Question for Galen about power cables

Cables
44

Ground loop noise is far higher than RF to the source in a dB scale. A good system ground is the best way to stay quiet, not cable mitigations, if we have ground loop problems.

RF is filtered at every circuit block in our devices and along the DC rails to ground. Just about every input board has a RF shunt, too. A ground loop isn’t really fixed but can be broken by a device in the chain.

Improving RF attenuation in the cord isn’t a problem, but often it isn’t a solution to a RF problem with good equipment. It is cost effective to include it, so we do.

Best,
Galen

3 Likes
45

Don’t be surprised if he comes back under a different name, I’m pretty sure this is the same person from a bunch of threads on another audio forum.

46

ICONOCLAST is designed to be better, yes. And if we are trying to fool you we are doing it in a really bad way. I try to make sure we all full understand how cable works, and how SMALL some of the real changes are. I give the charts, graphs and numbers for all the designs. No fooling! Different perspectives from purists on those changes isn’t a problem for us. I see no “attack” on that front. I do see rudeness in the presentation, though. Especially when the data is all OK, he just feels it is not to be made available and purchased because he feels that level of capability is “meaningless” even to the point of reporting the product to the data nazis.

Why an individual would get so upset that the true changes that are, to him, MEANINGLESS I can’t understand. I’m just not in tune with that restriction in the market. As a PE, Professional Engineer, you have to follow the book. There is no room for experimentation. We get it. But outside those walls we CAN push and push cables, CPU’s, GPU’s and stuff to the limits.

We can enjoy as good a testing cable as can be made. True, that costs more and we chose to buy in specific area for the performance not the price. I bought a Porsche Panamera 4 and also own a GTI. One of those is a bad “value”, yes? But one of those is a REALLY good driving car. No fooling! Was I fooled? Some will say I was. I say I wasn’t. I KNOW I paid a lot more for a little improvement. Thirty years ago, the GTI would have been in the the best car in the world arena. Today, it is the VALUE purchase and no one bats an eye at it anymore.

To point out how small differences can be isn’t a problem, and fully invited to be done. It has no impact on how the cables work or measure. It does make it interesting that we hear the amp/cable/speaker changes to varying degrees with all the option out there and with cable changes that are indeed small.

The changes in Vp linearity are at the speed of EM wave in a vacuum as a reference, and slowed by the dielectric the EM wave is in inside a cable. EM waves traves at 299,792,458 meters / second. Notice I used a LONGER value than 3E8 just to not fool you.

This is DISTANCE determined. Cables are short relative to the speed, and why longer cables still sound OK. We can change the Vp at higher frequencies by 30% but it is 30% of a SMALL number. WHY do we hear the differences we do? I’m not fooling myself with the way the cable WORKS, and neither am I fooling you. Changes can be made to the cables with R and C, while figuring out how to get L to stay in-line, or as small a value as we can. That isn’t easy and takes complex designs to do. Some feel this is fooling you that we improve R, L and C balance to better suit analog.

What’s say you? Is ICONOCLAST hiding behind anything to fool you? Are the ways and means to each design not adequate to make you comfortable that the cable’s DESIGN is really different enough to be a possible improvement? Are we not putting changes and data into the right perspective for you?

The entire aim of ICONOCLAST is to do exactly that, tell you 100% how amazing it is to reach better electrical and then put it to the test in our systems. Blue Jeans will happily send 1313A speaker cable with you ICONOCLAST speaker cable to compare, or any IC cables as well. I’m not sure how this is fooling anybody.

True, this gentleman (be nice!) seems to feel the spec limits to him are meaningless. OK by me. That doesn’t change the specs does it? Better is better. We sell the data and test every assembly to prove it. We provide all the tech papers done before the cable is even built to show how and why we build them the way we do. We don’t make a new cable that isn’t truly different in measure compared to the old one.

The methods to relate the data can always be improved so more of you understand how this all works. And yes, even honest peer review from outside council can alter the way perspectives are shown. This is NOT an attack if done right. It is just a better understanding of the technology. That helps us all. I hope my comments to everyone helps you better understand cable and to be LESS fooled and not more. ICONOCLAST ethos is fully counter to the claims that were being made.

Best,
Galen

8 Likes
47

It’s hard to not take what that individual said personally. I hope we can all empathize with you. To be challenged in such a way in a public forum where there’s no chance of civil discourse isn’t why the vast majority of us are here. I read your comments here and on the Iconoclast topic and I think you’ve done an amazing job of taking the higher ground.

Thanks for being you Galen. Your generosity of spirit and intent is unsurpassed. It’s great to learn from your vast experience and willingness to share.

12 Likes
48

Agree and well said!

3 Likes
49

I was holding back from replying because I knew I would just get mad; ICONOCLAST makes great cables and I love my 4x4 XLR. The fact that the brand was built on science and measurement is an extra bonus to me. Everything matters in my system because I heard all minor changes in my system (not necessarily a good thing).

