Your description of MIT is spot on based on the ones I’ve used. I tend to think of MIT as a kind of band aid but good for bass and taking the edge off things if needed.
They have a unique sound and sound nothing like any others I’ve tried including harmonic Tech, DNM, Audioquest, even old Monster or stock ICs.
I’d attribute that to unique design using the network box circuitry. Don’t know of any others that sound like them. If you like MIT then buy MIT I would say. The boxes are the secret sauce.
Phil.... MIT's have boxes on them...the only other speaker cable that sounds LIKE those are Transparent Audio cables (they use boxes too). If you get away from cables with networks on them you may find some renewed dynamics in the system. But the cable will have to be pretty uncolored to compete with the MIT's on the sweeter side. Check out Kimber Kable or Audioquest for a neutral cable with no boxes on them.
I auditioned Silent Source's Signature speaker cables thru the Cable Company. They have a wide, deep soundstage, are transparent and very focused. I was playing Classical music. They sounded more organic to my ears than MIT.
Really terrific imaging of instruments.
In the end, I chose Purist Audio over them because I liked their warmth.
Many thanks! lowrider. that's what I wish to know. There are many good cables around, but my music are predominantly pop orchestral so my taste are rather to "sit 6 to 8 rows before the grand stage" when listening, imaginary of course.
other good cables some tends to make the music emanating from the backstage sounds vague,(hazy /veiled) lose micro dynamics or feel too distant to even hear the notes clearly (sound mono instead of stereo like)
of course, I have not audition cables costing over $2k, there may still be surprises!
I was a distributor for MIT in the 80's.
Bruce Brisson started MIT with Karen & Jack Sumner of Transparent. Brisson was the designer, Sumner provided the finance & marketing. Brisson was the designer behind the time and phase alignment designs - the first of his design ideas were started when he developed the varilay structures used in Monster Cable interconnects in the early 80's.
After a few years they split. The MIT patents were co-owned and so they each left with access to the early MIT designs.
Brisson continued to develop the the designs on to where they are today. Transparent took the original patents and developed their own products using another designer. Transparent's current products bear no relation to MIT today.
Hi, anyone has anymore brand of cables to suggest? I guess it must be very difficult and requires deep technical knowledge on signal transmission (through various alloys)so to get the induction, capacitance, resistance correct, with years of research. So far, i haven't seen any cable manufacturer spend so much time and money on R&D on cables except MIT .
philipwu, what are you looking for? It sounds like you just want reassurance that your MIT cables are the best. If you like them, enjoy them and live happily ever after.
Personally, I like High Fidelity cables better. No, they do not have network boxes, but they have large magnets in the middle of their cables which are also difficult to work around.
If you are looking for cables that offer similar tonality without boxes or magnets, try offerings from Purist Audio or Jade Audio.
You want neutral wires. If there is something wrong with your system that you are trying to use a band aid to gloss over some undesirable sound in your system then it's best to find out what is the offending component and replace it. The wire should only transmit what your amps and other components are putting out. At least as close as possible.
When I first got into being an Audiophile I was a huge MIT fan. I went up the entire line. Thousands of dollars of cable. I believe MIT cables were very popular when they first started because it was a time when there was a lot bad digital and bad solid state amps that put out a lot of glare. It worked well to have those network boxes in them which basically acted as an equalizer or took the place of knobs to tone the sound. As I grew in knowledge I realized you don't ever want anything in the signal path that you don't have to have. One day I decided to try something different. I ordered some connector ends, I went to home depot and got the thickest copper wire I could fit on them. I changed out all of my MIT wire in my whole system.
When I turned on my stereo my jaw dropped. It was so glorious sounding. Every aspect of all the sound improved dramatically. As if I had gotten a whole new system. You see when I first started my gear wasn't so good. And the MIT wires probably helped smooth out the glare. As my system got better and improved the MIT wire was holding it back, ruining the signal going through those boxes. I didn't need it glossed over now. Now my gear could shine and the real music come through. I sold all my MIT wire and never looked back. To this day I still build my own wire but have improved on those first ones, and believe I can build reference quality cable as good as any and better than most at a 10th the cost.
Anyway if it works for you fine, keep trying to smooth out bad upstream components. If you want to truly progress your system find the offending component, replace it, and find wires that are more neutral and will allow you to truly hear what your amp and other components are doing.
One of my other revelations back then was going to a passive preamp. And now no preamp at all. One less thing in the way of the signal and true sound. The first time I did that I just hooked direct to the amps and started with a quiet song so nothing would blow out. The sound was amazing. Assuming you have enough gain. Something to try since you're messing around.
yes, i know it is better to have as few components\parts in the signal path to attain best possible sound as what the recording has to offer.
i did compared with Nordost, Audience, Siltech, XLO, Audioquest and some other cables, but they did not have wide stereo layered soundstage. MIT do not tame the high freq glare either, in fact Audience interconnect has muted the harsh upper end. So that's why i'm searching for cables which sound similar to MIT (perhaps even surpass it) without the box.
