I believe that in certain systems, like everthing else, MIT cables are a good match. I was having trouble with my Thiel 2.3s, they sounded much too bright, and the instruments not at all natural. I am using a Krell amp that I only wanted to replace as a last resort. I worked with placement but it didn't help much. Then I went to a VTL 2.5 tube preamp which was a major improvement but still not quite right. Then I replaced my Kimber 8TC cable with MIT 750s, I burned them in for 3 days on another system. When I hooked them up the results were great, the highs were detailed but not harsh and the bottom end was as good or better than before. Now the system sounds very natural, the MITs worked extremely on my system which was very bright to begin with. In this case it was the right match.
MIT Term 2 speaker cables...Am I nuts???
Recently replaced 12g Original Monster cable with MIT Term 2's to connect Jolida tube amp to Spendor S-100 speakers. Now, I know my system has a warm, round sound without the deepest of bottom ends, but when I hooked up the MIT's (used=broken in)the first thing I did was felt inside my ears to see if there was cotton in them. The sound lacked the punch, dynamics, and the bass of the $3/ft Monster copper. Highs were a noticable improvement, and instruments image better with MIT's, but I am now using the M.C. to drive the woofers as, I swear, they sound better than the MIT's. Am I nuts, or have I simply compounded too many components with a warm sound (Arcam CD player as well = laid-back British sound)?? Is this a common characteristic of MIT's? Would I be better off with a good solid state amp?