The recurring issue of "Ditch the MIT" in these ICE amps threads without clarifications as to why this should be done gets kinda old. In a response to a similar thread last week, I put a lot of effort to explain some problems I had with an MIT 350 EVO single-ended cable between the Aesthetix Callisto Signature line stage and the H20.
Blaming network boxes for a huge midrange suckout is a bit of a stretch. I would normally expect such a problem at the frequency extremes and this was not the case. Ultimately it sounded like the problem I had was more likely due to an incompatibility issue with the Callisto line stage running the single-ended low input-impedance of the H20. The jury is still out as to whether or not the same MIT cable in an XLR configuration would cause the same problem or perhaps work incredibly well with the H20.
Even though I prefer the sound of the NBS Statement over the MIT 350 EVO or Ref Proline, it's just by a hair due to the NBS bringing on a little more dimensionality. The MIT cable has a more extended top end than the NBS. The fact that both of these cables drive the CAT JL-3 amps from the Callisto with neither having any tonality coherency problems nor dynamic limitations speaks for itself. Both cables in this setup had far more low-level resolution and dimensionality than I could get with the NBS into the H20.
The ONLY component I have had problems while using the MIT IC cable is the H20. The ARC VT130 and CL150 monos, Counterpoint NPS400, Wolcott P220, CAT JL-3 amps, and the ARC LS5, BAT 31SE and Callisto Sig line stages .... all have worked incredibly well with MIT 350 Proline Ref and EVO cables. This is quite a list of tube based products for a cable that is claimed to only work for a few solid state products.
Rather than echo second-hand news here, hopefully people with direct experiences using MIT cables will share their experiences here. Telling us the associated gear and cable model they used will add value to what has worked and not worked for them with the H20 and other digital switching amps.
Compatibility is definitely a factor to assemble any audio system. But throwing blanket statements out there based on heresy serves no purpose. And keep in mind, there is a huge sonic difference within the MIT product line.
"Frankly, for speaker cables, I have found nothing better than the absurdly cheap Speltz Anti-Cables." What else did you try to come to this conclusion? If you are going to make indirect comparisons here, please share with us the other products you tried. Without comparative product models mentioned, such a statement brings on no value. The lack of differences or improvements between speaker cables may have more to do with weaknesses elsewhere in a system.
John
Blaming network boxes for a huge midrange suckout is a bit of a stretch. I would normally expect such a problem at the frequency extremes and this was not the case. Ultimately it sounded like the problem I had was more likely due to an incompatibility issue with the Callisto line stage running the single-ended low input-impedance of the H20. The jury is still out as to whether or not the same MIT cable in an XLR configuration would cause the same problem or perhaps work incredibly well with the H20.
Even though I prefer the sound of the NBS Statement over the MIT 350 EVO or Ref Proline, it's just by a hair due to the NBS bringing on a little more dimensionality. The MIT cable has a more extended top end than the NBS. The fact that both of these cables drive the CAT JL-3 amps from the Callisto with neither having any tonality coherency problems nor dynamic limitations speaks for itself. Both cables in this setup had far more low-level resolution and dimensionality than I could get with the NBS into the H20.
The ONLY component I have had problems while using the MIT IC cable is the H20. The ARC VT130 and CL150 monos, Counterpoint NPS400, Wolcott P220, CAT JL-3 amps, and the ARC LS5, BAT 31SE and Callisto Sig line stages .... all have worked incredibly well with MIT 350 Proline Ref and EVO cables. This is quite a list of tube based products for a cable that is claimed to only work for a few solid state products.
Rather than echo second-hand news here, hopefully people with direct experiences using MIT cables will share their experiences here. Telling us the associated gear and cable model they used will add value to what has worked and not worked for them with the H20 and other digital switching amps.
Compatibility is definitely a factor to assemble any audio system. But throwing blanket statements out there based on heresy serves no purpose. And keep in mind, there is a huge sonic difference within the MIT product line.
"Frankly, for speaker cables, I have found nothing better than the absurdly cheap Speltz Anti-Cables." What else did you try to come to this conclusion? If you are going to make indirect comparisons here, please share with us the other products you tried. Without comparative product models mentioned, such a statement brings on no value. The lack of differences or improvements between speaker cables may have more to do with weaknesses elsewhere in a system.
John