T.H.E Show Newport 2015: Synergistic Research HT Carbon Headphone Transducer

About eight months ago or so, Synergistic Research came out with a product called HOT ($299)—which stands for Headphone Optimized Transducer. It says nothing about what it does or how it works on the HOT product page, just that "HOT maximizes your enjoyment with increased resolution and smoothness in the world's most holographic headphone experience."

Chatting with Elliot Nommensen about how the device work got me a little farther down the road. He said the HOT, and now its replacement HT Carbon, works as a "parallel filter" that cleans the audio signal. According to Nommensen, the passing audio signal induces a response in the surrounding material that is able to somehow further interact with the incoming audio to reduce noise and clarify the audio. Unfortunately that doesn't really give me much of a handle on exactly what's going on as I've never heard of a device that could do such a thing. But that, and the resulting controversy, is nothing new to Synergistic Research.

The HOT certainly did make a splash in the headphone world. Quite a few reviewers did praise its performance, but there was also some threads (here and here) on Head-Fi where objectivists uttered a resounding "BOOOOO!" In fact, here's a post where the device was disassembled, and another post where materials inside were chemically analyzed. Things got so spicy that Synergistic's owner and cheif researcher Ted Denny got drug into the dialog.

Sheesh, don't need any Sriracha sauce on that one.

Needless to say, I'm just going to keep an open mind and ear. Elliot will be sending me an HT Carbon and a Tranquility Base to play with during my upcoming month assembling and listening to some of the world's best headphone gear. I'll get back to you with my thoughts. 'Til then, I'll leave you with Elliot explaining the gear in the video.

Click here if you can't see the video.

COMMENTS
Seth195208's picture

.

Seth195208's picture

.

Seth195208's picture

.

Tyll Hertsens's picture
Ha ha ha ha!
tony's picture

you hafta do this.

Levi & Beers probably promised the guy some kind of review if he did the show.

Seems like it would be hard to find the open space in Motorcycle Season to pan this established "dry bed".

You promised so you gotta do it.

Betcha we'll never hear one peep outa you bout this stuff.

Just saw a new BMW Bike, way-nice, ten times the cost of the A&K 380. A ride all the way round the USofA is about 14,000 miles. The road calls. Then there's a New Zealand adventure and Southern Europe along the Med.

Hmm, what to do?

Tony in Michigan

ps. you're fellow traveler: the AnalogPlanet Herb Reichert described the Schiit/HifiMan system as "More vivid, detailed and considerably more exciting than any of those giant boxes were conjuring upstairs" . He was reporting the Newport event! That right there shows that nobody is editing his work.

xnor's picture

Or is it a $2 low-pass filter to "slow down" your super-duper fast amp, which you bought because it's so d#mn fast in the first place?

Masters of irony catered to by the masters of scammery.

drblank's picture

Cables, by themselves are filters. These devices are doing what MIT Cables spearheaded a long time ago. They build very high precision parallel filter to fix the problems inherent to just the wire by itself. It's proven technology and they have done many types of measurements to prove that it does do something. IT essentially, if designed properly, will enable the cables to become more neutral and not have as much negative effects on the signal.

If you are using the placebo effect, then you are using your own line of scammery to act like they don't work.

$2 to make? No, usually these companies mfg the product for about 1/10th the MSRP, and the dealer typically pays about 1/2 of MSRP. Remember, dealers have to make a profit and so do the mfg. They have to design the filter, they use VERY high precision passive components that they also have to hand match, and those components cost a fortune, even in the quantities they are purchasing these components, they probably have to throw away a lot of passive components that simply can't match to the specs they need. Kind of what happens if you want to get high quality tubes that are perfectly matched, they end throwing a percentage of what they purchase to be able to get matched sets that are sellable. The components they throw away add to the cost to mfg.

Now, this type of product is probably the easiest to hear what differences there are.

I would probably try these and MIT Cables' Vero products to compare.

BTW, i have not bought into Synergistic's other products, but these are based on research that has been proven to do something. Parallel filters is not a new thing, it's just new to the headphone market.

xnor's picture

Thank you for posting that.

I looked at MIT patents, and there is one that describes a trivial low pass filter - basically a single inductor added.
Wow, this should increase price of a cable by a dollar.

But wait a second, it says this should be at the end of the line near the load ... oops Synergistic Research's adapter looks like it plugs into amplifiers at the other side - far away from the load. Fail!

But wait a second #2, what is the voice coil of any headphone? A giant inductor, much bigger than MIT's suggested inductance! So this filter does nothing.

But wait a second #3, even if we ignore all the previous fails and assume that tiny amounts of HF noise make it through the voice coil - a headphone does not reproduce such frequencies.

But wait a second #4, let's assume that a headphone could reproduce 1 MHz and up ... no human hears or perceives such frequencies, especially not at such low levels. (It's not feasible you could hear that noise even if it was in the audible range, because it would by masked by the actual audio signal.)

drblank's picture

the patents describe the basic patent. Now, MIT uses custom components that are very high precision and they use a High Rel Impedance tester and they match the components down to a 1/100th of an ohm and capacitors to a very tight tolerence. They aren't buying cheap passive components from a cheap supplier. They are having CUSTOM capacitors and resistors made specifically to the ratings they spec. These components cost significantly more, just the raw components, then they have to have the high rel measurement systems, trained people (in the US, BTW) test, assemble, etc. They wind their own inductors. Now, if you look at their cheapest cables, they have at least 3 filters per cable, and they have to have custom wire made per their other patent and specs and that wire can NOT be made by just any wire mfg using any old cable winders. They are VERY precise tolerences, again, increasing the costs. Your problem is you've never worked at MIT's factory, or have even been to MIT's factory to see a factory tour. nor have you physically seen their costs broken down. I have been to their factory and know people that have worked their. Their cost to mfg are VERY high, plus they have to have markup and then the reseller has markup. Your problem is you have this myopic idea that they use cheap components, untested, and slapped together in China, because the crap you buy is made that way.

Are you sure you are looking at the right patent? They have patents for power cables which are slightly different than the patents for speaker cables (which a headphone cable is) and interconnects. Don't confuse the two. MIT has more than one patent. Plus, they also have patents either granted that they haven't listed, or have patents that have been submitted but not yet approved since it takes several years to get patent approval. MIT has cables that have up to about 155 filter networks in each box. Now how much do you think ti would cost to make a high precision stereo eq with 155 bands per side that's made from the highest quality components? A LOT OF MONEY. Go look at a mastering eq, like a GML and look at the price of those boxes with only 5 bands of eq, and price it without the power supply.

A speaker isn't JUST the voice coil, you forgot the rest of the speaker. The speaker is a transducer that takes an electrical signal and transfers it to a mechanical device. But the size of the coil doesn't necessarily negate the cable. Seriously, your logic is so flawed I'm laughing at how basic and wrong your logic is.

The frequency range of the cables isn't in the 1MHz range, they are tailoring each filter to a specific filer that's within the audible range of hearing.

You are basing your information on flawed logic. Seriously, Go to MIT Cables factory, get a factory tour and spend time asking questions instead of using flawed logic.

Where you will hear the most differences is in the range within hearing as that's where MIT Cables focuses on. What Synergistic is doing, I have no idea, but I can only assume they are just creating a slightly different filter design, but still a filter design. I have no idea how many filters they are using, but MIT uses at least 3 per channel (matched) for their basic cables.

Heck, why don't you just try them blind folded while someone else changes the cable and adds and removes the dongles? Wouldn't you hearing a difference validate that the technology works?

The Synergistic looks like it plugs into the headphone jack and the other end the headphone cable plugs into the filter.

When you look at the MIT's patents, make sure you read ALL of them and apply which patents apply to which product. Some of their patents apply to digital cables, some apply to analog speaker/interconnect cables, and some apply to power cables or power conditioning products, please don't confuse them.

xnor's picture

I guess you've never been to a water shaker .. eh homeopathy factory either.

Do you even know what a passive filter can do? Basically low pass (attenuating highs) or high pass (attenuating lows).
Basically "destroying" part of the energy of a signal by turning it into heat.

What do you want to attenuate, and why?

Have you understood nothing of what I wrote above? Nothing? That even if the filter works nicely attenuating tiny amounts of noise at >1 MHz it does not have any significant effect on a headphone driver?

Are you sure you are looking at the right patent?

Yes.
Send me a link to yours if you think I'm not.

MIT has cables that have up to about 155 filter networks in each box.

Citation needed. In other words: where is the evidence for that.
And what's the reasoning behind that other than catering to placebophiles?
What on Earth do you need to attenuate so much using crappy passive filter networks?

A speaker isn't JUST the voice coil, you forgot the rest of the speaker. The speaker is a transducer that takes an electrical signal and transfers it to a mechanical device. But the size of the coil doesn't necessarily negate the cable. Seriously, your logic is so flawed I'm laughing at how basic and wrong your logic is.

You have NO idea what you're talking about, do you?
And you understood nothing of what I wrote above, did you?

A speaker is a transducer that converts electrical into mechanical energy, and not into a "mechanical device".

I didn't say that the coil negates the cables. That doesn't even make any sense. My logic is flawed?? Heh, you're a troll.

The electrical components of a speaker model are in fact the inductance and the DC resistance of the voice coil.

The frequency range of the cables isn't in the 1MHz range, they are tailoring each filter to a specific filer that's within the audible range of hearing.

So they are degrading sound quality by attenuating in the audible range?

WOW. And this admission is coming from someone who has worked in their factories? Wow.

Why would any reasonable person buy such a cable?!

drblank's picture

The thing is, these filters are not wired in series like an EQ. IF you pass frequencies through a cable, they don't all pass at the same level. It's far more complex than what you are talking about because they aren't wired in series. If they were wired in series, then yes, but they aren't, they are wired in parallel.

Go do some more reading, it's a VERY complex subject matter that can't be fully discussed in a message blog.

Go visit their factory and do a factory tour, read all of the interviews that they done with Bruce Brisson and yes, he won't discuss things that are trade secrets because they want to protect certain things.

There are several videos on YouTube where he's interviewed or at RMAF panel discussions, he's been interviewed by various publications over the years. But he's only discussing HIS research. But judging from the information on the Synergist product, it appears as a very similar product. I just don't know how many filters they are using.

xnor's picture

Do you know anything about filter design? Apparently not.

You write pages long posts with nonsense but cannot answer my simple questions. As expected..

So you have a crappy passive complex filter network that turns a cable into the most inflexible EQ ever devised. 155 passive components and the signal will be distorted like crazy. Great.

