ICs: Grover vs Reality vs Anti

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. Read 2096 times.

anubisgrau

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 386
ICs: Grover vs Reality vs Anti
« on: 6 Jun 2007, 10:21 am »
As I have been exposed to Anti-ICs wonders for last 36 hours I am now really curious about the others from the subject.

It's perfectly clear to me that there is no more space in my life for cables super-brands, whatever they are - as long as they cost what they cost.

Now I am wondering about Grover and Reality ICs and how they sound compared to copper Anti-ICs (as they are now established as my reference).

Yes, I know cables are system-related but still I think that the best cables don't behave as EQ as we are thought, don't mess the frequences and rather enhance speed, propulsivity and micro/macro dynamics of the system (such as otherwise great but just too expensive Chord Signature).

These are the cables I am interested in.

Looking forward to hear your thoughts.

Cheers Gordan

woodsyi

  • Volunteer
  • Posts: 6513
  • Always Look on the Bright Side of Life!
Re: ICs: Grover vs Reality vs Anti
« Reply #1 on: 6 Jun 2007, 11:49 am »
I think I like propulsive interconnect.  Does it work like a slingshot?  :lol:

richidoo

Re: ICs: Grover vs Reality vs Anti
« Reply #2 on: 6 Jun 2007, 12:02 pm »
Anti was my "reference" for a year, only because I saw the ads and couldn't afford anything else that I knew about. I did try Blue jeans 1505 coax and still enjoy those for the flexibilty, superb canare connectors and decent sound, but they aren't as transparent as the anti-copper ICs.

A couple months ago, we had an amp contest at my house and some Grovers and Realities came over where I heard them for the first time.  The realities sounded at least as good as anti, but in that small moment I could not get a sense of exactly how they differ, only to say they seemed better but could have been mental illusion. Since then I have listened to them again, but not for long, never lived with them overnight. A few people whose opinion I respect prefer them to Anti and Grover.

At the amp contest I also heard the Grover for the first time, and was much more affected by the change in sound. Transparency increase over the anti was not subtle, it was very obvious to everyone in the room (4 of us) all but one were hearing it for the first time. Within 5 seconds we were all commenting at once out loud, "Whoa! what is this one?" kind of thing..

I bought three pairs of Grovers and use those now. I still have the anti and the blue jeans in my system and still enjoy using them, as they do sound great, except the transparency is not to the degree that the Grover provides. The transparency of the anti-copper would have been plenty good enough had I not heard the Grovers, anti's are extremely good, especially for the $. The grover has no detectable downsides to my ear. Not excessively sibilant or hyped. It is natural and musical, recordings just sound more real, that's all. Bass and mids remain natural and powerful as with anti. It is a gentle "focus" increase on the lens, no "sharpening" effects. I have pretty transparent system so the changes are very easy to hear between cables and other tweeks. YMMV.

Grovers are not as flexible as my other brands, and are bright white, which does not fit into my decor so well. The connectors are custom specified by Grover and are not big metal bullets, some extra care is needed in plugging and unplugging them to avoid any extra stress, nothing to worry about. The connectors are very tight for RCAs, which I like. Prices are right in line with these other two brand you mentioned. Also consider anti-silver ICs, they are new and have been getting good reviews around here. Paul Speltz and his wife are angels, so I'm glad to hear they now have a product that can keep up with the latest and greatest  competition. I have not heard the anti-silver ICs. I do use anti-copper speaker wire and jumpers and did not hear significant difference between that and Reality speaker wire on a short audition, but I will compare the two again sometime when I can spend more time. My impression was that Reality speaker cable is slightly better, but nobody can touch anti speaker cable price, $10/ft!  :green:
Hope this helps
Rich

tonyptony

Re: ICs: Grover vs Reality vs Anti
« Reply #3 on: 6 Jun 2007, 09:35 pm »
Rich, is there a web address for Grover?

95bcwh

Re: ICs: Grover vs Reality vs Anti
« Reply #4 on: 6 Jun 2007, 09:48 pm »
Cables behave like filters, some pass more low frequency than high frequency, some emphasize the midrange. I absolutely like Reality cables in one system belong to a good friend of mine, but I was unimpressed with how it does in my system.

If you're really serious about this hobby, I don't think you have any other choice but try out all of them yourself.

marvda1

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 1872
  • freelance reviewer: The Sound Advocate
Re: ICs: Grover vs Reality vs Anti
« Reply #5 on: 6 Jun 2007, 10:05 pm »
my reference cables were audio art ic-3 between the amp and preamp and between the dac and preamp.
i found that replacing the audio art's with Grover was too much of a good thing (highs emphasized a little too much in my system) but audio art ic-3 between the dac and preamp along with Grover between power amp and preamp is killer.
Marvin

Phil

Re: ICs: Grover vs Reality vs Anti
« Reply #6 on: 6 Jun 2007, 11:24 pm »
Gover's email:  groverhuffman@hotmail.com

I'm a happy user of the first generation S IC.    IMHO, these are wonderful cables.  Very transparent and organic presentation. 

Phil

richidoo

Re: ICs: Grover vs Reality vs Anti
« Reply #7 on: 7 Jun 2007, 12:12 am »
Right on, 95bcwh! Try not to pay until after you choose though... hehe.  Lots of wires you can borrow for the asking from friendly AC members.

If you know Grover Huffman, you know that his creativity never stops, and there are frequent changes to his designs, always an improvement. He was very excited about the new S wires which came out this spring. Apparently they are more subtle in the high end than previous design, but I never heard the old ones. I heard three iterations of the S while he was developing them, the latest (at least as of a month ago) sound great after a little break in. I thought they sounded good brand new too, but I can stand a little detail hype without complaining :)  I have all tubes and ribbon tweeters, so I'm not missing any highs and I think it sounds beautiful on acoustic recordings that I listen to. But I don't listen to a lot of singers up close sibilants, rock crash cymbals, etc.
Rich