MIT cables and super tweeters

Had a pair of HG RCA's once and found them bright and thin sounding. MIT S3's are neutral, full and dynamic sounding cables. Best bang for the buck however are the Monster Z200i's if you can still get them from Shop All Monster...I've sold my MIT Magnum M1 IC's after A/B listening in my system using my RCA and XLR outs from my Sony XA5400ES SACD player. The Monster Z200i's were as good and a little bit fuller sounding and the slightest bit clearer...amazing for $119/.5M or $199/1M length. Try them and I think you will completely blown away by their performance:O)

Thanks to all for the input. If possible, I'd appreciate any input, experience, or argument that could be generated from the choice of MIT Shotgun S3 versus Home Grown Audio Silver Lace ICs.

In concept, I don't want network boxes in the signal path but I've got to have em! MIT reference level interconnects are my preference by a long shot. As Mapman states trust your ears....period. YMWV...

"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.

Eventhough I don't think Audiofeil is end all guru of audio I do think he knows a lot. But about MIT cables, now way I would want them in my system. 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. That is also the thing I don't like about them.

Thought I'd get back on topic so...Done the super tweeter thing and found it don't make up for what lacks in the system to begin with. Cable evaluation of Synergistic Research Accelerator, Purist Aqueaus, Analysis Plus Big Silver Oval and MIT Magnum M1 have enlightened me. The Monster Cable Z200i IC and M2.2s speaker cable is so immediate, vital and bubbling over with texture and dynamics that I can hardly believe it! I've found that playing live music can throw into bold relief just how different cables can sound...and just how hard some high end cables try to compensate for poorly matched components by phasing and rolling certain frequencies off. I must apologize to Audiofeil for the simple reason that the Monster cable wiped the floor with the so called High End cables. Unexpected and disturbing for someone who has sworn by his MIT cables:O)

In case you didn't figure it out yet 'feil, I purposely enjoy drawing you in so we may all be enlightened by your enormous Ego..I mean wisdom. You have such a warm and caring disposition, I'll bet your a real hoot at a party! As I've said before, if you have nothing specific to add, other than your stock bag of corrections for those who differ in opinion, then go away. Stating YOUR view and backing it up with alternative experiences and specific examples are required for a healthy discussion. By the way, I have experienced other cables and gear, besides my own rather lengthy list of equipment. I only mention stuff I have enjoyed the most...I do not pretend to be the Audiofeil police. I have several speaker cables on loan from The Cable Company again right now...some of them may even beat out my MIT's:O)

Entertainment I totally agree because very few entertainers can be taken seriously.

You are an entertainer.

Inexperience? No. Hyperbole? For entertainment purposes, perhaps. My thoughts and feelings? Yes!

No that's not true.

I simply point out your inexperience and hyperbole.

Your posting history is replete with both.

For me it may be an absolute. For others it is always just a recommendation. you just bring out the worst in people sometimes.:O)

Funny stuff from an amateur.

Yours is not a strong view; it is an absolute. Anybody with experience would know that in this hobby, there are no absolutes.

Keep up the good work.

I knew I could bring Audiofeil out of retirement from his career of bashing fellow Audiogon members with strong views of their own. You definately have a place in the new administration in Washington D.C....as head of the Individual Thought Police. For the record mine Fuhrer, the reason I am consistent is due to the fact that I constantly experiment with new cables yet wind up going back to MIT. Why? Because wire IS wire...you can dress it up and call it Stealth or any other cool name you like, but it is just WIRE! MIT incorporates technology that allows music through and not just some Audiophiles confabulated idea of what music should sound like. Of course Boston Symphony Hall is my reference...not poorly recorded bad digital tranfers of best forgotten '80's music. How many patents does Stealth Cable have?

>>03-01-09: Dave_b
Wire is just wire if it isn't MIT.<<

It's hard to believe one person can post so many dumb statements.

But then again you're a model of consistency.

