Let me get this straight. MIT and Tranparent are identical in sound since they both have networks on them, no matter what else is different in the design. Hum? O.K., using "krusty" logic, we now know that all mult-strand, multi-guage,copper litz(Nirvana S-L),speaker wires and IC's sound identical. Gee this is easy! Now let me think about this? I must have some multi-strand, multi-guage, copper litz wires around here somewhere? Oh, yea, MIT 330(pre network). So, now I know that Nirvana S-L, sounds identical to MIT 330. Gee,gosh,golly unclekrusty thanks for teaching me everything you know about HiFI. So now I know all silver wires sound the same, all solid core wires sound the same, all flat section wires sound the same. Just as long as there ain't no "box" on it to frighten the weak and the silly. This is much simpler than actually listening to cables to find out what they sound like.
Now that the stupid fairy tale is over! I said it in my first post, the people that make the most noise about MIT never put them in their system and lsitened.(one digital cable hardly can be a proper representation of a whole line of cables)
I never made any claim about the sound. I stated for the record that I use them. I don't make claims about the sound of audio gear I have never heard. I don't make claims about the sound of cables I have never heard. I do like to pick fights with idiots who do! |
Oh Jetter, Jetter, don't you know that an opinion (your "call") lacks credibilty when made summarily without reasons, support or evidence? That's a premise of method, and especially scientific method, and also dialogue. I'm sure Krusty would remind you of that...
What do you mean?
I never could figure out how someone could think they were scientifically rigorous while, at once, failing to understand the philosophical premises of which that empiric rigor depended. When did scientific method, and its resultant "technicalities", become divorced from the philosophical assumptions upon which it depends, and exists?
Perhaps, Jetter, you are not seeing as much as you think...? |
Uncle K - 9
Philosophy gurus - 4 1/2
We just call em like we see em. |
Krusty:
Thank you for responding.
I agree, the pre amp is the fulcrum of a system, or at least should never be relegated in consideration.
Also, we agree that "technical" arguments are important. My question is whether you consider them 1) inherently determinitive, or 2) important as a variable of consideration, but determitive in this particular instance (ie. that the scientific explanations you provide are sufficient for us as a consensual group of peers to conclude that they are dispository of subjective experience).
On your tone: you need self-reflection. When you say to someone, effectively, I've already answered that question with "technical" data/argument, so "look back and read", when you should know, and do know, that that person has read what you've said, then you are being flippant and tangentially patronizing. My position has always been that if you want to be patronizing then one should have the courage to do so without hiding behind inaccurate I-already-said-that language. If you did not intend this tone, then, given others' similar reactions, you may wish to exercise some prudence.
Why "inaccurate" circular reference?
Again, what is the basis in your assumption that "technical" arguments are sufficient? If your experience in listening had been different, would that, given your worldview, mean that the "technical" arguments were wrong, notwithstanding their linear elegance?
If all technology is rearranged matter in various forms, then what character of one form (wire) causes it to be fundamentallly different than another? You say, through analogy, that the base/alkaline quality of water - that differentiation on PH - is important. When that differentiation analogy is applied to the issue at hand, what is the determinitive difference between an amp and a piece of wire; what is more "alkaline" about an amp and less "alkaline" about a wire vis-a-vis each other? More/less functional, more/less complex, or what? Without another analogy, or referring back to "technical" arguments, first tell me the assumptive context of those arguments, namely, what is the "alkaline" nature of wire matter vs. amp matter?
I appreciate your offering your subjective experience with box/non-box wire and how, assumably, that experience bolstered your technical investigations. Again, I remain interested in the relative importance you apply to these modes of experience/investigation in general, or in this context (if that prioritizing changes based upon comparison of the experiment results with the prior "technical" hypotheses).
