New MIT cables, adjustable articulation!

Toolfan66

Well in his defense Jesse, he is a clown!!!

tonyb

Toolfan66 wrote: »

Well in his defense Jesse, he is a clown!!!

In that case, all we need then is a VW beetle and a big bag of popcorn....maybe a few balloons, I like balloons.

Nightfall

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESa4tVAf_gY

madmax

For the cheapskates out there here is a more affordable alternative, of course its a demo piece but you can't have everything for peanuts. http://www.audioadvisor.com/prodinfo.asp?number=1MIMSHD120&utm_source=Email+Newsletters&utm_campaign=04ad9eca47-Clearance_Newsletter_5_20_2016&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_2d471df912-04ad9eca47-77595689

littlewoodboats

F1nut wrote: »

F1nut wrote: »

xcapri79 wrote: »

Claims without proof become baseless claims.

Let's see the proof of your beloved emo gear.

So, the best response you've got to my question is to LOL a bunch of posts?

It is how Roger Russell told him to respond.

Thanks Jesse for clearing some of this up for me. I understood how interconnects could be used to assist with impedance matching and have heard first hand the differences in my system. I get what guys like Russell are trying to say but even Russell talks about how differences in any part of the chain can have subtle effects on wire requirements and interactions.

X keeps asking for measurements that I submit already exist. Look at all of the graphs posted by DarqueKnight to document before and after results when he makes changes to his system. How many REW graphs have been posted to record differences in things like bi-amp jumpers?

I could see using cables like these as a tool to determine the values needed to build perfectly tuned cables for an individuals system. A customer who has more money than I do contacts MIT for custom speaker cables. After deposits have been made MIT sends out something like these as analsys cables. Place the cables into the system for acoustic measurement making adjustments until the paramaters of the cables are percect for the individual system. Once the diagnostic testing is completed and any necessary adjustments have been determined MIT could then whip up network boxes tailored to the customers needs.

I could see this as being more markatable than $80,000 speaker cables.

ZLTFUL

I always get a kick out of the ignorant people who "listen" to music using measuring equipment.

I don't know about them, but *I* listen to music with my ears.
I also know that Ray, while providing scope grabs, always uses his ears as the final judge in a modification or upgrade.
To me, what we *HEAR* means far more than what a piece of electronic machinery shows. Why? Because out of all of the high end measuring devices, none of them are as dynamic at processing music as my own ears and brain.

So, x, keep on with your dead horse beating soap box thumping ego trip. I will keep on listening to the music.

EndersShadow

ZLTFUL wrote: »

I always get a kick out of the ignorant people who "listen" to music using measuring equipment.

I don't know about them, but *I* listen to music with my ears.
I also know that Ray, while providing scope grabs, always uses his ears as the final judge in a modification or upgrade.
To me, what we *HEAR* means far more than what a piece of electronic machinery shows. Why? Because out of all of the high end measuring devices, none of them are as dynamic at processing music as my own ears and brain.

So, x, keep on with your dead horse beating soap box thumping ego trip. I will keep on listening to the music.

If its analog I only listen to it through a scope. I dont even use speakers or headphones. That is the "scientific" way to listen to music.

If its digital I watch it on my TV as 1's and 0's. So its a pure and realistic representation of the data.

mrbiron

EndersShadow wrote: »

If its analog I only listen to it through a scope. I dont even use speakers or headphones. That is the "scientific" way to listen to music.

If its digital I watch it on my TV as 1's and 0's. So its a pure and realistic representation of the data.

You're full of ****.....

madmax

littlewoodboats wrote: »

I could see using cables like these as a tool to determine the values needed to build perfectly tuned cables for an individuals system. A customer who has more money than I do contacts MIT for custom speaker cables. After deposits have been made MIT sends out something like these as analsys cables. Place the cables into the system for acoustic measurement making adjustments until the paramaters of the cables are percect for the individual system. Once the diagnostic testing is completed and any necessary adjustments have been determined MIT could then whip up network boxes tailored to the customers needs.

I could see this as being more markatable than $80,000 speaker cables.

Very insightful, I like it!

heiney9

"Appreciation of audio is a completely subjective human experience. Measurements can provide a measure of insight, but are no substitute for human judgment. Why are we looking to reduce a subjective experience to objective criteria anyway? The subtleties of music and audio reproduction are for those who appreciate it. Differentiation by numbers is for those who do not"

H9

madmax

I'm not sure it is completely subjective. Afterall, if there is continuous noise in the background or noise embeded within the music presentation most can objectively identify it, at least with a little help from someone with a trained ear.

heiney9

Just because there is noise doesn't mean it's bad, right? Tubes supposedly add noise, some people like them, some people don't it's a subjective call.

