MIT Cable's explanation of MA vs. 2C3D can be found on their website under "publications" and then "articles." My take is that since home audio can't yet fulfill the entire "absolute sound," we choose amongst compromises. MIT offers two contrasting designs to meet market needs/preferences. 2C3D seemed to provide an audio perspective that is highly organized and placed the music sound field in a space between the speaker's outside edges and backward in a wide rounded rectangle. Music was expressed with great precision and it was easy to hear and appreciate the totality of a song's composition. At times it created the tipping point whereby I could hear and better understand the artistic merits of some complex music (some symphonies and jazz). It seemed to enhance the ability to hear more clearly the individual parts and the whole of a musical performance, simultaneously. If I was an analytical music reviewer, I would want this style of system as a tool for my work. This style of sound could help audiophiles who need to accommodate others in their home. The sound is detailed and active at lower volumes, isn't harsh or edgy, but rather has a sophisticated tidy character.
In my system "MA" cables create a bigger and more dynamically lively sound, much more presence, images are large and have body, and instrument timbre sounds more organic and naturally diverse. Of course "Your Milage May Vary!" I hope this helps.
In my system "MA" cables create a bigger and more dynamically lively sound, much more presence, images are large and have body, and instrument timbre sounds more organic and naturally diverse. Of course "Your Milage May Vary!" I hope this helps.