I have many posts here describing my iconoclast journey. . But first of all clarity, timing and phase. TPC is the most forward of the iconoclast cables. In my system they sounded rich full and solid images. I am sure it depends on your speakers. However you will be surely delighted
2 Likes
I bought my cables around this time year ago and they are UPOCC and OFE and BAV so Bob is basically right that Arenith is first from Finland with TPC 
And they come fast to Finland,sure. But then you need to pay and wait for Customs and home delivery. Two weeks trip max.
When Galen gets their new speaker cables ready it´s time for another round again. My new speakers use and need biwiring. I can use OFE for the bass and new “whatsitsname” mid hi 
or single to biwire,lets see…
3 Likes
Don’t get too crazy with this perfection stuff. We can’t design a perfect EM cable for music, one with only simple amplitude attenuation. Our best bet is short LENGTH and to figure out how to manipulate the physics to be less of a distortion through analog frequency. That’s “all” I’m doing (easy to say).
There is an optimum balance for “a” variable but no one can, or maybe even should, agree on when we should balance ALL the R, L and C variables or HOW that it is done physically. Same with anything audio like amplifiers bias, circuit types etc.
I can make a capacitor a low inductance speaker cable as an example. Sure, a capacitor is a terrible inductor but we can say it is LOW INDUCTANCE! Two plates really close together and we have a long capacitor that is low L and if we use a wide and/or thicker set of plates we get a low R. But we do not get a cable with much control anywhere except inductance and R.
We can do the opposite for capacitance and even just resistance but getting all three optimized is tricky. Like any audio circuit, we can try different things but it would also be nice to know more about the design and HOW it is presenting a different compromise and benefit to us.
No one is wrong, but without an explanation of a design it is way less informative to lead in use applications to a better compromise for users. Is just low R best? Low C? Low L? How much of each? What about Vp linearity through audio? You get the idea, cable is a three leg stool and any one leg that is too short or long renders it unuasable. The performance tips over. I decided to make sure the stool remains upright and collectively try to manage all three. Better, I hope to keep explaining HOW I made the decisions that I did for peer review. The end user should KNOW what the experiment is doing, or attempting to do.
Of course, we have to MEASURE and CALCULATE the results. If I do a calculation, l ALWAYS use the measured variables in those calculations if at all possible. If I can not do a complex calculation, I measure ALL of the concurrent variables at play with industry supported methods like open - short impedance properties through low frequency audio. This represents the REAL and TRUE property of how our cables are working for impedance as an example. No cheating.
We measure R, L and C for you in our assemblies, but there are lots of other variables those three attributes will impact based on HOW the three stooges are arrived at with the physical arrangment in the cable. Two cables can measure the same R, L and C but act vastly different in an analog circuit. We have skin depth, Vp linearity, proximity effects, wire material effects and more. Knowing R, L and C does not fully describe the cable…you have to tear apart the DESIGN.
I’ll have some more on those differences and how they can be better used and offered for trial. Remember, ICONOCLAST is an experiment in making cables with the physics and nothing else. The numbers have to be there or I can’t and won’t say it is better electrical. WHERE it is better and how it got better needs to be isolated. It is as simple as that. Does this approach work?
I think it does, and it also does not restrict creative methods to better manage R, L and C. I don’t have a monopoly on creativity at all. I could argue without other approaches fewer light bulbs would go off and create more options for us all. My big change isn’t the designs, it is trying to explain them. We need more of that.
The joke is a monkey could write a book eventually by accident. Another way to look at it, could a monkey ever UNDERSTAND what he/she accidentally wrote? Understanding is still the “product”.
One of the Apes in Planet of the Apes was Galen…just saying.
Best,
Galen
8 Likes
I know that not much can be said about this new offering, and that TPC is still an outstanding product, but what are the odds of TPC being supplanted in the near future? I’m trying to put my stereo back together and don’t want to rush into purchasing something if there are new prospects just over the horizon.
2 Likes
If you are not opposed to used cables, I imagine when the new cables come out there’s going to be a good number of used TPC going up for sale
3 Likes
Having gone from basic cables to Iconoclast TPC, the first thing I noticed was how clear the image was. Detail was much better as well. It isn’t subtle either. My non-audiophile relatives and friends noticed a difference instantly as well.
4 Likes
There is a really good reason ICONOCLAST sounds like it does. HOW the cables move an analog signal and what you hear are well defined in ICONOCLAST. It isn’t close to your imagination, it is boiled into the design and how the design leverages the physics of the analog frequency domain. Not every system will hear the same impact, but it is not because the cable is not “better”. We took another big step towards a better audio frequency cable with the new design. It also reinforces the current designs through and through. The three patents allow the cable to be made to the needed attributes.
And no, TPC copper won’t ever go away and is really good stuff in the right design. A design that allows cable to be REALLY good and AFFORDABLE given the tech involved. Buy the sound, not the price. I use TPC on my T+A 1000-40 speakers. I go where I suggest you go for value and sound both. Don’t ever forget this started to be something for “me” only. Friends suggested it is too good to die with so…here we are.
We will have a really, really neat but pretty technical presentation to set all this in front of you. This took a LONG time to set into place but it works, astonishingly well. I make no apology for the complexity except that the math defined what we had to achieve to truly make better cable. Same old same old for Belden. I wish it could be simpler and maybe it can be. Until a better mouse trap is designed we moved forward with the best design, I feel, in the industry for a passive cable available anywhere.
The in-use properties will also be a change from the last hundred years of convention, too, for passive cable! It all follows the math and physics. All of it.
A few more weeks. Be patient. This is not a drill. We have initial TPC product made, tested and in use now. Well, my use. Other copper variants will follow. Three letters define the results, OMG.
