Belden ICONOCLAST Interconnects and Speaker Cabling

Hi Tony,

Yes, but in time we will duplicate the copper choices. We are going in the QTY we sell based on the market. So TPC, SPTPC and OFE. Remember, with the CHANGES, the OFE will NOT sound like it does in single cable full range series I application. You need to start all over as the time domain properties are all re-arranged by the Vp adjustments I’ve made.

We listen to the final EM composite signal, not the copper per say. The DESIGN has a far larger impact than the copper. You may find that the TPC or SPTPC is better in the series II design and used with the series I in the low-end. I had to start all over again, too. The series II TPC in the mid/treble is more to my liking than the series I SPTPC full range, for instance. The problem is still COST. To get that optimization took a lot of work and design changes. How much change is worth the cost is a personal decision for all of us. The series I is a really good FULL RANGE design by design choice. The series II is better up high by design choice. Same as a two or three way speaker gets better and more expensive.

In a summary, AUDITION!!

Best,
Galen

4 Likes

Quick question for a friend: If you only have one set of binding posts and therefore one cable, would series II still give a measured improvement over series I? Looking at the Vp by frequency graph, series II seems to be flatter across the whole audible range. Or is series I better then series II in the low frequencies? Graph does not seem to show that.
image

1 Like

Waiting patiently like everyone else for the first shipment of bulk cable to arrive from Belden. Looks like it is in Seattle but the carriers are significantly backed up on deliveries because of last week’s snow. Snow removal equipment is scarce in Seattle. Keep in mind that the initial availability will be in TPC. The next order is for SPTPC and it will be some time before it is in our hands. We are also working to define the trade in policies. Up to now we have not had to address trades from a series or a generation. We always allowed trade “ups” (within 1-year) within the same “genre” and series, and at a cable length that is the same or longer as the trade and in a step up grade of copper. We also do our best to work with anyone who wants to move up by sometimes bending the rules “a bit” so that “everyone” benefits. Remember, cables that come back must be inspected, tested and offered with a 25% discount.

Galen’s significant research and ultimate conclusions (measurable, documented and very audible) that a single cable design can perform equally through all portions of the bandwidth is an incorrect assumption.

In my years at Legacy Audio, Bill D would bring in countless drivers for evaluation. They were stacked on long metal shelves in the lab. In those days we used mostly Eminence from California, Eaton from Germany, Audax from Germany and Foster and Panasonic ribbon tweeters. Enclosed manufacturer specifications on drivers would always specify the “range/bandwidth” that the driver would play. Bill evaluated and measured each driver across the claimed frequency range.

Even though a given driver might indeed perform as advertised, there was “actually” and “always” a “sweet spot” where the driver would perform better and sometimes much better than others over the performance range. Even though there were other considerations in evaluating and selecting drivers for a speaker design, that sweet spot performance and the ability to be blended through the overall cross-over network was a primary focus.

Historically, speaker manufacturers have many times offered designs with at least 2-sets of binding posts for bi-amp/bi-wire applications and a few offer 3-pairs.

It is worth mentioning how the Series II design came to be. Over 2-years of conceptual design went into this cable. Building upon the Series I design the overall research and math was to say the least “extensive.” Very few understand the incredible complexity and pure volume of considerations that go into a cable design. If you make a slight adjustment to one component or parameter of the design you change sometimes multiple others. I call that the ripple effect. You get it “as good as you can” and then comes the final step of “making” the cable.

You don’t go to Amazon, drive to Walmart or do Google searches on the net to acquire a “wire machine” or a series of what’s found on the line at Belden. The bonded, twisted pair designs of the Series 1 cable are not easy to produce. Here is a sampling of what is involved in manufacturing a cable. This video is showing how Belden makes the "easy stuff. It will give you some idea.

