Master Built-What are Owners Hearing That They Didn't Hear With Other Cables

[Al M.]

A person or persons who debate the marketing jargon surrounding cables that they have never heard nor intend to audition in their system - let alone purchase - is the answer to the question, “what is an audiophile?”

Haha, good one!

 

[853guy]

Haha, good one!

Peace and love!

853guy

 

[Al M.]

I can easily understand that people with a chemist background know extensively about "free radicals " but probably are not specialists in dielectric absorption, a subject where the words "free radicals" are often referred. It is a complicated subject, not suitable to forum debates, although I posted on it sometime ago concerning burn-in.

Do you have any references for this? A quick google search did not turn up anything useful.

 

[Al M.]

Peace and love!

853guy

To you too!

 

[RogerD]

Many in fact do; MIT is probably the best, from a significant number of white papers and patents, to layman's brochures. And why is that... it's because everything they say checks out scientifically, and we have been able to explain a lot of things we hear in these cables based on the information they provide. No voodoo there. In fact, a lot of the great audible aspects people describe about MB cables we already hear with MIT Oracle, and have been for decades.



I've always been on the "dark side" wrt measurements, as long as they are coupled with listening - but science first, then listening. I don't expect to be in the majority, nor does it matter to anyone but me. But it does matter to me, because of all the nonsense I am reading from a variety of manufacturers, day after day. Like pretty much everywhere else, there are the A Listers, the B Listers, and then everyone else - high end audio is not any different. In our audio world, I want to see the credentials as well, especially at stratospheric price points.

Thanks, I'll check out MIT,as iirc they are one of the few.

 

[RogerD]

Thanks, I'll check out MIT,as iirc they are one of the few.

Just marketing mumbo jumbo. They talk about noise but give no scientific data or theory. Like I've said very little science in this document. If you read ASE papers on cables and noise you can glean much more about theory.grounding,and why some cables are better then others....but no high end manufacturers release any specifications or measurements.

http://www.mitcables.com/pdf/energy_efficiency_noise_wp.pdf

 

[microstrip]

Again, what they talk about is pretty plain and has nothing to do with Maxwell, etc. You seem to not have read anything they have said such as this:

"Please note that our listening panel rejected all other metals in the blind ABX tests, including silver, silver plated copper, aluminum, gold, and platinum conductors. Although initially dazzled by the brighter, forward-sounding silver formulations, the brighter sound became quite fatiguing over an extended period of time, often as little as ten minutes. In addition, the metals other than copper seemed to reduce bass power as they simultaneously increased the treble range, making them a poor choice."

Everyone here would understand the results of blind listening tests. We just need to know the details of what was tested, how and who the participants were. Nothing complicated.

We also would understand the results on the distortion cancelling JBL "charge coupled method", the details of what was tested, what were the results and who the participants were. And probably would love to know what was listened blind and what was listened sighted and by customers from around the world in the development of the revolutionary Mark Levinson No53 - just referring to the No 53 Harman brochure.

The more we dig, the more marketing sins we will find in this industry. Please note that I find it normal and common marketing practice - I am no way accusing any manufacturer. Just showing that almost all of them use similar marketing strategies to get the attention of consumers.

Some, scientifically more prudent, but with great hypocrisy, disguise this type of comments as consumer or happy owners opinions in their site letters section ...

 

[Al M.]

We also would understand the results on the distortion cancelling JBL "charge coupled method", the details of what was tested, what were the results and who the participants were. And probably would love to know what was listened blind and what was listened sighted and by customers from around the world in the development of the revolutionary Mark Levinson No53 - just referring to the No 53 Harman brochure.

The more we dig, the more marketing sins we will find in this industry. Please note that I find it normal and common marketing practice - I am no way accusing any manufacturer. Just showing that almost all of them use similar marketing strategies to get the attention of consumers.

Some, scientifically more prudent, but with great hypocrisy, disguise this type of comments as consumer or happy owners opinions in their site letters section ...

Also good points, Micro.

 

[Steve Williams]

Many in fact do; MIT is probably the best, from a significant number of white papers and patents, to layman's brochures. And why is that... it's because everything they say checks out scientifically, and we have been able to explain a lot of things we hear in these cables based on the information they provide. No voodoo there. In fact, a lot of the great audible aspects people describe about MB cables we already hear with MIT Oracle, and have been for decades.

