Equipment Review: Musical Interface Technology (MIT) Magnum 1.3 Speaker Cable
The dreaded cable review! I believe one of the hardest and most challenging audio equipment reviews is for cables/cable sets. Why, you ask? It is no secret that reviewers do not flock in droves for the chance to review cables. Cables represent the interaction of three inter-related electrical parameters that have to be evaluated within the context of a particular system. These electrical parameters include inductance, capacitance, and resistance. These three interact/interplay within a system and are very hard to quantify for the general public. I can tell you what I hear in my system but that may not translate to anything meaningful for your system. Hence the problem of reviewing cables, we each hear differently and have systems and environments that make it hard to compare sound quality.
My impressions are valid within the context of my system which may not be true for yours. The interplay of the above parameters between components in your system will vary. What is not clear is by how much and whether those differences negate my general listing impressions of the sound as it would apply to your system. This is why reviewers generally play it safe with broad sweeping generalizations about the superiority of one brand over another.
There have been a flurry of audiophiles on the internet who are very vocal about their views which include discussions that the hype around today’s audiophile cables is all voodoo, snake oil, or simply put, a bunch of BS. If this view is held due to the marketing literature and hype surrounding “new technologies”, I can understand the general frustration. While sonic differences can be small, they can also be the difference between contrived and real perceived sound in my opinion. Most reviewers want people to respect our perceptions, hearing, and understanding of all things audio. If I declare something as wonderful, revelatory, or hands above the rest, I want others to draw to that conclusion and generally agree with me. Cables can put you in a position where others wonder if you have some wax build up in your ear canal. Go figure!
MIT History
Bruce Brisson began designing audio cables in the 1970’s after “hearing” the sonic problems inherent in typical audio cables of the day. In 1981, he licensed the first of many of his designs and patents to Monster Cable. I don’t know about you, but this statement leaves me rather cold and indifferent to his beginnings and early accomplishments. Monster Cable, Noel Lee, and who really cares? In 1984, he founded Music Interface Technologies (MIT) and still heads the company as we know it today. If you have been around audio for long, you will recognize that Bruce has had a strong influence on the industry and has brought forward many concepts and design criteria. In 1989, he created the low-pass filter network concept, designing the patented CVT® and Terminator™ technologies that are contained in the distinctive modules for which all MIT products are known. Many key designers of high end equipment have either directly recommended MIT products or worked with MIT to design their own product recommendations based on MIT modified products.
Electrical Parameters in Cables
In order to understand why cables can sound so different and why everyone has a favorite flavor, you need to have a basic knowledge of what makes up a wire. I’m not talking about the actual wire or weave or dielectric but rather the electrical parameters as a result of the design choices. Here is an extremely simplified description of electrical parameters of cables.
Inductance: Inductance in a speaker cable is largely determined by the area between the conductors. Many speaker cables have conductors that run side by side ("twin-lead"). These conductors are separated by a small distance, so have moderate inductance. Some cables use many small wires that are woven together. This reduces inductance greatly, but at the cost of increased capacitance.
Capacitance: Capacitance is a function of how close the conductors are to each other. So, to keep the capacitance low, the conductors must be widely separated. Note: this is just the opposite of what we need for low inductance. Woven wires are close together so they have high capacitance.
Resistance: Resistance is the tendency for the wire in a cable to oppose the flow of current. Most cables are designed to have low resistance so that they don\'t significantly reduce the damping factor of the amplifier.
The interaction of these three parameters can have a profound influence on what you ultimately hear as music in your room. There is no one right formula for designing these parameters. Depending on your equipment choices such as tubes versus solid state, electrostatic speakers, or passive pre-amps, these all have strong requirements that you should not ignore. Understanding how these electrical parameters all work together within the context of your system can save you a lot of money, wasted time, and general frustration.
Magnum 1.3 Speaker Cable
The Magnum M1.3 speaker cable has 50 poles or articulation. The cable includes enhancements over its predecessor with an upgrade to MIT’s two proprietary 2C3D technologies: Stable Image Technology (SIT) and Jitter Free Analog (JFA). Ok, that sounds like a bunch of marketing gibberish, so what is 2C3D technology? 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 (the real question is who defined optimal?). 2C3D makes it easy to identify each of the individual instruments/voices within a well defined soundstage, at any volume level or so the story goes.
And by the way, what are 50 poles of articulation? This relates to MIT’s Multipole networks. The website states “these networks are wired in parallel, passively correcting the problems that are inherent with ordinary cable designs. All cables have one ideal area where the capacitance, inductance and resistance are balanced for proper articulation. This describes a single-pole of articulation. With Multipole networks, MIT can create additional poles (within the cable) for ideal behavior over a broader range than "just cable." With the advent of new micro-componentry, MIT can now provide improved performance without increasing package size for ease of installation. Think of it as getting the best of multiple cables, “all in one package”.
The Right Technology Matters?
I hate to burst your bubble, but I really don’t care about the fancy marketing of unique technologies (or snake oil) as it relates to cables. I have some pre-conceived ideas about what works but they are not hard and fast rules. I really don’t care if a wire has a box/network or not. I don’t care about copper versus silver, or gold and palladium versus who knows what. The point is that many of the commercial high-end designs have a basis in science but are predicated on a particular set of criteria and therefore can be substantiated by their science. Bottom line, you still have to listen within the context of your system and find what approach best serves the music in your system.
Let me share a couple of examples that will highlight my ideas around this topic. I believe system synergy is about matching components to achieve an overall balance of attributes that represent as close of an approximation of live music to your ear as possible. I don’t believe any wire set is truly neutral so therefore every piece of wire is in effect a type of tone control. Different wires emphasize different aspects or characteristics that you perceive need improving in your system. These can be fairly subtle but one brand versus another might add a little more overtone and harmonic structure or offer a broader three dimensional soundstage. Hold on, you say, everyone wants that so what are you talking about?
I will make a few overstated generalizations to share my concept. If we take an electrostatic speaker with solid state electronics, we have tremendous speed and articulation but we might also have a lighter harmonic structure. In other words, the sound might be on the border line of becoming thin if we don’t choose the right combination of wires. If we decide to go with a brand that emphasizes speed of transmission and leading edge transients, then we take the system further down the road of being viewed as thin and potentially bright. If, on the other hand, we choose a wire that emphasizes harmonic structure and overtone we probably find a better balance with the final sound. It really is all about synergy and finding the right combination of attributes that work for you.
Sound Quality
I had a new set of Magnum M1.3 single wire speaker cables on loan from the manufacturer that I decided to try within the context of my system. The cables retail for $6,500 for an eight foot pair. These cables are part of the MIT on-line store product offering.
My system consists of solid state amp/preamp, a Mod Wright Sony tube CD player, and floor standing dynamic loudspeakers. The CD player helps with adding some warmth and harmonic structure to the overall sound. My current reference speaker cable is the Acoustic Zen Hologram II which is 6N zero crystal copper (8AWG). While not perfect, it seems to offer a good balance of attributes for the money invested. Compared to some of the more common product names at this price point, I found the Acoustic Zen to be closer to truth and a balance of key attributes in my system.
Let’s now provide some insight into what I heard that was both positive and negative. First, on the positive side, I found the M1.3 to offer a more convincing three dimensional soundstage than almost any other speaker cable I have auditioned. The sense of air, depth, width, and height were bordering on remarkable. I’m not talking about a hyped hi-fi type affect but one that made the music and recording venue seem more real and substantial than other wires. Instead, I’m talking about a real sense of people and instruments inhabiting space and giving that acoustic space a sense of humanity versus really good hi-fi.
Another area that had a profound impact on what I heard was how the wire handled upper octave energy, detail, and leading edge transients. The wire has a unique way of having the right balance of detail and upper octave energy without being overly analytical or having leading edge transients that were boarding on hi-fi sounding versus real live music. I found more clearly revealed inner detail such as the turning of a page of sheet music in the third or fourth row of an orchestra. Many wires convey a sound but it doesn’t sound like a page of paper being turned but more like an indistinct noise of some sort that our mind has to fill in versus hearing the sound of real movement within a real space. In spite of hearing more detail revealed within the sound space, I didn’t hear the over hyped leading edge transient or detail that often reveals itself as hi-fi versus a real sound within a given sound space. I heard more of the right information and less of the false or over hyped leading edge detail. This balance of perceived detail is fantastic and in my experience much better than average.
I found the M1.3 to be a substantial improvement from about 200-300 hertz up to the top of my tweeters range. In the bass region I had a problem! Please note I stated that “I” had a problem, not necessarily the cable. I have a dedicated stereo room that measures about 20.5\' long x 14.25\' wide and has 9\' ceilings. All walls are drywall with a suspended concrete floor. Even though it is a dedicated listening room, I have employed a fair amount of room treatments (RealTraps, Marigo, Shakti, and Golden Sound products) to tame the acoustics. Room resonance modes are a fact of life. Many of the products I have used have helped but not eliminated standing waves including areas of suck-out and areas of over exuberance. What I discovered is the M1.3 added more power in areas that didn’t help the overall sound. For example, the bass got stronger (not a good thing), didn’t get tighter (not a good thing), and seemed out of proportion to the sound of the rest of the speaker. It was kind of like the effect you would get by using a small monitor speaker on stands crossed over to a subwoofer and the match was just wrong. The subwoofer was a little too strong, a little muddy, and just not synced up with the main speaker to give the sensation of a coherent music space. As I stated in the beginning of this review, this is what I heard in the context of my room and system. Your mileage may very well vary!
Another System/A Different Perspective
I took the M1.3 cables over to a friends’ house and tried to validate my findings. He has a great room that is substantially larger in cubic volume than my room (probably six to eight times larger). If my theory was right, he should have very different standing waves and more distributed room resonance issues than my system exhibits. Would the bass improve? Would the 200-300 hertz and up performance be just as good as what I experienced? Would the overall sound be positive or would we uncover more negative aspects that I didn’t hear with my system?
Everything I heard in my system was validated from the lower midrange and up. Based on how I hear and experience music, I found the balance of sound to be exceptional. This system did not have the same bass issues that I experienced with mine. In fact, the bass sounded better on these speakers than I’ve ever heard in the past. Tight, tuneful, and well balanced with the upper bass/lower midrange. In this system the wire was boarding on amazing. The sense of a three dimensional image was substantially better than what I had heard before. One way to convey this is to use a ball as an example. A truly fleshed out three dimensional image should conjure a completely round ball from all angles. If the sound is short in depth, width, and height then the ball is oblong and out of proportion to a real round ball. I heard a sound that was truly approaching a round ball that was almost fully inflated. If it was oblong or out of proportion it was minor compared to what I often hear from cables.
