Belden ICONOCLAST Interconnects and Speaker Cabling

Hi Will, just to clarify: there’s no @lonson on that thread at the AV forums–I’ve learned not to participate over there.

1 Like

A thoughtful, gentle post.

I, too, avoid the AV forums.

1 Like

Ha, yes! I confused your Hoffman posts with the AVS ones. They do have different rules over there at AVS and most of the time they are just crapping on each other while going nowhere with the conversation. Well, at least when it comes to cable. It never ceases to amaze me that adults will grasp on to one detail and claim that Galen (or whomever) is a fraud. Sort of like, “You have ONE grey hair on your head therefore you have grey hair.” “No, you are wrong because you spelt it ‘grey’ instead of ‘gray’. You clearly have no idea about what you’re talking about.” The entire point is missed and the argument derails into absurd topics.

You are too kind, sir.

@wglenn - I took it as a challenge to try these cables and I will lose a lot of money, now that I have upgraded my Nordost cabling to a real reference. I did not know Galen a month ago and never went on any other forum, period. Just try them; blind, double blind… did not matter to me… 6 seconds after I knew they were better. Still testing and still finding more reasons to keep the Iconoclast cables. Bob sent me them and only said pay for shipping back ($20 max) if you think you have better cables. OK, same as if I ordered them from the cable company.com so I’m game… no way they are better than my Nordost cables. WRONG! I have not had one bit of pressure from Bob or Galen. They never put words in my mouth about what I should hear as a lot of audio salesmen will do… just try them for a month or two and the chips fall where they fall… I have never been treated with anything but respect, and hands off…

So, just try them, if they suck, tell everyone and Galen will be revealed as a fraud… but he won’t… not cause he is a nice guy… but because he designed a great product and we owe it to the bettering of our systems to find out if this product is great.

I have no incentive to make these remarks other than my experiences. Galen and Bob were not my friends a month ago… and I really did not follow this thread before a month ago.

I have 25 block diagrams of every significant change I have made in a year. These cables are the best SQ change hands down. No change comes close to the impact these cables have had… they are just cables WRONG! They are the medium my signals travel on and they impact huge…

All this bickering is news to me… why bicker… why argue over stuff. Email Bob, get the cables then post your comments from a place of knowledge. Don’t need a degree to listen, just ears. Take copious notes so you can post a thoughtful response of listening substance like @badbeef (Mark) posted. If you think your cables are better and you find theses are not as good. Post the response and the product will die on the vine for a lack of interest. I thought so a month ago till I listened. Galen or Bob never had a conversation with me till after I gave them detailed feedback: Holy $hit are these amazing. This sux, I have to sell my Nordost. I hope more people wanting Nordost cables don’t listen to these cables.

4 Likes

My take on this is weird. I USED science 100% to determine HOW to make the cables. NOTHING wasn’t measured or calculated. I just added some more comment on Vp through the audio band WITH the measurement graphs and calculations off those graphs to prove it. How on earth is this a FRAUD?

The cables REMAIN as they are in measure, and clearly BETTER than legacy products be it speaker or IC RCA and XLR. Better is better technically.

THIS IS WHAT I AM SELLING, and THIS IS WHAT MADE ME HEAR A DIFFERENCE, better balanced measurements across the board. If your system does not respond to the change you’re good…use up to what last did make a difference for the cheapest price and STOP.

But, if a product comes along that is DEMONSTRATABLE improved through actual measurements, and can back those up with DATA that ALSO is ACCURATE (Vp is material dependent and won’t ever change based on design) then maybe we should consider that to sound different, it sure as heck has to MEASURE different. Some items are fixed, due to physics, and I’m not here to tell you otherwise but to SHOW YOU this is the case!

I have tons of data on how cables really work, yet on this exact same site, scads of people think audio cables are 8-ohms because the “spec” said so. WHAT DOES THE SWEPT TESTS DATA SHOW!

Every iota of data is 100% correct on ICONOCLAST. What I do not know is straight up exposed! Copper, what the hell? Why does current coherence matter? What the hell?

What I do know, is to make the cables WORK, what is indeed scientifically true needs to REMAIN true, ALWAYS. There are not one single thing that is “discovered” making ICONOCLAST that is somehow changing anything in physics. Sorry, but ICONOCLAST from that perspective is as ordinary as a black hole.

What is not ordinary, is that the geometry and balance of HOW the current laws of physics can be manipulated do indeed change how a cable sounds, it has to! Electromagnetic fields around a wire are a SUPERPOSITION of how the electrons are effected by the DIELECTRICS in a cable and the DISTANCE. Change those things and you change how the field behaves around the wire.

