MIT vs Audioquest....

Looking for opinion on the MIT Shotgun s3 versus the equivalent line from Audioquest. I have been exceptionally pleased with Doug's cables, but want opinions on these other offerings. I am looking to get a bit more out of the gear I have on hand as I am pretty pleased with what I have on hand at the moment.

Comments

  • BlueFoxBlueFox Posts: 8,967
    Speaker, interconnect, or both?

    I have never tried Audioquest, but I did replace MIT S1.3 XLRs with Shunyata Zitron Anaconda ICs in the stereo. The Shunyata is more open, with better imaging, but that was a few years ago, and I don't keep detailed notes as does Ray.

    I have to admit that I did like not having cables with boxes dangling. I always felt that was putting stress on the connectors. Of course, they are now dangling in the HT. :)

  • txcoastal1txcoastal1 Posts: 7,514
    Speaker cables or interconnects?
  • nooshinjohnnooshinjohn Posts: 15,924
    Both. Sorry, I should have made that clear.
  • vmaxervmaxer Posts: 3,705
    Only have experience with the MIT's, not much help here.... :)
  • mhardy6647mhardy6647 Posts: 13,914
    edited June 11
    Interesting question! It would be interesting to hear a qualitative (subjective) comparison of the effect on the sound of one brand of cables (I/C or speaker) compared to the other, with all other components, room, and source material held constant. Just a listener's opinion, you know? No need to get into ****-flinging ;) just "well, this one sounded warm to me, and that one sounded bright". That sort of thing.

    I love to compare stuff -- but the price of admission dissuades me from a taste test of cables of this calibre. :neutral:
  • Toolfan66Toolfan66 Posts: 13,035
    What line of Audioquest would be in line of MIT Shotgun S3's would be my question?

    My 2 Channel system is complete with MIT S3, I have used Audioquest cables in the past (lower end) with good results but never the entire system..

    After the investment in MIT I have had a hard time wanting to put that kind of funds into trying a full line of another brand in that price range, I want to try it but that's a lot of money to put out for a comparison....
  • EmlynEmlyn Posts: 1,778
    Audioquest makes a wide range of good to outstanding straight forward conventional cables. Their DBS technology seems to work. The thing that sets MIT apart from others is the 3D qualities they add that I have not found elsewhere especially when the speaker cables and interconnects are the same line. Yes, I said add. When I switch out MIT speaker cables for Audioquest I find the dimensionality is diminished. I use MIT all around for everything these days. It is not a good idea to mix and match with MIT cables.
  • dromundsdromunds Posts: 5,664
    Emlyn: May I ask what are the differences in your experience in the steps between MIT S3 and MIT S2 and MIT S1? Subtle? More with IC's? Thanks?
  • msgmsg Posts: 2,897
    And what happens when you mix and match? Is it like division by zero?
  • EmlynEmlyn Posts: 1,778
    edited June 11
    The differences in the levels within the same MIT range are subtle in my opinion and mainly have to do with the punch of low frequencies. Their speaker cables seem to make the most difference and they are noticeable when mixed with other brand interconnects. Adding the MIT interconnects in the chain strengthens and complements, or adds to, the good aspects of the speaker cables. My recommendation is usually to use all MIT or all Audioquest. I also like Kimber Hero and 8TC speaker cables together.

    Years ago I did not like MIT speaker cables without MIT interconnects much when I used them with big SDA speakers. They made the speakers sound odd to me. When I put the cables together in the system they sounded much more cohesive.
  • mhardy6647mhardy6647 Posts: 13,914
    msg wrote: »
    And what happens when you mix and match? Is it like division by zero?

    It's like crossing the streams in Ghostbusters.

    GhostbustersdefeatingGozer.jpg
  • vmaxervmaxer Posts: 3,705
    Simple:

    Spend more.....


    GET MORE
  • lightman1lightman1 Posts: 8,051
    Won't make a difference, John.
  • motorstereomotorstereo Posts: 562
    No experience with MIT vs. Audioquest but I do know MIT's are a noticeable improvement over Mogami and Canare speaker wires and interconnects on my main sda rig.
  • tonybtonyb Posts: 27,218
    Kinda comparing apples and oranges John. AQ makes some nice cables, for all sorts of levels. I have never heard their top tier Oaks or Wels though. The ones I have heard sounded well balanced, top to bottom, but always seem to me anyway like they were missing something. Call it flesh, tone, separation of instruments on a stage, can't put my finger on any one critique.

    Price to price, all things even, I'd take the MIT all day though.

    Kimber 8TC's are also a wonderful cable to compete with AQ. Too many brands out there though to say which is better for anyone. I do like MIT, AZ, Analysis Plus, Wireworld as mid priced champs in their respected categories. Only you can decide which is to your liking.
  • motorhead43026motorhead43026 Posts: 1,801
    lightman1 wrote: »
    Won't make a difference, John.

