InnerFideliBits: RHA T20; Fostex T50RP Mk2; MIT Vero Cables; Mr Speaker Sale

Editor's Note: I'd like to encourage folks to welcome Sean Sabino to InnerFidelity in the comments. It's actually not his first time posing here, Sean wrote a cool piece on his DIY experience with Grado headphones a few years ago. I happened to bump into him at AXPONA last month and in the course of chatting I wondered if he might want to write something else for InnerFidelity. After some time considering it and talking back and forth by email, we came to the conclusion that bringing a news column to InnerFidelity might work.

You may have noticed that I now make it a habit to post every day. You wouldn't believe how much that bites into my more serious work of reviews and Headphone 101 postings. Sean may be just the ticket to take some pressure off me, and to us all keep abreast of the stuff happening in the world of headphones. His posts will be short and sweet, and will point you off in the right direction if you're interested in a deeper look.

Welcome Sean! Looking forward to your finger on the pulse of Headphonedom.

Hi! I'm Sean and welcome to InnerFideliBits! Tasty little bite-sized snacks of headphone news to fill the space between the meaty meals provided by Tyll and the other InnerFidelity writers. A couple times I week, I'll post the latest happenings in personal audio that might be of interest to headphone enthusiasts.

Happy snacking on this first installment of InnerFideliBits!


New Product: RHA T20

RHA, already well known for their metal injection-molded t10i, measured here, have announced a new universal in-ear with a novel dual coil dynamic driver design. The same beautiful craftsmanship and quality are augmented by a driver that RHA claims is "capable of outperforming conventional drivers in levels of resolution, clarity and detail." Whether that holds true remains to be seen after the product's anticipated release of Summer 2015. I wonder if Joker will like them?

Check out the RHA T20 product page.


New Product: Fostex T50RP MK3

The headphone that sailed a thousand modding ships. I myself owned a pair that I extensively modded. Fostex has heard the cries of the modding masses and announced an updated version of the T50RP along with all of its younger siblings, the T20, 30, and 40RP. The updated version will feature updated driver technology, a new headband, and updated iconography and design. No doubt much of the modding community is looking forward to seeing how these new cans feel, sound, and of course, cost.

Check out the head-fi impression thread.

Indiegogo: MIT Vero Reference Cables

The Vero line of cables, produced by MIT, will be closing its Indiegogo campaign in a couple of days. Outside of a number of claims about how the cables can affect the sound of various ToTL headphones, the cables are well-built, ergonomic, and can be adapted for a variety of popular headphones. In addition to a number of full-length cable tiers, the campaign also offers adapters and dongles which claim to enhance bass or reduce noise floor, without having to invest in a full-fledged cable. This isn't MIT's first rodeo, their cables have long earned wide acclaim from the audiophile press. As the campaign comes to a close, we'll be watching closely.

For more info, explore their Indiegogo page.


Deal of the Week: Mad Dog & Alpha Dog End of Life Sale

Remember the T50RP refresh earlier in this article? That little tidbit means that the original Fostex T50RP headphones will very soon be going out of production. Dan Clark over at mrSpeakers founded his business on a series of mods that took the original T50RP drivers to new heights. With the sunset of the old T50RP, Dan has put all of his T50RP based models on steep discount ($100 off!). Take advantage of this one while it lasts!

Check out the Alpha and Mad Dog line of headphones at Mr. Speakers' website.


Got any news you'd like me to check out? Leave a comment below and I'll look into it out for the next InnerFideliBits!

tony's picture

A headphone cable for $900, hmm, better be good.

I was a MIT dealer back in the mid 1980s, a pair of speaker cables ( MIT 750s ) were about $500. Take em home, try em out, bring your money or bring back the cables, everyone purchased, I had 100% sales success with them.

However, today, my Sennheiser HD580s are better music transducers than full-range loudspeakers made back them days and that's with stock cables.

So, I think the MIT guy in the video is blowing smoke and I'm a MIT believer.

Bob Katz, in his Series, mentions his STAX in comparison to his Mastering Studio system where he seems to feel the 007s go a bit deeper into the music.

Be'in that's it MIT, I'll imagine they'll sell quite a few but only to the Audeze type guys ( the $2,000 headphone people ), probably not the STAX people and maybe to the HE-6 owners ( only just maybe ).

I may order a three pole set for my Sennheiser but I'll hold off for a while, I just don't see the need and can't imagine there's much room for improvement.

The news here is that MIT is now into headphones, is Transparent in Maine about to do a Sennheiser cable too?

Headphones have arrived!, and MIT's Marketing guy is talkin' trash.

Tony in Michigan

TheAudioGuild's picture

"Articulation poles" = Smoke

It's funny. The "articulation poles" are just a series of parallel RC networks.

The model for dielectric absorption, which has been an audiophile Bogey Man ever since Jung and Marsh wrote their "Picking Capacitors" article for Audio magazine years ago, is a series of parallel RC networks.

"Articulation poles" = DA

Oh the irony.


drblank's picture

MIT has patents on their networks, they are also developing the 'articulation poles' around specific frequencies. They use precision components that are matched to extremely precise levels and it costs money for custom hand matched components, plus recouping the R&D spent, marketing spent, and reseller markup, etc. These cables aren't being sold to the masses, but only a small niche market, which is why they cost so much.

MIT has already mentioned that they use the term "articulation pole's" for a lack of calling them something else, because since they are wired in parallel vs in series, they can't call them EQ poles. Whether or not you buy into it, that's your decision. The word "articulation" has been around long before MIT Cables, and articulation indexes and measurements started back in the 1940's with Bell Labs. and articulation measurements have been used by other companies for years. They are just applying it to the design of analog interconnect and speaker/headphone cables. Now, can you hear a difference? It's pretty easy to tell on a headphone, so if you have two identical headphones and one has the original cable and one has a Vero cable, then compare them side by side and if you can hear a difference, than it's not smoke and mirrors.

There are plenty of people that are listening to them at these audio shows since they started bringing them to these shows, and I think it's a pretty easy thing to compare since they give you control over what you are listening to and the volume levels since the system is right in front of you. So, try them out.

What it sounds like is that you simply are ignorant as to what MIT is doing. They do have their cables being used in top recording/mastering studios and they use these places as testing grounds for their prototypes.

What you are doing is using your ignorance about it by minimizing what they are actually doing. They were the first company to even come up with the concept of a network in parallel to the cable. Actually some of their networks are actually LRC networks, it depends on the cable and network they are using.

The bottom line is their stuff actually does something and unfortunately it's not cheap, especially when you factor in the costs of R&D, which they have to recoup, the marketing costs, which they have to recoup, the costs of custom components, test equipment, labor, etc. etc. and these products are not mass marketed and sold, so they are inherently a niche product and niche products typically have high markup.

