CABLE TALK??

Viking64

Airplay355 wrote: »

This is a slippery slope

So was this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXMAqSdYfS8

tonyb

Airplay355 wrote: »

I’ve never been into cables. Mostly because I didn’t have money for nice stuff and also because I didn’t think it mattered. When I setup my HT I bought some Belden wire from Blue jeans cable. I only used it for the surrounds and center because I had monster cable and thought that was good enough. Got bored tonight and cut some new runs to replace the monster cable. I’m hooked. It definitely makes a difference. I don’t even know how much of an upgrade this really is but it sounds better, definitely better.

Where I struggle is to know what’s an upgrade and what’s just paying more money. With speakers it’s easy, there are model groups and you know what will be an upgrade. Here, I just started out with the cheapest wire blue jeans had.

This is a slippery slope

How do you know what's an upgrade....you try different things, different cables. You buy used, so you can RE sell with no or minimum loss. You do what you can afford to do, no shame in that at all.

verb

This has been a very interesting thread. What I thought was going to be an education on cables turned out to be a lot of opinions and subjective comparisons. My cable is longer than your cable, if you will...

Wow!!! As predicted by the OP, I never thought this topic would be as volatile as religion or politics!!! I have now been elightened.

In the middle of the pontification, I found the below:

KennethSwauger wrote: »

It is often said that the speaker cable from Bob Fulton, the Fulton "Gold" and Fulton "Brown" were the first examples of perfectionist speaker wires. These still sell for high dollar amounts at auction.
Bob also maintained that the length of speaker wire should be considered with respect to the low frequency capability of the speaker. He recommended that the speaker wire should be 1/2 of the wavelength of the low response of the speaker. Similar to the way radio antennas are calibrated to the radio frequency they're to receive.
For example if the speaker begins rolling off at the bass at 38Hz, the wavelength at that frequency would be 29.6' so the speaker wire would be 14.8' long to tune the wire to the capability of the speaker.

That was the single piece of apparent quantitative information in the entire thread!!! Sounds interesting, not sure if it's true (not smart enough, didn't pay much attention in my EE classes) but at least its a presumption of FACT that can be proven/disproven by other FACTS.

Don't get my wrong, I truly believe that cables can make a difference. I've made a bunch of 10GA duplex speaker wire with gold plated connectors, soldered and sealed. But why? In part due to the construction. I hated the oxidation of untreated wires of my youth. Yes a learning curve. Oh yeah, my other intuition, larger cable diameter is better. Monster Cable? Never bought any. I was cash poor back then.

But my thought was simple. A larger diameter, less resistance, more efficient signal transfer. True? Probably. Maybe. However I never made any measurements of same length cables with different diameters. It just SEEMED the right thing to me. Yeah, an opinion.

In full disclosure, I recently acquired 2 sets of Wireworld oasis cables to replace my average RCA cables on the vintage rig. Good deal, 1M sets BNIB for 70 bucks each!!! Why? Partly because some of the CP members raved about them after a set was quickly snagged up from the classified ads. Have not hooked em up, but everything else in the rig being the same, this should be a very simple equation to analyze.

Sorry about the long prelude, but I need help. I need some pointers. I don't want to spend money over and over again by iterating cables in my rig. I want to upgrade the full complement of cables, but do not want to waste money.

How do cables actually improve the sound of your rig?

My thoughts:
Cable construction
Better materials, sealed, more durable.
Better signal isolation
Oxidation resistance
Specific length
Matched to amp, pre-amp???
Etc.

Help a cable newbie here. Need some guidelines... Cable gurus, I've climbed the mountain in Tibet, reveal your wisdom!!!

Clipdat

Related. Mentioned some cables I ordered on another forum I'm on, in the specific HT/audio thread there. This guy pipes up about how I've wasted my money, and then makes another post going on and on:

"Maybe you would like to know my back ground in the audio business........audio engineer at

MTX / Sound Craftsman
Orion
PPi
a/d/s/t
Xtant
Diamond Audio

I have absolutely no clue what I am talking about, (note in sarcasm bold) but if you want the truth.....whatever company I worked at and we sold cables / interconnects...you bet your last dollar I told the customers they make a difference....but they never did.

Cabling is a great way to make high profit for little manufacturing cost, period.

