Expensive cables a waste of $$ - Page 9 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
Old 08-18-2014, 07:46 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 18,375
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 981 Post(s)
Liked: 547
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post
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.
You are asking him to give you a cable for free to keep forever as to defend your reputation??? How does that work Arny? Per earlier post, would you also demand royalties for each MIT cable sold? Or is that off the table?

Do you have in your possession any high-end cables and have you a) measured it and b) done any kind of listening tests?

Amir
Retired Technology Insider
Founder, Madrona Digital
"Insist on Quality Engineering"
amirm is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 08-18-2014, 08:22 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
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.
You will have to go to a MIT dealership and ask to borrow a set of cables and if you don't know them well enough for them to let you borrow a set, you'll have to put down a deposit and then they might do it that way. I was fortunate to have a MIT dealer that let me borrow cables without a deposit. But every dealer is different.

I am CERTAINLY not going to loan you any of my cables for fear that I won't get them back or have to track you down, plus I only have one set of speaker cables right now and my extra sets of interconnects are in storage and I don't want to dig them out.

At least I wasn't wrong about you not auditioning MIT cables in your own system. Going to trade shows, you are listening to complete systems and since most of these trade shows have horrible sounding rooms, unless you have a good seat or they know what they are doing, they don't always get the best sound quality for any serious listening, especially for cables or single pieces of equipment.

It's just surprising that someone slams companies that make high end products and doesn't even spend much time evaluating them in their own home. What cables have to tried in your home system that you can honestly say you gave a long term "audition"? I'm curious.
David Susilo likes this.
drblank is offline  
Old 08-18-2014, 08:25 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 amirm View Post
You are asking him to give you a cable for free to keep forever as to defend your reputation??? How does that work Arny? Per earlier post, would you also demand royalties for each MIT cable sold? Or is that off the table?

Do you have in your possession any high-end cables and have you a) measured it and b) done any kind of listening tests?
I think it's impossible to get through to him to be honest about anything that explains what he's done specifically. he seems to like to read journals without doing his own personal comparisons and maybe find out on his own.

Don't worry, I'm not sending him my cables, he'd probably send back some Belden wire instead thinking they are the same thing.
drblank is offline  
Old 08-18-2014, 08:42 AM
Member
 
jerim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 101
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 19 Post(s)
Liked: 31
Does anyone else just skip over the posts with the chef's hat, after noticing nothing worth reading for months on end?
Ratman, lovinthehd and 67jason like this.
jerim is offline  
Old 08-18-2014, 08:43 AM
AVS Special Member
 
RayDunzl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 1,406
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 481 Post(s)
Liked: 679
No, but I might skip over yours.

I'll be back later...


links::: 1.5RQ > digits > 1177a > OpenDRC-DI > DEQ2496 > DAC2 > KCT > FPB 350mcx > reQuest > Sweetspot
RayDunzl is online now  
Old 08-18-2014, 08:47 AM
FMW
AVS Special Member
 
FMW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 5,339
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 475 Post(s)
Liked: 831
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank View Post

It's just surprising that someone slams companies that make high end products and doesn't even spend much time evaluating them in their own home. What cables have to tried in your home system that you can honestly say you gave a long term "audition"? I'm curious.
Why are you curious? He explained pretty well. MIT cables have filters attached to them designed to equalize the frequency response. The concept of equalization is to match the frequency response of a speaker to room acoustics. Since every interaction between speakers and room acoustics is different, it doesn't make any sense at all to provide an equalizer that is not adjustable and defeatable. It is truly an engineering abomination trying to change sound without knowing what the sound is you are trying to change. It is really ridiculous from his perspective and mine as well. If you think it through and get past your stubbornness you should conclude that he has a point.
Ratman and hernanu like this.
FMW is offline  
Old 08-18-2014, 08:49 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 18,375
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 981 Post(s)
Liked: 547
Quote:
Originally Posted by jerim View Post
Does anyone else just skip over the posts with the chef's hat, after noticing nothing worth reading for months on end?
I do....

