I had several mid level MIT ICs a few years ago before they had different tube/solid state matched cables. They had a signature sound, the thinking of MIT then was other cables produced un-natural emphasis of treble region and one of the jobs of network box was to correct this imbalance. That is why you often saw MIT used with highly detailed SS gear like Spectral, also helped digital playback
treble hardness before good sounding upsampling CDPs and DACs were available.
I have since sold my MIT cables and gone with AZ and Analysis Plus, one of the main reasons was Bel Canto Dac produced a smooth natural treble response, and I didn't need the MIT treble sound anymore and wanted to open up treble extension. I can understand where many would find the MIT sound very relaxing and musical depending on system it was used in.
There used to be big MIT fan here named Carl Ebbers who would constantly get in heated debates over many topics here, who remembers him? |
I remember and miss Carl. |
Crusty, I know what you mean - I had a Defy I long ago, but with custom transformers (from Jadis too, during their development of Mk IV's that turned out too be expensive for production, so I snarfed it up).
But I've got something for ya, now step a little closer, now lean over, carefully, now ready...wire IS a filter, so is an amp, they are all "components".
How is an amp different from a piece of wire in your mind? In terms of matter, of function, of technological complexity, in how it effects the system, any of those, any I've forgotten? For your choice, tell me what is the basis of your opinion and its scientific methodological foundation. Is technology application determitive of resultant subjective experience?
Thank you.
(Maybe someone would like to warn him...)
PS Not an MIT man myself, but does sound musical in some systems. Some people who have MIT in there truly become involved with the music, so hard to knock it in those situations. |
Oh yea, I had the Jadis matched with a CAT too - and NBS Pro series wires which were very important. I don't know whether they were filtered with more appendages of rearranged matter (a "box") or were just the rearranged matter of heated, extruded metal covered by a dialectric of rearranged matter. In the end - in the end after the experiment of listening - did it matter? |
Anyone else here find it strange that this unclekrusty or unklecrusty(he has used both here in this same thread)@aol.com, has never posted here before. His e-mail address is bogus as well. unclecrusty I stand by my posts. Your droll dogma is usless and you are a fool. Again you spout off and don't have a clue as to what you are talking about.If you have not listened to the MIT cables, shut the hell up!
As for you bashing my system,unclekrusty, you prove once again just how ignorant you are on this topic.I never made a claim that my gear was the high dollar, state of the art, fashionable esoterica, that seems to impress you. You have no idea what my pre amp sounds like.Your statement about my amp is just as stupid and if you had paid attention you would have seen that SP9 is not stock, but a one of a kind unit that I have updated myself. If you knew anything about MIT cables you would know that not all of my MIT cables have the "box" you fear so much.
My system is not listed here for critique by the rude and the simple ,it's for people who read my posts to see if we are at all on the same page. I am happy to not be on the same page with you crusty(whoever or whatever you are)! I find it amusing that you seem to think you are the oracle of HiFi knowledge, and that the people at ARC, Dave Wilson, and Bruce Brisson, among others are so ridiculous and stupid. It's easy to hide behind a phoney e-mail address and take shots at me. I am a regestered AudioGon member and if you like you can e-mail me directly and I will be happy to tell you what I really think. |
Maxgain, you wouldn't be self-fulfilling your first-response prophecy under a bogus name
- now would you? ;^) |
Thanks uncle krust... now I'll go out and sell my entire system so I can buy sound that YOU prefer.... forget what I like... It's all about what you like. |
I've now read the entire thread and can well understand Maxgain's anger. I'd also lower my horns at Crusty's language, even though I would defend his rights for freedom of speech and the freedom to have his opinions. I've owned the gear he's mentioned and I like it and I run Spectral 360s which are very highband, right up to where the bats hear and over and that's why MIT wires make sense because of their high pass filtering action. As a combination and with stators they have never failed to amaze the cognoscienti and although I am a deeply a vinyl, tube and stator man, this SS combination, together with a Spectral pre commands my respect. Cheers, |
Oh Crusty, where are you? |
WHERE IS MY CRUSTY!!!!
