Cables big surprise

[Ivo]

Today a friend brought special cables with a kind of an impedance
buffer box within them, which is primarily used for very high-end
consumer hi-fi (to connect between different coponents and thus to
balance their impedance etc. )and reportedly it improves the sound
performance very significantly. He asked me to try it to connect
between my Millennia and Mytek. Normally I use common cables for it. I
was a bit sceptical about it. I recorded several instrument samples
with my normal cables and with these special cables. I was really
surprised to hear there WAS a real difference. All the recordings made
with those special cables had more open high end, one could hear more
airy details and also tiny bit more of the room. Well ... Anyone else
found that a sound could be improved also by using this (or different)
kind of very special (and expensive) cables ? I heard it with my own
ears. I borrowed these cables and I will yet try to connect DA with
Genelecs with them.

[Ethan Winer]

Ivo,

> All the recordings made with those special cables had more open high end <

You said the cables are buffered. Does this mean there's active electronics
in them? Or maybe passive reactive components? It would be very easy for a
company to design cables that have a slight boost at the extreme top end.
Then they could claim the resulting unnatural treble boost is "better"
because it has more "air."

Unless your original cables have excessive capacitance that cause a drop in
response at the high end, they should be accurate to frequencies well past
what you or anyone else can hear.

--Ethan

[Tim Padrick]

I've heard several MIT cables of that sort. Sounded worse than the Linn
cables I was using. Sounded about the same as the cables that came free
with a Rotel cassette deck, so I would not pay more than $5.00 for a set
(unless I knew I could sell them for a profit, but I'd feel bad ripping
someone off like that).


"Ivo" > wrote in message
om...
> Today a friend brought special cables with a kind of an impedance
> buffer box within them, which is primarily used for very high-end
> consumer hi-fi (to connect between different coponents and thus to
> balance their impedance etc. )and reportedly it improves the sound
> performance very significantly. He asked me to try it to connect
> between my Millennia and Mytek. Normally I use common cables for it. I
> was a bit sceptical about it. I recorded several instrument samples
> with my normal cables and with these special cables. I was really
> surprised to hear there WAS a real difference. All the recordings made
> with those special cables had more open high end, one could hear more
> airy details and also tiny bit more of the room. Well ... Anyone else
> found that a sound could be improved also by using this (or different)
> kind of very special (and expensive) cables ? I heard it with my own
> ears. I borrowed these cables and I will yet try to connect DA with
> Genelecs with them.

[Laurence Payne]

On Sun, 7 Mar 2004 14:54:04 -0500, "Tim Padrick" >
wrote:

>I've heard several MIT cables of that sort. Sounded worse than the Linn
>cables I was using. Sounded about the same as the cables that came free
>with a Rotel cassette deck, so I would not pay more than $5.00 for a set
>(unless I knew I could sell them for a profit, but I'd feel bad ripping
>someone off like that).

How were the Linn cables better than the Rotel ones?

CubaseFAQ www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm
"Possibly the world's least impressive web site": George Perfect

[Scott Dorsey]

Ivo > wrote:
>Today a friend brought special cables with a kind of an impedance
>buffer box within them, which is primarily used for very high-end
>consumer hi-fi (to connect between different coponents and thus to
>balance their impedance etc. )and reportedly it improves the sound
>performance very significantly. He asked me to try it to connect
>between my Millennia and Mytek. Normally I use common cables for it. I
>was a bit sceptical about it. I recorded several instrument samples
>with my normal cables and with these special cables. I was really
>surprised to hear there WAS a real difference. All the recordings made
>with those special cables had more open high end, one could hear more
>airy details and also tiny bit more of the room. Well ... Anyone else
>found that a sound could be improved also by using this (or different)
>kind of very special (and expensive) cables ? I heard it with my own
>ears. I borrowed these cables and I will yet try to connect DA with
>Genelecs with them.

If these are MIT cables, then YES they sound different. They have
massive lumped-sum reactances in those little boxes, and of COURSE
that changes the sound. That is what they are for.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Rich Andrews.]

