New Spectral/MIT cables

[1rsw]

I'm the other guy ack is referring to and still don't have a real concrete answer to what I prefer in regards to the HD/SD switch. One thing that is important to mention is we (ack, myself and rockitman) are all using very different cables so I would not expect the outcomes to be identical.

One theory I have about this is rooted in the concept that all gear is flawed and all gear has a wow factor. So with me I was quickly wowed by my cables, over time I began to find fault with them ... even though they are so far above anything I know of it isn't even fair to describe them as cables. As I told ack in our email conversation, there are things I like and dislike about both positions and I also find that the file played matters too. I don't have too much to say about it other than to strongly agree with ack in that you should experiment in your own system to find what works best for you, both with the switch and which MIT product.

As for the thoughts shared regarding having to get to the swanky level for performance, this is not the case and actually the options are more cost effective than ever from MIT with the Matrix line. Still very expensive but you can get performance that used to be reserved for the top tier Oracles for at least half the cost. I have MA-X2 and SHD 120 but I could easily live with Matrix 50 and 90.1 which to my ears pair exceptionally well with Spectral. Are the levels above better? Yes, of course but not essential and just like any other line in this hobby...you can climb as high as you wish. Most vendors in the higher end offer lines that take rock star money to attain.

Rockitman - I was wondering how things were going with the new cables. Really glad to read your comments, sounds like there's some good stuff going on there. Congrats and enjoy!

 

[rockitman]

Hi 1rsw,

Thanks for sharing your experiences. Starting day 6 of burnin. The cables do seem to occassionally change their sound noticeably on occassion during this process. When they are done and I get use to SHD I will try the other SD and HD options. There are also articulation range adjustment knobs for the treble and bass regions. I haven't even started to play with them yet either. I just want the cables to get stable so I can more critically evaluate them. I can't imagine going back to traditonal straight single conductor wire type speakers cables. They are that good, at least in my system.

 

[lydon]

Okay,
@ Ack, my apologies for the opening of the second paragraph of my statement. Indeed, Spectral never made the recommendation to seek better performance with MIT's upper-tier product line. At the time of that writing my mind was reflecting on the comments made by Nirodha post #31, and 1rsw about once he/they had made the decision to step up, in the case of the MAX rev.2 I.C. "there was just no going back." Of course this sentiment has been reflected by others who care to write about their exploits on this forum. But what led them to believe that for their systems it was advisable to make such sizable investment and adjustment to push the envelope on their systems is fascinating to me. I would agree that with you Ack and 1rsw, that careful evaluations and thoughtful considerations go into laying a foundation for building a good audio system, be made top priority. I would also agree that MIT interfaces for as long as they have been working along side Spectral, have an elegant solution posied by the Spectral design team, although not perfected just yet by more experience folks as the aboved mentioned. All in all I would like to thank you all for sharing your knowledge and experiences with people like me. Spectral's products are truly serious instruments for thoughtful music enthusiasts, such as your selves.

 

[mullard88]

Hi Lyndon,

You're post #56 caught my attention. I do not recall telling anyone not to listen to MIT if one can not afford it. If I really did, please show me as I feel bad about this. However, I remember Alon telling me this about his horn speakers and I may have quoted him in one of my posts.

 

[lydon]

Hello mullard88,
Forgive me, it was actually MylesABstor on post #35 of this thread.

 

[lydon]

I've had this reaccurring thought of late; it's this idea that got stired up about making changes to ones system, in an attempt to push the "envelope". I understand Spectral's motivation in creating the instruments they make. The purpose is: "In the service of the music", and any additional action taken by the listener will be in the same vain. I don't believe it's a problem at all to advance this notion in the context of building the best musical playback one feels they need. But it is cruical to recognize that this is a never ending process. It's not just that the music, technology, or even the listen enviroment can change, but that we as listeners also change. Sometimes we need to change things out necessity, sometimes out of boredom. All of which also is in the service of the music. It breaths new life into an old love we don't want to give up. So any recommendations from Spectral/MIT for that matter are just simply a guide, even a ploy to make things interesting again. Pointing in a particular direction that the listener may choose to embrace or reject. I know it's important to remind ones self that it is all just an illusion, and we are all trying to make it as real as possible. The relationship we have with our music is very intimate, and that level of intimacy runs deep; so deep that music has that innate ability to stir our souls, and to do so in a meaningful way. I suspect it would help to enjoy this process of discovery, and not take this hobby all too seriously. But to enjoy it, and have fun.

