New Spectral/MIT cables

terrykola

New Member
Feb 17, 2016
4
0
0
Thanks to all for your help.
Hd60s are at home and I've bought the Matrix 50 that are coming. I can't wait to listen them working together...
Now guys, how did you do to connect the HD60's bindings at your Spectral amp? It's impossible to me... Did you blend the gold connectors? They are so big and hard that the only way to connect them is for the upside and that's not very cool...
Regards
 

scouter

Member Sponsor
Oct 30, 2012
241
4
0
Wrightsville Beach, NC
Exactly, upside is only way I could do it. Pain really, and really doesn't seem well thought out IMHO. Once they are connected, they stay pretty tight. I rechecked and tightened them about once a year.
Enjoy!!
Thanks to all for your help.
Hd60s are at home and I've bought the Matrix 50 that are coming. I can't wait to listen them working together...
Now guys, how did you do to connect the HD60's bindings at your Spectral amp? It's impossible to me... Did you blend the gold connectors? They are so big and hard that the only way to connect them is for the upside and that's not very cool...
Regards
 

ack

VIP/Donor & WBF Founding Member
May 6, 2010
6,774
1,198
580
Boston, MA
I guess I don't share anyone else's bad experience with spade connectivity, even with stereo amps - simply, the spades are off-center at a vertical angle; not the best, but no requirement to connect from above and the fit and super tight...
 

scouter

Member Sponsor
Oct 30, 2012
241
4
0
Wrightsville Beach, NC
I can see where there isn't much of a problem with the mono amps, but the 260 is tight navigating the spades onto the bindings. The heat sink on one side and the double fuses below just doesn't leave much room. MIT cable isn't the easiest to make a tight bend, so hard for me to see how you can secure the negative binding on top without approaching from the top. Just my experience, but others may have a trick I don't know about. Not a deal breaker, but certainly harder to secure than other amps, IMHO
I guess I don't share anyone else's bad experience with spade connectivity, even with stereo amps - simply, the spades are off-center at a vertical angle; not the best, but no requirement to connect from above and the fit and super tight...
 

ack

VIP/Donor & WBF Founding Member
May 6, 2010
6,774
1,198
580
Boston, MA
Come to think of it, I did mount one set from the top and the other set on the bottom, on my stereo amps of yesteryear
 

dan31

Well-Known Member
Jul 22, 2010
1,016
365
1,153
SF Bay
I would advise against trying to bend the spades. You will weaken the metal and that may lead to failure of the part.
 

cjf

Well-Known Member
Nov 19, 2012
452
101
948
Hello,

I wanted to bump this thread to get a better understanding of something about one of the MIT speaker cables mentioned previously. The cable I am referring to is the Matrix HD60. When looking at the MIT Site it appears that the Matrix HD60 is now considered "Legacy" and one new cable that appears to be its Twin is the Magnum 2.5 which offers the same 60 Poles with built-in (non-defeatable) F.A.T.

My question is in regards to the sound of the cables that have this F.A.T feature included by default. Is there any reason to think that this feature brings about an unrealistic/unnatural sound at all to the music or has your experience with the cables that include that technology been more positive than negative?

I've seen several negative things said about the SL Matrix 90 cables and they all report the same thing which is that the cables tend to sound a bit fake or overdone compared to the more traditional MIT models. I've not heard them myself but am in the market currently for an MIT cable after hearing an older set of Magnum M2 in my system which I thought sounded pretty impressive.

Thanks for any info you can provide.
 

acousticsguru

Well-Known Member
Feb 17, 2014
505
324
373
Hello,

I wanted to bump this thread to get a better understanding of something about one of the MIT speaker cables mentioned previously. The cable I am referring to is the Matrix HD60. When looking at the MIT Site it appears that the Matrix HD60 is now considered "Legacy" and one new cable that appears to be its Twin is the Magnum 2.5 which offers the same 60 Poles with built-in (non-defeatable) F.A.T.

My question is in regards to the sound of the cables that have this F.A.T feature included by default. Is there any reason to think that this feature brings about an unrealistic/unnatural sound at all to the music or has your experience with the cables that include that technology been more positive than negative?

I've seen several negative things said about the SL Matrix 90 cables and they all report the same thing which is that the cables tend to sound a bit fake or overdone compared to the more traditional MIT models. I've not heard them myself but am in the market currently for an MIT cable after hearing an older set of Magnum M2 in my system which I thought sounded pretty impressive.

Thanks for any info you can provide.

