opinions sought on speaker cables ... MIT Vs. Nordost

[bdiament]

Hi Chris,

 

In my view, most rock is recorded so poorly, I would not use it for critical evaluations of gear. I've found that gear that does the best job with the better recordings will invariably (to my ears) do the best job with the rest.

 

The problem with most rock cymbals is they're recorded from way too close, using too many mics, each of which is about as close to honest as most politicians are (which is to say, ne'er the twain shall meet ;-}).

 

Best regards,

Barry

www.soundkeeperrecordings.com

www.barrydiamentaudio.com

 

 

[crisnee]

Barry,

 

The MG12's are barely used at all. Apparently the guy that bought them is a bit of a head case when it comes to audio. It's the third pair of these he's bought--yup (a love/hate relationship?) He returned them to the shop after only two weeks. The shop's proprietor says he does this kind of thing all the time--he's been a customer for 33 years.

 

Anyway, my point, It looks like I'll be breaking them in.

 

As to cymbals in rock. Yes, often they seem to be recorded too hot, if that's the right term for when they overload the mike.

 

-Chris

 

[bdiament]

Hi Chris,

 

In that case, you should know they're going to need 100 hours of music played through them (at something like normal listening levels) before they even begin to show their magic.

 

When I start with a new set, I'm fortunate to be able to play a wide range (both frequency and dynamic) recording on continuous repeat, 24/7 without disturbing anyone.

 

Good as they may sound out of the box, they are coarse, thin, muddy, edgy and out-of-focus compared to where they will be after the full 400 hours of burn in I've found Maggies need.

 

Once burned in, beware of blaming Maggies for what they are in fact revealing about what precedes them in the chain. They are somewhat tolerant but at the same time, they don't hedge on their honesty.

 

Perhaps this article I wrote a while back will be of use. (I hope so.)

 

Lastly, get ready to rediscover every recording in your collection.

And be prepared to do a lot of smiling.

 

Have fun!

 

Best regards,

Barry

www.soundkeeperrecordings.com

www.barrydiamentaudio.com

 

 

[crisnee]

"Of the adjectives you've guessed for Rawlings' guitar, I'd say thinner and sharper are the two I'd pick. Bluesy, probably not, since the blues masters have tended to favor classic-looking acoustics and later electrics. Twangy, nope - another player might get that sound, but Rawlings' style is pretty understated."

 

Well Jud, this is very interesting. I just listened to snippets of the album from both Amazon and Emusic. I would describe what I heard of Rawlings' guitar pretty much the way I described it. Slightly twangy at times (not at all in a bad way by the way), slightly bluesy and not at all thin and sharp, in fact surprising soft. I would also say that sometimes it sounded almost like a classical guitar, which surprised me. And then sometimes it sounded just like a banjo .

 

Now remember I only heard short segments from each song so obviously I missed major parts of his playing, but still. Isn't it interesting how differently I describe it? It may just be an example of how hard it is to convey the nature of SQ via words.

 

I'm also surprised by how big his guitar sounds. I'll have to investigate that model. I have a very old Gibson f hole model (1918).

 

I just downloaded "Down along..." and I still agree with myself.

 

Also, Gillian's guitar doesn't add much, if anything it sounds a bit boomy/boxy and dullish, on this track anyway.

 

As to using the Gibson's f holes models for blues; they were often used for slide guitar.

 

-Chris

 

[Jud]

I'm also surprised by how big his guitar sounds. I'll have to investigate that model. I have a very old Gibson f hole model (1918).

 

I just downloaded "Down along..." and I still agree with myself.

 

Also, Gillian's guitar doesn't add much, if anything it sounds a bit boomy/boxy and dullish, on this track anyway.

 

Well, I might accept "twangy." But "big"? And Welch's Gibson "dullish"? Have to tell you, that is absolutely the opposite of the way both sound on the CD rip. It's a wonderfully recorded song, very clear on vocals and both guitars. But it's exactly because Rawlings' guitar doesn't sound "big" (even though it's clear) that I started investigating what he was playing in the first place.

