How true is this?


Easiest to just trial the design(s). There is no “right” for what we enjoy so the trick is to just find that balance. Generally, OFE is reported to be warmer and image foreward some where the TPC, SPTPC and UP OCC (IC only) are more solid sounding and image between the speakers and thus have a wider and larger sound stage.

Having said that, we have ZERO information what causes the audible differeces that is REPETABLE and accepted to be accurate to define WHAT we’ll hear. No one does, so ignore the chatter and just try them first. Sure, I can define grains and metal composition and impurities but there is no formula that says get to this measurement and cables sound more like that.

We offer the TPC as our STANDARD for cost / performance (I use the TPC series II on my CLX for example) and the costlier coppers are offered for evalution.



Thanks Galen!

The irony is, I’m happy with the way my system sounds now, but curiosity is killing this cat.

I made them because curiosity kills the cat! Don’t feel isolated on that trend. I originally just made them for me, but now we offer them to you for your enjoyment. The pure science version of design really works.


1 Like

Hi Mark, are you still interested in a cable audition? Have a great weekend.

Just saw this today.
I received a pair from BJC last Friday and am breaking them in now.
Definitely hear a difference between single wire Series I and bi-wire Series I & II.


1 Like

Do read the bi-wire tech paper while they break-in so you have a better understanding of how those configurations work. All the data is real stuff compared to theoretical calculations. It all works as expected.

Mark you have to be in audio nirvana!:blush:

I will take what he says with a grain of salt. A couple of years ago, he reviewed these wires with an affiliate link. I bought a pair just to tried them out. After 5 minutes, I packed them and returned to Amazon. I then went on and left an honest feedback on his video, and it was deleted within the first few hours. This gentleman reviews a lot of high-end gear including cameras and lenses, but I’ve yet to see any body of work from him. Cables do make a difference, but one doesn’t need to spend thousands or even hundreds to get quality sound. Need good shielding and proper soldering job.

It was immediately apparent that the FR20 Planar Ribbons have more presence with the Series II SPTPC cables. I’ve only got about 100 hours on the new cables so I’m still hearing improvements, and as they lose their not fully broken-in undesirables – I’m thinking Galen (and science) is right.

Nirvana? Not quite yet, ask me again in a few days.

Unfortunately, every time I’m breaking-in something new in my system I start thinking about that one more thing I need to reach nirvana.


I re-terminated the cables, and moved the Rel Subs high level cables to the same binding posts on the M700s as the Series I cables (probably should have done this when I originally installed the Series II cables, just was lazy). Don’t know if it was additional break-in or the tweaking of the cables but it sure is sounding nice today.

The Series II cables have added a bigger soundstage, more clarity, and a silky/airiness around the performers.

I’m keeping the cables (I+II=III)


Another positive audio test!


What is an analog frequency? And what is a digital one?

Technically there is no such thing as a digital frequency.


I know you’re alluding to digital being many, many analog frequencies and that’s your answer. When we test analog, we test individual frequiencies, and that in no way can be “digital”. Agree? When we keep adding more and more individual sinwaves we can start to ask when we can interpret voltage levels reliably in steps to becomes digital encoding. So that’s my answer.

When we start to GATE a signal as a mere high or low, we are now “deciding” a multiple superposition of analog waves is “digital”. We can also gate voltage levels such a PAM multi level encoding. The circuit breaks the analog into steps. Digital is the circuit that defines the logic steps, not the signal itself. That stays analog, yes.

So we kind of decide when our “analog” becomes digital and we can treat the signals as discrete voltage levels, and not a continuous stream of varying voltages. If we decide it is digital too soon, not enough frequencies, we get lots of errors. An eye pattern test can show the analog nature of digital.

The idea that digital (a means of capturing the data) is analog isn’t true. We switch how we interpret the voltage to encode discrete states. We don’t do that with an all analog system. So the signals may all be analog, but the treatment divides the system into analog, and digital.

The change to digital can be done on a discrete analog sigal, too. A max voltage can be encoded a “one” and the minimum voltage can be encoded a “0”. So we don’t even need to superimpose a bunch of signals to make a square wave and say that “shape” is digital. We just decided to switch HOW we capture the signal…a continuous stream, or gate it as a step voltage. Square waves are not digital, the encoding format is.

The way we capture the signal define analog or digital, not the signal itself. Both are feed analog, true, but we can switch spots in the circuit topology and go digital encoding any time we want.

So my statement is TRUE as I never switched to a “digital” encoding circuit did I!

Another way to look at this, once we use an AD, analog to digital, circuit we now interpret analog as digital. This is why it is called analog “to” digital.You’re right, the incoming signal was analog.

1 Like

Yep, That’s how you do it. Series one on the bottom series TWO up top. The fancy stuff impacts higher frequencies only, so don’t squander the bucks down low. I use a dual parallel bi-wire and set but this is a short run only as it doubles the capacitance and halves the inductance (amps will remember what you are doing!) so 48" max lengths. Many amps like added inductance to offset the speaker’s capacitiance reactance. We just took half of that away. Usually, the amps have built-in networks to predict the reactance and mitigate it.

The series I does the exact same thing, just not as much as the series II. The initial lab sample of series I was a revalation in the sound stage width, depth and focus. All my stuff was new again.

Initially, I doubted the on paper sereis II improvements, that looked good, could be heard. I was wrong again. I doubted ICONOCLAST entirely when I started the improvements, but the science kept at it. Better was better. Up to where we are now anyway. It can’t continue to be audible I agree. What it can do, is get way too expensive.