Silversmith Audio Fidelium Cables

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

1 Like

Except that addressing high inductance also allowed me to adjust the Vp linearity so I did. Funny, the inductance chase also addressed skin effect as the smaller numerous wires automatically grabbed that one, too. Those worried about current efficiency get it rolled into the design, too.

Mother nature seems to bend around all the parameters if you watch the numbers closely. WAY NOT GRAB THEM ALL?

ONE bonded pair is 0.126uH/foot. Using B field cancellation it is reduced to 0.08 uH/foot with very reasonable capacitance. The design WORKS. To lower inductance, I also have low DCR and addressed skin effect (or proximity effect with current. Your choice as one gets involved in the other) and Vp alignment. We might get proximity effect in a speaker cable, maybe, to be an effect but there is no measurement…we have that.

This was a fun excercise in cable optimization and this audience enjoys this level of perfection. As a “purist” so do I. I do mean as a purist I consider ALL variables are considered for betterment. That was my job for 35 years and over 30 patents ago. You get there by PUSHING, and PUSHING what is supposed to NOT matter. Along the way we find and learn things.

We have really good cable designs and measurements, darn it! (big grin).

Our tag line is, “Sound designs create sound performance”

We do it right and accept the comparisons to all analog issues. We have the cable you can do it with, and trust they are made right.

Me personally? If I can afford a truly better cable I use it. Our TPC copper line is affordable perfection…like it as good as it is or not.

I understand your math, and you understand mine as it is in the cable. It all matches. But PLEASE understand some people want optimised designs as far as the current science (not what we think we can hear) takes us.

Best,
Galen

2 Likes

Again, analog is an addative voltage expression and if you can address ALL time based issues it is nice to do so. I see NO REASON to not make a fully optimised cable for comparisons.

You buy them, so buy what you feel you want to do. But let others experiment with exceptionally well made cable and prove to themselves how they sound as a “system” of R, L and C.

Yes, addressing Vp linearity does up the cable complexity but optimisation was the task, not a cost reduction.

Best,
Galen

1 Like

I have taken the time to read through most of this thread, and, unexpectedly, I enjoyed most of it.
Not the disparaging and/or name calling - that’s above my pay grade: I try and be polite to everyone around here, mostly since I’m English and don’t like to make a fuss, and also because I don’t actually own any PSA gear…

Of course I may be sleep typing (or off my meds again) :wink:

The following points are mostly obvious, but whilst some delve into details it might be good to remember.

Why did I enjoy it?

Well because we have everyone seeming to agree some basic high level points:

  • the cables does / will likely make your system sound a bit different.
  • This may sound “better” to many of us.
  • They go rather well under rugs.
  • For once (it’s a miracle) we seem to either not care, or agree on why the cables make it sound a bit different / better - the high resistance :slight_smile:

Some thoughts:

  • I do think the company should be clear about the resistance of the cable, simply to be polite.
  • Damping factor, in some cases, rather less of an issue here than one would be led to believe (but then Valve amps’ lower damping factor already suggested that).
  • It also occurs to me that under sustained high power conditions these cables are going to get warm, so maybe running them under a rug may not be such a good idea after all :wink:

Caveats:
As always please note the distinction between describing “better sounding HiFi” as accurate, as opposed to describing it as “engages and excites me more”. That has caused endless arguments around here, most recently in preamp and DAC threads.

Also please note the huge variation dependent on exact combinations of speaker and amp, meaning the best way to figure out if you like the sound is to try.

They are most unlikely to make a system more “accurate” unless the response variation exactly mirrors the existing system variations, but most folks here generally want a system to sound more engaging and enjoyable, rather than being completely accurate (myself included most of the time).

(The previous sentence is less true for bass, where subs, DSP, treatments are all fair game to try and achieve some level of accuracy, if only to control excessive boom and extend as deep as possible).

Definitely time for a nap :slight_smile:

2 Likes

Accuracy in audio is a myth, the best you can do is listen and buy what your ears like.

2 Likes

I’m loving the silence of the Ignore button :smiling_face_with_three_hearts:

3 Likes

I am here.

1 Like

He will be back, guaranteed.

2 Likes

It didn’t take long.

1 Like

If he’s out, I’m back too :yum:

2 Likes

If you are looking for music that sounds fantastic, has great imaging and was recorded live, Ben Webster Live in Copenhagen is worth looking into and is downloadable from highdeftapetransfers.ca. It is a recording from 1965 and is available in several file formats in both flac and dsd (.dsf). If you (or anyone) purchases the dsd256 version, all file formats are available for downloading, otherwise can download only 1 version.

2 Likes

Belden INNOVATORS has covered this issue as have I. Users asked if it could be made better. Sure. So I decided to just DO IT. Why? Because it also covered other issues better at the same time. And no, I don’t see my audience as so ignorant that they can’t put a pico-second into perspective. Why are you so intent to bury a proper built technology? The proper comparison is some sort of threat to you?

Look at an amps damping factor. Look at a swept cables open-short impedance (the right way to measure low frequency cable). Look at a speakers reactive impedance and then as how the hell can that “system” be expected to not be impacted by different cables? As good as we try, it is a train wreck! Right where most of the power is disipated we have the worst reactive match into the load as the cable impedance RISES at the low end as Vp drops and THAT change in Vp is indeed impacting the system. How can you say managing the Vp is not important? We’ve dropped the cable impedance with ICONOCLAST to a “better” value but no way will a passive cable be eight-ohm with reasonable capacitance anywhere.The Vp change won’t allow it.

Vp is a BIG issue through audio as it anchors the ability to reach specific impedance targets. It is too bad that the ability to mange it well in the low frequency region is diminished by mother natures desire to head to ZERO at DC. R, L and C is NOT Vp.

RF may use L and C to calculate impedance, but that’s ONLY because the Vp is CONSTANT at RF (Vp = 1/ SQRT(e)). Audio does not have this luxury.

We don’t listen to R, L and C, we listen to the reactive vector produced by the cable’s Vp AND the R, L and C values built around it. The final reactance to our ears is represented based on voltage delivered in a given time. All cable is different.

Vp is rolled into that BECAUSE it can be properly addressed along with all the rest at higher frequencies. Deal with it, better cable’s are OK to make. The properties needed to improve Vp also improve the cable’s reactive issues presented between the speaker and amp.

You have what is needed to define YOUR world, leave everyone else’s alone to experience the data the way they want to.

Best,
Galen

1 Like

I second the Ben Webster thoughts. It’s an outstanding listen.

3 Likes

I am a fan of High Def Tape Transfers as well. Their jazz catalog isn’t terribly deep, but there are several gems. I also purchase the DSD256 and download all of the lesser formats. Handy to have lesser bits when traveling.

3 Likes

I have to admit that I’ve learned a few things by reading this thread, both from Galen and from CinDyment. At the same time, I’ve been amazed at the number of excuses given for not bothering to listen to cables with high resistance (i.e., the Fideliums) or cables that fix electrical problems that some people believe shouldn’t be audible (as in the Iconoclasts).

Of course, there is a simple solution to this problem: JUST LISTEN TO THE FREAKING CABLES!

7 Likes

I have listened to Fideliums and not suffered any permanent damage.
Ones and zeroes.

But I completely agree. Listen to the cables. It’s one reason I send mine around to others.

7 Likes

Cable is a decision puzzle, and all the choices are what makes each design a different cables. How does it all generally interrelate?

  • To lower the cable IMPEDANCE at the low frequencies you RAISE the capacitance. The capacitance is FLAT across frequency.

  • We need lower cable impedance to counter the speaker’s and cable’s mis-match causing simple reflections. The rise in cable impedance can’t be eliminated, though. Vp drop with frequency causing impedance to rise.

  • To address Vp linearity at the other frequency end, you ALSO raise the capacitance. Nice how that worked out! Vp linearity is in the higher frequency end but the capacitance is the same as we designed for the low-end. Capacitance is “stuck” at a fixed design value across the full frequency spectrum into RF. How much capacitance do you add, though? We have a tetter-totter effect at the frequency extremes.

  • To further address Vp linearity you can rely on just lower DCR for the LOOP DCR value we need at the low frequency end. We can’t use one big FAT 10 AWG wire. We STILL need a LOW DCR for damping factor and voltage division between the speaker and cable. What is needed for Vp linearity is SEVERAL insulated wires to split the current up into many lower current paths.

  • To address the LOW frequency damping factor, where most of the power is dropped, this splitting of the current into SEVERAL parallel smaller wires increases total CMA wire area as we add more wires. The single insulated small wires address Vp, while the total CMA area addresses the DCR needs at the low end. Again, a Teeter-Totter effect.