Oh well.... |
he too reminds me of Carl Eberhart, & like Unsound, I really do miss the guy. Certainly Carl was/is controversial but he sure knew what he was talking about, unlike the above-mentioned clueless blowhard uncle-naysayer. |
Obviously Maxgain was right and it is good riddence. |
Carl is extremely knowledgeable, owns an excellent system but he didn't like it if you DISAGREED WITH HIM! I have seen him on the asylum dishing out good advice. Good thread Bundy, MIT will guarantee you 50 responses. MIT is the bomb!!! (that will get 20 more!) |
I'm back. Unlike a good bunch of you I don't live on the threads but do enjoy a life outside of this little area of virtuality.
Maxxie - I know your stuff all too well. Been in this game for a long long time and owned many many things. You would do well to forget about how insulted you are and take some decent advice for once.
Far from clueless, kids. You may not like me, or how I say what I have to say - but I speak from a very long time of experience. I've discovered two kinds of people in this business: Music lovers and equipment worshippers. Almost without fail the people that own "magicbox" cables have neatly fallen into the equipment worshipping category. That's just the way it is.
As for my address being "bogus" - it was fine up until two days ago, when I switched it because of some quite nasty emails I was receiving for sharing my personal opinions.
Filterboys - enjoy yourselves. Compromise is compromise is compromise. Magicboxes sound great on systems that need the repair, but veil the performance of a truly well matched high-resolution audio system.
See you in the trenches, ladies.
|
Asa - in answer to your questions
Everything is a filter, for sure. Now - take a $20,000 amplifier, for instance. Of what use is a truly extreme filter (2nd order low pass) to that $20k amp? Well, if it is really useful, then the amplifier manufacturer should have made it $21,000 and put some paralelled caps in to "power factor correct" his amp's obvious flaw.
Un boxed wire vs. boxed wire: Wire is a filter in the same way that water is an acid (or alkaline) - in the presence of real acid (or alkaline) water is just water. Likewise, in the presence of a real filter wire is just wire.
The basis of my opinion has been laid out in several technical arguments here on the thread. Look back and read.
Meanwhile, I've also had experience with Transparent boxes a coupe of years ago, and once had kooky MIT digital cable that had dipswitches on it. Both quite obviously changed things, veiled things in the systems. The Transparent boxes I was running were loudspeaker cables between a Cello Duet 350 and a pair of Avalon Ascents. The digital cable stood between a WADIA 6 and a Muse Model 2. No matter what little setting I chose, it didn't come close to a normal AES/EBU cable.
As far as philosophical methodology: One can arrive at a basically satisfactory result by consistently adding band aids until your system is EQ'd to the point that you no longer hate it. One can also take the efficient approach and seek the help of an experienced pro who can help to match your preamp/amp/speakers. With a good choice in the latter you will get off of the moving sidewalk that has many upgrading and crossgrading forever and just settle into music. In the former, one winds up trying to match the system to the magicboxes often times.
You can't expect to have a high res system with a mid res preamplifier. First order of business is to get a fantastic preamplifier, then have it matched to a fantastic amplifier. Then the only upgrade path you'd be following is the one for speakers. Start small and move up as money allows. No magic box cable is going to turn a $1,000 pair of speakers into a $5,000 pair of speakers, but some folks will wind up blowing another few grand on these magic cables instead of looking for more effective roads to upgrade. |
Unclekrusty, I appreciate your recognition that your statements are your opinion. Is there a particular reason you present it with such venom?
As for me, I appreciated how MIT speaker cables sounded in my last system. I am now quite willing to audition others and really don't care whether I end up with a "box" or not. At the end, there's nothing magic but the music. |
I wish I had the uncanny ability to assess the sound of components that I have never heard. This ability is amazing and miraculous! If I could do that I might publish a review mag and call it "The Immaculate Preconception". I would never have to have my findings and opinions tainted by actually having the sound of the component under review penetrate my ear. This would be the seminal journal of Hi End sound, and I would not even have to physically write it, as it would be handed down to me on stone tablets directly from the ultimate audio being himself unclekreusty.