TheAudioGuild's picture

Oh please.

Patents don't mean squat. You don't have to demonstrate that your idea has any merit. You just have to show that it's "novel." And you can get away with not even doing that. Hell, Ray Kimber managed to get a patent on a four lead braided cable that had already been patented in 1960. So don't give me this "MIT has patents on their networks" nonsense. That's just to impress the gullible.

And I'm quite familiar with Fletcher's work, which was about maximizing the intelligibility of SPEECH in noisy environments. It was primarily for telephone communications where speech intelligibility is paramount. It was about filtering out as much crap as possible while maintaining maximum speech intelligibility.

It has absolutely no relevance to a goddamn headphone cable. It's a complete joke.

Either MIT has no real understanding of this, or they do and they've been relying on a naive and gullible public.


drblank's picture

in the beginnging, but music covers a much broader frequency range and more dynamics because there are musical instruments being produced, etc. but it still has the same basic aspects that apply. If your system is over articulating or under articulating, it alters how the music and/or speech is being heard by the listener.

Some people use articulation measurements when designing cercert halls and listening rooms.

Yeah, it does apply to audio cables and that's what MIT Cables has PROVEN. They measure the differences and then they listen to what they measure.

Maybe you should listen to a nice pair of headphones with stock cables and their Vero cables and see if you hear a difference and also have you blind folded during the process. But from your attitude, you'll will just say you don't hear a difference because you are just one of those that probably can't hear any differences so you have to put down others that do.

Bruce Brisson first came involved with articulation measurements before he started MIT Cables, as he was hired to help design hearing aids. That was his first experience studying articulation, then he also spent time with Art Noxin at ASC, which uses Articulation indexes to help design listening rooms and acoustic treatment.

yes, articulation was first used in speech with Bell Labs, but others like MIT have applied the same principles to music, because it does apply. It's just with a broader frequency range and music with or without vocals.

TheAudioGuild's picture

Are you kidding me?

Yes, articulation indexing has also been used in acoustic environments. But that's because the acoustal environment can have a profound effect on sound and speech intelligibility. But a cable is not an acoustical environment.

Once you capture the recording, the ideal is to reproduce it with as little alteration to the signal as possible. And well designed cables do an admirable job of that. They are the quietest, most linear element in the signal chain. They don't need "fixing," and they don't need articulation indexing.

MIT's "articulation poles" represent a complete misunderstanding and misapplication of articulation indexing.

If you want to futz with the sound, get a good DSP. Because there's absolutely nothing that you can do with a handful of resistors, capacitors and inductors that can't be done with DSP.

drblank's picture

So a cable, by itself is going to have an impact on the way it sounds, just like any LRC filter is going to impact the sound of what's going through an analog device. Your speakers are electro mechanical devices and depending on their design they will articulate good/bad of what you are listening to.

Cables have measurable signal changes depending on the cable and those changes are sometimes audible depending on the cables, the rest of the system and one's ability to listen to said changes.

What they figured out through their research is by taking articulation indexes and applying it to cables and they eventually wound up developing a bunch of RC and/or LRC networks in interconnect/speaker cables and that's what they are doing. IF they apply the same theory to their cables and you hear a noticeable difference, then that's proof.

There are various types of Articulation indexes as mentioned in the MIT Cables white paper. Art Noxin's is just with his specific application.

A phone system is like a headphone, right? You are putting a microphone right next to your mouth where you speak and it goes through a series of wires and other electronics and it winds up in your ear with a speaker. So what MIT is doing is analyzing the amount of difference cables and their RC and LRC networks are making what you hear through your speaker system or headphones.

You seem to be VERY closed minded. Some people don't like DSP's, some people do, some people hate DSP's.

NO, MIT's articulation poles are just applying the concepts of articulation by taking measurements applying them to an articulation index to figure out what the articulation curve looks like and making the cables more linear so there isn't over or under articulation and applying it to analog interconnects and speaker cables. You just are obviously closed minded and are unwilling to read about what they are doing and you are taking something that is not common in the audio world. Most people with analog systems don't have DSPs and aren't going to buy a DSP based system. They are all analog from the output of the source all the way through to the speakers. With DSP systems, you have to go either from digital through a DSP and then to analog, or you have to go from analog (tape or vinyl) to digital and then back to analog. Some people don't want to go through AD to DA conversion in their home system. I think what's going on is you are just looking at one method of the use of articulation and saying that it can't be applied to another aspect of audio equipment design that you haven't studied or done the research. What MIT is doing is ground breaking and Transparent Cables (whom used to be MIT's mfg) are copying them because they know that MIT's design works and Transparent is doing their own modification as to not violate MIT"s patents. Remember, Cables are filters by themselves, but they aren't adjustable like an EQ, so all MIT is doing is designing a cable with filters (ranging from 3 to 155) to make the cables become more linear or in the case of their bass dongles, to provide enhanced bass for those that prefer enhanced bass with their headphones. They have measured to prove what they are doing, and those are objective measurements. It's just up to the listener to hear the differences, which is subjective and OBVIOUSLY, MIT is onto something since many top audio equipment mfg and recording/mastering studios are using their products. I would think that a top recording studio would have trained listeners that can hear these differences rather than someone that thinks that it can be fixed with a DSP, when most people don't buy DSP based stereo systems.

Cables are typically the weakest link in a audio system. Most cables (generic standard cables) aren't linear. MIT has measured a lot of these generic cables that you are referring to, which is why they make a more linear cable when measured and compared in their testing. Prove that the cables you have are linear? Have you tested them using the precision equipment that MIT uses? NOPE. You can't. They have custom software they co-develooped with HP Measurement, and they also have some custom measurement equipment they designed and built themselves and they are using VERY expensive, ultra precise measurement equipment that you probably can't afford.

All they are doing is trying to make better, more neutral cables for interconnects and speaker cables and if you like what they are doing and want to spend the money, great. If not, then move on.

TheAudioGuild's picture

I'm sorry, but you're just a naive cheerleader who simply isn't capable of discussing the issue intelligently. All you can do is parrot the drivel you've been fed.

To say that a cable is the weakest link in the chain is just absolute nonsense.

Yes, a cable has parasitic resistance, capacitance and inductance, but unless the cable is embarrassingly poorly designed or is broken, it is not going to have any audible effect. Cables are low pass filters, and any decent cable isn't going to have any high frequency rolloff until well above the audible range.

Getting an audio signal from point A to point B without any audible degradation has been a "solved problem" for about a century.

You say that cables are not linear. But you have nothing but empty claims to back that up.

Here are some distortion measurements made on some cheap cables. A freebie "spaghetti wire" cable that came with a cheap VCR, and old and new pair of Radio Shack Gold interconnects, and a cable made from RG-174, which has a copper clad steel center conductor.

The measurements were made using an Audio Precision System 2 Cascade. Audio Precision makes some of the finest audio test equipment in the world.

The ONLY distortion products that can be seen in the plots is the residual distortion of the Audio Precision.

Let's see MIT's measurements.


drblank's picture

other than mid-fi mentality. MIT does far more measurements than Audioholics has ever done. Go to MIT's factory and spend time with Bruce as he measures cables and explains what he's doing.

Did you read the MIT White paper? They showed some measurements.

TheAudioGuild's picture

The measurements were made by Bruno Putzeys, currently of Hypex, but at the time the measurements were made he was with Philips Digital.

And the measurements speak for themselves.


drblank's picture

doesn't design audio cables that I'm aware of. He designs amplifiers, but not cables. He obviously hasn't spent any time with Bruce in his testing labs. Bruce has a lot of different types of tests and test equipment than what Bruno is using when analyzing audio cables. Seriously, you are talking information from an amp designer and saying that a cable designer doesn't know what he's doing?

Bruno isn't an expert in the field of cable design. so why would I listen to someone that doesn't spend most of their time analyzing, measuring and designing those types of products? That seems kind or silly to me.

When it comes to audio equipment, people have their own respective speciality areas, Brisson is with cable design. And a lot of others look UP to Bruce's work.

you just come from the mind frame that cables are cables, Bruce changed that and you just have a problem understanding what Bruce is doing and you just don't want to spend the money. That's fine, but you are trying to damage his reputation by spitting out crude measurements that aren't even using the same equipment or testing methodology.

FYI, when Bruce measures a cable (his or someone else's) it takes him about a week to peform all of the different tests he does. He uses single shot FFT analyzers, various custom software, high rel impedance testers, and some custom measurement equipment that's unavailable to anyone else because it's designed and built in house.

Bruno doesn't do the same tests that MIT Cables is doing, so you would have to get Bruno and Bruce to sit down and have Bruce explain things to Bruno, which probably isn't going to happen. but Bruno simply doesn't have the same equipment or perform the same measurements Brisson is doing. and that's your problem.

TheAudioGuild's picture

You said cables were nonlinear. Nonlinearity shows in distortion measurements. The measurements sho no nonlinearity produced by even the cheapest cables that rise above the extremely low distortion of the AP.

You simply don't know what you're talking about and can't engage in any sort of technical discussion. You're just a cheerleader. Go away.

drblank's picture

Yes, they are. Go ask Bob Ludwig at Gateway Mastering. I would think that he is a qualified expert in the area of listening to cables in a pristine environment. There are many other mastering engineers that will tell you the same thing. Cables are DEFINITELY amongst the weakest link in a audio system.

TheAudioGuild's picture


drblank's picture
TheAudioGuild's picture

Read it.

I've been aware of Bruce ever since he was working with Monster cable. I'm familiar with and have read all his patents. And I'm sorry, but the man is a charlatan.

drblank's picture

What's your credentials and how can you prove that his technology doesn't do anything? You are a no body as far as I'm concerned. he has well respected mastering studios, recording studios and top high end audio equipment mfg using his products and endorsing his products. What credentials do you have again? NONE. So, please stop trying to slander someone that has infinitely more credentials than you. He's worked with top engineers at HP to co-develope testing software and equipment that he uses that no one else was using or even available.

You are just someone that can't afford his products or may not be able to hear any difference due to your lack of listening skills. Please stop trying to slander someone else's reputation based on lack of evidence.

TheAudioGuild's picture

Arguments don't stand or fall based on "credentials." They stand or fall based on their own merit.

You've got nothing.

Get lost.

drblank's picture

Why don't you just listen to a pair of headphones with the stock cables and then with the MIT Vero cables or dongles. The merit is in listening to the difference, would it not? Obviously there are people that have sat down and listened to the differences and they are claiming that there is a big difference and that's what the average consumer for these types of products are looking for.

You can spit out measurements all day long and the ultimate decision is can you hear a difference. So, instead of arguing, why not just try the things on headphones that you use that you are comfortable with and see for yourself? Are you afraid to admit the product works?

Obviously, MIT has proven that their technology works because a lot of studios and top end equipment mfg use their products, that's enough merit for me to investigate the product. I personally got turned on to the product before they started marketing their products through magazines.

I never heard of the company back when I got introduced to their products and I had no idea what to expect. The local retailer gave me a bunch of cables to try out, I took them home and did my own listening tests and I noticed a big enough difference. That's all I ultimately care about. Whether you want to try their products or not is your decision, but you seem to not have even done that.

With the Vero cables, it's VERY easy to swap out headphone cables or add a dongle as you don't have to power up and down an entire system. It's much easier to tell the difference, if any, with headphone cables, especially if you have two sets of headphones, one with stock cables and one with Vero cables or dongles. So, I would suggest just listening to them and see for yourself. Everything else doesn't matter at that point, it's just does the product do something that you can hear the difference, which is ultimately what anybody cares about. In the case of headphones, a DSP system isn't going to compensate for headphone cables.

Not everyone has or is going to bother with DSP systems. Most of the DSP crowd usually gets rid of the cable problem because they are in the digital domain until the last foot because they are using power speakers which is what companies like Grimm or Meridian are doing. Now, being a Meridian owner, I can say first hand that Meridian, while being great products, aren't as good with just two channel as others are, plus they are VERY expensive and you kind of have to use an all Meridian system to get the full benefit, but many people use other analog based systems and they have to deal with cables and matching cables to their system.

MIT is just bringing their technology that's been proven over the years to the headphone market and I'm sure they'll do quite well once people get a first hand listening test, which is what the consumer cares about. I don't think they are going to be successful in the mass market because of their pricing, but then again, they aren't trying to capture the mass market unless they dropped their pricing and started selling their dongles at an Apple Store where they set up with Beats headphones.

TheAudioGuild's picture

Do you get paid by the word or are you just off your meds today?

I'll stick to my own cables, thank you. They have an articulation index (AI) of 1, and you can't get any better than that. So if the Vero sounds any different, they must have an AI of something less than 1, and I would consider that inferior.

As for MIT's "technology," it has only been "proven" by marketing gibberish.

drblank's picture

he was first working on the cable geometry. Since then he has developed more measurement equipment, software, testing methodologies and a lot has happened and changed from Bruce knew about cable design. So, his first designs were very primitive, yet he still uses the original cable geometry, which effectively uses three different gauge wire with different lengths, number of turns. There was nothing wrong with that. His research showed that certain frequency ranges travelled through different guage wires differently, and some essentially proved the skin effect that others were discussing as low frequencies travelled through thicker guage wire better than going through thinner guage wire. He also had to solve the time and phase angles, which is why he uses different lengths and number of turns per foot. A lot of others didn't understand what he was doing because he was designing audio cables beyond what normal conventional thinking was. But he has gone way past that when he introduced the parallel filters. Now, if you don't understand what he's doing, that's not my problem. Don't feel alone, there are plenty of people that don't understand what he's doing, but he has consulted with a variety of other engineers and he brings in a lot of respected people from different areas of engineering to help validate what he's doing. You seem to live and think in a vacuum, the world doesn't work that way.

If you want to talk on a technological level, then you have to talk to Bruce, he's the expert in his testing. Talk to him and please stop trying to slander his reputation because of you lack of knowledge and understanding of what he's doing. Seriously, if you want to talk about cables, then take to experts in the areas of cable engineering. He's considered to be one of those experts. If you want to talk about amplifiers, then talk to amplifier design experts, and there are plenty of them that use completely different amplifier designs, Bruce is just one of them with one method of designing an amplifier that other experts don't use, for whatever reason. And don't talk to an amplifier designer about cables, that's not their area of expertise. It would be the same as talking to a gastroenterologist about brain surgery. You wouldn't consider them an expert in an unrelated field would you?

Every cable mfg has their own way of designing what they feel makes the best cables. Some people like certain brands/models of cables depending on their equipment used and what they have spent time listening to. I don't think there people that have heard every single combination, so it's hard to be an expert in cables that are available on the market place.

Seriously, if you think that a DSP system fixes the problems with cables, then use a DSP system, some people don't like DSP systems. I have a DSP based system, but I feel that it does OK with 2 channel audio, but it's better for 5.1 and that's what I use it for. But I can put together a better sounding 2 channel system that I like better, even those the DSP system does sound good. It's all what someone likes and is willing to deal with. Even DSP based systems have gone through improvements as there is still lots of room for improvement. Heck, even Meridian has made some recent changes to their systems by using better drivers, improvements to their software, so they are STILL not perfect by any means.

TheAudioGuild's picture

Anyone saying there are still "problems" with cables that need to be "fixed" is selling you something.

Funny that Bruce has been doing all this pioneering work for so long, I can't find a single AES article with his name on it. Just marketing "white papers."

I think Bruce is about to go take a shit. Quick! Maybe you can eat the peanuts out it before he flushes!

drblank's picture

measurements. Go talk to Bob Ludwig, he has mentioned in several interviews that cables are a primary source of destruction of the audio signal. I don't think he's going to re-wire his entire studio *5000 feet worth) of cables just for the sake of spending money. Plenty of top studios have rewired their studios with high end cables. Skywalker Sound rewired their studios as well. They don't do it unless there are technical reasons to do so.

The problem is that Bruce has custom software and hardware to measure cables and he's the only one that does the measurements that use that test equipment/software. So anyone else simply doesn't do all of the same tests. Plus, not too many people know about all of his tests because he likes to keep a certain amount of proprietary trade secrets. he's not in the business of telling others how to measure and design cables. That's not what he does for a living, so of course he's going to keep certain things a trade secret. Plenty of companies do that, nothing new about keep people from knowing everything that they do. But his products have been reverse engineered and also used in top studios, just ask Transparent Cables. But they haven't released headphone cables as of yet, but I'm sure they might be working on them due to the proliferation of that industry.

Please stop from your immature put downs, they just prove your are ignorant, childish, and simply don't belong here.

I'm sure if you keep it up, Michael will ban you, like he should have done from your first comment.

TheAudioGuild's picture

Michael should give you your meds, a cookie and some warm milk then put you to bed for the night.

tony's picture


I think I mentioned that I'm a MIT believer and that I've been involved with MIT since the early 1980's and that I'm planning on buying a three pole headphone cable.

My issue is with the Promotion Guy suggesting that headphones lack the resolving capabilities of the traditional High-end system.
My research reveals the opposite.

These marketing guys are making hubristic statements which are not necessary if the product is demonstrable ( just offer a 30 day return policy ).

Bruce at MIT is a successful manufacturer, paying him money to develop products and technology that he says is "Off-the-shelf" seems a bit ><(((('> to me.

Maybe I am "ignorant" when it comes to Crowd funding.

As a Manufacturer, I take R&D costs to be a risk not shared with JohnQ public.

Tony in Michigan

drblank's picture

First off R&D costs are part of the overhead a company has in order to maintain new product development. They have to absorb those costs no matter what, just like they have to absorb the cost of mfg, costs of marketing, costs of labor, buildings, employees salaries, etc. etc.

Bruce just happens to be their head engineer, but they have other engineers that work for the company, he's just the main guy, but he's just designing the product, he doesn't work in marketing..

Now, in order to "Sell" the product, they have to take what is a fairly complex subject matter of designing a product and be able to market it to the crowd of people, in this case, a very small niche market, and come up with ways to attract attention. Yes, most marketing people are just trying to figure out a way to market a product, some are better at it than others, and I really don't care about marketing as it's just well, marketing.

The price of the product typically has to go through a formula that works with their industry or business model. Some companies markup their product based on mfg costs and then they factor in the price to the dealer and then markup to establish a MSRP. But they also have to factor in that that markup has to cover the costs or R&D, marketing, sales, etc. etc. as they are running a company and they have to be profitable to stay in business.

Some companies that don't mark up their products properly and don't cover their costs to maintain a profitable business end up going out of business. Obviously, MIT Cables has been successful and has been around for several decades, which isn't that easy.

Did you ever take a finance course studying financial statements with companies? R&D costs are an overhead cost and they have to factor in that when they develop a new product. If they spend millions on a new product and they can't sell enough product to cover those costs, they end up going out of business.

Now, with crowdfunding, there are probably several reasons why they decided to do crowd funding.

Crowd funding to me is a way to figure out if a new product is going to succeed or not. MIT is developing a line of headphone cables and dongle's and they want to figure out possibly what the market is for these things. Simply designing a cable for a select few headphones is one thing, but they are developing a lot of different cables and dongles, and maybe they are trying to figure out how much potential market there really is for which product and this is a way to test the market.

Obviously, they raised enough to go through with it, but they might selectively discontinue certain products if they don't get much demand for certain products so they can focus on the products that are getting demand.

they have specific products for Beats headphones, which are the most popular and there is a big user base of those headphones, but maybe they are not sure there is a big enough demand for dongles and cables for Beats headphones.

I don't work for MIT, so I have no way of knowing what their initial intentions are, but I'm just using some basic logic in figuring out their reasoning for crowd funding for this new product line, since this is their first crowd funding product line. But to me, it's a way to test a product line before releasing products without having some form of test market. That's typically why companies do crowdfunding.

As far as a risk, any time a company develops a new product there is a risk, but the companies that are successful try to minimize that risk and spend R&D money that they can affectively recoup during the lifespan of the product.

Remember, MIT is not some huge company serving the mass market. They are a small niche company and I never thought highly of their marketing, but I have thought highly of their products, at least the one's that I have tried and used.

R&D costs are there and you cannot just dismiss them as not being a cost they need to recoup. They are part of the company's overhead costs of doing business.

Example, If they only marked up the product by 2x instead of 5x, would they sell a lot more product and still be a profitable company? In some cases, lowering the MSRP will result in more sales, but it may not result in more profits or even becoming profitable when they factor the costs of running their business.

tony's picture

I have Fiduciary responsibilities in the Transportation Industry which is a 3 Trillion Dollar World, not that I'm the sharpest spoon in the drawer.

MIT isn't big enough for us to answer his phone calls ( unless it's about his Fleet of Chevy Trucks having a financial problem ).

Still, I know little guys like Bruce are smart enough to not make expensive business errors like manufacturing useless items.

What I see in Bruce is a supplier to the drying-up industry of High-End Audio where each day another old geezer customer ( like me ) bites the dust ( assumes room temperatures ) .

Bruce needs to get on board with something new and exciting : Headphones! Which is gonna be just as tough as it was to get Loudspeaker stuff launched. Back them days he had Karen Sumner pushing his products, she did a superb job but she left to form her own outfit in Maine.

My own 20 year old Sennheiser headphone cable failed, I bought a new cable from an Asian outfit which works well ( better than the original issue cable ).

I could've just called Bruce or his son for a new cable but I didn't.


I could've called Karen in Maine for a cable, I didn't.

I happened to run into an Asian Outfit that make a range of quality cables for nearly all headphone types.

I bought and I'm happy.

This is what Bruce & Karen are working against! :
Headphone Customers don't necessarily have Brand Loyalty!

All is well,

Tony in Michigan

drblank's picture

high end audio a drying up industry. There seems to be plenty of mfg of high end products.

Karen Sumner started Transparent Cables.

You do know that Transparent Cables was first mfg MIT cables to MIT's designs under the MIT Cables name, but MIT grew large enough to bring their mfg in house and then Transparent essentially reversed engineered MIT's cables but not to violate MIT's patents, but they still use the same basic principals and are very similar. Transparent had the capabilities to make cables, but they originally just mfg MIT's cables to MIT's designs. I guess Karen must have been part of the sales staff to help sell the MIT Cables that Transparent mfg.

Transprent, to my knowledge, doesn't make headphone cables. Why did MIT design headphone cables? Probably because they saw a need for them and the headphone market seems to be getting bigger and bigger and people want the sound of high end audio, but just in a more affordable headphone solution since a top end headphone setup can cost much less than $10K for top end headphones and headphone amp, etc. but you can also get a really nice setup with electronics by companies such as iFi and they have products that will drive practically any headphone, but obviously Bruce will look at that, figure out a way to bring his proven technology, which he seems to have done. Yeah, spending $600 to $800 on headphone cables is pretty outragious for the average person, but companies like Cardas and others have been coming out with headphone cables and I guess Bruce & Co. figured out a way to bring cables and the dongles (which is a great idea) and may be cheaper than buying the entire set of cables.

I never met Karen, but my local dealer said that the MIT rep was a woman that knew her "shit", so to speak, so it could have very well been Karen that was out selling the MIT product line to the dealers.

Yes, I have used Transparent cables and they do also work VERY well. No problem on my end, but they don't make headphone cables as of yet. Maybe later this year or next year we might see something from them.

I am curious about the MIT headphone cables as when I'm ready to get a pair of headphones, I'll certainly try the product. But from the various reviews, people seem to think they greatly improve the soundstage and clarity on even top headphones like the Audeze's, which are top of the line headphones. To improve the sound quality of a top pair of headphones isn't easy to do and if their cable/dongle designs do this, then great. I personally don't know if I would spend $900 on a headphone cable if the less expensive dongle sounds just as good, so that's what I would be interested in comparing. Plus they have several dongles to choose from, which makes them compelling to at least try out.

Well, the proof is in the final product. did you compare the MIT Vero's to the cable you bought? Since the Vero's aren't officially shipping, maybe if you compared them against the cable you bought, you might switch. The reason why I like MIT and Transparent cables so much, is that I'm very sensitive to distortions that cause ear fatigue. I have periods where I will listen to a system for long periods of time during the course of a day and I have not found any other cable mfg to not cause ear fatigue when listening to my system for extended periods of time. I normally listen to music at 85dB on a set of monitors, but I haven't used headphones in a long time. I do have ear buds, but I can't stand them for long periods of time. I only use them VERY sparingly and they are Martin Logan's which I can't change the cables. I guess I could try the dongles to see if there is an improvement, which I will investigate. But I have become brand loyal to both MIT and Transparent mostly due to the ear fatigue issue. That's actually the first thing I listen for with cables and other components. It's fundamentally the most important thing for me. Once it passes that test, then I can then listen to other factors of a product, but so far, in the 25+ years of buying higher end cables, those two brands are consistent and I have NO problems recommending people at least give them an audition. I haven't tried every brand on the market because I don't have time, but I have played with generic "no name" cables, cables made from various Belden wire, Audioquest, Cardas, Monster, because that's what is available to me in my area. But there aren't a whole lot of choices in headphone cables other than the original mfg and a few others, but the headphone market seems to be exploding over the past 5 years or so as better and more affordable products have been hitting the market.

Yeah, MIT's a niche player, but I think they might have a winning product line on their hands. If I was them, I would get their dongles in Apple Stores since a lot of people try and buy headphones there and I'm sure that their dongles might improve the sound while being SOMEWHAT affordable and easy to attach. But I don't know if MIT is going to go to the mass market for these products, but they probably could do quite well if they did.

As far as headphone customers not having brand loyalty? You obviously haven't talked about headphones with people that buy Bose or Beats. They both have HUGE brand loyalty and many of them would probably get into fist fights over their favorite brand. As far as cables are concerned, I think these MIT Veros might change that once they start to ship. Right now, they are just listened to a audio shows and they aren't shipping product yet. Most people that buy headphones don't normally buy 3rd party cables. 3rd party headphone cables is kind of a new concept that guys like Cardas started only a couple of years ago.