Oh wait!
David Susilo likes this.

Amir
Retired Technology Insider
Founder, Madrona Digital
"Insist on Quality Engineering"
amirm is offline  
Old 08-18-2014, 08:58 AM
AVS Special Member
 
mcnarus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 6,190
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 125 Post(s)
Liked: 327
Quote:
Does anyone else just skip over the posts with the chef's hat, after noticing nothing worth reading for months on end?
You're at least the third person in the past two weeks who has admitted to doing so.

If you can't explain how it works, you can't say it doesn't.—The High-End Creed

mcnarus is offline  
Old 08-18-2014, 08:59 AM
AVS Special Member
 
mcnarus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 6,190
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 125 Post(s)
Liked: 327
[quote=drblank;26659042]
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

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.
Lord, there isn't enough Kool-Aid in all the world...

If you can't explain how it works, you can't say it doesn't.—The High-End Creed

mcnarus is offline  
Old 08-18-2014, 09:06 AM
AVS Special Member
 
hernanu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Boston Suburbs
Posts: 2,645
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 111 Post(s)
Liked: 234
Quote:
Originally Posted by FMW View Post
Why are you curious? He explained pretty well. MIT cables have filters attached to them designed to equalize the frequency response. The concept of equalization is to match the frequency response of a speaker to room acoustics. Since every interaction between speakers and room acoustics is different, it doesn't make any sense at all to provide an equalizer that is not adjustable and defeatable. It is truly an engineering abomination trying to change sound without knowing what the sound is you are trying to change. It is really ridiculous from his perspective and mine as well. If you think it through and get past your stubbornness you should conclude that he has a point.
Wait... so... it has a filter to perform equalization over and above the AVR's... sound equalization without feedback...

So it predicts the load configuration and understands the AVR's decisions? How does it know what the room characteristics are? If I have this cable, does it talk to the AVR and negotiate extra filtering / equalizing?

Amazing engineering.
hernanu is offline  
Old 08-18-2014, 09:24 AM
Member
 
jerim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 101
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 19 Post(s)
Liked: 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by hernanu View Post
Wait... so... it has a filter to perform equalization over and above the AVR's... sound equalization without feedback...

So it predicts the load configuration and understands the AVR's decisions? How does it know what the room characteristics are? If I have this cable, does it talk to the AVR and negotiate extra filtering / equalizing?

Amazing engineering.
Someone took some apart years ago (MIT's or Transparent, can't remember), and the filtering occurs at much higher frequencies than humans can hear, and higher than frequencies most components are capable (or have any need) of producing.

I don't know of anyone that has been able to demonstrate the HUGE difference in MIT's or Transparent's cable over ordinary wire, in a controlled listening test.
jerim is offline  
Old 08-18-2014, 09:28 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=mcnarus;26664697]
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank View Post

Lord, there isn't enough Kool-Aid in all the world...
I only use MIT cables, so i'm familiar with the product and the company at a certain level.

You only know how to take basic information about designing and testing cables and apply it to all cables.

Please show me objective measurements between MIT cables and another cable that proves they sound the same. I've asked for this from you and others and people seem to avoid answering this simple question with PROOF. Show me proof, otherwise keep your comments to yourself. Are there journals that show objective measurements disproving MIT's cables with hard evidence? Or are they discussing cable that don't have filter boxes from a general perspective?
drblank is offline  
Old 08-18-2014, 09:32 AM
AVS Special Member
 
RayDunzl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 1,406
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 481 Post(s)
Liked: 679
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank View Post

... Please show me objective measurements between MIT cables and another cable that proves they sound the same...
I haven't found any measurements at all.

I'll be back later...


links::: 1.5RQ > digits > 1177a > OpenDRC-DI > DEQ2496 > DAC2 > KCT > FPB 350mcx > reQuest > Sweetspot
RayDunzl is online now  
Old 08-18-2014, 09:40 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 RayDunzl View Post
I haven't found any measurements at all.
Yeah, the only measurements I've seen that were objective comparing MIT cables to other cables were posted on MIT's own site in their Whitepapers. Obviously, MIT conducted their own tests, but I haven't seen anyone show any measurements to prove the opposite. I wonder why the Anti Cable guys can't seem to do this? Afraid of not being able to disprove their technology?