IIRC MIT Oracle is priced much higher than MB



I've always been on the "dark side" wrt measurements, as long as they are coupled with listening - but science first, then listening. I don't expect to be in the majority, nor does it matter to anyone but me. But it does matter to me, because of all the nonsense I am reading from a variety of manufacturers, day after day. Like pretty much everywhere else, there are the A Listers, the B Listers, and then everyone else - high end audio is not any different. In our audio world, I want to see the credentials as well, especially at stratospheric price points.

I truly understand your points but disagree with both. To turn your ear (NPI ) from IMO a great product and not audition it because of whatever it lacks in marketing is plain silly.

Here's my question tasos. If MIT are the best why is it that every month there are 8-10 newest and best yet MIT cables with a stupidly high levels of articulation that last month's cables are history. I call it following the impossible dream. Marty recently made comment about the stupid high levels of articulation. To me he is a skilled marketer and his cable is sold in so many places that no one knows ever what MSRP is.

MB since inception has had 4 levels of cable. No levels of articulation or network boxes only 4 levels of cable and AFAIK there ain't anything new in the cable line but perhaps in grounding which has been discussed here before

As I see it Tasos these 4 guys got it right after many beta prototypes and they haven't changed since. In my system, they are called lifers because they are my last cable. And again IIRC they are priced less than MIT Oracle.

"glass half full or glass half empty?" Your choice

 

[microstrip]

Do you have any references for this? A quick google search did not turn up anything useful.

As far as I remember I found it in an old reference book about dielectrics, in a section addressing noise. Under some conditions the formation of free radicals and chain fragments due to breaking of bonds could create localized charged sites that affected the performance of the dielectric. I think I posted a link in WBF, I will look for it. If really interested on the subject google for the Maxwell–Wagner effect - I found about it at that time, enjoyed reading but already forgot it, it is not my area of interest!

 

[RogerD]

As a example I use one of the cables listed here,the GEPCO Quad which Rane measures as having the lowest SCIN and it sounds great,and even in the same circuit with my NBS is doesn't not degrade the sound. Off course these are microphone cables,but you can terminate them as SE or balanced. If Rane can measure these cables why can't the reviewers....they measure the wrong things.

 

[ack]

I truly understand your points but disagree with both. To turn your ear (NPI ) from IMO a great product and not audition it because of whatever it lacks in marketing is plain silly.

I don't think I am talking about marketing. I am talking about the potential science behind the cables. Unfortunately, as the price goes up, so does the scrutiny. As a scientist you will understand that whenever anyone comes out with a great discovery, everyone cheers but most remain skeptical, until the data is presented for verification. I remain a 'show me' type of guy.

Here's my question tasos. If MIT are the best why is it that every month there are 8-10 newest and best yet MIT cables with a stupidly high levels of articulation that last month's cables are history. I call it following the impossible dream. Marty recently made comment about the stupid high levels of articulation. To me he is a skilled marketer and his cable is sold in so many places that no one knows ever what MSRP is.

Not an MIT thread so won't discuss, and I rebuked Marty's post with a new MIT thread from a Brisson interview.

 

[ack]

Just marketing mumbo jumbo. They talk about noise but give no scientific data or theory. Like I've said very little science in this document. If you read ASE papers on cables and noise you can glean much more about theory.grounding,and why some cables are better then others....but no high end manufacturers release any specifications or measurements.

http://www.mitcables.com/pdf/energy_efficiency_noise_wp.pdf

If you have the time, the meat is in the patents here http://www.mitcables.com/publicatio...s-more-than-any-other-cable-manufacturer.html and the most important one I think is http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6658119.html which discusses voltage/current phase relationships, the basis of those articulation poles

With respect to white papers here http://www.mitcables.com/publications/articles/technical-whitepapers.html the meatiest is the first on the list but very technical though all technically true http://www.mitcables.com/pdf/Transportable_Power_101.pdf also discussing voltage/current phase relationships and the power factor

 

[Steve Williams]

I don't think I am talking about marketing. I am talking about the potential science behind the cables. Unfortunately, as the price goes up, so does the scrutiny. As a scientist you will understand that whenever anyone comes out with a great discovery, everyone cheers but most remain skeptical, until the data is presented for verification. I remain a 'show me' type of guy.