 

 

 

[Jud]

Not knowing that, or being able to recognize that doesn't mean I don't hear exactly what you do, it just means I don't have the knowledge available to label it as such. By the way, do you know Dylan was recorded in a small room, or is that just how you decided to label what you hear? (That sounds snarky, but that's not how I mean it.)

 

Gotcha, good point. I don't know for sure, it's just that it sounds exactly as if the voice from the Rubin recording were taken into a small room or plywood booth, and then you can also hear a little reverb added.

 

The fact that the voices are so different (due at least in part to production) that they may as well come from different singers, tells me that I am able to discern significant differences because of said production, but in the end doesn't tell me if we hear the same thing.

 

It doesn't, but that isn't really necessary. The fact is that it's the same singer, and he sounds very different on the two tracks. If you switch a cable or component or the entire system and the two vocals sound more alike, it's the component(s) getting in the way, so you know they're not as good. If the two tracks sound even more distinct from each other, then the component/cable/system is better, because it's getting out of the way and letting the distinct sounds of the two recordings come through.

 

A little 'speriment, now that you're getting the Maggies: See what that does to these comparisons.

 

[Jud]

Apparently the guy that bought them is a bit of a head case when it comes to audio. It's the third pair of these he's bought--yup (a love/hate relationship?) He returned them to the shop after only two weeks.

 

Oh, so you know my wife's old acquaintance from work, John. Same sort of thing, dealer didn't know whether to tell him to get lost because the returns were a PITA or hold his tongue due to the cash flow from all the purchases.

 

[crisnee]

"Well, I might accept "twangy." But "big"? And Welch's Gibson "dullish"? Have to tell you, that is absolutely the opposite of the way both sound on the CD rip. It's a wonderfully recorded song, very clear on vocals and both guitars. But it's exactly because Rawlings' guitar doesn't sound "big" (even though it's clear) that I started investigating what he was playing in the first place."

 

Yup, Big. I almost ended the other post with, "It sounds like we're talking about different albums."

 

I listened to it again the "Down Along..." track.

 

First, I didn't mean to imply anything about the recording. I agree, it's very good. I almost didn't mention Welch's guitar at all, and only did because we were talking about guitars. It seems to me that the dullish quality (and that may have been a bad choice of words, maybe unobtrusive would have been better) was intentional so as to keep it out of the way of the lead guitar.

 

There couldn't already be two masters of this could there? It's way too new. And it's not the download mp3 that's the difference either. I've compared quality mp3s to wav and the differences are minimal and never anything like this seems to be.

 

Perhaps because I've been playing guitars all my life I hear them differently and describe their sound differently than non players. But to me the sound is very big; I think it's amplified. A single note sounds as big as the complete strums of Welch's guitar. By the way, what may have lead to my dullish comment is that Welch puts the most emphasis on the lower strings when she plays. (Here I'm speaking only of "Down along....")

 

As to comparing with the Maggies. Yeah I was planning to, but it'll be quite some time before they're broken in. And I'm beginning to have a little bit of anxiety re the Maggies, like something went wrong. I bought these early Monday and my CC hasn't yet been charged and no UPS shipping notification. He'd said he would ship them right away. Oh well.

 

-Chris

 

 

 

[crisnee]

" dealer didn't know whether to tell him to get lost because the returns were a PITA or hold his tongue due to the cash flow from all the purchases."

 

I think the cash flow wins out big time, particularly in these hard times for brick and mortar high enders, plus it makes for good stories.

 

-Chris

 

[Jud]

It seems to me that the dullish quality (and that may have been a bad choice of words, maybe unobtrusive would have been better) was intentional so as to keep it out of the way of the lead guitar.

 

Unobtrusive is definitely closer to the way I'd describe it.

 

There couldn't already be two masters of this could there? It's way too new. And it's not the download mp3 that's the difference either. I've compared quality mp3s to wav and the differences are minimal and never anything like this seems to be.

