MIT Oracle cables...what's in the box?

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

I have 4 different friends running the Oracle cables and I can't help
but wonder what's in the little box just before the ends?

I've always bi-wired my speakers with Canare 4S11. When I swapped my
cables in to 2 different systems to replace the MIT Oracles, I couldn't
discern any difference. Of course, the owner in each case said the MIT
cables were "more revealing." 8-)

Anyone know what's in the little box?

Cheers,

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

> On 19 Jul 2005 00:50:03 GMT, Ritz <ritz@mordor.net> wrote:

>>I have 4 different friends running the Oracle cables and I can't help
>>but wonder what's in the little box just before the ends?
>>
>>I've always bi-wired my speakers with Canare 4S11. When I swapped my
>>cables in to 2 different systems to replace the MIT Oracles, I couldn't
>>discern any difference. Of course, the owner in each case said the MIT
>>cables were "more revealing." 8-)
>>
>>Anyone know what's in the little box?

> A couple of 50 cent resistors and capacitors, and about a gallon of
> priceless snake oil....................

I think that there is a bit more than that in those shipping crates.
They look well made and certainly have the "geez... look at those jumper
cables hooked up to the speakers" effect. Although I have never heard
them, I have heard some of the other MIT "boxed" stuff. I really would
have a tough time telling you which speaker cable was which in a sighted
listening test. I have had the MIT, Vampire, AudioQuest, Monster, Polk
and Home Depot hooked up to my equipment. I would not bet any money on
telling them apart. I am using AudioQuest Indigo II shotgunned right now
for my Von Schweikert VR4's. Why? Because I have enough to make the runs
and I got it dirt cheap. No other "sonic" reason. Oh, and they look
drab and dull. No "wow" visual factor.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Gene Poon wrote:
> TonyP wrote:
>>>> I have 4 different friends running the Oracle cables and I can't help
>>>> but wonder what's in the little box just before the ends?
>>>>
>>>> I've always bi-wired my speakers with Canare 4S11. When I swapped my
>>>> cables in to 2 different systems to replace the MIT Oracles, I
>>>> couldn't discern any difference. Of course, the owner in each case
>>>> said the MIT cables were "more revealing." 8-)
>>>>
>>>> Anyone know what's in the little box?
>
>
>>> A couple of 50 cent resistors and capacitors, and about a gallon of
>>> priceless snake oil....................
>
>
>> I think that there is a bit more than that in those shipping crates...
>
> ====================================
>
> No, there isn't. And even "fifty-cent" is pushing it.
>
> The Hacksaw Test doesn't lie.
>
> -GP

Does anyone have a schematic of what's in the box?

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Ritz wrote:
> I would find that to be of extreme interest as well. I don't really
> care to duplicate the design "on the cheap." I'm more interested in
> showing my buddies who spent several grand on speaker cables how
> absolutely silly that is. As I said in the original post, I wasn't able
> to discern a difference betwen the Oracle V3 cables and my custom Canare
> cables (4S11 w/cardas spades).

Well, you might show them the pictures on this site:

http://cable.tcnerd.com/whymit.asp

....especially the box with nothing in it. (The cheapskates didn't even
spring for potting compound!) Tom Nousaine has reported opening a box
and finding a single resistor, installed in such a way as to have
almost no impact on the signal.

But I don't think you're going to convince people who've already
shelled out thousands that they're silly for doing so.

bob

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Theporkygeorge@aol.com wrote:
> nabob33@hotmail.com wrote:
> > Ritz wrote:
> > > I would find that to be of extreme interest as well. I don't really
> > > care to duplicate the design "on the cheap." I'm more interested in
> > > showing my buddies who spent several grand on speaker cables how
> > > absolutely silly that is. As I said in the original post, I wasn't able
> > > to discern a difference betwen the Oracle V3 cables and my custom Canare
> > > cables (4S11 w/cardas spades).
> >
> > Well, you might show them the pictures on this site:
> >
> > http://cable.tcnerd.com/whymit.asp
> >
> > ...especially the box with nothing in it. (The cheapskates didn't even
> > spring for potting compound!) Tom Nousaine has reported opening a box
> > and finding a single resistor, installed in such a way as to have
> > almost no impact on the signal.
>
>
>
> This is the kind of stuff that skeptics should be doing. Bravo for
> exposing a scam for what it is. 9,800 bucks for speaker cable? That
> ought to raise an eyebrow or two even if the box is stuffed with
> whatever. Considering what one can get in the way of speakers and
> electronics for the same price megabuck cables are obviously, if
> nothing else, ridiculously over priced. my god 9,800 bucks buys you
> soooo much in audio. Maybe if they were all gold...

