT cables. Or, listen for yourself anyway, and make up your own mind based on what YOU hear. The same advice goes for anyone who has any other gear besides what was listed. Maybe?

I would ask you: What claims does MIT make? This is from their website home/landing page:

"Simply put, an audio cable is a piece of wire that is used to make a random connection between audio components. An audio interface is an engineered component that is purposefully designed to efficiently transport energy, with a predetermined bandwidth, from one component to another.

"Audiophiles are all familiar with the now infamous "cable debate" surrounding the question of the impact that audio cables have in a hi-fi system. Today’s audiophiles understand that differently designed cables do impact the overall sound of their systems. We at MIT Cables agree. But these "just wire" designs only serve to manipulate the sound by changing the relationship of capacitance, inductance, and resistance within the cable. They don’t eliminate any problems.

"This is where we separate ourselves from other cable companies. We discovered back in the 1970's that audio cables were inherently flawed for their purpose. What we determined was that a high fidelity system needed more than just cables to connect audio components; they needed devices that were engineered to properly interface them.

"The benefit is more lifelike vocals and instruments, mid and high frequencies become less bright or tiring, voices are clear and understandable, and bass frequencies become tight and deep.

I am trying to square this with your synergy argument. That isn't the claim that they are making. It reads to me like any setup is going to be improved with their 'interfaces'.

I would actually like to hear from the 4 MIT employees in the room with Salk and ask how they can square all of this. Is Jim Salk a buffoon and tin-eared?

Habanero Monk

kuntasensei wrote: »

So... you're mad at the troll... for derailing the thread... that you were using to troll...

Sorry, just wrapping my head around that one for a second. :razz:

There you go baffling them with logic and having a positive opinion of your XPA-3 vs your Parasound/Adcom. Does this mean they kicked you out of the clique?

Jhayman

If you can't see his hidden agenda with that post then I have nothing more to say to you.
What the hell does my self esteem or inadequacy have to do with this Dr. Fox?
Oh how I wish I graduated Senior Kindergarten then I could decipher the linguistics meanings of the cables.
Maybe when I open my next box of Captain Crunch cereal maybe there will be a secret decoder ring inside..

BlueFox wrote: »

I just reread his post since I did not remember seeing anyone say, or even imply, that. And I was right, he did not say or imply that. Since you have not repudiated this post, and in fact reiterated it in post 43, we can only assume you have, at best, reading comprehension problems, or most likely a very low sense of self esteem and inadequacy.

He is simply stating the truth. MIT, and other high-end cables, bring out details in the music that are hidden with low end cables. Like it or not, that is a fact. When I replaced my Kimber Kables Hero XLR interconnects with the MIT Shotgun S1.3 XLRs the soundstage expanded, and the sound became clearer and more focused.

Loud & Clear

John trolled the board and then gets mad at "trolls." Hilarious. But it would be even funnier if we could add some high end cables into the chain, to bring out even more of the comic detail and decay.

cnh

What are you guys talking about? The adults leave the room and the kids get into a fight! Surprise, surprise!

Cables? Really! Haven't we done this to death? Plus I'm not getting how John trolled the board. I seem to be missing something. I thought the post was meant as "comic" relief. But humor seems to be what is "now" most absent in this thread!

cnh

sucks2beme

ok, we were making fun of the amp.
now it's a cable P*ssing contest?
And of course it's the normal parties.
Nobody on either side is going to back down, so why don't we just
call it a draw?

kuntasensei

Habanero Monk wrote: »

There you go baffling them with logic and having a positive opinion of your XPA-3 vs your Parasound/Adcom. Does this mean they kicked you out of the clique?

There's a clique? Don't look at me, man... I don't let people's opinions of brands affect my enjoyment of them. I value all opinions here.

Unless someone here buys that headphone amp, in which case, that guy can burn in hell. :razz:

Habanero Monk

kuntasensei wrote: »

There's a clique? Don't look at me, man... I don't let people's opinions of brands affect my enjoyment of them. I value all opinions here.

In the case of used vs new emotiva you may have valued opinions a bit too much :razz:

polrbehr

I would expect that they will claim sonic benefits for any system; to suggest otherwise would not make good business sense. Having said that, I have heard MIT interconnects in my own system, and I liked the results they provided. Did I purchase any MIT products after that? No, not yet, maybe some day when funds permit. But I still have the knowledge that I heard some for myself, and can accept that not everyone will like what they hear with their gear.

My comments were not directed at you, per se, but after reading the reviewers comment about modifying the wire by making sure it was cut to proper length, I kind of figured where that "review" was heading.

And for what it's worth, I just bought two more power cords to try; I now have 6 different PCs, ranging from major manufacturers to home-built cords. I am also looking to purchase a bridge if anyone has one for sale...

George Grand

polrbehr wrote: »

I am also looking to purchase a bridge if anyone has one for sale...

I am constructing a TOTL steel suspension bridge. It will not be an entry-level bridge when complete. I will contact you.

vmaxer

Damn, my popcorn burned while reading this......back in a few.