Transparent vs Shunyata

MadFloyd said:

Yes, Shunyata is very fast and musical but somewhat recessed in the midrange compared to Transparent. However, it is much cleaner than Transparent - which has some graininess and is colored and rolled-off in the extremes.

Click to expand...

That has been my brief experience with the Shunyata signal cables as well; as for Transparent, I agree with your assessment as well - seriously colored with a bump in the midrange and rolled off ends; but that makes for easy listening all day long, though far from accurate.

The mental model I use for Shunyata Zitron cables is that with these cables they act as if there is no cable between source and destination. This is based on their ad where they demonstrate the square wave out of their cable is identical to the square wave into the cable. Other cables will affect that square wave in some manner, and, depending on how they affect it, will influence the final sound.

Shunyata cables will give the destination component whatever signal was provided by the source. So, if you are unhappy with the sound then you need better gear, not different cables. Trying to tune your sound by changing cables is a fools errand, and means every time you change gear you need a different cable. With my complete Zitron Anaconda inter-connects (analog and digital) and speaker cables I can add whatever gear I want and know that it will work at its best right from the start.

At least that's my hypothesis and I am sticking with it.

BlueFox said:

The mental model I use for Shunyata Zitron cables is that with these cables they act as if there is no cable between source and destination. This is based on their ad where they demonstrate the square wave out of their cable is identical to the square wave into the cable. Other cables will affect that square wave in some manner, and, depending on how they affect it, will influence the final sound.

Shunyata cables will give the destination component whatever signal was provided by the source. So, if you are unhappy with the sound then you need better gear, not different cables. Trying to tune your sound by changing cables is a fools errand, and means every time you change gear you need a different cable. With my complete Zitron Anaconda inter-connects (analog and digital) and speaker cables I can add whatever gear I want and know that it will work at its best right from the start.

At least that's my hypothesis and I am sticking with it.

Click to expand...

I have to agree as it is my plan to have my entire system wired with Shunyata PCs,IC's and SC's. For the money IMO they compare favorably if not better most of the top end cables. Their PCs are simply superb.

Steve Williams said:

I have to agree as it is my plan to have my entire system wired with Shunyata PCs,IC's and SC's. For the money IMO they compare favorably if not better most of the top end cables. Their PCs are simply superb.

Click to expand...

I don't see how performance of PCs of a particular brand is a good predictor of performance of their signal cables, but then again I don't understand cable technology period so what do I know.

edorr said:

I don't see how performance of PCs of a particular brand is a good predictor of performance of their signal cables, but then again I don't understand cable technology period so what do I know.

Click to expand...

What the superior performance of the PC's from Shunyata demonstrate is that the company has the testing tools, and high resolution audio systems necessary to discern important differences in materials and design. And, being audiophiles, they listen carefully and make decisions accordingly. While I don't have experience with their IC's, I would expect superior results.

tima said:

.......Zitron signal cables contain circuitry .......

Click to expand...

I'm not aware of any "circuitry" in Zitron cables, but may be this is just semantics.

edorr said:

I don't see how performance of PCs of a particular brand is a good predictor of performance of their signal cables, but then again I don't understand cable technology period so what do I know.

Click to expand...

You are correct - the technicalities of each type of cable -signal and power power - are quite different. But usually they sound "similar" in the sense described by Michael Fremer in the Stereophile D'Agostino Momentum preamplifier:

" When we think we're hearing "nothing" or "neutrality," we're kidding ourselves. Every audio system produces a distinctive "sound" of one sort or another. The great ones produce a sound that's so coherent from top to bottom that it dissolves almost instantly beneath the music, and so does disappear. The more "distinctive" systems have a sonic signature that never submerges and remains an obvious coloration, though one some ears might appreciate."

Some cable manufacturers duplicate the main sound characteristics of each of their cables and when you use the whole set you often get this coherence. The problem is that often this sound signature does not complement your system - and them you should move to another brand. Some people love to mix cable brands, but the best results in value for money I got was using the same brand in the whole system.

+1 each of the cables in the Zitron range are similar most likely due to sharing the signature if the Zitron circuit however they also have differences in geometries that give them some individual characteristics within the family. Given the degree of resolution of these cables helps to make those differences easier to identify.

The Zitron Anaconda and Python power cords also strike me as approaching transparency and nearly but to a slightly lesser extent so do the signal cables or other pcs at the higher end of the Shunyata range.