I would know that the sound of a power cable can't affect the sound of a pre amp with out having to turn it on. I would know the affect of changing the caps in a circuit through devine intervention, and would not even have to smell the solder. I would know the effect of every cable on every system from a distance as great as many states! I would not have to take the room or source into account as my intuition is so great that listening is inessential.
I will throw away 30 years of listening experience and any comparisons I have done of cables. The fact that I now don't have to even hook things up will save me a great deal of time and money. Before this ability I was open minded to the idea that there were perhaps new cables that might sound better in my system, but now that I have this mystical ability there is no need to try or to listen. I also now know the flaws and faults all of the systems that you simple mortales here at AudioGon, parish the thought, listen to.
Line up, sign up, and re-enlist today in my audio Jehad that will eliminate the infadels that form their opinions by experience rather than buying my magazine. Praise the Lord and pass the amunition! Help me crush the Great Satin
of "listening".
Wait,I gotta run, there is one of those damn Auido Witnesses leaving his damn pamphlet, the "IAR" in my door, and I need to chace them off .
From: "The Further Misadventures of Maxgain, Audio Gunslinger" |
For the record Max, IAR used to like MIT cables. I don't know what Peter's thought's are on them now. Sean
> |
does anyone know the brand of cable that Unclecrusty feels is neutral and will complement most of not all high end speakers and amp. I need some, i think. |
Good question Newbee. I guess if someone is going to berate one product, knowing what they are comparing it to gives us a point of reference. Let's see if our beloved "Uncle" is up to the question. Sean
> |
In my system From source to pre-amp, absolutely Love them. From Pre-amp to amp, Hate them. |
My cables:
Nirvana SL Speaker Cables
Nirvana SL Interconnects between DAC and Pre, and Pre and Amp
Kimber Orchid between Trans and DAC |
Ozfly,
I wasn't venemous until venom came a-spittin' at me. At that point I understood that there was a way in which certain people preferred to be communicated to - because they had shown me by their example. I didn't draw the line, I merely came up to it.
Beyond that, it's extremely frustrating to have non technical, faux EE's first try and describe the products as one thing (cable fixers) and then, when the technical argument is presented as to why they couldn't be correct about that, explain the cables as something comepletely different (power factor correctors) - and then be taken to task as to why the new argument/defense is not likely a valid one.
I think the biggest problem is that no one outside of MIT knows what the heck is truly going on inside the boxes, and like good churchgoers they don't bother to demand explanations - they just take the vague ones they are given on faith and evangelize with an incomplete arsenal of bogus theory. |
Not quite true uncle K., MIT, as far as their wires for Spectral are concerned, does say what those boxes are for and also Spectral does in their literature....and yes they are highpass filters, because the Spectral stuff is so extremely wide band. At least that's what I think I know about it. |
Krusty:
Thank you for responding.
I agree, the pre amp is the fulcrum of a system, or at least should never be relegated in consideration.
Also, we agree that "technical" arguments are important. My question is whether you consider them 1) inherently determinitive, or 2) important as a variable of consideration, but determitive in this particular instance (ie. that the scientific explanations you provide are sufficient for us as a consensual group of peers to conclude that they are dispository of subjective experience).
On your tone: you need self-reflection. When you say to someone, effectively, I've already answered that question with "technical" data/argument, so "look back and read", when you should know, and do know, that that person has read what you've said, then you are being flippant and tangentially patronizing. My position has always been that if you want to be patronizing then one should have the courage to do so without hiding behind inaccurate I-already-said-that language. If you did not intend this tone, then, given others' similar reactions, you may wish to exercise some prudence.
Why "inaccurate" circular reference?
Again, what is the basis in your assumption that "technical" arguments are sufficient? If your experience in listening had been different, would that, given your worldview, mean that the "technical" arguments were wrong, notwithstanding their linear elegance?
