Expensive cables a waste of $$ - Page 8 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 109Likes
 
Thread Tools
post #211 of 595 Old 08-17-2014, 06:31 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 18,087
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 755 Post(s)
Liked: 436
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbrown15 View Post
So I did a quick google search on some fairly high end speakers. I saw that someone had mention KEF, so I image searched KEF Reference and immediately found this image of a Reference 207 crossover.





These speakers were 15grand a pair new. Look at the crossovers, and the black and red wires going to the crossover board. Does anyone really think using super expensive speakers cables will make a HUGE difference when there's 16awg or 18awg bottlenecking everything right in the crossover? :eyeroll:
Cable impedance is proportional to its length. 10 foot of external speaker cable is equiv. to 20 feet roundtrip. Using a rough number of 5 milliohms/foot for DCR, and a gauge of 12, that is 20*5 = 0.1 ohm. 1 foot of 16 gauge wire inside the speaker will have a DC resistance of roughly 13 milliohms. Taking the ratio the internal wire is 0.013/0.1 = 13% of the external wire.

So no, a 16 gauge wire will not be the bottleneck at all due to its shortness relative to external wiring.

Nice try. .

Amir
Founder,
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

"Insist on Quality Engineering"

amirm is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #212 of 595 Old 08-17-2014, 06:35 PM
AVS Special Member
 
jbrown15's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Vancouver B.C.
Posts: 5,731
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 669 Post(s)
Liked: 881
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post
Cable impedance is proportional to its length. 10 foot of external speaker cable is equiv. to 20 feet roundtrip. Using a rough number of 5 milliohms/foot for DCR, and a gauge of 12, that is 20*5 = 0.1 ohm. 1 foot of 16 gauge wire inside the speaker will have a DC resistance of roughly 13 milliohms. Taking the ratio the internal wire is 0.013/0.1 = 13% of the external wire.

So no, a 16 gauge wire will not be the bottleneck at all due to its shortness relative to external wiring.

Nice try. .
Maybe they should use "gold plated solder" on the boards too then!.....lol
Personally I'm still in the camp of not buying in to expensive speaker cables, but to each their own right.


Also taking a second look at the picture I posted; I would say at best that wire is 18awg. Just look at how thin the black and red wire jacketing is. And there's probably at least 2-3ft of it for the top drivers in the speaker cabinet.

Last edited by jbrown15; 08-17-2014 at 07:38 PM.
jbrown15 is online now  
post #213 of 595 Old 08-17-2014, 06:42 PM
AVS Special Member
 
CruelInventions's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 4,527
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 32 Post(s)
Liked: 181
The victim becomes the victimizer, in reverse.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JHAz View Post

Ftr idk why the quote this responds to is attributed to me since i did not post it and never would have posted it

If people can make it appear i posted something i never posted, not to mention completely contrary to my beliefs, perhaps it is foolish to participate in this pos conversation
Yes, there were nearly a half-dozen repetitions of a quoted post being falsely attributed to you by way of accidental or poor quoting method. I was cringing on your behalf given the nature of the thoughts contained within.

But then you turn around and immediately go and do the same to someone else! Albeit this time, in a way that makes the poster look like they had a sudden and unexpected moment of intellectual clarity. But alas, undeserved as the post originated from hernanu.

Mourning the disappearing usage of the -ly suffix. Words being cut-off before they've had a chance to fully form, left incomplete, with their shoelaces untied and their zippers undone. If I quote your post (or post in your thread) without comment, please check your zipper.
CruelInventions is online now  
post #214 of 595 Old 08-17-2014, 06:46 PM
AVS Special Member
 
JHAz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,944
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 88 Post(s)
Liked: 154
[quote=Glimmie;26646105]
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank View Post

I glanced through these papers. One thing that struck me is the bio of Bruce Brisson. No where does it state any degrees earned in engineering or physics. There is also no mention of any association with any of the recognized engineering institutes, IEEE, AES, SMPTE, etc. Yet he does give a career background. Now who puts their career background at the end of a technical paper and doesn't list education or equivalent credentials?

What's up with this? It seems highly likely those scientific papers are heavily plagiarized.
Not my post is I have no actual input to your response to not my statements.
JHAz is offline  
post #215 of 595 Old 08-17-2014, 07:06 PM
AVS Special Member
 
JHAz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,944
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 88 Post(s)
Liked: 154
Quote:
Originally Posted by CruelInventions View Post
Yes, there were nearly a half-dozen repetitions of a quoted post being falsely attributed to you by way of accidental or poor quoting method. I was cringing on your behalf given the nature of the thoughts contained within.

But then you turn around and immediately go and do the same to someone else! Albeit this time, in a way that makes the poster look like they had a sudden and unexpected moment of intellectual clarity. But alas, undeserved as the post originated from hernanu.
Interesting. All I did was hit quote and type my response. Interestingly an earlier response of mine apparently disappeared into the ether. It's THE SYSTEM, man! . Let's all buy into paranoid conspiracy theories. Or at least I will.

Anyway, there are clearly a few true believers here who hold their eyes tightly closed to avoid seeing that doggone scientific truth. No point fighting them. This is of course centuries old behavior (eg earth is not the center of the solar system, let alone the universe.) Just like the new shiny notion that normal cables make a difference in connections between low output impedance devices and high input devices (ie everything but passive preamps and say guitar and bass pickups in non-active instruments) is decades old "news".

Also, Nessie lives in my basement and sugar pills cure headaches, cancer and arthritis.

Step right up. (That's a tom waits reference, babies).
JHAz is offline  
post #216 of 595 Old 08-17-2014, 07:07 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Glimmie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 7,953
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 151 Post(s)
Liked: 215
[quote=JHAz;26653393]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glimmie View Post

Not my post is I have no actual input to your response to not my statements.
Sorry, my mistake. I was actually responding to DrBlank.

Glimmie's HT Page
Being redone - comming soon!

Glimmie is offline  
post #217 of 595 Old 08-17-2014, 07:16 PM
AVS Special Member
 
CharlesJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 3,241
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 87 Post(s)
Liked: 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aryn Ravenlocke View Post
This debate has always made me scratch my head. Every time I see it, I find myself wanting to create some sort of "ultimate test" using a combination of high-end meters hooked up to two identical sets of equipment (with only the cables differing) in two identical sound rooms. Take the readings and the listening experience from each and then publish them for everybody to read. the problem is, I don't think even that would slow the debate one iota. There would just be arguments over the quality of the install or the quality of the meters. Maybe someone would argue over the combination of speaker with cable is part of making the difference. I don't know for certain what the complaints would be.

I'm of half a mind to create the test just to find out what would happen/people would say.
Sorry, your protocol is flawed to begin with as you state. Testing protocol already exists to accomplish what you are trying to accomplish. But, you may certainly try it.
CharlesJ is online now  
post #218 of 595 Old 08-17-2014, 07:20 PM
AVS Special Member
 
CharlesJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 3,241
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 87 Post(s)
Liked: 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank View Post

First you guys need to prove scientifically that there is no difference in cables like MIT and normal cables, you have NO scientific proof of that....
I see, you are trying to shift the burden of proof?
It is you who need to demonstrate in a credible manner that there is an audible difference. Of course, so far you nor MIT has done so. Wonder why that is?
Hard to prove a negative. Maybe impossible.
With all the money MIT has, it should be a snap to do so and be done with it. But, no, they are not that stupid.
CharlesJ is online now  
post #219 of 595 Old 08-17-2014, 07:29 PM
AVS Special Member
 
CharlesJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 3,241
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 87 Post(s)
Liked: 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post
...

The MIT cables with electrical networks in them are generally known to have technical differences. The parts in the magic boxes appear to be electrically connected to the rest of the cables and seem to have some measurable effect.
....
Yes, but from patents, it is intended to get the noise, RFI out way above the audio band. Or, it could be the other guys company with similar boxes. Same approach.
http://ww2.mitcables.com/publication...ufacturer.html
CharlesJ is online now  
post #220 of 595 Old 08-17-2014, 07:40 PM
AVS Special Member
 
CharlesJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 3,241
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 87 Post(s)
Liked: 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by JHAz View Post
Interesting. All I did was hit quote and type my response. Interestingly an earlier response of mine apparently disappeared into the ether. It's THE SYSTEM, man! . Let's all buy into paranoid conspiracy theories. Or at least I will.

Anyway, there are clearly a few true believers here who hold their eyes tightly closed to avoid seeing that doggone scientific truth. No point fighting them. This is of course centuries old behavior (eg earth is not the center of the solar system, let alone the universe.) Just like the new shiny notion that normal cables make a difference in connections between low output impedance devices and high input devices (ie everything but passive preamps and say guitar and bass pickups in non-active instruments) is decades old "news".

Also, Nessie lives in my basement and sugar pills cure headaches, cancer and arthritis.