As far as MIT's future success of their Vero line up? I think they'll sell a bunch of product and from their standpoint, they do quite well with them, I think them trying to sell expensive cables to the average Beats owner might be difficult since most of them would have a heart attack spending more than $350 on a pair of headphones let alone a cable. But the proof is in the product and if people see a big enough improvement in sound quality to spend the money. It'll be interesting to see what the non-high end audio crowd says about them. The average Joe Blow that buys Beats headphones doesn't read Audiophile magazines, they go to different sites for guidance. They'll probably think they sound great, but they'll probably get pissed off at the price tag, which is probably more likely going to happen. The typical Beats headphone buyer is a teenager with no money. :-)

tony's picture

Hmm, what would you call it then?

We used to have 9 High-End Salons in my area, now we may have 2 part timers.

All of my Customer base has either passed or have not looked at their record collection in a decade.

The youth are turning to their iPhone6+ as their music source.

These people round here sell Linn Speakers at Garage Sales ( gramps passed and none of the children want the speakers or amps.)

Best Buy is the B&W and Martin Logan Outlet.

Magnapan is mail-order.

Phew, it's still breathing but….

The larger issue is that Retail is not Internet Proof.

Food is though, Tires is, CVS Drugs is kinda, Haircuts is, Booze & Tobacco are, Cars are mostly. Not much else though.

Feel like loosing $250,000?, open a Audio Salon and stay the 3 year lease. You'll not only loose the inventory & rent monies you'll end up in divorce and have a drinking problem.

Back in the day , Monster was half of our daily store sales. Today there is no place or need to buy all those Monster Cable accessories and our Radio Shack just closed.

I look at the snaps of the big Audio Shows and read the reporting and watch the videos of the shows. They look like a ghost town compared to the Winter CES of yesteryear.

All my comments here amount to little more that crying over spilt beer.

I miss the Audio business but I don't miss the Neurotic/Psychotic Customer base .

All is well,

Tony in Michigan

drblank's picture

I am in a fairly depressed area and know what you are talking about. But I look at other markets where the high end market is growing. I used to live in the SF Bay Area and back 20+ years ago, they didn't have that many stores, but now, there are a lot more stores carrying a wider range of products. But the Bay Area probably has more millionaires and billionaires per capita than Michigan or most cities in the US. There are places like Dubai that has a plethora of millionaires and billionaires buying the cost no object systems.

I know one person that does acoustic design for private listening rooms, home theaters and recording studios and he's getting calls for large installs around the country and other countries and he has more work than he can handle and his installs are typically at least $50K to $150K and that's for room treatment/room design. He's seeing a huge increase in sales over the last year and for the rest of '15.

I see a huge increase in headphone sales as even Beats grew to over $1.5 Billion a year in headphone sales.

I know that the masses just use an iPhone or Android phone as their source, but I see a growing number of companies selling higher end headphones and headphone systems lately and the audio shows have growing that market segment growing.

As far as $250K for opening up and Audio Store? That doesn't cut it anymore for a specialty store. I see specialty stores have more like several million in inventory, rooms, etc. and they have to do home theater installs, home automation and 2 channel. The home theater/home automation is where they can make money since there are installation services.

I was actually surprised that I saw a company that only sells those Steinway/Lyndorf systems, which are ripping expensive systems and that's all they sell with regards to speakers/electronics, the rest of what they sell is home automation and then projection systems. It was shocking that they only sell one brand of speakers/electronics, but I guess if they have enough business, then they have enough business.

tony's picture

I was at a home in Europe that had a Goldmund System including a pair of Goldmund headphones that look all the world to be Hifiman HE6s.

We're talkin' the top 1% here.

For that group anything goes.

In my area they drive RR & Bentley or they get driven in a bullet-proof Chevy Suburban.

I'm in the Motor City area.

Charter Jets are kinda big, shopping trips to NY and Paris are in.

They buy Home Theater with 7.1

They don't know how to operate their stuff, too many buttons and wires, 4 or 5 remotes sitting around with only one of the family able to turn the stuff on.

They drink nice wines in the Marble Kitchen and golf.

Not my peer group. I suppose I work for them in some fashion.

They wouldn't know if lamp cord was running their speakers.

They have closets for just their shoes.

The rest of us cut our own lawns.

Still, life is good or as least better than the alternative.


TheAudioGuild's picture

Crowdfunding has sadly been exploited as a marketing tool to generate free publicity and marketing buzz, as is the case here.

tony's picture

I Agree!

Tony in Michigan

tony's picture

Remind me not to debate with you, you are way smarter than I.

However, Charlatan or not, I did sell many pair of MH750 speaker cables back in the mid 1980s, to experienced audiophiles who took a demo pair home to audition.

I'm an automotive engineer, my business partner in Audio was another Automotive engineer, we did not believe in Wire at the time but the MIT stuff made our Sound Room a better experience.

So, I'm gonna have to disagree with you about wire. ( although I do admire your brain power and reasoning abilities ).

I suspect that our Mr.dbdark is part of the marketing for headphone cables and maybe a new-be in the audio world, certainly he doesn't seem to have the depth of experience to handle the social methods of sales & service, especially concerning the dealings with "TheAudioGuild" bunch of "Take no prisoners" members.

I would offer VERO the chance of submitting a review for purchase "Product Sample". These VERO guys need a proper "Higher Authority" to break the ice with the entire body of Audeze owners, which theaudioguild might provide.

Spit-talking type of arguments won't get it done.

Yea or Nay, I'd like to hear what the jury has to say!

Audioguild, Tyll, Steve G., Bob Katz, myself, AtomicBob up in Washington and a few more folks that you may know and respect like J.Stoddard.

So, for me, it's kinda : Shit or get off the Pot time for these fellas.

disclosures: >

1). I do want the MIT stuff to work despite the heavy cost.

2). I loved my MIT 750s when I was selling $10,000 systems.

3). I have respect for theAudioGuild.

4). I don't think Bruce at MIT is a crook of any kind.

5). I also love Karen Sumner at Transparent.

Tony in Michigan

ps. Oh, one more thing, a question: Have you experienced any loudspeaker that delivers greater music resolutions than headphones? i.e. is there a better loudspeaker than a pair of Sennheiser HD600s?

TheAudioGuild's picture

The key word you use here is "believe." So I just arguing with what amounts to irrational religious faith. And as they say, you can't have a rational argument with an irrational person.

You say you're an automotive engineer. Is your automotive engineering based on similar religious beliefs? I would certainly hope not. I wouldn't want to get behind the wheel of any car which was engineered in such a way.

You say you disagree. Fine. But "I disagree" isn't an argument. It's like saying "I'm right! So there!"

Dou you have even a plausible theory as to how a reasonably well designed cable can effect the signal in such a way as to be audible? Do you base your disagreement purely on your subjective experience?

If you did any study of the unreliability of human subjective perception, you would understand why it's trivially easy to dream up all manner of gibberish and be successful at selling your "solution" to people. But people are vain and don't like to accept their own humanity. So-called "high end" audio wouldn't exist in large part if that weren't the case.

Not sure what you mean by a "higher authority" to break the ice with Audeze owners.

As for shitting or getting off the pot, that's what MIT should be doing and offering more than marketing gibberish.

Brisson may not be a crook in the sense that he believes his own bullshit, but it's bullshit just the same.

tony's picture

I think you are quite right, I suppose I am an irrational believer or I want to believe. Of course belief isn't anything other than just plain silly.

No, we do not design based on belief, for gods sake. phew!

But I do believe the new Vette is better than the Mustang! and I'll prove it to you with a nice hair-raising test drive where you'll beg me to let you out at the next intersection.

I do say disagree, it isn't an argument, I'm "hoping" I'm right but I'm also prepared to be wrong again! So there. R we having fun yet?

Absolutely not, I do not have theory! I just want em to be better. I'm a realist. But, I'm not wanting enough to spend $800, maybe $50 if it looks super nice.

Ok, uncle, I give up and I'll shut up. I don't know what I'm talking about. I'm acting emotionally here, just trying to have some fun.

You are way more serious about all this and willing to go deep.

I love my music, I have an ASGARD 2, Sennheiser HD580s, an Odac and a iMac with iTunes.

I'm worried about Banking issues, International Balance and our Market recovering.

And I'll never tangle with you again, you are tough!

I do like you though.

Tony in Michigan

TheAudioGuild's picture

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for people going with what sounds best to them regardless of the reasons behind it. We listen to music for our own subjective pleasure so I don't care how that pleasure is had.

Where I have problems is when people pass off their subjective experience as something more than that and lead you to believe that if they subjectively perceived a difference it was due to some actual audible difference. When that simply isn't always the case.

Because we have known for many years that we can subjectively perceive differences even when there are no actual audible differences, if we want to separate fact from fiction, or from simply being human, we need to run controlled listening tests where things are compared by sound alone and not knowing the identity of the items under test, because simply knowing that can bias our perceptions.

If MIT simply made cables and said here they are without making any particular claims about them other than what they are, what they're made of, and how much they cost, I wouldn't really have anything to say.

But they're putting on this big production, claiming there are serious problems with cables and that they have the cure. It all has a highly technical slant and they try and lead people to believe that they actually know what they're talking about. In reality it's just a load of gibberish.

Take the so-called "white paper" that keeps being referred to. It's absolutely worthless as anything more than marketing. It never defines what "articulation" is within the context of the "measurements." Never states what exactly is being "measured" on the Y axis, what the test setup is, the instruments used, etc. Worthless. I don't see how anyone can be expected to take it seriously except those who simply don't know any better.

The only context it should be referred to as "white paper" is in the context of "toilet paper." It's pure, misleading marketing literature. Nothing more.

Look, I've been involved in so-called "high end" audio for over 30 years. I've seen millions of hand-waving claims. But I never see them substantiated. Why? Because they don't have to be. The claims themselves are sufficient to sell a bullshit product. No different than those "Power Band" bracelets that have the hologram on them. It's pure nonsense, but they've made millions and there are no end of people who will swear they "work." Well, we know how they "work." It's called the placebo effect.

In spite of placebos just being sugar pills, in clinical trials, they have a rate of efficacy because of the placebo effect.

And here's something interesting. If the placebo is just a simple white pill, like an aspirin tablet, it has a certain rate of efficacy. If instead the pill is small and blue and has a logo embossed on it, it's rate of efficacy goes up. If it's a capsule, it goes up more. And if it's an injection, higher still.

The MIT white paper is a big syringe loaded with nothing but saline solution.

tony's picture

I suppose I should thank you (right now) for saving me the $$$ I might have spent.


Tony in Michigan

TheAudioGuild's picture

Spend your money however you like, I don't care. I just think people should know when someone is blowing smoke up their bottoms in an attempt to get them to part with their money. If they don't care and want to spend the money anyway because it sounds good to them or they just think it looks good, no skin off my nose. Just think they're at least deserving of the information is all.

tony's picture

I'm reading the history of the english speaking people, 1900-2000.
The information is amazingly accurate and detailed up to about 1965 after which the history descriptions revert back to low documentation and obfuscations that we got from press propaganda of the time.

We ( the entire world ) are consistently deceived and thus controlled. Our Consent is manufactured by a willing media, being rewarded by advertisements.

Maybe you can help in some small way but the influential power money easily overwhelms your efforts.

Take your place with Zinn & Chomsky.

Maybe believe your noble efforts are properly recognized.

Rejoice that the manufacturers on the right side of this page aren't insisting on you being banned as "bad for continuing business".

Superstitiously keep your fingers crossed that they won't label your class of blogger as needing the "NwAvGuy" treatments.

I know of Outfits that would tie you up with "restraining orders".

We have freedom of Press here but don't push it.

Call my Lady CEO the same as you did MIT guy and you might be spending this Memorial Weekend in a holding cell.

These Audio guys are tiny and defenseless, Disney ( and larger ) might not be as silent.

Of course that may be why you're here in audio instead of the XL Pipeline excitements.

wishing you well,


TheAudioGuild's picture

Don't think I'm giving MIT more credit than I am. I'm not saying this is cleverly crafted Careyesque propaganda. It's just basic advertising of quackery. You have to step up to the big league for that, like Harman International, who I've accused of outright fraud, for their "Distortion of Sound" video. But I haven't heard a peep from them.

tony's picture

The Enron people nearly escaped jail. Mostly Fraudsters get away clean.

Fraud has always been profitable, fresh Marks are born every minute of the day.

The Carnival Shills graduate to bigger games.

Toyota makes Cars that run for 300,000 miles.

We US Automakers have to make cars compete with that new standard.

Our established norm is the 11 year durable good.

We need the Customer continuing to buy, as before.

And now we have to hit Safety Standards equaling less than 3 Fatalities per 100 Million Miles. ( that's better than the pick-up truck F150, which has always been the Gold Standard for safety ).

There is lots of Quackery out there but I'm pleased my Grandparents left Northern Europe 140 years ago. My Grandchildren live here in Michigan where we're not likely to start a Shooting War with Canada or anyone else.

On Balance, despite the Mosquitos we've been discussing, we've Won Life's Lottery!

Keep up the good work,

Tony in Michigan

tony's picture

I tried to watch, 2 or 3 minutes of it and I'm done.

I do enjoy A.R.Rahman's Mondo India Album.


TheAudioGuild's picture

They start off by conflating lossy data compression (i.e. MP3) with dynamic range compression (root of the loudness wars). Two completely different things. Though what they're leading the viewer to believe is that they're talking about is lossy data compression (it's basically a propaganda piece for Harman's Clari-Fi, which purports to put back what MP3 takes out).

