Gabriel Gold IC's are they really this good?

"Many people seem to enjoy them. I just found them too hard, bright and forward in my system. They may be right in other systems."

I am going to be politically incorrect and question that statement. Personally I think it is impossible for ANY of the gold-silver-copper alloy cables to be terribly harsh or bright. Adding gold seems to impart a "butter" effect to the signal, so I say if anyone is hearing harshness or brightness, it's that the cables are too revealing for some other part of the system. It might be the CD player, the DAC, the amps, the power . . . it might be the CDs themselves. Rock and roll, for example, tends to be two-realmed (high and low) so even one's musical tastes affect things.

That's not to suggest there's anything wrong about ameliorating some system excess by the choice of wires, amp, etc. My point is that as an objective evaluation of a cable, it isn't a sound principle to judge it by one's system unless one understands all the limitations at work in other areas.

I suspect gold alloy cable technology is going to be the hottest thing going in a few years, and I think the magnetic shielding idea will prove to be a brilliant concept that was first attempted by Audio Metallurgy. If it is "too" revealing, well that's not the cables' problem.

After reading this thread, I can't find anything said about the GGs that I haven't found to be true for Audio Metallurgy GA-0s, except that I've never heard anyone ever question AM's soundstage, which is truly amazing. I've actually had to check to see if my wife had surrepticiously switched on surround sound because the some instruments seemed so far past my speakers.

Just before I bought the Audio Metallurgy GA-0s I had a chance to try out used Audioquest Cheetah ICs and balanced Audioquest Hawk digital ICs someone was selling locally here. Even used the owner wanted a bit of cash, cash which I hoped to invest in a balanced power conditioner. Yet I really liked the idea of the battery in the Cheetahs to help overcome the effects of insulation. And then I read of Audio Metallurgy's design with magnets . . . I could see right away it was a better idea (in concept at least if not in reality).

The Audioquest Cheetah/Hawk ICs were hands down the best I'd ever heard in my system, though just a tad forward for my tastes. Yet, because I could try out the Audio Metallurgy GA-0s for about $300 (acquired at Audoigon auctions), if they worked I would still have enough for that BPT conditioner I wanted. So I bought the GA-0s.

It took about 10 hours for me to decide I liked the Audio Metallurgy GA-0s at least as much as the Audioquest ICs, and another three days of break in to like them better. The highs were almost equal in detail but without the edge of the Cheetahs, and the midrange was far better. As a whole, the sound seemed more integrated, very natural and at ease, with the sound stage seeming to leap out effortlessly. Bass extension was excellent, with punch and musicality. Maybe Audio Metallurgy should consider patenting their design because I suspect that that huge sound stage is a direct result of the magnetic technology.

I believe the Audio Metallurgy GA-0s must be the best bargain going for ICs (and no, I have absolutely no interest in AM other than what they can do for my system -- McCormack, Proceed, Genesis, Legacy components -- but I admit I am writing this out of gratitude to AM for providing such an awesome product at such a great price). In fact, I have wondered if the bargain aspect is keeping people from trying them.

Are they better than Gabrial Gold ICs? I can't afford to find out (I am ordering the BP-2 conditioner today!! . . . another audiophile bargain?), but I'd love to hear from someone who has tried both comment because it would be good to know if one can cable one's system for hundreds of dollars just as well or better than one might spend thousands to do.

My point was, how do you know it was the AM cables acting bright, or instead, that they were revealing some aspect of your system that is bright?

This part of the thread discussion has come about from questioning how one OBJECTIVELY evaluates a cable. If we were talking SUBJECTIVELY, i.e., how a cable interacts with one's own system, then I'd have nothing to say. But an objective evaluation of Gabriel's or AM cables isn't so straightforward as putting cables in a system and seeing how things sound.

For example, in my case, I chose every single component of my system for neutrality or warmth, and my interconnects were the last things I chose. I know my DAC, my speakers, my CD player, my amps, and my speaker cables are all neutral or warm . . . and that makes the effects of my ICs quite noticible.

A system whose DAC converts the signal bright, for instance, may not be obvious if someone has ICs that mask that. So if they try a cable that is actually neurtral (and therefore revealing), compared to a less revealing cable they may think the revealing cable is "bright."

As I said earlier, I don't think there is anything wrong with chosing a cable that helps one's system. The issue (for me at least) is all the opinions floating around about some cable that are based solely on how it sounds in one's system. Few people have the same systems, so it isn't all that valuable to hear a cable is bright because "they are bright in my system."

I say, the GA-0s are revealing. Can your system handle it?? :)