I don't think the MIT cables are the missing link. It's more likely overall room acoustics and interaction with the speakers. Which ML's are you talking about? Besides pulling the speakers out from the wall, have you played around with toe-in, and tried various absorption/diffusion treatments in your listening room? You might want to post your quandary on... www.martinloganowners.com where there is a lot more ML setup experience.
I've heard Krell and Marin Logan together and think I know the sound you are searching for, highly transparent and totally detached from the speakers in a way that kind of fills the room with sound.
Agreed most likely the room and/or its contents absorbing too much sound.
Set up a virtual system and post some pictures and I'm sure you'll get some good feedback from the knowledgeable folks on this site.
Your speakers are both connected to the amp properly and in phase, right?
Toe-in also worth playing with.
Cable tweaks don't sound likely to achieve what you're looking for.
"I am not used to such a solid image or depth of image detail like these guys were getting from the ML's."
That's exactly what MIT cables will do.
Are paragraphs an endangered species? This is about the 10th thread lately that's unreadable without structure.
Why is this so difficult?
The MIT's are imaging/soundstaging champs especially in a 3D sense. Give them so playing time to open up and give yourself some time to acclimate and I'm betting it will help your cause.
Karl: Oddly enough, this was my first true all hi end set up. I had the Aerius i, the KAV300i, and MIT T2 speaker cables and (I think) the 330 interconnects, with the Pioneer PD65 feeding an Adcom 600 DAC. After some moving around of furniture and playing with speaker placement, the sound was transparent, indeed, and very satisfying. Bon chance!
I would agree that the room is more at the core of your problem than the cables. This is assuming that you listened to the same speakers and electronics as that which you own.
I have Martin Logan ReQuests in my theater driven by a Krell frontend through Transparent Audio cabling (Ultra XL).
My room was initially untreated and the speakers were brassy and flat. Over the years I've both treated the room and advanced through a few different amp choices.
Treating the room made a huge difference. Moving from the Mark Levinson ML 334 to a Plinius SA 250 Mk IV made a noticeable difference to imaging and overall tonal quality. Recently i moved to a BAT VK250 with BAT Pak. That added a final three dimensionality that i didn't think could be attained.
The money i spent on treating the room easily had the largest return on investment. The amp tradeoffs were just icing on the cake.
I'd suggest two things...given all that :-)
Voice your room to determine optimal speaker locations. Use the Wilson Audio technique with a friend that has a good sense of hearing. (this is free)
Secondly, treat your room to manage side wall reflections, and bass absorption at room corners. Depending on how you watch for traps etc on the 'gon, you could do this for 2-3k$ and it will make your system sound like more than you paid for it. (as opposed to less than you paid for it)
Good luck.. this process is pretty fun. :-)
Sounds to me it is a room problem. I have Krell-Martin Logan - MIT.
The beauty of Martin Logans (and stats) is their transparency to the source (aka upstream equipment). Most of the time, you're not listening to the speakers, but to the components behind it.
I would say that besides room interaction, if your system is not the same as the dealers, it may not just be the MIT cables that you're missing. Perhaps you have a Krell, but if it isn't the same stack as the one at the dealers - this could be 1 reason why you're not imaging as well.
What's your source player? How does it compare to the one at the dealer?
I agree with JOEY V. That is why I purchased A aesthetix IO Signature. Just waiting to receive the unit. I am not quite sure how it is going to sound with solid state. But I am sure it is going to be better then me KPE Reference phono stage.
I think objective1 and sleepysurf are more on target here. I would FIRST learn how to setup up ONE SPEAKER AT A TIME in balance with your listening seat - then do the other! You really need to know if your fundamental basic setup is sound, or you WILL NOT achieve any kind of high fidelity sound quality! Of that, I assure you.
For setup, you are looking for flat response FIRST from each speaker from the listening possition.(might need help in your room, using something like Rives PARC, to smooth out the peaks) If these possitions happen to keep the speakers in proper distance with each other, your seat, you likely can get a strong immage. Then you play with toe-in, rack, aim, etc. Then, you deal with sidewall reflections (if you use the long-wall setup, you can often get away with sidewall treatment, as you sit closer to the speakers), then front and back wall reflections, and consider ceiling if you sit far back with low ceilings.
I would DEFINILTEY figure out what you are doing with speaker set up! - as your hinting that you simply move things around, without knowing what the response curve is doing (to your system's demise I might add...unless you get really lucky).
Too many people think the sound is all in the equipment. When reality is that it's at least 50% or more room, setup, acoustics, tweaking, EQ'ing, etc! So, don't forsake here.
ONLY after you're certain you have a solid fundamental setup, would I ever consider changing out something like an interconnnect or wires!!! That's the last of the tweaking - along with gear issolation tweaks, etc.
post some pictures of your room with current speaker location, ceiling hieght, etc. clearly depicted + then I think we can offer some more concrete suggestions regarding placement, etc.
Otherwise you could be playing musical speaker placements for quite a while.
Ok time for me to answer your thread. MIT and Martinlogan excel at Imaging-Sound stage-Dynamics-3 dimensional - They lack in the Tonal department. But I am using KPE Reference Phono Stage and just waiting to receive my Aesthetic IO Signature. I am sure that will all change with the upgrade. The dealer told me I WILL BE PRESENTLY SURPRISED.
What sound are you looking to achieve?
Audioquest does not image well. They are known for there tonal ability.
One more thing. You need to purchase at-least in the Magnum line of cables to really see the benefit of MIT.
Actually, believe it or not, the top end Monster speaker wires are the ticket with the Logans! Dont' know why, but the Transparent, MIT, Harmonic Tech, Acoustic, etc, Ocos, etc, didn't sound anywhere near as well (for some strange reason) on thee Logans as the Monster!
We used to use this combo on all the Logans in our high end store for years, and with tremendous results (we sold a lot of Logans with this mariage).
MIT is too soft on top and mellow for the Logans.
My experience anyway.
I agree also with Flrnlamb but MIT image very well. If you want my opinion AudioQuest is the cable I would go with if I could do it all over again.