Transparent originally distributed MIT until they figured that they could make a better product (or was it high profit?). Since MIT started out the use of "tuning networks", they are perceived as the primary company utilizing this concept. If Transparent were larger, I think you'd find similar opinions expressed about them. Through trial and error, we find what charateristics of an audio system are most important to us. Don't get caught up into the circus of who (magazine or individual) is saying what about a particular product. There will always be a better product, whether for more or less money, that will eventually replace the "preferred" component. Regrettably, we usually have to buy and live with products to determine their worth to us within the context of our system and room. Then again, especially with audio, the real joy is in the journey (for most of us), not the final destination. This forum is intended to assist other audiophiles through recommendations based on personal experience. Ultimately, use your own ears to find what you like. Sorry for the rambling.
MIT bashed, not Transparent, why?
First off, no name calling. Lets remember everybody hears things different but why is it that you see a lot of people downing MIT and not Transparent. (I have Transparent by the way)They are both "network" designed cables that are very expensive. I haven't tried the MIT in my system yet but I have heard it in demos that didn't sound bad.
- ...
- 18 posts total
- 18 posts total