MIT Love 'em or Hate 'em

FWIW, I have never been interested in trying out any of the networked cables simply because of the boxes themselves. Can't say anything for 'em or against 'em one way or the other sonically speaking (tho' their prices often do seem a bit excessive), but I suspect I am not alone in my prejudice.

Maxgain, you wouldn't be self-fulfilling your first-response prophecy under a bogus name
- now would you? ;^)

Unclekrusty, you wouldn't be AKA 'Krusty The Clown' from TV's beloved The Simpsons, now would you? I'm tuning out most everything here beyond a certain point, save for the grin from Audiogon's beloved uncle Detlof... :-)

Beautifully reasoned Asa, and put in a way which illuminates rather than obfuscates. If nothing else, you always did get an "A" for effort in my book. You are rapidly coming clear as being humble as you are wise - things which my criticisms, despite any relevancy or truth they may have possessed, were not.

As I presumed to explain/excuse myself, had I not been so tickled by the irony of your Derrida critique perfectly capturing, to my mind, my own take on much of your rhetoric, I would have remained discreet. In retrospect though, I was by turns too sheepish and defensive - if one's ca-ca meter is set off, and one wants to say so, then one should be entirely up-front and plain about it. But, as you correctly allude to, doing so in a deserving fashion would entail a thorough parsing and point-by-point refuting of your every assertion and implication, something for which I simply lack the interest/heart to undertake. So I should have remained mum, and only smiled, as I had above praised Detlof for being able to do in regards to other matters.

So you keep trying, and I will keep trying.

Asa: Without meaning to be (perhaps overly) insulting - I want to like it when you come onto a thread, but find I often dread the prospect, to be perfectly honest. I don't think I would have ever actually ventured to say this to you otherwise, though, but for the fact that your first paragraph above in your last response to Maxgain puts the reasons why I feel this way in terms much more trenchant then I could ever hope to do myself.

So, that must mean that I really do consider you to be an excellent thinker - but also consider your succinct and penetrating critique of poor M. Derrida (not that I have a clue about the guy) to apply just about perfectly to many of your own digressive philosophical ramblings about this forum.

Now, I would never dream of presuming to be so arrogant as to even suggest that you or anybody shouldn't write exactly what they please around here, and I freely admit that I'm a damned horse's backside for complaining at all (and also that I can't hang with you on the higher learning front). But I would like to know one thing: If you reread what you wrote above and then ask yourself if it describes your contributions at times, would you agree with me that indeed it does, even if just a little bit? :-)

P.S. - Permission granted (as if you or anybody else who cares to respond needed it) to fire away at will; with all the BS I've no doubt thrown on the proverbial wall in these precints - if not for this post alone - I've surely gotta deserve it. Sorry, but there it was, and here it is.

Asa, thanks for the measured response - never let it be said you're anything less than a real gentleman. However, I did expect a somewhat more accurately targeted riposte on your part. I never took shots at the use of long words, or claimed irrelevency. To say that your excursions are frequently digressive and rambling is not necessarily a kiss-off (been known to do it myself, long words included, believe it or not), but it is pretty darn factual. And trust me, I'm not so much the babe in the woods that I'm actually in danger of taking them to be as profound that you need protest to the contrary (nor do I merely crave simplistic entertainment, or just-the-facts-mister, lowest-common-denominator blandness).

You are correct though, in guessing that I sometimes no longer read them completely, but that's not due to their length, something of which I've also been chastised for being excessively fond of from time to time. Rather, it's that you have reiterated your superimposed musings, with little apparent variation or call to do so, on so many threads by now, that I find I can't look foward to or profit from them anymore. I know what's coming, as I believe you yourself once referred to. Many threads seemingly present you with nothing more or less than the next opportunity for exercising yet another philosophical takeover attempt. It gets kinda old, my friend.

Yes, there is a small but dedicated coterie of fine worthies who seem not to groan, and indeed to take genuine pleasure, in joining the merriment you typically introduce. (And FWIW, these orgies do tend to take place more toward the bitter end of threads that have long since burned themselves out.) But when I listen to good music through my system, music I enjoy, and really experience it, such thoughts cannot possibly even enter my mind - go downstairs now and try it, and see if you don't agree. I'm absolutely as guilty as the next guy (and maybe the next two guys) of writing here, in part, because of a love for the sound of my own voice. However, I do try to listen as much or more than I speak, and I try not to drag everthing over in my preferred direction each time out of the gate.

So, while I will always defend your right to make me slump in my chair if you want and can (and I consider that to actually be something of a backhanded compliment, given that there are many posters on A'gon who could not engage me enough to get any reaction at all!), the next time I encounter you coining the phrase 'rearranged matter' for the eleventieth time, you will forgive me if I do my best to hold my piece/peace, and remember what it was you truly taught me about philosophy (especially as it fails to apply to audio in particular): What is the sound of one lip flapping?

Hmmm...
>:^\

What can I say, 6chac? That was for Asa, and was supposed to be humorous. I don't mean to be unresponsive, but I don't mean to further respond, either. My take on all this sort of stuff was laid out by Asa above, as I unfortunately dared to make clear. Do you really expect any more from me now? Maybe the two of you should start a dedicated thread for this ongoing _-fest, where you can return anytime the mood strikes, and just keep it there. Sorry. I don't believe in (...), and will be quiet.

When it comes to analog interconnects, I'm with Muralman1. I do a bypass test with a couple of IC's under audition placed in the tape loops (signal just goes around through the interconnect and right back into the preamp, nothing else is inserted in the loop), and the one that least changes the sound compared with the straight feed wins. (As of now, and within my budget, that means van den Hul The First Ultimate and The Second carbon conductor models.) Having gotten that out of the way, I can evaluate the sound of my components and recordings more objectively, and don't think of altering the wires to suit. It always amazes me that interconnects routinely get reviewed without this simple and quite objective test being made. On the other hand speaker cables and digital cables are more system-interdependent (compared to short runs of interconnect placed between components having normal range I/O impedances anyway), and some subjective trading-off of virtues and vices based on personal sonic priorities is pretty much inevitable. (None of the preceding is meant to address MIT or other cables with boxes on them one way or the other - or what Uncle Krusty might have been saying...)