Nordost or Transparent?

[Ekmanc]

I have been a Nordost supporter for years now and I use Valhalla powercables a Thor power distributor and Frey2 speaker cables and this hooks up a fairly simple system consisting of a Devialet D-Premier and a pair of Watt/Puppy 5.1s.

I know that Nordost and Transparent cables have a very different sound and I've always loved the detail, air, microdynamics and openness of the Nordosts but I did recently get to try a pair of Transparent Super MM2 speaker cables and the bass and calmness I got all of a sudden was very surprising to me, so much deeper and more powerful and overall a much richer and fuller sound. The downside was the treble and air was just gone, and the timing seemed off too.

However I just can't forget that rich bass foundation I got and that was from a relatively simple Transparent cable.

Now I am thinking about upgrading to either a pair of Valhalla speaker cables or possibly try Transparent Reference in the MM2 version.

Does anyone have experience with these cables? I feel a little lost at the moment as I would like to get the best of both world, I know that my D-Premier is fairly lean and would probably benefit from the extra fullness and bass of the Transparent but I am worried that it won't be good enough in the midrange and treble.

 

[lasercd]

I think you will find that as you move further up the Transparent line the elements you are missing will be present. I experimented with their Reference and then Reference XL speaker cables. I found the Reference cable to be good but the Reference XL to be exceptional. I bought them and have my entire system wired with Reference XL.

I suspect if you liked the Super MM2 you will really enjoy your time spent with the Reference series.

 

[PeterA]

I think you will find that as you move further up the Transparent line the elements you are missing will be present. I experimented with their Reference and then Reference XL speaker cables. I found the Reference cable to be good but the Reference XL to be exceptional. I bought them and have my entire system wired with Reference XL.

I suspect if you liked the Super MM2 you will really enjoy your time spent with the Reference series.

I also use an entire suite of Transparent REF XL in my system. I posted a review on these cables in the Member Review section where I go into some detail about the strengths of these cables. Basically, I fount the REF XL to have a very even tonal balance, not emphasizing any particular frequency. It certainly won't hurt to audition as many cables in your system as possible. Some of these can get very expensive, though.

I would also suggest you take another look at speaker positioning. If you are getting good detail, air and other nice things from your Nordost cables, you can perhaps add some body, warmth and bass extension and foundation with optimal speaker and listener positioning. You might be sitting in a bass null or your speakers may be too far apart. My point is that there are perhaps some no-cost things you can do that may improve the tonal balance of your system without having to buy expensive cables.

If you are satisfied that everything else is pretty good, then sure, listen to some cables and I do strongly recommend the higher level Transparents. Just make sure they are configured for your components before listening.

 

[Ekmanc]

Thanks Peter I just read your review, very wellwritten and interesting.

I should perhaps add that if I do go for the Transparent cables I will probably go all in and get the powerlink MM2s as well, I like to keep all my cables from the same brand.

 

[microstrip]

My usual comment : unless we have the detailed description of your system our comments will mostly show our opinions in our current systems. Both brands have excellent cables. Transparent advises that when inserting their cables the most important is the source, followed by speakers and then preamplifier amplifier. Many people try the speaker cables isolated and report the lack of air you describe.

 

[Ekmanc]

My usual comment : unless we have the detailed description of your system our comments will mostly show our opinions in our current systems. Both brands have excellent cables. Transparent advises that when inserting their cables the most important is the source, followed by speakers and then preamplifier amplifier. Many people try the speaker cables isolated and report the lack of air you describe.

What details are you lacking? I thought I described it all fairly well.

Also since I have a devialet which I stream to I don't really have any signal cables for the source, all I have is a pair of speaker cables and two power cables.

 

[microstrip]

What details are you lacking? I thought I described it all fairly well.

Also since I have a devialet which I stream to I don't really have any signal cables for the source, all I have is a pair of speaker cables and two power cables.

My apologies, I was not surely using my reading glasses - I missed the description of your system in the second line. Not an easy choice - I was trying cables in Devialet this weekend and the choice was not easy. The Transparent used to sound great in the Puppy V's - I owned them with TA reference XL and cj long ago. A great sound.
If you can afford to try I would suggest the more expensive TA speaker cable you can consider - even an Ultra MM2 is a great cable - and the new Shunyata alpha designed for the Devialet. Although I have no experience with it, the previous generations of Anaconda alpha with VX, tuned for digital, did wonders in an ARC class D DS450.

