Hi, I think this is has changed with Ref XL and Ref MM also customized for your equipment. Although the tolerances are tighter as you go up....
Nordost or Transparent?
- Thread starter Ekmanc
- Start date
Hi, I think this is has changed with Ref XL and Ref MM also customized for your equipment. Although the tolerances are tighter as you go up....
The standard reference is also tuned to equipment. At least, they wanted 15% of MSRP to tune my second hand Reference cables.
Yes. It is why you should contact Transparent Audio to ask if the cables need customization. I was very happy that my Reference MM2 did not need to be customized when changing from VTL to ARC tubes.
I disagree. It's going to cost more money to add more filters since the cost of the components, testing the components, and then labor of soldering is more expensive. MIT just released a lower cost line where they deployed surface mount technology, which is a lot cheaper from both a cost of component to soldering since they use automatic insertion/soldering rather than doing it by hand. It's a LOT less expensive to use surface mount vs. traditional components. Then there is the boxes themselves which are made from plastic instead of the higher end models which are aluminum. Both MIT and Trans use more filter as they go up the price ladder.
Since both companies do internal articulation frequency response testing, I wish both companies would post the response curves on all of their products (analog cables) since that will give us a better idea as to what to expect when we listen to the cables in our system. That's just something I think would help both the company in terms of conveying their technology to people, but for us to actually know where the improvements are from one model to another. The problem is that there is no standard testing methodology that everyone has to use, so test results might not be the same even if they did it.
Since both companies do internal articulation frequency response testing, I wish both companies would post the response curves on all of their products (analog cables) since that will give us a better idea as to what to expect when we listen to the cables in our system. That's just something I think would help both the company in terms of conveying their technology to people, but for us to actually know where the improvements are from one model to another. The problem is that there is no standard testing methodology that everyone has to use, so test results might not be the same even if they did it.
Sure. But a cable that costs 20% more to manufacture will sell for 2 x the price if the market will bear that pricepoint. By the same token, the difference between MIT and Transparent cabling is not explained by difference in manufacturing cost, but by marketing positioning consideration (in my estimation).
Show demonstrations does depend on who is setting up the system, I've seen some shows where they were using MIT and some were using another brand completely, but you are correct in that they are pushing Transparent more than MIT.
I just looked at the price of the Opus MM2's and they were listed at $110K per pair. That's seem obscene.... The MIT Oracle reference are only $50K per paid (what a bargain!).
Yeah, I personally think they might be different sounding is that you might not be listening to broken in cables, that does happen quite a bit since they sometimes use fresh cables without breaking them in for some of these shows. So, ask the people that are demoing the cables. But I'm sure there will be some differences.
What I like about the MIT Oracles is you have various settings to choose from, so you can change the impedance and select a few different number of filters settings to change the tonal balance. So if you are the type of person that does change major components in your system, it would make sense to be able to adapt instead of having to constantly send your cables back and forth to the mfg.
I don't think the tolerances change from model to model, I think it is solely based on the number of filters inside each box. Unfortunately, the mfg aren't forth coming with information for this, but it doesn't make sense that they would change the tolerances of the resistors and caps just because it's a different model since they get their better costs when buying in larger quantity and I don't think they are changing settings on the test equipment. I really think it's more of how many filters per box and whether or not it's using surface mount. Obviously, what their margins are is anyone's guess. Both companies have to have similar tolerances just based on what they are doing. MIT has always used tight tolerances. Either way, both make great products.
Basically, based on MIT's graphs, there is a line where the frequency is articulating at it's proper manner, if it goes above, then it's over articulating that frequency. So, for example, if the higher frequencies are articulating higher than that normal level, then the cable will tend to sound harsh/bright, if it's under articulating, then it will sound dull/dark and if it's properly articulating, then it's neutral sounding. It's pretty straight forward.
What they do, from my reading and understanding, is they are picking frequencies from 20 to 20,000Hz, and picking the frequencies that related to fundamental frequencies of musical notes. So when you play a A-440, the frequency the are trying to adjust to is to make 440Hz neutral or articulating properly. So, they have to pick all of the musical notes from 20Hz to 20,000Hz, and design a filter. How many of these notes are there between that frequency range? So, if they want to make an inexpensive cable, they can only add a small number of filters or frequencies that they are going after.
Now, without a filter box, the cable by itself with have a response curve and they have to adjust to the cable and different lengths might slightly alter the response curve.
Think in terms of taking a cable that does't have flat response and then tailoring a fixed eq that's specially designed to create a flat response curve, but you have to do with with so many bands, depending on the price point, so a 159 filter model is basically designing a 159 band eq specifically for that cable.
Articulation measurements were originally done back in the 40's and many companies use articulation measurements, especially in the area of room acoustics. There is what's called an Articulation Index that's been created.
But for all intensive purposes, a neutral cable will have a linear response curve. Check out this page on MIT's website, it explains it pretty well. Plus they have graphs to look at... http://www.mitcables.com/publications/articles/multipole-technology-explained.html
What they do, from my reading and understanding, is they are picking frequencies from 20 to 20,000Hz, and picking the frequencies that related to fundamental frequencies of musical notes. So when you play a A-440, the frequency the are trying to adjust to is to make 440Hz neutral or articulating properly. So, they have to pick all of the musical notes from 20Hz to 20,000Hz, and design a filter. How many of these notes are there between that frequency range? So, if they want to make an inexpensive cable, they can only add a small number of filters or frequencies that they are going after.
Now, without a filter box, the cable by itself with have a response curve and they have to adjust to the cable and different lengths might slightly alter the response curve.
Think in terms of taking a cable that does't have flat response and then tailoring a fixed eq that's specially designed to create a flat response curve, but you have to do with with so many bands, depending on the price point, so a 159 filter model is basically designing a 159 band eq specifically for that cable.
Articulation measurements were originally done back in the 40's and many companies use articulation measurements, especially in the area of room acoustics. There is what's called an Articulation Index that's been created.
But for all intensive purposes, a neutral cable will have a linear response curve. Check out this page on MIT's website, it explains it pretty well. Plus they have graphs to look at... http://www.mitcables.com/publications/articles/multipole-technology-explained.html
Not to be rude but maybe we can steer away from making this thread 90% about MIT as I have zero interest in their products.
I did manage to borrow a Transparent Reference powerlink mm2x this week and it did give me some extra bass but nowhere near what the Super speaker cables did. I will however try to borrow a pair of Reference speaker cables in a couple of weeks from a friend, I hope they are as good as I think they might be.
I did manage to borrow a Transparent Reference powerlink mm2x this week and it did give me some extra bass but nowhere near what the Super speaker cables did. I will however try to borrow a pair of Reference speaker cables in a couple of weeks from a friend, I hope they are as good as I think they might be.
Well, Transparent's concepts are based on what MIT did and has patented, and to understand what's going on, it's good to read about the MIT technology as it gives people a better understanding of that type of technology, and if someone owns Wilson speakers, some of them have MIT cabling internally and some have Transparent, both are valid alternatives to one another. Personally I use or have used both and recommend both, so I don't take the "I don't care about XYZ" attitude like you are taking. It's all about learning what's out there and being able to understand the technology behind cables since there is very little information that's useful to people.
The only Wilson speakers that have MIT cables internally are 20+ years old by now and every single model since then has featured Transparent cables internally.
And I'm more interested in hearing people's experience with these products than reading about the history and technology of a company I'm not interested in. I've been doing this a long time and I already know the backstory but feel free to start a new thread about that if you like.
And I'm more interested in hearing people's experience with these products than reading about the history and technology of a company I'm not interested in. I've been doing this a long time and I already know the backstory but feel free to start a new thread about that if you like.
I have used MIT MA-X SHD speaker cable with my Wilson's for the past year, I recently switched it out for Nordost Odin to better match the rest of the Odin in my system. The MIT's are great speaker cables as is Nordost. I do feel that for my system, the treble extension is better with Nordost. It all depends on your room and system balance on what works best whether it is these two makers or someone else.
Rich with all due respect, you have a few facts wrong. Transparent posts all pricing on their website, nothing is 110k per pair...care to cite the source if your facts?
According to 2013 price list, Opus speaker cables starts at roughly $35K. The PDF doesn't indicate additional cost per length.
I assume that's for 8 ft.; IIRC, because of the design, that's the shortest length.
I assume that's for 8 ft.; IIRC, because of the design, that's the shortest length.
Is there any ability for Transparent to discuss in technical details as to what and how the technology is able to produce a superior sound? Do you have freq response curves to post? The problem that many people have is obtaining more technical knowledge of why there is such a cost to cables, etc. and they will sound better, etc. It's obvious that the boxes do something along the lines of MIT, but where are the differences? Is there any response curves that can be compared? What measurements can the company post that will help the consumer? I think all cable mfg, need to step it up in terms of sharing technical knowledge rather than marketing prose. Any technical discussions, especially measurement tests to show useful information on how we can evaluate better sound quality would be great.
Waste of time if you ask me. It is like asking wine manufacturers to publish the specs (chemical composition) of their brew, to justify their $300 bottles. You can't take the mystique and voodoo out of this hobby.
At least they have to post the alcohol content on wine which about the only thing people really care about. But wine can't be measured any other way but through measuring the alcohol content that forms any purchasing decision, but cables are connected with an electrical signal of some form through it and can be connected to a variety of measurement equipment, which these cables companies do, so they can measure different aspects of the product and post the results and I'm sure there are ways for the consumer to have a fighting chance of at least narrowing down the choices. Juices have nutritional and other measurements posted on the back. Heck, even bottled water has some things posted on the bottle to make some purchasing decision.
I can walk into any auto dealership and choose any car from $10K up to $4 Million and they can give more technical performance data than most people would ask for to narrow down their purchasing decision. Speaker mfg can show response curves, and all kinds of data to narrow down which models we want with various performance tests, same thing with pre amps, power amps, etc. but cables? They can do it, they just are afraid to.
If I'm going to shell out thousands, tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of dollars on cables, I think the least they can do is show some form of test measurements. At least MIT posts technical information that's VERY useful in understanding their technology, or at least some of their technology, I sure wish they would post articulation graphs on each cable and I know they can. But they do show measurements to compare one of their cables to a generic cable. Which is a start in the right direction.
The problem is more people need to ask them to do it and maybe these magazine/internet reviewers might need to break out some test measurement equipment and perform some objective measurements. It's only fair for the consumer.
Similar threads
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Co-Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |