Belden ICONOCLAST Interconnects and Speaker Cabling

Cables
2782

I know “why” it sounds different, not the HOW. The EM wave is CHANGED.

We hear the initial PHASE of the signals, alignment at the start of the cable. We then hear the superimposed group delay, or how the frequencies CHANGE phase as they travel down the cable cause by the Vp differential caused by frequency differences.

Two cars are lines up at the start line the same way. But as they travel down the road, one goes faster than the other as it is allowed to go faster (higher frequency). Thus, the arrival time is changed. This is worse if they aren’t initially lined up in proper phase. Now we add-in the wire’s contributions.

Somehow, the copper structure must alters the amount of each time delay that we hear. Our ears are very time sensitive more than frequency response. I know how to change phase (inductance) and Vp differential (capacitance and resistance). So we kind of have tools to manipulate that.

I can measure Vp differential in wire, and use equations to roughly duplicate the measurements transfer function. And, lower inductance lowers phase. I can’t point to a given wire’s structure of attributes and say, “this one attribute is what we are hearing because it does THIS”.

I have ZIP tools that define how to “adjust” what wire structure does except to offer them as alternatives…so that’s what we do.

ICONOCLAST, all of them; speaker and IC’s are designed to mitigate TIME errors through measurements and listening test to confirm that the improvements are worth the effort to achieve. The use of smaller wires is necessary for managing Vp differential (not so much phase), and I’m not the only designer that knows this. HOW you do it is, of course, creating different sounding cables, copper being the same.

Best,
Galen Gareis

2783

Cool!

Thank you, Galen

2784

I feel that (correct me if I’m wrong) this was what makers like Transparent were/are trying to manipulate with stuff like Zobel networks. My subjective impression is that your “cleaner” design has taken that a step further, and is not subject to the potential minuses of sticking a network box in line.

I’ll go further into potentially contoversial territory by reiterating my subjective impression that this allows me to hear the SP in the SPTPC as distinct from the TPC. Which is why, despite the benefits of a “brighter” presentation, I opted for the TPC for speaker wires. Prefer the OFE in ICs over the TPC, but of course for the sake of this assertion, there is no SPTPC IC to compare with.

2785

Not sure I hear it exactly the same way as BB, but my perception is similar. I remain thrilled, five years on, with my SPTPC speaker cables. I recently moved from Legacy Aeris to Legacy Valor speakers, and from Merrill Veritas to 116 amps. The SPTPC cables sound amazingly clear. I don’t much like the word “bright,” because for some readers/reviewers, it can denote something undesirable. But clarity, wow. And the depth and width of soundstage is just amazing. The Valors throw a three-dimensional sound stage that extends behind me. It is eerie.

In due time, I will replace the OEM ICs that came with the Valors with Iconoclasts. My system components all have UPOCC now. I haven’t settled on what the ICs with the speakers will be. With the Aeris, it was TPC, and I may stay with that. We’ll see.

2786

Instead of bright, I think extended, airy, open.

2787

Yes.

2788

Perhaps I chose a loaded word. Brighter doesn’t necessarily imply anything for me. I think of it usually like I think of EQ. If I boost a range of frequencies (compared to whatever it is you’re comparing it to) you hear more of that information.

I suppose if I start from the assumption that X is “flat”, then If Y “reveals” more high end info, I would perceive that as comparatively “brighter”. Inadequacy of language again.

In this case I was referring to what I perceive as the TPC’s sound alone (X), and feeling like I heard a Timing Difference from the SPTPC (Y) with the added information from the SP. Trying to describe something ephemeral. No idea which has flatter measured response, and frankly don’t care, as cables are so synergy-dependent.

2789

I think we’re making too much of this. :wink: I don’t personally see “bright” as bad, and certainly neither linguistic nor audio criticism was implied. I just generally try not to use it when what I am perceiving is openness, clarity, detail, and air, as Elk clarified.

2790

I’m just trying to be “clear” and "open":stuck_out_tongue_closed_eyes:. No criticism taken. I just find it fascinating. I heard what others heard in the SPTPC, but every time I went back to the TPC, it was like the timing “focus” was better. Yeah - I was potentially “giving up” the things the SP added, and I didn’t think they were sonically offensive from a “brightness” perspective.

However - back to EQ (vs. time-domain stuff per se): Some of the subjective aspects of the cable experience can be accounted for by ordinary means. They are, to greater or lesser extent, in-line passive EQ devices. Here is one of many such charts available as guides for EQ’ing different things. There are overall ones, and ones more specifically targeted.

I grabbed this one as it is simpler, even if very exaggerated. You wouldn’t want to do such radical EQ adjustments to a track - or you done recorded it wrong! But the point is that the addition of silver plating to a copper cable has always seemed to me to add stuff like “air” - which is like the effect of boosting 12 or 16kHz. You can run most any recording through an EQ and add “air” to it. That may also change the perception of the space, as you may hear more of the room or the reverb tails. The better and quieter the original recording, the more apparent this will be without simply exposing the noise buried in the signal.

image
image1372×783 259 KB

2791

Great discussion! Galen wrote a paper entitled “Time.” It’s one of my favorites because it covers a statement that was included in his latest reply in this discussion and that was,

“We hear the initial PHASE of the signals, alignment at the start of the cable. We then hear the superimposed group delay, or how the frequencies CHANGE phase as they travel down the cable cause by the Vp differential caused by frequency differences.”

The human ear is very sensitive to phase anomalies, more so at some frequencies than others. Galen’s paper on “Time” discusses “group delay” and time and phase differential at frequency. How many audio processors and controllers are fitted with the potential, through the use of software/firmware and a microphone to analyze frequencies and make adjustments based on room interaction? I have not ever heard this mentioned as a consideration in audio cable design until I met Galen and started reading his work. Galen’s cable designs embrace phase, Vp differential and time using his understanding and the tools available.

My speaker cables of choice are hands down SPTPC. I personally can’t use the word “bright” in any narrative on these cables.Without question I have experienced speaker cables and IC’s that used silver in their design that some would say were bright, fatiguing and sibilant. The nature of these cables to me was very different than Iconoclast SPTPC speaker cables. I find the detail and air exhibited by Iconoclast SPTPC cables to be intoxicating especially when the cables seem to make my speakers vanish and provide a soundstage width and height that exceeds the boundaries of my Legacy Whispers. Even after years of listening, I still find the presentation to be uncanny. I remember the wow factor delivered to me the first time I watched Avatar 3-D at an IMAX theater in Tampa, Florida. Because of a delayed flight I had 6-hours to kill and had not even heard of Avatar at the time. The posters looked cool and I had never seen a modern 3-D movie so “what the heck.” When those little furry looking things started floating all around me I thought I was having a religious experience. I know, cheap date, all I could say was “WOW!” Actually I was saying HS but I can’t say that here. That, is what I get “every time” listen to my system after the introduction of Iconoclast cables. No sales and marketing going on here! Only sharing my utter and true opinion on some cables that will change the way you listen.

Anyway, thanks for all of the great discussion. I largely try to stay out of the way and let Galen do his magic, answer questions and explain what he knows so darn well. Thank you always to our host and moderators for allowing us to be here!! We are supposed to have wind and rain associated with Hurricane Sally here tomorrow. I think I will listen to some music and watch the wind. I’m sorry for our friends in the west! Lots of fires and smoke, lots of folks lost their homes. Tragic. 9/11 last week, never forget please.

2792

Thanks for all those thoughts Bob. Y’all stay safe. Wish you could send some of that rain our way. It’s like living in a BBQ pit here.

2793

Interesting - two votes for SP synergy with Legacy :metal:t2:

Anyone who has not heard Iconos should know that I’m pretty sure I was/am in the minority in preferring the TPCs over the SPTPCs (this is speaker cable we’re talking here). Bob can tell us the stats on that. But hey - apparently even Galen is using them. However - you should definitely take advantage of their trial to decide for yourself. Many also love the OFE.

Meant to mention that I recently got two pair of OFE RCA IC’s for my 2nd system (source to pre and pre to amps), and - talk about a new lease on life! I could happily live with this system if wildfires consume system 1, or Old Man Willow falls on it, or we have hurricanes in Colorado. Hey - it could happen! :man_shrugging:t2: :cowboy_hat_face:

2794

I tried SPTPC Spkr cables for quite a long time but ultimately was much happier with the OFE’s.

2795

Speakers? I forget.

Might be interesting/instructive to have a database of speaker brand/cable preference. Not that it would represent any sort of Law. Just interesting.

2796

I would think it would be interesting to include the amp in that database.
I wonder how much specs like damping factor, slew rate, current capacity would matter.

2797

That would matter a lot as the damping factor is impedance of the loudspeaker to the source impedance. And, every amp ratio to source (speaker and cable, really) is different.

And yes, in my “ear” and system I like the timber / patina of the TPC and SPTPC. Still, who cares? It’s all in what’s best for you and we just provide the best we can with the copper choices so you know what each can really do. After all, I was very interested in that aspect too. A true test of copper, and ONLY the copper.

Best,
Galen

2798

While we have your attention @rower30, i was curios to know your views of using copper/ silver foils vs round wire for speaker cables.
Given the current and impedance in a speaker cable my understanding is it would be fairly hard for RF to impact them…what would you say is better sonically between a top grade copper foil vs round wires.
Barring the form factor for the foils which in your opinion is better ?

2799

Shannon’s law says your bandwidth is the level the signal is above the noise. For speaker cables, we have a large signal so effort to mitigate the noise is a lower priority if it can be a benefit at all. Sure, an instrument can measure S/N but even with our great ears, there are still things instruments are good for and one is S/N ratios.

The biggest issue with ALL cables is trying to align the TIME based functions so the signal isn’t distorted by the reactive variables AND, as it turns out, the resistance too! If we had infinity S/N ratio (this has to assume we even have any significant terrestrial noise problem!) and the cable’s time based properties were whacky to get that S/N ratio, we’d HEAR that effort to lower S/N, and not in a good way. No “noise” but what did we do to the SIGNAL to get it?

Knowing that I chose to use unshielded speaker cables and also knowing that a shield is a form of EM distortion to an EM wave as it can’t be perfectly symmetrical to the core. The benefits of a shield have to far outweigh the negatives. Even Ethernet at 10G can use UTP designs! And yes, we REALLY DO have noise at those frequencies from 1-500 MHz.

The properties of EM waves propagation in irregular shapes is complex and harder to PROPERLY manage. Those corners will get you! Round wire, to me, is still the best compromise for consistently allowing R, L or C to be moved about to achieve measured objectives and at reasonable costs.

The “impedance” (its really more a reactive response verses a true impedance) is WAY far and away from the cable impedance. Look at the ICONOCLASTCABLE.com paper on speaker cables. What is the measured impedance graph doing? Truly matching the cable to the speaker with a foil shield, or any shield, won’t be good enough. A cable in the low frequency region has very high and variable reactive impedance where most of the reflected energy is causing the problems.

A shield will DECREASE the impedance some (Z= 101670/Cap*Vp at RF). At audio the capacitance can be designed UP in value and lower impedance also but not enough to get anywhere near 2-16 ohms of a typical speaker.

Getting that match, 8-ohm cable to 8-ohm speaker trashes other variables I “hear” that are far more important to me. True, we have to use the cable and see what’s best for our ears. All cable are compromises as audio frequency is so non linear. We all goof it up somewhere, we have to!

Best,
Galen Gareis

2800

As always very informative and thank you :pray: Galen

2801

LOL!! We are rocking and rolling here on the Gulf Coast Coast this morning! Nothing would surprise me “anymore!” However, hurricanes in Colorado would be a stretch. :flushed: