MIT Love 'em or Hate 'em

I had to return to this thread seeing how it was still going since I left it 160 posts ago. I hate to say this after so much deliberation and consternation but none of this really matters if we just like (or don't) what we hear. It seems that simple to me. However some of the posts made for good reading. Arthur

!!!!!!!!Max was right FUR FLEW,fur really did fly!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I knew it would! Then I couldn't stay out of the fray.

I just arrived, and I already miss UncleKrusty. I believe all he was saying is that too often people are disregarding the flaws of their box components, while attempting to sooth the flaws with expensive wires.

That's not to say magic boxes aren't useful. I have no doubt MIT cables can help a system overrun with ear- splitting nasties caused by poor system matching. It has been brought up that MIT got a start in reaction to the terrible solid state amps around then.

Wire unbelievers, through default, are constantly seeking out better electronics. In response, active components are being changed for the better at an accelerating pace. For instance, relatively low cost class D amps are beginning to push older technology class AB amps to the brink of extinction. By the way, class D modules have arrived through the efforts of science minded people. ;)

Like UncleKrusty, I adhere to the component upgrade path. While friends have been busy tweaking their systems with expensive mods and wires, I have merely inserted in line the latest and greatest new electronics to go with my fabulous speakers.

Everyone I know, MIT users included, agree, my system is scintillating. I still have my old Kimbers.

When it comes to analog interconnects, I'm with Muralman1. I do a bypass test with a couple of IC's under audition placed in the tape loops (signal just goes around through the interconnect and right back into the preamp, nothing else is inserted in the loop), and the one that least changes the sound compared with the straight feed wins. (As of now, and within my budget, that means van den Hul The First Ultimate and The Second carbon conductor models.) Having gotten that out of the way, I can evaluate the sound of my components and recordings more objectively, and don't think of altering the wires to suit. It always amazes me that interconnects routinely get reviewed without this simple and quite objective test being made. On the other hand speaker cables and digital cables are more system-interdependent (compared to short runs of interconnect placed between components having normal range I/O impedances anyway), and some subjective trading-off of virtues and vices based on personal sonic priorities is pretty much inevitable. (None of the preceding is meant to address MIT or other cables with boxes on them one way or the other - or what Uncle Krusty might have been saying...)