Anti-Cables

Wayner · « **Reply #20 on:** 16 Dec 2006, 01:39 am »

Break-in? Speakers are linear motors and amplifiers are well....amplifiers for linear motors. cables bring current to the motor(s) via wire (cables) with instructions to go in or out..

I can't take it anymore!

tomjtx · « **Reply #21 on:** 16 Dec 2006, 02:05 am »

Quote from: Wayner on 16 Dec 2006, 01:39 am

Break-in? Speakers are linear motors and amplifiers are well....amplifiers for linear motors. cables bring current to the motor(s) via wire (cables) with instructions to go in or out..

I can't take it anymore!

Wayner ,
I hate to see you so distressed, especially at Xmas.
I am an agnostic audiophile. I have no idea if there is cable burn in.
Go to the Slim Devices forum where we discussed "brain Burn in"
There is a theory that posits that as the brain learns the new sound of a component the brain gets better at the info that the component presents to the ear. We become better at decoding auditory info the more we hear it.
As a professional musician this is what we experience with ear training, where we have to do melodic,harmonic and rythmic dictation.
the more we do it , the better we get at decoding that info.
Therefore it is plausible that this phenomena explains the burn in effect that some experience after time with a component that " shouldn't " have burn in (or break in).

It might be that I, as a musician who is trained to detect pitch, harmony and rythym and write it down immediately , might have a shorter"brain burn in" time than someone who doesn't have an ear training background.
It may also be that some people are more innately able to rapidly decode new aural info and therefore need less brain burn in (BBI)
than others.
This MIGHT explain why some people experience burn in and others don't.

Thus the fact that it is subjective doesn't negate either the subjectivist or the objectivist view of audio.

Burn in may simply be the innate or learned ability to decode new aural information.

I think linguists, physcologists and neurolagists are exploring this area.

Tom

PaulFolbrecht · « **Reply #22 on:** 16 Dec 2006, 03:23 am »

Let's not bogart this thread with a silly break-in debate.

Out of the box, my new 2 sets of Anti-ICs are AT LEAST the equal of the 4x as expensive WW Polaris' I've been using. I am freakin' impressed. I am nearly certain there are big differences here, for the better. A few days hard-listening will tell for sure.

Paul

Occam · « **Reply #23 on:** 16 Dec 2006, 04:19 am »

Paul - Thanks

PaulFolbrecht · « **Reply #24 on:** 16 Dec 2006, 04:23 am »

Quote from: Occam on 16 Dec 2006, 04:19 am

Paul,

Your P.S. is offensive and inappropriate. I'm asking you as a personal favor to edit it out.

TIA,
Paul

It was a joke. Internet debates frequently degenerate into childishness and name-calling, with no substance, with a "Nazi" reference being the ultimate (too frequently hit) bottom-rung. I apologize for my attempt at off-beat humor.

Jonathan · « **Reply #25 on:** 16 Dec 2006, 04:26 am »

Quote from: PaulFolbrecht on 16 Dec 2006, 03:23 am

P.S. The Nazis didn't believe in cable break-in.

Hmmm, I guess that was supposed to be funny, but I don't really get it.

That being said, I'll jump on the bandwagon about the Anti-Cables. I'll preface this by saying that I've never been much interested in spending a ton of money on cables, so my stuff has always been either inexpensive or "home-brewed" e.g., Home Depot indoor/outdoor extension cord for speaker cables and Mogami star quad ICs with generic locking RCAs.

About six months ago I splurged on a pair of Quicksilver's silver ICs between the amps and preamp, and a pair of Kimber Silver Streaks between the CD player and preamp, but I'm not sure I heard any improvement (and I'm still running zip cord from my amps to my sub).

Anyway, I recently found a good deal on some Speltz speaker cables and a pair of interconnects, and thought "what the heck?" Call it placebo, call it whatever, but the system has never sounded better. I hear a noticeable improvement in coherency up and down the frequency range--especially in the bottom end, an increase in detail, and both a widening and deepening of the soundstage. A buddy who has heard my system dozens of times was also impressed.

Needless to say, it's my system in my room, listened to by me and my crappy ears (too many years as a rock and roll drummer), but I have to admit that as a die hard cable skeptic, I have found this to be interesting.

(System = Quicksilver mini-mite monos and Linestage; Sony SCD-1; Reference 3a MM De Capos; Audire Audio Rava sub).

tomjtx · « **Reply #26 on:** 16 Dec 2006, 05:11 am »

Well,
it's nice to hear others are having a good experience with the anti's. When I find a cable like the Anti's that buries my 2,800.00
XLO's it make me take notice. I know other people that have hi-dollar cable that have switched.

