Neither, so don't try to shoehorn me into either basket.Bold conclusion at the end there. Either you are very confident there will be discernable change, or maybe you have oversimplified the model
If the owner of the system is unable to distinguish any difference, then there is no "difference" for that person.
A difference that makes no difference, is no difference.
By testing the extremes with no diff, done..
Remember, the flatter the impedance curve of the speaker, the less the settling time will change due to the wires.
jn
Focusing on the listening test only, my take away was to make the cables and their runs as similar as possible to mitigate any image shift. The same applies to the whole system and why, other than mirror imaging speakers, if the drivers are off-set, and listening environment , mirror imaging of stereo amps etc should be avoided.
Discernible or not depends on the listening test method. In subjective listening, anything can happen even when cables aren't changed. Let that sink in for a while before engaging in another subjective listening comparison.Bold conclusion at the end there. Either you are very confident there will be discernable change, or maybe you have oversimplified the model
If the owner of a system is unable to discern any difference then there is no difference for that person on that system at that time. Another person, changes to the system, more focused listening another day, etc., could all affect the outcome. There are lots of things not yet considered. Some may have to do with linearity and or time-invariance of L,R,C.
Again, if there is evidence people can hear a difference, then maybe we are missing something. IMHO while its easy to think of certain quirky faults of human perception and blame it all on imagination, that would not be consistent with modern science either.
Again, if there is evidence people can hear a difference, then maybe we are missing something. IMHO while its easy to think of certain quirky faults of human perception and blame it all on imagination, that would not be consistent with modern science either.
Last edited:
Subjective impression applies to all humans regardless of system quality or location. By the way, the above response was used by John Atkinson of Stereophile magazine.
Subjective listening impression doesn't qualify as evidence. Why? Because it's not a scientific comparison method.
No I'm retired and without connections to any professional audio business.
I just give MIT the technical benefit of the doubt like I should have given to everybody else with an understandable technical story behind their products, although I can't check whether this is the real story.
Price wise it's not from this planet.
Most cable manufacturers have no story at all, came to their design after much trial and error, which is O.K., but they came with some silly nonsense explanation afterwards.
And repeating the question I've put before, does MIT really achieve their technical objectives and does it have a positive impact on the sound reproduction ?
The proof of the pudding is in the eating.
Hans
Then you probably have some spare time to learn about audio cables. Try the following so that you can be better prepared against snake oil sales pitch.
Speaker Wire
The Null Tester - YouTube
Not only does it exist but it can be very harmful.
I studied advertising design when I was very young, I left when a teacher said: " Good advertising can sell bad products as if they were excellent "
He was referring to a brand of liqueur here," Peters ", but it applies to audio, to everything.
Publicidad '70s Licores PETERS - YouTube
I suspect that the man says that if you don't have JBL "Baby Cheeks", all the cables measure badly, did I understand correctly ?
Plenty of silly nonsense, I'm sure we all agree. Re the first bit -I don't like to break this to you, but a good proportion of hi-fi wire companies don't do a great deal of trial and error either. What they do is they go to their wire producer, and either buy some of their generic stock product, which they have branded with their own silkscreen or whatever, and add as relevant terminations to, or they specify a general type which said company can produce, and they think they can sell. I know several companies that produce the wire for various well-known hi-fi brands; sadly, that's what often goes on. I don't take any pleasure in saying it, just stating the fact.
And repeating the question I've put before, does MIT really achieve their technical objectives and does it have a positive impact on the sound reproduction ?
The proof of the pudding is in the eating.
Already answered. They do AFAIK, insofar as they should provide some ability to modify the electrical properties of the connecting wire setup, which in turn will affect how the components at either end interact. These are combined systems, not items that exist in isolation, so nothing especially novel per se. They were doing variations with undersea telegraphs (and telephones) decades before any of us were born, so this is perfectly reasonable from a technical POV. And for the second, you need to say how you define 'positive impact on sound reproduction', because without that, there is no answer other than 'possibly for some people in some cases' which is fine, obviously. However, before gleefully swallowing esoterica in the advertising copy for the alleged reasons, it is usually a good plan to consider the basics of what is going on. I do appreciate this is unfair, unreasonable and boring however.
Last edited:
I have also not felt the need to attempt the test, as my listening situations do not justify the concerns. I am either running my PA system indoors or outdoors on 100 foot #12, or in the backyard among friends where waterproof speakers are fed via landscaping wires. Neither are critical listening situations. As well, I have no skin in this endeavor since I neither design nor sell speaker cables.
My professional life however, entails working on magnetic systems which are horribly non linear, both in terms of magnetic field quality through a specific bandwidth, or the motion control of highly magnetic force systems using magnetic drive actuators (motors, either stepper, brushed, or brushless 3 phase. It requires extreme attention to details, as that is where the devil is..
Absolutely, & no offense intended or implied; I was reflecting on many of the hi-fi wire companies & the nonsense many (most) crank out to sell their product, not what you were proposing as an experiment / test &c.
Ah, the usual "Trust your ears" mantra. Those who tout that tend to also use their sights while listening.
I took none. I went back to re-read my post to see if I accidentally implied that I was offended...nope,
jn
Given a very constrained monophonic single channel relative displacement test designed specifically to present any frequency based cable energy storage interactions...
Spend a day, spend a week, whatever content you wish, whatever alcohol you choose..... if you cannot discern any relative image shift in that time caused by a gross impedance shift in the cable.....
"Do the paperwork" and get off the bowl. Get on with your life so to speak.
If on the other hand, the person believes they hear something, the experiment can be repeated for assurance. And reported, and repeated. Enough positives would invite a more rigorous engineering evaluation, and as you said...rethinking or embellishing the model.
If the person confirms an image shift or smear caused by cables, that is only the start.
Me personally, if I thought I heard a difference, I would be more inclined to go with the 4 pair setup, as I understand the issue of settling time vs speaker impedance, as the 4 pair is less stored energy, but not so much capacitance that when the speaker unloads the amp loses phase margin.
jn
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.