I don't know much about what they are doing by direct experience - but I will tell you this much: back in the day a guy named Demian Martin came up with and patented something called a "cable charger" and it seemed pretty interesting - keeping a bias voltage charged on the shield. It seems to me that Synergistic has either licensed or otherwise "appropriated" Demian Martin's cable charger - don't know which, but if you do some research into the cable charger you will probably get some good info. |
Well, my experience with MIT goes back over 10 years ago and
it was only with one interconnect. I'm sure MIT makes some fine products. I got a pair of interconnects thru Audio Advisor, and they sent the MIT's, even though I had ordered another brand which I can't remember now. Anyway, I initially liked them ok. After a while though, the one side would cut out. It took quite a while to figure out it was the interconnect. By then I had been making some interconnects and had some other brands for comparison. I undid the RCA end's and I was shocked at the crappy construction. No wonder it would short out, it looked like they had been assembled and soldered by a 5 year old. I re-terminated them, and they were initially ok I thought, but in short time they gave me ear fatigue. So, that one experience has steered me clear from their products. |
Unklecrusty: While one can "usually" see what is inside of an active audio component, one can almost always measure the results. Thinking along those same lines, I would be curious to actually do that with some of these "networked" cables under lab conditions. If they produced ANY type of an abberation with an ideal load ( nominal impedance with minimal reactance ), you can sure as hell bet that "crazy" things would take place on a reactive load that a loudspeaker would present to an amplifier. On the other hand, they might measure "perfect" on a dummy load and still run into problems with specific reactive loads. Once again, the only way to find out would be to test them and see.
Sheesh, with all of these different "projects" & "testing" that i want to do, maybe i should spend less time on the puter and more time actually doing them : ) Sean
> |
Unclekrusty, while we're on the subject of cables that take a more "active" approach, is it safe to assume you are also skeptical about "active shielding" a la Synergistic?
I've never been sure whether to believe the physics claimed for that approach. . . but I also haven't experimented with their really high-end stuff. I didn't hear a benefit at the more moderately priced end of the spectrum. |
...even if we disagree about what "neutral" means.
I've got some pretty expensive and hi res products going in my rig, and I've tried some of the top macigbox reference cables for loudspeakers and interconnects - gave a long chance - but they just did something to the sound that I didn't like. It got all extra detailed on top and bottom but the midrange disappeared - like someone eq'd my system with a 'disco curve' bump the highs and lows and suck out the middle. It didn't sound like natural music to my ears (I listen to a lot of acoustic guitar/vocal stuff).
Regardless - it just doesn't make sense to this old hack that some "network" (fancy name for filter) on a cable can make a megabuck high resolution system perform better than its designers intended it to perform. Passive "networks" work by taking something out of the signal. "Power Factor Correction" is essentially parallel capacitance - fine for induction motor systems and power supplies - but mixed with the essential series L of the circuit that it is hooked into you get a second order low pass filter.
You say you like it. Great. I'll never argue with you about what you like. All I've been saying is call it for what it is and don't pretend its something magical and unknowable - I realize that many folks need to imagine that it's too complicated to grasp in order to justify spending big money on sexy boxes, and for them ... well, I never quarrel with religeous people because there's way too much 'faith' in the argument and I like proof.
And proof is really where alot of this bug me. You can buy a kazillion dollar amplifier, speaker, preamp, cd player, whatever ... whip out your screwdriver and have a look inside and see what they are doing and where your money has gone. With these magicbox cables, everything is a big secret and sealed up inside so you can't see what you spent your money on. You have to take it all on faith if you're going to opt in. |
love 'em upstream of the preamp... hated them between the pre & the amp...
