# Is Monster Interlink 400 MKII that bad?



## bcwang

Seems like looking around on this board, there have been many comments on the interlink 400 mkII being regarded as a terrible cable. Most people mention it as their worst cable, even sometimes regarded as worse than stock cables.

 Is this cable really that bad? Does that mean the models below this one (300, 250, 200, 100, jr) are even worse, which would make them extremely bad? Or is it that the 400 is even worse than all the ones below it? 

 Do you people who feel it is bad give it a proper break-in period and perform a fair comparison? I know monster is overpriced but I would hope they wouldn't release their "best" low cost cable as being worse than their lower line or even stock $1 cables that come with a player.

 Is there any cable you could say the 400 is better than?


----------



## markl

Yes, it's that bad. It won't harm the sound, but it won't help either.

 IMO, cables under $50 (at least the one I've heard) are a waste of $$. When you break the $100 mark, cables start to become more effective, but you are still chasing that last 10% of performance from your system, so spending $250 to get that level of improvement (very significant in terms of what a cable can actually do), may still be disapointing given the level of cash you had to spend to get it.

 Cables are not a band-aid on a bad system, nor should they be used as tone controls. Cable-rolling should be done when you are already happy with your system, not when you are trying to "fix" something. if something's wrong with your component, upgrade that component, not your ICs.

 Mark


----------



## drewski

I don't think they're all that bad if used in the right application. Fairly neutral, slightly rolled off the highs, and soundstage is OK for a cable in this price range. I think they're a great fit for many receivers because most home theatre receivers tend to be a bit on the bright side and these tame the brightness. Yes, finding the perfect source and amplification is much more ideal, but that's not how it works out most of the time, so sometimes a cable "tweak" is the answer. If I was looking at a cheap sub $50 cable, I definitely would consider these (I actually do use these on my tuner, satellite, and vcr).


----------



## David D.

I am a great Monster-Fan for some 10 years and have some experience with them (up from the 200 to the M1000i I curently own). 
 NO the Interlink 400 isn't at all that bad as some people say, but to be honest it's not Monster's most sucsessfull cable either.
 You would do much better with the Interlink 500 - it's a pretty big step up, believe it or not. 
 The 200, 300 could be good for tape decks or tuners and casual listening, altough the minimum I ever used (and can recommend)is the Interlink 500. A next big step up the line would be the Reference 2 i used for some years. And the next improvement is the M 1000i if your front end is of very high quality!
 And what markl said: "It won't harm the sound, but it won't help either." is actually a compliment (I am sure he didn't mean it that way). Cables arent supossed to make the sound better. It's an old "rule": "Garbage in - garbage out."
 Best regards!


----------



## Hirsch

My feelings from awhile ago are posted here.


----------



## markl

Quote:


 And what markl said: "It won't harm the sound, but it won't help either." is actually a compliment (I am sure he didn't mean it that way). Cables arent supossed to make the sound better. It's an old "rule": "Garbage in - garbage out." 
 

I agree that cables are supposed to get out of the way of the signal and act as if they weren't there at all. What I was saying was that to my ears, the differences between the stock RCAs that came with your component and the low-end Monsters is almost non-existent. That is, they aren't any more transparent than stock.

 Mark


----------



## bcwang

Hirsch,

 I think it was that thread of yours where I got the idea the 400 is even worse than stock cables. You gave some pretty strong opinion about them there. If it's just rolled off highs, I guess that I can deal with, but if the cables actually give muddy undefined bass, then it seems something better would help out any system. By the way, did you give them a good burn in time, I'm still wondering how they could be worse than stock cables or those radio shack ones.

 David D,
 What's the interlink 500? I've never heard of that, and the one up from the 400 that I know of is the Reference 2. Of course then there's the Z and M series and it just gets too confusing which is supposed to be better, low end M series, high end standard series, Z better than M, thx series, too many choices.


----------



## SuperGiraffe

Hmmmm . . . this topic is something that has interested me for a long time, especially (1) as my main system (with the 5.1 SACD and separate pre/pro and power amps) uses many many cables; (2) I'd rather spend less money than more; and (3) Monster Cables are just so damn easy to find. 