 

Seriously doubt there are two masters. Re mp3: The main difference between the two guitars for me (and the primary reason why I wouldn't describe the sound of Rawlings' guitar as "big," though it's certainly not recessed in the recording) is that Rawlings' doesn't have nearly as much resonance/reverberation in the sound as Welch's, just as you'd expect for an acoustic with the smaller f-holes rather than the usual large round sound hole. How much difference do you hear regarding this specific characteristic in the mp3? (Just wondering whether it would be the sort of lower-level detail that lossy compression might tend to minimize.)

 

Perhaps because I've been playing guitars all my life I hear them differently and describe their sound differently than non players. But to me the sound is very big; I think it's amplified. A single note sounds as big as the complete strums of Welch's guitar. By the way, what may have lead to my dullish comment is that Welch puts the most emphasis on the lower strings when she plays. (Here I'm speaking only of "Down along....")

 

Yep, as I say, my description really centers on the lack of resonance/reverberation in Rawling's guitar sound vs. Welch's, not absolute loudness.

 

[Paul R]

Anyway, I just came upon a super deal on two week old (used) MG 12's, that I could not resist, and am waiting ever so impatiently for them to arrive.

 

I expect you will like these puppies. They are utterly fantastic in my point of view, but a few folks don't like em that much.

 

Boy, are you in for a treat!

 

-Paul

 

 

[crisnee]

Reply to myself and a new theory:

 

"And I'm beginning to have a little bit of anxiety re the Maggies, like something went wrong. I bought these early Monday and my CC hasn't yet been charged and no UPS shipping notification. He'd said he would ship them right away. Oh well."

 

While I, whined and fretted on CA, the Maggies stood outside my door ever so patiently, as they waited to be let in.

 

So obviously, whining and fretting is good; it causes one's Maggies to arrive miraculously and to wait demurely, too shy to knock.

 

@Paul, Some people don't like them? Thanks for sharing! What a downer.

 

-Chris

 

[Paul R]

Some people don't like Christmas, Thanksgiving, and Halloween. No accounting for taste.

 

-Paul

 

 

[crisnee]

"I have a very old Gibson f hole model (1918)."

 

Or not. After I wrote that I started wondering... Anyway, I do have an old Gibson, but it is not an f hole model. There were no f hole models produced during that time period. It's an arch top, but it has the normal round hole. I do have an f hole Gibson from a later period, but must have confused them in my mind.

 

Why do I even bring up this bit of arcane info. Because someone sometime is gonna see this and know that Gibson did not produce an f hole guitar in 1918. Preempting is what it's all about.

 

-Chris

 

 

[Jud]

Re mp3: The main difference between the two guitars for me (and the primary reason why I wouldn't describe the sound of Rawlings' guitar as "big," though it's certainly not recessed in the recording) is that Rawlings' doesn't have nearly as much resonance/reverberation in the sound as Welch's, just as you'd expect for an acoustic with the smaller f-holes rather than the usual large round sound hole. How much difference do you hear regarding this specific characteristic in the mp3? (Just wondering whether it would be the sort of lower-level detail that lossy compression might tend to minimize.)

 

I've now listened to "Down Along the Dixie Line" as an mp3 file, as well as my original AIFF rip from the CD. The mp3 sounds very good, and the differences between it and the AIFF are subtle - subtle, but in my opinion in this particular case, important.

 

The mp3 does tend to have a bit less reverb than the CD rip, making the two guitars, Rawlings' and Welch's, sound a little more similar on the mp3. (In general, on all the sounds, instrumental or vocal, the mp3 has a little less of a sense of air and space than the CD rip.)

 

Something else the rip does better is its handling of transients, which also helps distinguish the guitar sounds in a way that's hard to describe, but I'll try. When I hear the transient of the plucked string better, it helps with my sense of the timing of the guitar playing, separating the sound more clearly between the tone from the string that comes immediately after it's plucked, and the sustain that comes subsequently from the guitar body. Welch's guitar clearly has more of this sustain on the CD rip. On the mp3, the notes tend to appear out of "thin air" because the transients aren't as clear, so though Welch's notes do last a little longer than Rawlings' (though not as much longer as on the CD rip), it's not so apparent that the sustain is coming from the guitar body rather than the strings.

