MIT Love 'em or Hate 'em

Unklecrusty: While one can "usually" see what is inside of an active audio component, one can almost always measure the results. Thinking along those same lines, I would be curious to actually do that with some of these "networked" cables under lab conditions. If they produced ANY type of an abberation with an ideal load ( nominal impedance with minimal reactance ), you can sure as hell bet that "crazy" things would take place on a reactive load that a loudspeaker would present to an amplifier. On the other hand, they might measure "perfect" on a dummy load and still run into problems with specific reactive loads. Once again, the only way to find out would be to test them and see.

Sheesh, with all of these different "projects" & "testing" that i want to do, maybe i should spend less time on the puter and more time actually doing them : ) Sean
>

Unklecrusty: I am not defending MIT, Transparent, etc... I have no real experience with them nor do i feel the need to investigate them.

Having said that, all i can say is that changing the line length of ANY speaker cable will present the amplifier with a different feedpoint impedance. This in turn can play games with how it loads up, the correction circuitry, etc... If MIT, Transparent or for that matter Kimber, Goertz, Monster, etc... presents the amp with an impedance that it likes, it will work better.

The bottom line would be to hook up various cables to a system one by one and test them. One could feed various test signals into the system and check to see what produced the most linear loading at the amp and speaker's binding posts. I had intended to do this sometime in the near future just to see how measurable the differences really are. On top of that, i'm wondering how closely the waveform would equate to actual sound quality i.e. would a severely distorted waveform produce severely non-linear sound ??? I guess i'll have to wait and see. Sean
>

I agree with the basic premise of your comments i.e. an impedance compensation network is valid for the specific system that it was designed for. Change just one variable ( speaker, cable, amplifier, etc... ) and that network is no longer valid or "most correct". Trying to do anything other than "tweak" a specific set of components within a system for optimum performance by using cables with "universal" values in their "magic boxes" is completely "generic" in my eyes and a highly flawed approach. That is why i said that i have no desire to investigate MIT, Transparent, etc... Sean
>

Good question Newbee. I guess if someone is going to berate one product, knowing what they are comparing it to gives us a point of reference. Let's see if our beloved "Uncle" is up to the question. Sean
>

What are some "good" MIT's that are commonly available on the used market but won't break the bank ? I know that they have TONS of different models available and some of them are quite specialized. If i was interested in checking a set of these out, who should i contact to get the lowdown on them ? Sean
>

PS... You guys can "kick" me too. I've never used these first-hand and my comments are based on logic / pre-conceived ideas. Having said that, there is a reviewer that i "basically" trust and he has spoken quite highly of various MIT designs.

Unsound: As i stated, i have no "real" experience using MIT's in any of my systems. As to the reviewer in question, it was J. Peter Moncrieff of IAR. Sean
>

For the record Max, IAR used to like MIT cables. I don't know what Peter's thought's are on them now. Sean
>

Asa: Your summary of the scientific / religious / emotional artifacts brought into this thread and others is quite interesting. Thanks for chiming in with your point of view. Sean
>