Anybody tried 20th Anniversary Purist cables?

There really do appear to be some divergent opinions on the Aqueous Anniversary cable. I demo'ed the Aqueous Anniversary speaker cable, and in my current system it easily outperformed cables such as Cardas Golden Reference, Wireworld Gold Eclipse III, Nordost SPM, Kimber 3033, Purist Opis, Audioquest Mont Blanc, and others. The magic in this cable is in the midrange - tonality is accurate, (string tone is exceptional), images take on the appropriate body and presence, soundstage width and depth were very good (although not the best I have heard), transient performance was outstanding - both attack and decay, reproduction of low level detail was excellent, bass was solid, extended, with wonderful authority in the midbass. In particular, the reason I was/am so fond of the Aqueous is that it's hard to find a cable that is as revealing in the midrange that is not edgy or clinical.

As a caveat, however, if your system is on the "warm" side of things in the midrange, I think the Aqueous Anniversary might be too much of a good thing. In the system I have now (admittedly not my ideal setup - Verdier Platine, EMM Labs CDSD/DCC2, Cat JL-1s, Merlin VSM-Ms, Silversmith ICs), its just about perfect.

I have to admit I am surprised to read others commenting that this cable was "closed in." Does it have the most extended top end I have ever heard? No - that distinction belongs to the Silvermiths. But closed in? I can't picture it, based on what I hear in my system. I suppose there must be some system matching issues with this cable, and I have to admit to being curious to see with which components others are using it.

In particular, Jafox, what components did you have in your system when you did your demos? Your characterizations sound pretty accurate to me, except I had the opposite preference with respect to Aqueous v. Opis - I found the Opis, while a touch more extended at the frequency extremes, to be muted in dynamics and subtractive of low level information in the midrange - as a result, while it is a good cable, I never found it very involving. Thus, I am betting you probably have components that tend to sound more on the yin side, whereas mine are more on the yang side.

Also, I have to echo the above comments re: break-in - these cables certainly need at least 150 hours of break in, and probably closer to 250. Fresh out of the box, it lacks a bit of coherency, images sound overblown, and the bass doesn't have that full measure of extension.

Jafox,

I certainly agree with you about the CAT amps and resolution - they are among the finest resolvers of low level detail I have experienced in my system.

However, it looks like we are talking past each other here. Yin and yang in my understanding always have been accepted terms for describing frequency response characteristics (i.e. there is no amibiguity in their meaning, such as with prat - which really is related to transient performance - or with continuousness, which I think relates to dynamic performace across the frequency spectrum). Typically, yang refers to a frequency response that is tilted toward the whiter side of the spectrum. The extreme of yang is clinical (or as you put it, analytical), cold, sterile (in fact, your identification of the CAT Amp and preamp combination is a perfect of example of the yang side). Yin refers to frequncy response that is tilted toward the warmer side of the spectrum - the extreme of yang is referred to as dark, fat, tubey, etc.

Thus, to rephrase my previous comments in more acceptable terms, my system tends to lean more towards the analytical side of the frequency spectrum than yours, which is why I think the Aqueous would work better in my system than yours. Further, your identification of the Aesthetix premps also matches my initial perception - I think anyone would say the Callisto is certainly more towards the yin side of the spectrum than, for example, the preamp in the DCC2.

I also agree that "decay" is important - although decay is also a result of transient performance, low level resolution, and, depending on exactly what one means by decay, microdynamic performance. It is these latter two qualities that are most important for me. If a system cannot provide resolution of low level detail, and does not excel at microdynamics, I become bored with it rather quickly. I thought the Aqueous did an exceptional job with these characteristics without leaning two far to the analytical side of the frequncy spectrum (and hence found it have the best balance of characteristics that are important to me).

As to the Opis, as I think about it, I probably committed the same error I cautioned against - I only gave them about 50-75 hours or so before I gave up on them. Did they change singificantly during break-in as well?