MIT Oracle MA-X SHD Speaker and IC's

[Andre Marc]

That's what it's all about....flexibility for different tastes, hearing sensitivities. I have extensively listening to all 3. SD is like doing it with a condom. SHD is bareback. Nuff said.

So you agree with Harley, that the other two "settings" are a step back in resolution. But then we have Jack, the "lowest" resolution setting.

Maybe Harley should have said some listeners may prefer one or the other.

 

[JackD201]

LOL!

They give you a choice plain and simple. I don't see anything wrong with that. My loudspeakers have adjustments for all tweeters. I ain't complaining.

 

[Andre Marc]

LOL!

They give you a choice plain and simple. I don't see anything wrong with that. My loudspeakers have adjustments for all tweeters. I ain't complaining.

I have no problem with choice. Robert Harley said, specifically, HE cannot imagine anyone preferring anything but the "SHD" setting.

 

[JackD201]

So you agree with Harley, that the other two "settings" are a step back in resolution. But then we have Jack, the "lowest" resolution setting.

Maybe Harley should have said some listeners may prefer one or the other.

Just to be clear, I don't think the SD was low in resolution at all. It was just different. I felt there was more emphasis on transients with HD but I wouldn't call it white or hot. I do like a sound that is just a tad laid back. You could achieve the same thing with a few speaker position adjustments but this is a little bit easier yes?

BTW I haven't read the review so I really don't know what Robert said. Did he actually use the term inferior? There's nothing inferior about these cables. I just don't like the price! LOL!

 

[Andre Marc]

Just to be clear, I don't think the SD was low in resolution at all. It was just different. I felt there was more emphasis on transients with HD but I wouldn't call it white or hot. I do like a sound that is just a tad laid back. You could achieve the same thing with a few speaker position adjustments but this is a little bit easier yes?

BTW I haven't read the review so I really don't know what Robert said. Did he actually use the term inferior? There's nothing inferior about these cables. I just don't like the price! LOL!

This is exactly what he said:

"Given the obvious superiority of the "SHD" setting, why would MIT include the SD and HD settings?"

"I can't imagine a listener preferring the SD or HD setting to SHD".

So Jack, man, you are tin eared...clean out that wax.

 

[JackD201]

Hahahahhaha! Ya' know it doesn't bother me one bit.

If anything I think the differences might be just a tad exaggerated here. What I heard in that system were not night and day differences. If the owner had been using his big Entechs at the time maybe it would have been a different story but it just wasn't. I thought the heavily modified 1.6QRs and Element subs driven by the Forsell Reference amps and Spectral pre with a Flatfish and Berk as a source was already very quick and resolute.

I guess I just like to be presented with the whole tapestry first and dive in to look at the threads later as I settle in. Some go about it the other way around when listening to something new. Perhaps Harley is of the latter method. Who knows? SD just really might have sucked in his system too.

 

[MylesBAstor]

I am not disputing the quality of MIT products.

I was asking why they need to use a gimmick. Mr. Harley asked the same question I am.

Copping buzz words like HD to sell your $50.000 speaker cable is pretty lame.

Sure sounded like it.

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

Who says it's a gimmick? I'm sure someone used High definition way before TV did too. It's kinda like getting a trademark on "The High End."

Bottom line these setting are included because there may be systems, be they tube based or planar based, that might prefer different setting. Or there may be people who think in their system that High Definition, Hyperdefinition, etc. doesn't speak the truth to them.

 

[Andre Marc]

Hahahahhaha! Ya' know it doesn't bother me one bit.

If anything I think the differences might be just a tad exaggerated here. What I heard in that system were not night and day differences. If the owner had been using his big Entechs at the time maybe it would have been a different story but it just wasn't. I thought the heavily modified 1.6QRs and Element subs driven by the Forsell Reference amps and Spectral pre with a Flatfish and Berk as a source was already very quick and resolute.

I guess I just like to be presented with the whole tapestry first and dive in to look at the threads later as I settle in. Some go about it the other way around when listening to something new. Perhaps Harley is of the latter method. Who knows? SD just really might have sucked in his system too.

In the end, I still think it is a gimmick, and so did Harley. Again, obviously M.I.T. products sound excellent, otherwise
they would not have a pretty decent customer base.

