I also like the Transparent speaker cable.I'm most familiar with the Reference Series speaker cables.
The only thing that you might want to look out for is that the Transparent (circa 1996) removes some texture from images, and puts a kind of "force field" around images that causes them to not "bloom" outwards, towards the listener. It's a highly precise cable, but the energy of the music seemed "contained" within the soundfield. That might have changed, but I spoke to someone today and their take on it was similar. It is still very good cable, but in my (old)system (Avalon Eclipse and Audio Artistry Dvorak speakers; Modulus, Convergent SL-1, Versa Dynamics 2.3 turntable, Van den Hul grasshopper and Clearaudio Signature cartridges; Bel 1001 Mk I and II amps; VAC Renaissance 70/70 and 30/30; Plinius SA-250;Metaxas Solitaire (what a nice amp! Too bad it never really made it over here!)) I wanted more harmonic bloom [overtones, decay of cymbals/triangles/glockenspiels, etc.], which is more a trait of the upper end MIT series cables. However, the olderMIT speaker cables and interconnects (circa 1996) were less transparent (no pun intended) than Transparent Audio's line of cables (except for the interconnects! Man, they were cloudy! I couldn't get them to sound good no matter what!).
I realized that Transparent sort of thinned out images (that reduction of full textures in each image) so that one could see "through" the soundfield to the back walls. Nothing to cause harm, though. Just what it "sounds like." It was very clear, but not sensuous and rich, as MIT was. On the other hand, MIT electronics (Spectral) were exactly what the name implied: spectral, as in "whitish," so I can see why the had a cable that made up for the (traditionally) lightweight sound of Spectral electronics, a sound, that, I understand, continues even now.
Still, the Transparent brings back nostalgia in me.
