Many great sounding, well designed speakers are not bi-wirable.
3 Likes
Oh boy—some people here are NOT going to sleep tonight. . . 
4 Likes
They will sleep even less after following the technical description 
1 Like
Mr. V,
The jumpers will be series II now for optimal performance. They carry the mids on up.
Bob can see about your bi cable you have now but we will have TPC as first run. SPTPC is cooking now that the design is frozen. The series II is more expensive as it is way more complex to make and terminate.
What needed to be done is pushed by the data, not sales or marketing. We make the math.
The series I is fully optimized for single cable but, if you have good bass the series II will do well, just not as well as the DCR is higher but it is still a 12AWG design, just not 10 AWG like the series I.
This is why I designed the bi-cable. Best in each place.
Best,
Galen
1 Like
In my case, if Galen writes more than two paragraphs at a time, I am not ashamed to admit I will probably doze off.
The technical stuff can get pretty dense (and a bit dry)…. But maybe I am the dense one?!
Looking forward to to the tutelage and product roll out.
Cheers.
1 Like
Al will tell us all we need to know: BUY!
1 Like
Galen,
Thanks for the information. I definitely want to stick with Biwire with Series 2. My series 1 MF/HF cable and jumpers are SPTPC which I purchased and received the end of May 2021. I will need to run through pricing with Bob. As well as find out when SPTPC run will occur before determining which metallurgy.
I did not dislike TPC before but found the mid bass more forward and pant leg flapping compared to SPTPC. It was being in the middle of the soundstage or front row band around me TPC vs sitting in the Audience several rows back watching the show with SPTPC in my system. Thus I preferred the latter. Maybe the new Series 2 Vp affects that or I could mix or match metallurgy between the LF and uppers? Crossovers are never brick walls i would like to avoid in and out pulsing presentation in depth by mixing metals.
I’ll need a new densitometer-fathometer to capiche all the stuff… 
Best wishes
1 Like
I’m using the SPTPC for the bass as they were terminated already (lazy to do an entire set of TPC for the bass series I section) and the TPC for the upper. The silver has zip influence on the low bass. Most speakers cross-over at 200 Hz (three ways) to maybe 1200 Hz (two ways) and this splices right in as we shall see later on. I hear no bass anomalies as the silver’s effects roll of well before 200 Hz in my system. On a two way, where we cross-over at 1000 Hz or so, we might stick with SPTPC on both.
I will cover all this on the final cable design.
The silver plating will be the same RATIO, close to it, on the series II as the series I SPTPC. We decrease the micro-inch thickness to 15-20 from 40 on the series I. We’ll know the exact plating based on what the suppliers are set-up to do. We don’t need 40 uINCH though for 28 AWG. We need 159 CMA / 320 CMA *40 = ~20uINCH. So that’s that doing a quick calculation. Plating is typically 40, 20 and 15 micro-inch.
This isn’t an idea, it is how cable works to current physics. Can it make a difference? Now we can try it and see. The changes are very real and the math holds true in the final tests, but how will our ears make the judgement? That won’t change the numbers, just the line in the sand we can hear from person to person and system to system.
Best,
Galen
5 Likes
Perhaps the mix STPC and TPC will be good enough for me. Please keep sharing the information and where the SPTPC ends. Both in differing by ear and price.
Also share what your series 2 Beta Testers have to say.
Galen
Possibly a dumb question, but how, if at all, will twin cables affect the relationship of amplifier to speaker? For example amplifier output impedance/ speaker impedance swings, amplifier damping,etc?
It will have an impact, and the same as it always has.
Two cables in parallel looking from the amp end will double the capacitance load and half the inductance the amp sees.
If you measure at the SHORTED ends (two cables wired in parallel) at the amp end, looking towards the speaker ends and the two ends look like open circuits to each other, you’ll see the two cables capacitance in parallel. If we SHORT the ends at the far end to measure inductance the current thorough each cable is half, so the inductance drops by half. Current will split between the two cables in a product/sum of the two inductance, in our case they are the same value so 0.08uH/foot will be 0.04 uH/foot.
Resistance will drop by half as they are in parallel and parallel resistors are a product over sum circuit like inductance.
Here is the cheat sheet on that. To the LEFT are the two cables going to the woofer on one side and the tweeter on the other with the amp terminals in the middle. If we rearrange the circuit, we get the far right circuit.
Capacitors add in parallel.
Resistors and inductor follow the product/sum rule for two values. Current is split in half through each resistor with the same voltage across each one.
If we know the voltage, let’s say it is say 5V, we can calculate the current in say a 10 ohm resistor; I = 5/10 = 0.5 amps. But we know this is HALF the total amps as it splits between the two, so total amps is 1 amp out of the source.
Thus the “apparent” resistance is a value that would give is a 1 amp current with a 5 volt source.
R= 5 Volts/ 1 amp = 5 ohms, or half the two resistors in parallel in the example. Inductors are like resistors in that the current splits between them and lowers the total inductance reactance to half the two inductors in parallel.
N
The damping factor sees the cable+speaker in total, so just the cable change isn’t giant. The amps output impedance divided into the total load it sees is the damping factor. Another way to say is is damping factor is the ratio of the loudspeaker impedance to the source (amplifier) impedance at a set frequency.
This is why you want low amplifier output impedance as it raises the damping factor all else the same. Obviously, the damping factor changes with frequency as the speaker’s load is wildly variable and far higher than the cables.
Best,
Galen
7 Likes
Thanks Galen. This is so intriguing. Can’t wait to try them.
1 Like
The EM improvements can eclipse just material science such that lesser copper exceeds more expensive copper. The MAIN objective of ICONOCLAST is to bring superior sound over most all cables at far lower prices with DESIGN. Race car tries (material) on a YUGO (design) won’t make the grade. We need the design to support what materials can offer, if they do make an added offer of improvement. You won’t hear it unless the “car” is up to the task.
We hear time domain error in ALL of our audio, and why I feel that ICONOCLAST sounds different, and better. It moves data from A to B in a more linear similar speed fashion.
The absolute numbers say short cables and Vp is still fast enough to be “meaningless”. Listen to the better numbers and do we hear differences in a total network? Imaging and sound stage are what people comment on, and better time domain properties are responsible for that. ICONOCLAST does what the science allows me to do to mitigate the built-in Vp linearity distortion all cables will have. My difference is I KNOW what my objective is in the design and have to meet strict measurements and calculations to get the results as we shall see as we go along. More tomorrow.
Best,
Galen
7 Likes
So glad to know the new design wouldn’t have been for me anyway, with single binding posts. Not that it’s the best part of reading your posts. I just think I’ll be happy with my recent purchase for at least 10 years.
Also a comment above about perceived mid-bass enhancement with TPC copper is good to read. I like a bit more bass (don’t we all), anyway, my speakers could be described as a bit dry by some. I guess.
To add: The ICONOCLAST is the most expensive purchase I’ve made for my system. (I’ve bought everything else used though, so not MSRP wise) Don’t feel this is over-the-top in any way. A speaker cable like this will allow me to perceive all future upgrades with utmost accuracy, giving them surplus value in a way. Not even necessary to talk about the future, I’m now hearing what my system before the speakers is doing, nearly unimpeded!
2 Likes
Galen, is there a plan to eventually create an OFE version?
BTW, I seem to remember talking with BobBJC about a year ago regarding how I thought using two different varieties of the (what’s now known as) Series I might well optimize the setup for my speakers… 
But I won’t claim any coincidental intellectual property rights infringement, I guess. 
1 Like
PART II SERIES II design justification work.
To use the Vp differential, we need a basis for the formulas that we are going to be using. The formula is a “fitted” property devised by mankind to illustrate what nature is doing. Nature is doing the doing, and not the formula. There is a RANGE where a formula is accurate, and technically every single frequency is a slightly, and near the ends quit a bit, different set of variables.
The chart below was measured, and the formula was calculated align the middle portion of the graph, where the formula is accurate within a LIMITED range of R and C. A LINEAR line formula ends it’s accuracy as a line begins to curve at the transition regions at the far ends of the graph.
The table shows an example of this inaccuracy as a graph goes farther and farther up or down in frequency, we need to change the formula to FIT the true measured data. We have three approximation equations for impedance.
At true RF, we can use a simplified equations as RF has many terms go to “zero” or “one” as satiable get smaller or larger and drop out. We can see two RF equations calculated for 9269 and they match pretty close to the measurements.
