Mit oracle matrix 50 ic

[caliaripaolo]

You may need to re-position your speakers to accommodate for this change. It's not out of the usual to have to do this when making a cabling change. At the very minimum, you should experiment with toe-in to see if you can shift the staging to a position that's more to your liking.

Thank's Kenny,
I start to appreciate the Matrix 50, especially for timbre and musicality. With BADA I am able to adjust the output level from 55 (as suggested) to 52 to obtain a great result maintaining details, timbre and musicality

 

[caliaripaolo]

I tried to increase the distance between the speakers. I feel better, due I think to that improvement but also by the fact which cables started to properly burned-in. I found that Matrix's cables change during the burn-in period in more evident manner than other type of MIT cables.

 

[caliaripaolo]

I have increased the distance between loudspeakers. The result is great. Details, timbre and reality are amazing.

 

[kennyb123]

I have increased the distance between loudspeakers. The result is great. Details, timbre and reality are amazing.

Very nice!! Glad to hear that the 50 is now working out for you.

 

[ack]

So I have the new 50ic in (have another one to the amp), and I am not hearing the 'stage come forward, at least not any more than it's always been. Considering MIT's write-up on this 2C3D "technology" and judging from others' claims that their MA-X cables (which include it as well) also render a deep soundstage as if sitting in the last row, I am tempted to say the Matrix cables (sans 2C3D) are the real thing, and not anything that includes this 2C3D thing (which can apparently be very pleasing). I have to admit I listened to the MA cables a few years ago and was really wowed by the deep soundstage - really, really impressive with choral, in fact - but I have never been convinced this is in the recording.

What the Matrix cables appear to be doing - and the reason I buy them - is to remove layers and layers of artifacts, and add nothing; in fact, if they were adding anything the effect would be cumulative in my chain of 50ic's. It's also interesting what my wife thought of the cables - a person who probably doesn't care about my hobby: - what's this box? - Some new cables I am trying - [Looking at the speakers, which grabbed her attention] The cables did this? Like you said above, timbre and reality are key and welcome attributes.

I now need to look at my analog, but I don't think I want the MA-X phono in there, and am surely not touching the Magnum line.

 

[kennyb123]

I now need to look at my analog, but I don't think I want the MA-X phono in there, and am surely not touching the Magnum line.

I was using the Magnum M1 phono cable about a decade ago, but didn't hang onto it too long. After a period of prolonged unemployment, I elected to downsize my system, and the M1 phono was one of the first things to go. I replaced the M1 with the $850 Discovery Essence. I was stunned to find that my downgrade actually resulted in a system upgrade. The Essence was a much better tonearm cable than the M1 phono.

Something must have been amiss with my M1 phono because it's now unbelievable to me that the Essence beat an MIT cable from the Magnum series. My Magnum M2.3 made the Discovery Essence sound like it was one of those free cables that ship with a mass market receiver.

I'm now using a Nordost Tyr tonearm cable, which I think was one of the best values going in audio. I would love to hear what an MIT phono cable would do, but have zero interest in trying the Magnum M1 again especially in light of how much more expensive it is now. And the MA-X is unfortunately way out of my price range.

I will most likely end up replacing the Tyr with a Nordost Valhalla tonearm cable. My JMW tonearm is wired with Valhalla, so it probably makes sense to also use Valhalla between my tonearm and phono stage.

 

[ack]

We are in the same boat - JMW/Valhalla/Tyr; and apparently we think alike as to a possible path forward. If it helps, I experimented with the RCA-equipped 50ic out of the XP-25 and into the preamp - since I use a balanced (but shorter) Tyr for that function, it was easy to compare the two cables by simply switching between two inputs in the preamp... So far - and while the 50ic is still theoretically breaking-in - there is absolutely no difference in my system, unlike the immediate improvement it made on the DAC side. I suspect this is because of what I have said before, namely, that these Articulation networks would probably make a difference in an environment with significant current, and there isn't much current coming out of the phono. That's not to say that _other_ MIT technologies wouldn't make a difference or improvement, or perhaps both phono and line-level interconnects need to be replaced to hear a difference; regardless, I just don't care about this 2C3D (and never really bought into it in the Spectral/MIT/Avalon world).

 

[kennyb123]

these Articulation networks would probably make a difference in an environment with significant current, and there isn't much current coming out of the phono.