But forward to 11:45, where they "compare" compressed audio to uncompressed audio. They have a split screen showing a woman playing acoustic guitar and singing while a waveform scrolls along the bottom. The waveform alternately switches from "uncompressed audio" and "compressed audio."

The waveform shown for compressed audio is NOT the MP3 version of the uncompressed audio. If it was, at the scale the waveform is shown, it wouldn't look any different. I made the same comparison all the way down to below 96kbps and they looked identical.

And if they had just used 128kbps, I doubt most would even be able to hear the difference. And that just wouldn't make for good propaganda.

Instead, if you look at the waveform, what they did was apply a huge amount of dynamic range compression. There are virtually no dynamics left. It's virtually flat on top and bottom. It was pretty extreme even by loudness wars standards.

But they didn't stop there. If they had only applied dynamic range compression, it would have sounded louder than the uncompressed audio, and people tend to perceive louder as "higher quality." And they certainly couldn't have that.

So after applying this huge amount of dynamic range compression, they also drmatically lowered it in level so that in spite of the dynamic range compression, it doesn't even sound AS LOUD as the uncompressed audio.

This manipulating of the signal makes the compressed audio portion sound clearly worse, even when played through the speaker in my iPad.

And that is just flat out fraud.

tony's picture

I'd have to think Harmon's Public Relations people are the ones making that video. I never encounter engineering scientests BSing like that.
But then I do recall that "more Dentists recommended Chesterfield Cigarettes than any other brand".

Caveat Emptor, especially when it comes to Pono Promotion.

If we didn't have stuff like this what would 60 Minutes be doing shows about?


TheAudioGuild's picture

But the thing is, one of their top researchers, Sean Olive is featured in the video. So certainly he knew about it and likely saw the finished product.

tony's picture

Reminds me of the Politically oriented Think Tanks.


drblank's picture

and do your own listening tests. Since these devices should be very easy to compare in a dealer, then bring your headphones that you use and try a variety of cables and dongles as they have different products and see if you hear a difference/improvement. That's how I would do it. Obviously they are designing cables specifically for the HD800s and Audeze since those are the most commonly used high end headphones on the market. But they have cables/dongles that are designed to be able to change out depending on the headphones you are using and your personal preference.

I think it's a great idea. Yeah, $900 on a headphone cables is expensive, but if you buy ahead of time with the crowdfunding program, they sell them a lot cheaper for about $400, so I guess buying ahead of official release will save lots of money. I'm tempted to buy a set, but I don't use headphones right now, and I'm still trying to figure out which headphones I want, so for me, I might not be buying what I really need/want. They have been showing these cables/dongles at audio shows, so if you can try them out at these shows, then you probably have a good chance of figuring out what you want to take advantage of the crowdfunding discounted pricing.

tony's picture

There is no Dealer in the Fly-over country where I live and Dealers are Vanishing everywhere else in the States. I would need a Internet Dealer.

Oh well, lets hope.

Tony in Michigan

tony's picture

Is this your first Journalism work?,

I didn't quite notice your name for a day or so,

Nice work.

Do you get to go on Motorcycle trips?

Tony in Michigan

Sean Sabino's picture

Hi Tony!

This is not my first time writing for a publication, no. I've actually written for Tyll before, although I was a young 'un back then. I do wish I got to go on motorcycle trips. Haven't ridden one since my dad and I restored a pair of Honda mini trails when I was a kid. Thanks for the warm welcome!

ManiaC's picture

I'm very interested!!!

CraigS's picture

Did MrSpeakers indicate whether they or not would be introducing a new version of the Alpha Prime based on the updated Fostex headphone?

John Grandberg's picture
I believe Dan Clark mentioned he won't be using Fostex drivers any longer, since he now has proprietary drivers of his own to work with. That said, I'd expect a closed back model or two to come out ASAP since that was already his bread and butter.
CraigS's picture

Whenever I see something going on sale, a little voice tells me to wait because something better is coming. I was zeroing in on the closed A-Primes to blockout the wife and kids without spending the extra $$$ for the LCD-XCs. I wonder how long it will take MrSpeakers to release the next closed models.

John Grandberg's picture
...this is not any special inside information, it's merely what I recall from the email they sent announcing the "end of life" sale. I believe Dan said they were a "long way from any announcements" regarding new models, so it could be a while. I always think of the used market at times like this - a sale on new Alpha Primes means second hand models should be that much more affordable. It might be worth looking in to.
Sean Sabino's picture

Hi Craig,

I've heard rumors that Dan actually bought out the remaining T50RP mk2 stock, but don't quote me on that. All I know is that the Ether, his most recent addition to the line-up, is all his own work. Will Dan reach back into T50RP modding with the mk3? With the relatively positive response to the Ether, I'm really not sure I'd count on it.

Either way, they're great cans that are available at a great price now.


CraigS's picture

You're right. I should be happy that I'm getting $200 off on a headphone that I was already thinking about buying. Was there any discussion about an "Either Closed" ?

CraigS's picture

Well, I purchased the Alpha Primes from Moon Audio and used my savings to pick up a 10' Black Dragon V2 cable (4-pin XLR). I've been listening through my headphone set-up (SB Touch w/ EDO mod > Wyred 4 Sound Remedy > Opp HA-1) and I couldn't be happier. A huge step up sonically from my Senn 650s and I'm isolated from outside noise. Thanks for nudging me in the right direction.

drblank's picture

That will probably just charge you for the cables and you can send them back if you don't like them. I'm sure that's probably to be expected since there are a lot of choices in dongles and cables, since they have a variety which you may or may not want depending on your tastes and headphones used.

What do you mean Fly over country? That's a new term. Dealers vanishing in the States? I've seen a few go away, but there are still a lot that are selling MIT products. Actually near where I live, the only dealers that went out of business didn't carry MIT Cables. No, that wasn't the reason for it. :-)

I think TheAudioNerd might be able to work with you. They are right around the corner from MIT's factory. But they don't have the cables/dongles yet, I think they start to ship in Sept. You might actually be better off just buying the dongles, they are cheaper than the cables and that way you can always buy a couple of different ones depending on what music you are listening to.

i am personally torn between the Audeze 3's or the HD800's, but I heard that the HD800's are going to be replaced sometime in the near future (rumor only). But I read this from different sources that seemed to be credible as one was a dealer and that's what they claimed Sennheiser told them, so I'm not in a hurry to buy them, but I'm interested in listening to them.

I was going to go to the Newport show, but I can't pull myself away.

veggieboy2001's picture

Glad to have you...
A news feed seems to be a great idea, too

Thanks for contributing!!

Sean Sabino's picture

I'm glad to hear that you like the idea. Let me know if there's anything you're more interested in hearing about and I'll look into it for the next installment!