The context of the difference is that while the top end of Shunyata power and signal cables seem equally capable in terms of texture, low noise levels and spirit of portrayal of musical events but that the Anaconda and Python pcs (as well as the Typhon and Cyclops conditioners) are just ever so slightly more extended, more linear, immediate and ultimately offer marginally less resistance to that flow of the musical energy.

If we were to think in terms of describing the inherent spirit the energy of the top Shunyata pcs along with the Typhon and Cyclops the nature is more like a flowing clear stream while the signal cables and Triton seem to feel a bit like a beautifully clear lake, all have beauty and clarity but the former for me are just a touch more alive.

BlueFox said:

The mental model I use for Shunyata Zitron cables is that with these cables they act as if there is no cable between source and destination. This is based on their ad where they demonstrate the square wave out of their cable is identical to the square wave into the cable. Other cables will affect that square wave in some manner, and, depending on how they affect it, will influence the final sound.

Shunyata cables will give the destination component whatever signal was provided by the source. So, if you are unhappy with the sound then you need better gear, not different cables. Trying to tune your sound by changing cables is a fools errand, and means every time you change gear you need a different cable. With my complete Zitron Anaconda inter-connects (analog and digital) and speaker cables I can add whatever gear I want and know that it will work at its best right from the start.

At least that's my hypothesis and I am sticking with it.

Click to expand...

Choosing a cable based on it's square wave performance is a good start. Especially if someone seeks true fidelity rather than editorializing. But Shunyata hardly has any exclusivity on that. There are at least four other companies that I know of that reproduce quality square waves. And if the graphs that Shunyata included in their own patent application is any indication, the other companies do it better anyway. Brands such as Goertz, Analysis Plus, and Kubala-Sosna all have very impressive square wave performance. Goertz aren't all that pretty or exciting to look at, so there will likely be confirmation biases against them. But they are, by far, the more affordable in this arena. Analysis Plus has prettier designs with comparable performance. Then there is Kubala-Sosna. Can definitely spend some dough on them, and the sheer bulk that they have will alleviate any negative confirmation bias. Oh, and none of them rely on circuitry, no matter how simple, to achieve their performance.

(btw, I agree whole heartedly with the reasoning presented in that post. It's one of the most logical statements I've seen on this site. A rarity.)

MadFloyd said:

Thanks for the post. Haven't heard of Goertz or Analysis Plus, but I have heard Kubala-Sosna and was very impressed.

I have heard that manufacturers of network based cables do not have quality square waves - so I guess they all editorialize (nice word, btw).

Click to expand...

I have a question as a non-techie. I have read that both the amp and the speaker load have various different impedance levels across each cone, frequency spectrum...and since music changes all the time...the actual load impedance changes constantly on both sides of the cable.

The network cables are supposedly adjusting for that (at least in the case of Transparent which adjusts each network box for that equipment)...

...does the square wave test challenge the speaker cable to produce a square wave thru such a varied input and output impedance level across various different loads?

I am not trying to be controversial...only to learn. I have read that many tests don't necessarily address all the many issues that audio presents in trying to create great products. Then again, this may not be one of those situations...thanks for any clarification.

MadFloyd said:

Thanks for the post. Haven't heard of Goertz or Analysis Plus, but I have heard Kubala-Sosna and was very impressed.

I have heard that manufacturers of network based cables do not have quality square waves - so I guess they all editorialize (nice word, btw).

Click to expand...

Most network cables have low pass filters far outside the audible range - Transparent Audio clearly acknowledges it. This will affect the aspect of a square wave - a perfect square wave needs infinite bandwidth. They claim that this process improves the quality of the audible bandwidth. Fortunately we do not spend our time listening to square waves!

BTW, good sounding cables editorialize.

LL21 said:

I have a question as a non-techie. I have read that both the amp and the speaker load have various different impedance levels across each cone, frequency spectrum...and since music changes all the time...the actual load impedance changes constantly on both sides of the cable.

The network cables are supposedly adjusting for that (at least in the case of Transparent which adjusts each network box for that equipment)...

...does the square wave test challenge the speaker cable to produce a square wave thru such a varied input and output impedance level across various different loads?

I am not trying to be controversial...only to learn. I have read that many tests don't necessarily address all the many issues that audio presents in trying to create great products. Then again, this may not be one of those situations...thanks for any clarification.

Click to expand...

LLoyd,

Although none of us knows exactly how Transparent Audio designs their cables, they fine tune their cables for certain frequencies. As the behavior of a filter depends strongly on the source and receiving impedance, they tune the filters for specific components in their top models. I do not know how rigorous is their model of the equipment - I think they only consider the value of the impedance.

microstrip said:

LLoyd,

Although none of us knows exactly how Transparent Audio designs their cables, they fine tune their cables for certain frequencies. As the behavior of a filter depends strongly on the source and receiving impedance, they tune the filters for specific components in their top models. I do not know how rigorous is their model of the equipment - I think they only consider the value of the impedance.

Click to expand...

I am not sure what you mean by "how rigorous is the model of equipment" but if you are asking about their gear and listening room I have heard by those who have been there that it is about as good as you are going to find anywhere. If you are referring to testing equipment, I have no idea.

still-one said:

I am not sure what you mean by "how rigorous is the model of equipment" but if you are asking about their gear and listening room I have heard by those who have been there that it is about as good as you are going to find anywhere. If you are referring to testing equipment, I have no idea.

Click to expand...

Actually, I think Microstrip was referring to how 'rigorous' is Transparent's understanding of each piece of equipment (speakers/amps) to which they are finetuning their network boxes. The better their 'model' of how each piece functions, presumably the more finely tuned to that equipment their cables will be.

I think Micro goes on to say that their primary 'refining tool' is mainly the impedance values. I have heard that Transparent cables also are designed to filter out other impurities (emi/rfi maybe?)...is that why they have network box closer to the input of the equipment? All guessing.

microstrip said:

BTW, good sounding cables editorialize.

Click to expand...

Yes. Cables that distort the signal are definitely worth their cost.

BlueFox said:

Yes. Cables that distort the signal are definitely worth their cost.

Click to expand...

I do find it interesting that both Wilson and Rockport use Transparent cables inside all of their speakers. (I presume there are no network boxes inside...just the wire.) And its been this way for years/decades if I am not mistaken. My X1s are wired with Transparent inside.

Do people think this is co-marketing...or is there something to their wires (let alone the network boxes) that such respected designers would use them for so many years?

Additionally, Rockport uses TA cables in their own systems as you can see clearly from all the reviewer visits to Rockport, as well as Rockports own pictures. Wilson frequently shows their stuff with Transparent (though perhaps with other cables as well?)

Just curious if anyone has ever spoken with either manufacturer about this...

LL21 said:

Just curious if anyone has ever spoken with either manufacturer about this...

Click to expand...

I never have, but it is good to know they think enough of their product to try and insure each part works at an optimum level.

However, I did ask on either this forum, or another forum, how long was the cable Shunyata used for their square wave measurement test, and Caelin replied it was 500 feet.

BlueFox said:

I never have have, but it is good to know they think enough of their product to try and insure each part works at an optimum level.

However, I did ask on either this forum, or another forum, how long was the cable Shunyata used for their square wave measurement test, and Caelin replied it was 500 feet.

Click to expand...

Thanks. As someone who knows pretty much NOTHING about how all this works, I guess if the amp sending the signal across the cable has its own 'impedance and other particularities'...and the speaker end also has its own peculiarities about how it draws the signal from the amp (in terms of each cone's/crossover/capacitor's requirements)...does the 'draw' effectively become inconsistent, ever-changing and sometimes a challenge for the amp to deliver the signal 'evenly'?

Is this why some people who really know custom audio recommend biamping and removing the bass passive crossver and driving it directly (on the basis they know how to actively adjust the crossover)? Because the amp's power is being used directly to drive the bass cone rather than 'fight thru' the passive crossover network? Having read interviews with Andy Payor of Rockport, the designer of Vivid Audio and Richard Vandersteen...they all seemed to suggest that this is an issue, and hence why all have designed active components in their SOTA setups.

Back to cables...if the amp and speaker in a test were actually a simple signal sent by a piece of test equipment to a 'receiving test equipment' (rather than speaker)...would that be different than the actual situation where the 'speaker/receiver' is requiring the spectrum of sound to be sent slightly differently across the spectrum than a piece of test equipment (ie, to get the bass, need more juice, need less juice in mids, and then super-low impedance above 17khz, etc)?

does a cable therefore need to be adjusted to 'ideally' deliver the signal across based on the 'particularities' of the amp and speaker?

LL21 said:

I have a question as a non-techie. I have read that both the amp and the speaker load have various different impedance levels across each cone, frequency spectrum...and since music changes all the time...the actual load impedance changes constantly on both sides of the cable.

The network cables are supposedly adjusting for that (at least in the case of Transparent which adjusts each network box for that equipment)...

...does the square wave test challenge the speaker cable to produce a square wave thru such a varied input and output impedance level across various different loads?

I am not trying to be controversial...only to learn. I have read that many tests don't necessarily address all the many issues that audio presents in trying to create great products. Then again, this may not be one of those situations...thanks for any clarification.

Click to expand...

Electronic equipment have fairly stable output impedances and very stable input impedances. (Input impedance is usually a simple resistor.) Speakers, on the other hand, can have a wildly varying input impedance, based on frequency. These varying impedances are far too complex to account for in a speaker cable.

A square wave tests signal integrity in both the frequency and time domain, and only up to the test frequency. Ie. a 12k Hz square wave will require all frequencies up to and including 12k Hz to be both equal in magnitude and arrive at the same time. Complex loads (such as networked cables and speaker crossovers/drivers) will alter one of both of these properties.

BTW, while no one sits and listens to square waves. (They are remarkable annoying) Their usefulness is still very high, especially to those who understand the full ramifications of what their results say.

microstrip said:

BTW, good sounding cables editorialize.

Click to expand...

In the ear of the boholder! I recognize that a vast majority of audiophiles like and prefer editorializing. I, for one, do not. I prioritize fidelity.

microstrip said:

Although none of us knows exactly how Transparent Audio designs their cables,

Click to expand...

Not entirely true. There are those that have carefully cracked open those boxes and done a little forensic style reverse engineering. It's difficult and time consuming. But curiosity can be a very motivating force.

LL21 said:

I think Micro goes on to say that their primary 'refining tool' is mainly the impedance values.

Click to expand...

It's their only refining tool.

LL21 said:

I do find it interesting that both Wilson and Rockport use Transparent cables inside all of their speakers. (I presume there are no network boxes inside...just the wire.) And its been this way for years/decades if I am not mistaken. My X1s are wired with Transparent inside.

Do people think this is co-marketing...or is there something to their wires (let alone the network boxes) that such respected designers would use them for so many years?

Additionally, Rockport uses TA cables in their own systems as you can see clearly from all the reviewer visits to Rockport, as well as Rockports own pictures. Wilson frequently shows their stuff with Transparent (though perhaps with other cables as well?)

Just curious if anyone has ever spoken with either manufacturer about this...

Click to expand...

Yes. It is very much a mutually beneficial business model. TA uses Wilson speakers and Wilson uses TA. It has been a collaboration so long standing, why rock the boat now? Vandersteen and Audioquest are similar. Richard Vandersteen and Bill Low are long time friends. This sort of thing goes on all the time.
P.S. TA cables minus the networks is nothing remarkable. I'm not saying it's crap. It's just not any sort of technical marvel. And by the way, the only cables that Wilson used by TA in their speakers are the ones that unite the various units. Ie. the cables that were exposed while connecting the bass to the head unit. Internally, Wilson used (at least last time I checked) nothing more special than Monster Cable. (if that)

LL21 said:

Back to cables...if the amp and speaker in a test were actually a simple signal sent by a piece of test equipment to a 'receiving test equipment' (rather than speaker)...would that be different than the actual situation where the 'speaker/receiver' is requiring the spectrum of sound to be sent slightly differently across the spectrum than a piece of test equipment (ie, to get the bass, need more juice, need less juice in mids, and then super-low impedance above 17khz, etc)?

does a cable therefore need to be adjusted to 'ideally' deliver the signal across based on the 'particularities' of the amp and speaker?

Click to expand...

The full complexity of a speaker load cannot be accounted for by a speaker cable. Many speakers can and do vary wildly in their impedance. This is usually contained in their bass regions where most of the electrical resonances takes place. But to try to fully account for this varied impedance would require a cable network that is more complex than the crossover thats inside the speaker. This is not what TA is doing, nor is it necessarily possible.

The basics of TA are that their cables are designed to roll off the frequencies above the audible range. In order to do this, the single most important factor for them to know is the output impedance of whatever equipment they are connecting to. And just like speaker crossover complexity, the steeper you want that roll-off to be, the more complex the network must be.

I would never buy TA myself, but I have a long time friend who has a ton of the Ref. XL. Three different source components. One Pre, but two different amplifiers. (one tube, one solid state) And two different speakers. (at any given time) He's not exactly technically minded, so when going about ordering all of these cables he asked me to help him out. This is when I came to realize that it's the output impedance that counts the most. Having all of these cables at my disposal has also allowed me to try out various combinations. Ie. Three different source/output impedances and one control input impedance in one instance. And one control output impedance and two different input impedances. And thats just the interconnects. Its a virtual TA playground! haha.