One thing to remember about boxes on wire, ie so-called passive networks. Many of these networks came about, in a technical way, as a "band-aid" for earlier SS amplification and its lack of harmonic sophistication and spatial continuity (the "tube" networks of, say, MIT only came later and are not considered state-of-the-art in tube cirles, predominantly speaking). Moreover, many of these boxed cables directed at SS systems (and its afficianados) were designed for specific components and systems, ie Watt II spkrs with earlier Spectral needed MIT to "band-aid" it in the aforementioned areas, particularly the Watts, worse from the spkr/amp combo. Did this system approach also have a marketing angle behind it? Undeniably. And should we be "technically" on guard, so to speak, when we percieve this mix of design and avarice? Of course. But none of that, or the frustration that it engenders, should lead to patronization, adversarialness, etc. in the first instance, and particularly when the context for technical arguments that, assumably, justify that attitude have themselves gone undisclosed.
Krusty, I like polemic as much as the next guy, and like to stir the pot now and then myself, but describing your subjective experiences is not "methodology" ("philosophical" or otherwise), but the results of an empiric method (listening tests). I am inquiring as to the assumptions that underly your technical methodology.
Second, looking at your subjective evidence, it appears that you too have mainly a SS orientation. Has this always been your methodological approach, ie point of methodological departure, and, if so, why?
Last, I want to share your concern that some people are harmed/harm themselves by buying expensive wire - boxed or unboxed - believing it will change their audio world, only to later find that it did not. And yes, system building does have its dynamics that involve changing priorities between electronic components and wire components as sophistication increases in the system. Your emotional response may be understood, but that momentum of emotion does not explain the assumptions of your technique, nor justify the tone of your "concern". |
Not quite true uncle K., MIT, as far as their wires for Spectral are concerned, does say what those boxes are for and also Spectral does in their literature....and yes they are highpass filters, because the Spectral stuff is so extremely wide band. At least that's what I think I know about it. |
Ozfly,
I wasn't venemous until venom came a-spittin' at me. At that point I understood that there was a way in which certain people preferred to be communicated to - because they had shown me by their example. I didn't draw the line, I merely came up to it.
Beyond that, it's extremely frustrating to have non technical, faux EE's first try and describe the products as one thing (cable fixers) and then, when the technical argument is presented as to why they couldn't be correct about that, explain the cables as something comepletely different (power factor correctors) - and then be taken to task as to why the new argument/defense is not likely a valid one.
I think the biggest problem is that no one outside of MIT knows what the heck is truly going on inside the boxes, and like good churchgoers they don't bother to demand explanations - they just take the vague ones they are given on faith and evangelize with an incomplete arsenal of bogus theory. |
My cables:
Nirvana SL Speaker Cables
Nirvana SL Interconnects between DAC and Pre, and Pre and Amp
Kimber Orchid between Trans and DAC |
In my system From source to pre-amp, absolutely Love them. From Pre-amp to amp, Hate them. |
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
> |
does anyone know the brand of cable that Unclecrusty feels is neutral and will complement most of not all high end speakers and amp. I need some, i think. |
For the record Max, IAR used to like MIT cables. I don't know what Peter's thought's are on them now. Sean
> |
I wish I had the uncanny ability to assess the sound of components that I have never heard. This ability is amazing and miraculous! If I could do that I might publish a review mag and call it "The Immaculate Preconception". I would never have to have my findings and opinions tainted by actually having the sound of the component under review penetrate my ear. This would be the seminal journal of Hi End sound, and I would not even have to physically write it, as it would be handed down to me on stone tablets directly from the ultimate audio being himself unclekreusty.
I would know that the sound of a power cable can't affect the sound of a pre amp with out having to turn it on. I would know the affect of changing the caps in a circuit through devine intervention, and would not even have to smell the solder. I would know the effect of every cable on every system from a distance as great as many states! I would not have to take the room or source into account as my intuition is so great that listening is inessential.
