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

[ack]

A little more explanation why designing with certain cables in mind is in their design:

http://spectralaudio.com/bulletins/0314.pdf

Traditional solid state amplifiers have always employed output terminating networks to provide an impedance or compliance to accommodate the load of the speaker cable and crossover in order to protect the amplifier. Unfortunately, the problems associated with using conventional output networks are severe, ranging from non-linear and unpredictable loading behavior to magnetic field propagation and noise [ack: Recall the Halcro amps which were locating the output inductor far, far away from the circuit board]. All these problems degrade amplifier performance and sonics. In Spectral amplifiers the sources of these distortions are eliminated. Stabilizing networks, resistors, chokes and inductors are replaced with tailored precision woven cables which eliminate non-linearities, noise propagation and magnetic fields. Now the signal from the output devices to the cable load is pristine, isolated and uncompromised by passive component problems.

Precision Output Interface Cables

In the DMA-300 dedicated output interface cables connect the high power output devices directly to extternal speaker cables. These are massive wires inside the amplifier that have large copper conductor cross sections to handle high power. They are constructed from fine oxygen free wires in groups with a stranding configuration that cancels both magnetic and electrical fields. This configuration along with dedicated matching components at the opposite end of the speaker cable assures a seamless and precise transmission path between output devices, loudspeaker interfaces and crossover components in speakers. Its carefully tailored impedances provide a high frequency compliance that smoothly transitions or steers electrical currents between the positive and negative CMOS output fets. Responses throughout the whole system are powerful, fast and extremely quick settling.

 

[Kingsrule]

Are Spectral's cables any different from MIT's stock offerings?

 

[ack]

I don't think so

 

[Kingsrule]

If thats the case, and I do agree, then is there any reason to buy any of the more expensive MIT cables if the system wasn't designed with them?

 

[coopersark]

If thats the case, and I do agree, then is there any reason to buy any of the more expensive MIT cables if the system wasn't designed with them?

On a technical level, no you do not need to use anything better than the Spectral/MIT cables. On a performance level, if you want more of what the higher line MIT cables can do for your system then go for the better MIT cables, as they will do all that the standard Spectral cables do on a technical level and bring a higher performance to your audio system.

For example, having upgraded my MIT Oracle Max 2's interconnects to the MIT Oracle MAX SHD interconnects brought a wholesale improvement to my system in the areas of tonal density(instruments simply sound more like the real thing), low frequency extension, soundstage width and depth and precision of imaging. The cables that I replaced were no slouches! I didn't think that they could be improved. I have a full Spectral system and am using the DMA-400 monos into MIT Oracle MAX SHD loudspeaker cables, driving Magico Q5 loudspeakers. All part of a very high resolution audio system.

In terms of what you may need, that is up to your budget. For example I have a secondary Spectral audio system that is soon going to be installed in my office. There I am using only what is technically necessary and no more, as I do not need (well OK, I do not want to spend!) any more than is technically necessary. I still expect to have a beautiful sound. Not as detailed or resolving as my main rig, but beautiful, just the same.

 

[ack]

If thats the case, and I do agree, then is there any reason to buy any of the more expensive MIT cables if the system wasn't designed with them?

"designed with them" is a relative term - they were probably designed with the common voicing that the Matrix MIT line shares and the filtering they provide; beyond that, the technology in the MIT cables - which is (as discussed a number of times before) incremental w/o affecting the fundamentals, by virtue of the signal transmission problems they address - offers more clarity, resolution, lower noise et al as you move up in the line (though I have no experience with coopershark's cables), and that only means less inherent smearing.

 

[nirodha]

If thats the case, and I do agree, then is there any reason to buy any of the more expensive MIT cables if the system wasn't designed with them?

Not a tech guy but I can say one thing: the top MIT cables beat the Spectral line BIG time (air, retreival of details, slam etc); at least in my system.

 

[edorr]

Now that I have joined the Spectral fanclub, I need to start optimizing cabling. For reference, I have HD90 SC, which are fine. I only picked up one the one IC that I needed for auditioning, strictly based on price, considering I might have to sell the whole shebang if I decided to go another direction (I got a dirt cheap Oracle 1.3 balanced). So few questions:

Should I go single ended or balanced?
How does the Oracle 1.3 stack up against the MA-X? Should I try to score another Oracle 1.3 for DAC to Preamp, or should I try to sell the 1.3 and try to score 2 x MA-X?
How important is having MIT on the DAC to preamp? I still have a transparent reference that I can get calibrated for this gear. Would I get much mileage out of getting MIT end to end, or can I mix and match?

 

[scouter]

I know there are some out there that say the only way to go is MIT all the way, and that's probably right. The expense for us working folks with kids still in college and still working on retirement needs, weddings etc., is prohibitive IMHO. I have had excellent results with Snake River's Mamusha Signature as a DAC to preamp cable, and Wireworld USB from Mac to DAC, using MIT 90SC speakers cables and Spectral UL11 ICs. I'm sure MITs all the way around (of equal caliber) would give excellent results. I have tried putting some of the lower MIT cables in there (MAGNUMs- still way more $$ than Snake River and Wireworld), and the Snake River and Wireworld were much better and cheaper. YMMV

 

[edorr]

I know there are some out there that say the only way to go is MIT all the way, and that's probably right. The expense for us working folks with kids still in college and still working on retirement needs, weddings etc., is prohibitive IMHO. I have had excellent results with Snake River's Mamusha Signature as a DAC to preamp cable, and Wireworld USB from Mac to DAC, using MIT 90SC speakers cables and Spectral UL11 ICs. I'm sure MITs all the way around (of equal caliber) would give excellent results. I have tried putting some of the lower MIT cables in there (MAGNUMs- still way more $$ than Snake River and Wireworld), and the Snake River and Wireworld were much better and cheaper. YMMV

Thanks - good advice. I might just keep my Transparent Reference between DAC and preamp and get it custom calibrated. I probably would have to throw a lot of money at MIT cabling to get an equal caliber cable for that link.

