Monster speaker cables 2.2s

When I first started out, I used Monster cables about 40+ years ago.  For a first cable, they are fine.

People who think wire is system dependent have only heard inferior wire. Which admittedly is hard not to do, being as most of what's out there is inferior wire. You know its inferior when it sounds different in different systems. Same goes for most components, of course. This really gets to be a problem when one piece of crap leads to buying another piece of crap meant to balance out the shortcomings of the first piece of crap. The people who promote this incredible waste of time and money call it system matching. Its not system matching. Its covering up one problem with another. No wonder these people never can find happiness.

Always buy the best component you can find within your budget. Even if it does nothing to cover up or balance out the other inferior stuff you already have. Then do the same with the next one. And the one after that. Eventually, instead of a patchwork pile of band-aids you have yourself a system.

Always remember, good wire is good wire. It won't matter what system you put it in, it will sound good. Wire that is "system dependent" is by definition not good wire. Keep looking.

The 2.2 and 2.4's came out around 30 years ago, and were Monster's first really nice sounding so called, audiophile grade loudspeaker cables. They had a network on each end of each cable, and were in part designed by a guy named Damion (who's last name escapes me) with the help of Bruce Brisson of MIT fame if memory serves. The networks were similar to what he used on his MIT cables. As mofimadness mentioned in his above post, if you only have a single network on one end of each loudspeaker cable, something is radically wrong.

People who think wire is system dependent have only heard inferior wire.

LOL

Wire that is "system dependent" is by definition not good wire.

 ROTFL

@mofimadness 

haha agree