If all technology is rearranged matter in various forms, then what character of one form (wire) causes it to be fundamentallly different than another? You say, through analogy, that the base/alkaline quality of water - that differentiation on PH - is important. When that differentiation analogy is applied to the issue at hand, what is the determinitive difference between an amp and a piece of wire; what is more "alkaline" about an amp and less "alkaline" about a wire vis-a-vis each other? More/less functional, more/less complex, or what? Without another analogy, or referring back to "technical" arguments, first tell me the assumptive context of those arguments, namely, what is the "alkaline" nature of wire matter vs. amp matter?
I appreciate your offering your subjective experience with box/non-box wire and how, assumably, that experience bolstered your technical investigations. Again, I remain interested in the relative importance you apply to these modes of experience/investigation in general, or in this context (if that prioritizing changes based upon comparison of the experiment results with the prior "technical" hypotheses).
One thing to remember about boxes on wire, ie so-called passive networks. Many of these networks came about, in a technical way, as a "band-aid" for earlier SS amplification and its lack of harmonic sophistication and spatial continuity (the "tube" networks of, say, MIT only came later and are not considered state-of-the-art in tube cirles, predominantly speaking). Moreover, many of these boxed cables directed at SS systems (and its afficianados) were designed for specific components and systems, ie Watt II spkrs with earlier Spectral needed MIT to "band-aid" it in the aforementioned areas, particularly the Watts, worse from the spkr/amp combo. Did this system approach also have a marketing angle behind it? Undeniably. And should we be "technically" on guard, so to speak, when we percieve this mix of design and avarice? Of course. But none of that, or the frustration that it engenders, should lead to patronization, adversarialness, etc. in the first instance, and particularly when the context for technical arguments that, assumably, justify that attitude have themselves gone undisclosed.
Krusty, I like polemic as much as the next guy, and like to stir the pot now and then myself, but describing your subjective experiences is not "methodology" ("philosophical" or otherwise), but the results of an empiric method (listening tests). I am inquiring as to the assumptions that underly your technical methodology.
Second, looking at your subjective evidence, it appears that you too have mainly a SS orientation. Has this always been your methodological approach, ie point of methodological departure, and, if so, why?
Last, I want to share your concern that some people are harmed/harm themselves by buying expensive wire - boxed or unboxed - believing it will change their audio world, only to later find that it did not. And yes, system building does have its dynamics that involve changing priorities between electronic components and wire components as sophistication increases in the system. Your emotional response may be understood, but that momentum of emotion does not explain the assumptions of your technique, nor justify the tone of your "concern". |
Uncle K - 9
Philosophy gurus - 4 1/2
We just call em like we see em. |
Oh Jetter, Jetter, don't you know that an opinion (your "call") lacks credibilty when made summarily without reasons, support or evidence? That's a premise of method, and especially scientific method, and also dialogue. I'm sure Krusty would remind you of that...
What do you mean?
I never could figure out how someone could think they were scientifically rigorous while, at once, failing to understand the philosophical premises of which that empiric rigor depended. When did scientific method, and its resultant "technicalities", become divorced from the philosophical assumptions upon which it depends, and exists?
Perhaps, Jetter, you are not seeing as much as you think...? |
Let me get this straight. MIT and Tranparent are identical in sound since they both have networks on them, no matter what else is different in the design. Hum? O.K., using "krusty" logic, we now know that all mult-strand, multi-guage,copper litz(Nirvana S-L),speaker wires and IC's sound identical. Gee this is easy! Now let me think about this? I must have some multi-strand, multi-guage, copper litz wires around here somewhere? Oh, yea, MIT 330(pre network). So, now I know that Nirvana S-L, sounds identical to MIT 330. Gee,gosh,golly unclekrusty thanks for teaching me everything you know about HiFI. So now I know all silver wires sound the same, all solid core wires sound the same, all flat section wires sound the same. Just as long as there ain't no "box" on it to frighten the weak and the silly. This is much simpler than actually listening to cables to find out what they sound like.
