MIT and tubes

Carl, I use Transparent, which I have never had a chance to compare with the MIT, I am assuming that since Transparent was started by some of the guys from MIT that they are close in character. Have you been able to compare models from the same price range. If they sound anything like the Transparent I will have to agree with you on the dynamics. Phill, you should be a shock jock, it is your calling.

Last year, I compared my MIT 330 SG ($750) to the most recent version of Transparent Reference ($2100) (RCA versions only), and the Transparent was very laid back and bright, but also "fast" and relatively clean. I've never heard a system with a Transparent speaker cable, or interconnect in it, that was NOT either of these things. In saying this, I'm relating my experience, and don't mean to diminish yours. The Transparent Reference I tried was well broken in, but still in new condition. It was both less dynamic and less natural sounding than even a much less costly Cardas Neutral Reference RCA, that I also tried at that time................................If it works best in your system, I have no problem with that. One thing I found, was that when I got acoustic treatments, the MIT was neutral and full, where before the Transparent was neutral with very little acoustic treatment, but also still not nearly as "full" sounding. I've not heard the top of the line Transparent Reference XL, but unless it is radically better than the Reference (and I mean unbelievably so), I don't see it competing with 350 EVO, unless the system in which it is indserted, is as about as dark as midnight on Pluto...and you also prefer not to hear the full dynamic envelope. Personally, I would chose the much less costly HT ProSilway 2 over Transparent Reference, since it had an even more extended treble, and a much more powerful bass, while retaining a midrange which was "missing in action". That is, if I wanted to get that kind of lifeless midrange, and give up the dynamics of the better MIT cables, which I don't. This is just me, Bob Harley (until recently), and perhaps a legion of others who apparently ignore this site.

From what I have been told, even by my dealer, you shouldn't go for the ref. stuff unless you have nothing but ref. equipment thru the whole system. Especially the source or it will show the weakness of anything there. He wouldn't even let me upgrade to ultra yet, now there has to be something there when a dealer will not take your money.I have tried this in a friends system that had the entry level cables and they worked better in his system then my higher models.This idea is even stated in last years rec. components when they said the ref. speaker cable was not to even be considered unless everything else was taken care of. I have not had any problems with it being bright, but when I changed to this cable I did the whole system not just one interconnect.I will have to convince a friend to come compare his MIT with mine.

There's nothing at all wrong with my source, it is reference quality. Yes, I've heard those same sentiments about Transparent. Perhaps the interconnect is just really bright, and the speaker cable is really dark. But then, that wouldn't explain another system I heard also to be very bright, and it had Ultra as both the speaker cable, and interconnect, and one of his sources was also reference quality. I just think MIT is much better. Besides, Transparent uses a series resistor in their networks (perhaps to achieve the same DC resistance over different run lengths of cable), and MIT uses nothing at all in series, except the wire. I think that's a better approach.

***This is just me, Bob Harley (until recently), and perhaps a legion of others who apparently ignore this site.*** I don't think so! You appear to be the one of the few people using MIT. There's a sucker born every minute, but apparently most aren't stupid enough to buy MIT. BTW, Harley probably got his MITs for free. Did you?