My sense was that the network in the M1 phono was designed for the voltages MIT's regular interconnects might see. What I heard suggested that M1's network created just too much of an impediment for the very small signal from my cartridge to pass unharmed. I can't say if that was really the case.

I cannot tell you how stunned I was by the Essence beating the M1 phono. I think I had spent like around $1600 on the M1 phono, while the Essence set me back only around $400. No way was I expecting an improvement from that swap. My tonearm at the time was the JMW-10, which I am pretty sure was wired with wire from Discovery, so that may have had something to do with why the Essence worked out well.

You may be right that articulation networks need more current. I would have to hear the MA-X phono first though to know for sure, but that's unlikely to happen.

Speaking of the small current that flows through these phono cables, burning in the Valhalla in your JWM can bring about a very noticeable improvement. Roy Gregory suggest a method here. I rigged together something a little simpler. I purchased a cheap Shure cartridge on Amazon that came with a p-mount adapter as I wanted to affix some resistors to one end to cause current to flow through the wire You can see how I rigged this in the photo. I connected a CD player at the other end and just allowed a CD to play on repeat for a few days. This was absolutely worth the effort.

 

[ack]

So I have been experimenting with phono cables lately:

1) Nordost XLR Valhalla: Had to twist the two cables around each other to remove hum. MUCH worse in this system than my Tyr: slow, a bit recessed, uninvolving, though deeper bass

2) Shunyata XLR Zitron Python: unable to tame hum, very clean at lower volumes; may be a winner in a system with RCAs; contemplating getting a VPI RCA junction box to give it another chance

3) Nordost XLR Tyr 2: MUCH less susceptible to hum than the Valhalla. No surprise, I picked the original Tyr because it was the best shielded cable in their line; still is save for the Odin. This cable also has a MUCH lower inductance than the original and any other Nordost cable, as per their site. This really shows with massed or solo violins and other high-frequency instruments. The bass with this cable is much deeper than the original Tyr - low organ notes are rendered with aplomb. It feels like there is a lot less signal loss over its predecessor. Interestingly enough, there is no official Tyr 2 phono cable ?!?

Yet, there is still something missing, and it's really the truth of timbre and things like ultimate vocal articulation that the 50ic brings into the game on the DAC - a crispness that's illuminating with the MIT. Alas, there is no Matrix phono - don't know why. Frankly, the only cable in this collection that comes close to the MIT in that regard is the Python, but I just can't get it to play nicely with hum. I wanted to try the MIT MA-X phono, but it don't come balanced, ugh!

Still exploring... what needs to be done here is replace both cables in and out of the phono stage at the same time...

 

[kennyb123]

Had the Nordost cables you tried been toasted on a VIDAR? This is absolutely necessary to get the full measure of what their tonearm cables, in particular, can do. Getting my Tyr tonearm cable toasted made a night and day difference.

And was the Valhalla you tried the tonearm cable version or just the regular version? I assume from what you write that it was the latter, else you would have found it superior to your Tyr.

 

[ack]

They were all broken in by the dealer, I assume - they looked quite a bit used. I have never been impressed by any Valhalla wire, interconnect or speaker, and this one was no exception; and apparently, I am not the first one to consider the Tyr 2 (at least) superior to the Valhalla 1, according to the dealer.

 

[kennyb123]

If you were assessing these Nordost cables between tonearm and phono stage then I would hope that the dealer provided the models designed specifically this purpose. Nordost advises against using their regular interconnects in this application. Their dedicated tonearm cables are constructed differently to accommodate the very small voltages. That you found an increase of hum with the Valhalla you tried makes me think you weren't provided the tonearm version.

And if these were the tonearm versions, having them cooked on the VIDAR is a must. The voltage from a phono cartridge will never get these sufficiently burned in.

I wouldn't evaluate any Nordost cable provided by a dealer without first asking whether it was properly toasted. There is a reason why Nordost requires that dealers who carry their better cables have their own VIDAR. Their cables require a better toasting than normal usage can provide to achieve top performance. In those cases where you have been less than impressed with Valhalla, you should ask if the cables had been put on a VIDAR.

 

[ack]

If you were assessing these Nordost cables between tonearm and phono stage then I would hope that the dealer provided the models designed specifically this purpose. Nordost advises against using their regular interconnects in this application. Their dedicated tonearm cables are constructed differently to accommodate the very small voltages. That you found an increase of hum with the Valhalla you tried makes me think you weren't provided the tonearm version.

