I am gently pushing as I find it very bad form to play hide the ball - especially when your claimed obstacle to disclosing the cable was promptly removed.
But, no, we cannot force you to help others.
I suspect the real reason is the cable construction involves braiding unicorn tail hair.
I think the very thrust of this thread concerns the advantages to ICONOCLAST’s geometry, and it’s advantages. I said earlier, “I’m not sure I’m going to “blame” anything outside of the constant variable of the chain itself.” Not all cables react the same given varying impedance of the chain presented by a given amp/speaker combination. Especially when you traverse typologies like SS and transformer based tube outputs. It can however, be tested through the audio spectrum with an oscilloscope. I would invite you to test your own system for yourself if you interested. I certainly went through more than few before I chose my specific combination.
I find it rather condescending to make assertions like “I suspect the real reason is the cable construction involves braiding unicorn tail hair.”
Sorry, but we need to resort to magic; there appears no rational explanation.
I make available anything which may help others . I understand you do not share this outlook.
Well, “star-quad with hyperlitz” pretty much screams Audioquest…
There are numerous manufacturers out there who have had both geometries, and if you find that specific typology works well in your configuration then more power to you. When it comes to speaker interconnects, I prefer to actually test them in network chain. There are those who hold to the position that all cables sound the same, and on the other end of the spectrum, the more you spend the better the cable. I will say that geometry does play an important role, and I’m sure Galen would concur, but the purpose of my posting from the very beginning, is how can you actually tell if a given cable is better than another in a given configuration of matching an amp to a set of speakers. One can use summing and actually see it. Regardless of the maker or price of the cable.
There is no magic involved. Please don’t try to place words in my mouth, or assert my position which you do not understand.
Thank you for intervention…
I wonder how many times Aristotle, Einstein, Galilei, Mozart, Plato, Socrates or any of the great minds, experts, inventors and artists of history were questioned. Edison, Bell, Whitney, Tesla and we could go on and on and on. And while it is “always” a good thing for all things to be challenged or questioned, I must consider what of the credentials and requisites that should be applied to those that question. Can those who question even on a rudimentary level truly understand the science or the art. I’m not talking “theory,” I’m talking science. First, I won’t compare Galen to Einstein, Plato or Mozart. I might throw him in the mix with a Edison, Bell or Tesla. Galen has “proven” himself to the wire and cable industry to be one of the if not best cable designers in the industry! Galen is a card carrying giant in this field. Period!
Over the last few years I have watched a handful of hobbyists not really question Galen’s work but rather seemingly want to pick fights on “theory.” Galen does not do theory and as a group, Kurt, Galen and I will not argue or enter the fray. We are not a part of the traditional herd. We do not have a sales pitch other than try Iconoclast. We have a no questions asked return policy.
In the 12-years that I spent at Belden and during a time of significant accelerated progress in both copper and optical signal delivery technology, I learned well the singular “basic” rule from senior management. It was ingrained in each of us who presented products to channel, integrators, contractors, specifiers, consultants and engineers. That single rule was “never” make claims that we cannot substantiate with science. There was only objectivity and never subjectivity in play. That is why Belden stayed completely away from the consumer and even more specifically the audiophile or high-end community for over 100-years. Only after Galen thoroughly convinced with measurable science, senior management, that Iconoclast by Belden, was born. And then, as we all know, Belden infrastructure was not suited to this vertical.
So, to answer the question, “What makes one cable better than another,” a lot of things. RL and C absolutely can be measured. The bottom line is the design! And, the multiple ingredients that go into the design. Galen has presented without question every bit of this science, in writing and readily available to anyone who wants to take the time to read. Again, not theory, only science.
The premise that you have to weed through the hundreds if not thousands of cable options to find the one that works best with “your” unique combination of components and peripherals seems overwhelming complex to me. Who has the time and money to do this? We seem to miss the golden rule, “enjoy the experience.”
