More details on Spectral's cable dependencies (from the DMA-300RS bulletin)

[ack]

You could be right, but my interpretation is still the same. On the MA-X2, they claim:

the Oracle MA-X Rev. 2 interconnect via recent improvements involving two proprietary MIT® 2C3D technologies, SIT® (Stable Image Technology) and JFA® (Jitter Free Analog)

I think they are overloading the term "2C3D" here, otherwise why would they be differentiating between 2C3D and MA. At any rate, all I am referring to is the laid-back, distant perspective that the "V" "dot" series have and the Matrix don't. If I am confused, I only have MIT to blame. BTW, SIT and JFA to me simply translate to less distortion under heavy load, that's all.

 

[edorr]

I didn't see this thread and just posted a comment in you other one about cables. Glad you are looking at it, there are some differences in character between your ic's and speaker cables. matching those may serve you well. If you look on MIT's site they talk about the differences between the dot series and the MA/Matrix.

BTW....ack mentioned the 2C3D thing being only part of the dot cables, I'm going from memory but I think they use that in all of them. Almost sure I remember seeing that on the Matrix 50 box when I had them. I'm going to look at my MA-X2 box when I get home, now I am curious!

I can do a straight trade of my Oracle v1.3 against an MA-X, but the dealer also has a demo MA-X rev2. I obviously need to throw in some cash to get this higher grade cable. You think this would be worth it? I won't be able to upgrade cables elsewhere in the chain to this level, so I would be mixing and matching different grade cables. Does this still pay off or does the "weakest link" theory apply.

 

[coopersark]

I can do a straight trade of my Oracle v1.3 against an MA-X, but the dealer also has a demo MA-X rev2. I obviously need to throw in some cash to get this higher grade cable. You think this would be worth it? I won't be able to upgrade cables elsewhere in the chain to this level, so I would be mixing and matching different grade cables. Does this still pay off or does the "weakest link" theory apply.

While my main cabling is all MIT MA-X SHD (Spectral system), I do use a length of each of the MIT cables that you are considering, one on each of my two tuners. While the MA-X rev2 is slightly better overall in its resolution and audibly deeper in its bass extension than the MA-X, the MA-X is no slouch when taken on its own. Remember that not so many years ago the MA-X sat at the top of the MIT line. It is still a very musical and revealing cable. The ultimate decision is a value judgment that only you can make. Of course, if you have a good relationship with your dealer, he will let you try both in order for you to make an educated choice. Good luck!
PS I use Transparent Opus MMII in a secondary Audio Research/Magnepan system and love that cabling. As you know, system context is EVERYTHING!

 

[edorr]

The ultimate decision is a value judgment that only you can make.

I decided to err on the side of sanity for a change and got the MA-X. I am recalibrating my single remaining Transparent for DAC to Pre application, and will wait for a killer deal on another MA-X to show up, buy it and then do a shootout against Transparent. I try to keep my cabling in the four figures range instead of your six figures

PS I use Transparent Opus MMII in a secondary Audio Research/Magnepan system and love that cabling. As you know, system context is EVERYTHING!

I was ready to go back to Transparent and scoop up MadFloyds Transparent Reference XL cables listed on the forum in case I decided to not to go the Spectral route. I liked them better than MIT in a non Spectral application.

 

[PeterA]

I decided to err on the side of sanity for a change and got the MA-X. I am recalibrating my single remaining Transparent for DAC to Pre application, and will wait for a killer deal on another MA-X to show up, buy it and then do a shootout against Transparent. I try to keep my cabling in the four figures range instead of your six figures
I was ready to go back to Transparent and scoop up MadFloyds Transparent Reference XL cables listed on the forum in case I decided to not to go the Spectral route. I liked them better than MIT in a non Spectral application.

I also preferred my Transparent REF XL (and surprisingly, my Harmonic Technology Pro 9+) to the Matrix 90 Speaker cables in a non-Spectral system. They both sounded more tonally balanced to me. These preferences are very user/system dependent, IMO.

I have also just learned that the MIT cables are "phase matched" or something so it may not be a good idea to mix them with other brands.

Edorr, what do you hear when you play with the switch on the Matrix 90 speaker cable network box?

 

[edorr]

I also preferred my Transparent REF XL (and surprisingly, my Harmonic Technology Pro 9+) to the Matrix 90 Speaker cables in a non-Spectral system. They both sounded more tonally balanced to me. These preferences are very user/system dependent, IMO.

I have also just learned that the MIT cables are "phase matched" or something so it may not be a good idea to mix them with other brands.

Edorr, what do you hear when you play with the switch on the Matrix 90 speaker cable network box?

I play them at standard definition mode, which I recall I preferred with my old amps. I did not think about trying different settings with the Spectral so I may play around with it some more.

 

[coopersark]

I decided to err on the side of sanity for a change and got the MA-X. I am recalibrating my single remaining Transparent for DAC to Pre application, and will wait for a killer deal on another MA-X to show up, buy it and then do a shootout against Transparent. I try to keep my cabling in the four figures range instead of your six figures



I was ready to go back to Transparent and scoop up MadFloyds Transparent Reference XL cables listed on the forum in case I decided to not to go the Spectral route. I liked them better than MIT in a non Spectral application.

