Anyone here have experience with MIT cabling ?

My experience with high end MIT cabling is that without question the nuance,spaciousness,detail,soundstage, dynamics and musicality improve with each move up.
I use Spectral ref electronics and the improvements are very significant to my fussy ears. Buy used, buy the best you can,check out joe Abrams for knowledgable advice

Hello ,

I like to experiment so I had many MIT cables since I started using them three years ago.

From the older Terminator 2 biwire up to AVT1, Shotgun S3 biwire and interconnect and Shotgun S2, Magnum M2 and Oracle V3.1 biwire and recently the newer MA series with Shotgun MA and now Magnum MA.

I realized that it's nery important to have all the MIT cable of the same line. This aspect is even more important for the MA series .
In the past I had a mix and match of different MIT cables and evethough I recognize the benefict of each one of these cables, my system wasn't sounding as good as it does now with all the cables of the MA series ( actually still a mix and match of Magnum MA xlr for interconnect cd and pre and pre and amplifier and Shotgun MA biwire but that's ok according to MIT and in fact they work great together)

There is a strong sinergy that comes out like for magic when the cables are matched properly.

I loved the silky and very elegant sound of the Magum M2. The Shotgun it's nice but doesn't come even close in finesse and authority compared to the Magnum.

MIT grades his cables based on the number of poles (14X 36X 42X etc)

I personally think that there are other factors that are to be considered and aren't fully expressed by the multipole technology only.

I had the Oracle V3.1 biwire that has about the same numver of poles of the Shotgun MA biwire that I purchased right after I sold the Oracle (36X VS 33X if I well remember)

Based on this parameter the two cables should sound more or less the same . They don't at all. The old Oracle biwire V3.1 was sounding more holographic and a bit more dynamic than the newer Shotugn MA biwire so at the end the difference in favor of the Oracle was more than subtle.

Evaluated by it's self I prefer the Magum M2 to the Shotgun MA internonnect xlr altought the latter has a higher number of poles.

I have to say that these comments are partially affected by the fact that the MA series works at his fullest only when all the chain is MA and not one cable only so my opinion might be impared my the fact that I hadn't an all Magnum M2 set to compare to an all Shotgun MA set.

Again I realized that the MA series puts the turbo only when everything is MA ( MIT discloses this aspect on his web site but I din't think that it was too much of a deal but it is)

Anyway the real deal is the Magnum MA . Really a fantastic cable worth the money with terrific performances. Infact I will upgrade my speaker cables to the Magnum MA as soon as possible ( man ! this stuff is not cheap.....)

I also made experience with MIT power cables.
Extremely effective. I started with the Zcord II up to the Shotgun AC1 and Magnum AC2.

The real thing starts with the Shotgun AC1 .The network really does a great job in filtering the power wave. The Magnum is of course extremely more effective.
In my experience the componet that gets the most benefict from clean and filtered power is the CD player and it's internal DAC, second comes the Preamp, third the amplifier. Putting a Magnum AC2 under your CD player and than going back to your stock power cable and is more or less like turning on and off the light.

Still the key is the balance of you audio chain (which applies to the cables as well as the audio components ) so to get the most out of these cables you need to have matching interconnect , speaker and power cables.

The focus, detail, clarity dynamic and warmth that these cables will give you is beyond immagination and you need to have them connected to understand.

Regarding the open Oracle on an italian blog:

I'm Italian and I went thru the whole thing.
A buch of bullcrap to make it short, with many comments that make no sense along with people that express their satisfacton for the MIT products. Still many are negative.

I don't know what people think to find inside these network boxes? GOLD MAYBE? and they are disappointed because they see only cables (of course) and electric devices that apparently may seem common but they are not.

If this thing was so simple and after all with no value, MIT competitors ( the others with network boxes) would have figured out how to copy the multipole technology many years ago.
So far I know they didn't and they keep on eating the dust, proof that the technology behind these cables is much more sophisticated and the secret is not in what you see ( even with a network box open) in what you don't and can't see.

By the way none paid me for this. I just love MIT cables because they work. That's why I invested a little fortune in them and I'm glad I did. That's it

Yes Sir.
There are very competent fellas over there.
The owner of the cable opened it because of its noise.
What he found out is that when the cable is connected to the "network", show in the pic, the shielding of the cable disappear and it is not replaced by a shield of the case/box (the two shells are not connected with the ground).
Discussion goes ahead on technical side (components and values found in the box), on what a cable is expected to do,on how is relatively easy to deposit patents for everything in the USA and the absence of a peer review on them, on price matters in the audio market and so on.

I know what kind of sound the Terminator 2 and 4 interconnects delivers because I own them and have experimented.

I do not doubt that the high end versions probably sound better either.

I am skeptical though that the prices many cable companies charge (not just MIT) for the high end stuff is justified. I think a lot of it is just clever marketing to collect a large margin on a niche product.

Years ago companies made little profit on electronics. The profit margins were in the speakers, phono cartridges, and accessories. I suspect some of that still exists today.