When the design “on paper” was “finalized’” it was then time to start the Belden “engineering review” process. This takes weeks and brings in a team of what I consider the best in the industry of process and manufacturing engineers to go over every aspect of the product design. Lots of questions are asked. As I sat and listened to this board grill Galen about this and that I was clueless about 95% of what the heck they were talking about. As always, Galen could almost immediately provide data or a slide and provide responses that often left the team of engineers glassy eyed and sometimes appearing that they too were as clueless as I was. Sometimes the periods of silence were worrisome especially since Galen likes to talk “a lot” about his work. I have yet to hear “anyone” provide an inkling of discrepancies in Galen’s science.

The rubber hit the road a month or so back when Galen would again drive to one of the Belden production lines to personally assist in setting up the machines to actually run the first samples of the Series II cable. He started on a Monday. Each day samples were produced for Galen to take to the Engineering and Design Center for measurements and analysis. I can only summarize by saying that at the end of the first week Galen was back to the drawing board to make an adjustment here and there since he was not happy with the results. Things that show on paper don’t always turn out as expected. A couple of days into week 2, Galen and I spoke and for perhaps the first time I detected that Galen may have questioned his direction. The design runs were improving each day but not to the level that would warrant a true production run and the investment from BJC to pay for that run and subsequent cable purchase. It actually cost several thousands just to set up the machines and run samples. Even worse, we were reaching the limits of what and where Galen was taking the design in terms of manufacturing capability.

It seems that we had only one more thing that could be attempted that would “completely max out” the capabilities of the production line. There would be no other place to go.

Then, it happened. It went click and the stars lined up. Kind of like watching the mad scientist after years at work throw his arms in the air with a giant smile and claiming “It’s Alive!” OK, maybe I’m being a little melodramatic but Galen was really excited. All this time I had been receiving and reviewing the process data. When I saw the end result I was excited as well.

Please reference Galens 2-graphs on velocity of propagation. Series II cables start the impressive “improvements” at approximately 500 Hz. Up to that point the Series I speaker cable is the winner.
For bi-wire/bi-amp applications you will use Series 1 on the bottom and Series II on the top. The larger opportunity is for audiophiles who have smaller “bookshelf/speaker stand” type speakers where the base is rolled off to a powered sub. These audiophiles might consider Series II and a set of Iconoclast IC’s for their subs to maximize the potential of their system.

I apologize for the long winded post. The story of Galen’s work on this speaker cable deserves to be told. I only hope I have not disclosed too much. When Galen is able to really let the cat out of the bag I know you will all be amazed. The science behind this new product is Galen’s baby. We decided to not fry everyone with the 23-pages of data and discussion but rather to try to spoon feed the info and in a language that many will understand. Like most… there is only one thing I need to know.

I’m ready to finally “HEAR” the cables in TPC. Galen promises I will not be disappointed.

7 Likes

AQ Dragon Zero utilizes two different cables for top end and bottom end based on frequency and impedance needs of speaker and what the amp does differently under impedance changes.

I am sure Galen’s design approach to address the same problem is different and will be much more reasonable to our wallets.

4 Likes

The data is only part of the properties you need to consider. The series I has a lower DCR than series II and thus is better at the low end, and can use a CHEAPER design (fewer wires and far less labor) to make them. The data shows WHY a different design can be used, we don’t see a benefit of the Vp differential until we move above the bass region so why make you pay $$$ where it does ZIP for you?

Tomorrow I’ll look at HOW the two cables work together. What you pointed out is in the right direction, too. I don’t see the data show a difference in the lower end region…YES!!! That is correct. We can SPLIT the cable into regions where one is cheaper but filly bass optimized, and one is better treble optimized treble optimized DOES NOT mean we use silver or gold wire. The data supports none of that for the bulk of the improvements. The Vp changes do as it is TIME based where wire resistivity is a passive attenuation based change and why it is used at RF where the signal is stuck on the outer wire surface so we reduce the RF resistivity with silver. ICONOCLAST offers a far more compelling path than we’ve had before and more based on the pure science.

The series I speaker cable VP is STILL better than most all cables on the market by design used full range and with the 24 AWG copper size choice. But for those that want and can afford the best every where, you all asked for an ultimate cable don’t forget, it turns out it is a system of TWO cables to really be the “ultimate”. I looked it all over and decided the math supported the effort to further improve analolog cable properties. Is it beyond the need?

This is again and again, all based on the science of what needs to be achieved to make a real calculated and measured difference in the analog frequency domain. Is it true in application? The cable remains the same, and better, but the listening never jives with the data as we all hear and use such differing systems.

We sell real calculated and measured changes. People asked can we make it even better? OK, we did but…some may get to where the cost or the change don’t become a value based on your needs. The cable doesn’t care, but we sure do. Now you have true changes to evaluate in-use. This seems a better approach than fancy materials and pretty cosmetic changes to cables with no science in the EM properties. Where is the beef in so called “improvements” Did the designer even know what he was achieving? ICONOCLAST knows all of that and you, the customer, should expect an answer and data to support the answer.

We hate snake oil, but many also hate the science and suggest cable should be no better than a zip cord. Well, we have cable far better than a zip cord to real metrics, so now we can compare and contrast those improvements. Before, cable had no real reason to be…no “better” is really calculated or designed in. I decided to change all that, and with true data to support the reasons for the changes.

Everyone wanted to know what cable is all about. Well, now you know. ALL cable is about the physics and can be taken apart, for better or worse.

Best,
Galen

3 Likes

An interesting issue, for those of us with REL subs, will be how to handle the High Level Neutrik Speakon connector.

4 Likes

I may have a cable solution for that- right now I’m working on a design using Belden 1310A that is coming along nicely, the numbers are really good compared to what I am seeing from other vendors. Going to dress it up like the BAV stuff as well. If I have time I will make a video for the BJC Youtube channel this week about it. Speakons are the easy part…

4 Likes

We didn’t change how bi-cable works per say, that’s all the same. We changed the CABLE put into each section. The use of subs with bi-wire won’t change.

Subs can use a high impedance speaker cable jumper or a high impedance RCA or XLR. If you have TWO sets of amp posts, one set can be the siamesed speaker cables at the amp end and the other set can be your high impedance speaker cable taps to the sub.

If you have one set of binding post an the amp, it is easier to use the RCA or XLR from the preamplifier.

It is commented that using the speaker cable input to the subs BLENDS the overall sound a little better. To do that, though and not use a better set of bi-wire on your speakers, is missing the larger overall benefit. We all want it all, I know, but sometimes we need to make $$$ choices. I use series I (don’t specifically need series II for subs frequencies except if you use satellite that cross-over higher up) RCA to my subs when I use them.

Best,
Galen

2 Likes

Yes AQ offers two frequency dependent cables, and having heard it they do make a difference. Garth Powell and AQ are more or less silent on the engineering behind it. I’d consider it a business decision, just as delineating the engineering decisions related to a product is a form of marketing. The concept of frequency oriented speaker cables is not new, Alon speakers offered a tri-wire system for there speakers, Vandersteen has touted bi-wiring with different cables for some time. Many dealers experimented with bi-wiring speakers with different cables for the lower and upper frequencies. Years ago I had heard set-ups with different Straight Wire speaker cables. Not taking anything away from BJC/Iconoclast/Galen. What Galen brings to the table is a refeshing engineering perspective to the Iconoclast offering. Intriguing as it is, ultimately the decision is up to our ears.

2 Likes

In God we trust, all else bring the data.

Two cables in bi-wire is not a system engineered to work together, and with the data to show how and why, it is just marketing. Making cables “different” isn’t proving how and why they are working. Performance patents need to meet just that, repeatable performance metrics and how you achieve them. Hide how your stuff works is a Business decision, ya, sure. A bad one.

The audio cable industry needs GOOD business decisions based on a common set of repeatable guidelines, same as the electronics we use. Until then, it is indeed snake oil. Open peer review keeps things going in the right direction. We correct mistakes and define the facts. Sure, if you make “business decisions” to hide everything you can’t be criticized or ever be wrong. Your mistakes are more important than your successes. You are LEARNING!

Saying something “is” isn’t proving that it is. For some reason we let the audio cable industry get away with all this. Physics should not be a secret, and matching the cables properly should be a “teachable” moment and one to be proud of, not hide it away (you assume there is a secret sauce?). I can take cable apart as physicals equals electrical.

  • swept open short impedance to show eight-ohm passive cables is myth.
  • Rs response (swept resistance) to capture skin effect and proximity effects.
  • Vp linearity (audio cables are NEVER 90% Vp as one cable manufacturer claims theirs are!).
  • DCR for voltage drop properties at frequency.
  • L and C and how each is reached.

All of those and more are repeatable test that are measurable and tell the tale so WHY HIDE the TALE unless it is just that? Can you hear the improvements is a different question than if the improvements even exist to be “better” in the first place.

Snake oil is indeed taking your money for differences that don’t exist except in marketing and sales. We provide meaningful explanations on ICONOCLAST and will keep doing it even as we may make an error or fail to make things as clear as we can. THAT should not be hidden.

I’m glad to say I am NOT in the audio cable industry, but the analog frequency range industry where we have to make cable work to the physics. The only thing audio is the end connectors for our hobby. The frequencies are agnostic to what they are going down the cable. Data, music, anything 20-20KHz.

Belden doesn’t do “marketing” except on a performance based metric. You get DATA. You get WHY. You get HOW. You don’t get a 35K speaker cable with SILENCE as they take your money. We will NEVER treat you that way, ever.

Best,
Galen

6 Likes

That should be printed in big letters on every billboard in the world!

1 Like

Jeff and Galen - speakin’ of Speakons, they seem to me to be the most abysmal connector for anything other than a PA bin so that the roadies don’t accidentally kick the cable out walking around in the dark backstage.

Thoughts?

1 Like

Stuff can look bad and measure really well, so be careful. We’d need to define “abysmal” than if we meet that, it is, if not, it isn’t. What are the critical attributes we need for an application?

Durability and performance aren’t the same thing. I did measure MANY XLR for electrical and some $$$ nice looking connectors were no better than NEUTRIK. I chose to go with the measured numbers and cost to you. They are low cap and durable and easy to terminate properly.

Best,
Galen

2 Likes

They measure pretty well. It’s nice to have four contact points in a small space like that- otherwise I don’t really understand why REL and Benchmark are so into using them, maybe it seems exotic to those who are unfamiliar with concert sound production (my old job).

2 Likes

Absolutely, lots of speakers without multiple sets of binding posts. Series I and Series II can be used full range. Series II was “optimized” for regions from 500 Hz and up. Both are extraordinary speaker cables. Some audiophiles roll their base out through setting on their components. They might be best served with Series II. There is no reason not to compare if there is question as to which will work best in your application. Nice pup!!

2 Likes

Well, I guess my question was, that they look bad, but do they measure really well?

I’ll admit my colorful choice of descriptor with regard to home vs. PA audio applications was based on a single firsthand experience quite a while back. I used to use Transparent’s inwall cable for my home theater (just running across the floor in my basement), as it was good-sounding stuff without being crazy money. I used it without the networks. But then I got their add-on network boxes for inwall applications, and they were housed in Speakons. Hard to say what was the “sound” of the Speakon and what was the sound of the nonspecific network circuitry, but the choice of connector seemed odd to me. And they sounded so bad that I never used them.

I had been noodling with making various homebrew IC’s by Litz braiding OCCC, and was shocked (shocked!) by the differences in the sound of connectors.

1 Like

I never could grasp the benefits of the Speakon connector, other than that they offered a quicker and tighter connection for live music setups. Even then, a roadie can, and will, destroy it.

1 Like

In our application, that there’s a lefthanded compliment at best!:cowboy_hat_face:

I seem to have lost track of where Iconoclast is with new speaker cables for those of us that are not bi-wired. Is there going to be new cabling for the single-ended crowd?

For those of you keeping track of this, apologies, I have spaced this out.

This is another thread that may need a FAQ or similar at the top of the thread.

Me as well, as there had been talk about offering a more compliant, as in flexible, interconnect. Especially for the XLR series.