Pros: If you need a 20-30' IC, such cables can get into the multi-thousand $ range, even on the used market. The nice thing about MIT cables is that they are just a little more $ for the longer lengths. For such a long cable on the used market, in the $1000 range or so, these are an unbeatable value.
Cons: The weight of the network boxes often means you need to put your preamp or other components that use MIT ICs on the bottom shelf as there is typically only a 9-12" RCA tail from the box. This allows the network box to sit on the floor. The network boxes also make it difficult if not impossible to feed the cables through tight areas.
Sonics: I had a 20' XLR 350 Ref Proline and then later a 25' RCA 350 Evo. These were both the top of the MIT in the late 90s with the "Oracle" following the Evo around 2000/2001. I have since changed to Purist Dominus and never looked back. And I seriously doubt the Oracle or V series outperforms the Evo to the same level as the Kubala-Sosan or Purist does over the Evo.
The MITs do a good job to preserve the dimensionality in the music....and this is key for me to keep a cable in the system. For people where the issue is strictly frequency extreme coverage, detail, dynamics, etc., there are a lot of choices. But I have found very few ICs that I can use between my line stage and amps that retains the spatial qualities of the performance. The MITs fit this well.
The MITs do not bring on an overly fat midrange ala Cardas Golden Cross. In fact, the lower mids are a bit lean with some textures and presence lacking here. I found that a match with a speaker cable that had complimentary tonality was needed to bring some of this back. The MIT are also a bit soft on the top which makes for a more smooth vs. an overly detailed top end that may cause listener fatigue. A change to either the Kubala-Sosna or Dominus showed how much more information exists in the trebles without ever sounding analytical or forward. These cables also showed that the Evo was not quite as full and tight in the lowest octave.
Compared to the NBS Statement that I was also using at the same time as the MIT, the NBS has a more lush and full lower midrange vs the more distant MIT. Of all the cables I tried over the years, I found these two to sound closer than anything else. Their good, but not great coverage of the frequency extremes was too close to call.
For the comments above, the line stage was a Aesthetix Callisto Signature driving a pair of CAT JL-3 Signature amps. Speakers are SoundLab A1s.
If you are after a short run of ICs, I would strongly suggest you audition the Kubala-Sosna and Purist Venustas and Aqueous Anniv cables before jumping blindly for the MIT. The cost is about the same for 1-2m lengths and I think you would be mightily surprised at the performance of these other lines relative to the MIT.
John
Cons: The weight of the network boxes often means you need to put your preamp or other components that use MIT ICs on the bottom shelf as there is typically only a 9-12" RCA tail from the box. This allows the network box to sit on the floor. The network boxes also make it difficult if not impossible to feed the cables through tight areas.
Sonics: I had a 20' XLR 350 Ref Proline and then later a 25' RCA 350 Evo. These were both the top of the MIT in the late 90s with the "Oracle" following the Evo around 2000/2001. I have since changed to Purist Dominus and never looked back. And I seriously doubt the Oracle or V series outperforms the Evo to the same level as the Kubala-Sosan or Purist does over the Evo.
The MITs do a good job to preserve the dimensionality in the music....and this is key for me to keep a cable in the system. For people where the issue is strictly frequency extreme coverage, detail, dynamics, etc., there are a lot of choices. But I have found very few ICs that I can use between my line stage and amps that retains the spatial qualities of the performance. The MITs fit this well.
The MITs do not bring on an overly fat midrange ala Cardas Golden Cross. In fact, the lower mids are a bit lean with some textures and presence lacking here. I found that a match with a speaker cable that had complimentary tonality was needed to bring some of this back. The MIT are also a bit soft on the top which makes for a more smooth vs. an overly detailed top end that may cause listener fatigue. A change to either the Kubala-Sosna or Dominus showed how much more information exists in the trebles without ever sounding analytical or forward. These cables also showed that the Evo was not quite as full and tight in the lowest octave.
Compared to the NBS Statement that I was also using at the same time as the MIT, the NBS has a more lush and full lower midrange vs the more distant MIT. Of all the cables I tried over the years, I found these two to sound closer than anything else. Their good, but not great coverage of the frequency extremes was too close to call.
For the comments above, the line stage was a Aesthetix Callisto Signature driving a pair of CAT JL-3 Signature amps. Speakers are SoundLab A1s.
If you are after a short run of ICs, I would strongly suggest you audition the Kubala-Sosna and Purist Venustas and Aqueous Anniv cables before jumping blindly for the MIT. The cost is about the same for 1-2m lengths and I think you would be mightily surprised at the performance of these other lines relative to the MIT.
John