More 'Audiophile' bullsh*t

[Globs]

$9,000 MIT speaker cables
http://www.soundstage.com/revequip/mit_oracle_v21....

hype said:

we are discussing some unique designs whose integral networks aim at making the electrical connection between components less of a concern. MIT does this by addressing inductance, capacitance, and impedance -- the holy trinity of electrical properties with which audio components have to deal. By "balancing" these, MIT would argue, they "tune" the cables for maximum transfer of energy. Cables are then a more natural conduit between components, which perform at higher levels of fidelity than if they were connected with non-networked cables.

Which fails completely to explain the comments:

daft_reviewer said:

"Before ample break-in, the Oracle v2.1 cables sounded fuzzy, constricted, and dynamically dead -- a sonic mess. Luckily, their sound improves markedly in short order."

More on this pure bullst is here: http://www.massimotonetti.com/wp-content/uploads/i...
Read it and weep!

Funnily enough they have switches for 'impedance matching', which I guess refers to transmission line theory. Are they really trying to tell us they have an audio balum to match 0.1 ohms (rough output impedance of common amps) to 8ohms (mean impedance of many speakers) with their cable?

For maximum energy transfer in an (impedance) balanced system (used in RF, not audio) both sides have a matching impedance, in which case a tube amp will always presumably win because the O/P transformer is doing exactly that balancing.

There is a site where someone takes some expensive cables apart - maybe even these ones - but I have yet to find it. Needless to say they were disappointed and horrified with what they found inside.

As for what 'Articulation Response' means only the makers know, just like JRR Tolkien was the only one who knew how the rings of power worked

[TonyRPH]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

From what I can tell from the pictures, very little (if any) of the actual signal is carried by any internal wiring.

It looks as though it's all concentrated on the two PCBs (for each channel).

I'm not quite sure why they required two stepper motors to drive the balanced volume control though, given that they are (apparently) linked mechanically via a belt drive.

The chassis, although a work of art, looks to be massively over engineered however - and looks to have been machined from a solid billet of aluminium. This can't be cheap to make.

[robbyd]

Well I wouldn't put down the MIT cables that quickly until you've heard them for one thing, and secondly, in the right system. I use those same Oracle V2.1 speaker cables, along with a long run of Oracle V1.1 balanced pre-power interconnects, and a couple of AC1 power cords feeding Spectral 360s from a 30sl (run off a Ruby Hill), with Avalon Opuses at the end. Vinyl only. They were a huge step up from the MIT CVT 2 interconnects and speaker cables I had before. How do they sound? I couldn't tell you because as with the rest of it, it's like the hardware isn't there. Spectral won't warranty their equipment with any other cables and the system is designed with MITs. Many amps probably couldn't even drive those cables.

Edited by robbyd on Saturday 26th January 19:14

[TonyRPH]

Any amp that requires specialist cables to work is a poor design IMHO.

There are plenty of decent, very high quality amps out there that will quite happily work with a wide variety of speaker cables.

A fool and his money are easily parted.

[robbyd]

Yep - I ended up with MIT because I heard Spectral, and am happy to be tied in with that brand because of that. I have no idea how the perform out of context, as it were, with other systems. That said, I doubt that MIT exists just for customers of Spectral equipment.

One more point - I remembered the other day that in my first system (NAD 3020 / Rega3 / Kef Coda IIs) that I opened up the Kefs and replaced the thin wire that connected the speaker terminals to the crossover, and from the crossover to the drivers with Naim speaker cable. The difference was astonishing, even with a starter system like that. And yet people still refuse to believe speaker cables, mains leads etc can offer any improvement...

[robbyd]

Quite the opposite, I'd say. A manufacturer who considers the whole chain and does something about it...

These equipment also amplifies from DC to MHz so any old bellwire won't do it.

Why do you think car manufacturers develop cars with a particular tyre brand/compound in mind?

Edited by robbyd on Saturday 26th January 19:28

[Driller]

robbyd said:

I opened up the Kefs and replaced the thin wire that connected the speaker terminals to the crossover, and from the crossover to the drivers with Naim speaker cable. The difference was astonishing

If it was astonishing, surely Kef would have put a suitable cable there in the first place?

Or they could have installed cheaper drivers which couldn't benefit from this cable upgrade and thus make themselves more profit, instead of paying to put higher quality drivers in only to be "choked" by this cable?

Wouldn't the system components be properly matched out of the factory, I mean presumably they have some pretty clever engineers working for them?

[robbyd]

Driller said:

If it was astonishing, surely Kef would have put a suitable cable there in the first place?

Or they could have installed cheaper drivers which couldn't benefit from this cable upgrade and thus make themselves more profit, instead of paying to put higher quality drivers in only to be "choked" by this cable?

Wouldn't the system components be properly matched out of the factory, I mean presumably they have some pretty clever engineers working for them?

probably cost

[Driller]

But as I said, if that was the case why not put cheaper drivers in? They would have saved a shed load more on that surely?

[robbyd]

Not sure there were cheaper drivers to go in those! I don't know - maybe also to do with their hierarchy in the model range? Naim cable was quite thick stuff at the time - maybe they didn't appreciate it. I remember thinking the same thing actually - but it made a big difference.

[3000GT ANT]

TonyRPH said:

Any amp that requires specialist cables to work is a poor design IMHO.

There are plenty of decent, very high quality amps out there that will quite happily work with a wide variety of speaker cables.

A fool and his money are easily parted.

This man talks sense! My dad is an audiophile and i have seen many different cables used and everytime i always have the same argument.......what is the average age of an audiophile 40!? IF and this is a big if, there is any difference theres no way someone aged 40+ can hear the difference. Get a scope on the output of one of these systems and change between two cables and there will be no difference!

[robbyd]

Thank you for beating me to it Custodian!

[TonyRPH]

robbyd said:

Quite the opposite, I'd say. A manufacturer who considers the whole chain and does something about it...

These equipment also amplifies from DC to MHz so any old bellwire won't do it.

Why do you think car manufacturers develop cars with a particular tyre brand/compound in mind?

Edited by robbyd on Saturday 26th January 19:28

As an experiment, I once built a 100w amplifier with a full power bandwidth of 500kHz (getting it stable was fun).

But after several trials with the same design running with this wide bandwidth, and then deliberately curtailed to around 40kHz made no difference to the sound.

Even limiting it to 25kHz made no difference.

So...

I can see that an amplifier capable of bandwidths extending into the mHz region will need boutique cables just to keep it stable.

There is absolutely no reason to have such a wide bandwidth - and this has been shown to be so with designs from Chapter and others.

It's pure specmanship.

Now I await all the "but the harmonics will be stifled" protestations.

[robbyd]

So would you say that the CD sampling rate of 44.1 kHz was adequate? After all, we can't hear beyond 20k at absolute best. I suspect frequencies outside the accepted range of hearing contribute to what we do hear - isn't that what harmonics are all about?

[TonyRPH]

robbyd said:

So would you say that the CD sampling rate of 44.1 kHz was adequate? After all, we can't hear beyond 20k at absolute best. I suspect frequencies outside the accepted range of hearing contribute to what we do hear - isn't that what harmonics are all about?

Rather controversially, yes I do.

A properly recorded, well mastered 16bit CD can sound as good as it gets IMHO.

The reason that 'hirez' recordings are becoming so popular, is because there is more effort being put into the mastering, and I strongly suspect this is a marketing ploy to lead the consumer away from CDs and 16bit.

Having said that, I have still heard lousy sounding 24bit recordings, so it's clearly equally possible to mess those up too.

I have ripped the sound track of various DVD sources, and converted them to 44.1/16 bit for playback in my CD player, and guess what?

They sound fantastic.

To me, this proves that the 16bit format has been abused by producers / studios / record companies (whoever).

And with downloads becoming ever more popular, my belief is that the above mentioned ^^^ have dangled the 24bit carrot well and truly.

[robbyd]

My main source (99.9 %) is vinyl, so, fortunately I bypass these issues!

[TonyRPH]

custodian said:

Why does 16/44 up sampled to 24/192 sound better?

To me, it doesn't.

To my ears, it takes on what I call a "HI FI" type sound - the treble takes on an unrealistic silky sheen.

I even experimented with non o/s DACs for a while - and went through a phase where I liked the sound in short listening sessions, but found it to be somewhat wearing after several CDs.

[TonyRPH]

custodian said:

Easy to compare on the DCS. Could be a question of individual taste

Hi Fi is all subjective anyway isn' it?

[TonyRPH]

robbyd said:

My main source (99.9 %) is vinyl, so, fortunately I bypass these issues!

Back in 1990, I played a vinyl copy of Phil Collins' Face Value.

Five minutes in, and the snap, crackle and pop agitated me so, that I removed the record from the turntable, and promptly snapped it across my knee (cutting myself in the process haha).

That was ultimately the end of the line for me with vinyl, and I concentrated on the digital side of my system after that.

I still have about 100 odd albums*, none of which have seen the light of day for years, especially after the theft of my turntable when I moved from SA to the UK in '96.

I did buy an old Rotel TT at a car boot sale a few years back, but it languishes in a store room unused, with a bunch of other vintage equipment.

• all reasonable offers accepted lol.

[TonyRPH]

Mine is mostly streamed from a Logitech Squeezebox Duet (over ethernet for what that's worth!!!) controlled by web browser on my MacBook, or the SB app on my Android Tablet.

I retain a CD player for those times when I purchase a new CD* and want to listen to it immediately, and the occasional fling through my CD collection (still on display in the lounge).

Music is stored on a quad core AMD Phenom server which resides in a 27u rack in my garage, shared with a few other servers and a couple of UPS'.

This is how it gets in a family of geeks

• There is a great 2nd hand CD store in Leeds, which I tend to frequent as they often produce some rarities.

Edited by TonyRPH on Saturday 26th January 21:32