Actual measured data, and calculations can be off, so a measurement is often needed. The graph below shows one test point is more accurate (series I ICONOCLAST) than the second (1313A impedance). This is because short analog cables are hard to measure or calculate since we aren’t in the length required for a true impedance resonance transfer function to take place in the cable. Both calculations equations predict the right “range” of data, but the closest true data point is still the measurement.
A lot of variables come into play at the far ends of the curve, where the line isn’t straight anymore. Here it is better to MEASURE and PLOT the data since a formula isn’t accurate enough and, it is faster and most correct to measure the data when we can. A formula, though, can tell us GENERALLY what is happening with changes to R and C.
The table / graph below shows that the transfer function we are using is pretty accurate to the plotted measurements within the LINEAR portion of the graphs frequency range, and this is where we are going to be using it and staying within the proper RANGE of R and C. If you send either R or C way high or low and make a plot of the data, you will see the equation doesn’t work. Mother Nature works, but our math doesn’t. You have to be careful when working with equations as every one becomes “wrong” enough to be less useful.
Now that we know the middle of the curve is pretty accurate within reason, never exact, we can look at each end. Below 20 Hz we approach “zero” OK, we set the origin there. At RF we approach the RF limiting composite dielectric property of the cable. This is not an RF design where we have a coaxial cable that is 1/ SQRT (dielectric constant) as the upper point in the curve. FEP has an E of 2.1 or 69%, but we won’t get that with this design. It is a poor RF cable since we are, on purpose, biasing it to analog range frequencies. We don’t see a “pure” dielectric" response at RF. The data rats that out.
If we measure the open-short impedance of the new design (table and chart below), we can see where the upper frequencies Vp needs to flatten out at RF. We can use the 1 KHz measured capacitance and the open-short IMPEDANCE to derive what the Vp really is at RF. If we look at the 12+12 design in the MEASURED chart below, we see the RF impedance is about 31 ohms. We know the measured series II capacitance was 65pF (almost the 60 targeted). We can thus calculate the Vp at that frequency. RF will be a flat line once into the RF band.
Now we know the “ends” of the data field we are working in. We can PLOT the estimated VP against the anchor points (DC and RF to build a curve that shows HOW design changes will impact the cable response.
The chart below shows the data once we go through all the math. The series I has a different curve than the series II, and the series II was designed to “flatten” the Vp at higher frequencies. The low frequencies asymptotically converge at DC, and we don’t see much impact there. We’ll talk about that tomorrow.
We use a combination of measurements and calculation to make sure the data is fitted to what the physics is doing. A true measurement is a hard point we KNOW is right and includes all the “approximations” we stuff into equations to curve fit the data ranges. The answer is the measurement, so we need to be careful to say we know “exactly” the Vp at frequency “X”. We know ABOUT where we are going to be, and if it is sufficient to be a true improvement.
The data trace of Vp and frequency follows what we know from measurements, that the line intersects “zero” and flattens at RF to the calculated, from measurements, Vp at RF. We calculate a pretty substantial change, up to 10% or more, in Vp across frequency between the two designs. That is worth going after. No one said it would be easy, as we can see form all the ground work necessary to design a cable to true known transfer functions.
5 Likes
Good stuff. With the now new knowledge, I can move forward and pick up my series one in the correct length needed for the bottom end (I’ll just use full band now), and once the series II arrives, see what combo may work best.
The more I think the smarter I am. But, the patent office and the physics don’t care what we think, it has to be in physical form and measure to the standards that you claim.
The math say what the numbers need to be…but so far you have no idea of the DESIGN necessary to get those numbers. Getting the design is the other half of the “equation”.
ICONOCLAST is using pure science ONLY so I can’t cheat, or try to avoid that at all costs. I measure everywhere I can to place limitations on “creative thinking”!!
Best,
Galen
1 Like
Yes, that’s correct, get one set at a time for most of us. We can work in steps with this tech. There will be some that like the series II on the full range…it is all in how the cables is biased to work. But now we KNOW that there is a difference and it was designed into the products application. We can make choices based on the differences in the cables.
Ideally, series I on the bass (below 1 KHz or so) and series II on the mid/tweeter section. Copper choice is an audition only thing as I have zip true science to properly define HOW it is working the EM signal. Thus, I admit defeat on that right now. What I do know, is TPC based copper sound really good in a proper design. And, we save you same money at the entry point of the products. I use ALL TPC based speaker cable copper in my system. I use what I sell you.
Best,
Galen
2 Likes