But I know I cannot and wouldn’t convince people outside of our small audiophile circle here. I wish the nonbelievers could just leave us alone.

5 Likes
50

All approaches are valid. But dismissing others’ approach out of hand and insulting them is not acceptable.

I was a wire skeptic. I was convinced wire is wire. I tried various options and experienced differences which were so small as to be imagined. I then heard wires which inarguable made the sound worse. I later heard wires which clearly made the sound better (blind testing was trivial).

I now readily accept wires make a difference, some times substantial. I needed to experience this to believe it.

One needs to be willing to learn, experience, understand with an open mind. It can be difficult.

14 Likes
51

Couldn’t agree more and it is very hard. We have a lot of folks in the hifi world that are very open and ready to hear differences. Some stand out folks do struggle to walk into these scenarios with that open mind though.

6 Likes
52

…and strive to actually communicate.

Seems like a vanishing basic skill these days…

53

bah!!!

54

You mean a string of unintelligible emoji-thingies doesn’t do it for you?

:bone: :eyes: :pray: :watermelon: :banana: :apple:

2 Likes
55

Hey, I resemble that remark…

…but only when the parameters here won’t accept a single, perfect emoji as being a sufficient, clever response.

Then I have to resort to using four, carefully chosen perfect emojis.

But I am usually undeterred and up to the task!

:rofl: :upside_down_face: :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye: :wink:

2 Likes
56

What choice of practical dielectric would provide the highest RF transfer impedance, to be used with neutral and live? This would be an example of a tailored surface impedance boundary condition, no?
(I know, I should think this through myself but I think others should know too.)

Neoprene has a high dielectric constant of 6.7, am I wrong in thinking we might want to use such high loss dielectric for conductors where we want high RF transfer impedance (live and neutral)?
Makes me wonder, why some companies use even air (and helium!) for their power cables and not just for the ground. That’s giving the RF a proper highway, no?

57

They are opposites.

  • Shield = low Transfer Impedance at unwanted frequencies.
  • Dielectric = high Transfer Impedance at unwanted frequencies.

The shield moves RF to ground and the lower the transfer Impedance the better. The dielectric tries to absorb unwanted signal before it gets to the load.

A power cord is 50-60 Hz, it ignores the dielectric so you can tailor the dielectric to filter RF instead or other properties worth paying for such as durability and in-use physical properties. RF supression isn’t really high on the list but you get it with EPDM.

But you didn’t. You keep asking the professor questions about the answers to your homework assignment. You still don’t know how to THINK and this is what higher education teaches you. All the fancy words and phrases you dig up are useless without a THINKING brain behind them. You REPEAT what you read, you still aren’t THINKING about your own answers and turning them in for a GRADE that measures how well you are thinking. Don’t knock an education until you learn to think on your own and stop pumping everyone for the answers you can’t proof for yourself. Who do I get to go to for direct answers?

Best,
Galen

1 Like
58

Huh… No, I’m sure I did this time! I read what you wrote earlier, and now elaborated. I understand the basic principle, just wanted confirmation on the use of rather specialized dielectrics. So, EPDM. Thanks.

And this information isn’t just for me to apply, maybe some DIYer cable builders here werent yet aware that EPDM is of special use for RF suppression. This isn’t my thread, Galen!
I am researching the topic at hand right now, not slacking. Promise.

59

Arenth,

Nope, or you would have posted my ANSWER to the QUESTION. You guessed and had no confidence in your answer as there wasn’t a logical proof. Thus you are leaning on your sources and not yourself again. I’ve done this awhile and I know the ropes on mental crutches. I was you once…until Purdue got ahold of me. No more help past the basics and now “I” had to apply the basics and turn in my work for a grade and a degree that says, “I can THINK” on my own. The degress isn’t so much memorizing the subject matter and sounding “smart” as it is about applying it on your own and THINKING on your own.

Can you take the “tech” anyone can read and using your own thinking that few do well and apply it to a problem and fix it?

You do the first part, you want to skip the harder second part.

Best,
Galen

1 Like
60

Well yes, seeing it like that.

Not yet, it’s a goal. It also requires doing something besides reading and writing - that requires a little bit of money - just ordered FEP CAT5e to dissect and to compose into a properly optimized plait. Now I’ll get to do mistakes and fix them. Finally!

I don’t want to skip it, I need it to evolve as a human being. I need an LCR meter though! (What an excuse)

61

As an anecdotal aside, one of my physics professors at MIT would teach solving every problem in classical Newtonian physics with f=ma. He said if you couldn’t figure out how to do it starting there, you shouldn’t be in the class. :rofl:

62

I like it. f=ma alone can lead one to many, many places.

63

My college physics course gave I think four (?) formulas at the top of every test. If you solved anything beyond using those exact four as provided, you needed to show the derivations of the formulas you used. I learned SO much by having to think like that. “Sure! I’ll give you all the formulas you need to complete the exam.” said the prof. Be careful what you wish for!