Step right up. (That's a tom waits reference, babies).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glimmie View Post
Sorry, my mistake. I was actually responding to DrBlank.
Yes, I noticed an extra [....] box with poster's name and numbers hence things got all messed up for a number of posts.
CharlesJ is online now  
post #221 of 595 Old 08-17-2014, 08:37 PM
Member
 
stereofella's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 31
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by kevon27 View Post
Expensive cables are important.. You just spent $70,000 on stereo speakers, $20000 for two monoblock amps, $15000 on a pre-amp, $8000 on a dac. Then you're gonna hook all those up with monoprice cables? Heck no.. It's about luxury. The cable quality have to match everything else. Who cares if the "expensive" cables sound no different than monoprice cables..

These


Paired with these


No way..
If your speaker wire does not have a battery pack then it ain't luxury.
All I got to say is those speakers cost $5000 max to make. The thievery on ultra high end cables is only slightly worse than ultra high end speakers (and related equipment). We shouldn't save the snake oil arguments exclusively cable makers, should we?

Last edited by stereofella; 08-17-2014 at 08:40 PM.
stereofella is online now  
post #222 of 595 Old 08-17-2014, 08:55 PM
AVS Special Member
 
David Susilo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Markham, Canada
Posts: 9,614
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 296 Post(s)
Liked: 412
Funny. I have actually opened up a TAD-R1 and looking at the wooden materials and finish, it costs definitely more than $5000 EACH just for the enclosure (IIRC they are 150 lbs each) plus the components plus the amortization of R&D. Don't forget they have to crate each speaker AND ship them from the factory to the destination country. Shipping something at 400 lbs (including packing materials and crate) is not cheap.

"$5,000 max to make" LOL! Don't comment if you don't know your facts!

follow my A/V tweets @davidsusilo

ISF, THX, CEDIA, Control4 & HAA certified
Reviewer for TED, QAV, AUVI & DownUnder Audio Magazine


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

David Susilo is offline  
post #223 of 595 Old 08-17-2014, 09:17 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 18,087
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 755 Post(s)
Liked: 436
Quote:
Originally Posted by stereofella View Post
All I got to say is those speakers cost $5000 max to make. The thievery on ultra high end cables is only slightly worse than ultra high end speakers (and related equipment). We shouldn't save the snake oil arguments exclusively cable makers, should we?
Yes you should . Or at least until one learns the economics of making low volume products for a living.

You think this F35 fighter has $300 million dollars worth of material in it?



I don't care how much those speakers are. One of the worst businesses to get into is audio equipment manufacturing. You could easily lose your shirt no matter how much you sell them for.

Amir
Founder,
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

"Insist on Quality Engineering"

amirm is online now  
post #224 of 595 Old 08-17-2014, 09:34 PM
Newbie
 
cosymoon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 13
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 12
The answer is as clear-cut as it is by science, but hey, why not let the smart guys pay thousands for cables to feed the manufacturers enough so that the rest of the crowd (poor "idiots") can get the cheap junk cables (which surprisingly work just as well?) :-) We need more generous people like these who pay as requested and stick to the principles. It makes me sleep better knowing such people are more abundant than I thought.
jbrown15 likes this.
cosymoon is offline  
post #225 of 595 Old 08-17-2014, 11:21 PM
Senior Member
 
Aryn Ravenlocke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Tempe, AZ, USA
Posts: 349
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 151 Post(s)
Liked: 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by CharlesJ View Post
Sorry, your protocol is flawed to begin with as you state. Testing protocol already exists to accomplish what you are trying to accomplish. But, you may certainly try it.
I am well aware that such protocols do exist. The curiosity in me is much more directed at what the response would be from conducting such a test. If the results came up that essentially all copper wire is copper wire and that there is no benefit to expensive cables, I can already see many of the arguments against the test. If it came up that there really is benefit to insanely expensive cables, I can also see the arguments against those results. I'm not even saying either side would have valid arguments, just that they would have one.
amirm likes this.
Aryn Ravenlocke is online now  
post #226 of 595 Old 08-17-2014, 11:50 PM
Member
 
drblank's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 149
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 230 Post(s)
Liked: 7
[quote=arnyk;26648617]
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank View Post

The above shows such a complete misunderstanding of the true issues, one so grievous that it seems that further discussion is not worth the trouble because of the uncorrectable misapprehensions and technical errors that afflict the "Pro magic cables" viewpoint.

The MIT cables with electrical networks in them are generally known to have technical differences. The parts in the magic boxes appear to be electrically connected to the rest of the cables and seem to have some measurable effect.



The generally acceptable evidence of this nature would be a paper that has been published in a relevant peer-reviewed professional journal.

