Similar sound characteractics to MIT cables?

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.

bo, are you referring to Silver or Cooper AQ Cables? I've had great success with their cooper stuff but, can't make a direct comparison to MIT.

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.

nmmusicman

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. 

https://www.facebook.com/bobby.kingma/media_set?set=a.10156554423700083.1073741937.588405082&typ...

https://www.facebook.com/bobby.kingma/media_set?set=a.10156573228780083.1073741942.588405082&typ...

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.