True. But so does Rockport regarding internal use of Transparent. You'll also frequently see dCS, Audio Research, Nagra paired at dealers with Wilson and Transparent. I wouldn't consider this a distribution agreement, more dealers are going for the top brands and the synergies they perceive their clients may like.Gentlemen, Wilson and Transparent are very frequently sold by the same dealers. Nice distribution arrangement.
And Wilson audio wires their speakers with Transparent Cable. That is one powerful "appeal to authority" pitch dealers can make to their prospective customers.
And while there are many knowledgeable audiophiles who genuinely love the wilson / transparent combination, there are many clueless, rich audiophiles who want the "best", "most exclusive", "most luxurious" products. And, of course, the high price is a signal of that.
Finally, the dealer pitch will be " This is the best system I have heard in my [30, 40, etc.] years of selling gear. "
These cables will sell very well. Many will get a chance to visit Bora Bora thanks to the profits from these cables.
Transparent Audio: Gen 6 Announcement
- Thread starter LL21
- Start date
Can you share some data points on your listening tests regarding other cables? Also, a Ferrari is based of off 1930's technology and goes for what 300k plus, it's just a engine, transmission, 4 wheels and a seat after all.
While the basis maybe in the past, the refinements over the years are nothing short of very cool. I fully expect the Gen 6 Transparent cables to be a significant improvement. I plan on upgrading a few of my Gen 5 cables soon. Final point, part of their business model is selling to existing clients, if Gen 6 isn't sonically better, they'll loose or not upgrade their client base. It's a business, If I hear it, and like the price, I buy it.
I do. And I'll pay the upgrade fees. Transparent has an excellent track record of improvement over the years.
I have had only limited experience with Transparent cables, but I did have REF XL mm2, a complete set with power cords and distribution box, in my system for about ten years. I always had them recalibrated when new equipment came in. I enjoyed them very much and they made a significant improvement to the sound of my system.
I will say that in my experience, as one moves up the line and into succeeding generations, the cables impart less and less of their own sonic signature to the overall sound of a system. The higher level cables sound more balanced. I found that certain frequencies are less highlighted or accentuated as one moves up the line, and when one's attention is no longer drawn to certain sonic attributes, resolution seems to increase, and one can focus more on the music and less on the system sound.
Whoever started the concept that these types of cables (read high end expensive, well marketed and packaged products), rather than just run of the mill wires and stock power cords, are in fact a "component" in the system, was really on to something.
I will say that in my experience, as one moves up the line and into succeeding generations, the cables impart less and less of their own sonic signature to the overall sound of a system. The higher level cables sound more balanced. I found that certain frequencies are less highlighted or accentuated as one moves up the line, and when one's attention is no longer drawn to certain sonic attributes, resolution seems to increase, and one can focus more on the music and less on the system sound.
Whoever started the concept that these types of cables (read high end expensive, well marketed and packaged products), rather than just run of the mill wires and stock power cords, are in fact a "component" in the system, was really on to something.
Last edited:
Sure. But, my comment was a response to another post. I wasn't aware of the difference between Transparent and MIT regarding their network cable technologies or the history between the two companies.
That being said, it seems (from these posts) maybe @Karen Sumner can confirm. That Transparent's technology is a low pass filter wired in "Series"
Whereas, MIT (Music Interface Technologies ) is a low pass filter wired in parallel.
Both are "Networks" or low pass filters, just wired in a different way ?
If that is true, than as an end user, how is performance quantified for each performance level and subsequent generations of cabling?
Subjectivity is good and all but, at this level , shouldn't we expect a little bit more?
Hi, thanks that helps me understand your perspective. I guess I am more in the camp of listening vs the science of it. So once I tried Transparent, in my system, I wasn't concerned about the technology. I just LOVED the (sonic) results vs other manufacturers I had tried or owned.
Also, my dealer, and I suspect your dealer, can and should help you with your questions as you make a buying decision.
MIT *used* to be just low-pass filters back then in the 80s; they are very different right now with the articulation and other technologies. You can read all the details on their web site. There is tremendous innovation going on at MIT than any other "network" cable, and I would not apply the word "innovation" to any other network cable supplier to begin with.
There is a lot more to what's going on than whether a particular circuit or brand is wired in parallel or series. When MIT and our company parted ways nearly 30 years ago when we manufactured and distributed MIT products, we decided to take a very different approach with our new company Transparent. What we do is both subjective and objective. We've measured the electrical properties of all types, performance levels, and lengths of our cable designs, and we have created a specification matrix derived from correlating these measurements with our listening criteria — tonal balance, dynamics, and space. We developed this vocabulary as a result of our years of playing musical instruments and attending countless live music events with acoustic instruments in concert halls (mostly classical music). Over time, our matrix has evolved as our industry has been able to produce higher resolution components. Investing in these new ground breaking products to keep up with the trends has been a large part of our development budget over the years.
The networks help optimize the electrical properties of a given length and type of cable so that it can deliver our musical standard. You've probably noticed that different cables and different lengths of the same cable sound different in different systems. There is a very precise specification and standard of performance for every Transparent Cable at each performance level and at each length in our line-up to help our customers avoid the many pitfalls of mix-and-match audio cooking. As one steps up in performance in the Transparent line-up, the process becomes more complex because of the need to match all parameters in all channels to a very high degree of precision. If our musical standards mesh with yours, then we are a good fit to help you put together a better system, and you can count on us to deliver that standard to you every time, and we can help you to experience more music more deeply in your system as it evolves over time. If a customer has other tastes, there are plenty of products out there from which to choose. It is also possible if one has enough time, patience, and money to be lucky enough to put together a combination of a la carte cables and components and get a very satisfying result, but is it really better, or is it just different?
Yes, every high-end cable has a sonic signature - it is why they sound different! But cables (with networks or not) do not change the measurable audio frequency response - they affect sonics ia a way that can change our perception of frequency balance. Usually when we go higher in the range they become more controlled and predictable. The balance between "music" and "system sound" is extremely subjective and is a preference.
Every cable - network or not - is a component of the system. We can't forget that cables are electromechanical devices - most of their sonic properties must be analyzed under this scope. In high-end stereo, where minimal objective differences can produce hyperbolic subjective differences, reducing them to electrical devices is ignoring half of the subject.
We have many high priced cables, but what matters mostly to audiophiles is performance. Some choose them because it suits their preferences, others just benefit from the selectivity created by connoisseurs.
IMHO digital was an enormous push in cable design - designers needed to consider a type of sound without the technical problems introduced by vinyl and having other types of problems. I must say that my best experiences with top digital along the years included Transparent Audio cables.
I think that it was Noel Lee and his Monster Cable that started the audiophile wire craze but he never reached these elevated price points.
david
I'm not sure where this thread is headed but it seems like a time machine going back at least 15 years when it was popular to guess
"what's in the box" . Once revealed, it was easy to denigrate networked cable manufacturer pricing for what seemed excessive charges for nominal components. The web is filled with dozens of articles of such exercises (https://www.instructables.com/How-to-make-a-Transparent-Audio-Reference-XL-Speak/). Why on earth are we going down this road again over a decade later? It's no secret that these networks serve mainly as impedance matching devices. The companies that make them have committed and purposeful designs that they sell in the hope that that their customers will find them sonically beneficial. They charge what they feel is appropriate and customers buy them because they feel the cost is commensurate with their benefit. That's it. Can't we just leave it alone and accept it for what it is? This is neither Nobel prize worthy science or contributions of great humanitarian value to society. It's simply a discussion about equipment preferences for a hobby that we share. Further iterations with models that will likely use more letters of the alphabet and higher numbers will surely come our way in the years ahead in the hope that users will find audio nirvana. If these networked cables work for you, fine. If not, let it be and move on.