It is possible that some people who post to this thread do not understand what the previous sentence means. Cutting to the chase it means that white papers published by manufacturers do not quality as reliable, proven sources. There credibility is right up there with advertisements.
just because you don't understand the science behind their technology as discussed in their white papers and patents doesn't mean you have to callously discount it. They have pioneered the art of cabling design to PURPOSELY make audio cables music not test signals. Before MIT Cables designed their cables, they weren't designed specifically for audio equipment to make musical recordings sound better, they were more just to connect one piece of gear to another and that's about the extent of audio cables. MIT was the first to make an audio cable where looking at how musical notes are transferred and not damaged through the cable and they've been improving their original design.

Making an EQ is proven technology and has been used in the audio world for years. They just applied that same type of philosophy and built in a cable and specially around frequencies found in musical notes (fundamental, harmonics and in harmonics) to allow the notes to be reproduced with a higher degree of accuracy. That's what high quality cable design SHOULD be. But, you and others that simply can't grasp MIT's philosophy drag down to just simple basic electronics THEORY that produces just average audio cables.

You haven't even tried to listen to MIT's products, so how could you possibly know the difference. You are so clouded by old, ancient cable designs that you haven't progressed in your thinking that a standard cable design simply doesn't work that well in comparison. You obviously have a difficult time understanding MIT's designs and because of your ignorance, you are being a jerk about it.

They have patents, MANY of them and many others currently in the patent approval process.

Coming up with new ways to test audio cables isn't that easy, and when the results are a better sounding cable, that's what validates their technology. Before MIT did their research, there wasn't the tools to properly test and measure cables because the measurement tools were far less precise, no one was doing articulation measurements in cable design for music and most cables were designed only as a means to connect an amp to a speaker or a pre amp to an amp, but sound quality was NOT a top priority only basic connection was really considered.

I think you and others that are against high end cables are just rooted in basic electronics theory, no background in the understanding of the science of how musical notes are produced and transferred in audio cables and your financial position of not being to afford their products prevents you from appreciating their technology. Bottom line, their products do work as designed and it's up to each person to design to use or evaluate their products or not. I appreciate what they do, I hear audible differences that are VERY obvious when compared to other cables and that's the bottom line. Do I like listening to my collection of recordings more with their cables vs others? The answer is absolutely yes. That's why I will spend more on their products because my listening enjoyment is better as a result and it has nothing to do with the cost. It has to do with sound quality.

Stop your childish ramblings putting down another company's more advanced technology which has led to them countless industry awards and in their case, well deserved. They were the first REAL company to spearhead a whole generation of others taking cable design more seriously than just spitting out a bunch of thin strands of wire wound on high speed cable winders that any company can make.

The problem with these so-called Professional Journals, as you say, most of those people simply either don't know about MIT's designs, testing methodologies, or even know anything about the science behind music which is important when designing audio cables. These Professional journals simply don't take into consideration how a musical note is created and they don't look at how they are preserved as the signal goes through a cable and that's the problem with EE"s. They don't even look at what the ultimate job of the product really is. It's not to connect one box to another box, it's responsibility is to transfer audio signals of music and speech without damaging the signal, at least that's what HIGH QUALITY cables are SUPPOSED to do, but their professional journals FAIL to take this into consideration.
drblank is offline  
post #227 of 595 Old 08-18-2014, 01:44 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 14,381
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 747 Post(s)
Liked: 1162
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aryn Ravenlocke View Post
I am well aware that such protocols do exist. The curiosity in me is much more directed at what the response would be from conducting such a test. If the results came up that essentially all copper wire is copper wire and that there is no benefit to expensive cables, I can already see many of the arguments against the test. If it came up that there really is benefit to insanely expensive cables, I can also see the arguments against those results. I'm not even saying either side would have valid arguments, just that they would have one.
Of course. Denial ain't just a river in Egypt. ;-)
arnyk is offline  
post #228 of 595 Old 08-18-2014, 01:52 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 14,381
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 747 Post(s)
Liked: 1162
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank View Post

Just because you don't understand the science behind their technology as discussed in their white papers and patents doesn't mean you have to callously discount it.
Thanks for talking down to me. I need every bit of humility that I can muster!

Besides being unnecessarily insulting, the above post misses the point that I made, which is that manufacturer white paper's standing in the world of science is equal to that of advertisements. IOW nil or very little.

Please let me repeat my post for you:

Quote:
Originally Posted by arny
The above shows such a complete misunderstanding of the true issues, one so grievous that it seems that further discussion is not worth the trouble because of the uncorrectable misapprehensions and technical errors that afflict the "Pro magic cables" viewpoint.

The MIT cables with electrical networks in them are generally known to have technical differences. The parts in the magic boxes appear to be electrically connected to the rest of the cables and seem to have some measurable effect.

The generally acceptable evidence of this nature would be a paper that has been published in a relevant peer-reviewed professional journal.

It is possible that some people who post to this thread do not understand what the previous sentence means. Cutting to the chase it means that white papers published by manufacturers do not quality as reliable, proven sources. There credibility is right up there with advertisements.
The above says nothing about understanding the paper. It talks about the basic credibility any "White Paper" that MIT or any other manufacturer might publish for themselves. Without the approval and agreement of some appropriate scientific or academic body, it has no more credibility than an ad in a glossy magazine.

By completely missing the above critical point, a secondary point has been proven:

"It is possible that some people who post to this thread do not understand what the previous sentence means. Cutting to the chase it means that white papers published by manufacturers do not quality as reliable, proven sources. There credibility is right up there with advertisements."
arnyk is offline  
post #229 of 595 Old 08-18-2014, 02:15 AM
AVS Special Member
 
hernanu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Boston Suburbs
Posts: 2,511
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 60 Post(s)
Liked: 155
[quote=JHAz;26651729]
Quote:
Originally Posted by hernanu View Post

Ftr idk why the quote this responds to is attributed to me since i did not post it and never would have posted it

If people can make it appear i posted something i never posted, not to mention completely contrary to my beliefs, perhaps it is foolish to participate in this pos conversation
You got brought into it by the forum quote system, this was meant to quote drblank, but somehow your name got mixed in. Fixed the original post.

Last edited by hernanu; 08-18-2014 at 02:18 AM.
hernanu is offline  
post #230 of 595 Old 08-18-2014, 02:18 AM
Member
 
drblank's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 149
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 230 Post(s)
Liked: 7
[quote=arnyk;26658881]
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank View Post

Thanks for talking down to me. I need every bit of humility that I can muster!

Besides being unnecessarily insulting, the above post misses the point that I made, which is that manufacturer white papers standing in the world of science is equal to that of advertisements.

Please let me repeat my post for you:



The above says nothing about understanding the paper. It talks about the basic credibility any "White Paper" that MIT might publish for themselves. Without the approval and agreement of some appropriate scientific or academic body, it has no more credibility than an ad in a glossy magazine.

By completely missing the above critical point, a secondary point has been proven:

"It is possible that some people who post to this thread do not understand what the previous sentence means. Cutting to the chase it means that white papers published by manufacturers do not quality as reliable, proven sources. There credibility is right up there with advertisements."
Well, that's your opinion. The problem with the academy you rely so much on is CLUELESS as to how to determine what an audio cable is actually supposed to do because they know nothing about MUSIC and how to evaluate what makes a better quality product for preserving the music signal through a cable. They are absolutely CLUELESS.

Do you think that the medical publications know everything there is to know about medicine? They approve medical drugs all of the time that get pulled off the market for causing all kinds of medical problems. Heck, the medical industry has praised antibiotics for decades, but more recent studies have proven that antibiotics are bad to prescribe on a regular basis, my doctors stopped prescribing antibiotics for normal issues and they only prescribe them only under more severe scenarios because they know more than they used to about something that society took for granted. Same thing with your EE industry. If they don't know about what research these small companies are doing, then they are ignorant about what's being done to advance audio cable design. Heck, the EE industry doesn't even know how to create standards in how to evaluate quality of sound.

I take MIT Cable a lot more seriously because their head engineer co-designed high resolution measurement equipment with a leading company called HP to conduct his research and before that, there was no test equipment even on the market capable of making the measurements they wanted to make so Mr. Brisson's contribution to the EE industry should have recognized for his contribution to assist in development of high resolution measurement equipment that is more widely used that allows more precision in how other EE's measure things in other industries in addition to the audio industry. He also co-developed a proprietary measurement s/w with HP that the EE community doesn't know about because it's specifically only used by MIT and they haven't released this measurement software and HP isn't going to develop some BS measurement software. So, to me MIT Cables have PLENTY of credibility and they use fundamental physics, science and electronics theory, they just were smart in how they brought several different disciplines together to create products.

If you want to live in archaic ways to design cables, that's your decision, but you are living in the past where only basic theory is used along with basic measurements and basic measurement equipment, which only allows one to look at cables from a basic perspective. Grow up and LEARN. Things change and it's because small companies with bright people can make contributions to the industry is just that people with small minds like yourself are too clueless and callously dismiss something because some journal doesn't know about the technology.

I don't know if you are aware of this but when the transistor and integrated circuits first came to market, people like you didn't want to accept this new technology since it was different and didn't follow conventional thought, but as people got used to the technology, it became widely accepted and now it's normal. What guys like MIT are doing is pushing the envelopment and just because some clueless people don't know about the technology or just simply don't take the time to learn about it doesn't mean it's not credible.

I think the fact that top recording engineers, top mastering engineers and top audio equipment use their products and are used in the evaluation of their products IS proof that the technology is how they have become credible. They have also been around for over 30 years going on 40 years and in the audio industry, that's a long time. They have many patents with more in the wings, they have credibility in the audio world that works with high end audio equipment, they are consistently getting Best of Show awards amongst the people that are in the high end audio industry.

Yeah, small minded people always use that marketing card when it's convenient and that's because you simply don't know much about the technology because the mfg wants to keep certain information contained due to "trade secrets" or they simply don't have the time to publish more technical information or because they waiting for patent approval before they release the information. Whatever the reason, they do use high quality measurement equipment and they objectively look at measurements before they conduct listening tests and they rely on top people in the industry that have the training, experience and abilities to perform subjective listening tests. In order for companies to survive, they have to make a profit, but they have to serve the market where the market accepts them. MIT has a proven track record and just because you want to be a child about it, isn't going to make them go away. People buy their products because they like what they hear and that's ultimately the bottom line. Measurements don't tell the whole story when it comes to audio products, people have to listen to them and make up their own minds. If you don't put yourself in the position to listen to them, then you don't know what they sound like.

What cables do you use and how did you come to the conclusion to buy those products? Price? Name recognition? Because of some measurement? Be honest..... Oh wait, you never answer any of my questions honestly, so I'll never get a straight answer from you, only responses that are evasive and filled with silly defensive BS.

The one thing about those silly journals is they aren't always up to date on the latest technology unless it's a big enough market. The high end cable market is a niche market and they might not even know how to approach it. Partly because MIT Cables didn't release all of the methodologies on how they test their products. MIT is not TRYING to get some journal to write an article about them. Maybe that's not of interest to them since they are doing just fine without it.

If MIT Cables wanted to license their technology to others, then maybe they would be more interested in getting their technology more recognition amongst the EE crowd, but they don't go to colleges to teach students about what they are doing because they simply don't have the time or interest in it because they are running a very small company of only around 25 people and Bruce spends most of his time in his testing labs measuring cables, designing new products, conducting listening tests to see if a new design is better and not really worried about whether he gets his work published. He simply doesn't have time to spend trying to teach someone that writes for a journal to get his work published. He is in a VERY small, niche market, the company has many patents, they obviously have more on the way and they are focused on designing products, learning new things and doing what they need to do to survive in that industry.

He's not trying to sell his products to the masses, for one, they can't mass produce their products in mass quantities and keep the quality maintained because there is a LOT of precision measurements the have to make when they match capacitors, resistors, inductors and it's almost impossible to let some factory in China or some other country with low wage employees mass produce their products for mass distribution. Some of their products are only built to order and take weeks to make. So, they aren't interested in trying to compete against Belden Wire that caters to a bigger market. They are focused on their market and they only have so many people and can spend limited amounts of money marketing to a niche market.

I really don't know what your problem is only that you seem to think that anything that you can't afford is nonsense. Cable mfg are always working on new ways to design and mfg cables to improve the sound quality. The market is obviously there and there are companies going after their own piece of the pie and since it's a small market these companies don't want to release too much information for whatever reason. It could be to protect their product design, they don't have the time to sit there and produce published information to discuss their technology and it's quite possible that the average consumer doesn't really want to sift through thousands of pages of technical information that explains a cable when all the person has to do is spend time listening to the product in their system. Yeah, I know, it would be great if there was a standardized method that these companies used to measure the sound quality of their products, but there isn't.

Heck, just to measure the sound quality of a speaker isn't really that good either. How many speaker mfg regardless of price range publish measurement data on their speakers? Amps, receivers, etc. etc.? Not that many. Why?

There are countless designs of speakers, crossovers, etc. but you don't seem to be all that concerned about them proving anything. Why are you so hung up about cables? Is it that you still think that a speaker cable is just a piece of copper wire twisted and then shoved through a plastic jacket and that's all you need? Well, that's kind of being small minded.

