Diminishing Returns? MIT cables.....

tonyb

Exactly Skip, how you chart something subjective is beyond me.

txcoastal1

Cardas, Kimber, MIT, MG Audio, Audioquest and many others actually have completely different engineered cable structure, different impedance and other different qualities and they will measure differently. Amps, preamps and source components will also measure differently, and will also many times not match up in systems.

I consider everything in the music chain a component, matching them up to my ears is part of the game and hobby.

Because of the above, does not mean a $2000 pair of cables is going to improve my system just as I've heard $100,000 speakers that didn't sound that great..."clincher"...to me,...my own ears

DSkip, Russman, and I have shown at shows over the past 5 years and have swapped gear and cables around creating dozens of combinations. Some not so noticeable, some that will slap you in the face...including just cable swaps. Cables that sounded great in my system, then downright flat in his/others and vice versa.

I don't buy pre's, I don't buy amps...I buy systems, and this usually takes months to years to put them together.

For now....
https://youtu.be/Otm4RusESNU

lightman1

rmpolk wrote: »

I can admit I don't know much on this subject and I may prove naive but I posted it because I believe what I read!! past tense implied [red]

txcoastal1

xcapri79 wrote: »

txcoastal1 wrote: »

Cardas, Kimber, MIT, MG Audio, Audioquest and many others actually have completely different engineered cable structure, different impedance and other different qualities and they will measure differently. Amps, preamps and source components will also measure differently, and will also many times not match up in systems.

I consider everything in the music chain a component, matching them up to my ears is part of the game and hobby.

Because of the above, does not mean a $2000 pair of cables is going to improve my system just as I've heard $100,000 speakers that didn't sound that great..."clincher"...to me,...my own ears

DSkip, Russman, and I have shown at shows over the past 5 years and have swapped gear and cables around creating dozens of combinations. Some not so noticeable, some that will slap you in the face...including just cable swaps. Cables that sounded great in my system, then downright flat in his/others and vice versa.

I don't buy pre's, I don't buy amps...I buy systems, and this usually takes months to years to put them together.

I do support your system synergy theory, but I ask is there one high-end cable manufacturer that also adheres to the system synergy theory with respect to the application of their cables? [/quote]

No IMHO,...example: My MG's work absolutely fantastic with my Dynaudio C1's, but does not influence my Usher's as they do my Dyn's

[/quote]I see that each high-end manufacturer says that their cables are the best for any system. So how can this be so? Where does the marketing end and the truth begin? [/quote]

You have to do your homework, is cable A built and manufactured like cable B with a shiny wrapper and a high price tag.


Manufacturers
Cardas for example: I know a little history about Cardas as I have hung out with Colleen Cardas (she used to live in TX). Cardas' cable machines are designed and built from scratch. When a major part breaks it has to be rebuilt by hand, and every machine is different and very expensive to design build and maintain, same goes for Kimber and many others.

Even the companies that by quality 3rd party OEM parts incur substantial assembly and marketing/sales costs...shiites not free...Doug is one that falls in this category

Doug provides quality parts, good craftsmanship, and a great guy to boot at a very fair price (sometimes to fair IMHO)...I do own a few of his pieces.
I'm sure he would love to to sell some of his stuff for thousands on the dollar, but that's not his style (as it is for others)...he and I both welcome you to DIY

here's another thought...I drive a Denali pickup, I could by a plain Sierra...but i enjoy my Denali and I can afford it

FYI and I know this from experience
Audio is very expensive and can take years and boat loads of money and time to get off the ground, and is very expensive to manufacture. In U.S. high labor and material costs....source out to 3rd world---high quantity investment

tonyb

xcapri79 wrote: »

[What complicates this analysis is that there are several manufacturers of high-end cables with different designs and material who all claim to be the best. How could all these different designs be the best?

They can't, because the best is subjective. Don't car manufacturers use the same system of marketing ? Everyone claiming to be the best, backed up with snappy commercials of people drooling over their cars. You'll get some who love them, and some who deplore them, again.....preferences.

You have to filter out the marketing and simply try for yourself. Just like cars, you can have an opinion based on what you read but until you actually own one, drive one at least, your opinion holds little weight.

Some of you want a guarantee, a guarantee that if you spend x amount more your sure to hear x amount of improvement. Your going to win some and lose some in that battle, especially in audio, but at the very least the experience will add to your general knowledge of audio.

BlueFox

rmpolk wrote: »

I originally posted this on another thread but since this one turned into a another cable debate I thought it might be of enough interest to bear repeating here too-So while doing some web surfing I came across this.-[Quantifying the performance ]-The key element when discussing audio cable was the ability to quantify the performance thru test results.Then through our R and D we came to develop the efficiency scale.A test and measurement program that correlates the sonic qualities of the cable with bench test performance. Using proprietary software designed by us and assisted by HP we are now able to measure the networks complex impedance and phase and calculate its in phase power and losses.These factors show the efficiency of a given audio network or cable will pass the signal from input to output We are now able to combine these results into a single graph to characterize and correlate a networks sonic performance to what the Ear Hears!

This is a useless quote, if that is what it is. Post a link to it so the reader can judge the veracity of the source, and understand the context. For all anyone knows, you just made up your 'quote'.

WilliamM2

BlueFox wrote: »

This is a useless quote, if that is what it is. Post a link to it so the reader can judge the veracity of the source, and understand the context. For all anyone knows, you just made up your 'quote'.

The veracity of the quote is quite questionable. It's from a well known cable scam operation. Last paragraph.

http://ww2.mitcables.com/publications/articles/faq-frequently-asked-questions.html

Also appears in an advertising piece designed to look like a review from a known cable shill:

http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue70/mit_slcables.htm

tonyb

Here is the context....

"A key element that was always missing when discussing the performance of audio and video cable was the ability to quantify performance through test results. In 1992, after years of R&D, MIT announced the development of the Efficiency Scale, a test and measurement program that correlates sonic qualities of cable with test-bench performance. Using proprietary software designed by MIT in conjunction with Hewlett-Packard, MIT was now able to measure a network's complex impedance, including its phase, and calculate its in-phase power and losses. These are the very factors that show how efficiently a given audio network or cable will pass the music signal from input to output. MIT was able to combine these results into a single graph to characterize and correlate a network's sonic performance to what the ear hears, something no other cable company has the ability to do."

What they are doing is basically showing you how they test and improve signal flow. They make zero reference to how those improvements translate to better sound. That's up to you to decide. There are certain aspects of a cables performance that are measureable, nobody will argue that. However it is not the only thing that dictates how it will sound to the end user. Certainly, many love their cables, and some don't too, so again we circle back to preferences and synergy within ones system.

WilliamM2

rmpolk wrote: »

Bluefox= So you can.t help me then and take your best educated guess as to what was implied by the term audio network ? ok lets assume I made it up What did I mean then

It's the "network" boxes that MIT attaches to the end on their cables. Just look at the high quality wire and components:



Those switches are at least 10 cents each.

tonyb

So what William, you know how many cheap parts are in your Polk speakers ? You don't care though because they sound good, right ? Neither do MIT cable owners.

In any audio related purchase, I personally could care less if they are made of solid gold or have two squirrels chasing a nut inside, it's always the sound coming out that rules the day.

lightman1

It's not what's physically in the box. It's the good, unseen magic that they place in there.

tonyb

No x, I'm saying if it sounds good, roll with it, regardless of whats inside/outside or upside down.

txcoastal1

xcapri79 wrote: »

tonyb wrote: »

So what William, you know how many cheap parts are in your Polk speakers ? You don't care though because they sound good, right ? Neither do MIT cable owners.

In any audio related purchase, I personally could care less if they are made of solid gold or have two squirrels chasing a nut inside, it's always the sound coming out that rules the day.

Come on Tony. Are you seriously comparing the quality and performance/price of Polk Audio speakers to MIT cables? There is absolutely no contest there. That is the point many of us have made for years.

Heresay---opinion, please strike comment

WilliamM2

tonyb wrote: »

So what William, you know how many cheap parts are in your Polk speakers ? You don't care though because they sound good, right ? Neither do MIT cable owners.

In any audio related purchase, I personally could care less if they are made of solid gold or have two squirrels chasing a nut inside, it's always the sound coming out that rules the day.

Well my SDA1C's only retailed for $1800, and since it's an entire speaker, they may have had to make a couple compromises.

The cables pictured above retailed for $8995. I wouldn't expect cheap wire and components in a $9K cable, or such sloppy workmanship.

F1nut

I do support your system synergy theory, but I ask is there one high-end cable manufacturer that also adheres to the system synergy theory with respect to the application of their cables?

Sure, MIT designed cables especially for Spectral's unique gear.

F1nut

WilliamM2 wrote: »

rmpolk wrote: »

Bluefox= So you can.t help me then and take your best educated guess as to what was implied by the term audio network ? ok lets assume I made it up What did I mean then

It's the "network" boxes that MIT attaches to the end on their cables. Just look at the high quality wire and components:



Those switches are at least 10 cents each.

So, by trying to get folks to focus on what you think is a cheap switch you're hoping they will ignore the very expensive to make, very complex cable and machined aluminum box the shields the components inside. Typical of your ignorance of the matter.

F1nut

rmpolk wrote: »

To all that participated Xcapri has it- GIVE THAT MAN THE I LOOKED I SAW I LEARNED PRIZE OF THE DAY!!! CONGRATULATIONS may you share it with others! Obviously i can't judge its validity but the claim comes from a well sold respected brand [wonder if there will be any ya but they ments] ah I can REST now!

You backed the wrong horse, again.

WilliamM2

F1nut wrote: »

So, by trying to get folks to focus on what you think is a cheap switch you're hoping they will ignore the very expensive to make, very complex cable and machined aluminum box the shields the components inside. Typical of your ignorance of the matter.

