Shunyata on Multipole Technology

[sander]

Hi Caelin,

I'm very much interested in the technology that comes with designing cables.
Different manufactors have different theories on how a cable should be designed.
I always wondered how different manufactors think of each others theories.

Two manufactors come to mind when it comes to clearify why they design their cables the way they do;
MIT cables and Shunyata Research.

Shunyata especially about their power products with DTCD and their Z-tron technology,
and MIT about their signal cables/interfaces and their Multipole Technology.

I'm a fan of both, i'm using Shunyata powercords and MIT signal cables.
What fascinates me is that they both deliver great products with absolute different designs.


I want to ask you Caelin about their signal cables.

As we all now they use Multipole networks in their cables.
This is what they say on their website:

Simply put, any cable, network or filter will have measurable components of inductance, resistance, and capacitance. The different combinations, or values of those components create a point of magnitude (Pole), somewhere within the audio range. Every cable will have one measurable, and definable pole that will define the articulation range for transferring the music. When comparing this articulation pole from manufacturer to manufacturer, it will usually be centered at different frequencies. The placement of this articulation pole is the main reason we hear differences in cables. Let’s say you had a cable that sounded great in the bass frequencies, and then a cable that did very well in the mid-range, and yet another that was very good at transporting the higher frequencies, and you bundled them all together to make one cable. In theory, you would have built a “three pole-MultiPole- audio cable.”


I can really hear what they are saying in their products.
There are lot of colors, hue and timbre coming through in their products.
Especially in the lower frequency, there are details that i cannot remember hearing in other cables.

But...it is not as fast as Shunyata cables. Probably because you patented your Z-tron technology.

I guess my question for you is Caelin;
Does this Multipole theory makes any sense to you?
Did you also encounter problems with designing a signal cable, that different frequencies behave different in a cable, that using different materials and designes creates different "Poles of Articulation"?
And if so, what was your solution?




I hope you can find the time to answer this rather tricky question. I understand, but it is not to bash or create beef between two great manufactors. As i said before, i'm a big fan of both of you. I'm just curious.

Sander.

[Crion]

I used MIT speakercables in the distant past. I think as a hifi aficionado you are curious and I bet the engineers are themselves as well. Myself pondering about EM or just strong magnets effect on the current atm. Is Rick Schultz on to something with his HF PC's and AC conditioners.

I think we have exciting times ahead.

[CGabriel]

Originally Posted by sander

Hi Caelin, I'm very much interested in the technology that comes with designing cables. Different manufactors have different theories on how a cable should be designed. I always wondered how different manufactors think of each others theories. Two manufactors come to mind when it comes to clearify why they design their cables the way they do; MIT cables and Shunyata Research. Shunyata especially about their power products with DTCD and their Z-tron technology, and MIT about their signal cables/interfaces and their Multipole Technology. I'm a fan of both, i'm using Shunyata powercords and MIT signal cables. What fascinates me is that they both deliver great products with absolute different designs. I want to ask you Caelin about their signal cables. As we all now they use Multipole networks in their cables. This is what they say on their website: Simply put, any cable, network or filter will have measurable components of inductance, resistance, and capacitance. The different combinations, or values of those components create a point of magnitude (Pole), somewhere within the audio range. Every cable will have one measurable, and definable pole that will define the articulation range for transferring the music. When comparing this articulation pole from manufacturer to manufacturer, it will usually be centered at different frequencies. The placement of this articulation pole is the main reason we hear differences in cables. Let’s say you had a cable that sounded great in the bass frequencies, and then a cable that did very well in the mid-range, and yet another that was very good at transporting the higher frequencies, and you bundled them all together to make one cable. In theory, you would have built a “three pole-MultiPole- audio cable.” I can really hear what they are saying in their products. There are lot of colors, hue and timbre coming through in their products. Especially in the lower frequency, there are details that i cannot remember hearing in other cables. But...it is not as fast as Shunyata cables. Probably because you patented your Z-tron technology. I guess my question for you is Caelin; Does this Multipole theory makes any sense to you? Did you also encounter problems with designing a signal cable, that different frequencies behave different in a cable, that using different materials and designes creates different "Poles of Articulation"? And if so, what was your solution? I hope you can find the time to answer this rather tricky question. I understand, but it is not to bash or create beef between two great manufactors. As i said before, i'm a big fan of both of you. I'm just curious. Sander.

First and foremost Bruce is a brilliant designer and virtually a legend in audio.

Most cable brands are nothing more than commonly available wire where the only variables are metal type, insulation type and connector quality. Then, there is a healthy dose of marketing added. There are just a few brands of cabling that actually have ANY significant technology behind their products. MIT is one of the few. Instead of me trying to interpret what MIT does and doesn't do I would encourage you to go to the source and ask Bruce himself. That may not be possible at this forum but here is a link to an interview that should answer most of your questions.

http://dagogo.com/the-bruce-brisson-interview-part-1

Now onto your specific questions:

Multipole theory is an MIT construct. I do not know how those measurements are derived and it appears that this knowledge is proprietary.

RE: Frequency variations in wire
All cables measure essentially flat in frequency and phase response in the audio band. If there are variations it is in the range of 100ths of a db. I guess that the most relevant question to ask would be why we can hear differences between cables of differing metal types. Most people hear what sounds like frequency alterations between a copper and silver based cable. However, as long as there are no added filter components to the cable they will measure identically when a standard frequency response test is performed. It appears that MIT has explored this question and has other non-standard tests that they have developed in an attempt to define this.

We do not attempt to alter or manipulate the frequency or phase response of a cable by adding series and parallel capacitors, inductors or resistor across the signal and ground conductors. We have identified a different problem with signal transmission that is related to dielectric absorption and re-radiation. Our patent describes a method to prevent dielectric absorption. A simple description is on our website and the complete patent can be read by going to the USPTO or Google patent site.

So I guess the answer is that Shunyata Research and MIT are addressing two different problems with different solutions. What is clear is that both are clearly superior performing product lines.

[scirica]

Caelin:

It is such a pleasure having you participating on this forum on a regular basis. Your willingness to share insight into your designs and the fact that you are at ease complimenting your peers rather than dismissing them is very refreshing.

Having said that, I had to chuckle when I saw for the first time (I believe) the word "typos" actually come up as a typo. You have to love auto-correct!

[Glisse]

Caelin's was a very classy response to a difficult question. Difficult, in that making or not making any comments on a competitor's product is usually a no-win situation. Not in this case

[sander]

Originally Posted by Glisse

Caelin's was a very classy response to a difficult question. Difficult, in that making or not making any comments on a competitor's product is usually a no-win situation. Not in this case

I agree.
I thought long and hard before i asked this question because it can be very hard to answer these kind of questions.
But since i asked him difficult questions before, i thought; if anyone could answer this, it would be Caelin. And so he did.
Much appreciated.

[BlueFox]

I upgraded my two channel ICs from MIT Shotgun S1.3 XLR to Zitron Anacondas. If I remember correctly, the Anacondas seemed to be quieter and have more detail, but I did like the MITs, and they are now in my HT/surround sound system. I admit I wasn't crazy about the box with an input impedance selection switch on each cable. They were in the way, and you know over time the switch will get dirty and introduce noise.

However, I doubt if I will ever buy MIT again. To me, there is something fishy about their business model. For example, they have a huge number of model lines. Some are sold online, others in a store. In my mind, for them to be able to have so many different models means, most likely, there is very little difference between models. Change the name tag, and presto, a new model. Plus they jack up the price so the vendor can give a big discount, and the customer thinks they got a great deal.