Do you use cables to 'tune' the sonics of your system?

[ack]

In the patents they list example frequencies which have been measured that are within the audio spectrum. Inductance is Inductance. There's no reason that I know of why it wouldn't affect all frequencies, depending on the degree and Q of the cables being tested.

it *seems* like it would be extremely difficult to control it in very fine regions like MIT is claiming.

Exactly, but there is more... Imagine the ideal dynamic driver that needs no crossover; the amp "sees" a single inductor with back-EMF; then throw a capacitor or any RLC network in parallel, and all of a sudden the load changes; oops; is this a good thing or not. Then consider real-life speakers with complex crossovers, and imagine how putting anything in parallel or in series might adversely affect things. At the end of the day, they are filters, and any filter in series or in parallel that affects the sound is in the signal path - do you want that? A lot of people do and they see benefits, and that's fine. Then consider how widely different the crossovers are amongst all speakers out there... would one then begin to wonder how said cable networks widely and wildly might interact with said speakers and amps? I would. Notice, patent http://www.freepatentsonline.com/7242780.html talks about carefully selecting RLC values so as to not have too large of such an impact:

Each of the RC or RLC circuits is selected to have a phase angle of ?45° at a frequency equal to or different from the frequency at which the positive conductor has a phase angle of 45° depending upon the audio effect desired. In addition, the component values of the circuits are selected such that the measured impedance of the network at all frequencies in a predetermined frequency range is equal to or greater than 0.20 M?, and the overall combined capacitance of the cable and the capacitance and/or inductance of the network does not cause the effect of audible “roll-off” in the system.

But is it possible not to have an impact at all? I would be very hard pressed to believe that, and I didn't see any such claim in the patents.

So you believe that these patents are not based in reality?

Depends how "reality" is defined. 'Reality' as in signal transmission in an extremely wide frequency bandwidth where 45 degree phase shifts do occur, embedded in a super noisy environment? Sure, I am willing to believe there is merit to their claims. But in the audio band, as I mentioned earlier, I question any basis for the claims and the value the proposed solutions add. But I am willing to be convinced otherwise, and it has to start with a technical analysis.

At the end of the day, what really matters is that: a) people like and enjoy their MIT cables (nironda, Myles and so many others); b) I do too of mine, but only because they solve a completely different problem that Spectral designed for its own needs to complete the *amplifier* design.

BTW, I took the liberty to post these opinions only because of the thread's subject and really after someone else (you) started making some technical references wrt MIT, and I really don't care to turn this into an MIT thread.

 

[MylesBAstor]

Basically as you guys intimated, it's all about controlling (Transparent definitely and assume MIT) where the cable goes from inductive to capacitive.

As far as whether the boxes get in the way, the proof is in the pudding. Having had MIT Oracle in here, there are few cables that are better. And they are superbly transparent. And now I'm listening to a full system using Transparent Ref XLMM2 (including phono).

 

[NorthStar]

---Who exactly makes MIT cables? ...And Transparent cables? Wilson?

 

[ack]

---Who exactly makes MIT cables? ...And Transparent cables? Wilson?

the namesakes, mitcables.com and transparentcable.com

 

[NorthStar]

the namesakes, mitcables.com and transparentcable.com

-----Ok; was just wondering if a member or more here knew the man/men behind their topographical construction.

Specifically the people, not the cables, and their line of thought into designing them;
with concrete/practical tests.

Yeah, .com, google; that's easy to go there. :b

 

[nirodha]

-----Ok; was just wondering if a member or more here knew the man/men behind their topographical construction.

Specifically the people, not the cables, and their line of thought into designing them;
with concrete/practical tests.

Yeah, .com, google; that's easy to go there. :b

MIT's founder is Bruce Brisson. (http://www.mitcables.com/history-of-mit-cables.html).

 

[bblue]

Exactly, but there is more... Imagine the ideal dynamic driver that needs no crossover; the amp "sees" a single inductor with back-EMF; then throw a capacitor or any RLC network in parallel, and all of a sudden the load changes; oops; is this a good thing or not. Then consider real-life speakers with complex crossovers, and imagine how putting anything in parallel or in series might adversely affect things. At the end of the day, they are filters, and any filter in series or in parallel that affects the sound is in the signal path - do you want that? A lot of people do and they see benefits, and that's fine. Then consider how widely different the crossovers are amongst all speakers out there... would one then begin to wonder how said cable networks widely and wildly might interact with said speakers and amps? I would. Notice, patent http://www.freepatentsonline.com/7242780.html talks about carefully selecting RLC values so as to not have too large of such an impact:

Recall that there is some inductance by the cable between the amp and each filter, so the amp isn't going to see it at face value. Add to that, each filter's job is to pull the phase back 45 degrees at its placement point. In the overall scheme of things that is a very small change compared to what happens throughout the entire cable and (possibly) at the crossover. It seems to me that it may well be a major benefit with a very low penalty given what it accomplishes.

But is it possible not to have an impact at all? I would be very hard pressed to believe that, and I didn't see any such claim in the patents.

I'm not sure it having no impact at all is significant as long as the design goal is achieved with careful engineering.

Depends how "reality" is defined. 'Reality' as in signal transmission in an extremely wide frequency bandwidth where 45 degree phase shifts do occur, embedded in a super noisy environment? Sure, I am willing to believe there is merit to their claims. But in the audio band, as I mentioned earlier, I question any basis for the claims and the value the proposed solutions add. But I am willing to be convinced otherwise, and it has to start with a technical analysis.

I don't see why this is such a stretch to you. Any time there's inductance or capacitance there's phase shift, so countering that effect of cable inductance seems to be a reasonable thing to do.

At the end of the day, what really matters is that: a) people like and enjoy their MIT cables (nironda, Myles and so many others); b) I do too of mine, but only because they solve a completely different problem that Spectral designed for its own needs to complete the *amplifier* design.

BTW, I took the liberty to post these opinions only because of the thread's subject and really after someone else (you) started making some technical references wrt MIT, and I really don't care to turn this into an MIT thread.

I suppose some might consider this type of thing 'tuning'. Technically, it IS a form of tuning, but only so much as to help the cable disappear. That's not the same as choosing a 'dark' cable which heard on a clean and revealing system would subtract from it, in order to tame down a system that was too bright. Presumably due to a different problem.

--Bill

 

[bblue]

Basically as you guys intimated, it's all about controlling (Transparent definitely and assume MIT) where the cable goes from inductive to capacitive.

As far as whether the boxes get in the way, the proof is in the pudding. Having had MIT Oracle in here, there are few cables that are better. And they are superbly transparent. And now I'm listening to a full system using Transparent Ref XLMM2 (including phono).

Is the transparency achieved at some other cost? (not the material, the sound) If not, it sounds like a solid engineering result.

I recalled the other day (after a post here) that I still had my 20 year old MIT 750 cables in the attic. They still felt good and looked good, so I took out the Cardas Golden Reference set for the MIT. It only took a few hours for the MIT to settle in its new position. The difference was hardly subtle. By comparison, the Cardas was extremely dark (you could still hear everything HF) but it was greatly recessed with no 'tail'. Bass was somewhat muddy and though it had an extension it was also emphasized in mid-bass. This old pre-articulation-points MIT cable was very open and extended on both ends of the spectrum and quite a pleasurable listen. Everything I play has a musical balance to it that I wasn't able to achieve before with either set of Cardas cables. My previous BPT Litz speaker cables had a similar transparency and depth, but also an aggressive top end that was fatiguing over time.

I'll definitely be trying some newer MITs.

--Bill

 

[ack]

It seems to me that it may well be a major benefit with a very low penalty given what it accomplishes.

Two things: a) the penalty is in the tens of thousands of dollars they charge for this "invention"; and b) we have no *proof* yet it accomplishes anything in the audio band, other than perhaps being a tone control (which any filter is)

I don't see why this is such a stretch to you. Any time there's inductance or capacitance there's phase shift, so countering that effect of cable inductance seems to be a reasonable thing to do.

Nothing more than what I said before: It's a stretch because said phase shift is actually also a function of frequency, and such high phase shifts are way far beyond the audio spectrum. Someone needs to prove that this has a positive effect in the audio band, and do so with technical arguments.