The short answer to your questions can be directly answered
by going to a Bruce Brissons web site which shows you detailed photos of what is inside the network boxes and even lets u put one together yourself.
The website is www.diyaudiocables.com
Happy Listening

MIT cables have always outperformed any of the competition I have tried on my gear, from ARC and BAT reference gear to Levinson and Krell SS. Wire is just wire if it isn't MIT. Try any competitor and then try MIT...if you have ears and have ever heard music being made in front of you live then you will appreciate what they offer. Einstein's theories still seem like techno babble for most of this worlds inhabitants...that don't mean they ain't so brudda:O)

Ralph has an excellent paper on the subject at his site:

http://www.atma-sphere.com/papers/paradigm_paper2.html

I have great respect for his writings and his work.

I haven't seen enough information, though, to be able to comment on the effects, if any, of the MIT boxes on power factor.

Regards,
-- Al

I recall that MIT speaker cables tries to even out the power factor through the addition of filters. This relies on the assumption that audio equipment are supposed to work with an even power transfer. It is an interesting idea but I am not sure how many speakers and amplifiers are designed to work that way (if any?). Perhaps Ralph can comment from an amplifier design perspective?

That some equipment sounds better with filters is not surprising or unusual given the variety of stuff out there. I

I'd suggest the only way to know would be to simply try it and see.

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.

To answer the OP's question instead of the conjecture offered by some, you'll be fine using a super tweeter with the MIT cables. However, I would suggest you confer with MIT with any question you may have about their products as they are quite helpful.

Agreed, DrJoe!

Best regards,
-- Al

Al, thanks for your comments. I think we all have to remember that in my estimation, advertising is filled with hype and claims. The proof is in the
hearing. No matter what the claims,hype....if you like it and can afford it,
then buy it!!! With $56,000 CD players, we all in a crazy hobby and passion.
Joe

I will add to this post, I have known many electrical engineers who think a resistor is a resistor, and a capacitor is a capacitor.... all the same not all, but many.

FWIW, I am not one of them, and the differences (or at least some of the differences) are easily explainable.

Regards,
-- Al

I will add to this post, I have known many electrical engineers who think
a resistor is a resistor, and a capacitor is a capacitor.... all the same
not all, but many.
Joe

I am wondering, how much listening time have Mapman and Almarg spent with any Mit cables much less top of the line products.

In my case, none. But as I said above:

I don't doubt that MIT cables will sound very good on some systems

-- Al

I am wondering, how much listening time have Mapman and Almarg
spent with any Mit cables much less top of the line products.
Joe

1)Mapman -- I agree with your well put comments and perspective.

2)

High frequency information travels electrically through the cable at a different speed than low-frequencies.

Nonsense. And even if it weren't nonsense (which it is), considering that the information propagates through the cable at a substantial fraction of the speed of light in a vacuum, the arrival time differences would be an utterly infinitesimal fraction of a single period of the highest audio frequency.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signal_velocity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocity_of_propagation

Regards,
-- Al

"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)

It's mostly about time-amignment, not low-pass. High frequency information travels electrically through the cable at a different speed than low-frequencies. Therefore, depending on the length of cable needed, each MIT cable is calibrated to re-align the audio signal electrically before it exits the cable. Typically, the result does improve bass because less low-frequency information is lost to cancellation due to mis-alignment. Now MIT has refined this philosophy to what they call poles of articulation, which finds the "sweet-spot" electrically for many frequency points. The higher the price of MIT cables the more poles of articulation.

Although I don't doubt that MIT cables will sound very good on some systems, and I don't want to hurt anyone's feelings, I must say that as an electrical engineer (who DOES believe that cables can and do sound significantly different), I have perhaps never in my life read such utter gibberish as many of Bruce Brisson's writings.

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.

I looked at the white paper on his site about "Articulation Response." More misleading techno-babble, with the y-axis on all of his plots, representing "articulation," totally undefined in any technically meaningful way. And his description of multi-pole technology, as broadening the frequency range that provides good articulation, failing to define the "poles" that he is talking about (no doubt because they don't exist within the audio spectrum).

As far as I'm concerned, no cable that includes a network box is a neutral cable. And if the characteristics of that network box are left undefined, and associated technical writeups are techno-gibberish, I would recommend staying away unless there were substantial anecdotal evidence of synergy between the particular system and the particular cable.

Regards,
-- Al

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.