And if these were the tonearm versions, having them cooked on the VIDAR is a must. The voltage from a phono cartridge will never get these sufficiently burned in.

I wouldn't evaluate any Nordost cable provided by a dealer without first asking whether it was properly toasted. There is a reason why Nordost requires that dealers who carry their better cables have their own VIDAR. Their cables require a better toasting than normal usage can provide to achieve top performance. In those cases where you have been less than impressed with Valhalla, you should ask if the cables had been put on a VIDAR.

None of these Nordost are the phono version; and I am not sure it matters at this stage, as I can prove to myself that the Tyr2 as is is far superior to mine (phono construction) and the Valhalla (regular XLR) - and in fact quieter than both. Perhaps my twisting is inferior to how they would construct a phono cable, but this is an eval that still renders a good opinion. The dealer doesn't do enough analog business to carry phono-specific XLR versions of the cables that I need; and keep in mind, there is no official Tyr 2 phono cable on their site. Thanks for the VIDAR tip.

 

[kennyb123]

Glad then that this worked out for you. It sounds like the Tyr2 is worth checking out. Disappointing though that they don't make a tonearm version of this any more.

 

[ack]

I just talked to Nordost who claimed there will probably never be a Tyr2 phono version, and it has to do with the ground wire which cannot be easily converted to how they construct their phono cables. However, using the XLR interconnects the way I do (twisted around each other) is a GOOD thing, because I eliminate hum (and even if I run the two cables in parallel, hum noise is actually already extremely low, unlike the Valhalla) and I end up with more conductors and a heavier shield. What they also said is that their phono cables are actually one interconnect split into two, so half or less the conductors (see specs on their site), plus a shield over both - that explains why their phono cables are actually cheaper than their line-level counterparts. What I also observe is that the bass is much more extended with this Tyr2 configuration over my Tyr phono, and it's really evident with low organ notes - my subwoofer gets a real work-out; I just need to figure out if it's still natural and not just bloated; it feels like this is the result of using more conductors.

EDIT: All this also says you will probably have a tough time successfully trying the Tyr2 RCA-to-RCA for phono, unless you experiment with wire meshes as shield over perhaps a twisted configuration.

 

[kennyb123]

However, using the XLR interconnects the way I do (twisted around each other) is a GOOD thing, because I eliminate hum (and even if I run the two cables in parallel, hum noise is actually already extremely low, unlike the Valhalla) and I end up with more conductors and a heavier shield.

Wouldn't the heavier shield mean increased capacitance? And if so, might there be some associated trade-offs when used between tonearm and phono stage?

What they also said is that their phono cables are actually one interconnect split into two, so half or less the conductors (see specs on their site), plus a shield over both - that explains why their phono cables are actually cheaper than their line-level counterparts.

I always wondered about that. Thanks for posting this.

What I also observe is that the bass is much more extended with this Tyr2 configuration over my Tyr phono, and it's really evident with low organ notes - my subwoofer gets a real work-out; I just need to figure out if it's still natural and not just bloated; it feels like this is the result of using more conductors.

Bass improved most after my Tyr tonearm cable (TTC) was put on a toaster. I had complained to Nordost about the poor bass from this cable. I mentioned that the regular Frey used between tonearm and phono stage absolutely killed the TTC in the lower frequencies. Nordost offered to put my TTC on their toasters for a few days. When it came back it sounded like they had swapped out my cable for one that sounded far, far better. I was astonished. After toasting, it trounced the regular Frey in every way.

But having said all that, I am not surprised that the Tyr2 performs better in the low notes than the TTC, as it tends to be the case with Nordost cables that more conductors means more bass. But, if your TTC has not been toasted on a VIDAR, you may not be hearing it at its full potential. Same for the Tyr2.

You should see if your Nordost dealer will place both your TTC and the Tyr2 on his VIDAR, and then repeat your comparisons. Nordost's MMF construction helps to minimize detrimental effects that insulation can have on the conductor. But I think the converse is true too and that it also minimizes the effect that current passing through the conductor can have on breaking in the cable. I think that's why a good toasting on the VIDAR is required for their cables to perform optimally.

 

[ack]

Wouldn't the heavier shield mean increased capacitance? And if so, might there be some associated trade-offs when used between tonearm and phono stage?

You inevitably need a shield for phono cables. I am not aware of any without. The deathly silence from the Tyr2 that I "hear" is really welcome.