 

[edorr]

I have always been intrigued by the Spectral amps and budget permitting once a used DMA 260 or pair of DMA 360 mkII shows up (budget permitting) shows up, I'll probably jump on it. I have been informed (by Goodwin) that MIT speaker cabling is mandatory, but I can get away with using other cabling between my (non spectral) preamps and a spectral poweramp. So I am thinking of picking up a pair of MIT cables if a pair shows up in my pricerange at a very substantial discount, so I can resell with no loss should I decide to go another direction.

The options in price range appear to be the Oracle V2.2 and the MIT Oracle Matrix HD 90. They are both listed at $13K. I am thinking of waiting for a pair to show up in the $5K range. If it does not work out I can resell with small loss. Which of these two cables would mate best with a spectral amp in your estimations?

 

[ack]

You need to familiarize yourself with a couple of things here: the Oracle Vx use hand-soldered "through-hole" components, the Matrix, surface-mount and allegedly higher-precision; the Oracle V "dot" series employ that 2C3D technology, whatever it is - never been a fan of it, sounds fake to me; the Vx usually feature a sturdier box than the plastic+metal one in the HD 90; but the Matrix, being surface-mount and smaller, can fit more of those articulation poles; the 2.2 is not current, the 90 is. Both employ all kinds of other signal transmission technologies, better explained in their patents. Having said all that, I would venture a guess that the specific amps you mention would mate best with the cable they were designed with - and for that, call the factory. But, if their recommendation of the HD36/HD60 pair for general use is any indication, it would be a good guess to say the Matrix 90 would be more appropriate, but again, the proof is in the listening based on your preferences.

BTW: be prepared to get into a bidding war, should one of these amps come up for sale.

 

[edorr]

You need to familiarize yourself with a couple of things here: the Oracle Vx use hand-soldered "through-hole" components, the Matrix, surface-mount and allegedly higher-precision; the Oracle V "dot" series employ that 2C3D technology, whatever it is - never been a fan of it, sounds fake to me; the Vx usually feature a sturdier box than the plastic+metal one in the HD 90; but the Matrix, being surface-mount and smaller, can fit more of those articulation poles; the 2.2 is not current, the 90 is. Both employ all kinds of other signal transmission technologies, better explained in their patents. Having said all that, I would venture a guess that the specific amps you mention would mate best with the cable they were designed with - and for that, call the factory. But, if their recommendation of the HD36/HD60 pair for general use is any indication, it would be a good guess to say the Matrix 90 would be more appropriate, but again, the proof is in the listening based on your preferences.

BTW: be prepared to get into a bidding war, should one of these amps come up for sale.

Thanks. Good advice. Still pondering my options but getting the more current model is typically not a bad strategy.

 

[ack]

Don't forget the all-too-important Ferrari paint - will let you figure out which one has it Ah, forget it, I am being sarcastic, the paint actually affects the .... speed ... of the sound.

 

[kee]

I have always been intrigued by the Spectral amps and budget permitting once a used DMA 260 or pair of DMA 360 mkII shows up (budget permitting) shows up, I'll probably jump on it. I have been informed (by Goodwin) that MIT speaker cabling is mandatory, but I can get away with using other cabling between my (non spectral) preamps and a spectral poweramp. So I am thinking of picking up a pair of MIT cables if a pair shows up in my pricerange at a very substantial discount, so I can resell with no loss should I decide to go another direction.

The options in price range appear to be the Oracle V2.2 and the MIT Oracle Matrix HD 90. They are both listed at $13K. I am thinking of waiting for a pair to show up in the $5K range. If it does not work out I can resell with small loss. Which of these two cables would mate best with a spectral amp in your estimations?