"what's in the box" . Once revealed, it was easy to denigrate networked cable manufacturer pricing for what seemed excessive charges for nominal components. The web is filled with dozens of articles of such exercises (https://www.instructables.com/How-to-make-a-Transparent-Audio-Reference-XL-Speak/). Why on earth are we going down this road again over a decade later? It's no secret that these networks serve mainly as impedance matching devices. The companies that make them have committed and purposeful designs that they sell in the hope that that their customers will find them sonically beneficial. They charge what they feel is appropriate and customers buy them because they feel the cost is commensurate with their benefit. That's it. Can't we just leave it alone and accept it for what it is? This is neither Nobel prize worthy science or contributions of great humanitarian value to society. It's simply a discussion about equipment preferences for a hobby that we share. Further iterations with models that will likely use more letters of the alphabet and higher numbers will surely come our way in the years ahead in the hope that users will find audio nirvana. If these networked cables work for you, fine. If not, let it be and move on.
Marty,
Unfortunately you are still propagating an old wrong idea - as far as I see it these networks are not "mainly impedance matching devices". People ask questions because cable behavior has always been a mystery to audiophiles and we still do not have acceptable exact explanations on how they work and how we correlate the technical aspects with subjective sound quality. It is much more complex than basic signal electrical transmission and reflection. See how prudent the Tansparent Cable people are in their articles - the just refer to "electrical properties" https://www.transparentcable.com/pages/how-audio-cables
BTW, we had cables in the high-end that tried to achieve impedance matching with the speaker - the Occos cables. As it is not physically possible to have an insulating cable for audio with a geometry and materials having such low impedance, they used a trick to lower it - a resistive insulator between the coaxial conductors.
BTW2 - the cable show in the article you refer is NOT the Transparent Audio Reference XL Speaker Cable , as I have said more than once - it is a much cheaper and Transparent Audio cable, misleadingly referred as their top cable of that now vintage period. And yes, I owned the Transparent Audio Reference XL more than 20 years ago, time goes faster than we think ...
Last edited:
Francisco,Marty,
Unfortunately you are still propagating an old wrong idea - as far as I see it these networks are not "mainly impedance matching devices". People ask questions because cable behavior has always been a mystery to audiophiles and we still do not have acceptable exact explanations on how they work and how we correlate the technical aspects with subjective sound quality. It is much more complex than basic signal electrical transmission and reflection. See how prudent the Tansparent Cable people are in their articles - the just refer to "electrical properties" https://www.transparentcable.com/pages/how-audio-cables
BTW, we had cables in the high-end that tried to achieve impedance matching with the speaker - the Occos cables. As it is not physically possible to have an insulating cable for audio with a geometry and materials having such low impedance, they used a trick to lower it - a resistive insulator between the coaxial conductors.
BTW2 - the cable show in the article you refer is NOT the Transparent Audio Reference XL Speaker Cable , as I have said more than once - it is a much cheaper and Transparent Audio cable, misleadingly referred as their top cable of that now vintage period. And yes, I owned the Transparent Audio Reference XL more than 20 years ago, time goes faster than we think ...
You are probably correct. However my use of the word "mainly" comes from some some informed users; Dave Wilson, Bruce Brisson, Keith Johnson and Paul McGowan among others. So I'm comfortable with my descriptive terminology yet acknowledge it is hardly fully accurate. Again, it matters little. "Electrical properties" covers a lot of descriptive ground and seems perfectly acceptable. I couldn't care if networked cables were filled with Snicker bars and fully explained string theory. Let those who like them use them. Cables are one of dozens of sonic preferences we all make when we voice our systems. Discussion of their respective technologies and pricing is moot.
I still think this thread is something I'd find if I took a time machine back 20 years and opened TAS or Stereophile.
