Bob’s public profile is rich:
“ Long time audiophile. Had a full service, brick and mortar stereo/home theater store in Casselberry, (Orlando) Florida for many years before joining Legacy Audio (speakers) as VP of Sales and Marketing (6-years.) Moved to Belden Wire and Cable for 12-years in multiple roles. Now working with Kurt and Galen at Blue Jeans Cable to bring Iconoclast to the world.”
7 Likes
Thanks for the info @Serhan and happy belated birthday!
2 Likes
Thank you @paul172 
2 Likes
@BobBJC, you were in Casselberry? Do you still live in this part of FL?
I recently purchased the OCC RCA ICs and will sell my 3’ TPC version. Bob Howard was a joy with whom to interact. I have an updated SMc DNA-1 amp and was thoroughly pleased with the sound change. Since my cable run was less than 5 ft, Pat/SMc Audio recommended going with the RCA rather than XLR.
Good decisions! The RCA is far more flexible in short runs and isn’t polarized to insertion like XLR are by design. And, single end can sound very good as it is void of a more complex circuit. If you have good grounds, single ended is super. Some VERY hi-end only do single end so don’t judge it until you hear it. I used the McCormak DNA 225 amp/MAP-1 preamp in the past. Great quality built stuff.
XLR takes ground problems in stride with longer runs and the XLR’s noise mitigation CMRR offset the complexity of the signal circuits. Even some short runs using different house circuits and can see ground differential problems. Make sure you use the same circuit back to the fuse box that each end piece the RCA is plugged into. That will insure a more consistent ground level at each component.
Best,
Galen Gareis
2 Likes
Sorry, I like XLR better.
1 Like
How stuff really work isn’t about “sorry”. It is about the current system under study. You always use the system that is working the best. Never make a judgements without real data. Saying it work for you is different than proving which is best and when.
The PROS use XLR as they see time as money and can’t waste time chasing down ground noise. Balanced is well good enough for most situation and a quiet recording is better than a noisy one with a wider bandwidth or fidelity. No one will listen to noise no matter what the recording is. A balanced circuit is more complex and ANALOG, unlike digital, can’t compensate that CUB unbalance as well when the RL caused by the impedance changes impact voltage levels. I use XLR on longer runs so I’m not saying either is better per say. But XLR is not ALWAYS better.
What I will say is use the tech that is advantaged in your equipment. Don’t use a XLR wires single end for instance, use a true RCA design cable. If you have TRUE balanced XLR all the way thgrough use that but don’t use a convenience “cheater” XLR with PIN 2 HOT and used that as an RCA unbalanced. Use the RCA with a good RCA cable. An XLR used single end is not ever as good as an RCA cable, it isn’t designed to be as good as an RCA.
Best,
Galen
5 Likes
Galen, can you please define what “polarized to insertion” means?
On an XLR you need to orient the PINS inside when you insert the cable. It isn’t an electrical polarization but a physical one. A “straight through” XLR can avoid any twist in that cable to insert both ends. But if you “loop back” that cable it will need a 180 degree twist to insert the connector. All XLR are polarized one way or the other, you can’t get it both ways. An RCA can go in as a straight through or loop back with zero cable twist.
Sorry if I confused everyone…the signal is OK!
Best,
Galen
3 Likes
Galen,
Much thanks for the information and using the OCC RCA ICs allowed me to remove my preamp from the loop.
Huge congratulations to using your engineering skills to better the audiophile world at a reasonable cost…in comparison to other much more expensive cables.
My wife came into my music room while I was listening to Eva Cassidy, and she said, “…who is that singing and what did you change…” Interestingly, the two RCA ICs cables that she loved were the LC-1 and ICONOCLAST OCC…too funny.
Don Baker
2 Likes
Don,
The ICONOCLAST is basically a super charged version of the LC-1 which also uses a small center signal wire for Vp alignment (higher DCR) and a very low DCR braid, so important in an RCA design.
The series II IC designs uses even smaller 30 AWG signal wires to further leverage what really works. And yes, we still have L and C moving in opposite directions. As L drops from 0.15 to 0.11 uH/foot with the smaller quad “wire” the C goes up to 17.5 pF/foot from 12.5 pF/foot nominal. It has to. This is still physics as we know it.
