My experience was that a less expensive cable did everything better than the Oval 9, including warmth, natural-ness, large/deep/wide/ soundstage, speed, bandwidth, detail retrieval, imaging solidity, edge delineation...and you name it. And to compare the dynamics (both micro and macro) and sheer slam factor, to the Oval nine, is like comparing that 1960's VW to a top fuel dragster...This other cable was the previous series of MIT's affordable Terminator 2. These were at such a low price, that I gurantee my great grand children will be using mine (perhaps if only as a novelty) in their systems, in the 22nd century....Put another way, I'd never re-sell these, unless someone offered me many thousands of dollars for them (and if I couldn't buy any more of the closed-out "new" ones, the amount would have to be in the tens of thousands of dollars). That's how much I like them. Yes I'm biased, but for good reason, IMHO. And it's not as if many other cables didn't also beat the Oval 9, because they did in my system. My amp (during these particular comparisons): Krell KAV-250a. CD player: CD50. Speakers: MMG. Amp's power cord: Black Mamba (at that time). CD player power cord: MIT Z-Cord 2, plugged into Chang 6400 CLZ. Interconnect: MIT 330 SG Proline. Room treatment: ASC and RPG profoam. Except for the Chang, I've compared all of these to the competition, some of them to many different competing products.