Friday, April 07, 2006
Hi-end of yester-years
Back when I was still in infancy years of my audio journey, there were a few brands that I would dream of owning. By just listening to their names or reading their reviews would send me drooling for the rest of the day.
I still remember the years when MIT still reigned the hi-end arena with almost no competitors close by. Almost every hi-end magazines and hi-enders and hi-ender wannabes (the first I could think of is me) were raving nothing but MIT!
Then a couple of days ago, Eugene passed me a pair of Shotgun S3 RCA 1.5m to try out. For those of you who do not know, Shotgun used to be the top of the line series. Today, the series sits the third from top. Further reading reveals that the Shotgun today is equivalent, if not better, than the used-to-be-flagship Shotgun.
This disturbs me, either the cable technologies have improved leaps and bounds, or MIT has somehow lost the magic in producing jaw dropping cables. Well, to be fair, I have never listened to MIT back then until a couple of days ago.
So, how was the Shotgun S3 then? To me, nothing to shout about. If I were to spill the beans, sorry, I was not impressed. Having used AQ for most of my higher awareness level in my audio journey, most if not all, cables from others are not as balanced. Only a few could pass the test of time, and sound.
In the context of mostly Audio Research setups and combos, for pure copper cables, AQ comes across as the most balanced with no band shouting for attention. Of course for those who follows this blog closely, there are other brands that are able to steal my heart, but unable to attain/afford.
OK, I’ll cut the crap and drill straight in to the sound. From all the sources, MIT has the tendency to sound bloated and fat. From initial listening, I fully concur with that! The bass of MIT S3 comes in strong and bold, they firmly plant themselves and sounded slightly firmer than AQ Panther. Bongo drums have got slightly better bite than Panther in Mimi’s latest album.
At first listen, with Mimi’s and Lemon’s albums, vocals sounded lush and emotional. But something is amiss, which I could not attribute before I listened to Janice. Just after I switched to Janice, I realize that the edge of vocals was not as pronounced due to S3’s slightly nasalized mid. The breath is just not there!
Cheer’s vocal could sound dry, thin and harsh if the balance is not there. Further test with Cheer’s albums shows that S3’s mid is just recessed. For bright sounding setup and drier sounding SS, MIT could be the match in heaven as its nature would bring balance to the setup. However, with tube’s moist and luscious nature, S3 just would not cut it.
Oh, before I forget, the high is just, eh, recessed! Sorry to have used “recessed” so many times as I could not think of any better words to describe the nature of S3. Although I could not relate the similarity of high’s palates between MIT’s and Tranparent’s, the recessed highs nature seems the same for both!
Now I really wondered if the deeper stage I heard was due to S3’s recessed (again!) from mid and above band, drums would sound from deeper within the stage. The boldness might be due to its larger than life bass which floods my smallish room! With such excessive bottom, the timing and speed suffered. Track 11 of Cheer’s new album is a great track if you could play in a tuneful and snappy way. S3 just sounded sluggish.
BTW, the variable impedence does not bring magic for me, I settled at Low as moving it to Mid or High seems to rob the highs more.
With S3’s characteristic, no wonder many who dabbled in SS raved so much about MIT. For me, MIT is a NO NO for tube heads like me!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment