Just compared Monster M2.2 and ZU Mission speaker cables
My goal with purchasing the Monsters was to have some "cool looking" cables for a second vintage system I am planning. Possibly trying to replicate my first or second real stereo system. So I was not thinking of critical sound quality for a cable with this purchase. I got a great deal on a near perfect pair of authentic M2.2's with original case and extra spade connectors.
My test was in no way scientific. I hooked in one of the M2.2 on one speaker and compared to my ZU Mission cable on the other (ZU OMEN DEF-Luxman 595ase). Using various mono recordings. I WAS SHOCKED how much better (to me) the Monster's sounded. Same results when switching the cables to the opposite speakers, the sound followed the cable.
My initial thoughts:
1. The ZU Mission sounds as if everything is coming out of a single driver speaker The Monsters sound as if all three drivers of my speakers are actually producing sound.
2. The Zu's have a bit muddy mid range, low end bloatness compared to the Monsters. The Monsters has a more defined, but rounded-smooth highs. The Monster mids are a bit laid back compared to the ZU Cables.
3. The Monsters have deeper, more defined-tighter bass-low end. My Sub-Woofer was off for this comparison.
The Missions sound great by themselves. If not comparing, one would be quite happy (like i have been for the past three years or so). New Missions are aprox (today) $350 depending on length. The 8 ft Monsters (in today's dollars) would be approx $850 (give or take- I think the M2.2's retailed anywhere from $450-$$650 depending on length back in the late 90's-please correct me if I am wrong),
The M2.2's are HEAVY and HUGE. You have to really tighten the amplifiers speaker terminals since The Monster-Transformer weighs down the cable ends. Not as bad with my speakers since my Omen Def terminals are low and the Transformer thing can lay on the floor.
I'm going to install the M2.2s as my main system speaker cables for now. I was not expecting such a major difference for the better.
As I wrote a similar post on a couple of other audio boards to start a discussion, Monster cables are a "joke' to most audiophiles. However, I have to say some of their earlier, high end cables (like the M series) are quite good if you can snag them at a decent price. The Z3 series are the same cable without the thick sleeves and transformers. I believe the Z series was geared toward box retailers where the M and the Sigma series were geared toward specialty audio/HT stores (I could be wrong, that is what I have read).
I am quite happy with this purchase. Anyone else using the M2.2's or 2.4's?...thoughts?. The Sigma series look nice, however, even used they are quite expensive.
I have to ask why you’d hook the speaker cables up this way? I’ve never even heard of such a thing, but sounds like you got something out of it so whatever works I guess. |
@lowrider57 yes. I will. The cables are used. So I figure they already have been broken in unless they need RE broken in after some periods of non use. |
@jafant I'm going to install them after the holiday. I'll have time to do some serious listening and will report back. |
@jl35 I saw a couple of reviews. I cannot remember if Monster were big advertisers in the audiophile magazines or not. I was a Stereo Review Subscriber in the late 70's and 80's, but do not remember the ads. |
Many years ago, a dealer loaned my a pair of M 2.2s to audition. I have had many changes in equipment since so I don’t recall exactly what I was using at the time. I do recall that they came in a plastic case, were thick and heavy, and appeared to be well made. I really wanted to like them because of their looks but in my system they sounded soft and perhaps a little rolled off in the highs. They did seem quiet as if they had less noise but I ended up not buying them. I’d imagine they would complement certain other systems well. |
@jafant I do remember BOSE 901's were heavily advertised back in the day. I believe how I started getting those famous DAK catalogs was responding to a Stereo Review ad. Those were the days :) |
What a turn of events for Monster Cable. From 2004-2008, they were spending $6 million/year for naming rights for Candlestick Park (the home stadium at the time for both the San Francisco Giants and 49ers), renaming it to Monster Park. Ironically, many people thought it was named for monster.com, the employment job listing site. |
@mspot I would have thought Monster energy drink back then |
My first jaw dropping moment was back in the nineties when I bought my first pair of Monster Interlink Reference 2 interconnects, and replaced a pair of Straitwire. That's when I proved that cables do make a difference. I have had many other high priced brands since, but the Reference 2 still is one of my favorites. For some reason the M series just doesn't sound as good to me, although the design is similar. Never tried the speaker cables, except for their original transparent jacket one that they started with. Also loved their power conditioners. Too bad they ended up chasing the mass market, they were very innovative. |
@jafant Thanks for watching. The cables sound great |
After a month the Monster 2.2's sound AMAZING. I do believe cables actually need "re-broken in" if stored away for years. I feel the cables, although sounded great when I first hooked them up, has "smoothed" out a bit. Now, I'm not saying the 2.2's are up with the best high$$ cables, I have not compared. However, the ZU Mission cables are highly respected and (for my ears) hear a much nicer presentation. |
Monster M2.2 is a good audiophile Monster cable - learned something new. Thanks @aberyclark |
