Can someone give me some insight.

It seems to me that the Monster Cable has a more prominent upper midrange than the other cables. That does not mean that it "boosts" that range; it means that the Monster Cable is rolling off the rest of the frequency range AS COMPARED to the other cables.

What works for you depends on the characteristics of your system and your particular taste, so it could well be the case that the Monster Cable works best for you. Also, most choices do involve tradeoffs, so it is not likely that there is yet another cable that will be better in ALL respects, particularly where frequency balance is the subject characteristic.

You also need to consider that you are used to the Monster Cable's frequency balance so that is your current baseline. You may need to give the other cables more time so that you can become more comfortable with their sound. Once you become more at ease with their sound, you will be more likely to discover their other charms.

I use a good deal of Red Dawn and can tell you, BREAK IT IN...takes a good week of running a signal through it! will balance much better after break in.

All wires are not created equal.

Their price tags confirm that.

The audio properties they possess also cnfirm that.

Are the SR cables active, do you plug them into the wal as well? Are they connected properly, with the active ends at the upstream end of the signal path?

Were the MIT, Nordost, & SR hot (previously been playing/passing a signal all along) when the switch was made from the Monster to either of them?

Were the MIT boxes set accordingly to the imp of the downstream device they got hooked to?

if not an unfair comparison is being made... interjecting cold cables or misconnected cables in place of hot ones isn't the best way to evaluate them.

SR active cables take a good while to do well, MIT do too, though for other reasons. Nordost has fewer constraints in reaction time, yet they too do better after playing for a time.

Everything does for that matter... play better, or sound better after some warming up has been going on. Everything. 'Cept maybe light bulbs.

I've had monster wires before... several types too. i did find them fuzzy, and attenuating certain portions of the bandwidth as was said already.

true too when you switch from one perspective to another it may be best to evaluate each perspective on it's own merits or demerits, than to compare to some other thing. Especially if the comparison is hampered via implementation timing or integration into a ssytem.

Especcially if the comparison is of varying components, ex. a $200 item to a $400 one, cabling which has no active shielding to that which does, imp matching attributes to non matching, etc...

properly AB'ing cables is tuff... and we all compare most everything to everything else, regardless costs.

sometimes it is as simple as allowing for more time for items to be fully seen, or just getting used to a different approach to recreating the sonic envelope.

some wires tend to drop the stage back, some bring it forward, other's seem to focus certain aspects of the bandwidth better by diminish another.

Even switching the imp box on the MIT cables, will take a little time for this newly energized section of the ckt to be run in fully.

I'd say to properly eval your covey of cables, each should be listened to exclusively for a week... and only critically after four or five days.

Take notes on each. How's the staging? Imaging? Bandwidth balance? Extension? how's the bass? Is it musical, dry, too refined, grainey, etched, bright, etc.

When critically listening, play the same familiar music.

Then, compare.

I'll assume here all are close to entry level cables as only the Red Dawns were named outright.

There will be differences i assure you, however they might be less drama between those diffs.

Either pick the ones that float your boat the best, or ones which add to the performance level of a balanced system. you pick. Always.

That the presentation of the mentioned cables will alter(reach their optimum) after burn-in has already been mentioned, and is accurate(usually takes around 200hrs of signal, unless actively biased). Also- It's been my experience with Synergistic that their products provide much more transparency to bass information and dynamics, than many other cables. If the frequency extremes(both directions) are allowed to be heard, this will make the mids seem somewhat recessed(actually more accurately depicted). Be patient, and don't critically judge the components until burned-in. Any of the cables you've mentioned will be more accurate/transparent than the Monsters.

Do yourself a favor and get some plain old Belden IC's and upgrade your spreaker/pre/amp to your desired sound instead. If you are experiencing rolled off high-end, that probably has more to do with your Rotel than anything.