Well said, and after meeting Galen and Jeff I find no others in the industry outdo their sincerity.
3 Likes
Absolutely there is an answer. Remember the cars from the early days of “jet powered flight”? Ya, the fins and all that. Those cars looked good but were terrible drag coefficients that did nothing to help the car do what it is supposed to do, move. CD’s were as high as 0.5.
Move to the “real” world of a car moving down the road. CD’s are 0.3 on average (that’s hugely less than 0.5 as it is a LOG function). The best cars are 0.3 CD. The wind tunnel cost is so high that most manufacturers COPY the best available (Mercedes Benz is the usual suspect) and add visual copy where it is out of the CDs “skin” and thus doesn’t impact the drag. This low a CD wasn’t cheap to develop.
Moving to cables, sure, if you design to the “jet age” mentality and base it on cosmetics or just materials thrown in the cost is not too high. If you REALLY want to make good cable and prove it meets your objectives with known measurements it is like getting to 0.3 or less CD, it ain’t easy. And it ain’t cheap. The testing over and over and over to align EM field to lower inductance and hold capacitance (one variable tends to raise or lower the other negatively) in check isn’t easy. Worse, how does the Rs impact swept frequency data? R, L and C measured at DC isn’t how the cable really works any more than an amplifier is used into a resistor as a load.
We can stay in the jet age design if we chose and suggest all cable is cheap, because there it is. Getting to a whole lot better REAL designs isn’t cheap. Is it worth it? That depends on a lot of things. Some hear the exact same difference, and one will say WOW, the other will say not different enough for me. Same change, different end points for each party.
Audio is death by each cut, so making numerous improvements keeps adding up. Cable is in that chain. Better everywhere makes a difference at this level of refinement, same as an electric car needing every added advantage it can get to squeeze out range. That range didn’t come from “cheap” baby moon hubcaps that look cool but from wind tunnel tested designs over and over to find what really works.
Sure, we can all pick the level of refinement we need, but to say there is no answer past the jet age of cars is really missing the technology we do have. Yes, the cost isn’t cheap to the limits of current knowledge. If cheap is the goal, then a lot of where we can be has to wait until such time that the designs that work are copied enough to leverage the volume to be become “cheap”.
No one would buy the current “cheap” cables over the current state of the art today if the price is the same. Why would you? Better is better and we all have a value proposition we all cross eventually. No one would ever suggest a '57 Chevy competes with even the most affordable modern car to objective measure. OK, the jet age stuff looked cool, though.
Summary- We all want the best, but some won’t pay for it until it is volume driven to be the “cheap” solution and thus, always behind the state of the art. Some want the current state of the art and will pay for it, now.
The above ignores imposter tech that is pure sales/marketing. We can agree to separate out the “noise” in the market.
Best,
Galen
10 Likes
The game of whack-a-mole comes to mind.
2 Likes
Some of us - or is it just me? - just don’t understand electronics or charts at all. It’s not a matter of not being interested, it’s just that it bounces off my head.
I’m suggesting that, other than perhaps for a few highly knowledgeable engineers, there is no science-based method for consumers to choose cables and decide whether they are getting any additional benefit or value.
Common sense does not do it for me.
Look at this photograph and with no prior knowledge common sense would tell you the world is flat. Back in the day if you said otherwise you could get into hot water (literally).
Common sense usually derives from trial and error, that works to some extent with audio, some prefer tubes to SS, planar, etc., but with cables I have no idea what is sensible and what is not.
One way to find out is to try them. Compare them to generic cables. If you don’t hear a difference or if any difference you do hear is too small to justify the higher price then you’re done cable shopping.
1 Like
My old boss at Belden warned us to not assign our current level of understanding to what something is, but to limit what we think it is. No one fully understands that next WHY and that’s the way it really is. We are all stumped eventually.
Best,
Galen
2 Likes
I see your point now. True, the information is just to help understand what is going on and definitely not for everybody. I’m a devout nerd so I’m all over it😆 It would be like choosing a musical instrument based upon the scientific principals that make them function and their corresponding measurements. They would measure differently but how would that translate into playability and tone? Not well, I think.
2 Likes
I’m confused about your position. Iconoclast does not have a fancy marketing plan or fancy rosewood boxes and packaging. We make no claims about wolf urine sprinkled on the wire under a full moon or some cryogenic process. Galen makes no “sales pitch” about Iconoclast. Galen presents “the science” that applies to “all” cable designers the same a physics applies to all of us. You can take it or not take it. You can like it or not like it. You can be interested in it or uninterested it in. It makes no difference since the laws are there and they “do” apply whether you understand it or care to understand it. Simply put, if your not interested, leave the room.
