MIT cables and super tweeters


So I'm leaning towards purchasing some MIT cables (likely Shotgun S3 IC and speaker cables), but I can't figure out what the network box on the cables actually does. From what I've read, it appears to act as a low pass filter to remove all the grunge carried at utlra high frequencies which supposedly can muck up the audible frequencies. While this doesn't sound like a bad thing, I also intend to purchase a Townshend Super Tweeter (20kHz -70kHz per specs) some time this year (**crosses fingers**). If the MIT's network box is acting as a low pass filter, then wouldn't it filter out all the audio frequency info that would've gone to the super tweeter? Anybody have any insight on this as I'm not sure if this is even right. Thanks much.
128x128kgturner

Showing 4 responses by mapman

For what its worth, there is a white paper on the MIT website that describes the effects of the various technologies they use, including the various boxs.

I don't think it has anything to do with filtering of any kind.

I use the older and cheaper Terminator series in my system. As insinuated by the name, these use the box at the terminal (outbound) end of the cable only.

They sound very good. The only caveat is they can be a tad too bright and revealing on some systems.
"A good example would be his manufacturer's response in the current TAS (no. 190, page 105) to Robert Harley's review of his $25K 8-foot speaker cables and $8K 1-meter interconnect. Just absolute techno-babble, at least as applied to audio frequencies."

TEchno babble helps sell outrageously priced stuff to some. You have to convince perfectionists that spending lots of money is worth it to achieve their goals.

Fact is though based on my comparisons with other products in my system, the reasonably priced (used) Terminator cables clearly do without doubt deliver a sound consistent with the technoblather. Its a good $30-50 investment that delivers very good sound in a well matched system.

I suspect MIT uses the virtues of its affordable products to suck people into upgrading to its expanded and way more costly versions. What cable company wouldn't want to make anice high profit big ticket sale on occasion for not too much more investment in R&D or marketing costs?

I resist the urge to get carried away with enthusiasm for these uber-products. The diminishing returns only have value for relatively few.

As many here have pointed out already, it is often easier to sell the same luxury product to its target audience for more money than it is if the price is lower. After all, anybody can buy products for low cost.

Also, if you try a $50 used cable and don't like it, its not hard to sell it to someone else to try without taking a big hit (unless you overpay)
DRjoe,

A lot of time with the relatively cheapo MITs in my system.

As I said, I like them a lot and can recommend them to others.

I have no doubt the high end stuff is even better.

When I read some of their literature, some of it made sense to me and some of it did not. I do not recall the details, only that I finished still somewhat skeptical. The white-paper I read did answer the question I had going in regarding the boxes used, why they are there and how to orient the ICs correctly.

Luckily, the MIT products I have used do deliver so I can forgive the use of moderate "techno-babble" I recall detecting. Its a common malaise in this market. MITs case was no worse and perhaps even slightly better than most.

In the end, the pleasure the sound delivers is all that matters.
"I don't trust network boxes in cables and never will.
My very limited experience with MIT cable is the they have a bigger sonic signature then any other cable on the market."

Trust your ears, that's all that matters.

If two cables sound different then they have sonic signatures. Otherwise they would all sound the same and be interchangeable.