Wow! The description does read as if the Matrix HD60 were being repackaged as Magnum 2.5 and sold at a higher price. I'd be curious what MIT have to say about it? Note the SL series (which I haven't tried, but it does seem as if no one likes these) has nothing to do with the Spectral/MIT cables. Matrix HD60 (in conjunction with Oracle Matrix 50) is what I use. No need to fear "fake" sound, these are the cables Spectral endorse, after all. FAT adds more of MIT's ingenious terminology for the parallel networks MIT have been perfecting for years ("fractional" referring to, if memory serves, the number of "articulation points" exceeding that of octaves in the audible spectrum etc.). Their cables sound great, to me it's MIT's promo talk/marketing drivel that sometimes comes across as "fake", even though it's undeniable the cables "work as advertised" (although I'm usually none the wiser reading their brochures). I designed phase-shifting filters for crossovers, so have a rough understanding of what they're trying to achieve (phase linearity, constant group delay from top to bottom, frequency-independent impedance matching, also for greater flexibility of use with a variety of components etc.) - just a guess, but they may be afraid of copycats (designing and fine-tuning filters is work-intensive, assembling and soldering the parts a piece of cake), so to give actual/detailed technological information may seem a no-go.

Greetings from Switzerland, David.
 
Last edited:

cjf

Well-Known Member
Nov 19, 2012
452
101
948
Wow! The description does read as if the Matrix HD60 were being repackaged as Magnum 2.5 and sold at a higher price. I'd be curious what MIT have to say about it? Note the SL series (which I haven't tried, but it does seem as if no one likes these) has nothing to do with the Spectral/MIT cables. Matrix HD60 (in conjunction with Oracle Matrix 50) is what I use. No need to fear "fake" sound, these are the cables Spectral endorse, after all. FAT adds more of MIT's ingenious terminology for the parallel networks MIT have been perfecting for years ("fractional" referring to, if memory serves, the number of "articulation points" exceeding that of octaves in the audible spectrum etc.). Their cables sound great, to me it's MIT's promo talk/marketing drivel that sometimes comes across as "fake", even though it's undeniable the cables "work as advertised" (although I'm usually none the wiser reading their brochures). I designed phase-shifting filters for crossovers, so have a rough understanding of what they're trying to achieve (phase linearity, constant group delay from top to bottom, frequency-independent impedance matching, also for greater flexibility of use with a variety of components etc.) - just a guess, but they may be afraid of copycats (designing and fine-tuning filters is work-intensive, assembling and soldering the parts a piece of cake), so to give actual/detailed technological information may seem a no-go.

Greetings from Switzerland, David.

Hello and Thanks for your response.

I'm glad to hear that the F.A.T and "HD" technology is not something to be afraid of. I will be getting my grubby mits on at least the Magnum 2.5 and maybe one other model in the coming weeks for testing purposes. If either one are better than the Magnum M2 I am using now then I'll be writing a check, no doubt a fairly sizeable one no matter how I slice it :) :eek:

FWIW..I'm just curious about the general sound of the cables despite not being a Spectral owner. There isn’t a lot of talk about the cables online so I try and probe around anywhere there is a sign of life :)
 

acousticsguru

Well-Known Member
Feb 17, 2014
505
324
373
Hello and Thanks for your response.

I'm glad to hear that the F.A.T and "HD" technology is not something to be afraid of. I will be getting my grubby mits on at least the Magnum 2.5 and maybe one other model in the coming weeks for testing purposes. If either one are better than the Magnum M2 I am using now then I'll be writing a check, no doubt a fairly sizeable one no matter how I slice it :) :eek:

FWIW..I'm just curious about the general sound of the cables despite not being a Spectral owner. There isn’t a lot of talk about the cables online so I try and probe around anywhere there is a sign of life :)

