MIT Oracle MA-X SHD Speaker and IC's

[rockitman]

Reviewed in TAS by Robert Harley this month.

He sums them up this way:

"The MIT MA-X SHD loudspeaker cable and the MA-X2 interconnects are simply without peer, ime. They are singular in their spatial resolution, tonal density and ability to resolve upper-midrange and treble information without sounding bright or forward."

He also likes the SHD setting the best over SD and HD resolution settings. No mention of phase issues people have spoken about in the past with older models.

This all confirms what I am hearing with these great cables. I only have the speaker interfaces right now. I plan on trying the IC's in the future.

 

[MylesBAstor]

Reviewed in TAS by Robert Harley this month.

He sums them up this way:

"The MIT MA-X SHD loudspeaker cable and the MA-X2 interconnects are simply without peer, ime. They are singular in their spatial resolution, tonal density and ability to resolve upper-midrange and treble information without sounding bright or forward."

He also likes the SHD setting the best over SD and HD resolution settings. No mention of phase issues people have spoken about in the past with older models.

This all confirms what I am hearing with these great cables. I only have the speaker interfaces right now. I plan on trying the IC's in the future.

The first thing you should get is the Oracle MA-X phono cable. It has no peer.

 

[Frank750]

Reviewed in TAS by Robert Harley this month.

He sums them up this way:

"The MIT MA-X SHD loudspeaker cable and the MA-X2 interconnects are simply without peer, ime. They are singular in their spatial resolution, tonal density and ability to resolve upper-midrange and treble information without sounding bright or forward."

And the MA-X SHD ICs are a considerable step up over the MA-X2 version IMO. They take forever to break in though.

 

[MylesBAstor]

And the MA-X SHD ICs are a considerable step up over the MA-X2 version IMO. They take forever to break in though.

Yes and MIT doesn't want you cooking their cables.

 

[Frank750]

Yes and MIT doesn't want you cooking their cables.

No cooking here Myles. Just a lot of patience.

 

[MylesBAstor]

No cooking here Myles. Just a lot of patience.

Good thing you don't use tubes

 

[rockitman]

The first thing you should get is the Oracle MA-X phono cable. It has no peer.

Your sarcasm is appreciated. When MIT figures how to implement a DIN maybe. For now I will have to slum it with Nordost Odin...

 

[Frank750]

When MIT figures how to implement a DIN maybe. For now I will have to slum it with Nordost Odin...

I checked with MIT, they can and will do the DIN connector for the phono cable.

 

[rockitman]

I checked with MIT, they can and will do the DIN connector for the phono cable.

The problem is, my new ref tonearms...Phantom Elite 10" and 12" use Odin wiring in the wands. I will be sticking with Valhalla/Odin from tonearm to phono stage and from phono stage to preamp. The preamp to power amp connection is one area I may try the MIT.

 

[Frank750]

The problem is, my new ref tonearms...Phantom Elite 10" and 12" use Odin wiring in the wands. I will be sticking with Valhalla/Odin from tonearm to phono stage and from phono stage to preamp. The preamp to power amp connection is one area I may try the MIT.

Christian, do you have either of the Phantom Elite arms yet?

 

[rockitman]

Christian, do you have either of the Phantom Elite arms yet?

No, I'm a bit concerned that the turntable my arrive before the arms are out of production. Hopefully Bob's Elves are hard at work....

 

[Andre Marc]

Reviewed in TAS by Robert Harley this month.

He sums them up this way:

"The MIT MA-X SHD loudspeaker cable and the MA-X2 interconnects are simply without peer, ime. They are singular in their spatial resolution, tonal density and ability to resolve upper-midrange and treble information without sounding bright or forward."

He also likes the SHD setting the best over SD and HD resolution settings. No mention of phase issues people have spoken about in the past with older models.

This all confirms what I am hearing with these great cables. I only have the speaker interfaces right now. I plan on trying the IC's in the future.

Please explain to me why they offer, "SD" for Standard Definition, "HD" for High Definition", and SHD "Super High Definition" settings.

Harley clearly says that HD, is better than SD, and the SHD is clearly superior by a wide margin to the other settings.

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

Harley, to his credit, asks the same question, and say he cannot imagine a listener preferring any setting other than "SHD".

Imagine if there was a company that offered a TV with "SD", "HD", and "SHD" settings. It would be skewered by
the mainstream press.

IMO a somewhat shameful ploy.

 

[MylesBAstor]

Please explain to me why they offer, "SD" for Standard Definition, "HD" for High Definition", and SHD "Super High Definition" settings.

Harley clearly says that HD, is better than SD, and the SHD is clearly superior by a wide margin to the other settings.

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

Harley, to his credit, asks the same question, and say he cannot imagine a listener preferring any setting other than "SHD".

Imagine if there was a company that offered a TV with "SD", "HD", and "SHD" settings. It would be skewered by
the mainstream press.

IMO a somewhat shameful ploy.

Number of poles of articulation. Have you heard the MIT Oracle cables in your system or even gone to the website and read their white paper describing the technology?I have heard the prior Oracle in my system and there's few better.

 

[Andre Marc]

Number of poles of articulation. Have you heard the MIT Oracle cables in your system or even gone to the website and read their white paper describing the technology?I have heard the prior Oracle in my system and there's few better.

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.

 

[JackD201]

I heard these in a fellow WBF member's place. I actually preferred SD in his system while he preferred HD.

 

[Andre Marc]

I heard these in a fellow WBF member's place. I actually preferred SD in his system while he preferred HD.

So much for Harley's proclamation.

 

[rockitman]

Please explain to me why they offer, "SD" for Standard Definition, "HD" for High Definition", and SHD "Super High Definition" settings.
.

probably for some systems, particularly bleeding ear digital that need a softer, less resolved sound. Harley has his opinion of it in the review. Read it for yourself...40th Anniversary Edition.

 

[Andre Marc]

probably for some systems, particularly bleeding ear digital that need a softer, less resolved sound. Harley has his opinion of it in the review. Read it for yourself...40th Anniversary Edition.

I did read it. Explain why some one who can afford a $15,000 IC and a $50,000 speaker cable would have "bleeding ear" digital...

He asks the same question I did..why, to his ears, two inferior settings.....

 

[rockitman]

I did read it. Explain why some one who can afford a $15,000 IC and a $50,000 speaker cable would have "bleeding ear" digital...

He asks the same question I did..why, to his ears, two inferior settings.....

good question, but that $50k cable is really far less if you know how to deal.Far cheaper than Siltech Double Crown with 1 articulation point like any other "straight" wire config.

 

[rockitman]

I heard these in a fellow WBF member's place. I actually preferred SD in his system while he preferred HD.

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.