I'm studying MIT cables

Is there a white paper or some reasonable explanation of what those MIT boxes are trying to do, without getting overly technical? I would love to understand this better also.

My understanding from having read some of the MIT literature a while back is that in general more poles are better, similar to how more bands on a graphic equalizer is better, ie each has to deal with less bandwidth. How many is enough or how much better? I haven't a clue.

FWIW I like my inexpensive Terminator 2 and 3 ICs a lot. I prefer the midrange energy and top to bottom coherency of my DNM Reson ICs over the MITs in my main system generally however.

I'll admit to being a speaker cable skeptic, but at most the "box" is applying some type of filter to "color" the sound in a particular way (i.e. think Flowmaster mufflers where they all have a characteristic sound).

In theory, no cable is the best cable so I'm not sure what science they could possibly use to suggest that a powered "box" could result in an unaltered signal.

Open up a box and see what's really inside.

Sometimes moving up in a line does not get you the results you expect....for whatever reason. That was the case for me, I used many varieties of MIT and found the most enjoyable in my system was the 330 and 750 series.

As I moved up I found the sound either too detailed, or lacking coherency (which is the marketing mantra for MIT). I still use the terminator series in one HT system and 750's in another. But I have stopped chasing them in my 2 channel system.

As for the poles and input impedance and settings and the several dozen innovations over the years I can't explain and really don't have the appetite to try and figure out. I was using MIT before they had networks but after listening to other lines that sound better to me I have moved on. Not to mention they are über expensive! However, that's just me...YMMV.