An Informal Assessment of Anti Cables


My experience with Anti Cable speaker cables surprised me and I though others may want to read about what I found to be a very good speaker cable.

I will do this somewhat briefly and forego the typical audiophile jargon. The Anti Cables are better than what I was using, which were custom shotgun runs of Kimber 4TC (four sets of 4TC cables per speaker; one double shotgun pair for the top and another double shotgun pair on for the bottom; each shotgun pair were twisted together – three twists per foot, and the two shotgun pairs were then twisted together – three twists per foot, to complete one set).

I always found the Kimber setup to be very pleasing, but here’s what I heard with the Anti Cables in place: a very noticeable increase in upper-mid-range and upper frequency resolution (“clarity” if you will). Here is a “tangible” example of what I heard: on the excellent Blue Coast Records’ live acoustic recording by Keith Greeniger (the song titled “Three Little Birds” – an old Bob Marley tune) the recording captures a conversation between Keith and another musician prior to the beginning of the song, in which that other musician yells to Cookie Marenco, the producer. “Are you ready Cookie?” Until I installed the Anti Cables, I was not aware that Cookie is a woman. With the Kimber in place, I could barely hear a response (and only when I really cranked the volume). What I could barely hear was completely inaudible (buried way in the background). With the Anti Cables in place, I could clearly hear Cookie’s response and by golly, Cookie is a woman!

If you have this recording and you can clearly hear (Ms) Marenco respond, then you already have a pretty revealing system (how’s that for science!). For me, this was really cool, because it was “clearly” measurable; it was instantly “tangible.” Now, I was somewhat excited, so I delved into a whole slew of my favorite recordings. The increased clarity and resolution in the mid-range and upper-frequencies made my music sound…well, clearer and more resolved (how else can I say it).

There is a noticeable decrease in what I would deem bass energy, which at first concerned me. Upon further listening, I feel that the bass is simply more refined (tighter if you will). I will experiment with the setup to determine whether, or not, I am utilizing the best termination solution.

Paul sent me what he considers to be his best method, which he calls a set of shotgun parallel bi-wired cables. If you read my other thread about parallel bi-wiring, you know that I was not only confused, but concerned that Paul had sent me the wrong setup. What I have now is two sets of Anti Cables per speaker, but they’re setup differently from what I consider a typical “bi-wired” run. Here, both sets of cables are twisted together (the single run, which comprises two cables, is twisted – three turns per foot; and then each of the twisted pairs are twisted together – three turns per foot – very similar to what I had arranged with the Kimber). This double shotgun run terminates at the speaker end in just one set of spades, which I have hooked to each speaker’s upper frequency binding posts; a set of Anti Cable jumpers are then used to “jump” the low frequency binding posts.

My experiment will be to go directly to the low frequency posts and then jump to the upper frequency posts. Anyway, the point is that I can really hear a significant improvement in clarity and resolution, which is exactly what my speakers needed. I was ready to get rid of my Resolution II’s in favor of the new Maggie 1.7s, but now I might just have to rethink that move.

Thought this might be helpful to those who have ever wondered about Anti cables…
2chnlben

Showing 4 responses by almarg

Excellent post, Ben. Thanks!

A few questions and comments:

1)Did the arrangement with the Kimber cables also employ the jumpers?

If not, I would not necessarily attribute the differences you heard to the cables. In particular, as we discussed in the other thread, the presence or absence of the jumpers may have significant effects in the bass region.

2)As a point of reference, how long are the cables?

3)Re "Additionally, I can always try a true bi-wire with bare ends, in which Paul also recommends using the jumpers. This makes sense if you look at the description of parallel bi-wiring," keep in mind, as we discussed in the other thread and as Tvad commented above, that by any widely recognized definition a configuration that utilizes the jumpers is not "true bi-wiring."

Best regards,
-- Al
Rcrerar -- His Anti-Cables configuration is just connecting to one set of terminals (presently the high frequency terminals), with the jumpers establishing the connection to the woofer terminals.

The confusion stems from Figure 3 of the reference he linked to, which, somewhat unconventionally, uses the term "parallel bi-wiring" to refer to what would be a conventional bi-wire arrangement but with the jumpers in place. Which of course is not true bi-wiring, and as I see it will only have the effects of reducing overall resistance and inductance.

Regards,
-- Al
Cookie -- I second Ben's thought that we are honored by your presence and your comment.
2chlben: Regarding the whole Parellel bi-wire matter, I sure don’t know why the method shown in “figure three” would provide, or even if it may hinder performance. I was hoping an electrical engineer sort may pick up and run with an explanation.
Well, I am an electrical engineer (retired), and an experienced digital and analog circuit designer and manager, and to the extent that cable differences are explainable by generally recognized science I think that the only effects of "parallel bi-wiring" that might be significant are that resistance, inductance, and the possible impact of skin effect would all be reduced.

If the paralleled conductors are identical, all of those things would be cut in half (approximately, in the case of inductance, depending on how the twisting is done). However, none of those reductions would be significant unless the corresponding single cable configuration would have excessive resistance, inductance, or skin effect. And I would not expect any of those things to be significant, even in a single cable configuration, with a properly chosen good quality cable of modest length.

Also, capacitance will be increased as a result of using paralleled cables, but I would not expect that to be significant for an amp to speaker connection under typical circumstances.

In the other thread, as you'll recall, I addressed some of the effects of true bi-wiring, which are not realized if the jumper is present (i.e., are not realized by "paralleled bi-wiring"). Whether or not those effects would represent a net benefit, a net negative, or no difference at all, are, judging by many previous threads on the subject, dependent on both the system and the listener.

What are the answers to the first two questions in my first post above?

Best regards,
-- Al
Hi Ben,

With the jumpers being present with the Anti-Cables, but not having been present with the Kimber's, unfortunately I'd have to say that it all amounts to an apples to oranges comparison, with two major variables having been changed at once (the cable type and the wiring configuration). So I don't think it's possible to say at this point what differences are attributable just to changing from the Kimber's to the Anti-Cables.
What may account for the "closed in" sound as mentioned by Stringreen when he twisted his bi-wire runs? Also, what may account for the increased depth of soundstage in my current setup (which to me makes the central image - primarily vocals - appear a bit too far into the background)? Similarly, what may account for the increased clarity (resolution)? Can these (are these) results attributed to capacitance, inductance, resistance, etc
Not sure if Stringreen was referring to just twisting the + and - conductors of the high frequency cables together with each other, and twisting the + and - conductors of the low frequency cables together, or if he was referring to doing that and also twisting the high and low frequency pairs of conductors together.

In the first case, the result would be substantially lower inductance, resulting in greater extension at very high frequencies. Not sure why that would correlate with the subjective perception of a closed in sound; I would expect it to do the opposite.

If he was referring to a comparison between having none of the four conductors twisted together and having all of them twisted together, there would also be a reduction in inductance, and similar comments would apply except to a different degree.

If he was referring to having + and - twisted together in both of the cases being compared, and comparing having the high and low frequency cables twisted with each other vs. not twisted with each other, there would be effects on inductance, and perhaps even to capacitance to a marginally significant degree, but frankly I'm not sure how to quantify that, much less correlate it with subjective perceptions.

Re the increases in soundstage depth and resolution that you noted, given the reasonable parameters of all of the cables that you used, and the moderate length, I don't know how to explain those findings. But my instinct would be that the insertion of the jumper may have been a more significant factor than the change of cable types.

Best regards,
-- Al