Any thoughts on the Oracle 1.3 versus MA-X line? I could try to swap my Oracle (Balanced) for an MA-X (Single ended) which would be a cash flow neutral move.

 

[ack]

My experience has been that they should all be the same MIT interconnects throughout, and if you can afford it, go with the MA-X. In the 400RS manual, Spectral refers to the MIT cables as "phase-aligned" which is how I have described what they do; so it's to your best interest to go all-MIT. Regarding the "dot" series, I personally don't care about this 2C3D "technology" they include, and think they paint a fake picture, thus prefer the Matrix line (which is what your speaker cables are). Finally, personally, I would not put Transparent in the same league as the MIT Matrix line. Your preferences and priorities may be different...

 

[edorr]

My experience has been that they should all be the same MIT interconnects throughout, and if you can afford it, go with the MA-X. In the 400RS manual, Spectral refers to the MIT cables as "phase-aligned" which is how I have described what they do; so it's to your best interest to go all-MIT. Regarding the "dot" series, I personally don't care about this 2C3D "technology" they include, and think they paint a fake picture, thus prefer the Matrix line (which is what your speaker cables are). Finally, personally, I would not put Transparent in the same league as the MIT Matrix line. Your preferences and priorities may be different...

I could consider trading my Oracle 1.3 for an MA-X. Any thoughts on balanced / single ended.

In a non Spectral application I preferred the Transparent over the MIT. So unless there are synergies to be gained from putting an MIT cable between the DAC and preamp, I feel quite confident the Transparent will do a fine job.

 

[ack]

Single-ended works for me but that doesn't say much, thus you really have to experiment. Yes you will gain in synergies.

 

[scouter]

My experience has been that they should all be the same MIT interconnects throughout, and if you can afford it, go with the MA-X. In the 400RS manual, Spectral refers to the MIT cables as "phase-aligned" which is how I have described what they do; so it's to your best interest to go all-MIT. Regarding the "dot" series, I personally don't care about this 2C3D "technology" they include, and think they paint a fake picture, thus prefer the Matrix line (which is what your speaker cables are). Finally, personally, I would not put Transparent in the same league as the MIT Matrix line. Your preferences and priorities may be different...

I'm scared to try out an all MIT MA-X line in my system, as the Magicos are so revealing, I may be selling motorcycles, surfboards and other toys to acquire the MA-X ics The increase in resolution, silence and transparency in going from the Spectral MIT 770 UL11 to the MIT 90 speaker cable was remarkable- can't imagine the change in the interconnect upgrade.

 

[1rsw]

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!

 

[ack]

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!

See MA vs 2C3D http://www.mitcables.com/publications/articles/ma-vs-2c3d.html

2C3D Series

2C3D is a technology pioneered by Bruce Brisson of MIT Cables. As the name suggests, 2C3D was engineered to create a believable three dimensional soundstage from a two channel system. The 2C3D technology offers the optimal balance between detail, imaging and soundstage. 2C3D makes it easy to identify each of the individual instruments and voices within a well defined soundstage, at any volume level. The latest iteration of 2C3D technology can be found in MIT Cables’ (just released) Generation 3 series speaker cables and interconnects.

The 2C3D product line includes all series one, series two (Oracle V1.2, for example) and Generation 3 (Shotgun S1.3, for example) speaker cables and interconnects.

MA, HD, and SHD Series
MA, HD, and SHD technology takes the 2C3D technology to a different performance level.

Comparison

2C3D: Imagine yourself in the back row of an auditorium listening to your favorite piece of live music. 2C3D technology effectively picks you up and places you right in the exact sweet spot of the auditorium. You are then able to perfectly experience the directionality and dimensionality of the performance. This is the 2C3D experience.

Maximum Articulation: imagine standing up and walking directly onto the front of the stage, with the band. Along with a three dimensional soundstage that is in front of you, the soundstage now feels much closer to you because every instrument and every voice has full timbre and texture . This is the MA experience.

 

[1rsw]

So I think what it is, they just refer to what I always called the dot series as the 2C3D series......but....the MA/Matrix cables actually do include 2C3D technology, just packaged with others (SIT, JFA etc...whatever the hell that is).

 

[edorr]

So I think what it is, they just refer to what I always called the dot series as the 2C3D series......but....the MA/Matrix cables actually do include 2C3D technology, just packaged with others (SIT, JFA etc...whatever the hell that is).

Definitely a lot of marketing speak going on to position these product lines. I'll just go with the consensus advice and call it a day. No patience for comparing product lines from the same manufacturer.

 

[ack]

@1rsw: Personally, I don't think "2C3D" exists in the Matrix lines

 

[1rsw]

Ack I'd be pretty surprised if they did not. It's in the MA-X2, according to the site and manual. The Matrix are a sort of value version of the MA, from what I understand.