 

[ack]

It's not really a gimmick in my view. There are differences discussed in other threads that would make one prefer one over the other. "obviously superior" is still a subjective comment. In those other threads, and as alluded to at the start of this thread, some of us are suspecting and think we are hearing phase issues in HD (at least with the "lesser" versions), and I have posted you can easily hear it with electronic music (very evident with white noise, to emphasize the effect), by simply rapidly switching between SD and HD while sitting behind my panel. At the end of the day, there is no free lunch nor can any circuit be 100% perfect, and I wouldn't really expect Harley to be able to distinguish fine details of this kind. So I would say the switches are really there to give you options based on listening preferences, and to easily prove or disprove to _yourself_ that one is "superior" over the others. The real question is, would one pay 50 grand to listen to anything "less than" SHD?

 

[Steve Williams]

so do these switches color the signal or what else do they do?

And if they color the signal, is this a good thing?

 

[Andre Marc]

It's not really a gimmick in my view. There are differences discussed in other threads that would make one prefer one over the other. "obviously superior" is still a subjective comment. In those other threads, and as alluded to at the start of this thread, some of us are suspecting and think we are hearing phase issues in HD (at least with the "lesser" versions), and I have posted you can easily hear it with electronic music (very evident with white noise, to emphasize the effect), by simply rapidly switching between SD and HD while sitting behind my panel. At the end of the day, there is no free lunch nor can any circuit be 100% perfect, and I wouldn't really expect Harley to be able to distinguish fine details of this kind. So I would say the switches are really there to give you options based on listening preferences, and to easily prove or disprove to _yourself_ that one is "superior" over the others. The real question is, would one pay 50 grand to listen to anything "less than" SHD?

Cable "tuning" is the ultimate folly IMHO. It tells me that a cable designer does not have the ability to provide an uncolored, unadulterated signal to the speaker
Henceforth, they put the ball in the listener's court. That is a big engineering failure to my way of thinking.

 

[Steve Williams]

I have always wanted a cable that pases the signal intact without change. Don't these switches color the signal

IIRC the box in the Transparent Opus cable was nothing more than a zobel network? Is this the same with MIT

 

[Andre Marc]

so do these switches color the signal or what else do they do?

And if they color the signal, is this a good thing?

Tone controls on SOTA components are persona non grata in today's high end audio, so why would tone controls on a cable be acceptable?

BTW, I am not a fan of speakers with adjustable tweeters on speakers either. Either the speaker is accurate or it is not.

 

[ack]

Cable "tuning" is the ultimate folly IMHO. It tells me that a cable designer does not have the ability to provide an uncolored, unadulterated signal to the speaker
Henceforth, they put the ball in the listener's court. That is a big engineering failure to my way of thinking.

With all due respect, I think you would be flat out incorrect - I know you are not a techie, but perhaps you can post your opinion in the form of a question. The latest patent from 2007 (also now shown on the latest MIT ads) is a great read, and I have also previously posted the voltage/current relationships that these networks attempt to address, based on my reading of that patent (physics says voltage/current will be at perfect phase at exactly one frequency based on their electrical characteristics, and these latest networks attempt to fix this as best as possible with those articulation poles; i.e. they attempt to provide as best a phase relationship at each of the subnetworks tuning frequency (= articulation pole), while also keeping in mind that introducing yet another of these subnets affects all others, and therefore, they all have to be re-tuned); this is what MIT calls power transfer which can be optimal at exactly one frequency in non-networked cables, and their white paper, as Myles suggested, tries to make their technology easier to understand, based solely on physics and electrical engineering. From my perspective, you can't call them on the technology and science - their stuff works to a large degree and is avant garde; you can only call them on the ridiculous pricing - and I take particular pleasure in mocking their pricing every chance I get . It has also been discussed that some of us feel the effect is most apparent in high-current environments, i.e. speaker cables. You'd be better served calling on other networked cables and what's really inside them.