I will throw away 30 years of listening experience and any comparisons I have done of cables. The fact that I now don't have to even hook things up will save me a great deal of time and money. Before this ability I was open minded to the idea that there were perhaps new cables that might sound better in my system, but now that I have this mystical ability there is no need to try or to listen. I also now know the flaws and faults all of the systems that you simple mortales here at AudioGon, parish the thought, listen to.
Line up, sign up, and re-enlist today in my audio Jehad that will eliminate the infadels that form their opinions by experience rather than buying my magazine. Praise the Lord and pass the amunition! Help me crush the Great Satin
of "listening".
Wait,I gotta run, there is one of those damn Auido Witnesses leaving his damn pamphlet, the "IAR" in my door, and I need to chace them off .
From: "The Further Misadventures of Maxgain, Audio Gunslinger" |
Unclekrusty, I appreciate your recognition that your statements are your opinion. Is there a particular reason you present it with such venom?
As for me, I appreciated how MIT speaker cables sounded in my last system. I am now quite willing to audition others and really don't care whether I end up with a "box" or not. At the end, there's nothing magic but the music. |
Asa - in answer to your questions
Everything is a filter, for sure. Now - take a $20,000 amplifier, for instance. Of what use is a truly extreme filter (2nd order low pass) to that $20k amp? Well, if it is really useful, then the amplifier manufacturer should have made it $21,000 and put some paralelled caps in to "power factor correct" his amp's obvious flaw.
Un boxed wire vs. boxed wire: Wire is a filter in the same way that water is an acid (or alkaline) - in the presence of real acid (or alkaline) water is just water. Likewise, in the presence of a real filter wire is just wire.
The basis of my opinion has been laid out in several technical arguments here on the thread. Look back and read.
Meanwhile, I've also had experience with Transparent boxes a coupe of years ago, and once had kooky MIT digital cable that had dipswitches on it. Both quite obviously changed things, veiled things in the systems. The Transparent boxes I was running were loudspeaker cables between a Cello Duet 350 and a pair of Avalon Ascents. The digital cable stood between a WADIA 6 and a Muse Model 2. No matter what little setting I chose, it didn't come close to a normal AES/EBU cable.
As far as philosophical methodology: One can arrive at a basically satisfactory result by consistently adding band aids until your system is EQ'd to the point that you no longer hate it. One can also take the efficient approach and seek the help of an experienced pro who can help to match your preamp/amp/speakers. With a good choice in the latter you will get off of the moving sidewalk that has many upgrading and crossgrading forever and just settle into music. In the former, one winds up trying to match the system to the magicboxes often times.
You can't expect to have a high res system with a mid res preamplifier. First order of business is to get a fantastic preamplifier, then have it matched to a fantastic amplifier. Then the only upgrade path you'd be following is the one for speakers. Start small and move up as money allows. No magic box cable is going to turn a $1,000 pair of speakers into a $5,000 pair of speakers, but some folks will wind up blowing another few grand on these magic cables instead of looking for more effective roads to upgrade. |
I'm back. Unlike a good bunch of you I don't live on the threads but do enjoy a life outside of this little area of virtuality.
Maxxie - I know your stuff all too well. Been in this game for a long long time and owned many many things. You would do well to forget about how insulted you are and take some decent advice for once.
Far from clueless, kids. You may not like me, or how I say what I have to say - but I speak from a very long time of experience. I've discovered two kinds of people in this business: Music lovers and equipment worshippers. Almost without fail the people that own "magicbox" cables have neatly fallen into the equipment worshipping category. That's just the way it is.
As for my address being "bogus" - it was fine up until two days ago, when I switched it because of some quite nasty emails I was receiving for sharing my personal opinions.
Filterboys - enjoy yourselves. Compromise is compromise is compromise. Magicboxes sound great on systems that need the repair, but veil the performance of a truly well matched high-resolution audio system.
See you in the trenches, ladies.
|
Carl is extremely knowledgeable, owns an excellent system but he didn't like it if you DISAGREED WITH HIM! I have seen him on the asylum dishing out good advice. Good thread Bundy, MIT will guarantee you 50 responses. MIT is the bomb!!! (that will get 20 more!) |
Obviously Maxgain was right and it is good riddence. |
he too reminds me of Carl Eberhart, & like Unsound, I really do miss the guy. Certainly Carl was/is controversial but he sure knew what he was talking about, unlike the above-mentioned clueless blowhard uncle-naysayer. |
WHERE IS MY CRUSTY!!!!
Oh well.... |
Oh Crusty, where are you? |
I've now read the entire thread and can well understand Maxgain's anger. I'd also lower my horns at Crusty's language, even though I would defend his rights for freedom of speech and the freedom to have his opinions. I've owned the gear he's mentioned and I like it and I run Spectral 360s which are very highband, right up to where the bats hear and over and that's why MIT wires make sense because of their high pass filtering action. As a combination and with stators they have never failed to amaze the cognoscienti and although I am a deeply a vinyl, tube and stator man, this SS combination, together with a Spectral pre commands my respect. Cheers, |
Thanks uncle krust... now I'll go out and sell my entire system so I can buy sound that YOU prefer.... forget what I like... It's all about what you like. |
Maxgain, you wouldn't be self-fulfilling your first-response prophecy under a bogus name
- now would you? ;^) |
Anyone else here find it strange that this unclekrusty or unklecrusty(he has used both here in this same thread)@aol.com, has never posted here before. His e-mail address is bogus as well. unclecrusty I stand by my posts. Your droll dogma is usless and you are a fool. Again you spout off and don't have a clue as to what you are talking about.If you have not listened to the MIT cables, shut the hell up!
As for you bashing my system,unclekrusty, you prove once again just how ignorant you are on this topic.I never made a claim that my gear was the high dollar, state of the art, fashionable esoterica, that seems to impress you. You have no idea what my pre amp sounds like.Your statement about my amp is just as stupid and if you had paid attention you would have seen that SP9 is not stock, but a one of a kind unit that I have updated myself. If you knew anything about MIT cables you would know that not all of my MIT cables have the "box" you fear so much.
My system is not listed here for critique by the rude and the simple ,it's for people who read my posts to see if we are at all on the same page. I am happy to not be on the same page with you crusty(whoever or whatever you are)! I find it amusing that you seem to think you are the oracle of HiFi knowledge, and that the people at ARC, Dave Wilson, and Bruce Brisson, among others are so ridiculous and stupid. It's easy to hide behind a phoney e-mail address and take shots at me. I am a regestered AudioGon member and if you like you can e-mail me directly and I will be happy to tell you what I really think. |
Oh yea, I had the Jadis matched with a CAT too - and NBS Pro series wires which were very important. I don't know whether they were filtered with more appendages of rearranged matter (a "box") or were just the rearranged matter of heated, extruded metal covered by a dialectric of rearranged matter. In the end - in the end after the experiment of listening - did it matter? |
Crusty, I know what you mean - I had a Defy I long ago, but with custom transformers (from Jadis too, during their development of Mk IV's that turned out too be expensive for production, so I snarfed it up).
But I've got something for ya, now step a little closer, now lean over, carefully, now ready...wire IS a filter, so is an amp, they are all "components".
How is an amp different from a piece of wire in your mind? In terms of matter, of function, of technological complexity, in how it effects the system, any of those, any I've forgotten? For your choice, tell me what is the basis of your opinion and its scientific methodological foundation. Is technology application determitive of resultant subjective experience?
Thank you.
(Maybe someone would like to warn him...)
PS Not an MIT man myself, but does sound musical in some systems. Some people who have MIT in there truly become involved with the music, so hard to knock it in those situations. |
I remember and miss Carl. |
I had several mid level MIT ICs a few years ago before they had different tube/solid state matched cables. They had a signature sound, the thinking of MIT then was other cables produced un-natural emphasis of treble region and one of the jobs of network box was to correct this imbalance. That is why you often saw MIT used with highly detailed SS gear like Spectral, also helped digital playback
treble hardness before good sounding upsampling CDPs and DACs were available.
