MIT Love 'em or Hate 'em

I think it's sad and unfortunate to see people gang up on contrarian voices in these forums. Some of the best participants have been driven from these ranks over the years. Too little tolerance for diversity and for challenging assumptions, it seems to me.

Drubin, true. I've also lost people I considered interesting and sometimes as friends this way, but the gentleman in question had a manner, apart from peddling often halftruths and mere assumtions as were they cast in stone, which often was plainly an insult to the intelligence and savvyness of his peers here. The assumtions were hardly challenging, we've been through all that many times before, that, together with his bearing, and a kind of assuredness, where true knowledge in this field would have at least allowed a bit of doubt, were indeeed hard to bear. Some tried to get into serious conversation with him, even I liked some of what he had to say and posted accordingly, but basically he just repeated his mantra, enriched with quite a bit of sarcasm, which must been insulting to quite a few here. Frankly, it was the first time here on A. that I also thought "good riddance", because his criticisms were not particularly constructive, I found.

I agree with Drubin. The audiophile universe is quite small to begin with and to excommunicate someone for a differing opinion will virtually insure that our small group remains that way. It's possible that some A'goners like it that way -- maybe they like being a big fish in an every shrinking pond. Maxgain, I find your comments regarding Kervorkian particularly offensive.

Regarding, MIT cables, I've owned two interconnects and both failed within 2 years of use. Based upon my particular experience, I question their quality control. To their credit, MIT promptly replaced both interconnects. Soundwise they were very good.

Drubin: There is no room for that milk-toast, tree-hugging, NPR attitude around here! What are you thinking? Read the title to this thread. It's about LOVE and HATE. None of that Luke warm BS.

And good friend Detlof, if we are going to kick folks out for peddling half-truths as gospel around here we all better get packing! (hehehe)

I fear if that is the new standard I have to find a new forum to BS on. Does anybody know what forum Jack Kavorkian and Theadore Kozinsky use?

Sincerely
I remain,

Sorry to chime in so late, but I am bewildered -- not only at WHAT uncle said, but at how (s)he expressed it. The latter, IMO, raised the controversy.

But the originality of what uncle said, with all due respect, floored me.
Unless I'm mistaken, the main jist in uncle's MIT/wire related epistles was:
*a good wire is one that carries signals as unsullied as possible, esp. when the components being connected are very good sonic performers;
*wires with "boxes" introduce alter (introducing filtering?) the signal they are transmitting and that is no good -- unless the point pursued is to kmowingly USE wire to tune a given system;
*A well-matched system usually performs better than one that is not;

Excuse me, but what else is new or, rather, no kidding!

*MIT cable has boxes (some models do, anyway) so it is introducing filtering where it shouldn't -- unles you want to "tune" the system, as above;
*Some people will be taken by gobbledegook (marketing, I suppose)and spend money -- boxes on wires constitute a case of such gobbledegook;

Well, that may be matter of necessity (see Detlof above with Spectral -- I have been in a similar boat), or one of taste: "ear & gear". Again, anything new?

Not doubting uncle's experience -- but we hardly enjoyed it here this time! Respectful cheers