Similar sound characteractics to MIT cables?

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 will be interested to hear your impression Philip.  I have always preferred MIT IC's over their speaker cables.  My favorite spot is from source to preamp - currently using 350 SG EVO from my Allnic phono preamp and it just seems to set the tone for everything downstream.

Philip-

yes, you owe it to yourself to demo the Silent Source cabling. It is excellent to outstanding, especially, with solid-state gear.
I had a wonderful demo on Pass Labs gear and TAD speakers.
Esoteric SACD player.

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.