One area of discussion was on the sense of leading edge transients. My friend felt his wire did a better job in this area than the MIT 1.3. I understand his point of view, but I don’t agree with his conclusion. I believe a leading edge can be too quick and too defined within the context of a stereo system. If you play the guitar and have your ear right on top of the instrument then your perception of the leading edge transient would be very different from mine as a member of the audience. We each prize and listen for different aspects of sound that define real to each one of us. I don’t play an instrument or sit within an orchestra. My perspective is that of a member of the audience. The leading edge transient is somewhat blunted by the distance, reflections, and people of the audience. To my ears, the MIT caught the right level of leading edge transient. From my perspective, I’m right, but then again I don’t play an instrument. I have a different point of view and reality around this topic. My observation doesn’t make me right or wrong but it is what I heard. No two ears hear sounds the in exactly the same manner. You need to listen for yourself and put the sound in context to your perceptions of real sound.
It should be noted that my friends’ speakers once belonged to me. I designed the speaker concept, picked the components and had some seriously smart friends help me design the crossovers, cabinets, and assemble the complete package. I know my limitations! Needless to say, I am quite familiar with this speaker including its strengths and weaknesses. I never got them to sound as good as I heard them with the M1.3 speaker cable. This experience demonstrated that the room and system context can have a huge impact on our perception of real sound.
System Synergy Thoughts
Based on my experiences with this cable, I offer some thoughts for your consideration. If we lump ribbon speakers, electrostatics, planar magnetic, ceramic drivers, diamond drivers, and some high technology metal drivers (beryllium/titanium) together, we have what could be considered very articulate and fast driver characteristics. All of these can have the tendency to be so fast that they can be perceived to be a little on the lean side compared to paper or plastic drivers. If we take paper drivers, plastic drivers, and some lower technology metal drivers (aluminum/hybrids), we have a group of speakers that can be overly rich/ripe and sometimes not perceived as very articulate/fast. While these are gross oversimplifications, they both hold some merit in the marketplace today. My perception is that the MIT M1.3 might do very well with the faster and very articulate driver topologies outlined above. They would add a sense of harmonic structure and flesh out the areas where these drivers can be perceived as lean. The M1.3 might take a paper/plastic driver topology and attempt to add additional harmonic structure and flesh the sound out in a way that takes the sound in the wrong direction (overly ripe and less articulation). In this last example, we might want to consider a speaker cable with some seriously fast propagation delay that would balance the speaker to add some much needed speed. As I’ve point out in the past, system synergy is extremely important. All wires are tone controls to some extent; you just need to know which direction you will turn the control to get the sound you crave.
Conclusion
I really liked how the M1.3 worked within the context of my system from 200-300 hertz and up. It opened a window on the soundstage that was deeper, wider, and higher than before. The sound was more fleshed out and it added some additional harmonic structure to the sound and made it feel more like tube equipment in the critical midrange. The highs were enhanced without grain or edginess and came across as more real. The bass was stronger but created problems that could not be overcome in my room. When we put the results in perspective to the value it offers and the dollars it takes to achieve this type of performance, I take some pause. In my personal view of value, I tend to equate the speaker wire as about 25 to 33% of the retail price of the speaker I purchased. Based on this formula, I would need speakers that retailed for around $25,000 to meet my personal criteria. If you have speakers in this price range I would definitely give them a listen. If your view of value is different than mine, please use your personal formula and give it a try.
I have heard many cable sets over the years, but few within the context of my system. You really can’t judge cables based on what you hear at a show or a dealer’s showroom. What counts is how they sound in your system and in your environment. MIT’s view of “real” sound may line up well with your perceptions or it may lead you to consider other alternatives. Discovery is important to achieving success in this critical area. Best of luck on your journey and if you have a chance, give the M1.3’s a try and see how you respond to their sound. I sure was impressed!
Brian Boehler
"MIT Magnum 1.3 Speaker Cable"
"by Brian Boehler"
are very vocal about their views which include discussions that the hype around today\'s audiophile cables is all voodoo, snake oil, or simply put, a bunch of BS. If this view is held due to the marketing literature and hype surrounding \'new technologies\', I can understand the general frustration. While sonic differences can be small, they can also be the difference between contrived and real perceived sound in my opinion. Most reviewers want people to respect our perceptions, hearing, and understanding of all things audio. If I declare something as wonderful, revelatory, or hands above the rest, I want others to draw to that conclusion and generally agree with me. Cables can put you in a position where others wonder if you have some wax build up in your ear canal. Go figure!
MIT History
Bruce Brisson began designing audio cables in the 1970’s after “hearing” the sonic problems inherent in typical audio cables of the day. In 1981, he licensed the first of many of his designs and patents to Monster Cable. I don’t know about you, but this statement leaves me rather cold and indifferent to his beginnings and early accomplishments. Monster Cable, Noel Lee, and who really cares? In 1984, he founded Music Interface Technologies (MIT) and still heads the company as we know it today. If you have been around audio for long, you will recognize that Bruce has had a strong influence on the industry and has brought forward many concepts and design criteria. In 1989, he created the low-pass filter network concept, designing the patented CVT® and Terminator™ technologies that are contained in the distinctive modules for which all MIT products are known. Many key designers of high end equipment have either directly recommended MIT products or worked with MIT to design their own product recommendations based on MIT modified products.
Electrical Parameters in Cables
In order to understand why cables can sound so different and why everyone has a favorite flavor, you need to have a basic knowledge of what makes up a wire. I’m not talking about the actual wire or weave or dielectric but rather the electrical parameters as a result of the design choices. Here is an extremely simplified description of electrical parameters of cables.
Inductance: Inductance in a speaker cable is largely determined by the area between the conductors. Many speaker cables have conductors that run side by side ("twin-lead"). These conductors are separated by a small distance, so have moderate inductance. Some cables use many small wires that are woven together. This reduces inductance greatly, but at the cost of increased capacitance.
Capacitance: Capacitance is a function of how close the conductors are to each other. So, to keep the capacitance low, the conductors must be widely separated. Note: this is just the opposite of what we need for low inductance. Woven wires are close together so they have high capacitance.
Resistance: Resistance is the tendency for the wire in a cable to oppose the flow of current. Most cables are designed to have low resistance so that they don\'t significantly reduce the damping factor of the amplifier.
The interaction of these three parameters can have a profound influence on what you ultimately hear as music in your room. There is no one right formula for designing these parameters. Depending on your equipment choices such as tubes versus solid state, electrostatic speakers, or passive pre-amps, these all have strong requirements that you should not ignore. Understanding how these electrical parameters all work together within the context of your system can save you a lot of money, wasted time, and general frustration.
Magnum 1.3 Speaker Cable
The Magnum M1.3 speaker cable has 50 poles or articulation. The cable includes enhancements over its predecessor with an upgrade to MIT’s two proprietary 2C3D technologies: Stable Image Technology (SIT) and Jitter Free Analog (JFA). Ok, that sounds like a bunch of marketing gibberish, so what is 2C3D technology? 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 (the real question is who defined optimal?). 2C3D makes it easy to identify each of the individual instruments/voices within a well defined soundstage, at any volume level or so the story goes.
And by the way, what are 50 poles of articulation? This relates to MIT’s Multipole networks. The website states “these networks are wired in parallel, passively correcting the problems that are inherent with ordinary cable designs. All cables have one ideal area where the capacitance, inductance and resistance are balanced for proper articulation. This describes a single-pole of articulation. With Multipole networks, MIT can create additional poles (within the cable) for ideal behavior over a broader range than "just cable." With the advent of new micro-componentry, MIT can now provide improved performance without increasing package size for ease of installation. Think of it as getting the best of multiple cables, “all in one package”.
The Right Technology Matters?
I hate to burst your bubble, but I really don’t care about the fancy marketing of unique technologies (or snake oil) as it relates to cables. I have some pre-conceived ideas about what works but they are not hard and fast rules. I really don’t care if a wire has a box/network or not. I don’t care about copper versus silver, or gold and palladium versus who knows what. The point is that many of the commercial high-end designs have a basis in science but are predicated on a particular set of criteria and therefore can be substantiated by their science. Bottom line, you still have to listen within the context of your system and find what approach best serves the music in your system.
Let me share a couple of examples that will highlight my ideas around this topic. I believe system synergy is about matching components to achieve an overall balance of attributes that represent as close of an approximation of live music to your ear as possible. I don’t believe any wire set is truly neutral so therefore every piece of wire is in effect a type of tone control. Different wires emphasize different aspects or characteristics that you perceive need improving in your system. These can be fairly subtle but one brand versus another might add a little more overtone and harmonic structure or offer a broader three dimensional soundstage. Hold on, you say, everyone wants that so what are you talking about?
I will make a few overstated generalizations to share my concept. If we take an electrostatic speaker with solid state electronics, we have tremendous speed and articulation but we might also have a lighter harmonic structure. In other words, the sound might be on the border line of becoming thin if we don’t choose the right combination of wires. If we decide to go with a brand that emphasizes speed of transmission and leading edge transients, then we take the system further down the road of being viewed as thin and potentially bright. If, on the other hand, we choose a wire that emphasizes harmonic structure and overtone we probably find a better balance with the final sound. It really is all about synergy and finding the right combination of attributes that work for you.
Sound Quality
I had a new set of Magnum M1.3 single wire speaker cables on loan from the manufacturer that I decided to try within the context of my system. The cables retail for $6,500 for an eight foot pair. These cables are part of the MIT on-line store product offering.
My system consists of solid state amp/preamp, a Mod Wright Sony tube CD player, and floor standing dynamic loudspeakers. The CD player helps with adding some warmth and harmonic structure to the overall sound. My current reference speaker cable is the Acoustic Zen Hologram II which is 6N zero crystal copper (8AWG). While not perfect, it seems to offer a good balance of attributes for the money invested. Compared to some of the more common product names at this price point, I found the Acoustic Zen to be closer to truth and a balance of key attributes in my system.
Let’s now provide some insight into what I heard that was both positive and negative. First, on the positive side, I found the M1.3 to offer a more convincing three dimensional soundstage than almost any other speaker cable I have auditioned. The sense of air, depth, width, and height were bordering on remarkable. I’m not talking about a hyped hi-fi type affect but one that made the music and recording venue seem more real and substantial than other wires. Instead, I’m talking about a real sense of people and instruments inhabiting space and giving that acoustic space a sense of humanity versus really good hi-fi.
Another area that had a profound impact on what I heard was how the wire handled upper octave energy, detail, and leading edge transients. The wire has a unique way of having the right balance of detail and upper octave energy without being overly analytical or having leading edge transients that were boarding on hi-fi sounding versus real live music. I found more clearly revealed inner detail such as the turning of a page of sheet music in the third or fourth row of an orchestra. Many wires convey a sound but it doesn’t sound like a page of paper being turned but more like an indistinct noise of some sort that our mind has to fill in versus hearing the sound of real movement within a real space. In spite of hearing more detail revealed within the sound space, I didn’t hear the over hyped leading edge transient or detail that often reveals itself as hi-fi versus a real sound within a given sound space. I heard more of the right information and less of the false or over hyped leading edge detail. This balance of perceived detail is fantastic and in my experience much better than average.
I found the M1.3 to be a substantial improvement from about 200-300 hertz up to the top of my tweeters range. In the bass region I had a problem! Please note I stated that “I” had a problem, not necessarily the cable. I have a dedicated stereo room that measures about 20.5\' long x 14.25\' wide and has 9\' ceilings. All walls are drywall with a suspended concrete floor. Even though it is a dedicated listening room, I have employed a fair amount of room treatments (RealTraps, Marigo, Shakti, and Golden Sound products) to tame the acoustics. Room resonance modes are a fact of life. Many of the products I have used have helped but not eliminated standing waves including areas of suck-out and areas of over exuberance. What I discovered is the M1.3 added more power in areas that didn’t help the overall sound. For example, the bass got stronger (not a good thing), didn’t get tighter (not a good thing), and seemed out of proportion to the sound of the rest of the speaker. It was kind of like the effect you would get by using a small monitor speaker on stands crossed over to a subwoofer and the match was just wrong. The subwoofer was a little too strong, a little muddy, and just not synced up with the main speaker to give the sensation of a coherent music space. As I stated in the beginning of this review, this is what I heard in the context of my room and system. Your mileage may very well vary!
Another System/A Different Perspective
I took the M1.3 cables over to a friends’ house and tried to validate my findings. He has a great room that is substantially larger in cubic volume than my room (probably six to eight times larger). If my theory was right, he should have very different standing waves and more distributed room resonance issues than my system exhibits. Would the bass improve? Would the 200-300 hertz and up performance be just as good as what I experienced? Would the overall sound be positive or would we uncover more negative aspects that I didn’t hear with my system?
Everything I heard in my system was validated from the lower midrange and up. Based on how I hear and experience music, I found the balance of sound to be exceptional. This system did not have the same bass issues that I experienced with mine. In fact, the bass sounded better on these speakers than I’ve ever heard in the past. Tight, tuneful, and well balanced with the upper bass/lower midrange. In this system the wire was boarding on amazing. The sense of a three dimensional image was substantially better than what I had heard before. One way to convey this is to use a ball as an example. A truly fleshed out three dimensional image should conjure a completely round ball from all angles. If the sound is short in depth, width, and height then the ball is oblong and out of proportion to a real round ball. I heard a sound that was truly approaching a round ball that was almost fully inflated. If it was oblong or out of proportion it was minor compared to what I often hear from cables.
One area of discussion was on the sense of leading edge transients. My friend felt his wire did a better job in this area than the MIT 1.3. I understand his point of view, but I don’t agree with his conclusion. I believe a leading edge can be too quick and too defined within the context of a stereo system. If you play the guitar and have your ear right on top of the instrument then your perception of the leading edge transient would be very different from mine as a member of the audience. We each prize and listen for different aspects of sound that define real to each one of us. I don’t play an instrument or sit within an orchestra. My perspective is that of a member of the audience. The leading edge transient is somewhat blunted by the distance, reflections, and people of the audience. To my ears, the MIT caught the right level of leading edge transient. From my perspective, I’m right, but then again I don’t play an instrument. I have a different point of view and reality around this topic. My observation doesn’t make me right or wrong but it is what I heard. No two ears hear sounds the in exactly the same manner. You need to listen for yourself and put the sound in context to your perceptions of real sound.
It should be noted that my friends’ speakers once belonged to me. I designed the speaker concept, picked the components and had some seriously smart friends help me design the crossovers, cabinets, and assemble the complete package. I know my limitations! Needless to say, I am quite familiar with this speaker including its strengths and weaknesses. I never got them to sound as good as I heard them with the M1.3 speaker cable. This experience demonstrated that the room and system context can have a huge impact on our perception of real sound.
System Synergy Thoughts
Based on my experiences with this cable, I offer some thoughts for your consideration. If we lump ribbon speakers, electrostatics, planar magnetic, ceramic drivers, diamond drivers, and some high technology metal drivers (beryllium/titanium) together, we have what could be considered very articulate and fast driver characteristics. All of these can have the tendency to be so fast that they can be perceived to be a little on the lean side compared to paper or plastic drivers. If we take paper drivers, plastic drivers, and some lower technology metal drivers (aluminum/hybrids), we have a group of speakers that can be overly rich/ripe and sometimes not perceived as very articulate/fast. While these are gross oversimplifications, they both hold some merit in the marketplace today. My perception is that the MIT M1.3 might do very well with the faster and very articulate driver topologies outlined above. They would add a sense of harmonic structure and flesh out the areas where these drivers can be perceived as lean. The M1.3 might take a paper/plastic driver topology and attempt to add additional harmonic structure and flesh the sound out in a way that takes the sound in the wrong direction (overly ripe and less articulation). In this last example, we might want to consider a speaker cable with some seriously fast propagation delay that would balance the speaker to add some much needed speed. As I’ve point out in the past, system synergy is extremely important. All wires are tone controls to some extent; you just need to know which direction you will turn the control to get the sound you crave.
Conclusion
I really liked how the M1.3 worked within the context of my system from 200-300 hertz and up. It opened a window on the soundstage that was deeper, wider, and higher than before. The sound was more fleshed out and it added some additional harmonic structure to the sound and made it feel more like tube equipment in the critical midrange. The highs were enhanced without grain or edginess and came across as more real. The bass was stronger but created problems that could not be overcome in my room. When we put the results in perspective to the value it offers and the dollars it takes to achieve this type of performance, I take some pause. In my personal view of value, I tend to equate the speaker wire as about 25 to 33% of the retail price of the speaker I purchased. Based on this formula, I would need speakers that retailed for around $25,000 to meet my personal criteria. If you have speakers in this price range I would definitely give them a listen. If your view of value is different than mine, please use your personal formula and give it a try.
I have heard many cable sets over the years, but few within the context of my system. You really can’t judge cables based on what you hear at a show or a dealer’s showroom. What counts is how they sound in your system and in your environment. MIT’s view of “real” sound may line up well with your perceptions or it may lead you to consider other alternatives. Discovery is important to achieving success in this critical area. Best of luck on your journey and if you have a chance, give the M1.3’s a try and see how you respond to their sound. I sure was impressed!
Brian Boehler
you need to have a basic knowledge of what makes up a wire. I\'m not talking about the actual wire or weave or dielectric but rather the electrical parameters as a result of the design choices. Here is an extremely simplified description of electrical parameters of cables.
Inductance: Inductance in a speaker cable is largely determined by the area between the conductors. Many speaker cables have conductors that run side by side ("twin-lead"). These conductors are separated by a small distance, so have moderate inductance. Some cables use many small wires that are woven together. This reduces inductance greatly, but at the cost of increased capacitance.
Capacitance: Capacitance is a function of how close the conductors are to each other. So, to keep the capacitance low, the conductors must be widely separated. Note: this is just the opposite of what we need for low inductance. Woven wires are close together so they have high capacitance.
Resistance: Resistance is the tendency for the wire in a cable to oppose the flow of current. Most cables are designed to have low resistance so that they don\'t significantly reduce the damping factor of the amplifier.
The interaction of these three parameters can have a profound influence on what you ultimately hear as music in your room. There is no one right formula for designing these parameters. Depending on your equipment choices such as tubes versus solid state, electrostatic speakers, or passive pre-amps, these all have strong requirements that you should not ignore. Understanding how these electrical parameters all work together within the context of your system can save you a lot of money, wasted time, and general frustration.
Magnum 1.3 Speaker Cable
The Magnum M1.3 speaker cable has 50 poles or articulation. The cable includes enhancements over its predecessor with an upgrade to MIT’s two proprietary 2C3D technologies: Stable Image Technology (SIT) and Jitter Free Analog (JFA). Ok, that sounds like a bunch of marketing gibberish, so what is 2C3D technology? 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 (the real question is who defined optimal?). 2C3D makes it easy to identify each of the individual instruments/voices within a well defined soundstage, at any volume level or so the story goes.
And by the way, what are 50 poles of articulation? This relates to MIT’s Multipole networks. The website states “these networks are wired in parallel, passively correcting the problems that are inherent with ordinary cable designs. All cables have one ideal area where the capacitance, inductance and resistance are balanced for proper articulation. This describes a single-pole of articulation. With Multipole networks, MIT can create additional poles (within the cable) for ideal behavior over a broader range than "just cable." With the advent of new micro-componentry, MIT can now provide improved performance without increasing package size for ease of installation. Think of it as getting the best of multiple cables, “all in one package”.
The Right Technology Matters?
I hate to burst your bubble, but I really don’t care about the fancy marketing of unique technologies (or snake oil) as it relates to cables. I have some pre-conceived ideas about what works but they are not hard and fast rules. I really don’t care if a wire has a box/network or not. I don’t care about copper versus silver, or gold and palladium versus who knows what. The point is that many of the commercial high-end designs have a basis in science but are predicated on a particular set of criteria and therefore can be substantiated by their science. Bottom line, you still have to listen within the context of your system and find what approach best serves the music in your system.
Let me share a couple of examples that will highlight my ideas around this topic. I believe system synergy is about matching components to achieve an overall balance of attributes that represent as close of an approximation of live music to your ear as possible. I don’t believe any wire set is truly neutral so therefore every piece of wire is in effect a type of tone control. Different wires emphasize different aspects or characteristics that you perceive need improving in your system. These can be fairly subtle but one brand versus another might add a little more overtone and harmonic structure or offer a broader three dimensional soundstage. Hold on, you say, everyone wants that so what are you talking about?
I will make a few overstated generalizations to share my concept. If we take an electrostatic speaker with solid state electronics, we have tremendous speed and articulation but we might also have a lighter harmonic structure. In other words, the sound might be on the border line of becoming thin if we don’t choose the right combination of wires. If we decide to go with a brand that emphasizes speed of transmission and leading edge transients, then we take the system further down the road of being viewed as thin and potentially bright. If, on the other hand, we choose a wire that emphasizes harmonic structure and overtone we probably find a better balance with the final sound. It really is all about synergy and finding the right combination of attributes that work for you.
Sound Quality
I had a new set of Magnum M1.3 single wire speaker cables on loan from the manufacturer that I decided to try within the context of my system. The cables retail for $6,500 for an eight foot pair. These cables are part of the MIT on-line store product offering.
My system consists of solid state amp/preamp, a Mod Wright Sony tube CD player, and floor standing dynamic loudspeakers. The CD player helps with adding some warmth and harmonic structure to the overall sound. My current reference speaker cable is the Acoustic Zen Hologram II which is 6N zero crystal copper (8AWG). While not perfect, it seems to offer a good balance of attributes for the money invested. Compared to some of the more common product names at this price point, I found the Acoustic Zen to be closer to truth and a balance of key attributes in my system.
