Why don't gold based cable fans try Synergistic

If I may add a couple of comments, without straying towards promotion of our cables. Apologies if I don't get that balance right.

A single set of LCR figures for a cable does not fully describe a cable. This is heresy to many EEs, but when the current scientific theory, which is an abstraction of reality, fails to describe what we experience, then we need new theories, and we need to test them. One of the theories we have been working on (together with experts in Physical Chemistry) is that a metal will possess a small amount of mechanical resonance that relates to the physical characteristics of its atomic structure. And that this mechanical resonance can impart a tiny electrical resonance when it carries an AC signal. This tiny electrical resonance can cause a persistent phase shift that creates a sonic signature. Null tests will show differences between cables, but they are in the noise floor and so very hard to isolate and identify, so if the theory has any validity you have to also believe that the ear/brain is very highly susceptible to phase anomalies that the ear/brain does not commonly encounter, and this creates fatigue for the ear/brain system. It is also possible that some people are a lot more susceptible to these anomalies than others.

Call it bollocks if you like, and it very well might be, like many an untested theory, but it is a theory that fits our experiences and we are working on how to measure and verify this.

We think that this can possibly explain why there is a pattern to how people describe their reactions to copper, or silver, or gold , or platinum, etc wires. And, without getting side-tracked, it also relates to why we think burn in has an audible effect - but that is another subject.

On the topic of this thread, copper seems to have a resonance in the lower mids and upper bass, and pick up noise easily (the latter, we think due to the small mass and density of the copper atom). Silver seems to have a resonance in the upper midrange and lower treble, and pick up less noise. Gold appears to have a very broad-based resonance centered on the mid midrange and pick up less noise than silver. We have been modelling atomic characteristics of these atoms to see if we can find a potential causal relationship with these observations, but funding for this research is slight.

Certain alloys of these or other metals can counteract these resonances, but also can create their own. The development of alloys that sound good is quite an art - that one or two appear to have mastered to some degree. But most alloys we have listened to smooth the resonance nicely over a wide range but the resonance is still there and tends to obscure detail. An alternative approach is to use solid wires of different gauges and metals. Another alternative approach is to coat one metal with another, or sometimes with more than one other metal.

Getting more specific about gold - using solid gold wires can result in dense tonal colours and warm harmonic balance without obscuring detail, and to my knowledge there is no other way to get this to quite the same degree except by using solid gold wires somewhere in the mix.

Other aspects of the design of a cable are of course incredibly important too, and so it is as easy to make a gold cable sound too 'gold' as it is to make a silver cable sound too 'silver'. The wire material is just an ingredient and using gold does not guarantee a great cable any more than it guarantees and overly soft sounding cable.

All this is just my feeble theorising of what I think I hear, and just my opinion of course. One day, our experimentation in this area may bear fruit.

Hi Vandermeulen. I don't doubt your findings, but would like to make some observations about blind testing. Again this is only my opinion so please don't roast me for it.

The sound that arrives at our ear, is not the same as the sound our brain perceives, but not all of that difference is just psychological. Some of the difference is due to the processing that our brain does, to make sense of what it hears. In most acoustical environments the ear is bombarded by many reflections of any sound, and yet the brain often perceives the sound as a single arrival. The brain decides what to hear and what not to hear. The brain also decodes the direction and distance of the sound, and imagines the thing that is making the sound. The human ear/brain seems very highly adept at this work.

Many non-audiophiles can't relate to our hobby and one of the differences is that audiophiles seek to fully engage with the sound coming from their stereos. Non-audiophiles play music while they do something else. I theorise that non-audiophiles learn to do that because engaging with their generally poor stereos is not terribly pleasant for any length of time. I theorise that this is because the brain gets easily fatigued, or at least distracted from really enjoying the music, when listening to a poor stereo. Whereas, for an audiophile with a good system, it is possible to sit down for an extended period and enjoy an illusion of the actual performance. This relates back to my previous paragraph about how the ear/brain does work to make sense of what it hears. But the sound, in the first place, has to be good enough to be capable of being made sense of.

I believe that most blind testing of audio cables is inappropriate for the problem. The differences between cables, as stated in my earlier post, are mainly due to small phase problems. Now the brain is very good at making sense of phase issues - such as the direction and distance of a sound - but this is only possible if the brain has a reference. For example, by having experience of what a voice sounds like when it is 10 feet away and when it is 30 feet away (verified by sight), the brain can pick roughly how far away a voice is when unsighted.

On top of this, I believe that the more actively we listen, the more our brains work to make sense of what we hear. Which also relates to why non-audiophiles tend to listen passively to their poor stereos.

Therefore, in my opinion, a typical ABX or other blind test of a cable will usually cause the brain to be actively trying to make the cables sound the same, not different. Do you follow my logic?

Therefore, in our cable business, the development of a cable is a very lengthy process. We do use blind testing, but not in the way that blind testing is usually used. I tend to listen to a new cable, almost casually, for a period of days. This is more easily done at home than on our reference system at the factory. After I have listened to something for that kind of period, I develop impressions of the character of the cable. I often get distinct impressions that PRAT is better or worse, naturalness of timbre is better or worse. I then listen to the cable more intensely on our reference system to try and pin down the tell-tale traits. At this stage I have some clues as to what I am listening for and so I may be tricking my brain to hear what isn't there, but it hopefully avoids the brain glossing over what is there in order to make it appear to be real. Once I have developed a clear theory of the sound of the cable (compared to a reference of some kind - another cable), then, and only then, do I do blind tests. In the blind tests I am attempting to distinguish between the subject cable and a reference, based on my theories about what the subject cable does right and/or wrong. If I can reliably pick it in the blind tests then I treat my theory on the cable as right. If I can't reliably pick it, then I know I was deluding myself - this happens.

So, I believe that short term blind tests of unfamiliar cables in an unfamiliar system are a waste of time. Gaining experience with a cable gives you an idea of what to listen for in a blind test to distinguish it. This takes time.

Now some people, at this point, even if they accept what I have said above, will wonder whether cable differences are important if it takes so much effort to distinguish a difference. My answer to that is that it is up to you to decide for your self. But, I do believe that persistent small phase errors that the brain cannot decode get in the way of us enjoying our music, and over a period of time become irritating.

I didn't get into the cable business because I wanted to have a business. I got into it because I became very aware of how different cabling made significant differences to the sound of my stereo, and I found it impossible to find a cable that didn't impose a coloured lens on the sound. I tried so many cables before deciding it might be cheaper to learn how to tweak a cable's design to get it right, than continue the 'lucky dip' that wasn't working for me. When I got to a design that performed well and that I knew backwards how to tweak for almost any desired sound characteristics, I stopped buying anyone else's cables.

So, Vandermeulen, I found that the subtle differences between cables were musically significant, but acknowledge that this can be hard or even impossible to pick up in some blind testing. I realise some will accuse me of posting this with some bias, but hope my rambling post made some sense.

It might be very difficult if one went into the blind testing straight away. I can usually pick up the key characteristics of a system within three tracks, if the tracks are familiar, and so after that, if I knew both cables, and so what I was listening for, I would probably get better than 80%. It would be really really hard if I wasn't familiar with the characteristics of one of the cables.

See, I CAN make a short post.