Best,
Galen
8 Likes
Hi Galen, I’m wondering whether the product category can be divulged during this “pre-patent approval” process.
From what I gather, is it just the speaker cables? Interconnects, too? Or even the AC power chords?
1 Like
I could say “yes” and leave it at that but that is REALLY mean. So I won’t do it that way.
What I can say is I tried to be more thoughtful of a total cable cost in your system, and mine, to get the absolute best performance at the lowest price for everyone.
I think I accomplished that with this second design iteration as close as you ever can. This was the direction all along. I just had to figure out how to get the total package to work. UGH. Answers are only answers, not how to get them. Calculate all you want to, the design has to get what you calculate and that is hidden away by mother nature. The idea was to not FORCE your complete wiring loom to change for no good reason in most situations. The how and why I’ll explain later.
Everyone COULD spend some but not everyone will have to, or spend too much or even any at all. It all depends on your in-home trial and how you are set-up. The initial loom you all have is pretty darn good. I tweaked it to be even better but this is getting to real high order results as real as they are not every system will automatically follow along at this level and takes certain pieces of equipment we all won’t have to get the entire loom working as I envisioned years ago. Now, that vision is a reality in my system. OMG.
Good Xmas if the lawyers don’t get the legal stuff completed till after Xmas. All patents are reviewed for CIP, Change In Part, as they are applied to products top make sure the “new” use is properly covered. That takes a little time.
Our patents we definitely used to reach the level we have right now and cover the loom. The claims are as real as day and night. No fluff, just the stuff we all love. Tangible evidence of continuous improvements. But we always will encounter the, “can you hear them now?” as we get as good as it is testing today. The goal is to get it to where no one can tell anymore.
Best,
Galen Gareis
5 Likes
The teaser; the suspense, and I had a dream of owning ICONOCLAST loom last night and it was beautiful!
1 Like
I am guessing you are talking of our individual pieces of equipment resolutions? Or some sophisticated grounding block device.
Wow the intrigue just went up even more! I expected the usual pattern; improved performance at a higher price. Like the color series of fuses. Or maybe a brand-new product like an iconoclast power cable or something. But this line makes me think it might be an even better design, at a lower price? That would be shockingly cool. Not sure I’ll sleep well until January.
2 Likes
The improvements made are real and measurable. We don’t do BLING to churn your bucks. So the value is a design change that is a real benefit to you and knowing exactly HOW and WHY it is better. No guessing.
To me that is real value. Just cheaper isn’t a value without the commensurate performance enhancements. I agree that’s the cart’s meow for sure, better and cheaper. Since I design ahead of the prodict, I know what it will and can do, and thus pretty good on the price. I do the best I can at the cheapest the math allows in a design.
So far the physics won’t let me get away with cheaper to get truly better than where we are right now. It is a more complex design, but it is a true improvement in actual repeatable measurements and calculations. I promised you all that and I’ll deliver exactly that. Our current cables are all still “current” and priced well below what you’d expect. The next design is near world class if not the word’s class type of cable. In God we trust all else bring data on how your design functions. We do.
Making it cheaper from here on out is more mass production efficiency of the design, not the change in the design. I won’t change stuff until all the trees, rocks and oceans are names of cables. If it is as good as I can figure out, we keep on making it more efficient so assemblies are cheaper over time. Right now we are getting things maximized for the best performance stage of things. And, as someone correctly mentioned, we are a small boutique shop for sure. Volume isn’t our thing at this point. This is not the kind of product most would think of to get rich selling. It is a far too complex way to get your business. It was designed to get MY business and I know what a cable should be doing. So THAT is our business instead, make cables that really work with measured and calculated attributes.
If at all, I hope to get everyone to up their game on how ALL cable works. If we do that, and get more meaningful marketing across the cable board, I’m happy with that. How could we all not want that kind of transparency in cable? We have no measured standards for cables. None.
Best,
Galen
4 Likes
I work on just cable. I’m not well grounded my friends say so how could I work on system grounding outside of the cable?
Don’t worry, the stuff you are about to see is pretty cool. Cool because ICONOCLAST is purely based on the critical functions I feel we all hear, and the current cable performance does establish that. This goes even farther with those attributes.
The problem is explaining it all to you all. We need a “video conference” for our gang. I have a .PPT being finalized to go through the project so we all understand what I’ve done.
Any thought’s on that video conference idea? Anyone want to sit for a couple hours (I’m stuck there, too!) and learn about how cable really works and how we can use that knowledge? This would be a mini tech course but…I will bring everyone along so don’t worry about that.
Best,
Galen
11 Likes
So if I read this correctly you are offering more for less. Interesting times ahead.
I’m offering far higher performance for not a lot more money, but it is “more” if you count just the coin and not what that coin buys. So no, it isn’t more for less, it is a lot more performance for not a lot more money.
The extent of the tech will explain WHY the cost does have to go up, but instead of just raising the price and changing a name, we show exactly what is going on the justify the product’s price. Remember, too, we don’t have to change as the current cables are a real challenge to beat enough to say a new one is truly better. We have that. All our current cables are definitely a lot of performance for the money. They are good enough that advances were tough to get without near impeccable spec resolution to the theory, calculation and measurements. Harder still, I have to prove it to you. I’m cable skeptic same as you should be so only valid stuff is acceptable.
Best,
Galen
7 Likes
How soon after the patent is granted do you expect to be shipping product?
Galen,
Could you give an explanation describing the attributes of typical 2x16awg pvc-insulated “speaker wire” and why they’re not great for audio?
Count me in.
2 Likes
Me too.