MIT Tmax Super Speaker Modules

***My apologies if this appears as a duplicate posting***

Through a random search on eBay for MIT products, I found and purchased these Music Interface Technologies (MIT) Super Speaker Modules. The set was $100USD shipped, so I took a chance. Note that these are directional, in that, one pair is labeled 'Amp', and the other pair labeled 'Speaker', so they should be connected accordingly.
They require using MIT iconn connectors on the ends of the module wires, so I got a pair of spades for the amp end, and banana plugs for the speaker end. These basically screw on to the threaded module tips.
The modules are connected between amp and speaker via RG59 coaxial cable, so I went with Belden 1505A RF cables from Blue Jeans Cable. You can see my previous speaker cables on the floor - 12AWG Monoprice copper strand cables :o
So the is improved B) There's more air around the instruments, and I can pick-up more nuances of the player's technique - strumming, picking, bows across strings. Decays of cymbals and strings last longer. Everything is a bit crisper. [My wife used the term 'crisper' as well without me even saying it.]

I have to say, for the money spent - $100 for the modules, $65 for the iconn connectors, and $41 for the cables - it's a good investment. And it gives me a taste of the how the upper-echelon MIT speaker cables with more articulation points must sound. I confess...although I understand the theory of articulation points, I don't understand how it can be designed and built into those little black boxes. Whether I understand the physics or not, I can say that my ears understand, and it sounds better to them :) The modules in this system have 4 articulation points, but the Shotgun and higher MIT speaker system cables have a couple dozen articulation points :o

Other equipment used: Logitech SBT -> Peachtree Audio novaPre hybrid w/DAC -> Eastern Electric MiniMax BBA -> McCormack DNA-125 -> Infinity RSIIIa speakers

Color me impressed...or enlightened.


  • ClipdatClipdat Posts: 1,474
    edited February 5
    What do they do exactly? Convert speaker cables to coaxial?

    Edit: Sorry, der, I can't read.
    Alan_r wrote: »
    My passion is for the music, my hobby is how I listen to it.
  • tonybtonyb Posts: 28,359
    [quote="jdjohn;d-180557Color me impressed...or enlightened.[/quote]

    Cross another one off the cables don't matter list. Glad they worked out for you.

    ERA D-5
    B&K 1403
    Cary Xciter dac
    Joule LA-100
    SVS SB-2000 SUB
    Sony 4k bdp
    Sony 4k 55 850c
    FX 500 surround
    Acoustic zen Satori SC's
    Pioneer elite vsx21
    Sonos-Cullen mod.
    Audio Metallurgy GA-0 digital
    PS Audio Quintet
    Analysis Plus crystal ovals
    Acoustic zen Matrix 2's IC
    Wireworld eclipse 7 Ic's
  • jdjohnjdjohn Posts: 247
    Ha, I wouldn't say I was on the 'cables don't matter' list, but rather the 'which are the right cables for me?' list. Everything in the chain makes a difference, but how MUCH of a difference, and at what price are the tricky bits.

    So much talk about different voicing for different cables, it's hard to know what to pick for your own system. In theory, MIT's articulation points run all of the voicing spectrum into one cable.

    I think these particular modules are probably meant to be used for long cable runs behind walls using coax in a HT setup. The remaining few feet between wall and amp take a module, and then at the other end between wall and speakers a module is used. I guess other long-cable-run solutions took hold, so these were discontinued.

    Anyway, after more A/B testing, I still prefer these modules connected via coax compared to the 12AWG copper-stranded Monoprice cables I had been using. I would compare it to drinking from a fire-hose versus a garden-hose. The big, fat 12AWG cable sounds a bit brutal (yet strong) compared to the MIT modules with quality coax. The MIT module system sounds more controlled. Attacks and decays are more pronounced, and again, more air around everything. It does seem I have to add about 5% more gain compared to the plain copper in order to get similar volume levels, but that's fine since the end result is cleaner anyway.
  • ClipdatClipdat Posts: 1,474
    Interesting observations and review, thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts.

    I did a double take when I read this analogy, as it reminded me of something very similar I experienced when taking some listening notes on my old amplifier (fast garden hose spraying) vs. my new one (elegant lawn sprinkler).
    jdjohn wrote: »
    I would compare it to drinking from a fire-hose versus a garden-hose.

    Alan_r wrote: »
    My passion is for the music, my hobby is how I listen to it.
  • DaveHoDaveHo Posts: 1,657
    edited February 6
    The center conductor in a coax is typically 24 or 26 awg. How is using this as speaker cable a good idea? Not to mention the high capacitance of co-ax. The MIT product description is rather vague on how this works. Not bashing, just curious.
  • jdjohnjdjohn Posts: 247
    Good questions, Dave, to which I have no answer except a few specs to throw out there. I think it depends on the type of coax used. Here is the (discontinued) MIT OneWire that is supposed to be used with the system: You can read that their wire uses "gas injected dielectric that offers very low capacitance," but how 'low' they dont' say.

    Since their wire is unobtainium, I went with Belden 1505A coax with specs here: The core is 20AWG (still small, I know), but the capacitance is shown to be 16pF/ft (scroll down the page a bit), which indeed is pretty low. As with the MIT cable, Belden uses a gas-injected foam dielectric, which may be key for performance in this situation. I'm no EE, so can't say for sure, but that is a commonality between the two wires.

    Of course the rest of the magic is inside the requisite MIT boxes filled with MIT mojo.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!