At some point we can say we can’t hear it, fine. At some point I hope that IS INDEED TRUE! This is where we are going as a team in this hobby. But, until we ALL pay attention to how cables are measured and tested, we can’t even begin to tell what’s the truth, what’s a lie, and what is indeed happening that we can’t yet define.

Too many lies forced me to make ICONOCLAST. Yet, I’m the fraud in all this? If we push to keep improving cable’s measured performance, this effort can take place ANYWHERE. What can be HEARD depends on your system interaction with the cable. But PSAudio, AVS forums or ANY other place that is even remotely truthful can see better is better and keep on making things better as long as the current laws of physics are applied.

I’m hiding something? I pray tell want to know what that is. To kill a secret just tell ONE person what it is. I’m a blabber mouth, I don’t do secrets and don’t tell me yours!

It can’t sound better if it isn’t designed and measure better - “Sound Designs Creates Sound Performance” in the marketing version.

There is a cost to being better. I have tried to drive the price DOWN and DOWN to half where we used to be. Costs are debatable it seems until YOU are the one running a business, then the chicken comes home to roost.

I am not ashamed of our prices at the current VOLUME we sell. Compare what we offer, how it works, and that’s that on price. You can get a better changes for less or you can’t. Fill-in those holes first, but don’t be surprised that a 2K set of speaker cables sound far, far better than going from an ODYSSEY KISMET amplifier and to a SIM AUDIO MOON W-8 amplifier for over 4X more money between the two amps and well above 10K in price!

The truth is I’m too pragmatic to ever be a fraud at anything. My goal is to allow you to know as much as I do, and back it up with the data.

We’ve sold enough cables, and had pro reviews that use hundreds of cables, to see the consistency of changes reported by end users. Far from magic, the cables do improve the clarity, sound stage positioning, imaging stability, and timber of what you hear.

Notice I did NOT say frequency response since I find that less than accurate in measurements. But PHASE responses with each frequency alter the mentioned attributes. WHEN those frequencies are aligned in time changes things. Good old L and C and the within dielectrics used. The totality of information, the spectral magnitude over time, is the same on any cable just not when we get the information. We don’t have enough attenuation to remove information. This is what needs to be better understood, how the voltage at any instant in time is a superposition of the timing in the cable due to L, C and the dielectric. Add to that how the electromagnetic field is changed by materials (copper) and the distance from the wire center to the outer surface of the wire.

Everything I do will follow with a flood of data supporting any changes. It is what and how I do things for you. My take is you invite me into your home and I want to make a good impression.

Time to me is of no value. What we DO during that time is the value. I made ICONOCLAST for you and I feel it presents value.

Galen Gareis

11 Likes

I am thinking of buying the 4x1 XLR cable for AES/EBU digital.
There has been little talk about the sonic attributes of the different copper types in this application.
Any suggestions on what to order?

Raystone 1998 and I have a little project to measure 1800F and ICONOCLAST 4x4 XLR cable for impedance and Vp through audio to RF. Oh yes, we will actually MEASURE it! Nothing wrong with the real data. I’ll get it to the team here. I take some cable into the BEC at Belden Monday morning. Yes, am I still let in…as long as I do what is right on my designs.

The AVS forum is loaded with misinformation at every turn, especially on data. They will get there in time, right is right on the data. What is left is how better data interacts with your amp/ cable/ speaker when you use it.

Some are hell bent on some sort of strange marketing conspiracy stuff, and not the actual product itself. A few see the proper use of engineering yet feel it is inaudible. That’s as good a reason I have to try them. It has to measure differently to sound different. No, the more complex designs will never be cents a foot.

What do I expect on the trial? That we will see major changes in Vp through audio on both dielectric. One is foam olefin, the other is a stepped air dielectric. It is what happens to signsl in audio cable. Oh, we have data going back 40 years or so on this, it is hardly new…but it is new to most people who accepted RF at audio, and who see no reservation in doing that, as wrong as it is. I don’t see much discussion on how inaccurate that actually is based on the data.

Showing how cable really acts through the audioband seems to have ruffled a bunch of really big birds feathers. Actual data is all of a sudden, “false”? What do you go after that? Right to the data, again and again with more as we go. The cable design is the source of the data, not me.

The worst case situation is that accurate data may not be audible in my system, and it sure is expensive to make the best. Yep to both in some accounts. I’m good with that if you use the cable to decide if either of those two conditions are valid.

ICONOCLAST is a special cable sold to make quality assemblies. It will never show up as a BELDEN standard. We make tens of thousands of specials just like this. It means nothing other than the volume is low, expensive, and outside Beldens global volume requirements for standard products, no more and no less.

Would Belden make ANY cables technically wrong where it is to be used? Absolutely not. Better measures better. That’s what Belden does, always. ICONOCLAST is far better than world volume demand so it is a special market cable by Blue Jeans. A D, it is a Belden brand, says right on the label. So much for Belden bring ashamed of the cables mmeasured data. They don’t listen to ANY audio cables, it isn’t their thing. Better is better on the numbers.

The cable ONLY exists BECAUSE it meets agreed upon standards of engineering excellence by engineering review. The marker, however, can’t support every design being pushed to the limits. Not RF, not digital, not audio. This was a blue sky project, and not the only one, a see what you can learn project that lead to the BAV designs and ICONOCLAST through special market channels.

Me retiring on account of some weird conspiracy theory stuff? No, 60 years of age and 35 years of Belden service was my final answer. June 15, 2018 was 35 years on the nose, a Friday, pizza day, pay day, jeans day and my last day. That’s as simple as it gets. I’ve been working with Blue Jeans well overlapping that time frame.

I’m all for data so there it is. What I am not for is made-up conspiratorial garbage to cause harm to people and places with zero responsibility for what is said. Leave people and places in equal or better shape than when you arrive. I may be stupid, but I will treat those who discredit everything around them with the respect that they too can improve. That helps all of us so hang in there, ICONOCLAST is sold on exactly how it measures and THAT determines how it works.

Galen Gareis

4 Likes

Galen
There will always be people who thru self aggrandizement will see the “conspiracies” of others. They offer themselves up as terribly informed and beyond being fooled by what they don’t understand. But they don’t see their own ridiculous transparency. Just push on and ignore these knuckleheads. They have nothing to contribute.
Ron

3 Likes

I agree and, because of that, I no longer use nor purchase their products.

Give me a call when you have a chance and I can cover the attributes and characteristics of the copper variants. My contact information is on the Iconoclastcable.com website.

Bob

Galen, I think that the cynic in people doesn’t allow them to believe that you are who you are and that your motivations are just what you state that they are. You are remarkably transparent and I’ve never heard you utter a line of BS as long as I have known you.

1 Like

Steven, not to be confrontational, but I’m not sure why you were so reluctant to reveal the maker of your cables. In January you started a thread about them … see here. If you are happy with them, fantastic! No one should feel embarrassed by their audio decisions. In contrast, a lot of the folks who argue about expensive cables (e.g., the AV forums) have never tried them. Not sure I understand that logic, but perhaps for these folks (I’m NOT Directing this at you) it would be a good idea to discuss why they think this way and not dismiss entirely the possibility that the claims are in fact true (yeah, I know, dream on …). While there is a lot of BS in the audio world, Galen has been more than supportive of his claims with scientific data. Wish I had been aware of this information years ago, I’ve certainly made some less than ideal choices. Case in point, I’ve had Goertz (not Goetz) speaker cables for about ten years. Luckily I never had a problem with oscillation, but Galen’s explanation of the science behind them is revealing. Interestingly, the Isolda seems to be a similar design and has the Zobel networks built into the cables. Goertz cables have an optional Zobel network which I never tried. And, yes, I like my Goertz cables. Can they be improved upon? Sure.

With respect to Iconoclast, I do not own them, but I would love to try them. The problem is cost, which is certainly a valid concern and one we both share. I’m not really one to spend any amount to get an improvement, that would be a fool’s errand in audio! I do pick and choose what I upgrade and quite honestly cables are a tough sell for me. Do they change/improve the sound? Absolutely! Is the dollar (or Pound, Euro, …) outlay worth it? For me, not so sure. Lots of folks here think it is and I applaud them. My specific issue is I need bi-wire cables, so twice the cost. I’ve discussed this with Galen and Bob and know what I need, SPTPC, but haven’t made the leap. May just wait to see if I will stick with my Vandersteen’s or make a change (could be a BIG cha-ching$).

Anyway, this is certainly an interesting thread and have been reading it from the beginning. Many thanks to Galen for his immense sharing! And I am glad that Will is back, I love his self-deprecating humor! :stuck_out_tongue:

I did indeed mention my cables some time ago as they seemed to reduce external noise. If noise is reduced from the signal path or power, by whatever means, the result seems to be increased clarity. I don’t go for all the BS about better soundstage, bass, blah blah blah, just less noise = better sound.

In the context of the discussion of the Belden cables, the only relevance of the cables I use to the discussion is the geometry of the cables. The brand - Goertz or Townshend - is irrelevant. There is so much science written about cables, the truth or relevance of which it is impossible for most people to judge, what is perhaps useful is when different manufacturers use similar geometries and get similarly good results, or completely different geometries for different reasons but also equally effective. The relative price is also of interest.

In this case, the Iconoclast are designed for low capacitance, as well as inductance and resistance, whereas Belden accept that high capacitance is only an issue because of some, but not all, amplifiers. So they keep capacitance low, whereas Goertz and Townshend manage it with a network.

Less noise equal better sound? Certainly, but only if you even HAVE that condition, and it is significant. For low impedance audio speaker cable it is FUD.

Doubters? Put 1313A or the like in a piece of iron conduit that shield EMI/RFI and low frequency magnetic, both. Did it make a difference in how the cable measures or sounds?

Shields make cable WORSE, not better, as the ground reference is far less stable, influencing every aspect of how consistent a cable is per unit length. The ONLY reason to use a shield is if the NOISE is so much worse an issue than the negatives on the cable electricals.

Look at the graphs of what C-C and shield spacing(s) do to electricals. Shield spacing is BY FAR worse than C-C in upsetting electricals! So why use a shield if you don’t have to? It screws up the transmission line and that’s something you need to wrestle with. I DO NOT use guesses where data can define the proper course of action.

Wear a bullet proof vest only if there are bullets flying around, even if it might make you hot or may slow you down. Most pretend that there are interference that equates to a bullet. For low impedance audio this is VERY, VERY seldom the case.

If it is, use METAL flexible conduit and stick your cables (as cheap as you can find, I suppose) and go from there.

Few manufacturers of cable publish what their cables even remotely do, as false innuendo seems to work far better in this community with cables. Why? No clue. Data that is provided is words, not actual measurements, and is WRONG 99% of the time. Cable is not, nor will it ever be, 8-ohms as an example. ANY accurate measurement will show this to be the case.

And correct, I don’t make inductors or capacitors, I make cable. I have to report what cable really does, even if you don’t like it. I don’t like how cable works either, so attempts have been made to improve the situation where we can.

Galen Gareis

2 Likes

Who mentioned shielding? The cables I use don’t have shielding, they just have an external braid for physical protection as they are thin and flat and easy to crease. Their interconnects are also unshielded.

I used a Nordost cable for years that was flat with no shielding and when I used a valve amplifier I used an unshielded solid core cable.

In my office I use unshielded solid core http://www.dnm.co.uk/cables.html

I have just bought a shielded cable - SWA (steel wire armoured) for my new electric car charger to protect it from being chewed through by foxes. It’s quite expensive, 6mm 3-core with 3 layers including one of steel mesh, costs $4/m.

YIKES on the foxes!

And my interpretation is you mentioned shielding…sorry.

“I did indeed mention my cables some time ago as they seemed to reduce external noise. If noise is reduced from the signal path or power, by whatever means, the result seems to be increased clarity.”

To me this includes shielding or passive RF pass band filters that are usually made by accident and touted as a shield. ICONOCLAST has passive RF cancellation based on magnetic field cancellation due to the wire orientation. This is not at all a true capacitive RF shield. I have no use for “seems to” stuff if there is real data on a parameter that can be defined in design and character, and both are clearly what we want to establish.

I can design better current coherence with calculation and duplicate it every time. We can not yet define the character of this change that influences audio. We have half a problem solved. For noise, “seemed to reduce noise” is neither solved. How to duplicate a design / measurement is the minimum for any chance that it may be audible.

Cables with pass band filters for RF aren’t shielded. The “gap” in the metallic components determine at what point frequencies pass, and what doesn’t. The FUD that what does pass is irrelevant and what doesn’t is harmful is dubious at best. LEAKY coaxial cables are an example of a system that leverages this to communicate specific frequencies, and keep the rest out. The “shield” isn’t a shield, but a frequency filter.

Reducing noise through passive RF cancellation is indeed frequency related, but it DOES NOT really address wide band RF shielding.

We need to be much more demanding on the kind of data, and how it works in at least measurement, before we accept the tech. Stuff is expensive and I don’t take too kindly to stuff I have to take on faith with no real measurements supporting any of it.

It has to measure different to stand any chance to sound different.

Galen

So which model of the ICONOCLAST cables did you try?

@Gary_M - OCC for XLR (pre & DSD) and SPTPC for speaker.

Steven, I know you just pointed this site out, this has nothing to do with finding fault with you, it is finding fault with what is provided to you, the customer. The level of data is what most of you have to go on buying a cable. This is wrong.

