Quite possibly the greatest amp ever!

headrott

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?

As Tony and Brock pointed out already. What you are stating is not what I said. I will repeat what I said for you again. First, by using cheaper, lower quality cables, your detail, clarity, imaging,, transparency, soundstage, and frequency spread are not "missing" (of course). However, the clarity, detail, imaging, transparency, soundstage, and frequency spread are reduced when using cheaper, lower quality cables; just as it is when using cheaper, lower quality gear. Higher quality parts and better design directly affects the quality of sound the gear (cables, sources, DACs, pre-amps, amps, etc.) produces. That's just the way it is. Realising that's the way it is, is the responsibility of each user of the gear in question.

headrott

brgman wrote: »

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.

LOL!! Yes, this is actually what I was getting at.:razz:

headrott

Jhayman wrote: »

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?

Sir, you are using projection. You are even projecting what your thoughts are from Habanero Monk's response. It was HM that was mocking my first reply in this thread, correct? In what way did I mock him back? The answer is, I did not and that was not my intention. Do not accuse me falsly, please.

headrott

Habanero Monk wrote: »

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.

Please let Jesse know of your interest in the the thread I linked in my post above. I have to say, and am absolutely not going to debate the use of blind tests of any kind in stereophonic audio, but blind tests were not designed to be used for that purpose. Ray (Darqueknight) started a thread a while back regarding this subject. Please read it. I am glad you are interested in trying some new cables in your system.

vmaxer

nooshinjohn wrote: »

What the hell is this? and the price???? I dunno guys, but it looks like a game-changer for sure!

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Pleiades-Electra-Electron-Tube-Only-Headphones-Amplifier-For-Sennheiser-HD580-/330920127371?pt=US_Pro_Audio_Amplifiers&hash=item4d0c606b8b

I think Coconaught Audio has some serious competition on it's hands.

At least they got the legal mumbo jumbo out of the way...:cheesygrin:

John, see what you started???

By the way, the MIT cables I bought from you arrived........what should I do with them now??

nooshinjohn

vmaxer wrote: »

John, see what you started???

By the way, the MIT cables I bought from you arrived........what should I do with them now??

Depends... I like my cables roasted slowly over an open flame with a touch of chived butter and garlic. I top them off with fava beans and a nice chianti.:cheesygrin:

kuntasensei

nooshinjohn wrote: »

Depends... I like my cables roasted slowly over an open flame with a touch of chived butter and garlic. I top them off with fava beans and a nice chianti.:cheesygrin:

That sounds delicious! And sonically revealing!

pearsall001

headrott wrote: »

As Tony and Brock pointed out already. What you are stating is not what I said. I will repeat what I said for you again. First, by using cheaper, lower quality cables, your detail, clarity, imaging,, transparency, soundstage, and frequency spread are not "missing" (of course). However, the clarity, detail, imaging, transparency, soundstage, and frequency spread are reduced when using cheaper, lower quality cables; just as it is when using cheaper, lower quality gear. Higher quality parts and better design directly affects the quality of sound the gear (cables, sources, DACs, pre-amps, amps, etc.) produces. That's just the way it is. Realising that's the way it is, is the responsibility of each user of the gear in question.

Please explain what you have in mind when you mention: lower quality cables (lower than what?) cheaper, lower quality gear (how cheap? my wallet is different than yours) Higher quality parts (as to opposed to what lower quality parts?) Better design (better than what?) I'm still confused here. Hey as long as it sounds good who cares!!!

headrott

pearsall001 wrote: »

Please explain what you have in mind when you mention: lower quality cables (lower than what?) cheaper, lower quality gear (how cheap? my wallet is different than yours) Higher quality parts (as to opposed to what lower quality parts?) Better design (better than what?) I'm still confused here. Hey as long as it sounds good who cares!!!

I don't think it's confusing when one says lower quality and higher quality. One might need a reference point (as you brought up). However, it was provided by me already in my first reply:

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.

As has been brought up many, many times in other threads, a comparison would be analogous to cars. That is, is it difficult to understand that a BMW 735 has much higher quallity parts, design, and construction compared to a Yugo?