BTW, I eventually bought these used Tyr2 pair, and they already broken in (by being used for line-level interfaces). And as I write this, I may also now be getting a shielded version of the XLR Pythons for another eval, courtesy of Shunyata. We'll see how it goes.

 

[caliaripaolo]

Coming back to the Matrix 50, now which is completely mature, I can say which is a great cable. As you can read from other 3D (TOTALDAC D1), I use the 50's to drive directly Spectral AMP FROM Unbalanced output of D1.

 

[asindc]

So I have been experimenting with phono cables lately:

1) Nordost XLR Valhalla: Had to twist the two cables around each other to remove hum. MUCH worse in this system than my Tyr: slow, a bit recessed, uninvolving, though deeper bass

2) Shunyata XLR Zitron Python: unable to tame hum, very clean at lower volumes; may be a winner in a system with RCAs; contemplating getting a VPI RCA junction box to give it another chance

3) Nordost XLR Tyr 2: MUCH less susceptible to hum than the Valhalla. No surprise, I picked the original Tyr because it was the best shielded cable in their line; still is save for the Odin. This cable also has a MUCH lower inductance than the original and any other Nordost cable, as per their site. This really shows with massed or solo violins and other high-frequency instruments. The bass with this cable is much deeper than the original Tyr - low organ notes are rendered with aplomb. It feels like there is a lot less signal loss over its predecessor. Interestingly enough, there is no official Tyr 2 phono cable ?!?

Yet, there is still something missing, and it's really the truth of timbre and things like ultimate vocal articulation that the 50ic brings into the game on the DAC - a crispness that's illuminating with the MIT. Alas, there is no Matrix phono - don't know why. Frankly, the only cable in this collection that comes close to the MIT in that regard is the Python, but I just can't get it to play nicely with hum. I wanted to try the MIT MA-X phono, but it don't come balanced, ugh!

Still exploring... what needs to be done here is replace both cables in and out of the phono stage at the same time...

It's interesting that you had problems with hum using the Valhalla, as that phono cable has been the quietest of all the phono cables I've tried in my system so far. Even more so than the Wireworld Platinum I currently use, and I had to go through several phono cables before I found that only the Wireworld cables filtered out the RFI I was getting though my vinyl playback. Even the Tyr failed the filter out RFI in my system, though I liked the sound. In my system, they rank as such:

1) Valhalla, for sound quality and lack of noise.
2) WW Platinum.
3) Tyr, though it failed to filter noise.
4, tie) Audioquest Leopard, though it failed to filter noise; Furutech AG-12, though it failed to filter noise.

 

[ack]

Notice, NONE of the cables I mentioned are the phono versions - just balanced versions with whatever shields they come. I would expect whatever phono versions exist to have fortified shields, but none like that were available for audition.

I recently bought the MIT MA-X phono, and apparently this is the first balanced version they ever built according to MIT (it's not listed as an option on their web site). After breaking it in for a while, this cable is an eye opener for me - switching between the two inputs on the Pass XP-25 (and with preamp gain at max) you can easily tell the input with the MA-X has significantly less hiss and noise (I do load the other input with special RCAs having load resistors, and filled with insulating epoxy). This was not the case with any other cable (after dealing with whatever humming issues), where both inputs had virtually the same amount of noise. Over the years I have developed all kinds of proprietary tests for my system, and for this very delicate interface, I discovered long ago that (with preamp gain at max, again) if I grab the VPI arm with two fingers and then let go abruptly a slight metallic vibrating sound in the arm develops, the amplitude, pitch and duration of which (as rendered by downstream equipment) actually varies with the phono cable attached - this is an indication, really, of low-level distortions in the phono cable, and/or perhaps something also masked by noise. With the MA-X that vibration is so clear and lasts so much longer than any other cable I have tried, and this clarity of articulation is very evident when playing actual music. (Off topic, but these micro-vibrations is what gives armwands their sound).

What I found surprising was the fact that touching the box also added to hum, thus I had to ground that as well (in fact, I've gone further and have been fortifying it with a custom shield: copper tape around the box, a ground wire from the box to the phono stage's ground plug, and both the copper tape and ground wire attached to the box itself with a screw through a hole they provide for hanging the box from somewhere).

I can't offer you details about the sound of this cable yet because I really plugged it in last night and the position of the box in the air does affect overall noise, but a couple of tracks I played so far left me in disbelief. I have Myles here to thank for turning me on to this cable... More on this later on...