So, we have a simple as it gets suggestion. Try our cables in your home and in your system. If you love them then make a purchase and if not, return them for a full refund. 97% of what leaves the building never comes back. It’s that simple. 
Galen’s EE at Purdue and decades working in the lab and manufacturing facilities at Belden provided what in my opinion are unique and simply unmatchable advantages of any and all other cable design engineers. Within any given specialized scientific field there are numbers of participants that earn their degree and many spend years within their profession and speciality. A few rise to an obvious top and are considered the best in that field. I’ve seen Galen in a room and around a table with a pile of EE’s that are simply amazed at his understanding.
I’ve seen Galen flown to various Belden manufacturing facilities around the world because the process and manufacturing engineers would claim that what Galen was asking for could not be programed or the machines made capable of the process only to have them totally humbled when he left with the machines running. Fighting with Galen about this field would be foolish and futile. I don’t know if Galen knows or admits his IQ but I bet it is off the charts. I don’t want this note to go to his head because there are things he doesn’t know. We clash on occasion. I don’t often win.
:
10 Likes
In the UK cars never had fins. In the audio market there has never been much love for muscle amps (we like lean and mean) and high-end cables have very little traction, far less than in the USA. I have no doubt that marketing, consumer aspirations and cultural factors have far more influence than actual science.
You used to see it on the TV every day. The USA had soap operas about rich people fighting to get richer and generally being miserable, whereas in the UK the most popular soap operas are generally about poor people who are generally content when not sleeping with their sister-in-law.
One thing that is common in technology is that it gets better and cheaper. This has been the case for 15,000 years. That is often the case with audio, with landmark developments that are generally accepted and widely shared to everyone’s benefit. To this consumer, there seems to be no obvious consensus on materials, design and what it should cost to make an audiophile cable.
The reason why progress results in more for less is because something that is accepted as valid receives mass market approval, production costs come down, economies of scale apply, R&D becomes focused and improvements are made. That does not work with audio cables because there is no accepted technology, so you get a kaleidoscope of different approaches from Unobtanium to Swiss Cheese insulation that require heavy marketing (and prices) to maintain market share.
If there was an accepted approach, all this waste would evaporate and the products would be cheap and accepted as state-of-the-art. Frankly, in the pro audio world the XLR cables I bought today (2 pairs for $130) are considered state of the art.
As it happens, I had my house rewired from the 3-phase supply in the road outside and I have a long report with every measurement imaginable on every circuit. I think there are 41 circuits in total. They mainly relate to safety. It is clear that, for example, earth loop impedance has to be below a certain level. I actually understand most of it.
I just cannot, and have never, been able to accept that there is a way for consumers without the EE qualifications and experience to make “common sense” decisions based on cable designs.
As I mentioned earlier, I bought today what according to pro audio reviews are state of the art XLR cables. They use Neutrik NC3MMX-B gold plated XLR plugs and Canare L4E6S OFC copper star quad cable. A 1m pair were about $60 delivered.
The Neutrik connectors appear to be the same ones used by Iconoclast, which also use star quad cable. The Iconoclast cost between $730 and $900.
I would happily compare the two. Are they available in London, UK? There are a few other members here in London and I would be prepared to have a get-together to see what people think.
1 Like
For the avoidance of doubt, I don’t question Galen’s abilities. I have no way of assessing. I just stating my view as a consumer wanting to make rational informed decisions without scientific knowledge. I want the best from my audio system without having to get an Engineering degree. For me, cables have always been a complete mystery.
I would add that that money is not an issue, other than that I don’t like wasting it.
1 Like
Steven,
“To this consumer, there seems to be no obvious consensus on materials, design and what it should cost to make an audiophile cable.” - you are limiting what is with your current understanding of the technology.
Sometime we as humans understand the world isn’t flat, but still refuse to move off the old concepts of truth. Yes, even to suggest cable isn’t better than what we have and to valid and repeatable measures. That so many do not use the understood physics to make better cable product doesn’t discount the superiority of products made by those that do.
Did you watch the presentation? The science impacts ALL cable and any material. The changes are real, and some harder to achieve than others. You can stop at the most appropriate price, but to say that the science isn’t an answer is not true. It is indeed the answer and the changes can be made, measured and sold. But, the COST is what you agree to pay to get the leading edge, or wait until it is copied enough to be cheaper.