I’ll leave it to readers to review what the site provides and if it has any truly verifiable information. It is up to the manufacturer’s to be transparent when demonstrating HOW a cables works with test data.The version with aluminum sheath COMPLETELY changes the cable! And yes, this is what SHIELDS do, change the cable’s parameters significantly.

Vp at the low end is controlled by;

Vp= SQRT[2 X OMEGA/ (RC)], where OMEGA is 2 x pie x f.
or…
Zo=101670 / C X Vp can be used, and solve for Vp, if you know the impedance at each frequency.

Adding a shield changes C, and thus at every frequency Vp changes, too. Worse, C is not influenced uniformly down the cable since the shield geometry relative to the core wires is hard to make 100% consistent along a less than uniform structure. I already showed this with actual charts above. Shields are used ONLY under extreme circumstances of S/N ratios. Most Heavy Industries use UTP Ethernet as an example for it’s superior Shannon’s law bandwidth. Shields knock about 6 dB of NEXT out of the cable all things the same, and the NEXT loss better be less than the S/N that a shield works against or it is not a fair trade. Shielded cables have to be far more perfect to collect back what is lost using a shield.

As time goes on, more and more of you will begin to see that a WHOLE LOT of this is not undefined. Yes, we have a few areas, material structure, current coherence as examples. This does not allow a free-for-all in designing cables! Every single KNOWN parameter can be calculated, measured, and compared to best practice, always.

The advertisements for most cables could be IDENTICAL and just substitute a different picture (I have a hard time saying it is a DESIGN with virtually zero evidence of how it works). All the same magic words and phrases apply.

Sorry, I don’t get it. I didn’t get it 4 years ago and less so today. This is why ICONOCLAST provides heaps of data on EVERY design to show exactly how R, L and C are reached. The unknowns REMAIN unknown and I’ll tell you that. I won’t replace unknowns with, “this seems wrong but it works”. I’d rather see, “the numbers are right, but can you that that?”

Some sites can’t even tell you why one big wire works OK for treble! As frequency goes up, you want MORE surface area and big wire provides that. How hard is this to say? Several smaller wires of the same total CMA area can have MORE surface area, but present a tremendous design challenge to manage R, L and C. The complexity is worth it if you can actually DESIGN a cable. This is what design is all about with cars, washing machines, airplanes you name it. A BALANCE of multivariant variables.

Until known calculations and measurements are used evaluate HOW to best balance audio, we will never get to a truly optimized design. I refuse to put a full page ad in front of you, ask you for your money, and provide not a single spec other than something like, “it is wrong but it works”. THAT is a specification? Can you make an amplifier WRONG on purpose and somehow sell it? I just told you something is WRONG and if it is a cable this is good? Why the hell have I been working so hard?

If it WORKS it can be fully supported as to WHY it is working with the calculations and measurements used to define the DESIGN. Exactly WHY is this design a good balance of R, L and C and tertiary parameters?

I’d rather be a total fool in making an error after peer review and making corrections towards total transparency than to market what passes for data and design proofs elsewhere. I can take ANY design and calculate and measure HOW it fundamentally works, so can they. They won’t, because it will show how the design fails to fully balance what you’re paying for. Most have no clue what the cable even does to accepted standards.

My peer review papers are there to PROOF and find errors in calculation or measurement to further move to FACTUAL variables that can be reproduced. Every cable is looked at this way. Every DEFICIENCY is pointed out as ALL passive cables have them. This is NOT the “problem” per say but the trade-offs needed to mitigate the problems is the problem. What’s the best COMPROMISE and how was it reached?

Maybe when vendors that do have well DESIGNED cables (they should know how they work) show with full disclosure the trade-offs to mitigate cable non linearity we will begin to get somewhere. Cable data can be used to isolate particular sonic merits much like loudspeakers. As it is now, with virtually NOTHING but well wishing words, well…nothing will improve.

Cable, like speakers, can FULLY disclose HOW the designs work and where they don’t. Like a speaker, there is nothing wrong with this approach. Compare each cable to a full set of agreed upon measurements and we can decide what optimizations work for us. Cables that are way off the mark on reaching best in class metrics across several standards can’t possibly sound better. We all know horns, ports, air suspension, dynamic electrostatic are all different and measurably so. We pick what deficiencies effect use the least. You can’t do this with a cable…yet.

Someone has to honestly provide real data to start this line of thinking. There are measures that show merit AND additional deficiencies that I don’t have yet. This is where peer review and a standardized set of ongoing tests provide; improvements in understanding what EVERY cable is doing.

Galen

2 Likes