MIT and tubes

do these two go together, I use golden tubes amps with are very "tubey", also have a mcormack dna and am looking for a pass aleph, will they work with these, thinking about terminator 2's
MIT, is the most controversial audio product to date! Some will not trade it for anything, others will "despise" it! Neither group is right...or wrong! T-2, are as good as any cables, at the price range! The amps you mentioned are, as you said, "laid-back" and, that characteristic along with Mit cables WILL-NOT sagnificantly influence the over-all sound! But you Pre-amp will! If you would to GREATLY improve your sound, more attention should be spent on the pre-amp! Regards!
One problem you should be aware of is that MIT and tubes can be probematic. The cables w/ boxes can cause quick and damaging overheating on tubes. I have heard these cables sound excellent on some tube equipment or in my case they fried my amp. Consult MIT for advice regarding your paticular setup.
There are so so so many better choices.Spend the money on the preamp.The boxes are what resistors in the signal path.Why would you want anything in your signal path other than a neutral cable.
I use MIT IC's and speaker cables with CJ preamp and Classe amp, it the best sound I have ever had.
My MIT 350 EVO interconnect has sounded supremely good with my Rogue amp, after I switched to triode. In triode mode, it has much more air and sparkle, and yet attack transients are not hyped, but explode from silence with even more intensity than in tetrode, and are even more natural in their presentation. And there is no cable anywhere that is as dynamic as this one. That's why Robert Harley used them as his reference for nearly a decade. I don't know what he sees in his new cable, but his system context has changed radically sense then......Of course, the power of my Rogue is cut in half in triode, and unlike what the Rogue salesman said, I DO notice that afterall..................Mkaes, Like with anything, try a cable before you buy...or at least buy used. Tm12 knows nothing about MIT cables, disregard his foolishness.
***And there is no cable anywhere that is as dynamic as this one.*** Another dimwitted post by my favorite imbecile Carl_eber. I guess you expect us to believe that you compared that MIT junk to every cable on the market. You've reached new heights in stupidity.
Phill, it's between Robert Harley, me, and you. I side with us. Why don't you tell me what is more dynamic than this interconnect, then, since you think you know so much? I've tried more cables than you, so why am I even answering you? There isn't a more dynamic interconnect, I'd bet my life on it.....................If you weren't such a sociopath, you might be able to continue on here. You're on your way out, though, and we're all gonna chuckle hard after you're gone for good!
Carl, I use Transparent, which I have never had a chance to compare with the MIT, I am assuming that since Transparent was started by some of the guys from MIT that they are close in character. Have you been able to compare models from the same price range. If they sound anything like the Transparent I will have to agree with you on the dynamics. Phill, you should be a shock jock, it is your calling.
Last year, I compared my MIT 330 SG ($750) to the most recent version of Transparent Reference ($2100) (RCA versions only), and the Transparent was very laid back and bright, but also "fast" and relatively clean. I've never heard a system with a Transparent speaker cable, or interconnect in it, that was NOT either of these things. In saying this, I'm relating my experience, and don't mean to diminish yours. The Transparent Reference I tried was well broken in, but still in new condition. It was both less dynamic and less natural sounding than even a much less costly Cardas Neutral Reference RCA, that I also tried at that time................................If it works best in your system, I have no problem with that. One thing I found, was that when I got acoustic treatments, the MIT was neutral and full, where before the Transparent was neutral with very little acoustic treatment, but also still not nearly as "full" sounding. I've not heard the top of the line Transparent Reference XL, but unless it is radically better than the Reference (and I mean unbelievably so), I don't see it competing with 350 EVO, unless the system in which it is indserted, is as about as dark as midnight on Pluto...and you also prefer not to hear the full dynamic envelope. Personally, I would chose the much less costly HT ProSilway 2 over Transparent Reference, since it had an even more extended treble, and a much more powerful bass, while retaining a midrange which was "missing in action". That is, if I wanted to get that kind of lifeless midrange, and give up the dynamics of the better MIT cables, which I don't. This is just me, Bob Harley (until recently), and perhaps a legion of others who apparently ignore this site.
From what I have been told, even by my dealer, you shouldn't go for the ref. stuff unless you have nothing but ref. equipment thru the whole system. Especially the source or it will show the weakness of anything there. He wouldn't even let me upgrade to ultra yet, now there has to be something there when a dealer will not take your money.I have tried this in a friends system that had the entry level cables and they worked better in his system then my higher models.This idea is even stated in last years rec. components when they said the ref. speaker cable was not to even be considered unless everything else was taken care of. I have not had any problems with it being bright, but when I changed to this cable I did the whole system not just one interconnect.I will have to convince a friend to come compare his MIT with mine.
There's nothing at all wrong with my source, it is reference quality. Yes, I've heard those same sentiments about Transparent. Perhaps the interconnect is just really bright, and the speaker cable is really dark. But then, that wouldn't explain another system I heard also to be very bright, and it had Ultra as both the speaker cable, and interconnect, and one of his sources was also reference quality. I just think MIT is much better. Besides, Transparent uses a series resistor in their networks (perhaps to achieve the same DC resistance over different run lengths of cable), and MIT uses nothing at all in series, except the wire. I think that's a better approach.
***This is just me, Bob Harley (until recently), and perhaps a legion of others who apparently ignore this site.*** I don't think so! You appear to be the one of the few people using MIT. There's a sucker born every minute, but apparently most aren't stupid enough to buy MIT. BTW, Harley probably got his MITs for free. Did you?
Hey Phill, what about Transparent,and please do not tear me a new one. I am fairly new to this.
No_money, Transparent is okay. If you really have "no money" though, I think you'll find better value in Goertz, XLO or Wireworld though. Satisfaction with cables and interconnects are system dependent, so try in your system before buying. Goertz has a money back home trial program and the Cable Company loans cables for audition (they often don't have what you want though). Most dealers will loan cables. Try to get a significant discount if you can. Cables are notoriously overpriced.
You aint kiddin, I allready have Transparent "super" and they basically offer a trade up program so you don't lose that initial investment once it is made so if I do go any further I will probrably stick with them.It might be overkill to go with before upgradeing my c.d. (cal ikom=nmkII). Just want to pick wisely, I don't want to be changeing stuff out every other month, just want to upgrade as few times as possible and be done with it. Of course I will enjoy what I have in the meantime, and know its limitations.
Audiogon, it's time to ban Phill.
Carl, not to nit-pick but after some more research of both sites, I notice that Transparent has links for awards and studios that use Transparent ref. No such luck for MIT.
I distinctly remember hearing a dealer mention to another customer that MIT makes a version of their speaker cables specifically for tube amp applications. May be worth looking into.
Yes, Transparent has won a lot of grammys, or so they say (pop music is mixed in radical ways, and sounds good in a convertible at 100 mph). All I can say is that I've tried both, and know which one I like. You should do the same.
Yea, Gateway mixes like that all the time.
And besides, Skywalker Sound uses MIT. What's wrong with them? I hear they're pretty good at doing movies, like those with dinosaurs and space battles...heh heh heh.
yep, heard they started using them. Must be something to the "network" thing afterall. Still trying to get up with a fellow audio club member that has MIT, I think shotgun or something like that, for a taste test.I hear if the cable is just right you can smell the Dinos' breath!!!
No one here, except Orb, has mentioned that MIT newest ICs are ISN (input specific networks) with three impedance ranges to better match tube equipment. Also speaker cables are now available in solid state and tube designs. Available in 330 (high end) and 350 (reference) series. The budget terminator series like T2 Mkaes mentions do not have ISN.