What is the difference between MIT &Transparent?

mit contracted transparent to make there cables until they could aquire the equipment to make the cables they designed themselves.
then mit starting making their own cables and transparent starting selling their own.(look closely through the transparent mesh cover, the cable is remarkably similiar to that of mit)
the mit cables have a wider or less filtered/limited frequency response, then the transparent does.
(more air around instruments)
i like the way both sound in the right systems, but after you listen for a while, the transparent always seems to be missing something or veil sounding.
when i listen to music i really know, parts that are easily heard on other cables is missing or very difficult to distinguish with the transparent.
(try for yourself, trust your own ears).

MIT is a school that produces engineers and quant-jock financial types. They are dense but not transparent (think Bose).

It was Karen Sumner who marketed Bruce Brisson's cables and that set up called itself "Transparent Audio Marketing " or something like that, if I recall correctly. Later the two broke up and he marketed his stuff by himself, whereas KS produced her own brand under the "Transparent" name, she had her rights on. I've never compared the two brands directly. Cheers,