Again, why would any reasonable person buy something like that? You gotta be crazy, especially considering the prices.

drblank's picture

wiring filter networks in parallel in the manner in which they doing DOES NOT distort. I think your fundamental problem is you are thinking about an EQ wired in series vs wired in parallel. There is a big difference.

drblank's picture

The thing is, these filters are not wired in series like an EQ. IF you pass frequencies through a cable, they don't all pass at the same level. It's far more complex than what you are talking about because they aren't wired in series. If they were wired in series, then yes, but they aren't, they are wired in parallel.

Go do some more reading, it's a VERY complex subject matter that can't be fully discussed in a message blog.

Go visit their factory and do a factory tour, read all of the interviews that they done with Bruce Brisson and yes, he won't discuss things that are trade secrets because they want to protect certain things.

There are several videos on YouTube where he's interviewed or at RMAF panel discussions, he's been interviewed by various publications over the years. But he's only discussing HIS research. But judging from the information on the Synergist product, it appears as a very similar product. I just don't know how many filters they are using.

xnor's picture

If you are using the placebo effect, then you are using your own line of scammery to act like they don't work.

I'm not using the placebo effect. SR and other scammers do and the sad part is that there are foolish enough people to buy (into) it.

You can hear all the warning signs in the video above. Some pseudoscientific babbling about "cleaning the signal" and "you have to try it" etc.

They have to design the filter, they use VERY high precision passive components that they also have to hand match, and those components cost a fortune

That's more nonsense.
Parts with tight tolerances to match the ideal values given MIT's patent are cheap. We're talking cents here. You can go fancy, then it's $1.

But the matching here is pointless anyway due to the reasons outlined above.

Another case in point: some headphone amplifiers also have similar filters on the output. The cost is a couple of cents per channel.

I would probably try these and MIT Cables' Vero products to compare.

I'm sure YOU would.

BTW, i have not bought into Synergistic's other products, but these are based on research that has been proven to do something. Parallel filters is not a new thing, it's just new to the headphone market.

Hahaha, please show me the research.
Show me the papers in the scientific journals.

This whole thing is a scam. Every audio device built to known standards has filters on the input, inside, and possibly even on the outputs. Every voice coil acts as a filter. Every transducer (loudspeaker, headphone, in-ear ..) acts as a filter.
So please, stop it.

But hey, maybe this ludicrously expensive SR HT jack does degrade sound quality audibly .. who knows.
I'm sure the biased placebo reviews will pop up - you gotta justify a $300 adapter, that doesn't even seem to have gold-plated contacts, somehow.

:D

drblank's picture

you can cut or boost certain frequencies, right? Well, they have to design their filters specifically with the actual cable in mind. They have to perform a battery of measurements and they have to perform a variety of calculations to determine what filters they need to create. In some cables, they "over articulate" certain frequency ranges, which results in distortions. Some frequency ranges are "under articulating" where they have to essentially boost to create a more neutral articulation curve.

If you look at their most expensive speaker cables, they have switches where you can tailor their "articulation" curve to match your system and your personal preference. Why do they call them articulation curves? They take measurements along the audible range, the put those measurements in a spreadsheet and compare against an articulation index. Articulation indexes have been around since the 40's since Bell Labs started to perform research in this area. Over the years, there are different types of articulation indexes that have been created and used. They have used articulation indexes for designing telephone systems, which Bell Labs did, then ASC does articulation measurements when figuring out room treatment, there are articulation measurements that the hearing aid mfg use, and MIT applied that to designing cables. If a range of frequencies over articulate, the result that you hear is a distortion of some sort and in many cases it's audible. If it under articulates, then you don't hear that frequency range as clearly. All MIT was trying to do is make a variety of cables at different price points to create a more "neutral' cable so you hear what you are supposed to, or another way of saying this is that the cable doesn't distort or damage the signal as much. Obviously, for those that are fortunate to have very good high end systems and pristine listening environment where they can hear more detail, they offer the more expensive products that have more detail since they are putting more filters to get more fine tuning, if you will, of the cable. They also want to be able to lower the noise floor as much as possible, they also have to deal with phase, etc. So they really do a lot of research to make sure that the cables do as little damage to the signal as possible so it reduces distortions and other problems that damages an audio signal.

Yes, ALL equipment in a stereo system is a filter, the cables is probably the weakest link in the chain.

Well, try the product to see for yourself if it damages the sound. The only way to tell is to listen to the product. So by all means, try the product in the dealer before you plunk down the money. Obviously, companies have to give you your money back if returned in a certain time frame. But I would definitely try them before i buy them and I would definitely compare agains the MIT Vero products as they have a variety of different dongles or cables. Some are for more enhanced bass, some are more for reference, etc. so they do it because they know that people have different headphones that sound differently and that people have their own personal preference. Some people like more bass definition because they listen to music that relies on bass, some want a very neutral cable for other types of music etc.

For me, I use MIT and Transparent cables for my stereo because they are the only two brands that I've tried that don't give me ear fatigue, other cables that I've tried gave me ear fatiuge. Ear fatigue is typically due to distortions in the upper mid range frequencies.. So, for me, I can't listen to my system for extended periods of time if there are those types of distortions. I've never had ear fatigue with MIT or Transparent cables, but I have with other brands. So, based on my experiences and knowing that MIT is leveraging the same type of technology in their headphone cables, that's probably something you won't have to worry about.

How long do you listen to your headphones before experiencing ear fatigue?

The only way I justify spending money is by listening to the product and judging for myself. I don't always justify spending money, just because of a review or because someone tells me. I do my own judging.

What you should be spending more time is listening to the product and basing your jdugements on those listening tests that making assumptions. You know what they say about making assumptions? You make an ass of yourself. So, don't make assumptions on something you haven't even tried. Who knows, you actually might change your mind if you did. I thought the same way you do about cables until I heard the difference first hand and based on that experience, and others that followed, I have a different viewpoint on cables. Cables CAN make it sound better or worse or have no difference, but there are a lot of factors that have to be taken into consideration. Listening levels, quality of recordings, ability to hear the differences, experience in understanding what to listen for, time taken, equipment used, etc. No one has tested every cable with every combination of equipment under every condition, so we have to test what we have with whatever cables we have access to.

No, I don't believe that this product is a scam. Yes, I believe that some of SR products might not have much validity to it because I have not seen any measurements to validate the technology and they are very vague on describing the technology, but parallel filters in cables is over 20 years old and I have experience (positive) with other brands of parallel filter technology in cables so for me, It's not a big deal. I can assume they probably do work, but I would compare to the MIT Vero product because they can design the filters differently or use more or less filters which will change what we hear.

xnor's picture

This shows that you have no clue.

There is no over-articulation and it is ironic that you use the words "there is distortion" when earlier you spoke of passive filter networks with >100 components. LOL.

Passive components, especially that many, will cause loads of distortion.

Are you really that deluded or just a very persistent troll?

Yes, ALL equipment in a stereo system is a filter, the cables is probably the weakest link in the chain.

Wow.

You just outed yourself as the worst troll I've ever seen on IF.

Here's a very simple argument that even you should get:
Don't you even know the expression "wire with gain" for the ideal amp? Notice how it doesn't say "wire with hundreds of passive components for severe distortion and gain"?

I'm stopping this here. It's pointless talking to a devout "believer" that has unshakable faith in scam products.

On last thing though:

How long do you listen to your headphones before experiencing ear fatigue?

I prefer different headphones for different situations, and none leads to fatigue regardless of price ($50 or $500, doesn't matter).

I can listen the whole day (several hours at work, the rest of the day at home) without needing any scam products.

All I use is basically a crossfeed I developed (a version is freely available on hydrogenaudio) for music to reduce the fatiguing unnatural stereo separation and all my headphones are equalized and modded for comfort.

Bye.

drblank's picture

you are still thinking incorrectly. You are thinking of a multi band eq which is wired in series. These aren't wired in series, they are wired in parallel, so it does NOT affect the signal directly. it affects how the cable stores and releases the energy at different frequencies. You really need to get off your brainwashed understanding of a in series EQ vs in parallel filter network.

xnor's picture

Ahahahahhaa, so clueless and still trolling.

From their own patent:

an inductor L1 coupled in series with the line 5 between the source 2 and the load 3

And it doesn't matter if you sum the output of several (parallel) distorting passive filters - the output will still be distorted and there will be a loss of energy.

LOL, you are calling me brainwashed?! YMMD again. :D

drblank's picture

which patent is this from?

xnor's picture

The series inductor is from 5,142,252.
See this comment that debunks this nonsense, especially in the light of SR's product.

6,658,119 deals with instruments with high output impedance connected to the input of instrument amps - this is not applicable here. Still, it just describes simple RC in parallel which DO distort magnitude/phase.
Otherwise it would be completely pointless.

7,242,780 is similar to 6,658,119.

drblank's picture

You add eq? Some of us don't like adding eq. because it can create artifacts, distortions, phase issues. Modded for comfort? That's got nothing to do with what they are selling. This isn't a comfort device.

Some of us don't like adding dsp, EQ, or anything because it can artificially change the signal and they don't all work that well. I certainly hate using eq. I think it's creates more problems than they fix.

xnor's picture

I use different types of equalization to linearize the output of a speaker - because speakers are the weakest components in audio reproduction, not wires as only a wackjob would suggest.

As such, it actually reduces linear (magnitude and phase) distortions and does not create artifacts if used properly. There's mechanical, electrical, digital ... EQ.
Headphone designers are limited in the voicing (e.g. mechanical EQ) of their headphones.

What I do is flexible, inexpensive, accurate and not based on scam products.

That's got nothing to do with what they are selling.

WTF?
YOU asked me a personal question about my fatigue with headphones. This question has nothing to do with scam products which you endorse, and now you're surprised about the answer?

Why do you ask? More trolling?

I think it's creates more problems than they fix.

That's because you're completely clueless, which you've clearly demonstrated here over and over again.

drblank's picture

but you don't know. Why don't you do more research and find out rather than GUESSING. You are just guessing with no valid proof to back up your claims.

drblank's picture

Finish your software, and get top mastering studios and recording studios, multiple awards from various audio publications and high end audio equipment mfg praising your products and THEN I might listen to you. At least companies like MIT Cables has done that, repeatedly. I don't think recording studios like SkyWalker Sound, which does recordings that are highly regarded due to their sound are going to use a product that adds distortions or doesn't work. So, until you can get similar credentials, then you are simply some fool that wastes time developing software, that STILL isn't finished, and STILL isn't good enough to attract any users that are willing to pay for it.

There are other software companies that develop crossfeed software or hardware by companies like SPL that fix issues that you are talking about. But I don't know much about this personally because I don't use it as I currently don't use headphones. I'm looking at headphone based products because I'm in my research mode because I plan on buying a set of headphones and I will try various cables and dongles and other related products at some point in the future. Whether I buy this product, or an MIT product or a SPL product or some software has yet to be determined. but there are highly regarded studios that have been using cables with parallel filters for about 20 years and they aren't complaining.