The only concern that makes a difference is wire gauge......to small and the current cant get to the amp / speaker / or other device......when your talking about RCA level there really is not enough current to worry about. Voltage on the RCA level is whats important, higher volts RMS = better. "

tonyb

verb wrote: »

This has been a very interesting thread. What I thought was going to be an education on cables turned out to be a lot of opinions and subjective comparisons. My cable is longer than your cable, if you will...

Wow!!! As predicted by the OP, I never thought this topic would be as volatile as religion or politics!!! I have now been elightened.

In the middle of the pontification, I found the below:

KennethSwauger wrote: »

It is often said that the speaker cable from Bob Fulton, the Fulton "Gold" and Fulton "Brown" were the first examples of perfectionist speaker wires. These still sell for high dollar amounts at auction.
Bob also maintained that the length of speaker wire should be considered with respect to the low frequency capability of the speaker. He recommended that the speaker wire should be 1/2 of the wavelength of the low response of the speaker. Similar to the way radio antennas are calibrated to the radio frequency they're to receive.
For example if the speaker begins rolling off at the bass at 38Hz, the wavelength at that frequency would be 29.6' so the speaker wire would be 14.8' long to tune the wire to the capability of the speaker.

That was the single piece of apparent quantitative information in the entire thread!!! Sounds interesting, not sure if it's true (not smart enough, didn't pay much attention in my EE classes) but at least its a presumption of FACT that can be proven/disproven by other FACTS.

Don't get my wrong, I truly believe that cables can make a difference. I've made a bunch of 10GA duplex speaker wire with gold plated connectors, soldered and sealed. But why? In part due to the construction. I hated the oxidation of untreated wires of my youth. Yes a learning curve. Oh yeah, my other intuition, larger cable diameter is better. Monster Cable? Never bought any. I was cash poor back then.

But my thought was simple. A larger diameter, less resistance, more efficient signal transfer. True? Probably. Maybe. However I never made any measurements of same length cables with different diameters. It just SEEMED the right thing to me. Yeah, an opinion.

In full disclosure, I recently acquired 2 sets of Wireworld oasis cables to replace my average RCA cables on the vintage rig. Good deal, 1M sets BNIB for 70 bucks each!!! Why? Partly because some of the CP members raved about them after a set was quickly snagged up from the classified ads. Have not hooked em up, but everything else in the rig being the same, this should be a very simple equation to analyze.

Sorry about the long prelude, but I need help. I need some pointers. I don't want to spend money over and over again by iterating cables in my rig. I want to upgrade the full complement of cables, but do not want to waste money.

How do cables actually improve the sound of your rig?

My thoughts:
Cable construction
Better materials, sealed, more durable.
Better signal isolation
Oxidation resistance
Specific length
Matched to amp, pre-amp???
Etc.

Help a cable newbie here. Need some guidelines... Cable gurus, I've climbed the mountain in Tibet, reveal your wisdom!!!

All of audio is subjective, opinion related....nothing new there and you shouldn't be surprised cables carry the same warts.

You forgot design in your list. You also forgot the quality connectors too. As so often said, everything matters in the chain. Now go hook up those WW's, and maybe move up to the Eclipse series.

verb

[/quote]

All of audio is subjective, opinion related....nothing new there and you shouldn't be surprised cables carry the same warts.

You forgot design in your list. You also forgot the quality connectors too. As so often said, everything matters in the chain. Now go hook up those WW's, and maybe move up to the Eclipse series.[/quote]

Thanks @tonyb for your frankness.

Thanks @Clipdat for resurrecting this thread! I believe the OP was Larry. Maybe that's why it got hidden?

But yes, I plan to hook up the WW's this weekend! Goodbye to the POS!

jdjohn

Sorry to intrude, but why is this thread hidden? I noticed the MIT Shotgun Cable thread has been hidden as well? What's weird is that the latest post for this thread shows on the forum home page, but when you click into the '2 Channel' sub-forum, it's not listed. Maybe the OP hid both of them...they were both started by Toolfan66 (Larry?).

verb

jdjohn wrote: »

Sorry to intrude, but why is this thread hidden? I noticed the MIT Shotgun Cable thread has been hidden as well? What's weird is that the latest post for this thread shows on the forum home page, but when you click into the '2 Channel' sub-forum, it's not listed. Maybe the OP hid both of them...they were both started by Toolfan66 (Larry?).

Larry was suspended for 30 days. I believe that's why all of his posts and threads are hidden.

verb

BTW no intrusion @jdjohn !

jdjohn

Well I knew cable talk was controversial, but wow Thanks for the explanation.

verb

[/quote]

All of audio is subjective, opinion related....nothing new there and you shouldn't be surprised cables carry the same warts.

You forgot design in your list. You also forgot the quality connectors too. As so often said, everything matters in the chain. Now go hook up those WW's, and maybe move up to the Eclipse series.[/quote]

What are the prevailing designs out there? MIT's have a box - what's in there?
Other boxes have switchable impedance switches. Do number of poles make a difference? What are the pro's & con's?

I definitely agree with quality connectors.

Please advise.

F1nut

The boxes contain the magic smoke.

jdjohn

...and a lot of glue https://imgur.com/a/FHOHX

headrott

F1nut wrote: »

The boxes contain the magic smoke.

Don't say this to people in Colorado, Oregon, Main, Massachusetts, Nevada, California, and Alaska because that'll offend those that think the magic smoke is in their joints and not in their MIT cable boxes, Jesse.

verb

So I watched a couple of videos by MIT. They talk about traditional cables tend to under articulate bass and over articulate the higher end. As I understand their definition of articulation, basically the efficiency of how the signal energy is transmitted through the cable. Low frequencies tend to be inefficient and higher frequencies just the opposite. The smoked filled boxes contain passive circuitry that boost the low and attenuate the highs to an ideal articulation level. So the latency (under articulation) of the bass signal (muddiness?) is eliminated and the over articulation (harshness?) of the highs is minimized.

On line reviews claim indeed the same affect. Others say no but may be cable deniers!

As a cable newbie, have you folks that ran MIT’s witnessed this? I’m very curious. MIT’s dissertation is compelling but I’m not a EE.

I trust the opinions of folks here on CP, as many of whom I’ve read went down the cable rabbit hole. Many of you have iterated on cables many times. Each time throwing cash on the table.

Just don’t want to find a set of mirrors indide the smoke filled boxes.

F1nut

In MIT We Trust

verb

F1nut wrote: »

In MIT We Trust

I’ve read some of your posts and yes you’ve raved on MITs. Are you still running the Terminators or did you move up to Shotguns or beyond?

jdjohn

I'm still getting used to the MIT speaker modules I got, but I can tell they have really increased my bass response - more of it, and well-defined. Now I'm trying to dial-in the mid and high pots on the back of my speakers to get the balance right, along with other components.

verb

jdjohn wrote: »

I'm still getting used to the MIT speaker modules I got, but I can tell they have really increased my bass response - more of it, and well-defined. Now I'm trying to dial-in the mid and high pots on the back of my speakers to get the balance right, along with other components.

Which ones do you have?

F1nut

verb wrote: »

So I watched a couple of videos by MIT. They talk about traditional cables tend to under articulate bass and over articulate the higher end. As I understand their definition of articulation, basically the efficiency of how the signal energy is transmitted through the cable. Low frequencies tend to be inefficient and higher frequencies just the opposite. The smoked filled boxes contain passive circuitry that boost the low and attenuate the highs to an ideal articulation level. So the latency (under articulation) of the bass signal (muddiness?) is eliminated and the over articulation (harshness?) of the highs is minimized.

On line reviews claim indeed the same affect. Others say no but may be cable deniers!

As a cable newbie, have you folks that ran MIT’s witnessed this? I’m very curious. MIT’s dissertation is compelling but I’m not a EE.

I trust the opinions of folks here on CP, as many of whom I’ve read went down the cable rabbit hole. Many of you have iterated on cables many times. Each time throwing cash on the table.

Just don’t want to find a set of mirrors indide the smoke filled boxes.

Simplified, they are trying ensure the frequencies arrive at the same time. I'd say they succeeded.

jdjohn

verb wrote: »

jdjohn wrote: »

I'm still getting used to the MIT speaker modules I got, but I can tell they have really increased my bass response - more of it, and well-defined. Now I'm trying to dial-in the mid and high pots on the back of my speakers to get the balance right, along with other components.

Which ones do you have?