Unfortunately, this is a rather expensive form of muckraking. In fact,
the more expensive the cable, the less likely anyone's going to open it
up. And skeptics tend not to have a lot of old, expensive cables lying
around.

> > But I don't think you're going to convince people who've already
> > shelled out thousands that they're silly for doing so.
>
>
>
>
> I'd feel outraged at the manufacturer if I shelled out 9,800 bucks for
> an obvious scam. I'd feel pretty stupid too.

Yeah, but the reason you'd feel that way is probably why you wouldn't
shell out $9,800 in the first place. People who do spend that kind of
money find it easy to convince themselves that they're paying for
"R&D," so the cost of the parts really doesn't matter.

bob

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

nabob33@hotmail.com wrote:
> Theporkygeorge@aol.com wrote:
> > nabob33@hotmail.com wrote:

> > I'd feel outraged at the manufacturer if I shelled out 9,800 bucks for
> > an obvious scam. I'd feel pretty stupid too.
>
> Yeah, but the reason you'd feel that way is probably why you wouldn't
> shell out $9,800 in the first place.


In this particular case the reasons are even simpler. 9,800 for a cable
is, to me, obviouly too much money. There is simply too much that can
be done with that much money in the way of other improvements. But, for
argument's sake if I did shell out that kind of money with the
presumption that the box is filled with extensively researched
technology that actually justified the price (real R&D does have to be
recouped) only to find out it was empty I'd be quite outraged. The
manufacturer would have quite a difficult time convincing me that the
R&D that went into an empty box was so costly.




> People who do spend that kind of
> money find it easy to convince themselves that they're paying for
> "R&D," so the cost of the parts really doesn't matter.



People who spend that kind of money on cables and believe that
extensive R&D went into an empty box probably were going to blow the
money one way or another.




Scott Wheeler

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

<Theporkygeorge@aol.com> wrote in message
newsbuemn0al5@news4.newsguy.com...
> nabob33@hotmail.com wrote:
> > Ritz wrote:
> > > I would find that to be of extreme interest as well. I don't really
> > > care to duplicate the design "on the cheap." I'm more interested in
> > > showing my buddies who spent several grand on speaker cables how
> > > absolutely silly that is. As I said in the original post, I wasn't
able
> > > to discern a difference betwen the Oracle V3 cables and my custom
Canare
> > > cables (4S11 w/cardas spades).
> >
> > Well, you might show them the pictures on this site:
> >
> > http://cable.tcnerd.com/whymit.asp
> >
> > ...especially the box with nothing in it. (The cheapskates didn't even
> > spring for potting compound!) Tom Nousaine has reported opening a box
> > and finding a single resistor, installed in such a way as to have
> > almost no impact on the signal.
>
>
>
> This is the kind of stuff that skeptics should be doing.

They've been doing it for years - and getting the same
disbelieving response from "audiophiles" who insist
that megabuck cables make a difference.

- Gary Rosen

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

chung wrote:
> Theporkygeorge@aol.com wrote:
>
> >
> > I'd feel outraged at the manufacturer if I shelled out 9,800 bucks for
> > an obvious scam.
>
> They let you return it within a certain time, didn't they?

They being this particular manufacturer? I don't know.


> As a
> subjectivist, you trusted your hearing, right?


As a subjectivist I make my decisions based on practical usage. yes i
do trust my ears.


> It must have sounded good
> to you for you to spend that kind of dough, correct?



Good? No, it would have to sound magnificent. It would have to be a
revelation.


> You could have
> compared it with Home Depot cables first, right? So why would you be
> outraged at the manufacturer?



Because it is outright fraud.




>
> Perhaps you should be outraged at the reviews? Or those experts who
> endorse such products?



If I catch them in a lie I will be outraged.




>
> > I'd feel pretty stupid too.
>
> If you have simply asked the objectivists about cables here, we would
> have educated you...



No thanks. The objectivists reviewers have already failed me too many
times.




> Assuming you listen to us, of course.


I did back in the day and suffered the consequences of inferior sound.
Julian Hirsch may have been a nice guy but taking him at his word was
one my biggest mistakes I ever as an audiophile. I was a bit outraged
at the time. It didn't cost me 9,800 bucks but the money I wasted was
meaningful. I was just starting out on my professional career. But I
wasn't quiet about being duped. I was quite vocal about it. I wasn't
shy about eating humble pie back in the day. It happened. I learned.




Scott Wheeler

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Theporkygeorge@aol.com wrote:

> chung wrote:
>> Theporkygeorge@aol.com wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > I'd feel outraged at the manufacturer if I shelled out 9,800 bucks for
>> > an obvious scam.
>>
>> They let you return it within a certain time, didn't they?
>
> They being this particular manufacturer? I don't know.

"They" also refers to the seller. You mean you might buy an expensive
cable with no return policy? Oh my...
>
>
>> As a
>> subjectivist, you trusted your hearing, right?
>
>
> As a subjectivist I make my decisions based on practical usage. yes i
> do trust my ears.

So you must have liked the sound of those cables before plucking down
those big bills, no? If you trust your ears, and they told you the cable
sounded good, what is the outrage about?

>
>
>> It must have sounded good
>> to you for you to spend that kind of dough, correct?
>
>
>
> Good? No, it would have to sound magnificent. It would have to be a
> revelation.

Reading reviews of cables, I often got the impression that the reviewer
had some revelations...

So those cables sounded magnificient to you for you to have spent that
kind of money. So what's the outrage about?

>
>
>> You could have
>> compared it with Home Depot cables first, right? So why would you be
>> outraged at the manufacturer?
>
>
>
> Because it is outright fraud.

To play devil's advocate, how is it outright fraud? Did they say
anything about the construction of the cables or the box, or did the
cables not meet published specs? Didn't you like those cables enought to
buy them?

How is it any more fraud than, say, the Wavac amp that sells for $350K
that does not meet specs? Or the green CD pen? Or the Shatki stones?

And how is it any more fraudulent than cable companies writing white
papers on cable break-in, directivity, golden ratios, micro-diodes,
"articulation response", etc.? Are you equally outraged at those examples?

>
>
>
>
>>
>> Perhaps you should be outraged at the reviews? Or those experts who
>> endorse such products?
>
>
>
> If I catch them in a lie I will be outraged.
>

What exactly is the lie here? Did they say that the box has to have
certain components? Would you have been happier if the box actually
modifies the frequency response of the cable?


>
>
>
>>
>> > I'd feel pretty stupid too.
>>
>> If you have simply asked the objectivists about cables here, we would
>> have educated you...
>
>
>
> No thanks. The objectivists reviewers have already failed me too many
> times.

Not sure if I can remember seeing any objectivist reviewing cables. In
fact, the objectivists here all seem to recommend generic 12-ga stuff
from R-S or Home Depot. And you are saying that the subjectivist reviews
don't fail you? I am pretty sure we can find a great review on that
Transparent cable...

Can you cite any example of an objectivist reviewer on rahe failing you?

>
>
>
>
>> Assuming you listen to us, of course.
>
>
> I did back in the day and suffered the consequences of inferior sound.
> Julian Hirsch may have been a nice guy but taking him at his word was
> one my biggest mistakes I ever as an audiophile. I was a bit outraged
> at the time. It didn't cost me 9,800 bucks but the money I wasted was
> meaningful. I was just starting out on my professional career. But I
> wasn't quiet about being duped. I was quite vocal about it. I wasn't
> shy about eating humble pie back in the day. It happened. I learned.
>

So the subjectivists' reviews are more trustworthy? Also I did not
realize that Julian Hirsch gives advice here on rahe...

How much money did you waste by listening to Julian Hirsch? And are you
sure that you were not misunderstanding Julian Hirsch's word?

>
>
>
> Scott Wheeler