Last edited by drblank; 08-18-2014 at 02:42 AM.
drblank is offline  
post #231 of 595 Old 08-18-2014, 02:19 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 14,381
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 747 Post(s)
Liked: 1162
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank View Post
They have pioneered the art of cabling design to PURPOSELY make audio cables music not test signals.
The above looks to me like a rendition of the audiophile myth that test signals and music have nothing to do with each other and just because an audio component can pass a wide or even endless variety of easy and taxing test signals, that has no bearing on sound quality.

Understanding why the above is a myth requires an understanding of Fourier analysis which is frankly over the head of some naive audiophiles, but is understandable to reasonably intelligent people with some understanding of Math and Science. The Science is that according to a well known theory of an 18th-19th century scientist named Fourier, every audio signal can be broken down into a collection of component sine waves, and if the product is reasonably linear (which we hope it is so it doesn't distort the music audibly) then the reproduction of the whole collection can be analyzed by examining how each of component sine waves is reproduced.

Quote:
Before MIT Cables designed their cables, they weren't designed specifically for audio equipment to make musical recordings sound better, they were more just to connect one piece of gear to another and that's about the extent of audio cables.
False claim apparently based on ignorance of the history of audio technology. Music Interface Technologies was founded in 1984 and at that time the technical requirements for cables to connect one piece of gear to another was well known. For example there is this paper: "Amplifier-Loudspeaker Interfacing", Greiner, R.A., JAES vol. 28, no. 5 May 1980. With all due respect for Greiner, there was nothing new in Greiner's 1980 paper, it was a tutorial not a revelation of new discoveries.

Quote:
MIT was the first to make an audio cable where looking at how musical notes are transferred and not damaged through the cable and they've been improving their original design.
Unfortunately repeating the same false claim over and over again as some are prone to do does not magically transform falsehoods into truths. Greiner also previously wrote this papers:

"Another Look at Speaker Cables", Greiner, R.A., BAS Speaker Dec 78, addendum March 79

Quote:
Making an EQ is proven technology and has been used in the audio world for years. They just applied that same type of philosophy and built in a cable and specially around frequencies found in musical notes (fundamental, harmonics and in harmonics) to allow the notes to be reproduced with a higher degree of accuracy.
Several fatal problems with that. Sure building equalizers is an old and time-honored art, but effect equalizers to address the needs that are peculiar to a certain consumer audio system does not allow "One size fits all" solutions as an off-the-shelf cable always is.

Secondly, I have repeatedly made a simple request that no cable advocate seems to be able to step up to. Please show me that good commodity cables fail to transfer any particular component of a musical signal or the whole thing in an audible way.

Quote:
That's what high quality cable design SHOULD be.
That is a truism. Not only is that what a good commodity cable should do, it is what they do, and there is no evidence of a generally recognizable scientific sort that says otherwise.


Quote:
But, you and others that simply can't grasp MIT's philosophy drag down to just simple basic electronics THEORY that produces just average audio cables.
Same problem repeated yet again with a repetition of the usual puffery and insult. Please provide evidence of a generally recognizable scientific sort that says that good commodity cables fail to do an audibly perfect job of transferring audio signals.

Quote:
You haven't even tried to listen to MIT's products, so how could you possibly know the difference.
Insulting false claim. I've been to enough high end audio shows and visited enough high end audiophile homes that someplace along the way I for sure have listened to MIT's products.
arnyk is offline  
post #232 of 595 Old 08-18-2014, 02:48 AM
Member
 
drblank's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 149
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 230 Post(s)
Liked: 7
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post



Insulting false claim. I've been to enough high end audio shows and visited enough high end audiophile homes that someplace along the way I for sure have listened to MIT's products.
In order to really tell the difference, you really need to borrow a set of their cables and put it in your system and hear for yourself what it does in a system that you are familiar with. Once you do that, then you can start really hearing those differences. Seriously, you'll hear things you never thought you knew existed in some of the recordings you listen to, especially if you listen to music with lots of instruments being played at the same time.

I listen to recordings where there are lots of tracks within the mix and when I listen to my system, i can hear tracks that weren't apparent to me with other cables. it's not an imagination, it's fact. But if you don't want to spend the time, then that's your decision.

Don't put down a company the really did change the industry on whatever level that they did. They have others trying to copy their design philosophy and are also successful in their own right, which helps validate what they are doing.
drblank is offline  
post #233 of 595 Old 08-18-2014, 03:26 AM
AVS Special Member
 
NorthSky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Canada - West Island: Vancouver, South Direction: Go East
Posts: 2,527
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1107 Post(s)
Liked: 399
Question: Active cables (with battery); good idea?

