MIT Oracle MA-X SHD Speaker and IC's

So to close the loop here, here's what I am hearing between HD and SD (and again, I would not expect Harley to be able to tell such differences): a slightly more forward presentation, more attack (faster transients), more body, in HD - perhaps this is really closer to the recording; and an overall softer, a tad laid back presentation in SD. This is consistent with a lot of recordings, and I happen to recommend solo timpani for an easily discernible comparison, track 1 of Charpentier's Te Deum from Harmonia Mundi http://www.harmoniamundi.com/#/albums?id=1248 - one of my references and an overall top performance and spectacular recording. I am temped to say on edgy recordings people will prefer SD, on properly recorded music probably HD, where I feel the realism is higher.
 
So to close the loop here, here's what I am hearing between HD and SD (and again, I would not expect Harley to be able to tell such differences): a slightly more forward presentation, more attack (faster transients), more body, in HD - perhaps this is really closer to the recording; and an overall softer, a tad laid back presentation in SD. This is consistent with a lot of recordings, and I happen to recommend solo timpani for an easily discernible comparison, track 1 of Charpentier's Te Deum from Harmonia Mundi http://www.harmoniamundi.com/#/albums?id=1248 - one of my references and an overall top performance and spectacular recording. I am temped to say on edgy recordings people will prefer SD, on properly recorded music probably HD, where I feel the realism is higher.

Nice loop close. Perhaps Robert Harley should not have engaged in making definitive statements based on subjectivity.

When I write for Jeff Dorgay at Tone he says absolutely no pontificating, grand statements, or king making.

By declaring one setting clearly superior to others in his mind, he opened the door to M.I.T.'s design being
challenged.

Glad you are enjoying the cable...I DO love timpani! I love hearing it live especially.:D
 
Andre my bad if my last comment came across harsh. I did not pick up on any listening impressions in your comments, they all seemed based on RH's statement (some dudes opinion, in my words) and assumption. I did not realize your ears had experience with the cables being discussed. Kind of key stuff, to me at least.

Ack and I have beat this horse to death privately...and I still don't really have a preference. I could listen to them either way. I mostly leave them in SD these days but tomorrow it could be HD:) They sound amazing on either and I am grateful to have them.
 
Ack and I have beat this horse to death privately...and I still don't really have a preference. I could listen to them either way. I mostly leave them in SD these days but tomorrow it could be HD:) They sound amazing on either and I am grateful to have them.

Couldn't have said it better myself
 
Andre my bad if my last comment came across harsh. I did not pick up on any listening impressions in your comments, they all seemed based on RH's statement (some dudes opinion, in my words) and assumption. I did not realize your ears had experience with the cables being discussed. Kind of key stuff, to me at least.

Ack and I have beat this horse to death privately...and I still don't really have a preference. I could listen to them either way. I mostly leave them in SD these days but tomorrow it could be HD:) They sound amazing on either and I am grateful to have them.

No offense taken, and actually, your comment was warranted. I had not disclosed that I have heard these cables. But of course, having
it in your system is a different ballgame. FYI, my entire system costs as much as a pair of 8 foot Oracle SHDs..so not in the cards. I have
heard them hooked up to Magico Q5s and a few other speakers.

For me, and this is just my personal OCD thing..I don't like choices. I don't like DACs with selectable filters,
cables with articulation points, or speakers with a million tweeter settings. That is MY personal short coming. :D

Again, your comment was not harsh, and I STILL stand by my statement.."if you have not heard it..." well, you know the rest.;)
 
And here is the irony, Andre, I also don't like choices. Despite my statement that I do think both HD and SD sound great I would prefer the switch not exist. I'd also prefer the 5 positions on my IC's didn't exist as well as on my digital cable. Enough! I have too much other stuff to worry about! I got this far, it has taken me decades, but having all those switches that I can change drives me nuts. I try and forget about them. Really I do.

So...yes, I love my cables and in fact think they are the best out there but I really don't need the additional options. Apparently some guys love that stuff, it's just too much for me.
 
So to close the loop here, here's what I am hearing between HD and SD (and again, I would not expect Harley to be able to tell such differences): a slightly more forward presentation, more attack (faster transients), more body, in HD - perhaps this is really closer to the recording; and an overall softer, a tad laid back presentation in SD. This is consistent with a lot of recordings, and I happen to recommend solo timpani for an easily discernible comparison, track 1 of Charpentier's Te Deum from Harmonia Mundi http://www.harmoniamundi.com/#/albums?id=1248 - one of my references and an overall top performance and spectacular recording. I am temped to say on edgy recordings people will prefer SD, on properly recorded music probably HD, where I feel the realism is higher.

I'm curious to the statement you made above that I bolded. Why would you not expect Harley to tell the differences between the 3 settings when he clearly stated the differences he did hear? Certainly it's not because of the gear he owns. I reread his review today, and the only thing I thought was missing was an explanation on why these cables can be justified for their cost relative to the cost of the materials and labor. He basically justified the cost of the cables based on how much sonic improvement they can bring to your already very expensive system, not the cost to manufacture. You could buy 2 1/4 lbs of gold for $50K.

As I have said before, I am an MIT fan. I own a pair of their bottom feeder speaker cables with network boxes that retail for $3K. I also own numerous MIT ICs in my system (from my Krell KPE to my Krell KCR-HR and from the KRC-HR to the KSA-250). When I read the interview between Harley and Brisson where Bruce *explained* how his cables work, I have to admit when he talked about how many caps and inductors were in the signal path inside of his network boxes it made me shudder. This is the same as having another crossover in your system before it reaches your crossover in your speakers. Bruce's explanation for how it worked sounded more like voodoo than science to me, but then it's probably just me. He said he starts with A440 and tunes on harmonics on both sides and then goes on from there, but of course he can't make a network box that accounts and tunes for all fundamental frequencies that we hear and their harmonics. Now that I think about it, has anyone ever measured the insertion loss that you get from using MIT cables with network boxes? I would think that with the more 'poles of articulation" the more insertion loss you will have. I have stated before that my Def Tech speakers are rated at over 90dB sensitivity and yet they don't sound like it. Maybe that is because of the insertion loss of the cables.
 
And here is the irony, Andre, I also don't like choices. Despite my statement that I do think both HD and SD sound great I would prefer the switch not exist. I'd also prefer the 5 positions on my IC's didn't exist as well as on my digital cable. Enough! I have too much other stuff to worry about! I got this far, it has taken me decades, but having all those switches that I can change drives me nuts. I try and forget about them. Really I do.

So...yes, I love my cables and in fact think they are the best out there but I really don't need the additional options. Apparently some guys love that stuff, it's just too much for me.

Nice post. In a perfect world it would be Set It And Forget It.

I watched my father as a teenager spend more time dialing in his sub, working the tone controls, and calibrating his turntable
then listening to music. And then at one point it was the same dozen direct to disc and telarc Lps. He finally had epiphany and downscaled
to a B&O system. He admitted he enjoyed music more with is smaller scale system than he ever did with his main system.

Everyone gets different things out of this hobby, for me it is to serve the music period. Choices are good for some folks, and not for others.

I might need to pick up that Timpani recording btw.
 
Please explain to me why they offer, "SD" for Standard Definition, "HD" for High Definition", and SHD "Super High Definition" settings.

Harley clearly says that HD, is better than SD, and the SHD is clearly superior by a wide margin to the other settings.

Other than including these settings for marketing purposes and to prey on buzzword gullible wealthy audiophiles, what purpose do
they serve?

Harley, to his credit, asks the same question, and say he cannot imagine a listener preferring any setting other than "SHD".

Imagine if there was a company that offered a TV with "SD", "HD", and "SHD" settings. It would be skewered by
the mainstream press.

IMO a somewhat shameful ploy.

I auditioned a pair of MIT Matrix 90 speaker cables in my system a few months ago when I was looking for my current set of cables. These had only the SD and HD settings. I actually preferred the SD setting. I felt the HD, "more poles of articulation", had some funky phase shifting going on to give the impression of more "space". I thought is sounded unfocused. Images were diffuse. It sounded pretty unnatural to me. I asked the dealer about it and he also preferred the SD setting in this model cable.

I don't understand the different settings. Perhaps they solved this phase issue with the SHD setting. I'll look up the review.
 
I auditioned a pair of MIT Matrix 90 speaker cables in my system a few months ago when I was looking for my current set of cables. These had only the SD and HD settings. I actually preferred the SD setting. I felt the HD, "more poles of articulation", had some funky phase shifting going on to give the impression of more "space". I thought is sounded unfocused. Images were diffuse. It sounded pretty unnatural to me. I asked the dealer about it and he also preferred the SD setting in this model cable.

I don't understand the different settings. Perhaps they solved this phase issue with the SHD setting. I'll look up the review.

Definitely read the review and post your thoughts!!
 
Why would you not expect Harley to tell the differences between the 3 settings when he clearly stated the differences he did hear?

Quite simple: in the end, he outright dismissed all other settings but SHD, as discussed upthread, and I instead gave some reasons why one would want to use the "lesser" settings, based on the differences I hear - he only speculated that some might like a softer, more forgiving presentation; I consider this pedestrian. Apparently I am not alone in preferring SD in some cases when the recording is just not right, nor am I alone in hearing a bit of phasey type of sound in HD, at least with the "lesser" Oracle Matrix cables. In the end, to me Harley is not the kind of reviewer that will (can?) ponder and think the way I do, nor do I feel he gave MIT enough of a benefit of the doubt for providing said switches (despite Brisson's [limited] efforts to explain what they do), and he barely mentioned one single recording in support of his findings, just as I did in the very short time I allocated to respond above. I just don't think he spent enough time on the "lesser" settings. I find his reviewing often shallow, full of generalizations, flat if you will, not to mention the tiring king-making (thanks Andre) language issue after issue, which causes a lot of people, including me, to take his and Valin's claims with lots of salt. I just don't think they are sophisticated enough reviewers.

On to your other points Mark, Brisson's explanations are virtually the same as on his web site. He's clearly and understandably trying to avoid discussing electrical terms in TAS, but the crux of the latest invention is in the white paper. The "articulation poles" circuits are in parallel to the signal, but I am sure they affect the interface between amp and speakers (in fact, I am aware of issues with some tube amps). In addition, if you also pay close attention to the shipping boxes, the cables are covered by yet more patents (beyond those pertaining to the industrial design of his cables), some of which introduce inductors in-series with the signal, while others cover inductance as it relates to the turns-per-unit-of-length (that's also in-series), etc. So there is more in there that meets the eye, and yes, at a high level there would be cause for concern, but I personally have gone beyond that, given the audible results. He's basically come up with his own problem description for and solution to Transmission Line theory when a complex audio waveform is riding the line - i.e. when there is simultaneous transmission of thousands of fundamental frequencies and harmonics - and the impedances plus other electrical characteristics on either end are roughly as we know them. Having said that, his patent claims are carefully selected and he leaves potential trade-offs undiscussed; therefore, though those carefully selected claims make sense to me and I defend them, he has not entirely convinced me that his overall problem description and solution check out 100% from a pure scientific standpoint. And I haven't even looked at his "analog jitter" claims.
 
Quite simple: in the end, he outright dismissed all other settings but SHD, as discussed upthread, and I instead gave some reasons why one would want to use the "lesser" settings, based on the differences I hear - he only speculated that some might like a softer, more forgiving presentation; I consider this pedestrian. Apparently I am not alone in preferring SD in some cases when the recording is just not right, nor am I alone in hearing a bit of phasey type of sound in HD, at least with the "lesser" Oracle Matrix cables. In the end, to me Harley is not the kind of reviewer that will (can?) ponder and think the way I do, nor do I feel he gave MIT enough of a benefit of the doubt for providing said switches (despite Brisson's [limited] efforts to explain what they do), and he barely mentioned one single recording in support his findings, just as I did in the very short time I allocated to respond above. I just don't think he spent enough time on the "lesser" settings. I find his reviewing often shallow, full of generalizations, flat if you will, not to mention the tiring king-making (thanks Andre) language issue after issue, which causes a lot of people, including me, to take his and Valin's claims with lots of salt. I just don't think they are sophisticated enough reviewers.

On to your other points Mark, Brisson's explanations are virtually the same as on his web site. He's clearly and understandably trying to avoid discussing electrical terms in TAS, but the crux of the latest invention is in the white paper. The "articulation poles" circuits are in parallel to the signal, but I am sure they affect the interface between amp and speakers (in fact, I am aware of issues with some tube amps). In addition, if you also pay close attention to the shipping boxes, the cables are covered by yet more patents (beyond those pertaining to the industrial design of his cables), some of which introduce inductors in-series with the signal, while others cover inductance as it relates to the turns-per-unit-of-length (that's also in-series), etc. So there is more in there that meets the eye, and yes, at a high level there would be cause for concern, but I personally have gone beyond that, given the audible results. He's basically come up with his own problem description for and solution to Transmission Line theory when a complex audio waveform is riding the line - i.e. when there is simultaneous transmission of thousands of fundamental frequencies and harmonics - and the impedances plus other electrical characteristics on either end are roughly as we know them. Having said that, his patent claims are carefully selected and he leaves potential trade-offs undiscussed; therefore, though those carefully selected claims make sense to me and I defend them, he has not entirely convinced me that his overall problem description and solution check out 100% from a pure scientific standpoint. And I haven't even looked at his "analog jitter" claims.

Excellent and informative post ack. Much thanks.
 
