CinDyment,
The data is absolutely correct or the physics I’m using is WRONG, and it isn’t. You are considering what changes are “allowed” to your way of thinking to improve analog audio cables. There is a forward thinking group of people who enjoy pushing the limits in the hobby.
The merits to improve audio cables are well explained in TIME basis and we all know the absolute numbers…but we still want cables that address ALL the available parameters, not just the ones you think should be allowed.
The cables address ALL the parameters and yes, includes group delay / Vp alignment. People want the attribute looked at and addresses and it has been.
I more than fully understand your time based analysis (I of course did that, too) but people want a truly better cable to decide for themselves so I made one. I’m not sure why you feel so complelled to remove this comparison as though it is somehow a problem of sorts. The real problem is NOT being allowed to have a reference type sample, and one made properly.
To me, the ICONOCLAST concept was to push ALL variables, big or small, as far as I can in one cable and allow the audience to then really use them in direct comparisons to yes, the cables you use.
No, I would not design a high DCR cable or a cable (ribbon type) that is essentially a capacitor to lower inductance (capacitors have low inductance, who would have guessed that!). We agree on not doing that.
You are missing the point of the excercise. To ALLOW a way better cable than even you feel is needed, to be compared to what you do feel is all that would be necessary. The use of far better cables is not a problem, until outside interest try to negate the ability to try one.
I know the data, you know the data, but PLEASE let others compare the actual date I have presented in a VERY transparent fashion. It has to be this transparent so we all know what we are trying and how it works, and even yes, what the “studies” say we can or can’t hear.
The cables are ON YOUR SIDE with complete and fully explained parameters. ALL of them are covered. Is there a problem with this approach…it is ICONOCLASTIC, yes?
Most won’t find as completely explained cables, and your views to properly made cable just adds to the explainations. The more ways to look at the data the better. That’s the point. This exchange is what we want so why kill the beast that allows true understanding of HOW cables work? I don’t get it.
As cables are all time based distortions and the better we can address that, the better we can get. I see no problem with that approach as long as the cable REALLY does it correctly. The peer review papers are all on the site for “correctness” and also can be compared to what people claim we hear. We can’t hear where we are with cables that aren’t made properly and measured as such. Few want to do it, so ICONOCLAST has done exactly that.
As long as the data is “correct” and the argument is what we hear, I’m good with that. And yes, I respect your own experiences…trying the cable is free and always has been.
Best,
Galen