tweakers delight... |
My 2 cents - I love 'em. I think the opposite is true unklecrusty - the better the components the greater the need for a neutral cable. The 350 SG EVO and 350 reference ic's that I use are incredible. There is no sonic signature that I can pinpoint - they disappear and let the music flow in my system, you find out what your components are capable of reproducing in terms of tonality, imaging, and presence. To me, even with MIT 330 series and 750 speaker cables, they get the tone right and all other wire I've tried simply cannot. Instruments sound real. The one weakness with MIT is cost - the reference stuff is outrageously expensive. However, the performance difference between 330 series and 350 series is very significant, like any significant component ugrade in the chain. I like the networks, the higher up the chain you venture - the more and bigger the network. The reference stuff has metal boxes instead of plastic. Asthetically, I think they look cool - purists can't stand the idea of a network, frankly, I don't care - I just strive for satisfaction. As someone mentioned there is alot of passion with regard to MIT and I'm someone is going to passionately blast my post. |
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. |
I agree with the basic premise of your comments i.e. an impedance compensation network is valid for the specific system that it was designed for. Change just one variable ( speaker, cable, amplifier, etc... ) and that network is no longer valid or "most correct". Trying to do anything other than "tweak" a specific set of components within a system for optimum performance by using cables with "universal" values in their "magic boxes" is completely "generic" in my eyes and a highly flawed approach. That is why i said that i have no desire to investigate MIT, Transparent, etc... Sean
> |
unklecrusty@aol.com
Great post. Thanks for your input. I also was looking at MIT. Thanks Again |
Unklecrusty: I am not defending MIT, Transparent, etc... I have no real experience with them nor do i feel the need to investigate them.
Having said that, all i can say is that changing the line length of ANY speaker cable will present the amplifier with a different feedpoint impedance. This in turn can play games with how it loads up, the correction circuitry, etc... If MIT, Transparent or for that matter Kimber, Goertz, Monster, etc... presents the amp with an impedance that it likes, it will work better.
The bottom line would be to hook up various cables to a system one by one and test them. One could feed various test signals into the system and check to see what produced the most linear loading at the amp and speaker's binding posts. I had intended to do this sometime in the near future just to see how measurable the differences really are. On top of that, i'm wondering how closely the waveform would equate to actual sound quality i.e. would a severely distorted waveform produce severely non-linear sound ??? I guess i'll have to wait and see. Sean
> |
all doubting Thomas's STILL sound the same |
As I replied to Abal, even parallel capacitance as a "power factor correction" will, together with the series inductance of the circuit (and perhaps even an inductor in the magic box) create a second order low pass filter - but maybe just maybe it works as you say it does, and maybe that is desireable.
IF that is the case ... why not just make add-on boxes with leads on them instead of making whole cables? Jack Bybee does this, Walker does this, there are a couple of aftermarket boxes that work in this gap - why not MIT and Transparent? They aren't selling cables, per se - they are selling cable-fixers. So why not fix a greater variety of cables with the magic boxes?
And if the magic box prevents reflected energy from returnining to the feedback loop of an amplifier, would it be safe to assume that they wouldn't have this effect with amplifiers such as zero-feedback SET types?
And cables that are THAT reactive are just poorly designed, IMHO. But as you say, "This explains why synergy is so critical when trying to optimize your setup, and why a particular cable set works differently when placed into different electrical environments. This is an unavoidable fact of life for any cable." - basically we understand each other in that these magicboxes cannot be optimized for all systems, but can fit only particular systems and this with only varying degrees of optimization depending upon how far from the original modeled system the system under test falls. |
I have tried the MIT and transparent cables...the high end ones and NEVER liked them. As someone has said above, my kimbers were far superior sounding. I really wanted to keep them because of the "COOL" factor with the professional/expensive look of the network boxes but my ears could not break in to the sound.
Transparent cables sound downright "BLAND" and MIT sounds "THIN AND BRITTLE".
Finally...I have come to a conclusion that "BOXES ARE FOXES"
You do not have to agree with my observation but if you do a search on MIT and Transparent cables, look how many comes up and look at the highly depreciated prices. Must tell you something though??? |
Transmission lines? Do you have any idea how long a speaker cable would have to be in order to start showing transmission line effects?
Check it out: Let's go as high as CD reproduction of frequency and say that we're throwing a 20kHz signal down the old pipe. Now while the speed of sound is decidedly slow in air, the speed of an electrical signal in a wire comes close to the speed of light. It gets bogged down a little by the insulator, but a common speed is about 70% of the speed of light.