I got these http://forum.polkaudio.com/discussion/comment/2381331#Comment_2381331 They are not the typical MIT speaker cable product, but they looked interesting and were fairly cheap on eBay. It has given me a flavor of their higher-end cables, so mission accomplished.

verb

^^^^^^ Oh yeah I read that thread. Not much out there yet but good to hear positive testimony from you.

F1nut

verb wrote: »

F1nut wrote: »

In MIT We Trust

I’ve read some of your posts and yes you’ve raved on MITs. Are you still running the Terminators or did you move up to Shotguns or beyond?

Once you go Shotgun, you can't go back.

I should add, they also incorporate another neat feature, the CVT Coupler. It's purpose is to prevent the signals being generated by the movement of the cones from getting back to the amp.

Clipdat

I demoed some high end MITs for a few weeks, and they were great. I'd already be running MIT stuff if I could afford them.

Here is the original review I posted:

"During my two weeks with the cables, I managed to log 13 hours on them with a variety of different music. One of the very first things I noticed is the bigger more three dimensional stereo image. The "sweet spot" seemed to expand and widen, so that I didn't have to be in such an exact spot to get a full well rounded sound. The second thing I noticed was the increased realism to the sound. Everything sounded cohesive and natural, especially well recorded vocals. The increase in discernible texture to strings, voices, and percussion were very evident.

Going back to the overall stereo image for a moment, I noticed more separation of instruments and improved perception of instrument placement. Everything seemed to "fall into place", for lack of a better description. Even my wife who normally rolls her eyes when I gush about high end cables or speakers got in on the fun with a few of her favorite Steely Dan tracks. I think the single most impressive comment was that it sounded like she was "hearing the song for the first time". This is huge praise coming from her considering she is all about the music and generally isn't too concerned if it's coming from an iPod dock or a car stereo.

Toward the end of my time with the cables, I quickly realized that they were becoming transparent. I had forgotten they were in my system because they were simply doing exactly what they should - nothing more and nothing less. Obviously these would be a great choice when planning out a listening room, albeit with a somewhat high initial investment. However, an investment that is definitely worth it in my opinion. Of course it just depends on how much relaxation and joy you achieve from unadulterated musical enjoyment.

I have some other observations and questions I will touch on now in regards to the cables and their performance. I noticed they have less bass than my Audioquest cables. Why is this? Are the Audioquest cables adding bass or are the MITs taking bass away? I should note at this time that I always utilize the "tone defeat" button on my NAD which makes the signal completely bypass the front panel bass and treble knobs.

The MIT cables seemed to perform better at higher volumes. I generally listen to things at what I'm sure some would consider a bit on the quiet side (anywhere from 65-75db), but I noticed that as I turned the volume up the MITs really shined. Is there a technical reason for why they would sound better with more current passing through them?

I noticed some harshness on cymbals in certain recordings. Is this because the cables are more revealing and showing the limitations of the Redbook format? Lastly, I found the high end to be very non-fatiguing, so I feel they would be well suited for speakers that are a bit "bright"."

verb wrote: »

As a cable newbie, have you folks that ran MIT’s witnessed this? I’m very curious. MIT’s dissertation is compelling but I’m not a EE.

verb

Nice write up and interesting observations. I wonder if AQ purposely tuned their cables to articulate the lower frequencies. As I understand from MIT, without the black box you have to target a frequency range for ideal articulation (low, mid, high).

BTW, what model MIT did you demo?

Clipdat

Shotgun S3.3 SCs and ICs.

verb wrote: »

Nice write up and interesting observations. I wonder if AQ purposely tuned their cables to articulate the lower frequencies. As I understand from MIT, without the black box you have to target a frequency range for ideal articulation (low, mid, high).

BTW, what model MIT did you demo?

motorstereo

It took me about a year buying one or 2 MIT shotgun IC's at a time to get all shotguns in my main rig but I'm done now. I finished up with a pair of MH750 shotgun bi-wire speaker cables. Using all these shotguns together now has eliminated my need for my 18'' subwoofer that I've used with my 1.2tl's for several years. This is something that no other equipment upgrade I've done over the years has been able to accomplish. Yes Irene quality cables do make a difference and in some situations a very dramatic one.

verb

Wow! Quite an endorsement! Getting excited! About to jump in the rabbit hole!

verb

I'm in. See my WTB thread