I think you are just very insecure person that feels threatened by cable mfg because YOU don't design cables for a living, you don't have the necessary test equipment to even understand what is involved with cables and some of these companies are doing things beyond your level of intelligence and you feel threatened.

xnor's picture

So you admit again to your complete ignorance.
Case closed.

And again (copied from another response where you posted the same BS):
YOU moron asked me what I personally use and how I deal with fatigue - I answered your question and that's the ONLY reason I mentioned crossfeed.

drblank's picture

and plenty of people would rather just buy a cable or a dongle to remove ear fatigue. So, let people use what they want.

xnor's picture

But it doesn't reduce any of the problems that cause fatigue I mentioned. Actual, real problems in sound reproduction with headphones.
Not imaginary problems that you and similar people are trying to fix with placebos and con products.

drblank's picture

Making up stories about products you've never even used. Simply go back to HydrogenAudio forum.

Bye bye. You should try these cable products WITH your software to see if you hear any difference. I think that when these products hit the market and there are enough people playing around with various software that someone is bound to try that combination.

When I get my headphones, I plan on trying MIT's products and possibly the SR product to compare and if I buy one of them, maybe I'll try some crossfeed software to see if there is any difference, improvement with one or the other or both. Personally, I don't think you can fix problems with software that are present in cables since the cables are sent the feed from the software, then to the DAC, pre amps, amps, and then to the cables. It just seems logical that you CAN'T fix all of the problems and that better cables might very well improve the sound quality WITH or WITHOUT Crossfeed software. I think you should conduct more listening tests to see if these products work with your software and see if there is any improvement. But since you haven't done that, you shouldn't comment on it.

xnor's picture

But I'm not interested how you waste your money, what scams you support, or what you think is possible or not when you admitted to your own complete ignorance several times.

Simply go back

I know that you people like to censor when you're out of stupid arguments, but I will not go away.
Also, hydrogenaudio is not the place I could "go back to" because I didn't come here from there.

You didn't provide any of the scientific research papers, and you quickly changed the topic when your own line of reasoning converged on double blind testing.
You just keep on asserting nonsense without a shred of evidence.

Unblank your brain, drblank. Read this and ideally the whole thread again, as unbiased as possible.
I don't know any other way to pull you back into reality.

drblank's picture

Making up stories about products you've never even used. Simply go back to HydrogenAudio forum.

Bye bye. You should try these cable products WITH your software to see if you hear any difference. I think that when these products hit the market and there are enough people playing around with various software that someone is bound to try that combination.

When I get my headphones, I plan on trying MIT's products and possibly the SR product to compare and if I buy one of them, maybe I'll try some crossfeed software to see if there is any difference, improvement with one or the other or both. Personally, I don't think you can fix problems with software that are present in cables since the cables are sent the feed from the software, then to the DAC, pre amps, amps, and then to the cables. It just seems logical that you CAN'T fix all of the problems and that better cables might very well improve the sound quality WITH or WITHOUT Crossfeed software. I think you should conduct more listening tests to see if these products work with your software and see if there is any improvement. But since you haven't done that, you shouldn't comment on it.

drblank's picture

I, with my other system, is a fully digital Meridian and everthing is kept in the digital domain except that last foot or so. Now, Meridian has done improvements to their drivers, amps, DACs, software, etc. And yes, Meridian sounds great for a DSP based system, but in those systems, they pretty much have no analog cables except if you feed it a turntable or an analog source, which gets converted to digital OR the last foot of wire. They in their design don't need to "FIX" analog speaker cables since they don't have them. Steinway/Lyndorf is essentially a similar type design.

As far as using DSP's to fix all of the problems when there are analog cables longer than a foot? I don't know if I would say that they would actually FIX all of the problems. Since these type of product are now coming on the market, i would have to compare using Crossfeed software by itself and WITH these different devices/cables to see if there is any difference. The only thing I've heard were comments from people that attended trade shows that did a side by side listening test of the same headphones with and without these types of devices and I haven't heard a single complaint. ALL of the people that have made comments about the MIT products, specially were positive.

Now, with looking at this, I really don't see how DSP type software can solve EVERYTHING. It might HELP and it also might work well having both. Since no one I know that I trust, has done enough listening evaluations with BOTH at the same time, then we have to wait and see. The MIT products don't ship until Sept. I don't know when the SR products ships. But I would wait until someone with less bias like you has to say about this.

I haven't tried Crossfeed software because I don't use headphones. I've used DSP software in a system with analog cables and for what it's worth, it was horrible. It was a pain to take the measurements, and the end result sucked and it's expensive software and I didn't want to waste my time with it.

With my player software, I use Amarra, Audirvana+, and Pure Music, and I've played around with various EQ, and found them to be more hassle than it was worth since I would have to essentially EQ each track individually and I simply don't have the time or interest in that.

But with Headphones, I'm doing my research into everything from the headphone, cables, headphone amp, etc. and I will try what I want to and I will do my own testing of crossfeed with and without a cable/dongle to see for myself. I personally feel, if the Crossfeed software addresses certain issues, great, but if the cable/dongle addresses things to and they both work well, then I might use both. But so far, there are other crossfeed software that I can use that are way past beta and I simply don't like your attitude, which is why I won't use YOUR product. Your product isn't considered the best solution in the world, so you are just as much of a con/placebo as what you claim others to be.

have a nice day and go finish your software and leave everyone else alone and when someone of credibility praises your software, don't post comments about others that have products that are highly praised in both the professional and non-professional world of audio.

It's the "audiophiles" that get some of these top end studios to improve the quality of their equipment, remember that. It used to be the other way around, but it's not that way anymore. It goes both ways.

drblank's picture

but these cable mfg test cables to find out if there is, and there is, and they have methods to prove it.

I'll bet if you applied a dollar amount to each hour you spent in messing around with crossfeed software , eq, etc .etc. you probably wasted a lot more money in your time than it costs to just buy a better cable or a dongle.

if you don't want to use this type of product and you aren't interested in it, then stay on Hydrogenaudio forum and stay away from this forum. Most people don't want to screw around with software tweaks as it's very time consuming. It's a lot easier to just plug in a better cable.

Just because your software is free doesn't mean that we want to waste time playing around with it. And what's funny is that the software constantly goes through revisions to fix the problems, so it's NOT a perfect solution and it isn't going to save any time dealing with it.

In addition, many of us don't want to use Foobar due to it being far too complicated to deal with. Many of us simply don't want to spend the time because it's not always going to produce a better sound. Software has problems, PERIOD. Look at the various DSP mfg, they are constantly trying to improve them and that's why a lot of people simply avoid DSP software or hardware products. So please don't bother people with DSP software or software tweaks. If we are interested then we can certainly explore that elsewhere.

I've learned that "FREE" usually has a price associated with it.k I have found software tweaks to be kind of useless and more time consuming.

xnor's picture

A cable doesn't fix the unnatural stereo separation in headphones, nor does it fix discomfort or nasty peaks or imbalances in the FR.
Please educate yourself before making an even greater fool out of yourself.

I'm not marketing my software, it's free and everything you say is wrong. The version offered is trivial to set up and didn't change in ages.

I don't care if you don't like it or are too stupid to use foobar. You asked me about my personal experience with fatigue - with my "method" I can listen the whole day
...
and I don't need scam products.

You shouldn't talk about stuff you don't have the first clue about.

drblank's picture

unrelated to them. But if your cables have distortions, your software won't fix that because the cable distortions are between the software and the speaker driver. Plus, your software isn't finished, it's still in beta, plus there is other sofware on the market that does what yours does, but is available from actual companies.

Why do you feel so threatened? Isn't it possible that a cable upgrade or adding one of these dongles can help and if the user wants to expereiencement with software in addtion is OK too?

For some stupid reason, YOU are the one that feels threatened by people buying something that CAN and many times WILL improve the sound and it's THEIR decision what product(s) they want to perchase and NONE of these companies are saying that THEIR product is better than what you have and aren't trying to sell it as a replacement for someone using software?

I've tried software on my traditional speaker setup where I had to take a series of measurements and quite frankly, it was a waste of time. it didn't improve the quality of sound. I've played with software EQ on my stereo and I played with various types of EQ and I felt that was also a waste of time as well.

I assume this is your information? http://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php?showtopic=90761

I don't use Foobar and I have no use for YOUR software and why you are going on various blogs about other products that are completely unrelated to your free beta software is beyond me.

Are you trying to act like an expert when you simply have no idea what parallel filters do in a headphone cable? Companies spend lots of money in R&D, patent applications, and other things related to the creation of such products, which you haven't even tried. And NONE of these companies mention YOUR software as a competitor or anyone else's crossfeed software for that matter. None of these companies even suggest fixing problems that you claim your beta software fixes. It's not a product for comfort, it's a freaking cable dongle.

You really need to chill out. You need to try the products and see for yourself if they work. Maybe, just maybe that your headphones would sound even better with the cable dongle AND your software. Remember, whatever your software does is still subject for a cable to damage that signal since the headphone cable is AFTER your software and not before.

As far as me not talking about things I don't know about, you need to listen to yourself. You can't even read a patent application, or understand the difference between a filter wired in parallel vs in series. It's NOT the same thing.

And due your personal attacks, you certainly aren't going to sell a bunch of your software, even if it is free. developing free software are people that simply don't have any understanding of the word, WORTHLESS. There are other software packages on the market that are further along in development than yours, offer some degree of support, and by people that don't attack others on the internet. Seriously, NONE of these products should be of concern to YOUR software. They aren't trying to compete against your free beta software and why don't you just stay on HydrogenAudio forums and support people that actually want to use your software instead of wasting OUR time with your ignorance.

No one needs a scam product, including your FREE BETA software created by someone that simply just wants to put down other for their ignorance.

I never said I knew about what the Crossfeed software does nor did I claim that it's better and that a cable upgrade still isn't necessary. Cables still pose a weakness in audio systems and your software isn't going to fix everything. It can't.

xnor's picture

You freaking moron, I don't feel threatened. There are many alternatives, some free, some cost something, some from hobbyists, some from companies. I don't care what you use.

YOU moron asked me what I personally use and how I deal with fatigue - I answered your question and that's the ONLY reason I mentioned crossfeed.

And how the f$#k should I feel threatened when fools buy into scam?
I point out that it is foolish to do so.

At least you admit to your own ignorance. Now get lost, troll.

TheAudioGuild's picture

MIT uses a complete misrepresentation and misapplication of "research that has been proven to do something."

But all good lies should contain some element of truth. And that's what charlatans like Bruce Brisson do.

se

drblank's picture

with Bruce at MIT and I don't think HP measurement division will work with Charlatans and you need to remove yourself and not make slanderous accusations. If MIT's parallel filter technology didn't work, then major recording studios, major high end equipment mfg wouldn't use them. They also wouldn't be copied by other companies and they wouldn't be getting continuous best cable awards from various publications continuously for many, many years.

Where's your proof? You make claims with no validity behind your slanderous accusations. Talk about a Charlatan, you are the one that will take that prize. You aren't an expert in cable design, you haven't shown valid data that proves anything. He has white papers, and if you don't understand them, then maybe you should talk to Bruce and get clarifications. There's nothing that I see that's wrong that you've pointed out since your statement is just a blanket statement with no specifics.

TheAudioGuild's picture

When it's written, it's libel, not slander. Learn the difference.

And your post is nothing but one non sequitur after another. Not the sharpest tool in the shed are you? But even a dull tool can be a "useful too." Or in American political parlance, a "useful idiot."

The problem is that I am an "expert" in cable design and I do understand the "white papers." On the other hand, you cannot and are incapable of recognizing them for the technobabble and gibberish that they are. The "measurement" plots in those papers are worthless. There is zero information as to what they actually represent or how the measurements were made.

Once I receive the Vero cable (an associate of mine was one of the Indiegogo backers), a complete network analysis will be performed on it.

But really, all you need to do is read the patent and have an understanding of electronics to see that it's the work of a quack.

se

drblank's picture

Wow, so you use another word to describe damaging another's credentials. WOW. I'm impressed. Go run along and be worried about YOUR credentials, for which you have NONE.

You aren't a cable designer with decades of experience, patents, industry awards, products used in top studios and work closely with top measurement mfg creating new methods for measurement.

You are just some troll that feels threatened.

TheAudioGuild's picture

Not "another word." The PROPER word.

Bruce doesn't have any more "credentials" than any other quack or charlatan. Being successful selling bullshit does not add up to "credentials."

Can you cite a single article or preprint by Bruce published by the AES, or IEEE, etc.?

Didn't think so.

It's easy to get "credentials" when all you have to do is hoodwink end users and "journalists" that just mindlessly regurgitate your bullshit.

Bruce and the industry he operates in is a complete joke.

se

drblank's picture

It's called TRADE SECRETS. A mfg of a product doesn't always want to tell everyone how he tests his products or designs he products to a level that you want him to. He probably doesn't have any time to do that and maybe he doesn't feel he needs to.

SkyWalker Sound is one of the top recording studios in the industry. He uses them as one of the many beta sites for the products he makes. He even hired a former audio engineer that also have designed products to work for MIT Cables. So, he's NOT just selling products for the "audiophile" community, he sells products that are used in professional recording studios, which by the way, use high end audio products in addition to products designed specifically for the studio. Not all studio products are that great either. Some are built more for reliability and durability but not necessarily for better sound. I read several audio engineers that buy top notch professional studio equipment STILL modify the guts with better internal wiring, better capacitors, etc. etc. Bob Ludwig is one that does this and he uses TOP equipment in his studio, some of which he designed that are also sold to the "audiophile" community. For what it's worth, many studios use crap equipment. Ever hear of the NS-10 Yamaha monitors? They are to represent crappy speakers since a lot of people don't have decent speakers in their home stereo, but they create mixes specifically tailored towards that crowd as some content is meant for teenage girls rather than serious listeners, just as they will also sometimes use high end speakers, etc. to ensure that the content sounds good for the "audiophile" or more serious listener that will have similar speakers. Companies like B&W, Eggleston, Wilson Audio and many others have their equipment used in professional studios just like they are used by the "audiophile" community.

Maybe you just like using cheap speakers because that's all you can afford and maybe you simply don't have trained listening skills.

Ever download the Harmon How to Listen App to test and train your listening skills? It's free and it was developed by a PhD and it's what Harmon uses to test applicants that want to be listeners for product development. EE's aren't trained on how to listen, audio engineers and mastering engineers have to develop those skills over many years and some are just better at it than others. Not everyone hears things similarly. Some people simply have more skilled listening abilities.

AES and IEEE papers are for those that want to publish something that others can leverage to make products or some other use. Brisson designs products to be sold and used by both professional studios and home theater and home stereo applications. He's not trying to cater to the masses selling products in Best Buy. he's a designer of products and he likes to keep things to himself as much as he can because he's not getting paid by MIT Cables to release trade secrets and to tell others how to copy their designs. Their designs are patented and they like to protect their designs as best as they can and publishing a AES or IEEE paper would release information they don't want to release.

I worked with an Acoustic Engineer that was doing research in small room acoustics, but he didn't make a product, he was just doing some research and making himself available to perform room analysis and offer advice to treat or design a room for a variety of small room applications. So, he had nothing to protect as he wasn't selling a product. Not all companies that make products publish IEEE or AES papers. There are reasons for it.

Does Microsoft or Apple or Cisco publish papers on everything they do? NO. Why? Trade secrets. It allows them to focus on designing new products which OBVIOUSLY have a market.

People that typically publish papers for AES and IEEE are typically more research related, but the problem with MIT Cables is that they have proprietary software (co-developed with HP) and their own measurment equipment they designed in house which is unavailable to everyone else.

Seriously, if you don't want to buy their products, don't buy them. If you do, then try them yourself and maybe you might like them. I'd be surprised if you receive the Vero product and can't hear a difference. I have no way of knowing what your level of listening skills with audio equipment is. I've seen your site and to me, it looks like you use VERY inexpensive (relatively speaking) measurement equipment and you seem to not necessarily know how to test cables as compared to Brisson. He spends most of him sitting in a lab at his home or office, which has hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of test equipment and he consults with other EE's and other engineers from different disciplines all of the time.

Yeah, i know they make ridiculously expensive products, but some of their clients are top audio mfg that have their credentials for making top flight products. Go look at Spectal Audio, they use and recommend MIT Cables exclusively, and one of their engineers also does reference audio recordings of classical music and is regarded as a top audio engineer. They, to my knowledge, have trained listening skills and they know what a real piano or an orchestra sounds like and whether or not a sound system can reproduce accurately. The goal is to make better sound and to reproduce better sound, if their products are used in top studios, that makes me feel more comfortable in using their products because it's not JUST the "audiophile" community, it's the professional recording industry that deals with acoustic instrument recordings.

Your problem is you THINK that Bruce only caters to the "audiophile" community. WRONG. He actually caters to the professional recording industry and they just sell similar products that also caters to home theater and home stereo because a speaker cable, interconnect, etc. is used in both markets.

What industry do you work in? Do you work in a professional studio? Which one? What recordings have you done that I can listen to? Or are you just someone that has a limited knowledge of EE and you have some relative inexpensive measurement equipment trying to test what you learned in college? You don't learn everything in college at a EE course. they only teach basics and since the high end cable market is so small, very little research has been done at the university level for this type of product.

There are plenty of audio equipment engineers that make products for the professional audio industry that don't publish IEEE or AES articles, but you don't seem to worry about what they do.

Not having IEEE or AES articles published doesn't mean his technology isn't valid. The Professional Audio recording industry people that use his products validate it. SkyWalker Sound is a top notch studio that is highly regarded IS one of his beta test sites for new products. I think that speaks just as highly as some IEEE or AES article. Again, some engineer aren't out to get recognition from IEEE and release their trade secretes int he process. That would be stupid on their part.

Why don't you engage with a conversation with Brisson? He's done panel discussions and has opened up questions to the audience and is a human being that is capable of discussing what he does. He has been interviewed by various magazines about this work, he just chooses to not discuss certain things he's trying to protect. He can't discuss something if he's in the process of something before it's patented. His son is an EE and a Patent Attorney and i'm sure he is told not to discuss certain things due to patent protection. If you had a patentable idea, would you tell everyone about it before you got patent protection? NO. Some of things they do they might not want to release as they don't want to dilvudge their secrets. Some people elect NOT to get things patented as they simply don't want others making a small change and duplicating what they are doing. You have to aware of this and acknowledge this. Bruce isn't paid to publish articles and he's not some researcher trying to get funds to fuel his research. his company provides R&D money based on product sales. Some EE's don't do that, they get paid by research grants and I am highly suspicious of those people if they can't make a product that is successful in the market place. Some of these guys that publish articles only make their money that way and they don't actually design products, so be careful about them as well.

You only see things from YOUR perspective and you ignore other people's perspective. What articles on cable design have you published in IEEE or AES? Care to share so maybe I will take you seriously that you even know how to measure or design a cable? Or are you just some troll with some test equipment that tries to damage people's reputations, especially when you haven't even tested his products.

You should be consulting with the cable mfg and relaying how you test their products to ensure you actually know what you are doing. Do you have THEIR approval and admission that your methods are sound and will give useful results? Just asking. The problem is YOU don't share YOUR credentials For all I know you could be some mental patient with some test equipment. How do I know you know how to measure cables and have the best equipment available? Are you willing to face Brisson directly with your results and have a frank discussion and willing to listen to his response? Do you have the guts to do that?

Have you been to MIT's factory and had discussions with Bruce? Before you go around discrediting him when you have NO valid data, you might want to get into a discussion because you actually might learn something from it.

TheAudioGuild's picture

*yawn*

se

drblank's picture

little man. Go back to the whole from which you crawled out from. You simply have no credentials to put down others that have products used in major top end recording/mastering studios. You have NO credentials in the area of measurements of cable designs. You don't have the equipment and knowledge. Bye bye.

TheAudioGuild's picture

From the man who doesn't know libel from slander and hole from whole.

You should change your name to Non Sequitur.

Does Bruce know you're out in public embarrassing MIT like this?

se

drblank's picture

You don't have credentials, knowledge, experience or equipment to disprove MIT Cables. Seriously. You simply lack what it takes to disprove their products.

TheAudioGuild's picture

You have know clue what I know. And it's not for me to disprove, but for Bruce to prove. And his "white papers" (which may as well be toilet paper) are just a bunch of worthless graphs and gibberish. That may impress buffoons like you who don't know ohm's law from a hole in the ground, but not anyone who didn't sleep through Electronics 101.

But since you're so hung up on "credentials," the person who will be running the Vero cable through on his network analyzer and filing the report is a PhD. The only degree Bruce has is a Masters in Bullshit.

se

drblank's picture

with high profile top notch customers. You are just some little tiny whole in the wall company trying to sell generic braided cables.

I don't care if the guy that you are going to have test his cables has a PhD. I've worked around PhD's that were actually IDIOTS. Having a PhD doesn't necessarily know everything. He doesn't have the software MIT Cables co-developed with HP Measurement Division and neither do you.