I might need to pick up that Timpani recording btw.

To clarify, it's just how Charpentier's Te Deum starts, with a timpani solo. The entire recording is simply spectacular.
 
To clarify, it's just how Charpentier's Te Deum starts, with a timpani solo. The entire recording is simply spectacular.

Yes, I figured it was not an hour of solo timpani! I am going to order this disc. I just sampled it on the Harmonia Mundi website and it IS spectacular.

I am hoping I can find a lossless FLAC download instead, but I'm not finding it.
 
Nice post. In a perfect world it would be Set It And Forget It.

I love choices because it helps you get to exactly that point in a manner that to me is actually easier and has the potential to be both precise and repeatable. It's great when you can essentially "zero out the board" anytime you like.
 
Nice post. In a perfect world it would be Set It And Forget It.

I watched my father as a teenager spend more time dialing in his sub, working the tone controls, and calibrating his turntable
then listening to music. And then at one point it was the same dozen direct to disc and telarc Lps. He finally had epiphany and downscaled
to a B&O system. He admitted he enjoyed music more with is smaller scale system than he ever did with his main system.

Everyone gets different things out of this hobby, for me it is to serve the music period. Choices are good for some folks, and not for others.

I might need to pick up that Timpani recording btw.

Great comments that well reflect where I am today. I spent many years exploring options and in the process losing time to enjoy the music. I suppose it was/is necessary to get close enough to my system goals....hours of A/B'ing outlets, power devices, digital cables, USB cables, amps, DAC's and on and on and on. Playing the same tune for hours or even 15 seconds of the same tune or one snare snap. Over the past couple of years I have gotten back to what brought me here in the first place, exploring and enjoying music. I spend much of my hobby time now collecting and experiencing music to the point now where it is much more a part of me than gear. In doing so I have become aware of the amazing music being produced today, it's really an exciting era, maybe the most exciting in my lifetime.

I give some (a great deal) credit to Spectral and MIT for this though. My satisfaction with system performance really has let my mind/soul drift back to music rather than obsessing about how to find just a touch more air in cymbal brushes. Anyway, sorry to float a bit off topic but the comment really was important, I felt.
 
Great comments that well reflect where I am today. I spent many years exploring options and in the process losing time to enjoy the music. I suppose it was/is necessary to get close enough to my system goals....hours of A/B'ing outlets, power devices, digital cables, USB cables, amps, DAC's and on and on and on. Playing the same tune for hours or even 15 seconds of the same tune or one snare snap. Over the past couple of years I have gotten back to what brought me here in the first place, exploring and enjoying music. I spend much of my hobby time now collecting and experiencing music to the point now where it is much more a part of me than gear. In doing so I have become aware of the amazing music being produced today, it's really an exciting era, maybe the most exciting in my lifetime.

I give some (a great deal) credit to Spectral and MIT for this though. My satisfaction with system performance really has let my mind/soul drift back to music rather than obsessing about how to find just a touch more air in cymbal brushes. Anyway, sorry to float a bit off topic but the comment really was important, I felt.

Thanks for sharing! Very nice words. I guess we could say you are "dialed" in!
 
So to close the loop here, here's what I am hearing between HD and SD (and again, I would not expect Harley to be able to tell such differences): a slightly more forward presentation, more attack (faster transients), more body, in HD - perhaps this is really closer to the recording; and an overall softer, a tad laid back presentation in SD. This is consistent with a lot of recordings, and I happen to recommend solo timpani for an easily discernible comparison, track 1 of Charpentier's Te Deum from Harmonia Mundi http://www.harmoniamundi.com/#/albums?id=1248 - one of my references and an overall top performance and spectacular recording. I am temped to say on edgy recordings people will prefer SD, on properly recorded music probably HD, where I feel the realism is higher.

Just got my CD...can't wait to listen to it....!
 
Tracks 1 and 2 will probably blow you away with the purity of the recording :D and then the chorus, tenor et al after that
 

About us

  • What’s Best Forum is THE forum for high end audio, product reviews, advice and sharing experiences on the best of everything else. This is THE place where audiophiles and audio companies discuss vintage, contemporary and new audio products, music servers, music streamers, computer audio, digital-to-analog converters, turntables, phono stages, cartridges, reel-to-reel tape machines, speakers, headphones and tube and solid-state amplification. Founded in 2010 What’s Best Forum invites intelligent and courteous people of all interests and backgrounds to describe and discuss the best of everything. From beginners to life-long hobbyists to industry professionals, we enjoy learning about new things and meeting new people, and participating in spirited debates.

Quick Navigation

User Menu