Originally Posted by drblank
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.