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 . . . .
