Why don't gold based cable fans try Synergistic

Frank: I agree with Blindjim, but also think you touched on something else that coincides with my impression when you said"...the general tone was not much different than my cheaper and conventional...interconnects." Speaking from my own perceptive vantage point, I'm not especially enamored with a kind of sound that seems to emphasize how clean, clear and neutral it is, but I respect the right of others to feel differently.

I owned the Tesla Accelerator interconnects, but found they did little for me in terms of providing a relaxed presentation. I burned them in for about 200 hours on my Frykleaner Pro and I spent a good deal of time listening to them in my system. They were certainly detailed, but ultimately unfulfilling. Otherwise, I've auditioned a pretty fair number of other wires, but none of the gold based ones. After a considerable amount of reading as well as the exchange of e-mails with others, I've decided to try the route of some of those gold based cables. I'm ready for something that goes beyond the descriptive terminology of incredibly vivid,sharply defined and "miles" of soundstage depth---something that contributes to a deeper,more satisfying level of relaxed enjoyment.While there's no guarantee,it would be nice if one of the gold based cables helped take me where I'm looking/listening to go.

I concur with Mcondon, at least in regard to the Tesla Accelerator, which I had burned in for well over 200 hours and listened to extensively. I was never able to achieve a relaxed sound with it in my system. Very detailed, but fatiguing in my experience also. I have been using the KCI Silkworm+. Totally different story.

>>>I doubt, however, that any one of our personal opinions transfer to others<<< It's often tough for those opinions to make a significant dent on existing preferences, and sometimes existing prejudices. The taste for a particular kind of reproduced sound might also have little to do with what one might hear as live sound. For example, I once mentioned in another thread that the so-called neutral, clean, tight sound numerous audiophiles seem to prefer is rarely in evidence in the concert hall during a live performance, where the sound tends to be relatively fuller, warmer and softer in outline than electronically reproduced music. The kind of pinpoint localization, spotlighting and layering of instruments often heard on recordings is also fairly untypical of live performances. Further, despite the fact that orchestras are often recorded in empty halls or venues, sound engineers still regularly seem to lean toward bathing things in rather hyped hall ambience. Finally, one of the most telling things about many live orchestral concerts is that the highest dynamic peaks rarely irritate the ears in contrast to the many efforts designed to make reproduced music more listenable. Despite all of this, when it comes to listening to one's system in one's home, many still consider the neutral, clean, tight sound to be more realistic(as well as more enjoyable)than the aforementioned kind of live sound commonly encountered in many halls. Often, upon hearing that live kind of sound reproduced with components different from their own, they criticize it as being innacurate, because it's "too colored", "dull" or "dead".

Tbg...You raise an interesting point about well designed halls. Partly because of differences in terms of preferred kinds of sounds among listeners, the issue of a good hall design may be more complex than typically assumed. Just to cite an example or two: The Concertgebouw in Amsterdam and the Musikverein in Vienna are considered by many to be at or near the top of the finest sounding concert halls in the world. Both are prized for their full, warm, ambient sonics. One of the salient points I tried to make in my previous comments was that quite a few audiophiles prefer a kind of sound in their home that would be pretty different from that heard in these two locales. I have no quibble with their preference for and enjoyment of that sort of sound. What I sometimes find troubling however is when upon hearing a likeness of the warmer, more rounded and softer edged kind of sound imparted by audio equipment different from their own, a fair number label it inaccurate. My question to them would be, "Inaccurate in what sense?" Is the sound emanating from those concert halls a violation of reality? Of course, colorations of different kinds are found virtually everywhere---in concert halls, sound component shops, one's home, stereo equipment and open air spaces. If one retorts with the statement, "I prefer a neutral sound", what does that mean? If it refers to an undoctored sound, then one cannot really get that with reproduced music. How can they with all the capacitors, resistors, switches, wires, drivers, microphones, etc.as well as all the twiddling of controls done by sound engineers at the recording site ? Yes, we pay our money and make our choices from among different sound illusions in the comfort of our homes. But when some of those illusions more closely resemble the actual colorations one hears at the original performance site(e.g., softer, warmer), why use the term, inaccurate? Indeed, the assertion of neutrality might more correctly apply in these cases where one's equipment is more accurately conveying those actual colorations from where they originate. And colorations they are, but why mischaracterize them as inaccurate? Otherwise,yes, some simply prefer a facsimile of the kind of sound one gets from being "inside" the performing ensemble, while others are drawn to 15th or 30th row sound or balcony sound...Lastly,in response to your comment about gold sounding smeared and unrealistic, I might just reiterate your allusion to making categoric statements.