I have since sold my MIT cables and gone with AZ and Analysis Plus, one of the main reasons was Bel Canto Dac produced a smooth natural treble response, and I didn't need the MIT treble sound anymore and wanted to open up treble extension. I can understand where many would find the MIT sound very relaxing and musical depending on system it was used in.
There used to be big MIT fan here named Carl Ebbers who would constantly get in heated debates over many topics here, who remembers him? |
Well Uncle, we're certainly in agreement on electronics and speakers!
Aloha |
Tried several other highly regarded cables with my system and went back to MIT. What I hear that sets the MIT apart from the other cables is the layering of soundstage and incredibly real and focused image. To me it is night and day. I would like to know if any MIT supporters agree and how MIT opponents can possibly disagree. And how is equalization and/or filtering even relevant? |
unclekrusty he da man...he sure knows what he's talking about, at least as far as my pair of ears go! |
Maxiepooh - I read your system outline and I agree wholeheartedly that you need filtered wires. If I were you I would consider more MIT for loudspeaker cables ... -or- unload the ARC stuff and replace it with real hi fi.
Your first sacrifice - unload the SP9 and find something like a used CAT SL1 or Counterpoint SA-11. Get some fresh tubes and burn it in ... then take that magicbox out and realize that it was taking the snazzle out of the uppermid/lowertreb glare on the SP9 - and you'll also hear way deeper into the music.
Next - out with the VT 50. Wimpy. Try getting an old Jadis Defy 7 Mk.II or above. Pull the magicbox out and hear the real magic of real tubes done really well. The Mk. I - bad idea, might catch fire. The Jadis combined with the CAT or Counterpoint pushing the Vandies - you'll shit a new VPI Brick after you realize what you've been missing. Especially if you get yourself a nice pair of Kimber 4Ag to drive the 2ce's with.
The 2Ce's are great speakers - they need great electronics in front of them.
Aloha |
Expensive junk huh, interesting..... |
I'm with you crusty. Not that it matters, but I heard one of those 2C3D systems by Avalon/spectral/MIT/asc--expensive junk. |
Kennyb - I agree 110% as I have listened to a Spectral/MIT/Wilson Sophia setup at Sound Decision in Maryland - the most detail I have ever heard. However, despite loving the sound of my MITs in my system, it was too much for me. I pulled out one of my favorite CDs for this demo because it has a not-too-good recording and that is exactly what it sounded like. The back ground noise was unbearable and ultimately turned me off. The point is that there was more detail and transparency than I have ever heard - proof to my ears that MIT will transmit whatever they are handed. Arthur |
Unclekrusty I challenge you to try to find a dealer demonstrating a Spectral/MIT system. Listen for yourself as to whether the MIT cable is acting like a filter. I think you will be surprised by what you hear.
I had similar preconceived notions before hearing a Spectral/MIT system at Overture Audio in Delaware. I had never heard a system do such a good job of getting out of the way of the music. It had greater low level resolution, transparency, clarity, and purity than any other system I had ever heard. As far as I could hear, the MIT cabling was not doing any filtering whatsoever.
I have subsequently purchased a Spectral amp and preamp and have nearly finished re-wiring with MIT cables. I couldn't be happier with the gains in transparancy, etc. |
Tubegroover - agreed. I've never said anything about how people should or shouldn't enjoy themselves. I've merely argued about a philosophy. Believe me - I can understand absolutely how a filter set can make a HUGE difference in a setup that wouldn't have otherwise been optimal - essentially "matching the unmatchable" - in those cases filters may make sense - stitching together disparate parts into a recognizeable whole.
But, IMHO, system matching is the first and most important step to building a stellar hi fi, and the match between amplifier and speaker probably the most critical (aside from matching the speaker to the room and vice versa) - I believe that if an amplifier and speaker are well matched, no hocus pocus box could possibly make them better than they would be with high definition boxless audio cables. |
If I, infact could not read, in the case of unclecrusty's loony rantings,I think it might be a plus. If you want to believe that my equiptment sounds like "crap", I suggest that you are just going further off into you own perverse fantasy world. By attacking my system you reinforce what I said before about you sounding foolish. My system is listed for you viewing unclecrusty. It's comprised of components by some of the world's most respected desingers, since I had nothing to do with their production, you are only insulting the people that make them.
I have not listened to every cable out there and you will not find me raving like a mad man about how XYZ cable is wrong based on some stupid theory. If you want theory over sound there are plenty of ways you can get that by buying equiptment from tin eared audio gurus who think like you do. They are incapable of any real world judgment as to how something performs because they wouldn't know good sound if it bit them on the ass, or don't care, as long as they follow some design manifesto and slap it on the bench to perform some useless test and come up with usless numbers to reinforce their usless theory. Listening is the only valid final measure of the performance of an audio product, period! I know how to read, and you don't know how to listen! |
Uncle, you are entitled to your perception and your comments and your preconceived ideas about how things oughta be, after all, everyone is. And as to what is in the boxes, it really doesn't matter, only the music does and that is the REAL point.
You wouldn't be the first to have your views overturned by default when you use your ears instead of your logic, it does happen in this hobby, believe it or not. |
Sean, thanks for the reply. I meant any future experience with MIT. Now if I can only get you to reveal your secret bargain preamp. |
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
> |
Unclegingivitis? Look - has anyone taught you how to read? I never made a comment about MIT's sound - only the "technology" for want of a better word. BobBundus has so many pro MIT posts you'd think he was the inside sales dude for the Brisson Boys or that he's getting a cut from Joe Abrams with how many posts he's had telling folks to contact Joe.
You need to read and retain, Maxxie bubba - and seek to understand what is being said. I don't have anything against anyone preferring these cables - I just have an opinion, my opinion, that truly good hi fi doesn't need second order low-pass filters doing any kind of "power factor correcting" nonsense to the hi fi.
Think about this, Maxxie - at first the argument presented was that the "networks" aren't there to correct the hifi but are there to correct the cables themselves. That leaves open the argument for not making cables at all but making boxes that attach to other people's cables (much more useful idea).
THEN, the cables aren't cable correctors after all, they are Power Factor Correctors (correcting the inductive load of the hifi by adding in some parallel capacitance) - so they aren't, in fact, correcting the cables they are generically correcting some imagined power factor efficiency problem between the amplifier and the speaker (which amp and which speaker? Who the hell knows ... it can't be all of them at once, can it?).
I'm always amazed when arguments like this one are raised and all the pro-macigbox people come out of the woodwork and shake their little magicboxes in anger at the challenger screaming, "I don't care what you say - they sound good in my system!" Yeah? So what? That means you blew a bunch of money on a system that sounded like crap until you were able to "fix" it with some second order low-pass filters on your wires.
Wow - I'm impressed to the Max, Maxxie. But that's not even the issue - the issue is that these hocus pocus magicboxes are filters. My position is that truly good hifi isn't in need of filters. I've presented a sound argument and have been challenged with nonsense and circular logic.
Hey - if you love your magicbox cable - then love it. Love it on your own terms, but don't pretend for a minute - for a second that they are doing something other than changing the signals that are passing through them. That's a filter. It don't get no easier than that, Goob.