 

Although I'm describing the sonic differences in somewhat stark terms for the sake of clarity, they are not so immediately apparent in my opinion that one would reject the mp3 as bad sounding. It certainly isn't. But even the fairly subtle level of difference between it and the CD rip is important, because I don't think I would ever have had the same realization listening to the mp3 as I did hearing the AIFF: that Rawling's guitar doesn't have the same typical reverberant "big" acoustic sound as Welch's, so it must be a non-typical guitar.

 

So Chris, I think this is a great answer to the question you asked about listening for greater differences in sound in order to determine quality. A less good system or recording will tend to do things like make Rawlings' and Welch's guitars sound more similar. Better ones will show greater differences between the sounds of the two instruments, letting you know more clearly that there are two different types of acoustic guitars on that track.

 

[crisnee]

"But even the fairly subtle level of difference between it and the CD rip is important, because I don't think I would ever have had the same realization listening to the mp3 as I did hearing the AIFF: that Rawling's guitar doesn't have the same typical reverberant "big" acoustic sound as Welch's, so it must be a non-typical guitar."

 

As I said before, you must be listening in a completely different way from me. I would know how different the guitars were if I heard them on a transistor radio, and the Rawling's Epiphone still sounds as big to me as ever, especially when he's soloing; Single notes sound as big as whole strummed chords on the Gibson. I have no real clue what you're hearing. The subtle differences between mp3 and aiff have almost no bearing on what you're talking about as far as I can tell. In theory perhaps** they would, but in reality.

 

"So Chris, I think this is a great answer to the question you asked about listening for greater differences in sound in order to determine quality. A less good system or recording will tend to do things like make Rawlings' and Welch's guitars sound more similar. Better ones will show greater differences between the sounds of the two instruments, letting you know more clearly that there are two different types of acoustic guitars on that track."

 

As we're going through this listening thing, I'm finding that I'm agreeing with this less and less. I think Barry's method of listening makes a lot more sense to me. Although the differences may exist, I didn't listen for them as I was just listening to the guitars and didn't notice them, so they're obvioulsy subtle. I can't even imagine what would have to be done to the SQ to make these guitars sound similar. By the way, I listened to the tracks in a double blind fashion because I didn't want to know which version I was listening to.

 

An example but first a little back ground. I've played music since I was 7; flute and then guitar and other instruments, and have been a musician in one form or another off and on much of my life. I own 10 guitars. They range from classical to electric, from Martin to Japanese import. So because I'm a musician I may listen to music very differently from the way you do and I know guitars pretty well. I've read in several places that musicians don't make very good audiophiles, and many if not most are also not interested in audiophilia and anything better than a serviceable audio system. I'm an exception as to the last part. So maybe I listen like a musician and you like an audiophile--whatever that means, and that explains our very different takes on this stuff.

 

Back in the early eighties I made some recordings of me as a one man band on 4 track, 3 3/4 speed cassettes (the infamous or famous Teac 144 deck). I played various guitars, bass, flute, percussion and sang. I had decent equipment, but nothing near high end, and I recorded in my home. I also did quite a bit of overdubbing. I transferred the finished product to normal cassette. I lost the originals. Recently I transferred the normal cassette to digital in a not particularly highend fashion. I mention all this to give you an idea of the SQ--or lack thereof, of the product as it now is.

 

By the way, miraculously, it doesn't sound too bad in terms of SQ; performance on the other hand, a bit ragged, especially as to timing and overdubbing. Uneducated hearers don't notice a hell of a lot of problems except for the hiss at fade out. But my point, the differences in the guitars are still very clear, even though not recorded on the greatest equipment, in the most professional manner, after all the processing and transferring. At the very least 10 times the amount of detail that you're describing as lost in the mp3, is buried in the hiss of these recordings. And to boot, I've had these recordings for 30 years and heard them on all quality levels of sound systems; they sounded very much as I intended them to sound wherever. Unfortunately all the sounds that I couldn't get exactly the way I wanted also always showed up just as clearly.