Now that the stupid fairy tale is over! I said it in my first post, the people that make the most noise about MIT never put them in their system and lsitened.(one digital cable hardly can be a proper representation of a whole line of cables)
I never made any claim about the sound. I stated for the record that I use them. I don't make claims about the sound of audio gear I have never heard. I don't make claims about the sound of cables I have never heard. I do like to pick fights with idiots who do! |
"Hear,hear", as the Brits say, quoth he , grinning softly. |
Maxgain - MIT and Transparent are the same. The Sumner's stole fire from the the MIT demigods.
As for litz wire - it's good stuff, inexpensive on the used market, and it doesn't pretend to fix imaginary gremlins with "power factor correction" and "transmission line compensation" or whatever gobbledegook you repeated on this thread. |
Unclekrusty, you wouldn't be AKA 'Krusty The Clown' from TV's beloved The Simpsons, now would you? I'm tuning out most everything here beyond a certain point, save for the grin from Audiogon's beloved uncle Detlof... :-) |
Zaike, you've got it, begosh. Are you with the CIA? It's him, all of him, including his muleheadedness and his rash temper. Ha!! Always thought, he couldn't be quite real, although I liked what he said about the CAT and the Defy 7, but then, as you so wisely point out, I belong to the same family of uncles. Why? The Brits used to have a saying that went: "Bob's your uncle", which was a polite way of suggesting that you're talking bullshit. We're one big familiy, obviously, only some know it and some not.(-;
To qualify the point that Krusty the Clown is possibly uncle squared, so to speak, comes from the fact, that Bruce Brisson (MIT) and Karen Sumner, who marketed the MIT stuff for him, split up in the eighties, if I recall right. It was then, that she started Transparent. Since then Bruce hasn't been asleep, nor have the folks at Transparent. Yes they have boxes, both, but they certainly are not alike and they don't sound alike. So I am quietly pondering for myself, as I am sawing one of the $12000 MIT boxes open, to see if there's gold inside, if one of Clown Krusty's uncles might not be named BOB.
Cheers, |
Uncle Krusty
Came around the campfire from out of the night and the stranger spoke his piece straight from the hip.
He didn't first stop to analyze his audiences social/economic standing.
He didn't ask if he could be let into the circle.
He just said he didn't need no stinkin filter.
The a'goner possee
Well, they think they like that litt'l ol box, ain't ever hurt no one.
They decided that since Uncle K wouldn't discuss the box in terms of both the scientific "micro" and philosophic "macro" we oughta get him.
Their gettin ready to send Jung in after him.
Score stands
Uncle K - 9
A'goners - 4 1/2 |
Very funny!!! Thanks guys for the chuckle.
Again, I think opinions on wire have less to do with technology and science than people's 1) emotional reaction to the exhorbitantly high prices of "exotic" wire, and 2) because of that emotional orientation - deserved or not - a heightened desire to apply scientific criteria to ameliorate that response (which must be directed, of course, to people who buy it). The problem with this is what some philosophers of science, namely, Kuhn and Popper, have noted as a bias that effects one's observation of results, or lack thereof. In this sense, objective criteria , due to the emotive response, become prioritized without reflection to subjectively percieved results, which even the rules of science says are determitive ("objective" criteria are also subjectively percieved, and hence, the term "objective" can be misleading, leading us to believe it has some independant validity, like a science-god out there somewhere, but that's another story...)
There are also other "scientific" assumptions that underly many scientific-based arguments that reveal still other biases, and that come out in wire vs. amp arguments because the matter configuration is different, not in a fundamental sense, but merely in appearance. Science, in its alliance with capitalism and the production of technology (science is not predominantly in the business of producing technology, but using it, as a tool, to find out truths about physical reality), has adopted amongst its acolytes an assumption that if the tool has more moving parts it must be more complex in function, i.e. complexity in matter arrangement equals complexity in function. In wire discussions, fueled by the emotive response, this comes out as technical arguments made based upon this assumption, but not disclosed because even the speaker is unaware of the underlying assumption within the presentation of his/her data (it derives from science's method of reduction of wholes into parts; allied with capitalism, better technolgy equals tools with more parts, more parts equals more complexity, more complexity dictates better subjectively percieved performance. You see the irrational cascade?).