(Scott Dorsey) wrote in news:c2ga1f$99m$1
@panix2.panix.com:

> Ivo > wrote:
>>Today a friend brought special cables with a kind of an impedance
>>buffer box within them, which is primarily used for very high-end
>>consumer hi-fi (to connect between different coponents and thus to
>>balance their impedance etc. )and reportedly it improves the sound
>>performance very significantly. He asked me to try it to connect
>>between my Millennia and Mytek. Normally I use common cables for it. I
>>was a bit sceptical about it. I recorded several instrument samples
>>with my normal cables and with these special cables. I was really
>>surprised to hear there WAS a real difference. All the recordings made
>>with those special cables had more open high end, one could hear more
>>airy details and also tiny bit more of the room. Well ... Anyone else
>>found that a sound could be improved also by using this (or different)
>>kind of very special (and expensive) cables ? I heard it with my own
>>ears. I borrowed these cables and I will yet try to connect DA with
>>Genelecs with them.
>
> If these are MIT cables, then YES they sound different. They have
> massive lumped-sum reactances in those little boxes, and of COURSE
> that changes the sound. That is what they are for.
> --scott
>
>

Exactly right Scott. The sound difference isn't in the cables, it is in
the box.

r


--
Nothing beats the bandwidth of a station wagon filled with DLT tapes.

[Rob Adelman]

Rich Andrews. wrote:


> Exactly right Scott. The sound difference isn't in the cables, it is in
> the box.
>

So what is in this box and we would they think it makes it sound better?

[hank alrich]

Rob Adelman wrote:

> Rich Andrews. wrote:
>
>
> > Exactly right Scott. The sound difference isn't in the cables, it is in
> > the box.
> >
>
> So what is in this box

Little sparkly stuff.

> and we would they think it makes it sound better?

Because it maeks all your CD's sound like SACD's.

--
ha

[Sugarite]

> > Exactly right Scott. The sound difference isn't in the cables, it is in
> > the box.
>
> So what is in this box and we would they think it makes it sound better?

All the MIT cables have are RF filters, I've busted one open before. There
is no buffering of any sort. I also have bigger RF filters that can have
several cables run through them. They do make a difference, whether it's an
audible one or not depends on the gear and the listener. For example,
certain audiophile rigs (what they were originally intended for) with
turntables and tube amps are very susceptible to RF. On such a system I
have heard a night-and-day difference putting them on power cables and
interface cables. On my bedroom system I can't hear any significant
difference.

In a studio setting the only place I think they would be useful is on power
cables. Digital electronics create their own RFI, and can theoretically
poison their own power supply, which in turn becomes audible through their
analog componentry.

But hey, a cable's a cable. Anyone who says otherwise is dreaming, right?

[Richard Crowley]

"Sugarite" > wrote ...
> But hey, a cable's a cable.
> Anyone who says otherwise is dreaming, right?

Sure. But the topic appears to be about a *MAGIC BOX* that
just happens to have an attached guzinta and gusouta cable.
Sounds like a textbook example of snake oil at its finest.

[Arny Krueger]

"Sugarite" > wrote in message

>>> Exactly right Scott. The sound difference isn't in the cables, it
>>> is in the box.
>>
>> So what is in this box and we would they think it makes it sound
>> better?
>
> All the MIT cables have are RF filters, I've busted one open before.
> There is no buffering of any sort. I also have bigger RF filters
> that can have several cables run through them. They do make a
> difference, whether it's an audible one or not depends on the gear
> and the listener. For example, certain audiophile rigs (what they
> were originally intended for) with turntables and tube amps are very
> susceptible to RF. On such a system I have heard a night-and-day
> difference putting them on power cables and interface cables. On my
> bedroom system I can't hear any significant difference.

Working in a high-RF environment, with EMI-sensitive equipment is a great
way to chase your tail. At worst, no matter what you do, the sound changes.
Run a cable on the left side of the room, and it may sound different than if
you run it on the right side of the room. If you aren't a skilled
experimentalist, and know exactly what you are doing, you can "prove" just
about any hypothesis.

Once upon a time I was in San Francisco, and I visited a guy who had been
writing some wild cable stuff for The Audio Amateur. His listening room was
a real trip, with cables draped on the walls in odd ways, reminiscent of an
old wireless shack from the early days of radio. I checked a map and we were
not that far down the hill from that funny-looking mess of TV & FM
transmitting antennas they have over there. So, do I have to draw anybody a
picture? ;-)

[Buster Mudd]

"Richard Crowley" > wrote in message >...
> "Sugarite" > wrote ...
> > But hey, a cable's a cable.
> > Anyone who says otherwise is dreaming, right?
>
> Sure. But the topic appears to be about a *MAGIC BOX* that
> just happens to have an attached guzinta and gusouta cable.
> Sounds like a textbook example of snake oil at its finest.


Actually it seems just the opposite. There's none of the mysterious
flooby-dust that classic snake oil "audiophile" speaker cables are
allegedly chock full of; rather, there *is* an actual box filled with
passive I/R/C electrical components that is intentionally shaping the
signal. That's about as up front & forthright as a speaker cable
manufacturer can be. "Yes we're doing something to the signal, yes
there are passive components in line with the zip cord, and yes,
that's them right there in that little box."

True snake oil is when the cable company makes the "vastly improved"
sonic claims and there is no box.

[Scott Dorsey]

Rob Adelman > wrote:
>Rich Andrews. wrote:
>
>
>> Exactly right Scott. The sound difference isn't in the cables, it is in
>> the box.
>>
>
>So what is in this box and we would they think it makes it sound better?

Inductors, resistors, and capacitors. MIT claims the notion is to compensate
for the natural reactance of the cable.

Gabe Weiner and I did a quick and dirty A/B test between some MIT speaker
cables and some high grade stranded cord, and there was a very clear
difference between the two. But the stranded cord sounded better to both
of us.

The thing is that it's a lot easier to tell that something is different
than that it is better. And I could see some systems in which the effect
of the cable might compensate for some deficiency somewhere else in the
chain.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message


> The thing is that it's a lot easier to tell that something is
> different than that it is better.


An absolutely huge statement that nobody who works with audio production
should need to hear said. But it seems that many do.

[JWV Miller]

Great comeback Hank. ROFL

(hank alrich) wrote in message >...
> Rob Adelman wrote:
>
> > Rich Andrews. wrote:
> >
> >
> > > Exactly right Scott. The sound difference isn't in the cables, it is in
> > > the box.
> > >
> >
> > So what is in this box
>
> Little sparkly stuff.
>
> > and we would they think it makes it sound better?
>
> Because it maeks all your CD's sound like SACD's.

[Rob Adelman]

So changing cables is equivilent to changing formats? Interesting
conclusion...

JWV Miller wrote:
> Great comeback Hank. ROFL
>
> (hank alrich) wrote in message >...
>
>>Rob Adelman wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Rich Andrews. wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Exactly right Scott. The sound difference isn't in the cables, it is in
>>>>the box.
>>>>
>>>
>>>So what is in this box
>>
>>Little sparkly stuff.
>>
>>
>>>and we would they think it makes it sound better?
>>
>>Because it maeks all your CD's sound like SACD's.

[Arny Krueger]

"Rob Adelman" > wrote in message

> So changing cables is equivilent to changing formats? Interesting
> conclusion...

Yep, both of them are common sources of placebo effects in naive listening
evaluations.

[Geoff Wood]

Buster Mudd wrote:

> True snake oil is when the cable company makes the "vastly improved"
> sonic claims and there is no box.

True snale oil is when the company claims that it's box 'improves'.


geoff

[hank alrich]

Arny Krueger wrote:

> If you aren't a skilled experimentalist, and know exactly what you are
> doing, you can "prove" just about any hypothesis.

I was at a bluegrass show last week, of very good, nationally known
performers. Mics were arrayed across the front of teh stage, an A-T 3035
flanked by E609'2 a few feet out. Stage L e609 obviously screwed up,
tinny sound, lousy sensitivity, crackly edge on transients.

So the soundguy changed the mic cable. All those listening with their
eyes were satisfied. They all saw him fix it.

Even the "good" e609 sounded mediocre to me. The 3035, OTOH, nice really
quite good.

--
ha