That is a good question. I have not formally crunched the numbers to accurately define percentages of sales. I do track sales on a spreadsheet and can accurately say that SPTPC is clearly the most popular speaker cable. 60-65% is probably a fair assumption with the balance being nearly split between TPC and OFE. The OFE customers are fiercely loyal to their selection and seem to appreciate the warmer qualities of tube amplifiers and preamps. This is why I appreciate the opportunity to send more than 1-pair for the customer to compare. I don’t want anyone to question their choice or to look over their shoulder wondering if they made the right decision. It’s “your” ears, room and equipment and we want you to be more than satisfied. And though the opinions of others is always of value in making purchasing decisions it should not always be the primary factor. I hear quite often from customers that the days of cable shopping are formally over once they hear their Iconoclast speaker cable.
You absolutely have to try a variety of the Iconoclasts as price and copper type are irrelevant to what will work best for you, IMHO. Let me quote Badbeef here, as his observations mirror mine, even though our systems are quire different:
" I suspect the TPC compared with the SPTPC in most “modern” systems would sound comparatively forward and possibly brash. There is a bit more energy in the mids/vocal area, which is not unwelcome in my system. The TPCs may be a bit more “in the speakers” than the SPTPC, but not in a way that I feel that I’m losing anything in terms of what’s going on outside the speakers. By contrast the SPTPC is a bit amorphous and less specific in its imaging IMS."
I would concur with his observations, except maybe for the “brash” part, but he chose TPC and I went with the SPTPC which goes to show you how system and individual preference dependent the choice is. I did perceive a bit more energy in the upper mids and less so with the SPTPC. However, like Galen, my speakers are Martin-Logan’s which have a upwards tilt in that region that can border on annoying when not mated with sympatico gear, so the SPTPC’s were a better match.
I also found that the soundstage of the TPC’s was, indeed, more “recessed” but at the same time the voices were more precisely placed, though with a bit less “bloom” around them. With the SPTPC’s the “voices” (individual instruments) were larger and less pinpoint. BUT - forget the speakers disappearing thing - the instruments at the front of the soundstage were freaking in the room with me. The presentation was more “front row” to the performance, but being enveloped in the performance turned out to be fatally addictive emotionally and financially, even though my logical self preferred the more “coherent” presentation of the soundstage of the TPC’s.
That said, both cables presented the same sense of width, depth, and detail. In a PM to me, Galen used the analogy of “dots” to describe how the copper types affect the individual “voices.” The "dot"s are larger or smaller, more forward or recessed, or in your lap depending on the conductor.
Moral of story: there is no shortcut to listening for yourself. But it’s well worth the effort. I’m done cable shopping.
Howard sums it up well. The thing that was strange for me was that the qualities most people on this thread were ascribing to the SPTPC, I found in the TPC in my system. I had to ask Galen if it were possible that the labeling on the cables could be mixed up. They basically can’t 
.
The thing that I kept coming back to - and I was comparing six different cables over a month and a half - was that every time I put the TPCs in, I forgot all about qualities and comparisons, and realized some time later I hadn’t been thinking about anything other than The Music 
The perfection of copper is purely a material measure of trace material that aren’t copper. This does not mean last weeks left over hotdog gets in there, but traces of nickel, silver and other metals as well as some oxygen that isn’t driven off. The speed and heat used in the process determines the crystal size. The resistivity is decreased SLIGHTLY from 103% at the best purity, to 100% reference in TPC. There is ZERO data that will indicate HOW the electromagnetic, EM, wave changes the superposition of the moving electrons CHANGING what we hear. The EM wave is an incredibly complex compilation of every moving electron in the cable and the photons they toss off that make the EM field when moving. The electrons location and vector relative to the dielectric impacts what happens when it is all added up to make the EM wave. We HEAR the CHANGE in the EM wave. Copper metallurgy changes the EM wave somehow or it wouldn’t sound different. That we know.
There are processes that improve a copper’s Tensile (effort to stretch it) and Elongation (how far it stretches before the yield point) called T&E. Cryogenic processes relieve trapped stresses, if they exist, in copper getting a LITTLE closer to the ultimate theoretical values. This changes nothing electrically that we can measure outside of resistivity.
