2. cables
  3. 1144141979

Double your pleasure with same cable throughout?


Howdy sports fans,

I’m a bit aprehensive and certainly more than a little confused about recent events and would really appreciate some insights from those who have done a likewise effort…. I'm talking about runing SAME BRAND and/or brand & model IC throughout a system. As to culminate this venture by so doing, will be a fairly costly thing and thus delay my finishing things up with my sys…. though I'd rather a delay than a re-do. Been there, done that, on the re-do thing.

I’ve been in the hunt for a different XLR IC from my preamp to amp lately. I found something quite interesting during that process. After (and still), trying several previously ‘untried’ brands in that spot, along with some of the same brand/model, as was/is already exsisting upstream, I’ve thus far found that the EXACT same brand as the source to preamp cable provides the greatest enhancement. The same brand & model, even more so…

Is this common?

Perhaps much of the ‘cabling’ going on in the majority of systems I see here at Audiogone in the various posted systems is a ‘cost’ driven exorcise. Can’t say for sure… and perhaps not, though surely it would be understandable were it so. Given the results, which really speak for themselves, I fail to understand Why then, aren’t more systems running the same brand IC and/or even the same model IC, as wel throughout a system?

Using a MIT Mag 3 on my source, and inserting another MIT offering between pre & amp, remarkable improvements were realized. First was the Shotgun S2, and following it, a Mag 3…. I stopped there as info I gained about which level of IC should be put where seems to indicate the source IC should be of a higher level than the pre to amp IC... or the same, but no further up than the upstream IC as a general rule.

Is this simply a thing MIT has going for themselves? Would even greater positive attributes be realized by adding MIT speaker wires too? Or maybe that’s too much of a good thing?

Or is this just a fluke?

I’m still looking and have a few more items to review before making my choice… but it’s getting closer to ‘buying time’ and I thought I’d ask those in the know… still I want to try both Synergistic REs Ref, and Nirvana SX & SL, as well before deciding. Other cables I've put in have been from decent to outstanding, for the most part thus far, but 'same same' sure has the edge right now.

SURE DO THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND INFO…
blindjim
pops
2,273 posts
 
It is strange how some cables just sound better mixed with others to "tune" your system. I have alot of experience with all levels of MIT and they definitely have a sonic signature that some like and some don't. I do but like to switch in other brands from time to time....cause I'm half nuts. I always put the MIT's back in fairly quick. The synergy you get with all MIT really paints a specific landscape that can be awesome, especially in the midrange region, but throw in a rogue cable, IC or speaker cable and it just makes both sound inadequate in my opinion.
blindjim OP
3,092 posts
 
thanks pops

I THINK i'LL wind up with all mit ic's (MAG3 on source, MAG3 from pre to amp)... THOUGH IT'S STILL UNSETTLED. Yet greatest impact was an S2... followed by an even GREATER impact from the MAG3. Mag 3 providing far more resolution and way more revealing. ONce the right selection of switches was determined... using the BAT impedance info for the amp the first choice of HIGH proved to be NOT quite as good overall as the MED. the sonic qualities that differed from choosing other settings on the impedance box, was that the phasing of the soundstage was off a touch here or there.. . the MED was the best position in the end. The bottom end was stunning. Mid bass was exceptional. It was like the cabling had a grip on the music holding it to a homogenous mix of sound in a reflection of the area available for it's reproduction. If I were to be extremely critical the one knock I'd have on the MAG3 apart from my personal taste for a less revealing offering, I'd say it held possibly to tight a grip on the sound. Neither strained or muted, less 'bloomy' ? for lack of a better word. and it could well be just me not being used to that sort of presentation. ON the whole very exciting to listen to... had it not been for company I had at the time I'd not have gotten much sleep during that trial/demo.

I've two questions...
The overall 'jump' from the S2 to the MAG3 was such a great leap I'm wondering Would a S1 from pre to amp be nearly everything the MAG3 would offer? albeit not the degree of resolution and likely lessened bass too.. though by what degree (s)?

in essence a MAG3 SOURCE, S1 p TO a..
and if the above is done, which speaker wires from MIT would be both a great choice and good value... (I'm thinking no more than the S1's, but eyeing the S2's. for value)...

