MIT oracle cables pros and cons

I have been looking into changing my cables to MIT Oracle line. Can uses give me any personal opinions of these cables out there in listener land?
Pros: If you need a 20-30' IC, such cables can get into the multi-thousand $ range, even on the used market. The nice thing about MIT cables is that they are just a little more $ for the longer lengths. For such a long cable on the used market, in the $1000 range or so, these are an unbeatable value.

Cons: The weight of the network boxes often means you need to put your preamp or other components that use MIT ICs on the bottom shelf as there is typically only a 9-12" RCA tail from the box. This allows the network box to sit on the floor. The network boxes also make it difficult if not impossible to feed the cables through tight areas.

Sonics: I had a 20' XLR 350 Ref Proline and then later a 25' RCA 350 Evo. These were both the top of the MIT in the late 90s with the "Oracle" following the Evo around 2000/2001. I have since changed to Purist Dominus and never looked back. And I seriously doubt the Oracle or V series outperforms the Evo to the same level as the Kubala-Sosan or Purist does over the Evo.

The MITs do a good job to preserve the dimensionality in the music....and this is key for me to keep a cable in the system. For people where the issue is strictly frequency extreme coverage, detail, dynamics, etc., there are a lot of choices. But I have found very few ICs that I can use between my line stage and amps that retains the spatial qualities of the performance. The MITs fit this well.

The MITs do not bring on an overly fat midrange ala Cardas Golden Cross. In fact, the lower mids are a bit lean with some textures and presence lacking here. I found that a match with a speaker cable that had complimentary tonality was needed to bring some of this back. The MIT are also a bit soft on the top which makes for a more smooth vs. an overly detailed top end that may cause listener fatigue. A change to either the Kubala-Sosna or Dominus showed how much more information exists in the trebles without ever sounding analytical or forward. These cables also showed that the Evo was not quite as full and tight in the lowest octave.

Compared to the NBS Statement that I was also using at the same time as the MIT, the NBS has a more lush and full lower midrange vs the more distant MIT. Of all the cables I tried over the years, I found these two to sound closer than anything else. Their good, but not great coverage of the frequency extremes was too close to call.

For the comments above, the line stage was a Aesthetix Callisto Signature driving a pair of CAT JL-3 Signature amps. Speakers are SoundLab A1s.

If you are after a short run of ICs, I would strongly suggest you audition the Kubala-Sosna and Purist Venustas and Aqueous Anniv cables before jumping blindly for the MIT. The cost is about the same for 1-2m lengths and I think you would be mightily surprised at the performance of these other lines relative to the MIT.

John, your detailed description is very much appreciated. I have Kubala-Sosna speaker cables and do like them very much. It is very difficult to get used XLR cables so I was thinking of going the MIT route.
Jafox - john, that is indeed excellent insight into your experience with MIT. I have been a long time MIT user with several different systems. I have several types of MIT. I currently use 350 shotgun EVO, 330 shotgun, and Magnum M2 speaker wire. I had an oracle v3 speaker cable for a while but sold it, it made my Classe amp oscillate and we could never figure out why.

I also have 350 reference, Magnum M1, and several other types down the line. My current system consists of Meridian front end, CJ premier 14, and Mcintosh 501 mono blocks driving Thiel 3.6's. The combination of the CJ and the Mac are very lush, plus I use Mullard tubes which accentutes that midrange lushness even more. I think the MIT's play into that perfectly and bring an astonishing presence I haven't experienced with other cables.

I will say the 350 reference is the leanest MIT ic in terms of lower midrange, it is also very extended at the frequency extremes. I don't know your system context but obviously that is the most important factor when considering how to wire it.

Just wanted to offer my experience, Jafox you have an big time system, would love to hear it. Maybe you could bring it over....
Bryanhod: I have often had to wait a fair amount of time to get a good deal on a long IC, whether RCA or XLR, in 20-30' lengths. But there are so many people with balanced components today that XLR cables are in abundance on the used market in the typical 1-2m lengths.

Pops: Geez, it's been awhile since I called anybody by that title. Hmmm, maybe you can adopt me. 8-) Oh yes on the Mullards, I love these things. I just heard this week from another CAT amp owner who tried Mullards and he too liked their result. They are magic in the CAT preamp, amps and the Aesthetix line and phono stages.

Concerning the MIT cables, when I had the 350 Ref Proline, I also had a 30' XLR M1 on loan. I had this for over a month as the dealer told me I had to break it in. A month later, I still much prefered the 350 Ref Proline as this had more dimensionality and body to the music. The M1 was closer to the analytical zone for me. But I do not recall much difference in tonality. My system then (to evaluate these MIT cables) was BAT 31SE and Wolcott monos driving Magnepan 3.5s.

Last year, I re-arranged my room and thus needed a longer cable than the 20' 350 Ref Proline so I changed to the Evo when I found one that was 25'. And the CAT amps that I had by then are single-ended only so I got rid of using the XLR-RCA adaptors as this Evo was RCA terminated.

It was just a couple months ago that I removed the 350 Evo to be replaced by the Dominus and this change was huge. It will be in my system for a long long time. If you think the MIT extends well into the frequency extremes, there will be a huge smile on your face when you hear the Kubala-Sosna Emotion or Purist Dominus or even Venustas for that matter, directly against the MIT. The Dominus is so very impressive in the lowest octave.

If you are ever in the Minneapolis area, send me a note and you're more than welcome to stop by.

Hi Jafox,
When you comment on the improvement in the frequency extremes of the Venustas over the MIT are you referring to the bass and treble or just the bass?
Mr_bill: Both. The instant I tried the Dominus in my system, there was so much more low-end extension and power. And when I then tried the Venustas, it was very close to the performance of the Dominus. The Dominus gives that last little bit of power to the bottom octave like no other cable I have tried in my home.

The issue of treble is as dramatic with the Evo softening the trebles much more so than the Purist models above. But when it comes to the ultimate openness on the top with much air, the Kubala-Sosna Emotion so far is the champ of all I have tried.
Jafox, thanks for the generous invitation, likewise it your ever in the DC area.