You appear to agree your current cable “were” state of the art compared to something (tar paper insulated cable of old). Sure, replace the tar paper insulation with olefin, that’s definitely better. There are better cable with repeatable measurement and superior but more costly designs. How much of that is important to you is the decision, not that there isn’t better.
This applies to EVERY product made.Once you crack the marketing and get to the true design physics we can see the differences. This takes work to be willing to educate yourself. No one will hand you the secrets for free. Even my presentations require you to spend the time, time is money, to gain an advantage. My knowledge is as close to free as it gets. Sure, sales and marketing expects you to be ignorant and to be manipulated. Don’t like it? Do some work. Take the advantage away from them. Go past what your current cognitive limits in every area you encounter.
As far as poor and happy. Money is discipline over time. We all can be wealth given the discipline to want to be wealthier. Maybe not Buffet, but comfortable. Spend what your money earns, not the principal and you will never be broke. Better, spend less of what you earn and you become wealthier as it compounds above the principal. You are right, to start out you need to be happy with what you have. THAT is the discipline. Live inside your means and set aside money that SLOWLY changes your means over time. Money is easy, it is a REPEATABLE and volatile short term math problem and one that we all hate to solve. The long term solution is that it is less and less volatile over time and that makes you wealthier once you get over that mental hump.
Buying what is within your means is smart. You are spot-on with that. But to say that that’s where technology stops isn’t allowing you to change your “means” going forward. Leave the future looking positive and something to look forward to.
I don’t watch TV so I’m ignorant on the differences in European versus USA TV.
Best,
Galen
6 Likes
Well, you probably used to, The Saab Jets gave it away. 
Yes, we use the same XLR connectors because I TESTED them all, $$$ and $ designs, and the $ design XLR connector remained superior and that’s why we use them. You may not realize it, but I speak your language on actual improvements versus hidden marketing and sales profiles of product. I’m not sales or marketing. I feel what is best always sells the best over time.
And no, the best and most logical design won’t ever remove the complexity across any product category. Never has and never will. It’s in human nature to offer segments in the value we apply to our situation(s). People like choice and cost ladders. Some like to climb the steps, some shoot straight to the top, some don’t even get on that specific ladder at all.
Trust me on this. I got off the audio ladder after my earnings off my principal were spent, so that’s the last step I’m willing to grab. The goose stays, the eggs got spent. That took 35 years to build. Discipline and patience! I used my B&W 801’s from 1979, my mom still has them. I built her a nice little set-up. She’s 92.
11 Likes
Fundamentally what this comes down to is an engineering analysis that demonstrates predicted optimization of cable products by minimizing DCR, capacitance and inductance, ultimately impedance. In layman’s terms the cable alters the signal as little as possible within the expected frequency range, in this case 0-22khz. Adding to it is the design engineer’s experience on how to achieve this in a predictable and economical manner. The charts provided in the presentation indicate the designer has achieved this. Improvement over other cables is system dependent. Knowing Wilson Speakers tend to be reactive, the offered Iconoclast cables may likely offer an improved presentation, over other cables. Marketing be what it may, as well as mark-up. It comes down to two things, perceived value offered by the product, and ultimately resulting performance in one’s system.
Seriously Steven you should take the Iconoclast team up on their trial offer. Yes there are inconveniences shipping to the UK. However, it would put the argument regarding Iconoclast cable efficacy to rest once and for all. Otherwise it is no more than pissing in the wind.
2 Likes
Jeff,
You’re better than just a builder monkey, the AV side is looking better and better! From the builder side we have this;
“The quality of the cables and connectors is second to none that I’ve used in my system before.”
Best,
Galen
I did try the video. About 40 seconds in the first slide was something called a “simple RLC tank type circuit” and then you mentioned something about it being in resonance. I have absolutely no idea what any one of those symbols or letters on that slide meant, I have no idea what an RLC tank type circuit is or what resonance is. (I do know about mechanical resonance.) So you completely lost me in the first minute. You then started to talk about capacitors and inductors shifting, you might as well have been talking in Chinese. Bear in mind the last time I looked at a science textbook was at age 14, some 45 years ago, and I have never studied any electronics. My current reading material focuses on the socioeconomics of the Burgundians around Ghent at the turn of the 15th century. That I can relate to.