My system isn't dull or bright. i have Simaudio 750D, Lampi Gen5 DAC, Atmaphere pre, YBA 1 power, Martin logan ESL, Isotek power conditioning, and custom balance power filter, quite neutral i guess.
i just prefer the wide layered soundstage musicality because my collection of music are re-dubbed pop orchestral and cinematic soundtracks. Velvet like harmonics isn't important to me. In fact i'm looking for cables that can "color the presentation/ portrayal " of music to like listening in a grand hall, not jazz club or choir in a chamber hall(because my music isn't suppose to be play live in such places). i am hoping other cables (without the boxes or filters) can let me hear more clearly of those sounds produced by instruments that was at the back of the stage which tends to sound vague/hazy(lack of microdynamics ). hope the description of my taste in music explains why i started this thread.
Thank you for sharing your experience too!
Philip you are seriously up the line with your cables. I have owned and still own many MIT's including the old reference series. They were my first high end cable, before networks even, but over the years got lost in the MIT innovation blast. Just could not keep up. Having said that I have never had success with a full loom from one manufacturer, including MIT, Kimber, Tara, PAD, and Kubala Sosna. MIT's do exactly what you mentioned, layering the soundstage and are scary holographic. Perhaps you try something to break up the loom, I have found too much of one characteristic can be too much in a loom. But once MIT gets in your blood it will always be there!
Pops, i'm trying to get some demo cable from Silent source, Lowrider had recommended it which sound similar to MIT. Hopefully, this cable without the added filters would let me hear more clearly of those small vague signals(& background instruments) in the recording, i'm prepare to trade some bit of the wide soundstage for this clarity.
I have done thousands of tests with cables in almost 18 years of time. The differences in stage and sound are big. They differ in stage depth and width. Also in how big instruments and voices are projected. Even in stage height there are big differences.
Even in sound the can differ a lot when you compare them. The mid freqencies sound even different. Timing in the low freq. are also an aspect what can differ a lot. Even the blacklevel is different when you compare them.
When you don’t know the properties of cables you will not be able to understand what they do to your set.
The stage and sound of a system is build by all the different properties of each part of your set and the acoustics. When you understand the properties audio becomes more easy to understand why the stage and sound is what you hear.
Audioquest has different properties compared to MIT. Kimber has similar properties compared to Audioquest, but the mid freq are still a bit warmer compared to Audioquest.
MIT and Shunyata own similar properties. The create a wide and deep stage. But within the stage voices and instruments are rather big in proportion. This means the individual focus of instruments is not that sharp.
You need to understand how music sounds in real. I learned at a friends house who owned a small concert room with a Steinway wing how small and direct voices and instruments are in real.
Even in the high freq the differences are big. Audioquest can give you much more details compared to MIT. I have done a lot a comparison between these two brands. Audioquest own more different properties, this makes it more complete and easy to use.
I sold Nordost for over 9 years of time and the properties are a lot different when you compare them with Audioquest or even MIT.
Which one is the best for you depends how good your reference frame is. Start visiting small concerts. Acoustic will be the best advice. When you understand how it sounds in real, it will be more easy to find the properties what will fit the best in your set.
I just want to clarify my recommendation to philip; IMO, MIT's sonics are unique, they are outstanding. That's due to the technology of their network box.
Philip is looking for a cable that will reproduce specific attributes in the music he listens to, and an alternative to MIT. I look forward to his review of Silent Source cables.
Being a long time MIT bi-wire speaker cable user in numerous systems although not top of the line MIT speaker cables, I've found consistently excellent results with using active shielded IC's on the front end components such as AQ with their DBS or Synergistic Research.
The above combinations have always yielded a holographic soundstage with extended yet smooth highs and deep, deep solid bass. I tried the AQ Volcano DBS bi-wire speaker cables but the MIT bi-wire cables beat them hands down. You'd think that going all AQ/DBS would be the ticket but it did'nt work out in either of my systems.
Of course we all know cabling is system dependant but I can't deny the consistent results over the years and in different systems. This may not be the type of info you're looking for but I thought I would pass along my experiences with MIT speaker cables.
When you compare the latstest Wild en Wel cables to MIT Oracle, you will hear how big the differences are in details, height, timing and individual focus of instruments and voices.
These silver cables can reveal details and also differences in height what the MIT are not even able to reveal.
Audio is all about comparing and understanding the properties. Only when you understand the poperties they own ( d.n.a. of a cable) you know what they do in your system.
Each part of a system; speaker, cables, source, amp, pre amp, conditioners own different properties how they build a stage and also own their sound.
I work differently because I am addicted to music and audio since I was 6. I work and think by Tru-Fi. This means that my focus is the sound I want to hear and create.
Tru-Fi is how music sounds in real.
When you build an audio system by properties each system will be more complete and will own more emotion.
The emotion is inside the music, you need an audio-system what can reveal all the parts which create the emotion of the music.
When I audtion sets of new clients, shows, shops and at distributers all these sets have one thing in common. They are all incomplete, they always miss parts of Tru-Fi.
They way people create their set by comparing part by part is a very ineffective way of selecting an audio set. I have proven for many years that focusing on Tru-Fi will outperform any set what is created by they way most people select their audio system.
Because when I ask a simple question; When you change your speaker by a new speaker you would like to hear. Which properties you take out and which you will bring in? They don't know. Then it is not possible to understand how the sound and image is build of your system.
When a system owns all different parts which are needed for Tru-Fi you will create an addictive and emotional sound. People use their set a lot more and longer in time compared to how long and often they used it in the past.
At the end the quality and emotion of a set will decide the succes of it.
You need to understand that the properties in sound and image differ a lot between MIT and Audioquest.
Beside this silver cables like Wild and Wel are a lot differrent compared to the Oracle copper cables.
In the last 6 years I sold a lot Audioquest to MIT owners. To be honest it was easy to choose for the Audioquest. They did win easily. The main reason is that they are more complete.
In Europe MIT is not that popular anymore. How is it in the US these days?
Closest to MIT is Transparent. Unsurprising, as, having been the distributor for MIT, and knowing the design, Transparent designed their own cable, much similar to the MIT sound, exceptions being the MIT designed cables extension further out in the high frequencies. Of course, both have networked boxes on them! Nothing I have heard is similar to either company’s sound, which both have a powerful midbass band of frequencies, which is what makes for a truly "holographic" presentation. Shunyata can be similar to both as well, but not tonally as correct. Hard to beat MIT for sheer tonal colors, as I hear them in symphony and opera performances.
Just to be clear, I've owned and Demo'd a good number of AQ cables. They are not superior to MIT designs by a long shot. You will find overemphasis and a slight hardness in the AQ designs, especially the silver looms. I currently use Oracle 3.5 cabling and it is breathtakingly far and above any other cable design I have owned or used on loan...and that's a ton of cables! Perhaps those of you referencing MIT CABLES have not heard recent designs or have not used them properly or fully burned in.
The Sky was one of the weakest cables Audioquest had in the silver range. The balance of the cable was not right.
The current cables are a lot better ballanced. The new techniques who uses more airtubes make them a lot better.
You cannot compare MIT with Transparent because they have a totally different kind of individual focus of instruments and voices.
The only thing they have in common is that they both only use copper and they are rather forgiving in the mid and high frequencies.
Audioquest is not harsh or clean. People forget that the overal sound is based on all the properties of all the parts in your set and the acoustics.
I work by Tru-Fi, and all my clients have a very involving and emotional sound. I use Audioquest the most, I am dealer of Kimber, Purist Audio and Audioquest. Audioquest is the brand I use most.
You need to be aware of the image and sound properties of each part of your set to understand why the sound and image is what you hear.
Most people don’t even know this, this makes audio a big guess in what you do. The emotion is in the music. You need to understand what the properties are when you listen to live music. Beside this you need to understand how the emotion of people work when you listen to music.
The biggest limitation of audio is when you miss essential parts which are needed to create the emotion of music. That is why I work by Tru-Fi.
When you build a system by Tru-Fi you always can outperform sets of others based on emotion and intensity. Because these sets are often incomplete and that is why the emotional feeling and intensity during listening is a lot less.
All people choose for an involving and emotional sound. I never met people who prefer a clinical set.
There are different parts who influence the emotion of people. You need to use these parts in your set to get the best result.
When you build a system what owns all the parts which are deeded for a maximum emotional experience you get an addictive sound.
This makes music like a full meltdown. And the addiction to listen for hours on and on.
It depends when people make remarks what doesn’t make sense.
Audio is all about properties. You need to understand them to use it the right way. This also counts for MIT.
The best cables also depends on how you use them. Because cable brands own a different sound, but also a different sound stage.
You cannot use MIT in each system. Listen to real acoustic music. You will find out that instruments and voices are a lot smaller and direct in real.
In the past and even these days many systems at shows with MIT are not able to give the right proportions. This has nothing to do with taste, but with facts.