If one thinks rationally about it there is NO reason cables should cost a lot other than the gullibility of us audiophiles.
The materials aren't that expensive and the "art" of manufacture is certainly not comparable to a luthier of classical guitars or violins.

Mega buck cables are IMHO are the THE shameless scam of audiophilia.

And ,yes, I've heard the Nordhost VAllhalla in my system...................not impressed.

PaulFolbrecht · « **Reply #27 on:** 16 Dec 2006, 05:58 am »

Quote from: tomjtx on 16 Dec 2006, 05:11 am

Mega buck cables are IMHO are the THE shameless scam of audiophilia.

And ,yes, I've heard the Nordhost VAllhalla in my system...................not impressed.

How about Tara at $10,000 per meter? I think that's the ballpark.

This is the type of thing that makes the rest of the work think us audiophiles are completely crazy, of course. Some of the ultra-expensive cables DO cost a lot to make, but the markup is always astronomical.

I would like to see someone setup some blind tests with the executives of these cable companies and publish their hit-ratios picking out their multi-thousand-$ cables over the likes of the anti-cables or even the cheapest OFC cables on the market. This would never happen.

Also, I'm still on the fence about cable break-in, really. If it's there, for me, it falls withing the range of psychosomatic differences - could be there or could be the imagination. I *think* I've noted it, but I'm not entirely confident, as with most outright IC or powercord changes.

I'll refrain from potentially 'ffensive (and apparently unfunny) jokes about break-in in the future.

Although... have you heard the one about the priest and the rabbi and the cold Tara ICs?!

tomjtx · « **Reply #28 on:** 16 Dec 2006, 12:46 pm »

Although... have you heard the one about the priest and the rabbi and the cold Tara ICs?!

[/quote]

How about the Buddhist who said to the hot dog vendor: "make me one with everything"

richidoo · « **Reply #29 on:** 16 Dec 2006, 01:02 pm »

I have been using Anticable speaker wires for a year and IC for about 9 months. They both work great. I plan to get the Anti jumpers soon. I think they might be better than those brass plates! And I may even try the Zero-formers - it's up to Santa now.... I have been impressed with the value and good service from Paul and his wife.

I use the anticable IC with my squeezebox, along with a linear power supply. Playing wavs ripped with EAC, it makes a great digital source, very musical and revealing. Gorgeous spine tingling highs, powerful clear bass. Not bad for $500!

At the price, any serious audiophile can afford to try them. If you use expensive cables now, you might make a buck selling them. If you don't like them, get your money back. I upgraded from RCA speaker cable bought at home depot. I am totally satisfied and feel no need to upgrade again. I will listen to other cables in comparison as the opportunity arises. My dealer wants me to try some AudioQue$t DB$ cable$.

I did buy a set of bluejeanscable ICs with Belden 1505A for another source. I could hear a very big difference with the anticables, they are far superior on the squeezebox. But the beldens work better on this particular consumer universal player, by filtering out some harshness in the highs. If you have audiophile quality components, you don't want any filtering and the anticables are very revealing. Speltz says they are among the lowest if not THE lowest capacitance of any IC, and also have extremely low resistance which makes them sound so clear.

I did not notice any break in on the speaker or ICs.

Thanks for the tip about the silver ICs and the bananas, goober. I might try those next time. Paul sells new products to existing customers and those "in the know" before advertising them in order to get some feedback.
Rich

tomjtx · « **Reply #30 on:** 16 Dec 2006, 08:03 pm »

What are the ANTI JUMPERS SUPPOSED TO DO?

gme109 · « **Reply #31 on:** 16 Dec 2006, 09:43 pm »

Quote from: tomjtx on 16 Dec 2006, 08:03 pm

What are the ANTI JUMPERS SUPPOSED TO DO?

Used instead of bi-wiring.

bpape · « **Reply #32 on:** 17 Dec 2006, 01:33 am »

Think of a non OTL tube amp driving something like Maggies. I will tell you from personal experience that when you bump up the load to 8 or 16 ohms, something like a VTL really sings driving maggies intstead of trying to drive the 4 ohm load.

Bryan

toobluvr · « **Reply #33 on:** 17 Dec 2006, 01:57 am »

Quote from: tomjtx on 16 Dec 2006, 08:03 pm

What are the ANTI JUMPERS SUPPOSED TO DO?

They are simply jumpers made by Speltz. Like any jumpers, they are used on speakers with 2 pair of binding posts, instead of bi-wiring.

http://www.anticables.com/jumpers.html

PaulFolbrecht · « **Reply #34 on:** 17 Dec 2006, 02:40 am »

Quote from: bpape on 17 Dec 2006, 01:33 am

Think of a non OTL tube amp driving something like Maggies. I will tell you from personal experience that when you bump up the load to 8 or 16 ohms, something like a VTL really sings driving maggies intstead of trying to drive the 4 ohm load.