For DMA 260 I would suggest Oracle Matrix HD 90. I am using DMA 260. I have tried Magnum MA, Oracle Matrix HD 90 and HD 120. I found HD 90 is the best for DMA 260 (better than HD 120). By the way, I set to SD instead of HD. SD sounded much better to me. With HD, it was just not right (My friend and I could tell within seconds).

 

[edorr]

For DMA 260 I would suggest Oracle Matrix HD 90. I am using DMA 260. I have tried Magnum MA, Oracle Matrix HD 90 and HD 120. I found HD 90 is the best for DMA 260 (better than HD 120). By the way, I set to SD instead of HD. SD sounded much better to me. With HD, it was just not right (My friend and I could tell within seconds).

Thanks. I picked up a pair of HD 90s a week ago and they are currently in the cooker. I'll try them this week-end on my existing amps. Sounds like when the elusive used DMA 260 shows up I'll be in good shape.

 

[kee]

Thanks. I picked up a pair of HD 90s a week ago and they are currently in the cooker. I'll try them this week-end on my existing amps. Sounds like when the elusive used DMA 260 shows up I'll be in good shape.

No problem. Beside HD90, I have also tried the old oracle ma speaker cable which I like the most with DMA 260. Unfortunately, it has long be replaced and I was not impressed by the replacement for both performance improvements and pricing. I missed a used oracle ma and decided to settle with HD90 which I found next best.

 

[edorr]

ust got comment from dealer that sonic signature of the 260 is VERY different from the 300rs, and trying a 260 and moving to 300rs if I like it is not a sound approach. I'll probably take my changes and buy a 300rs (funds permitting). If it does not work out I should be able to resell with 10% loss tops.

Meanwhile, I am still collecting components for my Spectral proof of concept, and am now in the market for MIT interconnect. Since I need these just for an audition, I need to get them dirt cheap (25%-30% of MSRP), so I can resell with minimal loss if I decide to go different (i.e. non Spectral) direction. I have my eyes on MA-X, but they do not show up in that pricing / discount ballpark. I can try to scoop up the V1.3 instead - they do show up more heavily discounted. Can anyone comment on the sonic differences? Would the v1.3 interconnect work OK between spectral (or other non spectral) pre, with HD 90 used as speaker cable? Am I better off waiting for a Matrix 50, or be very patient and get the MA-X?

J

 

[scouter]

ust got comment from dealer that sonic signature of the 260 is VERY different from the 300rs, and trying a 260 and moving to 300rs if I like it is not a sound approach.

Interesting. Did the dealer say how the 300 varies from the 260? This may certainly dry up 260's for sale until a prospective buyer hears the 300. Hard to believe Spectral is changing their sound that much.

 

[edorr]

Interesting. Did the dealer say how the 300 varies from the 260? This may certainly dry up 260's for sale until a prospective buyer hears the 300. Hard to believe Spectral is changing their sound that much.

According to the dealer the 300 is more "tube like", generally understood as "warmer" sounding.

 

[ack]

ust got comment from dealer that sonic signature of the 260 is VERY different from the 300rs, and trying a 260 and moving to 300rs if I like it is not a sound approach. I'll probably take my changes and buy a 300rs (funds permitting). If it does not work out I should be able to resell with 10% loss tops.

Meanwhile, I am still collecting components for my Spectral proof of concept, and am now in the market for MIT interconnect. Since I need these just for an audition, I need to get them dirt cheap (25%-30% of MSRP), so I can resell with minimal loss if I decide to go different (i.e. non Spectral) direction. I have my eyes on MA-X, but they do not show up in that pricing / discount ballpark. I can try to scoop up the V1.3 instead - they do show up more heavily discounted. Can anyone comment on the sonic differences? Would the v1.3 interconnect work OK between spectral (or other non spectral) pre, with HD 90 used as speaker cable? Am I better off waiting for a Matrix 50, or be very patient and get the MA-X?

J

As we've said before, the "dot" series employ this 2C3D technology - whatever it is - and differ substantially from the MA series - see http://www.mitcables.com/ma-vs.-2c3d/publications/articles/ma-vs-2c3d/menu-id-245.html
I personally don't care for the dot series.