I agree as long as you are satisfied with the sound, enjoy. But, when some decide to cheapen the effects of using better quality cables in their systems (and potentially causing newer members of the forum and/or new to stereophonic audio to turn away from the possibility of trying different cables) then this is not acceptable. It potentially defeats all the hard work/kindness of MIT, Jesse, Joe Abrams, etc. etc, etc. that goes into the MIT cable demo program.

brgman

headrott wrote: »

But, when some decide to cheapen the effects of using better quality cables in their systems (and potentially causing newer members of the forum and/or new to stereophonic audio to turn away from the possibility of trying different cables) then this is not acceptable. It potentially defeats all the hard work/kindness of MIT, Jesse, Joe Abrams, etc. etc, etc. that goes into the MIT cable demo program.

Well said!

kuntasensei

My cables are made out of unicorn teeth and unobtanium, and it sounds like topless angels gargling a fine whiskey.

Also, I should start measuring this cough syrup instead of drinking from the bottle.

pearsall001

headrott wrote: »

I don't think it's confusing when one says lower quality and higher quality. One might need a reference point (as you brought up). However, it was provided by me already in my first reply:



As has been brought up many, many times in other threads, a comparison would be analogous to cars. That is, is it difficult to understand that a BMW 735 has much higher quallity parts, design, and construction compared to a Yugo?

I agree as long as you are satisfied with the sound, enjoy. But, when some decide to cheapen the effects of using better quality cables in their systems (and potentially causing newer members of the forum and/or new to stereophonic audio to turn away from the possibility of trying different cables) then this is not acceptable. It potentially defeats all the hard work/kindness of MIT, Jesse, Joe Abrams, etc. etc, etc. that goes into the MIT cable demo program.

Wowza!!!! Carry on my good man...very entertaining to say the least. Audio babble at it's finest. And you should never use a car comparison in an audio discussion. Every design by the car manufacture can be tested & backed up with factual data, ie: acceleration, braking, steering, drag, crash testing etc.. No such factual data exists in the audio worls except for the spec sheet. Which in itself doesn't guarantee a superior sounding piece as compared to another based on a spec sheet. It's entirely up to the listener to decide. Some of the worst spec amps (I guess they didn't get the memo to use quality parts) have the best reputation for sounding the best. Go figure. But you are correct that one should try different cables to form their own opinion.

Jhayman

Lol, no don't measure it that way you can get a refill quicker from the Doc..
And I though I had the only cables that have unobtanium in them, at least that's what the oil salesman said..pops scratch oil.., lol

kuntasensei wrote: »

My cables are made out of unicorn teeth and unobtanium, and it sounds like topless angels gargling a fine whiskey.

Also, I should start measuring this cough syrup instead of drinking from the bottle.

vmaxer

headrott wrote: »

I don't think it's confusing when one says lower quality and higher quality. One might need a reference point (as you brought up). However, it was provided by me already in my first reply:



As has been brought up many, many times in other threads, a comparison would be analogous to cars. That is, is it difficult to understand that a BMW 735 has much higher quallity parts, design, and construction compared to a Yugo?

I agree as long as you are satisfied with the sound, enjoy. But, when some decide to cheapen the effects of using better quality cables in their systems (and potentially causing newer members of the forum and/or new to stereophonic audio to turn away from the possibility of trying different cables) then this is not acceptable. It potentially defeats all the hard work/kindness of MIT, Jesse, Joe Abrams, etc. etc, etc. that goes into the MIT cable demo program.

Ok, now you crossed the line!!! Making fun of my Yugo!!!!

This is not good, I have a few and even the 4 door model known as the wego.

I am really hurt now¡¡¿¿

headrott

pearsall001 wrote: »

Wowza!!!! Carry on my good man...very entertaining to say the least. Audio babble at it's finest. And you should never use a car comparison in an audio discussion. Every design by the car manufacture can be tested & backed up with factual data, ie: acceleration, braking, steering, drag, crash testing etc.. No such factual data exists in the audio worls except for the spec sheet. Which in itself doesn't guarantee a superior sounding piece as compared to another based on a spec sheet. It's entirely up to the listener to decide. Some of the worst spec amps (I guess they didn't get the memo to use quality parts) have the best reputation for sounding the best. Go figure. But you are correct that one should try different cables to form their own opinion.

There is no "factual data" for soundstage, imaging, detail, clarity, and transparency because there are no machines to measure these audio aspects. The only way to measure them is with your ears, brain and conscoiusness. The exception in the list of audio aspects are detail and clarity, and transparency which can be indirectly "measured" by measuring THD, but is still not necessarily an indication of what the amounts detail, clarity, and transparency will be to the listener.

I agree that specs don't mean anything when it comes to what a listener hears. Why did you bring it up that there are is "no such factual data" in the audio world then? You are using both sides of the argument, sir.

