"Boxed-In?"

[MylesBAstor]

A noted and longtime electronics designer once said to me, "I'm against everything that boxes on cables stand for. But I'll be damned if they don't work."

Personally, I don't have any vested interests in either approach to cable design and use speaker cables with and without boxes. And I obtain good sound with either approach. But MIT or Transparent speaker cables do some special things that non-networked cables don't. Have others here had the opportunity to listen to "normal" vs. networked cables in their system?

[1morerecord2clean]

Myles, with my Revels I originally tried half a dozen well known cables. None seemed right somehow. At the suggestion of someone in the industry I tried transparent and they were the best match although I ended up with MIT. Haven't had anything else in the system for a very long time so who knows for sure today? I'd have to go into the marketplace and start trying other brands. Still very satisfied with them and I have upgraded over time so I'm using current production MITs.

[jcmusic]

I use an SET amp 2WPC a long time ago I tried some pricey cables, I even tried some MIT's. After a while I settled on Cardas cables and have been happy. I am speaking about speaker cables...

[Rob]

Does anyone remember the Athena Polyphaser? Bruce Brisson's invention, a box containing an RC/RLC circuit which would later become part of MIT cable wired in series with the signal. Bottom line, its a tone control. This is the abstract from his patent:

US Patent 6,658,119 "Audio signal cable with passive network" It is a network for altering the audio output of a system which comprises at least one series RC or RLC circuit coupled between the positive and ground conductor of a cable that is suitable for connecting an electrical musical instrument, or similar source, to an amplifier or other load. The components of the RC or RLC circuit are selected by determining the frequency at which the positive conductor's natural phase angle is 45°. 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.

[Nscohen17]

I recall the polyphasors, although I never tried using them. For as long as I can remember, however, the MIT networks are wired in parallel to the signal, NOT in series.

[Rob]

Did you read the abstract carefully? it states: "comprises at least one series RC or RLC circuit coupled between the positive and ground conductor of a cable."

[Nscohen17]

There are several patents listed on my MIT interconnects, but that one, which says it applies to musical instrument cables (an entirely different animal) is not one of them.

In either event, I don’t care how they work. The fact is that I like my system better when they are in the chain. No other criterion is of any relevance.

[david k]

But MIT or Transparent speaker cables do some special things that non-networked cables don't. Have others here had the opportunity to listen to "normal" vs. networked cables in their system?

I had both MIT & Transparent in the past, don't care for either brand exactly for the reason you mentioned, "they do things!", i.e. have distinct coloration. In fact I've moved away from all audiophile speaker wires because they also do things, when they shouldn't!

david

[MylesBAstor]

My observation.

Until recently, choosing speaker cables (or any other part thereof) was always choosing the lesser of two evils. Did the upside outweigh the cable's downsides? I had cables in where there was no bass. And other cables over the years where the upper midrange would peel wallpaper off the walls. And yet others that were truly two dimensional. And price didn't necessarily correlate with quality either. (not that it does anyway.) About 10 or 15 years ago, Radio Shack was selling some IC and speaker cables (IIRC they called it the A320 line) that were excellent performers and cost $20 for a meter IC. Don't go looking now though. The cables are long gone and what Radio Shack currently sells in no way resembles what they made years ago.

But the latest crop of cables that have been landing on my doorstep are a huge step above what had previously available. The newest cables, both boxed and unboxed, clearly allow more music to pass through and do less harm to the musical signal. The MIT phono was hands down the best I've heard; nothing resolved information and space like the MIT. Likewise, the new Transparent line is quite good too and a big jump over the older cables that were beginning to sound just a little long in the tooth. I'd love to have the chance to compare the two in vivo.

But other non-boxed cables have also been excellent performers. The one thing both types of cables have in common is a reduction in their noise floor that just reduces the masking effect. As a result, the smallest details that bring music to life are allowed to surface. Correspondingly, the cable's transparency, that ability to see in the "minds eye" all the performers, no matter where on the stage they are situated, has never been better. A side benefit of cables' increased transparency is allowing the listener to now fully appreciate just some of the improvements that have occurred in the electronics realm!

[david k]

...nothing resolved information and space like the MIT!