A higher L and C improve Vp linearity so we have a win, win there! The higher capacitance isn’t a problem but a benefit as long as it is reasonable. The R and C are in the equation denominator so higher values on both lowers the Vp at higher frequencies to better align with the lower frequencies. Again, within reason. It is easier to raise DCR only if we have a design that can manage the super small wire and not kill L and C. Small wire is easier than making it behave in a cable isn’t easy and neither is actually easy.
The better air dielectric allows a smaller size, better flex, and even better shield DCR with the same electrical values.
The copper science is definitely different but hard to quantify as to HOW the differences are more “right” electrically with analog signals. Yes, the UPOCC has the fewest grains (one) and lowest DCR (103-104% above ASTM ETPC copper). But, the TPC in a good design can exceed UP OCC. The GEN 1 in UP OCC is eclipsed by the TPC in GEN II and costs LESS. So DESIGN still runs out front of materials. True the UP OCC adds that last bit but at a less than value price. The idea was to get TPC to be BETTER than UP OCC GEN 1 so great cable is cheaper again. People keep affording the UP OCC which is fine, but darn the TPC GEN II IC’s is a great value as the superior designs sound with TPC copper offsets high copper prices in the GEN 1 IC’s. So we do try to bring the value into the line.
True the cost to squeeze it to the last drop even with TPC copper is expensive but for many the improvements are worth it if you have good speakers. The measured and calculated improvements are there and we sell only the measurements and calculations. So far holding the designs to true science has lead to, in my ear, superior cables with a constant pedigree of electrical parameters.
We can argue how much the real improvements mean, but not that they exist, they do. I’m good with the better is better but is it worth it argument. This has to be the line in the sand for all of our hobbies. Cars, boats, stereo’s you name it. We are trying to make honestly good cable for less.
Thank you for trying our products!
PS - I have ALL of Eva Cassidy CD’s that I’m aware of. A truly sad story about someone so talented and honest about her abilities as a singer who actually improves existing music! Few can do that, she knocks it out of the park. Her recordings quality are beautiful too!
Best,
Galen
2 Likes
Well said.
A relatively little known national treasure…
+2. A great talent taken too soon.
You haven’t anything. Could someone prove that the RCA are better than XLR, the XLR would disappear.
Just assumptions of no scientific value. Where are your data ? You haven’t proven anything. Just given your theory considering it as the TRUTH. If you think that data are relevant in Hi-Fi, that explains a lot. We just have to choose the best measurements as data and then we’ll know which equipment to buy. We should also remove the AES/EBU, the HDMI and change all most power plugs around the world.
Nobody know exactly how stuff really works. I’m wrong : most cables manufacturers claims they know how stuff really works. Fancy theories to sell stuff 10 times it costs to manufacture, rather 15 to 20 times in your case. The problem is that most of the time, cables manufacturers don’t agree with others, THEY KNOW AND OTHERS ARE WRONG, that why there own cable are the best and at th lowest price bcause they know so much that they can build their cable with cheap components.
If you had found the Graal : how it works, then you’d be the GodCables, know all around the world. And you’d had hated Len Gegory’s choices about analog interconnect cables.
Sorry, I don’t do assumption. You have an uninformed opinion and that’s fine. Let’s see if we can help you feel better about at least our cables. We all start somewhere.
Balanced to unbalanced circuits pro and con is not a theory your argument is the theory it is magical. There is no strange conspiracy that nothing is known about cables to sell them at X, Y or Z price point.
RCA have ZERO capacitance unbalance to ground. The signal has no unbalance distortion at all. But, we can’t remove noise superimposed onto the RCA cable if we have excessive noise. We have that trade-off since the signal and the noise are both common, they mix. But as far as a good system with good grounds single end has a signal advantage based on no CUB distortion.