Also, poorly measuring specs. don't (necessarily) mean lower quality parts are used or that the design is poor. High quality parts can be used and a certain design aspect can be used to optimize a performance feature of the piece of gear resulting in poor measuring specs, but high quality sound. It's much more complex than simply saying high quality parts and superior design equals high sound quality. But, it can be said that higher quality parts and superior design lead to higher quality sound. The opposite is also true, if lower quality parts and poor design are used, lower quality sound is the result.

Finally, for the car comparison to cables, regardless of how measured specs. of handling, acceleration, braking, etc. are; one does not go into a car dealership and say "Hey, I just read a detailed and glowing review of this car and would like to purchase it." The auto salesman replies "Well, sir don't you want to test drive it?" The buyer responds, "No, the measured specifications show this car outclass every other car in it's price range and even many well above it's price range, and I just want to pay for it and leave. I am that convinced by it's measured specifications". Obviously, the buyer would be potentially extememly dissapointed after paying for it and on the way home discovers that he/she doesn't like the way the car handles. He/she doesn't like the way the car accelerates or the way it shifts, etc. But, the buyer would be well aware first hand the resulting aspects of the car (handling, acceleration, shifting, etc.). So too, is the same for audio cables (and gear in general). Even though there is only the spec. sheet of the things that are measurable, once the buyer gets the piece of gear home and hooks it up, they should be able to hear the soundstage (hight, depth, and width), imaging, detail, transparency, and frequency spread regardless of having these specs. or not.

BlueFox

No bids yet, so there is still a chance to get it at the starting bid.

pearsall001

BlueFox wrote: »

No bids yet, so there is still a chance to get it at the starting bid.

I'll only bid if they disclose the quality of the parts used. Then & only then will I know if it's a keeper or not.

F1nut

headrott wrote: »

There is no "factual data" for soundstage, imaging, detail, clarity, and transparency because there are no machines to measure these audio aspects. The only way to measure them is with your ears, brain and conscoiusness. The exception in the list of audio aspects are detail and clarity, and transparency which can be indirectly "measured" by measuring THD, but is still not necessarily an indication of what the amounts detail, clarity, and transparency will be to the listener.

I agree that specs don't mean anything when it comes to what a listener hears. Why did you bring it up that there are is "no such factual data" in the audio world then? You are using both sides of the argument, sir.

Also, poorly measuring specs. don't (necessarily) mean lower quality parts are used or that the design is poor. High quality parts can be used and a certain design aspect can be used to optimize a performance feature of the piece of gear resulting in poor measuring specs, but high quality sound. It's much more complex than simply saying high quality parts and superior design equals high sound quality. But, it can be said that higher quality parts and superior design lead to higher quality sound. The opposite is also true, if lower quality parts and poor design are used, lower quality sound is the result.

Finally, for the car comparison to cables, regardless of how measured specs. of handling, acceleration, braking, etc. are; one does not go into a car dealership and say "Hey, I just read a detailed and glowing review of this car and would like to purchase it." The auto salesman replies "Well, sir don't you want to test drive it?" The buyer responds, "No, the measured specifications show this car outclass every other car in it's price range and even many well above it's price range, and I just want to pay for it and leave. I am that convinced by it's measured specifications". Obviously, the buyer would be potentially extememly dissapointed after paying for it and on the way home discovers that he/she doesn't like the way the car handles. He/she doesn't like the way the car accelerates or the way it shifts, etc. But, the buyer would be well aware first hand the resulting aspects of the car (handling, acceleration, shifting, etc.). So too, is the same for audio cables (and gear in general). Even though there is only the spec. sheet of the things that are measurable, once the buyer gets the piece of gear home and hooks it up, they should be able to hear the soundstage (hight, depth, and width), imaging, detail, transparency, and frequency spread regardless of having these specs. or not.

Excellent post!!!

bthogan

Can't go wrong with tubes!

11tsteve

it's not common knowledge that quality of parts and design will equal better SQ? has anyone told Nelson Pass?

pearsall001

headrott wrote: »

There is no "factual data" for soundstage, imaging, detail, clarity, and transparency because there are no machines to measure these audio aspects. The only way to measure them is with your ears, brain and conscoiusness. The exception in the list of audio aspects are detail and clarity, and transparency which can be indirectly "measured" by measuring THD, but is still not necessarily an indication of what the amounts detail, clarity, and transparency will be to the listener.

I agree that specs don't mean anything when it comes to what a listener hears. Why did you bring it up that there are is "no such factual data" in the audio world then? You are using both sides of the argument, sir.