The Mark Grant constructed cables can also be bought Amazon. Like yours, the XLR connectors cost about $5 each, that’s the first $20.
The Canare cable, and I see that exactly the same cable is used in Blue Jeans XLR cables, does not use tar paper, it uses various materials including Mylar internally and a proprietary PVC cover. Olefin is, apparently, a commonly used polycarbonate invented in 1957.
Canare provide a level of explanation for their cable design in this document. This simply illustrates my starting point that, as a typical consumer, how can I possibly make a sensible decision from explanations about how a cable is made?
You have probably been doing science for decades. How long would it take me to learn enough science to understand the first slide?
At least by the weekend I will have two cables to compare: Neglex 2534 and Canare L4E6S.
The irony is that the pro audio comments I read seem to consistently prefer the cheaper cables. It seems that Mogami charge a bit for brand value.
You can lead a horse to water. . . .
5 Likes
I have absolutely no doubt that you are selling science-based products without the marketing foo. I don’t deny the need for complexity. A DAC chip is hugely complex and costs a few dollars. That is because the demand for them forces manufacturing design and efficiency to the point that they can be made for a nominal cost.
I can look in an integrated amplifier and see things that look good to me. I can easily tell by listening if I like a pair of speakers or amplifier. I’m not much fussed about DACs and streamers, which seem to get better just by using fibre-optic cable, a power conditioner and eliminating switching. The same with tonearms and cartridges.
But cables? With rare exceptions they’ve left me dazed and confused ever since I plugged in my first music centre. I still think differences I think I heard were my brain playing tricks on me.
Steven,
You’re plenty smart enough…no worries there.
First slide. When a circuit is in resonance, in a tank circuit, a tank circuit is just a series of R, L and C components fed by a source voltage, the source is changed until the potential voltage is the same on the inductor and capacitor. Once that is reached, by definition the circuit is in “resonance”.
OK, so what. The what is that at resonance the current and voltage PHASE shift goes to ZERO in the X-axis time base. We remove AC signal distortion when we remove the phase shift. All we have left is resistive attenuation. That’s pretty cool. RF frequencies are in resonance and have no phase shift. That’s a good thing, but we can’t hear RF, so we need to look at what happens at audible frequencies.
When we do that, we find out that L and C components shift our signal in the time base because we fall out of resonance and this causes a distortion of the signal. The lower frequency formulas have frequency stuck in there and this sort of gives it away, every frequency is going to be “different”. We want to mitigate this but can’t fully remove this time based distortion. Only a resistive component leaves the current and voltage unshifted in the time base. Yes, a resistance attenuates the amplitude but it doesn’t shift the data with respect to time which is much worse.
The rest of the presentation shows how the “shiftiness” of cable can be changed, and why you may want to change it to make thing better. The paper does not involve the really complex stuff as to how to make a cable that does make improvements, but just what math suggest you try to make…somehow!
I can get you through every single slide, just not in three minutes per slide I had at AXPONA.
Summary - the more a network (cable + speaker) looks RESISTIVE the less you will hear change. The more reactive it is, the more it suggests you will hear change. Second, the cable’s impedance is a big change from the speakers, and is a big issue to mitigate signal transfer reflections to the load (speaker). The massive signal current at low frequencies is right where any cable’s impedance RISES way above the speakers impoedance. Not an ideal situation.
Interconnect are a little different. They terminate into super high impedance (47,000 ohms) loads that imitate an open circuit (no current to speak of). The cable’s impedance, RCA or XLR, is far, far lower than the termination impedance and transfers just voltage potential to the load. Since the load is a HUGE resistor value, most of the voltage goes to the load and way, what less is absorbed by the cable. The time shift in this circuit count, thiough. We generally consider just the capacitance as the current is essentially zero. This is why IC cables are best with lower capacitance, not the Lowest per say but low. The time alignment of the Vp (the speed frequencies travel is different at audio and causes PHASE distortion). Adjusting the capacitance soem to improve that, as well as using a differebr “R” resistance value is of benefit over just low capacitance It is easy to make designs that do this, meet JUST low capacitance. Adjusting the Vp alignment takes more complex designs and especially if you want to also lower attenuation in an XLR so longer distances are working well.
RCA aren’t best over longer distances as they can’t remove common mode noise that is noise that is equal on all wires. The XLR signal is differential so we can isolate the two and use just the signal and remove the noise. An RCA has one wire, so we can’t encode the signal different from the noise, it all adds up and more the longer you go.
Best,
Galen
3 Likes