 

[bluedoor]

Well, I've tried this week a pair of TA Super in my system and they just didn't work, the sound became muffled and not clear and detailed as before (with tellurium q black), it was like someone put a curtain between me and the sound.
All the chain was TA, from the power cables (premium powerlink) to rca and xlr Super.
So, it's not only a question of "all the cables from the same brand" issue.
Later on i will try the Ultra mm2 to see if they mate well.
If you have the chance to listen to them before purchase I advised you to do so.

 

[Ekmanc]

Well, I've tried this week a pair of TA Super in my system and they just didn't work, the sound became muffled and not clear and detailed as before (with tellurium q black), it was like someone put a curtain between me and the sound.
All the chain was TA, from the power cables (premium powerlink) to rca and xlr Super.
So, it's not only a question of "all the cables from the same brand" issue.
Later on i will try the Ultra mm2 to see if they mate well.
If you have the chance to listen to them before purchase I advised you to do so.

Yes that is exactly my experience as well, but I wonder if a pair of Reference speaker cables will be good enough to compete with Valhalla??

 

[RichDavis]

I have been a Nordost supporter for years now and I use Valhalla powercables a Thor power distributor and Frey2 speaker cables and this hooks up a fairly simple system consisting of a Devialet D-Premier and a pair of Watt/Puppy 5.1s.

I know that Nordost and Transparent cables have a very different sound and I've always loved the detail, air, microdynamics and openness of the Nordosts but I did recently get to try a pair of Transparent Super MM2 speaker cables and the bass and calmness I got all of a sudden was very surprising to me, so much deeper and more powerful and overall a much richer and fuller sound. The downside was the treble and air was just gone, and the timing seemed off too.

However I just can't forget that rich bass foundation I got and that was from a relatively simple Transparent cable.

Now I am thinking about upgrading to either a pair of Valhalla speaker cables or possibly try Transparent Reference in the MM2 version.

Does anyone have experience with these cables? I feel a little lost at the moment as I would like to get the best of both world, I know that my D-Premier is fairly lean and would probably benefit from the extra fullness and bass of the Transparent but I am worried that it won't be good enough in the midrange and treble.

I don't know much about Nordost, other than looking at pictures, but my knowledge of Transparent is that their cables are VERY similar to the concept that MIT Cables is doing. The thing is that first it's wise to get the cables matched up in terms of impedance, unfortunately, most cable mfg don't post this information or any guidelines to assist us in matching cables to components. MIT Cables is the only one that I know of that has actually addressed this concept on any level. At least to my knowledge.

The other thing that's not done is showing the response curves of cables so we have some clue as to how the cable is going to pass through the analog signal. Again, MIT Cables has addressed this to some extent because they first brought up the concept of measuring the articulation curves to show that cables do pass analog signals differently. The concept behind MIT Cables,and Transparent is that as you go up the cable food chain, they design and implement more filters to essentially smooth the articulation curve. Then, with MIT Cables, they put in impedance switches in some of their products so that you can change the impedance of the cable to closer match to the components that you are using. Apparently this does have a noticeable affect on the sound quality.

Then there is the subjectivity of what the listener wants. Some people just like a certain tonal quality for whatever reason they have. Some like bright sounding high end, some don't. I guess the only way to tell is go to your dealer, tell them what equipment you have and ask for them to loan you some demo cables (that have been broken in). I would consult with several different dealers because I've found that unfortunately, some dealers sell what they personally like and it may not be what you like.

I'm a big proponent of buying and evaluating cables until you get used to what the cable can and can't do and how well it badly it performs. One thing to note, cables do need some amount of break in time, especially cables like MIT Cables and Transparent, largely because they implement passive electronics in those boxes and they do need some time to settle before evaluating them.

I personally wish there was an independent source that had the best test equipment and performed as many tests possible to show us response curves, impedance and gave us a guide as to what equipment they would be best suited for, but unfortunately there isn't this sort of resource for us, so we have to rely on other people's recommendations, reviews, etc.

I would simply try to get some loaner product and give yourself a couple of weeks of serious listening with a variety of content to formulate in your own mind what works best on your system to your ears.

One thing I will tell you is that Wilson Audio has for many years used MIT Cables not only during their own listening tests, but they also used MIT Cables internally. I know they've also been using Transparent cables as well, but I don't know who they are using for internal wiring, but I would probably go the route of MIT Cables or Transparent Cables with the understanding that Wilson uses those cables quite often in their own listening tests so that might help you formulate a decision. Unfortunately, no mfg can test their product with every conceivable combination, it's impossible. So each speaker, amp, pre amp, etc. mfg uses whatever cables they use when they design their own products, and that might be a reason why some cables just simply work better for certain combinations.