Note here: One of those "If you never hear the model XXXX, you'll love the yadayada!" Well I did hear the XXX... and yep. Way good, a touch more revealing than perhaps I'd care to have but it did come across quite easy enough to take without the timberal upswing of some others... not quite the air a lot of cables have yet great spaciality, and placement of images... matter of fact the imaging was a standout attribute along with that remarkable bottom end and large sound stage. I'm not a 'res' freak by any stretch of the imagination. I'm into a warmer and full sound with musicality a must. the mag 3 & S2 combo did exactly that... swapping out the S2 for the mag3 and thus having TWO mag3's WAS EXPONENTIALLY BETTER.... for the brief period I had to check them out... I was convinced right then and there but now am a bit less so. heat of the moment and all that jazz I suppose. though easily I'd say another MIT IC adding to the mag already on the CD was a great compliment to the system synergy going on right now. another few weeks and I should know for sure if everythingstays on schedule... The VooDoo Ultrlinear is also in the mix though not quite the bottom end of the MIT's yet. (it's brand new) Very musical with super soundstage width and height.. very balanced... and way less the investment. Still too early to say much about the Ultralinear. It is promising though.
pops
2,273 posts
 
Blindjim, here's what I'm doing right now...I've got 330 SG from Merdian dac to a CJ premier 14 and 350 SG EVO from pre to Mac 501 mono's. I usually use a 350 reference where the 330 is but it is tilted up a little and slightly lean, where the 330 is more full bodied and maybe a little forgiving for digital.

I think the 330 SG is one of MIT's best for the money, I also have Mag 1 IC's but haven't really given them a chance, they seem to be in the 330 SG vein versus the 350 reference. The 350 EVO is awesome between pre and amp but I don't like it between my dac and pre...Sounds like you've got the idea with your synergy.

I'm using Mag 2 speaker cables, have used 750 S 3's in the past, in the HT right now. I think your IC's are more important IMO, you can get away with a lower model speaker cable, I've had oracle v3 and I think the Mag 2's are really close ....but still expensive. That's the problem with MIT - you should try to find 1 reference IC and stick with what you've got and my bet is you will be happy for a long time, too much reference level cable can be too much of a good thing. I think the 350 EVO offers alot, the midrange presence is fantastic...BTW, I'm using Thiel 3.6 so MIT is a good fit....good luck, let me know what you decide to do.
douglas_schroeder
3,281 posts
 
Just last night, I put in a Tice Infinite Speed power cord in place of the Tice PC-2 cord which was going to the cdp. That one power cord changed the dynamics of the MIT 750 Shotgun S3 speaker cables I had just bought.
Initially, I was unimpressed with the MIT cables. They sounded no more detailed than the Tice cables. It sounded like someone electronically changed the pitch of the music (which makes sense, when one considers that MIT uses electronics inside their boxes on the cables!). However, just the change of one power cable radically improved the MIT speaker cable's sound! The cabling end of audio is constantly surprising me!
My point: Every cable in a high enough resolving system will have a large enough impact on sound to merit experimentation. I have tried rigging the entire system with two or three brands: Audioquest, Harmonic Technology, Tice. Of the three, Tice speaker and IC wires are my favorite.
However, only through mixing and matching of power cords has the best of the system been brought out. Currently with Xindak FP-Gold power cords running to amps and the Tice to the cdp.

It truly is an art similar to becoming a good chef. Experimentation/trial and error will bring you to a good conclusion. Be prepared to have several hundred dollars, even a couple thousand tied up in wires for a while, but in the end you can (if you purchased them prudently) will be able to recoup most of your money and will have significantly improved the sound.

If you stick with only one brand of cabling, you will never really know what your components are capable of.
douglas_schroeder
3,281 posts
 
One last thought; I would not try to use cabling to "fix" what's perceived as a major flaw in the system's sound. If you just don't like what's happening, look for a component change, not a cable change. There may be exceptions, but typically I have seen that one gets "larger" payoffs by changing other components than cables.
If you like your gear and want to tweak it to improve what's already enjoyed, then go for the wire wackiness!
More to discover