Let’s now provide some insight into what I heard that was both positive and negative. First, on the positive side, I found the M1.3 to offer a more convincing three dimensional soundstage than almost any other speaker cable I have auditioned. The sense of air, depth, width, and height were bordering on remarkable. I’m not talking about a hyped hi-fi type affect but one that made the music and recording venue seem more real and substantial than other wires. Instead, I’m talking about a real sense of people and instruments inhabiting space and giving that acoustic space a sense of humanity versus really good hi-fi.
Another area that had a profound impact on what I heard was how the wire handled upper octave energy, detail, and leading edge transients. The wire has a unique way of having the right balance of detail and upper octave energy without being overly analytical or having leading edge transients that were boarding on hi-fi sounding versus real live music. I found more clearly revealed inner detail such as the turning of a page of sheet music in the third or fourth row of an orchestra. Many wires convey a sound but it doesn’t sound like a page of paper being turned but more like an indistinct noise of some sort that our mind has to fill in versus hearing the sound of real movement within a real space. In spite of hearing more detail revealed within the sound space, I didn’t hear the over hyped leading edge transient or detail that often reveals itself as hi-fi versus a real sound within a given sound space. I heard more of the right information and less of the false or over hyped leading edge detail. This balance of perceived detail is fantastic and in my experience much better than average.
I found the M1.3 to be a substantial improvement from about 200-300 hertz up to the top of my tweeters range. In the bass region I had a problem! Please note I stated that “I” had a problem, not necessarily the cable. I have a dedicated stereo room that measures about 20.5\' long x 14.25\' wide and has 9\' ceilings. All walls are drywall with a suspended concrete floor. Even though it is a dedicated listening room, I have employed a fair amount of room treatments (RealTraps, Marigo, Shakti, and Golden Sound products) to tame the acoustics. Room resonance modes are a fact of life. Many of the products I have used have helped but not eliminated standing waves including areas of suck-out and areas of over exuberance. What I discovered is the M1.3 added more power in areas that didn’t help the overall sound. For example, the bass got stronger (not a good thing), didn’t get tighter (not a good thing), and seemed out of proportion to the sound of the rest of the speaker. It was kind of like the effect you would get by using a small monitor speaker on stands crossed over to a subwoofer and the match was just wrong. The subwoofer was a little too strong, a little muddy, and just not synced up with the main speaker to give the sensation of a coherent music space. As I stated in the beginning of this review, this is what I heard in the context of my room and system. Your mileage may very well vary!
Another System/A Different Perspective
I took the M1.3 cables over to a friends’ house and tried to validate my findings. He has a great room that is substantially larger in cubic volume than my room (probably six to eight times larger). If my theory was right, he should have very different standing waves and more distributed room resonance issues than my system exhibits. Would the bass improve? Would the 200-300 hertz and up performance be just as good as what I experienced? Would the overall sound be positive or would we uncover more negative aspects that I didn’t hear with my system?
Everything I heard in my system was validated from the lower midrange and up. Based on how I hear and experience music, I found the balance of sound to be exceptional. This system did not have the same bass issues that I experienced with mine. In fact, the bass sounded better on these speakers than I’ve ever heard in the past. Tight, tuneful, and well balanced with the upper bass/lower midrange. In this system the wire was boarding on amazing. The sense of a three dimensional image was substantially better than what I had heard before. One way to convey this is to use a ball as an example. A truly fleshed out three dimensional image should conjure a completely round ball from all angles. If the sound is short in depth, width, and height then the ball is oblong and out of proportion to a real round ball. I heard a sound that was truly approaching a round ball that was almost fully inflated. If it was oblong or out of proportion it was minor compared to what I often hear from cables.
One area of discussion was on the sense of leading edge transients. My friend felt his wire did a better job in this area than the MIT 1.3. I understand his point of view, but I don’t agree with his conclusion. I believe a leading edge can be too quick and too defined within the context of a stereo system. If you play the guitar and have your ear right on top of the instrument then your perception of the leading edge transient would be very different from mine as a member of the audience. We each prize and listen for different aspects of sound that define real to each one of us. I don’t play an instrument or sit within an orchestra. My perspective is that of a member of the audience. The leading edge transient is somewhat blunted by the distance, reflections, and people of the audience. To my ears, the MIT caught the right level of leading edge transient. From my perspective, I’m right, but then again I don’t play an instrument. I have a different point of view and reality around this topic. My observation doesn’t make me right or wrong but it is what I heard. No two ears hear sounds the in exactly the same manner. You need to listen for yourself and put the sound in context to your perceptions of real sound.
It should be noted that my friends’ speakers once belonged to me. I designed the speaker concept, picked the components and had some seriously smart friends help me design the crossovers, cabinets, and assemble the complete package. I know my limitations! Needless to say, I am quite familiar with this speaker including its strengths and weaknesses. I never got them to sound as good as I heard them with the M1.3 speaker cable. This experience demonstrated that the room and system context can have a huge impact on our perception of real sound.
System Synergy Thoughts
Based on my experiences with this cable, I offer some thoughts for your consideration. If we lump ribbon speakers, electrostatics, planar magnetic, ceramic drivers, diamond drivers, and some high technology metal drivers (beryllium/titanium) together, we have what could be considered very articulate and fast driver characteristics. All of these can have the tendency to be so fast that they can be perceived to be a little on the lean side compared to paper or plastic drivers. If we take paper drivers, plastic drivers, and some lower technology metal drivers (aluminum/hybrids), we have a group of speakers that can be overly rich/ripe and sometimes not perceived as very articulate/fast. While these are gross oversimplifications, they both hold some merit in the marketplace today. My perception is that the MIT M1.3 might do very well with the faster and very articulate driver topologies outlined above. They would add a sense of harmonic structure and flesh out the areas where these drivers can be perceived as lean. The M1.3 might take a paper/plastic driver topology and attempt to add additional harmonic structure and flesh the sound out in a way that takes the sound in the wrong direction (overly ripe and less articulation). In this last example, we might want to consider a speaker cable with some seriously fast propagation delay that would balance the speaker to add some much needed speed. As I’ve point out in the past, system synergy is extremely important. All wires are tone controls to some extent; you just need to know which direction you will turn the control to get the sound you crave.
Conclusion
I really liked how the M1.3 worked within the context of my system from 200-300 hertz and up. It opened a window on the soundstage that was deeper, wider, and higher than before. The sound was more fleshed out and it added some additional harmonic structure to the sound and made it feel more like tube equipment in the critical midrange. The highs were enhanced without grain or edginess and came across as more real. The bass was stronger but created problems that could not be overcome in my room. When we put the results in perspective to the value it offers and the dollars it takes to achieve this type of performance, I take some pause. In my personal view of value, I tend to equate the speaker wire as about 25 to 33% of the retail price of the speaker I purchased. Based on this formula, I would need speakers that retailed for around $25,000 to meet my personal criteria. If you have speakers in this price range I would definitely give them a listen. If your view of value is different than mine, please use your personal formula and give it a try.
I have heard many cable sets over the years, but few within the context of my system. You really can’t judge cables based on what you hear at a show or a dealer’s showroom. What counts is how they sound in your system and in your environment. MIT’s view of “real” sound may line up well with your perceptions or it may lead you to consider other alternatives. Discovery is important to achieving success in this critical area. Best of luck on your journey and if you have a chance, give the M1.3’s a try and see how you respond to their sound. I sure was impressed!
Brian Boehler
proprietary 2C3D technologies: Stable Image Technology (SIT) and Jitter Free Analog (JFA). Ok, that sounds like a bunch of marketing gibberish, so what is 2C3D technology? 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 (the real question is who defined optimal?). 2C3D makes it easy to identify each of the individual instruments/voices within a well defined soundstage, at any volume level or so the story goes.
And by the way, what are 50 poles of articulation? This relates to MIT’s Multipole networks. The website states “these networks are wired in parallel, passively correcting the problems that are inherent with ordinary cable designs. All cables have one ideal area where the capacitance, inductance and resistance are balanced for proper articulation. This describes a single-pole of articulation. With Multipole networks, MIT can create additional poles (within the cable) for ideal behavior over a broader range than "just cable." With the advent of new micro-componentry, MIT can now provide improved performance without increasing package size for ease of installation. Think of it as getting the best of multiple cables, “all in one package”.
The Right Technology Matters?
I hate to burst your bubble, but I really don’t care about the fancy marketing of unique technologies (or snake oil) as it relates to cables. I have some pre-conceived ideas about what works but they are not hard and fast rules. I really don’t care if a wire has a box/network or not. I don’t care about copper versus silver, or gold and palladium versus who knows what. The point is that many of the commercial high-end designs have a basis in science but are predicated on a particular set of criteria and therefore can be substantiated by their science. Bottom line, you still have to listen within the context of your system and find what approach best serves the music in your system.
Let me share a couple of examples that will highlight my ideas around this topic. I believe system synergy is about matching components to achieve an overall balance of attributes that represent as close of an approximation of live music to your ear as possible. I don’t believe any wire set is truly neutral so therefore every piece of wire is in effect a type of tone control. Different wires emphasize different aspects or characteristics that you perceive need improving in your system. These can be fairly subtle but one brand versus another might add a little more overtone and harmonic structure or offer a broader three dimensional soundstage. Hold on, you say, everyone wants that so what are you talking about?
I will make a few overstated generalizations to share my concept. If we take an electrostatic speaker with solid state electronics, we have tremendous speed and articulation but we might also have a lighter harmonic structure. In other words, the sound might be on the border line of becoming thin if we don’t choose the right combination of wires. If we decide to go with a brand that emphasizes speed of transmission and leading edge transients, then we take the system further down the road of being viewed as thin and potentially bright. If, on the other hand, we choose a wire that emphasizes harmonic structure and overtone we probably find a better balance with the final sound. It really is all about synergy and finding the right combination of attributes that work for you.
Sound Quality
I had a new set of Magnum M1.3 single wire speaker cables on loan from the manufacturer that I decided to try within the context of my system. The cables retail for $6,500 for an eight foot pair. These cables are part of the MIT on-line store product offering.
My system consists of solid state amp/preamp, a Mod Wright Sony tube CD player, and floor standing dynamic loudspeakers. The CD player helps with adding some warmth and harmonic structure to the overall sound. My current reference speaker cable is the Acoustic Zen Hologram II which is 6N zero crystal copper (8AWG). While not perfect, it seems to offer a good balance of attributes for the money invested. Compared to some of the more common product names at this price point, I found the Acoustic Zen to be closer to truth and a balance of key attributes in my system.
Let’s now provide some insight into what I heard that was both positive and negative. First, on the positive side, I found the M1.3 to offer a more convincing three dimensional soundstage than almost any other speaker cable I have auditioned. The sense of air, depth, width, and height were bordering on remarkable. I’m not talking about a hyped hi-fi type affect but one that made the music and recording venue seem more real and substantial than other wires. Instead, I’m talking about a real sense of people and instruments inhabiting space and giving that acoustic space a sense of humanity versus really good hi-fi.
