MIT Love 'em or Hate 'em


Has anyone else noticed that audio stores that carry MIT think there is no better cable type and stores that don't carry MIT all think they are terrible. Is this sour grapes or is something else going on here?
bundy
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?
Crusty, I know what you mean - I had a Defy I long ago, but with custom transformers (from Jadis too, during their development of Mk IV's that turned out too be expensive for production, so I snarfed it up).

But I've got something for ya, now step a little closer, now lean over, carefully, now ready...wire IS a filter, so is an amp, they are all "components".

How is an amp different from a piece of wire in your mind? In terms of matter, of function, of technological complexity, in how it effects the system, any of those, any I've forgotten? For your choice, tell me what is the basis of your opinion and its scientific methodological foundation. Is technology application determitive of resultant subjective experience?

Thank you.

(Maybe someone would like to warn him...)

PS Not an MIT man myself, but does sound musical in some systems. Some people who have MIT in there truly become involved with the music, so hard to knock it in those situations.
Oh yea, I had the Jadis matched with a CAT too - and NBS Pro series wires which were very important. I don't know whether they were filtered with more appendages of rearranged matter (a "box") or were just the rearranged matter of heated, extruded metal covered by a dialectric of rearranged matter. In the end - in the end after the experiment of listening - did it matter?