I promise this. Choosing cables and interconnects is not really that difficult and is not a mystery. It may seem that way because of the never ceasing subjective, theoretical claims and smoke presented by the vast majority of cable marketing companies. I call them that because they don’t really draw copper and manufacture cable. They visit China and see who will produce product at most often, the best price. Belden “does” design, engineer, produce and manufacture cables. BJC is the final assembly and finished product manufacturer. Choose your cable candidates by science, not theory! Try several and buy the one that sounds best to you. The final thought, a poor cable will always be a poor cable on any system. A good cable will always be a good cable on any system and a great cable will always be a great cable on any system. We are talking design. Cable materials may and do audibly change the sound but the “cable design” is where you should start. Then, choose the copper that sounds best for you.
tedsmith,
which types of the Gen 2 XLRs did you test and what were your impressions of sonic differences between ETPC, OFE and UPOCC? Which did you keep?
I also kept SPTPC speaker cables., and now awaiting two types Gen 2 XLRs to audition (I expect UPOCC is stratospheric in price)…
UPOCC versions in the Gen 2 configuration may never get made because of that price. Galen really did not want to produce anything out of UPOCC in the first place but was swayed by others to produce them. It has turned out to be quite interesting to compare the materials directly, though, since the copper choice is the only difference between the cables in the same series. Each has its own merits and complements people’s systems differently. I have now taken the UPOCC interconnects out of my system and use TPC Gen 2 xlrs. In this case, design easily trumped materials.
thanks for your response!
I tried all of the original XLRs and as the quality of the copper went up (and the price went up) the clarity, coherence and my general enjoyment went up. When Galen told me about the Gen 2’s I asked what he would suggest for copper quality and TPC was his recommendation and I’m happy with it. Better for me instantly than the others, no need to A/B. My wife agrees.
Ted,
Thank you for your prompt response!
I will listen to the TPC and OFE in my system
whenever they come and go from there -
as the proof is in the results of listening…
Any progress on getting your website and mobile site squared away? Gentle nudge here. Give yourselves an opportunity to reach consumers.
Kurt sent the basic frame with content to Galen and I last Friday. We provided comments and suggestions on Monday. It will follow a similar look and function as the BJC site. It was simple, flowed nicely and contains numerous white papers and technical design briefs. I was pleased that the site does what it is supposed to do without the Las Vegas look that I see so many times. It won’t be too much longer.
For those waiting on Gen 4 X 4 interconnects I can also report progress. We received the necessary documentation necessary to actually place an order for bulk cable. Galen went to work and possibly visited the plant yesterday to have product moved from the engineering bins into Belden’s BPICS where it is visible to customer service and sales. We will be placing the order as soon as it shows in the system. Galen confirms that material was produced and is ready to ship. So it will then be a matter of getting the cable to Seattle.
I fully expect Gen 2 products to be available in UPOCC. Though it is not inexpensive it is certainly less costly than many other cables from the competition. Without exception, Beta Testers including myself noted an improvement with each transition upward in the copper chain. Just depends where you want to go. It never hurts to listen.
Hmm. I’ve been out of the ICONOCLAST loop for some time, since being one of the early beta testers. My reservations about those XLRs was similar to Ted’s. Perhaps I need to jump back into the waters and listen to the Gen 2s.
Hey, Tony! Would love to know what you think.
@KurtBJC Is pricing available yet for the balanced gen 2?
I still don’t have the cable physically on hand and while Belden has put pricing through to me for the bulk material I’m holding off publishing pricing until I’ve got an order in the process as I am not 100% sure something won’t change. But it looks to be about 50% higher than the current Gen1 pricing on TPC and about 20% higher for OFE and OCC. As soon as I have some cable on hand we’ll finalize that and make it available.