Complex cable and aluminum box? Talk about ignorance.

lightman1

tonyb

WilliamM2 wrote: »

tonyb wrote: »

So what William, you know how many cheap parts are in your Polk speakers ? You don't care though because they sound good, right ? Neither do MIT cable owners.

In any audio related purchase, I personally could care less if they are made of solid gold or have two squirrels chasing a nut inside, it's always the sound coming out that rules the day.

Well my SDA1C's only retailed for $1800, and since it's an entire speaker, they may have had to make a couple compromises.

The cables pictured above retailed for $8995. I wouldn't expect cheap wire and components in a $9K cable, or such sloppy workmanship.

LOL, you know how many cheap parts are in a Mercedes ? Cost lots more than those cables, no ?

The value is in the sound it produces, not the sum total of parts. Just like the value in a Mercedes is in the driving experience, not the sum total of it's parts.

If you think somehow you can replicate the sound of MIT cables with so called cheap parts for a lot less, then I await your demo program.

F1nut

tonyb wrote: »

Here is the context....

"A key element that was always missing when discussing the performance of audio and video cable was the ability to quantify performance through test results. In 1992, after years of R&D, MIT announced the development of the Efficiency Scale, a test and measurement program that correlates sonic qualities of cable with test-bench performance. Using proprietary software designed by MIT in conjunction with Hewlett-Packard, MIT was now able to measure a network's complex impedance, including its phase, and calculate its in-phase power and losses. These are the very factors that show how efficiently a given audio network or cable will pass the music signal from input to output. MIT was able to combine these results into a single graph to characterize and correlate a network's sonic performance to what the ear hears, something no other cable company has the ability to do."

What they are doing is basically showing you how they test and improve signal flow. They make zero reference to how those improvements translate to better sound. That's up to you to decide. There are certain aspects of a cables performance that are measureable, nobody will argue that. However it is not the only thing that dictates how it will sound to the end user. Certainly, many love their cables, and some don't too, so again we circle back to preferences and synergy within ones system.

One has to wonder why rmpolk didn't quote the entire text? Well not really, we know why.

heiney9

xcapri79 wrote: »

WilliamM2 wrote: »

It's the "network" boxes that MIT attaches to the end on their cables. Just look at the high quality wire and components:



Those switches are at least 10 cents each.

I'm curious about how much noise is introduced by that circuitry? The purpose of ables should be to transport the signal from A to B with as little degradation as possible. This design appears to counter that philosophy by introducing additional passive circuit components which will certainly introduce additional noise to the signal. Those resistors, switches, and unshielded wires are a good source of noise intrusion.

How does one rationalize their opinion against having tone controls or equalizers in a preamp yet support this type of circuitry in a cable? Seems quite contradictory to me.

You obviously know absolutely nothing about the design.

heiney9

tonyb wrote: »

LOL, you know how many cheap parts are in a Mercedes ? Cost lots more than those cables, no ?

The value is in the sound it produces, not the sum total of parts. Just like the value in a Mercedes is in the driving experience, not the sum total of it's parts.

If you think somehow you can replicate the sound of MIT cables with so called cheap parts for a lot less, then I await your demo program.

Tony, the will never know because they will never find out for themselves. Somehow it's still ok to completely malign a brand even though they have ZERO experience with it.

Pretty pathetic if you ask me.

H9

tonyb

Same old battle Jess. Cherry picked info found on the internet to support pre-conceived notions, without having any experience with said brand or better brands in general.....and little to no will to even try for themselves.

Can't wait for the Russel Wilson report to get posted again....geesh.

F1nut

WilliamM2 wrote: »

F1nut wrote: »

So, by trying to get folks to focus on what you think is a cheap switch you're hoping they will ignore the very expensive to make, very complex cable and machined aluminum box the shields the components inside. Typical of your ignorance of the matter.

Complex cable and aluminum box? Talk about ignorance.

Considering that you've never seen the inside of the cable or have other knowledge that I have about the subject matter, yes you are displaying your ignorance of the matter.

BlueFox

xcapri79 wrote: »

Interesting that this useless quote comes from MIT cables.
Guess Bluefox has some "splaining" to do as rmpolk certainly proved his point.

Your reading comprehension skills are zero. No wonder you struggle in life. The quote was useless since there was no source provided. Even a third grader could understand that. The only thing rmpolk has proved is that he has no idea of what he is talking about.

BlueFox

Interesting how William jumped right on the MIT quote, and was aware of the source. Is he double posting under the rmpolk handle?

tonyb

I don't think so Fox, nothing brings William out of the closet quicker than a cable debate. Though I must admit, the timing is a bit strange. Coincidence ?

heiney9

X - Bluefox DIDN'T question the post, he remarked that it's worthless taken out of context and without a source.

Get a clue, you are twisting things to fit an agenda, it's rather pathetic as we all know what he meant.

H9

heiney9

If you have no experience with MIT cables, then you have nothing to say. End of story.

H9