Other question: Active OPs; preferable? ...Or it don't really matter?
... TheNeff => 3 posts, total. ...Heavy hitters: Almost 40 posts.

Bests, ~ Robert § (Bob)

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Last edited by NorthSky; 08-18-2014 at 03:29 AM.
NorthSky is online now  
post #234 of 595 Old 08-18-2014, 04:58 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 14,381
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 747 Post(s)
Liked: 1162
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank View Post
In order to really tell the difference, you really need to borrow a set of their cables and put it in your system and hear for yourself what it does in a system that you are familiar with.
This post is very inconsistent with previous posts. In those posts it was insultingly and demeaningly claimed that my problem was that I have never heard MIT cables and was speaking falsely out of abject ignorance.

I'm willing to put the whipsawing, false claims and insults behind me if an appropriate set of MIT cables are delivered to my home for indefinite audition and testing forthwith. My home address may be obtained by means of PM, Lacking that, it becomes obvious to me that I've been the victim of a blatant sales scam.
arnyk is offline  
post #235 of 595 Old 08-18-2014, 04:59 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 14,381
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 747 Post(s)
Liked: 1162
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorthSky View Post
Question: Active cables (with battery); good idea?
Other than a waste of a perfectly good battery, there appears to be no valid science behind this audio jewelry.
arnyk is offline  
post #236 of 595 Old 08-18-2014, 05:10 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Bill Fitzmaurice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: New Hampshire
Posts: 9,684
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 1352
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorthSky View Post
Question: Active cables (with battery); good idea?
No. The problems that they claim to cure don't exist. These, like the MIT do-dads, are but another useless item that appeal to the layman who doesn't have any understanding of how sound reproduction gear works. They're no more effective than Shakti Stones or Magic Pebbles in doing anything other than separating the uninformed from their money.

But they have no shortage of customers. After all, one is born every minute.
arnyk and CharlesJ like this.

Bill Fitzmaurice Loudspeaker Design

The Laws of Physics aren't swayed by opinion.
Bill Fitzmaurice is offline  
post #237 of 595 Old 08-18-2014, 06:11 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 18,087
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 755 Post(s)
Liked: 436
Quote:
Originally Posted by cosymoon View Post
The answer is as clear-cut as it is by science, but hey, why not let the smart guys pay thousands for cables to feed the manufacturers enough so that the rest of the crowd (poor "idiots") can get the cheap junk cables (which surprisingly work just as well?) :-) We need more generous people like these who pay as requested and stick to the principles. It makes me sleep better knowing such people are more abundant than I thought.
Wonderful. Why not leave these guys alone then instead of creating threads like this and arguing the same old points.

Amir
Founder,
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

"Insist on Quality Engineering"

amirm is online now  
post #238 of 595 Old 08-18-2014, 06:17 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 18,087
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 755 Post(s)
Liked: 436
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aryn Ravenlocke View Post
I am well aware that such protocols do exist. The curiosity in me is much more directed at what the response would be from conducting such a test. If the results came up that essentially all copper wire is copper wire and that there is no benefit to expensive cables, I can already see many of the arguments against the test. If it came up that there really is benefit to insanely expensive cables, I can also see the arguments against those results. I'm not even saying either side would have valid arguments, just that they would have one.
Well said. We just finished multiple rounds of listening tests of high-res files vs CD and the outcome was positive in telling them apart. That created riots in the street from folks who have for literally decades saying such outcomes are impossible. Post after post which still continues tries to dismiss the tests as improper, even though that is precisely the type of test we were demanding the other side run!

Amir
Founder,
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

"Insist on Quality Engineering"

amirm is online now  
post #239 of 595 Old 08-18-2014, 06:34 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 18,087
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 755 Post(s)
Liked: 436
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post
Of course. Denial ain't just a river in Egypt. ;-)
Have you accepted the results of our latest tests Arny that high resolution files can be told apart in DBT ABX tests? I thought you were still denying them. No?

Amir
Founder,
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

"Insist on Quality Engineering"

amirm is online now  
post #240 of 595 Old 08-18-2014, 06:44 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 18,087
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 755 Post(s)
Liked: 436
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post
Insulting false claim. I've been to enough high end audio shows and visited enough high end audiophile homes that someplace along the way I for sure have listened to MIT's products.
Sounds like you are assuming that you have heard them as opposed to knowing you did. And at any rate, you wouldn't have done any comparison or proper listening test. Speculation is not data Arny.

Amir
Founder,
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

"Insist on Quality Engineering"

amirm is online now  
Closed Thread Audio theory, Setup and Chat

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off