Bryan

What's the effect on sound quality?

My new Green Mountain C3s are 4-5 ohms in the bass, and while my 30W SETs drive them quite nicely from the 4-ohm tap, 8 ohms would be even better. I have serious doubts that inserting another pair of autoformers wouldn't have some sonic price across the whole range, however.

Daygloworange · « **Reply #35 on:** 17 Dec 2006, 03:27 am »

Quote

I am an agnostic audiophile. I have no idea if there is cable burn in.
Go to the Slim Devices forum where we discussed "brain Burn in"
There is a theory that posits that as the brain learns the new sound of a component the brain gets better at the info that the component presents to the ear. We become better at decoding auditory info the more we hear it.
As a professional musician this is what we experience with ear training, where we have to do melodic,harmonic and rhythmic dictation.
the more we do it , the better we get at decoding that info.
Therefore it is plausible that this phenomena explains the burn in effect that some experience after time with a component that " shouldn't " have burn in (or break in).

It might be that I, as a musician who is trained to detect pitch, harmony and rhythm and write it down immediately , might have a shorter"brain burn in" time than someone who doesn't have an ear training background.
It may also be that some people are more innately able to rapidly decode new aural info and therefore need less brain burn in (BBI)
than others.
This MIGHT explain why some people experience burn in and others don't.

Thus the fact that it is subjective doesn't negate either the subjectivist or the objectivist view of audio.

Burn in may simply be the innate or learned ability to decode new aural information.

I think linguists, physcologists and neurolagists are exploring this area.

Tom

tomjtx,

I totally agree with you. I maintain that trying to conclude that burn in doesn't exist would be premature as there are many areas to explore yet still. I'm a trained musician as well. I'm also a long time recording engineer. There are experiences during the time of my training and during the times of practical application that don't allow me to shut the door on the topic of burn in. You've alluded to some important ones that compliment some of my posts on the topic.
The one that I remember that opened my eyes the most was when I was studying music in college. We had a class where we would be given music scores to sight read along with the music while it was being played on record. Orchestral works were the most eye opening. We would be reading the conductors master score, which would have the scores of all the instruments layed one above the other, measure to measure.

We would listen first without the score. Then while reading the score. You would hear things that you didn't hear before. Seeing that there was an oboe playing where you didn't even hear it, and now hearing it because your listening for what the score says is actually there. Same with bass instruments. Some times they're there but just doing very subtle drones and crescendo's that are almost subliminal. A lot of subtle counterpoint gets missed too. When you're finally exposed to it, you can't believe you ever missed it. But it was there all along.

I don't record anywhere near as much as I used to. But when I was doing it a lot, and I mean a lot, I could have 5 microphones of the same make and model, bought at the same time, and tell them apart. They would sound different. I could hear the differences quite easily. I equate it to meeting identical twins for the first time. They look identical in every way. You struggle to tell them apart for weeks. After a year or so the minute differences between them are not so minute, you in fact don't see them as twins, but 2 people who have a general similarity, but don't look all that much alike anymore.

I totally agree with you, people hear and perceive very differently. I also think that more concentrated studies would be helpful, but not likely to happen due to cost vs. return on investment.

I prefer to keep an open mind on the subject.

Cheers

2bigears · « **Reply #36 on:** 17 Dec 2006, 04:39 am »

merry-merry all.i don't like these threads,they end up costing me money. [ :)can't take it with ya

] these i/c's and s/c's are now on the Santa list.gotta give a try.

andyr · « **Reply #37 on:** 17 Dec 2006, 09:49 am »

Hi Tom and daygloworange,

Fascinating idea (about it being brain burn-in, rather than wire/component burnin)!

However, I guess I think there might be a bit of both?

Regards,

Andy

tomjtx · « **Reply #38 on:** 17 Dec 2006, 01:24 pm »

Dayglo,
Very interesting post, thanks.

I have the same experience with scores as well. The brain hears more when it knows what to listen for.

I remember how much more I heard in a Bach Fugue that I played once I finished the course in 18th century counterpint.

It makes perfect sense to me that the microphones became more distinguishable after time.

This phenomena could shed light on the potential limitations of blind testing if it's the only criteria used to evaluate diferences in components.

BTW where did you study music? Did you study conducting? Just curious if that what the score reading was from.
My degree is in Clasical guitar

Tom

bpape · « **Reply #39 on:** 17 Dec 2006, 01:30 pm »

Paul.

Steve K could give you much more detail as it's his system that I've heard them in. The amps just seem much more 'relaxed' and have a better controlled bottom end with amps seeing a 16 ohm load.

Bryan