I think your buddy should discuss how he tests cables with Bruce because if he doesn't have the same test equipment, software (which I already know he doesn't have) or know how to test cables, then his data might be invalid. Not every PhD in EE knows everything about everything. What specifically was his PhD in, cable design?

You shouldn't be in the audio industry selling products spouting your crap, people like can go out of business VERY quickly.

xnor's picture

because you start to realize that you wasted lots of money?

There is no need to disprove BS claims - logic 101. You need to provide the freaking evidence for them.
And there is no need to have special credentials, which you requested earlier, but now that you've heard "PhD" you attack the very thing you requested.

Heh, you must be quite confused in the head.

So you've demonstrated ignorance about anything you've talked about so far and that you couldn't tell a rational argument if it hit you over the head.

/clap

I still hope you're not real but a troll.

TheAudioGuild's picture

You can find high profile people promoting all manner of bullshit. You really don't know what a non sequitur is do you? That's ironic because that's all I've ever seen from you.

Ok, so you're all hung up on "credentials" yet you dismiss someone with a PhD. So which is it? Do credentials mean anything or don't they? You can't have it both ways.

Ok, how about this. Not only does he have a PhD, he holds more patents than Bruce as well. You going to dismiss that as well?

And there's simply nothing "new" to learn about RC and RLC networks. Their behavior hasn't been a mystery for a century or more. Again, the most basic circuit outside of a resistor. Problem is, you don't know even the first thing about them so quacks like Bruce can feed you a loads of nonsense to impress you and have you pathetically trying to defend him in public.

Bruce us not only a quack, he's a coward. He knows he wouldn't hold up under real scrutiny so he hides in the shadows.

se

drblank's picture

you sound like an ignorant nobody in the industry that doesn't have your products getting lots of industry awards, used in top studios and by top equipment manufactures or even partners with major measurement equipment mfg to co-develop measurement software and test equipment.

PhD's only know what they know and they don't know everything. so just because someone has a PhD doesn't mean they are an expert in every subject matter.

I've known engineers that didn't have any college education and they were commonly called upon by PhD's at Stanford in a certain area of expertise that my buddy knew more about than he did and this was a PhD professor at Stanford. The area was color measurement My friend was asked to conduct a session for the students by this professor at Stanford. So, I'm just explaining to you that having a PhD doesn't mean you know everything. Maybe Bruce has been conducting tests and has found new ways to examine cables that weren't known about before. He did ask HP to develop measurement equipment that wasn't even available prior. It's like the difference between someone using a $50 ohm meter vs a $100K high rel impedance test equipment. One is going to give you one answer and the other will give you another answer. One will be more precise and the other won't. Performing different types of tests that weren't done before can also explain how things work. They didn't have single shot FFT analyzers until they created one and they could learn from that. He has software that no one else has and I'm sure it will give him results that are useful and gives him insight that others don't have because they don't have access to that software.

You live in a world that sounds like ancient old, outdated, knowledge of cables. That's what you are probably struggling with. Time moves on and people learn new ways to test things, and they find out new things to make a product better than the old outdated way. It's how product designs progress.

How is Bruce a coward? He has held panel discussions on cables in public forums and attendees could ask questions, I don't see your buddy asking to be on the same panel, nor is he holding panel discussions on cables at these high end audio shows. Maybe your buddy can learn a thing or two.

What well respected cable has he designed? Any?

You hide behind your computer calling others a quack, Bruce is probably sitting in his lab conducting measurements because that's what he spends most of his time doing.

TheAudioGuild's picture

I'm beginning to believe that you are just an MIT sock puppet account.

se

drblank's picture

there is NO technical information whatsoever. No published ANYTHING. Have you held or been invited to panel discussions on cables in a public forum answering questions from the audience? NO. At least Bruce had the guts to show up at panel discussions at RMAF with other cable mfg engineers to discuss each company's approach to cable design. Kimber was there, JPS was there, Clarity Cables was there. How come you weren't there to ask questions? Afraid? It was just a few years ago.

FYI, you discuss Mogami Cable on your site, you probably didn't know that a some of these high end recording studios replaced their Mogami cable with MIT or Transparent cables and they were happy to spend the money. Why? Because they heard a difference. Recordings studios don't like throwing around tons of money on rewiring their studio unless there are valid reasons. That's what the difference in what these other companies are doing.

I am not paid by anyone to post comments. I'm just a consumer that's had my own experiences. I used to think that cables didn't make a difference until that day when I could.

TheAudioGuild's picture

What technical information do I need to have? I'm not stuffing resistors, capacitors and inductors into my cables. I give the gauge, stand count, litz type, and the materials used. What more do I need?

And I don't see even as much technical information on MIT's website as I have in mine. All I see is a bunch of marketing gibberish. I don't speak gibberish so there's no gibberish on my website.

se

drblank's picture

because you don't know how. You just sit around doing what others have already done. Seriously, you are just someone doing nothing special that others haven't already done. Your cable design is based on old, outdated, ancient knowledge. Which is probably why no high end studios use your cables.

TheAudioGuild's picture

I don't put components in my cables because there is no need for them. Audio cables have been a solved problem for a century. My cables have an Articulation Index of 1, which is perfect. You can't get any better than an AI of 1. So why do I need to go stuffing resistors, capacitors and inductors in them?

It's only quacks like Bruce who mislead people such as yourself into believing there is still some "problem" to overcome for which they gave the "cure." That's classic snake oil marketing.

se

drblank's picture

You are the quack. AI of 1? Where did you get that from? Some number you pulled out of air?

Seriously, you use an old design because you can't design anything else, and yes, people are finding the need to use better cables.

TheAudioGuild's picture

I got the AI of 1 from actually understanding what an Articulation Index is. And an audio cable, even the cheap giveaway cables have an AI of 1. That's because AI is wholly irrelevant to an audio cable. A cable has no noise of its own other than the thermal noise of the wire. Which you're never going to hear under any circumstances.

So I use an old design because there's nothing that needs fixing.

se

drblank's picture

Maybe you might actually learn something. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3s7w1Rp9AlQ

TheAudioGuild's picture

It's just a quack convention. More technobabble and gibberish to fool idiots like you who don't know any better. You're like a religious cult.

se

drblank's picture

The only scam around here is YOU. And how long has your company been in business? Get out your calendar because it'll be out of business and we can start the countdown NOW.

They probably talked above your head, which is why you call people names when the real Charlatan is YOU. French Silk? Really? WOW. And I'm sure French Silk is better than silk from India or another country that's more well known for their silk.

TheAudioGuild's picture

Like it says on the website, "Since 1998." We've only been producing headphone cables since 2011. Still in business and still have a 10-14 business day lead time. Not going anywhere any time soon. In fact, plans are in the works to expand into a much larger market with a more affordable cable for headphones in the $300-$400 price region. And we'll be moving into electronics as well. So I'm afraid the only thing I'll be marking on my calendar is the launch date of the new cable brand.

No, they didn't talk over my head. They only demonstrated that the "high end" audio market is the only place that quacks like that can have any sort of success.

As for French silk, all silk fiber comes from Asia. But there's more to silk than the raw fiber. It also needs to be dyed and made into thread. The French company that supplies my silk is a fifth generation family owned business that has been producing some of the world's finest silk threads for over 150 years. I've looked at alternate sources but they simply can't deliver what the French company can.

se

drblank's picture

how does the silk you get any better than any other silk? you are just simply spouting REAL bullshit.

You can't even get a dealer to carry your products.

You just price them cheaply because you can't get retail stores to carry your product and you are just a one man operation that buys your cables elsewhere.

TheAudioGuild's picture

The color of the silk has nothing to do with the sound of the cable. I said I used different colors for aesthetics. Are you really so stupid and lacking of a vocabulary that you don't know what aesthetics means?

And I don't have any dealers for my current cables because I don't want to make any more than I already am. As I said I make every one of them and I'm only able to keep up with existing demand.

The new brand will be production made (meaning hiring people to assemble them) and will be sold in retail stores.

se

drblank's picture

that's when you'll lose control because right now,you sound like some mean drunk person that has to go on message blogs and trash talk others that are well respected in the industry that you simply are a spec of nothing. Seriously, you need to figure out how to conduct yourself and not trash talk other company's. I wonder how you'll treat employees when you actually get some.

TheAudioGuild's picture

Not going to lose control of anything. And people like Bruce are only well respected in this microscopically industry called "high end" audio by other quacks and rubes like you. And my employees will be treated very nicely because I won't be hiring any quacks or rubes like you.

se

drblank's picture

understanding WHY you would spend so much of your time on the internet trash talking everyone that doesn't trash talk you and you say you are backlogged in your orders. I now know why you are backlogged, instead of soldering cables, you are trash talking people. Why are you doing that? Do you think you are going to make friends and sell more product by doing that? You can't even keep up with the little demand you have because you are spending your time on the internet trash talking instead of making products to ship to customers. It's no wonder other companies have more products, more customers, they aren't wasting their time trash talking others. Instead, they are working on new product designs.

Maybe one of these days you'll wake up and understand that in order to run a business, you need to be a little more polite in how you deal with people. I couldn't care about the products you make because I don't like your attitude and how you trash talk others that have industry recognition and it's not JUST the audiophile industry, it's others in the professional audio industry.

If you don't like the audiophile industry, then get out and stay out and quit bothering others and trash talking those that have patents, have industry awards for best product of the year, and have top eschelon studios and other mfg that use their products. You have a lot to learn and you seem to think that you know everything. Next time you want to have a new measurement product created, are you going to call a measurement company that will listen to you? Bruce does. He can call Agilent (formally HP Measurement Division) and they WILL listen to him and they will most likely build a new measurement tool based on his needs as they have done several times before. He's the one that asked for a single shot FFT analyzer and helped them with the development, he's the one that asked for special software that they needed. That's not an easy feat for anyone to do. Seriously, you really need to grow up and not act so childish with your puerile comments. If there products didn't work, they wouldn't have lasted over 30 years in the industry. Maybe you just feel threatened because they are entering the headphone cable market. I don't know what it is, but people that automatically put others down over technology that they are unfamiliar with are those that are simply ignorant about a subject and don't understand what they are doing, so they create put downs to act superior. It's common human trait some people have. You seem to possess that trait and if you want to have staying power in the industry, you need to keep your comments to yourself. Worry about making products for the customers you do have instead of trash talking others. If you weren't such an A-hole, I might be interested in future products of yours, but not know. I am in the market for headphones, headphone amp, etc. and I won't buy from you because I don't like your attitude.

I've had great luck with other brands of products, and if i continue to have good experiences with their company, that makes me a more loyal customer. People spend whatever money they have/want on audio gear and people buy what they want from whom, but you are telling me your own set of nonsense based on no valid data to back up your statements. Simply saying that someone is talking gibberish doesn't say anything, it's just a childish put down. But having tangible, valid data is different. You can't provide valid data and because you simply don't have the equipment and knowledge to conduct the same tests they are doing, and that's the ONLY you would have a shot in hell in showing any proof. Supply basic tests or not being thorough in the manner in which you test something does NOT have enough validity to the measurements. But you haven't provided ANY test data. NONE. ZERO. ZILCH. So, in my mind you are simply trash talking without any valid data to support it and that's all you are.

I'm done with you. Seriously, you need to keep your thoughts to yourself and focus on your own company and don't worry about someone else's.

TheAudioGuild's picture

I only trash quacks, charlatans and frauds.

Why? Because they deserve to be trashed.

se

drblank's picture

valid data to support your delusional comments. NONE. ZERO. NOT ONE SHRED OF VALID DATA. Sounds like the only person quacking is YOU.

TheAudioGuild's picture

Oh, I can show that it's bullshit. But there's simply no "proof" that I or anyone else could give that would convince a moron like you. You're no different than a religious zealot.

Here, let me prove my point.

From Bruce's patent, "In addition, the component values of the circuits are selected such that the measured impedance of the network at all frequencies in a predetermined frequency range is equal to or greater than 0.20 Megohm."

So, the impedance of one of his "articulation poles" can be no less than 200k ohms (that's the same as saying "0.2 Megohms").

So let's look at an example of driving an Audeze LCD-2 headphone which has an impedance of 60 ohms.

If we put an "articulation pole" (i.e. RC network) in at 1 kHz, with an impedance of 200k ohms, and then you performed a frequency response plot, at 1 kHz, you see a dip of just -0.003 dB. And -0.003 dB is about two orders of magnitude lower than any human being can hear such a change under music listening conditions. You wouldn't be able to hear it even if you were comparing pure tones.

It's bullshit. This despite the fact that even the cheapest cables have an Articulation Index of 1. They don't need "fixing." And if you can't understand how even the cheapest cable would have an AI of 1, then you have absolutely no idea what an Articulation Index is in the first place. And either Bruce has no idea, or he does and is just exploiting the term to give his bullshit a false legitimacy.

Now, I can't wait to see how you dismiss the 0.003 dB figure.

se

drblank's picture

a LONG time ago. Things progress, things change for specific products. Obviously they have new cables that are SPECIFICALLY designed for Audeze, Sennheiser, etc. headphones. You are blindly unaware that he has probably spent a LOT of time in designing these cables SPECIFICALLY for the headphones. Now, does MIT Cables have information specifically that covers what they are doing for these headphones to explain what they are doing on a specific level? NOPE. Not at this time. Maybe they are preparing new information to cover this or maybe they won't. You have to talk to them. You simply don't understand the fact that MIT is CONSTANTLY progressing and they don't always update their website on new technical aspects of what they are doing with regards to new products. Why is that? Because, they have a lot of copy cat companies and counterfeit companies trying to constantly copy their product designs. They also might have some new patents that are submitted that haven't gotten approval, you simply don't know what the actual reason is. They could be developing new technical information that simply hasn't been posted on their site or they might simply don't think they have to just to satisfy a competitor. You can't just take some older information and apply it to a brand new product. Remember, THEY don't want to tell you everything and things do change with new products designed specifically for a different application.

There are a variety of articulation indexes that have been created which Bruce does mention in one of their white papers. Which one is he using? I don't know and I simply don't care at this point, but it's not something that I have to worry about. And he's not judging the entire cable by one number, He doesn't say "this cable has an articulation of 1 or .5, etc." he generates an articulation CURVE as outlined on their site. so they generate an articulation curve based on measurements they plug into their spreadsheet, it then compares it against the index they have and then it spits out the curve and then look at what they need to do to get more linearity, since they have the filters, they can essentially custom create the networks to the cable to voice them for more linearity or for a specific equipment, like a headphone, which is probably what they are doing in the case of headphones. That's how they can get a better cable without just making a different cable geometry, use different dielectrics, etc. They basically are voicing their cables by adding more networks or by changing which frequencies the networks are based on.

If you watched the video I posted the link to, he discusses things that might add clarity. He custom developed cables for a specific amp by Spectral because of their unique design and the cables they sell through Spectral are specifically designed to work properly with their amps due to certain specs Spectral has that are VERY unique to Spectral. They obviously can change their filters appropriately to match equipment. They even match their interconnects with impedance matching as pre amps don't have the same output. They looked at pre amps and determined that they fall into one of 3 different impedance ranges for their output and they figured that they need to design cables to match these different categories. So, let's say you buy a cable and it's designed for a low impedance output pre amp, but you connect it to a pre amp that has a higher impedance. Guess what? It's not going to match up. So, they can design their cables to match equipment and they've been doing that for quite some time. That's why their top end interconnects have impedance switches so you don't have to get new cables or send back your cables to be rematched.

Where did you get this "cheapest cables" have an articulation index of 1 from? MIT doesn't mention that and I've never seen anyone mention that cables have an articulation index of 1. Where are you getting that from?

He talks about him setting the proper articulation to 50% and it's discussed in his literature.

Now, I'm not Bruce Brisson, I'm a customer. You obviously aren't reading and applying what he's discussing properly as companies are NOT going to tell you everything about every product and what changes they make.

They have different frequencies listed so it's EACH frequency that's considered, not an overall rating based on 1 number. Each frequency in the range they are considering have a rating. There are also various articulation indexes that have been developed.

Bruce has applied the principals to looking at cables over the entire frequency range. Most of the articulation indexes were first developed for speech, but Bruce is doing it over a wide frequency range because music covers a much wider range than just speech. So, they develop a curve based on the measurements taken over the range of frequencies and they decided to set over articulation at 1, and proper articulation at .5, etc. So if you want to argue over his methodology go talk to him and maybe he'll spend time explaining it to you so you understand. The problem you might face is that you are a cable mfg and he may not want to share that information with you because he might think you want to copy his products, which many others have done.

the other problem that you fail to realize is that just changing one filter covering a very narrow frequency may not be audible, which is why he puts many filters (between 3 and 155) and depending on the cable each filter may be wider or narrower and it's the combined total that changes the voicing because it's not just a filter covering narrow frequency, but a lot of flters and the changing of ALL of the filters. Obviously the more filters, the filters are narrower and the less filters the wider that filter covers. I'm sure you can understand that. You seem to take one little tiny piece of information that might be simply an EXAMPLE rather than what they use in a real product. Bruce does that a lot. He will give an EXAMPLE of the technology, but he doesn't and will not give exact figures because that would give away the secret sauce. he's not going to release his algorithms, he's not going to release the actual resistance levels, etc. for each product. Remember that a patent doesn't mean he uses the exact same numbers when the patent is just covering more of conceptual design and I think that's part of your confusion.

If i were you, I'd bring up your concerns directly with him since he's the engineer in question, he's the patent holder and he can explain his technology and the reasoning behind it a lot better than I or anyone else can. So talk to him directly, tell him your concerns and see how he responds. If he can clear it up for you, then hopefully he'll do that.

As far as using the term "articulation pole" he admits publicly that they use that term for lack of anything else. He also mentions publicly that he set proper articulation at .5, NOT 1. Ask him why and whatever other questions you care to ask him. Remember, he's applying the articulation measurements to cables over a wide frequency range and not JUST for Speech, which is a narrower frequency range. Maybe that's why. In his White Paper discussing articulation for music and speech, he has this statement. " Today, there are much more sophisticated types of tests or measurements available, such as STI, %Alcons, and RASTI to name a few."

So I have no idea which one he's using and maybe that's part of your confusion. I personally don't care which one he uses as I'm pretty confident that he's using the one that fits his specific needs. He has consulted with others like Art Noxin, who uses articulation measurements as well as others, so thinking that there is one and only one articulation index would be incorrect.

I've seen various articulation indexes on the internet and I personally am not an expert in that field, so you need to discuss this with Bruce. I understand the underlying concept behind them which is all I really need to know since I don't measure or design cables or things that rely on articulation indexes, but it is the use of the concept that I feel is one good way to analyze cables. The other thing that MIT does, which isn't mentioned on the website, but he's mentioned this in interviews is that they are also looking at spectrum analysis and looking at harmonic structure. They are looking at various notes, harmonics, inharmonious, decay, rise time, etc. But they don't go into specifics other than they are looking at other factors in essentially preserving the harmonic structure as best as they can, which is what music is all about. If you lose the harmonic structure, then you aren't hearing the music properly. Imagine if you hear a piano but several of the harmonics was lost completely, that piano wouldn't sound the same as it should. So harmonic structure analysis is obviously something they look at that isn't covered in their website, but he has talked about it in interviews. You also have to realize is that Bruce spends most of his time in a lab measuring and designing products. He doesn't spend as much time at the factory as he has a duplicate lab at his house and I'm sure he doesn't like to answer phones every 5 minutes to talk to some fool about his products as he's paid to design products. The marketing stuff is produced mostly by someone else and he only spends a little time in preparing anything to be published and he simply doesn't have a lot of time to spend on writing down something for public consumption because it detracts from his regular work which is designing products and measuring things.

Remember, they have other patents they applied for that aren't published and if/when they are going to publish them is anyone's guess. I know it must be frustrating for you since you haven't sat down and discussed your concerns with Bruce. That's probably what needs to happen so he can address your concerns and add clarity. There are various interviews and videos of his panel discussions where he sheds a little nugget that helps clarify things. Their product designs have also changed from their first products. So please keep in mind that a patent that they had 20 years ago may not be what they are using in the products they make currently. I was watching one video, can't remember which one, but he said that their most recent products have new patents and they haven't posted because the patents had just been sent in and it takes a few years to get patent approval and I know these aren't posted and they may or may not post them as to make it more difficult to have people copy their products. Since you don't have any patents that I'm aware of and/or don't have companies trying to copy your products, you don't know what it feels like to have people quizzing them trying to figure out to copy THEIR designs and work. So, please bare in mind, just because they have a patent on their site doesn't mean they don't have other patents or other patents in the approval process that covers a product that's on the market as they might have made some improvements and changes that simply doesn't apply anymore.

drblank's picture

the awards, the industry experts (audio recording studios), the fact that he and HP co-develooped test measurement tools is a form of credentials that's directly related to what he does for a living.

A PhD reads books and articles published, but there are small companies doing further research in areas that DON'T want to publish their findings because they want to keep their competitive advantage. Bruce isn't PAID to publish articles in IEEE because he has no need to. Why would someone want to tell the world how to measure and design products? They purposely don't expose everything because they have a business to run rather than just sitting in some hole publishing articles and papers to get more research funding. HIs 30+ years in the industry gives Bruce the credentials with his breadth of products, awards, industry experts using his products and being test sites. Who would you give an audio product to in order to get feedback? A industry expert that records/masters audio on a daily basis that has top industry recognition? Or a PhD sitting in a room that doesn't have the plethora of test equipment that may not know the first thing about LISTENING to a piece of audio gear?

TheAudioGuild's picture

SOCK PUPPET

se

xnor's picture

And no, having fooled customers into buying scam products is not evidence that they work.

Case in point, whole government have been fooled into buying completely ineffective devices for millions upon millions of dollars.

So running around with a list of customers as "proof" (LOL) instead of providing the actual evidence is another warning sign.
Thanks for providing that.

drblank's picture

bottom line with audio gear is listening to it. The problem is that everyone has different skills in how to listen to a piece of audio gear. That's why MIT Cables relies on industry "experts" that deal with audio recording and mastering because they typically have some of the best trained ears and invironments in the world. SkyWalker has access to their environment, they know what to listen for. They get industry awards for best sound. That's just one of their beta sites that helps MIT develop products. So, MIT will rely on EXPERTS in the field of listening to audio equipment as a means to help define what the finished product will be. if he gets feedback that the product sucks, then he'll change it. He measures first, and listens second.. If he can't measure a difference in something, then he won't change the product, if he does, then he has to listen to it to determine if there is an improvement and enough of an improvement to market the product. His beta sites help in those efforts.

Who listens to your products before you release it? Anyone of significance except for you? Your PhD buddy that has no listening skills that he/she has honed though decades of experience? Bottom line, if his products didn't freaking work, he'd be out of business a LONG time ago.

xnor's picture

You are so confused, you don't even notice who you're talking to.
Are you a spam bot?

So please provide the papers with these expert test results, that would of course include detailed measurements (and not random scrambled jpeg graphs).
Where is this evidence?

Put up or shut up.

drblank's picture

use your cables? Why do you offer different colored cables? What's that about? For color coordination?

I think you are afraid of other companies that are selling products into the headphone market because they'll sell more than your company will.

Why don't you stick to "strange fruit art" http://theaudioguild.com/the-collection/#/atelier/

And you call these other people Charlatans.

Look in the mirror.

TheAudioGuild's picture

No major recording studios use my cables because none of my cables are designed for use in recording studios you dimwit. Cables for use in recording studios need a separate electrostatic shield and my cables don't have electrostatic shielding nor do I have any desire to add it in order to sell it to recording studios. Belden and Mogami are better suited to serve that market.

I offer different colored cables because I'm a fan of aesthetics. Some people like cables covered in Techflex and heatshrink. I don't.

I'm not afraid of other companies selling more headphone cables than me. My cables are made by hand by just one person (me). I already have a 10 to 14 business day lead time and I have no desire increase it beyond that. I don't want our customers to have to wait for months to get a cable as they do with some of our competitors. So I'm happy with fewer customers and a reasonable lead time to better serve those customers.

Thanks for the link to the art print!

se

drblank's picture

yeah, there are scam companies in ANY industry. EVERY industry has their share of it. Do you honestly think that someone that doesn't design cables or make cables that are used by industry leaders know what they are talking about?

Bruce publishes what he feels he needs to publish and he only has a limited amount of time even doing that. Most of his time is spent measuring and designing products. That's what he gets paid to do.

The problem with the audio world, (recording studios and home stereo market) there is a thing called BUDGET. Companies cater to the specific markets they want to address.

FYI, Bruce never even intended to actually run his own cable mfg. He was just as happy sitting in his lab performing measurements and designing products. He originally was hired or contracted to work with Monster back in the early days. He sold rights to his patents to Monster and eventually furthered his work and in the beginning of MIT Cables, they didn't mfg their products, they contracted Transparent Audio because MIT just wanted to focus more on desgn, but over the years as they became more widely used and accepted in both the recording industry and high end stereo/home theater markets, they decided to pull mfg from Transparent and do it themselves and as a result, Transparent Cables essentially reverse engineered MIT's products and they also compete in both the professional and home markets. Both are seen as top cable mfg in studios. Transparent's products are used by top mastering studios as well. Go talk to Bob Ludwig, he rewired his studio with Transparent Cables. Why does SKyWalker use MIT and Bob Ludwig use Transparent? My suspicion is that it's a lot due to location of their respective studios and the companies. Transparent is not too far away from Bob's studio so if they need to visit, it's a easy drive. Same with MIT Cables and Skywalker. they are fairly close to one another. Both these recording/masting studios work closely with these cable mfg as they both test new products. They won't waste their time with Charlatans, as you put it.

You need to recheck your own attitude over this. Bob Ludwig doesn't need AES or IEEE white papers to decide what cables he uses. he does his own measurements and listening to decide. Both Skywalker and Gateway Mastering work on the same projects which are catering to classical market and as you well know, they don't use signal processing on those recordings if they can at all help it. They don't like using lots of compression, EQ, limiting, etc. on classical recording if at all possible. They are looking for accurate sound capture and reproduction when they deal with classical recordings, so they have more demanding requirements, just as there are people that only listen to classical or acoustic based recordings that want high quality audio systems and many of them do use either Transparent or MIT Cables. Yeah, it's a niche market and yes, they do have to charge money to make a profit, but they are dealing with very low production, expensive materials, etc. and they can't sell their products for what the majority of people can afford. They are specialty products. At least they have some products that are more affordable, but they still cost money to mfg, etc. and maybe you simply aren't the type of person that sees any value in that since you don't sound like you do. Maybe you should just stick to your home made Dayton speakers or whatever it is that you use and leave these people and others alone.

You haven't mentioned what YOUR credentials are. Are you a cable designer that designs cables are that are used in top recording/mastering studios? If not, then you have no credentials to warrant your nonsense. NONE.

TheAudioGuild's picture

*yawn*

se

drblank's picture

RC and LRC networks in parallel. You might be reading or applying one patent that is used in a different product.

Network analysis?

In order for your testing to have any validity, you need to use the same equipment and testing methodology as the other person and if you want to be taken seriously. Did you consult with Brisson or are you going to discuss your test equipment and methodology to get his approval that it's going to give you any valid or useful results? Make sure you do. It wouldn't be wise to use different less precise measurement tools or a different methodology since that will result in different results.

TheAudioGuild's picture

Yes. RC and RLC networks in parallel. I've read the patent.

And yes. Network analysis. As in with a network analyzer. If you don't know what one is and how it is germane to the subject, then you simply have no credibility at all in your defense of Bruce. You are nothing more than what I have already said. A useful tool.

The network analyzer will show the electrical behavior of the cable. That's all you need to know. Simply adding some RC and RLC networks in parallel doesn't impart any mysterious behavior. This is just basic first year electronics stuff. But Bruce relies on people like you who don't even have that amount of understanding.

se

xnor's picture

Hey Steve, if you really do this then could you please send me a PM on hydrogenaudio with a link to what you found?

TheAudioGuild's picture

I'm told it will be published here:

https://audiotruth.wordpress.com

se

xnor's picture

why there is no entry on the HOT?

TheAudioGuild's picture

It was already well covered on HeadFi (see the links in Tyll's post). Nothing new to add. SEM/EDX analysis only confirmed what I had initially suspected. The granules that were glued to the shield on the female Jack and on the silver foils was just ground up quartz (silicon dioxide) in spite of SR's claims that it was not. That it was some magic compound produced in-house at great expense.

se

drblank's picture

has several filters inside their dongles and the boxes they make. it's not just one tiny filter, it's several and depending on the product they may have 3 or maybe even more filters designed around certain frequencies. But you have to plug them in and see for yourself if you can hear a difference. Obviously measurements will only prove on paper whether they do something, but you have to be able to hear a difference. Some people have more experience in how to listen to different equipment, but for headphones, they should be VERY easy to hear or not hear a difference since they are right up against your ear and room acoustics aren't a factor. But parallel filter technology IS proven technology.

Now, if you want to use your own reverse placebo effect to disprove they work, then that's what you are doing. But have you tried them out and not heard a difference?

Since you are so-anti this type of technology, then at least try them out at a dealership and see for yourself and don't lie about not hearing a difference. Remember, the placebo effect goes both ways. it's a two way street since you can convince yourself you can't hear a difference.

These filters are not going to change your power amp since the cables are plugged in after your amp, so they are changing the effects of the cables. Cables aren't perfect by any stretch of the imagination since there is no such thing as a perfect cable. Thinking that a parallel filter doesn't work would to assume that all cables are equal and perfect, which they certainly aren't.

xnor's picture

|===========105%==========>===

"Reverse placebo effect"???
Disprove??

LOL.

drblank's picture

If one person tells you before you listen to two different products that you won't hear a difference, then you might not hear a difference because someone told you, conversly if someone tells you that you will, then you might hear a difference.

Now, YOUR problem is that you haven't tried the product, you don't have the test equipment and knowledge on how to test cables that some of these companies are doing when they are designing a product. Some, or many of these companies don't want to release the measurements because they would bury the consumer in a lot of information and it would just simply confuse most people. You are confused by just reading the patents, imagine what would happen if they released all of the measurements for each product? FYI, MIT takes about a week to perform all of the measurements in a speaker/interconnect cable. Yes, you read correctly. It takes them about a week to perform all of the various measurements. They are using high rel impedance testers that cost a fortune, they use high precision network analyzers, custom developed software, Single shot FFT analyzers, and some other measurements that measure things that they won't discuss because they are proprietary boxes they designed, so they keep some information private.

Your problem is that you probably have poor listening skills, you don't spend much time with high end audio gear and you simply have very basic understanding of electronics. They don't even teach EE's the kinds of measurements on cables that some of these guys are doing. Why? EE's only get basic knowledge, some of these companies are doing more research because they are in business to design something that's not a basic product. Hence the higher price and they are designing for a small niche market. They do have their products in high end studios, mastering studios, high end mfg of equipment research labs, so THEY obviously see the benefit of these types of high end products. If you don't want to purchase them due to your lack of money, or your listening skills aren't very good, then don't worry about it.

I would suggest that you take your headphones into a dealership and plug the devices in and listen and compare, for these types of products, you should be able to hear or not hear a difference pretty quickly and it should be pretty obvious. but if you're afraid to, that's another problem that YOU have. Seriously, try them in a dealer before you decide. It doesn't cost money to try this type of product in a dealership.

xnor's picture

The long stories continue..

If one person tells you before you listen to two different products that you won't hear a difference, then you might not hear a difference because someone told you, conversly if someone tells you that you will, then you might hear a difference.

