Jump to content
IGNORED

The ultimate cables can/can't - only $80,000


Recommended Posts

16 minutes ago, sdolezalek said:

I suspected that might be the case, but if so, it appears to be an extraordinarily expensive one and my sense is those here willing to use their computers as a front end can do better (at a tiny fraction of the cost) with products like REW, DIRAC, combined with Roon, HQPlayer, JRiver etc. that apply equalization but based upon measurements rather than "fine-tuning to taste."  Am I missing anything else here?

I don't think so.

Link to comment

10x is complete overkill. No recordings have anything of value above 50 kHz or so for the simple reason that microphones don't capture it. An amp bandwidth of 100 kHz provides ample margin.

 

To then start talking about cables is absurd. Any half-decent cable works well into the MHz range, at least at lengths likely to be used in a home audio system.

Link to comment
5 hours ago, esldude said:

This 10x bandwidth thing comes from a time of analog gear.  If an amplifier has a bandwidth of 0-200,000 hz that means it is -3db down at 200,000 hz and rolls off at 6 db per octave above that (usually).  It will be .1 db down at 20,000 hz and above that frequency the phase begins to change between that point and 200 khz.

I challenge anyone to discern a 1 dB drop at 20 kHz. 10x is probably a good rule of thumb for instrumentation. Audio is a different kettle of fish.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, gmgraves said:

Nobody is saying that those MIT cables don't do anything. What is being said is that since the "box" in the cable is passive, it can't do much. Even MIT says that the box controls lows, miss, and highs, so it is basically an equalizer, but passive, high-level Equalizers use huge capacitances, big inductors, and they can only effect their center frequencies at 6 dB/octave. More poles mean more insertion loss, so the box's output would be severely attenuated from it's input, which I would think would be not too desireable. No matter how you cut it', an active equalizer would be superior, and certainly a lot cheaper!

And more importantly, a boxful of components is not a cable.

Link to comment
13 minutes ago, esldude said:

There are young people who can do that.  They still have hearing to around 20 khz.  With test tones anyway.  Don't know about music.  And even then it will be a small percentage of people.

Sure, with a 20 kHz tone, you can probably hear a 1 dB drop if you can hear it at all. With music, the content at 20 kHz is already far below the level of lower frequencies, so a small change will not be easily noticed.

 

Link to comment
10 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

Every Maggie that I have owned have been, essentially, purely resistive, and usually somewhere between 4 and 6Ω. That's about as simple as one can get.

That's a direct consequence of their design. There's no coil to produce any inductance.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Ralf11 said:

the EE makes judgments outside of the scope of the actual physics and math.  This is because the lowly engineering majors took simple, cook-book course in math & physics as undergrads, instead of the full bore physics major physics and math major math that REAL MEN took....

I disagree with this assessment. My brother did a PhD in maths and my sister in physics. The maths and physics I took during my EE studies didn't differ much from theirs. We even used some of the same textbooks. Obviously, they ultimately went deeper into their respective areas, but the foundations were still the same.

Link to comment
8 minutes ago, Speed Racer said:

The web site for the product is extremely vague as to what the product actually does and does not explain how it does whatever it does. I looked. I downloaded everything from the site on the products. All quite vague with no discussion of actual implementation. There certainly was no discussion of IP.

Given the connections (one input, one output, no power source) and controls along with their descriptions, there is only so much it could be doing.

Link to comment
12 minutes ago, GUTB said:

Electrical engineers are mostly very ignorant of high end audio.

I think "impervious" is the word you are looking for, not "ignorant."

 

12 minutes ago, GUTB said:

Basic knowledge supports only basic views. I’m not saying that as if I’m better than EEs,

Yes, you are.

 

12 minutes ago, GUTB said:

or belittling them.

Yes, you are.

 

12 minutes ago, GUTB said:

In fact, they know more than I do when it comes to basic electrical circuit knowledge.

Finally something we can agree on.

 

12 minutes ago, GUTB said:

If an EE can walk into a Synergestic Research show room, walk out and then re-produce the sound based on only their knowledge of physics and electrical circuits I’ll listen very intently.

I can do that in my sleep.

 

12 minutes ago, GUTB said:

But the thing is — why can’t you even get them to go listen to the room to begin with? You don’t have to buy anything. Is it really just willful ignorance?

Do you attend flat earther conventions? Why not?

Link to comment
57 minutes ago, marce said:

What patents?

There's a list at the bottom of their web page:

4,994,686; 4,718,100; 4,954,787; 5,123,052; 5,142,252; 5,227,962; 5,260,862; 5,412,356; 5,791,919; 5,920,410; 5,920,468; 5,956,410; 6,658,119 and D 314,551; D317,292; D317,293; D462,324; D456,775; D446,778; D436,935

 

A search for patents assigned to the actual company name returns some of these and some others.

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...