Not an MIT thread so won't discuss, and I rebuked Marty's post with a new MIT thread from a Brisson interview.

[/COLOR][/COLOR]

BTW, doesn't it feel professorial when we answer in "blue" Gives more credence to the answer

 

[microstrip]

If you have the time, the meat is in the patents here http://www.mitcables.com/publicatio...s-more-than-any-other-cable-manufacturer.html and the most important one I think is http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6658119.html which discusses voltage/current phase relationships, the basis of those articulation poles

With respect to white papers here http://www.mitcables.com/publications/articles/technical-whitepapers.html the meatiest is the first on the list but very technical but all true http://www.mitcables.com/pdf/Transportable_Power_101.pdf also discussing voltage/current phase relationships and the power factor

I have not gone through all the MIT literature, but patents only describe techniques and implementations, it is what they want to protect, not the science behind them. For me the unknown key in the MIT cables is the articulation measurement. Bruce Brisson often refers to it, we see nice graphs, but we do not know how and what is really being measured.

 

[Al M.]

As far as I remember I found it in an old reference book about dielectrics, in a section addressing noise. Under some conditions the formation of free radicals and chain fragments due to breaking of bonds could create localized charged sites that affected the performance of the dielectric. I think I posted a link in WBF, I will look for it. If really interested on the subject google for the Maxwell–Wagner effect - I found about it at that time, enjoyed reading but already forgot it, it is not my area of interest!

Thanks, Micro.

 

[ack]

I have not gone through all the MIT literature, but patents only describe techniques and implementations, it is what they want to protect, not the science behind them. For me the unknown key in the MIT cables is the articulation measurement. Bruce Brisson often refers to it, we see nice graphs, but we do not know how and what is really being measured.

The patent is actually much more than protecting the implementation; you have to read it and he includes real I/V phase angles measurements; it is a long patent, and there is a lot of info in it. And then visit my Brisson-interview thread for the abridged version, and hopefully you will realize what is going on. Then go back to the white paper.

 

[ack]

BTW, doesn't it feel professorial when we answer in "blue" Gives more credence to the answer

Indeed, though it felt like you had just switched from red at the last moment! At least it wasn't orange (I am sure you get the drift)

 

[ack]

Speaking of orange, I can't believe what I just found http://www.seeker.com/trumpagator-s...ow&utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=dnewssocial

 

[PeterA]

Hi Al M,

I’m not disagreeing with anything you’re saying. And I appreciate for some there are claims being made by manufacturers they feel are either worth challenging at best or calling out as dishonest at worst. From a cursory glance, I’d say some of the criticism levelled at MB on this thread probably falls somewhere in the middle.

But for what it’s worth (and as someone who works in advertising) I’ll say this: Given that building a brand presence is problematic when the signal-to-noise ratio is already poor due to the proliferation of social media and the ubiquity of the internet; the market in which the product competes is already oversaturated partly because the market itself is infinitesimally small relative to the mainstream; and especially, the USP of that particular product is difficult to articulate considering real-world differences are poorly articulated even amongst sophisticated consumers who seemingly cannot agree on what the word “realistic” means, let alone the real purpose of the mechanism in question (see Ron’s thread re: Toward a Theory of Mutual Understanding and Predictability) - is it any wonder that we are here debating not whether MB cables offer a real and tangible benefit to the consumer in terms of an increase in sound quality, but whether or not their marketing jargon happens to offend our sensibilities?

A person or persons who debate the marketing jargon surrounding cables that they have never heard nor intend to audition in their system - let alone purchase - is the answer to the question, “what is an audiophile?”

That is pretty funny. I would say it is ONE answer to the question, "what is an audiophile?" There are certainly others. I would like to hear these cables just to be able to add something meaningful to the original thread topic. Then again, if I hear the cables in a familiar system, but am not an actual owner, could I still share my impressions in this thread? That might hint at another answer to your question, 853guy.