    I agree, just like amplifiers all cables sound the same.
  • F1nutF1nut Posts: 37,360
    People prefer one or the other for their performance in their rig and that's how it should be because rigs, rooms and ears are all different. In my experience I've found MIT cables bring me closer to the music. I find them perfectly balanced from top to bottom and as Mark mentioned, they have a 3D quality that I've never found in other cables.
  • stones89stones89 Posts: 194
    John, with the level of your system there will be a significant difference that only you can solve by a lot of trial and error. I have extensive experience with many models of MIT. They have a definite profile, more on the musical side until you get up into the reference level and they become more on the resolving side. The upper levels are expensive! And intended for reference systems.

    The SG series which have been around a long time, gone through a lot of innovation, offer a unique presentation, I have gotten the same presentation as F1 describes. You have to hear it for yourself to determine if that is your cup of tea for long term enjoyment. I would try the cable company. I am also not a believer that your entire system has to be wired up with one cable brand, even network cables. Never worked for me and I have tried several looms from different brands. Too much of one flavor can be too much.

    I have never had audioquest in my system with the exception of the digital pro cable. Even though it is long in the tooth - it is still excellent.

    I would try one at a time, I always prefer MIT IC’s from source to preamp but never in the preamp to amp position. All my MIT is now in my home theather system.
  • tonybtonyb Posts: 27,218
    stones89 wrote: »
    I would try one at a time, I always prefer MIT IC’s from source to preamp but never in the preamp to amp position. .

    Interesting observation......mirrors my own experience with positioning. Also not a fan of one brand for the whole system. Trial and error is the name of the game.
  • polkfarmboypolkfarmboy Posts: 5,718
    Oracle! That's all you need, ac cables from the Oracle line are great .... but nothing and I mean nothing I have tried can compare to a full setup of top of the line Oracle.

    Wireworld platinum eclipse did not sound as good with HD90 speaker cables as a cheaper pair Oracle 3.2 but on their own the platinum are better.
  • pitdogg2pitdogg2 Posts: 6,614
    stones89 wrote: »
    I would try one at a time, I always prefer MIT IC’s from source to preamp but never in the preamp to amp position. All my MIT is now in my home theather system.

    interesting could you expand on why ?

  • motorstereomotorstereo Posts: 562
    stones89 wrote: »

    I would try one at a time, I always prefer MIT IC’s from source to preamp but never in the preamp to amp position. All my MIT is now in my home theather system.

    Hmmm; I guess we all hear differently as that's where I prefer my SG's (pre to power). Most bang for the buck imo as all the sources benefit from these fine sounding cables.

  • F1nutF1nut Posts: 37,360
    The MIT cables definitely give better results as a complete system in my rigs.
  • rednedtugentrednedtugent Posts: 9,896
    As a data point, how long have you stayed with one "model" of MIT?
    F1nut wrote: »
    People prefer one or the other for their performance in their rig and that's how it should be because rigs, rooms and ears are all different. In my experience I've found MIT cables bring me closer to the music. I find them perfectly balanced from top to bottom and as Mark mentioned, they have a 3D quality that I've never found in other cables.

  • F1nutF1nut Posts: 37,360
    Well, I have different versions, but I've been using MIT cables for a long time.
  • mantismantis Posts: 14,558
    I think Audioquest is a far superior cable company compared to most offered out there. Not to mention there is a ton of snake oil companies that sell you cables that don't offer any real world benefits.
    The goal with any cable is to send given signal from A to B as clean as possible. There is no reason to try to enhance cable signal transfer. You want a pure signal that came from your source as best as possible and arrive at the Pre , Amp and speaker without taking anything from that signal or adding to it.
    With that in mind I suggest comparing the Shotgun S3 to the Audioquest Rocket series. The 44's or the 88's will be a fair compare without going crazy.
    Even with Audioquest, when you start getting into their very high end cables, you start to great lose costs benefits very quickly. In my personal experience with all things cables, you lose the price to performance early. Most of these higher end well respected cable companies built their budget stuff based off their high end stuff so you can get a very high quality cable in the lower end models and save a ton of cash to spend on better amps speakers room treatments etc that will greatly benefit your system more so then buying very high end cables.
    Finding the right level of cable for your given system is always a challenge. You also don't want to short change yourself and buy cables that don't do your system justice.
    I assume you have done your homework and found this level of cables for your given system is where it needs to be.
    If you have the ability to purchase both sets of cables and shoot them out, that would really tell you what works in your system for you. I will tell you not to bother and go with the Rocket 44's and call it a day. But where is the fun in that???
    As suggest above, I also suggest doing the entire signal chain in either MIT or Audioquest so you get the full signal path . This way you will get to experience the way both companies get the job done.
  • polkfarmboypolkfarmboy Posts: 5,718
    Dan the point of high end cables as such is that you have done everything, room gear , speakers and you want to fine tune. When all that's out of the way then good cables turn a high end rig into a .... Super high end rig ? Wireworld are the budget high end King. MIT Oracle are the reference standard, I don't care what they mess with because you get this really 3D holographic sound stage and it may be exaggerated a little or it may be the way a signal is supposed to sound, in any case its my favorite ridiculous money cables to listen to!
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!