Like they say, one man's pleasure is another's poison. The coloration I mentioned above has to do with exactly the way they resolve space, I find it totally unnatural and imaging is homogenized with every recording. I found these boxed cables very good at etching individual images of instruments and placing them in space. Problem is that every instrument is presented the same way and has similar size image, almost no difference between a double bass, cello, violin, voice or even a grand piano. I know that this etching and floating of images is what endears them to some but that's not how music flows in reality. There's no such imaging in real life, the music comes at you from everywhere, nor is the space of the instruments defined and miniaturized as it is with these cables. To achieve this illusion these cables tend thin out upper bass and lower mids to some extent and put up these flat images in 3D space, some might call it holographic and find it impressive for me its a coloration. I don't want to be impressed by cables!

I still have some of those RS cables, used them myself for a very long time while searching for "better" ones. Their sin was of omission which I don't have a problem with. Even the current ones are a good starting point, they're not the ultimate in resolution but are balanced and natural sounding, a great reference product at almost no cost and truly better than some well known high priced ones out there.

I agree some of the newer cables are quieter than before in a good way but I still find too many that are unnaturally quiet…

david

[MylesBAstor]

Like they say, one man's pleasure is another's poison. The coloration I mentioned above has to do with exactly the way they resolve space, I find it totally unnatural and imaging is homogenized with every recording. I found these boxed cables very good at etching individual images of instruments and placing them in space. Problem is that every instrument is presented the same way and has similar size image, almost no difference between a double bass, cello, violin, voice or even a grand piano. I know that this etching and floating of images is what endears them to some but that's not how music flows in reality. There's no such imaging in real life, the music comes at you from everywhere, nor is the space of the instruments defined and miniaturized as it is with these cables. To achieve this illusion these cables tend thin out upper bass and lower mids to some extent and put up these flat images in 3D space, some might call it holographic and find it impressive for me its a coloration. I don't want to be impressed by cables!

I still have some of those RS cables, used them myself for a very long time while searching for "better" ones. Their sin was of omission which I don't have a problem with. Even the current ones are a good starting point, they're not the ultimate in resolution but are balanced and natural sounding, a great reference product at almost no cost and truly better than some well known high priced ones out there.

I agree some of the newer cables are quieter than before in a good way but I still find too many that are unnaturally quiet…

david

No one says we have to all agree! Makes the world interesting. I really miss the old days where we would listen in a small group and compare listening notes.

What people don't want to talk about is how different human interaural hearing is. There was an article in Scientific Mind very early on where a researcher from the University of Arizona brought up the fact that interaural differences between people is so large to swamp out any statistical analysis. Sorry I can't find the graph. Personally differences make it interesting; how much fun would it be if we all agreed?

[david k]

No one says we have to all agree! Makes the world interesting. I really miss the old days where we would listen in a small group and compare listening notes.

What people don't want to talk about is how different human interaural hearing is. There was an article in Scientific Mind very early on where a researcher from the University of Arizona brought up the fact that interaural differences between people is so large to swamp out any statistical analysis. Sorry I can't find the graph. Personally differences make it interesting; how much fun would it be if we all agreed?

Specially when you get a group of us "Chosen" together!

I think that I read that article and there are several others that claim the shape of our ears affect how we hear too, my own take is different. I think that we all hear the same but have different priorities and focus.

david

[MylesBAstor]

Specially when you get a group of us "Chosen" together!

I think that I read that article and there are several others that claim the shape of our ears affect how we hear too, my own take is different. I think that we all hear the same but have different priorities and focus.

david

That would probably make a great topic for another thread.

But being a biologist, it's ingrained in my genes to consider genetic, environmental, life experience and now of course, epigenetics. But I'm still also a strong believer in, whether it be sports, music. language or pretty much any other skill, the impact of what we are exposed to from when we are born to ~12 years of age upon our life experiences. That second time in life (the first being in the third trimester in utero) where the brain prunes neural connections we don't use and strengthens by myelination, the neural connections we do use. That process gone awry was just recently in the news as possibly a major contributor to schizophrenia. Also finding the other pathways later in life constitutes is a prime component of the field of neural plasticity and helping the brain heal after severe injury, trauma or even exposure to a toxic agent that affects balance for instance.