Another area that had a profound impact on what I heard was how the wire handled upper octave energy, detail, and leading edge transients. The wire has a unique way of having the right balance of detail and upper octave energy without being overly analytical or having leading edge transients that were boarding on hi-fi sounding versus real live music. I found more clearly revealed inner detail such as the turning of a page of sheet music in the third or fourth row of an orchestra. Many wires convey a sound but it doesn’t sound like a page of paper being turned but more like an indistinct noise of some sort that our mind has to fill in versus hearing the sound of real movement within a real space. In spite of hearing more detail revealed within the sound space, I didn’t hear the over hyped leading edge transient or detail that often reveals itself as hi-fi versus a real sound within a given sound space. I heard more of the right information and less of the false or over hyped leading edge detail. This balance of perceived detail is fantastic and in my experience much better than average.
I found the M1.3 to be a substantial improvement from about 200-300 hertz up to the top of my tweeters range. In the bass region I had a problem! Please note I stated that “I” had a problem, not necessarily the cable. I have a dedicated stereo room that measures about 20.5\' long x 14.25\' wide and has 9\' ceilings. All walls are drywall with a suspended concrete floor. Even though it is a dedicated listening room, I have employed a fair amount of room treatments (RealTraps, Marigo, Shakti, and Golden Sound products) to tame the acoustics. Room resonance modes are a fact of life. Many of the products I have used have helped but not eliminated standing waves including areas of suck-out and areas of over exuberance. What I discovered is the M1.3 added more power in areas that didn’t help the overall sound. For example, the bass got stronger (not a good thing), didn’t get tighter (not a good thing), and seemed out of proportion to the sound of the rest of the speaker. It was kind of like the effect you would get by using a small monitor speaker on stands crossed over to a subwoofer and the match was just wrong. The subwoofer was a little too strong, a little muddy, and just not synced up with the main speaker to give the sensation of a coherent music space. As I stated in the beginning of this review, this is what I heard in the context of my room and system. Your mileage may very well vary!
Another System/A Different Perspective
I took the M1.3 cables over to a friends’ house and tried to validate my findings. He has a great room that is substantially larger in cubic volume than my room (probably six to eight times larger). If my theory was right, he should have very different standing waves and more distributed room resonance issues than my system exhibits. Would the bass improve? Would the 200-300 hertz and up performance be just as good as what I experienced? Would the overall sound be positive or would we uncover more negative aspects that I didn’t hear with my system?
Everything I heard in my system was validated from the lower midrange and up. Based on how I hear and experience music, I found the balance of sound to be exceptional. This system did not have the same bass issues that I experienced with mine. In fact, the bass sounded better on these speakers than I’ve ever heard in the past. Tight, tuneful, and well balanced with the upper bass/lower midrange. In this system the wire was boarding on amazing. The sense of a three dimensional image was substantially better than what I had heard before. One way to convey this is to use a ball as an example. A truly fleshed out three dimensional image should conjure a completely round ball from all angles. If the sound is short in depth, width, and height then the ball is oblong and out of proportion to a real round ball. I heard a sound that was truly approaching a round ball that was almost fully inflated. If it was oblong or out of proportion it was minor compared to what I often hear from cables.
One area of discussion was on the sense of leading edge transients. My friend felt his wire did a better job in this area than the MIT 1.3. I understand his point of view, but I don’t agree with his conclusion. I believe a leading edge can be too quick and too defined within the context of a stereo system. If you play the guitar and have your ear right on top of the instrument then your perception of the leading edge transient would be very different from mine as a member of the audience. We each prize and listen for different aspects of sound that define real to each one of us. I don’t play an instrument or sit within an orchestra. My perspective is that of a member of the audience. The leading edge transient is somewhat blunted by the distance, reflections, and people of the audience. To my ears, the MIT caught the right level of leading edge transient. From my perspective, I’m right, but then again I don’t play an instrument. I have a different point of view and reality around this topic. My observation doesn’t make me right or wrong but it is what I heard. No two ears hear sounds the in exactly the same manner. You need to listen for yourself and put the sound in context to your perceptions of real sound.
It should be noted that my friends’ speakers once belonged to me. I designed the speaker concept, picked the components and had some seriously smart friends help me design the crossovers, cabinets, and assemble the complete package. I know my limitations! Needless to say, I am quite familiar with this speaker including its strengths and weaknesses. I never got them to sound as good as I heard them with the M1.3 speaker cable. This experience demonstrated that the room and system context can have a huge impact on our perception of real sound.
System Synergy Thoughts
Based on my experiences with this cable, I offer some thoughts for your consideration. If we lump ribbon speakers, electrostatics, planar magnetic, ceramic drivers, diamond drivers, and some high technology metal drivers (beryllium/titanium) together, we have what could be considered very articulate and fast driver characteristics. All of these can have the tendency to be so fast that they can be perceived to be a little on the lean side compared to paper or plastic drivers. If we take paper drivers, plastic drivers, and some lower technology metal drivers (aluminum/hybrids), we have a group of speakers that can be overly rich/ripe and sometimes not perceived as very articulate/fast. While these are gross oversimplifications, they both hold some merit in the marketplace today. My perception is that the MIT M1.3 might do very well with the faster and very articulate driver topologies outlined above. They would add a sense of harmonic structure and flesh out the areas where these drivers can be perceived as lean. The M1.3 might take a paper/plastic driver topology and attempt to add additional harmonic structure and flesh the sound out in a way that takes the sound in the wrong direction (overly ripe and less articulation). In this last example, we might want to consider a speaker cable with some seriously fast propagation delay that would balance the speaker to add some much needed speed. As I’ve point out in the past, system synergy is extremely important. All wires are tone controls to some extent; you just need to know which direction you will turn the control to get the sound you crave.
Conclusion
I really liked how the M1.3 worked within the context of my system from 200-300 hertz and up. It opened a window on the soundstage that was deeper, wider, and higher than before. The sound was more fleshed out and it added some additional harmonic structure to the sound and made it feel more like tube equipment in the critical midrange. The highs were enhanced without grain or edginess and came across as more real. The bass was stronger but created problems that could not be overcome in my room. When we put the results in perspective to the value it offers and the dollars it takes to achieve this type of performance, I take some pause. In my personal view of value, I tend to equate the speaker wire as about 25 to 33% of the retail price of the speaker I purchased. Based on this formula, I would need speakers that retailed for around $25,000 to meet my personal criteria. If you have speakers in this price range I would definitely give them a listen. If your view of value is different than mine, please use your personal formula and give it a try.
I have heard many cable sets over the years, but few within the context of my system. You really can’t judge cables based on what you hear at a show or a dealer’s showroom. What counts is how they sound in your system and in your environment. MIT’s view of “real” sound may line up well with your perceptions or it may lead you to consider other alternatives. Discovery is important to achieving success in this critical area. Best of luck on your journey and if you have a chance, give the M1.3’s a try and see how you respond to their sound. I sure was impressed!
Brian Boehler
Let me share a couple of examples that will highlight my ideas around this topic. I believe system synergy is about matching components to achieve an overall balance of attributes that represent as close of an approximation of live music to your ear as possible. I don't believe any wire set is truly neutral so therefore every piece of wire is in effect a type of tone control. Different wires emphasize different aspects or characteristics that you perceive need improving in your system. These can be fairly subtle but one brand versus another might add a little more overtone and harmonic structure or offer a broader three dimensional soundstage. Hold on, you say, everyone wants that so what are you talking about?
I will make a few overstated generalizations to share my concept. If we take an electrostatic speaker with solid state electronics, we have tremendous speed and articulation but we might also have a lighter harmonic structure. In other words, the sound might be on the border line of becoming thin if we don’t choose the right combination of wires. If we decide to go with a brand that emphasizes speed of transmission and leading edge transients, then we take the system further down the road of being viewed as thin and potentially bright. If, on the other hand, we choose a wire that emphasizes harmonic structure and overtone we probably find a better balance with the final sound. It really is all about synergy and finding the right combination of attributes that work for you.
Sound Quality
I had a new set of Magnum M1.3 single wire speaker cables on loan from the manufacturer that I decided to try within the context of my system. The cables retail for $6,500 for an eight foot pair. These cables are part of the MIT on-line store product offering.
My system consists of solid state amp/preamp, a Mod Wright Sony tube CD player, and floor standing dynamic loudspeakers. The CD player helps with adding some warmth and harmonic structure to the overall sound. My current reference speaker cable is the Acoustic Zen Hologram II which is 6N zero crystal copper (8AWG). While not perfect, it seems to offer a good balance of attributes for the money invested. Compared to some of the more common product names at this price point, I found the Acoustic Zen to be closer to truth and a balance of key attributes in my system.
Let’s now provide some insight into what I heard that was both positive and negative. First, on the positive side, I found the M1.3 to offer a more convincing three dimensional soundstage than almost any other speaker cable I have auditioned. The sense of air, depth, width, and height were bordering on remarkable. I’m not talking about a hyped hi-fi type affect but one that made the music and recording venue seem more real and substantial than other wires. Instead, I’m talking about a real sense of people and instruments inhabiting space and giving that acoustic space a sense of humanity versus really good hi-fi.
Another area that had a profound impact on what I heard was how the wire handled upper octave energy, detail, and leading edge transients. The wire has a unique way of having the right balance of detail and upper octave energy without being overly analytical or having leading edge transients that were boarding on hi-fi sounding versus real live music. I found more clearly revealed inner detail such as the turning of a page of sheet music in the third or fourth row of an orchestra. Many wires convey a sound but it doesn’t sound like a page of paper being turned but more like an indistinct noise of some sort that our mind has to fill in versus hearing the sound of real movement within a real space. In spite of hearing more detail revealed within the sound space, I didn’t hear the over hyped leading edge transient or detail that often reveals itself as hi-fi versus a real sound within a given sound space. I heard more of the right information and less of the false or over hyped leading edge detail. This balance of perceived detail is fantastic and in my experience much better than average.
I found the M1.3 to be a substantial improvement from about 200-300 hertz up to the top of my tweeters range. In the bass region I had a problem! Please note I stated that “I” had a problem, not necessarily the cable. I have a dedicated stereo room that measures about 20.5' long x 14.25' wide and has 9' ceilings. All walls are drywall with a suspended concrete floor. Even though it is a dedicated listening room, I have employed a fair amount of room treatments (RealTraps, Marigo, Shakti, and Golden Sound products) to tame the acoustics. Room resonance modes are a fact of life. Many of the products I have used have helped but not eliminated standing waves including areas of suck-out and areas of over exuberance. What I discovered is the M1.3 added more power in areas that didn’t help the overall sound. For example, the bass got stronger (not a good thing), didn’t get tighter (not a good thing), and seemed out of proportion to the sound of the rest of the speaker. It was kind of like the effect you would get by using a small monitor speaker on stands crossed over to a subwoofer and the match was just wrong. The subwoofer was a little too strong, a little muddy, and just not synced up with the main speaker to give the sensation of a coherent music space. As I stated in the beginning of this review, this is what I heard in the context of my room and system. Your mileage may very well vary!