Marty
Last edited:
Yes, that’s my point. Although I empathize with and frequently agree with those who feel that audiophile marketing is frequently nauseatingly disgusting, the market ultimately decides
PS. Want to add that by marketing I mean using the full toolkit of influence techniques - by magazines, reviewers, and other "authorities" to build bandwagon effects/ herd effects behind their favorite brands
Last edited:
that was a rhetorical question, but I am glad that at least some people participating in an experiential, subjective hobby - where technological merits are not well understood but purchaser’ emotions are moved - will actually decide based on listening
Possibly on Noel. But wasn't Cardas or Kimber around then as well? I have found in my 35 years in this hobby that wires are an indispensable component. They are crucial element in maximizing the performance of the systems I've had. Over the years I've used Monster, Kimber Kable, Cardas, Transparent (Ref), Purist Audio Designs and a long ride for years now back with Transparent Opus at first then Magnum Opus. I won't give a thought to other cable brands, but I will pay for Transparent's advancements and upgrades. I won't even need to listen to Gen 6 first, I'll just buy given their track record and history of improvements in the past.
I like their business model on upgrades. Both in terms of levels and when they come out with a new version. They don't abandon their customers with endless new versions that make the prior obsolete. I've also found when you wire your entire system, including power, the synergy effect does come into play. Plus Gen 6 offers a great opportunity for those seeking Transparent for the first time to get used Gen 5, I do believe they have a certified program via their dealers.
When Monster cable came out, a Linn LP 12 was like the best and what $2500. Everything has risen in price. But it's also better sonically.
As for elevated price comment, we're on What's Best Forum. Seeking the best. That comes with a price in any endeavor.
I held off upgrading my speakers for years, because the move from Opus to Magnum Opus made such a difference.
I've heard other systems sound fantastic with other wire brands. However, each system I've heard wired with Transparent, seems to convey emotion, a foundation, and a connection that just draws me in better.
YMMV but I'm happy.
Noel Lee and Bruce Brisson deserve a lot of credit! Monster's Interlink Reference was created by Bruce Brisson. It was the first high end interconnect that sounded really good on the little high-speed amplifiers we originally imported from Norway — Electrocompaniet. The speaker cable, MusicHose, also designed by Brisson was a bridge too far for Noel, however, and Bruce left Monster with the prototype spool of MusicHose. It was an unheard of .75" in diameter with a shiny purple jacket — a real wife pleaser! I got a hold of some, and indeed the effect was as beneficial to the performance of our amplifiers as Interlink Reference. When I called Bruce to tell him that I was blown away by what the speaker cable and interconnects did (this was 40 years ago when everybody was still using doubled up lamp cord!), he said he didn't think he could sell it. The rest is history.
I’m thinking earlier than that period, it was back in the 70’s I remember buying this flat woven speaker cable with a clear red see through jacket from Sam Goody’s, my first audiophile wire. Took a while before I figured out how horrible it was when I compared it to first generation Monster’s speaker cable which was a simple 12 or 10 gauge copper wire, was Bruce part of the team then? Around the same time Ricardo came onto the high end scene in England and transformed it and Europe in general. He deserves a lot of credit for introducing and advancing American high end in Europe and succeeding in what really was a closed market at the time.
He didn’t know you yet
! You were the famous lady of high end all over Asia, your then Thai distributor Wanchai, Future World or something like that was a friend and was afraid of you. He used to say you’d drink them all under the table and they ended up buying twice as much wire as they needed every time. We met a couple of times while you were out with him and I think Arnie was there on one of those occasions too. Bangkok was one hell of party town until the 1997 crash, good times and good memories ....david
Last edited:
Similar threads
Staff online
-
treitz3Super Moderator
Members online
- Rooneydog
- seatrope
- andromedaaudio
- fbs
- jazzdude99
- GSOphile
- Mobiusman
- dcathro
- audiom3
- Vangelis
- VPN
- kswanson27
- Golum
- aLLeARS
- Mike Lavigne
- Hilroy48
- Geoffkait
- Pichler
- treitz3
- trekpilot
- Labpro
- kmyl
- jadis
- dan31
- flowcharts
- willgall
- Achilles
- TST
- mikem
- mtemur
- Gregadd
- DonH50
- J007B
- 108CY
- matthias
- Audio Addict
- Atmasphere
- Mark212121
- MPW
- helmut
- Kingsrule
- speakerlust
- ticktock
- tsaett
- Juiced
- nirodha
- Sablon Audio
- sbnx
- Audio Quack
- Bonesy Jonesy
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Co-Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |