New MIT cables, adjustable articulation!

I have no horse in this race,only a willingness to learn Thats why I spent 3 hours watching the 3 cable seminars from the Rocky Mountain Audio Fest!
While some may be slightly dated the same principles apply in respect to current cable tech.
So while it was nice of DK to provide the links [which I bookmarked] You can also spend a hour watching the guy that designed and owns the company explain what his product does and the reasons its designed to do it [pictures of the innards of his then top network box are included ]
Aside from that seminar specific to MIT there are 2 others exclusive to cable that shed light on the design concepts of other manufactures
For those that may find the value of learning about audio beyond what their ears can tell them You Tube has over 100 seminars from this respected audio festival All given by respected professionals in their related fields of expertise.
So again if anybody would like to learn about various audio subjects often in a more concise and articulate way that can be described by those typing responses here I'd highly recommend going to You Tube and typing RMAF in the search bar The first link will provide a list of apx 80 seminars [more are available] To access the MIT seminar type RMAF11 high end cable

Really??? Theory is one thing, real life is another

IMO it would be best to drop it and let x have it,Nothing can be gained with pictures, curt responses and testimonials that will prove to him that there is any virtue in MIT cable.
And perhaps he's even right about their technical claims.
But until someone with a high degree of knowledge pertaining to their technical attributes joins this forum no functional discourse can ensue.
Bottom line is obviously they improve the snd.And I think it would be safe to assume that if asked 95% of professionals asked would agree that a varying level of improvement can be expected.
Its also a given conclusion that most cable manufacturers exhibit a hefty markup on their products,This can be evidenced in Madmax's sale link on pg,5,Even when I asked my 80 year old mother what does it say when a $27,000 cable is on sale for $13,000 derived the obvious conclusion [they're definitely not selling at a loss and likely still making a substantial profit margin]
But when considering this is a niche market it probably needs a exuberant markup to survive at a corporate level,Even if they where offered at a more modest profit margin they're likely not moving a amount that would prove sustainable to a corporate environment

xcapri79 wrote: »

heiney9 wrote: »

Theory is a necessity for understanding and serves as the basis for design and testing.
One has to have an idea about what one is doing, no?

Of coarse they do, if your building widgets, but audio isn't a widget and sound has too many variables to make it one.

Theory is relative in audio, it's the testing part that becomes pretentious because there is no basis for continuity, no baseline when it comes to hearing, no preference to meet all requirements.

That's the difference X, you want it to be one size fits all with charts and tests, doesn't work that way in subjective matters.

xcapri79 wrote: »

Who hears at 80 kHz, 166.25 kHz, and 338.75 kHz?
I don't think even your super hearing goes that high. I doubt Tonyb's does either. lol

xcapri79 wrote: »

What is the relevancy of a 338.75 kHz test to audio?

Due to the concept of subharmonics, frequencies above the range of human hearing can affect what is heard. For example, a fundamental tone at 100,000 Hz will have subharmonics (undertones) at 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, 1/5, 1/6, etc. of the fundamental or 50,000 Hz, 33,333 Hz, 25,000 Hz, 20,000 Hz, 16,667 Hz, and so on.

The first CD players sounded harsh because they used filters that cut off everything above 44.1 KHz. These "brick wall" filters introduced subharmonic noise into the audible frequency spectrum which caused harsh sound. The industry then moved to 8X oversampling filters (352.8 kHz), which moved the undertones of highest energy far outside the audio range.

xcapri79 wrote: »

The power factor of this network is then:

PF = cos(∠Zeq) = cos(90) = 0

xcapri79 wrote: »

Care to explain, "This is a very important result. It means that an ideal audio cable would have a power factor of 0?"

There is the Zero Power Factor (Potier) Method for calculating alternator performance characteristics:

http://www.learnelectrical.net/2015/06/zero-power-factor-zpf-method-potier-triangle-method-to-determine-voltage-regulation-alternator.html

Then there is the zero power factor concept with regard to cables and transmission lines:

"The power factor is by definition a dimensionless number between −1 and 1. When power factor is equal to 0, the energy flow is entirely reactive and stored energy in the load returns to the source on each cycle. When the power factor is 1, all the energy supplied by the source is consumed by the load. Power factors are usually stated as "leading" or "lagging" to show the sign of the phase angle. Capacitive loads are leading (current leads voltage), and inductive loads are lagging (current lags voltage).

If a purely resistive load is connected to a power supply, current and voltage will change polarity in step, the power factor will be unity (1), and the electrical energy flows in a single direction across the network in each cycle. Inductive loads such as transformers and motors (any type of wound coil) consume reactive power with current waveform lagging the voltage. Capacitive loads such as capacitor banks or buried cable generate reactive power with current phase leading the voltage. Both types of loads will absorb energy during part of the AC cycle, which is stored in the device's magnetic or electric field, only to return this energy back to the source during the rest of the cycle.

A negative power factor (0 to -1) can result from returning power to the source, such as in the case of a building fitted with solar panels when their power is not being fully utilised within the building and the surplus is fed back into the supply."

Reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_factor

The theory expressed on MIT's website with regard to cable zero power factor is in agreement with the theory I cited above, and is in agreement with cable noise theory regarding the abatement of spurious noise due to cable dielectric absorption.

xcapri79 wrote: »

Theory is a necessity for understanding and serves as the basis for design and testing.

Agreed. Come back and discuss once you have attained a better understanding of zero power factor theory, a concept which you obviously were unaware of. Since you have a BS degree in electrical engineering, I assume gaining an understanding of the concept will be trivial for you.

xcapri79 wrote: »

One has to have an idea about what one is doing, no?

Agreed again. I would also add "one should practice what they preach" to that.

Can't we all just get along and buy wireless speakers?
I'm beginning to hate MIT and Emotiva.

Let's put some perspective on the matter. The provided link lists the world's most expensive gear. There are different categories, this one is for speakers.

http://www.higherfi.com/spkrlist/speakerlist.php

So, is a pair of million dollar speakers that much better than a thousand dollar pair to justify the price? I don't know, but I'd sure like to hear them.

You see X, that's the difference between my open mind and your closed one.

Nothing personal, but that's a foolish way to think.

"Sorry man, just bustin' them a little, but subliminal advertising is multi-media, sight and sound, so turning the volume down only halved your exposure. Google the word
tachistoscope..."

I did frequent the drive-in theater...

"rednedtugent wrote: »

I did frequent the drive-in theater...

I'm sure you did.
Because they wanted you to.
I heard that theaters were the original testing ground for those types of ads,
but who knows? I think it's nonsense myself.

Gotta run, for some reason I feel like having a Pepsi???

Yeah! Who doesn't like fried flounder??!!
Deeeeeelish!

I thought it meant

Dew+finger+brown paper bags.......

nbrowser wrote: »

[.... but the sum is worth more than the parts individually imho. There's my contribution to this argument.

....and a solid opinion that is.

rednedtugent wrote:

Can't we all just get along and buy wireless speakers?

Pfffttt....then people would be arguing over the purity of the air in the room. And how it relates to the best sound. We'd be seeing $100k air purifiers from MIT.

I'm offended. Don't ask why, I just am.