Did Krusty do this? Maybe, I can't tell, that's what I was trying to find out (you see, Jetter, even science is a philosophy. That you don't think so may be a point of departure for self-reflection on another scientific assumption that is untrue...).
Science is a valuable tool of the mind directed towards matter and, because of that, makes great widgets (and, at its best, catalyzes awe). But it is not ultimately determitive of subjective results.
Are Krusty's technical arguments sufficient to negate the use of networks in toto? No.
Does he make a point that the technology in boxes does not justify people paying that much for them, even though he may not state this? Perhaps. But calling people stupid - the underlying emotive demeanor - and using scientific technicalities to bolster that argument is not the same issue as negating one technology from another based on scientific evidence.
Does Krusty's subjective evidence further bolster his technical argument? Yes, but as pointed out above - and of all people Krusty should understand this - his methodology appears flawed. Namely, as detlof cited, his sample is too small and not representative. This leaves only Krusty's undisclosed emotive demeanor as bias towards favoring strictly technical arguments based on complexity assumptions - or that likelihood given his silence on the inquiry of his assumptions of his method, his emotional demeanor and the insufficient sample to that methodology.
Does Krusty have a point about boxe wire? Perhaps. But it needs to be presented in a different way if it is to be successful.
Krusty, on the chuckle, you show commendable constraint. Perhaps a jumping off point to answer the last question... |
Jetter:
Krusty is in the circle, whether he knows it or not. You're the only one who is not, and by your own choice.
Now, can someone hand me the fly swatter... |
This thread was initiated by Bundy asking about MIT. Not about "networked" cables in general. How many times do I need to repeat myself? S-L-O-W-L-Y, this time for krusty. My sole point is that you are making a sweeping generalization that is as hard to substantiate as saying that all tube amps that use the same output tube sound the same. I just find that listening to a product "might" be a better way to judge, if, in fact, it sounds good or not!
If you paid attention to what I wrote krusty you would realize that I never said anything about "correction" or "compensation" or even anything about the sound of these cables!
I am open minded about products that can improve my listening experience. I just like to hear them in my system before I decide what they sound like. I have been listening to every cable that I have been able to get my hands on for a while, which is not that many, I will say. When I find one that sounds better I will buy some. I don't care if it has a "box" on it filled with bat guano, or if the conductor is made from old coat hangers, if it sounds good I will use it. I may try to understand why bat guano might sound better than bird guano. In the end it's the sound that counts. You can't judge the sound with out listening to a product. O.K.?
So krusty if you want to pony up some cash for me to rid myself of my old "crap" gear I would be happy to spend your money on a new ARC Ref2 MkII, a pair of VTM200's and some Kimber Select throughout.While you're at it I might as well let you buy me some Vandy 5's(birdseye will do nicely). I don't accept personal checks.
Now Jetter, tell me more about that sister of yours!
|
Asa, admirable analysis. A joy to read and not to fault as far as I can see. Old Krusty is good for something afterall. A question: Don't know Kuhn, but did Popper REALLY live up to what he preached there? Cheers, |
No, detlof, Popper did not, from what my admittedly limited knowledge of his ideas can tell (oh my God, Jetter, here's where we could, just could, veer into Jung!!!! Stooooone the witch!!!).
I'm not sure about his personal life, but, basically, in the end, in his philosophy he still defaulted to an assumption that the systematic analysis of science redeemed it as a method, even though his own critique on that method - that science is always finding new truth, so how can they ever say they have The Truth - undermined that hope, in a logical sense. I would say he had an intuition that this had to be the case and so adopted it. I feel the same BTW, to an extent, that extent tempered by my knowledge of what science IS, its limitations, and the true ground of science.