And purposefully changing a signal is not, in my opinion, what High End Audio is about - not what a truly high resolution system requires. Spend tens of thousands of dollars on an amplifier and and tens of thousands of dollars more on speakers, and again on preamp and source ... and they won't work perfectly together with good precision cabling? They need some mystery-box-cable hooking them up and filtering their signals in order to sound right? Man - if that were actually the case - the manufacturers of amps, speakers, etc - whatever these things pretend to fix - would have dissected these boxes faster than fart leaves a dog and put the stuff in the components themselves. Hasn't happened, Maxxie - and that's a shame for the probox people because it's the amp makers that are in a better position to determine what values these filters should have for their particular products. The magicbox boys can't make a signle filter for all seasons and expect it to work perfectly in all cases - it's just not possible.
So enjoy your boxes, no one has told you not to. I've only presented an argument that correctly characterizes the boxes as filters and presents the opinion that real high-resolution audio doesn't need the help of generic filtration.
Complete nonsense. |
Sean, will share the name of the reviewer and your experience with the MIT's? |
Sean, Bob is right on with his rec of Joe Abrams, immensely knowledgable about this hobby in general. I just hope newbies on this forum looking for help can differentiate between legitimate advice, and opinions based on personal experience and just plain banter. |
I bought Harmonic-tech pro 9 plus to replace my MIT MH750. When I listened with the Harmonic-tech, I was hearing detail, paying attention to the bass line, noticing the image. When I listened with the MIT, I was thinking about the girl I met when I first heard that song playing. I ended up keeping the MIT. |
Sean the expert is right here: contact Joe Abrams the MIT rep. (membername = joeabrams). Joe is a straight\up dude who will advise you within the context of your intended application or desire to experiment. He will talk with anyone via phone or email & will get answers that he doesn't have, or even refer you to the factory tech support if you so desire. I've even talked at length with Bruce Brisson himself, who patiently answered questions & advised me accordingly. Joe offers a 30 day $-back guarantee & the best deals you ever dreamed of on new or demo MIT cable, the interconnects, speaker cable, AC cords, icon connectors, whatever. Just keep an open mind: remember I was once laughing at MIT myself, & considering the level I'm at now that is a testament. I didn't start out at that level, but what I experienced was so convincing that I had to upgrade when the opportunity presented itself. Joe almost got his cables sent back to him, but he convinced me to wait out the full month first. I wouldn't trade them now for anything. The networks on Oracle series are in fact tunable according to the application (this addresses your concern above). Breaking in new MIT speaker cable takes quite awhile, & you can't use a Duotech because it kills the networks. Nordost machine might be OK, but ask Joe. |
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. |
I have used the MIT 770 tube series 2 speaker cables to great effect. I eventually sold them because I couldn't use the length in a new configuration I was using. These cables did something to the timing of the music, as Bob Bundas explained above and as Patrick notes, a "toe tapping", time and phase correct quality that I haven't heard duplicated by any other cable. My wife absolutely hated them, two bulky network boxes and thick hoses. I can't say I miss their looks but honestly, I think they are superb cables providing they are matched to the right system. Why people summarily dismiss them and feel they color the sound, I know not why. Probably as noted above they had the wrong cable match to the wrong system. The guy I sold mine to loves them as well. |
well said Max
That fool is doing some such as Bundy & other newbies a great disservice with his so-called technical explanations, regarding the reasons why we (those of us who DO understand & like what we are hearing) just cannot possibly be realizing the truth in what we have actually experienced for ourselves. Even comes right out & admits that he's had no actual experiences with the product! Respected manufacturers such as Audio Research, Spectral, Hales (to name a few) apparently have no idea what they are using these networked design cables for either? Serious credibility issues are readily apparent in taking such a posture.
I used to laugh at the networked designs myself (and also at upgrade cables of any nature) until I actually tried them. Not laughing anymore. My speaker cables alone are a $4000 list item, so I'm putting my money where my mouth is. |
As I said, the people that make the most noise about these cables have never put them in their system and given them a real try. If unclegingivitus would stop flappin' his gums and listen to something before deciding what sounds good and what dosen't it might carry more weight. As it is it just makes him sound like a fool! |