Also, poorly measuring specs. don't (necessarily) mean lower quality parts are used or that the design is poor. High quality parts can be used and a certain design aspect can be used to optimize a performance feature of the piece of gear resulting in poor measuring specs, but high quality sound. It's much more complex than simply saying high quality parts and superior design equals high sound quality. But, it can be said that higher quality parts and superior design lead to higher quality sound. The opposite is also true, if lower quality parts and poor design are used, lower quality sound is the result.

Finally, for the car comparison to cables, regardless of how measured specs. of handling, acceleration, braking, etc. are; one does not go into a car dealership and say "Hey, I just read a detailed and glowing review of this car and would like to purchase it." The auto salesman replies "Well, sir don't you want to test drive it?" The buyer responds, "No, the measured specifications show this car outclass every other car in it's price range and even many well above it's price range, and I just want to pay for it and leave. I am that convinced by it's measured specifications". Obviously, the buyer would be potentially extememly dissapointed after paying for it and on the way home discovers that he/she doesn't like the way the car handles. He/she doesn't like the way the car accelerates or the way it shifts, etc. But, the buyer would be well aware first hand the resulting aspects of the car (handling, acceleration, shifting, etc.). So too, is the same for audio cables (and gear in general). Even though there is only the spec. sheet of the things that are measurable, once the buyer gets the piece of gear home and hooks it up, they should be able to hear the soundstage (hight, depth, and width), imaging, detail, transparency, and frequency spread regardless of having these specs. or not.

I see we're pretty much on the same page here. The long write up about the test drive wasn't necessary becauce it's a given or at least it should be. Of course one needs to test drive the vehicle. And the specs from any manufacture should act as a guideline & your listening session with the gear, cables, ect. will be the determining factor. No need to over think things. In the end it's all good.

Habanero Monk

11tsteve wrote: »

it's not common knowledge that quality of parts and design will equal better SQ? has anyone told Nelson Pass?

I know for products like the iPad and such there is a company that does a tear down of one and comes up with the quality of parts and estimated cost to manufacture.

It would be interesting to see some various makes torn down. May be that the circuit design and topology could be dissected also.

11tsteve

it is hard to dissect R & D.

Systems

11tsteve wrote: »

it is hard to dissect R & D.

Reverse engineering is easier than the original engineering itself.:cheesygrin:

11tsteve

pepster wrote: »

Reverse engineering is easier than the original engineering itself.:cheesygrin:

which makes it impossible to understand exactly how much time goes into designing a product.:cheesygrin:

Systems

11tsteve wrote: »

which makes it impossible to understand exactly how much time goes into designing a product.:cheesygrin:

Very true!:cheesygrin:
Most (Chinese knockoff's for example), don't care about money spent, but more for money made.:redface:

Habanero Monk

11tsteve wrote: »

it is hard to dissect R & D.

I'm in no way taking into account R&D and for what I was speaking do it isn't even relevant. It simply speaks to the manufacturing costs. The outfits that take apart a tablet or ultrabook aren't after the R&D. They are after the parts count, quality, estimated build costs. That's all I was speaking about.

As far as circuit design and topology that (as mentioned) is simply the additive step of reverse engineering and making an educated guess.

11tsteve

Habanero Monk wrote: »

I'm in no way taking into account R&D and for what I was speaking do it isn't even relevant. It simply speaks to the manufacturing costs. The outfits that take apart a tablet or ultrabook aren't after the R&D. They are after the parts count, quality, estimated build costs. That's all I was speaking about.

As far as circuit design and topology that (as mentioned) is simply the additive step of reverse engineering and making an educated guess.

so you are saying parts and manufacturing costs are in no way affected by R & D costs. interesting....
all i am saying is dissecting a piece of electronics and totaling up parts is not necessarily an accurate representation of everything.

Systems

11tsteve wrote: »

so you are saying parts and manufacturing costs are in no way affected by R & D costs. interesting....
all i am saying is dissecting a piece of electronics and totaling up parts is not necessarily an accurate representation of everything.

It is everything if you have an example on hand to reverse engineer and measure the populated boards..
Upgraded versions will only differ, for the amount of time it takes to receive the new version.

Systems

About the only thing they could hide is the solder mask they used!:cheesygrin:
Not much difference in copper traces, and all they have to do is order the same board.

It is marked with a model number.
That is what sux IMHO!
Everyone rips everybody else off on their design and R&D.

That said, it has been going on for 500 years.