Never owed a MIT but had plenty of Transparent stuff which is broadly similar. By memory the sound had a very focused soundstage and deep and convincing bass. Not a whole lot of sparkle, but generally pleasant. Eventually went towards more revealing and simpler wire, the Transparent was nice, but definitely not natural.
Many other factors apart from the boxes contribute towards their house sound. The cables were very heavy and felt very well damped mechanically, which may have been partially responsible for the slightly dead and remote sound.
No, the cables are in storage about an hours drive from here. Its a large pile. it will be at least a week.
If you are using Quads there is an easy test for difference that may work. It was used by Quad on the factory floor for testing production- Line up 2 quads side by side. Connect one out of phase to a mono source. There should be a distinct deep null across the entire audio range if they match. it would be interesting to try this with different cables and listed for the differences. I need to get my audio system working again. Been too busy during the pandemic.
I can’t confirm that Transparant and MIT are similar, outside the fact that MIT LS cables range from a few hundred to one hundred thousand dollars, like a Fiat 500 to a Ferrari, all from the same company.
So there’s a large scala to choose from and comparing should be done on base of a specific type number and not on the name of the manufacturer.
The last thing that applies to my subjective experience in my audio set is that the sound is not at all slightly dead and remote, but instead places you in the front rows with a fantastic sense of “you are there”.
Hans
It amazes me that DIYers on this forum are spending large sums on all sorts of nice project in search of the holy sound grail, but when the option is there to possibly improve sound with very low cost manipulated LS cables, there is no animo.
And believe me, blind listening tests are not needed to hear the difference, it is so obvious, at least in my case.
Although no satisfactory physical explanations exists and although many people are prejudiced that cables cannot make a difference, wouldn’t it be a challenge to give it a try and leave your comfortzone for once.
All you need are 6 resistors, 6 coils and 6 caps plus 2*2.5 meters 4mm^2 zip cord.
Hans
And believe me, blind listening tests are not needed to hear the difference, it is so obvious, at least in my case.
Although no satisfactory physical explanations exists and although many people are prejudiced that cables cannot make a difference, wouldn’t it be a challenge to give it a try and leave your comfortzone for once.
All you need are 6 resistors, 6 coils and 6 caps plus 2*2.5 meters 4mm^2 zip cord.
Hans
Last edited:
A few things can be said to that question:
1) how much can be hidden as a mystery that a VNA cannot decipher ?
See Zip cord for speaker test,
Zo is almost identical over the whole Frequency Range.
2) this MIT MH-770 cable was conceived long ago, but looking at MIT’s many patents, according to their latest one, they now do like what I did, see image below, although it may still be that they use several cord diameters in parallel in their very thick cables, where I used only one zip cord.
Hans
Hi Danny,
In short:
To start with, measure with a VNA the open and shorted impedance of the cable.
This gave me resp the inductance and the capacitance of the 2.5meter 4mm^2 cable, resp 1.5 uF and 150pF. With sqrt(L/C) this confirms Zo=100R.
Now to get Zo=4R such as in my case, from 4=sqrt(1.5uHu/C) it can be calculated that C must be 93nF, so divided over 3caps gives 31nF per cap.
When simulating Zo in LTSpice, you will find that you still need a resistor and a coil in series with the cap, of resp 600nH and 9R, but taking into account the 150nH and 1R that the cap has, I needed resp. 450nH and 8R.
Be aware that these inserted LRC components better be able to withstand a few Amps to prevent added distortion.
Hans
Attachments
At present I use a solid-core cable 2*1mm² (originally Siemens Profibus, I think)
I guess its 3-3,5m long, I can check it this afternoon.
I could also measure the impedance,as you described above.
I had MIT cables in the 90s, also some other not so cheap cables (Kimber, van den Hull). But then I once tried solid core cable (there are hunderts of meters in the Opt of my Tubeamp, was my thinking, so it coulnd't be that bad) and ever since then I use solid core loudspeaker cables. But I'm always open for new expereiences...
I guess its 3-3,5m long, I can check it this afternoon.
I could also measure the impedance,as you described above.
I had MIT cables in the 90s, also some other not so cheap cables (Kimber, van den Hull). But then I once tried solid core cable (there are hunderts of meters in the Opt of my Tubeamp, was my thinking, so it coulnd't be that bad) and ever since then I use solid core loudspeaker cables. But I'm always open for new expereiences...
Thanks for the guide.
A VNA is missing in my toolbox,
there are some cheap VNAs on ebay/banggood/Ali, what are the specs I should be looking for in a VNA ?
Can you give me a link to such Alibaba device.
I’ll have a look at it and give my comment.
But you can also do a inductance measurement with the cable shorted at the other side.
And in the same way you can measure the DC resistance.
Those two parameters are the most important.
Hans
I’ll have a look at it and give my comment.
But you can also do a inductance measurement with the cable shorted at the other side.
And in the same way you can measure the DC resistance.
Those two parameters are the most important.
Hans
Last edited:
Look for Nanovna. They have a web site with lots of details. NanoVNA | Very tiny handheld Vector Network Analyzer Many variations out there. Watch for clones. All less than $100.
Of course cables can make audible difference if they are bad enough.
Where are those many people?
Why should they try the cable equalizer when there are real equalizers out there.