I also remember years ago researchers correlating perfect pitch to exposure to music at a young age. Ane thing we have found is that there is distinct periods/timing during childhood where certain task must be learned.

Not to mention, from personal experience, I think playing an instrument gives one a different perspective on listening or what qualities in the music we listen for. Or their order of importance. For me, that's been listening to tempo and rhythms in music lately.

[rockitman]

I go back and fourth. I had been using Nordost Odin for the past year. About 3 weeks ago I put the MIT MA-X SHD speaker interfaces back in. It's a different presentation. More in your face and the bass is a bit more extended. I can't sell either. I like the variety.

[MylesBAstor]

Specially when you get a group of us "Chosen" together!

I think that I read that article and there are several others that claim the shape of our ears affect how we hear too, my own take is different. I think that we all hear the same but have different priorities and focus.

david

I put that issue, the premiere issue of Scientific Mind in a safe place for future reference. We know about those safe places.

[MylesBAstor]

Like they say, one man's pleasure is another's poison. The coloration I mentioned above has to do with exactly the way they resolve space, I find it totally unnatural and imaging is homogenized with every recording. I found these boxed cables very good at etching individual images of instruments and placing them in space. Problem is that every instrument is presented the same way and has similar size image, almost no difference between a double bass, cello, violin, voice or even a grand piano. I know that this etching and floating of images is what endears them to some but that's not how music flows in reality. There's no such imaging in real life, the music comes at you from everywhere, nor is the space of the instruments defined and miniaturized as it is with these cables. To achieve this illusion these cables tend thin out upper bass and lower mids to some extent and put up these flat images in 3D space, some might call it holographic and find it impressive for me its a coloration. I don't want to be impressed by cables!

I still have some of those RS cables, used them myself for a very long time while searching for "better" ones. Their sin was of omission which I don't have a problem with. Even the current ones are a good starting point, they're not the ultimate in resolution but are balanced and natural sounding, a great reference product at almost no cost and truly better than some well known high priced ones out there.

I agree some of the newer cables are quieter than before in a good way but I still find too many that are unnaturally quiet…

david

First, this question comes from someone who tries to straddle the fence on musicality and accuracy. The real issue seems that mikes don't hear like we do and how do you know that what say MIT or Transparent aren't actually being truer to the source?

Next, when I go to Carnegie and sit in the first 1/3 of the orchestra or first tier, I most certainly can tell where the instruments are seated on stage -- on even a huge piece like Symphonie Fantastique -- as well as the sound of the hall. There's also a purity to the sound and a visual component that eludes systems. And when I go to a small jazz club, albeit with electronic amplification (I try and sit close up or listen while they are warming up), one knows where each member of the trio, quartet, quintet are located.

[david k]

First, this question comes from someone who tries to straddle the fence on musicality and accuracy. The real issue seems that mikes don't hear like we do and how do you know that what say MIT or Transparent aren't actually being truer to the source?

Because we know that there are differences in recordings, these cables homogenize every recording and present spacial cues in the same manner.

Next, when I go to Carnegie and sit in the first 1/3 of the orchestra or first tier, I most certainly can tell where the instruments are seated on stage -- on even a huge piece like Symphonie Fantastique -- as well as the sound of the hall. There's also a purity to the sound and a visual component that eludes systems. And when I go to a small jazz club, albeit with electronic amplification (I try and sit close up or listen while they are warming up), one knows where each member of the trio, quartet, quintet are located.

Sure, one can tell the general location of each group of instruments and even focus on hearing a particular one, the audiophile in me does it at times, the same goes when you sit up close in a jazz club but that's not how we always listen, we only hear that way when one is trying to pick something specific out of the whole. Further we don't hear one size fit all, stationary, flat, etched images in static space like you do with these wires. Listen for it the next time you have MITs on had, specially obvious when the whole system is wired with the stuff.

david

[Stringreen]

When I hear live music, the perception of depth is very subtle....yes, air, placement, dynamics are very much in play...but not depth. Cables that increase depth ...although it is very exciting,....is not to my liking. My favorite cables are top of the line Wireworld, and Clearcables (Wireworld having a wee bit more sense of ease in my system)