MIT bashed, not Transparent, why?

I agree with Bob Bundus. I thought MIT were strange, now I own them. A sub for audio a waste; now I own a REL; If you go back 15 years all CD player were about the same. I still thought that until 1995, now my CD player cost more than my whole old system did.

MIT is bashed because they are top dog. Most people who post here seem to want to "discover" the cable made by the one man company in the mountains that performs better than MIT for one tenth the price. Those people will be changing cables again in six months and their previous cable will be next to worthless. Synergy is important; but for the most part, you get what you pay for.

Well guys, I'm not a big on postings. But after making countless progressive decisions based on experiences and opinions of others' I'think its owed. Let me start by saying I have no experience with Transparent. I have 6yrs of countless MIT upgrades. My current rig consists of the Oracle V4. Everytime I've auditioned MITs on a "loaner" basis, I wind up keeping them. My entire system is wired with ICs,Speaker wire, All I can say is "MUSICAL BLISS". Go ahead do the homework, most of out there obviously have the financial resources, or you would not be in this hobby. Fortunately for me I've developed a relationship with my dealer locally which gives me some added perks,like taking demos home for a month to decide. You know, now that I think about it, I've never returned an MIT demo.

My experience is with MIT tails for Wilson Watts 5.1. I replaced Wilson Tails (Transparent Ultra cable) with MIT tails built for Wilson Watts. Difference is astounding, tighter bass, fuller image, quieter noise, details and resolutions without edgy. Well, for the price of the tail, the difference has to be day and night and it is.

I own several MIT cables, and think they are very musical.
On a related theme I also noitce that it is acceptable to use Bybee speaker & IC filters, but MIT network cables are
ridiculed.....seems like a double standard.