MIT Love 'em or Hate 'em

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.

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?

Anyone else here find it strange that this unclekrusty or unklecrusty(he has used both here in this same thread)@aol.com, has never posted here before. His e-mail address is bogus as well. unclecrusty I stand by my posts. Your droll dogma is usless and you are a fool. Again you spout off and don't have a clue as to what you are talking about.If you have not listened to the MIT cables, shut the hell up!

As for you bashing my system,unclekrusty, you prove once again just how ignorant you are on this topic.I never made a claim that my gear was the high dollar, state of the art, fashionable esoterica, that seems to impress you. You have no idea what my pre amp sounds like.Your statement about my amp is just as stupid and if you had paid attention you would have seen that SP9 is not stock, but a one of a kind unit that I have updated myself. If you knew anything about MIT cables you would know that not all of my MIT cables have the "box" you fear so much.

My system is not listed here for critique by the rude and the simple ,it's for people who read my posts to see if we are at all on the same page. I am happy to not be on the same page with you crusty(whoever or whatever you are)! I find it amusing that you seem to think you are the oracle of HiFi knowledge, and that the people at ARC, Dave Wilson, and Bruce Brisson, among others are so ridiculous and stupid. It's easy to hide behind a phoney e-mail address and take shots at me. I am a regestered AudioGon member and if you like you can e-mail me directly and I will be happy to tell you what I really think.