Perfectimage You ask a question that is curious to me also. I really try to stay away from controversial issues concerning components since synergy is much more important than trying to ascertain whether a particular product on its own is worth its salt or not. I have commented on the effects of MIT speaker cables in my system and can only say that they offer by far the biggest improvement I have heard in speaker cables to date. That appreciation is greater with each passing day when listening to familiar recordings. I really think that there may be a sonic characteristic (relaxed and smooth)and maybe on the part of some that don't like MIT, that is not something their system needs. Maybe it is the fact that they have network boxes that some feel add unwanted colorations. All I can say is that those that have a system that lends itself towards a bright balance, particularly in the high frequencies, may find these cables to be the best solution and along the way may find out about other aspects of MIT that to my ears sets them apart, image placement, firmer bass and greater resolution of inner harmonic detail. The sound is more palpable, dynamic contrasts more real with a great jump factor without becoming edgy. That is what I hear and it is unmistakable in my system.
MIT bashed, not Transparent, why?
First off, no name calling. Lets remember everybody hears things different but why is it that you see a lot of people downing MIT and not Transparent. (I have Transparent by the way)They are both "network" designed cables that are very expensive. I haven't tried the MIT in my system yet but I have heard it in demos that didn't sound bad.
- ...
- 18 posts total
- 18 posts total