AZ Matrix II vs Harmonic Tech Magic Link2

I will be adding a Magic II to my system today b/w preamp and amp to go with a Kimber 1021 upstream. It will be replacing (possibly temporarily) a Kimber 1016 which is very nice, full-bodied with nice texture. I am hoping for a little more resolution while maintaining texture.

Interesting description Blindjim on the Harmonics - sounds like they will be interesting in my system. I own and have used many variants of MIT over the years. My only complaint is the higher marques just don't have the midrange texture the lower models like 330 SG have - but the 330 series doesn't have the resolution the higher marques have so it's a trade off like most cables are. The higher marques of MIT I am referring to are Magnum M1, 350 reference, and 350 SG EVO. I haven't tried the more recent iterations such as MA, dots, or Oracle except in speaker cables and found the same to be true, lack of midrange texture with my Thiels.

Good luck.

For me a MIT Mag would likely sit on my source outputs... as it has before. now there is a pair of Nirvana SX Ltds there. The imaging is better with the SX and the music is delivered uh, easier than it would have been with the Mags. The SX have better ambient retreval as well, but not the bass the MITs do.

The MIT Mags do image better than the Magic IIs by a noticeable bit. But again, the IIs are pretty good and especially for the $$$.

Thanks. Right out of the box it sounds very nice and seems to accomplish what I was after - beautiful detail retrieval while maintaining texture and timbre purity the system delivers with the help of the Kimber 1021's upstream. More time will tell...

Further take after a few albums.....nice and detailed without grain or unnatural brightness that I can detect. Very balanced tonality wise with a layered and deep soundstage compared to Kimber 1016, MIT Magnum 1, MIT 350 SG EVO. Also more holographic soundstage compared to the my other 3 cables mentioned. Perhaps the biggest difference is how much more dynamic this cable is compared to the others. Sorry I can't comment on AZ Matrix II since I haven't heard it.

This cable is between my preamp and amps with Kimber 1021 upstream and a captive tonearm wire on my Hadcock tonearm.

the AZ MII is no where near the Magic II. price in cabling is usually quite close to it's performance level. Usually. Once you get up above the $1K mark per pair, I've found things simply are different flavors.

The one thing not all cables do is the bottom end... really well.

It's funny you should say the MIT Mag 1 wasn't as deep a sound stage as is the Magic II. I felt they were about the same... the Magnum merely have more of everthing than the Magics.... save for the color in the tones.

My Magic II is also as my main IC. I had been using my sub with the Dodd monos until the Butler arrived... there was now little need if any. Consequently I used also a pair of Y cables with which to supply both the amp & sub... OK. no using the sub, I thought to disconnect the little 3-4 inch y's and eliminate them completely.

The diff was not subtle. Whoa! The little ys were very much drying out the sound and affecting both resolution and details.

Another cable which I've found to be just fantastic is my SR Resolution Reference x2 active shielded cables.

I find them besting the Magic Iis in sound stage representation, bass sound field size. Images too are as or more stable. Again, they sold orig for $1250 per set... vs the 800 for the Magic IIs. So there is that.

The thing is they don't mate well with the Nirvana SX Ltds. Lovely. So I gotta sell them so I can do something else... like get another MIT Mag. lol. or a new to me, PC like another Elrod or something.

Glad things are working out for ya man.