Anyone ever opened MIT cables?

Has anyone ever opened (and thus demolished)MIT cables? What is inside those boxes? What is the 'secret' anyway? Pictures?
There is no big "secret" about MIT cables. They're just circuits that act like tone controls.
This topic reminds me when Stereophile reviewed some not-top-of-the-line Transparent cables with "boxes". The reviewer also speculated about what was in-the-box. I remember remarking to myself "What a bunch of bush league pikers!" I mean, these guys have circulation in the hundreds of thousands and they won't take a hacksaw to some lousey speaker wire (it's very good actually)! Comon boyz, America didn't get where she is with this kind of gutless behavior!
i tried to cut open a mit box. but just when the diamond-tipped blade of my sawzall was about to split the last mil of metal, i passed out, for what seemed like hours. when i awoke, there was jody foster, blocking my way, only to disappear almost instantly. i can't get anyone to believe my story, tho i now beleive we can unite the entire universe in peace and love. all it takes is the perfect interconnect. i'm still searching, searching.
If you're really curious this may guide you in the right direction. I remember 4-5 years back one of the home theater magazine (I'm almost certain it was,surprisingly enough, Home Theater Magazine) actually cut open a set of MIT cables and took a picture of it. The jist of the article was a weekend with a bunch of guys reviewing the loudest stereo system that a limited budget could buy. They reviewed Cerwin-Vega Speakers, etc. The article also said they bet each other what was inside the little MIT boxes, and the guy who said cheap parts won. The reviewers included Corey Greenburg and Brent Butterworth. I'm not sure who these guys are writing for now, but I'm sure many of the audiogon members do. An e-mail to them will get you closer to your answer. Good Luck!
Think "zobel network" and you won't be far off the truth of what is in the box!
I have a pair of MIT T5 speaker wire and opened one of them once. The solid core wire of the (+) half of the signal is separated from the stranded wire of the (+) inside the box. The solid core (+) wire is cut, soldered to 18 ga or so wire wrapped tighly many times around a core of some kind - is that an inductor? It's like a cheap speaker crossover component. The stranded wire continues uncut to the other end of the wire; while the solid core goes through the crossover component and is soldered back to the other end. The (-) side goes untouched through the network to the other side.
Cornfedboy, i did the same but unfortunatley the boys from NSYNC showed up and havent left my room.
When you hook up a MIT cable it is anyones guess how its network will combine with the input impeadence/etc of the receiving component. To get to the question, you are all on the right track, do cut the cable and when you get over the outrage of contents you see inside, you are now ready to throw them away, and get a cable that does not add a white papers worth of complications to an already complex issue.
Najo, new MIT cable have impedance matched cables to work better with tubes etc. I am puzzled why many people look down at MIT, I own some MIT 330 shotgun ICs and find they do some things extremely well, my ears tell me they know what they are doing. I also own ICs by Silver Audio, Harm. Tech, and Analysis Plus.....each have their own strengths and weakness....BTW never pay full price for MIT, buy used or go to Audio Advisor for discontinued models, Sam
My MIT cables work better than all other cables I have tried or owned, in most instances through my system. And, I have owned and or tried, most of the cables out there. I don't understand why people are so hostile about these cables. What makes you think the parts are any cheaper inside the little box, than the parts that make up all other cables (or the parts that make up the series components inside the crossovers of your speakers)? I would like to see which MIT cables all of you above have tried (besides Megasam)...that is, IF you have tried them at all. Also, how many of you have listening rooms which are correctly treated with acoustic absorbtion/diffusion...and which of you are just listening in an echo chamber.
Piet: I can't tell you that my experience with the MIT 2 terminators has been excellent and that's no secret....
Sol: But the reason seems to be a secret...I own those, and they're terrific. What is your problem?
Carl: Thanks for keeping an eye I first wrote " I can't tell you what the secret is but my experience with the MIT 2 terminators has been excellent and that's no secret.... No problem at all I'm VERY satisfied with the MIT!!!!!! And tried to make it shorter....
I apologize, I didn't realize. Happy listening!
Carl & Sol although MIT T2 are very good for the price, MIT 330+ is big step up and well worth the small additional cost. Audio Advisor has 330+ for $150 pair new, and it has CVT coupler RCAs which T2 lacks. I have heard no cable anywhere near this price that is as three dimensional, huge soundstage.
I have the 330 "Highend Series" Shotgun Medium (both an XLR, and an RCA...the balanced is unbeleivably good!). Anyway, I was referring to the T-2 speaker cable. I have the T-2 interconnect as well, and I realize it isn't in the same league as any of the 330 series.
