Anybody tried 20th Anniversary Purist cables?

JAFOX, several weeks past since the audition at CMO's place, so some details are turning fuzzy (or should I say 'Aqueous'?). I could easily switch the Cardas Golden Cross and the Purist Venusta around in my ranking. Overall the Venusta sounded more 'refined' than the CGC, whereas the CGC sounded slightly coarse with less overtones ringing to the surface. On the other hand, the CGC seemed to have a larger, deeper soundstage. The venusta is certainly slightly warmer than the AQ Sky and to some ears it may give the impression of a slight veil over the music. Other listeners by contrast may find the Sky to be too stark. I personally preferred the overall presentation of the Sky: extremely extended from top to bottom without apparent hot-spots in any frequency range and -- at least in my view and for the selection of music I brought over -- Edgar Meyer playing Bach on double bass and Dvorak's New World Symphony conducted by Bernstein -- sky had the most interesting, revealing yet unadorned and authoritative presentation with the highest harmonics content. Yet the Venusta is a great IC and I understand perfectly how CMO can be in love with its beauty and velvet glow.

Stanhifi, you have as much intelligent input to offer as Mapleleafs3. Between the comments the two of you make, the info should cancel out.

NO ONE HAS EVER BOUGHT CABLE TO GRATIFY THEIR EGO!!!!!!!!!!!

My current system is not up to previous standards, but I have owned many better cables and spent a lot of money, not to mention the discord with my first wife. I bought expensive cable inspite of my own protest! I did not want to spend the money, but I wanted the sonic improvement they provided. If I could have gotten the same improvement from all these junk cables that twits like maplelaughs and stan recommend I WOULD HAVE BOUGHT THEM years ago. The cable they push is not worth the webspace it takes to post them.

Sorry for the tirade, I must have gas or something!

Mapleleafs, You are right, gear first, cables second. I have done the Risch cables as well as others such as various cables made with differing gauges of magnet wire. The results all were excellent. But the results with the PAD cables were much better. Even with the lower end PAD.
Feel free to email me and we can discuss gear. We may disagree on cables but I have read your posts and we agree on quite a lot.
Later,
Chris

Cmo and Tvad, since you both have had a chance to hear the 20th Anniversary Aqueous and the Venustas, I'd like to get your thoughts on which has better high frequency extension. Not "pushed" mind you, but open, clear, still musical.

If there's one thing that holds me back from the Venustas is that I've heard they can be a little "closed" in the midrange. Not as open or articulate as some. Your thoughts on this as well would be very much appreciated.

Well.......... It's like I said earlier; I greatly preferred the Venustas to the AA. I don't know if it was some kind of system mis-match (which I doubt) or the cables were not broken in as advertised. I have not found a cable that I prefer to the Venustas in my system. Are they closed in?........ NOT. I find them to be as detailed as the AQ Sky, but to also have a more textured, three dimensional quality. Guido is right on the money with his assessment of the Sky; it's very revealing and extended from top to bottom. The point that I think the Venustas betters the AQ (and where I differ from Guido's take) is in Harmonic complexity........... and again, that happens (for me) in the midrange.

The one place that I think the AQ betters the Venustas is bottom end extension. The bass is a little tighter and deeper with the AQ.

As to the question of AA or venustas..... I would have to say borrow the cables from the Cable Co. and judge for yourself. I am not trying to be elusive, but it looks like people are having some very different results with the AA at this point.