What I don't get is why people do some basic tests using predominately lower end measurement equipment on a small variety of cables that are relatively inexpensive and then applying those results to ALL cables regardless of cost.

One site someone gave me even said they didn't test the super expensive cable. WTF? Why would someone try to slam a product and they didn't even test it? Doesn't sound like someone thorough in their tests. Oh well.
drblank is offline  
Old 08-18-2014, 09:41 AM
AVS Special Member
 
hernanu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Boston Suburbs
Posts: 2,645
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 111 Post(s)
Liked: 234
Quote:
Originally Posted by jerim View Post
Someone took some apart years ago (MIT's or Transparent, can't remember), and the filtering occurs at much higher frequencies than humans can hear, and higher than frequencies most components are capable (or have any need) of producing.

I don't know of anyone that has been able to demonstrate the HUGE difference in MIT's or Transparent's cable over ordinary wire, in a controlled listening test.
So it's a low pass filter set to ~20kHz. Lets whatever comes down the wire below that pass, and filters out what is above.

But receivers do this already, is this manipulating the signal further? So since a good receiver would use a low pass filter and clean up any stray information above 20kHz, would this only benefit bad receivers?
hernanu is offline  
Old 08-18-2014, 09:44 AM
AVS Special Member
 
RayDunzl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 1,406
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 481 Post(s)
Liked: 679
Quote:
Originally Posted by hernanu View Post
So it's a low pass filter set to ~20kHz. Lets whatever comes down the wire below that pass, and filters out what is above.

But receivers do this already, is this manipulating the signal further? So since a good receiver would use a low pass filter and clean up any stray information above 20kHz, would this only benefit bad receivers?
No, their ad-speak mentions 159 filters tuned to fundamental and harmonic and overtone frequencies on the Big Boi that costs $50k or so.


I'll be back later...


links::: 1.5RQ > digits > 1177a > OpenDRC-DI > DEQ2496 > DAC2 > KCT > FPB 350mcx > reQuest > Sweetspot

Last edited by RayDunzl; 08-18-2014 at 09:47 AM.
RayDunzl is online now  
Old 08-18-2014, 09:45 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Bill Fitzmaurice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: New Hampshire
Posts: 10,214
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 1684
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnarus View Post
You're at least the third person in the past two weeks who has admitted to doing so.
Its amusing for awhile, to see Dunning-Kruger Effect at work first hand, but after a few instances of multiple page long posts that don't actually say anything, or the same person posting anywhere between two and six posts in a row, the value of the Ignore List in separating the wheat from the chaff is welcome.
Ratman likes this.

Bill Fitzmaurice Loudspeaker Design

The Laws of Physics aren't swayed by opinion.
Bill Fitzmaurice is offline  
Old 08-18-2014, 09:45 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 FMW View Post
Why are you curious? He explained pretty well. MIT cables have filters attached to them designed to equalize the frequency response. The concept of equalization is to match the frequency response of a speaker to room acoustics. Since every interaction between speakers and room acoustics is different, it doesn't make any sense at all to provide an equalizer that is not adjustable and defeatable. It is truly an engineering abomination trying to change sound without knowing what the sound is you are trying to change. It is really ridiculous from his perspective and mine as well. If you think it through and get past your stubbornness you should conclude that he has a point.
they aren't wired in SERIES. That's the difference. Look at it this way. If you take an EQ and wire it in series, it's to equalize the music to the listener. If you wire the filter in parallel to cable wire it makes the cable get equalized so the cable isn't filtering the music in a nonlinear fashion. Obviously the point is matching the filters to the cables to make sure that the end result is a linear cable.