Light travels at about 300,000km per second, or approx. 186,000 miles per second. That's fast, so let's slow it down and put some plastic in the way - a little PTFE and we've got it down to 70% of that speed, or 130,200 miles per second. (Disk brakes, wouldn't ya know...)
Now, 20kHz means that the signal is oscillating 20,000 times per second. If we want to figure out how long a single wavelength @ 20kHz is while travelling in the pipe, we just need to divide 130,200 miles by 20,000. In this case we get a wavelength of 6.51 miles, or 34,372.8 feet
Double that for 10kHz (68,745.60 feet)
Quadruple that for 5kHz (137,491.2 feet)
Octuple that for 2.5kHz (274,982.4 feet)
When would you begin to see transmission line effects? Full wave? Half wave? Quarter wave? Eighth wave? 1/1,000th wave?
Let's get kooky here and say that transmission line effects may actually contribute some sideband funkies at 1/4,096 wave - lets' see how long your speaker cable would have to be (@ frequency) to show up some of these tranmsmission line effects that the magic boxes seem to cure:
20kHz @ 1/4,096 wave = 8.391797 feet (do-able)
10kHz @ 1/4,096 wave = 16.783594 feet (less do-able)
5kHz @ 1/4,096 wave = 33.567188 feet (much less do-able)
Now ... what are the chances that there are any registerable transmission line effects at 1/4,096 wave?
Er ... none
You'd be lucky to "experience" transmission line effects at 1/16th wave which, at 20kHz would require a 2,148.3 foot long speaker cable.
Phase delay between current and voltage? You'll have to fill me in on what this means, because I have absolutely no idea at all.
Phase "delay" is a function of time and, therefore, a function of frequency - frequencies are susceptible to phase shift, but voltage and current? Voltage and current are not - I repeat for the deaf - NOT the "ingredients of sound". They are, first of all, two different things and second of all inextricably (for audio purposes) intertwined by Ohm's law (V = IR, I = V/R, R = V/I)
Sound is, simply: frequency and amplitude. If you want to get a little more detailed, throw in rise time and slew rate. Power @ frequency is where you need to be focused because in order to move air the system has to do work, and that takes power. So, on to power factor (which describes the efficiency of a power system) and its correction:
I can't for the life of me figure out how a filterbox corrects for the power factor of the variable output of an audio power amplifier with its varying frequency and amplitude along with varying impedance @ frequency. Even if you could reliably characterize a "power factor signature" in a single system, the "signature" is going to be different from amplifier to amplifier, and speaker to speaker, and from the almost infinite variations between choices of amplifiers matched to choices of speakers - making any generic "power factor correction" magicbox impossibly crippled to work optimally in any but a single, originally characterized system.
Power factor correction is typically a power supply solution for inductive loads - and the solution itself is typically just a bunch of paralleled capacitors (as reactive current "generators"). So if the magic box is performing "power factor correction" it would be evidenced as oddly high parallel capacitance - and with the combination of series inductance (cable and system) and high parallel capacitance (magic box) you start to model a low-pass filter. That is, if the magicbox itself doesn't already throw some additional series inductance into the "loop" (get it? inducatnce? Loop? ha?)
Maybe it's just more glamorous to say "Power Factor Corrected" or whatever the slingline is, but it sure sounds to me like a second order low pass filter. Filter filter filter. And that's ok, I guess, as long as the knee frequency is high enough ... but even then a low pass filter will induce phase distortions that weren't characterized in the system before the magicbox was shoved in line.
All of this hocus pocus is comical. Power Factor Correction for the variable output of an audio amplifier. Correct the phase distortion between current and voltage. I just don't know where this silly stuff comes from.
To be fair, maybe I misunderstood something in your post - if I did, accept my apology. And if you like your MIT cables - God Bless and follow your bliss and may the Force be With You, I'm not about to tell you what should give you your kicks. But as far as I can tell from what I've read, seen, and now read from you - these boxes are filters, probably low-pass filters, which in and of themselves will introduce phase-shift, not correct it.