Everything is relative....I had years of musical enjoyment from Transparent Reference before I had upgraded to the Opus. As long as you are happy with the sound of your audio system that is ALL that matters. Our hobby is not a contest, nor a showing of who has more money to blow. It is about balance and assembling a musically satisfying playback system within a given budget. It is all about individual enjoyment and deriving the most possible pleasure and joy from our audio rigs. It is about having a transcendental experience listening to the artists and performances that we enjoy that that bring back memories or evoke our emotions. It is not about whose cabling costs more. You will be very happy with the MIT MA-X in your application. Enjoy!

I ditto your assessment with Transparent cable on a non Spectral audio system! I have used Transparent cabling on my former Mark Levinson Reference electronics and now my Audio Research Reference electronics, collectively since Transparent has been in business in the mid 1980's. I slowly went the upgrade route over those years. I have been nothing than 100% satisfied with their products and service!

 

[ack]

I have also just learned that the MIT cables are "phase matched" or something so it may not be a good idea to mix them with other brands.

"phase-aligned" is the quote I used from Spectral, but yes you are otherwise correct - this is basically in line with what I have been saying for years, that it looks to me MIT address inherent voltage/current phase shifts varying by frequency in the wire (caused by the cable's own capacitance and inductance characteristics) - and that is an inherent unavoidable problem with ALL cables to one degree or another; and that no one else does this.

Based on this, the effects of mixing cable brands with MIT runs the risk of exposing said phase shifts and potentially other problems upstream, making the insertion of even ONE MIT cable (with this articulation technology) in the system potentially sound weird or unbalanced, depending on the situation - this was discussed in another thread, which I think I had called "making a case for cable matching"... Because of this, if you go MIT, you probably have to go full-bore, and in fact, stick with matched interconnect/speaker cables within the MIT line. The point being that, if you mix MIT cables, those articulation points will naturally end up at different center frequencies, therefore, the results are probably going to be unpredictable there as well. Therefore, evaluating one MIT cable in one's system is essentially unpredictable, and I contend it has to be done as a set, and a matched set at that. From my perspective, all of this has proven true in my system, which forced me to use the same interconnect almost throughout, save for the MA-X phono. I really wish MIT would provide more guidelines, but... Finally, I know of cases that MIT just don't play well with some tubes, presumably because their networks adversely interact with those circuits.

 

[coopersark]

"phase-aligned" is the quote I used from Spectral, but yes you are otherwise correct - this is basically in line with what I have been saying for years, that it looks to me MIT address inherent voltage/current phase shifts varying by frequency in the wire (caused by the cable's own capacitance and inductance characteristics) - and that is an inherent unavoidable problem with ALL cables to one degree or another; and that no one else does this.

Based on this, the effects of mixing cable brands with MIT runs the risk of exposing said phase shifts and potentially other problems upstream, making the insertion of even ONE MIT cable (with this articulation technology) in the system potentially sound weird or unbalanced, depending on the situation - this was discussed in another thread, which I think I had called "making a case for cable matching"... Because of this, if you go MIT, you probably have to go full-bore, and in fact, stick with matched interconnect/speaker cables within the MIT line. The point being that, if you mix MIT cables, those articulation points will naturally end up at different center frequencies, therefore, the results are probably going to be unpredictable there as well. Therefore, evaluating one MIT cable in one's system is essentially unpredictable, and I contend it has to be done as a set, and a matched set at that. From my perspective, all of this has proven true in my system, which forced me to use the same interconnect almost throughout, save for the MA-X phono. I really wish MIT would provide more guidelines, but... Finally, I know of cases that MIT just don't play well with some tubes, presumably because their networks adversely interact with those circuits.

Ack - Very "well articulated!"! LOL!!! Seriously ANY given cable shroud be auditioned in the context of an entire loom, whether it be signal or power. Every designer/manufacturer has their own given parameters of what they sonically/electrically want to achieve and how they want to achieve it. They typically voice in the context of their own full loom. On my my Spectral rig, I use the MIT Oracle MA-X SHD throughput (Source to preamp, preamp to amps, amps to speakers), with the exception of the earlier generations of the Oracle MA-X on my tuners. In the end, it is still all MIT Oracle.

On a smaller scale system that I have assembled that is going to be installed in my office, I will be using earlier generation MIT cabling of the same vintage throughput with some older Spectral gear (DMA 180, 30SL, and 4000SDR PRO). Perhaps overkill for background music, but hey life is just too short!

 

[edorr]

"phase-alignedBased on this, the effects of mixing cable brands with MIT runs the risk of exposing said phase shifts and potentially other problems upstream, making the insertion of even ONE MIT cable (with this articulation technology) in the system potentially sound weird or unbalanced, depending on the situation - this was discussed in another thread, which I think I had called "making a case for cable matching"... Because of this, if you go MIT, you probably have to go full-bore, and in fact, stick with matched interconnect/speaker cables within the MIT line.

I'll put the theory to the empirical test and get a second MA-X at some point for shootout against Transparent for upstream DAC/Pre connection...