In general update terms: I am told we are likely to have our formal launch agreement in place soon, but am waiting for feedback from Belden on some things. When dealing with large organizations and intellectual property issues, and all of that, I find that I am very glad to have begun my career as a lawyer rather than as a wire and cable guy! But I think that Iconoclast will be “officially” open for business within the next couple of weeks, with a website and the whole shebang.
It may, in some respects, be a bit of an odd entry into this market. We are not much for flashiness and we have no sales pitch in the ordinary sense. We have a technical case to make, through Galen’s papers, and then a “try it risk-free and see what you think” pitch, but we will not be writing poetry a la Shelley:
Hail to thee, blithe spirit! Cable thou never wert!
The plan is to let the better mousetrap work, and see what comes of it. In a market where subjective evaluation is the key to the buyer’s experience, what can one tell the buyer? One must listen, and let the buyer listen, too.
Hi Kirt / Bob,
Speaker cables that you kindly shipped to my hotel are now at home and installed. Great sound - thank you. Completing the Iconoclast loom with the speaker cables was definitely worth it.
I think the “less is more” packaging and price reduction can only be good for business.
Knowing the damage to packaging I encountered with international shipping though, will overseas packaging be double-boxed or something to provide additional protection? I can re-send the pictures to Bob and yourself to remind you things that can occur.
Will the try and return option only be available for USA deliveries?
We’re looking at packaging – and it is likely that at some point in the not too distant future we will at least have a box-in-a-box sort of arrangement. But, honestly, having shipped tens of thousands of cable parcels, I have to say that actual damage to product is pretty rare. We do see it, now and again, but when we do it is usually because someone has driven a forklift into something, and no package would have helped. We’ve always taken it for granted that damage in shipping is our responsibility – if it doesn’t show up “as new,” we replace it.
“Try and return” is slightly complicated for international shipments, so I’ll explain. Yes, basically, the same policy applies anywhere in the world. There are some caveats, however.
BJC is a registered importer and taxpayer in Canada and the UK. We’ll probably be adding Australia to that list at some point, but haven’t yet. When we ship to a Canadian or UK purchaser, we can have the taxes billed to our own tax account. The benefit of this is that if the customer returns the product, we can then recoup the taxes at time of filing. When we ship to anywhere else in the world, we have no ability to recover taxes on a returned shipment – anything that was charged on import is simply gone forever, at least if we’ve paid it.
A customer who is not in the US, UK or Canada will, in most countries, be charged VAT and/or duty on import. The customer will be reported as the importer of record on the shipment. Now, let’s say the customer returns the cable to us. We refund the price – no problems, no questions. But the customer may have paid as much as 25% VAT (or in a few cases more – in Brazil, we have seen shipments where the taxes collected on delivery totalled as much as 80% of the parcel value!). We don’t have that money and can’t get it. The customer’s country MAY have some method for the customer to apply for a return of those funds, but whether such a method exists, how to access it, etc. are all matters we know nothing about.
The upshot, then, is that a customer in a non-US/Canada/UK location may have to accept the risk of VAT/Duty liability for goods he has tried out and then returned. This raises something which customers frequently ask: can’t we just report that the parcel is a “gift” or state the value at $50 or some such thing? The unfortunate reality there is that (1) most countries won’t honor a “gift” designation from a commercial address, and (2) countries which think we have misstated values can impose extremely harsh penalties upon us or seize the goods. Accordingly, we really can’t do the misstated-value thing.
In our traditional business this hasn’t been a huge obstacle because we don’t get a lot of international returns, and we’ve been happy (well, “willing”) to just eat the taxes when we do. But in a market where there’s a lot of “auditioning” going on, it’s potentially a problem. I am looking into whether we can come up with good solutions for it. It’s likely, due to other factors having nothing to do with Iconoclast, that in the coming years we may find ourselves registering as an importer and VAT payer in more countries – Australia’s very likely, and in a few years I think we may well be registered in Germany, France, Spain and Italy (why those in particular? Long story…). Japan’s another distinct possibility.