[Roger A. Modjeski]

This is really funny science. I must say, if I didn't know anything about electronics I might actually believe this. Have a look at the first video.

http://www.mitcables.com/

If you have time read section 8, pages 8-36 to 8-40. This is based on measurements with a very fancy HP network analyzer that is being used in a way it was never intended to be used and making measurements out of it's range. Remember, computer driven analyzers give you numbers, they usually don't tell you when the numbers are not reasonable. From what I can tell this information caused the cable designer to increase inductance till the HP could actually measure it and keep it reasonably constant.

http://www.mitcables.com/pdf/Transportable_Power_101.pdf

Scroll down this page to reply #7 to find the definitions for choices 6,7 and 8 recently added. You can vote again.

[konut]

I did not need to see the video. MIT cables are grossly over priced. Even used, at deep discount, I'd have to get a try out before I'd buy.

[pehare]

 
“If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.”
― W.C. Fields

[Devil Doc]

“If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.”
― W.C. Fields

And evidently enough audiophiles are to make it profitable.

Doc

[toocool4]

Maybe bullshit or not, I have Spectral setup and Spectral only certify Spectral cables for certain power amps. Spectral cables are made by MIT so if I want to keep my warrantee I have to use Spectral or MIT cables.

I have heard of people using other makes of cable with Spectral setup with no problems at all.

I have compared Spectral and MIT cables on my system and found I preferred the Spectral branded cables to MIT.

[saisunil]

Their prices and positioning are over the top and bring bad name to the audiophile community and audio industry in general ...

I think they are doing a great dis-service ... I could be wrong though ... I am saying it just purely on principal ... I had their low end offering several years ago - it was a decent cable ... nothing bad or great ... right in the middle ...

[Roger A. Modjeski]

“If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.”
― W.C. Fields

That's a smile for sure. It does seem to be the order of the day with advertising and the press.

[Roger A. Modjeski]

Their prices and positioning are over the top and bring bad name to the audiophile community and audio industry in general ...

I think they are doing a great dis-service ... I could be wrong though ... I am saying it just purely on principal ... I had their low end offering several years ago - it was a decent cable ... nothing bad or great ... right in the middle ...

Thank you and I agree. I am adding to the poll a vote for the veracity of information. This is a subject of great interest to me as a researcher and writer. I have added the following choices. Here are their definitions from Wickipedia. I find these distinctions interesting.

Misinformation is false or inaccurate information that is spread unintentionally. It is distinguished from disinformation by motive in that misinformation is simply erroneous, while disinformation, in contrast, is intended to mislead.

Disinformation (a direct translation of Russian дезинформация dezinformatsiya) is intentionally false or inaccurate information that is spread deliberately. For this reason, it is synonymous with and sometimes called black propaganda. It is an act of deception and false statements to convince someone of untruth. Disinformation should not be confused with misinformation, information that is unintentionally false.
Unlike traditional propaganda techniques designed to engage emotional support, disinformation is designed to manipulate the audience at the rational level by either discrediting conflicting information or supporting false conclusions. A common disinformation tactic is to mix some truth and observation with false conclusions and lies, or to reveal part of the truth while presenting it as the whole.

Junk science is a term used in U.S. political and legal disputes that brands an advocate's claims about scientific data, research, or analyses as spurious. The term may convey a pejorative connotation that the advocate is driven by political, ideological, financial, or other unscientific motives.

I do recall many years ago when I questioned Mr Brisson on his test methods he said "You really should get out of your backyard with your voltmeters and oscilloscopes and get some real test equipment" citing his $45,000 HP network analyzer. My reply was "Voltmeters and Oscilloscopes give proper information when one knows how to use them whereas a sophisticated network analyzer when used to measure things it was not intended to can be quite misleading"

[Freo-1]

Thank you and I agree. I am adding to the poll a vote for the veracity of information. This is a subject of great interest to me as a researcher and writer. I have added the following choices. Here are their definitions from Wickipedia. I find these distinctions interesting.

Misinformation is false or inaccurate information that is spread unintentionally. It is distinguished from disinformation by motive in that misinformation is simply erroneous, while disinformation, in contrast, is intended to mislead.

Disinformation (a direct translation of Russian дезинформация dezinformatsiya) is intentionally false or inaccurate information that is spread deliberately. For this reason, it is synonymous with and sometimes called black propaganda. It is an act of deception and false statements to convince someone of untruth. Disinformation should not be confused with misinformation, information that is unintentionally false.
Unlike traditional propaganda techniques designed to engage emotional support, disinformation is designed to manipulate the audience at the rational level by either discrediting conflicting information or supporting false conclusions. A common disinformation tactic is to mix some truth and observation with false conclusions and lies, or to reveal part of the truth while presenting it as the whole.