 

I wrote the following before the above, when I didn't have you're post in front of me, so it's a little off to the side of the topic and a bit repetitive, but still of some interest, I think.

 

You mention differences in the amount of reverb in the mp3 vs. aiff formats. To me that difference is so low on the totem pole of differences that I wouldn't even think of paying attention to it when comparing.

 

The Epiphone is also probably played through an acoustic amp which is "tuned" to the function of a lead sound. I don't even want to go on. To me, comparing the two guitars is almost like comparing an electric to a basic big strum along dreadnought style guitar. The Epiphone sounds so different and wonderful to me (on the mp3 as well as the aiff) that I've been imagining trying to get hold of one. I'd gladly trade in some of my guitars for one. Of course I'm selling most of mine anyway so....

 

Dreadnoughts and huge guitars by the way, weren't initially built to produce the best sound, but more to be loud. Also the f-hole verses round hole is not the reason for the difference in sound, in fact the sound hole just allows the sound board to vibrate more freely and for some of the vibrations to escape; It's the total design of the guitar; shape (arched top, rounded back, flat top) the size, the tone wood, bracing, type of strings, not to mention style of play. Think of how a classical guitar sounds as compared to a little Martin, as compared to a dreadnought (all have round holes).

 

The point about a better system making differences clearer is theoretically valid I guess**, but hardly applies here because the differences in my estimation, are so huge; I can't imagine what you're hearing if you wouldn't have known to check out what the guitars were if you'd only had the mp3 available. And for the above reasons I didn't listen for the subtle differences you mentioned as they seemed superfluous as regards the obvious differences.

 

About archtop guitars, here's a description of how one should sound, from "Totally Guitar, The Definititve Guide." Bacon and Hunter; "The voice of the archtop is of course a direct result of the acoustical design and materials used. It should be balanced so that the high notes are as "fat" and clear as the mid-range, blending with a rich bass - not at all typical of it's flat-top cousin."

 

Fat and clear is a good description of the notes I hear produced by the Epiphone, as opposed to typical strummed dreadnought sound from the Gibson, which is a bit thunky or thick, boomy in the bass, and depending how picked in the highs (pick, finger picks no pick), a range from metallic to sweet and crystal clear with lovely overtones and a bit to a lot of attack and zing.

 

** I say "I guess" because when you consider that people can identify what a song is from one or two notes, when heard on pretty much any kind of audio equipment, it's clear it's the distintive "sound" of the song's initial second that's making it identifiable, not the melody or rhythm. This implies that the kind of detail you're talking about may not be necessary for.... There's a lot of detail available even in lowfi, never mind high quality mp3.

 

-Chris

 

[Paul R]

Ah Chris- I think you have shown a perfect example of why this whole subject is so difficult.

 

You have trained yourself to effortlessly detect differences other people may have to strain to hear. My son for instance, can hear - and sometimes identify - the guitar even in "music" I have trouble resolving anything out of but noise.

 

Chris Connaker can resolve and hear differences in DACs I cannot hear without spending far more time and effort at. Yet once I spend that time and effort, it is clear the differences were there all along.

 

That is what makes this so darn much fun.

 

Paul

 

 

[Jud]

As we're going through this listening thing, I'm finding that I'm agreeing with this less and less. I think Barry's method of listening makes a lot more sense to me.

 

Hah! And here I thought I was agreeing with Barry (in fact I do), so that shows just what a lousy job I've been doing of explaining myself.

 

Being a bit of a glutton for punishment, though, I'm going to talk about a couple of the things you've mentioned in your most recent comment, and see if I can manage to clarify anything at all.

 

I think yes, your experience with guitars is allowing you to immediately recognize things that penetrate to me only slowly. I'm going to make an analogy here, but before doing so, let me say this: Sure, I recognize that the two guitars sound quite different. What I've been trying to explain is what gave me, a person not terribly familiar with differences among acoustic guitars, a clue as to specifically what was causing that difference.