Another System/A Different Perspective
I took the M1.3 cables over to a friends’ house and tried to validate my findings. He has a great room that is substantially larger in cubic volume than my room (probably six to eight times larger). If my theory was right, he should have very different standing waves and more distributed room resonance issues than my system exhibits. Would the bass improve? Would the 200-300 hertz and up performance be just as good as what I experienced? Would the overall sound be positive or would we uncover more negative aspects that I didn’t hear with my system?
Everything I heard in my system was validated from the lower midrange and up. Based on how I hear and experience music, I found the balance of sound to be exceptional. This system did not have the same bass issues that I experienced with mine. In fact, the bass sounded better on these speakers than I’ve ever heard in the past. Tight, tuneful, and well balanced with the upper bass/lower midrange. In this system the wire was boarding on amazing. The sense of a three dimensional image was substantially better than what I had heard before. One way to convey this is to use a ball as an example. A truly fleshed out three dimensional image should conjure a completely round ball from all angles. If the sound is short in depth, width, and height then the ball is oblong and out of proportion to a real round ball. I heard a sound that was truly approaching a round ball that was almost fully inflated. If it was oblong or out of proportion it was minor compared to what I often hear from cables.
One area of discussion was on the sense of leading edge transients. My friend felt his wire did a better job in this area than the MIT 1.3. I understand his point of view, but I don’t agree with his conclusion. I believe a leading edge can be too quick and too defined within the context of a stereo system. If you play the guitar and have your ear right on top of the instrument then your perception of the leading edge transient would be very different from mine as a member of the audience. We each prize and listen for different aspects of sound that define real to each one of us. I don’t play an instrument or sit within an orchestra. My perspective is that of a member of the audience. The leading edge transient is somewhat blunted by the distance, reflections, and people of the audience. To my ears, the MIT caught the right level of leading edge transient. From my perspective, I’m right, but then again I don’t play an instrument. I have a different point of view and reality around this topic. My observation doesn’t make me right or wrong but it is what I heard. No two ears hear sounds the in exactly the same manner. You need to listen for yourself and put the sound in context to your perceptions of real sound.
It should be noted that my friends’ speakers once belonged to me. I designed the speaker concept, picked the components and had some seriously smart friends help me design the crossovers, cabinets, and assemble the complete package. I know my limitations! Needless to say, I am quite familiar with this speaker including its strengths and weaknesses. I never got them to sound as good as I heard them with the M1.3 speaker cable. This experience demonstrated that the room and system context can have a huge impact on our perception of real sound.
System Synergy Thoughts
Based on my experiences with this cable, I offer some thoughts for your consideration. If we lump ribbon speakers, electrostatics, planar magnetic, ceramic drivers, diamond drivers, and some high technology metal drivers (beryllium/titanium) together, we have what could be considered very articulate and fast driver characteristics. All of these can have the tendency to be so fast that they can be perceived to be a little on the lean side compared to paper or plastic drivers. If we take paper drivers, plastic drivers, and some lower technology metal drivers (aluminum/hybrids), we have a group of speakers that can be overly rich/ripe and sometimes not perceived as very articulate/fast. While these are gross oversimplifications, they both hold some merit in the marketplace today. My perception is that the MIT M1.3 might do very well with the faster and very articulate driver topologies outlined above. They would add a sense of harmonic structure and flesh out the areas where these drivers can be perceived as lean. The M1.3 might take a paper/plastic driver topology and attempt to add additional harmonic structure and flesh the sound out in a way that takes the sound in the wrong direction (overly ripe and less articulation). In this last example, we might want to consider a speaker cable with some seriously fast propagation delay that would balance the speaker to add some much needed speed. As I’ve point out in the past, system synergy is extremely important. All wires are tone controls to some extent; you just need to know which direction you will turn the control to get the sound you crave.
Conclusion
I really liked how the M1.3 worked within the context of my system from 200-300 hertz and up. It opened a window on the soundstage that was deeper, wider, and higher than before. The sound was more fleshed out and it added some additional harmonic structure to the sound and made it feel more like tube equipment in the critical midrange. The highs were enhanced without grain or edginess and came across as more real. The bass was stronger but created problems that could not be overcome in my room. When we put the results in perspective to the value it offers and the dollars it takes to achieve this type of performance, I take some pause. In my personal view of value, I tend to equate the speaker wire as about 25 to 33% of the retail price of the speaker I purchased. Based on this formula, I would need speakers that retailed for around $25,000 to meet my personal criteria. If you have speakers in this price range I would definitely give them a listen. If your view of value is different than mine, please use your personal formula and give it a try.
I have heard many cable sets over the years, but few within the context of my system. You really can’t judge cables based on what you hear at a show or a dealer’s showroom. What counts is how they sound in your system and in your environment. MIT’s view of “real” sound may line up well with your perceptions or it may lead you to consider other alternatives. Discovery is important to achieving success in this critical area. Best of luck on your journey and if you have a chance, give the M1.3’s a try and see how you respond to their sound. I sure was impressed!
Brian Boehler
structure to the overall sound. My current reference speaker cable is the Acoustic Zen Hologram II which is 6N zero crystal copper (8AWG). While not perfect, it seems to offer a good balance of attributes for the money invested. Compared to some of the more common product names at this price point, I found the Acoustic Zen to be closer to truth and a balance of key attributes in my system.
Let’s now provide some insight into what I heard that was both positive and negative. First, on the positive side, I found the M1.3 to offer a more convincing three dimensional soundstage than almost any other speaker cable I have auditioned. The sense of air, depth, width, and height were bordering on remarkable. I’m not talking about a hyped hi-fi type affect but one that made the music and recording venue seem more real and substantial than other wires. Instead, I’m talking about a real sense of people and instruments inhabiting space and giving that acoustic space a sense of humanity versus really good hi-fi.
Another area that had a profound impact on what I heard was how the wire handled upper octave energy, detail, and leading edge transients. The wire has a unique way of having the right balance of detail and upper octave energy without being overly analytical or having leading edge transients that were boarding on hi-fi sounding versus real live music. I found more clearly revealed inner detail such as the turning of a page of sheet music in the third or fourth row of an orchestra. Many wires convey a sound but it doesn’t sound like a page of paper being turned but more like an indistinct noise of some sort that our mind has to fill in versus hearing the sound of real movement within a real space. In spite of hearing more detail revealed within the sound space, I didn’t hear the over hyped leading edge transient or detail that often reveals itself as hi-fi versus a real sound within a given sound space. I heard more of the right information and less of the false or over hyped leading edge detail. This balance of perceived detail is fantastic and in my experience much better than average.
I found the M1.3 to be a substantial improvement from about 200-300 hertz up to the top of my tweeters range. In the bass region I had a problem! Please note I stated that “I” had a problem, not necessarily the cable. I have a dedicated stereo room that measures about 20.5' long x 14.25' wide and has 9' ceilings. All walls are drywall with a suspended concrete floor. Even though it is a dedicated listening room, I have employed a fair amount of room treatments (RealTraps, Marigo, Shakti, and Golden Sound products) to tame the acoustics. Room resonance modes are a fact of life. Many of the products I have used have helped but not eliminated standing waves including areas of suck-out and areas of over exuberance. What I discovered is the M1.3 added more power in areas that didn’t help the overall sound. For example, the bass got stronger (not a good thing), didn’t get tighter (not a good thing), and seemed out of proportion to the sound of the rest of the speaker. It was kind of like the effect you would get by using a small monitor speaker on stands crossed over to a subwoofer and the match was just wrong. The subwoofer was a little too strong, a little muddy, and just not synced up with the main speaker to give the sensation of a coherent music space. As I stated in the beginning of this review, this is what I heard in the context of my room and system. Your mileage may very well vary!
Another System/A Different Perspective
I took the M1.3 cables over to a friends’ house and tried to validate my findings. He has a great room that is substantially larger in cubic volume than my room (probably six to eight times larger). If my theory was right, he should have very different standing waves and more distributed room resonance issues than my system exhibits. Would the bass improve? Would the 200-300 hertz and up performance be just as good as what I experienced? Would the overall sound be positive or would we uncover more negative aspects that I didn’t hear with my system?
Everything I heard in my system was validated from the lower midrange and up. Based on how I hear and experience music, I found the balance of sound to be exceptional. This system did not have the same bass issues that I experienced with mine. In fact, the bass sounded better on these speakers than I’ve ever heard in the past. Tight, tuneful, and well balanced with the upper bass/lower midrange. In this system the wire was boarding on amazing. The sense of a three dimensional image was substantially better than what I had heard before. One way to convey this is to use a ball as an example. A truly fleshed out three dimensional image should conjure a completely round ball from all angles. If the sound is short in depth, width, and height then the ball is oblong and out of proportion to a real round ball. I heard a sound that was truly approaching a round ball that was almost fully inflated. If it was oblong or out of proportion it was minor compared to what I often hear from cables.
One area of discussion was on the sense of leading edge transients. My friend felt his wire did a better job in this area than the MIT 1.3. I understand his point of view, but I don’t agree with his conclusion. I believe a leading edge can be too quick and too defined within the context of a stereo system. If you play the guitar and have your ear right on top of the instrument then your perception of the leading edge transient would be very different from mine as a member of the audience. We each prize and listen for different aspects of sound that define real to each one of us. I don’t play an instrument or sit within an orchestra. My perspective is that of a member of the audience. The leading edge transient is somewhat blunted by the distance, reflections, and people of the audience. To my ears, the MIT caught the right level of leading edge transient. From my perspective, I’m right, but then again I don’t play an instrument. I have a different point of view and reality around this topic. My observation doesn’t make me right or wrong but it is what I heard. No two ears hear sounds the in exactly the same manner. You need to listen for yourself and put the sound in context to your perceptions of real sound.
It should be noted that my friends’ speakers once belonged to me. I designed the speaker concept, picked the components and had some seriously smart friends help me design the crossovers, cabinets, and assemble the complete package. I know my limitations! Needless to say, I am quite familiar with this speaker including its strengths and weaknesses. I never got them to sound as good as I heard them with the M1.3 speaker cable. This experience demonstrated that the room and system context can have a huge impact on our perception of real sound.
System Synergy Thoughts
Based on my experiences with this cable, I offer some thoughts for your consideration. If we lump ribbon speakers, electrostatics, planar magnetic, ceramic drivers, diamond drivers, and some high technology metal drivers (beryllium/titanium) together, we have what could be considered very articulate and fast driver characteristics. All of these can have the tendency to be so fast that they can be perceived to be a little on the lean side compared to paper or plastic drivers. If we take paper drivers, plastic drivers, and some lower technology metal drivers (aluminum/hybrids), we have a group of speakers that can be overly rich/ripe and sometimes not perceived as very articulate/fast. While these are gross oversimplifications, they both hold some merit in the marketplace today. My perception is that the MIT M1.3 might do very well with the faster and very articulate driver topologies outlined above. They would add a sense of harmonic structure and flesh out the areas where these drivers can be perceived as lean. The M1.3 might take a paper/plastic driver topology and attempt to add additional harmonic structure and flesh the sound out in a way that takes the sound in the wrong direction (overly ripe and less articulation). In this last example, we might want to consider a speaker cable with some seriously fast propagation delay that would balance the speaker to add some much needed speed. As I’ve point out in the past, system synergy is extremely important. All wires are tone controls to some extent; you just need to know which direction you will turn the control to get the sound you crave.
Conclusion
I really liked how the M1.3 worked within the context of my system from 200-300 hertz and up. It opened a window on the soundstage that was deeper, wider, and higher than before. The sound was more fleshed out and it added some additional harmonic structure to the sound and made it feel more like tube equipment in the critical midrange. The highs were enhanced without grain or edginess and came across as more real. The bass was stronger but created problems that could not be overcome in my room. When we put the results in perspective to the value it offers and the dollars it takes to achieve this type of performance, I take some pause. In my personal view of value, I tend to equate the speaker wire as about 25 to 33% of the retail price of the speaker I purchased. Based on this formula, I would need speakers that retailed for around $25,000 to meet my personal criteria. If you have speakers in this price range I would definitely give them a listen. If your view of value is different than mine, please use your personal formula and give it a try.
I have heard many cable sets over the years, but few within the context of my system. You really can’t judge cables based on what you hear at a show or a dealer’s showroom. What counts is how they sound in your system and in your environment. MIT’s view of “real” sound may line up well with your perceptions or it may lead you to consider other alternatives. Discovery is important to achieving success in this critical area. Best of luck on your journey and if you have a chance, give the M1.3’s a try and see how you respond to their sound. I sure was impressed!
Brian Boehler
I found the M1.3 to be a substantial improvement from about 200-300 hertz up to the top of my tweeters range. In the bass region I had a problem! Please note I stated that 'I' had a problem, not necessarily the cable. I have a dedicated stereo room that measures about 20.5' long x 14.25' wide and has 9' ceilings. All walls are drywall with a suspended concrete floor. Even though it is a dedicated listening room, I have employed a fair amount of room treatments (RealTraps, Marigo, Shakti, and Golden Sound products) to tame the acoustics. Room resonance modes are a fact of life. Many of the products I have used have helped but not eliminated standing waves including areas of suck-out and areas of over exuberance. What I discovered is the M1.3 added more power in areas that didn't help the overall sound. For example, the bass got stronger (not a good thing), didn't get tighter (not a good thing), and seemed out of proportion to the sound of the rest of the speaker. It was kind of like the effect you would get by using a small monitor speaker on stands crossed over to a subwoofer and the match was just wrong. The subwoofer was a little too strong, a little muddy, and just not synced up with the main speaker to give the sensation of a coherent music space. As I stated in the beginning of this review, this is what I heard in the context of my room and system. Your mileage may very well vary!
Another System/A Different Perspective
I took the M1.3 cables over to a friends’ house and tried to validate my findings. He has a great room that is substantially larger in cubic volume than my room (probably six to eight times larger). If my theory was right, he should have very different standing waves and more distributed room resonance issues than my system exhibits. Would the bass improve? Would the 200-300 hertz and up performance be just as good as what I experienced? Would the overall sound be positive or would we uncover more negative aspects that I didn’t hear with my system?
Everything I heard in my system was validated from the lower midrange and up. Based on how I hear and experience music, I found the balance of sound to be exceptional. This system did not have the same bass issues that I experienced with mine. In fact, the bass sounded better on these speakers than I’ve ever heard in the past. Tight, tuneful, and well balanced with the upper bass/lower midrange. In this system the wire was boarding on amazing. The sense of a three dimensional image was substantially better than what I had heard before. One way to convey this is to use a ball as an example. A truly fleshed out three dimensional image should conjure a completely round ball from all angles. If the sound is short in depth, width, and height then the ball is oblong and out of proportion to a real round ball. I heard a sound that was truly approaching a round ball that was almost fully inflated. If it was oblong or out of proportion it was minor compared to what I often hear from cables.
One area of discussion was on the sense of leading edge transients. My friend felt his wire did a better job in this area than the MIT 1.3. I understand his point of view, but I don’t agree with his conclusion. I believe a leading edge can be too quick and too defined within the context of a stereo system. If you play the guitar and have your ear right on top of the instrument then your perception of the leading edge transient would be very different from mine as a member of the audience. We each prize and listen for different aspects of sound that define real to each one of us. I don’t play an instrument or sit within an orchestra. My perspective is that of a member of the audience. The leading edge transient is somewhat blunted by the distance, reflections, and people of the audience. To my ears, the MIT caught the right level of leading edge transient. From my perspective, I’m right, but then again I don’t play an instrument. I have a different point of view and reality around this topic. My observation doesn’t make me right or wrong but it is what I heard. No two ears hear sounds the in exactly the same manner. You need to listen for yourself and put the sound in context to your perceptions of real sound.
It should be noted that my friends’ speakers once belonged to me. I designed the speaker concept, picked the components and had some seriously smart friends help me design the crossovers, cabinets, and assemble the complete package. I know my limitations! Needless to say, I am quite familiar with this speaker including its strengths and weaknesses. I never got them to sound as good as I heard them with the M1.3 speaker cable. This experience demonstrated that the room and system context can have a huge impact on our perception of real sound.
System Synergy Thoughts
Based on my experiences with this cable, I offer some thoughts for your consideration. If we lump ribbon speakers, electrostatics, planar magnetic, ceramic drivers, diamond drivers, and some high technology metal drivers (beryllium/titanium) together, we have what could be considered very articulate and fast driver characteristics. All of these can have the tendency to be so fast that they can be perceived to be a little on the lean side compared to paper or plastic drivers. If we take paper drivers, plastic drivers, and some lower technology metal drivers (aluminum/hybrids), we have a group of speakers that can be overly rich/ripe and sometimes not perceived as very articulate/fast. While these are gross oversimplifications, they both hold some merit in the marketplace today. My perception is that the MIT M1.3 might do very well with the faster and very articulate driver topologies outlined above. They would add a sense of harmonic structure and flesh out the areas where these drivers can be perceived as lean. The M1.3 might take a paper/plastic driver topology and attempt to add additional harmonic structure and flesh the sound out in a way that takes the sound in the wrong direction (overly ripe and less articulation). In this last example, we might want to consider a speaker cable with some seriously fast propagation delay that would balance the speaker to add some much needed speed. As I’ve point out in the past, system synergy is extremely important. All wires are tone controls to some extent; you just need to know which direction you will turn the control to get the sound you crave.
Conclusion
I really liked how the M1.3 worked within the context of my system from 200-300 hertz and up. It opened a window on the soundstage that was deeper, wider, and higher than before. The sound was more fleshed out and it added some additional harmonic structure to the sound and made it feel more like tube equipment in the critical midrange. The highs were enhanced without grain or edginess and came across as more real. The bass was stronger but created problems that could not be overcome in my room. When we put the results in perspective to the value it offers and the dollars it takes to achieve this type of performance, I take some pause. In my personal view of value, I tend to equate the speaker wire as about 25 to 33% of the retail price of the speaker I purchased. Based on this formula, I would need speakers that retailed for around $25,000 to meet my personal criteria. If you have speakers in this price range I would definitely give them a listen. If your view of value is different than mine, please use your personal formula and give it a try.
I have heard many cable sets over the years, but few within the context of my system. You really can’t judge cables based on what you hear at a show or a dealer’s showroom. What counts is how they sound in your system and in your environment. MIT’s view of “real” sound may line up well with your perceptions or it may lead you to consider other alternatives. Discovery is important to achieving success in this critical area. Best of luck on your journey and if you have a chance, give the M1.3’s a try and see how you respond to their sound. I sure was impressed!
Brian Boehler
hear and experience music, I found the balance of sound to be exceptional. This system did not have the same bass issues that I experienced with mine. In fact, the bass sounded better on these speakers than I've ever heard in the past. Tight, tuneful, and well balanced with the upper bass/lower midrange. In this system the wire was boarding on amazing. The sense of a three dimensional image was substantially better than what I had heard before. One way to convey this is to use a ball as an example. A truly fleshed out three dimensional image should conjure a completely round ball from all angles. If the sound is short in depth, width, and height then the ball is oblong and out of proportion to a real round ball. I heard a sound that was truly approaching a round ball that was almost fully inflated. If it was oblong or out of proportion it was minor compared to what I often hear from cables.
One area of discussion was on the sense of leading edge transients. My friend felt his wire did a better job in this area than the MIT 1.3. I understand his point of view, but I don’t agree with his conclusion. I believe a leading edge can be too quick and too defined within the context of a stereo system. If you play the guitar and have your ear right on top of the instrument then your perception of the leading edge transient would be very different from mine as a member of the audience. We each prize and listen for different aspects of sound that define real to each one of us. I don’t play an instrument or sit within an orchestra. My perspective is that of a member of the audience. The leading edge transient is somewhat blunted by the distance, reflections, and people of the audience. To my ears, the MIT caught the right level of leading edge transient. From my perspective, I’m right, but then again I don’t play an instrument. I have a different point of view and reality around this topic. My observation doesn’t make me right or wrong but it is what I heard. No two ears hear sounds the in exactly the same manner. You need to listen for yourself and put the sound in context to your perceptions of real sound.
It should be noted that my friends’ speakers once belonged to me. I designed the speaker concept, picked the components and had some seriously smart friends help me design the crossovers, cabinets, and assemble the complete package. I know my limitations! Needless to say, I am quite familiar with this speaker including its strengths and weaknesses. I never got them to sound as good as I heard them with the M1.3 speaker cable. This experience demonstrated that the room and system context can have a huge impact on our perception of real sound.
System Synergy Thoughts
Based on my experiences with this cable, I offer some thoughts for your consideration. If we lump ribbon speakers, electrostatics, planar magnetic, ceramic drivers, diamond drivers, and some high technology metal drivers (beryllium/titanium) together, we have what could be considered very articulate and fast driver characteristics. All of these can have the tendency to be so fast that they can be perceived to be a little on the lean side compared to paper or plastic drivers. If we take paper drivers, plastic drivers, and some lower technology metal drivers (aluminum/hybrids), we have a group of speakers that can be overly rich/ripe and sometimes not perceived as very articulate/fast. While these are gross oversimplifications, they both hold some merit in the marketplace today. My perception is that the MIT M1.3 might do very well with the faster and very articulate driver topologies outlined above. They would add a sense of harmonic structure and flesh out the areas where these drivers can be perceived as lean. The M1.3 might take a paper/plastic driver topology and attempt to add additional harmonic structure and flesh the sound out in a way that takes the sound in the wrong direction (overly ripe and less articulation). In this last example, we might want to consider a speaker cable with some seriously fast propagation delay that would balance the speaker to add some much needed speed. As I’ve point out in the past, system synergy is extremely important. All wires are tone controls to some extent; you just need to know which direction you will turn the control to get the sound you crave.
Conclusion
I really liked how the M1.3 worked within the context of my system from 200-300 hertz and up. It opened a window on the soundstage that was deeper, wider, and higher than before. The sound was more fleshed out and it added some additional harmonic structure to the sound and made it feel more like tube equipment in the critical midrange. The highs were enhanced without grain or edginess and came across as more real. The bass was stronger but created problems that could not be overcome in my room. When we put the results in perspective to the value it offers and the dollars it takes to achieve this type of performance, I take some pause. In my personal view of value, I tend to equate the speaker wire as about 25 to 33% of the retail price of the speaker I purchased. Based on this formula, I would need speakers that retailed for around $25,000 to meet my personal criteria. If you have speakers in this price range I would definitely give them a listen. If your view of value is different than mine, please use your personal formula and give it a try.
I have heard many cable sets over the years, but few within the context of my system. You really can’t judge cables based on what you hear at a show or a dealer’s showroom. What counts is how they sound in your system and in your environment. MIT’s view of “real” sound may line up well with your perceptions or it may lead you to consider other alternatives. Discovery is important to achieving success in this critical area. Best of luck on your journey and if you have a chance, give the M1.3’s a try and see how you respond to their sound. I sure was impressed!
Brian Boehler
belonged to me. I designed the speaker concept, picked the components and had some seriously smart friends help me design the crossovers, cabinets, and assemble the complete package. I know my limitations! Needless to say, I am quite familiar with this speaker including its strengths and weaknesses. I never got them to sound as good as I heard them with the M1.3 speaker cable. This experience demonstrated that the room and system context can have a huge impact on our perception of real sound.
System Synergy Thoughts
Based on my experiences with this cable, I offer some thoughts for your consideration. If we lump ribbon speakers, electrostatics, planar magnetic, ceramic drivers, diamond drivers, and some high technology metal drivers (beryllium/titanium) together, we have what could be considered very articulate and fast driver characteristics. All of these can have the tendency to be so fast that they can be perceived to be a little on the lean side compared to paper or plastic drivers. If we take paper drivers, plastic drivers, and some lower technology metal drivers (aluminum/hybrids), we have a group of speakers that can be overly rich/ripe and sometimes not perceived as very articulate/fast. While these are gross oversimplifications, they both hold some merit in the marketplace today. My perception is that the MIT M1.3 might do very well with the faster and very articulate driver topologies outlined above. They would add a sense of harmonic structure and flesh out the areas where these drivers can be perceived as lean. The M1.3 might take a paper/plastic driver topology and attempt to add additional harmonic structure and flesh the sound out in a way that takes the sound in the wrong direction (overly ripe and less articulation). In this last example, we might want to consider a speaker cable with some seriously fast propagation delay that would balance the speaker to add some much needed speed. As I’ve point out in the past, system synergy is extremely important. All wires are tone controls to some extent; you just need to know which direction you will turn the control to get the sound you crave.
Conclusion
I really liked how the M1.3 worked within the context of my system from 200-300 hertz and up. It opened a window on the soundstage that was deeper, wider, and higher than before. The sound was more fleshed out and it added some additional harmonic structure to the sound and made it feel more like tube equipment in the critical midrange. The highs were enhanced without grain or edginess and came across as more real. The bass was stronger but created problems that could not be overcome in my room. When we put the results in perspective to the value it offers and the dollars it takes to achieve this type of performance, I take some pause. In my personal view of value, I tend to equate the speaker wire as about 25 to 33% of the retail price of the speaker I purchased. Based on this formula, I would need speakers that retailed for around $25,000 to meet my personal criteria. If you have speakers in this price range I would definitely give them a listen. If your view of value is different than mine, please use your personal formula and give it a try.
I have heard many cable sets over the years, but few within the context of my system. You really can’t judge cables based on what you hear at a show or a dealer’s showroom. What counts is how they sound in your system and in your environment. MIT’s view of “real” sound may line up well with your perceptions or it may lead you to consider other alternatives. Discovery is important to achieving success in this critical area. Best of luck on your journey and if you have a chance, give the M1.3’s a try and see how you respond to their sound. I sure was impressed!
Brian Boehler
Conclusion
I really liked how the M1.3 worked within the context of my system from 200-300 hertz and up. It opened a window on the soundstage that was deeper, wider, and higher than before. The sound was more fleshed out and it added some additional harmonic structure to the sound and made it feel more like tube equipment in the critical midrange. The highs were enhanced without grain or edginess and came across as more real. The bass was stronger but created problems that could not be overcome in my room. When we put the results in perspective to the value it offers and the dollars it takes to achieve this type of performance, I take some pause. In my personal view of value, I tend to equate the speaker wire as about 25 to 33% of the retail price of the speaker I purchased. Based on this formula, I would need speakers that retailed for around $25,000 to meet my personal criteria. If you have speakers in this price range I would definitely give them a listen. If your view of value is different than mine, please use your personal formula and give it a try.
I have heard many cable sets over the years, but few within the context of my system. You really can’t judge cables based on what you hear at a show or a dealer’s showroom. What counts is how they sound in your system and in your environment. MIT’s view of “real” sound may line up well with your perceptions or it may lead you to consider other alternatives. Discovery is important to achieving success in this critical area. Best of luck on your journey and if you have a chance, give the M1.3’s a try and see how you respond to their sound. I sure was impressed!
Brian Boehler
A Bladelius Design Group cég tulajdonos fő tervezője, Mike Bladelius pályafutása során olyan cégeknek tervezett többek között készülékeket, mint a Treshold és a DLS, úgyhogy alaposan kiismerte már az audio világ titkait. Cégének legújabb készülékei az Embla Basic és az Embla Full, melyek a CD lemezek lejátszására is képesek, de a fő funkciójuk nem ez, hiszen valójában beépített szilárd memóriás szerverek.
Az Esoteric márciusban megjelenő RZ-1-es készüléke egy igazi szórakoztatóközpont lesz, ugyanis 4 az 1-ben rendszerben CD/SACD játszót, erősítőt, USB bemenetet és DA konvertert illetve phono fokozatot tartalmaz. Felszereltségének köszönhetően széleskörűen konfigurálható, így analóg és különféle digitális forrásokról szinte mindenféle audio jel lejátszható vele. Az alacsony, divatos formájú alumínium házban az Esoterictől megszokott módon különösen értékes és kifinomult áramkörök és alkatelemek találhatók. 
Csúcsminőségű hangzás, kiváló viselési kényelem és ellenálló-képesség a külső hatásokkal, mint például vízzel, verejtékkel és hideggel szemben: ezek a fő jellemzői a Sennheiser és az adidas új sport fülhallgató sorozatának. A két nagyhírű cég új együttműködését összesen négy masszív kialakítású, a környzeti hatásoknak stabilan ellenálló fülhallgató modellel kezdi, amelyeket kimondottan sportolás közbeni használatra terveztek. A modellek különösen kényelmes és ergonómikus kilakítása garantálja, hogy a fülhallgatókat használók minden figyelmüket a teljesítményre fordíthassák.
A tápszűrő specialista Isotek legújabb Syncro típusa nem pusztán egy újabb tápkábel, hanem a nevéhez hűen egy valódi hálózati táp feljavító, szinkronizáló eszköz. A vadonatúj fejlesztésű áramkör a kábelen elhelyezett rezonanciamentes anodizált alumínium dobozkában lakozik, és a tápáram szinusz hullámának szabályos szimmetrikus alakját állítja vissza, így optimalizálva a kábellel csatlakoztatott készülékek teljesítményét. Az egység ezen felül a DC szennyeződéseket is eltávolítja, megszünteti a mikrofonikus zajokat és a transzformátor mechanikai zajait és vibrációit. 
The Computer Audiophile Suggested Hardware list has been overhauled. Version 2.0 of the C.A.S.H. List contains expanded hardware and software recommendations geared even more toward the computer audiophile. There is no specific checklist or criteria a product must meet to be on the C.A.S.H. List. Great specs don't equal great sound or performance. However, it's clearly in everyone's best interest that these products are 100% worthy of recommendation. Like all articles here on Computer Audiophile the comments section is wide open to every reader in the world to leave an opinion. The list is continuously updated with additions and deletions to make it a great resource for CA readers to research products. The C.A.S.H. List a single data point from one of many sources of information about these and many more products.
Computer audiophiles using Windows 7 based music servers have a plethora of configuration and application choices for music management and playback. A quick look at 
What is HD? What is high resolution? In the video world most people will say 720p, 1080i, and 1080p. They don't consider compression or the original format of a video. When it comes to music the term HD is tossed around very loosely and can include anything that's not MP3. The definition of HD is incredibly elusive. Do the letters even stand for something? One can say HD stands for High definition. However when the letters HD are used on a binocular lens coating, an automotive paint additive, and a wall-mount clay extruder all bets are off. The diluere of the letters HD continues. I'm willing to bet we'll see some 3D audio downloads if the past is any predictor of the future. AIX and iTrax President Mark Waldrep has a very clear idea of what constitutes HD and high resolution audio & video. In the following linked podcast Mark even mentions Sonic Studio's Amarra and the large role music servers will play in the future of high end audio.
Over the last several months I've researched different combinations of motherboards, computer cases, audio cards, and accessories that go along with these components. The goal of all this research was to put together a hardware and software music server solution that I would actually use and the Computer Audiophile readers could actually use. I would do the leg work, test & listen to everything, and provide the information for CA readers to put together the exact same music server. This sounds somewhat simple until one considers all the requirements that go into such an audiophile solution. Great sound, great looking, no moving parts, silent, fairly inexpensive, and 100% of the components must be available today. Along the way this server was named the Pocket Server by a colleague who was very surprise at its small size when I pulled it out of my carry-on luggage. The server is a bit larger today than it was at that time but the name hasn't changed. What follows is the story of the Computer Audiophile Pocket Server and all the information required to recreate the $1,500 C.A.P.S solution.
A little over one week ago the Peachtree Audio Nova review was published here on Computer Audiophile. Since that time many CA readers read the review and left honest comments. I've also read and re-read the review and spent quite a while reading every single comment several times. I was initially surprised by the criticism. After a few days I came to the realization that the CA readers were right. The review was in fact rushed and didn't contain much information to make it useful. It clearly did not live up to the CA trademark All The Bits Fit To Print™. Thus, I'm taking full responsibility for a half-assed review and making it up to all the supportive CA readers. Over the last five days I've dedicated time to using the Nova in almost every configuration imaginable. What follows are my impressions from "The Nova Sessions."
.jpg "Monster's \"Butterfly\" in-ear headphones (rendering)")
