dorokusai
10-24-2003, 06:57 PM
I posted this in the Polk Audio forum awhile ago, perhaps it would interest you gentlemen. This is a great forum, lots of adults in here :)
Demo: MIT MI-330 Series Two (Medium 47-100k) 1 Meter
Monster Cable Interlink 400 1.5 Meter
Receiver/Amplifier: Sony STR-DA2ES HT Receiver(2003)
Source: Sony CDP-745, 5 Disc Changer(1993)
Selections: Patty Rothberg(1 and 9)/ Soul Coughing(Ruby Vroom), Mark Lanegan(Whiskey for the Ghost)
Speakers: Polk Audio RTi38, wall mounted on BT-77 BTech brackets(Dynamatted). 5 deg downtilt, 2 deg toe-in, 7 ft separation
Enviroment: 13' x 18', basic room
Listeners: dorokusai and F1Nut
Jesse came over to demo my start-up HT, mainly the RTi38's. After some good food and an even better cigar, we got our ears on and got to work. Jesse had mentioned these interconnects that he had, MIT, and wondered if I would like to demo them. What better time than at the demo in the first place.
We played some various CD's, other than the aformentioned just to let J get a listen at the RTi38's. This was with and w/o subwoofer. Monster Cable, Interlink 400, 1.5 Meter. CD input on receiver, basic setup, no EQ. I will let him comment on the particulars of the RTi38's, so I don't mistate anything.
MC demo:
Treble - It exists, just not very detailed. Average performance in this section.
Mid - Warm, pleasant to the ear, not out of character with the rest of the speaker. It can handle any midrange easily.
Bass - Weak, but speaker mount tweaking brought it back to life. Strong bass for their placement. One can never have too much bass, so this is certainly objective.
Stage - Not bad, they would benefit from more toe-in, but a wall anomoly prevents this from being possible. Front stage is more fluid in HT. 2CH is almost to the point of being separated too much. Some music blends the middle better than others.
Patti Rothberg/ Mark Lanegan CD's are recorded well, so music was very nice. Soul Coughing runs some analog in their recordings, so small hiss was on certain tracks.
This is a nice speaker, above average performance, they outshine the competition in this price range(IMO) They develop more as a HT speaker.
MIT demo:
Let me start with the difference in these cable was instantaneous. 3 seconds of a selected Rothberg track, 1st song demo'd after change, and it was obvious the cables were helping greatly. : - ) Basically, Holy Shite!
Treble - Brightened the treble up considerably. Certainly not LSi, still not super accurate, but treble had more "presence". It removed the "dull" feeling of these speakers.
Mid - Small improvement, tightened up the vocals.
Lows - Small improvement, made the bass clearer.
Stage - Huge improvement. Center fill, was full and rich. The separation anxiety the speakers were feeling, was now gone. They would probably still benefit from more toe-in, but that has been covered.
Conclusion: I was a believer in cable benefits, but have never had another reference point to set a standard. MC was my standard. Herein lies the main difference in comparing these two cables, cost. MC = $45(New), MIT($300). The resulting soundstage was SO much improved and enjoyable that the benifits far outweigh the cost of these cables. I would recommend them, or at least suggest that they be a demo choice at the very least. Personally, I am looking for used ones right now. Thanks for reading.
Update: I went to AQ King Cobra's, beings F1 had to get his MIT cables back. I am a little wierd when it comes to certain things, and I in my own way wanted my SACD cables to be all Audioquest. Go figure.
The planned cables for the 2CH rig that I am setting up WILL be 100% MIT, that is my personal choice. The HT uses way to many cables to justify 100% MIT over there.
Demo: MIT MI-330 Series Two (Medium 47-100k) 1 Meter
Monster Cable Interlink 400 1.5 Meter
Receiver/Amplifier: Sony STR-DA2ES HT Receiver(2003)
Source: Sony CDP-745, 5 Disc Changer(1993)
Selections: Patty Rothberg(1 and 9)/ Soul Coughing(Ruby Vroom), Mark Lanegan(Whiskey for the Ghost)
Speakers: Polk Audio RTi38, wall mounted on BT-77 BTech brackets(Dynamatted). 5 deg downtilt, 2 deg toe-in, 7 ft separation
Enviroment: 13' x 18', basic room
Listeners: dorokusai and F1Nut
Jesse came over to demo my start-up HT, mainly the RTi38's. After some good food and an even better cigar, we got our ears on and got to work. Jesse had mentioned these interconnects that he had, MIT, and wondered if I would like to demo them. What better time than at the demo in the first place.
We played some various CD's, other than the aformentioned just to let J get a listen at the RTi38's. This was with and w/o subwoofer. Monster Cable, Interlink 400, 1.5 Meter. CD input on receiver, basic setup, no EQ. I will let him comment on the particulars of the RTi38's, so I don't mistate anything.
MC demo:
Treble - It exists, just not very detailed. Average performance in this section.
Mid - Warm, pleasant to the ear, not out of character with the rest of the speaker. It can handle any midrange easily.
Bass - Weak, but speaker mount tweaking brought it back to life. Strong bass for their placement. One can never have too much bass, so this is certainly objective.
Stage - Not bad, they would benefit from more toe-in, but a wall anomoly prevents this from being possible. Front stage is more fluid in HT. 2CH is almost to the point of being separated too much. Some music blends the middle better than others.
Patti Rothberg/ Mark Lanegan CD's are recorded well, so music was very nice. Soul Coughing runs some analog in their recordings, so small hiss was on certain tracks.
This is a nice speaker, above average performance, they outshine the competition in this price range(IMO) They develop more as a HT speaker.
MIT demo:
Let me start with the difference in these cable was instantaneous. 3 seconds of a selected Rothberg track, 1st song demo'd after change, and it was obvious the cables were helping greatly. : - ) Basically, Holy Shite!
Treble - Brightened the treble up considerably. Certainly not LSi, still not super accurate, but treble had more "presence". It removed the "dull" feeling of these speakers.
Mid - Small improvement, tightened up the vocals.
Lows - Small improvement, made the bass clearer.
Stage - Huge improvement. Center fill, was full and rich. The separation anxiety the speakers were feeling, was now gone. They would probably still benefit from more toe-in, but that has been covered.
Conclusion: I was a believer in cable benefits, but have never had another reference point to set a standard. MC was my standard. Herein lies the main difference in comparing these two cables, cost. MC = $45(New), MIT($300). The resulting soundstage was SO much improved and enjoyable that the benifits far outweigh the cost of these cables. I would recommend them, or at least suggest that they be a demo choice at the very least. Personally, I am looking for used ones right now. Thanks for reading.
Update: I went to AQ King Cobra's, beings F1 had to get his MIT cables back. I am a little wierd when it comes to certain things, and I in my own way wanted my SACD cables to be all Audioquest. Go figure.
The planned cables for the 2CH rig that I am setting up WILL be 100% MIT, that is my personal choice. The HT uses way to many cables to justify 100% MIT over there.