Review: Transparent Audio Cable Ref + mm2 ICs + SC Interconnect

re: above:
where i mention the "orig tech", i mean the TA "original mm" technology of the last 7+ years, NOT the very old "XL" technology (rectangle network boxes) which pre-dated the "mm" technology ( eliptical shaped network boxes) .

TA model levels from mid to highest :
super, ultra, ref, refXL, refmm2, opusmm2
TA has added the "2" to the refmm and opusmm this year to maintain consistency of confusion, no doubt.

hi benpup -
from my experience with brand new TA ref ICs and SC with the mm2 tech, it takes a full 200 hours for the cables to run in. less hours, they do sound lean and at times thin, as can many components during the first few hundred hours. i doubt i have a full 400 hours on them now. when i auditioned the ref orig tech vs ref+mm2, i initially found that in large orchestral works, the orig tech had a quality of "fullness" vs a leaner presentation with the new mm2, but i am now convinced that the "fullness" of the orig mm tech is in part the aural experience that includes a good deal of sonic "debris", such as subtle transient smearing, etc. i felt more sound "mass" with the mm1 at the same volume level on the preamp compared to the mm2 tech when listening to the same music. meatloaf vs steak. meatloaf is richer but...
however, now that i have lived with the mm2 another 150+ hours, my ears dont hear a lack of richness, but rather greater nuance and micro changes. the sound may be slightly leaner [i dont have the mm1 on hand to do another a/b), but it has much greater character and presence. i never found indiv voices lost in a smooth presentation with the mm2, as you did. staging increased in depth;in my system placement of indiv voices became more easily located.

re: weight in presentation: if the mm2 you auditioned were fully run in, and you find the mm2 to be an advantage in all areas except weight/fullness, firstly determine if indeed the presentation you are now fully used to hearing from your system is actually a realistic fullness. get thee to some live choral concerts in a few different halls. may on audiogon have far more knowledge of audio reproduction than i, but i think any number of aspects of your system can be changed to add wt.fullness -- if the mm2 cables are right for you in every other aspect. i have been seeking to add top end weight in my system without the significant cost of moving to an x01-d2 cdp this year since i am keeping my wilson w/p 8s. changing the stock tubes in my vtl preamp to amperex bugleboys made a significant difference , mostly in the mid range and somewhat at the top end. this week i just placed a PAD 20th anniv contego PC on my cdp. it is just about run in. wow, a significant improvement overall including increased wt at the upper mid and top end without any loss of speed. i have auditioned several PCs for the cdp. the change in presentation varied greatly between many well known brands such as TA, nordost, shunyata, PAD. i think no single component (cables are components) can bring everything to the table when it is inserted into a unique system.

did you audition the ref+mm2 SC bi-wired? i am under the impression that B&W nautilus series run best bi-wired.

re: vtl 7.5 mk 2 preamp . i do not know what changes it would bring to your system vs the pass P you have, but the 7.5 mk2 is an exceptional preamp, few would disagree. it has tubes, so there is some added flexibility to overall presentation. something to consider, or the 6.5 single box version.

i would firstly determine if the wt/fullness you have enjoyed with the mm1 cables is more lifelike overall than the presentation with the mm2 ... what gets you closer to the musical experience you desire?

hi benpup,
re: your B&W800D SC. i have no clue which would be better : ultra biwired vs TA ref single wired (both mm1 tech) but in many aspecs i think the ultra+mm2 biwire would be better than the ref+mm1 single wired. keep in mind: B&W designed this line of speakers to present best bi-wired (i have N803s for my tv, the do sound better biwired than single +jumps, but this was only noticeable when the speakers were placed in my main system listed on audiogon, not on my ad hoc arcam/anthem tv system).email B&W england directly for their opinion. they are always very helpful.

as to IC placement, i believe that if you have to make a choice, put the highest quality IC on your source. (equal quality if poss on your speakers). the lesser IC for on the preamp/amp. this seems to be the conventional wisdom, but there are many variables that come into play.

Power cord placement: you can search this site for a huge variety of opinions. i am a neophyte here. i have been auditioning PCs for under 1 year. in my system, power cord placement made the largest positive impact when on my cdp, not the power condition. 2nd is the preamp (again, not the power conditioner). i have found PCs to be very component specific in how they impact the overall presentation. many on this site beleive that the PC has a more significant role than ICs. I have not enough experience to make a fully informed comment about this, but i do realize that PCs do play a very significant role. they should be considered an intregral part of the system, just as an IC, though this places another set of variables into the mix to consider. I have found the entire education facinating and frustrating and very trying on my patience. live concerts in a good hall are so much more rewarding! why oh why did i move from manhattan?! cheers.