Why is MIT cables better?

heiney9

twanto wrote: »

Isn't copper still copper?

No, there are all grades of different copper as far grain and purity and other properties. Plus, that's just one of many things that make cables different from one another.

Lovegasoline

inspiredsports wrote: »

I've studied the photos of the "master" and "slave" boxes Gow used. Wouldn't the switches, terminal blocks, light bulbs and whatever else is inside affect the signal in ways beyond those of a simple amplifier to speaker connection?

That information is currently unavailable to us.
However, even if the switch box had an effect upon the sound, it would impart that effect unilaterally and thus a truly superior sounding speaker wire would be discernible.

There's also the issue of burn in. I've often wondered why used (and thus fully cured and burned-in) ICs and speaker cables do not sell for a higher price, or at least for an equal price, over the cost of new cables...even calculating in minimal wear and tear.

Regarding the comment earlier in this thread about the physical age of Gow and Russell, I do not know what Russells' age was 25 (or more) years ago when these tests were conducted. Furthermore, Russell's claim was that this was not merely a personal indulgence but rather a public service performed by Gow, designed to allow dealers and customers to draw their own conclusions based on their own ears in a carefully controlled double blind listening test. McIntosh had no dog in the fight as they did not market audio cables. To play the devil's advocate, perhaps there was some secret business conflict at the time between McIntosh and Monster Cable, influencing McIntosh's debunking of specialty speaker wire. That doesn't appear to make sense and it seems the opposite occured as Russell later states, "The demand for high quality speaker wire was increasing and appeared to be a new marketing area for several companies. McIntosh did not make or sell speaker wire. The solution seemed very obvious--rather than spend time and effort to create negative sales for McIntosh dealers who were beginning to sell speaker wire, it seemed best to encourage the speaker owner/customer to consult with the dealer about what speaker wire to use. Consequently, I no longer recommended the kind of wire or wire sizes in the speaker manuals." That reads to me like a concession to the audio dealers' interest in making a significant profit selling specialty wire and cable.

Perhaps this is a jump to state, but if McIntosh Labs throughout all of this testing and commentary on cables believed there was superior cabling and that their equipment's performance was being hamstrung by inferior cables, it is very likely that they would have introduced into their extensive product line a hi-end cable manufacturing/sales business as well.

I suppose the only true test is an authentic and precisely controlled double blind test with appropriate equipment to ensure rapid switching and identical sound levels.

I too am curious why MIT cables are better.

My 2¢.


Additional Disclosure:
My McCormack DNA-125 has a Kimber Kable power cord. The Kimber cord was included in the sale.

inspiredsports

Lovegasoline wrote: »

. . . it would impart that effect unilaterally and thus a truly superior sounding speaker wire would be discernible

Respectfully, I disagree.

I think the manufacturers of tweaked cables make some pretty specific assumptions about the inductance, capacitance and resistance their cables will experience in use. I don't think the existence of the components within the Gow boxes would have been contemplated.

While the effect to the sound of a basic "non-corrected" wire may not be discernible, the ability of a tweaked cable to work may also be negated.

I am burning in some mid-level MIT IC's as we speak, using my headphones for auditioning as I feel this provides a more controlled listening environment. I have control sets of old gold plated Radio Shack IC's and a recently burned in set of Ben's Silver IC's.

I pledge to you, I can hear the difference in each, and the MIT's provide the best (by a wide margin) listening experience after just 56 hours.

SEH

inspiredsports wrote: »

Respectfully, I disagree.

I think the manufacturers of tweaked cables make some pretty specific assumptions about the inductance, capacitance and resistance their cables will experience in use.

Monster does this? It was Monster cable in those tests that were done, right? Is it that hard to believe that the tests showed exactly what Monster cable is?

dorokusai

"Hearing is believing." - Roger Russell

To keep the comment in context, in an email with Roger a couple years ago, he was commenting on the fact that people do hear differences....real or not. "There's nothing you nor I can say or do that will keep someone from formulating their own criteria, baseline or end result."

I agree. If they do....who cares? If they don't....who cares? Why do so many people take up arms and start waving flags around when either argument comes to light? I've read this same, dry, boring discussion for 5-6 years on 9-10 forums. They all repeat the same information, delve into the wordy depths of new information, establish the education level of half the parties involved...or lack thereof, with the finality of everything being reposted and argued 4-6 months later.

I'm sure there is some strange satisfaction that if you thwarted at least ONE person from spending $25 or...(aghast) $100 on an interconnect, you have finally....finally achieved the level of Master. The opposite side is also proud upon winning, beats the chest wildly, with a flagrant display of private parts only to settle down and pick lice from one another for a few more months.

I'll never understand why people overthink this hobby as there's so many things to enjoy. When did it become a crime to hear or not hear something? I like when I read about happy folks with their gear, whatever the hell it is.

Please carry on and rage against the machine for you are the One....the One who will guide us through the darkness of audio witchcraft and slovenly love for the obscene reproduction of music.

Me? I'm going to go rock out on my headphones and forget about this thread in mere seconds.

Systems

"There's nothing you nor I can say or do that will keep someone from formulating their own criteria, baseline or end result."

I agree. If they do....who cares? If they don't....who cares? Why do so many people take up arms and start waving flags around when either argument comes to light?

Bingo.

inspiredsports

SEH wrote: »

Monster does this? It was Monster cable in those tests that were done, right? Is it that hard to believe that the tests showed exactly what Monster cable is?

Monster is not "tweaked cable" so you are right. It could not sound different. What I'm posing is that even a truly valid cable system may not work well with this type of test.

WilliamM2

inspiredsports wrote: »

Monster is not "tweaked cable" so you are right. It could not sound different. What I'm posing is that even a truly valid cable system may not work well with this type of test.

Just out of curiosity, what constitutes a "tweaked cable"? What are the requirements?

reeltrouble1

disneyjoe7 wrote: »

I'm asking because I noticed a different sound with some Demo cables I got now. Thank you Uncle Ted

Your welcome DJ, my pleasure.

RT1

SEH

WilliamM2 wrote: »

Just out of curiosity, what constitutes a "tweaked cable"? What are the requirements?

Maybe a cable with some frequency filtering device attached? Surely that would sound different from a plain cable.

NJPOLKER

dorokusai wrote: »

"Hearing is believing." - Roger Russell

To keep the comment in context, in an email with Roger a couple years ago, he was commenting on the fact that people do hear differences....real or not. "There's nothing you nor I can say or do that will keep someone from formulating their own criteria, baseline or end result."

I agree. If they do....who cares? If they don't....who cares? Why do so many people take up arms and start waving flags around when either argument comes to light? I've read this same, dry, boring discussion for 5-6 years on 9-10 forums. They all repeat the same information, delve into the wordy depths of new information, establish the education level of half the parties involved...or lack thereof, with the finality of everything being reposted and argued 4-6 months later.

I'm sure there is some strange satisfaction that if you thwarted at least ONE person from spending $25 or...(aghast) $100 on an interconnect, you have finally....finally achieved the level of Master. The opposite side is also proud upon winning, beats the chest wildly, with a flagrant display of private parts only to settle down and pick lice from one another for a few more months.

I'll never understand why people overthink this hobby as there's so many things to enjoy. When did it become a crime to hear or not hear something? I like when I read about happy folks with their gear, whatever the hell it is.

Please carry on and rage against the machine for you are the One....the One who will guide us through the darkness of audio witchcraft and slovenly love for the obscene reproduction of music.

Me? I'm going to go rock out on my headphones and forget about this thread in mere seconds.

Regardless of the topic, I think the members here really hate it when information is placed in the forum that is not legitimate. The thought of a new guy reading something not legit and going with it just is not right. I know I know who's to say who's right. The answer is, when responding to questions the guys/members jump in and give there heart felt opinions which are generally well thought out and accurate. Passion is a great asset you just have to harness it sometimes.

inspiredsports

WilliamM2 wrote: »

Just out of curiosity, what constitutes a "tweaked cable"? What are the requirements?

In my opinion, things like silver content (DH Labs Silver Sonic), multiple stranding configurations (Canare Star Quad), hollow oval configurations (Analysis Plus), Teflon insulation, and most specifically, MIT and Transparent network components in the signal path, to name a few.

The designers start with a very clear therory about the impedence, capacitance and resistance values they want to see from end to end, and they design toward that goal. They believe it makes a difference versus simply going with a fat gauge wire and some plated connectors.

And sure, some of it is pure marketing savvy. But the best part is when they really get it right. We get to decide that with our ears.

Fongolio

The latest issue (Feb '09) of The Absolute Sound has an article on MIT cables.

inspiredsports

Their site (enjoythemusic.com) shows the very brief synopsis . . .

"MIT Oracle MA-X Interconnect and Oracle MA Speaker Cable: Sure, they're wildly expensive, but MIT's tops-of-the-line are worth every penny, says Robert Harley."

I'm going to try to get my hands on that article, with the understanding that $25,000 8' Speaker Cables and $8,000 1 Meter Interconnects might be packed with a little more "tweak" than the AVt and Shotgun lines us mere mortals might score for our systems.

Lovegasoline

dorokusai wrote: »

"Hearing is believing." - Roger Russell

To keep the comment in context, in an email with Roger a couple years ago, he was commenting on the fact that people do hear differences....real or not. "There's nothing you nor I can say or do that will keep someone from formulating their own criteria, baseline or end result."

I agree and that IS the context in which I have taken all Mr. Russell's statements and everyone else's statements for that matter. Unfortunately, that doesn't really change anything. It does underline the importance of the double blind test conducted under controlled conditions. It seems that in the latter context, imaginary claims can be better understood for what they are and we perhaps get an opportunity to understand how our biases interact with our perceptions. Personally, I'm trying to qualify and comprehend my own skepticism which in the end places me squarely in the same pot as everyone else.

Dorokusai, I am not directing this post to you specifically. The point is if we were all indifferent to this topic, we wouldn't bother reading ...let alone posting. In this regard we are not dissimilar.

These questions are timely for me because as I stated earlier, I am in need of purchasing a pair of ICs. Therefore it IS time to revisit the competing claims in the marketplace of one product over the other. It's the reason I read this thread to begin with. Furthermore, I am truly interested in the OP's question: 'Why is MIT Cables Better'.

I for one am not losing any sleep over this, nor has discussing this diminished (in any quantifiable degree ) the pleasure I gain from listening to music reproduced by my system. Also, I'm an artist, a painter, so I am not unaware of the difficulties of coming to consensus regarding, for lack of a better term, The Good, The True, and The Beautiful. Nonetheless, I still need to buy a pair of IC cables.

[PS: NJPOLKER, it's impossible to tell if your comment was directed towards me or others. True, I mostly lurk here, but nonetheless I've been a member here for over three years, have consumed allot of info from this forum, and am not 'new' by any measure.]

reeltrouble1

thats just wonderful, now go stand in the corner, rest your neck, and play with yourself.

RT1

Lovegasoline

dorokusai wrote: »

Me? I'm going to go rock out on my headphones and forget about this thread in mere seconds.

Wait a second more.

What cabling do you use in your system? Do you have experience with the MITs?

heiney9

Lovegasoline wrote: »

I agree and that IS the context in which I have taken all Mr. Russell's statements and everyone else's statements for that matter. Unfortunately, that doesn't really change anything. It does underline the importance of the double blind test conducted under controlled conditions. It seems that in the latter context, imaginary claims can be better understood for what they are and we perhaps get an opportunity to understand how our biases interact with our perceptions. Personally, I'm trying to qualify and comprehend my own skepticism which in the end places me squarely in the same pot as everyone else.

Dorokusai, I am not directing this post to you specifically. The point is if we were all indifferent to this topic, we wouldn't bother reading ...let alone posting. In this regard we are not dissimilar.

These questions are timely for me because as I stated earlier, I am in need of purchasing a pair of ICs. Therefore it IS time to revisit the competing claims in the marketplace of one product over the other. It's the reason I read this thread to begin with. Furthermore, I am truly interested in the OP's question: 'Why is MIT Cables Better'.

I for one am not losing any sleep over this, nor has discussing this diminished (in any quantifiable degree ) the pleasure I gain from listening to music reproduced by my system. Also, I'm an artist, a painter, so I am not unaware of the difficulties of coming to consensus regarding, for lack of a better term, The Good, The True, and The Beautiful. Nonetheless, I still need to buy a pair of IC cables.

[PS: NJPOLKER, it's impossible to tell if your comment was directed towards me or others. True, I mostly lurk here, but nonetheless I've been a member here for over three years, have consumed allot of info from this forum, and am not 'new' by any measure.]

The only way to know for sure is to demo some cables in your rig in your environment

NJPOLKER

[PS: NJPOLKER, it's impossible to tell if your comment was directed towards me or others. True, I mostly lurk here, but nonetheless I've been a member here for over three years, have consumed allot of info from this forum, and am not 'new' by any measure.]

Lovegasoline
Its not directed at any one person just an opinion. I like the passion our members put into what they believe to be true.
Myself, Since I have heard improvements when replacing wires/cables and IC I wish I did it a long time ago. No, I don't use MIT's yet but may use them in the future.
I replaced Monster wires with Audioquest type 4's and heard a better overall sound. Then replaced the AQ's with Morrow Audio wires and found them to improve my listening experience greatly. Clarity, separation, and sound stage is tremendous. The cables and IC have allowed my SDA SRS speakers perform.

NJPOLKER

Lovegasoline
What length of IC or IC's are you looking at?

Hawkeye

reeltrouble1 wrote: »

thats just wonderful, now go stand in the corner, rest your neck, and play with yourself.

RT1

In my opinion, harsh, uncalled for and rude and added nothing to discussion.

Gordon

F1nut

reeltrouble1 wrote: »

thats just wonderful, now go stand in the corner, rest your neck, and play with yourself.

Rt1

Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

reeltrouble1

Hawkeye wrote: »

In my opinion, harsh, uncalled for and rude and added nothing to discussion.

Gordon

Please feel free to join him.

RT1

Lovegasoline

NJPOLKER wrote: »

Lovegasoline
What length of IC or IC's are you looking at?

Since you ask (I'm not trying to derail the thread from the OP's topic):

1 meter or .5 meter RCAs*.

I'm leaning towards maybe another pair of Heros or perhaps PBJ. Most important is that they are well constructed to ensure solid connections, not a mere $3 toy throw away. From everything I've studied, RCA connectors are one of the least suitably designed audio connectors ever introduced and are a throwback. Why they are still so prolifically used in high end audio, other than force of habit, is a huge question mark. That they are produced in configurations costing thousands upon thousands of dollars with claims to be the ne plus ultra of audio connectors is somewhat ludicrous to my thinking.

I owned a pair of .5 meter Kimber Kable KCAG Silver Interconnects With WBT 0147's. Swapping those out for 1.0 meter Kimber Kable Hero Interconnect with WBT 0144's I could discern no significant diminution in the music. Admittedly, this was not a blind nor even double blind test, nor was it very 'controlled'.
At the time, perhaps my listening was less critical, it's hard to say. It would be a treat to do a double blind test and I would consider it a great opportunity to learn.

*[I'm in the process of rearranging my space and I also need a new audio stand. I had really hoped to design and build my own (I have a wood shop an a friend has a metal shop) but for reasons not worth going into, it doesn't look like that will happen any time soon. So, I'll need to settle on whatever good deal I can find on a rack that's functional, attractive, and will suit the decor & my budget...no great luck so far. I mention this because rack shelf spacing...enough space to keep the amp cool, will dictate the IC length].

dkg999

The recognition of, and acting upon, a subtle hint delivered via the elegance of written communication is something that has become lost in modern society.

Ricardo

Hawkeye wrote: »

In my opinion, harsh, uncalled for and rude and added nothing to discussion.

Gordon

True, but funny as hell.

zombie boy 2000

Tedwick ALWAYS delivers the goods. Good on him.

heiney9

Hawkeye wrote: »

In my opinion, harsh, uncalled for and rude and added nothing to discussion.

Gordon

FYI, I have Chill Pills available..............$6 for a bottle of 20.

Really, the seriousness on CP lately is too much.

H9

reeltrouble1

it began faintly, such so he was not sure it was ever even there, yet the echo of the voice began to grow, repeating, louder and louder, until the reverbration of this one thing pounded inside his head, then suddenly without escape and great dispair there came a submittal and down the hole he went, coveting the thing all the way down.

RT1--That's my line now bite my hook.

zombie boy 2000

heiney9 wrote: »

Really, the seriousness on CP lately is too much.
H9

I feel like I have to wear an effin' black tie every time I log on of late. Would someone, ANYONE, take a nibble at RT's hook? I could really go for a laugh.