But, most of the higher end mastering, recording studios like Gateway, SkyWalker Sound, and various other high quality studios that do a lot of reference recordings are using MIT and Transparent, so either one will probably do well for the Watt/Puppies. But I think the Watt/Puppies might actually perform their best with MIT Cables if you want a neutral cable, but you might have to play around with different models as they put more filters in those boxes to help produce a more neutral articulation response curve.

Again, that's just going by my approach to cable selection. I would talk to the mfg of the equipment and see what they recommend. One thing about both MIT Cables and Transparent Cables is that you can upgrade from one model to another over the course of owning the cables, which is great since as you get more money, they'll give a way to spend it and upgrade the cable.

But if you want a neutral sound with a smooth high end that's not harsh, I would probably go with MIT or Transparent. Again, I haven't heard the Nordost so I can't comment on those cables. but if you can audition them and compare against the MIT's or Transparents, I would highly recommend doing so. Bottom line is that it's your money, your system and you have to be happy with the end result.

BTW, i like those Devialets. I would love to own the 240 someday. I like their concept for a simple system. I think that's growing trend these days. I see more and more all in one units that have plenty of power to drive most speakers without having spend a bloody fortune on huge power amps, pre amps, etc. just to get good sound..

Best of luck to you, let us know what your final decision is.

 

[LL21]

interesting read. I am pretty sure Wilson uses Transparent cable in their speakers and has done so for about 20 years (dating all the way back to my old speakers)...Rockport as well. Also, I think both Gateway and Skywalker are listed on Transparent's website as well.

 

[RichDavis]

Well, here's the story that I was told. In the beginning, MIT Cables was using Transparent to mfg the cables for them since MIT Cables wasn't that big, they were more of a design and marketing company, but MIT Cables' designer, Bruce Brisson was the first to come out with a REAL audio cable patent, which he sold to Monster which was kind of the first REAL audio cable, but MiT still uses the patents if you will. MIT then did the research which led to those filter boxes, but now MIT assembles their own cables, and actually makes their own inductors, they have custom made resistors, etc. and they do most of their own mfg with the exception of the actual wire, which is done elsewhere.

My sources told me, that Wilson was using MIT cables originally both internally (even though they might have been made for MIT by Transparent). I guess the only thing one can do is to contact Wilson Audio directly and ask them. Back in the 90's when I first heard the WATT/Puppies, i never heard of Transparent Cable, but heard of MIT Cables and even on MIT Cables' website, they list Wilson Audio, along with Goldmund, Spectral as being beta testers for their cables and that they use their reference cables for in house listening. I know they use Transparent when they do shows, since McGrath is a big Transparent supporter, but it's MIT Cables that has the patents on the filter boxes that improve the cables articulation, etc. Transparent knows what MIT was/is doing, but they had to re-engineer their boxes as to not infringe on MIT Cables patents. Personally, I use both mfg products. Both make good products, so I don't have anything against Transparent and will recommend both companies for people to audition. I do, however, think that Transparent doesn't explain their technology on their web site as well as MIT Cables. From reading a lot of different cable mfg web sites, MIT is the only one that really goes to any length to explain how they test cables, and explain their technology. I think a lot more explanation should be done, along with showing measurements that give the consumer a better understanding to visually see the response curves and what to really look for in a cable. That's just my personal pet peeve about the audio industry and I can see why some people think most of this stuff sounds like snake oil, when some of these companies actually do a lot of research and testing.

Mr. Brisson was the one that actually helped HP design some of the precise test equipment that he uses, which i have a LOT of respect for his work and approach to audio cables. He's a very interesting person to sit down and discuss this technology and he knows what he's doing. But i would call Wilson Audio to find out whose cables they actually use internally because that might have changed over the years. But generally speaking, back in the 90's, they were using MIT Cables with the filter boxes as MIT came out with them first. They have patents to prove that.

Either way, both are great products, nothing wrong with either of them.

Additional information. MIT started designing cables in '85, they were using Transparent in that time to distribute and mfg MIT Cables, but Transparent didn't start designing and making their own cables until 93, which was around when MIT started doing their own mfg./distribution. This is from Transparent's web site.

 

[MylesBAstor]

My sources told me, that Wilson was using MIT cables originally both internally (even though they might have been made for MIT by Transparent).

I don't know about internally, but Wilson used MIT up to the W/P 5.0 for the Puppy tail. The W/P5.1 update was changing from MIT to Transparent wire. And at that time, it was a worthwhile update.

As you mentioned, MIT and Transparent allow for impedance matching and it does at least for their cables, make an appreciable difference. MIT allows the owner to match impedance via an external switch on the box while Transparent owners have to send their cables back to the factory to be reset.

 

[PeterA]

Have you directly compared MIT to Transparent cables in your own system? In my experience, they are very different sounding. Wilson uses Transparent cables, both internally and during show demonstrations.

 

[MylesBAstor]

Have you directly compared MIT to Transparent cables in your own system? In my experience, they are very different sounding. Wilson uses Transparent cables, both internally and during show demonstrations.

I use both and like both cables. But they are different and right now I'm a little loathe to comment given changes in the system with the new turntable. In other words, colorations that I was attributing to the cables, etc. was more the front-end.

 

[microstrip]

As far as we can find in the net Transparent Audio supplies cables to Wilson Audio - a recent reference comes from http://www.avrev.com/home-theater-accessories/av-cables/transparent-audio-the-wave-speaker-cable-and-the-link-interconnect-review.html

Transparent also supplies cabling to high-end audio manufacturers, most notably, Wilson Audio, which uses Transparent wire internally in their speaker systems. A good number of speaker designers use Transparent speaker cables to voice their products as well. On top of that, many in the professional audio world, including some Grammy winning record producers and engineers, endorse Transparent.

My usual opinion about cable measurements - it is just marketing, you have to listen. Measurements will show you some specific electrical properties, but no correlation with sound quality. And when you listen try listening using the whole signal path wired with the same brand.

 

[RichDavis]

Both companies have a lot of different cable models over the years, but for internally wiring, I don't think they have any of the filter boxes inside since the cable lengths probably aren't long enough to warrant it. I think they are using just the regular cable sans filter boxes.

 

[RichDavis]

The problem is that they have so many different models to choose from. What they do is add more filters as you go up the price ladder. MIT has the higher end models that you can actually switch between different number of filters. I think their most number of filters is 159 for speaker cable and 96 or so for interconnects. Transparent doesn't mention how many filters in their boxes they use, so it's hard to tell which models from MIT compare to Transparent other than maybe going by price. But MIT has been transitioning in their less expensive line as they have been moving to surface mount circuits instead of the traditional components which are far more expensive.

Plus they have too many to choose from and they will change in tonality when you go from one to the other.

Either way, I've noticed that Transparent's cables are less expensive, probably due to they use less number of circuits is my guess and maybe they went to surface mount technology before MIT did. Again, it's too hard to tell since Transparent is a little more secretive about their products.

MIT at one point had a site where they were selling DIY cables, which is a great idea, but the site is under construction, so I'm not sure if they are going to resurrect it soon, but they were offering DIY cables where you buy the filters in modules so you could add more filter modules and solder them in your self. It was a VERY ingenious way they were doing the DIY models.


The only thing I have to stress is make sure the cables are broken in before performing serious listening tests. Nothing worse than listening to a piece of equipment before it's broken in, sometimes we get wrong opinions.

 

[microstrip]

Both companies have a lot of different cable models over the years, but for internally wiring, I don't think they have any of the filter boxes inside since the cable lengths probably aren't long enough to warrant it. I think they are using just the regular cable sans filter boxes.

Although I would be tempted to think so, the external cable (the tail, as it was called) of my old Watt/Puppy V had a small network at the end of the cable!

BTW, people can get a wrong idea on the customization of top TA cables from Myles post. For most of them the customization is carried with two broad forks - tubes or SS - unless you carry a radical change in the system , no customizing is needed. I was told that tube cables (associated with larger impedances) can be used with minimum loss with SS equipment, but we should avoid using SS cables with most tube equipment. Only the Opus range are customized specifically for your equipment.

 

[edorr]

Transparent doesn't mention how many filters in their boxes they use, so it's hard to tell which models from MIT compare to Transparent other than maybe going by price. But MIT has been transitioning in their less expensive line as they have been moving to surface mount circuits instead of the traditional components which are far more expensive.

FWIW, I just compared MIT cabling with 2-3x MSRP of Transparent Cabling and preferred the transparent. Now, you can pick up MIT cabling brand new for 50% of MSRP, so street price difference is a lot less.

Either way, I've noticed that Transparent's cables are less expensive, probably due to they use less number of circuits is my guess and maybe they went to surface mount technology before MIT did. Again, it's too hard to tell since Transparent is a little more secretive about their products.

I'll go out on a limb and say there is probably very little correlation between cost of manufacturing a cable and price. Pricing is strictly based on marketing considerations.