A case for cable matching

thedudeabides

Well-Known Member
Jan 16, 2011
2,127
651
1,200
Alto, NM
+1.

Nelson is a smart guy and certainly knows that different cables will sound different.

GG
 

rbbert

Well-Known Member
Dec 12, 2010
3,820
239
1,000
Reno, NV
I'm pretty sure he just means his amps won't explode or do unwanted things as long as you use real cables on them. I remember that there were supposedly some amps that would fry, trigger protection circuitry or go into uncontrolled oscillations if they were used with certain types of speaker cables.
 

PeterA

Well-Known Member
Dec 6, 2011
12,522
10,688
3,515
USA
I rarely disagree with mastering engineer Steve Hoffman but we differed this week. It all boiled down to, in my opinion, two very different philosophies:

1. The "tone control" method which is use wire as tone controls to tweak the sound of the components helping them overcome their weaknesses. Steve seems to favor this.

2. A "neutrality" method which suggests if you find a really transparent cable then use it across the system (or at least interconnects and speaker cable) and take care of sound quality issues by buying very neutral components. This is my preferred path.

In principle, I agree with you and prefer the second method. The problem I have, though, is truly knowing whether a cable is neutral. Is it neutral in absolute terms, or only in the context of your system?

If you listen to lots of live, unamplified music as a reference and you subjectively feel that your system sounds fairly similar to this reference in terms of tonal balance, timbre, harmonics, dynamics, scale, etc, you could more or less conclude that your system is fairly transparent and has a pretty neutral tonal balance? However, what if you replace one of the cables and the system's tonal balance shifts, do you conclude that the new cable is not transparent or, is it so transparent that it is now allowing you to hear the flaws in the other components in the system and it's now telling you that the old cable which you thought was transparent is actually a bit colored? Without a good understanding of the components in the system and some history with them in various contexts, I find it difficult to make such a clear assessment of a particular cable. Aren't you really just assessing the new cable in the existing context of your system?

You would have to listen to that cable in the context of various systems to begin to understand how transparent it is. I think this would hold true for most components.
 

Lee

Well-Known Member
Feb 3, 2011
3,210
1,738
1,260
Alpharetta, Georgia
In principle, I agree with you and prefer the second method. The problem I have, though, is truly knowing whether a cable is neutral. Is it neutral in absolute terms, or only in the context of your system?

If you listen to lots of live, unamplified music as a reference and you subjectively feel that your system sounds fairly similar to this reference in terms of tonal balance, timbre, harmonics, dynamics, scale, etc, you could more or less conclude that your system is fairly transparent and has a pretty neutral tonal balance? However, what if you replace one of the cables and the system's tonal balance shifts, do you conclude that the new cable is not transparent or, is it so transparent that it is now allowing you to hear the flaws in the other components in the system and it's now telling you that the old cable which you thought was transparent is actually a bit colored? Without a good understanding of the components in the system and some history with them in various contexts, I find it difficult to make such a clear assessment of a particular cable. Aren't you really just assessing the new cable in the existing context of your system?

You would have to listen to that cable in the context of various systems to begin to understand how transparent it is. I think this would hold true for most components.

Peter, I have the advantage of recording classical ensembles in 24/176 so I can compare the playback to what we heard in the churches we more often record in. I can easily figure out things like if there is enough resolution, if it is too warm/cool, imaging quality, timbre of violins & piano, etc.

Also, isn't this not better than Steve's view where each component must be tweaked by cable selection? In other words, would you not face the same challenges of getting the component to sound good on some types of material but then chasing how you might like it to sound on other material? And moreover, if you have bright gear and opt for a warmer cable, would you not run the risk of losing resolution?

At least with searching for neutrality and detail in a set of cables then you are in a sense eliminating, or at least greatly minimizing the problem of the cables not letting the music through to any component.
 

jap

Banned
Apr 6, 2012
542
1
0
Peter, I have the advantage of recording classical ensembles in 24/176 so I can compare the playback to what we heard in the churches we more often record in. I can easily figure out things like if there is enough resolution, if it is too warm/cool, imaging quality, timbre of violins & piano, etc.

Also, isn't this not better than Steve's view where each component must be tweaked by cable selection? In other words, would you not face the same challenges of getting the component to sound good on some types of material but then chasing how you might like it to sound on other material? And moreover, if you have bright gear and opt for a warmer cable, would you not run the risk of losing resolution?

If you're listening to those 24/176 recordings with a BenchMark DAC, you're not listening to them at their native resolution. The BenchMark DAC converts the original sample rate of the data to a datastream sampled at 110kHz.
 

PeterA

Well-Known Member
Dec 6, 2011
12,522
10,688
3,515
USA
Peter, I have the advantage of recording classical ensembles in 24/176 so I can compare the playback to what we heard in the churches we more often record in. I can easily figure out things like if there is enough resolution, if it is too warm/cool, imaging quality, timbre of violins & piano, etc.

Also, isn't this not better than Steve's view where each component must be tweaked by cable selection? In other words, would you not face the same challenges of getting the component to sound good on some types of material but then chasing how you might like it to sound on other material? And moreover, if you have bright gear and opt for a warmer cable, would you not run the risk of losing resolution?

At least with searching for neutrality and detail in a set of cables then you are in a sense eliminating, or at least greatly minimizing the problem of the cables not letting the music through to any component.

Agree fully, which is why ideally, I prefer the method #2 approach. I find it is not always so easy to make neutrality assessments.
 

Ronm1

Member Sponsor
Feb 21, 2011
1,745
4
0
wtOMitMutb NH
Certainly searching for neutrality requires nose to console, diligence and recordings(test, demos, etc), course why bother if room, power are not right.
 

Mobiusman

Well-Known Member
May 24, 2010
704
560
1,655
Jersey Shore- waterside
For the past week I was in Mexico with two fellow WBFer's, Steve Williams and Marty and watched Steve do the WBF behind the scene stuff that he has to do daily. He told me about about this thread knowing that I have Spectral 260 and all MIT IC's and speaker cable, as does Marty, except he has 400's instead of my 260. I opted not to read this thread or any WBF post for that matter while away because I was in paradise (Four Seasons, Punta Mita, Mexico), and did not want to get into theoretical challenges that go on on this site more often than not, and miss some of what was occurring in the world of reality with my friends and the woman that I love.

Now that I am back from Punta Mita, I read this thread and must say I am glad that I waited because I do not care about the theoretical when it comes to music. What I care about is how much I am moved and where I am moved to.

While the six of us were having dinner outdoors in paradise for Steve's wife's birthday on Friday, neither Steve nor I saw that a 4 piece band was setting up right behind us to sing happy birthday to Kathy. The music started and caught us both by surprise and put smiles on our six faces and not to mention those around us. My guess is that the combined cost of our three systems tips the 7 digit point and in my opinion, none of the systems could even remotely come close to the band in that moment.

Before putting the 260 into my system, I had just several months earlier converted to Shunyata signal cables, all Zitron Anaconda and Python. I tried dropping the Spectal into this system and the results were not good, sonically, or with regard to performance. In fact, it approached being unlistenable in ways that I cannot describe other than to say everything was wrong. First I tried Spectral/MIT Ultranlinear 750 2 speaker wre to replace Anaconda Zitron. The improvement was instantaneous, but still a bit off, probably what some are calling phase incorrect. I added MA interconnects, which further improved the sound, but kept a Python Zitron S/PDIFF in the system.

To cut to the chase, I ended up with MIT HD 60 speaker wire and MA-X IC's and S/PDIFF. Neither Marty nor I can hear the difference between the HD 60 or 90 in the mid standard setting, which we both agree is the most balanced and natural sounding. This does not mean that there is not nan audible difference with each setting. It just means nothing but the mid setting sounded right to Marty or me. We will see what Steve thinks in June when he is back for a visit.

In my opinion, there is quite a bit of difference between the MA and the MA-X IC. The MA-X has a whole additional level of imaging and at the risk of sounding dreamy, it also sounds more cohesive. Although Marty's system is in many ways the big brother of my system with components from three of the same manufacturers, but Marty having the next higher level component, I still feel that I can hear some qualities with my MA-X's that his MA IC's do not provide. However, his superior system, especially the Spectral 400's leave my system clearly behind.

I then sprung for the MA-X S/PDIFF cable and found an improvement over the Shunyata Python, although not dramatic. What I did observe was another overall step closer to the MIT cohesiveness that I now consider very important, make that essential.

Both Marty and I played with HD knobs on my MA-X's and heard the differences with the HD knobs in each of their possible settings. We both concluded that while they accentuate some things, the mid setting is clearly, by a major factor, the most natural sounding and the most cohesive.

I have not heard the MA-X rev 2 in my system, so I cannot comment, other than to say that probably for the cost differential, the quality of my system and my available cash, the MA-X rev 2 is the lunatic fringe.

Since these systems are supposedly about listening to music and being moved to some place we desire, I feel that reading this thread is one that transiently moved me in the wrong direction, away from the music. I love my system and it does a lot for what it costs (pretty sick that a 6 digit system is only mid high end). I have a very intense job and frequently need to get out of my head quickly and effectively. My system does that better than anything, but Ginny.

I have spent about 60% of my system money on cables and Shunyata power products, which is way higher than the alleged, make that foolish, "correct ratio" of cables/power to components. Sorry, but I think that there is no magic ratio that crosses personal taste and different systems. Do what works for you and is within the reality of your lifestyle.

I really love this hobby and particularly love where my system sits currently and what it does for me on an amazingly regular basis. Right now, I am quite happy with my signal components and completely blown away with various differences that Shunyata power products have done for me. In fact, I think I am going to make my cable/power to component ratio more "off" and order a Shunyata Typhon tomorrow.
 

MylesBAstor

Well-Known Member
Apr 20, 2010
11,236
81
1,725
New York City
So folks here, including myself, have surmised we may be hearing phase issues when inserting an "articulating" MIT cable into the system, or when switching between articulation modes (SD, HD, SHD) on the speaker cables, regardless of what interconnects are used upstream (including MIT).