No XLR ever made and no balanced circuit ever made is exactly ZERO CUB, capacitance Unbalance. We have a built in error but…the differential mode circuit cancels external common mode noise (same signal in both wires) from the differential signals (made different from the noise) so we get excellent noise rejection for a small trade-off in ideal signal purity. Don’t forget that a 100-ohm balanced cable is two 50-ohm COAXIAL cores in parallel that need to ideally be exactly the same. Same impedance, same RL, same velocity etc. What’s the odds of that?
This isn’t even an argument, it is factually how it works. Data? How can a single wire to ground have an unbalance in the signal when there isn’t another wire to be unbalanced to? I have plenty of data, RCA have no balance spec where XLR do. Check MIL-C-17 specs and see or IEEE Ethernet, you’ll see a balance requirement in percent for balanced cables. AES/EBU XLR has a balance requirement. Why? Because they aren’t perfectly balanced. You seem to know better than I about this, so bring your data that shows CUB requirements for a coaxial cable.
XLR will remain the best for noise isolation as that is why it is designed the way that it is. Balanced can also “float” the ground such that -1 volts to +2 volts is +3 volts “difference” and so is -1.5 volts to +1.5 volts. It is a “difference” of the signal we look at. This helps remove ground reference float issues that can impact unbalanced cable. XLR is good for NOISE and GROUND issues. How is this a guess, or it is only a guess for the tech you don’t like?
Your assumption make it seem like it works by accident? We know exactly how and why other things matter such as RCA shield transfer impedance mitigating the common mode noise by up to 110 dB below the signal. Glad to send you those papers if you like.
Use XLR on equipment that is true balanced all the way through with good cable. If you have equipment that is unbalanced, use a proper RCA and not an XLR wired unbalanced. XLR can’t outperform an RCA used unbalanced, both cable being made to be proper balanced or unbalanced designs respectively. Like wise, RCA can’t meet XLR’s common mode CMRR requirement that ARE limited by BALANCE.
My cables aren’t agreement to people, they are agreements to the measurements and calculations accepted by current physics. I really could care less about unsubstantiated people claims. A hundred people can measure the same cable for CUB and get the same value. People don’t matter or influence the proper physics until we distort it with our opinions. I post true measurement and design with no comment except to define the test and measurement. Everyone can test my cable and get the exact same values and the DESIGN explains WHY, not a person.
My proof papers are out there for peer review. Read them and make valid comment. This is all done for people just like you who understandably should be leary of claims with no real data supporting them. Before you attack a manufacturer, you need to evaluate the design expertise and transparency of the company. Is there adequate DESIGN and performance analysis?
If you haven’t read all the papers, you have no grounds to accuse anyone of anything yet.
Since you think that nothing really “works” (you provided no proof it is all made-up) and everyone uses lies and guesses and stuff is made to seem like magic…how do you qualify your cables? Maybe we can give you some ideas as to how to identify better cable designs. I didn’t write all the papers for me, I wrote them for you because you as a customer deserve to know how and why I chose and met the parameters that I did.
All ICONOCLAST are 100% R, L and C tested and come with a test report.
I appreciate peer review pointing out errors and verbal distortions to the physics and thus explain thing most accurately but your comment can’t yet be used to improve verbal communication on a complex subject. There is no factual repeatable values to use as an argument to better explain the physics. You are correct that this is not too well done most of the time.
You can’t have an argument and essentially say, “I want to argue but you need to do all the work”. So far I have done all the work. Read it and THEN post where it is inaccurate or wrong…that’s why it is there.
Can’t hear true differences in cable? Get the cheaper one but to argue they are all the “same” based on that? No, they still are different in measurement and performance even if it remains outside your use perception(s). We sell better measurement and calculations and explain how we did it. Nothing is unknown or an accident. To pick a better cable the way we measure “better” has to be done based on actual physics. Stop when better no longer is useful to you.
Best,
Galen Gareis
16 Likes
I suspect that @jack_nessuno doesn’t know who Galen is. Just a guess.
9 Likes
Great stuff, Galen
3 Likes
Galen,
I sure appreciate your involvement on this forum and the detailed cogent explanations you provide on the cable topics.
Thank you Sir.
4 Likes
I think you nailed it.
2 Likes