Why don't gold based cable fans try Synergistic

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.

My first gold cable was the Stealth Pure Gold Signal. It certainly was different from the silver cables I had had, such as the Kondo and several others. I ended up trading it for the Indra amorphous wires, which were much more realistic and less smeared. At some point I tried palladium wires. They are totally worthless in my opinion with no dynamics.

Next I visited the maker of Jade cables to decide whether I wanted the Gold or the Vermeil or gold on silver wires. There was no question in my opinion, the Vermeil were more real and less smeared and lifeless. Later I bought the Hybrids and never really could decide whether I still preferred the Vermeil or them.

I certainly have not listened to all gold cables, but I certainly will not seek them any more.

I think the main benefits of the Synergistic Research cables is charged cables and I must say that while I gradually introduced more and more into my system, each with an added benefit, it was the last that really consummated the outstanding sound.

I doubt, however, that any one of our personal opinions transfer to others. There probably is something going on when a large number agree, but even that is hazardous.

>>>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".

Opus88, you mention sound concert hall sound being " fuller, warmer and softer." In some halls that is true, but it is hard to find an acoustically well designed hall. Also, much depends on where you sit. In short, I doubt again whether one can make categoric statements. I should also say that I have been in big orchestra and jazz band recordings. The dynamics of both where the mikes are located are quite different than what you hear in the audience.

You seem to lean toward the warmth of gold while I hear it as smeared and unrealistic. That is what makes horse races.

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.