Speltz Anti Cables

Sean,

Thanks for your comments.

DNM Reson is spaced about 3/4" apart. I am not sure if that is close or not. It does do the solid core stuff well; no treble smear and nice 3D images neutral tonal balance (in the middle bits) BUT it does sound a bit dull. It sounds as though the top end and very deep bass is missing. I have ordered some Anti-Cables and some Cat 5 cables so hopefully will soon have some cables that give the benefits of solid core but without chaning the frequency response.

This are truly wonderful cables,in a few weeks, I will
make a comparison, between TGaudio sp cable,and the
audience,I am both familiar with Au24 and TGaudio,
It also happen that, I am auditioning the anticable
interconnect,I made a request from Paul that I woiuld
like to try them, Paul was kind enough to send me one,
I think they are not on the market yet, so it was a
priveledge to hear them first,My first impression is
they are very good, I also happen to have TGHSR ic,
and au24 ic.I find it very interesting to compare
the three.You will find out why, when I do submit
my post here, or put a new thread.Thanks

I would also like to add, the TG, Au24, and the anticcable
will be compare to my second system,Please click my
systems, so you will have a good idea, what kind a
equipment I am using, and speakers.Stehno,Eagle,thanks
for posting the anti cable, It got my attention, to
take them seriously.Thanks

George47: At 3/4" spacing between conductors, the nominal impedance would be quite high, probably about 600 ohms or so. The inductance would also be quite high with the impedance climbing as frequency rose. You would end up with less impact on dynamics and rolled off treble. For a very "hot & peaky" sounding system, this would tend to smooth things out and "sugar coat" the sound. Many may prefer this sound, but that doesn't make it "accurate". Like anything else though, it all boils down to specific sonic preferences and system synergy. Sean
>

PS... Many people mistake "different" for "better". In many cases, some componentry / cabling may improve in some areas but compromise other areas at the same time. Since the difference are more apparent than the sum presentation between the products under comparison, they jump to conclusions and believe something to be better even though it is really a "sideways" step. They soon find this out and are then move on to the next "flavour of the month" cable or component. They do this rather than looking for a product that was designed with every aspect of operation taken into consideration.

While doing so is fun and gives us experience that we hopefully learn the right things from, it becomes quite expensive and actually reduces the time spent listening to music. Instead, we listen to the system because the system was built moving sideways rather than going forward.

This is why i've stressed getting the interphase between the amp / cable / speaker right to begin with and then working your way back up through the system. This is the only part of the system where we have specific variables to work with i.e. known impedances and electrical interfaces, so it only makes sense to take that and use it as a foundation to build upon.

Using any other approach would be akin to trying to modify the foundation of a building after the entire building was completed. This wouldn't be considered "sideways" as much as it would be "backwards", costly and foolish. Then again, we all have different goals, levels of enjoyment, expectations and available funding, so who am i to try and tell someone how to spend their time and money??? : )

Jayctoy: Looking forward to hearing about the results of your comparison. Got two pairs of the ICs also. The music sounds great here.

Sean: It makes a lot of sense what you are saying. My approach for this system is putting the $$$ in the right place. Sometimes that means you spend it in the wrong place and later realize it.
Most significant for me was the replacement of the expensive tube preamp, with many more features than needed in my simple 2-channel system, with the Placette Passive. There was no compromise at all with that change, but a list of positive improvements. Part of that could be attributed to the solid foundation provided by the speakers, including the sub, and the amp. I'm convinced the dollars spent on the foundation were worth it.
I want the cables to be like the Passive, transparent and revealing, so I can appreciate the qualities of the foundation. What baffles me is the relative few comments regarding the Granite Audio 657 CDP I see posted. It's an incredible source component that seems to be largely overlooked.