How do MIT and Transparent cables differ?

If you search the forums back far enough, you might find the actual post from which I derived this information; it was posted a long time ago.

if I recall correctly (?) someone from Transparent broke away & founded MIT; might even be Bruce Brisson himself? If you call their factory they are very accessible and helpful; I once had quite an extended conversation with Bruce when no one else was available to take questions.

The major difference between the two labels is probably pricing; MIT being the preferred consumer value. Regarding which is actually the better cable; as in all cables - this is purely subjective, depending upon how the specific cable performs in your particular rig. Transparent makes some great cables too. One of our esteemed longtime members recommended Transparent AC cords as a great combo to be used with Accuphase products but I never tried it.

I've always preferred a networked design when I need a long length cable. I have very long 25' speaker cables & am on my 2nd MIT upgrade there. Also use one pair of their very long 25' interconnects.

If you do a member search on Joeabrams he's a great source of MIT info here; advertises regularly & you won't find a nicer guy to deal with.

Any other comments on the benefits (or lack of) of the networked cables?

>the advantage of networked cable(s) are much better resolution, detail, extended highs/lows, depth and soundstage.<

This is an opinion not a fact.

Cables are system and listener dependent.

Audiofeil is correct. Transparent uses a very simple in line filter approach, while MIT uses a more complex patented "out of the signal path" group of technologies. I heard some $100/pair cables that sound as good or better than some $6k plus cables...system matching and personal listening preferences dictate alot!