The sound is definitely different. Audio bacon ran through them and described them here;
[https://audiobacon.net/2019/05/27/iconoclast-cables-same-measurements-different-sound/](https://audiobacon.net/2019/05/27/iconoclast-cables-same-measurements-different-sound/)
Sound CANNOT be recessed BEHIND the speaker from the initial sound plane, but only between the speakers and back from it. As you remove far left and right soundstage, the image will get
larger
between the speaker and seem to be in front of the speaker. Some prefer this sound to a
flat
frontal presentation that provides the widest soundstage. The sharper the image, the more
space
that you hear, or not heard, around it. And, the distance from note to note seems wider…thus the wider soundstage. Smaller images and softer presentations push the perception of the sound BEHIND the larger, louder, sounds. There is a whole lot of stuff on how the ear is tricked to hear recorded music.
Since I have no true explanation on exactly HOW the EM wave is altered by the copper, I offer choices to decide which alteration you like. The measurements, except resistivity, are all the same in like designs. If you decide fewer grains and lower resistivity is better (and the expense) we have that.
Be aware that people who listen to dozens and dozens of leads put the SPTPC at the top of the heap sound quality wise.
*Needless to say, these cables will be our new reference@HTHALLER-Great summary. I appreciate your time to describe what you heard with your system. This has undoubtedly nudged me towards a decision to try the Iconoclasts. I tend to prefer a sound that draws me into the music which usually means a more relaxed presentation in the presence region (upper midrange). My current cables tend to smear leading edges a little too much. In their day this has an approach taken to eliminate the digital nasties associated with poorly transcribed digital. I have some CDs from the 1980s to early 1990’s that are downright unlistenable. The term of the day was “ear bleeding”. Fortunately things digital have progressed nicely where digital can give analog a run for the money.
I’m a big believer in the influence of cables as much as components. And I’ve tried a lot of cables over the years and I’ll say with complete certainty that the Iconoclast are in a world of their own.
And, having tried all different conductor flavors, I would say that the conductor material is only maybe the last 10% of the benefit of Iconoclast. They’re all going to sound amazing and you’ll find the conductor material that will be the cherry on top of your particular system only after you do your own test.
Let your sources run free. DO NOT put constraints on your system to tame this. The restrictions will diminish the best to worst your system can ACCURATELY reproduce. The WIDER the variation, the better your system is becoming, that’s the point of it all…exactly what is the source? Restrictions destroy knowing what either end of your source variation is.
Best,
Galen
@rower30 - My point was a reference to approaches in place 30 years ago based on perceived weaknesses of digital. Surely digital has progressed. When reading your post the song “Born Free” came to mind, LOL!
I’d advise taking up Bob at BJC offer to discuss by phone what your preferences are. I found that helpful. Also, these folks are super nice to deal with. Couldn’t be happier.
Too funny! Yes, I saw the movie, too.
But, same answer. Don’t use cables to “color” the sytem. Thirty years ago you still shot for the widest tonal range based on the systems ability to deliver more bandwidth. Yes, the bad stuff is worse…I’ve been there and still have all that source material…and I used it developing the cables. Guess what? The better the systems bandwidth, the better ALL the source material became. The low end sources moved up some, and the top end moved up more, hence more system bandwidth. What is on the other side of a clear piece of glass is what we are after. What you put on the other side is up to you. Me, I want to see it for what it is.
Best,
Galen Gareis
I’ve been by folks askes WHAT to get for audition as I’ve said to try two cables…no need to do all three based on your price range.
The line makes it easy to do this, as the price changes with copper GRAIN count. Not that this is “better” to lower you go, but the sound is different, and the cost goes up.
SPEAKER cables in the moderate price range;
TPC and OFE will get you difference between the two grain structures if you will, and allow you to see how good TPC is. Is it worth more to get the OFE?
The TPC to SPTPC is a SLIGHT change in the top expanse in sound stage. Some may not hear it at all based on source material and your speakers room/performance as the two are tied together. The cost to get SILVER or OFE is close to the same so we lowerd the bracket to price them the same.
SPEAKER cables in the highest price range;
OFE and SPTPC will again get you the difference between grains in copper.
Interconnect is the same idea, but the differences are not the same at all. One cable goes into a near dead short (speaker cables) and the other into a near open circuit (interconnect). Thus, the radical differences in the design.
IC moderate price range;
TPC and OFE
In the higher price range;
OFE and UP OCC
This is a good starting point to see what sound stage you like. I don’t sell up the chin at all, but sell the SOUND you like, even if it is our cheapest (massive and volume and thus cheaper) copper we buy. I have no data to support grains or even the number of N’s as altering the EM wave in measurable ways that define accuracy, not physical structure changes, except MAYBE amplitude (our cables are short). What is important in a number of real ways, is the DESIGN, and you get that across the board for a reason. I want to make your life BETTER so why make a less “better” cable outside of the copper choice?