That is why people should listen to real music. I can garantee you that this will influence your perspective about music and audio a lot.
I give you an example. A client of mine owned: Wilson Audio Sasha, Audio Research 75SE, Wadia 381 and Spectral pre amp. He owned several MIT Oracle cables. He also tried the Momentum stereo poweramp.
He only plays classical music and visits classical live concerts. He missed many things and I visited him. I understood directly what he misses. This was based on many things what was not there or not fit in the right way.
These limitations in his set are based on the properties of all the different parts in his set togheter.
bo1972 you should start an Audioquest thread. There are others who are as passionate as you about particular brands that have done the same. There is also another member where it is well know he hates a cable brand and mentions it often. You begin to lose credibility and would hate to see that with you because you obviously have a ton of experience. Just my opinion.
Live music is never squished my friends. Unless you are in a uniquely dead listening inviron! Ex., the BSO sounds explosive and blooms sweetly as it washes over you with wave after wave of dynamically blissful musical notes. A bassoon alone can fill the hall with burnished golden airwaves of divine musical magic! If you like constrained, laser etched images with compressed sound then AQ IS your ticket. Live music is alive, it ebbs and flows and breathes...it expands and contracts and flows all around the soundscape and when it behaves, MIT will dial it in realistically but never stripping away the fullness of notes or dynamic expression.
Audio is all about properties. You need to understand them to use it the right way. This also counts for MIT.Audio is all about personal preferences. What to understand, if sounds good, keep it, otherwise move on.
I have done thousands of tests with cables in almost 18 years of time.
So what? Number of tests and years of experience don't necessary equate to competence.
First of all I don’t hate MIT. I sold it for over 6 years of time and I even owned it. The world is already full of hate.
I didn’t say that you should not or never use it. This would be the biggest bullshit. I only said; you need to understand how MIT builds the stage and sound.
Because they only use copper, it will never sound harsh. But beside the sound each cable brand owns it’s properties in how the stage is being build.
When you compared many brands like I did in almost 18 years of time you know how big differences are in stage, individual focus, resolution. diversity in sound, differences in height, timing and dynamics.
This is why you need to understand the properties first before you can use them the right way.
For example in the beginning of 2002 I started to test powercabels. At that time MIT was one of the best in powercables. I was iterested in the properties they added to my set at that time.
I really don’t care what the name of a brand is. For me only the properties are important. They can add or change what you would like.
Audio is all about comparing and testing, this way you learn how the properties in sound and stage are. When you use more different brands you often add more properties to your set.
I started to do blind shootouts with different brands in cables. People preferd it all the time compared to the same set with cables of one brand.
It is my personal opinion that MIT is often used the wrong way. When you are more aware of how music sounds and instruments are projected you will get a different perspective.
I use live music by how I want an audio system to sound like. So I collect properties to create this sound. It makes audio so much more effective.
@bo1972. Need your input please regarding Audioquest speaker cables. Budget level. I have particular interest right now in the audioquest type 4. Researching forums for budget speaker cables which have a darkish, warm, full, rich and unetched (HF slightly on the soft side) sound quality has lead me to the type 4. Is this correct? How about the rocket series? Btw...my speakers are biwirable. How would the type 4 compare to the rocket series...eg...44...to what I am seeking?
Thanks so much.
Send me a message, I don’t think people would like to see advice about Audioquest overhere. And they are right.
I always thought that audio is all about personal preference. Until a client of mine said: you proved that Tru-Fi can overrule personal preference.
He is right for a part, but I still think personal preference also depends on the reference frame people have.
Beside personal preference you still can add properties into each system. These properties influence each person by emotion. This is how I use audio. I outperfrom other companies in audio by a more complete and involving sound.
A sound what is more deverse and complete will always be prefered by any other sound what is incomplete. Almost all sets I auditioned in shops, shows and new clients were incomplete. We are not taking about missing one part, often many parts.
By asking a simple question to these people gave me and also them a clear answer.
When I ask people even those who work in audio for a long time the following question: can you tell me the properties of the speaker you sell. And can you tell me the properties of a particular speaker?
They say; I can’t. Then it is difficult to understand how the stage and sound is being build of your set. You need to know it form each part of your system. They said I think you are right.
So I made the remark; then audio is a big guess? It is not about the question if I am right. People need to understand that they way they create a set is very ineffective.
This is the main reason why all the highend sets I visited in 18 years of time often sound limited and incomplete. This is based on the fact that people are not aware of the properties of each part.
It is almost impossible to create a stunning and addictive sound. Because when a set owns all the parts which can be created the sound will become addictive and involving.
Because music is all about emotion. You need a set what is able to show you all the emotion it owns.
The emotion is inside the music.