MIT Oracle MA-X SHD Speaker and IC's

[MylesBAstor]

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

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

Steve, the MIT cables are the least colored and more transparent and resolving cables that I've had the pleasure of hearing in my system. More to the point, no other cable has come close to the MIT in the low end in my system. Hence the bad part of being a reviewer: having to send back the review samples. I really,really wish I could afford the MIT phono cable and those that can are in for a real treat.

 

[mep]

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.

To put things in context, this thread is about $50K MIT speaker cables. My pair of MIT cables cost $3K. Of course some people don't have $3K invested in their entire system, but compared to someone who has invested $50K for a pair of MIT cables, my $3K cables do make me a bottom feeder in this food chain.

And, since you own Transparent cables, certainly you know that their higher-priced spread have network boxes. It just sounds like you aren't high enough up on the Transparent food chain to own a pair of their speakers cables that have network boxes.

 

[rockitman]

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.

I think we get it Andre...you hate or thread crap on any cable or equipment you seemingly cannot afford or perceive as over priced. RH says these are the best cables he has ever heard and owns them for use with his Q7's. Having owned Nordost Valhalla and Siltech Classic Anniversary with my current system, I can tell you the MIT is in a different dimension of performance. They are worth every penny to me.

 

[Andre Marc]

To put things in context, this thread is about $50K MIT speaker cables. My pair of MIT cables cost $3K. Of course some people don't have $3K invested in their entire system, but compared to someone who has invested $50K for a pair of MIT cables, my $3K cables do make me a bottom feeder in this food chain.

And, since you own Transparent cables, certainly you know that their higher-priced spread have network boxes. It just sounds like you aren't high enough up on the Transparent food chain to own a pair of their speakers cables that have network boxes.

I'm afraid you are misinformed. Every single Transparent cable from the the $210 The Wave speaker cable, to the $90 The Link IC has a network box.

The only cables that do not are a few digital cables and exactly one AC cord. Other than, ALL Transparent cables are outfitted with boxes.

 

[Andre Marc]

I'm afraid you are misinformed. Every single Transparent cable from the the $210 The Wave speaker cable, to the $90 The Link IC has a network box.

The only cables that do not are a few digital cables and exactly one AC cord. Other than, ALL Transparent cables are outfitted with boxes.

As long as you are happy, and as long as they better every cable you have previously had in your system, I guess that is all that counts.

Correction..Harley does not "own" any cable. And these MIT cables are probably the 7th or 8th set of cable he has called the "best".

But again, his opinion is rather secondary to yours since you own and enjoy them.

 

[mep]

I'm afraid you are misinformed. Every single Transparent cable from the the $210 The Wave speaker cable, to the $90 The Link IC has a network box.

The only cables that do not are a few digital cables and exactly one AC cord. Other than, ALL Transparent cables are outfitted with boxes.

I'm not talking about their speaker cables with rinky-tinky boxes, but the cables that have large network boxes. And since you said that you don't believe in network boxes and you said you own a pair of Transparent cables with network boxes, WTFO?

 

[Andre Marc]

I'm not talking about their speaker cables with rinky-tinky boxes, but the cables that have large network boxes. And since you said that you don't believe in network boxes and you said you own a pair of Transparent cables with network boxes, WTFO?

Never said I don't believe in network boxes, ever. I simply echoed the opinion of Robert Harley, pertaining to M.I.Ts' modus operandi
of offering 'cable tuning" choices. He STRONGLY, without leaving it open to interpretation, stated that there was one setting that
was superior to all the others, meaning, that all the others were superfluous. Transparent's technology and design goals are completely
different.

BTW, even cable designers as conservative as Purist Audio and Harmonic Tech started including network boxes on select cables.

 

[Andre Marc]

I'm not talking about their speaker cables with rinky-tinky boxes, but the cables that have large network boxes. And since you said that you don't believe in network boxes and you said you own a pair of Transparent cables with network boxes, WTFO?

I take STRONG exception to the term "rinky-tinky'!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Steve Williams]

Steve, the MIT cables are the least colored and more transparent and resolving cables that I've had the pleasure of hearing in my system. More to the point, no other cable has come close to the MIT in the low end in my system. Hence the bad part of being a reviewer: having to send back the review samples. I really,really wish I could afford the MIT phono cable and those that can are in for a real treat.

Thanks for the info Myles. I just can't keep up with their forever changing cables. I had a long talk with their owner at RMAF this past year. I learned a lot. I think perhaps what Andre was saying was that why have the other 2 articulations if SHD is the best. Why would you want to pay for an articulation box rather than having an SHD cable which would cost less. Correct me Andre if I misinterpreted what you were suggesting.

 

[mep]

Never said I don't believe in network boxes, ever. I simply echoed the opinion of Robert Harley, pertaining to M.I.Ts' modus operandi

I believe you did say you don’t believe in network boxes:

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.

 

[Andre Marc]

Thanks for the info Myles. I just can't keep up with their forever changing cables. I had a long talk with their owner at RMAF this past year. I learned a lot. I think perhaps what Andre was saying was that why have the other 2 articulations if SHD is the best. Why would you want to pay for an articulation box rather than having an SHD cable which would cost less. Correct me Andre if I misinterpreted what you were suggesting.

Spot on Steve.

In the end, I trust that Robert Harley, in saying these are devastatingly good, SOTA cables, is correct.

I just have a compulsion I can't help in finding fault with companies that have endless product churn, buzzword
friendly "features" like "HD", and claim their products is 28x, 52x, 150x "better" than the competition.

Talk about trying to keep up...blink and you miss the current models.

But to be fair, the same can be said of Siltech with the churn.

I guess if you really feel the need to be a customer of one these companies, you are willing to do the work.

 

[Andre Marc]

I believe you did say you don’t believe in network boxes:

Where??? I referred to cable tuning. I think Synergistic, with their tube powered active cells and fuse "colors" are just as bizarre.

 

[mep]

Where???

Right here:

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.

 

[Andre Marc]

Right here:

Please show me the words "I DON"T BELIEVE IN NETWORK BOXES". Transparent makes it very clear their box is a bandwidth limiting device.

What you quote in no way has me saying I don't believe in network boxes.

 

[mep]

Please find the words "I DON"T BELIEVE IN NETWORK BOXES". Transparent makes it very clear their box is a bandwidth limiting device.

I think their cables sound great.

Andre-You said "cable tuning is the ultimate folly" which is what network boxes do. What part of "bandwidth limiting" do you not understand is serving the same function as "cable tuning?"

 

[Andre Marc]

Andre-You said "cable tuning is the ultimate folly" which is what network boxes do. What part of "bandwidth limiting" do you not understand is serving the same function as "cable tuning?"

Bandwidth limiting is not tuning and has no relation to what MIT does, which gives listeners to ability to change of the sound of the cable
like tone controls on a preamp or tweeter controls on Focal speakers etc. Let's end this here, because its going no where.

 

[mep]

Bandwidth limiting is not tuning

Really?? That is hilarious. Of course bandwidth limiting is tuning because you are shaping the frequency response.

 

[1rsw]

Man there are a lot of guys making this WAY more complicated than it actually is. Here's the deal....despite what RH say's, the switches are there simply to allow choice and it's been clearly stated by many MIT owners that some prefer SD and some HD. Ok...that about wraps that up! I actually once said the same thing RH did (although mine was about HD/SD on the SHD120), that the HD sounded so much better that I could never imagine anyone preferring SD. Well, after putting in the time and energy to REALLY listen to them critically, there were many situations where I preferred SD. The conclusion I came to is it's simply preference. Now brace yourself for this one.......I think RH is wrong....with all due respect.

As for the coloration argument, there is not a cable that exists that does not alter the signal, from what I know. MIT's process addresses this alteration in a way that sounds the most effective to my ears at portraying the truth. I've spent a long time and a ton of cash trying to get my system to play the truth and MIT is what works for me. If you can find better more power to you.

Lastly, comments that suggest an opinion on performance from those who have not heard/lived with this stuff is hard to comprehend...but maybe that's just me.

 

[ack]

Lastly, comments that suggest an opinion on performance from those who have not heard/lived with this stuff is hard to comprehend...but maybe that's just me.

... not to mention some of those have also claimed that if you haven't heard it you don't have an opinion... much less if you haven't read about it

 

[Andre Marc]

... not to mention some of those have also claimed that if you haven't heard it you don't have an opinion... much less if you haven't read about it

Heard the cable, on half a dozen occasions. Not in my home however.