Junk science is a term used in U.S. political and legal disputes that brands an advocate's claims about scientific data, research, or analyses as spurious. The term may convey a pejorative connotation that the advocate is driven by political, ideological, financial, or other unscientific motives.

I do recall many years ago when I questioned Mr Brisson on his test methods he said "You really should get out of your backyard with your voltmeters and oscilloscopes and get some real test equipment" citing his $45,000 HP network analyzer. My reply was "Voltmeters and Oscilloscopes give proper information when one knows how to use them whereas a sophisticated network analyzer when used to measure things it was not intended to can be quite misleading"

Well stated, Roger!   

[FullRangeMan]

I vote: ''its very convincingly done'' and ''I would not buy MIT cables''.
As Iam a strigent purist audiophile, I do not like the idea to put a black box between the amp and the speaker, I also do not like to put a crossover between the amp and the speaker.

This circuit box is unnecessary, there are many other excellent cable manufacturers that do not use this device.
MIT way of work is to made cables with these magic boxes, and charge much for it, OK this is not ilegal or immoral.

[FullRangeMan]

And evidently enough audiophiles are to make it profitable.

Doc

Their prices and positioning are over the top and bring bad name to the audiophile community and audio industry in general ...

I think they are doing a great dis-service ... I could be wrong though ... I am saying it just purely on principal ... I had their low end offering several years ago - it was a decent cable ... nothing bad or great ... right in the middle ...

Who makes huge profits are the so call Hi-End manufacturers, it seems that you are referring to these brands, which have very high prices.
Audiophiles and audiophile community, are people who listen music in their homes, not getting profit with it.

[totoro]

Thank you and I agree. I am adding to the poll a vote for the veracity of information. This is a subject of great interest to me as a researcher and writer. I have added the following choices. Here are their definitions from Wickipedia. I find these distinctions interesting.

Misinformation is false or inaccurate information that is spread unintentionally. It is distinguished from disinformation by motive in that misinformation is simply erroneous, while disinformation, in contrast, is intended to mislead.

Disinformation (a direct translation of Russian дезинформация dezinformatsiya) is intentionally false or inaccurate information that is spread deliberately. For this reason, it is synonymous with and sometimes called black propaganda. It is an act of deception and false statements to convince someone of untruth. Disinformation should not be confused with misinformation, information that is unintentionally false.
Unlike traditional propaganda techniques designed to engage emotional support, disinformation is designed to manipulate the audience at the rational level by either discrediting conflicting information or supporting false conclusions. A common disinformation tactic is to mix some truth and observation with false conclusions and lies, or to reveal part of the truth while presenting it as the whole.

Junk science is a term used in U.S. political and legal disputes that brands an advocate's claims about scientific data, research, or analyses as spurious. The term may convey a pejorative connotation that the advocate is driven by political, ideological, financial, or other unscientific motives.

I do recall many years ago when I questioned Mr Brisson on his test methods he said "You really should get out of your backyard with your voltmeters and oscilloscopes and get some real test equipment" citing his $45,000 HP network analyzer. My reply was "Voltmeters and Oscilloscopes give proper information when one knows how to use them whereas a sophisticated network analyzer when used to measure things it was not intended to can be quite misleading"

http://www.amazon.com/On-Bullshit-ebook/dp/B001EQ4OJW/ref=tmm_kin_title_0?ie=UTF8&m=AG56TWVU5XWC2

Frankfurt would characterize "misinformation" as bullshit: the person spreading it neither knows nor cares whether it is actually true.  He would characterize "disinformation" as lying: the person spreading it knows it is false. You have hit on pretty nearly exactly the same definition as a (fairly) famous philosophy professor: great minds must think alike .

[FullRangeMan]

From the MIT site:
The benefit is more lifelike vocals and instruments, mid and high frequencies become less bright or tiring, voices are clear and understandable, and bass frequencies become tight and deep.
Seems this is the task of a good preamp.

[toocool4]

Their prices and positioning are over the top and bring bad name to the audiophile community and audio industry in general ...

I think they are doing a great dis-service ... I could be wrong though ... I am saying it just purely on principal ... I had their low end offering several years ago - it was a decent cable ... nothing bad or great ... right in the middle ...

To be honest I think all cable companies charge too much, in fact all high-end audio manufacturers charge too much for what they give us.

The only company or person that I have found that does not try to rip you off is Grover Huffmann. www.groverhuffman.com

[revrob]

After trying all kinds of exotic cables I now buy most of my cables from Blue Jeans Cable. They are well made and custom length. Some exotic cables actually made my system sound worst. Go figure.

[rbwalt]

lets see now.

a fool and his money soon parted.

there is a sucker born every minute.

it is immoral to let a sucker keep his money.



rob.

[toocool4]

a fool and his money soon parted

Very true

[Ericus Rex]

Could MIT stand for Morons Implementing Technology?