Like all the parts of the audio gear chain, each is just a "system" which would we hope pass on the audio signal as unadulterated as possible to the next stage. MIT sounds coherent and correct to some posters above as intended in the source material (nobody knows exactly what anyway), one shouldn't worry too much about what the cable "messenger" looks like. In the real physical world every bit of conductor matter has inductance(L) and resistance(R) and that of insulator, capacitance(C). So a well designed cable has to be compensated for the LCR by virtue of its length by the various methods possible. The fact is well known to all audio engineers, thats why audio cable companies choose different methods like conductor & insulator materials and all sorts of geometry to address LCR. For hi-end audio this compensation is essential, so that the audio signal is transmitted with the least power loss, echo and phase shift, the latter being more critical for audio fidelity. I don't think MIT intended any "box of secret" with the giveaway name like "Terminator". Personal computer systems been using terminators to compensate for the network devices impedance loading all along. So the whole issue is about engineering design and compromise and sometimes marketing price paid for the appearance of a product, and all that bashing that follows. The above is IMHO and stand to be corrected. Carl... I admire your courage standing up dead firm for what you hear is correct, but not even once try to explain why. BTW I don't work for MIT nor have I owned a MIT product, but am just curious to try one. Carl mind if I borrow your Mit for say....hehe, no just kidding. :)
The box on one of my MIT speaker wires came open. It has a wire leaving the main chain that is wrapped around a spool, (kind'a like fishing line at the bait shop.) This is where all the evil spirits go, I think. Sorry to be so technical in my description, intelligence can be a curse. These are good cables, IMHO. Charlie
Iceraven: Why should I explain why? I didn't design the cable, and you can read it all at the MIT site. I tell you what, I will now. It's what you said, a form of LCR circuit that's in PARALLEL with the signal's path (i.e., across the positive-negative conductors)...Transparent Cable supposedly uses a series resistor, besides some form of LCR circuit, I gather. The ones I've heard from them do sound like something is in series, to me. Lots of things are going on with the design of MIT cables (and it IS patented, for what that's worth), and I'm not an electrical engineer (my brother is, though). I AM a speaker hobbyist, and know that a Zobel filter is used in parallel with woofers, to gently roll off their response BEFORE crossover. Now, as to WHY this works with cable, I can only assume the stated methodology at the MIT website, is somehow working (and that essentially all of the significant rolloff occurs untrasonically...but then, rolloff isn't the only thing the termination networks do, as you observe). I can also say that these won't work for all equipment, but when they DO work, it's better than ALL other cable types. ICERAVEN, YOU CAN DEMO THESE FROM TCC, OR JOE AT OVERTURE IN DELAWARE, AND LIKELY DOZENS OF OTHER PLACES. I recommend you try, if you have a solid state amplifier, or if you otherwise find your music lacks "weight", "slam", and "duration". If it doesn't lack these things, then you might not like what most MIT cables do in such a context.
The "boxes" are not filters per-se... The inductors, caps, R's in the networks are, to my understanding, a Group Delay Equalizer. This accomplishes the time-alignment of various frequencies traveling down the cable, such that they arrive at the speaker's terminals simultaneously. MIT explains that this phase-correction may contribute to perceived louder-sounding (and quieter = less noisy) performance than with a non-aligned cable operating at the same power level. I only have their 3rd, or 4th-best cable down from the top. Still kinda pricey, but so worthwhile! GREAT product. Spectral even 'requires' the use of MIT with their gear. Certainly a respected manufacturer, not to mention their design guru Keith Johnson. Think he just might know something?
My understanding is that they affect impedance, and therefore use a parallel filter network.
No once again they're expensive tone controls. Spectral is known to be bright at times why do you think they recomend you use MIT cables? And CARL if I remember right you have a krell amp another company that is know to be bright. So it's no wonder you like MIT. I had there 770 wire and 330 plus series 3 stuff. It still sounded great but I didn't need to "fix" anything when I got my new amp and I could now hear exactly how much the MIT wire was changing the sound compared to non boxed cable. MIT wire intentionally warmed the sound at the expense of some imaging and detail loss and a little less bass. That was unacceptable for me. I didn't need it to do that nor wanted MIT for that. So good riddens to $5000 worth of tone controls. However if that's what somebody wants and needs in their system and they are happy then more power to them. MIT doesn't suck if you need them but they are still just entirely over priced tone controls. And they still beat a lot of cables out there in the right systems that need them.
Most cables are overpriced IMO. They are also system and taste dependent. I use both Homegrown Super Silver and HT Truthlink IC's (switch them out). They sound entirely different and I like them both at certain times and for certain music. All cables (that I have tried) alter the sound and are therefore a type of tone control. Otherwise all quality cables would sound alike - which they don't.
Actually, the 350 Shotgun EVO sounds exactly the same, either with my Krell or my tubed Rogue 88. It is not a tone control, but I agree that some MIT cables have approached that effect. So, NOPE, you can't just dismiss them out of hand, and you need to try other MIT cables, Kacz. I never said they all sounded the same, and I do feel that the new series are better than the old, especially the "Highend Series" (at least the ic's, I don't like the 750 speaker cables). I also currently own the inexpensive Terminator 2 and 3 speakers cables, and they ARE NOT tone controls either, any more so than the many other cables I've tried, or that I own.
A couple of months ago one of the British hi fi mags interviewed the head of Audioquest (which doesn't put boxes on their wires). He asked rhetorically "What's in those boxes?" and replied "Profit margin."
Gee, I guess that negates a whole patent, and a whole company's product line. I can't believe it would, but apparently it does. What the hell do you think Audioquest has, a "non-profit" margin? Gimme a break! It costs them pennies on the dollar to make their wire, just like all of them. What about David Wilson's profit margin? I hear he drives a Ferrari...bought with the margins he makes on all those 20,000 Watt $20,000 each...
I wouldn't disagree with the fellow who posted the above, and I wasn't implying that the Audioquest guy runs a charity, I was only repeating his little joke. He also said in the interview that what he and others in the industry are really selling is the same kind of feeling you get when you have your car washed. Somehow the car feels like its running better now that it's clean and shiny. Speaking of cars, doesn't the head of Monster drive two Ferraris? Or is it three?
I sincerely doubt that.
Sorry, Carl, but it's true. The head of Monster Cable has 13 sports cars, including a $200,000 Ferrari, that winners of sales contests get to drive on expense paid weekends to places like Napa Valley. Nice incentive, regardless of whether or not one believes in their products. To read more about it go to Forbes Magazine's article: .
I stand corrected. Thank you for pointing it out. Boy, talk about a robber baron! This Noel Lee is worse than Bill Gates! Just think, if the other cable companies were able to steal market share from him at Good Guys and circuit city, they might be able to rent out Ferraris too! NOTICE THE SMUG WAY THE ARTICLE DISMISSES THE AUDIOPHILE HOBBY? What jerks the general populace are, especially those weenies at Forbes!
Carl, I knew I could find you here. Still trying to find someone in the area that has MIT to compare with my Transparent. I don't want to borrow from the local dealer since I do not intend on purchasing . I read somewhere on one of these posts that Tranparent was suing MIT?? or maybe it is the other way around. Does this mean your cables owe my cables money?
MIT has patents that predate ALL of Transparent's patents, and the person who started Transparent used to work for MIT. So, if you like, you can send me a check to augment "what your cables owe mine". I've tried both brands, and have heard them in others' systems as well. HAVE YOU? I'd like to let you borrow my MIT cables for comparison, but it looks like you are closed minded about them, so it won't ever happen. I don't blame those dealers for not wanting to let you borrow theirs, either. They have some pretty good gray matter goin on...Good day to you.
Carl, I think you may be reading a lot into my post, by no means was I takeing a crack at your cables. If you re-read my post you will see I stated that I COULD borrow cables from my local dealer, but would not since I do not intend on buying them. This is not because I know I will not like them,I might think they are the best thing in the world. But because right now that would not be the best place to put my cash for an upgrade. It would not be fair to take his time. I know there are some folks who have been jumping you lately so I guess you thought I was on that bandwagon. That's the bad thing about this posting thing, you can't really tell where a person is coming from. I have nothing against you,MIT,or Krell. I have heard sytems that sounded just fine with those components, although I have not heard the Krell in the same system with MIT. But if it sounded good with Monster then I don't think it is much of a leap to assume it would sound better with MIT. I will try to be more clear next time if I am just ribbing you, and you can try not to be so defensive.
My apologies, then. As I've said before, you could say "jj", for "just joking". I do wish you all the best in putting the money in the best place for your system. Out of curiousity, have you not heard of The Cable Company? Granted, they may not have in stock the cables you might be interested in, but it's worth a try. Also, if you're interested in MIT cables, Joe at Overture in Delaware is who got me started. Haven't spoken with him in a while, and I have no idea how their store is doing. My advice to you, is if you don't already have ASC traps, or one of their offshoots, you should get some. They'll make more difference than anything.
I am having a house built as we speek. Unfortunately I do not have the kind of cash it takes to have dedicated room so the gear will have to go in the living room which is 17'x15'4" with cathedral ceilings. There is also a 6'bar opening to the kitchen that is 11'into the room. I am fearing the worst with that one and hope to find some sort of screen to pull across to at least cut down on the highs slapping back. Once I move in ( hopefully end of March ) the room treatments will be where most of the funds go. Well, actually I do need to get one of those new Sony HD ready sets and a rack for everything to sit nice and pretty on. I know the hi-fi store I visit charges an arm and a leg for system set up so I might try to find a acoustics the area to come out. I figure they would be less costly. Fortunately for me my wife likes this whole hi-fi thing too so speaker placement and treatments can be liberal. Oh yea, I meant to mention I heard the all Krell system with ML Prodigy and it was one of the better systems I have listened to. Any way sorry for the misunderstanding and I will use the "jj" thing in the future. Have a good New Year.
You too! You're ahead of me, I need a new house, but have spent all my money on audio. When I do build one, I hope it will have several dedicated audio rooms. I've not heard the ML Prodigy, but have seen plenty of print ads about it.
try this site,
I have an old pair of MIT Terminator 2 speaker cables that recently fell out of the box they were stored in, prompting my curiosity about them. Hoping they might be better than my current speaker cables, I took a close look: on two of the cable strands, the terminal hardware (one spade and one banana) have snapped off. Rather than pay a dealer a fortune to attach new spade and banana, I'm thinking of CUTTING OFF ALL THE TERMINAL METAL and going the route Pierre Sprey of Mapleshade Audio recommends: bare wire termination.