It's not that simple, but let's assume it is.

So how can we find out if there are actual audible differences? By doing properly controlled double blind listening tests - which usually FAIL even if placebophiles (believers) do them.

But before that we should look if there's even a plausibility of audible differences. For example measurements are a good start. Where are they? Oooops... even simple frequency response measurements up to 100kHz are kept "secret".

because they would bury the consumer in a lot of information and it would just simply confuse most people

That has to be the lamest and most stupid excuse I have ever heard. Hahhh!

But let's assume we had measurements and MIT or SR cables showed a significant deviation from a flat, normal cable, then they are apparently crap. They do NOT transfer the signal faithfully.

An audio cable that fails at it's main job is a bad audio cable.™

No reasonable person will buy such a broken cable.

--

Skipping over the personal remarks and allegations.

--

On your "some high end studios have these products" argument: That's a bad argument and I will tell you why.
If we ignore all relationships between these companies and the "customers" or scam victims, then we're still left with humans that are susceptible to biases and the placebo effect.

An anecdote is not good evidence, but you people seem to love them, so here's one:

A friend of mine is such a human who works in a mastering studio. He buys all sorts of expensive crap - money is no object.
So he told me of these new fancy speaker cables he was using. During a break I swapped them with one of his colleges to cheap, "standard" speaker cables.

After he came back .. he continued demonstrating how amazing these new cables sound. How they improve bass tightness, detail resolution and whatnot.
He truly believed that he was listening to these new fancy cables but actually listened to cheap cables.

What does this tell us?
People hear what they want to hear. (also ™)

24bitbob's picture

Tyll,

Tell me you didn't.

Did you?

Tyll?

Watch out, you'll be writing for Audiostream next.

Willakan's picture

I see three options:

1) You are contractually obligated to give these people the time of day.
2) You feel professionally obligated to give these people the time of day.
3) You personally feel, on some abstract point of principle, these people are worth giving the time of day.

I won't patronise you to the extent of entertaining the possibility that you believe this shit actually works/might actually work.

Their product is nonsense. The manufacturers are either charlatans, idiots or both. I have got to get into the accessory business. Not under any name that could be linked to me, of course!

NB: Your stuff coming out on headphones and amp measurements is all rather snazzy, to put it mildly, IMHO! I'm sure if you leave off giving any attention to companies like this some of your esteemed fellow audio journalists will pick up the slack...

Limp's picture

It's not like there's a great dearth of this kind of nonsense in other parts of the audio press. It would have been nice to have at least one place that could give us a break.

drblank's picture

Parallel filters for cables is nothing new. MIT Cables started this a long time ago. And by the way, MIT Cables has worked with HP's Measurement division back a couple of decades ago and because of what measurements MIT Cables wanted to do, they worked together and the result was that HP developed new high precision test equipment and they also co-developed measurement software that MIT uses internally. I don't think HP's Measurement Division is going to work with Charlatans. All SR is doing is essentially doing a reverse engineering of what MIT Cables began to do in the late 80's, early 90's.

It's so funny to see people put things down that they don't understand.

BTW, I'm do not buy into every SR product, some I have no idea if they work since there are no measurements to prove that they do. but parallel filter technology has been proven by measurements, to do something. It's just a matter of how the filters are designed and what audible impact one will have.

It doesn't take a long time to plug a dongle into a cable and to listen to the effects of it.

What happens if he does measurements before/after adding the dongle and he can do a blind folded AB test and prove there is a difference? Would you believe it then? How about just plugging the damn things into a headphone cable yourself at a dealer and listening that way? Since headphones is right up against your ears and you don't have to worry about room acoustics, it's probably VERY easy to hear a difference.

Have you checked them out and not hear any difference?

TheAudioGuild's picture

I have an original HOT. It was the one used to do the electrical measurements on in the thread on HeadFi.

It was graciously donated by a fellow over in the UK who found out the HOT was bullshit after his 30 day return period had expired. When I said I would send it back to him after the measurements, he said to sell it and donate any proceeds to charity.

It's still sitting on my desk. No one wants to buy it.

I will happily send it to Tyll to do whatever measurements he wants on it.

se

veggieboy2001's picture

...and let Tyll do his job. I think he's well known for calling it like he sees (hears) it. One thing I've always appreciated is that, for the most part, no matter how fantastical the claim, he will keep an open mind (and ears). If it works, we'll hear about it. If not, we're not missing anything.

innerfidelity_login_id's picture

...if there's nothing there, I don't doubt he'll say so. Respect for performing and standing by his reviews rather than passing the snake oil to a fall guy to take the heat (looking at you, Audiostream). Oh, and I don't think I've ever seen Tyll threaten to ban someone for calling bullshit on a product (again, looking at that partner site).

TheAudioGuild's picture

At best, Tyll will simply say he didn't hear any difference. Synergistic Research won't end up being called out for the quacks and frauds that they are.

se

TheAudioGuild's picture

Define "works." Because of the way our brains work, there's virtually nothing that doesn't "work" for some number of people.

Open mind. Yeah. There's keeping an open mind, and then there's having a mind that's so open your brains slosh out onto the floor.

When the press puts obvious quacks, frauds and charlatans on equal footing as everyone else with the "open mind" weasel words instead of calling them out for what they are, it has become both morally and intellectually bankrupt and is no longer doing its job.

Pathetic.

se

xnor's picture

I agree 100%.

drblank's picture

has worked with Mr. Brisson on many occasions to develop software (which is proprietary to MIT Cables) and create new measuement equipment that didn't exist prior to Brisson examining cables, so as far as I'm concerned, if HP is willing to work with him on developing new products and software, then I don't believe he's a Charlatan. Bruce has also consulted with other engineers (audio engineers, electrical engineers, test measurement designers, acoustic engineers, etc.) during his work over the past 30+ years on examining cables and you haven't. Seriously, before you try to invalidate someone else's work, you need to make sure that your testing methods are agree as sound testing methods, otherwise you might be conjuring up invalid test data. At least be fair and respectful before you try to damage another's work.

TheAudioGuild's picture

There's nothing "new" to measure. We've known how cables and RC and RLC networks behave for over a century. Again, this is first year electronics stuff. If there were truly something "new" here, he would be publishing in the JAES, IEEE Spectrum, etc. instead of trying to hoodwink people out of their money.

se

drblank's picture

has worked with Mr. Brisson on many occasions to develop software (which is proprietary to MIT Cables) and create new measuement equipment that didn't exist prior to Brisson examining cables, so as far as I'm concerned, if HP is willing to work with him on developing new products and software, then I don't believe he's a Charlatan. Bruce has also consulted with other engineers (audio engineers, electrical engineers, test measurement designers, acoustic engineers, etc.) during his work over the past 30+ years on examining cables and you haven't. Seriously, before you try to invalidate someone else's work, you need to make sure that your testing methods are agree as sound testing methods, otherwise you might be conjuring up invalid test data. At least be fair and respectful before you try to damage another's work.

drblank's picture

has worked with Mr. Brisson on many occasions to develop software (which is proprietary to MIT Cables) and create new measuement equipment that didn't exist prior to Brisson examining cables, so as far as I'm concerned, if HP is willing to work with him on developing new products and software, then I don't believe he's a Charlatan. Bruce has also consulted with other engineers (audio engineers, electrical engineers, test measurement designers, acoustic engineers, etc.) during his work over the past 30+ years on examining cables and you haven't. Seriously, before you try to invalidate someone else's work, you need to make sure that your testing methods are agree as sound testing methods, otherwise you might be conjuring up invalid test data. At least be fair and respectful before you try to damage another's work.

AnalogSavior's picture

I had the chance to listen to one of these at a recent headfi meet. Everyone listened to it on their own rigs, and while it was far from a controlled and blinded test, it was a fun experiment. I'm curious if Tyll will come to the same conclusion we did.

Limp's picture

"Things got so spicy that Synergistic's owner and cheif researcher Ted Denny got drug into the dialog."

He wasn't as much dragged into the debate as he joined in on his own volition, and then started to throw around threats of legal actions because someone on an internet forum had exposed his sham.

He's a piece of work this Ted Denny, and not worth anyones time.

Davidpritchard's picture

I have been attending CanJam since the 2009 event at LAX. This is where I first met Tyll. I have watched the headphone community expand greatly since then. I look forward to Tyll's impressions of this Synergistic Research HOT product and to his review of the ENIGMAcoustics headphone ( which is a hybrid electrostatic- dynamic dual driver headphone).
The HOT was developed using primarily the Sennheiser 800 and the Audeze headphones. In my system which has the Sennheiser 800 phones with Double Helix Silver R cables, and Eddie Current Zana Deux tube amp, I am enjoying the sonic improvements with the HOT in my system.

David Pritchard

Itzme's picture

I don't think any text is necessary (but I'm not completely "scientifically" sure)!

Come on guys all this banter about what is "Snake Oil" or "Smoke &
Mirrors" is for who's benefit ? Please go on your Tar & Feather or
Witch hunts on your own time . Better yet start your own "Why this
(or that)is nonsense" Forums.

Wait a minute,scrap that,there's no shortage of those willing to
share their "wisdom" about why things couldn't possibly have any
effect on anything !(I lost my mind for a second with that suggestion !)

If it makes you feel better give yourselves a pat on the back that
you don't buy into things (& go feed the chickens & milk the cow
before the Sun goes down !)

Tyll Hertsens's picture
Well to be truthful I do benefit from this essentially useless dialog because they're racking up page views. This post now has almost double the page views of any of my other Newport posts. Big thanks to xnor, drblank, and TheAudioGuild for the boost!
TheAudioGuild's picture

And there you have it folks, in good old black and white. It's all about the money.

se

Tyll Hertsens's picture
That's a bit of a cheap shot, Steve, I was merely commenting to the guy that someone does benefit from your dialog...me. But I didn't post this to instantiate a melee, that's on you guys.
TheAudioGuild's picture

Oops. That last post was supposed to be a reply to this one.

se

xnor's picture

Can't you do something against that annoying multiple double and even triple posting spam from this "drblank"?

TheAudioGuild's picture

Yeah, it was. My apologies, Tyll. But man this bullshit gets my dander up.

Would you like me to send you the HOT that's been collecting dust on my desk for the past several months?

se

Itzme's picture

Discounting his ,well deserved,benefits. I was referring to how
the rest of us,hang on every word of those "educating" us on what
is nonsense !

As the kids used to say, "NOT" !!!(How is anyone to know if the reason something doesn't work in a system is due to the fact the
entire noise floor of the system is anywhere close enough to where
adding anything would be like using an eyedropper to add water to the ocean !!!)

X