So his example is only good for EQ's wired in series NOT in parallel. I really hope you understand the difference. When I see people ask questions and discuss MIT products, this is VERY often misunderstood and it's important know the difference between an EQ wired in series vs in parallel and that MIT wires them in parallel to essentially EQ the cable for linearity, not the music. Adding EQ (badly designed) can add other artifacts and colorations which is why some people don't like using EQs in their stereo.
drblank is offline  
Old 08-18-2014, 10:04 AM
AVS Special Member
 
hernanu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Boston Suburbs
Posts: 2,645
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 111 Post(s)
Liked: 234
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Fitzmaurice View Post
Its amusing for awhile, to see Dunning-Kruger Effect at work first hand, but after a few instances of multiple page long posts that don't actually say anything, or the same person posting anywhere between two and six posts in a row, the value of the Ignore List in separating the wheat from the chaff is welcome.
The Ignore must have a Dunning-Kruger Effect filter, in parallel, since it obviously doesn't work in series.
krabapple likes this.
hernanu is offline  
Old 08-18-2014, 10:09 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ratman's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Collingswood, N.J.
Posts: 14,662
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 235 Post(s)
Liked: 315
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank View Post
I only use MIT cables, so i'm familiar with the product and the company at a certain level.

You only know how to take basic information about designing and testing cables and apply it to all cables.

Please show me objective measurements between MIT cables and another cable that proves they sound the same. I've asked for this from you and others and people seem to avoid answering this simple question with PROOF. Show me proof, otherwise keep your comments to yourself. Are there journals that show objective measurements disproving MIT's cables with hard evidence? Or are they discussing cable that don't have filter boxes from a general perspective?
Why don't you provide the measurements, testing results and white papers proving MIT's superiority electrically and audibly?

Or... should we just go by your opinion?
Ratman is offline  
Old 08-18-2014, 10:18 AM
AVS Special Member
 
jbrown15's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Vancouver B.C.
Posts: 6,585
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1240 Post(s)
Liked: 1201
Is there any subjective third party measurements on MIT cables to prove their claims? Wouldn't that help back up their claim?
jbrown15 is online now  
Old 08-18-2014, 10:20 AM
AVS Special Member
 
jbrown15's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Vancouver B.C.
Posts: 6,585
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1240 Post(s)
Liked: 1201
Wow, 45grand for two 8ft speaker cables!.....LOL
http://www.mitcables.com/available-o...ker-cable.html
Skytrooper likes this.
jbrown15 is online now  
Old 08-18-2014, 10:29 AM
Senior Member
 
spkr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 384
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 171 Post(s)
Liked: 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by jerim View Post
Does anyone else just skip over the posts with the chef's hat, after noticing nothing worth reading for months on end?
Pretty much as they are just same old sales pitch and attempts to defend it.
spkr is offline  
Old 08-18-2014, 10:34 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 18,375
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 981 Post(s)
Liked: 547
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbrown15 View Post
Is there any subjective third party measurements on MIT cables to prove their claims? Wouldn't that help back up their claim?
Their claim is backed by their many customers as we see one of them in this thread. They like what they are hearing.

The measurement would be needed for us non-believers to prove them wrong. As such, it doesn't make sense to ask the other party for data to help us win an argument .

BTW, I have measured the "high-end" cables that I have. Here are those results:



The top lines are on top of each other show that there is no frequency variations when the source impedance is high. Once we load that down to 600 ohms, which is the measurement of some pre-amps, the rolled off graph materialize. This is for Transparent cable which like MIT has a filter box. We see that it filters out the ultrasonics.

Arny has a theory that systems have intermodulation distortions that causes ultrasonics to generate audible tones that are detectable even in double blind ABX tests. So maybe this is the reason some people hear improvements. According to Arny at least.

As you see, it is up to us to do the measurement and analysis because that is our rulebook. Not theirs.
Charles R likes this.

Amir
Retired Technology Insider
Founder, Madrona Digital
"Insist on Quality Engineering"
amirm is offline  
Old 08-18-2014, 10:35 AM
FMW
AVS Special Member
 
FMW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 5,339
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 475 Post(s)
Liked: 831
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbrown15 View Post
Wow, 45grand for two 8ft speaker cables!.....LOL
http://www.mitcables.com/available-o...ker-cable.html
How's that for serious gross profit?
FMW is offline  
Old 08-18-2014, 10:40 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 18,375
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 981 Post(s)
Liked: 547
Quote:
Originally Posted by spkr View Post
Pretty much as they are just same old sales pitch and attempts to defend it.
Back to avoiding the technical topic. Let's try one more time to see if you are here to discuss audio technology:

Quote:
Originally Posted by spkr View Post
So have I. One set of IC cables I had were noisier than the other, like static noise. Turns out that one of them have grounding solder cracked and wasn't providing proper shielding against EMI/RFI. When it was re-soldered, the noise went away and they sounded just as good as other pair.
Please explain how you ascertained the part in red. How does "cracked solder" destroy proper shielding against EMI/RFI? Can you answer that?

Amir
Retired Technology Insider
Founder, Madrona Digital
"Insist on Quality Engineering"
amirm is offline  
Old 08-18-2014, 10:41 AM
Advanced Member
 
Jonny5nz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posts: 666
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 24 Post(s)
Liked: 81
Hey guys. I have a limited budget and was wondering whether this 12 guage speaker wire would be okay to run from by equipment rack, along the soffits, down the corner bass trap to the speakers? http://www.aliexpress.com/item/50-ft...622694291.html

What do you reckon?
Jonny5nz is offline  
Old 08-18-2014, 10:47 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 18,375
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 981 Post(s)
Liked: 547
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonny5nz View Post
Hey guys. I have a limited budget and was wondering whether this 12 guage speaker wire would be okay to run from by equipment rack, along the soffits, down the corner bass trap to the speakers? http://www.aliexpress.com/item/50-ft...622694291.html

What do you reckon?
I would avoid it. Here are the results of my measurements of speaker wire:



You could very well be getting the junk wires sold at BestBuy or Fry's.
David Susilo likes this.

Amir
Retired Technology Insider
Founder, Madrona Digital
"Insist on Quality Engineering"
amirm is offline  
Old 08-18-2014, 10:49 AM
AVS Special Member
 
jbrown15's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Vancouver B.C.
Posts: 6,585
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1240 Post(s)
Liked: 1201
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post
Their claim is backed by their many customers as we see one of them in this thread. They like what they are hearing.

The measurement would be needed for us non-believers to prove them wrong. As such, it doesn't make sense to ask the other party for data to help us win an argument .

BTW, I have measured the "high-end" cables that I have. Here are those results:



The top lines are on top of each other show that there is no frequency variations when the source impedance is high. Once we load that down to 600 ohms, which is the measurement of some pre-amps, the rolled off graph materialize. This is for Transparent cable which like MIT has a filter box. We see that it filters out the ultrasonics.

Arny has a theory that systems have intermodulation distortions that causes ultrasonics to generate audible tones that are detectable even in double blind ABX tests. So maybe this is the reason some people hear improvements. According to Arny at least.

As you see, it is up to us to do the measurement and analysis because that is our rulebook. Not theirs.
Wait, so you're saying that they don't need to provide third party measurements to back up their claims? and just going off of what their customers have to say about the speakers is more then enough, and its up to everyone else to prove their claims wrong? .....LOL That's the best reply I've ever heard.


Looking at your measurements, it looks like you are worried about frequencies that you probably can't even hear?
jbrown15 is online now  
Old 08-18-2014, 11:03 AM
Senior Member
 
spkr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 384
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 171 Post(s)
Liked: 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post
Back to avoiding the technical topic. Let's try one more time to see if you are here to discuss audio technology:



Please explain how you ascertained the part in red. How does "cracked solder" destroy proper shielding against EMI/RFI? Can you answer that?
Today, you didn't start out with "Good morning". Inconsistency is the name of your game as shown in my previous post #183.

Last edited by spkr; 08-18-2014 at 11:06 AM.
spkr is offline  
 
Thread Tools


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