The process isn’t too bad to tackle with two leads, and a thought to what you should spend has to be considered.
Best,
Galen Gareis
As always, very helpful Galen. Thanks.
Are you thinking about adding AC cords to the Iconoclast family?
AC cords are 60 Hz analog cables being fed into a more fixed input impedance. They act like speaker cables, really. You want the CABLE to act like a super low impedance path for current. Capacitance in power cords is not as critical as it simply acts like the caps in you power supply, they deliver current “instantly” on demand. Thus, we need lowest inductance so current in-rush to the power supply isn’t a bottleneck. When you short a capacitor, the INDUCTANCE and RC time constant determine how fast that stored EMF can be delivered as current, in theory “instantly”.
NOISE is a really, really weird issue. Much has been shown about noise EXCEPT where it shows up in the Vcc DC circuit at the silicone stage. EMI/RFI can’t go through a transformer well…and why they are called CHOKES. An inductor / choke looks like an OPEN to RF. Those CHOKES you see on the outside of AC cords are there to keep RF noise from getting OUT of equipment, not in! Is blocking noise an extra few feet from the wall making any difference when it is blocked in the power supply? Don’t know. What we do know it that the Fcc has class 1 and 2 noise restrictions that have to be met on equipment. Home equipment is stricter than industrial. There are ways to mitigate noise in AC cords and also lower inductance. Technically low inductance for better current delivery allows MORE noise to pass so we see opposite inductive requirements between noise and current delivery. No big surprise there as mother nature seems to do this sort of thing. You have to balance the EM current fields to lower inductance through field cancellation and that also can mitigate RF. So have I thought about it? Sure.
Best,
Galen Gareis
Would love to see that thought turn to reality. There would be a demand…
Galen
I’ve sunk a stupid amount of money into power cables, so I beg you: Please do not make power cables. Ok?
Ron
PS----In my system, your OFE is the clear winner for speaker cables. Don’t know why but it just sounds most pleasant to me.
Ron, great on the OFE in your system. The overall “character” of ICONOCLAST is in all the coppers, so differences are not crazy between coppers. I use the SPTPC with my CLX, for instance. So yes, use what general patina suits your ear. Some like a slightly warmer more forward sound stage. It isn’t really more forward, but the larger image makes it SEEM more forward. This, of course, pulls in the sound stage from the left and right as the center image is more dominant. This should not be a surprise. I don’t dwell on the copper so much as the final little nip and tuck it has on the sound. None of the coppers are wrong to any repeatable measure available that defines a “perfect” EM wave. If we knew what that was, then we would have a better is better answer. We don’t. A full loom with TPC copper is magnificent as to what it can do for the money. To me, that is the major victory in all this, to provide a far, far better cable product everyone can afford with a 10K or so root system. Going above that isn’t hard at all, just keep adding more $$$ materials. But, the foundation has to be right…and it is, so those material changes are going to work.
This is why we have choices in the copper, and also use the certified OFE for those that want very low grain copper. OFE is by far the most affordable low grain, some say long grain, copper so we can charge sane pricing.
Power cables. Don’t know. The industry seems to be centered on FUD with regards to NOISE and again, I see no real data on basic properties of moving a 60 Hz signal from A to B. I just read TWO so called data sheets on CLOCK digital cables that had absolutely ZERO actual data other than lists of “materials” and flowery wording. several pages of NOTHING, and all for $2,300.00 for a 1 meter set of cables and, you need three in some cases. I find it really hard to grasp what this market wants. spending way too much with data is different than being willing to spend way too much with NO DATA.
I can grasp, better is better but maybe you can’t hear it, still, the cable is demonstrably better measuring. I can’t grasp zero data supporting ANYTHING except the cable isn’t a dead short and paying thousands for that. This does not force the basic products we use to move to truly better levels of MEASURED performance. OK, maybe at XYZ price level and the inclusion of fewer better is better attributes is “better” in price for many of us as we can’t hear or afford above some threshold. “I get it” for this type of thinking. I do not get high prices with zero repeatable measurements and design justifications. I mean NOTHING. RF and analog cables move in opposite ways yet we have 75 ohm cables sold for 50 ohm RF, and using entirely incorrect designs for RF.
A wonderful phrase.
Well, I don’t want to make our hobby sound like paint; Gloss or semi-gloss or flat but it is like that sonically.
Galen
The whole audio thing is sort of a “faux finish,” in the end.
Well, I get your point, but these cables are the least “faux” of any I’ve heard.