MIT Love 'em or Hate 'em

unclekrusty he da man...he sure knows what he's talking about, at least as far as my pair of ears go!

Well Uncle, we're certainly in agreement on electronics and speakers!

Aloha

Tried several other highly regarded cables with my system and went back to MIT. What I hear that sets the MIT apart from the other cables is the layering of soundstage and incredibly real and focused image. To me it is night and day. I would like to know if any MIT supporters agree and how MIT opponents can possibly disagree. And how is equalization and/or filtering even relevant?

I had several mid level MIT ICs a few years ago before they had different tube/solid state matched cables. They had a signature sound, the thinking of MIT then was other cables produced un-natural emphasis of treble region and one of the jobs of network box was to correct this imbalance. That is why you often saw MIT used with highly detailed SS gear like Spectral, also helped digital playback
treble hardness before good sounding upsampling CDPs and DACs were available.

I have since sold my MIT cables and gone with AZ and Analysis Plus, one of the main reasons was Bel Canto Dac produced a smooth natural treble response, and I didn't need the MIT treble sound anymore and wanted to open up treble extension. I can understand where many would find the MIT sound very relaxing and musical depending on system it was used in.

There used to be big MIT fan here named Carl Ebbers who would constantly get in heated debates over many topics here, who remembers him?

I remember and miss Carl.