Quote Originally Posted by nightflier
Well then let's discuss the construction of those cables. I really want to know from some of you who know more about this, what can possibly cost $35K in a cable. Some of you have worked in manufacture, are engineers, and have years more experience than I have in audio. Certainly someone can better explain what is going on here.

Basically, I don't agree that we can't know what went into them because we don't work at MIT. It's just a cable with some box hanging off of them. Don't many other manufacturers have a similar configuration? I believe Mapleshade assisted in the construction of the Omega Mikro Planar Analog Ebony. At a cool $2900, it's not chump change, but I've read that it is very well engineered, years of research went into them, and the company claims it will compete with MIT's best. So I ask, if a small outfit can design, manufacture, and distribute it for $2.8K, why can't a big company like MIT, with its vast resources and years of research, not do it for a smidgen less than $35K? Why not for a more respectable $5K? Is it simply that they already have a $5K cable?
Now we're getting somewhere interesting: asking exactly what is in the box and how much R&D was done to warrant the $35K price tag is something that a potential buyer should ask (assuming he cares)...

However we still have some issues:

When you ask "Don't many other manufacturers have a similar configuration?".... the answer is 'yes' assuming that by similar configuration you mean "just a cable with some box hanging off of them"... A Hyundai is just a pile of metal with some rubber tires, as is a Bentley, so they could be deemed to be the same configuration as well...

Here's the real answer of what's in the box according to MIT

FAQs about MIT Interfaces
What's in the box? For over 20 years Bruce Brisson has been researching precisely what the function of a cable is. Simply put, a cable's job is to deliver the signal with frequency, amplitude and phase intact with no distortions of these critical relationships. After years of experimentation and receiving patents on sophisticated cable geometries, he concluded that only after applying network technology would he be able to accomplish that goal.

Inside the box is a series of complex networks comprised of passive components aimed at improving the cable's linearity. The result is easily heard as better bass, improved imaging and focus and more open highs.

Is it a crossover? No. The networks are designed to store and release current and voltage in proper relationships, but do not function as a filter. The cable networks are wired in parallel and do not impair any signal flow; thus, your components are directly connected with high quality materials.
Useful, right?

But let me ask you this: if MIT cracked open the box and justified the cost to you (including a reasonable profit margin), would you consider it to be any less 'ridiculous' an expenditure?

I actually had a similar debate on value with two writers from The Absolute Sound on their website, and they made it clear that they judge value based on "show me better (or presumably the same) for less" and not based on materials cost... So as long as nothing sounds better or the same as the MIT for less, then they consider it good value for money (regardless of how much it cost in materials and R&D).... Their argument being that they are all about sound quality and that the free market is what will prevent manufacturers from achieving ridiculous profit margins... Since any competitor can decide to produce a better cable than MIT for less and take MIT's customers (assuming MIT is making ridiculous profit margins)... That is how brands like Emotiva, Axiom, Oppo, Odyssey Audio, etc operate, isn't it? They believe they can make better products for less and clearly many consumers agree with them...