 Back when I first began this audio stuff, back in high school, say in 1992, I bought some Monster Interlink 300. I think it was about $25 for a 3/4 meter length, but I'm not sure of this. To me they sounded pretty good -- better than either stock or the Radio Shack gold -- and I kept them, despite their nasty tighter-than-tight connections. I still have them, even though they aren't in my current setup (the short length -- it was all I could afford!). They are warm, full-bodied, and yet detailed in tone. Additionally, they are very well-made, with extremely clean soldering on the connections. Skip to the near present day (actually a couple of years ago, now, and forget about the awful Interlink 250 I still can't believe I spent money on). After reading a pretty good review of the current Interlink 300 mkII in What HiFi, I bought some for hooking up the minidisc. Listened. Seemed ok. Nothing special, though. Let them "break in" for a while. Then, for the fun of it, I compared them to the original, older Interlink 300 that I had. I found I much preferred the original. It just had a more cohesive, full-bodied sound, while the new version seemed poorly integrated, bright in the upper mids, and light down low. Then I checked the build quality -- the new versions have very sloppy and haphazard soldering, with much of the dielectric melted and damaged. To make a long story short, I found I much preferred the older version of the Interlink 300, and find the new one to be a mediocre performer at best. 

 However, the story doesn't end here. I was at J&R one day fairly recently, and saw the Monster Interlink CD, supposedly designed specifically for reproduction of digital sources. It was cheap ($25 for a meter, at the time), and I needed a single 2 meter length of interconnect cable for the center channel from the processor to the amp, so I figured what the hell. After getting it home and letting curiosity get the best of me, I compared the Interlink CD to both versions of the Interlink 300 on the CD player. To my ears, it was indistinguishable from the older version of the 300! It sounded good, and, at $25 for a meter pair (I paid more for the 2 meter, of course, but have forgotten exactly how much), was a relative bargain. Unfortunately, when I unscrewed the connector covers, it had the same shoddy construction of the newer mkII version of the 300. Oh well . . . but still, if you can find this cable, I recommend it as a cheap, good sounding shielded cable.

 I currently use M-850i for my surround channels, and I find that cable to be excessively warm and lacking in midrange detail. However, it seems well-shielded, and should hopefully not add any noise to my system. Not a terrible cable, but not what I want for my front soundstage (or so I decided after having them in the front soundtage for a while). For the front end, I currently use WireWorld Equinox III+ from SACD to Processor and from Processor to Power Amp. I like it better than any of the Monster products I have had.

 So, to sum it all up, I've never heard the Interlink 400, like the old version of the 300, hated the 250, dislike the current 300, like the Interlink CD, am lukewarm about the M-850i, and have been completely satisfied with the WireWorld Equinox III+. I also have Nordost Blue Heaven for the headphone setup, and I like it, but that is a whole other story . . . .


----------



## David D.

The Monster Interlink 500 was the bigger and more sucsessfull brother of the Interlink 400. Finding them second hand may be a bargain... As I said they were a heck of a lot better then the I 400. I have used the Interlink CD too but found it inferior to the I 500.
 With the newer smaller M series cables I have no experience. I contacted Monster Co. recently and asked about the Z top model and M1000i cables. Same stuff but the Z has an nylon outer sheath - so stick with the well known M1000i. Monster cables are sonically more on the warmer, melower side what I personaly like about them. But the M1000i is of another Caliber: a very serious contender and a cable for the Connossieur.
 To sum things togheter:
 1. Interlink 500 (good but perhaps hard to fid)
 2. Reference 2 (better- go for it)
 3. M1000i (The Best Monster offers- excluding the outrageously expensive Retro Sigma series, they will last many upgrades if you can afford them- my choice!)
 Receantly I've seen 1meter pair of M1000 on www.usedcable.com for $99.
 That's all I can recommend. Let your wallet decide for you, don't complicate things further for yourself. 
 Cheers!


----------



## Audio-Me

Yes they suck very much as does the rest of their audio cables (I like their S-Video cables though). They introduce grain on top of the grain that comes from the crappy gear you would use it with. It intensifies weaknesses in your system, especially glare and grunge.

 There are good cables that you can get for under $50, I'll leave you to find out for yourself if interested. Hint, stay away from new/latest stuff.


----------



## David D.

Audio&Me wrote: "Yes they suck..."
 What a fine way with words. If someone is refined with his Audio as with words then his opinion doesn't mean... well, that says it all. No more comment needed...


----------



## markl

I use a lot of the Monster Z-Series stuff on my HT gear. Yes, Z-Series is essentially the same as M-Series, but available in big chain stores. The Z-Series cable TV cables are great. I use Z-Series component video from my Kenwood Sovereign 5700 DVD player with Faroudja chip set to my Sony WEGA TV. Picture quality is fantastic. Even as audio cables, the Z-Series stuff is competent, but IMO, doesn't stick out from its competition in the $100-$150 range.

 Mark


----------