Tasos (aka "ack" on this board) hit the nail on the head noticing early on that the MIT Matrix/Spectral Ultralinear 3 series cables finally manage to "put the bass in the soundstage", or in my less concise words, there's not only no boominess compared to earlier generations, with sound emanating perfectly in-phase from where each instrument is placed in the soundstage across the whole spectrum (including the bottom end - what Tasos alluded to), they're now also completely free of the mid-range grain I still heard in the Ultralinear 2 generation, in short, with the Matrix series they finally reached a level of perfection where after using them for more than a year now, I can't find fault with them at all. Which means their "sonic signature" has become hard to describe, as they no longer have any - no colorations, nothing to put one's finger on that I could think of. If there's anything negative then that recordings that lack depth will sound forward, but one only needs to put on one with stage depth to realize it's not the cable's fault, as it's all beautifully back in proportion depending on the recording. I've auditioned more expensive models I couldn't afford including e.g. Oracle Matrix 120 SHD, and while the resolution increases (more low-level detail, greater "subtlety", so to speak), it's not as if anything were "missing" going back, so I feel confident in saying that the combination of interconnect and speaker cable I ended up choosing provides, as the people at MIT told me, "the best bang for the buck" in a Spectral system. They've reached a level of perfection where I personally feel I'd be better off investing my money elsewhere should the upgrade bug bite again.

Greetings from Switzerland, David.
 
Last edited:

cjf

Well-Known Member
Nov 19, 2012
452
101
948
Tasos (aka "ack" on this board) hit the nail on the head noticing early on that the MIT Matrix/Spectral Ultralinear 3 series cables finally manage to "put the bass in the soundstage", or in my less concise words, there's not only no boominess compared to earlier generations, with sound emanating perfectly in-phase from where each instrument is placed in the soundstage across the whole spectrum (including the bottom end - what Tasos alluded to), they're now also completely free of the mid-range grain I still heard in the Ultralinear 2 generation, in short, with the Matrix series finally reached a level of perfection where after using them for more than a year now, I can't find fault with them at all. Which means their "sonic signature" has become hard to describe, as they no longer have any - no colorations, nothing to put one's finger on that I could think of. If there's anything negative then that recordings that lack depth will sound forward, but one only needs to put on one with stage depth to realize it's not the cable's fault, as it's all beautifully back in proportion depending on the recording. I've auditioned more expensive models I couldn't afford including e.g. Oracle Matrix 120 SHD, and while the resolution increases (more low-level detail, greater "subtlety", so to speak), it's not as if anything were "missing" going back, so I feel confident in saying that the combination of interconnect and speaker cable I ended up choosing provides, as the people at MIT told me, "the best bang for the buck" in a Spectral system. They've reached a level of perfection where I personally feel I'd be better off investing my money elsewhere should the upgrade bug bite again.

Greetings from Switzerland, David.

I'm looking forward to hearing the Magnum 2.5's since, at least based on their description, they appear to be the same cable as the ones you have found to be very pleasing.

When I first heard the Magnum M2's I'm using now which I believe are pretty ancient in terms of the product line one of the very first things I noticed was how solid and stable the center image was. With every other cable brand I've tried to date there was always a point in my seated position where I would move my head an inch or three to the left or right and hear a noticable difference in the performers location and voice pronunciation change. With the Magnums that just doesn't happen at all. Impressive! Then there's the bass, which is very impressive in its impact and depth. All good things to these ears. I can honestly say these are the first cables where I can't find fault in any part of their presentation which is one of several reasons why talking myself into spending so much on these news ones hasn't been as hard as I would have expected.

Thanks again
 

ack

VIP/Donor & WBF Founding Member
May 6, 2010
6,774
1,198
580
Boston, MA
Hello and Thanks for your response.

I'm glad to hear that the F.A.T and "HD" technology is not something to be afraid of. I will be getting my grubby mits on at least the Magnum 2.5 and maybe one other model in the coming weeks for testing purposes. If either one are better than the Magnum M2 I am using now then I'll be writing a check, no doubt a fairly sizeable one no matter how I slice it :) :eek:

FWIW..I'm just curious about the general sound of the cables despite not being a Spectral owner. There isn’t a lot of talk about the cables online so I try and probe around anywhere there is a sign of life :)

A couple of thoughts on what you and David have said - BTW, David and I have been emailing for a long time about MIT cables. In my 90.1 speaker cables - and after a long "fight" as can be seen in my system thread - I have decided that the FAT/HD setting in that particular cable isn't helping, and it's actually making things worse; perhaps with them now incorporating it within the networks of the Magnum line things are "better", so tread carefully. I also noticed the Magnum cable you mention does include the CVT Terminator network, which is good, but not as a separate box at the input (same as the HD60), and it's something they've used for decades (and which according to Stereophile "is designed to minimize the extent to which the cables reflect energy back to the source component"). Finally, the MIT product line is the most confusing line I have ever seen; for example, in the Oracle line, going up the model number you get a more expensive cable (notice, I refrain from claiming a "better" cable); but with the Magnum and 'dot' series, you have to go lower in the version number to get a more expensive cable (e.g. 1.5 is more expensive than the 2.5). All in all, this means that, as a consumer, you have to read and listen carefully to what you think you are buying - I tend to think this is just nuts...
 
Last edited:

acousticsguru

Well-Known Member
Feb 17, 2014
505
324
373
A couple of thoughts on what you and David have said - BTW, David and I have been emailing for a long time about MIT cables. In my 90.1 speaker cables - and after a long "fight" as can be seen in my system thread - I have decided that the FAT/HD setting in that particular cable isn't helping, and it's actually making things worse; perhaps with them now incorporating it within the networks of the Magnum line things are "better", so tread carefully. I also noticed the Magnum cable you mention does include the CVT Terminator network, which is good, but not as a separate box at the input (same as the HD60), and it's something they've used for decades (and which according to Stereophile "is designed to minimize the extent to which the cables reflect energy back to the source component"). Finally, the MIT product line is the most confusing line I have ever seen; for example, in the Oracle line, going up the model number you get a more expensive cable (notice, I refrain from claiming a "better" cable); but with the Magnum and 'dot' series, you have to go lower in the version number to get a more expensive cable (e.g. 1.5 is more expensive than the 2.5). All in all, this means that, as a consumer, you have to read and listen carefully to what you think you are buying - I tend to think this is just nuts...

I seem to remember you used the same cable cjf asked about (assuming Magnum 2.5 and Matrix HD60 are indeed identical as we suspect), and liked it. As to the CVT coupler circuitry, I couldn't care less about the fact they didn't use the traditional triangular box (I've had one of those triangular plastic boxes bloat and almost fall apart on an older, much stiffer model). The circuitry itself may have been improved insofar as the amps I've used the cable with run even cooler than with the Ultralinear 2 generation series, likely a sign there's even less energy reflection (and thus potential oscillation) than in earlier cables (even though this may also come with improved geometry/tighter tolerances etc.). According to MIT, Matrix HD60 was the direct successor to the Magnum MA model, so re-branding it as a Magnum series cable would make sense from that perspective (Matrix as a term appears to refer to the use of SMD parts versus hand-soldered). It also seems logical for MIT not to discontinue the production of a model that's part of the Spectral Ultralinear 3 generation. Even so, it may be safest to inquire than speculate, although since cjf isn't planing to use the cable with Spectral amplification, what probably matters most are sound quality and system synergy.

Greetings from Switzerland, David.
 

cjf

Well-Known Member
Nov 19, 2012
452
101
948
A couple of thoughts on what you and David have said - BTW, David and I have been emailing for a long time about MIT cables. In my 90.1 speaker cables - and after a long "fight" as can be seen in my system thread - I have decided that the FAT/HD setting in that particular cable isn't helping, and it's actually making things worse; perhaps with them now incorporating it within the networks of the Magnum line things are "better", so tread carefully. I also noticed the Magnum cable you mention does include the CVT Terminator network, which is good, but not as a separate box at the input (same as the HD60), and it's something they've used for decades (and which according to Stereophile "is designed to minimize the extent to which the cables reflect energy back to the source component"). Finally, the MIT product line is the most confusing line I have ever seen; for example, in the Oracle line, going up the model number you get a more expensive cable (notice, I refrain from claiming a "better" cable); but with the Magnum and 'dot' series, you have to go lower in the version number to get a more expensive cable (e.g. 1.5 is more expensive than the 2.5). All in all, this means that, as a consumer, you have to read and listen carefully to what you think you are buying - I tend to think this is just nuts...

Hello, thanks for the links and info. I read thru your system thread paying special attention to the sections that discuss the cable behavior when used with the various settings.

A few questions if I may that I was not clear on after reading the threads.

Did the cable you were using have both the option to
A: Change from SD to HD
&
B: Turn On or Off the 2C3D feature?

If all the above is true I wondered if the biggest culprit to the less than ideal realism was more from the 2C3D feature verses from the SD/HD feature?

I guess as I begin my own journey down the path of MIT Cables the biggest problem I see is they (MIT) don't even give you a choice to turn this extra "Flavour" Off even if you wanted to until you get into the 5 Figure priced cable line where they then allow you to make a choice. Not cool IMO and probably really limits there possible customer base even more so than it already is just due to the price of admission.

I know I will be keeping a close ear on the addition of added Salt/Pepper once the Magnum 2.5's arrive in my hands for testing. I have a pretty good idea thus far on how the older Magnum M2 sound in my system and as best as I can tell they don't seem to be trying to step in and go out of their way to force their own flavor upon the music. Could it be because these cables date back before MIT started getting "too cute" with what is going on inside the boxes?

Really all I want/need is the CVT Coupler Filter for my purposes so the less fancy the better I think but will see if my tune changes after I hear the differences.

h
 

ack

VIP/Donor & WBF Founding Member
May 6, 2010
6,774
1,198
580
Boston, MA
Hello, thanks for the links and info. I read thru your system thread paying special attention to the sections that discuss the cable behavior when used with the various settings.

A few questions if I may that I was not clear on after reading the threads.

Did the cable you were using have both the option to
A: Change from SD to HD
&
B: Turn On or Off the 2C3D feature?

If all the above is true I wondered if the biggest culprit to the less than ideal realism was more from the 2C3D feature verses from the SD/HD feature?

No, my 90.1 only have the SD/HD switch. The newer 90.2 have both. If there is one technology I really don't care for in the MIT cables is this 2C3D.
 

Mdp632

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2016
431
140
173
Hello, thanks for the links and info. I read thru your system thread paying special attention to the sections that discuss the cable behavior when used with the various settings.

A few questions if I may that I was not clear on after reading the threads.

Did the cable you were using have both the option to
A: Change from SD to HD
&
B: Turn On or Off the 2C3D feature?

If all the above is true I wondered if the biggest culprit to the less than ideal realism was more from the 2C3D feature verses from the SD/HD feature?

I guess as I begin my own journey down the path of MIT Cables the biggest problem I see is they (MIT) don't even give you a choice to turn this extra "Flavour" Off even if you wanted to until you get into the 5 Figure priced cable line where they then allow you to make a choice. Not cool IMO and probably really limits there possible customer base even more so than it already is just due to the price of admission.

I know I will be keeping a close ear on the addition of added Salt/Pepper once the Magnum 2.5's arrive in my hands for testing. I have a pretty good idea thus far on how the older Magnum M2 sound in my system and as best as I can tell they don't seem to be trying to step in and go out of their way to force their own flavor upon the music. Could it be because these cables date back before MIT started getting "too cute" with what is going on inside the boxes?

Really all I want/need is the CVT Coupler Filter for my purposes so the less fancy the better I think but will see if my tune changes after I hear the differences.

h

I'm also interested in the new MIT Magnum .5 series so, curious to know your feedback. I'm looking to replace my Audioquest OAK cables. Looking to obtain a more 3D Dimensional soundstage.

Seems that the Retail line SL Matrix isn't ideal unless one steps up to the Oracle. Way out of my range .
 

mikey8811

Well-Known Member
Dec 24, 2014
41
4
238
I am in the market for some XLR interconnects to use with Matrix HD 60 speaker cables. Was initially considering the Matrix SL 36i as it seems to be the replacement for the old Matrix 36 but it seems like the Matrix SL series is panned here.

Can someone expand on the differences between the Matrix SL series and the older Matrix series?

My other choice was Cardas Clear Reflection.

Thanks
 

acousticsguru

Well-Known Member
Feb 17, 2014
505
324
373
I am in the market for some XLR interconnects to use with Matrix HD 60 speaker cables. Was initially considering the Matrix SL 36i as it seems to be the replacement for the old Matrix 36 but it seems like the Matrix SL series is panned here.

Can someone expand on the differences between the Matrix SL series and the older Matrix series?

My other choice was Cardas Clear Reflection.

Thanks

I agree with everyone who says one had best stay away from the SL series - the Matrix series is "miniatured" enough. Apart from the Matrix HD 36 HD Proline the best match for Matrix HD 60 is what MIT recommends: Oracle Matrix 50. I keep seeing ones on the used market (especially also the balanced Proline version), a reference quality cable that I've compared with MIT Oracle model that cost as much as a Mercedes, and came to the conclusion the combination of Oracle Matrix 50 plus Matrix HD 60 hits a sweet spot in the MIT lineup that not only I could live with merrily ever after, but that would never make me feel like I'm missing anything (despite knowing what the yet more expensive cables do).

(Mixing and matching MIT cables with other brands: done that, won't ever again. The whole point using networked cables is the predictability - ICs built not to compensate for the speaker cable and vice versa, but neutral components.)

Greetings from Switzerland, David.
 
Last edited:

ack

VIP/Donor & WBF Founding Member
May 6, 2010
6,774
1,198
580
Boston, MA

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