 

Analogy: We're driving in a car with the windows open, and you get a cell phone call from your mom. You immediately recognize it's your mom, of course, but you're having a bit of difficulty making out all the words, so we roll up the windows. At that point, I can hear enough of the voice coming from your cell that though I haven't met your mom, I can hear it's a woman and a trace of a Boston accent. We're pretending in this hypothetical that you're from New England, and knowing that fact, I conjecture that maybe the woman on the other end of the conversation is your mother.

 

OK, back to Welch and Rawlings: I've never played guitar (played French horn, but gave that up when dinosaurs still roamed the earth), and the only one I hear live on anything like a consistent basis is my stepson noodling around (usually upstairs when I'm downstairs) on a Martin dreadnought. When I think "acoustic guitar," I pretty much automatically picture a dreadnought. Now of course I easily heard that the two guitars sounded different, but why? Yes, it sounded like there was an amplifier on Rawlings' guitar, but that wasn't it, because I could hear the sound being amplified was fundamentally different than Welch's typical dreadnought guitar.

 

Now for you I'm sure it was pretty immediately, "Oh, archtop," or something along those lines. But before I did the research on this, I don't recall ever hearing an archtop before, live or on record (maybe I have, but I've never remarked it). I *think* Ovation makes a modern f-hole model, which is the only one I believe I recall seeing pictures of before Rawlings', but as I said before, if I think "acoustic guitar" I picture dreadnought. But the sound from the body (as opposed to the strings) of Rawlings' acoustic was just so different than the sound from a dreadnought - as you say, "Dreadnoughts and huge guitars by the way, weren't initially built to produce the best sound, but more to be loud," and I wasn't getting that loud, reverberant, post-string-tone dreadnought body sound - that I just figured there had to be something different about the body of Rawlings' acoustic guitar.

 

Yes, I would still surely have recognized the large difference in the sound of the two guitars had I just heard the mp3. But so clearly and immediately understanding that the difference came from the body type of the guitar, rather than an amplifier or strings or whatever else - as someone almost entirely unfamiliar with the sounds of different types of acoustic guitars, I don't think I would have caught that nearly so quickly.

 

when you consider that people can identify what a song is from one or two notes, when heard on pretty much any kind of audio equipment

 

Funny you should mention this. I'm That Guy, the one who gets the song in one or two notes. When we played Name That Tune at a friend's birthday party with probably 50-60 guests, after the first couple rounds I was given the position of retired champion so someone else could have a chance.

 

[bdiament]

I'm wondering if instead of saying to listen for differences, I should have suggested listening for similarities instead.

 

Just as we can recognize the voice of a loved one, even with a bad telephone connection, I would expect any audio system that is worth listening to will differentiate between various makes and models of guitars. And even the lowliest system should allow one to identify a song.

 

Sheesh! If the system doesn't allow quick identification of the song, I would suggest either turning it on or connecting speakers to it. ;-}

 

What I originally meant to point out is the gear that is truly transparent (to the degree that the better designs are), in allowing differences between different recordings to be easily heard, will conversely not apply a common "color" to the different signals passing through it. A somewhat long-winded way of saying, if you hear common "color" between different recordings, it may well mark a flaw with one or more links in the playback chain.

 

As I mentioned earlier in this thread, some examples that come to mind right away are a few of the more well received DAC designs in the past few years, which to my ears (each in its own way), apply a common color, a common "character", in the treble, to every recording played through them.

 

If the treble (or the bass or the soundstage representation or the way images focus, etc. etc. etc.) has commonalities across different recordings, a coloration has been identified and the gear responsible is the system bottleneck as far as this color is concerned.

 

All this, merely the flip side of how I initially phrased it (i.e., to listen for differences), perhaps making it more easily understood.

 

Again, this is way past being able to identify the type of guitar or (geez) the song itself. Those things are possible on a mobile phone in a car on the highway with the windows open. ;-} If a system at home is questionable in this regard, what I've talked about here doesn't matter.

 

Best regards,

Barry

www.soundkeeperrecordings.com

www.barrydiamentaudio.com

 

 

[Jud]

Again, this is /way/ past being able to identify the type of guitar or (geez) the song itself.

 

Or, for folks like me who are relatively unfamiliar with types of guitars (yes, we who haven't played or recorded them for years do exist :-), identifying the sources of the differences in sound between two guitars.

 

[crisnee]

"I'm wondering if instead of saying to listen for differences, I should have suggested listening for similarities instead."

 

Barry, I understood what you said the first time, but I do think this is a better way of putting it. And I agree; it seems the best way I can think of to listen for....

 

"Again, this is way past being able to identify the type of guitar or (geez) the song itself. Those things are possible on a mobile phone in a car on the highway with the windows open. ;-} If a system at home is questionable in this regard, what I've talked about here doesn't matter."

 

I'm definitely aware of that, as is Jud, although the way he explained things in his earlier post, it didn't seem like it.

 

The thing about identifying songs is more interesting than anything else, and in a way it points to something about recordings of music. First it of course tells you how much info is available (that you don't consciously recognize) in just a second of even low-fi sound. This info may also account for the fact that folks have been enjoying recorded music tremendously throughout its history.

 

When folks say they can't really get into the music unless their system is truly audiophile (you know it must have the tap your foot factor) I always wonder what I was doing when I was going ecstatic when I first heard Big Brother on a Magnavox Mono, or the Bach Mass in Bm on a Lafayette stereo, or.... And what about those folks who couldn't get enough of those long playing 78's of the Haydn trumpet concerto, or my father entranced in the Beethoven violin concerto on his Hifi mono system that I blew up by mistake one day because the plug from the speaker fit into a wall outlet and I....

 

That musicality info is there in the lowfi stuff too, just like the whole song is in the first note, as Jud too well knows according to his friends. Or not, but whatever, music throughout recorded music's history has had that "entrancing" factor, whatever the equipment.

 

-Chris

 

 

 

[Deyorew]

I own Nordost Blue Heaven's and honestly I wouldnt purchase them again. They sound great, but the ribbon aspect of the cable is a little annoying, and they seem a little more fragile than other interconnects. Also the connectors on the end are a little loose after heavy usage on my interconnects.

 

I realize these complaints may not bother you and don't really deal with the sound, but I believe they outweigh the performance aspects.

 

I am not familiar with MIT sound, but if their cables are not ribbon's, I would lean towards them for that alone...

 

[bdiament]

Hi Deyorew,

 

Have you contacted Nordost about the issues you've experienced?

(I assume the cables were terminated by Nordost and not a third party.)

 

I've used several different cables from them over the years and have never had the slightest issue.

 

Best regards,

Barry

www.soundkeeperrecordings.com

www.barrydiamentaudio.com

 

 

[barrows]

Has a lifetime warranty, if you are having any problems I would suggest contacting them.

I have owned Nordost Frey ICs and speaker cables for about 4 years with no problems whatsoever, like any high end product I do treat them with some care.

 

[wdw]

Hello All, Even those Cable Blue Meanies (you do know your names)

I have been slowly reworking my system, outfitting it with much of the great digital gear that this site has aided me in the selection of...(Thanks to you, Chris) but each change requiring some new cable.

So I've recently swapped out a pair of highly regarded MIT reference series interconnects for the lowest tiered, of the Nordost Norse series, balanced interconnects.

I was the OP for this thread seeking your advice but would now like to offer to you my opinion on a recently purchased set of Nordost cables.

They are far, in my opinion, more revealing and musically natural than anything that I've had the opportunity to hear from MIT.

(All recent photos of the progenitor, Bruce Brisson, with that quite silly Yosemite Sam moustache may help someone to wonder about the business plan)

For the Cable Blue Meanies...there is a mechanical integrity to this Nordost product... the surface skin of the cable is Teflon but mechanically protected from the signal wire and the carrying portion of the wire is silver coated (OFC copper then extruded silver wire...the dielectric is, as best can done to date, air coated by a twisted surround and then teflon coated)....all quite stable....WDW