From me. These are permuations of Reference cables in the Transparent line over the last 15 years or so. I think I am actually wrong on the first one. There are pre MM cables with XL technogy (not MM), and then there are the XL versions of the MM (and MM2) generations of cables. I guess I got confused...
Reflections on cable pricing insanity
- Thread starter edorr
- Start date
From me. These are permuations of Reference cables in the Transparent line over the last 15 years or so. I think I am actually wrong on the first one. There are pre MM cables with XL technogy (not MM), and then there are the XL versions of the MM (and MM2) generations of cables. I guess I got confused...
Yeah, it's thoroughly confusing. I find it easiest to rewind to the mid 90s.
At that time there were various levels of Transparent cable with Reference being the top end.
Toward the late '90s transparent developed "XL Technology" and used it to create their new top-end cable called "Reference XL." After that was released they applied the developments of "XL" to the lower lines at which point, in order to differentiate, the levels were referred to as "with XL tech." So you had super, ultra, reference "with XL technology." You can tell an XL version of those cables with an XL stamped to the end of the serial number.
In the early '00s Opus was developed and with it came a new technology called MM and the same thing happened as when XL was developed in that the technology was applied to the lower levels and they were labeled as, "with MM tech." Now they had a Reference XL with MM tech. At the same time they took what they learned with the all-out-assault that was Opus and created Reference MM to slot between Reference XL and Opus. Basically, it's a lot of the features of Opus with a lower price point and simpler construction.
Sometime around 2008 they refined MM technology with some minor tweaks (mostly in housing and connector materials) and called this refinement MM2. All MM (or MM1) cables at the reference level or above could be converted to MM2 at a nominal cost (frankly cheap for Transparent).
So, depending on vintage you have:
Super, Ultra, Reference
Super, Ultra, Reference, Reference XL (with XL tech)
Super, Ultra, Reference, Reference XL, Reference MM, Opus (with MM tech)
Super, Ultra, Reference, Reference XL, Reference MM2, Opus (with MM2 tech)
Some interesting things to note about TA cables....
For the most part the tuning that is done is based on the source impedance although load impedance plays a role as the level goes up. At the Reference level (assuming MM, MM2) it's just a high / low tuning based on typical tube or SS values. With XL and above it's tuned to the specific components in use and the tolerances get tighter the higher you go in the line.
When speaker cables are tuned they take into account component placement (between speakers, left side, right side) along with the placement of the + / - terminals on the speakers and amps. The pigtails on the cables are then arranged appropriately so that they can be connected without having to cross each other at the speaker or amp terminals.
AMP,
Unhappily the sound difference from MM to MM2 is large in the more expensive series - I could get used Opus MM at very nice prices. However the difference between the MM and MM2 was large enough to make the Reference MM2 sound better in my system than the older Opus MM, mainly in terms of air and treble.
Absolutely agreed on that. MM2 was a big step up in performance, but a relatively small change in construction... more evidence of even the smallest change can make a big difference.
In talking with Brad at Transparent the general rule of thumb is that a change in technology is like going up one level in the previous technology. In other words, Reference MM2 is more akin to the performance of Reference XL MM1. That was the great thing about the MM2 updates as you could get a relatively large jump in performance for a relatively small cost.
I never had the time / patience / money to do a lot of comparisons, but based on this feedback, I decided to shoot for used reference MM2 - there is tons of MMs showing up used, but few MM2s. The MM2 standard reference would be in the price performance sweetspot. The next model up is twice the price. I am extremely curious to find out how this level TA cable stacks up against the Shunyata Anaconda Zitrons...
I cant hear differences in systems with expensive cabling versus systems with much cheaper cabling
I guess i must be a deaf audiophile
I guess i must be a deaf audiophile
either that and/or a wealthier audiophile than those owning Opus MM2I cant hear differences in systems with expensive cabling versus systems with much cheaper cabling
I guess i must be a deaf audiophile
I cant hear differences in systems with expensive cabling versus systems with much cheaper cabling
I guess i must be a deaf audiophile
I have rotated tons of cabling through my system and in most cases I hear absolutely nothing (audioquest, cardas, audience au24e, tara labs, shunyata ICs etc.). I had three epiphanies - Transparent interconnects, Tranparent Digital IC, PS audio AC-12 PCs and Shunyata PCs. I heard a clear improvement. It very conceivable I am deluding myself and a could not repeat the observation in a double blind.
It definetively saves money in the end , with which in my opinion more real value improving components can be bought, or rooms designed
so are we full circle again that cables don't matter soundwise ? I of course do not share that opinion. I will say IC's have a somewhat smaller impact when compared to speaker cables, which to me, differences are quite obvious from manufacturer to mfgr.
I find it hard to believe an entire industry can be build around a product whose difference in sound quality is imaginary, and enless numbers of professional reviewers are smoking crack while singing the praises of yet another fantastic cable.
So I join the audiophile party as a hedge against leaving SQ improvement opportunity unexploited (the sheer horror!). Sometimes I even hear the SQ improvement for myself (or so I believe).
At the same time I hedge my investment, by never buying a cable for a penny more than I can get back for it (give or take a few hundred bucks sometimes).
Cables are an intersting thing. Everyone feels they sound different but no one can pick out their cable from another. I am sure I couldn't either but yet agree there is a difference.
As I said, IC's are more of a challenge, speaker cables are not, at least IME. My upgrade from Nordost Valhalla to MIT was as significant as going from digital back to analog sound wise. The difference was that obvious.
They have transformed my system sound.
Regarding Valhalla, had I known they were not a great match for SS amps, I would never have bought them. They end up being very forward treble wise (not bright), and weak in the mid bass. When used with tube amps, I hear they are a great match. As such, my minty 4m pair with spades is up for sale.
I am deliberately being cynical about cabling, but my own observations with inserting transparent cabling in my system are I heard a big difference. The reason I say I'm not sure I trust my own observation, is I find it hard to rationalize a piece a wire makes a big difference (this cognitive dissonance is even worse with power cables). Staring at the big TA network box makes me feel a little better though.
I ve made some comments regarding cables with boxes a year ago cant find the thread just now , but yes the MIT terminator 4 cable i openened up 9 years ago had a iron core coil with quite a few windings in the signal path , this will surely affect the X over and therefore the balance of the speaker .
In my opinion its mostly compensating for problems anywhere else in the line , speakers for example .
Tubes will soften the sound a bit making a cable made of silver much more bearable than on a SS amp .
That could also be the reason that with changing 1 component the whole cable changing thing starts all over again .
A box which is essentially sold as a secret , probably needs to stay a secret as well .......nobody wants to break the magic spell , it might turn sour
In my opinion its mostly compensating for problems anywhere else in the line , speakers for example .
Tubes will soften the sound a bit making a cable made of silver much more bearable than on a SS amp .
That could also be the reason that with changing 1 component the whole cable changing thing starts all over again .
A box which is essentially sold as a secret , probably needs to stay a secret as well .......nobody wants to break the magic spell , it might turn sour
The network boxes are the key and why these cable sound so much different than there straight wire (non network) counterparts. The basic idea of the network is to get all the frequency info at the same voltage level going to the speakers so the music sounds just as intended from the master recording. With traditional cables, every varient has different inductance and capacitance that results in some frequency ranges arriving at higher or lower voltages when compared to the other frequencies. That why some cables may be bass bloated, trebled forward or leaned mid-bass depending on the amp to speaker match. That is how I understand it anyway.
In my system, the network boxes definitely worked some magic. However, the new Zitrons have their own patent pending secret sauce. I'll let my ears be the judge which cables I prefer.
Indeed I think that the gap is closing quite a bit between the networked cables and the well-engineered straight wires. Cardas Clear is another one where a tremendous amount of engineering has been done to address the wave propagation effects in the wire itself.
EDIT:: As many have stated before the new Shunyata wires could be a real game changer in high-end cables. When I sent my speaker cables and interconnects back to TA for re-calibration the amount of insurance I needed to buy on that box was sobering... about $45K.
Similar threads
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Co-Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |