MIT cables and super tweeters


So I'm leaning towards purchasing some MIT cables (likely Shotgun S3 IC and speaker cables), but I can't figure out what the network box on the cables actually does. From what I've read, it appears to act as a low pass filter to remove all the grunge carried at utlra high frequencies which supposedly can muck up the audible frequencies. While this doesn't sound like a bad thing, I also intend to purchase a Townshend Super Tweeter (20kHz -70kHz per specs) some time this year (**crosses fingers**). If the MIT's network box is acting as a low pass filter, then wouldn't it filter out all the audio frequency info that would've gone to the super tweeter? Anybody have any insight on this as I'm not sure if this is even right. Thanks much.
128x128kgturner

Showing 6 responses by almarg

Although I don't doubt that MIT cables will sound very good on some systems, and I don't want to hurt anyone's feelings, I must say that as an electrical engineer (who DOES believe that cables can and do sound significantly different), I have perhaps never in my life read such utter gibberish as many of Bruce Brisson's writings.

A good example would be his manufacturer's response in the current TAS (no. 190, page 105) to Robert Harley's review of his $25K 8-foot speaker cables and $8K 1-meter interconnect. Just absolute techno-babble, at least as applied to audio frequencies.

I looked at the white paper on his site about "Articulation Response." More misleading techno-babble, with the y-axis on all of his plots, representing "articulation," totally undefined in any technically meaningful way. And his description of multi-pole technology, as broadening the frequency range that provides good articulation, failing to define the "poles" that he is talking about (no doubt because they don't exist within the audio spectrum).

As far as I'm concerned, no cable that includes a network box is a neutral cable. And if the characteristics of that network box are left undefined, and associated technical writeups are techno-gibberish, I would recommend staying away unless there were substantial anecdotal evidence of synergy between the particular system and the particular cable.

Regards,
-- Al
1)Mapman -- I agree with your well put comments and perspective.

2)
High frequency information travels electrically through the cable at a different speed than low-frequencies.

Nonsense. And even if it weren't nonsense (which it is), considering that the information propagates through the cable at a substantial fraction of the speed of light in a vacuum, the arrival time differences would be an utterly infinitesimal fraction of a single period of the highest audio frequency.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signal_velocity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocity_of_propagation

Regards,
-- Al
I am wondering, how much listening time have Mapman and Almarg spent with any Mit cables much less top of the line products.

In my case, none. But as I said above:

I don't doubt that MIT cables will sound very good on some systems

-- Al
I will add to this post, I have known many electrical engineers who think a resistor is a resistor, and a capacitor is a capacitor.... all the same not all, but many.

FWIW, I am not one of them, and the differences (or at least some of the differences) are easily explainable.

Regards,
-- Al
Ralph has an excellent paper on the subject at his site:

http://www.atma-sphere.com/papers/paradigm_paper2.html

I have great respect for his writings and his work.

I haven't seen enough information, though, to be able to comment on the effects, if any, of the MIT boxes on power factor.

Regards,
-- Al