How do MIT and Transparent cables differ?

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

Hiya Wpines-

as above, the advantage of networked cable(s) are much better resolution, detail, extended highs/lows, depth and soundstage. Find a local dealer and audition soon! The Transparent Cable is outstanding, but you will pay for it...

>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!

Actually the founders of Transparent Audio broke away from MIT.

Their networks differ mainly in bandwidth. TA believes in limiting it, largely to the audible range including some overtones, while MIT believes in extending it as far as possible. Both are careful with component impedance matching and despite their diametrically opposed philosophies can perform beautifully. In the right system.

So I must agree with Audiofeil.

That said, I also found that several non-networked cables worked better in my system with my ears. So networks, like materials, geometry, dielectrics, shielding, terminations etc. of the same caliber are not necessarily an inherent advantage but must be evaluated with the gestalt of the cable.

And any component is best evaluated with the gestalt of your system.