Is there a white paper or some reasonable explanation of what those MIT boxes are trying to do, without getting overly technical? I would love to understand this better also.
17 responses Add your response
I'll admit to being a speaker cable skeptic, but at most the "box" is applying some type of filter to "color" the sound in a particular way (i.e. think Flowmaster mufflers where they all have a characteristic sound).
In theory, no cable is the best cable so I'm not sure what science they could possibly use to suggest that a powered "box" could result in an unaltered signal.
My understanding from having read some of the MIT literature a while back is that in general more poles are better, similar to how more bands on a graphic equalizer is better, ie each has to deal with less bandwidth. How many is enough or how much better? I haven't a clue.
FWIW I like my inexpensive Terminator 2 and 3 ICs a lot. I prefer the midrange energy and top to bottom coherency of my DNM Reson ICs over the MITs in my main system generally however.
Sometimes moving up in a line does not get you the results you expect....for whatever reason. That was the case for me, I used many varieties of MIT and found the most enjoyable in my system was the 330 and 750 series.
As I moved up I found the sound either too detailed, or lacking coherency (which is the marketing mantra for MIT). I still use the terminator series in one HT system and 750's in another. But I have stopped chasing them in my 2 channel system.
As for the poles and input impedance and settings and the several dozen innovations over the years I can't explain and really don't have the appetite to try and figure out. I was using MIT before they had networks but after listening to other lines that sound better to me I have moved on. Not to mention they are über expensive! However, that's just me...YMMV.
I pried out the boxes in both designs and the switchable impedance type seems to have some type of circuitry secured down by liquid gel/glue. I took some images I can share. Pm me.
MiT revealed on their w/s what reallly inside the box of Oracle cables and it's truly amazing. Yall check it out.
MIT def have technology and r&d in their cables but, in the end, I still think they are way over priced.
I opened a the boxes on some 750 cvt speaker cables, and I found what looked like a tiny resistance glued on the stripped wires. The craftmanship was very sloppy to say the least, and there was really no need for that big box. Back then, 2004, these cables retailed for a lot of cash ($700-$1300). The cables ended up in the trash, and since then, I have used Canare for better conductivity at less than $1 a foot.
MIT, like others, are laughing their way to the bank(s) selling their gimmicks.
If you're still interested in MIT models better than your Magnum M3, I can share what i've learned thus far after similarly trying and enjoying the various additional musical nuances revealed by that same interconnect. in my system the sound of the M3 is clearly in the Maximum Articulation (MA) group of MIT cables, and not the 2C3D group. The immediate next higher model is the Magnum M2, and then M1. A big upgrade in the same sound style is the Shotgun MA models, and better yet at a higher price point are the Magnum MA's. When I asked my local dealer about a more affordable option for a speaker cable that combines well with the Magnum M3, he suggested the Matrix 18 Speaker Interface. It performed very well and is affordable. For those who don't know the Magnum M3 offers a huge bang-for-your-buck sound but even after break-in it won't open-up and sound impressive until after it is left unmoved for at least 5 hours, and even better after 12 hours. Good luck with your upgrading!
MIT Cable's explanation of MA vs. 2C3D can be found on their website under "publications" and then "articles." My take is that since home audio can't yet fulfill the entire "absolute sound," we choose amongst compromises. MIT offers two contrasting designs to meet market needs/preferences. 2C3D seemed to provide an audio perspective that is highly organized and placed the music sound field in a space between the speaker's outside edges and backward in a wide rounded rectangle. Music was expressed with great precision and it was easy to hear and appreciate the totality of a song's composition. At times it created the tipping point whereby I could hear and better understand the artistic merits of some complex music (some symphonies and jazz). It seemed to enhance the ability to hear more clearly the individual parts and the whole of a musical performance, simultaneously. If I was an analytical music reviewer, I would want this style of system as a tool for my work. This style of sound could help audiophiles who need to accommodate others in their home. The sound is detailed and active at lower volumes, isn't harsh or edgy, but rather has a sophisticated tidy character.
In my system "MA" cables create a bigger and more dynamically lively sound, much more presence, images are large and have body, and instrument timbre sounds more organic and naturally diverse. Of course "Your Milage May Vary!" I hope this helps.
I'm weighing in late here because I just picked up a set of MIT Shotgun S3's from Joe. I have to say that the whole "poles of articulation" sounds like complete BS to me, but then, I'm no engineer, just a lawyer, :). What I can't argue with, and what matters most, is that to ME, for whatever reason and because of whatever mumbo-jumbo, the MIT Shotguns have hit a sweet spot in my system, replacing my Cardas Golden Cross cables. So with my Focal Diablo Utopias and Plinius SA103 amp and a Naim NDX (all my music is on my server), there is some sort of synergy that just "sounds right" with the Shotguns. Don't know why . . . Just that it does! :)
Thanks! for sharing- Moto Man.
it is not difficult to better Cardas cabling, IMO. The brand is okay at best, at any price point.
MIT goes into and pulls off much more R&D if you ask me.
In the same vein, Transparent cabling rivals MIT more closely in this manner. I believe both brands can be "tuned" to certain other brands of gear. This is a no-brainer and offers better system synergy.
The impressions that you are hearing is better system synergy- the very aspect that we all strive to achieve!
Keep me posted and Happy Listening!
Lust... I had to laugh at that, I had a conversation with an MIT dealer on the San Francisco peninsula that was disturbing as well. I took cable into his store and put it in his six figure statement system for comparison, when I told him the entire package including $3500 power cords was the cost of his $20,000 speaker cable alone he said there was no way he wanted to sell a cable package for $30,000 less than what he was selling. That was after he and all of his sales people admitted the new cable was better. That high end industry is driven by money first. And yes there are bargain performance brands that are the real deal.