…and this is why I trust my ears and not measurements. Not everything can be measured and quantified.
I’m extremely happy with Silversmith Fidelium. And absolutely no lack of low end with Watt Puppy 8’s and Luxman L-590AXII
6 Likes
We are audio consumers, not lab rats.
Why is it that ASR-types keep on telling ignorant people like me to learn stuff? I’ll add “human perception testing” to the list, along with electrical stuff, psycho stuff and the rest.
I’m all for subjective decisions and enjoying the consequences. To hell with the money, it’s a hobby, I don’t want something sent by steamer from China with no warranty, people get great enjoyment from sending money on consumer audio and you can’t take it with you.
p.s. Here is a picture of the Chinese sweatshop turning out what we are told by the measurementalists is the best audio stuff around. I trust PS Audio give their workers proper chairs.
1 Like
You seem to want to limit how good or how a cable can reach tested electrical. Your justification is what is good for you (and differ from other purist types I might add).
I am a purist on HOW and WHY a cable is electrical better, but NOT how good it should be and to limit the tech to my opinion. If we can make zero R, L and C cable for the right price, we should continue to work to that end point, not yours.
The reactive nature of cable can be arranged in many ways, and with varying tested electrical. Why are you trying to prevent better measuring cables from being made and sold?
Cable is not just DCR and what ever L and C that measures. If you feel it is just that for you, fine.
Many want to try better design cable, and these are just one of many choices.
Better is better and people need that design choice to try for themselves. You did your listening, let everyone else. My basis is honestly measured analog cables that ARE better.
Best,
Galen
3 Likes
This is correct on resistance, it matters. Cable to speaker is a voltage divider rule, plain and simple. If the cable is “exactly” the same as a speaker across frequency, we’ll see half the signal dropped across the cable at any given frequency. We want to drive the speaker, not the cable.
If the cable is “zero” DCR then all the voltage is across the speaker. This is the ideal situation for DCR alone. We are driving JUST the speaker if it is a resistor.
If the cables is infinity DCR, then all the voltage is across the cable. We can’t get anything to the speaker (same as disconnecting the cable).
In reality, the speaker’s resistance varies with reactive impedance vectors, so we modulate the voltage drop across frequency based on the speaker and wire resistance. The best way to mitigate that distortion is LOW DCR. We make that lumpy curve better and better with lower and lower DCR.
We also have time based distortion that is also managed with R and C adjustments. But we want to get the reactive L and C cable properties LOW such that the voltage divider properties are also LOW when we add in reactance.
When we adjust for Vp linearity, we do increase R and C. But, the trade-off is worth it if the RF Vp is DROPPED and the VP across the audio band is flattened (lower group delay).
It is true that the majority of good cable response is DCR, but not all of it. We still have to use more complex designs for lowering the RF velocity that lessens the DC to RF dielectric group velocity, and to flatten the lines slope with R and C changes.
All analog cable have bad group delay on an absolute measure. Group delay goes from zero at DC by definition to about 50% at best at 20 KHz. This can be made better. If the RF velocity of an audio cable is lower at RF, the group velocity is better. Just what we really want.
Some feel that last bit of group delay is worth it, although designs that do it are expensive, true. I see no reason to not offer these designs as better and better is nice to try. Audio is also a superimposed distortion of all stages, so less all along the way add up to more than we can improve in just ONE single place. Most of those easy improvements have been done, like cable DCR. I would not ignore low DCR in a good audio cable.
CinDyment is correct that DCR is a major contributor and is one of those easy to get single point improvements. Don’t waste it! Where I disagree, is that other attributes like the group velocity time based changes are unimportant and to not be optimised by all cable designers. We can make better cables all the while managing simple DCR voltage divider properties if we want to, and we do.
To do this well we can SPLIT the wires into MANY small wires to alter the loop DCR, but also keep the parallel DCR low. When that is done as far as the designer choses, you can alter capacitance. Other methods are possible and both alter R and C and changes in C USUALLY alter’s L.
You’ll notice that the RF impedance limiting dielectric Vp is LOWER than the dielectric’s pure Vp=(1/SQRT (e)). This is done to lower the SLOPE of the group delay transition to better time align the cable frequencies. In an audio cable design the RF Vp may be 50% where in a true RF cable the same plastic may be 66% or higher. Lower RF Vp is better for audio cable.
This Vp adjustment isn’t made-up. It is real and ALL analog cable have to suffer from it. We go from DC (zero Vp) to RF (limit of the dielectric in the design). In between we have our analog frequencies Vp and they are all different speeds. It is a true distortion.
Differing design alter this, and we chose what to try and see what happens in the chain. Does it matter? Get a good low DCR cable and try the benefits of Vp alignment and see.
DCR is cheap, the others; C, L and Vp improvements aren’t.
Best,
Galen
4 Likes
Not a totally true list, there is a time based issue that is ignored…and very real.
There are Vp non-linearities that all analog cables need to have adjusted for best absolute analog performance. Pure R, L and C won’t fix that without an overall design that specifically addresses group delay.
Group delay is there, and it is a distortion. It isn’t made-up. To say it “doesn’t matter” ignores the basis of the physics that defines that it exists. A purist (you?) should understand that changing group delay has to alter the superimposed voltage applied to your speaker terminals. That voltage is a TIME influenced parameter. Changes to the cable’s RF impedance and R and C through the audio band influence the group delay and the “sound”. It has to. The physics is there, like it or not.
The analog Vp non-linearity properties and data has been around for like 120 years. It is OK to make designs that address it.
Best,
Galen
7 Likes
The data has been available since the early 1900’s. Cable Vp varies with frequency and is accepted and proven physics.
The data is all in the ICONOCAST cable thread, with the equations and how to manage the Vp (group delay) through audio. Belden has demonstrated the effects, and how the impedance rises at low frequencies as well. That is a direct result of the Vp dropping with frequency. For the impedance matching crowd, this tends to say it is fraught with issues as the impedance isn’t constant to match to. It is is reactive and defaults to IMPEDANCE to emphasize that fact and most know and accept it. So yes, this is a fact as you point out. But no, R, L and C by themselves don’t characterize a cable until the Vp group delay is taken into account.
The Vp at DC is ZERO by definition. It climbs to the limiting speed of the dielectric at RF. That is the dielectric plus any other design related limiting factors determining the dielectric at RF. This is were the slope of the Vp rise over run is going to eventually reach and increases through the analog range.
Audio cable has no true “impedance” and is more a simple reactance and it DOES have a Vp that is not linear. As we know, the voltage is a time based superposition of all sine waves at a point in time, and if they MOVE through a cable as an EM wave at different speeds for every frequency which they do, the superposition voltage CHANGES. Thus, it DOES impact the sound, it absolutely has to or physics as we know it fell on its head.
The data is out there for all to see and has been for over a century. And yes, there are equations that model the parameter with R and C changes (see below). The equations are parameter limited to RANGES of R and C. Go too far and the equation isn’t accurate but that doesn’t change the physics at work.
Your argument is not based on all the science at all, but the determination that somehow YOU get to control what is good enough, and apparently not even knowing what all can be “good” and how a voltage is derived at your speaker terminals. Vp linearity is indeed in the spagetti sauce sauce.
Being told what’s what on suitability according to you, and then it is fuzzed over with what “we” hear and according to you, is curious. And to ask me HOW it works as though it is a “new” concept and as an “unknown” issue I need to prove to YOU?
How about YOU prove that Vp through audio is FLAT? And that changes in the EM waves speed / group delay over frequency doesn’t impact the voltage at a point in time? How does the AC go from above DC to the limiting Vp at RF if the group delay was “zero” through audio?
The job is to improve cable’s analog response for those interested in those kinds of actual changes. Needless, you should understand HOW cable WORKS.
Once you get there, the methods to draw a limit as to where you hear can be drawn as to what is audible by each individual.
Some want cable that is as linear as possible. And why not? If zero R, L and C and no group delay was available for a price, why would you NOT buy it? This is a price sensitive improvement, yes, but it is indeed improvements managed right. Audio is a constant loss at every step. Several changes in several places can make a difference. Cable is part of all that.
Best,
Galen
Your proof of the physics, sir.
6 Likes
I’m looking forward to @aiki14 's subjective opinion.
I seem to remember he had a long career in the financial world. My apologies if I’m mistaken. As that is my field as well, PhD electronics may not register, it certainly doesn’t with me. I won’t even ask what the bulk model is, in finance it’s called CostCo.
Steve I have really not wanted to drop back into this thread. I like the cables, they beat out the AQ cables I was using by what I perceive as a clear margin. I still have the old cables as I can’t hook my LRS’s to the Fideliums so I do A-B every time I switch from the Maggies back to the Focals. They still win. I am not an EE so not going to opine on the merits of any arguments of a technical nature. I am an audiophile with some time in the game and I like them, better than anything I have tried, AQ, Iconoclast (Respect to Galen), and a couple others in the same or slightly higher price range. I see them as a great value, 1.1ohm notwithstanding
2 Likes
Oh and Yes, a lifetime with Merrill Lynch before BofA and the debacle of '08
Glad they worked out. As a user of flat cables for most of the last 30 years (Nordost, then Townshend - but completely different designs), nice to see another product that is proving popular.
Having looked at thousands of businesses over my career, I’m fine with their being theory or just plain good engineering behind products, but I’ll always favour a business that makes products that customers like and buy. The customer is always right! So I’m predisposed to Galen given his proven commercial success.
1 Like
It is relaveant to audio and it can be improved with designs. Every cut removed strengthens analog chains. ALL the distortions matter for analog. The Vp linearity impacts the EM wave voltage waveform, 100% it does.
There is no reason to not improve Vp linearity except the accepted costs, and we all get to make that decision. You have a practical limit and that’s fine. Vp alignment is a fact of the nature of cables and it can not be eliminated.
And yes, the audience has been schooled on the absolute TIME (not the percentages) of adjustments, and that the numbers are small to the absolutist. But they are indeed accurately and there as presented.
Again, you’d be silly to not purchase a better and better cable as the prices for these designs improve. Until we work on better designs than two conductor zip cord that won’t happen.
First the effects of Vp are ignored, and then when they are presented, “Oh well, that isn’t important” comes up. For an absolutist on audio distortion it is important. People feel Vp linearity is smaller, and thus is ignored and too hard to make decent designs that address it. It is harder, but it is possible.
We have designs that ignore it, 1313A, we have designs that don’t. These are true effects and designs are altering the impacts of Vp non linearity.
We offer a cable that covers all the “distortions” of cable. The end user can chose the level they feel is important to try. It is a FREE comparison to the “standards” of low cost cable.
It is OK for you to ignore it and it isn’t for other. But it does have an impact at audio. I simply design to ALL aspects of the audio chain to see where we can get to…and to lower the prices of good designs that achieve better overall performance.
It may frustrate you that this level of detail can be managed with good design. Is it “wrong” to improve a cable? Your metric is pure cost, not performance. Cheap enough and all is well again. Some day we’ll get there such that the cost makes it, “OK, as cheap as it is who cares”. A lot of people care. And, we have cable for people that don’t care.
I just don’t feel it is proper to offer cable that don’t have any basis for being better at all…and those cables STILL have to cover all the fundamentals YOU even care about.
You feel Vp alignment is immaterial and I don’t. Designs can be honestly made to changes that. I added those attributes and you can compare and contrast for free.
People can read you comments and be NEUTRAL to your objective that it is “unimportant” to you, but decide it is to them. Same data, different level of inclusion to what a cable should do.
Until improvements are false, they are important to many. I outline exactly HOW and WHY the changes work. Again, compare away to your reference.
Best,
Galen
5 Likes
I’ve joined the “ignore” club. Now get off my lawn.
8 Likes
This discussion reminds me of electrical distribution grounding discussions with various Authorities Having Jurisdiction (AHJs) in my construction world. They’re generally smart enough people, but the discussion is pointless and ends up going in stupid circles with everyone pointing to codes and their version of the science. I just stopped having the discussion and end up saying, “what do you want, and I’ll work to implement it.” I don’t have enough years of life left to waste.
6 Likes
Pointless circular arguments are what the “ignore” button is for.
5 Likes
Soon this will be an echo chamber, I am just watching out of morbid curiosity to see how long it takes.
4 Likes
I may well have missed them, but where are the citations backing up your opinions?
2 Likes
The link is to ASR. That’s all I need to know. Am not clicking.
3 Likes
Thanks for the warning. Someone please cue the popcorn eating gazelle.
1 Like
How’s about a giraffe this time around?
You need to click on the giraffe to get them to eat.
5 Likes
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