What is the difference between MIT &Transparent?

I have Watt2/Puppy3 and need speaker wire. Wilson website recommends Transparent, but used MIT with the earlier models like mine. Thanks!
transparent was founded by former MIT folks. might explain why the two companies' stuff has a few similarities, eh? -cfb
Hi, I think Comfed Boy's statement is true but in just the reverse order. MIT was founded by folks who broke away from Transparent. Anyway, they both make excellent cables. I had a pair of WATT3/ Puppy 2's and they came with the MIT puppytails. I switched to Audio Research Corp. cables for the tails and the speaker cables and got a subtle but noticable improvement.

I'd go for whatever you can get the best deal on. Good Luck
Confedboy is correct. The people at Transparent use to manufacture the MIT cables prior to starting Transparent audio.
Kelly is right - Transparent came about from some disgruntled MIT folk, but they also raised prices considerably. I've had great results with MIT but if you like networked cable then either should do well for you, so as John advises just find the best deal that you can on whatever. Contact membername = joeabrams for the best deal in your life on some MIT. Joe is the best & if he thinks that Transparent is the better for you then he would say so.
Just realize that there are many misunderstanding yet well meaning souls out there who are completely/adamently against any networked cable, & will laugh in your face for even considering the idea. I used to be one of them until I tried some MIT, then I eventually upgraded to their latest version of my same speaker cable & became even more satisfied. The audio signals do *not* travel *through* the networks, which are paralleled similar to a Zoebel network, only more elaborately designed & refined.
mit contracted transparent to make there cables until they could aquire the equipment to make the cables they designed themselves.
then mit starting making their own cables and transparent starting selling their own.(look closely through the transparent mesh cover, the cable is remarkably similiar to that of mit)
the mit cables have a wider or less filtered/limited frequency response, then the transparent does.
(more air around instruments)
i like the way both sound in the right systems, but after you listen for a while, the transparent always seems to be missing something or veil sounding.
when i listen to music i really know, parts that are easily heard on other cables is missing or very difficult to distinguish with the transparent.
(try for yourself, trust your own ears).
MIT is a school that produces engineers and quant-jock financial types. They are dense but not transparent (think Bose).
It was Karen Sumner who marketed Bruce Brisson's cables and that set up called itself "Transparent Audio Marketing " or something like that, if I recall correctly. Later the two broke up and he marketed his stuff by himself, whereas KS produced her own brand under the "Transparent" name, she had her rights on. I've never compared the two brands directly. Cheers,