Again, I restate - if you've got a high rez audio rig, there's no reason to "correct" anything with exotic blackbox cables - just get good quality cables that don't generically modify the intended, already designed circuit of the amplifier and the speaker. |
The common misnomer that networked cables (MIT - Transparent) are filtered - is incorrect. The networks are paralleled across the conductors, not in series. Their purposes are (1) group delay compensation, as mentioned above and (2) to help absorb/attenuate reflected energy so as to prevent it reaching back to the amp, the amp's feedback then attempting to make erroneous corrections based upon those signal reflections. This also smooths out the detrimental effects of the inherent reactance charactaristics of cabling, ALL of which is reactive to some degree or another, making ALL cables equivelant to filters in some way, and thus interacting with the reactive characteristics of both the source & the load. This explains why synergy is so critical when trying to optimize your setup, and why a particular cable set works differently when placed into different electrical environments. This is an unavoidable fact of life for any cable. It is gratifying to see that at least *some* such as Dautch actually comprehend what is going on in that respect. Others who may install a component or cable into their existing rig (previously optimized for a different matchup) and then experience less than stellar results, are quick to blame the new device as a bad one, obviously an oversimplified & incorrect assumption.
In my particular case, my rig took to MIT cabling like a fish takes to water, realizing a lovely combination immediately, which only improved over a 30 day interval as the cables were further used (the breakin phenomenon). Bruce Brisson definitely knows what he's doing, just very misunderstood. |
I've used MIT interconects in the past; and thought they were a good value for the money. About four years ago, when I first started upgrading my main audio system; I bought several sets of 2s and 3s from Audio Advisor during one of their MIT sales. At the time, they were a big improvement over the Monster Cable garbage I was using. I later moved on to Transparent MusicWave & MusicWave Plus ICs and speaker cables - and McIntosh electronics; and genuinely enjoy the set-up I have right now. (Though I'm going to try out some Cardas & Nordost ICs later this month!)
And I might add, that I'm currently still using some of those MIT 2s and 3s here in my media duplication business. They still sound pretty decent, and the connectors have held up quite well! |
I hate to tell "unclecrusty" that he is wrong due to his seeming all-knowingness in his story but here it is: If you read the MIT white papers, you will discover that there is no filtering involved in the MIT speaker cables. It is funny to see what kind of wives' tales people can come up with and firmly believe them. Perhaps he was referring to power conditioners that are installed before the power reaches the stereo but this is not the subject at hand.
The MIT network boxes are there to correct not the stereo, but the cables themselves. There is no denying the fact that all cables are fundamentally transmission lines and can be modeled as such. This modeling includes all the little nasties that many overlook like inductance and capaciatance. These last two directly induce phase delay between the current and voltage, known as power factor. Voltage and current are the ingrediants of sound - you screw them up and the result is botched. The MIT boxes realign the two and in so doing, correct the power factor and phase delay. This is assuming that the power amplifier supplies corrected it also on their end - otherwise the cables correct for that too. As an electrical engineer, I have observed pitiful responses from "high end" amps in the lab since the designer equates good sound with circuit simplicity and in doing so jeoperdizes its very existance, but that is a whole other story....
Anyone interested in the gory details may contact me directly in the interest of keeping others from getting bored. Bottom line is I love the sound of my MIT cables.
Arthur |
Thanks, Ozfly! It's good to know my work is being appreciated! There's nothing worse than having to suffer for your art... |
I own MIT's and love them -- but I needed to experiment with different types to get it right (finally settled on the ES version). Of course, how they sound depends on "your gear and your ear" (eh dautch?). I replaced my amps and speakers and will now experiment with new speaker cable. I may find nothing better, even with my new gear.
What I hate about the MIT's are the boxes. With the Oracle series, the boxes near the speakers are hard to work with and are very obtrusive (i.e., ugly). They provide me no joy, except for the neutral sound they help produce. By the way, the break in period is about a month. |
I tried a pair of MIT interconnect cables with network boxes some time ago and was disappointed. Compared to Audioquest Diamond, the MITs had a quieter high end, and the music sounded much less dynamic. After a few hours, I developed the impression the music was being compressed, suffocated. Maybe they weren't adequately broken in, or I hadn't given them enough time to get used to them. After a few days, I couldn't stand it anymore and swapped back to the Diamonds. Sorry. |
Here's my 2 cents. MIT, Transparent, etc - these are filters (and don't give me that caca about how "wire is a filter too" and bla bla bla) - dude, these are filters - big ones, small ones, high pass, low pass, all pass, etc.