Objectively there is noise, but ones subjective evaluation determines if the noise is an enhancement of detriment.

H9

madmax

Yeah, but wouldn't you consider any real noise from a tube a bad thing, not saying you wouldn't forgive the noise to get some other quality. I mean, it either hisses, spits or whatever, or doesn't.

heiney9

I am not talking about obvious parts that are possibly damaged or broken. Anything that deviates from the original signal is considered distortion or noise.

Some people like 3rd harmonic distortion or 2nd harmonic distortion, surface noise on LP's, heavy negative feedback, etc. That's the subjective part. What's your "flavor" so to speak.

Of course you can objectively call out and obvious flaw in playback by defect. But that's not what that statement is about at all.

It all comes down to the fact that audio components can measure poorly and sound great or they can measure superbly and sound terrible.

You can have an amp that has high even order distortion, low damping factor and it subjectively it sounds great to certain people. Conversely you could have an amp with low odd order distortion (created by heavy negative feedback), high damping and it could subjectively sound terrible to some people.

H9

madmax

Its funny though, I've never had an experience while listening with another person in which they thought something sounded bad while I thought it sounded good. I've seen it go the other way where one person had not heard better and thought it sounded good, but I didn't.

heiney9

Let's not use the word "bad", but different. But then again it's all subjective (obviously to point) what sounds good or bad or different.

heiney9

madmax wrote: »

Its funny though, I've never had an experience while listening with another person in which they thought something sounded bad while I thought it sounded good. I've seen it go the other way where one person had not heard better and thought it sounded good, but I didn't.

I guess the written word isn't getting my entire point across. I've heard amps that sound very dry and robotic to me vs. amps which I like which are more liquid, real, ethereal sounding. To me (subjectively) dry robotic amp just doesn't cut it. Does that fall in the category of "bad"? No, just a difference in preference based on my subjective impression. Some may not hear a difference, some may hear a difference and not care.

H9

nooshinjohn

Can't converse about the topic so you flip it to politics?

#1... You owe this forum an apology

#2... This thread needs more cowbell.

heiney9

WTH does the national debt have to do with how cables sound? Wow you really are off the "deep" end.

H9

halo71

That's a new one on me. Speaker cables and politics. Musta got off in the bottle early.

madmax

$80K cables would have never happened in Reagans era.

F1nut

The always attacked Emo at least doesn't produce such nonsense, so there is no need to justify them.

And yet you do justify them, time and time again.

In fact, they have produced detailed specs, tests and photos of their many products so it shows significant ignorance of the facts to even suggest asking for proof from them.

So, where are the scope measurements? Where are the properly conducted repeatable listening tests? I mean, YOU are the one always asking for proof, so produce it.

littlewoodboats

Cable subsidies for all the underprivileged!!!!! Yeah!

Maybe install little solar pannels on top of the network boxes for a green tax credit and rebate.

heiney9

I heard MIT is now accepting public assistance cards at check out

polrbehr

nooshinjohn wrote: »

Can't converse about the topic so you flip it to politics?

#1... You owe this forum an apology

#2... This thread needs more cowbell.

Don't hold your breath on #1.

LOL

nooshinjohn

^^^ You should have circled the drain here a long time ago....

george daniel

So we are getting free Obama Cables?

ZLTFUL

I notice how you continuously ignore my question.

DO you listen to music with your ears or with measuring equipment?
What other justification does *ANYONE* need for *ANY* purchase other than *THEY* like how it sounds?

Yes, a fool and his money is soon parted but to that same end, it is up to that fool to spend *THEIR* money however the **** they see fit and it is arrogant in the extreme for you to determine that they are foolish for spending *THEIR* money how they see fit.
Did you earn it for them?
Nope?
Then STFU.

mikeyb128

^^^

befuddle

Welcome to Capitalism! I think there's a old adage that goes something like "sell too low it wont go,price it high and they'll give it a try"
That said I think MIT has alot of company reputation riding on the Audiophile community's acceptance of this product's performance and price.If its not received as a worthy expenditure it may lead to a sales drop by persuading others into thinking that they aggressively overprice their products in general
Anyway if anyone wants to try to understand a somewhat detailed analysis of what MIT means to achieve with this and their other high ended lines you can hear it directly from Bruce Brisson[CEO] Gavin Fish and Tony Weber at- RMAF11 High End Cable at You Tube
RMAF10 The Snake Pit is also a good watch on the subject of cable design