MY QUESTION: anyone have any opinions as to whether I SHOULD HESITATE TO CUT OFF ALL THE REMAINING TERMINAL HARDWARE and to go with Mapleshade-style bare ends?

PS I also intend to phone Audio Advisor and ask their MIT cable guy what he thinks.  I'm hoping to avoid emailing MIT themselves, because I'm pretty sure they'll just say "send us the cable and a couple of hundred dollars and we will do it."

George Witterschein, Mendham, NJ USA
formally with The Audiophile Voice Magazine
New Jersey audio society newsletter editor

Welcome! keep us posted as you revive this older M.I.T. thread. 
I am an active subscriber to The Audiophile Voice since 1st issue.

Happy Listening!
There's' plenty of images online, just use your favorite search engine.
Erik: images of what exactly?  And how would images help answer my question?

Jafant:  thank you! I do intend to document my journey to a solution here on the Audiogon discussions. Am hoping for a cost-free up-tweak using an old, forgotten MIT biwire cable with my bi-wireable MartinLogan SL3s.

I was answering the OP, not you @grbwitt
Piet's question was from the November 2000.  Grbwitt brought it back from the dead.  

Just some (probably useless) info. I have some MIT AVT 1 bi-wire cables. Worked good on a pair of B&W 802D loudspeakers. Not good at all on a pair of Vandersteen Treo Ct's....Go figure.