The thought, then, is that, since the articulation technology appears to be based on phase corrections between current and voltage at various frequencies (optimal at -90 degrees, or Power Factor=0), then given two cables that might have mirroring phase characteristics at frequency A - where in fact they would probably correct each other - stand to have that synergy broken by replacing one of them with a phase-correcting MIT, by exposing the other cable's phase deficiency at that frequency; ditto elsewhere in the spectrum, for perhaps a more profound effect. Notice, current/voltage phase need not necessarily translate to phase relationships between frequencies.This could also happen by replacing all cables with MIT products that are not carefully selected.

My own experience has been that the HD setting in my HD90.1 speaker cables kinda sounded "phasey" when it was the only "articulating" cable in the chain, but wasn't sure; they no longer do, and I have recently settled on HD. But frankly, since then, I have gone all-MIT, with 50ic as the interconnects - a matched system. Those who hear "phase" issues when switching between modes on the speaker cables, might in fact be right, in that only one setting would be theoretically fully compatible with the interconnects in the system. This, then, leads to system matching down to the cable level (of any one brand), where otherwise random cable selections stand to offer unpredictable results - a conclusion that some (a lot?) of you have reached long ago. From my perspective, I wanted to somehow quantify it.

Perhaps mixing and matching some brands is OK, but it would appear MIT would not play well in a heterogeneous system. Then there is the entirely different question of whether their network technology works at all with the signal-amplifying equipment in the chain...

A potential consequence of this for Spectral owners is that, once you buy the speaker and interconnecting cables for the amp(s), you probably have to go all-MIT to get the most accurate sound. My own experience certainly confirms that, and the improvement in articulation, dynamic headroom and especially timbre is remarkable.

I found the MIT Oracle-X ICs and phono cable worked fine with the Transparent speaker cables. One thing though that I noticed when using the pair was a slight loss of midrange dynamics that was restored when MIT speaker cables were inserted into the system.

Personally when I think of cable nowadays, my working model is front-end cable, ICs and amplifier-->speakers. And I do find that mixing seems to happen more often on the front-end cable; that's why when doing cable reviews nowadays, I always ask for IC and speaker (and sometimes they want to send power cords as well).
 

1rsw

Well-Known Member
Jul 21, 2010
134
1
365
Interesting thread, thanks to all for contributing your thoughts, observations and experiences.

Some random thoughts:


I believe pretty strongly in Acks basic premise, especially when it comes to MIT. To go a step further, I think it very important to try and match even within the MIT line. Things like using MA-X speaker cables and lower tier MIT ic's are not going to provide optimal performance, possibly the opposite. Using combinations like MIT speaker cables with another brand/technology ic is not only going to greatly skew the ability of either of those, it most likely is just plain going to sound bad. This has been my experience however I have not recorded which combinations I have tried nor do I really remember (don't care enough!).

I think this is part of what went wrong with Peter's MIT trial. If I remember right you were comparing a matched loom of Transparent to the MIT speaker cables in combination with your HT cables. I don't think you can get a clear picture of what the MIT speaker cables are about that way, not at all. I certainly understand why you did it and I also have no idea if you would still prefer Transparent. I just don't think MIT performs without proper matching throughout. It kind of sucks that you were not provided the proper tools to work with, the dealer should know better.

The switches....ahhh those switches. I've owned this stuff for a long time and honestly STILL can't put my finger on exactly what they do. Sometimes I prefer them set one way, sometimes another. I could vary from song to song or resolution. Fortunately, to my ears they all sound good. I tend to keep my speaker cables on HD, my ic on 1:00 and my digital cable at 1:00. MIT if you are reading this, this customer would prefer fewer to no switches! I have enough things to think about related to audio choices!
 

Frank750

VIP/Donor
Jul 8, 2011
821
1
928
Interesting thread, thanks to all for contributing your thoughts, observations and experiences.
The switches....ahhh those switches. I've owned this stuff for a long time and honestly STILL can't put my finger on exactly what they do. Sometimes I prefer them set one way, sometimes another. I could vary from song to song or resolution. Fortunately, to my ears they all sound good. I tend to keep my speaker cables on HD, my ic on 1:00 and my digital cable at 1:00. MIT if you are reading this, this customer would prefer fewer to no switches! I have enough things to think about related to audio choices!

1rsw, I agree with many of your statements. Which MIT models do you use?
 

1rsw

Well-Known Member
Jul 21, 2010
134
1
365
1rsw, I agree with many of your statements. Which MIT models do you use?

At present SHD120 speaker cables, MA-X2 ic, MA-X aes but I've had many over the years.

and....congrats on the new amps, Ack! I've not been around much but did see your exciting news. I officially hate you:) Maybe someday!
 
Last edited:

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

Steve Williams
Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator
Ron Resnick
Site Co-Owner | Administrator
Julian (The Fixer)
Website Build | Marketing Managersing