From what I know of the LSE philosophy dept, where Popper ensconsed himself, the quantification of reality (the progeny of British empiricism, Hume, Berkely, et al) was perhaps, in its lingering influence, not quite as far away as he might have thought. I think Popper was simply part of the general deconstruction of science - seeing its limitation through an application of its own reductionist rules to itself - that has been going on for quite a while now (you see, WilBishop, I do know how old some of this is....). He saw a facet of that limitation, but like all deconstructionism, never looked beyond that reduction to see a solution. Maybe that accounts for his ultimate default to science's systematic rigor for a grounding, and thus avoiding the conclusion of nihilism (the consequence of groundless-ness). Given that his own observations seemed to contradict that conclusion, perhaps that was, in the end, a personal choice of belief, perhaps one adopted in fear of what he believed to be its logical contra (without some ground in logic, reality becomes ground-less)
[except that reality is not grounded by logic...]
There are certainly some people out there who know more than that and can, perhaps, add or correct what I've said (OH MY GOD!! There it is, Jetter, the possibility, rearing its head like a regression to religion, like a hydra, of this thread going out of control, out of control of the thinking scientific mind towards some so-called creativity or dialogue that keeps us from controlling the truth, making it serve our purpose! Oh God, save us!!)
Detlof, if you know about Popper, perhaps - while we wait for Krusty to come back and for Jetter to think - I would be interested to know what you know. Anyone else too.
WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH CABLE?!
There, all served up, just like a baseball on a tee, just like when you were five. |
Oh, detlof, when are we going to get that thread you promised on musicality? We must be sure to invite Krusty and Jetter. Remind me then. |
LOL, will do ASA, thanks for your thoughts on P. Can't say much, know too little, but seems to make sense what you say. The musicality thread has yet to be born, too busy still writing up reports on all sorts of people to make some money to buy expensive cables and to eat. |
Sorry Maxgain - I mean gobbledegook that Bob Bundus repeated on this thread. If you don't mind guano in your cables, then its obvious why you don't mind guano being launched from your speakers.
The faithful shake their bibles, do they ever, as if faith were ever an argument that held water. Even G*d didn't think enough of water to do anything more than walk over it...
I don't care what makes Maxxie move around his listening room, but I have been around far too long and experienced far too much in this business to know that most people, most audiophiles, have assembled systems that aren't nearly as properly matched as they can be. This stems largely from the fact that they rarely take the advice of a local sales professional and mostly play mix-n-match with bargain internet sales and blowouts, B-stock, etc.
That's where good'ol "networked" boxes and cables come in to play ... the guy with a poorly matched system would rather spend $ on some cables that might "fix" his component-matching problem than lose $ re-selling the stuff that has caused the problem in the first place.
In my opinion, based on both electrical theory and empirical observation of cables within the genre, I believe that all macigbox cables cause a change in the signal passing through them - a change that would not occur if the signal only passed through the wire itself. I think that's a bad idea and my experience seemed to back that up.
If you like magicbox cables in your system - go in peace. If you hate them and think that they're just a buncha BS - go in peace. I've said my piece and gave my reasons and backed them up.
It always seems to be the weakest of the faithful that shake their bibles at the infidel ... afraid, maybe, that he's speaking the truth and the emperor really is butt ass naked. The true faithful never try to make converts and cast out demons - they just walk in bliss.
So I came to stir the pot - and, boy howdy, did it ever get stirred. It's been fun, senoritas, but I think there's nothing more to say that ain't been said already. Over and over again.
g'bye
k |
and a good riddance too; not a thing that unclenaysayer has said can hold water, or bat$#!^ for that matter. Not a single useful contribution to the forum, nor was Bundy's question ever actually answered; just opinionated conjecture spewed forth ad nauseum.
No experience - notta!
Not that the uncle-originated posts were read anyway, following the initial (hurl)
I stand by my word - derived from years of true experience with different networked products - and I stand by my true name for that matter. No hiding behind false monikers & phony email addresses here - uncle BOZO. |
Yes, I agree with krusty that he has been around far too long! Too bad Jack Kavorkian or Theadore Kozinsky are unavailable, as they might be able to help us all out. |
Nothing annoys me more than when I'm buying a product (of any kind) and a salesman won't at least acknowledge that there are other products or brands he or she doesn't carry that are also good. I wouldn't buy a BMW from a dealer who says Lexus is junk.
Salesman should point out strengths and weaknesses of each product and allow the consumer to weigh them in their own mind.
Some of the finest Audio stores I know of handle MIT and hightly recommend them. I found that when I went to other stores that don't carry MIT they all told me to get rid of MIT. I guess I see now that there are very strong opinions as to this company and their products.
For now I will continue to use my various MIT and other cables as I have been pleased with their performance. I agree with Bob_bundus, listen with your ears, not your eyes. |
I think it's sad and unfortunate to see people gang up on contrarian voices in these forums. Some of the best participants have been driven from these ranks over the years. Too little tolerance for diversity and for challenging assumptions, it seems to me. |
Drubin, true. I've also lost people I considered interesting and sometimes as friends this way, but the gentleman in question had a manner, apart from peddling often halftruths and mere assumtions as were they cast in stone, which often was plainly an insult to the intelligence and savvyness of his peers here. The assumtions were hardly challenging, we've been through all that many times before, that, together with his bearing, and a kind of assuredness, where true knowledge in this field would have at least allowed a bit of doubt, were indeeed hard to bear. Some tried to get into serious conversation with him, even I liked some of what he had to say and posted accordingly, but basically he just repeated his mantra, enriched with quite a bit of sarcasm, which must been insulting to quite a few here. Frankly, it was the first time here on A. that I also thought "good riddance", because his criticisms were not particularly constructive, I found. |
I agree with Drubin. The audiophile universe is quite small to begin with and to excommunicate someone for a differing opinion will virtually insure that our small group remains that way. It's possible that some A'goners like it that way -- maybe they like being a big fish in an every shrinking pond. Maxgain, I find your comments regarding Kervorkian particularly offensive.
Regarding, MIT cables, I've owned two interconnects and both failed within 2 years of use. Based upon my particular experience, I question their quality control. To their credit, MIT promptly replaced both interconnects. Soundwise they were very good. |
Drubin: There is no room for that milk-toast, tree-hugging, NPR attitude around here! What are you thinking? Read the title to this thread. It's about LOVE and HATE. None of that Luke warm BS.
And good friend Detlof, if we are going to kick folks out for peddling half-truths as gospel around here we all better get packing! (hehehe)
I fear if that is the new standard I have to find a new forum to BS on. Does anybody know what forum Jack Kavorkian and Theadore Kozinsky use?
Sincerely
I remain, |
Sorry to chime in so late, but I am bewildered -- not only at WHAT uncle said, but at how (s)he expressed it. The latter, IMO, raised the controversy.
But the originality of what uncle said, with all due respect, floored me.
Unless I'm mistaken, the main jist in uncle's MIT/wire related epistles was:
*a good wire is one that carries signals as unsullied as possible, esp. when the components being connected are very good sonic performers;
*wires with "boxes" introduce alter (introducing filtering?) the signal they are transmitting and that is no good -- unless the point pursued is to kmowingly USE wire to tune a given system;
*A well-matched system usually performs better than one that is not;
Excuse me, but what else is new or, rather, no kidding!
*MIT cable has boxes (some models do, anyway) so it is introducing filtering where it shouldn't -- unles you want to "tune" the system, as above;
*Some people will be taken by gobbledegook (marketing, I suppose)and spend money -- boxes on wires constitute a case of such gobbledegook;
Well, that may be matter of necessity (see Detlof above with Spectral -- I have been in a similar boat), or one of taste: "ear & gear". Again, anything new?
Not doubting uncle's experience -- but we hardly enjoyed it here this time! Respectful cheers |
What I don't get and never have is why MIT draws such angst and emotion. It's just a hifi component for goodness sake. A big reason I think our hobby is small in numbers is because of such subjective opinions that get shoved down people's throat and can be intimidating. I'm sure many people have turned away from this hobby because of that - especially when they go into a highend shop and get that audiogeeksuperiority attitude from employees and customers alike - I've seen it. Most everyone digs music and most dig good stereo systems - you don't have to be an engineer, you don't have spend alot of money, you don't have to buy and sell equipment on a daily basis etc, etc etc to consider yourself an audiophile and you shouldn't have to assume your place in the pecking order expert line - so lighten up and ROCK ON! |
