Nordost v MIT

I have a lot of experience with both brands. Nordost gives a lot more resolution. MIT is filtering a part in the middle freq. So you get the feeling you have more bass and high. But infact you miss more details.

JMC nailed it, in my experience of these two brands. If you want to mix and match I'd consider doing it component by component. Is the cd player a bit harsh? Try MIT, or Cardas. Just right, perhaps a bit warm? Nordost.
Art

Ben,

You have to ask yourself, 'am I happy with my current sound?'. If so, quit while you're ahead.

If you think you can do better, and you like the change the Nordost made in your speaker cables, then go ahead and try the interconnects by all means.

Just so that you know that sometimes cables can 'balance' each other out sonically. Meaning that your all 'warm' MIT may have been boring, and the Nordost speaker cables may have added some well appreciated 'zing', too much 'zing' may not suit your tastes either.

However, more 'zing' from the interconnects may or may not be what you are looking for. The only way to find out is to try them for yourself. Buy them used on AGoN, if it doesn't work, sell them. Then you'll know.

Cheers,
John

My system has changed a lot recently...Currently running Denon 2900 into Musical fidelity 3.24 with a MIT digi, then into Denon 4802r (as a pre) via MIT 350's...Then we run into a Parasound 1500a via MIT 330 S2's...Finally into my new Electra 926's via Nordost Blue Heaven bi-wire. The nordost speaker cables are great, and IMO are much better than the MIT speaker cables I have used in the same position (namely the MIT T2 cables) maybe my MIT's needed more burn time or something, but the sound just is not as great when I have the MIT speaker cables in the system. I have been interested to see if the sound improved much if I take the MIT intereconnects out and try Nordost in its place....I guess only time will tell..

Thanks for your opinions!
Ben

John makes some valid points here. And based on what he initially writes, and my own experience of owning MIT 350 ICs, I can see exactly why they do work well with the Nordost. If one cable is soft and the other is a bit overly detailed, then the sum here might indeed result in a fairly good tonal balance.

I had a similar experience with pairing the rather lean MIT IC with the somewhat fat Coincident TRS speaker cable. But the instant a far more neutral IC (Kubala-Sosna Emotion) replaced the MIT, I had way too much midrange presence. Putting the K-S Emotion speaker cable into the system then brought things back into balance like I somewhat had achieved with the MIT/Coincident. But now with the K-S pair, I had resolution and dynamics the MIT/Coincident could not match. Of course this comes at a huge price and the system has to be able to benefit from such.

There is often much discussion here that the system should be all the same cable brand. If such a cable brand or model is way off neutral, then you either keep making it more and more bright and forward or perhaps you have way too much emphasis in the mids with poor coverage at the frequency extremes. In many cases, this is where mix and match is the ONLY way to success.

John

Ben,

These cables are polar opposite's, IMHO. The Nordost that I've heard are very quick and transparent, in the right system. The MIT tend to be warm and full bodied, in the right system. The Nordost can sound lean and harsh in the wrong system, while the MIT can sound slow and bloated in the wrong system.

I'm having a hard time imaging these two cable brands co-existing in the same system. If it works for you though, then stick with it.

Cheers,
John

I'm not sure I can help with the middle level, but I was thrilled when I moved from MH-750 biwire (with the junction box) to Nordost SPM...

I have had much better luck with MIT IC's (source to preamp is where I liked them the best...).

Without more details, that's my 0.02