  • People consider tertiary elements like skin depth, and this is automatically forced down with the smaller wires used for Vp alignment. No worries there because skin depth is collected up in the better design with smaller and smaller wires.

  • Esoteric things like current proximity effect are also automatically addressed when Vp linearity is considered and low frequency damping factor. P.Effect is when we run high current through parallel wires and the current inside the parallel wires is distorted. Current is pulled either into the outside surface or inside surface (depends on the current flow direction). It doesn’t want to be as current efficient since it is “pulled” to one side of the wire. But using smaller wires REDUCES the total current and proximity effect is addressed. So again, a better design addresses this aspect, too. Good designs help EVERYWHERE.

  • Now we still need INDUCTANCE, and this is managed with SMALL TIGHTLY centered wires to reduce loop area (the easier way) and we can add the WEAVE to introduce B-field cancellation (the far harder part). And yep, we already have the smaller wire we need for the other attributes. Inductance is FLAT with frequency, like capacitance, from analog all the way through RF. Once we set inductance, it stays there all the time. The weave (or what ever the designer uses) also has to manage the capacitance. Capacitance depends on the dielectric and wire spacing where the inductance could care less about the dielectric used. One needs the opposite of the other, though. Capacitancew wants spaced wires and inductance want no space between the wires. Again, a Teeter-Totter decision. ICONOCLAST tricks the C and L to be happy with the complex weave that uses field cancellation to replace the spacing needed for capacitance.

All this stuff needs a DESIGN. And EVERY aspect that is considered and UNDERSTOOD improves areas of change that is not only considered “inaudible” but improves areas that ARE very very audible.

People are full of data (we know who they are) but few really understand HOW to make a cable structure that address many aspects of a good design that you would consider paying for. Too bad that “just” what is considered “audible” can be made, but won’t reallt be as good as it should be UNTIL all those pesky “inaudible” things are also rolled in.

We can make unoptimised designs for linearity like ribbon (very high capacitance) and high DCR cable (very high voltage drop and signal modulation), but they will be an “effect” type design that introduced non linearity we may like…or not like. The cable is a “component” of the sound more than a signal pass-through. As long as your amp (ribbon) can take the high reactive capacative load and you like the modulated sound of the speaker caused by the high cable DCR, we’re good to try them

Understanding how all this works allows us to better leverage what that choice entails for our enjoyment. Nothing is really wrong. We are all after the sound in the end.

We have “good” examples of all three choices; flat, high DCR and more fully optimised designs. They all fall into design regions that the designer accepts.

Once you see how all the parameters interrelate, and the more you include the better your design can become, but it will be far harder to make (ugh). Hey, that’s why you pay someone else to do it!

Best,
Galen

5 Likes

Yes, and . . . ?

2 Likes

Hi CinDyment,

We put all the calculations and relationships in the white papers. Way too much for a test report but…that report makes sure the overall design fundamentals are on track. And yes, the values are WITH connectors as the “legs” detract fom the core cable values but we use it with connectors so that seems most fair.

I hope you can see how inclusion of all parameters, however small, all seem to reach a proper balance with good designs. Why not try harder and do this and offer the choice?

I have a hunch you really don’t understand the DESIGN of cables, but just the impression of a few variables important to you. If ICONOCLAST was twenty bucks, you’d say it was great with just R, L and C and be oblivious to all the other efforts that went into the design. That’s a question I think I know the answer to. But that’s fine, just buy bulk R, L and C and you just skip all the rest as the designs will be too simple to address the other known issues analog cable all have. Price is your friend for just bulk R, L and C, but to buy really better cable it isn’t going to get you there. You need to know how the system of parameters all work. Did anyone really care about the design at all?

Who else do you know that does and provides all this for you? Even to allow 100% transparent analysis of the copper’s changes to the sound so you can opt for way cheaper but still VERY good ETPC copper. No design changes, just the copper. We can’t be more transparent yet we complain when we get the full Monty on a design.

I hope you figured out the relationship of Vp adjustments and how changing that capacitance also improves the low frequency impedance by dropping it some, and that has an impact on sound. The amp and speakers react to the cable. Yep, one thing can support another and surely you don’t think as reactive as cables and speakers are it is all “the same”. Cable’s don’t share the same open-short impedance across frequency since the Vp isn’t the same rise over run based on the given design.

Buy what you care about, everyone else can do that too.

Best,
Galen

3 Likes

So you can just save your money and buy cheap cables, why are you trying to persuade the rest of us to do what you do.

3 Likes