BTW, I am not surprised of your Cardas vs MIT finding. Every Cardas I've had in the system has been very dark.

 

[microstrip]

I think that I am not adding nothing new when I say that the effects of resistance, capacitance and inductance in terms of frequency response and phase are negligible in the audio band for speaker cables (I am excluding a few exceptional cases, such as very thin solid wire speaker cables). I remember seeing a graph of the measured frequency response of a Transparent Reference XL speaker cable when used with a typical 4 ohm speaker and the roll-off started around 200 kHz.

Curiously most Cardas interconnect cables have very low capacitance, and some people find them dark - just the opposite we could expect.

If it was just a question of distributed resistance, capacitance and inductance we would have now may effective DIY recipes for cables sounding exactly like Nordost Odin.

 

[nirodha]

Two things: a) the penalty is in the tens of thousands of dollars they charge for this "invention"; and b) we have no *proof* yet it accomplishes anything in the audio band, other than perhaps being a tone control (which any filter is)



Nothing more than what I said before: It's a stretch because said phase shift is actually also a function of frequency, and such high phase shifts are way far beyond the audio spectrum. Someone needs to prove that this has a positive effect in the audio band, and do so with technical arguments.

BTW, I am not surprised of your Cardas vs MIT finding. Every Cardas I've had in the system has been very dark.

The MIT in my system is NOT DARK!

 

[treitz3]

MIT's founder is Bruce Brisson. (http://www.mitcables.com/history-of-mit-cables.html).

From what I understand, one of the three founders of Transparent Audio used to work at MIT. Below is a photo of all 3 founders of Transparent Audio; Carl Smith, Karen Sumner, and Jack Sumner. There is a photo of all three as seen below from Transparent Audio's website.



If anybody else is interested in reading more about the founders, I invite you to click onto the link provided here >>> http://www.transparentcable.com/about/people.php?modCAT=5

Tom

 

[NorthStar]

From what I understand, one of the three founders of Transparent Audio used to work at MIT. Below is a photo of all 3 founders of Transparent Audio; Carl Smith, Karen Sumner, and Jack Sumner. There is a photo of all three as seen below from Transparent Audio's website.

View attachment 4507

If anybody else is interested in reading more about the founders, I invite you to click onto the link provided here >>> http://www.transparentcable.com/about/people.php?modCAT=5

Tom

---- Thanx Tom; that's exactly what I'm talkin' 'bout! :b

* And Jack & Karen Sumner sold and built MIT products for eight years.
Now they are selling Transparent ultra high-end cables (read super over expensive).

 

[treitz3]

....but worth every penny and then some, at least to me. What they actually bring to the reproductive effort justifies the cost. Again, to me. YMMV.

Tom

 

[NorthStar]

....but worth every penny and then some, at least to me. What they actually bring to the reproductive effort justifies the cost. Again, to me. YMMV.

Tom

I never said the contrary; did you assume? :b

* By the way, some of their cables are in the five digits figure!

 

[treitz3]

...just sayin'.

 

[NorthStar]

---...Ok. :b

 

[MylesBAstor]

The MIT in my system is NOT DARK!

Did you mean Cardas? He didn't say MIT was dark and it's certainly not dark in my system

 

[MylesBAstor]

----
* And Jack & Karen Sumner sold and built MIT products for eight years.
Now they are selling Transparent ultra high-end cables (read super over expensive).

I never heard that Jack built MIT cables. Where did you get that from?

Also, Karen marketed MIT, didn't build them. She also marketed the WTT and a Swedish speaker called Respons at that time too. Then she left MIT and started Transparent Cables.

I might also add that Karen, Jack and Carl are three of the nicest people you'd want to meet in the industry. And their custom designed listening room up in Maine is worth a visit! Especially if you're a Wilson owner

 

[treitz3]

This is one of the things on my short list, if they will even be so kind as to have me there. What a great looking room! I could only imagine the sound.

http://www.transparentcable.com/about/music-film_studio.php?modCAT=5&ST=2

Tom