Comparison
2C3D: Imagine yourself in the back row of an auditorium listening to your favorite piece of live music. 2C3D technology effectively picks you up and places you right in the exact sweet spot of the auditorium. You are then able to perfectly experience the directionality and dimensionality of the performance. This is the 2C3D experience.

Maximum Articulation: imagine standing up and walking directly onto the front of the stage, with the band. Along with a three dimensional soundstage that is in front of you, the soundstage now feels much closer to you because every instrument and every voice has full timbre and texture . This is the MA experience.


Also, "VERY different" also sounds like an overly exaggerated statement, but I intend to bring the 300RS and 400RS home to compare against the 360S2's at some point, and find out first hand. I have to also admit your approach is quite a bit flawed - it looks like your top priority is saving money, not something you think is going to work together and to your tastes.

 

[edorr]

As we've said before, the "dot" series employ this 2C3D technology - whatever it is - and differ substantially from the MA series - see http://www.mitcables.com/ma-vs.-2c3d/publications/articles/ma-vs-2c3d/menu-id-245.html
I personally don't care for the dot series.


Comparison
2C3D: Imagine yourself in the back row of an auditorium listening to your favorite piece of live music. 2C3D technology effectively picks you up and places you right in the exact sweet spot of the auditorium. You are then able to perfectly experience the directionality and dimensionality of the performance. This is the 2C3D experience.

Maximum Articulation: imagine standing up and walking directly onto the front of the stage, with the band. Along with a three dimensional soundstage that is in front of you, the soundstage now feels much closer to you because every instrument and every voice has full timbre and texture . This is the MA experience.

Thanks - I never found that comparison myself.

Also, "VERY different" also sounds like an overly exaggerated statement, but I intend to bring the 300RS and 400RS home to compare against the 360S2's at some point, and find out first hand. I have to also admit your approach is quite a bit flawed - it looks like your top priority is saving money, not something you think is going to work together and to your tastes.

My perspective is that there is such a divergent range of opinions about what "works together" and "sounds best" that others opinions are useful guidelines to narrow the field, but there is no substitute for trying stuff yourself.

Case on point: you personally don't care for the dot series, but MIT says this:

"Which is better? Like most things, the answer to that question is entirely subjective. Some audiophiles report that they enjoy the 2C3D image because it more closely resembles listening to music at a live venue. Others, however, report that the MA image is so liquid and enveloping, that they feel more like part of the performance. So, you can be in the audience watching and listening, or part of the performance as it is unfolding!

So the only way to find out which you prefer is to you get yourself an MA-X cable and a "dot" series, try them at home and hear for yourself. There are two ways of doing this.
(1) Get both cables from a dealer on trial, decide which you prefer and buy it at full retail (or with some discount), and pay say $10K for an interconnect. 2nd hand value of this cable is $4K tops, so you take a $6K depreciation hit. Maybe Joe Abrams will let you try both cables, but you'll still be out a few grand in depreciation.
(2) Buy whichever cable shows up for 25%-30% of retail used, put it in your system and when "the other" cable shows up used for 25%-30% buy it as well, and do a comparison. You sell the loser in the shootout at zero loss. (My approach)

This may be a flawed approach, but is works fine for me, and has allowed me to try a lot of different components at minimal or no cost. It is of course a bit of a hassle, and involves many trips to the local Fedex office.

 

[ack]

There are MIT cables for home trial - not sure why you would need to buy and trade. Joe Abrams has a library of the dot series, and some MA dealers on audiogon can often lend you used MA or similar cables for a couple of weeks. See also http://www.mitcables.com/gen-3-lending-library.html

 

[edorr]

There are MIT cables for home trial - not sure why you would need to buy and trade. Joe Abrams has a library of the dot series, and some MA dealers on audiogon can often lend you used MA or similar cables for a couple of weeks. See also http://www.mitcables.com/gen-3-lending-library.html

Pure economics. I just bought a trade-ed in pair of v1.3 balanced from a non MIT dealer for $3000. Joe Abrams sells the same cable for $6K (list is $12K). If it does not work or I decide to go another direction (MA-X for example), I'll sell it with zero loss. On the Abrams cable I lose $2,500.

For now, I'm set with two cables that are good enough to audition a spectral amp, with minimal trade loss risk, which was my primary objective.