 

[Andre Marc]

With all due respect, I think you would be flat out incorrect - I know you are not a techie, but perhaps you can post your opinion in the form of a question. The latest patent from 2007 (also now shown on the latest MIT ads) is a great read, and I have also previously posted the voltage/current relationships that these networks attempt to address, based on my reading of that patent (physics says voltage/current will be at perfect phase at exactly one frequency based on their electrical characteristics, and these latest networks attempt to fix this as best as possible with those articulation poles; i.e. they attempt to provide as best a phase relationship at each of the subnetworks tuning frequency (= articulation pole), while also keeping in mind that introducing yet another of these subnets affects all others, and therefore, they all have to be re-tuned); this is what MIT calls power transfer which can be optimal at exactly one frequency in non-networked cables, and their white paper, as Myles suggested, tries to make their technology easier to understand, based solely on physics and electrical engineering. From my perspective, you can't call them on the technology and science - their stuff works to a large degree and is avant garde; you can only call them on the ridiculous pricing. It has also been discussed that some of us feel the effect is most apparent in high-current environments, i.e. speaker cables. You'd be better served calling on other networked cables and what's really inside them.

Thanks for the informative post.

Like Synergistic, I think MIT is trying to kill a mosquito with a machine gun. Many audiophile companies thrive on creating "solutions" for phantom "problems".

Has any one ever done an experiment in listening to MIT cables without the boxes?

I am sure they are being genuine om trying to "provide as best a phase relationship" at each frequency and all that other cool stuff, but I am
curious as to what the designers of "just cable" think about this technology. It would be interesting, although commenting on competitors
product is always tricky.

 

[rockitman]

Hey Andre,

Why don't you back off from this thread ? You provide absolutely nothing of value to the discussion as you have zero experience with this cable.

 

[Andre Marc]

Hey Andre,

Why don't you back off from this thread ? You provide absolutely nothing of value to the discussion as you have zero experience with this cable.

I repeated verbatim what Robert Harley said in his review that the lack of any clear purpose for what he perceived as inferior
"articulation points"..you saw no issue with the review I guess, since it was a rave.

 

[Andre Marc]

Hey Andre,

Why don't you back off from this thread ? You provide absolutely nothing of value to the discussion as you have zero experience with this cable.

I have started numerous product threads and been attacked quite rudely on occasion. I welcome those who play devil's advocate and allow me to
question what I believe or am being told by a manufacturer.

 

[mep]

Hey Andre-Quit being a black cloud. Once upon a time (I'm in a fairy tale mode today), MIT only made cables with no network boxes. Think back to the days of the original 650 and 750 Music Hose cables. Somewhere in my stash of cables, I still have a pair of the original 650 speaker cables that I bought as a kit from Karen Sumner back in the day when they started out in business terminating MIT cables. I even bought a solder pot so I could do the job correctly. I currently own a bi-wire pair of MIT cables (S1.3) and this is my second pair of MIT cables with the network boxes. I realize that in the context of this thread, I'm a bottom feeder in the MIT cables with network boxes. I love the cables, and I love the ability to change on the fly between banana plugs and spades.

 

[Andre Marc]

Hey Andre-Quit being a black cloud. Once upon a time (I'm in a fairy tale mode today), MIT only made cables with no network boxes. Think back to the days of the original 650 and 750 Music Hose cables. Somewhere in my stash of cables, I still have a pair of the original 650 speaker cables that I bought as a kit from Karen Sumner back in the day when they started out in business terminating MIT cables. I even bought a solder pot so I could do the job correctly. I currently own a bi-wire pair of MIT cables (S1.3) and this is my second pair of MIT cables with the network boxes. I realize that in the context of this thread, I'm a bottom feeder in the MIT cables with network boxes. I love the cables, and I love the ability to change on the fly between banana plugs and spades.

No black cloud here, just devil's advocate.

You obviously have a long and interesting history with MIT..you go way back!

I am guessing your cables are pre "articulation pole" design.

BTW, labelling your self "bottom feeder" in the chain, kidding aside, is interesting.

I think many of the high end cable companies price their top tier products so absurdly, that when
you pay "only" a few thousand bucks you consider your self lucky to be in the club.

I've heard people tell me what "bargains" the mid tier Nordost, Transparent, and Siltech stuff is.

I own mid tier Transparent, and it ain't no bargain..still cost way more than any sane person should spend
on copper metal and plastic.