Now, if you've bought your rig because the quality of the components is high, how much "fixing" do you think that they'd need? I mean, if I had something like Wilson Audio X-1 Grand Slamms being pushed by a couple of Boulder amplifiers - I'd be pretty secure that my system doesn't need some filter box on it to "fix" the sound - I'd want wire that got the hell out of the way and let these incredibly high resolution components do what they were designed to do! Hell - I PAID huge bucks to have the best, why in the hell would they need to be fixed???
Now if I had some mid-fi rig that was weak, I'd want to filter the crap out of it and hopefully get it sounding ok by filtering out the nasty parts. Makes sense, no?
So there's a relationship here - an inverse relationship: The crappier your system, the more you need filtration, and the more expensive your filterboxes get. The better your system is, the less filtration you'll need until you get to real high end sound - where you'd probably want to get the dang filters out of the way and let your system escape the bindings and bloom into its full potential.
I think people tend to like filtered cables more because they get big, sexy boxes attached to their cables and that looks like its worth more and doing more for the sound than other wires. As far as I'm concerned filters can be a destructive gimmick ((because filters are by their nature "subtractive") that look good but limit the true performance potential of any truly high resolution system they are hooked up to.
And if this doesn't make sense to you, think about it this way: If these black boxes are so good, why in the heck don't the speaker companies and electronics guru manufacturers employ them in their components? I mean, I'm sure the filter companies would absolutely love to license their "technology" to anyone willing to pop a sticker in their speaker or electronic box ... but you just don't see it.
And if THAT doesn't make sense to you, what about the fact that you can go into JoBlow's HiFi and buy the "X" model of your favorite filterbox cable and hook it up to your rig ... only the filterbox company has no idea what you're hooking it up to, and JoBlow has no idea what you're hooking it up to - so how can this generic filter work optimally for your specific system? Answer: It can't. It's generic which, by it's definition, means it's not optimized/optimal.
OK - I'm done ranting. |
I went from Kimber to MIT and am just amazed. At first they did not sound too different but after a few hundred hours, a very special sound creeped up and it impresses me very much. The imaging, soundstage, and bass are incredible. I just love mine and don't care what anyone says. People forget that components, cables, room, placement, and the listener, form a system. If any one part is different, you cannot compare two systems to each other. I use T2 biwire speaker and proline xlr interconnects. Arthur |
I don't think it's sour grapes or anything, it's just sales. I own some Classe equipment, and when I visit a store that doesn't carry the Classe line, they are sure to tell me what junk it is. MIT was one of the first underground cables (not Monster) to make it big in the late 80's and early 90's. Many resented them, and rebelled when they became successful, because the anti-establishment had become the establishment. I've heard MIT sound wonderful in certain systems, I've even tried them in my system, without much luck. I prefer Tara Labs cables myself. To each their own. |
MIT sounded terrible with my gear...but that's just my gear (and my ear). Hey! My gear and my ear! Could that be the start of a new catchphrase? Maybe I'll become famous *after* all! Anyway, I prefer the sound of Kimber (everything from Hero to Select 1030). |
Dealers would never push what they sell and trash the competition, would they?
Other than that, I would say that some find the voodoo boxes and arrows indicating the preferred direction of electron flow a little suspect.
Nonetheless, mine sound fine to me. |
I love the sound of them, the sound takes a while to gorw on you. When they synergize with the components in your system the sound has a certain something to it that sets my toe's a tappin.
Patrick |
Bundy, sit back and watch the fur fly! This is one cable topic that people here at AudioGon are just a polarized on as the dealers. I will state that I am a MIT user. I had a dealer tell me that using these with my equiptment was "like going to church and afterward going to a peek show". I guess he likes my gear and not my cables. He did kindly offer to sell me something appropriate. Many that hate them the most have never put them in their system and tried them, as it seems to be with many of the topics that get heated reactions here. |
